United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01-92/069
September 1992
PB93-963708
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision;
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in 1he index that are not found in this document bave been removed at 1he request of
the issuing agency. They contain materiat which supplement. but adds no fur1her applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is, however. contained In the administrative record
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION I 1. REPORT NO. I.~ 3. Reclpient'a Acceaaion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-92/069
4. TIUe and SUbtiUe S. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/15/92
PSC Resources, MA 6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(e) 8. Perfonning Organization Re~ No.
9. Perfonnlng Orgenization N8me and Addreea 10. ProjectlTnklWofI< Unit No.
11. Contrect{C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization N8me and Addre88 13. Type of Report & Perioel Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M St reet, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. SUpplementary Notoa
PB93-963708
16. Abetract (Limit: 200 worda)
The 21.s-acre PSC Resources site is a former waste oil and solvent reclamation facility
located in Palmer, Hampden County, Massachusetts. The PSC Resources Property is
composed of approximately 20 acres of surrounding residential, commercial,
recreational, woodland, and wetlands areas, including the Quaboag River. Site features
include a concrete and brick frame building, a garage, multiple concrete tank cradles,
storage tank pads, and a lagoon. The site is bordered by a recreational field, mixed
woods and wetlands, residential and commercial property, and to the south by the
Quaboag River. The PSC property is also located within the 100-year floodplain of the
Quaboag Rive r, which is part of the Chicopee River Basin. The site overlies a ground
water aquifer that currently is not used for drinking water purposes. Since 1898,
there have been several owners of the PSC property, most involved in oil industry
functions. In 1974, PSC Resources, Inc., purchased the property to operate an oil
storage and processing facility, and in 1976, the company name was changed to Ag-Met
Oil Services, Inc. The company began accepting solvents and lacquers for collection
and disposal. In late 1976, the company began operating under the name Newtown
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyaia L Descriptors
Record of Decision - PSC Resources, MA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE), other organics (PAHS, PCBs), metals
(arsenic, lead)
b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSA TI Field/Group
18. Availebility Statement 19. Security Cl888 (Thia Report) 21. No. of Pages
None 188
20. Security Cl888 (Thia Pege) ~ Price
None
NS. 8.1 272 (4-77)
50272.101
ISee A I Z3 8)
See Instruction. on Reverse
(Formerty NTlS-3S)
-------
~PA/ROD/ROl-92/069
PSC Resources, MA
:irst Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
~efining Corporation; however, the state denied their permit renewals. Several state
inspections conducted between 1974 and 1976 revealed improper maintenance along with
waste oil and hazardous materials spills. In 1978, the facility was closed, and the state
required Newtown Refining to begin removing 1.5 million gallons of waste oils and sludge
from the site. By 1982, little of that waste had been removed and an estimated 500,000
gallons of waste remained onsite. Oil had discharged to adjacent wetlands and sampling
of soil, sediment, and surface water revealed contamination by VOCs, metals, PAHs, and
PCBs. In 1986, the state initiated two interim remedial measures (IRMs) to secure the
property and remove oils, sludge, drums, tanks, and associated piping offsite. In 1991,
EPA initiated a removal action, which involved construction of a new, full enclosure
fence around the PSC property and the adjacent spill area in the wetland. This ROD
addresses the final remedy for the site, which includes both source control and
management of migration components. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sediment, debris, ground water, and surface water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE,
and TCE; other organics, including PAHs and PCBs; and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selec~ed remedial action includes decontaminating, demolishing, and offsite disposal
of debris and property structures at a RCRA landfill; consolidating the contaminated soil
with lagoon and wetlands sediment onsite, and treating these materials using
stabilization; constructing a permeable cap over the stabilized material; restoring
affected wetlands; treating lagoon surface water onsite using filtration and a granular
activated carbon (GAC) adsorption unit, followed by discharging the treated water into
the Quaboag River or to an offsite facility; using natural attenuation to achieve ground
water clean-up levels; monitoring ground water; conducting sediment and surface water
sampling; and implementing institutional controls including deed, ground water and land
use restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is
53,420,747, which includes an annual O&M cost of $731,913.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil and sediment (lagoon only) clean-up levels are based on
health-risk standards and SDWA MCLs, respectively, and include benzene 1 mg/kg to
3 mg/kg; TCE 2 mg/kg to 4 mg/kg; PCE 2 mg/kg to 12 mg/kg; lead /15 mg/kg to 500 mg/kg;
total PAHs 151 mg/kg; and total PCBs 1 mg/kg. Chemical-specific wetlands sediment
clean-up levels are based on health-risk standards and include total PAHs 10 mg/kg; total
?CBs 1 mg/kg; arsenic 12 mg/kg; and lead 375 mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground water
clean-up levels are based on SDWA MCLs and state standards and include benzene 5 ug/l,
TCE 5 ug/l, PCE 5 ug/l, and lead 15 ug/l. An ARAR waiver will be issued for certain
requirements of the chemical waste landfill regulations, which require construction of
chemical waste landfills in low permeable clay conditions, the use of a synthetic
membrane liner, and that the bottom of the landfill be 50 feet above the historic high
-------
.f~£O sr.~.I'
i A \
,-)
~~.I~("
UNITED.STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSEns 02203-2211
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
PSC RESOURCES SITE
PALMER, MASSACHUSETTS
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action
for the PSC Resources site, in Palmer, Massachusetts, developed
in accordance with the comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by
the superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to
the extent practicable, the National oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFRPart 300 et seq., as amended. The
Regional Administrator has been delegated the authority to
approve this Record of Decision (ROD). .
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has concurred on the selected
remedy.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the Administrative Record which has
been developed in accordance with Section 113 (k) of CERCLA and
which is available for public review at the Palmer Public Library
at 455 N. Main Street, Palmer, Massachusetts and at the Region I
Waste Management Division Records Center in Boston,
Massachusetts. The Administrative Record Index (Appendix F to
the ROD) identifies each of the items comprising the
Administrative Record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from ~his
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or public welfare or to the
environment.
. 8~&.r0<9"
. .
.. :0
-' ~
oj .
..
.:J 3 it . ~'>
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This ROD sets forth the selected remedy for the PSC Resources
Site, which includes both source control and management of
migration components to obtain a comprehensive remedy.
The remedial action for the PSC Resources Site, as described in
this ROD, addresses the principal threats to the human health and
the environment posed by exposure of humans and biota to
contaminated soils from the PSC Resources property, adjacent
wetland sediments, and ground water. This remedy addresses all
principal threats to human health and the environment posed by
the sources of contamination at the PSC Resources site and
resulting from:
1)
Dermal absorption and incidental ingestion of contaminants
in surficial soils and sediments; and
2)
Ingestion of groundwater.
The major components of the selected source control remedy
include:
o
Decontamination, demolition, and offsite disposal of
property structures;
Treatment and discharge of lagoon surface water;
Consolidation of contaminated property soils with lagoon and
wetland sediments on site property;
In-situ mixing and stabilization of property soils/sediments
with treatment agents to bind contaminants into a stable
matrix; .
Construction of a permeable cap over stabilized property
soils and sediments, and grading and planting of the cap's
surface;
Restoration of wetlands;
Implementation of institutional controls on ground water use
and land development; and
Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediments, and
Quaboag River water and sediments.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The major components of the selected management of migration
remedy include:
o
Use of natural attenuation to achieve ground water cleanup
levels;
Ground water monitoring of existing wells on the PSC
Resources, Inc. property and of monitoring wells adjacent to
the property;
Sediment sampling of portions of the wetland and the Quaboag
River, and where ground water discharges to the wetland and
the Quaboag River;
o
o
-------
Surface water sampling in areas adjacent to the wetland and
in the Quaboag River; and
Five-year site reviews to assess site conditions,
contaminant distributions, and any associated site hazards.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains Federal and state requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate for this remedial action
and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that utilize treatment as a principal
element to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous
substances. In addition, this remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. .
As this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on
site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within
five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
¥ I~I (772...-
Date
f~~. ~~ I ftc1Mti:-
Julie Bela~
Regional Administrator
U.s. EPA, Region I
-------
ROD Decision summary
PSC Resources, Inc. Superfund site
Palmer, Massachusetts
september 15, 1992
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
-------
contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
PSC RESOURCES, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe Number
. . . . . .
1
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION. .
A.
B.
V.
IX.
X.
SITE HISTORY & ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2
. . . . . .
. . . .
Land Use & Response History. . . . . . . . . .
Enforcement History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
5
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . .
6
. . . . .
SCOPE & ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
7
. . . .
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . .
8
. . . . .
. . . . .
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Buildings and Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Property Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
site Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Surface Water and Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Floodplain and wetland Assessment. . . . . . . . . . 19
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
. . 25
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
A.
B.
Human Health Risk Assessment~ . . . . . . . . . .
Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . .
. . 25
. . 29
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
. . 32
. . . . . .
A.
B.
statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Technology and Alternative Development
and screening. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
. . 32
. . . . 33
DESCRIPTION OF. ALTERNATIVES. .
. . 34
. . . . .
A.
B.
Source Control (SC) Alternatives Analyzed. . . . . . 34
Management of Migration (MM)
Alternatives Analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . 44
A.
B.
Evaluation criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives. 46
THE SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 51
A.
B.
C.
Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels. . . . . . . . . 52
Soil and Sediment Cleanup Levels. . . . . . . . . . 55
-------
2
PSC RESOURCES, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Contents
Paqe Number
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . 75
B.
C.
D.
The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human
Health and the Environment . . . . . . . .
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs . . . . . . . .
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost Effective. .
The Selected Remedy utilizes Permanent Solutions
and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable. . . . 86
The Selected Remedy satisfies the Preference
for Treatment Which Permanently and
Significantly reduces the Toxicity, Mobility
or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a
Principal Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
. . 75
. . 76
. . 83
A.
E.
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
. . . . 88
XIII.
STATE ROLE
..............
. . . . .
. . . . 88
APPENDICES
Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B
ARAR Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C
Massachusetts Letter of Concurrence . . . . . . Appendix D
Responsiveness Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E
-------
ROD DECISION SUMMARY
september 15, 1992
1.
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The PSC Resources property is located at 10 Water street in Palmer,
Massachusetts (Figure 1, Appendix A). Palmer isa community of
approximately 12,000 residents and is located in Hampden County, in the
south central portion of the state. The PSC Resources property refers to
the former PSC Resources facility which is a fenced enclosure approximately
1.. 5 acres in size. The property is bordered to the west by a recreation
field; to the east by mixed woods and wetlands; to the north by
residential/commercial properties; and to the south by the Quaboag River
which flows from east to west (Figure 2, Appendix A). The southern bank of
the Quaboag River is located in the Town of Monson, Massachusetts.
The PSC Resources property currently contains one concrete and brick frame
building (approximately 65 x 35 ft.), a wood and corrugated metal. frame
garage (approximately 65 x 25 ft.), and multiple concrete tank cradles. In
addition, three (3) large storage tank pads and a lagoon (approximately 70
x 240 ft.) are located along the southwest boundary of the property (Figure
2, Appendix A). PSC Resources operated as a waste oil and solvent
reclamation facility in the early 1970's. The reclamation process involved
the addition of sulfuric acid to waste oils and solvents which were then
heated using steam coils. Heating operations occurred in two buildings on
the property which contained furnaces and boilers. The heated mixtures of
waste oils, acids and solvents were transferred to holding tanks where
particulates were allowed to settle out.
The "site" is defined as the area including, but not limited to, the area
of contamination. The site includes the PSC Resources property and
approximately 20 acres of surrounding residential, commercial,
recreational, woodland, and wetland areas, as well as the Quaboag River
(Figure 2, Appendix A) .
The PSC Resources property is located within the 100-year flood zone of the
Quaboag River floodplain (designated as Zone B on the National Flood
Insurance Program Insurance Rate Map). The floodplain is located at an
elevation of approximately 310 feet, National Geodetic vertical Datum
(NGVD). The site area is flanked by steep-sided valley walls on the west
bank of the Quaboag River which rise to an elevation of approximately 1,000
feet (Bald Peak). The eastern boundary of the site is bordered by the
Quaboag River floodplain which extends approximately 1,700 feet east to the
eastern valley wall. The southwest corner of the property is located
approximately 250 feet from the eastern bank of the Quaboag River. The
Quaboag River is part of the Chicopee River Basin.
Surface water on the site includes the Quaboag River, the wetland area
adjacent to the southern and western boundaries of the property; standing
water on the property contained in the concrete containment area and the
lagoon, and drainage moving off the property, discharging to the Quaboag
River. Of these water bodies, the Quaboag River is the only body of water
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
2
Class B surface water body and a tributary of the Chicopee River. Although
the Quaboag River is not used as a municipal water supply, it is used for
recreation and industrial purposes.
The ground water aquifer underlying the PSC property is currently not used
for drinking water purpose by residents in the Town of Palmer. The Palmer
Water District, a privately owned water supply company, currently supplies
mur.icipal water to the Town of Palmer. However, according to the Monson
Water Department, approximately 60 percent of the Town of Monson is served
by private wells. There is only one private supply well in the Town of
Monson located within a one half-mile radius of the PSC Resources property.
This well is located approximately one half-mile to the north/northwest of
the PSC Resources property, and has been utilized by the same residence
since 1896. In considering the proximity of this well to the site with
regard to the hydrogeology of the site and the nature and extent of
contamination on Site, it appears likely that this well is isolated from
the influence of PSC Resources property.
The PSC Resources property is located on a low, broad, river valley flood
plain comprised of thick sequences of highly permeable alluvial sand and
gravel deposits. The river valley plain is flanked on either side by
weathered silty, gravelly, sandy river terrace deposits with the topography
rising sharply beyond these terraces due to the regional upland bedrock
ranges that are thinly covered with poorly sorted, compact glacial till.
The Quaboag River meanders across the alluvium; at the PSC Resources site
it flows along the westerly edge of the valley plain. The regional surface
water runoff and ground water flow gradients were expected to be from the
upland bedrock/till regions on both sides of the valley plain toward the
Quaboag River, which serves as the regional surface water drainage system.
Based on the gr9und water contour maps generated and studied, the dominant
ground water flow direction in unconsolidated materials is to the
southwest, towards the Quaboag River, opposite to the direction of dip of
the bedrock surface. The predominant direction of ground water flow at the
site is towards the Quaboag River.'
A more complete description of the site can be found in the Remedial
Investigation Report - PSC Resources Site (HMM Associates, Inc., January
1992) in sections 1.0 and 2.0 of Volume I.
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
Land Use and Response History
Current land uses in the vicinity of the site are varied, including
residential, municipal, commercial and industrial uses. Several small
industries and commercial businesses, including a lumber yard, steel
company, newspaper publisher and a home heating oil company (Kelley &
Son Oil Company) are located to the north within 1,000 feet of th~ PSC
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
3
located approximately 200 feet to the northwest of the site at 11
Water street, has reportedly experienced releases of home heating fuel
(No.2 fuel oil from storage tanks onsite, see (Figure 2, Appendix A) .
Kelley & Son oil Company is currently conducting site assessment
activities associated with past releases of heating oil.
A future on-site property development scenario is deemed theoretically
possible despite current zoning for non-residential development and
the location of the PSC Resources property within the 100-year
floodplain. Zoning regulations have changed twice in the area since
1970's and therefore may change in the future. In addition, once
zoning allows residential construction, such construction could take
place despite the 100-year flood plain and the builder's failure to
obtain property insurance coverage. EPA considered this theoretical
possibility in utilizing the future on-site property development
scenario as the basis for this ROD.
Corporate owners of the PSC Resources property include:
Ownership Period
Corporate Owner
1898-1932
1932-1955
1955-1966
1966-1970
1970-1973
1973-1974
1974-1976
1976-1976
1976-present
standard Oil Company of N.Y.
Socony Vacuum corporation
Socony Mobil oil Company
Mobil Oil Corporation
Elish Nye Peirce, Peirce Brothers oil
Phillips Resources, Inc.
PSC ResourcesJ Inc.
Ag-Met oil Services, Inc.
Newtown Refining Corporation
PSC Resources, Inc. purchased the property in 1974 to operate an oil
storage and processing facility. In 1974, the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP, formerly the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE», issued the initial permit
for collection and storage of waste oil materials. The DEQE became
the DEP on July 1, 1989. In october, 1976, the DEP issued an amended
permit in response to a change in title of the owner from PSC
Resources, Inc. to Ag-Met oil Services, Inc. This amended permit also
allowed for the collection and disposal of "solvent, lacquers, etc."
(Division of Water Pollution control, 1976 (DWPC - a division of the
DEQE, now the DEP». In late 1976, Ag-Met oil Services, Inc. changed
its name to Newtown Refining corporation. In 1977, Newtown Refining
corporation applied for renewal of its existing waste storage permits;
however, the DEP did not renew the permits.
During the period from 1974 t~ 1977, the DWPC conducted several
property inspections. Improper maintenance as well as waste oil and
h~zardous materials spills were among the violations cited by DWPC.
-------
.RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
4
General's office to initiate legal action against the owners.
Consequently, the facility was closed in 1978. DEP issued a
subsequent Notice of Responsibility (NOR) to Newtown Refining
Corporation requiring the removal of approximately 1.5 million gallons
of waste materials consisting primarily of waste oil and sludges
stored on the property in tanks and in diked areas. In 1979, Newtown
Refining Corp., submitted a plan detailing provisions for disposal and
cleanup of the waste materials on site. Initial removal activities
were conducted by private firms under the direction of Refinemet .
International, a parent company of Newtown Refining Corporation. By
mid-1980, an estimated one-quarter to one million gallons of waste
materials had reportedly been removed from the property.
As a result of the limited progress made in cleanup and removal of
waste materials following DEP's initial request in 1978, the state
requested assistance from the federal government through the Superfund
program in 1982. At that time, an estimated 500,000 gallons of waste
materials remained on the property in storage tanks. State site
inspections revealed evidence of oil discharges to the adjoining
wetlands, as well as leakage of waste materials from the dikes on the
property into the wetlands. Subsequent sampling programs performed by
various investigators indicated elevated levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), trichloroethylene (TCE), lead, and other hazardous
materials in the soil and surface waters on the property. Based upon
this information, state enforcement actions were initiated against the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) requiring the removal of waste
materials and cleanup of the site. The PRPs identified for the PSC
Resources Site include PSC Resources, Inc., Newtown Refining Co.,
Refinemet International, and Ag-Met Refining Co., among others.
Removal activities on the property proceeded between 1982 and 1984 by
several contractors under the direction of RefinemetjNewtown Refining.
However, numerous notifications to RefinemetjNewtown Refining from the
DEP regarding inadequate progress in cleanup operations prompted a
series of contractor replacements. During 1983 and 1984, DEP
contractors removed the majority of the remaining waste materials from
the tanks, and decontaminated and removed the storage tank structures.
In September, 1983, the PSC Resources site was assigned a final
listing on the EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) and thereby became
eligible for Superfund funding.
In 1986, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and EPA determined that
Interim Remedial Measures (IRMs) were warranted at the PSC Resources
site in order to protect human health and the environment. IRM No.1,
implemented by DEP, included the repair of existing fencing and
installation of additional fencing. Appropriate warning signs were
also posted along the fenced perimeter. IRM No.2 required the
demolition and removal of 19 storage tanks. The following IRM
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
5
IRM No.1
Construction of an additional 350 feet of chain link fence to
adjoin the existing portion of fence to establish complete
fencing (security) of the property.
IRM No.2
Demolition and disposal of 19 storage tanks.
Bulk disposal of oil and water contained in storage tanks.
Disposal of drums of sludge and contaminated protective clothing
generated during tank cleaning and removal operations.
storage of miscellaneous piping associated with former tanks.
In the fa~l of 1991, EPA initiated a removal action at the PSC
Resources site. EPA decided that the removal action was warranted on
the basis that the PSC Resources property posed a threat to those
trespassers that were accessing the property through then existing,
decaying fence and as a result being potentially exposed to
contaminants in the property soils and in the lagoon sediments. The
removal action consisted of constructing a new, full enclosure fence
around the 1.5 acre PSC Resources property and the adjacent Spill Area
in the wetland. The removal action was completed in October, 1991.
A more complete description of the site history can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report - PSC Resources site (HMM Associates,
Inc., January 1992) in Sections 1.0 of Volume I.
B.
Enforcement History
On March 18, April 1, and April 14, 1992, EPA notified over one
hundred parties who either owned or operated the facility, generated
wastes that were shipped to the facility, arranged for the disposal of
wastes at the facility, or transported wastes to the facility of their
potential liability with respect to the Site. Likewise, under the
M.G.L. c.21E, the DEP notified approximately four hundred parties of
. their potential responsibility for cleanup of the PSC Resources site.
Negotiations are expected to commence with these potentially
responsible parties (PRPS) in the fall of 1992 regarding the
settlement of the PRPs' liability at the site. Several of the PRPs
have formed a steering committee in anticipation of the forthcoming
negotiations with EPA and the DEP.
Several PRPs have participated in the remedy selection process for
this site by presenting comments during the public comment period.
EPA summarized the comments, and included the summary and each written
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
6
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's history, community concern and involvement have
relatively low. EPA and the DEP have kept the community and other
interested parties apprised of the site activities through several
informational meetings, press releases, and public meetings.
been
Formal community relations activities associated with the PSC Resources
site were initiated in 1986. EPA and the DEP have provided the local
community with updates on site activities at project milestones through
public meetings and mailings. EPA has also maintained information
repositories at the EPA regional office in Boston, Massachusetts and the
Palmer Public Library at 455 N. Main street, Palmer, MA to provide easy
access to reports and other documents pertaining to the site. Public
interest in the site had been described as low until recently, following
the release of EPA's Proposed Plan.and the identification and notification
of potentially responsible parties.
The DEP prepared a community relations plan in 1986. In April of that
year, EPA and DEP conducted a community briefing to discuss the planned
Interim Remedial Measures. Attendance at the briefing included four
community officials and one reporter. A decrease in public interest was
noted following the removal of hazardous waste storage tanks from the site
(one of the Interim Remedial Measures). On February 27, 1991, EPA and the
DEP held an informational public meeting in Palmer, Massachusetts to
describe the plans for the ongoing Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
study. The February 27, 1991 public meeting.drew an audience of ten
people. . At this meeting, some concern was expressed regarding the length
of the cleanup pr9cess. EPA revised the community relations plan in
November of 1991 in anticipation of renewed community interest at the
completion of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
On March 20, 1992, EPA made the administrative record available for public
review at EPA's regional office in Boston and at the Palmer Public Library.
EPA published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the
Springfield Union - News and the Palmer Journal Register on March 29, 1992
and March 26, 1992 respectively and made the plan available to the public
at the Palmer Public Library. In the Proposed Plan, EPA specifically sought
comments on the following: (1) site cleanup plans and (2) the impacts of .
site cleanup activities on the wetlands and floodplains found at the site.
On March 31, 1992, EPA held an informational meeting to discuss the results
of the Remedial Investigation and the cleanup alternatives presented in the
Feasibility Study and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan. Also during
this meeting, the Agency answered questions from the public. The March 31,
1992 informational meeting drew an audience of approximately 70 people,
including residents, potentially responsible parties (or their
representatives), and reporters. A number of concerns were voiced,
-------
Paqe
7
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
associated with the site, the continued use of an adjacent athletic field,
and the process of identifying potentially responsible parties. From April
1, 1992 to May 30, 1992, the Agency held a sixty day public comment period
to accept public comment on the alternatives presented in the Feasibility
study and the Proposed Plan and on any other documents previously released
to the public. On April 21, 1992, the Agency held an informational public
meeting and a public hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any
oral comments. Concerns and comments similar to those from the March 31,
19S2 informational meeting were voiced again at the April 21, 1992 public
hearing. A transcript of this meeting and the comments and the Agency's
response to comments are included in the attached responsiveness summary.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
The selected remedy was developed by combining components of different
Source Control and Management of Migration alternatives to obtain a
comprehensive approach for Site remediation. In summary, the remedy
consists of the following components for Source Control and Management of
Migration:
Source Control
1)
2)
3)
Decontamination, demolition, and offsite disposal of property
structures;
Treatment and discharge of lagoon surface water;
Consolidation of contaminated property soils with lagoon and wetland
sediments on site property;
In-situ mixing and stabilization of property soils/sediments with
treatment agents to bind contaminants into a stable matrix;
Construction of a permeable cap over stabilized property soils and
sediments, and grading and planting of the cap's surface;
Restoration of wetlands;
Implementation of institutional controls on ground water use and land
development; and
Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediments, and Quaboag
River water and sediments.
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Manaqement of Miqration
1)
2)
3)
Use of natural attenuation to achieve ground water cleanup levels;
Ground water monitoring of existing wells on the PSC Resources, Inc.
property and of monitoring wells adjacent to the property; .
Sediment sampling of portions of the wetland and the Quaboag River,
and where ground water discharges to the wetland and the Quaboag
River;
Surface water sampling in areas adjacent to the wetland and in the
Quaboag River; and
Five-year site reviews to assess site conditions, contaminant
distributions, and any associated site hazards.
4)
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
8
The remedial action for the PSC Resources Site, as described in this ROD,
addresses the principal threats to the human health and the environment
posed by exposure of humans and biota to contaminated soils from the PSC
Resources property, adjacent wetland sediments, and ground water. This
remedy addresses all principal threats to human health and the environment
posed by the sources of contamination at the PSC Resources site and
resulting from:
1)
Dermal absorption and incidental ingestion of contaminants in
surficial soils and sediments; and
2)
Ingestion of ground water.
v.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1.0 of the Feasibility Study contains an overview of the Remedial
Investigation. The significant findings of the Remedial Investigation are
summarized below.
A.
Buildings and Structures
Phase I and II building and structure sampling was performed with the
primary objective being the identification of the types and
concentrations of contaminants existing in buildings and structures.
These analyses identify the types of contamination existing in
buildings and structures on the property based on a representative
sample population. The results provide the initial data necessary for
performance of the risk assessment and evaluation of the potential
need for additional investigation during the pre-design phase of the
project to determine contaminant distributions in terms of areas and
volumes.
Phase I and II structure sampling included the collection of core,
auger, chip, and wipe samples from the three buildings (designated
Buildings A, B and C), a concrete containment area, two sets of
concrete tank stanchions, a concrete pad area, and an open platform
area located next to the lagoon (Fiqure 3, Appendix A). Phase I
samples were collected from stained areas where a suspected release or
accumulation of waste materials had occurred. Phase II sampling was
performed to further characterize the nature and extent of
pesticides/PCBs and polychlorinated di-benzo-dioxins
(PCDDs)/polychlorinated di-benzo furans (PCDFs) detected during Phase
I building and structure sampling (Figures 4 through 6, Appendix A) .
Results of sampling and analyses are summarized below.
A variety of organic contaminants were detected in those building and
structures on the property which were sampled. Volatile organic
compounds (VQCs) detected include ketones (acetone), chlorinated
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
9
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), and
tetrachloroethylene (PCE», and aromatic hydrocarbons including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzenes and xylenes (BTEX). Concentrations of
these contaminants generally range in the tens of parts per billion
(ppb) or micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg), and exhibit a variable
distribution. Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) detected
consist predominantly .of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
phthalates, which were detected consistently throughout the buildings
and structures sampled. Concentrations of PARs generally ranged from
tens to hundreds of thousands of ug/kg, with the highest
concentrations being detected in chip samples. Chip samples represent
residual sludge released from storage tanks which has accumulated on
the surfaces of buildings and structures. Three pesticides were
detected in the building and structure samples analyzed, at
concentrations in the tens to low hundreds of ug/kg range. Detected
pesticides are attributed to site related pest control operations,
with the exception of gamma-chlordane, which was detected within
Building B at 240 ug/kg. The elevated concentrations of
gamma-chlordane detected from a sample collected from within Building
B may be attributed to the release of a pesticide within the building.
PCBs detected in the buildings and structures sampled were limited to
Aroclor-l260, at concentrations ranging from tens to tens of thousands
of ugfkg. The highest concentrations of Aroclor-1260 were detected in
the sludge chip samples (up to 73,000 ugfkg).
Analyses of buildings and structures for inorganic analytes included
Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity for Resource conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals. These results indicated that .none of
the building materials sampled exhibit concentrations in excess of
former Regulatory Levels (RLs) for EP Toxicity.
Quantifiable concentrations of individual polychorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and polychorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs and PCDFs) were
evaluated using the toxicity equivalence factor (TEF) method
(EPA/625/3-89/0l6,March 1989). The TEF method is an interim
procedure for assessing the risks associated with exposures to complex
mixtures of PCDDs and PCDFs relative to the highly studied 2,3,7,8
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD). Total PCDD and PCDF
concentrations are expressed as 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalents. Analyses of
.onsite buildings and structures for PCDDs/PCDFs indicate that the
risks associated with auger, core, and chip samples are well below the
ATSDR's recommended 1 ppb cleanup level for residential soils (ATSDR,
1988) and are also within EPA's acceptable risk range. Analyses of
wipe samples are reported in concentration units of pg/cm2 and
therefore cannot be directly compared to the 1.0 Pfb value. TEFs for
wipe samples ranged from 0.01 pg/cm2 to 0.12 pg/cm .
No patterns of contaminant distributions emerge which support the
identification of one distinct source area within the buildings and
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
10
analyses of organic contaminants suggest that the higher
concentrations appear to be limited to the upper surfaces of the
materials analyzed. contamination of buildings and structures appears
to be a result of random spills of waste oil and sludge contained in
storage tanks on the property. Similar contaminants were detected in
waste oil and sludge contained within on-site storage tanks during
previous investigations. Higher concentrations of organic
contami~ation were detected in areas where waste transfer and
process_ng operations occurred, including Building B, the containment
Area and the Pad Area. .
B.
property Soils
The field investigation included the excavation of ten test pits on
the property, designated TP-1 through TP-10 (Figure 7, Appendix A).
Test pits were excavated for multiple purposes, including: the
investigation of the source of magnetic anomalies which could
represent potential subsurface contaminant sources including drums, .
tanks, pipes; visual investigation of soil types and extent of
subsurface soil staining; and initial characterization of contaminants
in soil based on laboratory analysis of soil samples.
Additional soil sampling on the property included the collection of
samples from borings and surficial samples. Soil samples were
collected from five soil borings on the property designated SB-1
through SB-6 (note SB-5 by definition is not located on the property;
Figure 7, Appendix A). The soil boring and sampling task was performed
to investigate the type and distribution of PCB contamination at depth
in property soil. Supplemental surficial soil samples were collected
to investigate the presence/absence of PCDD/PCDFs. PCDD/PCDF sampling
locations are designated SED-1 through SED-4 (Figure 7, Appendix A).
A final round of soil sampling included collection of surficial
composite samples of soil to a depth of six inches at twenty locations
(designated SS-l through SS-20 in (Figure 8, Appendix A). These
twenty soil samples were analyzed for lead.
Organic and inorganic contamination was detected in soil samples
analyzed from the property. Property soil is identified as a primary
source of ground water contamination. Soils in many of the test pits
and borings were observed to be stained black from the ground surface
to a depth of up to six feet below the ground surface. The black
stained soil was also noted to have an oily odor, suggesting that the
staining is a result of spills/releases of waste oils and/or sludges.
Figure 9 of Appendix A summarizes the lateral and vertical
distribution of soil staining based on observed soil conditions in
test pit excavations, and in soil samples collected from property
borings. These results suggest that accumulations of waste oil exist
in subsurface soil and represent potential sources of contamination to
ground water. In addition, a variety of subsurface piping and/or
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
11
~
liquid waste, were noticed in test pit excavations TP-3, TP-5, and
TP-7. These materials also represent potential subsurface contaminant
sources.
VOC contamination was detected in property soils and included
predominantly chlorinated hydrocarbons (DCE, TCA, TCE, and PCE) and
BTEXs at total concentrations up to 864,000 ug/kg (Figure 10, Appendix
A). Soil analyses and test pit observations indicate that the highest
detected concentrations of constituent VOCs were coincident with
liquid waste observed in residual piping and subsurface accumulations
of viscous waste at the fill/alluvium interface. VOC concentrations
were also significantly elevated in soils collected coincident with
the water table. The variable lateral distribution of VOCs detected
in soil is attributed to the random releases of waste oil and
solvents. Partitioning of VOCs from soil to ground water may be
inhibited due to the relatively high organic carbon content in
property soil (10% TOC) which is attributed to the presence of waste
oil in soil. .
SVOCs detected in property soil were predominantly PAHs and
phthalates; a suite similar to those detected in building and
structure samples. Concentrations of PARs in soil were detected in
the hundreds of thousands of ug/kg range. The presence of PARs in
soil is attributed to the release of waste oils to the soil. SVOCs
exhibit a distribution similar to VOCs in soil, extending over the
majority of the property sampled (Figure 11, Appendix A) .
Pesticides were not detected in soil analyzed on the property, however
PCBs were detected (including Aroclor-1260 and Aroclor-1242) .
Aroclor-1260 was the predominant PCB detected in laboratory analyses
and the only PCB detected in screening analyses. Total concentrations
of PCBs in soil exceed 50,000 ug/kg in a limited area of the property,
and are attributed to releases of sludge contained in an on-site
storage tank removed from this area (Figures 12 and 13, Appendix A).
PCB concentrations decrease with depth, and were not detected at
depths of greater than ten feet below ground surface (Figure 14,
Appendix A) .
Lead appears to be the predominant metal detected in soil on the
property at concentrations ranging from 596 mg/kg at SS-l to 39,200
mg/kg at SS-16 (Figure 15, Appendix A). The distribution of lead
contamination extends over the majority of the property sampled with
seventeen of the twenty surficial soil samples collected containing
lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg. Lower concentrations of
zinc and copper were detected at concentrations exceeding the site
upper reference limit. Copper was detected in six of eleven analyses,
at concentrations ranging from 30 mg/kg to 53 mg/kg (TP-8). Zinc was
detected in four of eleven analyses at concentrations ranging from 233
mg/kg to 1,750 mg/kg (TP-9). These three metals are attributed to the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
12
Analyses of property soil for PCDDs/PCDFs indicate that none of the
calculated TEFs exceed the ATSDR's recommended 1 ppb cleanup level for
these analyses.
C.
site Soils
Characterization of the nature and extent of contamination in site
area soils is based on the analyses of samples col,lected from borings
advanced during the installation of Phase I ground water monitoring
wells and surficial soil sampling in the athletic field. Soil boring
locations B-101 through B-106 and athletic field sampling locations
AS-1 through AS-5 are displayed in Fiqure 16, Appendix A.
six borings, designated B-101 through B-106, were installed at
monitoring well locations MW-101 through MW-106. The majority of soil
boring samples were collected from below the water table, which ranges
from depths of less than one foot below the ground surface at boring
location B-103 to approximately eight feet below the ground surface at
B-101. Soil boring analyses were evaluated with regard to the
identification of, and contribution to, contaminant distributions in
ground water.
Four (4) composite surficial soil samples were collected at a depth of
up to six inches from the athletic field (locations AS-1 through
AS-4). Samples AS-1 and AS-2 were collected from a gentle topographic
scale and AS-3 and AS-4 were collected from heavily utilized areas in
the athletic field.
Organic contamination detected in site soil boring samples consisted
of VOCs (predominantly ketones), SVOCs (including PAHs, acid
extractable compounds (AECs), and phthalates), and metals
(predominantly lead). The highest concentrations of ketones, PAHs and
AECs were detected in soil samples collected from soil borings B-104
and B-105 located immediately downgradient from the property.
Elevated concentrations of these contaminants were also detected in
ground water samples collected from monitoring wells installed in
these borings. Surficial soil samples from the athletic field
contained low concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA and PAHs. organic
contamination detected in athletic field soil may have migrated from
the PSC Resources property by surface water drainage during flood
events since both areas are located in the flood plain. Pesticides
and PCBs were not detected in any of the site boring or athletic field
samples analyzed, which suggests that PCBs detected in property soil
are not migrating from the property in subsurface soil (or ground
water as evidenced by ground water analyses). Metals were detected in
site soil at elevated concentrations in surficial samples from borings
B-102, B-103, and B-104. These borings are located within, or
adjacent to, areas of fill emplaced adjacent to the northern boundary
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
13
metals detected in site soil do not appear to be affecting ground
water quality.
D.
Air
The nature and extent of contamination in ambient air was investigated
in a two phase ambient air sampling program. Phase I was conducted on
July 6, 1988 and involved a site reconnaissance with real time air
monitoring at 54 stations on, and surrounding, the property. Elevated
concentrations of total VOCs ranged from 6 parts per million (ppm) to
125 ppm at stations where soil was disturbed. Based on the results of
Phase I monitoring, a Phase II air sampling program was conducted to
identify the nature and magnitude of constituent VOCs detected during
Phase I monitoring.
The Phase II air sampling was conducted over a three day period from
August 16-18, 1988 and involved quantitative analysis of air samples
collected in glass cartridges containing Tenax and Ambersorb adsorbent
media. In order to establish a base line set of conditions for the
Phase II air program, the first day of air sampling (August 16, 1988)
was conducted prior to any intrusive activities being performed on the
property. The results from the first day of the Phase II air sampling
indicated that there were low levels (up to 5.8 micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3» of VOCs present in the ambient air on the property.
However, subsequent air sampling performed on the second (August 17,
1988) and third days (August 18, 1988) of the sampling program
indicated that intrusive activities on the property have the potential
to cause an additional release of VOCs to the ambient air (total
concentrations of VOCs exceeding 200 ug/m3). A number of the VOC
samples from the second and third days' air samples exceeded the
current Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs). Locations of the sampling
stations for the three days of air sampling are summarized in Figure
17, Appendix A.
Analyses of air samples collected during test pit excavation
activities indicate that VOCs (PCE, TCE, and BTEX compounds) were
detected at concentrations exceeding existing AALs and Threshold
Effects Exposure Limits (TELs), ranging from 1.3 to 21 ug/m3. These
contaminants have also been detected in property soil and are
attributed to releases of waste oil and solvents. The results of air
sampling indicate that intrusive soil activities on the property have
the potential to cause a significant release of VOCs to ambient air.
E.
Surface Water and Sediment
The nature and extent of contamination in surface water and sediment
is summarized below by location including: Lagoon and Catch Basin
Surface Water and Sediment; wetland Sediment; Quaboag River Surface
-------
,RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
14
1)
Laqoon and Catch Basin Surface Water and Sediment
The history of the site, past waste management practices, and
interpretation of historic aerial photographs, suggest that the
lagoon was originally utilized as a earthen bermed area,
designed to contain a release of materials from the adjacent
large vertical storage tanks on the property. Sediments within
the lagoon appear to be a result of the disposal of sludge,
originally contained in storage tanks, into the earthen bermed
area. Repetitive sludge disposal resulted in the accumulation
of a layer of sludge over the base of the earthen berm. The
layer of sludge material formed an impediment to infiltration of
rain water due to lowered permeability, which resulted in
ponding in the bermed area and formation of a lagoon. Phase I,
Phase II, and core sample locations in the lagoon and catch
basin are displayed in Figure 18, Appendix A.
Elevated levels of a number of contaminants were detected in
lagoon and catch basin sediments and include: VOCs (chlorinated
hydrocarbons and BTEX); SVOCs (PAHs and phthalates); PCBs
(Aroclor-1260 in the catch basin sediments); and total oil and
grease (TOG) (at up to 40 percent in lagoon sediments).
Constituent contaminants detected in sediment analyses were
similar to those detected in property soil for each parameter
analyzed, suggesting similar sources (e.g. waste oil, sludge and
solvents). VOCs detected included DCA, DCE, TCE, PCE, (at
concentrations up to 1,700 mgjkg) and BTEXs (concentrations up
to 1,850 mgjkg). SVOCs consisted of predominantly PAHs at total
concentrations up to 10 percent. The absence of detected
concentrations of PCBs in lagoon sediment is attributed to
elevated instrument detection limits and sample dilution.
Analyses of lagoon sediment for PCDDsjPCDFs indicate that none
of the calculated TEFs exceed the ATSDR's recommended 1 ppb
cleanup level for these analyses.
The predominance of chlorinated VOCs, BTEX, percent PAH levels,
and a 40 percent concentration of TOG in lagoon ,sediments '
reflects the nature of these sediments as representing sludge
released from the storage tanks. As a result, lagoon sediments
may be expected to contain elevated concentrations of PCBs (in
the ,tens of thousands of ug/kg range), although not quantified.
Lagoon sediments are identified as a primary source of ground
water contamination.
Lower concentrations of VOCs (at tens of ug/kg), SVOCs, and PCBs
(catch basin surface water only) were detected in lagoon and
catch basin surface water. Lead was detected in catch basin
surface water at a concentration of 829 ug/l. A comparison of
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
15
water and sediment suggests that sediments represent the source
of contaminants detected in surface water.
2)
Wetland Sediments
Characterization of the nature and extent of contamination in
wetland sediments was performed during two phases of wetland
sediment sampling. Phase I included the collection of 35
samples (N-1 through N-35). Phase II included collection and
analysis of an additional 15 samples (N-36 through N-50).
Wetland sediment sampling locations and delineation of wetland
habitats and boundaries are displayed in Figure 19, Appendix A.
Three supplemental sediment samples (at locations designated
WSED-1, SS-2, and WSED-3 in Figure 19, Appendix A) were
collected and analyzed for pesticides/PCBs and PCDDs/PCDFs.
Wetland sediments are considered to be composed of the surficial
soil materials surrounding the property to the east, west, and
south which have a high organic content, and are generally
six-inches to two-feet in thickness. The wetland sediments
directly overlie, and are readily distinguishable from, the
underlying glaciofluvial deposits. Within the wetlands portion
of the site is an area where an approximately 4,000 gallon
release of what has been described as a petroleum waste oil
occurred. This area, which is referred to as the Spill Area, is
located directly to the southeast of the lagoon, within the
fenced property (Figure 20, Appendix A). The release has
impacted the wetland sediments within the Spill Area. Organic
and inorganic contamination was detected in wetland sediment
samples analyzed from the Spill Area. In particular, the spill
Area is identified as a potential source of ground water and
surface water contamination, and a primary source of sediment
contamination in the wetlands. .
VOCs detected in wetland sediment samples were restricted to
those samples collected from the Spill Area. VOCs were not
detected in any of the 17 wetland sediment samples located
outside of the Spill Area. Constituent VOCs included BTEX
compounds ranging in concentration from 510 ug/kg to 30,000
ug/kg. Patterns in the distribution of ground water
contamination, ground water flow, and ground water
recharge/discharge relationships suggest VOC contamination
detected in the Spill Area may be a contributing source to
ground water contamination. However, results of the Summers
leaching model analyses suggest that contaminants in Spill Area
do not contribute to ground water contamination.
SVOCs detected in wetland sediments were predominantly PAHs and
phthalates, with lower concentrations of phenols. Total
concentrations of PAHs in wetland sediments were detected in the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
16
Appendix A). Total concentrations of PCBs were detected at up
to 32,000 ug/kg at sample location N-42 (Figure 22, Appendix A).
The highest concentrations of SVOCs and PCBs were detected in
the Spill Area, which appears to be the source for contaminants
detected in other areas of the wetland.
contaminated sediment in the Spill Area appears to be migrating
to the wetlands. by surface water drainage during storm or flood
events. Higher concentrations of SVOCs and PCBs in wetland
sediments outside of the Spill Area generally correlate with
definable drainage ways and areas of lower elevation, which
experience accumulation of contaminants by saltation and
sedimentation.
Four pesticides were detected .in the wetland sediment samples
~nalyzed, at concentrations in the tens to low hundreds of ug/kg
range. The pesticides detected (4,4-00E, 4,4-000, 4,4-00T, and
alpha-chlordane) do not appear to correlate with contamination
detected on the property, but may be attributable to random
releases in disturbed soil areas of the up-land wetland or past.
insect spraying of the wetlands area.
Analyses of wetland sediments for PCOOs/PCOFs indicate that none
of the calculated TEFs for these analyses exceed the ATSOR's
recommended 1 ppb cleanup level. Metals, including lead and
zinc, were detected at concentrations up to 50,100 mg/kg and
2,290 mg/kg, respectively in the wetland sediments. The
detected concentrations were gener~lly highest in the Spill Area
and decrease in concentration along drainage pathways extending
from the spill Area toward the Quaboag River. Concentrations of
these metals are also elevated in the property soil due to
releases of waste oil on the property. Similarly, the
occurrence of lead and zinc in wetland sediments is attributed
to the release of waste oil within the Spill Area.
3)
Quaboaq River Surface Water and Sediment
Organic and inorganic contamination was detected in Quaboag
River sediment, although contaminants were not detected in
surface water analyses. The distribution of SVOCs and
pesticides/PCBs detected in Quaboag River sediment samples
suggests that contaminants are not attributed to releases from
the site, as based on a comparison of detected concentrations in
upstream, adjacent, and downstream analyses. However, low
concentrations of VOCs (361 ug/kg) and high total oil and grease
(TOG) (270,000 ug/kg) were detected at SEO-6, located just
downstream of the property (Figure 23, Appendix A). In
addition, an oily odor was noted upon disturbing river sediments
in this vicinity. These results suggest oil accumulation in
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
17
release from the property (from either a past spill which
migrated to the river and deposited in sediment, or a discharge
pipe).
4)
Ouaboaq River Fish
Fish samples from the Quaboag River were collected for analysis
to determine whether site-related contamination was discernible
in bottom-dwelling fish species. Fish were sampled from three
reaches of the river designated FS-l, FS-2/FS-4, and FS-3, as
depicted in Figure 24, Appendix A. Analyses of organic
compounds (SVOCS, pesticides/PCBs) in fish samples collected
from three reaches of the Quaboag River (upstream, adjacent to,
and downstream of the site) do not suggest that fish in the
river are being adversely affected by contamination migrating
from the site to the river. Inorganic analyses indicate
elevated concentrations of lead detected in fish samples from
.reach FS-3, located furthest downstream from the property.
However, detected concentrations of lead in these samples are
not directly attributable to contamination from the PSC
Resources property since other sources (downtown Palmer and
automobile emissions from the downstream bridge on Bridge
street) may have influenced the detected concentrations of lead
in these samples. Results of the risk assessment suggest that
the PSC Resources site does not pose an ecological risk to fish
communities and that human consumption of fish from the river
does not pose a health risk to humans.
F.
Ground Water
Analyses from five rounds of sampling indicate the contaminants of
concern in ground water are VOCs and SVOCs. VOCs are the predominant
contaminants detected in ground water, and consist of: chlorinated
hydrocarbons (TCA, TCE, PCE, and degradation products): ketones
(acetone and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK»; and aromatic hydrocarbons
(BTEX). A variety of these contaminants exist in ground water at
concentrations in the tens to thousands of micrograms per liter (ug/l)
range, and exceed both state and federal maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) (Figure 25, Appendix A) . .
Detected concentrations of SVOCs range in the tens to hundreds of ug/l
and include phthalates, phenols and PAHs. SVOCs are limit~d in extent
to' the following monitoring wells: PSC-I08S located on the property,
MW-I04B, MW-I04C, and MW-IOSB located adjacent to the
western/downgradient property boundary. Vertically, SVOCs were not
detected in samples from ~onitoring wells greater than 30 feet in
depth, as might be predicted from the low mobility and solubility of
-------
~
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
18
Results of ground water sampling indicates an existence of a localized
VOC contamination (PCE) at PSC-114S (at the extreme downgradient end
of the Site). PCE was the only VOC detected in sampling Round IV from
PSC-114S, at a concentration of 200 ug/l. Subsequent sampling of this
well during Round V (October, 1990) confirmed the presence of PCE at a
concentration of 160 ug/l. Given the significantly higher
concentration of PCE contamination in PSC-114S, the lack of other
detectable VOCs, the relative distance of PSC-114S from the property
(approximately 550 feet), and the fact that this well is located
outside the mapped ground water flow regime from the property to its
point of discharge to the Quaboag River, the presence of PCE is not
attributed to a site related source(s). Therefore, PCE contamination
found at PSC-114S appears to be an isolated ground water problem and
is not related to the VOC contaminated plume emanating from the PSC
property. EPA will further examine this phenomenon during the Pre-
Design stage of the source remediation. . .
The distribution of contaminants in ground water appears to be limited
to the shallow overburden aquifer, and generally follows ground water
flow patterns as modified by surface water/ground water recharge
relationships (summarized in Figures 26 through 28, Appendix A). The
detected distribution of contaminants, the ground water flow regime,
and ground water uses suggests that contamination has not extended to
surrounding public or private ground water sources (e.g., to the
adjacent Town of Monson or the Galaxy Well Field located approximately
one-half of a mile upgradient of the site). No ground water
contamination has been detected in the bedrock aquifer, which
correlates with hydraulic head measurements, indicating upward flow
from bedrock to overburden aquifers, with recharge to the Quaboag
River or wetlands.
The detected concentrations of VOCs in ground water are significantly
below the solubility index, which indicates that these contaminants
exist in the dissolved phase. The flow regime suggests advective flow
is the primary mechanism in the transport of dissolved contaminants in
ground water. Concentrations of contaminants appear to be decreasing,
both vertically and laterally over time, which may suggest the plume
is receding toward the property (Figure 29, Appendix A). currently,
contaminated ground water appears to be discharging to the wetlands
adjacent to the Quaboag River or to the river. However, no site
related contaminants have been detected in the water column of the
Quaboag River and it appears that contaminant concentrations may be
reduced through dilution and volatilization.
In comparing the types, concentrations, and distribution of
contaminants detected in ground water to other media, three primary
source(s)/areas which appear to contribute to ground water
contamination include: the lagoon sediment, property soils, and
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
19
G.
Floodplain and Wetland Assessment
The PSC Resources, Inc. property is located within the 100-year
floodplain of the Quaboag River and is surrounded by wetlands to the
south and to the east (Figure 30, Appendix A). Federal policy with
respect to floodplain management and wetland protection is codified in
section 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 6, Appendix
A, consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 on floodplain
management and wetland protection, respectively. These regulations
require that actions affecting floodplains and wetlands "avoid
wherever possible the long and short term impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of floodplains and the destruction of
wetlands." In defining the policy, the regulations indicate that when
there is no practical alternative to locating in a floodplain and
wetland, the proposed activity must minimize the impact which floods
may have on human safety, health, and welfare, as well as the natural
environment; and must minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation
of wetlands and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values
of wetlands.
1)
Floodplain Assessment
Bordering land subject to flooding is defined according to
Section 10.57(2) (a) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 as:
o
Bordering land subject to flooding is an area with
low flat topography adjacent to and inundated by
floodwaters rising from creeks, rivers, streams,
ponds, or lakes. It extends from the banks of the
water body;
o
The boundary of bordering land subject to flooding
is the estimated lateral extent of floodwater which
will theoretically result from the statistical
100-year frequency storm. Said boundary shall be
determined by reference to the most recently
available flood profile data prepared for the
community within which the work is proposed under
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
currently administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
The current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Town
of Palmer, Community Panel No. 250147, November 1981, indicate
that the PSC Resources property is within the 100-year
floodplain (Figure 30, Appendix A). The potential impacts on
the 100-year floodplain from the implementation of the selected
Source Control Remedy as well as plans to mitigate such impacts
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
20
2)
Wetland Assessment
Wetland Delineation
Wetland resource areas within the PSC Resources site were
identified in the field utilizing the criteria established under
the "1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands" (federal methodology). The purpose of
the manual is to provide, "mandatory technical criteria,. field
indicators and other sources of information, and recommended
methods to determine whether or not an area is a jurisdictional
wetland. II Figure 31 of Appendix A shows the wetland and
non-wetland boundaries, and the vegetative communities present
based on the offsite and onsite wetland delineations.
In addition, the wetland resource area boundary determinations
were also conducted in accordance with the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 131, section 40) and
Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Within the site, there are four
types of wetland resource areas regulated under the
Massachusetts regulations. These include: bank, bordering
vegetated wetlands, land under a water body and waterway, and
bordering land subject to flooding. Figure 32 of Appendix A
shows the location of these resources.
It was determined based on field observations, that the wetland
edge met the criteria of both the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (MWPA - M.G.L. Chapter 131, section 40) and
federal criteria. The mandatory federal criterion for
vegetation and hydrology are essentially the same as those for
the MWPA.
Wetland Functional Analvsis
The existing conditions of the PSC Resources site wetlands were
evaluated by using the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET),
previously known as the FHWA Wetland Evaluation Method or Adamus
Method. The overall approach of the method is to obtain a
qualitative assessment of the current values of a wetland with
respect to key wetland functions. The WET has been designed so
that it can evaluate the existing conditions within a resource
area, be used as a predictive tool in assessing the potential
impacts of a proposed action that could affect the resource
area, and to evaluate proposed mitigative actions. The
assessment of wetland functions and values is performed using
data and information obtained from field observations and/or
available data files, maps, and photographs. WET evaluates
wetland functions and values in terms of social significance,
effectiveness, and opportunity. The wetlands on the property
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
21
of this evaluation (Figure 31, Appendix A). The wetland system
surrounding the facility was evaluated as Assessment Area PSC,
and the Quaboag River wetland system was evaluated as Assessment
Area QR. The results of the existing conditions assessment are
summarized for each wetland function as follows:
1. Ground Water Recharge - Recharge areas are considered to be
those wetlands where recharge to the substrate or ground water
exceeds discharge to the wetland on an annual basis, and those
wetlands with a rate of recharge that typically exceeds the rate
associated with terrestrial environments. The WET methodology
indicates that few eastern wetlands are rated as "High", and
most will receive a rating of "Uncertain". The M's were rated
as "Low" for this function. This can be attributed in part, to
the presence of outlets within the AA's, which appears to reduce
the wetlands effectiveness for recharging the ground water
supply. Wetland areas which are most effective for recharge are
those which contain at least one of the following condition~:
are not permanently flooded, have favorable topography, have an
impervious watershed, area soils have a slow infiltration rate,
located upslope of a dam, have fine mineral soils or are in a
karst region, or have expansive flooding or unstable flows.
2. Ground Water Discharge - Those areas where the rate of
discharge from ground water into wetland resources exceeds the
rate of recharge to underlying ground water on a net annual
basis are considered ground water discharge areas. Due to the
relatively small size (less than 200 acres) of the PSC
Assessment Area and lack of a permanently flooded water regime
which would indicate discharge, a "Low" rating for this function
was assigned. Unlike the PSC Assessment Area, the QR Assessment
Area is extensive in overall size and contains perennial stream
flow characteristics. As a result, it is likely that ground
water discharges to the Quaboag River on a net annual basis.
The effectiveness of the QR Assessment Area to perform this
function was, therefore, rated as "Moderate".
3. Floodflow Alteration - Floodflow alteration occurs in areas
where surface water is stored or its velocity reduced. No
judgment is made as to the value of floodflow alteration under
the WET, as reduction in velocity may cause increased flooding
due to flow synchronization. Both the PSC Assessment Area and
the QR Assessment Area would be considered effective to some
degree, at performing this function. The Quaboag ~iver contains
a large storage capacity which is effective in the initial
synchronization of storm flows. The PSC Assessment Area can be
considered effective at ~toring surface water due to its
location adjacent to the Quaboag River and within its associated
lOa-year floodplain boundary as indicated by FEMA. The M's
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
paqe
22
4. Sediment Stabilization - Areas effective at sediment
stabilization are those wetlands which are more effective at
binding soil and dissipating erosive forces than uplands. Both
the M's received "High" ratings for this function. The "High"
rating can be attributed to the presence of the Quaboag River
and existing vegetative structure which mitigate the effects of
the potential erosive forces present within the M's. The river
confines stream flows and combined with the vegetated banks,
reduces the velocity and subsequent erosion of the adjacent
shorelines. The only type of wetland considered capable of
being rated "Low" is one in which there is no flowing water, no
open water wider than 100 feet, and no eroding areas abutting
the wetland, as well as having no vegetation (erect or
submerged) or rubble.
5. Sediment/Toxicant Reduction - Wetlands which physically or
chemically trap and retain inorganic sediments and/or chemical
substances generally toxic to aquatic life are considered high
sediment/toxicant reduction areas. The Assessment Areas
received a "High" rating for this function. The wetlands have
the ability due to their plant species composition, relatively
long duration and extent of seasonal flooding, and poorly
drained soils; to trap runoff from the adjacent PSC Resources
site. By trapping runoff, the wetland areas are able to
mitigate impacts to water quality and aquatic life.
6. Nutrient Removal/Transformation - Nutrient
removal/transformation wetlands are those which retain or
transform inorganic phosphorus and/or nitrogen into their
organic forms, or remove nitrogen in its gaseous form during the
growing season or on an annual basis more effectively than
uplands. Assessment Area PSC received a "Moderate" rating for
this function, while Assessment Area QR was rated as "Low". The
differences in the ratings for the M's can be attributed to the
flow velocities within the Quaboag River. For a wetland to be
considered effective for nutrient removal/transformation, it
must posses minimal flow velocities and/or significant
vegetative growth. within the limits of the project area, the
Quaboag River does not have the broad wetland areas, necessary
to store runoff volumes and perform nutrient removal functions.
In comparison, the PSC Assessment Area contains little or no
stream flows. As a result, the wetland has the ability to store
runoff and can be effective in performing the nutrient
removal/transformation processes.
7. Production Export - The flushing of relatively large amounts
of organic plant material from a resource area into downgradient
waters is considered to be high production export. No judgment
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
paqe
23
reflect a nutrient loss or a source of water quality problems.
Production export from the AA's was rated as "Moderate". The
AA's were rated as "Moderate" because of the presence of primary
productivity within the wetlands along with the existence of a
permanent outlet associated with the Quaboag River. This
permanent outlet functions to carry plant material to downstream
wetlands.
8. Aquatic Diversity/Abundance - Wetlands which support great
onsite diversity of fish or invertebrates, at least seasonally,
receive "Hiqh" ratings. Under the WET, the PSC Assessment Area
received a "Low" rating while the QR was rated "Moderate" for
this function. The "Low" rating for the PSC Assessment Area is
directly related to the lack of open water areas and presence of
contamination from the PSC site. The most significant
characteristic of the QR Assessment Area which contributes to
the "Moderate" rating, is the existence of permanent stream
flows. Although contaminants within portions of the PSC .
Assessment Area may potentially reach the river, the perennial
outlet flows mitigate .the effects through consistent flushing.
9. Wildlife Diversity/Abundance - High ratings are indicative of
a resource area that supports onsite diversity and/or abundance
of wetland dependent birds during the breeding season, migration
or winter. The PSC Assessment Area was rated "Low" for breeding
and "High" for migration and wintering. The Quaboag River
Assessment Area received "High" ratings for each of these
functions. .
The "Low" rating for.breeding for the PSC Assessment Area can be
attributed to relatively small size of the wetland, location
within an urban setting, and lack of connection to adjoining
forested areas. The remaining "High" ratings for both the PSC
Assessment Area and Quaboag River for these functions can be
generally attributed to the location and presence of perennial
stream flow characteristics associated with the river, existence
of vegetational diversity and fact that the river does not
completely freeze during the winter.
10. Recreation and Uniqueness/Heritage - This evaluation is
site-specific and contingent on actual use of a wetland for
passive and recreational activities such as swimming, boating,
fishing, and hiking. Interpretation keys are not provided for
assessing opportunity and effectiveness of these values since no
scientific basis currently exists for a site-specific objective
assessment without a collection of considerable site-specific
data.
Of note in the evaluation of wetland functions is that both
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
24
retention. Both Assessment Areas also received "High" ratings
for sediment stabilization under social significance and
effectiveness. This can be attributed to the gentle slopes and
broad flat floodplain within the wetland areas, the intermittent
nature of the site stream system with no direct discharge to the
river, and the presence of a large area of vegetated wetland
capable of attenuating contamination and sediments.
Habitat Suitability Evaluation
The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) provides a procedure to
evaluate fish and wildlife habitat at the species group and
individual species level. Specifically, WET evaluates habitat
suitability of a wetland for 14 waterfowl species groups, 4
freshwater fish species groups, 120 species of wetland-dependent
birds, and 133 species of saltwater fish and invertebrates.
These evaluations are restricted to avian, fish, and
invertebrate species that reside in the 48 contiguous states and
are wetland-dependent throughout most of their range. WET does
not evaluate for wetland-dependent furbearers and other mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians (e.g., beaver, turtles, salamanders
etc.). The habitat suitability ratings cannot be combined to
give an overall probability rating of habitat suitability fo+
the wetland. This would require weighting of species, which is
both a social and biological judgment.
Habitat suitability Evaluations were conducted for these
wetlands with respect to several different species/groups of
wildlife for both wetland Assessment Areas, regardless of the
life history requirements for each in order to maintain
consistency throughout the evaluation. These species were
selected because they were either:
Observed during the field investigation;
Represent groups of species which would be expected to occur in
the area; or .
Expected to occur on the PSC Resources Site, based on habitat.
characteristics of wetlands.
Table 1 of Appendix B presents a summary of the habitat
suitability for the selected species. The variability in
ratings may be attributed to the lack of perennial open water
within the PSC Resources site and differences in vegetative
. composition. The site contains regions of wet meadow, shrub
swamp and red maple swamp. The Quaboag River is primarily open
water bordered by red maple swamp.
A complete description of site characteristics can be found in the Remedial
Investigation Report - PSC Resources site (HMM Associates, Inc., January
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
25
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment
were performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential
adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to
contaminants associated with the PSC Resources Site.
The human health risk assessment followed a four step process: 1)
contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances
which, given the specifics of the site were of significant concern; 2)
exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure ~
pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined
the extent of possible exposure; 3) toxicity assessment, which considered
the types-and magnitude of adverse health effects associated with exposure
to hazardous substances, and 4) risk characterization, which integrated the
"three earlier steps to summarize the potential and actual risks posed by
hazardous substances at the site, including carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks. The results of the public health risk assessment for
the PSC Resources site are discussed below followed by the conclusions of
the environmental risk assessment.
A.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Twenty-one contaminants of concern, listed in Table 2 Appendix B, were
selected for evaluation in the risk assessment. These contaminants
constitute a representative subset of one-hundred and eighteen organic
and inorganic contaminants identified at the site during the Remedial
Investigation. The twenty-one contaminants of concern were selected
to represent potential site related hazards based on toxicity,
concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in
the environment. A summary of the health effects of each of the
contaminants of concern can be found in the Remedial Investigation
Report - PSC Resources site (HMM Associates, Inc., January 1992) in
Section 6.0 - Human Health Risk Assessment of Volume I.
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the
contaminants of concern were estimated quantitatively or qualitatively
through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways.
These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances based on the present uses, potential future uses,
and location of the site. Groups of people associated with the
current and/or future land uses include:
o
Scenario 1 - neighborhood residents, including people who
trespass on the property, visit the wetlands near the property,
boat on the Quaboag River, and/or catch and eat fish from the
river;
o
scenario 2 - residents in homes on the property under possible
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Paqe
26
o
scenario 3 - commercial/industrial workers on the property under
possible future commercial land use.
Residents currently live near the study Area. The study Area includes
all locations where exposures may occur including the PSC Resources
property. However, residents in homes on the site and
commercial/industrial. workers are hypothetical receptor groups who may
or may not be exposed to contaminants in the study Area during or
following some possible redevelopment of the property. Table 3 of
Appendix B summarizes the potential receptors, exposure points,
exposure media and exposure routes that were evaluated in the human
health risk assessment. The following is a summary of the exposure
pathways evaluated.
The current land use of the property is an inactive facility.
Exposures in the study Area currently are associated with neighborhood
residents who may trespass on the property and be exposed to
contaminated media on the property (soil, lagoon sediment, lagoon
surface water and building) and who may be exposed to contaminated
media outside the property in the study Area (wetland sediment, river
sediment and fish) as a result of recreational activities.
As stated above, exposures related to future land uses were evaluated
via residential and commercial/industrial workers scenarios. with
respect to the future residential scenario, residents in homes on the
property may be exposed to contaminants on the property in soil,
lagoon sediment, lagoon surface water, buildings, and ground water.
Exposure to contaminants in the study Area by future residents may
occur via contact with wetland sediment, river sediment, and fish.
with respect to the future commercial/industrial workers scenario,
workers on the property may be exposed to contaminants via contact
with ground water, soil, lagoon sediment, lagoon surface water, and
buildings on the property. study Area exposures for this receptor to
wetland sediments and river sediments would be limited.
Subgroups of the exposure populations have been defined for each of
the cases considered, i.e., current trespassers (Scenario 1), future
residents (Scenarios 2), and future commercial/industrial workers
(scenario 3). These subgroups reflect exposures for different age
groups with varying levels of exposure and types of exposure. For
example, the current trespassers' exposure scenario involves a young
child (age 1-6 years), an older child/young adult (age 7-18 years),
and an adult. The future residents have the same three age groups as
scenario 1. The future commercial/industrial workers scenario
considers an adult only.
Not all subgroups are exposed to the same exposure media. For
example, a young child in the current trespasser scenario is not
likely to be exposed to lagoon sediment as much as the older child
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
27
of Appendix B reveals that only the older child/young adult (age 7-18
years) in the current trespasser scenario (Scenario 1) is considered
to be potentially exposed to soil, wetland sediment, lagoon sediment,
lagoon surface water, and buildings while trespassing on the property.
The young child (age 1-6 years) is exposed to contaminants via fish
consumption only, as trespassing for this age group is unlikely. The
adult exposures for the current trespasser scenario include contact
with river sediment and fish consumption only as adults are less
likely to trespass on the property but may catch and eat fish from the
river.
For Scenario 2, future residents, both the older child/young adult
(age 7-18 years) and the young child (age 1-6 years) are considered to
be potentially exposed to soil and wetland sediment. However, in the
future residential scenario, only the older child/young adult (age
7-18 years) is exposed to lagoon sediment, lagoon surface water, river
sediment, and buildings given the greater probability of contact with
these media for an adolescent. Both the young child (age 1-6 years)
and the adult are evaluated for fish exposures. Ground water
exposures for the future residents are based on the adult.
The future commercial/industrial worker exposure scenario is based on
an adult and was described previously.
Risks are calculated separately for individual age groups within a
receptor group. For example, exposure doses and subsequent risk
estimates are calculated for the current trespasser older child/young
adult (age 7-18 years) exposure to soil and presented separately for
this age group. Risks for current trespassers exposure to soil are
represented by this one subgroup only. Receptors were selected for
particular exposure pathways and the exposure assumptions were defined
for each receptor and exposure medium. These exposure assumptions are
listed by medium and receptor in Table 4 of Appendix B.
A more thorough description of the exposure pathways evaluated can be
found in the Remedial Investigation Report - PSC Resources site (HMM
Associates, Inc., January 1992) in Section 6.0 - Human Health Risk
Assessment of Volume I.
For each pathway evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum
exposure estimate was generated corresponding to exposure to the
average and the maximum concentration detected in that particular
medium.
Exce$S lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway
by multiplying the exposure level with the chemical-specific cancer
potency factor. Cancer potency factors have been developed by EPA
from epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative
"upper bound" of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
paqe
28
predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific
notation as a probability (e.g. 1 x 10-6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate
(using this example) that an average individual is not likely to have
greater than a one in a million chance of developing cancer over 70
years as a result of site-related exposure as defined to '~e compound
at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice consic -rs
carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture
of hazardous substances.
The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPA's measure
of the potential for non-carcinogenic health effects. A hazard
quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the reference
dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for non-carcinogenic health
effects for an individual compound. Reference doses have been
developed by EPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a
lifetime and they reflect a daily exposure ievel that is lik~ly to be
without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RfDs are
derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate
uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will
not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as a single value
(e.g. 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to
the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as
characterized is approximately one third of an acceptable exposure
level for the given compound). The hazard quotient is only considered
additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint
and the sum is referred to as the hazard index (HI). (For example: the
hazard quotient for a compound known to produce liver damage should
not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage) .
Table 5 of Appendix B depicts the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risk summary for the contaminants of concern in soil, ground water,
wetland sediment, lagoon sediment, lagoon surface water, river
sediment, and fish evaluated to reflect present and potential future
exposure pathways corresponding to the average and the reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) scenarios. These carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risk estimates were calculated for each of the three
receptor populations considered and for each subgroup of receptors. A
more detailed summary of carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic estimates
for each contaminant of concern for each exposure pathway can be found
in the Remedial Investigation Report - PSC Resources site (HMM
Associates, Inc., January 1992) in Table 4-6 of Appendix I of Volume
IV. -
Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk estimates as provided in Table
5 of Appendix B were evaluated relative to the EPA's risk management
criteria. The carcinogenic risks or ILCRs (Incremental Lifetime
Cancer Risks) are compared to a risk range of 1E-06 ("point of
departure") to 1E-04. Non-carcinogenic risks, or HIs (Hazard
Indices), are compared to a value of one (1), below which adverse
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
29
Table 5 of Appendix B represent those risk estimates which exceed the
upper limit of the risk range (lE-04) for an ILCR or HI of one (1).
Of the exposure media for which risk estimates were calculated,
exposures to property soil, ground water, wetland sediment, and lagoon
sediment are associated with significant human health risks due to
exceedance of EPA's risk management criteria for either the average or
the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios. The carcinogenic risks
were highest for exposures to lagoon sediment due to the high
concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
detected in this medium. Non-carcinogenic risks were highest for
exposure to wetland sediment due to high concentrations of lead
detected in the Spill Area. Risks from exposure to property soil are
considered significant due to the presence of a number of contaminants
of concern in this medium including lead, trichloroethylene (TCE) ,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In
addition, a variety of these VOC contaminants exist in ground water at
concentrations that were found to exceed both state and federal
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Potential risks associated with
ground water contamination are primarily attributed to the presence of
VOCs in this medium. Risks from building exposures were not
quantified due to the lack of reliable data regarding the magnitude of
exposures to this medium. However, a qualitative risk evaluation
indicates that adverse health effects may occur from exposure to
building contaminants given the presence of traces of dioxins and
furans, PCBs"and lead on building surfaces. Exposures to lagoon
surface water, river sediment, and ingestion of fish are not
considered to pose significant human health risks as the risks from
exposure to these media are within EPA's acceptable risk range of 10-4
to 10-6 for ILCRs and less than one for HIs. '
Therefore, based on the results of the human health risk assessment,
EPA has determined that property soil, ground water, wetland sediment,
and lagoon sediment media need to be targeted as the focus of the
remedial actions. .
B.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological risks were evaluated for several groups of environmental
receptors including soil invertebrates, benthic invertebrates, fish,
and mammals and birds. Property soils and soils in the Spill Area
pose a risk to soil invertebrates. Wetland soils (exclusive of the
Spill Area) pose a low risk to small mammals and birds that may
consume soil invertebrates from the wetlands. Ecological risks from
contaminants detected in wetland soils (exclusive of the Spill Area)
are generally limited to a few sampling locations adjacent to the
Spill Area in wetland access or drainage pathways. Risks to mammals
and birds are similar to those for soil invertebrates (resulting from
consumption of soil invertebrates) and are associated with
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
30
sediments pose a risk to benthic invertebrate communities.
River surface water and sediment pose a low risk to benthic
invertebrates and fish species.
Quaboag
Risks to soil invertebrates in property soils, spill Area soils, and
wetland soils/sediments were evaluated using three methods including a
an earthworm bioassay, the Equilibrium Partitioning (EP) Method, and
comparison to acute and chronic No Observed Effect Level (NOEL)
values.
The results of the field and laboratory earthworm bioassays indicate
that soils/sediments in the wetland area were not acutely toxic to
earthworms. The use of the Equilibrium Partitioning Method indicated
that property soils (VOCs, PCBs), Spill Area soils (PCBs, PAHs), and
wetland soils located along drainage pathways (PCBs, DOT residues,
PARs) pose a potential risk to soil invertebrates. A comparative
method was used to evaluate potential risks associated with periodic
discharge of ground water to surface soils/sediments. There is a .
potential for chronic effects to soil invertebrates based on a
comparison of exposure concentrations in ground water to NOEL values.
This risk is primarily due to the presence of iron, cadmium and a
mixture of volatile organic compounds in ground water.
Risks to benthic invertebrates in the lagoon and the Quaboag River
sediments were evaluated by comparison of contaminant concentrations
in sediments to effects range-low (ER-L) and effects range-median
(ER-M) values, by the EP Method, and by the assessment of the
potential effects of contaminants in gro~nd water. The only
contaminants found to exceed ER-M values in Quaboag River sediment
were PCBs and DOT. The ER-M values for these contaminants are
generally lower than the detection limits for these samples.
contaminant concentrations in Quaboag River sediment exceed the ER-L
values for lead, mercury, PCBs, DOT, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, 2-methylnaphthalene, .
phenanthrene, and pyrene. These results indicate that exposures to
Quaboag River sediment could effect aquatic life, but observable
effects are not likely. Results of the EP Method indicate the
toxicity quotient values for SVOCs in lagoon sediments were very high
(greater than 800). Toxicity Quotient values for organic contaminants
(pesticides, PCBs, VOCs, and SVOCs) in Quaboag River sediment were
greater than one (1) but less than ten (10), suggesting a low risk to
benthic invertebrates. The potential risk to benthic invertebrates
from contaminated ground water discharging to river sediment is low.
Risks to fish communities in the Quaboag River were evaluated by fish
tissue sampling. Laboratory analyses of fish and fishbody burdens in
the river did not indicate that the communities were being affected by
the presence of contaminants detected at the PSC Resources site.
Communities appeared healthy and there were no differences between
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
31
contamination from the PSC Resources property. The site is not
considered to pose an ecological risk to fish communities in the river
under present conditions.
Risks to small mammals and birds were evaluated by estimating the body
burdens of bioaccumulatable organic compounds ,by soil invertebrates.
These estimated exposure levels were compared to dose-response
thresholds for various biological endpoints (lethality,
reproduction/development, other chronic effects). The results of this
analysis indicate that some potential risk is associated with birds or
small mammals feeding exclusively on soil invertebrates in property
soils or the Spill Area soils due to the presence of PCBs, PAHs, and
phthalate esters in these soils. There is also some low level risk
for small mammals and birds exposed to contaminants in wetland
soils/sediments. For larger mammals and birds of prey the risk from
exposure to contaminants in the area as a whole is judged to be
negligible.
As stated above, the ecological risk assessment uses the Equilibrium
Partitioning (EP) approach to determine site specific Sediment Quality
Criteria (SQC). This approach is developed for use with sediments and
is not directly applicable for soils. The PSC Resources ecological
risk assessment initially extended the use of this model to both
saturated and unsaturated soils and sediments. The results of the
ecological risk assessment, using this SQC approach, indicates that
property soil, Spill Area sediment, wetland soil and sediment, and
lagoon sediment should be targeted as the focus of the remedial
actions. Specifically, the ecological risk assessment indicates that
among the groups of environmental receptors evaluated, the site poses
a potential risk to soil invertebrates in property soil, Spill Area
sediment, wetland soil and sediment; to benthic invertebrates in
lagoon sediment; and to birds and small mammals feeding on soil
invertebrates in soils on the property and in the wetland areas.
However, subsequent field visits and observations indicated that the
property soils and lagoon sediments are not good habitat for soil
invertebrates or other animals. Rather, the property that consists of
property soils and lagoon sediments reflects an industrial setting,as
a result of past waste oil and solvent reclamation activities.
specifically, the physical (dense and compact) and chemical (oil
saturated) characteristics of the property soil and lagoon sediment do
not provide a suitable habitat for, and significantly diminish the
likelihood of exposure by ecological receptors in these media.
Therefore, the development of risk-based cleanup levels in property
soil and lagoon sediment are being based on the human health risk
assessment. Because the wetlands, including the Spill Area, provide a
potentially suitable habitat for ecological receptors of concern,
cleanup levels are being developed based on the ecological risk
assessment for those contaminants that are primary contributors to
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
32
information on the relative magnitude of risk that may occur in the
spill Area if the Spill Area, in its current conditions, is actually
being used by the ecological inhabitants as part of the natural
wetland system. contaminants in the wetlands that are primary
contributors to ecological risks include total PARs, lead, and zinc.
These three contaminants tend to follow a co-occurrence pattern at
elevated concentrations in the wetland sediments. Therefore,
ecologically based cleanup levels that would be protective of the
environment are being developed for total PARs, lead, and zinc in the
wetland sediments, including the Spill Area.
In summary, EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances. from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
The human health risk assessment identified the property soil, ground
water, lagoon sediment, and wetland sediment media as posing probable
health risks exceeding EPA risk management criteria and the ecological risk
assessment identified only wetland sediment medium, including the Spill
Area, due to the reasons provided above, as posing probable environmental
risk to mammals and birds. Therefore, these four media are designated as
media of concern and will be targeted as the focus of the remedial actions.
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
statutory Requirements/Response objectives
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund
sites is to undertake remedial actions that are protective of human
health and .the environment. In addition, section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences,
including: a requirement that EPA's remedial action, when complete,
must comply with all federal and more stringent state environmental
standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is
invoked; a requirement that EPA select a remedial action that is cost-
effective and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and a preference for remedies in which
.treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances is a principal
element over remedies not involving such treatment. Response alterna-
tives were developed to be consistent with these congressional
mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants,
environmental media of concern, and potential exposure pathways,
remedial action objectives were developed to aid in the development
and screening of alternatives. These remedial action objectives were
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
33
existing and future potential threats to public health and the
environment. These response objectives were:
Source control Response Obiectives
.
.
Minimize the migration of contaminants from the property soils
and lagoon sediment that could degrade ground water quality;
Reduce risks to human health by preventing direct contact with,
and ingestion of, ~ontaminants in the property soils, wetland
sediments, and lagoon sediment; and potential ingestion of
contaminated ground water;
.
Reduce risks to the environment by preventing direct contact
with, and ingestion of, contaminants in the wetland sediments;
.
Mihimize the migration of contaminants (i.e., from property
soils, lagoon sediments, and wetland sediments) that could
result in surface water concentrations in excess of Ambient
Water Quality Criteria.
Manaqement of Miqration Response Obiectives
.
Eliminate or minimize the threat posed to human health and the
environment by preventing exposure to ground water contaminants;
.
Prevent further migration of ground water contamination beyond
its current extent; and
.
Restore contaminated ground water to Federal and state
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARS),
including drinking water standards, and to a level that is
protective of human health and the environment within a
reasonable period of time.
B.
Technology and Alternative Development and screening
CERCLA and the NCP set forth the process by which remedial actions are
evaluated and selected. In accordance with these requirements, a
range of alternatives were developed for the site.
with respect to Source control, the RIfFS developed a range of
alternatives in which treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances is a principal element. This
range included an alternative that removes or destroys hazardous
substances to the maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing
to the degree possible the need for long term management. This range
also included alternatives that treat the principal threats posed by
the site but vary in the degree of treatment employed and the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
34
untreated waste that must be managed; alternative(s) that involve
little or no treatment but provide protection through engineering or
institutional controls; and a no action alternative.
With respect to ground water response action, the RI/FS developed a
limited number of remedial alternatives that attain site specific
remediation levels within different timeframes using different,
technologies; and a no action alternative.
As discussed in Section 2.0 of the Feasibility Study, the RI/FS
identified, assessed and screened technologies based on
implementability, effectiveness, and cost. These technologies were
combined into Source Control (SC) and Management of Migration (MM)
alternatives. Section 3.0 of the Feasibility Study presented the
remedial alternatives developed by combining the technologies
identified in the previous screening process in the categories
identified in section 300.430(e) (3) of the NCP. The purpose of the
initial screening was to narrow the number of potential remedial
actions for further detailed analysis while preserving a range of
options. Each alternative was then evaluated and screened in section
4.0 of the Feasibility Study.
In summary, of the 11 Source Control and 4 Management of Migration
remedial alternatives screened in section 3 of the Feasibility Study,
8 were retained for detailed analysis. Table 6 of Appendix B
identifies the 8 alternatives that were retained through the screening
process, as well as those that were eliminated from further
consideration.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated in
detail. A detailed assessment of each alternative can be found in section
4.0 for Source Control and Management of Migration of the Feasibility Study
(HMM Associates, Inc., January 1992).
A.
Source Control (SC) Alternatives Analyzed
The Source Control alternatives that underwent detailed analysis for
the PSC Resources site include the following:
SC-l - No Action: Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland
sediments, property soils, lagoon water, lagoon sediments, and Quaboag
River water and sediments.
SC-4 - Impermeable Cap: Decontamination and demolition of property
structures; Lagoon dewatering; Consolidate lagoon and wetland
sediments with property soils; Earthen levee around property for flood
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
3S
Impermeable cap over consolidated residual source materials; Ground
water collection from inside the barrier wall with treatment and
discharge; Wetlands restoration/replication; Long-term monitoring of
ground water, wetland sediments, and Quaboag River water and
sediments; Institutional controls on ground water development and land
use; Access restrictions (e.g., fencing) around residual source
materials; Warning signs; and Public education program.
SC-s - In-situ vitrification: Decontamination and demolition of
property structures; Lagoon dewatering; Consolidate lagoon and wetland
sediments with property soils; In situ vitrification of consolidated
residual source materials; Permeable cap over vitrified mass; Wetlands
restoration/replication; Monitoring of ground w~ter, wetland
sediments, and Quaboag River water and sediments; Institutional
controls on ground water development and land use; Access restrictions
(e.g., fencing) around residual source materials; Warning signs; and
Public education program.
SC-6 - In-Situ stabilization: property structures decontamination and
demolition; Lagoon dewatering; Consolidate lagoon and wetland
sediments with property soils; In situ stabilization of consolidated
residual source materials; Permeable cap over stabilized mass;
Wetlands restoration/replication; Long-term monitoring of ground
water, wetland sediments, and Quaboag River water and sediments; and
Institutional controls on ground water development and land use.
SC-l0 - onsite Incineration: Decontamination and demolition of
property structures; Lagoon dewatering; Construct on-site incinerator
adjacent to Area of contamination (AOC) which includes the PSC
Resources property, adjacent wetland spill Area (the area inside the
site fence)', and the limited area of the wetlands exclusive of the
spill Area, identified as drainage pathways; Construct temporary
residual source material storage facility; Dewater beneath AOC, with
ground water treatment and discharge; Excavate wetland sediment,
lagoon sediment, and property soils, place in temporary storage
facility; Construct Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) equivalent waste disposal facility; Incinerate residual source
materials; Stabilize residual ash remaining; Place incinerator
residuals into waste disposal facility and construct cap; Wetlands
"restoration/replication; Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland
sediments, and Quaboag River water and sediments; Institutional
controls on ground water development and land use; Access restrictions
to PSC Resources Property; warning signs; and Public education
program.
SC-ll - Offsite Treatment and Disposal: Decontamination an~
demolition of property structures; Lagoon dewatering; Dewater beneath
AOC, with ground water treatment and discharge; Excavate and
containerize property soils, wetland sediments and lagoon sediments;
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
36
Backfill excavation with clean fill materials; Wetlands
restoration/replication; Monitoring of ground water, wetland
sediments, and Quaboag River water and sediments; and institutional
controls on ground water development.
1)
SC-l No-Action
Alternative SC-1 was evaluated in detail in the FS to serve as a
baseline for comparison with the other remedial alternatives under
consideration. Under this alternative, no action would be taken
except for long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediments,
property soils, lagoon water, lagoon sediments, and Quaboag River
surface water and sediments. No treatment or containment of
contaminated media would be conducted and no effort, other than
current site fencing, would be made to restrict site access. No
restrictions on site use or access would be implemented. .
Because contaminants would remain in place, the area would be
monitored periodically, as stated above, to monitor contaminant
concentrations over time and to trace the extent of possible
contaminant migration. After five years, site conditions would be
evaluated to determine whether cleanup activities would be required.
A wetlands restoration program would not be implemented because, under
this alternative, remedial activities would not be performed in
wetland areas. Quarterly site inspections and monitoring would be
conducted for the first two years and semi-annually for 30 years or
until compliance is achieved with all ARARs, whichever comes first.
semi-annual monitoring data would be evaluated every five years.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:N/A
ESTIMATED TIME FOR MONITORING: 30 years
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: None
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM MONITORING COST (net present worth
30 years at a discount rate of 10%): $648,800
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $648,800
based on
2)
SC-4 Impermeable Cap
Alternative SC-4 would include draining the lagoon; excavating the
wetland (Spill Area) and lagoon sediments; consolidating the sediments
with the contaminated property soil; and placing a multi-media
impermeable cap over the area of consolidated materials. The cap
would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Federal
Resource Conservation and Recoyery Act (RCRA). The cap would consist
of a vegetative layer; topsoil; common fill; a drainage layer; a low-
permeable flexible membrane liner; and low permeability soil placed
over the residual waste material. Under this alternative, the
lagoon's surface water would be collected, treated to remove
contaminants, and discharged. The lagoon surface water would be
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
37
suspended materials. Water exiting the tank would be pumped to a
flocculation/sedimentation unit to remove the inorganic materials.
The effluent from the flocculation/sedimentation unit would be pumped
through a filter bag and then passed through two granular activated
carbon (GAC) contacts to remove organic materials. Treated water
exiting the GAC units would be discharged to the Quaboag River. The
lagoon dewatering/treatment process would be a short-term process.
Alternative SC-4 would also include the decontamination, demolition,
and disposal of existing property structur~s. .
A ground water cOllection/extraction system would be constructed
around the perimeter of the impermeable cap to collect ground water
migrating from beneath the capped PSC Resources, Inc. property. The
system would consist of an interceptor trench that would surround the
property. The purpose of this trench is to lower the water table
under the site to ensure that ground water under the cap does not corne
into contact with site wastes. Collected ground water would be
treated as follows: metals would be removed by using a chemical
precipitation and flocculation process to separate them from ground
water; organic contaminants would be treated by utilizing an air
stripper, with activated carbon treatment on the air stream. Treated
ground water would be discharged to the Quaboag River.
Construction of an impermeable cap would require a flood control
measure, which is required to prevent potential impacts of a flood on
the impermeable cap (e.g., washout of the cap). To prevent potential
impacts of a flood, an earthen levee would be constructed around the
perimeter of the cap.
In addition, a long-term monitoring program would be conducted similar
to that described for Alternative SC-l except that monitoring of
property or lagoon surface water or sediment would not be necessary.
Also, affected wetlands would be restored, property structures would
be decontaminated and removed, a public education program would be
instituted, and access restrictions (e.g., fencing) and institutional
controls on ground water use would be incorporated.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 6 to 12 months
ESTIMATED TIME FOR OPERATION: 1 year
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (including construction and operating
expepse): $1,832,028 .
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present
worth based on 30 years at a discount rate of 10%): $845,787
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $2,677,815
3)
SC-S In situ vitrification
Under this alternative both organic and inorganic contaminants would
be destroyed and immobilized through the process of vitrification.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
38
the soil at a desired depth and creating an electric current between
the electrodes, resulting in the heating of adjacent soils to
temperatures in the range of 1,600° to 2,000° centigrade. At this
temperature the soils become a molten mass and form a glass matrix
once cooled. The vitrified material would be stable for several
thousand years. The soils/sediments volume would be reduced by 20 to
40 percent. After vitrification, a permeable cap would be placed over
the vitrified soils, and the surface would be regraded and planted.
Alternative SC-5 would require an off-gas treatment system to treat
the highly volatile constituents that may be emitted during
vitrification. In addition, dewatering and treatment of ground water
beneath the contaminated soils/sediments would be necessary during
vitrification.
Alternative SC-5 would include the consolidation of lagoon and wetland
sediments with property soils prior to vitrification. This
alternative would also include long-term monitoring of contaminated
media, access restrictions (e.g., fencing) and institutional controls,
decontamination and removal of property structures, lagoon dewatering
and treatment, and wetland restoration.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 12 to 24 months
ESTIMATED TIME FOR OPERATION: 1 year
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (including treatment operating expense):
$10,142,397
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present
worth based on 5 years at a discount rate of 10%): $241,006
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $10,383,403
4)
SC-6 In situ Stabilization
Alternative SC-6 includes an in-situ stabilization treatment process
that would physically and chemically bind and immobilize the toxic and
hazardous site materials with stabilization additives into a solid,
cement-like mass or matrix. The stabilization additives would be
selected according to their ability to immobilize the specific
contaminants present at the PSC Resources, Inc. site. This process
would significantly reduce the ability of contaminants to migrate from
the PSC Resources, Inc. site. A bench scale treatability study
conducted indicates that a Portland cementjorganophillic clay mixture
would effectively treat the property soils. In addition, an extensive
literature search indicates that the above mixture would. also
effectively treat sediments. The Portland cement has been shown to
create a stable matrix and provide a high level of resistance to
leaching of inorganic contaminants. The organophillic clay has been
shown to adsorb organic contaminants in the soils and reduce organic
contaminant migration within the cement matrix. Additional pre-design
studies will be required to ensure the effectiveness of in-situ
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
39
Prior to the in-situ stabilization treatment process, site structures
would be decontaminated by sandblasting or using a solvent rinse. The
total volume of site structures and demolition debris to be disposed
would be approximately 74 cubic yards. Wastes generated by
decontamination would be disposed offsite in accordance with
applicable regulations. Subsequently, structures would be demolished
and construction debris would be disposed offsite at a municipal
landfill. Offsite disposal of the site structures is necessary in
order to implement this alternative.
concurrently with the decontamination, demolition, and offsite
disposal of property structures, the lagoon surface water would be
treated and discharged. The lagoon surface water would be pumped to a
tank designed with baffles to promote the settling of suspended
materials. Water exiting the tank would be pumped to a
flocculation/sedimentation unit to remove the inorganic materials~
The effluent from the flocculation/sedimentation unit would be pumped
through a filter bag and then passed through two granular activated
carbon (GAC) contacts to remove organic materials. Treated water
exiting the GAC units would be discharged to the Quaboag River. The
lagoon dewatering/treatment process would be a short-term process.
The in-situ stabilization treatment process would consist of a crane-
mounted mixing system that would be used to combine the cement/clay
mixture with the in-situ soils. The lagoon and wetland sediments
would be consolidated with the property soils for treatment. The
total volume of contaminated property soils and lagoon and wetland
sediments that are targeted for treatment is estimated to be 12,695
cubic yards with the following breakdown: 11,000 cubic yards of
property soils, 1,245 cubic yards of lagoon sediment, and 450 Gubic
yards of wetland sediment. The mixing system would consist of rotary
blades contained within an open bottom cylinder. The result of the
stabilization process would be a solidified end product. A vapor
collection and treatment system would be used during the stabilization
mixing process to capture any vapors and fugitive dusts. The
treatment system would consist of a dust collector, followed by
activated carbon canisters, and a fan to exhaust treated air to the
environment.
After the completion of the in-situ stabilization treatment, a
permeable cap would be placed over the stabilized soils and sediments.
The cap would consist of a two foot thick gravel and sand drainage
layer over the stabilized matrix, and a one foot thick layer of
topsoils capable of supporting vegetation. The surface would be
regraded to minimize infiltration into the stabilized matrix. The top
layer would be vegetated to stabilize the soils, increase evaporation
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
40
After the completion of the permeable cap construction, the following
final elements of Alternative SC-6 would be implemented: wetland
restoration and replication; the placement of institutional controls
on ground water and land use; and long-term monitoring of ground
water, wetland sediments, and Quaboag River water and sediments.
Alternative SC-6 would potentially increase emission of vapors and
dusts during the construction/implementation period, but the emission
would be short-term and would be mitigated and controlled thrqugh the
use of an onsite air treatment system.
In-situ stabilization of the site soils would cause an increase in
soil volume due to the addition of the stabilizing agents. This
increase in volume, together with the construction of a permeable cap
over the materials, would potentially result in a reduction of flood
storage capacity. Construction of an area capable of retaining this
reduced flood storage capacity during the 100-year flood event may be
required in an area adjacent to the site in order to mitigate impacts
from reducing flood storage capacity within the floodplain.
A limited area of the wetlands, primarily the Spill Area, would be
affected due to excavation of contaminated sediment during
implementation of Alternative SC-G. The affected wetland area that is
damaged during the excavation activity would be restored to its
original condition through a comprehensive restoration program once
all construction and excavation activities associated with this
alternative have been completed. Specifically, following site clean-
up activities, affected wetlands would be backfilled with clean soil
and organic material. The areas would be graded, stabilized, and then
planted with vegetation appropriate to the type of wetland affected.
In addition, a public education program would be instituted, and
access restrictions (e.g., fencing) and institutional controls on
ground water use would be incorporated.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 6 to 12 months
ESTIMATED TIME FOR OPERATION: 1 year
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (including treatment operating
expense): $2,688,834
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present
worth based on 30 years at a discount rate of 10%): $378,211
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $3,067,045
5)
SC-10 Onsite Incineration
Under this alternative, property soils and wetland and lagoon
sediments would be excavated and incinerated on site utilizing one of
the following types of mobile incinerators: a rotary kiln
incinerator, an infrared incinerator, or a circulating fluidized bed
incinerator. The mobile incinerator would be located to the west
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
41
waste storage facility would be constructed adjacent to the
incinerator to store excavated sediments and soils. A RCRA-equivalent
waste disposal facility would be constructed on site to handle the
treated residual material. Prior to ultimate disposal in the RCRA-
equivalent waste disposal facility, the treated residuals from the
incinerator would have to pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedures (TCLP) criteria. Those treatment residuals that do not
pass the TCLP criteria would be stabilized using
lime-cement-organophillic additives prior to disposal. The stabilized
and unstabilized residuals would then be disposed within the RCRA-
equivalent waste disposal facility. This disposal facility would be
capped after the placement of incinerator's treated residuals is
completed. In addition, dust control measures would be necessary
during excavation.
As with other active Source Control alternatives, SC-10 would also
include a long-term monitoring program; access restrictions and
institutional controls; lagoon dewatering and treatment;
decontamination, demolition, and offsite disposal of property
structures; a public education program; and wetlands restoration.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 6 to 12 months
ESTIMATED TIME FOR OPERATION: 1 year
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (including treatment operating expense):
$14,616,420
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present
worth based on 30 years at a discount rate of 10%): $393,295
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $15,009,715
6)
SC-11 Offsite Disposal at RCRA TSD Facilitv
Alternative SC-11 would include the excavation of contaminated
property soils and lagoon and wetland sediments, and the subsequent
treatment and disposal of these excavated materials at a RCRA
Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility. The excavated areas
would then be backfilled with clean fill materials. Dust control
technologies would be implemented to protect site workers and the
community from fugitive dust emissions during the excavation
operations.
As described for the other Source Control alternatives, Alternative
SC-l1 would involve a long-term monitoring program; institutional
controls on ground water use; lagoon dewatering; decontamination,
demolition, and disposal of property structures; and wetlands
restoration.
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
expense):
TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 4 to 8
PERIOD OF OPERATION: 1 year
CAPITAL COST (including construction and
$36,020,790
months
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
42
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present
worth based on 5 years at a discount rate of 10%): $240,627
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $36,261,417
Management of Migration (KM) Alternatives AnAlyzed
B.
Management of migration alternatives address contaminants that have
migrated from the original source of contamination. At the PSC
Resources Site, contaminants have migrated via ground water in a
southerly direction from the PSC Resources property, a source area,
and has discharged to the wetlands and to the Quaboag River. The
Management of Migration alternatives evaluated for the site include a
no-action alternative (MM-1).
Under all MM alternatives, an examination of the extent of PCE
contamination at and around monitoring well PSC-114S will be carried
out. Based on the reasons provided in Section V.F. of this ROD, the
localizedVOC contamination (PCE) at PSC-114S appears to be an
isolated ground water contamination and is not related to the VOC
contaminated plume emanating from the PSC property. EPA will further
examine this phenomenon during the Pre-Design stage of the source
remediation.
The Management of Migration alternatives that underwent detailed
analysis for the PSC Resources site include the following:
KM-l No-Action: Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland
sediment, and Quaboag River surface water and sediment.
KM-3/4 Ground Water Extraction/Treatment/Discharge: Ground water
interceptor trench with hydraulic barrier, or several low flow
extraction wells~ Collection, extraction, and treatment of ground
water; Discharge of fully treated ground water to the Quaboag River in
accordance with the substantive requirements of an NPDES permit~
Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediment, and Quaboag
River surface water and sediment; Wetlands restoration; Access
restrictions (e.g., fencing) around residual source materials; warning
signs; and Public education programs.
.1)
KM-l:
No Action
Alternative MM-1 relies on the process of natural attenuation to
reduce offsite ground water contaminant concentrations. Alternative
MM-1 will reduce existing contaminant levels to below MCLs in
approximately four to eleven years if implemented in conjunction with
any of the active Source Control alternatives. Ground water
monitoring data suggest that ground water contaminant concentrations
have been decreasing over time. Further, multiple rounds of ground
water sampling suggest that the ground water contaminant plume is
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
43
This "no action" alternative would require a comprehensive long-term
monitoring program as part of a five year review which includes
sampling of ground water, wetland surface water and sediment, and
Quaboag River surface water and sediment. The monitoring would occur
quarterly during the first two years of implementation, semi-annually
for the following three years, and annually for all subsequent years
of implementation. This alternative is easily implementable,
utilizing available technologies and standard protocols for sampling,
and would not result in the destruction of any additional wetlands.
ESTIMATED TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: Not Applicable (N/A)
ESTIMATED TIME FOR MONITORING: 30 years
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST: None
ESTIMATED LONG-TERM MONITORING COST (net present worth based on
30 years at a discount rate of 10%): $353,702
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST (net present worth): $353,702
2)
MM-3/4 Ground Water Extraction/Treatment/Discharqe
This alternative would include the construction of a ground water
recovery system composed of either an interceptor/barrier recovery
trench (MM-3) or ground water extraction recovery wells (MM-4)
installed downgradient of the PSC Resources, Inc. property. Based on
the development and screening of Management of Migration alternatives
in the Feasibility study, Alternatives MM-3 and MM-4 were combined
into one ground water treatment alternative (MM-3/4) which includes
two options as stated previously. Both systems would be installed to
intercept and extract contaminated ground water from the property.
The interceptor trench would be lined with an impermeable high density
polyethylene-based plastic barrier on its downgradient side to prevent
downgradient infiltration of ground water from the Quaboag River and
to promote upgradient infiltration of contaminated ground water.
Ground water extraction well recovery would require optimally four
extraction wells downgradient of the PSC Resources, Inc. property and
would act as sumps drawing and collecting contaminated ground water
underlying the site.
~ternative MM-3/MM-4would also include the construction of an onsite
treatment system for the contaminated ground water. The treatment
system would consist of a metals and suspended solids removal
pretreatment system followed by an organic removal system (an air
stripper). Ground water would be treated to meet MCLs. The effluent
would be discharged into the Quaboag River in accordance with the
Federal National pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements. The estimated time to achieve ground water cleanup
would be approximately three to seven years for both collection
options if implemented in conjunction with any of the active Source
Control alternatives. There would be environmental impacts which
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
44
alternative, but these wetlands would subsequently be restored.
Additionally, Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would include access restrictions
and institutional controls, and long-term monitoring.
InterceDtor/Barrier Recoverv Trench
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
$821,177
ESTIMATED
TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 8 to 12 months
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 10 years
CAPITAL COST: $793,634
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present worth):
TOTAL COST (net present worth): $1,614,811
Extraction Recoverv Wells
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
$866,032
ESTIMATED
TIME FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION: 6 to 8 months
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: 10 years
CAPITAL COST: $425,130
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST (net present worth) :
TOTAL COST (net present worth): $1,291,162
IX.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
Evaluation criteria
section 121(b) (1) of CERCLA presents several factors that at a minimum
EPA is required to consider in its assessment of alternatives.
Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the National
contingency Plan .articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in
assessing the individual remedial alternatives. These criteria and
their definitions are as follows:
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for
the alternatives to be eligible for selection in accordance with the
NCP.
1)
overall protection of human health and the
environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how
risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2)
compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARS) addresses whether
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
45
Federal and state environmental laws and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancinq criteria
The following five criteria are utilized to compare. and evaluate the
elements of one alternative to another that meet the threshold
criteria.
3)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence addresses
the criteria that are utilized to assess alter-
natives for the long-term effectiveness and
permanence they afford, along with the degree of
certainty that they will prove successful.
4)
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment addresses the degree to which
alternatives employ recycling or treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, including
how treatment is used to address the principal
threats posed by the site.
5)
Short term effectiveness addresses the period of
time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that
may be posed during the construction and
implementation period, until cleanup goals are
achieved.
6)
Implementability addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed
to implement a particular option.
7)
Cost includes estimated capital and operation
Maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as present-worth
costs.
Modifvinq criteria
The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial
alternatives generally after EPA has received public comment on the
RI/FS and Proposed Plan.
8)
State acceptance addresses the state's position and
key concerns related to the preferred alternative
and other alternatives, and the state's comments on
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
46
9)
community acceptance addresses the pUblic's general
response to the alternatives described in the
Proposed Plan and RIfFS report.
A detailed assessment of each alternative according to criteria 1) -
7) can be found in section 4.0 of the Feasibility Study (HMM
Associates, Inc., January 1992). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts'
Letter of Concurrence, provided in Appendix D of the ROD, documents
the state's position on the preferred alternative and is used by EPA
in the evaluation of criterion 8). The Responsiveness Summary,
provided in Appendix E of the ROD, documents EPA responses to the
questions and comments r? ,ed during the public comment period and is
used by EPA in the evaluc .::m of criterion 9) .
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a
comparative analysis, focusing on the relative performance of each
alternative against the nine criteria, was conducted. This
comparative analysis can be found in Table 4-11 (Source Control) and
Table 4-12 (Management of Migration) of Volume I of the Feasibility
Study (HMM Associates, Inc., January 1992).
B.
summary of the comparative Analysis of Alternatives
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine
evaluation criteria in order to select a site remedy. The following
is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strength and
weakness with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
1)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-6 would provide overall protection to human health and
the environ~ent through stabilization which would prohibit and impede
the mobility of contaminants in property soils and lagoon and wetland
sediments. The alternative SC-6 would provide protection from direct
contact with, and incidental ingestion of, site contaminants by
encapsulating them in a stabilized mass, and covering them with a
permeable cap. Overall protection would also be provided by
Alternative SC-4 by providing containment of site contaminants, and by
Alternatives SC-S, SC-10, and SC-11. Alternatives SC-S and SC-10
would provide overall protection through destruction of organics and
encapsulation of inorganics. Alternative SC-11 would provide the
greatest overall protection through excavation and offsite disposal of
all site contaminants that pose significant risk to human health and
the environment. Alternative SC-1 (No Action) would not meet this
criterion.
Alternative MM-1 would provid~ overall protection of human health and
the environment through implementation in conjunction with any of the
active SC alternatives, without the destruction of any additional
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
47
water contamination to levels below MCLs in four to eleven years after
implementation. Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would also provide overall
protection of human health and the environment by extracting
contaminated ground water underlying and downgradient of the PSC
Resources, Inc. property and treating it to meet MCLs, but with
certain environmental impacts, including the destruction of additional
wetlands.
2)
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
with the exception of the "No Action" SC alternative (SC-l), all of
the other source control alternatives would ultimately meet Federal
and state ARARs. Alternative MM-l would comply with all ARARs if
implemented in conjunction with any of the active SC alternatives.
Implementation of Alternative MM-l in conjunction with any of the
active SC alternatives would achieve compliance with all ARARs in four
to eleven years. Implementation of Alternative MM-3/MM-4 in
conjunction with any of the active SC alternatives would achieve
compliance with all ARARs in three to seven years. Based on a
relative comparison of the estimated times to achieve ground water
clean-up between the "No Action" Alternative MM-l and Alternative
MM-3/4, the maximum estimated difference between clean-up times is
eight years (assuming a maximum time for "No Action" Alternative MM-l
and a minimum for the Alternative MM-3/4).
3)
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SC-6 would provide a long-term, effective reduction in
risks associated with the site contaminants as well as permanence
through the consolidation of property soils with contaminated lagoon
and wetland sediments followed by stabilization and capping of the
consolidated materials. In-situ stabilization has been successfully
performed at several NPL sites. Alternatives SC-4, SC-5, SC-10, and
SC-ll would also reduce or eliminate long-term risks associated with
exposure to waste materials and leachate generation. The "no action"
Source Control Alternative (SC-l) would not provide effective or
permanent reductions to long-term risk. The long-term adequacy and
reliability of SC-4, which is a containment alternative, may not. be
sufficient as there may be a potential .future need for replacement of
the technical components of this alternative, such as the cap, ground
water collection trench/barrier wall, or ground water treatment
system. The failure of any or these technical components over time
may create human exposure pathways to contaminants resulting in human
health risks.
The long-term risks associated with implementing Alternative MM-l
would be eliminated within four to eleven years by natural attenuation
of contaminated ground water because any of the active SC
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
48
into the ground water from currently contaminated soils and sediments.
Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would also provide a long-term effective
reduction of ground water contamination, if implemented in conjunction
with any of the active SC alternatives, through the extraction and
treatment of ground water contaminants. Implementation of Alternative
MM-3/MM-4 in conjunction with any of the active SC alternatives would
achieve compliance with all ARARs in three to seven years.
4)
Reduction of Toxicity, MObility, or Volume throuqh Treatment
Alternative SC-6 would not reduce the toxicity and volume of property
soil and lagoon/wetland sediment contaminants. However, Alternative
SC-6 would prohibit and impede the mobility of contaminants by
formation of a stabilized matrix. Further, Alternative SC-6 would
meet the CERCLA mandate for treatment and therefore would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume under Superfund. Alternatives SC-5 and SC-10 would also comply
with CERCLA statutory preference for treatment of hazardous waste.
Alternative SC-5 would provide a significant reduction in the toxicity
and volume of organic contaminants and mobility of inorganic
contaminants through the vitrification process. Alternative SC-5
would also result in a 20 to 40 percent reduction in the volume of
soils and sediments being treated. Alternative SC-10 would also
provide a significant reduction in the toxicity and mobility of site
contaminants through incineration of organic constituents, but may
increase the overall volume due to post-incineration stabilization of
some of the treated residuals.
Source control alternative SC-4 would reduce the mobility of site
contaminants by containing and capping soils and sediments. However,
the reduction in mobility of contaminants from implementation of
Alternative SC-4 would not be as effective as that from Alternatives
SC-5, SC-6, and SC-10 as Alternative SC-4 employs a containment, not
treatment, technology. Therefore, Alternative SC-4 would not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume under Superfund.
Alternative SC-ll would provide the greatest reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants at the site due to excavation and
offsite disposal of all contaminated soils and sediments. The "No
Action" Source Control Alternative (SC-l) would not reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the site contaminants.
The "No Action" Alternative MM-l would not reduce toxicity, mobility,
or volume of groundwater contaminants. Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of groundwater contaminants
by use of a groundwater extraction/treatment system. However,
Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would result in destruction of limited areas of
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
49
5)
Short-Term Effectiveness
The "No Action" alternative SC-l would have high short-term
effectiveness for protection of the community and workers during its
implementation. Alternative SC-6 would present a minor short-term
impact to the wetland "during the excavation of contaminated wetland
sediments. Accordingly, any wetlands destroyed during the
implementation of this alternative would be restored or replaced with
an area equal in size to the area destroyed. In addition, because of
the potential for release of contaminants during the excavation
activities, special engineering precautions would be taken to minimize
the potential for contaminant emissions to ensure short-term
protection of workers and area residents during cleanup related
construction activities. Source control alternatives SC-4 and SC-5
would present similar short-term risks to the wetlands as would"
Alternative SC-6. Source control alternatives SC-IO and SC-ll would
present much greater short-term risks as these alternatives would
involve more intrusive activities.
The "No Action" Alternative (MM-l) would not present any adverse
impacts on human health or the environment. Implementation of
Alternative MM-3/MM-4 potentially could release vapors and fugitive
dusts during construction of either the interceptor/barrier recovery
trench system or the excavation recovery wells system.
6)
Implementability
Alternative SC-6 utilizes a technically feasible remedial technology,
"stabilization", that has been demonstrated to treat similar
contaminants at other NPL sites. The "No Action" Alternative MM-l is
also easily implementable, using monitoring techniques which are
readily available and standard sampling protocols. The
extraction/treatment systems presented in Alternative MM-3/MM-4 are
implementable, weli-developed technologies, and have been used
successfully at other sites.
Alternative SC-4 (impermeable cap)" and SC-ll (off-site treatment and
disposal) are well established technologies and are also highly
implementable. However, there may be potential problems in finding a
RCRA Treatment, storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility that is available
for implementation of Alternative SC-ll. Alternative SC-5 (in-situ
vitrification) is considered an innovative technology because it has
not been used in any commercial applications, and is therefore of
questionable implementability. Furthermore, the implementation of the
vitrification process requires very high amounts of electricity not
currently available at the site. Alternative SC-IO (onsite
incineration) is technically feasible but would be difficult to
implement due to the limited availability of land around the site.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
50
with little difficulty and uses well established and reliable
monitoring and analytical procedures.
In EPA's analysis, Alternative SC-6 (In-Situ Stabilization) is more
readily implementable than other active SC alternatives considered
with the exception of Alternative SC-4 (Impermeable Cap). Alternative
SC-6 and Alternative SC-4are equally implementable.
7)
Cost
Alternative SC-11 would be the most expensive of all the alternatives
with an estimated total cost of approximately $36,260,000. The next
two most expensive Source Control alternatives would be Alternatives
SC-10 and SC-5 with estimated total costs of approximately $15,010,000
and $10,380,000 respectively. Both Alternatives SC-10 and SC-11 would
be equally effective in reducing contaminant concentrations to clean-
up levels. Alternatives SC-6 and SC-4 with estimated total costs of
approximately $3,070,000 and $2,680,000 respectively would be much.
less expensive than Alternatives SC-11, SC-10, and SC-5. Alternative
MM-3/4 would require a estimated total cost of approximately
$1,600,000 for the interceptor/barrier recovery trench system and
$1,260,000 for extraction recovery wells system. The "No Action"
Alternatives SC-1 and MM-1 would require the least amount of money to
implement with estimated total costs of approximately $650,000 and
$353,000 respectively.
The estimated present worth value of each Source Control alternative
and each Management of Migration alternative is listed below. It
should be noted that these costs are estimates made during the
Feasibility Study that are expected to provide accuracy of +50 percent
to -30 percent.
Capital Costs 0 & M Present Worth
SC-1 None $648,800 $ 648,800
SC-4 $ 1,832,028 $845,787 $ 2,677,815
SC-5 $10,142,397 $241,006 $10,383,403
SC-6 $ 2,688,834 $378,211 $ 3,067,045
SC-10 $14,616,420 $393,295 $15,009,715
SC-11 $36,020,790 $240,627 $36,261,417
MM-1 None $353,702 $ 353,702
MM-3 $ 793,634 $821,177 $ 1,614,811
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
paqe
Sl
8)
state Acceptance
Based on its review of the RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts concurs with Alternative SC-6 and MM-l as the
selected remedy. A copy of the declaration of concurrence is attached
as Appendix D to this ROD.
9)
community Acceptance
A number of comments from the community addressed the evaluation of
r~sks posed by the Site and the safety of the residents who live
nearby. There was a general concern that it is not safe to live near
the site and that past disposal activities may have had an adverse
effect on the health of the residents. Two representatives of a local
environmental group expressed concern regarding fishing in the river
near the site. One asked if any studies have been conducted to
determine the safety of eating fish caught in the river downstream of
the site. The other suggested that stocking activities should be
suspended, especially during the time when lagoon surface waters are
being discharged to the river, and that all fishing should be
prohibited, at least temporarily. In addition, a representative of a
local environmental group asked how the on-site buildings would be
decontaminated and which landfill would be used for the disposal of
debris generated by the demolition of buildings, and if EPA considered
above-ground as opposed to in-ground stabilization as a treatment
technology.
written comments were also received from the DEP stating its concerns
regarding compliance with ARARs during remedial activities.
A group of potentially responsible parties also submitted technical
and administrative comments, prepared by a law firm and a consulting
firm respectively. Comments from the law firm expressed concern that
the PRPs were not notified of their potential liability in a more
timely manner. Comments from the consulting firm were of technical
nature and focused on EPA's Preferred Alternative on Source Control
and Management of Migration. These technical comments call for the
need to conduct additional Pre-Design studies prior to full-scale
cleanup and in general support EPA's Preferred Alternative.
Comments received during the public comment period on the Proposed
Plan and the FS are summarized in the attached document entitled "The
Responsiveness Summary" (Appendix E) .
x.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for the PSC Resources Site includes Source Control
alternative SC-6 and Management of Migration alternative MM-l to address
all contamination at "the site. A detailed description of the cleanup
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
52
provides clean-up levels for each chemical identified as posing significant
potential risk to human health and the environment, for each environmental
medium.
A.
Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels
Interim cleanup levels have been established in ground water for all
contaminants of concern identified in the Baseline Risk Assessment
found to pose an unacceptable risk to either public health or the
environment. Interim cleanup levels have been set based on the ARARs
(e.g., Drinking Water Maximum contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and
MCLs) as available, or other suitable criteria described below.
Periodic assessments of the protection afforded by remedial actions
will be made as the remedy is being implemented and at the completion
of the remedial action. At the time that Interim Ground Water Cleanup
Levels identified in the ROD and newly promulgated ARARs and modified
ARARs which call into question the protectiveness of the remedy have
been achieved and have not been exceeded for a period of three
consecutive years, a risk assessment shall be performed on the
residual ground water contamination to determine whether the remedial
action is protective. This risk assessment of the residual ground
water contamination shall follow EPA procedures and will assess the
cumulative carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks posed by exposure
to ground water (e.g., ingestion of ground water). If, after review
of the risk assessment, the remedial action is determined not to be
protective by EPA, the remedial action shall continue until either
protective levels are achieved, and are not exceeded for a period of
three consecutive years, or until the remedy is otherwise deemed
protective. These protective residual levels shall constitute the
final cleanup levels for this Record of Decision and shall be
considered performance standards for any remedial action.
Because the aquifer under the site is classified as a Class lIB
aquifer under the Federal Ground Water Protection strategy and Class I
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is a potential source of
drinking water, MCLs and non-zero MCLGs established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act are ARARs.
Interim cleanup levels for known, probable, and possible carcinogenic
compounds (Classes A, B, and C) have been established to protect
against potential carcinogenic effects and to conform with ARARs.
Because the MCLGs for Class A & B compounds are set at zero and are
thus not suitable for use as interim cleanup levels, MCLs and proposed
MCLs have been selected as the interim cleanup levels for these
Classes of compounds. Because the MCLGs for the Class C compounds are
greater than zero, and can readily be confirmed, MCLGs and proposed
MCLGs :--,e been sel- '.::ted as the interim cleanup levels for Class C
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
S3
Interim cleanup levels for Class 0 and E compounds (not classified,
and no evidence of carcinogenicity) have been established to protect
against potential non-carcinogenic effects and to conform with ARARs.
Because the MCLGs for these Classes are greater that zero and can
readily be confirmed, MCLGs and proposed MCLGs have been selected as
the interim cleanup levels for these classes of compounds.
In situations where a promulgated state standard is more stringent
than values established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the. state
standard was used as the interim cleanup level. In the absence of an
MCLG, an MCL, a proposed MCLG, proposed MCL, state standard, or other
suitable criteria to be considered (i.e., health advisory, state
guideline) an interim cleanup level was derived for each compound
having carcinogenic potential (Classes A, B, and C compounds) based on
a 10-6 excess cancer risk level per compound considering the exposure
to ground water (e.g., ingestion of ground water). In the absence of
the above same standards and criteria, interim cleanup levels for all
other compounds (Classes D and E) were established based on a level
that represent an acceptable exposure level to which the human
population including sensitive subgroups may be exposed without
adverse affect during a lifetime or part of a lifetime, incorporating
an adequate margin of safety (hazard quotient = 1) considering the
exposure to ground water (e.g., ingestion of ground water). If a
value described by any of the above methods was not capable of being
detected with good precision and accuracy or was below what was deemed
to be the background value, then the practical quanti tat ion limit or
background value was used as appropriate for the Interim Ground Water
Cleanup Level.
Table I below summarizes the Interim Cleanup Levels for carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic contaminants of concern identified in ground
water.
TABLE I
PSC RESOURCES SITE
INTERIM GROUND WATER CLEANUP LEVELS
Carcinogenic
contaminants of
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (B2)
Vinyl Chloride (A)
Methylene Chloride (B2)
Trichloroethene (B2)
Tetrachloroethene (B2)
Benzene (A)
Cleanup
Level (ppb)
6
2
5
5
5
5
Basis
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SUM
Level of
Risk
lE-06
SE-05
SE-07
7E-07
3E-06
2E-06
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
S4
TABLE I (Continued)
PSC RESOURCES SITE
INTERIM GROUND WATER CLEANUP LEVELS
Non-carcinogenic
contaminants
of Concern
l,l,l-Trichloroethane (D)
Cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene (D)a
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (D)a
l,1-Dichloroethane (D)
2-Butanone (MEK) (D)
Acetone (D)
Lead (B2)
Target
Endpoint
of Toxicit
liver
blood
liver
none reported
fetotoxicity
liver
CNSc
Cleanup
Level
Basis
MCLG
MCL
MCL
Risk
GWSb
Risk
policy
1:>
200
70
100
3,600
350
3,500
15
HAZARD INDEX
SUM
liver
1:>lood
fetotoxicity
none reported
Hazard
uotient
6E-02
2E-Ol
1E-01
1E+00
2E-01
lE+OO
d
lE+OO
2E-Ol
2E-Ol
lE+OO
Footnotes
a - In the Remedial Investigation studies, a distinction between
trans- and cis- isomers was not made in the analysis of 1,2-
dichloroethylene. The analysis was made instead for total 1,2-
dichloroethylene. As part of the implementation of the Management of
Migration remedy as defined in this ROD, an identification of an
appropriate cleanuP level for l,2-dichloroethylene will be made. If
this identification is not made, the more stringent of the two MCLs,
i.e., 70 ppb for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, will be set as the cleanup
level for total 1,2-dichloroethylene.
1:> - Massachusetts Groundwater standard, 314 CMR 6.07.
c - Central Nervous system (CNS)
d - A hazard quotient is not available for lead as EPA has
a reference dose for this compound. The cleanup level for
from a June 21, 1990 EPA memorandum from Henry Longest and
Diamond to Patrick Tobin.
(end of footnotes)
not issued
lead comes
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
ss
These interim cleanup levels are consistent with ARARs or suitable TBC
criteria for ground water, attain EPA's risk management goal for
remedial actions and are determined by EPA to be protective. However,
the true test of protection cannot be made until residual levels are
known. Consequently, at the time that Interim Ground Water Cleanup
Levels identified in the ROD and newly promulgated ARARs and modified
ARARs which call into question the protectiveness of the remedy have
been achieved and have not been exceeded for a period of three
consecutive years, a risk assessment will be performed on residual
ground water contamination to determine whether the remedial action is
protective. This risk assessment of the residual ground water
contamination shall follow EPA procedures and will assess the
cumulative carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks posed by exposure
to ground water (e.g., ingestion of ground water). If, after review
of the risk assessment, the remedial action is determined not to be
protective by EPA, then remedial actions shall continue until either
protective levels are achieved and are not exceeded for three
consecutive years or until the remedy is otherwise deemed protective.
These protective residual levels shall constitute the final cleanup
levels for this Record of Decision and shall be considered performance
standards for any remedial action.
All Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels identified in the ROD and
newly promulgated ARARs and modified ARARs which call into question
the protectiveness of the remedy and protective levels determined as a
consequence of the risk assessment of residual contamination, must be
met at the completion of the remedial action at the points of
compliance at the boundary of the Waste Management Area (defined here
as approximately the existing fence line or the PSC Resources
property/Spill Area boundary). EPA has estimated that these levels
will be obtained within four to eleven years after completion of the
source control component.
B.
soil and Sediment Cleanup Levels
Cleanup levels for property soils and lagoon and wetland sediments
were developed to reduce human health and/or environmental risks
associated with two potential exposure scenarios. The first of these
is the potential direct contact with and incidental ingestion of
'surficial soils and sediments. The second is the potential future
ingestion of contaminated ground water. Available data suggest that
property soils and lagoon sediments are a source of release of
contaminants to ground water. This phenomenon may result in an
unacceptable risk to those who ingest contaminated ground water.
1)
Surficial Soils and Sediments
Cleanup levels for known and suspect carcinogens (Classes A, B, and C
compounds) have been set at a 10-6 to 10-4 excess cancer risk level
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
S6
compounds in soils having non-carcinogenic effects (Classes D and E
compounds) were derived for the same exposure pathway and correspond
to a level that represents an acceptable exposure level to which the
human population including sensitive subgroups may be exposed without
adverse affect during a lifetime or part of a lifetime, incorporating
an adequate margin of safety (hazard quotient = 1). Exposure
parameters for the soil ingestion pathways for the soils and sediments
have been described in Table 4-2 of Appendix I of Volume IV of the RI.
If a cleanup value described above is not capable of being detected
with good precision and accuracy or is below background values, then
either the practical quantitation limit or a background value was used
as appropriate for the soil cleanup level.
Based on the above approach to protect human health, cleanup levels
were developed for total PCBs for property soil; total carcinogenic
PAHs for lagoon sediment; and total PCBs and arsenic for wetland
sediment. It was determined in the risk assessment that the human
health risk assessment-based cleanup levels for total PCBs and arsenic
in the wetlands would also be protective of the environment. These
cleanup levels were derived for incidental ingestion by presumed
receptors associated with future residential and industrial land use
scenarios, as summarized in section 1.2.5 of the FS. It should be
noted that 1 ppm cleanup level derived for PCB for property soil and
wetland sediment is also consistent with the guidance established
under the Federal Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Under TSCA, EPA
has issued a remediation goal of 1 ppm for PCBs at Superfund sites
where land use is residential in nature (exposures occur to
residents). This level is considered by.EPA to be protective of human
health and the environment.
To evaluate site risks from exposure to lead in property soil and
lagoon sediment, UptakejBiokinetic model (biokinetic model) was used
to predict blood lead levels in children aged zero to six years.
Based on that model's results, 500 ppm lead in property soil and
lagoon sediment was determined to be a protective cleanup level.
Additional detail regarding the methods and assumptions used in the
biokinetic. model are summarized in Appendix I of the FS.
As explained and concluded in section VI. B. of this ROD, the
ecological risk assessment identified only wetland sediment medium,
including the Spill Area, as posing probable environmental risk to
mammals and birds. contaminants in the wetlands that are primary
contributors to ecological risks include total PAHs, lead, and zinc.
These three contaminants tend to follow a co-occurrence pattern at
elevated concentrations in the wetland sediments. Therefore,
ecologically based cleanup levels that would be protective of the
environment are being developed for total PAHs, lead, and zinc in the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
paqe
57
Table II summarizes the cleanup levels for carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic contaminants of concern in soils and sediments.
carcinoqenic
contaminants of
concern
PrODertv Soil
Total PCBs (B2)
Laqoon Sediment
Total cPAHs (B2)
Wetland Sediment
Total PCBs (B2)
Arsenic (A)
Non-carcinoqenic
contaminant
of Concern
PrODertv Soil
Lead (B2)
Laqoon Sediment
.Lead (B2)
TABLE II.
PSC RESOURCES SITE
SURFICIAL SOIL/SEDIMENT CLEANUP LEVELS
soil/Sediment
Cleanup
Level (oom)
100
1
12c
Cleanup
Level (oom)
500
.500
Basis
1
HHRA a
SUM
HHRA
SUM
HHRA
HHRA
SUM
Basis for
Model
Inout
Target
Endpoint
of Toxicitv
UBmd
CNSe
HAZARD INDEX SUM
UBKM
CNS
HAZARD INDEX SUM
Level of
Risk
lE-06
lE-06
lE-04b
lE-04
lE-06
lE-05
lE-05
Hazard
ouotient
f
N/A
N/A
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
58
TABLE II (Continued)
PSC RESOURCES SITE
SURFICIAL SOIL/SEDIMENT CLEANUP LEVELS
Non-carcinogenic
Contaminant
of Concern
Cleanup
Level (DDm)
Basis for
Model
InDut
Target
Endpoint
of Toxicitv
Hazard
ouotient
Wetland Sediment
Total PAHs
Lead
Zinc
10
375
550
ERA9.h
ERAh
ERAh
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HAZARD INDEX SUM
Footnotes
a - Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
b - In the development of a target cleanup level for cPAH for all
environmental media, EPA used a target risk criterion of 1E-04 ILCR
instead of 1E-06 ILCR, the point of departure. Initially, EPA
determined that a target cleanup level that corresponds to 1E-06 ILCR
would result in the excavation and consequent disruption of large
areas of wetlands which would conflict with the Agency's goal of
protection and preservation of wetlands. Specifically, EPA's risk
management decision in utilizing the target risk criterion of 1E-04
ILCR for the wetlands involved weighing the reduction in the long-term
human health risks afforded by the remedial action against the
short-term impacts (i.e., destruction of wetlands and human health
impacts related to remedy implementation), the long-term environmental
benefits, the level of confidence in the success of the remedial
action, the costs of the remedial action, and most importantly meeting
EPA's acceptable ILCR risk range of 1E-06 to 1E-04. Therefore, EPA
moved to the lower end of the acceptable risk range, 1E-04 ILCR, to
reduce the area of wetlands to be impacted, while still providing
adequate protection of human health and the environment. EPA used the
target risk criterion of 1E-04 ILCR for cPAH for all those media for
which the baseline human health risk assessment indicates exceedance
of 1E-04 ILCR for cPAH.
c - Recent studies indicate that many skin tumors arising' from oral
exposure to arsenic are non-lethal and that the dose-response curve
for the skin cancers may be sublinear (in which case the cancer
potency factor used to generate risk estimates will be overstated).
It is Agency policy to manage these risks downward by as much as a
factor of ten. As a result, the carcinogenic risk for arsenic at this
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
S9
"Recommended Agency Policy on the Carcinogenic Risk Associated with
the Ingestion of Inorganic Arsenic" dated June 21, 1988.)
d - Uptake/Biokinetic Model (UBKM)
e - Central Nervous System (CNS)
f - A hazard quotient is not available for lead as EPA has not issued
a reference dose for this compound. The cleanup level for lead is
based on OSWER Directive 9355.4-02, "Interim Guidance on Establishing
Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund sites" (9/7/89), and the
Biokinetic Model.
g - Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)
b - Cleanup levels for lead and zinc correspond to values established
in the ecological risk assessment studies which ensure the protection
(growth and reproduction) of birds. The cleanup level for total PARs
corresponds to the lower end in the range of values which result in a
Toxicity Quotient of one as derived by the Equilibrium Partitioning
(EP) method applied in the ecological risk assessment. In addition,
the ERA-based cleanup level for Total PARs is protective of human
health for carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs); therefore, a separate cleanup
level was not developed for cPARs in wetland sediment.
(end of footnotes)
These cleanup levels must be met at the completion. of the remedial
action at the points of compliance through in-situ stabilization of
the contaminated soils and sediments under a permeable cap. The
stabilization treatment of all contaminated soils and sediments
followed by construction of a permeable cap over the stabilized
materials will prevent exposure to contaminated soils on the PSC
Resources property and will also meet all Source Control objectives.
These cleanup levels attain EPA's risk management goal for remedial
actions and have been determined by EPA to be protective.
2)
Unsaturated Soils and Saturated (Lagoon) Sediments
Based upon data developed in the RI and the Baseline Risk Assessment,
remedial measures to address risk associated with possible exposure to
VOC contaminants in source unsaturated soils and saturated sediments
are not warranted because present and future risks are within or below
EPA's acceptable carcinogenic risk range or for the non-carcinogens
generally below a Hazard Index of one. However, available data
suggest that area soils and sediments are a source of release of VOCs
to ground water. This phenomenon may result in an unacceptable risk
to those who drink contaminated ground water in the foreseeable
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
60
established to protect the aquifer from potential soil leachate. The
Summers Leaching Model (EPAj540j2-89j057) was used to estimate
residual soil and sediment levels that are not expected to impair
future ground water quality. The interim cleanup levels for ground
water were used as input into the leaching model. If the predicted
protective soil level was not capable of being detected with good
precision and accuracy, then the practical quantitation limit was
selected as the cleanup level for soils.
Ground water was identified as the only medium of concern containing
contaminant concentrations in excess of existing ARARs (maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for ground water). section 5.0 Contaminant
Fate and TransDort of the RI identified property soil, lagoon
sediment, and Spill Area in the wetland as the three potential sources
of ground water contamination. The potential for these media to leach
contaminants of concern to ground water was evaluated using the
Summers leaching model, details of which are provided in Appendix F of
the FS. The Summers leaching model confirmed that only the property
soil and the lagoon sediment maintain the potential to impair future
ground water quality. Therefore, results of the model were used to
develop cleanup levels for contaminants of concern in only property
soil and lagoon sediment, as appropriate, which are protective of
ground water.
The unsaturated zone consists of property soils which has an
approximate area of 1.1 acres and an approximate depth of 6 ft.
saturated zone consists of the lagoon sediments which has an
approximate area of 14,000 ft2 and an approximate depth of 2 ft.
The Table III, below, summarizes the soil cleanup levels required to
protect public health and the aquifer and were developed for the
ground water contaminants of concern detected above the interim ground
water cleanup levels.
The
TABLE III
PSC RESOURCES SITE
UNSATURATED SOIL AND SATURATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP LEVELS
carcinogenic
Contaminants of
Concern
Soil
Cleanup
Level (pom)
Basis for
Model Inout
Level of
Residual GW
Risk
ProDertv Soil
Trichloroethylene (B2)
Tetrachloroethylene (B2)
Benzene (A)
1
2
1
MCL
MCL
MCL
S~
7E-07
3E-06
2E-06
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
61
TABLE III (Continued)
PSC RESOURCES SITE
UNSATURATED SOIL AND SATURATED SEDIMENT CLEANUP LEVELS
carcinogenic
contaminants of
Concern
Laqoon Sediment
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (B2)
Trichloroethylene (B2)
Tetrachloroethylene (B2)
Methylene Chloride (B2)
Benzene (A)
Non-carcinogenic
contaminants
of Concern
Propertv soil
Soil
Cleanup
Level (oom)
Basis for
Model Inout
Level of
Residual GW
Risk
368 MCL 1E-06
4 MCL 7E-07
12 MCL 3E-06
1 MCL 5E-07
3 MCL 2E-06
SUM 7E-06
Basis for
Cleanup Model
LevelCppm) Input
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (D)
Total ncPAHs (D)
1,1-Dichloroethane (D)
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (D)8
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (D)8
135
151
243
5
7
MCLG
Risk
Risk
MCL
MCL
Laqoon Sediment
1,1,1-Trich1oroethane (D)
Total ncPAHs (D)
1,1-Dichloroethane (D)
Acetone (D)
Target Residual GW
Endpoint of Hazard
Toxicitv ouotient
liver
DW
none rptd.
blood
liver
SUM HAZARD INDEX
Decreased
None Reported
200
1,206
1
MCLG
Risk
Risk
10
Risk
Liver:
Weight (DW):
.(none rptd):
blood:
liver
DW
none
reported
liver
SUM HAZARD INDEX
Liver:
Decreased Weight (DW):
None Reported:
6E-02
1E+00
1E+00
2E-01
1E-a1
2E-Ol
lE+OO
lE+OO
2E-Ol
6E-a2
lE+OO
1E+00
lE+OO
lE+OO
lE+OO
-------
Page.
62
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Footnote)
a - In the Remedial Investigation studies, a distinction between
trans- and cis- isomers was not made in the analysis of 1,2-
dichloroethylene. The analysis was made instead for total 1,2-
dichloroethylene. As part of the implementation of the Management of
Migration remedy as defined in this ROD, an identification of an
appropriate cleanup level for 1,2-dichloroethylene will be made. If
this identification is not made, the more stringent of the two cleanup
levels, i.e., 5 ppm for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, will be set as the
cleanup level for total 1,2-dichloroethylene.
(end of footnote)
These cleanup levels in soils and sediments are consistent with ARARs
for ground water, attain EPA's risk management goal for remedial
actions, and'have been determined by EPA to be protective. These
cleanup levels must be met at the completion of the remedial action
throughout the unsaturated zone and saturated zone as defined above.
Further, these cleanup levels must be met at the completion of the
remedial action at the points of compliance through in-situ
stabilization of the contaminated soils and sediments under a
permeable cap. The stabilization treatment of all contaminated soils
and sediments followed by construction of a permeable cap over the
stabilized materials will prevent exposure to unsaturated soils and
saturated sediments, minimize the mobility to ground water of the
residual waste left on the PSC Resources Site, and ultimately will
meet all Source Control objectives.
C.
1)
Desc~iption of Remedial Components
source Control
The source control portion of the remedy will involve the following
major components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Decontamination, demolition, and offsite disposal of property
structures:
Treatment and discharge of lagoon surface water:
Consolidation of contaminated property soils with lagoon and
wetland sediments on site property:
In-situ mixing and stabilization of property soils/sediments
with treatment agents to bind contaminants into a stable matrix:
Construction of a perm~able cap over stabilized property soils
and sediments, and grading and planting of the cap's surface:
Restoration of wetlands:
Implementation of institutional controls on ground water use'and
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
63
8.
Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediments, and
Quaboag River water and sediments.
Details of each of the above major components are provided below:
1.
Decontamination, demolition, and offsite disposal of property
structures
Prior to the in-situ stabilization treatment process, site
abandoned buildings and structures would be decontaminated by
sandblasting or using a solvent rinse. Sand blasting involves
the removal of contaminants from the surfaces of the structures
by blasting with sand in a high-pressure air stream. The
technology does not remediate the surfaces of the structures but
removes the contaminants by wearing away the contaminated
layers. Solvent wash technology involves the extraction of
inorganic and organic contaminants from contaminated property
structures using solvents. The surfaces of the property
structures are treated with an extractant solution. The
supernatant containing contaminants are further treated for
removal and recovery. The surfaces are rinsed and neutralized,
if necessary. These two surface decontamination technologies
were studied in the FS and were found to be effective for
implementation during the Remedial Action. Therefore, either or
both of these surface decontamination techniques will be used in
the full-scale remediation until the buildings and the
structures are deemed non-hazardous and suitable for offsite
disposal at a subtitle D solid waste facility~
In order to implement the selected Source Control remedy to
remediate the Site contamination, the existing abandoned
property buildings and structures would need to be demolished
and disposed offsite to provide space for the onsite remediation
equipment. The demolishing and disposal activities would take
place once the surface decontamination work is completed. The
total volume of site structures and demolition debris to be
disposed would be approximately 74 cubic yards. This volume
estimate would be further refined during the Pre-Design study
that will precede Remedial Design. Wastes generated by the
decontamination activities would also be disposed offsite. A
determination would be made as to whether the wastes generated
by the decontamination activities are hazardous. If the wastes
are determined to be hazardous, they would be disposed offsite
at a subtitle C hazardous waste facility in accordance with
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
64
2.
Treatment and discharge of lagoon surface water
Concurrently with the decontamination, demolition, and offsite
disposal of property structures, the lagoon surface water would
be treated and discharged. Draining the lagoon would require an
interim surface water treatment system. This would allow the
water from the lagoon to be treated and discharged. This system
would consist of a filter and granular activated carbon (GAC)
adsorption unit to remove organic contaminants, and possibly
more sophisticated treatment equipment to remove the inorganic
contaminants in the surface water. Discharge of the treated
water would comply with all substantive permit requirements.
Specifically, a 40 to 60 gpm pump would be used to remove
surface water from the bottom of the lagoon. The lagoon surface
water would be pumped to a 3,000 to 5,000 gallon frac tank
designed with baffles to promote settling of suspended material.
Water exiting the tank would be pumped to a
flocculation/sedimentation unit to remove the inorganic
materials. The partially treated effluent from the
flocculation/sedimentation unit would be pumped through a 100
mesh bag filter prior to entering the GAC contactors. The
effluent would then pass through two GAC contactors where the
organic constituent would be removed through adsorption. The
GAC contactors would be connected in series to provide for the
most efficient use of GAC. The empty bed contact time (EBCT)
would be approximately 10 minutes. It is anticipated that the
treated effluent exiting the GAC units would be discharged into
the QuaboagRiver provided that all substantive permit
requirements are met. However, EPA will consider disposing of
the treated" lagoon surface water at an EPA-approved offsite
disposal facility if the substantive requirements cannot be met
or the discharge into the Quaboag River is not consistent with
the overall goals of the remedy. The lagoon surface water
treatment/discharge activity would be expected to take
approximately 21 working days to complete.
3.
Consolidation of contaminated property soils with lagoon and
wetland sediments on site property
Prior to stabilization treatment, the contaminated sediment
present in the lagoon and the wetlands would be excavated and
consolidated with the property soils in-situ within the Area of
Contamination (AOC). PSC Resources site has only one AOC which
includes the PSC Resources property, adjacent wetland Spill Area
(the area inside the site fence), and the limited area of the
wetlands exclusive of th~ Spill Area, identified as drainage
pathways. This AOC was delineated based on the areal extent (or
boundary) of contiguous contamination that contain varying types
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
65
The total volume of contaminated property soils and lagoon and
wetland sediments that are targeted for treatment is estimated
to be 12,695 cubic yards with the following breakdown: 11,000
cubic yards of property soils, 1,245 cubic yards of lagoon
sediment, and 450 cubic yards of wetland sediment. However,
these volume estimates would be further refined based on
additional sampling to be conducted during the pre-Design study.
4.
In-situ mixing and stabilization of property soils/sediments
with treatment agents to bind contaminants into a stable matrix
The selected Source Control remedy includes an innovative in-
situ stabilization treatment process that would physically and
chemically bind and immobilize the toxic and hazardous site
materials with ~tabilization additives into a solid, cement-like
mass or matrix. In general, the stabilization technology, which
is one of the types of treatment technologies that fall within
the Superfund program's definition of "immobilization", is
considered by EPA a proven technology for immobilization of
inorganics. However, the stabilization technology, which is
being selected as the principal element of the selected Source
Control remedy, is considered innovative for the primary reasons
that this technology will be applied "in-situ" and will also
immobilize various organics at the PSC Resources site. In the
treatment process, the stabilization additives would be selected
according to their ability to immobilize the specific
contaminants present at the PSC Re~ources, Inc. site. This
process would significantly reduce the ability of contaminants
to migrate from the PSC Resources site.
In-situ stabilization would consist of shallow mixing of the
source materials with the appropriate stabilization additives.
A crane mounted mixing system would be utilized to combine the
portland cement/clay mixture with the in-situ soils. The mixing
system consists of rotary blades contained within an open bottom
cylinder. The open bottom shallow soil mixing system would be
utilized in order to provide control over the volumes of soils
and sediments mixed with the cement/clay additive. The cylinder
also acts to prevent the migration of contaminants during the
mixing process (Fiqure 33, Appendix A).
The cement/clay mixture would be combined as a slurry and pumped
into the.system as the mixing blades are started and the
cylinder is lowered into the waste. The appropriate slurry
mixture has not been determined and would require frequent
adjustment due to the heterogeneous nature of the on-site soils.
The volume of water to be added to the mixture would be
dependent upon the initial soil moisture content. . since
stabilization would be ongoing both above and below the water
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
66
surface, continuous monitoring of the slurry would be required.
Adjustments to the admixture proportions would be required to
maintain the proper moisture levels when treatment extends below
the water table. It is anticipated that with the proper
oversight and adjustments, ground water dewatering below the Aoe
would not be necessary. The need for potential ground water
dewatering during the soil and sediment treatment would be
further evaluated during the Pre-Design study. Because the in-
situ stabilization treatment process will also partially be
conducted in the saturated environment and therefore the curing
will be affected, treatability studies to be conducted as part
of Pre-Design will include saturated curing. In addition, the
nature of the soil itself varies over the site requiring
implementation of an intensive quality control. program in order
to ensure a homogeneous mixture.
The mixing would be conducted in an up and down motion in order
to create a negative pressure on the head space of the bottom
opened cylinder. This would be done in order to induce any
vapors or dusts into the vapor treatment system. At the
completion of a mixed cylinder of waste, the blades would
continue to rotate as they are retracted in order to ensure a
homogeneous mixture. An overlapping process would be conducted
until the entire area has been stabilized. The soils would be
mixed to a depth of between 4 and 6 feet below the site surface.
The shallow soil mixing system would incorporate a vapor
collection and treatment system in order to capture any vapors
and fugitive dust emanating from the soils during treatment.
The treatment system typically would consist of a dust collector
followed by activated carbon canisters and then an induced draft
fan. The fan would exhaust the treated air to the atmosphere.
An in-line organic vapor detector monitors the air prior to its
being emitted to the atmosphere.
The in-situ stabilization of the site soils would reduce the
void space ground water storage capacity. This may cause a
small rise in the ground water table elevation of the '.
surrounding areas. The extent (areal and vertical) of the
changes to the ground water table is expected to be minimal;
nevertheless, appropriate controls (culvert, interceptor trench,
etc.) could be installed, as necessary, to prevent impacts to
building foundations and roadways in the area. This potential
effect of the treatment on the void space ground water storage
capacity would be further evaluated during the Pre-Design study.
Run-onjrun-off (ROjRO) controls would be employed to prevent
siltation of the wetlands both during and after treatment and
construction activities. The installation of a vegetation layer
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
67
evapotranspiration. A grassed drainage swale would be
constructed to direct runoff toward the wetland, reduce erosion,
and prevent siltation. The installation of the drainage layer
above the stabilized material would direct the remaining
rainfall percolating through the top layer to the appropriate
discharge points. It may be necessary to employ infiltration
basins/trenches in order to prevent flooding of the wetlands.
In-situ stabilization of the site soils would cause an increase
in soil volume due to the addition of the stabilizing agents.
This increase in volume, together with the construction of a
permeable cap over the materials, would potentially result in a
reduction of flood storage capacity. Construction of an area
capable of retaining this reduced flood storage capacity during
the 100-year flood event may be required in an area adjacent to
or on the PSC Resources property in order to mitigate impacts
from reducing flood storage capacity within the floodplain. In
accordance with Section 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 6, Appendix A, EPA has already made a determination
that there is no practical alternative to the construction of
the treatment plant in the lOO-year floodplain and the
excavation of limited area in the wetland. Further assessment
of the 100-year flood plain impacts as well as measures to
mitigate such impacts would be made during the Pre-Design
studies.
A bench scale treatability study conducted as part of the FS
indicates that a Portland cement/organophillic clay mixture and
the proprietary cold-mix asphalt emulsion mixture would
effectively stabilize contaminated soil at the PSC Resources
Site. Results of the bench scale treatability study on the soil
stabilization/solidification can be found in Appendix A of the
FS, Volume II. In addition, an extensive literature search
indicates that the above mixture would also effectively treat
sediments. The Portland cement has been shown to create a
stable matrix and provide a high level of resistance to leaching
of inorganic contaminants. In addition, the Portland cement has
been shown to provide a higher resistance to organic contaminant
leaching than do lime-fly ash and pozzolanic systems. The
organophillic clay has been shown to adsorb organic contaminants
in the soils and reduce organic contaminant migration within the
cement matrix. The organophillic clay addition overcomes the
problem of contaminant migration through the relatively porous
cement matrix via the actual adsorption of organic materials.
. organophillic clay is produced through the ionic exchange of
metallic cations normally present in the clay with a catoctin
surfactant.
Due to the limited scope of the bench scale treatability study
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
68
stabilization mixtures as part of the FS, more detailed pilot
studies would need to be conducted as part of the Pre-design
studies. These additional Pre-Design studies would ensure the
effectiveness of in-situ stabilization prior to its full-scale
implementation. Details of the Pre-Design studies are provided
below.
Additional Pre-Design studies on the nature of the physical and
chemical characteristic of both treated and untreated soils and
sediments would be conducted. At minimum, the physical
parameters would include: (1) description of materials to
determine waste handling methods; (2) particle size analysis
(only for untreated soils and sediments) to determine the
surface area available for binder contact and leaching~ (3)
moisture content~ (4) oil and grease content; (5) presence of
halides, soluble metal salts, and phenol~ (6) density testing~
(7) strength testing; (8) permeability~ and (9) durability.
testing. Chemical parameters, at minimum, would include: (1)
pH to evaluate changes in leaching as a function of pH; (2)
alkalinity to evaluate changes in leaching as a function of
alkalinity; (3) interfering compounds to evaluate visibility of
the stabilization process; (4) indicator compounds to evaluate
performance of the stabilization process; (5) leach testing to
evaluate performance of the stabilization process; and (6) heat
of hydration to measure temperature changes during mixing. A
thorough investigation of subsurface barriers would also be made
to assess feasibility of adequately delivering and mixing the
stabilization agents and the determination of the depth to first
confining layer to determine required depth of treatment. In
the FS, it was estimated that soils would be mixed and treated
to a depth of between 4 and 6 feet below the site surface.
Therefore, this FS estimated mixing depth would be confirmed or
refined, if warranted, in the pre-Design studies.
To evaluate and ensure the effectiveness of the in-situ
stabilization treatment in meeting all Source Control
objectives, a set of technical criteria would be met. These
technical criteria are contaminant mobility, based on leaching
and permeability tests; and the structural integrity of the
solidified/stabilized soils and sediments, based on measurements
of physical and microstructural properties described above. The
average permeability of the treated soils and sediments would
meet minimum 10-6 cm/s and the unconfined compressive strength
(DCS) would meet EPA guideline minimum of 50 psi that would be
needed to support the overburden and the permeable cap.
Further, the minimum 50 psi DCS would be verified in the
Remedial Design as being able to support the specific cap design
and the equipment that will be used on the PSC Resources
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
69
To evaluate the effectiveness of the in-situ stabilization and
leaching potential of soils and sediments, leaching tests will
be conducted on both the treated and untreated soils and
sediments. The pH of each leachate would be measured at the
conclusion of each leach test.
For inorganic hazardous waste, two types of leaching tests will
be conducted. These two leaching tests are TCLP and American
Nuciear society Test (ANS-16.1) or equivalent method. Results
of the TCLP tests will be used to determine. whether certain
soils and sediments will be RCRA-characteristic waste after
stabilization. For lead which is one of the metal contaminants
of concern, the TCLP test will be conducted to determine whether
the lead concentration in the TCLP extract is less than the
regulatory limit of 5 mg/l above which the stabilized material
would be considered a RCRA-characteristic waste. This
regulatory limit of 5 mg/l for lead would be considered a
performance criterion for stabilization of soils and sediments.
that are contaminated with lead. Leach test method AN?-16.1
would be conducted for pilot tests and subsequently for field
implementation to achieve a minimum leachability index of 6.0
and a maximum leachate concentration of lead less than 5 mg/l.
Either of the two leach tests would be conducted with deionized
water, synthetic area rain, or synthetic ground water.
For organic hazardous waste, Total Waste Analysis (TWA) and TCLP
will be conducted before and after the stabilization treatment
of soils and sediments. Prior to the post-stabilization
treatment conduct of TWA, an acid extraction procedure would be
employed in order to effectively break up the
sOlidification/stabilization matrix so an organic solvent, to be
approved by EPA, can extract the organic contaminants. This
added procedure would prove that the organic contaminants are
still in the solidification/stabilization matrix but are
immobilized. The TCLP tests will also be conducted to determine
whether certain soils and sediments will be RCRA-characteristic
waste for regulated organic contaminants after stabilization.
As for inorganic hazardous waste, the regulatory limits that
have been promulgated by EPA and are available for organic
contaminants of concern would be considered performance criteria
for stabilization of contaminated soils and sediments. These
regulatory limits are provided in ~able 1. of 40 CFR ~ 261.24 -
Toxicity Characteristic.
For those organic contaminants of concern for which regulatory
limits are not provided in Table 1. of 40 CFR ~ 261.24,
alternate concentration limits, designated as the maximum
concentration of the infiltrate, C, will be met as the
performance criteria in the laboratory analysis of the leachate
-------
RECORD OF:ECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
70
infiltrate or leachate, Cp' is the maximum allowable
concentration which will not result in exceedance of groundwater
quality requirements (i.e., MCLs, MCLGs, br risk-based
concentrations). These Cp values were calculated as part of the
Summers leaching modelling study that was conducted, details of
which are provided in Appendix F of the FS. Leach test method
ANS-l6.1, which uses an intact monolith and water leachant,
would be utilized as the extraction method. Leach test method
ANS-l6.1 is being selected for the extraction procedure as it is
expected to simulate more realistically the field conditions
than the regulatory TCLP extraction procedure which crushes the
stabilized matrix and utilizes acetate solution as the leachant.
Table 8 of Appendix B provides the Cp performance criteria for
each of the organic contaminants of concern for the property
soil and lagoon sediment media.
Based on the results of physical, chemical, and leaching. .
analyses and tests described above, the optimum formulation(s)
of the admixes and optimum reagent usage would be determined.
For optimized stabilization treatment effects, a subset of
performance measurements may be instituted if a large number of
formulations is initially tested. Subsequently, the full range
of performance measurements would be required and instituted on
a few formulations that are determined to be most effective.
In addition, as part of the pilot-scale studies, volatile and
particulate emissions would be trapped and analyzed for.
potential fugitive emissions of contaminants. Measurements of
total as well as leachable metal would also be made. The data
would be adjusted to eliminate any apparent reduction of the
contaminants due to dilution. This is a result of various
additives and binders that are used in the stabilization
treatment of untreated soils and sediments which result in the
dilution of the original untreated materials. To account for
this dilution effect, dilution factors, developed on a water
free basis, would be calculated and would be multiplied by the
uncorrected analytical values for a realistic assessment of the
performance of the stabilization treatment. The determination
of laboratory mixing equivalent to the field mixing would also
be made as the field-used augers are not anticipated to perform
mixing of soils and sediments as efficiently as batch mixers.
For field quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), cone
penetrometers readings would be taken after a few days of curing
or on a periodical basis as needed for the purpose of
determining the strength index. Either grab samples or shallow
cores would be collected for laboratory analysis to verify the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
71
stabilization treatment would meet all the Source Control
objectives by consolidating all contaminated sediments and soils
from around the site into a solidified mass, and capping the
stabilized material. It would be protective of human health and
the environment because the stabilization process would prohibit
and impede the mobility of contaminants and the cap would reduce
the potential for direct contact with the treated material.
This Source Control remedy would also meet all chemical-,
location-, and action-specific ARARs.
5.
construction of a permeable cap over stabilized property soils
and sediments, and grading and planting of the cap's surface
A permeable cap would be required over the stabilized materials
once the full-scale remediation has been completed. This would
be necessary in order to reduce the potential for erosion due to
weathering of the stabilized material which in turn reduces the
integrity of the stabilized mass creating the potential for
leaching contaminants. The permeable cap would consist of a
two-foot gravel and sand drainage layer overlain by 12 inches of
soil borrow capable of supporting vegetation (Fiqure 34,
Appendix A). The cap is graded to drain away from the source
material to minimize the infiltration of any precipitation into
the stabilized material. The top layer would be vegetated in
order to stabilize the soils, to increase evaporation potential,
and to create a more aesthetic final appearance.
6.
Restoration of wetlands
EPA has determined that, for this site, there are no practicable
alternatives to the selected Source Control remedy that would
achieve site goals but would have less adverse impacts on the
ecosystem. Unless the sediments in the wetlands with
contaminant concentrations greater than the cleanup levels are
excavated and treated in-situ with the property soils and lagoon
sediments, the contaminants in the sediment would continue to
pose unacceptable human health and environmental risks. A
limited area of the wetlands, primarily the spill Area and the
drainage pathways, would be affected due to excavation of
contaminated sediment during implementation of the selected
Source Control remedy.
Excavation and treatment of contaminated wetland sediments, and
any ancillary activities would result in unavoidable impacts and
disturbance to wetland resource areas. Such impacts may include
the destruction of vegetation and the loss of certain plants and
aquatic organisms. Impacts to the fauna and flora would be
mitigated through a comprehensive restoration program, described
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
72
During imple~entation of the remedy, steps would be taken to
minimize the destruction, loss and degradation of wetlands,
including the use of sedimentation basins or silt curtains to
prevent potential transport of contaminated sediment/soils from
the PSC Resources property during the stabilization treatment
activities. In particular, the wetlands restoration program for
the excavated portions of wetlands would be designed to mitigate
any future impacts of such activities to those areas. Measures
to be used would include adequate sloping of stream banks to
prevent excessive sediment/soil erosion into the drainage
pathways. All excavated areas would be backfilled, graded,
stabilized and planted. The area would be restored to
appropriate elevation contours and similar vegetation would be
planted. organic fill material would be distributed throughout
the excavated areas to create grading, elevation and drainage
approaching original patterns and to serve as substrate for
replacement of vegetation.
A variety of mitigating measures would be implemented during and
after remedial action including protection of sensitive species,
erosion control and turbidity control. Upon completion of
remedial action, any wetland areas impacted by excavation,
treatment, and/or associated activities performed would be
restored or enhanced, to the maximum extent feasible, to similar
hydrological and botanical conditions existing prior to these
activities.
The restoration program would be developed during Remedial
Design of the selected Source Control remedy to replace wetland
functions and habitat areas. This restoration program would
identify the factors which are key to a successful restoration
of the altered wetlands. Factors would include, but not
necessarily be limited to, replacing and regrading hydric soils,.
provisions for hydraulic control and provisions for vegetative
reestablishment, including transplanting, seeding or some
combination thereof. Quality assurance measures shall include;
(1) detailed topographic and vegetative surveys to ensure
replication of proper surface elevations and vegetation; (2)
engagement of a wetland replication specialist; (3)
establishment of work area limits for equipment to prevent
inadvertent placement of fill; (4) production of a reproducible
base map and a detailed planting scheme; and (5) photographic
documentation. The restoration program would also include
monitoring requirements to determine the success of the
restoration. Periodic maintenance (i.e. planting) may also be
necessary to ensure final restoration of the designated wetland
areas.
EPA, in consultation with MADEP, will determine when restoration
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Paqe
73
7.
Implementation of institutional controls on ground water use and
land development
EPA's choice of the selected Source Control remedy is based on
the assumption that the future land use of PSC Resources
property would be primarily residential. Cleanup levels for
sediments and soils have been derived based on such future land
use. However, institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, would be implemented to ensure that future use of
ground water and future development of land are prohibited until
cleanup standards, specified above, have been attained.
The effectiveness of institutional controls would be reevaluated
during the five year reviews described above. If, at the five
year review, or at any time during or after completion of
remedial action, EPA determines that additional or alternative
institutional controls are necessary to protect human health, .
then such additional or alternative institutional controls will
be implemented. .
8.
Long-term monitoring of ground water, wetland sediments, and
Quaboag River surface water and sediments
Because contaminated materials would remain on site in
stabilized form, long-term monitoring and five-year reviews
would need to be implemented. Long-term monitoring of ground
water, wetland sediments, and Quaboag River surface water and
sediments would be required. The 1986 CERCLA amendments require
that conditions be reviewed every five years at NPL sites where
wastes remain on site. All data obtained in the monitoring
program would be evaluated in the five-year reviews. These
reviews will consider all relevant data and determine if
additional remedial actions are necessary.
To the extent required by law, EPA will review the site at least once
every five years after the initiation of remedial action at the site
if any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the
site to assure that the remedial action continues to protect human
health and the environment.
2)
Manaqement of Miqration
The Management of Migration portion of the remedial alternative will
include the following major components: .
2. .
Use of natural attenuation to achieve ground water cleanup
levels;
Ground water monitoring of existing wells on the PSC Resources,
Inc. property and of monitoring wells adjacent to the property;
Sediment sampling of portions of the wetland and the Quaboag
1.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
74
4.
River, and where ground water discharges to the wetland and the
Quaboag River;
Surface water sampling in areas adjacent to the wetland and in
the Quaboag River; and
Five-year site reviews to assess site conditions, contaminant
distributions, and any associated site hazards.
5.
Selected Management of Migration remedy is a No Action remedy that
would rely on the process of natural attenuation to reduce offsite
ground water contaminant concentrations. Therefore, this No Action
remedy involves no remedial action components except for the long term
monitoring of the contaminated ground water, wetland surface water and
sediments, and the Quaboag River surface water and sediments. These
media would be monitored quarterly for an indefinite period of time.
Monitoring would be terminated once the site specific remedial
response objectives and compliance with all ARARs had been attained.
Monitoring could be terminated prior to all site specific ARARs and
remedial response objectives being met if, during one of the 5-year
SARA site reviews, a determination was made by the appropriate
regulatory agencies that the remaining site contaminants did not
present a significant risk to human health and/or the environment.
Implementation of this No Action remedy would not reduce migration of
contaminants in ground water from the PSC Resources property.
contaminated ground water would continue to migrate from the PSC
Resources property and discharge to the wetlands and/or the Quaboag
River. However, VOCs have not been detected at significantly elevated
concentrations in wetland sediment samples collected in areas of
ground water discharge. In addition, discharge to the Quaboag River,
and subsequent dilution of ground water contamination by river surface
water is expected to decrease contaminant levels below MCLs. VOCs
have not been detected in the analysis of Quaboag River surface water.
The human health and ecological risk assessments have not found
Quaboag River surface water, sediment, or VOCs in wetland sediments to
pose a significant risk to human health or the environment.
Therefore, the No-Action Management of Migration remedy is not .
expected to result in potential adverse risks to human health and the
environment based on the discharge of contaminated ground water to the
Quaboag River or wetland sediment.
Results from the ground water sampling conducted indicates that' ground
water is contaminated primarily with VOCs at concentrations above
Federa! and State MCLs. without implementation of an active Source
Control remedy, the time for ground water contamination to be reduced
to below MCLs is estimated to be decades. with implementation of a
Source Control remedy, such as the one selected in this ROD, ground
water contamination will be reduced to concentrations below MCLs in
approximately four to eleven years under the selected No-Action
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
7S
In addition, ground water monitoring data suggest that contaminant
concentrations are currently decreasing, and that the contaminant
plume is currently regressing toward the property. Therefore,
clean-up times may be reduced further in response to the existence of
a potential source/ground water equilibrium condition. The
effectiveness of the No Action alternative in achieving ground
clean-up within the estimated time (four to eleven years) will
depend on the effectiveness of the implemented selected Source
remedy.
water
also
Control
In summary, the No-Action Management of Migration alternative combined
with an active selected Source Control remedy is expected to achieve
the Management of Migration objectives. .
As required by law, EPA will review the state of ground water
contamination at least once every five years after the initiation of
Source control remedial action at the PSC Resources site if any
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain in the ground
water to assure that the selected Source Control remedial action
continues to protect human health and the environment. EPA will also
evaluate risk posed by contaminants in all environmental media,
including ground water, at the completion of the remedial action
(i.e., before the site is proposed for deletion from the NPL). Future
remedial action for Management of Migration will be considered if the
environmental monitoring program to be conducted as part of the No
Action Management of Migration remedy determines that unacceptable
risks to human health and/or the environment are posed by exposure to
site contaminants in the ground water.
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation at the PSC Resources Site
is consistent with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The
selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
ARARs and is cost effective. The selected remedy also satisfies the
statutory preference for treatment which permanently and significantly
reduces the mobility, toxicity or volume of hazardous substances as a
principal element. Additionally, the selected remedy utilizes alternate
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
A.
The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the
Environment
The remedy at this site will permanently reduce the risks posed to
human health and the environment by eliminating, reducing or
controlling exposures to human and environmental receptors through
treatment, engineering controls, and institutional controls; more.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
76
property structures, treatment and discharge of lagoon surface water,
in-situ stabilization treatment of contaminated soils and sediments,
and capping of the treated soils and sediments. The stabilized waste
deposited on the PSC Resources property will remain in place.
Potential direct contact and ingestion of contaminated soils and
sediments will be eli~inated through treatment and capping. continued
migration of contaminants to the ground water will be eliminated in
approximately four to eleven years as a result of the implementation
of the selected Source Control remedy. The selected remedial actions
will be protective of human health and the environment. stabilizing
and capping the contaminated soils and sediments will significantly
reduce further migration (leaching) of those contaminants into the
ground water. A long-term monitoring program will ensure the remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment.
Moreover, the selected remedy will achieve potential human health risk
levels that attain the 10.4 to 10'6 incremental cancer risk range and a
level protective of noncarcinogenic endpoints, and will comply with
suitable ARARs and "to be considered" criteria. At the time that the
Interim Ground Water Cleanup Levels identified in the ROD and newly
promulgated ARARs and modified ARARs which call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy have been achieved and have not been
exceeded for a period of three consecutive years, a risk assessment
shall be performed on the residual ground water contamination to
determine whether the remedial action is protective. This risk
assessment of the residual ground water contamination shall follow EPA
procedures and will assess the cumulative carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks posed by ingestion of ground water. If, after
review of the risk assessment, the remedial action. is determined not
to be protective by EPA the remedial action shall continue until
protective levels are achieved and have not been exceeded for a period
of three consecutive years, or until the remedy is otherwise deemed
protective. These protective residual levels shall constitute the
final cleanup levels for this Record of Decision and shall be
considered performance standards for any remedial action.
B.
The Selected Remedy Attains .ARARs
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state requirements that apply to the Site. The ARARs for
the selected remedial actio' are derived from substantive portions of
environmental laws, and the specific ARARs include, among others,
those listed below.
Appendix D of this ROD contains a table of all ARARs identified for
this site and whether they are applicable, relevant and appropriate or
to be considered. within the table is also presented a brief synopsis
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Paqe
77
i.
Chemical SDecific
Massachusetts Ground Water Quality Standards -Applicable
standards include Ground Water Classification: Water Quality
criteria to sustain the Designated Uses: and Regulations to
Achieve Uses and Maintain Ground Water Quality - 314 CMR 6.00.
Massachusetts operation and Maintenance and Pretreatment Standards for
Waste water, Treatment Works, and Indirect Discharqes, 314 CMR 12.00 -
Applicable
Massachusetts Surface Water Discharqe Permit Requirements - Applicable
Regulates discharges to surface waters and any treatment works
associated with discharges. Applicable if the treated lagoon
surface water is discharged to the Quaboag River - 314 CMR 3.00.
Federal Safe Drinkinq Water Act (SDWA) - Relevant and Appropriate
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 40 CFR 141.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum contaminant Level
Goals (MCLG).
Massachusetts Drinkinq Water Requlations - Relevant and Appropriate
Massachusetts Maximum contaminant Levels (MMCLs).
MMCLs for compounds detected at the PSC Resources site are
Federal MCLs Adopted by DEP - 310 CMR 22.00.
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality standards - Applicable
Regulations recommend the use of Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (FAWQCs) to establish water quality for toxic
pollutants. Applicable if the treated lagoon surface water is
discharged to the Quaboag River - 314 CMR 4.00.
Clean Air Act (CAA) - Applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - 40 CFR Part 50.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (e.g.,
benzene and vinyl chloride) - 40 CFR Part 61. .
Federal Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management - Applicable
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
78
ii.
Location SDecific
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) Regulations - Applicable
100 foot buffer zone of wetlands is regulated under WPA - 310
CMR 10.00.
iii.
Action SDecific
Clean Water Act (CWA) - Applicable
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) A
permit is required if the treated lagoon surface water is
discharged off-site, as defined in the NCP, to the surface
waters of the Quaboag River - 40 CFR Parts 122 and 125;
NPDES
Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulations - Applicable
310 CMR 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0.
Toxic substances Control Act (TSCA) - Applicable
Regulates the Disposal and Storage of PCBs.
Massachusetts operation and Maintenance and Pretreatment Standards for
Waste Water, Treatment Works, and Indirect Discharges, 314 CMR 12.00 -
Applicable
Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations, 310 CMR 30.00 - relevant
and appropriate
Clean Air Act (CAA) - Applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - 40 CFR Part 50.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (e.g.,
benzene and vinyl chloride) - 40 CFR Part 61.
utilize Best Available Control Technologies for emissions.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Applicable
RCRA Subtitle C, 40 CFR 260 et seg. - Regulates the Generation,
Transport, Storage, Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Waste.
General RCRA Part 264 requirements that are relevant and
appropriate to this remedial action involving on-site treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous waste include standards for
ground water protection (Subpart F): closure and post-closure
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
79
Massachusetts Surface water Discharge Permit Requirements - Applicable
Regulates discharges to surface waters and any treatment works
associated with discharges. Applicable if the treated lagoon
surface water is discharged to the Quaboag River - 314 CMR 3.00.
To Be Considered
The following policies, criteria, and guidance (among others) are also
to be considered (TBCs) during the implementation of the remedial
action:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Threshold Limit Value (TLV), Time Weighted Average (TWA) and
Short-Term Exposure Limit (STELs).
Clean Water Act (CWA) - Federal Ambient Water Quality criteria
(FAWQCs) .
EPA Reference Doses (RfD) - For Noncarcinogens.
EPA Lifetime Health Advisories - Office of Drinking Water.
EPA Risk specific Doses - For Carcinogens.
EPA Directive for Lead - OSWER Directive 9355.4-02.
Massachusetts Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs) and Threshold Effects
Exposure Limits (TELS).
Massachusetts Office of Research and Standards- Drinking Water
Guidelines (ORSGLs).
i(a). Chemical Specific
Federal and State Drinkinq Water Standards
The ground water aquifer at the compliance boundary is classified as
Class lIB under the Federal Ground Water Protection strategy and Class
I by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is a source of potable
water. While Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum
contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) promulgated under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act are not applicable to ground water, they are
relevant and appropriate to ground water cleanup or to the attainment
of ground water cleanup levels because the ground water may be used as
a drinking water source in the foreseeable future. In addition, the
NCP requires that usable ground water be restored to their beneficial
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
80
Massachusetts ground water quality standards for Class I ground water
issued in 314 CMR 6.00 are applicable requirements for the PSC
Resources site. The state drinking water standards that are relevant
and appropriate for ground water as a potential drinking water supply
are the Massachusetts Maximum contaminant Levels (MMCLs) issued under
310 CMR 22.00. MMCLs for compounds detected at the PSC Resources site
are federal MCLs and MCLGs adopted by DEP.
In addition to the Federal and state regulatory standards and
guidelines for drinking water and ground water, risk-based criteria
are to be considered. These criteria include concentrations derived
from EPA Reference Doses (RfDs) and risk-specific doses based on
Carcinogenic Potency Factors (CPFs) and standard exposure assumptions
for the ingestion of drinking water.
This remedy will attain these ARARs as well as those identified in
Appendix D, and will comply with those regulations which have been
identified as TBCs by meeting the ground water cleanup levels at the
compliance points in approximately four to eleven years as a result of
the implementation of the selected Source Control remedy. Removing
the VOCs from the soil and sediments with an on-site air treatment
system, stabilizing the contaminants in soils and sediments and
capping of the PSC Resources property will further reduce the volume
of leachate generated. The soil and sediment treatment system will
reduce levels of contamination at the site to the interim cleanup
levels identified in this ROD. Treated lagoon surface water will also
meet the discharge requirements to the Quaboag River which include
Massachusetts Surface Water Discharge Permit Requirements (314 CMR
3.00), and Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR
4.04, 314 CMR 4.06(2».
Federal and State Air Qualitv Standards
Federal Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) exist for emissions of sulfur
oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, lead and particulate
matter (PM,o). PSC Resources site is located in a non-attainment area
for ozone. Generation of fugitive dusts and air emissions from
sediment excavation and soil/sediment consolidation and treatment
facilities (air and stabilization treatment systems) are subject to
NAAQS. Best available control technologies will be utilized to
promote and maintain public health and welfare.
Massachusetts air regulations include Ambient Air Quality standards
(310 CMR 6.00), Air Pollution Control Regulations (310 CMR 7.00) and
requirements for the Abatement of Episodic and Incidental Air
Pollution Emergencies (310 CMR 8.00). Certain provisions of 310 CMR
7~00 which require the best available emissions controls and specify
ambient air quality standards are applicable and will be met. The
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
81
consolidation, and emissions from treatment equipment associated with
this remedy are relevant and appropriate, and the substantive
requirements will be met.
These Federal and state air standards will guide mitigation measures
designed to control the release of fugitive dust and particulate
matter during excavations and consolidations at the site as well as
limit VOC emissions from the onsite air treatment system at the site.
ii(a).
Location Specific
Areas immediately adjacent to the east and south of the PSC Resources
property are wetlands under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
(WPA) Regulations (310 CMR 10.00). PSC Resources site lies within the
100-foot buffer zone under jurisdiction of the WPA for the wetlands.
Activities associated with selected Source Control remedy within the
100-foot buffer zone are subject to the applicable requirements of the
WPA and will be met.
iii(a). Action Specific
Federal Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Massachusetts air pollution
regulations (310 CMR 6.00-8.00) are also action specific ARARs. The
discussion of these requirements is found above under section i(a),
Chemical specific ARARs.
These Federal and State air standards will guide mitigation measures
designed to control the release of fugitive dust and particulate
matter during excavations and consolidations at the site as well as
limit VOC emissions from the onsite air treatment system.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), substantive permit requirements of
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for point-
source discharges are relevant and appropriate if the treated lagoon
surface water is discharged to the Quaboag River. These requirements
include compliance with technology-based standards, water quality
criteria, and discharge monitoring systems. Federal water quality
standards will be complied with.
Discharges to surface waters of Massachusetts and the outlets for such
discharges and any treatment works associated with these discharges
are regulated. These regulations include the Massachusetts Surface
Water Discharge Permit Requirements (314 CMR 3.00) and Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.04, 314 CMR 4.06(2». As
discussed above under Chemical Specific ARARs, these regulations are
ARARs and will be met through treatment and proper controls on the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Paqe
82
RCRA requlations are relevant and appropriate to the Source Control
portions of the remedy. The portions of RCRA Subtitle C that are
relevant and appropriate to on-site treatment, storage or disposal
include ground water protection (Subpart F); closure and post-closure
requirements (Subpart G); and waste piles (Subpart L). Massachusetts
Hazardous Waste Regulations that pertain to above ground storage
containers and tanks used to treat or store hazardous waste is
applicable and will be met (310 CMR 30.680 and 30.690). Additional
Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations that pertain to handling,
storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste on-site are
relevant and appropriate requirements and will be met through proper
design and implementation of the remedial components. The off-site
treatment and disposal of wastes generated from the soil and sediment
treatment systems at this site must meet all Federal and State
requirements (administrative requirements are not ARARs, however, the
substantive requirements must be met). Because the Massachusetts
Hazardous .Waste Program is authorized to administer the RCRA
regulations listed above, the state regulations will be the operative
requirements to be met.
The Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268) of Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of RCRA do not apply to characteristic RCRA hazardous
waste at the site. Under the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs),
placement occurs for an on-site disposal when wastes are moved from
one AOC into another AOC; wastes are moved outside of the AOC (for
treatment or storage, for example); or when wastes are excavated from
the Aoe, placed in a separate unit (such as an incinerator or tank
that is within the AOC) and redeposited into the same AOC. Placement
does not occur when wastes are treated in-situ, capped in place,
consolidated within the AOC, or processed within the Aoe (but not in a
separate unit, such as a tank) to improve their structural stability.
And, since the selected Source Control remedy involves consolidation
of soils and sediments within the same AOC accompanied by an "in-situ"
treatment technology, the in-situ stabilization treatment of the
hazardous waste materials would not constitute placement of restricted
RCRA hazardous waste, and the LDRs would not apply. In addition, a
treatability variance would not be required. Nevertheless, it was
determined in the stabilization/solidification bench scale
treatability study that this technology would be able to render any
characteristic waste uncharacteristic.
The PCB Disposal Requirements promulgated under TSCA are applicable to
the remedy because the selected remedy involves storage and disposal
of soils contaminated with PCBs in excess of 50 ppm. Under the
Disposal Requirements, soils and sediments contaminated with PCBs may
be disposed of in an incinerator meeting the standards of 40 CFR
Section 761.69 or a landfill meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
Section 761.75. Under the provisions of 40 CFR Section 76l.75(c) (4),
the EPA Regional Administrator may waive one or more of the specified
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
83
necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment from PCBs. In this case, an in-situ
stabilization treatment of soils with PCBs will provide a permanent
and protective remedy that satisfies the requirements of the Part 761
landfill regulations. Long-term monitoring of ground water wells will
also be instituted, as required by the management of migration portion
of the remedy.
The Regional Administrator is exercising the waiver authority.
contained within the TSCA regulations at 40 CFR section 761.75(c) (4),
and is waiving certain .requirements of the chemical waste landfill
regulations. The provisions to be waived require construction of
chemical waste landfills in certain low permeable clay conditions
[Section 761.75(b) (1)], the use of a synthetic membrane liner [Section
761.75(b) (2)], and that the bottom of the landfill be 50 feet above
the historic high water table [Section 761.75(b) (3)].
The Regional Administrator hereby determines that, for the following
reasons, the requirements of 40 CFR sections 761.75(b) (1), (2), and
(3) are not necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of
injury to human health or the environment from PCBs in this case.
Among the primary reasons that the waived specifications are not
necessary is the low frequency of detection and concentrations of PCBs
detected in site soils. PCBs are not the primary threat at this Site.
Although there were a limited number of samples (2 samples - one 54
ppm and the other 65 ppm) analyzed with total PCBs over 50 ppm, the
majority had concentrations below 1 ppm or at non-detectable levels.
In contrast, the landfill requirements that are waived are designed to
protect against the risk from disposal of PCBs at levels no lower than
50 ppm. The specifications regarding liners, soil conditions and
depth to ground water were designed to protect against the risks that
high levels of PCBs will migrate into ground water or be released to
air or surface water.
Low permeability clay conditions, a synthetic membrane liner for the
underlying substrate, and 50 foot soil barrier to the water table are
unnecessary requirements at this site to prevent migration of PCBs.
The soils and sediments will be stabilized in-situ. Stabilization of
the contaminants in the soils and sediments followed by capping of the
treated materials will minimize the hydraulic connection between the
treated soils/sediments and ground water and subsequent migration of
PCBs in ground water. Furthermore, given the low mobility of PCBs in
stabilized soils, migration of PCBs to ground water would be minimal.
C.
The Selected Remedial Action is cost-Effective
In the Agency's judgment, the selected remedy is cost effective, i.e.,
the remedy affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs.
In selecting this remedy, once EPA identified alternatives that are
-------
RECORD OF DECXSXON SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
84
appropriate, waive ARARs, EPA evaluated the overall effectiveness of
each alternative by assessing the relevant three criteria--Iong term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and
volume through treatment; and short term effectiveness, in
combination. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of this
remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to its costs.
The costs of the selected remedial alternatives for Source Control and
Management of Migration are:
Ca~ital 0 , M Present
Costs Worth
SC-6 $2,688,834 $378,211 $3,067,045
MM-l None $353,702 $353,702
Of the five Source Control alternatives evaluated and considered
protective (SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, SC-10, and SC-11), SC-4 and the selected
Source Control remedy (SC-6) have the most cost-effective components.
Alternatives SC-5 (in-situ vitrification), SC-10 (onsite
incineration), and SC-11 (onsite excavation and offsite disposal) do
not provide overall effectiveness and protectiveness proportional to
their respective costs. SC-11 is the most expensive of all the
alternatives with an estimated total cost of approximately
$36,260,000. Alternatives SC-10 and SC-5 are the next two most
expensive with estimated total costs of approximately $15,010,000 and
$10,380,000 respectively. Alternatives SC-10 and SC-11 would present
much greater short-term risks than the rest as these alternatives
would involve more intrusive activities due to extensive excavation.
Therefore, the adverse impacts (e.g., inhalation risks) resulting from
low short-term effectiveness associated with Alternatives SC-10 and
SC-11 that include large-scale excavations prior to treatment or
offsite disposal, and the very high costs of implementation in
proportion to the added long-term protection to human health and the
environment are not considered proportionately cost-effective.
Alternative SC-5 is considered an innovative technology because it has
not been used in any commercial applications, and is therefore of
questionable implementability and reliability. Furthermore, the
implementation of the vitrification process requires very high amounts
of electricity not currently available at the'site. These
uncertainties and the very high cost of implementation for Alternative
SC-5 in proportion to the added long-term protection to human health
and the environment are also not considered proportionately cost-
effective.
The selected Source Control remedy SC-6 and Alternative SC-4 are
equally implement able and have similar cost effectiveness. However,
Alternative SC-4 would not comply with the CERCLA statutory preference
-------
,.
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
85
ARARs and is considered reasonably protective against exposures such
as direct contact and ingestion of soils and sediments, it is less
protective than the selected remedy because none of the contaminants
are eliminated, reduced or stabilized; therefore the costs are less
effective for the level of protection. In summary, the selected
remedy provides adequate protection against all potential exposures to
those contaminants by stabilizing and capping the residual waste at a
reduced cost.
For Management of Migration, both the selected remedy MM-1 and
Alternative MM-3/MM-4 attain ARARs and are protective. Both MM-1 and
MM-3/MM-4 would provide overall protection of human health and the
environment through implementation in conjunction with the selected
Source control remedy. The "No Action" MM-1, which calls for natural
attenuation to attain cleanup levels, would decrease current levels of
ground water contamination to levels below MCLs in four to eleven
years after implementation. Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would decrease
current levels of ground water contamination to levels below MCLs in
three to seven years after implementation. Based on a relative
comparison of the estimated times to achieve ground water clean-up
between the No Action alternative and MM-3/4, the maximum estimated
difference between clean-up times is eight years (assuming a maximum
time for No Action and a minimum for the Alternative MM-3/4).
In selecting the management of migration remedy, EPA weighed the
eight-year maximum estimated time difference against the cost and the
short-term effectiveness of MM-1 and MM-3/4. The estimated total cost
is much less for MM-1 at $353,000 than for MM-3/MM-4 ($1,600,000 for
the interceptor/barrier recovery trench system and $1,260,000 for
extraction recovery wells system. Short-term effectiveness for MM-1
is very high as it is a "No Action" alternative and does not require
any onsite cleanup work other than sampling. Short-term effectiveness
for MM-3/MM-4 is considered low. Implementation of MM-3/MM-4 would
pose risk to both the community and workers. Risks to the community
would include potential exposure to contaminated fugitive dust and
vapors during construction of the trench and hydraulic barrier and
off-site transportation of excavated soils. Risks to workers would
include potential inhalation of dust and vapors and potential direct
contact with the property soil or sediments, surface water and ground
. water. There would also be environmental impacts which would include
additional destruction of the wetlands to implement this alternative.
Based on these consideration, EPA has determined that the selected
Management of Migration remedy MM-1 provides a greater overall
effectiveness and protectiveness proportional to its costs than does
-------
o
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
page
86
D.
The Selected Remedy utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
Once the Agency identified those alternatives that attain or, as
appropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective of human health and
the environment, EPA identified which alternative utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This determination
was made by deciding which one of the identified alternatives provides
the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives in terms of: 1)
long-term effectiveness and permanence: 2) reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment: 3) short-term effectiveness: 4)
implementability: and 5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-
term effectiveness and permanence and the reduction of toxicity,
mobility and volume through treatment: and considered the preference
for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land
disposal of untreated waste, and community and state acceptance. The
selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives.
Except for the No Action Alternative SC-1, all of the Source Control
alternatives (SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, SC-10, and SC-11) evaluated in detail
would provide overall protection of human health and the environment
and meet their corresponding ARARs. All of these five Source Control
alternatives offer good protection against the principle exposure
risks including direct contact and ingestion of soils and sediments
and risks associated with potential ingestion of contaminated ground
water in the foreseeable future resulting from the leaching of
contaminants from unsaturated-zone soils into ground water and the
transport of these contaminants to a receptor.
Whereas SC-11 offers the most permanent protection on-site because all
contaminated soils and sediments would be excavated and disposed of
offsite, it is unreliable as a result of the uncertainty of securing a
RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility to accept
contaminated waste, and poses potential serious short-term risks
related to the major onsite excavation and the transport of wastes off
site. The other consideration which makes SC-11 less attractive is
its estimated implementation cost of $36,260,000, the highest of all
the alternatives. Alternatives SC-5 and SC-10 would also be very
effective in reducing or eliminating long-term risks associated with
exposure to waste materials and leachate generation. However, aside
from these two alternatives being the next two most expensive Source
Control alternatives to implement, SC-5 and SC-10 would have some
significant implementability problems. Alternative SC-5 (in-situ
vitrification) is considered an innovative technology because it has
not been used in any commercial applications, and is therefore of .
questionable implementability. Furthermore, the implementation of the
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
87
currently available at the site. Alternative SC-IO (onsite
incineration) is technically feasible but would be difficult to
implement due to the limited availability of land around the site.
In EPA's analysis, the selected Source Control remedy (SC-6) and
Alternative SC-4 are more readily implementable and cost effective
than the above SC alternatives (SC-5, SC-IO, and SC-ll). Selected
Source Control remedy (SC-6) and Alternative SC-4 are equally
implementable and have similar cost effectiveness. However,
Alternative SC-4 would not comply with the CERCLA statutory preference
for treatment of hazardous waste. Whereas SC-4 meets ARARs and is
considered reasonably protective against exposures such as direct
contact and ingestion of soils and sediments, it is less protective
than the selected Source Control remedy because none of the
contaminants are eliminated, reduced or stabilized; therefore the
costs are less effective for the level of protection. In summary, the
selected remedy provides adequate protection against all potential
exposures to those contaminants by stabilizing and capping the
residual waste at a reduced cost.
Both the "No Action" Alternative MM-1, selected Management of
Migration remedy, and Alternative MM-3/MM-4 would provide overall
protection of human health and the environment and attain all ARARs
through implementation in conjunction with any of the Action SC
alternatives. The estimated total cost is much less for MM-1 at
$353,000 than for MM-3/MM-4 ($1,600,000 for the interceptor/barrier
recovery trench system and $1,260,000 for extraction recovery wells
system). Short-term effectiveness for MM-1 is very high as it is a
"No Action" alternative and does not require any onsite cleanup work
other than sampling. Short-term effectiveness for MM-3/MM-4 is
considered low. Implementation of MM-3/MM-4 would pose risk to both
the community and workers. Risks to the community would include
potential exposure to contaminated fugitive dust and vapors during
construction of the trench and hydraulic barrier and off-site
transportation of excavated soils. Risks to workers would include
potential inhalation of dust and vapors and potential direct contact
with the property soil or sediments, surface water and ground water.
There would also be environmental impacts which would include
additional destruction of the wetlands to implement this alternative.
Based on these consideration, EPA has determined that the selected
Management of Migration remedy MM-1 provides a greater overall
effectiveness and protectiveness than does Alternative MM-3/MM-4.
E.
The Selected Remedy satisfies the Preference for Treatment Which
permanently and SignificantlY reduces the Toxicity, Mobility or
volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element
The principal element of the selected Source Control portion of the
remedy is the in-situ stabilization of the contaminants in the soils
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
PSC Resources site
Page
88
principal element of the selected Management of Migration portion of
the remedy is "No Action" remedy which would rely on natural
attenuation to attain cleanup levels, in conjunction with the selected
Source Control remedy, in four to eleven years after implementation.
These elements address the primary threat at the Site, contamination
of soils and sediments and ground water. The selected remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element by: permanently reducing the volume of VOCs through an onsite
vapor collection and treatment system as part of the selected Source
Control remedy; reducing the mobility of the remaining organics and
metals in the soils and sediments through in-situ stabilization; and
reducing the contaminant concentrations of currently contaminated
ground water, which poses a potential threat to a future potential
drinking water supply, to within safe levels as a results of the
treatment of the source materials.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
EPA presented a proposed plan (preferred alternative) for remediation of
the site on March 31, 1992. The source control portion of the preferred
alternative included in-situ stabilization of soils and sediments and
construction of a permeable cap over the stabilized soils and sediments.
The management of migration portion of the preferred alternative included
"No Action" natural attenuation as a means of attaining ground water
cleanup levels. No significant changes from the Proposed Plan have been
made to the selected remedies as detailed in the Record of Decision.
It should be noted that some discrepancies in analysis exist among
documents in the Administrative Record, but that this Record of Decision
represents EPA's final position with regard to these discrepancies. This
position was reached after carefully reviewing and considering all
information presented to EPA. Any discrepancies noted would not affect
EPA's decision on the remedy.
XIII. STATE ROLE
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection
has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the
selected remedy. The state has also reviewed the Remedial Investigation,
Risk Assessment and Feasibility study to determine if the selected remedy
is in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate State
environmental laws and regulations. Massachusetts concurs with the
selected remedy for the PSC Resources site. A copy of the declaration of
-------
"
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 SITE BASE MAP/PROPERTY BOUNDARY' EXISTING
FEATURES
FIGURE 3 PROPERTY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
FIGURE 4 PROPERTY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE CORE AND AUGER
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5 PROPERTY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE CHIP SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6 PROPERTY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE WIPE SAMPLE
LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7 PHASE I , PHASE II SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ON THE
PSC RESOURCES PROPERTY .
FIGURE 8 PROPERTY SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR
LEAD ANALYSES ON THE PSC RESOURCES PROPERTY
FIGURE 9 DEPTH OF OBSERVED SOIL STAINING IN TEST PIT
EXCAVATIONS AND SOIL BORINGS
FIGURE 10 TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCs DETECTED IN PROPERTY
SOIL SAMPLES .
FIGURE 11 TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF SVOCs DETECTED IN PROPERTY
SOIL SAMPLES
FIGURE 12 MAXIMUM DETECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF PCBs IN
PROPERTY SOIL .
FIGURE 13 TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs (AROCLORS 1260 ,
1242) DETECTED IN STORAGE TANK SLUDGE
FIGURE 14 DEPTH DISTRIBUTION OF PCB (AROCLOR 1260)
CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN PROPERTY SOIL BORINGS
FIGURE lS DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD (TOTAL) DETECTED IN SURFICIAL
SOIL SAMPLES
16 SITE SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
17 AIR SAMPLING STATIONS
18 PHASE I AND PHASE II PROPERTY SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE
FIGURE
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
FIGURES
FIGURE 19 WETLAND HABITAT DELINEATION AND PHASE I , II
WETLAND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION IN THE PSC
RESOURCES SITE
FIGURE 20 LOCATIONS OF WETLAND AND SEDIMENT SAMPLES AND
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SPILL AREA
FIGURE 21 TOTAL PAR CONCENTRATIONS AT THE PSC RESOURCES SITE
FIGURE 22 TOTAL PCB AND PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT THE PSC
RESOURCES SITE
FIGURE 23 TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCs: PHASE I SAMPLING
RESULTS
FISH SAMPLING REACH LOCATIONS
SUMMARY OF VOCs DETECTED IN SAMPLING ROUNDS 1-5
PSC RESOURCES GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP -
MAY 23, 1990 .
FIGURE 27 PSC RESOURCES GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP -
AUGUST 9, 1990
FIGURE 28 ESTIMATED VERTICAL EXTENT. OF GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
FIGURE 29 TVOC PLUME SAMPLING ROUNDS 1 (10/88), 2 (11/89),
AND " (5/90)
FIGURE 30 FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
FIGURE 31 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
AND FIELD INVESTIGATION
32 MASSACHUSETTS WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS
33 ALTERNATIVE SC-6 IN-SITU STABILIZATION
34 CONCEPTUAL PERMEABLE CAP CROSS SECTION
FIGURE 24
FIGURE 25
FIGURE 26
FIGURE
FIGURE
-------
-
..--....
--
~
I ~'"O
° Ii ,",:Saldo Peak
i I: ~ ~Jt:: :
\0 -"::-
..",.. ,
II .
\"0 0 ,,'
1-'''':
I.
\
\
.'_0.
)
-------
1.4
~.
O~GJNAk,'
-' .
-------
-- - ----___--h' .. .
-----.--- -.-..... .--.~...-
t'
~-""
TABLE 4
Expoeure Auumplion.
PSC Ro.oulces Supo.""..1 Si'e. p;olme.. MA
PROPERTY 801llWETLAND SEDIMENT LAGOON SEDIMENT
Currenl Trospasse. fUhlf., RASidftn' Fut"'o Residonl fuhlfft Worker Cur",". T reSr)ASSnr futlJff~ Rft~lrtent fut...r" Workf"
VARIABLE Old or Child You"n child Olde. chi'd A""" Oldo. Child 01..... ch,Ir' A,It,,,
Eapoeure Frequency EF 50 days/y. 150 dovs/y. 150 dAys/y' 250 doys/y. 50 doys/YI 150 days/y. 250 doys/y,
Eapoeure Durellon ED 11 y.. 6 y.s 11 vrs 25 Y'S 11 y.s II y.. 25 y,s
Body Welghl BW 45 kg 15 kg 45 kg 70 kg 45 kg 45 kg 70 kg
Receptor age 7-18 vrs 1.6 yr. 7.18 yrs 7 18 V,S 7 18 y'.
Avereglng Perlodo Ap. 4015 doys 2190 dllYs 4015 days 9125 doys 4015 dAYS 4015 doys 9125 dllYs
Averege Lltellme LT 10 vaa,. 70 ye..s 70 vftars 70 yeo,s 70 yon, s 70 yeels 70 yee.s
Darmal Conlect Rele D.CR 500 mg/day 500 mo/dAV 500 mg/d.y 74.25 mg/doy 500 mg/day 500 mu/doy 74.25 mg/dey
Surfece Area Eapoeed SA 2000 cm2/day 2000 cm2/day 2000 cm2/day 2000 cm2/doy 2000 cm2ldov 2000 cm2ldoy 2000 cm2ldov
Frecllon Expoeed Freebp 50% 50% 50% 75.'" 50% 50.A. 75.""
Soil to Skin Adherenea Factor AF 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2 0.5 mg/cm2
Eapoeure Time ET
Oermel Abeorptlon O.ABS 50% VOCs 50% VOCs 500,," VOC. 50% VOCs 50% VOCs "50% VOCs 50% VOCs
5% PAHs 5°'" PAHs 5.4 PAHs 5°,," PAHs 5% PAHs 5% PAHs 5% PAHs
5% PCBs 5°'" PCBs 5% PCBs 5°,," PCBs 5% PCBs 50.\, PCBs 5.;\' PCBs
0% Ino.genic 0°'" Inorgo"ic 0% Ino.gonic 0."" Inorganic 0% Inorgonic 0% InolgAnic 0% InorOllnic
5% TEDFs 5°.40 TEOFs 5% TfOFs 5°,," TEOFs 5% TEOFs 5."" TEOFs 5% TEOFs
5.'" Phlho'olos 5°.40 PhlhA'olos 5% Phlhalolos 5."" PhtholoioS 5% Phlhololos 5."" PhthAlolos. 5.,," PhlhAIAlos
Ingeetlon Rete IR 100 mg/day 200 mg/da,;, 100 mg/d.y 50 mo/dov 100 mo/dAY 100 mg/day 50 mgldoy"
Ingeetlon Abeorptlon I.ABS 100% VOC. 100% VOCs 100% VOC. 100."" VOC. 100% VOCs 100"4 VOCs 100% VOCs
100% PAHs 100",," PAHs 100% PAH. 100"4 PMls 100% PAHs 100"'" PAH. 100% PAHs
30% PCB. 30°.40 PCB. 30% PCBs 30% PCBs 30% PCBs 30.4 PCBs 30% PCBs
30% L.ad 50% Laod 30% Lead 30% L.ad 30% l.Rd 30.4 Load 30% laed
100% Olh.r Inorg 100.'" 01100' Inorg 100% Olh.,lnorg 100.'" Olio., Ino'g 100% 01100, Ino'g 100."" Olho, Ino'g 100% 01100' InOlO
30% TEDF. 30% TEOFs 30% TEOF, 30% TEOF, 30% TEOFs 30.4 TEOFs 30% TEOFs
100% Phlh.'.lo. 100% Phlholol". 100% Phlhalo'os 100.4 Phlholole." 100% Phlholotos 100°,," Phlholo'.s 100% Phlhol"los
Frecllon of Ileh from river F,aeFleh
Permeebilily Coellicient PC
Ben,a...
Toluene
Olbulytphlh.lele
Ethylben.ene
'norGanic.
All olio", o,genice ; weier
----
-------
TABLE
(Cont'd) )
3
EMpoaur. Seen.rio.-
P5C Unsmlft;nS Suruu'und Sile, Ptthnt'u, MA
RECEPTOR
ACTIVITY
EXPOSURE MEDIA
EXPOSURE
ROUTES
ANAL YSIS
DATA
(iIIiUlUlwnl," III\ln'lttlll\ nun..'" "lIvn nil ,f,.t"
SOil 04:'(1\111. mUffS lion QUAnu'"llve 0 '2' ,16,.lh
Wt:tlitlHl Smlmu!'" DdHIUtl, 1110ft~tton Quanti' alive 0 12' depth
lntl'Hln 5r..Julu!nl OtHnlAI. '''gestion Quantitative 0 l' d~plh
lllUuun Su,l.t(;It WallH OI!""HI. muesllun OufthlHIIVd 1111 dlllil
RlVor SfH'lfnont DornHIl. ingestion QUAhlolive 0 l' deplh
Slurj II 61<1 . MRldllRls DMmal Quehlalive
EXPOSURE
POINT
'hposur" Scene"os detlned by Ihll U.S. Environmllnle\ PrnlBclonn Agency AS dOIR.llld 11\ Scnpll of Work, A"II"'I 7. 1991.
FIJT\If;r CXPOSURE
--~------
::\ t.Un'lUHu..."l/hui".Ulft. We",,"..'.
Wt..IoIl1U 110 111119
(hlll"-IIIUWII'ftl
. Adult loIlIlnl.""
]!, vnn".t
Oil Plupf~fly
OUilhnau RivfU
Bulldln S
'1
:.cr
HMM A~;S()f'll
-------
TABLE
3
Expolur. Sc.ne.io8.
PSC Unsmlfc:es Supft.lund S.tn, Puh"",, MA
EXPOSURE MEDIA
EXPOSURE
ROUTES
ANAL YSIS
DATA
, RECEPTOR
EXPOSURE
POINT
'hpo".ftl 5
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
Summ.,y SI.liuice lor Sludy Chemicall
in Building S.mple.
PSC RlIsou,ces Supe,'und Sile, Pelme" MA
COle Semples
Times times Menimun\ Averege Meximum
Detected Soughl Concenl,ollon Concenl,etion Concentretlon
01 Delee's nd 0: 0 01 Detects
Sludv Chemicel n n un/k.. un/ko un/kn
TEDFs 3 3 I. 20E03 2.27E.02 6.00E.02
Tote' PCBs 3 14 370 590.71 4300
,,'s 12'elhythexytl phlhelete 5 7 48 2014.00 8100
d,. n bUlvlphthalel8 0 7 0 0.00 0
Toldl cPAHs 6 7 95 5898.57 33510
Tol.1 ncPAHI 7 7 230 9010.71 46790
Vlnvl ehlorode 0 8 0 0.00 0
1,1 . d,chlorollthene 0 8 0 0.00 0
1,2 . dichlo,oethytenes 0 8 0 0.00 0
methytene chlollde 0 8 0 0.00 0
I, I, I . Ulchlo,oelhane 0 8 0 0.00 0
Ulchlo,oelhyt..ne 0 8 0 0.00 0
tlluechloroelhytene 1 8 11 1.38 11
2 . buillnone 0 8 0 0.00 0
ecelone 0 8 0 0.00 0
benlene 0 8 0 0.00 0
elhylben"lne 2 8 3 2.75 19
toluene 0 8 0 0.00 0
xytenes 4 8 21 23.13 62
8.senic 0 0 0 0.00 0
lead 0 0 0 0.00 0
BlJlIl
1 XlS
'.---'
,~
-------
r---
.-
TABLE 2
(Cant' d)
Summe,y Slellelie. lor Sludy Chemlel'l
In Building Semple.
PSC Resou,ce. Supe,lund Si.., Pelme" MA
Tim.s T,InAs Minil"lIm AVArAgA M"wimum
Oelecled Sough' ConcflntrAlinn ConcentrAtIOn Concentration
01 O.leels ,," = 0 olOelecls
Study ChemicAl n n Ul1l1
-------
.."_.'.
..-
.
TABLE 2
(Cont'd)
Summ.ry Siell.tlc. 'or Siudy Chemlc.le
In Building Semple.
PSC Resources Superlund Sile, Pelmel. MA
Time9 Times Minimum Ave.age Maximum
Delecled Soughl Concenllalion Concenlralion Concenllalion
01 Oelecls nd = 0 01 Delecl9
Sludv Chemicel n n
TEOFe 'Po/cm21 6 6 1.00E.02 1.55E.01 6.78E.01
Tolel PCB. luolcm' 21 5 19 0.0001 0.01 0.22
hi. 12.elhylhexyll "hlhAI"... 0 0 0 0.00 0
dl n bUlylphlhalale 0 0 0 0.00 0
TOIAI cPAH, 0 0 0 0.00 0
TulAI ncPAHs 0 0 0 0.00 0
vinyl chlolida 0 0 0 0.00 0
1 ,I . d,chloroelhene O' 0 0 0.00 0
1,2 . d.chlor08lhyt8ne, 0 0 0 0.00 0
melhytene chlolide 0 0 0 0.00 0
I, I,' . Irichloloelhene 0 0 0 0.00 0
IIIchloloelhyiene 0 0 0 0.00 0
lellechloloelhylena 0 0 0 0.00 0
2 . bu.anone 0 0 0 0.00 0
8ca.one 0 0 0 0.00 0
benlene 0 0 0 0.00 0
elhytbenlene 0 0 0 0.00 0
lolu..oe 0 0 0 0.00 0
xyteoa, 0 0 0 0.00 0
Als..nic luglll 3 II 2 0.69 3.6
lead tuall' II \I II 672.64 2070
Wipe Semple.
,~
RUII OSUM XlS
-------
GWS'
TABLE 2
(cant'd)
Summery 5lelielic. lor Siudy Chemicele for Groundweler
PSC Resolllces Superlund S'le. Pulmer. MA
TI"\85 Time, Min,mum Averouo Muximum
Delttl;Iml SouOhl Concent'Hllon Concentration Conce"'f6Iion
of Detflcls nd = 0 01 OBlecls
Sludv Chomicol n n ull/l UII/I ua/l
TEOFs 0 0 0 0.00 0
T 01111 PCD, 0 21 0 0.00 0
bl6 12,0Ihylho_yll phlhelolo 15 50 3 2.12 10
di.n.bulylphlhol.le 2 50 2 , fl' 2
T olul cPAHs 0 50 0 lJ.UlJ 0
Toiol ncPAHs 6 50 4 7.46 154
vinyl chloride 6 75 2 3.72 140
1,1 . dichloroelhone JI 75 2 87.25 1000
1,2 . d,chloroelhylen.. 24 75 2 53.21 790
mothylone cl~o"de 4 75 94 5.79 130
1. I, 1 . trichloroeth.ne 10 75 JI 75.76 1100
uichloroelhylene 11 75 2 12.01 190
tetrochloroolhylene 8 75 2 6.37 220
2 . bulonone 10 75 14 55.05 1400
acetone 9 75 8 289.29 6200
bonlono 22 75 4 42.57 600
o.hylbomun. 21 75 2 15.59 99
10luono 16 75 3 51.19 610
-"'one, 19 75 4 41.39 400
ufsenic 5 31 5 2.47 27.4
loud J JI 6 1.00 IJ
S
,~
-
J
liMM ASSOCIA'
-------
(.
,,--
TABLE 2 (Cant'd)
Summary St.ti.tic. for Study Chemical, In Fi.h
PSC Resoulces Suparlund Site, Polmer, MA
Times Times Minimum Averega MeMimum
O"'ect,,d Sought Concentretions Concentrations Concentrationll
of Oe.ec.a nd = 0 of Detec.s
Study Ch"micel n n uolo uo/a 11010
TEDF, 0 0 0 0.00 0
T o.el PCB. 0 4 0 0.00 0
bit 12-e.hylhuyll ph.hala.e 0 4 0 0.00 0
di.n.bu.ylphthalete 0 4 0 0.00 0
To.1II cPAHa 0 4 0 0.00 0
Totel ncPAHs 0 4 0 0.00 0
vinyl chloride 0 0 0 0.00 0
1,1 . dichloroe.h8ne 0 0 0 0.00 0
1 ,2 . dichloroe.hylene. 0 0 0 0.00 0
methylene ohloride 0 0 0 0.00 0
1,1,1 . Irichloroe.hene 0 0 0 0.00 0
I richloroelhylene 0 0 0 0.00 0
le.rochloroelhylene 0 0 0 0.00 0
2 . bulenone 0 0 0 0.00 0
8celone 0 0 0 0.00 0
benlane \ 0 0 0 0.00 0
elhylben18"e 0 0 0 0.00 0
lolu8ne 0 0 '0 0.00 0
lIyl8n89 0 0 0 0.00 0
fusenic 0 4 0 0.00 0
le8d 4 4 0.44 2.28 7.5
"
HMM flSSOr.lA 1[~. INC
-------
~,
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
Summery Sielillice lor Siudy Chemicell in River Surlece Weier
PSC Resources Superlund Sile, Pelme" MA
Time8 Time, Minimum ,A"e,.ege Meximum
Oelecled Sought Concenllation Concent,etion Concenlletion
01 OllaclI nd ~ 0 01 Detect.
Sludv Chemic'" " n Jlo/! Jlo/! JlO/!
TEOF, 0 0 0 0.00 0
To'8I PCB. 0 " 0 0.00 0
bit 12-ethylhexyll phthala.e 0 .. 0 0.00 0
di.n.butylphthelete 0 .. 0 0.00 0
TOlel cPAHe 0 " 0 0.00 0
To.8I ncPAH, 0 " 0 0.00 0
v,nyl chloride 0 " 0 0.00 0
1 ,1 . dichloroa.hane 0 .. 0 0.00 0
1. 2 . dichloroethane lIotell 0 .. 0 0.00 0
methylene chlo,ide 0 .. 0 0.00 0
I, I, 1 . trichloroethene 0 .. 0 0.00 0
lIichlo,oelhene 0 4 0 0.00 0
tetrechloroethene 0 4 0 0.00 0
2 . butenone 0 4 0 0.00 0
8cetone 0 4 0 0.00 '0
\
henu,"e 0 4 0 0.00 0
ethylb"",ene 0 4 0 0.00 0
lolue"e 0 4 0 0.00 0
-vlenu lIotllll 0 4 0 0.00 0
Of sonic 0 4 0 0.00 0
I.. ad 0 4 0 0.00 0
USWS'
'l.S
,~
-------
IISf DSUM XI!;
4
",-
TABLE 2
(Cont'd)
Summa.y Slal;81;c. 1o. Siudy Chemical. in Rive. Sedimenl.
PSC Rn501l.ces Supo.fund Silo, PAlmo., MA
Tin\l.5 Times Minimum Averege Mellmum
OOIACIA" Soughl Concenl.lliion Conoenl..loon Conconl.ohon
01 Delecl. lid a 0 01 Do'ocls
Sludv Chemic III n n maiko maiko maiko
TEOFs 0 0 0 0.00 0
Totlll PCO. 1 11 0.71 0.06 0.11
1..9 f1elhvlhelyll phlhelAte 2 10 0.12 0.05 0.42
di.n.blltytphlhlllele 0 10 0 0.00 0
TolA' cPAH. 9 10 0.1 1.50 4.61
T olel ncPAI4" 10 10 0.214 1.96 5.949
vony! "'"nri"e 0 4 0 0.00 0
1.1 . diohloroelhane 0 4 0 0.00 0
1.2 . dlohloroelhytenes 0 4 0 0.00 0
melhyt..II. chloride 0 4 0 0.00 0
1.1.1 . I.ichlo.oelhene 0 4 0 0.00 0
Irichh,,"elhytene 0 4 0 0.00 0
1"1.8c:hlo.oolhytene 0 4 0 0.00 0
2 . hlll8none 0 4 0 0.00 0
8C810n8 1 4 0.35 0.09 0.35
he",ene 1 4 0.009 2.25E.03 0.009
nlhythonl"n8 0 4 0 0.00 0
"lhlfU'" 0 4 0 0.00 0
IVIAII"S 0 0 0 0.00 0
Arsenic 6 6 1.6 2.55 3.9
IMd 6 6 3.1 35.12 91.2
\J
-------
t5V
'.XlS
TABLE 2
(Cont'd)
Summ8ry S'8.illice lOt legoon Surlece W818r
PSC R8sources Superlund Site, Peln'8r, MA
Times Time. Minimum Ave,egll Maximum
Oalacled Sought Concan.ra.ion Concanlralion Concentr alion
01 Oalact.. nd a 0 01 Oetacl9
Sludv Chamical n n un/! un/! un/!
TEOf8 0 0 0 0.00 0
Total PCBe 0 J 0 0.00 0
bi.. C2-athylhaxyl' phthalate 0 J 0 0.00 0
di-n.butylphthalele 0 J 0 0.00 0
To.. ePAHe J J 11 17.67 2J
Tolel ncPAH.. J J 13 28.JJ 42
vinyl chlo.ida 0 J 0 0.00 0
1,' . dichloroathane J J 8 ".JJ 16
1,2 . dichloroethene Itotal' J 3 J J.67 5
mllthylene chloride 1 3 3 1.00 J
, , 1 . 1 . t,ichloroalhuna J 3 2 2.67 4
trieNorollthene 0 3 0 0.00 0
.etrachlo,,,ethene 0 3 0 0.00 0
2 . butenone 0 3 0 0.00 0
acatone 0 3 0 0.00 0
b8n,ene 0 3 0 0.00 0
elhytb..",ena 0 3 0 0.00 0
1011l8nll 0 3 0 0.00 0
xylenee lIotall 0 3 0 0.00 0
8f98nic 3 3 8.7 9.03 9.3
lead 3 3 34.8 58.33 76.8
HMM ASSOCI' . ';' IN!':
,--)
-------
r"\.
TABI,E 2 (Cont'd)
Summery Slsli.lic. 101 lsgoon Ssdlmenls
PSC Resuurces Superlund Site, Palmer, MA
Time. Times Minimum Averaga Maximum
Detectad Sought Concenl",lion Concenllalion Concenlration
01 Delects nd .. 0 01 Detects
Study ChemlCel, n n molkn md/kd maiko
TEDFe 0 2 0 0.00 0
Tot.1 PCB. 0 19 0 0.00 0
..
biB 12'ethythexyl' phthelele 7 16 6.6 100.79 580
di.n.butylphlhslele 4 16 5.2 23.5i 160
Totlll cPAHs 14 16 9.9 1902.82 7250
Totll' ncPAH. 16 16 20.1 16392.53 97350
vinyt chlori"" 0 19 0 0.00 0
I, 1 . dichlorOtllhene 5 19 0.015 0.58 9.8
1.2 . dichloroflthyl"ntls 4 19 0.015 0.66 8.4
methyt"ne chloride 2 19 1.6 1.14 20
1,1,1 . trichloroelhone 8 19 23 106.16 1700
trichloroethylene 6 19 0.012 2.72 33
tetrechloroelhylene 9 19 0.066 1.95 21
2 . butflnnne 0 19 0 0.00 0
sClllone 3 19 0.57 2.35 43
benle"" 15 19 0.08 84.02 340
olhytbenlene 19 19 2.2 80.62 300
tol"e"" 19 19 1.7 194.96 750
.yte"tls 19 19 4.8 133.93 460
8rsenic 14 14 1.45 10.69 36.93
le9d 14 14 186 4559.71 1~600
.
,r
lSf OSUM. XlS
.
" .
-------
TABLE 2
(Cant"d)
Summery S.atillica lor S.udy Chemicala in Wetl.nd Sediment.
PSC Resources Superlund Site. Pelmer. MA
-". . ';'."..;:'::!:!':!,:!;::c: S:r-:::I
.. . .
Siudy ChemlclIls Time8 Tim88 Mlnim"m AI/eroge MSKinu,m
Delecled Soughl Concenlllltion Concent,alion Coocenlrlltion
01 DeI8c,. nel = 0 o. Delects
n n molle",ene 0 23 0.000 0.00 0
toluene 0 23 0.000 0.00 0
KylellllS 0 23 0.000 0.00 0
arsenic 37 38 0.800 6.74 21.8
load 42 42 1.700 182\.99 50100
WSED' . XlS
.J
. Oee;.~i!fflP/"1I .',
Dep'h ~().12 f..et>
Times Times Minimum AI/eroge MSKimum
Detecled Sough' Concenlre.ion Concenllotion Concenlrolion
01 Delects 0' Delecls
n n mil< mil<
5.00E.05 5.ooE.05 5.ooE.05
15 62 0.088 1.43 32.00
33 54 0.07 0.57 \1.00
19 54 0.027 0.10 1.70
33 54 0.201 '3.77 38.40
38 54 0.211 8.30 128.70
o 39 0 0.00 0
2 39 0.002 3.08E.04 0.010
1 39 0.002 5. 13E.05 0.002
11 39 0.003 2.67E.03 0.025
1 39 0.004 1.03E.04 0.004
o 39 0 0.00 0
o 39 0 0.00 0
5 39 0.002 1.10E.03 0.024
3 39 0.014 2.38E.03 0.045
1 39 0.001 2.56E.05 0.001
o 39 0 0.00 0
2 39 0.002 1.54E.04 0.004
3 38 0.003 3.95E04 0.008
50 59 0.38 4.58 21.80
63 63 0.8 12\5.37 50100.00
"
HMM ASSOCIA r'
-------
,~
,-.
TABLE 2
Summitry Stetl.tlce lor Study Chemlcel. In Soli
PSC Resources Superlund 5ile, Palmer, MA
SUlfect 9wnp1". '. 6eepS~.i. .
Depth.. ()..1 loot O.pth ...0-121...
Study Chemical9 Time. Times Minimum Average Meximum Time9 Time9 Minimum Average Maximum
Delacted Soughl Concentretion Concanlration Concentralion Delecled Soughl Concentrelion Concentrelion Concentretion
01 Delecls 01 Delec.. 01 Detect. 01 Detecls
mil< mil< mil< m/k
TEDFs 3 3 1.00£-07 4.00£-06 1.00£-05 5 5 1.00£-07 4.32£-06 l.ooE.05
Total PCBs 14 25 4.30E-02 17.12 58.00 36 62 4.30£-02 7.34 65
I
bis 12-e.hythe"ylI phlha'ele 8 II 0.046 3.86 26.00 13 24 0.048 1.55 26
di.n-butY'phlhelate 3 11 0.11 0.31 0.41 5 24 0.078 0.04 0.41
Tole' cPAHs 11 11 0.469 4.75 29.1 20 24 0 4.09 46
Tolal ncPAHs 11 11 1.13 .8.05 32.7 20 24 0 83.59 953
vinyt chloride 0 14 0 0.00 0 0 27 0 0.00 0
I ,1 . dichloroethene 5 14 0.004 0.02 0.043 9 27 0.004 0.51 6.6
1 ,2 . dichloroethylene, 7 14 0.003 0.07 0.41 12 27 0.003 7.35 190
melhytene chloride 0 14 0 0.00 0 0 27 0 0.00 0
I, I, 1 . Irichloroethene 4 14 0.004 0.01 0.028 8 27 0.004 11.88 200
trichloroethylene 4 14 0.004 0.07 0.17 8 27 0.004 14.95 390
tetrechloroethylene 4 14 0.004 0.01 0.033 8 27 0.004 2.88 83
2 - bulenone 5 14 0.017 0.41 1.9 5 27 0.017 0.08 1.9
ecetone 2 14 0.034 0.72 1.4 8 27 0.033 0.07 1.4
benlene 3 14 0.005 0.40 1.2 7 27 0.005 1.37 18
ethytbenlene 1 14 0.29 0.29 0.29 6 27 0.29 7.21 78
to'"ene 1 14 2.8 2.80 2.8 7 27 0.008 9.83 130
.ytenes 1 14 26 26.00 28 8 27 0.002 12.60 100
8f9ftnic 3 3 2.3 4.57 7.1 16 16 0.8 3.67 9.5
'e.." 19 19 155 10910.00 39200.00 32 32 1 7043.98 39200.00
~~
-------
TABLE 1
HABITAT SUITABll.ITY EVALUATION
Species/Group
PSC Assessment
Area Ratinis.
Quaboag River Assessment
Area Ratinis *
Warmwater Fish M M
Wood Duck Breeding H H
Wood Duck Migration L H
--
-
Wood Duck Wintering L L
Alder Flycatcher H H
Black-crowned NightHeron H M
Great Blue Heron H H
Green Heron M M
Tree Swallow M M
.
Ratings:
H = High Probability
M = Mediwn Probability
L = Low Probability
-------
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
APPENDIX B
TABLES
HABITAT SUITABILITY EVALUATION
SUMMARY OF STATISTICS FOR STUDY CHEMICALS IN SOILS,
WETLAND SEDIMENTS, LAGOON SEDIMENTS, LAGOON SURFACE
WATER, QUABOAG RIVER SEDIMENTS, QUABOAG RIVER SURFACE
WATER, FISH, GROUNDWATER, AND BUILDING SAMPLES
EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROPERTY SOIL/WETLAND
SEDIMENTS, LAGOON SEDIMENTS, LAGOON SURFACE WATER,
QUABOAG RIVER SEDIMENTS, GROUNDWATER, FISH, AND
BUILDINGS
SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES BY MEDIUM
SOURCE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION ALTERNATIVES
RETAINED FOR EVALUATION
CLEANUP LEVELS
-------
FIGURE 34
Conceptual Permeable Cap Cross Section
I'
2'
NOT TO SCALE
Source: HMM Associates. Inc.. Feasibility Study, January 1992
TOP SOIL (VEGETATION
SUPPORTI LA Y£R
SAND AND
GRAVEL LA Y£R
5T ABIUZED
PROPER1Y SOIL
-------
FIGURE 33
Alternative SC-6
In~Situ Stabilization
ACTIVATED
CARBON
DUST TREATMENT
COLLECTOR TANKS
EXHAUST
FAN
,
UNSTASIUZED SOIL
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CRILUNG PATTERN
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
COIIPI.ETED OVERLAPI'ING
AND C:OUP~ TREATMEHT
VAPOR AND DUST
COLLECTION SYSTEM
-------
~
~
D' _ON!
~
-- fENCEJPSC RESOURC
-t,. ESSITE~ARY
- CONTOUR II' "TERVAlS)
D oomERNI VEGETATED WEtLAND
-BAN<
!ZZJ LAND lNJER WATER
\ fM> .
MASSACHUS.,.......-FIGURE 32 .
.101 I.) WEl1.AND
""';I'D ON FIELD INV .RESOURCE AREAS
ESTIGA TION
hm
-------
~
3-8
-------
~
a
LEGEND
m
FENCE
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
SOURCE: FEMA Floe<:! b5unnce Rate Map: Town of Palmer.
Massacnusetts Hamde' "lty Community Pane] No. 350147001 OB
Effective Date: Nover. 1981;
Flood Boundary Map. :sourcl:s Palmer. Massachusetts
o
.co
lOCI
SCALE IN FEET
hm
FIGURE 30
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
PSC Resources. Palmer, MA
5$li
~
.. -. ".-"...
.-...--..,. "-"'-
-------
I
I
. I
I
-.-.. --~_.
\
I
I~
LEGEND
$ SMIlE 1oOIIT0AIN0 WEU.
. COlI'\£T OF IIOHII.-! wru S
. .-nOF loOIITORIIII"'U.S
I::J IIUUIIOO AESOIJACES SITE IIOlJIO\RY
....... F£HOOP!JC
---..... COHTOUA ('"",",RYAlS!
~S
...--.- 1888
--- '089
-19110
II
hm
518
m
11421
11m
1988
1989
1990
.
. SCALE IN FEET
"
".
14S
-------
'-'
-.--- --------______n_- h_.___u_...--
.' --_O_-------"-'.--_._-h______.....----
E
(Nn
I:I.I'VA nON
INI-1,Er
(N(i VII)
110 -
IIISCIIAIU;t: I'll QIJAIIClAC; NIVUI
(t~'i1IMA'i t:1I 21 n. Vt:NnI'AI,TIIICKNtX~)
" I
o
IOSC'I'Ntll't:JHV
(II Nil
I/N .\/.t '/lIJN
.
o
,to
280
2A0
t
-I- II
,
,., ,
" " . "
", ,',',',-:,'
,., ,',," " " ,"'.'
, , , , , , ,.,
," ...,:r'.', ,',',',',',',',
. ~.. . ~ ,',',',',',',',',',
~~.... ~..~" ,,', " " " " " " " " "
~I ,',',',',',,',',',',',',',
. -.z". ~'.'"",,",,",,",,",,",,",,',,",,",,",,',,",,
. ~ .'-'1' . ,',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
~...~'., """"""" " " " " " " "
#,.. """""""",
"f.: """ "'"''''''''''''''''''''''''
"" """"""""
"'" """"""'"
.: , , ,':'~';';':';';',,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;,;
. .... "[[[
. .......-'('" ,',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',','
,<*""""""""""""""""""" ,
.,..~, , " " " ':--, " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
......, , , , , , , ,.. ... , , , , ... , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
", , , , , , , , , ,., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
""'" "'."""""""""" """""
"""", """"""""" "" ", """ ",
""'" """"" """""""" """'"
""""""""""""", "" """", ",
""'" """""""""""""""" '"
""""" "" """""" """, """, ",
"""'" """""""""""" """'"
"""" """ """", "" """ """, ",
"""'" """""""" ""'" """""
""""""""""""""""""", ""
"""""" '" """""""""""" '"
""""""""""""""", "" "" ""
"""""""'" """'" """"""""
"""""", """"""" "" """" ""
"""""""""'" """""'" "" ""
200
160
Et
(SW)
c c c
"(fo o~, 00..'
o ~ 0 \)0.. \)00
f'.3()O.JO.~(JcfJ
~!,,,~D.u~f'uO..u '"
o ~:u,.t~.f:.
~~.o"'o~O.D ~, c
. D 'lv7.7~':?~'::>D~~~6~~
o oh";!,;~~d:tIJ.06q'oQ~h'()'o60
~1>-~JlI&.S>O ~ ~1::lJ.;;y,
-. ..... ,.4I..,A,
,~. .. .' .. .-~",
tI . -. .'~ . ...,.,.',',',',
~~ ., '....-11- 41-.,;;...0:"'"
:tf ,... '''. ~;<,,;,;,:,;,:,"
.. .... ..,/IJI!\.' ""'"
.It. ."'''t''' .. , , , , , , , , ,
.-:. ,;') ,',',',',',',',',','..
...- ",', " " ',',', " ',',', " '"
~- ,.,."" , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
-<, ,',',',',',',',',',',',',',',"
r, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "
"""""""""
""""""""",,,
""""""""'"
""""""""",,,
""""""""'"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""'"
"""""""",,,,,,,
""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""'"
"""""""""",
""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""'"
""""""""",,,
""""""""'"
""""""""",,,
""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""'"
iI"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"'"~
""""""""'"
"~iI"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"~"
""""""""'"
""""""""""
""""""""'"
""""""",,,,,,,,
, , , , , , , , ,., , , , , , , , , ,
""""""..""""
""""""""'"
"""""""""",,,
""""""""'"
""""""",,,,,,,,,,
""""""""'"
"""""""",,,,,,,,,
""""""""'"
"""""",,,,,,,,,,..
""""""""'"
"""""""""",,,,,,
""""""""'"
"""""",,,,,,,,,,,
""""""""'"
"""""",,,,,,,,,
, ........ . ,
, , Nt I''''~O; , '
;, ('CWIU'pfIlIUy e.trllllc.l"n)" ~..t'tltln. '"
" e'.lllft' Ind W'I~' ..hie infrn...I. "
, ,
hm~ ---
FIGURE 28
ESTIMATED VERTICAL EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
--'-'--'--'---------' ---.-----.--------- --_._--
-.---...--.-------.-.---- --------...-.--.----- ----- .
-----..-.---------_U_-- ----...-
E"
c=J(~mutnill.lcd KnUlI1lJw..II'1 'IIIIC
t :.:::.:::.:: II "'tm/hllkilu
~ ~I~~:-:'~~ iamb 8fttls'nrl\
r--Il"rf'.lllnnunu1Ily fane Irey \11111 wllh
L---J In..:e hlll~ 1111
~IIII
~1I...dmt.
~
~..
I~ow lin.
Infcm:d How Un.
~
MU"lIu"ng Well (If Well Nr,..
mlc",.luuhc8IrA' hy '~n ~I'
A,Ii,C,B,S . Wdl IJrSlgnl""",
.t. ."IculUlrltr
Stlcrnrll
~ W"le,,"..le
IUIMI/III'HAI. ~:AI.I:
.
II lOll 1110
-------
--
I
"""
1-"'>
---..-
-'-
---
~..
..'
---
,
----~,
.--(."
-.e-0
..i:~\t.
$
3
~
.
LEGEI-JD
CJ
eUllDING
SINClL WONITORING Votll
COUPlLT or WONITORING ....-..u.S
TRIPLET Of MONITORINC W!:llS
.......... ~CEJPSC RESOURCES snt: BOUNDARY
---J'J-... CONTOUR (I' INT(RVALS)
. ..
~
E"
E E' En lOCATION Of VERTICAl CROSS SECTION (IN FIGURE 1.261
GROUNDWATER elEVATION CONTOUR - ONE FOOT
plI:Zouni:R
SCALE IN fEE I
hm
FIGURE 27
PSC RESOURCES GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP - August 9. 1990
-. r-.R QUA\..\1'l
-------
-'--.
\\ ~-- - ~ ':?Q~~~t.~=o:~-~~~~~~' -' -I /~'/..~~ f(;--"\'-~'::~'[";];(1----'-'."
r::::::~:~ ~I :Y~. l ~ 0 J -- >' ,¥3' / . '. 'fir. .
; - -~.'~!':~"T~C,J!~__,'~~~1J;(;::--:,~' I'; X~;:-~:\y(~-~
\ --==--:::.~ --- ,-----=->---- \..r.--~~-t.;Ji2"';~ -o..\,.{[ /j / @;;::,/(:.:=~'~'-? '}'l{cl-~
-'---..:~.::...- ~~~~ "-~,.- ,r-::..::O':;~O: S",",- -:...,=--=:.., ,,--~<-:::::,,\.,,' , i '0~,'}, .\/
, ! ' .~ I' ":.,~,- ""-:~" -,---,-,.,._-~ ':' ~[,~\.. .~~ ?r
, "",,--.-,---- '---_.,' '- --, ~.i ,...f'? "; - '~ J~. .. > "'l'~<, (, ,,~~i, j:--:-'~' f
, ~:. ",,' ~;: ".r," yr. /~: / : ~""1", JI,'!,,""" ,
;.' -- ~', ',:' .~-, t:",:- k-~- - - / d-~;:;~ jt~' ,\~ \t
! ( : ,,,,,~CfWJ) ,--:"'... ::.., A' '- ~~ ,- 'I'" ---., - {' "~.".... ~ C" /'"
! .. : /,,' "0,22'1 '" ..."-~ 'Jill: /' \1 .', ' '~
I .. "- ,,-- 'J!:? -'3100$ .' . --~ ,.,,"~ '
\ i .---" ~:~J"': //. '.?--:-: ",... ~~~-,~J '", , '; " ~" '''''''''-'). ';",/"
\ {--- , '", ',_: 41::'- -- -', Ii' ~ ' . . ,I 1 I '/
I \~. '- (~?{j co~<~;.):'./
III ,\>--. ---,~,-r, I ;f~1 '-,: tr~ ",~J '-\,",~';o '..,.,:. ' " , ';, '-.. JI . ' '...-~~~<~ .~;:: /
\ I .,......- "'- ~ '-f:~~~V/Lj I~~ IfL~ .1~fP~r8),-~J._~'.--',,:,,---,~,:, "I.;::'<:~:;'~;?' .\--~::.::
I _,,~'-30',U" U" ,~=-. ~I/t~\'"" \\ ~~~~ :.\' ~?r:J' . '-.,\ ,,--','."",j'~,f:. -~--' ..,"-' " ..',: --',
;----" ' ,,, -J J09,3S J09,3S~~' "-'. /-'. ..:" JC -, ' ,
i ------~,,,,,~,,""-- "",.~" /'. /( I: -~-" ..'\-::... ,\ ' "'._,y;,./-vr:'" --.. /,
I I '-",. .,r" ~"- "--' ., ,'r"~ '~, - ~ I,'.' ~<~ -- // .1/
--1 ~ ~-~'::--~<;t-~>'-->~ ,.."r~ 2' '. .-.?2 . //
\ --.-'---. ou..o.. ~'. -..,~4'" ,- ~>:"''''' ~/ '
""'" ''-~~~~ ~~'~-"}~~:~' ~,;,~~:_, sz~j'~--~-- .,f-"
'- . , ,;:S""", '~... -( .' -, :~1...~.:.;v~" , , --' ,-
" --,~ ' "-:oE 'lr--. '. .... <' -- ),-, .' Joe:' , ..----'::;:':--/-''''-',) , ",' :/
"'=~:"'- ....,~~~-. 0'/~'" ',---' -~~:..-.\ '. r''--......--/-': r;/ '/:
""""" ~.:-:-------'" i.' "" ~. ,r '.~' -- .,> . ,~,'
--~~ 1fJ,.,. ~._---~ --~ '-:--"'.-J ' . ""'. ,-
~......:---.... --~ ....- - -........'. '
.....''''~~ ' \-~~ ,.~' \ " /./
'" " '\ ,--" ) ~/
'"",,-..... \ '" --~ -- .. , .. (-f""'"
~ / \, '~'" 'A\.~-=-'y:_7 .~..... /-::;~
----<'~ -~ --/,r
--~--=:-=< .~.J
...~~
'-
l~
. ..'" 1I(IIII10bfC 'II(1J. r:J MAI*8C
. (.0UI"\f' 01 .OMI---' CLLI - fboCII"'': auClUllCU t.p. lOUNOU'
. ftIII'\.I' fJI ..cM10IMItC tIIIU, -.'- CtJ111o..- :,' ..."_...\.I)
. '1!l;)Mtm
a lie '.
~~
SCALE 'N Hf I
hm
FIGURE 26 I
-------
~ - --~._---------
,
Vonyl ChIorId.
-..
1,1 DCA
1,2 DCE
2'&conono
\/InrI-.
roTAL VOC'.
MW-'04C (3'-131
S.mpI;"g Round I 0 IV
1 0188 11/89 5190
NO
.2 NO NO
180 NO NO
,
I ~
Vinyl Chlo
-------
'--'"
\
,
~
. ..cu. MCMT(8IC tItU D
. COUI'U1 01 ..cM'~' 'IIIU.S .....-.c
. 1W\Jl 01 tIIOtIftINIC "IUS .:::- IDlCI/pIC II[KaI8CU aft I
-------
"-
,
/1
,/
.
U:GEND
Phale I Surface WI"" "
Sedi- Simple Locali....
Phale II Sedimenl Sample
r::J Buildinl
o
~ Fencc/PSCII_aa
Sit.e Boundary
~ ContowU'lnI«VII.)
/
'"
..-
,'-c' I
.p"'"
-.
~.:-,,~
'. ~~.
hmlL
. ,~ FIGURE 23 PO "
-------
'-
" .. \ I
.. Wc,lond Sedimen' Sample
~~I';ll~~.rsrformed)
rho..n: N.]611w N.]O
6. WeIland Sedimen' Sample
(No liborilory Inllysil/f..ld GC
ocremina IOf VOC', only)
- Fence ,Pse MuuurUl
"'''I'"''y n"..ndlry
""""..... Con'''''' (l'lnlervll.)
-..
.../
..<-c-c<..T
'." ."........~"..~- .,,/--
'ao.;,"
-- '1,,"1 rol Cnncc:nltllion in ~"'a
~ Ti..II)e:",icMlc Cunccnll1l\ton in ..&fal
WID
FIGURE 22
TOTAL PCB AND PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT TIlE PSC RESOURCES SITE
-------------. --------.-. -
...
,
/
/
I
-------
'-'
-----_.- -.
.-- --- _._-------~-
U:GIo:ND
& Weiland Sedi......, StmpJ. ~
(I..bonIIOI} IrIIJy.i. porf,,",,",,) r.......J
Ph...I: N.llluuN.)5
Phalen: N.)611uu N.SO
6 Weiland Sedimonl Stmplo
(No l.b"IIIOI} ....lyoioiflOld GC
oe'''''\11& for VOC". mJy)
~ lou.II'AII Cooconltlllcn In flaJIIl
....."
"
, "~ ~. "
~~ '
. -=->>.
/
.-
,
/
/
" f.
........
hm
FIGURE 21
-------
'-
- -----------===-.:~::~:=.-=-=-----=--=-:-----+
----- .---'-'----
j
. '''9 - - .
'\ r~";,,,.' :-l..--r:W.~J=".r.:l1Q..".<.,..qq"""QQ'<.W/"'7.9:"""; .--..... "', '. -' '~~"j"'. "'/P" UWIIY , ' ["""': 0 ~
I~' ~ ~/:~4i,,--, n~'I! '" rr::::i!i L 0 "") '.~: :-'._~- =~ ,-, ... ' ",-' ,o,~ ~~_., ':.""'" -' Q, .r} Jf."~, , 0; /. j.:.,.. ".::-?'
, '--:-'--'~~.::.:;",.J' "'" ..,,!",.. ....' \'j.~~' . '.. j{L. I ..,' 0'\ I ,"'[i""".
\ I '. .'. . . '~:':., '/' ff[,fi<) ,~p~~I~i);>C)~:.iJ~~1 J'"
: ~ \ .nn.mr mu> ' " , " ,: I :.u_'J . ,'J OF SPILL AREA ' ,. 4r ")1, '~'
a: ,,-.... I, 'I ' " ' " J~ ) I,,, I
I ... " \.' 1/' " ' ' "$ I "'- '
i "n,;' 61',,: ,: ~~. "-..~,.. .. ' 4 \i(rv """::) ~
. ~ ' '", to" , "" N,5Q ,,~,41 . J~' j >'
, ' I ,', ,". ,6 I .r
, I ! , .: - - . g0i".cl ~: [:)"1 ".''''. .t~t :, ,. ,~:.. ,(/i/
, ' ." I" ,1 /1) ,---"' " - - "'1 N;43 ~~ N~6) t ,,,,"', "
I ~' : ~ ')', ',' I r' N:6~N'7 . \, ..' ,- JO"
, \ t' ~> ; ~\ .... ::i\ 'I' , '\ -. f~ . - , S~2iS~) .N':' ,J' N4~ j, ,'J'''''''>' '-r.J" r'
, \. ¥.' r.:::;:.>' ,/, . _-..:;;:-.;,;,~-=i r; 'NO '1..5 , 'l.. ,.r J' '"
.---. ",.. ~.r".r' ":0,,'.1 " (i.~ ,~~..)-~~ ' N,I(i'lIN'I\\ ,'::,' ..,::..,,_,~r
.' '-. '-,~-" . ,;[ 1"~"'; \N38.. ( , ". \~42~k N~~\ N~4 ...;,../ /--<...,~ )
"I " ' -'\. ./ ,r:; J ,/ '" 6N32 --,'" --- ~ '\.V :;:;6,~ /,'
'"-" I . . ~ ~"t;JA.'/ --- - _:-:0:. -....... . 'I . N.16
'j "'" ~"... , . ~\ ;N3~7~~ "N4JG ",~ ~ ...."-'N~'r".i/~'
.- ", .." "..!: N,)~ ~ N'29~.f' N,n .. N'IO~ 6 .-
.'"'' ' . .. '\ .r--' . ~," N,41 r ~ N 17 J
-----, """ , ---,..... ":~- N,)) ~, "'\; ,~'26 <'-, ':b"A ,. N,t8 ,r-" .
'" ' ',' ~ " '~N,)4"1. N'30 I".' --, ,,-,' N,27 ..N'23 N,2Q .J .
-------
""-
o
.
SCALE IN FEET
hm
FIGURE 19
WETLAND HABITAT DELINEATION AND PHASE I & II WETLAND SEDIMENT
-------
I
I
1- '---WA ffR ---=---
'~ - S.i'}?
'.,-;. ~:-~ 'EFT
/--l (d~ ; ..~
/ ~.r: / /'
, '" -:.. .r: /' ;:I(
: .. ~ "'/ CATCH BASIN'77/ ;: :
I " /;;" "'"
) /;; ;;. =; /-;;; /0 ~
/ / -- '" SW.3 /' '/ ;;: :; I
. ~ SED.3 -' 'f' /. II
: "/ // ",---..,,-
, ~;. ;~///-d "--'
~ r "/ '//1
, " r / ~/////J"""
~, ~
)
,
~\- ~,,'
, ....
----, '/'
.31: v/'.
'~------7 - -E.) ~,"'~.'-------- .
"'~~--- ,'~, "'/',' ,~~ ,., /"
;.... ~/~/ ."1 !-------~ Y, /7:'........
. "'..:::::::::---- '" '........ , /.....-7! ') .' " / ... " ~ \,
'"'"' ::::- ~', , "Aj \. II
. ///"/'~7 ,\,
I
~I
, I
'---'
...
i
/
\
\
\
)
~,
',.......i/ ; I
I ---' ' q\
, " I k:.' ;}>0)
\--/ ! IT ;;
;ij~
, '
/ '0
I !~
,/
\
,
~
;~~
{!
, I
I
:), ' Ii
0"" i
I
\
'I rv
;,
~ ! ~.'O
SCALE IN FEET \ -
o 25 50 l00~ ~\J-
PSC RESOURCES
PALMER,MA
. PHASE' Surlace Water (SW/DSW) and
Sediment (SEDtDSED) Sampling Locations
o Phase II Sediment (LSED) Sampling Locations
e ERT (Vibracore) Sediment (VC) Sampling
Locations
)
hm
FIGURE 18
PHASE I AND PHASE II PROPERTY SURFACE WATER
-------
34 33 32 3' 30 29
8 8 8
8 8 8
Water Street
., 827
.2
83
Chain-Link
Fence
84 .42
UWL.'
UWL.2
0 UWL-' B .5 845 846
UWL-2B
.6
.7
.20
.'9
.8
.'5
.'6
.'7
."
Very Dense---+-
Vegetation
.,2
.'3
o UWL.1A
UWL-2A
.8
Typical Air Monitoring Station (approximate locations)
o DWL-1A Typical Air Sampling Location (approximate locations)
DWL.2A
~ Existing Structure
f£)
NOT TO SCALE
~6
FIGURE 17 .
AIR SAMPLING STATIONS
-------
''"--'
-~~ ~
~///////h
\.
GJS.4 --------
ATULITIC nun E9 AS.3
/
);:., .
q tJ-tJ1o
'«c
~.
lEGE"1>
"
o 511. &011 botong (0.101) 1oC81ions
11\ AII1I.lIc lield lurloo.1 "'" loil
Q7 (A5.1) sampling I0C8UOfI
~
Ilh....
hm
FIGURE 16
-------
,--,--- \~/"/~ --0~"'~ '-- - '~ i.e,-
\:---L~h""'; -----:;; ~.;--O~C~
.3'.s~ - ~-~ ~/////~;.. ,',
'-- ~~ \~ '
- ~-- -- \ ,
f'/A TER --=:- \
:~:=- '- ~~; "- ~~TREET --~---
~- ~rsr~' $-;:; K,~",_-
:: /, ;/ /1 X r .---r
~;/ /' ~ ~ ~5-2 ~ , ,,--..r--, ~ I
~ a r? ~ a 1,830; ~ V -
~ .--t U-j 'i -, ...~..:-!
-'C 055-3 - f::3 ~ ' /"'-""" ( '- "'.--' ,,:
16,100 ~ A. './' /' ~'-;;-----'.....,..t-'
/////6 ...... , ' , ;'(' ~-Y---
o 0 55.6 ' : ,,' .(
~ -- 55-5 14,600 /:' j
o ~~96 4,920 ,-?,/
/', '
"'-----''' ' ..-' ,
",I Iff(, ~
" '" \ ~
'{a ss-" '< .. "0""
i "'", 50,100,,~ ~
, ' ,.J
, "
"
,
II _/
/
o 55.8 ,/
18,600 0 ~~-190 \
---- '- ,
L--r~,.
o 55.16,
'...." ,/ " 0 55-" ~ 39,200
~- 0 55-12 22,300, 55 3'
. ; R////-?, 6,850 6 77~ I,
, C::;..I'" '" ",,' "
v ~ '
16-'///4 055'15
,:, tb \, A,16,O::'14
: T ~ ~4,990
. ' f
I
: ~1~
=
055.7
(; '70
,~
~
.>
~,
, ' 55-18
'0 1,760 ~
O 55.19
768
o 55-20
190
::::--: -
----
i ~
I ~
~(
\
~
~10
"
./""
hm
FIGURE lS
DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD (TOTAL) DETECfED IN SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLES
-------
}-
,
\'.... :::"'.-------=::...--" ------.1'.) : ~' ----- ( .
. ~~- ~ ../~, .' ,.-/
----: :. A:'-----" / . --;"~ ' ./ , . ' ~"
.: -~ ~ ------ ":' /:,":/.' ," ' , <".
. -/ I )-r-'( .~ 'U '/ 'V ~.
~ I! V I ~
._-~~
._._-~I-......-
-~
@
.!
: !
WA lFR
~--- .
-. 58-4 --',,---. S17PEET
I ~et" Aroc:or.'260 ~... ~c~' -;'
." eet (~; .;: .J :~ ., '.
0.2 ND A. ~- .. ~
2.4 ND ~".- :..' ~
4.6 ND ./. .' ./ /' X
6.8 ND '- / ~ ./ ," .
"'.. / 7//~ /' :
8-'0 ND <; ;/~' /' .-\
'0.12 ND .;...... :;/;-;: /' ~ ~
'2.'4 ND / >- ~ ~ ~ ,:! "
. 5B.4 / / /
'4.16 ND :;, ~ ~--..,.. \ . /
~.,,/ ;~/.//~ '--'" \ .( j /
~ r;';' // ~ I
>- --.. ;:;///U~~: j ,
'''\ 0.2'>50,000 mglkg 5B.6 ~
; 0 5B.2
," "... ./
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8.10
10.12
12-14
'4-'6
98.5-100.5
102.5-104.5
104.5- 106.5
,08.5-1,0.5
"
Deem
In Feet
I
,
58-2
Deptn Arodo' ., 260
! In Feet (~gJk;1
! . 0.2 54.000
: . 2.4 20,000
II 4.6 5,800
, . 6.8 200
I 8.10 460
I; '0"2 ND '
!: '2.'4 ND
I' ,4,'6 ./ND
In \~
iJ
!
,
'--
't.
<
58.6
AreeJer -'260
(~;'.;)
7,'00
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
Deplt> Arodor -'260
In Feet (~gJk;)
0.2 20,000
2.4 4,400
4.6 '26
6.8 18,000
8.10 220
'0,'2 NO
I
.. I
I
I '\!
I ,~J
I I C\
* 'i
58-S ~ I
Depm A,odO',' 260 ).... .1
'nFeet (~gJk9) ~ .1
~~ ~g . '\ \
4.6 NO
6.8 NO
. 8,,0 NO .
'0.,2 NO 0 30 60
( I
!
,
II
~!I
//.
/~ i
/ '
'I
{
58.,
Deetn A,ec:or ,'260
," Feet (~;:k;)
0-2 58 ,000
2.4 65.000
4.6 ,3.000
6.8 5.600
8-'0 930
'0,'2 NO
12.14 NO
'4.'6 ND
~
:0
~
~I)
)
58-1 .
ND
~
Soil Boring
NOt Dc1eaed
hm
FIGURE 14
DEPTH DISTRIBUTION OF PCB (AROCLOR - 1260) CONCENTRATIONS
DETECTED IN PROPERTY SOIL BORINGS
. (Result Based on PCB Screening Procedures) PSC Resources. Palmer. Massachusetts
SCALE IN FEET
.-"-
-------
i
I
I:
I:
I-=- -:.. -~ ,
I
I
,-
''-.-/'
)
hm
'\: " ,,~ - -.,.".. '/ " '>' :' Y " ,-
- . 'V ~ " '.1---- -..,. ~ ~. ~
- - --- ',' ~ ~ ' --------- --- ~ t ~ - ,,/ .<+-.."
-'--. ~,~ ,..",/,/ "
. --. _._.~ ------.---
WA TER - ---,----=---=---
-
S lREET
,
-;k.
\ "
~
j >
~
~.----
?o .-. ---
.
~.--
~:.~
..,. ~'"
~
.--
-----
- ~
: ;-'
-J'
'-
, .
- -.....-. -. -. ,--.
g-'
. .
o',
-,
/--
'~
':"/
/'
,
/
-, = ~ ~ /:::'=---
=~' ~
---. '
,:.:.. ",---,
" .-"
<:'
-'.'-.-,- ,,- .~''''
..,.
J.
J....,
"0\
(Adopted From NUS RAMP. 1983)
1'3 Numbered Tanks
A.l,A.2 Concrete Pad Areas
<50
Total PCB Concentration (j.tgJkg)
@
, i
!
, I
i
,
. .j
-.. . .....--j
. .
:~
~..-'
'-'"
:t"\
I\" -...r '.r'
.' ;- --.
''-( ~"
, ~
" ''-,
'(
o
XI
eo
. I
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 13
TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs (mg/kg) (AROCLOR - 1260 & 1242)
DETEcrED IN STORAGE TANK SLUDGE
PSC Resources, Palmer, Massachusetts
r
. - -
. -,
-------
WA IFfi'
-=----=--- -- -~
--- ---- . -...---. S1J?EET
-~. ~.
! / rY .,:- n CA.' ._~ "'-
.--- \ ~ > NO~160~'~Buildlng B
\ / ~ CA-4 . / /' "'-
'-...~: ~Oc160 CA'3~' ~ CA.i .
Building A.' /' 6,300 ~ NOc160
/ /' /~ /'/' /'
/' /' -/ /'/ /'
/ /.,~ .::-:/ /'
~ . SB-4 ,/ , ~ G> CA.2 "\, .
NOc13O --/ ..- . /: ' ND;<460 ',--",'
--"" " " ,/ ~/ / / . ~
~ // ' ,/'1
, " /'
~. /.
C.LL.L CA.5 A
TP-6 G> 43 L.d
NA .
.. TP.,O TP.5
15,800 142
: TP.IO. Tcst Pit
15,800 Toul PCB Concentration ~g)
-.
1;
, .
,.
I.
i. .
i
I:
\,
/
,
I
!!
~
."'-..-
/
n /
: \....-"
Ii
Ii
I
Ii
1\
; S8."
I
-18,000-
CA.'~
NA
,'-- \: ,~~~~ "~
\:~~-- ~.. ~~~
--.. ,~.'-' 'Y"'"
_. -. . . . "- - -----.c
.~(.
. /~
"-
....
~
...
.~
;;.;
......
--
Building C /0
: .:.(' :::/..L
{
:), ;
0"" :
, '
/
I
. .
.~ ,,.
'. I:
. oj
:... Ii
/ ,; Ii
ji 111
. \. ~
;. =--
i
5&:5-
NDcI90
~
Soil Boring
ConCCl'ltrauon ContoUn
SCALE IN FEET I
30
Auger Sample
Not Analyz.ed
FIGURE 12
Uh m II MAXIMUM DEJECTED TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF PCBs IN PROPERTY SOIL (~g!kg)
-------
-
t- \": --,~~;
\.: " -~ ~
-:--. :---,/:~ --=:.;
" "
, ~",---/
~
-
@
-,
, ffAff:R---- ---
~-- - -,---
~ ---~FT
-J' ,/ a~ 3-B'U~~dlng A ' ...;-:." -' '"
\ y:;" 'CA., ~Building 8
\ /0'" 2;518 0 /- '"
,," CA-4 / '"
::: 3:,.733 ~ ~ 0 CA~ '\
-; ~ CA:3 0 ;% g~~ X
/,/ '" 28910, CA-2 > " .
~ 7: - 2,849 /.
, ~ 0 ",---"
~ ;.~//~ '--" , / .I J
~ [%'//1 I~ I
/ ~ A Containmen~ Area" ,
, r::L / /" //6"'" TP-4 :,
Pad Area ~0J .. NOc330 ' "
,~ ,"""- 34,020 TP.S \ ~ '
1,000 ~
'----
'-
~
,.
~
. 77;;
I / /'
, A:' ""'..L
I
, '
;,.. \
/:7/ // /?/) -$-
! I ~ /' TP.9
! / ~ 999,000
TP-8 ..
128,000 .
h
;;
{
~,o"" :
TP"O -$
23 ,000
1.710
I
I,
I:
I
I
I
I:
I~G
I,
i.
I.
I;
I
i
I
I:
Ii
I:
II
Ii
I 129.000 To~l SVOC Concentr.lI.ion (J!g/kg) r~
at deplh of 6 ft. 70
I 0-
'(',
\
/
~.:t
-,~
i ' ,.
TP-3.. Tesl Pit
163,000 Total SVOC Concentr.u.ion (J!gJkg)
from depths of 1-4 fL
CA-1 E>
NA
Auger Smlple
Not Analyzed
o
30
-'
SCALE IN FEET
hm
FIGURE 11
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF SVOCs DETEcrED IN PROPERTY SOn.. SAMPLES
-------
i'
~--, \1 '
,JI, ~ ' '
---
~~' ~ ------ (
, .~,~ ~~ '. /.:'~,J".:'~~~//':t~
-~---- ~ ,./ "
~. .' / / ,,~ :'/ '\
~
,j
:' ;
~
.-. - - - - - ----..:
WA lER
i ~.-:.- ,,--~- ~ffT
. -i /,..,i; ;;~;, , ~~~ilding B
. \ ~ / / ~ CA.'
, /0 .-' / ~ 1 400 X
., / CA.4 ,/. / '
i BUlldmg A ~ 5~ CA.3' / -?: 0 CA.6 i
\ ' :-- /' 1~2 t;\ ;;;; 44 :\
1./ ,/ / ,"/\:1//./ ~,
" ,/./ / // /' "
I \' / ~ 7;;; 0 CA:Z----" ,
~ ;0; (' 2~9... '-/
,I x /" ~ '/1
, ~ ~Contalnment
i \ / ' U/////~ Area
Pad Area --F 0 /. '"
,~( TP.6 S-+=-,TP.S. TP-4"
NA CA-S 46 264 ~
33,390
, '
i ~ Building C TP.'O'$- TP-3.
530,800
TP-7.'"'- 318 305.600
NA"'- 190
"
J
-'
I
I \ I
i / "
1, 1 :
i ~'
It)
TP-8
70,570 .
;
C
~10",,\
\
I TP.3. Tes! Pil
530,800 Tot.al'VOC Concznu-auon ~g.'lcg)
from depths of l~ fL
305.600 Total VOC Conc:enlrauon ~g!lcg) "'-"":,)'0
al depth of 6 fl.
Auger Sample
No! Analyzed
,\
CA-'0
NA
o
:JO
SCALE IN FEET
)
hm
PIGURE 10
TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF VOCs DETECTED IN PROPERTY SOn. SAMPLES
PSC Resources. Palmer. Massachusetts
-------
\':
~~..(J ~
. ---~ ' ....,.
~"--- ,.'
~,- -- :
, -x...::. , " ,
-----.L
',"--r',
. Ii
@I
'I
!
/'
\"--
"'- --
.3,
.-..
, ;
: '
-
WA IF!? - - --===---=---
~~--- -
---- '- -, -'-- --- S1i?EET
--~ C.~ +
! --;, (a :- .. "";; -~
I \ '/ '" ,''/,1(
( "-. ~~;: ~/:-
'" /~ -~~ /~ /
~ ..-: '/.. ~
.. ",,',/ _:.:: /' -
... " .. / 58.4' .-
~ 8N5N /,' ,;, ;.,---
~ ,,~"/'//~ -.-/
,~ ~; '///
.'/ /
'/: . ,
. /.
i
!;
i;
! i
; I
il
~
,'Y
\
i
.'
:x
.......:
---
,
/
"
>
1/'1
, I
\
/
'---""
TP.'
. Tesl Pil
58., 8 Soil Boring
- 6 - Conlours delineate approx. ckpth
or obSeT"Ied soil Slaining in feet
NSN :'\0 Staining :-;oled
..../""~70
o
30
----
SCALE IN FEET
hm
FIGURE 9
DEPTH OF OBSERVED SOIL STAINING
-------
~ ,\"(T/~--Q:",::F ~ /
~~"~==-L;~j .~~ @
- WATER .-- \
! - ~ S~
: .--- ~-=-- . /~EET
-\) I~~-~~. ~.
,~ (a r ~///~ 'Kl
/ \,//. II" /; *
\ '\ ~ ~ ~;o 55-2 1
,I )'~ ~ ~ X ~ I
/ W ~ x L
( A¥~'
; 07 ~
r -1 0
\, . if ~ . 1
\ /! 005.7 ~ 0:-)
(j j ~ ~,. ~O5'"
,,../' 55-12 0 SS.11 ~- - l'
',j W".~..
I' SS-14
\
~
~
)
hm
FIGURE 8
PROPERTY SURFIClAL son.. SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FOR LEAD ANALYSES ON THE PSC RESOURCES PROPERTY
..",
-------
@
---
I;
WA iTR -:-
---....'"
------'- ~-----= S1J?EET
,~ /'~a7::~ 'O.~~ .
,/, or /' '
-< /' / /' X/ ,......
"-:/ ; ~;; I ~--
~~ /' '/;: /' ~ r /'
// :~ ~;:; F'f('--1....l~ .:(,...... /"" /
/ ,/ '.. ,. // /,; I:r-/ ...---J ~ / .
/~. ~~ :/; :;1--, \ ~ / /'
>c "_.~ :5;;.~:/~- ~:~ I( r~~;.-/
/ , 2..////./~:::", < ""F-' /j f'',J / /"~7
~-o l'""'-\ l ' // !' "
,~~ Z \!~ ~ ,// '-
-r- =< - . SB-~ED-4 ;~ ',~ ,/ r
-------
'---.
@
WA IFfi'
: ~. -'--
" AW-4
. WALL
S 1J?EET
, I
, I
, I
I'
! I
I
/
AW-' .', / '
TANK . ,~ W.6 all/~ ~
/- - . :::J ~TANK ,/". ../ W.2'-"""'"
.' AW-2~: - ~
, RooF)1' ~W'3 :...-- :;.. WALL ~
'-.. / , WALL .7?'7'7/ ./ i
. /. / ,/;:;;- -----.; r\
CE~~~ /! ~ >W'7. ~, Jj. /""~~L~R ~.:.
rG::LL; FLOOR. TANK. /'i ;' \,
, "~~ ,C"\..;, \ I
~~W-' 0:://-d W-3 / ~ /
-*" ;TANK' j1 WALL ~ (I
. ;:;;///~'" !, 'J . ,
~ ,- W-~ '\
\
'-
I.
I'
I
/
\
\
\
I
,/
\,
\
\
. ; ,
; . i 78:?
: ;;.(' c.;..z:-- w.e
. . FOOTING
{'i
I
i
, '\
0"" I
I
I
I
I
i
. PHASE I SA.\fPLES
[!) PHASE n SA.\fPLES
(Sample Loca1ion Type)
o
30
)
SCALE IN FEET
hm
FIGURE 6
-------
--.."
------
--..,
!
, '
I:
, '
/
I
I:
I
, !
\
\
/
'~,(
i?
I
!1 \
I .
I .'
IJ
I
I
i
i
i
, ,
!
I
!
"--------- -
#"A IF/?
@
--
-~
...-
./
:J( r
'"
, \
, ,
I. ' 77;;
'i*U~
, ,
/ ; () CH-3
, ; If', .--- SLUDGE
. ~ ..-.==-
: ~TSCH.'
I i \ STANCHION
,~ ; " /7/-)
1/ /'
'I ,/i
I
i!
1 I
!j II
if !
/'U
f l~
! I ,iE
t
i
II
~~70
. PHASE I SAMPLES
I!J PHASE II SA.\iPLES
(Sample Location Type)
)
hm
o
30
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 5
-------
'--- -
WA JrR
"
@
!~
........
\
S 1J?EET
\ .' . BCR.3
CA.. :~ ACR.2 BCR., (WALL),
(Floo,,)~~ (FLOOR I (FLOOR' , .:
~, ' ~. '.'./, CA.,
. \ ~ ACR., BCR.2 'v 000~(FLooR)
, \ / . OO~ (FLOOR) (;~~~'\t:1;' ':"
"""' ~ ' L!J /: CA-6
, ACR.3 /~:::- --:, 0 /'!!J ..-:;.- (FLOOR)
,j) (FLOOR); ~ /' ",/ ~ 0 /.
/.,. /' CA.3 4'" % -j- II
,~ (FLooR)/f~ ;:;8 0 ?- VI
i / j r-~ ~~;~CA'2
: :\ ..:%;;i (FLOOR)
1\ \' ~. r' t~~:5
!; \ ; 7b (PAD)
I \ ' A. &..L
I (} ~ 00<'" :5'i.~H'O"
I ~'/ i! \
, ~ ~;//~)
li1J\ ;!~,~
) " /
! ! '
II Ii
Ii Ii
ill
,I ; 'I'
I I I
i, II
~;l\;
Ai
...
{,
'."'11
<=> PHASE I CORE A:-'"D AUGER
SA.\{?LE LOCATIO1\' SAMPLES
I!] PHASE II CORE
SAMPLE LOCATION'S
'\\
o
:10
SCALE IN FEET
)
hm
FIG1JU 4
PROPERTY BUll.DING AND STRUCfURE CORE AND AUGER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-
-------
"----- -
~
~
I;
!~ -...- S1J?EET ',--
; --1"'. ~... O.~~, BU"~'G ~ .
./ ' ".. ~~ B
, (a :'~ ~, '.r' "- . .
, \ y -': /' ,'< - 3' ~ '
'i ~ .;;//4 i- J CONCRETESTANCHION~r-
BUILDING' ?' ~ ~ ~ ~ - . .... / (B) ./ .
/ A~: /' /' -'.% /' - . . /' - I /
I .~ ;'; ~ ~~ ,: \ ' '~.
/ :k ~ /ff-;j/& '-../ ~ ~ ,') /:) ,
, : CONT~/NME~-L/i~ .' V . i ~
'""0": :- AR... n \ \ '),
C~. ' ~ POSSIBLE FORMER
" " i PUMP STATION PAD
,~ ~ '
'I /
f")..' \
V CONCRETE STANCHIONS
, ,r-
~ ~
\
!
;
\
\
\
, ,
"
, i
, I
11
.1
I
I
i
r ' I
II (/ :,
~'/
. I
I '
,(/
It)
/
{.'
.! '
;
~,o~!
\
/
U~~.j)
I;
LAGOON
I
I
,I
lli
~ ;:
I,
I
(\.
(i;
Ii
I
3D
)
SCALE IN FEET
hmll
FIGURE 3
PROPERTY BUll..DINGS AND STRUCTURES
....
-. ~.,..
-------
TABLE 4
(Cant'd)
E..po.tue A..umplion.
I'SC Rn.nu,,:... SIII'A,'urn! Sile. PnlmA'. MA
LAGOON RIVER . ',.}... '.' GROUNDWATER
SURfACE WATER SEDIMENt
Curren' TrespAsser FUlu'.. RII.idn..1 Fut...e Wo,k... Currenl T,..spass,,' FuIU'1I Ruld"nl Fulu,,, Wo,ke, F"lu,e Residenl Fulu,e Wo.ke,
VARIABlE Oldo, Child Old", child Adult Old", child Olde, child "dult Adlllt Adult
E.poe...e f,equency EF 50 davslv' 150 d"vs/v' OUlllilolive 25 dllvslv' 50 dovs/V' OUlllil.livlI 365 dllvslV' 250 dovs/v'
E.pMu.e ourellon ED 11 V'" 11 V" IInolvsis 11 V's 11 V" IInlllvsis 30 VIS 25 VIS
lIodV We'ghl 8W 45 ko 45 kO onlv 45 kg 45 kO' onlv 70 kO 70"0
Receplor ege 7.19 yrs 7.18 V" 1.19 V"
Ave,eolng Pe,lod" AP~ 4015 dovs 4015 dAv' 4015 dllVs 4015 dsvs 10950 dllVs 9125 dllVs
Ave,eoe lIfelime LT 70 VOII.'S 70 von,s 10 V"IIIS 70 V811" 70 V8111S 70 Villi"
De,mel ConlecI R,..e o.CR 500 mold8Y !ioo mgldllV
Su,lece A,ee E.po..d SA 2000 cm21dllV 2000 cm21
-------
"'--".
---
TABLE 4
(Cont'd)
EJilposu,ft Assumption.
f'5C R".n",c"s 5UI,.,I,,",' 5'1", Plllmm, MA
FISH BUILDING
Cu""n' T,e'Plls.e, Curren' T,,,sp9..,,, Fu'",,, R".id"nl Cu""n' T'''.p".se, Fulu,e R".id"n' F,,'u,e Wo,ke,
VARIABLE Youno child Adull Youno child & Adul' Oldtl' child OIde, child Adult
E .pMU'. F,..qu.ncy EF 365 dtlvs/V' 365 dIlVs/V' SlImtllls QUllli,,,,jvtl Qutlli'lIlivtl Qutlli'tI'ivtl
E "'08U'. Ou, ellon EO 6 V's 30 V,S current cftse ..nlllysis tlnelysi. "n..ly.is
Body W.IOh' BW 15 kg 45 kg only on'y only
Rec.p'ot 8V" 1.6 v,s
Av.,.glno P..,lodo Apo 2190 dllY' 10950 dllV'
Ave,.o. Llf..lim. LT 70 V""'S 70 VftAf!f;
O.,mef Con'.c' R.,.. O.CR
Su,f.ce A,... E.p08ed SA
F,.c,ion E.p08.d F,acE.p
Soil 10 6kln Adhe,ence F8clor AF
E.p08.... TIm. ET
Oe,mel Abeorp"on O.ABS
Ino..lIon A.I. IR 6.5 g/d"v 6.5 o/dey
Inv..lIon Ab.o,plion I.A8S 100% VOCa 100'11, VOC.
100% PAHs 1000,4, PAHs
30% PCBs 300,4, PCBs
50% Leed 300'" l,,""
1 00% Olh", Ino'll 100°'" Olh", Ino'g
30% nOFs 30% nOFs
100% Phlhlllllill. 100% P"I"nlll''''
F,ec.lon olll.h from ,Ive, F,ecfl.h 10% 10%
P.,m.ebllily Coefficlen' PC
8.nlene
Tolu..ne
Oibu'ylphlh..,,,,..
E 'hylb.nlflOe
InorQ8nic.
All olh", o,o"nici " WII'''' .f
..,~
II 1 XI!;
I\Vf~f.lulf1n PmH". lAP. I~ uPflllI..."". flnly In Iltr. nVI.luuhul1 nf nun COIC.1I10nenl(~ P.)(,)o!f;,,,e dO!f;o
PAun 1
-------
TABLE 5
Summery 01 Risk Eelim81... by Medium
PSC Resources Superfund Sile. Palmer. MA
RECEPTOR
EXPOSURE MEDIA
Carc.nogenic
Reasonable
Non.CarclnogenlC
Re8S0na~;~ ;
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum. 1
CURRENT TRESPASSER.older child/young adult Soil 7E.06 3E.OS 7E:01 2E .00tc! i
FUTURE RESIDENT'young child (age 1-6 yrs.! So.; 4E-OS 4E-04 1E.01 7E.01Ccl I
I
FUTURE RESIDENT.older child./young adult (age 7.18 vrs.! Soil 1E.05 1E-04 1E .00 7E - OO(cl I
FUTURE.COMMERCIAL,.INDUSTRIAL WORKER adult (durat.on: 25 yrs.! Soil 2E.05 2E.04 7E.01 4E. OOlcl
!
I.
.UTURE RESIDENT .adult Idurauon: 30 yrs.1 Groundwater ZE-04 4E-03 4E.01 7E. OOlbl I
I
..
FUTURE COMMERCIAL!INDUSTRIAL WORKER.adult (durllion: 25 yrs.) Groundwller 5E.05 1E-03 1£-01 2E. OOlbl I
i
CURRENT TRESPASSER-older Ch,I" 'voung adu!' '8ge 7-18 vrs.1 WeIland Sedlmenl 5E-06 4E-05 H-01 3E. OOlcl
.UTURE RESIDENT'young child Ilge 1.6 vrs.1 Wetlend Sedlmenl 3E-05 3E-04 2E - 00 9e:.o1(cl I
FUTURE RESIDENT-older child/young adult lage 7.18 yrs.! Wetllnd Sediment 1E-05 1E.04 2E-01 9E. OO(cl i
!
FijiURE COMMERCIAL'INDUSTRIAL WORKER.adult (duration: 2S yrs.! Wella"d Sediment 2E-05 2E-04 1£-01 5E..001cl i
CURRENT TRESPASSER.older Child/young adull (Ige 7-18 yrS.1 Lagoon Sedlmenl 1E.03 5E-03 2E"00 1E-0118'
I':.:iURE RESrDENT-.oloer child/young adull lage 7- 1 8 yrs.l Lagoon Sediment 4E.03 1E.02 6E..00 4E - 01111 I
:";':'URE COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL WORKER'adult Idurallon: 25 Vrs.I Lagoon Sed.menl 7E-03 2E-02 5E . 00 2E.01181 I
I
i
C'..JR"-ENT TRESPASSE;:;'older chold/voung adult lage 7.18 yrs.! Lagoon Surface Wiler 1E-07 1E-07 4E-05 5E-05Ia:
:..)TuRE RESIOENT -olde, choio/young aOult cege 7-18 vrs.) Lagoon Surface Water 3E.07 4E.07 1E-04 2E.04,8I
:;,,;7;)"-E COMMERCIAL'INDUSTRIAL WORKER.adult Cdurlllon: 25 yrS.1 Lagoon Surface Water 0 0 0 0
::",R:;E~'JT TRESPASSER'oloer ChllOiyoung adul: lage 7-18 vearsl River Sediment 1 E.07 3E.07 iE.05 4: ~:\I=.~
:,,;'~URE RESJDEN;'o'oe. ch.lo:young Idull Ilge 7. i 8 yrs.) River Sediment 2E.07 7E.07 7E-05 2E.0~'a'
;: ;,,;7~RE COMMERCIA.. 'INDUSTRIAL WORKER-adult Idurallon: 25 yrs.1 River Sediment 0 0 0 0
C..JR::;HH Ti'\ESPASSER-olde' child/young adull (1ge 7.18 vrs.1
.'" 7uRE RESIDENT,Older chlldlyoung Idult (Ige 7-18 yrs.!
:;";7'.IRE COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL WORKER.adult (duration:
25 y'S.1
Sludge. Bldg Materoais
Sludge. Bldg. Mlleflals
Sludge. Bldg. Maleroals
:: ~ ::"-ENT TRESPASSER'young child Iltge 1 -6 yrs.1
C'.;:>::;Ef\:7 Ti'\ESPASSER-aoull
;:.1':' .;:;E RESIDENT 'voung child lege 1 -6 yrS.1
:..;':' .I"E RESIDENT.acult Idurat,~n. 30 vrS.I
FISh
Fish
o 0 .;j Q
o Q Q Q
o 0 0 Q
no no 3E.02 H.Olle>
ne no 7E-03 2; C2i"
no no 3E-02 1 E.C j t:,;/
ne; ne 7E.03 1:.C'2::1
F,sh
FIsh
E:'10oed v81\,,1es eAceed EPA Risk Managemen,y Criteria
Q = Ol..lalJtatlve 8r-.atYSls cerformeo. S!'! °text.
1"'10 = ~anc~' rlSlo.s aSSOCI8(eO with flsn consumption not ouantdleo a5 or-,i. :eac ""as c~~ecteO -n t'Sh tissue samples and a cancer potency
fac:o~ 15 currenZlv not 8yallable for 1"'$ compound
Reasonaole max:mum non-carCinogenic 'IS" bv endDoln1 (see Table 5.3 for detallsJ
lal Developmen:al. fbl I-tepatorenal. ICI NeurObehavloral. Idl Dermal leJ Olher.
TOT ~...: XLS
-------
- 'l'ABLE 6
SOURCE CONTROL AL TERNA TIVES
RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
SC-I
No Action
.
Long-term monitoring of groundwater,
wetland sediments, propeny soils, lagoon.
water. lagoon sediments. and Quaboag River
water and sediments.
SC-4 Impermeable Cap . Long-term monitoring of groundwater,
wetland sediments, and Quaboag River
water and sediments.
. Deed restrictions on groundwater
development and land use.
_.
-
. Access restrictions (fencing) around residual
source materials.
. Warning signs.
. Public education program.
. Lagoon dewatering.
, Consolidate lagoon and wetland sediments
with property soils.
. Decontamination and demolition of property «
structures.
. Impermeable cap over consolidated residual
source materials.
. Earthen levee around property for flood
control. .
. Subsurface drain around property with
vertical barrier wall.
. Groundwater collection from inside the
barrier wall with treatment and discharge.
. Wetlands restoration/replication.
SC-5 In Situ Vitrification . Monitoring of groundwater. wetland
sediments, and Quaboag River water and
sediments.
Deed restrictions on groundwater
development and land use.
-------
(
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
SC-5 (cont'd)
.
Access restrictions (fencing) around residual
source materials.
SC-6
In SitU Stabilization
. Warning Signs.
. Public education program.
. Lagoon dewatering.
. Consolidate lagoon and wetland sediments
with property soilS.
. Decontamination and demolition of property
-
structures. -
. In situ vitrification of consolidated residual
source materials.
. Permeable cap over vitrified mass.
. Wetlands restoration/replication.
. Long-term monitoring of groundwater,
wetland sediments, and Quaboag River
water and sediments. f
. Deed restrictions on groundwater
development and land use.
. Lagoon dewatering.
. Consolidate lagoon and wetland sediments
with propeny soils.
Propeny structures decontamination and
demolition.
. In situ stabilizarion of consolidated residual
source materials.
. Permeable cap over stabilized mass.
Wetlands restoration/replication.
Long-term monitoring of groW1dwater,
wetland sediments, and Quaboag River
water and sediments.
(
SC -lOOn-Site Incineration
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
( SOURCECONTROLALTERNA~
RET~DFORDET~EDEVALUATION
. ,
SC-lO (cont'd) . Deed restriCtions on groundwater
development and land use.
. Access restriCtions to PSC Resources
Property.
. Waming signs.
. Public education program.
. Lagoon dewatering.
. ConstruCt on-site incinerator adjacent to
Area of Contamination (AOC). ......
-
. ConstruCt temporary residual source
material storage facility.
. Dewater beneath AOC, with groundwater
treatment and discharge.
. Decontamination and demolition of property
l structures.
. Excavate wetland sediment, lagoon
sediment, and property soils, place in ~
temporary storage facility. s
. Construct RCRA equivalent waste disposal
facility.
Incinerate residual source materials.
Stabilize residual ash remaining.
Place incinerator residuals into waste
disposal faciliry and construct cap.
. Wetlands restoration/replication.
SC-ll Off-Site Treatment and Disposal . Monitoring of groundwater. wetland
sediments, and Quaboag River water and
sediments.
. Deed restrictions on groundwater
development and land use.
. Lagoon dewatering.
-------
(
(.
SC-ll (cont'd)
5519-3/HAZ-5813
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
SOURCE CONTROL AL TERNA TIVES
RETAINED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
.
,Dewater beneath AOC, with groundwater
tI'eaunent and discharge.
Decontamination and demolition of propeny
structures.
.
.
Excavate and containerize propeny soils,
wetland sedimentS and lagoon sediments. .
.
Off-site transpon, treatment, and disposal at
a RCRA TSD facility.
.
Backfill excavation with clean fill materials.
.
Wetlands restoration/replication.
_.
-
;::
-------
MM-l
MM-3/4
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MANAGEME."oIT OF MIGRATION ALTERNATIVES
RETAINED FOR DETAILED EV ALVA TION
No-Action
. Long-tenn monitoring of groundwater,
wetlarid sediment. and Quaboag River
surface water and sediment.
. Long-tenn monitoring of groundwater,
wetland sediment. and Quaboag River
surface water and sediment.
. Access restrictions (fencing) around residual
source materials.
. Warning signs.
~
. Public education programs.
. Groundwater interceptor treneh with
hydraulic barrier. or severa110w flow
extraction wells.
. Collection, extraction, and t:re.atrnent of
groundwater.
. Discharge of fully treated groundwater to the
Quaboag River in accordanc::e with the
substantive requirementS of an NPDES ~.
permit.
Groundwater Extraction!
TreatmentlDischarge
-------
Medium
Property Soil
Ground Water
Lagoon
Sediment
Wetland
Sediment
TABLE 7 - CLEANUP LEVELS
Contaminant of Concern
Total PCBs
Total ncPAHsb
1,1-Dichloroethane
Cis-l,2-DichloroethyleneC
Trans-l,2-DichloroethyleneC
1,1, I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Benzene
Lead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethane
Cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Benzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Acetone
Lead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Total cPAHse
Total ncPAHs
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1, I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Methylene Chloride
Benzene
Acetone
Lead
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Arsenic
Lead
Zinc
a - ppm = parts per million
b - ncPAH = noncarcinogenic PAH
Cleanup Level
1 ppm8
151 ppm
243 ppm
5 ppm
7 ppm
135 ppm
1 ppm
2 ppm
1 pprn
500 pprn
6 ppbd
2 ppb
3,600 ppb
70 ppb
100 ppb
200 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
5 ppb
350 ppb
3,500 ppb
15 ppb
368 ppm
100 ppm
1,206ppm
1 ppm
200 ppm
4 pprn
12 ppm
1 pprn
3 ppm
10 ppm
500 pprn
1 pprn
10 pprn
12 pprn
375 pprn
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)
c - In the Remedial Investigation studies, a distinction between
trans- and cis- isomers was not made in the analysis of 1,2-
dichloroethylene. The analysis was made instead for total 1,2-
dichloroethylene. As part of the implementation of the Management
of Migration remedy as defined in this ROD, an identification of an
appropriate cleanup level for 1,2-dichloroethylene will be made.
If this identification is not made, the more stringent of the two
MCLs, i~e., 70 ppb for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, will be set as the
cleanup level for total 1,2-dichloroethylene.
d - ppb = parts per billion
e - cPAH = carcinogenic PAH
-------
Medium
contaminant of Concern
TABLE 8 - Cn-CONCENTRATIONS OF THE INFILTRATION (LEACHATE-PPB)
Cn
Property Soil
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
1, 1, l-Trichloroethane
Total ncPAHs
l,l-Dichloroethane
Cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Lagoon
Sediment
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Trichloroethylene
.
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Benzene
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
Total ncPAHsc
1,1-Dichloroethane
Acetone
a - ppb = parts per billion
59 ppbB
59 ppb
59 ppb
8,857 ppb
1,158 ppb
81,165 ppb
827 ppbb
1,181 ppbb
97 ppb
82 ppb
82 ppb
82 ppb
82 ppb
3,292 ppb
2,321 ppb
59,304 ppb
57,657 ppb
b - In the Remedial Investigation studies, a distinction between
trans- and cis- isomers was not made in the analysis of 1,2-
dichloroethylene. The analysis was made instead for total 1,2-
dichloroethylene. As part of the implementation of the Management
of Migration remedy as defined in this ROD, an identification of an
appropriate Cp value for l,2-dichloroethylene will be made. If
this identification is not made, the more stringent of the two Cp
values, i.e., 827 ppb for cis-1,2-dichloroethylene, will be set as
the Cp value for total 1,2-dichloroethylene.
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Medium!
Authority
Groundwater!
SDWA
Surface
Water!CW A
Groundwater!
CWA
Groundwater!
SDWA
5519-6nq~-6937
ARAR
Federal - SDW A - Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
(40 CPR 141.11-141.16) and
non-zero Maximum Contam-
inant Level Goals (MCLGs)
Federal - CW A - Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (A WQC)-
Protection of Freshwater Aquatic
Life, Human Health, Fish
Consumption
TABLE SC-6
CHEMICAL-SPECIFtC
MARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
~
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Relevant
and
Appropriate
State Department of Environmental Applicable
Protection (DEP) - Massachusetts
Groundwater Quality Standards (314
CMR 6J)()
State - 310 CMR 22.06 Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Inorganic
Chemicals in Drinking Water.
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Requirement Synopsis
Standards (MCLs - Maximum Contami-
nant Levels) have been adopted as enforce-
able standards for public drinking
water systems; goals (MCLGs) are
non-enforceable levels for such
systems.
A WQC are developed under the Oean
Water Act (CWA) as guidelines from
which states develop water quality
standards. CERCLA U21(d)(2)
requires compliance with such
gUidelines when they are relevant
and appropriate. A more stringent
A WQC for aquatic life may be found
relevant and appropriate rather than
an MCL, when protection of aquatic
organisms is being considered at a site.
Federal A WQC are health-based criteria
which have been developed for 95
carcinogenic compounds; these criteria
consider exposure to chemicals from
drinking water and/or fish consumption;
acute and chronic exposure levels are
established.
Massachusetts Groundwater Quality
Standards have been promulgated for
a number of contaminants. When the
state levels are more stringent than
federal levels, the state levels will
be used.
Maximum contaminant levels are estab-
lished for Inorganic Chemical Con-
taminants under 310 CMR 22.06. All
public water systems must comply with
the levels of inorganic contaminants
which are listed in Table I of 310
CMR 22.06.
SC-6-1
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Remediation of contaminated material
in soils and sediment will eliminate
ongoing discharges of contaminants to
groundwater. MCLs and non-zero MCLGs
wiD be attained in groundwater at the
point of compliance.
The selected remedy wiD attain
A WQC in the wetland surface waters
and river water after completion of
remedial activities.
The selected remedy wiD attain
Massachusetts standanls in the
groundwater at the point of compliance
after completion of remedial aCbvities.
The selected remedy wiJ) attain
Massachusetts MCLs for inorganics
in the groundwater at the point
-------
Medium!
Authority
Groundwater!
SDWA
Surface
Water!CW A
Air!CAA
Sediments!
RCRA
Soils/RCRA
Air!CAA
5519-6/HAZ-6937
ARAR
State - 310 CMR 22.07
Maximum Organic Chemical
Contaminant Levels in
Drinking Water
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GillDANCE
~
Relevant
and
Appropriate
DEP - Massachusettts Surface Water Applicable
Quality Standards (314 CMR 4'()(»
(M.G.L. c. 21, s.27)
Federal - CAA - National Emissions Applicable
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)(40 CPR 61)
Federal - Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) -
Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal and
Practices (40 CPR Part 257)
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Federal - Resource Conservation Relevant
and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Criteria and
for Classification of Solid Waste Appropriate
Disposal and Practices (40 CPR
Part 257)
Federal - CAA - National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
(40 CPR 50) .
Applicable
ReqJJirement Synopsis
310 CMR 22.07 establishes maximum
contaminant levels for selected
chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides
and herbicides.
DEP Surface Water Quality Standards
are established for dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, total coliform
bacteria, turbidity, total dissolved
solids, color, tainting substances,
radioactive substances, oil and grease
and nutrients.
NESHAP standards have been promulgated
for two organic compounds present at the site,
benzene and vinyl chloride.
Solid wastes containing PCBs greater
than 10 ppm must not be incorporated
into the soil (or mixed with surface
soil) applied to land used for food chain
or pasture crop production.
Solid wastes containing PCBs greater
than 10 ppm must not be incorporated into
the soil (or mixed with surface soil)
applied to land used for food chain or
pasture crop production.
NAAQS define levels of primary and
secondary levels for six common air
contaminants (sulfur dioxide, partic-
ulate matter "PM10", carbon monoxide,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide and lead).
SC-6-2
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
The selected remedy will attain
Massachusetts MCLs for organic
contaminants in the groundwater
at the point of compliance.
Discharges of lagoon water to the
Quaboag River associated with this
selected remedy will meet the
criteria set for a Class B
surface water body
(Quaboag River).
Remediation technologies
which emit air contaminants
regulated under NESHAPs will
attain the ap"ropriate
standard dunng operation.
Any debris, soil, or sediment which
contains greater than 10 ppm PCBs
will be excavated and stabilized.
Institutional controls will prohibit
the use of the site for agriculture.
Any debris, soil, or sediment which
contains greater than 10 ppm PCBs
will be excavated and stabilized.
Institutional controls will prohibit
the use of the site for agriculture.
The levels established for these
six air contaminants will be used
as target levels which may not be
exceeded by air release from
-------
Medium/
Authority
Surface Water/
CWA
Air/OSHA
Air/CAA
Groundwater/
CWA
5519-6/HAZ-6937
ARAR
Massachusetts Operation and
Maintenance and Pretreaunent
Standards for Wastewater Treaunent
Works and Indirect Discharge
314 CMR 12.00
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
. ARAb. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GillDANCE
~
Applicable
Federal - Occupational Health and To be
Safety Act (OSHA)(29 CFR Section Considered
1910.1000 - Air Contaminants)
State - Massachusetts Guidance on
Allowable Ambient Levels (AALs),
cited in Chemical Health Effects
Assessment Methodology and
Methodolo&y to Derive Allowable
Ambient Levels, DEP, 1989.
Federal - (Guidance)
Groundwater Classification
Guidelines
To be
Considered
To be
Considered
Requirement Synopsis
Regulations to ensure proper
operation and maintenance of
wastewater treaunent facilities
and sewer systems within the
Commonwealth.
Acceptable employee exposure levels
have been promulgated for an extensive
list of materials to control air
quality in workplace environments.
This guidance evaluates acute and chronic
toxicity and sets d,aft AALs for vola-
tile and semi-volatile chemicals. AALs
have been issued by the DEP for 108
chemicals to date. The AAL's to be
considered, modeled and monitored for
are considered in conjunction with BACT
to meet the action specific applicable
re
-------
Medium{
Authority
Groundwater{
CWA (Cont'd)
Air/OSHA
Sediments/
CWA
5519-6/HAZ-6937
ARAR
Federal Guidance - American Con-
ference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGllI), Threshold
Limit Values (fLV), Time Weighted
A verages (TWAs), and Short Term
Exposure Limits (STELs)
Federal - NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORTFS AND GtnDANCE
Stanm
To be
Considered
To be
Considered
RequUemeotSyoopsm
. The groundwater m irreplaceable; no
reasonable alternative source of
drinking water is available to sub-
stantial populations.
. The groundwater m ecologically vital;
the aq,uifer provides the base flow for
a parttcularly sensitive ecological
system that, if polluted, would destroy
a unique habitat."
Class 2 groundwaters are classified as
current and potential sources of
drinking water and waters having other
beneficial uses. All groundwaters
which do not fit under Oass 1 and
which are not heavily saline (total
dmsolved solids (TDS) >10,000 mg/l)
are considered Class 2 groundwaters.
TL Vs- TWAs and TL V-STELs are issued as
consensus standards for controlling
air quality in workplace environments.
The memorandum identifies
reference doses for various con-
taminants in sediments and their
potential biological effects on biota
exposed to the contaminants.
SC-6-4
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
TLVs will be used to set action
levels for on-site workers
during remediation activities.
Action levels will identify
instances when respiratory
protection will have to be
up~.
Contaminated sediments will
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA.. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
MEDIUM: GROUNDWATER
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
Chemical
Sue Drinking Water Act
Muimum Conwninant
Level. (MCLs)(uRII)
Federal 40 CPR 14 I .i State
(MCL'.) 310 CMR 22.00
Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Conwninant
Levela Goats (MCLGa)(1I2II)
Federal 40 CPR 14iM
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (ReM)
Maximum Contaminant Levela
Federal 40 CPR 264.94 (ul!lt)
Potential Otemical. of Concem
Volatile OrRanic Comoounds
Acetone
Benzene .5 0
Chloroelhane
Dichloroelhylene (cis- 1,2) 70 70
Dichloroelhylene (tran.- 1,2) 100 100
I.I-Dichloroelhylene 7 7
I ,2-Dichloroethane .5 0
Elhylbenzene 700 700
Methylene Chloride .5 0
Melhyl Elhyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene .5 0
Toluene 1000 1,000
Trichloroethylene .5 0
I, I.I-Trichloroelhane 200 200
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl Chloride 2 0
Acid &: BaaelNeutral Extractable Orsanic.
Anlhracene
Benzo(iI)anthracene 0.1 0
Benzo( a)pyrene 0.2 0
Chrysene 0.2 0
Di( ethylhcxy I) phthalate 4 0
Diethylphthalate 6 0
Ftuoranthene
Metala
Antimony 6 6
Aroenic 50 0 50
B:/.llium 4 0
C mium .5 .5 10
Chromium 100 100 50
Copper 1.3OO(a) 1,3OO(a)
Cyanide 200 200
Lead l.5(a) 50
Mercury 2 2 2
Nickel 100 100
Selenium 50 50 10
Silver 50
Thallium 2 0..5
Zinc
EPA action level - .ource: June 20, 1990 EPA memorandum from Henry Longest and Bruce Diamond to Patrick Tobin.
The remedy will comply wilh only non-zero MCLGs.
a
b
5519-6~-6937
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL.SPECIFIC MARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIRC; AND GUIDANCE
CLEAN AIR ACf (CAA)
APPUCABLE
MEDIA: AIR
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
National Ambient Air
Quality Stand~
(40 CPR 50)(uglm }[{Jwm)
40000 (l-bour average)135 (I bour average)
10000 (8-bour average)19 (8 bour average)
Lead (Pb)
1.5 (3 months)
100 (annual)/0.05 (annual)
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)
Ozone (03)
Particulate Matter (PM-IO)
235 (l-bour)/0.12 (l bour)
150 (24-bour)/ NA
50 (annual)/ NA
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
l300 (3-bour)/0.5 (3 bour)
365 (24-bour)/O.l4 (24 h, tlr)
80 (annual)/0.036 (annual)
a This maximum 24-hr level may not be exceeded more than once per year.
b This maximum 8-hr level may not be exceeded more tban once per year.
NA Not Applicable.
5519-6~-6937
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARa. CRITERIA.. ADVISORIES. AND GUIDANCE
MEDIUM: SURFACE WATER
a.EAN WATER ACT (CW A) - WATER OUALITY CRITERIA
TO BE CONSIDERED
Chemical
Potential Chemicals
of Concern
POI' Protection of Human Health
Water and F"lSh Fish Consumption
Insestion (usJI) Only (uRII)
Volatile Orianic Compounds
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Dichloroethyleoca
I,I-Dichlorocthylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbcnzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
I,I,I-Trichloroethane
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl Chloride
Acid & Baac/Neutral Extractable Onlanics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthrac:ene
Benzo( a)f1uoranthracene
Benzo(a)pyrcne
Bis(2-ethylhcxyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di( ethy Ihcxyl)phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
0.66 40
0,033 1.8.5
0.94 243
1,400 3,280
0.80 8.8.5
14,300 424,000
2.7 80.7
18,400 1,030,000
2 .52.5
3SO,OOO
42
1,800,000
.54
Metals
-xRtimony
A",enic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
146 4.5,000
0.0022 0,017.5
0,0037 0.0641
10
170,000 3,433,000 .
200
SO
0.144 0.146
13.4 100
10
SO
13 48
(a) Value shown cOlTesponds to a hardnesa of 100 mgllas CaC03'
(b) Proposed criteria.
5 519-6/HAZ-693 7
SC-6-7
Por Protection of Aquatic Life(a)
Freshwater Acutel
Chronic fuRII)
.5,3001-
11,600/-
11,800flO,OOO
32,000/-
.5,280/840
17,500/-
4.5,000(21,900
3,980/-
3O(6~3(b)
88!JO
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Coot'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRlTBRJA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
TO BE CONSIDERED
Cancer Noncarcinogenic Effects -
USEPA Drinking Waterl'ealth Advisoriesl Potency Factors3 Acceptable Intakes RfDs4
Chemicals Detected (mgJk:gJday) (mgJk:gJday) (mgJk:gJday)
In Groundwater and I-day 100day Long-Term Life Tune Oral Inhalation Oral Route InhaJatioo Route Oral Inhalation
Surface Water Sample Child (ugllllO kg) (ugIIJl0 kg) (uglll70 kg) Route Route Subchronic Chronic Subchronic Chronic Route Route
Volatile Organics (AlS) (AlC) (AIS) (AlC)
Acetone NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 .100 30.00 3.00 .100 NA
Chloroethane NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA 3
Methylene Chloride 10,000 2,000 NA NA .013 .0063 NA .060 NA NA .06 3 mg/m
1,1- Dichloroethane NA NA NA NA NA 1.20 .120 1.38 .138 IE-I NA
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 20,000 2,000 2,000 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
1,1,I-Trichlorethane 100,000 40,000 40,000 200 NA NA 3.1 .09 3.1 3.1 .09 NA
Trichlorethylene NA NA NA .0110 .0172 NA NA NA NA NA NA
1,1,2- Trichlorethane NA NA NA .0573 .057 NA NA NA NA .OO4 NA
Benzene 200 200 NA NA .029 .029 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tetrschloroethylene 2.000 2,000 1,000 NA (.0510) 5.2E-7 NA .02 NA NA .010 NA
Toluene 20,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 NA NA .430 .300 1.5 1.5 .2 NA
Ethylbenz.ene 20,000 3,000 1,000 700 NA NA .970 .100 NA NA .100 NA
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone NA NA NA NA NA .5 .050 .23 .029 .050 NA
Xylenes (Total) 40,000 40,000 40,000 10,000 NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
o-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 NA NA
m-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
p-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
Semi-Volatile Organics
PCBs (Total) NA NA NA 7.7 (Polir?l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Arodor 1248 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Aroclor 1260 NA NA NA 7.7 NA NA NA NA' NA NA NA
Metals
Cadmium 40 0 5 5 NA 6.:,g lr.O~ .~ NA NA .0005 NA
Chromium 1,000 1,000 240 100 NA 41. 1. NA NA 1.00 NA
Lead NA 20 ugJday 20 ug/day NA NA NA .00140 NA NA NA NA
USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisories, formerly SNARLs, are non-enforceable criteria established by the Office of Drinking Water. They are set for levels at which adverse
health effects are not expected. These draft criteria consider only toxic effects, and not the cumulative effects of other chemicals in drinking water.
Longer term health advisories are for exposures ranging from several months to several years and should generally be compared only to estimated short-term coocentrstions (STC).
2
3
4
Potency Factors are based on toxicity data for potential carcinogenic effects and are derived from Integrated Risk Information System ORIS) 1990-1991.
RfD (Reference Dose) is an estimate (with an uncertainty of one order of magnitude or more) of a lifetime dose which is likely to be without signif'lcant risk to human population.
Values were developed by the EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio in mgJkgJday. RfDs are established for specif'lc exposure routes.
5
6
MCL and potency factor given are for chromium.
Concentration shown is for chromium m (trivalent) and compounds.
55I9-6~-6937
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
TO BE CONSIDERED
~(6) Allowable Ambt~1t TLV-TW~(4) TLV-S~(5)
Air Contaminants( I} Levels (~)
(yg[m lpJ!m) (yg[m ) (ug[m ) {gg[m }
Acetone 2,400,000/1,000 ppm 160.54 20,000 NA(3)
Benzene -----/1 ° 0.12 30,000
Ethyl Benzene 435,000/100 118.04 435,000 545,000
Methylene Chloride 1,736,809/100 2.4 350,000 1,740,000
Xylene 435,000/100 11.8 435,000 655,000
Trichloroethylene --/100 NX~\ 270,000 1,080,000
1,l-Dichloroethane --1-- 810,000 1,010,000
Tetrachloroethylene -----/100 0.02 335,000 1,340,000
Chloroethane --1-- 358.78 --
4 Methyl-2 Pentanone --1-- 55.70 205,000 300,000
2 Butanone --1-- Jl~~1 590,000 885,000
Pentane 295,000/1 ,000 1,800,000 2,250,000
. Toluene --/200 10.24 375,000 560,000
1 ,1 ,I-Trichloroethane 1,900,000/350 1,638.37 1,900,000 2,450,000
1,1,2- Trichloroethane 45,000/10 0.06 45,000
2
These air contaminants were detected on-site in samples collected during the three-day August 1988 Air Sampling Program.
These levels are cited in the Draft version of the Chemical Health Effects Assessment Methodologv and the Method to Derive Allowable Ambient Levels
(Chem/AAL), DEP, Air Toxics Program, 1989.
3
4
NA - No concentrations available for these chemicals.
5
TLV - TWA - The Threshold Limit Value - Time Weighted Average is the time-weighted average concentration for a normal8-hour work day and a 40-hour
work week, to which nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. The Threshold Limit Values, as issued by Acorn, are
recommendations and should be used as guidelines for good practices. (Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1987-1988),
TL V - STEL - The Threshold Limit Value - Short-Term Exposure Limit is the concentration to which workers can be exposed continuously for a short period of
time without suffering from: 1) irritation; 2) chronic or irreversible tissue damage; or 3) narcosis of sufficient degree to increase the likelihood of accidental
injury, impair self-rescue or materially reduce work efficiency, and provided that the daily TLV - TWA is not exceeded. The Threshold Limit Values, as issued
by ACOrn, are recommendations and should be used as guidelines for good practices. IThreshold Limit Values and Biological Exj)osure Indices for 1987-1988),
PEL - Permissible Exposure Limit - These are enforCeable limits based on 8-hour time-weighted average concentrations an employee may be exposed to in a
work environment without adverse effect. Limits obtained from NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, September 1985. .
6
5519-6/HAZ-6937
-------
LocationJ
Authority
Wetlands!CW A
Floodplains!
CWA
Wetiands!CW A
Floodplains!
RCRA
5519-6nHJLl-6937
AMR
Federal- Oean Water Act
(CWA) .
Section 404(b)( I );
40 CPR part 230,
33 CPR parts 320-330
Federal Executive Orders
11988 .
Floodplain Management
40 CPR Part 6
Appendix A
Federal Executive Orders
11990
Protection of Wetlands
Federal - 40 CPR
Part 264.18
Location Standards
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. AND GUIDANCE
Slams
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Relevant
and
Appropriate
ReqJJirement Syoo'psis
Requirements under these codes
prohibit the discharge of dredged
or fill material into wetlands
uoless those actions comply with
the substantive requirements which
are identified under these regulations.
Federal agencies are required to
reduce the risk of flood loss, to
minimize impact of floods, and to
restore and preserve the natural
and beoeficial values of flood
plains.
Under tbis regulation, Federal
agencies are required to minimize
the destruction, loss or degrada-
tion of wetlands, and preserve
and enhance natural and beneficial
values of wetlands.
This regulation identifies geolo~ical
features which a proposed location
location for a RCRA hazardous waste
treatment and/or disposal facility
must avoid. Three specific geologic
features are identified of which two
apply to the PSC Resources site.
These geologic features and their
significance are:
~ - A facility located
in a lOO-year Ooodplain must be
designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained to prevent washout
of any hazardous waste unless the
owner or operator can demonstrate
to the EPA regional administrator that
he can meet the criteria established
under this subpart which exempts him
from complying with this requuement.
SC-6-1O
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Discharges to wetlands around the
site will comply with these requirements.
Floodplain considerations will be incor-
porated into the planning and implementation
of this selected remedy.
Wetlands protection considerations will
be incorporated into the planning and
implementation of this selected remedy.
PSC Resources is located within a
l00-year floodplain and a portion
of the site may be within 200 feet
of a fault. On-site remediation
activities will comply with the
-------
Locatioo/
Authority
Floodplains!
RCRA (Cont'd)
Rivers!
CWA
Wetlands!
CWA
Wetlands!
RCRA
5519-6/HAZ-6937
ARAR
Federal- 16 USC 661
et. seq. Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act
State - Department of
Environmental Protection
(DEP) - Wetlands
Protection
(310 CMR 10.00)
State - Hazardous Waste
Facility Siting
Regulations
(990 CMR 1.00)
. TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARAb. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. AND GUIDANCE
~
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Req.uirement Synopsis
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Seismic Considerations - Portion
of facilities where treatment,
storage or disposal of hazardous
waste will be conducted must not
be located within 200 feet of a
fault which has displaced in
Holocene time.
Miti~ative actions must be taken
to mmimize potential adverse
impacts 10 natural sources
such as wetlands. Restoration of
damaged natural features are
required.
Relevant federal agencies will be
contacted to help analyze impacts of
the implementation of remedial altern-
atives on wildlife in wetlands and rivers.
Restoration of impacted wetlands
wiD occur once aU excavation and
stabilization activities are completed.
These regulations are promulgated
under Wetlands Protection Laws,
which regulate dredging, filling,
altering or polluting inland wet-
lands. Work within 100 feet of a
wetland is regulated under this
requirement. The requirement also
defines wetlands based on vegetation
types and requires that effects on
wetlands be mitigated.
The selected remedy will include
measures to mitigate and/or replace
loss of habitat or hydraulic capacity
in accordance with 310 CMR 10.00.
These regulations outline the
criteria for the construction,
operation. and maintenance of a
new facility or increase in an
existing facility for the storage,
treatment. or disposal of hazardous
waste, and require that no portion
of the facility may be located
within a wetland or on land bordering
a vegetated wetland, unless approved
by the State.
The remedy will comply with aU of
the substantive requirements of
990 CMR 1.00. and no portion of the
facility will be located within a
wetland or on land bordering a
vegetated wetland. unless approved
by the State.
-------
TABLE SC-6 (Coot'd)
AcrION-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRlTERIA. ADVlSORIF.s AND GUIDANCE
Actioo/ Action to be Taken
Authority ARAR StJnm Requirement Synopsis to Attain ARAR
floodplains! State-Hazardous Waste Applicable These reguJations outline the The remedy will comply with all of
RCRA Facility Siting criteria for the construction, the substantive requirements of
Regulations operation, and maintenance of a 990 CMR 1.00, and no portion of the
(990 CMR 1.(0) new facility or increase in an facility will be located within a 100-
existing facility for the storage, year floodplain unless approved by
treatment, or disposal of hazardous the State.
waste, and require that no portion
of the facility may be located
within a tOO-year floodplain, unless
approved by the State.
Impoundment! FEDERAL - RCRA 40 CPR Relevant General requirements for surface The existing lagoon will be closed
RCRA Sections 264.220 -264.230 and impoundments. Requirements include in accordance with the substantive
265.220 - 265.230 (Sub K) Appropriate design standanls, operational require- requirements of this regulation.
Design, operation and closure ments, monitoring and record keeping
of surface impoundments. requirements and closure requirements.
Off-site FEDERAL - 40 CPR Part 262.11- Applicable ReguJations apply to generators and All off-site shipments of
Shipment .33, .40-.42 other initiators of hazardous waste hazardous wastes will comply with
Disposal! shif.ments from disposal facilities, these requirements.
RCRA inc uding identification of
hazardous waste, manifesting
requiremen~ckaging and pre-
transport st ds, and record-
keepmg requirements.
Off-site FEDERAL - 40 CPR Part 262,50 Applicable Establishes requirements applicable Any bazaJdous waste shipped from the
Shipment (Subpart E) to exports of hazardous wastes. PSC Resources site and exported
Disposal! Export of Hazardous Waste. Primary exporter of hazardous out of the country will comply with
RCRA waste must comply with special the requirements of this section.
manifesting and reporting requirements.
Off-site FEDERAL - 40 CPR Part 263.10 Applicable Identifies manifesting procedures All off-site shipments will comply
Shipment 263.22 (Subparts A and B) to be followed by transporters for with these requirements.
DisposallRCRA Compliance with the Manifest all shipments of hazardous waste.
5519-6/HAZ-6937
-------
Action!
Authority
Off-site
Shipment
Disposal/
RCRA
Treatment
Facility
Operations/
RCRA
TSD Facility
Preparedness
and Prevention/
RCRA
Incinera-
tion/Soil
Remediation/
CAA
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System/CW A
Treatment
and
Disposal/
RCRA
5519-6~-6937
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
FEDERAL - 40 CFR Part 264.70
(Subpart E)
Manifest System, Recordkeeping
and Reporting
FEDERAL - 40 CFR Part 264.10-
264.18 (Subpart B)
General Facility Standards
FEDERAL - 40 CFR Part
264.30-37 (Subpart C)
Preparedness and Prevention
FEDERAL CAA - National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
40 CFR Part 50
FEDERAL - 40 CFR Parts 122
and 125 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System.
~
Applicable
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Applicable
STATE - 310 CMR 30.00 Hazardous Relevant
Waste Regulations. 310 CMR 30.00 and
is enforceable under M.G.L. Appropriate
Ch. 21C ss. 4 and 6, and M.G.L.
Ch. 211 s. 6.
Requirement Synopsis
Regulations apply to owners and
operators of facilities receiving
wastes from off-site. Requirement
identifies procedures to be
fonowed in filling out, filing and
submitting hazardous waste manifests
for all shipments of hazardous waste
sent from and received by a facility.
This subpart applies to all owners
and operators of hazardous waste
facilities. 1be subpart identifies
procedures which must be followed
for the operation and maintenance
of a hazardous waste TSD facility.
Identifies requirements which must
he met during design, construction,
and operation of TSD Facilities
to minimize possibility of fires,
explosions or unplanned releases
of waste.
These requirements establish
maximum primary and secondary 24-
hour concentrations for particulate
matter.
BPA administered permit program
which allows private parties to
discharge pollutants from a
point source into the "waters of
the United States."
The Hazardous Waste Regulations
310 CMR 30.00 govern the generation
of, listing, handling, storage,
transporting and disposal of hazard-
ous wastes.
SC-6-13
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Off-site shipments of hazardous wastes
will comply with this requirement.
The selected remedy will comply
with a1I substantive portions of this
requiremerit during on-site treatment
of contaminated materials.
Any waste shipped off-site will he
shipped to a facility which meets
this standard.
Particulate matter will be contained
durin~ anyon-site excavation and
stabilization activities, and will
not exceed these levels.
All discharges of treated groundwater
or surface water to the Quaboag River,
will comply with all NPDBS substantive
requirements.
The selected remedy will comply
with the substantive requirements
under each sub-part that pertains
-------
Action!
Authority
Surface
Impoundments/
RCRA
Groundwater
Protection/
RCRA
5519-6~-6937
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
AmON-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
~
STATE - 310 CMR 30.610 Relevant
Surface Impoundment Requirements and
Appropriate
STATE - 310 CMR 30.660
Groundwater Protection.
This citation includes
the requirements of
310 CMR 30.661 through 30.673.
Relevant
and
Appropriate
ReqJ1irement Synopsis
All sites or facilities where sur-
face impoundments are located must
have a groundwater monitoring system
installed and operating which meets
the requirements of 310 CMR 30.660.
During closure of surface impound-
ments any waste to be left on-site
must be solidified and the impound-
ment capped in a manner which
minimizes infiltration of surface
water. Post-closure requirements
identified in 310 CMR 30.590 must
be followed.
Groundwater Protection requirements
(310 CMR 30.660) apply to the fol-
lowing regulated hazardous waste
treatinent units:
. surface impoundments,
. land treatment units, and
. landfills. .
Groundwater protection programs
must be conducted during the active
life of the treatment units iden-
tified above, or after closure if
required by the approved operating
permit. Groundwater monitoring or
corrective action monitoring
(310 CMR 30.672) are required any-
time concentrations of chemicals
in the groundwater exceed levels
established by the department in
accordance with 310 CMR 30.667.
In acconlance with 30.672, ground-
water which contains chemical
constituents in excess of established
concentration limits must be removed
or treated so that maximum concen- .
tration limits are attained.
SC-6-14
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Remediation of the on-site lagoon
will comply with the requirements
of this regulation.
A groundwater monitoring program
which meets the requirements of
310 CMR 30.660 and 310 CMR 30.672
will be implemented throughout the
post-closure period for the site.
Elimination of contaminant leaching
via stabilization of the on-site
soils will allow natural processes
to treat the existing contaminated
-------
ActiooJ
. Authority
Groundwater
Protection!
CWA
PCB Disposal
Requirements!
TSCA
Asbestos
Removal!
5519-6nHJLZ-6937
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
STATE - 314 CMR 6.00
(Promulgated under MGL
Chapter 21, ss. 27(5),
27(6),27(12» Massachusetts
Groundwater Quality Standards
TSCA, Subpart D, Storage
and Disposal
(40 CFR 761.60, 761.65,
761.79)
STATE - 310 CMR 7.15
Asbestos Removal
Stam1
Applicable
Applicable
if PCB
concentra-
tions are
>50 ppm;
Relevant and
appropriate
if PCB con-
centrations
are <50 ppm
Applicable
ReqJJirement Synopsis
314 CMR 6.00 establishes groundwater
quality standards which must be met
for various classes of groundwater in
the State of Massachusetts.
314 CMR 6.03 designates the three
classes of groundwater.
314 CMR 6.06 defines the groundwater
quality criteria which must be met
for each class of groundwater.
All dredged materials that contain
PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or
greater shall be disposed of in an
incinerator or in a chemical waste
landfill or, upon application, using
a disposal method to be approved by
the EPA Region in which the PCBs
are located. On-site storage fac-
ilities for PCBs shall meet, at a
minimum, the fonowing criteria:
Adequate roof and waDs to prevent
rain
Adequate floor with continuous
curbing
No openings that would permit
liquids to flow from curbed area
Asbestos removal from any building or
facility must be done in accoroance
with this regulation.
.
Removal or sealing in place of mate-
rials which contain asbestos must be
conducted by qualified individuals or
firms. Removal work must be performed
in accordance with 7.15 (l)(c)(d) and (e).
SC-6- 15
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Discharges (direct or indirect) of
efOuent to the groundwaters of Massa-
chusetts will meet the appropriate
groundwater quality criteria during and
subsequent to implementation of this .
remedy.
Disposal of soils/sediments under the cap
at the Disposal Area will comply with
chemical waste landfin requirements except
requirements waived by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 1
761.75(c)(4) in the ROD. These
regulations have been considered by
U.S. HP A Region I in the selection
of this remedy and wiD be considered
in the design of storage facilities.
Solid debris, excluding trees and bushes,
sbaD be decontaminated prior to off-
site transport or off-site disposal
in accordance with 40 CFR 761.79;
storage facilities sbaD be designed
consistent with 40 CFR 761.65
(b)(l)(i), (ii) and (ill).
Any asbestos removal or abatement
activities in or around the buildings
on-site or on other portions of the site
wiD be conducted in accordance with
-------
Action!
Authority
Air
Discharges!
CAA
Noise
Air!
Discharges
Surface
Water
Protection!
CWA
5 519-6/HAZ-693 7
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
ACI10N-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
STATE - 310 CMR 6.0-8.0
Air Quality Control Regulations
STATE - 310 CMR 7.10 Noise
STATE - 310 CMR 7.09
Dust, Odor, Construction,
and Demolition
STATE - 314 CMR 3.00
(Promulgated under MOL
Chapter 21, s. 27 and s. 43)
Stanm
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Reqpirement Synopsis
These regulations govern emissions to
the air from new sources. Sources
must not cause a condition of air
poDution. In addition there are
specific standards for PICs, CO~,
03' Pb and SOx' The state appl1es .
tms standard by examining AALs
and other air modeling and mon-
itoring data and by requiring
standard controls available for
some of the more common remedial
technologies.
This regulation requires that all
equipment, machinery and/or
operations which generate noise
(sound), be operated in a
manner which minimizes the
generation of sound or be fitted
and accommodated with noise
reducing equipment and measures.
Any operation which generates
dust and odors shall be performed
in a manner which does not
generate significant quantities
of dust which if generated would
cause or contribute to a condition
of air poDution.
Discharges of any poUutant to any
surface water in the State of Massa-
chusetts must have a valid discharge
permit from the Division of Water
PoDution Control (DWPC) - 314 CMR
3.04. This discharge permit (called
a National PoUutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permit) is
issued jointly by the EP A and the
DEP.
SC-6-16
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
The selected remedy wiD comply with
the use of Best Available Control
Technologies (BACT) and will not contribute
to a condition of air pollution.
On-site construction/remediation
activities will be conducted during
normal working hours and comply with
the requirements of this regulation.
On-site remedial activities will be
performed in a manner which minimizes
dust generation. If significant
quantities of dust are generated, then
mitigative measures will be employed to
reduce the levels of dust generated.
Any remedial activities conducted on-site
at the PSC ReSources site will be con-
ducted under CERCLA Sections 104
or 106; therefore, DO federal or state.
permits will be required. However,
the selected remedy will comply with
the standards or discharge limits and
activities covered by any permits
-------
Action!
Authority
Surface Water/
CWA
Air/CAA
Air
Discharges/
CAA
5 519-6/HAZ-693 7
TABLE SC-6 (Cont'd)
ACTION-SPECIFIC MARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
~
Massachusetts Operation and
Maintenance and Pretreatment
Standards for Wastewater Treatment
Works and Indirect Discharge
314 CMR 12.00
Applicable
Federal- CAA - National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
(40 CPR 50)
Applicable
ST ATE - Massachusetts Guidance To be
on Allowable Ambient Levels Considered
(AALs), cited in Chemical Health
Effects Assessment Methodology
and MethodoloK;)' to Derive Allowable
Ambient Levels. DEP, 1989.
Requirement Synopsis
Regulations to ensure proper
operation and maintenance of
wastewater treatment facilities
and sewer systems within the
Commonwealth.
NAAQS define levels of primary and
secondary levels for six common air
contaminants (sulfur dioxide, partic-
ulate matter "PM 10" , carbon monoxide.
ozone, nitrogen dioxide and lead).
This guidance evaluates acute and
chronic toxicity and sets draft AALs
for volatile and semi-volatile
chemicals. AALs have been issued by
the DEP for 108 chemicals to date.
The AALs to be considered, modeled,
and monitored for are considered in
in conjunction with BACT to meet the
action specific applicable require-
ments at 310 CMR 6.0 through 8.0 in
"not causing a condition of air
pollution. ..
SC-6-17
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Remedial activities will comply
with aU provisions of this
regulation.
The levels established for these
six air contaminants will be used
as target levels which may not be
exceeded by air release from
on-site activities.
The selected remedy will attain AALs during
on-site remediation activities if
-------
Medium!
Authority
Groundwater!
SDWA
Surface
Water!CW A
Groundwater!
CWA
5519-6/HAZ-6934
AR.AR
Federal - SDW A - Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
(40 CPR 141.11-141.16)
and non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs)
Federal - CW A - Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (A WQC)-
Protection of Freshwater Aquatic
Life, Human Health, Fish
Consumption
TABLE MM-I
CHEMlCAL-SPECIf1C
ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GmDANCE
Status
Relevant
and
Applicable
Relevant
and
Appropriate
State Department of Environmental Applicable
Protection (DEP) - Massachusetts
Groundwater Quality Standards (314
CMR 6.00)
Requirement Synopsis
Standards (MCLs - Maximum Contaminant
Levels) have been adopted as
enforceable standards for public
drinking water systems; goals
(MCLGs) are non-enforceable levels
for such systems.
A WQC are developed under the Clean
Water Act (CW A) as guidelines from
which states develop water quality
standards. CERCLA ~121(d)(2) requires
compliance with such guidelines when
they are relevant and ¥propriate.
A more stringent A WQC for
aquatic life may be found relevant
and appropriate rather than an MCL,
when protection of aquatic organisms
is being considered at a site.
Federal A WQC are health-based criteria
which have been developed for 95
carcinogenic compounds; these criteria
consider exposure to chemicals from
drinking water and/or fish consumption;
acute and chronic exposure levels are
established.
Massachusetts Groundwater Quality
Standards have been promulgated for
a number of contaminants. When the
state levels are more stringent than
federal levels, the state levels will
be used.
MM-I-I
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
In conjunction with the imple-
mentation of SC-6, the remedy will
attain MCLs.
The selected remedy will attain A WQC
in the wetland surface water and
Quaboag River water after completion of
the remedial activities.
In conjunction with the imple-
mentation of SC-6, the remedy will
attain Massachusetts MCLs in the
-------
Mediumf
Authority
Groundwaterf
SDWA
Groundwaterf
SDWA
Surface
WaterfCW A
AirfCAA
5519-6~-6934
ARAR
State - 310 CMR 22.06 Maximum
Contaminant Levels for Inorganic
Chemicals in Drinking Water.
State - 310 CMR 22.07
Maximum Organic Chemical
Contaminant Levels in
Drinking Water
TABLE MM-I (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
ARMs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
Status
Relevant
and
Appropriate
Relevant
and
Appropriate
DEP - Massacbusettts Surface Water Applicable
Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00)
(M.G.L. c. 21, s.27)
State - Massacbusens Guidance on
Allowable Ambient Levels (AALs),
cited in Chemical Health Effects
Assessment Methodolol)' and
Methodology to Derive Allowable
Ambient Levels, DEP,1989.
To be
Considered
ReqJ1irement Synopsis
Maximum contaminant levels are estab-
lished for Inorganic Chemical Con-
taminants under 310 CMR 22.06. All
public water systems must comply with
the levels of inorganic contaminants
which are listed in Table 1 of 310
CMR 22.06.
310 CMR 22.07 establishes maximum'
contaminant levels for selected
chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides
and herbicides.
DEP Surface Water Quality Standards
are established for dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, total coliform
bacteria, turbidity, total dissolved
solids, color, tainting substances,
radioactive substances, oil and grease
and nutrients.
This guidance evaluates acute and Chronic
toxicity and sets draft AALs for vola-
tile and semi-volatile chemicals. AALs
have been issued by the DBP for 108
chemicals to date. The AAL's to be .
considered, modeled and monitored for
are considered in conjunction with BACT
to meet the action specific applicable
requirements at 310 CMR 6.0 through 8.0
in "not causing a condition of air
pollution..." .
MM-1-2
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
In conjunction with the imple-
mentation of SC-6, the selected
remedy will attain Massachusens
MCLs for inorganics at the point
of compliance.
In conjunction with the imple-
mentation of SC-6, the selected
remedy will attain Massachusens
MCLs for organic contaminants at
at the point of compliance.
In conjunction with the imple-
mentation of SC-6, the discharge
of lagoon water to the Quaboag
River associated with the selected
remedy will meet the criteria set
for a Class B surface water body
(Quaboag River).
AALs should not be exceeded
during implementation of the
remedy because no remedial
actions will be conducted
with the exception of long
-------
Medium!
Authority
Groundwater!
CWA
Groundwater
5519-6/HAZ-6934
ARAR
Federal- (Guidance)
Groundwater Protection Strategy
State - Massacbusetts Drinking
Water Health Advisories
TABLE MM-I (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
Status
To be .
Considered
To be
Considered
Requirement Synopsis
EP A's groundwater protection strategy
[as identified in Groundwater
Protection Strategy. EPA Office of
Groundwater Protection, August, 1984],
includes the following components:
. Assessing the problems that may
exist from unaddressed sources -
of contamination-in particular,
leaking storage tanks, surface
impoundments, and landfills;
. Issuing guidelines for EP A
decisions affecting groundwater
protection and cleanup.
DEP Health Advisories are guidance
criteria for drinking water.
MM-I-3
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
The groundwater quality in
the vicinity of the site and
adjacent wetlands will be restored
under the remedy.
The selected remedy will address risks
-------
Chemical
Potential Chemicals of Concern
Volatile Organic Comoounds
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroelbane
Dichloroelbylene (cis-I,2)
Dichloroelbylene (trans-I.2)
I,I-Dichloroelbylene
1,2-Dichloroethone
Ethylbenzene
Melbylene Chloride
Melbyl Elbyl Ketone
Melbyl bobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
I,I,I-Trichloroethane
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl Chloride
Acid & Buc/Neutral Extractable Organics
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo( a)pyrene
Chrysene
Di( ethylhe x y I)phtha late
Diethylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Melals
--,;ntimony
A nenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
TABLE MM-I (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARa. CRITERJA.. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
MEDIUM: GROUNDWATER
IIHI HVANT AND APPROPRIATE
Safe DrinkinS Waler Act
Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCIA)(ug/l)
Fedenl 40 CPR 141 i Slate
(MCL'sJ 310 CMR 22.00
5
10
100
1
5
100
5
5
1000
5
200
2
0.1
0,2
0.2
4
6
6
SO.
4
5
100
\,300(a)
200
15(")
2
100
SO
2
Safe DrinkinS Wiler Act
Maximum Contaminant
Levels Oolla (MCLOaK.ourII)
Pedenl40CFR 14iM
o
10
100
1
o
100
o
o
1,000
o
200
o
o
o
o
o
o
6
o
o
5
100
1.300(1)
200
2
100
SO
0.5
I
b
BFA action lev<;l- source: June 21, 1990 EPA memonndum from Henry Longest and Bruce Diamond to Patrick Tobin.
The remedy will comply with only nOlI-zero MCLGs.
5519-6~-6934
MM-l-4
Resource Conservltion
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Pederal40 CFR 264.94 (ugJIJ
SO
10
SO
SO
2
10
-------
~
Potential Chemicals
of Concem
Volatile Or8anic Compounds
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Dichloroethylenes
I.I-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Kctone
Methyllaobutyl Ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
I. I. I-Tri\,hloroethane
Telrahydrof'uran
Vinyl Chloride
Acid &; Buc/Ncutral Extractable Or8anics
Anthraccne
Benzo(a)anthraccne
Benzo( a)f1uoranthracene
Benzo( a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene
Di( ethy Ihcxyl)phthalate
Diethylphthalatc
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
PyrellC
Mctals
----xRtimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
TABLE MM-I (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRII'ERIA. ADVISORIES. AND OUIDANCE
MEDIUM: SURFACE WATER
CLEAN WATER ACT (CW A) - WATER OUALfIY CRI1ERIA
TO BE CONSIDERED
For Protection of Human Heallb
Water and FISh FISh ~u~tion
Insestion (u8ll) Onl u
0.66 . 40
0.033 I.8S
0.94 243
1.400 3.280
0.80 8.8S
14,300 424.000
2.7 80.7
18.400 1,030,000
2 S2S
3SO,OOO
42
1,800.000
S4
146 4S.000
0.0022 0.017S
0.0037 0.0641
10
170.000 3,433.000
200
SO
0.144 0.146
13.4 100
10
SO
13 48
(a) Valuc shown corresponds to a hardness of 100 mg/l as CaCOJ.
(b) Proposed criteria.
5519-6n1~-6934
MM-I-5
For Protection of Aquatic Life(a)
Freahwaler Acultc/
Chronic (uRII)
S.3OO/-
11.600/-
11.800/20,000
32.000/-
S,280/840
17.SOO/-
4S.000/2l,900
3.980/-
3016~3(b )
88/30(b)
13O/S3
3.9/1.1
1.7001210
18/12
221S.2
8313.2
2.4~.012
1.400/160
2O/S
4.1~.12
1400/40
-------
. TABLE MM-l (Cont'd)
CHEMlCAL-SPBClFIC ~. CRITERIA.. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
TO BE CONSIDERED
Cancer Noncarcin0r.nic Effects - RfDs4
USEPA Drinkin8 Water Health Advisoriesl Potency pactors3 Accepta Ie Intakes
Chemicals Detected (m~8Id!\y) (maJk8ld!\y) (m8lk8lday)
In Groundwater and I-day 10-day Long-Term~ Life Tune Oral Inhalation Oral Route Inhalation Route Oral Inhalation
Surface Water Sample QWJI (U811110 k8) (uaJII10 k8) (uaJll70 k8) R!nIR ~ Subchronic Qu:wk Subchronic ~ ~ ~
V olatile Ot:8anics (AlS) (AlC) (AIS) (AlC)
Acetone NA NA NA NA NA 1.00 .100 30.00 3.00 .100 NA
Chloroethane NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA 3
Methylene Chloride 10,000 2,000 NA NA .013 .0063 NA .060 NA NA .06 3 mglm
l,l-Dichloroethane NA NA NA NA NA 1.20 .120 1.38 .138 IB-l NA
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene 20,000 2,000 2,000 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
l,l,l-Trichlorethane 100,000 40,000 40,000 200 NA NA 3.1 .09 3.1 3.1 .09 NA
Trichlorethylene NA NA NA .0110 .0172 NA NA NA NA NA NA
1,1,2- Trichlorethane NA NA NA .0573 .057 NA NA NA NA .OO4 NA
Benzene 200 200 NA NA .029 .029 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tetrachloroethylene 2,000 2,000 1,000 NA (.0510) 5.2B-7 NA .02 NA NA .010 NA
Toluene 20,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 NA NA .430 .300 1.5 1.5 .2 NA
Bthylbenzene 20,000 3,000 1,000 700 NA NA .910 .100 NA NA .100 NA
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone NA NA NA NA NA .5 .050 .23 .029 .050 NA
Xylenes (Total) 40,000 40,000 40,000 10,000 NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
o-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 NA NA
m-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
p-xylene NA NA NA NA NA 4.0 2.0 .44 .44 2.0 NA
Semi- Volatile Organics
PCBs (Total) NA NA NA 7.7 (Policy) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Aroclor 1248 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Aroc1or 1260 NA NA NA 7.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metals
Cadmium 40 0 5 5 NA 6.~ 1.r.~ .~ NA NA .0005 NA
Chromium 1,000 1,000 240 100 NA 41. 1. NA NA 1.00 NA
Lead NA 20 ug/day 20 ug/day NA NA NA .00140 NA NA NA NA
USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisories, formerly SNARLs, are non-enforceable criteria established by the Office of DrinlcinfJ Water. They are set for levels at which adverse
health effects are not expected. These draft criteria consider only toxic effects, and not the cumulative effects of other chemicals 10 drinking water.
2
3
Longer term health advisories are for exposures ranging from several months to several years and should generally be compared only to estimated short-term concentrations (STC).
Potency Factors are based on toxicity data for potential carcinogenic effects and are derived from Intepated Risk Information System URIS) 1990-1991.
4
RID (Reference Dose) is an estimate (with an uncertainty of one order of magnitude or more) of a lifetime dose which is likely to be without significant risk to human population.
Values were developed by the EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio in mg/kg/day. RIDs are established for specific exposure routes. .
MCL and potency factor given are for chromium.
5
6
Concentration shown is for chromium m (trivalent) and compounds.
5519-6/HAZ-6934
-------
TABLE MM-I (Cont'd)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC MARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GUIDANCE
TO BE CONSIDERED
PE~(6) Allowable Ambl~~t TLV-TW~(4) TLV-S~(5)
Air Contaminants(l) Levels (~)
£uilm lppm) £uilm 1 £uilm ) !u&Lm )
Acetone 2,400,000/1,000 ppm 160.54 20,000 NA(3)
Benzene ------/10 0.12 30,000
Ethyl Benzene 435,000/100 118.04 435,000 545,000
Methylene Chloride 1,736,809/.00 2.4 350,000 1,740,000
Xylene 435,000/100 11.8 435,000 655,000
Trichloroethylene --/100 NX(~\ 270,000 1,080,000
1,l-Dichloroethane --/-- 810,000 1,010,000
Tetrachloroethylene ------/1 00 0.02 335,000 1,340,000
Chloroethane --/-- 358.78
4 Metbyl-2 Pentanone --/-- 55.70 205,000 300,000
2 Butanone --/-- J18) 590,000 885,000
Pentane 295,000/1,000 1,800,000 2,250,000
Toluene --1200 10.24 375,000 560,000
1,1,1- Trichloroethane 1,900,000/350 1,638.37 1,900,000 2,450,000
1,1,2- Trichloroethane 45,000/10 0.06 45,000
2
These air contaminants were detected on-site in samples collected during tbe three-day August 1988 Air Sampling Program.
These levels are cited in the Draft version of the Cbemical Health Effects Assessment Methodology and the Metbod to Derive Allowable Ambient Levels
(Cbem/AAL), DEP, Air Toxics Program. 1989.
3
4
NA - No concentrations available for these chemicals.
TLV - TWA - The Threshold Limit Value - Time Weighted Average is the time-weighted average concentration for a nonnal 8-bour wolt: day and a 40-hour
work week, to which Dearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. The Threshold Limit Values, as issued by ACGrn. are
recommendations and should be used as guidelines for good practices. (Thresbold Limit Values and Biological ~posure Indices for 1987-1988),
TL V - STEL - The Threshold Limit Value - Short- Tenn Exposure Limit is the concentration to which workers can be exposed continuously for a sbort period of
time without suffering from: I) irritation; 2) chronic or irreversible tissue damage; or 3) narcosis of sufficient degree to increase the likelihood of accidental
injury, impair self-rescue or materiaUy reduce work efficiency, and provided that the daily TLV - TWA is not exceeded. The Threshold Limit Values, as issued
by ACGIH, are recommendations and should be used as guidelines for good practices. (Threshold Limit Values and Biological EJq)osure lndices for 1987-1988),
5
6
PEL - Permissible Exposure Limit - These are enforceable limits based on 8-bour time-weighted average concentrations an employee may be exposed to in a
work environment without adverse effect. Limits obtained from NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, September 1985.
5519-6n1~-6934
-------
Location!
Authority
Wetlands!CW A
Floodplains!
CWA
Wetlands!CW A
Groundwater
Protection!
RCRA
5519-6/HAZ-6934
TABLE MM-l
LOCATION-SPECIFIC MARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. AND GUIDANCE
ARAR
Federal- Clean Water Act
(CWA)
Section 404(b}( I);
40 CFR part 230,
33 CFR parts 320-330
Federal Executive Orders
11988
Floodplain Management
40 CFR Part 6
Appendix A
Federal Executive Orders
11990
Protection of Wetlands
STATE - 310 CMR 30.660 Groundwater
Protection. This citation
includes the requirements of
310 CMR 30.661 through 30.673.
SIBnm
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Relevant
and
Appropriate
ReqJJirement Synopsis
Requirements under these codes
prolribit the discharge of dredged
or fill material into wetlands
unless the actions comply with
the substantive requirements which
are identified under these regulation.
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
Discharges to wetlands around the site
will comply with these requirements.
Federal agencies are required to
reduce the risk of flood loss, to
minimize impact of floods, and to
restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values of flood
plains.
Mitigative measures will be taken to
minimize tbe impacts of the imple-
mentation of the remedy on tbe 100-
year floodplain.
Under tbis regulation, Federal
agencies are required to minimize
the destruction, 10ss or degrada-
tion of wetlands, and preserve
and eobance natural and beneficial
values of wetlands.
Wetland protection considerations will
be incotpOrated into the planning and
implementation of the selected remedy.
Groundwater Protection requirements
(310 CMR 30.660) apply to the fol-
lowing regulated hazardous waste
treatment units:
A groundwater monitoring program
which meets the requirements of
310 CMR 30.660 and 310 CMR 30.672
will be implemented throughout the
monitoring period for the site.
. surface impoundments,
. land tteatment units, and
. landfills.
Groundwater protection programs
must be conducted during the active
life of the treatment units iden-
tified above, or after closure if
required by the approved operating
permit. Groundwater momtoring or
corrective action monitoring
(310 CMR 30.672) are required any-
time concentrations of chemicals
in the groundwater exceed levels
established by the department in
accordance with 310 CMR 30.667.
-------
Action!
Authority
Groundwater
Protection!
CWA
5519-6/HAZ-6934
TABLE MM-l (Cont'd)
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES AND GIDDANCE
ARAR
S1atY.s
STATE - 314 CMR 6.00 (promulgated
under MOL Cbapter 21, ss. 27(5),
27(6),27(12» Massachusetts
Groundwater Quality Standards
Applicable
Requirement Synopsis
314 CMR 6.00 establishes groundwater
quality standards which must be met
for various classes of groundwater in
the State of Massachusetts. .
314 CMR 6.03 designates the three
classes of groundwater.
314 CMR 6.06 defines the groundwater
quality criteria which must be met
for each class of groundwater.
MM-I-9
Action to be Taken
to Attain ARAR
In conjunction with the implementation
of SC-6, discharges (direct or indirect)
of effiuent to the groundwaters of
Massachusetts win meet the appropriate
groundwater quality criteria during and
subsequent to implementation of the
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department o'
Environmental Protection
-
~
D E P
William F. Weld
Gowemor
D8nlel S. Greenbaum
Commi:aioner
September 11, 1992
Ms. Julie Belaga
Regional Administrator
u.S. Environmental Protection
J.F.K. Building
Boston, MA
Agency
Re:
State concurrence with
the RQD for the PSC
Resources Superfund site.
Dear Ms. Belaga:
The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has
reviewed the preferred alternative recommended by the u.S. EPA for
the PSC Resources Superfund site in Palmer, Massachusetts. The
Department concurs with the selected remedy.
The Department has evaluated EPA's preferred alternative for
consistency with the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E and the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). ~he preferred alternative
addresses the total site clean-up and includes the following
components:
In-situ stabilization of consolidated. lagoon sediment, wetland
sediment, and property soil;
installation of a permeable cap;
decontamination/demolition of the property structures;
deed restrictions and institutional controls;
natural attenuation of contaminated ground water and long term
monitoring.
The Department has reviewed all the al ternati ves including the
preferred remedy for consistency with M.G.L. CR. 21E and other
state ARARs. As a result of this review, the Department concurs
with the selection of the preferred remedy. Under this remedy, the
reduction of contaminant concentrations in ground water are
expected to achieve drinking water standards through natural
One Winter Street
.
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
.
FAX (617) 556.1049
-------
attenuation, when implemented in conjunction with the source
control component of the preferred remedy. Based on this, the
Department has determined that at this time the preferred
alternative will be considered a temporary solution as defined in
M.G.L. CH 21E and other state ARARs.
As required by the MCP, a temporary solution must include a plan
for developing a permanent solution, include systems to monitor its
effectiveness, and remain effective until a permanent solution is
implemented. The Department, therefore, suggests that the
implementation of the monitoring provisions and institutional
controls be evaluated on a continuing basis, until ground water
attains drinking water standards.
The Department looks forward to working with you in implementing
the preferred alternative. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Martin J. Horne, Project
Manager, at. (617) 292-5716.
47/dL
Dan~el S. Greenbaum
Commissioner
cc:
John Higgins, DEP WERO
Jim Colman, DEP BWSC
steve Winslow, DEP OGC
Lorenzo Thantu, EPA
Tony Kurpaska, DEP WERO
------- |