HomeMy Public PortalAboutRelease Abatement Summary - Text ONLY_201503161030343429 L
I
1
Environmental Engineering Civil Engineering
Forensic Engineering Construction Services
RELEASE ABATEMENT MEASURE COMPLETION AND
PERMANENT SOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS STATEMENT
80 Elm Street
Watertown, MA 02472
MADEP RTN 3-29804
Prepared for: Prepared by:
80 Elm Street, LLC FSL Associates, Inc.
1 Park Lane 358 Chestnut Hill Avenue
Boston, MA 02210 Boston, MA 02135
March 10, 2015
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION......................................................................1
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.........................................................................1
2.2 CURRENT AND FORMER SITE USAGE......................................................................1
2.3 SURROUNDING AREA USAGE .................................................................................2
3.0 SITE HISTORY......................................................................................................2
3.1 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY STATUS.....................................................................2
3.2 SITE USE HISTORY.................................................................................................3
3.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE SUBJECT SITE ....................3
4.0 PHASE I INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION......................................................7
4.1 PHASE I INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT CONCLUSIONS...............................7
4.2 TIER CLASSIFICATION............................................................................................7
4.3 PHASE II SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................7
5.0 RELEASE ABATEMENT MEASURE................................................................8
5.1 RAM PLAN............................................................................................................8
5.2 RAM PLAN ADDENDUM ......................................................................................11
5.3 RAM COMPLETION..............................................................................................12
6.0 SELECTION OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION METHOD ........................13
7.0 REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION AND DATA USABILITY
ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................14
7.1 REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION ...................................................................14
7.2 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT............................................................................16
7.3 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................18
8.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION...........................................................................18
8.1 IDENTIFICATION OF MCP APPLICABLE GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CATEGORIES .18
8.2 CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE SITE USES..............................................................19
8.3 SUMMARY OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION.............................................................19
9.0 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION SUMMARY.........................................21
9.1 LOCATION OF AUL..............................................................................................21
9.2 SITE ACTIVITIES AND USES TO BE PERMITTED.....................................................21
9.3 SITE ACTIVITIES AND USES TO BE PROHIBITED....................................................21
9.4 OBLIGATIONS AND CONDITIONS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL OF NO SIGNIFICANT
RISK 22
10.0 FEASIBILITY OF ACHIEVING OR APPROACHING BACKGROUND...22
10.1 IDENTIFICATION OF BACKGROUND CONDITIONS..................................................22
10.2 FEASIBILITY OF ACHIEVING OR APPROACHING BACKGROUND.............................23
FSL Associates, Inc. ii
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
11.0 PERMANENT SOLUTION STATEMENT.......................................................24
11.1 40.1056(2)(A). DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISPOSAL SITE.........24
11.2 40.1056(2)(B)CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ...........................................................24
11.3 40.1056(2)(C) DEMONSTRATION THAT ALL SOURCES OF OHM CONTAMINATION HAVE
BEEN ELIMINATED OR CONTROLLED...............................................................................25
11.4 40.1056(2)(D). DEMONSTRATION THAT RESPONSE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
ADEQUATELY ASSESS AND CONTROL SUBSURFACE MIGRATION OF OHM.....................25
11.5 40.1056(2)(F). CONCLUSION THAT A LEVEL OF NO SIGNIFICANT RISK HAS BEEN
ACHIEVED .......................................................................................................................25
11.6 40.1056(2)(G). REDUCTION OF OHM TO BACKGROUND.....................................25
11.7 40.1056(2)(H). ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION.................................................25
11.8 40.1056(2)(K). DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT AND DATA REPRESENTATIVENESS
EVALUATION...................................................................................................................25
11.9 40.1056(2)(L). OPERATION,MAINTENANCE,AND/OR MONITORING....................25
12.0 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................26
43.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................27
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1—Site Locus
Figure 2— MADEP Numerical Ranking System Map
Figure 3— Former Site Conditions
Figure 4—Site Plan Pre-Excavation
Figure 5— Post-Excavation Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 6— Disposal Site Boundary
Figure 7—Site AUL Boundary
Appendix B Tables
Table 1—Field Screening Results (TVOCs)
Table 2A—Soil Analytical (RCRA 8 Metals)
Table 2B—Soil Analytical (RCRA 8 Metals)
FSL Associates, Inc. iii
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
Table 3—Soil Analytical (Petroleum and VOCs)
Table 4—Soil Analytical (Comm-97-001)
Table 5—Soil TCLP Analytical
Table 6—Groundwater Analytical
Table 7—Field Screening Results (Lead)
Table 8—Post-Excavation Soil Analytical
Table 9—Triumvirate's Soil Analytical
Table 10—Triumvirate's Groundwater Analytical
Appendix C Previous Reports
Appendix D Soil and Groundwater Analytical Data
Appendix E RAM Completion Documentation
Appendix F Method 3 Risk Characterization
Appendix G Toxicity Profiles
Appendix H AUL Certified Copy
Appendix I Boring Logs
Appendix J Public Notification Letters
FSL Associates, Inc. iv
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0440, 310 CMR 40.1074, and 310 CMR 40.1000 of the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan (MCP) and on behalf of 80 Elm Street, LLC for disposal site RTN 3-29804 located at 80 Elm
Street in Watertown, Massachusetts, FSL Associates, Inc. (FSL) has prepared the following Release Abatement
Measure (RAM) Completion, Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), and Permanent Solution with Conditions,
respectively.
2.0 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
Release Tracking Number(s): 3-29804
Disposal Site Address: 80 Elm Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Responsible Party(RP)& Owner: 80 Elm Street, LLC
1 Park Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Contact: Joseph P. White
Status: Tier II/ Phase II
Licensed Site Professional(LSP): Bruce Hoskins
FSL Associates, Inc.
LSP No. 7109
(617) 232-0001
2.1 Site Location and Description
This site is located at 42° 21' 56.76" N (42.36577° N) latitude and 71' 14' 11.73" W (71.23659° W) longitude and
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Easting 322,420 and Northing 4,692,641. The site is located to the west of
Elm Street in a commercial and residential area of Watertown, Massachusetts. The site consists of
approximately 34,389 square feet of land that is currently unimproved.
2.2 Current and Former Site Usage
The site is currently unimproved and is surrounded on all sides by construction fencing. Prior to the summer of
2014, the site was improved with several contiguous one- and two-story buildings formerly used as part of
Atlantic Battery, a battery manufacturer. The buildings covered approximately two thirds of the property parcel,
the majority of the rest of which was improved with an asphalt paved parking lot and associated driveway off of
Elm Street.
FSL Associates, Inc. 1
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
2.3 Surrounding Area Usage
The surrounding area consists mainly of commercial/industrial and residential properties. The site is abutted to
the north by a door and window storage and shipping facility (MacLeod and Moynihan Windows and Doors) and
to the south by an asphalt paved parking lot operated by the Watertown Mall. Elm Street comprises the eastern
property boundary, beyond which is a lumber company and an auto repair garage (AIA Auto Repair). Properties
to the west include an area of maintained landscaping, the asphalt parking lot operated by the Watertown Mall,
and the Watertown Greenway.
3.0 SITE HISTORY
3.1 Summary of Regulatory Status
A Release Log Form (BWSC 101) was submitted to MADEP on February 15, 2011 by Alice E. Migell, the former
owner/Responsible Party (RP) for the site. The Release Log Form (RLF) indicated that reportable concentrations
of lead were detected in soil and reportable concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) were detected in
groundwater. The release was attested to be from an unknown source. MADEP issued a Notice of
Responsibility (NOR) to Alice E. Migell on March 10, 2011 and assigned Release Tracking Number (RTN) 3-29804
to the release. A Phase I Initial Site Investigation (ISI) report with Tier Classification, Downgradient Property
Status (DPS) report, or Response Action Outcome (RAO) was due on February 15, 2012. After February 15, 2012
and prior to Tier Classification on January 21, 2015, the site was listed as Tier 1D. MADEP disposal sites are
listed as Tier 1D if an RP or Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)fails to provide a required submittal to MADEP by
a specified deadline.
On October 27, 2014, MADEP issued a NOR to 80 Elm Street, LLC (hereafter the "RP") located at 1 Park Lane,
Boston, MA 02210. The NOR established an Interim Deadline pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0167, requiring that
"Unless a Response Action Outcome Statement (RAO) or DPS Submittal is provided to [MADEP] earlier, a Tier
Classification prepared in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0500 must be submitted to [MADEP] within ninety (90)
calendar days of the date of[the NOR]."
On November 24, 2014, the RP submitted a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan which was prepared for
the site by FSL Associates, Inc. (FSL) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0440. The RAM Plan indicated that ownership of
the site changed hands on December 27, 2013, when ownership of the property transferred from Alice E. Migell,
holder of a Decree of the Probate Court of Middlesex County, to 80 Elm Street, LLC. A copy of the Deed for the
subject property is included in the appendix of the November, 2014 RAM Plan. The RAM Plan summarized
assessment activities which were conducted at the site by FSL during the summer and fall of 2014 which
included the advancement of soil borings, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and the collection of 47
soil samples and 6 groundwater samples. The RAM Plan also summarized an underground storage tank (UST)
removal for an approximately 1,500 gallon UST which was removed from the site in August, 2014. A total of four
(4) days of subsurface investigations were conducted, during which time a concentration of 49,600 parts per
million (ppm) lead was detected in soil sample SB-8, 0-5' at the southwestern portion of the site. This value
exceeded the Upper Concentration Limit (UCL) of 6,000 ppm for lead. The RP opted to remove the site soils
FSL Associates, Inc. 2
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
which yielded the elevated lead concentration in an effort to reduce lead contaminant concentrations to levels
which do not present a risk to public welfare, i.e., below the UCL concentration.
On January 15, 2015,James T. Curtis, LSP No. 1548 for Cooperstown Environmental, LLC (Cooperstown), became
the LSP-of-record for the site. On January 21, 2015, Cooperstown submitted a Phase I ISI report and Tier
Classification pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0480 and 310 CMR 40.0500, respectively. A RAM Plan Addendum was
completed for the site by FSL and submitted on February 26, 2015, after which time Bruce Hoskins became the
LSP-of-record for the site.
3.2 Site Use History
The subject property was previously owned by various members of the Migell family (including Alice, Dorothy,
and Augustus) who were associated with the Atlantic Battery company, which operated at the site until 2013.
The former site buildings had historically been used for ice cream manufacturing from circa 1925 to 1950. From
the 1950s through the 1980s, the buildings were used by Atlantic Battery for the manufacturing of automobile
batteries. Since the 1980s, the building was used by Atlantic Battery to sell batteries and perform maintenance
(including refilling) of batteries.
3.3 Previous Environmental Investigations at the Subject Site
The following previous environmental investigations have been completed for the subject site. This Permanent
Solution Statement Report relies in part on information contained in the following reports completed for the
subject site:
1.) Triumvirate Environmental, Inc., (TEI), 200 Inner Belt Road, Somerville, MA 02143, October,
2010, Environmental Condition Summary Report, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472,
Prepared for: [Client Unknown]* (*Note: Only portions of this report were received, the
entirety of which are included in Appendix C of this report);
2.) Geolnsight, Inc., 1 Monarch Drive, Suite 201, Littleton, MA 01460, December, 2012, [Report
name unknown], 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, Prepared for: [Client Unknown]*
(*Note: Only portions of this report were received, the entirety of which are included in
Appendix Q
3.) FSL Associates, Inc., 358 Chestnut Hill Avenue, Boston, MA 02135, November 24, 2014, Release
Abatement Measure Plan, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, Prepared for: 80 Elm Street,
LLC;
4.) Cooperstown Environmental, LLC, 23 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, January 21, 2015, Phase
1 Initial Site Investigation Report and Tier Classification, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472,
Prepared for: 80 Elm Street, LLC;
5.) FSL Associates, Inc., February 26, 2015, Release Abatement Measure Plan Addendum, 80 Elm
Street, Watertown, MA 02472, Prepared for: 80 Elm Street, LLC.
FSL Associates, Inc. 3
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
FSL's RAM Plan and RAM Plan Addendum and Cooperstown's Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report can be
viewed via MADEP's public database of reportable release sites. FSL has received no copies of any other
previous environmental investigations completed for the site at 80 Elm Street in Watertown, MA.
3.3.1 Environmental Condition Summary Report— TEI, 2010
TEI's Environmental Condition Summary Report was summarized within a report which was completed
for the site by Geolnsight, Inc., of Littleton, MA in December, 2012. Portions of Geolnsight's report were
appended to the Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report which was submitted for the site by
Cooperstown on January 21, 2015; FSL has included what was available in the Phase I ISI report in this
Permanent Solution Statement report in Appendix C. Several attempts were made to obtain copies of
these reports from Triumvirate and Geolnsight; as of the time of completion of this report, FSL has not
received copies of either reports.
In October, 2010, TEI completed an Environmental Condition Summary Report for the subject site. The
report was prepared for an unknown prospective purchaser of the subject property. TEI's report
summarized their assessment activities conducted in October, 2010, which included the advancement of
soil borings, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and collection and laboratory analysis of soil
and groundwater samples.
TEI coordinated the advancement of seven (7) soil borings (designated SB-1 through SB-5 and SB-7 and
SB-8)which were advanced with a Geoprobe and four (4) soil borings which were advanced using a hand
auger (designated SB-6 and SB-9 through SB-11) at the subject site. FSL did not have access to TEI or
Geolnsight's reports prior to January 21, 2015 and, therefore, did not know that previous designations
had been used for soil borings. Therefore, for the purposes of this report and so as not to confuse these
designations with those used by FSL, FSL will add the prefix "T" to all "SB-" soil boring designations used
by TEI as part of their investigation.
Geoprobe borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 25 feet below the ground surface (ft bgs) and
hand-augered borings were advanced to depths of approximately 2.5 ft bgs. According to TEI's report,
continuously collected soil samples were screened for volatile vapors during the investigation. Soils
encountered by TEI while conducting the borings consisted of fill material at depths ranging from 2 to 5
ft bgs, underlain by predominantly fine sand with layers of silt and medium sand to the maximum soil
boring depth of 25 ft bgs. Bedrock was reportedly not encountered while drilling. Elevated headspace
readings were obtained from soil boring TSB-4 and the sediment sample obtained from the catch basin
formerly located to the north of the main manufacturing building (with soil sample designation "CB-1").
Field petrolflag screening conducted by TEI identified elevated concentrations of petroleum in soil
samples from soil boring TSB-7 (at 443 ppm) and CB-1 (>10,000 ppm). Select soil samples were
submitted for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), RCRA 8 metals, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total petroleum hydrocarbons-diesel
range organic (TPH-DRO), and pH. The laboratory results of these analyses indicated concentrations of
chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) tetrachloroethene (PCE) (CB-1 and TSB-11),
FSL Associates, Inc. 4
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
trichloroethene (TCE) (CB-1, TSB-10, TSB-11, and TSB-9), and 1,2-dichloroethene (CB-1 only), of which,
the highest concentrations of PCE, TCE and 1,2-dichloroethene were detected in sample CB-1. TPH-DRO
were detected in six (6) of the eight (8) soil samples submitted for this analysis by TEI at varying depths
and at varying concentrations between 12 ppm and 5,400 ppm. The highest concentrations (above
1,000 ppm) were detected at CB-1 and TSB-4 (20-22.5 ft bgs) at 5,400 ppm and 2,300 ppm, respectively.
Heavy metals arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver, and mercury were detected
at varying concentrations in the soil samples submitted. Lead was detected at a maximum
concentration of 41,000 ppm at TSB-9 and a second highest value of 34,000 ppm at CB-1. A lead
concentration of 1,100 ppm was detected at TSB-11; values of lead in the remaining five (5) soil samples
were detected at an average concentration of 142 ppm. PCBs were below the laboratory detection
limits in the soil samples submitted for analysis by TEL The nine (9) soil samples were also analyzed for
semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs); however, these concentrations were not included in TEI's soil
summary table and the analytical data was not made available to FSL prior to the completion of this
report. Refer to Table 9 for a summary of TEI's soil analytical results.
One-inch diameter groundwater monitoring wells were installed in soil borings TSB-1, TSB-3, TSB-4, and
TSB-5. A two-inch diameter groundwater monitoring well was installed in soil boring TSB-2. The
monitoring wells were designated by TEI as MW-1 through MW-5. For the purposes of this report so as
not to confuse these designations with those used by FSL, FSL will add the prefix "T" to all "MW"
groundwater monitoring well designations used by TEI as part of their investigation. The wells were
constructed with 15 feet of slotted screening and finished to the ground surface with road boxes. Depth
to groundwater measurements obtained by TEI in October, 2010 ranged from approximately 13 to 14 ft
bgs in the northwestern portion of the site (TMW-1) to 19.5 to 21 ft bgs in the central and southern
portions of the property (TMW-2 through TMW-5). Based upon the October, 2010 data, TEI indicated
that the direction of groundwater flow at the site was to the southeast. TEI collected samples of
groundwater from the five groundwater monitoring wells in October, 2010 using low-flow sampling
methods. Non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) was not observed during monitoring well gauging and
sampling activities. The groundwater samples were submitted to an analytical testing laboratory (the
laboratory name was not included in the portions of TEI's report obtained by FSL) for analysis of VOCs,
RCRA 8 metals, PAHs, PCBs, and TPH-DRO. These groundwater analytical results are summarized in
Table 10.
PCBs, SVOCs, and TPH-DRO were below the laboratory detection limit for the groundwater samples
collected from the site by TEI in October, 2010. CVOCs PCE and TCE were detected in groundwater
monitoring wells TMW-2 through TMW-5 at maximum concentrations of 53 ppb and 17 ppb,
respectively. Cis-1,2dichloroethene was also detected in groundwater monitoring wells TMW-2, TMW-
3, and TMW-4, at a maximum concentration of 9.0 ppb in monitoring well TMW-3. Heavy metals
barium, chromium, and lead were detected in groundwater monitoring wells TMW-1, TMW-2, TMW-4,
and TMW-5 at maximum concentrations of 120, 84, and 70 ppb, respectively. Lead was detected at
concentrations of 24, 70, 38 and 22 ppb in groundwater monitoring wells TMW-1, TMW-2, TMW-4, and
TMW-5, all values of which exceed the applicable Method 1 GW-3 standard of 10 ppb for lead.
FSL Associates, Inc. 5
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
Cadmium was detected in monitoring well TMW-3 at a concentration of 4.3 ppb, above the applicable
Method 1 GW-3 standard of 4.0 ppb for cadmium.
It is unknown if the groundwater samples collected by TEI during their investigation were filtered prior
to sample collection. Filtering groundwater samples prior to collection is done to remove sediment
spikes that could contribute to false-positive readings of constituents in the groundwater. Filtering
groundwater samples prior to collection is allowed at any disposal site in Massachusetts that does not
meet GW-1 inclusionary criteria.
3.3.2 Unknown Report Name — GeoInsight, Inc., 2012
GeoInsight, Inc. (GeoInsight) of Littleton, MA completed a report for the subject site in December, 2012.
Cooperstown included portions of Geolnsight's report in the Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report for
the site; however, the report name and client were missing from the report, along with several pages of
the report body and all appendices except for two (2) figures, four (4) tables, and soil boring logs.
Analytical data for the soil and groundwater samples collected by TEI in October, 2010 were not
included with the portions of the report that FSL obtained. As of the time of completion of this report,
FSL has not received a copy of this report from GeoInsight.
3.3.3 Release Abatement Measure Plan — FSL, 2014
On November 24, 2014, FSL submitted a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan to MADEP on behalf
of 80 Elm Street, LLC for the subject site. The RAM Plan summarized assessment activities conducted by
FSL at the site from August to September, 2014 and also summarized the removal of an approximately
1,500 gallon (UST) which had formerly been used at the site for the storage of No. 2 fuel oil. The RAM
Plan set provisions for the removal of up to 1,000 cubic yards of soil impacted with elevated levels of
lead. Refer to section 5.1 for a detailed summary of the RAM Plan submitted for the site by FSL.
3.3.4 Phase I Initial Site Investigation and Tier Classification — Cooperstown, 2015
On January 21, 2015, Cooperstown submitted a Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report to MADEP on
behalf of 80 Elm Street, LLC for the subject site. The Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report classified
the site as Tier II, removing the default Tier 1D classification. The Phase I ISI and Tier Classification
report is discussed in section 4 of this report.
3.3.5 RAM Plan Addendum — FSL, 2015
On February 26, 2015, FSL submitted a RAM Plan Addendum to MADEP on behalf of 80 Elm Street, LLC
for the subject site. The RAM Plan Addendum was submitted to include the demolition of the former
site buildings and improvements and the removal and disposal of the approximately 1,500 gallon UST as
part of RAM activities in order to allow the Responsible Party ("RP") to potentially qualify for
Brownfields Tax Credits. The RAM Plan Addendum is discussed in section 5.2 of this report.
FSL Associates, Inc. 6
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
4.0 PHASE I INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1 Phase I Initial Site Investigation Report Conclusions
The conclusions of the Phase I ISI performed by Cooperstown relative to RTN 3-29804 are as follows: "
"The Disposal Site is more than 500 feet from the nearest water bodies (wetlands leading to Sawins Pond) and
the Charles River. The site history indicates that the property was used for the manufacturing and maintenance
of automobile batteries for many years.The conceptual site model [by Cooperstown] for the Disposal Site is that
incidental releases of lead and acid resulted in contamination of soils underneath the historic buildings (the
buildings have since been demolished). Additionally the historical use of the building resulted in the discharge
of petroleum, metals and possibly solvents into the catch basin historically located north of the main building.
Based on [their] conceptual site model, Comprehensive Response Actions [were deemed necessary by
Cooperstown] at the Disposal Site, and Phase II Comprehensive Response Actions [were to be] conducted as
discussed [in section 9.0 of their Phase I ISI report]." Cooperstown's full Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report
can be viewed at MADEP's northeast regional office in Wilmington, MA or via MADEP's public database of
reportable release sites.
4.2 Tier Classification
Based on Cooperstown's Tier Classification Evaluation, the disposal site does not meet any of the Tier I
Inclusionary Criteria established at 310 CMR 40.0520(a-d); therefore, the disposal site at 80 Elm Street was
classified as a Tier II disposal site pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0520(4). The disposal site is listed as Tier II on
MADEP's public database of reportable release sites as of the time of submittal of this report. A Phase II
Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0830 or Permanent Solution Statement pursuant
to 310 CMR 40.1000 is due on January 21, 2018.
4.3 Phase II Scope of Work
4.3.1 Soil Investigation
Cooperstown indicated that the lead concentrations in soil have been well documented. Remediation
activities to address the highest instances of lead concentrations (those in excess of UCLs) had already
been completed by the time of submittal of the Phase I ISI and Tier Classification report.
4.3.2 Groundwater Investigation
Cooperstown indicated in their report that a limited investigation of groundwater had been conducted
to date as of January 21, 2015. Additional investigation of groundwater was recommended to better
characterize the condition of the groundwater (in particular,the metals concentrations in groundwater).
FSL Associates, Inc. 7
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
4.3.3 Risk Characterization
Cooperstown recommended that a risk assessment be performed to characterize the risk of harm to
health, public welfare and the environment following the completion of their additional recommended
field investigations that would comprehensively assess the source, nature, and extent of oil and/or
hazardous materials (OHM) at the disposal site. If the Phase II assessment activities had determined
that the presence of OHM is limited to soil or groundwater, a Method 1 risk characterization was
recommended to be used; otherwise, Cooperstown would use a Method 3 risk characterization
approach. If the risk assessment determined that Comprehensive Response Actions were required, a
Phase III feasibility study would be prepared.
5.0 RELEASE ABATEMENT MEASURE
5.1 RAM Plan
On November 24, 2014 and in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0440 of the MCP, FSL submitted a RAM Plan to
MADEP for the site. The RAM was the first submittal made to MADEP since the submittal of the RLF to MADEP
by the former RP on February 15, 2011; for this reason, FSL had summarized assessment activities and other
activities conducted since that time in the RAM Plan.
5.1.1 Assessment Activities
FSL was contracted by the RP in the summer of 2014 to conduct assessment activities to fulfill the
requirements of a Phase I Initial Site Investigation as per 310 CMR 40.0480. Subsurface investigations
were conducted on August 6, 2014 and August 7, 2014, during which time six (6) soil borings were
advanced to minimum depths and maximum depths of 1.5 ft bgs and 10.0 ft bgs, respectively. Drilling
operations were conducted on these two days using a 3 %" AMST`" hand auger. Seven (7) soil samples
were collected and relinquished to RI Analytical, Inc., a Massachusetts state certified analytical testing
laboratory for analysis of RCRA 8 metals.
Additional subsurface investigations were conducted on August 29, 2014 and September 5, 2014.
Drilling was conducted by Drilex Environmental, Inc. of West Boylston, MA using a direct-push Geoprobe
directed by FSL personnel. A total of twenty one (21) soil borings were advanced and five (5)
groundwater monitoring wells installed on these two dates. Forty (40) soil samples were collected, all of
which were analyzed for RCRA 8 Metals and six (6) of which were analyzed for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) via method 8260. Samples were selected for analysis of VOCs based on field
screening with a Combo Pro 2020 Photoionization Detector (PID) which indicated readings above 5.0
parts per million (ppm). All soil analytical testing was completed by RI Analytical, Inc. Field screening
results are summarized in Table 1.
One (1) groundwater sample was collected from a formerly installed monitoring well which was
identified by FSL personnel during the August 7t" limited subsurface investigation (identified by FSL as
groundwater monitoring well "FE-1"). An additional five (5) groundwater samples were collected from
FSL Associates, Inc. 8
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
the newly installed monitoring wells, two (2) of which were collected on September 4, 2014 and three
(3) of which were collected on September 18, 2014 (groundwater monitoring wells identified by FSL as
MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, and MW-5). All groundwater samples were relinquished to RI Analytical,
Inc. for analysis of VOCs via method 8260.
Soil analytical results indicated concentrations of VOCs naphthalene, PCE, toluene, and TCE below the
applicable S-2/GW-2 Method 1 Soil Standards and varying concentrations of heavy metals arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver, of which lead was detected above the applicable
Method 1 Soil Standards at an average concentration of 1654.75 ppm and a maximum concentration of
49,600 ppm. The Method 1 Soil Standard for lead is 600 ppm. TCE was also detected in soil sample "Soil
Pile 1 (P)" (see Section 5.1.3) at 2.1 ppm, above the Method 1 Soil Standard of 0.3 ppm for TCE. Heavy
metal arsenic was also detected in soil sample "Soil Pile 2 (L)" (see Section 5.1.3) at a concentration of
21.0 ppm, above the Method 1 Soil Standard of 20.0 ppm for arsenic.
The average concentration of lead in soil was calculated using all fifty four (54) soil samples collected
during FSL's assessment activities in 2014, forty seven (47) of which were collected during the
subsurface investigations described above, five (5) of which were collected following the removal of an
underground storage tank (UST), the activities of which are summarized in section 5.1.2 below, and two
(2) of which were collected to characterize soil for off-site disposal.
Groundwater analytical results indicated concentrations of VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene, PCE, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and TCE, of which only TCE was detected above the applicable Method 1 Groundwater
Standards at a maximum concentration of 57.0 parts per billion ppb. The Method 1 GW-2 Groundwater
Standard for TCE is 5.0 ppb.
Soil and groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 2A, Table 213, Table 3,Table 4, Table 5
and Table 6. Soil and groundwater analytical data collected during FSL's investigations are included in
Appendix D. Boring logs for FSL's assessment activities are included in Appendix I.
5.1.2 Underground Storage Tank Removal
On August 1, 2014, the Watertown Fire Department issued a permit to 80 Elm Street, LLC for the
removal of an approximately 1,500 gallon UST formerly used for the storage of No. 2 fuel oil and
transportation to an approved tank disposal yard. The UST was identified as having been located
beneath the formerly existing building which covered the southeastern-most portion of the property.
The tank was uncovered on the same day by Marcelino Design & Construction, Inc. (MDC) of Allston,
MA. The top of the tank was ripped open, at which time some soils from the sidewalls of the excavation
fell into the tank, where sludge remained from the No. 2 fuel oil which was formerly stored in the tank.
MDC proceeded to further rip apart the top of the tank, following which time approximately five (5)
cubic yards (cy) of soil and sludge remaining in the tank were stockpiled on top of and covered with %-
inch polyethylene sheeting. No visible signs of oil staining or residue or holes indicative of a leak were
observed on the bottom or sidewalls of the excavation during the removal of the tank from the ground.
FSL Associates, Inc. 9
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
FSL personnel proceeded to collect soil samples from the north, south, east and west sidewalls and
bottom of the tank grave excavation and relinquished them to RI Analytical, Inc. for analysis of
extractable petroleum hydrocarbons / polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (EPH/PAH), volatile petroleum
hydrocarbons (VPH) via methods MADEP EPH/VPH and RCRA 8 Metals. PAH dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
(eastern sidewall only) and heavy metal lead (northern sidewall only) were both detected above the
applicable reportable concentration RCS-1 for each. Lead was detected at an average concentration of
156 ppm from the four (4) sidewalls and bottom of the tank grave. Given the consistent lead
concentrations in the tank grave and lack of EPHs/VPHs or other PAHs detected above RCS-1, FSL finds
that these reportable concentrations are associated with the lead release which is consistent
throughout the southern and western areas of the property.
5.1.3 Soil Disposal Characterization
The maximum concentration of 49,600 ppm lead detected in soil sample SB-8, 0-5' exceeded the Upper
Concentration Limit (UCL) of 6,000 ppm for lead. According to 310 CMR 40.0996(1)(3)(a), "A level of No
Significant Risk of harm to public welfare and to the environment exists or has been achieved for both
current and future conditions if the concentration of oil and/or hazardous material does not exceed an
Upper Concentration Limit...". A Permanent Solution was not able to be achieved for the site without
first establishing a level of No Significant Risk following the completion of assessment activities by FSL in
2014. The RP opted to remove the site soils which yielded the UCL exceedance in an effort to achieve a
Permanent Solution.
FSL personnel proceeded to collect a composite sample ("Soil Pile 2 (L)") of soils at and in the vicinity of
SB-8, 0-5' for analysis according to Massachusetts Interim Policy No. Comm-97-001 (Landfill Protocol
Testing Package), which includes testing for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, conductivity,
flashpoint, pH, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-8082, reactivity, semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and VOCs. Analysis for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) according to Method 1311, 40 CFR § 261.24, for the full RCRA 8 metals (which was
added onto the Comm-97-001 RCRA 5 metals) was conducted. A lead TCLP analysis was also run on
sample SB-8, 0-5'which was still retained by the laboratory on October 7, 2014.
Additionally, the approximately five (5) cy of soils which had fallen into the removed UST and had been
stockpiled on and covered with polyethylene sheeting (sample "Soil Pile 1(13)") was sampled for analysis
according to Interim Policy Comm-97-001 with the RCRA 8 metals inclusion and TCLP RCRA 8 metals
analysis.
Analytical testing for soil disposal characterization was conducted by RI Analytical, Inc. Refer to Table 4
and Table 5 for summaries of the analytical data from the two (2) soil samples collected for disposal
characterization.
Heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, selenium, and silver were all below the TCLP
laboratory reporting limit. Barium was detected in Soil Pile 1 (P) at 0.97 mg/L, below the maximum
concentration of 100.0 mg/L for the toxicity characteristic for barium. Lead was detected in Soil Pile 1
FSL Associates, Inc. 10
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
(P), Soil Pile 2 (L) and SB-8, 0-5' at concentrations of 21.0 mg/L, 120.0 mg/L, and 346.0 mg/L,
respectively. All three lead detections are well over the maximum concentration of 5.0 mg/L for the
toxicity characteristic for lead; therefore, soil removed from the site must be transported and disposed
of as a federally regulated Hazardous Waste.
5.1.4 RAM Plan Objective
The objectives of the RAM Plan were to perform:
1.) Excavation and off-site disposal of soil in a western area of the site in the vicinity of soil boring SB-8,
0-5' and Soil Pile 2(L); the area that contained the lead concentrations in exceedance of the UCL;
2.) Off-site disposal of approximately five (5) cubic yards of petroleum impacted soil which had fallen
into an UST during removal activities.
The objective of the RAM effort was to reduce lead contaminant concentrations to levels which do not
present a risk to public welfare, i.e., below the UCL concentration. The RAM, by itself, was not intended
to achieve a Condition of No Significant Risk or approach background conditions. The RAM Plan allotted
for the excavation and off-site disposal of up to 1,000 cubic yards of soil. Soil remaining in the
excavation was to be screened in the field using x-ray fluorescence (XRF) for the presence of lead and
soil samples were to be collected from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation to characterize the
lead concentrations remaining in the soil. Soil was to be removed from the excavation accordingly to
reduce the remaining lead in the soil to levels below the UCLs.
5.2 RAM Plan Addendum
On February 26, 2015 and in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0440 of the MCP, FSL submitted a RAM Plan
Addendum to MADEP for the site. No modifications were made to the original RAM Plan submitted for the site
on November 24, 2014 with the exception of edits to the objective and proposed schedule of the RAM Plan as
follows:
"The further objectives of the RAM Plan as per [the] RAM Plan Addendum are to: 3.) Provide documentation for
the demolition and disposal of the former site buildings and site improvements which was completed in the
summer of 2014 and include this work as part of RAM Activities for this disposal site; 4.) Include the removal of
the approximately 1,500 gallon underground storage tank from the site which occurred in August, 2014 as part
of RAM Activities for this disposal site...The further objective of the RAM Plan as per [the] RAM Plan Addendum
are to include the demolition and disposal of the former site buildings and improvements and the removal and
disposal of an underground storage tank as part of RAM Activities in order to allow the RP to [potentially] qualify
for Brownfields Tax Credits." The RAM Plan Addendum attested that the demolition of the former site buildings
and improvements was completed in the summer of 2014 and concluded on or before August 5, 2014. As per a
letter from M.J. Cataldo Landscape & Construction, Inc. to 80 Elm Street LLC dated February 17, 2015, the
demolition materials from the former site building and improvements were disposed of as: 216 tons of wood
debris disposed of at Devens Recycling located in Devens, MA; 480 tons of concrete with rebar disposed of at
FSL Associates, Inc. 11
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
Newport Materials located in Westford, MA; and 728 tons of concrete disposed of at East Coast Crushing in
Medfield, MA. A copy of this letter and the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report are included in
Appendix E.
Section 7.3 of the RAM Plan Addendum ("Proposed Schedule") summarized RAM Activities that had been
completed up until February 26, 2015; refer to section 5.3 below for a summary of RAM Activities completed
and the RAM Completion Statement.
5.3 RAM Completion
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0446 of the MCP, FSL has prepared this RAM Completion Statement
documenting the completion of excavation and off-site disposal of soil contaminated with oil and hazardous
material from the site at 80 Elm Street in Watertown, Massachusetts which is identified under MADEP RTN 3-
29804. This RAM Completion Statement is being electronically filed with a RAM Transmittal Form (BWSC-106)
to MADEP under a separate cover.
5.3.1 RAM Activities Completed
On December 19 and December 20, 2014, soil was excavated from the western area of the site in the
vicinity of soil boring SB-8, 0-5'. Excavated soil was placed on and covered with 6-mil polyethylene
sheeting. Soil was excavated to a depth of approximately 5 feet. From January 5, 2015 to January 7,
2015, 287.36 tons of soil were transported to Clean Earth, Inc. of Kearny, NJ for treatment and disposal.
Uniform hazardous waste manifests under temporary hazardous waste generator ID number
MP6178720881 were provided by Clean Earth for driver transport of the soil from the Site to the
treatment facility.
FSL personnel field screened soil from the bottoms and sidewalls of the excavation for the presence of
lead using a Thermo Scientific Niton XL3t X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer accurate to 20 ppm. A total
of three (3) readings were taken of each soil sample with the XRF (with the exception of sample S-3,
which was screened twice and yielded two values that were non-detect). Screening values ranged from
non-detect to 5,369 ppm in sample S-8 on the southern sidewall of the excavation. Refer to Table 7 for
a summary of the field screening results.
FSL personnel collected soil samples from each of the field screening soil locations and relinquished
them to Accutest Laboratories of Marlborough, MA to be analyzed for lead. FSL personnel collected two
(2) composite samples per sidewall and a total of five (5) composite samples from the bottom of the
excavation. The results indicated varying concentrations of lead from 12 to 3,530 ppm, of which the
highest concentrations (3,000 and 3,530 ppm from samples S-1 and S-8, respectively) were detected on
the southern sidewall. Based on this information, soil remaining in the excavation was determined to be
below the UCLs. Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the post-excavation lead analytical results.
Copies of the waste manifests and weight slips documenting the soil disposal are included in Appendix
E.
FSL Associates, Inc. 12
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
5.3.2 RAM Completion Statement
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0446(4) and (5):
- All site buildings and improvements were demolished and disposed of off-site at Devens
Recycling in Devens, MA (216 tons of wood debris), Newport Materials in Westford, MA (480
tons of concrete with rebar), and East Coast Crushing in Medfield, MA(728 tons of concrete);
- An approximately 1,500 gallon UST formerly used for the storage of No. 2 fuel oil was removed
from the site under permit with the Watertown Fire Department Fire Prevention Division and
disposed of at Allied Recycling Center, Inc. in Walpole, MA, Massachusetts Approved Tank Yard
No. 0015;
A total of 287.36 tons (191.57 cubic yards) of soil impacted with lead concentrations in
exceedance of the UCL for lead and approximately 5 cubic yards of soil impacted with petroleum
were excavated from the western portion of the site in the vicinity of soil boring SB-8;
Soil was transported for off-site disposal to Clean Earth, Inc. of Kearny, NJ;
- Post-excavation soil analytical results indicate that levels of lead are below the UCL for lead.
Therefore, the objectives of the RAM have been met. This RAM was conducted in accordance with 310
CMR 40.0440 and the RAM Plan and RAM Plan Addendum which were submitted to MADEP on
November 24, 2014 and February 26, 2015, respectively.
5.3.3 LSP Opinion
As per 310 CMR 40.0445(2)(e), the Licensed Site Professional offers the following: "This RAM was
completed in conformance with the Release Abatement Measure Plan and Release Abatement Measure
Plan Addendum which were submitted to MADEP on November 24, 2014 and February 26, 2015,
respectively."
6.0 SELECTION OF RISK CHARACTERIZATION METHOD
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0900, a Risk Characterization shall be performed to characterize the risk of harm to
health, safety, public welfare and the environment posed by oil and/or hazardous materials at disposal sites.
The Risk Characterization is used to establish whether a level of No Significant Risk exists or has been achieved
at a disposal site. The MCP specifies three methods for conducting the Risk Characterization.
Method 1 is a chemical-specific approach, which compares site concentrations of oil and/or hazardous material
in the soil and groundwater to promulgated MCP Method 1 Standards and assuming exposure under current
and foreseeable future conditions. Method 1 may be used to characterize the risks at disposal sites where the
presence of oil and hazardous materials (OHM) is limited to soil and/or groundwater, but may not be used if any
other medium is impacted e.g., indoor air, non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL), surface water, sediment, etc.
FSL Associates, Inc. 13
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
Method 2 may be used to supplement and modify the MCP Method 1 Standards with site-and chemical-specific
information. Method 2 Standards may be developed for chemicals for which Method 1 Standards have not been
promulgated, or site- specific information may be used to modify the Method 1 GW-2 standards, GW-2
standards, or the leaching component of the soil standards.
Method 3 is a cumulative approach which compares site-specific information to a Cumulative Cancer Risk Limit
of an Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk of one-in-one hundred thousand, a Cumulative Non-cancer Risk Limit which is
a Hazard Index equal to one, promulgated health, safety, public welfare and environmental standards, and site
specific conditions.
Remaining concentrations of certain compounds (most notably lead in soil) were in exceedance of Method 1
standards; therefore, a Method 1 Risk Characterization may not be applied to this disposal site at this time. A
Method 3 Risk Characterization was therefore completed for the site and is summarized in section 8.0 below.
7.0 REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION AND DATA USABILITY
ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.4056(2)(k), a Representativeness Evaluation, documenting the adequacy of the spatial
and temporal data sets and Data Usability Assessment, documenting that the data relied upon is scientifically
valid and defensible, and of a sufficient level of precision, accuracy, and completeness to support the Permanent
Solution Statement, have been prepared in accordance with MassDEP Policy #WSC-07-350, "MCP
Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments" and are provided in the following sub-sections.
7.1 Representativeness Evaluation
The Representativeness Evaluation is a comprehensive evaluation of the adequacy of the spatial and temporal
data set representing Disposal Site conditions and supporting environmental decision making using Site history,
hydrogeologic and physical data, field observations, analytical data, and exposure potential.
7.1.1 Conceptual Site Model
A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is a description of what and how contaminants entered the environment and
how they were transported within the system, and routes of exposure to human and environmental receptors.
Information relevant to the characterization of Disposal Site conditions supportive of this Permanent Solution is
presented in Sections 2.0 to 5.0 of this report.
The CSM for the subject Site is associated with a release on the subject property of metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons, PAHs, and chlorinated solvents with the most substantial compounds being lead and TCE. The
property was utilized as a battery manufacturing and maintenance facility for over 50 years. During this time,
there have been no reported releases or spills at the facility. Therefore, the presence of site compounds is not
due to a single (or multiple) known event, but instead is more than likely due to overall poor chemical and waste
handling practices. For VOCs, other than TCE in groundwater, only trace concentrations were detected in soil or
groundwater; this indicates that large volumes of solvents were not released to the environment. The source of
FSL Associates, Inc. 14
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
the petroleum hydrocarbons likely is the use of fuel oil at the subject property and the former presence of a
UST. PAHs are most likely not due to historical operations, but due instead to urban backfill. The most
significant detection was lead in soil with concentrations over the MCP UCLs near the southwestern portion of
the site (the former covered outdoor storage area). In this area, batteries may have been improperly stored
allowing their contents (lead and acid) to leak into the soil. Based on the soil sampling data, the elevated levels
of lead were limited to the top five feet of soil, although some of the acidic lead may have migrated to the
groundwater resulting in the levels of lead detected in groundwater in 2010.
There are no known private or public drinking water supplies in the area (within 500 feet) that would be
potentially affected. The site area is within a mixed commercial/residential area and the detected soil
contamination is located on the vacant commercial site which is currently fenced. Thus, there is a lower
potential for direct human contact with the identified contaminants. The only reasonable ecological receptor is
migration of compounds to the nearest surface water(Sawins Pond).
7.1.2 Sampling and Data Quality Objectives
The sampling objective for this Site was to collect an adequate number of samples in a representative spatial
distribution to confirm/deny impact to the subsurface media at the subject property.
Samples were collected by TEI in 2010 and FSL in 2014. Samples collected at the Site in 2014 were analyzed in
accordance with the performance standards outlined in the MassDEP Compendium of Analytical Methods
(CAM), a series of recommended protocols for the acquisition, analysis, and reporting of MCP-related analytical
data. Data collected in 2010 were also presumed to be analyzed in accordance with the CAM, however the
analytical data report was not available to verify this. As such, the only 2010 data that has been quantitatively
used was metals analysis in groundwater as the remaining analyses were superseded by the 2014 sampling
program.
7.1.3 Number and Spatial Distribution of Sampling Locations
To assess the presence of compounds at the Site, a total of 9 soil samples and 5 groundwater samples were
collected in October 2010: 50 soil samples and 6 groundwater samples between August and September 2014;
and 13 soil samples in December 2014 after completion of the RAM excavation. The number of samples
collected was sufficient to determine the nature and extent of the presence of contaminants and establish
conditions of the residual compounds for the purposes of risk characterization.
7.1.4 Collection and Handling of Samples
Samples collected in 2010 were collected by TEL Samples from 2014 were collected by FSL. Samples collected
by FSL in 2014 were collected and handled in accordance with FSL's Standard Operating Procedures and the
CAM (as applicable). No documentation is available for the collection of samples by TEL
FSL Associates, Inc. 15
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
7.1.5 Temporal Distribution of Samples
Soil samples were collected between October 2010 and December 2014. Groundwater samples were collected
in October 2010 and September 2014.
7.1.6 Critical Samples
The samples that are considered to be critical samples are the principle samples that support the conclusion that
a condition of no significant risk is present to human health and the environment. In the Method 3 risk
characterization, maximum concentrations were used to establish exposure point concentrations, despite when
they were collected (except for lead, which is based on the maximum concentration after the RAM excavation).
Groundwater data from 2014 and the metals data from 2010 are viewed as critical as this data shows both the
maximum concentrations and the most current conditions. Soil data from 2014 are viewed as critical as these
are the current data points where the maximum concentrations are obtained.
7.1.7 Completeness
No data gaps have been identified, except the possibility of more recent data on metals in groundwater. These
gaps are not viewed as critical since the only potential exposure to metals in groundwater would be ecological
due to migration to the nearest surface water body. The Critical Samples identified in Section 7.1.6 provide
sufficient information to meet Permanent Solution requirements.
7.1.8 Inconsistency and Uncertainty
The data collected is not inconsistent with the conclusions of the Site risk characterization. A small amount of
uncertainty remains regarding the lack of current metals data in groundwater.
7.2 Data Usability Assessment
A Data Usability Assessment has an analytical and field component. An Analytical Data Assessment evaluates
whether analytical data points are scientifically valid and defensible, and of sufficient level of precision,
accuracy, and sensitivity to support the Permanent Solution. The Field Data Usability Assessment evaluates
whether the sampling procedure ensures that the samples that are collected and delivered to the laboratory are
representative of the sampling points. These two components of the assessment are presented below.
7.2.1 Analytical Data Usability Assessments
Analytical data in support of this Permanent Solution were provided by Accutest of Marlborough, MA, and RI
Analytical of Warwick, RI. Soil and groundwater samples were collected on-Site between 2010 and 2014 and
submitted for the analysis of constituents via EPA and MassDEP-approved analytical methodology. Analyses by
Accutest and RI Analytical (samples collected in 2014) were performed in compliance with the MassDEP CAM
protocols and the resultant data are referred to herein as CAM-Compliant Data. No laboratory analytical reports
were available for samples collected in 2010 and are referred to as non-CAM data.
FSL Associates, Inc. 16
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
Analytical data supportive of this Permanent Solution are provided in Appendix D.
7.2.1.1 CAM-Compliant Data
Site-related groundwater samples were submitted to RI Analytical Laboratory in 2014 under a chain of custody,
for analysis of constituents via EPA and MassDEP-approved analytical methodology. There were no issues or
samples collected on August 8, 2014 and September 4, 2014. For samples collected on September 23, 2014,
methylethyl ketone had a minimum response factor below recommended limits in continuing calibration
standard. This issue is not significant.
Site-related soil samples were submitted to RI Analytical and Accutest in 2014 under a chain of custody, for
analysis of constituents via EPA and MassDEP-approved analytical methodology. For soil samples collected on
August 8, 2014, September 8, 2014, and December 19, 2014, no issues were identified. For soil samples
collected on September 8, 2014 as part of the UST removal, the relative percent difference (RPD) for the
laboratory control spike sample (LCS) and LCS duplicate (LCSD) exceeded the 20% QC acceptance for n-nonane,
phenanthrene, and fluoranthene. Also, the recovery for n-nonane in the LCS and LCSD were below 30%. For soil
samples collected on September 2, 2014, recoveries on the LCS and LCSD for bromomethane and 1,4-diozane
were below 70%, which also resulted in the RDP exceedance of these compounds. These issues are not
considered to be significant.
7.2.1.2 Non-CAM Data
No laboratory report was provided for the soil and groundwater data collected in 2010. It may have been
analyzed in full compliance of the CAM, but this cannot be verified without the analytical report. The analysis
parameters from 2010 were repeated in 2014 except for metals in groundwater. As such, the only quantitative
data on metals in groundwater is from the 2010 sampling and analysis. Remaining data from 2010 has been
quantitatively superseded by the 2014 data.
7.2.2 Field Data Usability Assessment
According to the laboratory reports in support of this Permanent Solution, all samples were properly preserved,
no holding times were exceeded, and all samples were received by the laboratory at proper temperatures.
Sufficient information was available as to the sampling procedures for samples collected by FSL (2014). No
information is available as to the collection of soil and groundwater samples in 2010.
7.2.3 Rejection of Analytical Data
Laboratory analytical data for samples in support of this Permanent Solution have been deemed usable. The
deficiencies identified in Section 7.2.1 do not qualify as a gross failure of quality control based on the rejection
criteria presented in the MassDEP Policy#WSC-07-350. The lack of a laboratory report for the 2010 analysis is also
problematic, but this data was not rejected since the inclusion of the data (specifically metals in groundwater data)
resulted in a more conservative risk characterization (see Section 8).
FSL Associates, Inc. 17
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
7.3 Conclusions
The Representativeness Evaluation confirmed the adequacy of the spatial data set based on the Site history,
hydrogeologic and physical data, field observations, analytical data, and exposure potential presented in this
Permanent Solution.
The Data Usability Assessment addressed deficiencies, as identified in Section 7.2. These deficiencies do not
affect the overall usability of the data since they do not meet the applicable rejection criteria, except as noted in
Section 7.2.3. Therefore, it is FSL's opinion that un-rejected data in support of this Permanent Solution are of
adequate precision, accuracy, and completeness.
8.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
8.1 Identification of MCP Applicable Groundwater and Soil Categories
Based on Site characteristics, it is FSL's opinion that the current applicable MCP groundwater categories for the
Site is GW-3. Groundwater category GW-3 applies since all groundwater is considered to be a potential source
of discharge to surface water. The GW-2 groundwater category does not apply to the Site because the depth to
groundwater is greater than 15 feet. Category GW-1 does not apply because the Site is not located within a
potential drinking water source area or a current drinking water source area. Underground municipal water
services are available to the Site and the vicinity, and no known private wells are located within 500 feet of the
Site. Refer to Figure 2 for a copy of the MADEP Numerical Ranking System Map.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0933(4)(a), the frequency of use on the subject property has been classified as "high"
for adults that work at the site and "low" for children and adults at the site. Frequency of use for
construction/utility workers may be classified as "low" because they are not at the site on a continuing basis.
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0933(4) (b), the intensity of use at the subject property has been classified as "low" for
on-site workers and customers and these receptors are likely to engage in only passive activities. Should any
ground intrusive activities be conducted at this property in the future, the intensity of use for
construction/utility workers would be classified as "high"for the duration of said activities.
Potentially impacted soil identified at the subject property may remain in unpaved areas in surficial soils (at
depths less than three feet from the surface) and is classified as "accessible" pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0933(4)(c).
Given the above and the criteria set forth in 310 CMR 40.0933, soil at the subject property is categorized as Soil
Category S-2 under current and future conditions of the subject property. To ensure that the site will not be
redeveloped as a residential property in the future, or other use where children would be present at a higher
frequency or intensity, an AUL has been placed on the Site to restrict such uses. For the purposes of this risk
characterization, soil has been classified as S-2.
FSL Associates, Inc. 18
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
8.2 Current and Foreseeable Site Uses
The site is located to the west of Elm Street in a commercial and residential area of Watertown, Massachusetts.
The site consists of approximately 34,369 square feet of land that is currently unimproved.
The site was formerly improved with several contiguous one- and two-story buildings formerly used for
commercial land use as part of Atlantic Battery, a battery manufacturer. The buildings covered approximately
two thirds of the property parcel, the majority of the rest of which was improved with an asphalt paved parking
lot and associated driveway off of Elm Street. A loading dock for one of the buildings was also located at the
northwestern corner of property and accessed via a parking lot on the northwestern abutting property, 10
Wheeler Court. The site owner demolished and properly disposed of the buildings and remaining improvements
on the property. Demolition work began in the summer of 2014 and ended on or before August 5, 2014.
Continued future use of the property is presumed to be commercial.
8.3 Summary of Risk Characterization
A Site-specific Method 3 risk characterization associated with residual constituents related to the Site is included
as Appendix F. Toxicity Profiles of the Chemicals of Concern (COCs) are included in Appendix G. The exposure
assumptions and risk assessment findings are summarized below. The risk characterization identified COCs in
the Site area; developed exposure pathways and factors for current and future receptors; identified toxicity
dose/response factors; and presented methods and results of human health and ecological risk assessment.
Site soil and groundwater were the media exhibiting residual COCs. The COCs identified in soil include the
following: metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver; volatile petroleum
hydrocarbon (VPH) fractions C9-C12 aliphatics and C9-C10 aromatics; extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (EPH)
fractions C9-C18 aliphatics, C19-C36 aliphatics, and C11-C22 aromatics; naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene, EPH
target polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethene, toluene, and trichloroethene.
Constituents detected in groundwater samples collected include the VOCs cis-1,2-dichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethene, and metals including barium, cadmium,
chromium, and lead.
No soil gas or indoor air samples were collected as there were no buildings located on the property.
EPCs were based on the maximum concentrations detected in soil and groundwater from all samples collected
between August 2014 and December 2014 with the exception of lead in soil and metals in groundwater. The soil
EPC of lead was based on the maximum lead concentration remaining at the property post RAM excavation. The
average remaining lead concentration was also calculated. Maximum lead concentrations were used for the
commercial worker and trespasser scenario for EPCs. Both the maximum and average lead values were used as
EPCs for the construction worker. Groundwater metals data was not collected in 2014, and the metals EPCs are
maximum concentrations from samples collected in October 2010.
FSL Associates, Inc. 19
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
The receptors identified for current and future uses of the subject property include future commercial workers,
trespassers, and construction/utility workers. An Activity and Use Limitations (AUL) has been implemented for
this site. This risk characterization assumed that an AUL would be implemented to restrict site uses such as
residential and schools for children under 18. The trespasser exposure for risk was based on the 11-18 year old
child. Commercial worker and trespasser exposure pathways included soil dermal contact and incidental
ingestion. Construction/utility workers were assumed to be exposed to soil via dermal contact, incidental
ingestion, and inhalation of fugitive dust (respiratory and gastric absorption routes). The exposure scenarios
used MassDEP recommended values for receptor and contact assumptions.
Toxicity dose/response values for COCs were obtained from MassDEP and EPA. The chronic and subchronic
exposure of a resident receptor to COCs relative to corresponding toxicity values was calculated for each COC as
a hazard quotient, and the individual hazard quotients were summed to yield a Hazard Index (HI) for each
exposure pathway. Individual exposure pathway His were summed to calculate a cumulative non-cancer HI.
The subchronic exposure for the period of construction/utility work was likewise calculated and related to
toxicity values to evaluate the cumulative non-cancer HI for workers. The cumulative hazard index (the sum of
exposure pathway His) for each receptor was compared to MassDEP health hazard limits. The cumulative HI for
the on-site commercial worker, on-site trespasser, and construction/utility worker (5.6E-01, 9.2E-01, and 4.4E-
01, respectively — see Table F-19) was below the MassDEP non-cancer risk threshold (HI = 1.0). Estimated
lifetime cancer risks (ELCRs) were calculated by summing the cancer risks for each carcinogenic COC at each
exposure pathway. The ELCR for each receptor was compared to MassDEP health hazard limits. The cumulative
ELCR for the on-site commercial worker, on-site trespasser, and construction/utility worker (2.4 E-06, 4.0E-07,
and 3.5E-07, respectively — see Table F-19) was below the MassDEP cancer risk threshold (ELCR = 1.0E-05).
These results support a finding that residual contaminants in soil pose no significant risk of harm to current or
future human receptors as long as the AUL conditions are maintained. The human health risk was calculated
based on conservative receptor exposure assumptions and exposure point concentrations.
Site soil extent and proximity to resource areas would not constitute a potentially significant exposure to avian
or terrestrial fauna. The site is partially paved and the site area is less than two contiguous acres. The site is not
within a Massachusetts Rare Habitat and no threatened or endangered species exist on the site. Therefore,
according to MassDEP guidance, the site is not considered a substantial habitat for terrestrial or avian receptors
currently or in the future. To evaluate the potential for significant exposure to aquatic organisms inhabiting the
closest surface water body (Sawins Pond), the analytical transport model-derived estimated surface water
concentrations (ESWCs) were compared to available water quality benchmarks (Table F-21). The ESWCs did not
exceed the available benchmarks. Thus, site groundwater is unlikely to pose a significant risk of harm to
environmental receptors in the most proximal surface water body. Therefore, a condition of NSR of harm to the
environment at the site is supported.
The Method 3 Risk Characterization upper concentration limits (UCLs)for soil were not exceeded by the EPCs for
these media. Thus,the Site does not exceed UCL criteria protective of public welfare.
Site specific evaluation of risk to human health, ecological health, public welfare and safety from release
condition 3-29804 was conducted in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0900 and MassDEP guidance, and supports a
FSL Associates, Inc. 20
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
finding of no significant risk. Refer to Appendix D for soil and groundwater laboratory results used in
completing this Permanent Solution and Method 3 Risk Assessment.
9.0 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION SUMMARY
A Notice of Activity and Use Limitations is required to maintain a condition of no significant risk as summarized
in Section 8.0. The land area of the Notice is shown in Figure 7.This Notice was recorded in the Middlesex South
Registry of Deeds on February 27, 2015 under Book 64979, Page 207. The content of the Notice is summarized
below. A copy of the recorded AUL is included as Appendix H.
9.1 Location of AUL
The portion of the property subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is the entire property of 80 Elm
Street and applies to the soil at this property.
9.2 Site Activities and Uses to be Permitted
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1074(2), the following list of activities and uses are permitted to occur on the
portion of the property subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is to include the following
paragraphs:
• Commercial and industrial uses to include (but not limited to) such uses as manufacturing, retail, office
space, restaurant, hotel, and underground parking;
• Such other activities or uses which, in the Opinion of a Licensed Site Professional, shall present no
greater risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare or the environment than the activities and uses set
forth in this section; and
• Such other activities and uses not identified in Section 7 as being Activities and Uses Inconsistent with
maintaining No Significant Risk Conditions.
9.3 Site Activities and Uses to be Prohibited
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1074(2), the list of activities and uses are prohibited from occurring on the
portion of the property subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is to include the following
paragraphs:
• Any use for residential, day care, school (for children under 18 years of age), public park, and/or
community center(for children under 18 years of age); and
• Excavation, drilling, or otherwise disturbing the soil unless controls are established as identified in
Section 9.4.
FSL Associates, Inc. 21
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
9.4 Obligations and Conditions Necessary to Maintain a Level of No Significant Risk
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1074(2), the list of obligations and/or conditions to be undertaken and/or
maintained at the portion of the property subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation to maintain a
condition of No Significant Risk is to include the following paragraphs:
• Construction or site improvements, including utility-related activities, involving the excavation,
disturbance, or movement of subsurface strata must be carried out in accordance with performance
standards for Release Abatement Measures (RAMs) set forth by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
(MCP) at 310 CMR 40.0440, the performance standards for Utility Related Abatement Measures
(URAMs) set forth by the MCP under 310 CMR 40.0460, the Soil Management procedures pursuant to
310 CMR 40.0030, and/or all applicable worker health and safety practices pursuant to 310 CMR
40.0018.
10.0 FEASIBILITY OF ACHIEVING OR APPROACHING BACKGROUND
10.1 Identification of Background Conditions
In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0900 and associated MADEP guidance documents, constituents are eliminated
from the list of constituents of concern (COCs) if they are present at a low frequency of detection, if they are
present at levels which are consistent with "background" concentrations for the area and there is no evidence
that these constituents are related to activities at the Site, or if the constituents are field or laboratory
contaminants.
Background conditions (both natural and anthropogenic background) are defined in the MCP (310 CMR 40.0006)
as those levels of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the Disposal Site of concern
which are either:
(a) attributable to geologic or ecological conditions or atmospheric deposition of industrial process or
engine emissions and are ubiquitous and consistently present in the environment at and in the vicinity of the
disposal site of concern;
(b) attributable to historic fill material;
(c) associated with sources specifically exempt from the MCP;
(d) releases to groundwater from a public water supply system; or
(e) petroleum residues that are incidental to the normal operation of motor vehicles.
Specific background samples were not collected at the Site, but the site consists of historic fill material that can
be considered as anthropogenic background.
FSL Associates, Inc. 22
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
10.2 Feasibility of Achieving or Approaching Background
An evaluation of the feasibility of achieving or approaching background for this Site has been done in
conformance with MADEP Policy #WSC-04-160 "Conducting Feasibility Evaluations under the MCP". This
evaluation conforms to the requirements of Presumptive Certainty as described in the above-mentioned policy.
Under the Presumptive Certainty requirements, for the contaminants defined as non-persistent and
biodegradable (with the exception of small quantities of accessible petroleum contamination in surface soil),
MADEP's position is that achieving or approaching background is deemed infeasible as the benefits of additional
remediation are considered insufficient to justify the costs. For this Site, the non-persistent compounds
detected in soil consist of the VPH and EPH fractions, methylene chloride, toluene, naphthalene, and 2-
methylnaphthalene. Therefore additional assessment of the feasibility to achieve or approach background is
only necessary for the remaining detected compounds including for soil the RCRA metals, PAHs, PCE, and TCE;
and for groundwater the metals barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead, PCE,TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and cis-1,2-DCE.
The concentrations of remaining detected compounds in soil of metals (other than lead), PAHs (other than
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene), and PCE already meet the definition of "approaching background" in the MADEP
policy. The individual concentrations in each soil sample (where present) are all below the Method 1 S-1/GW-2
and S-1/GW-3 standards.
The concentrations of remaining detected concentrations of barium, chromium, 1,1,1-TCA, cis-1,2-DCE, and PCE
in groundwater already meet the definition of "approaching background" in the MADEP policy. The individual
concentrations in groundwater samples are all less than one-half the Method 1 GW-2 and GW-3 standards. This
is based on the most recent 2014 groundwater sampling event and the historic 2010 sampling.
The remaining compounds to address feasibility to achieve background include lead, dibenzo(a,h)a nth racene,
and TCE in soil and cadmium, lead, and TCE in groundwater. In accordance with the MADEP policy, it is MADEP's
position that achieving or approaching background can be deemed infeasible for persistent contaminants in soil
located in areas with lower exposure potential (i.e., S-2 and S-3 soil categories). The current site use, and
foreseeable future use, as a commercial facility allows that soil be classified as S-2 in unpaved areas.Thus, under
current and foreseeable future conditions, it is categorically infeasible to achieve or approach background for
the residual compounds in soil.
To actively achieve or approach background for groundwater, a new and separate remedial system would be
required. Additional soil excavation could be performed, but this would not likely be effective in reducing metals
and TCE levels in groundwater as there does not appear to be a source of cadmium or TCE in the soil matrix.
Therefore, a groundwater extraction and treatment system would likely be the most effective option. As this
would require design, installation, and operation/maintenance of this new system, costs for this new system are
expected to be significantly greater than 20%of the costs to achieve a condition of no significant risk at this site.
Also, since there does not appear to be any remaining contaminant source, there is no justification via cost-
benefit analysis to perform additional active site remediation for groundwater.
FSL Associates, Inc. 23
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
In conclusion, for the residual concentrations or COCs in soil and groundwater at this site, in accordance with the
MADEP policy on the feasibility to achieve or approach background, background has either been achieved or
approached, it is categorically infeasible to achieve or approach background, or the cost-benefit analysis does
not support additional remediation to achieve background. No additional response measures are required for
this site.
11.0 PERMANENT SOLUTION STATEMENT
The following sections summarize the requirements of a Permanent Solution Statement as per 310 CMR
40.1056. Applicable sections of the regulation are listed below.
11.1 40.1056(2)(a). Description of the Boundaries of the Disposal Site
The estimated horizontal extent of the disposal site is depicted on Figure 6 of this report.
11.2 40.1056(2)(b) Conceptual Site Model
A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is a description of what and how contaminants entered the environment and
how they were transported within the system, and routes of exposure to human and environmental receptors.
Information relevant to the characterization of Disposal Site conditions supportive of this Permanent Solution is
presented in Sections 2.0 to 5.0 of this report.
The CSM for the subject Site is associated with a release on the subject property of metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons, PAHs, and chlorinated solvents with the most substantial compounds being lead and TCE. The
property was utilized as a battery manufacturing and maintenance facility for over 50 years. During this time,
there have been no reported releases or spills at the facility. Therefore, the presence of site compounds is not
due to a single (or multiple) known event, but instead is more than likely due to overall poor chemical and waste
handling practices. For VOCs, other than TCE in groundwater, only trace concentrations were detected in soil or
groundwater; this indicates that large volumes of solvents were not released to the environment. The source of
the petroleum hydrocarbons likely is the use of fuel oil at the subject property and the former presence of a
UST. PAHs are most likely not due to historical operations, but due instead to urban backfill. The most
significant detection was lead in soil with concentrations over the MCP UCLs near the southwestern portion of
the site (the former covered outdoor storage area). In this area, batteries may have been improperly stored
allowing their contents (lead and acid) to leak into the soil. Based on the soil sampling data, the elevated levels
of lead were limited to the top five feet of soil, although some of the acidic lead may have migrated to the
groundwater resulting in the levels of lead detected in groundwater in 2010.
There are no known private or public drinking water supplies in the area (within 500 feet) that would be
potentially affected. The site area is within a mixed commercial/residential area and the detected soil
contamination is located on the vacant commercial site which is currently fenced. Thus, there is a lower
potential for direct human contact with the identified contaminants. The only reasonable ecological receptor is
migration of compounds to the nearest surface water(Sawins Pond).
FSL Associates, Inc. 24
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
11.3 40.1056(2)(c) Demonstration that All Sources of OHM Contamination Have Been
Eliminated or Controlled
The source of contamination is most likely attributable to poor historic chemical and waste handling procedures
by the former battery facility. All structures related to this facility (including the fuel oil UST) have been
removed. The soil known to have lead concentrations above UCLs was removed during the RAM. No site-
related contaminant sources remain on the site.
11.4 40.1056(2)(d). Demonstration that Response Actions Have Been Taken to
Adequately Assess and Control Subsurface Migration of OHM
Given that all of the structures related to the former battery facility have been removed, no remaining
contaminant source is on the site. In addition, the RAM excavation removed the soils with lead concentrations
above the UCLs. Remaining lead and PAHs are more likely due to urban fill material and subsurface migration is
not anticipated as metals and PAHs in soil are not generally mobile. There are only trace VOC concentrations in
soil which would not result in any significant mobilization to groundwater. Concentrations of lead and TCE
related to this site that are already present in groundwater will lessen over time via natural attenuation since
there is no longer a source to allow further site contaminants to enter groundwater. The levels found in
groundwater were too low to result in a significant impact to the closest surface water body.
11.5 40.1056(2)(f). Conclusion That A Level of No Significant Risk Has Been Achieved
A level of No Significant Risk has been established following the completion of a Method 3 Risk Characterization
which concluded that a condition of no significant risk has been achieved for restricted site use. The summary of
the risk characterization is presented in Section 8 and the full risk characterization is included in Appendix F.
11.6 40.1056(2)(g). Reduction of OHM to Background
The feasibility to achieve and/or approach background has been included in Section 10.
11.7 40.1056(2)(h). Activity and Use Limitation
The AUL summary has been included in Section 9 and a copy of the recorded AUL is included as Appendix H.
11.8 40.1056(2)(k). Data Usability Assessment and Data Representativeness Evaluation
This has been included in Section 7.
11.9 40.1056(2)(1). Operation, Maintenance, and/or Monitoring
No operation, maintenance, and/or monitoring are required at this site.
FSL Associates, Inc. 25
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
12.0 CONCLUSIONS
On behalf of the property owner, FSL has prepared this Permanent Solution Statement in accordance with the
provisions of 310 CMR 40.1000. Based on the Method 3 Risk Characterization, FSL represents the following
conclusions:
- The source of oil and/or hazardous material, as specified in 310 CMR 40.1003(5), has been eliminated or
controlled;
- The level of oil and/or hazardous material concentrations in the environment are at levels consistent
with those approaching background, it is categorically infeasible to achieve or approach background, or
the cost-benefit analysis does not support additional remediation to achieve background;
- Achieving background is not feasible;
- No contaminants of concern in soils on-site exceed UCL concentrations;
- A condition of no significant risk to health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists at the
Disposal Site;
- An AUL is required to maintain a level of No Significant Risk. This AUL has already been recorded;
- No operation, maintenance, and/or monitoring are required to maintain a level of no significant risk;
- These conclusions support a Permanent Solution Statement with conditions.
Copies of public notification letters for this Permanent Solution and the AUL are provided in Appendix J.
FSL Associates, Inc. 26
RAM Completion and Permanent Solution with Conditions
80 Elm Street,Watertown,MA 02472
RTN 3-29804
13.0 REFERENCES
• The Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.0000, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108, Effective: 04/25/2014.
• "The Compendium of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements and Performance Standards
for Selected Analytical Methods Used in Support of Response Actions for the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan (MCP)", Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Policy#WSC-02-320,July 1, 2010
• "Conducting Feasibility Evaluations Under The MCP", Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection Policy#WSC-04-160,July 16, 2004
• Environmental Condition Summary Report, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA, October, 2010, Triumvirate
Environmental, Inc. (TEI), 200 Inner Belt Road, Somerville, MA 02143
• [Report name unknown], 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, December, 2012, Geolnsight, Inc., 1
Monarch Drive, Suite 201, Littleton, MA 01460
• Release Abatement Measure Plan, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, November 24, 2014, FSL
Associates, Inc. (FSL), 358 Chestnut Hill Avenue, Boston, MA 02135
• Phase 1 Initial Site Investigation Report and Tier Classification, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472,
January 21, 2015, Cooperstown Environmental, LLC, 23 Main Street,Andover, MA 01810
• Release Abatement Measure Plan Addendum, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, February 26, 2015,
FSL Associates
• Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, 80 Elm Street, Watertown, MA 02472, September 16, 2014,
FSL Associates
FSL Associates, Inc. 27