PB96-963708
EPA/ROD/R01-96/128
May 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Materials Technology Laboratory,
(U.S. Army), Area I, Watertown, MA
6/28/1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA I
ARMY MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. ARMY REGULATION 200-2,
THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED BY THE U.S. ARMY TO COMPLY
WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969.
JUNE 28, 1996
-------
(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
L DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION 1
H. DECISION SUMMARY 6
A. Site Name, Location and Description 6
B. Site History and Enforcement Activities 6
1. Land Use and Response History 6
2. Enforcement History 6
C. Community Participation 7
D. Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action 8
E. Summary of Site Characteristics 8
F. Summary of Site Risks 9
G. Development and Screening of Alternatives 10
1. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives 10
2. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening 11
H. Description of Alternatives 11
I. Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 11
J. The Selected Remedy 13
1. Soil Cleanup Levels 13
2. Description of Remedial Components 13
K. Statutory Determinations 14
1. Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment 14
2. Selected Remedy Attains ARARs 14
3. Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective 14
4. Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 15
5. Selected Remedy Does not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment Which
Permanently and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of
the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element 15
L. Documentation of Significant Changes 15
M. State Role 16
APPENDICES
A. Figures
B. Tables
C. State Concurrence Letter
D. Administrative Record
-------
I. DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Area I
Army Materials Research Laboratory
Watenown, Massachusetts
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND BASIS
This decision document presents the U.S. Army's selected remedial action for Area I, Army
Research Laboratory - Watertown (formally Army Materials Technology Laboratory; AMTL),
Watertown, Massachusetts. It was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, 42
USC §9601 etseq. and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, to the extent practicable. The AMTL Base Realignment and Closure
Environmental Coordinator, the Director, Army Research Laboratory; and the Director of the Office
of Site Remediation and Restoration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I have been
delegated the authority to approve this Record of Decision.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record that has been developed in accordance with
Section 113(k) of CERCLA. The Administrative Record is available for public review at the
AMTL BRAG Office, Building 131, Army Research Laboratory, Watertown, Massachusetts, and
at the Main Branch of the Watertown Public Library, Watenown, Massachusetts. The
Administrative Record Index (Appendix D of this Record of Decision) identifies each of the items
considered during the selection of the remedial action.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or potential releases of hazardous substances from an area of soil adjacent to Area I, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedial action addresses long-term residential and commercial exposure to contaminated soil,
the principal known threat at Area I. It consists of excavating the contaminated soil and shipping it
to an approved landfill or soil recycling operation in accordance with applicable Massachusetts
requirements at 310 CMR 19, Solid Waste Management. Following sampling to ensure that
cleanup levels have been met, the excavation will be backfilled with clean soil and the topography
restored. The remedy removes the source of the contamination and reduces the potential risk to
residents or workers at Building 131. The remedy is consistent with the overall remedial strategy
for AMTL.
STATE CONCURRENCE
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has concurred with the selected remedy. Appendix C of this
Record of Decision contains a copy of the declaration of concurrence.
-------
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is consistent with CERCLA, and to the extent practicable, the NCP, is
protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective. The
remedy utilizes a permanent solution at Area I. However, because treatment was not found to be
practicable for this action, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element This remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining within Area I
above cleanup levels.
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the U.S. Department of the Army
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Concur andrecommend for immediate implementation:
ROBERT E. CHASE
BRAC Environmental Coordinator
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the U.S. Department of the Army
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Concur and recommend far immediate implementation:
>HN W.LYONS
irector
Army Research Laboratory
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the U.S. Department of the Army
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:
LS
LINDA M. MURPHY ^
Director, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration
U.S. Environmental Protection, Region I
-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY
A. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
•
Operations at the Army Materials Technology Laboratory (AMTL), Watertown, Massachusetts
began in 1816 as the Watertown Arsenal. It was established for the purposes of storage, repair,
cleaning, and issue of small arms and ordnance supplies. Throughout the 1800's and until World
War n, AMTL's mission was continually expanded to include weapons development and
production, and materials research, experimentation, and development. At the height of its activity
(just after World War IT), the site encompassed 131 acres with 53 buildings and structures and
employed 10,000 people.
In the 1920's, an easement on approximately 11 acres was granted to the Metropolitan District
Commission to construct North Beacon Street and the river park. An operational phase out of the
arsenal was begun in 1967. At that time, approximately 55 acres of land were sold to the town of
Watertown, and 28.5 acres were transferred to the General Services Administration. The
remaining 37 acres became AMTL. In December, 1988, AMTL was included on the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list A more complete description of the facility can be found in
the Remedial Investigation Report at pages 1-2 to 1-10. A facility map is provided at Figure 1.
Area I is located adjacent to Building 131. This building is a three-story brick building with
basement, located on the eastern boundary of the facility. Since it was built in 1900, the building
has undergone several renovations and additions and currently contains approximately 46,000 ft2
of floor space.
Area I is estimated to be approximately 110' by 80' (900 cubic yards of soil).
B. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Land Use and Response History
Since its construction, Building 131 has been used for administration. The building also contained
a health clinic, photo shop, and print shop. An area (Area I, Figure 2) outside of the building
adjacent to Kingsbury Avenue, was found to have polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and
pesticide concentrations above background. A more detailed description of the facility's history
can be found in the Remedial Investigation Report at page 1-6 and the Feasibility Study at pages 3-
1 to 3-1 to 3-7.
2. Enforcement History
Previous investigations that pertain to environmental conditions at AMTL were completed between
September 1968 and December 1987. AMTL was first listed by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MADEP) as a Location To Be Investigated on January 15,1987. A
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection was completed in 1988. A Phase I Remedial Investigation
(RI) was completed in April 1991. AMTL was subsequently confirmed as a Disposal Site by
MADEP on January 15,1992. A Phase H RI was completed in December 1993.
-------
In July 1993, the facility was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). It was
added to the NPL on May 30,1994. A Federal Facilities Agreement was developed and signed by
the Army and USEPA Region I on July 24,1995.
A Feasibility Study for Outdoor Areas was completed in January 1996. The proposed plan
detailing the Army's preferred remedial alternative was issued in April 1996. As pan of the
proposed plan, accelerated remediation of the contaminated soil at Area I was proposed to allow
transfer of Building 131. As a result of this decision, Area I has been segregated from the other
areas addressed under the FS and is being addressed in this ROD.
A Technical Memorandum dated June 28,1996 has been developed by the Army to supplement the
FS and provide the basis for this accelerated remedial action.
C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout die Site's history, community concern and involvement has been high. The Army has
kept the community and other interested parties apprised of the Site activities through informational
meetings, fact sheets, press releases and public meetings.
In February 1992, the Army revised a community relations plan which outlined a program to
address community concerns and keep citizens informed about and involved in activities during
remedial activities. This plan was updated in May 1995.
A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was established January 1994 in accordance with the
President's Five Point Initiative. The RAB has allowed the community easy access to the base
closure/remediation process, kept the community informed and given them the opportunity to
make recommendations which effect the community. Since its inception there have been monthly
meetings.
On June 24,1996, the Army made the administrative record available for public review. The
record will be nurintained at AMTL, and at the Main Branch of the Watertown Public Library. A
copy of the Administrative Record Index is on file at the EPA's offices in Boston. The Army
published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the Watertown Sun on May 1 and
May 8,1996, and the Watertown Press on May 2 and May 9,1996 and made the plan available to
the public at the Watertown Library. On April 16,1996, the Army held an informational meeting
to discuss the results of the Remedial Investigation and the cleanup alternatives presented in the
Feasibility Study and to present the Agency's Proposed Plan. Also during this meeting, the Army
answered questions from the public. From April 22 to May 21,1996, the Army held a 30-day
public comment period to accept public comment on the alternatives presented in the Feasibility
Study and the Proposed Plan and on any other documents previously released to die public. On
May 13,1996, the Army held a public hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral
comments. No comments were received on the limited Area I action outlined in this ROD.
-------
8
D. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
The selected remedy removes the source of contamination at Area I. It is consistent with the
proposed action for the soils at other areas of the facility.
This remedial action will address the principal threat to human health and the environment to future
residents or visitors posed by long-term exposure to contaminated soils at the site.
E. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Chapter 1 of the Feasibility Study contains an overview of the Remedial Investigation. The
significant findings of the Remedial Investigation for Area I are summarized below. A complete
discussion of site characteristics can be found in the Remedial Investigation Report at Pages 4-1 to
4-35.
1. Soil
Elevated levels of PAHs and pesticides were found in one soil boring taken between Buildings 37
and 131 (Area I). The maximum concentrations are provided in Table 1. The estimated amount of
soil to be removed from Area I is 900 cubic yards.
There are two primary pathways for migration of soil contamination to other media. The first
involves erosion and runoff to storm sewers and the Charles River. The Charles River is a
separate operable unit currently in the RI phase.
The second pathway is leaching to groundwater. Many of the contaminants detected in soil at the
facility have also been detected in the groundwater. Soils at AMTL consist primarily of sands and
fill, which do not effectively immobilize contaminants.
2. Groundwater
Building 131 was included in the central area monitoring wells sampled during the RI.
Groundwater flows from the north towards the Charles River. The wells included 7 shallow (15
to 20 feet below ground surface) and 2 deep (20 to 25 feet) wells. Chlorinated solvents
(tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were found in the wells. These solvents
were also found in upgradient wells located off of the facility. One well located in the parking lot
behind Building 131 had elevated levels of 1,3-dimethylbenzene and xylene. These were not
found in nearby wells, suggesting a restricted fuel release.
The groundwater is not currendy used, nor is likely to be used, in the future as a drinking water
source. It does meet the Commonwealth of Massachusetts standards for a non-drinking water
source (GW-3). Groundwater does discharge from the facility into the Charles River. A model of
contaminant contribution developed in the FS showed that the potential discharge of contaminants
from the groundwater to the Charles River did not exceed Water Quality Criteria. Based on the
lack of receptors, groundwater remediation is not required and is not addressed in this ROD.
-------
F. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Baseline Risk Assessment (Section 6 of the RI report) was performed to estimate the probability
and magnitnrfe of potential adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to
contaminants associated with the facility. The facility was segregated into 5 zones based on the
Town's approved Reuse Plan (Figure 1). Zones 1 and 2 are proposed for commercial reuse, zone
4 and River Park are proposed open space, and Zone 3 is to be used for residential purposes. Area
I is found in zone 3.
The human health risk assessment followed a four step process: 1) Contaminant identification,
which identified those hazardous substances which, given the specifics of the site were of
significant concern; 2) Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure
pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of
possible exposure; 3) Toxicfty assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse
health effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances, and 4) Risk characterization,
which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and actual risks posed by
hazardous substances at the site, including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. The results of
the human health risk assessment for AMTL are discussed below.
Fifteen contaminants of concern, listed in Table 2 found in Appendix B of this Record of Decision
were selected for evaluation in the risk assessment These contaminants constitute a represcnorive
subset of the more than 40 contaminants sampled for at the facility during the Remedia
Investigation. The 15 contaminants of concern were selected to represent potential site related
hazards based on toxitity, concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in
the environment. A summary of the health effects of each of the contaminants of concern can be
found in Appendix R of the RI report.
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were
estimated quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure
pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances based on commercial use, the proposed furore residential reuse of zone 3 (including
Building 131) and the open space use for Zone 4 and the River Park. The following is a brief
summary of the exposure pathways evaluated. A more thorough description can be found in
Section 6 of the Rlreport As discussed earlier, die groundwarer meets the MADE? GW-3
standards and is not likely to be used as a source of drinking water. Therefore, it was not
evaluated in the risk assessment For commercial office workers, the only pathway evaluated was
the incidental ingestion of surface soil for 250 days per year for 25 years.
For residents, both ingestion and dermal contact were evaluated for 153 days per year over 30
years. The resident was also assumed to visit the open space zone (56 days per year), swim in the
Charles River (7 times per year), and eat fish from the river 10 times per year. Children were
assumed to have the same exposure frequency, but the exposure time was shortened to reflect
the age ranges (1-8, and 7-17). For each pathway evaluated, a Reasonable Maximum Exposure
* ~i) estimate was generated corresponding to exposure to the average and the maximum
concentration detects
— — f — %•
in that particular medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the
exposure level with the chemical specific cancer slope factor. Cancer slope factors have been
developed by EPA from epidentiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative "upper bound"
of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds. That is, the true risk is unlikely to be
greater than the risk predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a
-------
10
probability (e.g. 1 x 10-6 for 1/1,000,000), that assuming an RME, an average individual is not
likely to have greater than a one-in-a-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result
of site-related exposure, and the risk may be as low as zero. Current EPA practice considers
carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous substances.
The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPA's measure of the potential for non-
carcinogenic health effects. A hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the
reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for non-carcinogenic health effects for an
individual compound. Reference doses have been developed by EPA to protect sensitive
individuals over the course of a lifetime and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect RfDs are derived from epidemiological or
animal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not
occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as a single value (e.g. 0.3) indicating the ratio of the
estimated exposure to the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is
approximately one third of an acceptable exposure level for the given compound). The hazard
quotient is only considered additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint
and the sum is referred to as the hazard index (HI, For example: the hazard quotient for a
compound known to produce liver damage should not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint
is kidney damage).
Tables 3 and 4 presents the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk summary for the contaminants
of concern in soil evaluated to reflect present and potential future residential reuse corresponding to
the RME scenarios. The detailed risk calculations can be found in appendix P of the RI report and
the Human Health Risk Assessment Addendum (child trespasser).
The potential risks fall at the upper limit of the acceptable range of 10-4 to 10-6. The risks to
commercial workers (present use scenario) was driven by 6 PAHs. Under the residential reuse
scenario, 7 PAH's, 6 pesticides and PCBs contributed to the overall risk.
The ecological risk was evaluated only in Zone 4 and River Park because these areas were
considered the only potential ecological habitats at the site. The results of the ecological risk
assessment found that the pesticides DDT, DDE, chlordane, and endrin pose a risk to ecological
receptors. Certain metals (arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc) also pose a risk to ecological
receptors. However, none of the above compounds were found to exceed cleanup goals (or
background in the case of the metals) so the cleanup is driven by the risk to human health. More
information can be found in Section 6 of the RI and in the Terrestrial Ecological Risk Assessment
Report.
The arithmetic concentrations at the facility are less than the cleanup goals. The cleanup
goals were set at the 90th Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) on the arithmetic mean of the
background sampling data. However, there are several small areas which have
concentrations above the goals. Area I adjacent to Building 131 has been identified as
exceeding these cleanup goals. The hazardous substances at this area, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
G. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
1. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Under its legal authorities, the Army's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
undertake remedial actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In
-------
11
addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences, including: a requirement that the Army's remedial action, when complete,
must comply with all federal and more stringent state environmental standards,
requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked; a requirement that the
Army select a remedial action that is cost-effective and that utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable; and a preference for remedies in which treatment which permanently and
significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances is a
principal element over remedies not involving such treatment Response alternatives were
developed to be consistent with these Congressional mandates.
2. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the NCP set forth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and
selected. In accordance with these requirements, a range of alternatives were developed for
the facility.
As discussed in Section 3 of the Feasibility Study, the RI/FS identified, assessed and
screened technologies based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost These
technologies were combined into source control (SQ and management of migration (MM)
alternatives. Section 4 of the Feasibility Study presented the remedial alternatives
developed by combining the technologies identified in the previous screening process in the
categories identified in Section 300.430(e) (3) of the NCP. The purpose of the initial
screening was to narrow the number of potential remedial actions for further detailed
analysis while preserving a range of options. Each alternative was then evaluated and
screened in Section 5 of the Feasibility Study.
In summary, of the six soil remedial alternatives screened in Section 4 of the FS, all six
were retained for detailed analysis. Table 5 identifies the six alternatives that were retained
through the screening process.
H. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 5 provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated. This is an accelerated
action separate from the remainder of the remedial action. Because this action has to occur
prior to die completion of the chemical oxidation treatability studies, and due to higher
mobilization costs for the limited amount of soil, the contingency alternative of off-site
disposal was selected for the accelerated action. The cost for this action was based on the
reduced volume of soil and the assumptions made for the contingency alternative detailed in
theFS.
L SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(l) of CERCLA presents several factors that at a minimum EPA is
required to consider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these specific
statutory mandates, Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP articulates nine evaluation
criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial alternatives. A detailed analysis was
performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria in order to select a site
remedy. These criteria are summarized as follows:
-------
12
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for the
alternatives to be eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection from unacceptable risks posed
through each pathway by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARS) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the ARARs of other Federal
and State environmental and facility siting laws or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are utilized to compare and evaluate the elements of one
alternative to another that meet the threshold criteria.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence addresses the criteria that are
utilized to assess alter-natives for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford,
along with the degree of certainty that they will prove successful.
4. Reduction of toxiciry, mobility, or volume through treatment addresses
the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces tpxicity,
mobility, or volume, including how treatment is used to address the principal threats posed
by the site.
5. Short term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be
posed during the construction and implementation period, until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to implement a
particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and Operation Maintenance (O&M) costs,
as well as present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial alternatives
generally after the Army has received public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.
8. State acceptance addresses the State's position and key concerns related
to the preferred alternative and other alternatives, and the State's comments on ARARs or
the proposed use of waivers.
9. Community acceptance addresses the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RI/FS report.
-------
13
A noncost comparison of each alternative according to the criteria can be found in Table 6.
J. THE SELECTED REMEDY
Because of the small size of the project (approximately 900 cy of soil), only the Alternative
S6 (excavation) would be practicable based on startup costs and time to implement This
involves the excavation of the soil, transport to an approved off-site landfill or recycling
facility; confirmatory sampling to ensure that cleanup levels have been attained; and
backfilling of die excavation with clean fill The estimated costs for this alternative are
presented in Table 8.
1. Soil Cleanup Levels
Cleanup levels for known and suspected carcinogens (Classes A, B, and C
compounds) have been set at a 1 x 10-6 excess cancer risk level considering exposures via
dermal contact and incidental ingestion. Exposure parameters have been described in
Section 6 of the RL If a cleanup value described above is not capable of being detected
with good precision and accuracy or is below background values, then the background
value was used as appropriate for the soil cleanup level. With the exception of DDD the
cleanup levels were set at background. Table 1 summarizes the cleanup levels for the
contaminants of concern in soils for Area I. The cleanup goals for Area I are based on the
assuption of future residential use.
These cleanup levels must be met at the completion of the remedial action at the
points of compliance which is soils at depths less then 15 feet. These cleanup levels attain
EPA's risk management goal for remedial actions and have been determined by EPA to be
protective of human health and the environment
2. Description of Remedial Components
The contaminated soil will be excavated by backhoe and placed in lined trucks for
transport to an offsite disposal facility. Confirmation testing will occur during the
excavation to ensure that the cleanup goals are met
Because of the small volume of soil to be excavated under this remedial action,
on-rite treatment is not viable nor cost effective. Therefore, the contaminated soil will be
sent off-site for disposal. As part of the remedial action, excavated soils will undergo
TCLP testing to determine whether they constitute characteristic RCRA hazardous waste.
Non-hazardous soils shall be shipped to an asphalt batching facility or other non-hazardous
waste landfill. Soils which fail the TCLP test will be sent to a licensed RCRA Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF).
Estimated Time for Design and Construction: 1 month
Estimated Period for Operation: 1 month
Estimated Capital Cose $523,000
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Cost (net present worth): $0
Estimated Total Cost (30-year net present worth): $523,000
-------
14
K. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation at Area I of the Army Materials Technology
Laboratory is consistent with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The
selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains ARARs and is
cost effective.
1. Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at Area I will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and
the environment by eliminating exposures to human and environmental receptors by
removing the source of the contamination and disposing of the soils off-site.
Moreover, the selected remedy will achieve potential human health risk levels that
attain the 104 to 10-6 incremental cancer risk range and a level protective of
noncarcinogenic endpoints. No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts will
be caused by the implementation of the selected remedy.
2. Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state
requirements that apply to on-site remedial activities. ARARs for the selected remedial
action and the actions to be taken to attain them are summarized below and in Table 7.
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
o Clean Air Act
o National Historic Preservation Act
o Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
o Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management
o Massachusetts Solid Waste Management
o Massachusetts Air Pollution Control
o Massachusetts Historical Commission Regulations
In addition, it should be noted that while the requirements governing transportation and
disposal of hazardous waste are not ARARs since they apply to off-site activities, the Army will
ensure that the transportation and disposal of any excavated soils which are determined to be
hazardous waste will be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and
regulations.
3. Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
In the Army's judgment, the selected remedy is cost effective, i.e., the remedy
affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs. In selecting this remedy, the Army
identified alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment. The Army
evaluated the overall effectiveness of each alternative by assessing the relevant three
criteria—long term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and
volume through treatment; and short term effectiveness, in combination. The relationship
of the overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to
its costs. The costs of this remedial alternative are $523,000 with no Operation and
Maintenance costs.
-------
15
4. Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Once the Army identified those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, waive
ARARs and that are protective of human health and the environment, the Army identified
which alternative utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This determination was
made by deciding which one of the identified alternatives provides the best balance of trade-
offs among alternatives in terms of: 1) Long-term effectiveness and permanence; 2)
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; 3) Short-term effectiveness;
4)Implementability; and 5) Cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term effectiveness
and permanence and the reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment; and
considered the preference for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land
disposal of untreated waste, and community and state acceptance. The selected remedy
achieves a high level of long-term effectiveness and permanence, has few short-term
impacts and is easily implememable. The Community and State have accepted the selected
remedy The removal of the contaminated soil with off-site disposal was determined to be
an effective mechanism of eliminating exposure to unacceptable risk and responding to the
community's request for expedited removal to allow for transfer of the property.
5. Selected Remedy does not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment Which Permanently and
Significantly reduces the Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal
Element.
The principal element of the selected remedy is the removal of contaminated soil.
This element addresses the primary threat at the Site, contamination of surface soil.
Because the selected remedy addresses a small volume of contaminated soil, on-site
treatment was not found to be cost effective. Of the offsite options only recycling (asphalt
batching) and landfill disposal were cost effective. The final disposal option will be
determined following waste characterization testing during construction.
L. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Army presented a proposed plan (preferred alternative) for remediation of the Site on April 16,
1996. The Proposed Plan included a section which recommended an accelerated remedial action
for Areas I and M. The preferred alternative for Areas I and M was excavation and offsite disposal
of contaminated soils.
This ROD does not include Area M in the remedial action. Area M will be included in the final
ROD for the remainder of the site, scheduled to be signed in September 1996.
-------
16
M. STATE ROLE
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the selected remedy. The
Commonwealth has also reviewed the Remedial Investigation, Risk Assessment and
Feasibility Study to determine if the selected remedy is in compliance with State ARARs.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts concurs with the selected remedy for Area I at the
Army Materials Technology Laboratory. A copy of the declaration of concurrence is
attached as Appendix C.
-------
Appendix A. Figures
-------
Figure 1. Map of Facility
-------
ZONE I
ZONE 2
^"™
( ^ i
Klnqsburv
V^AREAxN^v
L-VV*!^
-------
Figure 2. Building 131
-------
AREA J
AREA I
Headquarters
Circle •
Army Materials
Technology Laboratory
Watertown, MA
Installation Parcel
to be Transferred
V-M to
tndv RMM Jo«n
-------
Appendix B. Tables
Table 1. Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Cleanup levels Area I
Table 2. Chemicals of Potential Concern
Table 3. Lifetime Risks
Table 4. Hazard Index
Table 5. Alternatives for Soil Remediation
Table 6. Noncost Comparison of Soil Alternatives
Table 7. ARARs for Alternative S6. Soil Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal or Reuse
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs for Accelerated Alternative: Soil
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal or Reuse Area I
-------
Table 1. Summary of Contaminants Of Concern and Cleanup Levels Area I
Contaminant
Concentration
(ug/g)
Soil Cleanup
Goal
Basis
Residual
Carcinogenic
Risk to Human
Health
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
indeno[l,2,3-cd]pvrene
dibenz[a,h]anthracene
chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
dieldrin
7.69
8.23
8.13
11.1
0.82
2.7
0.38
0.58
1.2
0.082
8.5
2.0
7.9
3.0
0.27
1.5
0.25
0.39
0.6
0.056
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Risk
Background
Background
Background
Total Residual Carcinogenic Risk
2.6 x 10-5
5.9 x 10-6
2.4 x 10-5
9.4 x 10-6
8.1 x 10-7
8.2 x 10-7
2.5 x 10-8
5.4 x 10-8
8.4 x 10-8
3.8 x 10-7
4.1 x 10-5
ND - Not Detected
-------
Table 2. Chtmicali of Potentlil Concern
tut
B0a*ofl))nonT«nthene
Chiordgnt
Ckrritnc
2DD.
DDE
DDT
Dlb«ni(i.h)anthractne
Htptachtor rooridt
Lnd
Arochlor-H<0
-------
Table 3. Lifetime Risk
Area
Receptor
Medium
Route
Risk
Present Commercial Use
Commercial
Worker
Child
Trespasser
Youth
Trespasser
Soil
Soil
Soil
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Total Site Risk
2 x 10-5
5 x 10-6
5 x 10-6
1 x 10-6
3 x 10-6
3 x 10-5
Future Residential Use
Zone 3 (Area I)
Open Space
River Park (Area M)
Charles River
~
Soil
Soil
Soil
Surface
Water
Sediment
Fish
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Total Site Risk
5 x 10-5
6 x 10-6
2 x 10-5
6 x 10-6
1 x 10-5
1 x 10-6
1 x 10-10
8 x 10-9
2 x 10-6
5 x 10-9
5 x 10-8
1 x 10-4
-------
Table 4. Hazard Index
Exposure Point
Present Commercial 1
Commercial Worker
Child Trespasser
Youth Trespasser
Exposure
Medium
Use
Soil
Soil
Soil
Exposure
Route
Subchronic
Hazard
Index
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Total Hazard Index
Future Residental (Child)
Zone 3 (Area I)
Open Space
River Park (Area M)
Charles River
Soil
Soil
Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Fish
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Total Hazard Index
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.03
0.004
0.000004
0.0001
0.001
0.0009
0
0.2
Chronic Hazard
Index
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.03
0.02
0.004
0.00003
0.001
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.3
-------
Table 5. Alternatives for Remediation of Soil
Alternative SI - No Action
• No remedial actions implemented at the site.
Alternative S2 • Institutional Actions
Access restrictions to prevent entry into contaminated areas.
Deed restrictions to restrict site development.
Five-year site reviews to assess conditions.
Alternative S3 • Capping of Soils
Institutional controls.
Five-year site reviews to assess conditions.
Construction of asphalt cap over contaminated soils.
Use of runon/runoff controls during cap placement.
Continued monitoring of cap and repair of cap as necessary.
Alternative S4 - Soil Excavation and Thermal Treatment
• Excavation of soil contaminated at levels greater than action levels.
• Transportation of soil to:
- Option A - On-site incinerator
- Option B - Off-site incinerator
- Option C - On-site low-temperature thermal desorber
• Backfilling of site with uncontaminated soil (Option B) or treated soil (Options
A and C).
Alternative S5 - Soil Excavation and On-Site Physical/Chemical Treatment
• Excavation of soil contaminated at levels greater than action levels.
• On-site treatment of contaminated soil by:
• Option A • Chemical oxidation
• Option B - Solvent extraction
• Treatment or disposal of treatment residues.
• Backfilling of site with treated soil.
Alternative S6 - Soil Excavation and Off-Site Disposal or Reuse
• Excavation of soil contaminated at levels greater than action levels.
• Transportation of soil for off-site recycle or to hazardous or nonhazardous
landfill.
• Backfilling of site with uncontaminated soil.
-------
Table t. Noncost Comparison * Soft Alternative*
Criteria
MIeruallveSINo
tctlon
UteroatlvcSl
MlluUonal Contrail
MtonraMwj S3
tapping of Softs
MlmiaUveS4
>ptlonA
Treatment IWng
>n-Stte IncbwraUon
\Nernatlve 84
Dptkml
rreatment Usms
Dff-Stte
ndneralhM
Uternatlve S4
)pllonC
rrealment Uimg
rhermal
lesecpllon
Mlematlv* SS
Option A
treatment Using
[.•hcmkal (laMallon
AhcmaHve SS Option B
rrealment Using Solvent
Extraction
Alternative St
[>rr-Slte Dbposal or
Reuse
Overall Protection of llumM Health and Iht Environment
FrOteCllvenCM
Would fad to
M.m rcmcdlxl
contaminated folk
Would (all to achieve
contaminated soils
Compliance with ARARi
Chemlcal-Specinc
Acllo*>Sp*cinc
Compliance with
Other Criteria,
Waiver Lawi and
Guidance
Adequacy and
Reliability of Control)
Magnitude of
teridual Rbk
[OnM
lot applkabl*
tot applicable
Dot* not meet
objectives criteria
lot applicable
tbk not reduced
ton*
Would meet locatloa-
ipedfk ARAR*
lot applicable
toot not meet
•medial reaponf •
ibjccllvtt criteria
tot adequate to meet
~emedlal objectives
or contaminated
Ollf
to reduction In rhk
a environmental
vcepior*
Would protect
the environment by
inventing direct
human contact with
risk-bated aolli
tone
vOUM MC&I
ocallon-speclflc
ARAR*
WoaM meet actloa-
ipecUk ARARi
Attt* remedial
aponie objectlvei
criteria
Asphalt cap would
vqulro a hmo/term
nalntcnance
commitment and
MlHutkmal
nmlrob
nJnhnbed at hwg
• cap b properly
nalnlalned
Would protect
lumaa health and
he environment by
permanently
lettroyhif contam-
nanli above
>ackground or risk
based levels
Would protect
luman health ami
he environment
by permanently
destroying
contaminant*
above back-
ground or risk-
nsed leveb
Would protect
luman health and
he environment
by permanently
removing
contaminant*
From (It* soil
Would protect human
health and the
environment by
permanently
destroying
contaminants In sit*
soil*
Would protect human
health and the
environment by extracting
contaminant* from soils
Would protect
human health and
the environment by
removing
contaminated soils
From the site and
disposing them In
in approved
andnil
tone
Would meet
ocaUon-speclflc
*RAR»
Would meet actloo-
ipecMc ARAR*
itaMlballon may
terequked
MeeU remedial
e*pon*e objectives
crHerla
foD contamlnanta
wlH be destroyed by
ndneratlon,
hereby dlmlnatmt
be need for long.
cm control*
tbk reduced to
tackgrouad leveb
if contaminant*
wNhniNCr
tone
Would meet
ocatton-ipecinc
ARARs
Would meet
ictlon.«pecmc
ARARi
iUblllullon may
be required
esponse
jbjecllvcs criteria
Soil conlamlaantt
iHH be destroyed
>y Incineration,
Ihereby
ellmmatmg the
wed for hing-tonn
control*
tbk reduced to
Mckground kv*b
rf contamtannt*
wtthmNCr
KcepUble level*)
tone
Would meet
ocatlon-apecHIc
\RAR»
Would meet
icUon-speclflc
*RARs
Meets remedial
esponse
ibjcctlvc* criteria
ioH contaminants
rtn be removed
ind treated
teparately,
hereby
rlnnlnilMg the
wed tor long-term
control*
Nickgronnd MTaa
4 contamlnanta
wahm NCf
McaplaM* h**b)
4one
Would meet localhm-
ipcclflc ARAKs
Would meet action.
ipecUlc ARARs
Meets remedial
esponse objective*
criteria
toll contaminants will
M destroyed by
hemical oxidation.
hereby eliminating the
iced for long-term
control*
Ibk reduced In
lackground levels of
rmitamlnanl* (wUhln
ICr acceptable leveb)
ton*
Would meet ktcatlon-
ipcchlc ARARs
Would meet acthm-spedfk
ARAR*
MeeU remedial response
abjective* criteria
Soil contaminant* will be
extracted, thereby
eliminating the need for
ong-lenn controls
tbk reduced to
conlammanl* (within NCP
icccpUMe levels)
tone
Would meet
ocallon-ipecifk
ARARs
Would meet action-
tpednc ARARs
>tabttbatlon may
ic required
vleets remedial
•esponse objectives
criteria
Contaminated soils
will be removed
romlheslU;
lowever, disposed
oHs will have to
M managed In a
landfill Indefinitely
tlsk reduced to
>ackgronnd leveb
iif contaminants
(wtthln NCP
icccplabh) leveb)
-------
Criteria
Alternative SI No
\cllon
Uternatlve SI
lulllutlonal Controls
\lternallve S3
Capping or Solli
Alternative S4
Option A
Treatment Using
On-Slte Incineration
Mlernallve S4
Option B
Treatment Using
irr-siu
nclneratlon
Mternatlve S4
Option C
Treatment Using
Thermal
)esorptlon
\llernatlve SS
)pllon A
rreatmenl Using
Chemical Oxidation
\lternallve S5 Option B
Treatment Using Solvent
Extraction
\lternallve St
>rr-Slle Disposal or
Keuse
Reduction of Toxiclly, Mobility, and Volume or Contaminant* 'through Trealmen
'reatment Proceu
ltd tnd Material*
Treated
\mounl of llaiardous
Material* Treated or
)e»troyed
)cgree of Expected
Reduction In Toxlclty,
Mobility, and Volumi
)egreeof
Irrevenlblllty
Type and Quantity of
Reilduali Remaining
Not applicable
None
None
Not applicable
All foil
contaminant* will
remain
ihort-Tcrm Effectiveness
Protection or
Community During
Implementation
Not applicable
Sol applicable
lone
•lone
avlng operations
nclneratlon will
ermanenlly
emove
ontamlnants or
concern by thermal
leslrucllon
All soil
contaminants or
concern above
>ackground levels
will be destroyed
roxlclty, mobility,
and volume or
contaminants will
>e virtually
eliminated
Irreversible
No residual
contamination
•bove background
»r risk based levels
:xpected to remain
Erosion and
ledlmentallon a*
well as dust
controls would be
Implemented during
Excavation Heavy
ruck traffic would
result
nclnerallon will
permanently
cmove
ontamlnants of
oncern by
hermal
Icslructlon
All soil
contaminant* or
concern above
background levels
will be destroyed
Toxlclly,
nobility, and
volume or
contaminants will
be virtually
eliminated
Irreversible
No residual
contamination
ibove
background or
risk-based levels
expected to
remain
Erosion and
sedimentation as
well as dust
controls would be
Implemented
ilurlng excavation
Heavy truck
traffic would
result
'hermal
csorpllon will
ermanenlly
emove
onlamlnants
rom site soil to be
rested or
destroyed
ieparately
toll contaminants
if concern above
>ackground levels
will be removed
roxlclty, mobility
ind volume or
contaminants will
>e virtually
eliminated
rreverslble
No residual
contamination
ibove
background or
•Isk-based levels
ixpecled to remain
Erosion and
ledlmenlatlon as
well a* dust
control* would be
mplcmented
luring excavation
Chemical oxidation
will permanently
cslroy soil
onlamlnanls
ioll contamlnanlsor
:oncern above
>ackground levels will
>e destroyed
foxlclly, mobility,
ind volume or
contaminants will be
ilgnlflcanlly reduced
[rreverslble
Mo residual
contamination
expected to remain
olvent extraction will
ermanenlly remove soil
onlamlnanls and
ubscquently treat them
Soil contaminants above
background levels will be
extracted from soil and
treated
foxlclty, mobility, and
volume or contaminants
will be significantly
reduced through removal
of contaminants from site
toll
[rreverslble
So residual contamination
expected to remain
Erosion and
sedimentation a* well
is dust controls would
>e Implemented durlnj
excavation
Erosion and sedimentation
is well as dust control*
would be Implemented
during excavation
Excavation and
fT-slle disposal
ties not treat or
eslroy
ontamlnants but
will limit their
nobility
Mone
Contaminated soils
will not be treated
>ut will be
contained
Mone
rreverslble
Mo residual
contamination
expected to remain
Erosion and
sedimentation aa
well as dust
controls would be
mplcmenled
ilurlng excavation
Heavy truck traffic
would result
-------
Criteria
Mternalhr* SI No
Ictlon
Alternative SI
MiHullonal Controb
Alternatives)
Zapping of Softs
\HernallveS4
DptkmA
rreatment IMng
Dn-SHe Indneratton
\HernallveS4
JptlenB
rreabnenl UMng
M«lle
ndnerallon
Vlternatlve S4
)ptlonC
rrealment Using
rhermal
Desorpllon
Mlcrnatlve SS
[>pllonA
Treatment IMng
Jhemkal Oxidation
Alternative SS Option B
rrealment Using Solvent
Extraction
\Mernallvc St
OT-Ske Disposal or
Kcu**
Short-Tenn Effectiveness continued
•rutMlkm of Worker*
Tim* to achieve
selection
mplementebimy
Vblllly to Construct
md Operate Iht
'echnology
rase of Site
Preparation
Hut of Undertaking
Additional Remedial
Actions
Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness
AbMly to Obtain
Approval from Other
Agencies
AvallaMHtv of
Materials
rime to achieve
MTOtectlon
•Jot applicable
1* months
tot applicable
tot applicable
4ot applicable
tot applicable
tot applicable
Sot applicable
It months
Mot applicable
1* months
lot applicable
4ot applicable
Uslly Undertaken
Access and deed
eitriclions easily
nonllored
V n -a-l -*!•••
•MQ rfJBinciMpiw
houM not be dUTIcul
o obtain
Materials for secwK)
_^__^_^_ — -._ . n-at^jjltn
nom* •rn main
ivallable
1,^0-
Workers would be
•dequately
construction
11 mofllhi
Asphalt capping
uses ordinary
tavlng techniques
Easily performed
WIH not Interfere
with any additional
emedlal actions
Cap will be
•crlodlcaUy
nspected for signs
damage
Approval not
WCQCfl
Materials are
•eadHy available
32 months
Workers would bo
•dewiately
108 remediation
)« months
Mobile Incinerators
•re widely uied and
easily constructed
*d operated Test
wrns are required
to site preparation
wedtd
WMnctmlerfere
with any addition*!
emedlal actions
Treated soil* and
He excavations will
ic tested to etuure
hat treatment
Undards are met
Test burns reqnhcd
o ensure proper
imerallng
Materials art
«adlly avalwMe
M months
Workers would bt
idequately
toil remediation
27 month*
[NT-die
nclneralors eiUl
md are easily
iccessed
tosHe
(reparation
•ceded
WM not Interfere
iHthany
iddltlonal
emedlal actions
Treated soils and
ilte excavations
win be tested to
ensure that
treatment
standards are met
Approval not
tecded
Materials are
•eadlly available
27 months
Workers wouU be
•deque lely
protected during
loH remediation
)« onlhs
Thermal
ilcsorptlon units
ire commercially
ivallable and
aslly operated
•Hot tests are
equked
4oslle
treparallon
wcded
Wn not Interfere
•ith any
ddltlonal
emedlal actions
Treated soils and
lie excavations
rill be tested to
tnsur* that
reatmenl
ilandards are met
•Hot tests required
o ensure proper
•Derating
conditions
Materials are
•eadlly available
3« months
Workers would be
•dequalely protected
Jurmg soil
remediation
14 months
Mobile chemical
>xld*llon units can be
easHy Instilled and
iperaled
4o site preparation
weded
WIH not Interfere with
my additional
emedlal actions
Treated soils and site
excavations vrtH be
ested to ensure that
treatment standards
ire met
Approval not needed
Materials are readily
ivallable
24 months
Workers would be
Adequately protected
during soil remediation
I months for this action
Solvent extraction units
ire commercially
ivallable and easily
nstallcd and operated
to site preparation needed
Will not Interfere with any
iddltlonal remedial
tctlons
Treated soils and site
excavations will be tested
lo ensure that treatment
itendards are met
Approval to operate an
im-slte chemical oxidation
mM should not be difficult
lo obtain
Materials are readily
ivallable
3* months
Worker* would be
•dequalely
protected during
toil remediation
Excavation and
>iT-slie disposal
:aa be easily
mplemenled
brough regular
excavation
ictMtlea
Mo sit* preparation
leeded
Will not Interfere
with any
iddlllonal
emedlal actions
Confirmatory
ampllng will
ensure complete
emoval of
contaminated soil
Approval by a
andflll may be
«mcuH to obtain
Vfaterlals are
•eadlly available
2 months for thb
icllon
-------
Criteria
Alternative SI No
Action
Alternative SI
Irutltutlonal Controls
Alternative S3
Capping or Soil*
Alternative S4
Option A
Treatment Uilng
Dn-Slte Incineration
Alternative S4
Option B
Treatment Using
(NT-Site
Incineration
\lternatlve S4
Option C
Treatment Uilng
Thermal
Dciorpllon
Alternative S5
Option A
Treatment Using
Chemical Oxidation
Alternative SS Option B
Treatment Using Solvent
Extraction
Alternative S<
:)rT-Slte Disposal or
Reuse
[mptementability continued
\vallabllily of
Unusual or Special
iervlces
4ol applicable
-------
Table 7. AR
Media
Son
Soil
Soil
Soil
Alb far Alternative Ml S*H Excavation and OfT-Sllt Dbp
IteannVeaMiJt
FEVEKAIj-brA NHK Reference 1MMC* (KIUI)
FEDERAL-EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group
Potency Factor*
FEDERAL-!* USC 47*
-------
Table 7. Continued
Media
Soil
Soil, Hazardous
Waste
Soil, llazardoui
Waste
Requirement
STATE-Mauaehuietti Historical Commbtlon
Regulation! (950 CMR 70-71)
FEDERAU'Test Method* for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,* EPA Publication
SW-846
STATE-310 CMR 30.640, Waste Pile*
Requirement Synopsis
Establishes regulations to minimize or mitigate
advene effects to properties listed In the State Register
of Historic Placet. MTL Is listed In the Stale Register.
The regulations contain standards that protect the
public'* Interest In preserving historic and
archaeological properties as early as possible In the
planning process of any project.
ACTION-SPEC1KIC
This guidance document sets forth the methods for
conducting TCLP testing.
Establishes requirements fur waste piles containing
hazardous waste.
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Requirement*
Requirements Include notification to
the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (Ml 1C). M1IC will make
• determination a* to whether the
actions planned will have an adverse
Impact. If so, the MIIC and party
responsible for the action will consult
to determine ways to minimize
adverse Impacts.
The guidance will be used when
testing soils at the site to determine
whether they constitute hazardous
waste.
Any piles of hazardous eicavaled soil
will comply with these requirements.
Status
Applicable
TBC
Relevant and
Appropriate,
Applicable for any
soil classified as
hazardous waste.
-------
T.M.7. Conduit*
ActfM To H« Takoi T«
AHaUBMtbtncnai
ntDOUUUCAA «• CVB f»rt «I, NiMral I
- - - - - - AkMMurilaiUBirMHIh|- WaUrfMmii
toil ar*» for taut, utiom Mhk^ raJftar
•artb»Ut« iMllar, and b !• •
I »W he waikKkJ M M
to limarpurate xaiMwaly iifallaMc
cwtral l»ifcnn>««j for ana
«nh* npriaOm fadwl* VbMfa
Kmbriwi ()M CMK 7.H); ItatL «• HIM !• «KA)
RMMilM lidMMn trill IM c«MkKU4 *• M
n<4 lu cueirf UK poBcj** allcmUt aiaW
TIIC
•••vt flvwwfl^ flv vcvvtfccf
M DWMHraJ it k«ai IM pro
IM property Ha* and •! MM
htnunl* Kir Ihi
•vUhTfiaMn*
WMto
A*y haoardoui «nute onlaknn
co^ftjr «k
-------
Table 8. Estimated Capital Costs Tor Accelerated Alternative:
Soil Excavation and Off-Site Disposal or Reuse Site Area I
Item
1
2
3
4
5
«
7
t
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
17
Description
Excavate, transport, and itagc contaminated material
Transport and dispose of excavated material ai contaminated waste at a
landfill (without stabilization):
Hazardous waste (450 yd3 @ 1.4 toni/yd3 = 700 tons)
Nonhazardous waste (450 yd3 @ 1.4 tons/yd3 = MOO tons)
Backfill excavated areas:
Import and place clean soil at excavated areas, grade and
contour
Import and place topsoll, ( Inches thick
Seeding and mulching, revegeUtion
Other restoration Issues and landscaping
Construction air monitoring
Health and safety (Plans & Specs)
Excavation stockpile sampling and analysis
Excavation delineation sampling
Erosion and sediment controls
Mobilization/demobilization
Subtotal
Engineering, procurement, administrative, and legal costs (20%)
Subtotal
Government construction management (8%)
Contingency (SO* of 2A5.7.8)
Total (Rounded)
Quantity
900yd3
700 tons
1,400 tons
900yd3
lump sum
lump sum
lump sum
31 days
t samples
( samples
lump sum
lump sum
Unit Cost
($)
13.«0/yd3
246/ton
-------
Appendix C. State Concurrence
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ONE WINTER STREET, BOSTON MA 02108 (617) 292-5500
WILLIAM F. WELD TRUDY COXE
. Governor Secretary
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI DAVID B. STRUHS
Lt. Governor Commissioner
June 11, 1996
Linda Murphy
Director, Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203-2211
RE: Army Materials "Technology Laboratory
Area I and M Operable Unit
Watertown, MA
Dear Ms. Murphy:
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
has reviewed the Draft June 1, 1996 Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
the Building 131 (Area I) Operable Unit (B131 OU). The Department has
^reviewed the Army's preferred accelerated remedial action for
Consistency with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 2IE and the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Based upon this review, the Department
concurs with the selected remedial action. The preferred accelerated
remedial action will be protective of human health, welfare, and the
environment for the B131 OU areas. Additionally, the preferred
accelerated remedial action will meet state ARARs and be cost effective.
The preferred accelerated remedial action will:
1.) Excavate soils in Areas I.
2.) Determine soil contaminants characteristics for disposal
options. j
3.) Transport soils off-site for recycling, reuse, or disposal
based on hazardous characterization.
4.) Back fill contaminated areas with clean soil.
The Town of Watertown's request for transfer of Building 131 and the
Army's desire to expedite property transfer necessitates the execution
of the accelerated remedial action. The removal of contaminated soils
from Area I for off-site recycling, reuse, or disposal, based on
hazardous characterization and confirmatory sampling, will be to the
more stringent residential cleanup level. This is consistent with the
local reuse plans for this area of the site and will not require the
implementation of institution controls the Building 131 area. This area
•will be available for unrestricted future use.
Printed on Recvded Paper
-------
The Department looks forward to working with EPA and the Army in this
common endeavor and we are pleased to assist in the transfer of Army
property in a manner that is protective of human health, welfare, and
the environment. If you have any ouestion please feel free tc contact
me at (617) 292-5648.
truly yours,
James C. Colman
Assistant Commissioner
«
cc: Mr. Steven Ward, Watertown Board of Health
Mr. John Airasian, Chairman Watertown Reuse Committee
Honorable Warren Tolman, State Senator
Honorable Rachel Kaprielian, State Representative
Mr. Matt O'Neill, Office of the Honorable Joseph ?. Kennedy II
Ms. Megan Cassidy, Environmental Protection Agencv
Mr. Robert Chase, AMSRL-OP-RK-WT
Mr. Steve Johnson, DEP BWSC - NERO
-------
Appendix D. Administrative Record
-------
US. Army Materials Technology Lab
Watertown, Ma
Administrative Record
DOC. #
DESCRIPTION
FACTUAL INFORMATION
\. Preliminary Assessment Site Inspection
2. Technical Plans for USAMTL Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
3. USAMTL Remedial Investigation (Volume I and II)
4. Final Phase II Remedial Investigation Report (Volume I through III)
5. Final Phase II Remedial Investigation Report (Volume I through V)
6. Baseline Risk Assessment Environmental Evaluation
7. Final Terrestrial Risk Assessment
8. Final Feasibility Study Report (Outdoor) (Volume I and II)
9. Draft Addendum to Human Health Evaluation
10. Feasibility Study for Base Closure RI/FS Responsiveness Summary
11. Feasibility Study for Base Closure RI/FS Responsiveness Summary
12. Final Proposed Plan
13. Draft Final Proposed Plan for Base Closure Responsiveness Summary
14. USAMTL Remedial Investigation Responsiveness Summary
IS. Phase II Remedial Investigation Comments
16. Terrestrial Ecological Risk Assessment Comments
17. Terrestrial Ecological Risk Assessment Response to Comments
18. Feasibility Study Comments
19. Proposed Plan Comments
20. Community Comments on Residential vs. Commercial Cleanup Standards
21. Phase I Remedial Investigation Report
22. Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act Report
23. Final Hazard Ranking Package for AMTL
24. Federal Facilities Agreement
25. Phase 1 RI Comments
26. Army Regulation 200-1, Environment Protection and Enhancement,
and 200-2, Environmental Effects of Army Actions
AUTHOR DATE
E G&G Idaho Inc 3/88
E G&G Idaho Inc 5/88
E G&G Idaho Inc 9/89
Roy F. Weston 12/93
Roy F. Weston 5/94
Roy F. Weston 12/93
Roy F. Weston 8/95
Roy F. Weston 1/96
Roy F. Weston 2/96
Roy F. Weston 11/95
Roy F. Weston 1/96
Roy F. Weston 4/96
Roy F. Weston 4/96
Roy F. Weston 4/93
NONE MISC.
NONE MISC.
Roy F. Weston 6/95
NONE MISC.
NONE MISC.
NONE MISC.
Roy F. Weston 4/91
Environ. Res. Mgt. 4/94
Halliburton Nus 4/93
EPA/Army 5/95
NONE MISC.
Army 5/90, &
Army 12/88
-------
DOC. #
DESCRIPTION
AUTHOR
DATE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
BRAC Cleanup Plan Guidebook
Base Realignment and Closure Plan Version I
Base Realignment and Closure Plan Version II
Comments on BCP
Media Coverage
Site Tour Handouts
Site Tour Handouts
Site Tour Handouts
Site Tour/Information Session Handouts
Information Session- Outdoor Remediation
Community Relations Mailing List
Restoration Advisory Board Meeting Dates
Project Team Meeting Dates
Public Involvement and Response Plan
Community Relations Plan
LTC Blose's Brief to Reuse Committee
Public Hearing Proposed Plan Transcript and Comments
OTHER INFORMATION
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Trustee Notification Letters
Watertown Arsenal Reuse and Feasibility Study (Town Reuse Plan)
EIS for Disposal and Reuse
Public Health Assessment for MTL
Health Consultation for MTL
Guidance List
OSWER Directive 9355.7-04 Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Process
Technical Memorandum for Area I
Dcpt. of Defense 10/93
Earthtech 3/94
Earthlcch 3/95
NONE MISC.
NONE MISC.
NONE 6/94
NONE 10/94
NONE 6/95
Army 1/96
Army 4/96
A rm y MISC.
Army MISC.
Army MISC.
Roy F. Weston 2/92
Roy F. Weston 5/95
Army 4/96
Army 5/96
Army 7/94
Goody-Clancy 11/93
Jaycor 9/95
ATSDR 2/96
ATSDR 3/96
None N/A
EPA 5/95
Army 6/96
------- |