Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0017 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD #A - HAZMAT �� H, s� e2� COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE-OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE' s 20 RIVERSIDE DRIVE,LAKEVILLE,MA 02347 508-946-2700 MITT ROMNEY ELLEN ROY HERZFELDER f `' Governor ,' Secretary KERRY HEALEY LAUREN A.LISS Lieutenant Governor Commissioner January 30, 2003 Mr. Dennis Carey RE: HYANNIS-BWSC SMP RTN 4-0732 Harvard Realty Associates 64 Harbor Road 17 High School Road RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME DENIAL/ Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE - ACTION THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. FAILURE TO TAKE ADEQUATE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. Dear Mr. Carey: On January 3, 2001, the Massachusetts Department.of Environmental Protection"(the Department) received a Response Action Outcome Statement (the RAO) and a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation (the AUL) for the above referenced Site. The RAO and AUL were submitted with a report titled, "Class B-2 Response Action Outcome Supporting Documentation, (the Report). The Report, the RAO and the AUL were prepared and submitted on your behalf by Streamline Environmental (Streamline) and Kaegael Environmental, Inc. Theodore Kaegael, Jr., of Kaegael Environmental, Inc. is the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) of Record for this Site. The Department has reviewed the RAO, the AUL and the Report, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0550(4)(a)l, and has determined that a level of No Significant Risk has not been achieved at the Site, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1003(1). Therefore, the Department denies the RAO Statement. The basis for the Department's determination is set forth below. 1. Improper Groundwater Classification: The Site is underlain by a.Potentially Productive Aquifer, as defined at 310 CMR 40.0006, which is `considered a Potential Drinking Water Source Area. As such, the appropriate groundwater classification is Groundwater Category GW-1. However, the LSP Opinion (page 25 of-the Report) states, "Groundwater beneath the Property is considered to fall into the GW-2 category based on its proximity to salt-water bodies and consequent likeliness for diminished drinking water quality." In an MCP Q&A published by the Department in June 1996, and republished in the Master Q&A in March 1999, it is*stated that the Groundwater Quality Standards (310 CMR 6.00) define "fresh water" as water.having a chloride concentration of less than 250 mg/l or Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) equal to or less than 10,000 mg/l. The Q&As further state that for "...the purposes of applying the MCP GW-1 exemption described in 310 CMR 40.0932(5)(b)2, groundwater can be considered saline or "brackish" if the levels of chloride or TDS are This information is available in alternate format.Call Aprel McCabe,ADA Coordinator at 1-617-556-1171.TDD Service-1-800-298-2207. DEP on the World Wide Web: http://www.mass.gov/dep Z�«1 Printed on Recycled Paper Hyannis-BWSC SMP RTN 4-0732 Page 2 of 4 RAO Denial/Request for IRA above the fresh water levels described above." However, -there was no documentation provided in the RAO that indicated that the groundwater was analyzed for chloride or TDS. Without the direct evidence necessary to demonstrate that the groundwater is brackish, the groundwater category cannot be arbitrarily changed. Therefore, the correct groundwater classification remains Groundwater Category GW-1. Data provided in the RAO submittal indicate that Groundwater Category GW-1 cleanup standards have not been met. As such, a condition of No Significant Risk does not. exist at the Site and, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1046(2)(a),the Class B-2 RAO is inappropriate at this time. 2. Inadequate Assessment of Site Conditions: Site data indicate that non aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) is present in several monitoring wells at the Site. Since 1989, NAPL thickness has ranged from approximately one-quarter. inch to approximately 1.5 feet in several wells. Three rounds of product recharge testing were conducted by Mason Environmental Services, Inc., in 1991. ' According to an Immediate Response Action (IRA) Plan submitted by Streamline in June 1096, these tests indicated'that 55-100% of the product recharged in one hour_. Allied Environmental Consultants (Allied) conducted one round of product recharge rate testing in February 1993. .According to information contained in the June 1996 Streamline IRA Plan, Allied detected no measurable product two hours after evacuating the product from monitoring wells with a bailer. Product gauging was then conducted in March and.June of 1993, where NAPL thickness ranged from approximately 1/2 inch to 8.4 inches. l Streamline then conducted a bail-down test in October 1996, which consisted of bailing product and water until "less than a skim remained" and recording the depth to product and- depth to water over time. Two of the wells tested did not contain product at initial gauging. Two other wells had NAPL exceeding Upper Concentration Limits (>1/2 inch) at.initial gauging. In one well, which initially contained approximately one inch of NAPL, depth to water and depth to product was recorded for one hour after bailing. After one hour, a skim (< 1/8 inch) of product was detected and the test was concluded. The other well, which contained approximately 1.75 inches of NAPL at initial gauging, was also bailed until "less than a skim remained." After recording depths as described above for only twenty minutes, the bailer inspection indicated a skim (< 1/8 inch) of product, and the test was concluded. The same type of testing was reportedly conducted again in August 1997, but data was not, provided from the testing. The Report states, "data collected from both rounds of product recharge tests indicate NO measurable thickness of product in each well tested on each occasion," and that the, " `actual', `mobile' formation thickness of oil is not measurable/less than one-eighth inch." However, given that previous tests indicated that it took at least one,., and even greater than two, hours for the NAPL to recharge, the Streamline tests were not_ conducted for a sufficient amount of time to conclude that mobile NAPL is not present. v In addition, Site information indicates that the soils at the Site consist primarily of coarse sand. The boring logs indicate that the monitoring wells installed at the Site were backfilled with native material (the same coarse sand). As such, the difference between the capillary fringe in the monitoring wells and in the surrounding formation would be minimal, and certainly would not account for a difference of 8 inches of NAPL between the monitoring wells and the surrounding formation. In an attempt to reconcile this information, the Department conducted a Site inspection on October 8, 2002 to determine whether the conditions at the Site were adequately reflected in r Hyannis-BWSC SMP RTN 4-0732 Page 3 of 4 RAO Denial/Request for IRA the supporting documentation that was submitted with the RAO. The Department was unable to determine whether NAPL is still present at the Site, as all of the monitoring wells have been landscaped over. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0996(6), the presence of NAPL having a thickness equal to or greater than %2 inch in any environmental medium shall be considered a level which exceeds Upper Concentration Limits. As such, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1046(2)(b),the Site-is not eligible for a Class B RAO. 3. Improper Categorization of RAO: Information contained in the Site file, submitted to the Department in 1993 by Allied Environmental, indicates that a passive product recovery skimmer operated in at least one of the recovery wells at the Site for some period of time.. There is not enough information in the file to determine how long the skimmer operated and/or how much NAPL was recovered by the skimmer. Streamline Environmental did not include this information in any of the reports or plans submitted to the Department, but did use a portion of the Allied information as reference in their June 1996 IRA Plan. Furthermore, although this skimmer did operate at the Site, a Class B-2 Response Action Outcome was submitted. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1045, Class B RAOs do not 'apply to disposal sites where any containment or removal action"is taken. The removal of NAPL IS considered a removal action under the MCP. 4. Improper Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation: Page 23 of the Report states, "Natural Attenuation (no further action) should be considered as a viable remedial option when low . level residuals are present and where no likely impacts to potential receptors have been demonstrated. Based on MCP Risk Characterization, these criteria have been met" It further states, "continued natural attenuation is the most feasible remedial option and no additional assessment or monitoring is warranted at this time." However, 310 CMR 40.0191(2), requires both the-consideration of all relevant policies issued by the Department and by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the use of up-to- date methods accepted by the professional community, such as the 1998 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Guide for Remediation of Ground Water by Natural Attenuation at.Petroleum Release Sites and the 1999 USEPA OSWER Directive titled Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective. Action and Underground Storage Tank Sites regarding natural attenuation. Monitored 'Natural Attenuation is a remedial alternative, not a "no further action" alternative. As a remedial alternative, Monitored Natural Attenuation should only be conducted under, the M&s. phased approach until a Class A RAO (permanent solution) can be achieved. In addition, the , assessment conducted at the Site was not adequate to determine whether natural attenuation was actually occurring, the presence of NAPL at the Site does not meet the "low level residuals" criteria described above, and it has not been clearly demonstrated that the potential receptors have not been impacted. Furthermore, the destruction of the monitoring wells precludes any"monitoring"that would be required for this remedial alternative. In addition to the above, based on a review of the Report and the Site-file, it is the opinion of the Department that an Immediate Response Action is necessary, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0412(1) and (3). Finally, the Department has also noted several errors, omissions and deficiencies of the requirements of 310 CMR 40.1074 regarding the AUL that was filed for the Site. Hyannis-BWSC SMP RTN 4-0732 Page 4 of 4 RAO Denial/Request for IRA As such, by March 31, 2003, submit to the Department the following: (1) a Permit Extension Application_,. prepared :"in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0706, including the applicable fee, - (2) an Immediate Response Action Plan Modification, prepared in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0424. `Please note that the Department is requesting the IRA Plan Modification because the IRA that is currently open at the Site has not been closed'or completed in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0427. The IRA Plan should include a description of the assessment required to determine whether NAPL greater than %2-inch exists at the Site and whether Site related oil and/or hazardous materials have the potential to impact the indoor air of the residences at or near the source property.; and, (3) a copy of the Termination of Notice of an Activity and Use Limitation (the Form for which is enclosed) that is to be prepared for the Site in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.1083(d)2 though 6. The deadlines established "above constitute enforceable Interim Deadlines established pursuant to M.G.L. c.21E, section 3A 0) and 310 CMR 40.0167. Failure to meet these deadlines may result in enforcement actions by the Department. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you would like to discuss compliance with this Notice, please contact Molly'Cote, at the letterhead address or by telephone at (508) 946-2792. All future communication regarding this matter must reference Release Tracking Number 4-1039. Lrel ,, t Gerard M.R. Martin, Chief Site Management&.Permitting Section Enclosure M/MC/mc CERTIFIED MAIL# 7001 0320 0001 4831 0992 cc: Town of Hyannis, Board of Selectmen Town of Hyannis, Board of Health" Theodore Kaegael, Jr. Dennis Brolowski Kaegael Environmental, Inc. c/o KV Associates, Inc. One West Street 766 Falmouth Road Fall River, Massachusetts 02720 Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 (w/o Enclosure) DEP-SERO (Regional Enforcement Office (2 copies),Data Entry) TERMINATION OF NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION Disposal Site Name: DEP Release Tracking No.(s) WHEREAS, a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation has been recorded with.the County Registry of Deeds in Book Page , and/or registered with the Land Registration Office of the County Registry District as Document No. [as amended by Amendment to a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation dated recorded with the County Registry of Deeds in Book Page and/or registered with the Land Registration Office of the County Registry District as Document No. ] (said Notice of Activity and Use Limitation and any amendments thereto are collectively referred to herein as "Notice"); WHEREAS, said Notice sets forth limitations on use and activities, conditions and obligations affecting certain [vacant] land situated in (Town/City), County, Massachusetts [with the buildings and improvements thereon], said land being more particularly bounded and described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof("Property"); WHEREAS, said limitations are consistent with the terms of an Activity and Use Limitation Opinion ("AUL Opinion") dated signed and sealed by holder of a valid license issued by the Board of Registration of Waste Site Cleanup Professionals; pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21A, §§ 19 through 19J (the holder being referred to as "LSP") attached to said Notice of Activity and Use Limitation as Exhibit C and made a part thereof, in order to (select one) [maintain at the Property a. condition of No Significant Risk][eliminate a substantial hazard] (said conditions and terms being defined in 310 CMR 40.0000); and WHEREAS, said Notice is being terminated because additional response actions are necessary to support the conclusion that [a condition of No Significant Risk has been achieved at the property][all substantial hazards have been eliminated at the property]. NOW, THEREFORE, I/We, of (City/Town) County, (State), being the o=Nner(s) of said Property, do hereby terminate said Notice. ( Owner ) authorizes and consents to the filing and recordation and/or registration of this Termination of Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, said Termination to become effective when recorded and/or registered with the appropriate Registry of Deeds and/or Land Registration Office. 1 of 2 -r WITNESS the execution hereof under"seal this day of , 19_ [Name of Owner] _ [COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS] [STATE OF ss , 19 Then personally appeared the above named and acknowledged the foregoing to be [his][her] free act and deed before me, t Notary Public: My Commission Expires: Upon recording, return to: (Name and Address of Owner) 2 of 2