DCAM’s Quirky Chronology


DCAM filed a notice of intent with the Town of Medfield Conservation Commission (ConCom) this past June to do what it then called permanent remediation the C&D area at the Medfield State Hospital.  The general plan then was to pull the contaminated materials away from the edge of the river bank in places they form an almost vertical embankment, create a more gradual sloped bank in to the river, and cap the contaminated materials on the site.

However, then in July an oil sheen was seen when DCAM’s engineers were boring test holes in what we now know to be about 800 sq. ft. of oil underwater in the Charles River, and that oil sheen triggered what the state regulations call an Immediate Response Action (IRA).  Atfer that point the Massachusetts DEP was telling DCAM that because of that oil sheen, an IRA required that something needed to be done this construction season.  However, note that DCAM was already trying to do something this construction season.  Now in August DCAM is still asking the ConCom for the same permit to do the work originally requested in June, but now it is under the rubric of the IRA and only temporary work, made necessary by the oil sheen, and includes the temporary capping of the oil in the river.

The unfortunate reality is that DCAM’s Phase II and Phase III reports that will delineate the totality of the problems and the complete solutions they propose are due out this month.  Where those final documents are due so soon, it would make much more sense for DCAM to allow everyone to see those documents before it does any more work at the Medfield State Hospital.

The Town’s fear is be that DCAM’s proposed temporary fix will become the de facto permanent fix because of cost issues (it may be argued later that it makes no sense financially to spend money to remove the temporary fix), despite what we may learn from the Phase II and Phase III reports.  The Medfield Board of Selectmen wrote t DCAM on 8/1/11 to ask that the oil all be removed from the river, rather than just temporarily put a cap over it as DCAM proposes, as removal is a more logical, long term,  permanent fix of the problem of the oil in the Charles River – oil caused to be in the river by the state acts.

Comments are closed.