-.--i ,'~ < ~ \ - .-l. I~ ~ -
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
" • The Back River Committee Hingham/Weymouth 41 Massasoit Rd. N. Weymouth, MA C2!91 (1;17) 337-3896
Karen Stromberg. Public Involvement Coordinator DE? Northeast Regional Office Site .A.sses::>ment and Cleanup Section Scope for Work 10 Commerce Way for Weymouth ~leck Site Woburn. MA »1801 DEP Case # 3-1361 June 22.1992
Dear Karen Stromberg.
Members of Ine Back River Committee of Weymouth and Hingham have careft:lly rcviewp.d the draft of the Public Involvement Plan for the Weymouth Neck Lardfill disposal site for lantosca. We find a number of flaws. Many of the misstatemerl!'; weie refuted by us before. but as they have been repeated we are objecting to [r,em aoa:n On page 1, ( par. 4) it is stated that Eastbay is a 27 acre site. On page 3. (par. 2) it is stated that currently the site is comprised of 27 acres at low tide. Eastbay Goes r.ot J'N;', that area to low tide. The deed on record at Dedham states 20.38 acres ato\ (0' rr:e
On page 2. (par. 3). a desc,ir::tion of the wastes left by the Brad!ey Fertilizer ane:: Arr:erican Agriculture Chem'cai Company mentioned incidental spills of Sl,;/fLlric ac'c. The acid bUilding was bur'1t :0 the ground on Oct 30.1946 and when the leaden 'iaTS melted thousa.nds of ga/:ons 01 sulferic acid ignited. i have many newspaper articles about the fire wricr was of such magnitude that it was seen 1rom Bostor stlores. Copies of some (1f the many news items aie included here.(EnClosure 4) ,lames lhat destroyed !~e aei::! r:lan! were aiscribed as 2112 acres wi·-::e and 200 ft hlgh.-i-~e aCId spii!s seem fa, from incidental. Huge leaa Ii;,ed vats contair.ed ;he aClo. I f!7samcher! ;he his:ory of the lea::: I:ned :Uliding aT (he Hingham Li::rar'j, 'lJr.~re they hav;~ ::>n micr')fi!m three very old almanacs issued by the Bradley ;=~rti!izer Plant. The 31rnanacs were filled with i"lstOry of the piant includinG a descriptio~ G'I' the iead lined acid .cui/ding cue') as: i'lr<;G enormo .... s chambers each one: 5·j ,t :cnq. 20 It hit;I' 3.:",0 2!:: It. , --:J.. -2- wd. and each lined with 150 tons of lead. (copies of pages from the 1890 almanac are included with their transcriptionfor easier reading as enclosure #5). Is it any wonder that unusually large amount~ad were found in the soil some distance from the fire?(16,OOO mg/Kg wherr5is accePt~ In the remedial plan presented by lantosca, it was stated that if any Ctlemicals oT unexceptable levels were found they would be removed and properly disposed. However that area was simply covered with plastic, when complaints were made.When the plastic blew loose some top soil was added. A copy of the proper coverage for a much lesser contaminated public dump in Quncy is enclosed.(enclosure #6). Lead sludge was not used in the feltilizer as the scope stated.
On page 2 (Par.3) it is stated that 'groundwater is not used as a drinking water source'. As this may be true now it has not always been so. North Weymouth had a very prolific well on a triangle of land near Neck Stand Rt. 3A which was used in the 1960ies. The state condemmed the well (Weston & Sampson Rpt. pg 18 enclosure #7) because of the high nitrate level in the well water which causes deformaties in unborn babies. The Weymouth Conservation thought that the contamination, in an area that had never been farmed, must have come from the Bradley Fertilizer Plant., working its way down the river into a stream that ran under 3A and into the well watershed. An earlier fire on the site of the Bradley Fertilizer Plant started when a ship from Chili, carrying 400 tons of nitrate exploded. The explosion blew apart seven cottages hundreds of feet from the ship. With that amount of nitrates in the water it is small wonder that some could find its way into the well. Maxium Goudy, husband of Weymouth Chairman of Board of Selectmen, said that when he was stationed at the Weymouth Neck Nikie Site in the 1950ies, that on one hot night some of the servicemen jumped in for a swim. Their skin stung and burned and they all had a red rash.They went in swimming from the same area as the ship explosion.(See enclosure #8 for well and #9 for boat- fire). An old insurance map is also enclosed to show the approximate distance from the wharf to the houses that were leveled to show the distance that the nitrate was spread. High amounts of arsenic were used in the manufacture of fertilizer. I read that Napoleon's remains were going to be examined because they believed that he may have died of arsenic poisoning and as arsenic never dissipates it would still be found as it could be on the Eastbay 18 acre site. 2,600 mg/Kg was found by Cert. Eng, on 11/88 when on Iy a level o~ 0.05 is pas~bIe. Copy of those tests are included. ______~ '7 , '/ . On Page 11 (par. 1 ) the water system referred to is incorrect. I believe the Richardi Reservoir and Upper and Great Ponds refer to the drinking water system of Braintree, Hobrook and Randolph not Weymouth. We both have bodies of drinking water called Great Pond. but Weymouth has no Richardi or Upper Pond.
I found grave problems when asked to join an on site review of Eastbay with the Army Corp of Engineers(Robert Mabb) at his request. Walking along below high tide line from Webb State Park I saw what easy access it was to a highly dangerous spot on Eastbay's site. Part of the old ChemicallFeltilizer Plant was on a wharf pertruding over the water. Tides run beneath it daily. The wharf is coverered with sod. Grass and weeds and some small trees have grown on top over the years. Huge hole from rotting timbers making it a clear and present danger to all not aware of the holes. The -3- scope of work map (pg.3) shows this hole ridden shakey 120 year wharf as a potential parking area.1 am including the two pages of photos of that area as it was stated in the amended version that there was no immediate danger on the site. lantosca is aware of the problem but the map is still included in the scope. The approach to this wharf is so easy. Children play in near by Webb Park daily. Boaters told our committee recently that they saw children fishing off the end of the wharf. Beams are falling into the water endangering boaters. It is against the law to erect a fence along the waterfront. ACE told lantosca to tear down fence posts. The wharf should be dismantled at once.(See enclosure #10)
I am enclosing a portion of the 1980 FIRM Map from FEMA. The updated version put out in 1989 appeared slightly more restrictive than the 1980 map. As Mr lantosca purchased the site for Eastbay in 1985 he could have used the 1980 map, so that is the one we will use as comparison. The portion of land where town houses are located in the map included on page 3 of the scope is in the floodplain. We know when land is in a floodplain, especially a hazardous waste site how disruptive building can be to near-by clam beds, if a storm took place during construction. (Enclosure #11). Mr. McGuire of the Boston FEMA office said that the most up to date Flood plain map must be used at the time of application.
The high amount of copper found on the site (Certified Engineering 11188 found 390 mg/kg when 1 mg/kg is acceptable) are at dangerous levels. Dr Carl Pfeiffler, PHD, M.D., former director of the Princeton Bio Center in Stillman N.J., wrote in his book 'Mental and Element Nutrients'," Copper is an essential element for supporting life, but in excess it can be toxic. High dopamine, low histamine and high copper are biochemical defects common in schizophrenia." On a windy spit copper is present in the dust. Weymouth by-laws require a minumum of 10% green area per acre.
On page 11 (par.4) clams are mentioned. Comparing the very few clams tested, far two few in our estimation considering the lead containation in that area, we were appalled by the two comparisons. Recently the silt, in which clams live, was tested in Boston harbor about the same time the clams in Laundry Cove were tested. The silt was found to have unacceptabley high levels of toxic material.(See enclosure #12). Laundry Cove is behind lots 24 and 25. Clams from Laundry Cove were also compared to Boston Harbor clams and those from Gemantown (Quincy). Quincy had a major leak in the sewer system that crossed the clam flats on the way to moon island seweage plant. I was at a grant seminar and by chance heard how the state occationally give emergency grants out to correct a serious situation. The grant was given to Quincy to repair sewer pipes in the highly contaiminated clam beds. The two references are likened to a lawyer saying his client is no worse than two serial killers.
We find the method of arriving at risk assessment very frightening. Hazardous material was found in thousands of percents greater than acceptable levels in some places These were adveraged out with lesser borings (including some on the wharf).To say that the waste was buried in on-site, places full time residents in great danger. Why did you also stop at a level of the age of 70.A substantial portion of the residents of near by Weymouthport exceed this age level. Weymouth has about 10% of its population • •
-4- over the age of seventy and we hear that life expectancy is ever increasing. Older people are also at higher risk for breathing problems. Life on this windy spit should not be hampered by dangerous levels of toxics in the air at any age level. Residents of Weymouthport complained when continuous clouds of dust, when Eastbay construction was going on, prevented them from sitting on their balconies. It was also mentioned that construction workers would not be over aged 50. I think you will find that a large portion of workers are well beyond that age level. I recently talked to some construction workers and they do not quit at aged 50 but many continue to aged 65 and beyond.
In your risk assessment you did not mention visitors or neighbors. These two groups could be seriously affected by visiting or living next to a highly toxic area.
We also question Eastbays use of testing labs. Private citizen groups have told us that the State will not accept tests unless done at State Certified laboratories. The 1986 list did not include 'Certified Engineering', who were headlined last year for improper testing done in Hull. Officials from Stevens Analytical Laboratories, Eastbay's newest choice we understand, were recently jailed for improper testing at another site.
The Back River Committee believes that considering the extremely high levels of lead, arsenic,cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, antimony, thallium, selenium and zinc found in tests that the site is not fit for future building.
Sent in by: The Back River Committee of Hingham and Weymouth Barbara Johnson, Chairman 41 Massasoit Rd. N. Weymouth, MA 02191 (617) 337-3896 .-.
WEYMOUTH NECK LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE PRIORITY SITE - DEP CASE # 3-1361 WEYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SCOPE FOR PHASE II RISK ASSESSMENT OF WORK FOR THE WEYMOUTH NECK SITE, WEYMOUTH, MASS.
PREPARED BY
MARY F. TOOMEY, PAST OHAIRMAN WEYMOUTH-HINGHAM BACK RIVER OOMMITTEE JUNE 19, 1992 , .
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SCOPE FOR PHASE II RISK ASSESSMENT OF WORK FOR THE WEYMOUTH NECK SITE, WEYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS
I. HISTORY OF THE SITE The industrial history of the site indicates the following: * Its use for approximately 100 years as the site of the world's largest fertilizer company contaminated the site with the follow ing heavy metals: arsenic ( carcinogenic ) cadmium lead chromium ( carcinogenic) * Trace levels of volatile organic compounds alidlow'levels of dissolved metals were detected in the groundwater. * There was a localized area of soil contaminated with ethylbenzene • * Soils throughout the site were contaminated with significant levels of heavy metals. * Three enormous furnaces, used on site to manufacture sulfuric acid; were each constructed from approximately 150 tons of lead. Their destruction by a'major fire at the site may account, at least in par~ for the elevated amount of lead. * Underground storage of chemicals was mentioned in one history of the plant and accompanying plan. * Hundreds of leather scraps, used in the fertilizer manufacture, and soaked with arsenicJwere buried allover the site. * There was total on-site waste disposal on this site for nearly 100 years. * Demolished buildings, which mayor may not have contained asbestos, were buried on site.
* An u~derground tidal area, covered by the top of an old wharf, which in turn is covered by soil, runs under part of the property, and could be subjected to contamination from above. II. WHAT PREVIOUS TESTING HAS SHOWN * Soils throughout the site are contaminated with significant levels of heavy metals, particularly lead, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic. * Low levels of dissolved metals and trace levels of volatile organiC compounds are in the groundwater. 2.
* A localized area of soil was contaminated with ethylbenzene. * Results of soil analyzed while the Remedial Action Plan was in effect indicated greatlY increased contaminated levels than those previously documented. III.WHAT DOES THE MASS CONTINGENCY LAW ( 310 CMR 40.00 ) pOVIn POR ~MlSIH? . It requires a thorough.comprehensive.and comKlete investigation of the entire site in order to proteot heait • safety. public welfare. and the environment •
!!:. HA S THE MASS CO~NT~IEN%GE~NJCYmcLAiWiIl~1~OlCCMRiE!40;:].lOOmmB~E~E~N~S~TRfiI~C~TL=:.Y~A:ol:D:.;;-
In ~y opinion it has not been. and I submit the following reasons; * Testing at the site has been done randomly and sporadically over a period of 12 years. * Limited sampling has been done by as many as 6 different com panies. some of whom used selected data from previous studies.
* Vertical and horizontal testin~establishing the extent of the concentration of hazardous waste.1is incomplete. * Some sampling was apparently done in fill. and then averaged with heavily-contaminated soil. * Studies by some companies appear less than professional. All reports Should have been signed. dated. and validated. In some. quality assurance appears to be lacking. * Webb Company provided surficial samples only. although the company stated more work could be done. It must be noted also that Webb samples were analyzed at the Stevens Lab during a period when the company falsified other results. for which the company's president was recently jailed. This affects credibility. * Shellfish studies are inconclusive. according to Back River aqua tic toxicologist Robert Bentley ( See letter}. and MIT con sultant Professor Hynes ( See statement). * No recent teats were done on groundwater. although they would provide information concerning the mobility and extent of the contamination.
* There is no reference to the old wharf, co~er.d by soil. and punctured by holes. which may be allowing contamination to get into the tidal area below. * There is no reference to the effects of the V-6 Zone offshore. the A-4 Zone onshore. or the floodplain which might have the potential for spreading the oontamination. 3.
* Dur1ng the f1rst three years (85-87) proper superv1s1on from DEP seems to have been lack1ng, a s1tuat1on wh1ch helped to flaw the process. Wh11e the Remed1al Act10n Plan was in Effect * -., .---~-....--.' .. ~- "- .. .--..-,...... -~.-' ,--, ,-- ..--- 1. Test data was 1ncomplete for some samples. 2. No s011s were removed from the s1te}although sample test1ng appeared to 1nd1cate 1t should have been. 3. Pre-construct10n cond1t1ons were overlooked: - Arsenic-soaked scraps of leather rema1ned on the s1te 1n clear v1ew.
- Areas of red ~o11 could be seen. 4. Dur1ng the construct10n phase v101ent dust storms caused potent1ally-contam1nated s011 to blow 1n all d1rect1ons around the ne1ghborhood. This was aggravated by excavat10n, d1gg1ng, and the movement of s01l dur1ng dry and w1ndy cond1t1ons. These poss1ble prev10us effects on the popu lat10n 1n the area must be cons1dered 1n the r1sk study.
* The map 1ncluded 1n the scope, 1n my op1n1on, was not clear, and d1d not appear to be a clear copy of the map on f11e 1n Dedham.
OONCLUSION
In my op1n1on there has not yet been a thorough comprehens1ve 1nvest1gat1on of the Weymouth Neck Landf111 S1te as requ1red by the Mass Cont1ngenoy Law (310 OMR 40.00 ). Therefor~ the data 1s totally 1nadequate to prov1de the bas1s for any va11d r1sk assessment 1n regard to the future use of the land. v.
* A clear oopy of the off1c1al map of the property f11ed at Dedham should be used at all t1mes. * A careful gr1d, ut111z1ng the above map, and encompass1ng all 20 acres of the property should be prepared. * A m1n1mum of 20 tests per acre ( approx1mately one every 50 feet) should be done. Samples should be taken at surf1c1al levels, and then at 18 1nch levels to ground water. Th1s would prov1de a systemat1c and comprehens1ve 1nvest1gat1on of the ent1re acreage. Sp11t spoon samp11ng should be used. 4.
* Best available technology should be used. * Groundwater should be tested to determine the presence of contaminants and their mobility.
* There should be ~ averaging,as this preVents proper attention to badly contaminated places in need of remediation. * Quality assurance should be required for all work with pro perly dated. signed. and validated reports. A ohain of custody should be established and" split-spoon" testing used. * Explanation of method for attending to the " Old Wharf" ( for safety reasons U with proposed preventive measurel!l to prevent contamination from reaching the river and tidal are~should be included. * Two separate overlays should be prepared to indicate the following: 1. Environmental Data - presence of the estuary - mean high water line - V-6 Zone offshore - A-4 Zone onshore - extent of the floodplain ,- outline of old covered wharf with tidal flow beneath 2. Proposed development for residential housing plan Indicating the new plan to be presented for future develop ment for residential housing
CONCLUSION Only in this way can we have a proper and adequate data baseJ whioh will enable us to characterize and evaluate the risk of harm the site possesses to health. safety. public welfare. and the environment. VI. THE ENVIROllMEJ'UL RISlt.S A.The Mass Contingenoy Law (310 CHa 40.00 ) requires a thorough. comprehensive. and oomplete investigation of the entire site in order to protect health. safety. public welfare. and the environment. B. Treatment in the Scope " Environmental risks have been addressed by DEP ( 1980 and 1991) and found not to be significant." In this manner the environment which is protected by the Contingency Law. is summarily dismissed This statement and its oonolusion are disputed by Professor HYnes of MIT and also by Robert Bentley. aquatic toxicologist for the 5.
Baok River Committee. ( Please see separate submissions.) c. Environmental Significanoe ot the Area The Back River Estaury is an ACEC area whose waters are classified as SA by the state of Massachusetts, and whose quality cannot be degraded. Should soil near the river be excavated or disturbed, it would appear to be an impossibility that the estuary and its shell fish beds not receive contamination fr~fugitive contaminated dust. Also during heaTY rainstorms, since the flow is toward the river, it would seem sensible to assume that run-off would also reaoh the estuary, taking contaminated soil with it. The Back River's Resource Receptors to be protected include these: * 31 species of finfish * flounder and smelt fisheries * eel and herring runs, the latter having at least 800,000 fish * a large lobster industry ( Apri11-Nov.1 (50 lobster boats are quartered in Baok River with hundreds of traps) * shellfish industry, commercial and recreational * Wildlife Refuge ( State designated) * Wildlife including migratory shore birds, egrets, osprey, Great Blue Heron, hawks, many species of rare and valuable birds, including the Loggerhead Shrike, the Oommon Tern, and the American Bittern. * The New England Wildlife Oenter, located on the Hingham side of the river, and which is a researoh, educational, and re habilitative organization, which will eventually survey the area for bird life. * Wildlife Habitat in the area To what extent will the release of hazardous materials affect the above resources? * Potential contamination from fugitive dust when the area abutting the estuary and the shellfish beds is excavated and soil is moved around. * Potential oontamination from run-off when rains flood the aref adjacent to the estuarYJand soil 1s moved. * Oontamination from run-off when flooding exits through an emergenoy outlet into the river during excavation and buildinl period. * Potential collapse or removal of the old Wharf, presently oovered by SOil, sending oontamination into the tidal area below. OONCLUSION This marine estuarine environment, so valuable to the state as a nursery of the offshore fisheries, and supporting such valuable lobster and olam industries, as well as recreational • • 6.
fishing, must be evaluated as an important receptor. Its wildlife alone (5 valuable to the public in quality of life, as persons use the parks surrounding the river. Th e entire Back River estuarine system must be protecte4-, along with its habitat."V), c071+a:)'f1jnGt~i0I1 must "'n+er the I'1a.f'I'YJe to"" cV7t\";n' - VII. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ( Scope 7.0 )
Uncertainty can be associated with the following: * Adequacy of the sampling plan * Use of data from previous investigations done throughout a 12 year period, and which may not accurately reflect current conditions at the site * synergistic effects, which have not been considered
* Use of averaging, which ~y prevent the most toxic sites from being remediated People at risk
* Some people have already been exposed to contamination by means of the fUgitive dust which was blowing around in veritable dust storms during the construction of the two buildings previously built. Weymouthport, whose residents have outdoor decks at all levels, was besieged by the dust, as were boaters, and pro bably users of adjacent Webb State Park. There are also out door pools at Weymouthport which are not enclosed, and may have received dust. Such persons involved previously should be placed in a separate category in the risk assessment. * Other persons at risk include Boatspeop1e going by the site Oommuters taking the commuter boat Lobstermen Shellf1 sh men Recreational fishermen Users of Webb State Park and Bouve Park across the river Retar'ed citizens who may be at the facility near the Henley B * There is also a risk for any person who might fall through the apertures in the top of the old wharf which is covered with soil and prevents one from seeing the tidal area below. This risk cannot be overlooked.
FINAL OONCLUSION The proposed scope for Phase II of the Weymouth Neck Site is sadly lacking in regard to the data base and the receptors which will be used in the proposed risk assessment. No such assessment should be started until the standards of the Mass Oontingency Law is adhered to in regard to a comprehensive investigation and assessment. /)7{~~ .9'k 60mnz0ru0eaM ~il!Ltl&5.'aC/'lti.~ g~~ff%aldfmd !TCunmvJ~ q;~ff !tWo %aid 160 YremonbJtreeb
WlUIam F. Weld rJlJoamv 02111 Governor David P. Forsberg SecretaIy David H. Mulligan Commisslonar
To: SUzarme Cemen, Director BEllA
From: Ngozi Ol~ef Toxi=logy Unit BEllA
Re: WeyIoouth Neck site Review-
Date: June 19, 1992
I have reviewed the materials suJ:mitted by Frien::is of Webb state Park am. Back River of weym:JUth; in addition I have also talked with Cecilia Dici= (resident) am. Pat Donahue of llEP-NERO. Marybeth Leblanc, DEP project manager will not be available until MJroay. '!he citizen's group requested om to camrnent on whether the sc:x:pe of 1NOrk for the risk assessroont is sufficient to address the public health =ncerI'lS. '!he following are my carmnents:
'!he envirol'llD2l1tal sanpling results which will fonn the basis for the exposure assessroont segment of risk assessroont do not seem to have been =Uected in a OCXI1prehensive enough lIIaIUler to be truly representative. Different sanplirq epi..c:o:les were =rrlucted to fulfil different requireroonts of the time. DEP acknowledges that =ntamination exists at higher levels deep>r in the soil. It is inportant to aOCClllllt for =ntamination at all possible soils depths so that a true evaluation can be done. Representative characterization of various depths should be done f= in=rporation into the risk assessroont.
'!he sc:x:pe of 1NOrk lists only six metals as the "dlemicals of interest". It is inportant to ensure that this is so by better site characterization in case other =ntaminants e.g. organics am. VOCs are present. SUch site characterization is also essential in guidirq the ki1rl am. anount of materials which should be used in cawing.
'!he scope of 1NOrk foalSes on residents of the new developnent, workers, am. children (trespassers) as the potential exposure receptors. Neighbors of the site claim that they have been historically exposed to site =ntaminants. It may be prudent to in=rporate their experience into the risk assessment process at this initial stage. ~ I will infonn appropriate DEP staff of our willin;lness to review any future risk assessment that may be conducted for this site.
NIO:bd =: Pat Donahue DEP-NEID / Marybeth Leblanc DEP-NEID v FRIENDS OF WEBB STATE PARK AND BACK RIVER. INC. 668 Pleasant Street East Weymouth. Massachusetts 02189
June 19, 1992
Ms. Karen Stromberg Division of Hazardous Waste Department of Environmental Protection 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801
RE: Document Captioned Phase II - Risk Assessment Scope of Work for the Weymouth Neck Site, DEP Case #3-1361
Dear Ms. Stromberg:
The overpowering issue presented by the captioned Scope of Work is whether it is adequate to achieve the critical objective of Phase II - Comprehensive Site Assessment in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan's purpose to protect the public health, safety, welfare and the environment. Phase II's objective, is to provide the sound, accurate data necessary to develop the remedial responses that will accomplish the Massachusetts Contingency Plan's purpose. It is elementary that if the data provided by Phase II site assessment underestimates the risks, the remedial responses will be insufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare and the environment.
This would be especially alarming and appalling in the case of the Weymouth Neck Site. It is a site that has been determined to be a Priority Disposal Site. This means, according to M.G.L.c. 21E's definition of such a site, that it constitutes not simply a hazard but a substantial hazard to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment. It is a site with respect to which DEP has issued a Notice of Responsibility to the owner. The site was the location of the largest chemical fertilizer plant in the world, a plant that disposed all of its chemical and other wastes on site.
The site is adjacent to the Weymouth Back River, which has been designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. It is a site on which its owner proposes to construct housing, a building containing 96 condominium units -2-
and 38 townhouses. The site is adjacent to two multi condominium unit buildings (East Bay Condominiums, which in fact were constructed on and occupy a portion of the Site,
Locations II and III A) and the multi-condominium unit buildings of Weymouthport. It is also adjacent to and bordered by the Weymouth Back River which is the location of extensive recreational boating and the route of commuter boats to and from Boston. Northwest of the Site and abutting Location I of the site is the Weymouth Fore River and shellfish beds. Abutting and northerly of the site is Webb State Park, a heavily used recreational area. The populace in the larger area in which the Site is located has been found to possess an elevated cancer rate by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
These characteristics of the Site are highly pertinent in evaluating and determining the adequacy of the captioned Scope of Work to achieve its objective in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. They impress with the risk presented by the Site, in terms both of the contaminating material on the Site and the wide range of receptors, human and enVironmental, exposed to the material. They impress further with the fact that the risk to receptors has to be carefully assessed at several periods of time: prior to any further construction, during any construction and after construction and the housing units constructed have been populated.
The captioned Scope of Work is, in a phrase, seriously deficient. It is deficient when measured against the mandates of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan Regulations (310 CMR 40:545 et ~ themselves. Its deficiency becomes more pronounced when measured against the characteristics of the Site and what is known about it as disclosed by documents and studies in the DEP file in the Weymouth Public Library.
The documents and studies raise a profound question of whether protection of public health, safety, welfare and the environment permits the construction of any additional housing on the Site. D.E.Q,E. alluded to this question when in 1980 it warned that "The site must be recognized as an abandoned solid waste landfill. Future plans for its use must take this into account." It is also raised in the concluding paragraph of the report (attached as Addendum A to this letter) of an expert, MIT Professor H. Patricia Hynes, retained by the Friends of Webb State Park and Back River ("Friends") to review documents and studies in the DEP file at the Weymouth Public Library. In the concluding paragraph, she states: "Overall, I think it is not advisable to develop -3-
a former industrial site on which waste was disposed and buried into a residential site."
The question, no matter how substantial and important, will not be further explored in this letter of comment, because it may be regarded as beyond the scope of comment on the adequacy of the captioned Scope of Work. The presence of the question and the owner's plans for construction of housing, however, demand a Phase II Scope of Work that assures sound, accurate data for developing necessary remedial responses. Nothing less should be approved by DEP nor accepted by the public.
1. Perhaps the most serious deficiency of the captioned Scope of Work is its exclusive reliance on "conclusions provided in the various site assessment reports prepared for the site" (quoting from the Scope of Work) for identification of the extent of the hazardous materials on the site (including type of contaminants, media in which located and concentrations). Exclusive reliance on those conclusions does not conform to the purpose and scope prescribed for Phase II - Comprehensive Site Assessment in Section 40:545(1) of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan Regulations in which the purpose and scope is described as "a systematic investigation and assessment of the entire disposal Site". The very title of the captioned Sope of Work, Phase Li ~ Risk Assessment, betrays the absence of the mandated comprehensive site assessment. The assessment reports that have been prepared for the Site are insufficient identification of hazards.
a. Professor H. Patricia Hynes in her report (Attachment A to this letter) states that the requirements of Section 40:545(3) relating to the scope of hazard investigation) are "not achieved by 18 surficial samples on 20 to 27 acres of an industrial site which, after closing operations, has had subsequent excavation and disposal." She states further that "a much more precise delineation of soil contamination needs to be done."
She recommends in her report that a sampling plan be developed utilizing a grid system. Each sample should be to the depth of the proposed construction excavation at the site of the sample. The number of samples taken -4-
should be sufficient to identify sites of high level of toxic metals (hot spots). She says sampling every 50 by 50 feet would give an "excellent definition of surface contamination."
The Friends would add that the grid should use the official, correct survey map of the Site, the one on file at the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds. The map that is part of the captioned Scope of Work document is not correct. It does not conform to the official survey map. In addition, the map that exists of the layout of the fertilizer plant should be used as an overlay, as a guide to likely spots of elevated contamination. b. Testifying further to the serious deficiency resulting from the captioned Scope of Work's exclusive reliance on the reports previously prepared is D.E.Q.E.'s Notice of Respons ibility dated September to the Owner dated September 14, 1989. The Friends do not understand how ~ could approve the Scope £t Work in light £t the Notice.
On page 3 of the Notice, after describing three questions and concerns D.E.Q.E. had regarding conformance (by Owner and his representatives) to the 1985 RAP, D.E.Q.E. states:
"In addition to the issues raised above, an analysis of site information acquired since 1985 has led the Department ~ guestion the adeguacy of the parameters used in formulating the 1985 RAP and, in general, the adequacy of the site assessment conducted to date. The results of soil analyses conducted during implementation of the RAP have displayed greatly increased contaminant levels when compared to those provided in the RAP. For example, RAP testing for total lead showed the highest levels being below 2,400 mg/kg. During implementation of the plan, the highest total lead levels were 21,300 mg/kg, 16,780 mg/kg, 16,000 mg/kg, 14,390 mg/kg and 12,450 mg/kg". (Emphasis supplied). -5-
2. The exposure assessment part of the captioned Scope of Work is seriously deficient as well as the hazard identification part.
a. Professor Hynes comments in her report on the considerable exposure risk - and its under estimation in the Scope of Work- of young residents, ages 6 months to 5 - 6 years of age, of the housing proposed to be constructed on the Site, eating dirt and dust. 2 Hours a day for 140 days a year is too low a frequency of exposure to be assumed for these receptors. A more conservative assumption - one assuming a greater frequency of exposure - is required because of the devastating damage to health among that age group of ingestation or inhalation of lead and other toxic metals that are contaminants on the Site. The damage is cumulative in that the body's lead level increases over time as additional lead is inhaled or ingested.
b. Professor Hynes also mentions the under estimation of the exposure risk to trespassers in her report. The exposure frequency assumed for them in the Scope of Work is a very low 1 hour per day for 84 days of the year. One infers that this low assumption results from the Scope of Work's statement, in describing exposure profiles, that Locations III B Iv, V and VI of the Site are fenced and guarded 24 hours per day. In fact, there is a large breach in the fence near the Back River which is accessible by a road beginning opposite the Henley Building. Those locations are also easily accessible from the wide beaches of the Back River. And there is rrQ guarding at these access locations.
c. The exposure assessment provided in the Scope of Work does not take into account and make provision for the extended period that likely will occur before any housing construction gets underway on Locations III B thru VI. The owner must obtain a number of permits, a lawsuit in the Courts over his Weymouth Planning Board special permit must be resolved, and housing demand and financing must improve before construction may be expected to commence. During this period, -6-
trespassers will be exposed to contaminants in soil and dust and human receptors in the condominium complexes adjacent to the Locations, using Webb State Park and passing by in boats in the Back River will be exposed to contaminants in dust.
d. Nor does the Scope of Work provide for any exposure assessment for those human receptors during construction, when windblown dust may be expected to be intense. The excavation and earthmoving that will occur during construction underscores the need for sampling to the depth of proposed excavation where it will occur, as mentioned in 1 a. above. A compelling case can be made that because of the likely lengthy delay before construction commences and the contaminated dust arising during excavation and earthmoving that complete clean up of the Locations III B thru VI should be required before any construction commences. The violation of and non conformance with the 1985 RAP documented in the DEP file only reinforces the case. The Friends urge DEP at the appropriate time to require complete clean-up of hazardous materials on and in the Site before construction goes forward.
3. The documents and studies in the DEP file do not provide comfort that the testing of samples taken at the Site and incorporated in the reports on which the captioned Scope of Work will rely is reliable. They create a strong suspicion, if not an inference, that the testing is to an appreciable extent unreliable.
4. The Scope of Work's proposal to base Exposure Point Concentrations "on calculated average (arithmetic mean) for contaminant concentrations" is not appropriate for the Site and like other deficiencies of the Scope of Work will operate seriously to underestimate risks. The Scope of Work states that the calculated average methodology is required by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. This requirement is not apparent to the Friends on review of the Plan. Whatever may be the case, the development of appropriate remedial responses in the subsequent phase of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan demands that the high level of lead and other -7-
toxic metal contaminants at certain locations at the Site not be diluted for risk assessment purposes by low or even trace levels at other locations. Averaging, depending on the way it is done (and it is open to manipulation), may result in hazard values of considerably less than 50% of the contaminant hazard present at any particular location.
5. The Scope of Work is deficient in its proposal not to provide any assessment of risk to the environment, violating the mandate of subsection 3(g) of 40:545. The Scope of Work justifies this omission on "the determination by the DEP (March 25, 1991) that the site is not impacting environmental receptors in the site area". Professor Hynes discusses and refutes the Scope of Work's justification for the omission in Attachment A to this letter. She finds, in fact, that the "use of the DEP clam and sediment analysis and conclusions to be a misrepresentation of the data". She describes the risks to human and marine receptors that will be undercalculated or not assessed at all.
In addition, the Scope of Work fails to acknowledge two (2) critical characteristics of the Site. Perhaps they were not known to the author of Scope of Risk. These two (2) characteristics are that Location III B thru VI are a Flood Plain and the surge and velocity of the waters of the Back River estuary are classified V-6. These characteristics mean that the Site is exposed to flooding, washing contaminants into the Back River and not inconceivably leaving deposits of soil with a high level of contaminants on the surface of the Site. As the Scope of Work stands, these risks and their consequences will go unassessed.
This letter began with statement of the overpowering issue presented by the captioned Scope of Work: whether it is adequate to achieve Phase II's objective in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan purpose to protect the public health, safety, welfare and the environment. For the reasons advanced and discussed, including and especially those presented in Professor Hynes' report, it is inadequate; the objective will not be achieved. The Scope of Work must be substantially revised to provide for a comprehensive assessment of the Site incorporating such matters as a sampling plan, exposure assumptions, and an environmental assessment consistent with the recommendations in and/or -8-
overcoming the deficiencies noted in this letter including Professor Hynes' report. The Friends of Webb State Park and Back River look to DEP to fulfill its responsibility and duty to require a Phase II Scope of Work that assures the sound, accurate data necessary for the full protection of the public health, safety, welfare and the environment.
Very truly yours,
FRIENDS OF WEBB STATE PARK AND BACK RIVER
BY:~~~~~~~~T Henry . Dunker, Presid nt
4 1.56 " .. Attachment A to Friends Letter DUSP Department of Room 3-411 Phone 617-253- 5196 Urban Studies and Massachusetts Telex 921473 MIT CAM Planning Institute of Technology
Cambridge Massachusetts 02139 USA
June 17, 1992
Mr. Henry T. Dunker President, Friends of Webb state Park and Back River 44 Bradmere Road North Weymouth, MA 02191
Re: Review of Documents for weymouth Neck site in the DEP File at the Weymouth Public Library
Dear Mr. Dunker:
The evaluation of key studies and site documents in the DEP file at the Weymouth Public Library is organized by document and followed by an overall assessment of the adequacy of studies and proposed studies for the Weymouth Neck site.
1. DEP analysis of Weymouth Neck - Upper Neck Cove shellfish and sediment data, March 25, 1991.
Comment
The comparison of met~ls in sediments and soft shelled clams from upper Neck Cove with those of representative areas in Boston Harbor does not answer the question of whether local aquatic life is contaminated from the waste site in question. The state report implies that the source of contamination in Upper Neck Cove is the same as that in Boston Harbor because concentrations of certain metals were not significantly different. This conclusion could not be drawn without a study of the patterns of contaminant migration in both the water column and sediments from Boston Harbor. Further, the fact that concentrations of Cr and Ni were significantly less in Upper Neck Cove clams could be used to draw the opposite conclusion. Finally, given the widely acknowledged pollution of Boston Harbor, the finding that concentrations of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Zn, and Pb in soft shelled clams in Upper Neck Cove are similar to those in clams in Boston Harbor is significant for food chain concerns. Comparing levels of metals in Upper Neck Cove clams to~evels set by FDA for food consumed would be more helpful from a risk perspective.
Limited stUdies by GZ.'< have found that "groundwater was contaminated by low concentrations of dissolved metals: and soils are contaminated with significant levels of metals: (DEP Notice of ResponsibiLi~y letter to Mr. Iantosca, September 14, 1989). We could expect, then, a continuing (albeit low) source of metals · ' .. .>'
Page 2
contamination from the site, via groundwater, to Upper Neck Cove. The Phase II Risk Assessment Scope of Work does not address risk to local marine environment from the buried waste, nor to local people from recreational clamdigging/eating.
In particular, I find IEP's use of the DEP clam and sediment analysis and conclusions to be a misrepresentation of the data (Phase II - Risk Assessment Scope of Work, January 13, 1992). IEP states that "the six metals that have been identified in the soil at this site have not been detected at concentrations above background levels in sediment samples from an adjacent river or in biological samples." They then use this misstatement to eliminate environmental receptors from the risk assessment required in Phase II. Boston Harbor sediment and clams are not background levels for those of Upper Neck Cove. Rather one polluted environment (Upper Neck Cove) has been compared with another one nearby (Boston Harbor) and found to be comparable for a number of metals. Eliminating environmental receptors from risk assessment then allows the consultant to avoid calculating the human health risk from a resident eating clams or other marine life dug or caught in the Weymouth Neck site, which will result in an undercalculation of health risk. It also eliminates assessing risk to the local marine life of contaminated groundwater from the site and contaminated dust and dirt blowing into the cove from excavation, construction, and routine use of the site.
2. Phase II - Risk Assessment Scope of Work
Comment The worst case scenarios (behaviors of certain age groups) have been ignored in this 3cope of Work:
a. Current trespassers who use dirt bikes and motor bikes which destroy vegetation and churn up soil and inhalable dust.
b. Future site residents. Children 6 months to 5-6 years of age are known to eat dirt and dust, now a widely recognized source of blood lead contamination where lead in soil and dust is high. The Web Engineering Interim Sampling Report (October 17, 1990) indicates that lead was found in 18 surficial soil samples, in concentrations ranging from 43 to 3360 mg/kg. This range (as well as the site history) indicates that hotspots of lead exist near the surface. Given the history of the site, it is entirely possible that higher levels of lead in soil exist that were not detected in the limited sampling done to date.
The MCP requirement for Phase II Comprehensive site Assessment (CMR 40.545 (3)(b» requires that "each area of release • • J ...
Page 3
of •.. hazardous material at the disposal site ... be investigated to establish ... the horizontal and vertical extent and concentrations of ... hazardous materials in all media ... " This is not achieved by 18 surficial samples on 20 to 27 acres of an industrial site which, after closing operations, has had subsequent excavation and disposal. Therefore, a much more precise delineation of soil contamination needs to be done before a risk assessment for young children playing in and eating dirt and dust at this site can be made. Massachusetts DEP and US EPA consider 500 mg/kg of lead in soil to be a level of concern for young children in residential areas. Some of the documents for this site refer to a gardening restriction, presumably because of metals contamination. A comparable restriction would be warranted for young children playing on soils over 500-1000 mg/kg of lead. If this site is to be developed for residential use, I would recommend that a sampling plan be developed to identify those areas with elevated levels of lead, subject to excavation, erosion, and traffic, and which may be played on by children. The depth of samples will be determined by the depth of excavation. The number of samples should be such that unique areas of high levels of metals (hot spots) can be identified for capping in place or removal. A grid over the site with composite surface samples collected every 50 by 50 feet, for example, would give an excellent definition of surface contamination.
Conclusion
The sampling of subsurface and surface soil and groundwater of the Weymouth Neck site done since 1984 has included a limited and random number of samples. If plans for the site were to cap it and annex it to Webb state Park, one could argue that additional sampling is not necessary. However, not enough samples have been taken to identify the extent of contamination which is needed in order to do a risk assessment for a residential site. In particular, the high levels of lead contamination in surface samples require a much more precise profile of soil contamination for future excavation, for bulldozing and moving soil on the site, for capping considerations, and for play areas for children. Overall, I think it is not advisable to develop a former industrial site on which waste was disposed and buried into a residential site. JIl&~ H. Patricia Hynes Adjunct Professor ~nvironmental Policy
HPH/kj ~~~.or.'lr.::JI "an.-'SlJrr'ln! .j, -Sur/('It1 • .,c~ Ofl:cel '( .. r",~ '-.1 r:': "':''''' -= .. ~ )'-1=1C~ OF T~E ,1,:"''''1 OF "'E"L rn '=':',\13,': :I '< ~'I'I ~ 3, :;.Jv;~ :;, '
Ms. Karen Stro~merg Public Involvement Coordinator DEI' - North'!'ast Regional CI:::fic:e site Assessment & Clean1lp section 10 Commerce Way Woburn, ~~ 01801
Dear M3. stromberg: The Weymouth Beard of ,H'!alt:h ,{ould li):.! to offer the !;"ollowing co:;o.ments on the Froposed Rifl}; Assessment Scope of WQL""}r" for DEP Cd~e NQ, 3'-1: 51 J. .. now.r:l as 'tTe)'!Ilou.th Neck 51:"a.
1. On page 1':', Richard.l }~eservoir :3 l.isted as a Weymout.h water supply, this :~s no-;;. c:or;:ect" We)'laQl:.ti") recelves its water fro:n Cre,3.t Fond, l·tt::.t:'tlans P:md and several municipal ·/'lells.
2 . On page 11, the dOClil1iEmt z'ef ers tel the placement of a deed rest.:iction on ga.rdaning on 1:he parcels in question. There has neen some concerns in 'Clls, past that such a deed restriction is :lot in plac:e at thE! Dedha.."Tl Registry. Please provide d copy of such a dE!e,d restriction in the t inal reper'C tc proyic.e hcl..:d copy elf its existence. Also, who will enfOl~CE' t.his deed n,striction? The condominium associa~:ic>n?
3. On page 11, it is s1:at:ed that imp,lc:ts on sediments in the estuarine system ha!; been elimina1:e,d from the scope based on previous work eval\;:attng shellfish in the area. The work done to investiga.· .. he impac:t of the shellfish on the site was not a <;onto'l",hensive analysis of effects to the entire est1.lar in.! ~;y~tE'm and d,~C1 not include the potential for erosicm. A risk aSlle,ssment which takes into account the po1:er,tial future E,rosion should be included. The East CCldst has been in an erosional transgression periOd for e~everal ~'E!ars "/'lith the major erosions occurring during stor!:'. p',riods. Therefore, it may be expected that: c:oast:line wi:.l migrate landward in'Co areas of concern. - - . ~ · '...:. I ,, __
/
··2-
Based on this, it is E!xpe<:ted that risks to the entire estuarine system sh·ould ~! evaluat.~d to facilitate the generation of " r.nm:pl •• tR 1'"1 ale ass,e,!;SlIIent. This should include risks to any benthic orga:~:lsms, fish, recreational areas etc. 4. On page 12, referen·oe to ,1 risk e'il'illuation to subsurface workers in Locations II arId IIA is made. will this risk a""8sS!ment talee into account prot,;.,~ti v('> "', oth i nq for the workers? If so, should not a ris:i( assessment for ci tizens in the area ()f tl1e work (lo1ho would not have prot9ctive clothing) l"~ evaluated? Thl'! Aame comment for construction activiti.~s 0]1 remainil1g lots would apply.
5. On page 7, dur ing t~8 di .. ,zuS! .. ion .o:E chemica Is of interest, several metals ;lre list·ad but no volatile compoundS which have been referenc,~d as having been found in limited amount!: on the 8it...008.. this lIIcaan th_¥ will not be evaluated or that based on further evaluation will be included or exclud.!d from the scope of risk 4SSeS$lllent?
6. The contamination on the ,site appe;lrs to be discontinuous based on previous samplin'3' a~ ~he "lita. ThiS! may bo exaggerated by the dil;continui ty i:~ sampling rounds, construction activiti,~s (i.e. moveJ::tent of soils) on the site and discontinuity in oonsulta:rltc involved. Tho scope references on page 14 the averagin';1 of results to provide an exposure point conceni" "tion. will averaging for surface soils be over th, - ,n~irep."rQol or by subdivided locations presently UI;edfor descriptive purposes? Please provide justification for this averaging. Averaging would seem to minimize exposure to higher sediment concentrations.
Any samp.Ling planned to provi·;1e informD.~ion for the rick assessment should take int.o account the discontinuity of monitoring at the site. :Such sampling should take place if needed to fill 1n any gaps in the available information. Any questionable data should :be discarded for the purpose of the risk. assessment. The m.ov-BlIIent of soils on sit. must be considered when eva1uat.in<~ Whether to use the data. 9'cncratad. • ./,
--3-
Finally, taking into co':'I.sJ.deration th,~ conunents presented, the Scope appears to be suffi(:ient to I!valuate risks at the site. It should be clear that any woJ:'l~ on the site until remediation is complete, ~'ill take in':() account all risks. As a result, the proper f~mcillq and pl)fltinq of the area should continue. Thank you for the oppor-tuni ty to pres.mt these conunents. s~ncdIY, --:x:/,d , , W-- c....;v'i-?~ , ) Karen F. DeTellis, Chai:~man WeYll\outh Board of HeaItll
--,- -.' .. -'"'::.:.-
, -. ,. '.. May 26,1992 "',' .. " Miss Mary Beth Le]Usnc. . DEP Divisionot H.. aardoWi Waste 10 Oommerce Way '.. .. Woburn, Ma. 01801 ._l' Dear Miss LeBlanc. , . - . Wi.th 1'9&81'4''119 'the.Wa.eting at We11l0uth' Town Hall conceI1ii,Dgt),elaatosca 8ite OD the .. Back River in We;yaol1th .• lwoUld .like to relate .. an experience I hacleaa ..s14ent of Weyaouth.. . . port. Betore the tirstbuilclings ofEaat Bay were erect~Iwoll1.d."allt mi40g $10011 ..4 . the area ad;l8Oent. to W.1!Io~b.pon, i.e. tu'.·· area facing the Ooamuter .Boat Bite .l)uriq '.' the wint.er when tb.e~ w~, ano" OD tb.egrotiAA I noticed .two or ttlre.pl.aceawh_re .~ .. ' . ',would be viaible Coa1nlQ tUOJagh tb41: auow.· When I inv•• tigated .•. It~d hole. where the .' Bnow hadlll_1tea arouudthe.teu. . .1 belieye1ia.r. ia~abso1I1teue.d . for a number of bor1n18 .. ~~ 73 Broad Reaca. fl22Q··.· ~6i7~';;:~:5aH&',021.,1"· " , M1S0 I~ary Beth Le ~larll: D.E:.P. !)lvlSIOn of HazardolJs W~ste HILDA GUIGNANT 1 U C:"-:.mml?Y,.· (--? Wi::\ Y 73 BBROAD IlEAOi T_ II WotJurn. Ma. OlHUl NCIIIW WEYMOUTH, MA 02191 Un AD1'1.l ::,:Ut"·l. c\t WE'vrn(")ut~i I()wn Ha.1..l. t;t",E'r-e ~'l;':'.<:,' ,::\ r"\.II:.',.lJe Invoiv('-::'rnent rneetll'·liJ 1.:oncl::?r-nlnCl tl"ie lanto';;"-a ':;lt~ 01'1 tl--18 1-.-l,::"(c~, h:iver In 1\I(")ytt·l WPVfJl()U·t"·I. aneJ .l WClI.I:!cl .I.1kE:' t;,:", :::ll..lbn·ll·t "I:..I-',p "foi.lOW.ll'lq DOlnts Y·e(]..-"1Y(jlliCl t:~llS '::;ltl...\.o::-.tll:)n~ I f-'r·:lor· t;(} <'~\nv ,.··IE'<3,.ltr·l l"O::l~;k t~'··~~:'P.~::)~~;iHP.!lt~ ·tnf:'Y·i-2 1~::' (J,!'!~:;(I.ltl"i",P 1'1ee,j tOY a comoyehenSlve ~Il(j relIable sIte assessmef1t. t;() d'.:;;(".:e·".t:,'J:tfl tne tVDe df"ld P'I;tf.:-f·l·t CI·t C()n1.~'::'trnlni:'\tl()n rl(,)W t() d~";~;:jL\r E' tl-··ld,t; tl-·le f=:'r·lt 1·(f~ 51 tE:-' l-·l;:·:·l~S t)if:.~f:.'r·1 tr·t('Ii"'·,,:,I.. lul-·l.l v tf~:..;ted. V'=.:-l·-"l:ll.:al l;(-?:;I·:;t,:; tJOlnq (jo~oJn 1;0 or·,.)ul")cj '...J,:.:ttl~Y tev6~.l sh.:)ul (j b(0' CI.;.·,r·lea :";to)"-v. II ·T~"'Ie Clrour)ci w3teY" ~';~·I()U.l.U tIe tr-:·;:oc:;,tF,d t','·, ·i'll"")["i Ol.it '.NI""'t(·7'"t.I'·l~)· t:flF:' I.: •. )ntarnllli::\tll··'fl 1;:::' r·i?:?\cl·-,lnq lta ..,;l,r·I(1 i.;:'I.,IIJ·':.}F~(]I. ..I.I-~I"tt.l.V C"?fl1;(.::oYlf··t('! the t.::>~::)tl.\elY'V~ 111 Ihe scope tOY the "(1sk assesssmerit st·t()\Jld If·\clude 2 th0Y'~U(J~1 Oye~elltatll~n I~t the assets ot th8 lalld. IV ·!"~·le only mac" l,\~:;ecl ~:,t·loulU hi:::' ttlP ()t"l"lCl.c\.I ()n~? ("11"1 "I'~.l.t.';'\ :Ln tl··lf.? I· V We. Y"e!SI(Jent~i of WeVfnO\,Jth~ort. stlOI.,llr1 be 11steeJ 0'; yeceotoYs of d\J6t. We have Slldll'l(J (j'~0rs. tJalC()rl1es. and sWlmmirlq p()ol adJB(:erl1; t() tl""le 10nto~;ca OYO[Jertv. VI J had a tJf:?autl tu.L }jf::".;~(].li=:~ th.':Ott 1 hAd to DJ. .!t to ~';.l.f.?(:.::op cil.IE t(:. thE' wor~:;t Ci::\ri(ei'· ~;~iP 9 ()t; In I-"IPY .I.\.\nCI<";n WF~ I...l,~~,(.::~(j t(') Wc11k .:1yound t~lf.? OJ.dcejar-e'3 ~)etDye anv <::;.tl. .Iclv ,.)"t t~I~:? 1 ,::1 1"1 (j was Hl-:.'=\de. Wflen .larlt.o~;;CE-I dpclnF~cl tel ... ·(.. n~:,t;l'·\ll-:"t; t~lfD samuleCj of the .l~!'lH thpv t()Clk WeY8 dOI'le 1)'1 a "(Ustl. .I. U~:,E·~("j te· w,·.,t.l.k a.l.1 the t;lmEI "'-11th rnv ClO~J. ,31·1(:1 .l (""<'::""II"") testIfIed t.lat. Mv dOG WrlS a IJyeCIOUS (:()mpaflV W.ll(:tl .I. lo~;t tC) that tf?rrlbl(~ contamln,:;:\nt~j" .l i;::trn YE-~Y·Y ~:'':·:lc:1 "t,::,y the (jel:J3ytul'"f-.? of my r·€-?nka. and 1 -:?1m n.-)t 41JJ.e to l·li::lVF.."? d doc arlymCJrE at wevnlouth~oYt since tflPy·e has beerl a I:hanoe IIi thf;> t)vl,',:"I.W~:;'. i ,.:il(fl verv muc~l c(:.nl·:c?Y·rlpej t.:) vJ!··J,:.. t mi::l.V h.r-:tPPPrl te. i.lc:;.~ t.t-,i.':.' (Fl<~;l C!f.~nt~"i c:.'I· hjf·:·;Vij'()\'lt,~·II-"'()y·t,,, J m~':\v submIt to V'~Lt tl-"lE x·-yavs ~r'llj tests maOr.:? i...o In..,/ 1.1,·,.!) ,it t hp b()ut~-I ~,;h()·(E~ VeteY·lrl,:'-IYlan HCI~;D1t:;·". .I M VI I l.J1-1en t 1·1 Ec? t'.".)() t)Ul1dlllf.lS .."Jer·e C()rl',:::-trU"~1,;E"(j~ /·to (:3r·I,::;O \¥(:1~; ti;"'\kE~rl to Pl""·€;~v(·?nt tl-··lE' (j\.tst; "tl·-Oin b,l(;:'v}lflC! <:'Il'·()\trlci \.I.~:;" 11··1:1 ~.:, ha~;:. (~Xj..)O<;5l!::,(j rn~:1f1V us to thf.? yar·lOI\<;:; cont<::\!nln,::\nt,-::~.;. .. .> • I ,::\m -;::;L\Y'E::- tl-')C:-l.t V(',u !".Jl.l1 ClIVE" !::iUe(laJ ,)-ttE:'flt](.1n tl,' mv r'()lrlt~:; cj'.:;:'~:5ct·lbed ,:":C:ifl 1..jl.) ''':1'-'1 Ot.>hdl ()"j' /.::1'11:::- uc:~(:,pJ~3 (',J ~'JE:-vmout~11-'Ot"-t _""1' 'I (j at.!. CI"lf? flel Orll)()Y !::;. Clo\,o.'f"i t j"IE' ~:lo·t Y E:'i:::'t;, Noyth Weymouth. Ma. l)~l~l . , .. , •• J c.' 61 BROAD REACH (T-31) WEYMOUTH. MASSACHUSETTS 02191 May 18. 1992 Miss Marybeth LeBlanc DEP Division of Site Cleanup 10 Commerce Way Woburn. Massachusetts 01801 Dear Miss LeBlanc: Re: East Bay Condominium Site No. 3-1361 We think you may be interested in the news clippings reporting the recent successful PIP meeting at Town Hall on the above site. The meeting was a real breakthrough in terms of pub lic recognition of the fact that the site is a confirmed prior ity hazardous waste site. Thank God for the PIP process. In preparing this organization's response to the pro posed scope of work. a number of questions have arisen for which we need your assistance to resolve. 1. CMR 40.545 (2) states: "The Phase II scope of work shall be' based upon the results of the Preliminary Assessment and Phase I Report and any other available information." Our question is: Is there a Phase I Report and preliminary Assess ment which we can review? If not. what documents on file at the Tufts Library comprise these two basic documents? 2. We lack an intact complete copy of the Goldbpr-' Zoina "Environmental Investigation, Weymouth Neck Site" prepared for the First City Development Corporation (April 1985). CETCO has added their own appendeces to this document. w~ need the original document without CETCO's selective interpret ation of this report or CETCO added appendeces. - 2 - 3. In a CETCO letter to Weymouth Planning Director James Clarke (March 3, 1988), a copy of which is enclosed, CETCO states: "All of the test analyses, field observations, etc., will be sUbmitted to the DEQE in the form of a summary final report." Does a final summary report exist? We are find ing it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to review CET CO's findings from so many disparate reports, letters, logs, etc. 4. In a letter to the Weymouth Director of Health Richard Marino (December 4, 1987), a copy of which is enclosed, CETCO refers to soil samples obtained on December 2, 1987. Are the results of these tests reported anywhere? We apologize for adding to the burden of your work load, but feel these concerns go to the core of our concern for an accurate and valid risk assessment. Thank you. Sincerely, fb~~k:&;~ Vice President Encls.-5 State briefs neighbors on Weymouth waste site Pollution could halt dev~lopment By Jay Weaver sr;me toxic metals and chemicals, ~ The Patriot Ledger generated at the facility was dumped' on the property, state officials said. WEYMOUTH - A tall fence Sometimes there were spectacular ~ surrounds the grassy sand spit at the fires there, residents said. end of Weymouth Neck, which juts Although some of the tainted soil into the Back River estuary. was removed to clear the way for the eft. There is no sign warning people East Bay project, much of the prop that trespassing may be hazardous to erty is still contaminated . their health. A developer wants to Residents and environmentalists .build there. are pressuring the state to review old ./Ct But inside the tence lies what sr;i1 tests of the site and to conduct many Weymouth residenta consider newones. a "toxic waste dump." "Everything should be done if we State environmental officials are expect to have a good risk assessment now investigating the extent of poilu- of the property," said Mary Toomey tion at the East Bay site and trying of the Friends of Webb State Park to gauge the threat to public health, and Back River. the estuary and fisheries. To stir up interest in Thursday's t~ "We're working to deal with con- hearing, the environmental group tamination all across the site," Ka- circulated a flier to residents that ren Stromberg of the Department of read "Are you living next door to a Environmental Protection said at a toxic waste dump?" C\I recent meeting to brief residents. Menzie-Cura & Associates, a firm ~ 0) .-0) Assessing the extent of pollution hired by Iantosca to test the proper ..; has been tricky, DEP project manag- ty, did find high levels of such toxic er Mary Beth LeBlanc said at the metals as lead, cadmium, chromium, Q >. as hearing, held Thursday. The poUu- .merl;\lry and arsenic on different ~ tion is aJ?parently scattered in pock- .. ~Qf~he prope~y. . :>. ets. at different depths around . the .... Arsemc is identified by the federal .... as site, she said. EilVironmental Protection Agency as '0c 0 But Stromberg told residents that a carcinogen, or cancer-causing ~ ~ "it's a possibility" the pollution on agent. the site could stop development But Menzie-Cure's environmental there. specialist said the property is not as ~ The area is part of a .28-acre badly polluted as others she has property on the Back River that was . investigated. developed into a twin-towered, 148- "J don't really like that term 'toxic unit condominium complex in the waste dump'" said Janet Keating, ~ mid-1980s. the specialist. "I really think the A 6-foot, cyclone fence separates contamination on the (East Bay) site the towers from the sand spit, where is moderate, not high." East Bay owner/developer, Joseph In March of 1988, the planning Iantosca of Weymouth, wants to board issued a special permit allow build 138 more condominiums. ing Iantosca to build 138 more units. The property was occupied for But the project was put on hold after decades by a major fertilizer manu- environmentalists sued the board in facturer. All the waste, including Norfolk Superior Court. ... , , utrlO tr , WecJnesd~y, April 29, 1992,. ~~. f '. ~;- \ .'., ;: .• v ,",-, ,- ~:" •• ' •. ..J, >.. Forum set on, hazardous waste· site WEYMOUTH -' Stale environ', lantosca wants. to ,build 138 more mental officials will briefreaidents at units In UIe area.· .. 7:30 p.m. tomorrow at town hall In March 198&, the p'lannin, board about a Weymouth Neck hazardous i ..ued a opecial ptnnlt a1lowin, him waste .ite that is under investigation. " More Weymouth newl _ to build those n~ units oirer the objections of resldentt' and environ' on'?;8~:~:=:'~~!:r~h~B~: Page 12 ; mentalists. River estuary that was partly devel------Hif plan w.. put on bold after the oped into a condomimium complex not occurred, undlatU:bed and poten· project', detractors /iled • IaWfuit in called East Bay in the mid·198Oa. ., dally contemlnated soU baa cone Norfolk Superior Court that seeD to Before that, the properj.y w.. oc· unaddressed," said Cecilia F. Dl· Overturn the plannlnll board'. deci • .cupled by a major manufacturer of .. Cicco of the Friends of Webb Stele . sion. phosphale and chemical fertilizers, Park and the Back River. official. said. For decades, all of the State officials are examin!nJ the waste generated at the facility wu contaminated IIl'e& to determine Its" dumped on the property, they said. potential risk to the environment,' In 1985, local developer Joseph. and are expected to order additional lantosca cleared up the w.. te on part cleanup olthe disposal site. of his East Bay pl'Operty to make way: The East Bay lite eonsiata of three for condominiums, the officiaJa said. parcels of land located on the south •. But part of the property is ,till eastern portion of Weymouth Neck, polluted with chemiea!s and other a sand spit formed at the confluenee toxins from the old fertilizer plant, of the Fore and Back Rivers, whare they said. they spill into Hingham Bay. In 1989, the state Department of The property i. bounded on the Environmental Protection cla ..ilied north by Webb Stete Park, on the the area .. a priority disposal site, west by Weymouthport Condomin· citing the potential impact of the. ums and on the .ut and south Wthe tainted soil on aquatic life and shell·. Back River estuary. fISh reaourc:es.. . The East Bay project eonsiata of "III area whare development baa· 148 units In two Ilx·storY ~ If. '. East Bay site 'trickiest' for contamination By Tom Henshaw News staff Activist Robert Loring noted that Activist Barbara Johnson, whose discovery that samples taken In the past might be "'This." said Marybeth LeBlanc. "is my seven of 27 buildable acres did not exist halted skewed by the fact that soil from olf the trickiest site. There has been dumping site has been added as fill. there and fires and there Is spotty at least temporarily the East Bay plan, "What troubles me is averaging In the contamination. vertically and data that has been gathered before." he horizontally. from the surface on down." suggested that there may be more lead in the The site Is the Weymouth NeckLandilll said. "We lmowthatsoilhas been brought next to Weymouthport. where developer ground than has shown up in samplings. In from olf site but we have no Indication Joseph Iantosca's East Bay company whether the samples were taken from had planned to construct a six-story, 96- virgin soil or not. Everything that was unit condo building plus 38 townhouses done before you got involved is suspect. " With amenities. Bernard Crepeau of the Weymouth and LeBlanc was "riddled With errors." ~ LeBlanc is project manager for the Toomey noted that one of the Independent Taxpayers Assoctation. m State Department of Environmental Including the statement that the area .... under study consists of 27 acres. laboratOries involved In the testing as noted that the site has been under some Protection (DEP) to supetylse thecleanup recently as 1990 was charged With form of study since 1980 and he asked uf of the area. which has been designated a Part of that acreage. she said. Isan old pier that Is covered With dirt and falsifying test results for the towns of LeBlanc. "What have we learned In 12 priority hazardous waste site by the state. years? Should it be developed. Should l overgrown With grass and weeds. i She and I