70-92 Boston Street - Site Investigation Summary Report Appendix A APPENDIX A
EPA FILE REVIEW REPORTS
L2005-115
- F
t. ejp
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE .INVESTIGATION
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW- CHAPTER 21E
AT
80 BOSTON STREET
-SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
1
SUBMITTED TO:
JOHN FLYNN & SONS
80 BOSTON STREET
SALEM,; MASSACHUSETTS
SUBMITTED BY:
SP ENGINEERING, INC.
27 CONGRESS STREET
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS "_U`„�
NOVE.M.BER 1988
:y
� KEErE
v MECHANICAL
No. 31446
S10 AL��
i
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Leo T. Keefe , P.E .
William H.. Mitche professional Engineer
Field Engineer/Geo ogist
i
is
-T A B . L _E O F
C O -N T E N T S
Page
l
; . Introduction
t
Figure :
i
Locus Plan 3
2. Site Plan
2A . Site Plan
2B. Site Plan
ii. Assessment Rationale
5
III . Methods.
IV. Surface and Subsurface Geology
5
8
V, Tank Inforimation
9
V;. Site Use and gis.tory
11
'VII. Areas of Concern
VIII. Soil and Water Analysis Summary
14
16
IX. DEQE Spill File Review
17-
X. Conclusions
22
Barrel Inventory for Disposal
Figure:
3. Soil Logs
4. Soil Logs
5. Soil Logs
Tables:
1. Metals Analysis
2. EP Tox Soil Analysis
3 . Volatile Organics -Analysis
4. Golatile Organics Analysis
I. - Introduction
The property being investigated is located at 80 Boston
Street, Salem, Massachusetts . The front .side of the property
abuts Boston Street and the back side abuts Goodhue Street. The
property covers 1. 67 acres , which includes a brick ,' one to
three-story structure occupying approximately 60 percent. of the
site , with the remaining 40 percent being either asphalt or
concrete. The site douses two major parking lots , one to the
northwest and the remaining one being to the opposite southeast
corner . The property is totally enclosed with a chain-link
fe:�ce.
On November. 7 , 1988 , a site investigation of . the subsurface
was conducted by SP Engineering , Inc .. under. the supervision of
William H. Mitchell Jr. , Field Engineer/Geologist. In-house
barrel inventory, review of process activities and present waste
handling was supervised by Bruce M. Poole , President of SP
Engineering , Inc.
II. Assessment Rationale
The building and surrounding property has been subjected to
I
a comprehensive investigation to determine whether hazardous
waste . materials and/or oils have been released or are contained
or located; on the site or in the soil. or groundwater . This
report summarizes the conditions encountered on the buildings ,
grounds and subsurface soils., and groundwater. The
certification of materials and soils sampled involves the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations for
� � o
Z 2
(7. Q
' O
y
V
W ff a
ct
•
0
O
D a
0
cl a
O
A Q
Oo `3
CL
aoo 0
o Cl) O Cn
u�
n o z
rz Q m
m � oa` 0
m a Z
n m C o
rrlx� m
cn -
' v
s
o
o
A
G) o 0
n Or c
40 -
`s
G
A� o
0
i •
W
U a
a
4
OVJ m
CL
o O a
m Z
to O
�rnfri
r77
CD
i -
i
1
analysis of reactivity, corrosivity , ignitability and extraction
procedure toxicity.
The hazardous material investigations
required tests for eight heavy metals in the soil and volatile
organics (VOA) , pH and conductivity in groundwater.
Since many sites have been developed only to discover that
wastes stored below the ground continue to leach heavy metals or
carcinogenic solvent fumes that affect human health, the
importance of complete site studies is a financial necessity.
Many construction techniques and treatment programs can
eliminate the risk in industrial site development, but the
probleras have to be discovered by chemical analysis. .
l
Documentation of -the size, character and constituents of any
previous landfill activity is essential to the determination of
future impacts. The combination of test cores , soil
characterization, soil EP toxicity tests, and surface and.
groundwater. chemical analysis (if groundwater i-s encountered)
reveals the extent of site contamination, if any. The enclosed
discussion and engineering report presents the results of
previous industrial activity on the site and how it relates to
future development potential.
All applicable sites must be certified free of hazardous
wastes and contaminated groundwater in order to obtain title
insurance for the sale , remortgages or building addition to the
property. This site survey is conducted by an engineer who has
had extensive experience handling the hazardous materials from
tanneries, electroplaters , and other industries as well as the
design of wastewater treatment systems, -sludge disposal
2
j .
facilities and landfills . This experience includes a variety of
remedial site clean-up actions.
All soils and groundwater are sampled according to EPA
protocol 'and analyzed at SP, Inc. ' s in-house chemistry
laboratory in Salem, Massachusetts. All sites are subjected to
corings and grounds survey to determine natural conditions 'and
any areas of man-made fill or disposal.
i A material is considered hazardous if it shows :
1._ Ignitability - .Having a flashpoint of less than 140oF;
a nonliquid liable to cause fires through -friction, absorption
of moisture , spontaneous chemical change or retained heat from
manufacturing or. liable when ignited to burn so vigorously and
persistently as to create a hazard; ignitable compressed gases;
j oxidizers.
2. Co.rrosivity - Aqueous wastes exhibiting a pH of less
than. or equal to 2 or greater than or equal. to 12. 5 and liquid
wastes. capable of corroding steel at a rate of greater than 0. 25
inches per year.
3. Reactivity - Readily undergo violent chemical change ;
react violently or form potentially explosive mixtures with
3
water ;. generate toxic fumes when mixed with water (or when
exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions for sulfide or
cyanide bearing wastes) , explode when subjected to a strong
i
a initiating force ; explode at normal temperatures and pressures;
or classified as Class A or B explos-ives .
4. Fail the EP Toxicity Tests - The Extraction Procedure
.(EP) Toxicity Test is designed to simulate the physical
3
processes which would occur in a landfill. To simulate the
acidic leaching medium which occur in. actively decomposing
landfills, EPA chose to employ acetic acid: To simulate the
leaching process , EPA specified a procedure requiring the mixing
of the solid component of the wastes (soil in . this instance)
with -the acidic leaching medium for a period of 24 hours. To
duplicate. the attenuation in concentration expectedto occur
between the point of leachate generation and the point of human
or environmental exposure , EPA applied a dilution factor. o-f 100
to the concentration of toxic constituents observed in the test
extract.
S. Identified as a Priority Pollutant = The RCRA:
legislation has classified a minimum of 125 organic and metallic
compounds as acutely hazardous to human health. As such, only
extremely low levels are tolerated in the environment and
non-existence required for .drink.ing water. sources.. These
compounds are detected by gas chromatograph and regulated
according to their level, mode of toxicity (i .e . . oral, -dermal,
inhalation) and health effect (carcinogen, irritant,- or
mutagen, ) . In all cases , there are chronic . (long-term) concerns
as well as acute {single-exposure] toxicities that have to be
evaluated.
III . Methods
A. six-inch diameter auger coring device was used to
penetrate asphalt or soil to refusal or .several feet below the
groundwater table. An engineer on site during excavation
4
characterized soil strata type, depth, unnatural material
quantities and groundwater levels. This data is _presented in
the Soil Logs (Figures 3, 4, 5 & 6) . Any organic material,
colored soil or landfill refuse is- sampled as a worst case 'and
subjected to the EP Toxicity Test. All - analyses are performed
according to Standard Methods 15th- edition 1980, RCRA
!. Regulations E.P. Toxicity Extraction Procedures 1978, or the EPA
Method 602 for gas chromatographic analysis of petroleum
hydrocarbons. ,Quality assurance and sample identification
protocol:s .are in accordance . with federal requirements of the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) , a-,d
Clean Water Act of 1976.
IV. Surface and Subsurface Geology
The site is located within the Salem Quadrangle of the USGS-
Topographic Map _Series.- The, topography of the site is mostly
sloping .to the southeast according to the Quadrangle Map with an
average elevation of 35 feet above. sea level. Run-off floras in
two major directions . The front side of the property abutting
Boston Street, run-off is. to the southeast down Boston Street .
On the back side of the property, run-oft is to the northeast'
were the North" River presently exists. The area .being
investigated is approximately 1.67 acres. . One large
1
conglomerate three-story brick building occupies approximately
60 percent of the site with the remaining 40 percent covered by
concrete and asphalt. The asphalt/concrete areas are subdivided
j into three sections ; two of the. areas are on the northwest and
5
southeast ends of the property abutting Boston Street with the
remaining concrete area abutting Goodhue Street to the
northeast. Surrounding the property is commercial/industrial to
the northeast and southeast, residential to the northwest and
southwest.
The subsurface soils are believed to be all fill ranging
from sand and gravel to rock. The soil is part of the Urban
Land-Udorthenis Association where .soils have been altered or
obscured by Urban works and structures or- where- soil material
has been excavated and redeposited. An unknown quantity of
brick and concrete footing slabs are present in the subsurface
due to the remains of an old structure which burned many years
ago. Subsurface soils were encountered in all as.pha.lt/concrete
areas. Priority areas for drilling were near underground
petroleum tanks.
On the northwest end of the property, within the parking
area and abutting Boston Street, contamination of #6 oil was
encountered in Test Hole #1 and. 46. Test Hole 11 was highly
contaminated with #6 oil, free flowing at approximately 13. 5
feet. SP, Inc. drilled to a depth of 20 feet before abandoning
Test Hole #1. It is likely that contamination continues to a
depth greater than 20 feet in Test Hole #1. Test Hole 46 was `
explored to determine if any #6 oil had migrated downgradient
from a 20, 000-gallon underground #6 oil tank. Contamination was
encountered at 11 feet in Test Hole #6. Drilling was - stopped -
due to the lack of day-light. The extent of contamination is
assumed to be widespread because of the porous nature of the
fill material.
Also abutting-Boston Street and to the southeast' behind
Dunkin Donuts, SP, Inc. drilled Test Holes #3 and' #4 within the
asphalt areas. Both Test Holes had well sorted brown medium
sand fill. Subsurface soils in this area appeared -free of any
contamination during testing.
However, Test Hole #2, drilled -to the east next to Goo&hue
3 -
Street, was contaminated with solvents from the 6,000-gallon
j underground solvent tank upgradient from the Test Hole. Further
upgradient from. Test Hole t2, SP, Inc. drilled two additional
I Test Holes, #7 and #8, on November 30, 1988: This area was
investigated further due to the solvent detected downgradient
from Test Hole #2. Test Hole #7 and.. #8 did posses detectable
volatiles possibly from. the solvent tank. The HNU read-ings in
the back lot . ranged from 20 to 120 ppm. Due to the
multi-contaminated areas on site, the augering. equipment .was.
steam cleaned after each encounter with contamination.
Groundwater was encountered in Test Hole #2, which was the
closest boring to the North' River at approximately 8 feet.
Groundwater did possess quantities of v.olatiles believed to be
solvent from the suspected leaky underground tanks. The type of
i
solvent used as a degreaser in sheepskin leather manufacturing ,
is called Stoddard' s solvent. It is a complex mixture of
straight and branched chain paraffins , naphthenes and aromatic
i
hydrocarbons. A petroleum distillate , it is also called mineral
- spirits and has a kerosene odor . It is insoluble in water
(specific gravity 0. 79) -and boils between 1540C and 2020c (not
very volatile) (see attached fact. sheet in the Appendix) .
7
i
r
..V-. -Tank- -Information
Information. concerning any petroleum storage containers
on-s_ite was. acquired from multiple interviews with employees- and
a visit 'to the Salem Fire Department. According to John Keenan,
Manager and 31-year employee of John Flynn & Sons, the following
tanks exist on-site.
1. (1) 20,000-gallon #6 fuel oil underground tank located
in .the northwest parking lot abutting Boston Street.
2. (2) 275-gallon #2 fuel oil aboveground tanks located
within the shiping room on the northwest corner of the building.
3 . (3) 275-gallon #2 fuel oil aboveground tanks located
within the maintenance shop abutting Goodhue .Street to the .eas_t.
4. (1) 6,000-gallon solvent underground tank located
between the maintenance shop and the boiler room within the
driveway area.
5. (1) 10,000-gallon abandoned #6 fuel oil underground tank
located in. the boiler room abutting Goodhue Street.
6.. Other tanks on site, non-petroleum, involved in effluent
treatment, are mixing tanks', clarifier, sludge storage, solvent
recovery, caustic soda, alum and polymer. These tanks are above
ground fiberglass or steel vessels that will be sold. off as part
of a treatment system.
7 . Various steel and fiberglass above ground tanks exist
throughout the factory for the storage of process chemicals .
These include vessels for salt brine, formic acid, trivalent
chromium (15% solution) and fat liquors . While these are not
hazardous wastes, the chemicals would still have to be returned
to .the seller and the tanks cleaned before. being sold.
8. Wastewater' ''from the tan and color processes are
collected in four below floor concrete pits . These pits and
associated trenches generally contain accumulations of sludge
t
that have low levels of chromium, phenolics and solvents. While
these are not Hazardous wastes , they still require cleaning,
dewateri.ng and disposal in a "special" landfill.
VI. Site Use & -History
The site, for the past -68 years , has- been utilized,
according to an interview with 31 year employee John .Keenan and
a Deed Search at the Salem Registry of Deeds, for the
manufacture of lea_t.her from pickled sheepskin stock . John Flynn
and Sons, at one time , was a world leader in processing,
sheepskins into finished. garment leather . The manufacturing
activities -require many chemical baths to prepare the skins and
color the leather. This facility did not remove the hair 'from
the skins , but utilized dehaired acid-pickled raw stock from New
Zealand.
According to the Deed Search, the buildings and land were
purchased from 19.26 to 1950. The following section shows the
number of purchases made to acquire the. existing property.
November 2, .1928 , Mr . Flynn purchased the three-story
structure from Bernard J. Mulligan ', where the business
originally began. In addition to this , Mr . Flynn purchased the
additional buildings and land from Joseph Polansky in 1935,
Charles Kokoras in March of 193.6, Lena -Mahoney in September
1936, William C. Norton in July 1947, Joseph Polansky in May
1948 and finally Charles Kokoras .in August 1950.
During this time period and up to the present, John Flynn &
Sons * has generated several distinct wastewater operations
associated with leather proc-essing. - Included in these processes
were solvent degrease, tan, blue soak; retanning, fat liquoring,
coloring and finishing . Chemical analyses have been conducted
regularly to characterize daily wastewater, sludge and process
wastes . Treatment system operation has allowed compliance with
Local and Federal effluent discharge limits since 1980.
The wastewater is prescreened, chemically coagulated and
settled in a primary clarifier. End pro ducts. from processing
such as grease andchrome trimmings are either recycled or sold.
to other industries . The final effluent is discharged to the
SESD Municipal Sewer System for further wastewater treatment
befo.re discharge into Salem Harbor. Primary sludge is: dewat.ered
by a filter press and d-isposed. of in a special landfill.
Also stored in the building are a large number of 55-gallon
drums and paper barrels (10 to 20) that contain outdated
chemicals ; finish mixes , fly ash, still bottoms and unknowns .
Some of these materials are being returned to the sellers and
others are not. hazardous. A full barrel inventory-'is being
prepared to identify the waste streams, label the barrels and
schedule disposal by a licensed hazardous waste firm.
The facility .is presently being considered for resale. The
facility is presently under-going a clean-up operation .
Clean-up includes selling all pretreatment. materials and
machinery. While on-site, SP, Inc. observed clean-up
operations. The tannery still needs more maintenance, including
10
i .
floor cle-aning of chemical spills and sludge clean-up in
trenches and pits throughout the basement of the building . SP,
Inc. would request a site revisit when Flynn & Sons have
finished the .clean-up of- the facility to determine if .any
i
j hazardous waste remains on-site.
i
VII. Areas of Concern
There are multiple areas of hazardous waste contamination
i
which were visually observed in the subsurface soils during SP,
Znc. ' s site investigation.
1 . Test 'Moles #1 and #o, within the parking area, located
I '
on the northwest end. of the site , was highly contaminated with
#6 fuel oil..- Apparently .the 20, 000-gallon -#6 fuel oil tank is
leaking. The steel t-ank is 38 years old according to the Salem
Fire Department. SP, Inc. drilled to a depth of 20 feet and
discovered #6 fuel oil at approximately 13 to 20 feet. The oil
flowe-d freely into the boring up to 15. feet. HNU readings
ranged from 16 to 70. ppm' s . Test Hole #6 was explored
downgradient from the 20, 000-gallon #6 fuel oil tank to-
i det.ermine potential migration of the fuel oil. Soi1 -
i
contaminated with fuel oil- was discovered at ll feet. The
source of contamination within Test Hole #6 is -believed to be
from migrated #6 fuel oil that originated in the upgradient
20, 000-gallon in-ground tank. The porous nature of the sand and
gravel found in this area would indicate that the extent of
contamination is widespread. The fill material from grade to 11
feet down, did not appear contaminated. The steep grade on the
11
north side of this parking lot did not show any evidence of
seepage or oil migration.
2. Abutting Goodhue Street and between the maintenance shop
and the boiler room, Test Hole #2 produced high volatile
organics. Discovered at approximately 7. feet was possible
solvent contamination from the upgradient 6,000-gallon in-ground
solvent tank. HNU readings with headspace analysis techniques
measured 180 ppm's. The Stoddard' s solvent (mineral spirits)
be-lieved .to be present in the soil is insoluble in water and
does not evaporate readily. As mentioned previously, almost the
entire site is paved or covered with concrete . A tidal canal,
the North River , exists downgradient approximately 200 yards
from the site. There is a potential risk that the solvent
material -may migrate to the river . The river is, however , a
Class D waterbody with no recreational or shellf.ishing
activities. There are no wells downgradient of the property and
no mechanism by which the solvent could become surface run-off.
3. Beneath the boiler room there is a 11, 000-gallon
abandoned 16 fuel oil in-ground tank. This tank, was- believed
to be leaking when it 's use was discontinued in_ 197.3. The tank
was installed in 1939 . SP, Inc. was .unable to test the soils
around the tank because they are under a building. Even the
adjacent loading dock is covered by a thick concrete pad.
The oil, if present , is well contained and does not pose
any immediate risk to human health. If the .buildings were
demolished and new foundations were excavated, then the oil and
soil would have to be removed and properly contained in a secure
landfill.
4... The .presence of waste Barre-ls (10 to 20) in the building
necessitates- further- inventory
, identification and labeling. .
John F1ynn :.and. Sons has -followed the RCRA regulations in the
i
regular disposal and manifesting of routinely produced hazardous
wast-e streams that consist of still - bottoms , boiler ash , finish
mixes and spent-- laquers . Many of the barrels remaining are not
listed hazardous wastes (RCRA 45 CFR Section 261, 31) , but
process chemicals that may or may not be usable. Because of
certain constituents, they will have to be incinerated or
disposed of in a- secure landfill.
Overall, these concerns have not _zterferre-d wi_h the
present industrial use of the property. Occupational exposure
to the subsurface soils. is negligible ; therefore , there has not
been, nor is there an imminent threat of any deleterious impact
on human health and safety. The industrial mature of the entire
area and present condition of the North River also indicates
that there is minimal potential for environmental harm.
Effective containment of these contaminated soils could allow
continued industrial use of the property. Any construction or
excavation .would require soil removal.
VIII. Soil and Water Analysis Summary
Soil sampling was conducted with a hollow stem- continuous
flight auger -with a split-spoon sampling device -for each Test
Hole. Samples were -taken every foot as material was brought to
the surface with the auger flights. Each sample was analyzed
for strata and lithology changes. While on site, samples were
13
I
then---composited into, one: approved_ DEQE:.c.ontainer .. .per Test dole.
for further chemi-cal analyses. :: During drilling, the . soi.I
samples did possess obvious volla.tile qualities, excluding Test
.Holes 1.4 and #5 which had no- hydrocarbon volati.les . The
drilling continued until refusal (ledge or boulders) was reached
or 5 feet below .groundwater.
A multi-triangular boring configuration and the previously
obtained subsurface. information aided in the determination of
test holes relative to the site. Each test. hole composite .was
subjected to Extraction Procedure Toxicity testing .-(EP Tox) .
Three- EP Tox samples were tested.. Soil samples from Test Hole
#l .were tested as one unit. Soil samples from Test Hole #2 and.-
13 were composited together as the -second unit, and soil samples
from Test Hole #5 and t6 as the. third EP Tox unit. All EP Tox
results were free of any hazardous heavy metals.
The amount of oil in the soil in the upper parking lot
ranged from 8. 0% worst case Hole #1, 6. 3% composite Hole #1 and
1. 33% worst case Hole #6. Hole #6 is 25 feet downgradient of.
the oil tank and is -believed to represent (within 10 feet) the
extent of oil migration. This is important because with
industrial sites u�1. 0$ oil is not considered hazardous .and
can remain- on-site.
Soil contaminated with #6 fuel- oil from Test Hole #1 was
tested for Organochlorine Pesticides and PCB' s. All results
from these tests were non-detectable. A VOA (volatile organic
analysis) was also conducted on the oil within Test Hole #1.
Detectable compounds were benzene at 12500 mg/1 and ethylbenzene
14
I
i
I
at -930----mg/i. Additional VOA were concentrated on Test Hole #2.
Soil sample's had. 254 ug/kg benzene, 119 ucg/kg ethylbenzene, 57
ug/kg toluene and 85 ug/kg xylenes.
Groundwater was encountered in only Test Hole .#2 (back
solvent tank area) . A VOA 'indicated 1870 ug/l benzene , 94 u-g/kg
ethylbenzene, 15 ug/kg toluene :and 42 ug/1 xylenes. Oil and
grease levels were 0. 12% , and not a problem. in this area.
Two of the above contaminants have been recorded with fhe
Federal Register of Concerned Pollutants, Volume 45, -No. 23.
The following . is stated within this volume.
A. Benzene, Saltwater Aquatic Life':
The available data for Benzene indicates that acute
toxicity to saltwater aquatic life occurs at -concentrations as
low as 5,100' ug/l and would occur at lower concentrations among
a
species that are more sensitive than those . tested.
B . Toluene, Saltwater Aquatic Life:
The available data for Toluene indicates that acute and
chronic toxicity to saltwater aquatic life occurs at
concentrations as low as 6, 300 and 5, 000 ug/l, respectively, and
would occur at lower concentrations among species that are more
sensitive than those tested.
IX. DEQE Spill File Review
1. According to the DEQE Incident Files , at 2 Goodhue
Street , on the corner of Goodhue and Bridge, a release was
I
15
reported in April 1987, Case #370427. The lot is utilized as'.,a
parking lot and owned by James Weener 'of JHW Corporation. The
source of contamination is believed to be from P. Claiman, who
has a 55 year old 10,000-gallon concrete underground tank.
According to Jim Weener, the tank was pumped and cleaned this
summer. A site assessment was conducted by Target Environmental
Service in April 1987 showing high fuel oil, diesel or kerosene
in concentrations up to 21 ppm. The case is presently pending.
2. Located. at 12 Hanson Street ; and not recorded in DEQE
Incident Files, just northwest from John Flynn & Sons , SP, Inc.
conducted a site investigation for Beverly Leather Corporation
in March 1987. The site investigation discovered high lead at
greater than 5 mg/l, oil and grease at 17. 5 percent and total
volatile organics of 39.20 ug/1 within Test Hole #2. The source
of contamination is believed to be the finishing air exhaust of
the past operation. Remedial action was conducted on April 22,
1988 by SP, Inc. SP, Inc. supervised the removal of 120 . 16 tons
of contaminated soil. The soil was transported by Total Waste
Management Corporation, Newington, New Hampshire (US EPA ID
#NHD980521843) to Sawyer Environmental Recovery of Hampden,
Maine .
X. Conclusions
It is evident that the property has been exposed to
discharges of hazardous materials. This being the case , we
cannot certify the property free of hazardous materials . The
magnitude. of release also means that DEQE will have to be
16
i
not-ified accord-i-ng- to -MGL Chapter 21E Two major areas on the
i site should be. subjected .to remedial action, with an additional
f area of probable #6 fuel oil contamination dealt with if the
building is demolished (see Site Plan) . Within the building ,
more areas of concern exist such as; sludge filled trenches, .
chemical spills on floors and the remaining barrel inventory .
It may be .concluded that the hazardous constituents present in
the soils and groundwater (Test Hole #2) do not, at the: pres ent ,
pose a threat to human health- or the environment: This is due
to the fact that no drinking water wells or natural "resources
exist in the area.
However, subsurface environmental problems obviously exist.
Groundwater was found in only one Test Hole (#2) -. This hole is
believed to contain solvents from the upgradient in-ground tank.
These solvents could be migrating to the North River. The two
#6 fuel oil releases should be contained (non-migrating) due to
the high viscosity. of the petroleum product. The sources of #6
fuel oil contamination are suspected to be from the in-ground
tanks.
{ The in-ground 201000-gallon tank, #6 fuel oil, on the
i
northwest corner of the site, was installed and inspected on
July 8 , 1950. The abandoned 10, 000-gallon. tank , #6 fuel. oil ,
beneath the boiler room, was installed and inspected on December
I
1 , 1939. The 20, 000-gallon tank is still in use to heat the
major portion of the building.
Although the contaminate levels are in excess of the .limits
set by DEQE, it is still unclear on how to treat this site's
17
i _
specific problem. According to .DEQE, .any soil contaminated with '
virgin petroleum products reading greater than 10 ppm's of
volatiles with the HNU meter, should be removed. It must be
emphasized that this is. not a fixed standard.. and DEQE may allow
site specific alternative remedial goals whenever it is deemed
appropriate.
At this point, SP, Inc. would recommend soil and tank
removal and an effective in-situ treatment such as recovery
wells to treat the solvent area groundwater . To confirm our
recommendations, we must- submit this report to .DEQE with a waste
contingency plan for further approval.
The occupational exposure limits (OSHA) For. benzene . in air
is 10 ppm. Levels of 50 to 70 ppm were encountered in the test
cores , but were not evident at the surface of the property.
Excavation would be the only mechanism by which workers would be
exposed to the threshold levels. Removal and stockpiling of the
soil would be conducted under the supervision of an engineer and
safety precautions such as organic vapor masks. (for workers in
the excavation) and plastic covering of material would be
followed. As described in the Soil Logs , . the layer of
contaminated material is covered by 7 to 11 feet of clean fill.
This also minimizes the risk of direct human contact.'
Although there is no current danger of migration or further
exposure , -the contaminated soil must be removed and -properly
disposed of in a licensed landfill. This is a common procedure
that can be accomplished safely over a period of several months .
Portable volatile meters can identify the contaminated material
18
I
during_. excavation for isolation on plastic. The stockpiled soil
will" also be completely covered with
P y plastic. Composite soil
samples will be . taken . after excavation is complete for
laboratory analyses that are required for landfill acceptance .
Once acceptance is received (2 to 4 weeks) , the material would
be loaded. onto licensed trucks and hauled away.
The top 7 to 11 feet of clean fill. will be removed to the
side and returned to the hole after .the contaminated soil is
excavated. Soil samples of the bottom and sides remaining in
the excavation will be taken to confirm that all contaminated
;gate= ial was removed . DEQE and other parties will receive all
chemical analyses , manifests and a final report documenting the
remedial action.
The quantity of oily material to be removed from the
parking lot is estimated at 1100 cubic yards (60 ' x 60 ' x 8.'
average thickness, to below groundwater) . This would represent
an expenditure of $170, 500. 00 at $155/ton, if .the material had
to be taken to the Sawyer Environmental facility in Maine.
However , chemical tests do not indicate any solvent or heavy
metal contamination, so the material could be taken to Brock ' s.
.Asphalt Plant in Dracut, Massachusetts at $90/ton for
$100 ,000 . 00 total .
The solvent contaminated soil in the back of the building
will also have to be removed or encapsulated. The soil from the
groundwater to beneath the pavement contains varying amounts of
solvent. The average soil depth is 5 to 8 feet before. refusal
(ledge) . The estimated quantity of soil (roughly 1001 x 30' x
19
`61 Is. 700 cubic .yards. Large material (rock and concrete) can
remain on-site if not saturated with solvent. Solvent disposal
requires transport to a secure landfill in New York -or South
Carolina. 'The cost is approximately $225/ton or $160,000.00 if
all material has to go. Since the site is not being considered
for residential construction, some low level material could
remain. nn-site if sealed. to prevent future migration to the
North River.
The barrels on-site, after characterization, can be
disposed of at a rate of $20.0 to $350 per drum, depending upon
the materials. Tt is not anticipated that removal would cost
more than $7, 000.00. for 20 barrels.
After soil removal and backfill in the solvent area, we
would recommend the installation of -two. (4" ) groundwater
recovery wells. The groundwater would -be pumped to- granular
activated carbon filters for removal of the remaining soluble
petroleum compounds.. Groundwater , .-after carbon absorption,
should contain less than 5 ug/1 of benzene and would be returned
to the ground on the property upgradient of the wells. This
continuous process will clean the groundwater and flush
remaining material from the soils over a period of 3 to 9
months . Monthly analyses of the wells will document the
remediation. The installation and operation of this equipment
(and final carbon disposal) is estimated to cost $16,000.00 to
$18, 000 . 00 .
The large 20, 000-gallon fuel oil tank and 6, 000-gallon
solvent tank need to be removed, cut open, wiped clean and
20
transported fo-r -disposal as scrap steel. This operation . will
i
allow access to surrounding soil.- It is estimated to cost
$20, 000. 00 to complete the tank removal job. Excavation of
i
contaminated. soils, with engineering supervision and chemical'
analysis would cost approximately $20, 000 to $30 , 000 . The total
backfilL material (1800 cy @ $8/cy) and resurfacing of the
excavated areas would cost an estimated $2Q, 000 to $25, 000. The
r-emediati-on proposed (all items) would cost an estimated
$360,000. 00 (worst case) , depending on subsurface conditions
encountered. Outlined below are the conventional 't.echniques and
costs used for this type of cont-amination.
ESTIMATED REMEDIAL COSTS , WORST CASE
A. #6 fuel oil soil -contamination
front parking lot
disposal of-1100 cubic yards. @ $9G/ton-
Brock 's Asphalt- Plant $100, 000. 00
B. Solvent contaminated soil
disposal of 700 cy @ $225/ton_
Model City, New York .$160, 000 . 00
C. Barrel removal 20 @ $350/barrel $ 7,000 . 00
D. Solvent area, groundwater recovery
wells (2) and monthly monitoring (9 mon. ) $ 18,000 .00.
E. Tank removal , cleaning and disposal
one 20 ,000-gallon #6
one 6 , 000-gallon solvent $ 20, 000 . 00
F. Soil excavation, engineering supervision
and chemical analyses. DEQE permit MCP and
final report $ 30, 000 . 00
G. Clean back.fi.11ing material 1800 cy @ $8/cy
in-place, compacted and resurfaced with
. asphalt $ 25, 000. 00
Total $360,000 .00
21
-There are other methodologies that can be used to remediate
an industrial site such as this. Some of them will save money ,
but would result in a site condition that would be .unsuitable
for residential housing. At this time, the property is being
marketed for commercial use or warehouse activity. The zoning
is also industriallcommercial and not likely .to change in the
near future since there are many industries nearby. It is
anticipated that the old .section of the building would be
demolished and a new structure built in its place , without a lot
of new foundation work.
These considerations mean that the 16 fuel oil contaminated
soil at a level of 1% or less can remain in the ground. The
section would be sealed in clay on the south and east side to
contain any material from migrating as a liquid. The surface of
the excavation should be sealed with .asphalt to minimize the
amount of rainwater that penetrates into the soils.
The solvent contaminated area on the back of -the property
would also be sealed from downgradient Goodhue Street and .the
North River by a clay. layer . Groundwater encountered in this
area (Test Well 12) is not true groundwater , but interstitial
rainwater traveling on the subsurface ledge. When excavation
and tank removal are in process , ' a portable volatile compound
HNU meter will be used to determine which soils are above the 10
ppm limit. In many cases , the action of excavation aerates the
soils and releases volatiles causing marginal values of 15 to 20
ppm to decrease and pass the criteria.
22
This . soi-1; after aeration and- large concrete or rock
pieces , .can be - returned (after DEQE review of the analyses) to
the hole- .as ' backfill. If_ the surface of the excavation is then
sealed. by concrete or asphalt, and by clay around the
downg.rad.ient perimeter, pump-out wells may not be required. The
quantity of material for disposal will also be reduced by 30 to
35 percent. If these techniques are allowed by DEQE, and they
.have been used locally before, the following outline of costs
would apply.
ESTIMATED REMEDIAL COSTS FOR
COMMERCIAL SITE ENCAPSULATION
A. fuel oil soil contamination
front parking lot
disposal of 1100 cy @ $90/ton $1001000 . 00
B. Solvent contaminated soil after
aeration -disposal of 350 cy-' @ $225/ton -$ 80, 000 . 00.
C. Barrel removal 20 @ $350 $ 7, 000 .00
D. No groundwater recovery wells SIC
E. Tank removal, cleaning and disposal
20, 00'0 and 6, 000 gallon tanks $ 20, 000 . 00
F; soil excavation, engineering supervision
and chemical analyses . DEQE permits MCP
and final. report $ 30, 000 . 00
G. Clean backfill material 1200 cy @ $8/cy in -
place --compacted and resurfaced with asphalt.
Clay layer around . perimeter , both areas
160 cy '@ $12%yd in-place S 25, 000 . 00
Total $262 , 000 . 0.0
23