MARLBOROUGH ROAD - ZONING i
i
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF pg
1
i
i
I
I
I
i
I I�� C
1
Ac - I I
W 1�-C 26D VC/
CITY OF SALEM
In City Council,.__- ---Jaauary.27,_ 1987_________
Ordered:
BE IT HEREBY ORDERED:
That a Salem Acres Joint Monitoring Committee between the Cities of Salem
and Peabody be hereby established, with the purpose of such Committee being that
of:
1. Monitoring and reviewing the work of both the US Environmental
J �i
ell J
Protection Agency and the Massachusetts DE Eregarding the proposed llclea\n.fn
S
of the Salem Acres site off n,Marlborough Road;
g ,
2. Researching, in cooperation on with the State Department of Public Health
\'
and the Salem Health Department, the potential health impacts of the hazardous
wastes upon the surrounding neighborhood; and
3. Acting as a liason for the Cities of Peabody and Salem, and the
neighborhoods involved, in deliberations with the EPA and DEQE over the next
several years as an analysis of the site and its wastes is completed, as alternative
"clean up" measures are reviewed, and as hazardous wastes are eliminated.
The Committee shall be comprised of the following members:
1. The Health Agents of Salem and Peabody
e City Planners of Salem and Peabody
3. 1 Ne Directors of Public Services o Mm and Peabody
4. The ward Councillors of both Salem and Peabody, within whose ward the
land is located; and
5. A neighborhood resident from each City, to be named by the City Councils
respectively.
CITY OF SALEM
t
S"
'�<41MIFL�pti�
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED:
That this Order of the City Council, if approved favorably, be furnished to
the Peabody City Council immediately for their review and approval.
AND, BE IT FURTHER ORDERED:
That the Committee begin to meet immediately to address the problems of
the Salem Acres site and begin to work with the EPA and DEQE to resolve this
most important issue.
In City Council January 27, 1987
Adopted
Approved by the Mayor on January 29, 1987
ATTEST: JOSEPHTNT, R. FTTS'(l
CITY CLERK
'A .
�. oop
a !
JR�°UIM6 T'
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NOR+H STREET
HEALTH AGENT
(617) 741-1800
February 13, 1987
Beth Debski ,
Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mrs. Debski :
Relative to the Form B Preliminary Plan for DiBiase/Country Club Estates
(Salem Acres) located off Marlborough Road was discussed at the February
10, 1987 Salem Board of Health Meeting, the following motion was made by
Dr. Stuchiner, Seconded by Robert Fouhey - VOTED UPON AND PASSED ALL IN
FAVOR''
" In absence of the RIFS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study) ,
the Board of Health must disapprove the Preliminary Sub-Division
Plan of Ugo DiBiase Country Club Estates (Salem Acres) off Marlborough
Road because of lack of information concerning the exact extent and
distribution of the contamination on this site".
FOR THE BOARD +'OF HEALTH
ROBEE. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
REB/m
cc: John C. Keane, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston MA 0220
9 Y, 9> , 3
X '
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH 07
Salem. Massachusetts 01970OD
:J
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 0 0') 9 P!QRTH STREET
HFALIH AGENT
(617) 741-1800 - January 14, 1987
Mr. Peter R. Beatrice, Jr.
Suite 400
44 School Street
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Beatrice:
In resnonse to your letter dated January 14, 1987, the common practice
when the Board of Health received requests for comments from the Planning
Board is to request that the applicant be present at the Board of Health
meeting.
The DiBiase/Country Club Estates was an item on the agenda at the January
6, 1987 Board of Health meeting and continued until the next monthly
meeting on February 10, 1987.
Also, you requested more detailed information relative to this issue. See
enclosed recommended comments that I am planning to submit at the February
10, 1987 meeting. Official Board of Health comments will be forthcoming
at the meeting.
If you have any questions please feel free to call this office at 741-1800.
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROB T E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
cc: Dale Yale, Planning Department
CITY Of SALFM HEALTH DEPAI TtAFNT
01 HFAL'711
I10BFRT F, RLINKHORN
<,17 o:. i-1800
DiBiase - Country Club Estates, (off Marlborough Road)
Recommended Comments
1. The applicant submit to the Board of health in writing all information
from EPA, DEQE, and/or a privately employed consultant in regard to the
status of the storage and disposal of hazardous material at the site
(sludge pits) .
IA. Submit results of any 21E reports (i.e. , hazardous waste) to the Health
and Planning Departments in writing.
2. The design proposal concur with the City Engineering Department and City
Plumbing Inspector for utility tie-ins for drinking water, sanitary waste
(sewage) , gas lines, and/or any other utility service.
3. The proposed drinking water line is an extension of a dead end system.
It is recommended that the extension be looped to prevent a negative pres-
sure situation.
4. Prior to drinking water service being put into service it be tested for
pressure and bacteria by a certified laboratory and the results submitted
to the Planning. and Health Departments in writing.
5. Employ an acceptable method for containment and removal of all construction
debris, vegatation waste, and any unacceptable excavation material
(hazardous waste) from site during construction.
6. Employ an acceptable method for dust and street cleaning control during
site construction and submit copy of method utilized to the Health and
Planning Departments in writing.
7. Prior to site start-up and during site construction employ a licensed pest
control firm for site evaluation and service with a copy of the service
program sent to the Planning and Health Departments.
8. The final surface be graded so as to prevent any blockage or stagnant mat-
ter, water, or organic growth which could create offensive conditions and/
or odors.
9. All backfilling be done in accordance with good enginerring practices to
prevent future damage to all underground utilities.
ts\
/��� �•''� i.1LEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
1U. b'ilyl ,v an ncc' 'i' l, iiw• ioe'l "I m :in inr -ii, lwldin}t and di .:
of LrNsh ( rubbish) nfLer :; i-Le JuV,WpMunl- WILh a copy nP Lhis mc; hod
sent to the llcalth and Planning WparLmcnts in wrLL Log.
Il . Employ on acceptnhIn method of cleaning and ma Lnta Ln Ing any on—sltc
catch basins and submit copy of method utilLzed to the Health and
Planning Departments.
12. Measures be taken to assure that air pollution due to odors and noise
does not occur during and after site construction.
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
R ERT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O. _
EALTH AGENT
�' B
J EtE2 EQt2LCE, �2.
��ltlo,ney n. rl �auir,zloa at 1aw
'Su at 400
qq cSc�ool cSticcF
�o�to rs, t/�nasnc�i uae tte, 02108 �c('. (617/ 227-6o6o
January 13 , 1986
Robert E . Blenkhorn , C. H . O .
Health Agent
City of Salem Health Department
Board of Health
9 North Street
Salem , MA 01970
Dear Mr . Blenkhorn :
In response to your letter dated January 9 , 1987 ,and in behalf of
Ugo DiBiase , Trustee , Salem Realty Trust , this is to inform you
that neither Por . DiBiase or myself will be available to attend the
meeting of February 10 , 1987 .
Also , you mentioned in the same letter that the Board requests more
information regarding Country Club Estates subdivision . Would you
kindly send me a letter detailing the information requested .
Thank you .
Very truly yours ,
Peter R . Beatrice
PRB/mt
Certified Mail
RZ��/ � i/
1'� � ��
� .�
i
I
t
t
To ❑ URGENT
A.M.
Date T,me P.M.
WHILE YOU'WERE OUT
From
Of
Phone
Area C.de Number Ent
Telephoned Please call
Came to see you Wants to see you
Returned your call Will call again
Message,
Signed
Notes
Copi
48000
��oua,4 TY#u of �Acluj ��tt���tc�xrset#�
Offire of #lie (fi#u Lnutccil
3� � frlity �ttll
A�1MMe 9°'� WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. McCASE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBERT E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH December 23,
1986 GEORGE P. MCOABE
JOHN R. NUTTING
Gerard Kavanaugh ---
City
City Plannerdr^
One Salm Green REE' .sU ®
Sale,,, Mass. 01970 1 ULL, .11986
Dear Gerry:
SALEM PLANNING DEPT.
Recently, the DiBiase Company proposed a 173-unit single family develop-
ment on 160 acres of land off Marlborough Road.
At a neighborhood meeting held last week to review. the project, it was
evident that the neighborhood had serious concerns and reservations about
the proposed project. Specifically, residents were very concerned with
the impact on traffic, the impact on the water and sewer systems, the
adequacy of the open space to be preserved, the impact upon our school
system, the location of the access into the development, the effect on
wetlands and water drainage, the amount of blasting necessary, the existence
of hazardous wastes, and the ability of the City to monitor such a large
development.
Because of these numerous concerns, I would like you to assist me in a com-
prehensive analysis of this proposal from all of these perspectives, and
others which you feel are appropriate. Following our analysis, I will be
able to work with my constituents regarding these impacts, and a judgment
can be made regarding the feasibility of the development.
I hope that you will be able to assist me and my constituents of Ward 4
to address this major issue.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sin ly,
Leonard F. O'Leary
Ward 4 Councillor
CLY-ce (Crna. i
z� -Z
To ❑ URGENT
A.M.
Date Time P M.
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
From
Of
Phone
Area Code Number Ext
Telephoned I Please call
Came to see you Wants to see you
Returned your call Will call again
Message
Signed
Notes
COPI
48000
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED DIBIASE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
Introduction
Over the past several months, the DiBiase Corporation has proposed the
development of a 160 acre parcel off Marlborough Road. The land being considered
for development is presently zoned both R-1 and RC. Sixty acres are zoned R-1,
which allows only single-family homes with 15,000 square feet of land per lot. One
hundred (100) acres are zoned RC, which allows only single-family homes with
80,000 square feet per single family lot.
The land is currently vegetated significantly in some areas, and sparsely in
others. In addition, the topography is generally rolling and sloped. There are
several major wetlands on the site, and Strongwater Brook runs through the site
from west to east, acting as a major drainage basin. Finally, the New England
Power transmission line traverses the site from east to west.
The DiBiase Corporation is proposing that the land in question be rezoned for
multi-family use (R-3), so that 800 condominiums could be constructed.
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to review the proposed development of 800
condominium units. The site and its proposed development will be reviewed from
the following perspectives:
a. Traffic
b. Access
c. Visual impact
d. Site design
e. Waste water services
f Water services
g. Wetlands
h. Schools
These aspects of the proposed development and their potential impacts upon
both the surrounding neighborhood and the City at large will be thoroughly
reviewed.
Traffic
Traffic in this area of the City is quickly becoming a significant concern.
With major developments taking place on several land parcels within proximate
locations, both residential and non-residential, the City must begin to concern
itself with the cumulative impact of these proposed and constructed developments
upon the traffic circulation system of the City.
Currently, on Highland Avenue, there is an average daily volume of traffic of
more than 20,000 vehicles. In addition, on Marlborough Road, at the Salem -
Peabody line, there is an average daily traffic flow of 12,500 vehicles. Obviously,
these figures illustrate the fact that traffic conditions must be addressed. With
these present traffic flows, the level of service for these roads is presently at
Level E, which is highly undesirable. In addition, a traffic study recently initiated
by the City estimates that by 1991 these traffic figures will have increased by 15%
to 20% without any consideration for large new developments taking place. With
new developments, these figures would be even higher.
To further exacerbate the current traffic situation, there are numerous curb
cuts along both Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road which provide public safety
and driving hazards to these thousands of cars which each day utilize these two
major roadways.
The intersections of Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue, and of
Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue, are ones which necessitate further study.
It is readily evident that these two major intersections will, if substantial
development takes place, provide traffic circulation problems which necessitate
major capital improvements.
Additionally, Marlborough Road is currently a two lane roadway which will be
in need of substantial widening and improvement if major development and
increases in traffic flow take place.
With an 800 unit condominium project, and the assumption of approximately
5.2 average trips per day from each such unit, there will be 4,160 trips per day
generated. More than 4,000 new cars will be utilizing our traffic circulation
system in the Marlborough Road/Highland Avenue Area. This represents a 33%
increase in traffic flow in the Marlborough Road area. Obviously, with such a
substantial increase in volume, major steps must be taken to address the further
improvement needs of Marlborough Road before such a project were to be
constructed.
Access
Very much related to the traffic issue is that of access. It is contemplated
that access would be provided from Marlborough Road. Marlborough Road is
currently a heavily traveled roadway, with numerous curb cuts, little or no traffic
control, and only one travel lane in each direction. To initiate more than 4,000
new vehicle trips per day through this access will create a traffic condition which
is highly undesirable. In fact, it would probably necessitate the construction of a
traffic control system at the major access point of Marlborough Road.
Visual Impacts
The 160 acre parcel is vegetated, contains large amount of ledge, and
elevations range from 160 at its highest point to elevation 75 at its lowest. The
highest elevations represent some of the highest elevations within the entire City.
As a result, they can be seen from many key locations in other parts of the
community. Any sizeable development which could take place on this site would
undoubtedly impact the community's visual aesthetics. Only through very creative
and innovative building layouts and site design could a development of this
magnitude be planned and implemented which would not have such a deleterious
affect upon the visual environment.
To address such negative impacts, major investments in landscaping would be
necessary for screening purposes. Despite such investments, though, the aesthetic
impact would never fully be eliminated.
Site Design
The existing site elements of the land - namely the sludge pits under
investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency, several wetland areas,
Strongwater Brook, a New England Power Company transmission line which
completely traverses the site, pose some serious site design questions which must
be more fully addressed. With these existing conditions, and the constraints which
they present, any site design contemplated must be extraordinarily creative and
innovative. The existing site constraints as defined are substantial, and will be
very difficult to address and work with.
Waste Water Services
An 800 unit condominium development would generate 176,000 gallons of
waste water per day. This is a serious increase in the existing waste water system.
Cumulatively with other developments being planned, designed, and constructed,
the capacity of our waste water system in this portion of the City must be fully
examined and analyzed.
Water Service
The proposed development will generate a water demand of approximately
219,000 gallons per day. This demand, in and of itself, is not excessive for the
water distribution system which exists in the area. The site is located within a
high service area, which is serviced by an existing booster pump station on
Highland Avenue. However, due to the level of planned and proposed developments
within this area, modifications to the existing Highland Avenue pump station will
be required to provide adequate capacities and fire flow demands for the area.
Over the long term, a water stand pipe or high water storage tank may even
be necessary to facilitate the amount of development which is being contemplated.
In addition, the water delivery system which runs along Marlborough Road, and
would be utilized for this proposed development, should be reevaluated for
adequacy. It currently consists of a 12 inch main, and may have to be upgraded.
Wetlands
As previously defined, the existing site does include several wetland areas
which must be addressed. The City must make certain that a development causes
no adverse impacts upon the wetlands, and that both the Department of
Environmental Quality and Engineering (DEQE) and the local Conservation
Commission are satisfied that no such adverse impacts would arise.
This issue is of particular concern because of the fact that there do exist
sludge pits which are currently being investigated by the Environmental Protection
Agency because of the possible existence of hazardous wastes. If hazardous wastes
do exist, it will be very important that the City make certain that such pits do not
contaminate or pollute existing wetlands.
Concurrently, the City must make certain that any development which takes
place does not damage the wetland areas.
As previously mentioned, Strongwater Brook runs through the site, and it is
equally important that the City make certain that the brook is not polluted in any
fashion due to construction or hazardous wastes.
Schools
Utilizing statistics compiled by Columbia University, the City estimates that
there will be one school child for each two condominium units constructed. As a
result, it can be estimated that 400 children will result from the construction of an
800 unit condominium development.
These children would be educated through the utilization of the Witchcraft
Heights School (grades K - 5), the Middle School West, (grades 6 - 8) and the Salem
itc
High School. It is important to note that both Witchcraft g p craft Heights School and the
Middle School West are currently close to capacity. As a result the i
. Y , City must be
cautious about increasing the school population in this portion of the City to an
excessive degree. In addition, the City must be cognizant of the fact that other
condominium and residential developments will also impact the Witchcraft Heights
School and Middle School West.
Conclusions
As a result of the facts presented in this analysis, is clear that an 800 unit
condominium development would have a serious impact upon the quality of our City
from a number of perspectives. The traffic conditions that may result, the visual
impacts, the impacts upon our water services, and the effect upon our school
system, are all impacts of this development which must be considered. It is
accurate to state that any such development which would take place would
necessatite substantial public capital improvements to our infrastructure.
As a result, this 800 unit development proposal is excessive in its density, and
should not be considered further. It certainly would not be in the best interest of
our City.
M19WP
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS - DIBIAS
E
Traffic f
800 condos assuming two-bedroom @ 5.2 avg. trips/day = 4,160 avg. trips/day
170 single-family residences - 3-4 bedroom @ 10.5 avg.trips/day = 1,785 avg.
trips/day
- Fay, Spoffard, Thorndyke study traffic count for Salem/Peabody line total
12,500 avg. trips/day - projected to be 14,500 by 1991 without consideration of
new developement.
- Presently numerous curb cuts along Marlborough Road.
- FST report recommends intersection improvements at Highland/Marlborough
intersection.
Visual Impacts/Site Design
Parcel contains 160 AC is sparsely vegetated and contains a large amount of ledge.
There is wetland on the westerly portion of the site and the parcel is transversed
by a Mass. Electric Power easement.
The former sludge dump site is located at the end of the existing Mussolini Rd.
The subdivision plan proposes lots within the power easement and the dump site.
Condominiums placed on the site could have a negative visual impact unless tucked
into ledges and contours and well-screened lavish vegetation.
Elevations range from 160 at highest point on southerly portion of site to 75 at edge
of wetland to the west.
Wastewater Services
Projected wastewater flows - condominiums 176,000 gal./day (110 gal./day/bdrm
assuming two bedroom).
Projected wastewater flows - single family residence assuming four occupants per
household - 68,000 gal./day (100 gal/day/person)
Subdivision plan appears to show all wastewater flows to be served by pump station
on Home St., the refore possibly necessitating an upgrade by developer.
Water Services
Condominium development - 137 gal/day/bdrm assuming two-bedroom = 219,200
gal/day of water.
Single family subdivision - 125 gal/day/family member assuming four person
household = 85,000 gal. day of water.
A 12" water delivery runs along Marlborough Road and should be evaluated for
A
adequacy.
The upgrade of booster station on Highland Avenue has improved flows in the area.
Drainage
A complete drainage study of the site will be necessary, but in general, drainage is
presently directed towards Strongwater Brook.
Wetlands
Wetland area on the westerly portion of the site. Review by Conservation
Commission necessary.
Schools
Columbia University statistics:
Two bedroom dwellings - .5/dwelling (condos) = 400 children
Three bedroom dwellings - 1 child per dwelling; therefore
Subdivision of 170 lots - 3 bedroom homes = 170 children
Four bedroom dwellings - 2 children per dwelling = 340 children.
This development served by Witchcraft Heights (K-5), Middle School West (6-8),
and Salem High School. Witchcraft and Middle School are currently close to
capacity.
Possible to open Endicott School on Boston Street. One time cost approximately
$225,000.
M19WP
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS
" OF THE FAFARD PROPOSED
✓ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
Over. the past several months, the Planning Department, in conjunction
with Rizzo Associates, the City 's land use consultant , the Fafard
Companies , and other appropriate parties, has been conducting a
preliminary impact analysis of a proposed residential development
project to be located on a 69 acre parcel off of Highland Avenue and
Swampscott Road. This project has been planned and proposed for several
years as part of a much larger mixed use project.
Earlier in :985, the Fafard Companies submitted a subdivision plan for
the 69 acre parcel which included a major roadway to facilitate a_
proposed development. The Planning Board, while granting several minor
waivers to its subdivision regulations, approved the plan. Since then,
the developer has attempted to design_a development project in keeping
with the City' s standards and policies, which could bereviewedand
hopefully approved by the Planning-Board in an orderly fashion.
The Planning Board, now reviewing the project and its components, must
make an assessment of the development and its impacts upon the
community. As 6 result, this preliminary analysis has been undertaken.
"he Planning Board and. the City have a mutual obligation and
responsibiIity to- make certain- that _this project", :as finally_ _ ..
constructed, is an asset to the City, rather than a detriment. The
purpose of the following analysis is to define all negative aspects and
impacts of the proposed project to make certain that they are addressed
and eliminated such that the project does in fact contribute positively
to the City and its character.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed residential development is for 520 residential units ,in
four and eight unit structures in an R-3 zoning district. The parcel ,
69 acres, is moderately wooded with gradually changing topography. Of
the 69 acres , approximately 30 acres are wetlands, with the resulting 39
being primarily bedrock. The parcel has direct access to First Street ,
which has direct access to both Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue.
The land is traversed by a newly created road, Whalers Way, which is a
newly approved subdivision road.
Through its impact analysis, the proposed development is being evaluated
according to the following criteria:
a) Traffic;
b) Visual impacts;
c) Site design;
d) Waste water services;'
e) Water services ;
.. _ Page 2 -
f) Site drainage;
g) Wetlands;
h) Emergency access;
i) Schools
These aspects of the proposed development and their potential impacts
were .seen as most appropriate and prevelant for review.
Our preliminary analysis shows that of these concerns, the proposed
development appears to produce acceptable positive impacts, if
particular recommendtions areadheredto. Two aspects, though - traffic
and visual impacts, require very substantial mitigating measures, which,
if implemented, can eliminate their negative impacts so that the project
, can be- a- positive one for the City. _
- - w Additionally, the concern ofsitedesign must be more fully addressed..
`='Meetings with Fafard officials have indicated that such-site design
--changes can bemade amicably for the good of the project and the City.
- In this regard, we are particularly concerned with the issue of.
aesthetics, access, and functionability of the site.
Through-our analysis, we have delineated several amendments, changes, or
improvements- to the project which we feel will either eliminate a
.. :.. negative impact or ameliorate an impact which-may exist :without the
y _
improvement -or change—Inno manner are we .prpposrng_,[ha -..the project
not Proceed, but only attempting to make improvements. Over the ensuing
weeks; we will continue to delve into particular areas which merit
. detailed study. - In this mianner, even.. further _improvements .^.lay be
recommended: as 'the Planning Board continues its review.
- Of-the two concerns which necessitate mainr actio., hvrhe Citi, during
the--project review process, traffic is the most [roubelsome. ,Traffic
generated from the proposed residential development, though, will not
produce unusually high impacts on the surrotnding traffic circulation
_ __conditions and conditions within the City. However, the impact of
traffic generated from the entire area, including Fafard' s commercial
and industrial development , and additional growth contemplated on
.Swampscott Road, willren'uire mitigative measures to ensure that traffic
flows can be adequately handled by the existing circulation system. It
is vital that the City plan for these increased flows which will result
'- rom the development of the entire area.
A second major concern is that of adverse visual impacts of this
residential project from both off-=site areas of the City and internally
within the development. These impacts can be reduced through amendments
to the site plan, specifically relating to the northwest portion of the
In a.ddit�v n, _n t,crnai ViSUaI - Impacts must `be altered tilrpUgil
-design changes within the proposed development'.
- Page 3 -
'In summary, the proposed development can and should proceed through the
planning stages. It will. be essential. , though, to make changes such -
that the development will be an asset to the City of Salem. The
following analysis provides some direction to make certain that such a
positive project will take place.
TRAFFIC
In an Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Fafard Companies, and
a supplement to that Report, the impacts of traffic of the entire
commercial , industrial, and residentialdevelopment as proposed,
planned, and designed by the Fafard Companies has been addressed. Since
that report and .its supplement were completed, several changes in the
scopes of the differenct aspects of these projects have occurred.
Assuming that the base data was correct, we have altered that
information to reflect the development changes, and have conducted an
analysis of traffic generation based upon, that initial impact report and
its supplement. -
Traffic generated by the entire mixed use project will have a
'substantial impact upon the traffic circulation system within this "
section of the City. Traffic generated by the residential portion of
this project, though, accounts for only 16% of the total traffic
generation from the site . This is a minor contribution to the entire
traffic flow of this long-term mixed use project, _
The City, though, must plan for its future by addressing traffic
generation from not just this residential -use, - the app"coval of t,,hich is
being now contemplated, but for the entire development area, even
including Swampscott Road parcels, which may not be developed for a
decade to come. As a result, the City and the Planning Board-must take
a long look at the entire area, particularly parcels which will generate
commercial activities, which will in turn generate substantial traffic
flows . It is clear that the future development of the Highland Avenue/ _
Swampscott Road area will produce traffic generation which will
necessitate various mitigating measures . It is incumbent upon the. City
and the Planning Board to require such measures to be at least planned
for, if not implemented at the present time, prior to such traffic
levels actually existing.
To facilitate the capacities needed for the flows to be generated at
some future point , several measures should be taken at the present time.
These can be defined as follows:
1) Designated left and right hand turn lanes at the intersection
of Highland Avenue and Swampscott Road should be installed, with
possible si.gnalization in the future being planned for.
2) Installation of traffic_ signals at Traders Way and Marlborough
Road at Highland Avenue must be completed and- operable.
l '
Aft I
Page 4 -
3) Construction of the proposed road from First Street to the
existing shopping center, as planned and provided for in the first PUD
approval, should be constructed, such that traffic can be dispersed to
and from First Street to allow an additional accessway to and from the
commercial area. This road has been sited as a condition to the
original PUD and Special Permit approval provided to the Fafard
Companies, and its construction should take place imminently.
It should benotedthat, at the present time, the Planning Board and the
. City are contemplating the approval of a residential development project
which will. notgenerate an amount of traffic which will produce severely
- . - adverse impacts to the City and its roadways:- -However, the impact of
` Eraffic generation from surrounding projects will require these
miaigative measures', plus additional ones. As a result, evRp_Tgrther
'analysis with regard to such- developments- and -their impactsis -
recommendedto make certain that the City"adequately plans for this
,growth from a traffic staadpcint. Ia response to this, the Planning
-Department has recently initiated a comprehensive traffic study for the
' - entire City. A major aspect of such a study will be the future needs of
tra-ffic flow in this area of the City resulting from potential growth.
VISUAL TMPACTS
As,� previously .mentioned, the 69 acre site planned for residential -
-?; —development is presently moderately wooded and consists of both bedrock
s :and wetlands. With the existence of such earth conditions ; mature
-- _ _ ...._healthy vegetation iS sparse. . Soecifically, . on-the western portion of . :
-;the-site, which is most visible to off=site locations, sparse vegetation
exists.. K:
. -Because of the conditions of the parcel , there are several variables at
work which will have a significant impact upon site design and its -
visual impacts and which must be carefully studied. These can be '
_defined as follows:
a) The large amount of ledge which exists;
- ...„ b) The Large acreage of wetlands which constrains the area upon
`which development can rake place;
. . _ c) High elevations which exist at particular locations on the
d) The dominating visual impact of the project from particular
off-site locations. -
e) The large amount, of earthwork being contemplated which will.
eliminate much of the vegetation which exists.
L^.' ^ddit: the of some buildings ntem^tat-ed and planned will
-also have a significant visualrimpact. This .conc
. ern must also be
addressed.
Page d —
To address the issue of visual impacts, the Fafard Companies, in its
site plan, has provided the following types of improvements:
. a) Earth berms to screen the development;
b) New plantings atop these earth berms to provide further
screening;
c) Building layouts which maximize the preservation of mature
trees
Although these design aspects are positive, further ones must be made to
alleviate the impacts which will exist if the project proceeds as .
planned. As a result, the following design changes are recommended to
alleviate these visual impacts: - - -
a) Building layouts should be improved so that the preservation of -
mature trees is_,more fully maximized. To facilitate this, site layout
- changes are recommmended, particularly in the western portion of the
site , abutting Swampscott Road. -
b) The western portion of the site should be re—designed such that
the visual impacts of building facades along Highland Avenue and the
Ravenna Avenue and Clark Street neighborhoods are not severe. It is
recommended that the .units on the western side of the site be cut into a
- plateau which-can then be built upon, rather than the filling which is
- now. proposed. With this change, the loss of mature vegetation at high
. elevations is mitigated, construction-' wiII' take-place where vegetation -
is more sparse, and the height of the proposed retaining walls will be
decreased.
- - c') New plantingstogether with existing vegetation available along
Swampscott Road should be maximized to provide adequate screening.
d) Consideration should be given to the possible elimination of 8
�' e' These largo. b 'i l .i i..nc 111 TP
Unit bUil.dingS from tilt ucvciGpmcr�t, .,� .•b� -eq•----
extensive site work, whereas the use of the smaller 4—unit structures
allow buildings to conform to the existing terrain and would require
less site preparation. Furthermore, because ofbemassive structures
of these buildings, the views tend to be dominated by them.
e) Consideration should be given to the alteration of the existing
checkerboard pattern of driveway and building layouts . Offset driveways
and a variation in building orientation to eliminate the monotonous
pattern of the pian couid provide improvements to the internal visual
impacts of the site.
SITE DESIGN -
The site design of the pioposed residential. development has been
reviewed, and in a meeting with Fafard officials. recommendations have
been made to improve such design. These recommendations are premised
- - upon the need to provide an aesthetically pleasi ng environment for the
residents of thisproposeddevelopment, to provide a most aesthetic
development for the City of Salem and"Yto"P,roviae a highly functional , .
design to residents and visitors. To facilitate these objectives , the
following recommendations are made:
- Page 6 -
- a) The preservation of existing mature vegetation should be
maximized;
b) New vegetation, to the greatest degree possible, should be
provided to screen buildings and drives from each other and from the
exterior of the development.
c) Building structures should be .kept as small as possible ,
specifically through the elimination of eight-unit structures.
d) Sloped granite curbing should be utilized on roadways and
drives wherever possible.
e) Building orientations should be- diversified where possible.
f) Driveway layouts should be diversified wherever possible.
g) Buildings should be sited such that the natural terrains are
utilized to the maximum degree possible and such that these terrains act
as natural barriers and screens. _
h) All such impact recommendations should be implement.-for site
design purposes_
The site design of the project must be examined in detail for its affect "
- upon normal impacts, perception of the quality of the project, and -
functionability will be crucial. Therefore, it should be a Planning
Board priority to make certain that the site design is a quality one.
WASTE WATER SERVICES - "- - - - - - -
- - 67a.s.te water flows to be generated from-,the pi.opos0d development. a e, - _approximately 120,000 gallons per day.
This flow will be directed in two general di-ections: .
a) Direct gravity flow in a northerly direction into the existing
15" main on First Street;
- b) Direct gravity flow in a southerly direction to a proposed pump -
station to be located on Swampscott Road, to be then pumped in a ;
northerly direction to the same 15" main on- First Street .
The pump station referred to is currently undcr design and must be
operational to serve the development . Its capacity will be determined
by the capacity of the 15" line on First Street , which has a capacity of
approximately 2.3 i piongallons per da �t evident that the flows
to be contributed by this residential project do not pose a significant
load on the existing and%or proposed waste water systems. However, it
should be noted that waste water flows generated by this and adjacent
developments in a combined fashion shall be limited by the capacity of
the existing 15" line. on 'First Street . It is imperative that the.
proposed pumping station be constructed and operationalprior to
occupancy of units. The City recently received a State grant to
- --- construct a pump station, and is proceeding expeditiously. -
— Page 7 —
'A
G Within the proposed development, though, there are design conditions
which must addressed at the Planning Board level so that waste water
services are adequately provided to the development and its residents.
To address such conditions, the following recommendations are made :
r a) Because of the fact that ina number of cases; small diameter
waste water pipes at minimal slopes with few service connections are
proposed, it is recommended that minimum scour velocities be calculated
and assessed to make certain that such pipes are adequate.
- b) Water and waste water pipes should maintain a minimum 10 foot
horizontal separation distance.
Minimum cover; slopes, and,vertical- separation distances
necessary should be maintained.
" d) Proper access to cross—country sewer lines,, for t-h�--.p<urpose of _
maintenance, shall be' assured through necessary easements.
WATER. SERVICES -
- The proposed residential development will generate a water demand of
approximately 131 ,560 gallons per day. This demand, in and of- itself,
_is not excessive for the water distribution system which exists in the
area. The site is located within a high service.-area, which is serviced
by an existing booster pump station on Highland Avenue. .The supply and
—.pressure necessary for this residential development is _;expected..to be
_ _ " ._ .
adequate. However, due to the ' 1eve1 of planned and proposed
developments within this high service area, modifications to the pump
_station will. be required to provide adequate capacities and fire—fl
r .'dem "F
ands for the area. v
Over rhe long—tie rm., a water stand pipe or high water storage tank
even be necessary to facilitate the amount of development which hasbeencontemplated.- At the current time, a single recommendation for the area
is the upgrading of the existing booster pump station on Highland
Avenue. This improvement should take place for adequate capacity and
pressure to be provided to planned developments, including the
resident4_a1 development analyzed by [his study. The upgrading of this
- " - booster pump staticn must take place prior tooccupancy of residential
units. Such an upgrading is presently under design. As •with the sewer
pump station, the City recently received a grant to upgrade the water
_ , pump station.
I-.'ithin the site., two minor site design considerations must also be
addressed. They are as follows :
" a) water and sewer pipes shall maintain a minimum ten foot -
horizontal separation distance; .
b) Distance to fire hydrants From units"3must be 500 feet or less
a-long travelled paths -
t:
4- - -
Page 8 -
SITE DRAINAGE
The Fafard Companies has submitted drainage computations completed by
David L. Westerling, PE. These computations have utilized the rational
method analysis for a ten year storm event. Furthermore, these
computations proposed that the low areas containing wetland vegetation
will serve to reduce peak discharges. The computations presented are
orderly, clear, .and appear to be accurate. However, a number of
considerations may have been overlooked, for they are not addressed in
the submittal of Mr. Westerling. As a result, the City and Planning
Board must examine these considerations to make certain that negative
impacts will not result from the lack ofconsideration given them.
These• drainage considerations can be defined as follows:
a) The drainage computations submittedrefer to designated.;- _ .-
- drainage areas and structures. However, no plan outlining these items
was included in the engineer's submittal . This should be done.
b) _ A ten year storm event has been considered in all calculations.
Storm events of both 50 and 100 years should also be evaluated.
C) The drainage computations supplied utilize previous studies -
which designated two critical drainage points:
A box culvertunderthe Conrail railI' ine- and three combined
culverts under Jefferson Avenue. Since that study, which was- completed
4=4 _ by i.-M.iM. Associates, -the Rickman Park Development has increased
M . .drainage flows -to these areas and added a box culvert near the railroad.
In addition, further downstream, construction of twin 18 inch pipes as
- -- .outlet controls in the meadow beyond Jefferson Avenue were completed. - -., The drainage computations supplied do not incorporate these additional
changes. -
They should, for these changes increase runoff and flooding potentials.
d) In its Order of Conditions, DEQE, in special condition #5,.,
refers tp a large pit containing a storage Golume of 86,000 cubic feet, _
- -- -- which is to be. -increased to accommodate the inflow from Catchment S-1
. .associated with a 100 year storm event. This detention area is not
included in Fafard's proposed plan.
e) In its Order of Conditions, DEQE also refers to Catchment S-4,
in which discharge at the low point shall not be increased beyond its
- -present level of 110 cubic feet per second. Mr. westeriing' s
computations do not address this condition.
f) No details regarding erosion control and mitigation at outlets
is provided. particularly those discharging on or into rin-rap retaining
walls_.. _ This must be, evaluated for structuralintegrity with respect to
the rzp-rap walls over long term periods.
g) Outlets for discharges from buil.dingunderdrains have not been
--sh"own on the proposed- plans. These outlets are recommended to discharge '
- - "into aproposed drainage structure.
Page 9
WETLANDS
As previously discussed, the 69 acre parcel proposed for residential
development contains approximately 30 acres of vegetated wetlands.
Under the approved plans for the Whalers Lane subdivision, wer-lands were
altered significantly. These alterations consisted primarily of filled
areas, and compensation areas have been defined by the developer. In
order to make certain that the compensation as defined is undertaken in
an environmentally sound manner, the City and Planning Board should
request the following:
a).- The order of Conditions of DEQE must -be strictly adhered tonin
all
ways.. .
b) As required under the DEQE Order of Conditions, all
` `compensation areas- shallbe constructed in 'an approved mannevE,_A _
step–by=step plan for wetland replacement must be submitted to DEQE for
approval:-- These deEailed pians and -process have�noE yetbeen - submitted. "
=c) If any changes in the configuration of the compensation'areas -
are--made," they should be pointed out to both thePlanningBoard and
'DEQE, so that an assessment oftheir adequacy can be made prior to any
construction taking place.
d)- Any inadvertent infringement-on wetlands without planned
- compensati,onwhich is due to the construction of: retaining walls. and--, -
;" -- 'driveways must be properly addressed. Such infringement .mus ., re=ult-:=in
further compensation.
- A"`final concern regarding the wetlands is the use of-�de–icingchemical.s
:. impas cton. such wetlands.;because- some.,dr� es. may
c,h:ich- may have adverse
` -not- contain curbing or sub-surface drainage systems.. . As- a result,
surface runoff from. these drives is conveygdldirectl.y.;.into-wetland
-'areas: _ _ . .... _ _. .
--The Planning Board should eliminate the use of road -salting in the
.- - residential development as part of a site pian approval so that: suth - . . :
- s,alt mat'eria1.s de not infringe upon. the .o:etland areas:. - -'-
EMERGENCY ACCESS
Access to the proposed residential units from the approved subdivision .
road is predominantly by dead end drives. These drives, proposed at a
- '1 i`fvGt Widtii, together with the lack of provisions for guest rking,-d
-.could have severe implications for an emergency access, particularly : .
under winter conditions. Therefore, the following recommendations'are
made:
a) Drives to units not directly accessible from Whalers Lane, , '
1.h. r e r than 500--fe— in length and- servicing mCre- than F -unfI,s. ;sh. .Id
be;;;wi_dened .to 20 feet. This will allow emergency' vehicles to s
pctential.iy parked vehicles on driveways.�y "�. .
4 .. .. AY
4
"
Page 10 -
b) Drives longer than 500 feet should be a minimum of 24 feet to
have ample capacity to service increased traffic by the larger areas
served.
c) Provisions for U-turns at dead-end drives should be made in
order that emergency vehicles (ambulances) will not be required to back
out (potentially the entire distance of. the drive) .
d) AnA nformati.onal signage plan should be submitted to the City,
designating street names and unit numbers and their rationale. Also a
sample sign shall be submitted for approval with respect to aesthetics,
clarity and visibility under varying daily and seasonal conditions.
SCHOOLS ., .
-The concern of the _impact of this development upon our local�,..school - -
system was addressed by the Planning Department and the Schos�L._
Department jointly. - Our preliminary finding .is that this development
.... will have no impact- ponthe schooisystem.
According .to recent statistics, condominium developments similar to -the
- one proposed house very few children, and even fewer school age
-children. - Yale University, in a recent study, estimates that an average
of .24 children per condominium unit will exist. In the case of this "
proposed development,. this statistic would ,translate -int-o .approximate.ly -
--125 children. This: f gu_ re may even be high,.. for recent. empirical -
AM- _ information shows fewer children.- -
With such a population-of children, the impact upon our schools would
not be significant T_he•;th schoolsaffected by any school. population
- -
increaseinthis area of the City wouldbe the Witchcraft Heights - -
School, with grades K through-5, the Middle School West,:,with grades 6
-through S , and the Salem High School. The Witchcraft Heights School is
- presently under capacity by 50-100 students. The Middle School West is
. _ presently under capacity by 50-100 students. The Salem High School is
. prasently under .capacity by 700 students.
In addition, the Endicott School., which is presently not in use by the _
- school system, but still owned by the School Department, could be used
at--a- future date if school population increased dramatically: -
'. As a result of these facts, it is evident that the schoolsystem would
no' over VLLrUC11CV by this development .
L
lif c-` UIPIII, Alts5adilTSEi#5
�`�`��•�'c-T°T �CIP �'cZ�FT2S C�LPFtt �
i
I
03
DATE: _jW 'qS�7
i
i
TO: Board of Health Fire Department
Conservation Commission Police Department j
Engineering Department School Department
Fr:vif: Dale Yale, Planning Department
RE: Form B (Preliminary Plan) Cow (.,i Clu.6 ESIGCxC.j
i
Enclosed is an application for a preliminary subdivision plan. Your p
comments would be extremely helpful in evaluation of the plan prior j
to submission by the applicant of a Definitive Subdivision Plan. Your
comments within the next fourteen days would be very much appreciated.
Thank you. -,
I
I
- i
it
I
I
i
I
�t#g of *Iem, Pttssttc4use#s
�itp all
�elsm,�losachusdrs D19TD
P'1
Fit '
NOTICE TO BE ATTACHED TO C11
FORM "B" APPLICATIONS
See Form "B" applications for
complete instructions for filing.
All insertions shall be typewritten
or printed neatly in ink.
Date:__ /�igl --
City Clerk
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Dear Sir:
I hand you herewith two copies of Form B, an application submitted by me this day to the Plan-
ning Board of the City of Salem requesting a tentative approval, by the Planning Board, of a prelim-
inary plan filed with this application.
The subdivision shown on thetentative!an is p lesi designated as - �S
y dgn b u
and is located on streets now and/or tentatively known as ___ __ padu 1`"r_f•D9 t oJA
..-k!c_-----------------------------------------------
^ (insert streets and street or lot numbers)
in Ward
I i •
Signature of Owner -----11-ld -Street Address --50-- ---._
City/Town and State —--
Telephone Numbcr ......—.....
of 'SaIrm, flttss�cl�usP##s
'few �1ttxl«ing �uttrD
CHH Xau
� rTM. Aa8sa<ljaeelte 01970
FORM II
APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE APPROVR-`
OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
CIT'i �;,.e c'
In accordance with the provisions of Section III-A
the applicant must file, by delivery or registered
mail, a Notice with the City Clerk stating the date
of the submission for such determination. The no-
tice shall be attached to two copies of this Form B
application. The notice and both copies of the appli-
cation must be "date stamped"by the City Clerk and
then one copy of this Form B, with the Plan, filed
with the Planning Board by the applicant. All
notices and applications shall be typewritten or
neatly printed in ink. (�
Salem, Mass., ------
To the Planning Board:
The Undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Preliminary Plan of property located in the City
of Salem for tentative approval as a subdivision as allowed under the Subdivision Control Law and the
Rules and Regulations Governin the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Salem.
�i
I. Name of Subdivider ���_
Address �� nAL T
2. Name of Engineer or Surve4o–r
Address --- AR+ -•i-CO�E-----------A_ •-L7�--------
— -----------------
'
_
J1tt6 --------
3. Deed of property recorded in --------_-----Book
----- fEzt - Registry.
----------
- -- --- Page --SSf� --�--------
4. Location and Descriptio of Property: AL_
5. All.streets and abutting lot lines shall be shown on the Plan with the names and addresses of the
abutting Owners.
Signature of Owner----, _ t
Address
eJ
Telephone Number _ -=-�Z)] - - --------
A list of the names and addresses of the abutters of this subdivision is attached, which sball be attested
to by the surveyor. Verification will be made by the Planning Board.
Ctv o *aIrm, �Hassarhusetts
Department of Public Works
�`gsorH�eo°"°Rr (One $alem Preen
PAUL S.NIMAN
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES December 19, 1986
Planning Board 0
One Salem Green A`
Salem, MA 01970 i
RE: Development - Country Club Estates
Gentlemen:
In response to your request for comments regarding the above referenced develop-
ment be advised I cannot concur with this proposal at this time. This site, other-
wise known as Salem Acres, has been identified as a hazardous waste site. It is
currently on the National Priority List and is scheduled for study and potential
clean-up by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Accordingly, I must strongly
recommend that the Planning Board either deny or table any action on these plans
until such time as this matter is resolved. To do otherwise would create a situa-
tion which would have a potential conflict with Federal or State regulations should
the construction be allowed to proceed.
Should the Planning Board wish to reconsider this development in the future, my
office will review the proposed development for impact on water, sewer, drainage,
traffic, etc. at an appropriate time.
Very truly yours,
L& /s,
� 'j. �
Paul S. Niman
PSN/cmc Director of Public Services
cc: Leonard O'Leary, Ward 4 Councillor
REOUEST FOR REVIEt-i COMMENTS
DEFINITIVE PLAN
DATE:
TO: ( ) Building Inspector - _ ( ) Superintendent of Streets
(vj City Engineer ( .) Fire Department.
( ) Board of Health- -... ( ) Police Department
.( ) Conservation Commission ( ) - School Department
' Attached please- find the application referenced below. The Planning Board re-
quests that you review this application relative to Section III of the Sub-
division Regulations. We would appreciate your completing the form below and
returning it to us. A public hearing on this application is tentatively scheduled
for
APPLICANT: -L--)i (SSI QSG ebrpcaraz(Dr)
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS:
marlborc
rbme— SYP�J 0-J,
CONTACT PERSONS AND PHONE:
Applicant: Uqo " UICLSel City:
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR CO*tMENTS BY: AS/ }P
(Failure to comment within 35 days shall 'be deemed as lack of,opposition)
( ) Concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side. )
( )). Need more information (Explain on reverse side. )
(VI Cannot concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side. )
(.1` Comments included
REVIE-wER'S SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
b
a ` �
r
�Afai gD�a��
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
3OARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT
(617) Tai-1800 January 9, 1987
Dale Yale.. '
Planning DepartmentLSA
RE: DiBiase/Country Club Estates `1��� 121986
Dear Ms. Yale: E
PANNING DEPT.
At the Board of Health's Monthly Meeting on January 6, 198 discussion
took place regarding Form B (Preliminary Plan) for DiBiase/Country Club
Estates located off Marlborough Road.
However, the Board respectfully requests more information relative to
this issue.
At the next regularly scheduled Board of Health meeting on February 10,
1987 representatives of DEQE and the EPA will be present. The Board of
Health also requests that a representative for the developer of DiBiase/
Country Club Estates be present at the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The Boards
comments will be forthcoming after the meeting of February 10, 1987.
If you have any questionspleasecall this office at 741-1800.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
Z. �
ROBOi
T E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
cc: Salem Realty Trust
Ugo DiBiase, Trustee
10 Lookout Terrace
Lynnfield, MA 01940
a'UIIN Y,j`�
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 N, VRIH STREET
HEALIH ACENT
1617) 741-1800 January 9, 1987
Mr. John C. Keane
U.S. E.P.A.
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Sir:
The Board of Health respectfully requeststhat you or a representative
of your department be present at the February 10, 1987 meeting to be
held at The Salem Health Department Offices located at 9 North Street
at 7:30 p.m. for discussion of the Salem Acres site off of Marlborough
Road in Salem, MA.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
d 'c
RO ERT E. BLENKHORN., C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
cc: Dale Yale, Planning Department
Salem Realty Trust
Ugo DiBiase, Trustee
10 Lookout Terrace
Lynnfield, MA 01940
m �4
�.✓Gly
1
y
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
80ARD OF HEALTH
Salem, feloscaehuStt9 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN J :!.'rzTf-I STREET
HFALII-1 AGENT
161/i 741-1800 January 9, 1987
Mr. Steve Johnson
DEQE, Hazardous Waste
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801
Dear Sir:
The Board of ,Health respectfully requests. that you or a representative
of your department be present at the February 10, 1987 meeting to be
held at the Salem Health Department Offices located at 9 North Street
at 7:30 p.m. for discussion of the Salem Acres site off of Marlborough
Road in Salem, MA.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROBEAT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
cc: Dale Yale, Planning Department
Salem Realty Trust
Ugo DiBiase, Trustee
10 Lookout Terrace
Lynnfield, MA 01940
11�057.plv
DEC 3 , ; P�1 `PF
�� � - �•y�� /"/ FILE '
71CT ✓l• /9 •• CITY ;;,. .
'/
J �p0/Z� �^LE / A. 4
91to ci A � / E ,w✓ 8
� r s
` r
it IlZc-f
a s i
7
12
YAJ
6 asp J 1°J e-11-M . �3 /c �✓E✓�/� �+/�
,e s�io,Jt�► 3/ i cEzcwo �i�-
dle
�Or Al
Y' /1� .. / rla,. z?
/'�f` ✓•�'✓ /� �✓E"-fir./ �/ �//u/� '�! ��a�
3� fes,.. �7y�l,,K.� DEvct•��,EvT . �'�• 3�f! ���i �rir -
� ,
,a
b
r
of
,ro,rn. (1�ne 5altm GrBFn
REQUEST FOR RENEW COMMENTS
DEFINITIVE PLAN
DATE:
TO: ( ) Building Inspector -:- -.- .( ) Superintendent of Streets
. ( ) City Engineer - ( ) Fire Department . -
_ r ( ) Board of.:Heaith - (✓f Police Department:
( ) Conservation Commission ( ) School Department
y
Attached please find the application referenced below. The Planning Board re-
quests that you review this application relative to Section III of the Sub-
- , division Regulations. We would appreciate your completing the form below and
returning it to us. A public hearing on this application is tentatively scheduled
for Q
APPLICANT: �1 U I asc Col-p0(W o<)rj
PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS:
Marlboro H lr a f nue ,
CONTACT PERSONS AND PHONE:
Applicant: __U QC) " 010JP_ City: J YL - O as5
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS BY: ASf}P
(Failure to comment within 35 days shall be deemed as lack of..00position) -
( ) Concur with Proposal (Explain on reverse side. )
( ). Need more information (Explain on reverse side. )
C ) Cannot concur with proposal (Explain on reverse side. )
( 1 Comments included
REVIEWER' S SIGNATURE - TITLE DATE
/ir C Q/JT�iG+ri✓ 1-7 V` T
1.2
�� C91to USA � �.�in,,..� %,w✓r �/,'� � ,,
219 lee
Yr /tiA,✓u-sco /% g✓a.� SYr 1*&e-j-.,.4
I� L=o�t J 0oJ crl�. . �3 ,C.�i✓E,v.!/is- �/�
14e �jG/✓el // / CEZO�✓Q �j/�G,
S/° Gr//u IA., C. XELG G77e-X. 3/
/r Aowc 1:;/. e�4il 3
i C. of �de
fit` ✓° 'Ole.
�
3� f ,w fT�y c�. . QEvczr�o hELT 4��• 3>� �♦ '04
I
t
To ❑ URGENT
A.M.
Date Time P.M.
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
From
Of
Phone
Area Code Number Ext
Telephoned Please call
Came to see you Wants to see you
Returned your call Will call again
Message
Signed
Notes
COW
48000
y Office of #lir Ctu Cnolincil
� (Citn �$xll
WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. McCABE 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE
PRESIDENT
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBERT E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK
VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH
GEORGE P. MCCABE
JOHN R. NUTTING
November 26 , 1986
Gerard Kavanaugh
City Planner
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Gerry:
Recently, the DiBiase Company proposed an800 unit condominium
development on 160 acres of land off Marlborough Road.
At a neighborhood meeting held last week to review the project,
it was evident that the neighborhood had serious concerns and
reservations about the proposed project. Specifically, residents
were very concerned with the impact on traffic, the impact on the
water and sewer systems , the adequacy of the open space to be
preserved, the impact upon our school system, the location of the
access into the development, the effect on wetlands and water drain-
age, the amount of blasting necessary, the existence of hazardous
,AasteR., and the ability of the City to monitor such a large develop-
ment.
Because of these numerous concerns , I would like you to assist me
in a comprehensive analysis of this proposal from all of these
perspectives, and others which you feel are appropriate. Following
our analysis , I will be able to work with my constituents regarding
these impacts , and a judgment can be made regarding the feasibility
of the development.
I hope that you will be able to assist me and my constituents of
Ward 4 to address this major issue.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Ward 4 Councillor � �/
e +'Cox , of
�ZIXEItt, .�CjLT55ctC AIBP 5
,. (Office laf tile @TTitu T01111Cit
T
WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. McCABE - 1986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBERT E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON - JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH GEORGE P. MCCABE
JOHN R. NUTTING
December 12, 1986
Mr. Philip Moran, Chairman f
Conservation Commission
City of Salm UL L' 1
Salem, MA 01970 1986
Dear Mr. Moran: SRLEM PLANO, DEPT '
The proposed Ugo DiBiasi project, known as Country Club Estates, will
have a great impact upon my ward and my constituents.
Therefore, I would like to be informed of any and all matters which
may cane before your board for review and/or approval, regarding this
project.
Very truly yours,
�Jo
LEONARD F. O''LEARY
COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR
LFO'L/deb
e rXOX Qi#U jof lent, r���i �zc�xc�ett�
a Offire of #Ile 19i#n Tounril
Aep�MME tW�F WARD COUNCILLORS
GEORGE P. McCABE 7986
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PRESIDENT
1986 GEORGE A. NOWAK
JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO KEVIN R. HARVEY
ROBDRT E. GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J. FURFARO
FRANCES J. GRACE LEONARD F. O'LEARY
NEIL J. HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J. MARTINEAU
RICHARD E. SWINIUCH GEORGE P. MCCABE
JOHN R. NUTTING
December 12, 1986
R
Mr. Walter Power, Chairman UL( 1 '5 '1986 `
Planning Board
City of Salem SALEM PLANNINGT
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Mr. Power:
The proposed Ugo DiBiasi project, known as Country Club Estates, will
have a great impact upon my ward and my constituents.
Therefore, I would like to be informed of any and all matters which
may ane before your board for review and/or approval, regarding this
matter.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD F. O'LEARYARY
COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR
LFO'L/deb
'CONO 4
e�
a �
'�ns0V01+C u°l'�
CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF HEALTH
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN 9 NORTH STREET
HEALTH AGENT
(617) 741-1800 --p- -- _
FEB 2 5987
SALEM PLANNING DEPT.
January 30, 1987
Beth Debski ,
Planning Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Miss Debski :
The Form B Preliminary Plan for DiBiase/Country Club Estates located off
Marlborough Road will be discussed at the next Board of Health meeting.
The Boards comments will be forthcoming after the meeting of February
10, 1987.
Very truly yours ,
FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH
ROBERT E. BLENKHORN, C.H.O.
HEALTH AGENT
REB/m
r
� �
' � � ,
��
�,Pa�,� ����
r
Date Hour
To
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Of
Phone
Area Code Phone Number
Telephoned I Returned Call Left Package
Please Call I I Was In Please See Me
Will Call Againj I Will Return I I Important
Message
Signed
AIGNER FORM NO.55-056 SA
,A,CON NT,L (gag of 'Sttlent, 44-Rasyachusetts
Offirc of the f! HU Council
F Otg xall
�4
i�� _ WARD COUNCILLORS owna d' LEONARD F.O'LEARY t587
COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE _ PRESIDENT GEORGE A NOWAK
If 1987 JOSEPHINE R.FUSCO - KEVIN R.HARVEY
ROBERT E.GAUTHIER CITY CLERK VINCENT J.FURFARO
FRANCESJ.GRACE LEONARD F.BLEARY
NEIL J.HARRINGTON JEAN-GUY J.MARTINEAU y
A� RICHARD E SWINIUCH GEORGE P.MCCABE {
'.. January 14, 1987. ..._._ JOHN R.NUTTING t
W. Henry J. O'Donnell
Superintendent of Schools
1 City of Salem
Salm, MA 01970
Dear Mr. O'Donnell:
I .
On Monday, February 9, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. , Councillor O'Leary and
e I will be meeting with interested citizens in reference to the Proposals _
on the development of 160 acres of land off Marlborough Road.
,. The first presentation from the developer was a condominium Proposal
of over 800 units. The proposal to the Planning Board is a single family
develognent of about 150 hams.
What we would like frau you is data on the impact either of these
proposals would have on the Salam School system. If at all possible,
we would like you to attend the meeting On February 9.
1 However, if that is not possible, could you reply in writing so the
data will be available to us that evening. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
� I
FRANCES J.
i.�
COUNCILIAR-AT-LARGE
It
f LEONARD F. O'LFARY
COUNCILLOR WARD FOUR
if
II �
�l _
_ office otSupefintendent - -
��`` T"a The Salem Public Schools
a
z9 City of Salem
29 Highland Avenue.Salem.MassachusenSO1970 _ (617)745-9300 =
l -
CJanuary 20, 1987
1.
Councillor—at—Large Frances J. Grace
Ward Councillor Leonard F. O'Leary
City of Salem
93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Council Members Grace and O'Leary:
k
In response to your letter of January 14, 1981 I welcome the opportunity to
share with you my concerns as to the effect the proposed development of the 160
acres of land off Marlborough Road would have on the city's educational
facilities.
The schools that would be affected by this development are the Witchcraft
Heights Elementary School, Middle School West, and Salem High School. Current
z enrollments at these schools are: 512, 607, 1152 respectively. The impact of
the two proposals you referred to in your letter would be dependent on the
number of bedroom units being considered under each plan. Since that
i - information was not contained in your letter, the calculations which follow
incorporate a progression to which the factors derived- from a recent Columbia
University Study have been applied: 2 BR = .5 children, 3 BR = 1 child; 4 BR = 2
children.
Condominium Proposal (800 Units)
2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
# of Children 400 800 1600
Single Family Development (150 Units)
# of Children 75 150 300
The results speak for themselves and require no further elaboration as to
I which proposal would have greater consequence on the schools. Physically, the
High School and to a lesser extent the Middle School are able better to absorb
the impact if single family units were developed. The same, however, cannot be
) , I said for the Witchcraft Heights School since this facility is close to its
maximum capacity now. Any substantial increase in students may very well
necessitate the reopening of the Endicott School. Of further consideration is
the fact that this proposed development is not occurring in isolation for we
I have yet to experience the effects on our schools of other housing developments
such as the Fafard units that are presently under construction in this area.
I1 _
i
i
Councillors Grace 6 O'Leary —2— January 16, 1987
The estimated annual cost to the City of Salem for educating students
generated by this development would be:
$438,900 (150 pupils x $2926 Per Pupil Expenditure for Day Programs)
50,000 Transportation
$488,900
225,000 Estimated one time cost for reopening and equipping
the Endicott School
$713,900
I thank you for the opportunity of providing this information to you and
look forward to meeting with you on the evening of February 9th.
Very truly yours,
Henry J O'Donnell
Superintendent of Schools
HJO'D/m
cc: School Committee
I
' r�
,'
��� �� �
✓�
J� ��
�b
�v ,�'
� S� ��
W� � ��
�� \�� ��
b
ti
���
��
Date Hour
To
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Of
Phone
Area Code Phone Number
Telephoned Returned Call Left Package
Please Call Was In Please See Me
Will Call Again Will Return Important
Message
Signed
AIONER FORM NO.55*56 apinreo iry Uee
J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"'o•`�•_ REGION I
J. F KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
DEC 29 f�V6
URGENT LEGAL MATTER -- PROMPT REPLY NECESSARY
CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
John E. Darling
Serafini and Serafini
General Counsel to the
South Essex Sewerage District
63 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Clifton R. Grinnell
Acting Executive Director
South Essex Sewerage District
50 Fort Avenue
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Sirs:
This letter transmits a formal offer for you to voluntarily
Perform the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
( RI/FS) of the Salem Acres NPL Site, Salem, Massachusetts.
In September, 1986, you were provided the Work Plan for the
Salem Acres NPL Site Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study ( RI/FS) which outlines the requirements of the RI/FS.
This offer is being extended to the potentially responsible
parties identified at this time, who are DiBiase Salem Acres,
Inc. ( Salem Acres , Inc. ) , DiBiase Salem Realty Trust (DSRT) ,
Ugo DiBiase, Elio DiBiase, and the South Essex Sewerage District
(SESD) . In the event that you and the other PRPs fail to
enter into an Administrative Order by Consent with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within sixty ( 60) days
of receipt of this offer, EPA is prepared to conduct the RI/FS.
On October 17, 1986, the President of the United States signed
into law the "Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986" (SARA) , P. L. 99-499, amending the current "Superfund"
law and enacting certain additional provisions. The new law
codifunderies themany of revisedthe NationaliContingencyePlanp(NCP) , whichyisPA
found in 40 C.F.R. Part 300 ( 1986) ,
Section 121 of SARA adds several new specific requirements
concerning cleanup standards of which you should be aware.
First, remedial actions conducted onsite must meet the
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, limitations ,
- z-
criteria , and requirements ( ARARs ) of State and Federal
environmental laws . Thus , the remedy must achieve a level of
control that complies with the requirements contained in
"applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" federal environmental
laws ( including RCRA, TSCA , the Safe Drinking Water Act , the
Clean Water Act , and the Clean Air Act ) and State environmental
laws that are more stringent than federal laws .
Second , the new law establishes a preference for remedies
which "permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity or mobility" of wastes . The 1986 Act explicitly
notes that EPA may select alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies which will achieve this
goal. Third, although SARA continues to require cost-effective
remedies , the legislative history clearly establishes that
only after EPA has determined that a given remedy will adequately
protect human health and the environment, is it appropriate
to consider cost-effectiveness .
In most respects , these requirements of. SARA"codify existing
policy as embodied in the NCP. In some significant respects ,
however, the SARA
provisions are more restrictive than the
NCP. While the NCP only requires EPA "to consider" State law,
and water quality criteria in fashioning a remedy, SARA
states the remedy must comply with such laws and criteria if
applicable or relevant and appropriate.
Fourth, SARA requires extensive State involvement in every
phase of the program, including the determination of ARARs.
Fifth, SARA codifies EPA's policy of encouraging PRPs to
conduct Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies.
Section 104(a) of SARA, however, permits EPA to enter into an
agreement with a PRP to conduct an RI/FS only when the following
conditions ate met:
° EPA determines that the PRPs are qualified to do the
RI/FS;
° EPA arranges or contracts for a qualified person to
assist in overseeing the conduct of the RI/FS ; and
° The PRFs agree to reimburse EPA for the cost of such
oversight.
Finally, where appropriate, EPA may utilize special notice
procedures set out in Section 122(e) to negotiate an agreement
with PRPs to conduct an RI/FS. EPA is choosing not to utilize
the special notice procedures in this case because the Agency
initiated negotiations with the PRPs to conduct the Salem
Acres RI/FS prior to the enactment of SARA.
In accordance with these policies, ERZ is offering you and
the other PRPs the opportunity to conduct the RI/FS for the 1
Salem Acres NPL site. The workplan that EPA previously
Provided to you outlines the level of effort and study that
EPA believes is necessary in order to characterize the extent
- 3-
of contamination and the potential health risks related to this
site . Technical data gathered under this study should be
sufficient to assess alternative remedies and select the
response action which will appropriately implement the new
Superfund amendments . This workplan was previously distributed
to you and others for technical review and comment. EPA _s
in the process of incorporating into the remedial investigation
sections of the workplan comments it received from SESD which
make sound technical sense and enhance the objectives of the
study.
1
In other respects , EPA must review the workplan to address
the new SARA requirements concerning the selection of a remedy
; for the site. Specifically , portions of the workplan addressing
requirements to evaluate the need for remedial actions ,
festablish response criteria, and identify and evaluate remedial
action alternatives must reflect the cleanup standards of
Section 121 of SARA. In addition to these modifications, EPA
;must be reimbursed for its cost of overseeing the conduct of 1
the RI/FS. A copy of SARA Sections 104(a) and 121 is enclosedt
which should be considered a part of the Work Plan and as an J)
Addendum thereto.
Although the workplan must undergo a final revision to
iincorporate the foregoing, EPA believes that this is an
appropriate time to negotiate with you and the other PRPs to
voluntarily conduct the RI/FS. The field investigation
portion of the RI will remain substantially intact, which is
by far the most lengthy and expensive aspect of the RI/FS.
Since EPA is still exploring the new requirements of 'SARA, we
must reserve the right to modify the RI/FS requirements to
ensure that adequate information is developed to support the
remedial action considerations. However, at this time we do
not anticipate that revisions now being considered will
significantly alter the scope of work outlined in the current
version of the workplan.
EPA offers to negotiate an Administrative Order by Consent
with you and the other PRPs within sixty ( 60) days of receipt
of this letter to conduct the RI/FS as presented in the
workplan with revisions as discussed previously. The final
workplan will be incorporated into that Order, which will be
signed by the Regional Administrator and each consenting party
( PRP) . A draft Administrative Order by Consent will be
provided for your consideration at the tentatively scheduled
meeting during the first week in January 1987 as requested by
SESD.
i
In the absence of voluntary participation by potentially
responsible parties to conduct the Rr%FS, EPA will undertake
this activity. EPA may then pursue civil litigation against
the responsible parties seeking reimbursement of costs incurred
by the government at the site.
i
-4-
I�
I
your response and acknowledgement of this offer and any
questions concerning legal issue's should be directed to:
Jeremy Firestone
U. S . Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regional Counsel
JFK Federal Building
Boston , MA 02203
( 617 ) 565-3441
The Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for this Superfund site is
John C. Keane , and you may direct questions concerning
technical issues to him at the following address and telephone
'number:
John C. Keane
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
( 617) 565-3642
I urge you to give this matter your immediate attention. EPA
will be expecting a response to this offer in the near future.
Sincerely ,
Merrill S. Hohman
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region I
Enclosures
cc : Steve Johnson/Jay Naparstek, MASS DEQE
Patrick A. Parenteau
Regional Counsel , Region I
South Essex Sewerage District (SESD)
t
WAFT
d
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
INTHEMATTER OF:
South Essex Sewerage District U. S. EPA
Salem Acres , Inc. Docket No.
Salem, Massachusetts
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 106( a) OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE ,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 19630, 1
42 U. S.C. S 9606( a) , AND SECTION 7003
OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT, 42 U. S.C. S 6973
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
BY CONSENT
This Administrative Order by Consent ( Consent Order )
is entered into voluntarily by and between the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and
South Essex Sewerage District ( SESD) , Salem Acres ,
Inc. , Elio DiBiase , Ugo DiBiase and DiBiase Salem
Realty Trust , hereinafter referred to as the Respondent .
The Consent Order concerns the preparation of the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ( RI/FS)
for the Superfund Site known as Salem Acres in
Salem, Massachusetts ( the Site) .
M
-2-
This Consent Order is issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the President of the United States by Section
106 (a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , 42
U. S .C . § 9606 ( a) , as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA) , Pub. L. No.
99-499. This authority was delegated to the Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
( EPA) on August 14, 1981, by Executive Order 12316,
Fed . Reg . 42237 (August 12, 1981) , and further delegated
to the Regional Administrator, EPA Region I by EPA
delegation No. 14-14-A signed on April 16, 1984.
This Consent Order also is issued pursuant to the
authority vested in the Administrator of EPA by
Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act ( RCRA) , 42 U. S .C . § 6973. This authority was
delegated to the Regional Administrator, EPA Region I
by EPA Delegation Nos. 8-22-A and 8-22-C. Moreover ,
Respondent agrees and submits to the jurisdiction
asserted in this Order for the purposes of any subsequent
proceedings for the enforcement of this Order.
I . PARTIES BOUND
1. This Consent Order shall apply to and be binding
upon the following parties :
-3- y
a. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency ; and
b. The Respondent defined herein as South Essex
Sewerage District ( SESD) , Salem Acres Inc. ,
Uqo DiBiase , Elio DiBiase , DiBiase Salem
Realty Trust, and their agents , employees ,
representatives, contractors , consultants ,
successors and assigns.
2 . Any change or changes in the ownership or corporate
status of the Respondent shall in no way alter the
Respondent ' s responsibilities under this Consent
Order. The Respondent shall provide a copy of this
Consent Order to any subsequent owners or successors.
3. The Respondent shall provide a copy of this
Consent Order to all contractors, sub-contractors,
laboratories , and consultants retained to conduct
any portion of the work performed pursuant to this
Consent Order within fourteen ( 14) calendar days after
the effective date of this Consent Order or the date
of such retention. Any reference herein to the Consent
Order shall mean the Consent Order, and Work Plan
with Attachments , as either may be amended from time
to time hereafter.
y
-4-
II . STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
4 . In entering into this Consent Order , the mutual
objectives of EPA and the Respondent are the following :
(A) to gather the information necessary to determine
fully the nature and extent of any threat to the
public health or welfare or the environment which may
be caused by the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances , pollutants , or contaminants at
or from the Site by conducting a Remedial Investigation
of the Site , and
(B) to provide EPA with the Feasibility Study so that
it can evaluate alternatives and determine the
appropriate extent of the remedial action needed to
prevent or mitigate the migration or the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances , pollutants ,
or contaminants at or from the Salem Acres Site.
( C ) to assure that all parties to this agreement have
reasonable access to the Site to conduct the aforementioned
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study . The
activities conducted pursuant to this Consent Order
are subject to approval by EPA and shall be performed
consistent with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 ( SARA) , Pub. L. No. 99-499, and all the
provisions of the revised National Oil and Hazardous
Materials Contingency Plan (NCP) , 40 C. F. R. Part
300, dated November 20 , 1985, effective February
., i3
18 , 1986, not inconsistent with SARA and as amended
thereafter .
III . STATEMENTS OF FACT
5. Salem Acres, Inc. , is a 234 .5-acre parcel of land
located in the towns of Salem and Peabody , Massachusetts,
approximately 1/4-mile northwest of the intersection
of Route 107 and Marlboro Road in Salem, Massachusetts.
The Site is bordered on the north and west by the
Peabody town line and on the south and east by residential
neighborhoods.
6 In 1946 the owner of thero erty , John Grasso,
P P
entered into a contractual agreement with the south
Essex Sewerage District ( SESD) to dispose of untreated
sewerage sludge generated at SESD facilities on his
property.
7. Between 1947 and 1969 , the SESD transported
approximately 38 ,000 cubic yards of untreated sewerage
sludge containing hazardous substances , pollutants and
contaminants to the Site and deposited that sludge in
unlined, uncovered earthen pits. ( "Salem Acres Sludge
Pits" ) .
8 . In 1969, Salem Acres, Inc. ( Uqo DiBiase, President)
purchased the Site. The agreement allowing SESD to
dispose of untreated sewerage sludge on the Site was
DRAFT
terminated upon the sale of the property to Salem
Acres , Inc.
9. In September, 1980, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) notified
Salem Acres , Inc. of a possible violation of Regulation
3. 2 of the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations .
10. On December 23, 1982, all of the property owned
by Salem Acres, Inc. was transferred to Elio DiBiase
and Ugo DiBiase, Co-trustees of the DiBiase Salem
Realty Trust.
11. In December, 1983, EPA directed its Field
Investigation Team ( FIT) contractor, NUS Corporation
(NUS) , to conduct a Site Inspection (SI) . The NUS
Final SI Report of May 1984, confirmed that sludge
T
samples taken from each of the four pits contained
elevated levels of heavy metals (most notably chromium) ,
volatile organic compounds, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) .
12. Pursuant to Section 105( 8) (b) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C . 9605( 8) (b) , the Site was proposed to be included
on the National Priorities List (NPL) published by
the Administrator of EPA in the Federal Register on
October 15, 1984 (NPL update #2-49FR40320) and
finalized on the NPL June 10 , 1986 ( 51FR21054) .
DRAFT
FT
13. In November 1984, DEQE issued "Advisory Letters"
to three "potentially responsible parties" : ( 1 )
DiBiase Salem Realty Trust ; ( 2) SESD; and ( 3) New
England Power Company.
14. In April 1985 NUS conducted additional sampling
which confirmed the presence of elevated levels of lead
and mercury in surface water adjacent to the SESD
disposal area.
15. In April 1985, security fencing was erected
around the sludge pits by SESD at the direction of
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) as a result of complaints from
residents living in the immediate vicinity of the Salem
Acres Site.
16. In October, 1985, NUS sample analyses demonstrated
possible leaching of heavy metals ( lead and mercury)
from the waste pits into Stronqwater Brook.
17. Analysis of contamination at the site indicates
there is great potential for sensitive human and
environmental receptors to be exposed to hazardous
substances , pollutants or contaminants described
above in paragraphs 11, 14 and 16 through the following
Pathways: ingestion and use of groundwater contaminated
by seepage from the Site ; contamination of surface
water and sediments in the six wetlands adjacent to
the Site ; ingestion and direct contact with surface
-8 DRAFT
waters that flow from the site via Strongwater Brook
and Swampscott Road Brook; contamination of wetlands
into which Strongwater Brook and Swampscott Road
Brook flow; and inhalation of air emissions from the
Site.
18. Exposure to these hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants may cause adverse effects to humansr
animals , and the environment.
19. On November 5 , 1985, EPA notified the South Essex
Sewerage District and DiBiase Salem Realty Trust of
their potential liability pursuant to Section 104,
106(a) and 107(a) of CERCLA.
20. On December 29 , 1986, EPA notified Ugo DiBiase ,
Elio DiBiase and DiBiase Salem Acres, Inc. of their
potential liability pursuant to Section 106(a) and
107(a) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and pursuant to
Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act ( RCRA) , 42 U. S.C. S 6973, and other laws.
21. EPA has budgeted funds for EPA personnel and
contractors to oversee any studies conducted pursuant
to this Consent Order.
IV. DETERMINATIONS
22. On the basis of the Statements of Fact, EPA has
determined that:
a . The Site is a "facility" within the meaning of
Section 101( 9 ) of CERCLA, 42 U. S.C . § 9601( 9 ) .
b . Respondent is a "person" as defined in Section
101( 21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C . S 9601( 21) , and
Section 1004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 9703( 15) .
C. Respondent may be a responsible party with
respect to the Site within the meaning of
Section 107 (a) ( 1) and ( 2) of CERCLA, 42
U. S.C. § 9607(a) ( 1 ) and ( 2) , as amended by
SARA.
d . All of the chemicals found in samples discussed
in paragraphs 11, 14 and 16 above are "hazardous
substances" within the meaning of Section
101( 14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S 9601( 14 ) , or
"pollutants or contaminants" within the
meaning of Section 101 ( 33) CERCLA, as amended by
Of SARA.
e . The past , present or potential future migration
of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants at or from the present Site
constitutes an actual or threatened "release"
as defined in Section 101( 22) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C . 5 9601( 22) , as amended by SARA.
- °-
DRAFT
f . The actual releases and/or threatened releases
of hazardous substances from the facility may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to the public health, welfare or the environment
within the meaning of Section 106(a) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C . S 9606( a) .
g . Solid wastes and hazardous wastes , as those
terms are defined in Section 1004( 27) and ( 5 )
Of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. S 6903( 27) and ( 5) , have
been handled, stored and disposed at the site.
h. Respondent has contributed to the disposal of
solid waste and hazardous waste at the Site.
i . The handling, storage and disposal of solid
waste and hazardous waste at the site may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to health or the environment within the
meaning of Section 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
9 6973.
j . It is necessary, in order to protect the
public health and welfare and the environment ,
to conduct an RI/FS to fully determine the
nature and extent of contamination that exists
at the Site, and to determine what remedial
actions are necessary to be carried out under
Sections 104 and 121 of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, or secured through enforcement action under
Section 106 of CERCLA. The actions called
DRAFT
for in the Consent Order are consistent with
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent
possible , with the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) , 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
k . EPA has arranged for oversight and review of
the RI/FS by both qualified EPA personnel and
qualified contractors, in accordance with Section
104(a) ( 1 ) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA.
1 . The RI/FS will be conducted properly and promptly
by the Respondent, in accordance with Section
104(a) ( 1) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, if
the RI/FS is conducted as described in the
Workplan and pursuant to conditions of this
Consent Order.
M. Respondent is qualified to conduct the RI/FS,
in accordance with Section 104( a) ( 1) of CERCLA,
as amended by SARA, if the Respondent eng= es
a qualified contractor pursuant to paragraph 26
and other conditions of this Consent Order.
V. ORDER
23. Standards for RI/FS: Based on the foregoing
facts and determinations , in order to protect public
health, welfare and the environment, EPA and Respondent
agree, and EPA hereby orders the Respondent to perform
an RI/FS in accordance with the attached Work Plan
(Appendix A) and any revisions to the Work Plan made
by EPA to conform the Work Plan with the requirements
-12- r..
i3
of SARA. The Work Plan, EPA' s "Interim Guidance ,on
Superfund Selection of Remedy , " OSWER Directive
Number 9355.0-19,effective December 24 , 1986, and
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, are hereby incorporated
by reference into this Consent Order. The terms ,
"Work Plan" or "Work Plan Activities ," as used in
this Consent Order, shall mean the Study Activities
set forth in the Work Plan. The Work Plan shall b-
conducted consistent with EPA " Interim Guidance on
Superfund Selection of Remedy, " with all provisions
of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) effective February
18, 1986, not inconsistent with CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, and any amendments thereto, with the EPA RI/FS
Guidance dated June 1985 to the extent the RI/FS
Guidance is consistent with the NCP, and with the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) , Pub. L. No. 499-99. If any inconsistencies
among the above or any previously published EPA
guidance are discovered, then the provisions of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, will govern work under
this Order. Respondent agrees to conduct the Work
Activities described herein properly and promptly,
and according to the terms of this Consent Order and
the schedules set forth herein and in the Work Plan.
L
-13- T
24. EPA Oversight: It is hereby further ordered ,
and Respondent further agrees , that the Respondent
will reimburse the Hazardous Substance Response Trust
Fund for any cost incurred by EPA under, or in connection
with, a contract or arrangement between EPA and a
qualified person to assist EPA in overseeing and
reviewing the conduct of the RI/FS. At the end of
each calendar year, EPA shall submit to Respondent an
accounting of all oversight costs incurred by the
U.S. Government with respect to this Consent Order.
Respondent shall , within 30 calendar days of receipt
of that a—untinq, .remit a check for the amount of
those costs made payable to the Hazardous Substance
Trust Response Fund. Checks shall specifically reference
the identity of the site and be addressed to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Accounting Operations Office (PM-226)
P.O. Box 2971, Room M-3419
Washington, D.C. 20013
Attention: [Collection Officer for Superfund)
A copy of the transmittal letter shall be provided to
the EPA Project Coordinator .
25. Observation of Respondent 's RI/FS Activities :
Respondent hereby agrees that with the approval of
EPA' s Project Coordinator, EPA and/or Massachusetts
state agencies' employees , agents, consultants, contractors and
-14_ RAFT
authorized representatives shall be permitted to
observe Respondent' s work at the Site in implementing
the activities pursuant to this Consent Order.
Respondent shall permit such persons to record all
RI/FS field activities by means of photographic or
other recording equipment.
a ment.
P
26. Engagement of a Contractor : Within 15 days of
the effective date of this Consent order, the Respondent
shall engage a contractor (the "Contractor" ) to
perform the activities required under this Consent
Order. All work performed by said Contractor pursuant
to this Consent Order shall be under the general
direction and supervision of a qualified registered
professional engineer or a geologist, with expertise
in hazardous waste site investigation and clean-up.
The contractual agreement between the Respondent and
the Contractor shall require the Contractor, as a
condition of successful performance of the contract,
to perform the Work Activities consistent with the
provisions of this ,Consent Order. Written notice of
7 <
the engagement of the Contractor shall be provided to
EPA within five ( 5) days of such engagement, and, a
RAFT
copy of the Respondent's contract with the Contractor ,
including a statement of qualifications and identification
of project personnel, shall be provided to EPA at
that time. Respondent shall notify EPA regarding
the identity and qualifications of any additional
Subcontractors and their key personnel , at least two
weeks prior to the Subcontractors ' commencement of
Site work. EPA shall have the right to disapprove,
based on professional qualification, any Contractor
or person engaged by Respondent to conduct work
activities under this Consent Order.
27. Performance Bond : The Respondent shall require,
as a condition of engagement, that the Contractor
post a performance bond in the amount of the face
value of the contract that will ensure complete
performance of the activities required under this
Consent Order, such bond to be posted no later than
the date on which performance commences, and in no
event later than thirty ( 30) days after engagement by
the Respondent of the Contractor. The Respondent
shall notify EPA of the posting of the performance
bond within five ( 5) days thereafter. In the event
.ti -16- DRAFT
of default by the Contractor, the bond shall provide
that the activities required by the Consent Order
will be satisfactorily and fully completed in accordance
with the terms of this Consent Order.
28. Designation of Project Coordinators : One week
after the effective date of this Consent Order, EPA
and Respondent shall each designate their own respec-
tive Project Coordinator. Each Project Coordinator
responsible for overseeing the implementation
shall be resp g
of this Consent Order. The EPA Project Coordinator
will be EPA's designated representative at the Site .
Any permanent change in the designated Project Coor-
dinator of either EPA or Respondent shall be accom-
plished by sending written notice to the other party.
The absence of the EPA Project Coordinator from the
Site shall not be the cause for the stoppage of work
unless the EPA Project Coordinator specifies work to be
accomplished only when the EPA Project coordinator is
present.
29. Site Access : Respondent owners of the Site
(owners) hereby agree to allow EPA's and
Massachusetts' employees, representatives , and
contractors full and complete access to the Site .
To the extent that the Work Plan requires access to
property other than that already owned by Respondent ,
Respondent shall, with appropriate assistance from
EPA, obtain site access agreements from the owners
of the Site and of any other property on which work
is necessary under this Consent Order within sixty ( 60 )
URAF
. -17- T
days of the effective date of this Consent Order.
Such agreements shall provide reasonable access to
EPA, its designated coordinator, and its agents ,
employees, authorized representatives and contractors ,
and Massachusetts State Officials , to the Site for
the purpose of overseeing Respondent' s implementation
of this Consent Order. In the event that Respondent
concludes it is unable to obtain a necessary site
access agreement within the referenced time, Respondent
shall immediately notify EPA in writing and shall
include in such notification a description of the
efforts made by Respondent to obtain the necessary
access and the reasons for its lack of success.
30. Creation of Danger : In the event EPA determines
that activities in noncompliance with this Consent
Order, or activities implementing this Consent Order
which present circumstances not expected or contemplated
in the Consent Order, create danger or the risk of
danger to the health or welfare of the people on the
Site or in the surrounding area or to the environment ,
or in the event that such danger or risk of danger
arises from any other circumstances encountered
during the implementation of this Consent Order, EPA
may order Respondent to stop further implementation
of this Consent Order for such period of time as may
be needed to abate the danger.
^ - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
` r f
REGION I
J. F KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203
DEC 29 ty0
URGENT LEGAL MATTER -- PROMPT REPLY NECESSARY
CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ugo DiBiase
Elio DiBiase
DiBiase Salem Realty Trust
DiBiase Salem Acres , Inc.
Salem, MA 01970
ATTN: Atty. Peter R. Beatrice , Jr.
RE: Salem Acres NPL Site , Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Beatrice:
This letter transmits a formal offer for Elio and Ugo DiBiase ,
DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, and DiBiase Salem Acres , Inc.
(hereinafter "DiBiases" ) to voluntarily perform the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the Salem
Acres NPL Site , Salem, Massachusetts. In September, 1986,
EPA provided the DiBiases the Work Plan for the Salem Acres +
NPL Site Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ( RI/FS)
which outlines the requirements of the RI/FS. This offer is
being extended to the potentially responsible parties identified
at this time , who are DiBiase Salem Acres, Inc. ( Salem Acres,
Inc. ) , DiBiase Salem Realty Trust (DSRT) , Ugo DiBiase, Elio
DiBiase, and the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD) . In
the event that the DiBiases and the other PRPs fail to enter
into an Administrative Order by Consent with the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency ( EPA) within sixty ( 60) days of receipt of
this offer, EPA is prepared to conduct the RI/FS.
On October 17 , 1986, the President of the United States signed
into law the "Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986" (SARA) , P. L. 99-499, amending the current "Superfund"
law and enacting certain additional provisions. The new law
codifies many of the existing requirements promulgated by EPA
under the revised National Contingency Plan (NCP) , which is
found in 40 C.F.R. Part 300 ( 1986) .
Section 121 of SARA adds several new specific requirements
concerning cleanup stnards of which you should be aware.
First , remedial actioad
ns conducted onsite must meet the
a licable or relevant and a ro riate standards, limitations ,
criteria , and requirements ARARs of• State and Federal
environmental laws. Thus, the remedy must achieve a level of
control that complies with the requirements contained in
"applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" federal environmental
y -
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE PROPOSED
DIBIASE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
Over the past several months, the DiBiase Corporation has proposed the
development of a 160 acre parcel off Marlborough Road. The land being considered
for development is presently zoned both R-1 and RC. Sixty acres are zoned R-1,
which allows only single-family homes with 15,000 square feet of land per single
family lot. One hundred (100) acres are zoned RC, which allows only single-family
homes with 80,000 square feet per single family lot.
The land is currently vegetated significantly in some areas, and sparsely in
others. In addition, the topography is generally rolling and sloped. There are
several major wetlands on the site, and Strongwater Brook runs through the site
from west to east, acting as a major drainage basin. A New England Power
transmission line traverses the site from east to west. Finally, the property is a
so-called "Superfund" site, as defined by EPA, resulting from the dumping of
hazardous wastes from the South Essex Sewerage District.
The DiBiase Corporation is proposing that the land in question be used for the
construction of 170 single-family homes.
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to review the proposed development of 170
single-family homes. The site and its proposed development will be reviewed from
the following perspectives:
1. Traffic
2. Access
3. Visual impacts
4. Site design
5. Waste water services
6. Water services
7. Wetlands
8. Schools
9. Hazardous Wastes
These aspects of the proposed development and their potential impacts upon
both the surrounding neighborhood and the City at large will be thoroughly
reviewed.
1. Traffic
Traffic in this area of the City is quickly becoming a significant concern.
With major developments taking place on several land parcels within proximate
locations, both residential and non-residential, the City must begin to concern
itself with the cumulative impact of these proposed and constructed developments
upon the traffic circulation system of the City.
Currently, on Highland Avenue, there is an average daily volume of traffic of
more than 20,000 vehicles. In addition, on Marlborough Road, at the Salem -
Peabody line, there is an average daily traffic flow of 12,500 vehicles. These figures
illustrate the fact that traffic conditions must be addressed. With these present
traffic flows, the level of service for these roads is presently at Level E, which is
highly undesirable. In addition, a traffic study recently initiated by the City
estimates that by 1991 these traffic figures will have increased by 15% to 20%,
without any consideration for large new developments taking place. With new
developments, these figures would be even higher.
To further exacerbate the current traffic situation, there are numerous curb
cuts along both Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road which create public safety
and driving hazards to these thousands of cars which each day utilize these two
major roadways.
The intersections of Marlborough Road and Highland Avenue, and of
Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue, are ones which necessitate further study.
It is readily evident that these two major intersections will, if substantial
development takes place, provide traffic circulation problems necessitating major
capital improvements.
Additionally, Marlborough Road is currently a two lane roadway which will be
in need of substantial widening and improvement if major development and
increases in traffic flow take place.
With a 170 single-family home development and the assumption of 10 average
trips per day from each residence, there will be 1,700 trips per day generated.
1,700 new cars will be utilizing our traffic circulation system in the Marlborough
Road/Highland Avenue Area. Obviously, with such a substantial increase in
volume, major steps must be taken to address the further improvement needs of
Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road before such a project is constructed.
2. Access
Very much related to the traffic issue is that of access. It is contemplated
that access would be provided from Barcelona Avenue and Ravenna Avenue, which
are both narrow, dead-end neighborhood streets off Highland Avenue. Barcelona
Avenue has a 30 foot width from curb to curb, while Ravenna Avenue ranges in
width from 20 feet to 32 feet. Although only three lots would obtain access
through Ravenna Avenue, the balance of the development (167 lots) would obtain
access through Barcelona Avenue. To initiate 1,700 new vehicle trips per day
through this access will create a traffic condition on that street which is highly
undesirable and unacceptable. In fact, it would probably necessitate the
construction of a traffic control system at Highland Avenue and Barcelona Avenue.
3. Visual Impacts
The 160 acre parcel is vegetated, contains large amount of ledge, and
elevations range from 160 at its highest point to elevation 75 at its lowest. The
highest elevations represent some of the highest within the entire City. As a
result, they can be seen from many key locations in other parts of the community.
Any sizeable development which could take place on this site would undoubtedly
impact the community's visual aesthetics. Only through very creative and
innovative building layouts and site design could a development of this magnitude
be planned and implemented which would not have such a deleterious affect upon
the visual environment. The subdivision as it is currently laid out is not creatively
and innovatively designed and no much impacts would be ameliorated. Therefore,
the minimal impact of this development upon other areas of the City may be
significant.
To address such negative impacts, major investments in landscaping would be
necessary for screening purposes. Despite such investments, though, the aesthetic
impact would never fully be eliminated.
4. Site Design
The existing site elements of the land - the sludge pits,under investigation by
the Environmental Protection Agency, several wetland areas, Strongwater Brook,
and a New England Power Company transmission line which completely traverses
the site - pose serious site design questions which must be more fully addressed.
With these existing conditions, and the constraints which they present, any site
design contemplated must be extraordinarily creative and innovative. The existing
site constraints as defined are substantial, and will be very difficult to address and
work with. Again, the subdivision as designed is not creative, and does not attempt
to work with the constraints of the land.
5. Waste Water Services
A 170 single-family development would generate 68,000 gallons of waste
water per day. This is a serious increase in the existing waste water system.
Cumulatively with other developments being planned, designed, and constructed,
the capacity of our waste water system in this portion of the City must be fully
examined and analyzed.
6. Water Services
The proposed development will generate a water demand of approximately
85,000 gallons per day. This demand, in and of itself, is not excessive for the water
distribution system which exists in the area. The site is located within a high
service area, which is now serviced by an existing booster pump station on Highland
Avenue. However, due to the level of planned and proposed developments within
this area, modifications to the existing Highland Avenue pump station will be
required to provide adequate capacities for the area.
Over the long term, a water stand pipe or high water storage tank may even
be necessary to facilitate the amount of development which is being contemplated.
In addition, the water delivery system along Marlborough Road, which would be
utilized for this proposed development, should be reevaluated for adequacy. It
currently consists of a 12 inch main, and may have to be upgraded.
7. Wetlands
As previously defined, the existing site does include several wetland areas
which must be addressed. The City must make certain that a development causes
no adverse impacts upon the wetlands, and that both the Department of
Environmental Quality and Engineering (DEQE) and the local Conservation
Commission are satisfied that no such adverse impacts would arise.
This issue is of particular concern because of the fact that there do exist
sludge pits which are currently being investigated by the Environmental Protection
Agency because of the possible existence of hazardous wastes. If hazardous wastes
do exist, it will be very important that the City make certain that such pits do not
contaminate or pollute existing wetlands.
The City must make certain that any development which takes place does not
damage the wetland areas.
As previously mentioned, Strongwater Brook runs through the site, and it is
equally important that the City make certain that the brook is not polluted in any
fashion due to construction or hazardous wastes. In addition, surface water runs
from the site in a southerly direction to Thompson's Meadow. Therefore, as with
Strongwater Brook, the City must make certain that such water is not polluted in
any fashion.
8. Schools
Utilizing statistics compiled by Columbia University, the City estimates that
there will be .5 children for each two bedroom home, 1 school child for each three
bedroom home and two children for each four bedroom home constructed. Because
there is no way to define the number of bedrooms in each home in each proposed
lot, there is no manner in which to define the number of children to be generated
from this development.
The children generated, though, would be educated through the utilization of
the Witchcraft Heights School (grades K - 5), the Middle School West, (grades 6 - 8)
and the Salem High School. Itis important to note that both the Witchcraft
Heights School and the Middle School West are currently close to capacity. As a
result, the City must be cautious about increasing the school population in this
portion of the City. In addition, the City must be cognizant of the fact that other
condominium and residential w'developments p will also impact the Witchcraft Heights
School and Middle School West.
9. Hazardous Wastes
This parcel of land has been named an Environmental Protection Agency
"Superfund" site, resulting from the dumping of hazardous wastes by the South
Essex Sewerage District. Before any development should take place on this site,
the developer and EPA must initiate trate a feasibility study to determine what clean-up
must be undertaken and such a clean-upbe
must fully completed. Only when the
hazardous wastes are defined, and a method and timetable for their elimination is
defined should the City even consider future development.
Conclusions
As a result of the facts presented in this analysis, is clear that a 170 single-
family home development would have a serious impact upon the quality of our City
from a number of perspectives. The traffic conditions that may result, the visual
impacts, the impacts upon our water services, and the effect upon our school
system, are all elements of this development which must be considered. In
addition, no new development should take place without a clearcut resolution of
the hazardous waste issue.
M19WP
i
r
c
o
_ 7 71
r"<
1
E115
GCA CORPORATION
Technology Division
GCA213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Mass. 01730
ilE
r
r
GCA-WR-4807
Prepared. for
fU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
f Washington, DC 20460
f=,
Contract No. 68-01-6769
Work Assignment No. 86-471
I
SALEM ACRES, INCORPORATED i
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY
STUDY PROJECT WORK PLAN
i.
Final Report
September 1986
Prepared by
Paul A. Ahearn
Michael Jasinski
Richard Wozmak
Steven Konieczy
Andrew Baldwin
Peter Hall
Paul J.Exner, Project Manager
GCA CORPORATION
GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, INC.
' Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
I
' i
�s
i
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables. . v
1. Introduction . • . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1. 1 'Objectives of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
II ^fir:`. Study • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
l.2 Overview ofthe SalemAcres RI/FSWork Plan • . . 1-1
�
1.3 Background . . . •
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 a 1.4 Preliminary Identification of Contaminant Migration
Pathways and Potential Contaminant Receptors . . . . . 1-4
2. Current Situation . . . . . . . . 2-1
( 2.1 Site Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Sludge/Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3 Subsurface Geology2-9
2.4 Ground Water Flow and Contaminant•Distribution . . . . . 2-16
2.5 Surface Water/Sediment/Wetlands . . . . . . . 2-17
s _ 2.6 Air Quality . .. .` _..- _ 2-20
� - 3. Initial Scoping of the Salem Acres RI/FS. 3-1
3. 1 Introduction •
• 3-1
3.2 Collection/Evaluation of Existing Data . . . . . . . . . 3-1
� ; 3.3 Identification of Preliminary Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study Objectives . . 3-2
3.4 Identification of Preliminary General Response
Actions and Associated Remedial Technologies . . . . . 3-3
4. Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Sludge/Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Subsurface Geology • •
. . . . . . 4-2
4.3 Ground Water Flow andContaminantDistribution . . . . . 4-2
�, -- 4.4 Surface Water/Sediment/Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.5 Air Quality4-4
5. Work Scope for Remedial Investigation . . . . . 5-1
5. 1 Phase I - Project Operations Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.2 Phase II - Wetlands Assessment . . 5-2d
5.3 Phase III - Data Summary and Analysis . . . . . . . . . 5-32
6. Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Phase IV - Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2 Phase V - Feasibility Study Reporting . . . . . . . . . 6-10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
-, - Appendices
9
A. Organic and Inorganic Analyses Data Sheets. . . . . . . . . . A-1
# B. U.S. EPA Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
I
FIGURES
j
rNumber Page
1-1 Salem Acres property location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
. . . . . . . . . . .
i
2-1 Site features map 2-2
2-2 Waste disposal area 2-b
�- 2-3 NUS onsite sampling locations, Rounds 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . 2-8
i
5-1 Disposal area grid system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 j
i
5-2 Soil sampling locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5-3 Ground water monitoring well location . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5-4 General design of monitoring well in overburden ... . . . 5-14
5-5 General design of monitoring well in bedrock . . . . . . . . . 5=15 j
5-6 Surface water/sediment sampling locations . . . . . 5-19
5-7 Location of aerial topographic survey . . . . . . . . 5-26
jj
' l
1
i
II
j
iv
't
i
[
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Chronology of Events. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
a
+tax .
.„, 2-1 Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Sludge . . . '. 2-10
.r
< 2-2 Extractable Organic Compounds Detected in Sludge.-. . . . 2-11
a , . . . . .
2-3 Inorganic Analyses of Sludge -- . 2-12
[r 2-4 EP Toxicity Test - Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2-5 Soil Sampling Analytical Results.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
r2-6 Inorganic Analysis - Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . 2-21
-
3-1 Preliminary List of Source Control GeneralResponse Actions
[ - and Associated Remedial Technologies.Identified for the .
Salem Acres Site. 3-4
[ 3-2 Initial Listing of Engineering Design Waste Parameters
Requiring Investigation/Evaluation at the Salem Acres Site. 3-5
- 6-1 Final Feasibility Study Report Format . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
[
I
i
te.
i
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1. 1 OBJECTIVES OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
The objective of the Remedial Investigation (RI) is to assess the
adequacy and validity of existing information and to conduct additional data I.
�^ gathering field work and/or laboratory analyses in order to develop a
comprehensive site characterization which describes the nature and extent of
i
contamination and its real or potential impact on public health and welfare,
and the environment. The data and technical information gathered during the
RI will be used to support the development and evaluation of remedial
alternatives during the Feasibility Study (FS).
.The objective of the Feasibility Study is to establish and analyze a
range of specific remedial action alternatives based on the site i
characterization and other data compiled in the RI. The final result of the
£S is the selection and implementation of a specific remedial alternative that
I
best balances the need for protection of public health, welfare and the
environment with engineering feasibility and cost-effectiveness (U.S. EPA,
1985).
This RI/FS Work Plan document has been developed by GCA Technology
Division, Inc. (GCA) to provide the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) and any Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) with a detailed
- structure for the undertaking of an RI/FS at the Salem Acres, Inc. (Salem
Acres) hazardous waste disposal site in Salem, Massachusetts.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE SALEM ACRES RI/FS WORK PLAN
The .remainder of Section 1 summarizes the hazardous waste disposal
activities that occurred at Salem Acres and the subsequent Federal and state
investigations of the site. Section 1 also includes a summary of human and l
rj 1-1
B j
f
environmental receptors that are, or could be adversely impacted due to
�l contaminant migration from the source via
g ground water, surface water and/or
air pathways.
�. Section 2 details the existing data base for each environmental medium
L (sludge/soil, ground water, surface water and air) to provide a description of
the current situation at Salem Acres. The section includes the results of
previous studies conducted at the site and GCA's own observations made during
ran onsite inspection conducted in January 1986.
i
In Section 3, GCA presents descriptions of the technologies which
represent the source control, management of migration, and contaminant removal
` methods that are timplemented
., e
� ypicallq implemee nted at a hazardous waste site such as Salem
Acre4* The generic studyi of currently-accepted,- proven technZZOg:es will help
to define the data gathering needs of the RI. -
Section 4 represents GCA's analysis of the existing data base and
identifies specific data limitations ("data gaps") that must be addressed
during the RI to complete the site characterization and risk assessment
studies. The "Data Limitations" section also provides a ,complete list of
engineering data that will be required during the RI/FS to evaluate possible
r"emedial -actions. :- .
In Sections 5 and 6, GCA outlines a five pbase, task oriented program for
l the development and implementation of both the RI and FS stages. In
+l Section 5, GCA presents a scope of work for a three-phase, nine task RI
effort. Section 5 addresses specific media sampling and analytical needs,
III ( site operations and management considerations, and various other RI-related
tasks such' as the development of a site conceptualization model and
endangerment assessment, and a final RI report. Section 6 outlines the
components of the Salem Acres Feasibility Study. The FS will utilize the site
characterization data obtained during the RI to develop and evaluate
alternative remedial actions appropriate for the Salem Acres site.
L � 1.3 BACKGROUND
Salem Acres, Inc. is a 234.5-acre parcel of land located in the Towns of
Salem and Peabody, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The hazardous waste disposal
site occupies approximately 4 acres of the 162 acres of land within the Salem
( l-2
l,a
Fi
_ - _. ._ __
i
PEABODY
Ob .p. Q o. � o +.�//.. .monr�• Oz
i`r.• .T j• "' �y e, �a ,r •� [/'�J /.f a /C '; `�� eM' r:Iw t'cc
1115Q� �� ' a ;r •' 1 F
„� l .� •{ No a ionNW
1 • I � .li, tv O - r
�f�fir. °• l`'`li� e`'r° Pond ��� I ,�.- � lr`• :+'iiit._� '1 .•y '�ca:4`��w
rhK- 'y a PROPERTY BOUNDARY0. 1
s j�u ••p•
8 ASTE DISPOSAL 'n
-'6 �•
AREA
0 Ile
dfMlli /0 A r Y SSS
ixiz-
l'eeb ' o c � p .SALEM
¢ '�
LTAQMpwW
rNl u• .5 i, a r� �! W (n'�� i �.i .fF,` c .�.\�`,
l I°I w
O LYNN �� JJ-y. p0 �•
0 2000 4000 CLQ `O
u1
Scale feet
Figure 1-1. Salem Acres property location. Base map is a portion of the
U.S.G.S Salem & Lynn quadrangles 7.5 minute series, 1970.
Salem photorevised 1979.
I
1-3
J
' I
I
I
Itown limits and is located approximately 1/4-mile northwest of the
`- intersection of Route 107 and Marlboro Road in Salem (GCA, 1985). The waste
site is bordered on the north and west by the Peabody town line and on the
south and east by residential neighborhoods. in 1946, the owner of the
property, John Grasso, granted the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD)
permission to dispose of sewerage sludge generated at SESD facilities on his
�E
property. Between 1947 and 1969, the SESD transported approximately
38,000 cubic yards of sludge material to the site (Grinnell, 1982) and
deposited those wastes in unlined uncovered earthen
pits. In 1969, the owner i
of the site, Salem Acres, Inc. (Ugo DiBiase, President), purchased the site
disposal at the site. The�
permission to continue sludge dis and denied SESD g p
dumping of sludge by the SESD apparently ceased in 1969.
s Under the direction of the U.S. EPA, the NUS Corporation Superfund'
Ft Division (NUS) conducted a Site Inspection (SI) in December 1983. According
to the NUS Final SI Report of May 1984, sludge samples from each of the four I,
pits confirmed the presence of elevated levels of heavy metals (most notably
chromium), volatile organic compounds, and polycblorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
_ - _- No priority pollutants were detected in onsite surface water and offaite
ground water and surface water samples. A second round of sampling conducted
�...,_ by NUS in April 1985, however, confirmed the presence of elevated levels of
lead and mercury to surface water adjacent to the disposal area. In
�s April 1985 security fencing was erected around the sludge pits by the SESD in
response to requests made through the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) by residents living in the immediate
vicinity of Salem Acres. At this time, the site is inactive. A chronology of
historical events and enforcement actions is presented in Table 1-1.
1.4 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT RECEPTORS
Based on its review of the existing Salem Acres data base, GCA has
preliminarily identified potential pathways of contaminant migration that
` could allow some of the contaminants present at Salem Acres to be transported
lA',r
_ away from the contaminant source, the sludge disposal area, and to sensitive
1-4
-�3
TABLE 1-1. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Date Description
1946 Site owner, John Grasso, Rave SESD permission to dispose of grit
and grease dredgings (sludge) at Salem Acres.
1947-1969 SESD transported and disposed of approximately 38,000 cubic yards
of sludge from Salem plant in unlined pits on Salem Acres property.
1969 Salem Acres, Inc. (Ugo DiBiase, President) purchased land
including the disposal site from James Grasso. The new owner
denied SESD permission to continue dumping on site.
May 1980 DEQE discovered sludge beds during a site inspection prompted by
neighborhood complaints of obnoxious odors emanating from the site.
Sept. 1980 DEQE sent notice to Salem Acres, Inc. , citing possible violation
of Regulation 3.2 of the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations.
Dec. 1982 Land transferred to DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, the current owners
of the land. Ugo and Elio DiBiase named as trustees.
Jan. 1983 Preliminary Assessment (PA) conducted by NUS for U.S `EPA.
Dec. 1983 Site Inspection conducted by NUS for U.S. EPA. Round 1 samples
collected.
May 1984 Final SI Report issued by NUS. Round l sludge samples revealed
elevated levels of chromium and other heavy metals, PCBs, and
volatile organic compounds. No heavy metals, volatile organics,
extractable organics, or EP Toxic contaminants were detected in
if onsite surface water samples from Strongwater Brook or in offsite
i< surface and ground water samples.
Oct. 1984 Salem Acres site listed on the National Priorities List by U.S. ;
r EPA.
Nov. 1984 DEQE issued "Advisory Letters" to three "potentially responsible
parties": . (1) DiBiase Salem Realty Trust; (2) SESD; and (3) NEPCO.
Apr. 1985 Security fencing constructed by SESD around disposal pits to
restrict access to pit areas.
Oct. 1985 Round 2 sample analyses show possible leaching of heavy metals
(lead and mercury) from waste pit into Strongwater Brook.
�z
' I
I
1-5
I ;
I
environmental and/or human receptors in the vicinity of Salem Acres. Although
�- not exhaustive, the following list clearly identifies those receptors which
GCA feels have the greatest potential for being adversely effected by direct
exposure to the waste or contaminant movement via ground water flow, surface
water flow, or air emissions from the site. The locations of the potential
rrreceptors can be found on Figure 1-1.
1.
• Local human population - Human health and welfare could be impacted
�= via direct contact with the waste or ingestion of water (ground
water and surface water) contaminated with pollutants found in the
sludge pits. In addition, inhalation of hazardous air emissions
from the site could adversely impact the local residential and
" business populations.
-a
L �• Site wetland areas - Surface runoff, contaminated ground water,
and/or contaminant seepage from the waste disposal area could have
an adverse impact on water quality and sediment conditions in the
`` six wetlands adjacent to the disposal area and the flora/fauna which
`l thrive on them.
• Strongwater Brook and Swampscott Road Brook - These are two major
drainage channels leading offsite. Local flora/fauna and human
populations may be impacted through contact with and/or ingestion of
contaminated water and sediments.
i� • Meadow Pond discharge area - Strongwater Brook flows into this
_— - wetland pond located-1 mile north of Salem Acres. Local flora/fauna -
could suffer if contaminants enter the area via surface
'.� water/sediment pathways.
• Thompson's Meadow discharge area - Swampscott Road Broox flows into
l into this wetland located 1.2 miles south of Salem Acres.
Contaminant migration via surface water/sediment
g pathway could
'impact local flora/fauna, as well as the aquifer underlying the
region.
One of the functions of the RI will be to determine if, in fact,
contamination has or is likely to migrate to the listed receptors of concern
tor other receptors identified during the course of the RI. That determination
1 will be the focus of a risk assessment that will be based on the
physical/chemical properties of the contaminants found at the site, and the
- contaminant transport properties of the air, soil, surface water, and ground
water at the site.
f 1-6
Lc
SECTION 2
CURRENT SITUATION
I
I
2.1 SITE FEATURES
2.1. 1 Site Description
�c
i
The Salem Acres waste disposal area consists of five identifiable sludge
pits occupying approximately 4 acres of land situated approximately 200 yards 1
I
north of Barcelona Avenue and adjacent to a New England Power Company (NEPCO)
I
powerline easement (Figure 2-1). Various unpaved access roads traverse the
disposal area and the only building located onsite is a NEPCO substation _ -
located 300 yards northeast of disposal area. The site is situated on a
surface water divide which directs surface water to two local aquifers
n _ i
Strongwater Brook Basin to the north and Thompson's Meadow Basin to the
southeast. i
2. 1.2 Demography and Land Use
I
Approximately 2,600 people reside within a 1-mile radius of the site.
The. majority of those people live in a densely populated neighborhood located
northeast of the site along Marlboro Road in Salem. There are approximately
65,000 people living within a 2-mile radius of Salem Acres including residents
from the towns of Salem, Peabody, Swampscott, and the City of Lynn. The
population within a 3-mile radius includes residents of Salem, Peabody,
fiSwampscott, Lynn, and the Town of Marblehead, and totals nearly 128,000
(NUS, 1984).
Although the site is inactive and unoccupied, land use in the immediate
vicinity varies widely. In addition to the residential neighborhoods located
north, east and south of the site, there is a mixture of small business shops,
2-1
(l_
t = i
P .�..� �...-.. r..... ^'�n.r p
p.,
y .. dl4,.. i iJ�,,..�•0 .. d A� 1 ill fS., r 1
i
i C
Y' 11 \\\ 3
O
OPEABODY OI
RESERVOIR m' jj `��� ' 03r
(COVERED11 \� �� y p
TANK GS
it
3 1t �� (SUBS T N� .9 =
040 70 !
� O
�p2 til
it D
O
POWER
LINE
EASEMEN�� I POND v
L E G E N D i
041 I�i���\ RESIDENTIAL =__= DIRT ACCESS ROAD
i
t0f� AREA SLUDGE PIT
jl JW- )U14 WETLAND AREA
i
(1 N� -•-•= FENCE
✓W
--••-••• BROOK
/ ISI
BARCELONA
AVENUE \TO SWAMPSCOTT
' ROAD
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2-1. Site features map.
restaurants, housing and a shopping mall within one-half mile of the site on
Route 107. Cedar .Grove Cemetery is located one-half mile northwest of the
site.
I
2.1.3 Climatology
I
Salem Acres receives an average rainfall of 45 inches with an average
yearly surface and ground water runoff of 20 inches and an average yearly
F-4 evapotranspiration rate of 25 inches. The maximum expected rainfall in any
- one 24-hour period is 2.6 inches. The average yearly temperature is
� approximately 45 degrees Farenheit and .the general wind direction ie
west-southwest (NUS, 1984).
2. 1.4 Local Municipal Water Supplies
i.
Peabody Reservoir is located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the
disposal area. The reservoir, also known as Cedar Grove Reservoir, is an
above ground storage. tank which serves as the -distribution point for the Town
of -Peabody municipal water supply system. The':-reservoir is located
topographically upgradient from the disposal. area-and is filled with treated
water pumped from Spring Pond which is located 0.75 miles west of the disposal
i
area. The Town of Salem draws its municipal water supply from Putnamville
Reservoir in Danvers, MA which is located 5 miles north of Salem Acres and not
subject to any influences from Salem Acres. The Town of Swampscott's
municipal water supply system is part of the Massachusetts Water Resources
i
Authority (WRA). The water in the WRA system is drawn from the Quabbin
I i --
Reservior in western Massachusetts and is not subject to any influence from
Salem Acres.
I
2.1.5 Local Private Well Drinking Water Supplies
I
There are a number of private drinking water wells within a 2-mile radius
of the site (NUS, 1984). They include:
• a small unknown number of residential wells west of the site in
Peabody,
2-3
i
{{
• five to ten residential wells located 1 mile south of Salem Acres in
the Robinson Road area (off of Swampscott Road) in Salem, and
• a well at DeLisio Brothers Garden Center located 1.5 miles south of
Salem Acres on Essex Street in Swampscott. Water from this well is
bottled and sold as spring water. The number of people using this
well for their drinking water supply is estimated to be between one-
and three-thousand.
2.2 SLUDGE/SOIL
2.2. 1 Waste History
According to SESD records cited in the NUS SI report, an estimated total
g P .
of 3:';234 cubic yards of grit and grease sludge was dumped int;-fffte unlined
pits at Salem Acres. The sludge, which accumulated at pumping stations in
Beverly, Danvers, and Salem, was stored in a pit at the Salem plant. The grit
and grease sludge stored in the pit was untreated and likely contained wastes
from leather tanneries and other industries located in those three towns
(GCA, 1985). NUS reported that the SESD constructed dikes at the lower ends
of the disposal areas described above and that the vehicles would release the.
»P sludge in the up hill areas and allow it to flow to the diked areas. A U.S.' j
EPA photographic_ study_of_the Salem Acres_ site compiled in 1984 includes seven
aerial photographs taken between 1952 and 1978. The study identifies probable
dumping activity in up to eight separate pits onsite in 1955. An analysis of
subsequent photos suggest that, over the years of disposal, two or more of the
pits combined with one another to form larger• pits, or some were covered with
earthen fill excavated from other parts of the property and became
— unidentifiable because of vegetative overgrowth. Although the exact number of
I
identifiable pits is uncertain, preliminary visual inspections indicate five
distinct pits. In addition, the photographs reveal other areas outside of the
current fencing that were subjected to earth-moving, and possible landfilling
activities. When Salem Acres, Inc. purchased the property in 1969, the SESU
was denied permission to continue dumping and the various access roads were
blocked with boulders and/or earthen piles.
It has been alleged by neighborhood residents that illegal dumping
� A
activities continued at the site throughout the 1970'x. NUS reports that a
• local resident told the DEQE that "it was common knowledge that trucks were
2-4
dumping tannery wastes in the pits during the day and occasionally at night".
�- A DEQE site inspection conducted in September, 19BU reported finding leather
scraps scattered around the site and signs of recent excavation and grading by
heavy equipment, along with observing an 'oily residue' on the surface of one
of the pits and a "chemical precipitate" on the surface of another. The DEQE
also cited the presence of odors, possibly from sewerage sludge, emanating
from the pits. A GCA file search of State and Federal records and interviews
with town officials and local residents found no specific evidence (names of
t
tannery companies, police records, DEQE/EPA complaint notifications, etc.) to
support the tannery waste dumping allegations.
L=' A GCA foot survey of the site performed on January 23, 1986 did, however,
find evidence of solid waste disposal outside of the sludge disposal areas.
Numerous piles of_roofing shingles, ceiling tiles, and scrap metal (old cars,
[[ washing machines, etc.) were observed.
i1
2.2.2 Physical Description of Sludge Disposal Area
The sludge disposal pits at the Salem Acres site occupy approximately
4 acres of land located approximately 200 yards north of the end of Barcelona
�v . Avenue. The site is situated within a topographically complex area
i
IIcharacterized by numerous steep hills and marshy lowlands. The northern side
11< of the disposal site borders the NEPCO powerline easement. Hilly woodlands
predominate the area between the Barcelona Avenue residential neighborhood and
the northern end of the site. As shown in Figure 2-2, the western side of the
waste site borders a large wetland which feeds Strongwater Brook. The eastern
I
side borders a combined pond-wetlands area that serves as a feeder to
Strongwater Brook to the north and the Swampscott Road brook to the
southeast. A 10-foot wide unpaved access road divides the disposal site into
two separate waste disposal areas. Six-foot high chain-link security fences
with barbed wire tops were erected about the perimeters of the two disposal i
areas in 1985.
Disposal Area #1 (DA-1), located west of the major access road is
approximately 330 feet long and 200 feet wide, and contains two identifiable
disposal pits. The western aide of DA-1 lies approximately 10 feet above the
( surface level of a large wetland which feeds into Strongwater Brook. The
ff 2-5
� . I
L E G E N D TO STRONGWATER BROOK
XXXXX FENCE
DIRT ACCESS ROAD •� '
SLUDGE PIT .0
WETLAND WETLAND 0
DA-1 DISPOSAL AREA /1 '�@ •�,
wA-I WETLAND Al pr Iw/
—>r► FLOW DIRECTION @p POND
WA-2 - WA-3
CULVERT 9 x%xx X%x%%%xXx%%%xxx%Xx
AlkACCESS GATE X )Jtl
x x
x
xxxxxxxxxxxxx X x
z x x x
f/ X , K X DA- 2 Ak %
xxy
X X x%%xxxxxxxxxxxX X
ro x % x
Q, X % X x4 RESIDENTIAL -i
X X %%%X%Xx , AREA
x DA-1 x - WA-5
��,_ x x
1y`V x x
xx
x x
x 04 X
zxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WA-1 1
WA G
BARCELONA
AVENUE ' li
TO SWAMPSCOTT
ROAD BROOK
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2-2. Waste disposal area. .
YYY northern, western and southern edges of DA-1 are lined with what appears to be
an earthen, man-made embankment which is covered with trees and a number of
i
species of vegetation. The land surface within DA-1 slopes in two distinct
directions; from southeast to northwest and from southeast to southwest.
Large uncovered pools of oily, blackish-brown sludge are evident in the
fnorthwest and southwest corners of DA-1. A black oil-like substance with a
1.- distinct fuel odor was observed in Wetland Area #1 (WA-1) along the western
border of DA-1, indicating possible sludge dumping directly into WA-1 or
contaminant migration from DA-1 into WA-1 via surface runoff or seeps through
the embankment. There is some mounding of earthen material and vegetation
jseparating the two sludge pits. There are two access gates to DA-1.
Disposal Area $2 (DA-2), located east of the major access road, is
approximately 250 feet long and 350 feet wide. The eastern side of DA-2 lies
along a ridge 20 to 30 feet above the surface level of a complex drainage area
is
1 that feeds both Strongwater Brook and the Swampscott Road Brook. Portions of
i the perimeter of DA-2 are lined with man-made earthen dikes covered with trees
and vegetation. From a relatively level piece of land near the access gate,
the land surface of DA-2 slopes in three directions, to the northwest,
northeast and southeast, to form three distinct sludge pits. Black, oily,
uncovered sludge is visible in portions of the three pits and appears to have
a similar consistency to the sludge in DA-1. There is a green moss growing on
portions of the exposed sludge. The pits are separated by mounds of. earth and
vegetation.
I
2.2.3 Sludge Sampling and Analysis
Under contract to the U.S. EPA, NUS conducted two rounds of onsite sludge
i
pit sampling. Four sludge samples, two from each disposal area, were collected
on 13 December 1983 as part of the Site Investigation. The analytical results
of that round were included in the NUS Final Site Inspection Report. On
j29 April 1985, an NUS sampling team collected an additional round of four
sludge samples. The analytical results of the second round are detailed in an
NUS Internal Correspondence dated 14 October 1985 and entitled "Salem Acres
Sampling Report" The approximate locations of Round 1 and 2 samples are shown
in Figure 2-3.
2-7
r
� l
4 �1 ��m! •./w
. .1 p,... '� � r:. .
:� •:�{ f.,:..c.'.t
L E G E N D TO STRONOWATER BROOK
XXX%X FENCE
DIRT ACCESS ROAD -
®SLUDGE PIT UO -
J4 WEILAND 41P
DA-I CISPOSAL AREA 11 �e ;
—E L'ETLASD it
—�FLOW DIRECTION -
�U3 /
CULVERT
ACCESS GATEe
PIT,$]-RI,R2
R - SAlRLISG RJL:D POND WA-2 � WA-3
• SLUDGE/SOIL SAMPLING, XX% xxxxxXx%Xxxxx Xxxx WA-4 0tLc
APPROXLMAIE LOCATION X x 1 J'
PI.T#I-RI,R2 . x ®x Y'1
O SURFACE WAT.R SAMPLING, x X
APPROXIIIAIE LOCATION %%XX XXXX%XXX x X ,
x
x x
• Xw
yX DA- = %X % %xx%xxxX xxxxx%x XX • X
OD X Z x % RESIDENTIAL
x x XxxxXX AREA
SURFACE WATER-10,112x WA-S
2 I X DA- I x PIT#4-RI,R2 .
SOIL ADJACENT TO PITOI x X
R2 R a X
Xx%xx xxxxxxxx A,
WA-1 PIT#2-RI,R2 BACKGROUND SOIL-R2
WA-6
BARCELONA I I'
AVENUE
1 TO SWAMPSCOTT
ROAD BROOK
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2-3. NUS/FIT onsite sampling location, rounds 1 and 2.
Both rounds of samples were analyzed for volatile organics, extractable
organics, and inorganics (heavy metals). In addition, the second round
samples were analyzed for Extractable Procedure Toxicity (EP Toxicity). The j
EP Toxicity test is a leaching test which measures the toxicity/mobility of a
waste. EP Toxicity is a characteristic of certain hazardous wastes. The
analytical results of the two sampling rounds, summarized in Tables 2-1
through 2-4, identified a wide range of organic and inorganic compounds.
Xylene, ethylbenzene, and napthalene were found in elevated concentrations in
pits l and 2. Elevated concentrations of chromium, lead, mercury, aluminum,
and other heavy metals were found in each of the four sampled sludge pits.
Pits 1 and 2 also contained EP Toxic levels of hexavalent chromium. In f
general, there was a large discrepancy between Round 1 and Round 2 values
- which suggests that additional sludge sampling is necessary.
A complete listing of the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List (HSL) which
� includes the volatile organic, extractable or_ g , organic., hen vy metal, and EP Toxic
compounds for which the samples were analyzed is presented in Appendix A of
this report.
2.2.4 Soil Sampling and Analytical Results
NUS Round 1 sampling did not include soil samples. In Round 2, NUS
Fcollected one background soil sample and one onsite soil sample taken at a
location between the northwest corner of DA-1 and Strongwater Brook. The
samples were analyzed for the heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and
extractable organic compounds listed in Appendix A. The results, which are
{ presented in Table 2-5, show that no volatile organics were found and no
f_
extractable organics were found at levels above the quantitation detection
limits. Some heavy metals were present in the soil, most notably iron and
manganese.
I
2.3 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY
I
I
The Salem Acres site is reported to be located on a bedrock highlands
area which is characterized by hills and marshy lowlands (NUS, 1984). The
site contains numerous bedrock outcrops both at the tops of hills 'and in the
2-9 i.
� I
_ I
- I' I
TABLE 2-1. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SLUDGE
Volatile organic (ppm) Pit /1 Pit #2 _ Pit 43 Pit /4
compound Detection
limit Round 1 Round,2 Round 1 ,Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
Ethylbenzene 8 — 34/-= 25 — — — -�
Xylene (total) 8 — 130/690 0.140a 410 — — -- — ;
Acetone 8 — 20/27.5 — -- 0.2 —
Methylene chloride 8 — —/- — — 0.58 — —
aValue indicative of o-xylene level only.
Note: Round 1 conducted 12/13/83 by NUS/FIT.
Round 2 conducted 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT. Replicate sample taken from Pit h.
I'I
r
TABLE 2-2. EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN SLUDGE
Pit #1 Pit #2 Pit #3 Pit 14
Extractable organics Detection
(ppm) limit Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
Napthalene 25 — 140/300 0.29 190 — — — 24K
bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate 25 — 23K/32K — 19K — 4.8K — 8.9K
benzo (ghi) peryleue 25 — —/— — — — — 2.4K
fluorene 25 — —/— — — — — — 6.8K
n; 2-methyl napthalene 25 — —/90 — 87 — — — 40
pentachlorophenol 25 — 15K/20K — 17K — — —
2,4,5 trichlorophenol 25 — 8K/11K — 6.9K — — — —
PCB-1260 0.2 0.45 3.5J/ 0.45 5.6J — 0.11K 10 -
- 8.91
PCB-1248 0.2 2.2 —/— -- — — — —
PCB-1254 0.2 15 —/— 0.62 — — — — —
BHC 0.1 — —/— — — — — 0.11
Note: Round 1 conducted 12/13/83 by NUS/FIT.
Round 2 conducted 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT. Replicate sample taken from Pit #1.
J: results are approximated as a result of Level I data validation
performed by NUS.
R: level detected below quantitation limits.
TABLE 2-3. INORGANIC ANALYSES OF SLUDGE
Pit #1 Pit #2 Pit #3 Pit #4
Inorganic (ppm) Detection ----------------- --------------- --------------- -----------------
element limit Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 1 Round 2
Aluminum 0.2 5000 2443/4668 946 629J 5080 14097 542 2740
Chromium 0.01 7.6 5384/4881 878 3363 11 13923 1090 9434
Barium 0.2 27 908/976 337 890 110 2736 308 2014
Beryllium 0.005 40.25 --/- 0.25 -- 2.2 -- 0.25 --
Cobalt 0.05 5.0 --/-- i ,' 2.5 -- 13 -- 2.5 --
Copper 0.025 10 143/179 37 68 `30 335 20 181
Iron 0.1 9960 4718/5066 - :11 '70 953 4030 14264 734 2585
Nickel 0.04 11 --/-- 4''3.7' - 27 51 3.8 46
Manganese 0.015 139 51/54 10 -- 19 204 5.1 82
Zinc 0.02 14 779/832 2i2 613 14 2073 129 1413
Boron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
N Vanadium 0.05 0 --/33 15 96 33 133 25 128
Silver 0.01 0.5 --/-- 0.87 -- 0.5 -- 0.5 --
Arsenic 0.01 8.0 --/-- 1.2 -- 46 -- 0.8 --
Antimony 0.06 1.0 --/-- 1.0 -- 1.0 -- 1.0 -- t
Selenium 0.005 1.0 --/-- 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 -- 4
Thallium 0.01 0.5 --/-- 0.5 -- 0.5 -- 0.5 --
Mercury 0.0002 0.25 4.1/6.5 0.35 5.3 0.31 5.4 0.22 4.7
Tin 0.04 11 59/50 6.5 -- 15 62 5.7 --
Cadmium 0.005 0.51 --/13 5.9 -- 0.64 13 1.4 9
Lead 0.005 17 385/376 .<r; ;1y 111 23 1138 253 511
Note: Round 1 conducted 12/13/83 by NUS/FIT. I
Round 2 conducted 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT. Replicate sample takenj!from Pit #1.
Not Detected.
NA: Not Analyzed For.
i.,
IF
?L
Y . I
3l I
1
TABLE 2-4. EP TOXICITY TEST - SLUDGE
Detection
limit Pit #1 Pit #2 Pit #3 Pit #4
�.. .Pesticides -- —/-- -- -- --
Chromium+6 (ppb) 0.02 0.048/0.048 0.056 -- --
t
i.. Note: EP Toxicity performed on samples collected by NUS/FIT on 4/29/85
during Round 2 only. Replicate sample taken from Pit #1.
t — Not Detected.
"Al _
!I
I
i
3'
t
2-13
TABLE 2-5. SOIL SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Detection Between DA-1 and j
limit Background Strongwater Brook
Volatile organic compounds None detected
Extractable organic None detected above
compounds Detection Limit of
7.6 ppm
Inorganic elements (ppm)
(heavy, metals)
Aluminum 0.2 19,855 - 12,841
Barium 0.2 106 — j
Chromium 0.01 58 8.1 J
Cobalt 0.05 13 —
Copper 0.05 40 —
Iron 0.1 28,931 19,508
Manganese 0.015 — 108 J
Nickel 0.04 32
Vanadium 0.05 83 42 J
Ziac 0.02 179 174
Arsenic 0.01 30 13 J
-- - - - Lead 0.005 269 121 J i-
Mercury 0.0002 0.64 0.69 J
Tin 0.04 — 17 J
i
Note: Soil samples taken during Round 2 only on 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT.
—.- Not Detected.
- J: Results are approximated as a result of Level I data
validation performed by NUS.
2-14
lowland swampy areas. The main bedrock unit in the area consists of the Salem
Gabbro-Diorite which is an intrusive igneous rock (Toulmin, 1964). This unit
is generally thought to be a hornblende-augite diorite or a gabbro and is fine
to moderately coarse. The Salem Gabbro-Diorite is Precambrian or Lower
Paleozoic in age and is reported to have intruded the older Marlboro Formation
which consists of schist, amphibolites and gneisses. In the Salem quadrangle
the Salem Gabbro-Diorite is reported to be cut by numerous basalt and diabase
dikes (Toulmin, 1964). The bedrock geology map prepared by Toulmin shows that
r
s porphyritic microgranite dikes transect through the gabbro-diorite formation
at the Salem Acres site.
k { Toulmin also reports that the Salem Gabbro-Diorite is highly and
T[ compi.exly jointed with npmeroup sheer zones and minor faults.—�HEIl was evident
" to GCA field personnel who observed numerous bedrock outcrops during the
*x ; x
January 1986 site visit that the Salem Gabbro-Diorite within the Salem Acres
property is highly jointed and fractured. However, due to the fact that no
wells are located at the Salem Acres site the degree of fracturing at depth
along with other site specific bedrock data are at this time unknown.
Due to the numerous bedrock" outcrops it is apparent that the overburden
which mantles the bedrock is Quite thin. This ie" especially true' on the tops
of hills where bedrock outcrops are quite continuous. Overburden appears to
thicken in the lowland areas of the site as bedrock outcrops are somewhat less
frequent. Overburden at the site is a groundmoraine till which consists of .
both compact silts and clays along with loose sands and gravels. Lowland
" ( areas consist of swamp deposits while drainage areas contain glacial outwash
sediments' which are generally sandy and gravelly in nature. Overburden at the
-�_- site'is also reported to contain boulders and small lines of stratified
' material (Oldale, 1964). Well and boring logs from within Thompson's Meadow
which is approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the site indicate that bedrocks
here is much deeper than at the site and has been found at depth of over
( 70 feet (Massachusetts HD-21, 1980). These types of overburden thicknesses
`- are similarly found to the northeast and northwest of the Salem Acres site.
f.
(a°
t :c. 2-15
i
�Y I
2.4 GROUND WATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION
I
The NUS Final Site Inspection Report is the only source of site-specific
hydrogeologic information relative to the Salem Acres site. Due to lack of
existing hydrogeologic data, NUS was unable to adequately define ground water
flow patterns and contaminant distribution at the site. Therefore, the
I
following presents GCA's conceptualization of the ground water flow pattern, P
and based on this flow pattern, our interpretation of movement and
distribution of contaminants at the site.
F The source of water supply in the area of Salem Acres is precipitation j
which averages 42 inches per year (Baker and Brackley, 1966). Approximately
_ - I
i half of that is returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration.
!L The remaining half- either drains to the main surface water bodies via surface
runoff or infiltrates the surface soil and percolates to the ground water.
I�sDue to the shallow overburden, ground water flow in the overburden is believed
to mimic surface drainage patterns. Therefore, ground water flows to the
local discharge areas surrounding the site. These ground water discharge
areas include: a large swamp located to the west of the site which drains to
- I
Strodgwater Brook; and an intermittent stream and pond located to the east of
the lagoons. Part of this intermittent stream drains into Strongwater Brook
to the north and part of it drains to the south into Thompson's Meadow via
drainage along Swampscott Road.
In addition, there is the possibility that ground water could enter and
flow through the bedrock (if the bedrock is sufficiently fractured); the
direction of flow depending on the direction of the fractures. Surficial
bedrock outcrops at the sitedisplayed nearly vertical fractures trending to
the northeast. Therefore, it is possible that ground water could flow to the
northeast through these bedrock fractures.
Contaminant movement and distribution at Salem Acres depends to a large
extent on the ground water flow pattern, and the dispersive nature of the
media. Contaminant movement may be retarded by soil interaction, chemical and
biological transformation, and solubility characteristics of the
contaminants. Therefore, contaminants entering the ground water via
percolation of recharge will migrate in the directions of ground water flow at
a rate approximately equal to the ground water velocity. During migration,
2-16
dispersion will cause spreading and dilution of contaminants along with
attenuation of concentration peaks. The contaminants will ultimately
discharge to the surface water bodies surrounding the site. If ground water
flow exists in bedrock, contaminants may also travel through the bedrock 1
possibly migrating greater distances from the site. In addition, contaminants
may: interact with aquifer solids causing retardation of the movement of
contaminants relative to ground water flow; be transformed into other
compounds by chemical and biological mechanisms; and, if immiscible, travel as
�. discrete none ueous phases either along the to of the
q D ng p ground water surface or
a vertically downward through the saturated zone.
Due to the limited available bydrogeologic information and the fact that
r them are no monitoring yells at the site, itis impossible -a6=this time to _
IL determine the extent of contamination at the Salem Acres site. Monitoring
wells are needed to define ground water flow directions, pathways, flowrates,
and contaminant distribution. Geologic logs are needed to adequately define
the degree and direction of bedrock fracturing. In addition, a fate and
transport study should be conducted to characterize transport mechanisms for
- the contaminants known to exist at the site. This qualitative study should
-
include: a determination of the key chemical, physical and biological
C ' properties of the identified contaminants; the evaluation of intermedia and
intramedia transport and transformation mechanisms; and to the extent
possible, review of site-specific conditions in order to determine the extent
of each contaminant released and to qualitatively determine contaminant fate.
j 2.5 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT/WETLANDS
l_
2.5. 1 Surface Water Flow and Drainage Pattern
The Salem Acres site is situated in an area characterized by drumloidal
`r hills and marshy wetlands. A topographical high forms a surface water divide
(: which diverts surface drainage into two major channels leading offaite.
According to a U.S. EPA drainage analysis performed in 1969 and a GCA site
visit and analvsis of U.S.G.S. topographical maps, drainage from the western
side of the drainage divide flows into WA-1, a large wetlands area adjacent
.r 2-17
to DA-1, and then into Strongwater Brook (see Figure 2-2). Strongwater Brook j
flows approximately 1.5 miles north and east into the North River and
eventually into Salem/Beverly Harbor. Strongwater Brook also receives
drainage from the northeast side of DA-2 via a secondary drainage channel
consisting of a small unnamed pond, WA-4, and wetland WA-3. Wetlands WA-5 and
WA-6 receive drainage from the southeast portion of DA-2. WA-6 runs along
Barcelona Avenue and is drained by an unnamed brook that flows southeasterly
along Swampscott Road. The brook discharges into a large wetlands area
referred to as Thompson's Meadow, which is located approximately 1.2 miles
F
`- south of the Salem Acres site. Thompson's Meadow flows into the Forest River
and eventually into Salem Harbor,
2.5.2 Wetlands/Floodplains
There are several wetland areas nearby and within the Salem Acres site,
based on observations made during the GCA site visit on 23 January 1486.
Wetland Area 1 (WA-1) is an open wetland fed by Strongwater Brook which
-appears to contain predominantly swamp loosestrife (Decodon vercillatus) with
dodder (Cuscuta gronovii), and with some milkweed (Ascelpias incarnater). it
must be noted that these identifications are only preliminary due to the time
of year the site visit was conducted. Contamination in the form of a black,
- tarry oil and the distinct odor of fuel oil was observed in areas along the
border of DA-1 and WA-1. It is of interest to note that a few Phragmites
communis individuals were noted, but only in the contaminated area. An
iron-red color was also observed in sediments in some areas.
Due to the proximity of the disposal pits, it appears that contamination
traveled from DA-1 into the wetland by seeping through the base of the berm.
The contaminated area appears to extend at least 10 to 20 feet into the plant
17 growth and for 100 to 150 feet along the shoreline.
This wetland (WA-1), and the organisms inhabiting it, are clearly
Ei receptors of contamination. The extent to which they are impacted by the
contamination can not be determined given the limited information available.
i
ry Sampling of sediments and surface waters as well as more field study are
required.
i
2-18
) I
In wetland area 2 (WA-2), GCA observed a large stand of reeds (Phragmites
communis) in the southeast corner, and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) upland
along the eastern shore. Some sparse cattail (typha latifolia) growth was
�= also observed. No visual contamination was observed in this wetland.
On the eastern side of the site several other wetland areas exist (see
!w Figure 2-2). Wetland area 3 (WA-3) is a large swamp containing growth which
appears similar to that described for areas 1 and 2. This wetland feeds into
C (WA-4) a pond which contains some emergent vegetation at its northern end. A
film was observed on the surface of water in the pond, but it was not evident
whether this was a result of natural causes (e.g. , iron or tannins) or site contamination. It a
� ppears possiblethatcontaminants could enter the pond via
grov;.nd water flow origigating from the disposal pits. Furthesmare, some
evidence of surface water flow from the pit adjacent to the pond was observed
in the form of plant blowdown and erosion of the dike wall of the pit.
Water from wetland area 4 (WA-1) flows northward to Strongwater Brook and
southward into wetland areas 5 and 6 (WA-5 and WA-6), along Swampscott Road,
and eventually into Thompson's Meadow.
WA-5 is a wet meadow containing short grasses which did not appear to be
typical wetland species. Some oil sheen was observed on the surface of water
in this area, but several empty drums and other containers which were present
in the meadow could be the cause of this sheen.
Water flows from WA-5 to WA-6 which, at the time of the GCA visit,
appeared to be a frozen pond. However, clumps of vegetation were seen frozen
Ic just below the surface, and the bases of trees along the shore were immersed, '
_ indicating that this is a flooded swamp probably containing vegetation similar
to WA-1, WA-2, and WA-3. WA-6 appeared to contain a water elevation 1-2 feet
higher than normal. This flooding is likely due to closure or potential
closure of the outlet at Swampscott Road. Two empty rusted-out drums were
observed at the northern tip of WA-6.
2.5.3 Surface Water Sampling and Analytical Results
During the first round of surface water sampling conducted by NUS on
kx3
13 December 1983, two onsite surface water samples were collected and analyzed
Fri
for volatile organics, extractable organics and heavy metals as listed in
Y +' 2-19
Je
Appendix A. The analytical results showed no detectible concentrations of any j
'- of the contaminants in those groups. In Round 2, conducted by NUS on
r 29 April 1985, two surface water samples were collected from Strongwater Brook
at a location near DA-1 and similarly analyzed. As in the case for Round 1
samples, there were no volatile or extractable organic compounds detected. j
However, as Table 2-6 shows, Round 2 heavy metal analysis indicated elevated
levels of lead in Strongwater Brook. Iron, mercury, and manganese were also
Idetected in elevated levels, indicating the possibility of contaminant seepage
h
from DA-1.
�,- In addition to onsite sampling, NUS, during Round 1, collected offsite
samples from the Swampscott Road brook across from Robinson Road (north of j
i
Thompson's Meadow) in Salem and from Strongwater Brook near Home and
Flynn Streets (I mile north of Salem Acres) in Salem. A third offsite sample
was collected in a wetland adjacent to Marlboro Road. No HSL volatile
organics, extractable organics, or heavy metals (as listed in Appendix A) were
i
detected in any of the three samples.
2.5.4 Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results
a Sediment samples have yet to be collected from the various water courses
at Salem Acres. i-
�9
f 2.6 AIR QUALITY
f
GCA's review of the existing data sources revealed that there have been
no extensive air quality monitoring investigations conducted at Salem Acres or
in the densely populated areas to the east and south of the site.
As .noted in Section 2.2.3, analytical results have indicated the presence
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), most notably xylene, acetone, and
ethylbenzene in the sludge onsite. NUS reported that during the first round
-� of sampling on 13 December 1983, organic vapor screening (HNu) was conducted
`` in the vicinity of the waste lagoons detected levels of I to 2 ppm.
2-20
I�� I
L=
TABLE 2-6. INORGANIC ANALYSIS - SURFACE WATER
Strongwater Brook
—�- Round 2
Inorganic Elements Detection -------------
(ppb) limit Sample 1 Sample 2
Aluminum 200 1774 J
Barium 200 71 81 J
Beryllium 5 — —
Boron NA NA NA
Cbromium 10 —
Cobalt 50 — —
. . Copper 25 R s
Iron 100 44,020 •
Manganese 15 4,014 839 J
t Nickel 40 — 24 J
Silver 10 — —
Vanadium 50 39 55 J
Zinc 20 • +►
Antimony 60 — — -
Arsenic 10 — — -
C Cadium 5 — -- `
Lead 70 - 64 89 J
•'-- - - Mercury.- - --- - 0,2-- - - 0.54
Thallium 10 — —
Tin 40 — —
Selenium 5 — —
Note: Round 1 conducted 12/31/83 by"NUS/FIT - no
inorganics detected.
Round 2 conducted 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT.
--. Not Detected.
NA: Not Analyzed for.
*: Contaminants detected, but value rejected during
Level I data validation performed by NUS.
J: Results are considered approximate as a result of
Level I data validation performed by NUS.
I
:�' 2-21
. I
I
SECTION 3
[[ INITIAL SCOPING OF THE SALEM ACRES RI/FS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
r1 .
y. The objective of the following discussions is to identify, and briefly
describe, the initial steps that the Salem Acres Remedial Investigation
contractor should conduct prior to performing any site-specific
characterization efforts. It should be noted, however, that the following
discussions do not preclude the RI contractor from referring to the specific
- -. U.S. EPA guidance document "Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA", or the
• I
National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, for more details on the
actual conduct of this initial step.
In general, the initial phase of an RI, termed the "scoping" process,
includes three (3) components or steps. These steps involve 1) the collection
and evaluation of existing data, 2) the identification of remedial
investigation/feasibility objectives, and 3) the identification of general
response actions for the feasibility study. Combined, these three components
prdvide the crucial elements needed to focus the development and performance
of .theremedial investigation phase of the entire RI/FS process.
The following describes each ofthese components, with the majority of
the discussions focusing on the third component - the establishment of general
response actions and associated remedial technologies.
3.2 COLLECTION/EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA
As presented in detail in Section 2, Current Situation, GCA has gathered
.- a considerable amount of existing data relative to the Salem Acres site and
surrounding area. While this data collection effort was no t. intended to
17
gg uncover all available data, it is provided as a generalized site description
tl
and was utilized to formulate the scope of work for this RI/FS Work Plan.
r 3-1
III
L :
As such, the initial effort that must be conducted by the RI contractor
for Salem Acres will be a review, update, and eventual compilation of all
fff existing site data. This effort will enable the contractor to preliminarily
It define the problem(s) that currently exist at the site, and the migration
pathways, receptors and potential impacts that the hazardous substances pose
Lto the public health, welfare, or the environment surrounding the site.
Additionally, as specified in Section 300.68(e) of the NCP, an initial
r{ examination and analysis of all available information will be used to
determine the type of response actions(s) that may be needed to remedy the
", problem(s). More specifically; the contractor, should (at a minimum) identify
„ the type of removal measures and/or remedial measures that appear suitable to
aba0. the current threab, if appropriate.
r ate.
3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
OBJECTIVES
Based upon those data described previously in Section 2, GCA has
established several -preliminary RI/FS objectives .for the Salem Acres site.
These .objectives, while based on current site data only, should be reviewed
Il and/or modified by the contractor as the remedial- investigation/feasibility
study proceeds forward. Additionally, the contractor should also perform a
preliminary analysis of the extent to which Federal enviromental and public
-health requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the Salem
Acres site, as specified in the NCP Section 3UU.68(e).
3.3.1 Preliminary Salem Acres Remedial Investigation Objectives:
a. further identify and characterize the nature and extent of
contamination onsite, as well as potential offsite
[ contamination resulting from past site activities;
b. assess the extent to which any detected contamination poses a
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment;
J
C. to determine what additional evidence is needed for the
evaluation and refinement of preliminary remedial technologies
identified for the site; and
Id. identify applicable, relevant, and appropriate Federal and u state requirements which must be considered to further refine
the response objectives to be established during the initial
phase of the FS.
3-2
R
i
I
3.3.2 Preliminary Salem Acres Feasibility Study (FS) Objectives:
L_
a, develop, and refine if necessary, site-specific remedial
response objectives and identify cleanup criteria based upon an
evaluation of existing data and data gathered during the
remedial investigation;
b. develop source control measures which seek to completely
remove, stabilize, and/or contain the hazardous substances in
order to prevent and/or minimize migration of contaminants from
the site;
C. develop management of migration measures, if necessary, for
contamination that has migrated'from the site and poses a
public health and/or environmental threat; and
d. evaluate those source control and/or management of migration
measures in accordance with all U.S. EPA guidances and
policies, and other state and Federal statutes in order to
identify the most-cost effective remedial alternatives for the
Salem Acres site.
i
3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATED
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
$� As reiterated from the RI guidance document, general response actions are
developed during scoping in order to identify those data gaps or needs
necessary for developing and evaluating corresponding alternative remedial
actions in the feasibility study. This preliminary identification of general
response actions helps eliminate obviously inappropriate actions, thus
€oduaing future RI/FS efforts on the collection of data for the development of
more feasible remedial alternatives.
In the case of the Salem Acres site, GCA has reviewed the existing data
base and conducted a site visit in order to identify several preliminary
pr general response actions which should, at a minimum, be investigated by the RI
contractor. These general response action and associated remedial
yg technologies, as shown in Table 3-1, focus only on the development and
U evaluation of source control remedial measures due to the adequacy of the data
i
base. Additionally, Table 3-2 lists several of the remedial technology
engineering design parameters that should be obtained during the remedial
investigation efforts. CCA recognizes that these source control remedial
Y alternatives are not likely to fully satisfy the overall Salem Acres remedial
3-3
- i
1
C
TABLE 3-1. PRELIMINARY LIST OF SOURCE CONTROL GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
AND ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES IDENTIFIED FOR THE
L SALEM ACRES SITE
i
F General response actionsa Associated remedial technologies
9
No actionb Monitoring/analyses
LL Containment Capping°
Suface water diversion/ Dikes/berms; chutes/downpipes;
collection terraces/benches
Removal - complete/partiald Excavationc; dredging; dewatering
17 Treatment - onsite/offsite/in-situ Incineration; solidification; land
treatment; biological, chemical,
and physical treatment
Disposal - onsite/offsite Landfills; surface impoundment
aFor all .general response actions (including "no action"), erosion
control technologies must be considered as appropriate technologies
to be implemented during the RI, and evaluated as a component of
those alternatives to be considered during the FS.
-1 bRequired to be developed and evaluated since this forms baseline against
.which all other actions are measured.
�.= cGrading and revegetation technologies also associated with capping and
excavation technologies as required for closure/post-closure of site.
[ dAir pollution control technologies, e.g. , water spraying, dust suppressants,
wind screens, are also associated with removal actions in order to eliminate
(( potential dust generation.
1'
r
- 3-4
i
i.
TABLE 3-2. INITIAL LISTING OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WASTE PARAMETERS REQUIRING
INVESTIGATION/EVALUATION AT THE SALEM ACRES SITEa
is
PH
Temperature
Bulk density
Organic matter content
f Moisture content
I
Atterberg limits
rSieve analysis
Oil and grease content
Cation exchange capacity
Heating value
` Halogen and sulfur content
Viscosity or waste form
i
Solids/ash content
i
Presence of Free Liquids
Ignitability/corrosivity/reactivity/EP toxicity
I
aCertain .ground water/surface water parameters which may require investi-
gation as engineering/technology design parameters include pH, specific
conductance, alkalinity, acidity, temperature, solids content (total
dissolved/suspended) , etc.
r
I;
` Y
,r• 3-5
i
i
- i
response objectives which will eventuallv be refined in the first step of the
�- FS. Specifically, general response actions and their associated remedial
tPchnologios for contaminant migration in gruund water and/or surface water
[' are not presented in this document. These actions must not be overlooked by
the'RI .contractor, if deemed appropriate during the progress of the RI/FS.
x
S.c.
�I
�S
3-6
I
i
I
f=
SECTION 4
DATA LIMITATIONS
f
The purpose of this section is to identify "data gape"; additional
information which remains to be identified in order to sufficiently
characterize the types and extent of contamination, the pathways of
contamination migration, and the real or potential adverse effect on
[ contaminant receptors, and to evaluate remedial technologies during the
Feasibility Study. The Remedial Investigation will be constructed to develop
the missing information to provide a comprehensive site conceptualization and
data base which will, in turn, he used during the Feasibility Study to
evaluate the need for source control and/or management of migration measures
and the alternatives. for meeting those needs.
4.1 SLUDGE/SOIL
i
The information characterizing sludge/soil conditions at the site are
currently limited to visual observations and the results of the two NUS
sampling rounds. There is not, at the present time, sufficient information to
define the physical/chemical nature of the sludge and the extent of
sludge/soil contamination at. the site, information that is necessary in the
identification, screening and implementation of remedial alternatives. As
! such, a detailed sludge/soil investigation is needed to define :
• Horizontal and vertical extent of sludge in each disposal pit.
• Stratification of grease/soil/natural cover layers in each pit.
• Horizontal and vertical extent of contamination below sludge pits.
1.
= 4-1
' � I
E
• I
• Other possible areas of contamination outside of the two fenced-in
Iv disposal areas.
• Engineering data (physical/chemical properties) of the sludge/soil
identified in Section 3 as being necessary for FS assessments.
4.2 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY
Information concerning subsurface geological conditions at Salem Acres is
currentlylimited to interpretation of existing regional-wide data.
Site-specific geological data is necessary for use in assessing ground water
flow at the site and the applicability/feasibility of remedial measures
#Y _ involving onsite treatment and/or land disposal of the contaminated
V
sludge/soil. A subsurface geology study at Salem Acres is necessary to define:
f • Subsurface lithology of overburden and bedrock
• Overburden stratification
• Overburden and bedrock hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity
• Overburden thickness
• Bedrock topography
t(t( • Extent and orientation of bedrock fracturing
l3
• Development of soil zones
4.3 GROUND WATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION
To date, there have been no hydrological investigations at the site. In
addition to not having any background ground water flow and water quality
[ data, there has been no sampling to identify the existence and concentrations
of contaminants in ground water at the site. A hydrogeological investigation
at Salem Acres is necessary in order to provide the following information:
• Ground water flow patterns in the overburden and oedrocx
• Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of saturated soils
}} _ • The distribution of contaminants in the ground water and vadose zone
4-2
I
• A prediction of ground water discharge exposure to any down gradient
L receptors and location of wells for ground water monitoring
• A determination of whether contaminant migration extends beyond the
local ground water recharge areas (surface water bodies)
• A projection of time varying concentrations of pollutants possibly
entering local discharge areas
• A determination of fate and transport characteristics of
contaminants known to exist at the site
L-
• The physical/chemical properties of the ground water, such as pH and
temperature, necessary to determine transport phenomena and
treatability studies.
` 4.4 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT/WETLANDS
Previous surface water sampling and analyses have detected heavy metals
�- in Strongwater Brook. However, there is no existing data to characterize
contaminant migration to the other surface water bodies nearby. In order to
i
i asses the extent of contaminant migration via surface water pathways, and the
effect of those pollutants -on the local- flora and fauna, a comprehensive
surface water/sediment/wetlands assessment is needed to identify the following
information:
• Transport of contaminants offsite via Strongwater Brook and
Swampscott Road Brook
�- • Extent of contaminant migration to individual wetlands areas onsite
ja Interaction between Strongwater Brook and Goldthwait Brook Basin
f aquifer
• Interaction between Swampscott Road Brook and Thompson's Meadow
aquifer
• Permeability and contaminant levels of sediments within stream beds
fof all water courses onsite and offsite
l'
• Common physical/chemical properties (pH, temperature, turbity,
hardness, etc) used to assess water quality and predict contaminant
transport mechanisms.
• A description of local ecology and the toxicological effects of j
contamination on local flora and fauna
( 4-3
I I
I
r
• A precise mapping and characterization of wetland areas
Description of functional values of wetland areas
• Floodplains assessment
• Identification of contaminant receptors and quantification of
current impacts
4.5 AIR QUALITY
To date, there have been no qualitative/quantitative studies performed to
assess possible air quality impacts from the site. As a result, the Salem
Acres Air Quality investigation needs to address the following_
• The concentration levels and areal extent of air emissions from the
Salem Acre's site
• The history of and potential for air quality problems in nearby
neighborhoods
• The possible air quality impacts that RI and FS activities may have
on onsite personnel and nearby residential population
• Detailed meteorological/climatological data necessary to conduct air
.' modeling studies
i
1.
. 4-4
w
SECTION 5
WORK SCOPE FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
GCA has developed a comprehensive work scope for the Salem Acres Remedial
Investigation. Section 5 outlines a three-phase, nine-task approach to the
planning and ultimate implementation of site-specific data gathering/analysis f
and management support activities for conducting the RI in accordance with
� current U.S. EPA, guidance. The three proposed phases of the Salem Acres RI
include :
• Phase I - Project Operations Plan
Task 1--Sampling and Analysis Plan
I
Task 2--Quality Assurance/Quality Control
- -Task 3--Health and Safety Plan
Task 4--Topographic Mapping
Task 5--Data Management Plan
• Phase II - Wetlands Assessment
Task 6--Wetlands/Floodplains Characterization
• Phase III - Data Summary and Analysis
Task 7--Site Conceptualization
Task 8--Endangerment Assessment
Task 9—Remedial Investigation Report
I
- Although the scope of work presented in Section 5 includes an extensive
discussion of the details of the actual medium-specific sampling and analysis
activities to be required of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs], many
of the subsections dealing with RI support activities (data management,
quality assurance, data reporting format, etc. ) have been written in a more
generic form which identifies the conceptual approach to be followed by the
PRP. As such, the PRP(s) and its contractors will, prior to the commencement
�= I
5-1
J
r'
of any onsite work, submit an RI implementation plan which incorporates the
L
sampling and analysis details developed by GCA with the PRP' s plans for
program management and work-task implementation. The RI implementation plan
E ' will he submitted by the PRP to the U.S. EPA for review comment and approval
prior to any invasive exploration or investigation at the site.
L_
II 5.1 PHASE I - PROJECT OPERATIONS PLAN
Before any onsite Remedial Investigation work begins at Salem Acres, a
variety of RI support activities must be addressed. The Salem Acres Project
Operations Plan (POP) will be written to identify site-specific policy and
II procedural guidelines Wit will be implemented throughout the—k17FS. The POP
will be written as a series of specific plans that will incorporate individual
iremedial activities proposed to take place onsite or in the surrounding
I.: areas. Specifically, the Salem Acres POP will include plans for:
,( • Sampling and Analysis
e Quality Assurance/Quality Control
j` • Site Health and Safety
• Topographic Mapping
l • Data Management
Sections 5. 1. 1 through 5. 1.5, which summarize the purpose and general content
of each of .the five individual plans, are based on information provided in
"Giidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA" (U.S. EPA, May 1985) and
[ other referenced U.S. EPA documents. All Phase I plans will oe submitted to
( EPA for review and approval prior to initiation of any investigation.
5.1. 1 Task 1--Sampling and Analysis Plan
A detailed, written Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be prepared
I_
before any RI sampling activities commence at the Salem Acres site. The plan,
aubject to U.S. EPA review, comment and approval will provide specific
guidance for all field work while addressing pertinent health and safety
I-. concerns and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures. In addition
to detailing the specific sampling equipment and procedures to be used in the
5-2
f
retrieval of samples from various media at both onsite and offaite locations,
S
the plan will include a procedure for notifying the U.S. EPA prior to field
! sampling activities and a discussion of the analytical methodology and
1 laboratory QA/QC plan to be implemented after the samples have been collected
1 and transported for analysis.Under Task 1, GCA proposes a program of sludge, ground water, surface
water/sediment, and air quality sampling and analyses investigations designed
to provide data that will fill the "data gaps" identified in Section 4. The
Salem Acres Sampling and Analysis Plan will incorporate the sampling details
(type, location, methodology, number, frequency, and analytes of interest)
described by GCA in Task t with other crucial elements of a sampling effort
1j such as equipment needs, drilling techniques, preservation techniques, sample
transportation modes/schedules, data documentation/management, decontamination
procedures, field team organization, and safety considerations. The Salem
I
Acres SAP will also include provisions for: 1) collection and use of sample
blanks, duplicate samples, split samples and spiked samples to satisfy QA/QC
concerns; and 2) distribution of such samples to the U.S. EPA or other parties
approved by the. U.S. EPA.-
5.1.1.1
PA.5.1.1.1 Sludge/Soil Investigation--
Disposal pit characterization--An accurate assessment of the f
confirmed waste disposal areas is necessary to characterize the
three-dimensional boundaries of the sludge pits, the stratification of
.: s'tudge/grit layers within the specific waste pits, and the vertical/horizontal
extent of contamination in the natural surface and subsurface layers
underlying the pits. The investigation into sludge/soil contamination within
the boundaries of the two fenced-in waste areas, DA-1 and DA-2, will be
conducted as follows :
• Delineation of Sludge Boundaries. The initial effort to be
undertaken with respect to contaminant source characterization will
be to define the sludge pit/natural soil interface in order to
estimate the dimensions and locations of the sludge pita and to
approximate the volume of sludge held within each pit. At a
minimum, the contractor will establish a three-dimensional profile
of sludge disposal within DA-1 and DA-2. Using scaled base maps
(generated in Task 4) , the disposal areas will be marked off in grid
fashion with a 60-foot maximum lateral spacing as illustrated in
Figure 5-1. Continuous 2-foot split-spoon samples will be taken at
j 5-3
t
—WASTE DISPOSAL
60• AREA
so'
F
BORING LOCATIONS
I�I
Figure 5-1. Disposal area grid system.
i
i
every grid point within the disposal areas. Boring will continue to
a depth at which the sludge/natural soil interface is encountered.
The boring team will record all changes of strata, all details
concerning sludge appearance, and other pertinent observations in
field log books. The operating procedures for this task and the
criteria used to identify the sludge/natural soil interface are to
be included in the Salem Acres SAP.
L: Based on the results of the boring effort, the contractor will
prepare a three-dimensional map for each disposal area (DA-1 and
rDA-2) that identifies the number and location of individual sludge
f' pits within the disposal area and the vertical and horizontal
boundaries of these pits. The map will also identify any
stratification of layers within each pit. Finally, the contractor
will estimate the total volume of sludge material held in the
r ' disposal areas.
w
• Sludge/Soil Collection and Analysis. Following the'4ir`aineation of
sludge pit boundaries, borings will be drilled in locations that are
5=, representative of the maximum sludge depth within individual pits.
` The contractor will drill at least one boring per identified sludge
lT pit, but not less than a total of four borings per disposal area.
Each boring will be advanced through the sludge and overburden
layers to bedrock. Detailed logs are to be recorded by a qualified
s_v geologist. For each boring, composite sludge samples are to be
taken over the entire.depth of the sludge layer and continuous
overburden samples are to be collected using a 2-foot split-spoon
f sampler. All drilling shall follow ASTM Standard Method D-1586-67.
The sludge and overburden samples are to be field screened for
volatile organics using an OVA or similar instrument and the values
will be recorded in field log books. Borings will be advanced a
method deemed appropriate by the driller such that leakage and cross
contamination of the sludge/overburden layers does not occur. The
exact drilling method to be used will be developed by the contracto{
in conjunction with the driller and submitted to the U.S. EPA for
review, comment and approval.
Sludge and soil samples will be collected, preserved, shipped and
analyzed according to approved protocols.
Each sludge and soil sample will be analyzed for all compounds
listed on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List which includes heavy
metals, volatile organics, extractable organics, polychlorinated
bi-phenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and EP Toxicity. A complete listing
_. of the analytes of interest is presented in Appendix A. In
addition, the sludge samples are to undergo analysis for the
physical/chemical properties listed in Table 3-2, including:
temperature, bulk density, organic matter content, moisture content,
=- Atterburg limits, sieve analysis, oil and grease content, cation
exchange capacity, heating ng value, halogen and sulfur content,
5-5
viscosity, solids/ash content, ignitability, corrosivity and
reactivity. All analyses are to be conducted using approved U.S.
EPA methodology.
Other sources/areas of contamination--In addition to characterizing the
nature and extent of contamination within the two recognized waste disposal
areae, the RI moat also define the extent of soil contamination resulting from
migration of contaminants (caused by drainage runoff, breeched dikes, etc.)
from DA-1 and DA-2 to surrounding areas and investigate the possibility that
there are other areas within the Salem Acres property boundaries that received
!((! hazardous wastes. Therefore, the contractor will conduct a thorough analysis
of additional hazardous waste disposal activities. This effort will, at a
minimum, include a detailed study of existing aerial photographs of the
property and a comprehensive walk-over of the entire property to identify
significant earth-moving activities, vegetative stress, odors, or other
unusual signs that may indicate hazardous waste disposal activities. The
survey is to include a description and tentative identification of solid waste
mounds scattered about the property. All areas of probable hazardous/solid
waste disposal activities will be noted on a map, and submitted to the U.S. EPA
I ^ . for review and comment. -
U.S. EPA aerial photography of the site (compiled in 1984) suggests
significant earth-moving and possible landfilling activities in areas north
and south of DA-1. In order to more adequately assess the extent of soil
contamination in these and other areas outside of the two waste disposal
areas, the contractor will initiate an extensive shallow soil investigation.
The soil investigation, which is to include two areas east of DA-2 that may
i
have been subjected to contaminated runoff or seepage from the topographically
i
i
upgradient DA-2, can be effectively accomplished by means of backhoe trenchpat
1_ excavation and/or hand-operated sampling augers, whichever is more feasible
based on site conditions. Test borings shall be utilized if the vertical
i
extent of sludge cannot be defined with backhoe. Additional trenchpits/
borings will be advanced in areas tentatively identified in the site walkover
as having received hazardous waste. If backhoe trench excavation is employed,
the contractor will excavate overburden, if possible, to a 10-foot depth.
Six-inch soil samples will be collected from the walls of the pit at 2-foot
intervals, at changes of strata, and/or from visibly contaminated soil. 1f
S-6
� i
( hand-operated sampling augers are used, corings are to be advanced to refusal
L_
with samples collected at 2-foot intervals, changes of strata, and/or from
visibly contaminated soil.
The contractor will advance a sufficient number of test pita/borings in
the areas designated SL-1, SL-2, and SL-3 on Figure 5-2, starting excavation
and sampling in those sections closest to DA-1 or DA-2 and progressing outward
away from the pits. Excavation and sampling in those areas will continue
until no contaminants are detected. The locations for trenches/borings will
take into account the soil samples collected as part of the ground water
monitoring well installation activities described in Section 5. 1.1.2. In
jX't SL-4, the contractor will advance at least three test pita/borings to identify
s
the Presence of landfilled materials in that area. Volatile organic levels
> _ will be continuously monitored by means of an OVA. All observations and OVA
data are to be entered in the field logs books. The samples will be collected
according to the Salem Acres SAP and analyzed for all Hazardous Substance List
pollutants listed in Appendix A. The analytical results from this soil
sampling round will be used by the contractor in conjunction with the soil
° -- samples gathered during the Hydrogeological Investigation (Section 5. 1.1.2) to
1 LL develop a baseline map delineating the horizontal and vertical extent of soil
` contamination at the site.- --- ---- - - -
5.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation--
Due to the insufficient data base pertaining to the hydrogeology at .
the Salem Acres site, a hydrogeologic investigation is warranted. GCA
recommends a two-stage approach. The Stage I investigation will include a
drilling and monitoring well installation task which will provide the
necessary geologic and hydrologic information to assess subsurface movement of
ground water and to further delineate potential receptors. In addition a
chemical analysis of ground water will be conducted to allow for the
assessment of contaminant distribution in the subsurface horizons. This
investigation will determine hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface
horizons such as highly transmissive aquifer zones or aquitards. Information
such as this will aid in determining the possibility of contaminant migration
p,:fpto potential receptors.
Ffi�Tx�
5-7
S
77,
i k... l $ -.._.,i. ! i,. C ,p _I I., m''GI• . . f`-77711� {K i G., t.ti 1'
�.:.,
gyp' 1 .}AtMw
L E C E N D LANOF ILL TO STRONGWATER BROOK
XXXXX FENCE . .
DIRT ACCESS ROAD
® SLUDGE PIT
IIETLAND 0
DA•I DISPOSAL AREA /1 ��@ •�
0 SL-2
[WA-1] WETLAND 01 e3
—P FLOW DIRECTION Qp@ POND
�•
WA-2 t WA-3
CULVERT 0 1 i' rM I
s xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WA-4 ,I' �
ACCESS GATE . ,� R. ' �h X x% I >04
SL - SOIL SAMPLING AREAS ' � x
x ®x
xxxzxxxxxzxxx x x ;
Mr/ x xx a x , ;
z x 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x .
li X X x jI x RESIDENTIAL
x x x%%%%%, , AREA
X DA- I X WA-5
x x
lYL I x xe�
x x
' x x SL-3.
x � x
zxxxxxxxxxxxx x
WA-S
a1JV
BARCELONA f I
AVENUE
TO SWAMPSCOTT
LANOFILL ROAD BROOK
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5-2. Soil sampling locations.
If• the information gathered during this stage illustrates that
I` ground water contamination exists and has migrated offsite, or if additional
information is needed to more adequately characterize ground water flow and
C' subsurface contaminant distribution, a more in-depth Stage II study may be
required. The Stage II hydrogeologic investigation may consist of the
installation of additional wells located at increasingly greater distances
from the site in the direction of ground water flow observed in the Stage I
study.
I
� M Subsurface borings--The Stage I subsurface boring and monitoring well
r
installation program will be implemented at the Salem Acres site to provide:
All _ ( 1) hvdrogeologic data concerning the movement of water in the=smsaturated and
saturated zones, and (2) soil and ground water samples for chemical analyses.
Seven onsite locations (see Figure 5-4) have been chosen for Stage I borings
with each location consisting of.nested wells with one well open in the
bedrock and the other opened in overburden Cif enough overburden is present).
In bedrock, nominal (3-inch O.D.) width casing will be spun into the bedrock
and serve as the riser pipe. -
� :_- Borings will be four-inches in diameter and advanced using rotary
drilling methods. Rotary drilling methods involve driving or spinning, if
necessary, 5-foot lengths of standard 4-inch (NX) width steel casing, and
washing out the material to the bottom of the casing with a 3-inch roller bit
to the desired sampling depth. The casing will be driven in 5-foot
increments, with representative samples taken at 2-foot increments. Washings
should be -done with water. Wash water shall not be recirculated at any time
during drilling. At locations presented in Figure 5-3, the subcontractor
shall take continuous rock core samples by means of a diamond drill, as
described in ASTM-D-2113-7U (1976) to a minimum of 2U feet into rock. Soft
or decomposed rock shall be sampled whenever possible. The drilling into rock
shall be done with a double-core barrel and side discharge diamond bit which
will produces two and one-eighth inch diamond core from the rock penetrated.
# It is crucial that care be taken to not allow downward movement of
fes:
contaminated surface soil that would cause subsurface soils to become
contaminated. Drilling bite and stems should be steam cleaned prior to
AtWV proceeding to a new boring location.
I 5-9
z�
��R
i _ v l lv tJ II .....i 'v :c i. .y ..__ _: 9 f '. y ..'em. I, I wi( .1 � Lt• � �NY .� J •� .�i i�l�i �
L E C E N D TO STRONGWATER BROOK
.i xxxx% FENCE -
DIRT ACCESS ROM -
SLUDGE PIT ep0 -
µuy WETLAND 9
DA-1 DISPOSAL AREA Al Plvp y6 •,•
RI VETLAND #1 �p3 IL j-
-r~ FLAW DIRECTION PO _ POND
WA-2 WA-3
i—� CULVERT MW-4 WA-4 yWc
xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xJ
ACCESS CATE ®MW-3 % x ® , Y"
!94 - MONITORING; WELL X X f
xxxxxxxxxxxxx x x
x � x x x
® % X xY DA' 2 % I
y%
MW x X 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxexxxxxx
x
x x x
1... x X % X4 RESIDENTIAL
O MW-? x ' x MW-6 x AREA 4..
® x DA-1 x ® ® WA-5
x X MW-5
XX
x x
x W/ x
Mw® xxxxxxxxxxxxxz '
WA-1
JV WAG
BARCELONI
AVENUE
TO SWAMPSCOTT
ROAD BROOK
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5-3. Ground water monitoring well locations.
u. -
t
Two-foot split-spoon samples will be taken according to ASTM D-1586-67 f
�- procedures at the surface and at 2-foot intervals in the overburden.
Immediately after opening the spoon, the sample will be screened using an OVA
i
or equivalent instrument. One 40-mL septum will be partially filled for
headspace analysis. If this initial survey reading indicates elevated levels
1
of contamination, a chromatogram will be obtained and recorded on a strip i
chart recorder. Spoon samples will be preserved in a wide mouth glass jar.
One sample will be obtained for
D possible laboratory analysis and another will
see be preserved for physical properties analyses. Split-spoon soil sample
processing should assure that the samples for VOC analysis are processed first
` to minimize loss of volatiles Allowance should also be made for obtaining f
additional samples for USS. EPA, if requested. The split-spo! e sampling
' device will conform to ASTM-D1586-67 procedures and the number of blow counts
to achieve spoon penetration will be recorded by the geologist.
1 The borehole will be logged. by a qualified geologist or geotechnical
engineer. Field observations including soil classification, color, moisture
content foreign matter content and any problems encountered during drilling or
_. sampling will be documented. The boring logs are to be presented in the final
RI "report.
Particle size analyses will be conducted on the overburden material. A
f -
sufficient amount of grain size analyses will be conducted according to
('.. ASTM-D422-63 procedures to adequately characterize subsurface strata. It is
expected that grain size analyses will be done at least once in each boring
location and additionally to assess strata changes or as specified by the
geologist .or geotechnical engineer.
The bedrock type should be determined by analyzing bedrock outcrops and
l _
bedrock cores and performing a literature search. This should also include an
assessment of degree of folding, faulting, fracturing, jointing, and
weathering.
The degree of bedrock fracturing is important in assessing whether or not
C contaminant transport exists in this medium. Bedrock mapping to measure the
orientation and dip of fractures will be conducted. This exercise will
include mapping onsite bedrock outcrops and determining fracture
- orientations. The mapping of bedrock in the vicinity of the pits is of
mi
primary importance. The mapping of additional outcrops onsite will serve to
5-11
f{
aid in the mapping of the bedrock at the pits. This information can then be
plotted on a map to assess preferred orientations. In addition to the
fracture mapping, seven borings will be conducted into bedrock to a minimum
depth of 20 feet. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Method will be performed
on the cores removed to aid in determining the degree of fracturing.
Information on the amount of drillwater lost during drilling, as well as
drilling rate, should also be collected. Once all of the fracture analyses
data has been compiled, it will be assessed if the degree of bedrock
fracturing has been adequately characterized and the ground water movement
within the fractures is understood. If the data are found to be incomplete
further borings and geophysical techniques may be implemented during a second
phase of investigation.
A bedrock contour map will also be produced for the site. Information
from the six borings along with surveyed bedrock outcrop elevations should
provide enough information to adequately prepare such a map. Producing a
bedrock contour map will greatly aid in determining local ground water
movement because ground water may travel along the bedrock overburden
interface.
A map which incorporates bedrock outcrop locations, contacts between
varying bedrock types, fracture orientations, and any other definable bedrock
structures should be developed. In an effort to better assess RI/FS goals,
accurate geologic cross-sections will be prepared. These cross-sections will
provide a graphic display of subsurface geology, as well as ground water
movement in the vertical direction. Additionally, cross-sections will
illustrate topography which controls the ground water flow at the site. These
cross-sections should incorporate all overburden and rock core field
descriptions, as well as site maps. bedrock outcrop data, and literature
research. Cross-sections should also be developed in the field for
identification purposes during drilling activities.
Monitoring well installation—Ap
. proximately 14 monitoring wells will be
installed during Stage I in seven locations as previously shown in
Figure 5-3. The boreholes drilled will be converted into monitoring wells.
The wells will be nested with one well being screened in the overburden and
the other being open in the bedrock.
5-12
The wells will be nominal 2-inch diameter (1.5 inch in bedrock wells) and
all well components (i.e., casing and screens) below the saturated zone will
be constructed of PVC. Well construction materials above the saturated zone
can consist of steel or PVC. If plastic pipe sections are used, glues and
solvents shall not be used to connect the pipes due to the possibility of
exposing sampled water to contaminants. All screens and casings p g will be steam
cleaned prior to installation to ensure the removal of oils, greases, and
waxes. The screens will be constructed of PVC and will have a slot size of
O.Ol .inch (No. 10 slot size). The screen length in overburden will be no more
than 10 feet in length. The top of the screen should intersect the water
$ table allowing adequate length above the existing water table for seasonal
" water table fluctuations. The bottom of the screen should rest on the top of
the'Sedrock. If the saturated thickness is greater than 10 feel; two
overburden wells will be installed at that location; one screened through the
`` water table and the other screened above the bedrock/overburden interface.
t.'
The screens will be encased in a gravel pack, composed of Morie No. O
sand or equivalent (>1.0 mm grain size), which shall be placed 2 feet above
the perforated interval. The annular space immediately above the gravel pack
shall be filled with betonite at a thickness of at least 2 feetw The
i
remaining annular space should be grouted with a suitable mix of betonite
concrete and extend to within. l_foot of-the ground surface for both overburden
and observation wells. A cement seal will be installed and extend into the
annular space in the borehole approximately 1 foot. The cement seal shall '
extend above the ground surface approximately 4 inches and will slope away
-from the guard pipe to prevent surface water. from collecting around the well.
For the bedrock wells, the bentonite seal will be placed in an area that
� - willrevent the migration of overburden
p g ground water down the annulus of the
bedrock hole. A steel protective cap with locks will be placed around the
borehole and held in place by the cement. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 represent the
general design for a monitoring well in the overburden and bedrock.
Once well construction has been completed the wells will be purged of all
water which may have been affected by well installation. A successful purge
tmay involve pumping the well dry. After the wells have been purged, they
t6_
should be developed through backwashing or other approved method. The wells
5-13
i
�1
PROTECTIVE, VENTED, LOCKING CAP
_ THREACED ONTO SURFACE CASING -
HEIGHT OF TOP OF SURFACE CASING/ - - - - - .
„ r r
WELL CASING ABOVE GROUND SURFACE _ 2_0'
o^ G
ItV' d='_led vent hole
DEPTH OF SURFACE SEAL BELOW GROUND SURFACS 1,01
/. �i l•i.tl l
ty.a C?-J i TYPE OF SURFACE SEAL: .cnnocPtp
Ii
I.D. OF SURFACE CASING 6" (SW casing)
TYPE OF SURFACE CASING: steel � -
P.
c BOitOM OF SURFACE CASING BELOW GROUND '.... _ -
1 5:0
I.D. OF LSA ??=: 2.0" - -
TYPE 0FZ5E3 ?*_E: PVC schedule 80
. Ii(PE CF SEAL .•aF:D T'r.!CYN ESS: bentonite oelie=s(1' min.)
_ T�—� DEPTH OF TOP OF GRAVEL PACK BELOW GROU;JO SUBAGE
e I TYPE OF GRAVE: PACK: Morie No. 0 sand
_ >?_ O_ -_ :=: cement/bentonite .grout
1 I c I DIAMETER OF BOREHOLE 4"
TOP OF SCREENED SECTION 't
TYPE OF SCREEN: ?vC
TYPE OF PERFORATIONS: No. 10. slot
I.D. OF SCREEN ?.0
DEPTH OF 3OtTOM OF SCREENED SECTION
LENGTH OF BLANK SECTI0N 1'
' DEPTH OF BOTTOM OF PLUGGED BLANK SECTION
TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE
* determined by geohydrologist in the field
4 Figure 5-4. General design of monitoring well in overburden.
5-14
i
I
PROTECTIVE, VENTED, LOCKING CAP
THREADED ONTO SURFACE CASING
HEIGHT OF TOP OF SURFACE CASING/ j
WELL CASING ABOVE GROUND SURFACE 2_0'
t/G" drilled vent hole
o • �,� t� DEPTH OF SURFACE SEAL BELOW GROUND SURFACE 1:0' '
TYPE OF SURFACE SEAL: concrEte
I.D. OF SURFACE CASING --. - - 6"(SW casing)
TYRE Of SURFACE CASING: steel
r�r I
o0 tq�
[� - BOTTOM OF SURFACE CASING BELOW GROUND 5.0'
I.D. OF RISZR PIPE: 1.5"
TYPE OF RISER-PIPE.: PVC Schedule 80 ��
TYPE OF SELI AtM THICKNESS:, bentonite Pellets (1' min)
1
DEPTH Of TDP OF GRAVEL PAC-- BELOW GROL:O SURAL_
-- TYPE of GRAVEL PACK: Morse No.- 0 Sand
11 _ cement/bentonite grout
DIAMETER Or SOREHOL= NX
• �+—�— DEPTH OF TOP OF SCREENED SECTION 5 ft below rock
TYPE OF SCREEN: PVC -
TYPE OF PERFORATIONS: No. 10 slot
I.D. OF SCREEN 1.5"
-_ DEPTH OF BOTTOM OF SCREENED SECTION
{1 1'
I - _ LENGTH Of 4—IjOM OFFLPLUG
DEPTH OF BOTTDM OF (LUGGED BLANK S'uT10N -
�� TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE
[ - * determined by geohydrologist in the field-
Figure 5-5. General design of monitoring well in bedrock.
5-15
i
I
must be developed such that no purged water is introduced into the wells. The
well water in the' developed wells must be essentially sand free and should
have a stable conductivity. Any downhole well development equipment must be
new and unused or steam cleaned
prior to its insertion into the well.
In order to accurately evaluate ground water elevations, the installed
monitoring wells will be surveyed and their elevations established to an
accuracy of 0. 1 feet with respect to the temporary bench marks (datum MSL).
_= These wells will then be drawn onto the site base maps.
In situ permeability tests will be conducted for both the bedrock and
overburden wells once they have been completed. This will be accomplished by
performing a slug test at each well. GCA recommends the slug test method by
Hvorslev (1951). Generally, this test consists of introducing a known volume
of water into the' well and monitoring the piezometric head decline (drawdown)
with time. These time-drawdown data are then plotted on semi-logarithmic I
paper to determine a representative time lag. The time lag along with the
well radius and screen length are inserted into an equation to obtain the
hydraulic conductivity of the media surrounding the well screen.
Ground Water Sampling and Analysis--The ground water monitoring wells
previously discussed will be sampled and analyzed to support an assessment of
ground water contamination. This will allow an assessment of the impact of
ground water contamination on known receptors. Many of these data will be
i
used in the risk assessment and exposure assessment which will be conducted
�- during the RI/FS.
. Ground water samples from the 14 wells will be taken on two different
occasions during a 1 year period. One sampling round will be conducted during
a high flow period (e.g., spring months) while the other will be conducted
during a low flow period (e.g. , late summer months). This method of sampling
may allow for correlations to be made concerning seasonal fluctuations in
contaminant concentrations due to dilution and other attenuating factors j
caused by varying recharge rates.
Yiezometric head (water level) measurements will be taken monthly for a
' one year period utilizing a method which will allow for accuracy to be within
1
0.01 feet. These water level elevations will be used to prepare two separate
sets of ground water contour maps. One map set will consist of measurements
5-16
taken during a high- flow period, presumably during the spring months, while
the other will consist of measurements taken during a low flow period such as
( late summer. Each map set should include a ground water contour map for both
t. the bedrock and the overburden. These maps coupled with concentration
patterns will aid in the determination of contaminant distribution and
movement in the vicinity of the Salem Acres site.
Prior to obtaining a ground water sample, the well will be sufficiently
purged to ensure that an accurate and representative ground water sample is
attained. . Purged water which is removed from the wells will be stored in
drums and analyzed 1) in the field with an OVA for initial screening and 2) in
Dq�F y'
the laboratory for hazardous substance list metals. If elevated levels of
} contamination are found in the purged water, it must then be handled in
tl accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Purged
water and purging equipment must not be allowed to come into contact with
surrounding soils, thus eliminating the possibility of soil contamination.
Purging equipment must be properly decontaminated prior to insertion into a
9^ new well. Purging equipment. sampling equipment and all other materials which
come in contact with the sampling media must be constructed of teflon or '
{ stainless steel.
After purging, sample withdrawal should be performed in a manner such
that the sample is -representative of the formation and does not physically or
f . chemically alter the contaminated sample. Positive displacement bladder pumps
o and bottom valve bailers are considered the preferred sampling methods.
Proper sample preservation and handling procedures are crucial factors in
obtaining accurate sample analysis. Various -constituents require different
handling methods. The contractor should refer to SW-846 for the approved
U.S. EPA procedures. The contractor should also prepare a trip blank and
equipment blank to ensure sample handling does not affect the analytical
results. Laboratory standards and spikes should also be prepared and analyzed
for quality control purposes. Arrangements should be made such that an
enforcement official is in the field during sampling to ensure that proper
procedures are followed.
.hj All ground water samples will be analyzed for all Hazardous Substance
A List heavy metals. Each well will additionally be sampled for HSL volatile
rorganic compounds and will include characterizing, and quantifying the ten
5-17
t;
next largest peaks. In addition to the above listed parameters, wells MW-2
and MW-4 will be analyzed for Hazardous Substance List extractable organic
compounds.
5. 1. 1.3 Surface Water/Sediment Investigation--
EThe purpose of the Salem Acres Surface Water/Sediment Investigation is to
determine the nature and extent of contaminant migration to the numerous
surface water bodies and wetlands areas that surround the western, northern
and eastern sides of the disposal areas. There is concern that storm water
frunoff and/or seepage through either the sludge pit embankments or the unlined
l?'
pit surface has resulted in contaminant migration to surface and subsurface
water systems associated with the site. The surface water/sediment
investigation will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will
incorporate the collection and analysis of a number of surface water and
sediment samples with rigorous wetlands/biota study. It is anticipated that
Stage I will result in a complete description of the types, levels, and
migratory extent of contaminants in the surface water system and the potential
effects that contamination has on the plant and animal life indigenous to the
�I
Salem Acres location. If the Stage I evaluation identifies possible offsite
contamination via Strongwater Brook or the Swampscott Road brook, a Stage II
study will be required to enlarge the study of concern.
Surface water samples are to be collected at the 11 locations noted in
Figure 5-6. Surface water samples SW-1 and SW-2 are located just west of DA-1
to determine if contaminants have been transmitted to WA-1 via surface water
runoff or seeps through the earthen embankment which runs between DA-1 and the
wetland Area W-1 is a discharge area which drains in the direction of
Stronzwater Brook to the northeast. SW-3 is located to determine if, in fact,
there has been contaminant flow away from Strongwater Brook and to obtain a
background sample. SW-4, SW-5, and SW-6 have been placed to measure the
possible flow of contaminants into Strongwater Brook and the northerly extent
i
of those pollutants. Comparisons between SW-4, SW-5 and SW-6 will give an
estimate of the contaminant attenuation capacity of WA-2. SW-6 will indicate
if contaminants are leaving the Strongwater Brook wetland and flowigq
northeast towards the North River. SW-7 has been located on the western aide
of the small, unnamed pond WA-4, located between DA-2 and the residential
5-18
w^ ; w�A
I �
L E G E N D
' TO STR4NSWATER BROOK
xxxxx FLNCE FL-2 _
DIRT ACCESS ROAD SW-6
SLUDGE PIT SS-6
WETLAND DOS 1
DA•I DISPOSAL AREA 111
-h 1 WETLAND Al A,? SS-5
—a- FLOW DIRECTION
CULVERT Or SW-7 POND
Q' SS-T W4.3
Ak ACCESS GATE y1 WA-2
W A 4 V
xxxx xzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SS- SEDIMENT SAMPLE SW-4 X `�Gl� x 1 .
55-4
SN- SURFACE IJATER SAMPLE FL-1 X X SW-9
• XX%%XX%XXxX%% x x SS-9 Sw•6
IL.- F1.01/ MEASUREMENT x x x X SS-8
x , x z DA- 2 x
Ln V x X x X
�o
® X x kxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x
SW-3 SW-2 x % % x RESIDENTIAL
®SS-S SS-2 X x xXXXXXXK AREA
X DA- 1 X FL-3� WA-5
X % SW-IO
V"� P X % SS-10
x ®/ X
® xxxxxXxxxxXxx x4'
SW-I
SS-1
>�
Q
WA 6
t
BARCELONA SW-11
AVENUE {` SS-II
FL-4 r
TOSWAMPSOOTT
NOT TO SCALE
ROAD BROOK
Figure 5-6. Surface Water/sediment sampling locations.
1
� neighborhood to the OAaC to evaluate contaminant migration from the northeast
portion of DA-2. 'SW-8 will be drawn from the wetland adjacent to Verdon
Street, WA-3, which flows into the unnamed pond. SW-8 is also intended to
serve as a background sample that will eliminate the Verdon Street wetland as
a potential contaminant source/pathway. SW-9 is located in the unnamed pond '
-= and SW-10 and SW-ll are located at the in-flow and out-flow of WA-b, the
wetland southeast of DA-2. Samples from SW-10 will determine the flow of
contaminants from DA-2 to the southeast wetland and SW-11 will determine the
level of contaminants leaving the immediate site area and migrating into the
Swampscott Road brook and towards Thompson' s Meadow. Sediment samples will
_ also be taken at locations SS-1 through SS-11.
ffThe surface water and sediments samples are to be collected during
l
- periods of high and low flow. The high and low flow periods will be
determined using average daily rainfall data from the USES. Stream flow rates
i
will he taken during the sampling exercises at the locations also shown on
Figure 5-6. The procedure used will be either stream gauging using a pigmy
current meter or stage recording using a control structure such as a weir.
The surface water samples are to be collected consistent ,with approved
U.S. EPA water sampling methodology. Each surface water sample will be
analyzed for all Hazardous Substance List constituents.
The sediment samples will undergo sieve and hydrometer particle size
analysis according to ASTM D422-63 procedures. The samples will be analyzed
i
( for Hazardous Substance List heavy metals and extractable organics. No
is volatile organic analysis will be required for sediment samples.
5. 1. 1.4 Air Quality Investigation--
The goals of the Salem Acres Air Quality Investigation are to:
E . 1) develop an onsite air quality monitoring program that will be used to
determine the level of respiratory protection required to protect worker
health and safety during RI activities and 2) determine if significant levels
,I
of airborne contaminants are being transported off the site to the heavily
I
5-20 '
�` I
_ ------_
(` pnp.11Ate_d residential and business areas located near the Salem Acres site.
GCA has developed a two-stage approach to the Salem Acres Air Quality
Investigation which takes into account the following conditions/assumptions:
` I
1. The primary contaminants of risk at the site are extractable
[. organics, heavy metals, and PCBs, which are non-volatile and will
tend to remain bound in soil/sludge.
[ 2. There are volatile organic compounds .present in the sludge, but the
i
levels do not appear to be elevated. OVA (HNu) readings taken by
NUS during the 1983 Site Investigation detected VUC levels of
1 to 2 ppm in the immediate area of the sludge pits. .
3. The limited analytical and OVA data, at this time, do not suggest
the need for pny offsite air sampling/air modeling.—.
I - Before any onsite work activity commences, the contractor will prepare a
detailed Stage I and Stage II plan that will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for
' review, comment and approval. The Stage I plan will include a description of
the air sampling equipment and methods that will be used for onsite air
monitoring and an identification of the contaminant levels of concern that
will be used to warrant levels of worker protection and/or a Stage II
[rinvestigation.
s
Stage I Air Investigation--The primary function of Stage I will be to
develop a detailed onsite monitoringto support program P g health and safety
decisions related to levels of respiration protection for onsite workers. The
program will emphasize the rapid detection of VOCs using portable air sampling
instrumentation such as photoionization detectors (PIOs) and flame ionization
! .— detectors (FIDs). Such instruments are to be used continually throughout the
performance of all field activities to screen for total volatile organic
[' levels. The instruments are to be equipped with gas chromatographs (GCs), so
that the instruments can be used to identify and quantify individual compounds
when initial screening indicates significant levels of volatile emissions
which could impact onsite workers or the general population in the nearby
residential and business neighborhoods.
In conjunction with the site Health and Safety Plan (Task 4), the
contractor will prepare a guideline system of specific VUC concentration
(: levels ("action levels") that will be used to dictate the level of respiratory
Protection and protective clothing to be used by onsite workers. The action
5-21
ii
levels are to based on the most current U.S. EPA guidelines for actions at a
Superfund site, as well as any other applicable state or Federal standards.
` In addition to VOC detection, the contractor must address measures to
( evaluate particulate (dust) emission from the site. The use of particulate
filter cartridges on respirator masks, as well as dust suppression techniques
�- (watering dry areas) should be considered.
To carry out the onsite monitoring program, the contractor will conduct
VOC monitoring in the immediate work areas on a continual basis, and along the
perimeter of the waste site on an hourly basis during all onsite wore
activities. Air quality monitoring data are to be recorded in field log booes
' '. and reviewed continuously to support decisions concerning worker protection. (.
If the perimeter survey indicates that significant levels of VOCs, are moving
�. offsite in the direction of the nearby residential neighborhoods, the Stage II
i
investigation should be considered.
A secondary function of the Stage I investigation will be to establish a
general characterization of the past or present air quality problems
attributed to emissions from the site. A review of Federal, state and local
air quality and/or health records may provide enough information (previous
baseline studies, chronic air quality complaints, etc.) to justify the need
for an extensive air characterization of the site and surrounding area. The
collected background data will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for review,
;w comment and possible Stage 11 requests.
i
_ I
Stage II Air Investigation--The Stage II investigation will, if required,
_ focus on determining the extent and health impacts of airborne contaminant
migration from Salem Acres into the nearby residential and business
' I
neighborhoods. The Stage II program may consist of the installation of
ipermanent air monitoring stations about the perimeter of the site and,
I ,
possibly, in affected downwind areas. The specifics of such a program will be
developed by the contractor and U.S. EPA Region I as conditions warrant.
I
r 5-22
i--
I
I
5. 1.2 Task 2--Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
t_
I
The NCP requires that every environmental monitoring and measurement
project mandated or supported through U.S. EPA regulations must have a written
and approved Quality Assurance/Quality Control Project Plan. A QA/QC Project
Plan is a written document which describes, in detail, the objectives,
policies, procedures and specifications which will be used to document and
report the precision accuracy, and completeness of environmental
measurements. In support of that policy, U.S. EPA developed a guidance
document entitled "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
�,41,` Assurance Project Plans" ( AMS-005/80) which describes the 16 basic elements
of a QA/QC plan. The Salem Acres QA/QC Project Plan must be developed by the
� ' - RI contractor according 'to the 16-point plan and approved by t.5. EPA prior to
commencement of work. The 16 components of the QA/QC plan, as identified in
�> QAMS-005/800, are:
1. _ Title Page with provision approval signatures
.2. Table of Contents _
- 3. Project Description
4. Project Organization and Responsibility- .
i;
5. QA objectives for Measurement Data in Terms of Precision, Accuracy,
Completeness, Representativeness, and Comparability
6. Sampling Procedures
7. ' Sampling Custody
8. Calibration Procedures and Frequency
9. Analytical Procedures
10. Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting
�• 11. Internal Quality Control Checks
12. Performance and System Audits
13. Preventive Maintenance
5-23
IF
j -
14. Specific Routine Procedures Used to Assess Data Precision, Accuracy
and Completeness
15. Corrective Actions
{` 16. Quality Assurance Reports to Management
L Each of the 16 elements are described in detail in the QAMS 005/dUU document.
All activities at the Salem Acres site are to be conducted in a manner
iconsistent with the U.S. EPA approved Salem Acres QA/QC Project Plan.
In addition to a site-specific QA/QC concerns, the Salem Acres QA/QC
� . Project Plan will include a QA/QC Plan prepared by any laboratory performing
analytical work for the project. If a private laboratory is used by the P"'s
contractors, that laboratory will be duly certified and familiar with all
applicable EPA laboratoryy
QA/QC requirements and methods of analysis.
i
i
�? 5. 1.3 Task 37--Health and Safety Plan
The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan (HSP) is to establish
'-` procedures and guidelines for protecting the health and safety of onsite
workers and the community-at-large. The Salem Acres NSP must be developed by
the RI contractor and will contain safety information, instructions and
procedures to ensure compliance with all applicable State and Federal
occupational heath and safety regulations. The NSP, which is subject to U.b.
EPA review, commPnt and approval, will be a written plan that will be
di-stributed, studied and discussed with all workers before site activities
begin.. The information detailed in the Salem Acres HSP will, at a minimum:
• establish policy and procedures to control site access,
� - • describe the known/potential hazards and evaluate the risks
associated with each RI task to be conducted,
i
i
• list key personnel and alternates responsible for site safety, site
operations and protection of the public,
i
• provide a basis for discussions to be made concerning the levels of
protective clothing and respiratory protection to be worn by site
- personnel,
• delineate work areas including exclusion zones, decontamination
area, etc. ,
5-24
f
• establish- policy and procedures to control site access,
• describe decontaminationrocedures for
p personnel and equipment,
s establish site emergency procedures, including communication with
outside agencies such as local police, fire and health departments,
• address emergency medical care issues and identify transportation
routes to nearest local hospital,
• describe requirements for an environmental surveillance program,
I" • specify any routine and special training required for site workers,
f and
t.: • establish procedures for protecting workers from weather related i
problems.
In addition, the HSP will discuss the need for, and draft plana to, implement
a comprehensive medical surveillance program for onsite workers.
5. 1.4 Task 4--Topographic Base Map
A topographic base map will -6e prepared for the Salem Acres site. � The
rr base map will delineate applicable--property boundaries which will oe used in
14_
gaining access and right of entryfor any subsequent subsurface investigation
and/or monitoring purposes. A topographic survey will also be conducted
during base map preparation. This map is necessary because no maps of the
type exist for this site. The topographic base map will be used during the i
remedial investigation and feasibility study for this site. The map will aid
in. determining the horizontal and vertical locations of waste areas,
monitoring well installation and surface water sampling locations, and in
facilitating the preparation of ground water and bedrock contour maps.
` A survey crew will mark in the field those boundaries which are necessary
in order to determine access to the site, the locations of disposal areas, and
contaminant migration with respect to property boundaries.
Site topography will be mapped using aerial photography with proper
horizontal and vertical ground control which will be established by an
approved subcontractor (see Figure 5-7 for area to be mapped). A permanent
I(V_ benchmark for vertical and horizontal control will also be established and i
tied into the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The site will be flown
in suitable weather and visibility. Specific flight parameters such as speed,
5-25
I
9 p •
,y co J I
Q o PEABODY
\.
on], i
r /
:= _
_Ire ra
I
nal •. 1 �� e i
ler o.
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
BOUNDARY ..
*\r4 - 'Vc x x t
WASTEARDISAPOSAL
;. �.\(�� �\� : � �� ,f,'.1�� '4;- fe T''bkk) \ � Vt Lt_.\\�{s .'^• q�`�\_ i.
1.� 1
= IINOEM a / ..��Ilf\�/� \ l, Y`v I III �I 1• f `� t. C
`Z �4 PROPERTY BOUNDA uo� )f f S Yy"r4•} .� a \ � 8
IE- - '.1. suwscr )) � C8 i� _.•� � (�I�£�� . `� yi i�jry, `'
rows . �c,o\ o••— 't,=} .'�. " oa `\ '� 1i`� ltL.11 _! �, C\ i
Pon - d
-
_��
i ° / OM j p C1�\ U c��, 4 ��/� •" � C\ it i�� \ o
/_!�
h
�y9pyea',' LYNN
a Jf �.- L
11
KAM
, . cpm Sr110 2000 4000
I� �
1 - .tr�u. SCOII•rffft rt�i+� •.:' 1�. \ � WrJ1RANGLE LOCATION
Figure 5-7. Location of aerial topographic survey. Base map is a portion
of the U.S.G.S. Salem 6 Lynn quadrangles 7.5 minute
series, 1970. Salem photorevised 1979.
i,
i
5-26
- li
�` number of flight lines, photographic exposure interval, and flight altitude
- will be controlled by the pbotogrammertist to provide for a proper and
completely finished topographic map covering the previously specified area.
The topographic base map will be a single, scribed, double matte, 3 mil,
was hoff mylar with reversed image. The product will have a horizontal scale
of 1 inch = 50 feet and a contour interval of two feet. A grid coordinate
system will also be established based on the highest order of accuracy
control points available in the immediate area. All mapping will be prepared
�a
to National Map Standards. The final topographic map will include the
r following typical features:
a Residential areas including Barcelona Ave area and she Verdon and
Crosby Street hrea
a Strongwater Brook
a Ponds, wetlands, and drainage areas
a.- _. Trees and vegetation
• Dirt access roads
a Surface structures
a Utilities
rs Waste pits and fencing
5. 1.5 Task 5--Data Management Plan
iA comprehensive Data Management Plan will be developed by the RI
contractor to insure that all technical and project management-related data
gathered prior to and during the Salem Acres RI activities are valid, properly
recorded, and safeguarded for later use during the FS. The Data Management
Plan will make provisions for the use of project/field logbooks, sample logo
�_- and data sheets, chain-of-custody (COC) records, laboratory log books, and
other similar data storage/retrieval tools for the documentation of
r_ field/laboratory information. The Data Management Plan will also include
guidelines to track and store RI management data necessary to monitor, manage
and document the actual performance of RI tasks. RI management data can
LLLLLL� F
L., 5-27
1;
!
include cost estimates, work schedules, QA/QC plans, sampling plans, health
and safety plans and the like. Specific data management protocols and
guidelines are to be consistent with the U.S. EPA's "National Enforcement
_ Investigations Center (NEIC) Policies and Procedures Manual" (U.S. EPA, 1986)
_ and QAMS 005/800, or other approved U.S. EPA data management guideline which
i
describe detailed procedures for sample identification, COC, document control
and QA/QC.
i 5.2 PHASE II - WETLANDS ASSESSMENT
_ I
5.2. 1 Task 6--Wetlands/Floodplains Characterization
A wetlands and floodplaina characterization is a necessary part of the RI
I
for the Salem Acres site due to the fact that the wetlands are a primary
receptor of contamination and, thus, pose a potential threat to human health
and the environment. This investigation, which will serve as a baseline for
all other work done at the site, will determine the extent the wetlands. and
the flora and fauna which inhabit the wetlands have been impacted.
U.S. EPA has recently established a
policy (Hedeman, 1985) which states
that Superfund actions must meet, to the extent practical, the substantive
requirements of the Floodplains Management Executive Order (E.0. . 11988) and
the Protection of Wetlands Executive Order (E.O. 11990), and Appendix A of
_ 40 CFR Part 6, entitled Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and
Wetland Protection. The purpose of Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 6 is to set
forth policy and guidance for carrying out the provisions of Executive
Orders -11988 and 11990. U.S. EPA's policy requires that the analysis of
remedial actions include a floodplain/wetlands assessment. Furthermore, if
r the remedial action involves some discharge of dredged or fill material to the
wetlands, the action must comply with the 404 (b)(1) guidelines (Federal
!' Register, 24 December 1980, Part 230) under Section 4U4 of the Clean Water
Act.
The detail necessary for a proper wetland assessment varies on a
Ia case-by-case basis, depending on the types of resources affected, the degree
of adverse impacts expected, and the number and complexity of alternatives
under consideration. A description of tasks expected to be performed for
wetlands assessment for the Salem Acres site is given below.
5-28
- i
i
i
5.2.1.1 Mapping and General Characterization of Wetland Areas--
�.: The first step in a wetlands assessment is to obtain U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Maps. These may be obtained from
the Regional Director (ARDE) Region V, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
maps are interpretations of aerial photographs and overlie USGS 7.5-minute
i
series topographic maps and, hence, lack of a high degree of resolution. i
However, they are useful in characterizing the general type of wetlands at the
site according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System
i
(Cowardin, et al. , 1979).
In developing an accurately scaled map of the site, and surrounding area
high resolution aerial photographs are indispensible. Maps may also be
developed using a compass and range finder or other field method, but these
- - i
are subject to a degree'of error introduced by the equipment used.
-_ It is expected that the site survey performed under Task 4 will properly
place wetlands on the base maps which will be produced.
5.2.1.2 - Flora Investigation—
It is important to accurately characterize botanical life in the wetlands
so that the amount of impact on the wetland and the various flora can be
assessed. This information will show how past disposal practices have
-- affected the flora and aid indeterminingengineering design for possible – --- -
future remedial alternatives. Detailed knowledge of wetland plant communities
will provide information on what fauna are expected in the wetlands (given
type of food and cover afforded by the plants and the approximate depth of
water in the wetlands).
A computerized inventory of sightings of endangered plant species can be
obtained from the Natural Heritage Program office in Boston, Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts National Heritage Program also maintains this type of
� Y information. A botanical field investigation is necessary and will ideally
involve the use of a transect grid set up using a range finder and compass.
At each hub of the grid, plant life in the herb, shrub, and arboreal layers
should be characterized as to percent cover and occurrence of each species in
a designated area (e.g., 4 square meters). In the case of the Salem Acres
site, the wetlands contain only plants in the herb layer. The distance
between transect lines will vary given the species diversity of the wetland
5-29
6:xY .
_ I
and the time allowed for completion of the assessment. A transact, grid will
provide information necessary to complete a detailed map of the constituents
of each wetland areas and Rive valuable information about habitat, food chain
` protection, and areal extent of wetland vegetation.
5.2. 1.3 Fauna Investigation--
Visual observation will not always provide a thorough knowledge of fauna
in a wetland because of variations in population size and migration. As
mentioned above, knowledge of wetland plant communities will provide
information as to the species of fauna which live in and use the wetland.
Freshwater wetlands support numerous amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, and
t provide nesting, migratory and winter habitat for most species of waterfowl.
Birds other than waterfowl are also closely dependent on wetlands for nesting,
' breeding and cover. It is possible to determine what species use the wetlands
based on the assessment of plants which exist in the wetlands, using various
references on the subject and visual observations.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Fisheries and Wildlife
yY,= Division of the Massachusetts Fisheries, Wildlife, and Recreational Vehicles j
I
Department have general information concerning species which inhabit different
`u wetland areas, but not site—specific species lists. These sources are useful
for determining what species might be found in such a wetland, but should not
be substituted for onsite observations of plant and animal communities. .
As is the case for endangered plants, a listing of the species of
endangered animals that have been observed at or near the site is available
from the Natural Heritage Program.
5.2. 1.4 Hydrogeological Investigation--
As part of a wetlands assessment the local hydrogeology of the area must
be characterized. Sediments, surface water, and ground water must also be
sampled to determine current or potential exposure of wetland life to site
contaminants. The hydrogeologic investigation has been discussed under Task 1.
�. 5-30
5.2. 1.5 Description of Wetland Functional Values-- i
The functional values of the wetland areas must be determined, at least
qualitatively, as part of a wetlands assessment. If it appears that a given
functional value has been impacted or may be impacted by possible remedial
activities, a quantitative assessment should be performed.
hSome of the functional values which should be addressed for wetlands at
the Salem Acres site include: the wetlands flood storage and flood water
retardation capacity; the significance of ground water discharge and recharge; >,
the capacity for water purification through natural water filtration; the
attenuation of site contaminants with subsequent later release (in this event
t,
the wetland itself would become a source of contamination - this would apply
1 to WA-1); habitat (i.e., suitability for support of wetland fauna) ; and the
productivity of wetland ecosystems. . Methods for quantification of these
values are described in Reppert, et al., 1979). Cultural values such as
(! aesthetic, recreational, and educational value may also exist at the site, but
these are difficult to assess quantitatively. It is important to assess these
functional values so that an evaluation of the magnitude of impact due to the
current situations and possible remedial activities may be performed. -•
' 5.2. 1.6 Identification of Impacts/Contaminant Receptors--
The information provided by the biological and hydrogeologic
investigation will be useful in identifying contaminant receptors in the
wetland areas. Knowledge of contaminant levels in the wetlands will provide a
basis for discussion of exposure and risk to aquatic life.
11 A measure of current impact on different- sections of the wetlands may be
obtained through an invertebrate community study. Comparison of the species
diversity between background ("clean") areas and other areas nearby the site
allows for a mathematical determination of stress to benthic macroinvertebrate
tf
communities, and an indication of overall environmental quality. Valuable
sources of information on invertebrate studies can be found in Perkins, 1983;
` Wilhm, 1967; and Godfrey, 1978.
l 5.2.1.7 Floodplains Assessment--
As mentioned earlier, because the wetlands areas are a primary receptor
(( of contamination and thus pose a threat to the environment, the effects of
past disposal practices on these wetland/floodplain areas must be determined.
I�l
5-31
In addition, it is U.S. EPA policy that Superfund actions meet the substantive
requirements of E'.0. 11988, which requires Federal agencies to reduce the risk
of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and j
welfare, and to restore and preserve the beneficial values of floodplains. j
The extent of damage to the floodplains and the potential adverse effects on
the floodplains must therefore be characterized. The 100-year floodplain may
be determined from Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMa) which can be obtained
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The location of the site
relative to the 100-year floodplain should be determined as part of the RI,
'rte such that the full extent of impact can be properly assessed.
_ 5.3 PHASE III - DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
j 5.3.1 Task 7—Site Conceptualization
The purpose of the Site Conceptualization (SC) is to evaluate the data
base generated in the background research and investigative tasks, and develop
} = a complete conceptual model of the contaminated conditions which exist in the
various environmental media both onsite and in the surrounding offsite area.
j
The Salem Acres SC will provide a summation of the data collected as part of
the RI tasks outlined in Section 3. 1-3.5, integrated with the background data
base described in Section 2.4 and any other background data sources not
examined by CCA. In addition, the Salem Acres SC will provide qualitative and
quantitative evaluation of the transport mechanisms allowing migration of
contaminants from the site. The development of the SC will be an ongoing
process throughout the investigative tasks. Information gathered from
individual work tasks will be continuously incorporated into the SC effort.
The updated, evolving conceptualization model may then be used to provide
guidance in revising work plans and/or task objectives to respond to newly
acquired data. The final SC model, which will be used to evaluate remedial
alternatives during the FS, will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for review to
determine if further RI data collection is necessary prior to the undertaking
of the FS.
_ 5-32
j
i
The Salem Acres SC will focus on presenting and analyzing all pertinent
I' contaminant source and migration g pathways data that have been collected, and
includes: j
• An identification of the real or potential contaminant migration
pathways at Salem Acres. This discussion will include a complete
- definition of the hydrogeological regime at the site. Ground water
flow contour maps will be developed to illustrate ground water flow
in the bedrock and overburden layers, and the interaction between
ground water and surface water bodies in the area. In addition,
other data describing critical features of migration pathways
(soil/bedrock physical characteristics, ground water transport
velocities and transport times to sensitive receptors, atmospheric
conditions affecting airborne emissions, etc.) or engineering used f
in evaluating remedial alternatives will be presented.
• A descriptionofall hazardous substances found, including types,
quantities, physical forms, and degree of containment. The
description will include the results of the sludge pit/other sources
characterization outlined in Task 3.
• A description of contaminant concentration levels found in the
various environmental media at and neat the site. the concentration
levels identified during the ground water, soil, surface water,
` sediment and air sampling efforts are to be illustrated with
fconcentration contour maps.
t
• A detailed discussion of media—specific conclusions and
recommendations concerning the adequacy of the data collected, and
the need for and focus of additional study.
• Supporting appendices.
5.3.2 Task 8--Endangerment Assessment
The contractor will prepare an Endangerment Assessment (EA) for the Salem
Acres site. The purpose of the EA will be to determine the actual or
potential threats to public health, welfare or the environment posed by the
contamination at the site. The EA will rely on the data used in the Site
L Conceptualization (Task 7), as well as other data collected during the RI. As
( a minimum, the EA is to include the following components:
1
• Contaminants of Concern — the EA will develop a screening process
f' according to current U.S. EPA guidance to reduce the number of
1- contaminants to be considered in the EA and focus on those compounds
rr 5-33
IF
that pose the greatest threat to human health, welfare or the
environment due to their toxicological properties, measured
concentrations at the site, and the physical and chemical parameters
related to their environmental mobility and persistence. The EA
will also discuss the dose-response relationships between the
contaminants of concern and real/potential receptors.
• Quantitative Assessment of Transport and Fate - Calculation or
modeling of contaminant mass loading and transport rates for each
environmental medium (air, surface water, ground water, soil).
h
• Exposure Assessment - The Exposure Assessment will evaluate the
�= significance of the exposure pathways/receptors described in
Section 1.3 and identify other exposed populations that may be at a
greater risk. The Exposure Assessment will detail the type,
. `
frequency, concentration and associated health effects of contact
with the contaminants of interest that each receptor has experienced
or may experience in the future.
a. • Risk Characterization - A qualitative/quantitative estimate of the
incidence and severity of adverse health and environmental effects
with respect to the pathways/receptors evaluated in the Exposure
_ Assessment. A baseline characterization based on the actual and
potential exposure for all populations (human and non-human) to
contaminants from the Salem Acres site as it currently exists (i.e. ,
with no remedial action having taken place) will be developed.
5.3,3 Task 9—Remedial Investigation Report
The data during the RI will be summarized in a report incorporating the
results of Tasks 1-8. The overall purpose of the report is to present a
comprehensive site characterization of Salem Acres. The report will review
and analyze -in detail the data for each specific medium investigated. It will
! include all figures, maps, data tables etc. as outlined in the individual
7_ tasks. The RI report will identify and discuss the concentrations of j
Ii contaminants in specific media, migration pathways, and sensitive
li environmental and/or human receptors. The specific format to be used in the
III development of the RI report will be based on the RI report format found in
"Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA" and subject to U.S. EPA
Region I modifications.
i
5-34
J
tt .
f
1
{{ i
i
SECTION 6
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The underlying purpose for the development of a Feasibility Study for
Salem Acres is to fulfill the requirements stipulated in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP; 50 FR 47912, 20 November 1985;
k .s
' f - 40 CFR 300). More specifically, the FS will utilize the site-.characterization
data obtained during the remedial investigation and the risk characterization
obtained in the EA to develop and evaluate alternative "remedial actions"
appropriate for the Salem Acres site. This alternative evaluation process
will result in the identification of the most cost—effective alternative that
is technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates or
minimizes the release of hazardous substances to, and provides adequate
protection of, present and future public health, welfare or the environment.
Based upon past Agency reviews of the NUS/FIT site inspection report
(dated May 1984) and all other available site—specific analytical data, the
Salem Acres site has undergone a response action taken pursuant to
_ Section 300.65 of the NCP. This "removal" action vas prompted by actual
and/or potential exposures, to nearby residents and animals from the hazardous ,
substance& (specifically, chromium and PCBs) 'which existed within the two
disposal areas at that time. The specific action taken to eliminate access to
these two contaminated disposal areas included the installation of six—foot
high chain—link security fences with barbed wire around their perimeters in
April 1985. This action was undertaken by the SESD (a Potentially Responsible
rParty), under an agreement with the Massachusetts DEQE, in order to alleviate
1. any immediate/potential public health hazards at the site.
While this action has minimized the present threat to the public health
and welfare, and the environment within the immediate vicinity of the Salem
{ Acres site, there remains the need to gather additional information (through
1 t''
6-1
i
E` the proposed remedial investigation) to determine the necessity for and
t11 proposed extent of further "remedial actions" at the site. As such, GCA has
developed a two-phase, eight-task scope of work for the conduct of the Salem
Acres Feasibility Study. The Phase IV report must be submitted to EPA for
Approval.
i
6. 1 PHASE IV - FEASIBILITY STUDY
6. 1. 1 Task 10--Refinement of Site-Specific Remedial Response Objectives
The findings of a Remedial Investigation provide the necessary
site-specific information needed to support decisions and assumptions made in
the FS in determining the most cost-effective remedy. As the Salem Acres
RI/FS commences, the initial phase of this work effort (as described in f
Section 3) will be the review of all available site-specific data and a
sequential review/evaluation of those data generated during the RI. This
interdependence between the remedial investigation and feasibility study will
help focus and refine those RI field activities which support the data
i
analvsis and evaluation of alternatives to be performed in the FS.
�t
As this data evaluation step continually evolves, site-specific remedial
response objectives will be established/refined to guarantee the protection of
the public health, welfare, and the environment in the vicinity of the Salem
Acres site. These response objectives will be established/refined based
partially upon the nature of the endangerment at the site, as identified
I
through the preparation of the Endangerment Assessment (Task ii) . The EA is a
key component of the Salem Acres RI/FS because it will establish the baseline
risk to public health and the environment against which the effectiveness of
all remedial alternatives developed during the FS will be compared.
Additionallv, the remedial response objectives for the Salem Acres site will
be refined in accordance with Massachusetts and Federal guidelines and
re uuding lations inclthe NCP and U.S. EPA
g y, policy guidance regarding remedial
JJcriteria and alternatives.
6. 1.2 Task 11--Refinement of Remedial Technologies
Based upon the list of general response actions developed during the
"scoping" phase sof the Salem Acres remedial investigation (see Section 3.4), a
6-2
i
preliminary identification of associated remedial technologies will be made.
Each of these remedial technologies must be technically evaluated .throughout
the performance of the RI to determine its applicability to the site.
Additionally, the RI results will allow a determination to be made as to
whether the hazards associated with the documented contamination can be
[ ` minimized and/or mitigated by implementing source control measures (measures
designed to prevent or minimize migration of hazardous substances from the
( source) and/or management of migration measures (measures designed to mitigate
t':
the impact of contamination that may have migrated into the environment).
The outcome of this task will provide a refined listing of all feasible
remedial technologies for the Salem Acres site. This list will in turn be
used to develop appropriate remedial alternatives needed to address the
Lx � —
overall site problem(s).
' 6. 1.3 Task 12--Treatability Studies (OPTIONAL)
At the present time, the need for and scope of any laboratory and/or
bench-scale treatability studies can not be determined. however, as the KI
_p.roRresses and the results of Tasks lO and ll:of:the, FS are. refined, the need
for any treatability study will be determined. These studies could
potentially involve examining waste (sludge) treatment schemes and/or ground
water remedial technologies. A detailed justification for any proposed
treatability studies, including a work plan and cost estimate, will be
submitted to U.S. EPA for approval following the determination of need.
6. 1.4 Task 13--Development of Remedial Alternatives
The teasiblp. remedial technologies refined during the Task 11 must next
_ he combined and expanded itito remedial alternatives which address source
control and/or management of migration measures needed at the Salem Acres
site. These remedial alternatives represent comprehensive remedies that
address the site—specific response objectives by mitigating or minimizing the
threat to public health, welfare, and the environment.
f
,y.
6-3
x
i
As specified in the NCP [S300.68( f)], alternatives must be developed (to
" the extent
possible and appropriate) to include at leas[ one from each of the
following:
• Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an offsite facility
approved by U.S. EPA, as appropriate;
• Alternatives that attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental requirements;
�= I
• As appropriate, alternatives that exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health and environmental requirements;
a As appropriate, alternatives that do not attain applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal public health and environmental
requirements but will reduce the likelihood of present or future i
threat 'from the hazardous substances. This must include an
alternative that closely approaches the level of protection provided
by the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and meets
CERCLA's objective of adequately protecting public health, welfare,
and environment;
• A no-action alternative.
It must be reiterated here one very important concept incorporated in the NCP;
specifically, CERCLA compliance with other Environmental Statutes (the
Compliance Policy) as it defines the meaning of "applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements".
As explained in the preamble to the NCP revisions of 5U CFR 5801,
12 February 1985, U.S. EPA determined that the requirements of other Federal
renvironmental and public health laws, while not legally applicable to CERCLA
response actions, will generally guide U.S. EPA in determining the appropriate
t extent of cleanup at CERCLA sites. Therefore, as remedial alternatives are
ILI` developed and later evaluated for the Salem Acres site, consideration must be
given to meaning of "applicable requirements — those Federal requirements that.
would be legally applicable, whether directly, or as incorporated by a
Federally authorized State Program" and "relevant and appropriate requirements
those Federal requirements that, while not 'applicable' , are designed to
apply to problems sufficiently similar to those encountered at CERCLA sites
that their application is appropriate." Appendix B of this document contains
A copy of the Compliance Policy, dated 2 October 1985.
6-4
I
R
i
6. 1.5 Task 1.4--Initial Screening of Remedial Alternatives
An initial screening of the developed remedial alternatives is then
!: conducted in order to eliminate alternatives that are clearly not feasible or
appropriate to the Salem Acres site. Three major initial screening criteria
are used in this process:
• Technical Criteria/Acceptable Engineering Practice--These relate to
the .implementability and reliability of the overall alternative.
Alternatives which are difficult to implement, or which will not
achieve the response objectives in a reasonable time period are
eliminated.
r ' '* • Environmental/Public Health Criteria--Alternatives which pose the -
a
threat of significant adverse environmental effects oc danger to
workers or the general public during implementation are eliminated.
i
• Cost Criteria--Alternatives whose total cost (capital and overhead
and maintenance (06M)) far exceeds that of other alternatives
�j without significant added benefit are eliminated.
I
The results of this phase of the Salem Acres Feasibility Study will be
the establishment of a limited number of viable remedial alternatives that
must be evaluated in greater detail in order to identify the most
— - _
cost-effective remedy. These results, -including the screening criteria used
to eliminate certain remedial alternatives, must be reviewed and approved by
U.S. EPA and the Massachusetts DEQE prior to proceeding with the next task.
6. 1.6 Task 15--Detailed Analysis of Limited Number of Remedial Alternatives
Those alternatives which remain after the initial screening are subjected
to a detailed evaluation on the basis of technical, public health,
environmental, institutional, and cost factors. In order to provide the basis
for a realistic comparative evaluation, the alternatives must be developed and
�- described in sufficient detail in the beginning of this portion of the
feasibility study.
('- Where appropriate and as agreed to by U.S. EPA and the Massachusetts
DEQE, operable units within each alternative may be identified to facilitate
phasing and rapid implementation of a discrete part of a specific remedial
c
r 6-5
i
i
alternative. Operable units can function independently and can contribute to
preventing or minimizing a release or threat of release from the Salem Acres
site, if deemed necessary.
6. 1.6. 1 Technical Analysis--
The applicable remedial alternatives will be evaluated for their
technical feasibility. The major elements of the technical feasibility
evaluation are performance, reliability, implementability and safety
considerations.
i
i
• Performance—Each remedial alternative will be analyzed to determine
its effectiveness and useful life. Effectiveness is the degree to
which an alternative will accomplish the response objectives within
a reasonable, defined time frame. Useful life is the projected
i
length of time that the designed level of effectiveness can be
maintained.
e Reliability--06M requirements and demonstrated performance of each
remedial alternative will consider the availability of labor and
materials and frequency and complexity of required O&M.
• Implementability--To ascertain that a technology is implementable,
it must be demonstrated that the technology has had a prior
successful installation either on other similar sites or on a
_ - _ research and development basis. Factors to be considered. when
evaluating implementability will be ease of installation, and time
to implement and achieve beneficial results.
• Safety Considerations--Safety is defined as the safety and freedom
from risk, injury, harm and danger. Each remedial alternative will
be evaluated with regard to safety. Factors to be considered in
this evaluation will include threats to the safety of the community
living and working in the site vicinity, and threat to the
environment and facilities during implementation of the remedial
measures and upon failure of remedial measures.
6. 1.6.2 Public Health and Environmental Analysis--
Each remedial alternative will be evaluated to determine its public
health and environmental effects. Each alternative will be analyzed in terms
Of the extent to which it will mitigate damage to, or protect public health,
welfare, and the environment, in comparison with the "No Action" alternative
ibaseline as established in the Endangerment Assessment. Consideration
1. _
jj 6-6
i
I
�. will be given to the extent to which an alternative attains or exceeds
applicab;e or relevant and appropriate Federal public health and envirotrsental
rep;irements.
Public Health Analysis--For each remedial alternative a public health
analysis will be performed. The public health evaluation will be presented in
two stages. First, the results of the endangerment assessment will be
summarized to serve as the baseline from which the remaining public health
e discussions for all alternatives will be compared. This summary will
concentrate on an examination of the effects of taking no further action at
Cit the Salem Acres site.
The second stage of this evaluation will include an analysis of the
idec ified alternatives ain comparison to the baseline, "No Acro "
alternative. This evaluation, termed an "exposure assessment," will document
exposures to the population which surrounds the site, onsite workers, and
1
offsite populations and environments during remedial action implementation.
Following this exposure. assessment, as required in the proposed NCP,
Section 300.68(h)(iv) , an evaluation of the extent to which the alternatives
attain or exceed "applicable or relevant and appropriate" Federal ..public
� . health, or environmental standards, advisories and criteria for the particular
site .contaminant(s) is to be included. - Where the analysis determines that
Federal public health and environmental requirements are not applicable or
relevant and appropriate, the analysis shall, as appropriate, evaluate the
risks of the various exposure levels projected or remaining after
-implementation of the alternative under consideration.
— Environmental Analysis--The purpose of this analysis is to assess the
relative environmental impacts of the various remedial alternatives. bath
alternative will be evaluated to determine :
• Adverse Impacts--whether the alternative will produce any adverse
environmental effects as a result of construction and/or operation;
and,
• Beneficial Effects--the relative beneficial environmental effect of
each alternative will be described.
IIT
` 6-7
1.�
III
Thee analysis will also describe any measures that can be used to mitigate any
adverse impacts of the alternative that are identified.
6, 1.6.3 Cost Analysis--
The capital and operating and maintenance costs of each remedial
alternative must be developed and analyzed. This cost evaluation should
include each phase or segment of the alternative and consider both monetary
costs and associated nonmonetary costs (e.g. . loss of natural resources). The
cost of each alternative should be presented as a present worth cost, and
should include and present the total capital cost of implementing the
alternative and the annual operating and maintenance costs.
In developing detailed cost estimates, the following must be performed: j
!
• Estimation of Coats--Determine capital and annual operating and
maintenance costs for each remedial alternative.
• Cost Analysis--Using estimated costs, calculate present worth for
each remedial alternative.
a Sensitivity Analysis--Evaluate uncertainties in cost estimates
(i.e. , those uncertainties due to contaminated volumes of materials
to be handled from the Salem Acres site, variations in treatment and
disposal costs, etc.). j
Operating cost estimates will include, as appropriate : equipment repair,
maintenance and spare parts, utilities, labor for operation, labor for
monitoring, analytical services, data management, permits, employee training,
health .and safety, legal fees, subcontractor fees, vehicle maintenance and
contingencies.
6. 1.6.4 Institutional Analysis--
Each of the identified remedial alternatives will be evaluated on the
basis of institutional requirements such as zoning restrictions, rights-of-way
and compliance with Federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies
must be considered in the evaluation of alternatives. Several key U.S. EPA
policies which should he considered during this evaluation may include:
1) offsite policy for remedial response actions, 2) ground water protection
strategy (CWPS) , and 3) the policy on compliance with other environmental
statutes (50 FR 47946, 2U November 1985).
6-8
j
6. 1.6. 5 Summary of Alternatives
( The results of the detailed evaluations of remedial alternatives are
L-: integrated into a comprehensive summaryof the relative liabilities and
benefits of the alternatives. The data presented in a Summary of Alternatives
iwill serve as the primary basis for the selection of a cost effective remedial
l._
( alternative for the Salem Acres site.
l
6. 1.7 Task 16--conceptual Design
After the selection of the most acceptable remedial alternative, a
conceptual design will be prepared for the alternative selected. It is also
Possible, that a .preliminary conceptual design will be required by U.S. EPA
after the draft FS has been submitted. The purpose of the conceptual destgn
is to provide sufficient information in a format acceptable to:
• - allow for the development of a subsequent design for the selected
' alternative;
• provide critical information to allow for proper and accurate
design; and
• provide up-to-date cost estimates for other design services and
implementation.
( Design and implementation considerations should identify, as necessary,
1 '
-anticipated technical problems that will be encountered in the field.
Supplemental data needs and required additional field work may be identified
�-` - during the conceptual design.
The summary of the selected alternative, the design and implementation
considerations, and the cost estimates and schedules will be submitted to U.S.
CPA for the development of any bid package for the design servicesneeded to
prepare the plans and specifications for the selected alternative.
1
(( 6-9
' if.-
-
i
i
6.2 PHASE V - FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTING
6.2. 1 Task 17--Draft and Final Report
Upon completion of the FS for the Salem Acres site, a draft report will
be prepared and submitted to U.S. EPA for review and approval. Table 6-1
presents the format for the draft and eventual final reports.
I
i
i
i
I
i
I
6-10
I
TABLE 6-1. FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FORMAT
f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Site Background Information
1.2 Nature and Extent of Problems
1.3. Objectives of Remedial Action
2.0 INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
2.1 Technical Criteria
2.2 Environmental/Public Health Criteria —
' 2.3 Institutional° Criteria
2.4 Other Screening Criteria
2.5 Cost Criteria
2.6 Development of Remedial Action Alternatives
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
'. 3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)
3.2 Alternative 2
3.X Alternative R
�= 4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Cost Analysis
i 4.2 Non-Cost Criteria Analysis
4.2.1 Technical Feasibility
t 4.2.2 Environmental Evaluation
4.2.3 Institutional Requirements
4.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4.4 Public Health Analysis
i 5.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
REFERENCES
is
APPENDICES
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Source: "Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA", U.S. EPA,
April 1985, p. 9-2.
6-11
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
1. Brown, Beverly. GCA Corporation/Technology Division, Bedford, MA. Salem
Acres Responsible Party Search, Draft Site Report. December 1985.
2. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Division of Solid/Hazardous Waste. Northeast Regional
gUffice, Woburn, MA., Salem Acres File.
IT
3. Cowardin, L. M., et al. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
• Service, Washington, D.C. 1979.
4. Environmental Quality Laboratory, Inc. , Port Charlotte, Florida.
Engineering Planning and Design for Construction in Wetlands. Submitted
to the Institute for Waste Resources, Army Corps. of Engineers. 2 May
1977.
5. Godfrey, P. J. Diversity as a Measure of Benthic Community Response to
Water Pollution. Hydrobiologia, 57(2) :111-122. 1978.
6. Grinnell, C. R. South Essex Sewerage District, Essex, MA. Estimate of
Salem Grease and Sludge to Marlboro Road Dump Site (1947-1968). November
1982.
. 7. Hedeman, W. N., Jr. Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assessments for
CERCLA Actions. EPA draft memorandum. -January 28, 1985.
8. -Massachusetts National Heritage Program. Listing of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife Species. Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Boston, MA. April 1985.
9. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. April 1983. Preliminary Site
Assessment for Salem Acres, Inc. , Salem, MA (Draft) , D-583-3-3-13.
10. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. May 1984. Final Site Inspection
Report for Salem Acres, Inc., Salem, MA, D-583-3-4-25.
11. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. May 20, 1987. Internal
Correspondence "Trip Report: Salem Acres", C-583-5-5-0.
7-1
12. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. June 24, 1985. Internal
Correspondence - "Salem Acres Data Validation - Case 4258 (Soil)",
C-583-6-5-61.
13. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. June 24, 1985. Internal
Correspondence - "Salem Acres Data Validation - Case 4258 (Water)",
[ C-583-6-5-62.
t 14. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. July 23, 1985. Internal
Correspondence - "Salem Acres Data Validation - Case 4258 (Soil)",
C-583-7-5-133. -
15. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. July 23, 1985. Internal
Correspondence - "Salem Acres Data Validation - Case 4258 (Water)",
C-583-7-5-134.
16. NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. October 11, 1985. Internal
Correspondence - "Salem Acres Site Sampling Report", C-583-1U-5-41.
17. Perkins, J. L. Bioassay Evaluation of Diversity and Community Comparison
Indexes. J. WPCF 55(5):522-53U. May 1983.
18. Reppert, R. T., et al. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for
_ Wetlands Evaluation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water r
Resources. Research Report 79-R1. February -1979.
-. 19. Soil Conservation Service, Durham, N.H. Erosion and Sediment Control
Design Handbook for Developing Areas of New Hampshire. May 1981.
20. Toulmin, Presley. Bedrock Geology of the Salem Quandrangle and Vicinity,
_ Massachusetts. Geological Survey Bulletin 1163-A. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1914. I{
21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Lynn (Massachusetts)
Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). 1970.
22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Salem
(Massachusetts) Quadrangle - Essex County, 7.5 Minute Series
(Topographic). Photorevised in 1979.
23. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey, Massachusetts.
Hydrologic Data, Report No. 29. 1980.
24. U.S. EPA, Personnel Protection and Safety Manual. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Environmental Response Team, Edison, N.J. 1984.
25. U.S. EPA. January 1984. Photographic Study of Salem Acres Disposal
Site, Salem, MA. TS-PIC-83046, Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center, Warrenton, VA.
26. U.S. EPA. December 1984. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites - A
Methods Manual: Volime II. Available Sampling Methods, 2nd. edition.
EPA-600/4-84-076.
7-2
� l
i
27. U.S. EPA. April 1985. Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites
Volume -1 - Site Investigations. LPA-60U/4-64-05.
28. U.S, EPA. April 1985. Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Waste Programs .
Enforcement, Washington, D.C.
29.. U.S. EPA. May 1985. Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, Washington, D.C.
C30. U.S. EPA. September 1985. Practical Guide for Ground Water Sampling.EPA-600/2-85-104, Office of Research and Development, Ada, OK.
31. U.S. EPA, Region I Headquarters, Boston, MA. Office of Waste Programa
Enforcement, Salem Acres File.
32. Wilhm, J. L. Comparisons of Some Diversity Indices Applied to
} Populations of Benehic Macroinvertebrates in Streams ReC�ng Organic
Wastes. J. WPCF, 39:1673-83.
i�
( 7-3
1'
I
I
I
it
I
1 .
APPENDIX A
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC
ANALYSES DATA SHEETS
t�
Irl
r
1
OrMONNSWAL p0102CCTON AGENCY - 6),1 mob UWAPM wt OIDw
P.O.ee.tit.Aiaaw,*I%VW SIMA 21313 . 703/3A46"
Olt.A1q ANALV1a DATA)BST
�.- Latwawr7 Natter Cr Nw
W Lmpiii L0.Nw QC Opt)41w
- - Waltipb Oawiethm Limis W 10 w to p (Check but!6)r AWWiaw neem)
ACD OOMFOUId WEINCU2BALCOt11OUNGS
tit tv1
pro Ulf I (tl7ebtlw t*0 Ulf I
KIN 14091 2.1.4 aftltwrwltwel 1716 10.121 tantaahwew
-� InA) 11-0.7 Dm WO-maraol 1746. 201-Ml bmWb)fkw"Nwe
(26A) 15-71 2-cMwa0rrol 1736 20746-9 emtdlkltwarmthwe '
KI A) 12013.2 2.44khlmad- I ()tel li"I.1 ehrv�ta
xs ()•A) 1034).1 L4dinwthrlthwwl 1776 204%-i aCW%0h v14M
INN 99434 2-nwrwlwel Ma 120.12.7 wtehnewe
(AA) 10042-7 tdiveohanal 1716 191-24-2 6wtt0rt0awvlalta
- mt; 11.29-3 2,4-4lniw0*wn l 4 (906 9W34 1Wwew
.. =
(GOA) 334-32.1 4,6din1vo3.ttwthslMrkel (Ilia 0411 altwenyw
(64 A) 8744-1 oVe4chlwodkmwl (125) 3)-70.1 di4v�14JJenelnrcua4
WA) 101-114 ahal (136) 113-1.1 V4we(1,2Jtdbyr
(. BI11BJ7dCUTBAL COMPOUNDS 1446 121-004 era
(15) 13.32.1 tcen60ndtaw VOLAIUM
(30) 12-17.1 bwttidim (2V) 107-021 o min
(25) 12042.1 1.2,41-trictlwottwtta (1V) 107.13.1 41w71oniv1W
11 W4.1 h4tachlcra4wua (4V) 71.4).2 Mntw
(126) 47-72.1 hanach weathe 16h 39.23-1 cu/m wtraehlwide
( __ (ISS) ll1-444 4is(24t1wweM Ntl (7V) 104104 cdarob M nS '
(206 11-39-7 24hlwwtalAd4clwta (IOVI 107-042 i.2dtctlae4tlww
(216 13-10.1 1.24icdlereemta illy) 71.714 1.1.1-aWtierwfha
(Ya 1411-71-1 1.)4ickiwo0mca (IM 71.14-3 l.ldirrli; a hvw
106.46-7 1.64iW1wo6mtwe (Ity) 7940-) 1.1.2-trictbrwtlew '
(216 11-34.1 ),3'dithl0re6mti&M (I1V1 73.34-1 1.1,2.2•wtr4ctlereatha T
1335) 121.14-2 2.4dinivatok. (I6yi 7340-3 cnlweatha
1366) 60420-2 2.641nkvowltta 119" 110.711 24kiarwthvlvinrl 4lhR
(V B) 12246-7 1.2dwhon,"dr44w 42)V) 6746-) Chlwolwm
1316 106.416-0 llthrmtha (21V) 73.)).41 I.I dichlwwtha
(606 7003-n3 4.etlwooMnvl ohwtrl ave (30V) 1x40-3 ww".2.didliwoodwle
1415) 10141.3 44romomtwM OhmVl adtm 02VI n17.1 i.2dxhlcmpraean6
1425) 31639-7-1 Idt Kdtlweiaemwv0 adtm 133vl 10061424 tra ",3di hIwomoowr
(415) 111.11-1 ee(2.clweedea7)wgVV a 1004141-03 cu-1,3dicJwoerwwe
1125) 8743-3 ha+40W Wwdiwe (MY) 100-411.4 ethvwwttww
K)B) "AY.4 hatectigr c 0oowtt8dWwta ("VI 73-01-2 mathrlem etlwid4
�.. PBZ n-N.1 papaw" (43y) 7447- ehlaromatha
1»6) 11-20- naah"km 146y) 7413-1 wwkto.wena
(x6) 11.17- nitry6 tan 73.21.2 wwnotwm
(u5) 84.1104 NMItr94edWhW,w Nn• (MY) 71.27-4 womedicNwo tha
(636) 62146.7 N+kitro6WiwonVlwwkw (41y) 7141-4 fkw wi hWmmrNwr
(665) -117114 4i41(2�ftpwn0 ohdwww (MV) 71-714 dietlaroditlumematltrr
16714 134" emtnl Wevl tht"a OI V) 124.46.1 dllmtldittenwttwOt
11( w6) 4444.2 diwJvtyl 0hemisw 1136 I27.IL6 uwao rewire
L.--. (Na w-44-0 dW�teeM ehOWaw (86n 109.8&3 whrr
1706 44464 dwftl andwla Wt0 71414yldtbmad4Bta
••<. pia 1)1.11.1 dwta41w1 a6dialafa - (ph 7341.6 vMvl eAlwida
Iran 3433 ) b""a,% tweeww 4n2
� A-2
- _ avwrsYMLVINSOWa�r - Pops
I_ ,
2t?sees,/YoR '-- Cr mom
�.. .w toe - a R4"n Mr
_ WeMy OwoeUr 6Ytlw M l Q or 10 Q (Oock 4a fr ApRgrVr Heoal
. rO11C06 PernCI llf .
t:
own
pro CABS kLer w P►I CAs1 klrw rd
2094" (1078 319431 A4NgC
wv-1 4wwb% (IMA 219-0{.s d-OTIC
(911F) A.7►.9 tlUoAmo (102/) 2449-9y4K (!hien*)
(sen 20.29.2 ..4•-0pr uMn 77469.21-2 11CS-1142
(9X1 72x2-9 4. %ax (107" 11097469.1 PCs-l2A
_. 1941 72-74-2 4.4.4= (lurl 11104-na PC61221
(»P) 412-294 d-arMowaft (109" It141-16-2 PC84m - I.
(96!7 112-2946 d+rlbottan filar) 12672.29-4 PC61244
(AP) 1021-07-2 mdamt2an art24ft (11111) 110%-02-2 PCa12"
`- 194!1 72-20-0 ar4&1n (112►) 12674.11.2 PCO-1016
("P7 7421.9746 mr*In4Wan910 (11X) Now" ear.ma.•v
(!0010) X-64-2 )eOa.Ch1r
(10110) 1024-9J NOupJr"a" 0133Ms
(102►) 319.046 d4h7C (129!1 1746-014 :.7.7.4-needllaraeNnooallvaln
i
. . Nn-/elrlq Poswom a 2(osebm 6droao.a(it Cwmmnb
..• ACIOCONP04AIM VOLATILESWL
j
CAS I - (elm"mo)- CAs P kircle al '
6712-0 4m1emR Cit 6746-1 ac,o w- -
»464J 2-frrNrblral 76.97-7 2-tut
tall-7946 4.4"oft ahrrol 13.134 ar4orobWlWa
97-92.4 2.4.7-viAHredrel 219.7446 2araa
106.10-1SASIUIVArMAL 4.nernyl-tanorar
(pWbU61S 100A2-0 awraro
62-73-7 mulm 10643+ •irm Kwr
100.21-4 !nal alcohol 9746746 aa•Mro
.. 1064671 4-dd o O.e
- 1724644 dbenooft~
91-37-4 2-mewieaNOolmr
66-74-,6 2�ieanwr.
. "49-2 2.nitaanOlrm
- Ii1a.a1-4 4yr1a•4niWo 4762
- I
i
A-3
- f I
i
tAZIkV MgMWALFFMIECTIONACANCY
HVII 020
P.O. - Vk5lnb n313
( n3/397-ZM M uw—a 0
S+MGANK S ANALYSE DATA SHUT
LAB NAME CASE NO.
�LAB SAMPLE ID. NO. QC REPORT NO.
TASK l(CMmshs to be Ntntiaad and Ueanred)
or mgfi u�/L a mg/kg
(circle one) (eircie ane)
1. Aluminum 10. Zinc
2. Chromium 11. B0101 —
3. + Barium l2. Vanadium
4. Beryllium 13. Silver
3. Cobalt
[ 6. Copper
7. Iron
X. Nidcel
�= 9. Manganese
TASK 2 Meiimnte a be idwtitlad and UaaaseO
. 111 /l a mgf u�/l a
(circle ane) - Zcircle one)
1. Arsenic 3. Mercury
L Antimony 6. Tin
3. Selenium 7. Cadmium
4. Thallium S. Lead
TASK 3 CEbw t to be IdwA id and Uswa"
- ug/1 a mg/kg
(circle ane)
1. Ammonia
2. Cyanide
(' 3. Sulfide
[ OOMUENTSs
A-4
� c
1 APPENDIX H
1.'
U.S. EPA POLICY
CERCLA Compliance With Other
Environmental Statutes
(dated October 2, 19b5)
I
I
f
I.
1:
r
i
I'�
i
i I
( . 47946 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 224 / Wednesday, Nuvr-mber 20, 19115 / Rules Lind Regulations
standards of other laws.but that still CERCLA procedural and
provide protection of public health and administrative requirements will be
welfare,and the environment. modified to provide safeguards similar
- Although response actions that to those provided under other laws.
prevent hpzardous substances from Application for and receipt or permits is
migrating into the environment are seen out required for on-site response actions
as the most effective under CERCLA, taken under the Fund-financed or
s actions which minimize migration must enforcement authorities of CERCIA.
also be considered since CERCIA -
primarily addresses inadequate past H.Off-Site Response Actions
disposal practices and resulting unique CERCLA removal and remedial
site conditions.At certain sites,it may activities that involve the removal of
�'- be technically impractical. hazardous substances from a CERCIA
environmentally unacceptable,or site to off-site facilities for proper
excessively costly to implement a
response action that prevents migration storage,treatment or disposal recon be In
compliance with all applicable
_ u
United States Environmental Protection or restores the site to its original. relevant and appropriate requior
Agency uncontaminated condition ements
of Federal environmental and public
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency IL Paltry - health laws.
Res{lase a Section 104 of CERCLA requires that Off-site faet7Ntes that are used for
Washington.D.C.204W - off-site remedial actions,storage, storage,treatment,or disposal of
October z.toes. destruction treatment or secure Superfund wastes must have all
disposition,be in compliance with appropriate permits or authorizations.
Memorandum subtitle C of the Resource Conservation If the facility or process that Is being
Subject:CERCLA Compliance With and Recovery Act(RCRA).CERCLA is considered for recelpt of the Superfund
Other Environmental Statutes. silent,however,concerning the wastes has not been permitted or
From:J.Winston Porter,Assistant - requirements of other laws with regard authorized,the State or responsible
Administrator, to all other response actions taken party will be required to obtain all
To:Regional Administrator,Regions I— pursuant to sections 104 and 10& - appropriate permits.Furthermore,as
X As a general role,the Agency's policy stated in the Agency's off-site policy
-This memorandum site forth the Is to attain or exceed applicable or memorandum."Procedures for Planning
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) relevant and appropriate Federal and Implementing Off-Site Response
~ " policy on the applicability of the -environmental and public health Actions."May 6,1685,barring an
standards,criteria,advisories,and requirements in CERCLA response exeption in that memorandum,no
guidance of other State and Federal actions unless one of the specifically CERCLA hazardous substances shall be
environmental and public health enumerated situations is present.Where taken off-site to a RCRA facility If the
statutes to actions taken pursuant to - such a situation is present and a" " -
I.� 'sections 104 and 700 of the requirement is not followed,the Agency receiving Region's Administrator
4 Comprehensive Environmental must document and explain the reasons determines that the facility has
L-= Response,Compensation.and Liability " in the decision documents.Other significant RCRA violations or other
Act of 19M(CERCLA).This policy Federal criteria,advisories,guidance, environmental conditions that affect the
addresses consideration,for on-aite and and State standards also will be satisfactory operation of the facility.A
off-site actions taken under CERCLA. considered and may be used in Slate's responsibility for obtaining any
(,
I' 0° developing remedial alternatives,with appropriate Federal,State or local
adjustments for site specific permits(e.g.,RCRA,TSCA,NPDES,UIC,
The National Oil and Hazardous circumstances.If EPA does"not use,or Clean Air,etc,)will be specified in a
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan uses and adjusts any pertinent contract or cooperative agreement with -
(NCP)establishes the process for standards in this category.EPA will the State as part of its assurencea ,
_-— determining appropriate removal and/or fully document the reasons why in the required under section 104(c)of _
remedial actions at Superfund sites.In decision documents. CERCLA.
the course of this process.EPA will give A.On-site Response Actions 111.Other laws or Guidance That May
primary consideration to the selection of Be Used To Determine the Appropriate
those response actions that are effective (1)For removal actions,EPA's policy Extent of Response Actions
... in preventing or,where prevention is not is to pursue actions that will meet
practicable,minimizing the release of applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and Slate environmental and
hazardous substances so that they do requirements of other Federal public health requirements,criteria,
not migrate to cause substantial danger environmental and public health laws to guidance and advisories fall into two
to present or future public health, the maximum extent practicable, categories:
welfare,or the environment.As a considering the exigencies of the • Federal requirements that are
general rule.this can be accomplished situation. potetiaily applicable or relevant and
by pursuing remedies that attain or (2)For remedial actions,EPA's policy appropriate.
exceed 11te requirements of applicable or is to pursue remedies that attain or . Other Federal criteria,advisor
h relevant and appropriate Feies,
Federal public exceed applicable or relevant and guidance,and State standards to ie
health or environmental laws.Ilowever, appropriate requirements of other guidance.
- be
bocsuse of unique ciroum,lunt."at Federal public health and environmental
Y particular sites,there may be laws,unless the specific circumstances An initial list of bolheategories is
uitematives that do not meet the Identified bcluw exist. nromhed.
Ii
!- Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 224 / Wednesday. November 20, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 47947
A.Applicable or Relevant and criteria,guidance;and advisories as applicable or relevant and appropriate
Appropriate Federal Requirements well as State standards in formulating requirements;
"^pplicable'•requirements are those the removal action.However,because (e)A no action alternative.
Federal requirements that would be removal actions often involve situations
h-gally applicable,whether directly,or requiring expeditious action to protect 2.Selection of Remedy
as incorporated b a federal! public health,welfare,or the
P Y Y The alternatives
a will th eider all of
nulhurized State program,if the environment,it may not always be
P 8 the ibernettud arrayed nalwill
In the
_ response actions were not undertaken feasible to Tully meet them.N those feasibility study and wi8 give primary �
pursuant to CERCLA section 109 or 106, circumstances where they cannot be consideration to remedies that attain or �
-Relevant and Appropriate" attained,the decision documents,OSC exceed applicable or relevant and
requirements are those Federal reports,or other documents should appropriate Federal public health and
requirements that while not specify the reasons. environmental requirements.Where the
"applicable,"are designed to apply to (2)Off-site selected remedy involves an EPA
problems sufficiently similar to those standard,criterion,or advisory,the
encmtnlered at CERCLA sites that their Off-site facilities that are used for decisionmaker will ensure appropriate
application is appropriate.Requirements storage,treatment,or disposal of - coordination with affected EPA
_ may be relevant and appropriate if they Superfund wastes must have all
would be"applicable"but for appropriate Permits or aethorizations programs.
jurisdictional restrictions associated and,barring an exception in the off-site In appropriate cases,the
- with the requirement. policy,no hazardous substance shall be decisionmaker may select a remedial
For example,the RCRA 40 CFR Part taken off-site to an RCRA facility if the action that includes both on-and off-site
264 Subpart F Ground-Water Protection Region determines that the facility has components.
Standards would be applicable.to the significant RCRA violations or other The decisionmaker may select an
muua8cment or cleanup of hazardous environmental conditions that affect the alternative that does not attain
waslus in ground water from hazardous satisfactory operalion of the facility. applicable or relevant requirements In
waste management facilities if such B.Remedial Actions one of the five following circumstances:
carious were not taken pursuant to (a)Interim Remedy—Where the
CERCIA section 104'or 106.Yet RCRA 1.Presentation and Analysis of selected alternative is not the final
Sublitle C regulations,while nor Alternative, remedy and will become part of a more
--- applicable to hazardous wastes To the extent that it is both possible - comprehensive remedy,the lead agency ..
disposed of prior to the November 19, and appropriate,at least one remedial may select an interim remedy
-' ciao.effective date of those regulations, alternative shall be developed as part of (b)Fund-Boloncing—For Fund.
could be relevant and appropriate to the feasibility study(FS)in each of the financed responses only,the need for
VERCLA response actions regardless of following categories: - protection of public health,welfare and
when the wastes were disposed of or (a)Alternatives for treatment or the environment at the facility under
- manager!• disposal in an off-site facility,as consideration for all of the alternatives
appropriate: that attain or exceed applicable or
B.Other Federal Criteria.Arlrisruies' relevant and appropriate Federal
.. Cuidn
are and State Standards To Be (b)Alternatives that attain applicable
- - Considered or relevant and appropriate Federal requirements is,considering the amount
public health and environmental of money available N the Fund
This category includes other requirements; outweighed by the need for action at
standards,criteria,advisories and (c)As appropriate,alternatives that 'other sites that may present a threat to
guidance that may be useful in exceed applicable or relevant and public health or welfare or the
developing Superfund remedies.These appropriate public health and environment.In the event of Fund
criteria•advisories ar,d guidance were environmental requirements:' balancing,the lead agency sha8 select -
developed by EPA,other Federal (d)As appropriate,alternatives that the alternative which most closely
agencies and the Stales.The concepts do not attain applicable or relevant and epproaches the level of protection
and data underlying these requirements appropriate public health and provided by applicable or relevant and
may be used at Superfund sites in an environmental requirements but will appropriate Federal requirements,
appropriate way' reduce the likelihood of present or future considering the specific Fund-balanced
appropriate
IV.Implementation threat from the hazardous substances Bum of money available for the
and that provide significant protection immediate facility.Fund-balancing is
A.Rrnunal Acta°ns In public health and welfare and not a consideration in determining the
For holh on.and off-site Fund. environment.This must include an appropriate extent of remedy when the �
- iinanccd removal actions,the lead alternative that closely approaches the response will be performed by a
agency should consult with the Regional level of protection provided by the potentially responsible party:
Response Team within the framework of (e)Technical Impracticality—Where -
rhv Regional Contingency Plan to -These k.noti ves mum be comi.aem with no alternative that attains or exceeds
determine the most effective action. IT- A's hwy a Ions M.a,puacv."Frocedmes for applicable or relevant and appropriate i
elunni of end Implementing Off-Site Respome Federal public health and environmental
I t I On site Adiiuns. In some rases.off-site disposal or requirements is technically practical to
Faq un-sitc removal actions,the lead ue.uno.ol omy not Ir 1..Ibl.and this aaem.aive implement,the lead agency shall select
agency shall,asappropriate.,tltlCm 110 may be ebmhnred during inaial screening of P 8 Y
Rp alternatives.The decisive dorumenas should reffect the alternative that most closely
nrruin lir exceed all Federal applicable this weenire. approaches the level of protection
or relevant and appropriate public 'For inslance,the Agency might choose provided by the applicable or relevant
health and environmental requirements. incineration as.n.hartuttwe that exceeds hat
q would be required by applicable standards became and appropriate requirements,and
The lead agency also shall,as It is a more permanent and reliable solution than which is reasonable to implement from
gppropriete,consider other Federal ROU closure standards for land disposal facilities. an engineering perspective:
I
I �
/ B-3
!- I
f
i
Federal kagister ( Vol. 5% No. 224 / Wednesday, Novembet 70, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 47MB
• Maximum Contaminant lsvels(for radioactive waste rule,(10 CFR Part 20). • Recommended Maximum
a//sources of drinking water expoaureJ See also 10 CFR Parts M 40,fit 61,72. Concentration limits(RMC.L).
140 CFR 141.11-141.16). _ 960.901 • Federal Water Quality Criteria
• Undergroaad b4dion Contra) • National Emission Standard fm 11976,1989,19841.Note.Federal Water
Regulations.(40 CFR Parts 144.146,14& Hazardous Ar Pollutants for Asbestos. Quality Criteria are not legally
and 147}. 140 CFR 61.140-61.156).See also 40 CFR enforceable.State water quality
_ b:Clean Water Act as amended(Pub. 427.1f0-427.11&781 standards are legally enforceable.and
L 92-50t 66 StaL 816,33 USG 1251 et. • National Emission Standard for are developed using appropriate aspects
seq.) Hazardous Air Pollutants for of Federal Water Quality Criteria.In
• Requirements established pursuant Radionuclides(40 CFR Part 81,10 CFR many cases,State water quality to sections 301,302,303(including Slate 20.101-W.166). standards do not include specific
water quality standards),308,307. 6.Other Federal Requirements, numerical limitations on a large number. (including Federal pretreatment of priority pollutants.When neither
requirements for discharge into a a.OSHA regniternents far workers Slate standards nor MCIe exist for a
publicly owned treatment works),and engaged in response activities are given pollutant,Federal Water Quality
403 of the Clean Water Act.(40 CFR codified under the Occupational Safety Criteria are pertinent and therefore are
Parts 131,400-460). and Health Act of 1970(29 U.S.C.651).
Q Marine Protection Research,and The relevant regulatory requirements to be considered.
Sunctuariee Act(33 U.S.C.1401). are included under. • Pesticide registrations.
ti - _ • incineration at sea requirements. • Occupalionel Safely and Health • Pesticide and food additive
els.Note:
(40 CVR Parts 22D-225.227,ZZB.See also Standards(General industry Standards) toleranceGermane onaaction r+�eH4-�(totlerano:ee and
40 C;'ti 125.120-125.124). (29 CFR Part 1910). P y pelinncesan
- - • The Safety and Health Standards action levels may be
3.El'A's Office of pesticides and Tonic for Federal Service Contracts(29 cFR therefore are to be considered In certain
Substances Part igza). situations.
Toxic Substances Control Act 115 • The Shipyard and langahore • Waste load allocation procedures.
i U.S.C.2801). Standards(29 CFR Parts 1915.1918). EPA Office of Water:
• PCB Requirements Generally:40 • Recordkeeping.reporting,and Federal sale source aquifer
CFR Part 781;Manufacturing Processing, related regulations(29 CFR Part 1904). requirements.
Distribution in Commerce,and Use of b.Historic Sites.Buildings,and • Public health basis for the decision
PCBs and PCB Items40 CFR 761.20- Antiquities Act(16 U.S.C.461).
( to list pollutants as hazardous under
761.30);Markings of PCBs and PCB ' a National Historic Preservation Act, section 112 of the Clean Ar Act
16 U.S.C.470.Compliance with NEPA_ Ilcros(40 CFR 78].40-781.45);Storages • EPA's Ground-wrier Protection
and Disposal(40 CFR 761.60-761.791. required ot Arc to 7 CFR l R 850. Strata
_ Records and Reports 40 CFR 761.100- UProtection arm g Archaeological Resources; • New_- P lNew Source Performance$tandarda
761.185 .See also 40 CFR 129.105.750. Uniform Regulations-Deparnnenr of
Defense(32 CFR Part 229,229.4), for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
• Disposal of Waste Melena( Department of the Interior 43 CFR Part Liquide.
Containing TCDD.(40 CFR Pxrts P ( -- • TSCA health data.
775.160-775.187).- _ . 7.7.4)• - -
d.D.O.T.Rules for the Transportation Pesticide registration data.
4.EPA's Office of External Affairs of I lazardous Materials,49 CFR Parts • TSCA chemical advisories(2 or 3
• Section 404(6)(1)Guidelines for 107,171.1-171.5110.Regulation of issued to date).
• Specification of Disposal Sites fur activities in or affecting waters of the • Advisories issued by FWS and
. Dredged or Fill Material(40 CFR Part United States pursuant to 33 CFR Paris NWFS under the Fish and Wildlife
230) ' 320-329.The following requirements are Coordination Act.
• Procedures for denial or Restriction also triggered by Fund-financed actions: • Executive Orders related to
. of Disposal Sites for Dredged Materiel U.S.C.Endangered
a 1� red Species
50 CFR Parts 81, Floodplain(11968)and Wetlands
(4 404(c)Procedures,40 CFR Part 231). (11990)as implemented by EPA's August
225.402).Wild and Scenic Riven Act.16 6.1965,Policy on Floodplain and
5.-EPA's Office of Air and Radiation U.S.C.1271. W'ellnnds Assessments for CERCLA
administers several potentially • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Actions.
applicable or relevant and opprapriote 16 U.S.C.661 note. . TSCA Compliance Program Polio.statutes and regulations issued • Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act
thereunder. of 1978,and Fish and Wildlife Act of • OSHA health and safety standards
a.The Uranium Mill Tailings 1956.16 U.S.C.742a note. that may be used to protect public
4Z U.S.C. • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act health(non-workplace).
Radiation Control Act of 1978(
2022) of 1980.16 U.S.C.2901.(Generally.50 Health Advisories,EPA Office of
• Uranium mill tailing rules-Heahh CFR Part 831. Water.
- and Environmental Protection Standards • Coastal Zone Management Act of 2.Stale Standards
for Uranium and 76nriam Mill Tallirrge 1972.10 U.S.C.1451.(Generally,15 CFR
(40 CFR Part 192). Part 930 and 15 CFR 923.45 for Air and State Requirements on Disposal and
b.Clean Au Act(42 U.S.C.74M 1. Water Pollution Control Requirements). Transport of Radioactive wastes.
• National Ambient Ar Quality Other Fedwaf Criteria.Advisories, • Stale Approval of Water Supply
Standards for total suspended Guidance,and state Standards To Be System Additions or Developments.
_ particulates(40 CPR Parts WA-60.7). Considered - State Ground Water Withdrawal
• National Aarbient Air Quality I.Federal Advisories and Approvals.
Standards for ozone(40 CFR 50.9). • Requirements of authorized
• Standards for Protection Against .Procedures (Subtitle C of RCRA)State hazardous
Radiation-high and low level I lealth Effects Assessments(HP.As). waste programs.
B-5
i
I
47950 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 1985 / Rules and Regulations
• State Implementation Plans and (7)Closure of Hazardous Waste S. USEPA Manuals from the Office of
Delegated Programs Under Clean Air Surface Impoundments. Research and Development
Act. (8)Hazardous Waste Land Treatment.
• All other State requirements,not (1l EW 848 methods--laboratory !
q (9)Soil Properties, ty Testing.on,and analytic methods.
delegated through EPA authority. Hydraulic Conductivity Testing. y
• Approved State NPDFS programa (2)Lab protocols developed pursuant
i under the Clean Water Act. D.Test Methods for Evaluating Solid to Clean Water Act 1304(h).
• Approved State UIC programs Waste For the reasons set forth in the
�,- - under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (1)Solid Witte Leaching Procedure preamble.Part 300,Chapter 1 of Title 40.
Note:Many other State and local Manual. Code of Federal Regulations,is
requirements could be pertinent. (2)Methods for the Prediction of amended as follows:
Forthcoming guidance will include a Leachate Plume Migration and Mixing. 1.The authority citation for Part 300
more comprehensive list. (3)Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill continues to read as follows:
J.USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents Performance(HELP)Model Hydrologic Autbodty:Sec.las,Pub.L 95-510.94 Stet.
• Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal 2784.42 U.S.C.9805 and sec 311(c)(2).Pub.L
Draft Alternate Concentration •Sites. 92-50o as amended,a8 Stat.565.33 U.S.C. !,
Limits(ACL)Guidance. 1321(cz
(4)Procedures for Modeling Flow 1981);EO.11735,38 Fit 21243.IZ316,46 FR (Au(August 1973
A.EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines Through Clay Liners to Determine ) s )'
1.Surface Impoundments,Liners Required Liner Thickness. 2.Subparts A through G and 4300.84
Systeme.Final Cover and Freeboard (5)Teal Methods for Evaluating Solid of Subpart H of Part 300 are revised to
Control. Wastes. read as follows:
2.Waste Pile Design—liner Systems. (a)A Method for Determining the
3.Land Treatment Units.. - Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes. -
4.Landfill Design—liner Systems and (7)Guidance Manual on Hazardous
f Final Cover. I Waste Compatibility.
fB.Permitting Guidance Manuals 4.USEPA Office of Water Guidance
ILII 1.Permit Applicant's Guidance Documents
Manual for Hazardous Waste Land A.Pretreatment Guidance Documents
_ Treatment.Storage,and Disposal
Facilities. (1)304(g)Guidance Document Revised
i..
Z.Permit Writers Guidance Manual Pretreatment Guidelines(3 Volumes) j
for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment,
Storage,and Disposal Facilities. B.Water Quality Guidance Documents !
r- 3.Permit Writer's Guidance Manual (1)Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
for Subpart F. --. _ - .__ Discharge of Dredged Material into j
4.Permit Applicant's Guidance Ocean Waters(1977)
Manual for the General Facility - (2)Technical Support Manual:
Standards. Waterbody Surveys and Assessments
` 5.Waste Analysis Plan Guidance for Conducting Use Attainability
Manual. Analyses(1983)
0.Permit Writers Guidance Manual (3)Water-Related Environmental Fate
for Hazardous Waste Tanks. of 129 Priorily Pollutants(1979)
7.Model Permit Application for (4)Water Quality Standards -
Existing Incinerators. Handbook(1983)
S.Guidance Manual for Evaluating (5)Technical Support Document for ,
Palmit Applications for the Operation of Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units.
9.A guide for Preparing RCRA Permit C.NPDES Guidance Documents
Applications for Existing Storage
i
Facilities. ( M Beet Management Practices Guidance
ancence Manuel(June 1961)
10.Guidance Manual on Closure and (2)Case studies on toxicity reduction
Poet-Closure Interim Status Standards. evaluation(May 1883).
C.Technical Resource Documents
D.Ground Water/UIC Guidance
(TROs) Document
(1)Evaluating Cover Systeme for Solid (1)Designation of a USDW
and Hazardous Waste.
(2)Hydrologic Simulation of Solid (2)Elements of Aquifer Identification
t
- Waste Disposal Sites. (3)Interim guidance for public
i..: (3)Landfill and Surface Impoundment participation
Performance Evaluation. (4)Definition of major facilities
(4)Lining of Water Impoundment and (5)Corrective action requirements
Disposal Facilities. (6)Requirements applicable to wells
(5)Management of Hazardous Waste injecting into,through or above an
Leachate. aquifer which has been exempted
(e)Guide to the Disposal of pursuant to 4148.101(6)(4).
Chemically Stabilized and Solidified (7)Guidance for UIC implementation
Waste. on Indian lands.
i
B-6
I
' it
'r - -
�Y
z � r _ _r ,, rte. _ .. .. i _ �.. - ,:• -- >w�
1 rt Ys _ ,. '`c P �• .. ., _. v .k -. Ott S � _ :.'., -+ _
% X i -
th c _
rr�` i
T
' r
s F E, :
x . 11
.\ .
J �. 1.
46",
'"N .F y �J r.� •' '
. .. "+ _
. I . . . . I I I . w
I . -
I' 3 F I n
_ 5
\. - c a
z r , .
f. r x.r `, .., .
a.
.. c- r
,
� 1.
_, . ; .. 1. ;
I .
I.
:
.. - ..
.
.
. -
. 11
.
p . I - - 7_-�
._ - - -
: _ .
.:
r. y .� -.,.,.__-_ ._._.._--__..-. _ _.. __ P - - - .
.. - - -
m.
.T - -
-, ., 7 �,,,, ,- � , , " . 1. I .�. I . . I , . .- - I . I- / . .
\
r7lk � .
1,-,t,�m.-=` `\
PEABODY:
- . � \ ��
- _
- . `
-" - \� �� 3 MID RISE - .i STORY + BASEMENT = 40uNITS
ti
I - , p _ ` TOTAL = 120uNllTS
:fir 14 --�; -= 1. � 24 -LARGE TOWN HOUSES = 4UNITS
• t ` TOTAL - 96uNiTS
.-- ': ``
GOLF
TOTAL = 216uNiTS
/ ' '� \ \\ COURSE �.\ LAND AREA:
/ . "I / \
/ \
\ \
*(r ' • - \•\\ \ �p
1W DEVELOPMENT 27ACRES
^�; \
�� = `•` GOLF COURSE = II+/-ACRES
.. r .\ \
'_.:7610- / % 1 r I f \\\\ \
,1v
\`-I /' ,\\ \
\ \
J:,,- / f 1. J- )F \\
/ �� ( \
_w__ _i I W
\
i� / .�' r \\ \\
' \
/ V, \
.. e \
/ \
,4'- \
/ V \ \
Y x..A \ \
/ 11 J \
. �l \\
/ SR 1 \\ \
�'\ \ \
, / v \\ `
"j/ � 'S r v \ \\ \
/ , ,
1 . '` _ -- .
-, ', \`
I / ` _. t \fir; _ _ -- -- -- -- ,'
/ \. (\ .� \
/ i 11 \ \.-.; 11 l
/ «r'r; t% 1111, \ v \ pFT . : \
_ � ip
} S _ \ ,
-.t, . __ - . I ./ - -I &, .� . ,
i' t��oe \ `�3 / \ , i 1' \ IV)
� "..,.\ .� r �/ , ;