Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0356 SOUTH STREET - Health D ' 356 South Street Store Hyannis 1 A= m ai ijituduon to iocai rtre uepartment. Fire Department retains original application and issues duplicate as.Permi - � �� stJ� -•� , lotrr r APPLICATION and PERMIT for storage tank removal and transportation to approved tank disposal yard in accordance with tfa ovisions of M.G.L. Chapter 148, Section 38A,527 CM, R 9:170, application is hereby made by: (� O 4 ,- - Tank Owner Name.(please prii/}L%�Pn ? �P ��!L`• v G- acruyay Address s r� score as Company Name` n i'ro_, , SP Co. or Individualles—>,_;,.� am,t y! �a Addres L✓t Address �921 S /LIi� r Signature(if applying for permit) Signature rf 9 ( applying for permit) :} l7 IFCI'Certified Other ❑ IFCI•Certified 0 LSP# Other Tank �' _•—..�,..,-�.— Location icawy Tank-Capacity(gallons) S Substance Last Stored r Tank Dimensions( r diameter x length) I bom Firm transporting waste l' c _ C�L2�} ) State Lic. Hazardous waste manifest# /hf r l � �� EPA.# Approved.tank disposal yard Tank yard# o \ %Av-- -VW Type of inert gas. Tank yard address City or Town / ./ / Foio# 13 5 Permit# 5v Date of issue Date of expiration Dig safe'approval number Z�1 Qj Dig Safe T J 800-322-4844 Alia Signature 7 Title of Officer granting permd CSC cc UE DE- rI.I T y. OL After removals (,Consumptive Use'fuel oil tanks exempted)sencogg o ( ) ( p a F gned by Local Fr a Department to Office of.the State Fire Marshai,UST Regulatory Compliance Unit,P.O.Box 1025,Stow,MA 01775. ,'national Fire Cade Institute :ed 497) f ...«.w«rrnv««vu..v •vvar. a u..rrc�a.uuvaw Fire Department retains original application and issues duplicate as Permit APPLICATION and PERMIT ¢e• for-storage tank removal and transportation to approved tank disposal yard in accordance with p� ns of M.G.L. Chapter 148, Section 38A, 527 CMR 9.00, application is hereby made by: c - Tank Owner Name(please print) 4-c_ <ene ru s , d �. . ��ayratwe d — 9 peima Addresses 54 1 �c ,,,► , l J CNY Slate Z/p Company Name /"ten (?2 - Co.or individual Nam,-►�.;� �n W Rc. �)r� PmM Addres _ t,✓l ��ct r� A v k er_ -L— Address CAPdM PW Signature(If ap i g for permit) Signature Cd applying for permit) ❑ IFCI'Certified Other ❑ IFCI'Certified ❑ LSP# Other Tank Location ti� � a �•_iE- `,i` - rq (/ �. srear,id�ss gay Tank'Ca aci. allons - P tY(9 ) ` '� Substance Last Stored _�-- �. Tank Dimensions(diameter x length) Remarks: Firm transporting waste © � State Lic.# -212 Hazardous waste manifest# ,1),112 �2 / - EPA# Approved tank disposal yard f--1 Tank yard# e r Type of inert gas Tank yard address f. P %�►1ttn�d s�- e M ! cl T P 6_ r� . . . . . , . 13509 . Cityor TownA � — ��� FDID# Permit# ;.. - - k` Date of Issue Date of,expiration �w 4 1 Q - Dig safe approval number Jam' ��1 V jDi I� 'e �1.Number-800-=-4844 Signature/Title of Officer granting permit _ tag After removal(s)('Consumptive Use fuel oil tanks exempted?lendY8a` -290R signed by Local Fire Department to Office of the State Fire Marshal, UST Regulatory Compliance Unit, P.O.Box 1025,Stow,MA 01775. 'Intemational Fire Code Institute -292(revised 4197) sN BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS,GEOLOGISTS,ENGINEERS 1573 Main Street,P.O.Box 1743 (508)896-1706 Brewster,MA 02631 fax(508)896-5109 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: DATE: JOB NUMBER: Mr.Andy Jones,Case Officer 2/26/2014 BEA13-10607 MA DEP(SERO) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Emergency Response Section 20 Riverside Drive REGARDING: Lakeville,MA 02347 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION COMPLETION REPORT WITH CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME SHIPPING METHOD: RTN 4-24825 Regular Mail ❑ Pick Up ❑ Priority Mail ❑ Hand Deliver ❑ Express Mail ❑ Other upload 0 Certified Mail ❑ Green Card/RR ❑ COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION i 1 2/21/14 Immediate Response Action Completion(IRAQ Report with Class A-2 Response Action Outcome(RAO) Estate of Muriel Mackenzie,RTN 4-24825 356 South Street-Hyannis,MA For review and comment: ❑ For approval: ❑ As requested: ❑ For youjuse:; -b REMARKS: Vrl _ cc: MA DEP Lockbox(RAO fee check and BWSC forms only) ': . Kristine O'Sullivan,Executrix-Estate of Muriel Mackenzie(CD) Jeffrey Parent/Jennifer Galoski-Liberty Mutual Insurance(CD) a •Thomas McKean---Barnstable Board of Health(narrative,title page and site plan only) Thomas Lynch-Barnstable Town Manager(narrative,title page and site plan only) Deputy Chief Dean Melanson-Hyannis Fire Department(narrative,title page and site plan only) w . FROM: DCB,JTW If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once .uE NETT NVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATEs9 INC. LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS � GEOLOGISTS & ENGINEERS 1573 Main Street-P.O. Box 1743, Brewster, MA 02631 508-896-1706 Fax 508-896-5109 www.bennett-ea.com BEA13-10607 February 21, 2014 Mr. Andy Jones, Case Officer MA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (MA DEP) Southeast Regional Offices (SERO) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section(BWSC/ERS) 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville,MA 02347 RE: IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION COMPLETION REPORT WITH CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME Estate of Muriel Mackenzie, RTN 4-24825 356. South Street-Hyannis,MA [Map/Block 308/099] Dear Mr. Jones, BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. (BEA) has prepared the following Immediate Response Action Completion (IRAQ report with Class A-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement inclusive of Supporting Documentation as a summary of release discovery, environmental assessment and remedial response actions performed at the above referenced property. These Immediate Response Actions were undertaken to evaluate and absolve potential human exposures and environmental impacts associated with release of an unknown quantity of No. 2 fuel oil, from an abandoned 275-gallon underground storage tank (UST). The IRA was triggered when the tank.was removed and a 1" hole was discovered in the bottom of the vessel as having impacted underlying soils. The Hyannis Fire Department subsequently contacted the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) for Notification of a release under a 2-Hour Condition wherein the size of the hole indicated the potential for catastrophic release. Initial . response actions were conducted under verbal approvals. Preliminary environmental assessment activities in the area of the tank grave demonstrated significant soil impacts greater than the applicable S-2/GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. The area of impact was initially defined as within an approximate 10' x 10' area, to a depth of approximately 10-11' below grade surface. Groundwater sampling from a temporary well installed within the former tank grave by the Insurer, reported concentrations of fractional EPH in groundwater as evidence of leaching-from impacted soils. Subsequent remedial response actions resulted in the excavation of some 30 cubic yards of fuel oil contaminated soils from the defined area. Laboratory analysis of end-point soil samples collected from the extent of excavation reported all extractable/volatile petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH/VPH) and target analytes (PAH/BTEX) concentrations as non-detect (ND) or significantly less than the strictest applicable S-1/GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. Additionally, three monitoring EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE 6 WASTE SITE CLEANUP Q SITE ASSESSMENT Q PERMITTING & SEPTIC DESIGN&INSPECTION WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT,OPERATION&MAINTENANCE & WASTEWATER TREATMENT,OPERATION&MAINTENANCE FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 2 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 wells were installed and tested subsequent to soil removal. This additional groundwater testing was used to confirm the spatial and temporal representativeness of the previous groundwater data in consideration of potential exposure risk and closure objectives. Laboratory analytical results for the second round of groundwater testing reported all EPH compounds, and target analytes, as non-detect (ND) wherein the reporting limit concentrations where significantly below the applicable GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. Laboratory analytical and field testing data generated as part of this work has been evaluated under Method 1 Risk Characterization standards and serves as the rational and justification for a finding of No Significant Risk for potential exposures to human and/or environmental receptors within the defined fuel oil release Site as subject of Release Tracking Number (RTN) 4-24825. Remedial response actions and MA Certified laboratory analyses under Method 1 Risk Characterization support a Permanent Solution with no restriction of activity and use of the subject property as the basis of the IRAC/RAO for closure of the project. The information herein serves as fae technical rationale and justification for the LSP Opinions rendered for the defined Site acknowledged by the certifications on the attached BWSC-104 and BWSC-105 Transmittal Fo_1ns. This work has been conducted under direct LSP oversight in a manner consistent with the MCP Response Action Performance Standards (RAPS) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0191 and the QA/QC policies of BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. The facts and statements herein are, to the best of our knowledge, a true and accurate representation of the Site activities, remedial response actions and environmental conditions associated with the project. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS [Refer to Appendix A] The subject property at 356 South Street in Hyannis, MA is located along the north side of South Street, approximately 175 feet east of the intersection of South Street and Pine Ave. The property contains 0.27 acres of residential land area and is developed by a 2-story Cape Cod style dwelling in the southern (front) portion of the property and a 1 1/2 story dwelling in the northern (rear) portion of the property. The surrounding area is highly developed with year- round residential dwellings, as well as commercial properties along South Street and Main Street to the north of the subject property. Access to the subject property is unrestricted with high frequency/high intensity of use with children potentially present. The area of release, as adjacent to the exterior wall of the dwelling, is similarly unrestricted with high frequency/low intensity of use with children potentially present [Refer to Figure 1]. As such, the owners and visitors to the property, and immediate abutters, are identified as the primary potential human receptors. Hydrologic references indicate groundwater exists at approximately 12' NGVD (+/-) as projected within 25' of ground surface. Regional groundwater contours indicate a southeast flow direction towards Lewis Bay and Nantucket Sound beyond. There are also some freshwater wetlands shown on the map approximately 1,000-feet southeast of the subject property which discharge to Lewis Bay. Installation and subsequent gauging of the temporary monitoring well (MW-1) reported local groundwater at approximately 20' bgs. Local groundwater flow direction FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 3 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 has been established as southeasterly as consistent with regional groundwater contours. As such, the closest down gradient wetlands leading to Lewis Bay is identified as the primary potential environmental receptor [Refer to Figure 2]. According to the MA DEP BWSC GIS mapping program, the subject property is not located within the Zone II Protective Radius-of a Public Water Supply (PWS), nor is it located within the Zone A protective radius of any surface water reservoir. According to the Mass GIS 21E overlay, the subject property is mapped as being within a Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA). This mapping is likely attributed to the level of development in the urbanized downtown Hyannis area. The subject property and surrounding area are served by municipal water and sewer. Based on this mapping and residential use the RCS-1 and RCGW-2 Reportable Concentrations are applicable to soil and groundwater per 310 CMR 40.0361 and 40.0362, respectively. Based on the NPDWSA designation and proximity to groundwater, the GW-3, Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards are applicable and are considered as a conservative measure of exposure risks in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0974 . Based on Site conditions relative to frequency/intensity of use and accessibility of soils, the S-2/S-3 (GW-3), Method 1 Risk Characterization standards are applicable per 310 CMR 40.0975. The strictest S-1 (GW-3) Method 1 Risk Characterization standards are considered against reported analytical results in review of all foreseeable future activities and uses of the subject property. These standards were developed in consideration of potential ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact exposures to humans, environmental impacts to environmental receptors, and in review of potential leaching of contaminants to groundwater [Refer to Figure 3]. The defined Site, as that portion of the subject property where the fuel oil release has migrated or otherwise come to be located, is a portion of the subject property as within a 20' x 20' area roughly centered on location of the former UST grave on the western side of the front dwelling along the abutting property sideline. The apparent vertical extent of significant soils impacts (> S-1/GW-3) within the defined Site extend to a depth of some 10-12' below grade [Refer to Site Plan]. BACKGROUND [Refer to Appendix B] On October 10, 2013, BEA personnel were at the subject property as subcontracted by Tank Removal Services to conduct soil certification at the time of UST removals, as is the policy of the Hyannis Fire Department. Upon arrival at the property, the 275-gallon, single-walled UST in the southern (front) portion of the property had been uncovered, cut open and cleaned in preparation to remove the tank from the ground. Barnstable Fire Department personnel (Capt. Dean Melanson) were also on-site to witness the UST removal. The tank was subsequently removed from the ground and placed on plastic adjacent to the tank grave. Subsequent to removing and cleaning the vessel, a hole (1" diameter)was observed at the southern end of the tank. Three additional holes (approx. 1/4 diameter) were also observed in the FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10507 PAGE 4 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 southern end of the bottom of the tank. Based on the apparent release of oil from an abandoned UST, Hyannis Fire Department personnel contacted the MA DEP to report the release under a 2- Hour condition for threat of catastrophic release [Refer to Photograph 1]. � w r t K � i 1� d -,t r--. .Krt*YY :i„ rc� •�j ,1 a w e 1; ra r a ,r PHOTOGRAPH 1: showing condition of tank at time of removal as evidence of leakage as the basis of MA DEP Release Notification by Hyannis Fire Department The second abandoned UST, formerly servicing the residence at the northern (_ear) portion of the property was removed without incident. Approximately 10-gallons of oily sludge were removed from each of the tanks prior to removal. The oily sludge was transported to Tank Removal Services shop in Hyannis, MA and later transported by Autobody Solvent Recovery Corp. to Murphy's Waste Oil Service, Inc. for recycling, as part of a larger disposal run. Both tanks were subsequently taken to Middleboro Recycling for proper disposal. BEA personnel subsequently performed a hand boring for soil sampling within the first UST grave in the area of identified impact. Two-foot composite soil samples were collected with a stainless-steel bucket auger until refusal at 9' below grade. The soil samples were then agitated to develop organic vapors and field screened with a PID for TOV, as evidence of petroleum impact, by "jar headspace" method, as consistent with the MA DEP policy WSC-94- FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 5 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 400. Field TOV screening reported elevated PID readings (35-50 ppmv) as indicating significant impacts to at least 9' bgs and heavily weathered petroleum odor noted. A composite soil sample was sent to Alpha Analytical Laboratory for EPH analysis to qualify soil impact and to characterize soils for disposal in anticipation of expedited soil removal under verbal IRA authorization. Results of laboratory analysis reported concentrations of fractional EPH and 2-Methylnaphthalene above the applicable RCS-1 Reporting Concentrations, qualifying significant impact. These results are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Soil Sample Results Compared to RCS-1 Criteria Mackenzie Estate-356 South St.-H annis,MA LOCATION HB71:4-9' SAMPLING DATE 10-OCT-13 LAB SAMPLE ID L1320408-01 RCS-1 Units 4 Extractable Petoleu n Hydrocaiazbo 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.7 mg/kg 2.23 Acenaphthene 4 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Acenaphthylene 1 Mgft ij D' Anthracene 1000 mgfkg ND(<1.76) Benzo(a)anthracene 7 m1ft ND(<1.76) Benzo(a)pyrene 2 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Benzo(ghi)perylene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 70 mg/kg ND(<1.76) C11-C22 Aromatics mg/kg 1480 C1I_C22 Aromatics,Adjusted 1000 mg/kg 1470 C19-C36 Aliphatics 3000 mg/kg 1240 C9-C18 Aliphatics 1000 mg/kg 4920 Chrysene 70 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.7 mg/kg ttND j.jlM)`, ; Fluoranthene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Fluorene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 7 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Naphthalene 4 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Phenanthrene 10 ' mg/kg ND(<1.76.) Pyrene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) BEA subsequently contacted the Estate Representatives and advised them of environmental conditions and of Notification and Remedial Response obligations under the MCP. Upon engagement, additional assessment activities were prioritized to identify potential exposures risk and to determine the extent and magnitude of such impacts for the review and selection of an appropriate remedial strategy. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 6 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT [Refer to Appendix B] BEA personnel traveled to the Site on October 17, 2013 to conduct additional assessment to define the extent and magnitude of impact and qualify the apparent threat of groundwater impact as coordinated through the Insurer. The Insurer's representative was also at the property to observe the assessment activities and.to record field screening results. Three borings were advanced using a manual Geoprobe soil sampler with Shelby tubes. Boring HB-lA was advanced in the area of HB-1 in an attempt to define the vertical extent of significant fuel oil impacts in the tank grave. Hand boring HB-2 was advanced to the west of the former tank grave to determine the lateral extent of impact closest to the abutter's property line. Hand Boring HB- 4 was performed by coring a hole through the basement floor east of the former tank grave to determine if there was impact beneath the dwelling. Field screening reported PID readings as indicating significant impacts at the HB-IA and HB-2 locations and were used in the selection of soil samples for additional field testing and/or confirmatory laboratory analysis. No PID readings within the detector sensitivity were observed in the HB-4 location. BEA submitted select soil samples for extractable petroleum hydrocarbon with target polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (EPH/PAH) analysis, to qualify the extent of significant impacts in review of remedial response and risk characterization. The results reported EPH and target PAH concentrations as below the method detection limits in the HB-1A: 15-17' sample and the HB-4: 6-14' sample. Low concentrations of fractional EPH were reported in the HB-2: 8-12' sample, below the applicable S-2 and S-3/GW-3 and most stringent S-l/GW-1 Method 1 Risk Characterization Standards. These results, relative to the Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards are presented on Table 2. Table 2:Soil Sample Results Compared to Method 1 Standards Mackenzie Estate-356 South Street-H annis,MA LOCATION HB-IA.15-17' HB-2:8-12, H13-4:6-14' SAMPLING DATE 17-OCT-13 17-OCT-13 17-OCT-13 LAB SAMPLE ID L1320996-01 L1320996_-02 L1320996-03 S1/GW1 S1/GW2 S1/GW3 Units Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2-Methyhiaphthalene 0.7 80 300 mg/kg ND(-0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(10.335) Acenaphthene 4 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Acenaphthylene 1 600 10 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Anthracene 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) 1. . ... .. Benzo(a)anthracene 7 7 7 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Benzo(a)pyrene 2 2 2 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 7 7 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Benzo(ghi)perylene 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) NO(<0.34) ND(0.335) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 70 i0 70 mg/kg, NO(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Cl1-C22 Aromatics mg/kg ND(<6.66) 58,7 ND(<6.69) Cl1-C22 Aromatics,Adj 7 usted 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg NO(<6.66) 58. ND(<6.69) C19-C36 Aliphatics 3000 3000 3000 mg/kg ND(<6.66) 51.3 ND(<6.69) C9-C18 Aliphatics 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<6.66) 104 ND(<6.69) C sene 70 .0 70 m ND <0.333 ND <0,34 ND <0.335 �'. _. Pig ( ) (_.. .) (. . . . ) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.7 0.7 0.7 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(0.34) ND(<0.335) Fluoranthene 1000 1000 100.0 _mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) Fluorene 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 7 7 7 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Naphthalene 4 40 50.0 mg/kg ND(<0 333) ND(,0.34) ND(<0.335) Phenanthrene 10 500 500 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Pyrene 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 7 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 Based on vertical measurement of the HB-lA boring, the HB-lA soil samples were considered an accurate representation of the vertical extent of significant impact as apparently limited to 15'bgs. Based on field screening and laboratory analytical results, the anticipated area of significantly impacted soil removal was estimated as within an approximate 10' x 10' area adjacent to the western exterior wall of the house to approximately 10-12' deep. Based on the estimated depth to groundwater and the apparent threat of groundwater impact from a historic release of an unknown quantity of fuel oil with a significant hole in the bottom of the tank, the Insurer installed a single groundwater monitoring well to investigate the potential of groundwater impact as part their internal claim review under the liability coverage afforded. As such, BEA traveled to the subject property on November 1, 2013 and met the Insurer's representative (Stantec) and their subcontractor, New England Geotech, to perform a single Geoprobe boring with the installation of a single groundwater monitoring well offsetting HB-1 within the release area. BEA used this opportunity to qualify potential groundwater impacts in review of potential exposure risk and remedial.response alternatives. Soil samples form the test boring were PID screened with similar results reported in the HB-1 and HB-lA samples. Groundwater was reported at approximately 20' bgs and a groundwater monitoring well (2" Schedule 40 PVC) installed with screen set across the groundwater interface. Subsequent to installation, the well was purged and a groundwater samples were collected by both Stantec and BEA personnel for EPH/PAH and VPH/BTEX in review of potential fuel oil contamination. Both sets of analytical results reported low concentrations of fractional EPH below the applicable Method 1 GW-3 Risk Characterization Standard. All other concentrations of PAHs, fractional VPH and target analytes were reported as ND. On instructions from the Insurer, the monitoring well was removed and the borehole filed with bentonite. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTIONS [Refer to Appendix C] The information from the assessment of soil and groundwater conditions was used to develop a remedial strategy for the aggressive excavation of significant soil impact from the identified release area adjacent to the dwelling as noted on the Site Plan. The removal of up to 50 yards of impacted soils was anticipated a within a 10' x 10' area to a depth of 12'. After significant delay precipitated by claim review and identification of an acceptable contractor to conduct such work,the IRA Plan was implemented. On January 17, 2014, Dowling Corporation inspected the property to generate a third proposal for soil removal and restoration per plans provided by BEA. Subsequent to submittal and review of the proposal, such work was authorized for reimbursement by the Insurer and contracts executed. On January 28, 2014 Dowling started site preparation. Clean overburden was removed within the defined area of excavation to install "atlas piers" and channel beams to hold the wall during excavation. Piles installation started the following day with the first pile set at desired depth after much effort due the presence of cobbles and boulders. On January 30, pile installation continued with refusal met a several locations and only one additional pier was set FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 8 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-2.4825 above the targeted depth. The channel steel was placed under the brick foundation wall between and connected to the piles. Because of the issues of pier refusal, the contractor requested a site meeting to review additional shoring options. Representatives from Hayden House Moving were contacted about the use of cribbing and steel beams as an alternative to the "atlas piers". While contractor work for shoring was ongoing, on this same date test borings were advanced for the installation of monitoring wells. BEA inspected and documented subsurface conditions which were consistent with prior testing wherein unconsolidated gravelly sands were predominant and unconfined sandy aquifer of high permeability found at approximately 20' below grade at all locations [Refer to Borehole and Monitoring Well Sampling Logs in Appendix B . Monitoring well MW-1R was located immediate) south of the area of release in pp ] g Y an assumed down gradient location. Monitoring well MW-2 was located to the north of the release area as in a clearly up gradient location. Monitoring well MW-3 was located to the southwest as down gradient to the release area and as intermediate Hyannis Harbor and associated wetland areas. The installation of these monitoring wells was to qualify reported groundwater impacts through a preponderance of data and to establish site specific groundwater flow direction to establish the representativeness of the analytical data from these wells. The following day, BEA personnel returned to the property to gauge and sample the wells and to meet with the contractor about shoring alternatives to expedite soil removal. In the meeting with Dowling and Hayden representatives, the use of cribbing and beams was approved and authorized. Groundwater gauging showed flow direction as generally south-southeasterly, as consistent with regional groundwater contours. Based on the confirmation of site specific groundwater flow direction and the position and distance of MW-lR to the release area, analytical data from was deemed representative of groundwater conditions associated with the historic release. Due to snowfall and extreme cold weather, the installation of shoring and continuation of soil removal was postponed in consideration of exposing the basement and danger of freezing pipes. The Department was notified of an anticipated delay in the IRA filing wherein critical data was pending. This letter was communicated to the MA DEP on February 6, 2014 [Refer to Appendix C]. On January 10, 2014, soil removal operations continued with the installation of steel beams and cribbing. BEA provided technical support and LSP oversight to the soil removal operations. A photoionization detector (PID) was used to identify impacted soils by "jar headspace" method as consistent with the WSC-94-400 Interim Soil Policy. In addition, Dexsil field-testing was utilized to qualify PID readings and identifying areas of significantly impact. . BEA also used the PID to monitor ambient air quality in consideration of worker safety and PPE in accordance with the Health and Safety Plan(HASP) [Refer to Appendix.F]. After a tailgate health and safety meeting for the review of the HASP, the contractor used a backhoe to remove remaining clean overburden material to access significantly impacted material beneath the former tank grave to approximately 3' (D) within the 10' x 10' area. Clean overburden was segregated. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 9 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 Soil removal was then advanced below 3' and impacted soils were loaded into dump trucks for direct transport to Aggregate Industries asphalt batching plant in South Dennis, MA under an executed BOL. Soil removal was initially advanced to a depth of 8' and sidewall and bottom of hole samples were collected for PID screening. Sidewall samples (SW) were reported as ND with a PID reading of 0.9 ppmv in the bottom of hole (BOH) sample. As a precautionary measure, the excavation was advanced to 10' and SW and BOH samples recollected for PID screening. The north, south and east SW samples, and BOH sample, reported a PID readings of ND (<0.2 ppmv). The SW-W: 3-10' sample reported a PID reading of 0.3 ppmv. Dexsil Petro Flag field testing (EPA SW-846, Method 9074) was used to test the SW-W: 3-10' and the BOH@10' "worst case" samples to estimate a total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration (TPH) in consideration of closure objectives. These samples reported a TPH concentration of 68 mg/kg and 52 mg/kg respectively as significantly below the 1,000 mg/kg threshold value. As such, the excavation was considered.of sufficient vertical and horizontal extent to have removed all significantly contaminated soils and the samples were preserved for analytical testing for Extractable and Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH/VPH). The final dimensions of the area of contaminated soil removal were reported as approximately 141 x 10'W x 10'D. A total of 44.77 tons of contaminated soils were generated from the excavation and delivered to Aggregate Industries for asphalt recycling. The following day, BEA inspected the partially backfilled excavation and infiltration system constructed of perforated piping in double washed aggregate. This system was installed to stabilize the excavation pending the receipt of confirmatory endpoint soil analysis and as a precautionary measure for any additional treatment needed. Once installed and inspected, plastic sheeting was installed over the stone and flowable fill was poured under the brick wall as a monolithic footing. Laboratory results for the groundwater testing conducted on January 31, 2013 were reported on February 11, 2014. These results reported all fractional EPH compounds, and target analytes as ND in each of the three monitoring wells. In all cases, the reporting limit concentration was less than the applicable GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. As such, no significant groundwater impact is documented following cleanup. These results are summarized in Table 3. Additional information on these analytical results and potential exposure risk evaluation are further discussed in the Risk Characterization of this report. Laboratory analysis of the end-point soil samples collected from the extent of contaminated soil removal were reported on February 18, 2014. These analytical results reported all EPH/VPH fractional compounds and target analytes as ND in the individual sidewall and bottom of hole areas. In all cases, the reporting limit concentrations were less than the most restrictive S-1/GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. As such, no significant soil impact is documented following cleanup. These results are summarized in Table 4. Additional information on these analytical results and potential exposure risk evaluation are further discussed in the Risk Characterization of this report. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 10 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 TABLE 3: GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELL TESTING RELATIVE TO METHOD 1- RISK CHARACTERIZATION STANDARDS. LOCATION MW-1R MW-2 - MW-3 SAMPLINGDATE ° 31JAN-14 r 31JAN-14 r 314AN-14 LABSAhIPLEID L1402798-01 L1462798-02 L1402798-03 GW-1-08 GW-2-08 GIV 3 98 Units Qua! Qual Qua! EPHn/MSTargets Westborough Lab 2-Methylnaphthalene 10 2000pp1 20000 ug/1 0.4 U OA U OA U Acenaphthene 20 Y 6000 ng/1 OA U OA U - OA U Acenaphthylene 30 - 10000. 40 ug/I OA U OA U OA U Anhracene 60 30- € ug/I 0.4 U : 0.4 U 0.4 U Benzo(a)anthrac_en_e 1 "1000 € ug/1 OA U OA U 6.4 U Beuzo(a)pyTene 0.2 Soo ug/1 02 U 0.2 U 0.2 U Benzo(b)Buoranthene 1 400 ug/1 0.4 U OA _U_ OA U Benzo(ghi)perylene 50 20 1 ug/l OA U OA U OA U Beozo(k)Ouoranthene 1 10G ug/1 OA U OA U OA U CI1-C22 Aromatics ± ug/1 100 U 100 U 100 U C11-C22 Aromatics,Adjusted 200 50000 5000 ug/i 100 U - 100 U 100 U C19- 36 Aliphatics 14000 500(0 t ug/1 100 U 100 U 100 U C9-C18 Aliphatics 700 5000 50000 ug/l 100 U 100 U 100 U Chrysene 2 70- ugA 0.4 U OA U OA U Dibeozo(a,h)anthracene OS 40 ug/l 0.4 U OA U OA U Fluoranthene - 90 200 no 0.4 U OA U 0.4 U Fluorene 30 40 ug/1 OA U OA U OA U ludeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.5 100 ug/I OA U 0.4 U 0.4 U Naphthalene 140 1000• 20030 ug/1 0.4 U OA U 0.4 U Phenanthreve 40 -10030 ug/l OA U OA U 0.4 U Pyrene 80 ', 2G _ ( ug/I 0.4 U OA U 0.4 U TABLE 4: ANALYTTCAL SUMMARY OF ENDPOINT SOH,SAMPLES RELATIVE TO THE S-1/GW-3,METHOD 1-RISK CHARACTERIZATION STANDARDS LOCATION SW-N:3-10' SW-S:_3-10' SW-E3-10' SW-W:340' BOIIBIW SAMPLINGDATE ' 10-FES-19 ' 30-F1B-14 " 10-FFB-14 ]0-FEB-14 r 16-FEB-14 LABSAMPLEID L1403223-01 Ll403223-02 L1403223-03 L1403223-04 L1403223-05 SVC3-08 Units Qua] Qua! Qual Qua] Qual General Chemistry-WestboruoghIab Solids Total :.:.,.:: % 973 96.8 96.1 96A 95.9 ) Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons-N�estborough Lab Benzene 30 mg/kg 0.116 U 0.141 U CS-C8Alipbatics mg/kg 291 U 352 U CS-CS Alipbatics,Adjusted 100 mg/kg 2.91 U 352 U C9-CIO Aromatics 100 mg/kg 291 U 352 U 6{72 Alipbatics mg/kg 2.91 U 352 U i C9L32 Aliphatics,Adjusted 1000 mg/kg 2.41 U 352 U FthAeuzene 500 mg/kg 0.116 U 0.141 U Methyl tert butyl ether 100 mg/kg 0.058 U 0.071 U Nopbtbaleue. 500. mglkg 0.233 U 0282 U o-Xyiene 500 mg/kg 0.116 - U 0.141 U pcm-Xylene 500 mg/kg 0.116 U 0.141 U Toluene Soo mg/kg 0116 U 0.141 U KWacinbletrol Peeum H_ydroce�hms Westborough lab 24Methylnaphthalene 300 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Acenophthene 1000 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Aceonphthylene 10 ag/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Anthrucene 1000 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Benzo(u)nnthracene 7 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Benzo(a)pyrene 2 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Beozo(b)Buoranthene 7 mg/kg 0336 U 6336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Beuzo(ghi)perylene 1000 mgtkg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U, 0327 U 0338 U Benzo(k)Buoranthene 70 mg/kg - 03 33 36 U 0336 U 04 U 0327 U 0338 U Cll-C22 Aromatics mg/kg 6.72 U 6.72 U 6.67 U 654 U 6.77 U C11-62 Aromatics,Adjusted 1000 mg/kg 6.72 U 6.72 U 6.67 U 654 U 6.77 U c C19-C36 Alipbatics 3000 mg/kg 6.72 U 6.72 U 6.67 U 654 U 6.77 U •6-08 Aliphatics 1000 mg/kg 6.72 U 6.72 U 6.67 U 6.54 U 6.77 U Chrysene 70 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.7 mgtkg 0336 U .0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Ftuoranthene 1066 mg/kg 0336 U - 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Fluorene 1000 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U Indeoo(1,23-cd)P)Teae 7 mg/kg 03M U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 0338 U 11 Naphthalene 500 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 0327 U 6338 U 9 Phenanthrene 500 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 U 0334 U 6327 U 0338 U Pyreoe 1000 mg/kg 0336 U 0336 6 0334 U 0327 m U_�,- „6338�� U„ FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE I 1 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 RISK CHARACTERIZATION/IMMINENT HAZARDS [Refer to Appendix D] Imminent Hazard Investigation The subject dwelling, adjacent to the release are, has been vacant through the course of the IRA as pending sale under the settlement of the Estate. The release area was capped following discovery to prevent rainfall infiltration and any potential for direct contact exposure to visitors or trespassers. The IRA has resulted in the removal of all significantly impacted soils to background conditions. Environmental-assessment has indicted low level groundwater impacts underlying the release area with concentrations reported as significantly below the most restrictive GW-1, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards as well as the applicable GW-3 standards. The most recent testing of groundwater immediately down gradient of the area of release and soil removal, reported all EPH and target analytes concentrations as ND as consistent with background conditions. As such, preliminary site controls and impacted soil excavation under the IRA have absolved any Imminent Hazard conditions at the property. Soil As presented above, the S-1/S-2 (GW-3) soils categories are applicable to Method I - Risk Characterization, as consistent with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0933. These standards were developed to evaluate potential ingestion (S-1), inhalation (S-2) and dermal contact and environmental (S-3) exposures, and also in consideration of potential leaching of contaminants to groundwater (GW-1/GW-3). For the purposes of risk characterization, the most restrictive S-1 (GW-3), Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards were considered in review of potential significant exposures related to foreseeable future uses and activities at the Site without restriction. The identification of petroleum stained soils as associated with an apparent sudden release of a significant volume of#2 fuel oil was the criteria in establishing a 2-Hour Reportable Condition and the IRA. Environmental assessment activities were used to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of significant soil impacts and soil removal was implemented under verbal approvals granted by the Department. Subsequent to the completion of soil removal operations within the defined area of impact, laboratory analysis reported all EPH/VPH and target analytes concentrations as Non-Detect (ND) wherein the reporting limits were less than the applicable and most stringent S-1/GW-3 standards. In fact, ND concentrations were consistent with background conditions with fractional EPH/VPH ;and target analytes reporting limit concentrations as equal to, or less than, the most restrictive S-1/GW-1 standards. As such, laboratory analytical under Method 1 Risk Characterization has demonstrated a condition of No Significant Risk of exposure to human and environmental receptors as associated with soil conditions following soil removal in the area of release. Notwithstanding, additional rationale regarding potential vapor intrusion and potential inhalation exposures outside Method 1 are discussed in the Indoor Air section below. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-_0607 PAGE 12 OF 17 MAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4 24825 Groundwater Based on the mapped designation as a Non-Potential Drinking Water Source area (NPDWSA) and proximity to groundwater as greater than 20' below grade, the GW-3 groundwater category is considered under Method 1 Risk Characterization, as consistent with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0932. These standards were developed to evaluate potential ingestion (GW-1) and environmental (GW-3) exposures including the potential leaching of fuel oil constituents to groundwater. Initial soil testing used to define the extent and magnitude of soil impacts reported concentrations of C9 to C22 aromatic and C9 to C18 aliphatic compounds above the S-1/G`W-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards as identifying the potential for leaching to groundwater. Impact to groundwater was initially investigated by the Insurer with the installation of a monitoring well through the release area. Analytical results for initial groundwater sampling at this temporary well reported fractional aromatic and aliphatic compounds in the groundwater at low level concentrations below the most restrictive GW-1 and applicable GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards. Although such concentrations did not represent a significant risk, the data did demonstrate the leaching of fuel oil constituents in soils to groundwater. Because the single well and single sample could not qualify groundwater flow direction nor characterize impact, additional wells were proposed for temporal and special evaluation of representativeness. Concurrent with soil removal operations, three monitoring wells were installed. and additional groundwater samples collected. Site specific groundwater flow demonstrated the representativeness.of the MW-1R monitoring well as immediately down gradient and adjacent to the release area. Analytical results for each of the three monitoring wells reported all EPH compounds and target analytes as Non-Detect (ND) wherein the reporting limit concentrations were below the applicable GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards and in the most restrictive GW-I standards. As such, laboratory analytical under Method 1 Risk Characterization has demonstrated a condition of No Significant Risk of exposure to human and environmental receptors as associated with groundwater conditions as related to the subject Site. Indoor Air Subsequent to contaminated soil removal operations, all VPH/BTEX concentrations have been reported ND as less than the most restrictive S-1/GW-1 and applicable S-1 (S-2)/GW-3, Method 1 Risk Characterization standards as consistent with background. Therefore, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0942(1)(d), no residual VOCs are reported in vadose zone soil adjacent to an occupied structure and as such, there is no adverse impact to indoor air or potential inhalation exposure. In review of existing Site and environmental conditions, laboratory analysis of confirmatory soil samples under Method 1 Risk Characterization has demonstrated a condition of No Significant Risk relative to potential vapor intrusion and inhalation exposures. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 13 OF 17 I AC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT &z REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION The following presents a discussion of the Site information used to support the RAO as required by 310 CMR 40.1056(2)(k) and incorporating the guidance provided in Mass DEP Policy WSC-07-350. It provides an evaluation and demonstration of the adequacy of the spatial .and temporal data sets used to support the RAO and makes conclusions on the accuracy, precision and sensitivity of the data used. Conceptual Site Model An abandoned AST with corrosion of metal resulted in a breach of the vessel and an obvious release of fuel oil into underlying soils. Subsequent soil testing indicated a finite area of soil impact as likely attributed to sludge accumulation having prevented a catastrophic release of a greater volume that was pumped from the vessel prior to removal. Notwithstanding, fuel oil impacts to soil apparently did leach to groundwater within the immediate release area at low level concentrations. Capping of the release area was used to prevent any further mobilization pending soil removal. Subsequent soil removal resulted in source elimination wherein background conditions were attained. A second round of groundwater sampling was conducted and reported no groundwater impacts as attenuated from the previous testing. Expedited soil removal was selected as the preferred remedial strategy as having the greatest chance for a complete, successful cleanup. End point soil sampling and groundwater analysis shows that this strategy was effective in eliminating potential exposures and in meeting closure objectives as a permanent solution without restriction to activities or use of the property as documented herein. Field Screening PID screening and Dexsil Petro Flag field-testing were conducted to qualify petroleum concentrations and to make informed dynamic decisions in the field in advance of submitting samples for MA Certified analyses. Samples with higher levels of TOVs, Petro Flag concentrations, discoloration and/or odor were 'generally more contaminated than the surrounding exposure point locations. Comparison of visual and olfactory observations, TOV and Dexsil Petro Flag screening indicates the field screening and testing data correlates well with the laboratory analytical data. Sampling Locations The removal of soils was performed based on prior analytical results as supported in the field by PID screening and visual observations as work progressed from contaminated soil to clean soil. PID screening and Dexsil Petro Flag field testing were also used to qualify the horizontal and vertical extent of contaminated soil in support of excavation and loading activities. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 14 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 EPH/PAH analysis was used to evaluate the source of contamination in review of disposal alternatives for remedial waste. Soil samples were collected for analyses from the extent of soil removal from representative bottom-of-hole and sidewall areas as critical samples. All end-point soil samples were preserved for risk-based EPH and target PAH analysis. Based on field PID screening of headspace concentrations, the two "worst-case" confirmatory soil samples, SW-E: 4-10' and BOH 2@ 10', were also preserved for analysis of risk-based VPH and target BTEX analytes concentrations. The samples were placed in appropriately preserved laboratory containers in the field and stored on ice in a cooler, and subsequently within a refrigerator, pending shipment to the laboratory under a properly executed chain-of-custody. All such analysis were reported as ND as consistent with background. The reporting limit concentrations were below the applicable S-1/GW-3 Method 1 Risk Characterization Standards. Groundwater samples were taken at the MW-1 and MW-1R locations as representative of groundwater impacts associated with the release area as within the solute pathway. Groundwater samples at MW-2 and MW-3 are representative of background conditions. Field duplicates or trip blanks were not collected nor considered necessary because the disposal Site was small, the removal operations had produced clean conditions and QA/QC protocols were employed and documented. Temporal Data Soil samples were collected subsequent to the excavation of contaminated material. Such source removal and associated sampling began on February 10, 2013 and was completed that same day. Due to the nature of soil removal as the primary remedial strategy, temporal data for soils was not applicable in consideration of final exposure risks and laboratory analysis of confirmatory end-point samples was relied on for risk characterization. In the case of groundwater, analytical results from the initial MW-1 monitoring well sampling in November 1, 2013 and January 31, 2014 are considered. Based on the low level concentrations reported and historic nature of the release with all impacted soils removed, no additional temporal data has been gathered or deemed necessary to evaluate potential exposure risk or support regulatory project closure with a Class A-2 RAO in a NPDWSA. Field Completeness The analytical data set is complete. Data from the extent of excavation was obtained as representing the extent of significant impact and the limits of contaminated soil removal. The complete data set supports the RAO wherein all QA/QC thresholds, and CAM and Presumptive Certainty requirements,were met or that modifications were technically justified. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 15 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 Data Inconsistency No inconsistent data was identified. Visual observations, odors and field screening were generally well correlated. No significant inconsistency was identified between the field screening of end-point soil samples and their respective laboratory analyses. Data Not Used The complete analytical data set associated with the representative composited soil sample for waste characterization was employed towards qualification of significant petroleum hydrocarbon impacts and risk characterization. The complete analytical data set associated with confirmatory end-point soil samples from the area of contaminated soil removal was considered in review of remedial performance and risk characterization. Data Usability The analytical data used was validated and justified as representative of environmental conditions. Soil samples from the extent of excavation were collected as representing discrete exposures. The methods utilized (PID, Dexsil Petro Flag soil screening, EPH, VPH) all respond to the contaminants of concern identified in the release and are appropriate for a release of fuel oil. Based on the Representativeness Evaluation, the analytical data quality of all of the final end-point soil samples has been reviewed as critical data. Some deficiencies were identified as within the laboratory QA/QC requirements and performance standards as associated with the contaminated stockpile sample (Contaminated Stockpile Composite) submitted towards preliminary environmental assessment and waste characterization. The laboratory analytical for waste-characterization did not meet all CAM requirements. However, the data was considered representative for intended disposal characterization and was relied on for limited application in the identification of significant soil impacts (> RCS-1), in review of disposal alternatives and for approval by the recycling facility under their permitting requirements. The laboratory analytical report associated with confirmatory soil samples from the area of contaminated soil removal, as representing critical samples for risk characterization, identified no QA/QC deficiencies as meeting CAM requirements and documenting Presumptive Certainty in support of the RAO. The laboratory analytical data for the groundwater analysis did report deficiencies in the QC performance standards (Section H) for both the November 2013 and January 2014 samples as related to LCS/LCSD recovery for Nonane and Decane as difficult analytes without direction bias. All other target analytes were within acceptable ranges. In the VPH analysis, the high recovery of dibromotoluene as a potentially high- bias was considered. Wherein the concentrations were ND or low levels significantly less than the most applicable standards, the groundwater results were deemed sufficiently representative to evaluate potential exposure risks. FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATE/13EA13--0607 PAGE 16 OF 17 IRAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 The analytical data provided in support of this RAO has met the method quality control requirements and performance standards for "Presumptive Certainty" as described in CAM VII A, Section 2.0 (a), (b), (c), and (d) or have been evaluated as comparable to CAM requirements (Refer to Appendix D). The validity and defensibility of the analytical data used to support the findings of the RAO for this Site with respect to accuracy, precision and completeness pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056(2)(k) have therefore been satisfied. Based on Data Usability and Representativeness evaluations, it has been determined that the Site data is sufficiently representative of actual Site conditions and may be used as scientifically justified to support this Class A-2 RAO as consistent with the provisions of MA DEP Policy WSC-07-350. As such, the reported petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (EPH/VPH) subsequent to the completion of waste site cleanup operations, reported as significantly less than the S-1/S-2/S-3 (GW-1/GW-3), Method 1 Risk Characterization standards, are appropriate to document No Significant Risk where background conditions have been achieved. Evaluation of Feasibility to Reach Background A review of cost and feasibility to meet background conditions through a groundwater treatment was considered as part of this IRA, in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.1020. Low level concentrations of C11 to C22 aromatic and C9 to C18 aliphatic compounds in the MW-1 monitoring well tested in November 2013 as followed by ND for all parameters in MW-1R in January 2014 are considered de minimus. In the absence of soil impacts and as non- persistent, naturally degrading petroleum-related compounds, any such concentrations meet the "Conditions of Categorical Infeasibility" established in Section 9.3.2 of the MA DEP p3licy "Conducting Feasibility Evaluations Under the MCP" (WSC-04-160), as specifically pertaining to Section 9.3.2.3, "Remediation of Deg_adable (Non-persistent) Contaminants". Based on a Site-specific cost-benefit evaluation, treatment towards background concentrations without significant risk reduction is considered infeasible, and financially unjustified, as consistent with the provisions of Section 9.3.3, "Site-Specific Evaluation of the Feasibility to Achieve or Approach Background". CONCLUSIONS Based on the successful removal of impacted soils from the identified area of release wherein background conditions are achieved, and as based on the most recent groundwater testing as Non-Detect as immediately down gradient and adjacent to the area of soil removal, a condition of"No Significant Risk" exists for all activities and uses of the defined Site. As such, a Permanent Solution has been achieved and a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO), applicable for the closure of this project, in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.1036 and 40.1056. The findings of this investigation, as represented herein, set forth the rationale and technical justifications for the LSP opimcns offered, as established by the certifications made on FEBRUARY 21,2014 MACKENZIE ESTATEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 17 OF 17 MAC/CLASS A-2 RAO,RTN 4-24825 the attached BWSC-104 and BWSC-105 Transmittal Forms. The LSP opinions are based on the available data and regulations in effect at the time of this reporting. Should you have any questions regarding the project or require additional information, please contact our office at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, BE NV MENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Davi4 C e tt, SP Jop D. a ema ' ie t,Project Manager Princ S nior Environmen a Scientist Encl: Supporting Documentation [Appendices A-F] Cc: Kristine O'Sullivan, Executrix Estate of Muriel Mackenzie Jeffrey Parent/Jennifer Galoski—Liberty Mutual Insurance Thomas McKean- Barnstable Board of Health* Thomas Lynch—Barnstable Town Manager* Deputy Chief Dean Melanson—Hyannis Fire Department* *NOTE: In accordance with our paper reduction policy,Public Notice Distribution to named parties to be limited to Title Page, Report Narrative and Site Plan only. Full report will be provided on request from BEA or is available online at the MA DEP website bitp:Hdb.state.ma.us/dep/cleanup/sites/seargh-.asp. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION COMPLETION , PORT With CLASS A2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT MA DEP RTN 4-24825 Mackenzie Residential Property 356 South Street Hyannis,MA BEA13-10607 FEBRUARY 21, 2014 Prepared By: BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,INC. 1573 Main Street-P.O. Box 1743 Brewster,MA 02631 David C.Bennett,LSP. Prepared For: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Offices,Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section 20 Riverside Drive-Lakeville,MA. 02347 Andy Jones, Case Officer On Behalf Of. Estate of Muriel Mackenzie Kristine O'Sullivan,Executrix 53 Main Street, S-1 —Goffstown,NH 03045 APPENDIX A: Reference Plans -Figure 1: Site Locus Plan [USGS Topographic Quad.,Hyannis,MA. 1998] (excerpt) -Figure 2: Ground-Water Resources of Cape Cod,MA[LeBlanc et al, 1986] (excerpt) -Figure 3:MA DEP BWSC GIS Map [2013] -Site Plan entitled, "Immediate Response Action Completion..." prepared by BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,INC.,dated February 19,2014. APPENDIX B: Field Reports -Inspector's Daily Record Forms [#1 (I/17/14)to,#6(2/11/14)] -Geologic Borehole Logs [GP-2/MW-IR, GP-3/MW-2, GP-4/MW-3] -Monitoring Well Sampling Logs [1/31/14,2/11/14] APPENDIX C: Environmental Records -Aggregate Industries Soil Recycling Submittal -BWSC-112: MA DEP Bill of Lading to Transport Remediation Waste to Recycling Facility -BWSC-112: MA DEP Bill of Lading Attestation of Shipment to Recycling Facility -Notice of Anticipated Delay in Filing(2/6/14) -BWSC-104: Response Action Outcome Statement w/eDEP Submittal Summary and Receipt -BWSC-105:Immediate Response Action Transmittal Form w/eDEP Submittal Summary,Receipt APPENDIX D: Laboratory Analysis -Groundwater[Alpha#L1322254(11/8/13)] -Groundwater[Alpha#L1402798(2/11/14)] -Soil Confirmatory Endpoints [Alpha#L1403223 (2/18/14)] APPENDIX E: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan APPENDIX F: Health and Safety Plan 1 f BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS,GEOLOGISTS,ENGINEERS 1573 Main Street,P.O.Box 1743 (508)896-1706 Brewster,MA 02631 fax(508)896-5109 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: DATE: JOB NUMBER: Andy-Jones,Case Officer 12/11/2013 BEA13-10607 MA DEP(SERO) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section 20 Riverside Drive REGARDING: Lakeville,MA 02347 IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION PLAN RTN 4-24825 SHIPPING METHOD: Regular Mail ❑ Pick Up ❑ Priority Mail ❑ Hand Deliver ❑ Express Mail ❑ Other upload ❑X Certified Mail ❑ Green Card/RR ❑ COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 12/4/13 Immediate Response Action Plan Estate of Muriel Mackenzie,RTN 4-24825 356 South Street,Hyannis For review and comment: ❑ For approval: ❑ As requested: ❑ For your use: ❑ REMARKS: cc: Kristine O'Sullivan,Executrix-Estate of Muriel Mackenzie(report on CD) Leigh Anne Sapienza,Consultant to Insurer-Stantec(report on CD) Jeffrey Parent-Liberty Mutual Insurance(report on CD) Thomas McKean-Barnstable Board of Health(narrative,title page and site plan only) Cynthia Martin,Hazardous"Materials Inspectors Town of Barnstable(narrative,title page and site plan only) Thomas-Lynch-Barnstable Town Manager(narrative,title page and site plan only) Deputy Chief Dean Melanson-Hyannis Fire Department(narrative,title page and site plan only) FROM: DCB,JTW If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once ja]ENl ETT NVIRO.NMENTAL ssOCIATEs9 INCO LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS & GEOLOGISTS 6 ENGINEERS 1573 Main Street-P.O. Box 1743, Brewster, MA 02631 O 508-896-1706 Fax 508-896-5109 www.bennett-ea.com BEA13-10607 December 4, 2013 Mr. Andy Jones, Case Officer MA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(MA DEP) Southeast Regional Offices (SERO) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section(BWSC/ERS) 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville,MA 02347 RE: IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION PLAN Estate of Muriel Mackenzie, RTN 4-24825 356 South Street, MA [Map/Block 308/099] Dear Mr. Jones, Y BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC. has prepared the following Immediate Response Action Plan (IRAP) and.Supporting Documentation as a summary of initial discovery, environmental assessment and remedial response actions conducted at the above referenced.property in the initial 60 days since release discovery and MA DEP Release Notification. This work has been to identify potential exposures and mitigate environmental and human health hazards associated with the release of an unknown quantity of #2 fuel oil from an abandoned 275-gallon underground storage tank (UST) that was identified at the time of tank removal. This Immediate Response Action Plan further establishes the technical rationale and justification for the additional response actions proposed herein in accordance with the provisions of the MA Contingency Plan (MCP) under the general provisions of 310 CMR 40.0000 and specific to 310 CMR 40.0410. Environmental assessment activities conducted to date were used to establish the extent of significant soil impact for source removal to absolve potential exposures identified and at the source of groundwater impacts identified. Initial groundwater sampling was conducted at a temporary well (MW-1) installed as part of homeowner insurance claim review as located within the former UST grave. Laboratory analytical results indicated.concentrations of fractional EPH were below the applicable GW-3, Method 1 — Rusk Characterization standards, with no concentrations of target PAHs and no concentrations of fractional VPH or target BTEX analytes above the laboratory method detection limits. The installation and sampling of three groundwater monitoring wells with EPH/VPH laboratory analysis is proposed herein following soil removal. In accordance with MA DEP Policy #WSC-02-411 "Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach" this additional testing will be used to confirm the spatial and temporal representativeness of the previous groundwater data in consideration of potential exposure risk and closure objectives. EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE WASTE SITE CLEANUP SITE ASSESSMENT PERMITTING ® SEPTIC DESIGN&INSPECTION WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT,OPERATION&MAINTENANCE 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT,OPERATION&MAINTENANCE DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 2 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA At the time of this writing the removal of up to 50 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soils has been verbally approved under the IRA by the Department and work is scheduled for later in December. Subsequent to the completion of soil removal and end point soil sampling, additional environmental assessment activities are proposed, including the re-installation of groundwater monitoring wells and groundwater sampling with laboratory analysis, to qualify risks associated with groundwater impacts identified. The remedial response actions conducted as described herein have been conducted under LSP oversight in a manner consistent with the MCP Response Action Performance Standards (RAPS) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0191 and the QA/QC policies of BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC. The facts and statements herein are, to the best of our knowledge, a true and accurate representation of the Site activities, remedial response actions and environmental conditions associated with the project and serve as the basis of future remedial response activities prescribed as acknowledge by the LSP Opinions on the attached Transmittal Forms. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS [Refer to Appendix A—Site Plan and Reference Maps] The subject property at 356 South Street in Hyannis, MA is located along the north side of South Street, approximately 175 feet east of the intersection of South Street and Pine Ave. The property contains 0.27 acres of residential land area and is developed by a 2-story Cape Cod style dwelling in the southern (front) portion of the property and a 1 1/2 story dwelling in the northern (rear) portion of the property. The surrounding area is highly developed with year- round residential dwellings, as well as commercial properties along South Street and Main Street to the north of the subject property. Access to the subject property is unrestricted with high frequency/high intensity of use with children potentially present. The area of release, as adjacent to the exterior wall of the dwelling, is sim_larly unrestricted with high frequency/low intensity of use with children potentially present [Refer to Figure 1]. As such, the owners and visitors to the property, and immediate abutters, are identified as the primary potential human receptors. Hydrologic references indicate groundwater exists at approximately 12' NGVD (+/-) as projected within 25' of ground surface. Regional groundwater contours indicate a southeast flow direction towards Lewis Bay and Nantucket Sound beyond. There are also some freshwater wetlands shown on the map approximately 1,000-feet southeast of the subject property which discharge to Lewis Bay. Installation and subsequent gauging of the temporary monitoring well (MW-1) reported local groundwater at approximately 20' bgs. Local groundwater flow direction has not been established as of yet, but is expected to be consistent with regional flow direction. As such, the closest down gradient wetlands leading to Lewis Bay is identified as the primary potential environmental receptor [Refer to Figure 2]. According to the MA DEP BWSC GIS mapping program, the subject property is not located within the Zone II Protective Radius of a Public Water Supply (PWS), nor is it.located within the Zone A protective radius of any surface water reservoir. The subject property is i DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 3 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA shown as being within a Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) as likely based on the level of development in the urbanized downtown Hyannis area. The subject property and surrounding area are served by municipal water and sewer. Based on this mapping and residential use the RCS-1 and RCGW-2 Reportable Concentrations are applicable to soil and groundwater per 310 CMR 40.0361 and 40.0362, respectively. Based on the NPDWSA designation and proximity to groundwater, the GW-3, Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards are applicable and are considered as a conservative measure of exposure risks in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0974 . Based on Site conditions relative to frequency/intensity of use and accessibility of soils, the S-2/S-3 (GW-3), Method 1 — Risk Characterization standards are applicable per 310 CMR 40.0975. The strictest applicable S- 1 (GW-3) Method 1 Risk Characterization standards are considered against reported analytical results in review of all foreseeable future activities and uses of the subject property. These standards were developed in consideration of potential ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact exposures to humans, environmental impacts to environmental receptors, and in review of potential leaching.of contaminants to groundwater [Refer to Figure 3]. It is acknowledged that Method 1 is limited as a screening tool and does not fully qualify vapor entry to occupied structures and indoor inhalation standards and ecological risk characterization. As such, as driven by environmental conditions,-Method 2 and Method 3 — Risk Characterizations may be further employed to evaluate potential human and environmental exposures. The defined Site, as that portion of the subject property where the fuel oil release has migrated or otherwise come to be located, is a portion of the subject property as within a 20' x 20' area roughly centered on location of the former UST grave on the western side of the front dwelling along the abutting property sideline. The apparent vertical extent of significant soils impacts (> S-1/GW-3) within the defined Site extend to a depth of some 10-12' below grade [Refer to Site Plan]. BACKGROUND/PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT [Refer to Appendix B] On October 10, 2013, BEA personnel were at the subject property as subcontracted by Tan Removal Services to conduct soil certification at the time of UST removals as is the policy of the Hyannis Fire Department. Upon arrival at the property, the 275-gallon, single-walled UST in the southern (front) portion of the property, had been uncovered, cut open and cleaned in preparation to remove the tank from the ground. Barnstable Fire Department personnel (Capt. Dean Melanson) were also on-site to witness the UST removal. The tank was subsequently removed from the ground and placed on plastic adjacent to the tank grave. Subsequent to removing and cleaning the vessel, a hole (1" diameter) was observed at the southern end of the tank. Three additional holes (approx. '/4" diameter) were also observed in the southern end of the bottom of the tank. Based on the apparent release of oil from an abandoned UST, Hyannis Fire Department personnel contacted the MA DEP to report the release under a 2- Hour condition for threat of catastrophic release [Refer to Photograph 1]. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 4 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET—HYANNIS,MA t w i. " x x 7� _ pI� . � , ' { M1S .F :' ���'�"w# �3"!-.� �'We,F"}` �•yxa � N:':R.a '! .:i.S y _ :j �``rcs �, *r � �'.-i ���i ' ,p, � .YF � •� 'yY•r ���1 _ yin, � •{_ -7 , jar3r t' .4.. `'�y4—•' " �3„q,* �•i, 1 i 4a `�.;�, .�{ J 4� .G �e P-9� %yfVey r _ }y PHOTOGRAPH 1: showing condition of tank at time of removal as evidence of leakage as the basis of MA DEP Release Notification by Hyannis Fire Department The second abandoned UST, formerly servicing the residence at the northern(rear) portion of the property was removed without incident. Approximately 10-gallons of oily sludge were removed from each of the tanks. The oily sludge was later transported off-site, as part of a larger disposal run, by Autobody Solvent Recovery Corp. and taken to Murphy's Waste Oil Service, Inc. for recycling. Both tanks were subsequently taken to Middleboro Recycling for proper disposal [Refer to Appendix B]. BEA personnel subsequently performed a hand boring for soil sampling within the first UST grave in the area of identified impact.. Two-foot composite soil samples were collected with a stainless-steel bucket auger until refusal at 9' below grade. The soil samples were then agitated to develop organic vapors and field screened with a PID for TOV, as evidence of petroleum impact, by "jar headspace" method, as consistent with the MA DEP policy WSC-94-400. Field TOV screening reported elevated PID readings (35-50 ppmv) as indicating significant impacts to at least 9' bgs and heavily weathered petroleum odor noted. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 5 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA A composite soil sample was sent to Alpha Analytical Laboratory for EPH analysis to qualify soil impact and to characterize soils for disposal in anticipation of expedited soil removal under verbal IRA. authorization. Results of laboratory analysis reported concentrations of fractional EPH and 2-Methylnaphthalene above the applicable RCS-1 Reporting Concentrations, qualifying significant impact. These results are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Soil Sample Results Compared to RCS-1 Criteria Mackenzie Estate-356 South St.-Hyannis,MA LOCATION BB-1:4-9 SAMPLING DATE 10-OCT-13 LAB SAMPLE ID L1320408-01 RCS-1 Units Extractable Petroleum Hydrocaibons 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.7 mg/kg 2.23 Acenaphthene _ ._ .... .. . . 4._.. _mg/kg ND(<1.76) Acenaphthylene 1 mg/kg !. ND�( l� 76) Anthracene 1000 rn kg ND(<1.76) Benzo(a)anthracene _ . 7..... . . ..mg/kg ND(<1 76) Benzo(a)pyrene.. . _ ? .. ..: . mg/kg. .. . ND(<1.76). . Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Benzo(ghi)perylene . . .. . _ 1000. . . M g...... .ND(<1 76).. .. Benzo(k)fluoranthene 70 rn/k ND(<1.76), C11-C22 Aromatics mg/kg 1480 C11-C22 Aromatics,Adjusted 1000 mg/kg 1470 C19-C36 Aliphatics 3000 mg/kg 1240 C9-C18 0 Ali hatics 100 m k 4920' p. _ . _. _ _..&9 Chrysene _ .. . ..._.. .. _... .. 76. ..... . mg�kg..... ND(<1.76) , Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.7 mg/kg Fluoranthene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Fluorene 1000 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Inden9(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 7 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Naphthalene . ._... _.. 4. _. . . ...mpg. . .. .ND(<1 76) _.. Phenanthrene 10 mg/kg ND(<1.76) Pyrene 1000 BEA subsequently contacted the Estate Representatives and advised them of environmental conditions and of Notification and Remedial Response obligations under the MCP. BEA subsequently provided a proposal for the continuation of professional environmental services and LSP oversight for the undertaking an Immediate Response Action. Upon engagement, additional assessment activities were prioritized to identify potential exposures risk and to determine the extent and magnitude of such impacts for the review and selection of an appropriate remedial strategy. The Estate was advised to contact the property Insurer to make a claim for coverage determination as based on expressed financial constraints. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 6 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT [Refer to Appendix B] BEA personnel traveled to the Site on October 17, 2013 to conduct additional assessment to define the extent and magnitude of impact and qualify the apparent threat of groundwater impact as coordinated through the Insurer. The Insurer's representative was also at the property to observe the assessment activities and to record field screening results. Soil BEA performed three borings using`a manual Geoprobe soil sampler with Shelby tubes. Boring HB-lA was advanced in the area of HB-1 in an attempt to define the vertical extent of significant fuel oil impacts. Hand boring HB-2 was advanced to the west of the former tank grave to determine the lateral extent of impact closest to the abutter's property line. Hand Boring HB-4 was performed by coring a hole through the basement floor east of the former tank grave to determine if there was impact beneath the dwelling. Hand boring HB-3 was proposed to the south but never performed due to time limitations and soil conditions wherein significant cobbles were encountered within the glacial outwash sands that predominate. Hand borings HB-2 and HB-4 are relied upon to determine the lateral extent of significant soil impacts. Hand boring HB- lA is relied upon to establish the vertical extent of significant soil impacts. The 2' samples collected at each of these locations were placed in 250-milliliter glass jars and sealed with aluminum septa. The soil samples were then agitated to develop organic vapors and field screened with a PID for organic vapors, as evidence of petroleum impact, by "jar headspace" method, as consistent with the MA DEP policy WSC-94-400. Field screening reported PID readings as indicating significant impacts at the HB-lA and HB-2 locations and were used in the selection of soil samples for additional field testing and/or confirmatory laboratory analysis. No PID readings within the detector sensitivity were observed in the HB-4 location. Based on relative organic vapor concentrations PID screening indicated fuel oil impact to a depth of some 15-17 bgs HB-lA location. BEA submitted select soil samples for extractable petroleum hydrocarbon with target polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (EPH/PAH) to qualify the extent of significant impacts in review of remedial response and risk characterization. Laboratory analytical results were received on October 25, 2013. The results reported EPH and target PAH concentrations as below the method detection limits in the HB-lA: 15-17' sample and the HB-4: 6-14' sample. Low concentrations of fractional EPH were reported in the HB-2: 8-12' sample, below the applicable S-2 and S-3/GW-3 and most stringent S-1/GW-1 Method 1 Risk Characterization Standards. These results, relative to the Method 1 — Risk Characterization standards are presented on Table 2 below. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 7 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET—HYANNIS,MA Table 2•_$oil_Sample Results Compared to Method 1 Standards Mackenzie Estate-356 South Street-H annis MA LOCATION HB-1A: 15-17 HB-2:8-12 HB-4:6-14' SAMPLING DATE 17-OCT-13 17-OCT-13 17-OCT-13 LAB SAMPLE ID L1320996-01 L1320996-02 L1320996-03 S1/GWI S1/GW2 S1/GW3 Units Extractable PetroleupiHydPoca bons 2-Methylnaphthalene 0 7 80 300 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Acenaphthene 4 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.331 -13) ND(<034) ND(<0.335) Acenaphthylene_ 1 600 10 mg/kg ND(<0,333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0335) Anthracene 1000.. 10.00 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<034) ND(<0.335) Benzo(a)anthracene 7. . . . _.. .7 7 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0335) Benzo(a)pyrene 2._ ._ . ? . 2 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Benzo(b)puoranthene 7 7 7. ... . .mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335). Benzo(ghi)perylene _ 1000, , 1000. . 1000 In ND_(<0.333). ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 70 70 70 mg/kg ND(<0,333) ND(<0.335) C11-C22 Aromatics . _..... _... . ...... . .._ ..._.. _... mAg... . ND(<6.66) (<6.69)... C11-C22 Aromatics,Adjusted 1000 1000. 1000 mg/kg ND(<6.66) 58.7 ND(<6.69) C19 C36 Ahphahcs 3000 3000 3000 mg/kg ND(<6,66) 513 ND(<6.69) C9-C18 Aliphatics 1000 1000 1000. mg/kg ND(<6.66)_ 104 ND(<6.69) Chrysene. .. 70. ... . . .70.. 70 mg kg.... ..ND(<0.333). . .ND(<0.34) . ..ND(<0.335)... Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.7- .0.7.. 0.7 mg/kg ND(<0.31.33) ND(<0.34) ND(<0335) Fluoran 0thene „1000 100 .1000 mg/kg ND(<0,333). _ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335),. Fluorene_ 1000 11, 1000„ _ 1000 m ND <O.333 ND <0.34 ND <0.335 ._. . . (. - . .)... _ ..( ...__) . ........(. . .._._)... Indeno(1,23 cd)Pyrene.... ................._... ._...7 .__ ... . .7...... . _..7 . ...._m&g.. ...ND(<0.333).... .ND(<0 34) ...: ND(<0.335),. Naphthalene__.... ... . . . ... .... ... .. .._ ....4._ . . . . . 40 500 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) Phenanthrene 10 500 500. . mg/kg ND(<0,333) ND(<0.34) ND(<0.335) _ . Pyrene 1000 1000 1000 mg/kg ND(<0.333) ND.(<0.34). ND(<0.335) Based on vertical measurement of the HB-lA boring, the HB-lA soil samples were considered an accurate representation of the vertical extent of significant impact as apparently limited to 15' bgs. .Based on field screening and laboratory analytical results, the anticipated area of significantly impacted soil removal was estimated as within an approximate 10' x 10' area adjacent to the western exterior wall of the house to approximately 10-12' deep. Groundwater Based on the estimated depth to groundwater and the apparent threat of groundwater impact from a historic release of an unknown quantity of fuel oil with a significant hole in the bottom of the tank, BEA had recommended the installation and testing of three (3) monitoring wells to determine site specific groundwater flow direction and special and temporal representativeness of groundwater samples collected. Insurer agreed to install a single groundwater monitoring well to investigate the potential of groundwater impact as part their internal claim review under the liability coverage afforded. As such, BEA traveled to the subject property on November 1, 2013 and met the Insurer's representative (Stantec) and their subcontractor, New England Geotech, to perform a single Geoprobe boring with the installation DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIEBEAI3-10607 PAGE 8 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET—HYANNIS,MA of a single groundwater monitoring well offsetting HB-1 in the defined release area to qualify potential groundwater impacts in review of potential exposure risk and remedial response alternatives. Soil samples were PID screened with similar results reported in the HB-1 and HB- lA samples. Groundwater was reported at approximately 20' bgs and a small diameter well (V Schedule 40 PVC) installed with some 5' of penetration of the ten foot screen. Subsequent to installation,the well was purged and a groundwater samples were collected by both Stantec and BEA personnel for EPH/PAH and VPH/BTEX in review of potential fuel oil contamination. Laboratory analytical data was received by Stantec on November 5, 2013, and by BEA on November 8, 2013. Both sets of analytical results reported low concentrations of fractional EPH below the applicable GW-3 as well as the GW-1 and GW-2 Method 1 -Risk Characterization Standards. All other concentrations of PAHs, fractional VPH and target anaiytes were reported as ND. These results, relative to the Method 1 standards are represented on Table 2 below. Table 3:Groundwater Sample Results Compared to Method 1 Standards Mackenzie Estate-356 South Street-H annis MA _ _Alpha Analytical.. LOCATION MW-1 SAMPLING DATE 017NOV-13 LAB SAMPLE ID L1322254-01 9W-1 GW-2 GW-3 Units Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene 5 2000 10000 ugfl ND(<2). _ _.. .. C5-C8 Aliphatics_ ug/1. ND(<50) C5-C8 Aliphatics,Adjusted c00 3600 50000 ug/1 ND(<50) C9-C10 Aromatics 200 7000 50000 ug/1 ND(<50) C9-C12Aliphatics u9/1 ND(<50). C9-C12,liphatics,Adjusted 100 5000 50000 ug/1 ND(<50) Ethylbenzene '700 20000 5000 ug/1 ND(<2) Methyl tert butyl ether 70 5.0000 50000 ug/.1 ND(<3) Naphthalene 140. 1000 20000 ug/1 ND(<4) o-Xylene 10000 9000 5000 ug/1 ND(<2) p/m-Xylene, 10000 9000 5000 ug/1 ND(<2) Toluene 1000 50000 40000 no ND <2 EPH w/Targets _ A _a R- . . . . . . . . . ... ... . TlMethylnaphthalene . 10 2000 20000 ug/1 ND(<0.4) . Acenaphthene. 20 6000 ug/1 ND(<0.4) Acenaphthylene 30 10000 40 ug/1 ND(<0.4) Anthracene 60 _ 30 .. ug/1 ND(<0.4) Benzo(a)anthracene 1 1000 ug/I ND(<0.4) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 500 ug/1 ND(<0.2) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 400 ug/1 ND(<0.4) Benzo(glu)perylene. . . . . ... 50. . - . . .. . .20 . . . . u!/I. . ... ...ND(<0.4). Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 100 ug/1 ND(<0.4) Cl1-C22Aromatics up�l ,.. 171 Cl 1-C22 Aromatics,Adjusted 200 50000 5000 ug/1 171 C197C36 Niphapcs. 1.4000 50000 ug1 107 C9-Cl8 Aliphatics 700 5000 50000 u/1 237 Chrysene. 2 70 ug/l _ ND(<0.4) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene _ 0.5 40 ..___ug'/1_. _ ND Fluoranthene. 90 .._ _......... . ._200..... PPS. .. ... . .ND(<0.4). . .. Fluorene 30 40 ug/1 ND In4eno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene _.. . . . . . _..0:5._ .. . ._ ... 100..... . .��1..... .. .....ND(<0.4) . ... Naphthalene 140 1000 20000 1 90 Phenanthrene 40 10000 ug/1 ND(<0.4) Pyrene 80 20 ug/1 ND(<0.4). DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIEBEAI3-10607 ` PAGE 9 OF 13 r I AP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA On instructions from the Insurer, the monitoring well was removed and the borehole filed with bentonite. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION [Refer to Appendix C] . The information from the assessment of current soil and groundwater conditions was used to develop a remedial strategy for the aggressive excavation of significant soilimpact from the identified release area adjacent to the dwelling as noted on the Site Plan. The removal of some 50 yards of contaminated soils from immediately next to the western foundation wall will require shoring in anticipation of partial undermining of the foundation wall. Subsequent to the review of such requirements, excavation logistics, costs and restoration, it has been determined that the installation of three atlas piers is necessary to accommodate the IRA, wherein the soil removal strategy has the greatest probability of success to meet a permanent solution, in the shortest period of time. Subsequent to the installation of appropriate foundation shoring, the contractor will use an excavator to remove clean overburden material to access significantly impacted material beneath the former tank grave within the 10' x 10' area to an approximate depth of 12'. Impacted soils will be directly loaded into dump trucks for direct transport to Aggregate Industries asphalt batching plant in South Dennis, MA under an executed BOL. BEA will provide technical assistance and LSP oversight to the soil removal operations. Field PID screening and Dexsil field-testing will be utilized as towards technical guidance in support of excavation operations and soil removal. BEA will also monitor ambient air quality in consideration of worker safety and PPE in accordance with the Health and Safety Plan [Refer to Appendix F]. When field screening_indicates the effective removal of all significant soil impact, end- point samples will be collected along the sidewall and bottom of hole areas and preserved for MA Certified analysis of EPH/PAH and VPH/BTEX in review of remedial response performance and risk characterization. TPH analysis may be used as a cost-saving measure wherein field- testing indicates petroleum impacts are likely absent. As dependent on analytical test results for endpoint samples, an infiltration gallery may be constructed and installed along the bottom-of-hole'upon the completion of soil removal operations to deliver remedial additives, if necessary, to mitigate potential residual impact in soils or groundwater. The infiltration gallery will be constructed of 4" perforated PVC pipe laterals, as set in washed stone along the bottom-of-hole area. A 4" solid piece of PVC riser will be plumbed to the lateral component run adjacent to the footprint of the building. The further treatment of isolated soils will be evaluated from the results of end-point soil sampling. All such work will be compiled on "Inspector's Daily Record of Work Progress" reports and reported in the IRA Status Report I (IRAS I)to be submitted within 60 days of this filing. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 10 OF 13 HW RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA Subsequent to soil removal activities, three groundwater-monitoring wells will be installed at the subject property to adequately characterize exposure risk wherein groundwater impact is evident. The proposed monitoring well locations were selected based on proximity to the release and a presumed groundwater flow direction to the southeast towards Hyannis Harbor. Subsequent to installation the monitoring wells will be gauged, and a level-loop conducted to benchmark top of casing elevations for groundwater flow determination. The wells will then be developed,purged to equilibrium and sampled for EPHNPH with target analytes. Future environmental assessment/monitoring activities will dictate the need for any additional remedial measures to be represented in future IRA Status reports to be filed within 60 days of this IRA Plan, and then every six months thereafter. The remedial response activities proposed herein, and potentially to follow, are intended to mitigate all Critical Exposure Pathways and to facilitate a Permanent Solution in order to avert all potential risks to identified human and environmental receptors in support of a Class A, Response Action Outcome (RAO). It is the objective to offer an RAO within the one-year statutory deadline as dependent on concentrations of any residual soil impacts and/or the identification of any significant groundwater impacts in down gradient monitoring wells proposed herein. RISK CHARACTERIZATION [Refer to Appendix D] Soil As presented, the S-2 and S-3 (GW-3) soils categories are applicable in consideration of Significant Risk under Method 1 -Risk Claracterization, as consistent with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0933. These standards were -developed to evaluate potential ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact exposures and as a measure of significant environmental impacts and potential leaching to groundwater. For the purposes of risk characterization,the most restrictive S-1!GW- 3 Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards are considered in review of these potential exposures, environmental impacts and leaching potential related to all foreseeable future uses and activities at the Site. Laboratory analytical results for the soil borings conducted, reported significant petroleum concentrations from the location of the former UST to depth. This data indicates significant impact to soils in an approximate 10' x 10' area to a depth of approximately 10-12' bgs. It is the intention of the work proposed herein to remove these soils to absolve potential exposure risks to humans, significant ir_Zpacts to the environmental and potential leaching to groundwater to address all foreseeable future exposure risks without restriction of activities and use of the property. Groundwater The GW-3 groundwater category is applicable in consideration of Method 1 Risk Characterization, as consistent with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0974. These standards were DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 11 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYAMIS,MA developed to evaluate potential ingestion (GW-1), inhalation (GW-2) and environmental (GW-3) exposures. For the purposes of risk characterization, the applicable GW-3 Method 1 Risk Characterization standards are considered against the reported laboratory analytical results in review of current and future use of the property. Proposed monitoring well installation and testing is appropriate and necessary to qualify potential groundwater impact in review of risk characterization. The wells will be sampled at least twice quarterly as consistent with the MA DEP VPH/EPH Policy (Policy #WSC-02-411). Quarterly groundwater monitoring will be relied on to qualify potential impacts and serve as a preponderance of evidence to evaluate risk characterization. Indoor Air Indoor ambient air screening with a calibrated PID has reported background TOV concentrations (<O.1 ppmv) within the basement area. There is no staining of the foundation wall or petroleum odor noted. The property is currently unoccupied and kept locked as restricting access. Based on the results of end-point soil samples subsequent to soil removal, APH testing of soil vapor may be appropriate in consideration of vapor entry into the structure and potential inhalation exposure risks. . Imminent Hazard Evaluation The property is currently unoccupied and the dwelling is unoccupied as eliminating inhalation and dermal contact exposure threats to the occupants. The area of defined soil impact is further cover with plastic sheeting to avoid any rainfall infiltration to prevent any further mobilization of fuel oil impact in soils to groundwater. The area is serviced by municipal'water with no know private drinking water wells within 500' of the Site as making ingestion of any potentially contaminated drinking water impractical as an exposure risk. As such,no Imminent or Substantial Hazards are present under existing Site conditions to be qualified by future environmental testing described herein. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING An additional round of groundwater sampling is,prescribed to confirm the representative and usability of the initial groundwater analysis conducted as consistent with the MA DEP VPH/EPH Policy (Policy #WSC-02411). These samples will be analyzed for EPH and target analytes as conducted in the next reporting period. Groundwater data will be used with the reported end point soil analyses to develop a preponderance of physical evidence in review of potential exposure towards defining a condition of No Significant Risk BEA will continue to monitor organic vapor concentrations within the dwelling in consideration of potential impact to indoor air quality. If required,APH testing will be employed DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 12 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA to qualify the potential for impact to indoor air quality. APH testing, in conjunction with multiple lines of evidence (indoor air screening, source removal)will be relied on to demonstrate any significant risk with respect to potential vapor entry and resulting indoor air impacts and in consideration of project closure objectives. Field measurements of groundwater elevations, olfactory and visual observations and the field-testing of pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity and temperature will be reported on Monitoring Well Sampling Logs. Field inspections will be conducted and documented on "Inspector's Daily Record of Work Progress" reports and remedial response and environmental assessment work will proceed as consistent with the QA/QC Policies of BEA outlined within Appendix D. Personal protection and safety standards for BEA are specified in the Site Specific Health and Safety Plan outlined in Appendix E. CONCLUSIONS The IRA Plan, represented by this filing, will employ an aggressive soil removal strategy for the excavation and recycling of up to 50 yards of significantly impacted soils from within the identified impacted area. Field PID screening and Dexsil testing will be used by BEA personnel to provide technical assistance to excavation operations and soil removal. This work is intended to eliminate the contaminant source in all accessible and potentially accessible areas and facilitate the construction of appurtenances that can be utilized for additional treatment of residual hydrocarbons as may be necessary. End point soil sampling and additional groundwater analysis will be used to qualify exposure risks in consideration of a permanent solution and a Class A, Response Action Outcome objective without any restriction of activities or use of the property. It is anticipated that the soil removal operations will begin within 21 days of this filing as such verbal authorizations have been sought and granted for this work. The first IRA Status Report (IRAS 1) with any proposed modifications will be submitted within 60 days of this filing as documenting soil removal and environmental monitoring activities following this submission. Subsequent IRA Status Reports will be filed every six months thereafter until a preponderance of physical evidence supports a condition of"No Significant Risk" and Response Action Outcome (RAO) objectives are met as supporting an IRAC Completion Statement. The findings of this investigation, as represented herein, set forth the rationale and technical justifications for the LSP opinions offered, as established by the certifications made on the attached Transmittal Forms. The LSP opinions are based on the available data and regulations in effect at the time of this reporting. Should you have any questions regarding the project or require additional information, please contact me at your earliest convenience. DECEMBER 4,2013 MACKENZIE/BEA13-10607 PAGE 13 OF 13 IRAP RTN 4-24825/356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA Si ely, B NN N IRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC r `Vd=�a DaviMent ett,LSP Jo . T ie andt, ES Pre ' Se4ior Project Manager Encl. Supporting Documentation [Appendices A-F] Cc: Kristine O'Sullivan, Executrix—Estate of Muriel Mackenzie Leigh Anne Sapienza, Consultant to Insurer—Stantec Jeffrey Parent—Liberty Mutual Insurance Thomas McKean - Barnstable Board of Health' Cynthia Martin, Hazardous Materials inspector—Town of Barnstable' John Klimm—Barnstable Town Manager' Deputy Chief Dean Melanson—Hyannis Fire Department' r 'Narrative,Title Page and Site Plan provided under public notice distribution requirements pursuant to paperwork reduction policy. Full copies of reports(electronic or paper)provided on written request. IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION PLAN With IMMMINENT HAZARD EVALUATION' SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION MA DEP RTN 4-24825 Mackenzie Residential Property 356 South Street Hyannis, MA BEA13-10607 .December 4, 2013. Prepared B BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES,INC. 1573 Main Street-P.O.Box 1743 Brewster,MA 02631 David C. Bennett,LSP. Prepared For: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Offices,Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section 20 Riverside Drive-Lakeville,MA. 02347 Andy Jones, Case Officer On Behalf Of Estate of Muriel Mackenzie Kristine O'Sullivan,Executrix 53 Main Street, S-1 -Goffstown,NH 03045 APPENDIX A: Reference Plans -Figure 1: Site Locus Plan [USGS Topographic Quad.,Hyannis,MA. 1998] (excerpt) -Figure 2: Ground-Water Resources of Cape Cod,MA [LeBlanc et al, 1986] (excerpt) -Figure 3: MA DEP BWSC GIS Map [2013] -Site Plan entitled, "Immediate Response Action Plan..." prepared by BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.,dated December 3,2013. APPENDIX B: Field Reports -Field Response Log s -Tank Removal Permit -Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest(011758269 JJK) APPENDIX C: Environmental Records -BWSC-101: Release Log Form -BWSC-102: Release Amendment Form(11/15/13) -Aggregate Industries Soil Recycling Submittal -BWSC-112: MA DEP Bill of Lading to transport Remediation Waste to Recycling Facility -BWSC-103: Release Notification Transmittal Form w/eDEP Submittal Summary,Receipt -BWSC-105: Immediate Response Action Transmittal Form w/eDEP Submittal Summary,.Receipt APPENDIX D: Laboratory Analysis -Environmental Assessment—Soil [Alpha Analytical] (Lab 41,1320408, 10/18/13) -Environmental Assessment—Soil [Alpha Analytical] (Lab#L1320996, 10/25/13) -Environmental Assessment—Groundwater[Alpha Analytical] (Lab#L1322254, 11/8/13) APPENDIX E: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan APPENDIX F: Health and Safety Plan ® Commonwealth of Mas,achusett>? Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Department aofi Environmental Protection Southeast Regional Office 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville MA 02347.508-046-2700 DEVAL L.PATRICK RICHARD K.SULLIVAN JR. Gvvornur - Si�craCtuy ' KENNETH I...OMMELL C.,oirtmlouioner Marche 12, 2014 Ms.Kristine O'Sullivan, Executrix RE HYANNIS Estate of Muriel Mackenzie - -Release Tracking Number: 4-0024825 53 Main Street,S-1 Map 308 Parcel 99 Goffstown, NH 03045 ,356 South Street NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE NON-SE-14-3E-025 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE, FAILURE TO TAKE ADEQUATE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. k {, Dear Ms, O'Sullivan: The Massachusetts Department of Environmenfal Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (MassDEP or the Department) is tasked with ensuring the cleanup of oil and hazardous material releases pursuant to the Massachusetts 0i1 and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act(M.G.L. Chapter 21E). The law.is implemented through regulations known'as the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000 et seq.—the MCP). Both M.G.L, c. 21E andthe MCP require the performance of response actions to,provide for the protection of harm to health, safety, public welfare and the environment which may result from releases and/or threats of releases of oil and/or hazardous material at disposal sites. MassDEP has reason to believe that there have`been one or more releases of oil and/or hazardous materials at the above-referenced property located at 356 South Street, Hyannis, Massachusetts (the Site), which require one or more response actions.`As used in this notice, "you"and "your" refers to the Estate of Muriel Mackenzie. MassDEP has explained your statutory liabilities and has assigned Release Tracking Number(RTN)4-0024825 to the Site. As the current owner, you are a Potentially Responsible Party(PRP)for this site. This Notice of Noncompliance (NON) is provided to inform you that you are not in compliance with the MCP. The enclosed NON,outlines the provisions of the MCP that you have not complied with. Contained within the Noncompliance Summary are-,the 'necessary actions you must complete to return to ! compliance. Additionally,there is a prescribed deadline foryour completion of the action(s). This information is available In alternate format.Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem,Diversity Director,at 617-292-6761,TDDN 1-866-539.7622 or 1.617-574-6668 MassDEP.Webslte:www rnass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper , A t Release Tracking Number 4-0024825 Page 2 of 2 MassDEP may assess a Civil Administrative Penalty in excess of several thousand dollars if you continue to be in noncompliance with the violation(s)cited herein. Notwithstanding this NON, MassDEP reserves the right to exercise the full extent of its legal authority in order to obtain full compliance with all applicable requirements, including, but not limited to, criminal prosecution, civil action including court-imposed civil penalties, or administrative penalties assessed by MassDEP. Attachment 2 of this NON is a Fact Sheet containing supplemental information. FINANCIAL INABILITY Please note that, as provided at 310 CMR 40.0172, if the performance of site cleanup activities is beyond your financial ability, you should submit a Notice of Financial Inability (FI) to MassDEP. You may obtain information regarding the Financial Inability program and an application package by writing to the Financial Inability Program Coordinator, Mass-DEP — Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, One Winter Street, 6th Floor, Boston,Massachusetts 02108-4747 or by calling 617-348-4055, If it is determined that you do not have the financial ability to perform response actions,you will be issued a letter that will temporarily suspend enforcement activities and penalties associated with non-compliance with the MCP while the Financial Inability is in effect; and may defer or extend (not waive) all outstanding response action, costs, fees, and penalties while the status is active. If it is determined that you have the financial ability to conduct response actions,you will be issued a formal denial notice, will be expected to meet all responsibility under the MCP, and remain subject to potential enforcement and penalties. This determination is not subject to M.G.L.Chapter 30A appeal. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you would like to discuss compliance with this Notice, please contact Andrew L.lones,at the letterhead address or by telephone at(508)946-2785. All future communications regarding this matter must reference Release Tracking Number 4-0024825. Sincerely, Daniel Crafton,Chief Emergency Response/Release Notification Section Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup C/AU/lg Enclosures: Notice of Noncompliance Attachment 2:Supplemental Information Regarding This Notice of Noncompliance CERTIFIED MAIL#7613 1090 0000 9295 5991 ° RETURN RECIEPT REQUESTED W:\8WSc\Document Archive\4-0024825.HYANNIS.NON.03-12-2014 ` ec: Hyannis Board of Health ` Hyannis Chief Municipal Officer . x Release Tracking Number 4-0024825 Page 3 of 3 David C. Bennett, LSP Bennett Environmental Associates, Inc dbennett@bennett-ea.com DEP-SERO Attn: Lisa Ramos, Regional Enforcement Office. Attn: Lara Goodine, BWSC—Data cc: DEP-SERO Attn: Regional Enforcement Office • i i • I NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE NON-SE-14-3E-025. 4-0024825 NAME OF ENTITY IN NONCOMPLIANCE: Estate of Muriel Mackenzie c/o Ms. I<ristine O'Sullivan, Executrix 53 Main Street,S-1 Goffstown,NH 03045 LOCATION WHERE NONCOMPLIANCE OCCURRED OR WAS OBSERVED: Map 308 Parcel 99 ++ 356 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601-5404 DATES&DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT(S)NOT COMPLIED WITH: 1. Violation of 310 CMR 40,0420(7)--Immediate Response Action Plans An Immediate Response Action (IRA).Plan shall be submitted to the MassDEP within sixty (60) days of providing oral notification to the MassDEP of a Hour'or'72 Hour' Release. The deadline for submittal of an IRA Plan was December 9, 2013. MassDEP received an IRA f Plan on December 10,2013, 2. Violation of 310 CMR 40.0425—Immediate Response Action_Status Reports Unless otherwise specified in writing by the Department; a person conducting Immediate Response Actions shall submit a written Status Report to the Department 120 days after the date i on which that person first communicated to the Department his or her intention to conduct that , Immediate Response Action. The deadline for the submittal of an IRA Status Report was February 7, 2014. MassDEP received an IRA Completion Report and Response Action Outcome on February 25, 2014. DESCRIPTION AND DEADLINES OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN: 1, The MassDEP is not requiring additional actions to address the violations identified above. However, this Notice establishes .a pattern of noncompliance that can be taken Into consideration, if future enforcement actions are pursued for other violations. All items must be prepared in full accordance with the MCP.. I Notwithstanding this NON, MassDEP reserves the right to exercise the full extent of Its legal authority to obtain full compliance with all applicable requirements, including but not limited to, • 1 44 Release Tracking Number4-0D24825 NON-SE-14-3E-025 Page 2 of 2 criminal prosecution, civil action including court-imposed civil penalties, and Civil Administrative Penalties issued by MassDEP. / Daniel Crafton,Chief Emergency Response/Release Notification Section Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup' Date: 3/�a/Olz U 1�( i • Ir i J i I i � ' a I I ! • f ! i i I • ! a i ATTACHMENT 2: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE This attachment further explains why this Notice of Noncompliance(NON) has been issued to you, Why was I issued this NON? MassDEP's records indicate that you have not submitted one or more of the documents listed In the i attached NON. This NON was issued to inform you of this fact and offer you an opportunity to come f back into compliance by submitting the missing information to MassDEP by the deadlines specified in the NON. You are listed in MassDEP's records as the person who is responsible for cleaning up the release cited in the attached NON. For example,at the time you or another party notified MassDEP that the release occurred,you either Informed MassDEP that you accepted responsibility for the cleanup or you were sent a "Notice of Responsibility" (NOR) by MassDEP informing you that we found you responsible for the release. In either case, MassDEP has reason to believe that you are an owner, operator, generator, transporter,disposer, or person who otherwise caused the release or threat of release of oil and/or hazardous materials cited in the attached NON. This means that, under Section 5 of M.G.L. Chapter 21E, you are a Potentlally Responsible Party (PRP) and liable for response action costs associated with the release. As a PRP, you-are required to conduct and complete certain response actions outlined in the MCP to clean up the release of oil and/or hazardous materials expeditiously. What happens if I fall to comply with or respond to the NON?-- ' You have thirty(30)days from the date you receive the'NON to comply. If you fail to comply,you will be assessed a penalty by MassDEP. Your total penalty exposure can be considerable. For example, penalties can be assessed for each day you remain in noncompliance. Note that MassDEP is allowed by law to back calculate daily penaltiesto begin on the date you received the NON. You can be penalized thousands of dollars should you fail to § comply with or respond to the NON by the 3t)-day deadline. Please refer to the Civil Administrative Penalty Statute,Chapter 21A,Section 16 and 310 CMR 5.00,the Civil Administrative Penalty Regulations, ! for complete details on the Administrative Penalty rules. When the cleanup contractor finished the work in the field,I thought my dealings with MassDEP were finished. What more do I have to do? -This is a common question asked when a NON is received. PRPs often think their dealings with MassDEP j are over when, for example, the fieldwork is completed by a cleanup contractor, Examples of this type I of fieldwork include cleaning up a spill from a saddle tank leak on a roadway,or removing contaminated soil from a'tank grave during a tank replacement or oil-contaminated debris from a storage tank after a i fire. The fieldwork may be complete, but you still must submit some paperwork to MassDEP to prove. I that the cleanup was undertaken in compliance with the MCP. The MCP includes deadlines by which you must complete response actions and submit information about those response actions to MassDEP. We track the progress of cleanups by checking to see if you are sending information about your cleanup progress to MassDEP on time. For example, if we do not receive a Response Action Outcome Statement(RAO) before the 1-year anniversary date of the release, I we must assume that the environmental cleanup has not been completed. For work to continue after the 1-year anniversary date of the release, the MCP requires that you submit a Tier I or Tier II Classification to MassDEP. If MassDEP does not receive either an RAO or Tier Classification by the 1-year anniversary date, we must assume that you are not implementing any cleanup at all. Without your cooperation in obtaining the cleanup• information, MassDEP does not know whether serious environmental problems are being addressed. If work Is not being performed, MassDEP must take action to ensure it happens. On the other hand, you may have finished the cleanup but neglected to forward the cleanup documentation required by the MCP.. What do I have to do to comply with the NON? First, all response actions not directly managed by MassDEP staff must be overseen and directed by a "Licensed Site Professional" or LSP. LSPs are licensed by the Commonwealth,.and their stamp and signature are required (together with yours) on all but one,form you must submit to MassDEP. if you . don't already have the forms and Information required for you to comply with this NON, contact the consultant and/or cleanup contractor who worked.on your cleanup. If you have not undertaken any cleanup work, contact an LSP immediately. A list of LSPs may be obtained by calling (617) 556-1091 or viewing the list on the Internet at http://www.state.ma,us/Isp. The documents you must submit to MassDEP require LSP stamp and signature. Tor example, when a cleanup is completely finished,the MCP requires that you submit a document called a "Response Action Outcome" (RAO) to MassDEP in which you attest that you have completed the cleanup in accordance with the MCP. If you do not submit an RAO to MassDEP,the case remains open in MassDEP's files even if the fieldwork is completely finished. If you* received this NON and you think the fieldwork is .completely finished, tali your cleanup contractor and LSP to find out how to have an RAO prepared.and submitted to MassDEP. If more environmental studies or cleanup are needed (for example, following the initial cleanup of a highway spill or soil contamination found during a tank replacement),you must submit forms describing your plans to continue the work in a timely manner. Again, these forms must contain an LSP's stamp and signature,and be co-signed by you. Depending on the circumstances,the possible submittals are an j Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan, IRA Status Report, IRA Completion Statement, and/or a Tier Classification Submittal and Tier I Permit Application. You should also be,aware that MassDEP does not become involved in or help mediate billing disputes . with insurance companies, cleanup contractors, or LSPs. A common response to a NON is that an insurance company is slow on paying cleanup bills or will not cover various cleanup costs, We also hear that cleanup firms and LSPs will not send in RAOs and other forms because their clients have not paid their bills. These matters must be resolved privately by you. You ultimately must comply with the j attached NON or be subject to significant penalties from MassDEP. . i matte appucatnon to local Fire Department. Fire Department retains original-application and issues duplicate as r, r 'APPLICATION. y and PERMIT FQe: 3. � for storage tank removal and transportation to approved tank disposal yard in accordance.with the provisions . of M.G.L.`Chapter 148, Section 38A, 527 CMR 9.00, application is hereby.made by:. Tank Owner Name(please pripl / c�-1 , �P ' Ya' S v__T appNe+9 rmn I Address L4 �-� Sheet Cdy. . Slate Lp J 9- • • i Company Nam f,+n k iZo_, -r9- e, 1 Son Co. or Individual Pnnt - Print Addresq:za l.il t �� �I(;/ Addressprint r Ptmt Signature(if applying for permit) l _� Signature(if applying for permit) ;AR- Iti ID ❑ IFCI'Certified Other CjaFCI'Certified ❑ LSP# Other Tank Location: <% SlestAciptess Crly Tank'Capacity(gallons)` Substance Last Stored. � v Tank'Di mensions(diameter x length) Remarks: S tl • . • • Firm transporting waste 0nS �'c_._ CCA&4�) Slate Uc.# Hazardous waste manifest# f)Za_� � e�7} 10 E.P.A.# i Approved tank disposal yard7 Tank yard# Type of inert gas Tank yard address�� i 11�W41_11_1 o� 15}_ A l I/All 70ateof ornIXS. 13508 / FDID# l Permit# ue Date of expiration Dig safe approval number. 9rn Mkq Dig Safe T J 800-322-4844 //. , Signature Title of Officer granting permit. 4 �R �' ipEPA 9 9 g p �.SCUE gglS.: OU After.removal(s)("Consumptive Use'fuel oil tanks exempted)send"ft;; f 4OR$ gned by Local Fire Department to Office of the State Fire Marshal,:UST Regulatory Compliance Unit, P.O:Box 1025,Slow, MA 01775. natio'nal Fire Code Institute :ad 41977) HYANNIS, ys 1§ MA AREA OF PROPOSED EXCAVATION 10'x 10'x 1 0' - yw /1 y HB-4 LOCUS KEY MAP MW-I. LEGEND $HB HAND BORING - / HB-2 _ // - &HB HAND BORING(NOT ADVANCED) LOCUS © - - 356 SOUTH STREET - MW-I R A MW MONITORING WELL A PROPOSED MONITORING WELL rr r rl � l 118-3 (NOT ADVANCED) j 356 REAR I! 1 - FORMER 275-GAL FUEL OIL UST r AREA OF IMPACT a M1 LOCATION PID DEXSIL EPH C9-C 18[M I STD= 10001 HB 1:4-0 35.1 1' (4_ HB-1:6-8' '46.7 J 4920 t DETAIL H13 J:89' 57.1 1 FORMER 275-GAL - • SCALE I'"=5' - HB-I A:0-2' 5.3 - FORMER - - - HB-I A:2-4' 2.3 FUEL OIL UST (REMOVED.WITHOUT INCIDENT) G _ - - '' - - HB-I A:6-8' 1 1.50 4,040 + - - H5-IA:8-10' 6.2 _ - H B-I A:.I O-1 P I.6 - ® / - HB-I A: 15-1 7' NO NO MW_2 / f H5-2:0-2' NO � HB-2:2-4' NO 356 FRONT / - HB-2:4-6' NO '. SEE DETAIL r - - HB-2:6-8' 0.7 i - HB-2:8-10' 3.4 (8-1 2') / H5-2: 10-12' 3.2 104 H5-4:6-8' NO AMW-3 HB-4: 10-12' NO NO MW-I R // <`" HB-4: 1 2-1 4' NO E '`if RTN# 4-24825 Project: ESTATE OF MURIEL,MACKENZIE C',CMSTINE O SULLIVAN,EXECUTRIX ., ..,-�-• , ,� 53 MAIN STREET S-1-GOFFSTOWN,NH 03045 Title: IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACTION REFERENCE 356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA 02601 • ..�• ry„ - -BARNSTABLE ASSESSOR'S MAP 308 PARCEL 099 BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN n - BSA ASSOCIATES, INC. -SITE PLAN \\� „r"r - LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, V 1 GEOLOGISTS,ENGINEERS 0 NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN WAS NOT PREPARED FROM ANY 20 40 60 �O 1573 MAIN STREET,P O.BOX 1743,BREWSTER MA 02361 -INSTRUMENT SURVEY AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD PHONE'(508)896-1706 �wwbenneu�n.00m r•Ax:(sas)a96-sio9 SCALE I"=20' ''� • - THE DISTANCES, BEARING AND/OR OTHER FEATURES SHOWN BE DA!121�03/:13: �� As BY �DCIB �BEA OB NUMBER .*r' USED TO ESTABLISH PROPERTY LINES. Noted SRFl3-10607 L . I r HYANNIS, • 1 y� �s� MA EXTENT OF EXCAVATION /r i �• 1 4'x I O'x.10 'l AREA OF CLA55 A-2 - RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME HB 4 LOCHS RTN 4-24525 - ! y dP-1/\ KEY MAP \ \ \\B5-1/I A. - LEGEND hE-2 \ , - Y hB HAND BORING i 116 HAND BORING(NOT ADVANCED)- 356 50UTH STREET - �` MW-LR / - `` MW MONITORING WELL ..p. / Ili; • A .J_E. SOLUTE ! TRANSPORT PATHWAY r ;l _ f 356 REAR. FORMER 275-GAL- ! /r FUEL OIL U5T •\ l r 1. i .. .. !! AREA OF IMPACT - LOCATION PID DEXSIL EPH�C9-C 16(M I STD= 10001 HB 1.4-6 35.1 .(4-9') H[3 1:6-5 - 46.7 �f4920 DETAIL HB-1:6-9 . 57.1 - .FORMER 275-GAL - s. .... * LE 1 =5 .... . - - - - .. _ - HB-]A:2-4' 2.3 FUEL OIL UST , - (REMOVED WITHOUT INCIDENT)~ ,. HB-IA:4-6' Id. .. • ..HB-I A:6-6' F I.5 4,040 1� . - - - H B-I A:8-10' 6.2 r. HB-IA: 10-11' 1.6 -.,. - .. HB-I A:.15 I T NO ND .. - MW_2 1//ir ..� - ' HB 2:O 2' NO !/, �r, - H5-2:2-4' NO r 356 FRONT ri,.. HB-2:4-6' NO SEE DETAIL hB 2:6-8' 0.7 jr HB2:5-10' 3.4 (5-(2') r - _ - nB 2; 10-12' 3.2 ]6 104 HB-4:6-5' NO _ Q 'MW-I /( _ n5-4:5-1 0'. NO �(6-1 4-) r MW-3 HB-4: 10-12' NO NO I r`��•\ HB-4:.12-14' NO RTN# 4-24825 Project. ESTATE OF MURIEL MACKENZIE 5OLUTE ' c/o CHRISTINE O'SULLIVAN,EXECUTRIX TRANSPORT� : � �-'''` - � 53 MAIN STREET S-1-GOFFSTOWN,NH 03045 PATHWAY Title: IMMEDIATE.RESPONSE ACTION COMPLETION CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME .• ram. REFERENCE 356 SOUTH STREET-HYANNIS,MA 02601 • -13ARN5TABLE A55E55OR'5 MAP 305 PARCEL 099 BEN NETT ETT ENVIRONMENTAL .�� �' sEA 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. PL AN LAN \ _ w LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONALS,ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, O Y GEOLOGISTS,ENGINEERS Q 20 40 GO - NOTE:- TH15 SITE PLAN WA5 NOT PREPARED FROM ANY 1573 MAIN STREET,P.O.BOX 1743,BREWSTER,MA 02361 - INSTRUMENT 5URVEY AND UNDER NO CIRCUM5TANCE5 SHOULD Pxoxet5oals96-nob „h b—n-c "m FAX:(508)896-slog SCALE I"=20' - 'v THE DISTANCES,-BEARING AND/OR OTHER FEATURES 5nOWN BE DATE -1 SCALE BY CHECK JOB NUMBER uSED To ESTABuSn PROPERTY uNEs. 02/19/14 it As Noted SRF DCB BEA13-10607 41,