County outlines PFAS cleanup plan at former fire training site, warns of multi‑million-dollar uncertainty

Paul Rosala, assets and infrastructure manager for Barnesville County, told the Assembly of Delegates standing committee on finance that the county is proceeding under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination at a former municipal fire training site. "We, being the property owner, are required to take on the remediation of the site," Rosala said, describing ongoing Phase 2 work, a groundwater model and ecological risk assessment that will be included in the Phase 2 report.

Rosala said consultant GZA has developed concentration maps and a groundwater model showing a plume moving southeast toward Mary Dunn Pond and identified links or separations between plumes originating on county property and nearby airport and municipal sources. "We're looking to determine what is ours and what is others," he said, noting fingerprinting of PFAS compounds is being used to help distinguish multiple sources.

The county has also installed a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) under the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) immediate response action process. Rosala described the barrier as injected granular carbon that intercepts PFAS as groundwater flows through and reported a pilot test result: "Water down gradient of the permeable reactive barrier is, you know, essentially non detect." Construction began in September and Rosala said the PRB installation was scheduled to wrap up by October.

Committee members pressed technical and funding questions. Delegate Doug O'Malley asked about the stability of PFAS binding to the carbon; Rosala said DEP had reviewed the design and that the injected carbon is similar to carbon used in drinking‑water treatment and that DEP found the approach appropriate for the site. Delegate Killian cautioned against experimental in‑ground chemical destruction of PFAS while the science remains emergent.

On costs and funding, Rosala said the county has tracked "over $10,000,000" in PFAS‑related expenditures to date and listed several ongoing items: settlement costs with the Mary Dunn wells, ongoing engineering and legal fees, a pump‑and‑treat system maintenance and a $2.5 million PRB construction contract. He said GZA is preparing life‑cycle costs and that a Phase 3 remediation evaluation, design and construction will follow Phase 2 work and public comment to DEP. Rosala gave a conservative remediation range of $10 million to $60 million but said the county is "really hoping to be on a much lower side" with engineering strategies.

Rosala and Assistant County Administrator Vera Harrick described current and prior sources of county funding. Rosala said early work has been financed internally and offset in part with ARPA funds. Harrick told the committee that $4 million was appropriated from ARPA and the assembly previously appropriated an additional $11 million to a PFAS special revenue fund; she said routine operations and maintenance have been paid from a special revenue fund rather than the general fund.

Rosala also said the county has an active property damages suit against a PFAS manufacturer and has sought congressional directed spending (a draft request for $3 million was described), but cautioned that those recoveries are uncertain and litigation is slow. He said the county is studying options including state revolving loans and additional external funding. Rosala emphasized human health and wildlife as the top priorities and said permanent solutions depend on evolving remediation technologies and regulatory review.

The committee did not take formal votes on PFAS work during the session. Members asked for follow‑up briefings from finance staff and for the project team to return with more refined lifecycle and budget figures as Phase 2 findings solidify.