HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-23 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (49) SI iNIN10 N5
May 11, 2012
Ref.# 120310
Judith Tymon,Town Planner
Town of North Andover
Planning Department
1600 Osgood St.
North Andover, MA 01845
Re: 498 Chickering Road
North Andover,MA
MassDEP RTNs 3-3454, 3-26053 and 3-26327
Dear MS.Tymon:
The manager of the Park Street Redevelopment, LLC, Louis P. Minicucci, Jr., has asked me to
prepare a brief overview of the environmental work that is proposed at this location. As noted
above, this property is a disposal site per MassDEP regulations known as the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan or MCP. These regulations are codified at 310 CMR 40.0000 et seq, and are
intended to provide a roadmap from notification through final closure at locations where releases
of oil and/or hazardous materials have occurred i.e. "disposal sites." This location is classified as
a Tier II disposal site, meaning that it is within the lowest category of perceived risk based on
MassDEP numerical ranking within the MCP.
The MCP does not use prescriptive cleanup standards that must be met to achieve final closure.
Instead, it uses risk as the determinative factor for deciding question of "how clean is clean
enough" at a disposal site. In fact, the MCP allows three separate ways to measure and quantify
risk. The selection as to which method is used is a matter of professional judgment for the
Licensed Site Professional (LSP) of record for the disposal site and his/her client. Some of the
factors involved in that decision-making process include the affected media, exposure routes,
receptors and the complexity of the disposal site.
The three methods provided by the MCP to characterize risk include the following: Method 1,
which is a comparison to published concentrations by MassDEP that by definition meet the
criteria for no significant risk in both soil and groundwater; Method 2, which allows
modification of Method 1 standards based upon leaching characteristics of the soil and
contaminant(s) at a particular disposal site; and Method 3, which is a quantitative derivation of
two indices i.e. the General Hazard Index (HI)for non-carcinogenic contaminants and the Excess
Lifetime Cancer.Risk((ELCR) for human receptors exposed to contaminants that are considered
carcinogens based upon available literature. Method 3 is by far the most complex of the three
approaches, but it allows the greatest flexibility to incorporate site-specific information such as
routes of exposure, exposure point concentrations, and expected receptors. A condition of no
......_.._.
"'--�-""—" 213 Elm Street
Salisbury,NIA 01952
978-463-6669—fax:978-463-6679
inroCsimm1ons2le.com
significant risk is demonstrated when the cumulative Hazard Index is less than 1 and the ELCR
is less than 10E-5 (1 out of 100,000).
Releases at 498 Chickering Rd. involved both oil (gasoline) and certain heavy metals including
arsenic that was found in soil near a former underground waste oil tank. The LSP of record at
that time, Steven Charron, used a Method 3 to characterize risk to human health, public safety,
public welfare, and environmental receptors at this disposal site. With regard to gasoline
releases,he concluded that several historical releases of gasoline had occurred from the prior use
of underground storage tanks (USTs) and/or dispensing equipment between 1932 and 2004. Soil
and groundwater showed residual petroleum related contaminants extending from the former
USTs onto Route 125. Additionally, no attempt was made to lower the reported arsenic
concentrations in the area of the former waste oil UST by additional soil removal.
The LSP chose to limit any potential future exposure by using an Activity and Use Limitation or
AUL. An AUL is a voluntary restriction of certain property uses to prevent future exposure to
particular receptors. In this instance, the AUL requires that the building footprint and/or a barrier
of asphalt remain in place to prevent dermal contact with soil contaminants. Residual
contaminants in groundwater did not require further response actions since there were no current
or foreseeable exposure pathways to that media. Future uses that are inconsistent with the AUL
included residential use,use a school, agricultural activities, and any activity that would be likely
to result in exposure to soil via dermal contact, ingestion and/or inhalation.
AULs generally provide that future activities that will involve disturbance of soil beneath a
protective barrier must be done under an LSP's supervision. These provisions call for work to be
done in accordance with a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan and a Soils Management Plan.
These provisions are intended to ensure that: 1) workers are apprised of the risks and proper
procedures to be followed when working with contaminated soils at a waste disposal site and; 2)
remedial wastes generated from these activities are properly managed. With these oversight
provisions in place, redevelopment of disposal sites with AUL's occurs routinely throughout the
Commonwealth.
With regard to the subject property, my firm has been retained to provide LSP oversight services
to NES, the site contractor. The scope of this work includes: 1) preparation of a post Response
Action Outcome (RAO) Release Abatement Measure Plan; 2) preparation of a Site Specific Site
Health and Safety Plan; 3) development of a Soils Management Plan and 4) on-site supervision
during excavation activities. All soil removed from this disposal site will be managed under an
LSP Bill of Lading that will be submitted to MassDEP at the conclusion of the work
In summary, the subject property is a low risk disposal site where permanent closure has been
reached. The property is proposed to be redeveloped as a bank. The scope of work will involve
disturbance of contaminated soil below the existing building footprint and asphalt pavement
during construction. This work will be done under an LSP's supervision in accordance with the
Obligation and Conditions as provided within the original AUL as recorded in Book 11260, Page
213 Elm Street
Salisbury,AIA 01952
978-463-6669—fax:978-463-6679
i n fog,sim mons2l e.mm
298 of the Northern Essex Registry of Deeds. The AUL will remain in place at the conclusion of
the construction activities.
I trust that the above provides a brief overview of the MCP process, particularly as this affects
disposal sites where an AUL has been used as a risk management tool. Please feel fi•ee to contact
me should you have any questions about Simmons Environmental Services, Inc.'s involvement in
this project or the MCP process in general.
Very truly yours,
4, A,
William A. Simmons, LSP JD
213 Elm Street
Salisbury,DIA 01952
978-463-6669—fax:978-463-6679
info r@simmons2le.com