Monthly Archives: August 2011

Sec. of Environmental Affairs also granted DCAM a waiver – sorry, but I do not have time to make the formatting any better, as I need to get to DCAM’s PIP at Town House at 7 PM tonight

=============================================

August 10, 2011
DRAFT RECORD OF DECISION
PROJECT NAME : Medfield State Hospital Cleanup and Redevelopment PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Medfield PROJECT WATERSHED : Charles River EOEANUMBER : 14448R PROJECT PROPONENT : Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management
(DCAM) DA TE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 22, 2011
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (M.O.L.c.30, ss. 61621) and Section 11.11 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) and request for a Phase 1 Waiver and hereby propose to grant a waiver that will allow DCAM to proceed with what is further described herein as the implementation of an Immediate Response Action (IRA) cleanup option prior to preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entire project. In a separate Certificate also issued today, I have set forth the outstanding issues related to the project that can be addressed by permitting agencies.
Project History
In 2010, the Proponent, DCAM, submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) proposing the cleanup and redevelopment of the MSH in Medfield. The proposed project presented in the EENF consists of remediation and redevelopment of the 269-acre former MSH site. MSH was originally developed in the late 19th century as a residential hospital for the mentally ill. The hospital was closed in 2003 and its control was transferred to DCAM. DCAM proposes first to conduct a cleanup of debris at five sites, and, under the provisions of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), to remediate hazardous waste at three sites. Redevelopment is then planned for the 94.2-acre central portion of the campus once cleanup measures are complete. The site was previously developed and contains approximately 50 buildings totaling 788,000 square feet (sf) of building space. The Redevelopment will be guided by the MSH Reuse Plan, authorized by the Legislature through special legislation passed in 2008, and includes rehabilitation ofthe Campus and the construction of several new buildings to provide 440 dwelling units and approximately 41,000 sf of office and community center space.
DCAM anticipates transferring the Redevelopment portion ofthe site (134 acres) to a
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10, 2011
third party through a public bidding process, and approximately 60 acres of that area (comprised of the hospital tubular well fields, Sledding Hill, and the hospital water tower and access easement) will be transferred to the Town of Medfield. Approximately 114.8 acres of the site will remain with the Commonwealth, with portions to be transferred among four Commonwealth agencies. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) will receive control of73.3 acres that form a horseshoe around the Redevelopment parcel, as well as a six-acre parcel located between a rail line and Route 27. A 2.5-acre parcel will be retained by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for a group home. Another 30.3 acres of the site (former sewage beds) will be transferred to the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) for the continued use of public safety agencies as a firearms practice range. Finally, the 2.7-acre hospital cemetery will be retained by the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
As noted above, portions of the site are contaminated from past activities related to operation of the state hospital. These areas will be remediated in compliance with the MCP before transfer of the property is executed. DCAM been granted a Special Project Designation (SPD) Permit in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0060 for the three MCP-regulated sites in order to coordinate public involvement and remediation. In addition to the obligations of remediation, the disposal sites included within the SPD Permit have also been designated as Public Involvement Plan (PIP) sites. As PIP sites, DCAM is responsible for communication of assessment and remedial activities associated with the disposal sites and for providing opportunities for public involvement and comment throughout the MCP process. Because of the SPD Permit and the PIP designation, there will be substantial oversight of cleanup activities by MassDEP.
Anticipated environmental impacts associated with the entire project include approximately 7.2 acres of new land alteration, 2.3 acres of new impervious area, 2,700 new average daily trips (adt), 115 new parking spaces, and approximately 93,400 gallons per day (GPD) of new water usage and 84,900 GPD of new wastewater generation. The project also includes the construction of new water and sewer mains onsite. Wetlands impacts associated with the project include the temporary alteration of 500 linear feet (If) of Bank, 2,500 sf of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), and 43,700 sf of Riverfront Area associated with the remediation. The project also involves the demolition of state-listed historic and/or archaeological resources.
On April 2, 2010, Secretary Ian A. Bowles issued a Certificate on the EENF requiring an EIR for the entire project. In the Certificate, the Secretary allowed DCAM to proceed with the cleanup and remediation of those hazardous waste sites that will not impact wetland resource areas (both those regulated under the MCP and otherwise), prior to the submission of the SEIR for the entire project.
Summary of Project Change (Phase 1)
As described in the NPC, the project change consists of the selection and implementation ofan IRA cleanup option for the C&D Area and adjacent portions of the Charles River at the MSH site in advance of the preparation of the SEIR. According to DCAM 1, the discovery of an oily sheen in the Charles River during removal of sampling equipment in May 2011 created a condition of Substantial Release Migration (SRM) under the MCP. This condition of SRM warrants the implementation of an IRA by DCAM to resolve the condition.
1 As described in DCAM’s comment letter dated August 8, 2011. 2
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10,2011
A Notice of Intent was included in the NPC, and includes tables entitled “Initial Remedial Alternatives Technology Screening”, for both the C&D Area and the sediments in the Charles River, respectively, in which DCAM provides a comparison of several preliminary alternatives. DCAM’s selected remedial approach will include: bank stabilization and cover of the C&D Area; and the construction of a temporary sediment cap within the adjacent Charles River. The NPC does not propose changes to the majority of the project as originally reviewed in the EENF. The remediation of both MCP and non-MCP sites is ongoing and the status of cleanup efforts is detailed in the appended Draft Phase II Report and the Non-MCP Area Report, respectively. The NPC indicates that a fourth disposal area -the Clay Containment Area (a historically non-MCP site) is now included in the SPD Permit (in addition to the Salvage Yard Area, the Former Power Plant Area, and the C&D Area).
According to the NPC and comments from DCAM1, the project change consists of:
• bank stabilization, excavation, and cover of C&D Area including:
-removal of the existing steep slopes by cutting back debris material to a more stable 3: 1 slope;
-lowering the elevation of the C&D Area by an additional three feet below the proposed final grade, installing a 40 mil textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner and marker barriers, and overlaying three feet of clean fill to bring the site up to the final grade (along the Algonquin Gas easement which runs through the C&D Area, the three-foot cover will be reduced to one-foot over an HDPE liner);
– removal of approximately 11,000 tons of contaminated material;
-installing a riprap toe at base of the slope with riprap extending up to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW);
– an increase in size ofthe C&D Area from 2.2 acres to 3.2 acres;
– work to stabilize the C&D Area will temporarily affect:
•
780 If of Bank (increase of 280 If from EENF),
•
3,750 sq ofBVW (increase of 1,250 sf from EENF),
•
104,500 sf of Riverfront Area (increase of 60,800 sf from EENF),
•
8,560 sf of Land Under Water (LUW), and
•
2,400 cubic yards (CY) of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), with a net 50 CY of flood storage gained;
-restoration of Bank, LUW, and Riverfront Areas, and wetland replication of 5, 150 sf of BVW (net gain of 1,400 sf);
-removal ofanet 770 CY of dredged material (1,420 CY of material will be dredged from below OHW line to overcut the bank to allow for the placement of 620 CY of riprap and clean fill; an additional 30 CY will be placed in order to remediate the contaminated sediment)
– bio-stabilization of the slope above the OHW employing the brush layering
3
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10, 2011
technique to protect the slope from erosion and to provide a more natural habitat;
• emplacement of a temporary sediment cap including:
-covering an approximate area of 800 sf of impacted sediment (within the top 6-12 inches) within the Charles River with an impenneable amendment material (AquaBlok -a “composite particle technology”) to provide a low penneability, in situ active cover which is intended to create a barrier to isolate impacted sediment and impede potential upward and downstream migration into the river;
12 inches of fill throughout the impacted sediment area (six inches of AquaBlok
overlain by six inches of sand);
-work to cover the sediments will temporarily result in 30 CY of fill to LUW (15 CY of clean fill and 15 CY of AquaBlok).
DCAM has requested that I allow the implementation of the IRA cleanup option to proceed prior to the submission of the SEIR. According to DCAM, delaying the remediation activities until the SEIR has been completed may adversely affect the Charles River and the C&D Area because the CUlTent unstabilized condition of SRM could result in further impacts to the Charles River. In addition, DCAM indicates that it anticipates the filing of a subsequent NPC to the MEP A Office which details the detennination of the final remedial actions. I have therefore issued a Draft Record of Decision (DROD) detailing my proposal to grant the Phase 1 Waiver. If approved under the proposed Waiver, DCAM will endeavor to complete the temporary cleanup activities in fall 2011.
MEPA Jurisdiction and Pennits
The project, as presented in the EENF, is not subject to a mandatory EIR based upon the MEP A regulations. However, due to the potential environmental impacts of the proj ect, and the unique nature of the project site, the preparation of an EIR was required.
The project is undergoing review pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f), 11.03(6)(b)(13), and 11.03(10)(b)(1) of the MEPA regulations because it is being undertaken by a State Agency and will result in the alteration of 500 or more linear feet of inland bank, the alteration of one-half or more acres of other wetlands (Riverfront Area), the generation of 2,000 or more new adt on roadways providing access to a single location, and the demolition of a Historic Structure listed in or located in any Historic District listed in the State Register of Historic Places. The project will require: an Order of Conditions from the Medfield Conservation Commission (and, on appeal only, a Superseding Order of Conditions from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)); a Sewer Connection Pennit from MassDEP; review by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP); review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC); and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Pennit (CGP) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The project could potentially also require air quality approvals from MassDEP if it proposes installation of boilers, furnaces or emergency generators. The project is also subject to the EEAlMEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol.
The project change (Phase 1) will require: an Order of Conditions from the Medfield
4
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10,2011
Conservation Commission (and, on appeal only, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP); a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP; and a Category 2 Programmatic General Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The project will also require review in accordance with the MCP by MassDEP, including, but not limited to, a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and a Phase III Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
The project will be undertaken and financed by DCAM, a State Agency. In addition, the project involves a Land Transfer from DCAM. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction for this project is broad and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEP A regulations.
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts for Phase 1
As indicated in the NPC, DCAM is seeking a Phase 1 Waiver for Phase I of the project. Phase 1 of the project does not exceed mandatory EIR thresholds. Proposed work to stabilize the C&D Area will temporarily affect: 780 feet of Bank; 3,750 sq ofBVW; 104,500 sf of Riverfront Areal; 8,560 sf of LUW; and 2,400 CY ofBLSF. In addition, Phase 1 requires the removal of a net 770 CY of dredged material (1,420 CY of material will be dredged from below OHW line to overcut the bank to allow for the placement of 620 CY of riprap and clean fill; an additional 30 CY will be placed in order to remediate the contaminated sediment). Finally, work to cover the sediments will temporarily result in 30 CY of fill to LUW (15 CY of clean fill and 15 CY of AquaBlock).
Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures
According to the NPC, DCAM will mitigate the impacts to wetland resource areas by replicating the majority of wetland impacts in place. Restoration volumes are described in Table 2 below (reproduced from the NPC):
Table 2: Resource Area Mitigation
Resource Area
Impacted
Unit
Restored
Net Change
BVW
3,750
Sf
5,150
+1,400
LUW (Below OHW)
8,560
Sf
8,560
0
LUW Dredge
1,420
CY
770CY Dredge
LUW Fill
650
CY
BLSF Cut
2,450
CY
50 CY of Storage Added
BLSF Fill
2,400
CY
Riverfront Area
104,500
Sf
104,500
0
Bank
780
Lf
780
0
Waiver Request
DCAM has requested a waiver that will allow it to proceed with Phase 1 of the project prior to preparing a SEIR for the entire project. Consistent with this request, an NPC was submitted and it was subject to an extended review period. The NPC includes a discussion ofthe
5
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10,2011
project change’s consistency with the criteria for granting a Phase 1 Waiver, identification of environmental impacts associated with Phase 1 and identification of measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts associated with Phase 1.
Criteria for a Phase 1 Waiver
The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(1) state that I may waive any provision or requirement in 301 CMR 11.00 not specifically required by MEP A and may impose appropriate and relevant conditions or restrictions, provided that I find that strict compliance with the provision or requirement would:
(a)
result in an undue hardship for the Proponent, unless based on delay in compliance by the Proponent; and,
(b)
not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment.
The MEP A regulations at 301 CMR 11.11 (4) state that, in the case of a partial waiver of a mandatory EIR review threshold that will allow the Proponent to proceed with Phase 1 ofthe project prior to preparing an EIR, I shall base the finding required in accordance with 301 CMR
11.11 (1 )(b) on a determination that:
(a)
the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone, are insignificant;
(b)
ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1;
(c)
the proj ect is severable, such that Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated; and
(d)
the Agency Action(s) on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction, so as to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase ofthe project.
Findings
Based on the information submitted by DCAM, consultation with the relevant state agencies, and consideration of comment letters received, I hereby determine that DCAM has met the tests for a Phase 1 Waiver. As further outlined below, I have determined that compliance with the requirement to prepare an EIR prior to Phase 1 would not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment, that adequate and unconstrained infrastructure exists to support the project, that the project is severable, and that agency actions on Phase 1 can be conditioned to ensure compliance with MEP A.
Comments from state permitting agencies do not identify objections to the granting ofthe Phase 1 Waiver. However, MassDEP has requested additional analysis of environmental impacts associated with the Phase 1 project. This additional information should be submitted to the MEPA Office and all commenters during the review period for this DROD. In addition, the Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), the Town of Medfield Board of Selectmen, and William Massaro have requested additional information concerning the impacts of Phase 1 on wetland resources prior to the construction of Phase 1. I note that DCAM is already actively consulting with MassDEP, the Town of Medfield, and PIP petitioners for each phase ofthe project and therefore I have determined that impacts to wetland resources can be further addressed through consultation with MassDEP and in the SEIR.
6
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10, 2011
Requiring the preparation of an EIR in advance of undertaking Phase 1 would cause undue hardship and would not serve to minimize Damage to the Environment:
I find that a requirement to complete MEPA review prior to initiating the permit process for Phase 1 is not necessary in order for DCAM to demonstrate that it will avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential Damage to the Environment to the maximum extent practicable, and that a requirement to do so would therefore cause undue hardship and would not serve to minimize Damage to the Environment.
1. The potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone, are insignificant.
Phase 1 of the project does not independently meet or exceed MEP A review thresholds for a mandatory EIR. The review of the NPC has demonstrated that the impacts of Phase 1 can be avoided, minimized and mitigated through the state permitting process and the conditions outlined below. Based on the foregoing, I find that the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1, taken alone, are insignificant.
2. Ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1.
The C&D Area remediation does not require any local infrastructure facilities or services, either during construction or in the long term.
3. The project is severable, such that Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated.
Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase (i.e. the Redevelopment portion) of the project or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase of the project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated. Phase 1 and the Redevelopment are both economically viable without the other Phase. Based on the foregoing, I find that Phase 1 of the project is severable and does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the proj ect or restrict the means by which potential environmental impacts from any other phase ofthe project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated.
4. The Agency Action(s) on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction, so as to ensure due compliance with MEPA and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to commencement of any other phase of the project.
Wetlands
The project will require an Order of Conditions from the Medfield Conservation Commission (and, on appeal only, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP) for remediation activities in wetland resource areas. The project also requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP. DCAM should work to address the comments from MassDEP during the comment period on this DROD and provide the MEPA Office with an update on the resolution of the items below prior to the close of the comment period.
7
EEA# 14448R Draft Record of Decision August 10, 2011
Hazardous Material
The project will require strict compliance in accordance with the MCP, as directed by the MassDEP’s Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC).
As a condition of this proposed Waiver, DCAM should:
•
Submit supplemental information to the MEPA Office and commenters on the NPC during the review period for the DROD (i.e., no later than August 24,2011). This information is required by MassDEP’s BWSC as outlined in its IRA Plan response letter dated August 5, 2011. The submission should provide a focused Phase III feasibility evaluation and a detailed description ofthe outcome ofthe technical meeting conducted by MassDEP prior to the end of the review period for the DROD. If the meeting is held after August 24, 2011, I reserve the right to extend the comment period to allow time to receive the complete submission; and
•
DCAM should address the relevant comments submitted by stakeholders during the technical meeting.
Conclusion
Based on these findings, I have determined that this waiver request has merit, and hereby issue this DROD, which will be published in the next edition of the Environmental Monitor on August 10, 2011 in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2), which begins the public comment period. The public comment period lasts for 14 days and will end on August 24,2011. During this period, DCAM should provide the additional information pertaining to MassDEP’s letter dated August 5, 2011. Based on written comments received concerning the DROD, I shall issue a Final Record of Decision or a Scope within seven days after the close of the public comment period, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(6). I hereby propose to grant the waiver requested for this project, which will allow DCAM to proceed with Phase 1 ofthe project prior to preparing a SEIR for the entire project, subject to the above findings and conditions.
August 10,2011 DATE Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Comments Received on the NPC:
07113/2011 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 08/03/2011 Charles River Watershed Association 08/03/2011 T own of Medfield Board of Selectman 08/04/2011 William J. Massaro 08/05/2011 Massachusetts Department ofEnvirorunental Protection -CERO 08/05/2011 Massachusetts Department of Envirorunental Protection -CERO Bureau
of Waste Site Cleanup 08/08/2011 Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management
RKS/PPP/ppp
8

This is a copy of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ approval of the change in the MSH clean up

=============================================

August 10, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE NOTICE OF PROJECT CHANGE

PROJECT NAME : Medfield State Hospital Cleanup and Redevelopment PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Medfield PROJECT WATERSHED : Charles River EOEANUMBER : 14448R PROJECT PROPONENT : Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management
(DC AM) DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 22, 2011

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (M.G.L. c.30, ss. 61621) and Section 11.10 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Notice of Project Change (NPC) describing the selection and implementation of an Immediate Response Action (IRA) cleanup option for the Construction and Debris (C&D) Area and adjacent portions of the Charles River at the Medfield State Hospital (MSH) and hereby determine that this phase ofthe project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, in accordance with the Certificate dated April 2, 2010, the project as a whole continues to require the preparation of a Single EIR (SEIR) that will address the cumulative impacts of all phases ofthe project. In a separate Draft Record of Decision (DROD) also being issued today, I am proposing to grant a Phase 1 Waiver, allowing these cleanup activities in the C&D Area and adjacent Charles River to proceed in advance of the SEIR for the project, subject to public comment. If the Phase 1 Waiver is not granted, then I will reissue this Certificate on the NPC with a denial of the requested Phase 1 Waiver. Although I have not issued a new scope for the SEIR based on the NPC, the SEIR should incorporate impacts from Phase 1, as well as an assessment ofthe project’s cumulative impacts.

Project History
In 2010, the Proponent, DCAM, submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) proposing the cleanup and redevelopment of the MSH in Medfield. The proposed project presented in the EENF consists of remediation and redevelopment ofthe 269-acre former
EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10,2011
MSH site. MSH was originally developed in the late 19th century as a residential hospital for the mentally ill. The hospital was closed in 2003 and its control was transferred to DCAM. DCAM proposes first to conduct a cleanup ofdebris at five sites, and, under the provisions of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), to remediate hazardous waste at three sites. Redevelopment is then planned for the 94.2-acre central portion of the campus once cleanup measures are complete. The site was previously developed and contains approximately 50 buildings totaling 788,000 square feet (sf) of building space. The Redevelopment will be guided by the MSH Reuse Plan, authorized by the Legislature through special legislation passed in 2008, and includes rehabilitation of the Campus and the construction of several new buildings to provide 440 dwelling units and approximately 41,000 sf of office and community center space.

DCAM anticipates transferring the Redevelopment portion of the site (134 acres) to a third party through a public bidding process, and approximately 60 acres of that area (comprised ofthe hospital tubular well fields, Sledding Hill, and the hospital water tower and access easement) will be transferred to the Town of Medfield. Approximately 114.8 acres of the site will remain with the Commonwealth, with portions to be transferred among four Commonwealth agencies. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) will receive control of73.3 acres that form a horseshoe around the Redevelopment parcel, as well as a six-acre parcel located between a rail line and Route 27. A 2.5-acre parcel will be retained by the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for a group home. Another 30.3 acres of the site (former sewage beds) will be transferred to the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) for the continued use of public safety agencies as a firearms practice range. Finally, the 2.7-acre hospital cemetery will be retained by the Department of Mental Health (DMH).

As noted above, portions of the site are contaminated from past activities related to operation of the state hospital. These areas will be remediated in compliance with the MCP before transfer of the property is executed. DCAM been granted a Special Project Designation (SPD) Permit in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0060 for the three MCP-regulated sites in order to coordinate public involvement and remediation. In addition to the obligations of remediation, the disposal sites included within the SPD Permit have also been designated as Public Involvement Plan (PIP) sites. As PIP sites, DCAM is responsible for communication of assessment and remedial activities associated with the disposal sites and for providing opportunities for public involvement and comment throughout the MCP process. Because ofthe SPD Permit and the PIP designation, there will be substantial oversight of cleanup activities by MassDEP.
Anticipated environmental impacts associated with the entire project include approximately 7.2 acres of new land alteration, 2.3 acres of new impervious area, 2,700 new average daily trips (adt), 115 new parking spaces, and approximately 93,400 gallons per day (GPD) of new water usage and 84,900 GPD of new wastewater generation. The project also includes the construction of new water and sewer mains onsite. Wetlands impacts associated with the project include the temporary alteration of 500 linear feet (If) of Bank, 2,500 sf of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW), and 43,700 sf of Riverfront Area associated with the remediation. The project also involves the demolition of state-listed historic and/or archaeological resources.
On April 2, 2010, Secretary Ian A. Bowles issued a Certificate on the EENF requiring an
2
EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10, 2011

EIR for the entire project. In the Certificate, the Secretary allowed DCAM toproceed with the cleanup and remediation ofthose hazardous waste sites that will not impact wetland resource areas (both those regulated under the MCP and otherwise), prior to the submission of the SEIR for the entire project.

Summary ofProject Change (Phase 1)

As described in the NPC, the project change consists of the selection and implementation of an IRA cleanup option for the C&D Area and adjacent portions ofthe Charles River at the MSH site in advance ofthe preparation of the SEIR. According to DCAM1, the discovery of an oily sheen in the Charles River during removal of sampling equipment in May 2011 created a condition of Substantial Release Migration (SRM) under the MCP. This condition of SRM warrants the implementation of an IRA by DCAM to resolve the condition.

A Notice of Intent was included in the NPC, and includes tables entitled “Initial Remedial Alternatives Technology Screening”, for both the C&D Area and the sediments in the Charles River, respectively, in which DCAM provides a comparison of several preliminary alternatives. DCAM’s selected remedial approach will include: bank stabilization and cover of the C&D Area; and the construction of a temporary sediment cap within the adjacent Charles River. The NPC does not propose changes to the majority ofthe project as originally reviewed in the EENF. The remediation of both MCP and non-MCP sites is ongoing and the status of cleanup efforts is detailed in the appended Draft Phase II Report and the Non-MCP Area Report, respectively. The NPC indicates that a fourth disposal area -the Clay Contairunent Area (a historically non-MCP site) is now included in the SPD Permit (in addition to the Salvage Yard Area, the Former Power Plant Area, and the C&D Area).

According to the NPC and comments from DCAM1, the project change consists of:
• bank stabilization, excavation, and cover of C&D Area including:
removal ofthe existing steep slopes by cutting back debris material to a more stable 3: 1 slope;
-lowering the elevation of the C&D Area by an additional three feet below the proposed final grade, installing a 40 mil textured high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner and marker barriers, and overlaying three feet of clean fill to bring the site up to the final grade (along the Algonquin Gas easement which runs through the C&D Area, the three-foot cover will be reduced to one-foot over an HDPE liner);
-removal of approximately 11,000 tons of contaminated material;
-installing a riprap toe at base ofthe slope with riprap extending up to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW);
-an increase in size of the C&D Area from 2.2 acres to 3.2 acres;

1 As described in DeAM’s comment letter dated August 8, 2011.

3

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10, 2011

– work to stabilize the C&D Area will temporarily affect:
•  780 If of Bank (increase of 280 If from EENF),
•  3,750 sq ofBVW (increase of 1,250 sf from EENF),
•  104,500 sf of Riverfront Area (increase of 60,800 sf from EENF),
•  8,560 sf of Land Under Water (LUW), and
•  2,400 cubic yards (CY) of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), with a net 50 CY of flood storage gained;
-restoration of Bank, LUW, and Riverfront Areas, and wetland replication of 5,150 sf ofBVW (net gain of 1,400 sf);
-removal of a net 770 CY of dredged material (1,420 CY of material will be dredged from below OHW line to overcut the bank to allow for the placement of 620 CY of riprap and clean fill; an additional 30 CY will be placed in order to remediate the contaminated sediment)
– bio-stabilization of the slope above the OHW employing the brush layering technique to protect the slope from erosion and to provide a more natural habitat;
• emplacement of a temporary sediment cap including:
-covering an approximate area of 800 sf of impacted sediment (within the top 6-12 inches) within the Charles River with an impermeable amendment material (AquaBlok -a “composite particle technology”) to provide a low permeability, in situ active cover which is intended to create a barrier to isolate impacted sediment and impede potential upward and downstream migration into the river;
12 inches of fill throughout the impacted sediment area (six inches of AquaBlok overlain by six inches of sand);
– work to cover the sediments will temporarily result in 30 CY of fill to LUW (15 CY of clean fill and 15 CY of AquaBlok).
DC AM has requested that I allow the implementation of the IRA cleanup option to proceed prior to the submission of the SEIR. According to DCAM, delaying the remediation activities until the SEIR has been completed may adversely affect the Charles River and the C&D Area because the current unstabilized condition of SRM could result in further impacts to the Charles River. In addition, DCAM indicates that it anticipates the filing of a subsequent NPC to the MEP A Office which details the determination of the final remedial actions. I have therefore issued a DROD detailing my proposal to grant the Phase I Waiver. If approved under the proposed Waiver, DCAM will endeavor to complete the temporary cleanup activities in fall 2011.
4

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10,2011

MEPA Jurisdiction and Permits

The project, as presented in the EENF, is not subject to a mandatory EIR based upon the MEPA regulations. However, due to the potential environmental impacts of the project, and the unique nature of the project site, the preparation of an EIR was required.
The project is undergoing review pursuant to Sections 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f), 11.03(6)(b)(13), and 11.03(10)(b)(1) of the MEPA regulations because it is being undertaken by a State Agency and will result in the alteration of 500 or more linear feet of inland bank, the alteration of one-half or more acres of other wetlands (Riverfront Area), the generation of 2,000 or more new adt on roadways providing access to a single location, and the demolition of a Historic Structure listed in or located in any Historic District listed in the State Register of Historic Places. The project will require: an Order of Conditions from the Medfield Conservation Commission (and, on appeal only, a Superseding Order of Conditions from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)); a Sewer Connection Permit from MassDEP; review by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP); review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC); and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The project could potentially also require air quality approvals from MassDEP if it proposes installation of boilers, furnaces or emergency generators. The project is also subject to the EEAlMEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol.

The project change (Phase 1) will require: an Order of Conditions from the Medfield Conservation Commission (and, on appeal only, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP); a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP; and a Category 2 Programmatic General Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The project will also require review in accordance with the MCP by MassDEP, including, but not limited to, a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and a Phase III Remedial Action Plan (RAP).

The project will be undertaken and financed by DCAM, a State Agency. In addition, the project involves a Land Transfer from DCAM. Therefore, MEP A jurisdiction for this project is broad and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEPA regulations.

REVIEW OF THE NPC

The NPC provides a description of proposed Phase 1 activities and a discussion of their associated environmental impacts including mitigation and responsibilities under the MCP. According to DCAM2, it has elected to proceed with covering the contaminated sediment as a temporary solution until such time as a comprehensive study can be developed for the final remedy that discusses dredging options. As indicated in the comments from MassDEP’s Bureau
2 As described in DCAM’s comment letter dated August 8, 2011.
5

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10, 2011

of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC), DCAM will be required to submit a focused Phase III feasibility evaluation to MassDEP by August 10, 2011 prior to implementing the IRA Plan. The MCP does not allow the construction of a cap as part of a Permanent Solution unless a Phase III feasibility evaluation is completed. Although DCAM has indicated that the capping would be temporary, it acknowledges that the potential exists that the remediation proposed may be determined the most feasible, and therefore, the long-term Permanent Solution. I note that the Town ofMedfield Board of Selectmen (BOS) comments discuss requirements under the MCP which require than an IRA shall not, to the extent practicable, prevent or impede the implementation of future response actions.

In addition, MassDEP will conduct a technical meeting in the near future with DCAM and stakeholders including, but not limited, to representatives from the State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERC) and PIP petitioners following submission of the Phase III feasibility evaluation. During this meeting, I ask DCAM and MassDEP to consider the remedial alternatives suggested by CRWA and the Town of Medfield BOS as Permanent Solutions in their comment letters. Specifically, DCAM should explain the rationale for scoring of the remedial alternatives in the tables entitled “Initial Remedial Alternatives Technology Screening” .

As described in the NPC, DCAM has designed the Phase 1 project to address a condition of SRM within the Charles River and minimize adverse impacts to the environment. Comments received from MassDEP’s BWSC indicate that upon resolution of the technical issues, it expects that the IRA will be performed this construction season while low water levels in the Charles River prevail. I encourage DCAM to continue to work with MassDEP to ensure that impacts to resource areas are avoided and minimized to the maximum extent feasible, and that appropriate mitigation is provided.

I acknowledge the concerns expressed by the Charles River Watershed Association (CR W A) regarding potential environmental impacts as a result of not dredging or removing the contaminated material onsite. I also note that DCAM’s consultants provided a letter, dated August 8, 2011, in response to these comments addressing several of the key topics raised. Although I am declining to require the preparation of a supplemental EIR because MassDEP can address any outstanding issues during project permitting, DCAM should continue to work closely with the state permitting agencies and stakeholders to ensure that the impacts ofthe project are avoided, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Comments from CRWA and the Town of Medfield BOS note that the placement ofa cap . may prohibit other alternatives from later being employed due to physical and financial impediments. DCAM indicates that only a small volume of AquaBlok will be required for the temporary measure, and if it is required, the AquaBlok can be removed easily via either hydraulic or mechanical dredging.

Comments from the Town of Medfield BOS voice strong concern regarding the remediation of the Charles River and C&D Area and its potential impact on the Town’s principal public water supply well #6, and the area considered a potentially productive aquifer. DCAM should ensure that any remedial alternative employed takes into consideration the environmental
6

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10, 2011

sensitivity ofthis area as a drinking water supply.

I note CRWA’s comments regarding its concerns with the reuse of clean concrete. DCAM has indicated that although it has reused clean concrete on other MCP sites with the encouragement of MassDEP, the reference in the NPC which states that onsite concrete will reused as riprap is erroneous. The crushed concrete at the C&D Area cannot be used as riprap due to concerns about it durability under scour conditions. I also note that DCAM indicates that the reference, by CRW A, to mercury being a contaminant ofconcern is incorrect.

I expect DCAM will develop a comprehensive Monitoring and Response Plan, including an Emergency Flood Response Plan, as recommended by CRWA, if monitoring shows contaminant levels above reportable concentrations or ifhigh intensity rain events are predicted.

On April 19, 2010, the NHESP issued a determination letter regarding the review ofthe project under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and its implementing regulations which indicates that the recent changes outlined in the NPC do not result in changes in its previous determination that project will not result in a prohibited “take” of state-listed species andior additional requirements.

In its comment letter on the NPC, MassDEP has stated that DCAM should be aware that the Town ofMedfield is working on Infiltration and Inflow (III) problems within its municipal sewers but that there continues to be significant amounts ofIII that must be addressed as part of any new sewer connection. DCAM should not construct any new sewers until after the Town has completed the upgrades to its aging Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for which plans are underway.

The SEIR should continue to respond to the Scope set forth in the Certificate on the EENF issued on April 2, 2010. It should also present revised analyses to incorporate the changes to the project presented in the NPC, and should contain a full analysis ofthe cumulative impacts ofthe entire project, including impacts associated with Phase 1.

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

According to the NPC, DCAM will mitigate the impacts to wetland resource areas by replicating the majority ofwetland impacts in place. Restoration volumes are described in Table 2 below (reproduced from the NPC):
7

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10,2011

Table 2: Resource Area Mitigation
Resource Area
Impacted
Unit
Restored
Net Change
BVW
3,750
sf
5,150
+1,400
LUW (Below OHW)
8,560
sf
8,560
0
LUW Dredge
1,420
CY
770 CY Dredge
LUW Fill
650
CY
BLSF Cut
2,450
CY
50 CY of Storage Added
BLSF Fill
2,400
CY
Riverfront Area
104,500
sf
104,500
0
Bank
780
If
780
0

Waiver Request

As noted above and as set forth more fully in the DROD also being issued today, DCAM has requested a Phase 1 Waiver to allow IRA cleanup activities of the C&D Area and adjacent Charles River to proceed in advance of completion of the SEIR. DCAM anticipates that a subsequent NPC will be submitted to the MEP A Office once the final remediation actions are determined.3 This NPC, slated for submission in early 2012, will either document that the temporary solution is suitable as a permanent solution or provide a complete analysis of the permanent solution resulting from the Phase III RAP. In addition to the PIP process, this future NPC will provide another forum for public comment on DCAM’s approach to achieving a condition of “No Significant Risk” as defined in the MCP for the MSH site. The future NPC should also provide detailed responses to the comments submitted on this current NPC. Based upon my review of the NPC and the comments received, I propose to grant the Phase 1 Waiver, in the DROD, which will be noticed for public comment. The DROD contains conditions and supplemental information to be submitted to the MEP A Office to ensure that the impacts from Phase 1 are avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, the cumulative impacts of the project should be further addressed in the SEIR.

I acknowledge the comments and concerns expressed by CRWA, and the Town of Medfield BOS and residents about the impacts of Phase 1 and requesting that the project be required to prepare an EIR prior to conducting IRA activities. While I appreciate the concerns expressed in the letters, I do not believe that the impacts of Phase 1 warrant the preparation of an EIR under the applicable provisions of the MEPA regulations which I am required to apply. DCAM has indicated that the proposed Phase 1 activities are of a temporary nature to resolve the condition of SRM and that a detailed analysis of all remedial alternatives for the contamination will be presented in the Phase III RAP, which will be presented initially to the PIP group in September 2011. I am also confident that the cumulative impacts of the project can be fully reviewed in the context of the SEIR. I expect that DCAM will provide detailed responses to these comments in both the future NPC and the SEIR and continue to work with stakeholders to address their ongoing concerns.
3 As described in DCAM’s comment letter dated August 8, 2011. 8

EEA #14448R NPC Certificate August 10,2011

Conclusion

Based upon a review of comments letters, and after consultation with the relevant state agencies, I am confident that MassDEP has sufficient permitting authority to condition Phase 1 of the project so that no significant environmental impacts occur. I have proposed in a separate DROD issued today to grant a Phase 1 Waiver for IRA cleanup activities at the C&D Area and adjacent Charles River. Further MEPA review continues to be required for the entire project in the SEIR. The impacts from Phase 1 should be incorporated into the assessment of overall impacts for the project in the SEIR.
August 10,2011
DATE

/s/ Maeve Vallely Bartlett,for Richard K Sullivan, Jr.
Comments received:
07/1312011 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
08/03/2011 Charles River Watershed Association
0810312011 Town of Medfield Board of Selectman
08/0412011 William J. Massaro
08/05/2011 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -CERO
08/0512011 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -CEROBureau of Waste Site Cleanup
08/0812011 Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management

RKS/PPP/ppp
9

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.

What follows is the letter to PIP group members from DCAM about the meeting it is holding this Thursday at 7 PM.

=======================================

August 5,2011

Medfield State Hospital PIP Group
Medfield, MA

RE:  PIP Meeting to Present the Draft RAM Completion Report and Partial RAO For the Salvage Yard Area Medfield State Hospital

Dear PIP Member:

The Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) is providing notice that a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) meeting will be held on Thursday, August uth , at 7pm at the Selectman’s Meeting Room at the Medfield Town House. The purpose of this meeting is to present the draft RAM Completion Report and Partial RAO for the Medfield State Hospital Salvage Yard Area.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please notify me at DCAM via regular mail or email atallen.wiggin@state.ma.us

Sincerely,
Division of Capital Asset Management
Alan Wiggin, Pgr Coordinator
cc: Carole Cornelison, Commissioner, DCAM
John O’Donnell, Deputy Director, DCAM
Mary Beth Clancy, SR. Program Mgr., DCAM
Mark Baldi, Mass DEP-CERO
Michael Sullivan, Medfield Town Administrator
Medfield Public Library Repository
Frank Ricciardi, Weston & Sampson

DEP wrote this letter to DCAM today about the MSH clean plan and up timing.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Central Regional Office, 627 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01608

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
One Ashbmton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Attention: John O’Donnell
Deputy Director
Re: CRWSC – Medfield
45 Hospital Road
FOlmer Medfield State Hospital
RTN 2-3020799
Immediate Response Action Plan
310 CMR40.0000
M.G.L. c.21E

Dear Mr. O’Donnell:

On July 20,2011, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) received a “Draft Immediate Response Action Plan” for the Construction and Demolition Area (the “C&D Area”) at the fOlmer Medfield State Hospital. The Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan proposes excavating contaminated soil and debris, emplacing a temporary sediment cap within the
adjacent Charles River, and reconstructing the river bank to eliminate continued leaching and/or erosion of soil resulting in petroleum contamination of sediment that has is or likely to result in impacts to surface water as a condition of Substantial Release Migration (SRM).

Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0414(7), the Massachusetts Contingency Plan does not allow construction of a cap 01′ engineered barrier as part of a Permanent Solution unless a Phase III feasibility evaluation is completed. As the river bank reconstruction with the proposed flexible membrane liner and riprap covel’, in addition to the use of the proposed Aquablock to isolate and contain contaminated sediment, may potentially be detelmined to be the most feasible  remedial altemative based on technology and cost-benefit considerations, it should be considered part of the Permanent Solution for the C&D area. A focused Phase III feasibility evaluation, focused on the C&D Area and river sediment, is necessary prior to implementing the IRA Plan. The submitted IRA Plan does not contain the equivalent of a Phase III feasibility evaluation, therefore, MassDEP requires a Phase III evaluation for the C&D Area to be submitted by August 10, 2011, the date of presumptive approval for the IRA Plan.
The IRA Plan shall not be considered presumptively approved with submittal of the Phase III feasibility evaluation. MassDEP reserves the right to approve the IRA after August 10,2011.  As a condition of approval MassDEP will require a technical meeting during the week of August

Page 2
22, 2011 or earlier, with the Division of Capital Asset Management, and select stakeholders including but not limited to representatives ofthe State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERC) and Public Involvement Plan (PIP) petitioners following submittal of the feasibility evaluation. The purpose of the technical meeting will be to discuss and resolve technical issues with the IRA Plan scope of work. MassDEP will not provide approval of the IRA Plan prim’ to the technical meeting. Pending resolution oftechnical issues, it is MassDEP’s expectation that the IRA to eliminate and control the condition of SRM and its source will be perfOimed this constlUction season while low water levels of the Charles River prevail.
MassDEP appreciates the attention and cooperation of DC AM regarding these matters.  Please contact me with proposed dates and times for the technical meeting to be conducted the week of August 22 or earlier. If you have any questions, please contact me at (508) 767-2846.
August 5, 2011

Sincerely,

Mark E. Baldi
Section Chief, Audits
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

cc: Carol Comelison, Commissioner, Division of Capital Asset Management
Martin Suuberg, Regional Director, MassDEP-CERO
Mary Gardner, Deputy Regional Director, BWSC, MassDEP-CERO
Ms. Leslee Willets, Conservation Agent, Medfield Conservation Commission
Mr. Michael Sullivan, Town of Medfield Administrator
Mr. John Thompson, LSP, SHERC Chairman
Ms. Margaret Van Deusen, Director, Charles River Watershed Association
Ms. Andrea Stiller, LSP, ADS Environmental Engineering, LLC
Mr. Frank Ricciardi, LSP, Weston and Sampson, Inc.
Mr. William Massaro, PIP Petitioner
PIP Repository, Town of Medfield Public Library
CERO File:Database