Above: The former site of a water tower from the days when lead paint was commonly used is now causing headaches for the Town and worries for abutters. (images from report in this week’s Select Board packet)
This week, the Select Board discussed the next steps and costs for dealing with contamination at a Town owned site on Atwood Road.
Late last year, the Select Board had hoped to ask Annual Town Meeting voters in March to support a small Affordable Housing project on the site. This winter, they were forced to put that on hold when they discovered that soil might be contaminated.
They were then forced to pull the plug (for now) when lead contamination was confirmed in February.
Testing done by DPW’s contractor PARE confirmed that some of their samples showed high levels of lead, believed to be from the water tower that was on the site from the 1930s through 1990s.
PARE’s initial study was to determine if the site appeared to be clean in the areas that had the highest likelihood of contamination. Based on the results, they recommend that more thorough testing is needed to understand the full scale before they can outline a potential remediation plan.
PARE’s Tim Theis recommended a time and labor contract of up to $80K for the work. Board members indicated they were willing to use money available in the Town’s ARPA funds* to pay for the work, rather than waiting for a future Town Meeting. But they first wanted to hear DPW Superintendent Bill Cundiff’s opinion on the recommendation.
Cundiff was on vacation this week, so the board will readdress next steps at their May 7th meeting.
The testing was initially conducted based on Cundiff’s recommendation. He alerted the board that lead contamination at sites of old water towers is a common occurrence. PARE then informed him that PCBs may also have been used at the site. In January, the board approved spending $4,200 for the preliminary study.
The initial testing didn’t come back with concerning PCB levels but did turn up areas where lead exceeded allowable standards. A March 13th report from PARE noted:
The results of Pare’s preliminary investigation indicate that the former Atwood tank has impacted site soil with lead. While many of the samples collected were below the MassDEP’s RC of 200 mg/kg, 5 samples exceeded the clean-up standard, some of them significantly. In addition, at least some of the lead in the site soil is leachable, as indicated by the TCLP analysis and some of the site soil exceeds the threshold for RCRA hazardous waste.
PARE’s recommendation included:
Samples should be collected at regular horizontal intervals and at vertical intervals that extend at least 24 inches below grade. A relatively dense grid spacing (e.g., 10 ft x 10 ft) should be used around the tank, while a less dense spacing (e.g., 20-40 feet) could be sufficient in areas further from the tank. . .
If data collected during the next investigation indicates that there is a strong likelihood that lead has impacted abutting properties, the Town should coordinate with affected abutting property owners and develop an investigation program for their properties.
At Tuesday night’s meeting, Pare’s Tim Theis walked the board through the findings. He explained that while normally lead contamination is mainly on the surface, the Town appears to have brought in fill that covered the area where the tank used to stand. They dug deeper at the site based on how far down the concrete footers were found. It was under the surface where the highest lead levers were found.
Theis also explained that when the water tower was removed, it was apparently pulled down sideways. Although there were photos, they weren’t sure exactly where the tank had rested.
Neighbor Bruce Sturgeon has expressed concern about the likelihood that his yard may be contaminated. Factors include the test results near the boundary line, the slope of the land, and the direction the tower was pulled down in.
In late February, neighbors were publicly upset by having learned heard there was contamination on the site and a perception that the Select Board was still pursuing a housing project without having ever engaged them for feedback and holding public forums.
Chair Andrew Dennington and member Al Hamilton assured that wasn’t the case. They explained that there hadn’t been public outreach because they would likely be pulling the Article from the Warrant. The project was on hold due to the contamination concerns.
Hamilton stated that he and member Marguerite Landry would be meeting with one of the neighbors the next afternoon and invited other abutters to join them.
In early March, Sturgeon asked for an investigation of his property to be prioritized. He highlighted that their young grandchildren stay with them each summer. He wanted assurance that running barefoot through the sprinklers wouldn’t be hazardous to their health. This week, he revisited the issue, asking the board if his home could be tested at the same time as the Town’s.
Theis said it could be done, but warned that if they test abutters before having a full picture of where contamination is a problem on the original site, they may incorrectly target the wrong area of nearby properties to examine. That could mean they would have to go back again.
Select Board Vice Chair Kathy Cook suggested that Theis should speak to Cundiff about the issue and bring them a recommendation at the next meeting. Cook also suggested that Cundiff should reach out to former DPW head, John Boland. Given the timing of his retirement, he may be able to help identify where the felled tower had rested.
Another neighbor, Carl Vitali, questioned Theis about why the site is exempt from reporting to Mass Dept of Environmental Protection and complying with a MCP (Mass Contingency Plan). (Cleanup is still required but there is no mandated timeline.)
Theis explained that the exemption is based on how common the lead paint issue is. He believed that the DEP didn’t want to obstruct and discourage people from doing work to cleanup the issues.
Vitali asked the Town to act as if there were a timeline. Members assured that they are planning to address the issue and believe they have funding – at least for the next stage.
All of this doesn’t mean that an affordable housing project is permanently off the table. In February, Hamilton made clear that he wanted future steps to be geared towards remediating the site for a small project to still be viable on the site.
PARE’s reported recommendation indicated that would likely be possible:
The remediation plan could vary significantly based on the final planned use of the Site and depending on that use and the timeline for its implementation, much of the remediation could be incorporated into future development activities. The remediation of the Site will likely include some combination of soil removal/off-site disposal and soil encapsulation (i.e., capping).
