+ All Categories
Home > Documents > SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR...

SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR...

Date post: 24-Jul-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
56
I ecoll'~S Cewte!' I ~; ': T~::: r''l.,$<:.. \. - 11 i•.L,.<: __ '\i ~., . 01~~2R: ?~ "\ O"i '-f I I I I SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS ( I llllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111 I SDMS DocID 569094 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PLAN I I I Prepared for: Silresim Site Trustees I Acton, Massachusetts I I I Prepared by: Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc. I I I Copyright© 1986 I . .I June 1986 File No. A-4054.12 Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc.
Transcript
Page 1: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I ecoll~S Cewte

I ~ T~ rl$lt shy11 ibullLlt __ i ~ 01~~2R ~ Oi -f

I I I I SILRESIM SITE RIFS

I LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS

~ ( Illllllllllllllll lllll111111111111111111 I

SDMS DocID 569094

PHASE TWO SAMPLING PLAN

I I I Prepared for

Silresim Site Trustees

I Acton Massachusetts

I I I Prepared by

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc

I I I Copyrightcopy 1986

I I

June 1986 File No A-405412

Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc

GZ GOLDBERG bull ZOINO amp ASSOCIATES INC GEOTECHNICAL-GEOHYOROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS

I I Silresim Site Trustee~

PO Box 169 Acton Massachusetts 01720

I Attention Mr James Rogers

I Re

Gentlemen

I

DONALD T GOLDBERG WILtlAM S ZOIND JOSEPH D GUERTIN JR JOHN E AYRES

MATTHEW J BAAVENIK WILLIAM A BELOFF NICHOLAS A CAMPAGNA JR MATHEW A DIPILATO CAAL EIDAM LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P HEHIR ROBERT A HELLER AOSST McGILLIVAAY MICHAEL A POWERS JAMES H REYNOLDS PAUL M SANBORN RICHARD M SIMON STEVEN J TAETTEL

CONSULTANTS

WALTER E JAWORSKI JR STANLEY M BEMBEN

June 19 1986 File No A-405412-CPC

Silresim RIFS Phase Two Sampling Plan

Imiddot Attached please find a copy of the Phase lwo Sampling Plan (Deliverable 4) for the Silresim Remedial Investigation prepared by Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc CGZA It is noted that the details of a proposed sewemiddotr line study as outlined in Section 360 are presently being finalized A work plan for this study

middotI will be submitted within the next two weeks

Should you have any comments or require additional information please feel fr~e to call

I Very truly yours

I GOLDBERG-ZOINO amp ASSOCIATES INC

I John E Ayres JEAcrp

I I THE GEO BUILDINGbull 320 NEEDHAM STREETo NEWTON UPPER FALLS MASSACHUSETTS02164bull 16171969-0050

BUFFALO NY bull BRIDGEPORT CT bull VERNON CT bull MANCHESTER NH bull PROVIDENCE RI bull TAMPA FL

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I 1 00 INTRODUCTION

I 110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE

I 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

2 10

I 220

I 230

240

I I 250

300 PHASE

I 310

1 320

330

I 340

350

I 360

370

1 400

SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

GROUNDWATER

241 Groundwater Flow 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

AIR QUALITY

TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

SEWER LINE STUDY

SILRESIM VENT SAMPLING

PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

510 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

1middot 5 2middot0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

521 Groundwater 522 Surface Wate-r 523 Sewer Linesmiddot

on1

I

I

I I Table of Contents (Cont)

I 5 24 Soils

I 525 Air 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES1 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I G1

I I I 100 INTRODUCTION

I The following document represents Deliverable 4 of the Silresim Site RIFS the Phase Two Sampling Plan This deliverable has been prepared by Goldberg-Zoi~o and Associates Inc CGZA) on

I behalf of the Silresim Site Trust for submittal to the US

I Environmental Promiddottection Agency (EPA) The Phase Two Sampling Plan outlines the final stage of field investigation and samplinganalysis for the RI at the Silresim Site

110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I The Silresim RI has progressed from preparation of Project Operation Plans through planning and implementation of Phase One field studies Preliminary results ofmiddot the Phase One work were

I discussed in Deliverable 3 (dated May 1 1986) and in follow-up

I correspondence of May 30 1986 In the current document the implications of these results in terms of data limitations and the required scope middotOf Phase Two explorations and testing are briefly discussed

I 120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE 4

I The specific scope of Deliverable 4 is outlined in Section 52 of the CDM RIFS Work Plan Items identified in this section and covered in the present document are identified below and referenced to the appropriate sections of this report

I 1 Phase One sampling results and analyses - Sections 210-250

2 Evaluation of need for further air surface water sediment soil and geophysical tasks - Sections 210-250

I 3 Selection of media sampling necessity - Sections 310-370

4 Data expectations regarding filling data gaps forI modeling - Section 241

I 5 Initial plan for endangerment assessment - Section 4 00

6 Updates to Silresim Project Operation Plans - Section 700

~ 7 Preliminary list of remedial options - Section middot6 00 - middotmiddot

I l

I GZ I

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 2: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

GZ GOLDBERG bull ZOINO amp ASSOCIATES INC GEOTECHNICAL-GEOHYOROLOGICAL CONSULTANTS

I I Silresim Site Trustee~

PO Box 169 Acton Massachusetts 01720

I Attention Mr James Rogers

I Re

Gentlemen

I

DONALD T GOLDBERG WILtlAM S ZOIND JOSEPH D GUERTIN JR JOHN E AYRES

MATTHEW J BAAVENIK WILLIAM A BELOFF NICHOLAS A CAMPAGNA JR MATHEW A DIPILATO CAAL EIDAM LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P HEHIR ROBERT A HELLER AOSST McGILLIVAAY MICHAEL A POWERS JAMES H REYNOLDS PAUL M SANBORN RICHARD M SIMON STEVEN J TAETTEL

CONSULTANTS

WALTER E JAWORSKI JR STANLEY M BEMBEN

June 19 1986 File No A-405412-CPC

Silresim RIFS Phase Two Sampling Plan

Imiddot Attached please find a copy of the Phase lwo Sampling Plan (Deliverable 4) for the Silresim Remedial Investigation prepared by Goldberg-Zoino amp Associates Inc CGZA It is noted that the details of a proposed sewemiddotr line study as outlined in Section 360 are presently being finalized A work plan for this study

middotI will be submitted within the next two weeks

Should you have any comments or require additional information please feel fr~e to call

I Very truly yours

I GOLDBERG-ZOINO amp ASSOCIATES INC

I John E Ayres JEAcrp

I I THE GEO BUILDINGbull 320 NEEDHAM STREETo NEWTON UPPER FALLS MASSACHUSETTS02164bull 16171969-0050

BUFFALO NY bull BRIDGEPORT CT bull VERNON CT bull MANCHESTER NH bull PROVIDENCE RI bull TAMPA FL

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I 1 00 INTRODUCTION

I 110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE

I 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

2 10

I 220

I 230

240

I I 250

300 PHASE

I 310

1 320

330

I 340

350

I 360

370

1 400

SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

GROUNDWATER

241 Groundwater Flow 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

AIR QUALITY

TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

SEWER LINE STUDY

SILRESIM VENT SAMPLING

PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

510 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

1middot 5 2middot0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

521 Groundwater 522 Surface Wate-r 523 Sewer Linesmiddot

on1

I

I

I I Table of Contents (Cont)

I 5 24 Soils

I 525 Air 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES1 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I G1

I I I 100 INTRODUCTION

I The following document represents Deliverable 4 of the Silresim Site RIFS the Phase Two Sampling Plan This deliverable has been prepared by Goldberg-Zoi~o and Associates Inc CGZA) on

I behalf of the Silresim Site Trust for submittal to the US

I Environmental Promiddottection Agency (EPA) The Phase Two Sampling Plan outlines the final stage of field investigation and samplinganalysis for the RI at the Silresim Site

110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I The Silresim RI has progressed from preparation of Project Operation Plans through planning and implementation of Phase One field studies Preliminary results ofmiddot the Phase One work were

I discussed in Deliverable 3 (dated May 1 1986) and in follow-up

I correspondence of May 30 1986 In the current document the implications of these results in terms of data limitations and the required scope middotOf Phase Two explorations and testing are briefly discussed

I 120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE 4

I The specific scope of Deliverable 4 is outlined in Section 52 of the CDM RIFS Work Plan Items identified in this section and covered in the present document are identified below and referenced to the appropriate sections of this report

I 1 Phase One sampling results and analyses - Sections 210-250

2 Evaluation of need for further air surface water sediment soil and geophysical tasks - Sections 210-250

I 3 Selection of media sampling necessity - Sections 310-370

4 Data expectations regarding filling data gaps forI modeling - Section 241

I 5 Initial plan for endangerment assessment - Section 4 00

6 Updates to Silresim Project Operation Plans - Section 700

~ 7 Preliminary list of remedial options - Section middot6 00 - middotmiddot

I l

I GZ I

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 3: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS

I 1 00 INTRODUCTION

I 110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE

I 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

2 10

I 220

I 230

240

I I 250

300 PHASE

I 310

1 320

330

I 340

350

I 360

370

1 400

SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

GROUNDWATER

241 Groundwater Flow 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

AIR QUALITY

TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

SURFICIAL SOILS

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

SEWER LINE STUDY

SILRESIM VENT SAMPLING

PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

510 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

1middot 5 2middot0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

521 Groundwater 522 Surface Wate-r 523 Sewer Linesmiddot

on1

I

I

I I Table of Contents (Cont)

I 5 24 Soils

I 525 Air 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES1 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I G1

I I I 100 INTRODUCTION

I The following document represents Deliverable 4 of the Silresim Site RIFS the Phase Two Sampling Plan This deliverable has been prepared by Goldberg-Zoi~o and Associates Inc CGZA) on

I behalf of the Silresim Site Trust for submittal to the US

I Environmental Promiddottection Agency (EPA) The Phase Two Sampling Plan outlines the final stage of field investigation and samplinganalysis for the RI at the Silresim Site

110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I The Silresim RI has progressed from preparation of Project Operation Plans through planning and implementation of Phase One field studies Preliminary results ofmiddot the Phase One work were

I discussed in Deliverable 3 (dated May 1 1986) and in follow-up

I correspondence of May 30 1986 In the current document the implications of these results in terms of data limitations and the required scope middotOf Phase Two explorations and testing are briefly discussed

I 120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE 4

I The specific scope of Deliverable 4 is outlined in Section 52 of the CDM RIFS Work Plan Items identified in this section and covered in the present document are identified below and referenced to the appropriate sections of this report

I 1 Phase One sampling results and analyses - Sections 210-250

2 Evaluation of need for further air surface water sediment soil and geophysical tasks - Sections 210-250

I 3 Selection of media sampling necessity - Sections 310-370

4 Data expectations regarding filling data gaps forI modeling - Section 241

I 5 Initial plan for endangerment assessment - Section 4 00

6 Updates to Silresim Project Operation Plans - Section 700

~ 7 Preliminary list of remedial options - Section middot6 00 - middotmiddot

I l

I GZ I

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 4: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I Table of Contents (Cont)

I 5 24 Soils

I 525 Air 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES1 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I G1

I I I 100 INTRODUCTION

I The following document represents Deliverable 4 of the Silresim Site RIFS the Phase Two Sampling Plan This deliverable has been prepared by Goldberg-Zoi~o and Associates Inc CGZA) on

I behalf of the Silresim Site Trust for submittal to the US

I Environmental Promiddottection Agency (EPA) The Phase Two Sampling Plan outlines the final stage of field investigation and samplinganalysis for the RI at the Silresim Site

110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I The Silresim RI has progressed from preparation of Project Operation Plans through planning and implementation of Phase One field studies Preliminary results ofmiddot the Phase One work were

I discussed in Deliverable 3 (dated May 1 1986) and in follow-up

I correspondence of May 30 1986 In the current document the implications of these results in terms of data limitations and the required scope middotOf Phase Two explorations and testing are briefly discussed

I 120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE 4

I The specific scope of Deliverable 4 is outlined in Section 52 of the CDM RIFS Work Plan Items identified in this section and covered in the present document are identified below and referenced to the appropriate sections of this report

I 1 Phase One sampling results and analyses - Sections 210-250

2 Evaluation of need for further air surface water sediment soil and geophysical tasks - Sections 210-250

I 3 Selection of media sampling necessity - Sections 310-370

4 Data expectations regarding filling data gaps forI modeling - Section 241

I 5 Initial plan for endangerment assessment - Section 4 00

6 Updates to Silresim Project Operation Plans - Section 700

~ 7 Preliminary list of remedial options - Section middot6 00 - middotmiddot

I l

I GZ I

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 5: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I 100 INTRODUCTION

I The following document represents Deliverable 4 of the Silresim Site RIFS the Phase Two Sampling Plan This deliverable has been prepared by Goldberg-Zoi~o and Associates Inc CGZA) on

I behalf of the Silresim Site Trust for submittal to the US

I Environmental Promiddottection Agency (EPA) The Phase Two Sampling Plan outlines the final stage of field investigation and samplinganalysis for the RI at the Silresim Site

110 STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I The Silresim RI has progressed from preparation of Project Operation Plans through planning and implementation of Phase One field studies Preliminary results ofmiddot the Phase One work were

I discussed in Deliverable 3 (dated May 1 1986) and in follow-up

I correspondence of May 30 1986 In the current document the implications of these results in terms of data limitations and the required scope middotOf Phase Two explorations and testing are briefly discussed

I 120 SCOPE OF DELIVERABLE 4

I The specific scope of Deliverable 4 is outlined in Section 52 of the CDM RIFS Work Plan Items identified in this section and covered in the present document are identified below and referenced to the appropriate sections of this report

I 1 Phase One sampling results and analyses - Sections 210-250

2 Evaluation of need for further air surface water sediment soil and geophysical tasks - Sections 210-250

I 3 Selection of media sampling necessity - Sections 310-370

4 Data expectations regarding filling data gaps forI modeling - Section 241

I 5 Initial plan for endangerment assessment - Section 4 00

6 Updates to Silresim Project Operation Plans - Section 700

~ 7 Preliminary list of remedial options - Section middot6 00 - middotmiddot

I l

I GZ I

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 6: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I 8 Evaluation and screening of potential receptors - Section

500

1 200 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA LIMITATIONS

I Based on the results of the Phase One sampling program and on previous studies completed by other investigators GZA has

I identified a number of data gaps to be addressed during the Phase Two investigation These are summarized briefly in the following sections divided in terms of the relevant environmental media

I 2 10 SURFACE WATERSEDIMENTS

I The primary surface water bodies within ~he study area - River Meadow Brook and East Pond - appear to be adequately charactemiddotr i zed at this point in time Analytical results on water and sediment samples frQm these locations do not suggest the presence of s igni f i cant levels of Silresim-related contaminants The presence of low levels of common environmental pollutants (eg~ vol~tile organic compounds and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) observed in sediments from these water bodies is not unusual in an urban industrialized areaw

I

Concern was expressed within the RIFS work plan regarding potential transport of contaminants via runoff from the S-ilresim Site Accordingly a sampling program for runoff from the clay cap and the crushed stone area south of the site was planned GZAs several attempts at collecting the designated runoff and

I drain line samples (SW-458 and 9) have been unsuccessful due to lack of sufficient flow However during these attempts GZA has made the following observations regarding storm runoff in the study area middot

a Most of the runoff from the clay capped area is channeled to

I the catch basin at the northwest corner of the site via the caps drainage swale

b Except during major storms this runoff percolates into the

1 Imiddot ground around the outside perimeter of the catch basin and

does not enter the Tanner Street storm drainage system (GZA has not observed discharge from the omiddotn-site manhole to the Tanner Street drainage system during our activities at the site but the presence of clayey sediments at the storm drain o u t f a 11 t o R i v e r Meadow middotBrook s u g g e s ts that th i s has

I occurredgt

Ishy 2

I GZ I

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 7: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I c Storm runoff from at least one adjacent site along Tanner

Street is visibly contaminated with oily residues

I I d Runoff from the crushed stone area south of the clay cap

collects in small pools on the Arrow carrier site No runoff channel or other drainage system which could conduct this flow off-site has been observed by GZA

I It is noted that storm runoff from the capped area would not be anticipated to contain contaminants from the Silresim site since

I no waste materiaLs are exposed While contaminated soils may be present at or close to ground surface at certain locations between the site atid the Arrow Carrier Building observed runoff patterns do not indicate the p~tential for migration of contaminants via surface water flow In light of these considerationis and the observations above it is GZA s opinion that storm runoff is not a significant transport mechanism for contaminants at the Silresim site

220 SURFICIAL SOILS

Phase One studies have documented three areas of surficial soil contamination around the perimeter of the Silresim site

a Arrow carrier lot

b Southeast corner of the site (vicinity of SS-1)

c Strip along eastern border of site adjacent to Boston amp Maine railroad grade

These areas as well as locations of previous surficial soil samples at the site are shown on Figure 1 Specific data needs with respect to surficial soils beyond the limits of the clay cap are as follows

I a Extent of contamination by trace metals along the Boston and Maine railroad grade adjacent to the site

I b Distribution of voe contamination in the vicinity of GZA perimeter samples 68 and 69

I c Southern extent of surf icial contamination by base neutral extractable compounds and metaLs at the southeast corner of the si te

d Distribution of surficial soil contamination between the site and the Arrow Carrier building

3~1

I GZ I

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 8: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

230 CHARACTERIZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

I I The Silresim site has been extensively characterized by

geophysical techniques which have identified a total of 14 possible buried ferrous objects below the clay cap Of this total six are judged to be of sufficient size to constitute potential sources of contamination such as 55 gallon drums or storage tanks These are identified as Buried Objects (BO s)

I 1 4 S 6 8 and 9 as shown on Figure 2 Further characterization of possible continuing sources of contamination at the site will focus on direct investigations of these six

I buried oojects

240 GROUNDWATER

I Under the general heading of groundwater are two related but somewhat distinct issues characterization of groundwater flow and delineation of contaminant dimiddotstribution Possible data

I limitations with respect to these items are discussed in the following sections

I 2 bull 41 Groundwater Flow

Imiddot Despite the substantial number of groundwater monitoring

points available (more than 55 measuring points currently exist at the site) refinements in the characterization of the flow regime in the study area are required As detailed in De1i verable 3 GZA is presently develop i ng a three-dimensional

I computer flow model of the site Based on considerations derived from preliminary work on this task and on the results of the Phase One well installation and monitoring program the following

I additional data needs have been identified

a Determination of the extent and possible source of apparent groundwater mounding observed beneath the northeast corner of

I the site This mound is apparently not due to leakage from a water line as previously hypothesized

I b Delineation of groundwater flow patterns south middotOf the site including an evaluation of the potential influence of sewer lines along Canada and Maple Streets

I c Identification of discharge areas for groundwater flowing east from the site

1 d Distribution of piezometric heads northeast of tmiddothe site

I 4

I GZ I

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 9: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I e Evaluation of the effects of the Tanner Street branch sewer

on groundwater flow patterns along the western border of the site and the efficiency of the sewer as a groundwater interceptor

I 242 Contaminant Distribution in Groundwater

I Contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site appears

to be generally well characterized based on the Phase One data Based on previous groundwater analysemiddots and on data d 1eveloped

I during GZAs studies it is apparent that VOCs are the contaminants of primary concern with respect to migration from the site Thus the voe screening techniques used d1uring Phase One should provide a reliable surrogate for mapping the extent of the contaminant plum~ There is a ne~d however for confirmation of screening results at selected locations and for more comprehensive characterization of the contaminant plume in terms of specific constituents present and associated concentrations

I I A limited number of gaps exist in the arealvemiddotrtical

characterization of contaminant distribution in groundwater at the site These are summarized below

a Southern and southeastern extent of contaminant migration

I b Grmiddotoundwater quality northeast of the site on Boston and Maine property

I c Vertical distribution of contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Tanner Street branch sewer

I d Groundwater qmiddotuality just west and nmiddotorth of the main and branch sewers along Tanner Street and the Lowell Iron anei Steel property

I e Downstream impacts of contaminated groundwater discharge into the 84-inch main sewer linebull

I 250 AIR QUALITY

I Existing data appears generally adequate to characterize air quality in the vicinity of the Silresim Site as well as to project potential impacts during possible remedial activities A sorbent tube sampling program designed to identify and quantity VOCs emanating from the cap vents (as mandated by the ODM work

I plan) will be completed during Phase Two studies as outlined in Section 3 60 Upon completion of this work the only remaining

1 5

I GZ I

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 10: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I data limitation with respect to the cap vents concerns the

assessment of the need for and utility of the venting syste~

I 300 PHASE TWO SAMPLING PROGRAM

I The proposed Phase Two sampling program developed to address the data limitations described in the previou~ section is outlined

I in the following paragraphs Exploration activities are smiddotubdividmiddoted in terms of the relevant environmental media in accordance with the CDM Work Plan

I 310 SURFACE WATERSSEDIMENTS

I Up to four additional surface water samples for HSL analyses were proposed in the work plan to evaluate the quality of runoff from areas covered with clay or gravel and to delineate the possible effects of this runoff on River Meadow Brook For the reasons

I discussed in Section 210 GIA feels that this testing is

I unnecessary for the purposes of the RI Thus no additional surface watersediment sampling is proposmiddoted for the Phase Two investigationbull

320 SURFICIAL SOILS

I The Phase Two surficial soil sampling program will follow closely

I the proposed work plan guidelines focusing on the three areas identified in Section 220 A total of five additional samples will be collected for HSL analyses including two from the

I eastern border of the site one from the vicinity of SS-1 and two from the Arrow Carrier 1ot Locations of Proposed Phase Two surficial soil samples are shown on Figure 1 Sampling and analytical protocols will be identical to those employed duiing the Phase One sampling

I

In addition to the priority pollutant sampling voe screening by headspace GC procedures will be conducted on surficial soil samples collected along the eastern border of the site and in the central portion of the Arrow Carrier lot to better define contaminant distribution in these areas This screening will bemiddot conducted in accordance with procedures employed in previous sampling programs as outlined in Deliverable 3 Also three additional surficial soil samples will be collected from the eastern border of the site and analyzed for arsenic chromium and mercury to delineate the extent of contamination by the these

I trace metals documented in Deliverable 2 These locations are also displayed on Figure 1

I 6

I I GZ

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 11: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I

HSL analyses of Surficia1 Soil Samples collected by NUS and GZA on the Silresim site have revealed consistent contaminant types and relative concentrations across the site While extractable organic compounds occur regularly VOCs are the primary contaminants at the site with a wide range of specific constituents typically present Given the primacy of VOCs as an indicator of contamination at the site the extensive characterization of voe contamination on-site by Perkins Jordan in GZAs opinion is an adequate assessment of surficial soil at the site Consequently GZA does not propose to modify the CDM work plan by adding a surficial soil sampling program in the capped area

3 3middot0 CH1ARACTERI ZATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

To identify the six potentially significant buried objects a test pit program will be conducted by GampA Test pits will be excavated through the clay cap at the locations of BOs 1 4 5 6 a and 9 on Figure 2 Test pits will be excavated by a contracted backhoe and will be observed and logged by a GZA geologist or engineer Each test pit will extend to the depth of the buried object if encountered or to the maximum reach of the backhoe (at least 15 feet) GZA personnel will attempt to visually identify and characterize any buried objects encountered

Whemiddotre feasible attempts will be made to sample the contents of any intact containers encountered However close observation or sampling of possible waste containers may be limited by health and safety considerations Samples collected will be primarily for visual characterization or voe screening no significant chemical testing program for the test pit excavations is presently proposed Tanks or drums if encountered will not be removed from the excavations but will be clearly marked for future reference

Upon completion of observations the test pi ts will be backfilled with the excavated material replaced in the reverse order of e x ca v a t i o n bull C 1 ay f r om the cap w i 11 be s e g reg at edmiddot du r i n g excavation and replaced at the top of the backfilled test pit to reduce any dis1ruption of the site cap

Health and safety considerations will be dictated by the site Health and Safety Plan (POP-315 gt It is anticipated that excavation work will begin in modified level C personnel protection with provisions to upgrade to levels C and B The

7

G1 I

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 12: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I backhoe will bemiddot decontaminated via a hot water power rinse upon

completion of all excavation activities

I 340 PHASE TWO WELL INSTALLATIONS

I For the Phase Two groundwater investiga tion eleven additional monitoring wells are proposed These new monitoring wells will be supplemented by the installation of eight piezometers designed to provide groundwater elevat_ion data in the shallow

I aquifer to aid in model development The locations of proposed wells and piezometers are presented on Figure 3

I Wells 401 402 and 403 are planned as shallow wells located to

I evaluate the southern and eastern extent of contaminant migration amiddotnd to provide data on piezometric head distribution Wells 404 405 and 406 will also be shallow wells aimed at delineating the extent of observed mounding below the site refining characterization of contaminant distribution on-site and evaluating potential source areas

I I Wells 407 and 408 will be multi-level wells on either side of the

Tanner Street branch sewer both installations will include a shallow wellscreen spanning the water table and a deep screen set

I at approximately 30 feet depending upon subsurfa-ce conditions encountered Well 409 will be a multi-level installation on the north side of the main sewer line with wellscreens set at depths equivalent to those of well MW-315 (15 feet and 30 feet)

I At locations 410 and 411 drilling will advance until at least 10 f~et of uncontaminated material has been encountered based on

I field screening results Either a shallow well or multi-level installation will be employed at each location depending upon subsurface conditions encountered

Piezometers (identified as P-412 through P-419 on Figure 3) will be located around the southern and eastern fringes of the study

I area These piezometers are intended solely to provide data on

I groundwater flow patterns including both regional flow trends and the po-ssible localized hydraulic effects of the Canada and Maple Street sewer lines

I Monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with procedures outlined in sections 420 and 430 of the Phase One Sampling Plan and the relevant GZA SOPs CSOPs 111 112 and 21) An exception to the specified procedures will entail the use of hollow stem augers for the shallow wells as described in Section

I 350 of Deliverable 3

I 8

I GZI

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 13: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I Piezometers will be installed in accordance with GZA SOP 21 in

boreholes advanced by hollow stem auger techniques where possible middot The proposed piezometer locations are in portions of the study area where contamination related to the Silresim site is not anticipated at the shallow depths involved Consequently piezometer drilling and installation techniques will differ from monitoring well procedmiddotures in the following points

a Drilling equipment will not be decontaminated between borings unless obvious evidence of contamination (in the form of elevated screening results) is encountered

b Bentonite seals above sand filters will be a minimum of one foot thick

I c Cement-bentonite grout above bentonite seals will be omitted

I d In areas where drill rig access is difficult (eg P-417 and

P-418) borings may be advanced by hand at1gers and piezometers may consist of galvanized steel well points hand driven into the shallow aquifer

I 350 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSES

Upon completion of the Phase Two well installation program previously existing Phase One and Phase Two monitoring wells

I will be sampled for field testing (pH specific conductance and

I dissolved oxygen) and voe screening Up to 45 monitoring points will also be analyzed for HSL voebulls plus tetrahydrofuran dimethyl sulfide and trichlorofluoromethane via EPA Method ~24

I In addition six locations will be selected for full spectrum HSL analysis Selection of specific monitoring points for voe and HSL testing will be made upon completion of the Phase Two well installation and groundwater smiddotcreening program Water quality samples will be collected only from those shallow piezometers where field screening of groundwater indicates significant levels

I of voes

I I

It is noted that the proposed plan differs somewhat from the approach originally outlined in the CDM work plan The work plan calls for analysis of at least ten wells for priority pollutants and testing of the remaining wells for volatile priority pollutants and other chemical pollutants that have been detected in studies of the Silresim site GZAs review of available data

I from the present study and previous studies indicates that voebulls are clearly the primary contaminants in groundwater at the site consequently the proposed voe screening should provide a reliable indication of the relative levels of middotcontamination

I 9

I GZI

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 14: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I Since a number of monitoring points are situated beyond

hydrologic boundaries (such as the 84 sewer line) which apparently limit contaminant migration from the Silresim site analyzing for Silresim-related contamination at such locations would direct money and energy from the evaluation of those portions of the study area more critical to the suc1cessful

I completion of the RIFS

3 bull 60 SEWER LINE STUDY

I I A work plan for a proposed study of the sewer lines surrounding

the Silresim site is presently under preparation The primary goals of the proposed study will be as follows

a Estimation of low flow quantities in the main sewer and branch lines along Tanner Canada and Maple streets

I I b Characterization of cmiddotoncentrations of Silresim-related

contaminants in the various sewer lines under worst casmiddote conditions (ie low flow)

c Ide-ntif ication of discharge areas for sewer flows Cpossible overflo~ areas as well as the Duck Island Treatment Plant)

I and assessment of potential concentration levels at thesmiddote points

I Specific details of the study including procedures for flow measurement and sampling will be provided in the work plan

I 370 VENT SAMPLING

The data collected by the weekly vent monitoring using the H-Nu Model bullPI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor

I Analyzer will be supplemented by sorbent tube sampling and

I analysis The sorbent tube analysis will identify the contaminants and quantify their respective concentrations at the time of year when worst case conditions are expected (ie optimized volatilization with minimum atmo-spheric dispersion) bull The vent sampling prog-ram will identify the contaminants exiting in the vents and quantify the ~ent emissions at the three vents

I containing the highest concentration of contaminants as determined by previous H-Nu and OVA monitoring data The procedure is discussed in detail below~

I I I

10

I GZ

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 15: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I The emissions from air vent 4 will be sampled using a mixed media

sorbent tube and analyzed for positive identification The sorbent tube will include 50 mg of each of the following

I sorbents

I Activated charcoal Tenax-GC Silica-gel Chromosorb liOl

I Sample s wi 11 be collected using a Gi 1 i an Model 113A UTmiddot air sampling pump pre-calibrated at 50 ccminute Samples will be collected for four hours yielding a sample volume of 12 Liters

I A duplicate sample will be taken in parallel to verify analytical results

I

The analysis will include thermal desorption into a Finnegan 4021 GCMS with an SP-1000 analytical column The GCMS system will profile the emissions but will not give quantitative data A description of the methodology and laboratorymiddotquality control data is included as Appendix A middot

Quantification of the emissions from air vent 4 will be done by collecting a parallel sample on tandem 600 mg activated charcoal tubes using the same sampling criteria as described above for the GCMS profile sample

Activated charcoal was determined to be the adsorbent of choice after evaluating the results of the previous data from the Appendix VIII analyses of groundwater samples As discussed in

I Section 3 22 of the Phase I Sampling Plan the field GC analyses

I of the vent emissions and the headspace immediately above the standing water in well MW-lOlB exhibited similar characteristic fingerprints on chromatograms Using this information the groundwater voe analyses appear to be a reliable indication of the expected contaminants in vent emissions

1 According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health activated charcoal in the preferred adsorbent for the identified compounds at Silresim with the exception of methyl

I et hy 1 ketone CME K ) bull Howe v e r c h a r c o a 1 i s 1 i s t e d a s an alternative adsorbent for MEK sampling The preferred sorbents are given in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 3rd edition

I 1994

I The tandem tube sample along with dmiddotuplicate tandem tubes will be desorbed with purified carbon disulfide (eliminating benzene interference) and analyzed by GC-FID The detection limit of the

11

CiZI

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 16: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

analysis is compound dependent but averages 2 ugtube A 12-liter samplmiddote vmiddotolume will yield the following minimam detectable airborne concen trations for benzene toluene and

Ii xylenes

Benzene o 05 ppm Toluene ( 04 ppm1 Xylenes 004 ppm

The carbon disulfide desorption technique will be performed1 according to NIOSH Method P amp CAM 237

The premiddotvious vent sampLing round using the Century OVA-128

I indicated th~ presence of similar components abullcross a wide range of concentrations If necessary GZA will quantitatively analyze the three vents with the highesmiddott observed concentration of voes

I If the profiling and quantification of Vent 4 yields

1

significantly elevated levels of VOCs Vents 6 and 7 will be sampled with tandem 600 mg charcoal thermal desorption tubes The thermal desorption tubes will be desorbed by a Foxboro PTD Programmed Thermal desorber and syringe iajections made into a Hewlett-Packard 5890A Gas Chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector The analytical column is fused silica capillary column 30m x 053 mm coated with a 2065 um thick cmiddotrosslinked methyl silicone gum phase This particular column provides the chemical inertnessmiddot of fused silica and the sample

Ii

capacity approach ng packed columns which is useful when making gas injections Multiple injections can be made to verify analytical data and optimize GC conditions (if necessary)

During sampling the tubes will be placed at the opening of the vents Sampling for four hours at this location will give an average ambient concentration of contaminants at the given point source Since the vapors are not actively emitted but rather diffusion controlled changing middotatmospheric conditions such amiddots wind speed and temperature can significantly affect the emission rate the actual emission rate cannot be quantified For this reason it is not practical to sample the vapors inside the

I v e n t s s i n c e w i tho u t k n ow i n g th e emi s s i on rate am b i en t concentrations could not be predicted

I

12

GZ

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 17: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I As in the sampling of Vent 4 the sample volume will be approximately 12 liters with a flow rate of 50 ccminute The minimum detectable airborne concentrations for benzene tolueneI and xylenes

Benzene

I Toluene Xylenes

based on a splitless injection are as follows

0 015 ppm 004 ppm 004 ppm

I For eacmiddoth set of samples collected a field b1ank consisting of tandem tubes will be employed In addition a trip blank will be sent to the laboratory along with each set of samples

Upon completion of sample collection all tubes will be capped labelled and refrigerated in a cooler for transportation to the laboratory Appropriate chain-of-custody sheets will accompany the samples All samples will be kept under refrigeration prior to desorption Desorption wi 11 be performed withinmiddot seven days from sample collection and analyzed with fourteen days to eliminate diffusive vapor loss from the tubes

The H-Nu Model PI-101 Photoionizer and the Century OVA-128 Organic Vapor Analyzer will also be used during the sampling

I round~ Measurement~ will be made at the vent opening and at a distance of 1 foot downwind of the vent both before and after the sorbent sampling

I I A portable meteorological monitoring station will be present

on-site which will continuously record on chart paper temperatures wind speed and wind direction Barometric pressure will be recorded by an on-site barometer and relative humidity by a sling-psychrometer at hourly intervals

I 400 PROPOSED PLAN FOR RISK ASSESSMENT

The proposed work plan for a risk assessment at the Silresim site represents a detailed approach to evaluating the public health and environmental risks associAted with the site Inherent in this type oi assessment is the incorporation of a number of assumptions and uncertainties concerning risk as well as the approximation of actual site and exposure conditions The quality of the assessment will be dependent upon the completeness of field investigation data and toxicological information and on the validity of exposure modeling and calculations

I 13

middot1 GZI

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 18: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I To enhance the validity and quality of the Silresim risk assessment the procedures outlined in EPAs Superfund Manuals wi11 be followed GZA will utilize the following three EPA Superfund Manuals for guidance and information Health Assessment Manual (Draft 585) Public Health Evaluation Manual middot(Draft 1285) and Exposure Assessment Manual (Draft 186)

The Remedial Investigation (RI) risk assessment wi11 evaluate the potential exposures and risks associated with the site under the No-Action remedial alternative The findings of this RI baseline risk assessment will serve as a basis for comparison of remedial alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study CFS)

I

Identified data gaps assumptions and uncertainties associated with each step of the assessment will be documented While efforts have been made to collect relevant environmental data during the RI the completion of some of the quantitative procedures outlined in the scope of work may uTtimately face limitations to this type of analysis

middot1 TASK 1 - Review of Site Investigation Data

I

1 Field investigation data collected during the RI will provide information on site conditions to allow the character i zation of potential sources of contamination A review of information relating to the nature and extent of contamination in environmental media and hydrogeologic or atmospheric conditions related to the release and transport of chemicals will be conducted

Specific information on the locations types concentrations and

1 distribution of chemicals at identified contaminant sources will be compiled Data on site groundwater surface water and soil will be reviewed and summarized bull

I The available information on the Silresim site indicates that volatile organic compoundmiddots CVOC s) are the predominant group of chemicals found in groundwater and soils A limited number of

I semi-volatiles have also been detected in sampled waters and soils The actual or potential migration of substances through groundwater and soils and the potential transport to surface waters and the atmosphere will be evaluated bull The observed concentrations of contaminants in the various media as well as extrapolations to future concentrations will be used

I I

14

I GZI

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 19: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

TASK 2 - Babullseline Risk Assessment

I The objective of a baseline risk assessment is to identify characterize and to the extent possible quantify the migration

I of contaminants through environmental media to points of exposure to human and environmental receptors The assessment will include five major analyses

I bullselection of indicator substances bullcontaminant release

I bullenvironmental fate bullexposure pathway and exposed population and bullexposure calculation and risk integration

Task 2 bull l - Selection of Indicator Substances

I

The review of environmental sample data completed in Tamiddotsk 1 Will provide a list of the types and concentrations of chemicals at the Silresim site Based on the large number of VOCs and other chemicals detected at the site a smaller more manageable group of indicator substances will be selected The process of selection will be based on designating those chemicals that may pose the greatest potential for public health and environmental risks The substances cho-sen will represent the most toxic mobile and persistent chemicals at the site as well as those chemicals present in the highest concentrations and most frequently indicated in individual samples

I For each chemical identified GZA will derive an indicator score based on the maximum and representative measured cmiddotoncentrations of eacmiddoth substance and the associated toxicity

I co n stants bull Data w i 11 be g at hered on phys i ca 1 an d ch e-m i ca 1

I properties of each chemical such as solubility mobility volatility vapor pressure Henrys Law constant and octanolwater partition coefficient (Koc) Factors that may be important to assess the impact of chemicals on the environment such as bioaccumulation chemical half-lives and persistence will also be incorporated

I I

Information on the general toxicity of each indicator substance will be compiled Toxicological data may inclade the classification of each substance as a non-carcinogen or carcinogen predominant acute and chronic effects to human health and the environment exposure levels-potentially causing these

I effects and primary routes of exposure

I 15

I GZ

I

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 20: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I The selection of the final list of ten to fifteen indicator

substances will be chosen based on a numerical ranking of indicator sc-0res evaluation of relative toxicity and the potential for migration based on physical and chemical properties Both top-rated non-carcinogerics and carcinogens will be selected The final list may be revised as more information is gathered on

I the types concentrations and distribution of chemicals at the Silresim site

The selected indicator substances will be subjected to the procedures of iden ti f ica tion of exposure pa th ways and the estimation of exposure point concentrations and exposure intake levels outlined below

Task 2 2 - Contaminant Release Analy si s

I

In consideration of available data about site conditions available to GZA the potential for groundwater soils surface water and air to serve as release and transport media will be identified and evaluated in this task Each environmental medium will be assessed as to its ability to transport contaminants away from identified sources or to transfer chemicals to other media In some cases the release transport and exposure media will be

I the same

I Under the assumption that the groundwater and soils at the

Silresim site are primary sources of contamination the possible scenarios of release and transport mechanisms may include

bullgroundwater - leachate generation groundwater flow andI discharge bull soi 1 surface run of f 1 each i n g and fugitive dust generation

I bullsurface water - groundwater discharge and stream flow and bullair - volatilization and fugitive dust generation

I For each indicator substance the potential release and transport pathways will be schematically diagrammed Information will be derived on the probability of release and transport and the factors affecting environmental fate For those substances and conditions where sufficient quantitative data is available media-specific release rates for each indicator substance will be estimated Desk-top calculations included in the Superfund

I Manuals will be utilized Both short-term and long-term release rates will be estimated

I I

16

I GZI

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 21: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I ii I

Task 23 - Environmental Fate Analysis

The environmental fate analysis will evaluate those areas and populations affected by released and transported indicator substances and estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in the ambient environment

The first step of the task will involve a qualitative screening of environmental fate pathways Based on the potential release assessment developed in the previous task the fate of each potential release in each environmental media ~ill be evaluated Decision networks and flow diagrams will be used as a framework for this step The fate of substances will be reviewed as to their potential to migrate or to be transported at significant concentrations

In cases where site sampling data are available the media and locations sampled will be used to predict the extent of contaminant migration Extrapolation of future migration of contaminants will be based on GZAs estimates of site hydrogeology and migration patterns

For each substance and affected medium that passes the qualitative screening a detailed fate analysis will be completed Release rate estimates developed in Task 22 will provide the basis for this step Simplified environmental fate estimation procedures based on the predominant mechanisms of transport within each medium will be followed The final output of the analysis will be conservative estimates for final ambient concentrations and the extent of indicator substance migration

Task 24 - Exposure Pathway and Exposed Population Analysis

This task will be comprised of the determination of complete exposure pathways and the characterization of potential receptors A complete exposure pathway includes a source of release transport media and pathways exposure receptors and routes of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact Environmental fate data will be correlated with receptor population data to determine the ~otential migration of substances to points of exposure The inventory of potential receptors completed as part of this deliverable describes exposure pathways identified at this tiine This information is summarized in Table 1 and includes the following potential receptors

17

I GZ

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 22: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I Residences

I Robinson Street Canada Street Maple Street Main Street

I Cottage Place

Industrial Areas

I Lowell Iron and Steel

I Lowell Used Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts

I Walbert Plastics Union Sheet Metal Arrow Carrier

Surface Waters

I River Meadow Brook East Pond Concord River

ii Merrimack River

Other

I City of Lowell Sewer Lines Duck Island Treatment Plant

I This task will include a more detailed characterization of

I the location~ number and general demographicmiddots of each potential receptor Additional information may be provided by census data and the residential well survey Data gathered on land and watermiddot use patterns and site access will be incorporated

I I

C

The output of this tasmiddotk will be a map of potential receptors and an estimate of the environmental concentrations in the appli cable media at each point of exposure Tbesmiddote estimated exposure levels will then be compared to applicable Federal and State public health and environmental standards and guidelines such as

I I

I 18

I I GZ

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 23: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

-EPAs MCLs RMCLs and Health Advisories for drinking water

I EPAs Water Quality Criteria for drinking water and aquatic organisms

-EPAs NAAQS for air quality OSHANIOSH and ACGIH exposure limits and

1middot bullEPA s Heal bh Effects Assessment Documents

Task 25 - Exposure Calculation and Risk Integration

I Whenever possible the comparison of estimated environmental contaminant concentrations with applicable standards completed in Task 24 will be the primary basis for assessing adverse effects to the environment middot Many chemicals may not have standards or guidelines for comparison However characteristics of indicator substances developed in Task 21 will provide additional information on the potential toxicity and possible long-term impacts of these chemicals on humans and the environment

For those scenarios where quantifiable information is available estim~tes of human exposure intake levels for selected contaminants at the site will be derived These estimates will serve as a basis to assess the potential overall risk to public health associated with chemicals at the Silresim site

I Human intake levels in mgkgday will be calculatsd

separately for exposures to chemicals in each environmental medium such as groundwater surface water soils or air For

I each exposed population-at-risk intakesmiddot will be summed for the same route of exposure such as ingestion inhalation or direct contact for each substance These calculated intake levels will be compared to applicable heal th standards such as Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADis) or No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels CNOAELs) for non-carcinogens For substances determined to be

I potential carcinogens intake levels will be compared to a carcinogenic potency factor (Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual Exhibit C-4) This process will identify individual

I chemicals that may pose non-carcinogenic or carcinogenic threats to human health

I To assess the overall potential risk for non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals an integratiomiddotn of estimated intake levels will be completed For non-carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance

I will be divided by its respective acceptable intake level (ADI or

I NOAEL) to yield a numerical fraction Where possible 1 both chronic and subchronic fractions will be compiled Individual fractions for all non-carcinogens are then summed to arrive at an

1 19

I I GZ

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 24: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I 1middot

overall hazard index value A hazard index greater than unity designates a potential non-carcinogenic health risk

I For potential carcinogens the calculated intake level for each substance will be multiplied by its respective carcinogenic potency factor Individual values for all potential carcinogens will then be summed into an aggregate risk estimation

I

Themiddotcompletion of this task is dependent on the ability to calculate intake levels and availability of comparable health standards For many of the indicator substances these specific data may not be available and the quantification of risk may be limited to a few exposure scenarios At a minimum a qualitative assessment of the potential probability magnitude and frequency of each complete exposure will be conducted

I Task 26 - Report Preparation

I The results of Tasks 21 through 25 will be summarized and

presented in Deliverable No 6 of the RI report The report will

1 include the primary dmiddotata compiled a description of pmiddotrocedures utilized and the rationale followed to generate the output of each task The Cmiddotonclusions of the report will evaluate the potential human and environmental exposures and risks associated with the site No-Action Remedial Alternative

I 500 EVALUATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I I As called for by the work plan for the Silresim RIFS an initial

inventory of potential receptors was completed by GoldhergshyZoino amp Associates CGZA) and was included as part of Deliverable No 2 (February 1986) This inventory identified theoretically

I possible receptors and associated exposure pathways at or near the Silresim site based on background information and site investigation data available at that time The evaluation considered possible adverse impacts on both the human population and environmental conditions

I The preliminary results of the RIFS Phase I sampling program

I (Deliverable No 3) provide additional informatiomiddotn on the study area and on the nature and extent of contamination originating at the Silresim Sitemiddot This information has been used to reevaluate

I the initial inventory of potential receptors and to qualitatively assesmiddots the probable exposures associamiddotted with the chemicals at the site A more extensive inventory and final evaluation of the most likely potential receptors will be completed based on

middot1 20

I

I GZ

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 25: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I information provided by the Phase II sampling program the

residential well inventory and additional site information The

1middot findings of this final inventory will serve as the initial phase of the Risk Assessment (Task XI) to be submitted as part of the

I

Draft RI report (Deliverable No 6)

5 10 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE MEDIA

The groundwater and soils at the Silresim site have been considered the primary media for contaminant transport from the site The predominant contaminants found in groundwater and soils have been volatile organic compounds CVOCs) although a limited number of semi-volatiles have also been detected in soil and water samples

I The compounds present in the environmental media on-site could be transported off-site through the movement of the groundwater and soils or they could be releamiddotsed into other media such as air or surface waters Possible scenarios of release or transport media and their associated mechanisms of action are identified in Task 22 of the proposed plamiddotn for rismiddotk assessment

520 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RECEPTORS

I

The potential for the release and transport of compounds to the locations of receptors must exist for exposures and risks to be present The following sections describe possible scenarios of exposure pathways including transport media migration pathways points of exposure and routes of exposure In addition a qualitative assessment of human health and environmental impacts has been conducted The potential receptomiddotrs are identified in Task 24 of the proposed plan

521 Groundwater

The groundwater underlying the Silresim site is considered to be the primary medium of contaminant transport at the site The preliminary results of the Phase One sampling program have charmiddotacterized the general groundwater flow regime and contaminant d i s tr i buti on at the s i t e bull Th i s i n formation can be umiddotsmiddoted to determine possible patterns for the transport of chemicals from the si te and to project the potential fate of selected indicator substances

21

1 I GZ

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 26: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I 1middot

GZAs preliminary investigation 0pound groundwater flow patterns suggest the following findings

I -Primary groundwater flow directions appear to be

I northnorthwest

-Secondary flow directions appear to be east and west bull An apparent groundwater mound at the site appears to result in a radial flow pattern and middot

bullSewer lines locatedmiddotaround the periphery of the site appear to

I serve as discharge zones for groundwater

Primary Groundwater Flow

I A number of the potential identified receptors are

I situated along the pathway of primary groundwater flow The industrial areas on Tanner Street residences on Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook could possibly be impacted by groundwater containing VOCs and other compounds

I a Supply Wells

I A primary point of exposure could be the existence of

residential and commercial supply wells located downgradien t of the Silresim site GZAs research of city records and USGS data has not identified any water supply wells in the study area However GZA will conduct a survey in the coming months to

I identify the presence of wells

I The present or future use of supply wells downgradient of the site as a drinkirig water source or for industrial purposes could

I serve as a pathway for potential exposure The most significant route of emiddotxposure is likely to be through the ingestion of water Secondary routes of exposure could be direct contact to water or inhalation of vapors emanating from water

b Basement Seepage

I Groundwater flowing from the Silresim site could also impact residences and industries through the seepage of contaminated groundwater into basements The inhalation of vapors emanating from the water leaking into basements could be a potential route for exposure In addition direct contact to this water could be possible In conjunction with the supply well survey GZA will

I efather information on the incidence of basement seepage in industries on Tanner Street and residences on Robinson Street

I I 22

I GZ I

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 27: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I Secondary Groundwater Flow

I The preliminary examination of the groundwater flow regime at the Silresim site has identified an apparent groundwater mound in the northeast area of the site A localized flow regime emanating radially from the site is indicated by recent data In addition branch sewer lines along Canada Tanner and Maple Streets may potentially have impacts on local groundwater flow The dominance of this local groundwater flow regime may lead to a potential impact omiddotn residences on Canada Main and Maple Streets and Cottage Place~ the Arrow Carrier property and the East Pond

I An assessment of the areal distribution of total VOCs in

1middot groundwater suggests that the contaminant plume may extend to the northern portion of the Arrow property and to the east of the B amp M railroad tracks Additional data is needed to assesmiddots the

middot1 interaction between groundwater flow and contaminant distribution in these areas before more detailed conclusions can be drawn

middot1 Based on the available information points of exposure could

occur from residential and commercial supply wells and basement seepage Potential routes of exposure might include ingestion inhalation or direct contact The survey to be conducted by GZA will identify wells and basement seepage at suspected locations to the south of the site

I 522 SurfaceWater

I I Groundwater may serve as a carrier of chemicals from

contaminated soils to other environmental media such as surface water This transfer occurs tmiddothrough the mechanism of groundwater discharge Two surface wat~r bodies River Meadow Brook to the northwest and the East Pond to the east are located close enough to the Silresim Site to be considered as possible receptors

I River Meaaow Brook

I River Meadow Brook is located to the northwest of the

Silresim site and has been identified as a potential discharge zone for groundwater from the site People using the brook for recreational activities such as swimming fishing and boating could possibly be expos-ed to chemicals in the water Exposure

I could occur through direct contact to waters inhalation of vapors released from the water and accidental ingestion of water Wildlife and plants surrounding the brook cmiddotould be impacted

I through contact with and uptake of compounds in the surface wamiddotter

1middot 23

I G1 I

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 28: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I

River Meadow Brook discharges into the Concord River which subsequently merges with the Merrimack River The Merrimack is used as a source of drinking water for the cities of Lawrence and Methuen While exposure to compounds inthe water is theoretically possible through the routes of ingestion direct contact and inhalation the concentrations of chemicals in the water would be expected to have attenuated and significantly through the processes of dilution dispersion biodegradation and volatilization before reaching these downstream receptors

I

The potential for exposure to voe s from the Silresim Site in River Meadow Brook is not likely to be significant for two reasons First the preliminary analytical data on middotsurface watier and sediment samples from the brook indicate only trace levels of volatile orga1nics and nondetectable levels of most semi-volatiles and metals A possible exception is sample SW-3 collected near the Jet-Line facility GZAs preliminary finding based on this data is that groundwater discharging to the brook does not appear to be significantly impacting this surface water

I In addition River Meadow Brook is limited in depth and is

slow moving The use of the brook for most recreational activities appears to be unlikely An exception may be the use of a path by joggers along the west bank of the brook Joggers may potentially inhale volatiles released from surface water

I East Pond

I

A small pond is located to the east of the Silresim site The pond may receive groundwater discharge from the lacal flow regime The pond could be used for recreational activities and serve as a habitat or feeding area for wildlife

GZA staff have observed children rafting on the pond Exposures through direct contact to water inhalatibn of

I volatiles and accidental ingestion of water is possible Birds and small animals have been seen in the pond area

I 523 Sewer Lines

1middot Ba c k g r o un d r e s e a r c h o n t h e Lowe l 1 sewer sys t em has

identified the presence of several old large~diameter sewer

I

lines in the vicinity of the Silresim site GZAs preliminary data on groundwater flow suggest that the sewer lines could be a receptor of groundwater dtscharge This finding may prove to be significant in the evaluation of potential receptors

I 24

I GZ I

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 29: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I The groundwater flow pattern at the site may be

substantially altered by the presence of both the main and branch

I lines The main sewer lines could act as a partial barrier to groundwater flowing to potentiai receptors on Tanner Street

I Robinson Street and River Meadow Brook Branch sewer lines may have similar impacts on groundwater flow toward Canada Main and Maple Streets The available data indicate that elevated levels

I of VOCs do not appear to extend north of the sewer line which traverses Lowell Iron and Steel or west of the Tanner Street sewer The groundwater plume has not been observed to have reached as far south as the branch sewer lines

I The transmission of groundwa ter to the sewer linesmiddot creates an additional source of theoretically possible exposures The main sewer line accepting materials from various branch lines flows to the east to the Duck Island Treatment Plant Any VOCs

I specifically treated will experience significant attenuation

I through aeration or removal with solids If any chemical remain in the treated sewage they will be discharged in the efflLuent to the Merrimack River

I

Samples collected from the manholes of the sewer lines immediately adjacent to the Silresim site indicate that levels of voe s are highest at MH-2 C see Figure 3) This manhole is located at the intersection of the branch and main sewer lines A sample collected at Mli-4 downstream on the main line indicates an order of magni tude attenuation in the concentration of voemiddot s Based on the large volume of sewerage carried by the sewer lines and the processes of dilution and volatili zation expected to occur the concentrations of compounds reaching the

I Duck Island Treatment Plant are not likely to be significant However further studies of iinpacts resulting from groundwater infiltrating into the sewer lines including potential impacts on workers at the treatment plant will be conducted in the Phase lI program

I 5bull 24 Soils

I Soils at or near the Silremiddotsim site may become contaminated

by several mechanisms Chemicals in groundwater may be transferred to adjacent soils through seepage or by volatilization through porous soils In addition surface runoff from potentially contaminated zones beyond the limits of the clay

I cap may result in local migration of VOCs within the study area

I Screening for VOCs in surficial soils from outside the

Silresim site perimeter and on the Arrow Carrier property was conducted in Phasmiddote I by GZA Samples that registered total voe

I 25

I GZ I

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 30: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I levels greater than 1 ppm on both the HNu and the OVA were

collected on the Arrow Carrier site and adjacent to the B amp M railroad tracks Subsequent GC screening indicated the presence in most of these samples of volatile organic compounds considered consistent with those previously detected on the Silresim site

I Direct contact with soils containing VOCs could be a

I possible route of exposure Employees at Arrow Carrier children playing in the soils and wildlife traversing the area could be possible receptors The inhalation of volatiles released into

I the atmosphere from off-site soils and inhalation of fu~itive dust could be secondary routes of exposure Children have been observed riding motorbikes along the beds of the railroad tracks In addition joggers have been seen running along these tracks Exposure could potentially occur through the inhalation of vapors and generated dust

I I In addition plants growing in these soils could absorb

compounds from soils The ingestion of vegetables grown in nearby gardens could be a potential route of exposure The burning of vegetation could release volatiles and semi-volatiles into the atmosphere

I 5 25 Air

I As described in the previous sections volatile organic

compounds may be released into the atmosphere from off-site groundwater surface water and soils Potential exposure through the inhalation of vapors could theoretically ocbullcur to nearby residents and workers Metals and semi-volatiles may be absorbed on suspend~d particulate matter Inhalation of the respirable particulate fraction may contribute to exposure

On-Site Sources

I Prior to the installation of the clay cap at the site the

release of volatiles from on-site groundwater and smiddotoils was a

I primary concern The placement of the clay cap is believed to have minimized the release of voes from these media However the initial inventory of potential receptors identified the venting systems under the cap as a secondary source of release into the atmosphere

I The results Omiddotf GZAs weekly air vent monitoring have

I indicated widely varying levels of VOCs directly at vent openings both before and after the installation of carbon filters However at small distancemiddots from the vents (1 to 5 feet) the HNu readings have consistently indicated no

I 26

I GZ I

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 31: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I significant levels of VOCs Based on these observatioris GZA

suggests that volatiles emanating from cap vents do not at this time appear to pose a significant threat to air quality or human heal th Subsequent sorben t tube s amp 1 i ng of the vents this summer will provide additional data to evaluate this a 1ssumption bull

Remedial Activities1 Remedial activities at the Silresim site such as groundwater

I treatment soil excavation or regrading of the clay cap may

I generate volatiles and particulates that are released into the atmosphere The most limiddotkely receptors of emissions from these activities would be the workers involved in the remediation Residents and workers in the surrounding area could also be potential receptors

I 526 Listing of Potential Receptors

I Table 1 presents a summary list of pathways and potential

receptors identified to date for the Silresim site A fin~l list of potential receptors will be developed during the course of the RI subsequent to the completion of Phase II Sampling Program

I 600 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I I At this stage of the RI study various remedial technologies have

been identified which may be applicable to the Silresim site Using the preliminary data available GZA has compiled a list of the alternative technologies currently under consideration

I The list attached as Table 2 iricludes technologies which address contaminant source control contaminant migration management as well as institutional and infrastructural considerations Specific technologies are listed for the

I following areas of concern

bullAir Emissions

I bullSurface Waters bullSoils and Sediments bullGroundwater

I bullWaterSewer Lines

I It should be noted that this is a preliminary list of technologies which may be appropriate at the Silresim site the list will be further refined upon completion of the RI A detailed evaluation of the various technologies and development

I 27

I GZ I

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 32: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I of remedial alternatives will be provided in the feasibility

study document bull

I 700 UPDATES TO PROJECT OPERATION PLANS

I I I The Project Operation Plans previously submitted in Deliverable 1

will be sufficient to describe the majority of the Phase Two sampling tasks outlined in the previous sections Updates to the Project Operation Plans necessary at this time include modification of the list of property access contacts and presentation of a standard operating procedure for sewer sampling Table lB of the Off-Site Management Plan will be updated to include the following property owners as access contacts for possible Phase Two monitoring well installations

I Albert J Petren Trustee Lucien J Petren ~rustee

I Petren Brothers Realty Trust 115 Congress Street Lowell Massachusetts 01852middot

Richard Proctor 216 Butman Road Lowell Massachusetts 01852

I Standard operating procedures for the proposed sewer sampling program will be developed and incorporated into GZAs Project

I Operation Plans upon proposed sewer study

I I I I I middotI

finalization of the work plan for the

28

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 33: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I

GZ I I

rI m m en

I

middot1 I I I I I I I I I I Imiddot

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 34: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I

I I Imiddot I I I I TABLES

I I

I I middotI I I I I

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 35: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

TABLE l

Inventory of Potential Receptors-

Potential Potential Exposure Routes TransEgrt Media Release Mechanism Exposure Point

I Groundwater Primary Groundwater Flo

I I I Volatilization

Secondary Groundwater

I Flow

middotI Surface waters Groundwater Discharge

I Stream FlcM

I I I Sewer Lines Groundwater Discharge

I I

Soils Groundwater seepage SUrface RWloff

I Air Volatilization

I VOlatilization

Volatilization and

I Dust Generation

I

Supply Wells

Basemant Seepage

Supply Wells

Basement Seepage

River Meadow Brook Recreational Activities Concord River Merrimack River

Unnaned Paid Recreational Activities

SeMer Lines Manholes

Off-site soils Playing Gardening Burning Vegetation

Venting SYstem Under Clay Cap

ilEIBllal Activities Groundwater Treatllent Soil EKcavation Clay Cap Repair

Potential Receptor

Residences Robinson St

Industrial Areas Lowell Iron amp

Steel Lowell USed Auto Parts James Bond Auto Sales B amp L Used Auto Parts walbert Plastics Union Sheet ~tal

Future Drinking water Source

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences tanada St Maple St Main St Cottage Place

Industrial IUea ArrcM Carrier

Residences Industrial IUea

Humans

Residents of Lawrence and Metheun

Wildlife Plants

Hunans

Wildlife Plants

Duck Island Treatment Plant shyMerrimack River

Residences Industrial Areas

Residences

Industrial Areas Wildlife

Residences Industrial Areas

~rkers Residences Industrial Areas

Secondar~

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Con

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Direct Con Inhalation Direct Conmiddot

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Direct Contact Inhalation Ingestion

Ingestion Direct Con Direct Contact

Ingestion Direct Con Inhalation

Inhalation Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatio~ Ingestion Direct Cor Inhalation

Direct Contact Inhalatior Direct Contact lnhalatior

Ingestion

Inhalation

Inhalation

I

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 36: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I I TABLE 2

I PRELIMINARY LIST OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES

I 1 Air Emission_s bullVapor Barriers (Capping) bullVenting

I bullGas Collection amp Treatment

I -Activated Carbon -Incineration -Thermal Oxidation -Miscellaneous

I 2 Surface Waters -Diversion bullDikes Berms Levees -Sedimentation Basins bullRegradingI -Revegetation -CollectionTreatment

I bullSurface Seals (Capping) -In-situ Treatment

I -Aeration Enhancement -Permeable Treatment Beds -Miscellaneous

3- Contaminated SoilsSediments

I bullDredgingExca~ation bullEncapsulation bullLandfilling

I bullRegrading bullRevegetationsolidificationFixation In-situ Treatment

I (vitrification vapor extraction(

I biodegradation aeration solvent flushing)

Treatment (incinerationbiological aeration flushing)

surface Seals (Capping)

I I I

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 37: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

TABLE 2 (CONTD)

I 4 Groundwater

I bullPhysical Barriers -Cut-off Walls (slurry trenches sheet piling grout curtains block displacement)I -Surface Seals (Capping)

-Regrading

I bullGroundwater Manipulation-Upgradient diversion -Hydrodynamic Isolation -Plume Diversion

bullGroundwater Interception and TreatmentI (wells trenches drains aeration carbon adsorption biological etc)

I bullIn-situ Treatment -Permeable Treatment Beds -BiologicalChemical

I 5 Contaminated WaterSewer Lines bullReplacementRelocation

I Grouting -Pipe Repair (relining sleeving)

6 InstitutionalInfrastructural

I bullNo Action -Monitoring Only bullLand Use Restrictions bullRelocation

I I I I I I I I

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 38: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I

I I GZ I I I I I I I I -shyI I

C) CI Jl

enI m

I I I I

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 39: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

~middot

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

FIGURES

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 40: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I ~ 51 D

]Q ~middot~I

NI I ___ _

I I

---middot I II

I I I I I I I

~- J

II shy

I I

~

I Ill Ill C u 0 Cl) Cl)

oshyC l diI ijo l

i

I 0

N I

I asw-r tI J

I 0

~~

~ ~r uCNO CD

sWbull6A

~ltmiddot-lt~

6 ~SW~--~I ------ shy

I q I)

v If)

I 0 v I

ltt

ci z

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

I w - SILRESIM SITE lL

LOWELL MA

1 GZ

NOTES

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RIFS WORK PLAN FEB 1985

2) THE SAMPLING i-PCATIONS WERE APPROXIMATELY DETERMINED BY tAPE MEASUREMENTS ANO LINE OF SIGHT FROM EXISTING FEATURES THESE DATA

middot SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED

LEGEND

6

A

bull

11

A

~ c

~

X

0 100

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986) I

SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATION (GZA 1986)

SURFI CIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSIS (GZA 1986) SS-3 THROUGH SS-5 ANALYZED FOR PCB

1 S ONLY middot

SURFACIAL SOIL SAMPLING STATION SELECTED FOR G C SCREENING ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE LOCATIONshyGZA 1986)

SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION (NUS 1983)

ARE~OFGZASURFICIALSOIL SCREENING (TOTAL voe) GRID INTER$ECTION POINTS DELINEATE SOIL SCREENING LOCATIONS

INDllt-ATES SAMPLE SELECTED FOR GC SCREENING INALYSIS

PROPOSED PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES

PROPOSED METALS SAMPLES

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AREAS COVERED BY CRUSHED STONE

middot 200 400

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS

JUNE 1986 FIGURE No

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 41: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

--

( I

I I

I

I I

- shy

I

-shy

I I

-- ___

AUTO SALVAGE YARD

-----I

I I

I I

I

I I

I

r-- shy -I

I

o

- shy

I I I I

I I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I (

I I

I

I I I

~ (

I

I

-----

----shy ) - --

-shyI J I I

I I I

I I I_

- shy

p

I

( I

I

r -I I

I I I

I I A I I

I I t

bullbull0

I I J~-= 1 _ I _

_ I I -50 I

I - - - I __STEEL FRAME r

r STRUCTURE I

I I I

-b -

lo I I

I I I

I I

I I I

- I I

~ I I

I

-

I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I-shy

I I

-

I

N 111middotiE11Mi

I I

I

I I

I I

I --- shy

o J

I

I

_ I I

I I I I

I __

I I

I

-

oo

middot

I

I I

I

I

I

-- _-

I I

bull

d5

0 z 0 N

I

~ w al 0 J g

m 0

ibull

0 ~ I

lt(

bull0 z lJJ J-LL

NOTES I

I) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY NUS CORPORATION ENTITLED SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORPORATION LOWELL MASSACHUSETTS TANK AND BUILDING DISMANTLING AND ROAD LOCATION PLAN DATED JUNE 1982 ORIGINAL SCALE 1 = so DWG No 0726-0l-2AI

2) DETAILED LOCATIONS OF BURIED OBJECTS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEYREPORT FEBRUARY I0 1984

3) FENCE LOCATION IN NORTHWEST SECTION OF SITE WAS ESTIMATED BY MEASUREMENTS FROM GZA GRID bull STAKED IN FIELD

4) THE PERKINS-JORDAN METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED NOVEMBER 1981 USING A SCHOMSTEDT MODEL 6A-32 MAGNETIC LOCATOR SURVEY WAS MADE OVER 50 FOOT SQUARE GRID LINES

5) THE GZA METAL DETECTION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED iSING A GARRETT ADS lI DETECTOR WITH DM-5 DEEP SCAN COILS THE INSTfUMENT WAS PASSED OV~R THE GZA EAST-WEST GRID LINES 500 TO 840 AND THROUGH 50 FOOT LINES CENTERED AT THE NUS BURIED OBJECTS BOI THRU B09

LEGEND 1

METAL DETECTOR SURVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BY PERKINS-JORDAN NOV 1981

METAL DETECTOR ~URVEY HIGH READINGS SURVEY PERFORMED BYGZA MARCH 12 1986

KNOWN BURIED FERROUS MATTER FROM NUS MAGNETOMETER SURVEY FEB 10 1984 FIGURE 6 I

BURIED CONCRETE SLABS OR DEBRIS FROM COMNUS FILES (

-- BURIED PIPES

OVERHEAD POWER LINES

BURIED METAL OBJECT LOCATION FROM GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY

--4)_ I THRU9 FROM NUS MAGNETOMETEREM SURVEY CONDUCTED NOV 1983

10 THRU 13 FROM S A ALSUP MAGNETOMETEREM I SURVEY CONDUCTED MARCH 1986

1 J

X ---DETAILED LOCATION OF BURIED METAL OBJECT(S) I

I I

I I

I

r I

oI

I

I I

I I _

- - - I -- I

I

I

I bull I shy -)

o 25 so IOO 150 200

GEOP~YSICt SURVEY BURIED METAL SILRESIM RlFS LOWELL MASS JUNE 1986 O JECTS PLAN FIGURE No2

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 42: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

NOTE

I) BASE MAP FROM PLATE I OF COM RI FS WORK PLAN FEB 1985 LAND SURFACE ELEVATIONS WERE AojusTED BY GZA FROM CITY OF LOWELL DATUM TO MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION FACTOR USED= t 55

2) THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF THE MONITORING WELLS WERE DETERMINED BY STADIA SURVEY BY DANA F PERKINS 8 ASSOC INC (APRIL 1986) THESE DATA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE ONLY TO THE DEGREE IMPLIED BY THE METHOD USED 1

LEGEND

I

0 MULTI - LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

-+- SINGLELEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY GZA

+ MULTI-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN INC

4- SINGLE-LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL

INSTALLED BY PERKINS JORDAN I NC

I I I I I I I I I I I I

u z

i middotshy lPshy+418

N

I I I I I

If)

0

ltt I()

0 ltt I

ct 0 z w J

u

l

MW-30jj~-

middot copyGZ

__ 10~shy -shy

( middot -~--e-202~01 ----shy __ --shy- B-3 - - -

~ -middotmiddot-shy

I

B-6bull

- -bullos _ - - - ___ -

~- -~~ _-------degmiddotOCS -oJ t

( I I

middot P - 41 4 bull 101_ t

- shy

~shy

+ SINGLE- LEVEL GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL INSTALLED BY OTHERS

MH - - bull - - SEWER MANHOLES ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASED ON

+ +

0

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CITY CF LOWELL)

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER

200 400

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WELL PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SIL RE SIM SITE

LOWELL MA ~UNE1986 FIGURE No 3

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 43: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

X

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

tJ tJ m zCiZ )gt

c

)gt

I

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 44: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1middot I I I

APPENDIX A

EXPLANATION OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

I

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 45: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I

APPENDIX A

I EXPLANATIONmiddot OF LABORATORY QC CHARTS

1 I

The fbllowing graphs represent the laboratory QC functions monitoring accuracy and precision at the Engineering Laboratory of the Travelers Insurance Company Hartford CT for 12-dichloreothane methylene chloride and benzene

I ACCURACY - The graphs titled AVERAGES track the accuracy of the analyses for several previous sample runs Charcoal tubes are spiked with a known mass of standard compound desorbed and analyzed This analysis monitors desorption efficiency and

I operator error

X-Axis QC sample number

I Y-Axis Mass in micrograms of standard on tube

I Center dashed line Known mass Omiddotf standard on tube

Upper and Lower dashed lines Upper and lower warning limits and upper and lower control limits The control limits are the upper- and lower-most lines and are set at

the 95 confidence limit

I Solid line Actual QC sample analytical results

Samples repeatedly outside the warning limits indicate a potential QC problem Samples outside the control limits are designated out-of-controlmiddotI

I PRECISION - The graphs titled RANGES track the precision of QC s-ample analyses Precision is tracked by taking the absolute value of the difference between two consecutive sample analysis results and plotting it on the chart

I X-Axis QC sample number

Y-Axis Range calculated as the absolute value of

I difference between two consecutive QC analyses (run on different days) in micrograms

I Bottom dashed line Mean of the calculated ranges of all consecutive analyses on graph

I Middle dashed line Upper warning limit

I I

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 46: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I I Top dashed line Upper control limit set at the 95

confidence level

I Lower warning and control limits are not used in these graphs because the range is calculated as an absolute value

I The laboratory is fully accredited as an Air Quality Laboratory

I by the American Industrial Hygiene Association and participates in the NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT) The laboratory successfully analyses all samples in the PAT Program on a to maintain accreditationquarterly basis

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 47: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

APR 1986I JttfANS

PROCEDURE FOR ARALYSIS1 BY THERMAL DESORPTION

Gas Chromatography Hass Spectrometry (oc MS) Parameters

I Chpice or column and operating conditions dependent upon compounds or interest

I Using packed column 1i SP 1000 on 6080 Carbopack B glass 10 x l4ft

I Temperature Program

Met)od Sequence 1 Col Temp 55degC Time l0 min Sequence 2 Col Temp 200degC Rate 80degCmin I Sequence 3 Col Temp 200degc Time 999 hold for 1400 scans

I Maximum temperature 210degc Injector 210degc Separator 235degc Manifold 80deg-90degC (should never exceed this temperature

while in operation)

Carrier Helium Flow Rate 25-30 mlminute (If underflow light appears during I

I run reduce operating flow until underflow indicator no longer lights) bull

Scope ON

I Scope mode Data System Mode middot middotbull EI-SEP Electron Energy 70V Emission Current 050 m Amp Scan Rate 35-350 AMO (Atomic Mass Units) This may vary

middot depending upon molecular wemiddotights of compounds of

I interest

I Scan Time UP l95 sec

DOWN 000 Hold Time TOP 000

BOTTOM O 05 sec

I Check background before beginning analysis of samplesbull

Acquire a calibration for working scan range if necessary

I Sample Preparation

1 l Preclean stainless steel traps with soap and water Sonicate traps in hexane

and oven dry (SeP 21 ~ial procedure for preparation of nulti-T11E(1ia tubes)

2 Attach a cleat1 empty trap to the thennal desorption unit and lower the trap into the heating block

I 3 Divert the heliummiddotnow through the trap and preheat the trap at 225degC for about

5 mins The GC oven should be cool at this time and the oven middotdoor open Vent the trap to the atmcsphere

I

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 48: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I - 2 shy

Sample Preparation - contd

I 4 After 5 mins lift the trap from the heating block and allow 1 t to cool middot with helium flow through it

I 5 When the trap is cool place a small glasswool plug in the unthreaded end of the trap

I

6 Fill the trap with the sample charcoal tenax bulk material etc bull quickly and in a solvent free area

7 Place an additional plug in the threaded end of the trap

I 8 Attach the trap to the thermal desorption unit Divert the helium flow through the trap unit --- temperature should be at 225degC Use a small vial of methanol to check the flow through the trap

I Sample Analysis - Packed Column

I 9 Acquisition run ready

10 Separator divert is ON

I 11 EM Voltage OFF

I Filament OFF Scope ON

12 Loosen septum nut Lower thermal desorption trap needle into injection port Oven is cool an~ oven door is open at this time T~ten septum nut bull

1 13 Turn separator divert OFF EM Voltage ON

I 14 Note the change in pressure on the ion gauge

15 After the pressure has stabilized turn filament ON

I Check for leaks and flow Scope mode SINGLE

1middot Note oxygen leak at mass 32 and helium flow at mass 4 Helium peak should be off scale ltfiat top) on scope Ion gauge should read approximately l2xl0bullbull

middot1 16 Return scope mode to DATA SYSTEM

17 Lower trap into heated thermal desorption unit

I I 18 Begin acquisition

Close oven door and enter desired method When initial temperature is reached (999) start program run

When a sufficient number of scans has been acquired turn off GCMS as follows

I 19 Filament OFF Em Voltage OFF Separator Divert ON Stop runI

middot1

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 49: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

I - 3 shy

Sample Analysis - Packed Column - contd

20 Divert helium flow back through the column only Lift entire thermalI ( desorption unit from injection port Then lift trap from heating block and allow lt to cool

I I NOTE PE Q _lift the trap from the beating block while the desorption

unit is still in the injection port This may cause back pressure to shoot the contents from the trap

I CUANTITATION

If specifically requested we will quantitate the onpounds tentatively identified

I by GCMS A standard containing one or more compounds is directly injected into the GCMS Cuantitation of the sample is based upon the assumption we achieve 100 desorption efficiency For ease of quantitation we often calculate a series of compounds for example aliphatic hydrocarbons as one compound for example hexane bull ln this case we assume similar response factors for all the individual compounds

I 21 The cleaned and oven-dried traps can be filled with several JTedia for special testing Multimedia tubes are filled with Silica gel Charcoal tenax and Olrarosorb 101POrapak N with glass wool plugs at either end These tubes areI cleaned prior to sampling using the same cxmditions as for thPnnal desorption but venting to atmosphereAfter sarrpling proceed as in Step 8

I

I middot

I I I I I bull

I I I

I

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 50: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

- - - - - -- ~ - - - - 11111 bullbull JIii ~-middot middotmiddot- -middot shymiddot--middotmiddot 851286 114500 CALI CAU1AV8 120 SAt1PLE SAl1PLE 009-3369(t1t1-9)COHDS PURGE t1ETHOD I SPl008 25 t1IA1IH 1350 V BAHGE G 12808 LABEL H 8 40 QUAN A I 10 J 0 BASE U 20 3

108

BIC

t1188

508 1000 1500 2000 SCAN 1648 3320 5000 6648 TINE

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 51: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

------ - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - shy

AVERAGES COMPOUND=1184 HAME=12~0ICHLOROETHAHE

1C_FT ~ ~-- r middotmiddotJ _

E 7~~ shy -------- - - -~---------------------shy

625

6 fH3

i 7~ middot- bull t bull ---~--------------------shy

---- - ----~ --- shyC ~ -------- -r_I bull _ gtJ - Ibull bull

1 - 1 4 (f L c 4 5 6 7 8 middot~ 10 11 pound 13 14 1~ 16-middot H1PLEmiddot- I bull

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 52: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

-------------------

----------------------------------

RANGES COMFOIJH0=1184 HAME=l2-0ICHLOROETHAHE

100 ---~---------~------shy075

i -cshy1-_bullbull Cbullbull_I

(1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

SAMPLE

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 53: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

-------------------

AVERAGES COMPOUHO=l593 HAME=OICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

-- PT_ __ -

i ~

70 - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -middot -----------~- -

68

66

64 ~--~-~-~~~--~-~-~----~~--~-~-~-----middot

62

2 4 6 e 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SAMPLE

~

~

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 54: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

-------------------

tt1MPOLIMD= 1593 RANGES

HAME=DICHLOROMETHANE (METHYLENE CHLORIDEgt

07

06 --------~-~~~~-~-~-~~~~-~--~shy05

04

03

0

0 1

00

(1 2 4 6 10 12

SAMPLE

14 16 10 2e 22 24

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 55: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

-------------------

- - -----

bull

AVERAGES COMFOUMD=1114 HAME=BEHZEUE

(bull( PT 47

----------------------------45

4 4 shy

4 7 bullJ

middot4 middotj

~-----------~~~-~~-~~~-~---~~~- -- - ____ - -- ---- --- --~~ shy

40 middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot1middotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~1bull

111111 bullbull1

4 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24

SAMPLE

_

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _

Page 56: SILRESIM SITE RI/FS I LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS · 2019-12-11 · LAWRENCE FELDMAN JOSEPH P. HEHIR ROBERT. A. HELLER AOSS.T ... STEVEN J. TAETTEL . CONSULTANTS . WALTER E. JAWORSKI; JR.

-------------------

RANGES COMPOUH0=1114 NAME=BEHZENE

0 (

95

B4

03

0 middot-middot

( 2 4 6 8 10 12

SAMPLE

~--~~---~------~~-~~~-~-~~~-shy

414 16 18 20 _


Recommended