Ashland commission presses developer on contamination at 10–60 Main Street; hearing continued

The Ashland Conservation Commission pressed the applicant for more detail about contamination, testing and remediation procedures for the proposed 10–60 Main Street redevelopment and continued the Notice of Intent hearing to June 22, 2026.

Vice Chair Carl Hakansson opened the contamination discussion by summarizing stipulated facts that a large portion of the site lies within floodplain, that the Commission has floodplain jurisdiction, and that the site is contaminated. The applicant’s team, including representatives of Strategic Land Ventures, Lucas Environmental and a Licensed Site Professional (LSP), acknowledged some stipulated facts but said additional documentation (including an affidavit on historic flooding and supplemental sampling) would be provided.

The applicant’s wetland consultant, Mr. Lucas, told the Commission the site is a historic mill complex adjacent to the Sudbury River and that the team had submitted three supplemental reports and a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) plan. He said two indoor‑air samples (from the rear of buildings adjacent to Main Street) exceeded MassDEP threshold values: building #50 showed 1,4‑dichlorobenzene at 2.2 ppb (TV 0.5 ppb) and TCE at 2.7 ppb (TV 0.4 ppb); building #20 showed PCE at 9.4 µg/m3 (TV 1.4 µg/m3) and TCE at 1.1 µg/m3. Mr. Campbell, the project LSP, said those detections are likely associated with groundwater rather than soil off‑gassing in the sampled locations.

Consultants said 2010 Phase II testing had identified PCE in one soil boring at levels above S‑1 soil standards and detected lead in multiple samples; targeted borings completed in 2022–2025 did not exceed the most stringent MassDEP criteria in those specific sample locations. Groundwater monitoring wells installed in 2022–2025 (MW‑1, MW‑2, MW‑3 and MW‑5) showed VOCs — including TCE, cis‑1,2‑dichloroethane and vinyl chloride — above MassDEP GW‑2 standards, although VOCs were substantially below GW‑3 standards. The applicant said the site will be remediated as part of construction and that the LSP will oversee excavation, sampling, disposal and on‑site treatment procedures.

Commissioners sought specific design and contingency details. Mr. Kucich (civil engineer) and Mr. Sanda (Callahan Construction) said the vapor barrier for stormwater chambers will be designed watertight and that a temporary water‑treatment system using activated carbon would be used during dewatering; plan figures show a frac tank labeled 15,000 gallons (a plan note indicates 18,000 gallons). Consultants said MassDEP typically recommends testing about every 500 cubic yards for pre‑characterization grids and that soils identified for off‑site disposal (roughly 6,000 cubic yards according to the applicant’s cut‑and‑fill diagram) will be characterized and approved by disposal facilities prior to transport.

Commissioners and several residents pushed back on the applicant’s plan to defer a full site characterization until demolition and geotechnical work. Vice Chair Hakansson said the Commission needs to know what contaminants are present, where they are and in what concentrations. "We must protect downstream areas as well as on‑site resource areas," Hakansson said. Mr. Engler (Strategic Land Ventures) said full pre‑demolition characterization is uncommon and costly but that targeted pre‑construction testing and additional sampling during geotechnical investigations would be performed; he agreed the applicant would consider a peer review and proposed scopes for potential LSP reviewers.

Residents cited the proximity to the Nyanza superfund plume and asked what protections would be in place if remediation or the project failed. "Why wait to characterize the site? The town has waited a long time to see remediation," said resident Mr. Dassoni. Resident Ms. Rooney asked what would happen in the event of bankruptcy and a failure to complete remediation. The applicant indicated willingness to perform additional targeted testing and to accept a peer review of contamination documents.

The Commission agreed to coordinate a second site walk, requested updated RAM/SMP documentation tied to any new test data, and asked staff to circulate proposed peer‑review scopes for contamination. Commissioner Gene Crouch moved to continue the NOI hearing for 10–60 Main Street (DEP 95‑1018) to June 22, 2026 at 7:04 p.m.; the motion was seconded by Preston Crow and passed 7–0‑0.

Next steps: the applicant will (1) coordinate a second site visit with the Commission, (2) provide any additional sampling data collected prior to the next hearing, (3) circulate proposed peer‑review scopes for an independent LSP review, and (4) refine the Soil Management Plan and dewatering details (frac tank sizing, filtration sequence) for Commission review.