Millie Garcia Serrano, assistant commissioner for the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, introduced a draft COM 25 soils policy that would let properly characterized 21E receiving sites accept large volumes of soil from donor locations under a site‑specific approval process and public notice. The department opened the draft for public comment through Dec. 24, 2025.

The policy, explained in detail by Luke Rogers, chief bureau counsel, would issue COM 25 administrative consent orders (ACOs) that set minimum terms and conditions and require a formal public‑involvement process. Rogers summarized the central concept: "soil movement is for the purpose of reuse, not disposal." He told the committee the receiving locations will be 21E disposal sites subject to MCP review and that "COM 25 will allow much higher levels of contamination" than COM 15 in some circumstances, but that projects must reach a permanent solution under the MCP.

A recorded presentation by Paul Locke laid out how site‑specific acceptance criteria would be derived. Locke described a three‑part approach: (1) require MCP‑equivalent characterization of receiving and donor sites; (2) compare distribution statistics (mean and maximum) from the receiving site to the donor site; and (3) apply caps so that imported soils are not "worse than what's already there." Locke proposed caps on the mean (a suggested placeholder: 2× Method 2 direct contact) and on the maximum (Method 3 ceiling), and said the proponent's application should include summary tables of mean and max concentrations to derive acceptance thresholds.

Committee members raised practical questions in a subsequent Q&A. Attendees asked whether treated soils or containment determinations at donor sites would be accepted (DEP staff said treated material that no longer exhibits hazardous characteristics would be acceptable), how to calculate the site mean (DEP said exposure point concentration approaches used in phase 3 assessments would apply), and whether the policy should cover smaller volumes than the draft's focus on very large projects. DEP staff cautioned that lowering the volume threshold could create significant administrative burdens for regional offices.

MassDEP also framed public‑involvement requirements and special provisions for environmental justice communities. Luke Rogers stressed that COM 25 ACOs will be issued with public notice and applicants will have to respond to comments, while appendix provisions address projects near EJ communities.

The department paired the policy rollout with a spreadsheet tool and a video demonstrating acceptance calculations and invited written comments to clarify outstanding technical points before finalizing the policy.

Ending

MassDEP will continue to accept written comments through the public comment period and post the policy package — including the video and application spreadsheet — on its site. The department said it will clarify technical definitions (for example, how to calculate the exposure point concentration) in response to written questions and public feedback.