United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01 -93/084
January 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of
Otis Air National Guard/
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTAT10N \1. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-93/084
2.
3. Recipient's Accnslon No.
4.
TItJ8 and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Otis Air National Guard/Camp
Second Remedial Action
Author(s)
s
Raport Date
01/14/93
Edwards, MA
6
7.
8.
Perfonnlng Organization Rapt. No.
9.
Performing Organization Name and Addl'8S8
10
ProJect TukIWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Add....s
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Raport .. Period Covared
Agency
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Not..
PB94-963708
16. Abstract (Umlt: 200 words)
The 100-acre Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards site is an inactive Federal disposal
facility located on the 22,000-acre Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) within the
boundaries of Falmouth, Mashpee, Sandwich, and Bourne, Massachusetts. Land use in the
area is predominantly residential and light industrial, with an onsite woodlands area.
From the 1940s to 1984, the. U.S. Army, Air National Guard, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy,
Coast Guard, Department of Agriculture Experiment Stations, and the Veterans
Administration used the site for unregulated disposal activities. The Area of
Contamination (AOC) Main Base Landfill Number 1 (LF-1) Source Area is located on the
southern half of the MMR and contains areas of open and heavily wooded terrain. The
area consists of six landfill cells, which are designated by the approximate end dates
of disposal activity. The 1947, 1951, and 1957 cells occupy approximately 40 acres of
the total AOC LF-1 area; while the 1970 Cell, Post-1970 Cell and Kettle Hole landfills
occupy approximately 50 acres-the additional 10 acres includes the space that exists
between the cells. Solid waste disposal in the Post-1970 Cell ceased in June 1989, and
domestic waste disposal at Kettle Hole ceased in 1990. The landfills were covered with
soil to minimize the potential for direct exposure to landfilled waste and
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Dasc:rlptora
Record of Decision - Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards, MA
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (phenols),
metals (arsenic, lead)
b.
IdentllieralOpan-Endad Terms
c.
COSA'T1 Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (thIs Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
86
22. Pr1c8
(S.. ANSI-Z39.18)
s..lnstruef/ons on Rev.,...
OP'T10NAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Fonnerly NTI5-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROI-93/084
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards, MA
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
contaminants. Types of waste disposed of in the landfill cells include general refuse,
fuel tank sludge, herbicides, solvents, transformer oils, fire extinguisher fluids, blank
small arms ammunition, paints, paint thinners, batteries, DDT powder, hospital waste,
municipal sewage sludge, coal ash, and possibly live ordnance. A number of investigations
conducted as part of the Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program,
revealed unacceptable concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, and.inorganics in onsite ground
water. This ROD addresses an interim remedy for the AOC at Main Base Landfill Number 1
(LF-l), as OUI. Future RODs will address long-term cleanup goals to reduce contaminant
concentrations in ground water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
are VOCs, including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including phenols;
and metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes installing a low permeability cover
with a passive gas venting system over the 1970 Cell, Post-1970 Cell, and Kettle Hole;
regrading and revegetating these areas; implementing a semi-annual ground water monitoring
and soil cover inspection program; and implementing site access restrictions such as
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from $27,800,000
to $34,800,000, which includes an estimated total present worth O&M cost ranging from
$2,000,000 to $2,500,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
RECORD OF DECISION
lliTERINI RE:YIEDIAL ACTION
IVIAI1'i BASE LA..""DFILL (AOC LF-l)
SOURCE AREA OPERABLE ~TI
MA..SSACHUSETIS NffilTARY RESERVATION
CAPE COD, ~1ASSACHUSEITS
FINAL
Jk~LJARY 1993
. .
-
.-
~. -' ",: /.~ :~:.:' ".: ,
'\ ~'~iJj~;:i,
". .
'. ..'...-.
. .
. .
..
~5
&z:1rdous W2Ste Remedial Actions Progr:un
O:1k Ridge K-2S Site
O;olc Ric1~~. T.::tncsscc3;8~1-;606 .
M=:o:-.! :-y MARii:-; MAiUE7'rA ENERCY S~"[S. 11Ile.
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROG~'I
RECORD OF DECISION
INTERIl\tI RE1\tIED1-\L ACTION
.!\il-UN BASE lANDFILL (AOe LF-l)
SOURCE AREA OPERABLE UNIT
l'vIASSACHUSETTS rvITLITARY RESERV A nON
CAPE COD, .!\il.\SSACHUSEITS '
FINAL
PrepQl'ed for:
Hazardous \Vaste Remedial Actions Program
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
JManaged by:
Manin Marietta Energy Systems. Ine.
for the
U.S. Depamnent of Energy
Under ContraCt No. DE-ACOS-840R21400
, , ,
. ". . .' -
. ". ..
' , , -..': ' ,', ,:,,' .' ',;: ::: '..' ", '" U,.,.': '. P.,', rep,:~, ~:. ., ',~y~;. ,""~.: ,'~ ,- -",,:. ,~,'~,:','~,~,.'-,',.,'~~-};:,:-":"~;_:;-'~-':'" '~,-:,,~ ~~,_.",;~,';,:',--:':',':~::;~:~,:.,.~,~~::~':"
-:'.',::' ":,.-:'-:".<, ',', ~~ 'EnVironmental Services. hlc.",',' ~,:"c:':;'" ,:~,.::::;~ ':,," , ,C-:',',-: ,,: "
.; ,;,~ .' :;>.-, , Portland, Maine, """::;':;"~,.',,:, 0' " ,,' ,
. .'..."
-, ,:,' ProjeCt No. 703~3 ". ': '",: ,.'. - . . ,>, ", ,:':.',
. :.
..
, '
. -
JA~1..iARY 1993
, - ~
, , '
.": ..
, ,
. . :", :'.' ~ .:
. ..'" .:. .
. "-.
, '
, .
WOO'i'9:!S.oso
-------
9.0
w~.oso
AOC LF-l SOURCE RECORD OF DECISIOi\
~L-\.SSACHVSETTS ~nLIT AR Y RESER VA TIO~
TABLE OF CO~TI:~"S
~on
Title
Pa~e No.
1.0
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION.......... 1-1
SITE NA'vIE. LOC.-\.TIO~. A..'iD DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.0
3.0
SITE IDSTORY ~'iD ENFORCEME~"T ACTIvrnES .......... 3-1
3.1
lk"''D USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
E:-WORCEMENT HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-4
~.,
.J-
4.0
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. ......... ................. 4-1
5.0
SCOPE A~TI ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-1
6.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACfERISTICS .................. 6-1
6.1
62
LA~'DFILL WASTE COI'i"TA..\1INATION AsSESS~1E~"T .......... 6-1
GROL~WATER CONTAMINATION AsSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . .. 6-1
7.0
SUM.."v1ARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-1
8.0
DEVELOP~IE~"T AJ'-ITI SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES...... 8-1
8.1 ST A Tt. "TOR Y .REQUIRE.'vtENTS/REsPONSE OBJECTIVES. . . . . .. 8-1
82 . ALTER.'lATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING..,. ~. .'. '." 8-2
"DES~ON OFAL~~A~..S..<.~.f':?;;:~~:.::<~f:.:.:,~~.. .'
'. 9.1 SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES ANALYiED,~'~,,'., ..:". '.'.'"9-1 :.
9.1.1 . Alternative No.1: Minimal No Action .';', ,';'. . \ , . ~. 9-1.
9.12 Alternative No.2: Cover New Landfill CelIs '" ~ ,- ~ ~'9-1 ','
9.1.3 . . Alternative No:- 3: Cover'AlI Landfill CelIs,., ~'~"-;;;. . "9-2
9.2 GROU:';DWATER CONTAINME1'rr ALTERNATIVES ANALyza) ~. 9-4
.
,.
..
.:-.... ..
. ..
..
. .
, .
. .
.'
. .'"
. .
. ,: '." '. itJ3O.43
-------
AOC LF-I SOURCE RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILIT.-\R Y RESER VA TIOt\'
TABLE OF CO!\TI:~"TS
( cominued)
Secrion
Tirh~
Pa£e ~o.
10.0
Sl:MYfAR Y OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
AL TER~A TIYES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 10-1
10.1 EVALUATIO~ CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS. .. 10-1
10.1.1 Threshold Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 10-1
10.1.2 Balancing Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 0-1
10.13 Modifvin~ Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-2
10.2 SUM~1ARY OF.COMP.A.RATIVE ~~ALYSIS ................ 10-2
10.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Em-ironment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-3
102.2 Compliance With ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 10-3
10.2.3 Long-Term EffeCtiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . .. 10-3
10.2.-1- Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Tnrough
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-4
'10.2.5 Short-Term Effectivene£s ..................... 10-4
10.2.6 . Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-4
10.2.7 Cost.................... ~.......... ...... 10-5
10.2.8 State Acceptance' .................... . . . . . .. 10-5
10.2.9 Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 10-6
11.0
THE SELECTED I~LERIM REMEDY. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. " 11-1
11.1 . CLEAN-UP LEVELS. . . . . . .. . .. ... .. . .. . . . . . . . " .... II-I
11.2 '. DESCRIPTIOI': OF REMEDIAL COMPONE.~ . . .. . . ..'.'. ~.~.. 11-1
. . .
. .
. .
. . : ~ 12.0
. .
. -. . . ,
STAMORYDE-rERMINATIONS ~'~:'.~.~: .~.~~.:. ~~~:':_~:':~. .': . ~~"12-1 ..'
. . ;'';'
"--.. ".
. , ,,' .
. .
. ... - ....
12.1 THE SELEcrm RE.~Y isPROTECI1VE ~F'HuMAN'fIEAi.11i . ."..
AND THE ENVIRONMENT .~.. . . ..,~. '. ~ ~.'. ." . :. . .~ . ., .12-1
12.2 THE SELECTED REMEDY ATTAINS ARARS '."....',.. .', .'.)2-1
. 12.2.1 Location-specific A.RARs . . . . . , , , . . , ,'.. . ~ . . . . .. 12-2
12.2.2 Chemical-specific A.RARs ................,..... 12-2
12.2.3 ACtion~specific A.RARs . . ,'..' . . . . . ~ .~ . . ,', . ". . '. . . . .. 12-2
worm=s.oso
ii
-------
Aoe LF-1 SOCRCE RECORD OF DECISIO!\"
MA.SSACHCSEITS yfILITAR Y RESER VA TIO~
TABLE OF CO~TE~"TS
( continued)
Se:::ion
Title
P::H~e :'oJ"o.
12.3
12.4
THE SELECTED RE:\-tEDlAL Acno~ Is COST-EFFECTIVE. . . . 12-10
THE SELECTED RE:\-tEDY UTILIZES PER.\1A.\1E:'-." SOLLTIONS
AND .-\l.TER!I."ATrVE TRE.~TME:'-.T OR RESOURCE RECOVERY
TECH~OLOGrES TO THE :v1AXI~U~f EXTE~T PRACTICABLE. . 12-11
THE SELECTED RE:\-tEDY DOES ~OT SATISFY THE
PREFERENCE FOR TREATME:'-.T THAT PERMANE~Tl.Y A.~1)
SIGMFlCANTL y REDUCES THE TOXICITY, MOBILITY. OR
VOLL":\-tE OF THE HAZARDOUS SUBST.~'KES AS A PRmCIPAL
ELE~fE~'T ....................................... 12-12
12.5
13.0
DOCL"ME!\'TATIO:\" OF ~O SIGNIFIC.~\''T CH.-\."iGES . . . . . . .. 13-1
1.+.0
COM:\tO~I,VEALTH ROLE. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONn-tS .~'iD ABBRE\tlATIO!'"S
REFERE~CES
.-\PPE~DICES
APPENDIX A -
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C -
ADMI~ISTRATIVE RECORD L\TDEX
COMMONWEALTIf CONCURRE~CE LETTER
RESPONSIVE~ESS SL.y!MAR Y
~...
WOO79::5.080
itIJG.03
-------
3-1
6-1
9-1
WOO7'92:S.080
AOC LF-l SOCRCE RECORD OF DECISIOl\"
yt';'SSACHCSEITS ynLIT AR Y RESER VA TION
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi!rure
Title
PaQ:e No.
2-1
Site Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2
2-2
AOC LF-1 Source Location yfap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-3
PhOtogrammetric Map Sho\l;ing Disposal CeLls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 3-3
Imerpretive Horizontal Distribution of Solvent Plume. . . . . . . . . . " 6-4
Landfill Cover System Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9-3
IV
-------
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
9-3
12-1
12-2
12-3
WOO79~.080
AOC LF-l SOCRCE RECORD OF DECISrO!\i
.'vfASSACHUSETTS MILIT.~ Y RESER VA no!':
LIST OF TABLES
Tahi~
Tirle
6-1
Pa~e ~
Summar:; of Laboratory Analyrical Groundwate:- ResultS from the
]947, ]951, and 1957 Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6.
6-2
Summar::: of Laborarory Analyrical ResultS for October 1989
Groundwater Sampling at the I970Ce!J and Ke:tJe Hole. . . . . . . - - - 6.,
6-3
Summary of Laboratory Analyrical ResultS for April 1990
Groundwater Sampling at the 1970 Cell and Kettle Hole. . . . . . . . " 6-i
6-4
Summary of Laborarory Analyrical Groundware:- ResultS from the
POSt-1970 Cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6-8
6-5
Summary of Laboratory Groundwater Analyrical ResultS from rhe
Downgradient MO"Jtoring Wells. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6.9
Contamin..,,, of Concern in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ,.3
Summary of Carcinogenic and :--;6ncarcinogenic Risks from
Exposure to Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 7.5
COSt Summary Table for Alternative 1 ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9-5
COSt Summary Table for Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9-6
COSt Summary Table for Alternative 3 """ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9-7
Locarion-Specific AR-uts, Crireria. Advisories. and Guidance
. . . " 11-3
Chemical-Specific AR~s, Criteria. Advisories. and Guidance. . . " 12-4
Potential Action-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . " 12-6
v
-------
SECTIO:" 1
1.0 DECL\RATIO~ FOR THE RECORD OF DECISIO~
SITE ~.-\..YfE .-\.. "D LOCA nON
The \Iassachusem \lilitary Reservation (\fMR) on Cape Cod. ~lassachuse~:.s. :ies
within the boundaries or Falmouth. \Iashpee. Sand\l,;ich. and Bourne. Tne A:e~ of
Comamination (AOC) ~1ain Base Landfill ~umber 1 (Lf-l) Source Area is ioc~:ed
on the sourhem half or \lYt"R and is bounded by Tur;>emine and Frank Pe:-K.:ns
Road to the east and west. and Herbert Road and Conne=:-' Avenue to the norch :lI1d
south. respectively.
ST..; TEylE~l OF BASIS .-\..'\;'"D PCRPOSE
This documem presentS the selected interim remediai action for the \l:VIR AOe
LF-I Source Area chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environme:::al
Response. Compensation. and Liabiliry Act (CERCL.;,I of 1980. as amended by :he
Supe:iund AmemirnentS and Reauthoriz:lrion Act or 1986. To the extent practic:loie.
the :\ational Contingency Plan (NCP) \....as considered. This decision to select :his
interim remedial action is based on the administrative record file for this site. ",,'rich
was developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCL~ and is availabie :or
public review at the information repositOries located at: (1) the Falmouth Public
Library. Falmouth. MassachusettS: (2) the Air ~ational Guard (ASG) Instaii:n!on
Restoration Program Office at Otis A..'\G Base. MassachusettS: and (3) the C.S.
Environmental ProteCtion Agency (CSEPA) Regional Office at 90 Canal Street.
Boston. Yt"assachusetTS. The attached index (Appendix A) identifies the items in ~e
Administrative Record upon which the selection of a remedial action is based. Tne
Commonwealth of MassachusettS concurs with the selected remedial action (see
Appendix B).
ASSESSME~l OF AOe LF-l.S0L"RCE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this AOe. if :lot
addressed by implementing the remedial aCtion selectee in this Record of Decision
(ROD), may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health.
welfare. or the environment.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79::.5.OS0 .
1-1
-------
SECTION I
DESCRIPll0!\i OF THE SELECTED INTERI\f REMEDY
In summary, the interim remedy consists of the folIo\',;incr:
- - :>
.
constructing a landfill cover system .on .he 1970 Cell. Post-1970 Cell.
and Kettle Hole
.
conducting post-closure maintenance and monitoring of the cover
system for a minimum of 30 years aiter construction is complete
.
monitOring landfill gas and groundwater quality semiannually from
existing and proposed wel1 locations at AOC LF-1
.
reviewing the performance of the remedy every five years after
implementation
Tnis operable unit interim remedial action will minimize infiltration and percolation
of precipitation through the 1970 Cell, Post-1970 Cd!. and Kettle Hole. Selection
of a final remedy will depend on the stUdy of the AOC LF-1 groundwater plume and
investigation of AOCs downgradient of LF-l. Tne interim and final remedies
proposed must be consistent with the clean-up goals established for the entire MMR
site.
ST.-\TLiORY DETERMINATIONS
This interim aCtion is proteCtive of human health and the environment complies with
federal and state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requiremems (ARMs)
for this limited scope action, and is cost-effective. Because this ac:ion may not
constitUte the final remedy for the AOC LF-I Source Are::!.. the statutory preference
for remedies that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment as a
principal element, although panially addressed in this remedy, will be addressed by
the final remedial acrion. Subsequent aCtions are planned to fully address the threatS
posed by conditions at this operable unit. Because this remedy v.iIl result in
hazardous subStances remaining on-site. a review will be conduCted to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment every five years after commencement of the remedial action. Because
this is an interim action ROD, review of this site and this remedy wil1 be continuing
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79::.5.080
1-2
-------
SECTION. 1
as the National Guard Bureau (NGB) continues to develop final remedial
alternatives for the AOC LF-l source operable unit.
The foregoing representS the selection of an interim remedial action by the
Department of Defense, NGB, and CSEPA Region L with concurrence of the
Commonwealth of MassachusettS.
::~art~~
Ronald WatSon. P.E.
Chief, Environmental Division
Air National Guard Readiness Center
Date:
Y' fi/-?' /j?y?--S
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
~~ 4~
Bv: ~~
. . Belaga G
~egiona1 Administrator
()
Dat~.
({ Iff 3
I
Installation Restoration Program
WOO7V'~.08O
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
2.0 SITE ~A.yIE. LOCATION, Ai'lD DESCRIPTION
;Vly!R is a :--';ational Priorities List (~PL) site. There are currentlv 77 areas within
~lyfR that are under investigation. Some of these areas have b~en grouped into
operable unitS for remediation purposes. This ROD relates to the interim remedial
action for the AOe LF-1 Source Area.
~IylR. which lies within the boundaries of Bourne. Falmouth. Ylashpee. and
Sandwich. MassachusettS. occupies approximately 22.000 acres (Figure 2-1) and
consists of several cooperating command unitS: Massachusetts Al"JG. Massachusetts
Army :--';ational Guard. u.S. Air Force (USAF), Veterans Administration (V A). and
C.S. Coast Guard (CSCG). The site is described in more detail in the focused
feasibility stUdy (FFS) (ABB Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992b). The CSAF
managed the base until 1973. when base management. was transferred to the A'\TG.
The NGB is proposing an interim remedial plan. referred to as a preferred
alternative. to address AOe LF-1 source control (Figure 2-2). This ROD
recommends a merhod of minimizing further contamination from occurring using
containment options evaluated during the FFS.
Property usage surrounding MMR is primarily residential and light industrial in each
of the surrounding tOwns.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO~:::S.080
2-1
-------
r~ 30srcn
. .
! .,/} r:;:. - -;:::-.....
\V/ \\ ~~
,\\:--p:,~ "'" "~,;::,...~\'~
~"! '- /' "
,\,cc~., \ \ "
. \\ \\ \\
, , ' '
o I ,if \
. 9 -', ;1;' ~:I !7'\\
~ \ 'f' " .' :.. .
\ 'I)' .
,,\ :::'.' : ,\'
I,"'. "
;/ ~oe ':~a C ~.-:" \~~ \\,\
C anal...... .(ji~ "", ~/
To /,.. " ' "{' '" ----~ ,
N_£ledtord~~' ; (~\/';/.! .i~M.::'.;Jg;"N'-~ ---- ----~~ )-" (
~. ?) :~' CURNE.'h<~.:.;' ,,' J,,~/
(/r-rf/-P \: i ....'L,s' '- ./ -' _~CAP~OD
" ,',." ,,' '< -0-
I ,,/ ..., ' .
/,)'= -, ' -.:/
, / fi ~ .. ",;-- OH,o..
; ,II I \., t "'r- -::::::..:::: ':!/""' IS ,. """'
\ ( I.'FA'-~CU- : i' ~::::--~' '"
, ,H: ~ '-- >
" J7~.P= ~
~--~--
SITE LOC
I ATION MAP
Aoe
LF-t
ROO FIGURE 2-1
7= TO SCALE
-------
r MASSACJ04USCTTS ~ .-_-~.........., ~ \V I{ ff. '1'"'1, '... -.';--t~ / ~p'l
MILITARY" , ~' -. "".;" I "':,- ,n" .. ~', .' 1-.-, ;:"." '~'\
RESERVATJOH ' >', - -'~-' ", I! ~ /, I i""-;;...-"'~'\
r\ :"', ) ~ -::-; ',:~- -~'~>k..:~~-J\.., .:.:.::- :,:..,-.~:""- ,~.v,., <\ '
~~. ''.t ,....:..- 7 '.. ,- '~/ (,../' -".;. / ~',....., - V;elca "
.~ -\ ...~".s'! ,~-, ..".. G,..... "'t;':;- '~'" ,_or ~ -'" ~ \ "
J I I ~::.- - .......--. ..-'-:'" ,...... ':- '-''''.... .-.... . ."0 -.~
( . ~ ,.,~n;: -. ,Yo,' ..r ........ y, ,-/::::./...- - "
I I j..",...c ~.:.:..-:..~('... ' ':. " I ~~" ,,"', )/C, ...j-'::;"':::..,' 'i!'
I ,"'" ~~~J""ct"""~;;;;':~' ~~. J- "~'/"-";--,~ ~:,-y....,.,
/ ... - ''''o;-~<;!~:':';i:-,..:..,,:''''; , '/ l:. .1",' ..:....- '.. '.'''' .',\"'.::'~
" LF'1 / ~ c:: :-/':"~~".)':-::-:::', ' .' '/ : '-"'.~. " . ":;---- -
, . ...-'\, ~ )~~,::;~:~~~D#,~~'f!',~:::"~~::'-::"~~I ,; "',,:,::. -:fi-: - ' ,',.' 0
,~'~--,~"',J; i:~~/,:f_~~.f!~,e,~:Ti~,~,~lW~/~i'...',/~~, -;:[~,':'~~~~' 'N.,., ..."~,~~:~"; ,
, .. ~", ..' ,.,,'1,,'" ,- ""<"'"-:,-:,,,~~,,;:-~ l'!r "., 0.. OJ ,,~,1
#:1~~~!!.!~;:Z!;}: ""(~~fz:~ - . -
::~,~,,-, -~. '-:.../-----'t.q~~~'::":;;:/;1~~q;;-~, '~...;-~" '........~,! C):, "
-.,. .- - "!J~. . ",.11 ,'''11;-' 'J;' . ........- .
' :i..~,'~ [1-: - - ,- ,"':~..... "., - ,~.. :, '
~y '- ,/.,,' -~ " .. - ,'/'
"".,..... " - '-. 'a.:,", /~(~. - -~ ;: ~ ~ ~. '''!>." -
"- ~~~U'" l;~/~~'V:~~~~ '-'Ja-~~~~'<.-- :::'~~ 1-=
O:,~ , T ':-I,I~~S.~j;~~"'.':';~"r/':-l.i~~~,~ro "-~ ;,..~~ E -;:'-B~~:-'
",,- :... ;. - ../-">a/{f-, . ;'~, --" Ii'.' "-~ - -, ' -.J.~ s
'"" -, ~ ~ ,.., '.", -.r '. ~ '-.,...
~~-~ ~..£ ~..~ .-~',' ",,-'''' ,:!', i" / ..........~~,
=.-::;, ,/ --... ,;, ", ' ,.... '," " -~-::::::.
:, 0'" ':.;..:~/ ~ '" "".//, " --~. . ,. ,:.. I " ''''''''''.;,,''
l' /, - - . ~~ ... -'-- ..'~. :- /'. & .
\ . ,I' ",,""~" I/tf. " ' " /. -'-;:...-..... ,. ,"" '... '....
n_~ ','lff''', ,', - ~ " , - '" ' """ --. '
i ""'-WU"P"""W" :1~" ~.",............. .. ..,,. ."':.. / .. "
) ~.. ' -(,,,~,, -:-0_""">.. - ;~,....:~ "":"'- . T_. . .~ ',.' ......
::/l :- I;£,~':/~~--::,;;'.,I.t~~?/~~>.~,'..J ~,-:- I "f, ..,,:;'.::.: ,.~-
-'~'" '"-;."r., " .~ 'f"::"" "~'''':':';:'- -' .'
~ ".: .._J:I........~ ., - "':'~":' .', ...:~ l.~~':;','. ,~ / ,', ,... ','! -"~
~~ "\".;: ;, - ",,-,:.~,~,-.;, "', ~::l, -
~': jl \;;. i,'~ i ,< ~... . I , ~ -""".:!, ,; ;. --:;-
-:"='3=-' ~.\u I~ ' '~S-,-~ -')....'. ~~":'I /.' I :;--, ;;'~",
-- -... .'" - . ., '~ - .. ../ " .. " ~
C&aD8IIIJ......~ . -'llA. ., :....,.":\ -I ' I ~ .I -" -;:-.;~ "~-'"
::..eft \~.\." -, .g.~ - ,,-.. .~~ .' I" /" .., ~ ''''''1 ."c
- -.~':""'," - "j:"" " . , " -', , ,t..--"
to :..,' ,~ . '1'11 '< "'/.:' " I r-..... ,~.., -, "
.iI I"., /' I Goot ::"...,Ie' ,~.. ", / ,f. "":~-" ' , / .....
'.'",'~ ::'.:~J/.Y:~" ~ ".- ~ ~ ". ~! /':-' "'.. / ~
.: ~ . " , .r... ',' -" "'?.~'-- ~ . . '~' ,l i/ .. . / - ~
~ '4, ~. ' ~-......~~ ..""'" /.;,,, ~--~
~ '",,~'':'_::''~~-;:~-'i!._aC~~1. ~s" '- ," , : /' ~ ~~~ ~
",-\{,~~~/-~';"Li!:. ~':'O=2,,:'?'\-~:I,~::;.._(-~'.~'JO~~""~(i ::rf.-..~~::.:- _i~~' .
- ;. - , '.:J ." ", . ,-' ,",w , ' .' , ........ ....... -- - J/
-'..:,I:i-',' - , Jp' ~ '>D'" r;:J ""~::":::,,=~ II ,,: ;~_..........,~.r
""" """;.' ........... ~ V..' 0 .#.- . ";.'. -~-.,~---
". '- '- -:," ~~".. ""'''''':::''':> ,'" --.. '"\ t ~~ ---, .......
~~ '-; ,- " - ."..""", ~,r -, , - / ......,....' .....r- /~, ,'.. \.. ..
-~\~. .,J.. :..-/~' ~~~,,~'~=~'J ('...\ '-"p~04ta / ':~"~I
- ..' ./1 -....:'" ~-',-' --.... \0' 6' ~-,."oe..y,., '."" :,
, ' ; . r; '........ '~, ~ ':.:,/'0'"" !"'''''o~,So~- -,:Go.-
;' - _..~f.!-..-... :......... '-"'" ~.~.......... ~) \. i_' ~"".....::::::::= ".If . . ".', o.t
" rJ ' -~.... " , -.., \ ~.....":':.,-..... s~ , y ~co....." . ----
'..... . :...-: Gr.... o.r -' , " ',~ V """~'." .:J,SCQSa. A" -r---\'''' , .. ' ...,
~~ ,..: ~., ~ ~ ....".....,., g . ~ ~' ~, - , . " ,J
;?e; '-::"~_u.,,.: ,:..,~,,:j ..."-~ ":--~--;:;~'Z', j} \I'~"'~~1'~"'-~':'F
. J.'-' ,.' ,''i',''.,;.." , ~ " . .~ ~,-69,~ ''';': >.~ \ '.~ :::: -'~ ;.-~~. .. ,~
~ .." . '-:.~, " . ...-0, ~..S~""'ts. o~. ~ A.. ';'tu,uC ~\' ':' -,.-..:",:, ~:,:".':) T, - ;?-;
,,- "0 .-' ..-. ' -, '-.I . ..~--'~.,- -'"
',~, ~;~ '-;-" ~ ......, ..:-:__-:~Q.;:'~\: Pond \~'~:'.. ",'" '=."
~.....; : ~, '. :~ - .. ,.-~;~7i~~~;'; \ ~~.: ::: i ~ P
.., .j ..-. . .....'!""----- ..- -' .. .\.
SOURce: USGS QUADRANGLE. j~ 1.1. ASS Environmental I
POCASSET. UA.. ,.,.... Services Inc,
7.$ -.uTE SERIES AKA--
I
AOC LF-1
SOURCE LOCATION MA,I
SCALE IN FEET
I
o
7030-43
, 2.000
:
4,000
IIISTA~no.. II£STOAAT1QN ~GIt-
".&..~TTS -.srAWr tlleSERYAT10fIlI
Aoe Lf.1
ROD
FIGURE 2..
2-3
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
SECTION 3
3.0 SITE HISTORY ~~D E~rORCE:\-IE:\T ACTIVITIES
In accordance ""1th SeCtion 117(a) of CERClA. the :'\iGB is publishing this ROD to
address public comment on the selected interim containmem alternative. known as
a remedial alternative. considered for AOC LF-l Source Area as the interim remedy.
The ~GB, in consultation with L'SEPA. considered public comments as part of the
final decision-making process for selecting the remedy for AOC LF-l Source Area.
This ROD summarizes results and conclusions of the FFS and the Proposed Plan.
In response to en\iironrnemal contamination that has occurred as a result of the use,
handling, storage. or disposal of hazardous materials at military installations across
the united States. the DOD initiated investigation and clean-up activities under the
IRP. The IRP parallels the Superfund program and is conducted in the following
seven stages:
.
identification of potential hazardous waste sites
confirmation of the presence of hazardous materials at the site
determination of the type and extent of contamination
evaluation of alternatives for clean up of the site in the FFS
proposal of a clean-up remedy in the Proposed Plan
seleCtion of a remedy
implememation of the remedy for clean up of tbe site
.
.
.
.
.
.
Both private sector and federal facility sites are eligible for placement on the USEPA
NPL which is used to prioritize investigations and responses at hazardous waste sites.
MMR was added to the NFL on November 21. 1989. Private seCtor sites placed on
the NPL are eligible to receive funding from the nation's environmental trust fund
(i.e., Superfund). and are often called Superfund sites. Federal military facilities such
as MMR receive funding from the DOD Defense Environmental Restoration
Account.
3.1 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY
Aoe Lf-l Source Area. which occupies approximately 100 acres of open to heavily
wooded terrain. has operated since 1944 as the primary solid waste disposal facility
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79~.08O
3-1
-------
SECTION 3
at MMR. From the late 19405 until 1984. unregulated disposal activities were
conducted by the L.S. Army. ,,-\.SG, L"SAF. L'.S. \'avy, USCG. L.S. Depanment at
Agriculture Experiment Stations. and VA. From 1984 to 1990. the .~\;G has
regulated disposal at AOC LF-l as a component of the MMR Hazardous Waste
Management Plan.
Disposal at the landfill reportedly occurred in five distinct cells and a natUral Kettle
Hole (Figure 3-] I. Tne cells are designated by the years represeming tbe
approximate end date of waste disposal. which were estimated by reviewing historical
aerial photographs (ABB Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992a). The six disposal
areas include the 1947. 1951. 1957. 1970. and POSt-1970 cells, and the Kettle Hole.
The interpreted location of the landfill cell boundaries is based on: (1) review of
hiStorical aerial photographs taken by the base: (2) review of the basewide aerial
survey data coJJected in April 1990: (3) field reconnaissance surveys that indicated
landfilled areas delineated by existing topography. and comparisons of the age of
vegetation in landfill cell areas (regroWth) versus undisturbed areas and geophysical
survey of the five landfill cells: and (4) personal communications with landfill
operators.
Tne 1947. 1951. and 1957 cells occupy approximately 40 acres of the toral AOC LF-1
area. while the 1970 Cell. Post-19iO Cell and Kettle Hole occupy approximately
50 acres. The additional 10 acres is comprised of the space betWeen ceJJs. The
deoth of waste burial has not been determined accuratelv. but is estimated to be
ab~ut 20 feet below ground surface for the tWo cells: the depth to waste in the Kettle
Hole is unknown (E.C. Jordan Co.. 1988 and 1990).
Accurate documentation of wastes landfilled at AOC LF-1 does nor exist. The
wastes are believed to include general refuse, fuel tank sludge. herbicides. solventS.
transformer oils. fire extinguisher fluids. blank small arms ammunition. painrs. paint
thinners. batteries. dichlorodiphenyltr.chloroethane (DDT) powder. hospital wastes.
municipal sewage sludge. coal ash. and possibly live ordnance. Recent wasre disposal
practices and the existing surface topography at older cell areas indicate that the
trench method was used for landfilling in the five cells. Refuse was buried in linear
trenches and covered daily \\lth soil excavated from the trench. At the Kettle Hole.
wastes were dumped into the center from the top edge.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19:::.s.080
.. .,
.)--
-------
1, '( U '\ ~( ~BERT ~',=~ ~ RCA':: ./-- =-
$ ,--. -.J. --=. ~
~' ) \, ~\ -' ) . . i Ii )7\ ) f - -.. ';':! I
~~/ . ;,~./--- - ~1.~ ~1"'9/!51 ,y \.....-.( ~:.~".c: POST~ ,:1. ) r:
"~:~/ .;" ./""~t ~r ,-:- 1970 f,~.
::,.?140 j/;::1Q4-7~': ':.\\_\ h ~ 1 ~~::..... .., ~.../,.I "j
. , " -.., ~ ,.. \ I """ ~ " '~", -'. .,[~, .
. ./~ ;.:--., ~\\' ~; '\ '.\ '~j" I ,.,., ,:~~v.: '-":'-'-- :;~' .
'\".Ji --J ~ - \\ ~. \.- J~' (~ 'I :' '-,-'," so' ~
\ .~,.,. ~ ~ r,t,r ;.c <-~) ~I~--_~ ~:, ':} I"'~'~'::~~\ ~ ", ~ il
. ~~ ~ ~- ) ~\ ' I,r:-.,(:J....-.' " : ~ ' ,if' ':111
~:, '~~ /?~ KETTL;: / . '..,-~~=-': / J)!j'
, I ~'-~ ,.I / /'" ~-\ '- ~~ .' -~~ - '-.:- .,JUj
,,,""~l{('W 1957 ~~' ~, .;fc( ~ i1{'i'Ji
.,\:.~, A\~~' ;--. - '-f; ~.\ \' ~':"'~' 13~ ) ~;t! '''~'" ~ ,:~:i;~
, ~.. I'I( /. ~. ~,-\ -., -' '1_~:' /<::.. ~\r,',
~::, ~C ~~ .:: -- \ . ' .' ,'~, ~ .. ',HO~E j ''j~r';,9- ::' li
~~~~--;~ . . L/.?-..;c~'/ r (!i ~; k,'! I~ J//.- !" r:
. \,:. /_._-~....... \'Gi' ~-../'-..." \, ~;, i~\\' ,j;' >~~.- .' H
\ { ~K" -,,"" " '" Y'";-::;~-r . \ . ~ . --... "-d\ 1'1 ,
'I,¥'.\ ~ \ I.... ~ . ,~ ' : '.\ . 1 e' ',9CRRCW PIT _I - ~ f
\[: ~"\ - ~\ '\~: ~)~ \~ i "0~~.'~~~'III/;...
.,~ - 7-~':- \\ -) \ \...1 i ~~~..:.,~ .~~ /,,~
\~,' ' Q ~V . . ' --~o..;-.-..:. ' j:: :lle
\~'\ -> .-... "-~' i ~ ... :';-j' - ~ \\ ''':'~\ 0\),~ J,j ~
. ''-'0A''-- c::... \ 1 0" 1 ~ -' ~ '.. "I.t C
%\. .-/ ~}9!O:) 1: ~~~:' / '." ,: ,~\)\ ":~~';:.L:t/~
c:.a\ ~ 2 ..~ .' '", - : (~'~"I'::::
...~ ~,. \ . ',. .: 'f''l.':~
~.., .~-....~ ~ ~' .' ~. / .."...~
o~~~~~o ~~~K' J-r:!;~~~~~1
-, '. -.;: \ --.oJ' J ","" -."..- ./:'/ /~ ,.'
~ \ ":" - "'-"" I 1//" :.-- /,// Lt..'
~i \;~'" . 5- ~, '- ~ /~= (,~?/ / / /' (~~/" ;~'-'-
-:. ,'. \~, ~ ....:.I ':.Xi --:; - "JI_.....; .....' --;. , & '
:\~,{~\r-\:\~ :-:Jt[-)..~; /(;j h:f, -.,~
" . = ,~" II: 1 ~ .~.. n,. t"/ r'/.-"'::,., /'~
\~'=~i~/~\, ',\\ '\II:~~~~/L.(/- ~~t~~l:?f~ ~o%
~f/;~ ~\\~ h.~\ / 7,11 :::-,-':J/J,;:;'t7l#!.~"
S~ ~ ~~ ~\.~~ 1/1.'~7--''-'~/~'~fJh'~).':'" eN
.~\ ~. \" ~, :.'tC\-- ..."FII/ j ;1/; Ii.'
-=-:'- .:'~- .::.. ~ '(0: '...;:. '/.' :.J_,-'.
-.,. ------ \ --:;:,,' '.
COHH~y -AV~ue--=~~ ~
C!U. ICUMJAAY (~~INI~: I:.U ~.. I'IIS1"CAIC JI9oICTt)GRAp,oosl
\
I f3QQ ..(
,0. "
i~
I
I
LEGENC
~ .--'
S::A~ IN FEE:'
-,,.-'"
~.... a.,:;-VATlCN
(ABOVE MSL)
=-rcUA :NTERVAL:: J:'I=..Ei'
-
o
200
.0
----
I ;
----
I.,Cc:.~:r.eN5 OF FORIIER
~.JRES Of: ~RI~ : I
SITE c:s. f (USAF ..cTt:R
POQ,,)
I
i
I
I
I
l
7030.03
Jl 1.1. ABa =~rcnmer.taJ
......... Services. Inc.
---
F'HOTOGMAMMETRIC M~
SHOWING DISPOSAL CEl.
811STA~r.CPI "t!r.-......t1C.. ~CIIIA"
."'S1"'<:1-~~ ~T.&"" AeRl'".T:C"
I Aoe LF-t '
!
FIGURE 3-
3-3
POOR QUALITY
-------
SECTION 3
In June 1989. solid wasre disposal in the Post-1970 ceIl ceased. Domestic waste
disposal at the Kettle Hole ceased in 1990: construction debris from on-base building
demolition will cease prior to cap construction. Solid waste has since been sent to
a transfer station on \IMR. with final disposal at the SE\L~SS incineratOr in
Rochester, MassachusettS: this is the currem solid waste disposal pracrice for M~IR.
Previous investigations conducted to characterize AGC LF -1 Source .-\rea include a
records research completed in 1983; an initial site inspection (51) in 1985; and a
geophysical investigation in 1986 (Metcalf and Eddy. Inc.. 1983: R.F. Weston. Inc..
1985; and E.c. Jordan Co.. 1988). A second phase of the SI was completed in 1988
and a Remedial Invesrigation (RI) in 1989 (E.c. Jordan Co.. 1990; and ABB
Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992a).
3.2 E~TORCEME:vr HISTORY
The NGB has followed CSEPA guidelines for most of the IRP investigations
conducted at MYIR since 1986 and for all investigations completed since 1989.
Placement on the NPL has not necessitated substantive changes in the overall
technical approach to remediation studies. However. upon formalization of the ~ 1'L
status. the NGB entered into an Interagency Agreement with CSEPA and USCG on
July 17, 1991. to define responsibilities, documentation requirements. and futUre
regulatory interaction regarding remedial activities at MMR under CERCL~
authority. The Al\lG is the NGB component directly responsible for carrying out
~GB's responsibilities under the agreement.
Installation Restoration Program
\1."00191::5.080
3-4
-------
SECTION ~
4.0 COy[\IL~ITY PARTICIPATIO~
Throughout MMR's history. community concern and involvemem has been high. The
NGB and USEPA have kept the community and other interested parties apprised of
site acti\ities through informational meetings. fact sheets. news releases. public
hearine:s. and Technical Environmental Affairs Committee (TEAC) meetin!!s. The
TEAC-was organized in 198b by the NGB to provide a forum for pubiic i~put on
MMR remedial response activities. Membership on the TEAC comprises CSEPA.
Massachusetts Depanmenr or Environmental Protection (~lADEP). and
representatives from local. regional. and state groups. Beginning with the OctOber 7.
1992. TEAC meeting, members of the public could request attendance as observers
through their TEAC representative.
During \lay 1991. the M\IR community relations plan was released: this outlined a
program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed and involved in
the remediation process at M~1R.
On June 30. 1992. the ;\GB made the administrative record available for public
review at NGB's IRP Office. Otis AJ."iG Base. MassachusettS: USEPA's offices in
Boston. Massachusetts: and the Falmouth Public Library. Falmouth. Massachusetts.
The ~GB published a nOtice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the Cape
Cod Times. and in the FalmouthjMashpeejBourne Enterprise on June :6. 1992.
The ~GB made the FFS and Proposed Plan available to the public at Falmouth
Public Library and the administrative records locations.
On June 30. 1991. the !'1GB held an informational meeting at Bourne High School
in Bourne. MassachusettS to discuss the results of the field investigations and the
clean-up alternatives presented in the FFS and to present the Proposed Plan. Also
during this meeting, the ~GB answered questions from the public. From July 1 to
August 29, 1992. the NGB h~ld a 3D-day public comment period with a 30-day
extension. to accept public comments on the alternatives presented in the FFS and
the Proposed Plan. On July 22. 1992. the :"1GB held a public hearing to discuss the
Proposed Plan and to accept any oral commentS. A transcript of this hearing and the
NGB's responses to the comments are included in the responsiveness summary (see
Appendices C and D).
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79~.080
4-1
-------
SECTIO~ 5
5.0 SCOPE A..' D ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIO~
The proposed remedy was selected to take action to protect human health and the
environment in the short term while additional information is collected to better
assess the response of the aquifer and contaminantS to remediation effortS. Thus the
selected remedy is an interim remedy. The interim remedy will operate for a
minimum of five years. during which time a final remedial action plan for AOC LF-l
Source Area will be developed. A final ROD for AOC LF-1 Source Area ""ill be
based on the data collected during the design. operation. and monitoring of the
interim remedy and the findings of further characterization of the groundwater
downgradiem of 1947, 1951. and 1957 cells. Additional interim actions may be
proposed if data collected prior to the final ROD indicate that such actions are
warranted.
In summary. the interim remedy consistS of: ( 1) constructing a landfill cover system
on the 1970 Cell. Post-1970 Cell. and Kenle Hole: (2) conducting post-closure
maintenance and monitoring of the cover system on these cells for a minimum of
30 years after the completion of the cover: (3) monitoring landfill gas and
groundwater quality semi-annually and submit results for regulatory agency review:
( 4) the ~ G B and appropriate regulatory agencies will re...iew the effectiveness of the
AOe LF-l source interim remedial action every five years.
The interim remedial action will allow time to funher evaluate the impact of the
1947. 1951. and 1957 cells on groundwater quality, while minimizing further impact
on the environment from the 1970 Cell. Post-1970 Cell. and Kettle Hole. The final
remedial action will be consistent with the interim acrion and the NGB's long-term
clean-up goals of reducing contaminant concentrations in groundwater at MMR.
The interim remedial actions will address the following response objectives:
.
Reduce contaminant leaching to groundwater.
~inimize migration of liquids through closed landfill cells.
~aintain compatibility with the final remedial measures.
.
.
Installation Restoration Program
W(1O':'9~.080
5-1
-------
---....-..
"---- ..-..
SECTION 6
.-
6.0 SL~I~1A.RY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 3.0 of the FFS provides ~n overview of the AOC LF-1 environmental
contamination ~sessment. The significant findings of the contamination assessment
are summarized in the following subsections.
6.1 LAN"DfILL WASTE CO~"AMI~ATlO1'i ASSESSME:\.,.
intruSive explorations. such as test pitting and drilling. were not conducted within the
landfill cells because of the possibiiiry that live ordinance disposal occurred at the
AOe. Non-invasive explorations including a soil gas survey and a magnetometer
survev have been conducted at this AOe. Accurate documentation of the waste
" dispo~ed of in AOC LF-1 does nOt exist: however. based on record searches and
interviews. waste materials including general refuse. fuel tank sludge. solventS,
herbicides. transfonner oils. fire extinguisher fluids. blank small anns ammunition,
paintS. paint thinners, batteries. DDT powder. hospital wastes. municipal sewage
sludge, coal ash. and possibly live ordnance were deposited in the landfill cells.
6.2 GROl'~DWATER CONTA.~I!liATI01'l ASSESSME~
Chlorinated volatile organic compounds" (VOCs). aromatic hydrocarbons. and
inorganic analyres were observed in groundwater downgradient of AOC LF-l. The
highest concentrations and largest number of contaminantS were associated with the
Post-1970 Cell. confirming that this cell is a continuing source or contaminantS
impacting groundwater. These three chemical groups were also detected in
groundwater immediately downgradient of the 1970 Cell. suggesting that some
le~ching may still be occurring from materials within this cell. Data from long-
screened wells adjacent to the Post-1970 Cell (i.e., MW-l and MW-2) and the 1970
Cell (i.e.. MW-9) suggest that contamination extends 75 feet into the aquifer:
however. VOCS were detected in the upper 40 feet of the aquifer in multilevel well
clusters MW-l1 and MW-16. suggesting that resultS from long-screened wells may
overestimate the actual depth of groundwater contamination.
Installation Restoration Program
wno~:::.s "lI80
6-1
-------
SECTION 6
With Ihe exception of chloroform. which was detected at a concentration less than
or equal to 5 "g/L downgradient of the 1957 CeH. COntaminantS were not detected
dO"-l1gradient of the 1947. 1951. and 1957 ceils. lnoreanic concentrarions that would
be indicarive of current leaching were not found do";gradient of the 1947. 1951. and
1957 ceil areas. Table 6-1 summarizes the groundwater analytical resultS from these
cells. Due to regulatory agency concerns about data gaps with the e:OStine
monitOring well network. additional inveStigation will be conducted to funhe;
characterize groundwater downgradiem of rhese cells.
Tne areal distribution of total chlorinated ethenes and carbon tetrachloride migrating
from AOC Lf.1 is shown in Figure 6- L COntaminanrs were deteCted as far away as
the .\;!MR boundary, approximalely 8.000 feet from AOC Lf-L The chlorinated
VOC plume is approximately 3.000 feet across at downgradient mOniloring well
lOcations. The presence of TCE in deep monitoring wells at AOC LF-I (MW-19)
and downgradient (MW-23) was potentially attributed to a Source upgradient of Ihe
landfill. and is interpreted as a Zone where contamination originating from AOC
LF-l and from AOC CS-10 shares a common boundary Or is merging logether
downgradienr. The total concentration of chlorinated VOCs measured in MW-20A
(198 "g/L) represented the highest concentrations deteCted downgradient of Ihe POS!-
1970 Cell. MCLs for PCE, TCE. and carbon tetrachloride were exceeded in
monitoring wells bOth within the boundary of the landfill and at downgradieor
I OClrions. The MCL for vinyl chloride was aJso exceeded in two sampling rounds in
one monitoring well immediately downgradiem of rhe 1970 Cell.
The general shape of the solvent plume probably refleers contaminanrs released from
the different landfill cell areas active during differeor periods (1.e.. the tOtal area of
impaCted groundwater is pOtenrially a composite of contaminantS originating from
the 1970 Cell. acrive between 1958 and 1970: the POSt-1970 Cell: and Ihe Kenle
Hole). The area toward Ihe nonhem lateral border of the plume is downgradieor
of the older 1970 Cell. whereas contaminantS distributed along the SOuthern lateral
region of the plume are downgradieor of the more recent Post-! 970 Cell.
Groundwater flow lines in the middle of the so/veor plume could have intercepled
either cell or the Kettle Hole. ContaminantS originating from the 1970 Cell would
have had up to an additional 12 years of travel rime. compared to conlaminantS first .
released from the POSt-1970 Cell, which may explain the apparent asymmetrical
plume geometry observed downgradienr. In addition. because the 1970 Cell is
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79::s.080
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL GROUNDWATER RESULTS
FROM THE 1947, 1951, AND 1957 Ceu.s
AOC LF-1 RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY RESERVATION
AMALYTE (UN",
DETECTION
LIMIT
RANGe
FREQUENCV!
V~ Of"can;c Comcounds (ua ILl:
Q1Ior'ctorm
3-5
'6/22
Inotuatlics (UC:l):
CaICum
SodUn
5.000
5.000
7.080-15.700
5.860-5.980
5/5
3/5
...,..:
'IIkImber of ~... per total number of samples anaJyzed.
IIfJ/L = 1I_"¥.n'IS per liter
W079"'-1S.no! 1
-------
7-.
I
J;..
o
;'-:0 A:J
00
;Z:f:
j..'~
i- r-
~
'O)t tI
-------
J:~.
SECTION 6
approximately 2.000 feet downgradient from the Post-1970 Cell. conramir::...,tS lea\ing
the 1970 Cell will [ravel fanhe~ downgradient from the landfill boundar:. in a given
period than those migrating from the Post-19iO Celio Tables 6-2 and 6-: summarize
the resultS from tWo groundwater sampling rounds at the 1970 Cell and K~!tle Hole.
Table 6-4 summarizes analytical results from groundwater at the Post-! ~-O Cell.
Tne solvent plume is sinking at a rate betWeen 1.25 and 2.5 feet per: 00 feet of
horizomal migration. betWeen the Post-19iO Cell and Connery Avenue (near the
MW-10 cluster) 2.700 feet downgradiem. Adjacem to the Post-1970 Ceil. :.,e bottom
of comamination was detected to a depth of approximately +0 feet in :::e aquifer.
Further downgradiem of the Post-1970 Cell near Connery Avenue, the bottom of
contamination was detected to a depth of approximately 100 feet in r::e aquifer.
. Chemical data from Fence ~o. 2 and Fence No.3 monitoring weUs indic~te that the
solvent plume is leveling off downgradiem at an elevation approxima~~ly 50 feet
below mean sea level (MSL). A summary of laboratOry analytical results from
downgradient groundwater is provided in Table 6-5.
POtemial reasons for this leveling off include: (1) decreased hydraulic conductivity
with depth. and (2) the influence of the regional groundwater flow pa::ern. Soil
boring logs. screened-auger logs. and in siru hydraulic conducri\iry (i.e.. pe~eability)
testing of some deep monitOring wells (i.e.. MW-l0Z. MW-17. and M\\i-2~.-\.B) show
finer-grained depositS at depth. with hydraulic conductivities 10 times :ower than
corresponding values measured in coarser grained shallow outv.;ash depositS.
Preferemial contaminam migration would occur in regions of highe:- hydraulic
conductivity (i.e., groundwater movemem may be restricted in the fine:- strata at
depth). In addition. the regional groundwater flow pattern established be~ween the
principal recharge area (located in the northern portion of y1~R) and :~e natural
discharge boundary (i.e., the ocean and Buzzards Bay) will inrluence the geometry
of the plume. At some distance downgradiem of the major recharge zone. the
regional groundwater flow lines will level off. and evenrually rise in elevation toward
the natural discharge boundary. These tWo factors will affect the depth :he solvent
plume attains. especially a plume characterized by relatively low contaminant
concentrations.
In addition to the chlorinated compounds comprising the bulk of the plume. aromatic
hydrocarbons were also found in monitoring wells immediately downgracient of the
Post-1970 Cell and the 1970 Cell. and in one monitoring well near Well G. MCLs
Installation Restoration Program
Wno7?~.080
6-5
'7030-03
-------
TABLE S.2
SUMMARY OF LASORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
OCTOBER 1989 GROUNDWATER SAMPUNG AT THE 1970 CElL. AND KET'T1.E HOLE
AOC LF-1 RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETrs MIUTARY RESERVATION
DETECTION
ANAL YTE (UNIT) LIMIT RANGE FREQUENCY'
VOlatile Oraanic Comcounds {uC/IJ.:
Benzene 1 3-8 8/35
Chforobenzene 1 2-3X 2/35
Chloroform 1 1 2/35
1.1-Dichloroethane 1 1-2 7/35
1.2-Dichloroethylene (total) 1 8-18 8/35.
Ethyfbenzene 1 1-3 7/35
T etrachloroethyfene 1 1.2 7/35
Toluene 1 3-4 3/35
Vinyl Chloride 2 3-4 8/35
Xylenes (total) 1 3X '/35
fnoraanics {uC/!J:
Arsenic 10 22.5 2/17
Cadmium 5 5.8J 1/17
Calcium 5.000 11.200-20.900 11/17
Iron 100 99.800-116.000 2/17
Lead 5 9.5-25.6 6/17
Magnesium 5.000 5.390-5.710 2/17
Manganese 15 479-1.770 3/17
Mercury 0.2 0.22-{).37 2/17
Sodium 5.000 5.250-9.540 17/17
Zinc 20 30.6-134 4/17
Miscellaneous (mo/ll:
Chemical Oxygen Demand 5 14.9-26.6 5/6
Phenolics 0.01 0.011 '/6
Total DissolVed Solids 10 90-193 6/6
Hardness 41.9-62.3 5/5
No...:
I Number of dl!lt8Ctions per total number of samples anaJyzed.
J .. Indicates an estimatecl vaJue.
X .. Mass spectrum does not meet USEPA CLP ctiteria; however, COmpound presence StrOngly SUSpected.
#Q/l .. micrograms per liter
mg/L .. milligrams per liter
wO~..::s:rBOl::
-------
,
I
I
I
t
j
f
!
TABLE 6-3
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
APRIL 1990 GROUNDWATER SAMPUNG AT THE 1970 CELL. AND KETTlE HOLE
AOC LF-1 RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY RESERVATION
I"
DETECTION
ANALYT'E (UNIT) LIMIT RANGE FREOUENCY'
Volatile Oroanic Comcounds (1Io/l):
Benzene 1 1X-7 7/20
Chlorobenzene 1 2X 3/20
Chloromethane 2 5X 1/20
1,1-Dichloroethane 1 1-2X 5/20
1,2-Dichloroethylene (total) 1 1-13 7/20
Tetrachloroethylene 1 1 1/20
Trichloroethylene 1 2 1/20
-
1 . 1 ,1 - T richl oroethane 1 1 2/20
Inoroanics (110 /U:
Arsenic 10 19.6-30.2 5/8
Calcium 5,000 7,440-18,500 6/8
Iron 100 14,800-126.000 7/8
Magnesium 5.000 5.220 1/8
Manganese 15 735-2.120 7/8
Potassium 5.000 5,310 1/8
Sodium 5.000 5.190-8.140 8/8
Miscellaneous (mall): .
Chemical Oxygen Demand 5 7.7-38.5 6/8
Total Organic Carbon 0.5 3.8-8.1 2/8
No...:
. 'Number of detections per tOtal number of samples submitted.
~/L = micrograms per liter
mg/L = milligrams per liter .
X = Mass spectrum does not meet USEPA CLP criteria, however, compound presence suongty suspected.
W0":9~.TSO/3
-------
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY AN4LYTTCAL GROUNOWATEJI REsulTS
FROM 11(E POST-1970 CELL
- -
DETECTION
ANALm IU/IIrT1 LlMrr RANGE FREQUENCy'
VO/at;'e Oraanic ComooundS (uoL!:l:
Benzene 1 7.1 1/56
Carbon TetrachlOride 1 2-71 4/56
Chloroethane 2 4.2)( 1/56
Chloroform 1 1 3/56
1.1 -Dietl/oroethane 1 1-8.5 26/56
1.2-Dichloroethylene {tota'l 1 2-33 27/56
Ethyjoenzene 1 1.2-10 8/56
2-Hexanone 2 10-11 3/56
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 2 6.4-32 9/56
T etraChloroethyjene 1 2-54 1 1/56
1.1.1 -TriChloroethane 1 14 13/56
Tricnloroethyjene 1 1-170 14/56
Toluene 1 2S- 1 00 14/56
Xyjenes (total) 1 2. lX-41 8/56
Sem;VO'atile Oroanic ComDoundS (UO/.12:
BenzoIc acid 50 52X 1/19
OiS{2-ethyjheXyj)Phthalate 10 2S 1/19
4-MethyjPhenol 10 290-340 7/19
Inoraanics lucL!J.:
Antimony 60 62.2-150 11/31
Arsenic 10 12.2-31. 1 20131
Calcium 5.000 6.170-23.800 26/31
Iron 100 22.100-184.000 24/31
Lead 5 5.6-36.3 8/31
Magnesium 5.000 5.100-19.700 18/31
Manganese 15 27.7-5.170 27131
POtaSSIum 5.000 5.830-6.060 2/31
Sodium 5.000 5.270- 1 3.500 30/31
Zinc 20 25.9-191 6/31
g~Sticldes/PCBs (ua/.b!:
None deteered 0/26
Miscellaneous (mq£y:
Chemical Oxygen Demand 5 5.0-144 12/22
Total ~m Hyarocaroons 0.2 12-14 3/10
Phenolic:a 0.01 0.018-0.021 2/22
TOtal OiSlOIved SolidS 10 12-353 19/22
Hardness - 3.9-240_9 22/22
Aoe LF-l RECORD OF DecISION
MASSACHUseTTS MIUTARY R ESER VA nON
No... ;
I Numoer of deteCtions per total number of S8m1)/es analYZed.
mg/L milligrams oar liter
JI/J/L mIcrograms per liter
PCBs PO'yctllonnated biphenyls
WO~.no/4
6-8
-------
TABLE ~5
SUMMARY OF ~BORATORY GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FROM THE DOWNGRADIENT MONITORING WEU.S
Aoe LF-1 ReCORD OF DeCISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY ReSERVATION
DETECTION
ANALYTE (UNIT) LIMIT RANGE FRECUENCY'
Volatile Oraanic Comcounds wall)
Benzene 1 9 1/28
Carbon Tetrachloride 1 1 1-20 2/28
1.1 -Dichloroethane . 1 5 1/28
1.2-Dichloroethylene 1 5-48 4/28
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 1 5-15 3/28
Trichloroethylene 1 6-15 4/28
Tetrachloroethylene 1 5-14 4/28
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 1 6-9 2/28
Inoraanics (.ua/l):
Sodium 5.000 7.960-15.400 3/3
NoI88:
1 Number 01 deteCIJons per total number 01 samples submitted.
Jl9/L micrograms per liter
6-9
-------
SECTION 6
for benzene were slightly exceeded at ~:lch location. The highest total concemration
of aromatic hvdrocarbons was found immediate Iv dO~I1£radiem of the Post-1970 Cell
... . - .
where a maximum concentration of 141 p.g/L was measured. Toluen~ was the
predominant aromatic compound detected in groulJdwater. Except for benzene near
Well G (i.e., in YfW-103A), aromatic hydrocarbon~ do not appear to be migrating
appreciable distances dO~11gradient from the Post-1970 Cell. However. the presence
of benzene in mOnitOring wells near Well G was not detected in any previous
groundwater sampling rounds. and may actually represent a sampling anomaly.
Concentrations of inorganic analytes in samples from monitoring wells located
downgradient of the Post-1970 Cell, 1970 Cell, and Kettle Hole were higher than. in
samples from an upgradiem (i.e.. background) monitoring well. These results
indicate that inorganic leachate is pOtentially moving from these portions of the
landfill. Groundwater YfCLs were not exceeded ror any inorganics; however, the
lead concentration exceeded the CSEPA action level for groundwater in locations
of the landfill plume where fuel-related compounds were detected.
Several indicatOr leachate parameters were measured at AOC LF-1 to ascertain
whether the landfill was still actively leaching COntamination. These parameters
included specific conduCtivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon
(TOC), pH, alkalinity (tOtal and phenolphthalein), hardness. and a variety of anions
(i.e., nitrate. nitrite, chloride, and sulfate). Many of these parameters are related and
tOgether provide valuable information about landfills. COD. for example. is a gross
measure of organic contem of a sample (not merely Target Compound List [TCL]
compounds). as is TOe. However. the TOC procedure is more likely to detect
VOCs than the COD procedure.
Leachate parameters were measured upgradiem of AOC LF-1 (MW-lO) to establish
background levels. The same parameters were then measured downgradient of the
landfill and the differences were imerpreted. These indicator parameters are not a
measure of the toxicity of the leachate. Rath::r. they are used as gross indicators of
organic and inorganic contamination in the form of landfill leachate.
Downgradient levels of leachate parameters did not differ significantly from the
background levels. except in samples from a few mOnitOring wells located along the
axis of the contaminant plume. Specific conductivity, an indicator of inorganic
leachate. exhibited the most variability (approximately one order of magnitude); this
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79:!2S .080
6-10
-------
SECI10N 6
information was used - to confirm current transport information concerning the
contaminant plume migrating from AOe LF-l.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79"'..1S.080
6-11
-------
,...
SECTION 7
7.0 SL",fMARY OF SITE RISKS
A human health risk assessment was conducted to estimate the probability and
magnirude of pOtential adverse human health effec:s from exposure to contaminantS
associated with AOe LF-l. The risk assessment focused only on potential human
health risks associated with exposure to source area grouncwater. Tne groundwater
risk assessment is described in detail in the FFS (.-\138 En\'ironrnental Services. Inc.
1992b). Human health and ecological risks associated .....ith exposure to surface soil
comamination were nOt evaluated for tWo reasons. First. no data exist on the narure
and extent of soil contamination at AOe LF-l. As described. no sampling has been
done in the areas of actual waste disposal because of the possibility of encountering
buried live ordnance. Therefore. the characterization and quantification of risk
resulting from potential soils contamination wouid be impossible to summarize.
undfilled wastes have been covered with soil. thereby minimizing the potential for
direct exposure to landfilled wastes and contaminants. Second. the pOtential risks
associated with exposure to source area groundwater are sufficient to require source
remedial action. Of the remedial actions evaluated. a landfill cover system will be
constructed. The cover system and proposed fencing will effectively prevent
receptOrs from contacting contaminated surface soils at Aoe LF-l. Therefore.
because no exposure will occur. no risks from exposure to AOC LF-l source
comamination will exist.
The human health risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1.
Contaminant identification. which identified those hazardous substances that.
given the specifics of the site. were of significant concern.
.,
Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways.
characterized the pOtentially exposed pop'ulations. 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.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79~.08n
7-1
-------
SECTION 7
4.
Risk charaCterization which ime"ated the three earlier Steos to summarize
the ?Otemial and actual carcin;genic and noncarcinogenic risks posed b,
hazardous substances at the site. .
Results of the human health risk assessmem for the AOe LF-l are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
:-.iineteen comaminantS of concern (eOeS) weee selected for evaluation in the risk
assessmem. AU eoe s were detected at least once in the groundwate~. and are liSted
in Table 7-1. The health effectS of each eoe are summarized in Appendix B of the
FFS (ABB Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992b).
Potential human health effeas associated with exposure to the eoCs were estimated
quamitatively through the developmem of hYPOthetical exposure pathways. These
pathways were developed to reflect the potemial future uses and location of AOe
LF-1. The foUowing is a brief sUtntnaIy of the exposure pathways ""aluated: a more
thorough description is in the FFS (ABB Environmental Services- Inc.- 1992b). The
receptor population exposure pathway was assumed. to be future downgradient
residentS. A lifetime li.e.. 70 years) of COnsuming 2 liter; of groundwater per day for
350 days per year was assumed for an average body weight of 70 kilograms. It was
assumed that the same size person would inhale volatilized Contaminams at a rate
of 0.6 cubic meter per hour during daily 12-minute showers. For each evaluated
pathway- an average and a reasonable maximum exposure eStimate was generated
corresponding ro exposure to the average and the maximum concentration detected
in ground\\.'ater.
Ufetime cancer risks were determined fnr each exposure pathway by multiplying the
expOsure level by the chemical-specific cancer slope factor. Cancer slope factors
have been developed by L'SEP A from epidemiological or ammal Studies to r..lect
a conservative "upper bound" of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic
compounds. That is- the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the prediCted risk.
The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g..
!xlO"' for 1/1.000.000) and indicate (using this example) ,hat an individual has a one-
in-a-million chance of developing cancer as a result of sitNelated exposure OVer 70
years to the particular compound at the stated concentration. Current USEPA
practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure ro a
mixture of hazardous substances.
'nstaJiation Restoration Program
WIJ079~.080
7-2
-------
¥ """'.--..,.... '...
TAa'E "..
CONTAMINANT. Of CONCERN IN OROUNDWATua
AOC IF.1 RECORD Of DECISION
MASSACIIUSH16 MIIIJARY RfSERVAJlON
-..1
I
V-)
CONCEHTRA liON RANOE AVERAOE CONCENTRATION' MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION Wgll! FREQUENCY OF
CONTAMINANT wall' wall' DETECTION
Volatile Organic Compounds
Banzene NO'- 5.8 30 5.8 2/11
Carbon Talrachlorlde NO-71 12 71 5/11
Chlo,obenzene NO.3.0 2.5 3.0 2/11
1,1.DlchloToelhane NO-8.0 30 80 9/11
1.2.Dlchloroelhylene NO. 48 14 48 10/11
Elhylbenzene NO-9.0 30 9.0 2/11
2.Hexanone ND.7.7 52 7.7 1/11
4 Melhyl.2.Penlanone NO-28 7.1 28 1/11
1.2.2.2. T elrachloroelhane NO- 9.0 3.4 9.0 2/11
Tetrachlo,osihylene NO-54 9.3 54 6/11
Toluene NO-92 11 92 1/11
1,1,1- T rlchloroelhane NO.80 32 8.0 3/11
Trlchloroelhylene ND- 55 9.6 55 6/11
Vinyl Chloride NO - 4.1 4.7 4.1 2/11
Xylenes NO - 37 5.6 37 1/11
Semivolallle Ornanlc Compounds
4.Melhylphsnol .- ' 310 310 1/1
Inornanlcs
Arsenic 22 - 27 25 27 2/2
Load NO. 7.0 42 7.0 1/2
Manganese 1.700 . 4,300 3,000 4,300 2/2
NOI.a:
I
Arllhmellc means were used 10 average dala. HaUlhe Conlracl Required Ouanlltatlan Urnlts were substituted lor nandeteci values.
ND Nol delecled '.
No range concenlrallons because only one sample analyzed lor SVOCs
micrograms per lite,
-------
SECTION 7
The Hazard Index (HI) was also calculated for eac:J pathw:1Y as CSEP As me:lSure
of the potential for noncarcinogenic healtb effectS. The HI is calculated by dividing
the exposure level by the reference dose (RID) or Other suitable benchmark for
noncarcinogenic health effects. Rills have been developed by L'SEPA to protect
sensitive individuals over :he course of a lifetime. and they :-eflect a daily exposure
level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of ar: adverse health effect.
RIDs are derived from epidemiological or animal studies anc incorporate uncertainty
factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will nOt occur. The HI is often
expressed as a single value (e.g.. 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure to
the RID value (in this example. the exposure is approximately one-third of an
acceptable exposure level for the given compound). Tne HI is only considered
additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoints (for example:
the HI for a compound known to produce liver damage should nOt be added to an
HI for a second compound whose toxic endpoim is kidney damage).
Table 7-2 summarizes the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for the hypothetical
exposure to contaminated groundwater downgradient of AGe LF-l by ingestion and
inhalation of volatilized comaminams in the shower. :\1ore de:ailed tables of tbe risk
assessment are in Appendix B of the AGe LF-l FFS (ABB Environmental Services.
Inc., I 992b).
Carcinoeenic risks are comDared to the VSEPA tar~et carcinoeenic risk ran~e of 1~
to 10.6. -Noncarcinogenic risks are compared to th; L'SEPA :;rget noncar;inogenic
HI of 1.0 (USEP A. 1990). FutUre pOtential carcinogenic risks for dO\vngradient
residents ingesting and inhaling groundwater comaminants were estimated to be
7xI~ (average case) and 9xl~ (re:lSonable worse case). ~oncarcinogenic risks were
estimated to be 4 (average c:lSe) and 7 (reasonable worse c:lSe). BOth carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks exceed the USEP A target risk ranges.
Arsenic contributed 74 perc:m of the carcinogenic (average case) and 67 perc:m of
the carcinogenic (re:lSonable worst case) risk in groundwater. The non-carcinogenic
risks were also influenced by the presence of arsenic: 61 percent of the average case
and 36 percent of the reasonable worst case were attributed to the arsenic detected
in groundwater.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO7'9"'..1S.080
74
-------
.......--,--
--.-------.---
TABLE 7-2
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC
RISKS FROM EXPOSURE TO GROUNDWATER
AOC IF-1 RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIFETIME INCREMENTAL CANCER RISK NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX
EXPOSURE PATHWAY AVERAGE CASE WORST CASE AVERAGE CASE WORST CASE
Ingestion 7xtO'4 8)(10'4 4 7
Inhalation of Volallllzed 5x10 6 6)(10 s 0004 000005
Contaminants
Combined 7x104 9)(104 4 7
-;-.J
VI
-------
SECTION 7
Risk estimates are subjecr to a wide variery of uncertainties. Risk assessmenrs do not
calculate absolute risks. but rather provide conservative analyses to evaluate the
potential for adverse impactS. In most risk assessmentS. uncertainties tend to err on
the side of conservatism. Therefore, the calculated risks usually provide an upper
bound of risks likely to be encountered at the site. Actual risks will probably be
much lower than these calculated risks.
There are uncertainties involved in adding risks from individual chemicals to estimare
tOtal risks. Many individual chemicals act through different mechanisms on differem
targer organs; therefore. the risks are not necessarily additive. However. some
chemicals may pOtentiate the effecrs of other chemicals. so that the combined risks
may be greater than the sum of the individual risks.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed
by implementing the remedial action seleCted in this ROD, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to human health, welfare. or the environment. Risks
resulting from releases to groundwater are considered in this ROD.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19~.080
7-6
-------
or;
I
!
I
I
.
i
i
SECTIO" 8
8.0 DEVELOP:'rIE~" .~'\fD SCREE~I~G OF ALTER."ATIVES
Three alternatives were developed and screened in the FFS. This section describes
the response objectives and the development and screening of al.te~natives.
8.1 STATL'TORY REQUIREME:"o'Ts/RESPONSE OBJECTfVES
Cnder its legal authorities. "GB's primary responsibility at this "PL site is to
- undertake remedial actions that are prOtective of human health and the environment.
In addition. Sedon 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statUtOry requirementS
and preferences. including a requirement that the remedial action. when complete.
must comply ~ith all federal and more stringent state environmental standards.
requir~ments. c:iteria. or limitations. unless a waiver is invoked: a requirement that
the selected remedial action is cost-effective and utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable: and a preference for remedies in which treatment that
permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity. mobility. or volume of the
hazardous subsi:ances is a principal element over remedies not involving such
treatment. Remedial alternatives were developed to be consistent with these
Congressional mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants. environm~ntal
media of concern, and potential exposure pathways. remedial action objectives were
developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives. These interim
remedial action objectives were developed to mitigate existing and future pOtential
threats to human health and the environment:
.
Reduce contaminant leaching to groundwater.
Minimize of migration of liquids through closed landfill cells.
Maintain compatibility with the final remedial measures.
.
.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79~-080
8-1
-------
SECTION 8
8.2 AL TER.'l,HJVES DEVELOP!\-IE.'lT AND SCREE:'\I:\!G
CERCLo\ 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 fot AOC LF-l source COntrol.
The FFS for AOC LF-l developed a minimal no-action alternative and a limited
number of interim remedial alternatives that attain site-specific remediation
objectives (ABB Environmental Services. Inc., 1992b).
Section 6.0 of the FFS identified. assessed. and screened technologies based on
effectiveness. implementabiliry. and cost. The FFS focused only on source control
technologies. A separate report will address groundwater contaminant migration
technologies. "This will be done after groundwater characterization is complete (ABE
Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992b). Section 7.0 of the FFS presented the interim
remedial alternatives developed by combining the technologies identified in the
initial screening process per SeCtion 300.430(e)(3) of the NCP. The purpose of the
initial screening was to narrow the number of paremial remedial actions for further
detailed analysis. Cover system alternatives were then developed and evaluated in
Section 7.0 of the FFS.
Of the 11 remedial technologies initially screened and assembled into alternatives in
the FFS. a detailed evaluation was conduCted on a cover system. Two differem cover
system alternatives were evaluated: one which involved covering all cells of the
landfill, and one which involved covering only those cells which have conclusively
shown to be leaching contaminants of concern. Tne third alternative. minimal no
action. was used as a baseline for comparison with the two cover systerp alternatives.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO792:!S.OSO
8-2
-------
SECTION 9
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTER."iATIVES
This section provides a narrative sumrmiry of each evaluated alternative. Detailed
assessments of each alternative are presented in Section 7.0 of the FFS (ABB
Environmental Services. Inc.. 1992b).
9.1 SOURCE CONTROL ALTER."'JAm'ES ANALYZED
Based on selection of cover systems as a remedial technology. three remedial
alternatives were developed for source area control at AGC LF-1:
.
minimal no action
cover new landfill cells
cover all landfill cells
.
.
The following subsections describe each alternative.
9.1.1 Alternative No.1: Minimal No Action
The minimal no-action alternative serves as the baseline alternative for source
control at AGC LF-l. This alternative would include the long-term groundwater
monitoring program described in SubseCtion 7.12.9 of the FFS (ABB Environmental
Services. Inc.. 1992b). However. no remedial aCtions or administrative controls would
be implemented.
9.1.2 Alternative No.2: Cover New Landfill Cells
This alternative consists of installing a final cover system conforming to RCRA
guidance over the 1970 Cell. Post-1970 Cell and Kettle Hole to isolate contaminants
and minimize migration to groundwater. In addition. this alternative includes a
semiannual groundwater monitoring program. semiannual cover inspection and
maintenance. and semiannual reporting to USEPA and MADEP as described in
Subsection 7.1.2.9 of the FFS.. The interim remedial action at AOC LF-l also
consists of leaving wastes in place beneath the soil and vegetative cover at the 1947,.
1951. and 1957 cells, and installing additional downgradiem groundwater monitoring
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79:!:!S .0811
9-1
-------
SECTION 9
weUs. Groundwarer invesagaaons will be performed downgradiem of rhe 1947, 1951.
aod 1957 cells [0 :!Ssess CUTTenr ground"'arer impacts from rhese older cells and to
detennine if the imerim remedial acaon is an appropriate long-term remedial acrion.
The final COVer sYStem for rhe 1970 Cell. POSt - 1970 Cell, and Kettle Hole would be
designed to accomplish the following goals:
.
minimize surface water infiltration through the landfilled wastes.
promote drainage
minimize surface erosion
accommodate landfill settlement
isolate landfilled wastes from the environment
cOntrol air poIlutants
.
.
.
.
.
To meet tbese goals and rhe remedial Objec:jves. rhe final cover system would consist
of the fOllowing components from top to bottom (Figure 9-1):
.
.
.
.
surface layer with vegetative material
drainage layer
low permeability barrier layer with geomembrane
gas coIJection layer
subgrade material (i.e., common borrow)
.
The composire hydraulic barrier layer would be a geomembrane underlain by a low-
permeability barrier layer.
Detailed descriptions of cover system components can be found in SeCtion 7.0 of the
FFS (ABB Environmental Services. Inc., 1992b).
9.1.3 AJtemative No.3: Cover All Landfill Cells
This alternative consists of installing a final cover system at the 1970 Cen. Post-1970 .
Cell. and Kettle Hole as described in the previous subsection. This alternative also
includes installing a Cover system confOrming to current MADEP guidance. at tbe
1947. 1951. and 1957 cells. The J\1ADEP guidance cover, although less rigorous than
a RCRA Cover system. may be adequate at the 1947, 1951, and 1957 cells. In
WOO7'9!:!S.08O
Installation Restoration Program
9-2
-------
3% MINIMUM FINAL SLOF'E
AFTER SETTLEMENT
----=-== . ~
,. \---
. ~ -.::::. ---- ~ - \, .
.. . .--< I ,.. ........ ~ \ -' , .,/
.. r-- \ ..... /' ---- \ /'j~ -- - r- ' ~
. ~ . \..... - /- ..............---
._'-.:: , SURFACELAYERW~VEGETA~EMATE~-: \., '-......--
.--'....,- (12 InC:1es Mlnl~:;m), ' //. -:- /' J" /'./ Is
--- I '- - - -----.---.... / ~.;...-,:;''"::/:;:.:/::--::::;,*:;.:"... --" - - ........
- \ --.... .".- ~ .. [[['....... \. ---- .-I
r...... / ~ .~. ..,...,..;.;.,.,....;.;.;.;..-.~.,....;.;.,.;..,..,. ~/ )
/ '~'''''''''''''''''''''''''''.'''''''.~'''''.'''.'''''''''.'''''''.'''''''.''''''''''.''''''''''''''''-......... ",
.. ..",... "."..,. ,."..,...,..".,." ..,..,.".".,.;..-..,..,."..,...,..".; .".".,' ..' ..,..,.,'" -
~ .1:- .,........ .........,., .,.... ..... ,. ,. ,....",.' .. .................. ,............. .........,. ...~.... ,.
.. .,'."';''''~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''..'.' '. ','. ,". '.', . . ..,.,.".,.".".,.,.".,.".",.,',. "
';'.,:. :;.'N.. '::'1 LOW PERMEABIL~ BARRIER LAYER .:;.;. .. ..:...;;',-
~~r':B~~37'~~~S~~~~~~""""'" "',1
~::~~." .~~ "'-FILTER FABRIC ~'q,.-_-' "':;:;/:::.~:4
1 . - - - ---,I.. --"""'«'I'b'.I..- .......~...:
. ~
I GAS COLLECTION LAYER (12 InC:1es Mir:rmum)
''''''
""',",~,',,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
L'" """", """", """, """ ",.
, , , , " """"""""""""""""""""..
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , 'I' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
,',',',',','l',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',~,',',~,~,~,','
, ~ ~ , , ,,~ , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , '1" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,., , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , '1' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
" " " " " ',~,SUBGRACE MATERIAL",', ','~'~ " ','~ ','~ " ','~'~'~ " " " " " " " " " " " ',',
:':':':':' :,t, (Common Borrow) :':':~:':~ :':':':':~:' :':~:':':':':~:':~:':~:':':':':':'
, , , , , ,t' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , '1' , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , " , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , " """""""""""""""""""""
""".",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I""""""
,, :,,< ""'''' ., , '~",",,'" ,",,'"
WASTE.
"1. .':1. "I.
'""',>'>
",,'
Jilll.
"......
.s,,"---
ASS ::wlronmer.:aJ
Services Inc.
UNCFtLL COVER SYSTE
PROFILE:
Note: C.:ver profile ~cr , 970 CaB,
Pest-' 970 Ceil, and Ke!t:e HCle.
INSTALI...\T1ON AES!'CAAT1ON PROCRAW
-------
:~.,
SECTJO:\" 9
addition. these oide, cells do not appear to be cur.-ently affecting groundwater. I"
addition. this ahemative includes the same semiannual groundwater monitoring
progTarn. semiannual COVei inspection and maime:1ance program. and semiannu~:
reponing to L'SEP.-\ and YfADEP proposed for .-\lternative :-';0. 2. Tne cover
SVstems will isolate contaminants and minimize mieration to eroundwatei. Tne
p'roposed COVer for the 1947, 1951. and 1957 ce:Is wili be Z feet thick and coosiSt or
the fOl1o~ing layers f:orn top to bortom:
.
a 6-inch surface bye:- with vegetative material
a 12-inch drainage layer above the geomembrane
a geomembrane mateiial
a 6-inch gas collection layer
.
.
.
Each of rhe 1947. 1951. and 1957 cells will be COvc,ed separately. &ch COver SYStem
"'ill be graded to have a minimum 'Ina! slope or 3 percent after settiemen,. Long-
te:m monitOrdlg and maintenance for a solid waste cover system would be consistem
with the program desc:ibed for the 1970 Ceil, PosL- I 970 Cell. and Kenle Hole. The
19..:. 7. 1951. and 1957 cell areas would also be fenced. This cover system would
exceed the :-emedial objectives presented in Section 5.0.
E.xtensive site preparation of the ~O-acre area above the 194 i, 1951. and 1957 cells
would be necessary before a COVer sYStem could be installed. All trees (including
Stumps), shrubs. and tall grasses would be cleared from the three cells. shredded or
chipped. and spread on ,he landfill or disposed of elsewhere. A large amOUnt of .
subgrade fill would be necessary to achieve a minimum final cover slope of 3 peicem
to promote suriace Wate:- runoff.
Tabies 9-1. 9-1. and 9-3 show the present worth of eStimated COStS to implement
Alte:-native 1. Alternative 2. and Altemative 3. respectively.
9,.Z GROL'NDWATER CO~TAINME~ ALTER..' ATTVES A.' AL'YZED
;-';0 groundwate:- COntainmem alternatives were evaluated as parr of this ROD. AOC
LF- I groundwater will be addressed separately (ABB E:1Vironmental Services. Inc.,
I 992b). This separation of the Source area and the downgradient groundwater is
consistent with the operable unit approach outlined in the NCP. If implemented in
Installation Restoration Program
WOO"",Z:S.080
9-4
-------
TABLE 9-1
COST SUMMARY TABLE FOR ALTERNATIve 1
AOC LF-1 ReCORD OF DeCISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY ReSERVATION
DIRECT COST $380.000-$480.000
Direct costs inciude monitoring well and fence installation
adjacent to the six :::iscosal areas at AOe LF-,.
INDIRECT COST $130.000-$170.000
Indirect costs incluce health and safety. legal. administration.
oermitting. engineer.ng. and services during construction.
TOTAL CAPITAL (CIRECT AND INCIRECn COSTS 5510.000-5650.000
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS (@ 10% FOR 30 YEARS) $800.000-$1.000.000
Operating and maintenance costs include site inspections.
groundwater sampling and analysis. maintenance of monitoring
wells. reoort precaration. and 5-year site reviews.
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 $1,310,000-$1.650.000
Not.:
Cost estimates are cased ::n availagle information and crofesslonai judgment. ChangIng market conditions and regulatory
requirements may cause ac:uai costs to vary from me estimated costs.
Estimated COsts correscona to an ENR eCI of 4896.
A contlngenc,; of 20 oercen~ nas been included in eaC:1 direct and indirect cost ,tem.
W07'7'~.TSO/S
-------
....
TABLE 9-2
COST SUMMARY TABLE FOR ALTCANATIVE 2
AOC LF-1 RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY RESERVATION
DIRECT COST $19,800,000-$24.800,000
Direct costs include mobilization/demobilization; debris
consolidation; access road construction; sucgrade fill
placement; settlement monitoring; cover system construction
for 1970 Call. ?ost-1970 Cell. and Kettle Hoie; and fence
construction and groundwater monrtoring weil installation
adjacent to the six disDosal areas at AOC L=-1.
INDIRECT COST $6.000.000-$7,500,000
Indirect costs incJude health and safery, legal. administration,
oermrtting, engineenng, and services during construction.
TOTAL CAPITAL (DIRECT AND INDIRECT) COSTS $25,800.000-$32,300,000
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS (@ 10% FOR 30 YEARS) $2.000,000-$2,500,000
Operating and maintenance costs include site inspections,
mowing, settlemem monitoring, groundwater :'T1onrroring and
analysis. gas monitoring, maintenance of cover system and
groundwater monitoring wells, report prepararron. and 5-year
site reviews.
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 $27,800,000-$34,800,000
Nor.:
C.::st eSf/mares are oasea on ava,lacle ,nforma::on ana or::'9$.$lonal jwaqment. Changing ma"(~t conditions and regulatory
reQuirements may ::ause ac:ual costS to vary ~rom tne est:~atea cosrs.
EStimated COSts correscond to an ENR C::::I of 4896.
A contingency of ZO cereent nas been ,nCluQItCI :n eacn airel:': and 'nalrect COst item.
W0-:"9=S.T80/9
9-6
-------
TABLE 9-3
COS; SUMMARY TABL.-: FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
AOC LF-1 RECORD OF DeCISION
MASSACHUSETTS MJUTARY RESERVATION
DIRECT COST $30. 600.00-S38.200 .000
. Direc~ :osts inc!ude mobilization' demobilization. :iearing and
grubbing, cecris consolidation. ac:ess road construction,
subgrade. fill placement. settlement monitoring. cover system
constn.;ctior., monitonng 'Nell installation, and fence
construction for all SIX discosaJ areas at AOe LF-I,
INDIRECT COST 59.200,000-$11,500.000 I
Indirect costs inc:ude health and satety. legal. aaministration.
permitting, engineering. and services dunng construction.
TOTAL CAPITAL (DIRECT AND INDIRECT) COSTS S39.800,00G-S49. 700.000
PRESENT WORTH OF O&M COSTS (@ 10% FOR 30 YEARS) 52.000.000-S2.500.000
Operating and maintenance costs include site inspections.
mowing, settlement monitoring. groundwater monitoring and
analysis. gas ~onitonng. maintenance of cover system and
groundwater monitoring wells. reoort preparation. and 5-year
site reviews.
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 $41,800.000-$52.200.000
No_:
COst eStImates are :asea on availaore information ana professional judgment. ChangIng mance! c:onditions and regulatory
reoulrements may :ause ac::tJal COsts to varl ~om tMe estlmateo COstS.
:Sf,mated ccs:s c:rrescona :0 an :!'IIi=I C::: ot ~96.
~ contlngenC'! of Z:: ::Iercent nas !:Ieen includec ,n eacn dire~ ana Indirect c:ost item.
.}..
..
WOi'?=.5.TSQ'lO
-------
SECTION 9
conjunc>Jon with groundwater containment/remediarion. Ibese Source COntre
alternatives would provide a site-wide response plan for AOC LF-l.
'nstaUation Restoration Program
WOO79"'-ZS.08O
9-8
-------
SECTION 10
10.0 SL~[\1ARY OF THE CO:\IPAIUTIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTER.."ATIVES
10.1 EVALlJATIOS CRITERIA CSED FOR DETAILED A.'iALYSIS
Section 121(b,l(1) of CERCL-\ ?resems several criteria that. at a minimuI:l. ~GB is
requir~d to consider in its :J.Ssessrnent of alternatives. Building on these specific
statUtory mandates. the ~CP an:iculates nine evaluation criteria to be used in
assessing the indi\.idual remedial alternatives. These criteria and their de:1Ilitions are
discussed in the following subsec:ioDS. A detailed analysis of the alternatives was
performed using the nine evaluation criteria to select an interim site remedy.
10.1.1 Threshold Criteria
The following tV.'0 threshold c:1teria must be met for alternatives to be eligible for
selec:ion in accordance with the ='iCP:
.
Ove~all Protec!ion of Human Health and the. Emironrr:ent. This
criteria addresses whethe~ a remedy provides adequate protecrion and
describes how risks posed through each pathway are eiiminated.
reduced. or comrolled through treatment. engineering comrols. or
institUtional comrols.
.
Compliance with ..1.RARS. Tnis criteria addresses whethe:- a remedy
will meet ARA.Rs and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
10.1.2 Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the alternatives that
meet the threshold criteria:
.
';~ Lonl:1:-term . Effec:iveness and Performanc~. This criteria assesses
. alternatives for their long-term effectiveness and permaneIlc~. along
with the degree or cen:ainty that they will prove succ~ssfuL
.
Reduction of ToxicitY. MobilitY. or Volume Throu2h Treatment. This
criteria addresses the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or
Installation Restoration Program
WOO~.08O
10-1
-------
SECTION 10
treatment that reduces toxicity. mObility. or volume. including how
treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site.
.
ShorHerm Effectiveness. This criteria addresses any adverse impacts
on hu..-:lan health and the environment during impleme:u:Ltion and the
time needed to achieve protection.
.
ImDle:-:1entabilirv. This criteria addresses the technical and
administrative feasibiliry of a remedy. including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement a particular Option.
.
Cost. This criteria addresses the estimated capital and operations and
maintenance costs on a present-worth basis.
10.1..3 Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial alternatives.
generally after ~GB has received public comment on the FFS and P:-oposed Plan:
.
.
State Acceptance. This criteria addresses the Commonwealth's
position and key concerns related to the preferred alre:-native and
other alternatives including commentS on ARARs or the proposed use
of waivers. .
CommunitY AcCeDtance. This criteria addresses the public's general
response to the alte:-natives described in the FFS and Proposed Plan
reportS.
10.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Following the detailed :Lnalysis of each alternative. a comparative analysis. focusing
on me.relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria. was
conduCted. The comparative analysis is presented in the FFS (ABB En\lironmental
Services. Inc.. 199:b).
WOO792:S.080
Installation Restoration Program
10-2
-------
SECTION 10
Toe follov.'ing subsections prese::t the nine c:-ite:-:a and a brief narrative SUI!1r.1arv of
each alternative's streng:hs anc weak.,esses with respect to the evaluation c:iterla.
10.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All the remedial alternatives '..\."ould provide an increased level of protec:ion to
human rec:ptOrs. Alternatives 2 c::.nd 3 include the inst=illation of a cover sYS!c::1 that
would effec::iveiy reduc: contaIT:;-:am migration intO groundwate:-. Protection v.ill be
provided by isolating wasre f:-om surface exposure pathways. Downgradiem
groundwater monitoring. a par: of all alter.latives. will protect human he:llth by
tracking comaminant migration. This ~ill allow timely notice to pe:-sons pOtentially
affected by comaminant migration.
10.2.2 Compliance \Vith ARARs
Alternative I (minimal no a~ion) would not satisfy the require:nems of RCRA
Subtitle C closure/post-closure action-specific ...\RAR for the 1970 Cell. Post-1970
Cell. and Kettle Hole. Tnis A.RAR requires the containment closure of landfills. In
addition.. Alternative 1 would nor me~t the M3Ss3chuse!tS Solid Waste Management
aCtion-specific ARAR for any of the reUs without approval of an alternative cover
system design (existing cover) by the State.
Alternative 2 would need :Mf\DEP approval or the e..cisring cover system only for the
older cells (1947. 1951. and 1957 cells).. Bec:luse Alternatives 1 and 3 include the
installation of a composite low-permeability hydraulic barrier in the cover system
over the 1970. Post-I970. and Kettle Hole cells. the MassachusettS Solid Waste
Management ac-Jon-speciiic AR-\R would be met for those cells. Tne MassachusettS
Solid Waste Management action-specific ARAR would be met for the older cells in
Alternative 3.
10.1.3 . Long-Term Effectiveness. and Permanence
Alternative 1 and 3 offer equivale:u long-term effeCtiveness and pe:manence. Both
alternatives relv on containmem teclmoloEV to control infiltration and lon!!-term
groundwater m~nitoring to document an a1t~~rive's effectiveness.. Both are r~liable
as long as integrity of the cover system is maintained. Each alternative includes a
cover inspection and maintenance program to maintain cover integiity. The minimal
Installation Restoration Program
WOO':"9:::5.Q80
10-3
-------
.~. I
--.---...---.-. -
SECTI0;\i 10
no-ac:ion alternative wQulc achieve the S~me long-rerm effectiveness as other
Altema:ive 2 for the older cells. by way of long-rerm groundwater monitorimr. Tne
minimal no-action a1te~ative would not achieve 10ng-te:m effecrive:::ess at tbe- newe:
cells because no remedial measures would be taken.
lO.2.~ Reduction of Toxicit:,. MobiJit:,. or Volume Through Treatment
Tne three alternatives would not reduce tOxiciry. mobility, or volume of SOurce area
coma.mir.ams through trearme:It. The reducrion or toxicity, mobility. and volume can
be accor.:Dlished throueh treatmem or eroundwater. leachate, or landfill ~a.s. The
. - - -
reduc:ior: of toxicity. mobility. or volume or comaminanrs in groundwater will be
addressee in the groundwater operable unit repof':.
10.2.5 Shon-Term EtT~tiveness
Tne minimal no-action alternative would not have any shorr-term effectS on the
communiry because remedial acrions would not be required. Workers conducting
env1ronmemal monitoring would require specialized health and safery training. Tne
proposed remedial action of Alternatives 2 and 3 would also require health and
safety traizUng for workers who construe:. maintain. and monitor the remedial aerion.
An additional issue is the efiec: on the community of increased truck traffic as large
quantities of cap material are hauled Onto AOC LF-L Because Alternative 2
involves less construction than ."\lternative 3. AJtemative 2 presentS less risk to the
workers, e:wironmem. and community. and has greater shorr-term effectiveness.
10.2.6 Implement:lbiliry
Overall. Alternative 2 would be easy to implement. The proposed remedial aCtion.
which entails covering approximately half the landfill ceIl area has greater technical
feasibility than Alternative 3. which requires covering all landfill ce!ls at AOC LF-l.
Tne proposed interim remedial action would provide a.low-permeability cover system
over the 1970 Cell. PosL-1970 Cell. and Kettle Hole and. would install additional
eroundwate: monitoring: wells downer-adient of all c::11s at AOC LF-I. FaCtors tbat
... -...
increase the technical feasibiiity of the proposed remedial acrion indude: (1) cover
systems and groundwater monitoring wells are feasible and commonly implemented
technologies: (2) site preparation (i.e., clearing trees) would only be required at the
Installation Restoration Program
WOO-:'r..:s,08O
10-4
-------
SECTION 10
1970 C~!l: and (3) materials and services would only be required for 50 acres of
cover system consi::-oJction.
The minimal no-adon alternative would be technic:illv feasible because it would onlv
involve installing and sampling groundwater monitoring we~ls. The minimal nd.
action alte;native does not provide a cover system for all cds. The minimal no-
action alternative has low administrative feasibility because no remedial ac:ion is
propos~d-
Overall. Alternative 3 would be more difficult to irnpleme~:- This alternative has
high administrative feasibility because variance from regulat:ons would likely nOt be
required. However. technically it would be more difficult to implement due to the
follo'Wing factors: (1) extensive site preparation (i.e., cl~~ring trees) would be
required on the densely vegetated 1947, 195i. and 1957 cells: and (2) approximately
double the amount of fill material would have to be transported and placed to
provide a cover system over 90 acres of landfill celis.
10':. i Cost
Toe cost criterion includes the capital (i.e.. up-from) CDS of implememing an
alternative. as well as the coSt of operating and maintaining the alternative over the
long term. Tne estimated total cost on a present-worJ1 basis considers both up-front
c:lpital costS and long-term operation and maintenance COStS. The capital. operation
and maintenance, and total costS for each alternative are discussed in Sections 9.0.
Tne least expensive alternative is the minimal no-acrion alternative, estimated to cost
up to S650.ooo. For Alternative 2 and 3, the costS of the tWo different cover system
scen~oswere . compared. The total coStS of the these are discussed briefly in
Section 9.0 of this ROD. .
10.1.8 State Acceptance
Toe Commonwealth of MassachusettS has indicated itS concur.-ence with the selected
interim remedial action (i.e., Alternative 2). A lener expressing their concurrence
is presented in Appendix B.
Installation Restoration Program
WOOi"9"'..:5.080
10-5
-------
..., .
SECTION 10
10.2.9 Community Acceptance
Based on the written and oral commentS received during rJ:e recent cOmment period.
there is some disae:reemeDt with the NGB's seJected remedv. R
-------
SECTIO:'li 11
11.0 THE SELECTED I~"TERI:\-I RE:'vIEDY
Tne ~GB has selected Alterna.:ve 2. Alternative 2 is an imerim remedy. the Q:oals
or which are to reduc: comarnir:ams leaching to groundwate:-. limit rriiE:rati;n of
liquids through landfill c:11s. a:1c maintain compatibiliry 'Witb the final-remedial
measures. while the AOe LF -1 groundwater plume is cha:acte:'ized and final
re:nedial altem:ltives are stUdied.
11.1 CUA,'I;-{;p LEVELS
A 10-6 excess cance:- risk level for carcinogenic effectS or a concentration
corresponding to a Hazard Index of 1.0 for compounds with noncJIcnogenic effectS
is typically used to set cleanup levels. Risk-based target cleanup levels were nOt
developed for LF-l source comrol because the source (landfiil wastes) were nOt
sampled. Remedial alternatives developed for AOe LF-I Sourc: Area included
thre~ containment options. Tnese alternatives were developed to address migration
pote:nial for contaminantS leaching to groundwate:-.
Cleanup levels for groundwater contaminantS associated with the AOe will be
developed in the FFS for groundwater.
Periodic assessmentS .of the proteCtion afforded by remedial action (i.e.. five-ye:Jr
re...iews) will be made as the rer.'ledy is being implemented and at the compietion of
the remedial action. If. during a five-yeJI site review, the source control remedial
action is not found to be protective. further action 'Will be required.
11.2 DESCRIPTION Of RE:'t-IEDlAL COMPONE='ITS
The installation of a composite low-permeabiliry cover system (i.e- Alternative 2) will
achieve the response objectives identified in SeCtion 5.0 of this document. The
ma:
-------
SECTION II
Existing vegetation on the 1970 CeIl. POSt- 1970 Cell and Kettle Hole such as brus
and grass would be cleared. grubbed, and possibly spread over the AOC in a thij
layer. Tne cleared area would be regraded to Control rainwater runoff and II".inimiz:
erosion. The insi:allation or a gas deteC"'Jon syste:n around these cells would be usee
to monitor for the prese~ce or migration of methane and other landfill gases afte:
closure of these rhree cells. A passive gas venting system also would be part of the
landfill cover.
The cover's low permeability barrier layer would be construCted or a low-permea.bility
barrier layer and a geome:::brane to keep rainwater or snowmelt from infilrrndng the
landfill. Tne low-permeability barrier layer will be covered by a drainage layer to
effeCtively minimize water irulltration into the low-permeability layer. Topsoil would
be placed on top of the drainage layer to sUPPOrt grass, which will minimize soil
erosion and enhance evapoC-aDSpiration to effeCtively minimize warer inffitration intO
the low-permea.bility layer. Figure 9-1 illustrates the profile of the landfill cove:
system. Toe landfill will be fenced to prOtect the integrity of the cover system and
eliminate access to casual trespassers.
A post-closure plan will be developed specifying the inspeCtion. monitoring, and
maintenance programs for the closed landfill to be continued for a minimum of 30
years. These post-closure activities will be subject to five-year site reviews as
required by the NCP when COntaminants remain at the site.
I",staJiation Restoration Program
WOOi"9"..:s.08D
11-2
-------
SECfION 12
12.0 STATI"TORY DETER..'IINATIONS
The ime:im adon selec::ed for implementation at AOC LF-l Sourc~ Area is
consis~e:H wit~ CERCL-\ and. to the extent practicabie. the :\CP. Toe selec:ed
remedy is protec:ive of human health and the environ:::ent. attains AR-\Rs. and is
cost-effeCtive. The selected remedy uses permane~: solutions and alternative
tre:ltr:1em tec~noiogies or resourc~ recovery technologies to the maximum ex!em
prac::icabie for this site. However. it (as well as the Other alte:natives evaluated)
does nOt satisfy the statUtory preference for treatme::n which permanently cmd
significamly reduces the toxicity. mobility, or volume or hazardous subs~ances as a
principal eleme:u.
12.1
THE SELECTED RE~IEDY IS PROTECTIVE OF H(;~lAN HEALTH A.'iD THE
E~VIROSME:'IT
Tne remedy at AOe LF-l will permanently reduce the r.sks posed to hum:m health
and the environme:u by eliminating, reducing. or comrolling direc: comacr exposures
to human and environmental receptors through engineering controls (i.e.. low-
permeability barrier cover system). Moreover, the selected remedy will minimize
infiltration of precipitation into landfilled waste material and minimize the potential
for contaminant migration from waste materials. Finally. implementation of the
selected remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks or C'oss-media impa~.s
because the selected remedy indudes elementS to mitigate pOtemial impaC"..s (e.g..
erosion control measures. gas detection and management. and maintenance and
monitoring programs).
U.2 THE SELECTE:D R.E~IEDY ATTAINS ARARS
. .
This' remedy \\,ill attain all ARARsjfederal and state requirementS that apply to the
selected source control remedy for AOe LF-l. ARARs that pertain to groundwater
will be identified in' separate FS and ROD documentS. and seleCted remedies for
those media \l,il1 be required to comply with ARARs. Environmentai laws from
which ARAR.s for the seleCted source control remedial action are derived. and the
. .
Installation Restoration Program
WOO79~.OSO
12-1
-------
SErno." 11
':.J.:::fk A1V...Rs. are listed in Tables 11-1 throu!2:h 1:-3.
:;~:;c:a.!1t ARARs is provided in the following sub;ections.
A brief na:-rative 0
1:...:..1 Location-specific.4RARs
u~:ion-5pec:Ec ARARs for AOC LF-I Source are ide::.tified in Table 1~-1.
So-;::-5l)UTce .-\q'.rif~:- Regulations. In general. projeCtS that would be subjecr ro revie'.\;
.;::c~:- :he soie-50urce aquifer program include highway or building construCtion
~lj:e~..s. eithe:- of whicb could have potentially detrimental effeCtS on human health
~":.C ;:be surrounding environment. Tne proposed CERCLA activities would not
:::C"~e C'.lITe=:t contaminant concentrations in the sole-source aquifer; the proposed
;::~~;n remedial action would decrease the amount of rainwater infiltratin!2: AOe
LF-: Source and the amOUnt of COntaminants entering the aquifer. -
12.Z..z Chemical-specific ARARs
C1e::-.ica1-5pe~.fic ARARs that have been identified in Table 12-2 were used in the
nsk 3S.5essme:n for AOC LF-l.
l2-Z.3 Action-specific ARARs
Ac::on-speciiic ARARs for the selected remedy are presented in Table 12-3. A
~um:r.a.rv of reauirementS !fiat must be attained are discussed in the foIlo\\lin!2: brief
desc:-:ptions~ . -
Air Regulations. Federal and state air quality Standards exist for particulate matter
and control of fugitive emissions and would be used in assessing excavation and
CODStnJc:ion emission conrrols. These standards are relevant and appropriate. r:lther
than applicable. because they were originally developed to control stack and
automobile einissions. Threshold Limit Values established by OSHA regulations
prO";de an extensive list of controlleveIs applicable to on-site remediation aCtivities
'iuc!1 as construc::ion of the cover SYStem. Air-related ARARs would be met throu!2:h
the use of engine:ring controls arid monitoring during construCtion of the remedy.
Wate:- Regulations. SubStantive requirementS of the Massachusetts Groundwater
Discharge PermitS would be relevant and appropriate to the on-site infiltration of
'nstaUation Restoration Program
W1tI7?z:s.(.fI/)
12-2
-------
TAIIE 12-'
lOCATION-SPECifiC ARARa. CRITERIA. ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
Aoe t F.1 SoUnCE RECORD Of PECISION
MA6SACIIU6EH' MIIUARV RESlRVA lioN
MIOI4
REQIIIIIIMEN'
.'AT"I
REQUIRIME"' 8VNOl'SI.
CnNIiIlI[RA unN IN 111£ INUHIM ROD
!QlUQY..I!~E AQYlffB!
f!!!!!!J
SOWA Sale SOlllce
Aquillll' 140 CFR 1491
nalavanl and
Ajl'lIollllale
USEPA " aulhorlzed 1o desionaia a'1ulfalS as solo
801l'CI and ..view 'ede,at linancially IIsslslud
prolecls In Ihl alea 1o dolo Imino Iho prujecl's
lIolollllul 10 cunlaminala Ihe ulJuihll. No Iudulal
asslslallco moy bll lIIudu 101 ploillcis Ihul may
conlamlnall Iho ol\lIilel. Convolsuly.ludelullllnds
may be used 10 modl'y PloJOCIS 1o enSlliO Ihey will
nol conlamlnale Ihe aqulfel.
Tho classification 01 orollndwalol hunealh
Copu CUll us II sUIO'SOIlICO uquitu/ Was uivun
consille/alion In Ihe .Isk assessmonl.
..... Noe.er
,.J
~, ACEC . Atl. 01 Crlllc.' Envlronmenl., Conclln
ARAA Appllcabll or Relevanl and Approprlall Requlremenl'
CFA Codl 01 Fldllal Regulallonl .
CMA . Codl 01 Mallichulelli Regulallonl
RllfS . remedllllnvllllgillon/lelllblilly lIudy
SOWA . Sale Drinking Waler Acl
USEPA . U.S. Envlronmenlal Prolecllon Agency
-------
MmlA
....
N
J,.
f!~!!al Ouldan~
Ind C,lIe"a To Be
r:onsld8!!~-
.ID!!!
ftEQU,nEMUlT
SDWA . MCLs
(40 CFn 14111 .
141.161
snWA . MCI ns
(.111 CHI 141511.
141.51)
RCRA . Subparl F
G,oundwale,
P,olecllon
Siandards, Allarnala
ConClnl/allon limits
(40 cm 264 94)
lISEPA nlsk
nll'l/enCI OOSIS
(RIDs)
USEPA Carcinogen
AssIssmlnl G,oup.
Cancer Siopi
Faclors (CSFs)
Massachusills
D"nk'ng Waler
Siandards
(310 CMn 22.001
Massachll~Ulls
IIWMItMaxllllllltI
Concenlralion 01
Conslillllnli lor
Groundwallr .
Prolecllon .
(310 CMA 30668)
STATU'
Relevanl and
Approp,'ale
nellvanl anll
"I'flfOll/lalo
nelevanl and
Apprupflale
To B8
Consldel8d
To BI
Consldll8d
. Rllevanland
Approprlale
nUIUVDIII ifill
ApplOfI,'ala
TABtE 12,2
CllrMICAl,S"ECIFIC ARARa, cRlnn,-,. ADVI80RIEB. AND al/IIiANCE
AGe LF.1 SOURCE RrCORD OF DrClslON
MASSACIIUS£1 T8 MUII/\IIY RES(RVA JlON
REGUmENENT 8YNOPll8
MCI s have been promiligaled lor several comlllon
orgallic and Inoroanic conlallllna"ls. MCts 'eOlllal1l
Ihe concenlrilion 01 CORlamlnanls In pulJllc d,'nking
walllr luppllss, bUI mly II so lJe consldl/ed IIllIvanl
and app'oprlala lor grolllldwalllr aqllllllll IIslld lor
d"lIklnlJ wilillr.
Mr.1 Os 811 heollh basoll C,IIII"II. As Pfollluigalad
ullilor SAltA, MCtGs Irlllo be consldllrod 'or drinking
waler SOllrces. MClGs are availahlll lor saveral
organic and Inoroanic COllla'n/nanls.
Thl. requlremenl oullln8. siandards, In addillon 10
background conclnlrallon. and MCI.', 10 be usud In
eSlalJlishlng clean.up levels 10' 'e0l8dlallng
g,oundwaler conlamlnallon.
AI Os Ir8 conslderod Iho levols unlikely 10 cause
sigllilicani adverso heallh ellucls assoclaled with a
llilushoid muchalllSIll 0' aCliollln hlllllan ekpOsllru lor
a Ii'ollllle.
CSF. "presonl Ih8 mosl up.lo.dale Inlormallon on
cancer risk ',om USEPA's Carclnogun AssoSslllell1
Group.
Mllsachusell. Crlnklng Wala, Siandards, okcepl lor
lodllllll, arl Iqulvalenl 10 'oderlll MC.s. When slalu
levels IIrl 1I10la SlrllllJllllllhanloderalluvel5, Ihu slalu
levuls lIIay !JII IISUI'
I his 1IIIIullolllUIII ISlahlishes IIlIoe cal090li85 01
!lrollnl'waler proleclioll siamlallls: !JackYlOund
conconlllllolls, lIIexllllunl COIICOllll8liuIIS, alld
allllllaiu concentration.. Thl maximum
concelllrallons alC. Idlnllcello lodoral SIJWA MCLs.
CONSIDERATION IN TlfE IrnOlIM ROD
To assess Ihe pOlunlial ,isks 10 hUlllall heallh due '0
conS'III'plion 0' groundwalu,. COlllamillanl
COncelll/alions were Compared 10 Iheir MC.s.
1he 1990 Nalional Conlillgency Plan sialus I/Ial non.
zero MCtGs IIrli 10 1111 USlld as ooals. COIII.tlllilian.
conCelil/alions in O'OUfltJWiUU, weru cOll1palllll.o 'huir
MCIGs.
Thele ,uqlll'8menll may be ralevanl and approprlale 1/
cerlaln cOIIIJilions relallng 10 hanspo', amlllXpOslI'o are
mel.
IJSEPA RIOs were 10 cha,ac'e'ize risks dl/u 10
1I0llcarcilloyuns ill variuus lIIedia.
IJSEPA CSFs wer8 used 10 compule Ihe individual
Incremerllal cancer ,isk rusl/lliny 110111 ekpUsurc lu
cerlaill chomicals.
To assess Ihe pOlenllal ,'sks 10 human heallh dUll 10
conSl/fIIpl/on 01 grotlflliwaler, COnlam'nanl
Clillcunlr,,'iulls Wu,u CUlllflitlucllu Ihui, M(~I ~
CUlI1plyill1J wilh lullllral MCts will bl! COnSislenl willi
slalu slafl
-------
conllnued
I "..-. "oft' .....~ {' ~..... ... I\, . . .
. '':",'
"';";'~I"';~
" . ~ .~-,...",,';;~~
TABlE 12.2
CllfMICAI,SPECIFIC ARARe, CRIJfRIA, ADVISORlfl, AND GUIDANCE
AOC IF.1 SOI/RCE RECORD OF DECISION
MASSAClIuuns MIlITARY RESERVATION
MEDlA
REQUIREMfNT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDfRATION IN TIlE INTERIM ROD
Stall Guidance
and Cliteiiiliii-Al
.r:iij!'!I!!~! ~'!J' -_. --
Massachusetts
D,inklng Walel
CillhiolillU5
To 8e
Consldeled
The Ollice 01 Resea,ch and Stalldards uses a
melhodoloOY simiiallo Ihe USEPA Olliee 01 D,inking
Wille' whull lIuttiliU uuhlulillull. Call:i'III!lUII5 havu
guidelines selal tho lowusl practical qllillllil...lion limil
01 a level Ihul would pose 811 e.colls CiinCUI risk 01 10
" 101 lIollcarclllo(JulIS, Q I'IIIClllllaUIi III.uIIIIV 2U
pelcenll II appllllll 10 publish lid 01 dellved loulu.
specific AIDs and standald exposUle assumplioll 10
derive a dllnklng walel concen"atlon,
In Iho absel1ce of 01ho11l10,e sl,lngeni siandards, Ihese
ouitlelillus will he consldured dUlin!! Iho .isk
a~~u~.Mllcnl
NolU,
"
AnAR . Appllcsble 0' nelevanl and Appropriate Rlqulflmenl
CERCLA. Comprehenalve Envlronmenlal Reaponae, Componsallon. and lIablllly Acl
..... CFR . Code d' Feda..1 Regulallons
t~ CMR . Code d' Masaachusella Regulallons
,
VI CSF . carcinogenic slope I~ctor
FS 'elslbillty .tudy
HWMR H'llrdou. Wastl M.nlglment Rul..
MMR MI..IChu.I"1 Military ROllrvallon
MCL . MINimum Conllmlnlnt LIVII
MCLO . Mlllimum Conlamlnlnt Llvel 0011
MMR . Masslchua,n, Mllllarv Reservallon (
OSWER . Olllee 01 Solid Waale Ind Emergency Re'pon..
RI . IImedl.I Inv..llgallon
RCRA . Rllource Conaervlllon Ind Recovery Act
RID . fI'erence dOli
SARA . Superfund Amendments and Reaulho,llallon Act
SDWA . Sal, Drinking Wats, Acl
USEPA . U.S. Environmental P,olecllon Agencv
-------
'"
TAIIE 12.3
ACtlON,SPEClfIC A"PIICAIIE OR RElEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQlllnCM[NTS
Aoe IF.1 SOURCE RECORD OF DECI610N
MASSACII1I6U III MUllAllY R16UIVA JIliN
REQUIREMENT
STATUI
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
Feder!!!
RCRA . Releases Irom Solid
Wasle Manaoemenl Unl.s
(40 cm 264 90,264.109)
CONS'OUIAtiON IN JIIE INURIM ROD
nCRA . Closl/re and Posl.closure
(40 CFR 264.110,264.120)
RCRA . t andlills
(40 ern 264300.264.339)
.....
I,J
~
nCRA.Crilerla lor Municipal Solid
Wasle lalldlills
(40 cm 2581
OSIIA . Generallnduslry
Slandards
(29 cm ParI 1910)
OSHA. Sa'ely IInd Hellllh
Siandards
(29 CFR ParI 1926)
Relevanl and
Approprlale
Ilulovanl IInd
Apploprlale
nelevanl and
App'0l','alll
llelev8111 and
Allpro,"'ale
Appllcahle
Applicable
This reouiation delails Oloundwalel monilollno
rUllultelllonls 101 hallll/'Ulls Wil51u ',oallnenl 'acilitlus.
1hll IlIoulalion oullines oeneral gloundwalor mOllllorlno
slandards, as wull as slandalds '01 dotoclion
1II0lliiollno, compliance 11I0llllorlnO. and COIIIIClivo
IICli01l11l0nllorlng.
This leoulallon dUlalls oenlllal requltllmenls 101 closule
and pOSI.closulo 0' hlllaldOlls waSlo 'acililies, Inchu.inu
IlIslallillinn III a UIOI/llliwalul IlIlInllllllllU '''"U'iUII
Owners 01 opelalols 0' oNlslinO landlills shollll' close
11111 unil In a mannur 111111 Is consislunl with Ihusu
reOl/lations. The land'ill cover systo"l should he
dllSlonud 10 provide ,onO"Ullllmlllimiliitilln OlllliUlalilln
. 0' licluids 11I,0uoh Ille closod landhll, 10 p,olllotu
drlllnaoe and rllillimilation olOsioll ul 'he COVUI, lu
'"nc.ioll willi milllllllllll 1118ill'e'lIlIIcO, '0 IIccommodalo
601llinO and subsIdence so Ihal cover InleO,lIy Is
malnlalned, and 10 have a permeabilily less IlIlIn or
8qlla',o 1110 permeabllily 01 any bOIlOlIl lillUI systulII or
lIilh"..1 suhsoils prusulIl
This requiremell' eSlablishlls 1110 minimum nalional
crilerla 11111'01 IIcnA 'or ulllllulllcll'al solil' waslll lilllllliIJ
1I1I1t, 811d undur Cleall WiI'ul Ac' lor 1lIIIIlicll'ili ~lIliI'
wliulu IUlld'ill¥ thai uru usud 10 dlspll~u 0' ~UWdUo
6ludUe. II,'s ruqultemenl spocllfes Ihe closulII and
pOSI.closure cale crilelia '01 munlcipa' solid wasto
landlills.
These leOllla.iolls specify Iho 8 hour Iimll.welOhllld
avoraoo conconllalloll 101 various orgallic compollllds.
Tlainino lequirllmon's lor wo,kors al lIazaldolls was.us
oplllahollS alII speciliud in 29 CHi I!J 10 .~o.
1hls reouiailon' specilillS the 'ypu 0' S8!O'y IIqlll~lIIent
and plocedures 10 be lollowed dlllino SIIII'lIlIIod,alloll.
............. "-
----.---.... - -. _....
Gonelol orollllliwalul lIIollilorl"o s'anda/l's should bo
addlussod as pal' 01 any p,oposud alterllative Tho lIood lor
any 01 'he specific lIIollllllrino p,ourams will dupem' on
whulhol SOIlICO lIIalOliills alu lumnvul'. hUillull, or 'ull ill plJcu.
Those pal'S 01 Ihe le!)lIlation COllcelllec1 wilh 11I1I!llurm
mllllilll"II\J 1111,1 1II,.ill'ulla,":u 01 IIIU silu will .'U CIIII~illulI:"
Ihllhl!) 101liudlill dusiUII.
A Covel syslum on Iho lanlllill wllllhi he cOllsl'IIClul' 10 IIlIIu'
Ihu lamllill CIUSIIIII lequilulllullis
The pal'S o. 'huso rOUl/lalions .lIal outlinll thu OIOulI/lwate,
11101111011110 roquiluiliullh 1111111110 sChu,lu'u lur Clllllpll;UII:U wilh
thosu IU'luIIUIIIUII', wilillu tulu'U'";U5 "UIIII\l Iho flllsi cluslllu
pldll dOVllloPIIIUllt.
Ploper respiratory equipmenl will he worn if ills Impossihlo '0
main'aill tho wo,k UhllllSphcle hulow 'ho COllcelll,alioll
Worke,s PC1'0IlHin!) achvllius would he required Iu havu
cOlllpleled specific II ailling lequiremenls.
All appropriale sa'ety equipment will be 011. silo. III addition.
-------
r,
::~r;W1
. t''''
contlnuod
.. TABlE 12.3
ACTION.SPEClflC ApPIICAIIE OR RElEVANT AND APPROPRIAl£ REQIIIRfMfNI6
Aoe IF.1 SOl/liCE RECOIID OF DECISION
MASSACIIUSfTTS MIiITARV RESERVATION
REQUIREMENT
ST"TUS
REQIIIIIEMENT SYNOPSIS
CONGIlIEIIA flON IN litE INI£IIIM ROO
OSItA . Recordkeeplng,
Repolllng, and Relaled
RlIuulaliona (29 CFR 1904)
RCnA . Slandards Appllcabll 10
Gen81alols O. ltazaliJous Wasle
(40 em I'all 262)
Applicable
This legulallon oullinas Ihe r8coldkeeplng and leporUng
lequlremenls 'or an emplDver under OSIIA.
These le'lullemenls apply 10 all sile contraclors and
slIhconll aCIOlS, and 1111151 tJe 'ollowed during all sile work.
Relevanl and
A"/lIO/lllale
1hla lequlremenl aels slandards 'ur (llIlIoralors 01
hazardous wasil. Ihal addrllss (II accumulaling wasle,
(:!) ple'lBllnO haill/llllus wa!iltl IlIr shlfllllunl, UIII'
(31 preparing Ihe unltoll" hazardous WO!iltt manltusl
1 huse IUllllirelllunls IUU Inloo,alull willi no 'ruUlllalllllll.
II any allumalivo plOpOSOI shippin!) wasles 011. silo, Ille
lIIalullal II III sl he shipputl In 1"11/1"1 cllillainels Ih"l ale
ur;r;uro.ltulv lIIalhull ulill 1..hulull, 011111 Ihu 1I0.I1I61'II,Ici IIIIISI
dlsplav propul placa,ds. All waste shlpllluills IIIIIsl ho
1I1:1:'"lIpalllull !IV un "I'I"III"I;,tu lIo;lIlilu~t
DOT Rul.. '01 Tlanspoltallon D.
Unaldous Materials
(49 CFA Palls t07, t71.1.
t72.558)
Relevant and
Appropllall
This I8gulallon oulllnes plocedulls 101 Ihe packaging,
. labillng, manifesting, and transporllng 0' hazardolls
maleliall.
!tauliJous and contaminated lIIalll,lal5 will he packaged,
manlle51ed, and l'anspOiled 10 a licensed 011 sile disposal
lacililV In compliance wilh Ihese regulaUons.
-
loJ
I
-...1
Clean All Acl . Nallonal Primary
and Secondary Amblenl Ail
Oualllv Standardl (40 CFR 60)
Appllcabll
PrlmalY alllblenl all quality slamla.ds define levels 01 air
ql/alilv 10 proieci hUlllan helilih.
The palUclilale stanlla,d 'or mailer luss Ihan 10 micrllns ill
diamulllr is 1501'U/III', 24.hol/r IIvlI,auu conceillratillll 111e5u
slallda,tls woulLl hu oLllluluLl to 111111110 COIIslruclloll activltills.
Appllcabll
Secondary Imblenl all quail IV 81andalds protect human
wella.. Irom known 01 anticipated adverse ellecls from
pollulanls.
These slandard. would bl complied wllh '0' remedial
conshucllon acllvities.
~!i!!!-
MassachuSI"1 HWMR .
Managemlnl Slandalds '01 All
/l8Iardol/s Wasle Facilities rHO
CMIt :lU blM) . :m bU I)
. Relevant and
Approprlall
Thl ,ules plovldl a comprehensive program 'or
handling, sloraoe, and reco/likoepino al hazardous
wasto 1;\I:ilitios 1 hey 5I1p(llulllunllhllllr.IIA '1I!11I1,,111I1I5
necause Ihese reqllilemenls supplemenl RCnA hauldous
wasle re911111lions, the V lIIusl also be conside,ed.
MlSsachuse"l HWMR .
Requillmlnls 101 Ciosull and
I Posl.Clolurl 1310 CMR 30.690.,
30 595)
Rellvant and
Apploprlall
Thesl lI'IIIIIIIIIOnls all slmila, 10 Iho ledllral
lIoulalions. PO!iI.closur8 cale usualiV continues '01
30 veall wllh g,oundwaler II\onllorlnu IInd air qllalitV
monllollng.
1he IlIlIIedial actions wllllncllltle gloundwatu, ,lIollllo,in9 alld
air qllalltv lIIonilorillg.
-------
CO",Inued
REQUIIIEME,n
Mas'achusellS ItWMA .
G,ouodwale, Proleclion
IJ III CMIt 30660 . :w (19)
MasUChusellS ItWMn .
IIUI,II;IIIIIIIIIIIS '0' 080e,aI0/5
(3'0 CMn 30.300.303711
....
'>J
.
00
MasslChusell. I.'WMA .
nuqu',emeo,s '0' "IOSpo,'e,s
(310 CMn 30.400 . 30.416)
M'I~S,II;IIII~UII5 , IWMI' . 'II/Illtil/~
(J III CM', J0620 . JU6JOI
M.lssachl/sIIII. Solll' WaS'e
M,IIHIIIUlllellllluOl/lallUIIS
n III CM" I!I OliO !U!!!I.I
Masslchusells G,OUOdWlle,
Dischaloe Pe,mus
(314 CMA 5.00)
MasUchl/slIlIS Al, POIII/I/oo
COlIl,o' (lIIOllla'ioo,
(310 CMII 600 . 8.001
TAelE 12.3
"""" S".." ''''''''', o. ..""., ... ''''''''''''" .''''''''''''
Aoe IF'1 SOIlRCE RECOIID Of DECISION
MASSACIIII'U ,. MnllAIIY RUll/VA IIUN .
STATUI
Relevanl and
AflJllOjI,ialll
RfQlllllfM1Nr SYNO/'SIS
The 'lIgUlillions Ol/I/ioll 'IIonilO,ing and allaly'ica,
P'OClldl/'u~ O'OI/IIdwallll nlOnilO,ino shull',' ""
COlldl/CIUl' 111/1;110 alld 'ollow;1I1I IIIII'Ulli,I' aCliulI~.
CUllcu'II'oI'iulI lillliis 'III hUlall'ul/s Cunshh,un,s 0111
'/llIci'lild in Seclion 30667. fhll monilo"oo "'OO'il'II
01111111111' in Ihese ,eOlllalions spOci/ius Ihal OIO'IIII'W,IIIII
1111151 110 "O.lIuI' 0' '1I1I'UVlld whll,1I halll'dous waslu
COlIs'i'lIOllls o~eelld 'he IIsla"'isIIo" coneull" aliollli/Ilils
CONSIII£HAJlON IN lifE IN'lfnA! ROD
Groundwa'el 1II0/lilUlillg will UUllelally '''"nw 'hu '"U!)Ialli
uut/illu" III SU!:,,,". :111 Jl;?
Uulevalll and
AfI,JIOp,'a'lI
'hesll 'lIqulremen,s 81e I/mlla, 10 Ihe ledela' nCIlA
reOulalions '0, O.ne'lllo'l. MilSSIIChuSUlts s""!:i/ius
,oql//lomunls 'u, \lUll' Small. quallt/ly OUIIO'o1lo,s, 8S Woll
as slIIall. alliJ '11100 ' UIIII'i'y Olloe,u,u,s
Whon a wasl. UI los"'ual was'll '5 fltOV!!". 11111 UCIIOlalol
'"I/I/"UIIIUIIls slloll'" hll COIllP'icll wilh
Relavan' eod.
APII'O/II'al.
Those ,egulations a/8 slll1l1al 1o Ihe 'lIdulOI nGIlA
"",IS"OI/.aliulI '11'111""1111111'5. III IIUlllliulI, "ablli'y
'1I11I/aIlCII lIIusl be oblo'olld by all "cIIOSlld haraldolls
waSle Ilaos,lollo,s and lIach vllhk/u 1I1t'~lh,lVu it vull/llu
"/UIII/'ic:.,IiI/II,'uVi,:o
"oIUII'OIl. lIIololla's wll, he Ilanspolled by a liceoso" 0PII"lIo,
10 110 01/ si'o I/is"o~a' I.II:ilily ,I~ ~"U""'ul' III "II:~II
III',I/;'U/IIUIII:.
IIclevall' IIlId
A"p,u,ll/a,o '.
r hese leouiations oUlllolI deslUII s'all/'alds aliI/
0".'111100 IU11IIIIOII,onls '01 lall.I/,lls tlsud 10 dis"osCl 0'
hala,dous was'li. 'hll ,0qul'.IIIIIII'S 'lie II/do Slal"'.lIl/s
'01 "OllIS, ,"olliluI'OO, IIqU/PIIIIIIII, alld 'liah dUlllc'/nll. AI
closlll.. '''0 'aml/ill 01 clllls 5holl'" "u I:OVOIU,' wllh .1
lillal COVUI lilli' jlo~' l"'~I/'o L:,IIU shuilli. hll flwvi,'u"
Oes/Oll 0' 'ho 'aod'iI! COVllr sys'om aCCOlclillg 10 Ihe 'llc/elal
nC'1A c/osuro 111'1 I/il UlIIo, II 5 WOul., COlllflly WII" 'husu
,ugl/laUolIS.
AfI/IIicablo
r IIuslI 'OOU/illiulls Sfloci/y elII5iun 51illll'alds '01 suli.,
waslo lallllllll~ Iho ,ol/uilOlll0lll5 Oill/illll SIa'II'il/ds 'UI
'illllllill/illal COvo, SY5111'III, OlOUlliJwa,o" SU".JCII walol.
IIlIiJ /l/'IIIUOi/o,iIlU SySlofl'll. and pOSI.closu,o Ca'lI.
(JoSillll 01 a solil' W.Hle 'alill/ill coval SYSlolII wOUI(, eOlllply
wit/I t/ICISII 'U'llIi/e'IIUII/s.
Relevant ancl
. AlJllIOfJ,'a'1I
POImllln'o"nalloo, Inc/l/dloO COoditions Illd varlaocos,
15 SpoCilied ;11 '"oSII IUOl/laliollS
OisehalUo 0' s'n""wa'e, 10 Ihll OrUIIIIU 01 OWI/'II'Willo, IVOII'.,
(:Olllflly willi "'It s',IIs'.tllhvu 1UI'"ilU"",",. 0' IIII:~u 1I!!l1I""ItJII~
flu/uva", el'" . '"0511 '00,".1';0115 oll/lilllliho 5'ilIII'a'd5 'UI aI, flollulin"
""""""'.10 "''''' oj. '''''.Ii". I'.",,,,,,. """.,. ,.. r,,,,, '''''''00'''"
nll,ogun dluN/,'", 11111./ 1001'
WII7"11' 'IHIl/Ito
PU,IICII'alu S'oIlIll<,", /s 15110/111' alllli/ol gllolllel"c llllIao aOd
-------
contlnllcd
.'.' --~""q,..." ""W"."'i:"":~'!'''' ~"1'\~"''l'''I!~~11,.:.t~~
' . ".:".~ ."",,':",' ;'?"""'~:JI~~
TABlE 12-3
ACJlON-SPEClfIC APPliCABlE OR RElEVANT AND ApPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Aoe LF.' SOURCE RECORD Of DECISION
MASSACIIUSEHB MIlIfAIIY RUEnVA II1IN
REOUIREMENT
STATUI
REQUIREMENT SYIIOPSIS
CONSlI\rllAlION IN TilE INIUUM ROD
"",lloOlonlallon ot MGL Chaplur
IlIf, ElI1p'oyee and CommuIIUy
Alohl-lo-Know (310 CMn 33 GO)
Worller Alghl-lo-Know (44' CMR
nOO)
nul'valll and
"IIPI ullrlal'
Relavanl and
"P,lIo/lIlall
The 180ulaliollS DSlablish rules amlrel\lIlrulI1ellis /ullhu
,diss8mlnalioll 0/ III'orlllalloll relalud 10 10.lc oru'
hazardous slIbslances 10 Ihe public,
Thesl IIgulalioo. eslabllsh requlremenls lor walke,,'
,IUhllo,know,
IlIhl/lllalioll apillicahiu 10 silu aClivilius arul ch.llach!lislics will
be IIlal'U avail.lhle 10 Ihu puhlic.
Inlo,"'8110n appllcahlo 10 sile aCllvlllas ond chalaclullslics will
hu 1II1I,lu IIvaildhlu Iu UII tillu WUII-Ulli.
Nol'" "
CFA Code 01 Federal Regulallons
CMR Cod. 01 Mallachu""1 Regulallone
.... DOT . Depar1menl ot T,ansp0r1allon (U.S.I
I.J
, tlWMA Hazardou. Wasle Management RulBl
\0
MGl Massachu,,", General law
OSltA Occupallonal Sa'ely and H.alth Admlnlslrallon
ROD . Record 01 Decision
RCAA . Resourci Conleryallon and RecovelV Acl
JlU/m' . mlclogram. per cubic meler .
-------
SECTI0:'i 12
StOrmWater fUIJaff. Tne groundwater downgr:,.dieo, of the landfiiI wouk
monitored as pan of :he POst-closure plan.
Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulations. The federal and state requirements f,
closure of landfills are relevant and appropriate to the closing of the 1970 Cell. Po,
1970 CelL and Ketde Hole. The landffiJ was operated for the disDDSal of municoa
type wastes. The sele:::ed landfill COver SYStem would be designed to provide lor.g
term minimization of migr:,.tion of liquid through the closed cens. to promot,
drainage and minimize erosion of the cover. to function ~ith minimum maimena::e<
to accommodate settling and subsidence so that COVer integriry is maimained. ane "
have a permeabiliry less than the narural soils present.
The off-site shipment of hazardous materials would be subjeer to l'.S. Departme",
of Transportation rules.
Other Action-speciiic Regulations. Federal OSHA requiremems that regulate wor..,
and employee records should be followed during all on-site work. Tnese regulatior.;
include. safery and health Standards for federal se:vice contracts and recordkeeping.
reporting. and related regularions. Because these re.."lations govern gene"'-!
working conditions within industry and provide minimum protection Standards for
worke", involved in remedial actions. these regulations are applicable.
Massachusens has hazardous subsUllIce right-to-know regulations that establish
requiremenrs to prot"", the health and safery of employees and commlUliry residenrs
L"roUgh the communication of infonnation regarding tOxic a.,d hazardous subsrances.
Tnese regulations are relevant and appropriate to on-site worke", during the
remedial aCtion. .
12.3 THE SELECTED RE:\.fEDIAL ACTION IS COST-EFFECTIVE
In the NGB judgmenl the seleered remedy is COSt-effective (i.e. the remedy affords
overall effectiveness Proportional to its COStS). In seleering this remedy. once the
NGB identified aJternarives that are protective of human health and the environment
and that attaln ARMs. they evaluated the overaJl effeeriveness of each alternative
by assessing the relevant criteria. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of this
Installation Restoration Program
WI107'7::S.080
12-10
-------
Ir
~
~
F:
SECfION 1::
remedial alternative was determined to be proponional to itS costS. Tne COSLS or this
remedial alternative are:
Estimated Capital Cost:
Estimated Present \Vorth of O&Y1 CostS (30 years):
Estimated Tota! Present Worth (30 years):
526-32 million
52-3 million
528-35 million
Altemarive : is considered the most cost-effective altemarive because it pro'vides the
protec:ion against contaminant leac~ing. The ne:::d ror sourc:: remediation in the
older cells has not been shown to date. therefore. Alte:narive 3 is less cost~:fec::ive.
Alternative 1. although less costly. will not protect against contaminant le3.c~ing to
the groundwate:. !\"one of the alternatives evaluated in detail include a tre:ltmem
component.
u.~
THE SELECTED RE.'\IEDY L"l1LIZES PER.'IANE~ SOLUTIONS A.~1> ..u.TER:~JAm"'E
TREA'DIE:'IIT OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE :\'IAXI1\1(J:\1
EXTE~ PRACTICABLE
The selected remedy is protective or human health and the environment. complies
with federal and state requirementS (v.;th approval of alternate cover system) that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the source control remedi:1l acrion.
and is cost-effective. The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the ma.ximum eXtent
pra~icable ror this site.
The source control remedy was selected 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 throufo treatment: (3) short-term effectiveness: (4) implementability: and (5)
coSt. The balancing test emphasized long-tenn effectiveness and permanence and
the reduCtion of toxicity. mobility. and volume through treatment: and conside:-ed the
preference for treattnent :lS a principal element. the bias against off-site land disposal
of untreated waste. and community and state acceptance. The seleCted remedy
pro..ides the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO':'9::5.080
12-11
-------
SECTION lZ
Tne principal elemen, of rhe seleCted remedy is SOurce COntrol. Tnis ele:::,,:
addr"sses rhe primary rhreatS ar A OC LF - I: future human heal th ris ks associ.,,,
with parenrial leaching of comanUnan" from th" wasre ro groundWater. Tn" sele::"
remedy was chosen prirruui]y because ir affords the moSt proteCtion to human he,,;::
and the environment. The shon-renn effeCtS of implementing the seleered rem,,::,
are comparable to the other alrernarives. ,'
-------
~
L"
to
.
~
SECTION 13
13.0 DOCU~lEm'ATION OF NO SIGNIFICA.~l CHA.~GES
The ~GB presented a Proposed Plan for remediation of AOC LF-l in June 1992.
The preferred interim remedial alternative included the covering of the 1970 Cell.
Post-1970 Cell. and Kenle Hole. There have been no significant changes made to
the plan as stated in the Proposed Plan.
. .
Installation Restoration Program
WOO792:S.080
'13-1
-------
SECTIO:-; 14
14.0 eOMMOl'iWEALTIi ROLE
:VL~EP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachuse:!S, reviewed the various
alte:uarives and indioted itS suppOrt for the seJec:ed interim remedy. MADEP also
reviewed the FFS to determine if the selected remedy is in compliance \lt1th
aDDIic:lble or relevant and aCDroDriate state en...ironmental rerolations. M-\DEP
c~~c",Jrs with the selected re~~dy. for AOe LF-l source. A copy or the declararion
of concurrence is in Appendix B.
"
Installation Restoration Program
WDOi"P.:S .cao
14-1
-------
.1------
GLOSSARY OF ACRO:'-iY\IS A;~D ABBREVIATIONS
ABB-ES
A.'\iG
AOC
ARAR
BTEX
CERCLA.
CLP
em/sec
COD
COC
CI/
DCA
DCE
DCFM
DDT
DOD
FFS
FS
.~B E::viroI"~':1e:::al Se~1c:s. Inc.
.~r ~ational Guard
Are:l or Comami::ation
Appiic:lbie or Re~e'/aI!t and Appropriate Requireme::t
be:-.zene. tOluene. eiliyibe:!Zene, and :cylenes
Corr.pre::ensive E::vironmemal Response. Compensarioll and Liability
Act
Comrac: Laboratory Program
cemimeter:; per second
chemical oxygen demand
contaminant of concem
cubic yards
dichloroe:hane
dichloroe:hylene
dichioroiluorome:hane
dichlorodip henyl mchloroeiliane
De;Jartment or Defense (U.S.)
focused feasibility stUdy
. feasibility study
HAZ\VR.-\P Hazardous Waste Remedial ACtions Progr:un
HI Hazard Index
IRP --
LF-l
MADEP
MCL
mg/L
l\tL'yffi
MSL
Installation Restoration Program
. Undfill No.1
.\.lassachusens De;Jamnent of Environmental ProteCtion
~la:
-------
. I
GLOSSARY OF ACRO.'-tY:\1S A.' D ABBREYlA.TIO~.S
~ep
:--iGB
~t'L
ReR.1.
RI
ROD
RID
SF
SI
SVoe
TCE
TCL
TOe
J.Lg/L
ESAF
ESCG
ESEPA
VA
VOC
\iar!or:a.! Contingency Plan
:-.iatior:..i Guard Bureau
National Priorities List
Resource Conse:vation and Recovery Ac:
remedial inves~igation
Recore of Decision
Refe:-e::ce Dose
slope f~c:or
site inspe:::ion
semivoia.riie organic compound
trichloroethylene
Targe: Compound List
toral org:!.:,..ic carbon
1!'jcrograos pe:- liter
C.S. Air Force
C.S. COasL Guard
C.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ve:erans Administration
volatile organic compound
WOO~.oso
Installation Restoration Program
-------
REFERE:\"CES
ABB E::'.-::or_-:1e::ral Services. Inc.. 199::l. "Inre:irn Re~edial Inv:s.ieatio::. :\ifain
E;:se Lmdfill (AOe LF-l)": lnsi::lllatior. Res!oratior. Pro~r:J.:::: \-(assac~useus
~Cim::; Reservation: pre;:>ared for H.-\Z\vR~: POr!l~c. \-1aine: \-farch
1992.
ABB E::'.-:ror_~emal Se:,.ices, Inc.. 1992b. "Focused Fe::!..Sibility S~dy. \-{:l::: Base
L.:l::dfill (AOe LF.1)"; lnsi:all:l:ior. Res!or:l!ion PlOgrar::: \-{assac=:usem
:-'6!ary Reservatior:: pre;:>.u-ed for HAZ\VR~; PorJaneL '\-{::.:ne: Ju.r::: 1992
E.e. J ort:ln Co.. 1986. "C.S. Air Force Insi:cilation Resmration P:ogr::un. P~ase I:
Re::ords Search. Air National Guard. Camp Edwards (..:\.R~G). L.S. Air
Forc:. and Veterans Adminisi:ration Facilities at Massac:::.lsettS ~filitary
Reser-.'ation. Task 6":. pre;:>ared for Oak Ridge. ~ational L:lbor:ltor:;: Oak
Riege. Tennessee: Dece:nber 11. 1986.
E.e. Jorcan Co.. 1988. "Field Invesrig:ltions. Summer/Fall 1986: Task 2-:: Base
I.z:dfiil. Petroleum Fuels Storage .A..re~ and Fire.Training .01.:;::3."; Insi:=illation
Restoration Progr::un: :Vlassac=:usem Military Reservatior.: pre;:>a:::d for
H.-\Z\vRAP; Por-Jand. Maine; July 1988.
E.e. Jorc:an Co.. 1989. 'Task 2-3A Site Inspec:ion. Field Invesrigation Work
Conduc:ed Fall 1987"; Installation Restoration Progr:u::: :\i1assac~usetts
Miiitary Reservation: prepared for HAZ\\1R-\P: Poreland. ~1aine: :\i1arch
1989.
E.c. Jorc:an .Co.. 1990. 'Task 2-3B Site Inspec:ion. Field Invesrigation Work
Conducted Spring-Summer 1988"; Installation Restoration Program;
M~sachusettS Military Reservation: prepared .for HAZ\\1R-\P: Portland.
Maine: February 1990. .
Metc:llf and Eddy, Inc- 1983. "Installation Restoration Progr:un. Phase I - Records
. Search": Otis Air :-';ational Guard Base. MassachusettS: prepared for
HAZ\\tRAP; January 1983.
RF. \\':es.on. Inc., 1985. "Installation Restoration Program: Phase II. St:lge 1 -
Confirmation/Quantification"; Otis Air ~ational Guard Base. :\i1assachusettS;
InstaUation Restoration Program
\10'0079:::5.080
-------
., I
REFERE~ CES
prepared for the C.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental He:tlt;
Laborarorj; Oc:obe:- .1985.
CoS. Environme:ual Protec:ion Agency (VSEPA). 1988. "Guidance for Concucrir.~
Remedial Investigarions and Feasibility Srudies under CERCL~"; Ot!ce o~
Solid Waste and En:e:gency Response; OS\VER Directive 93353-01; yfarc::
1988.
C.S. Environmenul ProceC"Jon Agency (L"SEPA), 1989. "40 CFR Part 300, ;..iation:ll
Priorities Lisr of L"nconrrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Final Rule"; F~derQ!
Regisrer; Vol. 54, !'ie. 223; p. 48187; November 21, 1989.
c.S. Environmental Protec:ion Agency (C'SEPA), 1991. "Design and ConstrJc:ion
of RCRAjCERCL4. Final Cove:-s"; Office of Research and Develop:=e:It:
USEPA/625/4-91/025; May 1991.
JnstalJation Restoration Program
W~.QIIO
-------
-
"""',::c..::'.'"';~-'~~-';"~~~-' -
!IIoo'"~'-~::i«iIr.:';C:::;;;:~. -~~- .!"
B''''.p;.,-.,_.~..
-'COMMO&\VE.. ,€ON~ -'.
..~..- -. "
" "," "', ~
-------
L .
S=r.-:r:-:cnwE-:::7~ ct MC$Scc~~!e!"iS
=xeC:.:7;\/S C~~::e cf =:-:''''1rC~~e::7C: ,:..::~::~
~S7E ~A'~A:;~~:E:!T
CI'lISiC~
...
i:
...
f WIlliam::. Weld
:" G--
: c,nief S. Gleenaaum
c:.---
Department of J:: IZ
Environmental Protection
'" "''' .~3
/ -:::: ,. .1 . '1
'-_-II..
Janua:-:r 4,
1993
Ms. Ju~~e Belaga
- Regier-a: A~=inis~=a~==
: U. S. E?:'. Reg ion 1
J:K Fece:-al B~ilcin~
": Bcs-=cn, :-!assachuse~~s 02203
R::: :
ECt'-?':::::--EH
-------
-2-
T~e DE? has dete~~~ed t~a~ t~e in~e~i= ~=~e~y is a ==~e~ial a=
en a pe~icn ef the dispcsal si~= whic~ we~l= :e ccnsis~en~ ~i
=~~u=e pe==anent selutic~ for t~e enti=e dispcsal site. Tte
C:1al ra:oed'; t~ be davelcoed for t.'1e LF-1 SOl.:rce Area Ooera=le :
I:1~S~ be in. comcliance -~.Ii th S~ate A=olica~le 0= R-elevan~
A==rccria~e Recruire~ents (ARAAs), includinc the Massaeh~se~~s s:
Waste Manage",ent Reg:.:laticns (31 0 = 19,000 eo sag,), Ttte DEO? .
ccntinue tc evaluate compliance with A.~~s during re~ecial des:
c=nst~..Jc-:~cn and ope=atio:l of the in~eri:::t re:::edy and develcp::ter::
t~e final remedy.
The DE? locks fer-Nard to working with you in i::tple~e:'l~:ng
i~~e=i:::t re~edy and facili ~ating an expeci ~ieus clea::up cf ':he :.
si~e. If yeu have any go..:estier:.s, . please Ccntac~ the Regie:-
Director, George Crc:bie at (508) 946-2712.
G/JF3
~-:':lY '5<'
~el '~e""a=, Cc=issicnar
Cepart::ter:.~ of Envircr:.:ental Pro~ectier:
CC: EWSC Boston
Ja~es F. Begley, SERa
------- |