HANSON – Representatives from the federal EPA and Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) met with the Select Board and other Hanson officials on Tuesday, Sept. 26 to discuss the newest phase of the site cleanup at the National Fireworks location in Hanover, that includes Factory Pond which borders an area of Hanson.
“As we all know, the Fireworks site has been a topic of discussion in the town of Hanson for many years,” Town Administrator Lisa Green said. “Just recently the cleanup … has entered into a significant new territory, which has brought to our attention the need to pay attention to this cleanup.”
Funds for the cleanup, which have been in trust through the Mass. Contingency Plan, are drying up and “it’s been discovered over time that more funding is required to continue cleanup of the site,” Green said.
The EPA and DEP officials were in Hanson to talk about the site and possible further action, condition of the site will be once the trust money does run out until additional funding is obtained.
“I also want to recognize that, certainly this is not the first time we’ve paid attention to this, because I want to be sure we give credit to our Conservation Commission, to our health agent and I know you’ve been on calls and we’ve had outside counsel we’ve hired,” Select Board Chair Laura FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “So, there’s been a lot of labor behind the scenes. … There hasn’t been a decision that we’ve been asked to make until now.”
Mandy Liao of the EPA made a presentation updating the board on the cleanup [the full hearing can be viewed on the WHCA-TV YouTube channel]. Diane Baxter and Cathy Kiley of the DEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup also attended the meeting. Kiley has worked on the Fireworks site cleanup for several years, and noted they have held monthly meetings which Hanson has been involved in on the progress of the site cleanup.
“First of thing I want to say is there has been no contaminants from the site found in public water supply, or in private wells near the site,” Baxter said.
Representatives of the EPA Remediation Branch and Community Involvement Office and Town Counsel for the project, Michael Campanelli attended either in-person or remotely.
DEP reviewed the site history, funding, risks and completed and ongoing work at the site while the EPA representatives discussed the Superfund and National Priorities List (NPL) process as well as outreach and community engagement. EPA/DEP and town meetings with towns began in June 2023 in Pembroke and Hanover and with Hanson in July. A joint meeting with all three towns took place July 17 followed by hybrid meetings such as the Sept. 26 session with the Select Board.
“MassDEP and the towns have been working toward the same goal for many years – and that’s to get the site cleaned up,” Baxter noted, reminding attendees that the former National Fireworks site contains mercury, lead, organic solvents and propellants and explosives used in the manufacture of munitions for the government and commercial pyrotechnics between 1907 and 1970.
“A tremendous amount of work has been done over the years to identify areas of soil and sediment contamination as well as surface water and groundwater contamination,” Baxter said. Unexploded ordnance has also been addressed at the site where munitions and explosives have been found in the soil and in Factory Pond.
Risks that have been found for people are from direct contact with contaminated soil and sediment, which are being addressed temporarily by restricting access; from ingestion of contaminants found in fish (for people as well as fish-eating birds and wildlife); and from people accessing the southern portion of the site, including Factory Pond.
Steps toward
Superfund
Between 2017 and August 2023, more than 190,000 munitions (35,510 pounds or 17.75 tons) have been removed from the site, of which 21,080 items (11 percent) contained explosives destroyed on site by Mass. State Police.
Munitions removal is expected to be completed by October 2024.
As a result of a bankruptcy settlement, DEP received about $73.84 million in trust for the cleanup, according to Kiley. There is about $10.31 million left after investigation and response activities, and work that has been authorized, but not yet billed. Predicted costs for completing the required environmental remediation is estimated to be more than $200 million.
“As a result of this, the [DEP] requested EPA involvement to consider an option for cleaning up the site and how we might be able to proceed [through the Superfund NPL process],” Kiley said.
The Superfund allows the EPA to clean up a contaminated site and force responsible parties to either do that work or reimburse the EPA-led cleanup work, according to Laou. The NPL is a list of sites the EPA determines require a more detailed investigation, which can determine whether long-term threats to human health and the environment exist. Only NPL sites are eligible for Superfund resources.
“Right now, we are conducting a site reassessment to review the data that has been collected between 2012 … and now,” Liao said. “We want to determine what data gaps are there and what available reports that DEP produced.”
If EPA pursues an NPL listing, they will conduct an expanded site inspection, develop a Hazard Ranking System (HRS), obtain a letter of concurrence from the governor, which takes about a year, and propose the site to NPL. A 60-day comment period follows that.
FitzGerald-Kemmett asked what happens if a property owner refuses to give permission to access their land for the EPA site assessment.
“We’ll try to work around it, but we have attorneys that will work with the property owners to help them better understand the process and why their cooperation is need for us to help clean up the site,” Liao said, noting their presence was to make sure the town agreed to participate in the process. While letters of endorsement are welcome, they are not required.
Select Board member Ann Rein asked how long it would take to resume the cleanup.
“We would need to first list the site on the NPL list to even get the resources to start cleanup,” Liao said.
“The only reason I’m asking is I’ve been, as a person, following this for many, many years. Decades,” Rein said. “So, to think we’re just now at the point where we’re going to go this route – it should have been done a long time ago. That’s why I’m a little impatient that it’s going to go.”
She added that she has heard the $200 million estimated as necessary for environmental remediation by EPA representatives, was closer to $400 million.
“We knew it was going to be more than $200 million, but we don’t know what the amount is going to be,” Kiley said. “One would think [EPA] was going to do their own investigation, their own character of the full nature of contamination [but] we were making estimations of funds with the limited information we have, knowing that … it’s well beyond what we had in the trust fund.”
FitzGerald-Kemmett asked what specifically was involved under those figures. Kiley said previous figures were in regard to remuneration above Factory Pond Dam as well as removal of unexploded ordnance, but she was uncertain if that referred to if the dams were removed.
Water issues
Rein and FitzGerald-Kemmett said those plans involved damming the Drinkwater River, draining and dredging it to remove contaminated soil.
“We’ve had somebody since come and talk about it to a point past Factory Pond Dam,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
Kiley recalled there was permitting in place to consider different options including how to best address that contamination.
“Going forward, those numbers could very well change in terms of how EPA decision is in terms of how they further refine, get a lot more data,” she said.
FitzGerald-Kemmett also asked, should the area become a Superfund site, what happens if the price tag does go above $200 million?
“I’ll say Hanson has not been treated as a full partner from the beginning in this process and that’s a universally held opinion by the citizens of Hanson,” she said, adding they want some say in the way EPA is addressing the issue in the town for their citizens.
Depending on when they finish the site reassessment to review the data that has been collected between 2012, the timeline for completing the work depends, in part, on how quickly they can get started as a Superfund site, Liao said. Worst-case scenario, that could be “a couple of years.”
While Hanson wants to get on the NPL list for being considered a Superfund, Select Board Vice Chair Joe Weeks asked what happens if another town doesn’t want it on the list?
Baxter said that while letters of support to the governor are not necessary, they are helpful as the DEP works to convince the governor it is the right thing to do.
“One of my worries is that squeakier wheels trying to get it off the list will prevail, and I’m just curious what the process is …so our voice is weighted as much as a larger community might.” Weeks said, seeking assurance that Hanson’s voice will receive as much weight as a larger community.
“It isn’t veto power, per se, from any one town,” Baxter said. “It’s just a matter of whether the governor agrees that it’s the right thing to proceed. We hope to have support with the three communities, obviously.”
“We are too,” Weeks said.
“This site has always had one town that did not want to have anything done about it,” Rein said. “That town is going to have to get over it, because it’s time.”
Liao said that community involvement staff will also determine if more joint meetings with the towns are wanted after they meet with Pembroke this month.
Conservation Agent Phil Clemons stressed the importance of recognizing that the site does not follow political boundaries.
“It is a watershed which is somewhat extensive and really very prominent in terms of its quality and its value to, not just the immediate towns in this region, but to the state and New England – and you can go as far as you like…” he said. “Our part of this region has been under-studied.”
Conservation Commission Chair Frank Schellenger said, while the EPA wanted the meeting, in order to obtain Hanson’s support, it is very important that Hanson residents participate in that. He said more residents should be informed and that there are at least four towns downstream that are potentially impacted by the site and cleanup effort.
“The water and sediment issue has to be addressed,” he said. “The only way to do that is with the EPA and the NPL.”
Fire Chief Robert O’Brien said information about site contaminants has not trickled down to public safety officials unless Health Agent Gil Amado brought it back from his meetings, since he became chief.
FitzGerald-Kemmett asked if the EPA would be willing to hold a public information meeting.
“We’ll get better feedback if we have an educated public and if we give people an opportunity to ger educated, I think we’ll all be the better for that,” she said. Both the EPA and DEP representatives agreed.
Former Select Board member Matt Dyer, who works with the MWRA, said that agency would be meeting the week of Oct. 2 to further discuss the project. FitzGerald-Kemmett asked Green to add a page to the town Facebook page dedicated to the Fireworks site as a way to further inform the public.