What follows is the letter drafted by the SHERC this week for the Board of Selectmen to send to DEP about the currently pending and planned emergency clean up of the C&D area at the Medfield State Hospital. The selectmen will discuss the letter at our 9/6 meeting.
================================
9/6/11
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
One Ashburton Place, 15th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Attention: Mr. Allen Wiggin
RE: Comments on DCAM Submittals for Former Medfield State Hospital
C&D Area and Charles River IRA Plan and Draft Phase III – C&D Area Remedial Evaluation
July and August 2011
DEP RTN 2-3020799
To Whom it May Concern:
Attached please find the Town of Medfield’s comments on the Draft Immediate Response Action Plan provided to the Medfield PIP Group on July 14, 2011, and the Draft Phase III – C&D Area Remedial Evaluation downloaded from the online DEP Sites Database when available on August 16, 2011. Due to the recent release of the Draft Phase III, as well as release of supplemental data and information provided to the Town on August 18, 2011, Mr. Mark Baldi, Section Chief of the Central Region Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), allowed for a review and comment period ending September 6, 2011. Due to the Labor Day Holiday on September 5, 2011, and the Medfield Selectmen’s meeting held on Tuesday evening, September 6, 2011, DEP subsequently granted an extension of this comment period deadline to September 7, 2011.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed remediation plans.
Sincerely,
Mark Fisher
Ann B. Thompson
Osler L. Peterson
============================
It is the Opinion of the Town of Medfield Selectmen that:
1. The proposed IRA Plan for the C & D Area is not an Immediate Response Action intended to address an Imminent Hazard or a Substantial Release Migration condition. The IRA Condition was originally attributed to oily sediment in the river that caused a sheen when sampled. Concerns were subsequently raised (by a party other than the PIP or SHERC) about elevated PAHs, which resulted in a plan to rework and cap the banks of the river with FML and 3 feet of fill. The resulting IRA includes re-grading and capping what has been defined by W&S/DCAM as the ENTIRE C&D AREA. The cap and cover portion of the work proposed in the C & D area is not an IRA; it is a Comprehensive Response Action intended to be the Permanent Solution, and should have been properly reviewed with the Town through a thoughtful Phase III process. If the PAH results in sediment justify the proposed work, then response actions should be taken for a much larger area including sediment sampling locations showing high PAH concentrations(CD-SD-104, CD-SD-107, CD-SD-110 and CD-SD-114).
The Town was informed during the August 19, 2011 meeting at DEP that the project has been bid already, and substantive changes to the design cannot be made. The design and permitting of the project all occurred before the Town was aware of the plan, and before the Town was provided with the comprehensive Phase II Report with critical analytical data, and before the Comprehensive Phase III was completed; the Phase II and III Reports are being presented under the PIP process on September 8, 2011. The deadline for commenting on the IRA Plan and limited Phase III review of the C&D area only, is September 6, 2011. By placing a Scope of Work out to bid, DCAM puts the Town in an unfair position, and MassDEP is also placed in a position were the Scope cannot be changed, even if an alternative might provide a better outcome for the public and the environment.
This project is complex enough that it warrants a proper Phase II and Phase III work to be completed followed by public comment. That is why it was designated as an SPD Site. Plumes are comingled; the Power plant ash is comingled with the C&D debris. The chlorinated solvent plume extends beneath the C&D Area; the C&D debris acts as an unlined landfill with material extending beneath the groundwater table and into the Charles River. These issues should not be addressed independently of one another.
2. Despite the final and intended comprehensive nature of the IRA Plan, there will be elevated PAHs left in the sediment that will not be addressed in the IRA Plan. Elevated PAHs were described as driving the need for an IRA, which encompasses the entire C&D Area.
3. The Interim Phase II explorations suggest, and DCAM has stated, that the oily sediment in the river likely extends further than what is being capped during the IRA (Aquablok cap); therefore the IRA conditions are not being addressed in full. The Town of Medfield is of the opinion that there is insufficient data available at the present time to delineate the extent of the area requiring remediation. MassDEP should require additional assessment to determine ecological measurement endpoints in River sediment. The town requests that MassDEP ask the DEP Office of Research and Standards (ORS) to review and comment on this plan before implementation.
4. The focused Phase III Report, which addresses just the C&D Area independently of the other areas of concern in the SPD Site, states with regard to the oil impacted sediment in the river that “The vertical extent of the impacted sediment is approximately 1 foot, limited as surficial sediment.” The IRA Plan (page 1-3, Section 1.6 paragraph 3) states the petroleum impacts were observed “in approximately the top foot”This does not appear to be accurate. The exploration logs for this area show that the top one foot is free of oil; sediment from 12 to 30 inches containes the oil impact. Samples collected to quantify hydrocarbon concentrations were collected from below the oil layer described on field sampling documentation. We would like DCAM to explain why the report’s characterization of impacts are inconsistent with the field documentation, especially since volume calculations are based upon these statements.
5. DCAM has committed to removing the oily sediment from the river during the low water season of 2012. Given that the oily sediments are buried beneath 12 inches of non-oily sediment, we respectfully urge DEP to allow the conditions to remain without the Aquablok cap until next year when it can be removed by vacuum dredging. The Aquablok bentonite clay cap will create substantial turbidity in the river during efforts to remove it next year.
6. On Table 1(a), the Focused Phase III analysis matrix of the remediation options reviewed (effectiveness, implementability, relative protectiveness to human health and the environment, and cost), there is a math error and the Partial Removal (Maximum) which addresses 32,625 tons of the C&D debris fill is actually EQUAL in merits to the Partial Fill Removal (Minimum) where 9,135 tons of the C&D fill are addressed. Both score 15 points.
The stated “Disadvantages” of the Maximum fill removal (page 3-5) are unclear; the disadvantages of the Maximum fill removal would appear to be no different than the disadvantages of the Minimum fill removal.
Also, the use of riprap along the side of the river is only required as an anchor for the FML liner; a liner is only needed if insufficient contaminated material is removed. A bioengineered alternative calling for removal of more material would not need a liner, and would not need riprap. Various stakeholder groups (Charles River Watershed and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife) have strongly urged the use of bioengineered solutions rather than riprap along the river.
The Town requests, as a minimum, that ALL of the C&D debris fill, up to the natural gas line, be removed. DCAM has raised cost as an issue. The cost evaluation does not account for the price differential between what the Commonwealth paid for the property, and what its value is today prior to sale. DCAM has already cleaned up areas that will be subject to the sale to a developer, so costs to date will be recovered.
The costs to clean up the C & D area are far below the equity that the Commonwealth will realize upon sale. In fact, cleanup of the C & D area will likely allow a higher price for the property, since placement of a long term Class C RAO adjacent to the development area may impact the ability of buyers to gain financing.
7. The C&D area was used as the facility dump for decades. The exact nature of the wastes in the dump is not known. The presence of drum(s) of oil or hazardous waste, or other potential souce material, cannot be ruled out. We note that recently concentrations of lead in excess of the Upper Concentration Limits were detected in this material. Therefore, given that the C&D is within the Zone II of Medfield Well #6, and it is within a zoned Potentially Productive Medium Yield Aquifer area, as much fill as possible must be removed. This is particularly critical where the dump fill extends below the groundwater table.
8. Proper risk characterization of the river is required before remediation commences.
A. While mercury was detected upstream at or near risk criteria, levels in front of the C&D site were as much as six times higher than the screening criteria. Not all mercury can be dismissed as “local conditions”. Waste characterization sample results from soil test pits in the C & D area show mercury concentrations similar to those found in the river sediment. This indicates that the C & D area is, more likely than not, a source of mercury in the Charles River. Also, in the June 9 and 11, 2010 sediment analytical results, “B” qualifiers are not sufficient reason to discount analytes detections; an explanation as to why all metals with “B” were discounted is warranted.
B. A majority of analytes listed in the data tables do not have screening criteria provided. US EPA’s National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) and MassDEP’s revised sediment screening technical updates do not include all analytical suites, but as part of the Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization, other sources of suitable analogous standards can be used or additional criteria derived by a qualified ecological risk assessor. Also, several surface water criteria do not agree with current values that the EPA has posted (if modified for site-specific conditions, explanations should be provided). In addition, sediment data are screened against US EPA EcoSSLs, which are soil screening values and not appropriate for screening for potential adverse affects to sediment dwelling organisms. Please refer to MassDEP’s “Revised Sediment Screening Values Update to: Section 9 of Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization – In support of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (1996)” which lists PAHs and metals/inorganics. Again, we request that MassDEP submit the Environmental Risk Characterization to ORS for review and comment, and that samples for fish tissue be collected to determine empirically whether or not fish are impacted by chemicals of concern.
C. Dioxins and Furans are a by-product of the incomplete incineration of waste. As such they are found in association with incinerator ash. Analytical testing for these contaminants should be conducted in the C&D Area and river. The public has requested that tests for these compounds be conducted given the use of the site for incineration, and interviews with the former superintendant of the Hospital (see Comment and Response 15, July 18, 2011, Responses to Comments on the Interim Phase II Report). It is a fact that the hospital had a large scale waste burning incinerator and that plastics were included with the waste stream, since all of the waste from the site was burned there. This is why there is more than 10 feet of coal ash around the power plant, and 3 acres of up to 12 feet thick of ash and incineration waste in the adjacent C & D area. The Town of Medfield requests that DCAM rule out Dioxins and Furans from the Chemicals of Concern list by performing a set of tests on the ash in the C & D area and river sediment. Background levels should also be determined. Sampling for these compounds should be determined prior to the IRA activity; we ask that MassDEP include this as a condition of IRA approval.
9. Since the area subject to the response action is mapped as a habitat for an endangered species (Scirpus longii), now not visible at the site, MassDEP should require that this plant be included in the replication area and require a 75% survival as with other plants.
10. Due to the potential for leachate breakout, we request that pre and post construction surface water samples be collected from surface water in wetland areas along the margin of the west side of the C & D area.
11. The town opposes the IRA Plan on page 2-5 bullet 3, regarding stormwater management. Stormwater collected during any construction activity should be containerized for testing and disposal since it may contain hazardous materials. Any water generated as a result of dewatering should also be containerized for testing and disposal. MassDEP should not permit the land application of these water sources as proposed, since this area is a mapped as a Potentially Productive Medium Yield Aquifer and a Zone II of Medfield’s water supply.
12. The River Monitoring Plan (IRAP page 2-7) should require daily samples during work hours for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) immediately outside the protective boom, rather than qualitative inspections as proposed.
13. The IRA Plan is missing the requirement to file a Chapter 91 dredge permit. According to MassDEP representatives, this permit is required for any dredging work below Ordinary High Water on the Charles River. A c. 91 permit was required for ongoing dredging work in Weston by the MWRA. Along with the permita public comment period of 15 days is required, before work may begin. This permit is required before work may begin even though the proposed work is an IRA.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit these concerns.
cc: Ms. Carole Cornelison, Commissioner, DCAM
Mr. John O’Donnell, PE, LSP, Deputy Director, DCAM
Ms. Sandra Duran, Director, DCAM
Mr. Mark Baldi, Section Chief, MassDEP Central Regional Office
Mr. Frank Ricciardi, P.E., LSP, Weston & Sampson
Mr. John Thompson, LSP, SHERC Chairman
Ms. Deborah Bero, Esq., Medfield Conservation Commission, SHERC
Mr. William Domey, PE, Board of Health, SHERC
Mr. Ralph Tella, LSP, SHERC
Mr. Cole Worthy, LSP, SHERC
Ms. Andrea Stiller, LSP, ADS
Town of Medfield Repository, Public Library
Medfield02052's Blog 