Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-20-HFAC-min Hanscom Field Advisory Commission Minutes May 20, 2003 1. Minutes: The April 15 Minutes were approved. 2. Deicing Study: Gary Mercer from CDM, Massport’s consultant for the deicing study that was recently completed, reviewed the key points in the study. He highlighted the reasons for the study, the methodology and the results. The effects of both aircraft and airfield deicing were analyzed. The study is on Massport’s website under Pressroom and then Publications. Currently, aircraft are deiced at Hanscom; for the runways and taxiways, Hanscom only uses snowplows, blowers and sweepers for snow removal and FAA approved sand to increase friction. Over the years, environmentally sensitive products have become available for runway/taxiway deicing. Use of these compounds is a sensitive issue because Hanscom is located at the headwaters of the Shawsheen River. Results of the study indicate that there will be no adverse environmental effects if Massport initiates airfield deicing using sodium formate and/or potassium acetate. Staff is recommending that Hanscom initiate airfield deicing next winter to enhance safety. Massport agreed to conduct some water quality monitoring after storm events in 2003-04 to verify the results of the study. Residential community members made/asked the following comments/questions: -The study assumes up to 67 aircraft per day may need deicing, but more aircraft may use Hanscom if runway deicing is available. Is there an upper limit that is considered safe to use? -What if there are spills? -Are there any regulatory requirements that need to be met before initiating runway deicing? -Bedford is particularly concerned about any increase in sodium in its drinking water supply because its sodium content is already high. Bedford uses its wells almost exclusively in the winter. Bedford is concerned about the safety of its residents. -Why is HFAC only hearing now that runway deicing is a safety issue? -Runway deicing may violate the 1978 Master Plan, which says that in 1978 Massport was not deicing its airfield pavement areas and had no plans to do so. -Impacts on dissolved oxygen (DO) are a concern. -If cargo aircraft come into Hanscom there will be more large aircraft using glycol than appears to have been studied, and large planes use more glycol for deicing than small aircraft. -More aircraft may need to be deiced than was considered in the study because the study based the need to deice aircraft on average daily temperatures whereas cargo aircraft will be operating at hours not impacted by the average daily temperature. Aviation community members added the following: -Not all safety hazards relate to runway conditions (width of cleared area, braking action, etc.). Last winter conditions at the airport resulted in some safety hazards between the T-hangars and other areas where pilots walk. Massport made the following comments in response to questions or comments: -Deicing compounds are included in Massport’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which addresses Best Management Practices for avoiding or responding to accidental spills. -There are no regulatory requirements for using deicers other than the NPDES permit. -A combination of factors prompted Massport’s recent interest in initiating runway deicing. Deicing products being used for runway deicing 10 or more years ago were more likely to have adverse effects than those available today. Increasingly airports around the country have started successfully using the alternatives studied in this report. This past winter Massport struggled with the winter conditions and heard from users of the airport, including the Air Force, who were concerned about the conditions. -The study assumes 10-12 annual storm events that may require deicing. Massport agreed to provide additional information at least one week before the June HFAC meeting, regarding the following: -Maximum safe levels of deicing compound use. -A Scope of Work for a water quality monitoring program. -The standards used for sodium in drinking water -Baseline DO level 3. Rates and Charges: Peter Enrich reported that after the April HFAC meeting he sent a letter asking Massport to delay a Board vote on increases in rates and charges until after HFAC had an opportunity to review them and provide Massport with its advice. He said that the response from Craig Coy includes an interpretation of HFAC’s role that is contrary to the intent of the statute that established HFAC. He believes HFAC was created to advise Massport before staff recommendations are taken to the Board for a vote. Sara Mattes suggested that if a subject is of a sensitive nature, Massport could keep HFAC informed by working with its Executive Sub-Committee. P. Enrich noted that there is generally an open process for establishing fees, and in this case the towns are particularly concerned with whether new fee structures will impact Hanscom’s fleet mix. Barbara Patzner reported on the process Massport used to establish new fees and distributed a letter recently sent to the pilots outlining the new fees. Some of the fees hadn’t been increased since 1986; others were increased more recently, but only by small amounts and not annually. This was discussed with the pilot community at a variety of meetings over several months. On May 15 the Massport Board adopted a number of increases: tiedown fees will go up 25%; T-hangar fees will generally increase 50%; transient parking fees will increase 50-100% depending on wing span and length of stay; the landing fee will increase from 50 cents per thousand pounds for commercial aircraft to $1.50 per thousand pounds for commercial aircraft, and it will be extended to include all transient activity. B. Patzner said that last September, Massport informed HFAC that it was reviewing its rates and charges and that increases should be expected. The State of Hanscom, distributed to HFAC in March, also reported that rates and charges would be increased. This is being done is response to the deficit that Massport is carrying at Hanscom. Massport is also pursuing third party development that is expected to bring in additional revenue. In response to concerns that the new rates and charges might “push out” the private pilot, members of the aviation community said that some private pilots were leaving, but most were not. On pilot noted that Hanscom is a first class facility with excellent services that won’t easily be found elsewhere. In response to a request, Richard Walsh agreed to distribute information that includes both the old and new rates for comparative purposes. 4. Monthly Noise Report: Sara Arnold distributed the monthly noise report, noting that the total operations decreased, while business jet activity increased 1.6 percent when comparing April 2003 to April 2002. 5. Planning Report: A summary of capital projects and their status was attached to the monthly noise report. It was noted that the parking lot renovations were started on May 3. S. Arnold also reported that Massport had accepted Liberty Mutual’s proposal for developing the Hangar 1 site, which has triggered the thirty day period Jet Aviation has for exercising its first right of refusal for developing that site. More information should be available in June. When Massport has a definitive plan for the site, it will be brought to HFAC. Massachusetts Port Authority June 10, 2003 Subject: Questions Raised at May 20, 2003 HFAC Meeting About Hanscom Deicing Study At the May 20 HFAC meeting, several technical questions were raised about the recently completed Hanscom Field Deicing Study. The questions are listed below, along with a response based on discussions with Massport’s environmental consultant CDM. Question 1: What are the maximum safe levels of deicing compound that could be used at Hanscom Field? The modeling methods used in the deicing study to determine potential deicer concentrations and changes to dissolved oxygen concentration in the river were based on highly conservative assumptions (e.g. no in-stream dilution) for a specific scenario (2015 Moderate Growth). Using the same model and aquatic toxicity standards would give highly misleading results regarding an allowable level of deicer application. Also, it is not feasible to calculate a maximum safe level for human exposure since the deicers studied are not considered toxic to humans. In order to ensure the safety of new deicing practices at Hanscom, Massport will undertake a monitoring program to compliment the modeling results. Question 2: What is the proposed scope of the Hanscom Field deicer monitoring program? A preliminary outline for a water quality monitoring program has been developed for use at Hanscom Field during deicing events. The objective of the monitoring program is to characterize the airfield runoff water quality during deicing events. This information will then be compared to the analysis in the deicing study. Monitoring Program Outline Locations 5 Hanscom Field outfalls 2 in-stream locations (Shawsheen and Elm Brook) Frequency Baseline testing prior to deicing 4 deicing events during the winter of 03-04 2-6 samples at each location per event depending on duration of deicing activities Testing Parameters Dissolved oxygen Chemical oxygen demand Biological demand Glycol concentration pH Sodium Conductivity Temperature. Question 3: What are the standards for sodium in drinking water and potential effects of deicing on sodium levels in downstream drinking water supplies? The Massachusetts DEP has established a guideline for sodium in drinking water. The guideline is 20mg/L and normally applies to people on a sodium-restricted diet. Water suppliers are required to notify customers if their drinking water exceeds the guideline. The water supplier is not required to treat the water. Regarding the potential sodium concentrations in the study, it is important to note that the actual concentrations seen at downstream water supplies will be significantly less then the values reported in the deicing study for two reasons. First, the analyses used assumed no dilution would occur as the sodium traveled downstream. In reality, there is significant dilution by tributary runoff before the Bedford well area and even more dilution by the Burlington intake. Also, a portion of the deicer will be trapped in the stockpiled snow around the airfield and will enter the waterways slowly as the snow melts over time. Secondly, in the case Bedford’s groundwater wells, any river water that reaches the wells must first travel through the subsurface sand and gravel between the river and wells before it can be used. This infiltration is a relatively slow process, which means that only a small fraction of river water passing by during a deicing event would enter the subsurface and be available at the wells. Question 4: What are the baseline dissolved oxygen levels in the river and decreases due to the deicing compounds? Massport proposes to collect baseline dissolved oxygen data as part of the proposed water quality monitoring program. This data will then be used to determine what effects, if any, deicer use actually has on the water bodies. The Massachusetts DEP has established a dissolved oxygen standar River and Elm Brook, which are defined as Class B waters. Dissolved oxygen should be greater than 5 mg/l or greater than 60 percent of the saturated dissolved oxygen concentration. For the winter months, the second criteria (i.e.greater than 60 percent saturation) is expected to be met since dissolved oxygen levels are higher in winter months due to the inverse relationship between temperature and d