lwwto.mwww~uw•~''vwv•~ou~~~ edward markey … · 2019-11-25 · a recognized health...
TRANSCRIPT
~~~~tolW~WWWWWWJlWWW~~~~-~WWWJwwlWWtoMwWw~uWbull~VWVbull~ou~~~ bullbull wo -
5SJIll
I 1
EDWARD J MARKEY 7Tll DIITIIICT MASIACHUiml
~ COIIMITTfU
IHEIIGY AND COMMERCE CHAIIWAN ftongre~~ of tfJe Ulntteb tate~
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TEUCOMMUNICATIONI AND
FINAHCf bullou~t of ltprebullentatibebull IHTEIIIOII AND INSUINI
AFFAIU lla~bfnlt(on ilf 20515 COMMISIION ON UCUIIITY AND
COOIliiATION IN EUIIOfE March 21 1989
Barbara Newman Remedial Project Manaqer us Environmental Protection Aqency Reqion I Waste Manaqement Division (HRS-CAN 3)JFK Federal BuildinqBoston MA 02203-2211
Dear Ms Newman
Attached are my comments on EPAs proposed cleanup plan tor Wells G and H Superfund Site in Woburn Massachusetts
SincerelyI
EJMmwp
middot
bullbull
COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYS
Proposed Plan - EPA Region I Superfund ProgramWells G and H Superfund Site
Woburn Massachusetts
submitted byus RepresentatiVe Edward J Markey
Marchmiddot 21 1989
Introduction
j I welcome at long last EPAs attention to the serious problemof contamination at the Wells G and H Site The Site has been a recognized health hazard to the community since May of 1979 when Woburn police discovered 184 fifty-five gallon drums of industrial waste abandoned on a vacant lot on Mishawum Road inthe vicinity of Wells G and H Three years later in 1982 theSite made the EPAs National Priorities List
Seven years have passed without action by the responsibleauthorities I hope this proposed plan represents the beginning of a sustained effort to restore this site to a safecondition
General
The tecbnoloqies proposed for cleaning up volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) and non-voc contaminants at the Site are appropriate for the identified contaminants However the data are limited given the size of this Site which leads to the concern ~at EPAs proposed plan will not clean All healthshythreatening contaminants at Wells G and H Site More completeanalysis should be provided Furthermore before being removed from the National Priorities List any separate operable units (for example Aberjona River sediments) must be remediated
Specifics
Positive aspects of the proposed plan
Cleanup goals are among the most stringent anywherein the nation to date for many of the chemicals at the site
Permanent treatments technologies are proposed for
I bull
bull
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site Page 2
soil decontamination
Air released from the soil during in situ volatilization will be treated
Shortcomings of the proposed plan
Given the seriousness of the observed levels of contamination and areal extent of the Wells G and H Superfund Site the volume of soil treated seems extremely small The Site is 330 acres in size yetcleanup will treat only 7600 cubic yards (cy) for voc contaminations and will incinerate only 1900 cy of soil contaminated with a mix of polychlorinatedbiphenyl$ (PCBs) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) pesticides and vocs The total volume of treated soil (9500 cy) is equivalent to just a fraction of an inch spread across the entire Site
Data in tite feasibility study (FS) do not rule out the possibility that hazardous contamination is moreJ extensive than the plan proposes to address The data base in the FS is small and conclusions are drawn based largely upon computer models Note 1 of Table 3-1 (page 3-7) seems to acknowledge inadequacyof tile data set
Additional water and soil samples should be collected to ensure that all healtil hazards are identified
EPA established clean-up goals for selected contaminants that contributed to the m~jority (pg 7 of proposed plan) of potential risk at the Site Contamination levels of major contaminants ar so great that targeting only major contaminants guarantees neither safe drinking water for Woburn residents nor clean soil The clean-up goal should be to remove all risk
The sediment samples in the Aberjona River and alongthe river banks indicate that contamination is widespread The proposed plan points out that the nature and extent of contamination has not been fullydetermined
Remediation of the sludge and debris at the Wildwood property should be included in tile clean up
-~ -shy
middot
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site bull
I
bullf
Page 3 bull
Finally the EPA must follow through and ensure that all responsible parties meet their obligation as spelled out in middotthe Record of Decision that results If for some unforseen reason the plan is approved but requires modification then further public comment must be permitted
=-shyt1
~2 l-4tll tilt ~I
bull
l(l) ~Q
I ~t utj tlltzI 0 0
I u t1
II
J
- barcode 564128
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 564128
bullbull
COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYS
Proposed Plan - EPA Region I Superfund ProgramWells G and H Superfund Site
Woburn Massachusetts
submitted byus RepresentatiVe Edward J Markey
Marchmiddot 21 1989
Introduction
j I welcome at long last EPAs attention to the serious problemof contamination at the Wells G and H Site The Site has been a recognized health hazard to the community since May of 1979 when Woburn police discovered 184 fifty-five gallon drums of industrial waste abandoned on a vacant lot on Mishawum Road inthe vicinity of Wells G and H Three years later in 1982 theSite made the EPAs National Priorities List
Seven years have passed without action by the responsibleauthorities I hope this proposed plan represents the beginning of a sustained effort to restore this site to a safecondition
General
The tecbnoloqies proposed for cleaning up volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) and non-voc contaminants at the Site are appropriate for the identified contaminants However the data are limited given the size of this Site which leads to the concern ~at EPAs proposed plan will not clean All healthshythreatening contaminants at Wells G and H Site More completeanalysis should be provided Furthermore before being removed from the National Priorities List any separate operable units (for example Aberjona River sediments) must be remediated
Specifics
Positive aspects of the proposed plan
Cleanup goals are among the most stringent anywherein the nation to date for many of the chemicals at the site
Permanent treatments technologies are proposed for
I bull
bull
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site Page 2
soil decontamination
Air released from the soil during in situ volatilization will be treated
Shortcomings of the proposed plan
Given the seriousness of the observed levels of contamination and areal extent of the Wells G and H Superfund Site the volume of soil treated seems extremely small The Site is 330 acres in size yetcleanup will treat only 7600 cubic yards (cy) for voc contaminations and will incinerate only 1900 cy of soil contaminated with a mix of polychlorinatedbiphenyl$ (PCBs) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) pesticides and vocs The total volume of treated soil (9500 cy) is equivalent to just a fraction of an inch spread across the entire Site
Data in tite feasibility study (FS) do not rule out the possibility that hazardous contamination is moreJ extensive than the plan proposes to address The data base in the FS is small and conclusions are drawn based largely upon computer models Note 1 of Table 3-1 (page 3-7) seems to acknowledge inadequacyof tile data set
Additional water and soil samples should be collected to ensure that all healtil hazards are identified
EPA established clean-up goals for selected contaminants that contributed to the m~jority (pg 7 of proposed plan) of potential risk at the Site Contamination levels of major contaminants ar so great that targeting only major contaminants guarantees neither safe drinking water for Woburn residents nor clean soil The clean-up goal should be to remove all risk
The sediment samples in the Aberjona River and alongthe river banks indicate that contamination is widespread The proposed plan points out that the nature and extent of contamination has not been fullydetermined
Remediation of the sludge and debris at the Wildwood property should be included in tile clean up
-~ -shy
middot
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site bull
I
bullf
Page 3 bull
Finally the EPA must follow through and ensure that all responsible parties meet their obligation as spelled out in middotthe Record of Decision that results If for some unforseen reason the plan is approved but requires modification then further public comment must be permitted
=-shyt1
~2 l-4tll tilt ~I
bull
l(l) ~Q
I ~t utj tlltzI 0 0
I u t1
II
J
- barcode 564128
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 564128
I bull
bull
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site Page 2
soil decontamination
Air released from the soil during in situ volatilization will be treated
Shortcomings of the proposed plan
Given the seriousness of the observed levels of contamination and areal extent of the Wells G and H Superfund Site the volume of soil treated seems extremely small The Site is 330 acres in size yetcleanup will treat only 7600 cubic yards (cy) for voc contaminations and will incinerate only 1900 cy of soil contaminated with a mix of polychlorinatedbiphenyl$ (PCBs) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) pesticides and vocs The total volume of treated soil (9500 cy) is equivalent to just a fraction of an inch spread across the entire Site
Data in tite feasibility study (FS) do not rule out the possibility that hazardous contamination is moreJ extensive than the plan proposes to address The data base in the FS is small and conclusions are drawn based largely upon computer models Note 1 of Table 3-1 (page 3-7) seems to acknowledge inadequacyof tile data set
Additional water and soil samples should be collected to ensure that all healtil hazards are identified
EPA established clean-up goals for selected contaminants that contributed to the m~jority (pg 7 of proposed plan) of potential risk at the Site Contamination levels of major contaminants ar so great that targeting only major contaminants guarantees neither safe drinking water for Woburn residents nor clean soil The clean-up goal should be to remove all risk
The sediment samples in the Aberjona River and alongthe river banks indicate that contamination is widespread The proposed plan points out that the nature and extent of contamination has not been fullydetermined
Remediation of the sludge and debris at the Wildwood property should be included in tile clean up
-~ -shy
middot
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site bull
I
bullf
Page 3 bull
Finally the EPA must follow through and ensure that all responsible parties meet their obligation as spelled out in middotthe Record of Decision that results If for some unforseen reason the plan is approved but requires modification then further public comment must be permitted
=-shyt1
~2 l-4tll tilt ~I
bull
l(l) ~Q
I ~t utj tlltzI 0 0
I u t1
II
J
- barcode 564128
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 564128
-~ -shy
middot
Comments Wells G and H Superfund Site bull
I
bullf
Page 3 bull
Finally the EPA must follow through and ensure that all responsible parties meet their obligation as spelled out in middotthe Record of Decision that results If for some unforseen reason the plan is approved but requires modification then further public comment must be permitted
=-shyt1
~2 l-4tll tilt ~I
bull
l(l) ~Q
I ~t utj tlltzI 0 0
I u t1
II
J
- barcode 564128
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 564128