Category Archives: Medfield State Hospital

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, 15^th 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

Medfield and DCAM have diverged in their views on how to clean up the Medfield State Hospital C&D area in and along the Charles River.  Medfield’s State Hospital Reuse Committee (SHERC) does not feel that the C&D area requires the Immediate Response Action (IRA) that is pending, and that if any part of the C&D area does require an immediate response, it is at most, just the oil in the river, not the toxic dump landfill created by DMH along the river’s edge that has existed in and next to the river for decades.  DCAM wants to basically cap that dump in place, whereas SHERC wants it dug out and safely stored on-site.

SHERC is expected to advise the Board of Selectmen at the next selectmen meeting on 9/6/11 that:
1.    The oil in the river should not be capped at all this fall, and for the oil to just be removed next year, as DCAM says it now plans.
2.    The toxic waste material in the C&D area should be removed where it exists below the groundwater line, in order to protect the town’s adjacent water supply (well #6) from leaching toxins, and
3.    DCAM should construct storage for that removed toxic material on-site, just as DCAM did at Boston State Hospital for the asbestosis containing materials (ACM) there.  DCAM has said it cannot remove and store on-site the materials in the C&D area because they are ACM.

DEP held a stakeholders meeting on 8/19/11 on DCAM’s proposed emergency clean up in and along the Charles River.  After that meeting, DCAM submitted its suggested “minutes” of that meeting prepared by its paid consultant (who had not attended the meeting), which I posted last week.  Below are links to the responses to date from three Medfield participants and the CRWA, correcting the mischaracterizations of the DCAM paid consultant.  The Board of Selectmen will respond to DEP on 9/7/11.

John Thompson, SHERC Chair

Click to access 20110829-ohnthompson-mepa-drod-28-august-2011.pdf

Bill Massaro
https://medfield02052.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/20110826-wjm-drod-eea-14448-comment-ltr.doc

John Harney
https://medfield02052.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/20110826-0johnharney-lt-dep.doc

Charles River Watershed Association

Click to access 20110829-crwa-mshfrodcomment082911.pdf

At the 8/19/11 meeting the town had with DEP and DCAM, DCAM handed out the following materials – https://medfield02052.blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/20110819-medfield-c-d-area-technical-meeting-attachments.pdf

These contains a summary of DCAM’s spending to date on the clean up at the Medfield State Hospital, and a summary of the current issues at each clean up site.

DCAM’s consultant circulated the following summary of the statekholders’ meeting that occurred on 8/19/11 at the behest of DEP –

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

Ms. Patel:

As required by the Secretary’s Condition #1 under Hazardous Material in the August 10 2011 Draft Record of Decision, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) is providing the MEPA Office and the commenters on the Notice of Project Change with a synopsis of the Stakeholder meeting held at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP’s) Central Office at 627 Main Street, Worcester on Friday August 19th, 2011.  Attached are the meeting attendance sign-in sheets, a copy of the Agenda drafted by MassDEP, and the handouts from the meeting.

The intent of the meeting was to allow stakeholders, DCAM, and MassDEP to discuss technical issues regarding the proposed Immediate Response Action (IRA) plan for activities proposed for the contaminated sediments in the Charles River and for embankment remediation and stabilization on the eastern bank of the Charles River.  In addition, the draft focused Phase III feasibility study was to be reviewed.

Mr. Frank Ricciardi, P.E., LSP (the LSP of Record) presented the proposed IRA Scope of Work and touched on each of the items that are listed on the attached agenda. The meeting was then opened for questions on the proposed Scope of Work.  The major points of discussion were:

• Removal of contaminated fill;
• Relocation of the 24-inch high pressure natural gas line;
• Use of riprap between ordinary low and high water lines;
• Potential adverse impacts in addressing groundwater contamination;
• Use of a capping approach to address sediment contamination in the Charles River; and
• Phase III Remedial Alternatives.

Each of these points is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Removal of Contaminated Fill

Several stakeholders requested additional information on the limited removal of contaminated fill.  Questions were posed requesting full removal of all fill within the Construction and Demolition (C&D) Disposal Area, including those materials within the easement of the natural gas line.  Mr. Ricciardi responded, referencing text in MassDEP’s feasibility study guidance documents regarding active public utilities, that shutdown of a public utility even for a single day is considered infeasible and, therefore, contaminated material may remain in place within the easement.  There was discussion between the stakeholders and MassDEP regarding the applicability of the guidance document.  The result was that MassDEP indicated that the feasibility document applied to the C&D Disposal Area.  The Chairman of the SHERC indicated that he disagreed with MassDEP’s decision regarding the applicability.

Several stakeholders questioned that since the contaminated material within the natural gas line easement would remain, could additional fill be excavated to reduce the area of the C&D Disposal Area and the associated risk from contaminated material left behind.   DCAM and its consultants explained that for the northern portion of the C&D Area, the distance between the River and the gas line easement, combined with the need to create a more stable slope, constrained the amount of contaminated fill that could be safely removed without risk to the gas line.

For the remaining portion of the C&D Disposal Area, DCAM and its consultants indicated that, due to the contaminated fill remaining within the easement, the site could not be completely remediated (removed).  Some contaminated material will be left behind and regardless of quantity or location; the “risk” level remains the same.  Thus, the economics of removing thousands of tons of contaminated fill with negligible reduction of risk was not a fiscally responsible expenditure of taxpayers’ money.  Mr. Ricciardi indicated that for every 10 feet landward that the contaminated fill was removed, the cost was approximately $1,000,000.  The cost of total removal, even if it were feasible, would be about $20 million.

A concern was raised that leaving contaminated materials within the Zone II of the Town’s well No. 6 could jeopardize a public drinking water supply.  MassDEP indicated that the constituents present within the C&D Disposal Area had little risk of being conveyed by groundwater to Well No. 6.   The SHERC Chairman indicated that he was more concerned with the chlorinated solvents detected in groundwater at the Site.  DCAM responded that the groundwater issues would be addressed separately as part of the Special Project Designation (SPD) Phase II and Phase III process. This meeting was strictly to address the C&D IRA according to the agenda drafted by MassDEP.

Relocation of the Natural Gas Line

A resident of Medfield indicated that he was not satisfied that sufficient efforts had been made to relocate the gas line outside of the limits of the C&D Disposal Area.  He requested that a listing of the Spectra Energy representatives and their positions be provided together with meeting notes from discussions between DCAM’s consultants and Spectra Energy.  He insisted that additional efforts be made to have the gas line relocated.  This will not be done, since Spectra Energy has refused to consider relocating the gas line.

Riprap between ordinary low and high water lines

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the use of riprap between ordinary low and high water was unacceptable due to aesthetics and adverse impacts to fauna that may migrate from the uplands to the River.  It was suggested that a bio-stabilization approach, such as brush layering, would allow vegetation to grow below high water and would be more satisfactory to fauna movements.  DCAM’s consultants indicated that due to its location, approximately 200 feet of embankment could be subject to high velocity currents during storm events and that erosion in the form of scour could undermine this area.  In addition, the liner that underlies the riprap is included to prevent a continuing release of contaminated fill to enter the River.  Without stable, robust protection, there is a high potential for a release in the future.  A suggestion was made that perhaps coconut logs could be used as the protection.  DCAM’s consultants indicated that the logs may not have the mass to withstand the forces in the River as well as needing to be replaced every six to ten years. It was also presented by DCAM that the total frontage in question is 200 feet out tens of miles of river frontage.  Fauna will still have other avenues of accessing the banks of the Charles, which are currently so steep at the proposed location that no fauna could navigate them as they currently are.  There will also be a construction fence around the Site, prohibiting upland fauna from accessing the banks for at least a year.  By the time the fence is removed and construction is complete, the riprap will have been in place for a period of time and vegetation will have taken hold, and the fauna will be able to navigate the reduced-slope banks and the vegetated riprap.

MassDEP requested DCAM to reconsider the proposed riprap armor and CWRA offered contact and provide information from the environmental firm the BioEngineering Group, whom they have been in contact with.  DCAM agreed to review any information provided by CRWA on this issue, but still believes that rip rap is the appropriate approach.

Potential adverse impacts in addressing groundwater contamination

Several stakeholders expressed concern that construction of the geomembrane and riprap would impede groundwater remediation, if required.  DCAM’s consultants indicated that lateral distance of twelve feet for the riprap and approximately 40 horizontal feet of geomembrane would not impede groundwater assessments or remediation activities.   (The 40 feet of geomembrane includes the 12 feet of geomembrane under the riprap.)  In addition, the sources of the chlorinated solvents in the groundwater are outside of the C&D Area and those locations are critical in accessing the groundwater for remediation.

MassDEP indicated that additional groundwater assessment activities would be required and may include passive diffusers and/or piezometers installed within the Charles River.  DCAM agreed that these types of sampling approaches may be warranted to address the chlorinated solvent issue.

A concern was raised that leaving of contaminated fill within the Zone II of Town Well No. 6 posed a threat to the drinking water supply of the Town of Medfield.  Please see the last paragraph above under the heading Removal of Contaminated Fill.

Capping Approach to Address Sediment Contamination in the Charles River

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the use of a cap over the 800 square feet of contaminated sediment in the Charles River was unacceptable as the Commonwealth might place this material and not perform any additional response actions.  DCAM reiterated that initial decision to use the cap was to streamline the approval process through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) as only two to three months of permitting time could elapse before the seasonal low groundwater and Charles River levels would begin to rise.  Although initially this cap was considered as possibly being the final remedy for the contaminated sediment, further examination of the constraints associated with the Charles River indicated that the long-term operation and monitoring of the cap was cost prohibitive.  DCAM believes that the final remedy will consist of hydraulic dredging.

A question was raised as to why this work could not be performed next year’s low water conditions instead of proceeding with a cap at this time.   It was pointed out that the contaminated sediment may have been present for a long period of time.  MassDEP explained that once the condition was identified, remedial actions are required to address the issue.   DCAM explained that the 800 square feet that is currently identified may extend further downstream from its current location and would require additional assessments to delineate the impacted area and determine the appropriate remediation.

The CRWA asked why we were not using the hydraulic dredging now instead of wasting funds with a temporary solution.  DCAM explained that the USACOE had indicated in January 2011 that dredging was viewed as being the least desirable of potential options in addressing contaminated sediment and that a comprehensive review of other options need to be included to justify the dredging.  When the IRA condition was identified in May 2011, a decision was made to proceed with a minimum invasive approach (i.e. capping) such that permit review by the USACOE could be completed during low water conditions in the early fall of 2011.

Phase III Remedial Alternatives

The discussions regarding the Phase III remedial evaluation focused primarily on the selected remedial alternative for the impacted sediment within the Charles River. Mr. Ricciardi presented the results of the initial and detailed evaluation of potential remedial alternatives and presented the selected alternative for the sediment, which was hydraulic dredging. This selection was reached following the detailed evaluation of effectiveness, implementability, protection of human health and the environment, and cost. Based on the results and primarily due to the long-term maintenance and monitoring costs associated with the temporary capping solution, the hydraulic dredging alternative was selected as the Permanent Solution. The stakeholders and meeting representatives preferred a vacuum approach rather than a barge dredging approach due to the minimal equipment needs and non-invasive nature of the vacuum dredge.

Until such time when a dredging approach can be permitted and implemented, the temporary sediment cap installed under the IRA would be in place. We discussed the extent, construction details, material selection, site preparation, schedule and maintenance and monitoring required for this approach. The schedule for moving forward was also discussed as being time critical and all approvals need to be in place by September 2, 2011 to meet the project milestone of October 15, 2011 for completion of all work between the ordinary high water and seasonal low water elevations. Consensus was reached that this temporary solution made sense provided that DCAM was committed to the permanent solution of hydraulic dredging. Mr. Baldi indicated that he would condition the approval of the IRA to require the removal of the impacted sediments via hydraulic dredging.

Based on the timelines associated with permitting the selected remedial alternative of hydraulic dredging, the preliminary schedule would be as follows:

• October 2011 – Implement preparation of the necessary permits including NOI, Army Corps General permit, and Chapter 91 Water Quality Certificate
• December 2011 – Design plans and specifications for implementation of selected remedy (to be implemented as the Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan)
• April 2012 – Procure contractor under public bidding law for implementation of Phase IV remedy
• September/October 2012 – project completion

A discussion ensued regarding if additional excavation of fill material would also be conducted as part of the Phase IV RIP. DCAM and Weston & Sampson indicated that the approach presented under the IRA would most likely be the final remedial alternative for this aspect of the project. We also discussed the remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) in groundwater and that the selected approach would not impede future groundwater remediation. The chairman of the SHERC requested additional groundwater monitoring to show that surface water/groundwater interactions would not impact the Charles River and/or Town Well #6.  Weston & Sampson discussed that an evaluation of the Site hydrogeology would be included in the Phase II CSA report and that supplemental assessment activities would be required to further evaluate the these interactions and the extent of CVOCs at the Site. Groundwater concentrations will continue to be monitored on a quarterly basis to supplement the data and understanding of groundwater conditions at the Site for use in the design of the final groundwater remedial alternative.

Following completion of Phase IV activities at the Site, an Activity and Use Limitation would be established on the deed for the property for the area requiring restrictions to prevent unacceptable exposure to remaining impacted fill.

This email is copied to all of the commenters on the NPC.  We understand that you will accept additional comment on the NPC until Monday, August 29, 2011.  Please let me know of any questions that you may have on this summary or on any other aspect of the C&D Area IRA.

Best.

Steve

Bill Massaro queried DEP and got the response below –

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

8/23/2011 11:42AM
RE: 1.) Friday’s Meeting;   2.) PIP Review Concerns
“Baldi, Mark (DEP)”
“wmassaro” mike sullivan  osler peterson  John Thompson  Andrea Stiller  “mvandeusen/crwa.org”  “Gardner, Mary (DEP)”  “ODonnell, John (DCP)” “Duran, Sandra (DCP)”
===========================================================
Bill,

Thank you for attending the meeting on Friday, August 19, to discuss the concerns of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) petitioners regarding the IRA Plan and associated, focused Phase III feasibility evaluation for the C& Area at the former Medfield State Hospital.

Regarding the issue of steam pipe conduits and storm drains.  Utilities and drainage systems that could provide preferential migration pathways for groundwater contamination will need to be identified for the final Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment Report.  Potential preferential migration pathways will need to be evaluated and assessed per 310 CMR 40.0835(4)(e)2, 40.0904(2)(c), and the SPD Permit approval; or eliminated as preferential migration pathways with substantiated Technical Justification, as per 310 CMR 40.0193, 40.0835(4), e.g. groundwater gauging, tracer tests, geophysical investigation, sampling, etc.

Regarding the PIP review period, the Phase III is a required integral part of the IRA Plan.  The MCP notes that time critical elements of an IRA may be conducted prior to close of the 20-day public comment period, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.01403(9)(h).  MassDEP considers the IRA as time critical to complete the construction work during the low water season in the river before mid-October and thereby contain and control further erosion of the bank and capping of petroleum-contaminated sediment in the river until dredging can be accomplished next year.  The substantive scope of work for the IRA was provided in the IRA Plan submitted on July 10, 2011, and the public comment period has been met for that submittal with the meeting of last Friday providing additional opportunity for comment.  Nonetheless, as the Phase III component was not posted to the public until August 16, MassDEP will extend the IRAP comment period, to include the Phase III evaluation, to ensure remedial actions are not conducted during the 20-day public comment period, and allow MassDEP to consider comments and issue a Conditional Approval of the IRA.   In particular, MassDEP would encourage PIP petitioners and stakeholders to provide specific alternatives to riprap, based upon site specific and engineering considerations.

MassDEP appreciates yours and other stakeholders attention to these matters to achieve a safe, environmentally beneficial, and cost-effective solution, meeting the Massachusetts Contingency Plan’s requirements of 310 CMR 40.0850.

Thank you,

Mark Baldi
Section Chief, Audits
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
MassDEP, Central Region
(508) 767-2803
========================================
From: wm massaro
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 2:11 PM
To: Baldi, Mark (DEP)
Cc: mike sullivan; osler peterson; John Thompson; Andrea Stiller
Subject: 1.) Friday’s Meeting; 2.) PIP Review Concerns

Mark,

1.)  Friday’s Meeting.  I want to  thank you for calling Friday’s meeting.

Like you, I was surprised by the number of attendees.  I had tried to get  some kind of scoping sessions started at the beginning of summer, and Commissioner Cornelison had seemed receptive, but if I understood reports by attendees from Medfield at  the first “technical” meeting, it seemed to be more heavily attended by the State’s administrative/financial staff than by environmental/engineering  types.

I was very disappointed that I had to bring up, in the face of DCAM’s apparent unwillingness to broach the subject,  the CVOC plume issue and then have to inquire if its remediation could be impacted by the planned IRA solution .   I appreciate your direction to DCAM  that additional sampling was required to determine if the plume had migrated under the river.   (Please note: Medfield had requested sampling closer to the river and sampling for migration under the river, in our 31 January 2011 CVOC Supplemental SOW Overburden Wells comment/concern submissions. My records indicate that responses from DCAM were not received until 6 July 2011, and migration under the river was not investigated as we learned Friday.)

Also, in my  May 2011 comments to the Interim Phase II report, I had asked about the impact of Storm or other water in the C&D Area based on the discovery of an hydrologic connection—- steam conduit between the upper campus to the PP area, and then to an inlet pipe to catch basins.  A drain manhole was found in the PP area but water flow testing indicated it was blocked and no discharge point was found.  In their 6 july 2011 response (e- copy not available, hardcopy mailed 18 july 2011) , DCAM replied only that steam pipe conduits were the “responsibility of the developer”.

Given the opportunity at Friday’s meeting to go over this response, I would’ve asked how or if the proposed activity in the C&D Area might unblock this or affect other unknown discharges in the area.

2.)  PIP Review Concerns :    As I have said  several times before, an incremental release of technical data throughout the entire SPD effort, but particularly release of the results from 2011 Phase II CSA sampling, if available for discussion  before the flurry of parallel NOI/IRA/NPC/USACOE approval/certification releases might have eased some of the frustration for the Town and facilitated the process for DCAM.

The Phase III Feasibility Evaluation for the C&D Area was released to the DEP Web-site on 8/16.  I am assuming that this document is subject to the PIP process. Public review and comment of this document was significantly impeded by unreleased Phase II CSA data because initial assessment could proceed only as far as identifying what was still needed to enable us to perform a complete review prior to a comment and concern submittal.  This missing/unreleased data list was submitted to DEP/DCAM on 17 August 2011 and  most of the requested information begann arriving mid-day on 18 August.

I believe that sufficient time should be allowed for PIP review of the  FE in light of the “new” and highly relevant data.   It is my understanding that 20 days is the MCP defined period for reviews.  If this is correct  I request your confirmation that the PIP group will be allowed this period, from the release of data on 18 August  to adequately assess and then comment on the FE,  before DEP approval of the remediation work is granted.

Thank you again for your continuing attention and assistance,

Bill

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.