ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL ] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 

National Priorities List: Deletion ofthe Norwood PCBs Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion ofthe Norwood PCBs Superfund Site (Site), located in 

Norwood Massachusetts from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix ofthe Nafional Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is 

being published by EPA with the concurrence ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), because 

EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than 

operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective [insert date 60 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register^ unless EPA receives adverse comments by [insert 

date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. If adverse comment(s) are 

received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthe direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. 

SDMS DocID 479426 
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, idenfified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND1986-0005, by one ofthe following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov . Follow on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: keefe.daniel(^epa.gov 

• Fax: 1-617-918-0327 

• Mail: Daniel Keefe 

U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager S 

5 Post Office Square (OSRR07-1) 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

• Hand delivery to the following address: Daniel Keefe, 5 Post Office Square 

(OSRR07-1), Boston, MA 02109. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

EPA's normal hours of operafion (9:00 am to 5:00 pm), and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

INSTRUCTIONS: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-

0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means 

EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 

of your comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 

http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 
included as part ofthe comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 

the Intemet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include 

your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk 

or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 

free of any defects or viruses. 

DOCKET: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such 

as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available either electronically in 

http://wvyw.regulations.gov or in hard copy at either: 

EPA Region 1 Record Center 

5 Post Office Square 

Boston, MA 02109 

Phone: 1-617-918-1440 

Hours: Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 

Norwood Morrill Memorial Library 

33 Walpole Street 

Norwood, MA 

Phone: 781-769-0200 

Hours: Mon - Thurs 9:00 am to 9:00 pm; Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm; 

Saturday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm; Sunday 2:00 am to 5:00 pm 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Keefe, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1; 5 Post Office Square, 
Boston, MA 02109 Mailcode: OSRR07-01, or by phone at (617) 918-1327, or by email at 

keefe.danielfSjepa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents. 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Delefion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 1 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion for the 

Norwood PCBs Superfund site (Site) thus removing the Site from the National 

Priorifies List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is 

the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which 

EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 ofthe Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensafion and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA 

maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public 

health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial 

actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 

300.425(e) (3) ofthe NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action 

will be effective [insert date 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register] 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by [insert date 30 days after this publication in 

the Federal Register]. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing a Nofice of Intent to Delete in the "Proposed Rules" section ofthe Federal 

Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on 

this delefion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of 

Deletion before the effective date ofthe deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. 

EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion 

process on the basis ofthe Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. 

There will be no additional opportunity to comment. 

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. 

Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses 

the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. 

Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse 

comments are received during the public comment period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In 

accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no fiirther 

response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any ofthe following criteria 

have been met: 

i. responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of 

remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews 

to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even ifa site is deleted from 

the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted 

site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there 

is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored 

to the NPL without application ofthe hazard ranking system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to deletion ofthe Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prior to 

developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to 

Delete co-published today in the "Proposed Rules" section ofthe Federal 

Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth thirty (30) working days for review 

of this Notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their 
publication today, and the Commonwealth, through the MassDEP, has 

concurred on the deletion ofthe Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice ofthe availability ofthe parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, the Norwood Record. The 

newspaper notice armounces the 30-day public comment period 

conceming the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in 

the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection 

and copying at the Site information repositories identified above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of 

withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date 

and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion 

process on the basis ofthe Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments 

already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual's rights or obligations. Deletion ofa site from the NPL does not in any way 

alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed 

primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 

300.425(e)(3) ofthe NCP states that the deletion ofa site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The Norwood PCBs Superftind Site (CERCLIS No. MAD980670566) is located 

in Norwood, Massachusetts, approximately 14 miles southwest ofthe City of Boston. 

Land use consists predominately of industrial/commercial properties and associated 

parking areas in an industrial/commercial area. To the north, the Site is bordered by 

residential properties, to the east by Route 1 and the Dean Street access road, to the south 

by Dean Street, and to the west by residential properties. The northem portion ofthe Site 

consists of a portion of Meadow Brook. 

Contamination originated from disposal practices ofthe parties who owned the 

property or operated businesses on the Site (the Facility). The former on-site building 

was constructed in 1942 by Bendix Aviation Corporation, which produced navigational 

control systems for the U.S. Navy. In October 1947, the land was purchased by Tobe 

Deutschman Corporation, which manufactured electrical equipment. The property was 

purchased in 1956 by Comell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc., which also manufactured 

electrical equipment at the facility. In January 1960, the property was owned by 

Maryvale Corporation, and was then purchased by the Friedland brothers. The Friedland 

brothers leased the property to Federal Pacific Electric Company, which held the lease on 

the property until October 1979. During the period from 1960 to 1979, Federal Pacific 

Electric Company operated a business at the Site, and sublet portions ofthe facility to 

Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. and to Arrow Hart Corporation, which also 

manufactured electrical equipment. In 1979, the Site was subdivided. The northeastem 

portion ofthe Site, approximately 9 acres, was purchased by Grant Gear Realty Trust, 
which leased the facility to Grant Gear Works, Inc., to produce gears for various 

industries. The southem and westem portions ofthe Site, approximately 16 acres, were 

purchased by Paul Birmingham, Paul Reardon, and Jack Reardon who further subdivided 

the property into seven lots and added a new private way (Kerry Place). On the east site 

ofthe Site runs Meadow Brook through a property owned by the Town of Norwood 

which contains a town sewer easement. 

In 1983, MassDEP received a call from an abutting resident reporting past 

industrial waste dumping and contamination in the then vacant field of Kerry Place. As a 

result, an initial investigation was conducted which confirmed the presence of PCBs. 

EPA contractors assisted MassDEP with the collection of samples and based on these 

findings, it was determined that an emergency removal was warranted. EPA removed 

and disposed (off-site) 518 tons of contaminated soil. During the removal, water samples 

taken from the storm drain system behind the Grant Gear Building indicated low levels of 

PCBs. In October 1984, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL (49 FR 40320) 

and was formally added on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054). 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

The Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed in 1989. 

During the investigation the following media were evaluated: air, surface soil, subsurface 

soil, dredge piles. Meadow Brook sediments, surface water, groundwater, and the Grant 

Gear Building. The highest concentration of PCBs in soil was in a former disposal area 

in the westem and northern portions ofthe Grant Gear property where up to 26,000 parts 

per million (ppm) were identified. The estimated total volume of contaminated soil in 

both saturated and unsaturated soil with PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm was 
31,550 cubic yards (yd ). Soils were also found to be contaminated, although to a lesser 

extent, with VOCs, SVOCs and metals. 

Contaminants released to Meadow Brook included PCBs, VOCs, and metals. 

Within sediments, the primary transport mechanism for PCBs was the movement of 

sediment to which the PCBs are attached. PCBs detected in sediment ranged up to 1,100 

ppm in Meadow Brook and up to 3,850 ppm in former sediment dredge piles. 

With regard to groundwater, contaminants include PCBs, VOCs and SVOCs with 

the highest concentrations generally being detected west ofthe former Grant Gear 

building. Groundwater contamination was detected in both overburden and bedrock 

aquifers with trichloroethyiene having the highest concentration (1,800 parts per billion 

(ppb)) in overburden and vinyl chloride in bedrock (110 ppb). 

Selected Remedy 

In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD for the Norwood PCBs site. The 

Remedial Action Objectives outlined in the 1989 ROD to address contaminated 

buildings, soils, sediments, and groundwater at the Site are as follows: 

• To minimize the continued release of hazardous substances to Meadow Brook. 

• To reduce risks to workers associated with direct contact with PCB-contaminated 

surfaces. 

• To reduce risks to workers associated with inhalation of airbome PCBs within the 

Grant Gear Building. 

• Reduce risks posed by direct contact with soil contaminated with PCBs and P AHs. 

• Reduce risks posed by incidental ingestion of soils contaminated with PCBs and 

PAHs. 

10 
• Mitigate any future impacts of such remedial activities to Meadow Brook and the 

surrounding wetland areas. . 

• Minimize migration of VOCs to groundwater. 

• Reduce, within a reasonable time frame, risks to workers posed by inhalation of 

airbome contaminants volatilized from groundwater. 

• Reduce risks to human health and the environment from current and fiiture migration 

of contaminants in groundwater. 

Major components ofthe 1989 remedy include: 

• Decontamination of surfaces of machinery, equipment, and floors within the plant 

areas ofthe Grant Gear Building; 

• Excavation of approximately 34,000cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils and 

sediments and treatment by solvent extraction; 

• Backfilling of soils and sediments to be covered with asphalt or clean fill 

• Construction and operation ofa Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) to remediate 

groundwater; 

• Restoration of impacted wetlands; 

• Long-term monitoring; and 

• Institutional controls (ICs) 

As a result of higher than anticipated solvent extraction costs and logistical problems 

with its implementation, and in consideration ofthe likely commercial/industrial reuse of 

the property, EPA issued a ROD Amendment in May 1996. The ROD Amendment 

included the demolition of the Grant Gear building, the excavation and consolidation of 

contaminated soils and sediments on site, and the construction of a permanent cap. Soil 

11 
and sediment clean-up goals were further modified as discussed in the Cleanup Goals 

section. 

In accordance with EPA's 1996 Final Ground Water Use and Value Determination 

Guidance, in May 2001, MassDEP submitted a "low" use and value determination for the 

groundwater at and in the vicinity of the Site. This determination was made based on the 

aquifer's classification as a non-potential drinking water source area, as well as the fact 

that nearby residential and commercial properties are supplied by public, municipal 

drinking water sources. 

As a result of MassDEP's "low" use and value determination, the contaminant 

exposure pathways and exposure assumptions used for the ROD were re-evaluated. 

Accordingly, supplemental risk assessment activities were initiated in 2001 and were 

completed in 2004. As the result of these assessments, revised groundwater clean-up 

levels, or risk-based action levels (RBALs), were calculated. These were subsequently 

adopted as groundwater Cleanup goals in a 2005 Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD). Current groundwater clean-up goals are listed in the Clean-up Goal section. 

Response Actions 

Remedial activities were completed in a single Operable Unit (OU); however, the 

activities consisted ofthe following phases: Phase 1 was completed by the EPA and 

consisted of groundwater treatment plant construction and operation; Phase 2 was 

conducted by the Settling Parties and consisted of building demolition; Phase 3 was 

conducted jointly by the Settling Parties and EPA and consisted ofthe construction ofa 

cap and cover over consolidated contaminated soil and sediments (Phase 3A - Settling 

Party-lead) and Meadow Brook Restoration (Phase 3B - EPA lead). 

12 
For EPA-lead activities, such as the GWTP, the design criteria were set forth in 

the final "Plans and Specifications for the Groundwater Remediation at the Norwood 

PCB Superfund Site" prepared by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. on behalf of EPA in 1994. 

Meadow Brook Restoration Phase (Phase 3b) was completed in accordance with a 

UASCE Statement of Work (SOW), which included design details provided by the Town 

of Norwood as part of its flood control/flood mitigation project. Design criteria for the 

Settling Party-lead cleanup work (to address risks associated with the former Grant Gear 

facility and its operations) were set forth in the Statement of Work (SOW) which was 

part ofa 1996 Consent Decree with former owners and operators ofthe Facility (hereafter 

referred to as the "Facility CD") as well as the Remedial Action Work Plans submitted by 

the Settling Parties and approved by EPA consistent with the SOW. 

Sediment 

The Settling Parties performed excavation of sediments in Meadow Brook from 

April 1997 through July 1998. The Meadow Brook remediation was divided into three 

sections referred to as Reach 1, 2, and 3. The excavation of Reach 1 was completed with 

excavation limits determined by the Town of Norwood as this section of the Brook was 

also targeted for sediment removal as part ofthe Town's flood control/flood mitigation 

project. Following the excavation of Reach 1 to grades provided by the Town, an area of 

stained soils was evident at/below a former drainage outfall pipe. Based on the analytical 

results showing PCBs greater than 1 ppm, a limited removal of the stained sediment was 

performed. In total, approximately 2,500 yd'^ of material was excavated from Reach 

1 including 85 yd'^ of stained soil. 

13 
The excavation of Reaches 2 and 3 was performed in two phases - the first 

consisted of sediment removal from the arched culvert section at Dean Street, and the 

second consisted of sediment removal from the box culvert section. Once clean-up levels 

(1 ppm in sediment) were achieved, sediment removal activities were terminated. 

Approximately 2,300 yd of material was excavated from these reaches. 

Soil 

Soils with PCB concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up levels were 

excavated from several on-property areas. In addition, a trichlorobenzene (TCB)-

contaminated soil area was identified west of the former Grant Gear building; this was 

also excavated. Approximately 5,900 yd'' of PCB-contaminated soil was excavated from 

the North Cover Area and stockpiled for placement under the cap/cover. Approximately 

2,600 yd of PCB-contaminated soil was excavated from the South Cover Area and 

stockpiled for placement under the cap/cover. 

With regard to off-property soils, several areas were identified with PCB 

concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up levels. During the remediation of 

Reach 1 of Meadow Brook, PCB-contaminated soils were identified along the North 

Bank Wooded Area. Approximately 100 yd^ of soil was excavated and stockpiled for 

placement under the cap/cover. In addition, PCB-contaminated soils were discovered 

along the South Bank Wooded Area resulting in the excavation of approximately 780 yd 

of soil. 

Beginning in 1997, the stockpiled soils were further consolidated on-site. 

Materials with PCB concentrations exceeding the risk-based, site-specific 

industrial/commercial clean-up levels (of 70 ppm) were placed within the limits of the 

14 
asphalt cap. Materials with PCB concentrations below clean-up level of 70 ppm, but 

above 40 ppm, were placed within the limits of the cover areas. During soil excavation 

and consolidation, on-site underground storage tanks (USTs) were also removed before 

the cap and cover were installed. After the PCB-contaminated materials had been placed, 

the areas were prepared for the installation of the cap and covers. Once the fill was 

placed to the appropriate grade 12 inches below the final grade in capped and covered 

areas, a non-woven geotextile filter fabric was laid across the areas. Subsequently, an 

asphalt Cap or gravel cover was installed in the appropriate areas. 

Groundwater 

The selected remedy for the management of groundwater migration included the 

collection of groundwater using an extraction system consisting shallow extraction wells 

and the construction of a GWTP consisting of carbon adsorption, air stripping, 

precipitation, and filtration. The GWTP was constructed in 1995 and deemed operational 

and functional in February 1997. 

The groundwater treatment system was operational until it was shut down (at that 

time temporarily) in June of 2000. As a result of the revised groundwater classification 

and "low" use and value ascribed by MassDEP in 2001, groundwater cleanup goals were 

further modified in an 2005 ESD. Subsequently, EPA determined that no fiirther 

groundwater clean-up was warranted as revised clean-up goals were being met. The 

GWTP was dismantled in March 2008 just prior to property redevelopment. 

Institutional Controls 

As required by a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) entered in 1997 

between the owner and the EPA , the Owner updated and recorded (with the Norfolk 

15 
County Registry of Deeds) updated ICs in the form ofa Grant of Environmental 

Restrictions and Easement (GERE). The GERE was recorded in March 2008 and entered 

into Book No. 25628, Page No. 534. The GERE restricts certain activities such as day 

care, residential use, and groundwater withdrawal (among others) and permits other 

activities, such as excavation, provided certain safety procedures are followed and 

approvals obtained. Under the terms ofa 1997 Consent Decree (hereafter referred to as 

the "Meadow Brook CD") the Town of Norwood also established ICs on the Meadow 

Brook parcel (recorded at Book No. 26407, Page No. 129). 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goals for PBCs in soil and sediment were modified as a result 

the 1996 ROD Amendment (see table below): 

Property 

Grant Gear Property 

Adjacent Commercial Property 

Soil between Grant Gear and 

Meadow Brook 

Sediment 

Residential Properties 

1989 ROD 

10 ppm 

25 ppm 

1 ppm 

1 ppm 

1 ppm 

1996ROD-A 

40 ppm surface 

70 ppm subsurface 

40 ppm surface 

70 ppm subsurface 

10 ppm surface 

50 ppm subsurface 

1 ppm 

No action required 

Contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and consolidated on property for 

placement within the cap or cover depending on the level of contamination. Post16 
excavation sampling was conducted and described in the remedial action Remediation 

Completion Report prepared by consultants on behalf of the Settling Parties. 

With regard to Groundwater, as described previously, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts classified groundwater beneath and adjacent to the site as "Low" use and 

value. A "Low" designation indicates that it is not a future drinking water source. 

Accordingly, change to the original GW cleanup goals (which were based on MCLs) 

were documented in the 2005 ESD and are summarized below: 

Contaminant 

Trichloroethene 

Tetrachloroethene 

Vinyl Chloride 

Total 1,2-dichloroethenes 

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 

1,4-dichlorobenzene 

1989 ROD 

5 ppb 

5 ppb 

2 ppb 

175 ppb 

350 ppb 

5 ppb 

2005 ESD 

108 ppb 

37 ppb 

310 ppb 

3660 ppb 

34 ppb 

4.6 ppb 

EPA conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring from April 1996 until October 

2002 which coincided with the period of GWTP operation and shortly thereafter. Surface 

water samples were also periodically collected from Meadow Brook. Several years after 

plant shutdown (i.e. in 2005), EPA completed a fmal comprehensive groundwater 

evaluation and the resulting report documented no ROD-specified contaminants in 

groundwater above their respective groundwater clean-up goals established in the ESD. 

Having confirmed that all groundwater clean-up goals were being met (approximately 5 

17 
years after GWTP shut down), it was determined by USEPA and MassDEP that the 

GWTP was no longer necessary. 

Operation and Maintenance 

As described previously, remedial activities were completed in 3 phases (the third 

phase consisting of both a Phase 3 A and Phase 3B). 

Phase 1 - Groundwater Treatment Plant 

Based on achieving revised groundwater clean-up goals modified in the 2005 

ESD, in 2006, EPA determined that the GWTP had reached the end of its "useful life" for 

all uses relative to site response activities. Accordingly, EPA proceeded to remove 

chemical processing equipment from the GWTP and decommission extraction and 

monitoring wells that were not part ofthe long-term monitoring. In a letter dated April 5, 

2007, EPA provided notice to the owner that, as per the PPA, EPA had completed its 

decommissioning activities. Subsequently, on May 16, 2007, EPA received notice from 

the owner of his intention not to reuse the GWTP building. A work plan for its 

dismantling was submitted and approved in September 2007. The building was removed 

in the Spring of 2008. No long-term O&M ofthe treatment plant is required. On-going 

evaluation of groundwater is provided by groundwater samples collected by the Settling 

Parties to the Facility CD as part of their on-going O&M ofthe Cap and Covers (see 

Phase 3A below). 

Phase 2 - Building Demolition 

The building demolition phase took place immediately prior to and in connection 

with the relocation of soil and sediment, and the construction ofthe cap and covers. 

Accordingly there is no O&M associated with this RA. 

18 
Phase 3A - Cap and Covers 

The O&M and Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) were approved in 

November 2004. Consistent with these plans, the Settling Parties to the Facility CD 

annually inspect the cap and covers. As a result of redevelopment, certain cover areas 

have been replaced with a new type of cover (referred to as "foundation cover"). In 

addition, certain monitoring wells selected for long-term monitoring have been relocated. Accordingly, revised O&M and EMP plans were submitted in April 2010 and 

subsequently approved in January 2011. 

Phase 3B - Meadow Brook Restoration 

At the completion of this restoration, and in light of design details provided by the 

Town of Norwood to insure consistency with other flood mitigation projects, an 

Operation Manual was provided to the Town of Norwood in 2000. The Operation 

Manual described recommended procedures and inspections to ensure that the completed 

project continues to fiinction as designed and that the flood control infrastructure remains 

in place to prevent the release of any subsurface contamination. 

Institutional Controls 

EPA and the State will periodically (not less than annually) inspect the property to 

insure that usage has not deviated from those allowed by the ICs. Under the GERE 

recorded on the Facility property, the landowner is obligated to follow procedures to 

ensure that Site redevelopment does not damage components ofthe remedy. On the 

Meadow Brook property, the Town is obligated under the terms ofthe Meadow Brook 

CD to ensure that no release of subsurface contamination occurs either in its maintenance 

19 
of flood control structures or its sewer easement through the area. The status and 

protectiveness of these IC will be summarized in successive five year reviews. 

Redevelopment 

In 1997, the 9-acre Grant Gear property was sold and the new owner obtained a 

PPA from EPA which required the owner to guarantee continued site access, dismantle 

the Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) building (when it had reached the end of its 

"useful life"), as well as record updated Institutional Controls. Subsequently (early 

2000s), the owner entered a 99-year ground lease with a commercial/retail developer. In 

2003, the developer proposed a large (>150,000 square feet) redevelopment; however, 

this would have been situated predominantly over the remedial cap and would have 

required excavation into contaminated soil. Based on local concems associated with 

disturbing the capped area, traffic, and other local land use issues, this redevelopment 

was not approved by the Town. 

Thus, in 2007, a different commercial/retail developer proposed modifications to 

the original redevelopment plan including the constmction of buildings around the 

footprint ofthe capped portion ofthe site. This reuse would ensure that none ofthe 

highest-contaminated material would be exposed. The revised work plan for 

redevelopment (WPR) was approved by EPA and MassDEP in March 2008, after which 

the developer received the necessary Town approvals. Construction ensued in May 2008 

and was substantially complete in October 2008. • 

As a precaution and to ensure against the accumulation of vapors from 

groundwater to indoor air, a passive vapor mitigation system was required and installed 

in each ofthe commercial building. As required in the WPR, post construction and prior 

20 
to occupancy, sub-slab air samples were collected and analyzed and a risk assessment 

completed. Based on this analysis, the risks were found to be acceptable (i.e., less than 1 

X 10'^) for a future commercial worker. Moreover, based on local zoning as well as 

restriction recorded against the property (described further below), residential use is 

prohibited. In the future, as necessary and pending future monitoring results, the sub-slab 

ventilation systems can be made to be actively vented with the addition of blowers or 

vacuum pumps. 

Presently, two buildings totaling 56,000square feet of commercial/retail space are 

situated on the Norwood PCBs site. The cap, under which is located the highest 

concentrations of PCBs, serves as a central parking lot for the development. To date, the 

development is not occupied. 

Five-Year Review 

Since hazardous substances will remain on the site above levels allowing for 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory five year reviews have been conducted 

by EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 121 C as provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-

03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. 

The First Five-Year Review, dated 30 December 1999, concluded that the remedy 

was protective and recommended that, in light ofthe State's reclassification of 

groundwater, a risk assessment be competed. Upon attaining revised risk-based clean-up 

levels, groundwater treatment was no longer required, but monitoring was continued to 

verify that revised groundwater standards would continue to be met. 

The Second Five-Year Review, dated 29 December 2004, concluded that the 

remedy was short-term protective of human health and the environment based on 

21 
continued compliance with new clean-up goals. In addition, O&M plans were submitted 

for both the Facility and Meadow Brook properties. The 2004 review also concluded that 

in order for the remedy to remain protective in the long-term, the following actions 

needed to be taken: 1. updated institutional controls needed to be recorded, and 2. 

Operation and Maintenance (including monitoring) needed to be conducted regularly 

[both of which have since occurred]. 

The Third Five-Year Review, completed in December 2009, concluded that the 

remedy at the Norwood PCBs Site continues to protect human health and the 

environment through meeting groundwater clean-up goals, the establishment of 

institutional controls, and the maintenance of remedy infrastructure concurrently during 

redevelopment ofthe Site. The 2009 Five Year Review also concluded that in order for 

the remedy to remain protective, the Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan and 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) must be updated to reflect changes in site 

conditions as a result ofthe redevelopment. These have been updated and approved 

(January 2011). 

The Fourth Five-Year Review is due in December 2014. 

Community Involvement 

EPA community participation at the site has taken many forms. In addition to 

statutorily-required meetings and public hearings associated with the 1989 ROD and 

1996 ROD Amendment, EPA has participated in numerous other outreach activities. 

EPA conducted public outreach during each ofthe three five-year reviews. EPA 

prepared updated Fact Sheets in 2003, 2005, and 2007. The Fact Sheets were distributed 

to mailing list recipients as well as hand-distributed to all abutting residences and 

22 
business owners. Extra copies ofthe fact sheets have been made available to the public 

at the following locations: the Norwood Public library and Norwood Town Hall. 

In addition, EPA has attended numerous Public Meetings during the site 

redevelopment approval process. All Community Involvement activities required and in 

association with this proposed deletion have been completed, including the publication of 

a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation regarding this proposed deletion and 

the availability of documents located in the Deletion Docket. 

Determination that the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if "all appropriate 

responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions 

required" or "all appropriate fund-financed response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate". EPA, 

with the concurrence ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the MassDEP by a 

letter dated [Date], believes these criteria for deletion have been satisfied. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing the deletion ofthe site from the NPL. All ofthe completion 

requirements for the site have been met as described in the Norwood PCBs Final Close 

Out Report (FCOR) dated September 2009. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence ofthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the 

MassDEP has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation and maintenance, routine monitoring, and five year reviews, have been 

completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL. 

23 
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective [insert date 60 davs from 

the date of publication in the Federal Register] unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by [insert date within 30 days of this publication in the Federal Register]. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date ofthe 

deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and 

continue with the deletion process on the basis ofthe notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection. Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste. 

Hazardous substances. Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. 

Date H. Curtis Spalding 

Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 1 

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 

CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing "Norwood PCBs", 

"Norwood ". 

24