To the Editor:
In Sharon Gregory’s letter to the editor “Brownfield on the back of affordable housing” she continues to indulge in misinformation and fear-based criticism of 100 Bridge in order to delay the creation of 45 new units of affordable housing, jeopardizing any constructive public dialogue on this very important project.
- Gregory simply lists the contaminants on the site and poses the question. “Is it safe?” Of course it’s not safe – hence the herculean effort by the CDC and the Town to clean up the site in order to make it safe.
- “the contamination is 20 feet deep” not the 18 inches that the CDC has been asserting (read, the CDC must be lying and trying to pull something over on the public). The several locations on the site where the contamination was at significant depth were excavated in 2014 prior to the bioremediation, in order to spread the contamination on the surface to be included in the biological process. This information is readily available on the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) website.
- “Uncovered conditions are not well known, thus assurances about safety appear overstated” because there was an underground storage tank discovered while preparing for the bioremediation process. An underground storage tank was discovered and removed with DEP oversight; it was found to be a petroleum-based fuel tank not unlike tanks discovered at thousands of sites across Berkshire County and the Commonwealth. It was removed under the oversight of DEP, with public being safety paramount. Given the extensive testing and site preparation at 100 Bridge, it is difficult to imagine a site where the hazardous issues are more well known and better understood.
- “Agents of the CDC have claimed that the bioremediation reduced the toxins” whereas DEP claims that reductions were due to “dilution and redistribution of the dioxin contaminated soil.” Gregory is pointing out the interesting claim used by DEP to halt the bioremediation. Our environmental engineer responded to this claim (also public record) with simple arithmetic: during the bioremediation, 450 cubic yards were added to the site (less than ½ inch); for dilution to sufficiently reduce the contamination levels, approximately 100,000 cubic yards would have had to be added.
In September, 2015, Biotech Restorations took 97 soil samples across the entire site which showed a reduction in dioxins ranging from 34 percent to 61 percent, despite the process being compromised by weather and neighborhood complaint delays. DEP has chosen not to consider these results.
- Gregory states a long acknowledged given: there is ground water contamination under a small portion of the site and there is no existing remedy for this (putting our children at risk). The minute levels of contamination detected in the ground water are actually below the limit for human exposure in the dirt, but are above the limit for a public water supply. The ground water is considered contaminated only because it lies on the periphery of the “ZONE II wellhead protection area” for Sheffield, 7 miles to the south. If the site were one block to the north, there would be no health risk issue. Only if one were to use the water beneath this portion of the site as a public drinking water source, would there be a health risk. Without question, 100 Bridge will be safe for children.
- “ . . . the CDC has spent $1.45 million of the $2 million MassDevelopment grant on salaries, fees and failed bioremediation.” Project management and overhead expenses are not eligible costs for the MassDevelopment grant. MassDevelopment money does not even pass through the CDC’s books – payments are made directly to the companies doing the work. The CDC must raise money in private donations in order to pay the rent, staff and overhead needed to manage this project and create more affordable housing.
- “The CDC will spend all of its CPA allocation with no guarantee any affordable housing will result.” Contractually, about 17 percent of 100 Bridge CPA funds may be spent in predevelopment. The remaining 83 percent is available only when the project is fully funded and guaranteed to be completed.
- The permitting process for 100 Bridge has been antidemocratic and risks the spending of public money without an approved remediation plan in place. After eight months of public hearings, the permit recently approved by the ZBA is entirely conditional on all environmental permitting being approved by DEP.
This zoning approval of the affordable housing at 100 Bridge is an important step forward in addressing our unconscionable lack of housing affordable for our friends and families who live and work here. And it’s the first and critical step towards redeveloping the entire 8-acre site into the extraordinary potential that it promises.
Tim Geller
Great Barrington
The writer is Executive Director, Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire.
