48
Nuclear Metals, Inc. Superfund Site Site Presentation September 4, 2013
Nuclear Metals, Inc. Superfund Site
Site Presentation
September 4, 2013
Presentation Outline • Background
• Current Work
• NTCRA Overview
• Remedial Investigation (RI) / Feasibility Study (FS)
– RI / Risk Assessment Results
– FS Outline
– Soil / Sediment Remedial Alternatives
– Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
– Vapor Intrusion Remedial Alternatives
r-1 . • .·
~~ ..
·~-~
Sphagnum Bog
Site Location – 2229 Main Street, Concord, MA
Old Landfill
Area
History of Nuclear Metals, Inc. Site • 46-acre site is bordered by light commercial properties and
Main Street (MA Route 62) to the north, residential properties to the north-east and east, and woodlands and commercial industrial properties to the west and south
• Nuclear Metals, Inc. (NMI) purchased undeveloped property in 1957 and built original facility buildings in 1958.
• Owners/Operators: – 1958 – 1972: Textron Inc. and Whittaker Corp. sequentially
own NMI, which performed specialty metals research and development, primarily for US AEC and DOD. Licensed since 1958 to possess low-level radioactive substances (uranium and thorium)
– 1972: Employees purchase company and incorporate as NMI – expand work to include production of depleted uranium (DU) penetrators under contract with US Army
History of Nuclear Metals, Inc. Site (continued)
– 1997: NMI changes name to Starmet Corporation. Starmet stops DU penetrator production and focusses on other manufacturing (metal powders, beryllium-aluminum alloys) through several affiliated businesses located on the property.
• Radioactive materials license altered to “possess only” in 2003.
• Starmet and affiliated businesses abandon Site in November 2011.
Regulatory History • March 1980 – chlorinated solvents found in NMI production
well during sampling by MADEQE (predecessor to current MassDEP), triggering further studies at site.
• 1980 – 1998 – variety of site environmental studies conducted on behalf of NMI and NRC
• 1997 – Starmet, with funding from US Army, excavates approximately 8,000 yards3 of uranium hydroxide sludge and soils from “Holding Basin” (HB) for off-site disposal.
• July 2000: EPA proposes NMI Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL)
• June 2001: NMI Site listed on the NPL • April 2002 – April 2003 – EPA conducts Time-Critical Removal
Action (TCRA) to install temporary caps on HB and “Old Landfill Area”
Regulatory History (continued)
• June 2003 – EPA, Respondents (Textron and Whittaker), and Settling Federal Agencies (SFAs) (US Army and DOE) enter into Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) to complete Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS). AOC also provides for preparation of an Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA), if requested by EPA.
• 2004 – MassDEP and US Army enter into agreement to remove approximately 3,800 drums of uranium hexafluoride and other wastes from the site. With US Army funding, MassDEP performs drum removal from September 2005 – March 2007.
• June 2007 – a small fire in scrap metal turnings occurs at the site. Concord Fire Department requests EPA perform second TCRA to remove hazardous materials from site; and that a Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA) be performed to evaluate fire risk posed by buildings.
Regulatory History (continued) • December 2007 – EPA signs Approval Memorandum for EE/CA
to evaluate alternatives to address buildings and contents. • January 2008 – September 2008 – EPA performs second TCRA to
remove hazardous substances that posed threat of fire orexplosion.
• February 2008 – EPA issues EE/CA completed by Respondents. • September 2008 – EPA issues Action Memorandum for Non-
Time-Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) to remove buildingcontents and demolish buildings, with off-site disposal ofmaterials. EPA starts negotiations with Respondents and SFAsto implement / fund NTCRA.
• August 2009 – Respondents complete Fire Hazards Analysis. • August 2011 – Settlement Agreement for NTCRA becomes
effective. NTCRA Trust funding of $70 MM follows effective date.
Current Site Activities Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
• Initiated in 2004
• Evaluation of nature and extent of contamination, risks to human health and the environment, and options and costs to address unacceptable risks.
• “Everything outside the buildings.”
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action (NTCRA)
• Initiated in 2011.
• Maintenance, then progressive removal of buildings contents and demolition of buildings, with capping of foundations.
NTCRA Project Scope • Monitoring, access controls and site security
• Building stabilization, removal and disposal of hazardous and flammable and combustible materials
• Removal and disposal of asbestos, universal waste, and building contents
• Demolish ~180,000 feet2 of buildings down to slabs
• Fill voids and place a temporary cap over foundation.
• Dispose of debris off-site at appropriately licensed facilities
• Post-removal site control (security, monitoring)
NTCRA Project Timeline • NTCRA Trust funded September 2011
• Last Starmet tenant abandoned Site November 2, 2011
• NTCRA Work Plans submitted January 2012, approved September 2012.
• Phase 1 Construction Submittal provided to EPA July 2012, approved March 2013.
• As of August 2013, more than 2,210,560 pounds of waste shipped off-site. Buildings significantly empty.
• NTCRA work on track to be completed by Fall 2014
inc.
Starmet Facility Buildings
Anticipated Schedule to Complete RI/FS • Prepare revised FS Report (completed August 2013 –
under EPA review)
• EPA submits prospective remedy to NRRB (October2013)
• EPA prepares responses to NRRB comments, revised FS(if needed)
• EPA prepares “Proposed Plan” that identifies overallremedy
• EPA issues Proposed Plan for comment in early 2014
• Meeting on Proposed Plan (early 2014)
• EPA issues “Record of Decision” that sets forth required remedy for Site. (early 2014)
--,_ . /
() '\ --~
!:!./
I ~ $ .t.
• \
) • • • • • • '$~ • • • •
• • Legend • • I
Site Boundary s Sphagnum lJ1 • aog
• .,,.
ll ' ' AOI Outlines
~ Test Pit
Soil Boring
Surface Soil
Sediment
Surface Water
Staff Gauge ~ • Waterloo Profi • A0116
suRFAce sor.s
• • • • It • -6
• • •
• • ·"· i/
RI Sampling Locations
sz de maximis, inc.
RI Off-Property Sampling Locations
Remedial Investigation / Risk Assessments Results • Surface soil and subsurface soil exceeding acceptable risk levels
limited to certain areas within Site boundary. DU and PCBs primary drivers for risk.
• Sediment exceeding acceptable risk levels limitedrained to SW portion of bog and cooling water pond. PCBs primary drivers for risk.
• Groundwater contamination exceeding acceptable risk levels exists on-site and in defined area off-site. DU, VOCs and 1,4-dioxane primary drivers for risk.
• DU in overburden groundwater continues to migrate from Holding Basin. Modeling suggests that DU plume > MCLs will migrate off-site within 100 years if no remedial actions performed.
Section 1 –
Section 2 –
Section 3 –
Section 4 –
Section 5 –
Section 6 -
Section 7 -
FS Outline Introduction, background, nature and extent ofcontamination, risk assessment results
ARARs, RAOs, GRAs, PRGs, areas and volumes of media, ID and screening of technology types
ID and screening of technologies and processoptions
Detailed and comparative analysis of soil andsediment remedial alternatives
Groundwater technologies summary
Detailed and comparative analysis of groundwaterremedial alternatives
Detailed and comparative analysis of vapor intrusionremedial alternatives
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
PRGs developed in accordance with EPA’s “RAGS Part B” guidance, process detailed in FS Appendix B.
• Soil PRGs developed for PAHs, PCBs, As, U, and Th.
– As and Th PRGs based on background levels.
– PRGs for U (2.3 mg/kg) and PCBs (1 mg/kg) will control scope of soil remediation.
• Sediment PRGs developed for PCBs, Cu, Pb and Hg using ecological risk.
– PRG for PCBs (1 mg/kg) will control scope of sediment remediation in pond and bog.
• Groundwater PRGs based on Federal and State MCLs for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.
– PRGs for TCE, VC, U and 1,4-dioxane will control extent and duration of groundwater remediation.
Soil and Sediment Remedial Alternatives
SS-1 No Action
SS-2 Excavation of Non-Holding Basin Soils and Sediments and Unsaturated Soils at Holding Basin, In-Situ Stabilization of Saturated Soils below Holding Basin, On-Site Consolidation of All Soils and Sediments and Site Restoration
SS-3 Excavation of Non-Holding Basin Soils and Sediments (On and Off-Site Disposal), In-Situ Stabilization of Unsaturated and Saturated Soils at Holding Basin, Low-Permeability Sub-Grade Cap at Holding Basin, and Site Restoration
Soil and Sediment Remedial Alternatives (continued)
SS-4 Excavation of Non-Holding Basin Soils and Sediments and Off-Site Disposal, Containment and Stabilization of Holding Basin, Low-Permeability Sub-Grade Cap at Holding Basin, and Site Restoration
SS-5 Excavation of Non-Holding Basin Soils and Sediments and Unsaturated Zone Soils at Holding Basin (Off-Site Disposal), In-Situ Stabilization of Saturated Soils beneath Holding Basin, Low-Permeability Sub-Grade Cap at Holding Basin, and Site Restoration
Note on Soils / Sediments Remedial Alternatives
• All soils/sediment options include excavation of approximately 77,000 yards3 of materials > PRGs. This volume includes building slabs and sub-slab soil. Excavation areas and depths illustrated on figure (next page).
• Differences between alternatives are: 1) whether materials are consolidated on-site (SS-2) or disposed off-site (SS-3, SS-4, and SS-5); and 2) how HB is managed.
• HB is source of overburden groundwater DU. Complete excavation of ~95,000 yards3 of HB material containing ~10,000 kg of DU eliminated in FS screening (>$117,000,000 and significant risk to implement).
• HB alternatives need to be effective for at least 200 years (goal is 1,000 years) to meet ARARs from NRC (10 CFR Part 40).
Figure 2.5.2 Excavation Areas with Drains and utilities
X 1111: ~
\l.1clcor ~/:XII<: ::llo
P.l.f~ :IO!I,D.i!U ar:l
8 :;~:" tu 1 Exuvation Depth (ft) .g', :; ~~:(•:lb - J: "'" • !,dtr:t:. 1 • I (l Sli'l :IE~ ll <:lith tlun - I'~~ ill ~a& t:J 1.L l·l.LJ Jl. ·,•er: - • ())Ciht '•'A'IIEI r- ~ (1 :H1 5f ~r-'E ~ t'ctatiE'I'IJI!Er:'L.l.lh'l'l'e C: Ul·UJ 3ll ~UIIlk1~Hd8 t)llrE'tiE • '1.(1·6.0 a :ledr: v.-·hdE - S.iflbr, II Ul · l::l.lJ ~ ·1oor:'il1n - Nf~ht:n'l • HI ·n1 ¢ -"fr·ad - li1 ~:-:1 1i·llu•':llllh!J\'I:I1:1 ~ .. I ~ l.tiL• .lnErn:l>'seiedor $/) VMtH - r)lt'rE'C1)1'r[tH CJ ~C'>E) ~~~~.~di!Or~:3 1:::> :; .rfall l.hlu 1 .,.., ArNNam• a \'<4\'$ ~r:et)JIY.I~rl :6 .l.llc::::.; ~ (OOI.-,Wf«>t~E:UrtE -.Cr:l
CJ u:n br ll'i:J(.,,,~;.·I,..·I~' c:J ~~~ ~~~:~rr ~ ... ·n~l'tl~o)~
t-l1ll ~·uP;).'Ifll 'I ro·aho)l '1
1?2 lUI)'
~ddms .,.. .. ,...,,.:l<.nerr' "n
It~ ltli/Xf!Jtis, {/J(.
Soil and Sediments Exceeding PRGs (Areas and Depths)
11<':1•"t\l ~.sit! ... --D •<> • (.=J Con~CIIJ:!!llion hO.il)' m
.SS2 ·Oil·Site consolidatiOn F;,clltrpo F9uibil ity Stuct:t
Hut~· Ue!~~ tl<... C>•oc' N/,
"""' ''~! let' ...... ·,.., .. '''"' ... '' NJJ<.~o(~ 650 600
;, ~!.s:ll!:.\lh:Svrf;.~ <I J.a~b J!t0H•
if"MGf'tO.I!te-U~
)r.lin-.)1'(-ct~rc:mrr.vitr
~n· t H(;Wf ( l'.oiUU':•:ttl(.,;Ttll'l"li:f,orw.
"':liS"(l'lt.let~: O~t.inttor :Z4-aiiY
G;,;\<!Mfr\JG~Oil~~
;,"(\;!\ '•l:ontlf19 /~!jN!g~l('
550 500 450
Stratified Drift
400 350 300 250 200
:"•m•<~!lrr+'i:tr P :tr. !fo'Pf'fkr,")I,...-!HI";ofll:il! f.' ;)bk..t;.;> "ry(J't •)W'1
r.omiJ -ICPE\~''IJ.II,"t!('.,,.II'W'II'I;r.~ttP :,.:'0.\j ltlhr.U:.\..lll)' l!l"<:r KoLL"
- 20
- 0.0
- -20
- -10
- -60
- -80
- -11XI
150 100 80 0 I'WJ-KI'h J t41 --l.'of•lt
tfddrns ~.~~!~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND Zone 1 -Uranium >30 mg/kg in vadose Zone Soils Zone 2 -Uranium >30 mg/kg in Saturated Zone Soils
Jgj Building to be demolished
..X.. Ground··IJater
Distance units depicted are feet 1ft)
SS2- Consolidation Facility Elevation View Feasibility Study
Nuclear M&tals Inc., Concord, MA
\l;:tn': Fi•J4 ~ - ~_(:F _pmilc: ;t.tlo;-. rd(.tt;!~tl$ . .:.. . h·:· : .. ~::;..(.l'i-•1
=-t•j: ;t he•: :~·ltJ7
~t ... f::!!~.;o.•; I>)'. · ... · •• :
Figure 4.3.2
·~!:!.~ ')I·' -;.·or III:.H·,r \ 8:. =•JI '1H :A;·()
SS-2 Excavation of Non-HB Soils and Sediments and Unsaturated Soils at HB, In-Situ Stabilization of Saturated Soils below HB, On-
Site Consolidation and Site Restoration
SS-2 - Scope Summary • Construct ~2.5 acre on-site consolidation area, partially co-located on HB.
Off-site reuse of clean soils excavated to create area. • Excavate and place ~77,000 yards3 of site soils and sediments into
consolidation area (off-site disposal of TSCA materials, if any). Backfill excavations with clean soils.
• Holding Basin – Excavate and place ~12,500 yards3 unsaturated zone within consolidation
area (temporary stockpile while saturated HB soils addressed) – In-situ stabilization of saturated soils within the HB using apatite injection – Perform temporary hydraulic containment during HB construction to
control potential for further DU migration • Construct cover on consolidation and restore site. • Perform long-term operations and maintenance (O&M).
Estimated Costs: Capital: $37,586,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $ 7,305,000 Total: $44,891,000
SS-3 Excavation of Non-HB Soils and Sediments (On and Off-Site Disposal), In-Situ Stabilization of Unsaturated and
Saturated Soils at HB, Low-Permeability Sub-Grade Cap, and Site Restoration
SS-3 – Scope Summary
• Excavate approximately 77,000 yards3 of site soils and sediments. Dispose off-site. Backfill excavations with clean soil.
• Holding Basin – Perform temporary hydraulic containment during HB construction
to control potential for further DU migration – In-situ stabilize unsaturated and saturated HB soils using cement
based solidification. – Off-site dispose of ~13,000 yards3 of spoils resulting from HB
stabilization process. – Install low-permeability below grade cap stabilized HB – Backfill remaining HB basin to bring it to grade.
• Restore site. • Perform long-term O&M.
Estimated Costs: Capital: $107,636,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $ 7,305,000 Total: $114,941,000
l.~tlO
,h, !;) j:-o .. •(ll)~ ~lkl·~~e•'lkJ "'l! l:'ii!'J 1!\ovn
c:J")o·
... -I'll ~~:~=';i!,.--~,:~~~
ss.a • V• rttcM Dan'• I Y\'a ll •M Cap f (\"l$11)111()' 611J{tf
~§A~4~~~~~~· ~-...... , ..•
LEGEND
Bldg- c
Stratified Drift
Zone 1 - Uranium > 30 mglkg in Vadose Zone Soils Zone 2 - Uranium > 30 mglkg in SabJrated Zone Soils Zone 3 - Uranium > 30 ugll in Groundwater
181 Building to be demolished .:lL Groundwater
Units depicted are feet (It)
Bldg B-3
-20
-0.0
-40
-60
-80
-100
SS4 -Vertical Barrier Wall Elevation View Feasibility Study
Nuelaar Mat!ls Inc., C<lncard. MA
hJ 0Jn1:: Fi!14 ::. :) .\'RvV pmfh~ L~:.1l~. 1kltir2fJ 1 r~ Auth•:or: ?.~~m~,. 1 >~e. ::L~l r'b . ~~2· ~
Rev ewo?d t·~,: VR
Figure4.3.5
1217EHU'I8 BvdN
OJ QJ
u..
SS-4 Excavation of Non-HB Soils and Sediments and Off-Site Disposal, Containment and Stabilization of HB, Low-
Permeability Sub-Grade Cap, and Site Restoration
SS-4 - Scope Summary
• Excavate approximately 77,000 yards3 of site soils and sediments. Dispose off-site. Backfill excavations with clean soil.
• Holding Basin – Perform temporary hydraulic containment during HB construction
to control potential for further DU migration – In-situ stabilize unsaturated and saturated HB soils using apatite
injection. – Install vertical containment wall around HB – Install low-permeability below grade cap – Backfill remaining HB basin to bring it to grade.
• Restore site. • Perform long-term O&M.
Estimated Costs: Capital: $77,605,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $ 7,305,000 Total: $84,910,000
SS-5 Excavation of Non-HB Soils and Sediments and Unsaturated Zone Soils at HB (Off-Site Disposal), In-Situ
Stabilization of Saturated Soils beneath HB, Low-Permeability Sub-Grade Cap, and Site Restoration
SS-5 – Scope Summary • Excavate approximately 77,000 yards3 of site soils and sediments. Dispose
off-site. Backfill excavations with clean soil. • Holding Basin
– Perform temporary hydraulic containment during HB construction tocontrol potential for further DU migration
– Excavate 12,500 yards3 of unsaturated HB soil. Off-site disposal. – Stabilize saturated HB soils using cement based soil mixing / jet
grouting. – Off-site dispose of ~2,000 yards3 of spoils resulting from HB stabilization
process. – Install low-permeability below grade cap stabilized HB – Backfill remaining HB basin to bring it to grade.
• Restore site. • Perform long-term O&M.
Estimated Costs: Capital: $105,820,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $ 7,305,000 Total: $113,125,000
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
GW-1 – No Action
GW-2 – Institutional Controls and Long-Term Monitoring
GW-3 – Institutional Controls, Hydraulic Containment (DU and 1,4-Dioxane in Overburden, U in Bedrock), and MNA (VOCs in Overburden and Bedrock)
GW-4 - Institutional Controls, Hydraulic Containment (1,4-Dioxane in Overburden), In-Situ Treatment (DU in Overburden), Long-Term Monitoring (U in Bedrock), and MNA (VOCs in Overburden and Bedrock)
Notes on Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
• Analysis of approaches to specific contaminants and units (e.g., DU in overburden, U in bedrock, VOCs and 1,4-dioxane in overburden and bedrock) assessed separately in FS Section 5.
• Alternatives combined into “unified” groundwater alternatives in FS Section 6.
• Groundwater alternatives assume HB “source control” implemented under soil/sediment alternatives, so consider alternatives to control further DU migration and restore to ARARs.
• No “sources” of VOCs and 1,4-dioxane or U in bedrock identified during RI, so groundwater alternatives consider migration control and restoration to ARARs.
··:vi · ·~s :sc:
'?.'ttl =x).c.l
1 \11:0• •~<o;
;
/
/ //
I I
/ /
,/ /
/
./
i /
' ' · \, ......
>'X· ~{\)-) "' .... ., Ul,ti/
\.' 1\
:i
•. ....,.Y. II ~~ ,,,,.,
...... __ _
/
'•,---:::-.~~-·•'A .... -·
a.tw-WlO.l!lv.l ~.·:... ~ ..... ~'(~ 3t4)
\.'ll• '))7 M.>4)
1~ l.t;(Yl '.,•";) !A~ .,,y.. ~'JI)
~· ,!1 :llllM ~.'). 1 !,'1))
$'ll l~
..;.l'!~ .j,'(~ 2:)Xl I~ IA:IO•~
~.\'(' ~,'(i
'"' u:<P 1~>:'·1
llll f l
-SG.J ..
__. PZ·RI-D02 t :._ - PZ-RI-S02
'
.
Legend r:o.nb!ilt,: '•'.\:.•1
Pi" ;:;;oroo,l .. o
eun 3:~u\l.: Ct:111ne..wnM f'tn'11l!ll) l~::~htlll
n ~~UF~'O; 'A'ct:t.-.1~
- &uofkt ·A'~I.ef •. " " V'¥· io; -:• MC.bv~~"o: ·~·•;;• ~"iS!; l.lil'tJ
_ C>t<:fJ SEct en;.,.;;
- c ·.:.u&;ctr.nc ..::· = :::::; =~: :~.::::·;:::;::,(~::~:'::~ It N~\'C•: - Groo.·"'d·:nter 'lo'"'d r«::on
-t~! L\ll 'liJII\ . '•b:~t i< II<:O:I! . Cot!:~,;)$
· - · ~~ ... . .. ;,. · .... .,.. • ,~~~ r. ~·-
Nlo\ Vr.a 111.1m ~;.o~.t,; r<n~ , ... ..,..
}itj \:
u.oo 111.0
Total Uranium Concentraticns.in . Overt>ufden Gfoundwater Neaf Hold•ng Bastn
Histotical Data through Octobet 2012 ····:;:-.·,':,\'~;;;;:.·:~!! ••
Geosyntect> consulta1Us
~ Jc nKI.Timi.,·, ilu-•
1.4.2
Area of Depleted Uranium in Overburden Groundwater > PRG
.,, VOC a nd 1 . .4-0 ioxane P lume Areas in
Overburden and Bedrock Groundwater Most Recent Data through October 2012
~luc;!11&r t-41:tllfli! Su~81iun:J Site Ccr.ccrct ··.1.ns.:ch :~ se::r:s
- Y-•Ie maximiJ·, lll('.
Figure
1.4.3
Areas of Groundwater with VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane > PRGs
' ~ J. ··:. ...... · 'lot'·'~"
- e-..n .... ........ .
0 6>) 12::1 J.t()
I> Geosyntec consultant~
8 greater than
y Figure de ma..\·lmlt , bt.c.
JUL '2013 1.4.4
Locations and Which VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane > PRGs
- .. ____ ..._... -~- ./ .. •( ''
.rl
\ ' ' "·
f ~· P1-111-DM
' ..,,,,u.:~n ; .
IIA II •
' . . . . '
Tulal tfr<tnium C Bf!:drock cnuc:~Hfr<ttinns in
Histodcal oaU.: tJ .rotmdwater \Judo~M MNa~~~•gb OC'tobe( 2012
<;onr.ord ~I · 111~rfuncl ~il <' ' · as~nchu:sctts
GeosyntecC> 0€ MA.XIMIS, INC.
consultants
Jllt.V-2<1 13
Uranium in Bedrock Groundwater > PRG
GW-2 – Scope Summary
• Implement institutional controls to prohibit use of on-and off-property groundwater > PRGs
• Annual monitoring of 35 wells for first 30 years, and then every 5 years from year 31 – 200.
• Provides for Five-Year Reviews to assess protectiveness.
Estimated Costs: Capital: $ 793,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $1,724,000 Total: $2,517,000
.... Pfo;'IQ$.${'1 i;ft~ t:ti(;n 1.',~1 in e~ro~k (~.4.(li¢y~nP}
~ t"ropo:.cd E.:dro:t:JOn '/,\aU 1n o-.. erbl r.:a-o (1..4-0Joxane)
~ M~n· toting Wei
+ Piezo""netEr
:;J:_ ~ \\~etla"'C8 !'.u-flccM'o\'Mi ft'
C] Sit<o Bo~m;bJ)· t l PIIIII :
.. y ... ;-~ · I / \_ .......
-- E,:,;irn;r;E'd 1-!yo:lr.;.vlic CCil)11lr~ Zt>~ in 0'-''Jibl• <iw.f'l (1 4-0iQ".<''n~j - - 1, 4-Di!)xAn"' .;t..'l-."1".;. .,~..!;o;?h11"'tT~ O~P Drioki"!) '•'i~'to;ir (;,,a,~·i~ in 0\·~rb•.• r.C~;;r.
--':::.:1ma:e:1 H)ldr<~uhc (; <~ ~:ure L.or.:e (0..1 - 0\'l."fburden) -··-· 1.4-0I))hlne aoo .. e t.4-:~ssachuens OSf' Dnntc r.g 'i'itltEr Gu~.1re In I:!Edroctc
-- ~e.<:(m~:e!l Hy·cr~uUe C3~~ur~ Zor-e In e :d•<:el< (' ,4·0leX~n~! -- U!'>'nlum ,b,.,~lh~ .,~t:L(:>30 1JgiL~
- .:e.:ima;e:l H1draulic C.;,p:ureo Zor "e in 9~d-c:ck. (e.e~r«k Urariurr: • •• Ce;~letEd Uranium Jbo~·e tM r\~CL i>30 Jlgi'l }
~ Hokting Ba91r $c;l•c:e Comrol Are;.:;;
I, Th• '\Nt>olo•d"'"l ',.,. , ,._.,. ;, dooj<IM·"'I '"""'"'" ;,. ,,.,..,,!""'"""'' ,.,,,. ~"'"" ~" 2 . li-e ~V'..tl~lcd<:~pt~ott> Zotlt' fotutll!! Ill') nl:!oc-"Jn:o."t ~:.:;Jfi'C'ro
HI !II"'" ,1-:1 <:n ,. h~..,,., ""I>'".; "'' <<I fl .n 1'2, >< 1~-<h:o ..a::<>,,.,.,..,,;,;,,. d :; 1 tl>:l ~v . .,,,.~"'" ;Mitlo tli t7S 11>•u<l :o p ' "" " l!oioll""" " " ' 4~ i, M.:O PI}Ui1U»9flldcnt ofC.OC-9, .:o h)l31.:.ule(I0 1:111'Cti.il~· d 49 ft,'~.:oy.o p1Ufi'>C'o'.oodth<i1i1; 1~ llfl J ~ p\_rne l~id."l"'t!'.'. oi l£ t .
3.11 ~· il'v-.itl.III:\I(';.V,Ill~t .:vt¢ r,u , 4., Tt ll h$JI"'I~C~f"t!J"IJ 'ro<> lntU,_ 1\<,"1)
:>. lt~l:cab~m: ::1 CCI<"'Yr.•ane~:
!oaW'J un ;.o, h,Ut;.\\Jivg•ado:r lvl ) ,!)11, :.oltto.!r;u.~li;~••d.l;ti\•t:r U d.-l 1\.\bt. a ~~~""'M,il'l o:fJOO B :..tiS :.• ~..,,,"' n Oo.:•/~,_..,. ..,1 SOn_
N
t
GW-3: Institutional Conttols, Hold ing Basin Source Control, Hydraulic Containment
IOU, UROCK, 1,4-Dioxono) and MNA jVOCs)
Nuclear Metal!:> Superfund Site Conco:d. l\·1assachusetts
!!""-~;:===:!'----~htl 20.:> 1CO 2Coa
Geosyntec I> collSultants
____;g._ tl~ nm:dmi.V1 inc.
Figure
6.3. 1
GW-3 – Institutional Controls, Hydraulic Containment (DU and 1,4-Dioxane in Overburden, U in Bedrock), and MNA
(VOCs in Overburden and Bedrock)
GW-3 – Scope Summary
• Implement institutional controls to prohibit use of on-and off-property groundwater > PRGs
• Annual monitoring of 50 wells for first 30 years, and then 40 wells every 5 years from year 31 – 200.
• Extraction of groundwater and ex-situ treatment to control DU in overburden, U in bedrock, and VOCs and 1,4-dioxane in overburden and bedrock – assumed to operate for 30 years
• Provides for Five-Year Reviews to assess protectiveness.
Estimated Costs: Capital: $ 4,258,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $13,597,000 Total: $17,855,000
' ' i /
'~ // I /i
; .'! ' /;
;/// lil .~ I I
~~;:-!' ';
Legend
1\1 ~ro~-:~d !::)(IJ'~~~•c:r Wtll •n etft~ek -::rop~e.ed Rto~chto zone Mon~·•na iN~ 1
1'\i Pro;:·::MKI CttT~irw ~\f'tll l i n 0\-.rbl.ldt!tn • ~rop:.>l!IIJ<i Mttd '~ h j101cl.i:m Point (Ap 11li l"'}
-4~ .. ~-<.lol !';11 .. 10:1
to: (\'o;i~ung \Nell n orop:>:;cd M~d-.s l njc<:tnn Po1nt (Zero ¥\11erl !f-;»n iZVH)
+ ?!c:z::11nott:f
\. r .. --. • .-1},
,/SF'~N+-: ,/ "'•
- - 1 ,4·DI0)(3M: 3tove M:lt~:~ehuett"! OEP onnklng V'b:~r Gutd&!lnt ' " o·..-e~·een
- · - · 1 ,4•DiOI<I'tr!~ :tl:r.r.tl$ 1.1<tu~chu"i1~ OCP Olinkin:J '<"i'.&:4H G~•ide:ti ntt h 1.'1-ttdnH.:k.
- - Ur.Jntum ;:bt:~ve lh: 1.1CL P·3J 11; ILj
'.\'e'; ll:-~n dt~ --(~::tht:"t !t'ld H~·d·mt16 \;;1p lu1r! 7an~ in ~::tmr:k ( 1 , 4·1)iol(~ne) ~Holding f!:,~in t:1m1~ C-m11ml AIM
CJ SvM~:e- '."hter - S~t!"'l:it!d Hyd~W~ C:!I):1UI'e ZOI'I~ li"l 0\.'e:I'OUI'den (1,4-l.'i~X;)ne.) D Sil~ 8 <Hit)1.3r>J tllltll'l: 1, n. iiW11otW ; -..:ul o$.W111 (o;f lhlt 1 <H)~'«fl" '-""rluUtmWIIItwo~~-..l tW~I lt~AtMIJ;on 1:1\ot tf"VIIIU.~r-~hll 6,(o $1\ll "l, l'=I'~Uillo •rtltlfiJ.;;SIIUil 11'11: ~ (),0 I' , lli. l-~t.ho~li;~l.'flilll.t~tl'f v i ot .~II.\J<'I)' ;, l"b1t:l <>~t;illl ot~:-il 11111t.l11 J.• ~m" !h~··lltot¥ d 50fl. 2.lt(.· il~..tlill.:d ·:..V.IIf<'!O~ f<• tllc l\·n 1.4-.C\:<OIIlt b..~llXkwdl~o~~l'll:Y.. .:Oil ~lr;:.:~onr,)lccf ;a,:~o:u·~):ly ( 0,(;. 911"!· h~dt>'l 01 h)•dr.wlc,grOidi:nl olO.C~ llyC:r;,u!Ocontb:b•r t.i -::.22 11.\:J.t)' ~ ph~•::".~otlhcf-420\Md o11pl ~~ llli:~rc--...-. d26 fl. 0.11-.o lee~.,ew. ef «ol'l'o«r,Jt~Ce> linee, lr¢.."11m«tbult-.~.~., ~ o1~·~e ine \'mll:l te eclo::od .t; -in~ romdbld~iQ, , ~ . Tt .- ll:l)r¥1 IWII r.~n·cn~u. 1110\' l ,.t.Otlfi(A .. .,_ fiiJmM0-1!~"• r-n~UI IITIIun;;m~ r.llrtr(.
'f/ ;\ ~v··~, ·' ·.
'. cs·,::::\ '.)J·o···· \ ' • ¢ ' • ..
\
GW-4: lnstituti on31 Contmls, Holding Basin Source Control, Hydraulic Containment
(1 ,4-Dioxano}, ln-Situ Trnatmont {DUJ, Long-Term Monitoring (UROCK} and MNA (VOCs}
NIXIe~r Me~J'$ Sup~rttln¢ tilt~ fil.lSS3ChUS~1;!'o
~ .. ~~==~ ........ ~.~~ :.<"::<! ltl ) 1!))
Geosyntec~> consultants
~ de ma.timis. inc
Figure
6.4.1
GW-4 - Institutional Controls, Hydraulic Containment (1,4-Dioxane in Overburden), In-Situ Treatment (DU in Overburden), Long-Term Monitoring
(U in Bedrock), and MNA (VOCs in Overburden and Bedrock)
GW-4 – Scope Summary
• Implement institutional controls to prohibit use of on-and off-property groundwater > PRGs
• Semi-annual monitoring of 40 wells for first 8 years, and then 35 wells annually from year 9 – 30, then 45 wells once every 5 years from year 31 – 200.
• In-situ treatment of overburden DU plume • Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for VOCs in overburden
and bedrock, Long-term Monitoring of U in bedrock • Extraction of groundwater and ex-situ treatment to control 1,4-
dioxane in overburden and bedrock – assumed to operate for 30 years
• Provides for Five-Year Reviews to assess protectiveness. Estimated Costs: Capital: $ 4,939,000 O&M (NPV, 200 years, 7%): $ 6,122,000 Total: $11,061,000
Vapor Intrusion Remedial Alternatives
VI-1 No Action
VI-2 Institutional Controls and Development Restrictions
VI-3 Institutional Controls and Vapor Mitigation
-+ P1Ctl)ll'¢0CI'
¢> $1t(l(>·(U$1~
• :.t'l,.l: <:l'•~I)Ut..:len StW:i'/•~1
• f~noc:· Onltn.ut-=n &!~pi~ Wl:'l
• r:>m>~~· Bfl:u:d::ll.(lf!!f•'•·
~ Publb\V;~t$.(.1~1(\V.If
V\tl!an(t;
Sllp1c fl$ r.'!i
C t.llti61>0 11' :!11rt
OP.:.tx;.
~s Ex(eedhlQ Vapor ltltrusiot~ Screenillg L~vel-s ett•.··dnn· 0.71 j;~l
• p(;£-~1)~·-
• TOE· ::I Gl l•t?•t
• \'C-01"1-!;i.'L
• \'Ot:r. cletM":!:d ,, "'•'llt:.t-4~1'1 r.nf ;H t«""r.~niMtm~g-<:-!111~1 t>'ll'l :tr.1')hr,'lfr~crh ~l) 1 111~
8t<C':t.c !:e-~!Yt i\4(.X!C~tfll~ ilbtl:.. S~:<.c .. ~l~ ,)~ <te'f~OI!-1 ¥.'.1 ... ' )$/N'(, W,V 6'~ :V:, t":l>l!lOI o~..:~~/;l()I.11Cr.'•IL X l
• :;(( $ (•I •) hu ... JI!'Y j:l;l<' Ult.l t.y ·~,~...,:::,1~ ·t:l~~ 11 <'\1~.11 trd ii'I,' I (O' MII:IkJ :111.11 lj.>'l!ll>Wlot~C 'C ~If,l!h1',;;~,
• \ ' 'f'" '"""''"" t.;,..,.,;,:~ t.. .. .,., ... ,~ ... ; ........ .:..t ........ <l ...... e u. .. er.-. · .. 1nL .,,.t..., .,,,. .. .,; .. ~.11 .,,.. &!,._.»>II 1'•'*!\I-1UIIf look•: ;!l1l \t\,U/1.,...,1'.:/t•~l-l .r.~ i':A: I ' -! fll¥ol /Mt'll :t~lo) 11'1:1•:11 (f: 'fll\o'l lfl rr.ll~l llll\'t.trtv.:t -~~l
Areas Exce.~ding Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
Nuclear Metals Superlund Site Concord, Massachusetts
Geosyntec C> consultants
-&-dr nurximls. ltu:
O!l.t.UG ::<Ot2
Figure
1.4.S
Areas Exceeding Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels
VI-2 Institutional Controls and Development Restrictions
Institutional Controls would be implemented to limit construction of new buildings to areas where significant VI is not expected.
Costs: Capital: $ 0 O&M (NPV, 30 years, 7%): $214,000 Total: $214,000
VI-3 Institutional Controls, Future Investigation and Vapor Mitigation (if needed)
Institutional Controls would be implemented to require that new buildings include vapor mitigation measures in areas where unacceptable VI is possible.
Future Investigation includes new monitoring wells and soil sampling.
Vapor Mitigation would include vapor barrier plus sub-slab venting system – costs assume 10 future residential buildings, each with a 1,600 ft2 footprint
Costs: Capital: $ 403,000 O&M (NPV, 30 years, 7%): $ 944,000 Total: $1,347,000
Note on Costs
FS costs calculated pursuant to EPA’s guidance, which requires use of 7% discount rate for net present worth analysis of long-term O&M costs.
Using current White House OMB discount rate1 of 1.1% increases O&M costs by factor of ~5.9 (i.e., an O&M cost estimated in the FS using 7% discount of $10 million would actually cost $59 million to fund using today’s interest rates)
1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c.
Noteworthy FS Appendices
Appendix B – PRG calculations
Appendices C, D & E – Soil, Groundwater and VI Cost Estimates
Appendix H – TEDE Evaluations (ResRad & Dose Compliance Calculator)
Appendix I – Institutional Controls Analysis
