Plans to clean up VOC’s at MSH


The Board of Selectmen last night signed a letter (copy inserted below) to send our sent comments to DCAMM about the latest plans to clean up the volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) at the Medfield State Hospital site.  Boss’s comments were developed for us by the State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERC), composed of four Licensed Site Professionals (LSP’s) and an attorney.  Bill Massaro also submitted his own, which appear below.

The status of the VOC clean up was discussed at both the meeting and by this participant with Bill Massaro after the meeting, and there seems to be general agreement that the state by DCAMM is pursuing the proper plan to clean up those VOC’s.  The VOC plume extends from under the former laundry building (recently demolished) at the crest of the hill over looking the Charles River, down the hill towards the Charles River.  In general terms, the state clean up will involve the insertion of chemicals into wells to oxidize the VOC’s, and DCAMM has recently decided upon the agent to use, hydrogen peroxide.  The method is reported to be both proper and effective, such that the VOC’s will eventually be removed from the ground, and the area will meet ground water drinking standards.  The VOC’s present in the soil now actually only exceed the ground water drinking standards by a small increment at this time.

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

TOWN OF MEDFIELD
Office of BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN
Town Administrator
TOWN HOUSE, 459 MAIN STREET
MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052-0315

November 21, 2013

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
One Ashburton Place, lS’h Floor
Boston, MA 02108

Attention: Mr. Allen Wiggin

RE: Comments on DCAMM Submittal for Former Medfield State Hospital Draft Phase IV – SPD Area and Power Plant Area Groundwater Remedy Implementation Plan, November 2013
DEP RTN 2-3020799

To Whom it May Concern:

On November 7, 2013 DCAMM and Weston & Sampson presented their Draft Phase IV – Special Project Designation Area & Power Plant Area Groundwater Remedy Implementation Plan.  Copies of this document were released to the Town for review. These reports were reviewed by some members of the PIP Group, the State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERe), along with the Town’s consultants. The Town was given 20 days to review and comment on the Plan.

The following comments do not include a discussion of the petroleum issue related to the Power Plant underground storage tanks, as this issue will be discussed at a future technical meeting with DCAMM and the Town. In order to facilitate the discussions, draft comments on the petroleum issue are being sent to DCAMM under separate cover.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these draft submittals.

Sincerely,
Mark L. Fisher
Osler L. Peterson
Richard P. DeSorgher

Phase IV – SPD Area Groundwater RIP

1. We appreciate that the areas of highest concentration ofPCE are planned to undergo ISCO remediation. What is the plan, natural attenuation or otherwise, for addressing wells within the Potentially Productive Aquifer that have dissolved PCE above G W -I standards so that permanent closure can be achieved (PP-MW-IOI, 102, 103, CD-MW-IOO, 101, etc)?

2. As acknowledged in Section 3.2.1 on page 3-1 of the RIP, the specific source locations of PCE in the groundwater (if they exist) have not been identified, and PCE has not been identified at elevated concentrations in the soil suggesting a source area. The report should consider that the sewer line from the Laundry building to the river could be a source area, such as in the area of SPD-MW-50I near the Laundry building, near PP-MW-205 at the former power plant, and SPDMW-508 and 506 near the river. The old sewer construction, which appears to be brick, may not have been tight. If low levels of PCE still exist in soil around this piping, continued leaching may result in continued rebound above GW-I standards in the groundwater.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents.

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
Ms. Margaret Van Deusen, Deputy Director and General Counsel, CRWA
Mr. John Thompson, lSP, SHERC Chairman
Ms. Deborah Bero, Esq., Medfield Conservation Commission, SHERC
Nancy Benotti, Board of Health
Mr. Ralph Tella, lSP, SHERC
Mr. Cole Worthy, LSP, SHERC
Ms. Andrea Stiller, lSP, ADS
Dr. Cheryl Montgomery, US ACE – ERDC
Town of Medfield Repository, Public library

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

William J. Massaro
36 Evergreen Way
Medfield, MA 02052

26 November 2013

Mr. Allen Wiggin
MassachusettDs ivision of Capital AssetM anagement
AshburtonP lace,l5 thF loor
Boston,M A 02108

Re: Comments – Draft Phase IV- dated November 2013 SPD Area & Power Plant Area GW RIP RTN 2-3020799

Dear Mr. Wiggin:

This letter is written in responseto DCAMM’s requestf or comments/questions/concerrns regarding the subject Draft PhaseI V RemedyI mplementationP lan presentedb y Mr. John O’Donnell and Mr. Frank Ricciardio n 7 November2 013t o Medfield Selectmen, representatives of the Selectmen’s State Hospital Environmental Review Committee (SHERC), PIP members, and concerned residents.

Although the initial draft of my comments/questions/concems had also addressed unresolved Power Plant Area petroleum issues, they have not been included in this final letter based on discussions with SHERC and correspondence from DCAMM confirming that they will be the subject of joint technical discussions in the near future.

Regarding the Groundwater Remedy Implementation Plan :
There are two exceedences of GW-l standards within the C&D Area at CD-MW-101 and at CDMW-100.  Although these locations and their PCE concentrations are clearly shown on Figure 3 and Figure 5, I could not find them on any of the Tables or in any of the text. While these 2 locations are not in the “Power Plant” or the “SPD Area”, they were the subject of previous comments sent on 3l January 2011  regarding the Supplemental Phase II SOW-CVOC Issue dated January 2011. These comments had specifically requested additional monitoring wells downgradient of CD-MW-101.

The Settlemen Agreement for Remediation of the C&D Area calls fbr monitoring in the C&D Area until “detected contaminants are below drinking water standards for 4 consecutive quarters, but in no event less than 2 years”.

a. Why have C D-MW-100 and C D-MW-101, the only remaining CVOC exceedences to GW-l associated with the plume, been omitted from this discussion of the GW RIP?

b. Excavation of C&D Area contaminateds oil is currently scheduled to begin Summer 2014 and to complete by Fall of 2015. What is the post-injection CVOC monitoring plan for CD-MW-100 and CD-MW-101?

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these questions.

cc:

Mr. Mark Baldi, Mass DEP CERO-BWSC
Mr. John O’Donnell, Mass Division of Capital Asset Management
Medfield Town Administration (M. Sullivan, K. Trierweiler)
Medfield Town Selectmen( M. Fisher,O . Peterson, R . DeSorgher)
SHERC
Ms. Andrea Stiller

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s