United Statss
Environment*! Pro»ctton
Agmcy
Otficaof
Eirargmcy and
Mwtwdial
EPA/ROD/R01 85/011
September 1985
Superfund
Record of Decision
-------
v
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
.' (Please read Instructions on the rellene before completing)
1. RE'ORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/ROl-85/011
... TITLE AND SUITITLE 15. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION September 30, 1985
Hocomonco Pond, MA .. '.RFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR,S) e. 'ERFORMING ORGANIZATION RE'ORT NO.
e. 'ERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AODRESS 10. 'ROORAM ELEMENT NO.
Same as Box 12 11. rlu..ANT Ng.
12. .'ONSORING AOENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF RE'ORT AND 'ERIOD COVERED
U.S. ,Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. ,... S'ONIORINO AOENCY COOE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
11. SU"LEMENTARY NOTES
, 11. ABSTRACT
-
The Hocomonco Pond site consists 'of approximat~ly 23 acres, located in
the Town of Westborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and is bordered on
the northwest by Hocomonco Pond. Research into the past activities at the
Hocomonco Pond Site indicates that from ~928 to 1946, the site was used for
a wood-treating operation by Montan Treating Company' and American Lumber and
Treating Company. This business consisted of saturating wood products
(e.g., . telephone poles, railroad ties, pilings and fence posts) with creo-
sote to preserve them. During the operations, wastes were discharged into a
pit lagoon (referred to as the "former lagoon"). The lagoon was excavated
on the property to intercept and contain spillage and waste from the wood-
treating operation. As this lagoon became filled with waste creosote,
sludges, and water, its contents were pumped into two depressiona, referred
to as Kettle Pond, which is located east of the aite, near the west aide of
Otis Street. In addition, aite contamination extends into Hocomonco Pond
. - ,
and ita. discharge stream. The wood-treatment facili~y operated until the
mid-l940a when it was converted into an asphalt mixing plant. Discarded
aggregate andoasphalt are common throughout the siteo The laat use of the
site was as a cement plant from which dry cement was distributed in bulko .
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
.. OEICRII"TORS b.IOENTIFlERI/O".N ENDED TERMS C. COIATI Field/Group
Record of Decision ,
Hocomonco Pond, MA
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, sediments,
'.,
soil, wetlands
Key contaminants: arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene,
cadmium, carcinogenic compounds, chromium,
heavy metals, inorganics, organics, phenols, sludge
1.. OISTRIIUTION STATEMENT 18. SECURITY CLASS (Thil R,po,,) 21. NO. OF 'AOES
None
20. SECURITY CLASS (TI.iI fIG,') 22. 'RICE
None
IPA ,- 2220-1 (Rn. .-77)
....EYIOUI EDITION II O..OI..ETE
-------
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Hocornonco Pond, MA
Abstract (continued)
The selected remedial alternative for this site include.: site 9rading.
capping and relocation of the sto~ drain pipe currently located adjacent to
the ea.t side of the fo~er la9oon; for the Kettle Pond area. dewatering the
pond and lowering the 9round water level in the immediate area. .oil/waste
excavation based primarily on visible contamination criteria. with addi-
tional removal of contaminants based on sampling and analysis of soil con-
clucted during excavation to ensure that contaminated soils are excavated to
the extent necessary to ensure mitigation of ground water contamination. and
dewatering of .ediments with disposal in an onaite landfill; mechanical
dredging and onsite disposal of contaminated sediments for the Hocomonco
Pond and discharge stream; sealing the storm drain for Otis Street; removal
and onsite disposal of contaminated materials at three isolated areas of
contamination (soil near Monitoring Well-l. tank base. adjacent to former
lagoon. and drain channel sediments at the southwest side of Hocomonco
Pond); and air and water quality monitorinqand post closure activities con-
ai.tent with RCRA regulations. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
~lternative is $2.213.000 with O&M costs approximately $56.000 par year.
. '.:
.
v
..
~... ;-.- ~...., .
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site:
Hocomonco Pond
~estborough, Massachusetts
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED:
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents describing
the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the remedial alternatives
for the Hocomonco Pond Site.
o
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Hocomonco Pond Site,
Westborough, Massachusetts, TRC Environmental ~onsultants,
Inc., June 1985.
o
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
o
Responsiveness Summary, september 1985.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
Due to the complex nature of this site the selection of remedial
-action is addressed separately for each area of contamination
investigated. The four primary areas are 1.) Former Lagoon 2.)
Kettle Pond 3.) Hocomonco Pond and Discharge ' Stream 4.) Otis
Street. In addition, several small isolated areas of contamination
will also be addressed.
.' .
Former Lagoon
The remedial action selected for the former 1agoon area includes
.._~~~.~~~'~ ~.
-.. - .. -.... - ~.
-------
site grading, capping and relocation of the storm drain pipe currently
.loca.ted 'a!dj,a.cent ..totbe 'easts:.ide of ,the for.mec'lagoon...operation
and maintenanc~ requirements will includ. water quality ,monitoring
and post closure care consistent with relevant Resource Conservation
','
and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
It is anticipated that water
quality monitort.ng ,ca:n,be~'ac'compl:ishe.dusing,exis;t.ing 'm'oni,t'oring
wells.
Kettle Pond Area
The 're:medi'al ,
-------
air quality will be monitored.
Treatment of air will be provided
if necessary.
A RCRA landfill will be constructed on site to
dispose of the waste material.' The siting of the landfill should
allow for one contiguous site cap to cover both the landfill and
,. the former 1agoon area.
During the excavation of the visual soil/waste contamination, soil
and groundwater quality will be evaluated for the types and
concentration of contaminants present.
The level of groundwater
contaminants presently in groundwater is expected to be reduced
significantly as a result of the CAC treatment for the dewatering
effluent.
It may be determined by the Regional Administrator upon
completion of this excavation that based on this assessment of soil
and groundwater quality, additional soil excavation is necessary
beyond that which is visibly contaminated to adequately mitigate
groundwater contamination.
It may also be determined that the CAC
treatment system installed for the dewatering effluent be operated
longer to achieve final groundwater quality levels.
Wetland areas impacted by the construction activities will be
-restored.
Operation and maintenance requirements relative to the on-site
landfill will include water quality monitoring and post closure
u
care consistent with RCRA regulations.
Water quality monitoring.
could be accomplished to some extent by using'exfsting monitoring
--.-. _.'~"''''-'~_.-.'~ ~'.' .
-------
wells.
Hocomonco )Pond .and Discha,rge Stream
The remedial action selected for the Hocomonco Pond and discharge
stream consists of mechanical dredging and disposal of contaminated
,'Sediment's. :on 'Os.! te,.
An,:,estimated2200 ,cubic, '
-------
Isolated Areas
The remedial actions defined for the three isolated areas of contam-
ination (1. soil near MW-l, (2. tank bases adjacent to former
lagoon .nd (3. drain channel sediments, southwest side of HocomoncQ,
Pond consist of removal of the contaminated materials at these
locations and disposal on-site.
On-site disposal will be either
in the landfill constructed for the Kettle Pond soil/waste or on
top of the former landfill (to be capped) depending upon final
design considerations related to facility capacity and topography
of the facility cap.
Operation and maintenance costs associated with these remedies are
addressed in the discussion of the former lagoon and Kettle Pond
Area remedies.
DECLARATIONS:
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA): and the Na~ional Contingency
Plan (40 CFR Part 300): I have determined that the remedial actions
selected for the site areas are cost-effective and provide adequate
protection of the public health, welfare and the environment.
The
State of 'Massachusetts has been consulted.
In addition, the remedy
:...:;
will require certain operation and maintenance activities, as
described above, to ensure its continued effectiveness.
These
operation and maintenance activities will be considered part of
the approved action and are eligihle for Trust Fund monies, on a
90/10% cost share basis with the state, for a period not to exceed
. ',,"""0/ .
". ,,~ r': "",1
P"""'"":-- --:-4_'~" ..:- -. .
... - -"--'" .~.. -
-------
one year.
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate :wheT1 bala'need 'agsinst:the .:avaihlhility of Tr,ustFund
monies at other sites.
September 30, 1985
Date
~
Regional Administrator, EPA Region I
/7~~/V?/;)~ :P
u
"
- -#. - ,"1"-----,-.
-------
E:; C 8:7.':) n CC
r':)r.d S:.~-e
~e .:: 0 reo f J: cis i 0 :1
Err=.t=. S:-.ee"-
The fi~st section of :his c~c~~~~~ is ~c: ~~~jered.
corr~c~ions to be ~ace in t~e ~:1~u~j~::~c s~c:ion are
major topic heading, subt~pic a~~ li~e n~~~~r within
T~e location of
referenced to
t!1e subtopi c .
DESC~IPTION OF SELECTSD ALTER~AT!VE
Otis Street
line 3
ure:TI~Ci ....ill not consist" should
read "re~edy will consist"
Isolated Areas
line 7
"the for:':\er landfill" should read
"the for~er lagoon"
List 0:: Tabl.as
Table 29
"Det=.iled Cost Extimate" should
read "Detailed Cost Estimate"
- -
The location of correctio~s to be ~ace in tte following section are
referenced to page and line n~mber. Each printed line on a page
should be counted, including section titles, topic headings and
subtopic headings.
Summary of Remedial Alternative
Se lect iO:1
pag e 1
line 25
"fores~"
should read
"foreset"
page 4
line 1
"disch:r;;;ed to an pit lagoon
referrec" should read "discharged
to a pit referred"
page 8
line 2
rarea~ o~_former" should read
"area of the former"
line 4
"air m0nitoring, data" should
r~ad "=.ir :':\cnitoring data"
page 11
line 19
"afprox1:-:\ately 30,000 cubic" should
read "ap;>roximately 24,000 cubic"
page 14
line 13
"ccnta::ti:1inats"
" c c n t a::1 i :1 ant s "
should read
pag e 15
1 i ne 15
"lccatio:1" should read "loc~tions"
I
. I
)
!
,
"
page 19
line 12
"'...ere selected"
should read
"was
selectec"
-------
;:;-= 22
:ir:e 1
line 6
pa~e 25
line 7
line 15
line 17
pa~ e 30
line 23
;;:a~ e 34
line 2
li:1e 13
~a~e 37
line 3
~a;e 39
lines 16 & 17
lines 22 & 23
;'3';; e 4 .1
1 i ne s 12 & 13
li:1e 19
li:1e 23
. -_..."- ."~"'.
-2-
"CC:1t.3Ct :::-:..: associated receptors
a:-e - -s -"':"'-:-.::1 a r:. zec be low" s hou 1 d re ad
"cc:itac:t--::.~d associatec receptor
are SU~:7.ar i zed be low"
.. ;:';~ 1'1 it o;.'~ in:;"
":-:1C:1 i t:>r i r.;j"
should read
"vclitale" should reac "volatile"
"value 'of 1,24003" sho.uld read
"value of 1.24003"
"downgradient form Kettle Pond
(i.e. water. should read "down-
gradient from Kettle Pond (~.g.
""ater"
"10-2 and 36.63866 are nuch
higher" sho~ld read" 10-2 and an
ADlfraction of .36.63866 both
, of whic'h 'are much higher"
"Ir.:pacts cn wetlands" should read
"Eliminate impacts on wetlands"
"rehability. should read
"reliability"
"grout curtain); site" should
read "grout curtain) with site"
"drain relocation." should read
.'drain .reTo.cat ion (-FL-l ) "
"Hocomonco ?ond aquatic life."
should read "Hocomonco ?ond."
"The
read
various or tasks" should
"The various tasks"
"include: jut n:::>t"
"i~clude~ut net"
should read
"measures to minimize" should
read "measures taken to ensbre"
"surface ~a~er" should read
"life a~d s~rface water"
-------
page ~2
lines
5 & 6
page ';3
li::es 23
page ';4
lines 12 & 13
line 18
page ~ 6
line 5
line 17
page I. 7
line 7
page 1.8
line 10
page.49
line 1
page 50
line 26
page 56
line 10
1 i ne 21
page 5 i
line 24
page 60
line 8
v
page 6~
lines 14 & 15
page 65
line 22
. _. .. .
,I
-3-
"::C::O::'\O:1CC Pond aquatic life."
s:-.c'J 1 c !"e ad "Hoco~onco Pond."
":r~:7:
II :r~m
E:PA -,,'-ould be" should read
EP.; '",'ould not be"
, .
,
"::oco::'\O:1CO Pond aquatic life."
s~o~ld read "Hocornonco Pond."
"site contaminants from"
reac "cor.ta:ninants from"
should
"eliminated" should read
"e 1 iminate"
"are
reac
not identified" should
"are no identified"
flRCR.; incineration" should read
"Technical RCRA incineration"
"Eocornonco Pond aquatic life."
should read "Hocomonco Pond."
"tr-eated or disposed" should
read "treated or destroyed"
II
I:
"recreations" should read
"recreational"
"as per
"as ~er
EPA" should read
EPA standards"
"fro::! EPA would be required"
shcu:"d read "from EPA would not
be required"
"a~uaitc" should
read "aquatic"
" ;>er
" ?er
to fcr" should read
ton for"
"~a~e had significant" should
reaj "have not had significant"
"exca~ated (except associated.
wit~ stor~ drain removal), air"
should read "excavated air"
":.reated/dis;>osed" should
r~a~ "treated/destroyed"
-------
li:-.e 2~
pa~ e 6-;-
li;-:e 17
j;:a.;e 63
, . ~
_li.e :>
1 "i ne16
pac;e 6:3
line 1
pac;e 7)
1 i r.e 4
lines 15& J.'fj
pa~ e 72.
line 3
line 4
line 16
lir:es 22 & 23
~.3.c;e 72
lir.e 6
~3C; e 73
line 9
~.-..,-~ -'--'.' ," .
.. . .
-4-
"jios,;:-adation" sh"Juld
:-eac: "jioce;radati"Jn"
"~CRl-. :-egt.:l::tio:1s ..:ould"
shc.~.:c:-e.:.'': "RCR.; -:echnical
':-a~u~r~~~~ts wou~c"
"dre~~in~ u~it anc turbidity
curing" s::ould read "dredging'
unit and turbicity impacts
curing"
"fro::! tbe ce....a.ter ing" should read
"frol"1 t,he .sed imen.t dewater ing"
"imple::tentai ton"
"ir..ple~entat ion"
should read
"possible as previously
c.iscussed. Further" should
read "possible. Further"
"res'trictionswo'uld not be" should
read "'re st r ic t ions would be"
"This alternative" should read
"If organic desorption from
seci~ents to surface water is
ceterrninec not to be a problem
this alternative"
"accidental exposu:-e" should read
"accidental in~estion exposure"
"'er,v:.r~r.;:'tental. c'o[!cerns 11 .should
read "'e!lvir:mmental and public
health concerns"
" c c n t a::\ i na t ion on a qua tic s pe c i e s . " .
should read "conta~ination in
!:::>COrlOi1CO Pond."
"treate~/cisposed" should read
.'tr.eat:ec/ce:s.troyed ..
"req"Jireed"
should read "required"
-------
line :3
li:1-= ~5
line :8
pag e 74
line :;
line 7
page 77
line :;
page 79
line 20
page 82
line 2
page 84
line 11
line 12
line 14
pag e 86
line 13
pag e 37
lines 6 & 7
line 11 & 12
line 14
page 88
line 6
-;,-
II :.m~le~.e:",.taitcn"
II :':7l ~ 1 e :-:-. ~ !1 t :. t ion tI
should read
11'..'0~1~
::.::~:-ess" should read
net adequately address"
.. 0..;:) :~ 1 ::
"?C?~; re;'J2.at.ions would" should
reac. "R':?,-; technical requirements
~ould" '
""'''Ould :,e T71et" should read
"~ould not ~e met"
"area, should ensure" should
read "area, would not ensure"
"re!7loval relo'cation"
":-e~oval/relocation"
should read
":.m;>limentation"
" :.mplementatio'n"
should read
":.s n.::>t practical" should
read "is no practicable"
"~isposal based" should read
"cisposal (HP-2). Disposal based"
"topo9raphy either, on" should
r~ad "topography will be eit.her on"
"ef both (2P-2)."
"~f both."
should read
":-:e:..at.h" s~ould
read "health"
"associate risks to the pu~lic
a~d agu3tic species would" should
read "associated risks to the
p~blic health and environment would"
"~otentia1 of infiltration of
c~nta~ination" ~hould read
"~otent.ial contamination"
":-elaible"
should read "reliable"
"(refer to"
a:~ernat:.ve
should read II this
(refer to"
-------
line 20
p.;~= 7, 5'
lin:s 5 & 6
line 23
pag-: 30
line 11
pag-= ~ 1
line 17
pag.::: ~ 2
line 5
line 10
pag.::: ~ 3
line 10
line 11
line 23
page? 4
line 18
line 23
page: ; 5
line 20
line 25
pag.:: ;'6
line 8
-6-
";Jrovice a-::::i:.ior:a2. protection"
should re~j "pro vice adequate
protection"
";:>u:;,lican::. a:;,u:.ti~ species in
the Hoco~o~c6 eis=harge stream
(~ssa~et R~ver ~e':.lands) ~~uld"
should reaj "pu~lic and the
e~vironrnent {i.e. Hocornonco
Pond discharge stream and Assabet
River wetlands), would"
"lagoon to be" should reae "lagoon
or in the landfill to be"
"impacts to aquatic life in
. Hocornonco" should read" iIT:pacts
to Hocomonco"
"tables in" should read "tables
. re,ferenced in'" .
"~ 264" should read "Part 264"
"Section 264.310 to (a)" should
rea d "Se c t ion 264. 310 (a) to:"
"requirer.:entS"
"require17\e:1ts"
shot.:ld reae
"264.228 the" should read
"264.228, setting out the"
"stand3r::., re~uir~cfl
"standard :::-equirin~"
should read
"closure will" sh::>1.,:ld read
"closure care will"
"~eet" should read "meets"
"with Df executive order"
'should read "",. ithExecut i va
Or de r "
"SCC" should read "SSC"
"before euration ~f" should read
"before cbli~atio:1 of"
'''~ases floo.'estern s:.o~m"
reac "bases, sOt.:t:'l'..;est
s hO.uld
storm"
.,.. ~ ~~~-"l-"r-r---~~~"'-
-------
page 97
lin': 3
Tab:'es
Ta::::'e ~()
Appendices
Appendix 3
2nd page
line 1
Appendix D
1st page
line 21
2nd pag e
line 25
Appendix F
1st page
line 5
li:le 14
line 18
2nc pa;;e
line 6
li:1e 11
v
1 i :ie s 13 & :-4
li71e 17
r. ..,..
-
"'ACL)" should
read
"(.;CLs)"
~:tal ~~~ual (O&M) cos~
s :-.0 U 1 j rea d "5, 0 0 0 "
"15,000"
?:-ese;1t i':orth "186,000" should
read "92,000"
"action are" should read "action
a~d other alternative actions are"
"action Hocomonco pond" should
read "action for Hocomonco Pond"
"topgraphic" should read
"topographic"
"quality or Maximum Contaminant
L.o:vels (MCLt s)" should read
"quality, Maximum Contaminant
L.o:vels (MCLts) or Alternate
Concentration Limits (ACLts)."
"The limits" should read "The
;rimary limits"
-excavated in a supplemental ROD
'.;pon" should read "excavated
(supplemental ROD) upon"
8absorption" should read
"adsorption"
-absorption (Kd) values" should
read "adsorption (Kd) coefficients."
"low distribution coefficients,.
~," should read "low adsorption
coefficients (Kd)'"
"absorption"
"adsorption"
should read
,-'~:':':-:-~~7' j
-------
3r-: ;;a:;e
line 3
-8-
8a::'sarption"
8acsarption"
she-JId read
~h~ ~ba\e c~a~ges shall be incorpo~c~e~ into and mace a part of the
~c :.::~,O!1CO F.~n= Record of De c i siQ~s i; !1:c by the Reg i ,):1a1 Ad!:1i n is tra tU.L
::>;:8p~E::-I.:e.:::- 30, 1985.
I
/ 3 /)/: -
'.' I ;...
Da~-=
Jr'-:'.~.;.~.- ...
'\/7 ,r .
1 / ~j. ~ (J7.,v'.2J
Re~i~!1:l ~dministrator, Region I
~
--
"
-------
~e of~icial, double spaced, Record of Decision for the Hocornonco
~~nd site was approved by signature of the U.S. Environmental
P~~tection Agency Regional Administrator, Region I, on September
3:>, 1985.
T~e official document includes an errata sheet approved by signature
of the Regicrnal Administrator on January 3, 1986.
C~an~es to the official document, consistent with the approved
errata sheet, have been incorporated in this single spaced edition.
v
--. .-, .. - .
.-~ '.".'.::;~:-:';: -f.. ~...-;..-::..:'
-------
.Summa::-y of"Remed ial,Alte~nat iveSelection
Fo:.-
Hocomonco Pond Site
Westbo:-'ough., Massachusetts
()
September 30, 1985
. .
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Reg ion I
Boston, Massachusetts
;..;;~ii~~~i:
""!~ .
-------
Site
Site
NPL
Cu::-::-ent
LO,cat ion
Histo::-y.
List ing
Site
Alternatives
Forme::-
Ke t ~ 1 e
Hocomonco
at is
Isolated
Recor..mended
Forme::-
Kettle
Hocornonco
Otis
Isolated
Ope::- a t ion
Cons istency
c,
Forme::-
Kettle
Hocomonco
TABLE
CONTENTS
OF
and
Desc::- ipt iOT1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..............
... .... ... ............. ..... .......
Chronology
of
Events.......
! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Status...................... .
.. ....... ... ... .....
Eva 1 u a t i 0 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lagoon
~ea...................................... .
Pond
A.-:::- e ~ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pond
and
Discha::-ge
S t::.- e am. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Street............................................. .
A-:: e as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Al t ern at i v e c; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lagoon
~ea...................................... .
Pond
k:" e .a .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pond
Discharge
S t ~ e am. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and
S t-::- e e t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ar e as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...................
and
Maintenanc~.... .... .... ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
with
Env i=onr~ental
Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal
Other
Lagoon
A::'e a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......
Pond
k:" ea. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
Pond
Discha::-ge
S t::" e a TT\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and
Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Futu~e
.-.-..........~. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J...c t i 0 T"}. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... .........................
Page
1
2
3
4
15
16
16
17
17
18
45
45
47
50
52
53
54
54
55
55
56
57
57
-".;"'-:"~:;... ,
.\.
-------
Attachments
Su~~ary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Commun'ity :RelationsRe'sponsiv€ness Summary
Appendix A -Enforcement Analysis (Enforcement Confidential)
Append ix B
Append ix C
Append ix .D
Append ix E
Append ix F
=:'. ..-;,......-....,...-----...:- -~..-'" .,.".
Statement of Findings
- Former
Lagoon
Statement of Findings - Kettle Pond Area
StatementofF indin.g,s - 'HocomoncoPond and Discha:-ge
St:-eam
Statement of Findings - Otis St:-eet
Kettle Pond Soil Removal Evaluation
~~. . --..'PO. "1. .--,...
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi~u~e 1 - Site Location Map.
Fi~u~e 2 - ~ea Land Use Map
Fi~u~e 3 - ~oject ~ea Wetlands Map
Fi~u~e 4 - Fo~mer Wood ~eating Facility Site Layout Map
Fi~u~e5 - Contamination ~eas Map
Fi~u~e 6 - ~ganic Vapo~ Analyzer Survey
Fi~u~e 7 - Test pit and su~face Soil Sampling Locations
Fi~u~e 8 - Su~face Wate~ and Sediment Sampling Locations
Fi~u~e 9 - Explo~ato:-y Bo:- ing/G:-ound Wate:- Sampling Locations
'_.'.--"'-"""'~,'r:.."-"
-------
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
'Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
LIST OF TABLES
- Summa~y of ~ganic Site Contamination
Former 1.agoon ~ ea
- Surnrna~y of Ino~ganic Site Conta~ination
Fo~me~ Lagoon ~ea
- Summa~y of ~ganic Site Contamination
Kettle Pond ~ea
- Sununaryofln.o::-gan ic: 's,ite Contamination
Kettle Pond ~ea
- Summa~y of ~ganic Site Contamination
Hocomonco Pond and Discharge St~eam
- Summa~y of Ino~ganic Site Contamination
Hocomonco Pond and Discharge St~eam
-S.ummary ofO::'g,anic Sit-e' 'Con.taminat.ion
Otis St~eet (East Side)
- Summa~y of Inorganic Site Contamination
Otis St~eet (East Side) .
- Summa~y of ~ganic Vapo~ Analyzer Sample Locations
Table 10 - ~ganic Compounds Detected in MW-l Soil Samples
Table 11
~ganic Compounds Detected in Su~face Wate~
Table 12-OrgEm ic Compounds' Detecterl 'in 'Sediment Samples
Table 13 - ~ganic Compounds Detected in ~ound Wate~ Samples
( M W- 4 )
Table 14 - C~itical Contaminants
Table 15 - Summary of Feasibility Study Sc~eening of Remedial
.Al.t.ern.ati ve s
Table 16 - Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alte~natives
Former Lagoon Area
Table 17 - Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Kettle Pond ~ea
Table 18 - Summary.of Deta iledEvaluat ion of Alt.ernat ives
Hocomonco POrl.d an.d .D.is.ch.arge. .,St.ream k"e.a
.. -...,. --------..-- .'~"
. ,
-------
Ta~~e 19 - Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Otis Street Area
Ta~le 20 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Forwer. Lagoon Area
Site Grading and Capping; Storm Sewer Relocation (FL-l)
Table 21 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Forwer Lagoon Area
Soil/Waste Excavation; Off-Site Landfill Disposal (FL-2)
Table 22 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Former Lagoon Area
Soil/Waste Excavation; On-Site Landfill Facility (FL-3)
Table 23 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Former Lagoon Area
Soil/Waste Excavation and On-Site Rotary Kiln
Incineration (FL-4A)
Table 24 - Detailed Cost Estimate.- Former Lagoon Area
Soil/Waste Excavation and On-Site Infrared
Incineration (FL-4B)
Table 2S - Detailed Cost Estimate - Former Lagoon Area
No Ac t i on (FL- 5)
Table 26 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Site Grading & Capping ( K P- 1 )
Table 27 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Soil/Waste Excavation and Off-Site Landfill Disposal (KP-2)
Table 28 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Soil/Waste Excavation and On-Site Landfill Disposal (KP-3)
Table 29 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Soil/Waste Excavation and On-Site Rotary Kiln
Incineration (KP-4A)
Table 30 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Soil/Waste Excavation and On-Site Infrared
Incineration (KP-4B)
Table 31 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond Ground
Water Containment Barrier; Site Grading & Capping (KP-S)
.Table 32 - Detailed Cost Estimate -Kettle Pond
Ground Water Pumping and Treatment
Site Grading and Capping (KP-6A)
Table 33 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
Ground Water Pumping and T~eatment
Site Grading and Capping (KP-6B)
.-- . ~_...-~.-,
-------
Table 34 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Kettle Pond
No Act ion (KP-7)
Table 35 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Hocomonco Pond and Discha~ge St:
Hyd::aulic D::edging of Sedi!TIents and D.isposal/'I'::'eatment (IL. lA
Table 36 - Betailed Cost Est"~ate - Hocomonco Pond and Discha~ge Stream
Hyd~aulic ~edging of Sediments and Disposal/~eatment (HP-lB
Table 37 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Hocomonco Pond and Discha::ge St~eam
Mechanical ~edging of Sediments and Disposal/~eatment (HP-2
e
. Table 38 .- ;oe.taIled Cost . Estinate - Hocomonco ~,Pond :'andDisc.ha::,ge St::eam
Capp ingof Sed irnent'S ('HP- 3)
Table 39 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Otis St::eet
Embankment Capping (O~-l)
Table 40 - Detailed Cost Estimate - Otis St~eet
Sto~m ~ain Sealing (OS-2)
Table 41-De.tailedCostEst imate - .Ot is St=eet
No Ac t ion .( OS- 3 )
::-"- :----- .._- -..."'.'".-
-------
Summary of
Remedial Alternative Selection
S i t~ :
Hocomonco Pond, Westborough, Massachusetts
SITE LOC~TION AND DESCRIPTION
The H~comonco Pond Site covers approxi~ately 23 acres. The site is
loc::ted in the Town of \\estborough, Horcester County, Massachusetts
(refer to Figure 1). Westborough, a suburban community of about
l4,~0~ people, consists of light industrial, commercial, and residential
pro?erties. No homes are located on or border the site. Approximately
40 =esidential homes are located within one-half mile of the site,
pri~cipally in the residential area along Fisher Street, south of
the site. Several light industries/ manufacturing companies are
located within one-half mile of the site. The site is zoned for
industrial use~ The area land use is shown on Figure 2. The site
is ~ordered on the northwest by the irregularly-shaped Hocomonco
Pon1. Hocomonco Pond is a 27-acre shallow, warm water pond. site
con~~~ination extends into the pond and its discharge stream.
T~e regional bedrock geology in the general area of the site is
doroinated by Precambrian to Ordovician metamorphic rock which dips
wes~wards while striking northeast. These units are cut by younger
ign~ous rocks and several major northeast striking faults. The
ty~ical stratigraphic sequence of surficial deposits from base to
top at the site consists of 0-40 feet of dense lodgement till under
0-100 feet of delta foreset beds, followed by 0-30 feet of delta
topset beds.
u
T~e Hocomonco Pond Site is located in the Assabet River Basin.
~ound water on-site flows toward and discharges into Hocomonco
Por.~L Hncomonco drains northeast toward the Assabet River. Several
wetland areas are locat.ed in the general vicinity of the site
(Figure 3). The Kettle Pond area wetlands are located on the site
bet*een Kettle Pond and Hocomonco Pond. This small (0.1 acre)
wooded, swamp-type wetlands is contiguous to Hocomonco Pond and is
occasionally inundated. Hocomonco Pond, the contiguous wetlands,
the discharge stream and part of the Otis Street site area are in
the base (100 year) floodplain of the Assabet River as defined by
the EUD floodplain management maps. Kettle Pond itself is not
re~ulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Clean
water Act Section 404. However, Kettle Pond is considered for the
purposes of Executive Order 11990 as a wetland area lying outside
of the base (100 year) Assabet River floodplain.
The ~etland contiguous to the inlet stream to Hocomonco Pond is an
ap;roximately 8-acre wooded wetland. The stream which flows through
th~ -etland originates to the north of Hocomonco Pond near Otis
Street.
-------
-2-
The Assabet River wetland is a large, wooded wetland located to
the northeast of Hocomonco Pond. The floodplain type wetland is
approximately 70 acres in size (area delineated on Figure 3) and is
contiguous to the Assabet River and the Hocomonco Pond discharge
stre.arn.The COE has determined t.hat "Bocornonco. Pond and the contiguous
wetland are under its jurisdiction.
The Otis Street municipal well, a significant factor in the site
listing and matter of public concern, is located approximately
2000 feet northwest of the site, on the opposite side of the Hocomonco
Pond. The location of this well is shown'on Figures land 9.
Theresul tso'fthe Remedial Investig.at'ion/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
indicate that hydrogeologic conditions in the Hocomonco Pond area
would prevent the migration of contamination from the identified
sources to either the Otis Street municipal well, northwest of the
pond, or to the Smith Valve process well to the west. The location
of Smith Valve C~mpany well is s.hown on Figure 9. Hocomonco Pond
provides a constant head boundary that prevents ground water flow
to the water supply wells from the contaminant sources. The lack
or. .eontaminantsinsamples fromt,he.s.e wells supports .t.he conclusion
that.con'taminantsare .not rnigr.at'ingtothese we'lls..Furthermore,
the Otis Street well is currently being operated at 350-400 gpm,
which is the recommended pumpage rate previously defined to limit
the radius of influence from intersecting Hocomonco Pond.
SITE HISTORY
. Source History
Research into the past activities at the Hocomonco Pond Site
indicates that from 1928 to 1946, the site was used for a wood-
treating operation by Montan Treating Company and American Lumber
. ard 'Treating Company. .'Thisbusine'ss consl-'Sted.ofsaturatingwoo'd
products (e.g., telephone poles, railroad 'ties, 'pilings, and 'fence
posts) with creosote to preserve them. During operations, wastes
were discharged to a pit referred to herein as the "former lagoon."
The lagoon was excavated on the property to intercept and contain
spillage and waste from the wood-treating operation. As this
lagoon became filled with waste creosote, sludges, and water, its
contents were pumped to two depressions located east of the operation
near the west side of Otis Street. These depressions are referred
to .astheKett.le.Pond.
The actual wood-treating operations were situated on a bluff above
the south shore of Hocomonco Pond. A site layout map illustrating
the wood-treating operation is shown on Figure 4. Figure 4 is'
based on interpretation of historic aerial photographs and site data.
Th~.woo.d-treatment f-ac.ility operated until .t.herni.d~~940s when it
,.WAS .con.vertedto .an "a sp:l'a 1 t .mix in.~ plant.. Disc-ardecaggregateand
~---_..: -.,~:-.'--
.. ..
-. . ~ .,., ... ~ . -.... ~ . - ....... ,- -. .
-------
-3-
as;~al~ a~e common th~oughout the site. The last use of the site
was as a cement plant f~om which d~y cement ~as cist~ibuted in
b~lk. S~ith Valve Conpany pu~chased the p~ope~ty of the fo~mer
ope~ations, on Ap~ il 2, 1976, and cu~~ently ope~ates a rnanufactur in9 -
plant on a separate parcel on the southwest sho~e of Hocomonco Pond.
Avai!a~le i~formation indicates no creosote was used or
stcred on the site by any person who owned o~ occupied the site
afte~ ~a~ch 26, 1946.
NPL Listing-Chronology of Events
F~~er Lagoon Area
In 1976, a storm drain was installed to collect surface drainage
f~om t~e Smith Parkway (south of the site) and to contain a small
watercourse which passed through the property. The culvert was
10cate1 adjacent to the eastern limits of what is now known to be
the area of the forme~ lagoon (refer to Figu~e 4). At the order
of the Westborough Conservation Commission, the sto~m drain pipe
was laid with open joints. During periods of heavy ~ain, wate~
passin~ through this open-jointed sto~m drainage system to Hocomonco
Por.d ~as obse~ved to be contaminated. Subsequent attempts to seal
the joints in the sto~m d~ain pipe we~e unsuccessful. On seve~al
occasi~ns from 1979 through the p~esent, c~eosote has been contained
by and collected at the oil boom located in the Hocomonco Pond at
the crain channel discharge.
Hococo:-lcO Pond
On Nov~mber 21, 1979, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife investigate!
a fish kill repo~t at Hocomonco Pond. Anothe~ fish kill was-investigate'
00 April 16, 1982; both kills we~e ~eported to be attributed to
creosote from the storm drain that passes next to the former lagoon.
Several other studies and investigations were ~q~- between the
years 1979 and 1982 to evaluate the sou~ce and extent of creosote
anc to investigate methods of removing and/or containing creosote
contamination on the site.
u
Water from Hocomonco Pond was sampled by the Massachusetts Department
of Env~onmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) in July and August
1982. A sample of the oily fraction of the storn drain discharge
contai:-led several contaminants at concentrations above 1 ppm:
phenanthrene, naphthalene, anthracene, pyrene, fluoranthene, and
phenol. Water from the storm drain contained six contaminants,
anthra=ene, phenanthrene, and fluoranthene being the most prevalent.
Ke~t!e Pond and Otis St~eet
C'"J~:i:;; t:Je ~econst~uction of Otis Street (1983), it was necessary
to excavate soil adjacent to the Kettle Pond. As a ~esu1t of the
. . -.. .... -- ."'.'--'-' - -. .-..-.--.,.
-------
-4-
excavation, contamination in the Kettle Pond was distu~bed. Contam-
inated soil was ~edist~ibuted within the ~oadway embankment on the
Kettle Pond side (west side) du~i~g ~econst~uction.
In July 1'983, the EPA'Reg ion I Field IT1.v€st igat ion Team (FIT)
obtained water, soil ,and sluag-e sample's ,from the area of ~oad
imp~ovement -on Ot is St~eet. . The samples we~e collected in orde~ to
assess the risk associated with the road reconstruction th~ough -
th is a~ea of former c~eosote disposal. Resul ts of th is invest igat ion"
showed that contaminants found in sludge samples obtained near the
Kettle Pond and the Otis Street reconstru~tion a~eas we~e consistent
with those commonly associated with creosote and creosote by-products~
As a result of the extent of creosote contamination detected at
various locations in the Hocomonco Pond area and the possible
threat of contamination affecting the Otis Street municipal well
the site was evaluated, ranked and placed on the National Priority
List. In 1984, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
autho~ized a remedial investigation to define the source, extent
and character of the site contamination.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Remedial Investigation
During the remedial investigation four primary areas of contamination
were defined. Site contamination can be summarized as occurring
in the following general locations (refer to Figure 5): 1) the
former lagoon area, 2) the Kettle Pond a~ea, 3) Hocomonco Pond and
its discharge stream, and 4) Otis Street. Three other small isolated
areas of contamination were also located: (a) tank bases from the
treating operation near the fo~me~ lagoon (refer to Figure 4) which
appear to contain c~eosote by-products; (b) contamination in shallow
s-oils "t1e.ar .mon it,o::' ingwe.ll M.W-l (=-:ef-erto~ Figure 5 )-:c-ontam ina-tea
- sediments'11eara 'cu1.v-ertin -the dr-ainag-e channel .which ,d_isch.arges
on the southwest shore of Hocomonco Pond (refer to Figure 5). The
extent and character of contamination at the va~ious Hocomonco Pond
site locations was defined during the Remedial Investigation by
means of air monitoring, test pits and su~face soil sampling,
surface water and sediment sampling, shallow and deep borings and
monito:ing wells. The location of the various sample points,
. bo~ings and wells a~e shown on Figu~es 6 through 9.
A1 though cons iderable 'sampl'ing wa-sdo-ne ,the -d:ataob'ta ine-daur ing
:the RI did not provide evidence to confirm the 8000 gallon spill
reported to have occurred on-site (refer to Figure 4) in 1943~ A
discuss ion of the extent of the contaminat ion in these areas .is
prov ided below. -
-.
- ". .c.'. . ~
-------
-5-
Former lagoon area: The areal extent
with this area is shown on Figure 5.
p~ograrn conducted in the areas of the
discussed below.
of contamination associated
The results of sampling
former lagoon are
Air Quality - Available air ~onitoring data obtained
wtth an organic v~por analyzer in the area of the former
lagoon (Sample No. 1-10) does not indicate an air quality
problem. However, additional air monitoring, particularly
du~ing warm weather, is necessary to more fully characterize
the air quality at this area. The location of each
sample is shown on Figure 6. Sample data is presented on
Table 9.
Soil - An evaluation of the soils in the area of the
former lagoon was conducted using soil samples, a sediment
sample~and subsurface samples obtained from exploratory
borings and borings drilled for rnoni~oring wells.
The depth of soil contaminated with creosote compounds
typically ranges from 5 to 15 feet with isolated depths
to 20 feet. Contamination was also detected in the near
surface soil in this area. At the sample depth of 3
feet, creosote compound concentrations range from 74,000
to 3,090,000 ug/kg. Creosote compounds in the soil at
the 20-foot depth range from not detected (ND) to 7000
ug/kg. The volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be
18,000 cubic yards and is located above the ground
water table. Visible contamination was present in the
storm drain catch basin located on the east side of the
former lagoon.
The location of various sample points are shown on Figures
7, 8 and 9. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the type and
concentration of organic and inorganic contaminants in
the Former Lagoon Area.
v
Ground water - Sarnpli~g of the groundwater in monitoring
wells in the area of the Former Lagoon did not indicate
the presence of ground water contamination. The lack of
ground water contamination in MW-6 and M~'i-7, located a
short distance downgradient of the former lagoon, was
particularly significant. The lack of contamination in
the wells downgradient of the former lagoon area appears
to be based on the deposition, location of creosote, its
migration characteristics, and the hydrogeologic regime.
During the test pit and exploratory boring operations, it
was observed that creosote product was principally located
in the upper 15 feet of the soil, above the ground water
level. The test pit and exploratory borings in the
.... ..-. --- .... .
-------
-6-
former lagoon also showed that significant downward
migration of contaminants is being impaired by a relatively
impervious layer of sludges and slaked fines at the
bottom of the lagoon.
However, several creosot'e' c:onpounds 'i'n the ND-'7000 ug/kg
range were detect~ in soil at depths of 18-20 feet.
Continued infiltration of precipitation into the former
lagoon creosote waste could result in the movement of
contaminants into the ground water.
Hydrogeologic conditions at this site would prevent any
contaminant ,migration d'eep into the aquifer at 'this
location. Monitoring wel"l set's 'M'W-6D!M\-1-6S 'an'd MW-7DIMW-7S
exhibit an upward ground water flow component (increasing
head with depth); hence any contaminant seepage from the
lagoon would flow down into the ground water, flow laterally
and discharge to Hocomonco Pond.
Kettle Pond Area: The areal extent of soil contamination
.associated wit.h Kett.le Pond is shown on Figure 5. This includes
the west b.ank of Otis Street ana the area nO.rtn of 'Ke.ttle
Pond to Hocomonco Pond. The results of the sampling program
conducted in the Kettle Pond area are discussed below.
Air Quality,- Available air monitoring data obtained
with an organic vapor analyzer in the area north of
Kettle Pond (Sample No. 19) does not indicate an air
quality problem. Air samples were not obtained at the
Kettle Pond itself. However, odors are present at the
Kettle Pond during warm weather. Additional air monitoring
during warm weather is necessary to more fully characterize
the air quality in this area. The sample locations are
shown on Figure .-6. . Sample' data is 'present1e:don Table 9.
Soil - An evaluation of the soils' in the Kettle Pond
area was conducted using surface soil samples, a sediment
sample and subsurface sa~ples obtained from exploratory
borings and borings drilled for monitoring wells. The
depth of soil contaminated with creosote compounds extends
from the surface to a depth of 20 feet (maximum depth
sampled and analyzed). Creosote compound levels in soil
r,ange.fromND to 4;g3.,nOO ug/kgat ,a de,pttl;of .0-2' 'feet .to
. ND toSS,'OOO u'g/kg at a c~pth of 20 'f
-------
-7-
moderate contamination to a depth of 20 to 26 feet.
Contamination in test/pit T?-1gextended below the water
table which was at a depth of approximately 8 feet. Surface
soil samples within this area adjacent to Hocomonco pond
are also contaminated with creosote compounds. The
volume of contaminated soil is approximately 24,000 cubic
ya~ds. The location of the various sample points are
shown on Figures 7, 8 and 9.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the type and concentration of
organic and inorganic conta~inants at the Kettle pond
Area.
Ground water - Ground water downgradient of Kettle
pond is contaminated with creosote compounds. The
compounds detected in MW-4 are "typical" creosote compounds
(acenapnthene, naphthalene, acenaphthylene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, dibenzofuran, 2-methylnaphthalene). phenolic
compounds, which constitute the acidic portions of some
creosote products, were also identified. Ground water
samples taken in this area were also analyzed for priority
pollutant metals. Levels for iron and manganese exceeded
background levels and secondary drinking water standards.
The creosote contamination at MW-4 is a result of the
well intercepting ground .ater flow between the Kettle
Pond and Hocomonco Pond, which exhibited a piezometric
head gradient which varies from slightly downward to no
vertical gradient at this location.
It should be noted that although ground water was not
sampled, contamination in test pit TP-19 did extend below
the water table.
The location of the monit~ring wells is shown on Figure
9. Sample data is presented on Tables 3, 4 and 13.
Hocomonco Pond and Discharge Stream: The extent of contamination
in Hocomonco Pond is limited to a relative small area (approximatel~
800 x 100 feet) in the southeast section of the pond. Contaminatiol
in the discharge stream extends to a point approximately 300
feet east of Otis Street. The areal extent of contamination
in Bocomonco Pond and the discharge stream is shown on Figure
5. The results of the samplin~ program conducted in these
areas are discussed below. .
"
Air Quality - Available air monitoring data obtained with
an organic vapor analyzer in Hocomonco Pond and its.
discharge stream (Sample ~os. 11-18) indicate air quality
problems in several locations. Total organic vapors
detected upon agitation of the sediments were, at some
_.- ..,..- ~"'. ._---. ... .",..... ...- .-_. ~ ..-
. --
:-.r~:.....~-~~:.
-.---.-'" ..- -. --.... .
-------
-8-
sample locations, significantly above background levels.
Organic vapor readings were in the range of less than 1
to 95 ppm.
S'amp1e :locations .are s.nown on ,Figur,e 6..
presented on Table 9.
Sample data is
Sediments - Sediment sacples were taken at various locations
in the Hocomonco Pond and the discharge stream. Sediments
contaminated with creosote compounds exist along the
southeast portion of Hocomonco Pond and in the discharge
.stream. Wit..hin the pond,se,diment .cont.amination ranges
from NDto 34,000 ug/k9-Inthe discharge st.r,eam sediment
contamination ranges from ND to 140,000 ug/kg. Contaminated
sediments in the discharge stream were found at a distance'
of 300 feet downstream of Otis Street; however, a sediment
sample taken 1,000 feet downstream of Otis Street was not
contaminated. Sediment sample SD-lO, collected at the
outlet from the storm drain, north of the former lagoon,
contained 17 identified and quantified compounds (refer to
Table 12 )as,wella,sol:.,ber t-entati.v.elyidentif ied c.ompounds.
. The Smith Parkway . storm'::orain-.syst'em, ,constructed with
open joints, runs adjacent to the former lagoon, which
was found to contain creosote contaminated soil. Visibly
contaminated water (sheen) discharges from the storm
drain after periods of significant rainfall. Leachate is
produced as rain infiltrates through the former lagoon
area, and subsequently enters the storm drain system.
Migration of contaminants via the storm drain is believed
to be a principal cause of contamination in Hocomonco
Pond and the discharge stream; however, it is possible
that som~ waste resulting from the wood-treating operation
may have been disposed of along the banks of the Hocomonco
Pond, resulting i.n conta1Il1nation a'long ,theedge of the
pond. Due to the very "low solubility oft-he aromatic
compounds associated with creosote, many of the contaminants
would be expected to partition to the sediments and not
be soluble in high concentrations. The presence of contam-
ination in the sediments indicates such a partitioning
has occurred.
The locat.ion of the sediment samples is shown on Figure
8. Sample dat.a is pr:esentedon Tables 5", .6. and 12.
Surface water - Results of surface water sampling indicate
contamination at three locations: SW-51, SW-53 and SW54.
Contamination level at SW-53, located at the storm drain
channel discharge point at Hocomonco Pond, was higher
than the levels at SW-5l and SW-54. Samples obtained at
qt-hese .locations S\i-51, SW-53, ,and S\v-54 toil boom) cont.ained
-------
-9-
detectable a~ounts (ND-530 ug/l) of creosote compounds.
Surface water quality at these locations is related to
the contamination in the storm drain that passes next
to the former lagoon area. The presence of the creosote
compounds in these samples is due to the infiltration of
water into the open-jointed storm drain pipe. Hocomonco
pond surface water -is not contaminated beyond the oil
boom located at the storm drain channel discharge point
at the pond.
It should be noted that although the Hocomonco Pond (beyond
the oil boom) and discharge stream waters are not contam-
inated the potential for contamination of the surface water
does exist due to the release of contaminants from the
sediments. Contamination (sheen) was observed on the water
when sediments were agitated at several air monitoring
sample iocations (refer to Table 9).
The location of the surface water sampling is shown on
Figure 8. Sample data is presented on Tables 5 and 11.
Otis Street: The areal extent of the area defined as Otis
Street is shown on Figure 5. The results of the sampling
program conducted in this area are discussed below.
Air Quality - Quantitative air monitoring was not conducted
in the Otis Street area. However, a creosote odor was
noted in the catch basins of the storm drainage system,
which runs along the east side of Otis Street.
Soils - An evaluation of the soil in the Otis Street
area was conducted using samples obtained from exploratory
borings and borings drilled for monitoring wells. organic
contaminan~s were not detected in t~e soils on the east-
side of Otis Street.
The location of the sample points are shown on Figure 9.
Tables 7 and 8 summarize the type and concentration of
organic and inorganic contamination on the east side of
Otis Street.
Ground water - Ground water in wells downgradient (MW-3)
of the embankment on the east side of Otis Street contain
low levels of contamination. Contaminated ground water
at MW-3 is the result of contaminant migration from the
Kettle Pond.
The location of monitoring well MW-3 is shown on Figure
9. Tables 7 and 8 summarize the type and concentration
of contamination on the east side of Otis Street.
- . .
-------
-10-
Isolated ~eas: The a~eal extent of the contamination associated
with the th~ee isolated site a~eas - (1 soils nea~ monito~ing
well no. 1, (2 tank bases adjacent to the fo~me~ lagoon and (-
d~ainage channel sediments, is ve~y limited. The location of
m.on,it:or.ing wel:! DO. '1 and thee::- ainagechann.el ..a::-eshown on
Figu~e 5.' The locat ion of tne tank bases a~e shown on Figu~e 4.
Soil/Sedi!:lents - Contamination in the th~ee isolated
a~eas was detected by soil samples obtained f~om bo~ings
d~illed fo~ monito~ing wells, a sediment sample and,
in the case of the tank bases, 'v isual/obse~vat ion. The
.concent::',ati.on ..0£ creosotec..on.taminants., in the shallow
:50 i1'5.., 0-2 .f.eet, ,att'he mon it 0::- 'ing.we.l1 no. Ie MW-l )
were in the range of app~oxinately 2500 to 9000 ug/kg.
The compounds and concent~ations detected at MW-l are
presented on Table 10. .
The concentration of creosote contaminants in the sediments
of the d~ainage channel located in the southwest section
of the site were in the range of app~oximately 6,000 to
39.",.00.0 ug/kg.... . The compDunds.and ..co.nc.en,t~,at,ionsde.tected
.in .:th~.dr.a.in..ag:e cha.nne.l~a=-ep~'e:sen:t:ed on,Xab.le ,1,2 {:SD-58 ) .
General Site Hydrology: Su~face wate~ is present on-site in
Hocomonco Pond, Kettle Pond (seasonal), a small dep~ession
west of Kettle Pond, and in a low swampy area south of Smith
Parkway, near monitoring well MW-l. Kettle Pond collects
limited surface water runoff and has no outlet; it also inter
seasonal high ground wate~. During the field investigation it
was also noted that water tends to pond in the area of the
.forme~ lagoon, the result of low, flat topog~aphy. The remainder
of the site appea~s to be well drained due to moderate to
steep slopes and to relatively pe~meable soils ove~ the sandy
s'tr.at if .lea d~ift. - :Tbe.,permeabl-e "na'ture. of.the . s'Oi'1:s .:a.t . the
site provide relativelyhig'h infiltration potential. Precipitatio
on-site ultimately discha~ges to the Hocomonco Pond o~ its
discharge stream via direct runoff, inf il trat ion, and subsequent
g~ound water discharge, o~ th~ough sto~m drain facilities.
Ground water level measurements were made throughout the
field program to establish hydrogeologic properties at the
Hocomonco Pond Site. In the Spring of 1984, ground water
',elev.ation data for the shallow (water table) wells were plotted
:'and.cont:o.ur"e'd .'toconstruct .a gr'ound water contour
-------
-11-
Hocomonco Pond provides a constant head bqundary that prevents
g~ound water flow to the water supply wells from the contaminant
sources. The lack of contaminants, as determined in the
analytical tasks of this investigation, in the Otis Street
municipal well, a nearby ground water o~servation well, and
the Smith Valve Process well, fu~ther s~pport the fact that
con~ami~ants are not migrating to these water supply wells.
E~c~r.gerDent Assessment
su~ary of Public Health and Environmental I~pacts
The public health and environmental concerns at the Hocomonco Pond
Site are a function of the contaminant concentrations and actual
and/or potential exposure routes and receptors. The public health and
environmental concerns are addres~ed in terms of hazard identification,
exposure assessm~nt and risk characterization as summarized in the
following sections.
Hazard Identification
Based on the results of sampling and analytical program, four
p=imary and three small isolated areas of site contamination have
bee~ identified. The areas have been described previously in this.
doc~ent (refer to section on current site status). An analysis of
the organic and iriorganic contaminants detected within each media
(soil, sediments, ground water and surface water) for the various
site areas was conducted to identify critical contaminants at
Hocomonco Pond.
A list of compounds which pose the greatest health risks, "critical
contaminants" was selected through a categorization and ranking
p=ocess. Organic compounds detected in the site contamination
a~eas .ere placed in one of three categories: compounds which are
k~cwn carcinogens, those which are noncarcinogens but have other
k~own health effects, and those which have unknown health effects.
Coro~ounds were then ranked (according to toxicity and/or concentration)
within each of these categories by ~edia, and critical contaminants
were selected.,
Known carcinogens are considered to be those compounds which have
Cancer Potency Factors (CPF's) published by EPA's Cancer Assessment
G=oup (CAG). The higher the CPF, the higher the potency of a
particular compound. Only two organic compounds detected at
Hoco~onco Pond, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene, have CPF's published by
CAG.
.., -O::ganic compounds which do not have CPF's but have an Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI) value established for other health effects by
E?A we~e placed in the noncarcinogen group. Compounds detected in'
-------
-12-
I. .
i
the Hocomonco Pond a~ea having ADI's a~e napthalene, phenol, toluene
and fluo~anthene. The ~otential health ~isk fo~ napthalene is
g~eate~ than the ~isk fo~ phenol, toluene o~ fluo~anthene. Th~ough
a simila~ selection p~ocess, ino~ganic c~itical contaminants were
dete~min.e.dto be a~sen.ic ,and ,ch~ornium... C,PF's have be:en establ ished
for .thesecompoundsan.dbothcompoun,cs h.av.e 'be'en det'e.cted,above
background concentrations in. soil, g~ound water and sediments.
This ranking procedure identifies those contaminants posing the
greatest health risk at the site. The contaminants identified as
"critical contaminants" for this site are preserited on Table 14.
Using the CPF and ADI values for "critical contaminants" health
hazards can be quantified. Health hazards associated with other
sit'e contaminants can'noteasiliY bequ.antified,'be.c.au5.eofthe l'ack
of 'pu'bl1's-heds.tand'ards'; 'howeve~, "'t'he-se c'Ont'aminants 'are '"C-OnS idered
qualitatively to pose a potential health risk. This qualitative
potential health ~isk effectively inc~eases the overall health risk
above the risk level that can be quantified using CPF and ADI
values. Analytical data developed during the Remedial Investigation
show that critical contaminants and othe~ hazardous chemicals now
occu~ in high concent~ations in surface soils « 3 feet), subsurface
soils (> 6 feet), ground water, surface water and sediments at some
'or alloft.he site:contaminat ion ,.a':'€.a's.'The' . oecur.enC.e afc,:, it ieal
contaminants in the site areas 'is summa~ ized 'bel'ow:
Forme~ Lagoon Mea: Cr it ical con tam inan ts occur over a 1. 7 acre
a~ea. Critical contaminants were detected in near surface soil and
subsurface soils and 'sedinents in the storm drain passing by the
a~ea. High concentrat ion of' the polycycl ic aromat ic hydrocarbons
(PAH's) occur in the soil samples but not in the ground wate~ samp~
Kettle Pond Area,: e:- it ical contaminants occur over app~ox imately 1
acre in the Kettle Pond a~ea. Critical contaminants we~e detected
in subsu~face soils, g~ound wate~, su~face soil, and sediments in
"tbe pond.. Tbe ..soil s.am;>les~ p.a::-,ticul.a.=ly ,the ,subsur.fac.e ,s.amp.l,es,
'showhighconcen.t~.at ions of the c1ompoun:d's. 'The ..pono :sed imen ts
and the dried sediments a~ound the ecge of the pond show the highest
concent~ations of all the samples at this location.
Hocomonco Pond and Discha~ge Stream: Host of the measu~ements
occu~ along the southeast borde~ of the pond. Critical contaminants
were detected in the su=face water (at the oil boom), pond sediments
and discharge stream sed~ents.
. cOt isStr~et:: . .Cr it.ical c.on,tam inan-ts-~e::e ,;de1tec:t.e.d .;a;t .ver.y. ..low
concentrations in the ground wate::. Contamination was not detected
in the soil on the east e~bankment of Otis Street.
In summa::y, high concent::ations of the c~itical contaminants occur
in soil and sediment s~ples in seve~al locations at the site~
while lower concentrations occu~ in ~=ound water and su~face waters.
~ -:.---.-.----- -...-.. _.~-, '-.
. . .
.".. -......
-------
-13-
Exp~sure Assessment
The potential for receptor exposure at the Hocomonco site, based on
act~al and potential exposure routes--inhalation, ingestion, and
direct contact -- and associated receptors are surunarized below.
Inhalation
PAR'S ~enerally have low vapor pressure; however, naphthalene (a
critical contaminant) found in the soil, sediment, surface water
and ground water does have a significant volatilization rate. Air
monit~ring data indicates volatile organic compounds are released
when contaminated sediments are agitated. .-
In addition to health risks associated with inhalation of volatile
PAR's and other organic compounds, there are risks associated with
inhalation of du~c. Contaminated -dust occuring in the air as a -
res~lt of playing (i.e. throwing dirt, bike riding, motorcycling)
or dig~ing either by children or adults presents a health risk.
Unremeciated, the site conditions do represent a health risK via
inhalation. Worker and community safety precautions will be addressed
during design of the remedial actions.
Ingestion
Soil/Sediments - Critical contaminants and other hazardous chemicals
are present at ground surface at the Kettle Pond Area, in near
surface soils in the former lagoon area and in Hocomonco Pond and
discharge stream sediments. Ingestion of contaminated soil represents
an act~al health risk to anyone digging, playing or otherwise
disturbing the contaminated site areas.
Ground Water/Surface Water - Based on water quality data for all
well sampling, including the Smith Valve wells and the Otis Street
munici~al well, only wells MW-3 and MH-4 wer.e found to contain
o~ganic compounds. Ground water contamination on site is limited
to the Kettle Pond area, and the east side of Otis Street. Critical
contaJninants were detected in the ground water at M\'l-3 and MW-4.
Ground water contamination represents a potential exposure pathway.
Ground water in this immediate area is not currently used as a
water supply source.
u
It has been determined that there are 00 identified water -supply
wells cowngradient of the site, however; future use of thegrouod
is a potential exposure pathway that should be addressed. It has
been determined that contamination does not migrate to the Otis
S~reet municipal well from any site contaminant areas.
water
~ie su~face water of Hocomonco Pond and its discharge stream have
bee:1 found to be free of contamination, with the exception of the
-.
.- ... ~ . -
. ... .._--~.._......
'.~--~~':~':2;;..~~.
-------
-14-
area near the storm drain discharge channel and oil boom north of
the former lagoon. An exposure pathway and health risk exists
relative to ingestion of or contact with surface water near the
storm drain discharge channel following periods of rainfall. It
should also .be .notedthata.g.Lt.atiDnofc.ontamina,ted sediments in
Hocomonco . Pond r t.he d.i:scb.ar.;x;'e 'st'l/ea!il .and Kettl,e Pond pres.ents an
actual expos~re pathway and health risk via the release of contaminants
to the surface water. Agitation of contaminants also results in
the release of volatile organic compounds into the air resulting in,
an actual exposure pathway and health risk via inhalation. Furthermore,
while swimming restrictions have been imposed at Hocomonco Pond,
the extent to which the restriction is enforced is unknown.
'[)ef.in'itive .cat'a are 'not availabl:e rel.ative. to' the '.b"ioaccumulation
'of c01'1taminants-in .Hoc1:>mon'c'O ':pond.aqua.t'ic 'speci:e:s . Fishsampl ing
for PAH's is required to develop definitive conclusions regarding
this potential exposure pathway and associated health risks. This
work is currently underway by the. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife. Samples have been collected but analytical data is not
yet available. '
Direct Contact
. Di rect cont'act 'wi t'h cri ti'cal contaminants 'and'other"ha'z'ardous
chemicals resulting from digging or playing in contaminated soil,
sediments and surface water is an actual exposure pathway. This
would include direct contact, with contaminated surface soils ~nd/or
surface water at the former lagoon, Kettle Pond, and Hocomonco Pond
and discharge stream sediments. Dermal allergenic and potential
carcinogenic risks are typical of creosote compounds.
Risk Characterization
Health risks associa'ted with the contamination at the Hocomonco
Pond .si.,t.e .,we.re quanti-f,led ,for ,sever.alexposu.r,e ..s.c,enari,Qs .using
-availa.bl:e .cance.r potency ,'fact'or. -c.CPF) -and.'.a:cce,pt.a-ble .daily int.ake
(ADI) values.
Based on a quantitative analysis it was deter~i~ed that ingestion
and dermal contact exposure routes represent significant public
health hazards which should be addressed.
Calculations based on exposure (ingestion and dermal contact) to
'criti.c:aiocarc,il1ogenic. '.chemicals i:nthe'K-et,til.e :P.ond ,area indi:e.at.-ea
:sURRe'd 'iftcr;eme;nt.al '1 i,fet ime cancer .-riS:k.:o£ :1.'616 ,x 10-,3,. ~Thi.s
value represents a summation of calculated risk values for two
carcinogenic chemicals. This risk value is several orders of.
magnitude greater than the value for which the EPA would recommend
remedial action. In addition, calculations based on ADI's indicate
a value of 1. 24003 for exposure to naphthalene, and fluoranthene,
toxic noncarcinogenic chemicals present in high concentrations on
--""',., .. ." --, ~. . ~. .. '- - .
..' _.- .--.'~.....-:-..--.-.~~.....
-------
-15-
t~e site. Risk associated with an ADI greater than one (1) are
cor.sidered unacceptable and would trigger remedial action. Additional
health risks associated with other critical contaminants in the
Kettle Pond area would be expected to increase the overall risk to .
a level greater than that quantified. .
C3lculation~ based on the use (ingestion exposure) of ground water
f~c~ a hypothetical well downgradient from Kettle Pond (e.g. water
from MN-4) indicate an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 2.55 x
10-2 a~d an AD! fraction of 36.63866 both of which are much higher
than the values for which EPA would recommend remedial action.
Calculations based on exposure (ingestion and dermal contact) to
critical contaminants in Hocomonco Pond soil and sediments indicate
an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 2.22 x 10-5 and 2.43 x 10-5
respectively. The risk values are slightly more than an order of
magnitude greater than the value for which EPA would recommend
re~edial action. .
Calculations based on exposure (ingestion and dermal contact) to
c~itical contaminants by swimming in the area of contamination at
Hoco~onco Pond indicate an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 3.61
x 10-6. this value is slightly higher than the value for which EPA
w~uld recommend remedial action. In addition, calculations based
on ADI's indicate a value of 1.68459 for exposure to naphthalene.
anc fluo~anthene.
Hocomonco Pond Site Security
As a result of contamination at this site, Hocomonco Pond has been
closed to recreational use, e.g. fishing, boating and swimming.
Signs have been posted. Access to the overall site via the dirt
a~ce~s road is restricted by large boulders blocking the road.
P~r.estrian access is not controlled. The site is not fenced.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
u
Re~edial Response Objectives
The overall objective of remedial action at the Hocomonco Pond
site is to mitigate or eliminate contamination and environmental
anc public health impacts. The remedial response objectives for
site cleanup are presented below for each area of contamination.
T:,e re~edial alternatives proposed are for source control remedial
action undertaken pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S 300.68(e) (2) which is
appropriate in this instance because a substantial concentration of
hazardous substances remain at or near the area where they were
originally located and inadequate barriers exist to retard migration
of substances into the environment. . .
_.. . - - '. '.. .. -~.-- ~ --
<-"-";"':-::;:-~--:';"':'7r-:; .. .
--- ---.._-~_.
.-. . . """" ..
.. -""". .0. . . .....-t ....-. ;"; .... .
. .
-------
-16-
Fo~me~ Lagoon A~ea
The exposu~e pathways, contaminant mig~ation routes and actual
and/o~ potential public health and env~onmental impacts associated
..' it:h th.i s are.a in c1 ud e :
o
Inhalation exposure
o
Exposure by accidental ingestion of contaminants
o
Direct contact exposure
'..
'M.igr.a.t.ion of' con'tarnin:anlts ..to 1iocomonc.o'P'ond .and j:ts discharge
stream via the sto~m drain passing adjacent to the contamination
ar ea.
o
Impacts on wetlands
The objectives of remedial action a~e as follows:
o
:Elim.inate inh:ala:tion, d irec t,,,contact ,an..d .ingest,.ion e.xpos,ure
.pa tbway.s .
o
Eliminate the contaminant mig~ation potential to Hocomonco
Pond, surface wate~, and pond sediments (wetlands).
o
Ensure ground wate~ contamination does not occur in the future.
o
Eliminate impacts on wetlands.
Kettle Pond Area
The e~posure pathways, contaminant migration route and actual
and/orpotentla1 public health ,a'i1d 'e'nv'.i..r:onme\n:t:a.l -impact.s. 'a-ss.ociat-ed
with this area include:
o
Inhalation exposure
o
Exposure by accidental ingestion of contaminants.
o
Direct contact exposure.
'Migration'of 'cont.ami-nants to.\Rocomonco Pond ..a'no discharge
stream surface water via ground water discharge to surface
waters.
.
o
Impacts on wetlands.
o
Future use of ground water.
-------
-17-
TIle objectives of ~emedial action a~e as follows:
o
EIL-ninate inhalation, di~ect contact and ingestion exposu~e
pathways.
c
EIL-ninate ground wate~ cont~~ination (and ~esultant su~face wate~
contamination) associated with this a~ea of the site which fo~
the pu~pose of g~ound wate~ ~emediation includes the a~ea on
the east side of Otis St~eet.
D
ElL-ninate impacts on wetlands.
Eoco~o~co Pond and Discha~ge St~earn
The exposu~e pathways, contaminant mig~ation ~outes, and actual
anc/o~ potential public health and erivi~onmental impacts associated
with this area include:
o
I~halation exposu~e.
o
Exposure by acc idental ingest ion of contaminants (sed iments
a~d su~face wate~).
o
Di~ect contact exposu~e.
o
Mig~ation of contaminants fu~the~ downst~eam of pond and
discha~ge stream.
The objectives of remedial action a~e as follows:
o
Eliminate the inhalation, di~ect contact and ingestion
exposu~e pathways.
o
Eliminate the contaminant mig~ation potential to downst~eam
a~eas.
o
ElL-ninate futu~e potential L~pacts to wetlands and fishe~ies
and associated consumptiveexposu~e pathways.
o
Enhance futh~e ~ec~eational usage of Hocomonco Pond.
Ot is St~eet
The co~taminated soils in ernbankmentareas of Otis St~eet, adjacent
to Kettle Pond, have been included in the Kettle Pond contamination
~ea fo~ the pu~pose of evaluation. No contamination was detected
in the soil on the east embankment. ~ace levels of organic contaminant
we=e detected in the g~ound wate~ (M~-3). C~eosote odo~ was present
in seve~al catch basins of the Otis Street d~ain system, indicating
a ~o~e~tial mig~ation pathway. .
-.'-"--t, - ~.,..-
-------
-18-
The exposure pathways, contaminant migration route and actual
and/or potential public health and environmental impacts associated
with this area include:
"
Inhalat ion exposure .
o
Direct -contact exposure. (via Hocomonco Pond discharge stream
water) .
o
Exposure by accidental ingestion of contaminants (via Hocomonco
Pond discharge stream water)
,0
Mig'ra'tion of contaminants ,in 'ground ,wat,er 'from'7Ket,tle Pond
Area to surface water 'in the HOC'01ncmco :Pond di'scharge 'str-e'am.
o
Impacts on wetlands.
The objectives of remedial action are as follows:
o
Eliminate inhalation direct contact and ingestion exposure pathway~
o
,:Insure c,on,tami'nantsdo not 'migrate through' 't'he'stormdr,ainage
system to surface waters.
o
Eliminate impac~s on wetlands.
Isolated Areas
The exposure pathways, contaminant migration routes and actual and,
'potential public health and enviro~ental impacts associated with
the three isolated areas of contamination (soil at monitoring well
no. 1 (HW-l), tank ,bases located adjacent to the former lagoon and
contaminated sediments in the storm drain channel on the southwest
side of the sit..e) , i'nc~ude:
o
Direct contact exposure
o
Exposure by accidental ingestion of contaminants
o
Migration of contaminants to Hocomonco Pond (storm drain
channel only)
1 .
I
'Theobj:ecti ves::o:fremed ia1 act ion:are ,:as£o1:lows:
_...,
",-' ." - ~_. ... .
~ . . . ..
o
Eliminate potential direct contact/ingestion exposure pathways
o
Eliminate the potential of contaminant migration to Hocomonco
Pond surface water and pond sediments.
o
Eliminate impacts on wetlands.
-------
-19-
Re~ecial Alte=natives Sc=eening p=ocess
The =e~edial action sc=eening p=ocess involves seve=al steps. First,
a limited nurnbe= of alte=natives we=e ceveloped using feasible
technoio.~ ies and cons ide= a t ion of the fac to= s listed in 40 C. F. R.
S3CO.63(e) and (f). Next, an initial screening was conducted for
the =e~edial alte=natives developed from feasible technologies.
Seve=al alternatives we=e el~inated du=ing initial screening. .
Finally, a detailed analysis was conducted of remedial alte=natives
=eI:'L'ainin~ after the initial screening.
F=om the available feasible technologies available fo= site remediation,
a limited number of sou=ce control alte=natives were developed.
The followingcatego=ies we=e considered in the development of
these alte=natives:
1 .
Alte=native(s) specifying offsite storage, destruction, treatment
0= secu=e disposal of haza=cous substances at a facility
a~p=oved unde= the Resou=ce Conse=vation and Recove=y Act
(RCRA). Such a facility must also be in compliance with all
othe= applicable EPA standards (e.g., Clean Wate= Act, Clean
Air Act, Tox ic Substances Cont=ol Act.)
2.
Alte=native(s) that attain all applicable or relevant Federal
public health 0= envi=onmental standa=ds, guidance, or advisories.
3.
Alte=native(s) that exceed all applicable 0= relevant Federal
public health or environmental standa=ds, guidance, or advisories.
4.
Alte=native(s) that meet the CERC~A goals of p=eventing or
minimizing present or futu=e migration of haza=dous substances
and p=otect human heal th and the env ironment, but do not
attain the applicable or =elevant standa=ds. .
5.
No action.
The alte=natives developed for the various site areas are
1 isted below:
"
.,.....--.... '. -
. -_..-.' .'
Fo=mer
Lagoon
1.
Site grading and capping: and storn sewer lining or relocation
2.
Soil/waste excavation and disposal at off-site (RCRA approved)
landfill and site g=ading.
- .
Soil/~aste excavation and disposal at on-site (RCRA app=oved)
land fill.
-------
-20-
4.
Soil/waste excavation and on-site incine~ation.
5.
Biodeg~adation and site g~ading.
6.
No action.
Kettle Pond-
I .
Site g~ading and capping
Soil/waste excavation and disposal at off-site landfill and
s iteg~ad ing.
2.
3.
Soil/waste excavation and const~uct on-site landfill and site
g~ad ing.
4.
G~ound wate~, table modification, site g~ading and capping.
5.
~ound wate~ containment ba~~ie~, site g~ading and capping.
6.
,Biodeg:adat ion.
7.
Soil/waste excavation and on-site incine~ation.
8.
G~ound wate~ pumping and t~eatrnent.
9.
No action.
, Hocomonco Pond and Discha~ge St~eam
I-
I
1.
Hyd:aulic d~edging and sediment disposal/t~eatment.
2.
Low,e=ing wat.e::- 'level in ,'H.ocomo,nco 'Pond .and ,:ex'C'Clv:at:in'g 'secd.im,en:t,
. s"e"d iment. 'd isposallt~e'atme'nt.
3.
No Action - deed ::-est~ictions, usage limitation.
at is St~eet
1.
Limited soil excavation.
2., Embankmentt:apping.
3.
Storm drain sealing.
4.
No action.
The ~emedial alte::-natives, listed above, we~e evaluated in an
initial screening p~oc,e.ss using th~ee b~oad c~ ite~ ia as outl ined
. by 40 C.F.R. .~300.68(h).
r.--': "'-
- ........... .
-------
-21-
o
Cost: Alternatives that cost an order of magnitude more than
other alternatives but do not provide substantially greater
public health or environmental benefit, based on response
objectives~ would be eliminated.
o
Effects of the Alternatives: Adverse environmental effects
of the alternatives and. implementation of the alternatives;
the ability of the alternative to achieve adequate control of
the source material.
o
Acceptable Engineering Practices: Technical feasibility,
applicability and reliability of alternative based on site
conditions and waste characteristics.
Table 15 summarizes the results of the initial screening process.
The co1ucn headings on Table 15 for costs, environmental/public
health and technical correlate with the three broad criteria of
cost, effects of the alternative and acceptable engineering practices
res~ectively. Alternatives eliminated during the initial screening
are listed below. The criteria used to eliminate an alternative is
discussed for each alternative listed.
Alternatives eliminated in the initial screening process were:
Biodegradation; ground water containment barrier (steel sheeting or
g~cut curtain) with site grading and capping; and ground water table
modification.
Alternatives involving biodegradation were eliminated based on
"effects of alternative" and "acceptable engineering practices"
criteria. Specifically, biodegradation would not achieve adequate
control of the source material because biodegradation lacks documen-
tation of PAH degradation. For this reason it is not a feasible
t~eatment for the site conditions and consequently does not represent
a reliable means of addressing the problem at this site. .
Alternatives involving a ground water containment barrier (utilizing
s~eel sheeting) along .with site grading and capping were eliminated
based on the effects of alternative and acceptable engineering
p~actices criterion. Specifically a steel sheeting containment
barrier ~ould fail to achieve adequate source control due to leakage
of contacinants at sheeting joints or deteriorization of the sheets
by corrosion. For these reasons it follows that a steel sheeting
cor:tainment. barrier is not an acceptable engineering practice .for
t~is location since it is not a reliable means of addressing th.e
p~o!:>ler.1.
Alternatives involving a ground water containment barrier (utilizing
a ;~out curtain) along with site grading and capping were eliminated
ba5~d on the acceptable engineering practices criterion. Specifically
a c~out curtain is not feasible for t~e site conditions and does
not represent a reliable means of addressing the problem. Grout
-
.
-..
..
. -........-:--;~~~.,..':--.-
-------
-22-
cu~tains have highly li~ited applications and a~e undemonst~ated
relative to haza~dous waste containment.
Alternatives involving a g~ound water table modification we~e
eliminat,ed based 'Onacc'e,ptabl:eeT1gineering p~actic,es c=, iter ia.
Thealt-e'~native isno't appl icable 'cueto con di't ions of ther'elease
i.e. contaminated su~face soil, sediments and wate~.
Detailed Analysis
The ~emedial alternatives remaining after' the initial screening
were subjected to a detailed analysis based on the following criteriao
asout1.ined 'i1"l 40C~F .R. ~ 300.. '68 (i) :
A.
Refinement and specification of alternatives in detail, with
emphasis on use of established technology;
B.
Detailed cost estimation, including distribution of costs over
t ime ;
C.
Evaluation in ter~s of enginee~ing ~plementation or constructibilty
D.
An assessment of each alte~native in terms of the extent to
which it is expected to effectively mitigate and minimize
damage to, and provide adequate protection of, public health,
welfare, and the environment, ~elative to the othe~ alternatives
evaluated; and
1
I -
An analys is of any adverse env ironmen tal impacts, methods for
mitigating these impacts, and costs of mitigation.
A summary of the results of the cetailed analysis of the remedial
alternatives for each site area is presented on Tables 16, 17, 18
'81"113 19aD"C1is, ,d~s.c~'i'be:dmore,f.ullyin :the,t,ex t:bel:o,w.. ,Tbecolumn
'head in95:OO Ta'bles 'Hi-'l9'1 .tec'hnical'l ,environme,n,t.al'l'pub1.:ic 'he,alth.#
institutional/land use and cost relate to the various detailed
analysis evaluation criteria. The summary information listed under
the column heading of "technical" relates in part o~ in whole to the
following detailed analysis criteria; items A, C and D as noted
above and set forth at 40 C.F.R. S300.68(i)(2). The column heading
envi~onmental/public health =elates in pa=t 0= in whole to the
detailed analysis criteria D and E. The column heading of institutional
.1.an:Cuse-re'latestothe'de'tailed analysis :cr,it~lia D. 'The'columT1
!beadiTlg"'Of 'cos't '~el'at-e'S' to item. B''Of ,the det.ail:edaTta'lysist:riter ia.
E.
. . . .
Statement of findings, consistent with Executive ~ders l198B'and
11990 are included as appendices to this decision document.
Detailed Analysis
Former Lagoon:
Five 'remedialalterna.tives .(listed -'below) proposed
_. -. .
. .... . ~ ..., . ." .. .
-------
-23-
for source control in the area of the former lagoon are discussed
i~ the following sections.
1.
Site grading and capping with storm drain relocation (FL-l)
3.
Soil/waste excavation with off-site disposal (F L- 2)
Soil/waste excavation with on-site landfill facility (F L- 3 )
Soil/waste excavation with on-site incineration (FL-4)
2.
4.
5.
No action (FL-5)
Site grading and capping (FL-l)
~is alternative is effective in preventing waste migration by
eli~inating surfqce water infiltration and eliminating the storm
d~ain ~igration pathway by relocating the drainage pipe. This
alternative is particularly applicable for this site contamination
a~ea because soil/waste material is located above the ground water
table; therefore, leachate is not produced due to ground water
flew-through. The various tasks associated with this alternative
are indicated on the detailed cost estimate sheet, Table 20.
T~e useful life of a properly maintained clay/synthetic liner cap
is estimated to be greater than 50 years, at which time replacement
may be required. Installation of tensioroeters below the cap would
b~ recommended to determine leakage to the underlying soil. This
would be used to detect required cap maintenance or replacement.
Tensiometers determine moisture content of unsaturated soils by
measurement of soil tension, thereby detecting cap leakage. The
surface cap system is a reliable and well-demonstrated technology
which prevents surface water infiltration through the buried waste
material. operation and maintenance requirements are not complex.
T~ey include long-term ground water monitoring, cap maintenance,
a~c mowing to maintain grass cover and prevent tree growth. The
facility would have to be maintained indefinitely. The area of
the site cap would not be available for future development, and
deed restrictions would be required.
The capital, cost and maintenance, and present worth costs of this
alternative are summarized in Table 20.
There are no identified site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact the implementation or construction of
this alternative at the former lagoon area.
The surface cap system and storm sewer relocation would effectively
co~tain the soil/waste ~aterial and prevent contaminant migration.
E~.eve~, the soil/waste material to be capped would not be treated.
cr destroyed. Therefore, the cap system must be maintained and
~or.itored indefinitely since in-situ physical, che~ical, or bio-
ce;radation
. .'. .... ~ .
.:',.':"':" ~-;~;:;.t~.-.'" ,"
-------
-24-
mechanisms are not expected to reduce the material to a non-hazardous
classification for many years.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
o'bjectives forthefo~mer lagoon area,. .Th€potentia.1 direct contact
and accidental ingestion exposure pathways would be eliminated by
the capping ~f soil/waste material. Compliance with RCRA regulations
Section 264.410 concerning landfill closure and post closure and
ground water monitoring would be required to ensure the effectiveness"
of the cap in minimizing or eliminating the migration of contaminants.
'short .term environmental ,impacts during construction would be
minimal£or thisalt-err.rat ive"a's ,~s',umma'r i zed
-------
-25-
There are no identified 'site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact implementation of this alternative at
the former lagoon area.
~-o levels of clean-up criteria have been evaluated for soil/waste
excavation options. The extent of soil removal based on exposure
assessr-ent analysis effectively would excavate and dispose of all
identified carcinogenic compounds of concern. The extent of soil
rero~val based on v~sibly contaminated soils would excavate and
. dis~ose of all contaminated material, including the identified
carcinogenic compounds of concern. Sampling and analysis would be
conducted during excavation to ensure that soils are excavated for
dis~osal in accordance with the selected removal criteria.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
objectives. This would pertain to both soil cleanup criteria. The
potential direct contact and accidental ingestion exposure pathways
would be eliminated by excavation and removal of the material from
the site.
Hazardous waste handling and disposal permits would be needed for
this alternative, including transportation and manifesting requirements.
If off-site landfill disposal is selected, only facilities that
meet all RCRA regulations can accept the waste. There is a potential
regulatory (off-site dispos~l policy) constraint regarding this
al ternat i ve.
Short-term environmental impacts during construction are summarized
below:
o
Air emissions and off-site air quality impacts during site
excavation may be significant due to particulates and
volatilization of contaminants. A site contingency plan would
be required to minimize adverse air impacts and could include
but not be limited to: 1) application of temporary foam to
t~e site excavation area when air quali.ty levels approach
~aximum acceptable concentrations and 2) stopping work and
application of permanent foam to site, excavation when air
quality levels reach maximum acceptable concentrations and
recommencing work when levels were reduced below acceptable
levels and measures taken to ensure reoccurrence of similar
air quality impacts do not occur.
o
Proper sediment and erosion controls would be required to
minimize potential adverse impacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic
life and surface water quality. Erosion can be easily controlled
at this site.
This alternative would meet the established environmental response
o~jectives for the former lagoon area. The removal of contaminated'
soil/~aste material to an off-site RCRA landfill would eliminate
the cor.taminant migration potential to Hocomonco Pond and would
.,. ":. .
"
. . . a.. -. - . . - . .
. -:;-.... ;'~i~
-------
-26-
ensure that ground water contamination does not occur in the future.
It would also have a long-term positive impact on Hocomonco pond.
I
I
i,
Soil/Waste Excavation; On-Site Landfill Facility (FL-3)
As a result of this alternative waste material will be excavated
from the former lagoon area 'and placed into an RCRA landfill facility
constructed on-site. This would effectively mitigate site contamination
and prevent future potential migration of contamination associated
with the former lagoon area. The technical performance of an
on-site RCRA landfill is good com;>ared to' other containment technologies
Ar-edu.ndantdouble liner" leacbate collection and storage, and leak
d,e'te,ction sy,sitem ,would prevent the migration of .contaminants from
the landfill. Any leakage would be detected and collected prior to
entering the ground water. The useful life of a properly maintained
on-site landfill would be greater than 50 years. The exact service
life cannot be accurately predicted; however, the in-effect "triple"
liner system should provide for. long-term waste containment. Site
conditions are such that a minim~~ of 10 feet would exist between
the base of the landfill and the ground water table. Long-term
groundwater monitoring ,would,alsDbe . ,pr..ovid.ed.. The va,reio.us
'tasks -associated ,~with.this al:ter,nativ.e are i'nd,i.ca.ted on t'he detailed
cost estimate sheet, Table 22.
Operation and maintenance requirements for an on-site landfill
would be relatively complex. They would include ground water
monitoring, facility inspection and maintenance, and disposal/treatmp'"'t
of leachate that may be generated from within the landfill.
Land use restrictions would be required for the area of the on-site
landfill; no development wou~d be allowed at the landfill site.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs for
this~lternati'vea're provide'd 'i-n'Tab.le 22.
There are no identified site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact the implementation or construction of
this alternative at the former lagoon area. The site appears to
meet acceptable engineering criteria for landfill siting. A waste
compatibility evaluation would be required during design of the
liner system.
. Tbe.lev,e1 of .'soil/wastec,l,e,anup,.pertai-ning::tothe ..;e.xpos'ur:e 'a'sses'Sment.
and visible contamination criteria was discussed previously.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
objectives for the former lagoon area. This would pertain to 'both
soil cleanup criteria. The potential direct contact and accidental
ingestion exposure pathways would be eliminated by excavation and
ir
-------
-27-
~is alternative would have to comply with the regulatory requirements
f~r new RC~ facilities. Permit approvals from EPA would not be
r~qJired for an on-site landfill. Compliance with the National
~~llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) will be achieved if .
t~e~ted leachate is discharged to the pond or town sewer system.
T::te short te-rm env ironrnental. impacts discussed in assoc iat ion with
alternative (FL-2) also pertain to the soil/waste excavation and
o~-site landfill construction activities associated with this
. alternative.
This alternative would meet the established environmental response
o~jectives for the former lagoon area. The removal of contaminated
s.::>il/waste material to an on-site RCRA landfill would. eliminate the
contaminant migration potential to Hocomonco Pond and would ensure
that ground water contamination does not occur in the future. It
vould also have a long-term positive impact on Hocomonco Pond. .
Soil/Waste Excavation; On-Site Incineration (FL-4)
As a result of this alternative waste material would be excavated
from the former lagoon area and completely (99.99 percent) destroyed
by thermal oxidation during incineration. .This would eliminate
contaminants from the site and would eliminate the need for
re-disposal at another site where future problems could occur. .
O~-site in~ineration technology is in the testing stage; full-scale
operations have not been implemented. A brief summary of the
expected performance/reliablity from rotary kiln and infrared
incinerators follows. A vendor for rotary kiln incinerators has
't~o operational mobile units (100 TPD capacity). The technology of
the rotary kiln incineration is well demonstrated and is used at
stationary hazardous waste incinerators. The vendor has incinerated
petroleum wastes.
.j
Infrared incineration is a relative new technology that operates by
destru=tion of waste in an infrared furnace. A vendor for infrared
incineration has conducted pilot operations at a phenolic resin
plant. A full-scale 100 TPD capacity unit is in design, but is not
anticipated to be operational until early 1986. According to the
vendor, infrared incineration offers greater process control over
zone temperature, residence time, and feed rate. However, this
ca~not be documented until full-scale hazardous waste trial burns
.are conducted.
C?Eration and maintenance requirements for incineration are technically
cor.plex and require highly trained personnel specifically trained in
that area.
Th~ ~arious tasks associated with this alternative are indicated on
the cetailed cost estimate sheet, Table 23.
'" . a -.-.-..
- - '--"---~~"" .,. .., .'-." .P"" <. .~
-------
-28-
Land use restrictions would not be required for this alternative.
~e ca?ital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs for
this alternative including the rotary kiln and infrared incinerator-
'technologi'es ,are provided in "I'ables ,23 and 24. '-The reliability
of the cost per ton for incineration' cannot be verifi'e'd with any
actual construction cost because full-scale on-site hazardous waste
incineration has not taken place. Therefore, the cost for on-site
incine~ation is not well-defined and could vary significantly for
actual construction. The cost for infrared incineration, provided
by a vendor, is significantly lower than' that for rotary kiln
incine.r.a t. ion,.. .Due to the lack of full-scale ex.perience with
h.a%ardouswast:e incineration,this'potentia~' C.ost sav.ingscannot be
fully substantiated.
There are no identified site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adver~ely impact the implementation or construction of
this alternative at the former lagoon area.
I .
The level of soil/waste cleanup pertaining to the exposure assessment
'anc visible ,con,tami.nationcrit.eri,a."w.as ,dis.cu"s,sed previously ( refer
.to alternative' .FL-2) . ,The' ,level of cleanup within cine, ration is
coreplete because waste contaminants are thermally destroyed.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
objectives for the former lagoon area. This would pertain to both
soil cleanup criteria. The potential direct contact/accidental'
ingestion exposure pathways would be eliminated by excavation and
thermal destruction of contamiriants.
Technical RCRA incineration requirements would be complied with.
~so, compliance with the Clean Air Act and NPDES technical require-
ments would be necessary. '
The discussion of'the short-term environmental impacts discuss'ed
for Al~ernative FL-2 also pertains to the soil/waste excavation and
on-site incineration construction activities associated with this
alternative. As previously noted, contaminant destruction efficiency
for incineration is 99.99 percent. RCRA regulations would require
trial burns at the site to ensure compliance with air quality
standards.
This ,alternative wouldme.et. ,t~he est'ablis'hed 'environmental ,response
.;', :-objectives for the former "lagoon area. Remova'l"aridde'struction of
. 'contaminants would eliminate potential contaminant migration potential
to Hocomonco Pond and ensure that ground water contamination does
not occur in the future. It would also have a long-term positive
impact on Hocomonco Pond.
~o Act ion
(FL-5 )
The no action alternative for the former lagoon area consists of 1)
fencing the area, 2) ground water quality monitoring, 3) periodic
-------
-29-
monitoring of the storm drainage discharge from Smith Parkway, and
4) placing a deed restriction on future use of the area. The no-
action alternative will not eliminate the migration of contaminants
to Hocomonco Pond via the storm drain. It would provide for
ground water quality mo~itoring around the former lagoon area.
Ground water quality degradation, if it were to occur in the future,
would be detected. The various tas~s associated with this alternative
are indicated on the detailed cost estimate sheets, Table 25.
Significant migration of contaminants from the former lagoon area
to pond and stream sedi~ents has occurred over the past 9 years
since the storm drainage culvert was installed. Consequently, the
no action alternative is not be expected to reliably address the
site problems in the future because wastes will exist on-site and a
migration route (storm drainage pipe) to the pond will still exist.
The operation requirements of monitoring ground water quality and
maintenance of the fence would be minimal. The area of contamination
to be fenced would not be available for future development, and
deed restrictions would be required. Furthermore, if no action
were to be taken at the former lagoon, continued restrictions would
be required relative to fishing and recreational activities at
Hocomonco Pond.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
this alternative are sucmarized in Table 25.
With this alternative the waste
removed, treated or destroyed.
of site contaminants. In-situ
mechanisms are not expected to
classification for many years.
material would not be contained,
Therefore, there would be no cleanup
physical, chemical, or biodegradation
reduce the material to a non-hazardous
Fencing of the former lagoon area is proposed to eliminate the
direct contact and accidental ingestion exposure pathways at the -
site. However, the fence may create an attractive nuisance to
children and potentially result in increased activity at the site.
Maintaining the site in its current state would not comply with
state and federal regulations.
Short-term impacts associated with the fence installation would be
negligible. Long-term impacts associated with the no action alternative
would be continued migration of site contaminants from the former
lagoon area to Hocomonco Pond sediments and discharge stream sediments.
- Continued migration of contaminants to the pond would increase, due to
increase in contaminant concentrations, the ingestion and direct
contact exposure potential related to recreational use of the 'pond
i.e. wading or swimming. .
Furthermore, the continued migration of contaminants to the pond and
discharge stream (and p~tential further migration to the Assabet
River wetlands) represents a negative impact on these wetland areas.
Exposure to PAHs by some aquatic organisms through food, water, or
-------
-30-
s9~irnent contamination has been reported to. result in reduced.
survival and behavioral and reproductive changes.
,K~ttle Pond Area
Site
GradIng and Capping tXP-l}
This alternative would not be effective in preventing waste migration
at this site. The majority of soil/waste material is located below
the ground water table; therefore, leachate is principally produced
due to ground water flow-through. Reduced surface water infiltration
w::>1;ldnotsignificantly reduce ground water quality degradation
co--ngradient ;o'fthe 'si.te. . However. .dir.ectconta'ct ;and .accidental
in~estion exposure pathways would be eliminated.
The useful life of a properly maintained clay/synthetic liner cap
is estimated to be greater than 50 years, at which time replacement
may be required.' Installation of tensiometers' below the cap would
~ recommended to detect leakage to the underlying soil. This
wocld be used to determine required cap maintenance or replacement.
rens:iometersdet,ermine .moi,st..ur.e "content .of .unsaturated soils by
mi!:as.ur:ement'o£ 'so.i~te'nsion, ,:there'byd.etect
-------
-31-
Short-term environmental impacts during construction would be
minimal for this alternative as su~~arized below:
o
Air emissions would be monitored on-site for worker safety
at potential off-site receptor location. However, because
soil/waste material would not be excavated, air emissions
should-be minimal.
and"
o
Proper sediment and erosion controls will be required to .
minimize potential adverse impacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic
life, wetland areas, and Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream
surface water quality. There is a small wetland immediately
downgradient of Kettle Pond within the designated Kettle Pond
contamination area. The cap would not extend to this wetland
area, and sediment erosion controls would mitigate potential
adverse impacts to the wetland.
A long-term environmental impact of capping the Kettle Pond would
be the permanent loss of the wetlands.
This alternative would not meet the established environmental
response goal of improving water quality downgradient of Kettle
Pond. The aquifer in this area is designated as a class II aquifer
according to EPA's ground water protection strategy. Furthermore,
if ground water discharges to Hocornonco Pond and the discharge
stream, adverse environmental and potential public health concerns
would exist.
Soil/Waste Excavation; Off-Site Landfill Disposal (KP-2)
Remov.al of contaminated soil/waste material from the Kettle Pond
would eliminate site contamination and present future contaminant
migration potential. The useful life of the remediation with
respe~t to thi~ Eite is permanent. The various tasks associated
with this alternative are indicated on the detailed cost estimate
sheet, Table 27.
This alternative is a well-demonstrated and reliable method to
mitigate contamination at this site.
There are no on-site operational and maintenance requirements
associated with this alternative. Site soil/waste contamination
would be removed from the site; therefore, land use restrictions
.at the Kettle Pond area would not be required for this alternative.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth cost~ of
this alternative are s~~arized in Table 27.
There are conditions at Kettle Pond site which would require
implementation of specialized construction techniques. Subsurface
. I
-------
-32':"'
s~eel sheet piling would be ~equi~ed to p~ovide stability to the
Otis St~eet roadway during excavation of Kettle Pond and Otis St~eet
c~r.taninated embankment mate~ia1. Also, the soil/waste mate~ia1 is
currently situated in g~ound water, and dewate~ing would be ~equire(
to allow for ,excBva,t'ioTl in the dry. Water "f=om thede,wa'tering
o?erat ion 'Would ~~qui~'e't.reat'men.t "an,d "disposal. These construct ion
techni~ues a~e well-demonst~ated, and associated cost facto~s have
been cons idered.
I
i ,
T-.o levels of cleanup 'cr ite~ ia have been evaluated for soil/waste
excavation options. The extent of soil removal based on exposure
assess~ent analysis effectively would excavate and dispose of all
,i~e:1tifiedc,a=c,.,j.nogenic 'compoun':dsofcon,cern,. "The ''ex,tent of soil
reItoval based on visibly contaminated soils would result int'he
excavat'ion and disposal of all contaminants including the identified
ca~cinogenic compounds of conce~n. Sampling and analysis would be
conducted during excavation toensu~e that soils are excavated for
disposal in accordance with the selected ~emoval criteria.
This alte~native would meet the established public health response
o~jectives. This would pertain to both soil clean-up c~ite~ia.
~e poten:tial d ir'ec,t" con,tact and,ac'c identa,l inge'st ion (expos,ure pathways
woele be eli.ninated by excavation and ~emova1cjf the materIal from
the site.
Eazardous waste handling and disposal pe~mits would be needed for
this alternative, including transpo~tation and manifesting ~equirements.
EP~ has recently directed that if off-site landfill disposal is
selected, only facilities that meet all RCRA regulations can accept
the waste.
Shcrt-term environmental impacts du~ing construction are summarized
b-elow:
.c
Air em i'ss'ionsand .off~:s ite .,ai-::- q,u:al.ity'impa:c:ts "dis,cussed.f:or the
former lagoon alternative FL-2 also pertain to this alternative.
c
,
P:oper sediment and erosion controls will-be' ~equired to
minimize potential adverse impacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic
life, wetland areas, and Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream
su~face water quality. The~e is a small wetland immediately
downgradient of Kettle Pond within the designated Kettle Pond
,:cont.amin.ation .area..'Sed.ime.rft }an:de-::o'Os'i:on,'con.t=ol-s 'wou;ld :be
:-equi::"'ed ,t'O pr>event 1t\ igrat ion -of'sed:imeTr-t:sto this "wetland.
T~e dewatering system may reduce water levels in the wetland
area for the duration of operation (approximately 2 months).
No long-term impacts to the. wetland area are anticipated.,
Th:s alternative would meet the established environmental response
cb~ective~ for the Kettle Pond area. The removal of contaminated'
s~-:.l.'~..:!'ste mate:- laI'toan off-site RCRA 1,ancf ill .would .mitigate
~cund water contamination downgradient of 'KettlePono 'by 'e"ltmtna't'ing
.. ,
. .. . ..... ... ~. '.
-------
-33-
the sou~ce of contamination. This alte~native would confo~m to the
g~al of g~ound wate~ quality imp~ovement and comply with EPA's
g=ound water p~otection st~ategy.
Soil/Waste Excavation; On~Site Landfill Facility (KP-3)
.;'05 a ~esult -of this alte~nat-ive waste mate~ial will be excavated
f=o~ the fo~me~ Kettle Pond a~ea and placed in an RCRA landfill
facility const~ucted on-site. This would effectively remove the
. sou~ce contamination. The two levels of cleanup criteria discussed
fo~ KP-2 also pe~tains to this alte~native. The technical perfo~mance
of an on-site RCRA landfill is good compa~ed to othe~ containment
technologies. A redundant double line~, leachate collection and
sto~age, and leak detection system would p~event the mig~ation of
contaminants f~om the landfill, and leakage would be detected and
collected p~ior to ente~ing the ground wate~. The useful life of a
p~operly maintained on-site landfill would be greate~ than 50 yea~s.
The exact se~vice life cannot be accu~ately p~edicted; however, the
in-effect "t~iple" line~ system should p~ovide fo~ long-te~m waste
containment. Site conditions a~e such that a minimum of 10 feet
would exist between the base of the landfill and the g~ound wate~
table. Long-te~m g~ound water monitoring would also be p~ovided.
T~e va~ious tasks associated with this alte~native a~e indicated on
the detailed cost estimate sheet, Table 28.
O?e~ation and maintenance ~equi~e~ents fo~ an on-site landfill
would be relatively complex. They would include g~ound wate~
rnonito~ing, facility inspection and maintenance, and disposal/t~eatment
of leachate that may be gene~ated from within the landfill.
Land ~se ~estrictions would be ~equi~ed fo~ the area of the on-site
landfill; no development would be allowed at the landfill site.
ThE' capital,ope~ation and maintenance, and p~esent worth costs for
this alte~native a~e provided in Table 28.
~'ere a~e conditions at Kettle Pond site which would require
L~plementation of specialized const~uction techniques. Subsu~face
steel sheet piling would be requi=ed to provide stability to the
Otis St~eet ~oadway during excavation of contaminated material
f~om the Kettle Pond and Otis Street (west embankment) areas.
Since the soil/waste material is currently situated in ground
.wate:, dewatering would be required to allow for excavation in the
d=y. Water from the dewatering o~eration would require treatment
a~d disposal. These construction techniques are well-demonstr~ted,
and associated cost factors have ~een considered.
This alte~native would meet the established public health response
o~jectives fo~ the Kettle Pond a~ea. The inhalation, di~ect contact
and accidental ingestion exposu~e pathways would be eliminated by
excavation and removal of the mate~ial f~o~ the Kettle Pond site to
the on-site landfill.
-------
-34-
T~is alternative would comply with RCRA regulatory requirements and
with respect to the construction of a landfill, this would
assure adequate protection to the public health, welfare and
the environment. Permit approvals from EPA would not be required
f::>r an :on-site landfi'll. . <:ompliance'with the technical requirements
of the ~ational Pollutant Dischar;e Elimiriation System {NPDES}
w~ulc be ne~essary if treated leachate were discharged to Hocomonco
P~nd or the town sewer system.
Short-term environmental impacts during construction are summarized
below:
.
. Air i tz.l, operation.and IJainten.anc,e,and .pre.s,ent worth ,cost.s. for
t~.:.s ,alternative' inc1uaing the '::-ct~.rykil.n ana ,infrared incinerator
technologies are provided in Ta~les 29 and 30. The reliability
~..... ~ .-' '-.. -
-..- . .-. ....-
-------
-35-
of the cost per ton for incineration cannot be verified with any
actual construction cost because full-scale on-site hazardous waste
incineration has not taken place. Therefore, the cost for on-site
incineration is not well-defined and could vary significantly for
actual construction. The cost for infrared incineration, provided
by a vendor, is significantly lower than that for rotary kiln
incineration. Due to the lack of full-scale experience with hazardous
waste incineration, this potential cost savings cannot be fully
substantiated.
There are conditions at Kettle Pond site which would require
implementation of specialized construction techniques. Subsurface
steel sheet piling would be required to provide stability to the
Otis Street roadway during excavation of contaminated material at
Kettle Pond and Otis Street (west embankment) areas. Also, the
soil/waste material is currently situated in ground water, and
dewatering would be required to a'llow for excavation in the dry.'
Water from the dewatering operation would require treatment and
disposal. These construction techniques are well-demonstrated, and
associated cost factors have been considered.
The level of cleanup with incineration is complete because waste
contaminants are thermally destroyed.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
o~jectives for the Kettle Pond area. The inhalation, direct contact
and accidental ingestion exposure pathways would be eliminated by
excavation and thermal destruction of contaminants.
RCRA technical incineration requirements would be complied with.
Also, compliance with Clean Air Act and NPDES technical requirements
would be necessary. Compliance with NPDES technical requirements
w~uld be satisfied for treated waste water discharges from the
on-site incinerator.
The short-term environmental impacts discussed for other Kettle
Pond alternatives involving soil/waste excavation also pertain to
the soil/waste excavation and on-site incineration construction
activities associated with this alternative. RCRA regulations
would require trial burns at the site to insure that short-term air
quality impacts would not occur.
.:.~This alternatlve would meet the established environmental response
objectives for the Kettle Pond area. Removal and destruction of
contaminants would a150 mitigate ground water contamination downgradient
of Kettle Pond by eliminating the source of contamination. This
alternative would conform to the goal of ground water quality
improvement and comply with EPA's ground water protection strategy.
Ground Water Containment Barrier; Site Grading and Capping (KP-5)
t
~
~
. -. .' - -... '. '" ..
. ~ . -...-.
-------
-36-
This alternative would provide for encapsulation of soil/waste
~aterial with impermeable barriers. The impermeable slurry wall
w~uld be keyed into the underlying impermeable till. Therefore,
the waste material would be contained. Ground water would not fl.ow
through ,the mat.eri:al ,1.eachate.wDwd '.notbe' ,genera-ted.,'. a.nd ground
water quality downgradient of the barrier would be restored to
background levels. Seepage ~f ground water would still occur.
through the slurry wall. The surface cap would eliminate infiltration
into the containment area and would eliminate direct contact and fl
accidental ingestion pathways. The service life of a slurry wall
is not easily predicted; however, it is n'ot expected to be a permanent
waste canagemen.t al.te.rnat..i ve,. .,A s.erv ice ,l.if.e o,f 5,0 '.years .ha's been"
,estimat~o.,The \struc,t;ur-a:l i.n.tegri.ty and'impermeab'lenature of ,the
slurry wall can deteriorate with time due to natural processes and
potential chemical reactions with PAH contaminants. Containment
barriers, particularly slurry walls, have not had significant
application relaLive to hazardous waste site remediation. Their
long-te~ reliability is questionable and not documented. Host
existing facilities have not been in long-term operation. There
are no operational requirements for the containment barrier itself.
.Long-,ter;:n ,ground .,w,ater .monitor~in:g,w.o'u,ld,be :r.e'quired. ''Opera.tional
re.c;u..ire.me'nts'for .the.surface 'c.,a.p ,,:ar.e no,t'.complex..:a"Ad includemainte'nance
and mowi~g. The cap would have to be Daintained indefinitely. The
various tasks associated with this alternative are indicated on the
d~tailed cost estimate sheets, Table 31.
The area of the site cap and containment barrier would not be
available for future development, and deed restrictions would be
required.
The ca~ital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
t~is alternative are summarized in Table 31.
. There .arenoi'dentifi.eo site conditions that .would adversely .impa.ct
,. the'im;>lementa'tion or construction of this a'lternative. PAH
compatibility with the slurry wall would have to be evaluated in
d;tail during design to ensure that adverse impacts are alleviated.
Site soil/waste material would be contained, except for small
quantities of seepage through the barrier wall.
This alternative would meet the estab),ished ..publi.c .he,a,lth .r.esp.onse
p~jec.ti ves~ortbe'Kettle ,'Pond ,area.. '.Xhepotential dire'ct ,contact
~nd"accidental ingestion exposure pathways would be eliminated.
C~mpliance with RCRA technical requirements concerning landfill
closure, post closure and gro~nd water monitoring would be necessary.
Short-term environmental impacts during construction would be
miniroal for this alternative as summarized below: .
'0
.Air .e::tissi.on"s.would .be moni.t.ored on-site. for ~-::>r:ke:rs.afety "and
at potential off-site receptor locations. However, because
1<..
-4 --.-..- '~." ..........----... - .".
, - -.. ..-
-------
-37-
soil/waste mate~ial would not be excavated, ai~ emissions
should be minimal.
o
~ope~ sediment and e~osion cont=ols will be =equi~ed to
minimize potential adve~se iDpacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic
life, wetland a~eas, and Hocomonco Pond and discha~ge stream
su~face- wate~ quality. . The~e is a small wetland immediately
downg~adient of Kettle Pond withi~ the designated Kettle Pond
contamination a~ea. The cap would not extend to this wetland
a~ea, and sediment erosion controls would mitigate any potential
adverse impacts to the wetland.
A long-term environmental impact of capping the Kettle Pond would
be the permanent loss of the wetlands.
This alternative would not meet all the established environmental
response objectives for the Kettle Pond area. The containment of
contaminated soil/waste material would mitigate ground water degradation
downgradient of Kettle Pond by controlling the source. This alternative
would conform to the goal of ground water quality improvement and
comply with EPA's ground water protection strategy. However,
long-term degradation of the slurry wall could result in reoccurrence
of ground water quality degradation.
Ground Water Pumping and Treatment:
(KP- 6 )
Site Grading and Capping
This alternative would recover contaminated groundwater in the Kettle
Pond area and prevent migration of the ground water contamination
. pl~~e downgradient of Kettle Pond. The recovered ground water
would. be treated Bnd discha~ged to surface water or to the town sewer.
Two treatmen t al te::-nat ives have been evaluated: 1) granular act ivated
carbon (GAC) and 2) connection to the expanded westborough sewage
treatmp.nt plant (STP). currently proposed. The Kettle Pond area
would be covered with fill to p~event direct contact or accidental
ingestion of contaminated materials.
GAC treatment is a demonstrated effective technology for high
efficiency treatment of PAHs. Treatment of hazardous waste leachate
at public STPs has been evaluated and shows promise for PAHs. The STP
treatment efficiency would be expected to be less than GAC treatment.
Bench-scale or pilot plant studies would be required to confirm
. treatment based on the process des ignof the Westborough STP.
GAC could be considered a reliable treatment alternative; howe~er,
operation and maintenance requirements would be extensive and'
complex. Personnel would have to be assigned to inspect the facility
on a daily basis, maintenance requ~ernents would be substantial for
the treatment and pumping system, and the carbon would have to be
replaced as required. The major co~ponents of the GAC treatment
-------
-38-
facility would have a service life of approximately 50 years: pumps
and other treatment components would have to be replaced on a much
more frequent basis. For STP treatment, operation and maintenance
r.eguirements would be those related to the groundwate,rextraction .
system. It is assumed that the Westborough STP will be operated,
maintained, and upgraded as requi~ed on a permanent basis. For
both treatment alternatives,' the ground water extraction wells
would have to be redeveloped as required. The various tasks associated
with this alternative are indicated on the detailed cost estimate
sheets, Tables 32 and 33.
i,
The' Kettle Pond are:a ,would :notbe ,;av.aila:ble foro,fut,ure development
and deed restrictions would be required.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
this alternative are summarized in Tables 32 and 33. '
There are no identified site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact the implementation of the GAC treatment
,aiternat ive. Tbeimp.leme:n.t,a t ion "of .c'he 'S TPtre.ateme nt,al tar na ti ve
,is'Pr~(n<:ated .on',conf.irmation "of :t.reactab.tl.it.y.and,ac'cepta'nce by
local and state governmental/regulatory agencies.
This alternative would not contain or directly treat the soil/waste
material. Leachate will continue to be produced, and the facility
would have to be operated on a permanent basis. As previously
noted, reduction of PAR levels in soil/waste material by natural
processes would take many years. The ground water plume from the
Kettle Pond area would be collected and treated. This alternative
would meet the established public health response objectives. The
potential direct contact and accidental ingestion exposure pathways
would be eliminated.
NP!.>ES technicC'.l compl iance wiT). be required.
Short-term environmental impacts during construction would be
minimal for this alternative as summarized below:
o
Air emissions would be monitored on-site for worker safety and
at potential off-site receptor locations. However, because
.soilj.waste material would not be excavated air emissions
, should 'De .minimal. .
o
ProPer sediment and erosion controls would be required to
minimize potential adverse impacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic
life, wetland areas, and Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream
surface water quality. There is a small wetland immediately
downgradient of Kettle Pond within the designated Kettle Pond
,'contam,ination are.a. ,Sediment:and :er,os,ion,controlsw,ould ..be
1:equired . topre.ve.nt . ,mlgr.a:ti:on <.0£ ,sed imen't.s' . tot'hlswetl.and.
,-",. .. ....... ~ .
-------
-39-
A long-term environmental impact of capping the Kettle Pond would
be the permanent loss of the wetlands. This alternative would not
m~et all the established environmental response objectives for
this area. Ground water would be treated; therefore, this alternative
w~uld conform to the goal of ground water quality improvement and
c~~~ly with EPA's ground water protection strategy. Reduction of
water level~ in the wetland area near the extraction system could
b~ expected.
No Action (KP-7)
~ie no action alternative for the Kettle Pond area consists of 1)
fencing the contamination area, 2) ground water quality monitoring,
and 3) placing a deed restriction on future use of the area. The
no action alternative would not contain, treat, or destroy the
hazardous soil/waste material associated with this site. Ground
water would contlnue to degrade downgradient of the site. Fencing
the site would minimize associated health risks.
The operation and maintenance requirements of monitoring ground
water quality and maintenance of the fence would be minimal.
The area of contamination to be fenced would not be available for
future development, and deed restrictions would be required.
T~e capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
this alternative are provided in Table 34.
The soil/waste material would not be contained, removed, or
treated/destroyed. Ground water degradation would persist. There-
fore, there would be no cleanup of site contaminants. In-situ
physical, chemical, and biodegradation mechanisms are not expected to
reduce the material to a non-hazardous classification for many years
Fencing of the Kettle Pond area should reduce the direct contact
and accidental ingestion exposure pathways at the site.
Maintaining the site in its current state would not comply with
state and federal regulations.
Short-term impacts during fence installation are negligible.
The long term environmental impacts include the potential contamination
of surface water resulting from ground water discharge to the
Eocomonco Pond discharge stream. Potential adverse impacts to
public health, aquatic species and wetlands "related to contaminated
surface water are not addressed by the no action alternative. In
addition, the potential future use of the ground water resource
would be restricted.
EocoDonco Pond and Discharge Stream
-------
-40-
Rern~ving contaminated sediments f~o~ Hocomonco Pond would be an
effective and permanent response at this time. The hydraulic
.dredging technology is a well-demonstrated and proven technology.
':Ro.weve.r"inre,moving,co-at.,amina,ted .se.dimen.ts.,tlle ..h.igh volume of
.wa:te r .,.e:.xtr.adt'e:d \to ,,'fo:r.m ft:be ...p:uropa:>l e <'s:1 ur.ry -m'i;x:ture 'wo.ui d .re q 11 ir e
treatment. Additional leachabili~y testing of Hocomonco Pond
sediments would be required to determine if treatment would be .
required. A small, remotely operated dredge could be used at this
sit~. Turbidity resulting from the dredging operation should be
minimal; floatable-submerged silt fabric could be used to further
minimize sediment migration to other area of the pond during a
. ;d-redg.i'ng ':ope'r.at.ion. ,'.The ';'\7a:r-i.o.us.,.:t:a's!k;s.;.a'Ssoci:ate.:d.~w.i,t;h:thi's..al,ter.na,tive ..
'crr1:!'iTldic'ated ''On . tIre det'a'i:1:ed "co:st :est:i:ma'te,.she:e:t".Tab.l'e .3.5.
Recreational (swimming and fishing) restrictions would not be
required after site remediation.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
this alternative are summarized in Tables 35 and 36.
, .
Therear.e.noid'entifiec, 'sa.t-e ,':cond;iti..ons ..:o-r ',;wa:s't'e':elttararct,e-r:i.sti'cs
that wou'ld adversely'impact 't'ne ;'i1'!\'plem'en't''at;i'O'n ';orcon'5't£.u'Cti.'on of
this alternative.
The level of clean~p at Hocomonco Pond and the discharge stream
would be complete.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
objectives. The direct contact and accidental ingestion exposure
pathways would be eliminated.
RCRA technical requirements would be met for the selected waste
.d.is.pos.alrac.t...i~.ity .and .N,FUES.te.chni.ca.l compl iance would be required
..6cr.,thedischarge '-o,f ,tr\e'a.t'ed . w'ctis'P0;s'a'lfT!::e;a't
-------
-41-
Ra~~va1 of contaminated sediments from Hocomonco Pond by mechanical
d~e1ging would be an effective and permanent response. The pond
water level would be lowered by pum~ing, and drag1ine dredging of
relatively dewatered sediments would be conducted from shore. This.
is a proven, well-demonstrated technology. Turbidity and sediment
~i;~ation to other areas of the p~nd ~uring dredging would be
cor:trolled. - Treatment quantities of leachate water from the sediment
de~atering main would be reduced over levels anticipated for hydraulic
d:ejging. The various' tasks associated wfth this alternative are
iDcicated on the detailed cost estimate sheet Table 37.
Recreational (swimming and fishing) restrictions would not be
re~uired after site remediation.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs of
this alternative,are summarized in Ta~le 37.
~iere are no identified site conditions or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact the implementation or construction of
this alternative.
The level of cleanup at Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream as
a res~lt of this alternative is complete.
This alternative would meet the established public health response
o~~ectives. The direct contact and accidental exposure pathways
would be eliminated. RCRA technical requirements would be met for
the selected waste disposal activity and NPDES technical compliance
would be required for the discharge of treated water from the
seciments. State or local floodplain and wetlands laws would also
be considered.
Short-term environmental impacts during construciton are summarized
t>elow:
o
Air emissions and off-site air quality impacts c ~ussed for
the former lagoon alternative FL-2 also pertain to this
alternative.
Some short-term impacts to Hocomonco Pond aquatic species would
occur when the pond level is lowered. However, the impact is
anticipated to be restricted to the controlled area of dredging.
This alternative would meet the established environmental response
objectives for Hocomonco Pond. No long-term adverse impacts are
~rojected due to the dredging operation.
, '
o
Ca=ping of Sediments (HP-3)
Th~s alternative may be effective in containing the sediments in
;l~ce. The migration of contaminated sediments would be mitigated.
-------
-42-
possible. Further leachability testing of Gontaminated sediments
would be required to fully evaluate this potential. It is expected
that the sediment cap would be stable in Hocomonco Pond, due to the
,l.o,wLno,n~scourin.g> .flowcondi.ti,oos. ,The
-------
-43-
NQ Action (HP-4)
The no action alternative would consist of continued restrictions
o~ swinming and fishing at Hocomonco Pond. The no-action alternative
WQuld not prevent the further migration of contaminated sediments
a~c would not address the potential i~pacts of contamination in
H0comonco Pond. The restriction on sNi~ing and fishing are Dot
r;liable, and the potential for direct contact and accidental
i~~estion of sediments would continue to.~xist.
There are no capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth
costs associated with this alternative.
The contaminated sediment would not be contained, removed or
treated/destroyed. Therefore, there would be no cleanup of site
contaminants, and contaminated sediment migration would continue to
occur. In-situ waste reduction mechanisms would not reduce the
material to a non-hazardous classification for many years. The direct
contact and accidental ingestion response objectives would not be
m~t. The potential consumption exposure pathway to humans from
fish ingestion would not be addressed.
Maintaining the site in its current state would not comply with
state_and federal regulations.
The pote~tial long-term impacts discussed for the former lagoon no
a=tion alternative also pertain to this no action alternative.
Otis Street Area (East Side)
~~an~ent Capping (05-1)
This alternative would be effective in preventing surface wat.er
infiltration. The useful life of a properly maintained clay/synt~etic
liner ca~ is estimated to be greater than 50 years, at whicn time
replacement may be required. Installation of tensiometers below
the ca~ would be recommended to detect leakage to the underlying
soils by measurement of soil tension, thereby detecting cap leakage.
The surface cap system is a reliable and well-demonstrated technology
which prevents surface water infiltration.
The various tasks associated with this alternative are indicated on
the detailed cost estimate sheet Table 39.
operation and maintenance requirements are
include long-term ground water monitoring,
mo~ing to maintain grass cover and prevent
.ould have to be maintained indefinitely.
be required for the embankment area.
not complex. They
cap maintenance, arid
tree growth. The facility
Deed restrictions would
~h~ ca~ital, operation and maintenance, and present worth costs for
-------
-44-
There are na identified site canditians or waste characteristics
that would adversely impact the implementation 'Or constructian 'Of
this alternative.
,', 'Thi's "'a'!"te'r-n'at:i"ve'would'ndt "'a.'d-e.q\la:'t€ 11' .Iaddr-e!ss'.:'.:the' >po,t",e-n:t,ia',il: publ.i.c
health risks and enviro~mental impacts associated with migratian 'Of
cantarninati6n ta surface water in the Hacarnanca pand discharge
stream. Campliance with RCRA technical requirements wauld be'
required.
Short-term enviranmental impacts during canstructian wauld be
,:mi niY.lal . 'f'or' ;th'i's,alterna:t'I]:vfe '8's":sur..m'a'r'i.ze'd ,'be'1"ow -:
o
Air emissians weuld be monitored on-site far worker safety and
at patential 'Off-site receptor lacatians. Air emissians
shauld be minimal since sediments will not be excavated.
o
Praper sediment and erosian controls wauld be required ta
minimize patential adverse impacts ta surface water quality and
aquatic life in wetland areas, i.e. Hocamanca Pond and discharge
.:stream. "':Er;asi'on ~can
-------
-45-
o
Ai::- enissions would be monito::-ed fo::- wo=ke::- safety and at
potential off-site =ecepto= locations. Ai::- emissions should
be ~ in irna 1.
o
P:"ope= sed iment and e::-os ion cont=ols would be ::-equ i=e.d to
~inirnize potential adve=se i~pacts to su=face ~ate= quality
and a~udtic life in wetland a=eas i.e. Hocomonco Pond and
discha=ge st=eam. E=osion can be easily cont=olled at this
site.
The long-te=m envi=onmental =esponse objectives would be met.
Na Action (05-3)
Cont~inated soil was not detected within the designated Otis
St=eet contamination a::-ea. Low levels of th::-ee c=itical contaminants
we=e detected .in the g=ound water. C=eosote odor was present in
several storm drain catch basins. The no action alternative would
p=ovide fo= monitoring of g=ound wate::- and surface water quality
(cischa=ge) to detect futu=e contamination.
Deed ::-estrictions would be required for the east embankment area.
The .operation and maintenance and p=esent wo::-th costs fo= this
al ternat ive are summar-'.ized in Table 41.
The no action alte=native would not add=ess the potential public
health r-isks or envi=onmental impacts associated with this area.
G=ound water monitoring consistent with the technical requir-ements
0= RC~~ ::-egulations would be necessar-y.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
U~~er- '0 C.F.R. ~ 300.68(j) the =emedial alternatives selected by
the EPA sh~uld be deter-mined to be the cost-effective alternative,
i.e. the lowest cost alter-native that is technologically feasible
and reliable and which effectively mitigates and ~inimizes damage
to and p::-ovide adequate protection of public health, welfare and
the env i::-onment.
This section summarizes the =ecommended remedial action selected to
acc:ess site contamination in the following a=eas, 1.) For-mer
L;~::>on, 2.) Kettle Pond A=ea, 3.) Hocomonco Pond and Discharge
S~re~~, 4.) Otis Street, and 5.) Isolated Areas.
F.:>r:;'\e::- Lagoon
T~e r-eDedial action, FL-l, reco~ended fo= the a=ea of the former-
la~oon consists of site gr-ading, ca~ping, removal/disposal and
-------
-46-
relocation of the storm drain pipe which presently runs from Smith
Parkway, passing along the east side of the former lagoon, to an
outlet at Hocomonco Pond. This alternative is a technologically
,'fe-asi'bl"e <,a;ndiT'e li,'a'ole ,sme'sn:s '":o,f ,preve:rl'ti ng,e"ta's,t;e ,,;'m':Lg.r,ati:on, :by'el im'i n,a t,... ...J
'S;urfa'ce''Wat~r ;'infil'tr~'t.i'Ona;nd,.tne "rnigrat'ton ":o:f"".e,ont:ami'11:ants via
the storm drain. Alternative FL-I is the lowest cost alternative
that effectively mitigates damage to the environment and provides
adequate protection of the public health, welfare and environment.
This alternative is particularly applicable for this site contamination
area because all soil/waste material is located above the ground
'water'tabl.e,; th-ere'fore.,,- :l'e-achate 'j:s 'n:o':t :'Pr-,o,d'u~ed ',duewrabe.r. ,'prot~:e.c,t,ion;wi:,l,l, :.assure
, ., e\Qieoqur'!tt;e),rrt>'tect'iG'n ',of "p>ublioc.fte~l:t'b, '.a:nd ,:t'be',,;e,nv.ironme'n;t,. . The
area of the site cap would not be available for future development,
and deed restrictions would be required.
A detailed cost estimate for this remedial action is shown on Table
20.
The other remedial alternatives proposed for the former lagoon in
,t-nt!' ':'lfce'as'i'bi~l;i,ty ',.study :bu\t ',::not ,~:;c:ommende.d 'ia:re' ,dt,'5,:clU's1Sle:d. 'below.
Soil/Waste Excavation: Off-Site Landfill Disposal (FL-2)
The reason this alternative (FL-2) is not recommended is that,the
cost of excavation and off-site disposal is not justified given the
site conditions. 7he cost of this alternative is almost an order
of magnitude greater than the recommended alternative. This alternativE
'does'not,';provide ,:fDr5ub;s't'an t'i:ally.grea~t,e,;r,,:pr(o:tect.i,on 'o'f ,.t"he "'pu'bli c
heal th, we I fare and emvironrnent.Si nce 'thesoTlfwaste is not
-------
-47-
cont~~:nating ground water, excavation is not necessary. Furthermore,
t~e potential for short-term adverse impacts related to air quality
a~c ~etland/floodplain concerns would be greater if the soil/waste
w:re excavated. .
S0il/Waste 'Excavation:
On-Site Landfill Facility (FL-3)
~le reason this alternative (FL-3) is not recommended is that the
ajciticnal cost above that of the recomrne~ded alternative (FL-l) .
a=e not justified. This'alternative does not provide for substantially
greater protection of the public health, welfare and environment.
T~e ~rouDd water and short-term potential adverse impacts concerns
discussed relative to FL-2 also pertain to this alternative (FL-3).
Soil/Waste Excavation:
On-Site Incineration (FL-4)
The reasons this alternative (FL-4) is not recommended are the same
as those discussed for FL-2 except that the cost of this alternative
using rotary kiln incineration is clearly more than an order of
magnitude greater than the cost of the recommended alternative (FL-
1). This alternative does not provide for substantially greater
protection of the public health, welfare and environment. Furthermore,
i~frared incineration technology is not well demonstrated and,
hence; may not be a reliable incineration method for waste materials
at this site.
~le ground water and short-term potential adverse impacts concerns
discussed relative to alternative FL-2 also pertain to this
alternative (FL-4).
~o Action (FL-S)
T:le reason this alternative (FL-S) is not recommended is that it
does n~t provide for adequate protection of the public health,
welfare and environment.
Kettle Pond Area
The renedial action, KP-3, recommended for the Kettle Pond Area
consists of contaminated ~oil/waste excavation with on-site disposal
of the excavated material in a landfill designed to meet RCRA technical
standa~ds. Implementation of the alternative will also include
ce.ate~ing of the Kettle Pond and lowering of the ground water
level prior to and during excavation in the immediate Kettle Pond
area.
This alternative would effectively mitigate site contamination by
re~ovi~g the source, thereby eliminating the source of ground water
cor.ta~ination in the Kettle Pond area. Ground water draw down
~r:or to soil/waste excavation in the Kettle Pond area is expected'
-------
,-48,-
g~ound wate~ quality a£te~ soil/waste excavation will be pa~t of
the ~ecomrnended alternative.
. The ex ten t 'ofso,il/was.t:er"emoval:w i1~1 'be 'b,8.:sad '' p::-,ima~\ny ,'On .the
visible centamlnation c~ite~ia 'but -..i1'l inc"lude additional ~emoval
of contaminants based on sa~pling a~d analysis of soil conducted
du~ing excavation to ensu~e that conta~inated soils a~e excavated
te the extent necessa~y te ensu~e mitigation of g~ound wate~
centaminatien. The extent of excavation beyend the visible
centamination criteria is expected to be app~oximately two to th~ee
.feet.. The cDsts,.assoc~,ted witbe.x.c.avatio.n _to this extent a~e
inc.luded in the detaile.d cost '.e'stdlna,te.
The g~ound water pumping and t~eatment system installed te lewe~
the g~ound water p~i~ to and du~ing the excavation of soil/waste
mate~ial will be 'Operated afte~ the excavatien, if necessa::-y,
contingent upcn pn evaluation 'Of g::-cund wate~ quality after soil/waste
~emoval. The cleanup level fe~grcund wate~ and the durat ion of
the pump and treatment phase, if necessa~y, will be dete~mined fc~
the site cond i t-i.onsex is t .il) g ,af.,t,e.r..so.,il/w,ast"e.r em ov. a. 1.
The pe~fermance of the on-site landfill as it ~elates to the
p~otectien 'Of public health and the environment will be assu~ed
by cempliance with RCRA technical standa~ds.
A double line~, leachate collectien and sto~age, and leak detecticn
system will prevent the mig~ation of contaminants f~om the landfill,
and leakage wculd be cetected and collected p~ie~ te entering the
g~ound water. The useful life 'Of a prope~ly maintained 'On-site
landfill is expected te be g~eater than 50 yea~s. The exact se~vice
1 ife .cannet be acclrately p~edicted; howeve~, the in-effect "t~ iple"
line~ system should previde fe~ leng-te~m waste containment. Site
conditi'Ons ar.e ',such 't:h.a:t 'a.:m~ind:mu.l'tl Jof'.,TU .:fe:e,'t .:would 'ex'i-s.tb'et'ween
'thE" base of thelandfiTl and th'e gr'oundwat'e~ :.tabl-e. 'L'Ong-t'e'rm
g~ound wate~ mcnitcring and pest closu~e maintenance will alse be
p~ov ided.
Operaticn and. maintenance ~equi~ements fe~ an 'On-site landfill
will be relatively complex. They would include ground water
menitor ing, facility inspection and maintenance and disposall
treatment of leachate that m~y be gene~ated f~cm within the landfill.
A waste compatabi1.ity eva'luation wouHrbe ~equi~ed during'design 'Of
the liner system.
Th is al te~nat ive W 01:1 1c' neet the establ ished env i~onmental response
objectives for the ~ettle Pond a~ea. This alte~native will conform
te the geal 'Of grc1J~d wate~ quality imp~cvement and ccmply with
.EPA '..s,g.=ound.wa..ter pro.t,e.c-t io.n st.=a.tegy.
This alte~native wo~lc Deet the established public health response
-------
-49-
anc accidental ingestion exposure pathways will be eliminated by
excavation of the soil/waste material from the Kettle Pond site.
7~ achieve CERCLA's goals of protecting public health, welfare, and
the environment, there is no practicable alternative but to affect.
the ~etlands in the Kettle Pond area. The selected remedial
al:e~native will include mitigative measures.
The other remedial alternatives proposed for the Kettle Pond area
in the feasibility study but not reco~~ended are discussed below.
Site Grading and Capping (KP-l)
The reason this alternative is not recommended is that site grading
and capping does not address the concern of ground water contamination,
hence, the alternative provides inadequate protection of the
environment. Furthermore, capping of the Kettle Pond will result
in permanent los~ of wetlands.
Soil/Waste Excavation:
Off-Site Landfill Disposal (KP-2)
The reason this alternative is not recommended is that the cost of
soil/waste excavation: off-site landfill disposal is much higher
than the cost of the recommended alternative and does not provide'
substantially greater 'protection of the public health, welfare and
environment.
Soil/Waste Excavation:
On-Site Incineration Facility (KP-4)
The reason this alternative (KP-4) is not recommended is that the
cost of the alternative using rotary kiln incineration is too high,
al~ost an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the recommended
alternative (KP-3). Furthermore, infrared incineration technology
is not well demonstrated, hence, may not be a reliable incineration
~ethod for the waste materials at this site.
~jditionally, this alternative (KP-4) does not provide substantially
~reater protection of the public health, welfare and environment, while
substantially greater in costs.
Ground Water Containment:
Site Grading and Capping (KP-S)
The reason this alternative (KP-S) is not recommended is that the
reliability of ,the slurry wall which is the major element of the
contai~ment technology is questionable. Furthermore, since sQme
seepage of ground water is anticipated, continued degradation of
~round water quality and migration of contaminated ground water is
possible. Furthermore, in order, to eliminate the public health
concerns related to the ingestion and direct contact exposure
~ath~aIs the Kettle Pond would be capped. tapping will result in
the pe~manent loss of wetlands.
-------
-50-
This alternative (KP-5) is considered unreliable and hence, provides
inadequate protection of the public health, welfare and environment.
Ground Water''Pump5:ng and ''I''r'ea'tm'e'nt': .....Site .Gr'ad ing' ,and ,C,apping
(KP-6 )
The reason this alternative '(KP-6) is not recommended is that
implementation of the alternative will result in permanent adverse
environmental impacts. In order to eliminate the public health
concerns related to the ingestion and direct contact exposure
.pathways, the Kettle Pond would be capped. Capping will resul t in
the permanent 1055 of :wetlands.
No Action (KP-7)
The reason this alternative (KP-7) is not recommended is that it
provides inadequate protection of. the public health, welfare and
environment. The potential ingestion and direct contact exposure
pathways are not adequately addressed. The no action alternative
does .not ,addr.ess the soil/waste source in the ground water nor does
i,.t .add.ress!t:hiecon.cern:srelatedtoexi.sting;~rround.wate.r 'cont,amin'ation.
Hocomonco Pond and Discharge Stream
The recommended remedial action for Hocomonco Pond and discharge
stream is mechanical dredging of contaminated sediments with on-site
disposal (HP-2). Disposal based on design consideration related to
facility capacity and topography will be either on top of the'
former lagoon, whicb will be capped (refer to FL-l), or in an
approved landfill facility (refer to KP-3) or a combination of both.
I
I.
I .
This alternative effectively provides adequate protection of the
ptiblicheal':tb .,.'welfare'snde:rr.vironmen t .byr:-emo.v.ing ..,conJ::,am,ina,ted
'$'trdime'n'ts . 'frum"Hot:'em01'\c'O ';Pond '.a:nd ':thed:Lscbaxg.e" stre,a.m.
The pond water level in the controlled (bulkheaded) work area of
contamination would be lowered by pumping. Mechanical dredging of
relatively dewatered sediments would be conducted from shore.
Sediments would be excavated to a depth of approximately one foot.
This is a proven~ well-demonstrated technology. Turbidity and
sediment migration to other areas of the pond during dredging will
be'.controlled'by ..'.apbyisio'al'bat"r:i~'r. :fbul.khead") <. ";Tr:e:atme.nt of
1.eacha.te waterfrom.-th'e 'de'W'a't'e'r'ing,'rnai'n..wiT-l 'be ha:ndled:ooy :an
on-site water treaL~nt unit. Treated water would be discharged to
surface water.
No long-term adverse impacts are envisioned due to the dredging
operation.
ThI.saLteirnative' :would.me'et'ithe. es't:ablis'herl. envi,ronme:n't,al :r,esponse
objectives of restoring Hocomonco 'Pone' to a condi'tion "in '~hi'ch
-------
-51-
recreational (bathing and fishing) restrictions will no longer be
required.
T~is alternative would meet the established public health response.
o~jectives. The inhalation, direct contact and accidental exposure
p~thways would be eliminated. Minimization of adverse ai~ quality
i~pacts ~es~lting from sediment excavation will be addressed during
d~sign.
The capital, operation and maintenance, and present worth
costs fo~ this alternative are summarized in Table 37.
I~ ter~s of the wetlands (Hocomonco Pond and the discharge stream)
the short-term and long-term adverse impacts of the recommended
alternative have been considered. Although the recommended alternative
of dredging will have a short-term adverse impact on the pond and
discharge stream, it does provide for a complete cleanup.
To achieve CERCLA's goals of protecting public health, welfare, and
the envi~onment, there is no practicable alternative but to affect
the pond wetland area. The selected remedial alternative will
include ~itigative measures.
consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 concerning wetlands
and floodplains, a Statement of Findings has been prepared and is
i~cluded as Appendix D to this document.
The othe~ remedial alternatives proposed in the feasibility study
for 60co~onco Pond and the discharge stream but not recommended are
discussed below.
Hydraulic Sediment Dredging and Disposal/Treatment (HP-1)
The reas~n this alternative (HP-l) is not recommended is that the
cost is substantially higher than the cost of the recommended
alternative of mechanical dredging and disposal/treatment. Hydraulic
dredging would not provide any additional level of protection for
the pu~lic health, welfare and environment over that provided by
the reco~ended alternative (HP-2).
Capping of Sediments (HP-3)
The reas~n this alternative (HP-3) is not recommended is that the
reliability of a cap given site conditions is questionable. There
is a p~tential for desorption of conta~inants from sediments.
resultin] in a release of contamination to surface water. Capping
~ay provide inadequate protection of the public health and environment.
There is a potential exposure pathway, and potential adverse effects
cn the w~t1and and wetland aquatic species. Furthermore, capping
would have a greater adverse short-term impact on the wetland
-------
~52-
No Action (HP-4)
I '
I
The reason this alternative is not reco~mended is that it provides
-inadeq:uat..e pro,l,e,ction .of,t.hepubLLc J:l-e-alth.,..we:l:f:ar:e'and '::,e:ny.ire:ea '::,\r:e'Strirct'ion:s ;wo:u 1 d
be required for tbe e~bankrnent area.
The capitalr operation and mainentance, and present worth costs for
this alternative are su::unarized in Table 40.
The other remedial a~terriatives proposed for Otis Street in the
, 'Fe aSibi3:i,'t.y -:'St\udybut "not,. r':e'\oommend.ed,"-e.rerl,J,'Sc'\:1s.sed' 'be low.
-------
-53-
~=3nkwent Capping (OS-l)
T~e reason this alternative (OS-l) is not recommended is that the
cost is greater than the cost of the recommended alternative and
tbe alternative does not provide adequate protection of the public
health, ~e1.fare and enviro~ment. Also, capping would pose a greater
p.:>tential fo-r adverse impacts on the Hocomonco Pond discharge stream
(Assa~et River wetland) than the reco~ended alternative (OS-2).
No Action (OS-3)
The reason this alternative (OS-3) is not recommended is that it
p~ovides inadequate protection of the public health, welfare and.
environment. The migration of contaminants and the potential exposure
pathways to the public and the environment (i.e. Hocomonco Pond.
discharge stream and Assabet River wetlands), would not be addressed.
Isolated Areas
The re~edial actions recommended for the three isolated areas of
contamination on-site are discussed below. These three areas pose
a potential route of exposure through ingestion and dermal contact
with contaminated soils and wa"ste material.
. ~
Ten to twelve shallow'soil borings and sampling
needed during the design phase to determine the
be excavated from these areas.
and analysis are
exact quantity to
Tank Bases - It is recommended that the tank bases be removed for
disposal on top of the former lagoon before it is capped or in the
la~dfi1l to be constructed on site for the Kettle Pond soil/waste
material.
Th~s action would be effective in eliminating the risk of exposure,
in~estion and dermal contact associated with the creosote product
in the tank bases.
Contaminated Soil near MW-l - It is "recommended that the contaminated
so~l be removed for disposal on top of the former lagoon or in the
landfill to be constructed on site for the Kettle Pond soil/waste
material.
Stcre Drain Channel (Southwest Side of Site) - It is recommended that
the contamination in the storm drain channel be removed for disposa~
in the on-site RCRA landfill to be constructed for the Kettle Pond
soil/waste material.
The. short-term environmental impacts during implementation of these
ac~ions would be minimal.
Air emissions would be rnonit~red on-site for worker safety and
at potential off-site receptor locations.
-------
--54-
o
Proper sediment a,nd erosion controls would be required relative
to actions at the tank bases and storm drain to minimize
potential adverse impacts to Hocomonco Pond. Erosion can be
,'easily ,,'C'ontrolled ;atthe,s'E! s.ite. locations.
No long-term adverse im?acts are identified with these actions~
- ,
Operation and maintenance costs associated with on-site disposal of
these materials has already been addressed relative to the disposal
facilities for the Former Lagoon and Kettle ~bnd alternatives.
Removal .andon-sitedispos'alo'f ':cont'am'inan:t's d;d'e'n,t'ifie.d ::a;t "these
three locations is preferred over the no action alternative. No
action would allow for the high potential risk of exposure by
humans and animals~ particularly at the locations of the tank bases
and MW-l.
Capital costs related to the disposal of isolated site contamination
are included in the cost estimates for alternative FL-l.
I
I.
,:Comrnunity Relatio,ns
Community relations relative to the studies at the Hocomonco Pond
site have been good.. Community interest by citizens and local
officials is not high, but is focused on several issues. The community
is concerned about the water quality and future expansion of the
water supply at the Otis Street well area. The community is also
interested in restoring Hocomonco Pond so that recreational use of
the pond can be permitted. Hocomonco Pond is currently closed to
all recreational 'use.. Although the town of Westborough is a PRP
and potentially liable for cost recovery actions, local officials
advocate costly remedial alternatives which would remove and/or
, ',.d.e,s'troy.,tbe "'CiOT'ltamin-at't'O'O':;at .,.tb:i:s:'''site/so .as ::tto,',:pc,e::c::lude'any ",f',uture
"prob1ems 'rel.ated' ''t'O.ttt,e "'C'O'ntemi'n''a''t:,i''On. "COnml'IJ1l-l.tyc,onceT'Ils '.(!'re
~ddressed in greater detail in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance topics, requirements and costs, are
included in the text and on tables referenced in the Summary of the
Recommended Alternative section.
"eONSIS'TENCY'WIYH-UTH'ER "'F'EDERA'L "ENV'IRONME'NTA'L 'LAW'S
Environmental laws which are applicable or relevant to the actions
proposed are as follows:
o
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , Part 264.
'0
: Ex,e:c:u't i.v:e'Dro:eq;,S' ,'1.1\9,90 '",{-W,e',t'land5;)c:M1.Q':.l,1:',9'8.g, ..( F,iLO:'Odpl.ai n ), ,and
Guidance outlined, under 40 eFR Part 6, Appendix A.
-------
-55-
o
Clean Water Act
o
Clean Air Act
o
Safe Drinking Water Act
The proposed alternatives were reviewed for consistency with applicable
RCP~ technical standards, specifically 40 C.F.R. Part 264. Subpart
G entitled Closure and ?ost Closure and 40 C.F.R. ~264.3l0 Subpart
N - Landfill, entitled Closure and Post Closure Care.
Former Lagoon
The cap and closure activities will be designed in accordance with
Section 264.3l0(a} to:
1)
Provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids through
the closed landfill:
Function with minimum maintenance;
2)
3)
Promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of the cover;
4)
Accomodate settling and subsidence so that the cover's integrity
is maintained; and
5)
Have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of
any bottom liner or subsurface soils.
The cap installation will be performed as specified in ~264.303.
The landfill will be surveyed and a notice will be placed in the
deed and to the local land authority as specified in ~264.ll9 and
S264.120. The applicable closure requirements in S264 Subpart G
will be addressed (Decontamination/Disposal of Equipment, Certification
by Professional Engineer) Site Security will be provided as specified
in S264.ll7(b)). Post closure care and ground water monitoring
will be performed in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Subparts F and G and
Subpart N S264.3l0(b).
Kettle Pond Area
The excavation and on-site landfill design and construction will be
performed in accordance with the applicable RCRA technical standards.
The RCRA closure regulations require either closure by removal of
waste and waste residues which is equivalent to closure as a s~rface
i:npoundment or closure as a landfill by capping and appropriate
post closure care. The proposed.excavation for the Kettle Pond
area will meet the technical requirements of 40 C.F.R. Section
264.228, setting out the applicable closure standard requiring the
removal or decontamination of all waste residues and contaminated
s~bsoils. As discussed herein, the residual soils contamination
level after excavation will be protective of human health and the
-------
-56-
A ground water monitoring program will be implemented to monitor
water quality.
i,
.".The'.de,s:ign,~\a:'nd' , ,clGns.t,'ru'ct.'i'on ";O:f ~,'!a'n'}(O::l:~.si'fte'::.RCRA\ ',lJa:nd'fi,\l',I:'::ad-:;),-a:c,ent ", t,o
the Former Lagoon area will be in acc~rdance with the technical
design and operating requirements of 40 C.F.R. ~264.30l as amended
July 15, 19~5 (Federal Register Vol. 50, No. 135, p. 28748). The
design will include a double liner system with leak detection
between the liners and leachate colle=tion above the top liner.
The cover design and post closure care will be in accordance with
''S'~!6''4 ~,"3T'O:(.:,'a':}"'i1i:n'd, ':(:bli:a;nd,-o:t'h,er"¥i'Ppi',;d.;,c,a":>;i-e "a::e:qui',remen.t's,. .:r.he ::c,o'ver
, . "sy's't'em .'.'de"si'gTI"w'iil "'be "c'ont'ig'u"Ou:s ".Ri:'t\h:t'he :'.:Fo''!'me'r:'lia.:goOfi '..are'a ,
thereby minimizing the complexity of post closure care (See previous
section on former lagoon area for post closure care and ground
water monitoring of the landfill).
As part of the excavation process at Kettle Pond, the Pond water
and ground water from dewatering operations will be treated in an
on-site treatment facility and discharged to surface water. The
: d'i::s-c.1y;anJ'e . :w,1:71':1 (>me.eft ,it:tte >,a':ppl-ica.:b:leJ.' !'Nait,:i;i.ona,a., ::/PQ,lJ;,Utiant ':i,f)i's'cha'rg'e
. . "EI 'i ni i 1'1 3't i'on' "'Sys't'emt'N'PD'E'S ')'t e'chni'ca'l' "re'qu'i''r'e'me'n~t''s ~":'fh:e'-'::oe~I'i:gn 'far t,he
excavation action will include establishing acceptable off-site air
quality criteria, an air monitoring sampling program and a contingency
plan to minimize adverse air quality impacts. The action levels
for air contamination at the site boundary may be that proposed by
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 2 ppm total concentration of
volatile organic compounds in air. During the design phase for the
alternatives, other recommendations for acceptable air contaminant
levels may be considered. The excavation of contamination and
restoration of the wetlands in the Kettle Pond area is the only
remedial alternative that actively restores the wetlands area, and
"",me,e.ts, ",t.ne :.i'A:t.e_f.\,t,.-of,Ex,ec,ut,,i,v;e,,QJ;:,der ,.1.1,99".0,., ..,.The,o.rde,r ,re,quires tba t
-------
-57-
SCHEDULE
Following is an outline of key milestones and" dates for implementation
of final remedial actions:
c
A~prove remedial action (sign ROD) - September 30, 1985
o
Com~lete Enforcement Negotiations -
November 29, 1985
c
Award Superfund State Contract (SSC) for Design - December 9, 1985
c
Send Interagency Agreement (lAG) to Army Corps of Engineers
for Design' -Dece~ber 5, 1985
o
Start pre-design field studies - March 1, 1986
Start des igll - February 1, 1986
o
o
Complete design - September 1, 1986
c
Auend SSC and lAG for construction - September 1, 1986
c
Start construction - September 6, 1986
o
Complete construction - June, 1987
This schedule is dependent on the availability and obligation of
funds to implement the project design and construction. The time
la~ before obligation of final remedial action funds will protract
the schedule for implementation by an equal length of time.
FUTURE ACTIONS
Adcitional field testing as discussed previously in the summary of
recocroended actions is necessary during design of the selected
reGedial alternatives. Soil borings and analysis are needed to
determine exact volume of soil/waste to be excavated from Kettle
Pond, of sediments to be dredged from Hocomonco Pond, and of waste
in the three isolated areas (i.e., tank bases, southwest storm drain
channel sediments and the area of MW-l). The exact quantities need to
be determined in order to design the RCRA landfill for Kettle Pond
soil/waste and RCRA cap for the former lagoon area.
In addition, water treatibility studies may be necessary at the
Kettle Pond to design a granular activated carbon water treatment
system to be used during dewatering in this area.
Future actions also include monitoring of the effectiveness of the
Ca? and onsite landfill as well as assuring future effectiveness of
these actions through proper operation and maintenance. Monitoring
fD~ ca? and landfill effectiveness is required under 40 C.F.R. Part
-------
-58-
Finally, based upon ground water and soil quality at completion of
the Kettle Pond excavation and ground water dewatering and treatment
system at the 'Kettle Pond, the Regional Admirdstrator may determine
,that. ,J:g'ro:g.n"d"wa:t~e:r, ':pum?i:ng ,ia:nd "tre,'a'tments,ho.ul~., (c:o:nt"i:mJe, candlor "addi tivlla J
.. 'so'il'e''X'C'C!vat:'l'onis "TIe'eti:e'o' "to '''a'ctl'i:'eve f'in-al 'gr'Ound\wa..t'e'r:qu:a Ii t Y
levels, established a~ that tirn~. Final ground water cleanup
levels will-be set based upon background levels, Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCL's) or a demonstration of Alternate Concentration Limits'
(ACLs) according to 40 C.F.R. Part 264.
For security the site will be fenced during design and prior to
-equIpment 1nobi1i2ation :and.'the 's:tiar,:t, ,of'''co,n;struc't:i:o'n.. '. 'Fenci'-ng'i s
necessary to prohibit unauthorized entry and Timit'publicexposure
to contamination and construction activities.
-------
HOCOMONCO POND SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
-------
WORCES/TER -"".. -=-"'-.' (~)..\
SPRINCFIELD. ~.. ~~STON ''j::7 ~:>:.~. - , ~ '.... ~" ~- - ~
,PRO..l£ CT"~" ,-;;:1." "~:- ",- "" ~~~~'~~
&> '4 'T:.,~ -' '"? ::.- '~)..--" " ,
VICINITY MAP " ., ,,"', - ' :- \. . ~'" :,..,.
- . G,....., - ~,;Ir"- . ....... 8,
NOT TO SCALE :-'-- i:-'" ./~....... ,-~~~v \; , 4" p~-.:.~
- 0.. I~ roo, ' ',: '~-.: ,-' '-'" ':" ,':""""-,'
.:" ..-- t ~ .. \.. ~..- ",.,/.... p - .- -- -',.,,-.....-..:.... '-. .""
- . ~'"" J ' . ./ - - - , . . ~ "':':-.:'
, ,: r~j0 ., "'''' ~. '~; / - - '-..:.., . '.- -, (t, '~
'. ,":...,- ~-.-~::.J3';- If::::\ ":J~I;""~x-:' -' , ' . '. - - -, - -r:.t:. ';"'5~"
~ -,.. ~, -" . \' , '. - ,a,:). ' .'
-. ". '-, .. : ,- ~ ':. .-....,' -. - 'I I ,'" , ' ,
'. ,,'" , " " ,', '~.... :~~'-" '.:: ~... ' ""~; ," -,. ~:~..' ,~~~";":t,..:~~::"L,, ~,'~~:- ,r£?"
\.. ' /~~~~~ '4C\l'~O~ r~' ~,,,¥ "':17 ':':'0,':. '''It.. .' ,. p'" ''':':~:--~j .....';
l,\\ ( ~ '" I " ..... - '. ... -. .. ~ ,",
,'f/Io t.. "'.'\ 1 . /' ,.. .. .. 'i ~ " . ~ . . - - - .. ~~. . .,.~... ; "i
- '-' ,'/ \., \:' -', ~., .. - -=- ". .. ..
,,;t) .. "'"' , ' ..": .' _. -", ,. - . ... ...-:.::: .:...~.,.:. . :..:
- ; , - I-a' ~ ,'-, -;,.""" -.- : ,- ,- -s I ' ... , " ,
. - - -.. -!If...... ,.,,.",, .8 " . - - "." - t:w... 8~ .~. t
." \ '~\..." -' ,.- ..' .:.,,-,-/";'... ~ '/ ':t' .',' -01I0IO"'" ~~ ,'.,.'
"I )(.~ - . "J" -:.--,,:' ~I ~" E' S,' .T, "~Q', "R - U'': G'- :at ::: ;::.\.:;.=
8.~ / ' ,- r.......... '.' ...., ..~."'- "; - - - ~:8..$
. '",'. ,: ~ ; ; ~, 0 ) J::i..s~~ H A R"1iJ:CEUTicA . --: - ':. - ': :- \r: " '!i:.~~ '
, \,.. \"11 f' ',. Jo. - - - '. 0-/" .
,"":.,. '"\,,.,..,:,S~.s:tD" 'j,!' "'",P~~'-:::.',"'~!'fP,~HY_-- --, ~.T.T:L,E P"Q.ND :".,:,' ,j\M'~;.~', '
. \ :. \~H,I1, - "" 'J~-' """."'. ' '-..;~, -.' ,#.",.:..::-.',,,,,)1'
- ..- . -""',~~)$#:~T:1t,e£:T';..~.': '._~,>_._" ':', -',~r:;. ~ '-.. ~:'.,:. ;~I"; ~
;' ," J../~"I' - ::;.' ~,~~. -=, Hrx:o .-";. L'..,," .:..;.' , '~,~, -'
\ ,.(', .,' 'Y '\0,,':: "',J- ,~~ ptIft4' : '-., - ~ .0,",'."":
. .. S ... .., '''''':''''/' ~ ~:'\ "-.a.- ,. . - fI,.l~ . ... 8
",,'..... -, - '" -, ,Ie,HjVALYE I CO'",'- ,~. "',*,
.~ '-" " j.. t , ....~ ~;. . .... . ..- ,,,. .. .. .' 8 .
'.." .~", _I,' -, "',JII ,-/,~~;' ,,-.' ,)..~..7
. oJ' ',~", (t"'~, -;""~~~~ '. '"(.5",' '~':.. (- ~ -= '
::; '...:' \ ,or::) ....- ';-..r ,-~- ..,,' ,'"'' ""~.-. . .. C
- . ,'f\/ r \ ", ,'- "-;-,~, ",-:-, »~' / > ~ s.r.
, ~~I. :', I ' }.. PROJECT SITE :;,;. A'..~t A..~.,' '.: ( '-.."
t'"...-,. . - I .. .,. -- " ,0.' .Go1-.,; COW'
~ "",,, ,,,-' ~ ~ - -- ~ ~ II' -...
-- ;-'. .. -' '~, '/"~'" - . ,12.2 .' y", '~ =. :.:, .
.-?'\.' .... I;) "\", I ,~I ,r;. I
\ '~:\.," ' '1 /r.~-.. ~;¥","> ',: :,~ ',,:.:,\~,. ,j,
. 'I " ~/,.:' .. -", " SUASCO ;': 'I' ' ~"""
. ' <:\'- ~ -<" -, , RESERYOIR - ' . "=,. "
.'.. )'~;,:,'.' ':_-;:~~'-~:,~ : '. ~,. .'~\,~:.,.
} ,~;,/ r ,:,-,-, '.- '. ,,- ,.;~, ' '.
, ~, ,- ~~ ~'.. . : .' ",! ,~; '~':-: ..
~ ,"" =...., ~ .;. '....- .. ,"';,'" ..f/I;'- .. - ~'- ,~~- ~"'.":.:~ ; ,r \I. ....8 .
, I. ._,.. - J:;. ,..., ~ =, {' , '- - - r '.. \' 0
/'1- -~- '~-': ::-~?~-'~'~.., 1:-~, "'" ~"::'. ~~, :"'=--', : ,,' " ,"f":~",
. ... -- .. t. ~, _"!':.'~...' - -;J. t ,~ .;:::::;;;;-.. -,.., .., '-...... .;
/ - .~- ~~_.....~.., -¥:.~ :... ~_J,8 . \....." - "....-.~ '~. 8 -;"'''''' e, .. .-...' .:
.:. - -~'=i:;'~ .T-, '. ~.,;;;:-~ .- ;\;;/;,,'- ':-:::- ':1~':'r.:i~~':..~.::..;. ~.: ~',. :'..
--0"' , - (;.?JJ.~ """8' .. - .. 8,.,....- ---- ... .....- - . .~, , V,
,,--,;, .:---:.-:;.~' ~ - -, "C.." .J~f\"Q.:,..,~.' '~-~ ---~-,;:'~ .p_"-:.,:.~/"~~ - J~~;l:.y:?-~
-.- 1---. ~ J. ..\.... .. ".""...' 'A" - ,-~----~.~ .
-, --... -,..".0"'" fI.-.8' .", S*;:. .,....., ~ 1'0.. : '?' :. .;;'" . -. l: '.."
...-' .' :..".'"-~''' " '\..-1.......,.: :,-' ,~.. ...'.: ~,,'.8 I . - ,.) JI..I.....-... .
- - ,,/:,... ~! ,,;:::: I.~: , .' -:=-- ~ . ':... . ,- ~JI>'" 8 ~.:j8 .:.:,;.--:::......
...,..4t:. ':' .~~.-:-. -~- ,: ':1,~ '. -~.."" ,-. .,' ...:: '. .. ","~,. ~ ~,.t:!..,-~ .'... \.
..~, ... -"-".. ," .~ d. ' - ,......,:t ,\ --" ',"'" '." .. ',. ", \.~ ".,' ,.:", .'JIl!t'.. '." ,.,...
-~,z_{i":~-~_- --~ ~~~~f~~. "~r:~: -.- .~-",~). CJ/" I'~: /-r~'~~:;~;'
.'" ....,..~i. --....: - J.?J ~I,- I \ --- ""-"'1 'V , ~ ,......; .;~':" 'J., .~.,.~..
:0.7 ,..."'0"': ~.,I, - .:>:>. - - ""'\:F;f -'" /,...., ~:~ - - .. - ~ . ","\,....:~,:'. "~. ".:.."
:/""-: )~.
-
, ,
"f
SOURCE:
u.s.a.s Quadraft8'.
Shr...bury. ......
':(7.<5 ''''''11''.'
I
".p
o
2000 FT
Flgur.
1
Sit. Location
Hocomonco Pond
W.at borough, MA
-------
- "'" '- .. .:-....... "..' .' ~.-tIo"'i-.. -..
, .;,=:= ". 'r-- ~b, ;...:' '0-":' '..
"""'.'.' ' ..... '--
- .-----..,: . ,,-:-~,.:~r:'=~'
-, ~~: .>" ~ ' ..
- .'. "0'" \. . - ...:' -... .. ...' .-
j' - ~... ~/. -.. - - "j:.. '::...'''U
: "....A" u; - :~' :,~ ~ i",'~ ,.' ,'.'- ..
~i"i" ~,\,..., '0: ..- Pt I -
:",,,,,
-f'
-'
" :a
, -
.
\ _.../'7
'\' ,
/ \;
,\ '
'{~.
'"
,
" -
"
"
~
\
. ;.
~~.-
.
!'
,--
-',
'-
, -
-
.. '
...;,../'
- ~ '...,~,~
, ....'
- "e;~-, ~
-, ,,,-
- '"'" -- \
'. \.
"
.. ~'-' r-l ;-"
... ,~'-;r---
; ,/.
:./ :'::...
" .
i- .
, '"
.t
. '
. j
"';~~,i
',t
. . 'II.'
, " .
:1\
CI;' \ ~\
@~~~,
c--:...: '" -= ' os. °
[.,..,~" :( "'~ '
I. ¥f~
~'~"'I - r (- \ ~ .. ,'" ~
.PI\"- t...... .. ..."..:
,'....:' ':-'\. --,1 '~:~..
-I-'~'. '..,..
14. ~-:,
'. - - ~
,
,..-,
.
,
, ,
....
~'& .
'o~ . ~
'.. -:. - - B r~or' / '1\
('''': -- - ~-. . 01
.c:. /"
Ir ,.
I,,"
"'~:
-. .. .
":',~:::
,~..'..
: - '$'-.
. ~. .
.. 010"', '. '... ..
..';" ,. ,
,. ". ..0
.. ...""
i
....
'oo ;
...-:-
"I
."'" ..
(~ ;':'. )0.. ::.--:: ; 9'. ,..:
\4r~ -." . ~.-~U "T~ '.' , ,,' "'. '..~ '/'.."
...~- .......:. # ~~- -~---r--." j... ",.-,..."':.,.'.t;'i""""':::':':::':
). , ,-3," ~ ~ ~ ~'p~ ~ y . ~~~=7Gf5:~~~:2i:~;2;~:~"~
":" . :-. ~ ,.. -. .. - ~
: .",,"'':........ . 1m
,/," ().~r:,..'
0.''''.. - ,f."
... - "
,~ '
. ";:d~:"'~~~ ~.~~~
- -.. " r -~\
r~':" ,..:o:.YCoI~ C:,.
eo .. --' ,"
. -'
. ~~. (.11~f. 0.i:"
':."": ..,f '.ViJ;:~
. . ~ ..,
..', ',";;': r;
, .~. ," '--
.' ...
.. 8"
.. ,', 130
. . .
'/; - ~'. -- .. - . .. - ~... - -.., '. \ .-
-' _. - .. - ..:.. / ,.:....... .- _. . - f).. ....'.. ~ . . ,"', ' .." .
. / ~ - -. --; ~,:'r_" "." :,' ~ I ..J_-,~ : -" ',' , ,',-
- '-" -..,.,..r, ../' ~ . -,). I ~ /:-.-. -;.. - ,-. ,.' ,.,4:--,'
/ -.. f '" "...,..- - ,;:::::- ~. ( ') . , - .., ... . .. 1\'.""
-" ~-;':-. -",. ".0 ....-l (.' -=...;~.' ...'............... ...
- - -- /:-:-j.. /~' '. ...-, ..' i \ \ '~- ',': " " "-' .,' ::, ..
.. __..--....-.,,8"'..' - . .~.... ~..: -..,""" -. ".".". .~ ,.-,..
..; ." :..:7.;./.:.. . r .. II ~.. .. - .. - I ". c;."..-.L- .-:- ." -.. -e",
,-=::-~;:;;O':":,,;,- :C ,--;,~~-'l-.~':''',~- ~.- --~-~ '4I{' : -:~;'~-~:/. ~...'" ,~:~::'"7.'-_.~i
,..' ....J,.- , . - .. ... .~ ~ -. .. ....
- :', ,. .-J" " '---' p: 1;1 "'-:: .!.,-" . - ----=.... ~ \D , :......'" ~..,." -.' t.- ...
, ',. ~, l" '.: J . , . '..~ 0" I, . , ) -", " ,,' '''' "', .'
,"'. .~I ,,'" '".,~. ,.- . I -,'~. -.." ""
. to':" .;:- =- - ....~.~:' - "f'" '~' , ~- ,,'''' ~ ...! ~.J' "f' .' ""~:'
r ~ I ' ,-..---.~\" 0 \ '".' - . S,. _,01 - "'~. ~ .- .": - . ..'
~~ " ; ',. . . ° f. '---:.-::f,' ° ~'--;";«" II' \'" ;-, :~,:.~~:.'
-- . - .. , .'" ~-- . . "'..
!.~
;r
.."
-.\
:.:..~- SOURCE:
-
U,S,G.5 Q u. dr. ft ;1.
"'.p Shrl..bury, ...... (7.5 ",I nut.)
LAND USE
D
f: .,.:"..~
WlZ
VACANT/SPARSELY
DEVELOPED
m
g]
RESIDENTIAL
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
AQRICUL TURAL
CO..WERCIAL
Figure
2
Area Land U.e
Hocomonco Pond
W4slborouoh, MA
-------
HOCO"'ONCO POND INLET
STREA'" WETLAND
.- -
t.... '" -- ~
- /~ ~-- \ '. c;
-~. - <,- '
, .. - . \",. ~.
'. of- /";"/.;.
. - .- ')~= ..'\': .::: ' :
- - '...- :;..,...,.. '". ...; ......~" ~.
. .
-
..,- ,/
...,
.,-
:-.: .l;::=
_.\. " -'
.~. \-
;-:~:>' -~ .~,
..~~~:-'
- .Prt
,~
1-"
.,.~ .
'., .
. "
~, .,"....-.:~,
. : ;,,;?':.t
~c:.'r
.' -
.
. '.
. -.
'-
~
, /:
. B roul.: '7' ,j.
. -: - - -;//. ': ~
~ ../ '
- ."
'~'-'
.\--~~.
"
....
.f
-."
.'~ !
- ..-..~41'
.~ '.,,-... - =- .-., .
, , - ,-' " "~-'" ': : :~,.'S.
~._-......-.
, . ..'.... ". "
-=- . ". :'_/-...."
'=", . .~," ."',/:'-:0-
: ,',- ""~ .-icl'"
- ,,-. /-0 . ...
":'S:>6 .~; ....
-". '-
. .".... ',::
.A'
(;
::.--
.-.. -
. ,
'"I 1 .:~. . .;,r
-
...~:;,...,
'/7- .:-.
i ~...
ASSABET AIV
WETLAND
, ..
.
,
..-
, .
,".
.
..
- :'....J,I~'..,,~.,
.. '.. ......=~\
.:::., :: ~~.
.: I
j
''':;. .
..'~
.f" '
,<:
.. ,
. ..-.. ,,'
-'
. --
. \ .:-
)
. ''',:'' '.:. " ,----,;~",:",,'~'..,- - ,';' -- ::=-"'-"";'~'~~ ..'.
Vi ~::.. . --_:-~--..:;.. ,"-:4. "'-"-:.... i - :/" '-. ~.~ :..~':1-' . '::'
: /:.:~~-:=' ,,:,_;,~,:~~~~,~~~':'j:'~-::.:.:.t. i I.,';' .-- ~-~"\:f:~~:=':.?'~"'"
/ -' . ..-, - ~ ~ - ., Ie' .// ~,,- ~ ..... - '.- .........,
~'- ... -.-.;.' -":"..: ,- .:;,;.:. ~.. . :.\;./ ~u......~:. '. . a.. '" - ~.
?~i~-~7:~1:~*..(f~.>}.~.~-;-:>;-7'1~~:ffi:~~ -:~;
~ ,. ,"'. .:-::""0,. -',.. ,," ,"'" -.. ,~ \,; 0, ~~ ..'
...,. '-fl..~' ." """"'.~;:. -.::;:;;:-....:..: .' '.' - \ . _:'1.' -~_-:::.~ !-
.-'
SOURCE:
U.S.G.s.au..sun ;1.
Shr...bIU,. ...'a
17.5 minute!
.u,
o
2000 FT
"Flgur.
''3 ~
'~'tpT"D;tet:t ,,;A-.'A,.,.'W.Uan,d.s
Hocomonco Pond 51t.
-------
@J
HOCOMONCO
POND
o
.....
-
(j)
wooo-
OENERAl SITE TnEATINO
OF REPORTED DUILDING
0000 OAl SPill ~.;=:--...~ ~ I
t ,0..3) /: --~ ~ -........r~oD I ~"\'~'
~;/ /~),L--~ ~~
7\/'~ . ..~- l//': ,,," -z:-=y~\ )) 0. ~
~/(- ~~o~ J~ . LAA~~! F~~--------""\:~~7r:;~i~:~{~-~~ -~~~. ( ~
, , ,,' OF WAY '- _"\ I l'
\j RAilROAD I , :/('} ~ ii
l\ "-) ( SIDING I 38. STORM DRAIN II q
\'- ) ' , APPROXIMATE LOCAtiON )1)
'%, .I !! OF OlO ".00' CHA,rm . (\' \ ~ '
I ,-.- DRAINAOE \ '- 'If)
" EASEMENT
'I l r, \~.,,~~/
;:> ~ ) \'10"
.0
" '-J .
)
1.'11 J
200 F'T
--'
BAS E MAP SOu R C E: T o.P 0 0 Fe phi eM. p 0 U I fa r d S u rv I Y Co. M. Y 11 8 4
o
Figure 4
Former Wood Treellng Foeillty 5"8 Lnyout Mop
Uocomonco Pond Silo, Wel'lborou9h, MA
-------
I
',.
~~
lEGEND
\
!"
,
/
,
\
,
EI
HOCOMOHtd PCND Mid
DISCHARot STnEAM
OTIS STRt~t
..,
.~
tZ3
r;;vI
~
~
FORMER LAdoON AREA
I([TTl~ POND A'UA
.---
=-. . ,~"";-:T~:;'::'::'~';'~'='~.. ..----- ,,' --.,
.(;~. .
.---.-
-~~-
==-== ;~- =="-
- - ---.;;. ..... - - -
~ = -~~-- = ::=-=-:..-
- ::::--t: == - -. : ~ --=- ~ --- - -- - '-=""'~: -:.:,=-_. =t:
- - -IIQCOMONCO.- _-J,,+- -- - -..- - - - --. --- .POND. --- ~.M"
=- -- :~:.L-,,: :..: -.---=-: - :;:-~~::- = -- - = - -='f~~~ ~-=- :.:
:--- ~- -- --=E=~--- _:- ---~-:r --:~~
- - - - ~ - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - ......... -"""- - .oro
- - - - ~-liiO. - - - -- - .~ - - -- -- - - - --- --- ~.. - ---
- - - --.;: 'Woo.- - ..£..- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - ~ .:..;..- ---
- - -- _.~- -- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - -;;..;.~-....:--
...>:,.- .=: == =~ :;;~~ =;- -- -:-- ...~~4~~
~~= -~~ =~ _:c~:s -.. ,
.~~----~---- "\
.=:~- - - - ~- - _..'i.~r:\:'
'--------'~-- ,. ..
[;:;Ni!~1;\
');-...,... f,p~~ -..- ~
'-
~
MItH
...
JOO rt
---:=J
H8I\1~,,'''"t ~c.I'
-1
HOCOMO~CO POND SITE
WE S/110UGH. M A
Figure
S u'm m .. r,y
Conl8m'
511.
5
or
'Ion
Are88
-------
\
I
\
...
~
.f
.
J
\
\
----------
..- -- - - - - - - -- ..
----------.. - _2
=-===-=----=- --=- --==-=-----=-=-. -~~ -:.. -.:.1
"..=- - -1'-~~9~~~(C_O~ ~-=-=-=-.:~-= - :.-= - ::=- .:.~- :~'PON-D- - ._~ - 16
j::~~==-;- =;;~~~;~ ;~~:;i~:~~~~~~~ ~~~~~:
- - - - - - - - - - - --=--=-==.=- -==-='=--= =-=". -- -.- .--
----- ---------
..: =i= == =~: :.-= - = -
----------------
- -- - -- - -- - - -- - --
-- -- ---- -- ----
~==-===_. =-=-=- = -- _.- ==-~-==---
-- -- -- -- - - - --
----------...
----------
------------
---- ------
----------...
-----------.
--------
...-------
---------
'\...
------
~1
,
,
,
,
,
'4
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
MITIt
HOCOMONCO POND SITE
WEST80ROUGH. MA
Figure
.---
----- -" - ....... .'
..""""""'.".-"..
.--'
13
6
LEGEND:
. OVA SAMPLE
POINTS
o 300 r T
---_:::J
Organic Vapor
-------
\
r/
.
f
1
,
,
-
.'"
- "
.',
.20
921
"
.,
SMITII
HdcOMONcr
WESTBOR"
@
- --
...-~.,.
. .~
:,..;--...--,...,- .i'
... "
".'
.
;
26,.
249
25"
----.
lE~~NO:
4t TESt PIT
. SURFACE
,.
0:
-
SOlt,
-
JOO rr
-=:J
---~...
---::= =-~~ -= -
= -::. = =..=~-=-- --.::.:--
._--~..----
..- - - -- .-... - - - - - ..
~~~=~'"1~:f;- --, - =-=-= - t;!l':.', -- ---- ,~::-"i-= -=.~~-=~-=- ,
.:::..=::.IIO.COMO NCO'.::-::.=': ,,"-. .-'- -~ --, - ~ ::.::- -":-P6N~-=-=--': 6
. ~.; ;====- -=.-;;-
.-...........
\'3
22 I
,. U:
13ft}
6- 449 1~tt:-23
ft7 3."
27- 9. I
"16 5991f 1_10
,
I
14- ,
,~
Soli
'ND SITE
/~H. MA
Figure 7
T.. 8 t P II II h d. ~ In , 8 C ..
Sampling lo(
C .
-------
. \
!
j
,
J
\
@
61 --.A
816 . 63 -------'" -..-'" 60
~..- -.'\'A---.,'
"4 8 12,61,
62
-=-----~ ~--~ -=--= - .- ::...:..:-=-=11"
7,5::'=="~----==-=-=-_-:-~ - - - .- .::....::-::.==--:-:-_-...:..-.
7, ',: -- !I::.q~Q.M-Q.~f=Q _::-::.::-:- -- ~;~ -~.6ND1~~i-"
-=-=-=- --=- ====J4~ -- .----- -~=~-' - =.
=-=-=- -=--=-==--=--- -=----=.--=- -=- -./':;-- -=- -=- --=---::~I~".=7"'=-:
.: -- > -- -- -- -.- ~ -.=- --=-.: ~~;.. '.
.:-_-====- ~ - - ---=-=----=-----=---~-,.- ::-..:. A1~}.- -- -- -'
. -=-=~=- - -- - _53~~::__~S:'
= =-:: =-===--=.::-:= - - - = -=-=--- -==- - 10 ~~( :'61,50
.~~= -- - ::..=- -- -- ~5~~- ' ~ '
====---=------~--~ I
------------ I
::.=-=---------~--~ t
:-=- -- =-! -- b53
'=--=-------- ~S9
t
.
t
I
.
.
SMITH
l'3-52
J
/
"
~OCOMONCO POND SITE
WE5TBOnOUGH, MA
-----
Figure 8
LEGEND:
{} SURF ACE W A TEA
A SEDIMENT
-
JOO fT
-~...:=J .
Sur r 8 c e W 0 t e r' 0 n d Sod I men t
-------
-
o OTIS STREET
MUNiciPAL WELL
. '
8 ~BAERVATIOH 'wEllS
21"D621-F .
@
,
...
~
f
. '
1
,. .. -
~~.-..-
." ,=----"::-.-.'-""'-.."..~--
--~.-
\ : - ~_. -::.- -~.,- - --. -- -- --=-;e.::-=:::-
'. - - HO;:::'AMONCn- - ~'-."." -.- -- -- - _.. --- -P~UD- --
'--- ~\;;I v---..----------. VI' .---
! 0 -"'-""..-----'.'~"------~''''''
'~--= - - .~= - -C . ..,..~:;
p 0 E.$1.:,.,-----'"i~--'-'-
w~a; ~& ~-
=~~~--=---~~-_..
--~----~.~----
- ----.;. ,j;:-- - - - - ~
- ~ = --=- ~ --='"""~
81
6'
I
\
,
~/,
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
, .
~...- S~r ~
I -;V~A i ~
.'0
. ."".,.
. . ~.., -.,..... "
...~...-.~'_... .
8Mlt"
VALVe
*2
o. .
LEGEtJ\J~
- -.8
4e
. DEEP W~ll
. SHAllOW
WELL
-
~- ~ ~.
..
60 80
90 100
,5
CJ) EXPldhl\TOnv
DOrtiNG
9&
EXISTING
WEll
110
~"'M
~ .....~... . :
"
"
'1
2.
0.
.....
JOO rT
--=-.:::1
SMITH
'-
------ .~
" ---...
"
"
Figure
9
Exploratoty Dorlng/ .
Ground Water Somple
locapons
I
HO,COMONCO POND SITE
-------
HOCOMONCO .PO~D SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
-------
!h3U 1
Su~-~~Y 0: O~~~:IC SI:~ CO~~k~!NATION
F.:~'-S~ L~G-:O~; >~
HOCOMa~;c~ pm;:) SITE,
;..r::ST30ROUGH, !-'..A
Para.."[\eter
Co~ce~t~a:ion Rance
Soil; Ground WaterZ
(~g/kg) (~g/l)
i,
, .' ",2 ;'4--dimetbyipbenol
''''Ph'eno 1
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
'acenaphthene
fluoranthene
r.aphthalene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene
. " ,'b1!n'Z'o'{b')1f l.'UO~anthene
'''t,:I.,.~o(('x'l'f'lUOt''a\nth~ne
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
indeno(l,2,3,-cd)pyrene
pyrene 3 ~
dibenzofuran
2-methylnaphthalene
.,benzene
.i:sophorone
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chloropheno1
lID
"tiND-BDL
ND
ND
BDL - 308,000
867 - 1,590,000
BDL - 3,090,000
ND .
ND - 289,000
,m> - ,,,.U.9,,DOO
Nt> .-' :74,,,.'000
1'.1> - 286,000
ND
BDL - 1,770,000
ND - 136,000
BDL - 340,000
811 - 2,040,000
ND - 178,000
561 - 1,002,000
BDL - 279,000
BDL - 1,560,000
ND
'\~,tND
""ND
ND
ND
',ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-BDL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.;.~
,.m>
ND
~ '.
-
I Lower range concentrati:on from borings (X-8, X-I0) at a depth of 18-20
feet below grade. Hiqher range values from test pit (TP-12) within an area
of visible contamination 3 feet below grade.
.a .,Gr.ound\t..:t:er.aata:ar.e 'cDq)i1:.t'iOn:of"5i~'6.P "7..'J8"and "9.
3 2,3,7,8 dibenzo-p-~ioxin was not dete~~~d.
ND = Not Detected.
BDL = Detected Below Detection Limit.
-------
:.~~:';:
-
S._~~:'_;.:." .:?
:~:: ;:.3.~~:: :
s::::: :::t::.~-~:~:~.:::~:
:- :::_~; :-~.:-:':~; ~~
EX:'~:~:::' ?:.~::; 5::~, ~S:=:;:~:;::, !-'.>.
Fa :- a:;:,e t e t"
Soi 1
( mg I kg )
Cc~c:r.:rat:on Rance
G:-ound ~ater
( JJg 11 )
.:
Va.:-.adi \mI
Zi:1c
6160 - 1~7001
~1)
~"D-20 1
9-551
ND-O.S1
ND
8-26
4-191
5-231
7440-16,0001
3.2-5.2
57-228
}>O"D-O. 071
5-181
ND
~1)
ND
~TD
~1)-40 1
13-411
ND-21901
ND-23 1
ND
ND-5331
ND
ND
ND-14
ND
ND
ND-667 %
ND-33 1
ND-316001.%
ND-l. 0 1
ND-601
ND
ND
ND
ND-39
ND
ND-39
J.h:nin\:\
~-., ~ i rtitO r::r
J.rsenic
Ea r h:m
Eeryllium
CaeniUlt
Ch:-ort.i \:no
Co~ 1 t
Corper
Iron
Lead
!"..a..:lg a.." e s e
Me=cuQ'
Nickel
Se:e~i\;%t\
Silver
:r~lli \:m
'Ii!l
1 ~ve back;round levels.
% ~ve =eco~ended limit.
ND = Not Detected.
-------
:.~..::"::::
.:~~: :.,"'':::: ::
: ~:;\_";:: .:::;:
:~::..:: :; :~,-:. r.:.,E;A
:.: ~:: .~-". : :.~"~ -: : : : :
~
:::~,.::.~~,::::: : ::;:. .::: ~. ~;:~ -=--= :; :.:.: :;:-:. ~_::..
Paramete:-
Soil
(~g/kg)
Co~~e~~~a~io~ ~a~ae
Product
(\Jg/kg)
Ground water 1
(\Jg/l)
2.4-dimethylphenol
phenol
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
ace:laphthene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
. ','bert%'o,(.a:}py1"en-e
"-~%ofalanthAt!.e~
ber.zo(a)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
ace~phthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
inceno(1.2.3,-cd)pyrene
pyrene 2
dibenzofuran
2-methjlnaph'thalene
benzene
isophorone
p-chloro-m-cresol
- 2-chlorophenol
toluene
total xylenes
benzoic acid
-,di-"n-,octylphthalate
to
N:J
ID
lID
ND-17,780
~482.702
6,900-55,200
!D
, ':'1ID-.9:6, 9B.8
liD
Ie
10-99,898
1m-10,719
).':)-50,801
..-;;)-41, 9 37
ED-27,276
tW-129,901
J\:D-I06,717
111"'])-286.737
!e1!)-16,809
.'~:r2 ,'5\):0
'NID
~
RD
).1)
5DL
EDL
!.'D-12 ,000
.'1>-2900
ND
ND
ND
ND
4,400,000
2,400.000
28.000.000
.,BDL
.1,500..0'00
BDL
ND
1,700,000
1, 600 ,000
22.000,000
ND
11.000,000
19.000,000
ND
52.000.000
6,900,000
"8 .200,',000
';ND
ND
34.000
EDL
BDL
34.000
ND
ND
504-6300
97-2200
308-3300
380-7700
ND-300
ND
1058-11.000
ND
ND
ND
ND
23-200
BDL
ND-1200
32-300
100-300
ND
ND
36-300
. "9~-75C
. -'Sl-94
ND
ND
ND
ND-200
ND-180
ND-280
ND
1
Data from MW-4.
"')
-2,3,7,8 dibenzo-p-~~oxin was not detected.
',lJ.-"':>'=JJO.t ..De.teet.ed.
BDL = Detected Below Detection Limit.
-------
:.~:::":::
~ '...~-~_::;.' .::
:~: :::, :;.~.::::
~::~~ ?~~~"~:~~
5:::: :':~::~-~:~:.~.:::~:
-
':.:-,-,..~-,.._-
..---...-..--
;:.~:: s::=: ~ ;..::5:=:;:':''''':~::. ~J_!..
Para:ne-:er
Soil
(mg/k;)
F:-o:u::t'
(:nc;/kg)
G.ou..,d na"~e.
(~g/l)
1\1 w..im.ur.
k': ~ i.'TIOny
1\rse.."1ic
Barium
Be rj" 11 i urn
Ca d:: i \.:TI
Chrocni U%t
Coba 1 t
Cop?e r
1=-0:::1
Lead
!'...anganese
Me~cury
Nickel
Se1eni~
S il ve r
~llium
Tin
var.adi um
Zinc
3500-149001
ND
3-211 '
10-401
ND-l. 91
ND-0.3
1 '
6.8-52 ' .
, '3-131
6-321
5970-32,4001
2.5-14
63-156
ND-O.561
4-331
ND-0.2
ND
ND
ND
ND-52 1
12-891
392
}o,"D
111
5'
<0.2
0.950
,1060
<2
515
1220
66
8.2
1.06
<2
2.8
<0.5
2
3
<10
78
ND-300
ND
ND-501
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
101-11,0001. Z
ND-8
140-18301. Z,
ND
ND
ND-3.51
ND
ND
ND-36
ND
ND-18
1 ~"'e bacKg:"ound levels.,
2 ~~"'e recomoended concentration.
) Creosote product at surface of Kettle
- tID = Not Detected.
-------
':'~~":"==
-
Parame:er
5:"~~.:..= c:-
C'~.:3;'~;:: S::E:
,--.\-' v..,...... --!*'~~
- J.. .,...... ...-.. . _0.
Surf ace
Water
(jJg/l)
I
I
2.4-dimethylphenol
phenol
2-methylphenol
4-methylphenol
acenaphthene
fluoranthene
naphthalene
, ..beJ::..U)"aJ.p'yrene
,ben.:O{.a),anthI'acene
benzo(a)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
.fluorene
phenanthrene
indeno(1.2,3.-cd)pyrene
Pyrene
, ].
dibenzofuran
';2-methYJ;napht'hal'f!.M
'benzene
total xylenes
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
:-:'J:~:~~:::
?:~::, .!.,:::: :':5.=-:~-;':;::: s::=..:::.~-~
ND
ND
ND-8
ND-8
BDL-l20
BDL-200
ND-530
ND
',..ND-35
.,W
ND
ND-26
ND-40
ND-46
ND
BDL-160
BDL-400
ND
ND-l30
ND
ND-l70
':'~27
'ND-6
ND
ND
~:c:~:~-:: ? :~::. S ::E.. ..~S:= :;,::,:':;;-:, ~-~.
. Co~:~~:rat:on Ra~qe
Po~d Se=:;:\e:1~s' S:.:ea;i\ Sedi!':1ents
(jJg/K~)
(jJ;/kg)
'lID
lID
1m
lID
ND
tII"'D-34 . 188
"~-29.412
!\I"D-l.lOO
"":J-'4/054
. ')1ji)
h'"iD
NJ!)-3.94l
tm-BDL
El!)-3,Ol2
JID-BDL
IID-ll ,481
BJDL-34.l04
ND-484
1ID-20.800
ND-8.824
,JID"..,6"..824
,1m
Ili>
"'1:)
1m
"!-.'D
ND
ND
ND
BDL
6.140-49.900
BDL-140.600
ND-BDL
, ";tm-BDL
, .itm-BDL
ND
BDL-l.047
ND-BDL
BDL
ND
&>L-3,550
ND-54.430
ND
BDL-5.066
t-.'D-BDL
ND-BDL
.Jrn
rD
KD-BDL
h"D-73.320
1 Higher range values generally at the pond outlet (SD-ll).
.2 '2' '), '7 ':C .a ~ b ,"" . ' " .
,,' ~ ,,0 "":1:'en'Z'o-,p-",,Z:.o'x,-J.,:n ',.'W,a's' "nx>:.:t. '1C:et~:c.te.d.
"'ND ::: ''Not:1)et~t:ed.
I '.
-------
:.!...=:":::
6
S":v\," -;": ~ ";;'
~ . - .-- . - - ...
:~J:'~~~::: s::-::
:.:':.-: ;,-y.: ~;.~_:: :~;
:;X:.~:~:::. ?0t:J ~~~
::: s :::_~-~:;::: S:;.:;:~~
H.j:O~)!::: ?:'~,~ s:: £: # ''':::S:=:~:.JG::. ~-~
Co~~e~~ra:io~ Ran~e
Fa:-a;7.eter
Fond Sedimerlts
(mg/kg)
Strc~~ Sedirnerlts
(mg/kg)
1.1 \:tI:. m::n
l.,ntil4ony
Arsecic
Bariu:n
BerylliUJU
Ca en:' ur.:
Chr-o::.h::n
Cobalt
Co?pe r
Iron
Lead
Ma=1ganese
Mer-cury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Th.a 11 i U!U
Tin
Va.:'la d i U!U
Zinc
1200-70001
t."D-0 . 5
0.6-9.2
KD-451
t."D-o . 2 7 1.
t-.D-O.281
2.2-181
ND-131
4.5-241
2400-10,0001
1. 0-191
68-1501
ND-0.961
. ND-171
ND-0.41
ND-2.31
ND
ND-2
ND-391
12-37
1500-60301
NO
2-5.6
10-301
NO
1-41)-0.151
2.8-111
NO-7.S1
6-121
2200-76301
6.6-211
68-3021
.06-0.421
ND-51
ND-O.21
ND-O.71
NO
ND-2
ND-301
13-35
I ~ve ~c~round levels.
~~ = Kot Detected.
-------
: ~~-=.:.~
3~~~).~:- ::
:::."::;.~-';:: s:::::
: :~::}.._,.~:~::~..:: :~:
c::s s:::..:::::: {E'.=-.ST SIDE)
:-:j::3~~:=: :=:.!\~ s:::::. ~~S:=:;;~~G~, ~-~.
Co~=e:"'.-: ra t i 0:£
Ra:1oe 1 .
Co -
Ground Water
(~g 11 )
Parar.,eter
Soil
(~g/kg)
I
I, .
. '2;"'-6i:.e t~7l1'p'henol
phenol
2-methylphenol
4-me~hylphenol
acenaphthene
f1 uoranthene
naphthalene
benzo (a) pyrene
benzo(a)anthracene
ben:o(a lfl uoranthene
benzo{k)fluoran~hene
chrysene
acer..aphthylene
anthracene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
ind~o(1,2.3,-cd)pyrene
pyrene 3
dibenzofuran
2-methylnaphthalene
. .~be.D.Z:ene
isophorone
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
_toluene
. ,',ND
"'m
ND
ND
BDL
ND
BDL
ND
ND
''':ND
'."~ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
"Im
ND
ND
ND
'.15
:ND
11
18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
,:ND
..ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
BDL
I,
I Parameters were dete:cte/l in third sampling round (Dee.
detection limit of :2 .",g/1. Previous analytical results
2 '::TOunQ'. '':a!pori;ec!',NDbase.d.AU1 .20~4D ,:~g.l.l.".detection limit.
{r"'a.'t,~'fT"o,.t:! ,:'MW - 3.
2,..3,7,8 dibenzo-p-tC.'i.1O>zin was not detected.
ND = Not Detected-
BDL = Detected Below De~e~on Limit.
1984) based on a
(first and second
'-
-------
S."".N2..:"o. .-~
.!.. - - -"'" -.
-,---
....-;_':"
.
:~~:~~.~.:::: s::=:
,...-,-"v-,.,---,.
- ,",..' . .-- .-.. ,.-. - - .... at
HX~:~::: F:!~ SI:::, ~::S:=:R':''.:'3~, ~-~
:::5 S:::':::=::
;;:.:'.'sT SIL:E)
Pa:-a.::e-:.e:
Soil
(mg/kg)
Co~:e~t:a~io~ Rance
Gro~d ~ater .3
(~g/l)
~l ~..=.n"OJ1Tl
Ant j;)():) Y
~rse:lic
Barium
Berylli\CI
Cadci u:n
C1-..romi ~ .
Cobal t
Coppe r
Iron
Lead
!o'..a.n;an~s e
Mercury
Nici:el
Se1eniUI:I
S i hoe r
~lliUI:I
Tin
Var.adium
Zin=
3500-8450
ND
6-8
20-30
ND
ND
8.3-12
4
8-111
5970-10,000
2.5-.3.3
65-101
ND
4-9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-20
20-261
ND-35001
ND
ND
ND-2811
ND
ND-I01
ND-201
ND
ND
ND-131
ND-281
ND-4002
ND-O.31
ND-40
ND-l. 1
ND
ND
ND-36
ND
ND-128
1 ~Je background levels.
2 ~~Je reco~ended secondary
~~ = No':. De~ected.
3 :)ata. for M~-3.
-------
. :~...::-!
, ..
~._~-~_:.';.. :=-
:;:-~.~-'=: :
:.~..~~:":::
w.:.~-=:~. .~-';.~.:-'~.-: ::;.
~ :.:'~.:: :~::
:i:-::~:~;:: ~ :!.-: S::=:.
~ ~.::- :: : ::. : ...' .:.~:. .""-~.
'$'a~F : 'e' };-o .
...~Sa~;'!'~ :.,o.+:::e-:~'t)~- ':.; ,j~'e\5'-:':- ':",?':'::.~n
...~ '.. - .
,'''''''1''\ '",""'€;c.C ~ :-.;
, .:( ;r:-?::: e':;ci.:l'';sihe,e'n JaneS '.odor
present. 0'11\ set on lOx.
0.20
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.15
0.5
:O"~S
0.25
)10.0
,,9.5
-------
:~;:..!:
9
( ~:"'. :. :. ;:.-:; :. )
S....~..~~;Y u? :;::;.~-';::
'.'.~.~: ~ ~~;~.:. .;.: ::::.
s.~-~~ =-==
:":I:'~.:::~:S
HX~:~;::' ?:~:-: S::;:, p.~5:=:~::';~~. ~.;..
Sa::-.?:i.e ~:o.
- S~?le Locat:'.:)~ & :;>es::i?':.:o:-.
OV'"' Rea~i~;
(r?~ a~ve a~~ie~t)
13
Dovnstream of e~lvert. New fill ar.d
grading. "ne~ agitated. procuces
heavy oil sheen a~d odor.
No reading
14
Upstream. north side of outlet.
~gitated sediment produces strong
odor and oil sheen.
>10.0
15
50 yards north of outlet in woods.
Wet soil not fro~en. No odo~
present.
0.10
16
~pprox. 50 yards south of outlet
on south shore. Ur~ro~en water
5' x 20'. Sediment agitated.
3.6
17
Southeast ~orner of pond. ~itated
s e diOT.ent. t',:::) meta 1 drums in vie ini ty.
Odor and oil sheen present.
)10.0
18
60 yards up shore from sample no. 17.
Ice was broken and soil agitated.
No odor or oil sheen present.
0..10
19
200' in shore from sample no. 17.
~rea is a low dE?ression. Soil
is moist and ~~fro%en. Three
readings in same area have the
same results.
0.10
-------
:.~-=::'::: 10
CR":;;'~.1IC C:~~:'-~.-:S
:'::7::~:~: :~:
~~-: S::::. S~~?::.:::S
. .J:1CC,:~:~.;.:':' .,?::~:: ",S.,:..:.;:,~ ~~.S:3:~::';~E" ~.J\
Compound
Concentration- (~9/k9)
i.
fluo['anthene
':.be-n:oi(.atfluo~.\8nthene
.;.ben:o(b~ f.l'.uG't'anthene
phenanth['ene
pynne
8,971
. ,.3,.0.09
. ..'~.",098
2,448
6,048
*Concentrations a['e app['oximate based on Q~QC review.
.
-------
-: .h2:'::
11
ORG~S:C C~?J;"1::S r:;~~:D !~ S':..,IAC:: ...h.T::R
HCI:~'=,~::C ?C'~~ S::;:, ~S:B:;::'UGH.. !-loA
COr".c:ent:-a t i on (~g 11 )
Compound W-5l W-53 W-54
a::e:1aphthene BDL .120 BDLiiJ
fluoranthene 25 200 BDL
naphthalene t."D 530 25
benzo(a) anthracene ~"D 35 ND
chrysene ND 26 ND
acenaphthy1ene ND 40 N'D
anthracene BDL 46 NO
fluorene BDL 160 BDL
pne:1a:'1threne 12 400 BDL
pyrene 1 14 130 ND
dibenzofuran BDL 120 BDL
2-methylnaphthalene ND 170 ND
2.4-cimethylphenol BDL 13 ND
2-methy1phenol ND 8 NO**
'-methylphenol ND 8 ND*.
ben%ene ND ND 27
total xylenes ND ND 6
.**Data rejected in Q~/QC reviev
BDL - Below detection limit in analysis (see text for further definition)
~~ - Kot detected in analysis (see text for fu~ther definition)
1
-------
TAUl[ 12
-. .'
ORGANIC.COMPOUNOS O£T£CT[O IN $[DIH(NT $~Apl£S
HoGbHDNCO POND SIT£, W[STBOROUGH, HA
..
:."':.:...,; " .';
Concenlral\on C"II/kll) :..,; --:.. ...
Compound 50.2 SD.:j $0-10 so-H.. SO-12 SD-ZI SO.~, SO-!lZ so-u SD-.U SO-SII SD-S" SO &1 ~o ill
:a.v~:'_- - ' .. -,,- ~- ..w.. -
le,h."M".n. NO _Q~r 6.118. II, 4liiJ I.IU 4,400,000. Ml 264 220 nnl 21.1112 U, 2". filii llii.1 .'
f I~Of'lnlht"' HI'. ,,"'-'~. ..! "" 24,"'''' 20,'21" 1,400,000. ..0 I,OS6 ',2U lib 39 I )68 46,1J1t, 4'1,1)00 ' (,. i.,,1)
",phoronl liD 00\... ',7f.S. Dot ",Ii NO" 'NO "0 NO NO "0 NO NO Nn Nil'
n.~hlh"en. ; NO dOt to,1SI. Z9,4ti 2,61111 28,000,000. sts 4114 DOL 2 ~."" 37,11/1 40, !.'IO 140, "ng 11111
btihoC a) anlhraunt BOl I(b 19,6)s. 4,dH ], 71Z I. soo, 000. ..1f 616 814 tio 7,""0 11,/1110 lit II lliil
bt~JOC') pyrenl ,: ", NO HO , I ,8S11 Nd NO DOL ..6, 8)6 ',100 Ifb DOL ?,!.o. 11111. Iii!
blriJo(b)"uor.nl"i~' NO riO. , 1 ,408 Ntf'. NO DOL "0 NO NO ~O tlD '2. 0 Iii Hill 'ill
ctihun. BOL ',0.' 11,714. 1,h' 4,016 1,700,000. NO 6112 8U (fO S,IIH 9,!tO~ 1101. liril
ac:'n,phlhy1In. NO eo\. ,,1).. elK DOL ',600,000. IIQ BOl DOL tot 8,7111 )2,41. 11(11. IIi)
.r\lhrac.n. DOL IiD( ,,149' "bIt ',776 22,000,000. tl6 748 286 ,.0 7,4411 Nn ' 11111. lilil
b~nJO(lIh')P.rY1tri. NO NO, 9,842. BOl DOL NO.. hit nOl DOL NO NO 1111 ,m /111
,llIonn. NO 1, HI , 8,942. ",4~~ .,218 11,000,000. ~6l NO Dill B~j. ) 1,920 410, 'Jii, 11111 11 ',';"
. ,hrnanlhrtnt . .., : DOL "0 24,6'0.. 14,.1114 15,040 19,000,000. BOl HZ )74 OUl 81. '1211 10",1~O !tot, '\)0 I) ,)~n
'~4tno('.l,1.-cdtp,rtn. NO NO 11,642. BOl BOl NO.. It& DOL 4114 ~b NO DOL 1111 '4'-,
,9nn. 88"" 5. of;i" 79,190. 10, iQO" H,IZO" 52,000,000. lib 616 858 "0 ''',?!to )0, I no 11111 ) ~ 't ',0
dhenJoruranl " ND BOl 6,451. 8,'14 Z,579 6,900,000. libl 264 DOL ,2S1 27. )'111 )",21)4 11111 1111
Z~lIIelhY1n.phtha"ni "0 "0 4,592. 6,IiZ. BOl 8,100,000. IIbl BOL BOl tiOl 26,600 )10,4)1 11111 1111
_~ch1oro-.-crtSo' . ND. ~D NO. NO NO. )4 ,000. Nb ',100 ',S40 ffD 7,1112 Nil 1111 hli.
j~th10roPheno1 NO. Nb NO. "D NO. DDl. lib NO NO NO NO NO Nil /1,110
, "- "-'"" --.-... ...- .
;8 - Conctntrat'o~ 'S ,pproxlmate
:~8 - Dalt njech' 'n OA/OC rev'eN
.D - Not dtltc~~d 'n an.'"" "
IOL - ."0.. d'l~ct'on "mll 'n 8na1;'"
1 .
2,3,7,8dibenzo-p-dioxin was
not detect~d.
I
-------
:~.=:"::
, ~
--'
c~~~::c :~?:~:~:~s
:;!::'::c:::::~
! s:; ;. ::.~ -: ::>
~.l.:~" s.~~?:.~s
. Hoc~:'r.::~ ?C!.:) s:~::, ~::5:=:~'Ji.:.:;H, l-'....\
C::>~u."1 ::
M"ri'-~D.
tf";-4S"
, 2. '-dir:1e:h:'l~henol
p}-...e roO 1
2~e:hyl?henol
4~e:hyl~henol
acer~phthe~e
na?h~halene "
acer.aphthyl Ene
fluo:-ene
pr..er.antr:e:::1e
di~~:z:of01ran 1
2~ethylnaphthalene
be~%ene
tol\.:ene
e t-1-:j"1 ber.: e:)e
t~al xylenes
504-52"00
97-2200
308-3300
380-7700
51-300
1058-11.000
23-200
32-300
ND-200
36-300
96-1200
ND-91
ND-160
ND-40
ND-50
.
5200
2000
2900
6800
200
11.000
80
200
300
200
1100
90
200
60
30
*
Co--u::entratio:1s (~g/l) for M"";-4D are a rCL"'lge of values from the first.
s~=o~d, and third sampling rounds.
*. Co:lcentratio:1 (~gll) for M"I'i-4S are from the third sampling round, prior
S~Fling ro~~ds showed no CO:1taminants.
12,3,7,8 dibenzo-p-dioxin was not detected.
NOTE:
Ground water contamination at this site was also detected in
MW-3. Refer to Table 7.
-------
,- , :. =- 14
._~--
::;;::: :;..~ c:.:.~;:.~_..:: ~:.~':':: 5
-----.-- -_.
------ .
I -
O!"c=e:::. =~:
Ca:-cino:J~!"ls
ber..zo( a ) pyr~r.:
btr..ze:1e
;'NO::-Ci! '!'::i '!tOoj e':'lS
r.a?tr.al"?~e
= 1 uo:-anthene
UnknO\or."-S
-----
?herumthren~
an~h:-a=ene
2 -'I:Ie':hylT.aptha ll!!ne
. ,?y=e:-,e
f 1 uo:-ene
aCc!".A?the:1e
be=zo(a)a:1thracene
ch=ysene
dibe:lzofuran
2-=hlo:-ophenol
4-!me~hylphenol
2.4-~imeth:lphenol
2-:nE':hylphenol
b~zo(ghi)pyrene
I.
,I:no:-qa.nics:
Carci:-.oqer-s
cc.romi urn
-------
TABlE 15
SUHHARY or r[ASIBIlITY STUDY SCRE[NING or REHtDIAl ALTERNATIVES
Rfllledla1
A1lernlt hes
Technlu1
[Ya1YillDnJ:lI.wgru~
(nylronmenta1/Pub11c Hea1lh
Instltullona1/land Use
~ADJj.ALtII~L--
10 (S)
500,000
1, SIT[ GRADING AND
CA,rlNe
. Feaslb1e conta'nment techn010gy
. Reduces Infl1trat'on and
attrlbutab1e 1eachate product ton
. Does not treat or comp1ete1y
conlaln sol1/wlste ~lerla1
. [11mlnates direct contact and
accldenla1 'ngesllon exposure
~alhways
. Does not meet Kett)e. Pond goa1 of
I~rovlng ground waler qua'IlY
. Hust comp1y wtth ReAA
Aequl remenlS
. land use restrlctl ons "
requ'red for surface
uppIng area
fl'
IeP2
600,000
I, SOIl/WAST[
(XCAVATlOIiI
DfF-SIT[ lANDFIll
DISPOSAL
. feaslbl. removal technoloQY
. Aemoyes wa,t. .et.rla1 'rom
sIte to ReAA approyed off-sIte
1andft 11
. Does not tr.at or destruct
wasle, therefor. 'ulure
polentl., p011utton prob1~
exist
. Comp11es with remedla1 response
objectlyes eslab'Ished (or 'or~r
18Doon .nd Kill" Pond .r..,
. Polentla1 comp11ance
probl~ .xlsl al RCAA
'andrl'" wh.r. wasles
would be disposed
. 110 '.nd use restr'ctlons
required arter slle
remediation
n)
KpJ
6,300,000
8,400,000
J, SOtlI\lA$Tt
EXCAVATION :
ON-SITE lANDFIll
FACILITY
4. $OIl/WAST£
EXCAVATION:
ON-SIT£
IIICINUATlOI8
. F..s'b1. conta'nment techn010lY
. Reduc.s thr.at 0' '.achat.
ml Dratlon
. ["ectlvel, contaIns soIl/wast.
IIIIterla1
. Does not treat wast. IIIIterlal
. FeasIble treatment techn010gy
. Comp1ete the~' destructIon
of contamInated IIIIterla's
. On-s't. ~b'1. Incln.rltors
haye not been demonstrated on"
1arge-scI'e productIon basIs
'or hallrdous wast.; no slgnlf-
'cent technIcal probl~
apparent, Two t.chno10lles
eya1uated were rotary kl'n and
'nfrared.
. Comp11es wIth remedla1 response
objectlyeS estlb'Ished 'or
ro~r lagoon and leett1. Pond
arns
. Hust comp1y wllh ReAA
requirements
. land us. r.strlctlons
required ror on-slle
hndfll1 area
. Comp11es wIth remedla1 response. Hust COMP1y wIth ReAA
objecthes establ1shed 'or ro~r. requIrements
1agoon and Kett1e Pond areas
. No futur. 1and use
restrictIons requIred
fl J
\CpJ
Ra \ ar...rJW.n
Fl
. KP)
In~[A(td
Fl
IeP)
1,200,000
1,500,000
12,1100,000
17,000,000
6. '00,000
11,100,000
: ,~ - 'o~r la,oon Area
K' - Kett1e rood Area
a'Cost, re'er to yl,Ib1. contaminatIon sot1s
4 Hocomonco Pond and Dlschar,e Stream Area
-------
TAnlt 1 S
(Continued)
SUMMARY 0' rtASlnillfv STUOY SCRt[NING 0' R[HtDIAl AltERNATIV[S
"t
1-0'"
..tfllfdl.'
A1ltrna~ htt
. ~ < ~ .
hcMlca'
,'; [vwaUQILCUuD.r. 1.1
tov I rlll1lllfnU 1/Pub 11 c IIC!A 1Lh
I"'tltutlonal/Land Ose
:;:rcaDILaLCa~L -11-
10 I I
. P.otentla1 comp"ance
atrob'ems '
A'lern~llv, ,'Iml' eled
from furlher rey',w.
I. .IODEGRADATION
. Infeas'b" trej\"nt techno'o,y
a~ lh\S SIlt
. ConC,"tratlons,ot,blodttradab'e
~AH tonl~I~Ant~ 'kcetd desIred
',,,,IH
. ~.~kl d,~~"lit"~ er 'A~
degradatIon
BI odegradatl 0",' ,~, "",,'"altd frDIII
further eya'uat.dh based on:
1) h.,h cost a6d 'tnoth of'durat'on
for treatment of hl9hly contAm-
Inated JoneS
I)'unproye" tethft~lo,y for PAH
r~d'at '011
J) In general i'circ'nogenlc
cons llluen" Of creosote are
"o"-blOdeg~.d'bl,.
.-.;
I. d'SIOUJID WATU
~ONTAINH[NT
lAAIlI£A: SITE
GRADING AND
CAPPING'
eo Steel sheetl",
. Technlcal1y "'sibl' to Inslal'
. Pote"t,., f,,1b~1 due to corros'on
. Pote"t'., lea~i.i at jo'nts
. [1 '''''"It,d rrbM turth.r
cons'derat'on:d~' to potenl'a'
techn'c,' proti'~
'_.~ .
. D~ts'not comp'Y wIth
r~~Ia' response objectIves
,tir the former la,oo" and
ktll'e Pond area~. SO"/.85l.
t6ne,ntfAlIII~ cllu'd nlll bt
,'fIctIvelY ffclutfd.
. ("M'"ates d'rect contact Ind
itt'dental 'n,esl'on exposure
"lIithways
. Uou~d sub5tanttilly lIIfet Kettle
Pond ,0al or 'mproy'ng ground
waler quality "'thl" servIce
1He
---....
. Hust comp'y w'th RellA
reqUlremenU
A1ternat'yt e"mlnaled
from furlher revIew.
. land use restr'ct'ons
reQu'red for surface
cappIng arel
, ,t~ - Fo,..r ll'oOrt Area
I K~ - Kettle 'ond Ari.
. cests r,rer to yt!"'e cont8lll'"at'on sot's e1ean-up cr'ter'a.
-------
~
TARt[ 15
(Conttnurd)
SUHHARY or r[ASIOILITY STUDY SCR[[NING or R[HfDIAL ALT[RNATIV[S
Rl!'fIIfd,.1
A 1lern.t \YlS
Instltutlona1/land Use
~AD1"tLC;OlL--
10 (S)
.-
hchnln1
[ya1ua11aD-ta~arle~
En.lronmenta1/Pub"c Hea1lh
6. GROUND WATER
CONTAINH[NT
BAIlRI[II: SIT[
GRADING AND
CAPPING (Cont.)
b. Croul Curlaln
. Technlca"y dlrrlcu1l to 'nsla11
. [1'm'nates d'rect contact and
acc'drntal 'ngrst'on eKposure
pathways
. Hay not ~rt kettlr Pond goal
or 'mpro.ln, ,round waler qua"ty
. Hust comply w'th ACAA
. rrqu' rl!'fllfnt S
A1trrnat've el1m'natrd
rrom rurthrr rrvlrw.
. Undemanstrated techn010gy rr1at've
to hazardous wasle contaInment
. V.r,r'catlon 0' contInuous curlal"
d''''cult
. ""h1y 11mll.d .pp1tcatlons
. [1'.'nated rro. rurthrr cons'drra-
Hon due to potentla1 technlca1
problt1t1
c, Slurry ".11
. T.chnlca11y '..slb1.
. Demonstrated techn010gy
. ~u1d substantla11y meet K.tt1.
Pond goal of 'mprov'ng ground
water qual'lY .'th'n ~erv'cr
1He
. land use restr'ct'ons
rrqulrrd for surfacr
cappln, arn.
KP
'.400,000
. D'verts/conta'ns ground waler
f10w through contam'natrd
ground water and waste materla1s
'. . Sery'ce Hre uncerta'n
. [l'm'nates d'rect contact and
accldenta1 'ngest'on eKposurr
pathways
. Must comp1y wllh AtAA
rrqu'rtltlfnts
. land us. restr'ct'ons
rrqu'red 'or sur race
capp'n9 .rea
7. GROUND WAnR
,\lHPING AND
T AEA T}1[ liT
. Ground wlter pUMp'n, lets to c011ect/
contl'n contam'nant p1ume prIor
to trnt~nt
. Oemonslrated. conyenttonl1 techn010gy
. Requtr.s ptnM8nent oper.tlon
t FL - Fo~r la,oon Area
I k' - k.ttle Pond Are.
I Costs rt'er to "s'bl. cont..tnat'on sot1s
4 "ocomonco 'and Ind D'scharge Stream Are.
-------
:. ....1111
A.1 ternlt "'IS
....;
frtlt."t
SublHernatht!
TABU 15
(ContInued)
SUMMARY or rr.AsrritliTY STUDY SCR[[NING Of R[H£DIAL AlT£RNATIV[S
.-~
j~ .. r -,
r..~ -
,', tnlualloILCal.uo:-Jt3.
tiM rOl'fn4!nlll1/rub" c 111ft Hh
Instltutlon.'/land U\t
"
. t"~Inale' dIrect contact and
_cCldenU1 In"sUon ,,,,.posure
paihways by placln, clean fl11
6v@r Kellle Pond
.~. CaDlLa1.CosL ~~::--
10 ())
Sewa,e Treatmen~~~lnt (STP)
. Technlc.1', ,."jb1' but 'not . ~ri~ent' ml,ratlon of contamInated
exten,'v"1 tf$£id ror perronmance ,round waler and provldf~ 'or
.' . (rf3tmenl 0' ,round waler
. R~.e' cont~,~.tfd .round .ater
from sltt to 't' for trtatmtnl
. Rench-sca1e p"~t studIes requIred
. 'roven lechno'oi~ In the
treatment of PARS
. Reduce, conc.rilrltlon of PAHs to
10w ppb 1eve1j&'
t. TransportatIon .~ Off-SIte Treat~nt
. Technlca11y ,"'.aslble. due to
hl,h dal1y v61~s col1ecled for
off-slle trejl~nl and hIgh costs
Thl, suba1tei~.tlve " e11mlnated
'rom further:t.i1uatlon on the .
bl,Is of .xc.s~i.e cost and lack
of I"""tment.6thty. App1\Cllb1t
'or s--" QUirit;tle, 0' 1eachate
'rom sedl~nl dt-Iterln,.
"J
. Must comply wIth ReRA
and "POlS requIrementS
. land use restrIctIon!
requIred for kettle 'o~d
,rei
. 'r~.ents ml,ratlon of contamInated' Must comp1y wIth At...
hlih 1evel ,round waler and and "potS r.qulr~~tt
prQvld~~ ror lr~almenl or
ground waler
. (1'.Inlt's dlrlct contAct and
'<~Idenlal 'ngesllon eKposure
palhwAYs
. ~r~vents .Igrltlon of contaml-
naled ,round water and proyldes
ro~ trealment of ,round water
. r1'mlnates dIrect contact and
t(cldenta1 'n,estlon eKposure
!,athwayS
..
I 'L - fOrWr 18,Jon Are.
I R' - Kett1e 'ond Arel .
. tost, re'er to .Islb1e cont..'nltlon.tot1s cTean-up crlterl~
4 ~OCOMOnCO 'ond jnd Dlschar,e Stream Art.
T.ct\ri'~a'
;". -:. ;.,.~
Ia.
-.-. .~ ~: ,-.
5. Crlnu1ar Actlvl(~a.Clrbon (GACI
. TechnlCa"y f.~.'b1t
. I
. Land use restrIct lori, .
requIred for Kett1e '~d
area
, Hust c~1y wIth ReIA
requIrements
i Land use restrIctIons.
required ror Ketl1e pond
area
kP
200.000
I
kP
470.000
A1ternatl~e e11mlnated
from rurl~e~ reylew IrK-
cepl'for Sedl~nl dew~ter"
-------
TA8l[ 1 5
(Continued)
SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY STUOY SCAEENING or R["[DIAl AlT[ANATIV[$
Remedla'
AHernathlS
TeChn'ca1
tJ~lUAllonLt~L~Dr'e~
[nvlro~ntal/Publ1c Health
~AD1\a)-'D~L--_r7
10 I)
InstItutIonal/land Use
. Does not c~ly .Ith
ACAA requIrements
A1ter~at'ye el'mlnated
from further rev.lew
.. GAOtnlD "ATn
TABLE MODIFICATIONS
. D'yerts uncontam'nated ,round
water around contam'nated 10neS.
prevents ground water flow
through.contam'nant~
. Requ'res 'requent ma'ntenance and
monltor'ng for an 'ndeflnlle time
per'od
ThIS technolo,y Is eliminAted
frow further cons'deratlon
due to 10ng-h"" oller.lIona'
requirements coupled w'th the
f.ct that remedl.' resllonSe
object've' ar. not Met.
. Doe' not comply .Ith r~dla1
response objectlye for Kettle
Pond (direct contact and
accIdental Ingestion exposure
IIathways)
.. HYDRAULIC $(DIH£NT
DREDGING AND
DISPOSAl/TREATHEIIT
. '.11"" remoYI1 t.chno1o,y
. [11Mln.tes thre.t 0' sediment
MOvement .nd/or desorptIon
0' sorbed organlc~
. Hly 'ncr..,. 'n't'., suspens'on/
dlsptrslon 0' contam'n.ted sed'ments
. Como"'s .'lh remedla1 response
object'y.s establIshed 'or
Hocomonco Pond and dlschar,.
stream
. "ust COlllllly .lth regu18tor)'
. reQu'rements
DC~ILC['nILBU'n
Hr 750,000
. 110 recre.tlon.' use
restrictions wou1d be
requIred ror Hocomonco Pond
[illcL.!au
HP
750,000
10. M£CMANICAl
SEDIHEIIT DREDGING
AND DISPOSAL/
TAEATHUT
. ,.."". remov.' t.chno10"
. E"mlnat., thr.at 0' sedIment
MOyement and/or desorptIon 0'
sorbed org.nlcs
. "'n'MII's suspenston/dtsperston
0' contamtnated sedIments (pond
wou1d be 10wered to all0. dredgIng
'n the dry)
. Compltes .Ith remedla1 r.sllons.
obJectiyes establlsh.d 'or
Hocomonco Pond and discharge
stream
. Must comoly .'th regulatory
reQUI remenlS
DC~ILcr1nI-DA~1n .
HP 300,000
. No recre.t'onal USe restrtcttons
would be requIred for Hocomonco
Pond
, 'L - 'o~r la,oon Ar..
I KP - Ktttle Pond Art.
I Costs re'.r to vl,tble conta.'natton so"S eleanull crIteria.
-------
TAOl[ 15
(ConUnued)
'-'
:--.;,.::;;
SUMMARY or r[A~IRtlITY STUDY SCR[[NINC 0' AtHlOIAl AlT[ANATIVrS
hftIedhl
AHunal IvtS
TtCti'cal
"
1 i. CA"JIIG 0'
S£OIH[NTS
reas'bl. corii..hmtnt technolOGY
.
. Reduces thr.'t. 0' nd "!lent
movement and "sorpl'on of
sorbed orga,Hd
. Potenl'al t.~i(s 'or braathlng 0'
CliP
. potenUal """01IIII hlach'ng 0'
conlam'nanlt' 'fOlll nd lmenl lo
surface walfr \n pond
-,
11. 110 ACTIOII
polenl'ally~t~.s'b1e avo'dance
lechnology I.t;some ,'le con-
l-'nallon Ii""
. ,.rlmettr r.nC'nt letl to control
dlrecl exposure pathway
.
. DotS not tr.lt or Conti In waste
IMt.rh 1
~ .:..
. '
i 'L - 'o~r la~o~ Area
, kP - keltl. Pond Arel .'
: Costs refer to .'s,b1e contaMlnltlon lol1s
HOCORGnCo.Pond and DIscharge Slream Area
eleln-up cr'lerla.
..-. '-
" [va] ual.I on_CalCiotHs
Environmental/PublIc Health
, '.
~ cimolles wIth remedial r.sponse
objectIves establIshed 'or
Hocomonco Pond and d'scharge
dond
. Reduces threat 0' d'rect contact
Or accldenl.l Ingesllon
. OOIS not melt Kettl1 Pond toal
bf ImprovIng Ground waler quality
Inslltul'onal/land Us.
. Hull comply wllh rt;u1llory
reQu'rftllents
. Potent'll complIant. problems
~4i.u.aU:Q~L;--
ID (.)
: lOO,OOO
-------
-------... -
TABLE 1"
I SUHHARY or DETAILED [VAlUATIOM or AlT[RNATIVES
rORHER LAGOON AREA
--....-..- .._e... -...a._.-.'"
--- _._Co~L .~.- ---
I 1
CCI$I N~')
ha 1uaL' Dn....taLeJlDrJ.U
[nvirOnmenla1/Pub1'c Hea1lh
Rfl!lfdl'"
A1lrrnat \Yes
'Technlca1
Instilullona1/Land Use
--.----... - --..-
44) ,000
(,41,000
~ SIT[ C_ADINC AND
CAPPING
S TORt1
R[LOCA TlON C FL-I )
. [rfecllve response It thl~ site
. Usefu1 lIfe ,reater lhan 50 years
. Ae11ab1e and we1'-d~nstrated
. wastes not lreated or deslroyed
. A~dlatlon tIme IS 4 months
. NO slgnlrlcant short-term Impacts
. Hpets envlronmenta1 and pub11c
hea1th response objectives
. llmlls ruture deve10pmenl
and deed restrIctions
, requIred
. RCRA comp11ance requIred
.--...--
, SOIlI\M$T[ UCAVATlOI8
OFF-SITt lANDFILL
DISPOSAL crL-Z)
. EffectIve response at lhls sl\e
. Penmanent on-sIte So1ullon ..
. Ae11ab1e and we"-d~nstrated
. Potenl1a' future prob1~ lit
Off-slle ReAA 1l1nd(I"
. 'wo 1eve1s of 5011 remova1
crIterIa eva1uated
. R~dlatlon time Is 6 months
. Short-lerm potentla1 aIr
emIssIons can be monItored
and ml t I"ated
. Heels envlronmenta1 and pub11c
~ea1lh response 'obJectIves
. A110ws future deve10p-
menl at sHe
. RellA camp"ance
rp I" I red
£A)
VC4
~,O)),OOO ~.I'II.OOO
6,040,000 6,77'1,000
J. SOll~AST[ [XCAVATION
ON-SITE lANDFIll
fACILITY Irt ))
. [frecllve reSponse It lhls lime
. Usefu1 11fe ,reater than SO years
. lon, term re11abl11ty not demon-
stilled. operlll1on,' requiremenLs
rr1~tlve1y comp1e.
. ,.." 'evels of 50\1 remova1 crHerla
e~...1ullled
. Ar"~dlatlon lIme Is 7 months,
. Shorl lerm polenllll1 air
emissIons can be monItored
and mil I,ated
. HeelS envlronmenla' IInd pub'IC
hea1th response objectIves
. llmlls ruture deve10p-
ment and deed restrictions
required
. RCIIA compliance requIred
EA'
'17),000
766,000
VC.
~1~.000 1,10",000
----
. A110ws future deve10p-
ment at silt!
RO\Ar..r. ~ I I"
[A '1,'1)),000 IO.O~O.ooo
VC. 11,' 10,OOOI1,10'l,OUU
~ SOll~STt [XCAVATIOM
ON-SITt INCINERATION
CFl-4)
. [ff~ctlve respons. at thIs slle.
comp1ete treatment or wasle
. On-sIte IncineratIon nol 'ully
demonstrated
. Permanent waste mana,~nt
s01utlon
. Two 1eve1s or 5011 remo.a1
criteria eva1uated
. RemediatIon tIme Is 22 months
. Short lerm potentla1 aIr
emissions can be monitored
and mil I~ated
. Heets en.lronmenta1 and pub11c
hea1th response objectives
. RCRA and C1ean AIr
Acl camp1 lance
lr)rr.AfJ:d
[A1. 4,}~7,OOO 4,~14.000
Vc. S,118.0UO S.41'.0"0
I, 810 ACTlOI8 C Fl-I
14,000
. ~I11 not prevenl contamlnanl
ml,rat Ion
. No relIable, contInued mloratlon
of contaminanlS to Hocomonco Pond
. Does not meet envlronmenlal
response objecllves
. Pub11c health response objectIve
met wllh 11mltatlons
I CC = Caplta1 Cosls
2 PW = Pres.nt Worth
I [A = [.posure ASSe
-------
, lI......dl,,1
Ail.,,,"l h",
i
I, Sill 1;.."OIN& ANII
i;Arl'INI~ c-r II
--_.-
2.
sOll/WASTt
taCAYAflOII:
0;'.5ITt lANDFilL
fiSfIOSAl (1C'-2)
-'
), SOI\ I\IAS T[
(JIC~VA flON:
oN-hH IANDOlt
FAcilITY CKP )J
4. SOILI\IASn
[XC.VATION: ON-SITE
IJIC'N(RATl0f8
FACILITY (1":.4)
- .
. .
SUHHAAY Dr bif.II(O (VALUATION Dr At T(RNATIVrs
.K( Ul( POND ARlA
-~_..._.-
. .
". ..' -- __4-'--- -.---..--....--.----.--.------
, .~-_._,..__._~._J.r.l.1uA1.lon_c.ALUQCI.C:L --'~-"-s-' --,,-... .
I --... .C.g~L .
I
CCI i I
J
!'\Ilil
..;..-
Technlhl
[nvl;~I_nU1/rub1 Ie Hu1lh
- - ". .
it:.. ~,,:-r~ .~.~-----~-~_...-._--~
. ,,",..Id ..ol pr...rii lonl-Io,,,nl
"'I,rallon
. Uurul 1 1Ft ,r.~\~f Ihan SO 1",r\
. Unln nol lreat., or dnlro)"11
. lI~dlalion Is . ~lhS
. No ,1.~Iricanl \horl.lp~ Impacts
. Dot; nril mt..l tnvlro~ntal '0.1
or ~~rbvlna ,round waltr qua'II,
. ..nt\ illbl Ie hu1lh r"pon't
obJ.H htS
. ,
In\lllutlo..al/land U\t
~-"'"'"
u.c.,Ooo
~..4,OIl0
. ll.ji.. ~ rulllrt dtv,IoPlRtnl.
a"a dtrd rnlrlcllo'" nqulr."
. PCQA tompllAnc, r,qulrtd
".,.,. -;:..
.---.... .~- ...
. [Frutht r,spo;\"'jf at this ,1If'
. lI,qulr'S SD,(I.t"~d.
d~n\trat'd co",ttuction
ttchnlqu" 'or ..t'v.tlo"
. 't~".nt on.,Iti 'o'ullon
IIt'Ilb1, a"d w.H:~~_nSlraltd
-= ";"\,;
Pot,nlla1 rutur! Jrob1~ at
orr . s II' ACIIA tI"~t I" .
. TNO 1tYp1~ It' ..o,~ rl!ll\ll¥,\'
cr""" fva,~.i~d
.
.
. Atllltdl8l1on lI~ t~ II 1I8O"lh\
"
-1
-.-'....;..;.
i (rreel,ve responl~ il lh'\ ~Ile
i u~eful 11re grealff lhan ~O years
. R~qul res spec 1A1 hta dftnOI1slrattd
construction tecKrii~ues for
rocavat Ion
~..' :
, long-term re1labt1tt, not
demonstraled - o'iritlonal
requlr~nts r"jli~,', comp"~
, .
. .
., Two 'evels or son removal criteria
eva'uated
. Remediation tl~"; 8 monlhs
~-' ."
. (rrectl., respo"~' .t this site,
comp1ele lreatment or waste
i On-sHe 'Incl"eriU6~ nol run, ,
demunstr.ted
~ Permanenl waste ~ri.g~nt
solullon
u Two 1eve's or ~ol1 rtmQv.'
crllerla ev.luattdo
. Shor.t:ltnft oolpntla1 .Ir
~I,f'~"s can bt monltortd
and Ictlll,altd
. Mlr6r ~'t1and I~.cts durin,
con\tructlon Cdtwattrlnll
. H'tli i".lro~nt.' and pub11,
htaltft rtSPon\, obJtctlvt\
.
Short'lerm polentla1 air
eml.~s h)lls can be monllored
and n!i lIlIl led
"irtor.wet1and Impacts durin,
corlj[ructlon Cdewaterln,)
.
. He~\ t.env I rolVlltntll' and pub" c
respon~e obJecllve~
~ -.~.
. Sh6rt.tenm potential air
emis\'ons can be monllored and
mil i ,ated
. He~ts envlronmenla1 and public
he31t~ response obJeclives
-'.+ l.
Alio~~ rutur, d,v,'oPlRtnt
81 SHf'
. ac.. tompiianCt ,qulrtd
fl~ 4,7111),000
vc. ',In,OOO
4,1"",000
8, hl,ono
tAG
{A 4,8~",OOO,
4, 'II,r. ;000
lie. ',114,OUO
". i,l J, f'OO
-.--- .. --..-
. Uiilils future deve10pmcfll ST~ 171,000
lA "":,UOII
1I.,it deed reslrlc:llon\
VC. ',)71,000 1, ',11, nOli
A(~ comp1lance '
. rrqulred G~G
[A 1144.1100 ""', non
vc. ',44b,IIOIJ 1 .Id", linn
. AI'ows future developmenl
lit silt
.
RCPA IInd (1ran Atr Act
compllancr requlr'd
Infrared:
[A L ~ 4, ))9,1;00
VC. S 7,4)9,000
4,4"0,000
7,b:II,OOO
ROlU 1_.kj 1":
[ALS 'J,~OO,UOO
ovC. " I~, IDS ,000
" . \1,0110
-------
. . ...- .
Armc'd,..1
A hl'l II," 'vI'''
!I. C~UNO \lAHA
CONTAINH[Nf
. ...- .-. ~ ...
,. C~UMO WAUA
'~"I"G AND
TRUTHUT IK'-61
1 Conl II,.
SUMMARY or O[TAll[O [VAL, ,H OF AlI~R"AIIVlS
k£fJlE POND AREA
.
.--.-.
- .;--..---------. ---------..-...-.----- ---------- --.-
- .'..._._-_._____~hAluaL!Q!Lta.lUQf_!'~--._.__._-----_. -~'.'-'. .-
. ...------
[nv I rOlWIICnU 1/Pub 1Ie lIu1th
. .--...-... _.. .----.----.. ...'-.".'
TrchnlCl1
. -- .-.--...
. Nn sl91\HIC31\l !>horl.lenn Impacts
11\~1,luIIOI\A1/lftnd U~f
...-. '" . ..-.-..-....- .. ".'- .-.-- .....
. llmll!l future deve10pmc:nt
and deed reslrlcllons
required
. ReAA complIance rrqulred
----
. llmllS fulure drvelopmenl and
deed restrictions required
tiAC
I
C(I~I
1.181.1100
Co:.l
I
"\J( ~ I
I, ~11 ,0011
40/1.01111 I,UhH,onu
1/4,OUO
/1)1.000
7.
MO ACTJ08I 1':'-71
-.- -.-.. -.
'CC :
'N :
'EA -=
4VC :
'Cflsl
..-. .---.-------------.
. [ffecllve response al lhl~ stle
. U\efu1 1tfe esllmaled It 50
years. nol a permanent -a~le
managemenl s01ullon
. \lasles not treated or deSlroyed
. Remediation Ume Is 7 monlhs
...---
. WOll1d prrvent phllllf ...IOral Ion
and provide for oround waler
l,'ealmenl
. CAC IS drmonstr.ted techn0109Y.
comple- operallon and malnlenance
requirements
. TreAlment al \leslborouoh STP
may be feasible. bench scalrl
pl10l phnl Hildy rC!l!ulrC!d 10
verIfy treatment efficiency
. "Istes nol lreAled or destroyed
and IIround waler treatmenl
requIred on I p,nMnenl h,'~".
. Aemedtallon lI.ne IS !I mol11h~
. \1111 not prevenl ground walrr
quallly degradallon
-. .....-.---
Capll.1 Co\l\
Presenl \lorlh
[aposure A\se\smenl Sol1 (1ean-Up CrIterIa
Vlslb1e Conl~mlnallon Soil C1ean.Up CrIteria
presented are ror GAC lreatmenl.
/
. Heels envlrOMlC!nta1 90a1s and
pab'Ic heallh respon~e ~nd
objecllves ror durallon of
u!ieru1 1 He
. No slOnl(lcanl shorl-lerm Impacls
. Heels envirOMlC!ntal 90a1s for
ground w~t~r qua11lY Improvemenl
and pub11c heallh response
objecl \Yes
. Pott:,;~ hI 10no-lerm reduct Ion
lO ~mal1 welland areA conllguous
to Hocomonco Pond due to
10-erlno or oround waler table
. Does nol meet envlronmenla1 goa1
ror ground -aler qua Illy
Improvement
. Public heallh reSPon!ie
objectIve met wllh Ilmllallon
-----. . . .
. RCIIA and NPO[S cOlllpl lAnce
required
::; II'
. llm;ls future d~ve10~nl
al !iile and deed
reslrlclions rrqulred
_._.~ -.------.
....-------.-.------ - _.- ...
7tJ.UUIJ
-------
TABlt
18
SUHHAAY ~r,D[TAlltD [VALUATION or Alr[A~ATtVtS
IIOCoffJNCO POND AND DISCHARGE STR[\H ~A[~
~
'. ,
Evaluation Cll~otiei
..
Irlftedh'
Alhrnathn
.,..
. HYDRAULIC srOIHrNT .
DAtDGLHG AHD DISPOSAll
1A[AI"lNT CliP-I)
-- ~..,. __h'--'
---- .+-...-
b..
~
TechH'~.,
;
.'
~.... j>
- - '". ~
. [rrect'v, resp6riti at this site
, ~- .
. Subsllntl.' QuiAt'ty 0' W"t~r
tr~atme"t reQul,id for sediment
dewaledn,
. Re"able and ~1t. d~nstrated
. Rrmed,atlon t'~'t 4 ~nlh~
.- -.. ..__._-:".''''L..
----. .
",e"~~I~AL ~"~D~'HO. . "'fC".' "."",, .\ 'hi. 11\,
AND OlsrOSAl/TAEA'HtNT
, (111'-21
1 CAPPING or SEDIHENTS
CHP-J)
of-. NO AtTlOM CHP-4)
. A~duud qUAnt{(,.or wAhr Irut-
menl requl red frOm s~d lmenl
dewalering r.60Cld
. Ae11ab'e and .~I'-d~nslral~d
. Armed I IUon ti...: Is 4 monlhs
,.. .-.,.'
...-....;.
. [r'ectlve res,oKse .t lhls site
. A,"abl. and ..1i-d~"slrated
Polenllal desor6lion or conlam-
,"lInU from s'di~nlS to 5udllce
waler
. ArmedhUon tflilt Is 3 IIIOnths
.
- - ~
. Sedlmenl conlaminatlon would
nol bl conlAIHe' .
. Hot r.}I.bh, ,cOnlllm'nation would
cont'nue to ''''',rll. wHhin and
from Hocomonco Pond
trill I romttnlll/l'ub 1 Ie tlea Hh
-. - . ~ J
" ,
. 'ottnlla' shorl l~rm Impacls lo
itocomonco rond IQUAUC 1 tr.
. tttlt5 envIronmentAl and public
hfillh rf~pon~f objecllves
.2~.
. "hnt tA' !hort-hrlll 1i""8ttt to
IrQCOIIIO"1ZO "and aquAtic" Ite
" ,
. "~flS envlronmenlAl and pub',c
h~illh response obJecllves
.;.~
. ~Gt~nllal shorl-lerm ImpaClS
\.d lIocomonco Pond aQuallc 1 I fe
. H~el~ envlronmenla' and public
hf~lth response obJeclives
. baes not meet envlronmenta'
or ~ubllc heallh'response
-------
I",t Ilullo".,/l.iid u,.
-- _CDS \ .. .
" t
telt, r\.'lt)
------
1Ir.~A 7l!,OOO
nS,lioo
U P..J" ')6,000 ".
')6,6110
780,600
lIIO ,lioo
'"
~ Fulure uSAge re'lrfclion~
on lIocomol\l:O Pond itot
required
. RCRA And NPDES com~I'ance
required
~..,
. tUlurt "'"9' tt~lr.~tlon'
t}n lIocomonco Pond not
ruuired
. ACAA and NPDES c~1tance
required
,~... "r..
. Fulure uSII,e r~strlcllo"s
on Hocomonco Pond hot
rellulred
. cor 404 permit required
. Polenlla' 'ont-te(M leAchIng
or contaminants from sediment
lo surface waler .
. Continued r~slrlctlo~ on pond
usa,e r.Qured
obJ.cUvU
I 4( 000
196.000
'ce. Cap'tl' Costs
Jpw - Present Worth
-------
T.
19
SUHHf.AY or DETAllEO EVALUATION or AlTEANATIVES
OTIS STAttT ARtA
ha 1uallaILCa.luQ(!.CS
.A~dla1
AHern81hn
techn'ca1
Instltutlona1/land Use
I
CC
1'\1
i. EMBANKMENT
. CAPPING
(05-1)
. Errectl.e response technology
. Useru1 11re ,reater than SO
yurs
. Ae11ab1e and we"-demonstrAted
. Uastes not treated or destroyed
. A~dlat Ion ttillt Is , months
[n.lronmenta1/Pub'IC Hea1th
..-------- ---
CosL--
,
. NO Slgnlr'Canl shorl-lenn 'mDacts . Deed restrIctions requIred
. ACAA comp'Iance required
. No other envlro~nta1 or pub'Ic hea1th
response objectives
I dent tr led
ISO.OOO
]01.000
z.. STORM DRAIN
StALING
(DS-2)
. [rrectl.e response at this sltt
. Useru1 11re ,reat~r than SO
yurs
. Ae11ab1e and we11 demonstrated
. Uastt' nol treated or destroyed
. A~d'.tlon t'me IS 1 month
. Prevents potentia' contaminant
migration and potenllal.,round
water Qua11ty de,radatlon
. No slgnlrlcant short-tenn Impacts. Deed restr'ctlons required
. Prevents potentla1 cont~Inant
ml,ratlon In stonn drain
. There were no other envlronments1
or public health response obJectl.es
Ident I rted
. ACAA monltorln, comp'Iance
required
44.000
1116,000
j. NO ACTION
(OS-3)
. No substantIa' contaminant
ml,ratlon detected to dale
. .'ternatl.e wou'd monitor
ror ruture potentla1 con-
tamlnatlon problems
. Monllors For potentla1 storm
drain conlamlnant ml,ratlon and
ror ruture potentla1 ,round
waler qua'Ity ImpAcls
. No other en.lron-
menla' and pub'Ic hea1th
response objectives
. Deed restrictions requlrrd
. ReAA monltorl", required
5,000
146,000
ICC - Caplta1 Costs
-------
TABLE 20
DE:~IL-~ COST ESTI~~TE
FOR.I.SR I>.GOON AA.D.
.s.!:rE~.ING 'ANDCA??.ING; ,'sI,O~ .SDiZR,..RELCCA!.I,QN {I'L-l)
I=~ DEs.:iUPIION
QUM'TITY
UNIT COST
(S)
TOTAL COST
(S)
CAPITAL COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
$ 2.000
, '2. ;''Fi'el'd j'Offi.>ees
. .':,1<& 'WIO
" '~'r'OOO"1DO
, ,.A..,OOO
3. I>econtu..i1:.ation
3mo
1.000/mo
3.000
4. Improve Existing ACl..ess Roads
925 1£
25 If
23.125
5. Construct New Access Roads
250 1f
50 1£
12.500
''6;:S':1:'t'e''Gn'CH.-m; ",ti'!1t:l~t!S
nece's'sory'soi'l ,. 'excavation}
~3r8eo'ey
,:,j4/.<:3'
,:15..,2.00
7. Clay
5.200 cy
12/cy
62.400
8. S}~thetic Liner
7.600 sy
9/sy
68'.400
11. Revegetation
1.500 cy
7.600 sy
10/c:y
10/c:y
26.000
9. Sand
2.600 c:y
10. Topsoil
15.000
0.50/sy
3.800
\
; ,
,~2:.~Storm "Sewer ,Relocation
. Kemove existing pipe. etc.
. 36-ir~h storm drain
1.200 cy
600 1f
''2'0 Icy
100/1£
"24 ;'1)0t)
60.000
J3. Dr~ina;e Ditch
525 1f
10/1£
5.250
14. Health and Safety Cost
40 days
300/day'
12,000
. '. ,..sm1'aI'.AL
337,000
15. En9ineering Fees ana
Pe~ts @ 5 Percent
17..000
SU3TOTJ..L
354.000
16. Co:1tin;eI"~y @ 25 Percent:
89.000
\
I,
'''0'1'~ ,'C1\?I"I~ ",COST
'::1&3..:000
1 Ucit cost includes Level C personnel protection for' site grading and clay
-------
TABLE 20
(Continued)
D~~ILED COST ESTI~~TE
FOi<.~ I.>.GQON ~
SITE GRADING ~ CAF?ING; STO~~ S~~~ REL~TION (FL-l)
lTEH DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNI T COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($) .
kt.lNUM. O?E.~TION 1o.ND ~INTENJ..NCE
(Q&Io!) CC5ST
Water Quality Monitoring
Cap Maintenance
TOTAL AA."W1>.L o&M COST
PRESD."'I' WORTH
20,000
1,000
21,000
641 ,000
.......
.1
-------
TABLE 20
(Continued)
JIElfJ-Iu:D COST ESTIMATE
.':roR.~ .~AREA
SITE GAADING AWD o.P?ING; STO?."1 S~m:R RE:I.,OC.!>.T!ON (FL-l)
I~ t:::S:RlPTION
QUM"IITY
UNIT COST
($ )
IOTl\L COST
($)
k~J1>.!. CP:::v..!ION k'"D M7\IN'TENAJICE
.« ~} 'CtS'I'
Water ~lity MonitoriDg
20.000
Cap !o'Aintenance
1.000
TO'I~ ~ O&M COST
21.000
PRES~"T WOR'IH
641.000
-------
T~U: 21
DET~lLED COST ESTI~~!E
, , FOR.~ u..:;ooN AAE1>.
SOIL/WASTE EX~V~T!ON: OFF-SITE LANDFILL DISPOSAL (FL-2)
ITEM DESCRIP'IION
QU~.:.I'!Y
UNIT COST
($)
TerrAL COST
($)
CAPIT1\!. COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
2~000
2. Surface Water Drainage
Facili ties
SUB'I'OTM.
Lump Sum 5~000
23 ~OOO cy 5/cy 115 ~ 000
48 4ays 500/day' 24~OOO
SO samples 1,000/sample 50,000
24,300 tons 7S/ton 1,822~SOO
24,300 tons 100/ton 2,430,000
61DO 1,000/me 6~000
3mo 1, OOO/::')() 3~000
925 1£ 25/1£ 23,125
250 1£ 50/1£ 12,500
18,000 cy S/cy 90,000
1,500 r:y 10/cy 15,~000
7 ~600 r:y O.SO/sy 3~800
4,602~000
230~000
4~832,000
1.208.000
6.040,000
(5.033.000)2
3. Ezcavation
4. Health and Safety Cost
5. Malytical Soil Testing
6. Transportation
7. Disposal
8. Field Offices
9. ~contamination
10. Improve Existing ~ccess Roads
11. Construct New ~ccess Roads
12. Fill - Borrow Material
13. Topsoil
14. Revegetation
SUBTcrrAL
"
15. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
15. Contingency @ 25 Percent
TOTAL a..PITM. COST
, Unit cost for excavation includes Level B personnel
IDO%1i toring .
protection and
air
2 Costs for,exposure assessment soil cleanup criteria.
-------
TABLE 21
(Continued)
DETJ\ILED COST ESTI!o'>.'I'E
.'~'~GOON 'AAE/>.
''S'O!I..1'$o.'?\S'I'E'EKCAVA'nC!l: "OIT":SI'I'Eta:..NDFILL ''OlSPOS1o.LlFL-.2)
I~ DES:RlPIION
QtIA.";"TITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOT M. COST
($)
I'
ANN'J~ OPERATIOK A.'ID ~INn:NMJCE
. (O&M) COST
Water Quality Monitoring
20,aoo
PRESD."T WCR':'H
6,229,000
(5,191,000):&
1 Uni t cost for
IDOni toring.
excavation includes Level B personnel protection and air
2 C=~! £0::
!~5U~e
assessment son cleanup criteria.
-------
'I1o.BLE 22
DET~ILED COST ESTIMATE
ro~R LAGOON k~
SOIL/W~TE EXCAV~TION; ON-SITE ~~FILL F~CILITY (FL-3)
ITEM DESCRIPTfON
QU AN'! I 1"Y
UNIT COST
($)
TOT~ COST
($ )
CAPITM. COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
3,000
2. Field Offices
7mo
1,000/mo
7,000
3. ~contamination
3mo
1.000/mo
3,000
4. Improve Existing ~ccess Roads
925 1£
25/1f
23,125
5. Construct New Access Roads
250 If
50/1£
12,500
6. Excavation
18.'00 cy
5/cy
108,000
7. On-Site Transportation
18,000 cy
2/cy
36,000
8. Surface Water Drainage
Facilities
Lump Sum
S,OOO
18.000 cy
1,000/sample
21/cyl
50,000
9. ~lytica1 Soil Testing
50 samples
10. Landfill Construction
378,000
11. Backfill Former Lagoon with
Excavated Borrow from
Land! ill'
SUBTOT~
18.000 cy 2/cy 36,000
1,500 cy 10/cy 15,000
7,600 sy O.SO/sy 3,800
160 1£ 30/1f 4,800
30 days 500/day2 15,000
700,000 .
12. ':ropsoi1
13. Revegetation
14. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installation
. 15. Health and Safety Cost
1 Unit cost breakdown of landfill from Table 28
(KP-3).
2 Cost includes Level B personnel protection and air monitoring.
J Costs for exposure assessment soil cleanup criteria.
-------
TABLE 22
(Continued)
DETA!LED COST ES7I~TE
.~t:OR."!ER ~GOON.1JlIA
S:>I:'/WASTE EXD.VATION; ON-SITE L).liDFILL FACILITY (FL-3)
I::E:! DE...'C?~FIION
QUAN'IIri
UNIT COST
($ )
TOT AI.. COST
($ )
16. ~ginee~ing Fees and'
. . ".hn:.its .;f ':5.'Pe'rc:ent
"SS...ooo
SUE:'OTAL
735.000
17. ContiDgency @ 25 Percent
184.000
TOTAL o.P!TAL COST
919.000
(766.000) :I
I
I'
"~J);:. "~nON,'~"~:r;N'!Di~::
"( o&M)' ~COS'!'
~ter 9~lity Monitoring.
20.000
PR!S~"I WOR!'H
1.108.000
(923.000):1
1 Unit cost breakdown of lanMill from Table 28
(KP-3).
Z Cost includes Level B personnel protection and air monitoring.
3.Cost:s.. for . '.xpos~e .,ASsessm:ent.:-:s'o.il.c::l,eanup. :.cri ter ia.
........
-------
TAB:.E
23
DWAILED COST ESTI~!E
FOR.~ u.GOON ~
SO!L/to01-.STE EXD.VATION 1JID ON-SITE R07M.-Y KI:..N INCU;ERA!ION (FL-4J>.)
IT~ DESC~IP!ION
QU1-_'-.";ITY
UNI! COST
($ )
TO! AL COST
($)
CAPITAL COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum 2,000
Lump Sum 5,000
305 days 900/day 274,500
2. rnstall Surface Water
Drainage Facilities
3. Excavation 1
4. Health and Safety Cost
. Excavation and Incineration
305 days
.300/dayZ
91,500
5. ~lytical Soil Testing
50 samples
l,OOO/sample
50,000
6. Site Utilities
Lump Sum
10,000.
7. rncineration Cost
24,300 tons
350/ton
8,505,000
8. Field Offices
18 IDO
1,000/Il1O
.18,000
9. Decontamination
18 IDO
1,000/Il1O
18,000
10. rmprove Existing Access Roads
925 lf
25/1£
23,125
11. Const:o:-uct New 1o.ccess Roads
250 1£
50/1£
12,500
12. Refill - Incinerated Soil/Ash
18,000 cy
3/cy
54,000
""13. 70psoil
1. 500 cy
10/cy
15,000
14. Revegetation
7,600 sy
0.50/sy
3,800
SUBTO'IAL
9,082,000
1 Excavation performed as needed to run incinerator continuously. Thus,
unit cost based on daily equipment rental, labor, and operating expenses. .
2 Unit cost includes Level
Level C during incineration.
B personnel protection during excavation and
Also includes air monitoring during excavation.
" Cost for exposure assessment soil cleanup criteria.
-------
. "rXSU: 2 3
(Continued)
DE:'~LED COST ~-r!M}..'!E
., ::,Fo;t~ ,U.GOON '~
S:>IL/;;~£ EXDoVATION M"D ON-SlTERO'rMy"'1aL": A'!NCI'N'ERA'IION 'U"L-4A)
I~ DESC:~!P'IlOO
QUM"TITY
UNIT COST
(S)
TOTAL COST
($)
15. Engi~eerin9 Fees and
;?e.:mi.t,s,,@S,pe.,I;Cl!nt
454,000
SLT3T0T1.L
"''9;JS'3'6~'O 00
16. Cootinge~cz @ 25 Percent
2,384,000
'IC'!'~ o.rr:AL COST
11,920,000
(9,933,000)'
.A.~M;. "O~~'ION..tAm).,MAIN:rENANCE
, ..(-O&.~) -CCST
WAter Quality Monitoring
20,000
PRESD,T WOR'IH
12,109,000
(10,090,000)'
1 Exc~wtion performed as needed to run incinerator continuously. 'Ihus,
unit cost based on daily equip~ent rental. labor, and operating expenses.
2 Unit cost includes Level B personnel protection during excavation ~nd
;'Le!v:til "Cduring'inca:ner-a't/i'On.: .:oiA!bs:o ..,i,ncllUdes. .,a.ir ulDOn.l,tor.ing ....dur.iIlg..excavation.
, Cost for exposure assessment soil clean-up criteria.
-------
T l\E!..E 2.. ~
DET~ILED COST ESTL~TE
FO:t"SR rx;N AAEA
SOIL/W~TE EX~V~TION ~ ON-SITE IK:RARZD INCINERATION (FL-4B)
ITEM DESCRI~ION
QUJ.J:1T!Y
Uhn COST
(S)
TOTAL COST
(S)
CAPI'I1\!. COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
2,000
2. Install Surface Water
Drainage Facilities
LuropSum
5,000
3. Excavation'
305 days
900/day
274,500
4. Health and Safety Cost
. Excavation and Incineration
305 days
300/dayt
91,500
5. ~lytical Soil Testing
50 sacples
1,000/sample
50,000
6. Site Utilities
Lump Sum
10,000
7. Incineration Cost
24,300 tons
140/ton
3,402,000
8. Field Offices
22 mo
1,000/Il1O
22,000
9. Decontamination
18 me
1,000/me
. 18,000
10. Improve Existing Access Roads
925 1£
25/lf
23,125
11. C,:>ru:;truct New1\ccess Roads
.250 1£
50l1f
12,500
. .
18,000 cy
1, 500 c:y
3/cy
54,000
12. Refill - Incinerated Soil/Ash
- 13. 'Iopsoil
lO/cy
15,000
14. Revegetation
7,600 sy
0.50/sy
3,800
SUBTOTAL
3,983,000
'Excavation performed as needed to run incinerator continuously. Thus,
unit cost based on daily equipcne~t rental. labor. and operating expenses...
. 2 Unit cost includes Level B ~rsonnel protection during excavation and
Level C during incineration. Also inclu~es air monitoring during excavation.
J Cost for exposure assessment 50i1 cleanup criteria.
"-
~
-------
T}U3LE 24
(Continued)
D:::!AlLED COST ESTIz.rJ>.TE
'.
'TO'R..~ 'U\'GOON ')."RE).
~IL/;';.h.ST;: EXCAVATION ~SD ON-SITE !NFRA...~ INClNE:"'~'!ION (FL-4B)
I~ DESCRIPTION
QU1.N1'ITY
tiN IT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
J.5- ,E:1;ine..e;:.ingl'eesand
. . .P..e.r=its@S.Per.cent
'<1~'9 ~:OO'O
SUE'!'ClIAL
4,182,000
16. Contingency @ 25 Percent
1~046,OOO
I0!1o.L. CAPITAL COST
5,228,000
(4,357,000)'
. ,~1iJAI,. ,n~IiI'ON..AND ,.!9\I~
\ v;rj j wS-:
~ater ~~lity MonitoriD;
20,000
5,417,000
(4,514,000)'
~
PR:.'"'S:::N': ~R'I'H
1 Excavation performed as: l1eeded to run incinerator continuously. Thus,
unit cost based on daily e;uipment rental, labor, and operating expenses.
. ;;a'Dni,t,cbs't :im:3ud&s . IJeC'leI .;B,'{)eX'SOnnel ' .pr.,Otection ",dur:ing . excavation and
-'Leva! ''C 'Clring °i'nci'ne'n'titD~ ':\~',b;o:;i.m:1udesa:i.r :..moni toring' ',dur:icg..exca v,ation.
, Cost for exposure asses~t soil cleanup criteria.
-------
TABLE 25
DE:AlLED COST ESTIMATE
roR.~ tAGOON AAEA
NO ACTION (FL-5)
ITEM DESCRIPTION
OJ'ITAL COSTS
1. Fencing
2. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
SUB'I'O'IAL
3. Contingency @ 25 Percent
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ANNtJJ\L OPEJV>.TION l>.ND MAINTEWo.NCE
(O&M) COST- ..
.
~ater Quality Monitoring
PRESDn' WORTH
QUM"T I 1"Y
1,650 1£
UNIT COST
($ )
11/1£
TOTAL COST
($ )
18,150
1,000
19,150
..850
24.000
20.000
213.000
, ,
..
-
-------
,~~~ 26
DE"IAILED COS1' ES':I!9.1"E
KE'I"I'LE POND
SIn: c;;v..DING &. CAPPING (KP-l)
IT~ ~ESCRI FIIM
QiJ~I1'Y
UNI T COST
'ICTAL COS1'
OoPI'IAL COSTS
1.. ,Siu ,aaar.~
Lump Sum
$ 5.000
2. Fie.1c! Offices
4Il1O
, 'l,"OO'O/IDO
., ~1)'OO
". Impr0'ge Existing Acce~sRoads
250 1£
25/1£
3.000
6,250 '
3. Deoo=amination
3Il1O
1,000/Il1O
5. Cocstruct New Access Roac!s
650 1£
" 7:,20'0" 'c;y
50/1£
32,500
'36,"000
,.:.6., ,kckfil1
, 'S/'f:1
8. Clay
7,200 r:y
4.800 r:y
1/81
7,200
57,600
7. Grading
9. Sy::1t:Utic Liner
7.200 r:y
2.400 r:y
12/c:y
9/c:y
64,800
10'. ~
10/6Y
24,000
11. Topsoil
1.200 r:y
10/cy
12.000
13. Dr-al2ge Ditch
lie He.a-lth and Sa£ety Cost
,750 1£
, :.'o....5Dl.-y
10/1£
.,3.~.6.0D
7,500
'12.' '~~e-veg.taticm
',7,.~,O '.Y
.
40 days
120 1£
300/dayt
30/1£
12,000
3,600
15. G~ Water Monitoring We].1
Installation
",sam~
, ,,;2':9..,,000
1
UDlt cost includes Level C personnel protection for site grading and clay
lar-r installation during capping. Also includes air monitoring.
, -,1'
'- ", -: ::
-------
T.l.BLE 26
(Continued)
DET~ILED COST ESTIMATE
KETTLE POND
SITE GRADING k~ CAPPING (KP-l)
I'!~ DESCRIPTION
QUM'"IITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOT1>.L COST
($)
16. Engineering Fees and
~e~its @ 5 Percent
14.000
SUBTOTAL
293.000
17. Contingency @ 25 Percent
73.000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
366.000
1o.NNU1>.L OPEAATING 1>.ND M.h.IN"I'EN~CE
(O&M) COST
Cap Maintenance
1.000
Water Quality.Monitoring
20.000 .
TOTAL MNUAL O&M COST
21.000
PRESEN1' WORm
-------
, .
. .,!~U:
2'7
DE:LAILED COST ESTlMA.."'"E
JCE'TILE POND
.SO::Lr...1.STE EXCAVA1'ION AND OFF-SITE u.N:)FILL DISPOSM. (KP-2)
lTD! DES~IPTION
. QU~!T'i
. 'm.~'! 'COST
($ )
'"rO".r1\L ,COST
($)
CAPIT1o.L COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
5.000
I
I
,.2,.. :',Sheet ,.Piling
'1.0 ~2'O0 IS'f
. "'9'/.:5f
','91 ;&00
3. Ponc Dewatering
a. ~ell Installation
b. ~sociatec Piping
c. PumPs
d. Pow;r and Maintenance1
475 If
250 If
11
Lump Sum
30/1f
4/1£
350/ea
14.250
1.000
3.850
9.000
."'~ ......~.\Cont1£=t to .Sewage
Trea~e~t Plant (SIP)
. a-inch sewer main
. Treatment (user £ee)2
450 If
7.350,000 gal
70/1£
0.0013/gal
31.500
9.600
b. Gra=1ular Activated Carbon (~)
. Capital (0.05 MGD ~laJ1t)
. Operating
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
110.000
20.000
5. Sur!ace Water Drainage
. Faci1.it'ies
':,Lump.,Sum
5.000
80 days
5/cy
500/day2
120,000
6. Excavation
24.000 cy
~. Health ~~~ Safety Cost
40.000
8. ~lytic:al Soil Testing
50 samples
1.000/sample
50.000
9. Fill - Borrow Materia:1
24.000 cy
5/cy
120.000
1 Power cost based on $0.:0.8 brh' for WestboroU9h area and electric demand of
1.1 Jtw per pump. Dewat.ering operation runs 24 hours per day for duration of
excavatio:1 (105 days - .int:luces 2 weeks of dewatering prior to excavation).
Maintenan::e includes operator for 2 hours per day.
2 ,Est,i:ateof $l.OO/ccf haseod on user fees for sewage treatment plants of
&ic.ilar .tesign.
J Unit cost incluces Level Ii personnel protection during sheet piling an(!
excavation. Also includes .ir monitoring.
-------
TABLE :2 7
(Continued)
D~~ILEJ COST ES!I¥~!E
. .
KWTLE POND
SOIL/WASTE EXCAV~TION AND OFF-SITE LANDFILL DISPOSAL (KP-2)
ITEM DESCRIPTLDN
TOTAL COST
($)
~~ITY UNIT COST
($)
1.200 cy 10/cy
7.200 sy 0.50/sy
32.400 tons 75/ton
32,400 tons 100/ton
8Il1O 1.000/me
6Il1O 1.000/me
575 If 25/1f
700 If 50/1f
120 If 30/1f
10. Topsoil
11. Revegetation
12. Off-Site Transportation
13~ Disposal
14. Field Offices
15. Decontamination
16. Improve Existing ~ccess Roads
17. Const[11ct New ~ccess Roads .
18. Ground Water Monitoring'
Well Installation
SUBTOTAL
A. STP
b. G1\C
19. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
a. STP
b. GAC
SUBTOTAL
A. STP
b. GAC
12.000
,;J
3.600
2.430.000
3.240.000
8,000
6,000
14,375
35,000
3.600
6.254.000
6.342.000
313.000
317,000
6.567,000
6.659.000
. .
. .
"
-------
T .!-.BLE ;2 a
C2:AILEJ COST ES:I~~:E
, ;K..~E ',POt\TD
. SO:;'Lt'~T£'~'VAj;TON '1\m)O!~";'ST'rE'L1-~'"DnL'L'~D!'SPOSAL (KP-3)
::~ D2SC~I?T10N
QUAN7ITY
UNIT COST
(S)
TOTAL COST:
(S)
C1.?I::.:t..L COSTS
l,.'. )'Si,,;e",ClI!2;::'i.n9
.., 1.wn.p Sum
'6,,000
2. Sheet Filing
10,200 sf
9/sf
91,800
3. ?O::ld De....atering'
c. Well I~sta11ation
O. Associated Pipin9
c. PumDS .
, "C. :~PC»l,;,:, 'ar.d :Maint.:enC!.nce1
475 1£
250 1f
11
'Lump. Sum
30/1£
4/1f
350/ea.
14,250
1,000
3..,85D
.5..,.000
4. a. Conr.ec~ to Sewage
Treat~er.t Plant {SIP)
. 8-in::h sewer main
. Treatment (user £~e}2
450 1£
4,900,000 gal
70/1£
0.0013/gal
31, 500
6,400
~. Gra..~lar Activated Carbon (GAC)
. Ccpital (0.05 ~GD pIant)
. OFerating
Lump Sum
Lu:'I1p Sum
110,000
20,000
5 ,.,.S:Io.:.::fa.c£ .\~:at'e:r' ,Dra.inage
?acili ties
Lump Sum
5,000
6. EX=avation and On-Site
:ransportation
24,000 cy
6/cy
144,000
7., Eealth and Safety Cost
60 days
SOD/day'
30,000
" ,8,., ,~l;y:tical.,So,i:l::ten~
',.5,o~~es
;,1..00Gfs'amplie
.'':','50 /000
1 PO"oo'e= cost based on $:0.0:8 kwh for Westborough area and electric demand of
1.: Jew per pump. Dewatering operation runs 24 hours per day for duration of
ex:a'..ation (70 days - incJl:udes 2 weeks of dewatering prior to excavation).
~~~r.~ena..ce includes operat~r for 2 hour.s per day. '
Z'Es::: ~'~.a'.t-e ,,:,o:':.S;1,.'OOlcd ,':ba!l"ed ,'on :u.s,er ,fe.,e,s '-£ or ,'$ewa'g..e':b::'.ea":mertti;plo'nts of
. ... ..
:':sJ:.:::'l':;err . ,,'C~~ :t:';'=l.
3 Ur..:.t cost lncludes Le-vel B personnel protection d~ring sheet piling and
-------
TABU 28
(Co!1tinued)
DET~ILED COST ESTI~~TE
KE'ITLE POND
SOIL/~ASTE EXCAV~7ION ~~ ON-SITE ~~FILL DISPOSAL (KP-3)
ITEM DESCRIPTION QU».': I TY UNIT COST
($ )
9. Improve Existing ~ccess Roads 250 If 25/lf
10. Construct New ~ccess Roa ds 650 lf 50/lf
11. Field Offices 8100 1,000/me
12. Decontamination 6100 LOOO/me
13. Landfill Excavation and Grading 22,000 cy 3.30/cy
14. Clay 4,200 cy 12/cy
15. Fine Sand 2,100 cy 12/cy
16. Synthetic Liner (2) 12,400 sy 9/sy
17. Leachate Co 11 ection 6,250 1f 2.5/lf
TOTAL COST
($)
6,250
32,500
8,000
6,000
72,600
50,400
25,200
111, 600
15,600
18. Leachate Storage (Tank, Piping) 20,000 gal
30,000
19. Leak,Detection
6,250 If
2.5/lf
15,600
20. Drainage Layer
2.100 cy
10/cy
21,000
21. Filter Fabric
6,200 sy
3/sy
22.50/sy.
18,600
22. Landfill Capping
6,200 sy
139,500
23. Backfill Kettle Pond with
Excavated Landfill Material
24,000 cy
2/cy
48,000
24. Topsoil
1,200 cy
10/cy
12,000
. 25. Revegetation
7,200 sy
0.50/5Y
3,600
26. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installation
160 If
30/1f
4,800
SUBTOTAL
a. SIP
b. G1\C
1,010.000
1,102.000
-------
T~:.E 28
(Continuec)
DETAILED COST ESTIl-'.ATE
'iCE."'I'7U:'POND
SOIL/WASTE EXCAVA!ION.~~~ ON-SITE ~~FILL DISPOSAL (KP-3)
r'EM D~Ci.NN':J).!. OPERl-. 'I I ON ~ MAIN'!IID>.NCE
(~) COST
Water Quality Monitoring
20.0.0.0
PRESTh'T WORTH
...~.,,'STP
.'."1,,,5.12....0.0.0
.~t:a82:.,.o.oD )5
b. G1>.C
1.635..0.0.0
(954..00.0)5
-------
'IABLE 29
DEI1\ILED COST :::5'ZU'.J..'IE
KE'I'I LE POND
SOIL/WhS'IE EXC1\V1\'IION ~ ON-SITE RC71\RY KILN INCINEAATION (KP-4J..)
~'IEM DESCRIPTION QUPJITIri UNIT COST TOTAL COST.
- ($) ($)
CAPITM. COSTS
1. Site Clearing Lump St::D 6.000
2. Sheet Piling 10,200 sf 9/5£ 8 91. 800
3. Pond Dewatering
a. ~ell Installation 475 1£ 30/1f 14,250
b. Associated Piping 250 1£ 4/1£ 1.000
c. Pumps 11 350/ea. 3,850
d. Power and Maintenance1 Lump Sum 5,000
4. a. Connect to Sewage
Treatment Plant (SIP)
. 8-inch sewer main 450 1£ 70/1£ 31,500
. Treatment (user £ee)% 4,900,000 gal 0.0013/gal 6,400
b. Granular Activated Carbon (G1\C)
. Capital
. Operating
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
110.000
20,000
5. Surface Water Dr~inage
Facili ties
Lump Sum
-
5,000
6. Site Utilities
Lump Sum .
10.000
7. Excavation
25.000 cy
5/cy
125,000
I Power cost based on $0.08 kwh for iiestborough area and electric demand o£
1.1 Jew per pump. Dewaterinc; operation runs 24 hours per day for duration o£
excavation (70 days - includes 2 weeks of dewatering prior to excavation).
Maintenance includes.operator for 2 hours per day.
. :
2 Estimate of $l.OO/ccf based on user fees for sewage treatment plants of
similar design.
I
-------
TABLE 29
(Continuec)
."D!:'IAILED.-,CO.s=.cESI.I,~.AI.E
KETTLE PO~1>
SOILr...h.STE EXCAV~'IION k\1> ON-SITE RO'!J..RY KILN INCINERATION (KP-4J..)
.!-r:::M D~RIPTION
QUA1;TITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
"e.'..Heal'tb;',,&:1d.:Saf~et.y Cost
. Excavation
. Incineration
40 days
405 days
500/dayJ
200/day4
20,000
81,000
9. k:a1ytical Soil "Iesting
50 samples
1,000/sample
50,000
10. Topsoil
1,200 cy
10/cy
12,000
. .,:$1.. 'c.Revegetat::icm
'.7..;:l3:O.:"$Y
,..;O...;5l:Ms-y
,..3 i:600
12. Temporary Storage Area
&. EXcavation
b. Clay
c. Sand
d. Synt-"'1etic Liner
e. Leachate Collection
31,000 cy
3,000 cy
3,000 cy
8,900 sy
6,300 1£
3.30/cy
12/cy
10/cy
9/5"1
2.50/1£
102,300
36,000
30,000
80,100
15,750
13. Leacr.ate Collection :rank
20,000 gal
30,000
14. &. 'Iransportation to Storage
".Are-a
b. Trar~portation from Storage
Area to Incinerator
:;2'4 /00:0 :~
. ''-:21,cy
. .~'8,OOt)
24,000 cy
1/cy
24,000
15. Incineration Cost
32,400 tons
350/ton
11,340,000
16. Ash/Incinerated Soil -
Back:ill Kettle ~
24,000 cy
2/cy
48,000
. . .l7.';',:F.ie1:4 :Off,ic:es
;,29 ,Imo
, :',~";!DOD1;1DO
" ",29..1>00
1!. Decontamination
24 !DO
1,000/mo
24,000
19. Im?rove Existing Access Roads
250 1£
25/1£
6,250
20. Construct New Acccess Roads
650 1£
50/1£
32,500
J t.r.:it cost includes Level B personnel protection and air monitoring.
-------
TABLE 29
(Continued)
D27hILED C8S7 ESTI~~TE
KETTLE ~m
SO!L/~~.sTE E:XCAVATICY.; 1-JID mJ-SITE RO':A.~Y KILN INCIW-RATION (KP-4».j
ITD! DESCRIPTION
TOTAL COST
($)
21. Ground Water Monitoring Well
Installation
S1Jm'OTAL
a. S'IP
b. Q\C
22. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
a. S'IP
b. ~
SUBTetrAL
A. SIP
b. G1\C
23. Contingency @ 25 Percent
A. STP
b. G1\C
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
A. STP
b. G1\C
~ OPERATION AND MAIN'I'EN~CE
( O&M) COST
Water Quality Monitoring
PRESENT WORTH
a. STP
b. ~
QUA.~"111'Y
120 1£
UNIT COST
($ )
30/1£
1 Costs based on exposure assessment soil cleanup criteria.
3,600
12,316,000
12,408,000
616,000
620,000
12,932,000
13,028,000
3,233,000
3,257,000
16,165,000
{9,430,000)1
16,285,000
(9,500,000)1
20,000 '
16,554,000
(9,657,000)1
16,474,000
(9,61.0,000)1
-------
TABLE 30
DET~ILED COST ESTI~TE
.. .Kn'1I'LE .POND
SO:Lr~ASTE EXCAVATION ~~ ON-SITE I~~~ INCI~~TION (KP-4B)
n'EM D:E:S~! PII ON
QUM'TITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOT AL COST
($ )
CM>I'!AL COSTS
, 1,,;"'S;i"t~~C1'e'8":"i:n9
',,'r,,- S
" : ".........!" '. um
,.~'6,~.OOO
2. Sheet Piling
10,200 sf
9/sf
91,800
3. Pond ~watering
a. Well Installation
b. Associated Piping
, ,"c"...r.,Punos
'~. ,--~- , '~".u_'- 1
, . "~'.:<"rv...e'r'"'8nu"'na);:u,~.na:nt!e
475 If
250 If
',ll '
':'Lt:tmp "'Sum
30/lf
4/1f
, :'3:5:O:/,.a.
14~250
1,000
, .' ,'3~..850
"5 ~OOO
4. a. Cor.:lect to Seva9~
'Ireatment Plant (S1'P)
. S-inch sewer main
. Treatment (user fee) Z
450 lf
4,900,000 gal
70/1f
0.0013/ga1
31,500
6,400
b. Granular 1>.ctivated Carbon (G1>.C)
. Capital Lump Sum 110,000
. O,perating Lump Sum 20,000
5. Surface Water Drainage
Facili ties Lump Sum 5,000
6. Site Utilities Lump Sum 10.000
7. Excavation 25.000 cy 5/cy 125.000
1, :':~er iCOSt "'bas:id,01'1 ':iSO,.'OB';::kwh' "fo,r'W,e'stborough ,,;ar-ea' .a:nd':,.e1eetri:c'\1!emand ,of
1.1 kw per pump. Dewatering operation runs 24 hours per day for duration of
excavatioQ (70 days - iDcludes 2 weeks of dewatering prior to excavation).
~-ainter4nce includes operator for 2 hours per day.
2 E.s~iJ:ate of $1. OO/ccf based
sicilar design.
on user
-------
T1-BLE 30
(Continued)
DE:~ILED COST ESTI~TE
KEJ.TLE POND
SOIL/WASTE EXCAV~!ION ~l~ ON-SITE I~~ INCINE~TION (KP-4B)
ITEM DESCRIPTiON
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
(5 )
TOTAL COST
($)
8. Health and Safety Cost
. Excavation
. Incineration
40 days
405 days
SOO/day'
200/day"
20,000
81.000
10. Topsoil
1.200 cy
10/cy
50,000
12,000
9. Analytical Soil Testing
50 samples
1,000/sample
11. Revegetation
7,130 sy
0.50/sy
3,600
12. Temporary Storage ~rea
a. Excavation
b. Clay
c. Sand
d. Synthetic Liner
e. Leachate Collection
31. 000 cy
3,000 cy
3,000 cy
8,900 sy
6.300 1£
3.30/cy
12/cy
10/cy
9/sy
2.50 1£
102,300
36,000
30,000
80,100
15,750
13. Leachate Collection Tank
20,000 gal
30,000
14. a., Transportation to Storage
Area
b. Transportation frOm Storage
Area to Incinerator
24,000 cy
2/cy
48,000
24,000 cy
l/cy
24,000
15. Incineration Cost
32,400 tons
l40/ton
4.600,000
'16. Ash/Incinerated Soil -
Backfill Kettle Pond
24,000 cy
2/cy
48,000
17. Field Offices
29 !DO
1,000/Il'1O
29,000
18. Decontamination
24 me
1,000/Il'1O
24,000
19. Improve Existing Access Roads
250 1£
25/1f
6,250
20. Construct New Access Roads
650 1£
50/1£
32,500
J Unit cost includes Level B personnel protection and air monitoring.
" Unit cost includes Level C personnel protection.
-------
T~LE 30
(Continued)
D2TAIL-~ COST ESTI~~TE
KETTLE POND
S~!L/ft~TE EXCAVATION ~~ ON-SITE I~T~ INCI~SRATION (KP-4E)
.I:~ DES~RIPIION
TOTAL COST
($ )
21. Ground Water Monitoring Well
. Installation
SUBTOIAL
a. S1'P
b. G1\C
22. ~ineerin9 Fees and
Pe~its @ 5 Percent
a. S1'P
b. GAC
SUBI'OIAL
a. S1'P
b. G1\C
23. Contingency @ 25 Percent
a. S'I'P
..b-.:",G1.C
'I'OTAL CAPITAL COST
a. S1'P
b. G1\C
:1A.~'JA!.;':.-OP~,lON;;cMID':~
."«()&.M}.:COS'I
Water Quality Monitoring
FRESDt'I' WORTH
a. S1'P
'b.'Q.C
QUM'TI7Y
UKIT COST
($)
, .:3",600
5,576,000
5,668,000
279,000
283,000
5,855,000
5,951, 000
1,464,000
~ )4B'B,;':00'0'
7,319,000
(4,269,000)5
7,439,000
(4,339,000)1
20,000
7,508,000
. ',:(".,'i3B:o~.oO'0)1
7,628,000
(4,450,000)5
'~UO:lf
3011£
-------
T1-.BLE 31
DE:~ILED COS7 ESTI~TE
Ja:'TTLE PC?ID
GRO~~ ~ATER CONTAI~~ BAR~IER; SITE GRAD:NG & CAPPING (KP-5)
IT~ DESCRlPTION
QUANTITY
UN! T COST
($ )
TOTAL COST
($)
CAPITAL COSTS
1. 5i te Clearing Lump Su:D 5,000
2. Field Offices 7me 1.000/mo 7.000
3. Decontamination 4me 1.000/mo 4,000
4. Improve Existing Access Roads 250 If 25/1£ 6,250
5. Construct New Access Roads 650 1£ 50/1f 32,500
6. Backfill (including grading) 7,200 c:y 5/cy 36,000
7. Clay 4,800 c:y 12/cy 57.600
8. Synthetic Liner 7,200 sy 9/sy 64,800
9. Sand 2.400 cy 10/cy 24,000
10. Topsoil 1,200 c:y 10/cy 12,000
11. Vegetation 7,200 sy 0.50/sy 3,600
12. Drainage Ditch 750 If 10/1f 7,500
13. Health and Safety Cost 80 days 300/day' 24.000
14. Construct Soil Bentonite
Slurry WaP 68,800 sf 10/sf 688,000
15. Ground Water Monitoring Well
Installation 120 If 30/1f 3,600
SUBTOTAL 976,000
16. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent 49,000
SUBTOTAL 1,025,000
a Unit cost includes Level B personnel protection during sheet piling and
. slurry wall installation. Level C protection used during grading And clay
-------
"I;h.B~I: '3 '1
(Continued)
DETAILED COST ESTI~~.TE
. JCE:TIcr 'POND
GROu~~ WATER CON'T1Ul~JT BA.'(RIER;SlTE G:V>.DING & CAPPING (KP-5)
I~ DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($ )
17. ~'tingency @ 25 Percent
256.0:00
, ,.,7OXA!..,.t:A?I71A!.. '.~
. ,;~"'28J..,,Oa.o
M'Nt.:7>.L OP:::v..'!'ION 1>.ND M1\IN'IIN.2>.NCE
( O&."! ) COST
Cap and Wall Maintenance
5.000 .
Water Quality Monitoring
20.000
,X01'AL' .:»-"""'JDAL~,'O&M
-------
TABLE 3 2
DE7AILED COST ESTIMATE
KE7!LE P<».TD
GRO~~ WA7~~ PUH?ING ~ TREATHE1tI (KP-6A)
.ITEM DESCRIPTION
QU1>J:TIIT
UNIT COST
($)
TO'IA!. COST
($ )
CAPITAL COSTS
1. Wells
530 If
30/1 f
15.900
2. Pumps. Piping. and Holding
Tank
Lump Sum
60.000
3. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
5.000
4. Concrete Pad
10 r:y
200/cy
2.000
5. Storage House
Lump Sum
15.000
6. G1\C Uni t
Lump Sum
150.000
7. Fill ~~terial
7.200 cy
5/cy
36.000
B. Gradinq
7,200 5Y
1/5}'
7,200
, 9. Topsoil
1. 200 cy
10/cy
12,000
10. Revegetation
7.200 sy
0.50/sy
3.600
11. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installatiou
120 If
30/1f
3.600
SUBTOTAL
310.000
'-12. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
16.000
SUBTOl'AL
326.000
13. Contingency @ 25 Percent
82,000
TO'IAL CAPIT1>.L COST
408.000
No~e: Included in the total capital costs estimates for Alternates
KP-6 (A & B) are costs for grading and capping pf the Kettle Pond.
"
"
"
. .'" ,"'"
-------
TABLE 32
(Continued)
DETAILED COST ES1'I~..ATE
KETTLE POND
GROUND ~ER PUMPING A.tID TiU:ATIIDIT (KP-6A)
I1'~ DESCRI?IION
QUhNIITY
UNIT COST
- - ($)
TOTAL COST
($)
...Mt\'U1-~ .O~~!ION. AND ~'JCE
..( O&M) COST
1. GI"CUr'..d Water Pumping!1
30.000
2. ".:rcabne:.t. (including ccarlbon
disposal)
20.000
..
3. ~a:er i2uality MOnitor.i3;
..and ,:Ies,ting
,.,2.0....0.00
TarA:.. 1.ID.'"U1.L O&M COST
70.000
PRES:::!~ ""Gimi
1.068.000
1 P\=Iping cost includ!!S ~er and maintenance. Power cost based on $0.08
Jew:. for ioiestborough :area and electric demand of 1.1 Jew per pump. Operation
~~ for 24 hours per ~F, 365 days per year. Maintenance includes operator
-------
TABU: 33
DE7AILED CDS: ES:n~TI:
KETTLE POtID
GROUND \oIATER PUMPING NID T:\EATI!D.""! (KP-6B)
ITEM DESCRIPTI-ON
~h.'ITITY
UNIT COST
($ )
TOTAL COST
($ )
CAPITAL COSTS
1. Site Clearing
LU%:Ip Sum
2,000
2. Wells
530 If
30/lf
15,900
3. Pumps and Piping
Lump Sum
20,000
4. Connect to Sewage Treatment
Plant
. S-inch sewer main
470 If 70/lf 31,500
7.200 c:y 5/cy 36,000
7.200 sy 1/sy 7,200
1,200 ~ 10/cy 12,000
7.200 sy 0.50/sy 3.600
120 If 30/lf 3.600
132.000
7.000
139.000
35.000
174.000
5. Fill Material
6. Grading
7. Topsoil
s. Revegetation
9. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installation
SUBTOTAL
10. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
SUBTOTAL
11. Contingency @ 25 Percent
-------
T.h.BLE 33
(Continued)
,'DE:AI!.£D ,;CG5I<'£S::.ll-'..AZE
KETTLE POND
- GROUND ft':'I=.R P~?ING MiD TR£.!..~:T (KP-6B)
~~ DESCRIPTION
QU.h..~ITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
I
I,'
,'; :~"tJX!,.':O~"I''I'CN.''';1mD':I.~
'TO&M) '''COST
1. s.e"'oge Treatment Plant
User Feel
11.000.000 gal 0.0013/ga1
15,000
2. Ground Water Pumping2
30,000
3. !'..aintenance
5,000
I,
'~ . "'""eft e r'~Q-.:1i'l'ity"Monitori'D9
",2.0.0,00
TOT AL ~J1.I"UJ>.L O&M C0S7
,70,000
PRESE!\TT WORTH
834,000
1 Estimate of $1.00/ee:! .based on user fees for sewage treatment plants of
sic.ilar design.
I','
2 PuI::?ing cost includes -pcv.er and ma.intena.!lce. Power cost based on $0.08
,Jo,rb...f.or Jie.s,t.boro).,lgh area and electric demand of 1.1 Jew per pump. Operation
\.,nJr'-s,,f.or.'2'i4 \hours ':per ':day ..<-3£3 ,~y.s ,per '"YE.aI".' : 'Ma':i\ntenanc,e :inc:lucle's ", 'operator
-------
T ).E:.E
3~
IT~ DESCRIPTION
TOTAL COST
($)
~E:~!LED COST EST!~;.:E
Ja:"!'7LE PO~
NO ~CTION (KP-7)
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
($ )
D.PITAL COSTS
1. Fencing
2. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installation
SUBTCfIAL
3. Engineering Fees and
Pe~its @ 5 Percent
SUB'ICfI AL
4. Contingency @ 25 Percent
TO'IJo.L CAPIT.1.L COST
»JNUAL OPER1>.TION 1>.ND ~IN'!~J.JCE
(O&M) COST
Water Quality Monitoring
PRESENT WORTH
1,500 1f
120 1f
11/1£
30/1f
16;500
3,600
20,000
1,000
21,000
5,000
26,000
20,000
-------
TABLE 35
Dr:AILED COST ES7IMATE
,,!HocreO?~CO.ND
DISPOSAL/TR::A~ (HP-1A)
'=TD! D~PTION
QUA}.. '7 I:IT
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
,CA?I~ M. COS'1'S
3OCa-sCY.iCO FOt.'D"
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sum
$ 2,000
2. Dewatering Basin
11.000 cy
11/cyl
121,000 .
30,000
3. I..e.ac:h.!te Collection 'rank
"(20,000.gal)
Lump Sum
4. Dre&;ing
5. Leachate 'l'reatment%
2,200 cy
1.100,000 gal'
35/cy
77,000
0.26/gal
286,000
- 4
6. -Health &nd Safety Cost
5 days
300/day
1,500
SUB'I'O'"'.AL
518,000
D! SQV.RGE STREAM
:!,i1...,.Si't-e /C,leari.ng
; "Lu=p . Sum
'1"000
8. Construct New Access Road
450/1£
50/1f
22.500
-
1 Cost derived from Temporary Storage Area (KP-4A).
,.z';':COS't .';im:'I1\i4e!s .,'::tG!1'1'5po~,tlion::end,':'>tr:;e:a:=ettt . :,18:t.:'8n . .!of£~
-------
'l'1>3LE 35
(Cont.inued)
DETAILED COST ES!I~.ATE
HOCOHONCO POND M"D D I SC:-:.AR:;E S1'RE1>.~
HYDAAULIC D~-rx;Ir-;G OF S:::DI~ITS 1>.ND
DIS?OSJ>.L/T~TMD."'T (H?-lA)
ITEH DESCRIPTION
QUJ:>J;T I TY
,of
9. Di~ersion Channel
Excavation and Backfill
890 cy
10. Stream Sediment Excavation
100 cy
100 cy
11. Dewatering Basin
12. On-Site Transportation
100 cy
13. Revegetation
1. 000 sy
14. Leachate Treatmentl
4,000 gal
15. Health and Safety4
5 days
SUBTOTAL
Total Hocomonco Pond and Discharge Stream
16. Engineering Fees @ 5 Percent
Sl1BT0'IM.
17. Contingency @ 25 Percent
TOTAL CAPITM. COST
i;
PRESENT WORTH
UNIT COST TOTAL COST
($) ($)
5/cy 4,450
15/cy 1,500
11/cy 1,100
2Icy 200
0.50/sy 500
0.26/gal 1,100
300/day 1,500
34,000
552,000
28,000
580,000
145,000
725,000
725.000
"-
-------
TAEL:S 36
D~hlLED CCST EST!~TE
';;.fi~5o'Ot."D'n.;);:D!Sa:A~~'>;ST~~
':HYDRAm:;I.c't)Rt..-rx;TN'::;;"'OF'::S,tDr~s '~
DIS?OS1lL/TREhT~"T (H?-1:B)
I:rD! D:SS:RlPTION
QUA. 'rrr TY
UNIT COST
(S)
TOT 1>.L COST
($ )
CAPIT}.L COSTS
''1. "'Site "Cl'earinq
''Lum~ '''Sum
"'$ "2 ,oon
2. Drec~ing and Filter Pressing
2,200 cy
75/cy
165,000
3. Leachate Collection Tank
(20,000 gal)
Lump Sum
30,000
4. Leachate Treatment1
1,100,000 ga1
'9'5 days
0.26/gal
286,000
, ,
"5. "'Heal th aria'Sa:f etya
. "'3'0'07&y
"'2'8 ~'5'DO
6. Discharge Stream'
Lump Sum
34,000
~J'E':(y!AL
546,000
7. £::1gineering Fees @ 5 Percent
27,000
.,s:re::ra.:rAL
, .,S.,73".DD,0
a. Contin~ency @ 25 Percent
143,000
TO'l'M.. CAPITAL COST
716,000
PRESEm ft'ORTH
716..000
l' Cost includes transportation
treatment facility. Due to
adso~tion and discharge to
alternatives.
and treatment at an off-site wastewater
the volume of leachate to be treated, ~C
sewage treatment plant are not feasible
". ~ ,'~1- ..~:~ .\lp.ersDnne:l:,,'protection~wr.i:ng ,id'tJedg,in; ,iand:pre~s'i'ng,.
.J See Table 35
for detailed Discharge Stream dredging costs.
.. Ba.s~:! on vendor information.
"'-
-------
TABLE 37
D:£7hILED COST ES'II~TI:
HOC~ON:O PO!-m 1J:D D!Sa{1>.:~GE STREAM
MECHANICAL D:;:EXING 0= SEDI~:TS 1>.ND
DISP:)S1.L/TREAT~rr (HP-2)
ITEH DESCRIP'IIQN
QU»ITIri
UNIT COST
($)
TOT1\!. COST
($)
C1>.PITAL COSTS
1. Site Clearing
Lump Sc:n
2,000
2. Const~uct New ~ccess Road
1.100 if
50/1£
55,000
5. On-Site Transportation
2.200 c:y
2,200 c:y
200/day
15/cy .
5,000
3. Pumping
25 days
4. Dredging
33,000
2/cy
4,400
6. Dewatering Basin
2,200 c:y
11/cy
24,200
7. Leachate Collection Tank
(20,000 gal.)
Lump Sum
30,000
B. Health and Safetyl
5 days
300/day
1,500
9. Leachate Treatment2
90,000 gal
0.26/gal
23,400
10. Discharge Stream Cost'
Lump Sum
34,000
SUBTOTAL
213,000
11. Engineering Fees @ 5 Percent
11,000
SUBTOTAL
224,000
12. Contingency @ 25 Percent
56,000
TOTAL C1o.PITAL COST
280,000
. PRESENT WORTH
280,000
& Level B personnel protectio~ during dr~dging.
2 Cost includes transportation and t~eatment at an off-site wastewater
treatment facility. Volume based on estimate of sediment moisture content.
J . See Table 35
-------
- TABLE 38
DETAILED COS7 EST!~.ATE
I .
I.
,EClCIH:>NCO.'IPC)ND,.iAA"D"D!'S~'.'STRD.M
o.:P?!NG OF 'srn!~ITS'{HP-3)
1::::X DE5.::R! Py I ON
.QUM"IITY
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($)
CAP:rTJ.,L COSTS
~. ,1. . .S;.t.e Cl,eariDg
. ':Lump ":Sum
.j10 ..0'00
. .
2. Construct New Access :RmiJ;d
700 1£
50/1£
35,000
3. Backfill
3,200 cy
5/cy
16,000
6,400
.5,.. . JC.p ..Rap
6. ~ing
100 cy
2/cy
21/cy
2,100
4. ~-Site ~ransportation
3,200 cy
10 days
200/day
300/day
06 ,\)00
30 days
7. Rea 1 th and .Saf etyll
3,000
8. D~sc:harge Stream%
Lump Sum
34,000
SJBTO'IAL
112,500
9. ~ineerin9 Fees. S ~rcent
6,500
s:JB'!O!AL
119,000
. ;"1"0 .:''Co~i"'m]'e'%'1~;''. ~5.'Per:rert
. ..:30..-000
~ CAPITJ>.L COST
149,000
"
OP::3J..IION MID !9.1N'!EmJ1CI fO&.~) COST
'. ,i:Sua:'fa'Ce~:_~ei'\Qudjni't:orinq
.5",DOO
PR:::S!m' WORl"H
196,000
1 ~e1 Cpersonne1 pr,gtection.
-------
TABLE 3 9
DE:AILED COST ES!IY~7E
OT I S STR:::ET
DSh.'f~"'I CM'PING (OS-I)
I:;~ DESCRIPTION
QUM"TITi
UNIT COST
($)
TOTAL COST
($ )
CAPIThL COSTS
SUBTO'IAL
Lu:np Sum 1,000
20 days 300/dayl 6,000
4.400 .sy 22.50/syl 99,000
3mo 1.000/roo 3,000
lIDO 1.000/mo 1,000
120 If 30/1f 3.600
114,000
6,000
120,000
30,000
.150,000
1. Site Clearing
2. Health and Safety Cost
3. E;:nbanJanent Cap
4. Field Offices
5. Decontamination
.6. Ground Water Monitoring
~ell Installation
SUB'!0'I1\L
7. Engineering Fees and
Permits @ 5 Percent
8. Contingency @ 25 Percent
TOTAL ~ITAL COST
M'NU;!.L OPERATION MID M,).INTEN~CE
(O&M) COST
~ater Quality Monitoring
10,000
Cap t'...aintenance
1,000
Storm Drain Discharge Water
Monitoring
5,000
16,000 .
TOT1\!. »nlU),L O&M COST
p~~ WORTH
301,000
. J ~i t cost includes Level C protection for site grading and clay layer
. placement. Also includes air monitoring as required.
-------
TABLE 40
D~A!~E~ COST ES~!~~:E
'O\i:lSSTREE7
'\;:S:!'OR.~::.~~.!N .S~il,N.:; .'.{,OS-2)
ITD! :.=:s.:::.:r:-:!~N-
QU~N7ITY
IJ"};I T CCST
(S)
TC7J.L COST
(S)
CAPITAL COSTS
:1 .St'o~:.'I>ri':.:i :?i?e.;Se:aJ.:iing
':1 .025 :cl'f
2:5:11£
. ,2.5".625
2. Hea!th ~'c Safety Cost
20 days
200/day 1
4,000
3. Groun~ Water ~~nitoring
Well In~tallation
120 If
30/1f
3.600
SUB':O':1>.L
33.000
I.,
i .
. 4. . ''E:nq::'-n-ecerii'=Jli';zees. and
''P e'~i'ts ""@'~;5>.tpe't"Ce1'1t.
. .,Z...{)OO
SUBTO':1>.L
35,000
5. Conti~gen~ @ 25 Percent
9,000
TOTAL CAP:T~ COST .
44.000
1>.NNUJoL OERAT:::OO ~-'ID MAINTENANCE
( O&M) COST
Quo" Mo"t . :2
Hat.er. a~ 1 t,y nl OrJ.ng
Sto~~ D~a:n Discharge W~ter
~~lity ~A)nitoring
5,000
TOTAL ~.m-u1o-.L ~ COST
5,000
PRESENT WORTH
92,000
. 1,iLeve':l ,:C,'pers~d.1..proteaian.
2Grou~c wa~e~ quality'~onitcrin9 at the Otis Street Area will be
conducted as part o£ the Kettle Pond Area ground water quality
-------
T'-.3LE 4 1
D=:7J..I LED COST ESTllo'..hTI:
OT IS STRE:£'!
NO ~CTlON (05-3)
lID! DES:RIP'IlpN
QU~N1ITY
UNIT COST
($ )
TOTAL COST
(S)
CJ>.PlT.l>.L COSTS
1. Ground Water Monitoring
Well Installation
120 1£
30/1£
3,600
2. Contingency and Engineering
Fees
1,400
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
5,000
~.l>.L OPER~TION 1>.ND ~lNTEN~~C::
( O&M ) COST
Water 9~ality Monitoring
15,000
PRESENT WOR1'H
146,000
"
-------
Append ix B
Statement of Findings
Hocomonco Pond S fte
., 'PropDis.eo ":'RemecH,ail "Re'sponsee ,~c"t 'ion
Fo~me~ Lagoon ~ea
. .
-------
In accordance with EPA policy and Executiv~ Orders. 11988 and 11990
concerning Floodplains and Wetlands, the following Statement of
Finding has been prepared. The Statement of Finding is part of the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hocomonco Pond Site and further
serves to notify the general public and affected agencies that
proposed remedial response actions for the former lagoon area are
in or may p6tentially affec~ a base (100 year) floodplain and/or a
wetlands. The Statement of Findings include the following:
1.
The reasons why the proposed action must be located in or affect
the floodplain or wetlands.
2.
A description of significant facts considered in making the
decision to locate in or affect the floodplain or wetlands
including alternative sites and actions.
3.
A statement, indicating whether the proposed actions conforms to
the applicable State or local floodplain protection standards.
4.
A description of the steps taken to design or modify the proposed
action to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain
or wetlands.
5.
A statement indicating how the proposed action affects the
natural or beneficial values of the floodplain wetlands.
The proposed remedial response action in the former lagoon area
consists of site grading, capping and removal/relocation of the
storm drain that passes along the east side of the former lagoon.
The decision process leading to the selection of this action and a
detailed discussion of the action and other alternative actions are
documented in the ROD. The reason why the proposed action must be
. located in or affect a floodplain or wetlands is that the area of
co~tamination and contaminant migration pathway is so located. The
proposed site grading and capping actions are not located in a base
(100 year) floodplain or wetlands; however, these actions could
affect the same. Actions necessary to the removal/relocation of
the storm drain are, for the most part, in an area such that the
actions could affect the floodplain and wetlands. The removal/
relocation action for a small section of the storm drain system,
drain discharge channel, is located in a floodplain and wetland.
The decision to locate in or affect a floodplain and wetland was
based on the fact the area of contamination and contaminant migration
pathway is so located. The decision to propose remedial action in
this area rather than take no action was based on the public health,
welfare and environmental risks associated with this area of
contamination. The health risks related to the accidental contact
or ingestion of soil contaminated with hazardous chemicals, creosote
-------
cecision. The action ~elated to the sto~m d~ain is conside~ed
necessa=y to p=otect the public health and envi=onment. Mig~ation
cf c=e:)sote .co~o.undsd,to"Boc,oI!1onc,o.;.Pond" via ";the,:s'-t'o::-rn 'd=a d:n, has
. 'n-ac ,an,\O:5ve-=s:e "imp,act" ~on:,the;:':~.s:tl~"f.;~:rce .:wet'e=.Qind, '\'sed'i:me'nts 'in 't'he pond
a~d its discha~ge st~eam and p~esents a potential haza~d to public
health a~d the aquatic species in the pond. To ~educe the potential
health = isk -assoc iated with "Contaminants in and mig~at ing to the
EOCODO~CO Pond, the pond has been closed to ~ec=eation. The p~oposed
action would, coupled with othe~ actions to be p~oposed fo~ the
poond itself (refer to the ROD, Hocomonco Pond and d ischa~ge stream), "
.a,J.,I.ow ,£0::, ",f"u.tur,e ',=:e,c::'~at.t;'On;al "u.s'e'of ':the:pon d .
~e prop~sed action in the former lagoon a~ea is consistent with
State (310 CMR 10.00 Parts I and III) and local floodplain
s tanda=ds.
I
, ,
I.
Design and const~uction activities ~elated to the implementation of
the =e~edial response action proposed will include the best practical
measures to minimize potential h~m to 0= within the floodplain and
"w.-etl:a,ttds- ".Init':ia:1; '~de's':ig,n hats 'conos,id,e:::,'e'ort'h,e ,n-e.e'ot.o,:cont=-o;}: adverse
.,..i:r:l;I;Ct,c.ts': ",er''Osion, ;,,:sed.ime',rrt "a-nc "cont'am inant migr a t ion, both d ur ing
construction and resulting from topographic and subsurface drainage
changes necessary to the implementation of this action. Control
measures viII be considered in more detail du~ing the final design
phase of this action.
Using the best practical measures to cont~ol potential adve~se
impacts will reduce possible harm to the floodplain and wetlands
from siltation and furthe= deg~adation f=om contamination. Successful
L'plementation of this action will eliminate the potential risk of
~~ouncNater contamination, su=face water and sediment contamination
in Hocomonco Pond ,and the .dis,cha.r:.,g,e ,,s,c.e,a.m.,,,p..o..t-ell.t,Ja1 .,adv,e,rse
'e f.f.e:ct:s:ona:q;ualt .ic~pe:c iie,s e,n.d ',wi'lpl,e\d'"w i t'n .:O'thE'r
-------
Appendix C
Statement of Findings
Hocomonco Pond Site
~oposed Remed ia.l Response Act ion
Kettle Pond Area
-------
I~ acco~dance with EPA policy and Executive O~de~s 11988 and 11990
conce~ning Floodplains and Wetlands, the following Statement of
F h.d i~g has b:e~ p~epa~ed. The Statemen t of Find in,g is ,p.art,o,f the
'R:e'C'O~'O'I'O:'f \t.:b e ',50comonc,0 ,Rond .\";s,i,t,e' ~,'and .f;u,~ the r
.'s~ves"'to'.'n'ot"i'f'Y,t'he 'g'ene~ al publ Ic and af fected agenc ies that
p=c~csed ~emedial response actions fo~ the fo~me~ lagoon a~ea are
i~ 0::: nay p~tentially affect' a base (100 yea~) floodplain and/or a
w~tlands. The Statement of Findings will include the following:
1.
The ~easons why the proposed action ~ust be located in o~ affect
the floodplain or wetlands.
'2. "~description 'Of significant facts considered in making the
cecision to locate in or affect the floodplain or wetlands
including alternative sites and actions.
3.
A statement lndicating whethe~ the p~oposed actions conforms to
the applicable State or local floodplain protection standa~ds.
4.
A descrJpt ion of, the ,steps, ,t,aken .,t,o"d"e,s;iglil ,,0::: ,'mo.d,if:!y;::t'h:e':.p::~O.pOS€d
:act'ion ,t'o,'m,in,m,i'Z'e;p'Oteb'td,~I:)ha'r'm, .~to :Q:::i~"i:t;h,in
-------
~~e p~oposed action in the Kettle Pond a~ea will be implemented
L~ a rnanne~ consistent with State (310 CMR 10.00 Pa~ts I and III)
a~c local floodplain standa~ds.
~sign and const~uction activities ~e1ated to the implementation of
the ~e~edial ~esponse action p~oposed will include the best p~actical
~easu~es to-minimize potential ha~m to o~ within the floodplain and
wetlands. Initial design has conside~ed the need to cont~ol potential
ad\e~se ir~actsi e~osion, sediment and contaminant migration, both
du~ing const~uction and ~esu1ting f~orn any topog~aphic and subsu~face
~~ainage changes necessa~y to the ~p1ementation of this action. .
Cont~ol Deasu~es will be conside~ed in mo~e detail du~ing the final
design phase of this action.
usrng the best practical measu~es to control potential adverse
Lmpacts will reduce possible harm f~om siltation and further degradatior
~om contamination to the floodplain and wetlands, which are adjacent
to but not part of the a~ea to be excavated. Successful implementation
of this action will eliminate the potential health risks. Potential
ad~e~se effects on aquatic species in the Hocomonco Pond and
cischa~ge stream will also be addressed.
?~though the proposed action could have potential adverse impacts
in the short-term, the action p~ovides for long-te~m benefits for
the ~~ediate wetland a:ea and adjacent wetlands. Upon completion
cf the excavation, the wetland will be restored. Restoration of
the wetland will include establishing necessa~y topographic conditions
to assure proper surface water runoff and infilt~ation characteristics.
-------
Appendix D
, ' ',.s.t:a',t'ement:','b'.f,'F'i'nding's
Hocomonco Pond Site
~oposed Remedial Response Act ion
Hocomonco Pond and Discharge Stream
-------
In accordance with EPA policy and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990
concerning Floodplains and Hetlands, the following Statement of
Finding has b~en prepared. The Statement of Finding is part of the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hocomonco Pond Site and further
serves to notify the general public and affected agencies that
proposed remedial response actions for the former lagoon area are
in or may potentially affect a base (100 year) floodplain and/or a
wetlands. The Statement of Findings will include the following:
1.
The reasons why the proposed action must be located in or affect
the floodplain or wetlands. .
2.
A description of significant facts considered in making the
decision to locate in or affect the floodplain or wetlands
including alternative sites and actions.
3.
A statement, indicating whether the proposed actions conforms to
the. applicable State or local floodplain protection standards.
4.
A description of the steps taken to design or modify the proposed
action to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain
or wetlands.
5.
A-statement indicating how the proposed action affects the
natural or beneficial values of the floodplain wetlands.
The proposed remedial response action for Hocomonco Pond and discharge
stream consists of mechanical dredging of contaminated sediments
with on-site disposal. The decision process leading to the selection
of this action and a detailed discussion of the action and other
alternative actions are documented in the ROD.
The decision to locate in a floodplain and wetland was based .on the
fact the area of contamination is so located. The decision to
proposed remedial action in this area rather than take no action
was based on the public health, welfare and environmental risks
associated with this area of contamination. The health risks
related to the accidental contact or ingestion of sediments contaminatec
with hazardous chemicals, creosote compounds, was a significant
factor considered in making this decision. To reduce the potential
health risk associated with contaminants in Hocomonco Pond, the
pond has been closed to recreation. The proposed action would,
coupled wit~ other actions propose for the storm drain (refer to
the ROD, former lagoon area), allow for future recreational
use of the pond.
The action proposed for the Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream is
consistent with State (310 CMR 10.00 Parts I and III) and local
floodplain standards.
Design and construction activities related to the implementation of
-------
, .
I
measures to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain and
wetlands. Initial design has considered the need to control
potential adve.rse impacts;., er.osia.n, serlJ.me,nt .andcont,a,m,ina.nt
. ,mi-s;r:at.ion 'I,b,oth 'curing .cons t ruct:ionand ,rie:s'u'l.t.,tng :i,r:om., an ytopo-
graphic changes necessary to the implementation of this action.
Control ceasures will be considered in more detail during the final
design phas~ of this action.~
Using the best practical measures to control potential adverse
impacts will reduce possible harm from siltation and further
'. ,Q,egr,.a.da,tion : "f,r,om. ",oo-J),t,amina.,tiol1.. ',to' ;,the f l.oodpl:a:iTI.anrl '.;wet 1~and5 ,
wbi.ch ~epar:t'-cf::t,be,:;ar.ea ,:'~tobe'.ex;ca:V'a:t.:e,d,..s\if.coe'S'S fu l'i:mpleme''n t 'at i on
of this action will eliminate the potential health risks. Potential
adverse effects on aquatic species in the Hocornonco Pond and discharge
stream will also be addressed.
~though the proposed action could have potential adverse impacts
in the short-term, the action provides for long-term benefits for
the ilTl1i1ediate wetland area and adjacent wetlands. Upon completion
-------
Appendix E
Statement of Findings
Hocomonco Pond Site
Proposed Remedial Response Action
Otis St:.-eet
Septemt>e:.- 1985
-------
I~ acco~aance with EPA policy and Executive O~de~s 11988 and 11990
conce~n L"g Floodplains and ~';etlands, the follow ing Statement of
"F,ir.d,ing. ,,ha.s ~b,ee,.n.:p:::,e,p~,ed'e' ,T;fl\e $t:,acte.ment'G'f .'F)t'md.ingi-sp'a=t ,'O'fthe
,~c.o~;:d ,0£ [)eo~is"d;.on ;',('ROD,) ~.if:o~ ~~t:he',~:Hoco:norvc'.o ,.;Pon;d 'S:t't:':eandfu~ the~ .
se~ves to notify the gene~al public and affected agencies that
p~cposed ~emedial =esponse action fo~ Otis St~eet is in o~ may
potentially-affect a base (IDO yea~) floodplain and/or a wetlands.
~'e Statement of Findings includes the following:
1.
The ~easons why the p~oposed action must be located in 0= affect n
:.tbe';:'f1oodip.+'a'd:n: '0:- .;-wetl'ands.
2.
A desc=iption of significant facts considered in making the
decision to locate in or affect the floodplain 0= wetlands
including alte=native sites and actions.
3.
A statement ~ndicating whethe= the p=oposed actions confo=ms to
the applicable State 0= local floodplain p~otection standa=ds.
.:!~4, e. ':A.'..'des'C':'>i'pt:;'ion"of 'J~he.'$',teps,;~ajk:l€'n .;to'o,e:s ,i,9n;:o~:'m'od d.fy the proposed
""a'~tj;on ..t'oi'!rdn'inriz:e'''po't"e'n't ial "'h'a=m .to or with int'he"f'loodpla in
o~ wetlands.
5.
A statement indicating how the p~oposed action affects the
natu=al o~ beneficial values of the floodplain wetlands.
The p~oposed ~ernedial =esponse action fo~ Otis St=eet consists of
sealing the open-joint sto~m d=ain pipe that runs along the east
side of the street. The decision process leading to the selection
of this action and a detailed discussion of the action and other
al:ernative actions a~e documented in the ROD.
. The ::::'..eas:OJ1 ,the..;p:::'PPo'SE!:tL :a.c,ti.on ,.mus,t':be. "lo'Ca,te:o ','.,in' .:or .'\affe.ct .a
floodplain or.wetlands is that this section of Otis Street and
contaminant migration pathway (sto~m d~ain pipe) a~e 50 located.
The p~oposed actions a~e located in a base (100 year) floodplain and
wetlands of the Assabet Rive~. Activity necessary to the implementation
of the remedial action could affect the floodplain and wetlands. '
The decision to locate in or affect a floodplain and wetland is
. .bas.e.d. ..on.the.,f,a,c..t that: "".Ot.is. St,:;"e.e.,t""and. ;.t-h€: oon:,tam.in,a-n::t' ~m;'i:qr:at~ion
e;p.athway ..are '\s:o.>:loc:at:ed", The :,..;de-c.:l's..ion',;tD : .:p::::'sopo:s<€' !},:::,eme:o'i:al ,.:"act . ion in
this area rather than take no action was based on the public health,
.'e!.fa~e and environmental conce~ns. Potential adve~se impacts to
the public health, welfa~e and environment =elated to mig=ation of
hazardous chemicals to the Hocomonco Pond discharge stream su~face
water was a significant factor cpnside~ed in making this decision.
The remedial action will effectively p~ovide adequate p~otection for
pl1~.:1:::ic "'heicd:t'h"and,tne::envi;::-onrne!l't .
~~~ ~~oposed action will, cou~led with othe~ actions proposed for
-------
discha~ge st~eam), will help ensu~e that a significant wetland is
not adve~sely impacted by conta~ination.
The p~oposed action in the Otis St~eet
in a manne~ consistent with State (310
and local floodplain standa~ds.
a~ea will be implemented
C~R 10.00 Pa~ts I and III)
Design and const~uction activities ~elated to the implementation of
the ~enedial ~esponse action p~oposed will include the best p~actical
measu~es to minimize potential ha~rn to o~ within the floodplain and
wetlands. Initial design has conside~ed the need to cont~ol adve~se
impacts; e~osion, sediment and co~taminant mig~ation du~ing const~uction
Cont~ol measu~es will be conside~ed in mo~e detail du~ing the final
design phase of this action.
Using the best p~actical measu~es to cont~ol potential adverse
impacts will reduce possible ha~m to the floodplain and wetlands
f~om siltation and fu~the~ deg~adation by contamination.
"
I
-------
APPE~DIX F -
"\}('E'TTCi'E ':'POND. :'SOTL ~R;E'MOVAL
-------
The objective of Kettle Pond remediation is to preserve the quality
of a groundwater resource for current and potential users by reducing
soil and groundwater contamination to that which would result in
groundwater quality at the property boundary not exceeding background
quality, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) or Alternate Concentration
Limits (ACL's).
u
The alternative recommended for remediation of the Kettle Pond
conLamination involves soil/waste excavation for on-site disposal.
Groundwater is very shallow in the area of Kettle Pond and therefore
the area will be dewatered by use of a well-point system before
excavation. The effluent from this system will be treated via a
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment system before discharging
to Hocomonco Pond and the ground for recharge. Therefore, groundwater
treatment will occur over the period of excavation.
The primary lim~ts of soil excavation for this ROD have been chosen
based on visual contamination criteria.
Following is a discussion of the rationale for this limit of excavation
and for selection of additional incremental volumes of soil to be
excavated (supplemental ROD) upon completion of visual contamination
excavation and the Pond dewatering/groundwater treatment system.
Additional excavation beyond visual contamination criteria will be
based on an assessment of soil and groundwater contaminant types
and concentrations present at that time. '
The mobility and/or persistenge of contaminants in the soil/groundwater
influence the environmental fate of these contaminants. Within
the soil/groundwater environment, various mechanisms take p~ace
that ,affect the characteristics, concentrations and behavior of
the contaminants. Sorption onto soil particles, solubility, and
degradation by soil 'microbes are major factors affecting contaminant
concentrations. The factors affecting environmental fate are to-
some extent compound specific. The chemical and physical characteristic:
of a compound will influence the degree of adsorption, degradation
and mobility.
Soil type and pH also influences the extent of sorption to soil
particles. Table 3 and 4 are summaries of organic contamination at
the Kettle Pond.
The organi~ contaminants present on-site generally have low solubilities
and high adsorption (Kd) coefficients. However, some of the organic
contaminants (e.g. benzene and napthalene, 2-4 methyl phenol and
phenol) are highly soluble and have a low adsorption coefficients
(~), making these the most mobile of contaminants below Kettle
Pond.
Anthracene, fluoranthene, chrysene, benzo
(a) pyrene have very low solubilities and
capabilities resulting in little mobility
in aquatic systems.
(a) anthracene and benzo
high adsorption.
-------
,.
Data is limited on the specific contaminants and concentrations in
the soil horizon immediately below visual contamination. However,
this soil zone .appears to be contaminate.d w.Lth ..contami.n.a,f.l.tsw..Lth a
range. o;fs.olub.i:l:d.:ti.e's ''.:from .Ve'ir.y ;'ID.wto'.h,i,gh ,(~te.'g..."napbAa,lene .and
a:1thracene). Also, data on the composition of waste (visible
cont~~:nation) in the Kettle Pond suggests that chemicals with a
wice range 6f solubilities and adsorption capacities are present.
I '
As wou:d be expected, groundwater quality data downgradient of Kettle
Pond detected mostly contaminants with high solubilities (e.g.
ba rlze.ne""phenol" ,..andnapthale,ne,).,.
With additional soi1 testing and analysis we will further ascertain
the chemical characteristics of the soil below visual contamination
to determine if soluble contaminants are still present, which will
contribute to future groundwater contamination.
Adcitional volumes of soil, beyond the visual level, will be excavated
if it is determined that this is necessary to reduce groundwater
.,c.o.nt..a.mina,t.iDt1 . "t.o ,.a,cce'p,t.~b:l..ac:c,Qunt . ,tihe"e.f.fect o'f.t:'he ...de;watJerrng ::
-------
,
.. ,
RESPONSIVENESS ~y FOR THE HOCOMONCO POND SITE
I.
Introduction
This responsiveness su~ary for the Hocomcnc~ ?ond Site documents for the
p~blic record conc:~ns and issues raised durin; r~~edial planning, comments
raised during the c~UQent period on the F;:sibility Study, and the r;sponse of
E?~ a.~d the State to those concerns. .
. .
~. .
11. Conce;ns Raised Prior to the Feasibility Study Comment Period
The following community relations activities were undertaken to solicit com-.
ments fro.O\ and inform interested parti"es of the Feasibility Study process:
o
The Community Relations Plan for the Hocomonco Pond Site was pre-
pared by E?A in August 1983. Prior to a field investigation of the
site, EPA contracted with NUS Corporation which subcontracted
locally to TRC Environ~ental Consultants, Inc., to perform a
R~~edial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for assessment and
remediation of contamination at the site.
o
A press release'announcing a public meeting on the work plan for the
Remedial Investigation was sent out in January of 1984.
o
Info~ation repositories were established at the ~estborough Town
Hall and the Public Library in January of 1984.
o
Tne Remedial Action Master Plan (~~) and Detailed RIFS Work Plan
were s'e!'lt t:) the infor:nation repositories in January 1984.
o
A public meeting was held Wednesday. February 15, 1984, to discuss'
EPA's involvement in the site and proposed response actions.
o
Periodic contact between Board of Health and Remedial Project
Manager to update progress and plans.
_. 1
-------
- COmIT.unity interest in the Hocomonco Pond Site cates back to 1976, when the
for~e~ lagoon area was breached duringinstallaticn of a sto~ sewer which
dis~ha..-;:s t:> 'the Pond. In the SiJITr.':er of 1930, t:wn officials we:-e notified -.-
by ! r:sicent abou't'an oily dischar;e fro~ the stOrill sewe:- drainage pipe
,.(::O:::::n=...,i:y ,Ji=l;,t~'Dns' '?:l~ <\f Dr':iRem=1:r=,:'1.1::'Inv:=~~ ;:ati:cn:enxr:.F>e:!S'''rb:; llq!ty Study at
t:,e Hc:cwO:ic:> ?or.dSite, August 1983). Tr.e si:= W~ proposed for inclusion o~
, ~he Na-:ior.al Priorities list (N?l) in De:Ei1cer of 1982.
.
.
I
;
o
A"press release announcing public informational meeting on remedial
investigation and public hearing on L~ feasibility study was sent
out.
. .
" .
'Three wain issues were raised by local officials and citizens during the RIfFS'
-
. phase and pri,or to -the public cO!l1'i1ent period for the site. These were
"
. ,
o
tensern about the threat of groundwater contamination, which would
have the potential for affecting the Otis Street municipal well, was
expressed by local residents and local officials.
o
Local fisherman expressed displeasure over the loss of a recrea-
tional resource by the closure of the pond to fishing.
,.>1),
, - , ~tonce\rn,:'~-s', ~e'X.'P~;':b1',::'Smi'.th-:Yal~1! ,:Comp'an:Y~i{re:p-reseo~atu'se'
-------
result of wood-treating operations from the Montan Treating Company and
American Lumber and Treating Company. This does not, however, rule out the
potential for liability of Smith Valve Company.
III. Concer~s Rais:d During the Feasibility St~dy Comment Period
Q
The final RIfFS was released to the public on July 1, 1985.. Copies
report were placed at the westborough Town Hall and Public Library.
the r~port was also se~t t~ the Srnit~ Valva ~~any.
of the
A copy of
A public meeting was held on July 1, 1985, at t,e Westborough Town Hall at
7:00 PM for'the purpose of explaining the RIfFS. Present at the meeting were
Jim Ciriello, Site Project Officer of the ErA Superfund Branch; Bruce
Marsh~ll, an EPA geologist; Debra Prybyla, Public Affairs Manager of the EPA
Superfund Branch and Patty D'Andrea, EPA project liaison. From the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, Depar~~ent of Environmental Quality Engineering was
project engineer Joe Ellis. F\om NU~ Corporation, EPA's prime consultant on
the project were Ken Byrd, Matt Soltis and Jane Holderman. Representing TRC,
Environmental Consultants, Inc., NUS's sub-contractor, were 8ill Beck, Paul
. .
Burgess and Scott Friedman. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting and
asked a series of questions pertaining to site activities. An eight-page fact
sheet on the RIfFS and the various alternatives was distributed at the
meeting.
A public hearing was held at the Westborough Town Hall on July 10, 1985 at
7:00 PM to officially receive co~ents related to the FS and remedial action
from the community. Testimony provided at the meeting was recorded by a steno-
typist. Merrill Hohman, Director of the EPA Waste Manag~~ent Division of
~e9ion I, chaired the meeting. Also in attendance from EPA was Jim Ciriello,
~ite Project Officer; from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Qua~ty Engineering was project engineer Joe Ellis; from NUS Corporation was
Seoff McGean. Testimony was provided by 2 town officials,S citizens, 1 state
official. and 1 representative of a potentially responsible party (PRP). The
comment period was extended to July 24, 1985.
3
..
.. .
"
. .. .
-------
The health risk assessment ~ submitted to the Town and PRP's for review on
Septenb~r 4, 1985. At th~s ~i~e EPA opened a new comment period which ended
':;.Se;'p,te:Dbe,r"~2:5.;.. )leB5~."tD~-
-------
.
Index to Community Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Offsite Disposal (EPA)
Hocomonco Pond Dredging (EPA)
Otis Street Capping (EPA)
F~ture ~esponsibilities (E?A)
Stability of Contamination Levels (~US/TKC)
Ongoing Monitoring of Otis St~eet ~ell (NUS)
Period of Testing (E?A)
" 0
5.
6.
7.
~
o.
Safety of ?=nd for Human Use (NUS)
9. Drinki"9 water Quality (NUS)
10. Testing Prior to N?~ Listing (EPA)
11. Reverse Runoff (NUS/TRC)
12. E?A Involvement (EPA)
13. Westborough Liability (EPA)
14. Onsite Disposal (ErA)
15. Storm Sewer (EPA)
16. ~ater Drainage System Effects (EPA)
017. Site Fencing (EPA)
"
.
-------
1.
;,-; CnlB""n HY Cone errl
, -\--
Offs itt! bisl!os,1l ,.> ,
The Westboroll"" Unarcl,nf Seleclmcn support
remov~J Jand i 15p0541), ~f the materials from
the FotM(!r lllUoon ancLK6tt 1 Q Pond I\reasby the
most cost-effective mdafls. One local c1~1zen
is concerned about thU amount of material that
would have to he moved.
"
,!
;..... .,
Itcspon~~.
. ._4 ~
.,
. .
Whil t 15 cst tma ted to ho 10.000 f:llh 1 c ynrds bf
wasto matar,f,al in tho Formor .La!}oon will not he
removed. MrinHor1ng wall clnU hlll1ccliately down-
gradient ~'-t' the Formcr Lagn~~:; I"IIlc.lle lha~,Jt is
not 'currerJ~.y a source of groUndwater cont~nfha-
t ion. Sirtti groundwater coHhm1nat ion 'is not'
currently ~ bdcuri n9, the appriil1r1 ate remed 1 af.
response 15.. to car t:he at'ca t., ensure Droundwahr
e0t1taltl1nation does not tJttur. tn the futl/re, A
tar wil1 b@;jh ~ff~tti~o tnriEru1 lu prolect
pul)He he41th, we".r~, ,.11f1. Uie en...,i,.cmlllcnl:, The
storm dra1~whtch passes neU to the Former,:,.
Lagoon w1lLbe relocated loprevent future 'coh-
taminant n11grat ion, vi a the ,drain, to the sUrface
water and $C!diments of lIocoJftonco Pond..
..
What is e~tiinated to be appfb~imately 2<1,000.
cubic yard~_of waste materl~l~ In the Kcttlc'Pbnd
aroa wi 11,b~ excavated and rlhposr..1 of in att.
on-s He 1 iihtlfl1 1 located nc~t lo the Former -::.
Lagoon. Th~ on-sHe lanclfl1(wlll he const~~cted
to accept \ioiaste from the lIociili1onco Ponel s 1t~ . :
. only. The$~ remedl a 1 act 1 o~s.are cuns i dered.the
mos cost-effective remuclles fOt. lhe conditfohs
at this sH~. "Cost-effective" as IIsed in uh-
cuss10ns drjuperfund remediaf alternatives.H
defined by )tK>.60( 1) of the .hU 10na 1 Contingency
Plan to mean "the lowest cost alternative that is
technolog1ta)ly feasible and ~eltable and whith
effect1vely~1tigates and mlhl~izes damage to and
provides ade~uate protect1o~~f public healthi
we 1f are, ot the env i ronmen t. II '
-------
c
2.
Community Concerni
Hocomonco Pond Or~dg1ng
The Board of Selectmen support the use of
mechanical dred9ing. They conclude that hy-
draulic dredgl"9 would have the potential for
contaminating the Town's water supply from the
Otis Street Well:
Res\)onse
The U.S. Environmental Protection ~gency also
supports the use of mechanIcal drcd9tng of con-
taminated sediments from 1I0coll1onco Ponel.
-------
.
I
,
.
";
. I
,
'j
. ,
,I
, I'
, '
"
"
"
- .'-. . .
~.
',> : C~un i tj Concern
bt Is; Slreol Capp ~t!l . ., .,,,
"h~' capp~ng 'ot tiu: 0t"" Str~Qt cmbttnkme"i
\rib 1~ Q~ accctt~obld ,d,:,lhu Town if UUf Hdd1lh
8n ,.'etlof lho 10td, restduhts can ~d '
ensured artd the cdst ot inbnHoring is borne by
.ome bthu~ ~arty~
~
',' "":I
. .
"es~
. , .;~,
, L,
c~~~~n~' ot ~he ea!tf'bmhdtlk"jbUl ~r Ut U ~tr:~i!i h
adt ct1n~ide,'''ed lhe inos~ clJ~t~,,'uffm~L Ivt! rcm~,:d) for
lith drl!a~J Tho sb1acldd "clh~tI1. slHI1\ny br.. U1t!
s tdt-Iddratn, wU 1 Inodt lilt! IHth 1 It: ItcilHh' iI~f ' ,
t!nIJ1rdnl1tt!",' tit1 rt!spntlse u".1dt~I~t1s hy lirt!Vt!tit'rtd
~on~lub1n8htmidrat Inn Inlu :lOu hfHm-jd4t1t,t . ': '
dr. i riiSgd ~YUeltt and subsbttliorit tI f !icllclrut! ot con..
tattti Hi t fbt1 ~d ~Ut"t del wctl~r th tho lIoculntJr1to Pond
tJhthotOt!{Uream. rtU! cb~t ijt lIIunJ lurthU ~(jd1d
Horml111 ~e the rus!1bt1!i wJ 1t ~y tit lIl€! .State! If .
1t"~ ~t',gJUt~; h, fUNd Ad h) LU,U,',,511lturtynJ& ht1~Qy',':U";
ejjehd Ing,)Jb ' the t1UtcOllltJ bfo "Oant 1a tf utts oMlor
i\i~8tfo"-wflh pot~htld1 ~b~~nh9tb1c ~art'e-
(P~~s). j the: PRPs cnu1d he 1 hb1d tut' lilt! cbst of
ntOM ~ tor 1 t1u. ;' rhu sll~j cel ot " " ' , "
reSponsfbi11ty/l1ahil1!1h dtl(jr~5St!dh1 dfeatl!r
delai 1 in tbe rest'0r15e ld CtJllillur1Hy Cbrttnf.!nl Ht!1tt
4. tutut"~ r~s~ons1bi1ftfu~.
-------
"
Conmllnity Concern
4. Future Responsib1~lttes
The Board of Selectmen included the following
eight questions regarding the town's l~abl11ty
in the event of future problems at the site:
4. Who would pay for the monitoring costs in
the future? With State and Federal budget
cuts, changes in administration, etc.,
~unds might dry up to monitor the site.
b. Who would be responsible for any future
contamination caused by any number of
reasons, including natural disasters,
natural processes, vandalism, etc.? .
c. Who would be responsible for replacement
of the containment systems, including the
caps, lining of onsite disposal area,
etc.?
d. Who would be responsible if tile designed
systems failed to provide the necessary
protection of tlle environment?
e. Who'wollld be responsible if future Federal
or State regulations should require that
the hazardous' waste contained on this site
be removed and incinerated, or the like?
f. Who would be responsible for future poten-
tial health problems that are undetected
because of present technology?
I
I . .
()
!tespol1se
The liabilities of the Town of Westhorough for
the Uo'Comonco Pond sHe would arlsl! from their
ownership and operation of the storm drain
running from Smith Parkway into lIocomonco Pond.
Section 107 of CERCLA states that the owner and
operator of a facility is l1able for al1 costs:
incurred at a Superfund site consistent with the.
National Contingency Plan. This p1an is set out
at 40 C.F.R Part 300. Thus, if a court were to
determine that the Town was liable tmder the
. Superfund act, the Town could hI! held liable for
costs of responding to hazardous substances at
the si tee If the Town were not fOllnd to be
liahle by a court, the following answers would
response to questions ~a - f.
a.
Defore remedh 1 construct'lon is initiated at
a Superfund site, EPA and Lhe State enter
into a contract wherein the State assures
that it will provide all necessary operation
and maintenance fat' lho (!xpected lIseful life
of the remedial action. Monitoring is typi-
ca 11 y cons' dered all OIIt~I.8tl on ilrJd mil' n tenance
responsibility'assumed hy the State. With
respect to adequate fund1n9 for monitori~g,
the State is required to provide as part of
the contract an operation and maintenance
plan that addresses the source of funding for
its responsibilities.
-------
'-. ~,' Coolt1un t ty toncerh
4. future Respons I h ~,1t I C!S (Con t 'd. )
g. Wt~b_wotlld ht! rospb~~ih10 for thc adUctJ
cdsts to lhe Town uddcr lIny scenario:: 1.0.,
hte:rcascd COSt. of 10surancc, police .ptotec..
tf~ri. 1055 of 1ns~~'nce coverage, t~sting
of wells, etc.? .
h. WHat happens and wh6 pays if condHiohs at
tt1~ site change; tee.. higher water tab1es,
@te .1
.
_..
nl!S~O"SU .'
b, c, ,nnd ch-)\ 11 SlIpcrfun(1 s H~s in the country
have h(Jcn placed on tho National Pr10rit{es
List oh ~hc hasis of lho):hreat thoy po~~ to
public.,h9alth. welfare ana,lho onv1ronmqot.
So 10n9-_s a sHe rema1m;.~" the list, it ,
would 1egally he e1tglbl~ tor monte's frOm the
Superf~riq .for necessary future, remedial'
activ1tH!s.
@. tPA hfi. t~k~n lh~ pnsiti~dlhat CEnClA
rQnu~d.hLa(:tttJ"s tn'" "nt- 1~fH,11y 5"hjoct to
the reqHJremenh of othnf federal and state
env1rohm~ntal statutes, Inil that as a miiUer
, of polfe.t, the 1\gency wi11 sl!lcct alterna..
tives th,t meet relevc1l1t ilhcl applicable
federa1 Standards.
. .
, .
f. See anSw~rs to h. C i1nd d ohnvc.
g. IncreaSE!~ costs to the Town would, under the
current SUl1erfunrileulslhl-lon, he borne by
the Town~
II
h. See anSwers to' b, c and (I ahove.
: '.
.
-------
.'
c
5.
.'
Community Concern'
: I
Stability of cortalnination .levels
A local citizen on the Westborough Conserva-
tion Conmtssion inquired about the stability
of the contamination problem. Is the situa-
tion stable or, is. it. getting worse?
The fm'mer lagoon area co'ns tsls of'sol1
contamination as a r(!sult of historic waste
d i SpOSii 1 pract Ices. The source area t S genera Ily
stahle, however, contam1nonl migration does oc.:ur
through the storm da Inlnlo Ilocomonco Pond
following heavy rainfall.
The Kettle Pond soil conlaminatton is not stable
in terms of the o.n!Jotn!) .conllllilinant leachate
prodllc t1 on and the result I IIU !wollnc!wa ter con-
tam1nation downgrarltent of I.ho area.
Response
. '
The Otis Street area illJpears slahle. lIowever,
trace levels of groun(lwaler cnnlomlnallon were
detected.
The contaminaterl sediments appear relatively
stable in lIocomonco I)ond. Welter Cluallty within
the pond was free of contaminants. The creosete
compounds have chemical properties whereby they
are generally hl~hly ahsorbed to sediments, and
therefore relativoly In.nobl1e. Ourlng high flow
conditions, eroston of contaminated sediments
could occur causing further downstream migration.
Some sediment transport (Iowns tream also occurs
. under normal conditions which may result tn con-
tinued contamfnated sediment transport down-
stream.
-------
'.'
,
. .
','
'0
.,
6.
. Con.llun I.iy Conce,n
9nQo1hg Mont ~~~ of.Otts Street Well
A 10ca1 restclent aSkf:<1 whether or not onbo1ng .
monitoring of the Otis Street Well wt11be
discussed in t,he ftnal remedial action plan.
lJased on~he rusults of lIio 'lyllt'()!leolo!J leal. In-
vestlgc1tlo.~\, It hilS h~~n clull!r'lIIllIeti thut Lharc Is
no pOlun,tf.Dl for conll1l11lnUfil:IIII!Jt'allon Inlothe
we 11. F9rther t there Is no I>otonli ill for cfutut'c
contamfn~tton assuming thnl.lhe well continues
pumping ~t1ts prescnt ratb; I : .
Addition,g.t supplies wells :th that area may
chango f~()\'i comlil tons an(I)!~ul fer response and
the conn~ct1ons to IIOCOIIIOIICO Ponel would have to
bc asscsJed at that tilllo. . Contfnued water
qUlIl1ly I~Ori1tor1no at lhe Oth Street well as
well as ~hq effects of con~trllct 1ng addfl fbr1al
supply w~ns in that area ~oilld necessarily be
addressed Linder the Massachusetts Water Supply
Guidelines. . .
... ."~-1
"esJ!!!~£
-------
<:
Cnmnlin I ty Cnncer~
7. 'Period of Testink
A ct then ques t 1 oned why "it (took) 50 long".
to determine the areas of contamination if
(all the) testing.was done between 1967 and
1980.
Response
Creosote, buried on-site was discovered during
the construction of the jG" storm drain from
Smith Parkway in 1976. Subsequent to that di s-
covery, several studies were conducted by the
State and private parties on-sile (refer to
ConmunHy Conment No. 10). These studies were:
conducted over the period of time .from 1971 to
1982 .
"
The EPA became involveel in ,lune 1902, during the
site evaluation conducted as pilrt of the sHe
ranking process for ellgihllHy for superfund
s La tus. The sHe was ranked In Oc \:oher 1902,
according to hazarlls Identified and the potential
hea lth threat re lalecl to those! hazards. As a
result of the ranking, the site WilS proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities list (Super-
fund sHes) in December 19nZ. The sHe was
included on the NPL as the lIocoll1onco Pond SHe.
The EPA conduc ted a general s Ile 111 spec l1 on in
January 1983. A more detailecl sHe survey was
conducted for the EPA by the NUS Corporation,
Field Investigation Team, in May 1903. The site
inspection and survey provided the information to
determine the scope of the Remedial Investigation
and Feas ibl11ty Study conducled during the period
of February 1904 through the spring of 1985.
It is clear from the preceding discussion that
all the testing was not done hetween 1967 (19761)
and 1900. The reason "it took so long" is that
the process the EPA must follow (defined by the
National Contingency Plan ~O C.F.R. Part 300) is
. ,
. .
'. .
-------
, '
, ' COl1lntfn' toY, Concer;'
7. 'Period. ot Tesl tJ (Coriltd.)
Rnsponsc "
very deta1,h~lI anrl comprchcnstvh. 1hls process is
np.cessary to:ensllre lhal the ex lent and character
of the problem are propcrly.dl!fIncli In ordcrlo
sc 1 ec t an itpfJropr tale and cOIllltrclum s I vc remi:!d ta 1
response.
.,
. .
-------
.,
..
. '.
"
<:
8.
COInnun 'ty Concerrl
S~fety of Pon.1 fo~ Ihllnan list!
A citizen questioned what criteria were used
to determine the Pond to be safe for public
swimming. A related question was set forth
regarding the le!'9th of time it would take to
clean up the "area".
,
Response
Prior to initiation of this study, the Pond had
already been posted as a no-sw1"lntn~ area.
Therefor~, the study proc(~(lcd from lhe standpoint
that the pond had previously been determined to
be unfit for swimming by the Westhorou~h Board of
Health. It has heen determined that an actual
health risk associated with coming in direct
contact (1.e., dermal, inhalation, ingestion)
with the contaminated substances does exist.
Through implementing the rellled-Jal action
involving mechanical dred~ll1!J of lhe contaminated
sediment, recreational restrictions concerning
public use could he removed In LJIP. future. This
action would be effective and permallcnt since the
source(s) of contamtnatlon would he eliminated
through remedial actions at lhe former lagoon and
Kettle Pond areas.
" .
-------
" COllll1unlli.":,oncern'
9. 'Or1nk1~gjrli1tm. f}1\i1l1I.Y
~. ," '.~
, . .
A c1t1zc~ ilskr.cl for' n!tf1t~nr.ndat1ons regrirding
the uUlity nf lhe OlU.$lreet Well in the.
event that lIocoll1onco Pond is not cleaned. tip.
There waS concern ahou~ Jhe safety of water
usage 1~ the ar~a. F1ria}ly, the c1t1zeri asked
if EPA would recOO1nend the water resource~ as
suitab le for human conSulhpt ion.
-
f.: ". -~
nes[!onsq ,.
The Otis SttelH Well is curre!,Uy LIl~ln9 used.'
AchIH'1ona1l1"tesltn!j I)CrrUl'III~rI ilL lht! Otis'
Street Well ,d~tected nn or!)alllc.,conlillnlnl1nl. '.
Therefore, t~Js cons1r1Ct"e.1 o~tllrr(!lIlly silfd}or
human use/cqosumpt Ion. lIowevt!r. the ~WolJl\dw~f~r
in the KettJ~~Pond Area Is noE.tecomncnded fdt: :
human consu~p~ion since it is .c~nt~ninated. trie
risks 1nvolye~ wilhsllch IIse ~r~ presented iri~he
Risk Assessment sectIon of th~.r:eas1bil1ty Study.
(Slich use 15 riot tak1n!) plnce at the present.
time. )
, - .
, ' ,
Under prese~tPlJmrtng conclttl~ht the Otis Str~~t
well does not. draw water frol11.I1()colllonco Pond ~t
the areas s6~theast of it (Ke~tJe Pond). As
previously noted, constrlJct1o~bf additional, "
wells in the_dxist1ng Otis Str~~t well area may
chan!)e groUl1dw,a ter flow 1 n to I:hn t area and th~
effects of this would he evalilaled at that time.
~, .
-------
'.
C01111111n t ty Concern'
10. Testinq Prior lo ~PL LlsUng
A ci then inqu ired ahout the names and dates.
of testing to determine the water resource
(Otis Street well). is fit for human consump-
t ion prior to EIJA involvement at the Hocomonco
Pond sHe. It 1's assumed then the c it i zen
wanted record of the agency (e.g., Common-
wealth) or f Inn name.
n(~sl!Qn sp.
Sever a 1 stud 1 es were con(llIcLccl a t the lIocomonco
Pond SHc prtor to U.S. EPI\ 1nvolvement. The
compahtes 1nvolved and the purpose of the studtes
are ltsted below:
Ju 1 y and August 1971 ami 1\1I9t.S t 1902 - I
Massachusetts Department of Envlronmcntal
Engineering (DEQE) 'sampled fish from the
Uoeomonco Pond to evalliate slock density,
due t Ion and b i oaccumu 1 a l1 on () f chem i ca 1 s
f1sh.
Qua 11 ty
repro-
by
November 1979 and 1902 - Massachusetts Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife Investtgaled ftsh kills
in ttocomonco Pond.
1900 - Flynn Engineers, Inc. was retained by
Smith VAlve Company, Inc. Lo locat.e the sot/rce of
creosote and to study the feaslhility of relocat-
1ng the storm drainage pipe.
September 1901 - Whitman and IInward, Inc.
prepared a report, lhe Wes\:hol'ollgh Ground Water
Resource Managemenl Stlldy, descrlhing lhe town's
hydrogeo logy and grou",' wa t.er resources. Th Is
study included work related to Olls Strect well
and Its development.
June 1902 - The EPA becamc involved during the
site evaluation conducted as a part of the site
ranking process. The sitc was ranked In October
1982 and proposed for Inclusion on the National
Priority List (Superfund sites) in December 1902.
'.
~. .
-------
- Community toncerh
10. 'Te$ttn~ ~rior to ~PL l Ut tng (Cont t d.)
~.,
Response! ,
,1ulY,onei "tlghst 1902 - MiI~s~d'"sctts Or.~artment
of Envlronil1"htal Quality tn!f'ltul!rlng (nF.QE)
si1Inpled tho blly'faction afll10 storm drain
discharge _..~tI water frorn lhd,ltnnd outlet. ,,'
Octoher 19~2- - Flynn En!J'"e~tj. Inc. complete~;
another st\.dy of lhe lIor.oIll0l1«;ij Pond site. this'
sludy ad{lre~sed the 11ftSt hhlctry and proposf!d a
mt!th(jd of tfeterminintl iuul, rdtlluv tnu and/or ton..
t~in1hU tr@O~ijt~ dn ~htl Ittd.
"
-------
COnlnl/nity Concern
I
Response
11: Reverse Run~ ~
A citizen was concerned ahout "reverse" run-
off from the lIocomnnco Pond sHe affecting.
other areas.
(It is unclear if "reverse runoff" refers to
surface runoff -(overland flow) or to "induced
infiltration" of HocoRlonco Pond water into the
Otis Street well. ooth are responded to
here. )
1\ 11 surface water runoff from lhe site Itse 1f
flows into Uocolllonco Pnnd. Therefore, "runoff
from the sHe" is nol reuardOfI as a pathway for
migration to other adjacent properties. Please
see response to re 1 a led CJIH!S t i on nl/mher f he
under Conmunity Concerns.
As discussed in the response. to Conlnent No.9,
the Otis Street well under present operating
conditions does not induce waler from Hoc-omonco
Pond. However, increases in pump'n!) rales may
alter conditions and the amount of induced 1nfl1-
trat10n would have to Lie evaluated at that time.
'. .
-------
. .. Conmun t ti. ~oncern I
12. EPA In~o1vcnltmt ~
A cH1ten quasUoO(!d whet. EPA bacame 1Ji~oived
in the"~xplornllo"", 1.b.. remedial act1~1-
ties, in thc orCA..
. .
Refer to Item 7.
ReSIJOnsc!
.
-------
Cornman 1 ty Concerh
13. \lestborough L1ah1\ Hy
A cit hen q"~st1oned what the cost to the
Westborough taxpayer would be to clean up the
area.
Itcs\)on se
The cost (if any) to the laxpi\.yers 'In the Town of
Westborollgh cannot he IJet.erllllneri ilt this time.
Since the town has heen nilillcil i\S a potentially
responsible party, it -Is possihle that the town
may have some f Inand i11 II all 111 ty. Th i smatter
will he addressed in m~unl1 atlons or l1'Ugat ion
with the U.S. EPJ\. Tim rcsll1l of the negotia-
t ions and SUbSe'llllmt efft~ct on the taxpayers
cannot be assessed at lilts lime.
~. .
I
-------
(0111"11111 t}t Concern
Respqhsc
14~ Ons1t~;D1sposftl~ ..
Tho Sd'Qcbnon Qxprofi~6d concorn that 6n~s1te
d1sposltl arr.iI would ho constrllcted to receive
was~e from nther st tes as well as lIocomonco
Pond $1te waste. .
04
: t . . "
Tho altern"t tvos IJrosol1lml Ih lhe FS which.
utilize bn--stle disposal ilt'ri flJl' wast.e from lids
s Ile oI11~.. A 1 ami f 111 wUlii.,,- 110 (Iesl tine" ~I\d con-
s truc ted oh the site accnrill tin lo s tand ilr~s se t
forth in; the ResOIwce r.nnsri.'va I: 1 011 ill1li Retovery
I\ct(RCRI\) to dispose of rm1y waste from this
site.
. .
I
-------
15. Storm Sewer
COIn""n t ty Concern'
~
A Selectman raised the concern Ulat the Smith
Parkway Stonn Sewer, whtch was installed in
1976 passes b.V the. Former la!Joon area, 1s only
a minimal contrthutor to contamination in the
Pond, while OI)Crations at the site were
putting (substant1al quantities of) waste in
the pond durin9 operations 50 years ag~.
R ~~I!!!!' s e
Ohjectives of the remedial tnvest1!Jallon were to
rleter~inc the types, locations and extent of con-
tamination that extsts today, past, prescnt and
future mi gration of contamlnatiun an.1 fate of
this contamination. Informatton nn historical
use of the sHe was ohtained early tn the plan-:
n1ng process to develop a rtelcl tllvesti9ation .
program based on hi.slodcal sHe use and disposal
pract tces. Indeed, each area tha t was previously
used for disposal was chartlclcrll.~d. We recog-
nized that waste were plltln the Pond during
operations '10 - (i() years a90 hut also find the
Smi th Parkway stonn sewer is a route of present
and future potential r~leases if not addressed.
.
i .
-------
. -; COlTlrflm 1 ty. Concern
~ . I
16. WatctUraina!]e tyste",.Errccts . .
" co~~ijtor stAted thil~. the long-term ton-
taminat ton of the lIocnmonco Pond would hlive
broader effects 00 We enUre water drainage
system.
Response
Th~ effort lo ollth'(!ss !.II(! c{inlilllllnnt"lon ot tlio
source wI11..offc(:t lhu 1III1\1It1 of Llw wl\tcr In
tho ,lIocomcJnto Ponti anti i1ny 6Umr wilter bodies for
which n 15 11 trlhutary In Lhh future. Effects
on downstre~m water of I;ho ~iI$l ('Io11ut10n
prohlems as~oc1atccl wllh IInr.oit.onco Ponel carinot be
addressed under the scope of Lhe prescpt action.
.
.
i .
-------
Community Concern
.7.
Site fencing
A citizen believes that there are few
effects upon health from contaminants
Hocomonco pond, and suggested fencing
as an alternative to excavation.
':'t-~-~.
o
Response
possible
in
the pond
Refer to PRP comments, items 7 and 10, Risk
~88eBBment Data and potential Contaminant
Exposure. Fencing of Hocomonco Pond itself
would not adequately address the adverse
-------
.. .
1.
Ec~nomic Bur~en (EPA)
~
Index to State Comments
. .
-------
'.
1.
State Comnents i
, \
Economic Ollrd(m
" rcpresontaltvn nf State Senator John Houston
stated thAt lhe Sm,alor Is opposed to the 1dea
that the Town of Westhorou(jh should shoulder
any s1gn1f1cant.amounl of financial burden.
!
c
Response
'.
The! f I nonc 1 Ii 1 hurllon \:0 I.Im t.nwn rr.l a t1 vc to the
lown's st.atus ns n potnnlh11.y t'!1Sl'nnsih1e part}
(PRP) hos yot to ho Ilulcrllllnmi. 1he lown's
financial burden wlll he cleb!t'III'nccl either by
negotiations 'with the [1''' mill nlhm' rHPs. or
through 11 t1gat 1on.o . I
-------
." . .
Index of PRP Comments
I
[ . .
1. Offsite Disposal - for.me:r L.agoon (EPA)
2. Offsite Disposal - Kettle fond (E?A)
3. Hcccrnc;,co Pond Capping lEPA)
4. Otis Street Re:l1edial Act101i1 (E?A)
.5,. . '. ;.u;:-.j,~::: t.f:,i,~,le ,.AJlurati ~5. ,.(i?A)
"6.''f:.t~~i'''1nac~urat'i'!5 ~i:Nt1Smt)
7. . Risk Assessrrent Data(EPA)
. .
... .
Cost-Effective RerreOia1. Adtion (EPA)
8.
9.
De.letianof State as PRP (EPA)
I
I .
."10. . .:.Pote!it:te!.:r~t',~~tEPA)
Pifl.S1tial Use of COntaI'aiI2ted Grounc;water (EPA)
11.
12.
Validi't;y of Risk Assessrrent (EPA)
;;
-------
G
PRP COInncnts
.' ~
1. Off~ite Disposal - Former Lagoon
In general the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) are opposed to offstte disposal. For
the Former La~oon ~rea it was ar~ued that
storm sewer re1Qcation would be a sufficient
remedy. This alternative was justified on the
basis that there was no groundwater contamina-
tion detectcd In lhis area. They argued that
the natural bell of "relatively impervious...
sludges and slaked fines" serve as an adequate
barrier to miaration of contaminants. A .
second PRP recomnended both stonn sewer
relocation and sile grading and capping for
the Former La900n ~rea. This recomnendat10n
was made on lhe basis that this was the only
alternative that dealt directly with the storm
sewer. The PUP did however, note some
amb1guity 1n the FS as to the contribution the
storm sewer was making to the overall levels
of contamination.
(
"
Resl!!!!,se
The U.S. EP~ docs not advocate off-site disposal
of the wastes 111 the former Li1!Jnnn. The remedial
response action se1ecter! fnt" the formcr Lagoon is
site grading and cappin9 with relocation of the
storm drain wh1ch is a lIIi!Jrat1nn route for con-
tamination entering 1I0colllonco Pond. I
-------
PRP cOOIncoh
'.'\. 0'
2. orh"le QlslJOsl\l jKoltln}ond
.'.- -,
Rcspol1sp.
. .
. .
In gcncri!: i tho PRf's ilr~ ttbposcd to offs 1 ~(i
disposal. of ccmt.amtnl'llec'.tnatcrtals from tt1~.;
Kettle Pb~d Arca. .Eithdt ~ no-action or i1te
capp 1 n9 aHcrna tt vo WflS, ~~cOll1nended. Th1 ~ ~as
based on:th~ Filct that thti "principal mtg~~4
tlon rout.e.of site cnnlatntnants...ls from the
Former L.~~on I\rea and not Kettle Pond". ;:
Furthermore. PUPs anJ"r. ~al s I nee '10 years'
have pa~ ~e(j with no 6\111afdn l groundwa tel" ~dh"
tamttlatic)fL (@vt!tI thollUIt. Uh! r=S is ambl!!uoy~ on
thh PQ1~~) t &\ 1onu-tQrlftJlwQlt 11 not indi~
cated. ,CQ(tseqllently, C!111ft1ng would be suH.I-
clent td4ttaln the ohjcdtve of reducing the
potentl~1:for direct colit~ct. This theory 15
conslst~nt with one PRP!s'object.lon to a
remedia1 response objec(t~c to reduce the.
11m1 tedgroundwater cont3iitlnat Ion associated
with thdkett1e Pond Are~~ The PRP arguc~
that the objective does i'int follow from the
sUl1111ary risk assessment and 1 t therefore
serves no public hcaHh function.
Thn U.S. EPA.,cl6CS nol aclvocale ,jrf-slle tllspo~a1
of conlamlnal(!tI malerlals fron! the Kell1e Pond.
The se1ected"remecl1a1 responsajt:llon Inc1ude(
excavation of conlaminatmlmaCcriials f'"om Kclt1l!
Pond and on-~He disposal III U ,Jroperly deslgried
lnndf 111. Thj~ a lternnt 1ve hd~hoc" sa lec ted. to
address a condition wh'lch Inc 10iles a source of
contaminat ion In dirp.cl contact. with ~rollndwater
and tont atni I1nted 9..oundwa Ler . . ~"ollndwa ler coH..
tatl1ination hrloculnenttHh the JSis not arnbiguuus
cm this point. Rufer to thu r-S. f()f' data on w~Ur
qua' Hy monitoring we11 no. ~(9ha11()w ond dC!_p).
Addressing the groundwater prcjblem In the Ketl1e
Pond area H based on EPI\'s r9s0ollsIbllHy to.,..
prov 1 de adec1\Jiile protect: Ion of Jhe puh 11 C hca 1. th,
welfare and.criv1ronmcnt. "En.'tonmcnt"by defihi-
tlon under .tho statute and thci National Contin-
gency Plan inelucles grollnclwaUw. Tillis no pub~~c
hea lth threa~:'nceds to ex i5 l lo .illS t 1fy ground-
water protection. Site ciJl'tJlhg or no-action.
would not ade~ualely address l"~ effecl of con:'
taminat Ion on lhe env Ironment.
-------
'"
c,
J.
PRP Conine" ts
Itocomonco Pond Ca~!l
PRP reconmendat10ns for lIocomonco Pond reme-
dial actions are to take "no action" or to
"cap" the sediments. They argue that the
costs of dredgln? are unjustifiable in the
"absence of a coriclusive demonstration that
the pond sediments create a hazard that
requires control". They arQue that since
there is no evidence of contaminants in the
water of. the ronditself, no risk of direct
contact would he presented. One pnp goes on
to state that if EPA does not choose either
the "no action" or the "capping" alternative,
mechanical dredQing would be the least
"undesirable" of the two remaining
a 1 terna t ives.
c .
t..
.
Response
The U.S. EPA does not recOinnenci the "no action"
or '.'capping: remedial alternatives. Oredg1ng is
just Hied to eliminate the hazard of exposure
. (direct contact) and fulure f)()lent1al migrations
to contaminated sedimenls. Hreet contact could
. occur by wading in the area nf contaminated sedi-
ments. An Increased risk uf exposure, via inges~
Lton and inhalation, would exist if a~ltation of
contaminated sediments reslI1tcd 1n contamination
of the surface water and tilt, .'clease of volatile
organic compounds. Clean-u(I of lhe 1I0cOII1onco
Pond would in the future a110w for the reopening
of the pond to recreatton, 1.0., swluln1n!] and
fishing. It would also irnrrovc the environment
for aquatic species in the pond. The selected
remedy for Uocomonco Ponrl Is to remove 'contami-
nated sediments by mechanical drecl~Ing.
-------
, - PIU), COIllttdht.s
4. Ot 15 Str~~L!!~~!!9.~,~~ L~c.Ulm
. - .
PRPs reCorfttnerul it "no ac( lon" a 1 tarnat ive Jdr
the Ot 1$ Strcu t Ctllbankmt:hL . Th Is rcco"1nc~d.4-
tion is/mWlIe un lht! ha$:ls;thot thara aro ."0
1dent1f1,ed cXlmsure patln;f~ys. It is adde~
that, l' j r~ncdy other: than "no action" 1~
selected, the storm drahi sealing would be the
preferred alternative because of its lower.
cost. .
..
nt!~p'nnse
,
The selecte(f ~emed.v rOl" Olls 5t'~oet (easl s1db)
Is storm cJrdlrt scnlln!J. Tho f."Jncttvc of thiS
action is to prevent contiUlllnifUon froll1 entering
the open-jofhtecl draina!)c plpd i1ncJ discharging to
surface waters in the ponel d1SCllarue str~am.
-------
"
c
PItP COlli lien t s
5. '!!!!justifiable A1t~rnat.tves
One PRP listed a series of unjustifiablE
alternatives, which included t.he following:
a. "Excavation for Offsite Disposal
b. Excavation for Onsit.e Incineration
c. Excavat.ion for Onslle Landfill Facility
d. Groundwater Containment Oarrier
e. Groundwater Pumping and Treatment
f. Hydraulic Sediment Oredging and Dispo- "
sal/Trealment
The grounds for objections to these alterna-
tives were based on cost-effectiveness and/or
the adequacy of the technology in question.
At issue wHh respect to the landfi 11 alterna-
tive is a potential "taking" of property of
the Smith Valve C~npany.
I
c 1
c
;
..
Res(Jonsp.
The U.S. ErA woulll agree that alternatives
dcfined In Item 5, potnls a,h,ll, alii 1 f roay not be
thc optimd choices for site rClllcllt,1t1on. The
agency would disagree with the position that
excavation and disposal in an on-sHe landfill
fad 1 ity, po i n t c and gro\ll\llwi1 ter pump I n9 and
treatment, point e, is unJustlfiahle as it
relates to the alternatives proposed for remedial
action in the Kett.le Pond Arca. Kettle Pond con-
tami nation wi 11 be excavated and d tsposed of on-
s He- in a proper 1 y des i gned hnM t 11. 1h t s
alternative Is considered a cost-effective remedy
for the problem tn the Kettle Pond Area. The on-
site landfill would involve lhe use of property
owned by the Smith Valve Company. Waste material
from other s ttes would nol 110 Il1sposed of in any
f ac 111 ty con s truc tcd on the IlocoIRonco Pond Site.
1\5 detailed tn lhe Record of Or.cislon, the
on-sHe landfl1l 15 nCCf}SSi\ry to meet environ-
mental objectives and 15 lIm cnsl-affect1ve
remedy for the Kettle Pund materials.
-------
,"';
PRP ~nta
(;'" .:L
RestX>f\se
. >
6.
, .
, '
'actual Inac&)tacies
~'. r: ~;
...:. - -
1\..0 issues w&r~ called fact~11Y inaccurate
by a PRP. F~tSt, the recogri~~ion of creosote
tn 1976 at th4! drain outlet"p:eceded the
~isl:irtJ of th~, 23-acre NatlOhal Priorities
~i'" t (NPJ,,) B~~~ by several yeat.1J. The P. RP
seems to be ~eerned both by ,an a11~ed
fmbigoous rS~t!rence to the ~daries of the
~PS sit~ ~ ~ th~ tine (l~~~) at which it
was notifledthat its property posed a
tx>llution prOblem for the OOt"Oronex> Poro.
, '
- .: '.. . .
'!he report "S9Jrmarizes the ch~logy of
site activ~~~,es begiMirg wiU1.the first
reported s~.t@ rontai..ination tollowing storm "
sewar constrUction. Regulatoty implications
of the sitt!. History were not discussed not'
i.mpl1ed. ' ,
. .
1\ B<..>oond in~~uracy cited the diJnensions of '
the site. ltfe PRP wanted to c;locuIrent that the
Smith Valve. Manufacturing piah,t was distinct
fran the notxm:>noo pord s~dund S1OO. The
PRP stated that a p:>rtion of its property is,
rowever, intlUded within th~ boundaries of the
superfund site..
. - .-
The Remediit Investigation ~port was amended
to note that the 9nith Va.lve, Manufacuring piant
site is not within the boundaf.ies of the .
Superfund site. The Superfund. site does inclUde
all the identified contaminatibn areas and the
locations of past site operaUons.
o
. I
-------
u
PRP Q:nments
7. p oj.:.1c 11(:: c:I'> c:: c::m:>n t 0;\ t ;\
A PRP has evaluated EPA's risk assessment and
feels that it deals boO much with calculations
without enough objective considerations of site
conditions ard risks. The PRP is concerned that
the criteria used for selection of non-carcinogenic
critical contaminants is scmewhat arbitrary.'
The PRP also feels that, given EPA's list of
critical contaminants, there are uncertainties
associated with analytical data in the risk
8saossment, and that there has been no attempt
to account for these uncertainties. Possible
exposure of the public to site contaminants
has been overestimated.
'" ~
c..
c
'"
J.:esponse
EPA believes that given the level of
toxicological data on site contaminants
and the existing data base, the Risk
Assessment presents a reasonable evaluation
of hazard characterization, dose-response
asscssrrent, exposure assessment ard risk
asses91\ent. EPA recognizes that there is
always uncertainty associated with site
analytical data and toxicological data,
especially with respect to non-carcinogenic
compounds. EPA disagrees that the Risk
Assessment overstates possible exposure
of the public to site contaminants.
-------
"
PRP ('oTmOntR
. ,
1~.9sPnse
.'".
L'o - "~
. . .
8. :, cost-Ef fec~~ Ren-edial J\~aoo
A PRP raised the issue that: the remedial actibt1
~ust be cost~~ffectively tat~~red to the degree
6f risk fourij at the site. .'the PRP believes
that the ~i~~Assessmeht s~potts their earli@r
rot:mIMrdat 16n~ for OOBt"'efftH~ti'Je remedial
alternative~.ahd is coneern~d~ha~ ~p1~ent~ti~n
bf any of tHE! !'nore expensivif temedies presentoo
in EPA's RI/rs (remedial inV~~tigation and
feasibility study) would vibiate both the
Cbmprehensi~e Envi~nmental Response, Oampensation,
am LiabilitY,oct (CERCLA) :b~ EPA's National
Contingency plan, which recjUite irnplementatibn of
a oost-effecti.ve remedy.
. . . .
The f inalihsk Asoossment ~ts forth
calculat~~.human health rieks based
on available site data and existing
lit~ratuhH The feasibilit.y study
diseusseft ~nviranmenta1 thteats of
bOUtCQ cpntomination at thb bita.
EPJ\'9 rcfugdial objective it, to prot:.eet
public hci~lth, welfare, arid the en-
virooment~: The agency has .d~termined
that the selected alternatives are
both cost~effective and necessary for
adequate protection of public health,
welfare, ~rrl the ernirooment.
-------
'"
,,1
co"'(
c.
PRP Q:mnents
Response
9.
Deletian of State as PRP
A PRP objectErl to the EPA's deletion of the
Oammonwealth of Massachusetts as a potentially
respoosible party at the site. The PRP alleges
that as owner of Hocomonco Pond, the state is
properly a PRP.
The CQ11l'l1OOweal th of Massachusetts is
the Trustee of Hocanonco Pond. Identi-
fication of PRPs is an exercise of en-
forcement discretion. Recent law
suggests Trustee ownership may not be
a valid justification for liability under
the COTIprehensivo Envircnmcnt111 RC9ponAO,
-------
""
l'RP OJf.n~nt9
- -
I~s~i,-se
. "
"'\..- '::::,.
0.' Po~ential Cbnt~nant ExposuC~
A~RP qoostions \:he validity cSt. frequency
a$~umptions and figures used iri scenarios
Of children crln~actirg or irge~Hrg nt.Ick
or dry soil. 'ttte PRP further etateS that
e"~f\ if \:.hfH'O wd~ t»epo.SUrQ, 1toould I.»
curtailed by feHcing the site and/or
providing security.
since fencing is clearly need~ and is'
recoomended, !but continuous S~9urity
beyond that:.. Js inff"asible f(j!:,~he long
term. Fen~ing and security will, in
fact, reli~e the threats of ~an
~on~ao~ wlt.h.or ingestion Ofi.W8sto only
if 100 perceht effective, but it does
nothing fdt future groundwater con-
tamination.
-------
Q
(l
PRP.O:mnents
11.
Potential Use of aontaminated ~undwater
A PRP believes that the use of contaminated groundwater
fDam Kettle Pond is speculative and that no current
exposure exists fran this groundwater oontamination.
I
<:0'<
('
..
R:!spnnse
It is true that there are prsently no users of
contaminated groondwater. only constant, longterm
rronitorirQ ard aquifer use restrictions will ensur
no future use of this contaminated groundwater.
The assumption of potential future U9C i~ vD]id.
The
-------
..
PRP ~"1JcntB
~ -~ ....
Respopse
;. :.
12.
..
Validi ty of ttfsk 1\ssessrrent
- -".
I.
HoOOlnO!1oo.. P6nd sediments a~ tontanina'ted ,tii~
Pond is u~e~ for fishing e~~ though the Pbnd is
posted. SlIoiimners may contact oontaminated ~iments
which exist in the pond and will not be addressed
as a msults of relocatirg the storm sewer.
. .
A ~RP states t~t the Risk AsS~9t1ent
irih>rporates ibValid assumptidii' concernirg
f['~ency and ~ risk of fishing>lI~d swintnirg
in the Pond, sinCe use of pondJs restricted
by. posting, C1lidthE!re is cut'rt'mpy limited
oUrf~~Q w~ter ~ntaminations. Furthor,
relocation of.t~ Smith Parkway storm
se\ier which discharges to the POnd will
elLminate contamination in Hocomonco Pond
sed irnents.
-------
D
.. .1
~
Public Comment Period
c
The public corrment'period started on July 1, 1985 with the release of the
RIfFS. During tha~ time an 8-page fact sheet was prepared and distributed, a
Public Informational Me~ting was held on July 1. lEES, and a Public Hearing
was held July 10, 1955. Written ~ts could ~submitted until July.24,
19B5. Thr~ let:ers were received in 5UP?O~: cf ~~stimony given at the Public
"
I;
Heari ng.
These ~re from:
.
o
Sanat~r John Houston.
o
Tne Board of Selec~~ of ~~e T~ of ~estborough, Massachusetts.
o
Koppers Company. Inc., Science and T~chnology, a PRP.
o
Stephen D. Anderson, Esq., on behalf t)f Smith Valve Company, Inc.
o
Walter Ward. Citizen.
The issues and concerns raised in these letters were summarized in the
precedin~ discussion.
A supplemental public comment pericd was conductp.d between September 4 and
September 25, 1985 to allow comment on the selection of alternatives as they
~elate to the health risk assessment released to the public September 4, 1985.
'J
One letter was reviewed at that time from
"\,
. .
o
Virginia and Robert Ot~o. Citiz~s.
34.
. .
.. .
-------
--
.. po
.
Remaining Concerns
, A'poli,ty't'OncErn:-T~;::s'erd"by botn"o'ffi~iials":If;r.o.lI't'heTo:w,n,Df ,1Je5:tborou'gh ,and by
State $er.ator John Houston was the issue of financial burden for the cleanup
- '
oper~t10n. Both parties were opposed to shifting the burden of payment for
capitai costs and operation and maintenance costs to the town.
. ~
",\ '.c=i~;:.'~is~
------- |