draft phase ii comprehensive site assessment and draft ......• design and test of manufacturing...

Draft Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment and Draft Phase III Remedial Action Plan

Former Raytheon Wayland Laboratory

430 Boston Post Road, Wayland, Massachusetts

Draft Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment

• Purpose

• Site History

• Site Hydrogeological Characteristics

• Environmental Fate and Transport of OHM

• Nature and Extent of Impact

• Exposure Assessment

• Risk Characterization

Site History

• 1955 - Previously undeveloped land

• 1955-97 - Raytheon leased property (never owned)

• 1957-95 - Raytheon operations

• Located in Water Supply Protection Zone II

• Wetlands located on property

• Adjacent to Sudbury River

• Contiguous with Great Meadows NWR

• Outfall

Baldwin Pond Wells

Site

Raytheon Operations History

• Research and Development facility for defense electronics

• Radar development and testing

• Test radars on roof

• Targets on towers

• Prototype electronic equipment

• Antennae and transmitters

• Design and test of manufacturing processes

• Retrofit of defense electronic field equipment

Site Regulatory History

• 1995-96 - Site closure activities- RTN # 1783 CERCLIS review 1987 (C)- RTN # ERBn92-1340 UST Removal 1992 (C)

• May 1995 - Initiated a Phase I Investigation

• Identified several areas of concern- RTN # 3-13302 Fuel Oil Release 1996 (C)- RTN # 3-13574 VOCs in groundwater 1996- RTN # 3-14042 PCBs in Soil 1996

• May 1996 - Phase I submitted to MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

• 1997 - MCP Tier 1B Classification

Site Regulatory History (cont.)• 1998 – 2000 Continued Site Investigation

• April 2000 - Raytheon notified DEP of potential Imminent Hazard Condition (Ecological)

• May 2000 - Immediate Response Action (IRA)submitted to DEP

• September 2000 - Public Involvement Plan (PIP)submitted to DEP

• November 2000 - New Tier IB Permit issued with conditions

• September 2001 - Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan submitted for Groundwater Pilot Study

Site Evaluation

• Investigation activities included:

• soil evaluations and removal actions

• groundwater sampling

• surface water sampling

• wetland sediment sampling

• aquifer testing

Soil Investigations

• 67 samples analyzed for metals, VOCs, PAHs, and PCBs

• 24 test pits completed in northern portion

• 4 Limited Removal Actions (“LRAs”) performed

• Two RAMs performed

• tank removal and Activity and Use Limitation (“AUL”) by new owner, Wayland Business Center (“WBC”) RTN 3-13302

• soil removal at TP-3 for RTN 3-14042

• Soil concentrations are below MCP standards with exception of the restricted areas (Wayland Business Center, Activity and Use Limitation)

Su

db

ury

Riv

er

Route 20

Route 27NN

Soil SampleLocations

Test Pits

Soil Sampling

Groundwater Evaluation

• Site located in Zone II for Baldwin Pond Wells (1/2 mile) defined by Anderson-Nichols Conceptual Zone II Study

• Groundwater flow in South/Southwest direction

• 58 GW wells installed (shallow, intermediate, deep and bedrock wells)

• Iterative process, 5 phases of drilling

• > 200 analyses of samples since 1996

• Analyzed for VOCs, metals, TPH and inorganic compounds

• VOCs exceed applicable MCP GW-1 guidelines

• Groundwater remediation is required

Su

db

ury

Riv

er

Route 20

Route 27NN

Sample Locations

Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater Contour Map

Groundwater Concentrations

Sediment Evaluation

• 1986-91 U.S. Fish & Wildlife (“USFW”) sampling of Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

• mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, copper and PCBs detected throughout study area

• 1990 Raytheon identified butyl cellusolve release

• collected sediment and surface water samples in river and wetland near outfall

• detected metals and PAHs

• non-detect for butyl cellusolve, VOCs, PCBs and pesticides

• Response Action Outcome (“RAO”) filed in 1995

• 1995 - additional sediment samples collected, could not duplicate USFW data

Sediment Evaluation (cont.)

• Phase II evaluation limited by seasonal access

• late 1998 delineated metals, petroleum, and PCBs near outfall

• 1999 - completed 2 additional sampling rounds

• 2000 - wetland and ecological specialists identified vegetation with stunted growth

Su

db

ury

Riv

er

Route 20

Route27

430 BostonPost Rd

Sediment Sample

Outfall

Sediment Sampling

NN

Results of Sediment Sampling

• Majority of impact within 200 ft of Outfall (OF-1)

• Metals, PCBs and PAHs detected in Sediment at depths 0 - 12 inches

• Area of stunted growth coincides with higher concentrations of metals

Area of Stunted Growth

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Chromium

Copper

Lead

T-1 T-2T-3 T-5 T-7 T-8 T-10 T-12T-12

.1T-13 T-14

Approximate Distance from Outfall (ft)

Mea

n C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg, d

w)

Concentrations of Metals in Wetland Soils

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Approximate Distance from Outfall (ft)

Mea

n C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg, d

w) T-1 T-2T-3 T-5 T-7 T-8 T-10 T-12 T-12

.1T-13 T-14

PCBs PAHs

Concentrations of PCBs and PAHs in Wetland Soils

Surface Water Investigation

• 1990 - Butyl cellusolve release

• Sampling included river surface water

• 1999 - 2000 Site Surface Sampling

• Three rounds of sampling conducted under flooded and low flow conditions in the wetland

• Detections of OHM in isolated surface water in wetland under low flow conditions attributed to sediment impacts

Surface Water Investigation (cont.)

• Nyanza Superfund Site Investigation (1986- present)

• Former landfill located upstream in Ashland

• Current EPA investigation of Sudbury River

• Nyanza has impacted background concentrations in the Sudbury River

Risk Characterization

• Risk Methodology specified by the DEP

• Involves two components

• Human Health

• Ecological

• Drives extent of clean-up

Method 3 Risk Characterization

• Method 3 approach is a site specific assessment

• Human Health Risks Identified

• Groundwater concentrations exceed drinking water standards; risk posed to future potential receptors

• Wetland sediments pose a potential long term risk to trespassers within the area of stunted growth

Method 3 Risk Characterization

• Exposure assumptions for trespasser

• Young adult

• Thirty days per year for twelve years

• Head, forearms and hands exposed

• Daily ingestion of 50 mg of sediment and 50 ml of surface water

• GW-1 categorical definition requires clean-up to drinking water standard

Stage I and II Environmental Risk Characterization (ERC) Summary

• An area of stunted growth is present on part of the site

• Effects on wetland plants are the primary driver for ecological risk in the area of stunted growth

• No evidence of risk outside the area of concern

Conclusions of Phase II Investigations

• Extent of OHM impact limited to groundwater and wetland sediment

• Areas of site groundwater and wetland sediment to be evaluated in Phase III

• Land use controls required to mitigate risk

Draft Phase III Remedial Action Plan

• Purpose

• Evaluate remedial technologies against performance standards established by the DEP

• Select the preferred remedial technologies for abatement of impact in wetland sediments and in groundwater

Conclusions of Phase III

• Wetland Sediment

• Excavation and off-site disposal of impacted sediments (approximately 1.5 acres)

• Restoration of disturbed wetland area

• Implementation of land use controls

• Groundwater

• Chemical Oxidation

• Pilot Study began October 6th

Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA)

• A conceptual framework used for evaluating remediation options

• NEBA balances the ecological benefits of planned remediation against the ecological costs in an attempt to:

• encourage the selection of alternatives that offer the greatest potential benefit to the environment

• Answers: Is the cure worse than the disease?

100%

Ecological Services

TimeEnvironmental CostEnvironmental Benefit

Natural Attenuation

With Remediation

NEBA

Area Targeted for Remediation

Wetland Permitting

• EPA TSCA Risk Based Approval

• DEP Water Quality Certification Process (401 Permit)

• Chapter 91 License Review

• Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 Review

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Review

• MA Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) Review

• Wayland Conservation Commission Review

Groundwater Pilot Study Area

N

SCALE50 0 25 50

LEGENDMonitoring Well

Injection Point

Approximate Radius of Influence

MW-33 Pilot Study Area

MW-43 Pilot Study Area

Tentative Site Schedule (pending regulatory approvals)

• Winter 2001 – Submit Phase II and III Reports

• Winter 2001 – IRA Completion Report

• Winter 2001/2002 – Complete Groundwater Pilot Study/RAM Completion Report

• May 2002 – Submit Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan

• 2001-2002 – Wetland Permitting

• 2002 – Potential Implementation of Groundwater Remediation

• Summer/Fall 2002 – Implement Wetland Remediation

PIP Schedule

• 26 November - Comment period extended by 20-days. Written comments submitted to Raytheon

• A summary of the comments received and a response to those comments will be prepared

• Documents will be made available at the information repositories (Public Library and Board of Health)

• Notice of Availability of the documents will be sent to the PIP mailing list

Public Involvement Process

• Future opportunities for the public to comment on submittals:

• Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan

• IRA and RAM Plans and Completion Reports

• Response Action Outcome(s) (including AULs)

• Other regulatory approvals

Contact Information

Ronald C. Slager, Jr.

Raytheon Company

MS -1-2-1567

1001 Boston Post Road

Marlborough, Massachusetts 01752

Cross Section

Location of Fence Installation

Major Steps in the ERC (based on MCP Guidance)

Stage I Screening-Level ERC

Stage II ERCProblem Formulation

AnalysisRisk Characterization

Risk Management

Goals of the Stage I Screening- Level ERC

• Identify potential exposure pathways

• Determine whether risk of harm is “readily apparent”

• Eliminate from further consideration any exposure pathways and chemicals that clearly do not pose a significant risk of harm to the environment

Results of the Stage I Screening- Level ERC

• Exposure pathways include surface water, wetland sediments, wetland soils, & biota

• Risk of harm is “readily apparent” in the area of stunted vegetation (see next slide)

•

•

•

•••••

•••••

•••

•••

•

•• •• • • •

•••

•••• •

•

••

•••

••

• • ••

••

• •

• •••

••

• • ••

•

••••••••••

•

••

••

•

•

•• •

•••

••

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

xx

x

xx

xxx

xx x

xxx

xx

xx

x

x

x

x

x

•x

T-6

T-2

T-7

T-9

T-4

T-8

T-3T-5

T-10

T-13

T-14

T-12.1

T-12

T-1

F

F

GF

CA

B

CD

CA

B

FCA

D1A

A

6

7 6

8 7 6 A

78

7

9

9

11 9

1112

1112

13

1314

14 13 12

14

11

13

6 6

6 6

77

86

8 7 10

9

7

8

911

10

1113

9

1214

1315

16

1

C

4

5

6

7

82

68

9

C

B

1

1

45

1

5

1

5

12

4

5

1

2

5

6

1

2

3

54

2

3

54

FP-3

FP-4FP-5

OF-11

FP-2FP-15

2

2

2

•

11

ROUTE 20

Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

ZO

NE

A

Hamlen Parcel

10

10

SUD

BURY

RI

VER

T-15

N

Locations of stuntedvegetation and “Area of ReadilyApparent Harm”.

1998 Sample Location

T-12

1999 Sample Location8

5

Wetland Boundary/Site Boundary

LEGEND

Swale(Approx.)

Transect Line

30 60

FEET

60 2401200

Area of stunted vegetation (Woodlot Alt., 2000)

Area of Readily Apparent Harm

x x

Route20

Bldg12/21

6

67

4

3

31

3

33

3

3

3

45

3

3

2

3

4

4••

xx

Area of Readily Apparent Harm (ARAH)

Basis of ARAH in draft ERC:

• Stunted vegetation

• Exceedances of Federal and State water quality criteria

• PCBs > 50 mg/kg

• Elevated levels of copper and chromium associated with plant toxicity

Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs)

• Metals:

• PCBs

• PAHs

Antimony (Sb)

Arsenic (As)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr3+)

Chromium (Cr6+)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Manganese (Mn)

Mercury (hg)

Silver (Ag)

Tin (Sn)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

Stage II ERC

Typical “low-flow” or non-inundated condition

(photo taken on 6/28/70)

Typical “high-flow” or inundated condition(photo taken on 3/25/68)

Approximate location of wetland

Approximate location of wetland

Air photo of Raytheon site(removed to reduce file size)

Air photo of Raytheon site(removed to reduce file size)

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Discharge of 254 CFS corresponding to inundation at the former Raytheon site

Sudbury River At Saxonville, MAStation Number: 0109530

Dis

char

ge, i

n C

FS1000

900

500

800

700

400

600

300

100

200

0

Historical Flow Data for the Sudbury River (1995-1999)

Exposure Pathways and Potential Receptors of Concern

Aquatic

• Invertebrates

• Fish

• Amphibians

Terrestrial• Plants• Meadow Vole• Muskrat• White-tailed

Deer• Mallard• Red-Tailed

Hawk

Characterizing Risk

Exposure ToxicityRisk

Plan View of Cross Sections

Cross Section Locations

Days

% s

ervi

ces

General Recovery Curve

100

Days

% s

ervi

ces

General Recovery Curve Initial injury due to digging

interfering with bird foraging, lack of plant biomass, disturbance

from remedial activity

100

Days

% s

ervi

ces


100

Once the soil has been replaced there is a rapid recovery as plants

become established and grow, soil colonized,

organic matter deposited

Days

% s

ervi

ces


100

The final tail of the recovery curverepresents the full development

of soil organic matterand invertebrate community

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%

)Benefits and Costs of RemediationYellow Zone--Initial Services 80%

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%

)Benefits and Costs of RemediationRed Zone--Initial Services 10%

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%

)Benefits and Costs of RemediationInitial Services 10%

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%


0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%

)Benefits and Costs of Remediation Equated

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Years

Serv

ices

Pro

vide

d (%

)Benefits and Costs ofRemediation Equated

73% Initial Services