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

June 15, 1999

Commissioner Lauren Liss
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Metropolitan Boston – Northeast Regional Office

Dear Commissioner Liss:

On behalf of the Alewife Study Group (ASG) and concerned citizens in North Cambridge, we bring to your attention a matter regarding the conduct of Wesley Stimpson of Haley and Aldrich, Licensed Site Professional (LSP) of record for the W. R. Grace and Co. (W. R. Grace), the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) at their 62 Whittemore Avenue facility (Grace Site) under RTN 3-0277 and RTN 3-17014. We have three specific concerns:

1. Under the direction of Mr. Stimpson, an underground storage tank was recently removed from the property in an area where asbestos had been identified in soil. No measures were taken to prevent exposure of workers and nearby residents to possible fugitive dust from the excavation, despite earlier specific assurances by Mr. Stimpson that such measures would be taken whenever excavations were performed in asbestos contaminated areas at the site.
2. Reports issued by Mr. Stimpson and Haley and Aldrich, on behalf of W. R. Grace, have been misleading and have highlighted results most favorable to W. R. Grace while downplaying less favorable results. These reports have been neither objective, nor independent, nor thorough.
3. The fuel oil/PAH contamination and asbestos contamination are being managed by Mr. Stimpson under two separate RTN numbers. Actions are therefore proposed for fuel oil/PAH contamination which are inappropriate given the presence of asbestos at the site and which would not have been proposed had all contaminants been considered together.

Because of these actions by W. R. Grace, Mr. Stimpson, and Haley and Aldrich, which we document in this letter, we suggest the following actions by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) relating to the Grace site:

1. Investigate Mr. Stimpson's conduct in relation to the Grace Site.
2. Direct the DEP to provide direct oversight of the characterization and remediation of the Grace Site, or at a minimum, the DEP should become more directly involved in the process.
3. Require through formal communication, that any non-emergency disruptive soil activities may not proceed until an airborne asbestos containment and monitoring plan, per RTN 3-17104, is approved, and that all disruptive soil activities on site will follow the approved plan.
4. Combine all existing site RTN's into a single RTN to ensure all site issues get addressed consistently and without avoidable contradiction.
5. If at all possible, we request that you personally attend the Public Involvement Process (PIP) meeting regarding RTN 3-17104 on June 17, 1999 (7 PM, at the W. R. Grace facility) to better understand the gravity of our community's concerns.

As a result of a November 20, 1997 inquiry letter to your office (see attached Document #1), detailing evidence that the original Phase I site characterization was both inadequate and incomplete, the PRP (Potentially Responsible Party), agreed eventually to implement a preliminary sampling plan. The result of this sampling and a subsequent round of more exhaustive sampling confirmed the community’s belief that the existence of asbestos fiber at the site was both substantial and widespread.

In a subsequent communication (February 27, 1998) from members of the Alewife Study Group to W. R. Grace (see Document 2), several matters were raised with respect the proposed sampling plan, in particular the lack of both risk assessment procedures and a "description of exposure scenarios to be evaluated" in their proposed plan. In that February 27^th communication to Grace, it was stated explicitly that "attention and inclusion of [these] items [would] result in a plan that is comprehensive and acceptable to the general public;" however, the elements did not appear. Under our Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) obligations, we feel compelled to insist that, since Massachusetts is the only state which does not have direct oversight of all Tier I sites, the Licensed Site Professionals overseeing such sites, as representatives of the DEP, be held to the highest level of accountability and the same ethical standards we would expect from direct DEP oversight.

As you are aware, Haley and Aldrich recently released about four inches of documents in about a month related to activities at the Grace Site. We have had to spend a large amount of time trying to digest the voluminous W. R. Grace materials on a variety of topics, in addition to analyzing our own split sample test results, in order to have time to respond within the 20-day window for public comment. This task has been made exceedingly difficult for three reasons.

1. The documents have been written in a manner that makes it extremely difficult to ascertain what is truly occurring at the site.
2. As measured against our split sample results, the detection rate of Grace’s sampling seems to understate the number of samples with detectable levels of asbestos by at least 10%.
3. The inevitable conflict of allowing two separate RTN processes (a condition that we had previously argued against) for the same site invites the undermining of one process by the other.

On many occasions, Haley and Aldrich have pointed to the amount of documentation and to the number of years that they have been involved in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Observation of their assertion coupled with casual readings of their documentation might give the appearance that their work is comprehensive and their conclusions justified. However, numerous and repeated instances of false or shaded public statements, a false and misleading tier ranking scoresheet (as identified by a routine, non-comprehensive DEP audit), omitted information, and more careful observation of related data which must be compiled from separate documents lead one to question the practices of both the LSP and the PRP.

Beyond these general circumstances, however, we are perplexed by Haley and Aldrich’s handling of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) removal described in the "Report on Underground Storage Tank Removal, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn, Cambridge, MA" (UST Report) submitted May 11, 1999. The discussion of this matter that ensued at the PIP meeting at W. R. Grace’s facilities on June 3, 1999 not only failed to shed light on why the aforementioned February 27, 1998 admonition was summarily ignored, but it managed to further underscore the need to combine the two tracking numbers of this site into one centrally managed process.

Because of Haley and Aldrich’s actions regarding this issue, this neighborhood recommends that the current LSP not be allowed continue to oversee the analysis and remediation of contamination at the Grace Site. Please consider the following:

• The UST Report states: "Asbestos was detected at a Trace level in one sample" at one of the 8 boring locations around the perimeter of the UST.
• Although the UST Report states that sampling was performed "in order to determine the level of protection for site workers during the UST removal," the report gives no indication of the results of any risk assessment that might have been performed, and there is no indication that risks to the community were considered.

It is well known that the community is sensitive to the risks of the asbestos contamination at the site. Despite this awareness, no warning was given by Haley and Aldrich to the general public or to all of the immediate neighbors, who would be likely to pass near the operation, about the tank removal on March 30,1999, from an area with known asbestos contamination.

In Haley and Aldrich’s "Report on Evaluation for Asbestos in Soil, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn, Cambridge, MA" (Asbestos Evaluation Report) released in April, 1999, this area would be considered a "Level 2" site according to their proposed "Airborne Asbestos Management and Monitoring Plan." As such, their proposed containment and airborne particulate monitoring practices for this Level 2 site would consist of the following:

1. "Prior to the beginning of excavation activities, further soil characterization for the asbestos content will be completed in areas where visually detectable amounts of asbestos (Trace or percent levels) have been detected by Grace, the [City of Cambridge] and [Alewife Study Group] through prior investigations. The purpose of the additional characterization is to define the size of the portion of the site that will be subject to dust management programs."
2. "Wind screens will be used to decrease wind velocity and soil moisture loss at exposed surfaces caused by excavation activities. Construction fencing will be erected around the excavation and wind screening, constructed of durable fabric mesh, will be attached to the construction fencing."
3. "Water sprays will be used to suppress the creation of airborne asbestos at the excavation."
4. "A construction monitoring technician will wear a particulate aerosol monitor during construction activities while monitoring at or in the excavation or work site. … The site representative will also wear personal air sampling equipment capable of collecting air samples for analytical testing for asbestos."
5. "Air monitoring stations will be established around the perimeter of the excavation, and depending on the size of the excavation, at locations along the perimeter of the site. … Monitoring stations will consist of a particulate aerosol monitor and a separate sampling pump fitted with filter cassettes and filter media to collect air samples for asbestos analytical testing."

None (not one) of these proposed practices was indicated as being used in the UST Report, and none can be seen in the photographs in the report. When asked if this was so at the public involvement meeting, the LSP confirmed that none of the aforementioned safety measures were implemented.

Despite questionable conduct in the past, we would have been willing to give Haley and Aldrich the benefit of the doubt at least until they were given a chance to explain their actions. We were surprised and justifiably disappointed when informed by Haley and Aldrich, just before the start of the PIP meeting, that the UST removal would not be on the agenda. Once again, the questionable decision to bifurcate the compliance process at the site re-surfaced. During discussion of the EPH/VPH remediation plan, a member of the audience brought up the UST issue, thus revealing the very disturbing aspects of Haley and Aldrich's conduct.

When the status of contamination near the tank was questioned, Wesley Stimpson, LSP for the Grace Site, gave a carefully worded description that the site was "pre-characterized" for safety concerns. When asked for clarification, he again mentioned the "pre-characterization" process. Not once did he mention that a reportable level of asbestos contamination at the tank excavation site was in fact detected. Since Grace’s zone testing scheme revealed that this particular zone (Zone 1) bears the highest level of contamination site-wide, it came as no surprise to the community that reportable levels were found at the tank site. The LSP has yet to credibly explain why, under these circumstances, the excavation was allowed to proceed with no safety plan, and request that the DEP require the LSP to provide a full explanation.

It should also be noted well that the level of asbestos found was not "Trace," (defined in several documents as "asbestos fibers present at less than 1% sample tested") which was the only quantification of the contamination level documented in the UST Report. The contamination was, in fact, at the highest classification level, "Estimated Percentage" ("percentage of asbestos contained in sample tested, to the nearest whole number, beginning at 1%"). Mr. Stimpson and Haley and Aldrich falsely reported the contamination level in their UST Report, and only by reviewing separate documentation (i.e. the Asbestos Evaluation Report) would any reader of this document be able to ascertain the truth.

Furthermore, the use of the term "Trace" for detectable levels of asbestos below 1% is misleading, since it implies "barely perceptible amount" (Webster's New World Dictionary). However, it was applied because of uncertainties in the detection method they chose (Polarized Light Microscopy), and all asbestos concentrations up to the reportable level (1%) are labeled "Trace," even though other detection methods (such as Transmission Electron Microscopy) could accurately identify concentrations well below the reportable level.

Even more disturbing were the comments attempting to cover up the inadequacies in the handling of the excavation. When confronted with the fact that, by their own data, reportable levels of asbestos were actually found at the proposed excavation site, the LSP insisted, despite the absence of a revised risk assessment that the site posed no safety risk. After the audience questioned his judgment concerning the issue of health risk, he then claimed that the excavation site was "in an enclosed area" and gave the distinct impression that the "enclosed area" would prevent the escape of asbestos unless someone were essentially trespassing on W. R. Grace property.

Since photographs in the UST Report appeared to show the excavation site to be in a large open area, further clarification was requested, and it was revealed that the site was at an outdoor loading dock area, with at least one side entirely exposed and no overhead coverage. After then admitting that the site was not enclosed, Haley and Aldrich claimed that a fence provided protection. When the audience noted that a fence would not prevent an airborne release by wind, they attempted to convince the public that predominant wind directions in the area would somehow prevent exposure.

As the public became increasingly agitated by their repeated misleading statements, the LSP finally acknowledged that no standard monitoring practices were implemented to protect the communty and environment during the UST removal stating they "had no reason to believe" further protective steps were necessary. However, their documentation showed there was a significant level of asbestos in the soil at the excavation site. At the meeting, a photograph was shown of the tank at the site after its excavation, with a large expanse of unobstructed sky occupying most of the background (and a pile of dry soil in the foreground). Clearly this was not an "enclosed area" as they had stated.

These actions do not instill trust in someone who is supposed to be an independent professional. Rather these actions seem to indicate either an attempt to conceal substandard work, or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. The consistently dismissive attitude revealed in the often untenable and abstract conclusions in both documents and action are demeaning to a generously privatized process, which can ill-afford such cavalier disregard.

The relation of Mr. Stimpson and Haley and Aldrich to W. R. Grace and Co. is long-lived and well known. Mr. Stimpson was spotlighted in an April 16, 1998 article in the Cambridge Chronicle, (see Document #3) which questioned his ability to be truly objective in overseeing the latest contamination issues at the Grace Site. The UST Report is not the only example of questionable practices by Haley and Aldrich. Please refer to the attached May 11, 1999 correspondence regarding their latest documentation for asbestos in soil (see Document #4).

Questionable presentation of data by Haley and Aldrich

Although the two RTN’s for the site have been supposedly separated, the LSP gives some admission of the association in the "Public Comment Draft, Phase III Remedial Action Plan, Petroleum-containing Soil Area, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 62 Whittemore Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts, DEP RTN 3-0277" (Petroleum Remediation Plan) which refers to asbestos test results in a brief section. There is only slight mention of the site-wide results in two sentences, which attempt to put these results in the best light, mentioning only a single test. Moreover, the results are presented as a percentage of the number of samples testing positive for asbestos, instead of the number of boring locations that were represented, which would give a better indication of the probability that a particular area contains asbestos, which may be disrupted during construction or remediation activities. The hidden difference here is that the reported percentage using total number of samples is potentially half of the actual percentage of site-wide asbestos contamination, as indicated by only a subset of Haley and Aldrich's test results.

Additionally, the LSP fails to mention and integrate results from their own May 1998 testing (62.4% of boring locations), their own Transmission Electron Microscopy results from their December 1998 testing (23.3% of boring locations), and split samples results from the December 1998 testing which were evaluated by environmental consultants for Alewife Neighbors, Inc (37.9% of boring locations). A more appropriate result, based on a complete analysis of all the available data, indicates that over 17.5% of the boring locations contain asbestos, vs. the 5.8% figure presented in the reports. Additionally, the report omits mention that the asbestos locations were spread throughout the site, not localized to a few areas, which as significant implications for how the site is characterized.

A common thread throughout the various reports is that they all appear to have been written in a manner to maximize the benefit to the client by highlighting the best results, and minimizing the less attractive results. In several documents, important unfavorable test results were not included, thus providing an inaccurate representation of the findings. The conclusions and recommendations are based on the most favorable interpretations of results, often in contradiction to common sense and acceptable scientific reasoning. These reports are not comprehensive, and do not appear to have been produced by an objective and independent source.

Therefore, since there is apparently nothing to deter Haley and Aldrich from acting similarly in the future, we request that a serious investigation be conducted as to whether any inappropriate actions have occurred, and a determination as to whether Haley and Aldrich should be allowed to continue overseeing this process.

With respect to the utilization of Grace’s analysis as presented, we would offer the following observations as areas for substantial amendment and revision:

1. The Petroleum Remediation Plan does not include a clearly defined process for ensuring that asbestos will be contained if encountered. Although the report indicates that no asbestos has been found in the remediation area, conclusions as to whether additional asbestos sampling should be undertaken, in this or other areas, cannot be made until the existing asbestos "hits," which represent over 17.5% of the 365 boring locations, have been thoroughly analyzed to estimate spatial extent and general character of a contaminated area.
2. The entire proposed particulate monitoring and control measures for this RTN (3-0277) consist of activities that "may" be performed. The only firm statement about containment is that the "stockpiles awaiting off-site removal would be covered with plastic sheeting." Since there is no association with the RTN for asbestos (3-17104), this plan allows soil disruption with no other particulate containment or monitoring measures other than application of this sheeting.
3. It is imperative that language be provided in the documentation requiring that any disruptive soil activities follow the approved standards to be set for asbestos containment and monitoring for the rest of the site per RTN 3-17014. Furthermore, it should be clearly stated that any disruptive soil activities on site, including for this RTN (3-0277), must conform to the standards for RTN 3-17104, and that such activities cannot commence until the standards for RTN 3-17104 are approved.
4. In the Petroleum Remediation Plan, on page 11, Haley and Aldrich states: "Within the areas determined to exceed the EPH UCL (see Figure 4), approximately 16 soil samples, from ten geoprobe locations, were collected and analyzed for asbestos." In a report which involves public health risks, we cannot understand how the term "approximately" could be used, particularly with such a low number of samples, and we are disturbed that uncertainties of greater than 6% (i.e., 1/16) are found to be acceptable.
5. Despite repeated requests for full testing of the entire site, Building 28 (The Ice Cream Factory) has been systematically excluded from asbestos sampling activity. Since this building is the closest W. R. Grace structure to abutting residences, with the exception of one property, and since there is yet to be a credible accounting for asbestos usage at the site, this building and its adjacent lot ought to be tested thoroughly.
6. Since development is planned for Zone 5 and split sample results have indicated the presence of asbestos in this zone, a more comprehensive assessment of this area is needed, yet no additional soil sampling is planned.
7. Requiring the PRP to amend the Phase I historical characterization of this site would measurably enhance the integrity of the MCP. Based on evaluation of the recent soil sampling data presented by Haley and Aldrich, a considerable amount of asbestos, potentially in excess of 500,000 lb., has been indicated to be in the soil on the site. It is no longer acceptable to allow a public record that does not admit and account for this quantity of asbestos use, and statements such as "Grace has no information regarding a release or threat of release of asbestos" are no longer acceptable and require formal written correction.

We, point out that the current level of oversight provided by the neighboring community should not be required. The level of research necessary to extract the truth came through extensive personal sacrifice by the neighbors, and we are concerned that others could easily be misled by the presentations by the LSP. We sincerely hope that we will not need to maintain this vigilant effort through the remediation process for this site.

It appears that the LSP and Haley and Aldrich are not taking sufficient care in their work and that their documentation is misleading; therefore, it is apparent that any specific site requirements must be explicitly stated, such as with regard to the airborne asbestos containment and monitoring procedure. We would request that the DEP make this apparent to the PRP, and further require them to do so satisfactorily. It is unacceptable to allow Haley and Aldrich to proceed with the hydrocarbon remediation using the example of their UST removal as a model, i.e., without a clear link to the approved standards for RTN 3-17104, which must first be established.

Although keeping abreast of the remediation process at the Grace Site has been very frustrating for this neighborhood we will continue to work with the DEP by making the following general suggestions (indicated earlier):

1. Investigate Mr. Stimpson's conduct in relation to the Grace Site.
2. Direct the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to provide direct oversight of the characterization and remediation of the Grace Site, or at minimum, the DEP should become more directly involved in the process.
3. Require through formal communication, that any non-emergency disruptive soil activities may not proceed until an airborne asbestos containment and monitoring plan, per RTN 3-17104, is approved, and that all disruptive soil activities on site will follow the approved plan.
4. Combine all existing site RTN's into a single RTN to better ensure all site issues get addressed consistently.

If at all possible, we both welcome and request that you personally attend the PIP meeting regarding RTN 3-17104 on June 17, 1999 (7 PM, at W. R. Grace facilities in Cambridge) to better understand the gravity of our community’s concerns.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these matters. We await the review and response by the DEP of the concerns detailed in this correspondence.

Sincerely,

Michael Nakagawa,
for the Alewife Study Group