United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
fcPA/ROD;R01-82/004
July 1982
Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the re~'erse before completing)
,. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO,
EPA/ROD/ROl-82/004 !
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE I
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION: 07/01/82 :
Re-Solve Site, MA 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE I
-1 I
7. AUTMORISI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
I
!
I
e. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1,. CONTRACT/GRANT ~O,
I
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, s.w. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 20460
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT -
The Re-Solve, Inc. site was used as a solvent reclamation facility for
approximately 24 years until operations ceased in 1980. High concentrations of PCB's,
volatile organics and heavy metals have been measured. These contaminants are migra-
ting off-site via surface runoff and ground water. The contaminated ground water
pl ume is migrating towards a recreational pond which drains into a lake designated as
a secondary water supply for the City of Fall River. In addition, the site is
located over an aquifer which serves as a recharge area for a portion of the Town of
North Dartmouth where a new municipal well is scheduled to be installed.
The cost-effective remedial action for this site includes: removing contents
of four unlined lagoons, soil from,lIhot spot~lI, and soil from a former oil spreading
area for disposal off-site at a RCRA approved facility. Capping of the. entire
6-acre site is also included. The estimated capital cost for the selected alterna-
tive is $3,050,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs were estimated to be
$36,000. ..
Key Words: Ground Water Contamination; Health Risk; No Action Alternative;
On-Site Containment; Ground Water Table; Leachability Tests;
Off -s; 1-1" ni "'TV"""'" 1. ... C:~",",ili.,.",~i,",,,,
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSiS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group.
Record of Decision
Re-Solve Site, MA
Contaminated media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants: PCBs, VOCs, metals
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19, SECURITY CLASS I Tlus Reportl 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 16
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagel 22. PRICE
.. None
EPA Form 2220-1 (An. 4-77)
-------
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
Site:
-
Re-Solve, Massachusetts
Region:
I
" .." AA, OSWER
Briefing Date:
July 1, 1983
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Re-Solve, Inc. site was used as a solvent reclamation facility
for approximately twenty four years until operations ceased in 1980.
High concentrations of PCB's, volatile organics and heavy metals have
been measured. These contaminants are migrating off-site via surface
runoff and ground water. The contaminated ground water plume is
migrating towards a recreational pond which drains into a lake desig-
nated as a secondary water supply for the City of Fall River. In addi-
tion, the site is located over an aquifer which serves as a recharge
area for a portion of the Town of North Dartmouth \it~f~ a new municipal
well is scheduled to be installed.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedial action for this site includes:
removing contents of four unlined lagoons, soil from Whot spots", and
soil from a former oil spreading area for disposal off-site at a RCRA
approved facility. Capping of the entire 6-acre site is also
included. The estimated capital cost for the selected alternative is
$3,050,000. Annual operation and maintenance costs were e.stimated to
be $36,000.
ISSUES AND RESOLU].'IC?2f.
i~Y WORDS
.
Ground water
Contamination
Health Risk
No Action
Alternative
On-site
Containment
1.
Initial screening rejected the no ~ct10n
option because the site posed a significant
risk to health as a result of direct
contact, inhalation, and continuous
leaching into ground water. Microbial
treatment was ineffective. In situ
containment was deemed technically
infeasible because of highly fractured
bedrock, and a high water table.
.
.
.
-------
Re-Solve, Massachusetts
July 1, 1983
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
..' 2.
Of the three remining options, the
excavation/stabilization/on-site containment
alternative was rejected because leachability
tests indicated that while metals and PCB's
were bound, organics would continue to leach.
The two remaining options were construction
of a RCRA landfill on the site, and off-site
disposal in a RCRA landfill. Of these,
excavation and off-site disposal was
selected despite the fact that it was
slightly more expensive than construction of
an on-site landfill. This decision was
based on the fact that the materials on the
site were highly contaminated. Reliability
of anyon-site containment was questionable
due to among other things, a highly fluc-
tuating seasonal ground water table and the
fact that the site is over the recharge area
of an aquifer used for drinking water in the
area.
-2-
KEY WORDS
.
Ground Water
Contamination
Ground Water Table
Leachability Tests
Off-Site Disposal
On-Site
Containment
Waste
Stabilization
.
.
.
.
-------
'. .
Record of Decision
Remedial Action Selection
Site: Re-Solve, North Hixville Road
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Analysis Reviewed:
I have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis of
cost-effective remedial actions developed for the Re-Solve site:
- Remediai Investigation and Feasibility Study for Re-Solve, Inc.
Hazardous Waste Site, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, Camp, Dresser &
McKee, Inc., May 25, 1981
Staff summaries and additional information. developed in response
" "'to public inquiries at two meetings held in Dartmouth on June 1,
and June 8, 1983.
DescriPtion of Selected Option:
- Removal of the contents of four unlined lagoons and soil from
"hot spots" and a former oil spreading area for disposal off-site
at a facility in compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource
... Conservati on and Recovery Act.
- Capp; ng of the enti re 6-acre site to el imi nate the potenti al
fur direct contact with the PCB-contaminated soils which will
remain on-site and to ensure surface water runoff to minimize
contami nants from further per'col ati on into the groundwater.
Decl arati ons :
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the National Contingency
Plan, I have determined that the transport and disposal off-site
of hazardous substances and site ,capping remedy is cost-effective
and that it effec~ively mitigates and minimizes damage to, and
provides adequate protection of PUb1ic health, welfare and the
environment. I have also determined that the action being taken
is appropriate when balanced against the need to use Trust Fund
money at other sites. In addition, I have determined that the
off-site transport of hazardous substances is mor~ cost-effective
than other remedial actions and, therefore, consistent with section
101(24) of CERCLk
~ ~
\..: ~.~
Lee M. homas, Acting Assistant
Admi ni strat or
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
. ,
-------
Re-Solve, Inc.
Remedial Action Briefing Document
-
o The Re-Solve, Inc. site was used as a solvent reclamation facility
for approximately 24 years, activities terminating in 1980. The
most recent owner performed some site closure activities such as
barrel r~moval, building demolition, and covered the site with an
unknown volume of sand before declaring bankruptcy in 1981.
o On June 19, 1981, Massachusetts Department of Environmen~al
. Quality Engineering (DEQE) requested Superfund assistance for
this site.
o In October, 1981, Re-Solve, Inc. was .placed on the interim list
of 115 priority waste sites proposed for CERCLA funding.
o On July 26, 1982, EPA released a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP)
prepared by the zone contractor, Camp, Dresseer & McKee (CDM).
o On December 30, 1982, Re-Solve, Inc. was placed 156 on the Proposed
National Priorities List of 419 hazardous waste sites published in
the Federal Register.
o On May 25, 1983, Region I released the remedial inves~igation and
feasibility study for public review and comment.
o On June 1, and June 8, 1983,' Region I held public meetings at the
Dartmouth Town Hall to receive comment on the proposed remedial
alternatives. The meetings were well attended and all proceedings
were tape recorded for future consider~tion.
o On June 14, 1983, a meeting of 172 po~ential responsible parties
was held at Horticultural Ball, Bostor., MA to begir. negotiations
to determine whether or not any responsible party was willing and
able to undertake remedial design and construction. The parties
were given a short deadl~ne, to present their pr~posals. If t~e
proposals are inadequate or if the work cannot be undertaken on
a timetable eauivalent or faster than ours, an enforcement release
for design and construction will be given immedi~tely.
o The schedule for work calls for de3ign by the Corps of Engineers
to be completed by August 1, 1983, and implementation of
construction by November 15, 1983. If weather condi~ions permit,
construction will be complete by January 15, 1983. The off-site
feasibility study will be completed by the Fall 1963, a~d
-------
. .
Remedial Implementation
Alternative Selection
Re-So1ve, Inc. Site
North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 1983, the Boston regional office ~f EPA released
~he .Praliminary Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
for Re-Solve, Inc. Hazardous Waste Site, Dartmouth, Massachusetts"
prepared by the consulting firm of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Copies of the report were distributed by the Town's Hazardous
Waste Coordinator to the members of the Board of Health and
Selectmen. Copies were also placed in the Town library, Town
offices and in the neighboring town of Westport. In
addition, a copy of the stuQY was delivered to each of the two
abutting property owners.
Press releases and notices were placed in the 10ci'~
. newspapers announcing the availability of the study ana announcing
two public meetings to be held on June 1, 1983, and June 8, 1983,
respectively. The purpose of the June 1, 1983, meeting was to
'present the findings of the study and to discuss the remedial
options which have been considered. The purpose of the June 8,
1983, meeting was to receive input from the affected community
on the recommended alternatives ana receive public input on the
selection of the remedial action. Both pUblic meetings were.
tape recorded and these tapes are available through the regional
office for review.
FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVES
The object of the feasibility study was to develop source
control remedial actions which would reduce and/or eliminate the
off-site migration of contaminants and eliminate the existing
direct contact hazards at the site emanating from four unlined
lagoons and a former oil spreaaing area. The results of the
remedial investigation have indicated that contaminants t~; ~.~ migrated
off the site via surface runoff and groun~ water. The co:~centrations
of contam1nants on-site are 7ery high and most notably PCB's are
in the thousands of ppm range, volatile organics in the hundreds
of ppm range and heavy metals as high as 6'. A plume is moving
towards a recreational pond known as Cornell Pond which
drains into a lake designated as a secondary water supply for
the City of Fall River. In addition, the site is located over
an aquifer which serves as a recharge area for a portion of the
Town where a new municipal well is scheduled to be installed
within the year. The town is currently purchasing water from a
-------
-2-
s~pplies adequate to serve the town's needs.
The primary sources of contamination at the site that must
be addressed by remedial alternatives are:
( 1)
( 2)
( 3)
( 4 )
Four unlined lagoons in the northern portion of
A former cooling pond area filled with sand
An oil spreading area in the western portion of
Other-contaminated soil areas ("hot spots")
the site
the site
The initial list of remedial actions considered included:
No action
Black topping the entire site
Microbiological treatment
Exoavation of hazardous substances and stockpiling
Containment/Isolation
Excavati~o, treatment and encapsulation onsita,
Excavation, treatment (on/off-site) and off-site disposal
Combinations of the above
The initial screening of alternatives focused on the geologic
conditions and other characteristics of the site, the types and
cortcentrations of contaminants, and the ability of the alternatives
to effectively mitigate the threat to public health, welfare or
the environment. The primary features of the site are highly
fractured bedrock, a high ground water table and high concentratic
Ot PCB's, volatile organics and heavy metals. The site has been
found to be a continuous source of chemical contamination to
the adjacent wetlands and surface water bodies. PCB's are migrating
over the surface of the soil by physical forces such as surface
runoff and weathering.
. The initial screening resulted in rejecting many of the
alternatives. As documented in the attached Health and Risk
Assessment, there is a significant risk to public health
through direct contact, inhalation, and/or dermal exposure from
wind blown particulates. The continuous leaching of contaminants
from the site to the environment threaten potential contamination
of water supplies. The no action alternative was rejected because
of the health hazards and the availability of feasible alternatives.
Partial action such as stocX~iling or black to~~ing was determined
not to be sufficient to prevent continuous environmental degr'.dation.
The mixture of wastes in such high and toxic concentrations made
the o~tion of microbial treatment ineffective. We determined
that any form of insitu containment or isolation would not be
technically feasible ~ecause of the highly fractured bedrock and
high ground water table.
The results of the initial screening identified two
alternatives as being technically feasi.ble to mitigate the
threat to ~ublic health, welfare or the environment. The two
alternatives were presented at a public meeting on June 1, 1983,
and are described as follows:
-------
-3-
1.
2.
Excavation of hazardous substances, treatment on site,
and encapsulation
Excavation, transport and disposal off-site of hazardous
substances! and site capping
Alternative 1 (excavatio~ treatment on site, and encapsulation)
was further deseribed as a waste stabilizatior1/fixation process
in which the contaminated materials once excavated and solidified
are chemically and mechanically stable. These solid materials
would then be placed on a two-foot clay lined base with a leachate
collection system and storage. Any leachate collected would be
minimal in volume and transported by truck to a trea tment- fac i 1 i t.y.'
A four-foot separation between high groundwater and the bottom
of the wastes would be maintained and the final slope of t.he
site once fully encapsulated would be 10%. This remedial action
is estimated to have a capital cost of Sl,854,000, a present
w~rth 20-year cost of S2,270,000, and have an annual operat.ion
and maintenance cost of S48,500.
# Alternative 2 (excavation, otf-site disposal, and site capping)
involves several off-site disposal options such as: incineration
(of the lagoon contents); solidification or fixation prior to
shipment to a disposal facility; or fixation, treatment and
disposal at an off-site facility. Approximately 3100 cubic
yards of lagoon waste and 3900 cubic yards of contaminated soils
will need to be remQved from the site. It is anticipated that 5
trucks per day will be loaded and sent from the site for a period
of 70 to 90 days. After the contaminants have been removed from
the site, clean fill will be brought in, the site graded and a
final cap placed over the site. This alternative is estimated
to cost S3,050,000 and have,a 20-year present worth of S3,360,000
and an annual operation and maintenance cost of S36,000.
As a result of comments received at the June 1 public meeting,
CDM was tasked to perform various leachability tests described
in the EPA manual - Guide to the Disposal of Chemically Stabili%ed
and Solidified Waste (September, 1980) on the solidified sludge.
A sample of the wastes was solidi.fied by the Solid Tek (M.o.rrp~_,..- --.'
Georgia) process. The tests performed included:(l) an organic.
EP Toxicity Scani(2) a PCB EP extracti and(3) a modifie~ EP
extraction for volatile organics. The results showed ttat the
metals and PCB's were bound by the process but that the organics
did leach out. As a result vf tnese tests, the stabilation of
the contaminants on the site would not be a reliable alternative
and the more .e~ctensi':e con~ainmentsystem would be necessary.
In addition and in response to comments received at the
June 1, 1983, meeting, a 7th option was developed that would
-------
-4-
The assumptions used for the more extensiv~ containment system
option are as follows:
o Double liner system (synthetic/clay)
o Leachate collection above each liner
o Clay cap -
o Minimum of 10 feet between the high grou.ldwater and the bottom
of the wastes .
o Integrated layer of peat between the waste material and the
first liner to retard the waste movement
o No solid.ification of wastes
o Segregatjon of sludge/soil waste from the seasonal high ground
water table as follows:
2' of clay
WASTE
l' of gravel
6" of peat
l' of sand
l' of underdrain system
2' of clay synthetic liner
l' of underdrain system
2' of clay/synthetic liner
10' of clean fill
High groundwater mark
The estimated costs for this remedy are: 52,205,000 capital
costs, 53,020,000 20-year present worth, and $88,000 annual
operation and maintenance costs.
The following table is a summary of the capital, annual
operation and maintenance, and present worth cos~s for each alternative
ALTERNATIVE
CAPITAL' ANNUAL
O&M
$1,854,000 $48,500
53,050,000 536,000
52,205,000 588,000
PRESENT
WORTH
1. Excavation, treatment on
site, and encapsulation
2. 2xcavation, off-site dis-
?osal and ca~ping
3. Excavation, more
extensive containment
52,270,000
53,360,000
53,020,000
COMMUNITY ~NVOLVr.MENT
Many questions were asked abou~ the effectiveness of
solidification especially on PCB'S and organic wastes. A Selectman
for the town stated that onlJ off-site disposal would be technically
adequate to protect the underlYlng aquifer which served the town's
-------
-5-
Be did not believe that the town would accept solidification and
capping because of the possibility ~nat leaching of con~aminants
could occur in 20 to 30 years. He indicated that the town did
not wish to rely exclusively on the Commonwealth's operation and
maintenance because in 20 to 30 years the political climate
could be significantly changed. Be was concerned that any failure
of the cap or sol[dification proces~ would mean an excessive
burden to the town in years to come.
Similar concerns were voiced by several of the residents
present. One abutting property owner ~tat~~that she was in
favor of on-site encapsulation instead of oft-site disposal
because she did not wish the truck traffic and decontamination
procedures to potentially disfigure her property.
At the second public meeting, fifteen people testified
and all but one supported off-site disposal as the final remedial
action. In addition, 9 written statements were recei~~d.ann 7
supported off-site and 2 supported on site encapsulation without
solidification. Copies of the written comments received are
attached and the registration forms of the speakers. The pu~lic
comments received tended to reiterate four major points:(l) that -
the nature of the site itself is illsuited for onsite remedy
because of the high groundwater table, adjacent wetlands, river
and brook, acidic soils, and use of the underlying aquifer for
water supplies:(2) that solidification is still unprove~ technology
and in this case had been found not to bind the organics:(3)
that there is a general lack of confidence in the long term
ability of the State to perform adequate operation and maintenance
particularly of advanced technical solutions and: and (4)that
off-site disposal to another area of the country better suited
for hazardous waste disposal is the most reliable decision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Section 300.68(j) of the National Contingency ?lan (NCP)
[47FR 31180, July 16,1983] states--t.n-at the apppropriate exten.t
of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection of
the remedial alternative which the agency d~cermines is cost-
effective (i.e., the lowest cost alternative that is technologi-
cally feasible and re.Liable) and which effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of public
hea:th, welfare, or the environment. Based on our evaluation of
the cost-effectlveness of each of the proposed alternatives, the
comments received from the public, the additional information
suppli~d by our consultant in response to the public comments
received at the first meeting, and information received from the
state, we recommend tr,e E. xcavation, transport and of f-s i te disposal
of hazardous substances and site capping as the source control
-------
-6-
Our reasons for this rec~mmendation are that there are
physical site characteristics which limit true effectiveness
of solidification or encapsulation as the final onsite" remedy.
These limitations are a highly fluctuating seasonal groundwater
table, low lying adjacent wetlands and private water wells which
draw on the underlying aquiZer. The results of the solidification
leaching tests showed that t.le organic compounds did not bind in
the solidified mass. With organic concent~ations in the hundreds
of ppm range, we believe that encapsulation is inadequate to
~rotect such a water sensitive area. The extensive public comment
rece"i ved in su~port of off-s i te disposal for these reasons. -
further justifies the addition!l expenditure of funds for removal
of 7000 cubic yards of material. Also, the additional expenditure
_provides a much more reliable cleanu~ and eliminates the ~otential
to further contaminate a public water supply.
STATE INPUT
After giving careful consideration to the cost-effectiveness
of each alternative and evaluation of the ~ublic comments, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Er.gineering
recommends excavation, transport and off-site disposal of hazardous
substances and site ca~ping. A letter confirming the State's
concurrence with this recommendation is attached.
PROPOSED ACTION
We request your a~proval of the offsite disposal remedy. Our
sbedule calls for design by the Corps of Engineers to be completed
by August 1, 1983, with con~truction to ~roceed by November 15,
1983, and completion of this source control remedy by January
15, 1984. The following actions need to be completed to initiate
these activities:
1. Enter into a Su~erfund State Contract.
2. Develo9 an Interagency Agreement with tbe Corps of Engineers
for design and construction activities.
------- |