GREENFIELD — Residents and city officials who attended Tuesday night’s public hearing about the environmental remediation efforts at the former Lunt Silversmiths site continued to express a lack of confidence in the group in charge of the work and requested updated testing of nearby groundwater and indoor air quality.
The nearly three-hour public involvement plan (PIP) hearing was the result of a community effort to designate the property at 298 Federal St. as a PIP site. According to a Draft Improvement Plan — presented at the hearing by 401 Liberty St. LLC, which the city has leased the property to since 2015 with an agreement that gives the tenant the option to purchase — remediation efforts since 2011 have resulted in the off-site disposal of about 1,400 tons of contaminated soil, as well as the installation of two passive mitigation systems.
“I’m not surprised to hear you say everything is fine,” said Precinct 4 Councilor John Bottomley. “I’m concerned it ignores multiple experts we’ve consulted that have reached very different conclusions. I think you’ve created a pleasant fictional narrative and downplayed significance of TCE (trichloroethylene) exposure. I don’t find the LSP [licensed site professional] credible; I find your facts to be selective.”
Mayor Roxann Wedegartner previously explained that the city took the property — which the Springfield-based LLC currently subleases to the Behavioral Health Network and Clinical & Support Options — in a tax action in 2014. She has maintained the city has a legal obligation to honor the contract and execute a sale of the property, which 401 Liberty St. LLC is pursuing.
However, the property has been the subject of controversy among residents and city officials who have expressed concern about the status of the environmental cleanup. The issue was initially raised late last year by Precinct 3 Councilor Virginia “Ginny” DeSorgher when the property was brought before City Council to declare it as surplus and authorize the mayor’s sale. In particular, there is concern for contamination levels of trichloroethylene.
The state Department of Environmental Protection recently initiated an audit of the environmental remediation efforts at the former Lunt property on Federal Street — a review which was a result of the community interest regarding the site’s Mass Contingency Plan compliance status, according to an email from the DEP.
“In this particular scenario, we worked in partnership with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and DEP, which means there’s been full transparency,” said attorney Raipher Pellegrino, who manages 401 Liberty St. LLC.
Pellegrino added that the audit being done by DEP “is something we couldn’t be more pleased about.”
“It gives us guidance in two ways: one, affirmation that the way we’re approaching is correct, and is in compliance with the law and the (Code of Mass Regulation),” he said. “And number two, if there are additional things we need to do, we’ll take those steps and deal with them.”
According to attorney Samuel Prickett, the four primary areas of concern expressed in conversations with the community before Tuesday’s hearing included air quality concerns, in particular the levels of TCE recorded in Phase II (which began in 2012 and the report for which was submitted to DEP in April 2020); the difference between active and passive mitigation systems; where soil contamination is coming from, what has been done and what needs to be done; and finally, migration of TCE and other contaminants in groundwater.
The licensed site professional, Bruce Nickelsen of O’Reilly, Talbot & Okun Associates, explained that when mitigation systems were installed in 2018 and 2019, testing was conducted to find an “exposure point concentration,” or an average of concentration over the course of a year.
“It was pointed out that at times, these are above residential, and even above commercial threshold values,” he said, referencing the Phase II report. “It’s important to know the thresholds … are considered screening values, indicative that an LSP needs to pay attention and evaluate what’s going on with those concentrations. The actual calculation of exposure risk … are below MassDEP’s requirements for indoor air inhalation of vapors of residential rooms and in the offices of the buildings.”
He emphasized that “residential” is characterized as a person being in a building 24/7, 365 days per year, for 30 years.
Nickelsen noted, however, the report also shows that calculations for soil contamination exceed DEP standards.
“That’s why were talking about having an (authorized use limitation) in place as part of the permanent solution; that would limit excavation or control any excavation, if it were to take place, and disturbance of the soil,” Nickelsen said.
The authorized use limitation aims to protect or maintain the mitigation systems and ensure they function as they should, he said. Nickelsen also explained that a passive system was ultimately installed rather than an active one — which would involve a fan — because of the conditions of the property.
“I don’t think we could have installed an active system in a trench,” he said.
And following DEP guidance, he continued, further air quality testing is not required.
“After you go through the testing that you do, and the years worth of testing … and show that you’re at no significant risk, you’ve got to maintain the system — whether it’s controlled with an AUL, inspected annually — but if there are to changes to it, you don’t do additional testing,” Nickelsen said. “The system is doing its job.”
But residents, including Carissa Clifford, argued for more testing. She noted that of four experts who reviewed the site, three of whom reviewed the reports and regulatory process independently, only one, the current LSP, has not suggested there was a problem.
“The LSP gives the DEP information,” she said. “We’re … not trusting what the LSP, I’m sorry, what you’re saying. There’s very selective information that’s being given.”
An abutter to the site, Susan Worgaftik, too, asked that testing be repeated, both for air quality and the groundwater in the soil at nearby properties. Nickelsen said testing was done at available well sites around 2019, and that he didn’t believe further testing was needed as he was comfortable the data was still valid.
“Can I ask why it would not be worthwhile to do some other testing?” Worgaftik responded. “I’m not here to yell at you; I’m here because I’m concerned … I am requesting that testing be done … to let us know that indeed the things you found are still true.”
Former councilor Norman Hirschfeld also argued for further indoor air quality testing of the site and implored the City Council to “push” to be sure the building is clean of contamination.
“This is a really important facility, not only for Greenfield but for the whole region,” he said. “We really need it, but we need it clean and we need a clean environment around it. … It is your duty to make sure it’s a good site. We don’t want this to be something that’s going to affect people’s health.”
Public comment will be accepted for 20 days either by email at srp@raipher.com or in writing to Samuel R. Prickett, 265 State St., Springfield, MA 01103.
Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.