RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMENT ^ 2 01 7 2 NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUN D SIT E DECLARATIO N SDM S DocI D 00022067 2 SITE NAM E AN D LOCATIO N Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSite Norwood , Massachusett s STATEMEN T O F PURPOS E Thi s decisio n document

present s an amendmen t

t o th e Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s ("EPA" ) selecte dremedial actio n chose n i n aRecordo f Decisio n signe d o n September

29 , 1989 ("th e 1989 ROD" ) fo r th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSite , i n Norwood , Massachusetts
. Thi s amende dselecte dremed y wa s chose n i n accordanc e wit h th e Comprehensiv e Environmental Response , Compensation , an dLiability Ac t o f 198 0 ("CERCLA") , a s amended , 4 2 U.S.C
. § 9601 , e t seq. . an di s consistent , t o th e exten t practicable , wit

h th e National Oi l an dHazardou s Substance s Pollutio n Contingenc y Pla n ("NCP") , 4 0 CF

RPar t 300
. Thi s amendmen t

i s mad e i n accordanc e with Sectio n 11 7 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C
. § 9617 , an d4 0 CFR§ 300.435(c)(2)(ii)
. Th e Regiona l Administrato r ha s bee n delegate dth e authorit y to approv e thi s amendmen t to th e Recor

do f Decision
. Th e Regiona l Administrato r

ha s furthe r

delegate dthi s authority t o th e Directo r o f th e Offic e o f Sit e Remediatio n an dRestoration
. Th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusett s ha s concurre do n thi s amende dselecte d remedy an d determined , throug h adetaile devaluation , tha t th e amende dselecte dremedy i s consisten t with Massachusett s law s an dregulations
. STATEMENT O F BASI S Thi s decisio n i s basedo n th e Administrativ e Recor dcompile dfo r

thi s Sit e whic h wa s develope din accordanc e with Sectio n 113(k ) andSectio n 11 7 o f

CERCLA and4 0 CF

R 300.435(c)(2)
. Th e Administrativ e Recor di s availabl e fo r

publi c revie w a

t th e Morril l Memorial Librar

y i n Norwood , Massachusett s an da t th e EPA Regio n I Offic e o f Sit e Remediatio n an dRestoratio n Record s Cente r i n Boston , Massachusetts
. The attache dinde x (Attachment

A ) identifie s th e item s whic h compris e th e Administrativ e Recor dupo n whic h th e selectio n o f

th e remedia

l actio n i s based
. DESCRIPTIO N O F TH E ORIGINA L REMED Y Th e remedial actio n selecte di n th e 198 9 RO D consiste dof: 1 ) Groundwate r

extractio n an dtreatment ; 2 ) Excavation , treatmen t vi aSolven t

Extraction , an dsubsequen t re-disposal o f

### contaminate dsoil s an dsediments ; and ,



### 3 ) Remediatio n o f

th e Gran t Gear building
. DESCRIPTIO N O F TH E AMENDE D SELECTE D REMED Y 

### Th e amende dremed y wil l consis t of : 1 ) Demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r building ; 2 ) Consolidatio n o f

contaminate dsoil , an dsoi l an dsedimen t fro mMeado w Brook , ont o aportio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r property ; 

### 3 ) Remova l o f

"ho t spot " o f contaminatio n belo w th e wate r table ; 4 ) Coverin g o f

th e mos t heavil y contaminate darea s o f th e Gran t Gea r property wit h an asphal t

ca p an dcoverin g o f

othe r area s with clean fil l material ; 

### 5 ) Periodi c monitorin g to asses s performanc e an dprotectivenes s o f th e remedy ; 6 ) Inspection s an dmaintenanc e o f th e ca p & cover ; and , 7 ) Continue don-Site groundwate r extractio n an dtreatment . DECLARATIO N 

### Th e amende dselecte dremedy i s protectiv e o f human healt

h an dth e environment , attain s applicabl e an drelevan t

an dappropriat e requirement s ("ARARs" ) an di s cos t effective
. Th e 

### amende dselecte dremedy include s statutor y waiver s unde r

th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Ac t ("TSCA" ) pertainin g t o fou r component s fo r

TSC A chemica

l waste landfills
. Th e amende d selecte dremed

y utilize s alternate treatmen t technologie s o r

resourc e recover

y technologie s to th e maximu mexten t

practicable
. However , th e amende dselecte dremedy doe s no t satisf y th e 

### preferenc e fo r

treatmen t whic h permanentl y an dsignificantl y reduce s th e toxicity , mobility , o r volum e o f

th e hazardou s substance s a s aprincipal element
. 

### Thi s amende dselecte dremedy doe s no t chang e th e groundwate r

portio n o f th e 1989 ROD , excep t tha t remova l o f

th e "ho t spot " o f contaminatio n wil l likel y remov e asourc e o f 

### downgradien t

groundwate r

contamination
. Thi s amende dselecte dremedy doe s no t re analyz e th e remedy selectio n criteria , suc h a s overal l protectio n o f human healt

h an dth e environmen t

an dattainment

o f ARARs , pertainin g to th e groundwate r portio n o f th e remedy
. 

### Becaus e th e amende dselecte dremedy wil l still resul t i n hazardou s substance s remainin g on Site , arevie w wil l b e conducte dperiodicall y (a t aminimum , every fiv e years ) t o ensur e tha t 

### th e remedy continue s t o provid e adequate protectio n o f human healt

h an dth e environment
. 

## n / 

### Lind aM
. Murphy , Directo r 

### Offic e o f Site Remediatio n an dRestoratio nRECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T 

### NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SIT E TABLE O F CONTENT S Pag e Numbe r I
. INTRODUCTIO N 1 

### n . SITE DESCRIPTIO N 1 

### III
. PURPOS E O F AMENDE D RECOR D O F DECISIO N 2 IV
. SIT

E HISTOR Y AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE S 3 V
. COMMUNIT Y RELATION S HISTOR Y 6 VI
. SUMMARY O F SITE CHARACTERISTIC S AN D 7



### REASON S FO RTH E RO D AMENDMEN T VH
. DESCRIPTIO N O F ALTERNATIVE S 8 

### VIE
. COMPARATIVE ANALYSI S OF ALTERNATIVE S 1 7 IX
. TH E AMENDE D SELECTE D REMED Y 2 4 

### X
. DOCUMENTATIO N O F CHANGE S FRO M TH E 2 4

PROPOSED AMENDE D CLEANU P PLA N XI
. STATUTOR Y DETERMINATION S 2 5 EXPLANATIO N O F SIGNIFICAN T DIFFERENCE S 3 0 

### FRO M 1989 RECORD O F DECISIO N DOCUMENTATIO N O F NON-SIGNIFICAN T CHANGE S 3 1 

### T O 198 9 RECORD O F DECISIO N XTV
. STAT

E ROLE 3 1LIS T O F TABLE S AND FIGURE S



### Figur e Number/Titl e 1
. Sit e Locatio n Ma

p 2
. Sit e Vicinit y Ma p 3
. 100-Yea

r Floo dPlai n 4
. Site Plan Showin g 198 3 Remova l Actio n an dInteri mMeasur e Ca p 

### 5
. Conceptua l Outlin e o f Soi l Cleanu p Level s an dExten t o f Ca p Tabl e Number/Titl e 1
. Soi l Cleanu p Level s 2
. ARAR s affecte db y RO D Amendmen t Attachment s 

### A
. Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSit e Administrativ e Recor dInde x B
. Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSit e Responsivenes s Summar y C
. Commonwealt

h o f Massachusett s Declaratio n o f Concurrenc e Letter D
. Norwoo dPC B Superfun dOfficia l Publi c Hearin g Transcript , Marc h 6 , 199 6 E
. Regiona

l Administrator' s Finding s an dWaiver s unde r Regulation s o f

th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Ac t

### RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SIT E DECISIO N SUMMARY 

### I
. INTRODUCTIO N Site Name : Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSit e Sit e Location : Norwood , Norfol k County , Massachusett s 

### Authority : CERCL A Sectio n 11 7 an d4 0 CFR300.435(c)(2)(ii ) Date o f Original Recor do f

Decision : Septembe r

29 , 198 9 

### Administrativ e Record : Thi s Amende dRecor do f Decisio n a s wel l a s document s supportin g thi s decisio n documen t wil l becom

e part o f th e Administrativ e Recor dfo r

th e Site
. Th e Administrativ e Recor di s availabl e fo r publi c revie w at

th e followin g informatio n repositories : Morril l Memoria l Library 

### Walpol e Street , Norwood , M A 0206 2 (617 ) 769-0020 Hours : Monday-Thursday 9:0 0 am- 9:0 0 pm , Friday 10:0

0 am- 5:0 0 pm , 

### Saturday 9:0 0 am- 5:00 pm , an dSunday 1:0

0 p m- 5:0 0 p m and , 

### EPA Record s Cente r 9 0 Cana l Street , Boston , M A 0211 4 (617 ) 573-572 9 

### Hours : Monday-Friday 10:0 0 a m- 1:0 0 pm , 2:0 0 p m- 5:00 pm . H
. SIT

E DESCRIPTIO N 

### Th e Norwoo dPC B Sit

e i s locate dapproximatel y 1 4 mile s southwes t o f th e Cit y o f

Boston
. Th e Sit e consist s o f

severa l parcel s o f

lan dincludin g industrial/commercial propertie s an d associate dparkin g areas . T o th e north , th e Site i s bordere db y an dinclude s Meado w Brook an dit s banks , t o th e eas t

b y th e heavil y commercial U.S
. Rout e 1 an dth e Dean Street acces s 

### road , t o th e sout

h b y Dean Street , an dt o th e wes t b y th e residentia l Pellan aRoad
. Figure s 1 1

### an d2 illustrat e th e Site locatio n an dvicinity
.

Tw o residentia l area s exis t

near th e Site
. T o th e west , approximatel y 2 6 home s borde r th e 

### Site o n Dean Stree t

an dPellan aRoad
. Th e othe r residential are ai s t o th e north , beyon d Meado w Broo k

an dawoode darea . Assumin g a n averag e o f 3. 8 resident s pe r

home , there ar e approximatel y 3040 resident s livin g withi n a1A mil e radiu s o f th e Site
. 

### T o th e eas t

o f th e Site i s th e heavil y travele dU.S
. Rout e 1
. Propertie s alon g U.S
. Rout e 1 i n th e vicinity o f

th e Sit e ar e primaril y commercial , an dinclud e automobil e dealerships, 

### equipmen t renta l businesses , ape t

shop , restaurants , an dgasolin e stations
. A restaurant , a Direc t Tire dealershi p an daMobi l gasolin e statio n ar e locate dt o th e southeas t o f th e Site , nea r th e Dea n Stree t

acces s roa dan dRout e 1
. A shoppin g plaza , aca r was h an dtw o 

### restaurant s ar e locate dacros s Dea n Stree t t o th e sout

h o f th e Site
. Th e northern portio n o f

th e Sit e i s asmal l woode dare adraine db y Meado w Brook
. Meado w 

### Broo k i s ashallo w strea

mapproximatel y 1 2 fee t

wid e an d6 to 1 2 niche s dee p nea r th e Site
. Th e Broo k serve s a s adrainageway fo r over 90 0 acre s o f

densel y develope dlan dan d discharge s int o th e Neponse t Rive r approximatel y 1,600 fee t

downstreamo f

th e Site
. Four 

### pile s o f sedimen t previousl y dredge dfro mth e strea m(dredg e piles ) ar e locate do n th e south ban k o f th e Brook , betwee n Rout e 1 an dKerry Place
. Th e Tow n o f Norwoo dha s schedule d th e Broo k fo r additiona l dredgin g an drestoratio n betwee n Dean Stree t an dMeado w Broo k Roa d(3,00 0 lin
. ft. ) t o reduc e th e frequenc y o f floodin g upstrea mo f

th e Site
. Figur e 3 

### show s th e exten t

o f th e 100-yea

r floo dplain
. 

### Al l residentia l an dcommercia l propertie s withi n o r adjacen t t o th e Sit e are supplie dwit

h wate r fro mth e Norwoo dmunicipa l system . Th e tow n i s provide dwith publi c wate r throug h aconnectio n t o th e Massachusett s Wate r Resourc e Authority ("MWRA" ) system . A n 

### undetermine dnumbe r

o f residence s i n th e are areportedl y us e privat e groundwate r well s t o suppl y wate r

fo r gardenin g an dlaw n sprinklers
. 

### A mor e complet e descriptio n o f th e Site can b e foun di n Chapte r 1 o f th e R I Repor

t (Ebasco , 1989)
. 

### ffl
. PURPOS E O F TH E AMENDE D RECORD O F DECISIO N 

### Th e purpos e o f

th e Amende dRecordo f

Decisio n i s to formall y specif y change s to th e previousl y issue dRecordo f Decision
. Th e Amende dRecordo f Decisio n describe s th e change s adopte dan dpresent s a n evaluatio n o f

th e change s i n relatio n to th e technologie s whic h wer e selecte di n th e original Recordo f Decision
. I n addition , i t

present s th e rational e 

### fo r changin g th e Recordo f

Decision , th e Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s an dpubli c perspective s o n th e change , an daResponsivenes s Summar y whic h i s EPA' s respons e t o publi c commen t

o n th e change
.IV
. SIT

E HISTOR Y AN D ENFORCEMEN T ACTIVITIE S 

### A
. Site History 

### Contaminatio n at

th e Norwoo dPC B Sit e originate dfro mdisposa l practice s o f th e partie s wh o owne dproperty a

t th e Site o r

operate dbusinesse s i n th e buildin g locate do n th e propert y no w owne db y Joh n an dRober

t Hurley , Trustee s o f

th e Gran t Gea r Realty Trust
. Th e buildin g wa s constructe d i n 194

2 b y Bendi x Aviatio n Corporation , whic h produce d navigational 

### contro l system s an dconducte dothe r activities
. I n Octobe r

1947 , th e lan dwa s purchase db y Tob e Deutschma

n Corporation , whic h manufacture delectrica l equipmen t

a t th e Site , includin g capacitor s an dtransformers
. Th e propert y wa s purchase di n Octobe r 195 6 b y Coraell-Dubilie

r Electronics , Inc
. ("CDE") , whic h als o manufacture delectrica l equipmen t

a t th e facility
. I n Januar

y 1960 , th e property wa s briefl y owne db y Mary val e Corporation , an d wa s the n purchase d b y Jack , Harold , an dLeonar dFriedlan d(collectively th e "Friedlan d Brothers")
. Th e Friedlan dBrother s leasedth e property t o Federa l Pacifi c Electri c Compan y 

### ("FPE") , whic h hel dth e leas e o n th e propert y unti l October

1979
. Durin g th e perio dfro m 196 0 to 1979 , FPE operate d abusines s a t th e Site , an dsuble t

portion s o f

th e facility to CD E 

### an dt o Arro w Hart

Corporation , apredecesso r t o Coope r Industries , Inc
. ("Cooper" ) whic h als o manufacture delectrica l equipmen t

a t th e facility
. Interpretatio n o f aerial photograph s fro m195 2 throug h 197 8 show s that th e Site fencin g extende dto Dea n Street , encompassin g a vacant lo t an dth e then-Norwoo dHyundai automobil e dealership , no w aDirec t Tire dealership (Bionetic s Corporation , 1984)
. Throughou t thi s period , th e western portio n o f th e 

### Site wa s undevelope dan duse dfo r storag e o f material s b y th e owners/operator s o f th e facility
. 

### In 1979 , th e Sit

e wa s subdivided
. Th e northeaster n portio n o f

th e Site , approximatel y 9 acres , wa s purchase d b y Grant Gea r Realt y Trus t whic h lease

d the facilit

y t o Gran t Gea r 

### Works , Inc. , t o produc e gear s fo r industry
. Th e souther

n an dwester

n portion s o f

th e Site , approximately 1 6 acres , wer e purchase db y Pau l Birmingham , Pau l Reardo n an dJac k Reardo n wh o furthe r

subdivide dth e propert

y into seven lot s an dadde da n acces s road , Kerr y 

### Place
. The Reardon s stil

l retai n fou r

o f the seve n origina l lots
. The lot s ar

e no w occupied b y commercia

l an dligh t industria l buildings
. On e lo t

a t th e corner

o f Dea n Street an dKerry 

### Plac e remain s vacant . O n Apri l 1 , 1983 , the Massachusett s Department o f Environmental Protectio n ("DEP") , the n know n a s th e Massachusett s Departmen t o f Environmenta

l Qualit y Engineering , receive da 

### telephon e cal l fro macitizen livin g o n Pellan aRoadreportin g pas t industria l wast e dumpin g an dcontaminatio n i n th e the n vacant fiel do f Kerr y Plac e betwee n Pellan aRoa dan dth e Gran t Gea r property . A s aresul t

o f thi s call , a

n initia l fiel dinvestigatio n b y DE P wa s conducted
. O n Apri l 6 , 1983 , DEP sample dsurficial soil s an d Meado w Broo k sediments
. 

### Th e initia l DE P investigation s confirme dPolychlorinate dBipheny l ("PCB" ) contaminatio n i n soils
. Th e DEP immediatel y move dto restric t publi c acces s to th e fiel dare aan dmarke d area s withi n th e Gran t

Gea r fenc e t o alert

worker s o f

th e possibl e danger
. Becaus e stat e fund s were no t

available , th e Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s requeste d EPA to provid e

### suppor t

usin g Superfun dmoney . EP A dispatche dit s Technica l Assistanc e Tea

m("TAT" ) Contractor , Ro y F
. Weston , Inc. , o f Lexington , Massachusetts , t o ai dDE P i n collectin g 

### confirmator y sample s o f

th e oil-staine darea s alon g th e western fenc e lin e an di n othe r area s o n bot h th e Gran t

Gea r an dReardo n properties
. Base d o n thes e findings , i t

wa s determine d 

### tha t an immediat e remova l actio n wa s appropriat e t o addres s al l soil s outsid e th e Gran t Gea r property with PC B concentration s greate r tha n 5 0 part s per

millio n (ppm)
. Th e Agenc y 

### planne dt o follo w th e remova l actio n with aful l Remedial Investigatio n designe dt o asses s th e 

### natur e an dexten t

o f th e remainin g contamination
. Beginnin g Jun e 23 , 1983 , EP A (throug h it s subcontractor , SC A Recyclin g Industries , Inc. , o f Braintree , Massachusetts ) bega n remova l o f

contaminate dsoil s o n th e Site
. A total o f 51 8 ton s o f contaminate dsoi l wa s remove dan ddispose do f a t th e SC A Mode l City , Ne w Yor k landfil l facility
. Th e soil s were remove d fro mlocation s withi n th e Kerry Plac e an d Gran t 

### Gea r properties
. Reporte dexcavatio n depth s wer e u p t o 3 0 inches
. Durin g th e remova l 

### action , wate r

sample s take n fro mth e stor mdrai n systembehindth e Gran t Gea r buildin g indicate dlo w level s o f

PC B contamination
. Thi s immediate remova l actio n wa s complete d o n Augus t 5 , 1983
. I n Decembe r

1983 , th e Sit

e wa s reviewe db y th e EP A Fiel dInvestigatio n Tea m("FIT" ) Contracto r

an devaluated , usin g th e Hazard Rankin g System , fo r possibl e listin g o n th e Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t

("NPL" ) o f

site s eligibl e fo r

cleanup unde r

th e Superfun dprogram . 

### EP A propose dt

o addthe Sit

e t o the NP L o n Octobe

r 15 , 198 4 (4 9 F R40320) , andthe Sit

e wa s adde dt

o the NP L o n Jun e 10 , 198 6 (5 1 F

R21099)
. 

### Base do n th e preliminar

y finding s o f

a198 6 Wehran Engineerin g study fo r DEP an da198 6 GZA study performe dfo r

CDE , th e DE P implemente da n Interi mRemedia

l Measur e ("IRM" ) a t th e Site i n Januar

y 1986
. Th e IR

M wa s considere dnecessar

y to limit acces s to area s o f highes t surfac e soil contaminatio n withi n th e fence dare ao f th e Gran t Gea r property . 

### Specifically , DEP' s contractor installed atemporar

y ca p ove r a1. 5 acr e portio n o f

th e northwes t an dsouthwes t

corner s o f

th e Gran t Gea r property . Th e contaminate dsurfac e soil s 

### were covere dwit

h afilte r fabri c line

r an d6 inche s o f

crushe dstone . Th e cappedarea s wer e enclose dwith a4 foo t

hig h wir e mes h fenc e an dth e area s were delineate dwith yello w hazardtape . Th e location s o f th e cappe darea s ar

e show n o n Figure 4
. 

### I n 199 2 EPA bega

n it s remedia

l desig n phas e fo r

th e cleanup , beginnin g with aserie s o f "Pr e Desig n Studies"
. Studie s were complete di n lat e 199 2 an dar e summarize di n arepor

t prepare di n January 1993 b y Metcal f & Eddy , Inc
. Fina

l plan s an dspecification s fo r th e groundwate r

an d soil/sedimen

t portion s o f

the cleanup a s set

fort h i n the 198

9 RO D wer

e complete di n 1994
. Remedia l actio n a

t th e Site bega

n h i late 1994
. Ebasc o Constructors , Inc
. (later know n a s Enserc h Environmenta l an dno w a s Foster-Wheeler Environmental ) wa s issued adeliver y orde r unde r th e U S Arm y Corp s o f

Engineers ' Total Environmenta l Restoratio n Contrac t ("TERC" ) fo r

constructio n an dinitial operatio n o f th e groundwate r

treatmen t facility
.

### Constructio n o f thi s facilit y wa s complete di n late 1995 an dth e plan t i s currentl y i n operation
. I n addition , adecontaminatio n effor t fo r equipmen t

an dmachiner

y insid e th e Gran t Gea r buildin g wa s conducte di n 1995 , a s wa s th e excavatio n o f contaminate dsoil s 

### fro mfou r "outlier " area s locate doutsid e o f th e Gran t Gea r property . Plannin g an d contractin g activitie s fo r

th e soil/sedimen t

solven t extractio n remed y outline di n th e 198 9 

### RO D gav e ris e t o th e issue s outline di n thi s RO D Amendment
. A mor e detaile ddescriptio n o f th e Site history can b e foun di n th e R I Report (Ebasco , 1989)
. 

### B
. Enforcemen t

History Th e 198 9 Recordo f

Decisio n contain s acomprehensiv e histor y o f enforcemen t

activitie s 

### throug h 1989
. Sinc e tha t

time , ther e hav e bee n severa l enforcemen t developments
. Pursuan t to Sectio n 122(e) o f

CERCLA , i n March , 1990 , EPA sen t special notic e letter s to 

### CDE , FPE , Cooper , th e Friedlan dBrothers , an dth e Tow n o f Norwood
. Subsequen t negotiation s seeking performanc e o f th e remedy selecte di n th e 1989 RO D b y thos e partie s 

### were unsuccessful , an di n August , 1990 , EP A issue da n administrativ e orde r

unde r Sectio n 10 6 o f CERCL A to CDE , FPE , Cooper , an dth e Friedlan dBrother s compellin g thos e partie s t o performth e remedy
. T o date , th e partie s hav e no t complie dwith tha t

order
. 

### I n 1991 , th e Unite dState s entere dinto asettlement with Gran t

Gea r Works , Inc
. an dJoh n an dRober t Hurley , whereb y th e Hurley s agreedto pa y certai n mone y to th e governmen t an d provid e acces s an dinstitutiona l control s o n propert

y the y control
. 

### In 1992 , th e Unite dState s an dth e Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s initiate dalawsui t agains t CDE , FPE , Cooper , an dth e Friedlan dBrother s i n federal court . I n that lawsuit , th e government s see

k reimbursement

o f respons e costs , adeclarator y judgmen t

a s to th e 

### defendants ' liability fo r

futur e respons e costs , an dcivi l penaltie s and/o r punitiv e damage s fo r defendants ' failur e t o compl y wit h th e 199 0 Administrativ e Order
. 

### In 1994 , th e Unite dState s an dth e Commonwealt h entere dinto asettlement

with th e Friedlan dBrothers
. Tha

t settlement require dth e Friedland s to pa y certai n money to th e Unite dStates , an dals o require dth e Friedland s to assig n to th e Unite dState s an dth e Commonwealt

h certai n proceed s o f

indemnificatio n claim s that the y hav e agains t

CDE , FPE , an d Cooper
. 

### Settlement negotiation s with CDE , FPE , an dCoope r hav e continue dsporadicall y sinc e th e initiatio n o f

th e governments ' lawsui t

i n 1992
. Negotiation s relate dto th e Sit e are als o ongoin g wit h Joh n an dPau l Reardo n an dth e Tow n o f Norwood
. 

### Technica l comment s presente db y severa l PRP s durin g th e publi c commen t perio dwer e submitte d h i writing
. A summar y o f th e PRP comment s an dEPA' s response s t o thos e 

### comment s are include di n th e Responsivenes s Summary i n Appendi x B o f thi s RO DAmendment
. I n addition , thes e document s ar e include di n th e Administrativ e Recordfo r th e Site
. V
. COMMUNIT Y RELATION S HISTOR Y Throug h th e Site' s history , communit y concern an dinvolvemen t ha s bee n average . EP A ha s kep t th e community an dothe r intereste dpartie s apprise do f th e Site activitie s throug h informationa l meetings , fac t sheets , pres s release s an dpubli c meetings
. I n Jun e 1988 , EP A release dacommunit y relation s pla n whic h outline daprogramt o addres s 

### communit y concern s an dkee p citizen s informe dabou t remedia l activities
. O n Marc h 16 , 1988 , EP A hel dan informationa l meetin g i n th e Balc h Elementary Schoo l t o describ e th e plan s fo r th e Remedia l Investigatio n an dFeasibilit y Study
. 

### O n Jun e 15 , 1989 , EPA hel da n informationa l meetin g to discus s th e result s o f th e RI an d th e schedul e tha t

EP A an dDE P planne dt o follo w i n selectin g th e Superfun dremedy fo r th e Site
. A thirdinformationa l meetin g t o presen t th e Agency' s Propose d Pla n an dth e other 

### cleanu p alternative s presente di n th e Feasibilit y Stud y wa s hel do n Augus t 10 , 1989
. Durin g both meetings , EP A answere dquestion s fro mth e public
. O n Augus t

11 , 1989 , EP A began a3 0 da y publi c commen t

perio d t o accep t

publi c commen t o n th e alternative s presente di n th e Feasibilit y Stud y an dth e Propose d Pla n an do n th e other 

### document s whic h wer e apart o f th e Administrativ e Recor

dfo r th e Site
. A t

that time , EP A mad e th e Administrativ e Recor davailabl e fo r publi c revie w a

t EPA' s office s i n Bosto n an d a t th e Morril l Memorial Librar y i n Norwood , Massachusetts
. EP A publishe danotic e an d 

### brie f descriptio n o f

the Proposed Pla

n in the Daily Transcrip t

o n Augus t

8 , 198 9 andmade th e pla n availabl e t o th e publi c a t th e Morril l Memorial Library
. O n Augus t 24 , 1989 , th e 

### Agenc y hel dapubli c hearin g t o accep t an y ora l comments . A transcrip t o f thi s meetin g an d th e comment s an dth e Agency' s respons e t o comment s are include di n th e responsivenes s summary attache dto th e 1989 Recordo f Decision
. 

### O n Ma y 24 , 1994 , EPA hel dapubli c meetin g to announc e th e completio n o f th e remedia

l desig n phas e fo r

th e groundwate r

remediatio n an dto addres s question s regardin g th e implementatio n o f

th e remedy
. O n Augus t 7 an dAugus t

10 , 1995 , EPA hel dpubli c meeting s to outlin e ne w development s i n 

### th e remedia l actio n at

th e Site an dt o invit e publi c commen t o n th e approac h t o th e soi l cleanu p portio n o f

th e Sit e remedy
. Th e publi c wa s invite dt o commen t o n apotential chang e i n th e cleanu p pla n throug h Augus t 18 , 1995
. O n Februar y 22 , 1996 , EP A began a3 0 day publi c commen t perio d t o accep t

publi c 

### commen t o n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan an do n th e othe r document s whic h were a 

### part o f th e Administrativ e Recor

dfo r th e Site
. A t

that time , EP A mad e asupplement t o th e Administrativ e Recor d availabl e fo r publi c revie w a t

EPA' s office s i n Bosto n an da t th e

### Morril l Memorial Librar y i n Norwood , Massachusetts
. EP A publishe danotic e an dbrie f descriptio n o f

th e Proposed Amende dCleanu p Pla n i n th e Norwoo dBulleti n o n Februar y 21 , 199 6 an di n th e Patrio t

Ledger o n February 22 , 199 6 an dmad e th e plan availabl e to th e publi c a t th e Morril l Memorial Library
. O n Marc h 6 , 1996 , th e Agenc y hel dapubli c hearin g to accep t

ora l comments . A transcrip t o f thi s meetin g i s include da s Attachmen t D 

### t o thi s RO D Amendmen t

an dth e comment s an dth e Agency' s response s ar e include di n th e Responsivenes s Summary , whic h i s include da s Attachment B to thi s RO D Amendment
. VI
. SUMMARY O F SIT E CHARACTERISTIC S AND REASON S FO RTH E RO D 

### AMENDMEN T A complete descriptio n o f th e Sit e characteristic s ca

n b e foun di n th e 198

9 ROD
. Th e remedia l actio n a

t th e Sit e ha s bee n ongoin g sinc e lat e 1994
. Sinc e tha t time , EPA ha s 

### partiall y complete dcleanup activities
. Th e Site support are aha s bee n fence dan d constructed , th e groundwate r treatmen t plan t ha s bee n constructe dan di s no w operational , 5 7 

### piece s o f machiner y an dequipment

fro minsid e th e Gran t

Gea r buildin g hav e been decontaminated , an dfou r

"outlier " areas , smal l area s o f soi l contaminatio n outsid e o f th e Gran t Gea r property , hav e been excavated
. EPA als o issuedareques t fo r proposa l regardin g 

### th e soil/sediment

solvent extractio n portio n o f

th e remed y a s outline di n th e 1989 ROD
. Earl y i n 1995 , EP A receive daproposa l fro mit s contracto r

fo r th e implementatio n o f

thi s 

### work
. Tha

t proposal' s cos t

greatl y exceede

dprio r cos t estimate s a s wel l a s availabl e fundin g fo r th e project 1



### . Als o basedupo n tha t proposal , EPA believe s that there woul db e difficultie s i n properly siting th e appropriate solven t extractio n facilitie s o n th e Sit e du e to spac e constraint s an dsafety issues
. Base dupo n thes e revise dcos t

estimate s an dsitin g constraints , EP A determine dthat i t wa s necessar

y to amen dth e remedy fo r

th e Site
. 

### Considerin g th e needto amen dth e remed y fo r th e Site an dth e amount

o f tim e elapse dsinc e th e origina l ris k analysi s t o suppor t th e 198 9 ROD , EPA als o determine dthat th e risk-base d Site cleanup level s shoul db e re-examined
. Prio r to releas e o f

th e Propose dAmende d 

### Cleanup Plan , EPA performe dare-analysi s o f Site risk s to asses s th e appropriatenes s o f cleanup goal s an dto determin e what revisedhuman healt

h ris k calculation s woul db e produce db y curren t

EPA methodologie s an dapproache s to ris k assessment s (develope dsinc e the 198 9 Endangerment

Assessmen

t for the Sit e wa s completed)
. In addition , the anticipate d futur e lan dus e a

t th e Sit e ha s been furthe r

clarifie dsinc e th e 198

9 ROD , whic h resulte di n change s t o severa l exposur e scenario s usedi n the ris k

calculations
. The impac t

o f thes e 

### change s wa s als o considere di n EPA' s re-analysis
. Ecologica l risk s a t th e Site als o wer e re examine dto determin e i f

any adjustment s to cleanu p level s drive n b y ecologica l risk s wer e 

### appropriate (mainl y th e Meado w Brook sediment/soi l cleanup level)
. Base do n th e
'The 198 9 RO D estimate dthe the n present valu e o f the soil/sediment

solvent extractio n remed y a

t $13. 3 millio n (198 9 dollars)
. Th e 199 5 proposa l estimate dcos t a t $54. 8 million
.clarificatio n o f futur e lan dus e an dchange s i n ris k assessment

methodologies , ne w cleanu p goal s wer e develope dan dpropose di n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan , an dno w ar e adopte da s part

o f thi s RO D Amendment
. Thes e ne w cleanu p goal s an dthei r associate d incrementa l carcinogeni c risk s afte r cleanu p ar e discusse di n Sectio n VII.B.3
. fo r eac h are a o f th e Sit e an dar e summarize di n Tabl e 1
. VH
. DESCRIPTIO N O F ALTERNATIVE S Sectio n VILA , outline s th e alternative s evaluate di n th e 198 9 ROD , an dSectio n VILB
. describe s th e ne w element s o f th e amende dselecte dremed y a s adopte db y thi s RO D Amendment
. A
. Alternative s Evaluate di n th e 198 9 RO D Th e 198 9 RO D evaluate dfiv e alternative s t o addres s soi l an dsediment contaminatio n at

th e Site
. Fou r

alternative s t o addres s contaminatio n o f th e Gran t Gea r drainag e syste mwere als o evaluated
. Finally , th e 198 9 RO D als o evaluate dfou r alternative s t o addres s managemen t o f migratio n o f

contaminant s throug h th e groundwater
. Th e fiv e alternative s t o addres s soi l an d sedimen t contaminatio n wer e a s follows : SC-1 : Minima l actio n alternativ e Thi s alternativ e include dfencing , institutional controls , publi c educatio n programs , long-ter mmonitoring , an dfive-yea r reviews
. SC-2 : Containmen t

Alternativ e Thi s alternativ e consiste do f consolidatin g outlyin g contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s unde r a n impermeabl e ca

p constructe don-Site , long-termmonitoring , an dfive-yea r reviews
. SC-3 : Treatmen t

Alternative : On-Sit e Solven t Extractio n Thi s alternativ e wa s chose n i n th e 198 9 RO D a s th e remedy fo r

sourc e control
. Thi s alternativ e consiste do f

th e excavatio n o f

contaminate dsoil s an dsediments , treatmen t on-Sit e usin g th e innovativ e technolog y solven t extractio n t o extrac t

contaminatio n fro mth e soil , an ddisposa l o f treate dmaterial s on-Site
. SC-4 : Treatmen t

Alternative : On-Site Dechlorinatio n Thi s alternativ e consiste d o f th e excavatio n o f

contaminate dsoil s an dsediments , treatmen t on-Sit e usin g adechlorinatio n technolog y t o detoxif y th e PC B contamination , an ddisposa l o f treate dmaterial s on-Site
. SC-5 : Treatmen t

Alternative : Qn-Sit e Incineratio n Thi s alternativ e wa s chose n i n th e 1989 RO D a s acontingen t remed y t o b e employe d i f solven t extractio n wa s determine dno t t o b e implementabl e o r

woul dno t

b e 8

### effectiv e i n achievin g cleanu p levels
. Thi s alternativ e consiste do f th e excavatio n o f contaminate dsoil s an dsediments , treatmen t on-Sit e usin g incineration , an ddisposal o f treatmen t residual s on-Site
. Th e fou r alternative s t o addres s contaminatio n o f th e Gran t Gea r drainag e syste mwer e a s follows : SC-A : N o Actio n Alternativ e 

### Thi s alternativ e assume dtha t th e buildin g us e woul dcontinu e withou t modificatio n an dwithou t

chang e o f occupanc y an dinclude donl y long-termmonitorin g o f contamination
. SC-B : Flushing/Cleanin g o f th e Drainag e Svste m Thi s alternativ e involve dth e flushin g an dcleanin g o f th e Gran t

Gea r building' s 

### drainag e system . Thi s alternativ e wa s selecte da s acomponent o f th e overal l buildin g sourc e contro l remedy i n th e 198 9 ROD
. Th e 198 9 RO D state dtha t i f flushin g an d cleanin g wa s no t

abl e to meet

cleanup goals , th e drainag e systemwoul db e containe d 

### an dreplaced , a s discusse di n alternativ e SC- C below
. SC-C : Containmen t

o f th e Drainag e System 

### Thi s alternativ e involve dflushin g an dcleanin g o f th e drainag e system , th e subsequen t fillin g o f th e pipe s an dmanhole s wit h concret e o r slurry , an dth e installatio n o f ane w replacement

drainag e system . Thi s alternativ e als o include dlong-ter mmonitoring , 

### institutiona

l controls , an dfive-year

reviews
. SC-D : Removal o f

th e Drainag e Syste m Thi s alternativ e involve dthe flushin g an dsubsequen t remova l o f al l contaminate d pipin g an dmanhole s an ddisposa l o f thes e material s off-Site
. A ne w replacemen t drainag e syste mwoul dthe n b e installed
. Th e remedy selected i n th e 1989 RO D fo r th e Gran t Gea r buildin g als o calle d fo r

th e 

### cleaning an dsealing o f

roo f surface s an dthe decontaminatio n o f surface s o f

machiner y an d equipmen t inside th e buildin g an dbuildin g floo r surfaces
. 

### Managemen t

o f migratio n (i.e
. groundwater ) alternative s fro mth e 198 9 RO D are no t

restate d her e becaus e that

componen t

o f th e remedy remain s essentiall y unchange dfro mth e remedy selecte di n th e 198 9 ROD
. A ful l descriptio n o f

al l th e alternative s previousl y evaluate dan dselecte d fo r th e Sit e ca n b e foun di n th e 198 9 ROD , th e Feasibilit y Stud y fo r

th e Norwoo dPC B Site (Ebasco , 1989) , 

### an dth e Grant

Gea r Buildin g Feasibilit

y Study (Camp , Dresser , & McKee , 1989)
.

### B
. Ne w Propose dAlternative/Amende dSelecte dRemed y

I n additio n t o th e alternative s se t fort h i n th e 198 9 ROD , EP A develope dane w propose d alternativ e fo r

th e Site , whic h wa s se t

fort h i n th e February , 199 6 Propose dAmende d Cleanu p Plan
. EP A believe s tha t th e ne w propose dalternativ e i s amore suitabl e respons e t o th e revise dcos t

estimate s an dsitin g constraint s o f solven t extraction , an dth e re-analysi s o f Sit e risks , a s describe d i n Sectio n VI. , tha n an y o f th e alternative s fro mth e 198 9 ROD
. Followin g i s adescriptio n o f th e ne w propose dalternative , a s se t fort h i n th e February , 199 6 Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan , an da s furthe r modifie db y EP A base do n it s ow n furthe r analysi s an do n comment s receive dfro mth e Commonwealth , th e Potentiall y Responsibl e Partie s ("PRPs") , an dth e public
. Thi s RO D Amendment select s thi s ne w propose d alternativ e a s th e cleanu p approac h fo r th e Site
. Accordin g t o EP A guidance , ther e are thre e categorie s o f Post-RO D remed y changes : "fundamenta l changes " t o th e RO D require aRO D Amendment ; "significan t changes " t o a 

### componen t

o f th e remed y requir e an Explanatio n o f Significan t Differences , an d"non

significan t changes " requir e documentatio n t o th e EP A Site file
. (See Interi mFina l Guidanc e o n Preparin g Superfun dDecisio n Documents
. OSWE RDirectiv e 9355.3-02 , June , 1989)
. Analyze dindividually , no t al l o f th e fiv e component s o f

th e propose dalternativ e discusse d 

### belo w constitut e fundamenta l change s t o th e 1989 ROD
. However , EP A believe s that 

### togethe r thes e fiv e component s constitut e th e mos t importan t aspect s o f th e propose dremed y change
. Therefore , the February , 1996 Proposed Amende dCleanup Pla n an dthi s document subjec t al l o f thes e fiv e component s t o th e requirement s fo r "fundamenta l changes " a s se t 

### fort h i n EP A guidanc e documents
. Other modification s t o th e remed y whic h are no t 

### fundamenta l change s t o th e remed y i n th e 198 9 RO D bu t whic h d o represent

significan t

o r non-significan t

change s are discusse di n Section s XI I an dXff l o f thi s document
. 1 . Demolis h Gran tGea

r Buildin g Th e industria

l buildin g a

t th e Site , know n a s th e Gran t Gea r buildin g wil l b e demolished
. Prio r to demolition , appropriat e asbesto s abatemen t an d disposa

l wil l b e conducted
. Onc e 

### th e demolitio n i s completed , th e debri s materia l ma y b e handle di n severa

l ways . First , PCB-contaminate dbuildin g content s an ddebri s ma y b e consolidate don-Sit

e i n th e subsurfac e boile r roo mare ao f

the Grant Gea r Building
. An

y such material s wil l b e consolidated into thi s subsurfac e are ai n amanne r whic h minimize s voi dspac e an dwil l resis t settlin g ove r 

### tune . An y PC B contaminate dmaterial s that canno t b e place di n th e boiler

roo mdu e t o spac e constraints , wil l b e dispose do f at an appropriat e off-Sit e facility
. Second , certai n materials , suc h a s structura l steel , may als o b e subjec t t o federa l Resourc e Conservatio n an dRecover y Ac t ("RCRA" ) requirements
. Thes e material s wil l no t b e place di n th e boile

r roo mo r elsewher e o n th e Site , bu t wil l b e dispose do f

a t a n appropriat e off-Sit e facilit y complyin g wit h RCR A an dTSC A requirement s a s necessary . Third , debri s whic h may b e uncontaminated , ma y b e reuse do r recycled , a s appropriate
. Fo r instance , certai n bloc k

an d 1 0

### bric k

fro mth e buildin g may b e usabl e a s par t o f th e sub-bas e fo r

th e ca p describe di n Sectio n VII.B.4
. Also , i f

deeme dcost-effective , certai n contaminate ddebri s ma y b e reuse d o r recycle di f

properl y decontaminated
. Finally , an y othe r materia l whic h may b e 

### inappropriate fo r

on-Sit e disposal , o r

otherwis e preclude dfro mon-Sit e disposa l b y la w o r regulation , wil l b e dispose do f a t a n appropriat e off-Sit e facility
. 

### Sedimen t an dsludg e materia l fro mth e property' s drainag e syste mmanholes , includin g sedimen t fro mdrainag e syste mmanhole s stockpile dfro mpreviou s excavatio n activities , wil l 

### b e remove dfro mth e Sit

e an ddispose do f

properl y a

t a n appropriate off-Sit e facility
. Th e belo w grad e portion s o f

th e drainag e syste mwil l b e fille dwit h concret e o r slurr y an dlef

t i n plac e unde r

th e ca p describe d h i Sectio n VII.B.4
. Existin g buildin g foundation s wil l b e lef t 

### intac t an dcovere db y th e cap . Th e undergroun dfue l storag e tank whic h serve s th e building' s boile r

wil l b e decommissione di n accordanc e with applicabl e regulations
. Thi s portio n o f

th e propose dalternativ e achieve s th e sam e remedial goal s a s describe di n th e 1989 ROD ; namely , t o reduc e risk s fro mdirec t contac t wit h contaminate dsurface s i n an do n th e Gran t Gea r building
. Th e 1989 RO D selecte ddecontaminatio n o f th e Ulterio r

surface s o f 

### th e buildin g an ddecontaminatio n o r encapsulatio n o f

roo f surface s o f

th e buildin g an d flushin g an dcleanin g o r

containment

an dreplacemen t

o f th e building' s drainag e syste ms o tha t us e o f th e buildin g coul dcontinue
. Sinc e that tune , Gran t

Gea r ha s cease d it s operation s o n th e property , an di t

i s unlikel y that

th e existin g buildin g wil l b e use dagain
. Considerin g thi s chang e i n us e an dth e limite deffectivenes s o f decontamination , th e propose dalternativ e include s demolitio n o f

th e building
. 

### 2
. Excavat

e Are ao f High Concentration s o f

Chlorinate d Organi c Compound s t o Eliminat e aContinuin g Sourc e o f

Groundwate r

Contaminatio n I n orde r t o furthe r limi t continue dcontaminatio n o f groundwate r

underlyin g th e Site , asmal l "ho t spot " o f contaminate dsoil a

t o r belo w th e wate r

tabl e located o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e 

### Gran t Gea r buildin g wil l b e excavated
. Contaminate dsoil s exceeding 9 7 pp mo f 1,2, 4 trichlorobenzen e (th e soi

l cleanup leve l establishe di n th e 198 9 RO D for

thi s constituent

i n 

### unsaturate dsoils ) wil l b e disposedo f on-Sit e under th e ca p describedi n Sectio

n VELB.4
. or a t a n appropriat e off-Sit e facility
. A s wit h al l soil s belo w th e seasona l lo w wate r

table , 

### excavatio n o f

thes e soil s wa s not

addressedin the 198

9 ROD
. Thi s additiona

l itemo f wor k 

### wil l remov e contaminate dsoil s locatedi n th e vicinit y o f highes t groundwater

contamination
. Excavatio n o f

thes e soil s wil l likely remov e asourc e o f downgradien

t groundwate

r contaminatio n an dshoul dserv e to lowe r overal l contaminan t

level s hi th e groundwate r underlyin g th e Site , thu s possibly resultin g i n ashorter an dles s costly groundwater cleanup
. It i s no t certai n whethe r

th e contaminant s hi thes e soil s woul dexceedregulatory limit s se t 

### fort h b y RCR A regulations
. I f the y d o excee dthes e limits , th e ho t spot soil s woul db e designate da s hazardou s waste s unde r RCRA
. Disposal o f

RCRA hazardou s waste s unde r th e ca p woul drequire complianc e wit h RCRA requirements , such a s RCR A Subtitl e C hazardou s wast e landfil l requirements
. Thes e RCR A requirement s woul dad dsignifican t 1 1

### expens e t o th e propose dalternativ e an dar e otherwis e no t necessary fo r

th e propose d alternativ e t o b e protective
. Therefore , th e propose d alternativ e include s removal o f thes e soil s t o a n appropriat e off-Sit e facilit y i f thes e soil s ar e determine dt o b e hazardou s unde r RCRA
. 3
. Excavat e an d consolidat e contaminate d soil s fro mportion s o f Gran t Gea r propert y 

### an d fro mothe r

surroundin g properties , includin g contaminate d soil s an d sediment s fro mMeado w Brook , an drestor e th e Broo k consistent

with th e Town' s floo dcontro l projec t Th e 198 9 RO D se t

aPC B cleanu p leve l o f

1 0 part s pe r

millio n (ppm ) fo r

surficia l an d subsurfac e soil s locate do n commercial/industria l parcels
. Thi s RO D Amendment , base do n arecalculatio n o f

th e ris k assessment

(describe d i n more detai l below) , sets PC B cleanup level s fo r soil s outsid e o f

th e are at o b e cappe dwith th e asphal t ca p at 4 0 pp mat

th e surfac e (to p on e foot ) an d7 0 pp mi n th e subsurfac e (soil s on e foo t t o si x fee t

deep)
. Likewise , thi s RO D Amendmen t

change s th e PC B cleanu p leve l fo r th e woode dare anorth o f th e Gran t 

### Gea r property fro m1 pp mi n surfac e an dsubsurfac e soil s to 1 0 pp ma t th e surfac e an d5 0 

### pp mi n th e subsurface
. Th e cleanu p pla n relativ e t o Meado w Broo k remain s essentiall y unchange d(i.e. , cleanu p leve l o f 1 pp mPCBs) , excep t

contaminatio n abov e 1 pp mPCB s may b e lef

t i n plac e provide dthat

i t i s adequatel y encapsulate d b y th e material s t o b e place d 

### o n th e botto man dsideslope s o f th e Brook a s part o f it s restoration
. Figure 5 show s th e general Sit e location s wher e thes e differen t cleanu p level s apply
. Followin g i s a

n outlin e o f

th e consolidatio n activitie s to b e conducted
. Thes e item s are organize daccordin g t o area : Soil s o n Commercia l o r

Industria l Propertie s Surficial soil s (to p 1 foot ) exceedin g 4 0 part s per millio n (ppm ) an dsubsurfac e soil s ( 1 foo t t o 6 foo t depth ) exceedin g 7 0 pp mPCB s locate d o n portion s o f th e Gran t Gea r property a s wel l a s o n commercial propertie s adjacen t t o th e Gran t

Gea r property wil l b e excavate dan d 

### place di n th e are ato b e capped , o r lef t i n plac e an dcapped , a s describe di n Sectio n Vn.B.4
. Soil s fro mprio r

excavatio n activitie s alread y stockpiled o n th e Sit

e wil l b e placed i n th e are a to b e cappe do r

covered , dependin g o n contaminant concentrations , a s describe d i n Sectio n VII.B.4
. Soil s locate do n commercial propertie s adjacen t to th e Gran t

Gea r propert y whic h ar e currentl y covere dwit h pavemen t o r other permanen t

groun d cove r

wil l b e considere d 

### subsurfac e soils ; i.e
. sinc e contaminan t concentration s hi thes e soil s ar e belo w th e commercial/industria l propert y subsurfac e soi l cleanup leve l (7 0 pp mPCBs) , n o excavatio n i s require di n thes e areas . 

### Reducin g th e concentration s o f residua l contaminant s t o thes e 4 0 pp man d7 0 pp mlevel s wil l resul t i n an incrementa l carcinogeni c lifetim e ris k leve l o f 1. 3 x 10" 5 fo r

surficia l soil s an d 1. 2 x 10~ 5 fo r

subsurfac e soils
. Thes e ris k level s ar e base dupo n futur e commercial/industria l lan dus e exposur e assumption s associate dwit h a n on-Sit e worke r (e.g. , landscaper) fo r

th e surficia l soil s an daconstructio n worke r fo r th e subsurfac e soils
. I n addition , EP A believe s 1 2

### tha t

th e placemen t

o f th e cove r describe di n Sectio n VII.B.4
. ove r area s excavate dt o thes e cleanu p level s wil l furthe r reduc e potentia l risk s associate d wit h direc t contac t with , an d 

### incidenta l ingestio n of, contaminate dsoils
. Risk s associate dwit h direc t contac t with , an d incidenta l ingestio n of

, soil s exceedin g thes e 40pp man d7 0 pp mlevel s wil l b e eliminate d b y 

### constructio n o f

th e cap . Soi l i n Woode dArea s Nort h o f Gran t Gea r Property 

### Surficial soil s exceedin g 1 0 pp mPCB s an dsubsurfac e soil s exceedin g 5 0 pp mPCB s i n the woode darea s directl y adjacen t t o Meado w Broo k

wil l b e excavated
. Thes e contaminate d soil s an dsediment s wil l b e consolidate dont o aportio n o f th e Gran t Gea r property , an d place di n th e are at o b e cappe do r covered , a s describe di n Sectio n VII.B.4
. 

### Reducin g th e concentration s o f residua l contaminant s t o thes e 1 0 pp man d5 0 pp mlevel s wil l resul t i n a n incremental carcinogeni c lifetim e ris k leve l o f 5 x Ifr * fo r

surficia l soil s an d8. 3 

### x 10"6 

### fo r subsurfac e soils
. Thes e ris k level s are base dupo n exposur e assumption s associate d wit h an olde r

chil d(ag e 6 - 16 ) playin g h i thi s are afo r th e surficial soil s an daconstructio n worke r fo r th e subsurfac e soils
. I n addition , th e surficial soi l cleanup leve l i n thi s are awil l 

### protec t aquati c lif

e i n Meado w Broo k

fro mpotentia l erosio n o f

contaminants
. Soil s an dSediment

i n Meado w Broo k

an dit s Bank s 

### Soil s an dsediment s exceedin g 1 pp mPCB s locate di n Meado w Broo k an dit s bank s (includin g th e Dea

n Stree t Culvert , a s necessary ) wil l b e excavated
. T o achiev e thi s cleanu p level , th e Brook

an dit s bank s wil l b e excavate dt o depth s consistent with th e Town' s 

### Meado w Brook

Floo d Contro l Projec t

("MBFCP" ) fro mth e portio n o f th e Brook adjacen t to th e Gran t Gea r propert y to th e entranc e to th e Dea n Stree t culvert
. Althoug h i t

i s no t expecte dthat

extensiv e quantitie s o f

contaminate dsediment

exis t i n th e Dea

n Street culvert , additiona l samplin g wil l b e conducte dt o ensure tha t n o sediment s exceedin g th e 1 pp m cleanu p level remai n i n thi s culvert
. I f samplin g result s indicat

e tha t there ar e sediment s exceedin g 1 pp mPCB s i n thi s culvert , thi s materia l wil l b e excavated
. Al l contaminate d soil s an dsediment s fro mth e Broo k wil l b e consolidate dont o aportio n o f th e Gran t Gea r property , an d place d i n th e are ato b e cappe d o r covered , dependin g o n contaminant 

### concentration , a s describedi n Section VH.B.4
. A s i n th e 198

9 ROD , Meado w Broo k

wil l b e restore di n amanner consisten t wit h th e 

### MBFCP
. Therefore , whil e th e targe t cleanu p level fo r

Brook soil s an dsediment s i s 1 ppm , th e Brook wil l b e excavate donl y to th e exten t necessar y to mee t th e final contour s o f

th e MBFCP
. The botto man dslope material s (such a s ston e or concret e block ) t o b e installe da s part o f th e MBFC P wil l cover

an y contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s whic h ma y b e a t depth s 

### greater than th e MBFC P contours . Dependin g o n fina l sideslop e grades , som e portion s o f th e Brook' s bank s may b e restore dwit h vegetation
. I n orde r

t o ensure tha t

an y residua l 

### contaminatio n i n thes e vegetate darea s i s als o adequatel y covere di n place , excavatio n wil l continu e i n thes e area s t o adepth o f on e foo t deepe r tha n th e fina l restoratio n grade
. 

### Restoratio n wil l the n includ e replacemen t o f thes e soil s wit h on e foo t

o f clea n material , providin g abarrie r

ove r soil s whic h ma y stil l excee dth e Broo k cleanu p level
. Al l material s 1 3use di n restoratio n o f th e Broo k

wil l b e sufficien t

t o provid e th e necessary protectivenes s fo r thi s portio n o f

th e remedy
. EP A believe s that

i t i s cost-effective , mor e permanen t an deffectiv e i n th e long-term , an d mor e easil y implementabl e t o excavat e al l soil s an dsedimen t necessary t o mee t

th e restore d MBFC P contou r

rathe r tha n excavat e alimite damoun t o f material , conduc t

extensiv e samplin g t o determin e area s requirin g additiona l excavation , an drepea t thi s proces s severa l times
. Achievemen t

o f th e 1 pp mcleanu p leve l throughou t th e Broo k

coul dprov e difficult , coul drequir e multipl e excavation s i n portion s o f th e Brook , an dcoul dexten dfar deepe r tha n th e contou r

require db y th e MBFCP
. B y linkin g th e remedia l actio n an dth e fina l MBFC P contours , EP A i s ensurin g tha t al l contaminatio n abov e 1 pp mi s eithe r remove do r

covere d b y th e restore d Broo k

botto man d slope s an d that thi s i s apermanen t

remedy whic h wil l no t hav e t o b e re-excavate d o r otherwis e disturbe db y th e Tow n o r other s fo r

implementatio n o f th e MBFCP
. Restoratio n i n accordanc e wit h th e MBFC P als o enhance s th e overal l protectivenes s o f

th e propose d alternativ e b y virtuall y eliminatin g ris k o f floo dwater s displacin g on-Site contaminants
. Th e remediatio n o f

Meado w Broo k

wil l reduc e ris k

t o mammals , rodents , an daquati c organism s that

inhabi t th e Meado w Broo k

are afro mexposur e t o contaminant s throug h th e skin , b y ingestion , o r

throug h th e foo dchain
. Th e targe t leve l o f 1 pp mPCB s i s base d upo n toxicological literatur e whic h document s th e subletha l toxi c effect s o f PC B tissu e level s o f

1 pp min aquati c organisms
. Th e degre e o f protectio n afforde db y thi s level wil l b e me t either directl y throug h excavatio n activities , o r throug h th e adde dprotectivenes s provide db y th e cover material s installe d consistent with th e MBFCP
. I n addition , remediatio n o f th e Brook consisten t with th e MBFC P wil l resul t h i asignificant

reductio n o f

ris k t o childre n expose d to PC B contaminate dsediment s i n Meado w Brook , resultin g i n a n incrementa

l carcinogeni c lifetim e ris k

leve l o f 5 x 10" 7

. Remediatio n o f

Meado w Broo k

wil l als o reduc e th e level s o f carcinogeni c Pol y aromati c Hydrocarbon s ("cPAHs" ) i n th e Broo k an dminimiz e th e ris k

t o childre n an denvironmenta l receptor s expose dt o an y cPAH-contaminate d sediment s throug h direc t contac t an dingestion
. Residentia l Are aNorth o f

Meado w Broo k

an dAdjacen t

Woode d Are a Th e 198 9 RO D se t

aresidentia

l PC B cleanu p standar

d o f 1 ppm . Adherenc e to thi s standar d woul drequir e some excavatio n o f surfac e soil s h i residentia

l propertie s directl y adjacen t to Meado w Brook
. A t

th e reques t

o f loca l residents , EP A agree d to reexamin e th e nee dfo r cleanu p i n th e residential are anort h o f Meado w Brook
. Basedupo n furthe r samplin g an d evaluatio n o f

existin g data , EP A ha s conclude dtha t th e lo w level s o f

contaminatio n foun dh i thi s residentia

l are a(consisting o f

eigh t residentia l properties ) whic h wa s originally slate d t o b e excavate ddoe s no t

requir e remedia l action
. 56 % o f th e sample s collecte d contai n belo w 1 pp mPCB s an d99 % o f

the sample s collecte di n thi s are acontai n belo w 1 0 pp mPCBs
. Th e highes t

leve l o f PCB s detecte di n surficia l sample s hi thi s residentia l are awa s 1 6 ppm , representin g an incremental carcinogeni c lifetim e ris k leve l o f 1 x 10^ , whic h i s withi n EPA' s acceptabl e ris k

range . Th e risk s associate dwit h thes e level s o f contaminatio n indicat e neithe r a n unacceptabl e huma n healt h no r ecologica l risk
. Therefore , n o remedia l actio n i s 1 4

### planne di n thi s area .

4
. Cover/Ca p part s o f

th e Site 

### A multi-layere dbarrie r

(cap ) wil l b e constructe dove r th e portion s o f

th e Gran t Gea r property whic h ar e contaminate dabov e th e 4 0 pp mand/o r 7 0 pp mPC B cleanu p level s 

### and/o r wher e othe r

soil s an dsediment s exceedin g 4 0 pp mPCB s wer e consolidated
. Sinc e ther e wil l b e n o RCR A waste s dispose do f unde r th e ca p o r cover , th e ca

p an dcove r

nee d no t compl y wit h RCR A Subtitl e C hazardou s wast e landfil l requirements
. However , sinc e the y wil l contai n soi l contaminate dwit h greate r than 5 0 pp mPCBs , th e ca p an dcove r

wil l 

### compl y with TSC A chemica l waste landfil l requirements , a s discusse di n Sectio n XI. 2 

### Moreover , thi s cap wil l eliminate exposure pathway s b y preventin g peopl e fro mcomin g int o contac t with th e contaminate d soi l eithe r b y direc t exposure (touching ) o r

b y incidenta

l 

### ingestio n (accidentall y eating ) an dwil l limi t th e amount

o f rai n infiltratin g th e contaminate d 

### soi l o n th e property . Th e ca

p wil l als o cover

th e sla b an dfoundatio n o f

th e buildin g to b e demolishe daccordin g t o Sectio n VTI.B.l. , above
. Th e cap(s ) over th e contaminate dsoil s 

### wil l b e aminimu mo f

on e foo t i n thicknes s overall , wil l include a n asphal t bindin g cours e an da n asphal t wearin g surfac e totalin g n o les s than si x inches , an dwil l include ageotextil e fabri c whic h wil l als o serv e a s avisibl e barrier betwee n th e contaminatio n belo w an dth e ca p itself
. Th e ca

p desig n over

th e buildin g sla

b may b e somewha

t differen t fro mthat coverin g th e contaminate dsoil s i f

n o contaminate dsoil s ar

e backfille dover

th e existing slab
. I f

n o contaminate dsoil s are backfille dove r th e existin g slab , th e ca

p ove r th e contaminate dGran t Gea r Buildin g sla

b an dfoundatio n wil l includ e a n asphal t bindin g cours e an da

n asphal t 

### wearin g surfac e totalin g n o les s than fou r inches
. Otherwise , th e ca

p ove r th e buildin g sla

b wil l conformto th e requirement s fo r th e ca p over th e contaminate dsoils
. Th e ca p wil l b e 

### designe dto minimiz e require dmaintenance , an dwil l b e o f sufficien t thicknes s an ddurability t o ensur e it s long-termeffectiveness , an dwil l includ e appropriat e stor mwate r managemen t system(s)
. A s state d i n Section VDLB.3. , i n orde r to furthe r minimiz e th e overal l ris k

fro mresidua

l 

### level s o f contaminatio n i n thes e areas , cover(s ) consistin g o f approximatel y on e foo t

o f clea n fil l materia

l will b e placedo n area s whic h hav e bee n excavate da s par

t o f th e remed y but 

### whic h wil l no t

b e capped
. Th e cover(s ) wil l consis t o f approximatel y on e foo t

o f clea n fil l materia l an dwil l b e properl y grade dan dwil l include asurfac e laye r o f crushe d stone or othe r suitabl e material a s par

t o f th e 1 foo t depth
. Th e cover(s ) wil l als o includ e ageotextil e fabri c whic h wil l serv e a s avisibl e barrie r betwee n th e contaminatio n belo w an dth e cover(s)
. Thi s cover

material wil l minimiz e direc t contac t with thes e material s an dals o wil l limi t th e ris k fro mdirec t

contac t wit h cPAH s whic h may b e presen t i n some o f

th e material s

2 I n part , Sectio n XI
. describe s th e manne r i n whic h th e TSC A chemical waste landfil l requirement s appl y to th e Site , includin g ho w certai n TSC A requirement s ma y b e waive ds o long a s th e remed y pose s n o unreasonabl e ris k t o health o r

th e environment
. 1 5excavate dfro mth e Brook
. Al l contaminate dsoil s an dsediment s remove dfro marea s outsid e

o f th e Gran t

Gear propert y an dbrough t

fo r disposa l o n th e Gran t

Gear propert y wil l b e place di n a n are at o b e eithe r cappe do r

covered
. Th e desig n an dconstructio n o f th e cap(s ) an dcover(s ) wil l conside r th e effect s o f

th e freeze/tha w cycl e o n long-ter mperformance ; conside r th e effect s o f

settling , subsidence , an d erosio n o n performance ; ensure th e durabilit y an dlong-termreliabilit y o f th e desig n an dit s component s (e.g. , th e durabilit y an dreliabilit y o f an y syntheti c material s an do f an y joint s i n suc h materials) ; and , provid e adequat e plan s an dprocedure s t o assure qualit y contro l durin g installation
. I n addition , cap desig n an dconstructio n activitie s wil l b e conducted: (i ) i n accordanc e wit h Applicabl e o r Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s ("ARARs") ; (ii ) t o minimiz e maintenanc e requirements ; (iii ) t o promot e drainage ; (iv ) t o minimiz e erosion , abrasion , th e generatio n o f dus t o r othe r airborn e particulates , o r

othe r nuisanc e conditions , an d(v ) wit h ato p slop e appropriat e t o accommodat e futur e use . Existin g monitorin g well s o r extractio n well s whic h ar e no t t o b e abandone dwil l b e extende dt o mee t th e ne w grad e o f th e cap(s ) and/o r

cover(s)
. EP A anticipate s that

th e Sit e may b e redevelope dan dseek s t o facilitat e appropriat e 

### redevelopmen t

throug h thi s remedy
. Therefore , change s ma y b e mad e t o th e ca

p and/o r cove r t o support

th e futur e us e o f

th e Site , provide dthat

th e remed y remain s protective
. Also , th e ca

p desig n may b e modifie dt o provid e fo r "clea n corridors " o f

non-contaminate d soil , i n orde r

t o facilitat e futur e placemen t o f extractio n well s an dassociate d piping , a s wel l 

### a s utilit y an dinfrastructur e hookups , provide dtha t th e protectivenes s o f

th e remed y i s no t diminished
. 

### I f redevelopmen t

occur s a t th e sam e time a s remed y implementation , new , privatel y owne d building s may b e constructe di n conjunctio n with , o r potentiall y h i lie u of

, constructio n o f portion s o f

th e ca p and/o r cover . Ne w structure s whic h utiliz e concret e sla b constructio n ma y substitut e fo r

th e ca p o r cove r h i certai n portion s o f

th e Site , s o lon g a s the y are equall y o r mor e protectiv e tha n th e cap o r cover . I f redevelopmen t

occur s afte r

th e remedy i s implemented , i t may entai l breachin g and/o r 

### reconfigurin g o f

th e ca p an dcover , a s wel l a s remova l o f som e o r al l o f th e concret

e sla b o f 

### th e Gran t Gea r buildin g lef

t hi plac e b y thi s remedy
. Al l suc h futur e activitie s wil l maintai n th e overal l protectivenes s o f th e remedy , an dwil l b e conducte di n accordanc e with al l pertinen t law s an dregulations
. Th e potentia l remed y modification s t o facilitat e redevelopmen t that ar e describe d h i th e 

### paragraph s abov e ar e no t

all-inclusive
. Other

modification s may b e considere da s necessar y fo r aparticula r

redevelopmen t

project
. An y redevelopmen t wil l b e implemente di n amanne r tha t doe s no t compromis e th e overal l protectio n o f huma n health an dth e environmen t afforde db y th e remedy
.
1 65 . Maintai n th e Integrit y o f th e Cap an d Cove r an d Overal l Protectivenes s o f th e Remed y Regular inspection s wil l b e conducte dan dal l necessar y remed y maintenanc e wil l b e performe dt o ensure tha t

di e integrity o f

di e remed y i s no t

compromise dove r

time
. Forma l activit y an dus e restriction s wil l b e establishe dfo r th e Site
. Th e goal s o f

dies e restriction s wil l b e t o restric t activitie s an duse s whic h ar e inconsistent wit h th e exposur e assumption s th e ne w propose dalternativ e i s base dupo n an dt o restric t an y activitie s o r

use s that ma y compromis e th e integrit y o f th e remed y whil e providin g fo r futur e redevelopmen t

o f di e Sit e propert y t o th e maximu mexten t practicable
. Formulatio n o f prope r restriction s wil l consider whethe r th e existin g restriction s implemente di n connectio n with th e Gran t Gea r consen t decre e mee t

thes e goals , an dwil l als o conside r requirement s pursuan t

t o Chapte r

21 E o f th e Massachusett s General Law s an ddi e Massachusett s Contingenc y Plan activit y an dus e limitatio n provisions
. I f

appropriate , th e existin g restriction s may b e revised
. I n addition , periodi c groun dwate r monitoring , surfac e wate r

monitoring , an dinspectio n o f di e restore dBroo k

ma y b e necessar

y to ensure dia

t di e remedy remain s protective
. A s require d b y CERCL A Sectio n 121(c) , n o les s tiia n every fiv e years , Sit e condition s wil l b e reviewe dt o asses s whedier th e cleanu p actio n remain s protective
. Durin g dies e periodi c reviews , EP A wil l als o evaluate th e effectivenes s an dth e necessit y o f continuin g di e extractio n an dtreatmen t o f di e groundwater
. Basedo n informatio n generate d durin g thes e reviews , dii s groundwate r extractio n an dtreatmen t

systemwil l eidier

b e continue do r

shu t down
. Vm
. COMPARATIVE ANALYSI S O F ALTERNATIVE S A
. Evaluatio n Criteri a Sectio n 121(b)(l ) o f

CERCLA present s severa

l factor s diat , a

t aminimum , EPA i s require d to conside r i n it s assessmen

t o f alternatives
. Buildin g upo n dies e specifi c statutory mandates , di e National Contingenc y Plan articulate s nin e evaluatio n criteri ato b e use di n assessing di e individua l remedia

l alternatives
. Thes e criteri aan ddiei r definition s are a s follows : Threshol d Criteri a Th e tw o direshol d criteri adescribe dbelo w mus t b e me t i n orde r fo r th e alternative s t o b e eligibl e fo r

selectio n i n accordanc e wit h di e NCP
. 1 . Overal l protectio n o f

huma n healt

h an d th e environmen taddresse s whedie r o r no t aremed y provide s adequat e protectio n an ddescribe s ho w risk s pose ddiroug h eac h padiway ar e eliminated , reduce do r controlle dthroug h treatment , engineerin g controls , o r institutiona l controls
. 1 72 . Complianc e wit h applicabl e o r relevan tan d appropriat e requirement s (ARARs ) addresse s whethe r

o r no t aremed y wil l mee t

al l o f th e ARAR s o f

othe r Federa l an d Stat e environmenta l law s and/o r provid e ground s fo r

invokin g awaiver
. Primar y Balancin g Criteri a Th e followin g fiv e criteri aar e utilize dt o compar e an devaluat e th e element s o f on e alternativ e t o anothe r

tha t mee t th e threshol dcriteria
. 3
. Long-ter meffectivenes s an d permanenc e addresse s th e criteri atha t ar e utilize dt o asses s alternative s fo r

th e long-ter meffectivenes s an dpermanenc e the y afford , alon g wit h th e degre e o f

certainty that

the y wil l prov e successful
. 

### 4
. Reductio n o f

toxicity , mobility , o r

volum e throug h treatmen t addresse s th e degre e t o whic h alternative s emplo y recyclin g o r treatmen t tha t reduce s toxicity , mobility , o r 

### volume , includin g ho w treatmen t i s use dt o addres s th e principal threat s pose db y th e Site
. 5
. Short-termeffectivenes s addresse s th e perio d o f tim e neede d t o achiev e protectio n an dany advers e impact s o n human healt h an d th e environmen t

tha t ma y b e pose d durin g th e constructio n an d implementatio n period , unti l cleanu p goal s ar e achieved
. 6 . Implementability addresse s th e technical an d administrativ e feasibilit y o f aremedy , 

### includin g th e availability o f material s an dservice s neede dt o implemen t aparticular option
. 7 . Cos tInclude s estimate dcapita l an dOperatio n an dMaintenanc e ("O&M" ) costs , a s wel l a s present-valu e costs . Modifyin g Criteri a 

### Th e modifyin g criteri aare use do n th e fina l evaluatio n o f remedia l alternative s generall y afte r EPA ha s receive dpubli c comment o n th e Proposed Plan
. 8
. Stat e Acceptanc e addresse s th e State' s positio n an dke y concern s relate dt o th e preferre dalternativ e an dothe r alternatives , an dth e State' s comment s o n ARAR s o r th e propose d us e o f

waivers
. 

### 9
. Communit y Acceptanc e addresse s th e public' s genera l respons e t o th e alternative s describe d i n th e Propose d Plan
. B
. Summar y o f

th e Comparativ e Analysi s o f Alternative s
1 8

### Th e followin g i s asummary o f th e comparativ e analysi s o f thre e remedia l option s fo r

sourc e control : (1 ) th e propose dalternative , consolidatio n an dcapping , describe di n Sectio n VII.B
. o f thi s document ; (2 ) th e selecte dremedy i n th e 1989 ROD , solven t extraction ; and , (3 ) th e contingen t remed y i n th e 198

9 ROD , on-Sit e incineration , accordin g t o th e nin e criteria
. Tw o remedia l option s fo r

th e GramGea

r buildin g ar e als o analyzed : th e propose d 

### alternative' s demolitio n o f

th e GramGea

r buildin g an dth e 198

9 ROD' s decontaminatio n o f th e building
. I n accordanc e wit h EP A guidance , thi s RO D Amendmen t doe s no t reconside r 

### alternative s tha t

were no t selecte di n th e 1989 ROD
. Sinc e th e groundwate r

componen t

o f th e remed y i s essentiall y unchange dfro mth e 198 9 ROD , thos e aspect s o f

th e remed y ar e no t

analyze di n thi s section
. 1
. Overal l Protectio n o f

Huma n Healt

h an dth e Environmen t Sourc e Contro l 

### Th e propose dcappin g alternativ e wil l provid e overal l protectio n o f human healt

h an dth e 

### environmen t

b y preventin g direc t

contact , ingestion , an dinhalatio n o f Sit e contaminants
. I n addition , bot

h th e solven t

extractio n an dincineratio n remedie s outline di n th e 1989 ROD , i f properl y an dsuccessfull y implemented , woul dprovid e overal l protectio n o f human healt

h an dth e environment
. 

### Gran t Gea r Buildin g Th e amende dselected remedy wil l provid e overal l protectio n o f human healt

h an dth e environmen t

sinc e demolitio n o f

th e buildin g wil l preven t

direc t contact , ingestio n an d 

### inhalatio n o f

contaminant s o n surface s o f th e building
. Du e to limitation s i n it s effectiveness , th e decontaminatio n alternativ e selectedi n th e 1989 RO D woul dnee dto incorporat e encapsulatio n o f

contaminants , resultin g i n residua l ris k remainin g withi n th e building
. 2
. Complianc e wit h Federa l an dState Applicabl e o r

Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s (ARARs ) Sourc e Contro l 

### I f properl y implemente dan dabl e to meet performanc e objectives , th e propose dcappin g an d consolidatio n alternative , solven t extraction , an dincineratio n woul dal l attai n ARARs
. Gran t Gea r Buildin g 

### Th e propose dbuildin g demolitio n alternativ e wil l attai n ARARs
. However , i t i s no t certai n that th e decontaminatio n alternativ e selecte d i n th e 198 9 RO D woul dattai n ARARs
. Base d o n informatio n gathere dfro minvestigation s conducte dafte r th e 1989 RO D an do n experienc e 

### gaine dwhil e decontaminatin g 5 7 piece s o f equipment/machiner y insid e th e Gran t Gea r 1 9building , EP A believe s tha t th e decontaminatio n alternativ e ma y no t attai n PC B cleanu p criteri aoutline di n th e TSC A Spil l Cleanu p Polic y (4 0 C.F.R
. Par t 76 1 Subpart

G)
. 3
. Long-ter mEffectivenes s an dPermanenc e Sourc e Contro l I f properl y implemented , th e propose dcappin g alternative , solven t extraction , an d incineratio n woul dal l provid e long-ter meffectivenes s an dpermanence . Incineration , b y destroyin g hazardou s contaminants , an dsolven t extraction , b y extractin g contaminant s fo r off-Sit e disposal , woul dminimiz e residua l risk s a t th e Site
. Th e cappin g alternativ e minimize s residua l risk s b y creatin g abarrie r that eliminate s exposur e t o Site contaminant s throug h pathway s suc h a s touchin g o r eating
. Whil e cappin g doe s no t destro y contaminant s o r remov e the mfro mth e Site , i t achieve s acceptabl e ris k

reductio n b y eliminatin g th e exposur e pathways , i.e. , derma l contac t wit h o r ingestio n o f

contaminate dsoils
. Th e 198 9 RO D expresse dconcern tha t acappin g alternativ e (Alternativ e SC- 2 h i th e 198 9 ROD ) ma y no t

b e sufficientl y permanen t

an dprotectiv e i n th e long-term
. Sinc e that tim e EP A ha s game dconsiderabl e experienc e i n ca p design , construction , an dlong-term maintenance , greatl y increasin g EPA' s degre e o f certainty that

th e cappin g alternativ e wil l b e successfu l at

th e Site
. Althoug h no t

a s permanen t

an deffectiv e i n th e long-terma s a complet e remova l o f

contaminatio n o r

th e reductio n o f

al l contaminan t

level s t o belo w risk

base dstandards , i f

properl y implemente dan dmaintained , th e cappin g alternativ e will b e an effectiv e remed y an di s appropriat e basedupo n Site-specifi c factor s suc h a s th e natur e o f contaminant s an dth e expecte dfutur e lan dus e at th e Site
. Furthermore , institutional control s hav e prove n effectiv e o n th e Site t o date , an dwil l b e modifie da s necessar y t o ensur e that th e remed y remain s protectiv e durin g an y chang e i n lan duse . Gran t Gear Buildin g Th e propose dbuildin g demolitio n alternativ e wil l eliminate an y residua l risk s fro mbuildin g contaminants , sinc e th e buildin g itsel f wil l b e eliminated
. Al l contaminate d buildin g material s wil l eithe r

b e dispose do f

off-Sit e h i accordanc e wit h pertinen t law s an dregulation s o r dispose d o f

unde r th e cap , thereb y eliminatin g exposur e pathway s to thes e contaminants
. I n contrast , th e buildin g decontaminatio n alternativ e fro mth e 198 9 RO D woul dno t a s effectivel y reduc e residua

l risks
. Eve n i f

th e buildin g were decontaminated , th e ultimat e reus e o f th e propert y woul dmos t

likel y requir e buildin g demolition
. Pre-desig n studie s hav e show n tha t no t al l buildin g surface s ca

n b e cleane d t o acceptabl e contaminant level s durin g decontamination
. Rather , surface s suc h a s th e stee l beam s an dconcret e floo r may needt o b e encapsulated
. Thi s coul dresul t i n ultimat e re-exposur

e t o thes e contaminant s durin g afutur e buildin g demolition
. Th e 198 9 RO D ha dcontemplate dthat th e building' s drainag e syste mwoul db e flushe dan d cleane d to mee t

th e PC B discharg e criteri ase t fort h i n th e 198

9 ROD
. Th e 198 9 RO D 2 0

### furthe r

stipulate dthat , i f

flushin g an dcleanin g wer e ineffectiv e i n achievin g discharg e 

### criteria , th e drainag e systemwoul db e encapsulate dan dane w drainag e syste mconstructed
. Pre-desig n studie s hav e show n that flushin g an dcleanin g woul dlikel y b e ineffective , thu s requirin g encapsulatio n an dreplacemen t o f th e drainag e system . Th e demolitio n optio n therefor e achieve s th e sam

e result , encapsulatio n o f

th e drainag e system , bu t

avoid s th e tas k o f replacin g th e syste mfo r

abuildin g that

likel y wil l neve r

b e use dagain
. 4
. Reductio n o f

Toxicitv
. Mobilit y an dVolum e Throug h Treatmen t Sourc e Contro l 

### Th e solven t

extractio n an dincineratio n processe s woul dboth reduc e toxicity , mobility , o r 

### volum e o f contaminant s throug h treatment . Althoug h th e propose dalternativ e doe s no t involv e treatment , th e mobilit y o f contaminant s wil l b e reduce db y placin g the munde r aca p 

### whic h wil l limit

wate r infiltratio n throug h th e waste . Excavatio n o f th e "ho t spot " o f contaminate dsoil wil l furthe r reduc e groundwater

contamination
. Furthermore , virtuall y al l 

### contaminate dmateria l fro mMeado w Broo k an dit s bank s wil l b e remove dwhic h wil l eliminate th e threa

t o f migratio n off-Site durin g floo devents . Gran t Gea r Buildin g Th e propose dbuildin g demolitio n alternativ e wil l emplo y treatmen t t o reduc e contaminatio n 

### o n any material s that

are deeme dsalvageable
. However , th e remainin g material s wil l b e consolidate dunde r

th e cap . Th e buildin g decontaminatio n alternativ e fro mth e 1989 RO D woul dhav e provide d fo r

treatment o f agreate r quantity o f

buildin g material ; however , i t ha s subsequentl y been determine dthat asignifican t

portio n o f

buildin g materia

l coul dno t b e effectivel y decontaminated
. Neithe r alternativ e employ s treatmen t wit h respec t t o th e buildin g drai n system . 5
. Short-ter

mEffectivenes s Sourc e Contro l 

### Th e propose dcappin g alternativ e wil l entai l excavatio n o f approximatel y 2 5 percen

t o f th e tota l volume o f

soi l that woul db e excavate dunde r

the incineratio n an dsolven t extractio n alternatives
. Also , th e solven t extractio n an dincineratio n alternative s woul dexcavate th e highes t level s o f contaminate dsoil s o n th e Site
. Therefore , th e solvent extractio n an d incineratio n alternative s woul dpresen t agreate r potentia l ris k

t o th e communit

y fro mfugitiv e airborn e emission s an dvolitizatio n o f contaminants
. Sit e worker s woul dals o b e a t agreater ris k fro mthi s highl y contaminate dmaterial
. Th e solven t extractio n proces s als o woul d requir e on-Sit e temporary storag e an dus e o f flammabl e chemicals , presentin g furthe r risks
. Whil e appropriat e measure s woul db e take n t o mitigat e al l risk s associate dwit h an y remedia l 

### action , th e abov e mentione drisk s woul dexis t fo r approximatel y thre e year s wit h th e 2 1incineratio n an dsolven t extractio n alternatives
. B y contrast , th e propose dalternative' s estimate dduratio n i s on e year (o r tw o constructio n seasons) , an dth e natur e o f th e wor k i s simpl e earth-movin g an dpaving , whic h present s fewe r risk s t o th e communit y o r Sit e worker s durin g implementation
. Whil e no t risk s t o th e communit y pe r se , th e solven t

extractio n an dincineratio n alternative s hav e th e potentia l fo r

creatin g nuisance s a s aresul t o f operatin g 2 4 hour s aday
. Also , th e solven t extractio n proces s (an d possibl y th e incineratio n process ) woul dlikel y requir e aston e crushin g process , whic h woul dlikel y generat e significan t additiona l noise
. Gran t Gea r Buildin g Th e demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r buildin g ma

y caus e some short-termundesirabl e nois e impac t t o th e surroundin g community
. However , du e t o th e short duratio n o f

demolitio n activitie s (fou r

months) , i t

i s expecte dthat

thes e impact s wil l b e minimal
. Appropriat e step s wil l b e take n t o minimiz e an y risk s associate dwit h th e disassemblin g o f contaminate d buildin g parts . Th e buildin g remed y outline di n th e 198 9 RO D woul dals o presen t short-ter mrisk s du e t o th e us e o f

solvent s i n th e decontaminatio n process . Also , i t wil l tak e significantl y longe r t o complet e (on e year ) tha n th e demolitio n alternative
. 6 . Implementabilit v Sourc e Contro l Th e propose dcappin g alternativ e i s full y implementabl e at th e Site
. Standar deart

h movin g technique s an dequipmen t

wil l b e used , an dth e ca

p desig n i s generall y straightforwar dan d easil y constructable
. 

### Whil e at th e tim e o f

th e 198 9 RO D EP A believe dtha t solven t extractio n wa s implementabl e a t th e Site , recentl y acquire d informatio n indicate s tha t thi s ma y no t b e so . Space limitation s at th e Site woul dmak e i t

difficul t t o properl y locat

e an dconstruc t

th e necessar

y facilities
. Althoug h th e solven t

extractio n technolog y ha s bee n prove n o n apilo t scal e an dsolven t 

### extractio n vendor s appea

r abl e t o successfull y "scale-up " thei r processe s t o acommercial scal e require dfo r

alarg e sit

e cleanup , i t

doe s no t appea r that th e Norwoo d Site i s a

n appropriate sit e fo r

solven t extractio n du e t o spac e constraint s at th e Site , th e amoun t

o f time necessar y t o fabricat e an ddelive r

th e appropriat e treatmen t

equipmen t

t o th e Site , an dth e hig h cos t o f th e proposa l received
. Th e 198 9 contingen t

remedy , incineration , i s aprove n treatmen t technology
. However , at th e require dscal e fo r

th e Site , incineratio n woul drequir e preparation , treatment , an d stockpil e facilitie s similar

to solven t

extraction , and , therefore , spac e limitation s coul d constrai n implementatio n o f tha t remed y a t

th e Norwoo dSite
. 2 2Gran t

Gea r Buildin g Demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r buildin g i s full y an deasil y implementable
. Prio r experienc e wit h th e decontaminatio n o f certai n machinery an dequipmen t fro minsid e th e buildin g raise s concern s abou t

th e ability t o properl y decontaminate al l buildin g surfaces
. Informatio n gathere ddurin g EPA' s pre-desig n studie s demonstrate s that , du e t o mor e widesprea d contaminatio n than originall y anticipate dan dth e limitation s o f decontamination , severa l surface s coul dno t

b e adequatel y decontaminate dan dcoul donl y b e encapsulated
. 7
. Cos t Sourc e Contro l Th e propose dcappin g alternativ e i s th e leas t expensiv e o f

th e alternative s bein g compared , with a n estimate d tota

l cos t o f $7. 4 million. 3 Th e solvent extractio n an dincineratio n alternative s ar e significantl y mor e expensive , with estimate dtota l cost s fo r EP A implementatio n o f

$54. 8 millio n an d$40. 1 million , respectively
. Gran t Gea r Buildin g Bot h th e propose ddemolitio n alternativ e an dth e buildin g decontaminatio n alternativ e fro m th e 198 9 RO D ca n b e implemente dfor

acomparabl e amoun t

o f money . Th e estimate d tota l cost s fo r EPA to implemen t

demolitio n versu s decontaminatio n (including , i n eac h case , cost s alread y incurre dfo r

decontaminatin g 5 7 piece s o f machiner y an dequipment ) are $4. 0 millio n an d$3. 8 million , respectively
. However , th e decontaminatio n cos t estimat e doe s no t include potentia l costs fo r futur e maintenanc e o f

encapsulate dsurface s o r

disposa l cost s fo r buildin g material s whe n th e structur e i s ultimatel y demolished
. 8
. Stat e Acceptanc e Th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusett s concur s with th e propose d cappin g an dbuildin g demolitio n alternative s a s the amende dselecte d remed y i n thi s RO D Amendment
. A cop y o f th e Commonwealth' s Declaratio n o f Concurrenc e i s attache da s Appendi x C
. 9
. Communit

y Acceptanc e EP A hel dan informationa l meetin g an dpubli c hearin g i n Norwood , Massachusett s o n Marc h 6 , 1996
. A t

that meeting , fou r

commenter s mad e statement s fo r th e record
. I n addition , fiv e separat

e writte n commen

t letter s were submitte dto EPA
. Th e officia l transcrip t o f th e

3 Thi s i s EPA' s bes t

estimat e o f

th e cos t EP A woul dincu r

t o implemen t

al l activitie s describe di n Sectio n VII.B.2
. throug h VI.B.5. , above
. 2 3Marc h 6 , 199 6 hearin g i s include da s Attachmen t D
. Se e th e Responsivenes s Summary (Attachmen t

B ) fo r asummary o f

th e comment s an dEPA' s responses . A fe w are aresidents , includin g som e Tow n o f Norwoo dofficials , wer e concerne dtha t th e propose dalternativ e ma y no t b e sufficientl y protective , an dwa s bein g propose ddu e t o alac k o f EP A funding
. They als o worrie dthat monitorin g o f

th e remedy may no t

occu r a s describe di n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan
. Th e Tow n o f Norwoo dBoar do f

Healt h inquire dabou t

wh o wil l b e responsibl e fo r maintenanc e o f

th e cap . I t

als o aske dabou t

th e thicknes s o f

th e cap . Anothe r

residen t aske dho w muc h taxpaye r mone y ha s bee n spen t

o n th e Sit e t o date , an dho w muc h wil l b e recouped
. Finally , anothe r residen t expresse dsupport fo r th e plan , an dhope s tha t

th e pla n ca n b e approve dan dimplemente dquickly
. EP A als o hel da n informa l publi c commen t perio di n August , 1995 , i n conjunctio n wit h releas e o f it s "Invitatio n fo r

Publi c Commen t

o n Approac h t o Soi l Cleanup " a t th e Site
. That documen t outline daconceptua l consolidatio n an dcappin g remed y a s amodifie dapproac h fo r th e Site
. Fo r

th e mos t part , publi c reactio n t o th e modifie dapproac h wa s favorabl e a t that time , wit h n o outrigh t

oppositio n t o th e plan
. Th e community expresse d frustratio n abou t th e lengt h o f tim e spen t

o n th e Site , an dwa s als o concerne dabou t th e government' s abilit y t o ensur e long-ter mmaintenanc e o f acap . IX
. TH E AMENDE D SELECTE D REMED Y Th e amende dremed y selecte d i n thi s documen t i s th e propose dalternativ e describe d i n sectio n Vn.B
. Thi s amende dselecte dremed y i s th e resul t o f are-evaluatio n o f

material containe di n th e Administrativ e Recordfo r th e 198 9 ROD , a s wel l a s analysi s o f ne w Site 

### condition s an dne w informatio n develope dsinc e 198 9 whic h ha s bee n adde dto th e Administrativ e Record
. EP A believe s that th e amende dselecte d remed y represent s th e bes t balanc e amon g th e evaluatio n criteri awhe n compare dt o th e alternative s selecte di n th e 198 9 ROD
. Th e amende dselecte dremedy i s afundamenta l chang e i n th e approac h fo r remediatin g 

### contaminate dsoi l a

t th e Site (Sourc e Control)
. Th e amende dselecte dremed y als o present s change s regardin g th e remediatio n o f th e Gran t Gea r building , a s wel l a s othe r differences
. EPA i s no t

changin g th e cleanup approac h i n th e 1989 RO D fo r addressin g contaminate d groundwate r

at th e Sit e (Managemen t

o f Migration ) excep t

t o clarif y that periodi c review s o f th e groundwate r

wil l b e conducte dt o determin e th e nee dfo r continue dgroundwate r extractio n an dtreatmen t

ove r time
. Al l othe r aspect s o f

th e 198 9 RO D no t

addresse di n thi s documen t remai n unchanged
. X
. DOCUMENTATIO N O F CHANGE S FRO M TH E PROPOSE D AMENDE D CLEANU P PLA N EP A publishe daPropose dAmende dCleanu p Pla n i n February , 1996
. Th e remed y selecte d 2 4

### i n thi s RO D Amendmen t differ s fro mth e propose dpla n i n some respects . First , th e Propose d Amende dCleanup Plan di dno t identif y cleanup level s fo r

th e "ho t spot"
. Thi s RO D Amendmen t

specifie s acleanu p leve l o f 9 7 pp m1,2,4-trichlorobenzen e fo r thes e soils
. Thi s cleanu p leve l i s base dupo n acleanu p leve l fo r thi s constituen t

originall y se t

fort h i n th e 198 9 ROD
. Th e Propose d Amende dCleanu p Pla n als o state dtha t th e sediment s and/o r

sludge s excavate d fro mdrainag e syste mmanhole s woul db e dispose do f "properly"
. Thi s RO D Amendmen t clarifie s that

thi s material , a s wel l a s RCRA regulate dmaterial s fro mth e Gran t Gea r 

### building , wil l b e dispose do f off-Sit e i n accordanc e wit h al l applicabl e law s an dregulations
. Also , thi s RO D Amendmen t contain s greater

discussio n regardin g th e possibl e redevelopmen t 

### o f th e Site , an dspecifi c measure s that wil l b e take n to attai n certai n ARARs
. Thes e changes , whil e appropriat e clarifications , d o no t represen t an y significan t

difference s 

### fro mth e Propose d Amende dCleanu p Plan
. XI
. STATUTOR Y DETERMINATION S 

### Th e amende dselected remedy fo r implementatio n a

t th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSit e i s consisten t wit h CERCLA and , t o th e exten t practicable , th e NCP
. Th e amende dselecte d 

### remed y i s protectiv e o f

huma n healt

h an dth e environment , attain s ARAR s an di s cos t effective
. Additionally , th e amende dselecte d remed y utilize s alternate treatment technologie s 

### o r resourc e recover

y technologie s t o th e maximu mexten t practicable
. However , th e amende d selected remedy doe s no t

satisf y th e statutory preferenc e fo r treatmen t whic h permanentl y an dsignificantly reduce s th e mobility , toxicit y or volume o f

hazardou s substance s a s a principa l element
. Th e Amende dSelecte dRemed y i s Protectiv e o f Huma n Healt h an dth e Environmen t Th e amende dselecte d remedy a t thi s Sit e wil l reduc e th e risk s posed to huma n healt h an dth e 

### environmen t

b y eliminating , reducin g o r

controllin g exposure s to human an denvironmental receptor s throug h excavation , engineerin g controls , an dinstitutiona l controls ; mor

e specifically , the sourc e contro l component o f the amende dselected remed y wil l addres s al l 

### soil s an dsediment s contaminate da t concentration s exceedin g protectiv e human healt h an d environmenta

l level s b y either

excavation , capping , or

covering , an dwill addres s contaminate dbuildin g surface s b y demolishin g th e structur e an dconsolidatin g th e material on-Sit e o r disposin g o r

recyclin g th e material off-Site
. A t th e conclusio n o f

remedia l activities , risk s a

t th e Sit e will b e reduce dto withi n EPA' s acceptabl e ris k range , a s 

### discussed h

i Section VII.B
. an da s indicate di n Tabl e 1
. The ca p wil l eliminat

e exposur e pathway s b y preventin g peopl e fro mcomin g int o contac t with contaminate dsoil eithe r b y 

### direc t exposure (touching ) o r

b y incidental ingestio n (accidentall y eating ) an dwil l limit th e amoun t o f rai n infiltratin g th e contaminate dsoi l o n th e property . Th e cove r wil l b e place d 

### ove r material s contaminate dwit h les s than 4 0 pp mPCB s at surface , o r

7 0 pp mPCB s at 2 5dept h (an dthu s no t posin g an unacceptabl e risk ) t o furthe r reduc e th e ris k

pose db y thi s material
. Remediatio n o f

th e woode dare awil l reduc e risk s t o achil d o r constructio n worke r t o acceptabl e levels , an dth e Meado w Brook cleanu p wil l restore that

are at o level s protectiv e o f children , plants , an danimals
. A comprehensiv e maintenanc e an dmonitorin g progra man d control s o n futur e lan dus e wil l ensur e that th e remed y remain s protectiv e ove r time
. A complet e descriptio n o f

th e Sit e risk s can b e foun di n th e 198 9 ROD , th e 198 9 Endangermen t

Assessment , othe r

document s i n th e amende dAdministrativ e Record , an di n Tabl e 1
. Th e Amende dSelecte dRemed y Complie s wit h Applicabl e o r Relevan t an dAppropriat e Requirement s (ARARs ) Th e amende dselecte d remed y wil l attai n applicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriat e federa l an d state requirement s that

appl y t o th e Site
. Environmental law s an dregulation s whic h are ARAR s fo r

th e sourc e contro l remed

y are liste d h i Tabl e 2
. Sinc e thi s RO D Amendmen t doe s no t alte r th e managemen t

o f migratio n componen t

o f th e 1989 ROD , ARAR s pertainin g t o tha t portio n o f

th e remed y ar e no t

liste di n Tabl e 2
. Majo r

ARAR s pertinen t

t o thi s RO D Amendmen t

ar e discusse di n thi s section
. 

### PC B disposa

l requirement s promulgate dunde r TSC A Th e 198 9 RO D deeme dPC B disposa l requirement s promulgate dunde r TSC A a s applicabl e t o the Sit e becaus e o f

the presenc e o f

soi l an d sediment s contaminate d with PCB s i n exces s 

### o f 5 0 ppm . Unde r

TSC A regulations , soi

l contaminate dwith PCB s ma y b e dispose do f

b y incineratio n o r

i n achemica

l wast e landfill
. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.60(a)(4)
. Additionally , PC B waste s whic h requir e incineratio n ma y b e dispose d o f

b y a n alternat e destructio n technolog y that achieve s an equivalen t

leve l o f performanc e t o incineration
. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.60(e)
. Like th e remed y selecte dh i th e 1989 ROD , th e amende dselecte d remed y wil l resul t h i a 

### chemical waste landfil l subjec t t o th e TSC A regulation s containe da t 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75
. However , hi th e 1989 ROD , EPA als o determine dthat waive r o f several o f th e regulatory requirement s pertainin g to chemica l wast e landfill s wa s justified
. A s explaine di n th e EPA Guidanc e o n Remedia

l Action s fo r

Superfun dSite s wit

h PC B Contaminatio n (OSWE R 

### Directiv e No
. 9355.4-01 , Augus t 1990 ) (the "PCB Guidance" ) som e requirement s specifie d unde r TSC A ma

y no t alway s b e appropriat

e fo r existin g wast

e disposa l site s lik e thos e addresse d b y CERCLA
. Th e PC B Guidanc e state s tha t whe n thi s cas e exists , th e waiver o f 

### certai n chemica

l wast e landfil l requirement s ma

y b e appropriate
. Thes e requirement s ca n b e waive dwhe n i t

ca n b e demonstrate d that

awaive r wil l no t present a n unreasonabl e ris k

o f injur y t o health o r

th e environment
. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(c)(4)
. I n accordanc e wit h th e PC B Guidance , th e 198 9 RO D waive dseveral chemica l waste landfil l requirements , includin g requirement s that

(i ) chemica

l wast e landfill s b e constructe donl y h i certai n lo w permeability cla y condition s (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.7 5 (b)(l)) ; (ii ) asyntheti c membran e line r b e use da t

th e Sit e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(2)) ; an d(iii ) th e botto mo f th e landfil l b e 5 0 fee t

abov e th e 2 6

### histori c hig h wate r tabl e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(3))
. Thes e TSC A statutor y waiver s ar e 

### maintaine di n thi s RO D Amendment
. Additionally , fo r th e reason s state dbelow , th e requirement s relatin g t o leachat e collectio n (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(7) ) ar e als o waive di n thi s RO D Amendment
. TSC A regulation s d o no t

contai n an y requirement s fo r closure o f

chemical wast e landfills
. However , a s describe d i n thi s RO D Amendment , contaminate dsoi l wil l b e place dunde r 

### either amulti-layere dca

p o r on e foo t o f clea n fill , dependin g o n th e leve l o f contamination
. Thes e surficia l barrier s wil l provid e adde dprotectivenes s beyon dtha t contemplate db y th e TSC A regulations
. Th e ca p wil l eliminat

e al l exposure pathway s to th e mos t highl y 

### contaminate dsoils , thereb y eliminatin g th e risk s pose db y thos e soils
. Soil s at 4 0 pp mPCB s a t th e surface , an d7 0 pp mPCB s a t depth , are withi n EPA' s acceptabl e ris k range . (See Tabl e 1)
. Th e on e foo t

cove r ove r thes e material s wil l furthe r reduc e potentia l risk s associate d with direc t

contac t with , an dincidental ingestio n of , thes e materials
. Long-term 

### operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f th e ca p an dcove r

wil l ensure tha t

ther e i s n o futur e re exposur e t o contaminants
. Risk s pose db y migratio n o f PCB s t o th e groundwate r

wil l b e minimal , du e t o th e chemica l natur e o f PCB s (whic h ten dt o bin dt o th e organi c matte r i n soil ) an dth e excavatio n o f

th e "ho t spot " o f soi l belo w th e wate r

tabl e contaminate dwit h semi-volatil e organi c compound s (whic h might otherwis e ac t

t o desor b th e PCB s fro mth e soi l into th e groundwater)
. Also , continue doperatio n o f th e groundwate r

treatmen t plan t wil l 

### ensur e th e capture o f

any PCB s o r

othe r contaminant s that

migrate awa

y fro mth e cappe d are athroug h th e groundwater
. Furthermore , availabl e dat aindicate s that th e groundwate r 

### plume i s no t

expanding , an ddrinkin g water fo r al l are aresident s i s provide db y th e Norwoo d municipal wate r

system , whic h i s unaffecte db y Sit e contaminants
. Fo r thes e reasons , EPA ha s determine dthat th e amende dselecte dremedy wil l no t presen t a n 

### unreasonabl e ris k

o f injury to healt

h o r th e environment , an dtha

t th e amende dselected remedy ma

y waiv e th e above-cite dTSC A requirements
. Th e factor s discusse d abov e ensur e tha t ther e wil l b e n o unreasonabl e ris k o f injur y t o healt

h o r th e environment

i f certai n TSC A requirement s are waived
. Considerin g thi s information , 

### th e Regiona

l Administrato r

continue s to exercis e th e waive r authorit y containe di n th e TSC A regulation s a

t 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(c)(4) , an dcontinue s t o waiv e th e followin g requirement s o f th e TSC A chemica

l waste landfil l requirements : (i ) tha t chemica l wast e landfill s b e 

### constructe donl y i n certai n lo w permeabilit y cla y condition s (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.7 5 (b)(l)) ; (ii ) that asyntheti c membran e line r b e useda t th e Sit e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(2)) ; an d(iii ) that th e botto mo f

th e landfil l b e 5 0 fee t

abov e th e histori c hig h wate r tabl e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 

### 761.75(b)(3))
. Additionally , th e Regiona l Administrato r

als o exercise s th e waive r

authorit y t o waiv e requirement s relatin g t o leachate collectio n (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(7))
. Th e 

### finding s an dwaiver s o f

th e Regiona

l Administrato r

are containe dhi Attachmen t E
. Commonwealt

h o f Massachusetts Hazardou s Wast e Regulation s Massachusett s hazardou s waste regulations , whic h ar e similar t o regulation s under

th e federa l 2 7Resourc e Conservatio n an dRecover y Ac t ("RCRA") , ar e applicabl e t o th e Site
. Unde r th e federa l regulator y program , PCB s ar e manage db y TSCA , an dar e no t regulate dunde r RCRA ; unde r

th e Commonwealth' s hazardou s wast e regulations , PCB s abov e 5 0 pp mar e a regulate dhazardou s waste . Complianc e wit h TSCA , however , satisfie s th e requirement s o f th e Commonwealth' s hazardou s wast e regulation s wit h respec t t o on-sit e managemen t

an don sit e disposa l o f

PCBs , pursuan t

t o 3 0 CM R30.501(3)(a ) an d31 0 CM R40.0031(5)
. Accordingly , on-Sit e managemen t an don-Sit e disposa l o f

PCB s wil l b e governe db y TSCA
. I t i s anticipate dtha t

thi s approac h wil l avoi dpotentiall y duplicativ e o r inconsisten t applicatio n o f

ARAR s (a s betwee n federa l TSC A regulation s an dth e Commonwealth' s hazardou s wast e regulations)
. Othe r Law s an d Regulation s I n additio n t o th e environmenta l provision s liste di n Tabl e 2 , odie r law s an dregulation s wil l b e complie dwit h durin g th e conduc t o f th e remedy
. Whil e no t

specificall y relatin g t o environmenta l actions , an dtherefor e no t ARARs , complianc e wit h thes e law s an dregulation s i s mandator y fo r

an y industria l activity
. Suc h requirement s ma y include , bu t ar e no t limite d to , pertinen t

regulation s pursuan t

t o th e Occupationa l Health an dSafet y Ac t an dDepartmen t o f Transportatio n regulations
. Th e Amende dSelecte dRemed y i s Cost-Effectiv e I n th e Agency' s judgment , th e amende dselecte dremed y i s cost-effective , (i.e. , th e remed y afford s overal l effectivenes s proportiona l t o it s costs)
. I n selectin g thi s amende dremedy , onc e EP A identifie dalternative s tha t ar e protectiv e o f

huma n health an dth e environmen t an d that attain , or , a s appropriate , waiv e ARARs , EP A evaluate dth e overal l effectivenes s o f 

### eac h alternativ e b y assessin g th e relevan t thre e criteria-lon g ter meffectivenes s an d permanence ; reductio n i n toxicity , mobility , an dvolum e throug h treatment ; an dshor t ter m effectiveness , i n combination
. I n thi s assessment , EP A determine dtha t th e consolidatio n an d cappin g portio n o f

th e amende dselecte dremedy , solven t extraction , an dincineratio n al l provid e overal l effectiveness , albei t throug h differen t

means . However , th e cost s o f thes e thre e option s are quit e different
. Th e cos t estimate s fo r

th e consolidatio n an dcappin g portio n o f th e amende d selected remedy , solven t extraction , an d incineration , ar e $7. 4 million , $54. 8 million , an d$40. 1 million , respectively
. Basedupo n thi s disparity , EP A believe s tha t

th e consolidatio n an dcappin g portio n o f th e amende dselecte dremedy i s cos t effectiv e whil e th e solven t extractio n an dincineratio n alternative s ar e not . With respec t t o th e Gran t Gea r building , th e amende dselecte dremed y provide s overal l effectivenes s whil e th e decontaminatio n alternativ e doe s not . Th e cos t estimat e fo r

th e demolitio n remedy i s $4. 0 million , whic h EP A believe s t o b e cost-effectiv e fo r thi s portio n o f

th e amende d selecte dremedy
. Th e followin g estimate s o f cos t an dconstructio n duratio n ar e inclusiv e o f th e wor k t o complet e al l aspect s o f

th e Sourc e Contro l an dbuildin g demolitio n cleanu p a t th e Norwoo d PC B Superfun dSite , an dare , unles s otherwis e noted , cost s fo r EP A implementatio n o f 2 8action s t o b e performe dsubsequen t t o thi s RO D Amendment
. Consolidation, Capping and Covering of

Soils and Sediments (including remediation and restoration of

Meadow Brook): Estimate dTim e fo r

Desig n an dConstruction : 9-1 5 month s Estimate dCapita l Cost : S 7,200,00 0 Estimate dOperatio n an dMaintenanc e Cost : $ 200,00 0 Estimate dTota l Cos t

(Ne t Presen t Value) : $ 7,400,00 0 Demolition of

Grant Gear Building (including disposal of contents): Estimate d Time fo r

Plannin g an dDemolition : 6 month s Estimate dCapita l Cost : $ 2,800,00 0 Estimate dOperatio n an dMaintenanc e Cost : $ 0 (incorporate dint o ca p maintenanc e cost ) Cos t o f Prio r Machinery/Equipmen t

Decontaminatio n Effort : $ 1,200,00 0 Estimate dTota

l Cos t (Net Presen t Value) : $ 4,000,00 0 Th e Amende dSelected Remedy Utilize s Permanen t Solution s an dAlternativ e Treatmen t o r Resourc e Recovery Technologie s t o th e Maximu mExten t Practicabl e Onc e th e Agenc y identifie dthos e alternative s that attai n or , a s appropriate , waiv e ARAR s an dthat are protectiv e o f

human healt

h an dth e environment , EP A identifie dwhic h alternativ e utilize s permanen t solution s an dalternativ e treatmen t technologie s o r

resourc e recovery technologie s t o th e maximu mexten t practicable
. Thi s determinatio n wa s mad e b y decidin g whic h on e o f

th e identifie dalternative s provide s th e bes t balanc e o f

trade-off s amon g alternative s i n term s of: 1 ) long-ter meffectivenes s an dpermanence ; 2 ) reductio n o f toxicity , mobility o r

volum e throug h treatment ; 3 ) short-termeffectiveness ; 4 ) implementability ; an d5 ) cost . Th e balancin g tes t emphasize dlong-ter

meffectivenes s an d permanenc e an dth e reductio n o f toxicity , mobilit y an dvolum e throug h treatment ; an d considere dth e preferenc e fo r treatmen t a s aprincipa l element , communit y an dstate acceptance , an dth e bia s agains t off-Sit e lan ddisposa

l o f untreate dwaste . Th e amende d selecte d remed y provide s the best

balanc e o f

trade-off s amon g the alternatives
. Consistent wit h th e NCP , EPA believe s tha t a t thi s Sit e long-ter meffectivenes s i s mor e fundamenta l to th e overal l protectivenes s o f th e remedy than th e degre e o f treatmen t employed
. Considerin g Sit e circumstances , areduce dleve l o f treatmen t technologie s i s preferable , an dth e amende dselected remedy employ s suc h technologie s to th e maximu m exten t practicabl e whil e preservin g th e permanenc e an dprotectivenes s o f th e remedy
. Th e Amende dSelecte d Remed y doe s no t Satisf y th e Preferenc e fo r

Treatmen t

whic h Permanentl y an dSignificantl y Reduce s th e Toxicity
. Mobilit y o r Volum e o f

th e Hazardou s Substance s a s aPrincipa l Elemen t Th e principa l element

o f th e amende dselected remed y i s th e on-Sit e cappin g an dcontainmen t

2 9o f

contaminate dsoil s an dsediment
. Treatmen t i s no t employe dbecaus e i t

wa s determine d no t t o b e practicabl e fo r

thi s Site , considerin g th e summary o f th e comparativ e analysi s o f alternatives , a s describe di n Sectio n VIII.B. , above
. Therefore , th e amende dselecte d remed y doe s no t

satisf y th e preferenc e fo r

treatmen t a s aprincipa l element
. Nonetheless , th e amende dselecte dremed y reduce s Sit e risk s t o acceptabl e levels
. XII
. EXPLANATIO N O F SIGNIFICAN T DIFFERENCE S FRO M 198 9 RECOR D O F DECISIO N I n additio n t o th e item s discusse di n Sectio n VII.B
. above , th e amende dselecte dremed y selecte di n thi s documen t

contain s othe r

difference s fro mth e 198 9 ROD
. Thes e difference s 

### d o no t represen t fundamenta l change s fro mth e remed y selecte di n th e 1989 ROD , an dare no t subjec t t o th e requirement s fo r

aRO D Amendment
. However , th e modification s i n thi s Sectio n ar e significan t

difference s fro mth e 198 9 ROD
. Thes e difference s wer e explaine di n EPA' s February , 199 6 Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan , whic h wa s publishe di n accordanc e wit h CERCL A Sectio n 117(d)
. Th e followin g discussio n o f th e thes e significan t

difference s i n thi s documen t

i s presente di n complianc e wit h CERCL A Sectio n 117(c)
. A
. Decontaminatio n o f Onl y Selecte dEquipmen t an dMachinery Surfaces ; Disposal/Recyclin g o f

Remainin g Buildin g Content s Soo n afte r Gran t Gea r announce dit s shutdown , EP A taske d acontractor , throug h th e U S Arm y Corp s o f

Engineers , t o decontaminate certai n machine s an dequipmen t inside th e buildin g whic h wer e t o b e sol db y Gran t Gear
. Thi s effor t

include dth e solven t

washin g o f accessibl e exterio r

surface s o f

thes e machine s an dsamplin g o f th e cleane d surface s to demonstrat e complianc e with th e PC B Spil l Cleanu p Polic y (4 0 CFRPar t 76 1 Subpart

G ) cleanu p leve l o f

1 0 microgram s pe

r 10 0 squar

e centimeters
. Base dupo n th e hig h cos t

an dlabor-intensiv e natur e o f thi s decontaminatio n effort , thi s work wa s suspende d afte r

th e cleanin g o f

5 7 majo r piece s o f equipmen t

an dseveral accessories
. Approximatel y SI. 2 millio n wa s spent o n thi s effort
. I t

ha s bee n determine d tha t

i t i s no t cost-effectiv e to decontaminate th e remainin g machine s and , sinc e Gran t Gea r Work s ha s 

### shu t down , disposa

l o r recyclin g (vi aasmelter) o f an y item s remainin g i n th e buildin g wil l 

### b e equall y protectiv e o f

huma n healt

h an dth e environment , at

asubstantiall y reduce dcost . Therefore , prio r

t o initiatio n o f

th e buildin g demolition , an y remainin g contaminate d machinery/equipmen t

insid e th e buildin g wil l b e recycle d a t a n off-Sit e smeltin g facilit

y o r dispose do f

eithe r on - o r off-Site
. B
. Increas e o f

Estimate dCos t

o f Groundwate r

Remediatio n I n Augus t 1994 , th e U S Army Corp s o f Engineer s awardedadeliver y orde r unde r it s TER C contrac t fo r approximatel y $ 9 millio n fo r constructio n an dinitia l operatio n ( 2 years ) o f th e facilitie s fo r

extractio n an dtreatmen t

o f contaminate dgroundwater
. Cos t growt h an d change s execute ddurin g constructio n increase dthi s figur e t o approximatel y Sl l million
. Th e 3 0

### curren t

overal l estimat e fo r

th e groundwate r

cleanup , includin g th e approximat e presen t valu e o f an additiona l 1 0 t o 2 0 year s o f operatio n o f

thi s treatmen t

plant , i s approximatel y $19. 2 million
. XIII
. DOCUMENTATIO N O F NON-SIGNIFICAN T CHANGE S T O 198 9 RECORD O F DECISIO N Th e followin g remed y modificatio n represent s neithe r afundamenta l no r

significan t

chang e fro mth e remed y selecte di n th e 198 9 ROD
. Thi s mino r modificatio n i s include dh i thi s RO D Amendmen t

s o tha t al l change s t o th e remed y ar e describe di n on e document
. A s se t fort h h i th e 198 9 ROD , contaminate dgroundwate r underlyin g th e Site wil l b e 

### collecte dan dtreated
. T o accomplis h thi s task , anumbe r o f groundwate r

extractio n well s hav e bee n an dwil l b e installe dwhic h wil l extrac t contaminate dgroundwate r an dtreat i t i n th e on-Sit e groundwate r

treatmen t facilit y whic h utilize s processe s t o precipitat e an dfilte r 

### groundwater , a s wel l a s ai r strippin g an dcarbo n adsorptio n operations
. Treate dwate r wil l b e discharge dt o Meado w Brook
. Thi s treatmen t plan t starte doperatin g h i December 1995
. 

### A t th e conclusio n o f

al l othe r Sit e cleanu p activitie s (soil/sedimen t remed y an dbuildin g demolition) , th e nee dfo r

continue dgroundwate r

extractio n an dtreatmen t

wil l b e evaluated
. I f i t i s determine d at

that tim e that groundwate r

extractio n an dtreatmen t

shoul dcontinue , thi s decisio n wil l b e revisite donc e agai n at eac h periodi c revie w o f

th e remedy (n o les s than 

### every fiv e years)
. I f

i t i s determine dtha t

groundwate r

extractio n an dtreatmen t

nee dno t continue , th e groundwate r treatmen t plan t wil l b e decommissioned
. 

### Thi s portio n o f

th e remed y remain s essentially unchange dfro mth e 198 9 ROD
. A s part

o f th e desig n an dconstructio n o f th e groundwate r

treatmen t plant , whic h wa s recentl y completed , some change s wer e made
. A serie s o f extractio n well s wer e designe dan d constructe d i n lie u o f

atrenc h syste ma s originall y contemplate db y th e 198 9 ROD
. On-Sit e 

### re-charg e o f

treate dwate r

wa s deeme dinfeasibl e and , instead , treate dwate r wil l b e discharge d to Meado w Brook
. Furthe r informatio n regardin g th e us e o f extractio n well s an d 

### th e chang e fro mre-charg e t o discharg e t o surfac e wate r are summarize di n areport prepare d i n January 199 3 b y Metcal f & Eddy , Inc
. an dothe r

document s i n th e Administrativ e Record
. XTV
. STAT

E ROLE Th e Commonwealt

h o f Massachusett s ha s reviewe dth e variou s alternative s an dha s indicate d it s suppor t fo r th e amende dselecte d remedy
. Th e Commonwealt h believe s that

th e amende d 

### selected remedy i s i n complianc e with applicabl e o r relevan t an dappropriate Commonwealt h Environmenta l law s an dregulations
. Th e Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s concur s wit h th e amende dselecte dremed y fo r th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSite
. A cop y o f th e declaratio n o f concurrenc e fro mth e Commonwealth i s include da s Attachmen t C
.

3 1- cAl. - A:s^Po q

210 0 420 O SCAL E I KFEE T
REFERENC E USG S 7. 5 X 1 3 METRI C TOPOGRAPHI C MAP , NORWOO D QUADRANGL E
. 198 5 SCAL E I:2500 0 FIGUR E 1 SIT E LOCATIO NN 

## -o -

' •• !

Figur e 2 

## VICINIT Y MA PIICCN O

UtAOO W l«00 «



### M'- r ' r 1 

### • 

# •^v-iri^rV

^ 

# /i $ | ;, n ; • ^ ^-
. ,, . yiyu c ^ 0 1 lO O I I » • I I .

hOtt t I 1 1000 ' i »i N P C I ih t »1iO N BA M 0 O N ) rLOO O PLAI N HAP^niOAlC l COuMMCU C CO'«5l«OdiO S * T

|AS ( nx M muvllX D I V OIC
. IM C
. IA'^ O C* < AfAu i fnoioc*»nuCnt rw o CAO»< O SUMVtT . rilOt l DAf l VA j UANO t 1? . Idfi A

411 0 ) SCU l I N Mi l

FIGUR E 3 MCAOO W OROO K i r"EA R FLOO D PLAI N « J O »C « Sil l H ic m H I c ti n o<iir> i i

ADO M IftOO * ne t N O IMHOHUAI f lOCAHOn t0 1 IIM I S A C tlO*« , I JU M . I t I i I
|IOCA|IO * 0 1 l>|l| l !<•». , AS I I CHutnl O I'O M .«' • <»MA||I . A S A k I« U I tOIO ( , <*! •

' til l ftOUNOAM *

I tlCVtllON I 10 1 I N M l I . " I . A I I.- I I' l SC * LiVCl . CONIOU * INIfN/i i I t .«. ! i otviiO'MCx t A t «(«« i i t u « ncuovii
. icno N

I >*> ( PLA N fnOvlDI O I I OtC.lN C IttI D O N A(HI« l rHOlOCKlUH l 1 M AN D CKOUN O iU«V( I rilCll l DAI [ «> » HAKC n I ] .I f I I

j r i i I m fil l

SIT E PLA N\

TOW N O F NORWOO D SUBSTATIO N

LEGEN D SOILS EXCAVATE D M IM S AN D SIOCKP1E D O N GRAN T GEA R PROPERTY . EXCAVAT E SOL

S EXCEEDIN G 4 0 PP U PC8 i (SURnaAL) AND/O R 7 0 PP U PCB i (SUBSURFACE).COVE R AREA S MT H CLEA N HL L EXCAVAT E SOL S AN D DREDG E PI E MATERIAL S EXCEEDIN G 1 0 PP U PCB l (SURFICIAl ) AND/O R 5 0 PP U PC8> (SUBSURFACE).CONSOUOAT E ONT O GRAN T GEA R PROPERT Y EXCAVAT E SOLS/SEDIUENT S EXCEEDIN G I PP U PCS. : CONSOLIDAT E ONT O GRAN T GEA R PROPERTY . Figur e 5 : CONCEPTUA L OUTLIN E O F SOI L CLEANU P LEVEL S AN D EXTEN T O F CA P CA P AREA S EXCEEDIN G CLEANU P LBCLS AFTE R CONSOLIDATIO N EFFORT .

### TABLE 1 - SOIL/SEDIMEN T CLEANU P LEVEL S

Locatio n (exclude s area s t o b e capped )

Surfac e Soil s (top 1 foot ) o n Commercial/Industria l Properties * 

### Subsurfac e Soil s ( 1 foo t

- 6 foot ) o n Commercial/Industria l Properties * Surfac e Soil s (to p 1 foot ) i n 

### woode dare ao n bot

h side s o f Meado w Broo k 

### Subsurfac e Soil s ( 1 foo t

- 6 foot ) i n woode dare ao n both side s o f 

### Broo k 

### Meado w Broo k

bottom , slopes , banks , an dculvert s betwee n Kerr y Plac e an dNeponse t

Rive r 

### Organi c "ho t

spot " a t o r belo w 

### wate r tabl e i n western portio n o f Gran t Gea r propert y Cleanu p

Standar d

4 0 part s pe r millio n 

### PCB s 7 0 part s pe r millio n PCB s 1 0 part s 

### per millio n PCB s 5 0 part s pe r millio n PCB s 1 part pe r millio n PCB s 

### 9 7 part s pe r millio n 1,2,4

- trichloro



### benzen e Incrementa l

Carcinogeni c Ris k Afte r Cleanu p Standard s ar e Achieve d 1. 3 x 10-

5 (1. 3 i n 100,000) 

### 1. 2 x lO' 5 

### (1. 2 i n 100,000) 5 x 10 * ( 5 in 1,000,000) an decological ris k 8. 3 x 10 ^ (8. 3 i n 1,000,000 ) 5 x 10- 7 

### ( 5 i n 10,000,000) an decological 

### ris k Base dupo n risk s 

### i n groundwate r an dleachin g mode l (see 198 9 ROD ) 

### Expose dIndividua l

Use di n Ris k 

### Calculatio n
worke r exposur e 

### (e.g. , landscaper ) constructio n worke r exposur e olde r chil d(ag e 6 - 

### 16 ) exposure ; and aquati c lif e i n broo k an drive r 

### constructio n worke r exposure 

### olde r chil dexposure ; an daquati c lif

e i n Broo k an dRive r protectio n o f 

### groundwate r



### * Remainin g area s whic h exceedthes e level s wil l b e capped
. Cover(s ) wil l b e place dove r remainin g soil s h i othe r

uncappe darea s o n Gran t

Gea r property .TABL E 2 ARAR s AN D CRITERIA , ADVISORIES , AN D GUIDANC E NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUN D SITE , NORWOOD , MASSACHUSETT S

AMENDE D RECOR D O F DECISIO N Tabl e 2 - Pag e 1

AUTHORIT Y REQUIREMEN T STATU S REQUIREMEN T SYNOPSI S ACTIO N TAKE N T O ATTAI N ARAR S CHEMICA L SPECIFI C ARARs : Federa l Criteria , Advisories , an dGuidanc e Technica l Basi s fo r Derivin g Sedimen t Qualit y Criteri afo r

Non-ioni c Organi c Contaminant s fo r

th e Protectio n o f

Benthi c Organism s Usin g Equilibriu mPartitionin g (EPA-822-R-93-011 ) Federa l Ambien t

Wate r Qualit y Criteri a

EP A Carcinogeni c Assessmen t Grou p Potency Factor s
EP A Ris k Referenc e Dose s (RfDs ) To b e Considere d

Relevan t an d Appropriat e

To b e Considere d

T o b e Considere d Thi s guidanc e i s use dt o establis h criteri at o

protec t th e aquati c organism s i n stream s an dt o determin e environmenta l risks
.
Federa l AWQ C ar e criteri afo r protectio n o f huma n healt h an daquati c organism s whic h hav e bee n develope dfo r

carcinogeni c an d noncarcinogeni c compounds
. AWQ C ar e develope dunde r th e Clea n Wate r

Ac t (CWA ) a s guideline s fro mwhic h slate s develo p wate r qualit y standards
. Potenc y factor s ar e develope db y th e EP A fro m Healt h Effect s Assessment s o r

Evaluatio n b y th e Carcinogeni c Assessmen t

Group
. RfD s ar e doe s level s develope db y th e EP A fo r non-carcinogeni c effects
. Th e criteri aestablishe dwer e use dt o evaluat e risk s t o aquati c organism s expose dt o contaminate dwate r entraine d withi n th e sedimen t

an dt o se t sedimen t cleanu p levels
. AWQ C wer e use dt o characteriz e risk s t o fres h wate r

aquati c lif e i n Meado w Brook
.

EP A Carcinogeni c Potenc y Factor s wer e use dt o comput e th e individua l incrementa l cance r

ris k resultin g fro m exposur e t o sit e contaminants
. EP A RfD s wer e use dt o characteriz e risk s du e t o exposur e t o contaminant s o n site
. LOCATIO N SPECIFI C ARAR s Federa l Regulatory Requirement s Wetland s Executiv e Orde r (E O 11990

) Applicabl e Unde r thi s regulation
. Federal agencie s ar e require dt o minimiz e th e destruction , loss , o r degradatio n o f

wetlands , an dpreserv e an d enhanc e natura l an dbeneficia l value s o f wetlands
. Excavatio n an drestoratio n o f Meado w Broo k wil l includ e al l practicabl e mean s o f minimizin g har mt o wetlands
. Wetland s protectio n consideration s wil l b e incorporate dint o th e plannin g an d decision-makin g abou t

remedial action
.Tabl e 2 - Pag e 2 Floodplain s Executiv e Orde r (E O 11988 ) Applicabl e Federa l agencie s ar e require dt o reduc e th e ris k o f floo dloss , t o minimiz e th e impac t o f floods , an dt o restor

e an dpreserv e th e natura l an d beneficia l value s o f

floodplains
. Th e remedia l actio n wil l b e designe dt o kee p al l activitie s ou t

o f th e floodplai n t o th e greates t

exten t practicable
. Also , substantia l non-Sit e relate ddevelopmen t ha s occurre di n th e Meado w Broo k floodplain
. Th e remed y include s broo k restoratio n in accordanc e wit h the Meado w Broo k

Floo dContro l Project , greatl y increasin g th e beneficia l valu e o f th e floodplain
. Slat e Regulator y Requirement s Massachusett s Wetland s Protectio n Ac t (M.G.L
. c.13 1 Sectio n 40 ; 31 0 CM R10.00 ) Applicabl e Thes e regulation s outlin e th e requirement s

necessar y t o wor k withi n 10 0 fee t

o f awetland
. Wetland s disturbe db y excavatio n wil l b e

restore dconsistent

wit h th e approve d Meado w Broo k

Floo dContro l Projec t ACTIO N SPECIFI C ARAR s Federal Regulatory Requirement s Resourc e Conservatio n an dRecover y Ac t (RCRA) , Subtitl e C (4 0 CF R260-262 )

TSC A Storag e Requirement s (4 0 CFR 761.65 )

TSCA Chemical Wast

e Landfil l Requirement s (4 0 CFR761.75 ) Applicabl e

Applicabl e

Applicabl e RCR A regulate s th e generation , transport ,

storage , treatment , an ddisposa l o f hazardou s waste . CERCL A specificall y require s (i n Sectio n 121(d)(3) ) tha t

hazardou s substance s fro mrespons e action s b e dispose do f a t facilitie s i n complianc e wit h Subtitl e C o f RCRA
.
Outline s requirement s fo r

temporar y TSC A regulate dwast e storag e includin g specifi c desig n requirements
.
Establishe s standard s fo r

PC B landfill s includin g provision s fo r

th e Regiona l Administrato r t o waiv e requirements
. Waste s generate da s par t o f remedia l actio n wil l b e characterize dan dhandle d i n accordanc e wit h applicabl e RCR A regulation s t o th e exten t

tha t suc h regulation s ar e no t

duplicativ e o f

th e authorize dState program . Thi s includes material s fro m"ho t

spot " excavatio n an ddrainag e manhol e sludge
. Prope r desig n consideration s wil l b e implemente dt o insur e tha t

al l temporar y storag e o f TSCA-regulate dwast e satisfie s th e requirement s o f th e regulations
. Consolidatio n an dcappin g o f soils , sediments , an ddemolitio n debri s wil l eithe r compl y wit h thi s regulation , o r wil l includ e waiver s fo r

cla y soils , syntheti c liner , S O fee t

t o wate r table , an dleachat e collection
.Tabl e 2 - Pag e 3 TSC A PC B Spil l Cleanu p Polic y (4 0 CF R 76 1 Subpar t

G )

Guid e o n Remedia l Action s i t Superfun d Site s wit h PC B Contaminatio n (OSWC R Directiv e 9355.4-01
. Augus t 1990 ) Nationa l Emission s Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAPS ) Requirements
. Clea n Ai r Act , Sectio n 11 2 (4()CI' RPar t

61 )

Clea n Wate r

Ac t (CWA ) - Sectio n 40 4 Dredg e an dFil l Requirement s (3 3 US C 1344 ; 4 0 CFRPar t 230 )

Fis h an dWildlife Coordinatio n Ac t 1 6 US C 66 1 T o b e Considere d

To b e Considere d Relevan t an d Appropriat e

Applicabl e

Applicabl e Establishe s guideline s o n th e decontaminatio n o f

PC B spills
.

Set s fort h guideline s fo r

developin g remedia l action s fo r PCH s Specifie s 18 9 hazardou s ai r

pollutant s fro m specifie dsourc e activities
.

Unde r thi s requirement , n o activit y tha t adversel y affect s awetlan dshal l b e permitte di f a practicabl e alternativ e tha t

ha s les s effec t

i s available
.

Thi s ac t require s tha t

befor e undertakin g an y Federa l actio n tha t

cause s th e modificatio n o f an y bod y o f wate r o r affect s fis h an dwildlife , th e followin g agencie s mus t

b e consulted : th e appropriat e Stat e agenc y exercisin g jurisdictio n ove r wildlif e resource s an dth e U S Fis h an d Wildlif e Servic e I n (h e cours e o f demolition , contaminate dmaterial s insid e an do n surface s o f th e buildin g whic h canno t b e decontaminate di n accordanc e wit h th e polic y wil l b e dispose do f

a t a n iippuipriul c off-sit e Liulil y o r ilis|M)sc d o f on-siie
. Th e selecte dcleanu p pla n i s consisten t wit h th e goal s o f

thi s guidance
. Samplin g a t

th e Sit e ha s indicate dth e presenc e o f

severa l potentia l hazardou s ai r pollutant s suc h a s asbestos , PCDs , mu l iridiloiuhciuciie
. Sit e remediatio n i s v designate dsourc e category . Remedia l activitie s wil l b e designe dt o ensur e complianc e wit h promulgate d NESHA P regulations
. Impact s t o wetland s wil l b e mitigate db y us e o f sil t curtain s o r

sedimentatio n basins
. Ther e i s n o practicabl e alternativ e t o excavatio n o f Meado w Brook
. Th e broo k

wil l b e restore d consisten t wit h th e Town' s approve d floo dcontro l project
. Throughou t

thei r involvemen t

wit h thi s Site , EP A an dM A DU P hav e consulte d wit h thei r wildlif e resourc e counterpart s an dinforme dthe mo f

Sit e activities
.

Stal e Regulator y Requirement s Massachusett s Groundwatc r Protectio n Regulation s 31 0 CM R6.04(2 ) an d6.04(6 ) Relevan t an d Appropriat e Thes e regulation s detai l th e requirement s fo r a groundwate r

monitorin g progra mt o b e implemente da t

th e site
. A groundwate r monitorin g progra mwil l b e institute dt o asses s impact s o f "ho t spot " excavatio n an dt o monito r performanc e o f

th e cappin g remedy
.Tabl e 2 - Pag e 4 Massachusett s Waterway s Regulation s (M.O.L
. c.2 1 Section s 26-53 ; 31 4 CM R 9.00 ) Applicabl e Regulate s th e wate r qualit y certificatio n o f dredgin g an ddisposa l o f

dredge dmaterial
. Dredgin g o f sediment s wil l b e implemente daccordin g t o regulations , includin g constan t

monitorin g o f downstrea mwater s durin g implementatio n t o contro l migratio n o f contaminate dsediments
. Massachusett s Ambien t

Ai r Qualit y Standard s 31 0 CMR6.0

0 Applicabl e Thes e regulation s specif y emission s standard s fo r participate s an dlead
. Al l activitie s wil l b e conducte di n a manne r t o minimiz e th e generatio n o f dus t o r other hazardou s emissions
. Sit e Assignmen t

Regulatio n fo r

Soli dWast e Facilitie s 31 0 CM R16.05(3)(! ) Applicabl e Specification s fo r on-sit e demolitio n facilitie s an d disposa l requiremen t

fo r demolitio n debris
. Demolitio n activitie s an dan y subsequen t crushin g operation s wil l b e conducte d usin g bes t managemen t

practice s an d wil l b e carrie dou t

i n amanne r

whic h wil l no t pos e anuisanc e o r

caus e uncontrolle ddischarg e o f

pollutant s t o air , water , o r

othe r natura l resource . Soli dWast e Managemen t

Facilit y Regulation s 31 0 CM R19.06

0 (2),(4)&(S ) Applicabl e Requirement s fo r th e determinatio n o f

beneficia l us e o f soli dwast e material
. bric k an dbloc k

debri s fro mdemolitio n o f th e buildin g ma y b e beneficiall y use d o n th e Site
. Substantiv e requiremen t o f thes e regulation s wil l gover n di e determinatio n a s t o whethe r thes e material s ma y b e reused
. Soli dWast e Managemen t

Facilit y Regulation s 31 0 CM R19.06 1 (3)(a ) Applicabl e Classificatio n o f asbesto s demolition
. Regulate dasbesto s materia l fro mth e buildin g demolitio n wil l b e handle di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Soli dWast e Managemen t

Facilit y Regulation s 31 0 CM R19.06 1 (6X»)&(b ) Applicabl e Managemen t requirement s fo r

specia l waste s an d requirement s fo r

handlin g asbesto s wastes . Regulate dasbesto s materiaLfro mth e buildin g demolitio n wil l b e handle di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Massachusett s Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.0 9 Applicabl e Regulation s specifi c t o contro l o f odo r an d fugitiv e dus t

emissions
. Odor s an dfugitiv e dus t wil l b e controlle db y wate r

sprays , suppressants , o r b y othe r engineerin g controls
. Massachusett s Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s 31 0 CM R7.1 0 Applicabl e Thi s regulatio n specifie s requirement s fo r suppressio n o f

nois e durin g constructio n activities
. Constructio n an ddemolitio n activitie s wil l b e conducte di n amanne r whic h doe s no t produc e unnecessar y o r excessiv e noise
.Tabl e 2 - Pag e 5
Massachusett s Ai rPollutio n Contro l Regulation ] 310CMR7.15(l)(a ) Applicabl e Applicabl e simulant s fu r asbesto s demolition
. Asbesto s demolitio n wil l b e conducte di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Massachusett s Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s 310CMR7.15(l)(c ) Applicabl e Procedure s fo r asbesto s emissio n control
. Cite s procedure s t o preven t

visibl e o r paniculat e emission s t o th e ambien t

ai r space . Asbesto s demolitio n wil l b e conducte di n

accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s 31 0 CM R Applicabl e Cite s requirement s fo r th e us e o f

ai r cleanin g equipmen t i n demolitio n activitie s involvin g asbestos
. Asbesto s demolitio n wil l b e conducte di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Regulation s 31 0 CM R Applicabl e Cite s requirement s involve di n th e collection , processing , packaging , transporting , transferrin g o r disposin g o f

an y asbestos-containin g wastes . Regulate dasbesto s materia l fro mth e buildin g demolitio n wil l b e handle di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e regulations
. Hazardou s Wast

e Regulation s 31 0 CM R 30.0 0 Applicabl e Regulation s governin g th e generation , treatment , storage , an ddisposa l o f

hazardou s waste s Thes e regulation s wil l b e followe di n conductin g th e cleanup , a s applicable
. Portion s o f

thes e regulation s whic h ar e specifi c t o on-Sit e remediatio n o f PCB s ar e no t applicabl e sinc e PC B remediatio n wil l b e implemente dthroug h TSCA
. Hazardou s Wast e Regulation s 31 0 CM R 30.125(b ) Applicabl e Requirement s fo r Toxi c Characteristi c Leachin g Procedur e (TCLP)
. Waste s generate dfo r off-sit e disposa l a s par t o f remedia l actio n wil l b e characterize dan dhandle di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e RCK A regulations
. Thi s include s material s fro m"ho t spot " excavatio n an ddrainag e manhol e sludge
. Hazardou s Waste Regulation s 31 0 CM R 30.30 2 Applicabl e Requirement s fo r an y generato r

o f awast e t o determin e i f

th e wast e i s hazardous
. Waste s generate dfo r off-sit e disposa l a s pa n o f remedia l actio n wil l b e characterize dan dhandle di n accordanc e wit h applicabl e RCR A regulations
. Thi s include s material s fro m"ho t spot " excavatio n an ddrainag e manhol e sludge
. Fir e Preventio n Regulations : Tank s an d Container s 52 7 CM R9.0 7 Applicabl e Requirement s fo r th e remova l o r

abandonmen t and , i f appropriate , th e Tillin g i n place , o f undergroun dtanks
. Undergroun dtank s wil l b e appropriatel y remove do r abandone daccordin g t o th e regulations
. Ould e t o Regulation s fo r

Usin g o r Processin g Asphalt , Bric k

an dConcret e Rubble
. To b e Considere d Identifie s th e provision s o f di e soli d wast e regulation s tha t

pertai n t o recycling/reusin g AB C rubble
. Tlii s guidanc e wil l l> c consulte dfo r demolitio n activities
.ATTACHMENT A RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUN D SIT E ADMINISTRATIV E RECOR D INDE XATTACHMEN T B RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SITE RESPONSIVENES S SUMMAR Y Thi s Responsivenes s Summar y document s publi c comment s regardin g th e propose d amendmen t

t o th e 198 9 Recordo f

Decisio n (ROD ) expresse ddurin g th e publi c commen t period
. Th e summary als o document s EPA' s response s t o th e comment s that wer e received
. Th e publi c commen t

perio dfo r

th e amendmen t

t o th e 198 9 RO D fo r

th e Norwoo dPC B 

### Superfun dSit e bega n o n Februar y 2 2 an dende do n Marc h 22 , 1996
. EP A hel da n officia l Publi c Hearin g o n Marc h 6 , 199 6 at 7:3 0 p.m . at

Memoria l Hal l i n th e Norwoo dTow n Hal l 

### to accep t ora l comment s o n thi s propose damendment to th e 198 9 ROD
. Fou r

ora l comment s wer e receive da t th e publi c hearing
. Writte n comment s wer e als o accepted
. EP A 

### receive dfiv e writte n commen t letters
. Th e comment s an dresponse s ar e summarize dbelow : 

### Pan I - Comments b\ Local

Officials 1
. On e Tow n o f

Norwoo dSelectma

n an dth e Town' s Boar do f

Healt h aske dabou t

whos e responsibilit y i t

woul db e fo r

futur e maintenanc e an drepai r o f th e asphal t

cap . Thes e official s wer e concerne dthat , i f EP A woul dno t

retai n responsibility fo r

maintenanc e 

### an drepai r o f th e cap , ther e woul dno t

b e enforcemen t

powe r t o ensure th e futur e integrity o f

th e cap . Th e Selectma

n wa s als o concerne dthat

th e Tow n woul db e expecte dto maintai n an drepair th e cap . EP A Response : There are severa l mean s b y whic h long-ter

moperatio n an dmaintenanc e 

### may b e performed
. First , i f th e remedy i s performe db y privat e parties , thos e partie s woul d 

### b e require dt o assum e th e obligatio n a s part o f an enforceabl e consen t

decree
. Second , a futur e redeveloper

may undertak e th e obligatio n a s part o f acquisitio n an dredevelopmen t o f th e property . Finally , at

site s where n o privat e party i s availabl e t o perfor mlong-ter m 

### operatio n an dmaintenanc e th e National Contingenc y Plan provide s that state s perfor mthi s obligation
. 2
. Th e Tow n Selectma n expressedconfusio n an dfrustratio n a t th e chang e i n cleanup level s an daske dwhethe r

EPA ha s no w change dit s opinio n regardin g th e danger s 

### pose db y th e Sit

e base dsolel

y o n cos t considerations
. EPA Response : Huma n healt h ris k assessment

i s arelativel y "young " science
. A s such , 

### substantia l progres s ha s bee n mad e over th e pas t several year s an dris k

assessment

methods , assumptions , an dtechnique s hav e bee n refine ddurin g tha t time
. Whe n EP A decide dt o tak e 

### afres h look

at th e remed y at

th e Site , i t

decide dthat

th e cleanu p level s shoul dals o b e re examine dbase dupo n advance s i n ris k assessment . Th e revise dcleanu p level s bein g adopte d ar e aresul t

o f thi s re-examination
. Also , mor e curren t assumption s regardin g futur e us e o f B- l

### th e Sit e were incorporate dint o th e re-examination
. B y usin g exposur e assumption s whic h



### bette r reflec t th e expecte dfutur e us e o f

th e Site , mor e appropriat e cleanu p level s ar e derived
. Furthermore , EPA' s regulation s governin g th e cleanup o f Superfun dSites , th e National Contingenc y Plan (NCP) , specifie s an "acceptabl e ris k range " whic h i s use dt o determin e th e nee dfo r actio n and , i f

actio n i s required , t o determin e th e exten t t o whic h cleanu p shoul db e 

### conducted
. Thi s acceptabl e ris k rang e represent s th e probabilit y o f cance r occurrin g i n 

### individual s expose da

t ahazardou s waste site an dspan s a10"4 

### to 10" 6 

### risk
. Th e revise d cleanu p level s fo r

th e Norwoo dSite ar e roughl y at th e midpoin t

o f thi s ris k range . Th e 

### newl y propose dcleanu p level s ar e als o generall y consisten t wit h cleanu p level s tha t

woul db e derive dunde r

th e Commonwealth' s "Massachusett s Contingenc y Plan", Chapte r 2I E 

### program , wer e thi s astat e sit e rathe r than afedera l site
. EP A stil l believe s tha t th e contaminatio n at

th e Sit e pose s aseriou s healt h threat i f lef t unaddressed
. EP A als o believe s tha t th e amende dremed y wil l adequatel y addres s thi s threat an dresul t i n aremed y tha t protect s huma n healt

h an dth e environment
. Regardin g cos t issues , se e respons e to Commen t No
. 40
. 3
. Th e Town' s Boardo f Healt h expresse dconcer

n abou t th e depth o f

th e cap . Th e Boardals o state dthat

thi s concer

n i s eve n mor e relevan t

i f hig h level s o f contaminatio n are cappe do n Site
. EPA Response : Th e primary threat s posedb y PCB s a t th e Site are fro mdirec t

exposur e 

### (touching ) o r

b y incidenta

l ingestio n (accidenta

l eating)
. EPA believe s that th e asphal t

ca p propose d i s o f

sufficien t thicknes s to serv e a s a

n adequate barrie r

fro mthes e threats
. 

### Furthermore , th e ca

p wil l b e designe dt o resis t

crackin g an dt o minimiz e maintenance
. Also , a t aminimum , th e entire ca

p an dcove r wil l b e inspectedannuall y fo r wear , cracks , o r

othe r 

### damage , an dal l necessar

y repair s wil l b e conducte di n atimel y manner . Th e ca p an dcove r wil l als o includ e ageotextil e fabri c which , i n additio n to providin g additiona l stabilit y to th e ca p an dcover , wil l serv e a s a n additional barrie r

betwee n th e ca

p an dth e underlyin g soils
. 

### Pan U - Citizen Comments 4
. On e citize n expresse dconcer n abou t EPA' s ability t o assure futur e monitorin g an d 

### inspection s o f

the cap . Thi s citizen als o state dtha t thi s cleanup shoul dinclud e removal o f

dir t an dthat th e propose dremedy wa s no t adequate
. EP A Response : Se e respons e to Comment s No
. 1 an dNo
. 2 i n Par t I above
. 

### 5
. Tw o citizen s expresse dfrustratio n wit h th e slo w pac e o f th e cleanup
. EPA Response : Th e national averag e fo r Superfun dcleanup s fro mth e date asit e i s firs t 

### liste do n th e National Prioritie s Lis t (NPL ) t o th e date whe n constructio n activitie s are complete di s 1 2 to 1 4 years . Th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSite wa s liste do n th e NPL hi 1986 ; hence , 1 0 year s ha s elapsed
. Elapse dtime notwithstanding , EPA believe s that th e amende dselecte dremed y can b e complete dquickl y an dwit h limite ddifficulty
. I t i s B- 2expecte dthat

al l constructio n activitie s associate dwit h thi s amende dselecte d remed y wil l b e complete db y 1997
. 6 . On e citize n aske dfo r th e total amoun t

spen t b y th e governmen t

at thi s Sit e t o dat e an d ho w muc h o f

tha t wil l b e recouped
. EPA Response : A s o f

Marc h 1996 , th e date o f

EPA' s mos t

recent cos t summary , EPA ha s incurre dapproximatel y $18. 7 millio n relativ e t o th e investigation , study , planning , enforcement , an dcleanup o f th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dSite
. Approximatel y $ 2 millio n ha s bee n collecte dfro mcurren t an dprio r owner s o f

th e property . EP A ha s file dalawsui t i n federa l court

agains t othe r forme r owner s an doperator s o f

th e propert y t o recou p additiona l respons e cost s (see Sit e History an dEnforcemen t Activitie s sectio n i n th e RO D Amendment)
. 7
. On e citize n expresse dsuppor t o f th e pla n t o demolis h th e buildin g an dcap th e Site
. EPA Response : N o respons e required
. 8
. On e citize n expresse dconcer n abou t Meado w Brook

an dfutur e floodin g o f

th e Broo k an dexpresse dadesire t o se e th e Broo k remediated
. EPA Response : Th e amende dselecte dremed y remain s consistent with th e 198 9 RO D whic h addresse s cleanu p o f contaminate dsediment

h i Meado w Brook
. Furthermore , a s state di n th e 1989 ROD , afte r excavatio n o f

th e Brook , i t

wil l b e restore d i n amanner consistent with th e Town' s Meado w Broo k Floo d Contro l Project
. 9
. On e citize n expresse dconcer n that th e Tow n wa s runnin g ou t o f developabl e lan dan d tha t th e remed y shoul dallo w futur e redevelopmen t o f thi s Site
. EP A Response : Th e ca

p wil l b e constructe dh i amanne r whic h wil l allo w it s us e an dwil l allo w flexibility fo r

th e placemen t

o f ne w structure s o n th e property , eve n h i area s slate dfo r capping
. Th e ca

p desig n ma

y als o includ e th e placemen t o f "clea n utilit y corridors " t o 

### furthe r enhanc e redevelopmen t

potential a s well a s protectivenes s o f th e cappin g remedy
. Se e also , response s to Commen t Nos
. 3 5 throug h 3 7 an dNo
. 44 , below
. 10
. On e citize n discusse dth e danger s o f PCB s an dthei r

accumulatio n hi fa

t cell s o f mammals
. Thi s commente r state d disagreemen

t wit h any opinion s statin g that

PCB s d o no t pos e ahealt

h risk
. EP A Response : EP A ha s neve r contende dthat

PCB s d o no t

pos e ahealt

h threat
. PCB s are agrou p o f manmad e chemical s tha t

contai n 20 9 differen t

compound s wit h varyin g harmfu l effects
. EP A consider s PCB s probabl e huma n carcinogens , base d o n sufficien t evidenc e o f carcinogenicity h i animals
. I n addition , noncarcinogeni c advers e effect s hav e bee n note dh i human s o r animal s expose dt o varyin g PC B mixture s h i th e followin g biologica l systems ;
B- 3* ski n



### * gastrointestina l * live r * neurological * bloo d* endocrin e * reproductiv e * muscula r

* immunologica l * developmenta l 

### Potentia l advers e health effect s fro mPCB s hav e bee n evaluate di n th e huma n health ris k assessmen t fo r thi s Site
. 11
. On e citize n state dtha t a"cosmeti c cap " canno t

assure mat

natura l force s wil l no t 

### leac h pollutant s int o th e community' s wate r supplie s an dstate dapreferenc e fo r a mor e thoroug h cleanup
. 

### EPA Response : Th e ca

p i s no t merel y "cosmetic. " Se e Sectio n VII.B.4
. o f th e RO D 

### Amendmen t

fo r adiscussio n o f

th e component s o f

th e ca p an dcover . Als o se e sectio n X I o f th e RO D Amendmen t

fo r adiscussio n o f

ho w th e amende dselecte dremed y i s protectiv e o f huma n healt

h an denvironment
. Th e Site doe s no t

presen t an y threa t t o loca l wate r supplies
. Groundwate r

underlyin g th e 

### Sit e discharge s t o th e adjacen t Meado w Brook
. Th e groundwate r treatmen t plan t whic h recently bega

n operatio n a

t th e Site serve s t o intercep t contaminate dgroundwate r

flowin g h i 

### th e directio n o f

Meado w Brook , extract s i t

fro mth e aquife r

an dtreat s th e contaminatio n prio r t o discharge
. Us e restriction s o n th e Site prohibi t th e extractio n o f

groundwate r 

### underlyin g th e Site fo r

drinkin g wate r

use . Therefore , EP A believe s that thi s remed y wil l protec t agains t direc t contac t with contaminatio n a s wel l a s th e spreado f contaminatio n hi th e future
. 

### Part III - Potentially Responsible Party Comments Comment s b y GZ A GeoEnvironmental
. Inc
. o n behal f o f Coope r Industries
. Inc.
. 

### Cornel l Dubilie r

Electronics
. Inc.
. an dFedera l Pacifi c Electri c Compan y 12
. Thes e PRP s supporte d th e genera l thrus t o f EPA' s propose d amende dcleanup pla n 

### basedupo n it s cost-effectiveness , implementability , an dprotectiveness
. EPA Response : N o respons e required
. 13
. Thes e PRP s d o no t

believ e tha

t polynuclea

r aromati c hydrocarbon s (PAHs ) shoul db e considere dSite-relate dchemical s o f concern . EP A Response : EP A reviewe dth e statistica l evaluatio n provide db y GZ A an dCambridg e Environmental , Inc
. (CEI ) an ddetermine dthat th e availabl e informatio n di dno t support th e conclusio n that

th e PA H contaminatio n at

th e Sit e wa s du e t o highwa y traffic
. Se e February 

### 1 , 1996 memorandu mfro mKenneth W
. Brow n Directo r o f EPA' s Technolog y Suppor t Center , include dh i th e Administrativ e Recordfo r thi s RO D Amendment
. Whil e EP A stil l B- 4consider s PAH s potentia l contaminant s o f concer n a t

th e Site , n o specifi c cleanu p level s hav e bee n se t fo r thes e compounds
. Sinc e th e highes t concentration s o f

PAH s ar e expecte d t o b e remove ddurin g excavatio n o f sediment s i n an dadjacen t

t o Meado w Broo k

a s par t o f th e amende d ROD , th e risk s associate d wit h thes e compound s shoul db e reduce d t o protectiv e levels
. 14
. Thes e PRP s pointe dou t tha t th e figur e provide da s par t o f th e Propose dAmende d Cleanu p Plan , th e "Conceptua l Outlin e o f Soi l Clean-u p Level s an dExten t o f Cap " i s intende d t o delineate area s wher e cleanu p level s appl y rathe r than area s propose d fo r excavation
. EP A Response : Thi s commen t i s correct . Th e figur e provide di n th e Propose d Amende d Cleanu p Pla n an dinclude da s afigur e i n th e RO D Amendmen t delineate s genera l area s wher e specifi c cleanu p level s wil l appl y an di s expecte dt o b e broade r than th e actual are ao r area s requirin g excavation
. 15
. Thes e PRP s conten dthat ther e i s n o clea

r basi s fo r th e 1 pp mcleanu p criterio n o f Meado w Brook
. Thes e PRP s conten dtha t aPC B cleanup leve l o f

1 0 pp mwoul db e protectiv e fo r

Meado w Brook
. EP A Response : Th e 1 pp mclean-up leve l establishe d i n th e 198 9 RO D an dth e RO D Amendmen t

i s base dupo n th e calculatio n o f asedimen t

concentratio n usin g Site-specifi c total organi c carbo n (TOC ) dat athat woul db e protectiv e o f

aquati c lif

e usin g th e sediment

quality criteri aapproach
. Thi s metho di s outline di n "Technica l Basi s fo r Derivin g Sediment Qualit y Criteri afo r

Non-ioni c Organi c Contaminant s fo r th e Protectio n o f

Benthi c Organism s Usin g Equilibriu mPartitioning , EPA-822-R-93-011 "
. Thi s methodolog y i s appropriat e fo r Meado w Brook , classifie db y th e Commonwealt h o f Massachusett s a s aClas s B wate r whic h shal l b e capabl e o f

supportin g aquati c life
. 16
. Thes e PRP s state tha t i f th e Broo k sediment s ar

e excavate dto accommodat e th e Broo k cross-sectio n a s se t

fort h i n th e Town' s Meado w Broo k Floo d Contro l Projec t (MBFCP) , a1 pp msedimen t cleanup level woul dno t

b e warrante dsinc e th e floo d 

### contro l projec t

provide s for

restoredbotto man dslop e materials
. EPA Response : EPA believe s that i t i s acceptabl e to leav e some contaminate dmaterial s i n th e Brook s o lon g a s thes e material s ar e adequatel y covere d b y restore d botto man dslop e material s planne dfo r

a s part o f th e MBFCP
. Were th e MBFC P no t planned , EP A woul d requir e excavatio n o f

al l soil s an dsediment s exceeding th e 1 pp mcriterio n i n th e Brook
. EP A believe s that

i t i s mor e cost-effectiv e an dmore easily implementabl e t o excavat e al l soil s an dsediment

necessar y to meet th e restore dMBFC P contour rathe r than excavate a limite damoun t

o f material , conduc t

extensiv e samplin g t o determin e area s requirin g additiona l excavation , an drepeat thi s proces s severa

l tunes . Achievemen t

o f th e 1 pp m cleanu p leve l throughou t

th e Broo k coul d prov e difficul t

an dcoul d requir e multipl e excavation s i n portion s o f

th e Brook , an dcoul dexten dfa r deeper than th e contou r

bein g 

### B- 5

### propose db y th e MBFCP
. Se e als o respons e t o Commen t No
. 17 , below
. 

### 17
. I n referenc e t o th e restoratio n o f Meado w Brook , thes e PRP s state dthat th e purpos e an dth e scope o f

th e remedy shoul db e to satisf y CERCLA criteria , no t

promot e 

### publi c work s projects
. EPA Response : Excavatio n o f th e Brook , an drestoratio n consistent with th e MBFCP , i s consisten t wit h th e remedial objective s o f CERCLA
. I t

ensure s th e protectivenes s o f th e remed y t o ecologica

l receptor s i n amor e cost-effectiv e an deasil y implementabl e manne r tha n 

### complet e excavatio n t o 1 pp mPCBs
. Th e MBFC P als o ensure s th e prope r drainag e o f surfac e water s throug h th e Site , whic h i s essential considerin g that , at th e completio n o f 

### remedia l activities , waste s wil l remai n i n plac e on-Site
. Se e als o respons e t o Commen t No
. 16 , above , an dSectio n VII.B. 3 o f th e RO D Amendment , Soil s an dSedimen t h i Meado w Broo k an dit s Banks
. 

### 18
. Thes e PRP s conten dthat EPA provide dn o basi s fo r it s 1 0 pp mPC B cleanup criteri a 

### o f th e woode darea s adjacen t

to Meado w Brook
. They state that thei r contracto r CE I derive dacleanu

p leve l o f 5 0 pp mfor

surficia l soil s h i thi s area . The PRP s agree d tha t th e propose d5 0 pp mcleanup leve l o f subsurfac e soil s h i thi s are ashoul db e adequate , althoug h the y d o no t anticipat e contac t

wit h subsurfac e soils
. Th e PRP s stat e tha t the 1 0 pp msurficial cleanup leve l i s to o conservativ e andunnecessar y and 

### wil l destro y more o f

th e buffe r o f tree s locatedalon g th e northern edg e o f th e Brook
. EP A Response : The 1 0 pp mPC B cleanu p leve l for thi s are awa s basedupo n EPA' s recalculatio n o f

th e ris k assessmen t considerin g th e curren t

lan dus e an dareasonabl e futur e 

### us e fo r thi s area . Th e exposedindividual wa s assume dto b e a n older chil d(ag e 6-16) wh o might frequen t thi s are a3 day s per

wee k fo r 6 month s per

year . Th e 1 0 pp mcleanup leve l fo r PCB s represent s a5 x 10 *cance r ris k leve l fo r thi s receptor . I n addition , thi s cleanu p leve l i s set a t 1 0 pp mi n orde r

to b e protectiv e o f

aquati c lif e hi th e Broo k

shoul dsoil s fro m 

### thi s are aerod e into th e Brook
. Notwithstanding , restoratio n o f thi s are aan do f

Meado w Broo k shoul db e don e i n suc h awa y a s to minimiz e any erosio n fro mthi s are asinc e soil s exceeding th e Brook

cleanu p level o f 1 pp mPCB s ma

y still remai n hi plac e hi thi s woode d 

### area . EPA doe s no t

believ e tha

t th e overal l extent

o f excavatio n wil l b e increased dramatically b y selecting a1 0 pp mcleanu p level fo r surficial soil s rather

than 5 0 ppm . Conversely , b y increasing thi s cleanu p leve l t o 1 0 pp mfro m1 pp ma s set forth h i the 1989 ROD , th e volume o f

contaminate dsoils , an dth e area ! extent o f th e woodedare awhic h mus t 

### b e disturbe dare greatly reduced , retainin g muc h o f th e woode dbuffe r

nort h o f th e Brook
. Regardin g th e cleanu

p leve l fo r subsurfac e soil s hi thi s woodedarea , EPA believe s tha t a cleanu p leve l fo r

thes e sou' s i s proper . Th e 5 0 pp mcleanu p leve l se t fo r thi s are ai s base d upo n aconstructio n exposur e scenari o sinc e sewe r

line s ru n adjacen t

t o th e Broo k

h i thi s are a 

### whic h coul drequir e repair

o r replacement

h i th e future
. 19
. Thes e PRP s state thei r belie f tha t areductio n i n th e siz e o f

th e ca p woul dfurthe r 

### enhanc e th e property' s redevelopmen t potential
. B- 6

### EP A Response : Whil e EP A doe s anticipat e tha t th e actual cappe dare ao n th e Gran t Gea r property wil l b e minimize dto encourag e development o f th e parcel , EPA doe s no t

believ e tha t th e area ! exten t

o f th e ca p i s th e onl y consideratio n fo r developmen t

potential
. Th e fina l ca p desig n mus t

ensur e tha t

slope s o f th e cappe dare ad o no t

mak e thi s are aunusabl e fo r 

### parkin g o r fo r constructio n o f

ne w structure s i n thi s area . Furthermore , adequat e drainag e mus t b e installe dt o ensur e tha t

th e cappe dare adram s stormwate r properl y an ddoe s no t merel y divert

thi s wate r t o othe r portion s o f

th e propert y whic h ar e no w unpave d(sinc e thes e 

### area s wil l likel y b e include di n an y futur e developmen t plans)
. However , EP A note s that ca p desig n issues , suc h a s prope r drainag e an dslope , ar

e essentia l to ensur e th e long-ter

m effectivenes s an dpermanenc e an doveral l protectiv e nes s o f th e cap , futur e Site developmen t 

### notwithstanding
. 

### 20
. Thes e PRP s state tha t th e ca p desig n shoul daccount

fo r differences betwee n area s o f contaminate dsoil s an dth e contaminate dbuildin g slab
. 

### EP A Response : EP A agree s wit h thi s comment . Although no t specifically discusse di n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan , EP A contemplate s tha t th e ca p desig n ove

r th e area s o f

th e 

### mos t heavil y contaminate dsoil s wil l b e mor e substantia

l than th e ca

p to b e placed ove

r th e 

### buildin g slab , provide dthat

n o contaminate dsoil s are consolidate donto th e slab
. 21
. Thes e PRP s recommen dthat th e ca p b e grade dwit

h agentl e slop e an ddesigne dsuc h tha t runof f fro mth e property wil l sheet flo w t o adjacen t

vegetate darea s o r

t o th e street . 

### EPA Response : Thes e issue s ar e largel y desig n issue s whic h wil l b e addressed whe n th e plan s an dspecification s fo r th e ca p are prepared
. A s discussed i n respons e to Comment No
. 1 9 above , the ca

p shoul db e designed wit

h agentl e slope t

o ensur e it s long-ter

meffectivenes s 

### an dpermanenc e an dsuitability fo r futur e development

o f th e property ; also , adequat

e drainag e shoul db e include da s part o f th e ca p desig n an dconstruction
. However , EP A believe s tha

t i t ma y no t b e appropriate to desig n th e ca p to merel y shedstormwate r to adjacen t area s o r to di e street . Drainag e fro mth e cappedarea(s ) shoul db e designe d 

### consistent with stat e an dloca l codes , standardpractices , an dapplicabl e o r relevant an d appropriat e requirement s ("ARARs")
. 

### 22
. Thes e PRP s recommende ddia l th e feasibility an dcost-effectivenes s o f decontaminatio n approache s t o some demolitio n debri s b e examined
. Thes e PRP s conten dtha

t selective decontaminatio n an dsalvagin g o f specifi c buildin g media , suc h a s structura l steel beams , ma y b e feasibl e an dcost-effective
. 

### EPA Response : EPA wil l no t preclud e th e analysi s o f

me feasibilit

y an dcost-effectivenes s o f selectiv e decontaminatio n o f certai n buildin g demolitio n debris
. Debri s fro mth e demolitio n wil l b e handle di n th e mos t protective , implementable , an dcost-effectiv e manner . Specificall y addressin g th e issue o f th e structural stee l beams , i t appear s tha

t du e to contaminatio n b y PCB s an dhig h level s o f leaddu e t o di e presenc e o f lead-base dpain t

o n B- 7

### th e surfac e o f thes e beams , disposal , rathe r than decontaminatio n an dsalvagin g o f thi s steel , i s th e mos t cost-effectiv e solution
. However , EP A wil l no t preclud e re-examinatio n o f thi s issu e shoul dothe r

partie s assum e responsibility fo r conductin g th e cleanup , an ddemonstrat e it s cost-effectiveness
. 23
. Thes e PRP s requeste dclarificatio n o f issue s relatin g t o EPA' s proposal t o dispos e o f buildin g debri s unde r

th e cap : whethe r

th e ca p can accommodat

e th e debris , whethe r th e subgrad e boile

r roo mi s availabl e fo r

disposa l o f thes e materials , an dwhat

waste s ar e involved
. EP A Response : EP A plan s t o us e th e "basement " portio n o f th e Gran t Gea r buildin g fo r consolidatio n o f

TSCA regulate ddemolitio n debris
. Material s whic h ma y caus e settlin g o r othe r difficultie s fo r

on-Site disposa

l h i thi s are amay b e exclude dfro mdisposa l h i thi s 

### basemen t area . Material s whic h woul db e considere dhazardou s waste s unde r th e federa l RCR A regulation s woul db e preclude dfro mon-Site disposal
. Asbesto s containin g material s ma y only b e disposed o f

hi thi s on-Sit

e are ai f allowe db y federal an dstate regulations
. 

### Certain buildin g material s are no t expecte dto contai n regulate dlevel s o f contamination
. Thes e materials , namel y certai n concret e bloc k an dbric k debris , ma

y b e usabl e a s aportio n o f th e sub-bas e o f

th e ca p to b e constructe da s par t

o f th e remedy
. Onc e th e basement are a 

### o f th e buildin g i s fille dwit

h contaminate ddebris , void s shoul db e fille dto avoi dsettlin g an d 

### th e entire are ashoul db e sealedwith concrete (matchin g th e surfac e o f thi s are awit h th e existin g buildin g slab)
. Thi s are awil l the n b e place dunde r th e ca p whic h wil l cove

r th e buildin g slab
. 24
. Thes e PRP s conceptually suppor t th e plan to demolis h th e building
. However , thes e 

### PRP s conten dtha

t th e cos t differenc e betwee n demolitio n o f th e structur e an d decontaminatio n an dcontinue dus e o f th e structur e shoul dno t

b e considere da CERCL A cos t

bu t acos t t o improv e th e property fo r redevelopmen t

purposes . EPA Response : EPA believe s that demolitio n o f

th e buildin g i s th e appropriat e CERCL A response . Demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r buildin g i s amor e permanen t an dmore readil y implementabl e remedy
. Base dupo n cos t

estimate s set

fort h i n th e Propose dAmende d Cleanu p Pla n an dth e RO D Amendment , th e capita l costs for demolitio n an ddecontaminatio n ar e essentiall y equa l (approximatel y $200,00

0 difference)
. Thes e cost s d o no t tak e into 

### accoun t futur e expense s whic h woul db e require dfo r maintenanc e o r

repair o f area s whic h woul dneedto b e encapsulate dunder th e decontaminatio n alternativ e o r futur e monitorin g to 

### ensure succes s o f

the decontaminatio n effort
. The decontaminatio n cos t estimat e als o doe s no t includ e an y cost s associatedwit h futur e remedial cost s (i.e. , ultimate demolitio n o f th e building ) whic h ma

y needto b e incurre di f

th e buildin g i s allowe dto remai n standin g unde r 

### thi s remedia

l action
. Overall , EP A believe s that th e demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r buildin g represent s abetter

overal l balanc e o f

th e nin e CERCL A criteri afo r remedy selectio n than th e decontaminatio n alternative
. Therefore , EP A consider s al l cost s t o b e incurre drelativ e t o th e 

### demolitio n o f

th e buildin g t o b e CERCL A costs . B- 8

### 25
. Thes e PRP s recommen dplacin g contaminate dequipmen t fro minside th e Gran t

Gea r buildin g i n th e subgrad e boile r roo mare ao f

th e building
. EP A Response : EP A concur s wit h thi s recommendation
. I t appear s that

thes e 

### machines/equipmen t

canno t b e recycle di n complianc e wit h TSC A du e t o th e level s o f PCB s o n thei r surface s and , therefore , woul drequir e disposal
. Thes e machines/equipmen t ma y b e dispose do f

i n th e "basement " are ao f

th e Gran t Gea r buildin g alon g wit h othe r

debri s fro m 

### th e demolitio n o f

th e building
. Prio r

t o disposa l o f thes e items , i t

may b e necessar

y t o drai n an y liquid s fro mreservoir s insid e certai n machine s an densur e tha t thes e machines/equipmen t 

### ar e no t otherwis e unsuitabl e fo r

disposa l on-Site
. 26
. Thes e PRP s aske dwhethe r mor e than on e "ho t

spot " exists
. 

### EP A Response : EP A doe s no t believ e that

asecon d"ho t

spot " like th e on e discusse di n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Pla n exists
. Th e "ho t spot " discusse di n tha t

Plan i s 

### believe dto b e i n th e general vicinity o f soi l borin g SS-012
. 27
. Thes e PRP s requeste dadditiona l informatio n regardin g th e "ho t spot " excavatio n o f chlorinate dorgani c compounds , includin g informatio n abou t contaminants , volum e estimate s an ddisposa

l options
. 

### EP A Response : EP A anticipate s that thi s "ho t spot " excavatio n wil l entai l th e excavatio n 

### o f saturate dsoil s fro ma

n are awes t

o f th e Gran t Gea r buildin g (locate dnea

r soi l borin g SS



### 012 ) to acleanup leve l o f

9 7 pp m1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
. Thi s material shoul db e characterize d to determin e i f i t woul db e considere d hazardou s waste unde r RCR A an d 

### dispose do f

a t a n appropriate off-Sit e facility i f i t i s ahazardou s waste . I f

i t ca n b e demonstrate dthat

on-Site disposa

l o f thi s materia

l wil l no t pos e athrea

t du e to volatil e an d semi-volatil e contaminant s an dthat i t woul dno t b e considere dhazardou s unde r RCRA , thes e "ho t spot " soil s may b e dispose do f on-Site
. EP A ha s no t

generate davolum e estimate fo r thi s material bu t

doe s no t expec t that thi s are awil l requir e extensiv e excavation
. 

### 28
. Thes e PRP s state that th e planne d"ho t

spot " excavatio n coul db e performe di n plac e 

### of , rathe r than i n additio n to , th e curren t groundwate r

treatmen t system . EP A Response : Whil e EP

A agree s tha

t the proposed "hot

spot " excavatio n may , h

i fact , 

### benefi t th e cleanup o f

th e groundwate r

a t th e Site , EP A canno t

assume that

thi s "ho t spot " excavatio n wil l mak

e continue dgroundwate r

extractio n an dtreatmen t

unnecessary . I n orde r t o evaluat e th e potentia l beneficial impact s o n groundwater du e t o th e "ho t

spot " excavation , th e remed y call s fo r

th e evaluatio n o f

th e needfo r

continue dgroundwate r

extractio n an d 

### treatmen t and/o r expansio n o f

th e networ

k o f extractio n well s at

th e conclusio n o f

othe r remedial actio n wor k

an dperiodicall y thereafter
. 29
. Thes e PRP s expresse ddisappointmen t tha t EP A di dno t

choos e t o reevaluat e an d revis e th e groundwate r

remed y fo r

th e Site
. Thes e PRP s conten dtha t th e "ho t spot " B- 9

### excavatio n an dfutur e monitorin g o f groundwate r

can provid e equivalen t

protectio n 

### wit h les s disruptio n an dat

substantiall y lowe r

cost . EP A Response : Constructio n o f th e groundwate r

treatmen t facility ha s bee n completed ; th e plan t no w operate s a s an automate do r one-ma n operatio n an di s no t believe dt o b e causin g an y nois e o r

othe r nuisanc e whic h may b e considere dadisruptio n t o th e community
. Regardin g th e cos t

o f th e groundwater

remedy , th e bul k

o f monie s fo r

th e groundwate r 

### remed y hav e alread

y bee n expende di n constructin g th e plan t an dEP A believe s strongl y that continue doperatio n o f

th e now-complete dplan t

i s justifie dunles s an dunti l aperiodi c revie w demonstrate s that

th e plan t ma y b e shu t

down
. Th e firs t

periodi c revie w shoul dtake plac e i n 1997
. 

### 30
. Thes e PRP s conten dthat groundwate r

treatmen t a t thi s Site i s no t

necessar y base d upo n Massachusett s Contingenc y Plan guidelines , wate r qualit y standards , EPA' s 

### Groundwate r

Protectio n Strategy , an drisk
. EP A Response : Unde r

th e curren t

regulator y framework , EP A continue s t o us e th e federa l 

### classificatio n fo r

thi s aquife r

whic h state s that

thi s i s apotentia l futur e sourc e o f drinkin g water . Th e Massachusett s Contingenc y Plan comprise s th e State' s cleanu p regulations , whic h are no t th e determinin g guideline s fo r thi s decision
. EP A believe s that , i f th e aquife r

i s t o b e 

### considere dafutur e drinkin g wate r sourc e then , contrar

y t o th e contentio n b y thes e PRPs , a 

### significan t ris k doe s exis t sinc e groundwate r

contaminant

concentration s excee

ddrinkin g wate r standards
. A s note dabove , federa l groundwate r classificatio n woul dstil l consider thi s 

### aquife r apotentia l futur e sourc e o f

drinkin g water . On e canno t conclud e fro mth e fac t

that surfac e wate r

sample s di dno t

contai n contaminant s exceedin g wate r quality criteri atha t groundwate r

doe s no t requir e remediation
. Th e surfac e wate r dat awer e no t

collectedt o 

### determin e th e influenc e o f

groundwater

discharg e to Meado w Brook , an dar e insufficien t

to d o so . A more appropriat e screenin g approac h woul db e t o compar e groundwate r 

### concentratio n dat at o wate r

qualit y criteri at o determin e i f ther e coul db e an impac t

fro m groundwate r

discharg e t o th e Brook
. 31
. Thes e PRP s conten dthat th e precipitation/filtratio n an dcatalyti c oxidize r system s i n 

### th e curren t groundwater

treatmen t plan t are no t necessary . EPA Response : EPA ha s jus t recentl y begu n operatio n o f th e groundwate r

treatment facility an dbelieve s tha

t i t i s prematur e to full y asses s th e efficac y o f certain uni t

operation s i n th e treatmen t plant
. EP A will , throughou t th e lif e o f th e groundwate r

treatment plant , endeavor to optimiz e performanc e an dimplemen t cost-saving s measure s s o lon g a s overal l 

### performanc e an dprotectivenes s o f th e treatment

plan t i s no t compromised
. Th e ful l networ k 

### o f extractio n well s planne da s part o f th e desig n hav e yet

to b e installed ; therefore , becaus e th e characteristic s o f

th e influen t

to th e plan t

ma y chang e upo n completio n o f thes e wells , i t 

### i s prematur e to make majo r

proces s change s i n th e plant
. Furthermore , sinc e us e o f th e plan t ma y b e necessar

y t o trea t water with varyin g influen t

characteristic s generate ddurin g other remedial activities , EP A furthe r believe s that

i t woul db e inappropriate t o make majo r B-1 0

### proces s change s a t thi s time
. 32
. Thes e PRP s requeste dadditiona l explanatio n o f th e $19. 2 millio n cos t

figur e presente dfo r

th e groun dwate r

remed y a t th e Site
. 

### EP A Response : I n th e fal l o f 1994 , th e U S Arm y Corp s o f Engineers , o n behal f

o f EPA , awarde da"delivery order " t o it s TER C contracto r fo r approximatel y $8. 9 millio n fo r th e constructio n o f

th e groundwate r

treatmen t facility an dtw o year s o f

operation
. Durin g 

### construction , tha t

figur e increase ddu e t o typical cos t growth fo r

thi s typ e o f

projec t an ddu e t o change s mad e durin g construction
. I t i s no w estimate dthat

th e capita l cost s o f

th e treatmen t plant , al l extractio n wells , an dth e initial tw o year s o f operatio n wil l total approximatel y $1 1 million
. A n additiona l $8. 2 millio n figur e represent s a n estimat e o f th e presen t valu e o f an additiona l te n t o twent y year s o f operatio n o f

thi s treatmen t

plan t at a cos t simila r t o that bein g spen t

fo r it s curren t operation
. Thi s i s th e basi s fo r th e $19. 2 millio n figur e state di n th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan
. 33
. Thes e PRP s state tha t th e curren t

undergroun dpipin g servin g th e groundwate r treatmen t facilit y may hav e t o b e reconfigure dt o accommodate th e cappin g activities
. EP A Response : EP A doe s no t se e th e connectio n betwee n existin g undergroun dpipin g an d 

### th e cappin g remedy
. Existin g undergroun dpipin g constructe da s par t o f th e groundwate r treatmen t remed y doe s no t

exten dint o any are aexpecte dto requir e excavatio n a s part o f th e 

### RO D Amendment
. Shoul dexistin g wel l vault s li e i n area s alon g th e edge s o f th e are at o b e capped , th e cover s o f

thes e vault s ca

n b e raise dto mee t

th e ne w grade
. Thi s work wil l b e 

### don e a s part

o f th e cappin g remedy
. 34
. Thes e PRP s propos e that th e groundwate r

remed y b e re-evaluate da

t leas t semi



### annuall y an dtha t

th e syste mb e shu t

dow n i f "it s substantia l cost s d o no t provid e adde dprotection. " EP A Response : I n th e RO D Amendment , EP A state s that th e groundwate r

remed y wil l b e re-evaluate da

t th e completio n o f

remedial actio n (expecte di n 1997) an dagai n a t each 

### periodi c revie w (EPA mus t conduc t suc h periodi c review s a

t leas t onc e ever y fiv e year s bu t 

### may , i n it s discretion , conduc t review s mor e frequently)
. EP A believe s that semi-annua

l evaluation s wil l b e to o frequen t sinc e severa

l round s o f

quarterl y groundwate r

monitorin g 

### result s wil l likel y needto b e reviewe dhi order to mak e any determinatio n regardin g suspensio n o f

groundwate r

treatment . 

### Comment s b y Mintz
. Levin
. Cohn
. Ferris
. Glovsk y an dPopeo
. P.C
. o n behal f o f Gran t Gear
. Inc
. 

### 35
. Thi s PRP state dit s general support fo r EPA' s inclusio n o f

beneficia l re-us e o f

th e



### - Sit e a s acomponen t

o f th e amende dremedy , bu t

doe s no t believ e tha t

th e propose d RO D Amendmen t

wil l i n fac t

permi t re-use . B-l l

### EP A Response : EP A desire s t o assis t i n th e beneficia l reus e o f

contaminate dproperties
. 

### However , beneficial reuse , whil e adesideratum , i s no t on e th e nin e evaluatio n criteri afo r remed y selectio n se t

forth i n th e National Contingenc y Plan (4 0 CFRPar t 300.430(e)(9)(iii))
. 

### Currently , ther e ar e n o specifi c redevelopmen t plan s fo r th e property , s o i t

i s difficul t t o asses s th e exten t

t o whic h an y propose dredevelopmen t migh t b e coordinate dwit h th e CERCL A remed y at

th e Site
. Onc e EP A receive s aspecifi c redevelopmen t proposal , i t

wil l wor k wit h th e proponen t

i n an effor t

t o addres s th e proponent' s concern s whil e maintainin g th e remedy' s consistenc y wit h th e NCP
. 36
. Thi s PR P i s concerne dtha t th e slop e o f

th e landfil l may mak e i t

impossibl e fo r anyon e t o buil dastructur e o n it
. EPA Response : Th e slop e o f th e ca p an dcover

to b e installe da s part

o f th e remed y wil l b e 

### appropriat e t o ensur e tha t

th e remed y i s protective , an dtha t th e ca p an dcove

r mee t th e standard s an dspecification s se t fort h i n th e RO D Amendment
. However , EP A believe s tha t 

### th e resultin g slope s wil l als o b e compatibl e wit h avariet y o f reus e options
. 37
. Thi s PR P believe s that th e revise dremedy' s landfil l desig n shoul dincorporat e a 

### subsurfac e utility grid
. Thi s gri dwoul daccommodat e th e water , sewer , electrical an d 

### telephon e need s o f

afutur e developer
. EPA Response : Th e subsurfac e utility gri dcontemplate db y Gran t Gea r woul dad d 

### significan t expens e t o th e remed y fo r

th e sol e benefi t

o f Gran t Gear , an dwoul ddiminis h th e cost-effectivenes s o f

th e remedy
. Th e cost s o f

suc h extensiv e modification s to th e Site 

### shoul db e born e b y either

th e Site owner s o r

aprospectiv e redeveloper
. However , EP A anticipate s tha

t th e Site may b e ultimatel y redeveloped , an dthat redevelopment

may includ e utilit y installation
. Therefore , th e Amende dRO D provide s tha t "clea n corridors " may b e installe dthroug h th e cap . Thes e corridor s woul dminimiz e th e disturbanc e o f contaminate d material durin g an y futur e utilit y installation , thereb y enhancin g th e overal l protectivenes s an dlong-termeffectivenes s o f th e remedy
. 38
. Thi s PRP note s that th e remedy se t

fort h i n th e Propose d Amende dCleanu p Pla n doe s 

### no t meet th e CERCL A statutor

y preferenc e fo r

treatmen t a s acomponen t

o f th e 

### remedy
. EPA Response : Section 121(b)(l ) o f CERCL A states : "Remedia

l action s i n whic h treatmen t whic h permanentl y an dsignificantl y reduce s th e volume , toxicit y o r mobility o f

th e hazardou s substances , pollutant s an dcontaminant s i s aprincipal element , are to b e preferre d 

### ove r remedia l action s no t

involvin g such treatment. " Thi s statutor y preferenc e i s incorporate dinto on e o f

th e nin e evaluatio n criteri afo r remedy selectio n se t

fort h i n th e NC P 

### a t 4 0 CFRPar

t 300.430(e)(9)(iii)
. 4 0 CFRPar t 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(D ) require s evaluatio n o f remedia l alternative s i n term s o f

"reductio n o f

toxicity , mobility o r

volum e throug h treatment."

- I n thi s RO D Amendment , EPA evaluate dth e amende dselectedremedy an d other alternative s accordin g to al l nin e criteria
. Th e amende dselecte dremed y represent s th e B-1 2bes t

balanc e o f

factor s amon g th e evaluatio n criteri aamon g th e alternative s evaluated
. 39
. Thi s PRP believe s that EP A shoul d"take " th e Gran t Gea r propert y an dpay th e propert y owner s jus t

compensation
. Thi s PR P note s tha t thi s wa s suggeste dt o EP A h i comment s o n th e 198 9 ROD
. EP A Response : Th e remedia l activitie s t o b e performe dat th e Sit e constitut e aremediatio n o f th e Gran t Gea r property , no t

ataking
. A potentiall y responsibl e party i s no t entitle dt o "jus t compensation " fo r

propert y tha t

i s bein g returne dt o i t

i n an unprove dcondition
. Gran t Gea r decided , o f

it s ow n accord , t o sto p operatin g it s busines s h i th e building
. Considerin g thi s cessatio n o f use , an dth e unanticipate dexpense s an dlimitation s associate d wit h decontaminatin g th e buildin g an dit s contents , th e presenc e o f th e buildin g became an 

### obstacl e t o successfu l remediatio n a t th e Site
. Th e presen t

state o f th e buildin g als o i s an obstacl e t o redevelopmen t

at th e Site ; demolitio n wil l actuall y enhanc e th e prospect s o f beneficia l reus e o f

di e property . Gran t Gea r ha s expressl y waive dan y clai mthat it s property ha s bee n taken , o r that i t i s entitle dt o "jus t

compensation. " I n aconsen t decre e entere dinto betwee n Gran t Gea r an dth e Unite d States , Unite dState s v . Th e Gran t Gea r Works
. Inc.
. e t

al
. Gran t Gea r "agree[s ] 

### neithe r t o interfere wit h
.. . respons e action s no r t o tak e action s .. . inconsistent

with an y respons e actio n selecte db y EP A an dcarrie dou t b y an y person . [Grant

Gear] recognize[s ] tha t th e implementatio n o f

respons e action s .. . may interfere wit h Settlin g Defendants ' us e o f 

### th e Trus t Propert y an d
.. . ma

y interrup t normal operations...
. [Grant Gear ] agree[s] , pursuan t to Paragrap h 1 7 herein , no t to asser t claim s agains t

th e Unite dState s o r

th e Hazardou s Substance s Superfun dwith respec t t o matter s arisin g ou t

o f o r relatin g t o expense s incurre do r

work performe dpursuan t

t o thi s Consen t

Decree , an dno t

t o see k an y othe r costs , o r damages , includin g claim s fo r busines s losses , propert y damages , taking s o r condemnatio n o f

rea l property , o r

attorneys ' fee s fro mth e Unite dState s arisin g ou t o f respons e activitie s a

t th e Site. " Consen t

decre e a t pag e 8 , par . 5 (emphasi s added)
. Also , a t 

### pag e 19 , par . 7 , th e consent decre e provides : "I n consideratio n o f th e Unite dStates ' 

### covenant s no t

to su e .. . [Grant

Gear] agree[s ] no t

to asser t any cause s o f

action , claims , or demand s agains t

th e Unite dStates , o r

it s contractor s o r

employees , o r

th e Hazardou s Substanc e Superfun dwit h respec t t o matter s arisin g ou t

o f o r relatin g t o expense s incurre do r 

### payment s made pursuan t

to thi s Consent

Decree , o r

to see k any other costs , damages , includin g claim s fo r

busines s losse s o r

property damage , o r

attorneys ' fee s fro mth e Unite d 

### State s o r it s contractor s o r

employees , arisin g ou t

o f respons e activitie s a

t th e Site. " (emphasi s added)
. Thes e waiver s o f claim s an dcovenant s b y Gran t Gea r wer e fo r goo d 

### consideration , namel y Gran t

Gea r resolvin g it s CERCL A liability to th e Unite dStates
. Furthermore , thes e waiver s an dcovenant s broadl y relate to "respons e activities, " a s oppose d to onl y that

remed y specifically selecte dhi th e 198 9 ROD
. I n light o f thi s language , Gran t Gea r canno t seriousl y conten dthat

th e amende dselectedremedy i n thi s RO D Amendmen t someho w modifie s o r

diminishe s th e effectivenes s o f it s consen t decre e obligations
. ~ "


### B-1 3

### 40
. Thi s PR P state s that EP A ha s no t

provide dan y vali dreason s fo r changin g th e 

### remedy
. Instead , th e PR P state s that th e remed y chang e seem s born o f EPA' s desir e 

### t o sav e money . EP A ha s bee n unsympatheti c whe n privat e partie s hav e suggeste dthi s typ e o f argumen t a s areaso n t o modif

y aremedy
. Now , whe n i t suit s EPA' s purposes , EP A use s thi s argumen t t o it s ow n advantage
. 

### EP A Response : Bot

h th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Pla n an dthi s RO D Amendmen t describ e th e considerabl e uncertaint y regardin g th e efficac y an dpracticability o f solven t 

### extractio n fo r

thi s Site
. Furthermore , cos t consideration s ar e avali dcomponen t o f th e remed y selectio n process . Se e NC P at 4 0 CF RPar

t 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(G) , an d4 0 CF RPar t 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)
. I n som e circumstances , PRP s see k t o perfor mles s expensiv e remedia l 

### alternative s tha t

woul dals o provid e les s protectivenes s o r otherwis e no t

attai n remedia l objectives
. I n thi s instance , th e les s expensiv e amende dselecte dremed y i s als o th e 

### alternativ e tha t

present s th e bes t

balanc e amon g th e nin e evaluatio n criteria , a s explaine di n th e RO D Amendment
. 

### 41
. Thi s PR P question s th e propose dremedy' s excavatio n o f th e "ho t spot " o f VOC

contaminate dsoils
. Thi s PRP believe s that placemen t o f thes e soil s o n th e Gran t 

### Gea r property woul drequir e complianc e wit h RCR A Subtitl e C , whic h i t doe s no t believ e EP A intend s t o do
. 

### EP A Response : Durin g th e excavatio n o f thi s "ho t spot " material , i t

wil l b e analyze dt o determin e i f

i t constitute s aRCR A waste . I f i t does , i t wil l b e dispose do f

off-Site
. I f

i t doe s not , i t

ma y b e relocate dh i aportio n o f th e Site unde r

th e cap , ye t

abov e th e wate r 

### table
. I n eithe r

scenario , ther e wil l b e n o disposa l o f RCR A waste on-Site , s o aRCR A Subtitl e C hazardou s waste landfil l i s no t required
. 42
. Thi s PRP believe s that th e disposa

l o f highl y contaminate dsoil s beneadi th e ca p wil l requir e fa r greater relianc e o n institutional control s than wa s contemplate di n th e 198 9 

### ROD
. Thi s wil l increas e th e cost s an duncertainty to any party tha t odierwis e ma

y b e intereste di n redevelop in g th e Site
. Conversely , th e property woul dhav e bee n muc h more valuabl e to th e Sit

e owner s an dan y redevelope r i f th e cleanup ha dprogresse d 

### accordin g t o the 1989 ROD
. EPA Response : Institutional control s were an dremai n a n integral part

o f th e remedy , a s originall y selected i n th e 1989 RO D an da s part o f thi s RO D Amendment
. Th e existin g 

### institutional controls , recorde db y Gran t Gea r pursuant t o it s settlement , are extremel y strict , sinc e eve n th e 198 9 RO D woul dno t hav e eliminate dal l existin g subsurfac e PC B 

### contamination
. Se e th e Notic e o f Institutional Controls , attache dto th e consent decre e entere dinto betwee n Gran t

Gea r an ddi e Unite dState s hi 1991 , Unite dState s v . Th e Gran t 

### Gea r Works
. Inc.
. e t

al
. a t pag e 4 , par . l. c (n o disturbanc e o f contaminate duntreate dsoil s withou t EP A approval) ; a

t pag e 4 , par . l. d(soil s coverin g "disposa l areas " no t

t o b e disturbe dabsent

EPA approval)
. Thes e an dother restriction s i n th e Notic e o f Institutiona l Control s woul dappl y t o an y activit y at th e Sit e eve n absen t

th e RO D Amendment
. B-1 4

### Th e Gran t

Gea r building , i n th e 198 9 ROD , wa s essentiall y asubstitut e fo r aca p o f th e soil s beneat h it
. Therefore , existin g institutional control s bar , withou t EP A approval , digging , drillin g o r excavatio n o f

th e buildin g floo r

(Notic e o f

Institutiona l Controls , pag e 5 , par . 

### l.e) , an drequir e prio r

approva l o f

an y excavatio n o f

th e floo r beyon dadept

h o f si x inche s o r avolum e o f

1 2 cubi c inche s (id
. pag e 6 , par . 2.a)
. Thus , i f th e Gran t Gea r buildin g woul dhav e bee n demolishe da s par t o f aredevelopmen t

schem e prio r

t o thi s RO D 

### Amendment , th e existin g institutiona l control s woul dhav e bee n at leas t a s onerou s fo r

Site activitie s a s an y institutiona l control s unde r th e RO D Amendment , an dperhap s mor e so , 

### sinc e unde r

th e 198 9 RO D n o ca

p woul dhav e covere dth e soil s beneath th e buildin g footprint
. 

### EP A doe s no t

ow e an y property owne r

adut y t o maximiz e th e post-cleanup valu e o f th e propert y t o th e owner . T o th e contrary , settlement s wit h property owner s typicall y attemp t 

### t o recapture , a s cos t

recovery , th e valu e adde db y th e cleanu p s o that apropert y owne r

doe s no t obtai n a"windfall " fro magovernment-funde dremediation
. Moreover , ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t

th e propert y woul dhav e bee n mor e valuabl e unde r th e 198 9 ROD
. B y 

### removin g th e outmode dGran t Gea r buildin g an dplacin g th e ca p an dcove

r ove r contaminate dportion s o f

th e property , th e amende dselecte dremed y arguabl y make s th e 

### propert y mor e valuabl e t o adeveloper
. 43
. Thi s PR P believe s tha t th e RO D Amendmen t

fundamentall y change s th e condition s 

### upo n whic h Gran t

Gea r entere dinto settlemen t

wit h th e Unite dState s i n 1991
. Specifically , th e PR P state s that th e RO D Amendmen t

no w deprive s Gran t

Gea r o f 

### th e valu e o f

machiner y an dequipmen t

that wa s t o hav e bee n decontaminate dunde r th e 198 9 ROD , an dth e RO D Amendment , b y cappin g contaminatio n rathe r than treatin g it , furthe r

reduce s th e valu e o f

th e Gran t Gea r property . 

### EPA Response : Th e consent decre e entere dinto betwee n th e Unite dState s an dGran t Gea r 

### di dno t contemplate , no r

doe s i t depen don , aparticular

remed y bein g selected
. Althoug h th e recital s i n th e consent

decre e refe r

t o th e 198 9 RO D (consent decre e a t pag e 2.) , th e 

### decre e clearl y envisione dth e possibility o f additional o r

amende dRODs
. See , fo r

example , consent decre e a t pag e 7 , par . 4.a , (acces s grante dfo r "th e respons e actio n selecte db y EP A i n th e RO D o r

an y subsequen t

remed y selectedb y EP A fo r th e Site o r

an y addition^ ] wprl ^ deeme dnecessar

y b y EP A t o mee

t th e objective s o f

an y ROD") ; pag e 7 , par . 4. c (fo r "any removal action") ; pag e 7 , par.4. g (assessin g needfo r "additional respons e actions") ; pag e 8 , 

### par. 5 ("Nothin g i n thi s Consen t Decree shall i n any manner restric t or limi t th e nature or scop e o f respons e action s whic h ma y b e take n b y EPA i n fulfillin g it s responsibilitie s unde r 

### federal an dstate law." ) Considerin g th e explici t languag e o f

th e consent

decre e t o whic h i t willingl y assented , Gran t

Gea r no w canno t

claimto hav e acte di n detrimenta l relianc e upo n 

### th e 198 9 ROD
. A s state di n th e respons e to Commen t No
. 4 2 above , EPA doe s no t ow e any propert

y owner adut y t o maximiz e th e post-cleanup valu e o f th e property t o th e owner . Modification s mad e t o th e buildin g remed y pursuan t t o thi s RO D Amendmen t

ar e consisten t

with th e NCP , B-1 5

### irrespectiv e o f

whateve r financial impac t

the y may o r

may no t hav e o n Gran t

Gear , a 

### potentiall y responsibl e party at th e Site
. However , th e commenter seem s t o ignor e th e valu e o f faste r completio n o f

di e remedy t o Gran t

Gear' s redevelopmen t

possibilities
. 

### Finally , t o an y exten t

mat th e RO D Amendmen t

may diminis h Gran t

Gear' s property value , i t ha s explicitl y waive dan y clai mfo r suc h "los s o f

value. " Se e als o th e respons e t o Commen t No
. 39 , above
. 

### Part IV - Comments by Other

Interested Parties 44
. A consultan t

involve di n th e redevelopmen t o f contaminate dsite s expresse dsuppor t 

### fo r th e Propose dAmende dCleanu p Plan a s on e mat make s th e Sit e mor e amenabl e t o development
. However , thi s commente r raise dsevera

l technica l issue s relativ e t o th e 

### remed y an dit s impac t

o n redevelopment : (1 ) th e Gran t Gea r buildin g sla

b t o b e lef t i n plac e an dcappe dover

may presen t

som e difficultie s fo r

futur e developmen t

a s 

### some intrusion s into thi s are ao r removal o f

portion s o f

thi s sla b ma y b e necessar

y i n th e future ; (2 ) th e "phas e B " groundwate r extractio n well s planne dunde r th e 

### groundwate r

remediatio n may nee dt o b e relocate ds o ma t the y are no t

withi n th e footprin t o f ane w structure ; and , (3 ) i t woul db e mos t

beneficial t o al l partie s i f constructio n effort s relativ e t o redevelopmen t wer e coordinate dwit h cleanup efforts
. EP A Response : First , th e amende dplan wil l no t prohibi t futur e excavatio n into th e cappe d 

### are acoverin g th e sla

b (o r orne r cappe dareas ) no r

wil l i t preclud e futur e removal o f

portion s o f th e slab
. Thi s work , however , i s no t considere dwidii n th e scop e o f th e cleanup
. Second , 

### a s discusse dh i th e RO D amendment , a t th e conclusio n o f

other remedia l constructio n activities , th e nee dt o instal l di e "phas e B " well s wil l b e re-evaluated
. I n th e even t tha t i t i s decide dt o procee d with installatio n o f dies e extractio n wells , effort s wil l b e mad e t o locate 

### thes e well s s o a s no t

t o interfer e wit h ne w o r

planne dstructures . Third , EP A support s th e concep t o f coordinate deffort s betwee n cleanu p an ddevelopmen t an dwil l support

effort s t o achiev e thi s goal , s o lon g a s di e remed y remain s protective
.

B-1 6ATTACHMEN T C RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SIT E COMMONWEALT H O F MASSACHUSETT S DECLARATIO N O F CONCURRENC E LETTE R

### COMMONWEALT H O FMASSACHUSETT S 5" , / , / EXECUTIV E OFFIC E O FENVIRONMENTA LAFFAIR S DEPARTMEN

T OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ONE WINTERSTREET , BOSTO N M A 0210 8 (617 ) 292-5500
WILLIA M F
. WEL D TRUD Y COX E Governor Secretar y ARGE O PAUL CELLUCC I DAVI D B
. STRUH S Lt
. Governo r

Commissione r Ma y 16 , 199 6 Ms
. Lind aMurphy , Directo r Offic e o f Site Remediatio n an dRestoratio n U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y J.F.K
. Buildin g Boston , M A 0220 3 Re : Concurrenc e wit h th e RO D Amendmen t

fo r th e Norwoo dPC B Superfun dsite
. Dea r Ms
. Murphy : Th e Departmen t

o f Environmental Protectio n (Department ) ha s reviewe d th e amende dselecte d remed y recommende d b y th e U.S
. EP A fo r th e Norwoo d PC B Superfun dsit e locate di n Norwood , Massachusetts
. Based o n thi s review , th e Departmen t concur s wit

h th e amende d selecte dremedy
. Th e Departmen t deem s th e amende dremed y t o b e adequatel y regulate dfo r purpose s o f

complianc e wit

h 31 0 CM R40.0000 , th e Massachusett s Contingenc y Plan
. Althoug h th e majo r

portio n o f

th e amende dselecte dremedy , consolidatio n an dcapping , wil l no t reduc e th e contaminan t

levels , i t wil l achiev e acceptabl e ris k reductio n b y eliminatin g th e exposure pathway
. Th e exposure assumption s underlyin g th e amende d selecte d remed y wil l b e maintaine d b y th e developmen t o f activit y an dus e limitations
. Becaus e contaminatio n i s no t bein g reduce di n thi s remedy , wher e practicable , EPA' s fiv e yea r revie w proces s shoul dinclud e consideratio n o f

amor e permanen t

remed y whic h may becom e availabl e i n th e future
. Th e remed y a s amende d fo r th e Norwoo d PC B Superfun dsit e include s th e followin g components : Demolitio n o f

th e Gran t Gea r building ; Removal an doff-sit e disposa l o f sediment s an dsludg e fro mdrainag e syste mmanholes , encapsulatio n o f

th e drainag e system ; Consolidatio n o f

contaminate d soil , an dsoi l an dsedimen t fro mMeado w Brook , ont o a portio n o f th e Gran t Gea r property ;

Printe d o n Recycle d Pape rRO D Amendmen t

Concurrenc e Restoratio n o f

Meado w Broo k

consisten t with th e Town' s floo dcontro l project ; Remova l o f

a"ho t spot " o f contaminatio n belo w th e wate r table ; Coverin g o f

th e mos t heavil y contaminate darea s o f th e Gran t

Gea r propert y with a n asphal t cap an dcoverin g o f

th e othe r propert y are awit h clea n fil l material ; Establishmen t

o f activit y an d us e restriction s t o maintai n th e exposur e assumption s underlyin g th e remedy , an dt o protec t th e integrity o f

th e remedy ; Periodi c groun d wate r

monitorin g t o asses s performanc e an dprotectivenes s o f th e remedy ; Inspection s an dmaintenanc e o f th e ca p & cover ; an d Continue don-sit e groun dwate r extractio n an dtreatment . Th e remedia l actio n selecte d i n th e 198 9 Recor d o f Decisio n consiste d o f

treatmen t

o f contaminate dsoil s vi aSolven t Extraction , groun dwate r

extractio n an dtreatment , dredgin g an d restoratio n o f

th e Meado w Brook , implementatio n o f institutiona

l controls , an ddecontaminatio n o f th e Gran t

Gea r Building
. Thi s amende d selected remedy doe s no t chang e th e groundwater portio n o f th e origina l remedy , excep t tha t remova l o f

th e "ho t spot " o f contaminatio n wil l likel y remov e asourc e o f

downgradien t

groundwate r

contamination
. Th e Departmen t

look s forwar dt o workin g with th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y i n implementin g th e amende dselecte d remedy
. I f yo u hav e an y question s o r requir e additiona l information , pleas e contac t Marti n J
. Home , Projec t

Manager , at

(617 ) 292-5716
. Ver y trul y yours , '" ^ > lJ Jame s C
. Colman Assistan t Commissioner Bureau o f Waste Site Cleanu p cc : Richar dChalpin , DE P NER OATTACHMEN T D RECORD O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SIT E OFFICIA L PUBLI C HEARIN G TRANSCRIPT 

### MARC H 6 , 199

6

## / e

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENC Y

Joh n F . Boston , Regio n I

Kenned yFedera l Buildin g Massachusett s 02203-000 1
NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUN D SIT E Propose d Amende d Cleanu p Pla n
, PUBLI C MEETIN G AN D HEARIN G Norwoo d Tal l Hal l Norwood , Massachusett s
Publi c Publi c Wednesday ,

Meeting : 6 Hearing : 7 Mar c

3 3 0 0 P P h 6 , 1 9

. m.

. m. - 7

- 8 9 6 : 3 : 0 0 0 P P . m

. m

Da n Coughlin , Superfun d Chief , EP A

Sectio n Massachusett s Bo b Cianciarulo , EP ARemedia l Projec t Manage r Marti n Horne , Massachusett s Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n Projec t Manage r Majo r Bria n Baker , U S Projec t Manage r Bria n Rohan , EP ACas e Corrinn e Va n Alstine , Coord i nato r Arm yCorp s Engineer s Attorne y EP ACommunit y Involvemen t

EATO N COUR T REPORTIN

G SERVICE S Nanc y L
. Eaton, RPR , RMR , RD R Guarding the Record

Since 1966 Tw o Olive r

Street , Elevent h Floo r Boston , M A 0210 9 617-338-733 31 PROCEEDING S

2 MR . COUGHLIN : I firs t hav e a shor t 3 statemen t t o mak e t o ge t int o th e record , an d 4 the n w e wil l kic k of f thi s evening' s publi c 5 hearing . 6 M ynam e i s Da n Coughlin. . I —a mChie f o f 7 th e Massachusett s Superfun d Sectio n a t th e EP A ^ ^>» « ~ ~ " 8 i n Boston . I welcom e yo u t o th e publi c hearin g 9 o n th e amende d propose d pla n fo r th e Norwoo d 1 0 PC B Superfun d Cleanup . 1 1 Wit h m e tonigh t i s Bo b Cianciarulo , th e 1 2 Remedia l Projec t Manage r fo r th e EPA . He' s 1 3 righ t dow n front . He' s makin g a presentatio n 1 4 tonight . Als o w e hav e wit h u s tonigh t Marti n 1 5 Hom e fro mth e Mass . DE P an d severa l othe r 1 6 folk s al l representin g th e agencie s a s wel l a s 1 7 th e Departmen t o f Justice . 1 8 No w th e purpos e o f tonight' s hearin g i s 1 9 t o giv e th e publi c a n opportunit yt o commen t o n 2 0 th e EPA' s propose d ammende d cleanu p strategy . 2 1 W e wil l b e recordin g you r comments , a s yo u ca n 2 2 see , thi s evening , an d w e wil l produc e a 2 3 printe d transcrip t whic h wil l b e par t o f th e 2 4 administrativ e record s an d use d b yth e EP At o1 mak e a fina l rememd ydecision .

2 I f yo u wis h t o bu ya cop yo f th e 3 transcript , yo u ma ymak e arrangement s directl y 4 wit h th e transcriptio n service , an d w e hav e 5 sheet s u p bac k availabl e fo r yo u t o ge t tha t 6 address . , . - 7 A s I previousl ystated , i f yo u wis h t o ,*~ 8 mak e a commen t tonight , woul d yo u pleas e pic k 9 u p a n inde x card , fil l i t out , an d retur n i t t o 1 0 Corrin e bac k ther e s o tha t w e ca n mak e sur e 1 1 tha t you r nam e an d affiliation , e t cetera , i s 1 2 entere d int o th e recor d correctly , an d I wil l 1 3 cal l o n everyon e i n th e orde r i n whic h yo u hav e 1 4 submitte d th e cards . 1 5 W e typicall yreserv e th e righ t t o limi t 1 6 peoples ' comment s t o te n minutes . W e usuall y 1 7 hav e a larg e crow d whe n w e d o that , s o I' m 

### 1 8 probabl yno t goin g t o d o tha t bu t I as k yo u t o 1 9 b e brief . I f yo u thin k it' s goin g t o b e a lon g 2 0 comment , pleas e tr yt o summariz e it , an d giv e 2 1 i t t o u s i n writing , th e entir e text , an d yo u 2 2 shoul d submi t i t t o u s withi n th e commen t 2 3 period . 2 4 Hopefull yove r th e pas t hour , yo u ha d a n1 opportunit yt o tal k t o al l o f us , t o loo k a t

2 ou r poster s an d hav e a n appreciatio n o f wha t w e 3 ar e proposin g t o do , an d hopefull yw e addresse d 4 mos t o f you r questions . 5 I shoul d mak e i t clea r t o peopl e tha t w e 6 wil l no t b e answerin g question s durin g th e 7 publi c hearin g portio n o f thi s meetin g ,*>- , 8 tonight . W e wil l be , rather , answerin g thos e 9 question s i n th e responsivenes s summar ywhic h 1 0 wil l b e issue d wit h th e propose d amende d 1 1 cleanu p pla n o r th e ammende d recor d decisio n a t 1 2 a late r date , bu t al l question s an d comment s 1 3 wil l b e addresse d i n tha t order . 1 4 I n additio n t o tonight' s hearing , yo u 1 5 ma yals o submi t writte n comment s t o th e 1 6 agency . Yo u shoul d d o s o b yth e en d o f th e 1 7 commen t period , whic h end s o n Marc h 22 , 1996 . 1 8 Th e addres s fo r submittin g thos e comment s i s i n 1 9 th e propose d plan s whic h I thin k copie s ar e 2 0 availabl e u p back . I thin k perhap s yo u al l 

### 2 1 hav e copies , bu t i f yo u don't , yo u ca n ge t the m 

### 2 2 u p back , an d I thin k there' s als o a n E-mai l 2 3 addres s u p there , too . 2 4 Finall yle t m e remin d yo u tha t ther e ar e

## 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 copie s o f th e administrativ e recor d a t th e

Morril l Memoria l Librar yi n Norwoo d an d als o a t th e EPA' s Recor d Cente r i n Bosto n an d al l ar e welcom e t o revie w th e material s a t eithe r o f thos e spot s a t you r convenienc e durin g th e norma l busines s hours . _ . -

I gues s w e di d leav e on e thin g out . ,**~ Befor e w e ge t int o th e comments , Bo b wil l giv e yo u a ver yquic k overvie w o f the.minute s o f th e propose d plans , an d the n I wil l star t takin g comments . An yquestion s o n ho w w e ar e goin g t o proceed ?

I f not , Bob , wh ydon' t yo u d o you r talk . Le t m e sa ythan k yo u fo r coming . It' s no t a grea t nigh t t o b e out , an d I appreciat e havin g yo u her e tonight .

MR . CIANCIARULO : Than k you , Dan . I wan t t o giv e yo u a quic k overvie w o f th e propose d amendment . Hopefull yyo u al l ha d a chanc e t o loo k a t th e pla n tha t wa s maile d t o everybod yo n th e mailin g lis t fo r thi s sit e . Fo r thos e o f yo u no t familia r wit h th e 

### cleanup , th e projec t i s basicall ydivide d int o1 thre e majo r phases : One , th e cleanu p o f groun d

2 wate r underlyin g th e site ; th e cleanu p o f th e 3 Gran t Gea r Building , an d th e majo r par t o f th e 4 cleanup , th e cleanu p o f th e soi l an d th e 5 sediment s a t th e site . 6 I f yo u recal l bac k i n Augus t o f 1995 , 7 EP Apublishe d a fact s sheet , an d w e ha d tw o ,*>- . • •- - - 8 publi c meeting s t o basicall yge t th e public' s 9 feedbac k o n a n ide a o f th e amende d cleanu p pla n 1 0 whic h involve d cappin g o f th e soil s a s a majo r 1 1 componen t versu s th e treatmen t o f th e soils , 1 2 whic h wa s originall yselecte d a s a remed yi n 1 3 198 9 . 1 4 Thi s curren t propose d amende d cleanu p 1 5 pla n basicall yembodie s tha t sam e approac h w e 1 6 presente d t o yo u i n August . I n general , thi s 1 7 pla n call s fo r th e demolitio n o f th e Gran t Gea r 1 8 Building ; th e consolidatio n o f contaminate d 

### 1 9 soi l fro mth e Gran t Gea r an d adjacen t 2 0 propertie s an d soi l sentiment s fro mMeado w 2 1 Broo k ont o a portio n o f th e Gran t Gea r 2 2 property , th e remova l o f a ho t spo t o f organi c 2 3 contaminatio n locate d belo w th e wate r tabl e i n 

### 2 4 th e Wester n portio n o f th e Gran t Gea r property ,1 the n coverin g o f th e mos t heavil ycontaminate d

2 area s o f th e Gran t Gea r propert ywit h a n 3 asphal t cap , an d coverin g othe r les s 4 contaminate d area s wit h clea n fill . 5 Th e pla n woul d als o cal l fo r regula r 6 inspections , monitorin g an d repairing , i f 7 necessary , th e ca p i n th e regula r groun d wate r ,*> ~ •- - • 8 monitorin g an d als o call s fo r continue d groun d 9 wate r extractio n an d treatment . 1 0 Th e groun d wate r treatmen t plan t a t th e 1 1 sit e wa s complete d i n earl y199 6 - - lat e 1995 , 1 2 earl y1996 . I t i s currentl yi n operatio n 1 3 extractin g an d treatin g groun d wate r unde r th e 1 4 site . 1' 5 Th e amende d pla n als o doe s chang e som e 1 6 cleanu p level s a t th e site . Thes e change s wer e 1 7 mad e base d o n ris k assessmen t method s an d othe r 

### 1 8 informatio n whic h basicall yha s bee n improve d 1 9 an d refine d sinc e thos e activitie s wer e don e i n 2 0 198 9 whe n th e origina l ris k assessmen t wa s don e 2 1 However , th e cleanu p leve l fo r 2 2 sentiment s i n Meado w Broo k ha s no t changed , 2 3 and , consequently , th e genera l cleanu p leve l 2 4 relativ e t o Meado w Broo k itsel f remain s1 consisten t wit h th e - - remain s unchange d fro m

2 th e 198 9 plan . 3 On e o f th e outcome s o f th e Augus t 199 5 4 meetin g wa s a stron g messag e fro mloca l 5 residents , a smal l are a nort h o f Meado w Brook , 6 i s tha t the ywante d t o tak e a . secon d loo k a t 7 soi l contaminatio n i n tha t are a whic h w e ha d p 4t"j*-m' • -" • 8 slate d fo r excavation . 9 Base d o n thi s feedback , w e wen t an d too k 1 0 a n additiona l roun d o f samples , an d als o agai n 1 1 a s w e looke d a t cleanu p level s fo r th e sit e i n 1 2 general , w e looke d a t th e appropriatenes s o f 1 3 th e cleanu p level s i n tha t area . 1 4 Basicall ybase d o n thi s ne w dat a an d th e 1 5 existin g dat a tha t wa s alread ycollecte d fro m 1 6 . tha t area , it' s bee n determine d tha t th e level s 1 7 o f contaminatio n i n thi s are a d o no t pos e a n 1 8 unacceptabl e ris k t o huma n healt h an d 1 9 environment , and , therefore , i n thi s curren t 2 0 proposal , n o actio n wil l b e take n i n tha t 

### 2 1 residentia l area . 2 2 EP Ai s recommendin g thi s amende d cleanu p 2 3 pla n today . Th e majo r componen t o f thi s whic h 

### 2 4 i s consolidatio n an d cappin g o f th e contaminate d1 soil s becaus e w e believ e th e pla n i s protectiv e

2 o f huma n healt h an d environment , technicall y 3 reliable , easil yimplementible , ca n b e complete d 4 i n a relativel yshor t tim e fram e an d i n a 5 cost-effectiv e manner . 6 EP An o longe r be l ieves . .that-th e 7 treatmen t alternative s selecte d i n 1989 , p tffm' • -- - • 8 solvent s extractio n o r th e contingenc yremed y 9 selecte d i n 198 9 an d th e on-sit e incineration , 1 0 ar e implimentabl e o r cost-effectiv e fo r thi s 1 1 site . 1 2 Furthermore , base d upo n th e fac t tha t 1 3 tha t sit e i s t o b e reuse d fo r commercia l and/o r 1 4 fo r industria l purpose s i n th e futur e - - jus t 1 5 a s a not e ther e i s als o a not e attache d t o th e 1 6 dee d fo r thi s propert ytha t prohibit s th e 1 7 developmen t o f thi s lan d fo r residentia l use , 1 8 s o tha t i s clearl yrule d out . Th e propose d 1 9 amende d cleanu p pla n appear s t o b e th e choic e 2 0 bes t suite d t o th e expecte d futur e us e o f thi s 2 1 property . 2 2 Again , I encourag e yo u t o refe r bac k 2 3 t o th e Februar y199 6 Propose d Amende d Cleanu p 2 4 Pla n fo r mor e information . I' mjus t tryin g t o1 0



## 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 giv e yo u a quic k overvie w here . W e loo k forwar d

t o receivin g you r inpu t her e bot h tonigh t an d agai n i n writin g prio r t o th e en d o f th e commen t perio d o n Marc h th e 22nd . Than k you .

MR . COUGHLIN : Okay . I' mgoin g t o as k fo r comments . W e as k tha t you . com e u p t o th e microphon e an d spea k ver yclearl yint o th e ,*,- . - " • microphone , i f yo u would , an d stat e you r nam e clearl ys o onc e agai n w e ar e correc t i n th e record . An d th e firs t commen t i s fro mGar yLee , selectma n fro mth e tow n o f Norwood .

COMMEN T ONE : Than k you , Mr . Coughlin , Mr . Gianciarulo . M ynam e i s Gar yLee , selectma n fro mth e tow n o f Norwood . Seein g tha t thi s i s stil l a publi c commen t period , I hav e tw o question s I woul d lik e addresse d i n writin g an d hav e yo u ge t bac k t o u s throug h th e board , s o w e ca n ge t bac k t o ou r neighbor s an d constituants .

B ywa yo f background , firs t o f all , I thin k w e al l remembe r to o wel l tha t Senato r Kenned ygav e hi s comment s 1 3 year s ag o abou t 

### th e threa t o f PCB s i n th e environment .

## 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 A s fa r bac k a s '89 , w e sa t dow n i n

Bosto n wit h th e EP Aan d Senato r Kenned yan d other s a t whic h tim e the ystil l continue d t o tel l u s wha t a threa t th e PCB s wer e i n th e tow n o f Norwood .

On e o f th e problem s tha. t peepl e continu e t o hav e an d th e board' s havin g i n gettin g bac k f 4***m' ' ••-• " ' t o th e peopl e i s tha t a s fa r a s three , fou r year s ag o whe n I wa s involve d i n thi s board , w e wer e stil l tol d o f th e seriou s threa t PCB s wer e t o th e environment , an d the ywer e s o concerne d abou t i t tha t th e onl ywa yt o trea t i t wa s t o excavat e th e soil , trea t i t an d ge t i t of f th e site .

No w there' s a chang e o f feelin g becaus e o f th e lac k o f fund s i n th e EP ASuperfun d account . You'r e no w tellin g us , an d w e ar e bein g lea d t o believe , it' s al l righ t jus t t o di g i t up , pav e i t over , ca p it , an d that' s it . 

### I thin k som e people , includin g myself , ar e havin g a toug h tim e understandin g that . Th e messag e ha s bee n tha t i t wa s suc h a threa t ove r th e years , s o wh yi s i t oka yno w t o di g i t u p an d t o ca p it ? I thin k I nee d tha t addresse d1 2

1 fo r m yeducatio n s o tha t w e ca n ge t bac k t o th e 2 people . 3 Th e secon d par t o f th e questio n I woul d 4 lik e t o se e addresse d is , I thin k a s th e peopl e 5 tak e a loo k a t thes e maps , w e ar e concerne d 6 abou t whe n yo u sa yca p i t over. , ar e w e goin g t o 7 b e inheritin g a larg e sectio n o f concret e ca p f 1fj*m. ' ' ~" 8 o r asphal t cap , suc h a s thre e o r fou r year s 9 fro mno w ar e w e goin g t o hav e a n overgrowt h 1 0 cap ? Wh o i s goin g t o maintai n it ? Wh o i s 1 1 goin g t o kee p it ? I s tha t a sit e tha t i s goin g 1 2 t o b e abl e t o b e sol d o n th e subsequen t marke t 1 3 o r i s th e tow n o f Norwoo d goin g t o inheri t suc h 1 4 a n eyesore ? Again , an ywritte n respons e give n 1 5 abou t tha t wil l hel p us , an d I appreciat e you r 1 6 time . Than k you . 1 7 MR . COUGHLIN : Ros e Foley , please . 1 8 COMMEN T TWO : A s Mr . Le e ha s stated , 1 9 thi s ha s bee n goin g o n fo r 1 3 years , an d I d o 2 0 ow n a piec e o f propert ytha t abut s th e Gran t 2 1 Gea r works . I' mther e ever yday . I worke d 2 2 ther e ever yday . 2 3 Fo r year s of f an d on , ther e ha s bee n a 2 4 lo t goin g o n bu t no t o n a constan t basis . Fo r1 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 1 3 year s I woul d lik e t o know , d o yo u hav e a

figur e o f ho w muc h wa s spen t t o dat e a t thi s time ? I , a s a taxpayer , woul d b e intereste d i n that , an d ho w muc h i s goin g t o b e recoope d fro m whateve r damag e ther e i s fro mthi s land ? Than k you . MR . COUGHLIN : Than k you . Davi d Wright . f 4>-**m' •-*•-• 

### COMMEN T THREE : Than k you , Mr . Coughlin . Fo r th e record , m ynam e i s Davi d B . Wright . I' mth e Directo r o f Projec t Developmen t fo r th e fir mo f Caswell , Eichle r & Hill , an d m yrol e withi n th e fir mi s t o accoun t fo r th e developmen t o f propert ytha t i s contaminate d o n behal f o f th e clients .

I n th e interes t o f doin g that , I woul d lik e t o stat e fo r th e recor d tha t I suppor t th e amende d pla n a s i s presented . I thin k i t i s stil l a difficul t sit e t o develop . I t i s a costl ysit e t o develop , bu t thi s amendmen t need s t o allo w som e possibilit yo f bein g develope d a s lon g a s w e ca n kee p i t withi n th e marke t cost s tha t woul d deriv e thos e decisions .

W e ar e tryin g t o asses s tha t no w i n thi s 

### process , an d w e cam e her e tonigh t t o hea r an d1 4

1 tal k abou t som e detail s o f th e site . I wil l 2 hav e a coupl e technica l comment s I woul d lik e 3 t o mak e int o th e recor d generall yno w an d mayb e 4 follow-u p wit h a mor e detaile d lette r i n a 5 lette r for monc e w e hav e finalize d a roug h pla n 6 fo r th e site- . . . - 7 Firs t o f all , th e slab , a s i s bein g ,* ~ - - - • 8 maintained , pose s som e difficultie s fo r 9 redevelopmen t becaus e yo u ma yno t hav e a 1 0 buildin g exactl yo n tha t sit e i n th e sam e exac t 1 1 location , an d tha t wil l requir e some , perhaps , 1 2 frostwall s o r othe r type s o f ne w foundatio n t o 1 3 b e adde d tha t hav e t o b e pu t in , perhap s i n th e 1 4 middl e o f tha t sla b i n som e fashion , o r perhap s 1 5 par t o f tha t sla b migh t b e remove d fo r thing s 1 6 lik e utilit ypole s tha t ar e ver yshallo w o r 1 7 vault s tha t ar e use d fo r plumbing , heatin g an d 1 8 whatsoeve r s o tha t i t i s eas yt o relocat e a 1 9 piec e o f equipmen t wher e thing s ar e store d an d 2 0 als o yo u don' t hav e t o di g underground , yo u 2 1 know , somethin g o f tha t sor t tha t w e don' t wan t 2 2 t o d o onc e the.ca p i s pu t i n place . 2 3 Th e Phas e I B well s ar e th e ne w wells , 2 4 th e recover ywells , tha t ar e bein g propose d i n1 5

1 th e marke t ma yals o hav e t o b e relocate d i f 2 thi s projec t i s t o g o forward , slightl ynort h 3 o r slightl ysout h i n relatio n t o wher e w e won' t 4 b e contaminatin g th e well s i n th e nex t 5 building , an d w e ca n pum p i t ou t fo r 6 maintenanc e an d othe r thing s an d jjus t a s w e 7 ha d fo r everythin g involved . Tha t i s somethin g > t^^m••--- • 8 tha t w e woul d lik e t o ente r int o th e record . 9 W e ar e no t quit e sur e wher e the yshoul d be , 1 0 bu t i t woul d no t b e to o muc h of f fro mwher e 1 1 the yar e workin g righ t now . 1 2 An d finall yth e excavatio n o f th e 1 3 foundation , i f the yar e goin g t o b e done , tim e 1 4 i s everythin g i n a commercia l development . Yo u 1 5 ar e goin g t o hav e crew s workin g o n th e site . I t 1 6 woul d probabl yb e bes t t o hav e th e sam e contracto r 1 7 i f possible , excavat e tha t trenc h fo r frostwalls , 1 8 perhap s i n building , an d w e woul d probabl ypa y 1 9 tha t cos t o r shar e i t o r whatever . 2 0 Bu t basicall yI thin k tha t ough t t o b e 2 1 don e an d considere d int o th e schedulin g o f th e 2 2 developmen t s o tha t w e ca n expeditiousl yge t 2 3 int o th e propert yafterwards , an d yo u ca n hav e 2 4 OSHA-traine d peopl e o n site , s o w e ca n hav e al l1 6

1 th e contractor s monitore d unles s thi s seem s t o 2 b e a logistica l problem . An d yo u ca n d o tha t 3 a s a separat e contrac t wit h th e sam e contractor , 4 s o w e ca n avoi d som e o f th e federa l procuremen t 5 problems . 6 I t migh t b e a n optio n o r we_pa yfo r a 7 chang e orde r tha t yo u ha d issue d a s payin g th e

, *> ~ •- - - 8 difference . Tha t i s a suggestio n w e woul d lik e 9 t o pos e i n th e record . Whethe r tha t ca n b e 1 0 don e .. . Bu t agai n generall yw e suppor t thi s 1 1 concept . 1 2 It' s a pleasur e t o hav e a chanc e t o com e 1 3 u p an d sa ygoo d thing s abou t a n EP Aproposal . 1 4 I n m ywhol e career , I see mt o b e o n th e othe r 1 5 side , an d it' s bee n ver ydifficul t fo r th e EP A 1 6 an d fo r u s becaus e o f th e law . I thin k i t i s a 1 7 fresh , goo d win d blowin g i n th e righ t direction . 1 8 An d perhap s th e tow n wil l com e ou t wit h a sit e 1 9 tha t i s develope d tha t wil l mak e sens e fo r them , 2 0 an d th e EP Awil l hav e a succes s stor yher e fo r 

### 2 1 thei r headquarters . An d that' s th e conclusio n 2 2 o f m ycomment . 2 3 MR . COUGHLIN : Than k you . Sta n Wasil . 2 4 COMMEN T FOUR : Sta n Wasil . I represen t1 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 tha t district , Distric t 7 , an d I , lik e a lo t o f

peopl e here , wan t t o se e thi s thin g com e t o a n end , an d it' s no t goin g t o com e t o a n en d i f w e jus t kee p changin g plan s al l th e time . We'v e don e i t no w fo r 2 0 years , an d I thin k no w tha t you'v e don e som e cleanin g up , I b ej . i e v e - - I , • fee l ver ypositiv e o f this .
, *- « • •**•
-

I thin k w e shoul d no w star t t o knoc k tha t buildin g dow n an d hardto p it . Furthermore , I woul d lik e t o se e tha t broo k cleane d up . That' s ver yimportan t becaus e i f ther e i s a bi g floo d an d i t back s up , i t back s u p int o th e stor mdrain s an d i n som e case s int o th e houses , an d w e don' t wan t PCB s travelin g aroun d town . S o that' s m ycommen t there .

I hav e anothe r comment . I a mver ymuc h concerne d tha t th e tow n i s hurtin g fo r ne w development . That' s one . I t shoul d b e move d along . Als o th e Sto p & Sho p righ t i n bac k there . Tha t i s sittin g there , too , an d i t shoul d no t be , an d I hop e i t i s no t goin g t o b e sittin g aroun d long .

S o man ypeopl e wan t t o se e tha t 

### developed . It' s a prim e piec e o f property .1 8

1 An d that' s m ycomment . I wan t t o se e thi s 2 whol e thin g star t t o com e t o a n end . I thin k 3 w e hav e overdon e it . Than k you . 4 MR . COUGHLIN : Than k you . Well , thos e 5 ar e al l th e card s I have . I s ther e anybod y 6 els e wh o woul d lik e t o mak e a statemen t fo r th e T « 7 record ? W e certainl yurg e yo u t o d o so . f **• • • -- - • 8 I f not , w e woul d als o encourag e yo u t o 9 submi t writte n comment s t o us . Th e writte n 1 0 addres s i s o n th e propose d plan . A s I said , 1 1 th e commen t perio d end s o n th e 22n d o f March , 1 2 an d i f yo u hav e an ycomments , pleas e fee l fre e 1 3 t o sen d the min . W e wil l issu e ou r fina l 1 4 decision . 1 5 Again , I wan t t o than k yo u al l fo r 1 6 comin g ou t tonight , an d I appreciat e yo u comin g 

### 1 7 her e i n th e ba d weather . An d wit h that , I thin k 1 8 w e wil l clos e th e publi c hearin g fo r thi s site . 1 9 A s yo u know , durin g th e firs t hour , w e 2 0 invite d yo u u p t o loo k a t th e posters , an d w e 2 1 discusse d question s wit h you . W e welcom e yo u 2 2 t o sta yaroun d an d tal k wit h us , i f yo u like . 2 3 (Th e hearin g wa s conclude d a t 8:0 0 p.m. ) 2 41 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 CERTIFICAT E

COMMONWEALT H O F MASSCHUSETT S PLYMOUTH , SS .

I , Michell e J . Madden , Certifie d

. • Shorthan d Reporter , d o hereb ycertif ytha t th e f *"•**£ " * ' foregoin g record , Page s 2 throug h 18 , i s a complete , accurat e an d tru e transcriptio n o f m y stenographi c note s take n i n th e aforementione d matte r t o th e bes t o f m yskill s an d ability .

Michell e U . Madden , CS R Certifie d Shorthan d Reporte rATTACHMEN T E 

### RECOR D O F DECISIO N AMENDMEN T NORWOO D PC B SUPERFUND SIT E 

### REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR' S FINDING S AND WAIVER S UNDE RREGULATION S O F TH E TOXI C SUBSTANCE S CONTRO L AC T O n o r abou t thi s 17t h day o f May , 1996 , th e Directo r

o f th e Offic e o f

Site Remediatio n an d Restoratio n i s approvin g aRO D Amendmen t fo r th e Norwoo dPC B Sit e i n Norwood , MA
. 

### Like th e remed y selecte dh i th e origina l Recordo f Decisio n fo r

th e Site , signe dSeptember 29 , 1989 , th e amende dremed y selecte di n th e RO D Amendmen t wil l resul t i n achemica l wast e landfil l subjec t

t o regulation s promulgatedunde r th e Toxi c Substance s Contro l Act
. However , a s se t

fort h i n 4 0 CF R761.75(c)(4) , certai n regulatory requirement s fo r chemical wast e landfill s may b e waive di n th e discretio n o f th e Regional Administrato r i f th e Regional 

### Administrato r

find s that suc h requirement s are no t

necessar y t o protec t

agains t an unreasonabl e ris k

o f injur y t o health an dth e environment
. Thi s waive r may b e exercise d onl y b y th e Regiona

l Administrator
. 

### Th e RO D Amendmen t

waive s th e followin g fou r

requirement s fo r

chemical wast e landfills ; (i ) that chemical waste landfill s b e constructe donl y h i certai n lo w permeabilit y cla y condition s (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.7 5 (b)(l)) ; (ii ) tha t asyntheti c membran e line

r b e use da t th e 

### Sit e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(2)) ; (iii ) tha t th e botto mo f

th e landfil l b e 5 0 fee t

abov e th e histori c hig h wate r

tabl e (4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(b)(3)) , an d(iv ) that specifi c leachate monitoring/collectio n system s b e employed
. Th e reason s fo r waivin g thes e requirement s are se t fort h i n Sectio n X I o f

th e RO D Amendment , Statutory Determinations
. 

### Th e factor s discusse dh i Sectio n X I o f th e RO D Amendmen t

ensure that

ther e wil l b e n o unreasonabl e ris k

o f injur y t o healt

h o r th e environmen t

i f th e fou r TSC A chemical wast e landfil l requirement s specifie dabov e ar e waived
. Considerin g thi s information , I hereb y 

### exercis e th e waive r

authority containe dh i th e TSC A regulation s a t 4 0 C.F.R
. § 761.75(c)(4) , wit h respec t

t o thes e fou r

requirements
.

Art- Patrici aMeane y Date Actin g Regiona

l Administrato r U.S
. Environmental Protectio n Agenc y - Regio n I JF K Federa l Buildin g 

### Boston , M A 02203-221 1