Supcrfund Records Center SHE: • ' - "' ' '•'

EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0036 H k H \ K: ;7 EPA Work Assignment No. 36-lL5$ *{ !{ R ._^Pl21^_

EPA Project Officer: Diane Kelley EPA Remedial Project Manager: Donald McElroy

FINAL WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Iron Horse Park Superfund Site 3rd Operable Unit

Billerica, Massachusetts

September 1994

en o tn Prepared by: o o a 0

iflJBMetcalf&Eddy o oAn Air & Water Technologies Company o N)

§

EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0036 EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 36-1L57

EPA Project Officer: Diane Kelley EPA Remedial Project Manager: Donald McElroy

FINAL

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT FOR

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

IRON HORSE PARK SUPERFUND SITE 3rd OPERABLE UNIT

NORTH BELLERICA, MASSACHUSETTS

September 1994

Prepared By:

METCALF & EDDY, INC. 30 Harvard Mill Square Wakefield, MA 01880

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1-5

1.2 GEOLOGY 1-6

1.2.1 Surficial Geology 1-6 1.2.2 Bedrock Geology 1-6

1.3 HYDROGEOLOGY 1-7

1.3.1 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement 1-7 1.3.2 Surface Water Drainage 1-8 1.3.3 Water Use and Receptors 1-8

1.4 SITE HISTORY 1-9

1.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS 1-16

1.6 CURRENT STUDIES AND REPORTS 1-16

2.0 PRESENTATION OF EXISTING DATA AND RI OBJECTIVES 2-1

2.1 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DATA 2-1

2.1.1 Contaminant Investigation 2-1

2.1.1.1 B&M Railroad Landfill and Locomotive Shop Disposal Areas 2-2

2.1.1.2 RSI Landfill 2-3 2.1.1.3 Old B&M Oil/Sludge Recycling Area 2-4 2.1.1.4 Contaminated Soil Area 2-5 2.1.1.5 Asbestos Contamination 2-8 2.1.1.6 PCB Contamination 2-9 2.1.1.7 Groundwater 2-11 2.1.1.8 Surface Water 2-11 2.1.1.9 Sediment 2-11

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2.1.2 Hydrogeological Investigation 2-12

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF RI DATA NEEDS 2-13

2.2.1 Nature and Extent 2-13 2.2.2 Data for Prediction of Contaminant Migration 2-16 2.2.3 Public Health Risk Assessment 2-16 2.2.4 Ecological Risk Assessment 2-16

2.3 RI OBJECTIVES 2-16

3.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 3-1

3.1 PROJECT PLANNING (TASK 1) 3-1

3.1.1 RI Work Plan Amendment 3-1 3.1.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3-1 3.1.3 Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum 3-2 3.1.4 Project Management 3-2 3.1.5 Meeting Attendance 3-3 3.1.6 Subcontractor Procurement 3-3 3.1.7 Delivery of Analytical Services (DAS) 3-5

3.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS (Task 2) 3-5

3.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS (Task 3) 3-6

3.3.1 Surface Geophysical Surveys 3-9 3.3.2 Hydrogeological Assessment 3-9

3.3.2.1 Decontamination Pad Construction/Site Clearing 3-9 3.3.2.2 Piezometer Installation 3-12 3.3.2.3 Monitoring Well Installation 3-15 3.3.2.4 Seepage Meter Installation 3-18 3.3.2.5 Staff Gauge Installation 3-19 3.3.2.6 Water Level Measurements 3-19 3.3.2.7 Aquifer Testing 3-21

11

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.3.3 Environmental Sampling 3-22

3.3.3.1 Soil Borings 3-22 3.3.3.2 Groundwater 3-22

3.3.4 Site Survey/Mapping 3-25 3.3.5 Field Generated Waste Disposal 3-25 3.3.6 Fieldwork Support 3-27

3.3.6.1 Site Setup, Mobilization and Demobilization 3-27 3.3.6.2 Audits 3-28 3.3.6.3 Preparation and Post Field Work 3-28

3.3.7 Meetings 3-30 3.3.8 Duration of Field Activities 3-30

3.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS/VALIDATION (TASK 4) 3-31

3.5 DATA EVALUATION (TASK 5) 3-33

3.5.1 Databases 3-33 3.5.2 Data Evaluation/Preliminary Report Preparation 3-34

3.6 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS (TASK 6) 3-35

3.6.1 Scope of the Investigation 3-35 3.6.2 Grouping of Data 3-36 3.6.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 3-36 3.6.4 Exposure Assessment 3-37 3.6.5 Toxicity Evaluation 3-38 3.6.6 Risk Characterization 3-39 3.6.7 Uncertainty Evaluation 3-39

3.7 TREATABILITY STUDY/PILOT TESTING (TASK 7) 3-40

3.8 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS (TASK 8) 3-40

3.9 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES (TASK 9) . 3-41

111

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.10 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (TASK 10) 3-41

3.11 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (TASK 11) 3-41

3.12 POST RI/FS SUPPORT (Task 12) 3-41

3.13 ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT (TASK 13) 3-41

3.14 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT (TASK 14) 3-41

3.15 ERA PLANNING (TASK 15) 3-41

3.16 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (TASK 16) 3-42

4.0 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION 4-1

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND SCHEDULE 5-1

6.0 CASH FLOW SCHEDULE 6-1

7.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN 7-1

8.0 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES 9-1

IV

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Geographical Location of the Iron Horse Park Superfund site 1-2

1-2 Site Base Map 1-4

1-3 Property Boundaries 1-12

3-1 Existing and Proposed Monitoring Wells, Piezometers, Staff Gauges, and Seepage Meters 3-11

5-1 Schedule 5-2

6-1 Cash Flow Schedule 6-2

WORK PLAN AMENDMENT

LIST OF TABLES

1-1 Chronology: Iron Horse Park site, 3rd Operable Unit 1-10

2-1 Summary of Soil Samples from the Old B&M Oil/Sludge Recycling Area on the Perm Culvert Property 2-6

2-2 Lead Levels in Site Soils that Exceed Typical Background Levels Found in New England Soils 2-7

2-3 Summary of Phase 1 RI Conclusions and Recommendations 2-14

2-4 Summary of 3rd Operable Unit RI Activities 2-15

3-1 Project Meeting Summary 3-4

3-2 Field Investigation Activity Summary 3-7

3-3 Hydrogeologic Groupings of Monitoring Well and Piezometer Locations for Areas of Concern 3-10

3-4 Estimated Depths of Proposed Piezometers, Monitoring Wells, and Seepage Meters 3-13

3-5 Summary of Environmental Samples and Analyses 3-23

8-1 Projected Logistic Field Station Supplies 8-2

8-2 Projected Field Support Supplies 8-3

8-3 Projected Health and Safety Supplies 8-4

8-4 Projected Task Equipment Needs 8-5

8-5 Projected Bottle Requirements 8-7

VI

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I, is currently conducting a remedial

investigation (RI) at the 3rd operable unit of the Iron Horse Park Superfund site in North

Billerica, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). The RI will document the nature and extent of

contamination observed in the 3rd operable unit so that remedial alternatives can be developed

and an appropriate response action or actions can be implemented. This work plan amendment

to the Final Work Plan (M&E, 1993a) is intended to describe the RI activities that will be

conducted at the Iron Horse Park site, 3rd operable unit to evaluate potential groundwater

contamination. The other two operable units at the site, the Boston & Maine (B&M) Railroad

wastewater lagoons (operable unit 1) and the Shaffer landfill (operable unit 2), are not addressed

in this work plan amendment.

A statement of work (SOW) was prepared by EPA in September 1992 to summarize the EPA's

current understanding of the nature and extent of contamination at the site, and to identify the

general and site-specific requirements for the investigations under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601

et. seq. and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 40

CFR Part 300. The September 1992 SOW incorporates the Shaffer landfill Record of Decision

(U.S. EPA, 1991a), the Phase 1A RI report (CDM, 1987), the Phase IB RI report

(CDM, 1988), the Phase 1C RI report (CDM, 1989a), the Phase 1C feasibility study

(CDM, 1991), and the memorandum report (CDM, 1989b). The site history and scope of work

for this work plan amendment were prepared using excerpts from the above mentioned

documents as well as the SOW for the 3rd operable at Iron Horse Park Superfund site

(U.S. EPA, 1992a).

The first investigation, the Phase 1A RI, was conducted in 1985 by Camp Dresser &

McKee, Inc. (CDM), under contract to the EPA (CDM, 1987). This RI undertook a broad

study of the site to delineate potential problem areas. As a result of the Phase 1A RI, the site

was then divided into three operable units: the B&M wastewater lagoons (operable unit 1), the

1-1

Site Boundary for Iron Horse Park Supertund Site

SOURCE USGS Topographic Map Blllenca, MA N4230-W7115/75(1979) Wilmington, MA N4230-W7107 5/7 5 (1979)

SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 1-1. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE IRON HORSE PARK SUPERFUND SITE

METC A L F » E D D Y 1-2

Shaffer landfill (operable unit 2) and the remaining nine areas of concern defined as operable

unit 3 (these included: asbestos landfill, asbestos lagoons, old B&M oil/sludge recycling area,

contaminated soil area, PCB contamination, B&M Railroad landfill and locomotive shop disposal

areas, RSI landfill, site-wide groundwater contamination, and site-wide surface water and

sediment contamination), which were addressed in this investigation (Figure 1-2). The Phase

IB RI report (CDM, 1988) concentrated on the area surrounding the B&M wastewater lagoons.

The Phase 1C RI report (CDM, 1989a) concentrated on the Shaffer landfill at the Iron Horse

Park site.

The objectives of the RI are to complete a field program for collecting data to quantify the

nature and extent of contamination, delineate potential source areas, and to evaluate the public

health and ecological risks associated with contaminants found at each of the following areas:

• asbestos lagoons • old B&M oil/sludge recycling area • contaminated soil area • B&M Railroad landfill • B&M locomotive shop disposal areas • RSI landfill • site-wide surface water and sediment

In addition, the historical PCB contamination in Middlesex Canal, the integrity of the asbestos

landfill cap, site-wide groundwater, and hydrogeological characteristics were evaluated in the

summer and fall of 1993 and the winter of 1993/94.

In February 1994, M&E submitted to EPA a Hydrogeological Assessment Report

(M&E, 1994a). The purpose of this report was to present a conceptual model of the site

hydrogeology and to characterize groundwater contamination at the 3rd operable unit. Following

submittal of this report, EPA prepared a scope of work to further evaluate potential groundwater

contamination for five areas of concern including: the B&M Railroad landfill, the RSI landfill,

the B&M locomotive and shop disposal area, the asbestos lagoons, and the old B&M oil/sludge

recycling area (Work Assignment #36-lL57, Revision 12). The scope of work and the

1-3

technical approach to address each of these areas of concern are described in this work plan

amendment. The purpose of this work plan amendment is:

• to present the scope of work, including a site description, the objectives of the RI, and the work planned by task for evaluation of groundwater contamination in each of the five source areas.

• to provide a basis for changes in scope, if field investigations indicate such a need, by including detailed descriptions and assumptions about the work to be performed.

Subsections of section 1 of the work plan amendment summarize the site description, geology,

hydrogeology, history, and previous studies conducted at the Iron Horse Park site. In section 2,

existing data are evaluated, and data gaps and RI objectives are identified. Section 3 details the

technical approach to the scope of work to be implemented in performing the RI. Section 4

outlines document production and distribution. The work schedule and budget assumptions are

described in section 5. Section 6 outlines the cash flow schedule. Section 7 presents the

subcontracting plan. Equipment and supplies are detailed in section 8.

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Iron Horse Park site occupies approximately 553 acres of land hi North Billerica,

Massachusetts, near the Tewksbury town line, approximately 20 miles northwest of Boston

(Figure 1-1).

The Iron Horse Park site is an active industrial complex and railyard with a long history of

activities which have resulted hi contamination of soils, groundwater, surface water, and air at

the site. This large site includes numerous manufacturing operations, open storage areas,

landfills and lagoons, some of which began operating hi the early 1900's. Contaminants known

to have been disposed of at the site include asbestos, PCBs, solvents, waste oils, and other

chemicals (CDM, 1987). Changes hi physical characteristics of the site have occurred during

1-5

the years of operation, due to the creation and eventual expansion of several landfills, open

storage areas, and lagoons.

The site is bounded on the north by the B&M railroad tracks, on the west side by High Street

and an auto salvage yard, on the east side by Gray Street and on the south side by a wetland,

Pond Street and the Middlesex Canal (Figure 1-2). The Middlesex Canal flows through the site

to the east where it joins Content Brook at the southeastern edge of the Shaffer landfill. This

area is also an abundant wetland area. Residential property borders the north and south

boundaries of the Shaffer landfill.

1.2 GEOLOGY

The surficial and bedrock geology in the vicinity of the site are described briefly in the following

sections.

1.2.1 Surficial Geology

According to previous investigations conducted at the Iron Horse Park site (CDM, 1987; 1988;

1989a) the overburden in the site consists of a sandy ablation till overlain by glacial outwash

deposits. The till is reportedly discontinuous and where present reaches a thickness of up to

5 feet. The outwash deposits range from 0 to approximately 60 feet in thickness. The thickest

overburden deposits occur in the vicinity of Shaffer landfill, where the glacial outwash thickness

was found to range from 10 to 58 feet.

1.2.2 Bedrock Geology

The site is situated geologically within the Nashoba Zone, a northeast-trending structural

geologic province, which is bounded by the Clinton-Newbury fault system to the north and the

Bloody Bluff fault system to the south. The Nashoba Zone consists of high-grade

1-6

metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks which have been intruded by intermediate composition

and granitic plutons.

The site is situated near the contact between two rock formations in the Nashoba Zone, the

Nashoba Formation, which consists primarily of schists and gneisses, and the Andover Granite,

which is one of the intrusive rocks of the Nashoba Zone. The Andover consists of

peraluminous, garnet bearing muscovite-biotite foliated and non-foliated granite with pegmatites

common (Hepburn and Munn, 1984).

In some areas the contact occurs and has been mapped as a migmatite, or "mixed rock," which

formed when the Nashoba Formation was intruded by the Andover Granite. The contact trends

northeast across the site with the Nashoba Formation occurring northwest of the Andover

Granite. Rock cores obtained from the site suggest that the contact is irregular but trends

northeast across the mid portion of Shaffer landfill. The bedrock surface at the site is reportedly

irregular and in some areas highly weathered causing variation in the depth to bedrock.

1.3 HYDROGEOLOGY

The site hydrogeology and surface water drainage patterns are described briefly in the following

sections.

1.3.1 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement

Groundwater at the Iron Horse Park site exists under water table conditions in the glacial

outwash and till deposits that overlie the site. Groundwater also occurs in the fractured bedrock

that underlies the site.

Groundwater in the vicinity of the B&M wastewater lagoons flows radially away from the

lagoons in all directions except to the south (CDM, 1988). In the vicinity of Shaffer landfill,

groundwater in both the overburden and bedrock generally flows from west to east. Previous

1-7

work conducted in this area suggest that flow directions and hydraulic gradients in the

overburden and bedrock are similar (CDM, 1989a).

Along the west end of the Shaffer landfill, groundwater flow is to the northeast in the direction

of Richardson Pond. In the central portion of the landfill, hydraulic gradients decrease due to

an increased saturated thickness and bedrock low, and flow occurs both to the northeast towards

Richardson Pond and to the southeast towards the wetlands surrounding the Middlesex Canal.

Groundwater in the east portion of the landfill flows to the southeast. East of the Shaffer

landfill, the regional groundwater flow direction is to the southeast.

1.3.2 Surface Water Drainage

Surface water at the site drains to the east along the Middlesex Canal, which drains to the

Shawsheen River and ultimately to the Merrimack River to the north. The topographic high in

the site vicinity lies just to the south of the site; the topographic low in the area lies to the

northeast of the site at Richardson Pond and Long Pond.

1.3.3 Water Use and Receptors

The primary water supply source for the town of Billerica is the Concord River which serves

approximately 95% of the town's water needs. The town's water supply intake is located

approximately one mile upstream of the Middlesex Canal's entry point to the river. At least four

residential wells, which are located approximately 0.2 miles east of the Shaffer landfill, have not

been used since the Shaffer landfill ceased operations.

The town of Tewksbury, located northeast of the Iron Horse Park site, currently uses the

Merrimack River as its primary drinking water supply. Four municipal wells were used until

approximately 1991 to provide 30 to 40% of the Tewksbury drinking water supply. Located

approximately 4,000 feet northeast of the Shaffer landfill, these wells currently are used only

as an emergency source.

1-8

1.4 SITE HISTORY

The 553 acres of land which now makes up the Iron Horse Park site was first purchased by the

B&M Railroad (now known as B&M Corporation) in 1911. Since then, a variety of industrial

disposal practices have resulted in the creation of numerous lagoons, landfills, and open storage

areas, that complicate the process of delineating the origin and nature of the contamination

problems that currently exist at the site. Table 1-1 provides a chronology of site activities at the

Iron Horse Park site.

The B&M Railroad, which began operations at Iron Horse Park site in 1913, has owned and

operated the locomotive/railroad car maintenance facility ever since. The B&M Railroad has

also owned and operated the present combined sewage/drainage system for Iron Horse Park

since approximately 1924. Beginning sometime prior to 1938, the B&M Railroad also operated

an "oil and sludge" recycling area on their property for a number of years. In addition, at

different times over the years, the B&M Corporation has sold and leased several parcels of their

land and some of the buildings to various companies. The property boundaries of companies

currently located within the Iron Horse Park site are presented in Figure 1-3.

At the present time, the B&M Corporation's on-site operations include administrative offices,

a locomotive/railroad car maintenance and repair facility, track panel fabrication, rail welding,

and operation of the sewage collection system which includes subsurface sewer lines, a

dismantled pumphouse, two unlined filter lagoons (approximately 104 foot by 200 foot by

4 foot), and one overflow lagoon. These lagoons received septic waste from B&M facilities and

other manufacturing facilities throughout the park. Presently, the sewage collection system no

longer discharges to the lagoons, but has been tied into the Billerica system. In addition to

septic wastes, the lagoons also received industrial/hazardous wastes such as solvents, waste oils

and other chemicals from various floor and yard drams found throughout the industrial park.

Sludge from the bottom of these lagoons was periodically dredged during the past 60 years of

operation and deposited in piles adjacent to the lagoons. Prior to 1981, much larger quantities

of hazardous wastes were discharged directly to these lagoons. After 1981, much of the

1-9

TABLE 1-1. CHRONOLOGY: IRON HORSE PARK SITE, 3rd OPERABLE UNIT (1)

Year Activities within the Site Boundaries

1911 Boston & Maine (B&M) Railroad purchased 553 acres of land that now makes up the Iron Horse Park site.

1913 B&M Railroad began operations at the Iron Horse Industrial Park.

1924 B&M Railroad began operating a combined sewage/drainage system for the Iron Horse Industrial Park.

1938 Oil and sludge recycling activities began in the area that is currently owned by Penn Culvert.

1944 B&M Corporation sold approximately 70 acres of land to Johns-Manville Products Corporation which manufactures structural insulating board. Two unlined lagoons, located on the newly purchased land were used to dispose of asbestos sludge waste. In addition, approximately 15 acres of land was leased from B&M for use as a landfill for asbestos waste.

1961 Johns-Manville sold the western portion of land to General Latex and Chemical Corporation.

1961 Aerial photographs indicate that wetland areas east of the railyard, on the north side of the Middlesex Canal, were being filled by B&M Railroad.

1961 B&M Railroad sold a 23-acre parcel of land on which oil and sludge recycling took place to Omega Trust.

1962 B&M Railroad sold approximately 1.2 acres of land and an existing building to Wood Fabricators, Inc.

1966 B&M Corporation sold an additional 0.67 acres of land to Wood Fabricators, Inc.

1966 B&M Corporation sold approximately 106 acres of land to Phillip Shaffer as Trustee of Gray Pond Realty Trust. Prior to 1966, this land was used for open burning.

1-10

TABLE 1-1 (Cont'd). CHRONOLOGY: IRON HORSE PARK SITE

Year Activities within the Site Boundaries

1968 Billerica Board of Health ordered that open burning practices cease on the land owned by Phillip Shaffer. The land was then used as a landfill, accepting both commercial and residential waste materials. This area is known as the Shaffer or Pond Street Landfill.

1969 Aerial photographs indicate significant expansion of existing landfills areas located in the eastern portion of Iron Horse Park. These areas include B&M land being used by Johns-Manville for disposal of asbestos waste, the B&M landfill north of the canal and the Shaffer Landfill.

1973 Omega Trust sold the oil and sludge recycling area to Penn Culvert Company

1976 Aerial photographs indicate that the expansion of the existing landfills has slowed down or even halted. Vegetation has returned to parts of each landfill.

1976 B&M Corporation sold approximately 150 acres of primarily developed land to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to operate passenger rail service including land along the northern portion of the Shaffer landfill.

1979 Aerial photographs indicate that the old B&M oil & sludge recycling area has been cleared, leveled and filled. The area is currently a partially paved lot used as a storage area.

1984 Iron Horse Park site was placed on the National Priorities List as a result of DEP investigations and a Site Investigation Report.

1984 A lawsuit was filed against Phillip Shaffer by the DEP for environmental violations.

1984 The Johns-Manville asbestos landfill was capped during an Immediate Removal Action under CERCLA performed by the EPA.

1986 In compliance with the state Court Order, the Shaffer Landfill ceased operations hi April 1986.

(1) Source: CDM, 1989a

1-11

(D</>t-l O

a 2

I

e o

s s

,o cs

w

•S "2

81 O co

hazardous waste generated at the site was disposed of offsite at RCRA permitted treatment,

storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities, in compliance with state and federal hazardous waste

regulations. However, wastes from various cleaning and repair operations may have been

discharged directly to the lagoons through floor and yard drains.

In 1944, the B&M Railroad sold approximately 70 acres of land located in the western portion

of the site to Johns-Manville Products Corporation, who at that time began to manufacture

structural insulating board which contained asbestos. Two unlined lagoons were built to dispose

of the resulting asbestos sludge waste. At approximately the same time, the B&M Railroad

leased approximately 15 acres of land located in the eastern portion of the site to the

Johns-Manville Products Corporation to be used as a landfill for asbestos sludge and other

asbestos mill wastes generated by Johns-Manville manufacturing operations. EPA capped this

landfill in 1984 as part of an "Immediate Removal Action" under CERCLA.

In 1961, the Johns-Manville Products Corporation sold the western portion of their land to the

General Latex and Chemical Corporation who manufactured acrylic and vinyl acetate polymers

and copolymers which are used hi fabrics, paper and insulation. Latex and polymerization

wastes were treated onsite using flocculation, coagulation, and sand filters which produced a

filter cake that was disposed of offsite at a sanitary landfill. The liquid filtrate was discharged

to the ground through sand filters. This practice was discontinued in May 1982, when General

Latex was connected to the Billerica wastewater treatment system.

Aerial photographs indicate that B&M Railroad began to fill hi the wetland area located just east

of the railyard, on the north side of the Middlesex Canal (west of Pond Street) in 1961

(CDM, 1989a). The photographs show that another wetland area owned by the B&M Railroad,

located on the east side of Pond Street, was also being filled in. Also in 1961, the B&M

Railroad sold a 23-acre parcel of land containing the "sludge-oil" area to Omega Trust. In 1962,

the B&M Railroad sold approximately 1.2 acres of land and an existing building to Wood

Fabricators, Inc. In 1966, the B&M Corporation sold Wood Fabricators an additional 0.67 acres

of land.

1-13

In 1966, the B&M Corporation sold 106 acres of land to Phillip Shaffer as the Trustee of Gray

Pond Realty Trust. Prior to 1966, this parcel of land had been used as an open burning dump

operation with approval from the Billerica Board of Health. The area was originally a flat

wetlands area which was mostly filled in by 1966. From 1966 until 1968, burning practices

continued until the Billerica Board of Health issued regulations in 1968 stating that no further

burning would take place. The regulations also stated that all refuse would be placed above the

water table and that daily cover should be applied. Since that time the area had been used as

a landfill (referred to as the Shaffer or Pond Street landfill) operated by Middlesex Disposal

Services, Inc., and received commercial and residential waste materials from private clients,

wastewater treatment sludge from the Town of Billerica, and domestic waste from Billerica

residents.

The Shaffer landfill has been cited for many violations of federal and state regulations under the

Clean Water Act and the Solid Waste Regulations (CDM, 1987). At the present time, the

Shaffer landfill owners are conducting closure activities under a Consent Order with the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) following a lawsuit filed in 1984

against the owner of the landfill for these violations. In compliance with the State Court Order,

the landfill stopped receiving waste of any kind in April 1986.

Aerial photographs taken in 1969 indicate that significant expansion of existing landfill areas

located in the eastern portion of the Iron Horse Park site was taking place. These areas included

the B&M land being used by Johns-Manville for disposal of asbestos waste, the B&M landfill

area north of the Middlesex Canal (west of Pond Street) being used by B&M to dump various

kinds of materials, and the Shaffer landfill, north of the Middlesex Canal (east of Pond Street).

In addition, the B&M Railroad was using a parcel of land located just east of the railyard on the

south side of the Middlesex Canal as a borrow pit for sand and gravel. This borrow pit area

was leased by B&M for a three month period to Reclamation Services, Inc., (RSI) for use as

a landfill to dispose of municipal and light industrial waste. Aerial photographs taken in 1976

indicate that the expansion of the existing landfill areas had slowed down or stopped and that

1-14

vegetative cover had returned to portions of each landfill, including the asbestos landfill, the

B&M landfill, the former RSI landfill, and the Shaffer landfill.

In 1973, the land containing the "oil and sludge" recycling area, previously owned by the B&M

Railroad, was sold by Omega Trust to the Perm Culvert Company. An aerial photograph taken

in 1979 shows that the old B&M oil and sludge recycling area, now located on Penn Culvert

property, had been cleared, leveled, and filled. The area is currently a partially paved lot and

is used as a storage area by Penn Culvert.

In 1976, the B&M Corporation sold approximately 150 acres of primarily developed land to the

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), who has since used the land to operate

passenger rail service. The B&M Corporation now leases much of this land from the MBTA.

B&M Corporation presently owns approximately 100 acres of the Iron Horse Park site.

Current landowners and operating companies on the Iron Horse Industrial Park Site include:

General Latex, B&M Corporation, Penn Culvert, Spincraft, Wood Fabricators, Johns-Manville,

and George McQuesten Lumber.

The Iron Horse Park site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1984

as a result of DEP investigations and a site investigation report prepared for EPA (NUS, 1983).

Due to the large size of the Iron Horse Park site and the number of potential source areas, a

phased operable unit approach was undertaken to select remedies for each identified source area.

The intent of this approach is to remediate the site more effectively by establishing priorities for

potential source areas and then conducting a separate but overlapping RI on each designated

source area or "operable unit", rather than attempting to remediate all source areas

simultaneously (NUS, 1983).

1-15

1.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Several studies have been conducted concerning the Iron Horse Park site. These include:

Final Report for Iron Horse Park Site Inspection Report, North Billerica, MA, (NUS, 1975)

Final Environmental Impact Report Pond Street Sanitary Landfill, Billerica, Massachusetts, (GHR Engineering Corporation, 1984)

Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report, Pond Street Sanitary Landfill, Billerica, Massachusetts, (GHR Engineering Corporation, 1985)

Preliminary Site Assessment of the Iron Horse Park Facility, North Billerica, Massachusetts, (NUS, 1983)

Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (FIT Project): Scope of Work for Site Inspection and Investigation, Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA, (Ecology and Environment, 1982)

Draft Phase 1A Remedial Investigation for the Iron Horse Site, Billerica, MA, (COM, 1987)

Draft Phase IB Remedial Investigation for the Boston and Maine Wastewater Lagoon Area, Iron Horse Site, Billerica, MA, (COM, 1988)

Draft Phase 1C Remedial Investigation for the Shaffer Landfill, Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, MA, (CDM, 1989a)

Wetlands Characterization and Biological Investigations, Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, Massachusetts (Weston, 1989).

1.6 CURRENT STUDIES AND REPORTS

The following reports have been prepared as part of the current remedial investigation:

• Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Iron Horse Park Superfund site, North Billerica, Massachusetts (M&E, 1994a).

1-16

• Asbestos Landfill Cap Evaluation Report, Iron Horse Park SuperfundBillerica, Massachusetts (M&E, 1994b).

site, North

• PCS Contamination Evaluation Report, Iron Horse Park SuperfundBillerica, Massachusetts (M&E, 1994c).

site, North

1-17

2.0 PRESENTATION OF EXISTING DATA AND RI OBJECTIVES

This section summarizes the findings from the previous site evaluations and details the objectives

for the RI at the Iron Horse Park site. The intent of this section is to provide a clear focus for

the RI scope of work for the areas in the 3rd operable unit of the site.

2.1 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DATA

A summary of historic contaminant and hydrogeologic information is detailed below.

2.1.1 Contaminant Investigation

A technical memorandum was prepared (CDM, 1989b) to summarize the current understanding

of the site and to address concerns associated with the different operable units that were

identified in the Phase 1A RI report (CDM, 1987). As described in section 1, the 3rd operable

unit consists of nine areas that will be studied during this RI investigation. This section

summarizes seven of the nine areas, identified as part of the 3rd operable unit at the site

(Figure 1-2), using sections and excerpts from the memorandum (CDM, 1989b) and from the

SOW for this assignment (U.S. EPA, 1992a). The areas described include: the B&M Railroad

landfill and locomotive shop disposal areas, the RSI landfill, the old B&M oil/sludge recycling

area, the contaminated soil area, PCB contamination, and asbestos contamination (includes

asbestos landfill and asbestos lagoons). In addition, site-wide groundwater, surface water, and

sediment contamination has been identified by previous investigations (CDM, 1987).

Following the review of the Hydrogeological Assessment Report (M&E, 1994a) by EPA, it was

decided that potential groundwater contamination in five areas of concern (the B&M Railroad

landfill and locomotive shop disposal areas, the RSI landfill, the old B&M oil/sludge recycling

area, and the asbestos lagoons) would be further evaluated as part of Work Assignment

#36-lL57, Revision 12. Results and conclusions presented in the Hydrogeological Assessment

Report (M&E, 1994a) have also been included in this section.

2-1

2.1.1.1 B&M Railroad Landfill and Locomotive Shop Disposal Areas. The B&M Railroad

historically used two distinct areas, B&M Railroad landfill and locomotive shop disposal areas,

at the site.

B&M Railroad Landfill. The B&M Railroad landfill is approximately 14 acres in size, and

is located in a wetland area, to the north of the Middlesex Canal and east of the railyard. The

wetland was filled in by the B&M Railroad prior to 1938 and used to dispose of various kinds

of debris until about 1976. CDM (1987) observed that this area contains partially buried drums

and creosoted railroad ties. Soil samples from this area were not collected during the Phase 1A

RI. Surface water and sediment samples from two locations in the Middlesex Canal (which

borders the area) were analyzed and the results indicated no detectable levels of contaminants.

However, a cluster of groundwater monitoring wells (OW 49-51) was also placed on the eastern

edge of this wetland. Samples of groundwater collected from these wells revealed detectable

levels of volatile organics in the bedrock well (90 ppb) and the deep overburden well (6 ppb).

During the recent field investigation performed in the fall of 1993, geophysical data suggested

that buried metal was more concentrated in certain subareas within the landfill. The boring logs

also suggest that landfilled materials may be below the water table, which was noted at

approximate depths of 4 to 15 feet below the ground surface. 1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)

was detected during groundwater screening on the easternmost side of the landfill. In addition,

high conductivities (greater than 1,000 ^mhos/cm), indicative of elevated concentrations of

inorganics were reported. Preliminary analytical data from the soil borings and test pits installed

during the fall investigation indicate that a range of organic compounds including PAHS,

PCB aroclors, long-chain alkanes, BTEX compounds, and ketones are present hi subsurface soils

in contact with groundwater.

B&M Locomotive Shop Disposal Areas. The B&M locomotive shop disposal areas consist of

two disposal areas separated by a manmade channel which flows into the unnamed brook. The

first area located on the south side of the channel, is approximately 3 acres in size. Prior to

1938 and until about 1979, the area was used to dispose of various kinds of "light and

2-2

dark-toned materials". CDM observed that the area contains various kinds of debris, including

deteriorated drums. The soils in this area were not sampled.

The second area, located on the north side of the channel and approximately 1 acre in size, was

investigated by CDM during the Phase 1A RI. Various kinds of partially buried debris were

observed in this area. Two soil borings drilled in this area revealed that subsurface soils were

visibly contaminated with oily wastes. Chemical analysis for hazardous substance list (HSL)

contaminants revealed elevated levels of lead and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)

compounds (3,000 ppm and 4 ppm, respectively). Trace levels (5 ppb) of volatile organics were

also detected. In addition, analysis of surface soils for asbestos revealed levels greater than 1 %.

Recent geophysical surveys (fall 1993; M&E, 1994a) suggest that nonmetallic fill was

predominant in the small disposal area. The larger disposal area revealed geophysical anomalies

which are attributable to the presence of surface metals. Preliminary subsurface data from the

fall investigation indicate the presence of a variety of organics such as tetrachloroethene (PCE),

PAHs, long-chained alkanes, ketones, various pesticides, and PCBs. Groundwater screening

directly downgradient of the disposal areas indicated the presence of 1,1 -DCE, vinyl chloride,

and elevated specific conductance.

2.1.1.2 RSI Landfill. The RSI landfill is located east of the B&M railyard near the

Johns-Manville asbestos landfill. It is bounded on the south side by an unnamed brook and the

east side by a wetland, which is drained by the Middlesex Canal. This area was used by B&M

as a borrow pit for sand and gravel sometime between 1961 and 1969.

This 6-acre parcel of land was once leased by the B&M Corporation to Reclamation Services

Incorporated (RSI) for a period of three months (from June of 1971 until August of 1971),

because of a fire at the RSI Cambridge Plant. During the fire, some compacted refuse bales

were broken apart in order to extinguish the fire. The Massachusetts Division of Environmental

Health granted RSI permission to use the B&M land to dispose of their loose, burnt refuse. This

area was not used for disposal by RSI after August 1971. The waste disposed of by RSI on

2-3

B&M land was classified as municipal and light industrial solid wastes from the cities of

Cambridge and Somerville. There were no records kept on specific waste characteristics. By

1976, the area was no longer being used and vegetative cover was returning.

Although soil samples from this area were not analyzed during the Phase 1A RI, samples of

surface water and sediment were collected and analyzed from the unnamed brook, at the point

where it discharges to an adjacent wetland area. In addition, groundwater samples were

collected from a cluster of monitoring wells installed in the adjacent wetland area. Detectable

levels of contaminants were not found in nearby surface waters, but detectable levels of volatile

organics were found hi the bedrock well (27 ppb) and the shallow overburden well (6 ppb).

A sediment sample collected from the adjacent wetland area contained PAHs (9 ppm) and

elevated levels of arsenic (81 ppm) and lead (1,000 ppm).

Geophysical data from the fall of 1993 suggests that the landfill contains abundant metal objects.

Boring logs confirmed the geophysical findings and suggest that the fill is as much as 15 feet

thick in the central portion of the landfill and that groundwater may be in contact with the fill

materials. Chlorinated volatiles (1,1-DCE, ds-l,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride) and benzene were

detected during groundwater screening. In addition, preliminary analytical data from the soil

boring and test pit activities indicated that a substantial number of long-chained alkanes, BTEX

compounds, PAHs, creosols, phthalates, ketones, various pesticides, and PCB aroclors are

present in subsurface soils from this landfill.

2.1.1.3 Old B&M Oil/Sludge Recycling Area. The 6-acre old B&M oil/sludge recycling area

was established sometime prior to 1938 for the purpose of recycling oil. A B&M Railroad site

plan dated 1972, shows two adjacent areas designated as "sludge" and "oil", which appear to

be pooled areas located about 300 feet west of the B&M locomotive repair facility

(CDM, 1989b). These two areas have a combined dimension of 600 by 200 feet. In 1973, the

Penn Culvert Company purchased the parcel of land containing these two disposal areas, and

sometime later filled in these areas.

2-4

During the NUS site inspection (NUS, 1975) and the CDM Phase 1A RI, subsurface soil

samples were collected from these areas. A summary of the analytical results is presented in

Table 2-1. The results from both sampling rounds revealed that the soils are contaminated with

lead (up to 27,000 ppm) and PAHs (0.5 ppm to 10 ppm) at depths ranging from the surface to

6 feet. In addition, both NUS and CDM observed that these soils were visibly contaminated

with oil.

Geophysical anomalies defined during the fall 1993 field investigation (M&E, 1994a) were

interpreted to represent the contrast in electrical conductivity between the buried oil and sludge

and other subsurface materials. This suggests that the horizontal extent of the waste is beyond

the limits of the study area. Detectable quantities of chlorinated volatiles (DCE and

vinyl chloride) were reported in groundwater-screening data. In the southern portion of this

area, the presence of oil and sludge was confirmed by borings, test pits, and the observation of

free product in piezometer P-12. In addition, alkanes, PAHs, and pesticides were reported in

preliminary subsurface soil data from this area.

2.1.1.4 Contaminated Soil Area. The emphasis for identifying contaminated soil was based

upon the results of a random soil boring program conducted across the site that indicated

elevated levels of lead (310 to 76,600 ppm) at nine out of forty locations. The results for

locations where lead levels exceeded expected background levels (300 ppm; CDM, 1987; 1989a)

are presented in Table 2-2. In particular, there are two locations on B&M property where lead

concentrations were present at percent levels (in the contaminated soil area).

Other than these two locations, the highest lead levels occurred on the Penn Culvert property

in the old B&M oil/sludge recycling area. Groundwater samples collected in the vicinity of

these areas did not contain detectable levels of lead.

As part of the recent field investigation (summer and fall 1993), surface soils were collected

from this area. The final results of the analytical sampling will be incorporated into the RI

report.

2-5

irom

ium

(ppm

) 0 Q Q VO 00 CM VO "H CM O O o

CM CM -< Vrt W*} fs| CO f^ C l ^5 • *-H ON ON O °° >—i CO t^* CM ON

" ^ s co vo ON •<* CM CM u o CM CM ~

in o oo CM ro VO Q ro ON Q ^ rtCO CM CM -H -H aZ z ^

U

E ON t— ON Q Q CM 1? Q Q Q Q Q <*> - - - z Z Z Z Z Z Z•|g

U

y vo CM ON oo oo Tt Q t^ ON Tt

oo *"* Tt in Z oo z CM § s Q ^

Tt ^3 S<£ O O Q '-i VO o q P 9 g9 ^ 2 5 d S "-1

2J 2 •* 8

V V ~ V ON" CM" V r~" V V ^11! V

s q ^ <•* o q q q C? 9 9 9 rj

«a|I V V V V V V V V V

CM CM CM - Tj- t^ CM VO VI

jj j-^ VO O CO C5 •A o <n o 4

|<3£ O

ooON

"o oo U ^~­ 0

§ vo oo OsS "S. "e^ oo >n 'i S J5 S 9^ PS — 1< § t- 00 OS J'S g § i ^J

[^^ vo VO VO c/3 -W V i < 1 <* < ° — £ J 2 t / 3 t / 3 c / 5 ' ^ Z c ^ r ^ CM ^H <s cN •'~< CMgij OH OHCL, S-5 i i *? — 1 1 1 hJ **< I-H NT* T< W O CO CQ PQ PQ N N N N

CO OH ll zd- a S S ou co co CO C^ C^ C^ SB

2-6

TABLE 2-2. LEAD LEVELS IN SITE SOILS THAT EXCEED TYPICAL BACKGROUND LEVELS FOUND IN NEW ENGLAND SOILS(1)

Sample Location

NUS Samples Collected 12/83

Penn Culvert

Penn Culvert

Penn Culvert

CDM Samples Collected 11/85 and 3/86

Johns-Manville

Johns-Manville

B&M

B&M

B&M

B&M

B&M

B&M

B&M

Penn Culvert

Penn Culvert

Penn Culvert

Penn Culvert

1. Source: CDM, 1989b

Sample Identification

IHP-S67

IHP-S68

IHP-S69

SB-22-030

SB-26-039

SB-28-054

SB-28-055

SB-30-043

PZ-08-017

PZ-09-020

PZ-09A-021

PZ-18-042

PZ-11A-026

PZ-12-027

PZ-12A-028

PZ-12A-029

Sample Depth (feet)

2

2

2

0-1

0-1

0-1

3-4

0-1

0-2

0-2

4.5-6.5

0-2

5-7

0-2

4-6

4-6

Lead Concentration (ppm)

23,900

26,900

19,900

315

310

76,600

527

539

2,890

59,200

4,610

2,940

362

4,760

2,220

2,930

2-7

2.1.1.5 Asbestos Contamination. Asbestos contamination associated with the asbestos landfill

and asbestos lagoons are described in the following sections.

Asbestos Landfill. The Iron Horse Industrial Park has historically been identified with asbestos

contamination due to asbestos landfilling operations conducted by Johns-Manville over a 32-year

period. Despite the fact that EPA capped the asbestos landfill hi 1984, "asbestos contamination"

was identified by CDM (1987) as a potential operable unit because the cap is not currently

maintained. Asbestos materials have been found outside the limits of the cap, and the entire

western boundary of the cap is not fenced. In 1985, during Phase 1A RI (CDM, 1987), surficial

soils (0 to 3 inches) from 40 random boring locations were also analyzed for the presence of

asbestos. Asbestos was detected at 28 of the locations sampled and 8 out of these 28 locations

located on Johns-Manville, Perm Culvert, and B&M properties, asbestos was present at greater

than 1% (Figure 1-3).

This suggested that windblown deposition of asbestos (CDM, 1989) had occurred in portions of

the site on B&M property adjacent to the landfill, as well as Johns-Manville property where the

asbestos waste originated.

An off-site soil sampling program (CDM, 1988) was also conducted to determine the extent to

which, if any, windblown deposition of asbestos had occurred in residential areas bordering the

Iron Horse Industrial Park.

The results of the off-site soil sampling indicated that, with one exception, there were no

detectable levels of asbestos in residential areas bordering the site. Therefore, CDM (1989)

concluded that wind-blown deposition of asbestos from the site to off-site areas most likely did

not occur. The integrity of the asbestos landfill cap were evaluated as part of the RI.

The Asbestos Landfill Evaluation Report (M&E, 1994b) was submitted to EPA in February

1994. This report documents recent finding of current surficial conditions of the landfill.

2-8

Recommendations of corrective actions to be implemented to protect public health and comply

with state and federal regulations were provided.

Asbestos Lagoons. In addition to the asbestos landfill, there are three unlined asbestos lagoons

on Johns-Manville property. One of these lagoons has been filled and covered. When the

lagoons were operated by Johns-Manville they received an asbestos slurry pumped from the

adjacent manufacturing operations. Asbestos from these lagoons was disposed of in the asbestos

landfill; however, the lagoons still contain some asbestos. The lagoons continued to receive

wastewater from Johns-Manville operations after asbestos manufacturing operations closed.

While this discharge did not contain asbestos, it may have had some hazardous substances in it

(CDM, 1989b). This area will be sampled as part of the RI.

Volatile organics, including benzene, xylene, PCE, and DCE were detected in groundwater

screened during the recent field investigation (fall 1993). Samples collected from the uncovered

asbestos lagoons reported detectable levels of aromatic volatile organics (toluene and xylenes)

and pesticides.

As part of the recent field investigation (summer/fall 1993), sediment samples were collected

from the asbestos lagoons. The final results of the analytical sampling will be incorporated into

the RI report.

2.1.1.6 PCB Contamination. As a result of PCBs found in sediments and soils associated with

a separate storm drain system on the Johns-Manville property, PCB contamination was identified

as an area of concern. PCBs were not detected in any other sediments or soils located

throughout the Iron Horse Industrial Park or hi the vicinity of the Shaffer landfill.

In 1985, during the CDM Phase 1A RI, PCBs were discovered hi the Johns-Manville storm

drain system which discharges to the Middlesex Canal. Sediments from two of the catch basins

in that system as well as sediments from the Middlesex Canal were contaminated with

concentrations of PCBs ranging from 10 to 270 ppm. Following this discovery, Johns-Manville

2-9

hired GZA as a consultant and initiated an independent investigation of their storm drain system.

GZA conducted three separate sampling events, in which CDM split samples with them. These

sampling events involved collecting sediments from six catch basins/manholes and from eight

locations along the Middlesex Canal as well as soils adjacent to those six catch basin/manhole

locations. The samples from the catch basins/manholes were actually obtained during a dredging

operation conducted by a hazardous waste contractor through GZA. All sampling locations are

presented in Figure 4-4 of the Phase 1A RI report (CDM, 1987).

The results of the additional sampling done by GZA confirmed the presence of PCBs in

Middlesex Canal sediments found near the discharge pipe, and also confirmed the presence of

PCBs in two additional manholes that were part of the system. The results of soil sampling done

adjacent to the old catch basins revealed PCB concentrations in soils ranging from 1.5 to

20 ppm. It is noted that in July and September 1986, GZA performed two additional sampling

rounds on the Johns-Manville storm drain system in which neither EPA nor CDM personnel

were present. A few months later, Johns-Manville informed EPA that 20 feet of the storm drain

discharge pipe to the Middlesex Canal was dug up and removed. Johns-Manville stated that the

end of the pipe was sealed with a concrete plug and that the discharge system was no longer in

service.

The Middlesex Canal was sampled by CDM in six locations both upgradient and downgradient

from this discharge pipe, and no detectable levels of PCBs were found. It appeared that no

migration of PCBs occurred from this discharge point. These PCB data from previous

investigations were evaluated as part of the RI.

During February 1994, the PCB Contamination Evaluation Report (M&E, 1994c) was submitted

to EPA. This report compiled and evaluated all available data and subsequent remedial

recommendations presented in the Phase 1A report (CDM, 1987) and the PCB Investigation

Report (GZA, 1987) to develop a full understanding of the potential contamination that may exist

in the area of the site. Recommendations of corrective actions to be implemented to protect

public health were provided.

2-10

2.1.1.7 Groundwater. Elevated concentrations of volatile organics have been detected in

groundwater east of the Shaffer landfill, and were also measured at lower concentrations in

groundwater north, west, and northwest of the landfill. Semivolatile compounds were found in

groundwater downgradient and southeast of the landfill along Gray Street. In areas north and

upgradient of the landfill, metals were found in groundwater at elevated concentrations

(CDM, 1991).

During the recent field investigation (fall 1993), shallow groundwater was screened for volatile

organics using a field gas chromatograph. 1,1-DCE, cw-l,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, and benzene

were detected at the site in the vicinity of the areas of concern.

2.1.1.8 Surface Water. During the Phase 1A RI, surface water was collected from 19

locations. The highest volatile organic concentrations were found north of the Shaffer landfill

on the southern edge of Richardson's Pond, and along Content Brook. The Ambient Water

Quality Criteria were exceeded for arsenic in all samples (CDM, 1991).

Two rounds (high and low flow) of surface water samples were collected during the summer/fall

of 1993. The final analytical results will be incorporated into the RI report.

2.1.1.9 Sediment. During the Phase 1A RI, sediment samples were collected at 33 locations.

Volatile organics concentrations were highest along the northern edge of the Shaffer landfill and

the southern edge of Richardson's Pond. Semivolatile compounds were found both upstream and

downstream of the landfill. Low levels of pesticides were also detected in the vicinity of the

landfill (CDM, 1991).

Two rounds of sediment samples were collected concurrently with the surface water samples

described in section 2.1.1.8. The final analytical results will be incorporated into the RI report.

2-11

2.1.2 Hydrogeological Investigation

To date, hydrogeological investigations have been included in each of the three Phase 1 RIs

conducted at the Iron Horse Park site and the current RI.

The Phase 1A hydrogeological investigation (CDM, 1987) included the installation of 53

monitoring wells and 19 piezometers in an effort to characterize the groundwater flow system

at the site. The monitoring wells were installed in the shallow and deep overburden and in the

bedrock. Falling head tests were performed on all of the wells to estimate aquifer

transmissivities. Three rounds of groundwater elevation measurements were made. The Phase

IB hydrogeological investigation (CDM, 1988) concentrated on groundwater in the vicinity of

the B&M wastewater lagoons. No additional monitoring wells were installed. Thirteen selected

monitoring wells from the Phase 1A investigation were used in the Phase IB study.

The Phase 1C hydrogeological investigation (CDM, 1989a) focused on the Shaffer landfill area

and included the installation of 21 mini-piezometers to identify groundwater discharge and

recharge areas and four monitoring well clusters of three wells each. The Phase 1C

investigation also used 37 previously installed monitoring wells for groundwater elevation data.

Water level elevations were measured once and permeability testing was performed in the newly

installed monitoring wells.

Geophysical surveys were conducted during the Phase 1A and Phase 1C investigations. Seismic

refraction was conducted to determine depth to water and depth to bedrock during both Phase 1A

(CDM, 1987) and Phase 1C (CDM, 1989a). Ground penetrating radar was performed during

the Phase 1A to identify potential drilling obstructions. Electromagnetic conductivity was

measured during Phase 1C to determine the thickness of fill at the Shaffer landfill and to identify

potential areas of leachate migration.

During the recent field investigation (summer/fall 1993), geophysical surveys (EM and GPR)

and water level measurements were conducted. Results of the geophysical surveys and a

2-12

preliminary hydrogeological investigation conducted as part of the current RI are presented in

the Hydrogeological Assessment Report (M&E, 1994a).

2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF RI DATA NEEDS

Following the Phase 1 RIs, CDM identified data needs for future work in areas of the 3rd

operable unit (CDM, 1989a). These are summarized in Table 2-3. Based upon CDM

recommendations and further EPA review, an SOW was developed. The SOW was further

defined during a scoping meeting held on October 22, 1992, and subsequent discussions between

M&E and EPA. In addition to the areas identified hi Table 2-3, it was decided that the asbestos

lagoons, site-wide groundwater and surface water and sediment, and ecological characterization

would also be evaluated as part of the 3rd operable unit RI. Most recently, as part of

WA#36-IL57, Revision 12, groundwater will be evaluated in the B&M Railroad landfill, B&M

locomotive shop disposal area, the RSI landfill, the old B&M oil/sludge recycling area, and the

asbestos lagoons. A summary of the RI activities for the 3rd operable unit is presented in

Table 2-4.

The RI activities for the 3rd operable unit are designed to generate data necessary to help fulfill

specific needs. These data needs are described hi the following section.

2.2.1 Nature and Extent

Contaminants hi the 3rd operable unit are likely to have been distributed throughout several

phases. Other than their presence hi the original fill material, these compounds are likely to be

detected hi groundwater, hi adjacent surface waters, and in soil and sediment. The RI will

evaluate presence or absence of contaminants as related to present and historical activities at the

site as well as the extent to which contaminants have either vertically or laterally migrated from

the original source material.

2-13

=1 i 1..E

32 8lS1l

rt Q

3

p-1

o CO Cfl

(U

O

1 73 _o 'co 'a, «

0 VH +•* CO

^ +•» in 8 o n} co 60 fri- n- U

o 1•§ i?4>

CO

CO O

fl) Cd

i-a « •tS S 3 60"

afii 2? > O^1c K, i—> 60 Hco

Rec

o

CO •a co 1 m

o co"

1 iu IIS K

2° •P-S

£ . co 0 O ca ' o

V)

•8 O U CD

Uo 8r'

2-14

I

tt C o

f*S

>, dro

geol

ogic

F

p R

epor

t/RI

I

&

t c c t: 05tu C r­

a o1 a. a a i. i. a0) (U O

£ <5 u R 0^ f*1 fv^ Bb g

JR 2 2 2 2 22 "tH n2

3 o o

&0 &0 OJO oo .s .s .s ._s CA V"3, "E, "o. "5* fcj

CA E E E E 3 rt rt rt 1> R)

B C/3 C/5 V5 S c •a U

cZi C '"" Q^ C/l o 0^ S

oo.5

< er

Ele

vatio

n;

<^J 0^ O^J

mpl

ing

^har

acte

riza

ti

r Sc

reen

ing

r E

leva

tions

i of

Off

-site

on

nais

sanc

ebO bO 60

Inst

alla

tion

On C &0 P &D C wi c ^ *r- W5 C * "S ** C &Q"S

1" 11 "a, 1ct« <£ l| 00 tA rsc3 0)

1I2 .Si

•" « SJ S3 u ca o o "— ^

l> u 1**^ &0 § * " &0 rt -^ ^'"SooS C/3 5rt

Ben

thic

FId

entif

ica

Sedi

men

tG

roun

dw

Eval

uate

Mai

nten

a

I o

u «'5)1 ||o8 5-2 <

JS O pQ OH C X3 O pQ OH C - - O pQ C S 2 1 l S2 "a;

rt i^ E O ^^ O O 5 &5 E^ O O ^ O

Q. MKa.

O 75

O o S g at t_i g

CX o

aD

« .5 J> T3 E "2 ^5 u

| ^^ CO g j e IyissCO

•-• &<-ai «—• 1w a* -3 1•* «> -^ S••= o n) e '5 » * '3 " n o i> « 1 « s* i5

! Sedi

men

t

§ o iu

(d 2= Ja S rt O g C O g C i J a C , 2^3 ,2553 < 2 S a 1 u l X ^ O b ^ X ^ O k^ .CO

331- 33*-1 331" 1 tioOOOOO bObOU COboO &0 M O

Con

tam

in ta

min

atio

i '

H *"* J3

|8 « 1 ,8

"o — a oo S R,

"o 13 CO

1

O .&8­

m US aj * l« £S S <* « 8 •2 ha

S I J< 3J^ <s *-! !? _ rt

| S II

1 s

U oo ^^

Asb

esto

s L

andf

ill

Asb

esto

sC

onta

minIs 1 1 1'S

Site

-Wid

e Su

rfac

e n > c u00 a•o a- ^5 rt c« ?Z3 3

oo .ST3 U5° E §

S IICO

•3 p. •g05 •§ J S^oo J P3

PCB

Con

Asb

esto

S

« S 0£ O 00

2-15

.3

v

2.2.2 Data for Prediction of Contaminant Migration

In addition to describing the current nature and extent of contamination in relation to the source

areas, the RI should develop information needed to predict future contaminant migration.

Information to predict migration of contaminants hi groundwater typically include soil

permeability, groundwater flow direction, and the organic content of soils.

2.2.3 Public Health Risk Assessment

Data needed for the public health risk assessment includes information regarding the nature and

extent of contamination, with emphasis on contaminants detected in surface soil, sediment,

surface water, and groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Also needed are a demographic

characterization of the surrounding community, population distribution surrounding the site, and

consideration of present and future land uses, including frequency of recreation use at the site

and groundwater usage.

2.2.4 Ecological Risk Assessment

Data needed for the ecological risk assessment includes information pertaining to the ecological

resources present as well as the nature and extent of contamination, with emphasis on

contaminant concentrations hi surface water, sediment and soil, and migration to potential

off-site areas. The ecological resources information that is needed includes identification of

potential food webs and energy pathways and likely mechanisms for potential biomagnification

and trophic magnification.

2.3 RI OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the RI will be to assess site conditions at the 3rd operable unit and

evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the site hi order to reflect the intent of the

EPA's developing policies for RI studies as described hi Guidance for Conducting Remedial

2-16

Investigation and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (U.S. EPA, 1988a) and the

NCP (40 CFR Part 300).

The overall objectives of the RI activities described in this work plan amendment are to:

• Complete a field program for collecting data to quantify the nature and extent of contamination in the groundwater.

• Assess the public health risk associated with any existing groundwater contamination.

The data collected during the current RI activities will be used for site characterization and risk

assessment. In order to achieve the RI data quality objectives (DQOs), a combination of

laboratory services and field testing will be used and are discussed below:

• Field screening (Level I) will provide the lowest data quality, but the fastest results, and will be used at the site for health and safety monitoring and preliminary screening of samples to identify those requiring confirmation sampling (Level IV). A FID and/or a PID will be used for Level I analysis. Other Level I analyses includepH, Eh, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and turbidity. These data provide presence-absence of certain constituents and will be generally qualitative rather than quantitative.

• Geotechnical analysis of selected soil samples, to determine soil characteristics is considered as Level III. Geotechnical analysis which include total combustible organics, moisture content, grain size, porosity, and permeability will be conducted by a subcontracted geotechnical laboratory.

• Confirmational analysis (Level IV), which provides the highest level of data quality, will be used for risk assessment and cost recovery documentation. Included at this level are standard CLP-RAS methods. All analytical samples analyzed as RAS will be collected and validated to provide Level IV data quality. In addition, DAS analysis of low-level pesticides and PCBs in groundwater will have report deliverables that meet Level IV data requirements.

• Non CLP method (Level V) will be used for the DAS analysis of alkalinity, total organic carbon (TOC), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solids (TDS),

2-17

total suspended solids (TSS), sulfate, phosphorous, nitrate/nitrite, and chloride. The DAS analyses will require laboratory deliverables that will be specified in the DAS analytical specifications.

All DAS analytical specifications will be submitted to EPA for approval. All RAS analytical

data (Level IV) and DAS pesticide/PCB data will be validated to Tier III as specified in the EPA

Region I Memorandum (U.S. EPA, 1993) and hi accordance with EPA Region I Laboratory Data

Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis (U.S. EPA, 1988b) and EPA

Region I Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganics Analysis

(U.S. EPA, 1989a); modified to meet criteria in the current SOWs for RAS organic and

inorganic analyses (U.S. EPA, 1991a; 1991b). All DAS analytical data (Level V) will be

reviewed and validated to ensure that it meets the data requirements in the DAS analytical

specifications. Geotechnical analyses will be reviewed, but not validated. Level I field

screening data will be reviewed only.

2-18

3.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

This section of the work plan amendment presents the technical approach to the remedial

investigation activities that will be conducted during the hydrogeological and groundwater

sampling investigation.

3.1 PROJECT PLANNING (TASK 1)

Included in this task are development of the work plan amendment to the Final Work Plan

(M&E, 1993a); obtaining appropriate approvals for the work plan amendment budget, and

schedule; preparation of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Addendum, which consists of

the modification of the Field Sampling Plan (FSP; M&E, 1993b) and Quality Assurance Project

Plan (QAPP; M&E, 1993c); and modification of the Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP;

M&E, 1993d) for the field activities; project management; a meeting with EPA and the DEP;

and subcontractor procurement.

3.1.1 RI Work Plan Amendment

This subtask includes a description of RI tasks associated with the hydrogeological investigation

and groundwater sampling as well as preparation of the work plan amendment, budgets, and

schedules for implementing the proposed RI tasks. Activities in this subtask include preparation

of the draft work plan amendment; internal review of the draft before submission for EPA

review; incorporation of EPA review comments; and submittal of the final work plan

amendment.

3.1.2 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum

Included in this subtask will be modifications to the existing FSP (M&E, 1993b) and QAPP

(M&E, 1993c) for the proposed RI field activities. Modifications to the FSP and QAPP will be

presented in separate sections as part of a SAP Addendum. The SAP addendum will follow the

3-1

same format as the existing plans. Modifications or new material will be described in detail

in the SAP Addendum, with references to the FSP and QAPP, as appropriate. As part of the

SAP Addendum, the QAPP section will describe the analytical procedures and quality assurance

and quality control (QA/QC) protocols necessary to achieve DQOs. The QAPP section will

incorporate any modifications, which are related to the delivery of analytical services (DAS)

program.

The FSP section of the SAP addendum will provide guidance for all proposed field work

including the sampling and subsurface investigative methods to be used. The proposed sampling

locations, investigative techniques, collection and handling procedures, and the equipment

necessary for sampling and testing will be described. The procedures outlined in the

Compendium of Superfund Field Operation Methods (U.S. EPA, 1987) and other EPA guidance

will be used as appropriate, to modify the FSP. Modifications to the sample custody procedures,

including those related to chain-of custody, in relation to the DAS program will be delineated

hi the FSP.

For the cost estimate, it is assumed that the SAP addendum will be submitted for EPA review

and that no changes will be necessary. Quality control for all documents submitted to EPA will

be provided.

3.1.3 Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum

The SSHP (M&E, 1993d) previously prepared for the site will be modified to include the

proposed field activities, as well as, incorporate new data that was obtained as part of the 1993

field investigations. Quality control of the SSHP Addendum will be provided.

3.1.4 Project Management

Day-to-day management of the RI will be handled within this subtask, which will include

telephone discussions with the RPM, actions as a result of telecons, meetings with the RPM,

3-2

preparing/editing correspondence to RPM, monitoring and controlling level of effort (LOE)/costs

and actions, subcontractor management and invoice review/approval, schedule maintenance and

analysis, staff scheduling, monthly report preparations, Summary Evaluation Report preparation,

project management staff meetings, meetings with DPM, and problem resolution. It is estimated

that the project planning period for this work assignment will continue through April 1996,

although project management costs have only been included through January 1996. It is assumed

that the budget for project management will be sufficient through April 1996, however, EPA will

be notified if additional funding is needed.

3.1.5 Meeting Attendance

During the additional fieldwork, project personnel will hold meetings with personnel from the

EPA Region I and Massachusetts DEP. Table 3-1 summarizes the subject, frequency,

participants, and locations of proposed meetings for Tasks 1 and Task 3 related to this work plan

amendment. For Tasks 1, it is assumed that one 4-hour meeting to discuss the work plan

amendment and 2 hours for preparation and travel will be required. Two meetings are planned

for Task 3 and costs have been included in that task.

3.1.6 Subcontractor Procurement

Some field investigation activities that will be conducted during the RI will require the services

of outside contractors. Technical and support services to be subcontracted are:

• Geophysical surveying

• Drilling

• Surveying

• Air sampling laboratory

• Data validation

3-3

£0

£ o otil ss U UJ

o

| V

I o « 2

n O. 3 &

.& c o .o '5 M • ^

tech

ien

tat

w .22

'3 CM S­

§ W 8. v

feS O us e s - 4> 1> 60 2 <u •— OO *

g eib c bo o S> •^> 55 Ifill

tj £? O O o. o c

*- >2k t- t­o 2f&U 0. Q cx a. 0. 0.

.a § c•- j« S o. ts

C4

Ill •o

O ^ Ci-sl til t-H C C

•s o t3 .2 « IC OH M ^ <*. 5 o- o <

S-s

c.

ctiv

ities

-.5 •§.B

3-4 ^1b CO 4J U « oo -a H -g c

• Geotechnical laboratory analyses

• Removal of Rl-derived waste

M&E has established a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) for data validation (discussed in

section 3.4) and will issue a work order for site specific activities. Procurement for the other

service areas listed above will be managed under Task 1. It is anticipated that existing

subcontracts for geophysical and site surveying will be modified for new procurement, while

new subcontracts will be prepared and procured for drilling, geotechnical analyses, and air

sampling (for lead). Analytical costs and equipment rental and supplies for the air sampling

have been included in the Task 3 costs. The subcontract for removal of Rl-derived waste will

be developed following completion of the field activities. Based on the sampling results from

soil samples collected in the summer/fall of 1993, air sampling for lead during drilling

operations is necessary to comply with OSHA regulations.

3.1.7 Delivery of Analytical Services (DAS)

Analytical specifications for DAS methods will be developed under the Analytical Services work

assignment (WA#46-1HZZ) for the analysis of low-level pesticides/PCBs, TPH and water

quality parameters: alkalinity, BOD, chloride, COD, nitrate/nitrite, phosphorus, sulfate, TDS,

TSS, and TOC. It is anticipated that all LOE and costs associated with the development of the

DAS analytical specifications will be handled as part of WA#46-1HZZ.

3.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS (Task 2)

Community relations activities for the project will occur throughout the RI activities. It is not

anticipated that the Task 2 budget will be impacted by the hydrogeological and groundwater

sampling activities. Therefore, no costs have been included for Task 2.

3-5

3.3 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS (Task 3)

The field investigation program for the Iron Horse Park site has been designed to collect data

that will facilitate meeting the RI objectives outlined in section 2.

The following RI field activities will be conducted:

• Surface Geophysical Surveys

• Hydrogeological Assessment Decontamination pad installation/clearing Piezometer installation and development Monitoring well installation and development Seepage meter installation Staff gauge installation Water level measurements Aquifer testing

• Environmental Sampling Soil boring sampling Groundwater sampling

• Site survey/mapping

• Field-generated waste disposal

• Field work support

• Meetings

Table 3-2 generally summarizes the field activities to be conducted during the RI. However,

if data gaps arise during RI activities, additional activities may be conducted. The scope and

costs for additional activities will be developed as needed during the RI.

3-6

TABLE 3-2. FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Activity

Surface Geophysical Surveys

Electromagnetic (EM)

Hydrogeological Assessment

Groundwater Elevation Measurements

Seepage Meter Measurements

Surface Water Elevation Measurements

Aquifer Testing

Monitoring Well Soil Borings

Purpose

Determine horizontal extent of oil/sludge in the old B&M oil/sludge recycling area.

Establish site-wide synoptic groundwater levels

Assess the relationship between shallow groundwater and surface water

Determine the head differential between groundwater and surface water near potential source areas

Determine the rate of groundwater flow and evaluate the feasibility of groundwater extraction

Assess the potential ability of contaminants to migrate through the overburden soils

Action

Conduct surveys in designated areas using 25-foot-grid spacing

Measure water levels in all monitoring wells and piezometers within a single 24-hour period

Collect stream-bed hydraulic conductivity data during same period groundwater levels are measured

Install staff gauges in surface water bodies at the site and measure water levels during same period groundwater levels are measured at the new and existing staff gauges

Perform hydraulic conductivity tests in select monitoring wells

Collect and analyze selected soils for total combustible organics (TCO), grain size, permeability, and porosity

3-7

TABLE 3-2 (Continued). FIELD INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY SUMMARY

Activity

Environmental Sampling

Groundwater Sampling

Purpose

Determine background concentrations of groundwater

Evaluate the type and extent of contamination in groundwater to evaluate human health risks

Assess potential seasonal fluctuations in contaminant concentrations

Action

Collect and analyze groundwater samples upgradient of the site

Collect and analyze groundwater upgradient and downgradient from the source areas and compare results to background levels

Collect two rounds of groundwater samples

3-8

3.3.1 Surface Geophysical Surveys

Electromagnetic (EM) or terrain conductivity surveys will be conducted in the vicinity of the old

B&M oil/sludge recycling area to delineate the horizontal extent of buried oil sludge. Previous

EM surveys in this area were successful in determining several concentrated areas of oil sludge

within the Penn Culvert compound, which defined the limits of the original survey area. The

additional EM-31 surveys will be conducted to the northwest and southeast of the original survey

area. The EM-31 data will be collected in the same manner as previous data was obtained, with

data for both quadrature-phase (apparent terrain conductivity) and in-phase data being recorded

at 10-foot intervals along grid lines spaced 25 feet apart.

It is assumed that 1-1/2 field days (10 hours) will be required to complete the additional

geophysical surveys. An M&E geologist will oversee the geophysical subcontractor. It is

assumed that the clearing of vegetation will be conducted by the survey subcontractor with

1/2 day of M&E oversight.

3.3.2 Hydrogeological Assessment

The hydrogeological assessment will consist of piezometer, monitoring well, seepage meter, and

staff gauge installation, measurement of water levels, and aquifer testing. The hydrogeological

groupings of monitoring wells and piezometers for the areas of concern are listed in Table 3-3.

The existing monitoring wells and piezometers and the proposed locations of the new monitoring

wells and piezometers are shown in Figure 3-1.

3.3.2.1 Decontamination Pad Construction/Site Clearing. Prior to the installation of

piezometers, decontamination pads will be installed in each of the five areas of concern. The

decontamination pads will each consist of a polyethylene-lined bed where drilling rigs and

drilling equipment will be steam cleaned. The area will be sloped such that decontamination

water can be collected in an adjacent polyethylene-lined pit. After each decontamination, a

sample of water from the pit will be collected and the sample headspace screened with a PID.

3-9

o S 03 <3 CL,

O CM OO F*.ta ia ia u u3 Z Z Z w z z z f fg0 0O z 0 0 O -50

^Oz z z o 00 z z z o o z O ft, O O C ft, Oz oo i

l-o§-1o

>/">o IT ^* "*t *™* fa] N N Uj U]w i W UJ U s z z z Z Z *• z z Tg z z z

0 0O § o o o >7 »vz zz Z Z gig li z z z

ss S 3I •§! if s|Se I§

4. 03 llI 88 o u^ 5

i m uj m zu w w iv nz z z z z

000 o o o Is 11Q Oj" z z z z z z |- > 4 o •£>11 •s'J •il

^i u oat~ co Q 03 •SIao^ § 88 .S o CM CM CM

o o isss 8 73

—u -oo •5 2

•3 .a •sis 2§|hiai I f 8lljl'°­IS T> 5 -a *

-§•3 e g S CO 3 S »

iifillif

s-Hj;

iiaa^ ro Z-CM

Dee

p O

verb

urde

nB

edro

ckFI

LL

Shal

l O

verb

urde

n

allo

w O

vede

n

Dee

pbu

Bed

ro

3-10

TARGET SHEET

THE MATERIAL DESCRIBED BELOW WAS NOT SCANNED BECAUSE:

(X) OVERSIZED MAP

() NON-PAPER MEDIA

() OTHER:

DOC ED: 209743 DATE: September 1994 TITLE: FINAL WORK PLAN AMENDMENT FOR REMEDIAL

INVESTIGATION (RI) DESCRIPTION: FIGURE 3-1: EXISTING AND PROPOSED

LOCATIONS FOR MONITORING WELLS, PIEZOMETERS, STAFF GAUGES, AND SEEPAGE METERS

THE OMITTED MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY APPOINTMENT

AT THE EPA NEW ENGLAND SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER, BOSTON, MA

Decontamination water that produces a reading higher than 10 ppm will be drummed, otherwise

decontamination water will be pumped out of the pit and allowed to infiltrate at that location.

It is assumed that the decon pads can be constructed by the drilling subcontractor in 2 days with

M&E oversight and it will not be necessary to collect and drum decontamination water. It is

also assumed that 3 days of site clearing by a 2-person team may be needed to provide drilling

rig access to some drilling locations.

3.3.2.2 Piezometer Installation. A total of 18 piezometers will be installed in five separate

areas on the site (Table 3-3; Figure 3-1) at depths specified in Table 3-4. The piezometers will

be installed in order to determine local shallow groundwater flow directions in each of the areas.

Piezometers will be installed in groupings of three at each of the following areas: B&M

Railroad landfill, RSI landfill, both of the B&M locomotive shop disposal areas (A & B), the

B&M oil/sludge recycling area, and the asbestos lagoons.

The 18 piezometers will be drilled using 2 1/2-inch hollow stem augers and will be constructed

of 2-inch-diameter schedule 40 PVC well screen and riser. Using water level data collected by

M&E in the fall of 1993, the depth to the water table at each piezometer location will be

estimated prior to the field effort. The estimated depth will be confirmed by taking a split-spoon

sample just above the depth at which the water table is expected to occur and continuously

thereafter until the water table is encountered. Each piezometer will have a 5-foot screen which

will be placed just below the water table. Using soil cuttings, the piezometers will be backfilled

to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the surface where a minimum 6-inch bentonite seal will be

placed. A 3-foot-long locking protective casing will then be installed with 1-1/2 feet below

ground with a grout seal. If the water table is less than 2 feet below the ground surface, the

dimensions of the piezometer completion will be adjusted accordingly.

Each of the piezometers will be developed using a bailer or pump. Water will be removed from

the piezometers until turbidity, pH, specific conductance, and temperature readings on successive

samples are within 10% of each other or until development efforts have continued for a

maximum of 2 hours per piezometer. It is assumed that it will not be necessary to drum well

3-12

Table 3-4. Estimated Depths of Proposed Piezometers, Monitoring Wells, and Seepage Meters

AREA/ MAT. SCREENED (1)WELLID

BACKGROUND Monitoring Wells

MW-200S SOB MW-200D DOB MW-200B BED

B&M RAILROAD LANDFILL Piezometers

PZ-101 SOB PZ-102 SOB PZ-103 SOB

Monitoring Wells MW-201S SOB MW-201D DOB MW-201B BED MW-202S SOB MW-202D DOB MW-202B BED MW-203S SOB MW-203D DOB MW-203B BED

Seepage Meters SM-1 SM-2

RSI LANDFILL Piezometers

PZ-104 SOB PZ-105 SOB PZ-106 SOB

Monitoring Wells MW-204S SOB MW-204D DOB MW-204B BED MW-205S SOB MW-205D DOB MW-205B BED MW-206S SOB MW-206D DOB MW-206B BED MW-215B BED

Seepage Meters SM-3 SM-4

B&M LOCOMOTIVE SHOP DISPOSAL AREAS AREAA Piezometers

PZ-107A SOB PZ-108A SOB PZ-109A SOB

Monitoring Wells MW-207S SOB MW-207D DOB MW-207B BED

ESTIMATED DEPTH(FT)

20 40 80

15 15 15

20 40 80 20 40 80 20 40 80

15 15 15

20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 100

15 15 15

20 40 70

SCREENED INTERVAL (FT)

10-20 30-40 60-80

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 60-80 10-20 30-40 60-80 10-20 30-40 60-80

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 50-70 10-20 30-40 50-70 10-20 30-40 50-70 80-100

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 50-70

SCREEN LENGTH

10 10 20

5 5 5

10 10 20 10 10 20 10 10 20

5 5 5

10 10 20 10 10 20 10 10 20 20

5 5 5

10 10 20

3-13

B&M LOCOMOTIVE SHOP DISPOSAL AREAS AREAB Piezometers

PZ-107B PZ-108B PZ-109B

Monitoring Wells MW-208S MW-208D MW-208B MW-209S MW-209D MW-209B

Seepage Meters SM-5 SM-6

OLD B&M OIL/SLUDGE Piezometers

PZ-110 PZ-111 PZ-112

Monitoring Wells MW-210S MW-210D MW-210B MW-211S MW-211D MW-211B MW-212S MW-212D MW-212B

Seepage Meters SM-7 SM-8

ASBESTOS LAGOONS Piezometers

PZ-113 PZ-114 PZ-115

Monitoring Wells MW-213S MW-213D MW-213B MW-214B

Seepage Meters SM-9 SM-10

NOTES: 1. Defines material that monitoring well is screened in. SOB - Shallow Overburden DOB - Deep Overburden BED - Bedrock

Table 3-4. Estimated Depths of Proposed Piezometers, Monitoring Wells, and Seepage Meters

AREA/ MAT. SCREENED (1) ESTIMATED SCREENED SCREEN WELL ID DEPTH (FT) INTERVAL (FT) LENGTH

SOB 15 SOB 15 SOB 15

SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70 SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70

RECYCLING AREA

SOB 15 SOB 15 SOB 15

SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70 SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70 SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70

SOB 15 SOB 15 SOB 15

SOB 20 DOB 40 BED 70 BED 100

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 50-70 10-20 30-40 50-70

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 50-70 10-20 30-40 50-70 10-20 30-40 50-70

10-15 10-15 10-15

10-20 30-40 50-70 80-100

5 5 5

10 10 20 10 10 20

5 5 5

10 10 20 10 10 20 10 10 20

5 5 5

10 10 20 20

3-14

development water.

The drilling rigs and all associated downhole equipment will be steam cleaned prior to the

installation of each piezometer and after the last piezometer is completed.

It is assumed that the piezometers will be drilled to a maximum depth of 15 feet and that

3 piezometers can be installed in one day per drilling rig. Piezometers will be installed using

two drilling rigs, each under the supervision of an M&E geologist. It is assumed that all

locations will be selected and staked in one 10-hour day by two persons. It is estimated that the

drilling and installation operations will be completed in three days. Two half days (6 hours)

have been estimated per geologist for mobilization and demobilization. Development will be

conducted following piezometer installation. For the purpose of this work plan amendment, it

is estimated that development will be conducted by the drilling subcontractor with oversight of

two M&E geologists and be completed in 1-1/2 days (2 hours per piezometer).

3.3.2.3 Monitoring Well Installation. A total of 14 monitoring well clusters and two bedrock

wells that will be added to existing clusters will be installed in this field effort (Table 3-3;

Figure 3-1) at depths specified in Table 3-4. Monitoring well clusters will be installed in the

vicinity of the B&M Railroad landfill, the RSI landfill, the B&M locomotive shop disposal area,

the B&M oil/sludge recycling area and the asbestos lagoons. In addition, one background

monitoring well cluster will be installed upgradient of the site. Each of the monitoring well

clusters will consist of a shallow overburden well, a deep overburden well, and a bedrock well.

Bedrock monitoring wells will be installed at existing overburden monitoring well clusters

OW-20/OW-21 and OW-25/OW-26/OW-27.

It is assumed that the locations for the proposed monitoring wells will be selected and staked in

two 10-hour days by a two person team. It is estimated that the monitoring wells will be

installed during a single field effort during which 3 drilling rigs will be mobilized. All drilling

and well installation activities will be supervised by M&E geologists. Geologic boring logs and

well installation specifications will be recorded by the geologist for each drilling location. For

3-15

cost estimating purposes, two half days (6 hours) has been estimated for mobilization and

demobilization per geologist.

Overburden Monitoring Wells. Because of the vertical distribution of overburden groundwater

contamination previously determined at the site, monitoring wells to be installed in the

overburden will target shallow and deep screened intervals to further characterize groundwater

quality hi the vicinity of each of the five areas. Overburden monitoring wells will be installed

similarly to the OW series wells.

Shallow overburden OW series wells were screened below the water table and without a strict

criteria for the position of the top of the screen with respect to the water table. Deep

overburden OW series wells were screened such that the base of the screen was set at the top

of glacial till, if present, or at the top of bedrock. Shallow and deep overburden wells in the

OW series were screened such that the distance between the bottom of the shallow well and the

top of the deep well was no more than 10 to 15 feet, which is the reason some of the OW series

monitoring well clusters have two shallow wells.

Shallow overburden wells installed during this field effort will be placed with the top of the

screen being set a maximum of 5 feet below the water table. Deep overburden wells will be

install such that the bottom of the screen is set at the top of the glacial till, if present, or at the

base of the overburden if the till is not present.

Overburden monitoring wells will be drilled using 4 1/4-inch diameter hollow stem augers. At

each monitoring well cluster location, the deep overburden well will be drilled prior to the

shallow well and the overburden stratigraphy determined by the collection of split-spoon

samples, taken continuously to the water table and every five feet thereafter. With the possible

exception of geotechnical samples, no samples will be taken during the installation of the shallow

monitoring wells.

3-16

All overburden monitoring wells will have 10-foot screens and be constructed of 2-inch-diameter

schedule 40 PVC well screen and riser. Once the screen and riser have been centered in the

borehole at the proper depth, a sand pack will be placed around the well screen to a depth of

2 feet above the top of the screen. A minimum 2-foot-thick bentonite seal will be placed above

the sand pack and the borehole will be grouted to the surface. A locking steel protective casing

will be installed over the riser pipe with a sloping concrete pad. Each well will be locked with

keyed-alike locks.

The overburden monitoring wells will be developed using a pump or bailer, depending on the

expected recovery capacity of the well and the volume of water to be removed. The wells will

be developed until measurements of turbidity, pH, specific conductance, and temperature

readings have stabilized to within 10% of each other or until development efforts have continued

for a maximum of 3 hours per well. One M&E geologist will oversee the drilling subcontractor.

It is also estimated that 6 existing overburden wells will be developed for a maximum of 3 hours

per well by a two-person team.

Prior to beginning the installation of each monitoring well and after the last monitoring well, the

drill rigs and associated downhole equipment will be steam cleaned.

It is assumed a shallow overburden well will be installed in 1/2 day and a deep overburden well

will be installed in 1-1/2 days.

Bedrock Monitoring Wells. Drilling methods and construction details for bedrock wells to be

installed in this field effort will be similar to the OW series bedrock wells. Bedrock monitoring

wells will be drilled by spinning or driving 5-inch diameter steel casing into the top of the

bedrock surface. A nominal 4 1/2-inch borehole will then be drilled a maximum of 30 feet into

the rock using rotary drilling methods. Drill cuttings will be collected and described by the

M&E geologist in a rock drilling log which will be maintained for each bedrock borehole.

Drilling tunes (feet/minute) will also be noted as well as depths at which indications of possible

3-17

fracture zones occur during drilling, such as losses in circulation of drilling fluids or water

entering the borehole.

Bedrock monitoring wells will be screened across intervals which are most likely to contain

water bearing fractures, as determined by the geologist. Bedrock wells will be screened using

10- or 20-foot screens, depending on the conditions encountered in the borehole.

Bedrock well screens and risers will be constructed using 2-inch-diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe.

After the screen and riser pipe have been placed in the hole at the appropriate depth, a sand pack

will be placed around the well screen to a minimum height of 2 feet above the top of the screen.

A minimum 2-foot-thick bentonite seal will then be placed above the sand pack and the borehole

grouted to the surface using a neat cement grout.

Bedrock wells will be completed with the installation of a locking steel protective casing and a

sloping concrete pad. The bedrock wells will be locked with keyed alike locks. Bedrock wells

will be developed in the same manner as overburden monitoring wells. The drilling rig and all

associated equipment will be steam cleaned prior to drilling each bedrock well and after the

completion of the last well.

It is assumed that no coring of bedrock will be performed and that each bedrock well installation

will require 2 days. It is estimated that each bedrock well will be developed a maximum of

3 hours. One M&E geologist will oversee the drilling subcontractor. In addition, 6 existing

wells will be developed by a two-person team for a maximum of 3 hours per well. The existing

bedrock wells will be developed with the existing overburden wells.

3.3.2.4 Seepage Meter Installation. A total of ten seepage meters will be installed in surface

water bodies associated with each of the five areas to be investigated during this field effort (see

Figure 3-1; Table 3-4). The seepage meters will be installed in order to verify and quantify the

interaction between groundwater and surface water in the vicinity of each of the five areas so

that the potential for the discharge of contaminated groundwater can be evaluated. It is planned

3-18

that two seepage meters will be installed near each area. The hydraulic conductivity of the

stream-bed, lake, or canal bottom and a seepage rate will be determined at each seepage meter

location.

The seepage meters will be constructed using end-sections of 55-gallon drums, with the drums

being placed open-end down approximately 6 niches into the bottom of the surface water body.

A plastic bag equipped with a valve will be attached to Tygon tubing which will be connected

to the drum with a water-tight seal.

The valve, which is closed during the underwater attachment process, will be opened once the

seepage meter is in place. The volume of water entering the bag will be measured and recorded

using a graduated cylinder. Hydraulic conductivity values will be calculated using the volume

of water collected in the bag.

It is assumed that the 10 seepage meters can be installed by a two-person team in two days.

3.3.2.5 Staff Gauge Installation. In addition to the existing 9 staff gauge locations installed

during the hydrogeological assessment, up to 5 additional locations will be installed to determine

the relationship between groundwater and surface water (see Figure 3-1; Table 3-4). Staff

gauges will consist of steel stakes with steel graduated rulers attached.

For costing purposes, it is assumed that the 5 staff gauges can be installed by a two-person team

in one 8-hour day.

3.3.2.6 Water Level Measurements. Three rounds of water level measurements will be

conducted. A preliminary round will be measured following piezometer installation and prior

to new monitoring well, staff gauge, and seepage meter installation. Two additional rounds of

groundwater measurements will be conducted following each groundwater sampling round.

3-19

Preliminary Round. Water levels will be measured in all newly installed piezometers and at

selected existing monitoring well, piezometer, and staff gauge locations which are adjacent to

the areas hi which the piezometers are installed. Water level elevations measured in the new

piezometers and adjacent measuring points will be used to determine local shallow groundwater

flow directions in each of the five areas.

For purposes of cost estimating, it is assumed that, in addition to the 18 newly installed

piezometers, up to 50 additional locations will be measured during this preliminary round. It

is estimated that water level measurements will be collected by three two-person teams in a

single 12-hour period.

Round 1. Water level measurement Round 1 will be conducted within one week following

groundwater sampling Round 1. Water levels in all newly installed piezometers and monitoring

wells, existing piezometers and monitoring wells, and existing staff gauges will be measured

within a single 10-hour period by five 2-person teams. In addition, the newly installed seepage

meters will be measured hi two 10-hour days by a 2-person team.

For purposes of cost estimating, it is assumed that the following data points will be measured

during Round 1:

• 53 existing monitoring wells

• 10 existing piezometers

• 9 existing staff gauge locations

• 44 new monitoring wells

• 18 new piezometers

• 10 new seepage meter locations

• 5 new staff gauge locations

3-20

Round 2. Water level measurement Round 2 will be conducted within one week following

ground water sampling Round 2. Water level measurements in Round 2 will be the same in

scope and will be conducted hi the same manner as Round 1.

3.3.2.7 Aquifer Testing. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity (K) will be determined for each

of the 44 newly installed monitoring wells. Slug tests will be performed after the first round

of groundwater samples have been collected.

The slug tests will be conducted in the following manner:

1. Using a decontaminated water level indicator, the static water level hi the well will

be measured and recorded.

2. A decontaminated 10 or 20 psi pressure transducer will be lowered into the well and

secured at a minimum predetermined depth of approximately 10-15 feet below the water

table. The well will then be allowed to recover to static level.

3. The feet of head being read by the transducer will then be checked using the data

logger readout. If any discrepancy exists, the transducer will be replaced and rechecked.

4. A decontaminated solid slug of known volume will be instantaneously introduced into

the well and the response will be recorded with the data logger.

5. After the well has recovered to static level, the slug will be instantaneously removed

from the well and the response will be recorded with the data logger.

Well response data will be analyzed using both the Hvorslev (1951) and Bouwer and Rice

(Bouwer, 1989) methods. It is assumed that slug testing at each well will be conducted in

3 hours by a 2-person team and data analysis (Task 5) for each well will require 2 hours/well.

3-21

3.3.3 Environmental Sampling

Soil boring and groundwater samples will be collected for laboratory analysis. The parameters,

analytical methods, quantities of samples, and associated QA/QC samples are summarized in

Table 3-5. Details of sampling methods, collection of blanks and field duplicates, preservation

of samples, and sample handling and shipping are presented in the SAP.

Existing and proposed sampling locations for monitoring wells are presented in Figure 3-1.

Actual locations for the new monitoring wells will be determined based on field conditions.

3.3.3.1 Soil Borings. Twenty subsurface soil samples will be collected by the geologists from

selected soil borings drilled for monitoring well installation based on field observations. Twenty

of the samples will be submitted to a subcontracted geotechnical laboratory for the analysis of

total combustible organics (TCO), moisture content, grain size, permeability, and porosity.

Table 3-5 summarizes the parameters, analytical methods, and sample quantities. It is estimated

that an additional person will be onsite 1/2 day per week (6 hours) during monitoring well

installation activities to package and ship the selected samples to the laboratory.

3.3.3.2 Groundwater. Groundwater will be collected during two rounds to evaluate seasonal

variations. A total of 44 new monitoring wells and 27 existing monitoring wells will be

sampled. The new and existing wells are listed by area in Table 3-3. Samples will be collected

using the low-flow purge and sampling method. It is expected that three wells per day can be

sampled, packaged, and shipped by a two-person team. This assumes that shallow and deep

overburden wells can be purged and sampled within 3 hours each, and that bedrock wells will

take no longer than 8 hours to purge. Peristaltic pumps with dedicated Teflon-coated

polyethylene or rigid Teflon tubing will be used to purge and sample new and existing wells.

Submersible pumps will be used at wells where the peristaltic pumps are not feasible (i.e., depth

to water exceeds 20 feet). During purging field parameters (temperature, pH, specific

conductance, dissolved oxygen, Eh, and turbidity) will be measured at specified intervals.

Purging will continue until pH and specific conductance readings have stabilized (i.e., are within

3-22

•si r-r-r-t—

I W O O O O O O O

CQ 00 00 00 I

i c?00

JJ JJ UU UU UU UU a w

.aLi <D

9 e>o !• &§0g.2£?JJ£«

P

&0 |S ?'8w *rl

(3 ,\

I $O

O 00 5 >* °||t1(5 s.^ilj •§

I iis-al-H-s13^1 ^I.^N> 00 O, 23 °* -S M-c•S-ESSl-l J_!_J,J la'H'S^ UUU< >,-S^.23.

OS HHHHUH^OQUC

3-23

S* o.i 38 i

13 jg

^11£i2fi

l~~

I'iSj ««

*ii ^ O* J3­3|| t deo

S

SJ o"fr1 Z^

•*-.sw

if 6 X

Z^

04 01 04

I 1 1

Q

^ i i ii i i

000 04 04 04

O 0 O es cs 04

04 04 "

, ,

J'5 |J« a *3

11 1

1

I •3 33 </>

J2 * ­

0%

0 0 04 04

0 0

oo

l

^ ^ S

J J 2 ? </">*8

TT1 O\ 04 N 00 CTv, ssg oo aS 8sa5Q£

?ll ^ to •>

^Q S w t ^ o '5 c/5 s>^

W £ 6 - a t t | , •?? e '-s E?2 J 3 ts •& 'io

° S^"§ j« 1 J : « rs o «t^l^l•a!1* Ill

For

thes

e pa

ram

eter

s

ods:

Org

C

tio

, .

ntra

tion

), D

ocum

ent

No.

IL

M02

liv

ery

of A

naly

tical

Ser

vice

sse

ries

: M

etho

d fo

r C

hem

ical

A

seri

es:

Ann

ual

Boo

k of

AST

M

SW

thod

ser

i A

met

hod

seri

es:

Para

met

er

SOIL

BO

RIN

GS

(6)

Tot

al C

ombu

stib

leM

oist

ure

Con

tent

G

rain

Siz

e Po

rosi

tyPe

rmea

bilit

y

tJ <u & > U < ^ !^S ^ ^f ; -TJ to . ° =3

Soil

sam

ples

wil

l be

I I -a "8 S >II |lll llflU a o « S « 3 p« Q H H ( £ a 5 I § -§

i i < i i i 0, W CO J J (JQ isiiai J < < U < U U e< Q H H 0, V) vo

3-24

10% for three consecutive readings). If these field parameters have not stabilized after the

above-mentioned periods of time, technical judgement will be used to determine whether the well

has been sufficiently purged. It is assumed that one person can monitor the purging process

once the equipment has been setup and that purging will continue without problems. Therefore,

it is anticipated that the second person will be available on a part-tune basis to package samples

and assist with other field duties.

Samples will be analyzed for target compound list (TCL) volatile organics, TCL semivolatile

organics, low-level pesticides/PCBs, target analyte list (TAL) metals, cyanide, TPH, and water

quality parameters (alkalinity, BOD, chloride, COD, nitrate/nitrite, phosphorous, sulfate, TDS,

TSS, and TOC). Field parameters will also be measured at sample collection. Field QC

samples will also be collected during both rounds as shown in Table 3-5.

For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that three 2-person teams can sample 71 wells hi

8 days and mobilization/demobilization can be conducted by 3 persons in two 6-hour days.

3.3.4 Site Survey/Mapping

A Massachusetts licensed surveyor will survey all new piezometers (18), monitoring wells (44),

seepage meters (10), and staff gauges (5). The surveyed elevations and coordinates based on

the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System will be plotted on the base map. It is planned

that one M&E personnel will accompany the surveyors for one day.

3.3.5 Field Generated Waste Disposal

Wastes derived from the RI field tasks will include: soil cuttings from soil borings and test pits,

water produced from equipment decontamination, and field clothes and assorted trash. Wastes

generated during the RI will be disposed of in accordance Guide to Management of Investigation

- Derived Wastes (U.S. EPA, 1992). If hazardous wastes are sent off site, both administrative

3-25

and substantive elements of the RCRA generator requirements of 40 CFR Part 262 and land

disposal restrictions and certification requirements of Part 268 will be complied with.

Soil cuttings. Soil cuttings generated from soil borings from piezometers and monitoring wells

will be screened for total organic vapors using a PID, FID, or other appropriate detection

equipment. If organic vapors are detected above 10 ppm, the drilling at that location will be

stopped and the EPA RPM will be notified to authorize the drumming of the waste. Once the

EPA RPM has been notified, contaminated drill cuttings will be drummed. If organic vapors

are below 10 ppm the cuttings will be disposed of at the drilling or test pit location. The drill

cuttings will be spread at the boring site.

Personal Protective Equipment. All solid wastes such as general trash and personal protective

equipment will be handled and disposed of as "non-hazardous" solid waste in an on-site

dumpster. However, air monitoring scans for organic vapors will be performed on all solid

wastes using a PID, FID, or other appropriate detection equipment. If the scans indicate that

organic vapors are detected above 10 ppm in the solid waste, the wastes will be packed in DOT

approved drums, the EPA RPM contacted and temporary storage arranged. It is assumed that

it will not be necessary to drum PPE.

Decontamination Water. The liquid waste generated onsite during the decontamination of

drilling and sampling equipment will be screened and if deemed non-hazardous will be allowed

to drain back onsite. However, decontamination liquids containing solvents or acids, will be

drummed, and temporary storage arranged prior to transport to a treatment/disposal unit. Low

contamination organic fluids will be evaporated, if possible.

Well Development or Sampling Purge Water. Water generated from development or purging

of piezometers and monitoring wells will be screened for total organic vapors using a PID, FID,

or other appropriate detection equipment. If organic vapors are detected above 10 ppm, the

EPA RPM will be notified to authorize the drumming of the waste. Once the EPA RPM has

been notified, contaminated drill development or sampling purge water will be drummed.

3-26

If organic vapors are below 10 ppm, it is anticipated that the development or purge water will

be disposed of in the vicinity of the piezometer or monitoring well and allowed to infiltrate into

the ground. For the purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that it will not be necessary

to collect, drum, and dispose of well development or sampling purge water.

It is estimated that a total of no more than 10 drums of hazardous solid or liquid waste will

require storage and disposal for all RI field activities and waste disposal will require no more

than two 8-hour field days.

3.3.6 Fieldwork Support

Fieldwork support includes those activities that are necessary prior to and during field activities.

The following section describes these activities and includes those associated with equipment

procurement, mobilization, site setup, and demobilization.

3.3.6.1 Site Setup, Mobilization and Demobilization. This pre-field work activity involves

securing and shipping field and health and safety equipment and materials to the site; setting up

the on-site office trailer in the decontamination and support area; procuring electrical and

telephone services to the office trailer; and providing for portable toilets and trash pickup;

equipment calibration and maintenance; troubleshooting; procurement of equipment and supplies;

and cooler tracking.

One mobile trailer will be rented for use as an on-site office (48 feet). In addition, the two

storage boxes will be kept onsite for the field activities: one for storing equipment (20 feet) and

one for sample bottles (20 feet). It is assumed that the EPA-owned decontamination trailer

(16 feet) will be available for the entire field effort. The office and decontamination trailers will

be equipped with heat, telephone, water, and electricity. In addition, the office trailer will be

equipped with a telefax and answering machine. Lists of projected equipment needs and bottle

requirements are presented hi section 8.

3-27

The 30-foot-square fenced storage area for storage of Rl-derived hazardous waste such as drill

cuttings (55-gallon drums) from contaminated soils, will be used if necessary.

It is assumed that mobilization and demobilization will be completed in five 8-hour days.

3.3.6.2 Audits. It is assumed that two 8-hour audits will be conducted by one M&E person

during the field effort (one during monitoring well installation and one during groundwater

sampling) to ensure that the drilling specifications and the procedures outlined in the SAP

followed.

3.3.6.3 Pre- and Post-Field Work Activities. Field team preparation includes review of the

SAP and SSHP Addendums, attendance of internal pre-field meetings, preparation of paperwork

prior to and following each field activity, and equipment management. Since the cost estimate

was developed with lower level geologists in the field, office hours for daily interaction of the

project geologist with the field geologists during field work have been included. These activities

are described in more detail below.

Documentation preparation:

• Preparation of paperwork for each field activity includes:

Preparation of logbooks for each field activity Preparing sample labels for sample bottles Pre-field meeting preparation for all field personnel Set up tracking system for samples (to be used for data validation, reduction, etc.) Coordinating required health and safety information Pre-field paperwork which includes the typing and preparation of the following:

RAS/DAS traffic reports for samples M&E chain-of-custodies for geotechnical samples M&E sample labels for coolers airbills for Federal Express

3-28

Additional informational labels (quantity and nature of materials being shipped) required when using hazardous goods airbills on coolers Miscellaneous information for field team

preparing final equipment lists and interaction with equipment manager

Pre-field meetings and preparation include:

Time for field personnel to read the SSHP and SAP Addendums for each field activity

Meetings between the project manager, project engineer, and field leader prior to each field activity and preparation and attendance for pre-field meetings

Meeting and conversations with Federal Express to coordinate sample shipment and tracking

Pre-field meeting attendance for all field team members

Coordination of laboratory solicitation with SMO/EPA for RAS samples

Annual asbestos/lead meeting

Equipment Management:

• Procurement, coordination, and tracking of equipment

• Tracking of equipment inventory

• Restocking of expendable items

• Maintenance and repair of instruments

• Coordination of equipment needs

• Rental equipment pick-up and returns

Geologist Interaction:

• Daily update of work completed

• Interaction with drilling subcontractor

• Discussion and resolution of any field problems

3-29

• Coordination of field work for piezometer and monitoring well installation and development

3.3.7 Meetings

It is planned that two meetings will be held during the fieldwork as listed in Table 3-1. One will

be held following piezometer installation and the preliminary round of groundwater

measurements to discuss placement of monitoring wells. A second meeting will be held

following Round 1 of groundwater sampling to discuss analytical data and potential modifications

to the analytical parameters for Round 2 groundwater sampling. It is anticipated that each

meeting will last 3 hours hi duration, will require a total of 4 additional hours for preparation

and travel, and will be attended by three M&E personnel.

3.3.8 Duration of Field Activities

For the purposes of this work plan amendment cost estimate, the duration of each of the field

activities are detailed below.

• Surface Geophysical Surveys (1.5 days)

• Hydrogeological Assessment

Decon pad construction/clearing (2 days & 3 days) Piezometer installation & development (3 days & 1.5 days) Monitoring well installation & development (20 days & 4 days) Seepage meter installation (2 days) Staff gauge installation (1 8-hour day) Water level measurements 1 day per round (2 days for seepage meters) Aquifer testing (7.5 days)

• Environmental Sampling

Soil boring sampling (4 6-hour days) Groundwater sampling (9 days per round)

• Site survey/mapping (1 day for M&E and 10 days for surveyors)

3-30

• Field-generated waste disposal (2 days)

• Field work support (mobilization - 5 days & demobilization - 5 days)

The LOE estimate assumes no delays related railroad or site access issues, weather or equipment

problems, or other unplanned circumstances.

3.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS/VALIDATION (TASK 4)

The M&E team will validate analytical data from environmental samples. It is estimated that

142 samples and 50 associated field QC samples will be collected during two rounds of

groundwater sampling and 21 soil samples will be collected for geotechnical analyses.

As part of the CLP system, sample analyses performed with RAS methods will receive Level

IV data deliverables and sample analyses performed through DAS will receive Level V data

deliverables. All RAS data and DAS pesticide/PCB data will be validated to Tier III as specified

in the EPA Region I Memorandum (EPA, 1993) and in accordance with the EPA Region I

Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organic Analysis (EPA, 1988b)

and Inorganic Analysis (EPA, 1989a); modified to meet criteria in the current SOWs for RAS

organic and inorganic analyses (EPA, 1991a; 1991b). Validation of the water quality parameters

will be limited to normal field and laboratory QA/QC checks. Data from samples analyzed or

screened in the field or analyzed by a geotechnical laboratory subcontractor will be reviewed,

but will not be validated.

The EPA Region I (1993) specifies the generation of several memorandum reports for both

inorganic and organic analysis as well as a prescribed number of worksheets and a final table

of qualified data. All of these required deliverables will be generated by a data validation

subcontractor for RAS data packages and by M&E for the DAS pesticide/PCB data packages.

3-31

Any data generated by DAS will have modified package of deliverables depending upon the

analysis performed. The DAS data packages will be validated in-house by M&E. Costs and

LOE to perform the validation of DAS data packages are included in the cost estimate; however,

it is assumed that any costs and LOE associated with laboratory problems related to the

validation will be incurred under the Analytical Services Work Assignment WA#46-1HZZ.

As part of Task 4, M&E will also conduct the following tasks associated with validation and

sample management:

• Arrange for CLP Laboratories with EPA

• Log the RAS and DAS packages on an appropriate tracking sheet; all other associated DAS sample tracking and DAS issues will be conducted as part of DAS WA#46-1HZZ

• Complete the inorganic/organic file inventory sheet as required by EPA

• Check for accuracy and completeness of sample log-in sheet (Form CD-I) on all RAS and DAS data packages

• Complete inorganic/organic complete file inventory checklist (Form DC-2), as required by EPA, on all RAS and DAS data packages

• Perform an evidence audit on all RAS and DAS data packages

• Mail the original and one copy of inorganic/organic file inventory sheet to contract evidence audit team on all RAS and DAS data packages

• Keep a copy of the EPA Form 1 and send RAS data packages to validation subcontractor with cover letter

• Keep hi telephone contact with validation subcontractor

• Review validated data; itemized in a validation review memorandum any problems noted and coordinate with validators such that corrective action can be taken

3-32

Send the validation memos and summary tables, validation worksheets, and ORDA/IRDA sheets and summary form, and DC-2 form to the Region I sample control coordinator, the Region I deputy project officer, and the EPA region where the laboratory is located

Record all telephone conversations with the laboratory, EPA, or data validation subcontractor on a telephone contract log or telecon memorandum

Data validation deliverables will be distributed in accordance with the EPA Region I guidelines

(U.S. EPA 1993).

3.5 DATA EVALUATION (TASK 5)

This task includes compilation of analytical data and water-level measurements onto databases

and data evaluation (including geological, hydrogeological, and chemical data) and preliminary

preparation of draft text for the RI report, which is described in more detail in section 3.8.

3.5.1 Databases

During this subtask all chemical and geotechnical data will be compiled into the existing database

that has been developed for this project. It is assumed that all of the chemical data will be

compiled from LOTUS files that will be created as part of the Tier III data validation reports.

In addition, field parameters measured during groundwater sampling (pH, specific conductance,

temperature, turbidity, DO, and Eh) will be input from field logbooks onto the database.

Water-level data from three rounds of measurements will also be entered into a database.

The following assumptions were used to derive the cost estimate for creating the analytical

database:

• Input of field and analytical data for each round of sampling (~ 79,000 data points)

• Revision of LOTUS 123 analyses tables provided by validators

3-33

• Conversion of validation data tables to a data base format

• Creation of relational data base files

3.5.2 Data Evaluation/Preliminary Report Preparation

During this task, information will be compiled to describe the field investigation, ecological

effects, geology, hydrogeology, nature and extent, and fate and transport processes for the draft

RI report. In addition, data will be transferred to the ARC/INFO system to be used in

preparation of the RI report maps and figures. It is estimated that only a small amount of effort

is needed to summarize the proposed field work and any actual field modifications, and no

additional ecological evaluations are expected based on the proposed field work.

For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that geologic and hydrogeologic data from the

44 proposed monitoring wells and 18 proposed piezometers will be compiled and presented as

follows:

• 62 GINT boring logs

• 62 graphic well logs

• 9 geologic cross-sections (2 site-wide and 7 by area)

• 13 groundwater Contour Maps (3 site-wide and 10 by area)

• RI geologic write-up

• RI hydrogeologic write-up

• conceptual model of hydrogeologic characteristics

• aquifer testing data analysis (44 proposed wells)

• geotechnical data analysis

3-34

The nature and extent section will provide a comprehensive discussion of contaminant

distribution based on the data collected during M&E investigations and the previous RIs

(CDM, 1987; 1988; 1989a). Evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination will be

facilitated through the use of the analytical database and preliminary statistical summaries. It

is expected that data will be presented in the following formats:

• data tables showing all of the analytical results

• data summary tables

• figures representing contaminant concentrations and trends, if apparent

Since information will be presented primarily in tabular and graphical forms, contaminant

concentrations will not generally be presented in the text.

3.6 ASSESSMENT OF RISKS (TASK 6)

This section of the work plan amendment presents an addition to the scope of work as stated in

Section 3.6 - Assessment of Risks (Task 6) of the Final Work Plan for the Remedial

Investigation of the Iron Horse Park Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3, (M&E 1993a).

Specifically, this section presents the addition of a quantitative evaluation of potential risks to

human health from groundwater exposure pathways at the site to potential future on-site

residents. Ecological risks from direct exposure to groundwater are not expected and will not

be evaluated. This addendum supersedes the discussion of groundwater risk evaluation presented

in the previous work plan.

3.6.1 Scope of the Investigation

The areas of concern to be evaluated are as follows:

B&M Railroad landfill

RSI landfill

3-35

B&M locomotive shop disposal areas

old B&M oil/sludge recycling area

asbestos lagoons

The evaluation will include the data from two rounds of sampling of 27 existing monitoring as

well as 13 newly installed monitoring well clusters in these areas, (one well in each of the

shallow overburden, deep overburden, and bedrock aquifers at each well cluster location, one

additional bedrock well upgradient of the asbestos lagoons, one bedrock well upgradient of the

RSI landfill, and one cluster of background wells (totalling 44 new monitoring wells).

3.6.2 Grouping of Data

After all the analytical data is obtained from both rounds of sampling in the monitoring wells,

the data from each area will be evaluated to determine if either the grouping of strata (e.g.,

shallow overburden and deep overburden aquifers) or the grouping of adjacent areas (e.g., the

B&M Railroad landfill and the RSI landfill) would facilitate the evaluation of the Operable Unit

risks by combining areas with similar contamination. The M&E Team will work with EPA

Region I to determine the appropriate criteria for evaluating whether data grouping will facilitate

this site assessment. It is assumed that the data will be separated by stratum and by area, for

a total of 15 data groups.

3.6.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern

Prior to selecting chemicals of potential concern (COCs), the existing data will be summarized

by strata and area as detailed in the Final Work Plan (M&E, 1993a). The sampling data will

be summarized using the appropriate statistical methods as stated in RAGS to generate the

central tendency estimates and associated confidence limits. The mean concentrations in

groundwater will be calculated using the detected values in addition to one-half the detection

limit for the non-detected values (excluding high detection limits in accordance with EPA

guidance (U.S. EPA, 1989b; 1991b). Based on the current understanding of site

3-36

geology/hydrology, and of the lack of any adequate background sampling locations, it is assumed

that all organic and inorganic analytes, with the possible exception of the five human nutrients

listed on the TAL and any blank related analytes, detected in the groundwater from these on-site

wells will be selected as chemicals of potential concern. If a large number of COCs result from

this, an approach to background comparison will be developed in consultation with EPA

Region I. For purposes of this scope, it is assumed that the primary chemicals of potential

concern in groundwater are likely to be chlorinated volatile organics and metals.

3.6.4 Exposure Assessment

The exposure pathways associated with groundwater will be reviewed after the collection of

monitoring well data to ensure that all complete exposure pathways are evaluated in the risk

assessment. However, the only complete exposure pathway is assumed to be the ingestion of

groundwater by potential future on-site residents (both adults and children) in each grouping

area. It is assumed that risks via inhalation of volatiles and dermal absorption of contaminants

while showering will be qualitatively estimated.

Exposures for each receptor population will be quantified by calculating average daily doses

(ADDs) in accordance with EPA Region I guidance (U.S. EPA, 1989b). The ADDs will be

based on the exposure point concentrations and assumption regarding the frequency and duration

of exposures and the rate of daily water intake.

Two exposure cases will be examined: the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) exposure

concentrations will be estimated, as per Region I guidance, by combining the maximum detected

concentrations with exposure parameters specified by Region I; the average case will be

estimated using the arithmetic mean concentrations with a different set of exposure parameters

values selected for the RME case, as specified by EPA Region I, providing an indication of the

uncertainty associated with the exposure concentration estimates.

3-37

3.6.5 Toxicity Evaluation

The chemicals of potential concern will be characterized with respect to their toxic effects in

humans. Where possible, relevant critical toxicity criteria will be identified for each chemical.

Two types of dose-response toxicity criteria are used for the human health assessment:

EPA-derived cancer slope factors for potentially carcinogenic chemicals, and reference doses

(RfDs) for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. For carcinogens, cancer slope factors

and the chemicals' weight-of-evidence classifications for human carcinogenicity will be provided

and discussed. For noncarcinogens, RfDs and the uncertainty factors used in deriving them will

be provided. The primary source of cancer slope factors and RfDs will be EPA's Integrated

Risk Information System (IRIS) and Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST).

Although not included in the SOW's budget, the EPA Regional Toxicologist and Environmental

Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) may also be contacted for toxicological information,

as well as for guidance on the evaluation of chemicals that do not have EPA-published toxicity

values.

Because no dose-response toxicity criteria exist for lead, the risk assessment cannot evaluate

quantitative lead doses for potential receptors. Instead, an alternative methodology will be used

for determining impacts associated with potential lead exposures. Instead of quantifying

potential doses and associated risks, the risk assessment will present comparisons of the data

groupings to established EPA guidance lead levels that are considered protective of children.

This approach is conservative since children are some of the most sensitive members of the

population with respect to lead exposures. EPA has provided a clean-up level for lead in

groundwater of 15 fig/L; this concentration is considered to provide substantial health protection

for the majority of young children. These values will be used in the risk assessment for

comparative purposes, and will be discussed in terms of health protectiveness.

The concentrations of lead in groundwater will also be examined from the perspective of

alternative methodologies that exist for evaluating potential impacts associated with lead

exposure, namely the Uptake Biokinetic (UBK) Model. The UBK Model, which can incorporate

3-38

many site-specific inputs and which EPA has developed for assessment of residential sites, will

be used to conduct a multi-media evaluation of the blood lead levels in potential future child

residents from exposure to all media, including groundwater, at the Iron Horse Park Site.

3.6.6 Risk Characterization

Potential human health impacts will be characterized by combining estimated exposures (doses)

with appropriate EPA dose-response criteria. The results of the risk characterization will include

estimates of the RME and average individual cancer risks for potential carcinogens and hazard

indices for noncarcinogens. The individual lifetime excess cancer risk for a chemical exhibiting

carcinogenic effects will be calculated by multiplying the upper-bound cancer slope factor by the

estimated lifetime average daily dose (LADD) averaged over 70 years. For noncarcinogens, a

hazard quotient will be calculated by dividing the estimated lifetime average daily dose (LADD)

averaged over 30 years by the RfD for each individual chemical. A hazard index for all

non-carcinogenic effects for each area grouping will be calculated by summing all the hazard

quotients for the area. A hazard index for any area greater than a threshold level of 1.0 will

trigger a more detailed evaluation, in which the hazard indices for groups of chemicals affecting

similar target organs will be calculated. If a target organ-specific hazard index exceeds 1.0,

there may be concern for potential health effects (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

As noted above, a multi-media evaluation of lead exposures via the EPA UBK model will be

presented, as well as a table in which summary statistics for the groundwater strata and area

groupings will be compared to the 15 pg/L clean-up goal.

3.6.7 Uncertainty Evaluation

As in any risk assessment, these exists a degree of uncertainty with regard to the analytical

results, exposure parameters and other assumptions, and toxicity criteria. A qualitative

discussion of the uncertainty associated with these will be provided in the risk assessment. A

3-39

table will also be presented providing an "order of magnitude" indication of the effect of

uncertainties in specific parameters on the risk estimates.

3.7 TREATABILITY STUDY/PILOT TESTING (TASK 7)

For the purpose of this work plan, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.8 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS (TASK 8)

After Tasks 3 through 6 are completed, the M&E team will prepare the draft and final RI report

as described in the Final Work Plan (M&E, 1993a). Additional Task 8 activities associated with

the hydrogeological investigation and groundwater sampling include:

• Description of the field investigation program including methodologies and locations.

• Summary of geological data from piezometer and monitoring wells.

• Summary of analytical sampling results.

• Results and significance of findings, including hydrogeologic assessment, nature and extent of contamination, assessment of risks, fate and transport, and comparisons with ARARs.

Costs for this task are based on the following assumptions:

• An internal documentation review or TAT meeting will not be held

• Internal comment to the document will be minimal and require no major revisions to tasks, text, figures, or appendices

• EPA and state comments will also be minimal requiring minor revision to tables, text, figures, and appendices

3-40

3.9 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES (TASK 9)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.10 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (TASK 10)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.11 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (TASK 11)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.12 POST RI/FS SUPPORT (Task 12)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs have been budgeted for this task.

3.13 ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT (TASK 13)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.14 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT (TASK 14)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs for this task have been budgeted.

3.15 ERA PLANNING (TASK 15)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs have been budgeted for this task.

3-41

3.16 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (TASK 16)

As directed by EPA, no level of effort or costs have been budgeted for this task.

3-42

4.0 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The M&E project team will produce six copies of each of the following documents as required

by EPA in the scope of work (except where noted). Due dates for some of these deliverables

have not yet been determined.

Draft Work Plan for RI (8 copies)

Final Work Plan for RI (8 copies)

Draft Work Plan Cost Estimate for RI

Final Work Plan Cost Estimate for RI

Draft Site Safety and Health Plan

Final Site Safety and Health Plan

Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan

Final Quality Assurance Project Plan

Draft Field Sampling Plan

Final Field Sampling Plan

Draft Work Plan Amendment for RI

Final Work Plan Amendment for RI

Draft Work Plan Amendment Cost Estimate for RI

Final Work Plan Amendment Cost Estimate for RI

Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum

Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum

Draft Community Relations Plan

Final Community Relations Plan

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 1)

(Task 2)

(Task 2)

12/22/92

06/25/93

12/22/93

06/25/93

02/24/93

06/02/93

02/02/93

06/02/93

02/02/93

06/02/93

08/05/94

4-1

Draft RI Meeting Summaries (2)

Final RI Meeting Summaries (2)

Draft RI Fact Sheets (2)

Final RI Fact Sheets (2)

Ecological Characterization Report

Asbestos Contamination Letter

PCB Contamination Report

Hydrogeological Letter Report

Draft RI Report (15 copies)

Final RI Report (15 Copies)

The M&E team will also prepare monthly progress reports

assignment.

(Task 2)

(Task 2)

(Task 2)

(Task 2)

(Task 5)

(Task 5) 02/06/94

(Task 5) 02/06/94

(Task 5) 02/28/94

(Task 8)

(Task 8)

for the duration of the work

M&E will furnish the following people with the specified number of documents both in the draft

and final form. All documents will be submitted in hard copy as well as with one computer

diskette containing the document in Word Perfect Version 5.1.

Person

Ms. Susan Walter Ms. Diane Kelley Mr. Donald McElroy

Position

Contracting Officer Project Officer Remedial Project Manager

Number of Copies

(letter only) 1 5 (1 unbound) & (1 diskette)

4-2

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND SCHEDULE

The schedule for this work assignment is shown in Figure 5-1. In addition to assumptions stated

in sections 3 and 4, the schedule and budget has been developed based on the following

assumptions:

• EPA will arrange for all access to drilling and sampling locations.

• No delays related to railroad or site access issues, weather, equipment problems, or unforeseen circumstances will be incurred.

• Costs for expendable supplies will be covered by program management. Non-Expendable equipment will be provided, if available from program management. Site-specific rentals will not be covered by program management.

• All drilling locations will be accessible with an ATV rig.

• It is assumed that all fieldwork will be conducted in Level D.

• Railroad operations will not result hi delays in field activities.

• A flagman will be contracted for activities conducted by M&E or its subcontractors involving crossing active railroad tracks.

• The grid that was established during the summer/fall 1993 field activities is intact.

• With the exception of the three days for clearing of vegetation (as described in section 3), no additional LOE for clearing of vegetation has been included in this cost estimate.

• Standard laboratory turnaround tunes of 5 weeks were assumed.

• Standard data validation turnaround times of 3 weeks were assumed.

• 12-hour days with 1-hour travel time per day and 8-hour office days were assumed, unless otherwise noted.

• Receipt of EPA comments 2 weeks following submittal of risk assessment interim deliverables.

5-1

CVI

t­o

(U Ol

10 fcn cm

c l-l

03 O) i-l C I .0 O OJ <TJ -H Ol C_ O) I CD cu 01 Q. CC O o 1=* 1J

CO •o a .. C. CC Q) m < +> I (0 ^ < Q £_ Q. CD LU CO

CU CO (0 CD • -P C_ =3 CO O iopincjs'j'9'^'^' 10 PJ^ picnpjpicnp}p)cnpj cn men PJPJ pjpjcnfOPicnp} cncna>C4aio)cncncn 01 cnai aicncncnoimaoicn ci cnai 0101 cnaiaimaioio)

Ei _ . - 3 Z C O Z Z Z -3 •< <cn cno

>i»r»r<-vipih<-r>.ro n ID n cn cu 10 in r«. PI co r> co voi cum ^ o w to nj cn cu l O O O - H C U O O O R »<-H «<-<txio--<O'»ioo o cum o--< o^ninicuniru

pjcnmpicnpjpjcnpj cn picn nn pjpicnpjpicnf1)cncnoooiooicno) 01 0)Oio)OiC/iO)O)a)O) oi cnoi 0101 cnoioiOiujoiu) 55 _l _l K- ^_i j & ti . _i raw ta _i j

l_l*l^^^l_JUUU Z T T T T T O O O T 8 -3 ~3 CO O 7> T « << ~3 ~3 ~3 ~3 CO W CO cn^rvT'^ ' iooo n toPico^H o cor- PJ^ ^cMCDaiPiTi^ »^OOQO»^«H^Hv l o-Hoo CM <H<H tucu t\j t\j o o -^ cxi

c a> +> -P •ri E

01

A3

B

57

5-2

OJ LO

14— enO cnu.

rCXJ 4 0) * ' O) i(0Q.

T

M CE

en OlTl

c

cu A

g -

(Ot_ _. . cu oj en a. er oD

en•o o .. t_ a a> m •< *>

(D v < a c_ a. CO LU CO a. a

4-1

cu en a (D • 4-> £_ ^ CO o X

en enen^l

o £_

ruo

m m m

...J9lfcB33K95BibS32icu-<c\io-H-ic\icu--in>-<cu<no-< v n id N- to iti w io in in lain

CD & IB C CD BJ in01cutu ni ni o -H en en PI PI PI n n

C n D & O-< 01 w o BulDfCM -H o

O p>

5 3 ST

-=5S§i-c3M*> m n ss i_ *» c. o o |— n a ui ~ -.Irf TIa o £ Ec •u^•HO a TI x cuzi a. m u c c^S3 a r i r a o c o O a a g o: c^

-n •DM *» 1-1 *• US B5 _ |z"••*€.«•-«• n jj .u v a I-IIHDI C C C C C C C

' c >> a a > a >• n r-i c a a o o o o-(ca "S1^a c c c o x c . a a in f-i t-i ^n an a nn •(—TI O, p W O a XX-M tu— 4J «H 4J Tl'rf n u H . . c B c S•S-« OJ Cl Ol 0) S__ C 10C oo5 •D'D'D'D'D' H- 4J «ni u >. §i >iO so

i a 3

ort

AB

bas

s C

ap R

eport

Hyd

poolo

gic

al

Rap

opt

TA

SK

E

:R

ISK

A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T

Inte

rln

Deliv

era

ble I

Inta

pin

Deliv

era

ble

II

TA

SK

8:

RI

RE

PO

RT

S

eme

stiga

Rep

ort

DB

A36

57

D > > > > > > 111

I ' - iancooc.c. jOO*'*"*- •«>•)£.<£.<. . • *H O *• O N N Q Q_ •£ iX ^H *H ^H U3^ ^ TH ^ J1 ID ID ID O V B

PCS

M a • « *• " *• —' —i a O O 17 •) 3 3 C ID C O IP in ITT aTl Iff Ml X X •< 01 01 03 UI-I UJ _J^,JE a a D D D O l

en en•< •<

5-3

The schedule for completion of all tasks and subtasks has not been specified by EPA. M&E has

assumed task duration and deliverable dates for the purpose of cost estimation. Should EPA

require a different schedule or revise deliverable dates, adjustments in the estimated LOE may

be necessary.

Should delays in field work or other components of the RI be encountered, M&E will identify

those delays to the RPM and will submit a revised schedule as warranted and/or is requested by

EPA.

5-4

6.0 CASH FLOW SCHEDULE

M&E has prepared a cash flow schedule based on work plan amendment schedule and budget

information. Cash flow estimations for all tasks have been based on the approximate schedule

anticipated by M&E. The cash flow schedule is shown hi Figure 6-1.

6-1

oii

enaii en o

c_ c_D eo

C. C 13 Z3 O

CU C

con o O CD \U C. O)

CU (U *j CLDC 00 (U CO

O C-DC c_m< a. i

c_Q­TI CDLU I D­

ID (ULD

CU CO

Z) O cnx

o c.

T3 TD

ro u (U -u OJ CD (O

o O O o o o — 03 O CO cu CD m o hs cn o CO

<M

(OOOTS X] SUV110D 6-2

7.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The M&E team anticipates using the following subcontractors for hydrogeological and

groundwater sampling investigation.

Work Item Subcontractor

Drilling/Excavation To be selected

Surveying To be selected

Geophysical Surveys To be selected

Geotechnical Laboratory Analysis To be selected

Data Validation Weston & Viar

Waste Disposal To be selected

Air Laboratory To be selected

7-1

8.0 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

Projected logistic field station supplies are shown in Table 8-1. Projected field support supplies

are shown in Table 8-2. Table 8-3 lists the projected health and safety supplies. Projected task

equipment needs are listed hi Table 8-4. Table 8-5 lists the projected bottle requirements for

the entire field effort.

8-1

w * I |

X2 g (A oSi m c QQ Q S CA H <B en Q

trt n«i! <U ^2 U^^j> 55 2 H 2 •s g

L_ H

Js oo5 H ^^ CU en \j CU en *_p S 60 .- ^i rt\ CA

S § 260 a 2

2° $ I

fe 55 2 0, en

2 •« « ^

S/ ** £^ o £ a n S 5 *«

P. *© §& co '•S

2 8. 0 05

P

ts IH

Q S en

iD

•fc din •K- 00 3o e. aiE _g o 3 X D. * en ^ u ^•d§

^

wat

er h

ooku

p **

w

ater

hoo

kup

*!

air

cond

itio

ning

air

cond

ition

ing

heat

he

at

sink

sink

exte

rior

lig

hts

exte

rior

lig

hts

Tel

epho

ne (

2)T

elep

hone

Ans

wer

ing

Mac

hine

F

urni

ture

en

•rt *ea

i0

t J3

S3 S2 6 oo

'M1o

WA

TE

R S

UPP

LY

pum

p se

tup

and

hou

gard

en h

oses

elec

tric

al h

ooku

DE

CO

N T

RA

ILE

R

48 f

t T

rail

er w

ith:

(2)

16

ft

Tra

iler

with

:

T3 u 1

a I 1 en

to CU en 01) 1 •5 o !M E O T3 =5

O0^ ^ 2

FIE

LD

OF

FIC

E T

RA

I

DO

T 5

5 ga

l dr

ums-

op

** -

inc

lude

s co

sts

assi

The

field

stat

ion

fr

A r

epla

cem

ent

is n

i so 1(2 ^

a "u en eu

S t3 3

^^ .2 ^

S S t 1aR O co

1

§SS o* S ^ a "S * H s S 'o5ss

| T

elef

ax M

achi

ne

1 Ph

otoc

opy

Mac

hine

R

efri

gera

tor/

Fre

ezer

(!

Fur

nitu

re (

2)

desk

sta

bles

chai

rs

Port

able

San

itary

Fac

i

elec

tric

al h

ooku

p

[ In

dust

rial

Dum

pste

r N

OT

ES

:

MIS

CE

LL

AN

EO

US

T3 "« 00

in>r>

S Q 1

.2.

8-2

CO W WCO O i-<

U ^5 nj S ft .s

DE

CO

NTA

MIN

ATI

s £

5 1

D a * 1CO

Z I P " 8, o „ s 3 2 .2 W -a in :2 2•s •« S s -i 2 s s

CO< _, -a 'o ;o < g 5 •" "O ~ *j

a! 1; '§ -2 < ^ 3 H f- -S 3 8 § » | u 's. a» CO g s s p l f s Ullllll

« Z o 4 U « J H r ; C a S u ' « M o O a l £

£1 ICH

M lZ K K W « a . £ S 8 S « . S , S * S ^ 13 ­

5z b

!?S CO •a

2fe S 00CO j 1

OH UC jON

D fr(nj co ffi g Z Ofl S

u ON** „; o w

-S i ju

I 1 1I ! 1 5 J8 Its -, ff 1 2 w s

^ 8 is g '§, .8 '« ^ S p g §.

j|isll!fiil!t!!| 1§^s 1 ^ 1 1 S -s? 1 « « S P ^ ^ - S §§ i S S o S"S ^ 5 .1^ -S § 21 S ^ x 3 c j: O o - s t. Z — at o. -- ? a ? -o -2

. P

RO

JEC

TE

D

PA

CK

AG

ING

SU

PP

LIE

i 00

a

M

o "2 „ sat I3 Wl

"5 COr-A

orga

nic

TR

num

bers

inor

gani

c T

R n

umbe

rs

«• 1 ^Plft »l ; I ii!fe*hl & . I i«f}j1 lllllll^ ^SltflltKgx^^lll3 i u " ^ s t : o - ^ & K Q - < = ! ° A A A ^ G M 0 0 ­1 ii § ilsf J i i - e s s s s i |i s C

LP t

ags

CLP

cha

in o

f cu

stod

y se

strin

g/ru

bber

ban

ds

X > o X > > t T W } P w O w u « U U U - U - t O 0 •-. W

8-3

z2 H SS 'o sttw VH B o i-p > u*3 ^^ CL, '•£ "5

§ 1 s s s c* .2 — Q ca -O «o t. es 31

HH O u Q 05 Q

s<

(Ac/3 4 I

CA w IM C3

!£ CQ <D s .s H '•4-1

Q O 1•!> -s 1 3 Z £ 1 1 o a ^3 o

> d ii c

fEC

TE

DH

E/

chem

icalp

row a. •° u 3 3 "2 ^ £ 3 8 z

5i OI| | 8 || o |Xw Z g

safe

ty g

lass

es

cove

ralls S O O

g . s S i l w o « *J W 3 ^ *S 52 HH rl w <-, <C > .O C/2 W .S1 §1till

s PH

rn1 00

W J

53 en

J>H r_ <u <u q CU S)

» V 0 > 1(O T^

^ u w1 -S) 8 |

gga

ses ? . if 3 §1 ill ^ s l s i J i ^ 1 5 ^ ^ 1 1 z i O g ( D ^ ^ ^ O f t j C 2 8 > 2 W 3 ^ O W

EX

PE

ND

AB

LE

in

calib

ratin1

BO

2 T3

*Q •—• O o S o - S ^ a i " 5 _ S » j i & < 5 t Q « 5 P C H •—* * ^ O J U & ( J j ' ^ 5 * J B - * 1 g ' - H * Q ^ M ^^ o ^ - S ^ o * ^ ' * ^ f— < < U

|

8-4

Je O,

8 O tH '5'1 -§ i

55l_ 21

subm

ersi

ble

pum

ps/p

owe

silic

one

tubi

ngpe

rist

altic

pum

ps/b

atte

ry

3 s CA

SL I I

(A w

ater

lev

el i

ndic

ator

s

Inst

rum

enta

tion

Tef

lon

tape

O

VA

met

er

l l f l1 fi S1 •s §§ 1 8 * 8 9 5 1 Q O

£ u P. 0, U -0

S•gS

CA 3cd00 •2 o c -o "S -3 So •o *• B c tS ^ §. S . 51 11 i - II ^ ^ §

w^ ^ 'S 3 2 -Q O G e " -o £ "S

calib

ratio

n ga

s(es

ultr

a-ze

ro-g

rade

stop

wat

ch

calib

rate

d bu

cket

00 -D 2 o o « 3 S 3 < S ' e S 5 8 o ~ > , 1 ,§ 1 1 1 8 «

^ | S S S -8 "§« 2 g ^ a l1 .r 5 1 o s i i

00

PME

NT

NE

ED

S

a i «S> . S S - S ^ o ^ o - S ^_u

v *r*i s. f |1 J 3 3 3 J ) o O J 3 H O o

3 - ° - ° o 2 - i l ^S SE ^ g ^ S s s ! 3 - ! | P

a _§ Ms

1S 11 •S "° 2j ^ °* ^ -S " 5 . S ^ > B C B C B S o 8 8 o . a §- C r n t S ' H , " 1 ^ W - 4 - ' 3 "S. & | & | P H ' ~ ' ^ H ' ~ ( " OJH N M ^

ther

mom

eter

, no

ss

1 O>

1

u1

* Ov

Ul 3H ^ Q

^U 00 U C M

S « 2 ^ S * e1 w

1 II "5 8 1 . -S 1 1 J & & .§ 1Ig£

Non

-exp

enda

ble

_D

cam

era

gard

en c

arts

a * . 1 ^ 1 1 1 * 2 t00 .3

1 | f i S S i 1 p*J C C * ^ * ^ * ^ ai 3 ^ ^

Supp

lies

S "S 3 £ .§ 1 1 1c i £ l l ^ ^ °1 3

03 1

OZ J 0.

CO

15i? QZ 5

J2 Oo£

H 0

oz J fe CO

1 uJ o a

§K

8-5

e1o

v* isS -S 2 o £S o « iS 2?

fe 0.a s — "O vs 03 | s a -a 11•" tH 83

11 s i l l1 s ^3 kn *n ^

to 0 M LU UU U S d S SB 3C

e oo 1o

J2 .3 -8 «, .a s •§ S 2? i i s lu l l !

EN

T N

EE

DS

Exp

enda

ble

Supp

lies

Supp

lies 1 j f f f l i ^ I

I E ^ " S - l o t s * Sa.3 aw

H Q

*•!

a,80- JS E

TA

BL

E 8

-4.

Non

-exp

enda

b

031 1 O &C OJ * - > * - * — C •«-> *-i -3

I i 1 1 I 1 ! 1 1 §• 1 1 1 !

o

D

o 5 o s — s » V) =2 H ^ j W [jj W

5 l i SS 5 § g« 9 S < w 5 7 aj

3

H

H u3 z S£ S I =

8-6

4) 4) fl> 4) 4) 4)

j§ j§ ,§ j§ j§ c a J5

s s a a s a a a a *| Q Q Q

C C —H ­- Bl-pl Q -- o

Q Q H H

to O O O O O O 3 3 O 3 3 8 8 B S g 8 § § 6 §

V) 0888888888888 ' ? T ' ' 7 ' ' 7 ' * 7 < " 7 ' " T ' " 7 ' ' 7 ' > / ? U ! > * 7 ' I ' [ 1

N es fii «i «i »^i — ^ J , ^ , ^ , ^ , ^ ,

r ^ o \ o \ o o \ o o o o o o o o •* •* •* cs cs cs

O Z

t« ^O

I |j a _ _ Q"N "N" *•? o o *

^ 3 B

ill

1 "S>/•> >r> 10

fS (S

a

<u

.S1

8 I «

II h

Tot

al C

ombu

stib

leC

S Jg8 £"S •9 '8 6 2 S 1 O OH OHo

S o o o o o o o C-) N CS CS

C-)

ffi w

8-7

9.0 REFERENCES

Adamas, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique Volume II: Methodology. Wetlands Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, Operational Draft. USACOE/USDOT, Washington, DC.

APHA-AWWA-WPCF. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition. Port City Press, Maryland, pp. 4-103 to 4-105, 2-36.

Camp Dresser & McKee (COM). 1987. Draft Phase 1A Remedial Investigation for the Iron Horse Site, Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. EPA, July 1987.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1988. Draft Phase IB Remedial Investigation for the Boston and Maine Wastewater Lagoon Area, Iron Horse Site, Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. EPA, May 1988.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1989a. Draft Phase 1C Remedial Investigation for the Shaffer Landfill, Iron Horse Site, Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1989.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1989b. Memorandum report from Andrea Sewall. Direction of Future Activities at the Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 15, 1989.

Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). 1991. Final Draft Phase 1C Feasibility Study for the Shaffer Landfill, Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 1991.

Deere, D.Y. 1971. Technical Description of Rock Cores for Engineering Purposes, Rock Mechanics and Engineering Geology. 1: 1-12.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1982. Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites (FIT Project): Scope of Work for Site Inspection and Investigation, Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA. December 8, 1982.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetlands Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, U.S.F.W.S. and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication.

9-1

Foster, S.A. and Chrostowski, P.C. 1987. Inhalation Exposure to Volatile Organic Contaminants in the Shower. Paper 87-42.6 presented at the Annual Air Pollution Control Association Meeting. June 1987. New York, New York.

GHR Engineering Corporation. Final Environmental Impact Report, Pond Street Sanitary Landfill, Billerica, Massachusetts, EOEA No. 41828. September 14, 1984.

GHR Engineering Corporation. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report, Pond Street Sanitary Landfill, Billerica, Massachusetts, EOEA #4182, July 1985.

Hepburn, J.C. and Munn, B. 1984. A geologic traverse across the Nashoba Block, Eastern Massachusetts, in Geology of the Coastal Lowlands, Boston to Kennebunk, Me, L.S. Hansen, Ed., NEIGC Guidebook, 1984.

Hvorslev, M.J. 1951. Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Exp. Sta. Bull. 36, Vicksburg, MI.

Long, E.R. and Morgan, L.G. 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Seattle, Washington.

Metcalf & Eddy (M&E). 1989. Standard Operating Procedure, Section 7.0: Sampling, Revision No. 3. September 1989.

Metcalf & Eddy (M&E). 1994a. Hydrogeological Assessment Report, Iron Horse Park Superfund site, North Billerica, Massachusetts, February 1994.

Metcalf & Eddy (M&E). 1994b. Asbestos Landfill Cap Evaluation Report, Iron Horse Park Superfund site, North Billerica, Massachusetts, February 1994.

Metcalf & Eddy (M&E). 1994c. PCB Contamination Evaluation Report, Iron Horse Park Superfund site, North Billerica, Massachusetts, February 1994.

National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC). 1978. Policies and Procedures for Sample Control.

NUS Corporation (NUS). 1975. Final Report for Iron Horse Park Site Inspection Report, North Billerica, MA. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I. August 31, 1975.

NUS Corporation (NUS). 1983. Preliminary Site Assessment of the Iron Horse Park Facility, North Billerica, Massachusetts. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I. May 23, 1983.

9-2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983a. Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMS -005-80, EPA-600/4-38-004. February 1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983b. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020. March 1983.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986a. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Federal Register 51:33992-34003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986b. Guidelines for the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. Federal Register 51:34014-34023.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986c. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. SW-846, 3rd Edition. November 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1987. Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods OSWER Directive 933S.O-14. September 1987.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. EPA/546/G-89-004. October 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1988b. Region I Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis. February 1, 1988, Modified November 1, 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1988c. User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program. December 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989a. Region I Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganics Analysis. June 13, 1988, Modified February 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89/002. December 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund - Environmental Evaluation Manual. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. EPA 540/1-58/002. December 1989

9-3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989d. Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program. Parts land 2. Draft Final. June 1989. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region I EPA 901/5-89-001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989e. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/8-89/043. May 1989.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1989f. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites. A Field and Laboratory Reference. Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, EPA/600/3-89/013.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1990a. Memorandum from D. Huebner and I. Leighton. Risk Assessment Guidance to be Followed in Region I. January 31, 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1990b. Region I Volatile Organic Field Screening Method for Aqueous Samples. September 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 199 la. Record of Decision Summary for the Shaffer Landfill, Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, MA. June 27, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Exposure Factors. Interim Final. March 25, 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991c. Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Orgames Analysis, (Multi-Media/Multi-Concentration). Document No. OLM01.0 including revisions OLM01.1 through OLM01.8. August 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1991d. Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Workfor Inorganics Analysis, (Multi-Media/Multi-Concentration). Document No. ILM01.0 with revisions through ILM02.1. September 1991.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992a. Draft Statement of Work for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Iron Horse Park, 3rd Operable Unit. September 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992b. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. Federal Register 57:22888-22938.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992c. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessment (Part A). EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Publication 9285.7-09A

9-4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992d. Memorandum from D. Huebner and I. Leighton. Risk Assessment Guidance to be Followed in Region I. October 8, 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992e. Guide to Management of Investigation - Derived Wastes. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Publication 9345.3-03FS. January 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1993. Region I Tiered Organic and Inorganic Data Validation Guidelines - Draft. July 1993.

Weston Environmental (Weston) 1989. Wetland Characterization and Biological Investigations, Iron Horse Park Site, Billerica, Massachusetts. January 1989.

9-5