Effective: 20 May 1996 - Raytheon 3-13302... · Effective: 20 May 1996 THE ERM GROUP 4 RAYTHEON -...

Effective: 20 May 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 3

2.0 GENERAL DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION 5 2.1 DEP RELEASE TRACKING NUMBER(S) 5 2.2 ADDRESS AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION 5 2.3 DISPOSAL SITE LOCUS MAP 6 2.4 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ON-SITE WORKERS AT THE DISPOSAL SITE 6 2.5 ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL POPULATION WITHIN A 1/2 MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE 6 2.6 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND USES SURROUNDING THE DISPOSAL SITE 7 2.7 NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE DISPOSAL SITE 7 2.8 NATURAL RESOURCES AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE DISPOSAL SITE 7

3.0 DISPOSAL SITE MAPS 9 3.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARIES & LOCATIONS OF OHM RELEASE 9 3.2 SITE FEATURES, OHM STORAGE & DISPOSAL STRUCTURES 9

4.0 DISPOSAL SITE HISTORY 11 4.1 OWNER/OPERATOR AND OPERATIONS HISTORY 11 4.2 RELEASE HISTORY 14 4.3 OIL AND/OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL USE AND STORAGE HISTORY 18 4.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY 22 4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY 24

5.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 33 5.1 INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGY 33 5.2 A DESCRIPTION OF ALL RELEVANT GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, GEOPHYSICAL AND OTHER SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS 34

THE ERM GROUP i RAYTHEON - 143.40


5.3 DOCUMENTATION OF TEST PIT, BORING, AND WELL INSTALLATIONS 37 5.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF GENERAL SITE TOPOGRAPHY 40 5.5 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC AND STRATIGRAPHIC CONDITIONS 40 5.6 DESCRIPTION AND GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION 41

6.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 42 6.1 EVIDENCE RELEASE 42 6.2 NAMES, CONCENTRATIONS, AND VOLUMES OF RELEASED OHM 44 6.3 LABORATORY DATA SHEETS 49 6.4 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS 49 6.5 PRESENCE AND THICKNESS OF NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS 51

7.0 MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE POTENTIAL 52 7.1 MIGRATION PATHWAYS 52 7.2 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL HUMAN EXPOSURE 54 7.3 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS 55

8.0 EVALUATION OF NEED FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS 56

9.0 CONCLUSIONS 57

REFERENCES 59

THE ERM GROUP ii RAYTHEON - 143.40


TABLES

Table 1: Process Chemical Use, Hazardous Waste Generation by Area Table 2: Summary of Sample Locations Rationale for Sampling and Analyses Performed Table 3: Summary of Ground Penetrating Radar Study Table 4: Summary of Soil Analytical Results Table 5: Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Table 6: Summary of Sediment Analytical Results Table 7: Summary of Groundwater Gauging and Field Screening

FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Features and Sampling Locations Figure 3: Zoning Map Figure 4: Site GIS Map Figure 5: Locations of OHM in Excess of Reportable Concentrations Figure 6: Locations of Known Releases Figure 7: Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, 23 November 1995 Figure 8: Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, 15 March 1996 Figure 9: Known Lateral Extent of Soil Impact and Separate Phase Product, WAY-02 Release Figure 10: Known Vertical Extent 3/96 Figure 11: Extent of Impact Beneath Building 3 and Boiler Room Near WAY-02

PHOTOS

Photo #1: View of TP-1 Looking East Photo #2: View of TP-2 Looking North Photo #3: View of TP-3 Looking West, Upper Two Feet Photo #4: View of TP-3 Looking South Photo #5: View of TP-4 Looking West, Upper Four Feet Photo #6: View of TP-4 Looking South Photo #7: View of TP-5 Looking East Photo #8: View of TP-6 Looking North Photo #9: View of TP-7 Looking East Photo #10: View of TP-7 Looking North

THE ERM GROUP iii RAYTHEON - 143.40


APPENDICES

Appendix A: GPR Report, Slug Test Data Appendix B: Well Construction, Boring logs, and Hydraulic Conductivity Data Appendix C: Laboratory Reports Appendix D: LRA Documentation Appendix E: WAY-09 Removal Report

THE ERM GROUP iv RAYTHEON - 143.40


THE ERM GROUP 1 RAYTHEON - 143.40

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The subject site is an approximately 83 acre facility located at 430 Boston Post Road in Wayland, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The facility has been operated by Raytheon Electronic Systems (RES) from 1955 to 1995. Facility operations include electronic testing and chemical process research to support Raytheon Electronic Systems’ in-house prototype manufacturing. Site operations have been terminated, and the facility is closed. The number of employees working at the facility ranged from 1,700 to 2,300. Currently, the number of employees is less than 20. Future use of the facility is currently uncertain but could include redevelopment for commercial purposes.

The facility is comprised of a main complex of eight attached buildings Nos. 1 through 6a (approximately 400,000 square feet), one exterior building (No. 12/21 occupying approximately 25,000 square feet) and a series of sheds and outbuildings (Figure 2). The site, located in a residential/commercial area of Wayland, is bounded to the west by the Sudbury River and the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, to the north by undeveloped property, to the east by Route 27 and to the south by Route 20.

The site is served by water provided by the Town of Wayland and electrical service by Boston Edison. Wastewaters, both sanitary and industrial, were treated on-site and discharged through a combined stormwater/wastewater conveyance system to the Sudbury River via a permitted (NPDES) out fall. An abandoned sand filter bed received sanitary waste prior to 1962 and industrial waste prior to 1972. Sewerage from the Building 12/21 was also formerly discharged to a second abandoned leachfield and is currently conveyed to the wastewater treatment system.

The facility has a long history of performing various different laboratory processes that included:

• Photographic Development

• Printed Circuit Board Development

• Machining and Welding

• Electronic Testing



• Spray Painting

• Hydraulic Testing

The categories of chemicals utilized and waste generated from the facility and laboratory processes included:

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

• Metals

• Heating and Lubrication Oils (some of which contained variable concentrations of polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs))

• Water treatment and custodial chemicals

Chemical and waste storage areas were originally located to the east of Building 6 (Figure 2), but are now located in a bermed, concrete floored, semi-enclosed outdoor shed. In addition to these hazardous material storage areas, a number of underground storage tanks (USTs) have been utilized at the site for the purpose of fuel oil and other hydrocarbon product storage.

The site is listed as a Location to be Investigated (LTBI) based on a 1980 US EPA aerial photo study that interpreted concrete components of the wastewater treatment system as waste impoundments. In March 1990, a cross connection was discovered between a wastewater line and stormwater line which resulted in a release of butyl cellusolve to the NPDES outfall. These issues were closed in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) regulations via a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) Opinion and Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement.

Raytheon Company (Raytheon) retained ERM-New England, Inc. (ERM) to conduct an Environmental Site Assessment of the facility in accordance with requirements for a Phase I-Initial Site Investigation (Phase I) under 310 CMR 40.0480 of the MCP. This report documents the results of the MCP Phase I Investigation.



1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this assignment was to perform an Environmental Site Assessment of the 430 Boston Post Road site for a potential real estate transaction due diligence. This work was conducted in conformance with 310 CMR 40.0000 Phase I - Initial Site Investigation requirements utilizing Response Action Performance Standards (RAPs). The primary purpose of this scope of work was to determine the general environmental conditions at the site and to determine if site operations have resulted in a release of oil and hazardous material (OHM) to the environment in excess of Reportable Concentrations per 310 CMR 40.0000.

The scope of this investigation responds to the specific requirements set forth in the MCP for Phase I investigations.

The SOW discussed in this report consisted of the following tasks:

• Preliminary Assessment (including 310 CMR 40.0483(1)(a-c))

Task 1: Conduct Document Review & Site Inspection

• Field Work (including 310 CMR 40.0483(1)(d-f))

Task 2: Develop Health & Safety Plan

Task 3: Perform Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys

Task 4: Advance Borings & Conduct Soil Sampling

Task 5: Install FASTWELLs

Task 6: Survey, Gauge & Sample Wells

• Report Preparation & Generation (including 310 CMR 40.0483(1) (g&h))

Task 7: Compile & Analyze Data

Task 8: Prepare Phase I Report

• Project Oversight & Meetings (including 310 CMR 40.0484 & 40.0485)

Task 9: Project Management & Meetings

Based on the results of initial sampling efforts, additional assessment and removal activities were conducted as described in Section 5.0 of this report. The investigation discussed herein was limited to the evaluation of known and suspected locations where past uses of OHM maintain a potential to impact soil and groundwater quality. No guarantee is made or implied that all areas of potential impact to soil, groundwater or other media were identified and/or assessed during this investigation. The scope of the field investigation was



generally limited to assessment of subsurface soil and ground-water quality, and does not represent a facility audit or compliance review.

The following sections present the results of the Phase I Investigation in a requirement response format consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0483, Content of Phase I Report. This report was prepared for Raytheon’s informational purposes and is not intended for reliance by potential buyers, their consultants, or other third parties.



2.0 GENERAL DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION

2.1 DEP RELEASE TRACKING NUMBER(S)

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs) assigned to this property are as follows:

• RTN 3-1783 was issued 15 January 1987 in response to EPA listing due to a “waste storage impoundment” identified in aerial photographs which correlate with wastewater treatment impoundments associated with the Sanitary Treatment Plant.

• ERB-N-92-1340 was issued October 1992 in response to oil stained soil found during removal of a former 20,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST). It was closed in response to a no further action finding issued by DEP.

• RTN 3-13302 was issued 2 January 1996 in response to 0.12 feet of petroleum product measured in monitoring well MW-11 (located adjacent to a former 20,000-gallon UST containing No. 6 fuel oil).

• RTN 3-13574 was issued 28 March 1996 in response to the discovery of VOCs in groundwater in excess of applicable Reportable Concentrations (RCGW-1) reported in accordance with requirements for 120-day Release Notification.

2.2 ADDRESS(ES) AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

2.2.1 Address

Raytheon Company 430 Boston Post Road Wayland, Massachusetts 01778



2.2.2 Geographic Location

Based on review of applicable United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the approximate coordinates of the site are 42°21'30.5" north latitude and 71°22’19.6” west longitude (TRCC, 1991). The approximate Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates of the site are 46,92,800 meters north latitude and 3,04,800 meters east longitude (Figure 1).

2.3 DISPOSAL SITE LOCUS MAP

A Disposal Site Locus Map depicting the site, a 500 foot radius and one-half mile radius from the site boundaries is included as Figure 1 (compiled from portions of two USGS 7.5 x 15 minute metric series topographic maps: the Framingham, Massachusetts Quadrangle (USGS, 1987) and the Maynard, Massachusetts Quadrangle (USGS, 1987) (scale = 1:25,000).

The property is designated as Lot 52 on Map Nos. 22 and 23 of the Wayland Assessors Office (Figure 3). The property consists of approximately 83.1 acres of land, of which approximately 16.3 acres is asphalt parking lots and driveways, 6.4 acres is occupied by buildings and structures and 60 acres is grass or woodland, including 32 acres of wetlands and buffer zones. The property is currently zoned for limited commercial and residential use (Figure 3).

2.4 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ON-SITE WORKERS AT THE DISPOSAL SITE

The site has been used for electronics research and development since the mid-1950s and employed up to 2,300 workers operating on one or two shifts. Raytheon announced closure of the Wayland facility in October 1994 and is currently decommissioning the facility. According to Raytheon, as of April 1996, approximately 20 workers are on-site.

2.5 ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL POPULATION WITHIN A 1/2 MILE RADIUS OF THE SITE

Based on review of the USGS topographic map for Framingham (1987), the area within one-half mile radius of the site consists of 0.785 square miles and does contain a number of residences. Telephone correspondence with Cesar Monzon from the Boston office of the Federal Census Bureau on 16 January 1996 indicated that, according to the 1990 census, there are 781.2 people per square mile in



Wayland, Massachusetts. Based on this average population density, the current population within a one-half mile radius of the site is estimated at less than 500 people.

2.6 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND USES SURROUNDING THE DISPOSAL SITE

North: Residentially zoned woodlands and Old Sudbury Road (Rt. 27) abut the property to the north. Residential properties are located across Old Sudbury Road.

East: Old Sudbury Road (Route 27) and commercial/residential properties abut the eastern boundary of the property.

South: A former Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) rail line, residential and commercial properties and Boston Post Road (Rt. 20) abut the southern boundary of the property. Properties to the south of the facility are zoned for residential, business (Zones A & B) and light manufacturing.

West: The western boundary of the site contain wetlands which are bordered by the Sudbury River. To the north of the property, the river is flanked by Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (GMNWR), which is part marsh and part woodland in the vicinity of this site.

2.7 NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE DISPOSAL SITE

Based on review of the Site Locus Map (Figure 1) and a visual survey conducted by ERM, there are no institutions (as defined in the MCP 310 CMR 40.0006) located within 500 feet of the disposal site.

2.8 NATURAL RESOURCES AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE DISPOSAL SITE

The Sudbury River abuts the western boundary of the property and is classified as a Class B Surface Water Body with Aquatic Life restrictions. The Raytheon property is located downstream of the Wash Brook confluence. The western portion of the site bordering the river is wetland. Wetlands and buffer zones



occupy approximately 32 acres of the property. Wetlands also border portions of the Sudbury River within 500 feet of the property boundary.

The southern boundary of the GMNWR, which abuts the northern boundary of the property boundary, is a federally protected open space. The GMNWR contains approximately 2,900 acres of federal protected woodlands, fields and freshwater wetlands and is designated as a high density area for nesting wood ducks.

Woodlands owned by Wayland Conservation Commission abut the property on the north and northwest and are classified as a locally protected open space. Across Route 27 to the northeast of the property, the Sudbury Valley Trustees own approximately 10 acres of locally protected open space. In addition, the abandoned Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) right-of-way abutting the southern property boundary is defacto open space.

Based on review of the updated (January, 1996) MA DEP Geographical Information System (GIS) Site Scoring Map (Figure 4), the site is located within a DEP Approved Zone II Wellhead Protection Area for the Baldwin Pond Wellfield located approximately one-half mile to the north and cross-gradient from the site. Based on discussions with the Wayland Water Department and Conservation Commission, none of the following natural resource areas are currently located within 500 feet of the site:

• Zone A areas of a reservoir or private wells;

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Habitats or Species of Special Concern and Threatened or Endangered Species or Sole Source Aquifers.

According to the MA GIS Map, NEHSP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wetlands Wildlife (for use under the Wetlands Protection Act only) are located on the site (Figure 4).



3.0 DISPOSAL SITE MAPS

3.1 PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARIES & LOCATIONS OF OHM RELEASE

Site, property and release information is summarized on the following site maps:

• Property boundaries, wetland boundaries and parcel zoning are delineated on Figure 3.

• Monitoring wells, borings and other relevant sampling locations conducted under the Phase I Investigation and locations of preliminary response actions are summarized on Figure 2.

• Disposal site boundaries delineating the known extent of soil and groundwater contamination based on concentrations of OHM detected during the Phase I Investigation which exceed Reportable Concentrations are displayed on Figure 5.

• Locations of known OHM releases or threats of release are delineated on Figure 6 and described in Section 4.2, Release History.

3.2 SITE FEATURES, OHM STORAGE & DISPOSAL STRUCTURES

Site features including buildings, floor and storm drains, OHM storage and hazardous waste storage areas are displayed in Figure 2. The facility is comprised of a main complex of eight attached buildings Nos. 1 through 6A (approximately 400,000 square feet), one exterior building (No. 12/21 occupying approximately 25,000 square feet) and a series of sheds and outbuildings.

Subsurface wastewater, storm water and gas utilities servicing and transacting the property are identified on Figure 2. The facility is served by water provided by the Town of Wayland, gas provided by Boston Gas out of West Roxbury, and electrical service by Boston Edison. The locations of subsurface water and electrical utilities are indicated on historic maps maintained in RES files. These maps were not included in this report due to the age and poor clarity of copies.



ERM conducted an interior inspection of the buildings on 22 March 1996 for the purpose of visually confirming site conditions as indicated to ERM by RES. The majority of the facility had been decommissioned and decontaminated prior to ERM’s inspection; therefore, observation of the facility conditions during operations was not possible. Operations associated with OHM handing, use and storage within the main complex have been terminated. All observed former floor drains were filled and sealed with concrete. No areas of concern with regard to current potential for OHM release were visually identified during the inspection.



4.0 DISPOSAL SITE HISTORY

4.1 OWNER/OPERATOR AND OPERATIONS HISTORY

4.1.1 Current and Relevant Previous Site Owners and Operators

Since 1968, the property has been owned by Continental Assurance Co. The table below lists the previous property owners and dates of purchase based on review of records at the Wayland Town Assessor’s office. Ownership information prior to 1958 was not available.

Property Ownership

OWNER PURCHASE DATE

Continental Assurance 18 June 1968

National Boulevard Bank 14 July 1958

Norman Barnes Gift from previous owner

According to conversations with the Wayland Assessor’s Office and information provided by a town surveyor, the property was a privately-owned estate prior to 1956. RES has leased the property from 1955 to present.

4.1.2 Current and Historical Site Uses

Residential, Commercial and Industrial Activities, and Manufacturing Processes

Historic aerial photographs of the site from 1936 indicate the property was utilized for agricultural and residential purposes. No additional information was identified regarding property use prior to 1936.

The RES facility in Wayland operated from 1955 through 1995 as an engineering facility to support other Raytheon RES Company manufacturing facilities. RES researched and developed prototype electronic equipment, including design and testing of antennae and transmitters, operation of a small printed circuit board laboratory and operation of small-scale chemical processes in support of R&D. Site operations have been terminated, and the facility is closed.



Review of the processes conducted at the Wayland facility is based on a review of construction drawings, as-built layouts, engineering studies and reports, hazardous waste manifests, air source registrations, permit applications and project files. Dry and wet laboratory processes included photographic developing, plating and etching circuit boards, machining, welding, woodworking, spray painting, conformal coat assembling, environmental protocol testing, hydraulic testing, radar and antenna transmitter testing and transformer epoxy coating and baking. The following table summarizes the areas in which these processes were conducted and the estimated dates of operation. Process locations are displayed on Figure 2.



Laboratory Process Areas and Estimated Dates of Operation

Process Estimated Dates of Operation

Location

Acoustical Testing

High Bay Wave Guide Testing Vault

1955-1960s

1960s - 1970s

Building 4 (“By WAY-07”)

Hydraulics Lab 1956-1995 Building 6A (“HYDRAULIC LAB”)

Environmental Test Lab 1958-1995 Building 5 (“ETL”)

Radar Testing Complex - Building 12/21 1957-1995 Building 12/21

Transmitter Lab 1955-1995 Building 2 (“TRANSMITTER LAB (OLD WYLE LAB)”)

Transformer Lab 1955-1995 Building 2 (“XFMR LAB”)

Machine Shops / Weld Shop 1955-1995 Building 3 (“OLD MACHINE SHOP”) (1955-1969)

Building 6 (“EXISTING MACHINE SHOP”) (1969-1995)

Carpentry and Paint Shops 1955-1995 Carpentry Shop - Building 16 (“OLD Printed Circuit Board SHOP”) (1960-1995)

Paint Shop - Building 6 (“PAINT SHOP”) (1960s-1995)

Paint Shop - Building 4 (~1955s-early 1960s-)

Conformal Coat Assembly 1958-1995 Building 4 (“CCA SHOP”)

AMICDO Cleaning Labs 1980s-1994 Building 5 (“AMICDO”)

Chemical Lab/Plastics/Finishes/Coatings/Metallurgy/Heat Treatment Lab

1956-1969 Building 1,2 Chemical Lab - Building 1S, Second Floor (“Old Chem Lab”)

Printed Circuit Board Shop 1958-1991 Building 4 (1960s-1991) (“OLD Printed Circuit Board SHOP”)

Building 16 (1958-1960) (“OLD Printed Circuit Board SHOP”)

Microwave Design MHIC Lab 1970-1995 Building 2, Second Floor (“MHIC LAB (2nd FLR)”)

MLB Lab 1975-1995 Building 4A (MLB LAB)

Photo Area/Photoplotter Lab 1971-1981 / 1981-1995

Photo Area - Building 4 (“OLD PHOTO LAB)“

Photoplotter Lab - Building 4 (“PHOTO PLOTTER”)



Locations of Buildings and Structures (Current and Former)

The facility is comprised of a main complex of eight attached buildings Nos. 1 through 6A (approximately 400,000 square feet), one exterior building (No. 12/21 occupying approximately 25,000 square feet) and a series of sheds and outbuildings. Historic aerial photographs indicate that Buildings 1S, 4A, 5, 6 and 12/21 were not present prior to 1957, but do appear in a 1969 photo.

4.2 RELEASE HISTORY

Based on review of RES, federal, state and local files and results of the Phase I Investigation, the following known and relevant releases of OHM have been identified at the site:

October 1975-Release of No. 6 Fuel Oil-(RES, 1976)

In October 1975, an estimated 200 to 250 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil was discharged at the outfall (OF-01, Figure 2). The release was due to failure of a heat exchanger in the boiler room and discharged via a floor drain. The release is believed to have occurred on Sunday, 12 October 1975 and was discovered on Monday at 5:30 am on 13 October 1975.

The heat exchanger was shut down and containment booms were put in place at the outfall. Oil was observed to have pooled at the outfall, and due to the low flow conditions, none reached the Sudbury River. The discharge lines were flushed, and pooled oil and impacted soil were removed offsite. Because of the age of the release, no further details are available.

November 1980-Surface Impoundment Assessment (TRC, 1991)

A Surface Impoundment Assessment was conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in November, 1980. The study identified two sanitary wastewater treatment surface impoundments as “waste storage impoundments” based on review of aerial photographs. A Preliminary Assessment was conducted by EPA in November, 1980, and the site was subsequently listed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) List (Site No. MAD990685554). EPA referred the site to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), and the site was listed as a Location to be Investigated (LTBI) on 15 January 1987.



July 1989-US Fish & Wildlife Service (TRC, 1991)

In July of 1989 the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) inadvertently conducted sediment sampling along the river bank adjacent to the RES facility and near RES’s NPDES outfall as part of a study of the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (GMNWR). Preliminary results were included in the TRC Screening Site Inspection report (TRC, 1991) and indicated elevated levels of total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs up to 1,004 parts per million (ppm)), metals (including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and mercury) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs up to 117 ppm) near outfall OF-01. Contaminant levels were also higher in samples collected along the drainage swale from OF-01 than up or downstream of the facility along the river bank. TRC recommended continued investigation of the RES facility under CERCLA.

ERM conducted sampling in the wetlands in May 1990 to evaluate surface water and sediment quality associated with cross-connection of an industrial waste line (discussed on the next page). ERM conducted sampling in the wetland in July 1995 to further evaluate preliminary PCB data reported by USFWS. No elevated PCBs were detected during the 1990 sampling event, and levels less than 2 ppm were reported during the 1995 event. ERM was not able to reproduce the USFWS data results.

December 1989-Switch Gear Failure at Building 12

The primary feeder selector switch failed on 9 December 1989 at Building 12 resulting in a release of approximately 60 gallons of insulating oil. The Wayland Fire Department responded to extinguish the fire. Zecco, Inc. was contracted to clean up the spill, and the DEP was notified. Field screening of the insulating oil indicated PCBs; however, analyses by a certified laboratory indicated no PCBs at a detection limit of 2 ppm in the oil. Hazardous waste manifests indicate that soil and concrete were properly, transported, handled, and disposed at a licensed Transfer, Storage, Disposal Facility . ERM collected a soil sample from this area (HA-1) during the Phase I Investigation to evaluate soil quality as a result of the release. Results indicate non-detect for PCBs; analytical results are summarized in Table 2.

March 1990-Cross Connection of Industrial Waste Line-(ERM, 1990)

In March of 1990, a cross connection of an industrial waste line from a former photoetching laboratory into the facility storm water system was discovered and immediately disconnected. Review of OHM used in the photoetching process indicated quantities of butyl cellusolve in excess of Reportable Quantities were



potentially released through the line. RES notified the DEP, and disconnected this cross-connection.

RES contracted ERM to evaluate the potential for negative environmental impact from the butyl cellusolve release from OF-01. Sediment and surface water samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs including butyl cellusolve), PAHs, PCBs, pesticides and metals. Samples were collected from the discharge line, at the outfall, along the discharge swale and up and downstream of the facility along the Sudbury River. Butyl cellusolve, PCBs and pesticides were not detected; however, metals and PAHs were identified. The study concluded that contaminants posed negligible risk to human health and the environment, and therefore, remediation was not recommended. A Class-B1 Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement was submitted to close out this release in July 1995.

October 1992-Removal of Underground Storage Tank (UST) WAY-01 (Badger, 1992)

On 13-16 October 1992, Badger Engineers, Inc. (Badger) monitored removal of a 20,000-gallon fiberglass UST used for the storage of No. 6 fuel oil. The tank was installed in the early 1980s adjacent to the boiler room (WAY-01, Figure 2). Limited oil staining of soil was observed around the stick pipe at the top of the tank and at the return line. The DEP was notified of the release and assigned Tracking No. ERB-N92-1340. Badger monitored removal of approximately five cubic yards of oil-contaminated peastone. Additional sampling was conducted to confirm clean closure of the excavation. A Release Categorization Form was submitted to DEP. The DEP responded that no further emergency remedial actions were required.

January 1996- Release of No. 6 Fuel Oil From WAY-02 Reported to DEP

As part of this Phase I Investigation, a monitoring well (MW-11) was installed downgradient of a former 20,000-gallon steel UST (WAY-02, Figure 2). The tank was installed in 1956 and used for storage of No. 6 fuel oil. RES records indicate that the tank was relined in 1970 and 1983 before it was pumped out and abandoned in place in 1988. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was reportedly used as an occasional fuel conditioner (5 gallons of PCE for every 20,000 gallons of oil).



Oil contaminated soil was encountered from depths of five to nineteen feet below ground surface (bgs) during boring advancement and well installation. Subsequent gauging of MW-11 with a petroleum interface probe indicated 0.12 feet of petroleum product in the well. On 2 January 1996, RES verbally notified the DEP of the presence of product in accordance with MCP requirements for 72-hour release notification. RES requested approval for implementation of an Immediate Response Action (IRA) consisting of additional assessment and soil removal, if appropriate. The DEP granted approval of the IRA and issued RTN 3-13302.

ERM conducted additional assessment during January, 1996 to further evaluate the nature and extent of hydrocarbon compounds in soil and groundwater, and to determine if additional time-critical response actions were warranted under the IRA. Based on the results of this assessment, an IRA Completion Report was submitted on 4 March 1996 and, at DEP’s request, an amendment to this report submitted on 28 March 1996. Results of the IRA indicated:

• hydrocarbon compounds consistent with No. 6 fuel oil are located beneath the paved court yard and Building 3 at depths ranging from 5 to 22 feet bgs;

• separate phase petroleum product has been identified in two wells near the former tank, and low concentrations of dissolved phase VOCs exist in areas immediately downgradient of the product;

• site conditions do not pose an Imminent Hazard to human health, safety, public welfare or the environment at the present time, or for the time period likely to be required until Comprehensive Response Actions can be completed;

• the unmitigated migration of OHM at the site, at present and for the time period until Comprehensive Response Actions can be completed, does not warrant a time-critical response under an IRA;

• additional response actions will be conducted as either a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) or as a Comprehensive Response Action.

March 1996- Release of OHM to Groundwater Reported to DEP

In conducting the Phase I Investigation, RES obtained knowledge of the presence of VOCs in groundwater in excess of applicable Reportable Concentrations (RCGW-1) requiring submittal of written notification to the Department. Contaminants included: 1,1-dichloroethene (2.0-4.8 ug/l); benzene (11-25 ug/l); naphthalene (30 ug/l); tetrachloroethene (6.1-17 ug/l) and trichloroethene (8.6-72 ug/l). RES submitted written Release Notification on 14 March 1996. The



Department responded issuing a Notice of Responsibility (NOR) and RTN 3-13574 on 28 March 1996.

Miscellaneous Spills 1990-1993

Based on a review of DEP’s files, the following spills have been documented at the RES property. The locations of these spills were not identified in the DEP files. DEP requires no further action for closed spills.

Spills on File for 430 Boston Post Road

OHM Released Quantity Released Date of Release Status

Butoxy ethanol 11-50 pounds 12 Feb 1990 Closed

#6 Fuel oil 1-10 gallons 13 Mar 1992 Closed

#6 Fuel oil Unknown 16 Oct 1992 Closed

Miscellaneous oil Undetermined 13 Apr 1993 Closed

4.3 OIL AND/OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL USE AND STORAGE HISTORY

4.3.1 OHM Types, Uses, Quantities, Periods of Use & Storage

OHMs have been used in small quantities throughout the facility. Review of RES records indicates that the primary types of OHM used and stored at the facility include VOCs; SVOCs; metals; and lubricating, heating oils, and heat transfer oils, some of which contained unknown quantities of PCBs. Facility processes are identified by date and location in Section 4.1.2 and Figure 2. Both wet and dry processes occurred in various locations in the main complex (Buildings 1 through 6). OHM used in Building 12/21 included mainly oils and coolants: no wet processes are known to have occurred in Building 12/21. Areas of chemical use, chemical types (identified by generic, chemical or trade name) and process descriptions are summarized in Table 1.

From 1974 through 1989 OHM were stored and dispensed beneath an outdoor shed roof on a 40 x 6 square feet concrete pad located to the west of Building 6 (identified as CHEM, Bldg. 26 in Figure 2). The concrete pad was outfitted with a containment berm in 1981. There is no written or anecdotal evidence that spills occurred in the CHEM area.



4.3.2 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)

Nine USTs, designated WAY-01 through WAY-09, were identified based on review of RES files and drawings. The approximate location of each UST is identified on Figure 2. Available information regarding the age, size, construction, use and closure of each UST is summarized below:

WAY-01

WAY-01 was a 20,000-gallon fiberglass tank used for storage of No. 6 fuel oil for heating from March 1980 through October 1992. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was reportedly used occasionally as a fuel conditioner (approximately five gallons of PCE for 20,000 gallons of fuel). Minor spillage over the life of tank use near the fill pipe resulted in removal of approximately five cubic yards of oil-impacted soil during tank removal. No other evidence of leakage or impact was observed. A report (Badger, 1992) documenting closure activities and a Release Categorization Form were submitted to DEP. DEP response indicated no further action was required.

WAY-02

WAY-02 is a 20,000 gallon steel tank used for storage of No. 6 fuel oil for heating from 1956 through 1988. PCE was reportedly occasionally used as a fuel conditioner (approximately five gallons of PCE for 20,000 gallons of fuel). Liners were installed in the tank in 1970 and 1983: the contents were removed in 1988, and the tank was removed from service. In 1988, the tank was filled with concrete and abandoned in place under a permit issued by the Wayland Fire Department because of its location below facility infrastructure.

WAY-03

WAY-03 was a 1,000-gallon steel tank used for storage of gasoline from 1958, and reportedly removed in November 1985. Documentation and telephone discussions with retired RES personnel indicated that this tank was removed. VOC analysis of groundwater analyzed at a fastwell installed downgradient of this tank resulted in no detection.



WAY-04

WAY-04 was a 1,000-gallon concrete secondary containment tank used for transformer oil overflow storage in the event of a transformer rupture from the second floor of the Building 3 Chiller Room. According to RES, no rupture occurred and the tank was never used. The tank was approved to be abandoned in place in June of 1990, and then removed in November 1992 during removal of WAY-01. Closure activities are documented in the Badger report (Badger, 1992). No evidence of a release was detected based on visual observation or laboratory analysis of soil.

WAY-05

No information was available in RES files regarding the age, size, construction or use of WAY-05. After file reviews and ground penetrating radar survey, WAY-05 was deemed to have not existed as an underground storage tank at the site.

WAY-06 & WAY-08

WAY-06 and WAY-08 were 3,010-gallon steel tanks used for storage of 10c insulating oil from 1965 through 1986. The contents were removed, and because of the inaccessibility of this location, the tanks were backfilled in place under permit of the Wayland Fire Department. PCBs were detected at 16 and 8 ppm in the oils removed from the tanks. Manifests indicate approximately 1,800 gallons of oil were removed for disposal by Cyn Oil Co.

WAY-07

WAY-07 was a concrete tank used for underwater acoustical tests inside of Building 4. This tank contained only water and was backfilled in the late 1960s. A portion of this tank was dug out to be used as a pit to gain additional elevation for wave guide testing in approximately 1971. RES personnel interviews indicate that equipment containing oil was used in the wave guide testing vault and that oil in equipment did not leak. In the 1980’s, the pit portion of WAY-07 was covered with wooden plates and floor tiles. No information was available in RES files to establish the age or size of the tank or condition prior to closure.

WAY-09

WAY-09 was identified on 1956 design drawings and on RES Fire Insurance Maps dated 1958, 1970 as a 1,000-gallon fuel oil tank. This tank was believed to be abandoned in 1968 when Bldg 6 was constructed. A boring installed downgradient to this tank indicated no TPH to be present in soil or in groundwater; nonetheless, the tank was removed in May of 1996. Closure report including confirmatory samples are included in Appendix E.



Confirmatory composite samples were obtained from the bottom and each wall of the excavated hole which indicated no detection of total petroleum hydrocarbons by gas chromatography. Stock pile characterization of the soil excavated as part of this tank removal were analyzed for metals, PCBs, VOCs, and TPH. All sample results were indicated no detection except for metals which appeared at background levels.

4.3.3 Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks (ASTs)

Two fuel oil ASTs were utilized at the facility:

• One 300-gallon double walled steel tank containing diesel fuel, installed in 1991 and removed in 1994, was located south of Bldg 6 and used by the ETL lab for a project generator.

• One 500-gallon, single-wall diesel tank was installed in August 1991 within a concrete containment berm located to the north of the hydraulics lab and used to power the current facility emergency generator.

4.3.4 Pits & Piles

Based on review of facility files, two pits are identified in Building 3. One is located beneath the stairway in the Boiler Room in Building 3. A second pit was identified in the former weld shop within Building 3. The first pit housed a condensation line connection into a storm drain. The second pit was documented on the master drain plan to be an acid pit for the old Machine Shop in Bldg. 3. This pit was analyzed for a variety of parameters (PCBs, metals, VOCs, SVOCs, oil & grease) and the results indicated no adverse impact. Upon inspection, the piping associated with the pit passed directly through and discharged to a drywell (DW-06). Contaminants identified at this location were removed during an LRA performed on October 31, 1996 (See Appendix D).

Based on visual inspection of the facility grounds, no piles were identified on site.



4.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT HISTORY

4.4.1 Land Disposal

Based on a review of historic aerial photographs from 1936 through 1988, potential filling activities and potential land disposal areas were identified at the following locations and periods:

• Surface debris and disturbed land free of vegetation were observed in the 1969 photograph located to the northwest of the former sand filter bed (LC-01). In a 1988 photograph, this area of the property appears to have been filled to a higher elevation and is vegetated woodland (FS-01 as shown in Figure 2).

• Comparison of aerials from 1936 to 1957 indicates portions of the wetlands on the western boundary of the site had been filled (FS-02 as shown in Figure 2).

• Surface debris and land disposal were apparent in the 1988 photograph in an area located adjacent to the northwest corner of the parking lot near the fitness track.

Based on review of aerial photographs, RES elected to excavate test pits, and if appropriate, analyze soil samples in the area to the northwest of the parking lot and northwest of the former leachfield. Results of test pit excavation are summarized in Section 5.3.1.

4.4.2 Subsurface Disposal

Drywells

Facility plans indicate seven dry wells (DW-01 through DW-06, and DW-08) are located around the main complex and one (DW-07) is located on the eastern side of Building 21 (Figure 2). According to RES:

• DW-01 through DW-04 may have received wastewater from the Transmitter Lab since 1955 and were abandoned in place in 1975. Operations in the Transmitter Lab included draining and changing transformer oils.

• DW-05 may have received wastewater from drains in the Old Chem Lab in Building 1 from approximately 1958 through 1969. Chemical use in this area included organic solvents, metals paints and thinners.

• DW-06 may have received wastewaters from the Old Machine Shop in Building 3 between approximately 1955 and 1969. Chemical use in the Old Machine Shop prior to 1969 was not documented.



• DW-07 is located adjacent to Building 21 and 6 feet beneath grade. This drywell was designed to collect roof water and fire water from drain down tests.

All dry wells except DW-02 & DW-07 were located and evaluated during the Phase I Investigation. DW-02 was not found; however, the suspected location for DW-02 was investigated and no contamination was found. DW-07 was not investigated since the use was restricted to collection of roof water and fire water during fire system two-inch drain flow test, and/or system maintenance.

Leachfields & Septic Systems

LC-01, an abandoned sand filter bed with underdrain to the storm system is located to the northwest of Building 2. LC-01 received both sanitary and industrial wastewaters from approximately 1955 to 1962 (Figure 2). Effluent from the sand filter bed was collected and treated in a chlorination chamber prior to discharge to the Sudbury River. The septic tank system upstream of the sand filter bed was abandoned in 1962 when the Sanitary Treatment Plant was constructed. In 1990, the abandoned septic tanks, a chlorination chamber and dosing tank were decontaminated, crushed and abandoned in place.

LC-02 is an abandoned 48 x 35 foot leachfield located on the western side of Building 12 (Figure 2). The leachfield received sanitary waste from approximately 1957 through 1991 and was subsequently abandoned beneath two feet of crushed stone. Chemicals used in this complex included oil , coolants in air compressor units and other equipment and boiler treatment chemicals. Oil from the air compressor units were the only OHM known to have been piped into the sanitary system. The boiler treatment chemicals and coolants in other equipment may have potentially entered the leaching field.

The Sanitary Treatment Plant (STP) operated from 1962 through 1995 and received sanitary wastewater and industrial wastewater between 1962 and 1972 prior to discharge to the Sudbury River. From 1972 to 1995, after the construction of the Industrial Waste Water Treatment Plant, the STP became solely a sanitary wastewater treatment facility.

4.4.3 Surface Water Discharges

Industrial wastewater has been treated by the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) located in Building 5 (Figure 2) since 1972. Industrial wastewater was discharged through a combined stormwater/non-hazardous wastewater conveyance system to the Sudbury River via a permitted National Pollutant



Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfall (OF-01, Figure 2) between 1972 and 1992. Industrial wastewater discharges to the river ceased in 1992. Between 1992 and 1995, evaporators were installed and utilized for non-hazardous industrial wastewater treatment. Between 1962 and 1995, the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP, 19/19A, Figure 2) treated facility wastewater which was also discharged to the Sudbury River via permitted outfall OF-01. At the end of 1995, sanitary discharge ceased as the STP was converted to a holding tank, which was pumped out by wastewater hauler on an as needed basis.

4.4.4 Discharges to Wastewater Treatment Plants

According to a 1971 facility Water & Waste Audit Report and The Final Engineering Report for Raytheon Company (Lancy, 1971), the STP received wastewater from the Transmitter Lab, Printed Circuit Board Shop, Publications/Photo Lab, MSR Circuit Model Lab, and the Environmental Test Lab. Potential OHM in these waste streams included acids, metals and volatiles from etching, plating and photographic developing. The STP was upgraded in 1975 and the majority of the STP was decommissioned in 1995. In 1996, the aeration basin and clarifier remain in operation as a holding tank and emergency overflow containment.

RES files indicate IWTP received process rinse waters, floor spills and wash downs from the Printed Circuit Board Shop in Bldg. 4, Weld Shop in Bldg. 6, and the MLB lab in Bldg. 4A.

4.4.5 Other Means of Disposal or Treatment

A Hazardous Waste Storage Shed (HWSS) equipped with containment and berming was constructed in 1980 and continues to be utilized during facility closure in 1996 (Figure 2). According to RES, any spills which occurred within the HWSS were fully contained and properly cleaned. No information was identified to determine the location of hazardous waste storage prior to 1974.

4.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY

4.5.1 Permits for M.G.L. c. 21E Response Actions

No records of permits issued in response to M.G.L. c.21E Response Actions were identified by ERM. Verbal approval was issued by DEP on 2 January 1996 to conduct an Immediate Response Action (IRA) in response to petroleum product discovered on the water table near WAY-02.



4.5.2 Oil and/or Hazardous Material Storage Permits

According to RES, hazardous waste has never been stored at the facility for more than 90 days, and the facility has never applied for, nor required to obtain , a RCRA Part A or Part B permit. Hazardous waste manifests are on file from 1977 to present.

The facility has had nine underground storage tanks (USTs) for storage of petroleum products and water. The tanks, numbered “WAY-01” through “WAY-09,” are described in more detail in the following table. WAY-09, a 1,000- gallon fuel oil UST, was identified on 1956 design drawings and on RES Fire Insurance plans dated 1958, 1970. The facility also had two aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for storage of diesel fuel for operating two emergency generators, which are also included in the following table.



Summary of OHM Permits

Tank No. Size (gal.)

Contents Approximate Date Installed

Permit/Type Status

WAY-01 20,000 No. 6 fuel oil

3/80 • Oil storage - Building Dept.

• Remove & transport - DPS/ DFP 10/13/92

Upgraded 1990, Removed 10/92

WAY-02 20,000 No. 6 fuel oil

1956 ND Abandoned in place - 1988

WAY-03 1,000 Gasoline 1958 Storage license - Fire Dept. due 6/86, Removal license - DPS 11/85

Removed 11/85

WAY-04 1,000 Waste oil ND • Remove & transport - DPS/ DFP 10/92

• Clean & fill - DPS/DFP 9/12/90

Removed 1992

WAY-05 ND Waste oil ND ND ND

WAY-06 3,000 10c Insulating oil

1965 • Remove & fill with concrete - DPS/DFP 9/11/86

Abandoned in place - 1986

WAY-07 ND Water ND ND Abandoned in place

WAY-08 3,000 10c Insulating oil

1965 • Remove & fill with concrete - DPS/DFP 9/11/86

Abandoned in place - 1986

WAY-09 1,000 Fuel oil ND ND Tank removed in April 1996.

Generator 300 Diesel fuel

1990 ND Removed 1994

Generator 500 Diesel fuel

ND Permitted Fuel Storage On site for facilities’ emergency generator



Notes: ND - No data available DPS/DFP - Department of Public Safety/Division of Fire Prevention

4.5.3 Wastewater Discharge Permits

ERM did not identify any wastewater discharge permits other than the facility’s existing NPDES permits. NPDES permits are discussed in Section 4.5.8.

4.5.4 Groundwater Discharge Permits

ERM did not identify any groundwater discharges or groundwater discharge permits for the facility.

4.5.5 Air Quality Discharge Permits

ERM did not perform actions to identify any air emission permits for the facility. Several DEP pre-construction approval letters are in RES files. However, based on information provided to ERM by RES, the Wayland facility was a minor source with annual emissions of 1.69 tons of VOCs in 1990. The summary also reported 40 “reportable” stacks and 54 “reportable” processes. The summary identified that one notice of noncompliance (11/89) was received based on RES’ input the notice of noncompliance was for the lack of pre-construction approval permitting and this was promptly corrected by RES.

The presence of natural gas-fired boilers on-site indicates emissions of combustion products such as oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) also exist. Prior to converting the boilers to natural gas in 1992, No. 6 fuel oil was fired; this would create emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) in addition to NOX and CO.

4.5.6 Wetlands Alteration Permits

RES reports it has a wetlands permit (#322-143) for underground conduit installation. The requirements of the permit are not stated. ERM did not identify any other wetlands alteration permits for the facility.

4.5.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permits

The Wayland facility is licensed as a large quantity generator of hazardous wastes and a small quantity generator of waste oil. The facility’s EPA I.D. No. is MAD990685554. RES indicated that the facility has received one notice of noncompliance for hazardous waste activities (2/90) such as labeling



inaccuracies which were immediately corrected by RES. This facility has been a large quantity generator primarily due to the laboratory nature of operating prototype wet process and prototype machining. Much of RES’s hazardous waste was a result of off-spec chemical, wastewaters containing trace metals or organics, mixed acids, waste oils, waste oil/solvent rags, and water treatment system sludges.

4.5.8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits

The facility has received NPDES permits for discharge of treated sanitary wastewater and treated industrial wastewater (No. MA0001511) to the Sudbury River and discharge of stormwater (No. MAR00A401) to the Sudbury River. The original NPDES permit was received in 1972. The most recent NPDES permit on file was issued on 28 September 1990 and expired 28 September 1995. RES’s records show that a renewal application was submitted in March 1995.

The NPDES permit requires that RES monitor its discharge for the following parameters:

• Maximum daily flow - 25,000 gallons per day

• Maximum monthly flow - 15,000 gallons per day

• Inorganic compounds - bimonthly

• Oil and grease - bimonthly

• Total suspended solids - bimonthly

• Total organic compounds - quarterly

RES provided the following information on NPDES permit excursions since 1991:

1995 Excursions

Parameter Outfall Permit Limit Date Discharge Value

Biotoxicity 005 LC50 = 100% C. dubia 4/95 LC50 = 62% C. dubia

LC50 = 100% D. pulex 4/95 LC50 = 71% D. pulex

Biotoxicity 005 LC50 = 100% C. dubia 11/95 LC50 = 37.7% C. dubia




1994 Excursions


No violations reported

1993 Excursions





TSS (Total settleable solids)

002 Daily maximum 0.3 ml/l 5/93 Daily maximum 0.5 ml/l

TSS (Total suspended solids)

002 50 mg/l 6/93 58 mg/l

Maximum daily flow

003 4,000 gallons per day 6/93 6,884 gallons per day

Maximum daily flow

003 4,000 gallons per day 10/93 6,288 gallons per day

pH 003 Lower limit pH = 6.5 6/93 pH = 6.0



1992 Excursions


Biotoxicity ND LC50 = 100% 1/92 “Violation” - ND

Biotoxicity ND LC50 = 100% 1/92 “Violation” - ND

Al ND 2.0 mg/l 1/92 2.41

Fecal coliform

ND 400 /100 ml 2/19/92

4,500 /100 ml

Cl residual ND 1 mg/l 2/27/92

1.25 mg/l

BOD ND 50 mg/l 9/92 73 mg/l *

Total flow ND 172,695 gallons per day 1/92 “Omission”

Total flow ND 172,695 gallons per day 4/92 “Omission” Notes - ND = No data /100 ml = Number of organisms counted per 100 ml sample * = Laboratory analytical error cited



1991 Excursions


TSS 001A 30 mg/l 3/6/91 30.7 mg/l

Al 001A 2.0 mg/l 3/6/91 2.15 mg/l

Fl 001A 17.0 (30 day average) 4/91 26.5

Cu 001A 0.8 (30 day average) 4/91 2.8

Cu 001A 0.8 (daily maximum) 5/91 1.07

Cu 001A 0.8 (daily maximum) 4/10/91 4.36

Cu 001A 0.8 (daily maximum) 6/5/91 1.93

Cr+6 001A 0.10 mg/l (daily maximum)

12/11/91 0.17 mg/l

Oil & grease 001A 15 mg/l 6/5/91 27.3 mg/l




Fecal coliform 002A 400 /100 ml 5/91 1,500 /100 ml

Fecal coliform 002A 400 /100 ml 9/4/91 1,500 /100 ml



Cl residual 002A 1.0 mg/l 6/19/91 1.3 mg/l

pH 003A 6.5 to 8.0 1/91 8.6

Cooling tower b.d.

003A 4,000 gallons per day maximum

6/10/91 4,398

Cooling tower b.d.

003A 1.0 mg Cl /l 6/19/91 1.6 mg Cl /l

Biotoxicity 005 LC50 = 100% C. dubia 1/91 LC50 = 70.7% C. dubia

Biotoxicity LC50 = 100% D. pulex 1/91 LC50 = 70.7% D. pulex

Notes - ND = No data



4.5.9 Other Local, State, and Federal Environmental Permits, OHM Storage Permits, and Permit Violation Information

No additional information was identified .



5.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 INVESTIGATIVE STRATEGY

ERM’s investigative strategy was based on a combination of screening and conventional assessment technologies to provide a comprehensive site characterization. The investigation included:

• A review of available facility local, state, and federal (EPA) files, Sanborn insurance maps and aerial photographs available at the Department of Transportation.

• Non-invasive geophysical techniques (ground penetrating radar (GPR)) to investigate the presence/absence and location of subsurface USTs, drywells and associated structures.

• Vibratory drilling methods (ERM FASTWELLs) were used to allow rapid evaluation of impacts to groundwater. ERM SOW included onsite analytical screening using a portable gas-chromatograph (GC). Based on the number of samples to be screened, comparative cost for GC screening and laboratory analysis, ERM opted to submit all groundwater samples collected from FASTWELLs for laboratory analysis and eliminate GC screening.

• Conventional drilling techniques were used to investigate the potential impact to soils in suspected source areas.

• Soil samples were collected with hand or bucket augers at selected shallow sample depths and from catch basins.

Based on the results of initial sampling efforts, additional assessment and removal activities included:

• an interior visual inspection of buildings in March 1996 following decommissioning;

• removal of OHM impacted soil associated with drywells as Limited Removal Actions (LRAs);

• advancement of 15 additional soil borings, installation of six additional conventional and two inclined monitoring wells and advancement of three angle borings beneath Building 3;

• well surveying, slug testing and one additional round of well gauging; and



• excavation of seven test pits and soil sampling to evaluate areas of filling or disturbed soil identified in historic aerial photographs.

Sampling locations are displayed in Figure 2. The rationale for sampling locations selected and analytical testing performed is summarized in Table 2.

5.2 A DESCRIPTION OF ALL RELEVANT GEOLOGIC, HYDROLOGIC, GEOPHYSICAL AND OTHER SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS AND ASSESSMENTS

5.2.1 Zone II Study of the Baldwin Pond Wellfield

Anderson-Nichols & Company, Inc. (ANC) was retained by the Town of Wayland to conduct a Zone II Study of the Baldwin Pond Wellfield located approximately one-half mile to the north of the RES facility. The Zone II is defined as “that area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated.” Results of this study are documented in, Report on Conceptual Zone II Study of the Baldwin Pond Wellfield, dated March, 1994. The DEP reviewed and approved the Zone II delineation as proposed by ANC in correspondence to the Town of Wayland dated 13 February 1995.

The Zone II represents the Area of Contribution within which water falling on the ground could reach the supply well if pumped at a maximum rate under severe conditions (a six month drought). This Zone II delineation was determined using surficial geologic mapping techniques and a numerical computer model (MODFLOW) to assess boundary effects imposed by the Sudbury River. Modeling was based on existing pump test and specific capacity data available for the wellfield.

As indicated on Figure 4 of this report, the Zone II delineation includes the entire RES facility. Being located within the Zone II triggers MCP Reportable Concentration categories for groundwater and soil of RCGW-1 and RCS-1 and requires meeting groundwater cleanup standards which correspond to Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), if feasible. In addition, deed restrictions (Activity and Use Limitations) cannot be used to restrict future use of groundwater or modify exposure assumptions in a risk assessment.

Review of the ANC report indicates the following findings significant to fate and transport of dissolved phase groundwater contamination from the RES site:



• The numerical model (MODFLOW) used to delineate the Zone II assumed a hydraulic conductivity (k) value of 75 ft/day beneath the entire RES site. As indicated in Section 5.2.2, the k value for subsurface deposits on site varies from a qualitative “high” (not measured) at MW-18 to calculated values ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 ft/day (RAY-01 and MW-13). Therefore, an undefined boundary condition could exist which was not accounted for in the model and thereby impact the Zone II delineation.

• The DEP approved Zone II is based on a combined pumping rate of 1.51 million gallons per day (MGD) representing a worst case (180 day drought) condition. Although the Town of Wayland is allowed to exceed this rate on a daily basis, they are required to meet 1.51 MGD as an average within a one month period. Based on ANCs model predicting groundwater flow after pumping at 1.51 MGD for 180 days, the regional direction of groundwater flow beneath the RES site is west/southwest toward to Sudbury River. These findings suggest that even under extreme conditions (180-days of pumping during a drought with no recharge from rainfall) and conservative assumptions (k=75 ft/day for the RES site), the regional direction of migration of dissolved phase groundwater contamination is west/southwest, discharging to the Sudbury River.

5.2.2 In-situ Permeability Testing

ERM performed permeability testing (slug tests) in three conventional two -inch monitoring wells to estimate hydraulic conductivity of overburden aquifer in the courtyard between Building 3 and Building 4. Rising head slug tests were conducted in wells, RAY-01, MW-13 and MW-18. Slug testing was not performed in wells containing separate phase product (MW-11, MW-17 and MW-19).

Rising head slug tests were conducted according to the following procedure:

• each well was gauged to determine static depth to water;

• a decontaminated pressure transducer was inserted into the well;

• a decontaminated, closed, PVC slug was inserted into the water column to displace a known volume of water;

• the water level was allowed to re-equilibrate to static conditions;

• the slug was removed from the water column, creating an instantaneous loss of hydraulic head in the well casing;

• water level measurements were recorded with time as the water level re-equilibrates to near-static conditions.



Water level measurements were obtained at variable time intervals using an In-Situ Pressure Transducer and electronically recorded using a Hermit Model 1000C Data Logger. Data was downloaded to an IBM PC for analysis. In-situ hydraulic conductivity (k) values were calculated using the Bouwer and Rice Method for slug test analysis. A hydraulic conductivity value was not calculated on well MW-18 because the recovery in this well was essentially instantaneous (suggesting a relatively high k value), therefore the data was not appropriate for quantitative analysis. The following table summarizes the calculated hydraulic conductivity values are expressed in centimeters per second (cm/sec) and feet per day (ft/day).

Summary of Calculated K Values

Monitoring Well Designation

Calculated K value (cm/sec)/(ft/day)

Overburden Material

MW-13 4.82 E-4/2.0 silty sand

RAY-01 6.08 E-4/1.5 silty sand

The values calculated for MW-13 and RAY-01 correspond to published values (Freeze, 1979) for silty sand aquifer materials. Slug test analysis data sheets are included in Appendix A.

5.2.3 On-site Geophysical Investigation

ERM subcontracted Geophysical Applications Inc. (GAI) of Bellingham, MA to perform a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey at selected locations on site. The purpose of the GPR survey was to investigate for the presence/absence and location of subsurface structures, including USTs, drywells and associated piping. Methods and results of the GPR surveys are documented in a report entitled, “Geophysical Surveys to Locate Underground Structures, Raytheon Site, Wayland, MA” prepared by GAI (Appendix A). This section summarizes areas investigated and provides an evaluation of GPR survey findings.

GPR surveys were deployed on 12&13 October 1995. Survey grid locations are designated on Figure 2. Six areas, designated Area A through F in the GPR Report, were investigated based on the following rationale:



• Area A ≈50 sq. foot area around DW-01, to locate pipes associated with the drywell;

Area B ≈125 sq. foot area around the suspected location of DW-02, to locate the drywell or any associated pipes;

Area C ≈50 sq. foot area around DW-04, to locate the extent of piping associated with the drywell;

•Area D ≈90 sq. foot area around the suspected location of WAY-03, to pinpoint the location of a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST;

•Area E ≈ 75 sq. foot area around a catchbasin outside the old Printed Circuit Board shop inside building #4, to locate an alleged underground pit.

•Area F ≈ 50 sq. foot area around WAY-05, to locate a former waste oil UST located between WAY-01 and the building.

Table 3 provides a summary of GPR survey findings within each area and an evaluation of these findings by RES based on correlation with site utility maps and development history. The radar anomalies identified correlate with the location of mapped subsurface utilities, possible subgrade foundation structures, or areas of disturbed soil due to documented UST removals

5.3 DOCUMENTATION OF TEST PIT, BORING, AND WELL INSTALLATIONS

5.3.1 Test Pit Excavation and Soil Sampling

ERM excavated seven test pits in the northwest portion of the site between Range House No. 15 and No. 8 (Figure 2). The test pit locations were selected based on review of historic aerial photographs corresponding to areas of observed soil disturbance or filling. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from five to nine feet bgs. Soil conditions ranged from well sorted silt and fine sand (TP-3) to poorly sorted sand and gravel (TP-4). Logs describing soil conditions at each test pit location are included in Appendix B.

Samples were collected at each test pit location and screened with a PID using the standard DEP jar-headspace procedure. Elevated PID readings were observed in most samples collected and are attributed to moisture content in the soil (PID reading climbed slowly). Two samples, TP-3, S-1 and TP-6, S-1, exhibited elevated headspace readings that were not attributed to moisture (PID reading jumped almost instantaneously). These samples were sent for laboratory analyses.



Soil classifications, screening results, visual observations, samples and analytical parameters selected for testing are summarized in test pit logs contained in Appendix B. Analytical results of soil testing are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C.

5.3.2 Install Soil Borings and Monitoring Wells

Borings were advanced using conventional drilling techniques adjacent to UST locations (WAY-01, WAY-02, and WAY-09) and inside known drywells (DW-01, DW-02, DW-03, DW-04, DW-05, DW-06 and DW-08) to evaluate the potential impact to soils. Borings were also advanced using vibratory drilling techniques adjacent USTs, WAY-02, WAY-06 and WAY-08 and inside Building 3 and Building 4. ERM advanced one boring using hand auger techniques at location HA-1 by Bldg. 12/21.

At each boring location, if soil was observed to be impacted via PID screening then a monitoring well was installed to assess the potential impact to groundwater. At two locations, WAY-02 and DW-05, additional borings and monitoring wells were advanced to determine the extent of potential for contaminants in deep soil and groundwater. In addition, three borings were advanced at angles of 30 to 45 degrees beneath Building 3 to evaluate the extent of hydrocarbons beneath the building. Soil boring/monitoring well locations are displayed in Figure 2. Rationale for soil boring and monitoring well locations is provided in Table 2.

ERM installed a total of 30 soil borings up to a depth of 24 feet below ground surface (bgs), as part of the Phase I investigation. Nine of the borings were completed as groundwater monitoring wells to depths of 22 to 25 feet bgs. Two of the monitoring wells were installed in angle borings (MW-27 & MW-28). Eight of the nine monitoring wells were constructed of standard two-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) riser and screen and one well (MW-17) was constructed using one and one-half inch diameter PVC.

The borings completed as vertical monitoring wells were drilled to approximately seven feet below the water table (estimated at approximately 22 to 25 feet bgs) such that a 10-foot length of PVC screen straddles the water table to account for seasonal fluctuations in the water table. Angle wells were installed with a 15-foot screen. The annular space around each well screen was packed with a clean granular sand such that one foot of sand extends above and below the screened section. PVC riser pipe was installed to extend to the ground surface, and the wells were completed with a bentonite seal, concrete collar, and



locked, protective steel casing. Well construction logs are included in Appendix B.

An ERM geologist supervised drilling operations and prepared detailed well logs describing geologic conditions, depth to groundwater and the presence or absence of any visible soil contamination. Split-spoon soil samples were collected at varying intervals (continuous, alternating two-foot intervals or five foot intervals) to the water table using standard American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) techniques. Split-spoon samples were not collected in angle borings. However, soil cuttings were collected for inspection and screening at various intervals. Headspace screening of soil samples was performed with a Photoionization Detector (PID). Soil classifications, screening results, visual observations, samples and analytical parameters selected for testing are summarized in boring logs contained in Appendix B. Analytical results of soil testing are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C.

5.3.3 Install FASTWELLs

FASTWELLS were advanced using vibratory drilling techniques adjacent to USTs WAY-03, WAY-06 & WAY-08 , drywells DW-01, DW-05 & DW-06, hazardous waste storage area, and on the former sand filter bed (LC-01), and leach fields (LC-02) to evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater. FASTWELL locations are illustrated in Figure 2. Rationale for FASTWELL locations are provided in Table 2.

At each location ERM advanced a carbon steel, nominal 0.75 inch outer diameter FASTWELL with a 10-foot long screen to intersect the water table (targeted at approximately 20 to 25 feet bgs). Groundwater was sampled at each location using a peristaltic pump and sent to Alpha Analytical Laboratories. Groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 5 and laboratory reports are contained in Appendix C. Each FASTWELL was completed with a locking cap or FASTWELL roadbox. Construction diagrams are included in Appendix B.

5.3.4 Sediment Sampling

ERM collected sediment samples at four locations on site as part of the Phase I Investigation. Sediment was sampled from inside one catch basin and three manholes along a length of drainline leading to the Sudbury River. All sediment samples were collected from within fully contained structures (no designed connection to soil or groundwater). Sediment analytical results are summarized in Table 6. Laboratory reports are contained in Appendix C.



5.3.5 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were collected from conventional monitoring wells using dedicated bailers to avoid cross contamination between wells. In order to ensure that the groundwater samples are representative of the aquifer, approximately three to five well volumes were evacuated prior to sampling. Specific conductance, temperature and pH were obtained following each purged well volume and recorded in a field log book. Groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 5. Laboratory reports are contained in Appendix C.

5.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF GENERAL SITE TOPOGRAPHY

Based on observations by ERM personnel during the Phase I, the site is relatively flat. A small hillside, roughly 10 to 15 meters in elevation, is located on the eastern portion of the site. No outcrops were observed in the vicinity of the site. The majority of the site is paved for driveways and parking areas or is composed of grassy areas.

The Sudbury River is located along the western boundary of the site and is surrounded by wetlands. A subdrainage basin divide trending southwest/northeast is located in the southeast corner of the property (see Figure 4, MA GIS Map).

5.5 CHARACTERIZATION OF GEOLOGIC AND STRATIGRAPHIC CONDITIONS

The site consists primarily of stratified fine sands and silt. Clay and gravel were observed in certain borings advanced on site, but no consistent correlation in stratigraphic units was identified. The central portion of the building complex site contains coarser sands than those encountered elsewhere on the site.

Fill material ranging from coarse sand to coarse gravel was encountered in borings advanced inside Building 6 (SB-20-22).

Bedrock was not encountered in any of the soil borings or monitoring wells installed by ERM. Bedrock beneath the site is mapped as crystalline metamorphic rock of Proterozoic age (TRCC, 1991). The Bloody Bluff Fault is located within one mile of the site, trends southwest-northeast and dips to the west.



5.6 DESCRIPTION AND GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

ERM subcontracted Everett M. Brooks Inc., a Massachusetts licensed surveyor, to survey elevations and the location of all monitoring wells on site. Elevations were surveyed to the nearest .01 foot. The monitoring well elevations were used in conjunction with groundwater gauging data to construct a groundwater flow map.

ERM conducted two rounds of well gauging at the site; the first on 23 November 1995 and the second on 15 March 1996. ERM gauged all monitoring wells on site to the nearest .01 foot using an electronic water level probe. Monitoring wells containing separate phase petroleum product were gauged using an Oil Recovery Systems Interface Probe. Gauging results are summarized in Table 7. Groundwater elevation contours for each round of gauging are illustrated on Figures 7 and 8.

The depth to groundwater beneath the site ranged from approximately 5 feet bgs at MW-9 on the western/downgradient side of the site to approximately 19 feet beneath the main complex. Groundwater elevation contours for both gauging events indicate the presence of a groundwater divide trending north/south near WAY-02 with groundwater flowing easterly to the east of WAY-02 and westerly to the west of WAY-02. This flow pattern is consistent with a mapped subdrainage basin divide observed on the MA DEP GIS MAP (Figure 4).



6.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

6.1 EVIDENCE OF RELEASE

In order to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the site, the levels of contaminants detected in soil and groundwater are compared with applicable MCP Reportable Concentrations (RCs) (310 CMR 40.1600). Releases to soil and groundwater are defined based on exceedance of applicable RCs or notification criteria pursuant 310 CMR 40.0300.

6.1.1 Applicable MCP Reportable Concentrations

MCP Reportable Concentrations for Site Groundwater

In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0362, and based on existing information for determining MCP required reportable concentrations of OHM in groundwater, groundwater at the site is classified as a category RCGW-1. This classification results because the site is located within a DEP Approved Zone II Wellhead Protection Area.

A release of OHM in groundwater requires notification to the DEP if the measured concentration of one or more DEP listed substances is equal to or greater than the RCGW-1 category-specific RC value listed under 310 CMR 40.1600.

MCP Reportable Concentrations for Site Soils

In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0361, site soil is classified category RCS-1, since the site is located within the geographic boundaries of a groundwater resource area categorized as RCGW-1.

A release of OHM in soil requires notification to the DEP if the measured concentration of one or more DEP listed substances is equal to or greater than the RCS-1 category-specific RC value listed under 310 CMR 40.1600.



6.1.2 Evidence of Release in Soil and Groundwater

Soil

Concentrations of contaminants detected in soils are summarized in Table 4. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C. Concentrations of contaminants in soils exceed RCs at the following locations:

• Drywell DW-01 - PAHs including Benzo(b,k)fluoroanthene (2,900 µg/kg), Benzo(a)anthracene (3,200µk/kg), Chrysene (3,100 µg/kg), Benzo(a)pyrene(2,900 µg/kg).

• Drywell DW-05 - PAHs including Benzo(b,k)fluoroanthene (1,500 µg/kg), PCB Arochlor 1260 (4 to 240 mg/kg), and metals including Cadmium (200 mg/kg), Chromium (2,300 mg/kg), Lead (690 mg/kg) and Silver (170 mg/kg).

• Drywell DW-06 - PCBs Arochlor 1260 (12 mg/kg), PCBs Arochlor 1254 (6.7 mg/kg), Barium (5,310 mg/kg), Cadmium (67.5 mg/kg), Chromium (25,200 mg/kg), lead (666 mg/kg), and oil and grease (1,379 mg/kg).

• Boiler Room Pit - PCBs including Arochlor 1260 (3.2 mg/kg).

• UST WAY-02 - Soil Borings MW-11, MW-15, MW-20, SB-26, SB-27, SB-28 and SB-29 concentrations of TPH identified as No. 6 fuel oil (4,300 to 95,000 mg/kg), and VOCs at MW-11 including naphthalene (70 mg/kg) and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-TMB, 44 mg/kg).

• Test Pit TP-3- unidentified hydrocarbons at 8,600 mg/kg.

In accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0318, Limited Removal Actions (LRAs) were conducted to mitigate the impacts to site soil at Drywell locations DW-01, DW-05 and DW-06 and the Boiler Room Pit. Results of laboratory analyses of closure samples collected following completion of each soil removal indicate residual concentrations below RCs (Table 4). Details regarding completion of LRAs are summarized in Appendix D.

Locations where LRAs were not performed and OHM concentrations in soil which exceed RCs are displayed in Figure 5.

Groundwater

Concentrations of contaminants detected in groundwater are summarized in Table 5. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C. Concentrations of contaminants in groundwater which exceed RCs include: benzene from 11 ug/l



(MW-13) to 25 ug/l (MW-11); naphthalene at 30 ug/l (MW-11); tetrachloroethene (PCE) from 6.1 ug/l (MW-13) to 17 ug/l (MW-5); trichloroethene (TCE) from 7.6 (MW-7) to 72 ug/l (RAY-01); and 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) from 2.0 ug/l (MW-7) to 4.8 ug/l (RAY-01). Locations where OHM in groundwater exceed RCs are displayed in Figure 5.

6.2 NAMES, CONCENTRATIONS, AND VOLUMES OF RELEASED OHM

Summary of Oil and/or Hazardous Materials (OHM) Detected in Soils and Groundwater

In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0483(1)(e)2.c., the following summary tables list the minimum and maximum concentrations of contaminants detected in soil and groundwater at the disposal site.



Summary of OHM Detected in Soils

Concentration Observed

Constituents Detected Minimum Maximum Detected

Maximum Residual

Organic

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 (µg/kg)

Ethylbenzene ND 7,400 7,400

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 6,700 6,700

Xylenes ND 79,000 79,000

Methylene Chloride ND 15 ND

Tetrachloroethene ND 90 ND

Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 ND 370 370

n-Butylbenzene ND 66 66

sec-Butylbenzene ND 6,700 6,700

Isopropylbenzene ND 7,600 7,600

p-Isopropyltoluene 31 8,700 8,700

Naphthalene 460 70,000 70,000

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 55 44,000 44,000

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 140 160,000 160,000

n-Propylbenzene ND 29,000 29,000

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270 (µg/kg)

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ND 1,400 ND

Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 ND 5,700 ND

Naphthalene ND 640 ND

Benzo (b) flouranthene 1,500 2,900 ND

Benzo (b,k) flouranthene ND 1,500 ND

Pyrene 1,200 5,100 ND

Tetrachlorobenzene ND 13,000 ND

Pentachlorobenzene ND 17,000 ND

Benzo (a) anthracene ND 3,200 ND

Chrysene ND 3,100 ND

Flouranthene ND 4,300 ND

Benzo (a) pyrene ND 2,900 ND



Summary of OHM Detected in Soils


Constituents Detected Minimum Maximum Detected

Maximum Residual

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8080

Arochlor 1254 ND 6.7 ND

Arochlor 1260 0.63 240 ND

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons(TPH) by EPA Method 8100 (mg/kg)

Fuel oil #6 4,300 95,000 48,000

Inorganic

Total Metals (mg/kg)

Arsenic 2.8 29 8.0

Barium 9.5 5,310 43

Cadmium 1.2 200 1.2

Chromium 6.3 25,200 73.5

Lead 2.5 690 80

Mercury 0.81 1.2 ND

Selenium ND 0.83 0.83

Silver 0.83 170 5.9 Note: Minimum concentrations for all compounds are non-detect (ND) unless otherwise specified.



Summary of OHM Detected in Groundwater


Constituents Detected Minimum Maximum

Organic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 (µg/l) and Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (HVOCs) by EPA Method 8010(µg/l)

Benzene 11 25

Toluene ND 4.1

Ethylbenzene ND 31

Xylenes ND 95

Isopropyltoluene 3.4 8.6

Naphthalene ND 30

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 31

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 120

sec-Butylbenzene 1.2 2.3

Dichloroethene-cis-1,2 1.2 77

Tetrachloroethene 0.65 17

Trichloroethene 7.6 72

Trichloroethane-1,1,1 1.6 12

Dichloroethane-1,1 ND 1.6

Dichloroethene-1,1 2.0 4.8

Chloroform ND 0.59

Inorganic

Dissolved Metals (mg/l)

Barium 0.01 0.28 Note: Minimum concentrations for all compounds are non-detect (ND) unless otherwise specified.



Summary of OHM Detected in Sediment*


Constituents Detected Minimum Maximum

Organic Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8080 (µg/kg)

Arochlor 1260 440 640

Inorganic

Total Metals (mg/kg)

Arsenic 4.2 11

Barium 9.6 90

Cadmium 1.1 3.5

Chromium 15 140

Lead 49 850

No information was available to establish the volume of OHM released at the site. The presence of the compounds is not connected with any known release or spill. *Sediment samples collected from within wastewater conveyance system (a fully contained structure with no designed connection to soil or groundwater).



6.3 LABORATORY DATA SHEETS

Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C.

6.4 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINANTS

Based on the results of the Phase I Investigation, primary areas of concern where the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination exceed RCs are summarized in plan view on Figure 5 and include:

Impacts to Soil at Test Pit TP-3

Test pit excavation, visual observation, field screening and results of laboratory analyses indicate impacts to soil in only one of the seven test pits excavated. An unidentified type of TPH was detected in sample TP-3, S-1 (0.25 to 2.0) at 8,600 mg/kg. Review of the chromatogram for this analysis indicates the closest standard to the unknown hydrocarbon is diesel fuel; however, the signature does not correlate with unweathered diesel product. The detected concentration is above the RC, S-1 of 500 mg/kg and requires Release Notification to DEP if not abated within 120-days of knowledge (by 22 July 1996).

Results of VOC analysis indicate n-propylbenzene (n-PB) at 29,000 ug/kg. However, the MCP does list a RCS-1 for n-PB is propylbenze 100,000 ug/kg which is significantly higher than the concentration of n-PB detected. According to the Merck Chemical Index, common uses of n-PB include dying, printing and as a solvent for cellulose acetate.

Results of sample TP-3, S-3 collected at a depth of 3 to 4 feet bgs were reported non-detect for TPH and VOCs. Field observations suggest that elevated TPH and VOCs detected at TP-3 may be limited to a near surface (0.25 to 2.0 feet in depth) within a fine, light brown to tan soil layer. Laboratory results also suggest OHM impact at TP-3 is limited to a shallow depth. The lateral extent of impact to soil and potential impact to groundwater has not been defined; however, the non-detectable concentrations in soil at the shallow depth of 3-4 feet below grade suggest downward migration of contaminants is limited.



No. 6 Fuel Oil Release(s) from WAY-02

Soil and groundwater have been impacted by a release(s) of No. 6 fuel oil from WAY-02. Based on visual observation of soil samples, field screening and laboratory analyses, known impacts to soil extend:

• to the north approximately 20 to 25 feet horizontally beneath Building 3 at depths of 10 to 20 feet bgs;

• to the east approximately 10 feet horizontally beneath the Boiler Room at a depths of 15 to 20 feet bgs;

• to the south to SB-15 on the south side of the courtyard at depths of 10 to 16 feet bgs, but likely not beneath Building 4;

• to the west approximately 45 feet to the west of the former Carpentry Shop at depths of 13 to 20 feet bgs, but not as far as MW-30.

The known lateral and vertical extent of petroleum impact to soil is displayed in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The extent of impact beneath Building 3 is displayed based on results of angle borings in Figure 11. Based on existing data, the estimated extent of petroleum impacted soil corresponds to an area approximately 140 ft. x 200 ft. (28,000 sq. ft.). Using an average thickness of 5 ft. and a conversion factor of 1.5 tons/cu. yd., the estimated volume of impacted soil is 5,200 cu. yds., or 8,000 tons.

In January, 1996 separate phase petroleum product was measured at 0.1 feet in apparent thickness in wells MW-11 and MW-17 with a sheen (no measurable thickness) in MW-19. The estimated size of the product plume on the water table was 90 feet x 20 feet . Subsequent product gauging in March, 1996 indicated 1.76 feet apparent thickness in MW-11, 0.05 feet in MW-17 and 1.3 feet in MW-19. The dramatic increase in product thickness represents an apparent thickness within the well, rather than an accurate indication of the extent of the problem on the water table. In addition, separate phase product was detected (but thickness not measured) in MW-27 and MW-28 installed in angle borings beneath Building 3. The estimated size of the product plume based on March gauging is approximately 100 X 100 feet. The extent of product on the water table is displayed in Figure 9.

Dissolved Phase Constituents in Groundwater

Dissolved phase constituents in groundwater consists of chlorinated and aromatic VOCs in seven monitoring wells installed around the main operations building. No elevated VOCs have been detected in MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3 which are located upgradient of impacted wells. These wells are situated



between compounds identified in on-site groundwater and the public wellfield located approximately one-half mile to the north, suggesting that the dissolved phase constituents are not migrating towards the wellfield. In addition, elevated VOCs were not detected in MW-4 located approximately 150 feet downgradient of product and dissolved phase groundwater contaminants, suggesting limited migration of dissolved phase groundwater contamination to the west of WAY-02.

Drywells, Wastewater Conveyance & Wetlands

Elevated concentrations of PCBs, lead, chromium, and PAHs were detected in drywells connected to the wastewater conveyance system which discharges to NPDES outfall OF-01. Impact at the drywells has been abated. Significantly lower levels of PCBs (less than 1 ppm) were detected in storm drain basins downdrain of the drywells and in the channel from outfall OF-01.

6.5 PRESENCE AND THICKNESS OF NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS

Separate phase product has been detected in five monitoring wells associated with a historic release of No. 6 fuel oil from WAY-02. Results of product gauging are summarized in Table 7.

In January, 1996 separate phase petroleum product was measured at 0.1 feet in apparent thickness in wells MW-11 and MW-17 with a sheen (no measurable thickness) in MW-19. The estimated size of the product plume on the water table was 90 feet x 20 feet . Subsequent product gauging in March, 1996 indicated 1.76 feet apparent thickness in MW-11, 0.05 feet in MW-17 and 1.3 feet in MW-19. In addition, separate phase product was detected (but thickness not measured) in MW-27 and MW-28 installed in angle borings beneath Building 3. The estimated size of the product plume based on March gauging is approximately 100 X 100 feet. The extent of product on the water table is displayed in Figure 9.



7.0 MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND EXPOSURE POTENTIAL

7.1 MIGRATION PATHWAYS

No evidence of exposure to on-site contaminants was identified by ERM. Based on the nature and extent of OHM established during the Phase I Investigation, potential exposure pathways are evaluated below:

7.1.1 Air

The facility is no longer in operation. Volatile organic contaminants detected on site are restricted to subsurface soil and groundwater at depths ranging from 5 to 19 feet bgs beneath areas covered by pavement or buildings. In considering the low levels of VOCs detected in site soil and groundwater, the depth extent and surface coverage, subsurface VOCs maintain a low potential to impact indoor air quality.

7.1.2 Soil

Remaining impacts to site soil identified during the Phase I Investigation are associated with a past release(s) of No. 6 fuel oil from WAY -02 and near surface hydrocarbon compounds at test pit location TP-3.

Petroleum impacts associated with WAY-02 are restricted to subsurface soil at depths ranging from 5 to 22 feet bgs beneath areas covered by pavement or buildings. Oil in soil maintains a potential to migrate to groundwater and impact groundwater quality in both dissolved and separate phase; however, the older age of the oil and the low solubility associated with No. 6 Fuel Oil suggests that migration will be extremely slow.

Near surface soil containing hydrocarbon compounds (0.25 to 2 feet bgs) associated with TP-3 maintains a potential to migrate to groundwater via infiltration of precipitation. However, soils beneath the detected area of impact exhibit no evidence of impact, suggesting that the organic contaminants may be bound to the shallow soil.



7.1.3 Groundwater

The potential exists for migration of dissolved phase constituents via advective flow of groundwater. Subsurface utility conduits do not appear to represent a preferential migration pathway as groundwater is at depths below utilities. In considering the low levels of VOCs detected in groundwater and the depth to the water table (16 to 19 feet beneath buildings) groundwater constituents maintain a low potential to impact indoor air quality.

The site is located within a Zone II DEP Approved Wellhead Protection Area for the Baldwin Pond Well Field located approximately one-half mile to the north of the site. The current direction of groundwater flow in areas of OHM impact indicates an east-west direction of migration, cross-gradient to the wellfield. As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the regional direction of dissolved phase constituent migration in groundwater is likely to be west/southwest, ultimately discharging to the Sudbury River. Even under a worst case pumping scenario, the direction of groundwater flow on site is toward the Sudbury River.

Separate phase oil on the water table maintains a potential to migrate along the water table as separate or dissolved phase. Data to date suggest migration is limited to the area beneath or between buildings.

7.1.4 Surface Water

Offsite migration of groundwater and discharge to surface water (i.e., the Sudbury River) is possible. However, the Sudbury River is located approximately 1,300 feet to the east of the known extent of impacted groundwater. In considering the location and distance of potential groundwater discharge areas to groundwater containing dissolved phase constituents (significantly below MCP risk-based standards for protection of surface water (GW-3)), the potential for dilution, retardation and dispersion of groundwater during migration, groundwater contaminants maintain a low potential to impact surface water.

7.1.5 Sediment

Groundwater contamination on site maintains a potential to discharge to wetland and river sediment.

Inadvertent historic releases to the stormwater discharge conveyance system suggest a potential for exposure to residual contaminants in wetland sediments. Results of wetland sediment sampling by ERM in 1990 and 1995 indicate PAHs,



trace levels of PCBs and metals. Disconnection of facility cross-connections and termination of operations minimize the potential for future migration of contaminants to wetland sediment via stormwater conveyance.

7.2 Known and Potential Human Exposure

No evidence of human exposure to OHM materials was identified by ERM. Potential exposures for current and future foreseeable uses are described below.

• Inhalation:

The greatest potential for inhalation of contaminants is associated with volatile organic contamination detected in shallow soil contamination at TP-3. The depth (5 to 22 feet bgs) and surface coverage (buildings and pavement) of subsurface soil contamination in other areas of the site reduce the likelihood of inhalation exposure

The potential exists for exposure to contaminants via inhalation during subsurface construction work.

• Dermal Contact:

OHM was identified in subsurface soils and groundwater. Currently, the RES facility is protected with 24-hour security, making access to areas of OHM unlikely. Therefore a low potential exists for dermal contact with OHM for site trespassers. Construction workers involved in future subsurface excavation during property re-development could become exposed to subsurface soil and groundwater contamination.

• Ingestion:

OHM was identified in subsurface soils and groundwater beneath areas of the main complex. The potential for ingestion of OHM in soil is low in the absence of invasive subsurface activities (e.g., excavation). A construction worker involved in subsurface excavation maintains a potential for incidental ingestion of soil contamination.

Groundwater beneath the site is classified as being within the Area of Contribution to a public water supply. However, groundwater is not currently used as a source of drinking water on site. The closest well (point of collection for consumption) is located over one-half mile to the north and crossgradient of the site. Results of groundwater monitoring indicate no observed impact to groundwater quality on site in areas located between groundwater contamination and the wellfield. On site gauging results and modeling of the regional direction of groundwater flow under worst case pumping conditions suggests the ultimate fate of site groundwater contamination is discharge to the Sudbury River.



In considering the low levels of dissolved phase OHM detected on site, the east/west direction of groundwater flow and discharge to the river, the potential for dilution, retardation and dispersion of groundwater during offsite migration, groundwater contamination maintains a low potential to adversely impact human health via ingestion of off-site groundwater.

7.3 KNOWN AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS

No evidence of impact to environmental receptors was identified by ERM. Facility operations have been terminated and do not maintain a potential to impact environmental receptors. Data from previous investigations by USFWS suggest a possible impact to wetland sediments; subsequently, sampling by ERM identified trace quantities of PCBs, PAHs, and metals. The source of contaminants in wetland sediments has not been determined. Wetlands on the property are protected and the GMNWR abuts the property to the north and is known as prime wood duck habitat.



8.0 EVALUATION OF NEED FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS

On 2 January 1996, RES verbally notified the DEP of the presence of greater than 0.5 inches of petroleum product measured in monitoring well MW-11 in accordance with MCP requirements for 72-hour release notification. RES requested approval for implementation of an Immediate Response Action (IRA) consisting of additional assessment and soil removal, if appropriate. The DEP granted approval of the IRA and issued RTN 3-13302.

ERM conducted additional assessment in January, 1996 to further evaluate the nature and extent of impact to soil and groundwater and determine if additional time-critical response actions were warranted under the IRA. Based on the results of this assessment, an IRA Completion Report was submitted on 4 March 1996 and, at DEP’s request, an amendment to this report submitted on 28 March 1996. Results of the IRA indicated:

• impacts to soil from No. 6 fuel oil beneath the paved court yard and Building 3 at depths from 5 to 22 feet bgs;

• impacts to groundwater including separate phase petroleum product in two wells and low concentrations of dissolved phase VOCs in areas immediately downgradient of product;

• site conditions do not pose an Imminent Hazard to human health, safety, public welfare or the environment at the present time, or for the time period likely to be required until Comprehensive Response Actions can be completed;

• the unmitigated migration of OHM at the site, at present and for the time period until Comprehensive Response Actions can be completed, does not warrant time-critical response under an IRA;

• additional response actions will be conducted as either a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) or as a Comprehensive Response Action.



9.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this investigation ERM makes the following conclusions:

1. Release(s) of No. 6 fuel oil from WAY-02 have impacted soil & groundwater quality.

The estimated extent of impact to soil corresponds to an area of approximately 28,000 square feet to depths of from 5 to 22 feet bgs, resulting in an estimated volume of 8,000 cubic yards. Soil contamination extends beneath the former Carpentry Shop, the portion of Building 3 adjacent to the Carpentry Shop and Boiler Room in Building 3.

Separate phase petroleum product has been detected at between 0.2 and 1.76 feet in thickness in wells adjacent to WAY-02. The estimated size of the product plume on the water table is 100 feet x 100 feet.

Results of the Immediate Response Action (IRA) indicate that conditions do not, and are not likely to, pose an Imminent Hazard and time-critical response actions are not necessary. This condition will likely require implementation of Comprehensive Response Actions to comply with MCP requirements.

2. Dissolved phase groundwater contamination maintains a low potential to impact current public water supplies.

Groundwater beneath the site is classified as being within the Area of Contribution to a public water supply. The closest well (point of collection for consumption) is located over one-half mile to the north and crossgradient of the site. Results of groundwater monitoring indicate no observed impact to groundwater quality on site in areas located between on site groundwater contamination and the wellfield. On site gauging and modeling results predicting the regional direction of groundwater flow under worst case pumping conditions suggests the ultimate fate of dissolved phase groundwater contamination on site is discharge to the Sudbury River.

3. Impacted soil at test pit location TP-3 requires release abatement or notification by 22 July 1996.

Unknown hydrocarbons detected in soil at 8,600 ppm exceed the applicable Reportable Concentration and require release abatement as an LRA or submittal



of written release notification to DEP within 120 days (22 July 1996). RES has scheduled to perform an LRA during May 1996. This area was investigated based on review of historic aerial photographs.

4. Groundwater flow patterns correlate with the location of drainage basin divide.

Groundwater elevation contours for two rounds of gauging indicate the presence of a divide near WAY-02, with groundwater flowing easterly the east of WAY-02 and westerly to the west of WAY-02. This flow pattern is consistent with a mapped subdrainage basin divide observed on the MA DEP GIS Map (Figure 4).

5. PAHs, PCBs , and metals were detected in drywells and wetland sediments.

PAHs, PCBs, and metals were detected in drywells and catch basins connected to the stormwater conveyance system which discharges to the wetlands along the Sudbury River. Impact at the drywells has been abated through soil removal actions conducted as LRAs. Significantly lower levels of contaminants were detected in storm drain basins downdrain of drywells and within the wetland sediments.

6. Comprehensive response actions and tier classification will likely be necessary by 2 January 1997.

In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0486, unless a Response Action Outcome can be achieved within one year of release notification, Tier Classification will be required. Since concentrations of OHM exceed RCGW-1 Standards and the site is located within a Zone II, the site will be categorically classified as a Tier I Disposal Site. Additional response actions cannot be performed until a Tier I Permit has been approved by DEP.



REFERENCES

TRC Companies, Inc., Screening Site Inspection: Final Report, October 1991.

USGS, Framingham, Massachusetts: 1:25 000-scale metric topographic map, Reston, Virginia, 1987.

USGS, Maynard, Massachusetts: 1:25 000-scale metric topographic map, Reston, Virginia, 1987.

Area Process Description Likely Chemicals Used Likely Hazardous Waste Generated 1995 Process Drain Type Estimated Drain that Existed HistoricallyAMICDO Lab Ultrasonic Cleaning and hand soldering Volatile organic compounds such as acetone and

methanolFlammable solvents. Containerized None

High Bay Wave Guide Testing Vault Transmitter wave guide testing (at high elevations), acoustic/sonar testing.

Transformer oils. Not identified. Containerized None

Hydraulics Lab Brazing, milling, pressure testing, mechanical assembly, refrigeration, paint stripping, and repair of units.

Cleaning solvents, ethylene glycol, oils, acids and refrigeration oil.

Spent solvents, sump water containing spent solvents, waste oil, Bernite cleaning solution with sulfamic acid, lab-packs.

Containerized directly or via pumping out spill collection sump.

Incidental spills may have ended up in storm drain/trench.

Environmental Test Lab Temperature, humidity, altitude testing, rain tests, salt spray tests. A cooling tower water treatment system was situated in this lab.

Chlorofluoro refrigerants, ethylene glycol, gasoline, hydraulic oils, mercury, petroleum-based oils, propylene glycol, acids, bases, ozone, and trichloroethylene (TCE).

Waste oil, lab-packs, waste debris/rags. Containerized Incidental spills may have ended up in storm drain.

Radar Testing Complex - Building 12/21 Testing radar systems, including cooling systems. Alcohol, coolants, epoxies, mineral oil, and oils. Waste oil, spent glycol solution, soot form boiler, lab-packs (e.g., capacitors/transformers).

Containerized Incidental spills may have ended up in storm drain/trench

Transmitter Lab High voltage testing. Dielectric oils Waste oil Containerized DrywellTransformer Lab Section of Transmitter Lab Oil baths and oil changes, painting, and baking of

small protocol transformers.Oils with trace PCBs, paints. Waste oil, waste rags, spent flam., solvents. Containerized Drywell

Machine Shops / Weld Shop and Carpentry and Paint Shops

Protocol part machining, painting, woodworking, plating and chromating, fabrication.

Acetylene gases, aluminum, cadmium, copper, fiberglass resin, iron, lubricants, magnesium, methyl ethyl ketone, nickel, oils, petroleum-based oils, phenolic resin, steel, toluene, xylenes, barium, h i l d i i id b

Water soluble cooling oils, oganic debris/rags, aluminum sludge from Oakite, electroplating sludge with metal hydroxides, brine from water recycling, waste oil, lab-packs,

i h

Containerized or water recirculating system

Rinsewaters were piped to storm system and sanitary.

sodium dichromate, sodium hydroxide, sodium phosphate, ferrous sulfate, hydroflouric acid, spray paint, trichloroethylene (TCE), chromate solution, O kit NST l hi h t i

solvents, waste flammable solvents.

ethylenedaimine, nonylphenoxy polyethoxy ethanol, ethoxylated coamine, tetrasodium salts; Oakite LNC Deodorizer which contains nitric acid, and HF.

Conformal Coat Assembly Wave soldering, hand soldering, conformal coating, alcohol dip tank, vapor degreaser, semi-aqueous cleaning system.

Acetone, isopropyl alcohol, lead-tin solder, solder flux, solder oils, solvent-containing paint, solvent-containing polyurethane, terpene, trichloroethane (TCA).

Waste lead solder and solder fluid, wastewater containing trace solvents, filter media, waste rags, waste flammable solvents, lab-pack.

Containerized None identified

Chemical Lab / Plastics / Finishes / Coatings / Metallurgy / Heat Treatment Lab

WET PROCESSES: Wet chemistry, paint spraying, soldering, metallurgical testing, plastic and metal bonding, electroplating, copper plating, lead/tin plating, and gold plating.

2-Butoxyethanol, acetic acid, acetone, alkali cleaners, ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, ammonium persulfate, ammonium thiosulfate, borates, boric acid, butyl cellusolve, caustic soda etch, chromic acid, copper sulfate copper

No information identified Out-of-service Drywell

sulfate plating solution, diethylene glycol, fluoroboric acid, formaldehyde, gold plating solution, hydrofluoric acid, hydroquinone, isopropanol, lead-tin fluoroboric, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, math lene chloride napthanitric acid, petroleum ethers, phosphoric acid, pumice, silver solution, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, terpene, tetrahydrofuran, tetrasodium salts, toluene, trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), and trichlorofluoroethane.

Table 1Sheet 1 of 2

Process Chemical Use, and Hazardous Waste Generation By AreaRaytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Area Process Description Likely Chemicals Used Likely Hazardous Waste Generated 1995 Process Drain Type Estimated Drain that Existed HistoricallyPrinted Circuit Board Shop Printed circuit board fabrication and plating. Acids, alkali cleaners, chromic acid etch solution,

electroplating solution, metals, ammonium hydroxide,Copper sulfate, tin fluoroborate, HCI, HF, volatiles and organic compounds.

Developer waste with butyl cellusolve, corrosive salts (ammonium hydrogen fluoride),waste mixed acids, wastewater containing trace organics or trace metals, waste persulfate etching bath, tin/lead bath, lead anodes, ammonium hydroxide etchants.

Out-of-Service Majority of rinse water piped to IWTP, prior to IWTP, to sanitary. One process water was piped to storm system.

Microwave Hydbrid Integrated Circuit (MHIC) Lab

Stripping, phototech, laminating, developing, cleaning, spray painting

Acetone, copper plating solution, electroless tin, ferric chloride, gold plating solution, isopropyl alcohol, iodine, solvent paint, lead-tin, photographic developing chemicals, and toluene.

Spent acid solution with chrome, wastewater with trace organics or metals, mixed acids, mixed flammable acids, (hydrochloric, nitric, phosphoric, boric); spent tin/lead bath with sodium hydroxide, spent copper bath, lab-packs.

Containerized Rinse water to sanitary or drywell

MLB Lab Electroless copper plating, alkaline etching, and photoprocessing.

2-Butoxyethanol, alkaline etching solution, borates, electroless copper plating solution, photoprocessing chemicals, and tetrasodium salts.

Spent sulfuric solution with chrome, nitric acid with copper, electroplating metal hydroxide, photo resist stripping containing lead, sodium persulfate solution, mixed acids, lab-pack, photoresist developer waste containing silver.

Containerized IWTP IWTP

Photo Area / Photoplotter Lab Photo developing and plotting. Acetic acid, ammonia, ammonium thiosulfate, ferrous cyanide, hydroquinone, potassium aluminate, and silver.

Wastewater with trace metals, silver, or organics; waste electrostatic solution, waste rags/debris, spent flammable solvents, lab-pack.

Rinsewater containerized, water recirculating system

Rinsewater to storm and sanitary

Boiler Room Natural gas, oil, gas capability, boilers, chiller, water treatment system, air compressors

BCT-76 potassium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite, refrigerants, acids, bases, oils, and sulfuric acid

Wastewater with trace solvents, spent ethylene glycol, waste rags/debris, waste oil, soot from boiler, spent absorbents, cooling tower sludge, #6 fuel oil with clay absorbent.

Water to storm Storm

Sewage Treatment Plant Treating sanitary waste and some industrial waste. Chlorine gas, lime, acids, defoamer, salts Mixed acids such as sulfuric, broken mercury thermometers, lab-packs, waste oil, chromic acid/sulfuric acid mixture.

Chemicals added into sanitary system

Treated effluent to river

Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Treating industrial waste. Lime, acids, bases, buffer solutions Evaporator brine, lab-packs, electroplating sludge, waste oil, waste rags.

Evaporator Treated water to river

Table 1Sheet 2 of 2

Process Chemical Use, and Hazardous Waste Generation By AreaRaytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Table 2Sheet 1 of 2

Summary of Sample Locations, Rationale for Sampling and Analysis PerformedRaytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Sample Media Sample Rationale for Analysis Designation Sampled Location Sample Lacation Performed

SB-1 Soil Inside DW-01 Evaluate for impact in drywell. VOC, SVOC, PCB & TotalMetals47139-1 (Bottom) Soil DW-01 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. SVOC & PCB47139-2 (Front) Soil DW-01 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. SVOC & PCB47139-3 (Right) Soil DW-01 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. SVOC & PCB47139-4 (Back) Soil DW-01 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. SVOC & PCB47139-5 (Left) Soil DW-01 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. SVOC & PCB

SB-2, S-2 Soil DW-02 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-02. PCBSB-3, S-1 Soil DW-03 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-03. VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total Metals

SB-4 Soil DW-04 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-04. VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total MetalsMH-13 Soil DW-06 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-06 (before boring advancement). VOC, PCB & Total Metals

SB-5, S-4 Soil DW-06 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-06. PCB & Total MetalsSB-6, S-5 Soil WAY-01 Evaluate for impact near UST, WAY-01. TPHSB-7, S-4 Soil WAY-08 Evaluate for impact near UST, WAY-08. PCB

SB-9 Soil DW-07 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-07. VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total MetalsHA-1 Soil Building #12/21 Evaluate for impact from switch gear release. PCB

SB-8, S-1 Soil Inside DW-05 Evaluate for impact in drywell, DW-05. VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total MetalsSB-8, S-2 Soil Inside DW-05 Determine extent of contamination in drywell. PCB & Total MetalsSB-8, S-3 Soil Inside DW-05 Determine extent of contamination in drywell. PCB & Total MetalsSB-8, S-4 Soil Inside DW-05 Determine extent of contamination in drywell. SVOC, PCB & Total Metals

SB-8A, S-3 Soil Outside DW-05 Determine extent of contamination outside drywell. PCB & Total MetalsSB-8A, S-5 Soil Outside DW-05 Determine extent of contamination outside drywell. PCB & Total Metals

47131-01 (Bottom) Soil DW-05 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. PCB47131-02 (Front) Soil DW-05 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. PCB47131-03 (Right) Soil DW-05 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. PCB47131-04 (Back) Soil DW-05 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. PCB47131-05 (Left) Soil DW-05 excavation Confirmatory sample following removal action. PCB

2.13-1 Soil Boiler room sump Evaluate for impact inside boiler room sump . PCB47131-08 Soil Boiler room sump Confirmatory sample inside sump in boiler room after soil removal. PCB

MW-10, S-2, (6'-8') Soil Parking Lot Adjacent to suspected locaion of crack in drainline downgradient of facility. PCBMW-11, S-4, (14'-16') Soil WAY-02 Evaluate for impact near UST,WAY-02. VOC & TPHMW-12, S-7, (13'-15') Soil WAY-09 Evaluate for impact near UST,WAY-09. VOC & TPHMW-15, S-6,(11'-13') Soil WAY-02 Evaluate extent of contamination near WAY-02 UST. TPHMW-19, S-8, (19'-21') Soil WAY-02 Evaluate extent of soil contamination under building near WAY-02 UST. TPHMW-20, S-5, (8'-10') Soil WAY-02 Evaluate extent of contamination near WAY-02 UST. VOC & TPH

TP-1 Soil _500 feet SSW of Range House #8 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos PID screeningTP-2 Soil 90 feet NW of TP-1 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos PID screening

TP-3, S-1 Soil 60 feet west of TP-2 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos VOC & TPHTP-3, S-3 Soil 60 feet west of TP-2 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos VOC & TPH

TP-4 Soil 100 feet west of TP-3 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos PID screeningNotes:VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA method 8260SVOC = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA method 8270PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA method 8080TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA method 8100HVOC = Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8010

Table 2Sheet 2 of 2

Summary of Sample Locations, Rationale for Sampling and Analysis PerformedRaytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Sample Media Sample Rationale for Analysis Designation Sampled Location Sample Lacation Performed

TP-5 Soil _750 feet west of Range House #15 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos PID screeningTP-6, S-1 Soil _750 feet west of Range House #15 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos VOC & TPH

TP-7 Soil 75 feet south of TP-4 Evaluate subsurface conditions in suspect area identified in aerial photos PID screeningSB-26, S-2 Soil 4 feet S. of Bldg #3, 6 feet W. of carpentry shop Evaluate soil quality west of Carpentry shop. TPHSB-27, S-4 Soil 10 feet S.of Bldg #3, 9 feet W. of carpentry shop Evaluate soil quality beneath Bldg #3, west of Carpentry shop TPHSB-28, S-5 Soil 15 feet S. of Bldg #3, inside of carpentry shop Evaluate soil quality beneath Bldg #3, north of WAY-02 TPHSB-29, S-5 Soil 10 feet west of Boiler Room wall Evaluate soil quality beneath the Boiler Room, east of WAY-02. TPHSB-29, S-7 Soil 10 feet west of Boiler Room wall Evaluate soil quality beneath the Boiler Room, east of WAY-02.SB-30, S-3 Soil 54 feet W. of Carpentry Shop, 18 feet S. of Bldg #3 Determine extent of contamination west of carpentry shop related to WAY-02 TPH

MW-1 Groundwater Former Sand Filter Bed LC-01 Evaluate groundwater quality in sand filter bed. VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total MetalsMW-2 Groundwater Adjacent to DW-01 Evaluate groundwater quality near DW-01. VOC & Total MetalsMW-3 Groundwater Adjacent to WAY-03 Evaluate groundwater quality near WAY-03. VOC & TPH

MW-4 (10/18/95) Groundwater Adjacent to DW-06 Evaluate groundwater quality near DW-06. PCBMW-4 (10/20/95) Groundwater Adjacent to DW-06 Evaluate groundwater quality near DW-06. Total MetalsMW-4 (10/24/95) Groundwater Adjacent to DW-06 Evaluate groundwater quality near DW-06. VOC

MW-5 Groundwater Adjacent to former OHM storage area Evaluate groundwater quality adjacent to former OHM storage area. VOC & Total MetalsMW-6 Groundwater Adjacent to Haz. Waste Storage Evaluate groundwater quality adjacent to hazardous waste storage area. VOC & Total Metals

MW-7 (10/24/95) Groundwater Adjacent to WAY-06 & WAY-08 Evaluate groundwater quality near WAY-06 & WAY-08. VOC, PCB & Total MetalsMW-7 (10/20/95) Groundwater Adjacent to WAY-06 & WAY-08 Evaluate groundwater quality near WAY-06 & WAY-08. HVOC

MW-8 Groundwater Adjacent to DW-05 Evaluate groundwater quality adjacent to DW-05. VOC & Total MetalsMW-9 Groundwater Former Leachfield LC-02 Evaluate groundwater quality in former leachfield. VOCMW-10 Groundwater Parking Lot Evaluate groundwater quality adjacent to suspected drainline leak. PCBMW-11 Groundwater Near WAY-02 Evaluated groundwater quality adjacent to WAY-02. VOCMW-13 Groundwater Downgradient of WAY-02 Evaluate groundwater quality downgradient of WAY-02. VOC

RAY-01(10/20/95) Groundwater Near WAY-01 Evaluated groundwater quality near WAY-01. HVOCRAY-01 (10/24/95) Groundwater Near WAY-01 Evaluated groundwater quality near WAY-01. VOC

SD-1 Sediment In manhole near DW-06 Evaluate sediments in manhole adjacent to DW-06 VOC, SVOC, PCB & Total MetalsSD-2 Sediment Manhole downgradient of DW-05 Evaluate sediments in first manhole downdrain of DW-05. PCB & Total MetalsSD-3 Sediment Catch basin downgradient of DW-05 Evaluate sediments in first catchbasin downdrain of DW-05. PCB & Total MetalsSD-4 Sediment Manhole in boiler room. Evaluate sediments in catchbasin. PCB & Total Metals

Notes:VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA method 8260SVOC = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA method 8270PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA method 8080TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA method 8100HVOC = Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8010

Area Finding Subsurface Features

A "Pipe unrelated to the drywell that trends through entire survey area"

Sanitary sewer line from Building 2.

A "A pipe that trends south from the drywell to approximately line 10N"

Outflow pipe from Drywell #1. Leads to main drain line, which is south of Drywell #1 and runs east-to-west, south of Building 2.

B "GPR signal penetration was limited to a depth of only about one foot between lines 50E and 85E"

15-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and connections to Drywell #3 from Building 2.

B "Pipes trending north from DW #3" Drain from Building 2 to Drywell #3.B "And south from the DW to approximately line

20 S"Effluent pipe from Drywell #3 to 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm line located at 20 S.

B "Southern pipe not detected south of 20 S" Pipe to storm line at 20 S.B "Localized GPR anomaly along line 25 S

between 65 E & 75 E"Storm line running east-to-west between Building 2 and Building 3; it exits north end of Building 3, west of Drywell #3, and extends north to the 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm line at 20 S.

C "Pipe trending NW & S from DW #4" Influent and effluent drains for Drywell #4. Effluent pipe terminates at 15-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP).

D "The largest is interpreted along line 75 W between 42 & 60 N"

21-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain line and adjacent eight-inch steel fire water pipe line.

D "A second smaller (45' off Bldg #3) object along 46 W between 30 N through 40 N"

Possible concrete foundation for former gas pumps.

D "A third object ... near ... 22.5 N / 27.5 W ... two ... pipes"

Natural gas pipe line and underground electrical line running from manhole (MH) #3 to the northwest corner of Building 3.

E "Area where GPR penetration appeared to be limited (possibly due to electrically-conductive soils) is generally N of line 30 N between lines OW & 46 W"

13.8 kV underground electric line connecting the oil switch north of cafeteria to Building 3 boiler room.

E "Underground structure along 46 W between 22 N & 30 N."

Fire main feed to Building 3 riser. 3-1 (steel) fire water feed from the yard branch main between Buildings 3 and 4.

E "Strong GPR reflections along lines 5 W, 10 W, 15 W & 20 W between 8 N to 12 N - may represent a pipe."

Steel fire water supply main.

F "To locate a small waste-oil storage tank" None known. Only known underground waste oil tank is documented as removed.

F "Limited GPR penetration between lines 7.5 W through 47.5 W ... may have been backfill materials"

Backfill from fuel oil tank removal.

F "The highest priority area is centered near line 37.5 N / 35 W where a shallow pipe appears to trend SW from Building #3."

Conduit carrying an electrical conductor formerly used as a heater cable for a 20,000 gallon underground storage tank (UST) (for #6 fuel oil) that has since been removed.

F "One locus is near grid coord. 47.5 W / 37.5 N" Backfill from tank excavation.

F "Another locus is near coordinate 2.5 W / 27 N" Cast iron floor drain pipe leading from boiler room extension to boiler room storm drain manhole.

Table 3Sheet 1 of 1

Summary of Ground Penetrating Radar StudyRaytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Table 4Sheet 1 of 7Summary of Soil Analytical Results*Raytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Sample I.D. Reportable SB-1 47139-1 (Bottom) 47139-02 (Front) 47139-03 (Right)47139-04 (Back) 47139-05 (Left) SB-2 S2Date Sampled Concentratio 13-Oct-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 20-Oct-95Reference location DW-01 DW-01 ExcavationDW-01 ExcavationDW-01 ExcavationDW-01 ExcavatioDW-01 Excavation DW-02Laboratory (S-1) IEA Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† Alpha

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260

Ethylbenzene 80,000 -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000 -Xylenes 500,000 -Methylene chloride 100 10BTetrachloroethene 500 -Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 -n-Butylbenzene NSL -sec-Butylbenzene NSL -Isopropylbenzene 1,000,000 -p-Isopropyltoluene NSL -n-Propylbenzene 100,000 -Naphthalene 4,000 -1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,000 -1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000 -

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) ND ND ND ND ND NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 -Naphthalene 4,000 -Benzo (b) fluoranthene 700 2,900.00Pyrene 500,000 5,100.00Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000 -Pentachlorobenzene 50,000 -Benzo (a) anthracene 700 3,200.00Chrysene 7,000 3,100.00Flouranthene 600,000 4,300.00Benzo (a) pyrene 700 2,900.00

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000Arochlor 1254 2,000

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA ND ND ND ND ND NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500Fuel Oil #6 500

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

InorganicTotal Metals (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 30 5.96Barium 1,000 62.00Cadmium 30 2.20Chromium 1,000 19.60Lead 300 4.40Mercury 20 -Selenium 400 -Silver 100 -

Notes:† - These samples were collected following Limited Removal Action's(LRA) performed at DW-01 and DW-05. -= Analytical result was below the method detection limitND=No compounds or elements detected above method detection limitsNA = Not Analyzedµg/kg=microgram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per billion (ppb))mg/kg=milligram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per million (ppm))*Tabulated results include only those compounds which were detected above method detection limits.B= Compound was detected in blank.NSL = No Standard Listed Shading indicates that the value exceeds the Reportable ConcentrationAlpha = Analysis performed by Alpha Analytical Laboratories located in Westboro, MA.IEA = Analysis performed by IEA Laboratories located in N. Billerica, MA.


Sample I.D. Reportable SB-3 S1 SB-4 MH-13 MH-13 45375-01 45375-02 45375-03 45375-04 45375-05 SB-5 S-4Date Sampled Concentratio 20-Oct-95 24-Oct-95 10-Jun-95 10-Jul-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 20-Oct-95Reference location DW-03 DW-04 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 Near DW-06Laboratory (S-1) Alpha IEA IEA IEA IEA IEA IEA IEA IEA Alpha

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260 -

Ethylbenzene 80,000 - -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000 - -Xylenes 500,000 - -Methylene chloride 100 9B 15BTetrachloroethene 500 - -Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 - -n-Butylbenzene NSL - -sec-Butylbenzene NSL - -Isopropylbenzene 1,000,000 - -p-Isopropyltoluene NSL - -n-Propylbenzene 100,000 - -Naphthalene 4,000 - -1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,000 - -1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000 - -

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) ND ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000 12,000.00 -Arochlor 1254 2,000 - 6,700.00

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500 300.00Fuel Oil #6 500 -

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA 1,379.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA

InorganicTotal Metals (mg/kg)

Arsenic 30 6.60 3.56 12 11.1 3.81 4.32 4.57 3.82 4.62 7.20Barium 1,000 43 21.00 5,310 2,210 23 17 33 19 28 23.00Cadmium 30 1.20 - 68 35.2 - - - - - -Chromium 1,000 17 13.4 7,850 25,200 73.5 8.3 16.7 32.8 17.0 70.00Lead 300 80 7.73 549 666 4.05 5.88 4.58 8.77 8.61 6.30Mercury 20 - - 0.81 1.81 - - - - - -Selenium 400 - - - - - - - - - -Silver 100 5.90 - 45 31.7 - - - - - -



Sample I.D. Reportable SB-6 S5 SB-7 S4 SB-9 HA-1 SB-8 S1 SB-8 S2 SB-8 S3 SB-8 S4 SB-8A S3 SB-8A S5Date Sampled Concentratio 20-Oct-95 24-Oct-95 13-Oct-95 15-Nov-95 20-Oct-95 13-Oct-95 13-Oct-95 13-Oct-95 13-Oct-95 13-Oct-95Reference location WAY-01 WAY-08 Bldg. #12/21 Bldg. #12/21 Inside DW-5 Inside DW-5 Inside DW-5 Inside DW-5 Outside DW-5Outside DW-5Laboratory (S-1) Alpha Alpha IEA Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260

Ethylbenzene 80,000 - -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000 - -Xylenes 500,000 - -Methylene chloride 100 14B -Tetrachloroethene 500 - 90.00Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 - 110.00n-Butylbenzene NSL - -sec-Butylbenzene NSL - -Isopropylbenzene 1,000,000 - -p-Isopropyltoluene NSL - -n-Propylbenzene 100,000 - -Naphthalene 4,000 - -1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,000 - -1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000 - -

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA ND NA NA NA ND NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 5,700.00Naphthalene 4,000 640.00Benzo (b) fluoranthene 700 1,500.00Pyrene 500,000 1,200.00Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000 13,000.00Pentachlorobenzene 50,000 17,000.00Benzo (a) anthracene 700 -Chrysene 7,000 -Flouranthene 600,000 -Benzo (a) pyrene 700 -

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) NA ND ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000 240,000.00 4,000.00 630.00Arochlor 1254 2,000 - - -

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500Fuel Oil #6 500

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA


Arsenic 30 NA NA 4.73 NA 29.00 5.2 4.4 4.8 2.8 3.5Barium 1,000 22 120.00 9.5 15 12 16 12Cadmium 30 - 200.00 5.2 - 2.2 - -Chromium 1,000 9.6 2,300.00 220 110 110 6.3 13Lead 300 4.39 690.00 57 12 6.5 2.9 2.5Mercury 20 - 1.2 - - - - -Selenium 400 0.84 - - - - - -Silver 100 - 170 3.0 0.83 - - -



Sample I.D. Reportable7131-01 (Bottom47131-02 (Front)47131-03 (Right)47131-04 (Back) 47131-05 (Left) 2.13-1 47131-08Date Sampled Concentratio 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 19-Dec-95 16-Nov-95 18-Dec-95Reference location DW-5 ExcavationDW-5 ExcavationDW-5 ExcavationDW-5 ExcavationDW-5 Excavation Boiler Rm Boiler Rm SumpLaboratory (S-1) Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† Alpha† IEA Alpha†

Organic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260

Ethylbenzene 80,0001,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000Xylenes 500,000Methylene chloride 100Tetrachloroethene 500Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000n-Butylbenzene NSLsec-Butylbenzene NSLIsopropylbenzene 1,000,000p-Isopropyltoluene NSLn-Propylbenzene 100,000Naphthalene 4,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,0001,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) ND ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000 3,200.00Arochlor 1254 2,000 -

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500Fuel Oil #6 500


InorganicTotal Metals (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 30Barium 1,000Cadmium 30Chromium 1,000Lead 300Mercury 20Selenium 400Silver 100



Sample I.D. Reportable MW-10, S-2, 6'-8'MW-11, S-4, 14'-16MW-12, S-7, 13'-15MW-15, S-6, 11'-13MW-19, S-8, 19'-21MW-20, S-5, 8'-10'Date Sampled Concentratio 21-Dec-95 21-Dec-95 23-Jan-96 24-Jan-96 24-Jan-96 25-Jan-96Reference location Parking Lot WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02Laboratory (S-1) Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA ND NA NAEPA Method 8260

Ethylbenzene 80,000 7,400 -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000 6,700 -Xylenes 500,000 79,000 -Methylene chloride 100 - -Tetrachloroethene 500 - -Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 - -n-Butylbenzene NSL - 66sec-Butylbenzene NSL 6,700 -Isopropylbenzene 1,000,000 7,600 -p-Isopropyltoluene NSL 8,700 31n-Propylbenzene 100,000 - -Naphthalene 4,000 70,000 4601,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,000 44,000 551,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000 160,000 140

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) ND NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000Arochlor 1254 2,000

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) NA ND NDEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500 - -Fuel Oil #6 500 48,000 95,000# 16,000

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Inorganic NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total Metals (mg/kg)Arsenic 30Barium 1,000Cadmium 30Chromium 1,000Lead 300Mercury 20Selenium 400Silver 100

Notes:† - These samples were collected following Limited Removal Action's(LRA) performed at DW-01 and DW-05. -= Analytical result was below the method detection limitND=No compounds or elements detected above method detection limitsNA = Not Analyzedµg/kg=microgram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per billion (ppb))mg/kg=milligram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per million (ppm))*Tabulated results include only those compounds which were detected above method detection limits.B= Compound was detected in blank.NSL = No Standard Listed Shading indicates that the value exceeds the Reportable Concentration# = Review of chromatogram suggests weathered Fuel Oil #6.Alpha = Analysis performed by Alpha Analytical Laboratories located in Westboro, MA.IEA = Analysis performed by IEA Laboratories located in N. Billerica, MA.


Sample I.D. Reportable 45375-01 45375-02 45375-03 45375-04 45375-05Date Sampled Concentratio 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96 30-Oct-96Reference location DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06 DW-06Laboratory (S-1) IEA IEA IEA IEA IEA

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260


Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000Arochlor 1254 2,000

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500Fuel Oil #6 500

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA


Arsenic 30 3.81 4.32 4.57 3.82 4.62Barium 1,000 23 17 33 19 28Cadmium 30 - - - - -Chromium 1,000 73.5 8.3 16.7 32.8 17.0Lead 300 4.05 5.88 4.58 8.77 8.61Mercury 20 - - - - -Selenium 400 - - - - -Silver 100 - - - - -



Sample I.D. Reportable TP-3, S-1 TP-3, S-3 TP-6, S-1 SB-26, S-2 SB-27, S-4 SB-28, S-5 SB-29, S-5 SB-29, S-7 SB-30, S-3Date Sampled Concentratio 15-Mar-96 2-Apr-96 15-Mar-96 21-Mar-96 27-Mar-96 27-Mar-96 27-Mar-96 27-Mar-96 27-Mar-96Reference location Range House #8Range House #8Range House #15 WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02 WAY-02 Way-02Laboratory (S-1)

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) ND ND NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8260

Ethylbenzene 80,0001,2-Dichlorobenzene 100,000Xylenes 500,000Methylene chloride 100Tetrachloroethene 500Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000 370n-Butylbenzene NSLsec-Butylbenzene NSLIsopropylbenzene 1,000,000p-Isopropyltoluene NSLn-Propylbenzene 100,000 29,000Naphthalene 4,0001,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10,0001,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1,000,000

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000Arochlor 1254 2,000

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) ND ND NDEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500 8,600Fuel Oil #6 500 15,000 8,900 12,000 22,000 4,300

Oil and Grease (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

InorganicTotal Metals (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 30Barium 1,000Cadmium 30Chromium 1,000Lead 300Mercury 20Selenium 400Silver 100



Sample I.D. Reportable #1 North Wall #4 West Wall #3 South Wall #2 East Wall #6 Stock Pile B#7 Stock Pile T#5 Bottom FloorDate Sampled Concentratio 7-May-96 7-May-96 7-May-96 7-May-96 7-May-96 7-May-96 7-May-96Reference location WAY-09 WAY-09 WAY-09 WAY-09 WAY-09 WAY-09 WAY-09Laboratory (S-1)

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) NA NA NA NA ND NA NAEPA Method 8260


Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4 100,000Naphthalene 4,000Benzo (b,k) fluoranthene 700Pyrene 500,000Tetrachlorobenzene 1,000,000Pentachlorobenzene 50,000Benzo (a) anthracene 700Chrysene 7,000Flouranthene 600,000Benzo (a) pyrene 700

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg) NA NA NA NA ND NA NAEPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 2,000Arochlor 1254 2,000

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) - NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEPA Method 8100Unknown Hydrocarbon 500Fuel Oil #6 500


InorganicTotal Metals (mg/kg) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 30 8.0Barium 1,000 27Cadmium 30 -Chromium 1,000 11Lead 300 4.9Mercury 20 -Selenium 400 -Silver 100 -


Sample I.D. Reportable MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-4 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-7Date Sampled Concentration 24-Oct-95 24-Oct-95 24-Oct-95 18-Oct-95 20-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 25-Oct-95 25-Nov-95Comments GW-1 Filtered

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/l) ND ND NA NA ND NA

EPA Method 8260Benzene 5 - - - -Toluene 1,000 - - - -Ethylbenzene 700 - - - -Xylenes 6,000 - - - -Isopropylbenzene 10,000 - - - -Naphthalene 20 - - - -1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 - - - -1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 10,000 - - - -sec-Butylbenzene NSL - - - -Dichloroethene-cis-1,2 NSL 2.0 - - -Tetrachloroethene 5 - 17.0 - -Trichloroethene 5 - 8.6 38.0 7.6Trichloroethane-1,1,1 200 - - 12.0 1.6Dichloroethene-1,1 1 - - - 2.0Dichloroethane-1,1 5 - - - -

Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (HVOCs) (µg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8010

Dichloroethene-1,1 1.0 2.7Dichloroethene-cis-1,2 NSL 1.2Chloroform 200 0.59Trichloroethane-1,1,1 200 4.0Trichloroethene 5 21Tetrachloroethene 5 0.65

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/l) ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/l) ND NA NA ND NA NA NA NA ND NAEPA Method 8080

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/l) ND NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/l) NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100

Inorganic**Dissolved Metals (mg/l) ND NA NA NA ND ND ND NA

Arsenic 0.1 - -Barium 2.0 0.01 0.28Cadmium 0.01 - -Chromium 0.1 - -Lead 0.02 - -Mercury 0.001 - -Selenium 0.05 - -Silver 0.007 - -

Notes:-= Analytical result was below the method detection limitND=No compounds or elements detected above method detection limitsNA = Not Analyzedµg/l=microgram per liter (approximately equal to part per billion (ppb))mg/l=milligram per liter (approximately equal to part per million (ppm))*Tabulated results include only those compounds which were detected above method detection limits.**For inorganic analysis only, GW-3 standards are given in place of GW-1 standards.Refer to laboratory reports for a complete list of compounds analyzed and method or sample specific quantitation limits.B= Compound was detected in blank.NSL = No Standard Listed. Shading indicates that the value exceeds the Reportable Concentration.

Table 5Sheet 1 of 2

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results*Raytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Sample I.D. Reportable MW-8 MW-9 MW-10 MW-11 MW-13 RAY-01 RAY-01 A RAY-01 B TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANKDate Sampled Concentration 24-Oct-95 24-Oct-95 28-Dec-95 28-Dec-95 31-Jan-96 24-Oct-95 20-Nov-95 20-Nov-95 20-Nov-95 23-Oct-95Comments GW-1

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/l) ND NA NA NA ND ND

EPA Method 8260Benzene 5 - 25 11 -Toluene 1,000 - 4.1 - -Ethylbenzene 700 - 31 - -Xylenes 6,000 - 95 - -Isopropylbenzene 10,000 - 8.6 3.4 -Naphthalene 20 - 30 - -Trimethylbenzene-1,3,5 100 - 31 - -Trimethylbenzene-1,2,4 10,000 - 120 - -sec-Butylbenzene NSL - 2.3 1.2 -Dichloroethene-cis-1,2 NSL - 6.5 77 3.3 Tetrachloroethene 5 4.1 1.5 6.1 2.1 Trichloroethene 5 11.0 10.0 47.0 68.0 Trichloroethane-1,1,1 200 - - - - Dichloroethene-1,1 1 - - - 4.6 Dichloroethane-1,1 5 - - 1.6 -

Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds (HVOCs) (µg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

EPA Method 8010

Dichloroethene-1,1 1.0 4.8 -Dichloroethene-cis-1,2 NSL 6.4 -Chloroform 200 - -Trichloroethane-1,1,1 200 2.5 -Trichloroethene 5 >60 72Tetrachloroethene 5 3.5 -

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8270

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/l) NA NA ND NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAEPA Method 8100

Inorganic**Dissolved Metals (mg/l) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 0.1 -Barium 2.0 0.02Cadmium 0.01 -Chromium 0.1 -Lead 0.02 -Mercury 0.001 -Selenium 0.05 -Silver 0.007 -

Notes:-= Analytical result was below the method detection limitND=No compounds or elements detected above method detection limitsNA = Not Analyzedµg/l=microgram per liter (approximately equal to part per billion (ppb))mg/l=milligram per liter (approximately equal to part per million (ppm))*Tabulated results include only those compounds which were detected above method detection limits.**For inorganic analysis only, GW-3 standards are given in place of GW-1 standards.Refer to laboratory reports for a complete list of compounds analyzed and method or sample specific quantitation limits.B= Compound was detected in blank.

Shading indicates that the value exceeds the Reportable Concentration.

Raytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Table 5Sheet 2 of 2

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results*

Table 6Sheet 1 of 1

Summary of Sediment Analytical Results*Raytheon, Wayland, Massachusetts

Sample I.D. SD-1 SD-2 SD-3 SD-4Date Sampled 24-Oct-95 20-Nov-95 20-Nov-95 20-Nov-95Comments Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha

OrganicVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (µg/kg) ND NA NA NAEPA Method 8260

Methylene chlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichlorobenzene-1,2,4

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)(µg/kg) ND NA NA NAEPA Method 8270Trichlorobenzene-1,2,4NaphthaleneBenzo (b,k) flouranthenePyreneTetrachlorobenzenePentachlorobenzeneBenzo (a) anthraceneChryseneFlourantheneBenzo (a) pyrene

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)(µg/kg)EPA Method 8080Arochlor 1260 440.00 610 640 510

Organochlorine Pesticides (µg/kg) ND NA NA NAEPA Method 8080

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(mg/kg) ND NA NA NAEPA Method 8100


Arsenic 11.00 5.1 4.2 11Barium 19.00 9.6 26 90Cadmium 1.1 - 1.1 3.5Chromium 140.00 16 15 120Lead 850.00 130 49 540Mercury - - - 0.46Selenium - - - -Silver - - - -

Notes:-= Analytical result was below the method detection limitND=No compounds or elements detected above method detection limitsNA = Not Analyzedµg/kg=microgram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per billion (ppb))mg/kg=milligram per kilogram (approximately equal to part per million (ppm))*Tabulated results include only those compounds which were detected above method detection limits.Refer to laboratory reports for a complete list of compounds analyzed and method or sample specific quantitation limits.B= Compound was detected in blank.Sediment samples were taken from within fully contained structures.Reportable Concentrations are not applicable to sediment.

Monitoring Depth to Depth to Depth to Product Total Measuring MP Groundwater Groundwater pH Conductivity Comments/ObservationsWell Water (Feet) Water (Feet) Product Thickness Depth Point (MP) Elevation Elev. (Feet) Elev. (Feet) (pH Units) (µS)

Designation 23-Nov-95 15-Mar-96 (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 23-Nov-95 15-Mar-96 20-Mar-96 20-Mar-96 MW-1 9.85 9.28 - - 20.78 Top of Pipe 106.49 96.64 97.21 6.8 252 CloudyMW-2 16.26 14.24 - - 23.65 Top of Pipe 109.76 93.5 95.52 6.89 359 CloudyMW-3 18.72 Destroyed - - 24.59 Top of Pipe 105.1 86.38 - - - Well destroyed by snowplow.MW-4 Destroyed Destroyed - - - - - - - - - Well destroyed during LRA.MW-5 17.89 15.69 - - 25.13 Top of Pipe 105.83 87.94 90.14 6.44 1434 V-silty @ first, then clear after purgingMW-6 17.82 15.45 - - 26.7 Top of Pipe 107.91 90.09 92.46 6.78 108 Rusty silty brownMW-7 18.38 Silted up - - 22.2 Top of Pipe 110.11 - - - - Well silted up between 11/23/95 and 3/15/96MW-8 18.68 16.95 - - 24.03 Top of Pipe 106.35 87.67 89.4 6.69 252 ClearMW-9 4.89 4.6 - - 14.12 Top of Pipe 94.36 89.47 89.76 6.67 284 V-silty

MW-10 Not installed 7.98 - - 18.1 PVC - - - - - Silty brown.MW-11 Not installed 16.8 15.04 1.76 24 PVC 107.92 - Product Product Product Floating product in wellMW-13 Not installed 15.31 - - 22.21 PVC 107.95 - 92.64 6.15 1328 SiltyMW-17 Not installed 13.95 13.9 0.05 23.9 PVC 107.71 - 93.76 Product Product Floating product in wellMW-18 Not installed 15.06 - - 21.31 PVC 107.78 - 92.72 - - Well not sampled.MW-19 Not installed 16.45 15.15 1.3 23.8 PVC 108.27 - Product Product Product Floating product in wellRAY-01 16.52 14.95 - - 24.29 PVC 108.37 91.85 93.42 7.07 1600 Slightly silty-Clear

Notes:PVC/RB = Measurment taken from top of PVC casing and top of road box casing.NM = Not measured.Not installed = Wells were not installed and were not gauged during November 1995 as a result.* - Groundwater gauging measurements were recorded on 23-November-1995 and 15-March-1996; pH/conductivity measurements were recorded on 20-March-1996- = Not Applicable

Table 7Sheet 1 of 1

Raytheon, Wayland, MassachusettsSummary of Groundwater Gauging and Field Screening*

Effective: 20 May 1996 - Raytheon 3-13302... · Effective: 20 May 1996 THE ERM GROUP 4 RAYTHEON -...

Documents

Transcript of Effective: 20 May 1996 - Raytheon 3-13302... · Effective: 20 May 1996 THE ERM GROUP 4 RAYTHEON -...