Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

This memorandum addresses the concerns raised by a June 15, 1999 letter from Mr.
Michael Nakagawa regarding the W.R. Grace site at 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Mr. Nakagawa's letter expresses concern about the investigation of asbestos
levels at the site and the proposed management and monitoring plan for airborne asbestos. This
memorandum attempts to: (1) address the issues presented in Mr. Nakagawa's letter and discussed
by interested parties at W.R. Grace Public Involvement Plan public meetings; and (2), answer
technical questions regarding the site investigation and risk characterization processes and how
those activities interface with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), 310 CMR 40.0000.

Documents prepared by Haley & Aldrich for W.R. Grace and referenced in Mr.
Nakagawa's letter include two April 1999 reports entitled, "The Report On Underground Storage
Tank Removal," and the "Report On Evaluation For Asbestos In Soil."

Executive Summary

Mr. Nakagawa's letter requests that the Department investigate the conduct of Haley &
Aldrich in the matter of the removal of an underground storage tank (UST). The Department has
reviewed the documentation of the UST removal and the asbestos investigation and found that
before the removal of the UST, soil samples were collected from the UST location and analyzed for
asbestos. Asbestos was found in one of twenty-four samples collected from eight locations. Based
on this information, Haley & Aldrich concluded that dust control measures were not necessary. The
Department finds that given the measured average concentration of asbestos in soil at the UST
location, the duration of the UST removal operation and the maximum dust levels likely to be
generated during the UST removal, it is reasonable to conclude that a condition of Significant Risk
to human health would not have occurred during the UST removal. Therefore, the Department
finds that Haley & Aldrich did exercise some level of due diligence in evaluating the asbestos
exposure potential and that, with respect to the protection of human health, there is not sufficient
cause for the Department to pursue enforcement actions or make a referral to the Board of
Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals in this matter.

However, with respect to public welfare, maintaining public trust and providing adequate
notice and risk communication, the Department feels that W.R. Grace and Haley and Aldrich were
not sufficiently conservative or pro-active during the UST removal. The Department recommends
that, dust control measures and monitoring be implemented across the property at any location
where there is a potential for asbestos to be present. This is a reasonable approach given the
uncertainties associated with data collection and analysis, exposure to asbestos and health effects.
The Department has made this recommendation in writing to W.R. Grace in the form of comments
on Haley & Aldrich's Asbestos Dust Management and Monitoring Plan in a July 27, 1999 letter.
Future violations of the plan will be construed by the Department as noncompliance and will be
responded to with appropriate enforcement actions.

Licensed Site Professionals and Accountability

Mr. Nakagawa's June 15, 1999 letter states that the Licensed Site Professionals overseeing
sites such as these, as representatives of the Department, must be held to the highest level of
accountability and the same ethical standards we would expect from DEP oversight. The
Department agrees with this philosophy and in fact has made it a requirement under the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.000. The Response Action Performance Standards
(RAPS), 310 CMR 40.0191: (1) requires a level of diligence reasonably necessary to obtain the
quantity and quality of information adequate to assess a site and evaluate remedial action
alternatives, and to design and implement specific remedial actions at a disposal site to achieve a
level of No Significant Risk for any foreseeable period of time and, where feasible, to reduce to the
extent possible the level of oil and/or hazardous materials in the environment to background levels;
(2) RAPS shall be employed during the performance of all response actions conducted pursuant to
310 CMR 40.0000; and (3) the application of RAPS shall be protective of health, safety, public
welfare and the environment. Licensed Site Professionals must comply with the Response Action
Performance Standards. The Department holds independent authority to enforce the RAPS. In
addition, 309 CMR 4.00, Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals,
states that, in order to safeguard the public health, safety, welfare and the environment and to
establish and maintain a standard of professional integrity, the Board has established 309 CMR
4.00, Rules of Professional Conduct. 309 CMR 4.03, Professional Responsibility, states that, a
Licensed Site Professional shall hold paramount public health, safety, welfare and the environment
in the performance of professional services. Additional information, about the Board of
Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals, including general information on
complaints about LSP conduct, can be found on the World Wide Web at the URL
www.state.ma.us/lsp/Isphome.htm or telephone the Board at (617) 556-1091.

Asbestos Data & Inconsistency

Mr. Nakagawa's letter stated that Haley & Aldrich documents are misleading and mention
the inconsistency in the asbestos split sample results. The nature of asbestos sampling and analysis,
unfortunately, is such that the methodology may produce results that are difficult to reproduce when
compared to the analysis of other substances found at 21E sites such as volatile, semi-volatile
organic compounds or metals. One of the main factors contributing to this problem is that asbestos
is a mineral and unlike organic compounds or metals is not easily extracted from a soil matrix and
concentrated prior to analysis. As a result, the sample size is generally much smaller than that used
in other types of analysis and the heterogeneity of the sample is an extremely sensitive parameter.
This issue is recognized by EPA. The EPA has published an asbestos analytical method entitled
"The Protocol for Screening Soil and Sediment Samples for Asbestos Content used by the US
Environmental Protection Agency Region J Laboratory", last revised December 5, 1997. The
method acknowledges that the protocol is not meant to be a quantitative method. The intent
of the method is to determine whether the soil or sediment is contaminated with significant
amounts (>1%) of asbestos. Given these issues, it is not surprising to see large variability in some
of the sample results. This quantitative measurement problem was recognized by the Department,
the City of Cambridge, W.R. Grace and Haley & Aldrich early in this asbestos investigation and as
a result, a risk management approach was decided upon. A representative of the Alewife Neighbors
Group, Mr. David Bass, was present at the meeting when this decision was made on September 29,
1998. The risk management approach will rely on the long term elimination of asbestos exposure
through the use of ground cover and a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation recorded with the deed
for the property.

Data Reporting and the Interpretation of Data

Mr. Nakagawa's letter discusses the difficulty in interpreting data which is contained in
many different documents. Regarding the formatting of reports, the Department agrees that the
most useful type of document is a stand alone document that contains all of the information needed
to support the conclusions made in the document. In some cases this is not feasible, such as
situations where the prior investigation has been exhaustive and the data is too voluminous to be
reiterated in the current submittal. If the data on which a conclusion is based is not contained in the
report presenting the conclusion, the data should at least be referenced. "The Report on
Underground Storage Tank Removal," prepared for W.R. Grace by Haley & Aldrich and dated
April 1999, contains asbestos data for soil samples collected in the vicinity of the UST excavation.
The asbestos data is not included or summarized in the UST report. In order to evaluate the
asbestos data the reviewer must find the data in Table 1 of the "Report on Evaluation for Asbestos
in Soil" prepared for W.R. Grace by Haley & Aldrich and dated April 1999. The Department
agrees that this complicates the review and is not a preferred reporting format.

The UST Excavation & Dust Control

The Report on Underground Storage Tank Removal, W. R. Grace & Co-Conn, Cambridge,
Massachusetts", states that soil samples were collected for analysis to pre-characterize the soil in
the area of the' tank for asbestos content in order to determine the level of protection for site
workers. A total of 24 samples were analyzed and "asbestos was detected at a trace level in one
sample," the analytical result for the remaining 23 soil samples indicated that No Visible Asbestos
(NVA) was present. Based on this evaluation, Haley and Aldrich decided that protective measures
were not necessary to protect workers from dust containing asbestos and therefore no dust control
measures were initiated. The interpretation of the data that can be used to support this decision is
not straightforward because here again, the data is not contained in the UST report. "The Report on
Evaluation for Asbestos in Soil," page 13, contains a discussion of the levels of dust in air (1 00
micrograms per cubic meter) and asbestos in soil (2 percent) that would have to exist to exceed the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) for
asbestos of 3 micrograms per cubic meter. Based on the UST sampling data for 24 samples, the
average level of asbestos in soil near the UST excavation, was approximately 0.04 percent (1%
asbestos in one of 24 samples). It can be argued that for a concentration of 0.04 percent asbestos in
soil you would need to have more than 5,000 micrograms of dust per cubic meter (2 / 0.04 x 100) in
the atmosphere to exceed the PEL. This condition is extremely unlikely as documented by state
dust sampling locations. Reference the Department's Guidance for Disposal Site Risk
Characterization, July 1995, Appendix B (page 11), for default dust exposure values.

These issues notwithstanding, the Department's recommendation for this site is that, dust
control measures and monitoring should be utilized at all excavations due to the possible random
distribution of the asbestos and the uncertainties associated with exposure to asbestos and health
effects.

Inaccurate Reporting of Data

Mr. Nakagawa's letter points out an inaccuracy in the data reporting for the asbestos
sampling at the UST excavation. "The Report on Underground Storage Tank Removal," states that,
soil samples were collected for analysis to pre-characterize the soil in the area of the tank for
asbestos content in order to determine the level of protection for site workers. A total of 24
samples were analyzed and "asbestos was detected at a trace level in one sample," the analytical
results for the remaining 23 soil samples indicated that No Visible Asbestos was present. However,
the sample from the UST location which contained asbestos (AB2-355-S1) is reported on Table 1,
page 16, of the "Report on Evaluation for Asbestos in Soil" as containing 1 percent asbestos. On
this matter, the Department communicated with Haley & Aldrich, Ms. Amy Church; and Ms.
Church indicted that the sample does in fact contain 1 percent asbestos and that this error was an
oversight caused by earlier confusion regarding reporting and detection limits and a failure to
correct this confusion in the final UST report production.

The Percentage of Locations Tested Containing Asbestos

According to the June 15 letter, Haley & Aldrich has calculated the percentage of the
total number of samples collected that contain asbestos and not the percentage of locations tested
that contain asbestos. The letter also states that Haley & Aldrich failed to include the results of
the Transmission Electron Microscopy analysis in this calculation. This oversight has generated
significant concern and it is advised that community risk communication is of paramount
importance for this site and that conservative rather than liberal estimates of the nature of the
release be presented in all reports and public meetings. The Department is not concerned that
this flaw in risk communication will compromise the integrity of the permanent solution for the
site because the proposed approach is to eliminate the potential for exposure to asbestos at all
locations where asbestos was detected with ground cover and/or proper soil management
techniques.

Asbestos Management and the Two DEP Release Tracking Numbers

Mr. Nakagawa's letter expresses the concern that language be provided in the
"documentation requiring that any disruptive soil activities at the site follow the approved standards
for asbestos containment and monitoring" whether those disruptive soil activities are for Release
Tracking Number (RTN) 3-277 or RTN 3-17014. It is the Department's understanding that dust
monitoring and mitigation measures will be implemented at all locations where asbestos is known to
be present or may be present. The Airborne Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan in
Appendix D of the "Report on Evaluation for Asbestos in Soil" does not differentiate between the
asbestos release (3-17014) and the other releases at the property (3-277). In addition, the
Department has received a public comment draft dated June 22, 1999 regarding the linking of RTN
3-17014 to the pre-existing RTN 3-277. Beyond this, the MCP requires that risk characterizations
conducted for releases of oil or hazardous materials account for the cumulative effects of all
contaminants of concern at locations where someone might be exposed to those contaminants. The
concern regarding the handling of the two RTN's separately appears to arise from the lack of public
notification, dust monitoring and dust control at the UST excavation. It is the Department's
understanding that Haley & Aldrich's decision not to take these simple precautions was based not
on the existence of two RTN's but on the determination that a single sample containing 1% asbestos
out of a total of 24 samples collected from the UST location did not warrant those precautions. As
discussed in the above paragraph entitled, "The UST Excavation & Dust Control", such a case can
be argued, however, the Department advocates a pro-active approach to communication with the
neighborhood and dust management procedures.

Asbestos and Dust Management Criteria

The June 15 letter mentions the "approved standards for asbestos containment and
monitoring". The OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic
centimeter of air was proposed by W.R. Grace for protection of site workers in the excavation
areas. While this may be an applicable action level for site workers, the PEL is not an applicable
action level for children and residents in the area. An applicable action level for short term
exposure (1 to 5 years) at recreational and residential boundaries would be a value which could
:trigger the MCP Imminent Hazard criteria. Pursuant to the MCP at 310 CMR 40.041 l(l)(a),· if a
level of asbestos is present in ambient air such that a condition posing an Imminent Hazard
exists, an Immediate Response Action (IRA) must be taken to abate, prevent or eliminate the
Imminent Hazard. The levels of asbestos in air that represent an Imminent Hazard Condition for
exposure time periods of 1 and 5 five years are likely to be significantly lower than the PEL.
The Department has communicated verbally with Haley & Aldrich (telephone communication
6/30/99, Haley & Aldrich, Ms. Amy Church) and discussed the need to meet the Imminent
Hazard criteria. The regulations allow for the Imminent Hazard level to be determined using the
Unit Risk value for asbestos (0.23/fibers/mi) from the EPA IRIS Database. The Imminent
Hazard level can be defined as an exposure of 5 years or less which results in an Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk (ELCR) equal to one-in-one hundred thousand. The LSP for the site must prevent
and abate any condition potentially posing an Imminent Hazard.

In addition to the MCP Imminent Hazard criteria, the Massachusetts Air Pollution
Regulations at 310 CMR 7.00 state that visible dust is a condition of air pollution and as such
must be prevented. The Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards state that 150 ug/m
Total Suspended Particulates (maximum 24 hour average) shall not be exceeded in air. W.R.
Grace has proposed to conduct particulate monitoring with continuous real-time monitoring
equipment which will be checked a minimum of four times each day during development activity
which could generate dust.

Mr. Nakagawa's letter included several suggestions for action by the Department which are
outlined below. One of these suggestions was to investigate Mr. Stimpson's conduct in relation to
the W.R. Grace site. The Department considers every review it makes of submittals and LSP
Opinions made by Mr. Stimpson with respect to compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 21E and the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The W.R. Grace site is not currently a Tier 1A classified site, and the Region has no plans to
make it such. However, the Region has provided compliance and technical assistance to Haley &
Aldrich, W.R. Grace and community groups for the past year and will continue to provide
assistance as necessary.

The June 15 letter suggested that the Department require, through formal communication,
that any soil disruptive activities at the site follow an "approved airborne asbestos containment and
monitoring plan." The Department has already verbally communicated its recommendation that
dust control measures be implemented at any location where soil is disrupted and asbestos may be
present. The Department has formalized this communication in a letter of comments to W.R. Grace
on the Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan.

Finally, Mr. Nakagawa's letter suggested that all existing Release Tracking Numbers for the
W.R. Grace property be combined into a single Release Tracking Number (RTN). In fact, the
Department received on. July 13, 1999, a Numerical Ranking Scoresheet (NRS) for the property,
linking the two RTNs (3-00277 & 3-17014) together and modifying the NRS score for the site. The
modification of the NRS score does not change the IC Tier Classification.