Boston, Massachusetts 02129 Telephone: (617) 242 -6000
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
4 MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY Charlestown Navy Yard 100 First Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02129 Telephone: (617) 242 -6000 April 24, 1989 Board of Directors John P. DeVillars, Chairman John J. Carroll Robert J. Ciolek William A. Darity Lorraine M. Downey Anne Bingham, Esq. Anthony V. Fletcher Charles Lyons Office of General Counsel Joseph A. MacRtchlDepartment of Environmental Quality Engineering Samuel G. MygattEniomtaQult Thomas E. Reilly, Jr.One Winter Street Walter J. Ryan, Jr. Boston, MA 02108 Executive Director Restriction Paul F.Levy RE: Fore River Staging Area Land-Use Dear Ms. Bingham: I wish to acknowledge receipt of a revised draft of the land-use restriction document, which you sent to MWRA by telecopier on Friday afternoon. We would like an opportunity to discuss this draft further with you and with the MWRA's Fore River Advisory Task Force before the document is made available for broader public distribution and comments. The document you sent us contains several substantive changes from the one which Gary Wilson of MWRA forwarded to you on January 10 (that draft was labelled December 20, 1988). Chief among these is the reintroduction of language excluding uses of the site for other than commercial or industrial purposes. This language appears to be overly restrictive. Our November 20, 1988 draft called for all activities at the site (as these are defined in the Procedures) to be performed in accordance with the Proce- dures. This we thought sufficiently addressed DEQE's concern. S - Anne Bingham, Esq. April 24, 1989 Page 2 I would look forward to discussing the draft land-use restriction with you and MWRA legal staff at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, Christopher J. Barnett Technical Manager CJB/Ajp cc: Marilyn Hotch Steven Lipman Sharon Gerolamo Karen Stromberg 46 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION NOTES MASS DEQE/NERO/DSHW SITE REFERENCE Ih0 ol-&clral DDATE inviCS SUBJECT k/eijfnnU re Rver TIME FROM (Yin 7(ono REPRESENTING DMEO Le<e D'Jhr. REPRESENT:NG DPL frsi-- 56F-'36C-qijI DISCUSSION Ms. 0she<t will be doinq a su of the etmotcRIv dhst n,wh> nouds e J I I prfom7 iMidussoled nl/ls n1l/grease , Mot 6 Fthe S Imhn rii e. 3:r0, .f nnmCS "MILuine 2eektin d hei Off7&e2, als planninq h dc Yamphng in t) h-e Wirmnd 2(re R1iver. I requsted ha mrnpin of wakr and ryanne.r I',f, in 4he anea at Ren DOwnamics be jhnod, r 0nfrumnanh (bsre ', D ACTION REQUIRED/REFERRED TO Ms Lshra inrhohed Shw Would syc&i ey s s Pcwi it n see IF t 001t eand the p .P OF hcir |Nw K iin inude n more noneentrakd eft in 4e arPa. to L0m %rCmcs. T of- rccl 10 lA6t; wd-h them ft cevelop n. Nork pwl) DANIEL S.GREENBAUM L Kommn usea/4 diae Commissioner SUMMARY OF DEQE'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN AND MWRA'S CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES Fore River Shipyard (Formerly General Dynamics) Disposal Site 97 East Howard Street, Quincy In response to a petition filed by the East Braintree Civic Association, the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) has designated the Fore River Shipyard disposal site a Public Involvement Plan site, pursuant to thE !.assacnus~tts Ctnir~nnc P MCV2'tn 2 ,uC 4-C r:Eea........ the Department prepared a draft Public :nvolvement Plan vhich established a process to inform the public of activity on the site and obtain comments on proposed remedial response actions. Comments on the draft Public Involvement Plan were received from January 26 until February 16, 1989. During this same time period, three other site- related documents were made available for public comment, specifically: MWRA's "Procedures Associated with Construction Activities at the Fore River Staging Area"; and General Dynamics' "Feasibility Study, Subsurface Soil/Oil Plume Area", and "Evaluation of Petroleum-Related Contamination in Area 5/Section E". During the public comment period, the Department received a number of comments on the draft Public Involvement Plan and MWRA's Construction Procedures. No comments were received on either of General Dynamics' reports. This document identifies the comments received and how they are being addressed. (Note: Comments, exactly as submitted, are indicated by C: and DEQE's response by R:). GENERAL COMMENTS 1. C: Our Demand for full site remediation is still not met. :ndu-trial cleanup has no rritten star.cards to which we could assure the level of cleanup. R: DEQE agrees that there are still areas of the site which have not been fully remediated. These areas are now being investigated or are areas where remediation has started. Those areas include: subsurface soil contamination associated with the floating oil plume (Phase III), oil contaminated soil in Area 5E (Phase II), and the Southeastern Boundary (Phase :T). The Department is also still evaluating the need for 2. remediation in the areas where long term monitoring of groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents or mineral spirits was conducted. Recovery of the contaminated groundwater associated with the floating oil plume is also on-going. Some areas have been determined to have met DEQE's requirements for remediation. These include several areas where surface soils stained with oil or contaminated with PCBs were removed, to the extent feasible. The Department determines cleanup levels by examining a number of factors. One of these factors is future use of the site. Since DEQE's initial involvement in 1986, General Dynamics, and later !WRA, assured the Department that the site's use would remain industrial/commercial in nature. Given such an assurance, DEQE outlined the requirements for cleanup in a letter dated September 20, 1987. Under this approach, some low levels of contamination will remain on-site. It is, therefore, necessary that a land-use restriction be put in place to prevent development of the site as something other than industrial or commercial, "ithout DEQE's approva . It is also necessar' ha c procedures be put in place to protect public health and the env:ronment, since development of the site may result in the disturbance of hazardous materials. Remediation to a level that would be acceptable for use as residential property is not appropriate for this site, given its present and proposed future use. It is, however, clearly indicated in the Department's September 20, 1987 letter that if the site's use were to change for any reason, the Department will have to re-evaluate its cleanup requirements. There are no written "standards", industrial or otherwise, for site remediation. DEQE looks at each site on a case by case basis in order to establish cleanup requirements. 2. C: Asbestos in buildings on site is not being removed. R: Prior to the sale of the Shipyard, General Dynamics removed or repaired damaged or exposed materials containing asbestos in exterior locations to prevent potential asbestos releases to the environment. Soil samples were taken across the site and no asbestos was detected. The Department of Labor and Industry, Department of Public Health, the occupational Safety and Health Administration and DEQE's Division of Air Quality Control (DAOC) all share some responsibility for regulating asbestos. The first three agencies are primarily concerned with worker exposure to asbestos. The DEQE DAQC's Asbestos Program regulates asbestos removal, building renovation and demclition. Any future work of this type requires prior written notification to DAQC. It is DEQE's understanding that the future occupants of a particular building on the Shipyard will be responsible for asbestos removal within that building, be it MWRA, the Mass Shipbuilders or any other future lessee. Under M.G.L. c. 21E, DEQE's Waste Site Cleanup Program is responsiale for overseeing remedial response 0 0 3. actions at sites where there has been a release, or there is a threat of a release, of oil or hazardous materials to the environment. If the asbestos in the Shipyard is not being released to the environment and it is not posing a threat of release (i.e., it is not friable), it does not fall under the jurisdiction of c. 21E. 3. C: Concerns over the Fore River as addressed in the NUS report and supported by us as to the effect on marine life and humans appear to be dismissed. We remind all parties this is a recreational river for boating and swimming. R: General Dynamics has done assessment of the risks posed by the site. It examined the potential impacts of contamination from the Shipyard to human health and the environment. The assessment indicated that the site presents minimal risks to the Fore River. *her '-ayre a larCe: CULStIOn cf the general cuality of the water :n th river. Further information on Quincy Bay can be found in a study done by Metcalf & Eddy for EPA Region 1, titled: "Assessment of Quincy Bay Contamination, Summary Report, June 1988". In addition, DEQE's Division of Water Pollution/Westboro Office is planning to sample the Fore River this summer, as part of its annual river basin survey. The Division of Hazardous Waste will work with the Westboro Office to develop the sampling plan for the river. This report will also be made available to the public. 4. C: The southerly portion of the site with respect to levels of cyanides, toxic metals, and other unidentified materials remains and in fact is upgraded in level of urgency to be addressed since this now will be the site of the permanent facility is not addressed to the degree we would like and does not carry the importance and significance given it by NUS. R: The Department considers the Southeastern Boundary an area of significant contamination and required that General Dynamics conduct additional investigation to define the extent and level of contamination.