70-92 Boston Street - Phase 1 Initial Site Investigation and Tier Classification - January 2006 r'
TRC
Customer-Focused Solutions
PHASE I - INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION
AND TIER CLASSIFICATION
Former Flynntan Manufacturing Company Site
70-92 Boston Street
Salem, Massachusetts
MADEP RTNs: 3-16788 and 3-24618
Prepared far:
The City of
Salem,Massachusetts
Prepared by:
TRC Environmental Corporation
Boot!Mills South
116 John Street
Lowell,Massachusetts 01852
January 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................:...........................................................................1-1
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND..................:...................................................6...........................2-1
2.1 General Disposal Site Information.................................................:.............................2-1
2.1.1 Site Location and Description.......................
2.1.2 Surrounding Populations and Land Use............
2.1.3 Natural Resource Areas .......................................................................................2-2
2.2 Disposal Site Map.........................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Site History......................................................................:............................................2-2
2.3.1 Owner/Operator and Operations History...............................................................2-2
2.3.2 Release History....................................................................................................2-3
2.3.2.1 RTN 3-24618...................................................................................................2-3
2.3.2.2 RTN 3-16788...................................................................................................2-3
2.3.3 Oil and/or Hazardous Material Use and Storage History.....................................2-4
2.3.4 Waste Management History/Environmental Permits and Compliance................2-4
3.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS..........................................3-1
3.1 Environmental Site Investigation:-SP Engineering, 1988..........................................3-1
3.2 Chapter 21-E Site Investigation Update-SP Engineering, 1996................................3-1
3.3 Pollution Report-EPA, 1998 ...............................................................•----..................3-2
3.4 Environmental Site Assessment-TRC, 2001.............................................................3-3
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS BY TRC ...............::...............................................4...........4-1
4.1 GPR Surveys................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Site Reconnaissance.....................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Soil Sampling.....................................................................................:.........................4-2
4.3.1 November 2004 Investigation....................................................:.........................4-2
4.3.2 June 2005 Investigation ....................:.....................:............................................4-3
4.3.2.1 Soil Borings .....................................................................................................4-3
44.3.2.2 Test Pit Excavations...........................:.............................................................4-3
4.4 Groundwater Sampling................................................................................................4-3
4.4.1 November 2004 Investigation..............................................................................4-4
4.4.2 June 2005 Investigation .......................................................................................4-4
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS........................................................................:..............................5-1
5.1 General Site Topography.............................................................................................5-1
5.2 Subsurface Soil ............................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Groundwater Flow... 5-1
5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...........................................................................5-1
5.4.1 Soil.......................................................................................................................5-2
5.4.1.1 Western Portion of Site....................................................................................5-2
5.4.1.2 Area of Four-Car Garage .................................................................................5-2
5.4.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................5-3
January 2006 i Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
5.4.3 Separate-Phase Hydrocarbon................... .5-3
..............................................:...:.........
5.4.4. Residual Chromium-Impacted Soil......................................................................5-3
6.0 MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE POTENTIAL................................6-1
6.1 Groundwater Pathway to Surface Water......................................................................6-1
6.2 Groundwater Pathway to Drinking Water.....................................................................6-1
6.3 Groundwater Pathway to Air...................... ........6-1
.........................................................
6.4 Soil Exposure by Direct Contact and Ingestion.............................:.............................6-2
7.0 EVALUATION FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS..................................7-1
8.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................8-1
9.0 CONCEPTUAL PHASE 11 SCOPE OF WORK........................................:...............9-1
10.0 REFERENCES.........:...................................................................................................10-1
11.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................11-1
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: MA DEP Site Scoring Map, 70-92 Boston Street, Salem, MA
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4; Groundwater Elevation Contours
TABLES
Table la: Summary of Soil Samples Collected and Chemical Analytical Parameters,
November 2004 Investigation
Table lb: Summary of Soil Samples Collected and Chemical Analytical Parameters, June
2005 Investigation
Table 2a: Summary of Groundwater Samples Collected and Chemical Analytical
Parameters, November 2004 Investigation
Table 2b: Summary of Groundwater Samples Collected and Chemical Analytical
Parameters, June 2005 Investigation
Table 3: Monitoring Well Construction/Groundwater Elevation Data
Table 4: Summary of Detected Compounds in Soil
Table 5: Summary of Detected Compounds in Groundwater
January 2006 ii Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
APPENDICES
Appendix A Numerical Ranking System Score Sheet
Appendix B EPA File Review Documents
Appendix C MADEP File Review Docments
Appendix D Geophysical Survey Reports
Appendix E Test Pit Logs
Appendix F Soil Boring logs/Monitoring Well Construction Logs
Appendix G Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets
January 2006 iii Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the City of Salem (the "City"), TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has
completed this Phase I — Initial Site Investigation (Phase I) Report for the Former Flynntan
Manufacturing Company Site (Site) at 70-92 Boston Street in Salem, Massachusetts(RTN 3-
24618). This Phase I Report has been prepared in accordance with Section 310 CMR.40.0480 of
the Massachusetts .Contingency Plan (MCP). The purpose of this Phase I Report is to provide
sufficient information to complete a Numerical Ranking System (NRS) scoring of the Site in
accordance with Section 310 CMR 40.1500 of the MCP. A copy of the completed NRS
Scoresheet (Form BWSC-107a) is provided in Appendix A. The.NRS Scoresheet indicates a
Site score of 196. This score indicates that the Site is classified as a Tier H Site pursuant to
Section 310 CMR 40.0500 of the MCP. A completed Tier Classification Transmittal Form
(Form BWSC-107) and a Comprehensive Response Action Transmittal Form and Phase I
Completion Statement (Form BSWC-108) are also attached to this Report.
Two Release Tracking Numbers (RTN) are associated with the 70-92 Boston Street property.
The Site was initially listed under RTN 3-16788 as a 2 hour release condition due to the threat of
release from fire that would potentially cause an imminent hazard condition pursuant to 310
CMR 40.0312(2) from drums, vats, and floor trenches. The threat of release was reported to the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 13, 1998. The property owner at the time was
Salem Realty, LLC. Due to non-compliance by the property owner, the EPA initiated an
environmental clean-up of the Site. An IRA Completion Statement was filed with the MADEP
on November 24, 1998, indicating the work done at the Site by the EPA was sufficient to
mitigate the IRA condition.
The second RTN (RTN 3-24618) is a 72-hour release notification condition identified on
December 28, 2004. During the course of Site assessment activities performed on behalf of the
.City, using EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant funds, TRC measured approximately 1.49 feet of
light non-aqueous phased liquid (LNAPL) in monitoring well MW-1 located along the northwest
perimeter of the Site. On behalf of the City, Mark Casey, LSP of TRC verbally notified the
MADEP of the release on December 30, 2004 at approximately 10:00 a.m. Mr.Casey was given
authorization to undertake IRA assessment activities and provide the MADEP with a written IRA
Plan within 60 days of verbal notification. At the time of release notification, the MADEP issued
the Site RTN 3-24514. However, on February 9, 2005, Mr. Paul Giddings of the MADEP
informed TRC that the Department had mistakenly assigned RTN 3-24514 to two separate
releases, and that the correct RTN for the subject release is RTN 3-24618. Note that at the time
of this release notification, TRC was not aware that the initial RTN '(RTN 3-16788) already
existed.
On February 28, 2005, TRC. submitted a Release Notification Form (RNF) and a written IRA
Plan to MADEP for RTN 3-24618. IRA Status Reports were submitted to MADEP for this
RTN on May 9, 2005 and November 4, 2005. As of the date of this Report, the IRA has not been
closed under the MCP.
January 2006 1-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
The MADEP on-line Sites database lists.RTN 3-16788 as "Tier ID". RUN 3-24618 requires that
a Phase I Report and Tier Classification be submitted by December 30, 2005. On behalf of the
City, TRC has prepared this Phase I Report and Tier Classification submittal to address both
RTNs.
The City acquired the Site under property tax foreclosure and; therefore, is considered a
"municipality" under Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 21E (MGL c. 21E). The City is not
considered a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for the releases at this property. The City
prepared this Phase I Report and Tier Classification submittal to achieve MCP compliance for-
both RTNs in order to aid in marketing the property to prospective developers, and to actively
divest.itself from ownership of the property as required for municipalities under MGL c. 21E.
The City does not intend to take additional MCP response actions at this Site beyond this Phase I
Report and Tier Classification submittal.
January 2006 1-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
The information presented in this section is taken from previous environmental site assessments
and/or investigations conducted by others as well as by TRC under the EPA's Brownfields
Assessment Program for the City.
2.1 General Disposal Site Information
The following sections provide general information relative to the Site and surrounding area in
accordance with 310 CMR 40.0483(1)(a).
2.1.1 Site Location and Description
A Site Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A MADEP Site Scoring Map is provided as Figure
2. A Site Plan showing soil and groundwater sampling locations and other pertinent Site features
is provided as Figure 3.
The Site is known locally as the former Flynntan Manufacturing Company Site. According to
the City of Salem Assessor's records (Map 15,.Parcel 299), the Site is approximately 1.9 acres in
size. The Site is located on the north side of Boston Street between Boston and Goodhue Streets_
The North River is located approximately 1/2 mile northeast of the Site. A feeder canal to the
North River (Strongwater Brook) runs east to west approximately 500 feet northeast of the Site.
Salem's downtown center is located approximately 3/miles east of the Site.
The Site currently consists of four separate vacant buildings, three of which are fenced with
locking gates and the fourth securely locked. The buildings include a main building, a storage
building, a 4-car garage, and a single-car garage. The main entrance to the Site is located on
Boston Street. Secondary entrances and parking areas are located in the southwest, southeast and
the north-central (rear) portions of the Site. A former fifth Site building that was demolished
sometime after the Flynntan property closed in 1988 was located in the northwest portion of the
Site. This area was filled following building demolition.
2.1.2 Surrounding Populations and Land Use
The Site is abutted by Boston Street to the south and Goodhue Street to the north. Commercial
areas abutting the eastern Site boundary consist of a Dunkin Donuts and Classic Automotive
Autobody Shop. There are residences to the northwest along Boston Street and also on the south
side of Boston Street, across from the Site. Commercial areas to the north, along Goodhue
Street, include Salem Oil & Grease, Steve's Auto Specialties, and North Shore Ambulance. To
the northeast, across Goodhue Street, are two vacant commercial buildings. The North River is
located approximately 1/2 mile north of the Site. A feeder canal to the North River runs east to
west approximately 500 feet northwest of the Site. Across the intersection of Boston Street and
Goodhue Street, to the southeast, is a Walgreen's Pharmacy.
No schools or other institutions are located within 500 feet of the Site.
January 2006 2-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
2.1.3 Natural Resource Areas
The Strongwater Brook is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the Site. According to the
MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Site Scoring Map (Figure 2),. and based on Site
reconnaissance, no wetlands were identified on or abutting the perimeter of the Site.
Figure 2 indicates that no public drinking'water supplies [i.e., Zone 11, Interim Well Head
Protection Areas (IWPAs) or Potentially Productive Aquifers (PPAs)] are located within '/2 mile
radius of the Site. Groundwater just to the north of and beneath the northwest portion of the Site
has been designated as a Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA). According to
the City of Salem Board of Health, there are no private drinking water wells within 500 feet of
the Site. No Protected Open Space or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are present
within 500 feet of the Site.
2.2 Disposal Site Map
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0483(1)(b), a Site Plan, showing the approximate property
boundaries is presented as Figure 3. Site features including existing Site buildings, the
approximate location of the former Site building and the soil and groundwater sampling locations
are also shown on Figure 3.
As shown on Figure 3, several pits and raceways are present within the Main Building at the Site,
and an underground storage tank(UST) in the parking lot to the west.of the main building.
2.3 Site History
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0483 (1)(c), the following sections present the Site history.
2.3.1 Owner/Operator and Operations History
Available records indicate the Site was historically occupied by commercial and manufacturing
buildings prior to 1900 until approximately 1999. Flynn and Sons operated a tannery on the
property from approximately 1922 until approximately 1988. Based on an interview with
Thomas St. Pierre of-the City of Salem Public Property Department, small commercial operations
took place on Site until 1999, including a small metals business. Ownership was transferred to
Jan Exman of Salem Realty,LLC on September 12, 1996.
January 2006 2-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
2.3.2 Release History
Descriptions of the release conditions associated with the two DEP RTNs for this Site are
provided below.
2.3.2.1 RTN 3-246118
From November 2004 through February 2005, TRC performed environmental assessment
activities at the Site under the City's Brownfields Program. A scope of work for TRC's Phase U
activities was set forth in an EPA-approved QAPP, dated April 27, 2004.
During the course of these environmental assessment activities, approximately 1.49 feet of
separate phase hydrocarbon (SPIT) was encountered in monitoring well MW-1, located in the
northwest portion of the Site. This condition constituted a 72-hour release notification condition
under the MCP. In accordance with MCP requirements, the City provided verbal notification of
this condition to MADEP on December 30, 2004. - MADEP assigned RTN 3-24618 to this
release. On February 28, 2005, TRC submitted a RNF and written IRA Plan to MADEP for
RTN 3-24618. IRA Status Reports were submitted to MADEP on May 9, 2005 and November
4, 2005. As of the date of this report, the IRA has not been closed under the MCP.
2.3.2.2 RTN 3-16788
A separate EPA Removal Action was performed at the Site in 1988 due to the threat of a release
from 55-gallon drums, pits, and vats at the Site located within the on-Site buildings. At that
time, the EPA notified MADEP of conditions at the Site and the Removal Actions was also
completed as an IRA under the MCP (RTN 3-16788). The EPA Removal Action that were
completed at the Site is described in Section 3.0.
Although TRC was aware that the EPA Removal Action had been conducted at the Site prior to
its 2004 —2005 environmental assessment activities, TRC was not aware these activities were
performed as an IRA under the MCP. In March 2005, subsequent to the 2004-2005
environmental assessment and release notification activities, TRC was granted access the EPA
Administrative Record for the.former Flynntan Site. Based on review of this information, TRC
learned that the EPA Removal Action had been conducted as an IRA and that RTN 3-16788
existed.
On December 21, 2005, TRC completed a review of the MADEP file for RTN 3-16788. The
MADEP file review revealed that two previous environmental assessments had been completed
at the Site, which where summarized in the following reports:
• Environmental Site Investigation For Compliance With Massachusetts General Law
Chapter 21 E, prepared by SP Engineering, Inc., dated November 1988 (SP Engineering,
1988); and,
January 2006 2-3 Phase I Report
L2006-009 • RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
• Chapter 21-E Site Investigation Update, by SP Engineering Inc., dated January 1996 (SP
Engineering 1996).
These reports indicate that a releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to soil and groundwater had
occurred in the western portion of the property, near the existing 20,000 gallon No. 6 fuel oil
UST, as indicated by the presence of"free-flowing separate phase hydrocarbons" in two wells in
this area. A more detailed discussion of the content of these two reports is provided in Section
3.0.
2.3.3 Oil and/or Hazardous Material Use and Storage History
Hazardous materials were present at the Site prior to the EPA Removal Action in 1998. The Site
at one time contained numerous 55-gallon drums containing hazardous materials, as well as pits
and vats apparently used during the tannery process at the Site. Earlier reports indicated that
there were.two No. 6 fuel oil USTs (20,000-gallon and 10,000-gallon), as well as a "solvent"
UST (6,000-gallon). In addition, there were approximately five 250-gallon ASTs scattered
throughout the buildings.
2.3.4 Waste Management History/Environmental Permits and Compliance
An Environmental Site Investigation Report, by SP Engineering, Inc. (SP Engineering, 1988),
details the historic waste management practices at the Site. That report indicates that there were
sludge filled trenches, chemical spills on the floor, and a barrel inventory consisting of 10 to 20
barrels present at the Site. The report also indicates that Flynn & Sons had followed RCRA
regulations in the regular disposal and manifesting of routinely produced hazardous waste
streams,which consisted of still bottoms;boiler ash, finish mixes, and spent lacquers.
January 2006 2-4 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
3.0 'SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS
In March 2005, TRC was granted access to the EPA Administrative Record for the former
Flynntan Site. In addition, on December 21, 2005, TRC completed a review of the MADEP file
for RTN 3-16788. Based on these file reviews, TRC determined that several environmental
investigations have been completed at the Site by other consultants. These investigations have
been summarized in the following reports, which are included in Appendices B and C.
lo Environmental Site Investigation For Compliance With Massachusetts General Law
Chapter 21E, by SP Engineering, Inc., dated November, 1988 (SP Engineering, 1988).
• Chapter 21-E Site Investigation Update, by SP Engineering, Inc., dated January, 1996
(SP Engineering, 1996)..
• Pollution Report, by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated October 27, 1998
(EPA, 1998.).
• Environmental Site Assessment, by TRC Environmental Corporation, dated October,
2001 (TRC, 2001).
3.1 Environmental Site Investigation-SP Engineering, 1988
In November 1988, an environmental investigation of the Site was conducted by SP Engineering,
Inc. of Salem, Massachusetts for John Flynn & Sons. Below is the pertinent information
regarding the environmental condition of the Site.
A "barrel inventory", and a review of process activities and waste handling activities were
conducted during the investigation. Approximately ten to twenty drums were identified in the
main building as "requiring disposal". In addition, the sludge filled trenches and areas of
staining were identified as possible sources of contamination.
A total of 8 "Test Holes" were drilled at the Site. Two Test Holes were reported as "containing
No. 6 fuel oil". Test Hole#1 was reported as containing "free flowing" No. 6 fuel oil noted from
13.5 to 20 feet below ground surface ("bgs"). In addition, contamination was encountered in
Test Hole #6 at 11 feet bgs, but drilling was stopped due to lack of daylight. Test Hole #2,
located near Goodhue Street and adjacent to a reported solvent tank at the Site, was listed as
"contaminated with solvents". Test Holes#7 and#8 were drilled in the vicinity of Test Hole#2,
and were noted as containing detectable volatiles.
3.2 Chapter 21-E Site Investigation Update—SP Engineering, 1996
In 1996, an environmental investigation was conducted by SP Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Mr.
Jan Exman, of Pownal Development Corporation. During this investigation, three soil borings
were installed two of which were converted to monitoring wells. In addition, sludge samples
were collected from the"tanning and coloring" areas.
January 2006 3-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
A soil sample collected from groundwater monitoring well MW-2, located near the 20,000 gallon
UST, reported "worst-case" detection of 101,000 milligrams per kilogram ("mg/kg") for total
petroleum hydrocarbons ("I PH"). The depth of the sample was not reported.
The report_contained a scaled figure depicting the location of the 1988 soil borings, along with
the new soil boring and two wells installed as part of this study. In addition, the figure indicates
the locations of a 10,000-gallon and a 20,000-gallon No. 6 fuel USTs, and a 6,000-gallon
"solvent" UST. The 10,000-gallon UST was labeled as "abandoned". This information was not
available to TRC prior to the implementation of ground penetrating radar ("GPR") surveys
completed in 2004.
3.3 Pollution Report—EPA, 1998
A threat of release of hazardous material (RTN 3-16788) was reported for the Site by EPA on
May 13, 1998. The MADEP Release Log Form indicates that heavy metals, flammables, high
pH, and PCBs were.found at the Site. Between May and October 1988, EPA completed a
Removal Action at the Site, which was also completed as an IRA under the MCP. In October
1998, the EPA issued a Pollution Report summarizing remedial actions taken at the Site to
address the threat of release. Based on the EPA report, MADEP closed the IRA on November
24, 1998. The EPA Removal Action completed at the Site included the following:
• 8/14/98: Collection and transport of the hazardous waste liquids from floor trenches to
a designated disposal facility.
• 8/20/98: Transportation and disposal of drums to a designated disposal facility.
• 9/10/98: Disposal of the sludge from pits, tannery solids from floors and trenches,
along with a limited amount of lead and chromium contaminated surface soil
to a designated disposal facility.
• 9/21/98: Covering the floor trenches and pits with plywood and metal plates.
• 9/30/98: Transportation and disposal of contaminated personal protective equipment
and hose to a designated disposal.facility.
• 10/27/98: Transportation and disposal of leather scraps to a designated disposal facility.
The Administrative Record File obtained from contains more detailed information regarding the
concentrations of contaminants found during the EPA removal action. The documents obtained
from this file are enclosed as Appendix B, along with additional reports from the EPA's
consultant during the Removal Action, Roy F. Weston,Inc.
The Pollution Report also stated outstanding issues on Site. At the time of the removal project, a
small amount of chromium-contaminated soil (approximately 60 cubic feet) was left on Site. It
did not meet the EPA time critical removal criteria because it did not pose a direct contact threat
January 2006 3-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
and did not appear to have the capability to migrate via wind or surface runoff. The location of
the soil is stated to be in the southwest portion of the former Site building.
3.4 Environmental Site Assessment—TRC, 2001
TRC prepared Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report for the Site, dated October,
2001. The ESA was performed in general accordance with.the scope and limitations of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E1527-94, Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. TRC was not
aware of the existence of RTN 3-16788 at the time of the ESA submittal.
Tasks performed in association with the ESA included:
• Limited- visual reconnaissance of the Site including the interiors of accessible Site
buildings on August 13, 2001;
• Contact with readily available local and state environmental authorities;
• Federal .and state database search to investigate the presence of proximal sites with
Potential environmental concerns;
• Examination of readily available documentation pertaining to use, storage and discharge
of hazardous substances for the Site and Site vicinity;
• Review of available files at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP);
• Observation of neighboring properties to assess potential impacts to the Site; and,
• Examination of other readily available historical Site documentation.
Significant findings from TRC's 2001 ESA are as follows:
• Two areas of stained soils were observed. One on the southwestern corner of the former
Site building and the other on the northwestern corner of the Storage Building Annex (see
Figure 3). An EPA Pollution Report also stated that at the time of their removal project
in 1998, a small portion of chromium-contaminated soil (approximately 60 cubic feet)
was kept on Site. The stained soil found on Site by TRC personnel may be related to the
contaminated soil left on Site by the EPA.
• The 4-car garage consists of an exposed ground surface. Due to limited lighting in this
area, it was not possible to fully assess the condition of the ground surface. Contents in
this area consisted of an empty drum and other automotive parts.
• Historical records Site indicate the Site was previously used for industrial purposes for
approximately 100 years (1890's to 1990's, approximately). Previous Site occupants
included a shoe manufacturing facility (1890's), a variety store (1920), a beauty salon
(1920), and leather manufacturers (1922 to 1988). According to available historic maps,
January 2006 3-3 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
the entire Site was developed with these former industrial facilities. Due to historic, on-
site industrial and manufacturing activities, the entire Site is considered a potential source
area.
• Available state and Federal regulatory records state that there are two large UST's
registered on Site. No records were found referring to the condition or removal of these
structures. In addition, there are five additional underground structures on Site, two
potential underground structures, and two potential aboveground storage tanks. These are
all considered potential source areas and require further evaluation.
• There was a substantial amount of wood, glass, and metal debris present on Site including
a large pile of light ballasts. The debris may be a potential environmental issue on Site.
January 2006 3-4 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATIONS BY TRC
TRC completed two rounds of subsurface investigations at the Site; the first in November 2004,
and the second in June 2005. In addition, TRC complete two ground-penetrating radar (GPR)
surveys at the Site; one on May 26, 2004 and the second on August 30, 2004. These activities
were performed using EPA Brownfields Assessment grant funds awarded to the City of Salem.
The activities completed during each phase of investigation are described in the following
subsections.
4.1 GPR Surveys
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys of the Site were conducted on May 26 and August 30,
2004. The GPR surveys were conducted in portions of the exterior of the Site, as indicated by
the shaded region on Figure 3. The GPR survey identified 5 anomalies in the asphalt-covered
parking area, as indicated in the GPR survey reports, included as Appendix D. No anomaly was
identified between the Storage Building and Storage Building Annex, where past reports by SP
Engineering identified a suspected 6,000-gallon solvent tank.
4.2 Site Reconnaissance
TRC personnel performed a hazardous materials survey on February 9, 2005 in order to assess if
any Site conditions had changed since the TRC 2001 ESA.
The utility room attached to the 4-car garage building, comprising the southern portion.of the
garage, was previously inaccessible by TRC personnel during the preparation of the October
2001 Phase I ESA as well as the April 29, 2004 QAPP. During the February 9, 2005 visit, the
utility room door, fronting on Goodhue Street,had been dislodged from its lock, allowing access
into the area. The room contained three 275-gallon aboveground storage tanks ("ASTs"), two of
which appeared to have been used for heating oil storage by its moored positioning and transfer
piping still intact. One tank however was observed unsecured and placed on its side with transfer
piping removed. Moderate petroleum staining was noted on the floor in the vicinity of this tank.
Two partially filled 55-gallon drums, labeled as containing methanol, were observed in the
northernmost car bay. In addition, two empty 55-gallon drums were observed in the area.
Moderate floor staining, typical of use as a garage, was noted in.the northernmost car bay. No
floor drains or cracks/perforations were observed on the concrete floor. No other hazardous
materials were noted in the 4-car garage.
Approximately fifteen, 55-gallon drums were stored in a stockpile in the lower asphalt-covered
parking area, located between the main building and the storage building, adjacent to,the north
side of the Storage Building Annex. Recent significant snowfall and subsequent freezing
temperatures would not allow the unobstructed view of lidless drum contents nor the immediate
vicinity surface soils,. if any. One drum containing lighting fixture ballasts was observed. A
second drum was labeled as containing isopropanol, though the container was open and the
contents appeared to be frozen. Approximately thirteen additional 55-gallon drums were also
January 2006 4-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
observed in this area. These additional drums were either empty or with smaller 0.5 to 5 gallon
empty containers for antifreeze, grease, binding adhesive, and motor oil placed inside them.
The Storage Building Annex contained one empty 275-gallon heating oil AST located adjacent to
a northeastern second floor office area. No unusual staining or odors were observed within the
vicinity of the AST. No other hazardous materials were noted in the Storage Building Annex.
4.3 Soil Sampling
The soil sampling programs performed during the November 2004 and June 2005 Site
investigations are described below. Figure 3 shows the locations of the soil borings and test pits
that were advanced during this project. Tables la and lb list the soil samples that were
submitted for laboratory analysis. Appendix F contains the soil boring logs and well construction
diagrams.
For each soil boring, continuous 5-foot acetate-lined cores were collected from the ground
surface to the groundwater interface. Soil samples were screened in the field for the presence of
volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") using a RAE Systems MutliRAE Plus multi-gas meter
equipped with a photoionization detector ("PID"). Samples exhibiting elevated PID readings or
other indications of contamination were submitted to an analytical. laboratory for testing as set
forth in the project QAPP. Soil samples as well as Site worker breathing zones were also
monitored for hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations were not detected during the
soil boring program.
4.3.1 November 2004 Investigation
TRC's initial soil boring program was performed on November 17 and 18, 2004. The program
consisted of ten soil borings advanced via Geoprobe direct-push drill rig. These boring are
identified as SB-1 through SB-10 on Figure 3. Borings were completed to depths ranging from
approximately 3.5 feet below ground surface ("bgs") at SB-8 to approximately 28 feet bgs at SB-
2. One-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") monitoring wells were installed in borings SB-
1/MW-1 through SB-4/MW-4, SB-6/MW-5 and SB-91AM-6 as shown on Figure 3.
The November 2004 soil-sampling program contained the following deviations from the EPA-
approved QAPP. -
• The proposed monitoring well to be installed at SB-5 was not completed due.to Geoprobe
refusal at approximately 5 feet bgs in the area as well as limited building access.
• Soil sampling at SB-7 was limited due to poor recovery. The sample was analyzed for
PCBs due to close proximity to existing drum stockpile, one of which was uncapped, on
its side and contained what appeared to be capacitors or light ballasts.
• The VOC soil sample was not collected at boring SB-2 due to a lack of PID
concentrations and its relative upgradient location. Cyanide was also not sampled at SB-
2 due to its relative upgradient location.
January 2006 4-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
4.3.2 June 2005 Investigation
4.3.2.1 Soil Borings
TRC's supplemental soil boring program-was performed on June 14 and 15, 2005. The program
included thirteen soil borings advanced via Geoprobe direct-push drilling technology. These
borings are identified as B 101 through B 113 on Figure 3. The following seven (7)borings were
converted to groundwater monitoring wells: B-101/MW-10.1, B102/MW-102, and B-104/MW-
104 through B-108/MW-108. Excluding monitoring well ("MW") MW-105, the wells were
constructed with two-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") 0.010-slot screen and riser.
MW-105 was constructed using one-inch diameter PVC materials. Borings were completed to
depths ranging from approximately 5 feet bgs to approximately 37 feet bgs.
The June 2005 soil boring program included the following deviations from the EPA-approved
QAPP.
• Proposed soil boring and groundwater monitoring well to be installed as B-103/MW-103
was not completed due to refusal at approximately one feet bgs at nine (9)locations.
• The locations for soil borings B-104 and B-106 were adjusted due to push refusal at their
originally proposed locations.
4.3.2.2 Test Pit Excavations
As part of the June 2005 investigation, test-pit excavations were performed by City of Salem
Department of Public Works personnel, under the direction of TRC, in the southwestern portion
of the Site (see Figure 3). The objective of these test pit excavations was to investigate the
subsurface anomalies identified during the GPR surveys. One (1) approximately 20,000-gallon
No. 6 fuel oil containing UST was located in the area. Based on field measurements conducted
by TRC personnel and based on the tank's geometry, approximately 3,000 to 4,000 gallons of oil
and water remain in the UST. Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3 were excavated to check GPR
anomalies in those areas, No USTs were encountered at those locations. The anomaly northeast
of the 20,000-gallon No. 6 fuel oil UST is described in the SP Engineering, 1988 and 1996
reports as a "lixator". Test pit TP-4 was excavated between the 20,000-gallon UST and the
lixator. Soils impacted by petroleum were encountered adjacent to the UST. Test pit logs are
provided in Appendix E.
4.4 Groundwater Sampling
The groundwater sampling programs performed during the November 2004 and June 2005 Site
investigations are described below. Figure 3 shows the locations of the monitoring wells that
were sampled during this project. Tables 2a and 2b lists the samples that were submitted for
laboratory analysis.
January 2006 4-3 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
4.4.1 November 2004 Investigation
During the initial investigation, TRC measured groundwater depth and collected groundwater
samples on December 28 and 29, 2004. Approximately 1.49 feet of separate phase hydrocarbon
("LNAPL") was encountered in monitoring well MW-1. As required by Massachusetts
Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40.0300, the City notified the MADEP of the LNAPL in NIW-1 on
December 30, 2004. The MADEP assigned the Site the Release Tracking Number ("RTN") 3-
24618 for the release. LNAPL was not observed in the remaining groundwater monitoring wells.
In addition, groundwater monitoring well MW-4 was observed to be dry. Table 2a presents a list
of groundwater samples collected as well as the chemical analyses performed on each sample
during the November 2004 investigation.
4.4.2 June 2005 Investigation
On June 22 and 23, 2005, TRC returned to the Site to collect groundwater samples from the
groundwater monitoring wells installed as part of the supplemental-investigation. Separate phase
petroleum hydrocarbons; as noted above, were observed in monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-
105 at a thickness of approximately 3.6 and 7.9 feet, respectively. Separate phase hydrocarbons
were not observed in wells MW-101 or MW-108 installed within Goodhue Street to the north
(i.e., downgradient) of well MW-1, or in the remaining on-Site groundwater monitoring wells.
Table 2b presents a list of groundwater samples collected as well as the chemical analyses
performed on each sample during the June 2005 investigation.
January 2006 4-4 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
5.0 SITE CONDITIONS .
This Section describes the.current Site conditions as observed during TRC's environmental
investigations at the property.
5.1 General Site Topography
Based on a review of the USGS topographic map supported by numerous Site visits by TRC,Site
topography may be described as sloping downward to the'northeast, towards the rear entrance of
the Site. The southwest half of the Site is higher in elevation, with an approximately 20-foot
high slope down to the northeast half of the Site. The topography to the northeast of the Site
appears to be relatively flat. Ground surface elevations across Boston Street, to the south and
southwest, are greater than the ground surface elevation at the Site.
5.2 Subsurface Soil
Based on field observations made by TRC during the November 2004 and June 2005 subsurface
investigations, the Site is underlain by layers of fine to coarse sand and fine to medium gravel fill
material including limited amounts of anthropogenic (brick, concrete, wood, ash) material.
Ash/slag was observed in the 2-4 feet depth interval at boring location B-104. Refusal occurred
in the area of the former on-Site building, which was likely due to building demolition debris in
this location. Nine (9) boring attempts were made to install B 103 in this area with refusal
encountered during each attempt at approximately one foot bgs.
5.3 Groundwater Flow
Depth to groundwater at the Site was measured by TRC on October 11, 2005 and ranged from
approximately 8.8 feet bgs at MW-107 to 36.7 feet bgs at MW-105. Table 3 presents a summary
of monitoring well construction and groundwater elevation data for TRC's wells. Figure 4
depicts the direction of groundwater flow based on these data. Based on groundwater elevations
collected on October 11, 2005, groundwater is interpreted to flow to the east-northeast.
5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The following evaluation of nature and extent is based on results obtained during the November
2004 and June 2005 Site investigations performed by TRC. Analytical results for soil and
groundwater are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. For the purposes of discussing the
nature and extent of Site contamination, soil concentrations are compare to MCP Method .1 S=
1/GW-2 and S-1/GW-3 soil standards, while groundwater concentrations are compared to MCP
Method 1 GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater standards. Laboratory data sheets are provided in
Appendix G.
January 2006 5-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
5.4.1 Soil
The primary constituents of interest in soil at this Site are petroleum hydrocarbons as indicated
by the concentrations of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) and Volatile Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (VPH) hydrocarbon ranges exceeding their respective MCP Method 1 S-1/GW-2
and S-1/GW-3 standards. Based on the existing data, two general areas of petroleum
hydrocarbon impacted soils are present at the Site: 1) the western portion of the Site; and, 2) the
area of the 4-car garage.
5.4.1.1 Western Portion of Site
Soil contamination in the western portion of the Site appears to originate near the 20,000-gallon
No. 6 fuel oil tank. Test pit TP-4 and boring B-105, located adjacent to the northeast end of the
UST, indicated the presence of petroleum-stained soil at a depth of approximately eight feet. 'As
shown in Table 3, over seven feet of SPH was measured in well MW-105 on October 11,2005.
No soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis from either of these locations.
The petroleum-impacted soil also appears to extend towards boring/monitoring well SB-1/MW-1
located along the northwest property boundary. As shown in Table 4, the soil sample from SB-1,
from 5-8 feet bgs, contained concentrations of EPH and VPH hydrocarbons above.their MCP
Method 1 S l/GW2 and S 1/GW3 soil standards. As shown in Table 3, over three feet of SPH
was measured in well MW-1 on October 11, 2005. Soil staining was also observed in boring B-
104 at a depth of approximately 7.5-8.5 feet. No soil samples were submitted for laboratory
analysis from boring B-104.
Elevated concentrations of EPH and VPH hydrocarbon ranges were not detected in the soil
sample from boring B-101/MW-101, located approx 20 feet north of SB-1 within Goodhue
Street. Also, although no soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis from boring B-108,
no evidence of significant petroleum-impacted soil was identified during advancement of this
boring. Based on these data, the petroleum-impacted soil in the western portion of the.Site does
not appear to extend significantly beneath Goodhue Street; and, therefore, the SPH detected in
well MW-1 does not appear to be migrating to any significant extent from the property.
5.4.1.2 Area of Four-Car Garage
This area is located within the building labeled as a 4-car garage near the northeast portion of the
Site (see Figure 3). VPH hydrocarbons Cy-Clo aromatics.and C9-C12 aliphatics were detected in a
soil sample from approximately 6 feet below grade in boring SB-3 at concentration above their
MCP Method 1 Sl/GW2 and S1/GW3 soil standards. 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was also detected
in a soil sample from six feet bgs in this boring above its MCP Method 1 S 1/GW2 and S 1/GW3
soil standards as a results of VOC analysis. This compound is included within the C9-Ci0
aromatic hydrocarbon range evaluated using the VPH analysis. 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene was not
detected above its MCP Method 1 S1/GW2 and S1/GW3 soil standard in the soil sample from
boring B-107, located approximately 15 feet northwest of-SB-3. Soil samples from B-107 were
not submitted for laboratory analysis of EPH or VPH.
January 2006 5-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
5.4.2 Groundwater
Table 5 contains a summary of the groundwater sample results for the November 2004 and June
2005 groundwater sampling programs. As shown in Table 5, the detected concentrations of
VOCs, EPH, and metals in the sampled Site monitoring wells were below their respective MCP
Method 1 GW-2 and GW-3 standards. VPH C9-C12 aliphatics were detected in monitoring well
MW-3 at a concentration exceeding its MCP Method 1 GW-2 standard but well below its MCP
Method 1 GW-3 standard.
5.4.3 Separate-Phase Hydrocarbon
SPH has been measured in monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-105. Monitoring wells NM-101,
MW-102, MW-104, and MW-108 were installed during the June 2005 supplemental
investigation in order to delineate the extent of SPH Site groundwater. SPH has not been
detected in any other wells installed at the Site, including wells MW-101 and MW-108 located
within Goodhue Street downgradient from well MW-1 (see Table 3). Based on these
measurements, the SPH detected in well SB-1/MW-1, does not appear to be significantly
migrating form the Site.
5.4.4 Residual Chromium-Impacted Soil
The 1988 EPA Pollution Report stated that approximately 60 cubic feet of chromium-
contaminated soil remained in an inaccessible portion of the Site following the EPA Removal
Action. The exact location of the residual soil is not known. TRC submitted soil samples from
several known or suspected source areas at the Site for laboratory analyses of both total and
hexavalent chromium (see Figure 3). As shown in Table 4, neither total nor hexavalent
chromium were detected in any soil samples form t he Site at concentrations exceeding their
respective S 1/GW2 and S 1/GW3 soil standards.
January 2006 5-3 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
6.0 MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE POTENTIAL
In accordance with 310 CMR 0483(1)(f), the following is.an assessment of potential migration
pathways within environmental media (i.e., air, soil, groundwater, and surface water) based on
Site observations, and soil and groundwater analytical results.
6.1 Groundwater Pathway to Surface Water
Groundwater sampling at the Site indicates that none of the compounds of interest were detected
in groundwater at levels exceeding the applicable MCP Method 1 GW-2 or GW-3 standards,
except for VPH C9-C12 aliphatics in monitoring well SB-3/MW-3. The detected concentration
of C9-C 12 aliphatics in this well slightly exceeded the MCP Method 1 GW-2 standard; however,
was well below the MCP Method 1 GW-3 standards for these hydrocarbons. Given this
information, off-Site migration and subsequent discharge of C9-C12 aliphatic hydrocarbons is
not a concern at this Site.
The downgradient extent of No. 6 fuel oil detected in monitoring wells SB-1/MW-1 and B-
105/MW-105 has been delineated by monitoring wells B-101/MW-101 and B-108/MW-108. No
SPH were detected in these wells and the dissolved concentrations of EPH and VPH constituents
were well below MCP Method 1 GW-3 standards. Given this information, significant off-Site
migration and subsequent discharge of dissolved petroleum constituents in groundwater is not
occurring at this Site.
6.2 Groundwater Pathway to Drinking Water
The groundwater beneath the Site is not within a Current Drinking Water Source Area and not
within a Potential Drinking Water Source Area as defined by the MCP. Groundwater
immediately northwest of and beneath the northwestern portion of the Site is within a designated
NPDWSA. According to the City of Salem Board of Health, there are no private drinking water
wells within 500 feet of the Site. Therefore, the potential for human exposure to Site
contaminants through drinking water is minimal.
6.3 Groundwater Pathway to Air
VPH C9-C12 aliphatics were detected under the 4-car garage at monitoring well SB-3/MW-3 at
concentrations exceeding MCP Method 1 GW-2 standards. The garage, as well as other Site
buildings, are not currently occupied; therefore, migration of vapors to indoor air is not a
significant concern under current Site conditions. This pathway should be considered in the
future if the on-Site buildings become occupied.
January 2006 6-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
6.4 Soil Exposure by Direct Contact and Ingestion
Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in subsurface soil at depths of between five and eight feet
in the western portion of the Site. Based on these depths, the potential for direct contact with
petroleum-contaminated soil at the Site is minimal. PAHs were detected in two shallow samples
(SB5-2 and. SB8-2) at concentrations slightly above MCP Method 1, S1/GW2 and S1/GW3
standards. Sample SB5-2 was.collected beneath the main Site building; therefore, the potential
for direct human contact with these constituents is minimal. Sample SB8-2 is located in the
central portion of the Site, and the Site is surrounded by a chain-link fence. Based on this
information, the potential for direct human contact with PAH constituents in sample SB8-2 is
minimal under current Site conditions.
January 2006 6-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
7.0. EVALUATION FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS
As previously indicated in this report, a release of LNAPL (No. 6 fuel oil) was discovered in
monitoring well MW-1, located on the northwest portion of the Site during initial Site
investigation activities conducted on December 28, 2004. The discovery prompted a 72-hour
release notification to the MADEP, which was provided on December 30, 2004 (RTN 3-24618).
On behalf of the City, TRC subsequently completed IRA assessment activities to investigate the
source and downgradient extent of the LNAPL in this area. A RNF and written IRA Plan were
submitted to MADEP for this release on February 28, 2005, and IRA Status Report were
submitted to MADEP for this release on May 9, 2005 and November 4, 2005. This report serves
as the Phase I Report and Tier Classification submitted for this release.
The source of the LNAPL appears to be the 20,000-gallon UST located near the southwest corner
of the Site beneath the asphalt-covered parking area. Monitoring well B-105/MW-105 is located
immediately adjacent to the northeast side of the tank, and as much as seven feet of LNAPL has
been measured in this well during TRC's Site investigations. Well SB-1/MW-1 is located
approximately 60 feet north of the UST along the northern property boundary, and as much a
three feet of LNAPL has been measured in this well. The ground surface at the UST location is
approximately 30 feet higher in elevation than the ground surface at well SB-1/MW-1.
The LNAPL in well SB-1/MW-1 does not appear to be migrating significantly beyond the
northern property boundary based on the absence of LNAPL in B-101/MW-101 and B-108/MW-
108 located to the northwest and north of SB-1/MW-1 within Goodhue Street. Very low
concentrations of EPH and VPH constituents were detected in the soil samples from B 10l/MW-
101 and no evidence of petroleum impact was observed in B-108/MW-108 (no soil samples were
submitted for laboratory analysis from this location). Furthermore, no detectable concentrations
of EPH or VPH constituents were found in the ground water sample from B-108/MW=108, and
very low concentrations of EPH and VPH constituents were detected in the sample from B-
101/MW-101, well below MCP Method 1 GW-2 and/or GW-3 standards (see Table 5). Based
on these data,significant migration of LNAPL and/or dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbons in
groundwater does not appear to be occurring at the Site.
Further IRA activities at this Site should include the removal of the 20,000-gallon UST from the
southwest portion of the Site, and removal of any source material (i.e., SPH) located within the
subsurface in the vicinity of the UST. Additional monitoring well may also be warranted to the
east of B-108/MW-108 to assess the potential for LNAPL migration in this direction. Note that
the IRA assessment activities completed,to date by the City were performed using Brownfields
Assessment Grant funds awarded to the City by the EPA. Additional funds are not available to
the City to conduct further MCP response actions at this Site, thus the City does not intent to
implement these IRA activities.
January 2006 7-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
TRC has completed the Phase I Initial Site Investigation for the Former Flynntan
Manufacturing Company Site at 70-92 Boston Street in Salem, Massachusetts that included a
review of previous studies and associated soil and groundwater sampling and analysis performed
by others. Key findings of this Phase I—Initial Site Investigation are summarized below.
• The Site has been historically used as a retail gasoline service station and auto repair.
facility. Releases of petroleum hydrocarbons to Site soil have occurred. The apparent
sources of release are a former gasoline underground storage tank and an existing 20,000-
gallon No 6 fuel oil storage tank.
• Separate-phase No. 6 fuel oil was detected in two monitoring wells in the western part of
the Site (well SB-1/MW-1 and B-105/MW-105). The suspected source of the LNAPL in
these wells is the 20,000-gallon No 6 fuel oil UST located beneath the asphalt-paved
parking area in the southeast portion of the Site. Based on the absence of petroleum
impacts in soil borings/wells installed beyond the northern property boundary, significant
migration of No. 6 fuel oil, either as LNAPL or dissolved in groundwater, is not occurring
at the Site.
• WH constituents (C9-C12 Aliphatics and C9-Cl0 Aromatics) were detected in soil from
boring SB-3/MW-3 at concentrations above MCP Method 1, S 1/GW2 and S 1/GW3 soil
standards. This boring/well is located within the 4-car garage building at the Site. In
addition, C9-C12 Aliphatics were detected in a groundwater sample from this location at a
concentration above the MCP Method 1 GW2 standard but below the MCP Method 1
GW3 for this hydrocarbon range. Although the concentration of C9-C12 Aliphatics in this
well exceeds its MCP GW2 standard, the garage building is not currently occupied;
therefore, there is no potential for human exposure to petroleum contaminant vapors
within this building under current Site conditions.
• Two rounds of groundwater sampling at the Site indicated that VOCs, petroleum
hydrocarbons, PAHs and metals are not present in Site groundwater at concentrations
exceeding the applicable MCP Method 1 GW-2 or GW-3 standards, except for
monitoring well SB-3/MW-3, which contained C9-C12 Aliphatics above its MCP Method
1 GW2 standard.
• Additional IRA activities are needed to eliminate the source of release of LNAPL at the
Site, as described in Section 7.0. These IRA activities should include the removal of the
20,000-gallon No 6 fuel oil UST from beneath the asphalt-covered parking are in the
southwest portion of the Site.
• Additional comprehensive MCP response actions are needed at this Site to evaluate
potential risks to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment, and the need
for comprehensive remedial actions. Additional . sampling may also be needed to
adequately evaluate and design a potential remedial action alternative for the Site. A
January 2006 8-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
Conceptual Phase H Scope of Work for these additional response.actions is provided in
Section 7.0 of this 'report.
• The Site was scored in accordance with the Numerical Ranking System (NRS) scoring
requirements of the MCP (310 CMR 40.1500). The NRS score for this Site is 196
indicating that the Site is classified as a Tier H Site under the MCP. A copy of the NRS
score sheet for this Site is provided in Appendix A.
January 2006 8-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
9.0 CONCEPTUAL.PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0510 of the MCP, this Section includes a Conceptual Phase II
Scope of Work and the estimated range of cost for the Former Flynntan Manufacturing Company
Site. The City of Salem is asserting a "municipality" status pursuant to MGL c.21E-and;
therefore, is not considered a Potentially Responsible Party for this Site. The City does not
intend to undertake the recommended Phase II activities outlined in this Section.
• The 20,000-gallon No. 6 fuel oil UST should be emptied of its contents, decontaminated
and removed and disposed off-Site under local and state regulations. UST
decommissioning activities should be conducted, specifically, under the April 9, 1996
MADEP Policy #WSC-402-96 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Underground Storage
Tank Closure Assessment Manual).
• Groundwater monitoring wells MW-1, MW-101, MW-102, MW-104, MW-105. and
MW-108 should be monitored monthly to observe groundwater levels and the potential
for migration of LNAPL from the property.
• Based on the groundwater elevation contours developed as part of this supplemental
investigation, an additional groundwater monitoring wells should be installed within
Goodhue Street, immediately east of MW-1 in an effort to further evaluate the potential
for off-Site migration of LNAPL.
• An updated round of groundwater sampling should be conducted at the Site to determine
current groundwater quality conditions.
• Due to prior Site filling practices and difficult sloping terrain, TRC recommends that
additional test pitting/trenching be conducted with track-mounted heavy excavation
equipment in order to evaluate the presumed migration path of LNAPL from the on-Site
20,000-gallon UST to SB-1/MW-1.
• An MCP risk characterization should be conducted considering potential future Site
activities and uses, to determine if comprehensive remedial actions are needed at the Site,
and if so to identify the remedial objectives for such actions.
• A Phase II Report, and if necessary, a Phase III Remedial Action Plan will need to be
submitted to MADEP for this Site within two year of the date of Tier Classification (or by
approximately December 2007).
Prior to initiating Phase II investigations, a Phase II Scope of Work will need to be prepared and
submitted to MADER Because the Site is classified as a Tier R Site under the MCP,no MADEP
approval of the Phase II Scope of Work will be needed. The estimated range of cost to
implement the above conceptual scope of work is $70,000 to $200,000.
January 2006 9-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
10.0 REFERENCES
EPA, 1998,Pollution Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 27, 1998.
Roy F. Weston, 1998, Chronological Summary Report, Roy F. Weston,Inc.,December, 1998.
SP Engineering, 1988, Environmental Site Investigation For Compliance With Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 21E, SP Engineering, Inc.,November, 1988.
SP Engineering, 1996, Chapter 21-E Site Investigation Update, SP Engineering, Inc., January,
1996.
January 2006 10-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
11.0 LIMITATIONS
1. TRC's study was performed in accordance with generally accepted practices of other
consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical
area, and TRC observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by other
consultants under similar circumstances and conditions. TRC's findings and conclusions
must be considered not as scientific certainties, but rather as our professional opinion
concerning the significance of the limited data gathered during the course of the study.
No other warranty, express or implied is made. Specifically, TRC does not and cannot
represent that the subject property contains no hazardous material, oil, or other latent
condition beyond that observed by TRC during its study. Additionally, TRC makes.no
warranty that any response action or recommended action will achieve all of its objectives
or that the findings of this study will be upheld by a Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) audit.
2. This study and report have been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of City of
Salem solely for use in a Phase I Report for 70-92 Boston Street, Salem, Massachusetts
(subject property) under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP - 310 CMR
40.0000). This submittal and the findings contained herein shall not, in whole or in part,
be disseminated or conveyed to any other party, nor used by any other party in whole or in
part, without the prior written consent of TRC or the Client.
3. The observations described in this report were made under the conditions stated therein.
The conclusions presented in the report were based solely upon the services described
therein, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of described services
or the time:and budgetary constraints imposed by Client. The work described in this
report was carried out in accordance with the Terms and Conditions referenced in our
proposals to the Client.
4. In preparing this report, TRC has relied on certain information obtained from previous
reports, and on information contained in the files of state and/or local agencies available
to TRC at the time of the study. Although there may have been some degree of overlap in
the information provided by these various sources, TRC did not attempt to independently
verify the accuracy or completeness of all information reviewed or received during the
course of this evaluation.
5. In the event that the Client or others authorized to use this report obtain information on
environmental or hazardous waste issues at the subject property not contained in this
report, such information shall be brought to TRC's attention forthwith. TRC will evaluate
such information and, on the basis of this evaluation, may modify the conclusions stated
in this report.
6. The purpose of this report was to assess the subject property with respect to the
requirements of the MCP. No specific attempt was made to check on the compliance of
January 2006 11-1 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618
present or past owners or operators of the Site with federal, state, or local laws and.
regulations, environmental or otherwise.
7. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based in part upon the
data obtained from a limited number of soil samples and groundwater samples obtained
from widely spread subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between
these explorations may not become evident until further exploration. If variations or
other latent conditions then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the
conclusions and recommendations of this report.
8. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in
subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and
have been developed by interpretations of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual
soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the boring
logs.
9. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based in part upon
various types of chemical data and are contingent upon their validity. These data have
been reviewed and interpretations made in the report. As may be indicated within the
report, some of these data may be preliminary "screening" level data, and should be
confirmed with quantitative analyses if more specific information is necessary.
Moreover, it should be noted that variations in the types and concentrations of
contaminants and variations in their flow paths may occur due to seasonal water table
fluctuations, past disposal practices, the passage of time, and other factors. Should
additional chemical data become available in the future, these data should be reviewed by
TRC and the conclusions and recommendations presented herein modified accordingly.
10. Chemical analyses have been performed for specific parameters as described in the text.
However, it should be noted that additional chemical constituents not searched for during
the referenced studies may be present at the subject property.
January 2006 11-2 Phase I Report
L2006-009 RTNs 3-16788&3-24618