Transcription

Baird & McGuire Superfund SiteHolbrook, MassachusettsFINALFIVE-YEAR REVIEWFOR THE BAIRD & MCGUIRE SUPERFUND SITESeptember 1999Prepared For:U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion I, Boston, MassachusettsPrepared by:Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.WA #034-FRFE-0131

FINALEPA Contract No. 68-W6-0042EPA Work Assignment No. 034-FRFE-0131EPA Project Officer: Diana KingEPA Remedial Project Manager: Melissa TaylorFIVE YEAR REVIEW FOR THEBAIRD AND McGUIRE SUPERFUND SITESeptember 1999Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.30 Harvard Mill SquareWakefield, MA 01880

TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION. 1-11.1 BACKGROUND. 1-21.1.1 Purpose of Report. 1-21.1.2 Site Background. 1-31.1.3 Summary of Remedy Stipulated by Records Of Decision. 1-41.1.4 Report Organization. 1-61.2 REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES. 1-6SECTION 2.0 - PRESENT SITE CONDITIONS . 2-12.1 GROUNDWATER REMEDY (OU-1). 2-12.1.1 Components of the Remedy. 2-12.1.2 System Operation and Equipment Modifications. 2-32.1.3 System Performance. 2-52.1.4 Data Evaluation. 2-72.2 SOILS REMEDY (OU-2) .2-102.2.1 Components of the Remedy .2-112.2.2 DataEvaluation.2-152.3 SEDIMENT REMEDY (OU-3) .2-162.3.1 Components of the Remedy.2-162.3.2 Performance.2-172.3.3 Long-Term Monitoring.2-182.4 REPLACEMENT OF LOST DEMAND (OU-4).2-192.4.1 Components of the Remedy.2-192.4.2 Performance.2-19SECTION 3.0 - SITE VISIT. 3-13.1 REGRADED AND SEEDED PORTIONS OF THE SITE. 3-13.2 RESTORED WETLANDS. 3-13.3 COCHATO RIVER . 3-23.4 EXTRACTION WELLS AND RECHARGE BASINS. 3-23.5 EXTRACTION SYSTEM CONTROL BUILDING (ESCB). 3-23.6 GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY (GWTF). 3-3SECTION 4.0 - ARARS REVIEW. 4-14.1 STANDARDS REVIEW APPROACH. 4-14.2 ARARS REVIEW-OPERABLE UNITS 1 & 2. 4-24.3 ARARS REVIEW - OPERABLE UNIT 3. 4-44.4 ARARS REVIEW-OPERABLE UNIT 4. 4-5SECTION 5.0 - COMPLIANCE STATUS . 5-15.1 OU-1 - GROUNDWATER . 5-15.2 OU-2-SOIL. 5-15.3 OU-3-SEDIMENT. 5-25.4 OU-4 - LOST DEMAND . 5-2SECTION 6.0-GENERAL DISCUSSION OF RISK. 6-16.1 GROUNDWATER (OU-1). 6-1

6.2 SOILS. 6-16.2.1 Backfilled Ash.6-26.2.2 Outlying Areas. 6-26.2.3 Soils Below the Bottom Depth of Excavation. 6-26.3 SEDIMENTS (OU-3).6-36.4 REPLACEMENT OF LOST DEMAND (OU-4).6-3SECTION 7.0 - EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. 7-1SECTION 8.0 - RECOMMENDATIONS. 8-18.1 TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS . 8-18.1.1 Groundwater(OU-l). 8-18.1.2 Soils (OU-2).8-38.1.3 Sediments (OU-3).8-48.1.4 Replacement of Lost Demand (OU-4). 8-48.2 STATEMENT ON PROTECTIVENESS. 8-58.2.1 OU-1 - Groundwater. 8-58.2.2 OU-2-Soils. 8-68.2.3 OU-3 - Sediments. 8-68.2.4 OU-4 - Lost Demand. 8-68.3 NEXT REVIEW. 8-7REFERENCES.R-lFIGURESFigure 1-1. Location of Baird & McGuire Superfund Site. F-lFigure 1-2. Baird & McGuire Site Features . F-2Figure 2-1. Baird & McGuire Well Locations. F-3Figure 2-2. Estimated Extent of LNAPL in Groundwater. F-4Figure 2-3 Soil Excavation and Backfill Limits. F-5Figure 2-4. Cochato River Excavation and Monitoring Area. F-6TABLESTable 2-1. Monthly Average Effluent Levels.T-lTable 2-2. Summary of Groundwater Treatment Facility Operation and Performance . T-3Table 2-3. Total VOCAnd SVOC Concentrations Over Time. T-4Table 4-1.Table 4-2.Table 4-3.Table 4-4.Table 4-5.Table 4-6.Table 4-7.Potential Chemical-Specific ARARS and Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance. T-8Numerical Standards For Baird & Mcguire Groundwater.T-12Potential Location-Specific ARARS and Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance. T-15Potential Action-Specific ARARS for Operable Units 1 And 2.T-21Potential Chemical-Specific Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance For Ou-3. T-28Numerical Chemical-Specific ARARS Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance. T-32Potential Action-Specific ARARS For Ou-3 . T-34Appendix A1997 and 1998 Plume Maps

SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTIONThis document is a comprehensive and interpretive report on the five-year review conducted for theBaird & McGuire Superfund Site (the Site) in Holbrook, Massachusetts, for U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Region I. This work was conducted by Metcalf & Eddy (M&E) under theRemedial Action Contract Services (RACS) contract. The U.S. EPA is the lead agency and decisionmaker for the Baird & McGuire Site.Although not subject to the requirements of the following statutes, EPA Region I conducted thisreview in compliance with CERCLA section 121(c), NCP section 300.400(f)(4)(ii), and OSWERDirectives 9355.7-02 (May 23, 1991), and 9355.7-02A (August 1994). Since the remedial action forthis site was selected on September 30, 1986, before the statutory date of October 17, 1986,compliance with the statute is not required. Other than completing the five-year review within thestatutory timeframe of five years from the initiation of the remedial action, the five-year review wasconducted in accordance with all statutory requirements for remedies selected after October 17, 1986.The actual first five-year review was due in 1996; all subsequent five-year reviews follow from thatdate. The next five-year review will be due by December 2001.EPA guidance further stipulates that sites subject to five-year reviews with multiple operable unitsshould conduct a five-year review for the entire Site, and not separate five-year reviews for eachremedy or operable unit. The five-year review is triggered by the first operable unit giving rise to afive-year review. This five-year review report for the Baird & McGuire Site incorporates all operableunits, as directed by the guidance (U.S. EPA, 1994).In order to conduct the first five-year review at this Site, M&E reviewed existing Site documents andother materials that are the basis for the source control and groundwater treatment, includingdocuments that outline the objectives, cleanup goals, and implementation of the remedial action.These documents include:1-1

Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-1 and OU-2, September 30, 1986 (U.S. EPA,1986).Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-3, October 9, 1989 (U.S. EPA, 1989).Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-4, September 27, 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1990).Evaluation of Potential Future Reuse Opportunities for the Baird & McGuire Site(M&E, June 5, 1998).Nine months of Monthly Operations Reports (April 1998 - December 1998) for thegroundwater treatment system (M&E Services).Performance evaluations and yearly plume evaluations performed by M&E, Inc.(M&E, July 1998, January 1998, February 1999).Remedial Action Report for OU-3 (USAGE 1996).Results of Third Year of Long-Term Monitoring of Sediments and Soils (USAGE1998).Potential for Advection of Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater to theCochato River, Baird & McGuire Superfund Site. USGS Draft Report. March andApril 1998.1.1 BACKGROUNDThe five-year review was undertaken to review remedial actions completed at the Site to date, toensure that the remedial actions remain protective of human health and the environment. This reviewis required by federal statute for any Site remedy which results in hazardous substances remaining on-site above a level that would allow for unlimited, unrestricted use (CERCLA §121(c) and 40 CFR§300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan).1.1.1 Purpose of ReportThe purpose of the five-year review is to confirm that the remedy as described in the Records OfDecision (RODs) and/or remedial design remains protective of human health and the environment.This report presents the results of a "Type la" five-year review, as determined by U.S. EPA Region1-2

I and in accordance with OSWER Directive 9355.7-02A "Structure and Components of Five YearReviews." This review includes elements of a Type la review (document reviews, regulatory review,Site inspection, ARARs review, statement of protectiveness and recommendations).The Type lareview is similar in content to the Level I five-year review described in earlier EPA guidance(OSWER Directive 9355.7-02).1.1.2 Site BackgroundThe Baird & McGuire Superfund Site is located on South Street in Holbrook, MA, as show inFigure 1-1. The ROD defines the Site as the area within the EPA security fence constructed in July1985. According to the FS, this fence encompasses all known areas of soil contamination related toBaird & McGuire (GHR, 1986). The Site boundary and coincident fence line are shown onFigure 1-2, based on a Site survey conducted in May 1988. The Site designated on Figure 1-2 hasbeen determined to consist of approximately 32.5 acres.1 For the purpose of increased security andaccess control measures during remedial actions, additional fencing was constructed in some areasbeyond the Site boundary. This includes fencing around the groundwater treatment plant andrecharge basins, and fencing beyond the southern Site boundary. The approximate location of thisadditional fencing is also shown on Figure 1-2, based on visual observations.As illustrated on Figure 1-2, the Site is not limited to land within the Baird & McGuire property.Historically, Lots 130, 130-1 and 130-2 have had Baird & McGuire ownership. These lots consistof 9.33 acres, of which approximately 8 acres are within the Site boundaries. The remaining 24.5acres of the Site consist of portions of five privately owned lots and two lots jointly owned by thetowns of Holbrook and Randolph. In addition, four privately owned lots located west of the CochatoRiver (Lots 6, 12-2 and 12-3) have restricted access to the river due to the presence of the securityfence.1 Some paragraphs of the ROD and other project documents have stated that the site consists of approximately 20 acres. The reference to a 20acre site originated in the RI Report (GHR, 1985) which preceded construction of the security fence that subsequently defined the site limits.1-3

Figure 1-2 also shows significant ecological Site features, including the Cochato River, the unnamedbrook, the 100-year floodplain, and wetland areas. Based on a wetland boundary delineationconducted during RI investigations, wetlands occupied approximately 44 percent of the Site. Inaddition, 66 percent of the Site was determined to be within the 100-year floodplain (GHR, 1986).21.1.3 Summary of Remedy Stipulated by Records Of DecisionSelected remedial actions for the Site were developed in accordance with CERCLA as amended bythe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, inaccordance with the NCP at 40 CFR Part 300.EPA issued three RODs for the Site, defining four operable units and describing selected remedialalternatives. The first ROD, issued in September 1986, specified groundwater extraction andtreatment at an on-site treatment plant (OU-1) and soil excavation and treatment at an on-siteincinerator (OU-2). The second ROD, issued in September 1989, addressed contamination in theCochato River sediments (OU-3). EPA issued the final ROD in 1990, which called for reopening theDonna Road well field to replace the lost demand resulting from contamination of the South Streetwellfield (OU-4). The selected remedies being evaluated for protectiveness are: OU-1: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment. The RI/FS (GHR, 1985 and GHR,1986)identified and described the presence of a groundwater contamination plume, originating from theBaird & McGuire property and extending beyond the Cochato River. The 1986 ROD specifiedgroundwater extraction and on-site treatment to address this contaminatioa The current systemconsists of six extraction wells that pump contaminated groundwater to a groundwater treatmentfacility, and four recharge basins for discharge of treated groundwater back to the aquifer. OU-2: Soil Excavation and Treatment Based on the nature and extent of soil contaminationdocumented in the RI/FS, the 1986 ROD specified the excavation of soil from "hot areas" with2 The RI Addendum Report (GHR, 1986) predicts a 100-year flood elevation of 126.9 feet, as compared to the 128-foot 100-year floodelevation shown on the Holbrook Flood Insurance Rate Map. For the purpose of this report, the 100-year flood elevation of 128 feet is used, since thiselevation corresponds to the designation of the Flood Plain Protection District on the Town Zoning Map.1-4

subsequent treatment in an on-site incinerator. The hot areas were delineated in the ROD basedon contamination profiles developed in the RI Addendum (GHR, 1986). The limits of excavationwere established so that contaminant concentrations outside of the hot areas were one to twoorders of magnitude lower than the concentrations inside the hot areas. Also considered inestablishing the limits of excavation was the presence of wetlands and the extent of contaminationin those wetlands, with the intent of minimizing disruption to wetlands. The ROD notes thatalthough this approach results in residual soil contamination, future health risk for a trespasserscenario would be within an acceptable range. OU-3: Sediment Excavation and Treatment. The Baird & McGuire Site includes a portionof the Cochato River. This area begins at approximately the center of the Site fence along theCochato River and extends north to Union Street. Cochato River sediment contamination wasaddressed by the September 1989 ROD for OU-3. The ROD specified excavation and incinerationof approximately 1,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediments for protection of public health andthe environment. Sediments were to be excavated on an average of six inches from approximatelythe center of the fenced Site area downstream to Union Street. Sediments were to be transportedto the on-site treatment facility and subsequently placed as backfill on the Site.The ROD also required erosion control, wetlands restoration, placement of organic fill in theexcavated areas of the river in the vicinity of the groundwater plume and long-term monitoringof downstream portions of the River where sediments were not excavated.To minimize the disruption of wetlands, sediments were not to be removed from areas of the riverwhere contaminant concentrations were low, calculated risks were low, and no impacts wereobserved. In accordance with the ROD for OU-3, long term monitoring is to be conducted toevaluate remaining contaminant levels and their behavior over time (USEPA, 1989). OU-4: Replacement of Lost Demand from Contamination of South Street Wellfield. TheSouth Street wellfield, which formerly was part of the municipal water supply for Holbrook, iswithin 1,500 feet of the Baird & McGuire property. The last operating well was shut down in1-5

1982 due to organic contamination. The ROD for OU-4 was issued to address an alternate watersupply/replacement of lost demand which resulted from the contamination and subsequentshutdown of the South Street wells. The reactivation of the Donna Road aquifer was selected asthe alternate water supply.1.1.4 Report OrganizationThis document is organized for a Level I review in accordance with EPA protocols. Section 1.0provides an introduction to this five-year review, Site background information, descriptions of theROD-specified remedies and remedial objectives. Section 2.0 summarizes present Site conditions anddescribe the status of the remedy for each operable unit based on document review and the Site visit.Observations of the Site visit are described in Section 3.0. Components of each remedy are describedand a review of the performance of each remedy is also presented. Section 4.0 describes the resultsof a review of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Section 5.0 presentsa discuss of compliance status of site actions based on the ARARs review and the evaluation ofperformance. Section 6.0 presents a general discussion of past risk evaluations performed for the Site.Section 7.0 describes non-engineering controls placed on the Site for protectiveness, and discussestheir efficiency. Section 8.0 provides recommendations based on this Five-Year Review. It providesdiscussion of whether current technologies are achieving performance standards and providesrecommendations for continued operation. It also presents a discussion of protectiveness of theremedy based on ARARs review and performance of the remedial actions. Lastly, Section 8.0presents a discussion of the next review.1.2 REMEDIAL OB JECTIVESUnder its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake remedialactions that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 ofCERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences, including: a requirementthat EPA's remedial action, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent stateenvironmental standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked; a1-6

requirement that EPA select a remedial action that is cost-effective and that utilizes permanentsolutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximumextent practicable; and a preference for remedies in which treatment permanently and significantlyreduces the volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances. Section 121 also provides thatif EPA selects a remedy not compliant with the above preferences, EPA is to publish an explanationas to why a remedial action involving such reduction was not selected. Response alternatives for theBaird & McGuire Site were developed to be consistent with these Congressional mandates.EPA has established a three-tier approach to conducting five-year reviews, the most basic of whichprovides a minimum protectiveness evaluation (Level I Review). This report documents a Type lafive-year review for the Baird & McGuire Site in Holbrook, Massachusetts, to confirm that theremedial action, as presented in the Records of Decision (OU-1 & OU-2, September 30,1986; OU-3,October 9, 1989; OU-4, September 27, 1990) remains protective of human health and theenvironment.This five-year review reassesses ARARs for substances identified as chemicals of concern in theRODs, and considers whether ARARs for substances not addressed under contaminants of concernhave been changed such that the remedy is no longer protective. The review also considers pendingor actual changes in zoning or land uses that could undermine the remedy. In addition, the reviewconsiders the need for institutional controls at and near the Site. A five-year review is hereinperformed for all operable units, using the information available, in accordance with five-year reviewguidance (U.S. EPA, 1994).Remedial action objectives being evaluated for each operable unit as described in the RODs are asreiterated below.1.2.1 OU-1: The remedial action objectives to address groundwater contamination at the Baird &McGuire Site are as follows:1-7

Remediate the contaminated aquifer within a reasonable time to prevent present or futureimpacts to groundwater drinking water supplies; Protect surface waters from future contaminant migration; and Minimize long-term management and/or maintenance requirements.1.2.2 OU-2: The remedial action objectives for addressing contaminated soils at the Baird &McGuire Site are as follows: Minimize the risk for the human population of direct contact with contaminatedsoils/sediments; Protect surface waters from future contaminant migration; and Minimize long-term management and/or maintenance requirements.1.2.3 OU-3: The remedy selected in 1989 was developed to satisfy the following remedialobjectives, which will be used to measure the success of the remedy: Reduce human exposure to arsenic, DDT, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), andchlordane in sediment by excavating to an average depth of six (6) inches and by achievingthe following levels of contaminants: 250 ppm for arsenic; 19 ppm for DDT; 5 ppm forchlordane; and 22 ppm for total PAHs. These concentrations correspond to a 1 x 10"5 to1 x 10"6 excess cancer risk level; and Reduce environmental exposure to the same four contaminants of concern to concentrationscorresponding to the mean sediment quality criteria (SQC) (EPA, 1988) in the river bed, andto the upper bound SQC in the wetland area north of Ice Pond.Human health target levels for the four contaminants of concern are presented below, and site-specifictarget levels for ecological risk were set at sediment quality criterion for specific target locations (seeTable 5 of the ROD, 1989). An organic layer of soil intended to act as a filter (to attenuategroundwater discharge) was placed in the vicinity of the groundwater plume where achieving SQCswould be difficult. Sediment sampling conducted in December of 1998 in the area of the groundwater1-8

plume where the organic fill material was placed did not reveal any detectable levels of thecontaminants of concern in the sediment.OU-3 ROD-SPECIFIED HUMAN HEALTH TARGET LEVELS FOR SEDIMENTCONTAMINANTS OF CONCERNTarget Level1Target Level1Compound(1(T5 Risk) (ppm)CIO'6 Risk) 1. These concentrations correspond to the indicated target risk level based on exposure to a single compound and do notassume concurrent exposure with other contaminants.While the target levels derived for protection of human health were based on a 1 x 10 5 excess cancerrisk level, the ROD expected remediation to achieve a greater level of protection for three of the fourcontaminants of concern. For the contaminants arsenic, DOT and metabolites, and chlordane, a1 x 10"6 excess cancer risk level was anticipated to be achieved by the remediation. The contaminantof concern that would achieve only the 1 x 10"5 level is total PAHs, which are found widelythroughout the Cochato River drainage basin. Sediment was remediated to this human health level;the overbank was remediated to 1.5 times this level. It is expected that natural degradative,depositional, and dispersal processes would gradually reduce contaminant concentrations in theremaining downstream sediment without engineering measures being taken. Full evaluation of thisremedy as part of this five-year review would be premature due to insufficient time for decreases insediment and fish contaminant concentrations to occur. Yearly monitoring of sediments downstreamof the Site, along with fish data collected on a five-year basis, will be evaluated when the next five-year review is due for OU-3 to determine if the selected remedy remains protective of human healthand the environment.1-9

1.2.4 OU-4: Replacement of Lost Demand from Contamination of South Street Wellfield.Based on preliminary information such as constraints of the present water system and known availablewater sources, a remedial action objective was developed to aid in the development and screening ofalternatives. The response objective for OU-4 is:To identify a candidate water source that will replace the 0.31 million gallons per day (mgd)Lost Demand in an environmentally sound, cost-effective manner without placing additionalstress on the Great Pond Reservoir system or existing water treatment facilities.1-10

SECTION 2.0PRESENT SITE CONDITIONSThis section summarizes the remedies and current conditions for each Operable Unit at the Baird andMcGuire Superfund Site in terms of design, implementation and performance. In general, thegroundwater remedy (OU-1) is ongoing. The soil (OU-2) and sediment (OU-3) remedies have beencompleted and are being monitored. The remedy for the replacement of lost demand fromcontamination of the South Street well field (OU-4) has not been implemented.2.1 GROUNDWATER REMEDY (OU-1)The groundwater remedy at the Site is ongoing. A groundwater treatment facility (GWTF) andextraction/recharge system were built in 1991 and remain in operation, with modifications. Thepurpose of the system is to contain and remove the plume of contaminated groundwater. Whitmanand Howard operated the system for one year (under subcontract to Barletta). The O&M contractwas then awarded to M&E Services/PSG who has operated the GWTF since 1993.2.1.1 Components of the RemedyThe three main components of the groundwater remedy are extraction, treatment, and recharge.Groundwater Extraction. The groundwater extraction system consists of six ex

The Baird & McGuire Superfund Site is located on South Street in Holbrook, MA, as show in Figure 1-1. The ROD defines the Site as the area within the EPA security fence constructed in July 1985. According to the FS, this fence encompasses all known areas of soil contamination related to Baird & McGuire (GHR, 1986).