William J. Massaro, Medfield, MA
1 August 2011 Page 1 of 7
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
One Ashburton Place, 15th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Attention: Mr. Allen Wiggin
Re: Former Medfield State Hospital C&D Area Draft IRA–RTN 2-3020799 and
Related Permit/Approval Applications
Dear Mr. Wiggin,
This letter is written to express my comments and concerns regarding the current submittals made by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) and their consultants Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. and Rackemann Strategic Consulting, Inc. to Federal, State and local agencies.
These submittals request approval/permitting of the cleanup of the Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) Area and adjacent sediments in the Charles River at the site of the former Medfield State Hospital (MSH) and include: a Notice of Intent filed 2 June 2011 with the Medfield Conservation Commission; a Category II General Permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers filed 8 June 2011; a Notice of Project Change-EAA#14448R filed 15 June 2011 with MEPA; and a 401 Water Quality Certification Request filed with DEP-DWW on 22 July 2011.
In addition to the above submissions, this letter also addresses comments and concerns to the Draft Immediate Response Action-C&D Area RTN 2-3020799 which was presented to the Medfield PIP group on 14 July 2011 for comment on or before 3 August 2011.
Comments and Concerns
A. Background -My Initial Involvement and Concerns
1. My Involvement
I am a thirty-five year resident of Medfield and abutter of the former MSH property. My interest and concern with the hazardous material contamination and proposed cleanup of the property began in July of 2009 with DCAM’s original MEPA submittal of ENF 14448 for cleanup activity at the C&D Area site. I had recently attended a DCAM presentation on the proposed redevelopment of the property which described housing for approximately one thousand adults and children, and the planned recreational use of the Charles riverside area by
these future residents and the general public. This recreational use was to include hiking and equestrian trails, and kayak/canoe launching facilities.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 2 of 7
In researching the DEP database for my response to this ENF, I found reports from TRC Environmental in 2003 which had estimated, after limited subsurface investigation of the entire MSH property, that the extent of contamination for this C&D site was a “minimum” of 150 feet by 400 feet or 60,000 square feet and a volume of 27,700 cubic yards. Subsequent reports by Maguire Group Inc. in 2005 and 2007 stated that their investigations were conducted only at previously investigated central and eastern portions of the Site, and simply reiterated TRC’s prior “minimum” size estimate.
These reports led me to conclude that the proposed plan did not appear adequate to protect the adults and children who would make recreational use of the area. In particular I was concerned by statements in the prior reports that, since investigations had only been conducted at central and eastern portions of the site, the extent and nature of contamination had not yet been adequately defined.
2. Initial Concerns
a. Inadequate Determination of Nature and Extent of Contamination
The 2009 proposed ENF activity did not address extending size investigations, and also did not address statements about potential/suspect asbestos found in test pitting, levels of lead up to 21 times in excess of standard due to coal ash and incineration waste dumping, and high levels of arsenic, barium, chromium lead and zinc in sediment.
In my letter to then Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Bowles,
I stated that I believed more extensive efforts were required to achieve a “condition of no significant risk”.
b. Risk to Future Recreational User Not Addressed
The 2009 proposed ENF activity did not discuss current and proposed recreational utilization of the C&D Area and did not address mitigation of contaminant exposure risks to the hikers, fishermen, and others who would be using this area.
c. Segmentation
In addition to the issue of inadequate definition of the nature and extent of contamination, other members of the public, Medfield Town officials, and I expressed concerns that the ENF did not take into account the planned development of 440 housing units, the addition of a thousand adult and child residents, and their expected use of the property.
d. PIP Process Problems
Subsequent to the submittal of these concerns and the formation of a new PIP group for the Salvage Yard, on 31 December 2009 DCAM sought approval for a Special Project Designation (SPD) on the property. This was to include the three MCP sites of the Salvage Yard, C&D Area, and the former power Plant Area. Four non-MCP areas had been previously identified for investigation/cleanup but were not included in this SPD application.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 3 of 7
i. Progress Report Schedules
In my review of the draft SPD Statement of Work and in my 23 January 2010 comment letter to MassDEP CRO-BWSC regarding this SPD application, I stated that I was encouraged by DCAM’s confirmation of their intent to perform a “permanent comprehensive cleanup of the site and to achieve a condition of No Significant Risk” for future residents and recreational users of the property. While I had no objection to the SPD, I did restate my prior concerns about the nature and extent of investigation in the C&D Area. I also questioned the handicap that would be imposed on the PIP group as a result of the SPD’s proposed plan for release of Progress Reports only at six-month intervals.
ii. Timeliness of Investigation/Analysis Data Releases
Given the public response deadlines under the PIP process, and the size and complexity of the SPD comprehensive effort and its anticipated large volume of laboratory analysis results, I questioned whether the release of data to the PIP group in large six-month batches allowed for our reasonable review/identification of any issues or gaps in the data provided. I questioned the likelihood that any resultant requests for additional investigations or analyses efforts would be incorporated in work likely to have been long-since completed.
My suggestion that information, assessments and determinations should, instead, be made available and distributed as they became available was not accepted.
On 25 March the SPD was granted. Shortly thereafter DCAM sought and, despite concerns from the combined PIP groups and Medfield Selectmen urging a two-phase Environmental Impact Report, received MEPA approval of a Single EIR for the entire former MSH redevelopment project, including MCP, non-MCP and future building demolition/renovation activities under an Expanded ENF 14448.
B. Current Issues/Concerns
The Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment is not complete. A premature and perhaps inadequate or inappropriate alternative remediation is being expeditiously pursued via the proposed IRA plan despite DCAM’s statement in Section 2 of their 1 February 2010 EENF application to MEPA that “Prior to evaluating remedial alternatives and selection of an applicable and appropriate alternative for the proposed end use, a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment(CSA) as defined under the MCP will be completed to evaluate the extent of impacts and the level of risk posed by the site…”
Today, almost 2 years after my initial involvement, I am concerned that DCAM, in spite of the public’s long-stated and often-repeated concerns that the boundary of the C&D Area may still not be adequately defined and that contaminant investigation on the riverbank, wetlands and in the river is not yet complete, has not provided data to support their position that historic “minimum” estimates were accurate and complete.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 4 of 7
I am again concerned about what may well be a return to segmentation and a to remediation effort which results in something less than the promised “Comprehensive” cleanup.
I am concerned, by what I believe to be the current diminution of the effectiveness of the PIP process in Medfield by this rush to obtain permitting agency approvals and implement the proposed C&D Area IRA. Work will have begun and likely be completed before the Town of Medfield, the PIP group, and other concerned parties even receive data crucial for a reasonable and prudent evaluation of remediation alternatives.
I am concerned that elements of the MCP five-phased process may be circumvented or rendered moot.
1. Phase II Status and Pending Proposed Completion
a. Size of the C&D Area
As described above the size of this area had been originally estimated at a “minimum” in 2003, and despite repeated Town and public requests for further investigation remained essentially unchanged until the 14 July 2011 Draft C&D IRA presentation. At this presentation Weston & Sampson reported it had been increased to 3.2 acres. Upon further questioning it was learned this increase was attributed to the addition of 5 debris piles (shown on several earlier sits maps as adjacent but not within the prior boundary definition) and to the inclusion of the 800 square feet of river bottom described in the IRA.
In response to questioning as to whether any sampling had been performed in the wetland outside of the prior boundaries and whether clean limits had been obtained, Weston and Sampson advised that results would be included in the Final Phase II report scheduled for release in September.
This data may or may not confirm that the true boundaries of the construction and demolition debris deposits have finally been identified. However, because the current proposed IRA implementation is scheduled to begin before this information is released, the opportunity for concerned parties to effectively utilize this data to evaluate whether the proposed IRA is appropriate and adequate will have been lost.
b.CVOC Investigation Still Incomplete
In the fall of 2010 a chlorinated solvent plume was found migrating toward the Charles River. Concerns about its proximity within the Zone II to Town Well #6, our principal water supply, and its location within a Potentially Productive medium Yield Aquifer prompted the PIP group and Town officials to request additional monitoring well installations and analyses. Results of any additional sampling are not expected to be made available until release of the Phase II Final report.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 5 of 7
The proposed IRA does not address the effect of its implementation on existing wells in the area or address the probability that future wells may be required to monitor and/or remediate effect of the CVOC contamination. I believe that clear delineation of the plume and preparation of remediation alternatives for both the C&D contaminants and the CVOC Plume should be complete before implementation of the IRA, and it should be established that the remediation of the CVOC’s will not be hindered or impeded by C&D IRA activity.
c. New Sediment Samples and Analyses Not Released
Neither locations nor analytical results of iterative sediment samples which have been taken in the river and adjoining wetlands since issuance of the Interim Draft CSA Report have been released. This data and that pertaining to any new sampling/analyses will not be available for public review until release of the Phase II CSA Final Report.
d. C&D and Power Plant Areas Are Not Severable
i. Shared Contaminants
There are many very large areas of fill consisting of coal ash and incineration waste generated by boilers in the former Power Plant area before their conversion from coal to fuel oil. This material was deposited over decades in the Power Plant area and in the C&D area. At least one of these deposits runs from one Release Area into the other. Constituents of these deposits are the same. As part of the permanent comprehensive solution promised by DCAM under the SPD, the C&D Area remediation should not be separated from the Power Plant Area.
ii Shared Current & Proposed Uses
The Bay Circuit Alliance’s Charles River Link Trail currently uses sections of both the C&D and Power Plant Areas. Their 16 March EENF#1448 letter to then Secretary Bowles stated their concern that current use and access to these areas be maintained: “We request …development of the area take into consideration the need to continue access for the Charles River Link Trail.” Regarding planned future use of the areas, the Alliance stated that “We are in favor of the proposed future canoe landing located at the Construction Debris Area along the Charles. It will provide not only access to the river but better public access to the Medfield State Forest.”
e. Impact on Recreational Use of the C&D Area
I am concerned that the proposed IRA remediation will not comply with the statements that DCAM made in their February 2010 EENF submittal that “Due to this [disposal area being near to the redevelopment parcel–may become play area for children from the new housing areas], Conceptual Site Models for the Power Plant Area and the C&D Area will recognize potential uses that may be more intrusive than passive recreation”.
The expedient solution proposed may well leave contaminants in the area and put recreational users at an unacceptable level of exposure risk.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 6 of 7
2. PIP Process-Should Not be a “Rubber Stamp”
As described in the opening paragraph of this letter, DCAM and/or their consultants began seeking multi-agency approvals of the C&D Area IRA remediation well in advance of presenting it to the Medfield PIP group.
Given the 3 August 2011 requirement for submittal of PIP comments/concerns about the current IRA and given the time allowed for DCAM responses, it is likely that most, if not all, of the requested permitting/approval actions by these agencies could be completed before the PIP group even receives DCAM’s answers. This would mean, in effect, that agencies might approve fragments of plans and proposals even while public comments are being solicited. It would seem highly unlikely that any subsequent incorporation of public comments by DCAM would occur after one of these approvals has been granted. The Town and the PIP group will, in effect, have been presented with a fait accompli.
3. MCP Issues
a. Out of Sequence Phases
The C&D Area is clearly the most challenging of the disposal sites in the SPD and its contaminants are inseparable from those in the contiguous Power Plant Area. I am concerned that any such de facto advance approval of the C&D Area IRA’s proposed solution will circumvent the MCP-mandated requirement to submit detailed Phase III Identification and Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives for what is effectively the entire SPD.
A premature approval of the proposed IRA plan before completion of the Phase II CSA would in effect leap-frog Phase III. By the time Phase II is completed, the C&D Area and the majority of the SPD will, in effect, have completed Phase IV remediation and landed in Phase V.
b. Inappropriate “Temporary” Solution Will Become Permanent
The premature clearing and capping of the proposed riverbank and the capping of the proposed section of river sediment may be found to be inappropriate or inadequate upon completion of the Phase II CSA. It is not unreasonable to assume that in preparation of Phase III alternatives, DCAM will include the cost of removing these “temporary” remediations which will become a significant added cost element in their recommendation for Phase IV.
To the continuing detriment of the river ecology, risk to the Town’s water supply, and the exposure of recreational users, it is most likely that the “temporary” solution will become the “permanent” solution.
1 August 2011
W. Massaro
p. 7 of 7
Conclusion
As a long-time resident of Medfield, abutter of the former MSH property, member of the Medfield PIP, and a recreational user of the Charles River, I hope that I have presented sufficient detail regarding my concerns with the C&D IRA proposal.
I hope I have demonstrated that at this time, agency approval/permitting before public release of the Final Phase II Comprehensive Site Analysis and Phase III Alternatives is at best premature, and in the final analysis may be neither adequate nor appropriate.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my comments and concerns on this important issue.
Yours truly,
William J. Massaro
Addressees: Mr. Richard K. Sullivan, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA
District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division, Concord, MA
Ms. Stella Tamul, DEP Water, Wastewater & Wetlands- CRO, Worcester, MA
Mr. Allen Wiggin, Division of Capital Asset Management, Boston, MA
Ms. Leslee Willitts, Conservation Commission, Medfield, MA
CC: Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Boston MA
Sen. James E. Timility, Boston, MA
Rep. Denise C. Garlick, Boston, MA
Rep. Daniel B. Winslow, Boston MA
Ms. Carole Cornelison, Mass Division of Capital Asset Management
Mr. John O’Donnell, Mass Division of Capital Asset Management
Mr. Mark Baldi, Mass DEP CRO-BWSC
Mr. Frank Ricciardi, Weston & Sampson
Ms. Elise Leduc, Charles River Watershed Association
Medfield Town Administration (M. Sullivan, K. Trierweiler)
Medfield Town Selectmen (O. Peterson, A. Thompson, M. Fisher)
Medfield State Hospital Environmental Review Committee
