United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01 -85/064
September 1985
& EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORTNO. T 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-85/064
3. Reclplenfa Acce88lon No.
4. TItle snd Subtille
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Western Sand & Gravel, RI
Second Remedial Action
7. Author(a)
5. Report Date
09/30/85
6.
8. Perfonnlng Organlzetlon Rept. No.
9. Perfonnlng Orgalnlzetlon Heme snd Addre88
10. ProjectlTa8klW0rk Unit No.
11. Contrect(C) or Grsnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addre88
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abetrsct (LImit: 200 words)
The 20-acre Western Sand & Gravel site is a former gravel mining facility and
industrial waste disposal area in North Smithfield and Burrillville, Rhode Island.
Land use in the area is predominantly agricultural. The estimated 600 people who
reside within one mile of the site use the underlying ground water as their drinking
water supply. Ground water discharges into both the Tarkiln Brook and the
Slatersville Reservoir, which is used for recreational purposes only. From 1953 to
197'9, Western Sand & Gravel, Inc. (WSG) used the site for gravel mining operations.
From 1975 to 1979, approximately 12 acres of the site were used for the disposal of
liquid wastes, including chemicals and sewage waste. The wastes were placed into four
unlined chemical lagoons and eight unlined septage pits. The wastes subsequently
migrated through the soil into the underlying ground water. As a result of a chemical
pit fire in 1977, city officials ordered the removal of chemicals from the site. In
1979, the State conducted sampling of private domestic wells in the area and ordered
the site to be closed because of violations of water and air pollution regulations and
for failing to prepare complete and accurate industrial waste manifests. In 1979, an
investigation was conducted by WSG, in cooperation with the State, which revealed that
wastes had migrated from the site and contaminated the underlying aquifer. In 1979,
17. Document Analysle a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Western Sand & Gravel, RI
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE)
b. ldontlfiers/Open-Ended Terme
c. COSA 11 field/Group
18. A vsllsblUty Statement
19. Security CIS88 (ThIs Report)
None
21. No. of Pages
68
20. Security Cla88 (This Page)
Nnnp
22. Price
(500 ANSI Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
72 4-77
(Formerty NTIS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-85/064
Western Sand & Gravel, RI
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
WSG discontinued all liquid waste disposal practices. In 1980, EPA removed
approximately 60,000 gallons of liquid hazardous materials from the site lagoons. In
1982, the State installed a ground water recirculation system to control hazardous waste
migration from the site; however, the system proved to be ineffective. In 1983, as a
result of an overflow of the ground water recirculation system, the State excavated and
removed twelve drums of contaminated soil. The exact quantity and types of waste at the
site are unknown, however, from 1978 to 1979, an estimated 470,000 gallons of chemical
wastes were disposed of onsite. A 1984 Record of Decision (ROD) addressed operable unit
1 (OUl) and provided for the installation of temporary water filters and a permanent
water supply to affected residents. This final source control ROD addresses OU2, site
closure and post closure provisions to contain contamination and minimize offsite
migration of contaminants. Future RODs will address the contaminated ground water as
OU3. The primarily contaminants of concern affecting the soil and sludge are VOCp
including benzene, TCE, and PCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes consolidating contaminated soil and
sludge onsite and installing a cap over contaminated areas; phasing out, removing and
disposing of the existing ground water recirculation system; grading, loaming and
seeding the cap and surrounding site surface; implementing site access restrictions
including fencing; and implementing post-closure maintenance and monitoring, and ground
water monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
$1,064,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $13,800.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
SITE; Western Sand and Gravel
Burrillville, Rhode Island
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
« t
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
v'
describing the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for the Western Sand and Gravel Site:
1. Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for Western Sand and Gravel, Arthur D. Little Inc.,
(ADD, May 22, 1984.
2. Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection (attached).
3. Community Relations Responsiveness Summary (attached).
4. Work Plan for Western Sand and Gravel, Camp, Dresser
and McKee Inc., September 25, 1984.
5. Analysis of the Potential for Off-site Migration of
Contamination in the Unsaturated Zone at Western Sand
and Gravel, Camp, Dresser and McKee inc., May 15, 1985.
6. Preliminary Wetlands Assessment for Western Sand and
Gravel, GCA Corporation, August 1985.
7. Addendum to the ADL Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1985.
8. Test Pit Explorations, Goldberg - Zoino and Associates,
June 1981.
9. Record of Decision, Summary of Remedial Alternative
Selection, and Community Relations Responsiveness
Summary, Installation of a Permanent Water Supply,
-------
-..-- . - ---
, .
-2-
. F
,
.
10.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
11.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations
at 40 C.F.R. Part 264.
il
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
,.. :
Remedy,;
.
Grade contaminated soil to the cap area.
Install an impermeable cap consistent wit~ RCRA provisions."
.
.
Phase-out the operation of the groundwater recirculation.
system, and remove and dispose of the a~sociated equipment.
.
Grade, loam and seed the cap and surrounding site surface.
.
Fence and post the site.
Operation and Maintenance
.
Provide inspection and maintenance of the cap, fence and
postings consistent with RCRA provisions.
.
Conduct groundwater monitoring consistent with RCRA
post-closure provisions.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the
National Contingency Plan (40 C.F.R. Part 300),1 have
,determined that the grading of contaminated soils to .the cap
area, the installation of an impermeable cap, and site closure
and post-closure provisions consistent with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) isa' cost-effective
)
-------
-
.
-3-
. .
. . .
.
remedy and provides adequate protection of the public health,
welfare and the environment. . The State of Rhode Island has
O'
been consulted and agrees with the approved remedy.
In addition,
'0
the action will require future operation and maintenance activities
to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy.
These
activities wlll,.be considered part of the approved action and
eligible for "Trust Fund monies on a 90/10 cost share basis
for a period not to exceed one year.
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate
when balanced against the availability of' Trust Fund monies for
use at. other sites.
This decision document follows a Record of Decision signed on
September 28, 1984 by the Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste. and Emergency Response, that approved provisions
for the installation of an interim and a permanent water
supply.
EPA will also undertake an additional study to
further evaluate the contaminated groundwater and determine
.
alternatives for its remediation.
If additional remedial
actions are determined to be necessary, a Record of Decision
will be 'prepared for those future actions.
~
11¥'~
-A~
ATTACHMENTS:
Summary of Remedial Alternatives Selection
Community Relations Responsiveness Summary
-------
. -
. ,
-
.
.
.
.
'." .
..
SUMMARY OF REMEDI4L ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
. FOR
WESTERN. SAND AND GRAVEL SITE
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
.
,
.
i)
-------
. -
~
-2-
.,
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELEC.TION
WESTERN SAND AND GRAVEL SITE
Introduction
The remedial action at the Western Sand and Gravel site is .being
performed under ,.three (3) operable uni ts:
(1)
(2)
Installation of a permanent water supplYJ
Site closure and post-closure provisionsJ and
,;
(3)
Remedial Action for contaminated groundwater.
The. installation of a permanent water supply is being under-
. taken pursuant to the Record of pecision (ROD) approved on
september 28, 1984 by the Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
.
That decision also directed
the preparation of additional studies and decision documents,
as needed, for the remaining operable units of the remedial'
action.
This ROD and Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
addresses the second operable unit of the remedial action:
source control, i.e.
implementation of site closure and
. .
post-closure provisions to contain contamination and minimize
off-site migration of contaminants.
EPA will also undertake an additional study and pr~pare a
decision document, 1f needed, for the third operable unit
concerning remedial action for contaminated groundwater.
"
-------
. .
-3-
.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Western Sand and Gra.vel site is located in North Smithfield
Cllld Burrillville, Rhode Island, adjacent to the Douglas Pike
(see Figure 1).
Historically, this semi-rural site was a
(J
~~3vel mining¥ope,ation owned by Western Sand and Gravel,
....:
Inc., and opeFated by Mr. James Cardi since about 1953.
Beginning in about 1975, approximately 12 acres of the 20
acre si te were used for the disposal of liquid wastes, includin.g
chemicals and sewage waste.
Wastes were dumped into four
chemical lagoons and eight or more septage pits. All lagoons
and pits were unlined. The waste pits and lagoons were 80 to
100 feet long, 18 to 20 feet wide and 8 to 10 feet deep (see
Figure 2). . The wastes subsequently infiltrated into the soil,
percolating. through the highly permeable soils into the
groundwater.
There are approximately 56 parcels of land withi~ 1/2 mile
of the site affected or potentially affected by the contaminants
migrating off-site.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) conducted by Arthur D. Little determined that groundwater
has been contaminated by hazardous waste at the site and is
moving in a northerly direction to domestic wells adjacent
to the site.
There are approximately 600 persons that are
served by groundwater via private drinking wells within a
one mile radius of the site.
The contaminated. gr~undwater
also discharges into both the Tarkiln Brook and the Slatersville
-------
"
"
'\
v
Co .
A
'\
/
.--- "- (
'U:Ua! 1
. ~ .
V!(: SlTt AIIO AFrECtDJ PtA
Sr.'.' I bch . 400 r...
.....~.
. .....-
,. I,
/.
"
-------
i I
i
-j
;1
I .
,
I
I'
'1
i
I
r
i
I!' .H
II
I i
I j~
o
;;:0'
o
c.
»-
ft'
~l
.,
" .
, ,
. .
".
-3
dp
-
----~
-.:::---
-.--------. ...-
-.---,
~.~
. ~.---
--:..
.8
H.
-\
\
,
,
,
,
\
\
\
\
)
"
I
'.
", "'-
\
"
"
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
,
to,,'
-.... -.-.
,
.-
.
,8
.
-...-.--
...--.
----......
,
---,'
-....... - ....
.UTf'" 5/INO - -vt:l
F1IUIE a.
..SOI.S At«) SUDGES
---------
-.--....-" ----....-
u. -. ..,.. .......
x,-. - .----.1.
--
-
,
2-5
--
--
--
--_.~..
---
-
---
--
CDII
--
----
. -- _e .-. ..-.- ----.
-------
-
. .
. .
-4-
.
Reservoir.
The Reservoir is used for recreational purposes
and is not a drinking water source.
SITE HISTORY
In May of 1975, the Rhode Island Department of Health approved
the disposal .of'sewage waste at Western Sand and Gravel.
In
November 1976, a chemical pit was identified during a site
inspection by the Division of Solid Waste Management, and acid
wastes were observed being disposed of during a subsequent site
visit in January 1977.
A fire occurred in one of the chemical
pits in March 1977, and officials ~rom the Burrillville and
North Smithfield Fire Departments ordered the removal of
chemicals from the site.
During the period of April through
August 1977, there were a series of State court hearings held
related to violations of guidelines for the disposal of septic
tank and cesspool wastes.
Als~, the State received complaints
from nearby residents regarding chemical odors emanating from
the site.
.'
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
forwarded emergency industrial waste regulations to the operator
of the site.
The operator responded to these regulations by
notifying DEM in March 1978 that the site was an industrial
waste disposal site.
There was no further regulatory activity
(other than inspections) during the remainder of 1978.
'In January 1979, concern of local residents and State officials
over the site resulted in a joint meeting of the Burrillville
and North Smithfield town councils to discuss the operations at
-------
- ----
.
. -
-5-
.41
the site.
Private domestic wells in the area of the site were
sampled by the Rhode Island Department of Health for contamination
and in February 1979, a Notice of Violation Order was sent to
Mr. Cardi by DEM.
A'Cease and Desist Order was issued by DEM
.. i
on April 24, 197", for violation of water and air pollution
..
regulations, odors, and for failing to prepare complete and
accurate industrial waste manifests.
Hearings OD the Order
were held in May and June 1979.
Also, the towns of Burrillville
and North Smithfield declared that theSlatersville Aquifer
had become contaminated by wastes migrati~g from the site.
Six
groundwater monitoring wells were installed by Western Sand and
Gravel Inc. under a consent agreement with DEM and tested during
November 1979.
Analyses of the samples showed the presence of
toluene, xylene, chlorofo~, l,l,l-trichloroethane, trichloro-
ethylene, tetrachloroethylene and dichloromethane.
In the
same time period, a consent decree, a show cause.order on
closure, and a final closure order for pumping the chemical
. wastes from the lagoons were issued by DEM. .
In 1979, hazardous wastes were no longer accepted at the site.
State industrial waste manifests were kept for materials
deposited at the site from April 1978 to April 1979.
The
manifests show approximately 470,000 gallons of wastes deposited
at the site during that one year period.
prior to April 1978 is unknown.
The quantity of
-1\
-------
",
-6-
.1It
In March 1980, personnel from the EPA Environmental Services
nivisinn, on request from DEM, pumped the lagoons and began
removal of the hazardous material.
It is estimated that
approximately 60,000 gallons of liquid materials were removed.
These action~we~e taken under the authority of Section 311
'.' .
of the Feder~l Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
In November of 1982, a groundwater recirculation system was in-
stalled by the State of Rhode Island in an attempt to control
the migration of hazardous wastes from the site.
This system
. has. proven somewhat effective in capturing non-aqueous .phase
liquid wastes that were presentf. however, it did not appear to
control off-site migration of contaminants in the groundwater.
In. December of 1983, due to an overflow in the groundwater
recirculation system, the DEM excavated and removed from the
site twelve drums of contaminated soil.
In February of 1984, EPA and the State of Rhode Island released
to the public the Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RIfFS) for the Western Sand and Gravel Site.
The FS
evaluated alternatives that encompassed the first and second
. operable units of the remedial action:
a permanent water
supply and provisions for closing the site to minimize further
off-site migration of contamination.
At that time, no evaluation
of remediation of the contaminated groundwater had been
conducted.
In June of 1984, EPA presented to the EPA Assistant Ad~inistrator
-------
- . ------ ~
-. .
-7-
.
for the remedial action at the site.
That draft decision document
recn~~ended that water filters followed by a permanent water supply
De installed and further off-site migration ~f contaminants be miti-
gated by excavation of the most heavily contaminated soil and sludges.
The ROD was not'~igned because of perceived data deficiencies in
the basis for the proposed reaedies and changing national policy
. .
on the remedy selection process.
Howeve~, in September of 1984, EPA Headquarters signed a portion
of the original Draft ROD that inc1uded only the installation of
water filters and a 'permanent water supply.
In addition, it directed
EPA to undertake additional' studies to further characterize the re-
~'1~~pm~"t~ needed to effectively close the site and to'evaluate
alternatives for groundwater cle~nup.
That ROD contains information
concerning the site history that should be consulted for further
site background.
In August of 1985, an addendum to the original FS was completed.
-
This addendum summarized the results of the additional studies
for site closure undettaken pursuant to the September 1984 ROD.
These studies more precisely determined the extent and location
of the remaining contamination on-site and the reliability of
. the capping alternative that was being considered.
In addition, the addendum reevaluated the al~ernatives considered
in the original FS in light of. the studies completed and EPA
policy that emphasized compliance with the techni;cal requirements
of other applicable environmental laws and regulations.
This'
reevaluation resulted in a change in the recommended method to
-------
... .. -- .... -_.._.
. .
A
. .
-8-
.
control off-site migration of contaminants from excavation, as
proposed in the original' FS, to the installation of an impermeable
on-site cap.
. .
The additional studies and the addendum did not,
however, address the remediation of the already contaminated
gro'Jndwater. ~ As ~iscussed, the remediation of the groundwater
,. .
will be inves~igated as a separate operable unit of the remedial
action.
Any decision documents considering the clean-up of
groundwater will be. developed following those investigations.'
CURRENT SITE STATUS
-
Quantity, Types and Concentrations of Hazardous Substances
. the exact quantity and types of waste deposited at the site are
unknown.
In addition, it is not certain when hazardou~ wastes
were first deposited there.
Therefore, it is not possible to
determine with precision the quantity of wastes disposed at the
site.
However, based on information provided by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management manifests, which are thought
-
to cover most of the site's hazardous waste disposal history,
. approximately 470,000 gallons of chemical wastes were disposed
of at the site during 1978-1979.
A summary of an initial analysis of contaminated on-site liquids,
soils' and sludges that were removed by an EPA contractor in March
of 1980 as part of a removal action under S 311 of the Clean Water
Act, is attached as Table 1.
A priority pollutant analysis of the
remaining contaminated soil and sludge materials sampled in August
of 1982 and again in August of 1983 as part of the RI/FS was also
completed.
-------
. .
.
.
TABLE 1
, .
..
PR.IOR.ITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS or HAZARDOUS WASTE LAGOONS AT iI.'S~G '!ppb)-
Karch-April 1980
Volatile. .
,
,. .
Methylene'Chlorid8
1,1 Dichloro8thyl8n8
Trichlorofluorom8thaDe
1,2 Dichloro8than8
1,1,1 Trichloro8than8
1,1 Dichlorolthanl
Trichlor08thyl8ne
Benzene
1,1,2,2 Tetrachlor08thylen8
TolulDI
Exhylb8nz8De
Chlorobenz8ne
(TOTAL VOLATILES)
Acid.
0-Chloroph8nol
Phr'nol
4-Chloro-m-Cr880l
4,6 Dintro-o-Cr8.ol
I..' .eutrat.
Naphthalene
Anthracen8
'P,ren8
Fluoranth8D8
Chry.ene
Butyl .IDlylphthalaCI
Detection Li8it.
Surfac8
Sedi.ent.
LeacH te
30
-
-
66
24
3,
17
2
230
13
2.8
. «1 Dp"')
(387.8 ppb)
-
-
-
, -
-
-
-
24
.2
. '
Sa.pl.. caken fro. che.ical Va.e8 laloon.. lelule. in aicrolra.. of
cb..ical per lit8r of vaC8r (~l/l) or parc. per bil1ioD (,pb).
19,000
340
730
1,200
230,000
4,700
140,000
69
280,000
24,000
68,000
23,000
-
-
..
460,000
7,500
550,000
'70
'1,000 '
7,200
23,000
-
-
(768 ppn)
0,163 ppm)
540
'80
1,000
'40
-
-
160
.
7,800
1,600
440
210
4'0
47,000
10
2,'00
360
110
230
170
14.000
42
-------
. .
. -
-9-
.
The results of these analyses are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
These results represent the chemical composition of the
contaminated soil and sludge materials remaining in the area
of the old chemical disposal lagoons as shown in Figure 2.
An additional- st,\Jdy conducted by Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM),
to refine th~previously generated data was undertaken in
February 1985.
The ,results of this study are summarized in
'Appendix B.
This appendix shows the extent of remaining
contamination in and around the site.
The results, of CDM's analyses indicate that relatively high
concentrations of chemical contaminants remain on-site in the
areas indicated in Appendix B. 'The contaminated soil and
sludges include aromatic compounds such as benzene and' xylenes,
chlorinated aliphatics such as methylene chloride and chlo~oform,
and chlorinated aromatics such as chlorobenzene and penta-
chlorophenol.
In addition, the February, 1985 CDM study provided
the following information:
"
1.
Previous well sampling results at the site were verified
but with about one order of magnitude greater accuracy.
2.
Most of the remaining on-site contamination is in the
. .
sludge ar~a (old chemical pits 3 and 4, on Figure 2)
with minor contamination in other areas of the site.
A
2.5 acre ,cap ,willeffectiyely cover all remaining contam-'
1nation of concern.
3.
There is no significant contaminated soil and sludges
within four feet of the groundwater table.
This means
"/
-------
~~. .,.. -
. '" ._....'..~_::......- -...
."
..
TABLE 2
.
- .
VOLATILE ORCA.~ICS ~~ PCB IN SOIL SAMPLE FROM WS&G
August 1982
_.'
Volatile Orlan1e Co~ounds (Area C)
Methylene chloride
l,l-Dichloroethane
Tranl-l,2-D1ehloroethylene
l,l,l-Triehloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Triehloroethylene
-~..~ -'..'; .': ,..:..., '. _: . -..' - ~ . ..'. '. . -
o. '. . "0 .' . i,1,2,2-Tetrachloroechy1ene...
- .
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
. Ethylbenzene
. Xylene.
(TOTAL
Polychlorinated. Biphenyl. (PC! Compounds)
. IQ) - lion Detected
II
Coneentration
(mg/kg)
21
3
1
13
13
35
60
156
2
20
69
355
m)
1m
-------
--........
. '. '., '.'
--'- .. -. -'
. - -- .-----.--.- -.p- -
p-. -,---
'.
.-
...
TABLE 3
. '
A.~ALYSIS FOR. ~ON-VOLATIU PJlIOJlI1'Y POLLUT~\"TS
AUlult 1983
.
Composite 5011 5~le8 from locations G. H and I
l,2-d1chlorobeftzeDe
TOTAL
~.900 (ug/kg)
2,600
47,000
2,300
2,000
6,500 .
. 60.000
125,300
NapthaleDe
N1trod1pheDyl 881ft.
Pentachloropbeaol
'...-.
Anthracefte'
Di-butylphthalate
B1.-2-ethyl hezyl pb~la~.
Yatey Sam~le. N..y Yell N-82D
B11-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate
14,000
Uater Sample From Yell CZl-3 .
B11-2-eth7l hezyl phthalate
15
Limitl of detection 10 (ug/kg)
. .
-------
-_.---
.-
-10-
..
that a high groundwater table, either seasonal or extreme
event related, will not contact source material and carry
contamination off-site.
The 100 year fldod elevation is
about 26{).
There is no sludge (source) material below
elevation 264.
.'
!
,. .
It should he poted that this ROD does not contain a detailed
.discussion of the contaminated groundwater that remains down
gradient of the site.
. HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Contaminant Migration
As summarized previously, the bulk of the remaining contamination
on-site is in the sludge area which is comprised of what has been
previously designated as chemical pits 3 and 4 (Figure 2).
The
major contaminant constituents include aromatics such as benzene
and xylene, .chlorinated aliphatics such as methylene chloride and
chloroform, and chlorinated aromatics such as chlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol.
These contaminants. are present in a sludge
matrix, in soils in the vadose zone, and in groundwater in the
vicinity of the source areas as. well as off-site.
A soil augering
survey indicated that sludge material is present at approximately
2 to 4 feet below surface in the sludge area (chemical pits 3 , 4).
Volatiles are present. in the soil below the source material and
in groundwater.
-------
-11-
~
This document focuses on remedial alternatives relative to the
~
5~urc~ area designated as the'sludge area (chemical pits 3 and 4).
As such the hazard assessment will be focused on this area.
The major mechanism of migration from the sludge area is percola-
tion of precipit~tion (avg~ 38 inches/year) through the source
area, subseq~ent leaching of mobile constituents from the sludge
matrix, migration through the vadose to the water table and
subsequent migratio~ in groundwater.
The overburden in the study
area is composed mostly of deltaic glacial sands with varying
. amounts of silt, gravel, and occasional small boulders.
This
strata is generally 60' - 65' immediately north of the disposal
area.
The source material lies approximately four feet above the
100 year water table flood elevation and is generally six feet
above the water table.
A plume of contamination is migrating
with the groundwater in a northerly direction.
. The contaminated groundwater flow at Western Sand and Gravel dis-
.
charges to the Slatersville Reservoir and Slatersville Aquifer.
The hydrogeologic conditions downgradient from the site are such
that this flow is partiti~ned with approximately 80\ discharging
~irectly to the Reservoir and 20\ recharging the Slatersville
Aquifer that ultimately discharges to the Reservoir (partioning
.based on an evaluation of the horizontal and vertical hydraulic
gradients in areas adjacent to the Reservoir).
This process will continue, if no remediation of the source area
occurs (implementation of the no-action alternative).
The sl~dge
-------
- --
-12-
, ,
..
material will continue to provide an ongoing source of mobile con-
taminants which will leach into the vadose and ultimately into
groundwater.
There is no analytical data for levels of contaminant. in the
ambient air on 9r around the site.
The contaminants are generally
of a volatile nature and if exposed could volatilize into the air
, vector.
However, the source areas are located approximately one
to three feet below ground surface and are not exposed to the air
over any major surface area.
This will tend to minimize vola-
tilization. and the relative importance of ,the air vector as a
migration route.
However, exposure of the source area is possible
via erosion or mechanical disruption of the surface cover.
Disruption of the'surface cover and subsequent aeration of con-
taminated material could result in the release of volatile consti-
tuents to the air vector.
The magnitude of the release and its
impact will be dictated by the amount of material exposed, the
relative concentration of volatiles in sou,rce material, and
meteorological considerations.
In general, the air vector would
not be considered a major migration route for the source area under
present conditioQa.
However, the existence of low level releases
cannot be evaluated without additional analytical information.
Because the wastes are covered, the likelihood of contaminated
. .
particulates becoming airborn is low.
Although the surface cover
may contain particulates of a respirable size, they are not likely
to be contaminated.
Therefore, migration via airborne particulates
is not likely to be a significant migration mechanism.
-------
-13-
.
The surface water bodies adjacent to the source area have been shown
to contain volatile contamination.
The source of this contamination
originates in l~rge part from the sludge areaJ .and is discha~ged to
tMese. water bodies via groundwater.
The primary movement ~f con tam-
inated surfa~e v~ter in Tarkiln Brook is northerly with ultimate
discharge to Jthe Slatersville Reservoir.
This transport route is
'driven by groundwater discharge, and thus would be mitigated if
the groundwater contamination was mitigated.
Receptors'
The primary receptor for the contaminant sources located in the
sludge area is the overburden aquifer which is located underneath
the study area. .
The groundwater aquifer, in turn, has both human and environmental
receptors.
The contaminated aquifer migrating from th~ study area
'is utilized by residents for drinking water an~ discharges to
several surface water bodies. Sampling of .Tarkiln Brook immediately
downstream of the site indicated the presence of a variety of chlor-
inated .aliphatics and arom~tics at a total concentration of 530
ppb.
Sampling further downstream of T~rkiln Brook at the confluence
with Slatersville Reservoir did not show volatiles .above the detec-
tion limit.
Currently 36 residential wells have shown evidence of volatile'
organic contamination at least one time in the.ir ~ampling history.
The highest level of each contaminant detected in a residential
well is reported below.
-------
'
. -14-
!t~,IJ)' .
Contaminant Cone ~~/Lt
l,l,l-trichloroethane 6
trichloroethylene 5
-
tetrachloroethylene '8
1,2-dichloroethane 21
.. -9
,..:
l,l-dichlo~oethane 2
..
dichloromethane 18
In summary, the majority of receptors to the site contamination
will be related to exposure from surface water or groundwater.
Human access to the contaminated groundwater via residential wells
is one exposure scenario, and exposure to. flora and fauna via
contaminated surface water is a s&cond scenario, although dilution
downstream and in the reservoir dramatically reduces contaminant
levels there.
Human receptors could al.o be, exposed as a consequence of direct
contact with contaminated materials onsite, although the subsurface
nature of the contaminants tends to minimize this potential.
Risks Presented By Existing Site Contamination
Because residential supply wells inte.rcept a contaminated aquifer.,
one of the most significant ,concerns is the health risks associated
with contaminated household water.
As indicated earlier in this document, EPA Headquarters signed in
September, 1984 a portion of the original ROD which specified the
installation of water filters as a temporary measure, and installa-
tion of a water line as a permanent water supply.
Carbon filtration
-------
. .
-15-
.
systems have been installed which have effectively mitigated con tam-
ination at the user end of the water supply.
Therefore, although,
th~ aquifer is potentially hazardous if used untreated ~s a residen-
tial water source, the measures instituted have and'will minimize
direct 'harm to human health as a result of utilization of the
. .
"N ~
contaminated ~quifer.
The threat of direct contact with contaminated material is low as
10ng as the sludge material remains covered.
In some locations in
the sludge area, the contaminated material is covered by as little
as one foot of cover.
If contaminated material is exposed, the
probability of direct contact increases., unauthorized site 'access
has been recorded previously anO site access is currently physically
unrestricted (no fences).
Single episodic exposure via direct
contact would not be considered highly hazardous, although skin
. .
irritation, dermal absorbtion and accidental ingestion of contam-
inants including known and suspected,carcinogens coulO result.
Respiratory exposure to volatilized constituents from the sludge
area is possible, but should not be a significant exposure route
if cover integrity is maintained.
£xposure of contaminated mate~
, ,
rial could result in ambient air releases: however, ,the frequency
of exposure would most likely be episodic, which is unlikely to
. induce serious physiologic harm.
Adverse impacts to wildlife or flora and aquatic o~ganisms would be
most likely to occur at surface water locations directly adjacent
to the sludge area.
Contaminant concentrations of down gradient
locations have greatly reduced contaminant concentrations compared
-------
'.
-16-
..
to surface water adjacent the sludge area.
The down gradient
loc8tions including Slatersville Reservoir do not exhibit contam-
ination which is severe enough to create an environmental hazard.
In summary, the most significant impact created by the sludge area
is deterioration~of the overburden aquifer in. and around the study
area.
..
The aquifer deterioration has been significant enough to
warrant water purification measures 'for residential users, to be
followed by installation of a permanent alternate water supply.
In addition, the contaminated aquifer is discharging to surface
water bodies, although detrimental effects here are being reduced
by dilution, volatilization, and other physical, chemical and
biologic processes.
Enforcement Analysis
.The Enforcement Analysis is an EPA enforcement confic;'ential
'.
document and is attached as Appendix c.
Alternative Evaluation
Remedial Action Objectives
The remedial objectives of the site cleanup at Western Sand and
Gravel, considering all the operable units for the site, are to
minimize or eliminate:
1) the health risk associated with contamination of domestic
drinking water wells, dermal contact with contaminated 80il and
sludges, and inhalation of cont~minated particul~esJ and
2) the environmental impact caused by surface and groundwater
contamination to the underlying aquifer, Tarkiln Brook, Slatersville
Reservoir and wetlands in the affected area.
-------
.-
-17-
.II
.
tJRing this basis, the following specific objectives were developed:
(1)
provide residents in the affected or potentially affected
area with a permanent uncontaminated water supply.
(2 )
Contain or remove sources of contamination at the site
to ~inimize the continued release of contaminants
,.,.:
to ~he groundwater and future public exposure and
health impacts.
(3 )
Mitigate the environmental impact of contaminated
groundwater.
As discussed above the first objective was met by the September,
19~4 Record of Decision which recommended that potable water be
supplied to residents affected by contamination through carbon
filters on an interim basis and through an alternative water
supply system on a permanent basis.
This Record of Decision for the second operable unit of,the site
remedy is a source control remedial action appropriate under
the curren~ circumstances 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 the substances.
The: remedial objectives for this source control phase of remedial
activities include items two and three namely:
- contain or remove sources of contamination at the
site to minimize the continued release of containments
to the groundwater and public exposure and related
health impacts; and
-------
.. .
.
, ,
-
-18-
.
- mitigate the environmental impact of contaminated
groundwater.
The third and final phase of site remedial action will address
the environmental and public health aspects of the already .
.
'.0 ..
contaminated groun~water plume.
.
Alternatives Considered and Screening Process
Background
The original RI/FS conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. developed
a number of remedial alternatives for source control remedial
action.
This Record of Decision relies .upon the source control
alternatives developed in that study and excludes from.consider-
ation those aspect~ of the alternatives not dealing with.source
control (e.g. alternate water supply).
Those alternatives include:
1.
No-actionJ
2.
tandfarming/EncapsulationJ
Use of the existing groundwater recirculation systemJ
3.
4.
Total excavation of the site~
5. 2.5 acre capJ
6. 7 acre capJ
7. Excavation and off-site
disposal of 400yd3 of. contaminated
soil and sludges,
Excavation and off-site disposal of 1200 yd3.of contaminated
8.
soil and sludges,
-------
. h
. '
-.
.
.
-19-
«
9.
Excavation and off-site disposal of 1600 yd3 of contaminated
soil and sludgesJ
10. 2.5 acre cap and off-site disposal of 400 yd3 of contaminated
80il and sludgesJ
11. 2.5 acre ~ap ,and off-site disposal of 1600 yd3 of contaminated
'.' .
soil and ~ludgesJ
On August 20, 1985, EPA presented to the public for comment an
addendum to the RIfFS.
This addendum developed in greater detail
the'2.5 acre capping option and is being relied upon in this Record
of Decision.
The components of the remedial systems have been screened according
to the requirements of Section 300.68(h) of the NCP in order to
narrow the lis~ of potential remedial actions for further detailed
analysis.
The criteria used in the initial screening process were:
1) total system costs, consider~ng net present value of capital and
operation and maintenance costsJ 2) effects of the alternative includ-
ing adverse effects upon the environment and evaluation of whether
the alternative will achieve adequate source control and 3) acceptable
engineering practices with respect to feasibility, applicability and
reliability for addressing the problem.
The init,ial screening of the remedies resulted in exluding the
'option of no-action from further consideration.
This option was
eliminated because it would not meet the reme~ial.objectives, to
minimize further migration of contaminants, and abate the threat
to public health associated with inhalation of and dermal contact
with contaminated particulate, ,soil and sludges.
-------
8.
8
8
-20-
.
The landfarming/encapsulation option was omitted from further
consideration because the technology is considered to be unproven
with respect to treating the types of wastes found in the soils
at Western Sand and Gravel and, therefore, did not meet the
criteria for acceptable engineering practices.
. ,.. ~' .
The existing 9roundwater recirculation syate. was excluded from
consideration as a long-term on-site option for contaminant source
reduction/control because the operation of the system would not
}mprove the water quality in al~eady contaminated groundwater nor
minimize further migration of contaminants from the site.
The
~ystem has proven somewhat effective in capturing non-aqueous
phase liquids floating on the groundwater surface; however, no
.additional non-aqueous liquids remain on-site.
The system, also,
has not proven to be effective in improving the quality of deep
groundwater, as evidenced by review of available monitoring data
gathered before and after the installation of the system.
Investigations have also shown that the system is also not effective
in containing the plume of contaminated groundwater as seen in the
increase in organic solvents in samples taken from the Tarkiln
Brook between 1980 and 1984.
Furthermore, it is clear that the
recirculation system would not be effective in minimizing public
health risks associated with dermal or respiratory contact with
'I
. the wastes.
Total-excavation of the site was also eliminated from further
consideration because the system cost estimated at over ten million
dollars, was significantly higher than the costs of the other.
-------
"
."
-21-
.
. .
alternatives considered for site closure and would not provide
substantially greater public health or.environmental benefit
than a number of the other alternatives considered.
The remaining remedial systems are outlined below.
All the$e
systems inclu~e ~limination of the groundwater recirculation
system and site post-closure provisions including monitoring
and maintainance.
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL SYSTEMS
Remedial System Five:
2.5 Acre Capping.
Grading of contaminated soils and an impermeable RCRA
cap of ~he contaminated areas of the site.
Remedial System Six:
7 Acre Capping.
A complete impermeable RCRA cap of the 400,000 square foot
site.
Remedial system Seven:
Limited Off-site Disposal of Soil.
Off-site disposal of only the visibly cQntaminated soil
.and slud~e (400 yd3) from various locations around the
site.
Remedial System Eight:
Area E Off-site Disposal of Soil.
Off-site disposal of contaminated soil and sludge from
.the north end of the site that was previously the
location of the ~argest chemical pits (Area E).
Remedial System Nine:
Limited and Area E Off-site Disposal of Soil.
A combination of Systems seven and eight.
-------
-.-.-
.----.. --..--.--.....-.....- -....
--...-- -
-
. .-
.
.
-22-
"I
Remedial System Ten:
2.5 Acre Capping and Limited Off-site
Disposal of Soil. .
.
A combination of Systems six and seven.
Remedial system Eleven:
2.5 Acre Capping and Limited Area E
Off-site Disposal of Soil.
.
. .
A combination of Systems nine and ten.
.;
The cost estimate for each system is summarized in Table 4.
These
include. the costs for only contaminant source control, and other
site closure and post-closure .pr~visions.
The remedial systems surviving the initial screening were
evaluated for the parameters identified 1n Secion 300.~8(i) of
the NCP to determine the most cost-effective remedy that would
adequately protect public health, welfare and the environment.
. The parameters include:
'1.
Refinement and specification of alternatives in detail,
with emphasis on use'of established technologYJ
Detailed cost estimates including distribution of costs
2.
over time:
Evaluation in terms of engineering implementation or
3.
constructability;
An assessment of each alternattve in terms of the extent
4.
to which it is expected to effectively mitigate and ~i"ni-
mize damage to and provide adequate protection of public
heal~h, welfare, and the environment; ~rid
An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts, methods
s.
, for mitigating. these impacts, and costs of mitigation.
-------
. . .- ~ --- ~_.
4 -- . .
. .
. .
.
-23-
..
~.:r..edial System Five:
2.5 Acre Cap
lhlS alternative includes consolidating the contaminated soil and
~l~d~es to ~he area of the capf phasing out,.r~moval and disposal
of the existing groundwater recirculation systemf installing an
impermeable 2.5,.,acre capf grading, loaming and seeding the cap
and surrounding slte surfacef fencing the sitef and providing
.post-closure maintenance and monitoring.
The estimated cost of this alternative is 1.064 million dollars.
'.A detailed cost summary, including future operation and maintenance
expenses, is attached in Table 4.
The technology used in capping is established and has proven to
ua a reliable method ,to minimize the infiltration of rain, snowmelt
and other surface waters and to reduce the subsequent migration
of contaminants.
The only special engineering consideration
.involved with this alternative is the selection of materials for
construction of the cap that have been evaluated for compatibility
with the wastes at the site.
The construction at this site would be relatively simple because
the cap would be placed on the compacted uniform site surface.
This surface has also very little potential for subsidence.
The
construction will not interfere with monitoring or other remedial
activities.
In the attached Calculation of Downgradient Groundwater Quality
Resulting from Ca~ping, (Appendix A), a 2.5 acre cap, following
consolidation of wastes, would completely cover the remaining
-------
. -
Table 4
Remedial System Closure and post-Closure Cost Estimates
..
.j
,..:
.
Remedial Capital Annual Present worth Total
System Costs . OIiM OIiM Cost
Five 874 13.8 190 1064
Six
2149
15
220
2369
Seven
732
13.8
190
922
Eight
1151
13.8
190
1341
Nine.
1366
13.8
190
1556
Ten
1089
13.8
190 .
1279
Eleven
1659
13.8
190 .
1849
..
-------
.; .
.
.
-24-
.
contamination of concern and would effectively minimize further
migration of contamination from the site.
Only de minimus amount~
of contaminants would not be consolidated and covered by the cap.
In addition to controlling the continued migration of contaminants
to the groundva~r. a cap would effectively mitigate the health
threats associated with dermal and respiratory contact with contam-
inated particulate, soil and sludUes.
Furthermore, capping would
reduce erosion from the site, consequently reducing surface water
transport of contaminants off-site.
This alternative would be in complete compliance with applicable
environmental laws, specifically RCRA requirements for site closure
and post-closure and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 which
encompass the ~rotection of floodplains and wetlands, respectively.
During construction of this remedial alternative, improper implemen-
tation could result in an increased potential for erosion and subse-
quent sedimentation in Tarkiln Brook.
Sedimentation may reduce
flood storage capacity and alter wetland characteristics.
Taking
'care to keep the quantity of freshly disturbed soils to a minimum
during construction will eliminate the potential of this impact.
Soils surrounding the capped area should. be stabilized using mulch
and seed as a part of site remediation to mitigate the serious ero-
8ion problems already in existence at the site and to minimize future
erosion.
There are no additional negative environmental impacts besides
the potential of erosion during construction discussed above.
-------
- ---
.
'"
-25-
II
A complete employee health and safety plan would be required
for the installation of the cap and other closure provisions of.
this alternative.
As part of that plan, adequate training of
personnel involved in any aspect of the remedial activities
would be required~
4
.
,..~
Remedial System Six:
7 Acre Cap
This alternative includes all the provisions discussed for Remedial
System five~ however, with the 2.5 acre cap supplanted by a 7 acre
cap.
The major difference between this alternative and System five,
besides cap area, is in System five some consolidation of contaminants
originally outside .the cap area would be required.
Based on the analysis summarized in Appendix A, the larger cap
would be no more effective in minimizing the further migration of
contaminants from the site than the consolidation of wastes and
use of a sm~ller cap discussed as part of System five.
The estimated cost o~ this alternative is 2.369 million. dollars.
A detailed cost estimate, including future operating and mainten~
ance expenses, is attached in Table 4.
Construction of this cap would be slightly more complicated than
the smaller cap in System fivef however, no major problems in
engineering or construction are anticipated.
. Remedial System Seven:
Limited off-Site Disposal of Soils
This alternative includes the. phasing out, removal and disposal
of the existing groundwater recirculation system~ the excavation
and off-site disposal of approximately 400 cubic yards of the
-------
. ..
-26-
.
most highly. contaminated soil and sludges from .the siteJ grading,
loaming and seeding the site surfaceJ fencing the siteJ and pro-'
viding post-closure monitoring and maintenance of the site cover
and fence.
The estimated- cq~t of this alternative is 0.922 million dollars.
A detailed cost summary, including future operation and maintenance
expenses, is attached in Table 4.
The implementation of this remedy would rely Qn the detailed
analysis of on-site contamination summarized in Appendix Band
would be relatively uncomplicated as the location of the most
.highly contaminated soil and. sludges. have been clearly defined.
The limited excavation and disposal proposed in this alternative
represents approximately 11' of the total heavily contaminated soil
and sludges estimated to be present at the site.
Therefore, the
potential for significant migration of contaminants from the
site to the groundwater would continue.
This .remedy would not
effectively mitigate and minimize the continued damage associated
. with contaminants'le,aving the site.
However, this alternative
would be effective in mitigating the health effects associated
with dermal and respiratory contact because of the provisions'
to cover the site surface and limit access by fencing.
This alternative would not be in compliance with RCRA technical
requirements for site closure. .
Remedial System Eight:
Area E Off-site Disposal of Soil
This alternative includes all the provisions of Syste~ SevenJ
.~
-------
...
8_- _. -- _.._..
. .
, ,
-27-
.
however, the excavation and disposal of contaminated soil and slu~ges
is increased from 400 cubic yards to 1200 cubic yards.
l'ne estimated cost of this alternative is 1.341 million dollars.
A detailed cost summary, includes future operation and maintenance
. .
expenses, is at~ached in Table 4.
.;
As with the previous alternative, the implementation of this
remedy would also be relatively uncomplicated because the
location of the highly contaminat~d soil and sludges have been
clearly defined (Appendix B).
The limited excavation and disposal proposed in this alternative
represents approximately 32' of the total heavily contaminated soil
and sludges estimated to be present.
As with System Seven, although
to a lesser extent, migration of the remaining contaminants at the
site could continue.
This remedy would, therefore, not effectively
mitigate and minimize the continued damage associated with contam-
inants leaving the site via groundwater.
However, the potential
health effects associated with dermal and respiratory contact would
be.minimized by the provisions in this alternative to completely
cover the site surface and to limit access by fencing.
This alternative would not be in. compliance with RCRA .requirements
'for site closure.
Remedial Site Nine:
Limited and Area E Off-Site Disposal at Soil
Thi8 alternative is similar to System EightJ however, a total of
1600 cubic yards of contaminated 80il and sludges would be exca-
vated and disposed.
-------
. .
-28-
.
T~e~e wastes would be the same as removed under System Eight with,
an GJ~itional 400 cubic yards of contaminated material.
~he estimated cost of this alternative is 1.556 million dollars.
A detailed cost summary, including future operation and mainten-
.. ~ .
ance expenses, is attached in Table 4.
.;
As with the other systems that included excavation, the implemen-
tation of this remedy would'also be relatively uncomplicated.
.The limited excavation and disposal proposal in this alternative
. .
represents approximately 42% of the total heavily contaminated soil
and sludges estimated to be present.
As with both Systems Seven and
Eight, migration of the remaining contaminants could continue. 'This
remedy, therefore, would not effectively mitigate and minimize the
continued damage associated with contaminants leaving the site via
the groundwater.
This alternative would not be in compliance with RCRA requirements
for site closure.
Remedial 5 stem Ten:
2.5 Acre Ca
and Limited Off-Site Dis osal
of Soil
This alternative is a combination of the Systems Five and Seven and
. includes all the provisions of those systems.
Before implementing
capping and the other provisions of System Four, approximately
4~O cubic yards of the most highly contaminated soil and sludges
would be excavated and disposed.
-------
. -
. .
-29- .
.
The estimated cost of this alternative is 1.279 million dollars.
A detailed cost summary, including future operation and mainten-
ance expenses, is att~ched in Table 4.
This system woul.d be effective in minimizing and mitigating the
further migratip'~ of contaminants.
However, the analysis summarized
. .
in Appendix A showed the 2.5 acre cap alone would be effective.
. Remedial System Eleven:
2.5 Acre Cap and Limited and Area E
Off-Site Disposal at Soil
This alternative is similar to System Five; however, a total of
.1600 cubic yards of soil and sludges would be removed prior to
capping.
The waste materials removed would be those included in
. the excavation and disposal provisions of System Nine.
The estima.ted cost of this alternative is 1.849 million dollars.
A detailed cost summary, including future operation and mainten~
, ance expenses is attached in Table 4.
As with System Ten discussed above, this system would be effec-
tive in minimizing and mitigating the continued migration of
contamination from the site.
Again, however, the studies completed
on the effectiveness of a cap show the 2.5 acre cap alone would
minimize the continued m~gration of contaminants, at a lower cost.
"
Community Relations
EPA released an addendum to the original Feasibility Study on
August 13, 1985.
As discussed, this addendum included a summary
of studies completed in early 1985 that more precisely determined
the extent of contamination, a reevaluation of
"source control
-------
.
.
-30-
,
. .
options and the subsequent recommendation to' cap the site.
A
press release and direct mailings to approximately 200 people
were used to announce .the availability of this document, the pub-
lic comment period and the scheduled public meeting and hearing.
On August 21,- 1~~5, EPA held a meeting with the Western Sand and
Gravel Coordinating Committee, an advisory committee formed in 1981
at the request of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. to discuss the capping proposal.
On August 27, 1985, a public meeting to explain the capping
proposal was held in the local community.
On September 10, 1985,
a formal public hearing was held., again in the local community.
~t both the meeting and hearing from 10 to 20 people were present.
At the hearing only two comments. one by a representative of the
State of Rhode Island and one by a member of the Western Sand and
Gravel Coordinating Committee, were entered into the record.
The
State concurred with the recommendation to cap the siteJ the
Committee reiterated their preference for excavation and off-site
dispo~al.
The public comment p~riod on the capping proposal closed
on September 13, 1985.
Consistency with Other Environmental Laws
As discussed in the introduction, under draft EPA policy being
used for remedial decisions at Supertund sites, remedies should
meet the technical. requirements of other federal environmental
laws unless limited exceptions apply.
As applied at this site,
the policy requires closure and post-closure activities to comply
with applicable federal RCRA standards.
These standards include
-------
. ; -
.
.
-31-
...
closure regulations requiring either closure by removal of waste
and waste residues which is equivalent to closure as a surface
impoundment pr closure as a landfill by. cappi'ng and appropriate
post-closure care.
The remedial alternatives for the site that
include excavati.oh and a soil cover would not adequately address
. ,
the RCRA requirements for closure by removal of the contaminated
soil and sludges (40 CFR Part 264.228) or closure as a landfill
'(40 CFR 264.310).
The remedial alternatives that include capping
the site would meet the RCRA requirements for closure and
. post-closure.
. .
Results of a floodplain and wetlands assessment completed at the
site indicate that the remedial alternatives considered will not
be in or affect a floodplain, and will not involve filling, be in
or otherwise adversely affect wetlands in the area.
Thus, Executive
Order (E.O. 11988) (Floodplain) and Protection of Wetlands Executive
Order (E.O. 11990) (Wetlands) have been satisfied.
. provisions of the Clean Air Act are not applicable for the alterna-
tives considered for site closure because the remedy does not involve
the emission of contaminants to the air.
Recommended Alternative
As discussed at 300.68(j) of the NCP, the appropriate remedy is
the remedial .alte.rnative which is cost-effective (i .e., the lowest
cost alternative that is technically feasible and reliable and
which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare and the environment).
-------
. ~
.
. .
-32-
,
The recommended remedial alternative for site closure is the
installation of 21.2.5 acre cap following grading of contaminants
to the cap area.
Also included are fencin~ and posting of the
site, and post-closure groundwater monitoring and cap and fence
maintenance.
.
A detailed cost summary of this alternative is
,
.,. =
attached as Table 5.
..
The addendum to the RIfFS indicated that this cap would eliminate
public health threats from dermal and respiratory exposure to sub-
stances and would otherwise protect the public health and environ-
. ment by reducing groundwater contamination at the site boundary to
.acceptable levels.
It was also the lowest cost alternative, with
the exception of extremely limited excavation, that was evaluated.
Although the alternative that included limited excavation was less
costly, it was not adequately protective as it would not effectively
mit~gate the further migration of contamination from the site.
. Other alternatives, including a larger cap or combination of capping
and excavation, were more costly than the recommended remedy.
As discussed ,.the alternatives -that contained only provisions for
limited excavation of. the contaminated soil and sludges would not
be in' compliance with other environmental laws, specifically the
provisions for site closure required by RCRA.
The alternatives
that included the provisions for capping, combinations of capping
and excavation, and total excavation would be in compliance with
other environmental laws.
-------
;
.
TABLE 5
CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES.
Cost Estimate Item
Site Preparation (including grading,
we'. protectJon and recirculation
. syStem protection) .
Present Wo~for 2.5 Icrest
S 175,000
J
Clpping with Bentonite C11Y and
Synthetic Materia1 .
Phase-out Groundwater Restoration
System and Remove
S 225,000
S 128,000
S 94,000
S 67Z,OOO
S 202,000
S 874,000
S 190,000
. Loam, Seed Ind Fence Site
Subtotal
Approximately 301 Engineering and Contingency.
Closure Tota1
Post-Closure in Conformance with RCRA
Grand Total
$1,064,000
. Estimates do not include the cost of a permanent water supply that has
been previously approved.'
~ .
".
:;.
. ~..."-.. .~_.
. ,
.
.
.
.
-------
. - ,
.-
.
.
.
-33-
.
In the Calculation at Down radient Groundwater Oualit
Resultin
fr,om site Capping, (Appendix A), a 2.5 acre cap following consoli-
~~tion of wastes was found to provide a complete cover of the re-
maining ,contamination of concern and to be effective in mitigating
and minimizif\g t~e further migration of contamination from 'the site
.~:
resulting in.eventual groundwater contaminant levels below levels
that are known to effect human health, flora and fauna.
The alte~natives that considered a larger cap and combinations of
excavation of contaminated soil and sludges and capping would
effectively mitigate and minimize the further migration of contam-
ination from the site.
However. these alternatives were more costly
than the recommended alternative and would, therefore, not be
cost-effective.'
operation and Maintenance (0 , M)
operation and Maintenance (0 , M) are those activities required
to ensure the adequacy of the remedial action throughout its life-
...
time.
For this remedial action, the 0 , M activities are for the
estimated project life of 30 years.
The cap installed will require periodic maintenance including mowing
the grass cover, and inspection to ensure the integrity of the cap.
Also, the security fence and signs surrounding the site will require
periodic inspection and maintenance as needed.
In addition, groundwater monitoring in complianc~ with RCRA
post-closure provisions will be conducted.
'Ibis will allow the
determination of the effectiveness of the remedy.
This monitoring
r~
-------
-34-
.
will be coordinated with the groundwater remed.ial investigation
that ~ill be conducted.
The estimated annual 0 , M expenses are $13,800.
over the 30
year life of the remedy, this represents a present worth o~
$190,000.
This.. is summarized in Table 4.
;
The State of Rhode Island will be responsible for 0 , M costs.
However, for the first year after construction of the remedy is
complete, EPA will fund 0 , M activities on a 90/10 basis.
SCHEDULE
The following are the key milestones and projected dates for
implementation of the selected remedy for site closure and
post-closures:
Approval of the Remedial Action
(sign the ROD)
september 27, 1985
Complete Enforcement Negotiations
(sign Consent Decree)
. Start Site Closure and post-Closure
Work Plan (conducted by a PRP)
October 30, 1985
october 30, 1985
complete Closure and post-Closure
Work plan
December 30, 1.985
Start Detailed Closure Design
(conducted by a PRP) and post-Closure
Complete Detailed Closure and post-Closure
Design' .
March 1986
May 1986
start Construction
June 1986
FUTURE ACTIONS
An additional RI/FS will be conducted to further investigate the
nature and extent of groundwater contamination and to develop and
-------
.....
. .
-35-
evaluate remedial alternatives for its cleanup~
the third operable unit of the remedial action.
This represents
As discussed., there will be ongoing maintenance of the cap, and
other site post-closure maintenance provisions to ensure the
integrity and effectiveness of the remedy.
Also, groundwater
monitoring in compliance with RCRA post-closure provisions will
be conducted to monitor the cap's effectiveness.
.
-------
, ;
~ .
.. - .
, .
.
..'
'1
,.. ,
APPENDIX A -
CALCULATION OF DOWNGRADIENT GROUNDWATER
QUALITY RESULTING FROM SITE CAPPING
A~l
, -
" .
.
.
.
.
..
-------
:.. . i ..-..
..
APPEND 11 A
i
t~ltUL.TION OF DOWNGRADIENT GROUNDWAT{!JPUALtTY.
..
In order to assess effects of contamination on groundwater outs' de the site
fence line. downgr.dSent qualitl estimates were .ade. The analyticil
. .
. .
results from the sampling and analyt\cl' program described in the aain body
~f the Addendum provided enough 'nfonmation to aake an estimate of the
. .
. .
effect of source reduction on the downgradient groundwater quality that'
would result from installation of a Clp over the site. Working from a Clp
1ife of 30 years. the overall amount of nOMRa' infiltration without. tap
at the site would be 18 1n/yr. This multiplied by 30 years is 540 inches
over a s1te area of approximate'y two acres. The totl1 volume of water at
the site Ivailable to solubSlize .the contaminants over that 301ears would
be:
. . '. 5
540 1n. 1,L!l. x 2 acres I 3.26 x 10 ~. x 1 MG . 29.34 MG
. 12 in. 1 acre-ft. 1 x 106 gal
. The sampling indicated significant contaminant concentrations in the
recirculation system area with .inor amounts elsewhere. In the
recirculation system area, it is estimated that the total volume of sludge
ts about 600 cubic lards and the volume of contaminated soil below and
.
.
.
around the sludge is about 2,100 cubic yards. The 600 cubic 1ard figure
and the 2.100 cubic lard figure are based on hand luger work in the .rel of
A-2
-------
e.. ~ .
. .
, ,
..
the recirculation system.
£s~imates of contaminant load to the soil and s1udgewere ..de for each of
the co.ntaminants of concern. The total ..ss of each 'of the cont~minants. In
, ~"d.slu~ge was estf.,ted by us1ng an average unit weight of loll
.....
and s1udge. . £stiNted levels are given 1n Tab1e A-I. Then 1t was
estimated the contaminants present In the loil will leach out over a
3D-year period at ~ similar rate. This approach enabled a calculation. of
the average concentration of leachate entering the troundwater at each
. '
samp1ing wel', as shown 1n Tab1e A-2.
Using a conservative approach and neglecting the dilution of the leachate
IS 1t mixes with groundwater, the concentration at the on-site well (£-2)
Is assumed to be that of the leachate. This concentration estl.ate
represents the on-site we1, concentration If the .ite capping action Is not
. undertaken.
The future off-site well (£-3) concentration '5 estimated by 8Ultlplylng
the estimated on-site well (£-2) concentration by a dimensionless
concentration which was previousl1 detena'ned from actual ,'te well data.
The estimated off-s1te well concentration Is then compared to the PPCLs
(Witer Qua11ty Guidelines and Standards) to determine 'f remedial action's'
needed to produce the desired .ffect of. acceptable health risk.
.
.
.
The concentrations at well £-3 were also computed assu~ing the fill area's
capped with a 991 reduction in concentration at £-2. Tabl. A-3 shows.the
predicted concentrations It well £-3 without and with a cap, as well as the
A-3
-------
.
. .
. .
..
applicable PPCls.
Capping of the site with a 899 percent effective tap. would reduce the
estimated 'evels shown to below the PPCls of Table A-3. This analysis
- .~~~~.. .~-t tapping is a viable solution at the site to .itigate future
. .,
tontamination m1gration.
..
In order to provide a tomplete determination of do~ngradient water quality
. .
an estimate of migration from uncapped areas was undertaken. The following
assumptions and considerations were used in .'gration estimates:
1. Areas of site not covered by the proposed cap as defined by
tDM/Roy F. Weston Sampling 1985 include:
o
Pits 9. 10. 11. 12
Scrape Area
o
o
South Road (Stat1on~ South and tenter)
North Road
o
2. The follo~ing are indicator compounds from analysis of .
toncentrated sludges which also appear in areas not tovered by the
proposed tap:"
o
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
o
o
1.1.2.2 Tetrachloroethane
I .
3. Estimated toncentrations and quantities of indicator tompounds in
areas to be 1eft uncapped are sho~n in Table A-4.
4. The estimated toncentrations in 9round~ater at the site boundary .
(~ell E-3-2) are sho~ 1n Table A-5. The estimated toncentrations
are wel1 be'o~ 'detection 1imits.
~
.
Based on this analysis. the tontribution of tontaminants from the uncapp~d
areas of the site wi11 not resu1t in significant increases in off-s'£e . .
..
A-4
-------
.." ( :-
..
tontamination of groundwater.
..
-~
.,....
...
..
A~5
,
y
.~
-------
.
~ .
TABLE A-I
ESTIMATED CONTAMINANT LEVELS PRESENT IN THE SOIL AND SLUDGE
Max1mum
Concentrattons
in So11 Total Esttmated
D~11utlnt (ppm) 1bs. Present
. .!
Benzene "" 2.4 3.6
..
. Trtchloroethylene 260 1,345
Tetrachloroethylene 120 656
. Chloroform 5.1 7..
1,1 D1chloroethylene 2.4 . 3.5
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 4.0 26.2
.
, .
A-6
48
.
.
...
-------
. p
_.~ ..
. .
,
.
TABLE A-2
ESTIMATED ON AND OFF-SITE WELL CONCENTRATIONS (ug/L)
Cone.
Aetual Dur1ng Est1111ated
Average Est1mated . Aetual latest (propert~
. Observed On-S1te Av~rage Samp 11 ng. Boundary
Cone. We" Cone. Est1IDated Cone. of E -3 We1' ~.3
'o11utant . of E.2 E-2 (PPB) Co of E-3 lIov. 84 (PPB)
Tr1ehloroethylene 3,571 5,500 7.1- & 10'" 2.6 <1 3.93
Tetrachloro- 7.24 & 10-3 .
ethylene 438 2,683 3.2 1 19.4
lenzene 1,176 14.7 3.15 & 10-3 5.6 1 0.046
Chloroform 1,361 30.3 0.03 -0.4 . 1. 0.9
1,1 D1ehlcro-
ethylene 558 14.3 0.0073 4.1 3 0.10
1~1,2,2 Tetrachloro-
ethane <1 107.1 0.0073 <1 <1
-------
'. ... -- _.-_.
. . I .
. .
..
TABlE A-3
We11 E-3 Concentrations and the 'PCls
Estimated WEll E-3 wI
. WEll 9~
E-3 (ppb) 'PCl . Effective
,~"\.~,,,t .1P.ill. Basis ~
. ~
Trt ch1 ofoeth,11 ene'.' 3.93 1.84 UCR 0.039
..
Tetrach1oroeth,11ene 19.4 (» 1.00 UCR 0.194
Benzene 0.046 «) 0.673 UCR 0.00046
Ch1ofOfol"ft\ 0.9 (» 0.5 UCR 0.009
. 1.1.0ich1ofoeth,11ene 0.10 (-) 3.5. 0.0337 ADI I UCR 0.001
1.1.2.2 Tetrach1oro- (1)
eth,11ene <1 0.175. UCR <0.1
UCR is 8unit cancef risk- and ADI 15 -.cceptab1e dai1y 1ntake8.
.
.
.
. ..
A-B.
-------
- .
. .
.. .
, .
.
TABLE A-4
~oncentrlt10ns in PPM by COMI R.F. Weston 19H5
Trichl0f"0- Tetrach10f"0- 1.1.2.2 Tetrach10f"'-
LOtlt10n - ethy1ene ethylene ethane
. . . - - - - - - - - -
P~t 10 .. -, 0.0'9 0.100
',.. ~ - - -
. .
P1t 11 oJ 0.0~_I).040 0.004-0.040 - - -
Pit 12 0.004-0.037 0.004-0.037. - - -
Stripe Are. - S(SA-l) 0.096 12.0 0.220
- C(SA-2) 0.003-t'.03S 0.2 0.003-0.035
- rHSA-3) - - - 0.003-0.030 - - -
South ROld - S(SR-1) - - - - - - - - -
- C(5R-2) - - - - - - - - -
North ROln - W(NR-1) - - - - - - - - -
- E(~R-2) 0.OOl-0.01\) - - - - - -
LOClt~on
Estimated Cubit
Yaf"as of
Contlm;~.tea So11
Pit 1~
Pit 11 .
:»1t 12
Scrape Ar-.
North ROI:f
40
660
100
300
150
TOTAL
1.250
. -
l~s. of V01.~Ue
Present
Trithlof"O- T,trtth1oro-
ethylene ethylene
1.1.2.2. Tetra-
Chloroethane
0.0048 0.0.0 - - -
0.0642 0.064 - - -
t).OOOIJ a.J09 - - -
O.r)48 2.97 11.062
0.036 . . . . t!" .
n.1215 3.053 0.062
.
,
.
A~9
-------
-
f - -.
.
TABLE A-5
ESTIMATED OFF-SITE WELL CONCENTRATIONS
V,,18t."@ ConwoouY\4
.. .' ...)
....- ..".w.
Task 4 Approach-
Concentration !redtcted
(ppb)
Est1~ated Probable
. Concentration based on
Well sampl1nv (11/84)
(ppb) .
.
.
1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane
<1.78 a 10'-
<4.5 a 10-2
<1/19 x 10.3
".5 a 10-5
2.3 . 10-3
1.1 x 10.5
Tr' ch.l oroethy1 ene .
Tetrach10roethy1ene
. .
1 < on each number denotes that recently measured concentrat10ns are less than
those pr.edicted by the assumptions of Task 4 for theex'st'ng cond't'ons
case. .
The estimated concentrations are we11 below detect'on Hlltts.
..
.
-
.
~ ..
~
A-I0
.----
%
~ '
-------
. .
,
.
.
.
.~
.,.. .
w
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE CONTAMINATION -
- -
..- .
.
.
.
.
-------
4< .- -- -_.
. . -- . . . . ..
.f ...
. .
. .
.lit
APPENDIX B
CDM/WESTON DATA - 1985
. WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ppm)
.
-~
',.. .
.01.
- Area of Former Chemica1 Pits 3 and 4 -
now Recircu1at1on Syst~ Arel -
Compound S1udge Sludge S1 udge S" udge 2
0-1' 2' .. ' ('023 \ 4'-6' 2' -4 ' (..024 )
Beniene - - - - 0.24-2.4 - - - - <2.4
th1orobenzene .001-.010 .4.0 55.0 50.0
Ch1orofonn - - - . 5.1 - - - - 2.4-24.0
1,1 Dich1oroethane - - - - 0.24-2.4 -.- - - . . . .
1,1 Dichloroethylene - - - . 0.24-2.4 - - - - - - - -
Ethy'benZene .001-.010 500 410.0 500
Methy'ene Chloride 0.064 3.5 0.59-5.9 - - - .
1,1,2,2 Tetrach'oroeth~ne . - .. - 4.0 0.59-5.9 2.4-24.0
Tetrach1oroethylene 0.130 120.0 80.0 130.0
. Toluene 0.072 450.0 260.0 560.0
1,2 Trans ~ich1oroethylene ..- - - - 0.24-2.4 - - - - . - - -
1.1,1 Trichloroethane 0.018 140.0 39.0 130.0
Trichloroethylen, 0.055 ,260.0 150.0 280.0
Tri chl oro" uoromet.hlne .001-.010 0.018 - - - - - - - -
2-Hexanone - - - - 64.0 31.0 52.0
Xylenes .001-.010 1,400.0 1,300.0 1,400.0
Acetone .001-.010 0.610 - - - - 2.4-24.0
2 Butanone - - - - 0.260 10.0 - - - -
Carbon Disulfide .001-.010 . - - - - - - .
'iny' Chloride - - - - 0.024 - - - - - - - ~
1,2 Dichloroethane 0.250
TOTAL .0.399 3,001. 2,347. '"
.. r;7
1 Ringe represents an indication of existence of contamination below a gi~en
-------
. "
.
..
'.
..
.;
.,.:
'" ",oa., "'.. ,., w
,,'
Benzene
Ct\1orobenzene
Ct\lorofom
-1.1 Dich1oroethane
1.1 Dichloroethy1ene
'Ethy1benzene
Methy1ene Chloride
. 1.1.2.2 Tetrachloroethane
Tetrlchloroethy1ene
To1~ene '
1.2 Trans uichloroethy'ene
1.1.1 Trichloroethane
. Trich,oroethy1ene
Trich'orofluoromethane
2 Hexanone
Xy1enes
Acetone
2 Butanone
Carbon Dis~'fide
Bromomethane
, Ch1oromethane
TOTAL
.
.'
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ppm)
East of.
Recirc~1ation System
So~th of
aecircu'ation ssytem
'it 1 'it 2 'it 5 Pit 6
- - - - - - 0.008-0.075 0.004-0.045
0.036 - - - 4.7 .0.004-0.045
- - - - - -
0.004-0.035 - - - 0.095
- - - - - -
0.004-0.035 - - -
0.410 0.047
0.0~-0.03S - - -
0.3 - - -
0.004-0.035 - - -
0.004-0.035 - - -
0.004-0.035 - - -
0.130 - - -
0.004-0.035. - - -
0.004-0.045
0.130
0.004-0.045
0.660
0.004-0.045
~ ~ -
- - -
93.
0.29
0.008-0.075
0.85'
41
0.008-0.075
0.170
3.7
0.008-0.075 '
0.008-0.075 0.630
460
0.470
0.110
0.008-0.075
0.1
0.008-0.075
0.047
0.004-0.045
0.075 - - -
0.130 0.110
0.039 0.001-0.010
0.004-0.035 - - -
0.420
0.004-0.045
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
1.401
0.167
604.675
2.202
.
.
.
:
, .
'.
c;c
-------
. ... _. .~-- .
..
,- . .
r.r'/ftInnu"d
,. .
~
Benzene
. Ch1orobenzene
Ch1orofo1"lll
1,1 D1ch1oroethane
1,1 D1ch1oroethy1ene
. [thy1 benzene
Methy1ene Ch1or1de
1,1,2,2 Tetrach1oroethane
.Tetra,h1 oroethy1 ene
To'uene
1,2 Trans Dichloroethylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tr1 chl oron uoromethane
2 Hexanone
ly1enes
Acetone
2.Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
TOTAL
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ppn)
.
.
South of Rec1rcu11t1on System
Scrape Area S
- - - - - -
0.001-0.010
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
0.110
0.220
12.0
0.011
- - . - - -
0.058
0.096
0.001-0.010
- - - - - -
0.014
0.017
- - - - - -
- - - . - -
12.546
B-4
$crape Area C
------
------
------
------
- - - - - -
------
0.003-0.035
0.003-0.035.
0.2
. . . . - -
------
0.003-0.035
0.003-0.035
------
------
- - - - - -
0.074
0.003-0.035
- - - . - -
0.449
Scrape Area N
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - . - -
0.044
- - - - - -
0.003-0~030
- . - - . -
- - - - - -
0.003-0.030
_Ut----
------
- - ... - -
- - - - - -
. 0.110
0.003-0.030
------
0.244
.
..
-------
.
-~
,.
..
. Compound
Benzene.
Ch10robenzene
. Ch10roform
1.1 D1eh10roethlne
1.1 D1eh1oroethy1ene
Ethy1benzene
Methy'ene Ch10r1de
1.1,2,2 Tetrlch10roethane
Tettlch1oroethy1ene
T01uene
.1.2 Trans D1ch10roethy1ene
1.1.1 Tr1eh10roethane
Tr1eh10roethy1ene
Ttieh1orof1uoromethane
2 Heunone
Xy1eftes
Acetone
2 lutlnone
Carbon D1su1f1de
TOTAL
lout of Ca11bration Range
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ppm)
- North of
Rec:i reu1 at1 on System -
, ,
..
- South of
Rec:1rc:u1at1on System ~
North Rd
Ii
North Rd South ad
E S
South ad
C
South ad
Ii
0.012
0.040
0.023
0.014
0.015
0.025
0.018
,
0.550"
0.042
0.001-0.010
0.010
0.001-0.010 0.001-0;010
0.001-0.010.
0.001-0.010
0.012
0.001-0.010
0.014 0.014
0.001-0.010
0.046
0.087
8-5
0.049 0.044 0.021
0.001-0.010 0.001-0.010
0.001-0.010
0.093
0.079
0.698
.
.
.
-------
I .
.
..
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ppm)
- South of Recircu1ation System -
,
','
Pft 7
Pit 8
Pit 9
Pit 10
.- '.-. -
.
..
Benzene
th10robenzene
Chlorofo",
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Methy'ene Chloride
1.1.2.2 Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethy'ene'
T01uene
1.2 Trans Dichloroethylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorof1uoromethane
2 Heunone
Xylenes
,Acetone
2 Butanone
, Carbon'Disulfide
10T AL
0.004-0.038 0.004-0.044
.
0.004-0.044
0.100 0.250 0.004-0.038 0.620
0.004-0.038
0.009-0.086 0.750 0.100
0.009-0.086 0.004-0.044
0.004-0.044
0.049
0.004-0.044 .
0.009-0.086 1.500 0.004-0.038 0.200
1.300 0.170 0.084 0.560
0~099 0.054 0.046 0.089
0.004-0.044
1.757 2.125 0.206 1.882
.
.
.
" .
~
-------
. .
. "
-.
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (PpIII)
South of Recircu1ation System
. -~ .
c.om~ound .,... 'it 11 'it 12
.;
Benzene
Ch10robenzene
Ch1orofo",
1.1 Oich1oroethane
1.1 Oich10roethy1ene
Ethy1benzene
Meth11ene Ch10ride 0.190 0.600
1.1.2.2 Tetrach10roethane
~!tP.ch'oroethy1ene 0.004-0.040 0.004-0.037
T01uene
1.2 Trans Dich10roethy1ene
1.1.1 Trich10r,~ethane 0.004-0.037
Trich10roethy1ene 0.004-0.040 0.004-0.037
T1'1 ch1 oron uoromethane 0.004-0.037
2 HeXinone
Xy11neS 0.004-0.037
Acetone 0.120 0.050
2 Butanone 0.050 0.041
Carbon Disu1f1de 0.004-0.037
TOTALS 0.440 0.913
B-7
.
.
.
.
-------
."- .
. ..--..-----.. u_------- .--" - -. .
~
c
.
-;
...... ~
.. .
tompound ;
,.
i .
-----.-
..
lASE NEUTRALS/ACID EXTRACTABLES.
PHENOLICS/PCB COMPOUNDS (ppm)
S1udge 0-1'
S1udge 2-4,1 S1udge _-6'
. 81 ,(2-Ch1 oroethoJly1Methane
81 s(2-ethy' hexy1) Phtha'ite
luty' lenzy' 'htha'ate
1.2 D1ch1orobenzene
1,- D1ch1orobenzane
Dt.N.Octy1 Phtha1.te
F1uoranthene
Naphthl1ene
- Ch1oroan111ne
2-Met~1naptha1ene
',yrene
N-N1trosod1pheny1am1ne
.'hen.nthrine
Pentach'orophen~'
:h1oro-lI-creso1
Tota1 Pheno11cs
1 2 anl'ls'S runs.
~
15.0
250
1.7-17.0
_3/31.
1.'
1.8-18.0/
(1.7.17.0).
1.8-18.0
18
0.0141
110
1.8-18.0
il0
1.7-17.0
0.0082
. .
320
1.7-17.0
90.0
1.7-17.0
<17 .0
24
120
0.00393
, ~~ 3
.
'.
-------
. .
. .
. .,
compound 'it 1 Pit Z Pit 5 Pit 6 Pit 7
. BiS(Z-Ch1oroethOxy)Methane
11 s(Z-ethy1 hexyl) phtha1ate 41.0 21..0 2.4 40.0
Dutyi Deftzy) Ph~hl1ate 1.8-18.0 1.8-18.0
",..
1.2 DiCh10~~benz~ne 3.4
1.4 D1ch1orobenzlne
. Di-M-OCt)" Phtha1ate 1.8-18.0 1.8-18.0 3.4 16.0
F'1uo~anthene
1.8-18.0 .
"ap~thI1ene
4-Ch10~oann1ne 1.8-18.0 39.0 .
2-Methy1naptha1ene 10
py~ene
N-M1t~osodipheny1am1ne
Phen.nth~ene .110 D1-M-
luthy1
Phtha1.te
0.16-1.6
Pentach1o~ophen01
Ch1 oro-m-creso'
Tot.1 Pheno11cI 0.Oi6 <0.0013 0.069 0.00074 0.00024
,
.
:
" .'
0.
8-9.,
-------
._~. ,"'"
, -.~
.
Compound Pit 8 Pit 9 Pit 10
~ IiS(2-Ch1oroetho~y)Methlne
8is(2-ethy' he~') Phthl11te aoo. 0.17-1.7 . .1.8-18.0
luty' BenZ1' Pbthl'lte 3.8
,..
1,2 DiCh1ojobenZIne
I,. 01ch1orobenzlne
D1-N-Oc~' Phthl11te 0.17-1.7
F1uoranttiene
.
Naphthl1ene 6.7
. Ch1oroln11tne 11.0
2-Met~1nlptha'ene . '.7
. Pyrene
N-Nitrosodipheny'lmine
Phenanthrene (11'0
1,2.. Trt-
ch1oroben
zene .
0.1.-1..
.,,4
n uorene .
0.1.-1..)
Pentach1oropheno1
Ch1 oro-e-creso1
Tou1 PhenoHcs 0.00024 0.00044 0.00060
~
,
.
" .'
"
8-10
-------
.
,
.
.
,
. . .... - --
.
compound
Pit 11
Pit 12
B1s(Z-chloroethO~y)Methane
~1s(Z-ethyl hexyl) Phthalate
18
.
,
'." ..
Butyl 8enzyl Phthalate
1.2 Dichlorobenzen,
1.4 D1chlorobenzane
D1-N-OctylPhthalate
F1uoranthene
Naphthalene
. Ch1of"oanl1ine
2-Methylnaptha1ene
pyrene
N-N1trosod1p~enylam1ne
Phenant~rene
Pentachlorophenol
Chloro-m-creso1
Total Phenolics
PCB's Compounds
all c 1 ppm
1.8-18.0 1.8-1a.O
0.00026
0.00058
Scrape
Area S
0.16-1.6
, ,
Scrape
Af"ea C
Scrape
Area N
."
1
0.016-0.16
0.018-0.18 0.018-0.18
1 Two Inl11s1s tUft,. Found unreso1ved ~droc.rbon comp1ex (H1ghtnd).
0.00134 <0.00013 <0.0013
.
. .
.
-------
'. n-...4 .. - _. . . ----.- ------.,
. ,,_u-.----~-' -.--.---.,
.
I
;
. .
North Rd North Rd South Rd South Rd South Rd
~,...,ou"d ,, £ S C N
-
~ 8\s(2-th1oroetboxy)Methlne
B1s(Z-ethy1 he~1) Phthl11te 0.082-0.820 0.017-0.170. 0.017-0.170
.. i
Buty1 Benzy' Phthalate
1.2 Dich1orobentene :
1.4 Dic.h1orobenzlne
D1-N-Octy' Phthl'lte 0.018-1.8
F1uoranthene
..
Nlphtha'ene
4 Ch1orolnntne
2-Met~'nlptha1ene
'Ir.ne 0.18-1.8
N-Nttrosodipheny1amine
Ph..uanth..ene
'entach1oropheno1 68
Ch1oro-m-creso'
Tota1 Pheno1tcs <0.00013 <0.00013 <0.00013 <0.00013 0.00016
ftB 'Compounds
.n < 1 PpIII
-.
,
.
1-12
------- |