Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous - 50 SANDRA LANE 4/30/2018 (2) 50 SANDRA LANE 1 J 210/098.A-0071-0000.0 `\ ` S'b Massachusetts Department of Environmental P Northeast Regional Office Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup ac/o Mr. Steven Ross 205A Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 j 1 Re: IRA Status Report Treatment of Home Heating Oil Releas+ 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts DEP RTN #3-26748 r L F R 1_! J <:�--)v%, (�� MLFR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT N G &CONSULTING ENGINEERING September 24, 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup c/o Mr. Steven Ross 205A.Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 Re: IRA Status Report Treatment of Home Heating Oil Release 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts DEP RTN #3-26748 Dear Mr. Ross: LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this Immediate Response Action (IRA) Status Report to update the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) regarding investigation and remedial activities conducted at 50 Sandra Lane, North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site) resulting from a sudden home heating fuel oil release in the basement. This status report has been prepared on behalf of the Responsible Party, Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. (Comcast), and has been prepared in accordance with Section 40.0424 and 0426 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and MassDEP's "Notice of Responsibility" ("NOR") dated May 7, 2007 (See Appendix A). The enclosed IRA Status Report summarizes the environmental conditions around the spill area and the results of groundwater and soil sampling which was included in the IRA Plan Supplement submitted to the MassDEP on July 26, 2007. LFR discussed the provisions of the MassDEP Conditional IRA Approval of the plan supplement and obtained verbal approval to conduct the injection work as described in LFR's plan and to conduct monitoring as described in LFR's plan and MassDEP's approval. An IRA Status Report was due on August 12, 2007. The IRA Plan Supplement described the status of activities through the end of July 2007 but LFR inadvertently did not also call it a Status Report. LFR mentioned this to Mr. Ross on September 18, 2007 and Mr. Ross indicated a status report was still required. Hence, this status report is being submitted and includes a summary of the hydrogen peroxide injections conducted at the Site on September 11 and 12, 2007. The executed IRA Transmittal Form is provided in Appendix B. This plan supplement is also being copied to the North Andover Conservation Commission for their information. I 781.356.7300 m 781.356.2211 f 194 Forbes Road www.Ifr.com Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 Offices Nationwide i Mr.Steven Ross 681 L F R Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection September 20, 2007 Page 2 Please call me at 781-356-7300 (x203) if you have any questions with regard to this IRA Plan Supplement. Very Truly Yours, I - 5t, Richard Stromberg, CPG, LSP Senior Associate Attachments CC: M. Salimena, R. Goldthwaite, W. Allard (Comcast) T. Woodward (LFR) A. McKay (N. Andover Conservation Commission) D. Cederquist (Envirosense) C. Hayon (50 Sandra Lane, N. Andover) N. Andover Board of Health N. Andover Chief Municipal Officer I D D D D D Immediate Response Action (IRA) Status Report No. 2 Fuel Oil Spill at 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts RTN #3-26748 DSeptember 24, 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 D Prepared for Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. 54 Regional Drive Concord, NH 03301 Prepared by LFR Inc. D194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 (781) 356-7300 www.ifr.com � D D Lp'la ' D D D aLFR Inc. CONTENTS a 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 2.0 STATUS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND/OR REMDIAL ACTIONS; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(a))............................................................................................I a3.0 SIGNIFICANT NEW SITE INFORMATION OR DATA 310 CMR 40.0425(3)(b)) a 4.0 DETAILS OF AND/OR PLANS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF REMEDIAL WASTE; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(c)) .................................................................6 a 5.0 ANY OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS aAPPROVAL OF THE IRA PLAN; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(d)).................................7 6.0 AN LSP OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE IRA IS BEING CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE IRA PLAN; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(e))................. 7.0 LIMITATIONS AND SERVICE CONSTRAINTS ...............................................8 FIGURES a1. Site Locus/Topographic Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. MASS GIS Map 4. Surface Sample and Monitoring Well Locations 5. Site Plan 6. Conceptual Site Model TABLES 1. Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence (67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) 2. Basement Soil Samples 3. Excavation Soil Samples a 4. Monitoring Wells Soil Samples 5. Groundwater Analytical Results 6. Analytical Results for Sump#2 and Catch Basin#2 a Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page i LFR Inc. DAPPENDICES A. Notice of Responsibility B. IRA Transmittal Form C. Letter to Mr. Waterman D. Photographs E. Boring Logs a a a a a a � a a 0 0 � a 0 a Q Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page H I a LFR Inc. a 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following presents an Immediate Response Action (IRA) Status Report that summarizes additional environmental testing in the area of the release, placement of monitoring wells, and a description of the remediation to date. The IRA Status has been prepared by LFR under contract with Comcast of a Massachusetts I, Inc. (Comcast), a subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, who is the Responsible Party (RP). The location of the spill with respect to surrounding areas is shown on the USGS topographic map in Figure 1. Figure 2 is an aerial photo map showing the residence and the transect of the released oil to drainage a features nearby which included an unnamed stream that fed Johnson's Pond. The surrounding area as shown on the MassGIS Map in Figure 3 is residential but there are no designated wetlands, habitats for rare or endangered wildlife, or other sensitive environmental areas nearby. There are no designated aquifers, Zone I/II's, or drinking water supply wells near the release. There are protected open spaces located one-third of a mile northeast along the stream outlet of Johnson's Pond. The stream ultimately discharges to a Reservoir about one mile to the north. a 2.0 STATUS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND/OR REMDIAL ACTIONS; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(a)) The following is an update of response actions at 50 Sandra Lane since the submittal of the IRA Plan in May 2007 and the IRA Plan Supplement in July 2007. Since May, the basement has been continually vented and the booms were maintained in the catch basins and stream. In August, LFR removed the absorbent booms in the stream at the o request of neighbors, but kept them in place in the catch basins. Water entering CB#2 was slowed to a trickle due to dryer conditions and the water was pumped to the frac tank as needed. Spent materials from the initial cleanup stored in the driveway were removed by ENPRO. ENPRO also arranged for the cleaning of the cloth materials in the home as requested by the homeowner and the duct filters in the heating system were also changed by ENPRO. oENPRO and LFR met with the homeowner on May 31, 2007 to discuss their review of the IRA Plan and to discuss additional testing/remediation in support of final closure. The homeowner was pleased with the cleanup work done to date and the description of it in the IRA Plan. A discussion was held to describe the upcoming test boring program to determine the extent of contamination outside of the drain and the general remedial plan. The owner was in agreement with the approach. ENPRO continues to operate a carbon air treatment unit in the basement on a continuous basis. a a Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 1 D LFR Inc. DThe water in the frac tank was inspected in early June and it was determined that ENPRO should empty the tank. About 7,300 gallons were removed from the fac tank in June, and on September 11, 2007 an additional 3,600 gallons of water was removed. a The following describes investigations at: • The adjoining 67 Sandra Lane Property; • Source Area (Sump #1) Investigation and Excavation; • Basement Drainage Investigation; • Groundwater Investigation; and • Peroxide Injections. Surface Soil Sampling at 67 Sandra Lane LFR visited Mrs. Chris Waterman at 67 Sandra Lane across the street at their request to discuss their review of the plan. Their residence is adjacent to the stream where it Q flows out from Sandra Lane. They inquired about the status of the booms in the stream. LFR indicated they need to be in place until remediation is completed and that ENPRO will be changing some booms that appear soiled and removing any residual leafy matter in the stream near their house that may still exhibit some sheen. They also requested LFR collect some soil samples from a portion of their yard near a the stream that was flooded during the spill. They have a vegetable garden here and a children's swing set. It was decided to collect 4 surface soil samples for EPH analysis. Mrs. Waterman appeared satisfied with this. aOn June 7, 2007, LFR collected four surface soil samples collected in areas of the vegetable garden, the swing set, and two other areas in the lawn along the stream at 67 Sandra Lane (Figure 4). Table 1 summarizes and compares the results of the analysis that was performed for "Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons" (EPH) to RCS-1 standards for residential areas set by the MassDEP. Low levels of certain petroleum hydrocarbon fraction residues were detected in three of the four surface samples at concentrations twenty times less than the RCS-1 standards. None were detected in the other sample. Low levels of petroleum can be found in areas that are periodically affected by street runoff. A previous spill of fuel oil was also documented by MassDEP at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 that was cleaned up. The letter sent to Mr. Waterman is provided in Appendix C. a Q � a Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 2 LFR Inc. aSource Area Investigation and Excavation A soil boring, LFR B-1, was advanced in the center of Sump #1 on June 6, 2007 to investigate the possible depth of contamination in the area of Sump#1. A Photovac PID was used to monitor soil and determine samples for laboratory analysis. A native glacial till was found about 1 foot below the slab and 6-8" below the sub-slab gravel. Two samples were collected, 3-5 feet below ground (fbg) and 5-7 fbg. The results of the soil boring analytical EPH and diesel targets are presented in Table 2. EPH target compounds were below detection limits in both samples and low level EPH compounds were detected in the 3-5 fbg sample. Based on observations during soil sampling, it was decided to remove impacted soil from around the sump. On June 15, 2007 an approximate 37 x 42 inch rectangle was cut In the concrete floor to allow for excavation around the sump. The six inch concrete slab was cut, removed, and stored in two 55-gallon drums. The gravel t foundation base was removed to reveal the native soil, approximately six-eight inches below the concrete slab. The native soils were removed to a depth of six inches below the gravel, for a total excavation depth of eighteen inches below the floor. Nine soil samples were collected from the bottom of the excavation for PID readings. The PID readings ranged from 5 to 12 ppmv except 35 ppmv at the base in the middle. Two n representative samples were selected for analytical analysis from the southern wall (to uassess migration toward the back of the cellar), and the base. The results are presented in Table 3. Low level EPH were detected below "RCS-1" soil standards in the base Q sample collected from the center of the excavation at 1.5 fbg. EPH and target compounds were below detection limits at the sample collected on the southern side of the excavation pit. This information corroborated the hypothesis that oil did not n penetrate the till to any great degree. UThe excavation was limited to eighteen inches because the water table in the foundation !,I was at approximately ten inches below grade. Dewatering was attempted, and approximately 150 gallons were removed and transferred to the frac tank, but the water table could not be dropped more than fourteen inches below grade utilizing the a available resources. Approximately 0.4 cubic yards of gravel and soil was removed and stored in 55-gallon drums and 150 gallons of water was removed and stored in the frac tank. OSoil samples were collected at three boring locations in the basement (LFR B-2 through B-4, Figure 5) to evaluate potential migration of fuel oil after draining to Sump#1. The Q concrete slab was cored with a 6" core, the gravel was removed, and the native soil at the base of the gravel was collected for analytical analysis. The results are presented in Table 2. EPH and target compounds were below laboratory detection limits at LFR B-2 which is located west and toward the rear of the basement. Low level EPH fractions and a few target PAHs were detected at both LFR B-3 and LFR B-4 below RCS-1 residential standards. D Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 3 LFR Inc. This information indicated that penetration into the till was slight. Observations of the gravel indicated some petroleum coatings in B-4, a slight odor in B-3, and no odors in B-2. This information suggested the petroleum migrated from Sump#1 southerly along the wall as shown on Figure 6 until it entered a point at which the water and sewer pass through the footer. The oil then migrated along the gravel base into the drain leading to CB#2. Basement Drainage Investigation After the excavation revealed the pipe originally identified as the start of the perforated drain that emptied into CB #2 took an unexpected turn towards the south and additional plumbing tied into it (See Photo 1, Appendix D), LFR and ENPRO conducted an investigation into the drainage system on July 13, 2007. A miniature camera was snaked along drainage pipes in an attempt to better understand the foundation drainage. a The camera was inserted and pushed up the perforated drain from CB #2 towards the house. The camera could only be pushed fifty-four feet because of sludge in the drain, so the end of the pipe was not identified. No bends in the pipe were noted so it was inferred to end at the corner of the house as shown on Figure 6. The camera was then inserted into the pipe in Sump #1. The camera was placed down the pipe and it turned 90 degrees towards the garage (south) then after three feet turned 90 degrees towards the foundation wall (east) where it pushed another foot before it could not be advanced. Approximately 40 to 60 gallons of water was run into the pipe to determine its discharge point. There was no water observed discharging into CB#1, CB#2, or the n foundation gravel. A residential contractor was contacted to evaluate the photos and Ugive an opinion on the piping. The contractor believes the piping is rough plumbing for a future bathroom. Therefore, to the best of LFR's knowledge the pipe in Sump#1 is connected to the sewer system and the oil migrated along the gravel as shown on Figure 6. Groundwater Investigation At the request of the MassDEP, a monitoring well network was installed to evaluate a remedial actions to be undertaken. Four soil borings (LFR-1 through LFR-4), completed as groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-4), were advanced at the site, as seen in Figure 4, at the direction of LFR personnel on June 7 and July 9, 2007. The wells were installed as close to the known potential migratory path as possible, leaving clearance for utilities. The wells were continuously sampled for visual logging and field screening with a PID (Appendix E). aOutside, the first boring/well was installed next to house where the drain was originally thought to lead to the CB#2 as shown on Figure 3 of the IRA Plan. Very slight petroleum contamination was noted in soils below residential standards as shown on Table 4. Soil in this area was found to be a tight natural glacial till. D Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 4 LFR Inc. The next boring was planned to be installed next to CB#2 but an unmarked electrical line was hit, work was stopped, no injuries were reported. LFR called Dig-safe immediately and National Grid Representatives and their locating service (Premier) arrived on site and indicated the line was an unmarked "secondary" electrical line. The line was fixed by National Grid that day and apparently supplied two houses across street. They reportedly may have lost power for a short time. As a result, work was halted for the day. Three soil samples from LFR-1, two from LFR-2, and one each from LFR-3 and LFR- 4 were submitted for EPH fractions and diesel targets (Table 4); VPH fractions/ targets were not analyzed because PID concentrations never exceeded 100 ppmv. LFR-2, LFR-3, and LFR-4 were non-detect for EPH fraction and target compounds. LFR collected a groundwater sample with minimal or no purging from MW-1 on June Q 15, 2007 and MW-2 and MW-3 on July 13, 2007. No-purge sampling was used because recharge rates are on the order of days at these locations. A sample was not collected from MW-4 because of insufficient water in the well. Samples were analyzed D for EPH and diesel targets (Table 5). Results indicated low levels of EPH fractions were found in LFR-2 and 3 significantly below applicable MCP GW-2 and 3 standards protective of indoor air and surface water. QLFR also re-sampled the Sump #2 in basement to confirm contamination was not migrating to that area and the outfall into CB#2. Results at operational Sump#2 in the rear of basement were clean as before as shown in the attached data tables. Levels in CB#2 were lower than previous samples but EPH was still detected as shown on Table 6. MassDEP provided a Conditional Approval to the IRA Plan Supplement in August 2007 which are discussed in more detail in Section 5 of this report. The provisions of the approval called for injection of 35% peroxide which was not consistent with the 10% concentration stated by LFR. LFR's approach in using 10% was to create some oxidation and bio-stimulation of the aerobic bacteria to degrade the petroleum. Peroxide at 35% in the basement was considered potentially dangerous due to potential for explosion and corrosion of the slab concrete. LFR discussed the provisions of the MassDEP Conditional IRA Approval of the plan supplement and obtained verbal approval to conduct the injection work as described in LFR's plan and to conduct monitoring as described in LFR's plan and MassDEP's approval. a D D Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:m1b Page 5 Q U LFR Inc. DHydrogen Peroxide Injections LFR/ENPRO met with Mr. and Mrs. Hayon on August 21, 2007 to discuss the planned remedial injections and listen to any concerns they may have. The use of 10% peroxide was discussed for safe injections and to minimize effects on the floor slab. Prior to the planned hydrogen peroxide injections baseline conditions were determined for groundwater at MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, and Sump #2. Baseline conditions included: VPH, EPH, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, and hydrogen peroxide. These baseline conditions will be reported in the IRA Completion Report. LFR and ENPRO began hydrogen peroxide (peroxide) injections on September 11, 2007. A total of 770 gallons of 10% peroxide was injected into the basement over two days. Basement air quality and vapor pathways were continuously monitored during the injections. Mr. Steve Ross of the MassDEP visited the Site to observe the injections and site conditions. The infection program was completed as planned with the desired reaction observed in the soils in the open pit in the basement and nearby test borings. The effluent migrated as desired to the drain and was captured at CB#2 and transferred to the frac tank. 3.0 SIGNIFICANT NEW SITE INFORMATION OR DATA; (310 CMR a 40.0425(3)(b)) See Section 2.0, which summarizes significant new information at the Site. 4.0 DETAILS OF AND/OR PLANS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF REMEDIAL WASTE; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(c)) Concrete and soil generated during the excavation program was placed in four 55- gallon drums and stored on-Site for later off-Site disposal by Enpro. Approximately 11,000 gallons of groundwater that was intercepted and pumped to the frac tank through the program has been disposed of by Enpro. Used absorbent booms from the catch basins and stream were stored in two 1-cubic yard waste boxes and removed by Enpro. Groundwater, soil, and other waste materials were taken to Enpro's disposal facility in Maine. Disposal documentation will be included in the IRA Completion aReport. Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 6 U LFR Inc. 5.0 ANY OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE IRA PLAN; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(d)) LFR received the MassDEP's August 7, 2007 Conditional Approval of Immediate �{ Response Action Plan and Modification letter on August 23, 2007 from Bob U Goldthwaite. LFR talked with Steve Ross of MassDEP on September 5, 2007 {� regarding Site Specific Conditions of Approval and Recommendations #1 and#5. U • Condition#1 required an upgradient monitoring point, implying an upgradient monitoring well. LFR pointed out that Sump #2 acts as an upgradient groundwater intercept at the site and is representative of non-impacted groundwater a the site. LFR considered this "monitoring point" sufficient for the LSP to make a determination of it as a monitoring point. • Condition#5 discussed the application of 35% peroxide which is not what the IRA Plan Supplement had detailed as the remedial additive. LFR discussed injecting a 5 to 10 percent peroxide solution as a weaker oxidizer and a biostimulant with a greater fluid volume to enhance hydraulic flushing. MassDEP agreed with LFR's approach as specified in the IRA Plan Supplement. With those two conditions resolved with the MassDEP, LFR conducted the injections with ENPRO. 6.0 AN LSP OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE IRA IS BEING CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE IRA PLAN; (310 CMR 40.0425(3)(e)) Richard Stromberg is the LSP who prepared this IRA Status report. His seal and signature is included in the IRA Transmittal Form (BWSC-105), attached as Appendix B. LFR is proceeding with the implementation of the IRA Plan while conforming with �j the MassDEP August 7, 2007 IRA Approval letter. Q a U Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb page 7 LFR Inc. 7.0 LIMITATIONS AND SERVICE CONSTRAINTS The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of services and information obtained through the performance of the services described herein. This report is an instrument of professional service and was prepared in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Response Action Performance Standard (310 CMR 40.0191), the Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals, Rules of Professional Conduct (309 CMR 4.00) and the generally accepted standards and level of skill and care under similar conditions and circumstances established by the environmental consulting industry. No representations are intended or given beyond those required in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 2 1 E or the MCP (3 10 CMR 40.0000). Reuse of this report or any portion thereof for other than its intended purpose, or if modified, shall be at the user's sole risk. Results of any investigations or testing and any findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time when LFR's investigative work was performed. It must be recognized that any such investigative or testing activities are inherently limited and may not represent a 100 percent conclusive or complete characterization of all conditions at the site. Conditions in other parts of the site may vary from those at the locations where data were collected. LFR's ability to interpret investigation results is related to the availability and validity of the data and the extent of the investigation activities. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0015, LFR does not provide any guarantees or warranties regarding any conclusions regarding environmental contamination of any such property. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1100, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) may audit all or part of this report and any associated Licensed Site Professional (LSP) Opinions at any time. In its audit of any response action submittal, the MADEP will base its findings of any regulatory noncompliance on the version of the MCP and Response Action Performance Standard in effect at the time of its receipt of the submittal. Such an audit may result in additional services, beyond those described herein that may result in additional costs (such as the costs for additional drilling or sampling). The evaluation of any additional data collected, in conjunction with possible regulatory changes or technological advances may result in a modification to the original LSP Opinion. a Draft-IRA Status Format.doc:mlb Page 8 FIGURES r-71 t= C� C7 W V G� Q c2D d C= l� � 1113 ' ,. -. .E�,.�.yl r�-----,,� ti, y , •,ry ,�;. •ti �� �r� j �• f '��'`.... i t1+�1t9r�tArQ■rerr;lne �+ } �� }� _�•, _ � �,•� f"""' -ti...,�,`�� r t 1 ti L: S rJ`} '� ..fes. • ••J�• + _ 13 i S1 6 IQ Ilk f _s..�tip• .• �: �• �� � �� �•.• _y` ,• �}-, � - 4�( ff �i r Ali .1 .• � j• 1 •�• �• � 4 '"G a .)+�• �.:•�4 � . i � � � 'fit--��•�� 4 ���� L {, • 1, N L��!((��rr[)+r1,1;!t LEy t" N i7�• w r*.. "S�_•.�La.�l"`r4• '�I +i ql`1 � '4 �`k�'�`y ,��! { I i 1 � ,}' V�J� 4l{ M 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 kin G o 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 mi a` UTM 19 327185E 47204-72N (NA027) Mills Hill,,USES Lawrence (MArNH) Quadrangle M--15.733 Z Projection is UTM Zone 19 NAD83 Datum G--1.43 DATE: 5/1/07 TMF_ LEN L F R DRAWN eY: J.w. SITE LOCUS/TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FIGURE:REVIEWED BY: R.S. APPROVED BY- R.S. Z LOCATION: 60 Island Street SCALE: AS NOTED 50 SANDRA LANE 1 Lawrence,Massachusetts 01840 FILE NO: 010.14252-00 NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS Phone:(978)659-0017 JOB N0: 010-14252-00 ' .'. Fax:(978)659-0069 SHEET SIZE: A t 0 t } r op I a • * CB NDRA LANE r� w57 ArOW i rr.,.•' a '+ .a" 1"° !- " '"'• #' . f SW/Sed-3``0 ,v .•.. i 1"; �} " SW/Sed-9� �'g SW/sed-8 � t SW/Sed 4 �'. • � r . r. . . r !� SW/5ed-1 r C B #l i� q.: SW%Sed 5 a . SW/Sed-2 .v 1+ } SW r /Sed 7; I ;•. SW/Sed 6r } rd- 7, ., f '11 .1 ; f,4 ,4' '.� ,� •fid � �y• � "i f �M� �{}. `��,�'y' i y' \. �. r1r ' 0 � •s"j�i! 'T. F TWO((2) GAL° 275 'I •+ } 3 CI3#3 Tf ISCH �•Y t' , s, p' r 1�, ;� �` •^ �. .'° M1?' 4a' DIS(HAR fump ry C-JI •i?t)R - �„ R' #� ®� m ' t t�` "'r.`�°. 4'�., a J, M :•�` \ P fjCATI OF.WA fr !► SUMP ND SEWfIR L(I�'t5 ORIGINAL POO T FI _ Of:FU _ ft • i 0 J1 , ,RLLLASr' a SUMP 43 • � ; � � �' �' 1 #/ ,+ • s T ;, EXPLANATION: STORM DRAIN(Note:Direction of Flow Indicated by Arrow) CATCHBASIN 1 1 1 DirectionSTREAM(Note: POND • • WATER/SEDIMENTz, SURFACE • • • • • 1 1 1 0 SURFACE • MONITORING L� Scale: 1 11 1 ti Map Output Page 1 of 1 _ DEP Priori Resource Ma I �y d sf Zone Its �,( IWPAs Zone A /a ACECs Sole Source Aquifers - - _3'I 4I •�I'i C,�Q , ' } f ? } t • F M1 Solid Waste Sites _ dal199 _ } } }c+ } ® Protected Openspace tJJ ittA' l –- Scr 0 NHESP Estimated Habitat i of Rare WiY.lrife in t- • ',—� '}'• � t Welland Areas �3�Ftst��, �._; �l Tm'� rxr lU ..:�� I }•. } D:} } } } } t Vt Certified Vernal Pools F!`Qinn�vn,,T•lu yG 1 r _ I }' 2003 NHESP } �✓ Subbasins 77 )✓A4ajor Basins --_ - i.•�--} rte-? ? }I 1 ",j t! II Ir`� r } /e Tm%Tt Arcs Af DEP Region BWj2gD.5.1-8 ._- I t t t t t t• t i� � t } , E, } 1 1 t' t t' t. 1 -- } } } t } t �V County Boundaries Cl4 U'LLACs _ I i t t t t t t t , t t t t } t t t F N, RR1 y ACK }_4 } } } Aquifers,By Yield Thi 11IGry YELp AIEDillA1 Yom'D 128 , -� •1Rt � ?_fit ttt } ttt } } } 1 } t } t } tt } }"`I _ _ Cl- r Non Potential Drinking Water Source Area IIIGti YID D AIEDNAI YIELD FEM4 Floodplains { - ., <Ih - •-BG f0]VF.TR 7i00DPLAl`I NdRTN Ay yt `i — ,�� GlS ��`. .-� � - —_ 1•fydrography CIj7 - - k ~'� 1VATGt o s - RESERVOIR SHAV11� N ,` AWAR E R _C�tSTATION Flo =i;, tivFrLaros ti I _ .i 133 r - ( i Sri+ f� �, Ti \ ? SALTWATERIVETL/l•105 �iRo -1 1 M Rivers and Streams Oro 11. L1Zu M i II • ' ~' A1 PER-DIUM NTERMITTE.IT StIORELNE LIAM AIADEs,ioRE 114 �4.�� r` ,--', — cx'` ' 500 SA�jDRA LM 01845 >�'��o SS,Q —' i DAM ,vOut nucT EOIr--OTP Roads .•11 114' 'I'7 f ' ��` + I = "I ~ LIMITED ACCES5 t1►G!I'NAY ' �fl - MULTILiNIL•t6YY.4OT `, f 1LIMITEDACCESS P i A4r'LLS FULL j t s? �• RFS -. OTHERr1uMEtCRM- w.lY j +f 11A DR ROAD-COLLECTOR M ARI,h`IOR STREET OR ROAD. 1 _ ANDOVER' - 125 - t. '' y • ~' ; "_'Qbpo eio Www racks and Trails MHD TRACK •• TRAr- J� '4• i �A/J �• c s �...� � •�, I I 'r�=•'. � .' __ � Transrnissiori Lines ° `P063M.1411 �.• PO'.VErZLI`IE `Io i i 1 ka 4 1.dY 1 T 1 i} 0 O.17rn, �4 All', TRAIN littp://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=matowns&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True&Encode=False 4/19/2007 ` e i M t ; lb ` n CB t ~NDRA LANE- %* Y sw /Sed 4 Q f SW/Sed 9Qp ��, SW/Sed 8 hi ' ------ _ a Y r •�w Q ; R `SW/Sed-S t i s CB#4 $ s .. • . SW/Sed-7« SSW/Sed�6 r _ � w t F R-3/MW-3. 4 *Fk-4/M �x +. V..4 � "•�' 4 t� .�� `k° 'I � Mme+!° ��; '�. af? + 4 tui� � ��,•' r- • LFR-1/MW-1 ,rn. �`�,. '!• - m,� +v - 4a�it.r�. F.. r' `;a, -'�v ""`" � .s. '� r�,.a`.:. EXPLANATION: 1 1 1 1 _ STORM 1 Direction CATCHBASIN STREAM(Note: 1 1 Direction POND . 1 WATER/SEDIMENTSURFACE • • • / • 11 1 11 0 SURFACE • MONITORING WELL • • Scale: 1 100' �� a EXPLANATION: STORM DRAIN(NOTE:DIRECTION OF n, FLOW INDICATED BY ARROW) I I ® CATCH BASIN CB#3 �J O SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE LFR-3/MW-3+ Lp 0 SUMP DISCHARGE POINT +LFR4/MW4 -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY E DISCHARGE CL o SOIL BORING LOCATION POINT FRENCH DRAIN c + MONITORING WELL LOCATION 0 aN p00 SANE CB#2 App�E LFR-2/MW 2 TWO (2) CL CL 275-GAL ASTs Ln DISCHARGE APPROXIMATE n - POINT FOR\ LOCATION OF SUMP#2 \ LFR B-3 WATER AND \\\ + SEWER LINES LFR-1/MW-1 m SUMP#2 SUMP#1 o \ W LFR B-2 $ rq ORIGINAL POINT OF N \ FUEL OIL RELEASE L B-1 a o (I SUMP LFR B AR ) CB#1 O5 � d0 '` SUMP#3 au u r on E ` ZI a � ,,. 0 aLn V d a � d C Site Plan d 50 Sandra Lane sNorth Andover Massachusetts 40' 0 40' ' o Scale: 1"=40' `F R Figure 5 a L� FRENCH DRAIN DISCHARGE TO CB#2 E a _o N n O a, FRENCH DRAIN 3 U E PNS yJ °' a �a N LFR B-30 d 00 LL O O N N BOUNDARY OF d EXCAVATION 0 ❑ d LFR B-1 on LL APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Q v WATER AND SEWER LINES LFR B-20 LFR B-4 O a � W iv E W d S O WATER a TANKS EXPLANATION: z O SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE U, O SOIL BORING LOCATION 0 N 'a OIL RELEASE MIGRATORY PATH N O C Conceptual Site Model 50 Sandra Lane 5' 0 5' North Andover, Massachusetts o Scale: 1"=5' L R Figure 6 Q TABLES ` W ...1 m Q H 0 0 0 0 0 © o 0 0 © o © x 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O CO �7 O O O O O O C3 O O O O O Table 1: Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence(67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 Analyte Units SSWA SSW-2 SSW-3 SSW-4 RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 100 Anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 1000 Benzo a anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 7 Benzo[a rene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo g,h,i a lene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo k fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 7 Dibenz a,h anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 400 Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 7 2-Methyl nahthalene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 4 Na hthalene mg/Kgmg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND<0.63 ND<0.45 ND<0.4 100 Pyrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kgmg/Kg 21 18 ND<4.5 16 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kg 21 18 ND<4.5 16 1000 C19-C36 Ali hatics mg/Kg 29 11 ND<4.5 15 2500 C9-C18 Ali hatics mg/Kg ND<4.4 8.3 ND<4.5 ND<4 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg mg/Kg50 37 ND<4.5 31 1000 Percent Moisture % 27 47 27 19 --- Percent Solids % 73 53 73 81 --- Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram Table 2: Basement Soil Samples 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 LFR B-1 LFR B-1 LFR B-2 LFR B-3 LFR B-4 Analyte Units 3-5 fbg 5-7 fbg 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.47 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 100 Anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.57 1000 Benzo a anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 2 Benzo b fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Benzo[ ,h,i erylene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 Benzo k fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 70 Ch Bene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Dibenz a,h anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 400 Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 2-Meth Ina hthalene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.43 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.43 100 Pyrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kg 13 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 45 110 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kgmg/Kg 13 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 45 110 1000 C19-C36 Ali hatics mg/Kg 27 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 61 59 2500 C9-C18 Ali hatics mg/Kg 17 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 81 160 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 57 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 190 320 1000 Percent Moisture % 9 11 15 15 16 --- Percent Solids % 91 89 85 85 84 --- Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram O O ® CO O C] O O O O O O O C3 O O O CO O Table 3: Excavation Soil Samples 6/15/2007 6/15/2007 SS-Base SS-South Analyte Units 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 100 Anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Benzo[a anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Benzo[a rene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Benzo g,h,i a lene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Benzo[k fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Dibenz a,h anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 0.7 Fluoranthene -.mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 400 Indeno 1,2,3-cd] rene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 2-Methyl nahthalene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 100 Pyrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kg 7.3 ND<3.7 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kgmg/Kg 7.3 ND<3.7 1000 C19-C36 Ali hatics mg/Kg mg/KgND<3.7 ND<3.7 2500 C9-C18 Ali hatics mg/Kg mg/Kg5.5 ND<3.7 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg mg/Kg13 ND<3.7 1000 Percent Moisture % 12 11 1 --- Percent Solids % 88 89 --- Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram Table 4: Monitoring Wells Soil Samples 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-2/MW-2 LFR-2/MW-2 LFR-3/MW-3 LFR-4/MW-4 Analyte Units 4-8 fbg 8-12 fbg 12-16 fbg 4.5-5 fbg 5-10 fbg 10-15 fbg 5-10 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg I mg/KND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 100 Anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Benzo[a]pyrene m /K ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 2 Benzo b fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Benzo ,h,i a lene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Benzo k fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 70 Ch Bene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Dibenz a,h anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 400 Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 2-Meth Ina hthalene mg/Kgmg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kgmg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 100 Pyrene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kg 12 5.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kgmg/Kg 12 5.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 C19-C36 Ali hatics mg/Kg mg/Kg25 12 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 2500 C9-C18 Ali hatics mg/Kg mg/KgND<3.7 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg mg/Kg37 18 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 Percent Moisture % 13 11 1 8.4 13 11 9.1 13 --- Percent Solids % 87 89 92 87 89 90.9 87 --- Notes: RCS-1-Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram Table 5: Groundwater Analytical Results 6/15/2007 7/13/2007 7/13/2007 Analyte Units MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 GW-2 GW-3 Acenaphthene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 NA 5000 Acenaphthylene µg/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 3000 Anthracene µg/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 1000 Benzo a rene µg/L ND<0.21 NT NT NA 500 Benzo[b fluoranthene µg/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 400 Benzo[g,h,i]pe lene pg/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 3000 Benzo k fluoranthene µg/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 100 Chrysene µg/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Dibenz a,h anthracene µg/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 40 Fluoranthene µg/L ND<1 NT NT NA 200 Fluorene µg/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Indeno 1,2,3-cd rene µg/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 100 2-Meth (naphthalene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 10000 3000 Naphthalene pg/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 1000 20000 Phenanthrene µg/L ND<0.21 2.3 ND<0.22 NA 50 Pyrene pg/L ND<1 NT NT NA 20 C11-C22 Aromatics µg/L ND<100 170 ND<110 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted µg/L ND<100 170 ND<110 50000 5000 C19-C36 Ali hatics µg/L ND<100 ND<100 160 NA 20000 C9-C18 Ali hatics µg/L ND<100 ND<100 ND<110 1000 20000 Total EPH I µg/L ND<100 170 160 5000 5000 Notes: GW-2/GW-3-Cleanup criteria for MCP GW-2 and GW-3 ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested NA-Not Applicable µg/L-micrograms/liter Table 6: Analytical Results for Sump#2 and Catch Basin #2 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 Analyte Units SUMP#2 CB#2 GW-2 GW-3 Acenaphthene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 5000 Acenaphthylene µg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 3000 Anthracene g/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 3000 Benzo[a anthracene g/L 0.72 ND<0.3 NA 1000 Benzo[a rene g/L ND<0.21 ND<0.2 NA 500 Benzo b fluoranthene pg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 400 Benzo[g,h,i] a lene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 3000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene µg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 100 Chrysene µg/L 1.9 ND<1 NA 3000 Dibenz a,h anthracene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 40 Fluoranthene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 200 Fluorene gg/L ND<1 1.7 NA 3000 lndeno[1,2,3-cd rene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 100 2-Methyl naphthalene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 10000 3000 Naphthalene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 1000 20000 Phenanthrene µg/L ND<0.21 0.42 NA 50 Pyrene lag/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 20 C11-C22 Aromatics µg/L ND<100 260 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted pg/L ND<100 250 50000 5000 C19-C36 Ali hatics g/L ND<100 ND<100 NA 20000 C9-C18 Ali hatics g/L ND<100 110 1000 20000 Total EPH µg/L ND<100 370 5000 5000 Notes: GW-2/GW-3-Cleanup criteria for MCP GW-2 and GW-3 ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested NA-Not Applicable µg/L-micrograms/liter t APPENDIX A O O O D 0 APPENDIX A Q MADEP Notice of Responsibility a 0 D D a 0 a a 0 5/15/2007 03:19 6036267625 COKCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE hl COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF FAVMONMENTA)G.PROTECTION NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington, MA 01.887 • (978) 694-3200 AL 1__sT"x L. PATRICK TAN A.BOWLES secretvY 10TH P.MURRAY r"lnant oovemor ARLEEN OT)ONNELI. UConxmis©ionc r URGENT LEGAL MATTER PROMPT ACTION NECESSARY May 7,2007 Comcast of Massachusetts,Inc. RE: NORTH ANDOVER, 751 East I dustrxal Park Residential Property Manchester,New Hampshire 03109 gp Sandra Lane RTN: 3-26748 .A.TTN: Robert Goldthwaite NOUCE 0rF'RE%ffl8S.MILl2'Y; M.O;L. tz .2IE&510 CMR 40 0000 Faear Mr.Goldthwaite: Ou April 12, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., the Departalent of Environmental Protection (MasaDEP) received oras notiiicat.ion•that there-is or has been a release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous material at the above rofercnoed property,which requires one or mote response,actions.Based on this information,NlassDEP has reason to behove that the subject property or Portion(s)thereof is a disposal site as•deI'irned in the Massachusetts Oil mrd Ha'raWous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, M.G.L. c. 21E, and tho Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310,CMR 40.0000(the MCP). Die assessment and cleanup of disposal sites is governed by M.G.L. c. 21E and the%4C?. The purpose.of this notice :is to inform you of'your legal responsibiliti6s .under stare law for assessing and/or remediating the subject-release.For purposes of this notice,the terms and phrases used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them by the MCP unless the text clearly indicates otlaerwise. : ..: STATUTORY 11A11;lLri M.• - -.MassDEP has=reason to believe that you(as used in this letter, "you"refers to Comcast of Massachusetts, Isic.)-ar-a Poientially Responsibile•Party(a•PRP)with"liability wader M.G.L.c.21E, § S,for response action costs. Section 5 lmtzkes the follawiug`pait es:liable to the Cotttuionwealth of Massachusetts: current owners or operators of a site from or at vvhioh 3here is•or,has been a-release/threat of release of oil or hazardous material; any person 0wh ffowned or•biwated a site at the time hazardous material was stored ordisposed of, airy person tvlto:arr aged 0 - ... bis tnramnation is evat(able In alternate foroaL Q11 Douetd M.Goace,ADA Coordinator ill 617-s56.1037.rAl)Semco-1.800-T9&?.107. http:llwww:qtass.gov/depvFax(97s)so4.i4g9 Punted on RecydW paper O /1512007 03:19 6036267625 COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE 02 U North Andover;50 Sandra Lane,Residential Property,RTN 3.26,74S Notice 4 Responsibility,Comcast of M#Is9acha9att9,Inc. Page 2- for the transport, disposal, storage or treatment of hazardous mawrial to or at a site;any person who transported hazardous material to a transport,disposal,storage or treatment site fro�an which them is or has been a release%tly cat Of release of such material; and any person who otherwise caused or is legally responsible for a release/threat of ielease of oil 6r ha7xndous material at a site. D -This liability is "strict",meaning it is not based on fault, but solely on your status as an oN%mer, operator, generator; transporter or disposer:- It is also joint and several,'meaning that you may be liable for all response action costs incurred at the site,regardless of the existence of any other liable parties, The MCP requires responsible parties to take necessary response actions at properties where there is or has been a release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous material. If you do not take the necessary response actions,or fail to perform them in an appropriate and timely maMer, MassDEP is authorized by M.G.I.,,c.2lE to have the work perforated by-its contractors, By taking such actions, you can avoid liability for response action costs incurred by Massl)BF and its contractors in performing these actions, and any sanctions which may be imposed for failure to perform response actioris under the MCP. .You may be liable for up to three (3) times all,response action costs incurred by MassDEP. Response action costs' include, without limitation, the cost of direct hours spent by MassDEP employees arranging for. response actions or overseeing work performed-by persons other than MassDEP or their contractors, expenses incurred by MassDEP in support of those direct hours,and payments to MassDEP contractors. (For more detail on cost liability,see 310 CMR 40.1200.) MassDEP may also assess interest on costs incurred.at•the rate of twelve percent 12% compounded p ( }� p annually. To-secure payment of this debt,.the Comrmonw6alth may place liens on all of your property in the Commonwealth. To recover the debt, the Commonwealth may foreclose on these: liens or the Attorney General may Wng legal action against you. Waddition to your liability for up to three(3)times all response action costs incurred by MassDEP,you may also be liable to,the Commonweal* for damages to natural resources caused by the release. Civil and criminal liability may also•be imposed under M.G.L. c. 21E, § 11, and civil administrative penalties may be imposed under M.G.L.c.21A, § 16.fox-each violation of M.G.L,c.21E,the MCP,or any order,permit or approval 0 issued thereunder. NECESSARY RESPONSE ACTI:QNS. The:subject site ,shall not be deers ed jp.have had all.the ntocessary aad.tequircd response,actions taken unless and instil all.substantial hazards presented by the site have been.•eliminated and-a level of No Sigai;ficaut Risk exists.or has been.achieved in compliance with M.G.L. e,21B and the MCP. In addition; the MCP requires Persons undertaking response actions at disposal sites to perform Immediate Response Actions(IRAs)in response. to "sudden released", IrnunineW Hazards.acrd Substantial Release Migration. Such, persons must continue to +evaluate the meed for IRAs and notify MassDEP immediately if such a need exists. L1 l►' AMDElf' has* &teruflned that an IRA .isnecessary to respond tli the sudden release of approutnately eighty.(80)gallons.of#2 £cel.cid to, and below:, the.concrete basement #loop of.cite.sgbjert 7ideatiial property. The oil noWed into a per n Teter-drain and migrated off-site into the storm-water run- 10f agd:impgced the receivit ,suzGface.water body. a65/15/2007 03:19 6836267625 COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE 02: North Andover,50 Saodtrn Lal ke,Residential Property,RTN 3-26748 .NOtice of Responsibility,Comcast of Massachusetts,Inc. 3 The release of oil occurred as the result Of the oil feed line breaking oil'a 275-gallon above-ground storage..tank (AST) ,when a Comcast of Massachusetts, I11c. employee stepped g worldug in the basement of the subject residential property. Pp on lite ail feed fine while You are authorized to conduct only the specific thea oigse actions approval from MUS EE at"the-time.you provided oraoral l aatiticntion to Mions?EP of the subject reloafOv Which you d, All additional Immediate Response Actions require AUNDO approval hit accordance with 310 CMR 40.0420. MassAEP reminds you that >RA,g must include site assessment activities necessary to evaluate potential xlmmiment Hazard (�, Substatttial Release (CEP) conditions. .Additional,immediate Response Actions will ration� �' and Critical Exposure P'athwa'y CBP conditions are observed; equhvd is the event an U1, SRM, or You must employ or engage a Licensed Site Professional (LSP),to manage,supervise or actually perform the necessary response actions at the subject site. In addition, the MCP:r ui�res . actions at a disposal site to subtiizt to �I � persons neer res�ottse the Department a Response Action Outcome Statement l an LSP in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1000 upon Bete 'O)prepared by or }las }peen achieved at a disposat site or t>�ng that a level of No Sig�ptifteaut Risk already exists portion,thereof. [you may obtain a list of the,names and.addresses of. these licensed professionals filgm the Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Clem).0 Profe (617)556-1091.) P ssionals at 0There are several other submittals required by the MCP which are related to release notiftca " Them actions that may be conducted at the subject site in addition to an RAO,that, unless otherwise specifiedt �jby lVlassDEP,must be provided tri MassD1✓P withia specific regulatory timet'amen.The submittals are as.follows: U M. If information is obtained after mak' threat of release did not-occur, failed to meet the port g c�notification 0 CMR 40.03 1 l tthrou e 140.03 15release , or is exempt from notification pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0317,a Notification Retnsction must be submitted within 60 days of initial notification pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0335;otherwise, ' (2) If one has not been submitted, a Release Notification Forth to Nss]39P Pumuent to section 310 CUR 40.0333 within 60 calendar days Of e initialtdate of oral be.submittenotifiicat onn to UUU DEP of a release pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0300 or from the date MassDEP issues a Notice of Responsibility(NOR),V bh ichever occurs earlier, ^'(3) Umless Q RAG is,subMtted,earlier,an Immediate Res wxth'310 CMR 40.0420, or an Ponse Aotim.(IRA)PlaR*ePwVdiin-'accordance IwlassAfil?wit}xxu 60 calendar days of the initial dam a o 1 IIa � oMR M.0 DEP 27) u a releaseomitted to (31 to 310 CMR 40.0300 or from the date MassDEP issues a NOR, whichever oeours earlier; puzsuant Iter;and 0- .Unless a RAO ro riate,ta earlier, a completed Tier Classification Sµbnl t .Pursuant to 310 C . �40.OS10, and, if appropriate, a;connpleted Tier I Pett Application ucsgapt to 310 � LJ be'subixiitted to DEP within one year of the initial date of oral nottff eation to MasssD P of.7a'relniust ease : .pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0300,or from the date MessDEP issues a MOR,whichever occurs earlier. (S) Pursuant to MasSDF, is "Timely Action Schedule must be included with e. �'d Pte'Provisions'; COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE 04 i l �/la/Lt7t7! F7d:17 b0db'lblb'M ; North Andover,50 Sandra Lane,Residential Propertyy RTN 3-26748 l�Totice of Responsibility;Comcast of Massachusetts,Inc, Page 4 MassDEP issues a NOR,whichever oaaurs earlier,.and before Tier Classification. A fea is not-rNilixed a for a RAO submitted•to MassDEP withiA 120 days of the.dEtta of oral notification to MassDEP, or to Of e NiassDEP issues&NOR,whichever date occurs earlier,or after Tier Classification. It is-important to note that you must dispose of any Remediation Waste Senerated at the subject location in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0030 including, without limitation, contaminated•soil and/or debris. Any Bill of Lading aeeompagying such waste must bear the seal and signature of an LSP or, if the response action is performed under the direct superrvisioa of MassDEP,the signature of an authorized representative of MassDEP. MassDEP encoitages parties with liabilities under M.0-L, c, 21E to take prompt action in response to releases and threats of release of oil and/or hazardous material. By taking prompt action, you may'significantly lower your assessment and cloanup costs and avoid the imposition of or reduce the amount of,certain permit and annual compliance fees for response actions payable under 3 10 CMR 4.00. aPlease-be advised-that Notices of Rbsponsibility have peen issued to several-PR-Ps for this release, and that it xttay bo prudent t'or all PRPs to coordinate the necessary response actions. If-you have any questions•relative to this notice, you should contact Steven S. Ross at the letterhead address br(978)-694-33•?1. All future communications regarding-this release must reference-the Release Tracking Number(RTN 1-26748)contained in the subject block of this letter. Sincerely, Steven S.Ross Envirohm.ental Analyst Emergency Response Branch r�avid -LUOusata Branch Chief-: (rj Emergency Response Branch �JJ cc:. -DEP Data Enl y/Pile APPENDIX B C= C:D d C� [� C a 0 0 oAPPENDIX 0 IRA Plan Transmittal Forma 0 0 0 D D 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 Massachusetts Deparb ant of Environmental Protection a Bureau of Waste Site CleanupBWSG1O5 ❑ lMMEDtATE RESPONSE ACTION(IRA)TRANSAUITAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) © - ❑ RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE LOCATItIN: 1. Release Name/Location Aid: RESIDENTIAL.PROP. RTY 2. Street Address: SANDRA L,N ❑ 3. City/Town: NORTH ANDOVER 4�ZIP Code. t845.4fi[2 5.UTM Coordinates: a.UTM N b. UTM E 1_� ❑ ❑ 6. Check here if a Tier Classification Submittal has been provided to DEP for flus disposal site. ❑ a. Tier lA. ❑ b. mer IB 0 k» Tier iC ❑ d. TWO ❑ R-7—. Check here if this location is Adequately Regulated,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0410.0114. Specify Program(cimmk oney. ❑ a. CERCLA ❑ b. HMA CorrediveAction ❑ c. Solid Waste Management ❑ ❑ d. RCRA State Program(21C Facilities) B.THIS FOW IS BEING US®TQ (check all that apply) ❑ 1. List Submittal Date of Initial IRA Written Plan(if previously submitted) ❑ 2. Submit an initial IRA Plan, ❑ ❑ 3. Submit a Modified IRAPlan of a previously submitted aaitten IRA Pian. .❑ 4. Submit an bnmkent Hazard Evalturtion.(check one) ❑ a, An Imminent Hazard exists in connectiont with this Release or Threat of Release. [] b. An Imminent Hazard do"not axial in connection with this Release or Threatof Release. ❑ c.❑ it is unknown whether an Imminent Hazard exists In connection with this Release or Threat of Release,and further assessment activities will be undertaken. ❑ d. It is unknown whether an Imminent Hazard exists in connection with this Release or Threat of Release. However, response actions will address those conditions that could pose an imminent Hazard. ❑ 5. Submit a request to Terrimhu tae an Active Remedial System or Response Action(s)Taken to Address an krun wad Hazard. 6. Submit an IRA Status Report ❑ ❑ 7. Submit a Renes Monlio.f ft Report(This report can only be submitted through eDEP.) a.Type of Report:(check one) ❑ 1. initial Report ❑ if. Interim Report ❑ !if. Final Report ❑ b.Frequency of Submittal:(check all that apply) ❑ 1. A Remedial Monitoring Report(s)submitted monthly to address an Imminent Hazard. 0 if. A Remedial Monito ft Report(s)submitted monthly to address a Condition of Substantial Release Migration. ❑ ❑ !if. A Remedial Monitoring Reports)submitted konaurent.with a IRA Status Report. c. Number of Remedial Systems and/or Monitoring Programs: A separate 8WSC105A,IRA Remedial Mofftft Report,must be Mled out for each Remedial System and/or Monitoring Program addressed by#ftUansmittal form_ Revised:2/9/2005 PAP 1 of 6 a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Honesty of Waste Site Cleanup BWSG105 j IMMEDIATE RESPfiNSE AG (IRA)TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number u FORM PursuanttD 310 CMR 40.042+1-40.0427(Subpart D) ` B.THIS FORM IS BEING USEI)TO(contk (duck afi that apply) ❑ 8. Submit art IRA Completion StafeMod. a. Check here if future response actions addressing this Release or Threat of Release notification condition Will be E] conducted as part of the Response Actlons planned or ongoing at a Site PW has already beery Tier Classified under a different Release Tracking Number(RTN). When inking.RTNs,rescoring via the NRS is required if there is a reasonable likelihood that the addition of the new RTN(s)would change the classification of the site. b. Provide Release Tracking Number of Ter Classified Side(Primary RTN): D- These additional response actions must occur according to the deadlines applicable to the Primary RTN.Use the Primary RTN when making all future submittals for the site unless specifically relating to this Immediate Response Action. 0 9. Submit a Revised ORA Compidion blatsm * (Ail section;of this transn"M foam must be fified out unless odmwwfse notad above) C. RELEAMORTHWATOFRELEASEEoNDffKM7MTVAMRAN' R& 1. Identify Media Impacted and ROCSONS Affeded: (check all that apply) 21 a. Air ❑✓ b. Basement ❑ c. Critical Exposure Pathway ❑ d_ Groundwater 0 e_ Residence ❑ f. Paved Surface ❑ g.Private.Well Q h. Public Water Supply ❑ 1. School u 1. Sediments k. Sod D 1. Storm Drain R) m. Surface Water ❑ n. Unknown ❑ 0. Wettand ❑ p. Zone 2 a ❑ q. Others Specify: 2. Identify Oils and Hazardous Materials Released: (check all#Prat apply) Q a. Oils ❑. b. Chlorinated Solvents ❑ c.Heavy Metals ❑ d. Others Specify a aD. D77l7N OF (Ghu&allthat apply,for volumes list cumulative amounts) ❑ 1. Assessment andfor Monitoring Only ❑ 2, Temporary Covers or Caps [✓� .3. Deployment of Absorbent 0r Containment Mager" ❑ 4. Temporary Water Supplies ❑ 5. Structure Venting System ❑ fi. Temporary Evacuation.or Relocation of Residents 1�1 7. Product or NAPL Recovery ❑ 8. Fencing and Sign Posting ❑ 9. Groundwater TreatmentSysterns ❑ 10. SoitVaporExInwUm ❑ 11. Bioremediation ❑ 12 Air Sparging a a Revised: 2/9!2005 Page 2 of B a : . a aMassachimetts Uepartuent of Eiw*onmtental Protoctkat Bureau of Waste Slte Cleanup BWSC4 E15 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION([RAI TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 4tl 81424-40.0427(Subpart D) ❑ D: DESCFP'[Iw OF REQ ACMw(wn* (check an that apply,for volumes lit cumulative amounts) D 13. Excavation of Contaminated Soft IL a. Re-use.Recycling or Treatment ❑ i.on Site Estimated volume in cubic yards Q ii.Off Sde Estimated volume in cubic yards 2 iia.Receiving Facility: inpro Services of Maim,I m Town: *u&Pardarid (State: j rib.Receiving Facility Town: te: iii.Describe: b. Store ❑ i.On Site Estimated volume in cubic yards ❑ ii.Off Site Estimated volume in cubic yards iia.Receiving Facey: Town: State: iib.Receiving Facility. Town: State: ❑ c. Landfd! "' ❑ i.Cover Estimated volume in cubic yards Receiving FacW. F Town: Ita* ii.Disposal Estimated volume in cubic yards a Receiving Facility: t 14. Removal of Drums.Tanks or Containers: a. Describe Quantity and Amountb. Receiving Fadliflr - Tow �c. Rece ving Facility Town: I 1 Z 15. Removal of other Contaminated Media L a.spedfy Type and votunw. spemt absorba ft and lost*matterfront sty b.ReceivingfadW- fnpro Services of it�sine,Inc own: r Portland State: c.Receiving FaciNty Town: - State: Q 16, Other Response Actions: Describe: Interception of aipproximaWy 11,000 gaRms of gyoundwateir ffom fmncb drain 17. Use of Innovative Techno Describe: injection of hydrogen peroxide Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 3 of 6 aMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION (iRA)TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) F - 26748 E. LSP SIGNATURE AND STAMP: I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that 1 have personally examined and am familiar with this-transmittal form, including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion andjudgment based upon application Q of(i)the standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1),(6)the applicable provisions of 309 CMR.4.02(2)and(3),and 309 CMR 4.03(2),and (iii)the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(3),to the best of my knowledge,information and belief, > if Section B of this form indicates that an immediate Response Action Plan is being submitted,the response actions)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L o.21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal, > if Section B of this form indicates that an Imminent Hazard Evaluation is being submitted,this Imminent Hazard Evaluation was developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and the assessment activmies) undertaken to support this Imminent Hazard Evaluation comply(ies)with the applicable provisions of M.G.L c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000; > if Section B of this form indicates that an immediate Response Action Status Report and/or a Remedial Monitoring Report is(are)being submitted,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)is(are).being implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response aclion js)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(iii)comply(ies)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal; > if Section B of this form indicates that an immediate Response Action Completion Statement or a request to Terminate an Active Remedial System or Response Action(s)Taken to Address an imminent Hazard is being submitted,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i).has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(iii)comply(ies) with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal, i am aware that significant penalties may result,including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,if I submit information which I know to be false,inaccurate or materially incomplete. 1. LSP#: 1008T i 2. First Name: RICHARD G 3. Last Name: STROMBERG U 4. Telephone: (781) 3 --1306 5. End.: �B 6. FAX: ? — -3 ZZII 7. Signature: . n 8. Date: O q 2i' �7 (mm/ddiyyyy) ,ri k . i U 9.LSP Stamp: /� G. u ,„ Revised: 219/2005 Page 4 of 6 I, ❑ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 71 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 ❑ IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION(IRA)TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) - 26748 rF. PERSON UNDERTAKING IRA: . Check all that apply: ❑ a.change in contact name ❑ b.change of address ❑ c. change in the person undertaking response actions ❑ 2. Name of Organization:ICOMCAST OF MASSACHUSETTS I INC 3. Contact First Name: ROBERT 4.Last Name: GOLDTHWAITE 5. Street: 6.�Qty� 6.Titter �! 7. City/Town: Lyi�c.ot2 8. State: NH 9. ZIP Code: t;tet'0000 10. Telephone: (603)626-9900 11.Ext.: 3512 12. FAX: G. RELATIONSHIP TO RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE OF PERSON UNDERTAI4NG Rk Q 1. RP or PRP 0 a. Owner M b. Operator ❑ c. Generator d. Transporter ❑ e. Other RP or PRP Specify ❑ ❑ 2. Fiduciary,Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.2) ❑ 3. Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E.s.56)) �i ❑ 4. Any Other Person Undertaking IRA Specify Relationship: H.REQUIRED ATTACHMENT AND SUBMITTALS: ❑ 1.Check here if any Remediation Waste,generated as a result of this IRA,will be stored,treated,managed,recycled or [] reused at the site following submission of the IRA Completion Statement. If this box is checked,you must submit one of the following plans,along with the appropriate transmittal form. ❑ ❑ a. A Release Abatement Measure(RAM)Plan(BWSC106) ❑ b.Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan(BWSC108) 2. Check here if the Response Action(s)on which this opinion is based,if any,are(were)subject to any order(s),permit(s) and/or approval(s)issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked,you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable ❑ provisions thereof. a3. Check here to certify that.the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health were notified of the implementation of an Immediate Response Action taken to control,prevent,abate or eliminate an Imminent Hazard. ❑ 4. Check here to certify that the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health were notified of the submittal of a Completion Statement for an Immediate Response Action taken to control,prevent,abate or eliminate an Imminent Hazard. ❑ 5, Check here if any non-updatable information provided on this form is incorrect,e.g.Release Address/location Aid. Send corrections to the DEP Regional Office. ❑ 6. Check here to certify that the LSP Opinion containing the material facts,data,and other information is attached. Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 5 of 6 LlMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC1 Q5 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION (IRA)TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) - 26748 L CERTIFICATION OF PERSON UNDERTAKING FA- 1. A:1 I lRobert Goldthwaife ,attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(')that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained In this submittal,including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form,(ii)that,based on my inquiry of those individuals immediatety responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained in this submittal is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate and complete,and(iii) that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally responsible for this submittal. Uthe person or entity on whose behalf this submittal is made amlis aware that there are significant penalties,including,but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment,for willfully submitting false,inaccurate,or incomplete information. 2• BYA463. Title: Signature 4. For: Eco OF MASSACHUSETTS I INC 5. Date: 7 r1 (Name of person or entity recorded in Section F) (mm/ddlyyyy) 6. Check khhere `if the address of the person providing certification is different from address recorded in Section F. a7_ Street: I 8. City/Town: 9. State: 10. ZIP Code: 11. Telephoner 12.Ext.: 13. FAX: YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE FEE OF UP TO$10,000 PER BILLABLE YEAR FOR THIS DISPOSAL SITE, YOU MUST LEGIBLY COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY-RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM,YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING A REQUIRED DEADLINE. Date Stamp(DEP USE ONLY:) Revised:2/9/2005 Page 6 of 6 j U APPENDIX C 0 a 0 oAPPENDIX 0 oLetter .oMr. Waterman 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a GLFRENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT&CONSULTING ENGINEERING June 22 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Mr. Chris Waterman 67 Sandra Lane aNorth Andover, Massachusetts 01845 DRe: Results of Surface Soil Sampling at 67 Sandra Lane Dear Mr. Waterman: a In accordance with your verbal request, LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this letter to convey the results of the recent surface soil samples collected at your residence in response to the sudden home heating a fuel oil release in the basement at 50 Sandra Lane in April 2007. LFR has been coordinating with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to remediate the spill so that it will not constitute a health concern to properties near the spill. On June 7, 2007, LFR collected four surface soil samples at 67 Sandra Lane. The attachment contains a figure of sample locations. The samples were collected in areas of the vegetable garden, the swing set, and two other areas in the lawn along the stream. The attachment also contains a table summarizing the results of the analysis that was performed for "Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons" (EPH) which is applicable for the type of oil released. The table compares the results to the "S-1 Reportable Concentrations" (RCS-1's) for residential areas set by the MassDEP. The RCS-1 standards are defined in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) in Section 40.0361 (a) as a soils within 500 feet of a residential building, a residentially zoned property, school, playground, recreational area, or park. Low levels of certain petroleum hydrocarbon fraction residues were detected in three of the four surface samples at concentrations twenty times less than the RCS-1 standards. None were detected in the other sample. Low levels of petroleum can be found in areas that are periodically affected by street runoff. A previous spill of fuel oil was also documented at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 that was Q cleaned up. Results of testing in the stream and sediment also posed no health concern as previously described in the Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan sent to you in May 2007 by LFR. Therefore, although low levels of petroleum residues were found, it is not possible to differentiate them as being attributable to the current spill or the previous spill and normal runoff. Regardless, the backyard is safe for normal residential activities. 781.356.7300 m 781.356.2211 f 194 Forbes Road www.Ifr.com Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 III Offices Nationwide aMr.Chris Waterman Lin LFR June 22,Q Page 2 These results will also be copied to the MassDEP and local North Andover public agencies in the next IRA Status Report to be provided by LFR on August 12, 2007. Please call me at 781-356-7300 (x203) if you have any questions with regard to these samples. aVery Truly Yours, Richard Stromberg, CPG, LSP Senior Associate a Attachments aCC: M. Salimena, R. Goldthwaite, W. Allard(Comcast) T. Woodward (LFR) a A. McKay (N. Andover Conservation Commission) C. Hayon (50 Sandra Lane, N. Andover) U a 0 0 a a a a 0 0 0 � ATTACHMENTS 0 0 c 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 Cd C� d O d d d D d d d O d d C� O d d Cd -. •e a -. C _ e C `l< -• 0 �^ a 0 N N } C 7 3 N � v d i 7 LL d o .." d w 0 os • �� �w C� P C'4 - o� w.7srt 2` Si r#"� g NP, Surface Sample Locations 67 Sandra lane North Andover Massachusetts Et�r�MAPL11�lirLQ�GATfN� t:, � efts 0 Scale: 1 20' LFR Figure 1 0 0 © x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © x 0 0 0 0 Table 1: Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence(67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) Surface Soil Samples Analyte Units SSW-1 SSW-2 SSW-3 SSW-4 RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND<0.4 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.0 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Dibenz a,h anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 400 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 2-Meth (naphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg 29 11 ND< 4.5 15 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg ND<4.4 8.3 ND< 4.5 ND< 4 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 50 37 ND< 4.5 31 1000 Percent Moisture % 27 47 27 19 --- Percent Solids % 73 53 73 81 --- RCS-1 - Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) D � D Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 DClient Sample ID: SSW-1 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1250 Lab Sample ID; 360-10499-8 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid D Analyte _ Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution DMethod: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 4 Percent Moisture 27 % 1.0 D D D D D D D D D D D Page 22 of 44 a a Mr.a Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1R LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSWA Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1250 Lab Sample ID: 360.10499-8 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 (� Client Matrix: Solid I I Percent Solids: 73 L1 Analyte _ Result/Qualifier Unit RL Dilution aMethod: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 1828 (_[ Prep Method: 3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 n Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 {�J] 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 21 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 21 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 29 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 a C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 Total EPH 50 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits 2-Bromonaphthalene 79 % 40-140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 82 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 41 % 40-140 1-Chlorooctadecane 58 % 40-140 a a a aPage 23 of 44 U a Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-2 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1254 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-9 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid I Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution QMethod: PercentMolsture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 Percent Moisture 47 % 1.0 II Page 24 of 44 U f Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 u LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-2 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1254 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-9 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid aPercent Solids: 53 Analyte Result/Qualifier _ Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: - 06/15/2007 1900 Prep Method:3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[blfluorenthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]peryler, ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[kifluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anth racene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Fluorenthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 18 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 18 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 11 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C9-C18 Aliphatics 8.3 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 Total EPH 37 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits 2-13romonaphthalene 56 % 40-140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 59 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 31 X % 40-140 1-Chlorooctadecane 34 X % 40.140 O Page 25 of 44 a II Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road aBraintree, MA 02184 m / GhDate Sample ID: SSW-3 a Sa p led: o6 0 7/20 07 1255 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-10 Date Received.- 06/12/2007 1515 J Client Matrix: Solid LJ Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution i 1 Method: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 Percent Moisture 27 % 1.0 ' D Page 26 of 44 Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road DBraintree, MA 02184 U Client Sample 1D: SSW-3 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1255 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-10 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid Percent Solids: 73 Analyte ResultiQualifier Unit RL Dilution QMethod: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 1932 Prep Method:3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[g,h J]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1:U Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Illi C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 Total EPH ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits 2-13romonaphthalene 74 % 40-140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 76 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 57 % 40-140 1-Chiorooctadecane 60 % 40- 140 Page 27 of 44 i Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR Inc. 194 Forbes Road oBraintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-4 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1300 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-11 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid Analyte Result/Qualifier _Unit NONE Dilution Method: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 Percent Moisture 19 % 1.0 U Page 28 of 44 Mr, Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road DBraintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW4 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1300 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-11 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515. Client Matrix: Solid Percent Solids: 81 Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed:^ 06/15/2007 2003 Prep Method: 3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 n Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0,40 1.0 (� lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 16 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 16 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 15 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 (� C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 ILII Total EPH 31 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits 2-Bromonaphthalene 80 % 40-140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 83 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 63 % 40-140 1-Chlorooctadecane 72 % 40-140 �} Page 29 of 44 C f� CD C73 CO 17:1 C0 CD C D C--D Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. 38744 A A •33 Southampton Road .149 Rangeway Road ( 4 4} Westfield,MA oto65 N_Billerica,MA 01862 Chain of Custody Form � STL (P)413-672-4000 (P)978-667.1400 (F)413-672-3707 (F)978-667-7871 sn_westowd STL Btrkriu s.n,ie.Cene.r Client: fNC • Project#: — LSZ- Jotglt Qno10 POO;. p:: D 9- . . Address: f Lf. f7p Project Manager: flS Shaded:area's for office use 'Analysis Requested Comments f3ambMI&E M Work ID: -j J Check enatysis and specify method (Special Ins cholla) Phone: -7KJ-3_,9C Fax. 5 Contact and analytes in comments section. For example, Please print legibility. If the ana"cai Requested Turnaround Time PLEASE SPECIFY) R ulat0 Classiticatlon Special Report Format Soo-sedesfor ddmdngwater NPDES aedes for waste water.NPDES requests are not clearly defined on the Drinking Water. QAIgC Report 660 STANDARD ( gH RCRA 66oe series for groundwater.sal,waste chain-of-custody, the turnaround time � MCP GW1/S1 DQE MCP (Lab Ap rovai RequirS-I Urti F 8W0 seriestorgroundwater,soft,waste 71 begin after all questions have been Sample T Other DEP Forms Y use oomments section to further define. p y�cpd� � � satisfactorily answered. WW Wastewater OW-Orinking water SW-Surfacewater Preservat7lle N n n LW,Labwater GW-Groeiirdwater A Air � aaCM�o C o C:, U SSold f Soil SL-Sludge O Oil Z 8rheri o Y Q ry vNi � aipdCa c11 t � _ 1 TS O o = — �Time ; m 'o mn = o o Ui atc V =Collected o N U o A Sample ID m °� � a � CLo o � � � � � E OCO O N c R <8 E CII O .'9 V m M Z N U U q! a Z = S 2 Z 2 Z > j O C7 m 0 s �k o Wk 1 MIX I TT i-flz 5'Z 3rs r ds � t t 214,110 � #Z 2cl Z ve sou- S S MAW IT _ . - S �<k 412plrm Sampled by(print): Signature: ^ !! ycs- u ZI 7 o itilApEP Requirement Rei tushed y 6 Date: Time: Ref �amptes tad?( 1 tie 2. b Date: . Tepee: a ... //3� �- r Tem �' a Reiff i 1 p 6 Md'diPt: . - . . . C �- Date: T'me:rte ceive Y: to: Time: r 0 Preseriiatioi!1 pH citgcked . 1'N Reli uishe Y' Da . Time: R rued by: Dat : Time ww— �S d (yj /s�r . g Dater :. Zl WE IELD Page—A— _of r.1 White=Lab file Yellow=Report copy Pink=Customer copy STL-5245 (1000) S@v�ern Tent La ora=torie- Inc C :3 � � �53Southempion d 9�,gaway Road Chain of Custody Form ® STL 3 7�$ `"(P�-572-40'00 5 " sll�.m' ol 862 (P)978-667-t400 (F)413-572-3707 (F)978-667-7871871 SM WO$Mdd 511.erllarka l service center Client: {Sriky, Project# _ �oba36b'! Pubte# Pas . Address: Project Manager: Shaded areas for office use Analysis Requested Comments Work 1D: Check analysis and specify method (Special Instructions) Phone: 9A Fax: S[o Wt Contact: S.(Ak9s, anFor analytes in comments section. example. Please print legibility. if tfte analytlaal v Requested Turnaround Time PLEASE SPECIFY) Regulatory ClassificatiOR ectal Re ort Format 500-series for drinidngwater requests are not clearly defined on the NPDES Drinking WaterQArpCReport e0aseriesforwaste water,NPOBS WOO-series for nd time STANDARD _ L RUSH RCRA MCPGWtlS1 DQE MCP Rpt 8000sedesfor 9�ndW�,�i'wane willbegina tody,qu trona vebee (Lab Approval Required) Other �7�S - ( ) '/ ymio tofurt,soul.waste will begin atter all questions have been 1`L---� DEPForm(s) �C_._ ��entaseetionwfi+rri+erdeiine, satlsiaetorilyanswered. Sample Type Codes Presentative ca r- m WW-lfifastewgter DW-Drinking water SW-Surface water ca N o H z LW-Lab water GW-Groundvmter A-Air 00 �o �Q g- SSolid I SoilSL-Sludge O-Oil hr O Date = 0 Time m5 � x CL VC Z U � c LO 0o E y0 i Collected c o a o y n M °v 'n 'A m o c�.i iJ $' R Sample ID a a� = Qa Moo = ° - m o ° ; E a EZ E d E c S O kn O k�v c R 2 'E m O is M E� 5 (9 U U a Z = Z 2 Z Z Z tm CL ir, O m F O SSW --------------------- 2 CAg, Sampled by(print): Signature: tYr,4ot�Requi Brit Nampteslced? 1 N Rei' ish by: Date: Time: RM Date: Tim - G / 3� i/°G 6'f.. �� Temp receipt. °C Rel is by ate: 00 by: te: Time: t Presentation i.pH checked?" N, Reil wished DV e: Time: R by: ate: Time: r� � !S'/� i'iy.•: , 1*�•v,I`;- Date; r 1 44..f STJVWg7f19L11 Paye Z of Z- White=Lab file Yellow=Report copy Pink=Customer copy STL-8245 (1000) APPENDIX D i C D Cz:� C-i C= F-71 E::3 F C=3 C-:D C= C:-3 0 0 a O APPENDIX D O rnwosr=vn: 0 a c c c 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a h E e S s �^ _. { fr.t Q4� ► 3��'` Ldp..' �, - �J TJ 4 i' 7•a f `•>•�i .. __ �x J� .fit.,. a �^ z♦ - � �Y ' r ^ •r k y f r i z, a" JAPPENDIX E 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX E OBoringogs 0 0 c a Q 0 D a c 0 0 c LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM USCS SYMBOLS ©. t . (GW)Well Graded Gravel,Gravel •i_ (GP) Poorly Graded Gravel,Gravel-Sand vb Sand Mixtures, Little or No Fines ♦ Mixtures, Little or No Fines (GM)Silty Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Silt ® (GC)Clayey Gravel,Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures Mixtures E (SW)Well Graded Sand, Gravelly El (SP)Poorly Graded Sand, Sand, Little or No Fines Gravelly Sand, Little or No Fines (SM)Silty Sand, Sand-Silt (SC)Clayey Sand, Sand-Clay ll Mixtures 12 Mixtures (ML)Inorganic Silt and Very Fine Sand, ® (CL) Inorganic Clay of Low to Medium Plasticity, Silty or Clayey Fine Sand,Clayey Silt Gravelly,Sandy,or Silty Clay, Lean Clay (OL)Organic Silt and Clay of (MH)Inorganic Silt, Elastic Silt, Micaceous Low Plasticity RM or Diatomaceous Fine Sandy or Silty Soil ® (CH)Inorganic Clay of High Plasticity, (OH)Organic Clay of Medium to Fat Clay High Plasticity,Organic Silt (PT)Peat, Humus, Swamp Soil with Concrete/Asphalt/Fill/Debris High Organic Content p Based on the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Procedure for Determining Unified Soil Classification, USBR 5005-86,and in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)Standard D 2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils. COMMON MUNSELL REFERENCE NUMBERS Lithologic Contact Observed In Sample Dark Brown-10YR 3/3 Greenish Gray-5G 6/1 Light Brown- 10YR 8/3 Olive Gray-5Y 4/1 Brown- 10YR 5/3 Dark Gray-N3 Lithologic Contact Location Inferred Brownish Yellow- 10YR 6/8 Gray-N5 Yellowish Red-5YR 4/6 Light Gray-N7 �Z First Encountered Water Reddish Brown-1OR 3/6 1 Stabilized Water GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION FORMAT Portion of Sampled Interval Recovered group name and symbol; color; particle size range Interval Sampled (relative sorting/grading); approximate percentage of boulders,cobbles,gravel,sand, and fines; plasticity of fines; particle angularity and shape(if appropriate); Portion of Sampled Interval Not Recovered relative moisture content,odor, reaction with HCI, in-place conditions(consistency, structure,etc.) Sample Portion Retained for Testing DISCLAIMER: Lithologic descriptions presented on boring logs are generalized representations nbased upon visuaNmanual classification of cuttings and/or samples obtained during drilling. The �1 descriptions apply only at the specific location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of L F R subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane WELL NUMBER LFR-1/MW-1 CLIENT COMCAST PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane,N.Andover,MA DRILLING CONTRACTOR Bronson Drilling PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push LOCATION NE of Basement Sump#1 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT Photovac 2020 GROUND ELEVATION -- HOLE DIAMETER 2 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 16.0 It FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER -- STABILIZED WATER 12.3 ft/Elev-12.3 ft LOGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 6/7/07 Hw �w �? U O CL E w UJ j ¢0 C6 p a LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ; Q WELL DIAGRAM H Lu ¢Z (n Lu � > W co w O o 0.5 Topsoil Road box Light brown, moist,SILT with'f sand, little gravel and Concrete Seal cs'sand,albation till, no odor SS-1 P=35 Bentonite Seal 5 1.5"PVC Riser 5 SS-2 SM- P=1.8 ML Filter Sand 10SS-3 P=2 10 1.5"Slotted Screen 12.0 1 Light brown,dry,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs' sand,albation till, no odor a SS-4 SM- P=1.2 s 15 15 I 116.0 Bottom of boring at approximately 16.0 feet �j V. J J J APPROVED BY: DATE: LFR PROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane WELL NUMBER LFR-2/MW-2 CLIENT COMCAST PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane,N.Andover, MA DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push LOCATION SW of CB#2 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 GROUND ELEVATION -- HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 18.0 It FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER — STABILIZED WATER — �LOGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 7/9/07 w Hw _1w �? U co W CO a-> U a a O LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ~ a WELL DIAGRAM = J ~ a.Z) QUA w > Cl) W ❑ IL Topsoil Road Box Concrete Seal Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and 'cs'sand,albation till, no odor 2.0 SS-1 Gray, moist,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs'sand, P=1.5Sand g0 albation till,no odorLight brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and 'cs'sand, albation till,wet at 4.5-5 fbg, no odor 5 SS-25.0 P=1.5 5 Bentonite Seal 2"PVC Riser SS-3 P=1.5 Light brown,dry,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs' SM- sand,albation till,no odor ML 9.5 10 M 10.0 Light brown,wet,SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs' 10 ML sand,albation till,no odor Light brown,dry,SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs' sand,albation till,no odor Filter Sand SS-4 M P=1 V 2"Slotted Screen _ 14.0 Light brown,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs'sand, V 15 albation till,wet at 15 fbg,no odor 15 .p SS-5 M P=9.2 L 18.0 c Bottom of boring at approximately 18.0 feet 0 V. J J APPROVED BY: DATE: LffuLFR _-A0 PROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane WELL NUMBER LFR-3/MW-3 CLIENT COMCAST PAGE 1 OF 1 ROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane,N.Andover,MA DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. ROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push OCATION W of CB#3 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES VA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 ROUND ELEVATION -- HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches OP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 20.0 ft FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER --- STABILIZED WATER -- 1.0GGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 7/9/07 Lu _y z W U U) Z a� v im g 2 O U a p a LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION o a WELL DIAGRAM = d a� Q U �J Lu W > a. Qw QZ �� c0 to W O Lu o Topsoil ---PMP—Roadox „_; Concrete Seal •u u 15.0 2.0 SS-1 Gray, moist,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs'sand, P=3.5 Sand albation till, no odorSM- ML _. 5 5 No Recovery-push rods were wet Bentonite Seal 2"PVC Riser 10 10.0 10 Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and 'cs'sand,albation till, no odor Filter Sand SS-2 ML P=1.5 i ; S 15 115.0 2"Slotted 15 Well Casing Driven to 20 fbg. No soil sample collected. Screen �I i i i i i ]20 20.0 T20 Bottom of boring at approximately 20.0 feet JkPPROVED BY: DATE: MaT LF R PROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane WELL NUMBER LFR-4/MW-4 1:3LIENT COMCAST PAGE 1 OF 1 ROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane,N.Andover,MA DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. ROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push I PROJECT Across Sandra Ln NE of CB#2 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES VA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 ZGROUND ELEVATION – HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 25.0 ft FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER — STABILIZED WATER -- -OGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 7/9/07 U a. a? Q p O w LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION ; Q WELL DIAGRAM QZ (�� Ur co W Topsoil —Road ox Concrete Seal 1.5 SM- Gray, moist,SILT with T sand,little gravel and'cs'sand, ML albation till,no odor Sand 3.0 Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and cs'sand,albation till, no odor 5 SM- Bentonite Seal 5 ML SS-1 P=2 18.0 Gray, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, 2"PVC Riser SM- albation till, no odor ML 10 10.0 10 Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and 'cs'sand,albation till, no odor Filter Sand SS-2 SM_ ML P=2 15 15.0 2"Slotted 15 Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and Screen _ cs'sand,albation till, no odor SS-3 SM P=5 1� '20 0 20.0 End Cap 20 Gray, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, albation till, no odor SM- ML Collapsed Native Soil Q5 25.0 25 Bottom of boring at approximately 25.0 feet BPPROVED BY: DATE: NoL F R PROJECT NAME 591 Food Stop WELL NUMBER B-1/MW-1 CLIENT SF Properties LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 �j PROJECT LOCATION 459 Pleasant Street DRILLING CONTRACTOR New England Geotech t-1 PROJECT NUMBER 010-14395-00-002 DRILLING METHOD Geo rob it e direct push LOCATION South side of Site,central parking lot STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT Photovac 2020 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE DIAMETER 2 inches f TOP OF CASING ELEVATION 98.82 ft HOLE DEPTH 15.0 ft SL FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER 9.7 ft r{ 1 STABILIZED WATER 9.3 ft 1L.1� LOGGED BY Budd Batchelder DATE 8/22/07 of w X _U co E d _0 = a W j Q 0 O (L LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION g WELL DIAGRAM x W > CL Qz U)W U o O w Q cn o 0.3 Asphalt Roadox SW- �,, _{� Concrete Seal SM 1.0 Dark brown,medium-coarse SAND,trace gravel,trace ,• . ,: silt(road base) ,�: +:�• Dark brown,moist,silty fine SAND,trace medium sand ;; 7, Backfill S-1 P=0.0 SM Bentonite Seal 14 11 5 : 5.0 5 SM Brownish-gray,silty fine SAND,little medium sand J ! = 6.0 L� Gray-white,coarse SAND&GRAVEL,layered,bottom 4"wet S-2 P=0.0 SP 1010.0 Filter Pack 10 Dark gray,coarse SAND&GRAVEL,little medium sand, 2"Slotted trace silt Screen S-3 SP P=0.0 N O O ry o 15 : 15.0 2CAP15 1 Bottom of boring at approximately 15.0 feet CL ^ O O O LL N � O O J W Z Ej LFR o APPROVED BY: DATE: m PROJECT NAME 591 Food Stop WELL NUMBER B-2/MW-2 CLIENT SF Properties LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT LOCATION 459 Pleasant Street DRILLING CONTRACTOR New England Geotech PROJECT NUMBER 010-14395-00-002 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push LOCATION West of Site building,north property line STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT Photovac 2020 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE DIAMETER 2 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION 99.80 ft HOLE DEPTH 15.0 ft Q FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER 8.0 ft =STABILIZED WATER 10.2 ft LOGGED BY Budd Batchelder DATE 8/22/07 W C,IDW WW U ~ W W S a W U? E a) 2� W 00a'> U a O a LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION a WELL DIAGRAM = a �z <0 �J W > d o < W . . . . 0.3 Asphalt Road Box SW •:•••:•t,p Brown-gray,fine-medium SAND&GRAVEL(road base) Concrete Seal Gray-brown,moist,silty fine SAND,trace medium sand Backfill u S-1 P=0.0 • SW- SC n Bentonite Seal ILJI 55.0 5 SW- •• 5.5 Gray,silty fine SAND SM Brown,wet,silty fine SAND SW- : SM : D S-2 P=0.3 17 8.5 Brown,fine-medium SAND SW Filter Pack 10 •;10.L 2"Slotted 10 LLL!!! SW •: ::•1 o.t Gray-brown,coarse SAND&GRAVEL Screen SW- 11.0 Brown,silty fine SAND SM J Gray-brown,coarse SAND&GRAVEL ar S-3 P=0.0 N_ SW O N H 0 15 ':15.0 15 W Bottom of boring at approximately 15.0 feet LLa 9 0 0 0 0 0 rn N o N WW 0 Ma L FR APPROVED BY: DATE: m PROJECT NAME 591 Food Stop WELL NUMBER B-3/MW-3 CLIENT SF Properties LLC PAGE 1 OF 1 }� PROJECT LOCATION 459 Pleasant Street DRILLING CONTRACTOR New England Geotech PROJECT NUMBER 010-14395-00-002 DRILLING METHOD Geo robe direct push LOCATION East of Site building,north property line STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT Photovac 2020 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE DIAMETER 2 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION 98.74 ft HOLE DEPTH 15.0 ft s FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER 9.0 ft 1 STABILIZED WATER 9.2 ft LOGGED BY Budd Batchelder DATE 8/22/07 Lu W X UjU U) w W -iW 2Ur 2 a a 2 2 0 UUi O ~a LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION g WELL DIAGRAM r w 2z U)uj o O a o U) w o 0.3Asphalt Road Box SW 1.0 Brown,fine-medium SAND&GRAVEL,little brick Concrete Seal Gray-brown,silty fine SAND,faint aged petroleum odor �f { ;:• ;!. Backfill S-1 P=0.0 SW- • SM Bentonite Seal 5 5.0 5 Gray-brown,moist,silty fine SAND,faint petroleum odor SW- SM 7.0 S 2 Brown-orange,medium-coarse SAND p=0.0 SW Filter Pack 10 :•10.0 2"Slotted 10 Brown-gray,silty fine SAND Screen SW-SM ILfI, 12.0 S-3 Gray,coarse SAND&GRAVEL p=0.0 N n SW �-J o 0 0 15 :•15.0 15 of LL Bottom of boring at approximately 15.0 feet a ° 0 0 o LL m N N O J W 3 Ma L FR Q � Of APPROVED BY: DATE: Cc) a 4 b� e�tl D a REC p,UG - 1 2007 f Oil Release F R TOHEALTH EP M "t etts I by phone in June 2007, LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this Plan Supplement to specify the treatment program requested by O nn RECEIVED �J AUG - 12007 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER HEALTH DEPARTMENT "� LFRa a l I OURENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT&CONSULTING ENGINEERING July 26, 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup c/o Mr. Steven Ross 205A Lowell Street RECFINIE® Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 Re: IRA Plan Supplement AUG - 1 2007 Treatment of Home Heating Oil ReleaseTOWN OF NORTH AND��ER 50 Sandra Lane HEALTH DEPARTMENT North Andover, Massachusetts DEP RTN #3-26748 I Dear Mr. Ross: In accordance with our discussions by phone in June 2007, LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan Supplement to specify the treatment program requested by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) regarding residuals resulting from a sudden home heating fuel oil release in the basement at the above-referenced location (the "Site"). This plan supplement has been prepared on behalf of the Responsible Party, Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. (Comcast), and has been prepared in accordance with Section 40.0424 and 0426 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and MassDEP's "Notice of Responsibility" ("NOR") dated May 7, 2007 (See Appendix A). MassDEP requested that the characterization of conditions in the spill area be completed and a monitoring network put in place before the IRA Plan could be approved. MassDEP verbally approved in June 2007 the removal of some contaminated gravel in the immediate spill area in the basement. The enclosed IRA Plan Supplement contains an update of the environmental conditions around the spill area, the results of sampling conducted since the submittal of the IRA Plan in May 2007, and further description of risk reduction measures planned to be implemented. The executed IRA Transmittal Form is provided in Appendix B. This plan supplement is also being copied to the North Andover Conservation Commission for their information. i 781.356.7300 m 781.356.2211 f 194 Forbes Road www.ltr.com Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 Offices Nationwide i Mr. Steven Ross G Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LFR July 23,2007 Page 2 Please review and provide comment and/or approval of this plan at your earliest convenience as required in the NOR and following our recent discussions by phone. LFR plans to begin treatment in August 2007. Please call me at 781-356-7300 (x203)if you have any questions with regard to this IRA Plan Supplement. i i Very Truly Yours, Richard Stromberg, CPG, LSP Senior Associate Attachments CC: M. Salimena, R. Goldthwaite,W. Allard (Comcast) T. Woodward (LFR) A. McKay (N. Andover Conservation Commission) D. Cederquist (Envirosense) C. Hayon (50 Sandra Lane,N. Andover) N. Andover Board of Health N. Andover Chief Municipal Officer D D D 0 D a D Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan Supplement No. 2 Fuel Oil Spill at a 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts RTN #3-26748 D July 26, 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Prepared for LJ Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. L! 751 East Industrial Drive Manchester, NH 03109 D Prepared by D LFR Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 r-y (781) 356-7300 Uwww.Ifr.com a a Lul D a D LFR Inc. CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 2.0 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITE OF THE PERSON ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING THE IRA (40.0424(1) (A)).........................................................................................1 F Li 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE, SITE CONDITIONS, AND SURROUNDING RECEPTORS (40.0424 (1) (B))........................................2 C4.0 DESCRIPTION OF IRA RISK REDUCTION AND ASSESSMENT ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN SINCE SUBMITTAL OF IRA PLAN (3 10 CMR 40.0424 (1) (C))......3 5.0 IMMINENT HAZARD REVIEW (3 10 CMR 40.0426) .........................................7 6.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (CSM).............................................................7 a 7.0 THE REASON WHY REMEDIAL RESPONSE IS REQUIRED (3 10 CMR 40.0424 (1) (D)) ........................................................................................................8 a 8.0 OBJECTIVE, SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR IRA REMOVAL ACTIVITIES (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (E)) ..........................................................8 8.1 Notifications/Coordination......................................................................8 a8.2 Remediation of Petroleum Residuals..........................................................9 8.3 Treatment of Contaminated Water .......................................................... 12 D9.0 IRA COMPLETION REPORT..................................................................... 12 Q10.0 SCHEDULE ........................................................................................... 12 a11.0REMEDIATION WASTE MANAGEMENT (3 10 CMR 40.0424(1) (F)).................. 12 12.0 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN DURING OR AFTER IRA (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (G)).......................................................................... 12 C 13.OFEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS LIKELY NEEDED TO CONDUCT IRA (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (H)).......................................................................... 12 CIRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-14252-00.doe:mlb Page j I LFR Inc. l� 14.0 SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONAL (LSP) WHO PREPARED THE IRA PLAN (3 10 CMR 40.0424(1) (I))..................................... 13 15.0OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE DEP (3 10 CMR 40.0424(1) (J))....... 13 FIGURES 1. Site Locus/Topographic Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. MASS GIS Map 4. Surface Sample and Monitoring Well Locations G 5. Site Plan 6. Conceptual Site Model TABLES 1. Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence (67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) 2. Basement Soil Samples 3. Excavation Soil Samples 4. Monitoring Wells Soil Samples a 5. Groundwater Analytical Results 6. Analytical Results for Sump #2 and Catch Basin#2 APPENDICES A. Notice of Responsibility B. IRA Transmittal Form C. Letter to Mr. Waterman D. Photographs E. Boring Logs a a a a IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010.14252-OO.doc:mlb Page ii l� LFR Inc. U 1.0 INTRODUCTION Per the MassDEP request, the following presents an Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan Supplement that summarizes additional environmental testing in the area of the release and placement of monitoring wells, and a description of the planned remediation. MassDEP, in their review of the IRA Plan, requested that the area of the release be characterized and a monitoring network installed before approving the treatment program. The IRA Plan Supplement has been prepared by LFR under contract with Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. (Comcast), a subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, who is the Responsible Party (RP). The location of the spill with respect to surrounding areas is shown on the USGS topographic map in Figure 1. Figure 2 is an L) aerial photo map showing the residence and the transect of the released oil to drainage features nearby which included an unnamed stream that fed Johnson's Pond. The surrounding area as shown on the MassGIS Map in Figure 3 is residential but there are no designated wetlands, habitats for rare or endangered wildlife, or other sensitive environmental areas nearby. There are no designated aquifers, Zone I/11's, or drinking water supply wells near the release. There are protected open spaces located one-third of a mile northeast along the stream outlet of Johnson's Pond. The stream aultimately discharges to a Reservoir about one mile to the north. Q 2.0 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITE OF THE PERSON ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING THE IRA (40.04240) (A)) aComcast is assuming responsibility for conducting the IRA. Mr. Robert Goldthwaite of Comcast is the point of contact. The following is the address and telephone number for Mr. Goldthwaite: Mr. Robert Goldthwaite 0 Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. 751 East Industrial Drive Manchester, NH 03109 DPhone Number: (603) 626-9900, x3512 O a a IRA Supplemcnt_50SandraLanc_July262007_010-14252-00.doe:nilb Page 1 LFR Inc. 1 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE, SITE CONDITIONS, AND SURROUNDING RECEPTORS (40.0424 (1) (B)) For completeness, the following summarizes the fuel oil spill that occurred on the afternoon of April 12, 2007 when a Comcast employee accidentally ruptured a pipe leading from a 330-gallon above ground storage tank (AST) in the basement of the residence. At approximately 4:05PM on April 12, 2007, the Comcast technician lost his balance �I on a small stepladder and accidentally stepped on, and broke, a transfer pipe for one of the two (2) 330-gallon heating oil ASTs in an unfinished part of the basement. The Comcast technician called Mr. Seth Dobson (Operations Manager) at approximately 4:IOPM and left a voicemail. Mr. Dobson called the Comcast technician back at 4:20PM and alerted him to call the Town Fire Department and Haffner's Oil Company (Haffner's). At approximately 4:30PM, Haffner's was onsite and the Fire Department aarrived at approximately 4:45PM. At 4:50PM, Mr. Dobson arrived onsite and upon a recommendation from the Fire Department, ENPRO Services, Inc. (ENPRO) was retained by Comcast to provide emergency spill response services. In addition, Q MassDEP was notified of the fuel oil spill by the Fire Department. Mr. Steve Ross of MassDEP is responsible for managing emergency response efforts and responded to the site. Emergency efforts were undertaken that night to contain the spill in the basement f 1 and discharges to the catch basins and stream. u It was estimated by ENPRO that approximately 85-160 gallons of fuel oil was released a from the AST. The fuel oil spilled onto the competent concrete slab floor of the basement draining into an inactive 12" diameter sump (Sump #1) approximately 15' north of the AST. The fuel oil captured by Sump #1 migrated in gravel through the O footer and followed a drainage pathway established by a perforated drain pipe leading to a nearby catch basin (CB #2) at the intersection of Sandra Lane/Appledore Lane. A second sump (Sump #2) is located on the other side of the basement with a pump in it and pumps water from beneath the french drain located beneath the house outside to the adjacent lawn which runs downhill and also into CB#2. A third sump (Sump #3) was identified in the southern portion of the basement and was believed to be inactive as Othere was no pump in it and there were no vapors noticed during the spill. Photographs of the incident are provided in Appendix C of the IRA Plan. Figure 5 ndepicts the layout of the basement and related features. LJ lJ IRA Supplement_50SandraLane July262007 010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 2 LFR Inc. M Once the release reached the catch basins along Sandra Lane, it flowed north through an additional 2 to 3 catch basins (CB #2, CB #3 and CB #4) before taking a 90° bend to the east under the street and discharging to a small stream. The stream discharges into Johnson's Pond at approximately 1/4 mile, where a slight sheen was observed during LFR's visit on April 13, 2007 at the discharge point. The pond then discharges to another small stream, which Is where the sheen reportedly ended at that time. The "Disposal Site" or "Site" as defined in the MCP from the release encompassed the Sump #1 and drain in the residence proceeding in a linear fashion through the catch basins to the unnamed stream continuing to the southern edge of Johnson's Pond. Samples were collected in the stream system as reported in the IRA Plan and no additional remedial work was deemed necessary in the stream. a 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF IRA RISK REDUCTION AND ASSESSMENT ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN SINCE SUBMITTAL OF IRA PLAN (310 aCMR 40.0424 (1) (C)) The following is an update of response actions at 50 Sandra Lane since the submittal of the IRA Plan in May 2007. During May, the basement was continually vented and the booms were maintained in the catch basins and stream. Water entering CB#2 was slowed to a trickle due to dryer conditions and the water was pumped to the frac tank aas needed. Spent materials from the initial cleanup stored in the driveway were removed by ENPRO. ENPRO also arranged for the cleaning of the cloth materials in the home as requested by the homeowner and the duct filters in the heating system were also changed by ENPRO. ENPRO and LFR met with the homeowner on May 31, 2007 to discuss their review of O the IRA Plan and to discuss additional testing/remediation in support of final closure. The homeowner was pleased with the cleanup work done to date and the description of it in the IRA Plan. A discussion was held to describe the upcoming test boring program to determine the extent of contamination outside of the drain and the general remedial plan. The owner was in agreement with the approach. ENPRO continues to operate a carbon air treatment unit in the basement on a continuous basis. The water in the frac tank was inspected in early June and it was determined that ENPRO should empty the tank which was done. About 7,300 gallons were removed. Since that time, very little water has entered the tank due to the summer season. The following describes investigations at: • The adjoining 67 Sandra Lane Property; • Source Area (Sump #1) Investigation and Excavation; a Basement Drainage Investigation; and • Groundwater Investigation. CIRA Supplement_50SandraLane_Jul),262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 3 [� LFR Inc. Surface Soil Sampling at 67 Sandra Lane LFR visited Mrs. Chris Waterman at 67 Sandra Lane across the street at their request to discuss their review of the plan. Their residence is adjacent to the stream where it flows out from Sandra Lane. They inquired about the status of the booms in the stream. LFR indicated they need to be in place until remediation is completed and that ENPRO will be changing some booms that appear soiled and removing any residual leafy matter Oin the stream near their house that may still exhibit some sheen. They also requested LFR collect some soil samples from a portion of their yard near the stream that was flooded during the spill. They have a vegetable garden here and a children's swing set. It was decided to collect 4 surface soil samples for EPH analysis. Mrs. Waterman appeared satisfied with this. On June 7, 2007, LFR collected four surface soil samples collected in areas of the vegetable garden, the swing set, and two other areas in the lawn along the stream at 67 a Sandra Lane (Figure 4). Table 1 summarizes and compares the results of the analysis that was performed for "Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons" (EPH) to RCS-1 standards for residential areas set by the MassDEP. Low levels of certain petroleum hydrocarbon fraction residues were detected in three of the four surface samples at concentrations twenty times less than the RCS-1 standards. None were detected in the other sample. Low levels of petroleum can be found in areas that are periodically affected by street runoff. A previous spill of fuel oil was also documented by MassDEP at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 that was cleaned up. The letter sent to Mr. Waterman is provided in Appendix C. Source Area Investigation and Excavation A soil boring, LFR B-1, was advanced in the center of Sump #1 on June 6, 2007 to Cinvestigate the possible depth of contamination in the area of Sump #1. A Photovac PID was used to monitor soil and determine samples for laboratory analysis. A native glacial till was found about 1 foot below the slab and 6-8" below the sub-slab U gravel. Two samples were collected, 3-5 feet below ground (fbg) and 5-7 fbg. The L! results of the soil boring analytical EPH and diesel targets are presented in Table 2. EPH target compounds were below detection limits in both samples and low level EPH r compounds were detected in the 3-5 fbg sample. D IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 4 C LFR Inc. Based on observations during soil sampling, it was decided to remove impacted soil from around the sump. On June 15, 2007 an approximate 37 x 42 inch rectangle was cut in the concrete floor to allow for excavation around the sump. The six inch concrete slab was cut, removed, and stored in two 55-gallon drums. The gravel Qfoundation base was removed to reveal the native soil, approximately six-eight inches below the concrete slab. The native soils were removed to a depth of six inches below the gravel, for a total excavation depth of eighteen inches below the floor. Nine soil samples were collected from the bottom of the excavation for PID readings. The PID readings ranged from 5 to 12 ppmv except 35 ppmv at the base in the middle. Two representative samples were selected for analytical analysis from the southern wall (to assess migration toward the back of the cellar), and the base. The results are presented in Table 3. Low level EPH were detected below "RCS-1" soil standards in the base sample collected from the center of the excavation at 1.5 fbg. EPH and target li compounds were below detection limits at the sample collected on the southern side of the excavation pit. This information corroborated the hypothesis that oil did not penetrate the till to any great degree. The excavation was limited to eighteen inches because the water table in the foundation was at approximately ten inches below grade. Dewatering was attempted, and approximately 150 gallons were removed and transferred to the frac tank, but the water table could not be dropped more than fourteen inches below grade utilizing the available resources. Approximately 0.4 cubic yards of gravel and soil was removed and stored in 55-gallon drums and 150 gallons of water was removed and stored in the frac tank. Soil samples were collected at three boring locations in the basement (LFR B-2 through B-4, Figure 5) to evaluate potential migration of fuel oil after draining to Sump #1. The concrete slab was cored with a 6" core, the gravel was removed, and the native soil at the base of the gravel was collected for analytical analysis. The results are presented in Table 2. EPH and target compounds were below laboratory detection limits at LFR B-2 which is located west and toward the rear of the basement. Low level EPH fractions and a few target PAHs were detected at both LFR B-3 and LFR B-4 below RCS-1 residential standards. This information indicated that penetration into the till was slight. Observations of the gravel indicated some petroleum coatings in B-4, a slight odor in B-3, and no odors in B-2. This information suggested the petroleum migrated from Sump #1 southerly along the wall as shown on Figure 6 until it entered a point at which the water and sewer pass n through the footer. The oil then migrated along the gravel base into the drain leading to CB#2. a a IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_Ju1v262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 5 � c LFR Inc. Basement Drainage Investigation After the excavation revealed thei e originally p p g y i dentified as the start of the perforated drain that emptied into CB #2 took an unexpected turn towards the south and additional plumbing tied into it (See Photo 1, Appendix D), LFR and ENPRO conducted an investigation into the drainage system on July 13, 2007. A miniature camera was snaked along drainage pipes in an attempt to better understand the foundation drainage. The camera was inserted and pushed up the perforated drain from CB #2 towards the house. The camera could only be pushed fifty-four feet because of sludge in the drain, so the end of the pipe was not identified. No bends in the pipe were noted so it was {� inferred to end at the corner of the house as shown on Figure 6. The camera was then �f inserted into the pipe in Sump #1. The camera was placed down the pipe and it turned 90 degrees towards the garage (south) then after three feet turned 90 degrees towards 0 the foundation wall (east) where it pushed another foot before it could not be advanced. Approximately 40 to 60 gallons of water was run into the pipe to determine its discharge point. There was no water observed discharging into CB #l, CB #2, or the D foundation gravel. A residential contractor was contacted to evaluate the photos and give an opinion on the piping. The contractor believes the piping is rough plumbing for a future bathroom. Therefore, to the best of LFR's knowledge the pipe in Sump #1 is connected to the sewer system and the oil migrated along the gravel as shown on Figure 6. aMonitoring Well Network At the request of the MassDEP, a monitoring well network was installed to evaluate remedial actions to be undertaken. Four soil borings (LFR-1 through LFR-4), completed as groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-4), were advanced at the site, as seen in Figure 4, at the direction of LFR personnel on June 7 and July 9, 2007. The wells were installed as close to the known potential migratory path as possible, leaving clearance for utilities. The wells were continuously sampled for visual logging and field screening with a PID (Appendix E). Outside, the first boring/well was installed next to house where the drain was originally thought to lead to the CB#2 as shown on Figure 3 of the IRA Plan. Very slight petroleum contamination was noted in soils below residential standards as shown on �? Table 4. Soil in this area was found to be a tight natural glacial till. U The next boring was planned to be installed next to CB#2 but an unmarked electrical line was hit, work was stopped, no injuries were reported. LFR called Dig-safe immediately and National Grid Representatives and their locating service (Premier) arrived on site and indicated the line was an unmarked "secondary" electrical line. The line was fixed by National Grid that day and apparently supplied two houses across street. They reportedly may have lost power for a short time. As a result, work was halted for the day. c IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 6 c LFR Inc. Three soil samples from LFR-1, two from LFR-2, and one each from LFR-3 and LFR- 4 were submitted for EPH fractions and diesel targets (Table 4); VPH fractions/ targets were not analyzed because PID concentrations never exceeded 100 ppmv. LFR-2, LFR-3, and LFR-4 were non-detect for EPH fraction and target compounds. LFR collected asam 1 roundwater g sample with minimal or no purging from MW-1 on June 15, 2007 and MW-2 and MW-3 on July 13, 2007. No-purge sampling was used abecause recharge rates are on the order of days at these locations. A sample was not collected from MW-4 because of insufficient water in the well. Samples were analyzed for EPH and diesel targets (Table 5). Results indicated low levels of EPH fractions were found in LFR-2 and 3 significantly below applicable MCP GW-2 and 3 standards protective of indoor air and surface water. LFR also re-sampled the Sump #2 in basement to confirm contamination was not migrating to that area and the outfall into CB#2. Results at operational Sump #2 in the rear of basement were clean as before as shown in the attached data tables. Levels in CB#2 were lower than previous samples but EPH was still detected as shown on Table 6. 5.0 IMMINENT HAZARD REVIEW (310 CMR 40.0426) LFR has continued an evaluation to determine if an Imminent Hazard potential existed at the Site. Based on the testing of soils and groundwater around the path of the release, residual petroleum in natural soil outside of the gravel backfill was non detectable (ND) or below MCP residential "S-1/GW-2 and 3" soil standards. Groundwater results were ND or below applicable "GW-2 and 3" standards. Residual oil appears to be located in the gravel below the floor slab near Sump #1 and outside/below the eastern footer wall confined by the glacial till. Indoor air in the basement where the spill occurred is currently being treated and vented. As conditions are gradually improving by the removal of the petroleum mass, no Imminent Hazard currently exists. D 6.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL (CSM) Figure 5 of the IRA Plan depicted a schematic cross section of the residence and the area beneath it. At the time of the spill, conditions were wet and it was believed that the groundwater table was higher and was believed to intersect the perforated drain that exited Sump #1. The released oil likely migrated in gravel through the footer and followed a drainage pathway established with the perforated drain pipe leading to CB#2. This accounted for oil draining into CB#2 with the associated residuals. The other Sump #2 was found to be connected to a horizontal line that ran along the back/westerly side of the basement and so was separated from the affected area. C IRA Supplement_5OSandraLane_July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:nilb Page 7 c Q LFR Inc. The water table has recently declined as is typical for summer months resulting in a decrease in the rate of infiltration into the perforated drain. Although much of the source material has been captured or removed, the remaining residual petroleum Is likely adsorbed to the gravel along its path to the drain. Some lower level residuals Qhave migrated into soil and groundwater around the spill area. The levels found were substantially below residential cleanup standards for soils and protection criteria for groundwater. 7.0 THE REASON WHY REMEDIAL RESPONSE IS REQUIRED (310 CMR C' 40.0424 (1) (D)) The area of contamination around the Sump #1 was excavated to a reasonable degree to remove it without disrupting a large portion of the basement. As previously described, some residual fuel oil is adsorbed to gravel backfill around and under the floor slab near the spill, the nearby footer, and the perforated drain. Low levels were also found in some adjoining natural soils and groundwater. The adsorbed oil in the gravel may constitute an on-going source if not remediated. Although the levels of residuals in natural soils and groundwater are significantly below residential cleanup standards, achievement of background conditions (ND for petroleum) at the 50 Sandra Lane property is the objective of the program as requested by the homeowner, if feasible. 8.0 OBJECTIVE, SPECIFIC PLAN, AND PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR IRA REMOVAL ACTIVITIES (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (E)) The objective of the IRA Plan Supplement is to remediate the residual oil through a proven technology that provides the best probability of achieving remedial objectives. The IRA Plan mentioned excavation as an option for the drain area, however, the presence of utilities (some locations unknown) in this area, the steep topography, and logistics of moving the overlying structures make excavation impracticable. In-situ treatment of the area using hydraulic injection of a chemical oxidant with the viscosity of water and biostimulant is the preferred technology. LFR will utilize injection of hydrogen peroxide in diluted concentrations with flushing to address the remaining Oresiduals. 8.1 Notifications/Coordination Other than this plan, no other notifications are necessary. LFR has prepared a Health & Safety Plan (HASP) for its employees at the Site specific to the use/injection of hydrogen peroxide. This will be on-hand during the program. IRA Sup plement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-1.4252-00.doc:nilb Page 8 LFR Inc. `-, 8.2 Remediation of Petroleum Residuals Hydrogen peroxide has been shown to effectively provide oxygen to the subsurface to n stimulate microbial communities. High concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (10-17%) will cause rapid oxidation of organic molecules. Hydrogen peroxide also provides dissolved oxygen to stimulate aerobic microbial activity for enhanced hydrocarbon biodegradation. Case studies conducted b U.S. y EPA and private contractors have demonstrated that hydrogen peroxide is an effective means of reducing the petroleum hydrocarbons to residual and background levels. The injection of hydrogen peroxide can be done using readily available equipment, in this instance by using drums and metering pumps, which will be installed in the basement. A continuous slow injection will be maintained to allow slow flushing of the target material. Spent injectate will be captured using the existing sump pump in CB#2 and discharged to the frac tank. The physical characteristics of the gravel and upper portion of natural soils are conducive for in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) and biostimulation. Initial estimates of the soil hydraulic conductivity range from 10' cm/s (upper till) to 10-I cm/s (gravel). The primary impacted area in gravel is approximately 5 feet by 25 feet proximate to the house footer area, with an estimated average thickness of 1 foot. It was conservatively assumed that the target volume also includes an additional 50 feet by 1 foot by 0.5 feet thick around the perforated drain. The total targeted volume of contaminated gravel was estimated to be 150 ft3. The average Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) concentrations in this gravel were estimated to be 5,000 mg/kg. A total mass of hydrocarbons within the gravel source zone was estimated at 70 pounds. This was increased by an additional 25 percent to account for lower concentrations of residuals in the surrounding till, for a total estimated target mass of 87 pounds. Q The goal of the hydrogen peroxide injection is to reduce the concentrations of hydrocarbons in the gravel soils and till soils and groundwater to a level where bioremediation processes can occur. The primary contaminant of concern is C11-C22 aromatic and C9-C36 aliphatic EPH Fractions based on the testing performed. Petroleum compounds (gasoline, fuel oil and diesel) are a complex mixture of many hydrocarbons, and, therefore, attempts to evaluate oxidation stoichiometrically are difficult. In order to simplify the analysis, a single compound with a molecular weight comparable to the average molecular weight of a given fuel may be substituted. Pentadecane (CI5H32), an alkane with a molecular weight of 212 grams per mole, is a close approximation to the fuel oil residuals at the site. Alkanes such as n-pentadecane, also known as the paraffin series, have the following general structure: C. H2n+2 IRA Supplement_50SandraLanc_July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 9 LFR Inc. n The oxidation of alkanes with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) proceeds according to the following stoichiometric reaction: Cn H2n+2 + (3n + 1) H2O2 —> n CO2 + (4n+2) H2O + Heat a For n-pentadecane, this equation becomes: P q CC15H32 + 46 H2O2 --> 15 CO2 + 62 H2O + Heat As indicated above, the complete oxidation of one mole of pentadecane requires 46 moles of H2O2. On a mass basis, the complete oxidation of one pound of pentadecane requires 7.4 pounds of H2O2. These calculations do not take into consideration the additional oxidant demand created by non-target compounds, and assume ideal contact between the contaminant and oxidizer in the subsurface. Therefore, they should only be used as an approximation and are intended to represent only the minimum amount of oxidizer required. If aerobic biodegradation occurs, it is more efficient than chemical oxidation in the utilization of oxygen, requiring approximately 3 pounds of oxygen per pound of hydrocarbon. As can be seen from this reaction, the H2O2 reacts with petroleum (represented as n- pentadecane) to form water, carbon dioxide (CO2) and heat. Based on the observed petroleum-related compound concentrations in groundwater samples collected from the n Site, the amount of source petroleum present is not likely significant and more likely �I residual. The presence of CO2 is anticipated to be in a dissolved phase and not as a gas. In the unlikely event that CO2 gas occurs, the OSHA Time Weighted Average (TWA) for CO2 is 5,000 ppm, which is unlikely to be approached. The existing air ventilation system will remove any CO2 gas accumulation. Another consideration is the potential liberation of oxygen from some proportion of incomplete reaction. Therefore, the lower explosive limit (LEL) will be evaluated in l the basement continuously during and immediately after injections. Applying the ratio of 1 pound of pentadecane to 7.4 pounds of H2O2, approximately 25 pounds of 30% hydrogen peroxide will be needed to remediate 1 pound of the EPH fractions. Therefore, approximately 2,187 pounds of 30% hydrogen peroxide would be needed to completely destroy the hydrocarbon mass at the site. At about 450 pounds per 55-gallon drum, this amounts to about 5 drums or 275 gallons. This equates to 825 gallons of 10% hydrogen peroxide which will be used as the initial design amount. a IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010.14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 10 LFR Inc. L� The goal of the hydrogen peroxide treatment at this site is the complete destruction of the hydrocarbon mass. The current levels of hydrocarbons in the gravel would produce '--` an aggressive reaction when then the hydrogen peroxide is introduced. Therefore, LFR proposes to use 400 gallons of 10% hydrogen peroxide injected into the B-2, B-3, and a B-4 injection points and within the excavated sump slowly over one to several days while heat and potential off-gases are monitored. The injection at these points will be done to create a semi-circle of flushing around the original point of release presuming n the liquid will follow the same path of the original release. The initial injection will be lj performed to oxidize the petroleum mass. Follow up injections will be conducted utilizing 850 gallons of 5% hydrogen peroxide to create hydraulic flushing and saturation of the soils with oxygenated fluid to enhance biological breakdown. u The drums of 30% peroxide will be staged outside. Two drums will be staged in the basement and the solutions will be made and injected using siphoning equipment. The first event will be done in August 2007 recognizing that water levels will still be low. Soil temperatures would be taken every 0.5 hours or as conditions warrant. A potable water source will be readily available to reduce the rate of reaction if soil temperatures exceed 75°F or if unwanted off-gassing occurs. Injections will start slow and will be monitored. The site will be monitored for a minimum of three hours following the last hydrogen peroxide injection to verify that the hydrogen peroxide reactions have completed. Water flow entering CB#2 will be assessed using a DO meter as it is pumped to the frac tank. { The down-gradient monitoring wells (MW-1, 2, 3) and Sump #2 will be monitored for degradation parameters prior to and following the injection events. The points will be monitored for temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen. All groundwater monitoring wells will be sampled and analyzed for EPH two weeks following the first injection. Additionally, soil samples will be collected from the three basement borings and the excavation for EPH analysis. The results of these analyses will be used to determine the need and volume of subsequent injections. It is likely q J y t hat nanother injection will be needed in September or October when the water table rises. Ll The source zone where the hydrogen peroxide will be injected is not within 1 J 00 feet of a private water supply, 800 feet from a public water supply or 50 feet from a surface water body. After the series of injections are completed in the fall, conditions will be monitored in wells and soils as required until the desired remediation is achieved. An IRA Status Report will be provided mid-September, which is 120 days from submittal of the IRA Plan describing the progress and scope of any subsequent injections. The sump and borings will then be sealed with concrete in the basement when work is completed and air treatment equipment removed. The sheeting and other items placed in the basement will also be removed and the basement restored to its original condition. A final round of indoor air samples will also be collected. 1 IRA Supplement_50SandraLane—July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:nilh Page II LFR Inc. 8.3 Treatment of Contaminated Water Water will continue to be collected and contained in the frac tank and disposed of off- site. As such, no treatment will be performed. a r 9.0 IRA COMPLETION REPORT The IRA Completion Report will be submitted when the response objectives have been met as discussed further in the Status Report. 10.0 SCHEDULE Infections will be performed in August 2007 and follow-up sampling performed. An IRA Status Report will be submitted by September 15, 2007. Additional work may then be done and a Completion Report and RAO is planned for submittal in the late Fall of 2007. 11.0 REMEDIATION WASTE MANAGEMENT (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (F)) Remedial waste generated at the Site during the proposed IRA activities will be managed pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0030. C 12.0 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN DURING OR Ell AFTER IRA (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (G)) Environmental monitoringwill be conducted for volatile compounds p s during the IRA implementation as described in the HASP. a 13.0 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS LIKELY NEEDED TO CONDUCT IRA (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (H)) Currently there is no federal permit required to conduct the proposed activities in this IRA Plan. No other permits beyond those described in this plan are contemplated. 0 IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-14252-00.doc:mlb Page 12 D LFR Inc. 14.0 SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONAL (LSP) WHO PREPARED THE IRA PLAN (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (I)) D Richard G. Stromberg, CPG is the LSP who prepared this IRA Plan. His seal and signature is included in the IRA Plan Transmittal Form (BWSC-105), attached as Appendix B. D 15.0 OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE DEP (310 CMR 40.0424(1) (J)) No other information has been requested by the DEP. D D D D D D D D a D D D IRA Supplement_50SandraLane_July262007_010-14252-OO.doc:mlb Page 13 C FIGURES cri W w Z) V C-3 C-3 C C Ci3 C.:� �\ '��••� �.a � . � ar � �a �• Vii. L / •j `- 1 .��a. v r t �• ip ID • r •I •. • .t N CU •� ° , �. � «� '�,, �' . '� 111 � hd 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km I. G c C O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 mi a L UTM 19 327185E 4726472N (NAD27) o Mills Hill,USIS Lawrence (M*%NH) Quadrangle M--15.733 Projection is UTM Zone 19 NA083 Datum G--1.43 g C pU O N tn Q DATE: 5i1/07 TITLE LFR FlGURE:DRAWN BY: J.W. SITE LOCUSITOPOGRAPHIC MAP b REVIEWED BY: R.S. 8 Y APPROVED BY- R.S. LOCATION: 60 Island Street SCALE- AS NOTED 50 SANDRA LANE 1 ° Lawrence,Massachusetts 01840 FILE NO: 010-14252-00 CL NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS Phone:(978)659-0017 JOB NO: 010-14252-00 ' Fax:(978)659-0069 SHEET SIZE: I A � r r r r r r � �■w r � r � r � •; CB NDRA LANE «' e *,,�• . * "" a�:. !r .; art +1r W AMN SW/Sed-3 a # Y SW/Sed-40 s Aa* _ +"rt SW/Sed-9 SW/Sed 8 r� , Q Q D R Q •. . m •SW/Sead CB#4 -1• SW/Sed 5 SW/Sed-2-SW/Sed 6 , "•. %-# s r r 4 ps w. 11VO(1) 275• L ,• � � ' .A L • 1 CB#3 DISCH . POI DIS y • . • � fir" Ate# + ` a •* fx ' aVa�y►T �,H�R + FRENCH s � .. �•< t *,� : ;, � '4 �,. �,� � ; - $j a• 4 ! +0, p1CL CATICN OF WA SUMP \(J SEVI @R UI�S Y '. '`� ; , • Air < ! ORIGINAL POINT N . •* � ��," �'• ,� 4 OF FUEL 0 ` M -RELEASE + < i IP «••t: '� +r•� ',."tx�. . `SUMP i�3 ` er , EXPLANATION: STORM . , Direction of Flow Indicated by Arrow) , • 99 CATCHBASIN STREAM(Note:Direction of Flow Indicated by Arrow) POND P SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION • •• � 1 0 0 SURFACE • MONITORING WELL • • Zvi O tl� C I� Cn CJ C:1 17-3 � M C C CD Cn C D Page 1 of 1� DEP PrioriResource Ma Zon e Its Q1WPAs 7. r (•t -. �!+ 1 wit t Zone Alli ACECs U11 , ( , t } T. �` ''P _ Sole Source Aquifers 119% t } t• `° Solid Waste Sites r . n k 1` � # � e ` '• \ r Protected Openspac 1 lti.l± 1cr, NHESP Estimated Habitat 1' } };} 1.. of Rare Wildlife in F _ fly A`t .• } } t ', '! �~ Wetland Areas • , 516�3Gc �' - ; t .:•1� ' F 1 CsrtiRedVernalPoots t . Fc-", IE1i A1ts�r " _ K �I . 4 t ,I t 2003 NHESP J r, A V •t // 5ubbasins f✓Major Basins mo—"l '+ � t til It I r j Torn Arcs �> DEP Region Er�Nt{vlflgfJ• RE c =---` F t t t t t 1 Y _f t t i'County Boundaries cta�,Ltncr: t r F t } t t I } t •x .__--- �_ �" t t t } � t F �, ftlRiACK . . .�t F= _ t I• t t ; ' Aquifers,By Yield t� � tf } 1° } 171 MGH YIELD p i MEDIUM YID D 125 ;a1 1 t t t t } r t t t ? t _- }_`" t t t t t 1 t }?,. t t t T } t, F t } 1 Abn Potential Drinking t t } Water Source Area 11IGr!YIE D K.: ME,OTUMYIELD FEM4 Fbodplains �r >►�f p-/-/ 4p l 103YE RFLOODPLANI �N6,, !f7 Hydrograp _ Ei ny ' i'\ . •``�,`� `` Y�� y.Q�T '1 Sj �'•' , ,i� ,,•,ty �k'fid /' 11'y � %VATEf a r2£EIRV'OG2 SNQ�1N;� `NWARBLI R10GE'STA_TION / io < - .. 1VfiTLnvns ; . e '' rLnT�NHo,I s 133 `� �s3 1 i oq SALTWATERWETLA4DS Rivers and Streams p11.t21S 11 II r ^� -- Z j l'✓r PERS-44M INTERAWTE'IT ryw A` SNORE!PIE I✓1lnU AIAn_ES>IORE `W 114 r �e" +- ,__. 50 MS 1,Fw' LM 01$ �1 ��;tt� � RS,�:y� Dnp! r< ,vOUM- UCT EOti OTF Roads 114 LI>11TEDRCC—OSHIiHWAY r �` ♦ I 1, t a MULTILiWEHIVY.NOT .1.\= 1 f ' ' ', * ,} A `—' For ( LIMITED ACCESS ' -� 1tadS HILL il+ - L '.Cr sYgi Y"` ?��? v OTs{Mi. NU\IEiERE r1;VY Z _ \ S {I �p ''y? `• _ PK s �, ., "� MA.?ORROAD-COLLECTOR A1 ,/ V Alt IORSTRF.ET"Op ROAD. I RAMP li V��v Eli 1251 �'E , fit.- ig.4U�o , racks and Traits l.4HD 1 e��`Ok f.` TRACK TRAt p� t J I s,i i • i QP =`,, < _'i Y;;, Transmission Lines r ` �; c_ ; ;r; yY•�:�� ti PIP�tvE ;v�LrI PoE .7 . .� r r ''t f i 3• U ,�i p.n7mr ,�' TRAIN llttp://Maps.Massgis.State.tna.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiCellam0=matowns&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True&Encode=False 4/19/2007 CB NDRA LANE" .a` W Y' , ."1 ! t • , x �'' SW/Sed-4 p y Yn _ OSW/Sed-8 + •� 2 GD �`'� �` �t. r t:SW/Sed5 � S. � CB#4 •..,� , SW/Sed-7 `}C. V -. s a ;rr4IV x. a�l Vr Ir 1K, b �: '� ��e 3., + x, e,�::x, "� i•rat'"� x � 3.�: } � a 4 � *' #� .s �� r� A � ,�ti'� i.. fi � M.+*^a � r CB F R-3/Mk,V-3* �{FR-4/M1 l i rLFR-1,/MW-1 . dp; e Y: s rx d ° a � EXPLANATION: Nft STORM • Direction CATCHBASIN 1 1 STREAM(Note: Direction of Flow . • • E�D POND SURFACE • • • • •• 11 1 11 • SURFACE SOIL MONITORING WELL • • Scale: 1 11 EXPLANATION: } STORM DRAIN(NOTE:DIRECTION OF FLOW INDICATED BY ARROW) ® CATCH BASIN CB#3 0 SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE LFR-3/MW-3+ 9 SUMP DISCHARGE POINT �2 - LFR-4/MW-4 ---- PROPERTY BOUNDARY O DISCHARGE C o SOIL BORING LOCATION POINT FRENCH r CR DRAIN c + MONITORING WELL LOCATION rVA Q o N PNE Ppp�E�pRE` LFR-2/MW�--2 CB#2 00 � TWO(2) CL 275-GAL ASTs 3 � {1 DISCHARGE APPROXIMATE {L!j POINT FOR LOCATION OF SUMP#2 LFR B-3 WATER AND 2 -$-LFR-1/MW-1 SEWER LINES o \`, SUMP#2 SUMP#1 Ur c \ LFR B- W 2� S N \t ORIGINAL POINT OF a \ FUEL OIL RELEASE L B-1 o \\ (1 UMP LFR B \ AR ) CB#1 o \\\ SUMP#3 C \ u \ U N a \ \ 00 n � t U- E \ WI \ c u V O \ �� N , O d C m Site Plan 50 Sandra Lane 5North Andover, Massachusetts 40 0 40 Ln Scale: 1"=40' �� L E R Figure 5 I,I FRENCH DRAIN DISCHARGE TO CB#2 E CL o N ri O FRENCH DRAIN 3 E (PNS CU a CL N LFR B-3® a� ao LZ o 0 N Ln BOUNDARY OF o EXCAVATION L( a� LFR B-1 00 LL ❑ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF U WATER AND SEWER LINES LFR B-20 LFR B-4 0 CL °Coo W v E W ;I °a WATER z EXPLANATION: TANKS E 0 SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE vi A SOIL BORING LOCATION 0 o --4- OIL RELEASE MIGRATORY PATH N 'rU}I, ❑ N b C R Conceptual Site Model 50 Sandra Lane 5' 0 5' North Andover, Massachusetts z o Scale: 1"=5' �� LFR Figure 6 TABLES C-I cn W J m Q F— F-7:1 C-3 F.-D L 177D G7771 C'� 7 L Table 1: Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence (67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 Analyte Units SSWA SSW-2 SSW-3 SSW-4 RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 400 lndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg 29 11 ND< 4.5 15 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg ND< 4.4 8.3 ND< 4.5 ND< 4 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 50 37 ND<4.5 31 1000 Percent Moisture % 27 47 27 19 --- Percent Solids % 73 1 53 1 73 81 --- Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram Table 2: Basement Soil Samples 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 6/26/2007 LFR B-1 LFR B-1 LFR B-2 LFR B-3 LFR B-4 Analyte Units 3-5 fbg 5-7 fbg 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.47 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 100 Anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.57 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 400 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 7 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.43 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 0.43 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 ND<0.38 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) mg/Kg 13 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 45 110 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) mg/Kg 13 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 45 110 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg 27 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 61 59 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg 17 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 81 160 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 57 ND<3.7 ND<3.8 190 320 1000 Percent Moisture % 9 11 15 15 16 --- Percent Solids % 91 89 85 85 84 --- Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram I-D 1-3 F___j Table 3: Excavation Soil Samples 6/15/2007 6/15/2007 SS-Base SS-South Analyte Units 1.5 fbg 1.5 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 100 Anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 400 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 7 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) mg/Kg 7.3 ND<3.7 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) mg/Kg 7.3 ND<3.7 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg ND<3.7 ND<3.7 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg 5.5 ND<3.7 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 13 ND<3.7 1000 Percent Moisture % 12 11 --- Percent Solids % 88 89 Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram C7:1 C-73 C7� Table 4: Monitoring Wells Soil Samples 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 7/9/2007 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-1/MW-1 LFR-2/MW-2 LFR-2/MW-2 LFR-3/MW-3 LFR-4/MW-4 Analyte Units 4-8 fbg 8-12 fbg 12-16 fbg 4.5-5 fbg 5-10 fbg 10-15 fbg 5-10 fbg RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 100 Anthracene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene m /Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg mg/KgND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Benzo[ ,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 Dibenz(a,h)anthrace ne mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 400 1ndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyre ne mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 7 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 4 Naphthalene ma/Ka ma/KND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 ND<0.36 ND<0.38 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND<0.37 ND<0.37 ND<0.36 NT NT NT NT 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics unadjusted mg/Kg 12 5.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics Adjusted mg/Kg 12 5.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg mg/Kg25 12 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg ND<3.7 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 37 18 ND<3.6 ND<3.7 ND<3.6 ND<3.6 ND<3.8 1000 Percent Moisture % 13 11 8.4 13 11 9.1 13 --- Percent Solids % 87 89 1 92 87 89 90.9 87 Notes: RCS-1 -Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category(Residential) ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested mg/kg-milligrams/kilogram Table 5: Groundwater Analytical Results 6/15/2007 7/13/2007 7/13/2007 Analyte Units MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 GW-2 GW-3 Acenaphthene 49/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 NA 5000 Acenaphthylene 4g/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 3000 Anthracene 49/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Benzo[a]anthracene 4g/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 1000 Benzo[a]pyrene 4g/L ND<0.21 NT NT NA 500 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 4g/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 400 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 49/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 3000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 4g/L ND<0.31 NT NT NA 100 Chrysene 4g/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4g/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 40 Fluoranthene 4g/L ND<1 NT NT NA 200 Fluorene 4g/L ND<1 NT NT NA 3000 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 4g/L ND<0.42 NT NT NA 100 2-Methylnaphthalene 4g/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 10000 3000 Naphthalene 4g/L ND<1 ND<1 ND<1.1 1000 20000 Phenanthrene 4g/L ND<0.21 2.3 ND<0.22 NA 50 Pyrene 4g/L ND<1 NT NT NA 20 C11-C22 Aromatics 4g/L ND<100 170 ND<110 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) 4g/L ND<100 170 ND<110 50000 5000 C19-C36 Aliphatics 4g/L ND<100 ND<100 160 NA 20000 C9-C18 Aliphatics 4g/L ND<100 ND<100 ND<110 1000 20000 Total EPH 4g/L ND<100 170 160 5000 5000 Notes: GW-2/GW-3-Cleanup criteria for MCP GW-2 and GW-3 ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested NA-Not Applicable µg/L-micrograms/liter F Table 6: Analytical Results for Sump#2 and Catch Basin#2 6/7/2007 6/7/2007 Analyte Units SUMP#2 CB #2 GW-2 GW-3 Acenaphthene 4g/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 5000 Acenaphthylene µg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 3000 Anthracene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 3000 Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L 0.72 ND<0.3 NA 1000 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L ND<0.21 ND<0.2 NA 500 Benzo[b]fluoranthene µg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 400 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 3000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene µg/L ND<0.31 ND<0.3 NA 100 Chrysene µg/L 1.9 ND<1 NA 3000 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 40 Fluoranthene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 200 Fluorene µg/L ND<1 1.7 NA 3000 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene µg/L ND<0.41 ND<0.4 NA 100 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 10000 3000 Naphthalene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 1000 20000 Phenanthrene µg/L ND<0.21 0.42 NA 50 Pyrene µg/L ND<1 ND<1 NA 20 C11-C22 Aromatics µg/L ND<100 260 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) µg/L ND<100 250 50000 5000 C19-C36 Aliphatics µg/L ND<100 ND<100 NA 20000 C9-C18 Aliphatics µg/L ND<100 110 1000 20000 Total EPH µg/L ND 100 370 5000 1 5000 Notes: GW-2/GW-3-Cleanup criteria for MCP GW-2 and GW-3 ND-Non-detect NT-Not Tested NA-Not Applicable pg/L-micrograms/liter APPENDIX A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © o o © x 0 0 0 0 0 0 E I u I n `U APPENDIX A I � MADEP Notice of Responsibility E E u O U 15/2007 03:19 6036267625 COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE al i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL A,F'FAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENWRO NMENTAL PROTECTION NORTHEAST R,E oim OFFICE n 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington, MA 01887 9 (978) 694-3200 Vv L. PATRICK �er�zor IAN A. BOWLES Secretv� 1` as P. MURRAY ARLES N ODONNELL .1` 1flfrt GOiT�rROr Cotmmieoioncr ry C URGENT LEGAL MATTER: PROMPT ACTION NECESSARY CMay 7,2007 Comcast Of Massachusetts,Inc. RE! NORTH ANDOVER. 751 East Izrdustrial Park Residential Property Manchester,New Hampshire 03109 50 Sandra Lane RTN: 3-26748 EATTN: Robert Goldthwaite NORCE O.FRES PONSXd3XLX2Tt Af G;L c 21E do 310 CMR 40 0000 Dear luzr.Goldthwaite: On, April 12, 2007, at 5:30 p,mr , the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) received oral [notification that there is or has been a release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous material at the above refercrrced property,which requires one or mote response.actions.Based on this information, MassDEP has reason o believe that the subject property or portion(s)thereof is a disposal site as.defi ped in the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, M.G.L. c. 2113, and the Massachusetts Contingency 1an4 3l0 CMR 40.0000 (the MCP). The assessment and cleanup of disposal sites is governed by M.G.L. c. 21E themcp. The purpose of this notice is to izrform you of your legal responsibilities .under state law for assessing and/or remediating the subject release.For purposes of this notice,the terms wd phrases used herein shalt.have the Mxreaning ascribed to them by the MCP unless the text clearly indicates otherwise. STAMORY 11affiTTI)'uS. MassDEP has reason to believe that you(as used in this letter, "you"refers to Comcast of Massachusetts, Ilic.)are.4 Potentially Responsible Party(a PRP)with liability under M.G.L.c. 21E, § 5, for response action costs. Section 5 rakes the follt�Wizrg'partie liable to the Comni,onwealth of Massaehtisetts: current owners or operators �f a site from or at which 1fiere is or:has been.arelease/threat of relcase of oil or hazardous material; any person 0 ovmed or operated a site at the time hazardous material was stored or disposed of; any person, who arrangvd This inY0r1J oioa is ara(s ( bic in a rto ,crate WFAaAt Call Donald M.GomADA AA Cooxdivatvr at 617-556-1057,TDP Set'vice-1.800-29&Z2U7. http.//www..mar s.gov/dep.Fax(978)694.3'499 , Printed on Recyaled paper P02 COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE 02 i1512007 03: 19 6036267625 North Andover 50 Sandra sane,Residential Property,RTN 3.26748 Notice ol'Resp onsibility,Comcast of Massachusetts,Inc. � Pagel Cfor the transport, disposal, storage or treatment of hazardous material to or at a site; any person.who transported hazardous material to a transport,disposal, storage or treatment site fro in, which then is or bas been a release/threat of release of such material- and any person who otherwise caused or is legally responsible for a release/th rtat. of release 4 oil or ha7xrdous material at a site, This liability is "strict", meaning it is not based on fault, but solely on your status as an mNmer, operator, generator; transporter or disposer. It is also joint and several,'meaning that yoti may be liable for all response action costs incurred at the site,regardless of the existence of any other`liable parties, The MCP requires responsible parties to take necessary response actions at properties �vhero there is ur rhag been a release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous material. If you do not take the necessary response. L-�actions, or fail to peeonn them in an appropriate and timely manner, MassDEP is authorized by M.G.L. c. 21E to havethe work performed by its contractors, By taking such actions, you can avoid liability for respwise action costs incurred .by MassUSP and its contractors in, performing these actions, and :airy satrotions which nay be imposed for failure to perforru response actions under the MCP. You may be liable for up to three (3) times all response action costs incurred by MassDEP. Response Eaction costs include, without limitation, the cost of direct hours spent by MassDEP employees arruging for response actions or overseeing work performed by persons other than MassDEP or their contractors, expenses Eincurred by MassDEP in support of those direct hours,and payments to MassDEP contractors. (For more detail on cost liability,see 310 CMR 40.1200.) MassDEP may also assess interest on costs incurred.at the rate of twelve percent (12%), compounded annually. To secure payment of this debt,.the Commonwealth may place liens on all of your property in title Commonwealth. To recover the debt, the Commonwealth may:Foreclose on these liens or the Attorney General may bring legal action against you. CIn addition to your liability for up to three (3) times all response action costs incurred by MassDEP, you may also be liable to the ConmonweaM for darnages to natural resources caused. by the release. Civil and zimirraI liability may also be imposed under M.G.L. %C. 21E, § 11, and civil administrative penalties may be �ssued mposed under M.G.L. c_21A, § 16.fo;r each violation of M.G.L.c.21E,.the MCP,or any order,permit or approval thereunder. NECESSARY RESPONSE ACTIONS The..subject site shall not be deetiled to,have had all,the >xocessary and.required responseactions taken aless and until all.substantial hazards presented by the site have been eliminated and a level of No Significant III tisk exists.or has been.achieved in compliance with.M.G.L. c. 21E and the MCP. In addition, the MCP requires persons undertaking response actions at disposal sites to perform Irmuediate,Response Actions (IRAs) in response. 10 "sudden releases", Lymiinent Hazards .and Substantial Release Migration, Such persons must contitrue to valuate the need for IRAs—and notify MassDEP immediately if such,a need exists. MassAEP"'has determined that an IRA .is necessary to respond to the _sudden release of ,pproximately eighty.($O),gallons of 42 fuel oil to, and below,, the concrete basement floor of(Ike subject Otesidential iro er . The oil flowed.into a er' eter- _ p la ty p un draia and migrated off-site into the storm wator run- off system aud:.impacted-the receiving_surface.water body. 5/15/2007 03:19 6036267625 COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PAGE 031 North Andover,50 Sandra Lane,Residential Property,RTN 3-26748 � C ,Notice of Responsibility, Comcast of MassachusettsInc.R Page 3 The release when occurred As the result of the oil feed line breaking off a 275-gallon above-ground storage..tank (ASS) tvlten a Comcast of Massachusetts, Inc. working in the basement of the subject residential property. eruployee stepped on the oiI feed line . while You are authorized to conduct only the specific respons approval from MassDEP at the time you provided oral notifi mon to coonsMassfor of the subject release,oral l additional Immediate Response Actions require MassDEP approval In accordance with 3.1.0 CMR lea 0420. M=SDEP reminds you that IRAs must include site assesstnent activities necessary to evaluate Potential Imminent Hazard ([I , Substantial Release Migration (S (CEP) conditions. .Additional Immediate Response Actions will be required in ��event ang Exposure pathway CEP conditions are observed; I, RM, 01- You rYou Wrist employ or engage a Licensed Site Professional (LSP)to Manage, supervise or actually perfon». C the necessary response actions at the subject Site. 14 addition, actions at MC a disposal site to submit to the Department Response hAc on Outcome Statemenuires persons t undertaking prepared by an LSP in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1000 upon determining that a level of No Significant Risk already exists EI-Or has been achieved at a disposal.site ox portion.thereof [you may obtain these licensed professionals from the Board of Registration of HazardousWaste Site a list of the. ecu Cleanup piofedssionals �.t (617)556-1091.) Cl There arc several outer submittals required by the mcp which are related to release notification and/or Presponse actions that may be conducted at the subject site in addition to aft RAO,that, unless othemise specified y MassDEP,must be provided to lulassDEP within.specifiie regulatory timeframes.The submittals are as:follows: (1). If information is obtained after making an oral or written notification to indicate that the release.or C threat of release did not occur, £ailed to meet the reporting criteria at 310 CMR 40.031.1 through 40.0315, or is exetttpt ftom notification pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0317, a Notifeation Retraction must be submitted within 60 days of initial notification pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0335,otherwise, C (2) If one has not been submitted, a Release Notification Form (RNP).must besubmitted to assDEP pursuant to section 310 CMR 40.0333 within 60 calendar days of the initial date of oral notifi at onn to DEP of a release pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0300 or front the date MassDEP issues a Notice of C Responsibility(NOR),whichever occurs earlier; ".0) Unless a RAO is�sub pitted earlier,an Immediate Response Aotiod(IRA)Phm:prep-ared'it�accordance L� with 310 CMR 40.0.420, or an IRA Completion Statement (310 CMR 40.0427) must be submitted to Massl�Ep within 60 calendar days of the initial date of oral notification to MassDEP of a release putivant to 310 CMR 40.0300 or from the date MassDEP issues a NOR, whichever occurs earlier,- and (4) .Unless a RAO is.submitted earlier, a completed Tier Classification S.ubtnittal pursuant 40.0510 and if appropriate, 1 suatt to 310 CMR a co Tier 1 Permit Application pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0700, must be `submittedzto DEP within one year of the initial date of oral notifieation to MassDEP of a' re pursuant to 3'10 CMR 40.0300,or from the date MassDEP issues a NOR, whichever occurs earlier. Icase (S) Pursuant to MassDF,P's "Timely Action Schedule aid,Fee Provisioe Must be included with a.RAO'statement that is submitted to MassD io ns";310 CMR 4.00 more than 120 caleud'a fee daafter of$1,22000 the initial date of oral notification to MassDEP of a.release pursuant to.310.CMR 40,0300 or after the date C COMCAST SAFETY DEPT PHGE � .or Baa r a n:ly bb.iblb 1b2t) ,I North Andover, 50 Sandra Lane,Residential Property,RTN 3-2,674$ I `` CNotice of Responsibility,Comcast of,Massachusetts,Inc. Page 4 MassDEP issues a NOR, whichever occurs earlier, an,d before Tier Classification. A feo is not required i for a RAO subruitted.to MassDEP within 120 days of the.date of oral notification.to MassDEP, or 04e Oie MassDEP.issues a.NOR,whichever date occurs earlier,or after Tier Classiftcatiort, It is important to note that you must dispose of an Remediation Waste nerated at the subject location.in n p Y p Y �' accordance with 310 CMR 40.0030 including, without limitation, contaminated soil and/or debris,. Any Bill of Lading accompanying such waste must bear, the seal and signature of an LSP or, if the response action is 4 perfornnied coder the direct supervision of MassDEP,the signature of an authorized representative of MassDEP. MassDEP encourages parties with liabilities under M.0-L. c. 21E to take prompt action in response to Ereleases and threats of release of oil and/or hazardous material. By taking prompt action, you may siguiftcMitly lower your assessment and cleanup costs and avoid the imposition of, or reduce the amount of, certain permit ai d amiu.al compliance fees for response actions payable under 310 CMR 4.00, C Please be advised that Notices of Responsibility have been issued to several PRPs for this release, and that it i-nay be prudent;for all PRPs to coordinate the necessary response actions. If you, have any questions relative to this zzotioe, you should contact Steven S. Ross at. the letterhead address or(978)'.694-3371. All future communications regarding this release must reference the Release Tracking CNumber(RTN 3-26748) contained in the subject block of this letter. Sincerely, Steven S.Ross Eaviroiru nental Analyst (1Emergency Response Branch 15 avid T usata �Brauch Chief l Emergency Response Branch cc:. DEP Data Entry/File I � APPENDIX B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O D D D ' D APPENDIX B D IRA Plan Transmittal Forms D D D D D D 0 D D D D D D Ell C Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection L71 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION IRA TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) - 26748 C A RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE LOCATION: C 1. Release Name/Location Aid: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY i 2. Street Address: 150 SANDRA LN I 3. City/Town: NORTH ANDOVER 4. ZIP Code: 01845-4612 5.UTM Coordinates: a.UTM N: L � b. UTM E: 6. Check here if a Tier Classification Submittal has been provided to DEP for this disposal site. C a. Tier IA b. Tier IB F] c. Tier IC d. Tier 11 El 7. Check here if this location is Adequately Regulated, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0110-0114. Specify Program(check one): U D a. CERCLA ❑ b. HSWA Corrective Action E] c. Solid Waste Management r7 d. RCRA State Program(21 C Facilities) B.THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check all that apply) 1. List Submittal Date of Initial IRA Written Plan(if previously submitted): 05/15/2007 ILi1 2. Submit an Initial IRA Plan. (mm/dd/yyyy) Q 3. Submit a Modified IRA Plan of a previously submitted written IRA Plan. C 4. Submit an Imminent Hazard Evaluation. (check one) F] a. An Imminent Hazard exists in connection with this Release or Threat of Release. Cb. An Imminent Hazard does not exist in connection with this Release or Threat of Release. c. It is unknown whether an Imminent Hazard exists in connection with this Release or Threat of Release, and further assessment activities will be undertaken. d. It is unknown whether an Imminent Hazard exists in connection with this Release or Threat of Release. However, EJ response actions will address those conditions that could pose an Imminent Hazard. ❑ 5. Submit a request to Terminate an Active Remedial System or Response Action(s)Taken to Address an Imminent Hazard. 6. Submit an IRA Status Report. 7. Submit a Remedial Monitoring Report.(This report can only be submitted through eDEP.) a.Type of Report:(check one) [] i. Initial Report [-] ii. Interim Report F-� iii. Final Report b. Frequency of Submittal:(check all that apply) i. A Remedial Monitoring Report(s)submitted monthly to address an Imminent Hazard. ii. A Remedial Monitoring Report(s)submitted monthly to address a Condition of Substantial Release Migration. C ❑ iii. A Remedial Monitoring Report(s)submitted concurrent with a IRA Status Report. c. Number of Remedial Systems and/or Monitoring Programs: A separate BWSC105A, IRA Remedial Monitoring Report,must be filled out for each Remedial System and/or Monitoring Program addressed by this transmittal form. Revised:2/9/2005 Page 1 of 6 C � Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 CRelease Tracking Number IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION (IRA) TRANSMITTAL � rFORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) - 26748 U B.THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO(cont.): (check all that apply) ❑ ❑ 8. Submit an IRA Completion Statement. a. Check here if future response actions addressing this Release or Threat of Release notification condition will be ❑ conducted as part of the Response Actions planned or ongoing at a Site that has already been Tier Classified under a different Release Tracking Number(RTN). When linking RTNs,rescoring via the NRS is required if there is a reasonable likelihood that the addition of the new RTN(s)would change the classification of the site. I b. Provide Release Tracking Number of Tier Classified Site(Primary RTN): ❑ _ L� These additional response actions must occur according to the deadlines applicable to the Primary RTN. Use the Primary ❑ RTN when making all future submittals for the site unless specifically relating to this Immediate Response Action. ❑ 9. Submit a Revised IRA Completion Statement. j (All sections of this transmittal form must be filled out unless otherwise noted above) {� C. RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE CONDITIONS THAT WARRANT IRA: 1. Identify Media Impacted and Receptors Affected: (check all that apply) ❑✓ a. Air ❑✓ b. Basement ❑ c. Critical Exposure Pathway ❑ d. Groundwater ❑✓ e. Residence ❑ ❑ f. Paved Surface ❑ g. Private Well ❑ h. Public Water Supply ❑ i. School ✓❑ j. Sediments �t 0 k. Soil [7,/ I. Storm Drain a m. Surface Water ❑ n. Unknown ❑ o. Wetland ❑ p. Zone 2 j ❑ q. Others Specify: [� 2. Identify Oils and Hazardous Materials Released: (check all that apply) �j ❑✓ a. Oils ❑ b. Chlorinated Solvents ❑ c. Heavy Metals Ell ❑ d. Others Specify ❑ D. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (check all that apply,for volumes list cumulative amounts) ❑ 1. Assessment and/or Monitoring Only . ❑ 2. Temporary Covers or Caps a ❑✓ 3. Deployment of Absorbent or Containment Materials ❑ 4. Temporary Water Supplies ❑ 5. Structure Venting System ❑ 6. Temporary Evacuation or Relocation of Residents OQ 7. Product or NAPL Recovery ❑ 8. Fencing and Sign Posting ❑ 9. Groundwater Treatment Systems ❑ 10. Soil Vapor Extraction ❑ ❑ 11. Bioremediation ❑ 12. Air Sparging C, Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 2 of 6 C Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 `—' IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION (IRA) TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number LA r FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) 33 - 26748 L� D. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS(cont.): (check all that apply,for volumes list cumulative amounts) ✓� 13. Excavation of Contaminated Soils ✓� a. Re-use, Recycling or Treatment i.On Site Estimated volume in cubic yards 1 Q✓ ii.Off Site Estimated volume in cubic yards 2 L� iia. Receiving Facility: F-timo SE2'FkCES c` MAINE �vt (fr��� iaVZH Po2t�ANv Fl _ Town: State: E iib. Receiving Facility: Town: tate: iii. Describe: b. Store i.On Site Estimated volume in cubic yards ii.Off Site Estimated volume in cubic yards iia. Receiving Facility: Town: State: (� iib. Receiving Facility: Town: State: i c. Landfill U i.Cover Estimated volume in cubic yards Receiving Facility: Town: I State: ii. Disposal Estimated volume in cubic yards Receiving Facility: Tow tate: 14. Removal of Drums,Tanks or Containers: a. Describe Quantity and Amount: b. Receiving Facility: Town: State: c. Receiving Facility: Town: State: Z✓ 15. Removal of Other Contaminated Media: a.Specify Type and volume: Spent absorbents and leafy matter from stream b.Receiving Facility: EM% Town: 'O'T A State: c.Receiving Facility: Town: State: �I E] 16. Other Response Actions: QDescribe: 0 17. Use of Innovative Technologies: Describe: Injection of hydrogen peroxide Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 3 of 6 C Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION (iRA)TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart 0) 3C - 26748 C E. LSP SIGNATURE AND STAMP: I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with this transmittal form, including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of(i)the standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1),(ii)the applicable provisionsof 309 CMR 4.02(2)and(3),and 309 CMR 4.03(2),and (iii)the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(3),to the best of my knowledge,information and belief, > if Section B of this form indicates that an immediate Response Action Plan is being submitted,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.C.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal; �l > if Section 8 of this form indicates that an Imminent Hazard Evaluation is being submitted,this Imminent Hazard Evaluation was I developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and the assessment activity(ies) U undertaken to support this Imminent Hazard Evaluation compfy(ies)with the applicable provisions of M.G.L_c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000; > if Section 8 of this form indicates that an Immediate Response Action Status Report and/or a Remedial Monitoring Report is(are)being submitted,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)is(are)being implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(ili)comply(ies)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal; > if Section B of this form indicates that an Immediate Response Action Completion Statement or a request to Terminate an Active Remedial System or Response Action(s)Taken to Address an Imminent Hazard is being submitted,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and(iii)comply(ies) with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this submittal. I am aware that significant penalties may result,including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,if I submit information which I know to be false,inaccurate or materially incomplete. 1. LSP#: 1008 C 2. First Nare.. RICHARD G 3. Last Name: ISTROMBERG 4. Telephone: 1(781)849-1311 5. Ext.: �� 6. FAX: — 7. Signature: U r2ar, 8. Date: 9,LSP Stamp: 1 3V01 A {mm/dd/yyyy) � C. m 8TR0Me!': C Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 4 of 6 C Massachusetts Department of Environmental tai Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION IRA TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D)IL a - 26748 LJ F. PERSON UNDERTAKING IRA: ❑ 1. Check all that apply: Fla. change in contact name ❑ b.change of address ❑ c. change in the person undertaking response actions 2. Name of Organization: ICOMCAST OF MASSACHUSETTS I INC a3. Contact First Name:I ROBERT 4.Last Name: CLDTHWAITE ❑ 5. Street: 751 EAST INDUSTRIAL DRIVE 6.Title: 7. City/Town: MANCHESTER 8. State: NH 9. ZIP Code: 03109-0000 6 (( 03)626-9900 3512 10. Telephone. 1 11.Ext... ��. 12. FAX: ❑ G. RELATIONSHIP TO RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE OF PERSON UNDERTAKING IRA: ✓0 1. RP or PRP ❑✓ a. Owner ❑ b. Operator ❑ c. Generator ❑ d. Transporter ❑ e. Other RP or PRP Specify: ❑ 2. Fiduciary,Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.2) i ❑ 3. Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.50)) ❑ 4. Any Other Person Undertaking IRA Specify Relationship: H.REQUIRED ATTACHMENT AND SUBMITTALS: 1. Check here if any Remediation Waste,generated as a result of this IRA,will be stored,treated,managed,recycled or ❑ ❑ reused at the site following submission of the IRA Completion Statement. If this box is checked,you must submit one of the following plans, along with the appropriate transmittal form. ❑ Fla. A Release Abatement Measure(RAM)Plan(BWSC106) ❑ b.Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan(BWSC108) 2. Check here if the Response Action(s)on which this opinion is based,if any,are(were)subject to any order(s), permit(s) ❑✓ and/or approval(s)issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked,you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable ❑ provisions thereof. Z 3. Check here to certify that the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health were notified of the implementation of an Immediate Response Action taken to control, prevent,abate or eliminate an Imminent Hazard. a ❑ 4. Check here to certify that the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health were notified of the submittal of a ❑ Completion Statement for an Immediate Response Action taken to control, prevent, abate or eliminate an Imminent Hazard. ❑ 5. Check here if any non-updatable information provided on this form is incorrect,e.g. Release Address/Location Aid. Send corrections to the DEP Regional Office. l� ❑✓ 6. Check here to certify that the LSP Opinion containing the material facts,data,and other information is attached. �i ❑ Revised: 2/9/2005 Page 5 of 6 C Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection rBureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC105 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONIRA)( TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number ACTION ( IRA) Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0424-40.0427(Subpart D) 3 -L731 26748 C 1. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON UNDERTAVJNG IRA- 1 RA1 I Robert Goldthwaite attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(i)that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this submittal,including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form,(ii)that,based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained in this submittal is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true,accurate and complete,and(iii) 1 that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally responsible for this submittal. I/the person or L! entity on whose behalf this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significant penalties,including,but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment,for willfully submitting false,inaccurate,or incomplete information. i Li 2• $Y 3. Title: Signature U 4. For: COMCAST OF MASSACHUSETTS I INC 5. Date: S D (Name of person or entity recorded in Section F) (mm/dd/yyyy) 6. Check here if the address of the person providing certification is different from address recorded in Section F. 7. Street: 8. City/Town: 9. State: 10. ZIP Code: 11. Telephone: '—1 12•Ext.: 13. FAX: C CYOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE FEE OF UP TO$10,0D0 PER BILLABLE YEAR FOR THIS DISPOSAL SITE. YOU MUST LEGIBLY COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT n SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF YOU USUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM,YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING A REQUIRED DEADLINE. Date Stamp(DEP USE ONLY:) a a C C C CRevised:2/9/2005 Page 6 of 6 C APPENDIX C C G n APPENDIX � Letter to M.. w,tr,m,n D 0 0 0 c c 0 0 0 0 c c c LJ NLFR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT &CONSULTING ENGINEERING June 22, 2007 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 a Mr. Chris Waterman 67 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Re: Results of Surface Soil Sampling at 67 Sandra Lane Dear Mr. Waterman: In accordance with your verbal request, LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this letter to convey the results of the recent surface soil samples collected at your residence in response to the sudden home heating O fuel oil release in the basement at 50 Sandra Lane in April 2007. LFR has been coordinating with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to remediate the spill so that it n will not constitute a health concern to properties near the spill. uOn June 7, 2007, LFR collected four surface soil samples at 67 Sandra Lane. The attachment contains a figure of sample locations. The samples were collected in areas of the vegetable garden, the swing set, and two other areas in the lawn along the stream. The attachment also contains a table summarizing the results of the analysis that was performed for "Extractable Petroleum a Hydrocarbons" (EPH) which is applicable for the type of oil released. The table compares the results to the "S-1 Reportable Concentrations" (RCS-1's) for residential areas set by the MassDEP. The RCS-1 standards are defined in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) in Section 40.0361 (a) as soils within 500 feet of a residential building, a residentially zoned property, school, playground, recreational area, or park. Low levels of certain petroleum hydrocarbon fraction residues were detected in three of the four surface samples at concentrations twenty times less than the RCS-1 standards. None were detected in the other sample. Low levels of petroleum can be found in areas that are periodically affected by street runoff. A previous spill of fuel oil was also documented at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 that was cleaned up. Results of testing in the stream and sediment also posed no health concern as previously described in the Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan sent to you in May 2007 by LFR. Therefore, although low levels of petroleum residues were found, it is not possible to differentiate them as being attributable to the current spill or the previous spill and normal runoff. Regardless, the backyard is safe for normal residential activities. a781.356.7300 m 781.356.2211 f 194 Forbes Road www.Ifr.com a Braintree, Massachusetts 02184 Offices Nationwide aMr.Chris Waterman Emal L FR June 22,2Page 22 a These results will also be copied to the MassDEP and local North Andover public agencies in the next IRA Status Report to be provided by LFR on August 12, 2007. Please call me at 781-356-7300 (x203) if you have any questions with regard to these samples. Very Truly Yours, Richard Stromberg, CPG, LSP Senior Associate Q Attachments CC: M. Salimena, R. Goldthwaite, W. Allard (Comcast) T. Woodward (LFR) A. McKay (N. Andover Conservation Commission) C. Hayon (50 Sandra Lane, N. Andover) Q L1 I�i 0 0 0 aATTACHMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F a / CB NDRA LANE SW/Sed-4 Z .. • �'' " SW/Sed-9�° SW/Sed-8 s° 0 s � ` 'SW/Sed-5 CB #4 !� a SW/Sod-7,' A SW/Sod-6r., * r " r- +' 04 r 0.' 446 .,� 4 �P y } P 1 4 t EXPLANATION: 01 STORM • •STREAM(Note: • 1 1 DirectionCATCHBASIN • • PCiND SURFACE • • • • • • 1 1 ■ SOIL 1 Scale: 1 20' �� C-73 C C-3 1--3 Q C----D Q C Q Q © Q Table 1: Surface Soil Samples at Waterman Residence (67 Sandra Lane, North Andover) Surface Soil Samples Analyte Units SSW-1 SSW-2 SSW-3 SSW-4 RCS-1 Acenaphthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 20 Acenaphthylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[a]anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 70 Chrysene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 0.7 Fluoranthene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 Fluorene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 400 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 7 2-Methylnaphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Naphthalene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 4 Phenanthrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44 ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 100 Pyrene mg/Kg ND< 0.44. ND< 0.63 ND< 0.45 ND< 0.4 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (unadjusted) mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C11-C22 Aromatics (Adjusted) mg/Kg 21 18 ND< 4.5 16 1000 C19-C36 Aliphatics mg/Kg 29 11 ND< 4.5 15 2500 C9-C18 Aliphatics mg/Kg ND< 4.4 8.3 ND< 4.5 ND< 4 1000 Total EPH mg/Kg 50 37 ND< 4.5 31 1000 Percent Moisture % 27 47 27 19 --- Percent Solids % 73 53 73 81 --- RCS-1 - Reportable Concentrations for the S-1 soil category (Residential) C Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 C Client Sample ID: SSW-1 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1250 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-8 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix. Solid a Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution Method: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 n Percent Moisture 27 % 1.0 a a c a a CPage 22 of 44 E E Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road aBraintree, MA 02184 aClient Sample ID: SSW-1 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1250 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-8 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 [�1 Client Matrix: Solid u Percent Solids: 73 Analyte _ Result/Qualifier Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 1828 Prep Method:3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[b]fiuoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 C Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.44 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 21 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 21 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 29 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 Total EPH 50 mg/Kg 4.4 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits C 2-Bromonaphthalene 79 40-140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 82 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 41 % 40- 140 �I 1-Chlorooctadecane 58 % 40-140 LJ U El CPage 23 of 44 l� Mr. Rick Stromberg Jab Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. Q 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 CClient Sample ID: SSW-2 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1254 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-9 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid a Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit _ NONE Dilution Method: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 n Percent Moisture 47 % 1.0 c c a c CPage 24 of 44 C C Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. - 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 CClient Sample ID: SSW-2 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1254 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-9 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 a Client Matrix: Solid Percent Solids: 53 a Analyte _ Result/Qualifier Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 1900 Prep Method:3646 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 a Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 (� Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 II JI Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 C Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.63 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 18 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 18 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 11 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 C9-C18 Aliphatics 8.3 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 Total EPH 37 mg/Kg 6.3 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits C 2-Bromonaphthalene 56 40- 140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 59 % 40- 140 o-Terphenyl 31 X % 40- 140 C1-Chlorooctadecane 34 X % 40- 140 U C U Page 25 of 44 L� [, Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. a 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-3 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1255 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-10 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution Method: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 n Percent Moisture 27 % 1.0 a C C C C C CPage 26 of 44 Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. Q 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 O Client Sample ID: SSW-3 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1255 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-10 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 D Client Matrix: Solid Percent Solids: 73 Analyte Result/Qualifier Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 1932 Prep Method: 3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 (l Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 I + Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 LI Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 I Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Dibenz(a,h)anthrace ne ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.45 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C C19-C36 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 Total EPH ND mg/Kg 4.5 1.0 (�! Surrogate Acceptance Limits I i 2-Bromonaphthalene 74 % 40-140 IJ 2-Fluorobiphenyl 76 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 57 % 40-140 C1-Chlorooctadecane 60 40-140 i C Page 27 of 44 C C CMr, Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-4 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1300 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-11 Date Received: 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid Analyte _ Result/Qualifier Unit NONE Dilution DMethod: PercentMoisture Date Analyzed: 06/14/2007 1340 Percent Moisture 19 % 1.0 D D D D D D D � D D Page 28 of 44 C Mr. Rick Stromberg Job Number: 360-10499-1 LFR, Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 Client Sample ID: SSW-4 Date Sampled: 06/07/2007 1300 Lab Sample ID: 360-10499-11 Date Received, 06/12/2007 1515 Client Matrix: Solid Percent Solids: 81 Analyte Result/Qualifier_ Unit RL Dilution Method: MA-EPH Date Analyzed: 06/15/2007 2003 Prep Method: 3546 Date Prepared: 06/14/2007 1353 a Acenaphthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Acenaphthylene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[a]anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 o Benzo[a]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Benzo[k]fluorenthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 n Chrysene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 [[_)' Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Fluoranthene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Fluorene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 n Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 2-Methylnaphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Naphthalene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Phenanthrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 (� Pyrene ND mg/Kg 0.40 1.0 Il J! C11-C22 Aromatics(unadjusted) 16 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 C11-C22 Aromatics(Adjusted) 16 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 C19-C36 Aliphatics 15 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 rl C9-C18 Aliphatics ND mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 QUI Total EPH 31 mg/Kg 4.0 1.0 Surrogate Acceptance Limits 2-Bromonaphthalene 80 % 40- 140 2-Fluorobiphenyl 83 % 40-140 o-Terphenyl 63 % 40-140 D1-Chlorooctadecane 72 % 40-140 a CPage 29 of 44 c-n 7_3 C-3 n Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. 38744 •53 Southampton Road 0149 Rangeway Road Westfield,MA o1o15 K Billerica,MA 01862 Chain of Custody Form � T L (P)413-572-4000 (P)978-667-1400 (F)413-572-3707 (F)978-667-7871 57LwastfkJ6 SSL Bttlerica I Servlee C~ Client: >+ Jobfit Q.^ °t f NC Project#: LSZ- Quote# Po#;. - Address: Project Manager: S Shaded:areas for office use Comments -Analysis Requested Work I D: To J9Check analysis and specify method (Special Instructions) Phone: _3 Fax: and analytes in comments section. S Contact: t�f}t,M For example: Please prim legibility. If the analytical o Requested Turnaround Time (PLEASE SPECIFY) Regulato Classification S ecial Re ort Format 500-sedesfor ddnidng water requests are not clearly defined on the NPDES Drinking Water QAIQC Report 800-series for waste water,NPDES STANDARD _� 8000-series forgroundwater,sat,waste chain-of-custody, the turnaround time RZUSH RCRA MCP GW11St DQE(MCP)Rpt 8000 series forgroundwaler,soil,waste 7t begin after all questions have been {Lab Approval Requif ()ter lLl S-1 DEP Forms Y Use comments section to further define. � ) satisfactorily answered. Sample Type Codes Preservati WW Wastewater AW-Drinking water SW-Surfacewater N Q N g z LW-Lab water GW-Groundwater A-AirQ se ° a o M1 U SSaIidJSoil SL-Sludge OOi1 2btherDat N v' N N o N = ut N O � — ��( "f �• Z�t�TS Time m r Q v = U N o n in = 0 o ,ri m i� d 0 i Collected n o z Q- M & LO (a "' d j o N 2 0c�i a Sample ID a� nw ? O fl z a� o n m �.P CD cEi C a r/� M D ` m U Q re E O ai = 0 rn O N C R t6 re >. i5 •— O U m of Z N (.) m M O O O m U d � N N y KfTO fn F- th 5 t7 V at a Z = 2 z Z z > rn a 0 � O m H O W. ft 1_1 -% o x ) X L , { C. oto x S - b S opo x 1 K i5-Z o3 t Z i 1TZ L�i�'( � Zo Z �7�. x 17 .tFM �,T_ Sampled by(print): Signature: ^ -j7,&-VL- o 7 0 Coolt=r (�1:;tf MADEP Requirement Samples Iced?(I N Refi wished Y 6 Date: Time: Re. v Date: . rr e 2 ° //33 �- 0� J { Temp, recei c1 ff,,G Refin i p.� Pb. T T'. .. CC Date: Tme:rte ceN Y ate: Time: . v 17 a Prese'tvatiott 1�H dheckedl �.f N, Time- Re uishe Y Da %t R n+ed by Dat Time: / 6 /3r r . gy Date: Zl ar} 5221, STt FIVE FIELD Page of White=Lab file Yellow=Report copy Pink=Customer copy STL-8245 (1000) Severn Trent Laboratories Inc. Q o •53 Southampton Road •149 Rengwmy Road Laboratories, ®� 3 8 7 4 O 1Nestfeid,MA O1c185 N.Billerica,mA o1862 Chain of Custody Form T L (P)413-572-4000 (P)979.667-14oa (F)413-572.3707 (F)978-667-7871 S1t.W"Vi d SA Btllerteaf5onice Center Client: Project#. _ Quote# PO# . �-_t � � � ; °. 360-l� _._ :. �. , Shaded areas for office use Address: `�� i�i�ftg,�.s �� Project Manager: Analysis Requested Comments , Work 1D: =z= Check analysis and specify method (Special Instructions) and analytes in comments section. Phone: at Fax: S(a 'jj(t Contact: �.t4t[ For example: Please print legibility. If the analytical Requested Turnaround Time PLEASE SPECIFY) Regulatory Classification S ecial Report Format 500-series for drintdng water requests are not clearly defined on the NPDES DrinkingWater QA10CRe ort 8for waste water,NPOEs 600"eriesfo'G ro rle-ater,soil,waste chain of�ustody, the turnaround time STANDARD _ RUSH RCRA MCP GWVS1 DQE(MCP)Rpt 8000-sedes for gmunewater,sal,waste will begin after all questions have been (Lab Approval Requlreet) Other s -j DEPForm(s) Use tentssectiontofurther deeoe. satisfactorily answered. Sample Type Codes Preservative 0 N o ) WW-Wastewater DW-Drinking water SW-Surface water N o n x LW-Lab water GW-Groundwater A-Air 0O o U SSotid t Soil SL-Sludge OOil Z Othera e = w 4 C14 m C = W n ti t � T Eai °Tme n � a o a „v = a> O N mof Collectedii a o n a O °v N w a j civ U o Sample ID a a o o a = C" o E .5E 0 a x O 0 O CN c e .E m O v ' c at5 U A T W= ff O V M M Z N U Ml9 O O O m U d m @ O rn ►- v)_ C7 ( 0- Z x Z x Z Z Z rn a w 2 (} m F O S S«' 1 X1 I Sampled by(print): Signature: NPAOEP Requirar+eet ( "7 a Cooler?�1-N 1saMpleslced?491 N Reil ish by: Date: Time: RM Date: Time: Terrip 9 receipt:. y°L oC Reli is by: ate: yt o by: te: Time: r Preset ivataon t.pH checked? _ a N Reli uished y: D e: Time: Ro by: ate: Time: It S ES ! LD IL Page Z of Z White=Lab file Yellow=Report copy Pink=Customer Copy STL-8245 (100D) APPENDIX D O CO O CO O O O O O O O O CO C7 C� O CO O O n i; G APPENDIX D Crnmae,rnns a a 0 0 c c 0 c 0 c c ; a • s �� .: .• low M,10 A lip .'�` Y: a 5+'sw�'.�aaro�,�",�,� �a� �x�k h,�a C•� �,.' 'c''4. ��?�F u R ti's � ..� :: '� .,.. 7 y.,�,.a ,ti• ��fx.„ ° w ##r y`' h'^M1� �. N fit :: •... '!1*aY - �� ' a+ , Y , �[ �." •,'�.i�,. +... y' s .d� vim+,.>.*�` . a*' >@ E \ +. , T9' y t j r{ a�, `,; �, • �„r`.w h, yy ._ �r T M ?. � �'� • �` '`.�'has xv �i, Y..,".a.Y..tatf, n "�', w',} +� i y&, ;.�P, .�^.F`'.�.��y� '.7`h, ` r; x,� �.,,.s �' ^r y.,;. 4 ,e" _ ,+ai+,.• ,,'C '�t t ", s+^+S�.r�' :w 1, � � �. � )fir *�.+ '� :CRY .�„ ' w ;;+,'.F,' ,���1� x*L �a A ;:n Y *. � ,4„x. •,.� 1 kq.A . 6n v ��"• �,� .� r �i. ' ..a .t► �"�, t'+ . r `+.w s ,, .Y, t -5 A - � t��� � ,. r •.". �*v +� +� �tx -r'r. ��y,r 'f++ .:�� 4 sus;.. -.. WWW���yy�+ t _ .. 4''�E�s�r ppyy��.� ��Y'�a- »t � a y+ Y^�• • � •%i � y� ,^``�C �I 'Y�S.�� � 'A.. `�° 4 k Y v '3 � Ad Yy�r i `_,r .... '.YW r..,...... JAPPENDIX E CC Ci C C a c � APPENDIX E Boring Logs 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 a c c c c Ell LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) SYMBOLS (GW)Well Graded Gravel Gravel _ (GP)Poorly Graded Gravel, Gravel Sand w Sand Mixtures, Little or No Fines 1 Mixtures, Little or No Fines ' (GM)Silty Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Silt (GC)Clayey Gravel, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures ® Mixtures E] (SW)Well Graded Sand, Gravelly (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, Sand, Little or No Fines EJ Gravelly Sand, Little or No Fines E (SM)Silty Sand, Sand-Silt (SC)Clayey Sand, Sand-Clay Mixtures El Mixtures a ® (ML) Inorganic Silt and Very Fine Sand, ® (CL)Inorganic Clay of Low to Medium Plasticity, Silty or Clayey Fine Sand, Clayey Silt Gravelly, Sandy,or Silty Clay, Lean Clay (OL)Organic Silt and Clay of ® (MH)Inorganic Silt, Elastic Silt, Micaceous aLow Plasticity or Diatomaceous Fine Sandy or Silty Soil ® (CH) Inorganic Clay of High Plasticity, (OH) Organic Clay of Medium to Fat Clay High Plasticity, Organic Silt (PT) Peat, Humus, Swamp Soil with High Organic Content Concrete/Asphalt/Fill/Debris �} J I Based on the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Procedure for Determining Unified Soil Classification, �{ USBR 5005-86,and in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)Standard D 2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils. COMMON MUNSELL REFERENCE NUMBERS Lithologic Contact Observed In Sample � I Dark Brown- 10YR 3/3 Greenish Gray-5G 6/1 U Light Brown-10YR 8/3 Olive Gray-5Y 4/1 Brown - 10YR 5/3 Dark Gray-N3 Lithologic Contact Location Inferred Brownish Yellow- 10YR 6/8 Gray- N5 Yellowish Red-5YR 4/6 Light Gray-N7 _�Z First Encountered Water Reddish Brown - 1 OR 3/6 1 Stabilized Water GENERAL SOIL DESCRIPTION FORMAT Portion of Sampled Interval Recovered group name and symbol; color; particle size range Interval Sampled (relative sorting/grading); approximate percentage of boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, and fines; plasticity Portion of Sampled Interval Not Recovered of fines; particle angularity and shape(if appropriate); relative moisture content, odor, reaction with HCI, Sample Portion Retained for Testing in-place conditions (consistency, structure, etc.) DISCLAIMER: Lithologic descriptions presented on boring logs are generalized representations based upon visual/manual classification of cuttings and/or samples obtained during drilling. The descriptions apply only at the specific location at the time of drilling and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. LPN L F R_ CPROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane CLIENT COMCAST WELL NUMBER LFR-1/MW-1 PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane N.Andover MAPAGE 1 OF 1 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Bronson Drilling PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe direct push LOCATION NE of Basement Sump#1 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT Phot vac 2020 GROUND ELEVATION — HOLE DIAMETER 2 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 16.0 ft FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER --- 1 STABILIZED WATER 12.3 ft/Elev-12.3 ft JLOGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 6/7/07 W a ID F}-W JWTz) (D (n Z = wm a> � _O a w CL a Q O(if LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION W Q z ow w ; WELL DIAGRAM cn w p o_ W 0.5 Topsoil Road oxTSeal Light brown, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and Concrete cs'sand,albation till, no odor SS-1 P=35 Bentonite 5 1.5"PVC Riser 5 SS-2 SM- ML P=1.8 Filter Sand 10 r- SS-3 P=2 10 1.5"Slotted 12.0 Screen 1 Light brown,dry, SILT with 'f sand, little gravel and'cs' ? sand,albation till, no odor SS-4 SM- ML P=1.2 15 n 15 r 16.0 Bottom of boring at approximately 16.0 feet t� 'PROVED BY: DATE: LPN �! PROJECT AME 50 Sandra Lane LCLIENT.. WELL NUMBER LFR-2/MW-2 COMCAST PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane N.Andover MAPAGE 1 OF 1 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe direct push LOCATION SW of CB#2 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 GROUND ELEVATION — HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 18.0 ft FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER --- STABILIZED WATER --- LOGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 7/9/07 W o_ Of w I-W WJW Uj U � Z W Co E Z>O v n-O a. O o_ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION o w Q a WELL DIAGRAM Q Z �� 0 J W ( O o_ W W L`;, 0.5 Topsoil oa ox SM- Light brown, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and 'Concrete Seal ML cs'sand, albation till, no odor . 2.0 SS-1 SM- Gray, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, P=1.5 ML 3.0 albation till, no odor Sand Light brown, moist,SILT with T sand, little gravel and SM- cs'sand,albation till,wet at 4.5-5 fbg, no odor ML 5 SS-2 5.0 P=1.5 5 —! Bentonite Seal SS-3 2"PVC Riser P=1.5 SM- Light brown, dry, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs' ML sand, albation till, no odor 9.5 10 SM- 10.0 Light brown,wet, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs' ML sand, albation till, no odor 10 Light brown, dry, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs' sand,albation till, no odor Filter Sand SS-4 SM- ML P=1 n 2"Slotted i 14.0 Screen U Light brown, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, 15 albation till,wet at 15 fbg, no odor 15 SS-5 SM- ML P=9.2 18.0 Bottom of boring at approximately 18.0 feet End Cap C ! .!PROVED BY: DATE: �� LFR EPROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane WELL NUMBER LFR-3 CLIENT COMCAST /MW-3 PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane N.AndMA PAGE 1 OF 1 ' over DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe direct push LOCATION W of CB#3 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES EOVA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 IGROUND ELEVATION - HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches C�TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 20.0 ft L FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER --- STABILIZED WATER --- LOGGED BY Steven Gaito DATE 7/9/07 W o_ W J W In U (n In - 2 O O o_ LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION o Q Z (0 W n J o Q WELL DIAGRAM rn w n. O W uu. 0 ,�.. Topsoil oa ox 41 Concrete Seal 1 2.0 SS-1 Gray,moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, ?� albation till, no odor P=3.5 Sand SM- ML r'75 5.0 LNo Recovery-push rods were wet Bentonite Seal 5 2"PVC Riser 10 10.0 Light brown, moist, SILT with'f sand, little gravel and 10 cs'sand, albation till, no odor Filter Sand aSS-2 SM- _ ML P=1.5 15 15.0 Well Casing Driven to 20 fbg. No soil sample collected. 2"Slotted 15 Screen 20.0 TIROVED BY: Bottom of boring at approximately 20.0 feet 20 DATE: Do L R PROJECT NAME 50 Sandra Lane CLIENT COMCAST WELL NUMBER LFR-4/MW-4 PROJECT LOCATION 50 Sandra Lane N.Andover MA PAGE 1 OF 1 DRILLING CONTRACTOR Geosearch Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 010-14252-00 DRILLING METHOD Geoprobe direct push LOCATION Across Sandra Ln NE of CB#2 STAMP(IF APPLICABLE)AND/OR NOTES OVA EQUIPMENT MiniRae 2000 GROUND ELEVATION -- HOLE DIAMETER 3 inches TOP OF CASING ELEVATION HOLE DEPTH 25.0 ft FIRST ENCOUNTERED WATER --- STABILIZED WATER --- 'LOGGED BY Steven Gait- DATE 7/9/07 W o- W Of w F-W JW U � Z ^ Wm a> U �(� H 0 a 2 CL a Q OGIC DESCRIPTION 0 v6 Q 0 0- LITHOL W 2 z co w M p Q WELL DIAGRAM co J O W W Topsoil oa ox 1.5 Concrete Seal SM- Gray, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, ML albation till, no odor 3.o Sand Light brown, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and cs'sand, albation till, no odor 5 SM- Bentonite Seal 5 ML ML SS-1 8.0 P=2 Gray, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, 2"PVC Riser SM- albation till, no odor ML 10 10.0 Light brown, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and 10 cs'sand,albation till, no odor Filter Sand SS-2 SM- ML P=2 5 15.0 Light brown, moist,SILT with'f sand,little gravel and 2"Slotted 15 ' cs'sand, albation till, no odor Screen SS-3 SM- ML P=5 20.0 Gray, moist, SILT with T sand, little gravel and'cs'sand, End Cap 20 albation till, no odor Sm- ML Collapsed _ F'1 Native Soil . 25.0 Bottom of boring at approximately 25.0 feet 25 1 ,'PROVED BY: DATE: r . LFR i \ w ./ / \ \ \ . { \ � \ _ LL, \ . � k WATERSHED RESIDEr ,QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Name v�f KJ �/ , f� s/�f /'✓� 2. Street Address 3. How many members are in your household? / 4. What type of sewage disposal system do you have? ❑ cesspool ❑ septic tank and leaching area *'connection to municipal sewer ❑ other (describe) ❑ do not know 5. Are the plans (drawings) for your sewage disposal system on file with the Board of Health? ❑ yes ,0--no ❑ do not know 6. How old is your sewage disposal system? ❑ 0-5 years 6-10 years ❑ 11-20 years -" ❑ over 20 years ❑ do not know 7. Has your se disposal system been rebuilt or repaired? El yes L� no ❑ do not know If yes, approximately how long ago? years. What was done? _ S. How frequently is your sewage disposal system pumped out? ❑ annually ❑ every 2-4 years ❑ every 5-10 years ❑ over 10 years ❑ never 9. Have you had any problems with your sewage disposal system? ❑ yes /no If yes, what problems? ❑ repeated pump-outs needed ❑ system clogs, backs up, or drains slowly ❑ odors ❑ sewage surfaces through ground 10. How many of each appliance are connected to your sewage disposal system? washing machine �� dishwasher ✓ garbage disposal dehumidifier drain sump pump toilet 3 �� roof/pavement drains shower/bathtub JZ ti 11. Please state the brand and type (liquid or powder) of detergent you use for: dishwasher 45245C-&be— clotheswasher 9i ��g 12. Does your property have a lawn? LTJ' yes ❑ no If yes, approximately what size? ❑ less than 1/4 acre El % acre R 1/2 acre El3/4 acre ❑ 1 acre ❑ more than 1 acre (Specify) acres 13. How often do you fertilize your law ? No. of applications per year Season(s) of the year 14. Please state the brand and type (liquid or granular) of lawn fertilizer you use: Check here if your lawn is maintained by a professional landscape contractor. v SEP-07-07 04:57PM FROM-ENPRO SERVICES INC 9784652050 T-865 P.002/003 F-065 �p September 7, 2007 Ms. Susan Y. Sawyer, Pi.ealtli Director(via facsimile: 978-688-8476) Town of North Andover 1600 Osgood Stroet Building 20, Suit: 2--36 North Andover, MA 01845 RE: lm f Chemical Oxidation Program in Response to duel ' Release 50 Sandrae Lane Forth Andover, ADEP 21-26748 Dear Ms, Sawyer: ENPRO Services, Inc. (ENPRO) au-id LFR, Inc. (LFR) are notifying you in accordance with the public involvement requirements set forth in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 4().0000 of the implementation of a chemical oxidation program in an attempt to remediate #2 fuel oil-impacted soil in the basement of the above referenced location. As part of an Inlnjediate Response Action (IRA), ENPRO and LFR will be using, hydrogen poroxide (peroxide) to remediate the petroleum-impacted soil within the basement of the residence. The treatment area in the basement is encapsulated with polyethylene sheeting, and a coppus blower will be 'utilized to vent the basement area outside. The oxidation process can create steam, composed of carbon dioxide and water, due to heat generated during the reaction. The area Surrounding the residence will be cordoned off with caution tape to restrict access to the property from curious bystanders, neighbors, etc. Dtuing the application(s), ENPRO and U'R personnel will be wearing modified bevel C Personnel Protective Equipment (I.)IIE) (tyvek suits, gloves, and face shields). ENPRO and LFR will be monitoring the injection points and air within the basement, and monitoring points located outside the bLtsemi:nt. The application and monitoring activities are anticipated to take two to three days to complete. Additional monitoring of groundwater will follow on subsequent days as required by the MADEP,however,not require Level C PPE. ENPRO Services, Inc. :tl Waldron klvg Pori ],IIIc?. I E(110:.; 1'2' MLllliki;tt Way, Newburyport, 114A 01950 7t7 � -� (978) 465-1r)95- FAX (078) 465-2050 y w",.enpro Com SEP-07-07 04:57PM FROM-ENPRO SERVICES INC 9784652050 T-865 P.003/003 F-065 The first application is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2007. The North Andover Fire Department will 'he contacted prior to the peroxide application since they may receive calls lions residents in the area dui: to the steam. Mr. Steve Ross of the MADEP may be onsite to witi-poss the application. Please do not hesitate to contact the widersigned shoLd-d'you have. any questions. .r SincereIX;%f ENP "Services, 111c. Geoffrey A. Brown, Ph-D. Project Manager Copy To: North Andover 1-ire Department via Facsimile Mr. Steve,- Moss, MA01-31' Mr. Rich StrOniberg, UR E1 PRO Services, I ic- 31 W.ildron ���'g P(g Haag,. MIi 01103 1'2 Mullikt'n NV.1y, Newburyport,MA 01930 7h1\6nhmr ir. oc - (2 07) ti16-a0;>) - FAX (207) 878-3043 (978) 465-1505-FfL}C (f17 ) 465-2050 w ww.enj3ro.ct><t>+'' /i SEP-07-07 04:57PM FROM-ENPRO SERVICES INC g784652050 T-665 P.001/003 F-065 AfftL ENPRO Services, Inc. 12 Mulliken way Newburyport, MA 01950 Tel. (978) 465-1595 Fax (978) 465-2050 www.enproxom - Fax Cover Sheet - (,late: � / � r�;� Total Pages (including cover). � To: Company Name: M'fK, - Fax Number: From: _ RE* S� SG L. rrrK Message: The information contained in this facsimile message iS confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, tf the reader of this message Is riot the Intended recipient, or the employee Or agenl responsible io deliver it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified Thal any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. 11 you have received this communication in error,please notity the Sender immediately by telephone. If there are any problems with the transmission of this fax ,nil rL]M /1Rrim1'iq i / - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Emergency Certification Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Emergency Information Important: When filling out Issuance From: forms on the computer, use North Andover Conservation only the tab Issuing Authority key to move 1. Reason for Emergency: your cursor- do not use the Clean-up and mitigation efforts associated with a 75-100 gallon oil release/spill in'the basement of the return key. single-family home at-.50.Sandra-L-ane�Specifically, the placement of a temporary Frac Tank outside of the home to store contaminated groundwater. The release occured on 4/12/07 as a result of a Comcast tab worker accidently stepping on the valve to secure/repaire wiring above the tanks. The valve was IL Ar damaged upon impact, releasing the contaminant. Due to a heavy rain event at the time of the release and the hours lasped before the spill was known, the release had migrated through the basement floor into the soils and ground waters beneath the home. With the storm flow, waters and wetland areas downstream were impacted. Upon arrival at the site on 4/12/07, proper containment and abatement measures were in place, such as the spreading of absorbants and installation of pads in downstream storm drains. 2. Public agency to perform work or public agency ordering the work to be performed: ENPRO Services, Inc. on behalf of Comcast. 3. Date of Site Visit: Start Date: End Date*: 4/12/07 4/12/07 30 days from issuance *no later than 30 days from start date or 60 days in the case of an Immediate Response Action approved by DEP to address an oil/hazardous material release. 4. Work to be allowed*: The placement of a temporary Frac Tank for storing contaminated groundwater. 'May not include work beyond that necessary to abate the emergency. B. Signatures Certified to be an Emergency by this Issuing Authority. Sig res: �� �✓ '�y /d�';,;N;� r 4/19/07 Chairman(or designee) Date WPA Emergency Certification Page 1 of 2 Rev.12/00 g Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Emergency Certification Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A copy of this form must be provided to the appropriate DEP Regional Office. C. General Conditions 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Emergency Certification or subject to enforcement action. 2. This Emergency Certification does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of property rights. 3. This Emergency Certification does not relieve the applicant or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. Any work conducted beyond that described above, and any work conducted beyond that necessary to abate the emergency, shall require the filing of a Notice of Intent. 5. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Emergency Certification at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with this Certification, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or the Department for that evaluation. 6. This Emergency Certification shall apply to any contractor or any other person performing work authorized under this Certification. 7. No work may be authorized beyond 30 days from the date of this certification without extension by the Issuing Authority. D. Special Conditions 1. Containments areas/pads must be installed in downstream storm drains and upgradient to wetland resource areas within 100 feet of the tank. 2. Should any soil excavation occur, the Conservation Department shall be contacted immediately for the issuance of additional conditions to protect impacts to the wetland resource areas. 3. The Conservation Department reserves the right to impose additional conditions to mitigate impacts 4. A Notice of Intent filing must be submitted to the Conservation Department immediately following the issuance of this Emergency Certification should further work be required, including but not limited to, soil excavation. E. Appeals The Department may, on its own motion or at the request of any person, review: an emergency certification issued by a conservation commission and any work permitted thereunder; a denial by a conservation commission of a request for emergency certification; or the failure by a conservation commission to act within 24 hours of a request for emergency certification. Such review shall not operate to stay the work permitted by the emergency certification unless the Department specifically so orders, The Department's review shall be conducted within seven days of: issuance by a conservation WPA Emergency Certification — Rev.12100 Page 2 of 2 APR 2 2 2008 fiHEALTH UF JORTH E DEPTMNT i Immediate Response Action Completion (IRAC)and Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement Report No. 2 Fuel Oil Spill at 50 Sandra Lane North An over, Massachusetts RTN #3-26748 April 18, 2008 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Prepared for Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. 54 Regional Drive Concord, NH 03301 Prepared by LFR Inc. . 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 (781) 356-7300 www.Ifr.com Lin L F R 181 L F R ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT&CONSULTING ENGINEERING April 18, 2008 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LAPR Northeast Regional Office Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup ]jT14Et4T Data Entry Section and Mr. Steven Ross 205A Lowell Street Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887 Re: IRA Completion Report and Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement Submittal Heating Oil Release 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts DEP RTN #3-26748 Dear Data Entry and Mr. Ross: LFR Inc. (LFR) has prepared this Immediate Response Action Completion (IRAC) Report and Class A-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) which summarizes the investigation and remedial activities conducted at 50 Sandra Lane, North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site) and nearby areas resulting from a sudden home heating fuel oil release in the basement. This IRAC/RAO Statement report has been prepared on behalf of the Responsible Party, Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. (Comcast), and has been prepared in accordance with Section 40.1056 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and MassDEP's "Notice of Responsibility" ("NOR") dated May 7, 2007. This IRAC/RAO is being submitted within the 1-year anniversary of the release, which occurred on April 12, 2007 considering a 7-day grace period. The required RAO filing fee of$1,200 has been paid to the MassDEP lockbox and a copy of the check is provided with the RAO Transmittal Form. The enclosed report summarizes the environmental conditions, remedial actions, the results of post- remedial soil, groundwater, and indoor air analyses as outlined in the IRA Plan and Status Reports that have previously been submitted. This report also provides a risk characterization and an evaluation of approaching/achieving background as required in the MCP. The executed IRA/RAO Transmittal Forms are provided in Appendix A. This IRAC/RAO Statement is also being copied to the homeowner, the North Andover Chief Municipal Officer, Conservation Commission, Board of Health, and other interested parties for their information. By submittal of this report, LFR considers the remediation of the spill complete and a permanent solution has been achieved. 781.356.7300 m 781.356.2211 f 194 Forbes Road www.ifr.com Braintree,Massachusetts 02184 Offices Nationwide I Data Entry and Mr.Steven Ross WLFR Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection April 18,2008 Page 2 Please call me at 781-356-7300 (x203) if you have any questions with regard to this RAO Statement. Very Truly Yours, G(IJI-i & Richard Stromberg, CPG, LSP Senior Associate Attachments CC: M. Salimena, R. Goldthwaite, W. Allard (Comcast) T. Woodward (LFR) D. Cederquist (Envirosense) C. Hayon (50 Sandra Lane, N. Andover) N. Andover Board of Health N. Andover Chief Municipal Officer A. McKay (N. Andover Conservation Commission) DECEIVED APR 2 2 2008 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER HEALTH DEPARTMENT Immediate Response Action Completion (IRAC) and Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement Report No. 2 Fuel Oil Spill at 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts RTN #3-26748 April 18, 2008 LFR Project No. 010-14252-00 Prepared for Comcast of Massachusetts I, Inc. 54 Regional Drive Concord, NH 03301 i Prepared by LFR Inc. 194 Forbes Road Braintree, MA 02184 (781) 356-7300 www.Ifr.com r� LFR LFR Inc. O CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 2.0 INITIAL IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS AND IRA PLAN FILING ................3 2.1 Emergency Response Measures ...............................................................3 2.2 Imminent Hazard Evaluation and IRA Plan Filing .........................................6 3.0 IRA PLAN SUPPLEMENT...........................................................................9 3.1 Conceptual Site Model ........................................................................ 15 4.0 SOIL, GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION AND IRA COMPLETION................... 16 4.1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation......................................................... 16 4.2 Evaluation of Data and IRA Completion................................................... 17 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMAINING CONDITIONS AND REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION ..................................................... 22 O 5.1 Final Conceptual Site Model, Fate and Transport, and Exposure Potential.......... 22 5.2 Field and Analytical Data Representativeness Evaluation............................... 22 5.3 LSP Data Usability Assessment ............................................................. 23 6.0 METHOD 3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY ................................... 24 7.0 FEASIBILITY OF RESTORATION TO BACKGROUND................................... 25 8.0 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME............................................................... 26 9.0 NEED FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................................... 26 10.0 LSP OPINION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE RAO...................................... 27 11.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS........................................................................ 28 12.0 LIMITATIONS AND SERVICE CONSTRAINTS ............................................ 28 Final RAO AN it 18 2008.doc nilb Page I i LFR Inc. FIGURES 1. Site Locus/Topographic Map 2. Aerial Photograph with Site Features and Surface Water/Sediment Sampling 3. Mass GIS Map 4. Disposal Site Map and Boring/Monitoring Well Locations 5. Conceptual Site Model of Oil Release with Soil Analytical Results 6. Groundwater Contour Maps (A-C) 7. EPH Graph for Soil Concentrations 8. Soil Analytical Fingerprint Results for Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) TABLES 1. Stream Sediment Results 2. Surface Soil Analysis- 67 Sandra Lane 3. Soil Analytical Results - Basement Samples 4. Soil Analytical Results - Monitoring Wells 5. Groundwater Analytical Results - Groundwater Monitoring Locations 6. Post-Injection Indicator and VOC Monitoring Results 7. Groundwater Analytical Results - Sumps and Drainage Basins 8. Baseline Conditions 9. Vapor Pathway Monitoring O 10. Basement Air Monitoring 11. Indoor Air Analytical Results 1.2. Groundwater Elevations APPENDICES A. IRA/RAO Transmittal Forms B. Laboratory Data Sheets C. Waste Manifest Forms D. Method 3 Risk Characterization Report E. March 2008 Indoor Air/Groundwater Data Submittal to Homeowner Final RAO Ah 1 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 11 LFR Inc. p 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following presents a technical report in support of an Immediate Response Action Completion (IRAQ Report and Class A-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement as provided for in Sections 40.0427 and 1056 of the MCP. This report summarizes the #2 Fuel Oil release, the environmental conditions on the Site, assessment activities, remedial actions, results of the post-remedial soil, groundwater, and indoor air analyses conducted, and a risk characterization. The response actions were completed to address an inadvertent sudden release of fuel oil in the basement of the residential property located at 50 Sandra Lane, North Andover, Massachusetts. The location of the property is shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the original release area with drainage and surface water/sediment sampling locations. Figure 3 is a MassGIS Map depicting sensitive receptors in the area and Figure 4 is plan depicting the residence and the current "Disposal Site" ("Site") as it is defined in the MCP. It is LFR's opinion that the data collected and presented in the Sections below indicate that, following the remedial actions taken at the property, there is no imminent hazard or significant risk to human health attributable to the released No. 2 fuel oil. However, continued detection of naphthalene concentrations in indoor air samples has caused indoor air quality to exceed MCP risk limits based on MassDEP's recently revised indoor air standards that are currently in draft. As explained in Section 6.0, the consistency in results of indoor air sampling both before and after the remedial actions O indicates the source of naphthalene is reflective of other, existing sources within the home environment rather the #2 Fuel Oil release. It is LFR's opinion that release- related contamination has been substantially remediated to non-detectable or previously existing background conditions that resulted from a prior release of motor oil in the same area without the release of#2 Fuel Oil. It is also LFR's opinion that it is not feasible technically to remediate the remaining low level residuals below the basement floor slab to non-detectable conditions because of the risks associated with excavation under permanent structures. Additionally, the presence of other naphthalene-emitting substances inside the residence on the property contributing to indoor air risk should be managed to minimize affects to indoor air. The diesel spill occurred on the afternoon of April 12, 2007 when a Comcast employee accidentally stepped on, and broke, a transfer pipe for one of the two (2) 330-gallon heating oil ASTs in an unfinished part of a residential basement. Emergency efforts were undertaken that p night to contain the spill in the basement and in the catch basins g and stream that it discharged to. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc:in1b Page I i LFR Inc. ENPRO was subcontracted by Comcast to provide emergency response actions under direction of MassDEP Emergency Response personnel (Mr. Steven Ross). It was estimated by ENPRO that approximately 85-160 gallons of fuel oil was released from the AST. The fuel oil spilled onto the competent and non-cracked concrete slab floor of the basement draining into an inactive 12" diameter sump (Sump #1) approximately 15' north of the AST. The spill and other features in the basement are shown on the detailed Site Plan in Figure 4. Sump #1 was an open, gravel-filled conduit lined with a plastic pail without a pump. The fuel oil captured by Sump #1 was believed to enter a french drain below the floor, which was connected to a 3" diameter perforated pipe that drained underground via gravity to a nearby catch basin (CB #2) outside at the intersection of Sandra Lane/Appledore Lane. The perforations in the pipe were noticed at the outfall into CB#2. A second sump (Sump #2) is located on the other side of the basement with a pump in it and pumps water from beneath another french drain system located on the other side of the house outside to the adjacent lawn which runs downhill and also into CB#2. A third sump (Sump #3) was identified in the southern portion of the basement and was believed to be inactive as there was no pump in it and there were no vapors noticed during the spill. Photographs of the incident are provided in Appendix C of the IRA Plan. Once the release reached the catch basins along Sandra Lane, it flowed north through solid drains an additional 2 to 3 catch basins (CB #2, CB #3 and CB #4) before taking a 90° bend to the east under the street and discharging to a small stream. LFR arrived at the Site on April 13, 2007 to conduct a reconnaissance and to work with ENPRO to conduct follow-up actions. The stream discharged into Johnson's Pond at approximately 1/4 mile, where a slight sheen was observed during LFR's visit on April 13, 2007 at the discharge point. The pond then discharged to another small stream, which was where the sheen reportedly ended at that time. These observations indicate that the release Site as defined in the MCP included the #2 Fuel Oil release to Sump #1 and the drain on the 50 Sandra Lane property which then proceeded in a linear fashion through the catch basins to the unnamed stream continuing to the southern edge of Johnson's Pond as shown on Figure 2. As discussed in Section 2.2, the nature and extent of residual off-site contamination from the release Site after emergency response measures were completed were shown to be consistent with local background conditions because of past fuel oil spills at a nearby property, 80 Sandra Lane, which were the subject of an RAO in 2000. The following summarizes the initial Immediate Response Action (IRA) activities conducted as approved by MassDEP. Final RAO AN 1 18 2008.doc nilb Page 2 LFR Inc. 2.0 INITIAL IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS AND IRA PLAN FILING 2.1 Emergency Response Measures Additional remedial measures were specified by MassDEP including the removal of all oily detritus (leaves, etc) from the stream banks. Booms were installed in all affected catch basins and the stream, however a sheen and slight odor was observed during this early time after the release. In order to control the odor within the residence, polyethylene (poly) sheeting was hung from the basement ceiling surrounding the 2 ASTs and a bulkhead was opened to allow for circulation within the basement. Air was exhausted from this area outside via a blower. Poly sheeting was also sealed with duct tape over Sump #'s 1 and 2 located in the basement. PID readings were recorded by ENPRO throughout the residence. Readings were non-detect (ND) for volatile compounds throughout the residence, with the exception of immediately over the 12" plastic lined gravel filled sump where the fuel oil spill drained. Concentrations of up to 5 parts per million per volume (ppmv) were recorded at this location. ENPRO continued to inspect the catch basins and stream from April 14-161h and replace them as needed. On April 17, 2007 PID readings were collected again in the residence. Readings were 0.6 ppm on the first floor, 0.6 ppm in the finished portion of basement, 1.5 ppm in the furnace area of unfinished basement, 3.7 to 3.9 ppm in Obreathing air (AST/Spill area), 7-13 ppm on the floor of the AST/Spill area, and a maximum of 162 ppm inside the covered Sump #1. ENPRO collected a water sample from operating Sump #2 on April 17th for VPH/EPH parameters and the discharge of Sump #1 into CB#2 for analysis of NPDES parameters in anticipation of applying for a treatment permit. The results from Sump #2 indicated non-detectable concentrations. This suggested that the French drain system connected to Sump #2 was separated from the french drain below the affected Sump #1 area. The parameters tested from Sump #1/CB#2 included: EPH/VPH fractions and targets, 11 dissolved metals, SVOCs, hexavalent chromium, pH, total residual chlorine, cyanide, PCBs, and total suspended solids. The metals, PCBs, and cyanide were non-detectable. EPH/VPH parameters were detected as expected. The analytical results are provided in Appendix D of the IRA Plan. ENPRO changed absorbent booms in the two most affected catch basins on April 17th. ENPRO noticed water with a sheen still entering CB#2 in front of the house. LFR and ENPRO discussed a strategy to contain/treat this water to mitigate discharge to the stream. ENPRO then dug a trench in front of the catch basin and located the influent pipe. It was decided to construct a collection sump in this area to mitigate direct discharge to the stream and contain the water in a frac tank for off-site discharge until a treatment system was approved by MassDEP. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 3 i LFR Inc. ENPRO applied for a Remediation General Permit (RGP) from the USEPA as provided �1 in Appendix E of the IRA Plan. ENPRO obtained verbal approvals from the North Andover Department of Public Works (DPW), Fire Department, Conservation Commission, Public Safety, and the homeowner to place a frac tank, temporarily, along Appledore Lane to store the contaminated water prior to on-site treatment or off- site disposal. ENPRO received an "Emergency Certification" from the Conservation Commission on April 19`h as shown in Appendix F of the IRA Plan to temporarily store the affected water. ENPRO changed booms in the stream again on April 17th. Some sheens were generated when small pockets of organic soils were disturbed in stream, but there was no way to determine whether the sheens were from the recent release, or past releases in the area. Due to concerns about indoor air in the segment of the basement with the ASTs, on April 18`h ENPRO resealed the cover over Sump #1 to minimize fugitive vapors that were being exhausted outside from this contained area via a blower. Also on April 18" LFR collected three indoor air samples for APH analysis (24-hr) using a Summa collection canister. Conditions in the house were maintained as usual during sampling with windows closed. One was collected on the first floor near the kitchen (AS-3), one in the finished part of the basement on the other side of the spill (AS-2), and one in the unfinished basement where the spill occurred (AS-1). Residuals were detected in AS-2 and 3 but were somewhat similar to draft indoor air sample results collected by a study conducted by MassDEP in 2004. The results in AS-1 were about an order of magnitude higher as expected. The results were received the morning of April 20`h by LFR and were reviewed by LFR's risk assessment subcontractor (Ms. Lisa McIntosh of Woodard & Curran, Inc.). Ms. McIntosh indicated the results from AS-2 and 3 did not constitute an indoor air Imminent Hazard as defined in the MCP. Samples AS-2 and 3 were representative of indoor air utilized by the residents. Sample AS-1 was collected in an area that was contained by poly sheeting and exhausted out the window and so was not used in the Imminent Hazard Evaluation. On April 19`h, ENPRO constructed a temporary sump in front of CB#2 in an attempt to capture contaminated influent water. Due to obstructions (36" culvert, electrical line, and catch basin riser) at the chosen location, the sump could not be installed to sufficient depth to collect water discharging through the gravel bedding beneath the perforated pipe. Discussions were held regarding moving the excavation toward the house a few feet (on the other side of the electrical line) and use a mini excavator to install the sump. Discussions were deferred until all of the environmental testing results were received. O Final RAO April 18 2008.doc nilb Page 4 I LFR Inc. On April 20", ENPRO installed a "Honeywell" air treatment canister in the finished portion of the basement as shown in the specification in Appendix G of the IRA Plan to further treat constituents in the breathable air in the residence. This reduced the homeowner's apprehensions regarding the indoor air quality but still was not as effective in reducing the petroleum odors in the AST area as was hoped. After obtaining verbal approval from the North Andover Conservation Commission and discussing with MassDEP, LFR conducted surface water and sediment sampling on April 23`d. LFR collected 3 upgradient surface water and sediment samples from catch basins along Sandra Lane that fed the system and 9 samples in the stream and pond downgradient as shown on Figure 2. Samples were collected at the furthest downgradient point first and then moved upgradient. Sediment samples were collected in the mid-point/bank of a stream location where a depositional environment was suggested. Surface water samples were collected from the mid-channel point. Samples were submitted for EPH fraction and target PAHs and the results were all non- detectable as indicated in Appendix B. The results for sediment shown in Appendix B and Table 1 indicated primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) petroleum residuals were detected in upgradient samples: CB-001, CB-080, and CB-106 (possibly resulting from a reported spill on 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 as described in the IRA Plan) and essentially the same concentrations in the stream bed were found downgradient. The results are described further in the Imminent Hazard Evaluation later in this section. On April 24`", the homeowners called ENPRO/LFR and indicated that cloth items in the house smelled of petroleum and they wanted the items re-cleaned due to an upcoming wedding. LFR indicated Susan Benoit of ENPRO Homeowner Liaison P g g ( ) would meet with her on April 25" to discuss this request. On April 25`" ENPRO met with the homeowners to discuss what they would like cleaned. ENPRO recommended to the homeowners that the walls and floors be cleaned, and they accepted this recommendation. ENPRO obtained a cost estimate for the cleaning and the work was done on May 11, 2007. On April 26", ENPRO arranged to have a 200 pound vapor phase carbon unit picked up and delivered to the house to better treat air in the part of the basement with the ASTs. The specifications for this unit are attached in Appendix G of the IRA Plan. To minimize the noise, the existing blower was removed and replaced by a quieter unit (which has a blower mounted on the top of the unit). The air inlet was placed in or near the sum and the treated air was discharged to the outside. This installation eliminated P g any petroleum odors from the basement that were previously detected by the homeowners. On April 28, 2007, ENPRO pumped out 7,109 gallons of water from the frac tank and it under Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest to Enpro's treatment facility deliveredp y in Portland, Maine. The manifest is provided in Appendix H of the IRA Plan along with an earlier manifest for removal of 430 gallons from CB#2 on April 12, 2007 as part of the emergency response activities. i Final RAO APM 18 2008.doc inlb Page 5 LFR Inc. After evaluating the earlier result from the discharge of Sump #1 to CB#2 collected on April 17, 2007 (which was below GW-3 standards), and the additional surface water data on April 24, 2007 (non-detectable), another sample was collected from the sump discharge on May 4, 2007 to determine if it was prudent to stop collecting the discharge water. The flow rate at the time was less than < 1 gpm due to declining water levels and warmer conditions. The water sample did exhibit a slight odor and sheen. The results in Appendix D of the IRA Plan indicated that EPH fractions were also elevated. Therefore, the pump system was maintained until the Fall of 2007 but the flow of water declined substantially. Booms were also maintained in the catch basins and stream in the event of another rise in water levels or flushing from another precipitation event caused a surge prior to completion of remediation. The booms were removed from the stream in the Summer of 2007 at the request of the resident at 67 Sandra Lane and the booms in the catch basins were removed in the Fall of 2007. The RGP in Appendix E of the IRA Plan was submitted and was planned to be used if treatment of the contained water was deemed necessary. 2.2 Imminent Hazard Evaluation and IRA Plan Filing Based on the information collected, an evaluation of short-term hazards posed by the release at the Site as defined in the MCP was conducted as described in the IRA Plan filed on May 16, 2007. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0006, a condition of Substantial Release Migration (SRM) or SRM means a condition at a disposal site that includes any of the following: 0 • Release that have resulted in the discharge of separate phase OHM to surface waters, subsurface structures, or underground utilities or conduits; A condition of SRM existed in the unnamed stream shortly after the release as evidenced by a sheen in the stream. This was contained and mitigated by the placement of absorbents and capturing of water discharging into CB#2. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0006, a Critical Exposure Pathway (CEP) means those routes by which oil and/or hazardous material (OHM) released at a disposal site are transported, or are likely to be transported, to human receptors via: • vapor-phase emissions of measurable concentrations of OHM into the living or working space of a pre-school, daycare, school, or occupied residential dwelling; or • ingestion, dermal absorption or inhalation of measurable concentrations of OHM from drinking water supply wells located at and servicing a pre-school, daycare, school, or occupied residential dwelling. Final RAO April 18 2008.doc nilb Page 6 LFR Inc. Conditions for the first bullet above were met in the 50 Sandra Lane residence which Orequired an Imminent Hazard Evaluation (IHE). A copy of the IHE is provided in Appendix I of the IRA Plan which was completed by W&C under subcontract to LFR. The following provides an excerpt from the findings of the IHE which addressed the following exposure routes: • Residents in 50 Sandra Lane being exposed to vapors from the oil release. • Children playing in the unnamed stream near 67 Sandra Lane. Risk to Human Health Risk calculations for exposures to indoor air and sediment are presented in Tables 9 and 10, respectively of the IHE in the IRA Plan. A summary of risk estimates for residents at 50 and 67 Sandra Lane is presented in the following table: Excess Receptor Exposure Medium Exposure Pathway Hazard Index Lifetime Cancer Risk Resident of 50 Sandra Not Lane Indoor Air Inhalation 4 Calculated* Resident of 67 Sandra Lane Sediment Dermal Contact 0.0001 8E-07 Sediment Incidental Ingestion 0.00001 2E-07 Cumulative Risk: 0.0001 IE-06 Cumulative Risk from Exposure to both Indoor Air and Sediment: 4 IE-06 MCP CUMULATIVE RISK LIMITS FOR IMMINENT HAZARDS (310 CMR 40.0955(2)(b,c): 10 1E-05 *No carcinogenic toxicity values are available for COPCs in indoor air. As shown above, the cumulative non cancer hazard index (HI) of 4 for the 50 Sandra Lane resident was below the MCP Imminent Hazard risk limit of 10. LFR calculated an inhalation exposure based on the analytical results for indoor air and compared them to the non-cancer reference concentration as required for an Imminent Hazard Evaluation. Non cancer risks were primarily from the inhalation of naphthalene in the 50 Sandra Lane residents. For the 67 Sandra Lane resident, exposure to compounds of potential concern (COPCs) in sediment resulted in a HI and ELCR well below the MCP Imminent Hazard risk limits. Final RAO,April 18 2008.doccmlb Page 7 LFR Inc. Even assuming that a youth at the 50 Sandra Lane residence may be exposed to COPCs Qin both indoor air and stream/pond sediments, both the estimated cumulative noncancer and cancer risks were below MCP risk limits for an Imminent Hazard. Therefore, it was concluded that concentrations of COPCs in both indoor air and stream sediment did not pose an Imminent Hazard to human health. Risk of Harm to the Environment The risk of harm to the environment was evaluated with respect to the following conditions set forth in the MCP (310 CMR 40.0955(3)): Evidence of stressed biota attributable to the release at the Site (e.g., fish kills or abiotic conditions) A release to the environment of oil and/or hazardous materials which produces immediate or acute adverse impacts to freshwater or saltwater fish populations. A release of fuel oil from 50 Sandra Lane resulted in a sheen on the unnamed stream and into Johnson's Pond for a limited period of time. None of the conditions itemized above have been observed at either of these waterways. Subsequent to the release, ENPRO removed leaf litter/woody debris in the stream that was visibly-affected by petroleum and deployed absorbent booms to capture residual petroleum. Sediment and surface water data collected from these water bodies did not suggest that these areas had been substantially affected by petroleum from the release. Upgradient sediment data in catch basins suggests residual impacts from an older spill at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000 that was the subject of an RAO. Approximately 25 gallons of similar fuel oil was released under RTN 3-19099. As no stressed biota have been observed at the Site and as no acute adverse impacts have been attributed to the release, it is concluded that Site conditions did notP resent an Imminent Hazard to the environment 310 CMR 40.0955(4)). Still there were a few pockets of leafy organic matter in the stream that produced a slight sheen if disturbed. • Releases to the groundwater that have migrated or are expected to migrate more than 200 feet per year; There had not yet been an evaluation of groundwater at the Site at this time. • Releases to the groundwater that have been or are within one year likely to be detected in a public or private water supply well; Based on an inquiry with the local Board of Health, there are no known public or private wells or designated aquifers in the area. • Releases to the groundwater that have been or are within one year likely to be detected in a surface water body, wetland, or public water supply reservoir; or C� Final RAO APHI 18 2008.doc nilb Page 8 LFR Inc. As discussed in the groundwater data in Section 4.2, there is no data indicating that a significant release to groundwater is likely or on-going. This will be further assessed as described below in Section 4.2. • Releases to the groundwater that have been or are within one year likely to result in the discharge of vapors into school buildings or occupied residential dwellings. The migration of the spill vapors to indoor air was assessed and controlled/mitigated. There were no Imminent Hazard conditions associated with the release as of May 2007, and the most recent data discussed in Section 4.2 confirms this result.. The IRA Plan submitted in May 2007 proposed that soil borings and wells be installed to assess migration, leafy matter in the stream be collected, water continue to be collected at the drain into a frac tank, focused excavations be done in the area of Sump #1, and a hydrogen peroxide treatment program be implemented to reduce petroleum residuals below the basement and the drain to the outside catch basin. 3.0 IRA PLAN SUPPLEMENT MassDEP reviewed the IRA Plan and requested that the characterization of conditions in the spill area be completed and a monitoring network put in place before the IRA Plan could be approved. LFR submitted an IRA Plan Supplement in July 2007 which Oincluded the following information. During May, the basement was continually vented and the booms were maintained in the catch basins and stream. Water entering CB#2 was slowed to a trickle due to dryer conditions and the water was pumped to the frac tank as needed. Spent materials from the initial cleanup stored in the driveway were removed by ENPRO. ENPRO also arranged for the cleaning of the cloth materials in the home as requested by the homeowner and the duct filters in the heating system were also changed by ENPRO. ENPRO and LFR met with the homeowner on May 31, 2007 to discuss their review of the IRA Plan and to discuss additional testing/remediation in support of final closure. The homeowner was pleased with the cleanup work done to date and the description of it in the IRA Plan. A discussion was held to describe the upcoming test boring program to determine the extent of contamination outside of the drain and the general remedial plan. The owner was in agreement with the approach. ENPRO continued to operate a carbon air treatment unit in the basement on a continuous basis. The water in the frac tank was inspected in early June and it was determined that ENPRO should empty the tank which was done. About 7,300 gallons were removed. Since that time, very little water entered the tank due to the summer season. The following describes investigations conducted at: a Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 9 LFR Inc. • The adjoining 67 Sandra Lane Property; 0 Source Area (Sump #1) Investigation and Excavation; • Basement Drainage Investigation; and 0 Groundwater Investigation. Surface Soil Sampling at 67 Sandra Lane LFR visited Mrs. Chris Waterman at 67 Sandra Lane across the street at their request to discuss their review of the IRA Plan. Mr. and Mrs. Waterman's residence is adjacent to the stream where it flows out from Sandra Lane. Mrs. Waterman inquired about the status of the booms in the stream. LFR indicated the booms would need to be in place until remediation was completed and that ENPRO would be changing some booms that appeared soiled and would be removing any residual leafy matter in the stream near their house that still exhibited some sheen. Mrs. Waterman also requested LFR to collect some soil samples from a portion of their yard near the stream that was flooded during the spill. The Watermans had a vegetable garden and a children's swing set in this area of their yard. It was decided to collect 4 surface soil samples for EPH analysis. On June 7, 2007, LFR collected four surface soil samples collected in areas of the vegetable garden, the swing set, and two other areas in the lawn along the stream at 67 Sandra Lane which can be found in Appendix B. Table 2 summarizes and compares the results of the analysis that was performed for "Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons" (EPH) to RCS-1 standards for residential areas set by the MassDEP. Low levels of certain petroleum hydrocarbon fraction residues were detected in three of the four surface samples at concentrations twenty times less than the RCS-1 standards. None were detected in the other sample. Low levels of petroleum can be found in areas that are periodically affected by street runoff. A previous spill of fuel oil was also documented by MassDEP at 80 Sandra Lane in 2000, and it was not possible to determine which fuel oil spill contributed to the low levels of petroleum detected.. The letter sent to the Waterman residence is provided in Appendix C of the IRA Plan Supplement. Source Area Investigation and Excavation A soil boring, LFR B-1, was advanced in the center of Sump #1 on June 6, 2007 to investigate the possible depth of contamination in the area of Sump #1. A Photovac PID was used to monitor soil and determine samples for laboratory analysis. A native glacial till was found about 1 foot below the slab and 6-8" below the sub-slab gravel. Two samples were collected, 3-5 feet below ground (fbg) and 5-7 fbg. The results of the soil boring analytical results for EPH and diesel targets are presented in Appendix B and Table 3. EPH target compounds were ND in both samples and low level EPH compounds were detected in the 3-5 fbg sample. C Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 10 i LFR Inc. Based on observations during soil sampling, it was decided to remove affected soil from around the sump. On June 15, 2007 an approximate 37 x 42 inch rectangle was cut in the concrete floor to allow for excavation around the sump. The six inch concrete slab was cut, removed, and stored in two 55-gallon drums. The gravel foundation base was removed to reveal the native soil, approximately six-eight inches below the concrete slab. The native soils were removed to a depth of six inches below the gravel, for a total excavation depth of eighteen inches below the floor. Nine soil samples were collected from the bottom of the excavation for PID readings. The PID readings ranged from 5 to 12 ppmv except 35 ppmv at the base in the middle. Two representative samples were selected for analysis from the southern wall (to assess migration toward the back of the cellar), and the base. The results are presented in Table 3. The samples "B-1 and B-5" @ 1.5' collected on June 15`h correlate to the base and south wall samples. Low level EPH were detected below "RCS-1" soil standards in the base sample collected from the center of the excavation at 1.5 fbg. EPH and target compounds were below detection limits at the sample collected on the southern side of the excavation pit. This information corroborated the hypothesis that oil did not penetrate the till to any great degree. The excavation was limited to eighteen inches because the water table in the foundation was at approximately ten inches below grade. Dewatering was attempted, and approximately 150 gallons were removed and transferred to the frac tank, but the water table could not be dropped more than fourteen inches below grade utilizing the available resources. Approximately 0.4 cubic yards of gravel and soil was removed and O stored in 55-gallon drums and 150 gallons of water was removed and stored in the frac tank. Soil samples were collected at three boring locations in the basement (LFR B-2 through B-4, Figure 4) to evaluate potential migration of fuel oil after draining to Sump #1. The concrete slab was cored with a 6" core, the gravel was removed, and the native soil at the base of the gravel was collected for analytical analysis. The results are presented in Table 3. EPH and target compounds were below laboratory detection limits at LFR B-2 which is located west and toward the rear of the basement. Low level EPH fractions and a few target PAHs were detected at both LFR B-3 and LFR B-4 below RCS-1 residential standards. This information indicated that penetration into the till was slight. Observations of the gravel indicated some apparent petroleum coatings in B-4, a slight odor in B-3, and no odors in B-2. This information suggested the petroleum migrated from Sump #1 southerly along the wall as shown on Figure 5 until it entered a point at which the water and sewer pass through the footer. The oil then migrated along the gravel base into the drain leading to CB#2. However, as discussed in Section 4.2, there is evidence of past motor oil release(s) at the residence, presumably into the same conduit. Although it is not possible to determine with certainty the source, date and migratory path of the previous petroleum contamination at the residence, it likely traveled along the same route. Final RAO AN if 18 2008.doun lb Page I I LFR Inc. Basement Drainage Investigation The excavation revealed that the vertical pipe in Sump #1, originally identified as the start of the perforated drain that emptied into CB #2 took an unexpected turn towards the south. Additional plumbing appeared to be tied into it as it was probably installed for a future basement sink which was never installed (See Photo 1, Appendix D of the IRA Plan Supplement). LFR and ENPRO then conducted an investigation into the drainage system on July 13, 2007. A miniature camera was snaked along drainage pipes in an attempt to better understand the foundation drainage. The camera was inserted and pushed up the perforated drain from CB #2 towards the house. The camera could only be pushed fifty-four feet because of sludge in the drain, so the end of the pipe was not confirmed. No bends in the pipe were noted so it was inferred to end at the corner of the house as shown on Figure 5. The camera was then inserted into the pipe in Sump #1. The camera was placed down the vertical pipe at Sump #1 and it turned 90 degrees towards the garage (south) then after three feet turned 90 degrees towards the foundation wall (east) where it pushed another foot before it could not be advanced. Approximately 40 to 60 gallons of water was run into the pipe to determine its discharge point. There was no water observed discharging into CB #1, CB #2, or the foundation gravel. Therefore, to the best of LFR's knowledge the vertical pipe in Sump #1 is connected to the sewer system. LFR's observations indicate.that the oil which spilled into the gravel backfill migrated along the gravel backfill below and around the foundation footer until the oil encountered the perforated drain connected to the backfill outside the house and drained to the street as shown on Figure 5. Monitoring Well Network A monitoring well network was installed to evaluate remedial actions to be undertaken. Four soil borings (LFR-1 through LFR-4), were completed as groundwater monitoring wells. MW-1 through MW-4 were advanced at the site, as shown on Figure 4, at the direction of LFR personnel on June 7 and July 9, 2007. The wells were installed as close to the expected potential migratory path as possible, leaving clearance for utilities. The borings were continuously sampled for visual logging and field screening with a PID (Appendix E of the IRA Plan Supplement). Outside, the first boring/well was installed next to house where the drain led to the C13#2 as shown on Figure 4. Very slight petroleum contamination was noted in soils below residential standards as shown on Appendix B and Table 4. Soil in this area was found to be a tight natural glacial till. Three soil samples from LFRA, two from LFR-2, and one each from LFR-3 and LFR- 4 were submitted for EPH fractions and diesel targets (Table 4); VPH fractions/ targets were not analyzed because PID concentrations never exceeded 100 ppmv. LFR-2, i LFR-3, and LFR-4 were ND for EPH fraction and target compounds. Final RAO Alliin 18 2008.doc nilh page 12 LFR Inc. LFR collected a groundwater sample with minimal or no purging from MW-1 on June 15, 2007 and MW-2 and MW-3 on July 13, 2007. No-purge sampling was used because recharge rates are on the order of days at these locations. A sample was not collected from MW-4 because of insufficient water in the well. Samples were analyzed for EPH and diesel targets (See Appendix B and Table 5). Results indicated low levels of EPH fractions were found in LFR-2 and 3 significantly below applicable MCP GW- 2 and 3 standards protective of indoor air and surface water. LFR also re-sampled the Sump #2 in basement to confirm contamination was not migrating to that area and the outfall into CB#2 as shown. Results at operational Sump #2 in the rear of basement were clean as before as shown in the attached data tables. Levels in CB#2 were lower than previous samples but EPH was still detected as shown on Table 7. In-situ Oxidation and Enhanced Bioremediation A hydrogen peroxide injection program was designed to reduce the concentrations of hydrocarbons in the gravel soils and till soils and groundwater to a level where bioremediation processes can occur. The primary contaminant of concern was C11-C22 aromatic and C9-C36 aliphatic EPH Fractions, based on previous soil and groundwater sampling. Petroleum compounds (gasoline, fuel oil and diesel) are a complex mixture of many hydrocarbons, and, therefore, attempts to evaluate oxidation stoichiometrically are difficult. In order to simplify the analysis, a single representative compound with a molecular weight comparable to the average molecular weight of a given fuel was assumed. Pentadecane (C15H32), an alkane with a molecular weight of 212 grams per mole, is a close approximation to the fuel oil residuals at the site. Alkanes such as n-pentadecane, also known as the paraffin series, have the following general structure: CnH2n+2 The oxidation of alkanes with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) proceeds according to the following stoichiometric reaction: CnH2n+2 + (3n + 1) H2O2 -4 n CO2 + (4n+2) H20 + Heat For n-pentadecane, this equation becomes: C15H32 + 46H202 -> 15 CO2 + 62H20 + Heat Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 13 LFR Inc. As indicated above, the complete oxidation of one mole of pentadecane requires 46 moles of H2O2. On a mass basis, the complete oxidation of one pound of pentadecane requires 7.4 pounds of H2O2. These calculations do not take into consideration the additional oxidant demand created by non-target compounds, and assume ideal contact between the contaminant and oxidizer in the subsurface. Therefore, they were only used as an approximation and were intended to represent only the minimum amount of oxidizer required. If aerobic biodegradation occurs, it is more efficient than chemical oxidation in the utilization of oxygen, requiring approximately 3 pounds of oxygen per pound of hydrocarbon. As could be seen from this reaction, the H2O2 reacts with petroleum (represented as n- pentadecane) to form water, carbon dioxide (CO2) and heat. Based on the observed petroleum-related compound concentrations in groundwater samples collected from the Site, the amount of source petroleum present was relatively small, and was likely to be present primarily as a residually saturated and adsorbed phase. The existing air ventilation system was expected to remove any excess CO2 gas accumulation. Another consideration was the potential liberation of oxygen from some proportion of incomplete reaction. Therefore, the lower explosive limit (LEL) was evaluated in the basement continuously during and immediately after injections. Applying the ratio of 1 pound of pentadecane to 7.4 pounds of H2O2, approximately 25 pounds of 30% hydrogen peroxide dro p y g p would be needed to remediate 1 pound of the EPH fractions. About 90 pounds of petroleum mass was estimated. Therefore, aapproximately 2,187 pounds of 30% hydrogen peroxide would be needed to completely destroy the hydrocarbon mass at the site. At about 450 pounds per 55-gallon drum this y P P g , amounted to about 5 drums or 275 gallons. This equated to 825 gallons of 10% hydrogen peroxide which was used as the initial design amount. LFR used 400 gallons of 10% hydrogen peroxide injected into the B-2, B-3, and B-4 injection points and within the excavated sump. The injections were performed slowly over two days while heat and potential off-gases were monitored. The injection at these points was designed to create a semi-circle of flushing around the original point of release, presuming the injected liquid would follow the same path of the original release. The initial injection would be performed to oxidize the petroleum mass. Follow-up injections were conducted utilizing 850 gallons of 5% hydrogen peroxide to create hydraulic flushing and to saturate the soils with oxygenated fluid to enhance aerobic biodegradation. Q i Final RAO APH 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 14 LFR Inc. A pre-injection baseline monitoring program was conducted with results shown on Table 8. Water flow entering CB#2 was assessed using a DO meter as it is pumped to the frac tank. The down-gradient monitoring wells (MW-1, 2, 3) and Sump #2 were monitored for degradation parameters prior to and following the injection events. The points were monitored for temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen. All groundwater monitoring wells were sampled and analyzed for EPH two weeks following the first injection. Additionally, soil samples were collected from the three basement borings and the excavation for EPH analysis. The results of these analyses were used to determine the need and volume of subsequent injections. The source zone where the hydrogen peroxide was injected was not located within 100 feet of a private water supply, 800 feet from a public water supply, or 50 feet from a surface water body. I 3.1 Conceptual Site Model The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the Site was initially developed in the IRA Plan and was furthered in the IRA Plan Supplement. The oil was believed to have entered permeable gravel backfill in Sump #1 and migrated with gravity toward the nearby footer wall as shown on Figure 5. The oil likely migrated through the footer where the sewer connection existed and then traveled along the backfill where it was connected to a perforated pipe to CB#2. This accounted for oil draining into CB#2 with the associated residuals. The other Sump #2 was found to be connected to a horizontal line that ran along the back/westerly side of the basement and so was separated from the affected area. . The majority of the oil residuals appeared to have been contained in the gravel by the surrounding low-permeable till unit, but some residuals migrated into the till. The water table declined through the summer of 2007, as is typical during the summer months, resulting in a decrease in the rate of infiltration into the perforated drain. Much of the source material had been captured with absorbents or by the removal of contaminated backfill in the basement. The remaining residual petroleum was likely adsorbed to the gravel along its path to the drain. The concentrations detected in the surrounding till and groundwater were substantially below residential cleanup standards for soils and applicable MCP protection criteria for groundwater. The MCP Disposal Site was originally located downstream from the residence in the stream area but was later pulled back to encompass only the 50 Sandra Lanero ert P P Y when no residuals related to the spill could be detected off-site. Final RAO April IS 2008.doc nilb Page 15 LFR Inc. 4.0 SOIL, GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION AND IRA COMPLETION 4.1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation From July to October 2007 the basement was continually vented with a 200 pound vapor phase carbon unit and blower to treat air in the part of the basement with the aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). The air inlet was placed in or near the sump and the treated air was discharged to the outside. In addition, a Honeywell air treatment canister was placed in the finished part of the basement. This eliminated any petroleum odors from the basement that were previously detected by the homeowners. From July to October 2007 absorbent booms were maintained in the catch basins and stream. LFR removed the absorbent booms in the stream at the request of neighbors in August 2007, but continued to maintain the booms in the catch basins through October 2007. Approximately 18,200 gallons of water and residual petroleum drained to the frac tank from April through October 4, 2007. ENPRO emptied and transported 7,300 gallons, 3,600 gallons, and 7,300 gallons, of petroleum-affected water from the frac tank to ENPRO's treatment facility in Portland, Maine in June 2007, September 2007, and October 2007, respectively as described in IRA Status Report #2 submitted in February 2008. OLFR/ENPRO met with the homeowners Mr. and Mrs. Hayon on August 21, 2007 to discuss the planned remedial injections and listen to any concerns they may have. The use of reduced concentration of peroxide (10% instead of 30%) was discussed in order to increase the safety of the injections and to minimize potential deleterious effects on the floor slab. Prior to the planned hydrogen peroxide injections, baseline conditions were determined for groundwater at MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, and Sump #2 as shown on Table 8. Baseline conditions included sampling and analysis for VPH, EPH, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, oxidation-reduction potential, and hydrogen peroxide. Potential vapor migration or generation from the treatment program was monitored at sampling locations in the basement and street conduits outside, as indicated in Tables 9 and 10. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc:mlh Page 16 LFR Inc. LFR and ENPRO began hydrogen peroxide injections on September 11, 2007. A total 0 of 770 gallons of 10% peroxide was injected into the basement over two days. Basement air quality and vapor pathways were continuously monitored during the injections as shown on Tables 9 and 10. Mr. Steve Ross of the MassDEP visited the Site to observe the injections and site conditions. The injection program was completed as planned with the desired reaction observed in the soils in the open pit in the basement and nearby test borings. This reaction consisted of a vigorous frothing of the water and oil residual. The effluent migrated as intended to the drain and was captured at CB#2 and transferred to the frac tank. 4.2 Evaluation of Data and IRA Completion The post-remediation soil and groundwater data indicated levels attributable to the oil spill had been reduced significantly to levels that were ND or well below residential soil standards and applicable "GW-2 and 3" standards in the MCP. In the process of conducting the work, however, LFR identified other contributing contamination factors that were present in the residence. As discussed below, there is evidence of past motor oil spill(s) at the property, as well as the presence of significant quantities of paints, wood finishers and other materials that could affect indoor air quality. The remediation program as outlined in the IRA Plan and conditionally approved by MassDEP was implemented in September 2007 and peroxide was injected as described in the plan. According to the plan, post-remedial soil and groundwater monitoring was conducted in September through March 2008. This included three confirmatory groundwater sampling rounds in September/October, November 2007, and March 2008. Two other indoor air sampling rounds were conducted in November 2007 and March 2008 in the area of the release in the basement, the opposite end of the basement, and in the upstairs kitchen/hallway area after remediation was complete. In the March 2008 sampling, a sample was also collected from the attached garage which abutted the kitchen/hallway area and an outside sample was collected. The March 2008 results have been provided to the homeowners. See Appendix E. The immediate area of the release near the two oil tanks and furnace was vented with a small fan during the November 2007 sampling. In the March 2008 sampling, all windows were closed and the cars, gasoline tanks, and lawnmowers were removed from the garage. The home heating system (a forced hot air system) was run as it normally would be run. The air returns were located on the main floor. Laboratoryanalyses included y EPH and VPH for groundwater, EPH for soil, and APH for indoor air. The following summarizes the results by media. Final RAO April 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 17 LFR Inc. j Soil Soil analytical results for EPH and VPH parameters from re- andpost-injection shown on the Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 5 indicate that all results were either ND or below MCP residential "S-1/GW-2 and 3" soil standards. LFR noticed that some EPH residuals were detected in deeper natural till soils in the area of the release that appeared different in appearance from the gravel above that was previously affected by the fuel oil spill. LFR had the lab analyze the soil sample from B-4 at 2.5 to 3 feet for hydrocarbon product identification. The lab concluded the contamination in the sample exhibited the fingerprint of motor oil, as shown in Figure 8. The lab chromatograms include: 1) a chromatograph associated with the sample; 2) a chromatograph of the sample overlaid with a lab standard for motor oil, and 3) a chromatograph of the sample overlaid with a lab standard for fuel oil. The results were conclusive that a previous motor oil release (likely in the same Sump #1) had affected the soils. Based on these results, LFR had the lab review chromatographs of EPH analyses from nine additional soil samples to identify the hydrocarbon type. The samples colored green or red on Figure 5 depict the hydrocarbon type. Sample results highlighted in red are similar to fuel oil; those highlighted in green were similar to motor oil and/or dissimilar to #2 fuel oil. The graph in Figure 7 illustrates the reduction in EPH residuals and disposition relative to residential standards. LFR's conclusion with respect to this information is that the treatment program reduced petroleum residuals in soil to ND or well below residential standards, however, some fuel oil and motor oil residuals remain at low levels in some locations. Groundwater The well network was installed along the inferred downgradient direction along the presumed migration route of the released oil. The water levels in the wells were measured as shown on Table 12 and levels were plotted on Figures 6A through 6C. The groundwater flow direction confirmed the flow direction along topography and the drain line to CB#2. Groundwater sampling results pre and post remediation are provided on Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 depicts the EPH/VPH results and Table 6 provides indicator analysis and VOC results after treatment. Table 7 provides water analysis from sumps and catch basins. The Sump #1 and its discharge into CB#2 represent affected water in the drain system that dried up after June 2007. Sump #2 represented an upgradient groundwater collection point and the catch basins were upgradient storm water collection points (that were ND). Final RAO APiil 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 18 LFR Inc. All groundwater results were ND for VPH and VOC parameters. Prior to treatment, the only wells that exhibited detectable EPH were MW-2 and 3 that exhibited low levels of C11-C22 aromatics and C19-C36 aliphatics and phenanthrene below GW-2 and 3 standards. Well MWA exhibited only C19-C36 aliphatics on one occasion in November 2007 after treatment below GW-2 and 3. Otherwise, all groundwater results were ND. Water in the upgradient Sump #2 did not exhibit detectable EPH or VPH except that EPH CI I-C22 aromatics and C9-C36 aliphatics were found in November 2007 at 200-1,600 ppb which were below the GW-2 and 3 standards as shown on Table 7. Because of the previous motor oil detection in soils, LFR had the lab perform hydrocarbon product identification analyses to determine the type of hydrocarbon affecting the groundwater in Sump #2. The contamination at Sump #2 had a carbon chain length range of CIO to greater than C36 and was not #2 fuel oil, but was unable to be matched to known standards. The discharge of groundwater from Sump #1 into CB#2 originally contained elevated EPH as would be expected immediately after the release. These levels dropped by two orders of magnitude to ND and a low level of C11-C22 aromatics well below GW 2 and 3 before the water dried up in the Summer of 2007. LFR has concluded that groundwater was not affected by the #2 Fuel Oil release and no additional groundwater monitoring should be conducted. There appears to be some recent slight impact from another heavier weight source in principally Sump #2 that is not fuel oil, so further testing will not be conducted there. OIndoor Air Indoor air samples were collected from the basement and kitchen in April 2007, only days after the release. These samples indicated detectable petroleum-related compounds, as would be expected from the release of#2 Fuel Oil, in concentrations that did not pose a MCP Imminent Hazard. Another round of air sampling was conducted in November 2007 after remedial efforts were completed in the basement. The analytical results are summarized in Table 11. Analytical results from the November 2007 indoor air sampling event indicated a decrease in compounds associated with #2 Fuel Oil, but the continued presence (and increase in the kitchen area) of compounds associated principally with gasoline. Specifically, compounds associated with #2 Fuel Oil, (C9-C12 Aliphatics, C9-CIO Aromatics, Naphthalene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene) showed decreases in concentrations from April to November in the unfinished basement and kitchen, while compounds associated with gasoline (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes [BTEX) and C5-C8 Aliphatics] generally increased in concentration from April to November. Benzene was not detected in the unfinished basement on April 18, 2007 at the time of the release, indicating benzene, as expected based on typical #2 Fuel Oil composition, was not a contributing component of the #2 Fuel Oil release. BTEX and C5-C8 Aliphatics have not been detected in soil, indicating the spilled #2 Fuel Oil did not contribute detectable amounts of these compounds to the subsurface. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 19 LFR Inc. Based on the sampling data, the concentrations of VOCs detected in indoor air could be Qattributable to the use of volatile organic compounds in everyday household materials such as cleaning agents, carpets, clothing, and furniture, but are more likely due to the presence of an attached garage located next to the upstairs sampling location circulated by a heating system that uses forced hot air. An attached garage is used at the Site to store an automobile, lawnmower, gasoline, etc., and the running of an automobile, even for a brief moment, during start up and parking, emits gasoline components into the garage, which can migrate into the homeowners' living quarters. With this in mind, LFR conducted another indoor air sampling round in March 2008. The homeowner was instructed to remove any automobiles, gasoline cans, and lawnmowers from the garage for 48 hours prior to the sampling. LFR then collected the samples from the fuel tank/furnace area, the opposite side of the basement, the kitchen/hallway area, the garage, and outdoors. While collecting the samples, LFR noted the following materials in the basement: 31 five-gal latex paint cans, 20 cans of wood finish, a refrigerator, washer/dryer, bleach, mink oil, fast plug cement, a box of mothballs, a hot water heater, an oil-fired furnace, and two 300-gallon fuel oil ASTs. LFR also noted the following in the garage: WD40, Armor All, a barbeque with propane cylinder, brake fluid, transmission fluid, Tough Stuff, Ant-B-Gone, d-Con, weed preventer, fertilizer, car wash/wax, deer-off, Miracle Grow, and washer fluid. In addition, the residence's furnace exhaust flue contains a flapper valve that can temporarily vent exhaust gases into the basement air when back drafts occur on windy days. OThe outdoor air results were ND for all analyzed chemicals, as shown on Table 11. The BTEX concentrations in indoor air decreased substantially as would be expected with the removal of gasoline sources. Low levels of toluene were still detected in all indoor samples, plus xylenes in the garage sample. APH Fraction concentrations all decreased as did naphthalene and 2-methyl naphthalene in the finished basement sample. The naphthalene and 2-methyl napthalene in the unfinished basement near the tanks and furnace increased slightly from November 2007. The naphthalene in the kitchen area also increased slightly. These concentrations slightly exceeded MassDEP's "Upper Percentile Value" (UPV) concentrations for background indoor air as published in draft in January 2008 ("Using UPVs within the range of Typical Indoor Air Concentrations at Residences and Schools"). MassDEP has indicated that these draft values will become final in the near future. The spill area was remediated to ND or low residual petroleum levels in soil and groundwater. No naphthalene was detected in any soil sample and only 1 low level of 2-methylnapthalene was detected in one soil sample prior to remediation. Napthalene was also detected in the affected Sump #1 sample immediately after the spill and in the effluent to CB#2 but not anytime else. Below are LFR's views on the possible reasons for the persistent presence of these two compounds in indoor air . C Final RAO APiil 182008.doc:m1b Page 20 LFR Inc. Analytical uncertainty. Naphthalene is a problematic compound to sample in the gas phase, because of its low volatility. It tends to sorb and condense on portions of the sampling apparatus. Any differences in sampling protocol or site conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) may contribute to the variability in the results. Also, naphthalene is not listed in EPA's TO-15 method due to poor method recovery. EPA TO-15 uses an evacuated passivated stainless steel canister like the MassDEP APH method. Indoor sources. If the presence of naphthalene is attributable to the subsurface release, it would be detected in the soil and groundwater rather than in the gas phase. The fact that the opposite situation is present at the Site suggests that the source of the naphthalene is indoors. It is LFR's opinion that the presence of naphthalene and 2-methyl naphthalene in indoor air slightly above MassDEP UPVs is likely due to indoor sources because: • The unfinished basement contains two oil tanks and a furnace with a release valve that allows small amounts of exhaust back into the basement on occasion. The home is heated by forced hot air which recirculates the air through intakes on the first floor. • Other small oil releases appear to be present below the slab as evidenced by the detection of non No.2 fuel oil residuals in Sump #2 water recently. • An old box of Enos brand mothballs are stored in the basement. Mothballs have Ohistorically contained high concentrations of naphthalene. The active ingredient in modern mothballs is typically 1,4-dichlorobenzene. • Although the recent levels in the unfinished basement and kitchen slightly exceeded UPVs, in a study of indoor air background in Massachusetts sites by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. as presented at the "RCRA Corrective Action Conference" in June 2006, naphthalene was detected in 16 of 100 APH samples, ranging from 2.12 ug/m3 to 41.5 ug/m3. In comparison, the recent concentrations of naphthalene in indoor air at the Site were 5.5 and 18 ug/m3. Of the 16 detected instances of naphthalene in the background study, six were homes with natural gas heat, nine were in homes with oil heat, one was a home heated by propane. The three highest detected naphthalene concentrations in the background study were from homes heated with oil. The subject residence is atypical in that it has two fuel oil AST's. Based on the information presented above, the naphthalene and 2-methylnapthalene in the indoor air was believed to have been attributed to sources in the home. This technical justification is provided to demonstrate that the IRA remediation program was complete. The IRA Completion Report Transmittal Form is provided in Appendix A. The manifests for waste soil, water, and absorbents used or generated in the program are provided in Appendix C. Final RAO ANI 18 2008.doc:mlb Page 21 LFR Inc. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF REMAINING CONDITIONS AND REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION 5.1 Final Conceptual Site Model, Fate and Transport, and Exposure Potential The migration pathway for the released oil was confirmed as shown on Figure 5. The initial release occurred during wetter conditions and oil migrated with groundwater into the drain on the subject Site and into the drainage system on the street and into the nearby stream. The residuals in the stream were captured and the remainder diluted into the stream/pond system to ND levels. The detectable residuals were then focused to the 50 Sandra Lane property as water continued to drain from under the home and was collected by a sump and frac tank. Sediments in the upgradient street drains and stream reflected PAH concentrations typical of roadway runoff. The only exposure routes, therefore, were direct contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation to residents/workers at the 50 Sandra Lane Site. The residuals below the Site in soil were confined mostly to the gravel backfill and were reduced to ND or low levels below residential standards. There was a former motor oil release to the same area which was detected in somewhat deeper parts of the underlying glacial till as it Ohad a longer time to migrate vertically. The drain system leading to CB#2 was flushed with diluted hydrogen peroxide and captured into the frac tank. Groundwater in the path of the release was confirmed to be non-affected through up to four sampling rounds after remediation. The area of the release has been sealed with concrete and the vertical pipe has been left in place and capped. As a result, the only exposure would be through direct contact while digging below the slab or on the property. The Method 3 Risk Characterization later provides a more detailed assessment of exposure routes and the significance of risk from remaining residuals in soil and constituents found in indoor air. 5.2 Field and Analytical Data Representativeness Evaluation In completing the testing and remedial work, LFR employed PID and a 4-gas meter to guide testing and the effectiveness of the remediation. The released oil was detected with the PID as evidenced by the initial testing in the basement indoor air and soils. Excavations and selection of soil samples were guided by this instrument and olfactory detections. PID concentrations in soils were less than 100 ppmv but samples for VPH analysis were still run. Low levels of a VPH C9-C10 aromatic fraction was detected in 2 soil samples well below S-1 standards. Therefore, the EPH analysis was utilized as the indicator analysis for the presence of fuel oil. Finan RAO APri1 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 22 LFR Inc. The sample locations were spread relatively evenly in a spatial pattern throughout the areal extent of the release area on the Site. Vertical samples were also run and the vertical extent was defined in B-1 and MW-1 to be about 5 feet below the basement floor slab. Motor oil from a prior spill was present but all results were below S-1 standards. Twenty one soil samples and up to 4 rounds of groundwater sampling were analyzed for Site-related constituents of concern (COCs). The spatial and temporal data coverage in soils and groundwater was thus considered adequate for a release of this size. 5.3 LSP Data Usability Assessment The following narrative summarizes the field and laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures utilized in the field investigation program and identifies exceptions provided in the laboratory analytical reports collected by LFR in Appendix B. This review was conducted to evaluate the representativeness and usability of the data for this RAO Report as required in MassDEP's "CAM" Policy for Presumptive Certainty and the MassDEP "REDUA" Policy # WSC-07-350 (Sept. 2007). Field samples in the current investigation were collected in accordance with standardized and accepted protocols developed by MassDEP. Appropriate decontamination was performed between sampling when collecting soil samples without use of disposable equipment. The laboratories reported that samples were received in Oacceptable condition and preservation. • Initial surface water analyses for naphthalene and 2-methyl naphthalene in the lab blank and duplicate were recovered outside limits. The lab fortified blank recovery for a few other PAHs were outside the acceptable RPD resulting in reduced precision. All results were ND so these were not considered issues to affect this data. • With regard to soil and water samples collected from June to September 2007, not all lab QA/QC standards were achieved as identified in Section E of some of the CAM sheets. Nonane and C10 were recovered low in a few instances but the C9- C 18 range results were not affected. C9-C 18 failed LCS and was recovered low in one instance, but was not detected in the sample. In some VOC analyses, 1,4- dioxane, naphthalene, or carbon disulfide failed LCS/LCSD low or high, however, there were no detections of these compounds in the field samples. These minor lab QA/QC issues were considered by LFR not to affect the reliability or usability of the data. Final RAO April 18 2008.doc:mlb page 23 LFR Inc. 6.0 METHOD 3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY �J The following provides the summary of the Method 3 Risk Characterization prepared by Woodard & Curran. The entire Risk Characterization is provided in Appendix D. The table below summarizes the risk estimates calculated for all evaluated exposure pathways, and compares the cumulative noncancer risk estimates to MCP-promulgated risk limits. The table below summarizes cumulative noncancer risks estimated for each exposure scenario. Exposure Pathway Hazard Index Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil 0.04 Inhalation of Indoor Air 4 Cumulative Risk 4 MCP RISK LIMITS I As indicated in the Table above, the cumulative noncancer hazard index of 4 exceeds the MCP noncancer risk limit of one as explained in the Risk Characterization in Appendix D. Most of this risk is attributed to the inhalation of naphthalene in indoor air. The hazard quotient for naphthalene alone from inhalation is 3, whereas the cumulative HI from other COPCs across all exposure pathways (for soil and indoor air) is 0.9. This is the primary reason for the HI of 4. As previously discussed, it is unclear whether the source of naphthalene is derived from the Site or from other sources such as the heating system, which runs on fuel oil, or old moth balls stored in the basement. The initial fuel oil release was remediated through cleaning of surfaces, soil excavation, removal of contaminated groundwater and in-situ oxidation. Furthermore, naphthalene was not detected in either soil or groundwater samples collected from the Site. Given that the naphthalene concentrations in kitchen air samples have generally remained consistent over the last three sampling events (including the April 2007 round collected shortly after the initial release of oil), whereas naphthalene concentrations in the source area have decreased, the concentrations observed are more indicative of "background" sources within the home environment, rather than of the release itself. Because the HI exceeds the MCP noncancer risk limit of one, however, it is concluded that the MCP condition of No Significant Risk of harm to human health does not exist under current and reasonably foreseeable future conditions. As stated previously, LFR believes that its observations and the sampling data indicate that the naphthalene in indoor air is likely kel related to sources and products in the home Y rather than the low-level residuals below the floor slab. For this reason, LFR is of the opinion that the release was remediated to background conditions that would have existed in the absence of the fuel oil release. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 24 I LFR Inc. 7.0 FEASIBILITY OF RESTORATION TO BACKGROUND For a Class A-2 RAO submittal, the MCP and c.21E require an evaluation as to whether it is feasible to approach or achieve background conditions at the Disposal Site. LFR utilized the criteria in MassDEP's Policy # WSC-04-160 entitled: "Conducting Feasibility Evaluations Under the MCP" (July 2004) in order to achieve presumptive certainty in the demonstration of the feasibility or infeasibility of approaching/achieving background. This section provides a description on how Site conditions conform to the Presumptive Certainty requirements. According to MGL c. 21E Section 3A (g), "Where feasible, a permanent solution shall include a measure or measures designed to reduce to the extent possible the level of OHM in the environment to the level that would exist in the absence of the site of concern." For this Site, the key criterion for making the determination on feasibility is Item b (Cost-Benefit Analysis) in the reference above which states: "the costs of conducting, or risks resulting from, the remedial action would not be justified by the benefits, considering such factors as potential damage to the environment or health, costs of environmental restoration, long-term operations and maintenance costs, and non-pecuniary values". Cost-Benefit analysis is further outlined in 310 CMR 40.0860 (7) of the MCP. The intent of the requirements is that parties performing response actions to obtain a 0 permanent solution incorporate achieving or approaching background as a remedial objective from the outset. This objective was described in the IRA Plan was to remove or treat soil contaminated by the spill and groundwater to the extent feasible to below S-1 residential standards for soil and GW-2/3 standards for groundwater at a minimum. Approaching ND values was also identified, if practicable. As stated in the Risk Characterization above, the low level petroleum residuals in soil and ND values in groundwater do not contribute to risk at the Site. The low level naphthalene in indoor air results in a potential significant risk to human health compared to draft MassDEP standards. It is LFR's opinion, however, that conditions and use of fuel or other compounds/products in the home contribute to this risk. The low level of residuals in the soil are also affected by a previous motor oil release. Conditions of categorical feasibility and infeasibility in the policy were reviewed and it was determined that it was not categorically feasible to remediate the remaining trace petroleum concentrations in soil. Categorical feasibility, as cited in the policy includes for example, accessible petroleum contamination < 20 cy in soil that could be readily removed. In this case any remaining petroleum residuals cannot be readily removed without significant shoring and excavations below the floor slab and footers. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 25 LFR Inc. It was also determined that categorical infeasibility to address the residual oil did apply. Examples of categorical infeasibility in the policy included: excavations under permanent structures that may affect structural integrity, and actions that will substantially interrupt public service. In this case, removal of soil with low petroleum concentrations below the building footer and slab as shown on Figure 5 would not be feasible without significant excavations inside and out to shore up the footer and floor. The risk to the building structure is too large to be considered practicable in light of the very low levels of COCs remaining in soil. It should also be noted that the residual oil compounds at the Site will be subject to further attenuation by a variety of attenuation mechanisms. These mechanisms, including intrinsic biodegradation, will further reduce residual concentrations over time. 8.0 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME A Class A-2 RAO can be prepared because: • A permanent solution has been achieved; • The level of OHMs in the environment cannot be feasibly reduced to background; and 0 • One or more AULs are not required to maintain a level of no significant risk. A Permanent Solution has been achieved because a significant risk from the April 2007 #2 Fuel Oil spill does not exist to human health, environment, public safety, or welfare under current and reasonably foreseeable unrestricted future conditions. Based on sampling data, current inhalation risks at the residence are not related to the April 2007 spill. This RAO addresses Site conditions relative to the soils containing residual oil. The RAO addresses the boundaries of the Site as shown on Figure 4. 9.0 NEED FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0006, "Active Operation and Maintenance means remedial operations which rely upon the continuing or periodic use of on-Site or in-situ mechanical and/or electro-mechanical systems or devices, excluding monitoring and g landscaP in " Since no mechanical systems were installed as part of the remedy, no active operation and maintenance will be necessary at this Site. Proal RAO APHI 18 2008.dor.mlb Page 26 LFR Inc. The RAO is not contingent on the implementation or operation of on-Site treatment or recovery systems to address spill-related residuals. LFR recommends that the owner place a small fan in the area of the ASTs to vent home-related constituents outside the cellar window. 10.0 LSP OPINION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE RAO Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056 (1) (g), an opinion from a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) as to whether the requirements of the applicable class of RAO specified in 310 CMR 40.1000 have been met is set forth below. During the response actions implemented at the Site, samples of soil and ground water have been collected and analyzed according to MCP plans, together with sampling protocols and procedures acceptable to MassDEP. The sampling results were evaluated as provided for in the MCP regulations to define the extent of soil to be removed that would be protective of residential use. The source of the contamination has been removed. An evaluation was made of the representativeness of the sampling program and QA/QC and it was found to be satisfactory for use in providing a statement that a permanent solution was achieved as defined in the MCP. Residual soil EPCs for Site COCs were calculated as prescribed in the MCP and were found to be very low in concentration and groundwater results were ND. As discussed in the Method 3 Risk Characterization, residual soil and groundwater concentrations do not contribute to a significant risk to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment at the Site. Rather, a potential significant risk exists from inhalation of residues from home-related fuel oil or other products. An evaluation of achieving or approaching background was performed for soil and it was found that considerable additional effort and cost would be required to implement a remedy to achieve ND conditions for residual, low level petroleum residuals in soil below the home wall footer and slab. Some of these residuals are from a prior motor oil release. It was found that the effort and cost involved to remove the soils was categorically infeasible considering the potential risk to the structure and workers. Residuals in the soil will continue to degrade with time, especially after introduction of oxygenating material into the subsurface as part of the remedy. LFR recommends that the homeowner install a small fan near the ASTs to vent the home-related residuals in the indoor air outside, especially after it was shown that gasoline residuals are present when the auto, gasoline can, and lawn mower are in the attached garage and the indoor air is circulated. LFR also recommends that the homeowner remove or reduce the quantities of paint, wood finisher and other solvents that LFR observed in the garage. Final RAO AM] 18 2008.doc:m1b Page 27 LFR Inc. i The LSP of Record is of the opinion that this RAO Report and Statement are sufficient to address and represent that measures have been implemented to remove source materials. The RAO is also sufficient to demonstrate that substantial migration does not exist, and residuals from the spill pose no significant risk to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment. The RAO Transmittal Form signed is provided in Appendix A to this RAO. 11.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS Public notice activities relating to prior MCP submittals have been fulfilled through submittals copied to the North Andover Town Administrator and Board of Health. Finally, this RAO is being copied to these agencies and the homeowner as required. 12.0 LIMITATIONS AND SERVICE CONSTRAINTS The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of services and information obtained through the performance of the services described herein. This report is an instrument of professional service and was prepared in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Response Action Performance Standard (310 CMR 40.0191), the Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals, Rules of Professional Conduct (309 CMR 4.00) and the generally accepted standards and level of skill and care under similar conditions and circumstances established by the environmental consulting industry. No representations are intended or given beyond those required in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E or the MCP (310 CMR 40.0000). Reuse of this report or any portion thereof for other than its intended purpose, or if modified, shall be at the user's sole risk. Results of any investigations or testing and any findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time when LFR's investigative work was performed. It must be recognized that any such investigative or testing activities are inherently limited and may not represent a 100 percent conclusive or complete characterization of all conditions at the site. Conditions in other parts of the site may vary from those at the locations where data were collected. LFR's ability to interpret investigation results is related to the availability and validity of the data and the extent of the investigation activities. Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 28 LFR Inc. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0015, LFR does not provide any guarantees or warranties regarding any conclusions regarding environmental contamination of any such property. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1100, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) may audit all or part of this report and any associated Licensed Site Professional (LSP) Opinions at any time. In its audit of any response action submittal, the MassDEP will base its findings on their interpretation of any regulatory noncompliance on the version of the MCP and Response Action Performance Standard in effect at the time of its receipt of the submittal. Such an audit may result in additional services, beyond those described herein that may result in additional costs (such as the costs for additional drilling or sampling). The evaluation of any additional data collected, in conjunction with possible regulatory changes or technological advances may result in a modification to the original LSP Opinion. a Final RAO APril 18 2008.doc nilb Page 29 a m Cl) FIGURES } i ' Q. /f f ( it Y f etE 1 1 J. � ,(j ` �y • � '. '�.: t• (ter ILA cu CU ILL 1 }` fff/ k 4441111A ` J 3 /• 1 * L 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 km G ', 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ni € r UTM 19 327185E 4726472N (NAD27) o Mills Hill,USGS Lawrence(MA,NH) Quadrangle M--15.733 Projection is UTM Zone 19 NAD 83 Datum G--1.43 U. 0 U N N DATE: 5/1107 ME: ti LFR FIGURE: K DRAWN BY: J.W. SITE LOCUS/i0P06RAPHIC MAP REVIEWED BY: R.S. 8 4. APPROVED BY: R.S. LOCATION: 60 Island Street SCALE: AS NOTED 50 SANDRA LANE 1 P Lawrence,Massachusetts 01840 FILE NO: 010-14252.00 NORTH ANDOVER MASSACHUSETTS It Phone:(978)659-0017 JOB N0: 010-14252-00 ' ,-'. Fax:(978)659-0069 SHEET SIZE: A 3 l iS Nl)R\I-\NISW/sed-4 A SW/sed-I �sw/scd-.I �:, a "e�rt 0 ti\N/sed. SW/sed-2 y a - SW/Sed-7 SlV/S ; ed 6 P i` �.SM .g iJ. •1 ,� f j�.>, M. s a .. F°y�°.'k'i'sC 6 ,t•k xV n. 0 �-\tib{•, t [I i{t I��',4Ii' ,wb. � f ,.l r Y iY?41'J I j4i I: i I RI N( 1 111()' `•'`w, •w..+... !? R } Yet`" *:' e' �:;fi ',I :,11 l pr.r �,• \�:I 1\1 iM,: Ilt.i': . .� y a' pit ILII t �(1 4 "`w` ��. �� �,. ,. L � +,t • d^ .�` *o' *� . \,r ' °. ".�41 1004 EXPLANATION: O. DRAIN DIfeQIon of Flow Indicated 1 1 1 IM CATCHBASIN STREAM(Note:Direction • i iW POND SURFACE iimEA'r SAMPLI NG LOCATION10 • • • • OIL SAMP& Scale: 1 110' 'L Zone Its ® IWPAs Zane A aCECs Sole Source Aquifers SuQd Waste Sites ~y } I '�, _�' ! } f } 1 } t ► OU Protected Openspace E } NHESP Eslin>ated Habitat .ttl�- •__ z• a' � .o t ;r'.� t,.f } } f tf, '• tr } it�1'• 1cr, f } t f f t.f t 1 of Rare Wikirile In IL- Welland Areas iii-- �''•-'" t ar n �=. };.,:}' FLT=�IV1€�vAVS!r j � � , _ - --_'`' '.1 } .I f f } f 2003 NHESPed nalPnats Subbasins jw Major Basins /'r Town Arcs 4.i`DEP Region ,,�Kv+n _ - t 1 f f } f }• t 1 f '} ' } ,kAl County Boundaries aAvit t 1 t } } } } f } } } } } t ! } -N RR ACK Aquifers.By Yield 3 } } * f =uorl� �,tif-. -►.- _f _.} � tf t t f -t ' %1EDIUm yu,Oyes r , Kbn Potential Drinking ' } t } f } t } } 1Yl fi } lfll } ti `� Water Source Area f f f 1 f! ? .__� f f f 1 -•.,. fikiH NCO MFOrJ\Ina O 1i FEMA Flood Plains r L } a f - , �r� f. aq6 YEAR YLlip � ` NORTH �, Eft' y'` _ �i Hyd►ography .ti k4C i n,,yy WAT01 gce, NOIR -=R%. R�g E'&Ti4R TI0N �Io �; tvrr�xvas ... r \ ` , ATS r10AL5 133 -V OALTWATLER%IJL-TLk-JOS TRO'; Rivers and Streams ! .....L a1D A/PER � N1. lnlnt ✓ NTpL11R7t qT t�' '� `, �, • ti O _ Off- . `.p, T �lti'Sf10R#'j.l`IE N11A4 AIArJ[SIIOR[ . 114 � � }� —r �,.+� oR SANDRA LN 01 �a \ 4�9 - �t Onu AOIJEDUCT �� _ ~( �{ 1 _ j• . EOT.QTP Roads 1 114 -�, 1 � �rz ,� ' �/ LNITSOACCOISSMonNAY i -� ti - I \_— •�., MULTiL41E/11yY 40T LI\IrrEDACCL•S9' 1 'I r' � 4ilLLSHILL .tFE I �, iY .lR w /f� OTHLIR?lU%1MRM11'rly �Aj MNORROAD•COLLCCTOR WSORSTREET'OnROAo. fJ RAW 123 i t, < t g racks and Trails MHD ANDOVER- PFP O: •a-�Ql .. �y .` TRACH •. TRAL f\� Transmission lines �T'•i•' '. •sj t �'�: �_C..•�, .4 _ ,¢ PIpCsN[ ✓.' aOtihERLC15 00.47m, TRAM _ DEP Priority Resource Map 50 Sandra Lane North Andover, Massachusetts _ r� L F R i i EXPLANATION: STORM DRAIN(NOTE:DIRECTION OF ? FLOW INDICATED BY ARROW) CATCH BASIN CB#3 D SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE LFR-3IMW-3i +LFR4?MW4 f E 119 SUMP DISCHARGE POINT Z Q Nn PROPERTY BOUNDARY DISCHARGE 0 0 SOIL BORING LOCATION POINT FRENCH N DRAIN 2 N + MONITORING WELL LOCATION MCP DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY 00 PP IPNE a 1.ED�RE A LFR-2/MW-2 # n N TWO(2) N DISCHARGE 275-GAL ASTs LFR B-3 APPROXIMATE POINT FOR LOCATION OF ` SUMP#2 WATER AND LL \ LfR-1/M -1 SEWER LINES 4 ; SUMP#2 -¢ SUMP#1 ORIGINAL POINT OF LFR B-2 W $ o \ FUEL OIL RELEASE LFR 1/B-5 LFR MP O AR O CB#1 f t t SUMP#3 'c t s u d N � � t E ` WI \ O l /� C Z I \ E 0 \ /' 4 t /� in v V' Co O �i c Site Plan C5 50 Sandra Lane '- North Andover' Massachusetts S 40' 0 40' Ln Scale: V-40' �v LFR Figure 4 o a a FRENCH DRAIN _ DISCHARGE TO CBd2 f / LFR B-3 BEFORE AFTER LFR-1/MW-1 BEFORE AFTER DEPTH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg DEPTH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg 1.5 EPH 19 4-8 EPH — j 2.5-3 EPH — 8-12 EPH 18• � 12-16 EPH ND — FRENCH DRAIN Fa 1 o # 1 LFR B-1 BEFORE AFTER DEPTH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg LL ; 1.5 EPH — v 2.5-3 EPH — �� ; 3-5 EPH — LqR B-3 FR-1/MW-1 5-7 EPH ND — PTLFR B 2 BEFORE-[AFTER o DEH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg 1 1.5 EPH NO — BOUNDARY OF LFR B-5 BEFORE AFTER? AFTER2 ExCAVATION ; DEPTH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg ib 1 LF - 1.5 EPH ND 8 0 LF B-5 o LFR 0.2 LFR 84 �+ W LFR B-4 BEFORE AFTER � W DEPTH ANALYTE mg/kg mg/kg v° 1.5 EPH 6.1 S z 2.5-3 EPH — WATER TANKS E APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF U, WATER AND SEWER LINES 4 a d EXPLANATION: s n O SUMP IN BASEMENT OF RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTIC OF NO.2 FUEL OIL Conceptual Site Model O SOIL BORING LOCATION CHARACTERISTIC OF MOTOR OIL with Soil Analytical Results c + SOIL 13ORINGIMONITORING WELL LOCATION NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF NO.2 FUEL OIL 50 Sandra Lane North Andover,Massachusetts OIL RELEASE MIGRATORY PATH 5' 0 5' ESTIMATED EXTENT OF FUEL OIL IN SOIL �p o Scale:1"-5' U Figure 5 EXPLANATION: O } GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION ®CATCH BASIN ---- PROPERTY BOUNDARY LFR-3 cls MONITORING WELL LOCATION (71.18) LFR-4 (95.52) (GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM 2 (72.27) E AUGUST 29,2007) 73 m N M O O m N 6 d LL PQp`EppRE lPN 79 3 LFR- (78.10) 2 82 c 0 V U i \ 85 o Q \ O \ 94 91 N N 1 LFR-1 d ` (95.52) 1 0 1 w � 1 p1 C \ _U 1 C 1 t V N a It co E ` > 1 0 1 / Z 1 /� �,I 1 U \ /� 0 R In V V O O Groundwater Contour Map July 13, 2007 C5 (Relatively dry) 50 Sandra Lane 40' 0 40' North Andover Massachusetts 5 I Scale: "=40' �F� LFR Figure 6a EXPLANATION: O -)-- GROUNDWATER FLOW DI ECTION ®CATCH BASIN --- PROPERTY BOUNDARY t MONITORING WELL LOCA ON LFR-3+ LFR-4 (95. 2) (GROUNDWATER ELEVATIO OM Z4 (83.66) AUGUST 29,200 E R N M O o (tt 86 O N a U. PPP`EppRE CPN 8 3 LFR- (89.31) 0 c U 90 U i 094 Ln 0 0 FR-1 92 L o ` (94.64) o � ID ID \ .n m � U_ C 1 s \ U Gl a � D b0 E wi \ o n \ 4 / N 6 0 s Groundwater Contour Map m August 29, 2007 d (Relatively Wet) 50 Sandra Lane '- North Andover Massachusetts S 40' 0 40' ' o Scale: 1"=40' �_U L F R Figure 6b i EXPLANATION: GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION ®CATCH BASIN ---- PROPERTY BOUNDARY + MONITORING WELL LOCATION L(FR 0)3 LFR-4 (95.52) (GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM T 2 (73.51) AUGUST 29,2007) 74 E ,n O co Oa fn 76 N Ci O OF LPNE 78 PPp�E� - LFR-2 80 (77.83) 5 82 O U U 84 o CN \, 0 �2 90 88 86 C14 '� LFR-1 d (93.56) _o w a � R � u �c a U U d a � ao CU E WI \ O l �� Z 1 /' 1 i U E U U q N Ln CN O O Groundwater Contour Map m September 26, 2007 d (Relatively Dry) 50 Sandra Lane S 40 0 40 North Andover,Massachusetts o Scale: 1"=40' O UR Figure 6c 0 Figure 7: Soil Analytical Results for Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) 50 Sandra Lane,North Andover,MA 1000 S1/GW2= ■EPH before Peroxide Injections 800 mg/kg 0 EPH after Peroxide Injections EPH Fourth Quarter(B-5 only) 100 as Y of ,• i E St' �v •+ �ar C .� a 10 Z; -- - -- - - -- -- — - — Z --- - - - - s --- - # -------- 4abf`ei ND ND ND<4 mg/kg 1 =d B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 MW-1 MW-2 Notes: ND-Sample was non-detect for Total EPH. Quantitation Report Data File D: \INSTC\DATA\101007\C6967.D Vial: 4 Acq On 11 Oct 2007 9:44 am Operator: MZ Sample LI=12587A5B 10X LB=24236 LM=80158 id Inst C Misc RDU=UG/ML DF=10 Multiplr: 1.00 IntFile CTEPH.E Quant Time: Oct 11 11:59 2007 Quant Results File: DR05-21.RES 0 Quant Method D:\DR05-21.M (Chemstation Integrator) Title Last Update Tue Oct 02 09:10:34 2007 Response via Multiple Level Calibration DataAcq Meth DRORUN.M Volume Inj . luL Signal Phase 0.25, Rtx-5 Signal Info 30M x 0.25mm espcnse 32000 30000 2e000 26000 24000 22000 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 �I 8000 6000 1 4000 2000 �� 1 0 -2000 �me120 14.00 96.0 8Oo 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28 00 3000 2.0 C6967.D DR05-21.M Mon Oct 15 12:50:42 2007 EPH Page 2 File : D:\INSTC\DATA\101007\C6967.D Operator : MZ Acquired : 11 Oct 2007 9:44 am using AcgMethod DRORUN.M Instrument : C Sample Name: LI=12587A5B 10X LB=24236 LM=8015B id Misc Info : RDU=UG/ML DF=10 Vial Number: 4 esponse 8 40000 C6327.DWID1A 38000 36000 34000 32000 30000 �$hM�t6 8-AZ.5-3 28000 , ' 26000 S7MsiwMb iu�/ -S Not%& 0w 24000 22000 4 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 F 6000 I� 4000 2000 JL -�-'-'�'-' t-'-`.'-� '1 '-� rrlfr'-rT-rI_'_ C'.-�^�_.,..�_m....�... ime 0. 0 2. 0 4 0 �0 �8�0 X10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00_22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 �1 File : D:\INSTC\DATA\101007\C6967.D Operator : MZ Acquired : 11 Oct 2007 9:44 am using AcgMethod DRORUN.M �y Instrument : C �J Sample Name: LI=12587A5B 10X LB=24236 LM=8015B id Misc Info : RDU=UG/ML DF=10 Vial Number: 4 esponse 135000 C5739.D1FIDIA(') 130000 125000 , 120000 o,c�\ w 4b:wa1 115000 110000 105000 100000 95000 90000 (snwoNw 85000 F 80000 Z fyEt- OIL (� 75000 ( o ,S 70000 ��(1 65000 iW 60000 55000 50000 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 X26 20000 15000 /,_......_ 10000 5000l " u Q ..,...,_• ,._' .�",rF. 6'0 1•''60 11- 1'8'60-' *1-^-i'T'Tr^''TT+••t'-^�T�-r-�^.�-1"r�'-323''"rT� ime 0%,01-1 2.b0 4. 6. 0 8.b0 10.00. 12.00.14.00 1600 18.00 2Q.00 22.00 24,00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 0 D 00 r m cn