MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Robert A. Dangel, LSP, Camp Dresser & McKee Cc: Ms. Karen Stromberg/DEP-NERO, Mr. William R. Swanson, VP, Camp Dresser & McKee Cc: Buckley and Mann, Inc. Cc: Norfolk Board of Selectmen, Norfolk Town Administrator, Norfolk Board of Health, Norfolk Conservation Commission, Norfolk Golf Committee Cc: National Golf Foundation, Earth Tech (both via Town Administrator) From: Public Involvement Plan (PIP) petitioners - Buckley and Mann property, Norfolk Date: October 3, 2001 Re: August 2001 Class A-3 Response Action Outcome and Release Abatement Measure Completion Report, Buckley and Mann, Inc., Norfolk, MA This document has been prepared by members of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) group for the Buckley and Mann site in Norfolk, MA, in preparation for the October 23, 2001 public hearing. Following our review of the RAO, we have assembled a list of questions regarding the work done to date. For your convenience, we are making this list available in advance of the meeting, and we would appreciate a written list of responses. The document is structured as follows: Section 1 addresses site assessment and remediation activities; Section 2 describes the risk characterization conducted at the site; and Section 3 discusses the Activity and Use Limitation implemented prior to filing the Response Action Outcome. 1.0 SITE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES 1.1 Areas Included in the Response Action Outcome (RAO) The following section describes the portions of the site that have been investigated and included within the Response Action Outcome. As described in the report, work to date has been limited to approximately 12 acres of the 143-acre property. These 12 acres, which comprise the extent of the disposal site covered by the Response Action Outcome (RAO), include a 2-acre former on-site landfill; three lagoons, each approximately 1 acre in extent; and seven acres of adjacent land located between the Tail Race (which is a manmade brook) and the Mill River. Within this area, the following were identified as areas of concern during site investigation activities: * Area #1 - material at the bottom of Lagoon #1 * Area #2 - material at the bottom of Lagoon #1 * Areas #3, 4, and 5 - material excavated from Lagoon #1 in 1975 and 1988 * Area #6 - material excavated from the former dyehouse trench to Lagoon #1 * Area #7 - material collected in 1986 from a small pit where wooden drum(s) with dye paste were buried * Area #8 - the pit from which wooden drum(s) with dye paste were excavated (a small area within Area 10) * Areas #9, 10, and 11 - the carbonizer lagoon; carbonizer spoils and old building demolition debris; and the trench to the carbonizer lagoon, respectively. (Note: As described in the report, carbonizing was a process used to reclaim wool from used garments. The raw material was conveyed through acid vapor, which charred the cotton threads on the seams and fasteners and facilitated separation of the wool. The wool was neutralized, rinsed, and reused. The solid residue, consisting of fiber and fasteners, was discarded on site in Area #10, and wastewater was discharged through the carbonizer trench (Area #11) to the carbonizer lagoon (Area #9). * Area #12 - fire pit (a small area within Area #10). [Note: Investigations to date have not included the area of the dyehouse, was operating until 1986 and which discharged effluent to the lagoons; any of the other on-site factory buildings; or the diesel and fuel oil underground storage tanks that were removed between 1986 and 1993. The reviewers understand that these areas were not included in CDM's scope of work, and they are listed in order to inform town officials and other readers of this document of the limitations of the workscope and areas of potential future concern. 1.2 Summary of Site Investigation Activities Initial site investigation activities were conducted in 1986, and were followed by sampling around the carbonizer lagoon in 1992. Further assessment was conducted in 1995, when 28 pits were dug at the site. Solid samples were collected from 21 of these pits: 3 samples from Area #1, 6 samples from Area #2, 1 sample each from Areas #3, #5, and #6, 2 samples from Area #4, 6 samples from the 2-acre Area #10, and 1 sample from Area #12 (Appendix A, Table A-1). The material in the pits was consistent with the property usage as a textile mill, and included coal ash, building debris, fasteners (buttons, zippers, etc), and textile machinery. The results of the assessments, as described in the RAO document, are summarized below. * The following compounds were present in solid samples collected from the bottoms of wastewater Lagoons 1 and 2 (Areas #1 and #2) between 1986 and 2000: trace Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), lead, chromium, total petroleum hydrocarbons, 1,1-biphenyl (representative of dye carrier compounds), and PAHs. Although the analytical results were not presented in the RAO, Section 6.0 of the RAO stated that traces of dye carrier volatile hydrocarbons were present in dyehouse wastewater and Lagoon #1 surface water prior to and in 1986. According to Appendix A of the RAO report, it was concluded following the 1986 investigation that there was groundwater contamination (as represented by Chemical Oxygen Demand) under Lagoons 1 and 2 and the adjacent 30-foot-wide earthen bank separating the lagoons from the Tail Race. * Soil samples from Areas #3, #4, #5, and #6, all of which represented materials removed from the bottom of Lagoon #1 or the trench between the dyehouse and the lagoon, had one or more of the following compounds: lead, chromium, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and certain Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds. * At least two solid samples were collected from the carbonizer lagoon area in 1988, and were found to have metals including lead and chromium. Two additional samples were collected in 1992, from the edge of the carbonizer lagoon and from the trench to the carbonizer lagoon; these samples were reported to have metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs). In addition, a sample of carbonizer washtub discharge (with buttons, buckles, zippers, and fibers) and a sample (with old brick, glass, and rubbish) from a disposal area near the carbonizer that was periodically burned were also analyzed in 1992; these areas are reported to have been consolidated into Area 10. * The following compounds were detected in soil samples from landfill Area #10: lead, chromium, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and certain Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds. 1.3 Remediation Activities As described in Section 7 of the RAO, a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan was implemented between 1998 and 1999 to reduce the risk posed by soil at the site. In brief, the material in Area #10, part of which falls within a wetland buffer zone, was excavated. The material was sorted to remove debris such as concrete, lumber, machinery, building debris, and other solid (non-hazardous) waste, which was stockpiled for future disposal (according to the RAO, this will be conducted at the time of building demolition). Approximately 315 cubic yards of material from test pit #10, which was known to have high levels of chromium and lead, were shipped off site for disposal. The rest of the excavated material from Area #10, plus materials from Areas #3 through #8 and Area #12, were visually inspected and were then consolidated at the former location of Area #10. The consolidated material was graded and covered with a geotextile fabric, followed by 3 feet of clean sand cover. This area is subject to an Activity and Use Limitation (deed restriction). 1.4 Reviewer Questions and Comments re: Site Investigation and Remediation Activities Has the vertical extent of contamination in the soil been delineated, as required by the MCP (310 CMR 40.0904(2))? [This review did not note any references to vertical delineation in any areas of the site. In paricular, it was noted in the Appendix A, Nov/Dec 1997 report summary that "the depth of the fill material in Area #10 was not fully known [...]." Since metals and PAH compounds are documented to have been present in the fill material sampled by the shallow test pits in Area #10, it is possible that additional contaminants are present in the fill material at depth. Similarly, the presence and/or depth of contamination in soil immediately adjacent to or beneath the lagoons and the earthen bank has not been documented]. Why was no further sampling of PCBs conducted at the site? [The report indicates that PCBs at levels exceeding benchmark values were detected in samples from the carbonizer lagoon and trench in May 1992. However, no further analytical data for PCBs was included in the RAO report or summary tables]. Why was no sampling conducted following individual phases of excavation to confirm that all material with concentrations exceeding standards had been removed? [For example, why was no sampling conducted around and beneath test pit 10 to confirm that all the material with high Cr and Pb concentrations had been removed off site? Similarly, why were no samples collected from the base of the landfill subgrade, prior to consolidation, to evaluate potential concentrations at depth?] What is the average depth to groundwater in the area of former landfill #10? What, if any, evaluation was conducted to determine the potential for groundwater infiltration into the consolidated materials, and the consequent leaching of contaminants to groundwater? Why was no barrier material placed beneath the consolidated materials to prevent potential downward migration of contaminants over time? Why was only one round of groundwater sampling conducted at the site? [QA/QC note: According to page 18 of the laboratory report in Appendix E, the sample preparation for analysis by EPA Method 8270 was conducted past the 7-day holding period.] Given the location of the Tail Race and Mill River near areas of known contamination and within 200 feet of wells with OHM, why were no surface water and sediment samples collected from either the Tail Race or the river to evaluate potential impact, as required by 310 CMR 40.0904(2)(c)? How does the RAM Plan, as implemented, vary from on-site storage of Remediation Waste? [The material consolidated and left in place in the landfill area meets the definition of Contaminated Media, which includes Contaminated Soil, defined as "soil containing OHM at concentrations equal to or greater than a release notification threshold established by 310 CMR 40.0300 and 40.1600" (definition in 310 CMR 40.0006). And Contaminated Media is included in the definition of Remediation Waste, so it would seem that the on-site consolidation falls under MCP regulations governing the management of remediation waste. The MCP states that: 310 CMR 40.0036(2): "where practicable, stockpiling or consolidating of Remediation Waste near sensitive human health receptors such as public and private water supply wells or sensitive environmental receptors such as wetlands, surface water bodies, or marine environments shall be avoided; and 310 CMR 40.0036(3): all remediation waste stored at the site of generation [..] shall be placed entirely on a base composed of an impermeable material [..]. Further, 310 CMR 40.0036(4) says that any failure of materials or procedures used in employing the base layer or cover layer as described in 310 CMR 40.0036(3) shall be immediately repaired, replaced, or re-secured.] 2.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION No risk characterization was included in the RAO document. It is assumed, from references throughout the document, that a Method 1 risk characterization was conducted, with a Method 2 used to evaluate the risk posed by biphenyl in the solid samples from the lagoons. It is further assumed, based on a statement in Appendix B, that S-2 standards are being applied to Area #10 following the installation of clean cover material, and that S-1 standards apply to the rest of the site. The applicable groundwater standards are GW-1 due to the site's location within a Zone II for public water supply wells, and GW-3 to protect surface waters. 2.1 Comparison of Chemical Concentrations to Standards Soil: In Section 10.2, the RAO refers to the soil currently under cover in the Area #10 Consolidation Area as follows: "The averages for several PAH compounds and lead exceed MCP S-1 and S-2 standards. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations exceeded the current (2001) MCP standards, although the TPH test has since been replaced by the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) procedure [...]" Groundwater: Groundwater sampling was conducted in 1998, when the concentrations of dissolved PAHs (in 3 select wells) and metals (in 8 wells) were found to be below applicable standards. Analysis for PCBs, which were detected in the carbonizer lagoon samples, was not conducted. No groundwater sampling was conducted following the excavation and consolidation activities at the site. Sediment: [Note to readers: This section describes solid samples collected from the bottom of lagoons at the site. Such materials are commonly described as sediment, and the recommended benchmarks for evaluating sediments are typically much lower than the equivalent standards for soil. However, in Appendix G, Camp Dresser & McKee referred to the solid samples collected from the bottom of the Lagoons #1 and #2 as follows: "CDM uses the term soil, rather than sediment, because the lagoons are man-made and the bottoms were graded with sand and gravel during construction and in the case of Lagoon #1, subsequent maintenance. The soil on the bottom is not naturally deposited sediment like that found in ponds." This interpretation is open to question (see below).] Section 10.3 of the RAO describes Lagoons #1 and #2 and states that in 1995 "metals concentrations in the Lagoon soils were below MCP S-1/GW-1 and S-1/GW-3 standards, and that naphthalene and methylnapthalene slightly exceeded the S-1/GW-1 limits. The 1995 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations exceeded the current (2001) MCP standards, although the TPH test has since been replaced by the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) procedure". In referring to data collected in October 2000, it states that "only one PAH compound, biphenyl, exceeded MCP S-1/GW-1 standards=2E The biphenyl concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 2.6 mg/kg, relative to the 1 mg/kg standard. " Further, Section 10.4 of the RAO summarizes the carbonizer lagoon area by saying that "soil/sediment data collected in the carbonizer lagoon and the carbonizer lagoon trench" exceeded the S-1/GW-1 standard for lead in one sample, that all other metals concentrations were below the S-1/GW-1 standards, and that TPH concentrations in two samples collected in 1992 exceeded the S-1/GW-1 standards. Although not stated in the text of the RAO, the supporting summaries in Appendix B and the carbonizer lagoon and trench summary table C-1 in Appendix C both state that "the MCP standards are for soil, and are not directly applicable to the sediment in the carbonizer lagoon." Surface Water: only one reference to surface water sampling was noted in the RAO, when it was stated (in Section 6) that traces of dye carrier volatile hydrocarbons in [..] Lagoon #1 surface water were found prior to and in 1986. No surface water sampling of either the Mill River or the Tail Race was documented in the RAO. 2.2 Reviewer Questions and Comments re: the Risk Characterization Why would S-2 standards apply in the consolidated landfill area following the implementation of the AUL? [The AUL appears to permit unrestricted use of the landfill area by children for high intensity (active recreation) activities. As such, the landfill area could be used for a playground or playing fields within the terms of the AUL. Given that the soil in this area is potentially accessible, wouldn't the combination of high frequency and high intensity use by children make the soil classification S-1, not S-2?] Given the wetlands nature of the site, and the known presence of aquatic life such as frogs in Lagoon #2 (Appendix B), why were no environmental receptors identified as required by 310 CMR 40.0922? What regulatory reference permits the comparison of materials at the base of man-made lagoons to soil, as opposed to sediment, standards? [This distinction was noted in the case of Lagoons #1 and #2. According to the MCP Section 310 CMR 40.0006, sediments are defined as "all detrital and inorganic or organic matter situated on the bottom of lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, the ocean, or other surface water bodies", with no distinction made for the origin of the material. Further, since sediment benchmarks were established to be protective of ecological risk, and since the RAO documents that the lagoons have well-established vegetative cover and frog life, comparison to soil standards alone omits a key part of the risk characterization process required by the MCP. Specifically, as stated in the DEP Q&A dated February 1995, "Method 1 or Method 2 standards may be used to assess human exposures to sediment (but) a Method 3 environmental risk characterization would also be required as the Method 1 soil standards do not consider the potential ecological risks posed by contaminated sediments."] Why was none of the data from any of the lagoons, including the carbonizer lagoon, compared to sediment benchmarks? [Appendix B and Table C-1 of the RAO acknowledge that soil standards do not apply to the sediment samples collected from the carbonizer lagoon. In such cases, the MCP and DEP's risk characterization guidance document require that sediment data be evaluated via an ecological risk characterization. This can be done by comparing data to sediment benchmarks as part of a Stage I Environmental Screening.] Why was a Method 3 Risk Characterization not conducted for the site? [There are several situations in which a Method 1 may not be used, and a Method 3 risk characterization is required by the MCP. Section 310 CMR 40.0971 of the MCP states that if contamination is present in one or more environmental media other than soil or groundwater, Method 1 alone shall not be used. Sediments and surface water both meet the definition of other media, so at this site, the presence of sediments as described above, as well as the presence of contaminants in surface water as stated in Section 6 of the report, would require the use of a Method 3. Also, Section 310 CMR 40.0942 of the MCP requires that a Method 3 be conducted if environmental receptors have been identified for a site, and if OHM known to bioaccumulate are present within 2 feet of the ground surface, as is the case in the lagoons] [Additional Reviewer Notes: this review included a preliminary comparison of the sediment data from the two wastewater lagoons and the carbonizer lagoon to DEP-recommended freshwater sediment benchmarks (EPA region IV, OSWER, and the Ontario MOE low values). The results indicated that the average concentration of cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead, and zinc in samples from the carbonizer lagoon and trench, as documented in Table C-1, were 2 to 10 times higher than the recommended benchmarks. Samples from the carbonizer lagoon area also had PCB levels ranging from 0.2 to 0.76 mg/kg, compared to benchmark values of 0.023 to 0.070 mg/kg. Similarly, PAH and chromium values, as well as the biphenyl values consistently present in solid samples from the base of Lagoon 1 and Lagoon 2, exceeded the corresponding sediment benchmarks. A thorough ecological risk evaluation, including potential impact to surface water and wetlands posed by all contaminants including PCBs, would be needed to characterize the potential risk associated with the affected wetlands areas of the site. Also, Appendix B of the RAO, in referring to the carbonizer lagoon area, concludes that remediation would be contrary to DEP policy discouraging work in wetlands solely to reduce contaminant concentrations to background=2E It should be noted that the MCP and associated DEP regulations make a distinction between concentrations that exceed applicable risk-based standards/benchmarks and concentrations that exceed background; in the case of the former, remediation is required to achieve a condition of No Significant Risk. 3.0 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME AND ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION The Response Action Outcome (RAO) at this site is based primarily on the use of an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) to restrict future uses of the site. In brief, the AUL seeks to maintain future uses and activities in the consolidated Area #10 such that they are consistent with the S-2 designation said to have been created by the clean cover material. However, in Section 10.2, the RAO refers to the soil currently under cover in the Area #10 Consolidation Area as follows: "The averages for several PAH compounds and lead exceed MCP S-1 and S-2 standards. The Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations exceeded the current (2001) MCP S-1 standards, although the TPH test has since been replaced by the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) procedure [...] Because these average concentrations exceed the Method 1 S-1 and S-2 standards, B&M has imposed an Activity and Use Limitation on the covered consolidation area in Area #10." 3.1 Reviewer Questions and Comments re: RAO and AUL at the site Since the contaminated soil in Area #10 has not been placed on any kind of impermeable layer, the vertical extent of contamination in the landfillarea has not been defined, and concentrations exceeding applicable standards have been left in place, how have the minimum requirements for an RAO been met? [310 CMR 40.1003(5)(a) states that: A Class A or Class B RAO shall not be achieved unless and until each source of OHM which is resulting or likely to result in an increase in concentrations of OHM in an environmental medium, either as a consequence of a direct discharge or through intermedia transfer of OHM, is eliminated or controlled. Such sources may include, without limitation: [..] contaminated fill, soil, sediment, and waste deposits.] How could an AUL be implemented at the site when soil concentrations exceed applicable Method 1 standards? As described in DEP's May 1999 Guidance on Implementing Activity and Use Limitations, Interim Final Policy #WSC 99-300: Section 2.5.3 Prohibited Uses of AULs 310 CMR 40.1012(4) states explicitly that an AUL cannot be used in lieu of an applicable Method standard. For example, when using Method 1, if the soil is categorized as S-2 and the calculated exposure point concentrations exceed an S-2 standard, cleanup to meet the S-2 level is needed to achieve a permanent solution. The implementation of an AUL does not negate the requirement to meet the applicable standards. Specifically, 310 CMR 40.1012(4) states that an AUL cannot be used to: * change the category of groundwater categorized as GW-1 or GW-2 (except as provided in 310 CMR 40.0932(5)(d) with respect to existing private wells); or * justify a conclusion of No Significant Risk when using Method 1 or 2 if an applicable standard is exceeded. Further information provided by DEP in their February 1995 Q&A indicates that it is not possible to leave contaminated soil which exceeds Method 1 or Method 2 standards without using a Method 3 approach, which evaluates site-specific risk exposures.