GCA-WR-48U7

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Superfund Records Center

Washington, DC 20460 SITE: Serif* B R E A K : OTHER:

Contract No. 68-01-6769 Work Assignment No. 86-471

SALEM ACRES, INCORPORATED REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY

STUDY PROJECT WORK PLAN

Final Report

September 1986

Prepared by

Paul A. Ahearn Michael Jasinski Richard Wozmak Steven Konieczy Andrew Baldwin

Peter Hall Paul J.Exner, Project Manager

GCA CORPORATION GCA TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, INC. Bedford, Massachusetts 01730

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

The objective of the Remedial Investigation (RI) is to assess the

adequacy and validity of existing information and to conduct additional data

gathering field work and/or laboratory analyses in order to develop a

comprehensive site characterization which describes the nature and extent of

contamination and its real or potential impact on public health and welfare,

and the environment. The data and technical information gathered during the

RI will be used to support the development and evaluation of remedial

alternatives during the Feasibility Study (FS).

The objective of the Feasibility Study is to establish and analyze a

range of specific remedial action alternatives based on the site

characterization and other data compiled in the RI. The final result of the

FS is the selection and implementation of a specific remedial alternative that

best balances the need for protection of public health, welfare and the

environment with engineering feasibility and cost-effectiveness (U.S. hPA,

1985).

This RI/FS Work Plan document has been developed by GCA Technology

Division, Inc. (GCA) to provide the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) and any Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) with a detailed

structure for the undertaking of an RI/FS at the Salem Acres, Inc. (balem

Acres) hazardous waste disposal site in Salem, Massachusetts.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE SALEM ACRES RI/FS WORK PLAN

The remainder of Section I summarizes the hazardous waste disposal

activities that occurred at Salem Acres and the subsequent Federal and state

investigations of the site. Section I also includes a summary of human and

l-l

environmental receptors that are,or could be adversely impacted due to

contaminant migration frora the source via ground water, surface water and/or

air pathways.

Section 2 details the existing data base for each environmental medium

(sludge/soil, ground water, surface water and air) to provide a description of

the current situation at Salem Acres. The section includes the results of

previous studies conducted at the site and GCA1s own observations made during

an onsite inspection conducted in January 1986.

In Section 3, GCA presents descriptions of the technologies which

represent the source control, management of migration, and contaminant removal

methods that are typically implemented at a hazardous waste site such as Salem

Acres. The generic study of currently-accepted, proven technologies will help

to define the data gathering needs of the RI.

Section 4 represents GCA's analysis of the existing data base and

identifies specific data limitations ("data gaps") that must be addressed

during the RI to complete the site characterization and risk assessment

studies. The "Data Limitations" section also provides a complete list of

engineering data that will be required during the RI/FS to evaluate possible

remedial actions.

In Sections 5 and 6, GCA outlines a five-phase, task oriented program for

the development and implementation of both the RI and FS stages. In

Section 5, GCA presents a scope of work for a three-phase, nine task RI

effort. Section 5 addresses specific media sampling and analytical needs,

site operations and management considerations, and various other Rl-related

tasks such as the development of a site conceptualization model and

endangerment assessment, and a final RI report. Section 6 outlines the

components of the Salem Acres Feasibility Study. The FS will utilize the site

characterization data obtained during the RI to develop and evaluate

alternative remedial actions appropriate for the Salem Acres site.

1.3 BACKGROUND

Salem Acres, Inc. is a 234.5-acre parcel of land located in the Towns of

Salem and Peabody, Massachusetts (Figure 1). The hazardous waste disposal

site occupies approximately 4 acres of the 162 acres of land wi th in the Salem

1-2

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

WASTE DISPOSAL AREA

Scole.feel

Figure 1-1. Salem Acres property location. Base map is a portion of the U.S.G.S Salem & Lynn quadrangles 7.5 minute series, 1970. Salem photorevised 1979.

1-3 r

town limits and is located approximately 1/4-mile northwest of the

intersection of Route 107 and Marlboro Road in Salem (GCA, 1985). The waste

site is bordered on the north and west by the Peabody town line and on the

south and east by residential neighborhoods. In 1946, the owner ot the

property, John Grasso, granted the South Essex Sewerage District (SESD)

permission to dispose of sewerage sludge generated at SESD facilities on his

property. Between 1947 and 1969, the SESD transported approximately

38,000 cubic yards of sludge material to the site (Grinnell, 1962) and

deposited those wastes in unlined, uncovered earthen pits. In I9t>9, the owner

of the site, Salem Acres, Inc. (Ugo DiBiase, President), purchased the site

and denied SESD permission to continue sludge disposal at the site. The

dumping of sludge by the SESD apparently ceased in 1969.

Under the direction of the U.S. EPA, the NUS Corporation Superfund

Division (NUS) conducted a Site Inspection (SI) in December 1983. According

to the NUS Final SI Report of May 1984, sludge samples from each of the four

pits confirmed the presence of elevated levels of heavy metals (most notaoly

chromium), volatile organic compounds, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PClis).

No priority pollutants were detected in onsite surface water and offsite

ground water and surface water samples. A second round ot sampling conducted

by NUS in April 1985, however, confirmed the presence of elevated levels of

lead and mercury in surface water adjacent to the disposal area. In

April 1985 security fencing was erected around the sludge pits by the SESD in

response to requests made through the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) by residents living in the immediate

vicinity of Salem Acres. At this time, the site is inactive. A chronology of

historical events and enforcement actions is presented in Table 1-1.

1.4 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS AND POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT RECEPTORS

Based on its review of the existing Salem Acres data base, GCA has

preliminarily identified potential pathways of contaminant migration that

could allow some of the contaminants present at Salem Acres to be transported

away from the contaminant source, the sludge disposal area, and to sensitive

1-4

TABLE I-I. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

Date Description

1946 Site owner, John Grasso, gave SESD permission to dispose of grit and grease dredgings (sludge) at Salem Acres.

1947-1969 SESD transported and disposed of approximately 38,000 cubic yards of sludge from Salem plant in unlined pits on Salem Acres property.

1969 Salem Acres, Inc. (Ugo DiBiase, President) purchased land including the disposal site from James Grasso. The new owner denied SESD permission to continue dumping on site.

May 1980 DEQE discovered sludge beds during a site inspection prompted by neighborhood complaints of obnoxious odors emanating from the site.

Sept. 1980 DEQE sent notice to Salem Acres, Inc., citing possible violation of Regulation 3.2 of the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations.

Dec. 1982 Land transferred to DiBiase Salem Realty Trust, the current owners of the land. Ugo and Elio DiBiase namod as trustees.

Jan. 19H3 Preliminary Assessment (PA) conducted by NUS for U.S. EPA.

Dec. 1983 Site Inspection conducted by NUS for U.S. EPA.collected.

Round 1 samples

May 1984 Final SI Report issued by NUS. Round 1 sludge samples revealed elevated levels of chromium and other heavy metals, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds. No heavy metals, volatile organics, extractable organics, or EP Toxic contaminants were detected in onsite surface water samples from Strongwater Brook or in offsite surface and ground water samples.

Oct. 1984 Salem Acres site listed on the National Priorities List by U.S. EPA.

Nov. 1984 DEQE issued "Advisory Letters" to three "potentially responsible parties": (1) DiBiase Salem Realty Trust; (2) SESD; and (3) NEPCO.

Apr. 1985 Security fencing constructed by SESD around disposal pits to restrict access to pit areas.

Oct. 1985 Round 2 sample analyses show possible leaching of heavy metals (lead and mercury) from waste pit into Strongwater Brook.

1-5

environmental and/or human receptors in the vicinity of Salem Acres. Although

not exhaustive, the following list clearly identifies those receptors which

GCA feels have the greatest potential for being adversely effected by direct

exposure to the waste or contaminant movement via ground water flow, surface

water flow, or air emissions from the site. The locations of the potential

receptors can be found on Figure 1-1.

• Local human population - Human health and welfare could be impacted via direct contact with the waste or ingestion of water (ground water and surface water) contaminated with pollutants found in the sludge pits. In addition, inhalation of hazardous air emissions from the site could adversely impact the local residential and business populations.

• Site wetland areas - Surface runoff, contaminated ground water, and/or contaminant seepage from the waste disposal area could have an adverse impact on water quality and sediment conditions in the six wetlands adjacent to the disposal area and the flora/fauna which thrive on them.

• Strongwater Brook and Swampscott Road Brook - These are two major drainage channels leading offsite. Local flora/fauna and human populations may be impacted through contact with and/or ingestion of contaminated water and sediments.

• Meadow Pond discharge area - Strongwater Brook flows into this wetland pond located I mile north of Salem Acres. Local flora/fauna could suffer if contaminants enter the area via surface water/sediment pathways.

• Thompson* s Meadow discharge area - Swampscott Road BrooK flows into into this wetland located 1.2 miles south of Salem Acres. Contaminant migration via surface water/sediment pathway could impact local flora/fauna, as well as the aquifer underlying the region.

One of the functions of the Rl will be to determine if, in fact,

contamination has or is likely to migrate to the listed receptors of concern

or other receptors identified during the course of the RI. That determination

will be the focus of a risk assessment that will be based on the

physical/chemical properties of the contaminants found at the site, and the

contaminant transport properties of the air, soil, surface water, and ground

water at the site.

1-6

SECTION 2

CURRENT SITUATION

2.1 SITE FEATURES

2.1.1 Site Description

The Salem Acres waste disposal area consists of five identifiable sludge

pits occupying approximately 4 acres of land situated approximately 200 yards

north of Barcelona Avenue and adjacent to a New England Power Company (NEPCO)

powerline easement (Figure 2-1). Various unpaved access roads traverse the

disposal area and the only building located on site is a NEPCO substation

located 300 yards northeast of disposal area. The site is situated on a

surface water divide which directs surface water to two local aquifers -

Strongwater Brook Basin to the north and Thompson's Meadow Basin to the

southeast.

2.1.2 Demography and Land Use

Approximately 2,600 people reside within a 1-mile radius of the site.

The majority of those people live in a densely populated neighborhood located

northeast of the site along Marlboro Road in Salem. There are approximately

65,000 people living within a 2-raile radius of Salem Acres including residents

from the towns of Salem, Peabody, Swampscott, and the City of Lynn. The

population within a 3-mile radius includes residents of Salem, Peabody,

Swampscott, Lynn, and the Town of Marblehead, and totals nearly 128,000

(NUS, 1984).

Although the site is inactive and unoccupied, land use in the immediate

vicinity varies widely. In addition to the residential neighborhoods located

north, east and south of the site, there is a mixture of small business shops,

2-1

Q -r

ts.

in ui Q t/5

UJ £-• l-i

OS <

Z U Cu

w o w

!_)<

E-ia:h-l

Q

ujo

Q3

J

en

O s;

•< uj _! O

H 2 UJ UJ

3 u.

^ ,̂o

X ca

"* ' '111 1

/^ RH fOJ ?>

' 1 1

II \^ 1 1

0. cO Q

en

cd 0)

restaurants , housing and a shopping ma l l wi thin one-half mile of the site on

Route 107. Cedar Grove Cemetery is located one-half mi le northwest of the

site.

2.1.3 Climatology

Salem Acres receives an average rainfall of 45 inches with an average

yearly surface and ground water runoff of 20 inches and an average yearly

evapotranspiration rate of 25 inches. The maximum expected rainfall in any

one 24-hour period is 2.6 inches. The average yearly temperature is

approximately 45 degrees Farenheit and the general wind direction is

west-southwest (NUS, 1984).

2.1.4 Local Municipal Water Supplies

Peabody Reservoir is located approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the

disposal area. The reservoir, also known as Cedar Grove Reservoir, is an

above ground storage tank which serves as the distribution point for the Town

of Peabody municipal water supply system. The reservoir is located

topographically upgradient from the disposal area and is filled with treated

water pumped from Spring Pond which is located 0.75 miles west of the disposal

area. The Town of Salem draws its municipal water supply from Putnamville

Reservoir in Danvers, MA which is located 5 miles north of Salem Acres and not

subject to any influences from Salem Acres. The Town of Swampscott's

municipal water supply system is part of the Massachusetts Water Resources

Authority (WRA). The water in the WRA system is drawn from the Quabbin

Reservior in western Massachusetts and is not subject to any influence from

Salem Acres.

2.1.5 Local Private Well Drinking Water Supplies

There are a number of private drinking water wells within a 2-mile radius

of the site (NUS, 1984). They include:

• a small unknown number of residential wells west of the site in Peabody,

2-3

five to ten residential wells located I mile south of Salem Acres in the Robinson Road area (off of Swampscott Road) in Salem, and

a well at DeLisio Brothers Garden Center located 1.5 miles south of Salem Acres on Essex Street in Swampscott. Water from this well is bottled and sold as spring water. The number of people using this well for their drinking water supply is estimated to be between one-

and three-thousand.

2.2 SLUDGE/SOIL

2.2.1 Waste History

According to SESD records cited in the NUS SI report, an estimated total

of 37,834 cubic yards of grit and grease sludge was dumped into the unlined

pits at Salem Acres. The sludge, which accumulated at pumping stations in

Beverly, Danvers, and Salem, was stored in a pit at the Salem plant. The grit

and grease sludge stored in the pit was untreated and likely contained wastes

from leather tanneries and other industries located in those three towns

(GCA, 1985). NUS reported that the SESD constructed dikes at the lower ends

of the disposal areas described above and that the vehicles would release the

sludge in the up hill areas and allow it to flow to the diked areas. A U.S.

EPA photographic study of the Salem Acres site compiled in iy84 includes seven

aerial photographs taken between 1952 and 1978. The study identifies probable

dumping activity in up to eight separate pits onsite in 1955. An analysis of

subsequent photos suggest that, over the years of disposal, two or more of the

pits combined with one another to form larger pits, or some were covered with

earthen fill excavated from other parts of the property and became

unidentifiable because of vegetative overgrowth. Although the exact number of

identifiable pits is uncertain, preliminary visual inspections indicate five

distinct pitsv. In addition, the photographs reveal other areas outside of the

current fencing that were subjected to earth-moving, and possible landfilling

activities. When Salem Acres, Inc. purchased the property in 1969, the SESU

was denied permission to continue dumping and the various access roads were

blocked with boulders and/or earthen piles.

It has been alleged by neighborhood residents that illegal dumping

activities continued at the site throughout the 1970"s. NUS reports that a

local resident told Lhe DEQE that "it was common knowledge that trucks were

2-4

dumping tannery wastes in the pits during the day and occasionally at night".

A DEQE site inspection conducted in September, 1980 reported finding leather

scraps scattered around the site and signs of recent excavation and grading by

heavy equipment, along with observing an "oily residue" on the surface ot one

of the pits and a "chemical precipitate" on the surface of another. The DEQE

also cited the presence of odors, possibly from sewerage sludge, emanating

from the pits. A GCA file search of State and Federal records and interviews

with town officials and local residents found no specific evidence (names of

tannery companies, police records, DEQE/EPA complaint notifications, etc.) to

support the tannery waste dumping allegations.

A GCA foot survey of the site performed on January 23, 1986 did, however,

find evidence of solid waste disposal outside of the sludge disposal areas.

Numerous piles of roofing shingles, ceiling tiles, and scrap metal (old cars,

washing machines, etc.) were observed.

2.2.2 Physical Description of Sludge Disposal Area

The sludge disposal pits at the Salem Acres site occupy approximately

4 acres of land located approximately 200 yards north of the end of Barcelona

Avenue. The site is situated within a topographically complex area

characterized by numerous steep hills and marshy lowlands. The northern side

of the disposal site borders the NEPCO powerline easement. Hilly woodlands

predominate the area between the Barcelona Avenue residential neighborhood and

the northern end of the site. As shown in Figure 2-2, the western side of the

waste site borders a large wetland which feeds Strongwater Brook. The eastern

side borders a combined pond-wetlands area that serves as a feeder to

Strongwater Brook to the north and the Swampscott Road brook to the

southeast. A 10-foot wide unpaved access road divides the disposal site into

two separate waste disposal areas. Six-foot high chain-link security fences

with barbed wire tops were erected about the perimeters of the two disposal

areas in 1985.

Disposal Area #1 (DA-1), located west of the major access road is

approximately 330 feet long and 200 feet wide, and contains two identifiable

disposal pits. The western side of DA-1 lies approximately 10 feet above the

surface level of a large wetland which feeds into Strongwater Brook. The

2-5

(0V U n)

en O O. CO

CO rt

CSl I

o-i

northern, western and southern edges of DA-l are lined with what appears to oe

an earthen, man-made embankment which is covered with trees and a number ot

species of vegetation. The land surface within DA-l slopes in two distinct

directions; from southeast to northwest and from southeast to southwest.

Large uncovered pools of oily, blackish-brown sludge are evident in the

northwest and southwest corners of DA-l. A black oil-like substance with a

distinct fuel odor was observed in Wetland Area #1 (WA-1) along the western

border of DA-l, indicating possible sludge dumping directly into WA-1 or

contaminant migration from DA-l into WA-1 via surface runoff or seeps through

the embankment. There is some mounding of earthen material and vegetation

separating the two sludge pits. There are two access gates to DA-l.

Disposal Area #2 (DA-2), located east of the major access road, is

approximately 250 feet long and 350 feet wide. The eastern side of DA-2 lies

along a ridge 20 to 30 feet above the surface level of a complex drainage area

that feeds both Strongwater Brook and the Swampscott Road Brook. Portions of

the perimeter of DA-2 are lined with man-made earthen dikes covered with trees

and vegetation. From a relatively level piece of land near the access gate,

the land surface of DA-2 slopes in three directions, to the northwest,

northeast and southeast, to form three distinct sludge pits. Black, oily,

uncovered sludge is visible in portions of the three pits and appears to have

a similar consistency to the sludge in DA-l. There is a green moss growing on

portions of the exposed sludge. The pits are separated by mounds of earth and

vegetation.

2.2.3 Sludge Sampling and Analysis

Under contract to the U.S. EPA, NUS conducted two rounds of onsite sludge

pit sampling. Four sludge samples, two from each disposal area, were collected

on 13 December 1983 as part of the Site Investigation. The analytical results

of that round were included in the NUS Final Site Inspection Report. On

29 April 1985, an NUS sampling team collected an additional round of four

sludge samples. The analytical results of the second round are detailed in an

NUS Internal Correspondence dated 14 October 1985 and entitled "Salem Acres

Sampling Report" The approximate locations of Round 1 and 2 samples are shown

in Figure 2-3.

2-7

r

'•ff *** °x$

o —•

cc *< oul »-.

t/i re; f- -o0 ( / i f - < •- 0 M

UJ _ » iu -t;*. LJ a. -J "̂ J

u n < a — Hiu f. iu • '/»-*! 1

^ •

X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxx

o z

J O £i *"*

trt

Both rounds of samples were analyzed for volatile organics, extractable

organics, and inorganics (heavy metals). In addition, the second round

samples were analyzed for Extractable Procedure Toxicity (EP Toxicity). The

EP Toxicity test is a leaching test which measures the toxicity/mobility of a

waste. EP Toxicity is a characteristic of certain hazardous wastes. The

analytical results of the two sampling rounds, summarized in Tables 2-1

through 2-4, identified a wide range of organic and inorganic compounds.

Xylene, ethylbenzene, and napthalene were found in elevated concentrations in

pits I and 2. Elevated concentrations of chromium, lead, mercury, aluminum,

and other heavy metals were found in each of the four sampled sludge pits.

Pits 1 and 2 also contained EP Toxic levels of hexavalent chromium. In

general, there was a large discrepancy between Round I and Round 2 values

which suggests that additional sludge sampling is necessary.

A complete listing of the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List (HSL) which

includes the volatile organic, extractable organic, heavy metal, and EP Toxic

compounds for which the samples were analyzed is presented in Appendix A of

this report.

2.2.4 Soil Sampling and Analytical Results

NUS Round 1 sampling did not include soil samples. In Round 2, NUS

collected one background soil sample and one onsite soil sample taken at a

location between the northwest corner of DA-1 and Strongwater Brook. The

samples were analyzed for the heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and

extractable organic compounds listed in Appendix A. The results, which are

presented in Table 2-5, show that no volatile organics were found and no

extractable organics were found at levels above the quantitation detection

limits. Some heavy metals were present in the soil, most notably iron and

manganese.

2.3 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY

The Salem Acres site is reported to be located on a bedrock highlands

area which is characterized by hills and marshy lowlands (NUS, 1984). The

site contains numerous bedrock outcrops both at the tops of hills and in the

2-9

CM

£

TJ 0

O I N !

4-> iH PM

-

1 O

M I : CM

w B ^ 2

Qw H U w w Q

tn

CO «*t

CM

CM •*>.

11 1

1 O

Pd

H

*O

§ 0

Cd

CM

-O 0

O Pd

M l !

00 CM m

1 100

~§ 1 1

rH

4J •H PM

B 0 1-1

>4H

0 0)

cd 4-1

g OPM s o

4J •H PM

rH

TJ w

i!pd 1 s *^rH

O

1 1

1 1

rH CX Bcd to 0) 4->

;̂z o o w M H

3

.̂

rH *0 M 0

a

co co oo oo

4) •O •rl VI

x-\ o rH rH

cu cd x! 0 4-» U 0) O N 4-1 0)

>

^ H « "5

W X $ X

QJ^airH

•H 4-1cd OiH•00^^

0)3 rHCd>id

t£l CO oo 10 --.CO

CO -^ rH CT> -~ CM CM -»- rH St

TJ TJ

O) 0) 4-14-1

O U

T3 ^3 0 00 O o o

rH CM

Tj T3 0 0 3 3 O O Pn pn

01 4-1

O2 2-10

1 CM

• CO Csl vO CN|

O •*

i ! ! M l

•H

•o H rH

0 M i l 1 I I S Md O

CM X

CO

"0

O 1 ^ 1«* 1 ! I I 3o M l

M *Hk orf

8

3 4-1 •rH CM

iH H

CO

Z *O g M l ! 1 I I 1 I I !

"*.

4-1 M o

cd •H

a B 0 O H CM 0 •H O W -O

*^ H) 0^ vD

H 4-1

4-1 (4

Q

CO Q

O P-t

grj 0

CM "S8.

4-> •H CM

O orf

rH

*C) 0 3 O

S 3 1

en 1 1CM I 1

o

' 1 I

oo

i1

H *° ̂

i 1 m1 i -*

•0

i l l

i CM 1 vO I

•0

i

0 OJ îj

(04J

(LI

CX s

i-l a)

at 4-1 a)-d t-i

u a o M

3̂ O Ctj0

w In ^q

B pjj P

i-l afts

+Ji i

•H CM

11

CM

p3jj O

Cd

iH

1 O

od

o %4 O CM CO CO 1 1 ^** "*̂ 1 1 0 « .̂ -^

rH CM 1 !

M M

o "•n̂ ,.

I

Ô txj CM H—. 1 I 1•£5 H •-) •-) 1 1 1

IO [̂ * * 1 1 1 i-l eo co co 1 I 1

1 1 ui 1 |i i sr I CM i

O CM IO i-l

.

H M

CO p3

V 4-1 a)o

TH

f—1 CX eotf I^ ^O Q

a> 4)

t*

01

|

5 4J a. p tH^2* ^j

O 0 (U

.-1 ^3 O Pu 0 0

o*ii M O O *H ^ n oa CMCd If) rH

oo -

O.r-1

«•

M

4J v-» N O 4J - 1 I I 0)B R

CM

•O . C ^O OJ CO *^J OO 1 1 t 1 1 ""J" 1 O^ ^~^

cd o

• H r-i a. H o B

in inr-i o m CM

CM O CM O O O t-l

CM in in o m in

«Ĥ 1*4 f^ ^j m 1—4 i—i NO o i—i o ^ co co O O O r S O O O O O O O O O O

CM ~» O rH «* [14

•

•O T3 O O

4J r-l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 4J 4J U N ft) U U U >> Q 3 3 0) rH

•O "O 4J «0 C C 0) 0 o o Q ^x

U tJ•H a C 0> CO S 60 CD M rH O 0) C r-l

B 3 3 H C -rH B r-l 4J VH

•r^ a 3 r-i i—i CD 0 O *r^ ^ CO O* C 3 rH M M fO. O« O

i—1 f, CO 0) O O r-l (O fQ O O 1—1

V o> 8 >N B B0> 3 U C 3 3 ̂ B

0 ) < 0 d ' O V C B C r - 1 3 H N«j 60 O O CO r* V "r4 CU r-4 O B *O O CH C} rJ C I—1 CO 4-> I—1 CO r4 C "O CO

•i-l CO -i-l O CO -i-l ti O 4) ,C CU •!-! CO 0) Z Z t s 3 * ' ' t > t / > < ! < J c / 5 H S E - i O i J

2 Z

C C g 3 .... o o t < Oi PC 1 Z

.. cu 4J

0 z 2-12

TABLE 2-4. EP TOXICITY TEST - SLUDGE

Detection limit Pit #1 Pit #2 Pit #3 Pit #4

Pesticides — —/—

Chromium*6 (ppb) 0.02 0.048/0.048 0.056

Note: EP Toxicity performed on samples collected by NUS/FIT on 4/29/85 during Round 2 only. Replicate sample taken from Pit #1.

—: Not Detected.

TABLE 2-5. SOIL SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Detection Between DA-1 and limit Background Strongwater Brook

Volatile organic compounds None detected

Extractable organic None detected above compounds Detection Limit of

7.6 ppm

Inorganic elements (ppm) (heavy metals)

Aluminum 0.2 19,855 12,841 Barium 0.2 106 — Chromium 0.01 58 8.1 J Cobalt 0.05 13

— Copper 0.05 40 — Iron 0.1 28,931 19,508 Manganese 0.015 108 J — Nickel 0.04 32 — Vanadium 0.05 83 42 J Zinc 0.02 179 174 Arsenic 0.01 30 13 J Lead 0.005 269 121 J Mercury 0.0002 0.64 0.69 J Tin 0.04 ~ 17 J

Note: Soil samples taken during Round 2 only on 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT.

—: Not Detected.

J: Results are approximated as a result of Level I data validation performed by NUS.

2-14

lowland swarapy areas. The main bedrock unit in the area consists of the Salem

Gabbro-Diorite which is an intrusive igneous rock (Toulrain, 1964). This unit

is generally thought to be a hornblende-augite diorite or a gabbro and is fine

to m o d e r a t e l y coarBe. Thf; Salem (Jabbro—Dior L ie is Pr^cambr ian or Lower

Paleozoic in age and is reported to have intruded the older Marlboro Formation

which consists of schist, araphibolites and gneisses. In the Salem quadrangle

the Salem Gabbro-Diorite is reported to be cut by numerous basalt and diabase

dikes (Toulmin, 1964). The bedrock geology map prepared by Toulmin shows that

porphyritic raicrogranite dikes transect through the gabbro-diorite formation

at the Salem Acres site.

Toulmin also reports that the Salem Gabbro-Diorite is highly and

complexly jointed with numerous sheer zones and minor faults . It was evident

to GCA field personnel who observed numerous bedrock outcrops during the

January 1986 site visit that the Salem Gabbro-Diorite wi th in the Salem Acres

property is highly jointed and fractured. However, due to the fact that no

wells are located at the Salem Acres site the degree of f ractur ing at depth

along wi th other site specific bedrock data are at th i s time unknown.

Due to the numerous bedrock outcrops it is apparent that the overburden

which mantles the bedrock is quite thin. This is especially true on the tops

of hills where bedrock outcrops are quite continuous. Overburden appears to

thicken in the lowland areas of the site as bedrock outcrops are somewhat less

frequent. Overburden at the site is a groundmoraine till which consists of

both compact silts and clays along with loose sands and gravels. Lowland

areas consist of swamp deposits while drainage areas contain glacial outwash

sediments which are generally sandy and gravelly in nature. Overburden at the

site is also reported to contain boulders and small lines of s trat if ied

mater ia l (Oldale, 1964). Wel l and boring logs from within Thompson's Meadow

which is approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the site indicate that bedrocks

here is much deeper than at the site and has been found at depth of over

70 feet (Massachusetts HD-21, 1980). These types of overburden thicknesses

are similarly found to the northeast and northwest of the Salem Acres site.

2-15

2.4 GROUND WATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION

The NUS Final Site Inspection Report is the only source of site—specific

hydrogeologic information relative to the Salem Acres site. Due to lack of

existing hydrogeologic data, NUS was unable to adequately define ground water

flow patterns and contaminant distribution at the site. Therefore, the

following presents GCA1 a conceptualization of the ground water flow pattern,

and based on this flow pattern, our interpretation of movement and

distribution of contaminants at the site.

The source of water supply in the area of Salem Acres is precipitation

which averages 42 inches per year (Baker and Brackley, 1966). Approximately

half of that is returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration.

The remaining half either drains to the main surface water bodies via surface

runoff or infiltrates the surface soil and percolates to the ground water.

Due to the shallow overburden, ground water flow in the overburden is believed

to mimic surface drainage patterns. Therefore, ground water flows to the

local discharge areas surrounding the site. These ground water discharge

areas include: a large swamp located to the west of the site which drains to

Strongwater Brook; and an intermittent stream and pond located to the east of

the lagoons. Part of this intermittent stream drains into Strongwater Brook

to the north and part of it drains to the south into Thompson's Meadow via

drainage along Swarapscott Road.

In addition, there is the possibility that ground water could enter and

flow through the bedrock (if the bedrock is sufficiently fractured); the

direction of flow depending on the direction of the fractures. Surficial

bedrock outcrops at the site displayed nearly vertical fractures trending to

the northeast. Therefore, it is possible that ground water could flow to the

northeast through these bedrock fractures.

Contaminant movement and distribution at Salem Acres depends to a large

extent on the ground water flow pattern, and the dispersive nature of the

media. Contaminant movement may be retarded by soil interaction, chemical and

biological transformation, and solubility characteristics of the

contaminants. Therefore, contaminants entering the ground water via

percolation of recharge will migrate in the directions of ground water flow at

a rate approximately equal to the ground water velocity. During migration,

2-lb

dispersion will cause spreading and dilution of contaminants along with

attenuation of concentration peaks. The contaminants will ultimately

discharge to the surface water bodies surrounding the site. If ground water

flow exists in bedrock, contaminants may also travel through the bedrocK

possibly migrating greater distances from the site. In addition, contaminants

may: interact with aquifer solids causing retardation of the movement of

contaminants relative to ground water flow; be transformed into other

compounds by chemical and biological mechanisms; and, if immiscible, travel as

discrete nonaqueous phases either along the top of the ground water surface or

vertically downward through the saturated zone.

Due to the limited available hydrogeologic information and the fact that

there are no monitoring wells at the site, it is impossible at this time to

determine the extent of contamination at the Salem Acres site. Monitoring

wells are needed to define ground water flow directions, pathways, flowrates,

and contaminant distribution. Geologic logs are needed to adequately define

the degree and direction of bedrock fracturing. In addition, a fate and

transport study should be conducted to characterize transport mechanisms for

the contaminants known to exist at the site. This qualitative study should

include: a determination of the key chemical, physical and biological

properties of the identified contaminants; the evaluation of intermedia and

intramedia transport and transformation mechanisms; and to the extent

possible, review of site-specific conditions in order to determine the extent

of each contaminant released and to qualitatively determine contaminant fate.

2.5 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT/WETLANDS

2.5.1 Surface Water Flow and Drainage Pattern

The Salem Acres site is situated in an area characterized by drumloidal

hills and marshy wetlands. A topographical high forms a surface water divide

which diverts surface drainage into two major channels leading offsite.

According to a U.S. EPA drainage analysis performed in 1969 and a GCA site

visit and analysis of U.S.G.S. topographical maps, drainage from the western

side of the drainage divide flows into WA-1, a large wetlands area adjacent

2-17

to DA-l, find then into Strongwater Brook (see Figure 2-2). Strongwater Brook

flows approximately 1.5 miles north and east into the North River and

eventually into Salem/Beverly Harbor. Strongwater Brook also receives

drainage from the northeast side of DA-2 via a secondary drainage channel

consisting of a small unnamed pond, WA-4, and wetland WA-3. Wetlands WA-5 and

WA-6 receive drainage from the southeast portion of DA-2. WA-6 runs along

Barcelona Avenue and is drained by an unnamed brooK. that flows southeasterly

along Swampscott Road. The brook discharges into a large wetlands area

referred to as Thompson's Meadow, which is located approximately 1.2 miles

south of the Salem Acres site. Thompson's Meadow flows into the Forest River

and eventually into Salem Harbor.

2.5.2 Wetlands/Floodplains

There are several wetland areas nearby and within the Salem Acres site,

based on observations made during the GCA site visit on 23 January 1986.

Wetland Area 1 (WA-l) is an open wetland fed by Strongwater Brook which

appears to contain predominantly swamp loosestrife (Decodon vercillatus) with

dodder (Cuscuta gronovii), and with some milkweed (Ascelpias incarnater). It

must be noted that these identifications are only preliminary due to the time

of year the site visit was conducted. Contamination in the form of a black,

tarry oil and the distinct odor of fuel oil was observed in areas along the

border of DA-l and WA-l. It is of interest to note that a few Phragmites

communis individuals were noted, but only in the contaminated area. An

iron—red color was also observed in sediments in some areas.

Due to the proximity of the disposal pits, it appears that contamination

traveled from DA-l into the wetland by seeping through the base of the berm.

The contaminated area appears to extend at least 10 to 20 feet into the plant

growth and for 100 to 150 feet along the shoreline.

This wetland (WA-l), and the organisms inhabiting it, are clearly

receptors of contamination. The extent to which they are impacted by the

contamination can not be determined given the limited information available.

Sampling of sediments and surface waters as well as more field study are

required.

2-18

In wetland area 2 (WA-2), GCA observed a large stand of reeds (Phragmites

communis) in the southeast corner, and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) upland

along the eastern shore. Some sparse cattail (typha latifolia) growth was

also observed. No visual contamination was observed in this wetland.

On the eastern side of the site several other wetland areas exist (see

Figure 2-2). Wetland area 3 (WA-3) is a large swamp containing growth which

appears similar to that described for areas I and 2. This wetland feeds into

(WA-4) a pond which contains some emergent vegetation at its northern end. A

film was observed on the surface of water in the pond, but it was not evident

whether this was a result of natural causes (e.g., iron or tannins) or site

contamination. It appears possible that contaminants could enter the pond via

ground water flow originating from the disposal pits. Furthermore, some

evidence of surface water flow from the pit adjacent to the pond was observed

in the form of plant blowdown and erosion of the dike wall of the pit.

Water from wetland area 4 (WA-l) flows northward to Strongwater Brook and

southward into wetland areas 5 and 6 (WA-5 and WA-6), along Swampscott Road,

and eventually into Thompson's Meadow.

WA-5 is a wet meadow containing short grasses which did not appear to be

typical wetland species. Some oil sheen was observed on the surface of water

in this area, but several empty drums and other containers which were present

in the meadow could be the cause of this sheen.

Water flows from WA-5 to WA-6 which, at the time of the GCA visit,

appeared to be a frozen pond. However, clumps of vegetation were seen frozen

just below the surface, and the bases of trees along the shore were immersed,

indicating that this is a flooded swamp probably containing vegetation similar

to WA-l, WA-2, and WA-3. WA-6 appeared to contain a water elevation 1-2 feet

higher than normal. This flooding is likely due to closure or potential

closure of the outlet at Swampscott Road. Two empty rusted-out drums were

observed at the northern tip of WA-6.

2.5.3 Surface Water Sampling and Analytical Results

During the first round of surface water sampling conducted by NUS on

13 December 1983, two onsite surface water samples were collected and analyzed

for volatile organics, extractable organics and heavy metals as listed in

2-19

Appendix A. The analytical results showed no detectible concentrations of any

of the contaminants in those groups. In Round 2, conducted by NUS on

29 April 1985, two surface water samples were collected from Strongwater Brook

at a location near DA-1 and similarly analyzed. As in the case for Round 1

samples, there were no volatile or extractable organic compounds detected.

However, as Table 2-6 shows, Round 2 heavy metal analysis indicated elevated

levels of lead in Strongwater Brook. Iron, mercury, and manganese were also

detected in elevated levels, indicating the possibility of contaminant seepage

from DA-1.

In addition to onsite sampling, NUS, during Round 1, collected offsite

samples from the Swampscott Road brook across from Robinson Road (north of

Thompson's Meadow) in Salem and from Strongwater Brook near Home and

Flynn Streets (1 mile north of Salem Acres) in Salem. A third offsite sample

was collected in a wetland adjacent to Marlboro Road. No HSL volatile

organics, extractable organics, or heavy metals (as listed in Appendix A) were

detected in any of the three samples.

2.5.4 Sediment Sampling and Analytical Results

Sediment samples have yet to be collected from the various water courses

at Salem Acres.

2.6 AIR QUALITY

GCA's review of the existing data sources revealed that there have been

no extensive air quality monitoring investigations conducted at Salem Acres or

in the densely populated areas to the east and south of the site.

As noted in Section 2.2.3, analytical results have indicated the presence

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), most notably xylene, acetone, and

ethylbenzene in the sludge onsite. NUS reported that during the first round

of sampling on 13 December 1983, organic vapor screening (HNu) was conducted

in the vicinity of the waste lagoons detected levels of 1 to 2 ppm.

2-20

TABLE 2-6. INORGANIC ANALYSIS - SURFACE WATER

Strongwate :r Brook

Round 2 Inorganic Elements Detection

(ppb) limit Sample 1 Sample 2

Aluminum 200 * 1774 J Barium 200 71 81 J Beryllium 5 Boron NA NA NA Chromium 10 — — Cobalt 50 — — * *Copper 25

* Iron 100 44,020 Manganese 15 4,014 839 J Nickel 40 24 J Silver 10 — — Vanadium 50 39 55 J Zinc 20 * *

Antimony 60 ——

__ Arsenic 10 Cadium 5 — — Lead 70 64 89 J Mercury 0.2 0.54 __ Thallium 10 Tin 40 —

— Selenium 5 ~*~~ — -"

Note: Round 1 conducted 12/31/83 by NUS/FIT - no inorganics detected.

Round 2 conducted 4/29/85 by NUS/FIT.

—: Not Detected. NA: Not Analyzed for. *: Contaminants detected, but value rejected during

Level I data validation performed by NUS. J: Results are considered approximate as a result of

Level I data validation performed by NDS.

2-21

SECTION 3

INITIAL SCOPING OF THE SALEM ACRES kl/FS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of the following discussions is to identify, and briefly

describe, the initial steps that the Salem Acres Remedial Investigation

contractor should conduct prior to performing any site-specific

characterization efforts. It should be noted, however, that the following

discussions do not preclude the RI contractor from referring to the specific

U.S. EPA guidance document "Remedial Investigations Under ChRCLA", or the

National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 3UO, for more details on the

actual conduct of this initial step.

In general, the initial phase of an RI, termed the "scoping" process,

includes three (3) components or steps. These steps involve I) the collection

and evaluation of existing data, 2) the identification of remedial

investigation/feasibility objectives, and 3) the identification of general

response actions for the feasibility study. Combined, these three components

provide the crucial elements needed to focus the development and performance

of the remedial investigation phase of the entire RI/FS process.

The following describes each of these components, with the majority of

the discussions focusing on the third component - the establishment of general

response actions and associated remedial technologies.

3.2 COLLECTION/EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA

As presented in detail in Section 2, Current Situation, GCA has gathered

a considerable amount of existing data relative to the Salem Acres site and

surrounding area. While this data collection effort was not intended to

uncover all available data, it is provided as a generalized site description

and was utilized to formulate the scope of work for this kl/FS Work. Plan.

3-1

As such, the initial effort that must be conducted by the RI contractor

for Salem Acres will be a review, update, and eventual compilation of all

existing site data. This effort will enable the contractor to preliminarily

define the problem(s) that currently exist at the site, and the migration

pathways, receptors and potential impacts that the hazardous substances pose

to the public health, welfare, or the environment surrounding the site.

Additionally, as specified in Section 300.68(e) of the NCP, an initial

examination and analysis of all available information will De used to

determine the type of response actions(s) that may be needed to remedy the

problem(s). More specifically, the contractor should (at a minimum) identity

the type of removal measures and/or remedial measures that appear suitable to

abate the current threat, if appropriate.

3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY OBJECTIVES

Based upon those data described previously in Section 2, GCA has

established several preliminary RI/FS objectives for the Salem Acres site.

These objectives, while based on current site data only, should be reviewed

and/or modified by the contractor as the remedial investigation/feasibility

study proceeds forward. Additionally, the contractor should also perform a

preliminary analysis of the extent to which Federal enviromental and public

health requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the Salem

Acres site, as specified in the NCP Section 3lJU.68(e).

3.3.1 Preliminary Salem Acres Remedial Investigation Objectives:

a. further identify and characterize the nature and extent of contamination onsite, as well as potential offsite contamination resulting from past site activities;

b. assess the extent to which any detected contamination poses a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment;

c. to determine what additional evidence is needed for the evaluation and refinement of preliminary remedial technologies identified for the site; and

d. identify applicable, relevant, and appropriate Federal and state requirements which must be considered to further refine the response objectives to be established during the initial phase of the FS.

3-2

3.3.2 Preliminary Salem Acres Feasibility Study (FS) Objectives:

a. develop, and refine if necessary, site-specific remedial response objectives and identify cleanup criteria based upon an evaluation of existing data and data gathered during the remedial investigation;

b. develop source control measures which seek to completely remove, stabilize, and/or contain the hazardous substances in order to prevent and/or minimize migration of contaminants from the site;

c. develop management of migration measures, if necessary, for contamination that has migrated from the site and poses a public health and/or environmental threat; and

d. evaluate those source control and/or management of migration measures in accordance with all U.S. EPA guidances and policies, and other state and Federal statutes in order to identify the most-cost effective remedial alternatives for the Salem Acres site.

3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

As reiterated from the RI guidance document, general response actions are

developed during scoping in order to identify those data gaps or needs

necessary for developing and evaluating corresponding alternative remedial

actions in the feasibility study. This preliminary identification of general

response actions helps eliminate obviously inappropriate actions, thus

focusing future RI/FS efforts on the collection of data for the development of

more feasible remedial alternatives.

In the case of the Salem Acres site, GCA has reviewed the existing data

base and conducted a site visit in order to identify several preliminary

general response actions which should, at a minimum, be investigated by the RI

contractor. These general response action and associated remedial

technologies, as shown in Table 3—1, focus only on the development and

evaluation of source control remedial measures due to the adequacy of the data

base. Additionally, Table 3-2 lists several of the remedial technology

engineering design parameters that should be obtained during the remedial

investigation efforts. GCA recognizes that these source control remedial

alternatives are not likely to fully satisfy the overall Salem Acres remedial

r 3-3

TABLE 3-1. PRELIMINARY LIST OF SOURCE CONTROL GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AND ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES IDENTIFIED FOR THE SALEM ACRES SITE

General response actions' Associated remedial technologies

No action15 Monitoring/analyses

Containment Capping0

Suface water diversion/ Dikes/berms; chutes/downpipes; collection terraces/benches

Removal - complete/partial^ Excavation0; dredging; dewatering

Treatment - onsite/offsite/in-situ Incineration; solidification; land treatment; biological, chemical, and physical treatment

Disposal - onsite/offsite Landfills; surface impoundment

aFor all general response actions (including "no action"), erosion control technologies must be considered as appropriate technologies to be implemented during the RI, and evaluated as a component of those alternatives to be considered during the FS.

''Required to be developed and evaluated since this forms baseline against which all other actions are measured.

°Grading and revegetation technologies also associated with capping and excavation technologies as required for closure/post-closure of site.

pollution control technologies, e.g., water spraying, dust suppressants, wind screens, are also associated with removal actions in order to eliminate potential dust generation.

3-4

TABLE 3-2. INITIAL LISTING OF ENGINEERING DESIGN WASTE PARAMETERS REQUIRING INVESTIGATION/EVALUATION AT THE SALEM ACRES SITEa

pH

Temperature

Bulk density

Organic matter content

Moisture content

Atterberg limits

Sieve analysis

Oil and grease content

Cation exchange capacity

Heating value

Halogen and sulfur content

Viscosity or waste form

Solids/ash content

Presence of Free Liquids

Ignitability/corrosivity/reactivity/EP toxicity

aCertain ground water/surface water parameters which may require investigation as engineering/technology design parameters include pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, acidity, temperature, solids content (total dissolved/suspended), etc.

3-5

response objectives which will eventually be refined in the first step of the

FS. Specifically, general response actions and their associated remedial

techno Ion i|>8 E°r f-ontaminant migration in ground water an

SECTION 4

DATA LIMITATIONS

The purpose of this section is to identify "data gaps"; additional

information which remains to be identified in order to sufficiently

characterize the types and extent of contamination, the pathways of

contamination migration, and the real or potential adverse effect on

contaminant receptors, and to evaluate remedial technologies during the

Feasibility Study. The Remedial Investigation will be constructed to develop

the missing information to provide a comprehensive site conceptualization and

data base which will, in turn, be used during the Feasibility Study to

evaluate the need for source control and/or management of migration measures

and the alternatives for meeting those needs.

4.1 SLUDGE/SOIL

The information characterizing sludge/soil conditions at the site are

currently limited to visual observations and the results of the two NUS

sampling rounds. There is not, at the present time, sufficient information to

define the physical/chemical nature of the sludge and the extent of

sludge/soil contamination at the site, information that is necessary in the

identification, screening and implementation of remedial alternatives. As

such, a detailed sludge/soil investigation is needed to define:

• Horizontal and vertical extent of sludge in each disposal pit.

• Stratification of grease/soil/natural cover layers in each pit.

• Horizontal and vertical extent of contamination below sludge pits.

4-1

• Other possible areas of contamination outside of the two fenced-in disposal areas.

• Engineering data (physical/chemical properties) of the sludge/soil identified in Section 3 as being necessary for FS assessments.

4.2 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY

Information concerning subsurface geological conditions at Salem Acres is

currently limited to interpretation of existing regional-wide data.

Site-specific geological data is necessary for use in assessing ground water

flow at the site and the applicability/feasibility of remedial measures

involving onsite treatment and/or land disposal of the contaminated

sludge/soil. A subsurface geology study at Salem Acres is necessary to define:

• Subsurface lithology of overburden and bedrock

• Overburden stratification

• Overburden and bedrock hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity

• Overburden thickness

• Bedrock topography

• Extent and orientation of bedrock fracturing

• Development of soil zones

4.3 GROUND WATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION

To date, there have been no hydrological investigations at the site. In

addition to not having any background ground water flow and water quality

data, there has been no sampling to identify the existence and concentrations

of contaminants in ground water at the site. A hydrogeological investigation

at Salem Acres is necessary in order to provide the following information:

• Ground water flow patterns in the overburden and oedrocK

• Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of saturated soils

• The distribution of contaminants in the ground water and vadose zone

4-2

• A prediction of ground water discharge exposure to any down gradient receptors and location of wells for ground water monitoring

• A determination of whether contaminant migration extends beyond tne local ground water recharge areas (surface water bodies)

• A projection of time varying concentrations of pollutants possibly entering local discharge areas

• A determination of fate and transport characteristics of contaminants known to exist at the site

• The physical/chemical properties of the ground water, such as pH and temperature, necessary to determine transport phenomena and treatability studies.

4.4 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT/WETLANDS

Previous surface water sampling and analyses have detected heavy metals

in Strongwater Brook. However, there is no existing data to characterize

contaminant migration to the other surface water bodies nearby. In order to

asses the extent of contaminant migration via surface water pathways, and the

effect of those pollutants on the local flora and fauna, a comprehensive

surface water/sediment/wetlands assessment is needed to identify the following

information:

Transport of contaminants offsite via Strongwater Brook and Swampscott Road Brook

Extent of contaminant migration to individual wetlands areas onsite

Interaction between Strongwater Brook and Goldthwait Brook basin aquifer

Interaction between Swampscott Road Brook and Thompson's Meadow aquifer

Permeability and contaminant levels of sediments within stream beds of all water courses onsite and offsite

Common physical/chemical properties (pH, temperature, turbity, hardness, etc) used to assess water quality and predict contaminant transport mechanisms.

A description of local ecology and the toxicological effects of contamination on local flora and fauna

4-3

• A precise mapping and characterization of wetland areas

• Description of functional values of wetland areas

• Floodplains assessment

• Identification of contaminant receptors and quantification of current impacts

4.5 AIR QUALITY

To date, there have been no qualitative/quantitative studies performed to

assess possible air quality impacts from the site. As a result, the Salem

Acres Air Quality investigation needs to address the following:

The concentration levels and areal extent of air emissions from the Salem Acres site

The history of and potential for air quality problems in nearby neighborhoods

The possible air quality impacts that RI and FS activities may have on onsite personnel and nearby residential population

Detailed meteorological/climatological data necessary to conduct air modeling studies

4-4

SECTION 5

WORK SCOPE FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

GCA has developed a comprehensive work scope for the Salera Acres Remedial

Investigation. Section 5 outlines a three-phase, nine-task approach to the

planning and ultimate implementation of site-specific data gathering/analysis

and management support activities for conducting the HI in accordance with

current U.S. EPA guidance. The three proposed phases of the Salem Acres RI

include:

• Phase I Project Operations Plan

Task. 1—Sampling and Analysis Plan Task 2—Quality Assurance/Quality Control Task 3—Health and Safety Plan Task 4—Topographic Mapping Task 5—Data Management Plan

• Phase II Wetlands Assessment

Task 6—Wetlands/Floodplains Characterization

• Phase III Data Summary and Analysis

Task 7—Site Conceptualization Task 8—Endangerment Assessment Task 9—Remedial Investigation Report

Although the scope of work presented in Section 5 includes an extensive

discussion of the details of the actual medium-specific sampling and analysis

activities to be required of the potentially responsible parties [PRPs], many

of the subsections dealing with RI support activities (data management,

quality assurance, data reporting format, etc.) have been written in a more

generic form which identifies the conceptual approach to be followed by the

PKP. As such, the PRP(s) and its contractors will, prior to the commencement

5-1

of any onsite work, submit an RI implementation plan which incorporates the

sampling and analysis details developed by GCA with the PRP1s plans for

program management and work-task implementation. The RI implementation plan

will he submitted by the PRP to the U.S. EPA for review comment and approval

prior to any invasive exploration or investigation at the site.

5.1 PHASE I - PROJECT OPERATIONS PLAN

Before any onsite Remedial Investigation work begins at Salem Acres, &

variety of RI support activities must be addressed. The Salem Acres Project

Operations Plan (POP) will be written to identify site-specific policy and

procedural guidelines that will be implemented throughout the RI/FS. The POP

will be written as a series of specific plans that will incorporate individual

remedial activities proposed to take place onsite or in the surrounding

areas. Specifically, the Salem Acres POP will include plans for:

• Sampling and Analysis

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control

• Site Health and Safety

• Topographic Mapping

• Data Management

Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.5, which summarize the purpose and general content

of each of the five individual plans, are based on information provided in

"Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA" (U.S. EPA, May 1985) and

other referenced U.S. EPA documents. All Phase I plans will De submitted to

EPA for review and approval prior to initiation of any investigation.

5.1.1 Task 1—Sampling and Analysis Plan

A detailed, written Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be prepared

before any RI sampling activities commence at the Salem Acres site. The plan,

subject to U.S. EPA review, comment and approval will provide specific

guidance for all field work while addressing pertinent health and safety

concerns and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures. In addition

to detailing the specific sampling equipment and procedures to be used in the 5-2

retrieval of samples from various media at both onsite and offsite locations,

the plan will include a procedure for notifying the U.S. EPA prior to field

sampling activities and a discussion of the analytical methodology and

laboratory QA/QC plan to be implemented after the samples have been collected

and transported for analysis.

Under Task 1, GCA proposes a program of sludge, ground water, surface

water/sediment, and air quality sampling and analyses investigations designed

to provide data that will fill the "data gaps" identified in Section 4. The

Salem Acres Sampling and Analysis Plan will incorporate the sampling details

(type, location, methodology, number, frequency, and analytes of interest)

described by GCA in Task I with other crucial elements of a sampling effort

such as equipment needs, drilling techniques, preservation techniques, sample

transportation modes/schedules, data documentation/management, decontamination

procedures, field team organization, and safety considerations. The Salera

Acres SAP will also include provisions for: 1) collection and use of sample

blanks, duplicate samples, split samples and spiked samples to satisfy QA/QC

concerns; and 2) distribution of such samples to the U.S. EPA or other parties

approved by the U.S. EPA.

5.1.1.1 Sludge/Soil Investigation—

Disposal pit characterization—An accurate assessment of the

confirmed waste disposal areas is necessary to characterize the

three-dimensional boundaries of the sludge pits, the stratification of

sludge/grit layers within the specific waste pits, and the vertical/horizontal

extent of contamination in the natural surface and subsurface layers

underlying the pits. The investigation into sludge/soil contamination within

the boundaries of the two fenced-in waste areas, DA-l and DA-2, will be

conducted as follows:

Delineation of Sludge Boundaries. The initial effort to be undertaken with respect to contaminant source characterization will be to define the sludge pit/natural soil interface in order to estimate the dimensions and locations of the sludge pits and to approximate the volume of sludge held within each pit. At a minimum, the contractor will establish a three-dimensional profile of sludge disposal within DA-l and DA-2. Using scaled base maps (generated in Task 4), the disposal areas will be marked off in grid fashion with a 60-foot maximum lateral spacing as illustrated in Figure 5-1. Continuous 2-foot split-spoon samples will be taken at

5-3

in z. o

O o

IT O 03

B 0)4-> CD 5^ CO

TJ •H M t>0

« (U V4 nJ

n O P. CO

5-4

u-i

every grid point within the disposal areas. Boring will continue to a depth at which the sludge/natural soil interface is encountered. The boring team will record all changes of strata, all details concerning sludge appearance, and other pertinent observations in field log books. The operating procedures for this task and the criteria used to identify the sludge/natural soil interface are to be included in the Salem Acres SAP.

Based on the results of the boring effort, the contractor will prepare a three-dimensional map for each disposal area (DA-1 and DA-2) that identifies the number and location of individual sludge pits within the disposal area and the vertical and horizontal boundaries of these pits. The map will also identify any stratification of layers within each pit. Finally, the contractor will estimate the total volume of sludge material held in the disposal areas.

Sludge/Soil Collection and Analysis. Following the delineation of sludge pit boundaries, borings will be drilled in locations that are representative of the maximum sludge depth within individual pits. The contractor will drill at least one boring per identified sludge pit, but not less than a total of four borings per disposal area.

Each boring will be advanced through the sludge and overburden layers to bedrock. Detailed logs are to be recorded by a qualified geologist. For each boring, composite sludge samples are to be taken over the entire depth of the sludge layer and continuous overburden samples are to be collected using a 2-foot split-spoon sampler. All drilling shall follow ASTM Standard Method D-li«6-b7. The sludge and overburden samples are to be field screened for volatile organics using an OVA or similar instrument and the values will be recorded in field log books. Borings will be advanced a method deemed appropriate by the driller such that leakage and cross contamination of the sludge/overburden layers does not occur. The exact drilling method to be used will be developed by the contractor in conjunction with the driller and submitted to the U.S. EPA for review, comment and approval.

Sludge and soil samples will be collected, preserved, shipped and analyzed according to approved protocols.

Each sludge and soil sample will be analyzed for all compounds listed on the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance List which includes heavy metals, volatile organics, extractable organics, polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and EP Toxicity. A complete listing of the analytes of interest is presented in Appendix A. In addition, the sludge samples are to undergo analysis for the physical/chemical properties listed in Table 3-2, including: temperature, bulk density, organic matter content, moisture content, Atterburg limits, sieve analysis, oil and grease content, cation exchange capacity, heating value, halogen and sulfur content,

5-5

viscosity, solids/ash content, ignitability, corrosivity and reactivity. All analyses are to be conducted using approved U.S. EPA methodology.

Other sources/areas of contamination—In addition to characterizing the

nature and extent of contamination within the two recognized waste disposal

areas, the RI must also define the extent of soil contamination resulting from

migration of contaminants (caused by drainage runoff, breeched dikes, etc.)

from DA-l and DA-2 to surrounding areas and investigate the possibility that

there are other areas within the Salem Acres property boundaries that received

hazardous wastes. Therefore, the contractor will conduct a thorough analysis

of additional hazardous waste disposal activities. This effort will, at a

minimum, include a detailed study of existing aerial photographs of the

property and a comprehensive walk-over of the entire property to identify

significant earth-moving activities, vegetative stress, odors, or other

unusual signs that may indicate hazardous waste disposal activities. The

survey is to include a description and tentative identification of solid waste

mounds scattered about the property. All areas of probable hazardous/solid

waste disposal activities will be noted on a map and submitted to the U.S. EPA

for review and comment.

U.S. EPA aerial photography of the site (compiled in 1984) suggests

significant earth-moving and possible landfilling activities in areas north

and south of DA-l. In order to more adequately assess the extent of soil

contamination in these and other areas outside of the two waste disposal

areas, the contractor will initiate an extensive shallow soil investigation.

The soil investigation, which is to include two areas east of DA-2 that may

have been subjected to contaminated runoff or seepage trom the topographically

upgradient DA-2, can be effectively accomplished by means of backhoe trenchpit

excavation and/or hand-operated sampling augers, whichever is more feasible

based on site conditions. Test borings shall be utilized if the vertical

extent of sludge cannot be defined with backhoe. Additional trenchpits/

borings will be advanced in areas tentatively identified in the site walkover

as having received hazardous waste. If backhoe trench excavation is employed,

the contractor will excavate overburden, if possible, to a 10-foot depth.

Six-inch soil samples will be collected from the walls of the pit at 2-foot

intervals, at changes of strata, and/or from visibly contaminated soil. If

5-6

hand-operated sampling augers are used, corings are Co be advanced to refusal

with samples collected at 2-foot intervals, changes of strata, and/or from

visibly contaminated soil.

The contractor will advance a sufficient number of test pits/borings in

the areas designated SL-1, SL-2, and SL-3 on Figure 5-2, starting excavation

and sampling in those sections closest to DA-1 or DA-2 and progressing outward

away from the pits. Excavation and sampling in those areas will continue

until no contaminants are detected. The locations for trenches/borings will

take into account the soil samples collected as part of the ground water

monitoring well installation activities described in Section 5.1.1.2. In

SL-4, the contractor will advance at least three test pits/borings to identify

the presence of landfilled materials in that area. Volatile organic levels

will be continuously monitored by means of an OVA. All observations and OVA

data are to be entered in the field logs books. The samples will be collected

according to the Salem Acres SAP and analyzed for all Hazardous Substance List

pollutants listed in Appendix A. The analytical results from this soil

sampling round will be used by the contractor in conjunction with the soil

samples gathered during the Hydrogeological Investigation (Section 5.1.1.2) to

develop a baseline map delineating the horizontal and vertical extent of soil

contamination at the site.

5.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation—

Due to the insufficient data base pertaining to the hydrogeology at

the Salem Acres site, a hydrogeologic investigation is warranted. GCA

recommends a two-stage approach. The Stage I investigation will include a

drilling and monitoring well installation task which will provide the

necessary geologic and hydrologic information to assess subsurface movement of

ground water and to further delineate potential receptors. In addition a

chemical analysis of ground water will be conducted to allow for the

assessment of contaminant distribution in the subsurface horizons. This

investigation will determine hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface

horizons such as highly transtnissive aquifer zones or aquitards. Information

such as this will aid in determining the possibility of contaminant migration

to potential receptors.

5-7

CO (3 o

(0o o

o CO

CM

a)M

00 •H PL,

5-8

If the information gathered during this stage illustrates that

ground water contamination exists and has migrated offsite, or if additional

information is needed to more adequately characterize ground water flow and

subsurface contaminant distribution, a more in-depth Stage II study may be

required. The Stage II hydrogeologic investigation may consist of the

installation of additional wells located at increasingly greater distances

from the site in the direction of ground water flow observed in the Stage I

study.

Subsurface borings—The Stage I subsurface boring and monitoring well

installation program will be implemented at the Salem Acres site to provide:

(1) hydrogeologic data concerning the movement of water in the unsaturated and

saturated zones, and (2) soil and ground water samples for chemical analyses.

Seven onsite locations (see Figure 5-4) have been chosen for Stage I borings

with each location consisting of nested wells with one well open in the

bedrock and the other opened in overburden (if enough overburden is present).

In bedrock, nominal (3-inch O.D.) width casing will be spun into the bedrock

and serve as the riser pipe.

Borings will be four-inches in diameter and advanced using rotary

drilling methods. Rotary drilling methods involve driving or spinning, if

necessary, 5-foot lengths of standard 4-inch (NX) width steel casing, and

washing out the material to the bottom of the casing with a J-inch roller bit

to the desired sampling depth. The casing will be driven in 5-foot

increments, with representative samples taken at 2-foot increments. Washings

should be done with water. Wash water shall not be recirculated at any time

during drilling. At locations presented in Figure 5-3, the subcontractor

shall take continuous rock core samples by means of a diamond drill, as

described in ASTM-D-2U3-70 (1976) to a minimum of 20 feet into rock. Soft

or decomposed rock shall be sampled whenever possible. The drilling into rock

shall be done with a double-core barrel and side discharge diamond bit which

will produce a two and one-eighth inch diamond core from the rock penetrated.

It is crucial that care be taken to not allow downward movement of

contaminated surface soil that would cause subsurface soils to become

contaminated. Drilling bits and stems should be steam cleaned prior to

proceeding to a new boring location.

5-9

tn C! o

T-l

u id o o

SI 60 C

•H

C! O e

U *J

C O (-1 O

10 0)M 3 60 •H PL,

5-10

Two-foot split-spoon samples will be taken according to ASTM D-1586-b7

procedures at the surface and at 2-foot intervals in the overburden.

Immediately after opening the spoon, the sample will be screened using an OVA

or equivalent instrument. One 40-mL septum will be partially filled for

headspace analysis. If this initial survey reading indicates elevated levels

of contamination, a chroraatogram will be obtained and recorded on a strip

chart recorder. Spoon samples will be preserved in a wide mouth glass jar.

One sample will be obtained for possible laboratory analysis and another will

be preserved for physical properties analyses. Split-spoon soil sample

processing should assure that the samples for VOC analysis are processed first

to minimize loss of volatiles. Allowance should also be made for obtaining

additional samples for U.S. EPA, if requested. The split-spoon sampling

device will conform to ASTM-D1586-67 procedures and the number of blow counts

to achieve spoon penetration will be recorded by the geologist.

The borehole will be logged by a qualified geologist or geotechnical

engineer. Field observations including soil classification, color, moisture

content foreign matter content and any problems encountered during drilling or

sampling will be documented. The boring logs are to be presented in the final

RI report.

Particle size analyses will be conducted on the overburden material. A

sufficient amount of grain size analyses will be conducted according to

ASTM-D422-63 procedures to adequately characterize subsurface strata. It is

expected that grain size analyses will be done at least once in each boring

location and additionally to assess strata changes or as specified by the

geologist or geotechnical engineer.

The bedrock type should be determined by analyzing bedrock outcrops and

bedrock cores and performing a literature search. This should also include an

assessment of degree of folding, faulting, fracturing, jointing, and

weathering.

The degree of bedrock fracturing is important in assessing whether or not

contaminant transport exists in this medium. Bedrock mapping to measure the

orientation and dip of fractures will be conducted. This exercise will

include mapping onsite bedrock outcrops and determining fracture

orientations. The mapping of bedrock in the vicinity of the pits is of

primary importance. The mapping of additional outcrops onsite will serve to

5-11

aid in the mapping of the bedrock at the pits. This information can then be

plotted on a map to assess preferred orientations. In addition to the

fracture mapping, seven borings will be conducted into bedrock to a minimum

depth of 20 feet. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) Method will be performed

on the cores removed to aid in determining the degree of fracturing.

Information on the amount of drillwater lost during drilling, as well as

drilling rate, should also be collected. Once all of the fracture analyses

data has been compiled, it will be assessed if the degree of bedrock

fracturing has been adequately characterized and the ground water movement

within the fractures is understood. If the data are found to be incomplete

further borings and geophysical techniques may be implemented during a second

phase of investigation.

A bedrock contour map will also be produced for the site. Information

from the six borings along with surveyed bedrock outcrop elevations should

provide enough information to adequately prepare such a map. Producing a

bedrock contour map will greatly aid in determining local ground water

movement because ground water may travel along the bedrock overburden

interface.

A map which incorporates bedrock outcrop locations, contacts between

varying bedrock types, fracture orientations, and any other definable bedrock

structures should be developed. In an effort to better assess RI/FS goals,

accurate geologic cross-sections will be prepared. These cross-sections will

provide a graphic display of subsurface geology, as well as ground water

movement in the vertical direction. Additionally, cross-sections will

illustrate topography which controls the ground water flow at the site. These

cross-sections should incorporate all overburden and rock core field

descriptions, as well as site maps, bedrock outcrop data, and literature

research. Cross-sections should also be developed in the field for

identification purposes during drilling activities.

Monitoring well installation—Approximately 14 monitoring wells will be

installed during Stage I in seven locations as previously shown in

Figure 5-3. The boreholes drilled will be converted into monitoring wells.

The wells will be nested with one well being screened in the overburden and

the other being open in the bedrock.

5-12

The wells will be nominal 2-inch diameter and all well components (i.e.,

casing and screens) below the saturated zone will be constructed of steel or

PVC. Well construction materials above the saturated zone can consist of

steel or PVC. If plastic pipe sections are used, glues and solvents shall not

be used to connect the pipes due to the possibility of exposing sampled water

to contaminants. All screens and casings will be steam cleaned prior to

installation to ensure the removal of oils, greases, and waxes. The screens

will be constructed of PVC and will have a slot size of 0.01 inch (No. 1U slot

size). The screen length in overburden will be no more than 10 feet in

length. The top of the screen should intersect the water table allowing

adequate length above the existing water table for seasonal water table

fluctuations. The bottom of the screen should rest on the top of the

bedrock. If the saturated thickness is greater than 10 feet, two overburden

wells will be installed at that location; one screened through the water table

and the other screened above the bedrock/overburden interface.

The screens will be encased in a gravel pack, composed of Morie No. 0

sand or equivalent (>l.O mm grain size), which shall be placed 2 feet above

the perforated interval. The annular space immediately above the gravel pacK

shall be filled with betonite at a thickness of at least 2 feet. The

remaining annular space should be grouted with a suitable mix of betonite

concrete and extend to within 1 foot of the ground surface for both overburden

and observation wells. A cement seal will be installed and extend into the

annular space in the borehole approximately 1 foot. The cement seal shall

extend above the ground surface approximately 4 inches and will slope away

from the guard pipe to prevent surface water from collecting around the well.

For the bedrock wells, the bentonite seal will be placed in an area that

will prevent the migration of overburden ground water down the annulus ot the

bedrock hole. A steel protective cap with locks will be placed around the

borehole and held in place by the cement. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 represent the

general design for a monitoring well in the overburden and bedrock.

Once well construction has been completed the wells will be purged of ail

water which may have been affected by well installation. A successful purge

may involve pumping the well dry. After the wells have been purged, they

should be developed through backwashing or other approved method. The wells

5-13

PROTECTIVE, VENTED, LOCKING CAP THREADED ONTO SURFACE CASING

HEIGHT OF TOP OF SURFACE C*S!NS/ WELL C A S I N G ABOVE GROUND SURFACE 2.0'

£ •3/4" drilled ver.t hole

DE=TH OF SURFACE"SEAL SELOW GROUND SURFAC; 1,0'

is -TYDE OF SURFACE SEAL:

I .C. OF SURFACE CAS ING 6" (SW casing) TYPE OF SURFACE C A S I N G : steel

BOTTOM OF SURFACE CASING BELOW GROUND 5.0' 1.0. OF P.ISI3 ?I?I: 2.0" TY=E OFRISIR ?I?E. PVC schedule 80

TY°£ Or SEAL AND THICKNESS. beacor.:.:e pellets(i" min>;I I OF TOP OF GRAVE- DACK 3ELOW GROL.'JD SURACE _ *

)r GRAVE. 3ACK: Morie No. 0 sand

cgment/bentonite grout

DIAMETER OF BOREHOLE

DEPTH OF TOP OF SCREENED SECTION

1 t 3 TY D E OF S C R E E N : ?vc ' 'teflon -a MW55)

TYPE OF P E R F O R A T I O N S . N o . 10 slot î j I . D . OF SCREEN :.0"

DEPTH OF 30TTOM OF SCREENED SECTION

I—• LENGTH OF "5LANK SECTION NA 1 DE?TH OFF^x^JC^ BOTTOM OF PLUGGED BLANK SECTION NA

~ TOTAL DE.'TH OF HOLE

* determined by geohydrologist in the field

Figure 5-4. General design of monitoring well in overburden.

5-14

i

PROTECTIVE. VENTED, L O C K I N G CAP THREAD