Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0002-0070
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-09-03T04:00Z

SFUND­
2001­
0009­
0002
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
COVER
SHEET
Name
of
Site:
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Company
(HPC)
EPA
ID
No.
MAD001060805
Contact
Persons
Site
Inspection:

Documentation
Record:
Paul
Schrot
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.
(781)
899­
9818
Kenyon
A.
Larsen
DynCorp
I&
ET,
Inc.
(703)
461­
2448
Nancy
Smith
EPA,
New
England
Region
(617)
918­
1436
Pathways,
Components.
or
Threats
Not
Scored
The
soil
exposure
pathway
was
not
scored
because
there
are
currently
no
resident
individuals,
workers,
sensitive
environments,
or
resources
on
or
within
200
feet
of
sources
at
the
site.
The
air
pathway
was
not
scored
because
there
is
no
documented
observed
release
to
the
atmosphere
and
scoring
the
potential
to
release
to
air
would
not
likely
contribute
significantly
to
;the
overall
site
score.
Although
hazardous
substances
attributable
to
the
site
are
likely
traveling
via
ground
water
toward
surface
water,
the
overland
flowlflood
component
ofthe
surface
water
pathway
yields
the
maximum
pathway
score
of
100.
The
ground
water
to
surface
water
component
of
the
surface
water
pathway
is
likely
to
score
lower
than
the
overland
flowlflood
component.

July
2001
HRS
DOCUMENTATION
RECORD
Name
ofSite:
HathewayandPattersonCompany
EPA
1
Date
Prepared:
July
10,2001
StreetAddress
of
Site:
15
CountyRoad
City,
County,
State,
Zip
Code:
Mansfield,
Bristol
County,
Massachusetts,
02048
GeneralLocation
in
the
State:
Southeasternquadrant
Topographic
Map:
USGS
1987.
Brockton,
MA
Quadrangle(
7.5x15­
minuteseriestopographicmap)

Latitude:
17.5"
North
Longitude:
710
13'
21.0"
West
The
reference
point
for
the
latitude
and
longitude
measurements
is
the
confluence
of
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Conrail
railroad
trestle
[ref.
31.

July
2001
Ground
Water
Pathway
Surface
Water
Pathway
Soil
Exposure
Pathway
Air
Pathway
Y
HRS
SITE
SCORE
1
Scores
53.04
100.00
Not
Scored
Not
Scored
56.6
1.
GroundWaterMigration
Pathway
Score
(S,)
(from
Table
3­
1,
line
13)

2a.
Surface
Water
Overland/
Flood
Migration
Component
(from
Table
4­
1,
line
30)

2b.
Ground
Water
to
Surface
Water
Migration
Component
(from
Table
4­
25,
line
28)

2c.
Surface
Water
Migration
Pathway
Score
(SJ
Enter
the
larger
of
lines
2a
and
2b
as
the
pathway
score.

3.
Soil
ExposurePathway
Score
(S,)
(from
Table
5­
1,
line
22)

4.
Air
MigrationPathway
Score
(S$
(from
Table
6­
1,
line
12)

5.
Total
of
SgG
+
S,;
+
S,
'
+
S:

6
.
HRS
SiteScore
Divide
the
value
on
line
5
by
4
and
take
the
square
root
­
S
53.04
100
0
100
0
0
­
SZ
2813.24
10000
0
10000
0
0
12813.24
56.6
July
2001
2
TABLE
3­
1
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
SCORESHEET
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
1
I
Likelihood
of
Release
to
an
Aquifer
Value
Assigned
Maximum
Value
1.
Observed
Release
2.
Potential
to
Release
550
I
550
2a.
Containment
500
2e.
Potential
to
Release:
[lines
2a
x
(2b
+
2c
+
2d)
l
35
2d.
Travel
Time
­
5
2c.
Depth
to
Aquifer
­
10
2b.
Net
Precipitation
10
­

­

3.
Likelihood
of
Release:
Figher
of
lines
1
and
2e]
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
4.
ToxicityMobility
18
100
6.
Waste
Characteristics
10
a
5.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
10000
a
Targets
7.
Nearest
Well
8.
Population
5
50
8a.
Level
I
Concentrations
437
b
8d.
Population
(lines
8a
+
8b
+
8c)
437
b
8c.
Potential
Contamination
0
b
8b.
Level
I1
Concentrations
0
b
9.
Resources
0
20
10.
Wellhead
Protection
Area
0
5
442
b
11.
Targets
(lines
7
+
8d
+
9
+
10)

GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
SCORE
FOR
AN
AQUIFER
12.
Aquifer
Score
[(
lines
3
x
6
x
11)/
82,5001"

GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
SCORE
100
13.
Pathway
Score
(S,),
(highest
value
from
line
12
for
all
aquifers
taximum
value
applies
to
waste
characteristics
category.
I
53.04
evaluatedy
53.04
100
bMaximum
value
not
applicable.
"Do
not
round
to
nearest
integer.
"

July
200
1
3
TABLE
4­
1
SURFACE
WATER
OVERLANDiFLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORESHEET
Factor
Categories
and
Factors
MaximumValueValueAssigned
DRINKING
WATER
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
1.
ObservedRelease
2.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
I
550
I
550
2a.
Containment
2d.
Potential
to
Release
by
Overland
Flow
(lines
2a
x
[2b
+
25
26.
Distance
to
Surface
Water
25
2b.
Runoff
10
2cl)
500
3.
Potential
to
Release
by
Flood
3a.
Containment
(Flood)

5003c.
Potential
to
Release
byFlood(
lines
3a
x
3b)
50
3b.
Flood
Frequency
10
4.
Potential
to
Release
(lines
2d
+
3c,
maximum
of
500)
500
5.
Likelihood
of
Release
(higher
of
lines
1
and
4)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
6.
ToxicityDersistence
100
8.
WasteCharacteristics
a
7.
HazardousWasteQuantity
a
Targets
9.
NearestIntake
LO.
Population
I
50
I
loa.
Level
I
Concentrations
b
lob.
Level
II
Concentrations
b
b
10d.
Population(
lines10a
f
10b
+
1Oc)
b
1Oc.
PotentialContamination
I
1.
Resources
5
12.
Targets
(lines
9
+
10d
­t
11)
b
13.
Drinking
Water
Threat
Score
([
lines
5
x
8
x
12]/
82,500,
100
Not
Scored
maximum
of
100)

HUMAN
FOOD
CHAIN
THREAT
July
4
Likelihood
of
Release
14.
Likelihood
of
Release
(same
value
as
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
15.
ToxicityiPersistenceiBioaccumulation
320
1,000
17.
WasteCharacteristics
100
a
16.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
5
x
lo8
a
Targets
18.
Food
Chain
Individual
19.
Population
50
50
19a.
Level
I
Concentrations
0.00483
b
19c.
PotentialHumanFoodChainContamination
0.03
b
19b.
Level
I1
Concentrations
3
b
3.03483
b
19d.
Population(
lines
19a
+
19b
+
19c)

20.
Targets
(lines
18
+
19d)
b
­
53.03483
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Score
2
1.
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Score
100
100
([
lines
14
x
17
x
20]/
82,500,
subject,
to
a
maximum
of
100)

Factor
Categories
and
Factors
Value
Assigned
Maximum
Value
ENVIRONMENTAL
THREAT
Likelihood
of
Release
22.
Likelihood
of
Release
(same
value
as
line
5)
550
550
Waste
Characteristics
23.
EcosystemToxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
320
1,000
25.
WasteCharacteristics
100
a
24.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
5
x
lo8
a
Targets
26.
SensitiveEnvironments
26a.
Level
I
Concentrations
50
b
26d.
SensitiveEnvironments(
lines26a
+
26b
+
26c)
0
b26c.
PotentialContamination
50
b26b.
Level
II
Concentrations
0
b
27.
Targets
(value
from
26d)
b
50
July
5
Environmental
Threat
Score
~
~~

28.
Environmental
Threat
Score
([
lines
22
x
25
x
27]/
82,500,
a
60
60
maximum
of
60)

SURFACE
WATER
OVERLANDELOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORE
FOR
A
WATERSHED
29.
Watershed
Score'
(lines
13
+
21
+
28,
a
maximum
of
100)
I
100
100
SURFACE
WATER
OVElUAND/
FLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
SCORE
30.
Component
Score
(SJ,
(highest
score
from
line
29.
for
all
100
100
watersheds
evaluated,
a
maximum
of
100)

"Maximum=
value
applies
to
waste
characteristics
category.
bMaximum
value
not
applicable.
"Do
not
round
to
nearest
integer.

July
2001
6
Y
Source:
Base
Map
is
a
Portion
of
the
Following
7.5
X
15'
U.
S.
G.
S
Quadrangle
:
Brockton,
Mass
1987
I
.
FIGURE
I
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
HATHEWAY
AND
PATTERSON
MANSFIELD,
MASSACHUSETTS
DATE:
NOVEMBER
6,2000
Q
+­"+
+"+
111.­
­
MILES
July
2001
7
REFERENCES
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
Hazard
Ranking
System,
55
FR
51533
(40
CFR
Part
300,
Appendix
A),
December
14,
1990.
(136
pages)

2.
EPA,
Superfund
Chemical
Data
Matrix,
June
1996.
(24
pages)

3.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(USGS).
7.5
X
15
Minute
Quadrangle
1:
25,000
Scale
Topographic
Map
of
Brockton,
MA.
1987.

4.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.
(START).
AJter
Action
Report
for
the
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Site,
MansJield,
Massachusetts.
TDD
No;
95­
0610­
15C.
October
1995.
(75
pages)

5.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.
(TAT).
Removal
Program
­
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site
Investigation
(PA/
SI)
for
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Site,
Mansfield,
Massachusetts.
TDD
No.
01­
9306­
0lA.
August
1993.
(34
pages)

6.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.
(STAKT).
Field
Logbook
for
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Site
Inspection.
No.
003174.
TDD
No.
98­
01­
0018.
1998.
(4
pages)

7.
MADEP
(Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection).
Preliminary
Assessment
Report
for
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Co.,
Inc.,
Mans$
eld
Massachusetts.
December
1994.
(26
pages)

8.
Keystone
Environmental
Resources,
Inc.
A
Soils
and
Hydrogeologic
Investigation.
Prepared
for
Hatheway
&
Patterson
Company,
Inc.
May
1988.
(108
pages)

9.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Public
Drinking
Water
Supply
Wells
Within
4
Radial
Miles
of
Hatheway
and
Patterson.
November
6,2000.
(1
page)

10.
US.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
0;
WS).
National
Wetlands
Inventory
Map
for
Attleboro
Quadrangle,
MA.
undated.

11.
PWS.
National
Wetlands
Inventory
Map
for
Mansfield
Quadrangle,
MA.
undated.

12.
FWS.
National
Wetlands
Inventory
Map
for
Norton
Quadrangle,
MA.
undated.

13.
Bird,
Robert
H.
(Resource
Control
Associates,
Inc.).
Letter
to
Richard
Sacchetti
and
Robert
C.
Atwood
(Clean­
Start
Properties
Unlimited,
LLC),
RE:
Results
of
Dioxin
Sampling
and
Analysis,
Porter
Estate,
Foxborough,
MA.
January
31,
200
1.
(4
pages)

14:
Wielandt,
D.
(Lockheed
Environmental).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0298F,
SDG
No.
DO01
81.
Rumford
River
Site.
January
31;
2000.
(12
pages)

15.
Bartels,
J
(Lockheed
Environmental).
Letter
to
C
.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0298F,
SDG
No.
D00192.
Rumford
River
Site.
January
13,2000.
(12
pages)

16.
Keystone
Environmental
Resources,
Inc.
Phase
ZI
Site
Investigation.
December
1989.
Appendix
A,
B,
C,
3
(Attachments)

17.
Keystone
Environmental
Resources,
Inc.
Design
Report
for
Short­
Term
Measure.
July
1991.
(37
pages)

18.
Keystone
Environmental
Resources,
Inc.
Completion
Report
for
Short­
Term
Measure.
January
1992.
(32
pages)

19.
Penney
Engineering,
Inc.
Monthly
Monitoring
Report
for
February,
1992.
April
8,1992.
(9
pages)

20.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Kurt
Gaffney,
Water
Operations
Manager
of
the
Mansfield
Water
Department,
RE:
Public
Drinking
Water
Sources.
September
11,2000.
(3
pages)

21.
MADEP
(Massachusqtts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection).
Database
of
Community
Water
Supplies.
Printout
Dated
24
July.
1995.
(I
1
pages)

July
2001
9
22.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Dave
Masciarelli,
Water
Division
Supervisor
of
the
Sharon
Water
Department,
RE:
Public
Drinking
Water
Sources.
September
18,2000.
(7
pages)

23.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Duane
Knapp,
Superintendent
of
the
Norton
Water
Department,
RE:
Public
Drinking
Water
Sources.
September
11,2000.
(9
pages)

24.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Wayne
Southworth,
Superintendent
of
the
Easton
Water
Department,
RE:
Public
Drinking
Water
Sources.
September
18,2000.
(3
pages)

25.
Foster,
James
P.
Letter
to
Massachusetts
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Water
Pollution
Control.
Re:
Rumford
River
Stream
Pollution
Concerns.
December
20,
1972.
(9
pages)

26.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Warren
McKay,
Superintendent
of
the
Foxborough
Water
Department,
RE:
Public
Drinking
Water
Sources.
September
11
,
2000.
(8
pages)

28.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Tom
Shepard,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
RE:
Rumford
Water
Flow
Rate.
April
8,
1998.
(1
page)

29.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Phone
Conversation
Record
with
Mr.
Tom
Shepard,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
RE:
Threemile
River
Flow
Rate.
April
2,
1998.
(1
page)

30.
Schrot,
P.
(START).
Project
Note,
Hatheway
and
Patterson,
RE:
Estimated
Flow
Rates
for
Rumford
River
and
Threemile
River.
June
2,
1998.
(1
page)

3
1.
MADEP
(Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection).
Massachusetts
Surface
Water
Quality
Standards.
Division
of
Water
Pollution
Control.
Publication
No.
16,484­
114­
100­
90­
CR.
1990.
(9
pages)

32.
Fritz,
J.
(U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
Project
Note,
Hatheway
and
Patterson,
RE:
Rare
and
Endangered
Species
Report,
Hatheway
and
Patterson,
Mansfield,
MA.
1998.
(3
pages)

33.
Sulkowski,
L.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0298F,
SDG
No.
D00181­
OA.
Rumford
River
Site.
December
21,
1999.
(12
pages)

34.
Buttenvorth,
Mandy,
Roy
F.
Weston,
to
Rumford
River
Site
File.
Re:
Site
activities
at
the
Rumford
River
Site,
Mansfield,
Norfolk
County,
MA.
October
15,
1999.
(9
pages)

35.
Hurley,
S.
(Massachusetts
Division
of
Fisheries
and
Wildlife).
Letter
to
Ms.
Laura
Ulrich,
Camp,
Dresser,
&
McKee,
Inc.
(CD)
Federal
Programs
Corporation.
RE:
Fisheries
Information.
undated.
(3
pages)

36.
Lambert,
T:
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0188F,
SDG
No.
DAF40C­
I.
Rumford
River
Site.
January
28,1999.
(17
pages)

37.
Lambert,
T.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
CLARK
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
OlSSF,
SDG
No.
DAF44C­
I.,
Rumford
River
Site.
January
28,1999.
(12
pages)

38.
Sulkowski,
L.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0188F,
SDG
Bi,
DAF40C­
0.
Rumford
River
Site.
January
27,1999.
(22
pages)

39.
Sulkowski,
L.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
0188F,
SDG
Bi,
DAF44C­
0.
Rumford
River
Site.
January
25,
1999.
(1
1
pages)

40.
Bartels,
J.
(Lockheed
Environmental).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
DAS
No.
0189F,
SDG
No.
DAF40C.
Rumford
River
Site.
December
18,
1998.
(30
pages)

July
1
0
41.
Benoit,
A.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
dE:
Case
No.
021
lF,
SDG
No.
DAF67C­
I.
Rumford
River
Site.
February
1,1999.
(10
pages)

42.
Switalski,
G.
(START).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
Case
No.
021
lF,
SDG
No.
DAF67C­
01.
Rumford
River
Site.
February
2,1999.
(9
pages)

43.
Bartels,
J.
(Lockheed
Environmental).
Letter
to
C.
Clark
(EPA),
RE:
DAS
No.
021
lF,
SDG
No.
DAF67C.
Rumford
River
Site.
February
2,
1999.
(1
1
pages)

44.
Fritz
&
Sheehan
Associates,
Inc.,
U.
S.
District
Court,
District
of
Massachusetts,
Civil
Action
No.
94­
12260,
U.
S.
A.
v.
William
E.
Haynes,
Deposition
of
William
E.
Haynes
taken
on
behalf
of
the
Plaintiff.
Deposition
taken
on
July
26,
1995.
Report
stamped
October
6,
1995.
(79
pages)

45.
ATSDR,
ToxFAQs
on
Pentachlorophenol,
CAS#
87­
86­
5,
September
1995,
accessed
electronically
on
January
9,2001,
available
at
http://
www.
atsdr.
cdc.
gov/
tfacts5
1
.html.
(4
pages)

46.
Johnson,
Barry
L.,
Assistant
Surgeon
General,
Congressional
Testimony
on
Public
Health
Implications
of
Dioxins
before
the
Subcommittee
on
Human
Resources
and
Intergovernmental
Relations,
Committee
on
Government
Operations,
House
of
Representatives,
June
10,
1992.
(13
pages)

47.
Krueger,
Elaine
T.,
Chief,
Environmental
Toxicology
Unit,
Bureau
of
Environmental
Assessment,
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts,
to
Scott
Leite,
Mansfield
Board
of
Health.
Letter
re:
Updated
Public
Health
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
for
the
Rumford
River.
June
30,1999.
(6
pages)

48.
EPA.
Wood
Preserving
RCRA
Compliance
Guide.
June
1996.
(117
pages)

49.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.,
START
Team.
Final
Site
Inspection
Report
for
Hatheway
and
Patterson.
CERCLIS
No.
MAS001060805.
December
1999.
(79
pages)

50.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.,
START
Team.
Trip
Report
­
On­
Site
Reconnaissance,
Hatheway
&
Patterson,
April
10,
1998,
report
dated
June
11,
1999.
(1
1
pages)

5
1.
Clean
Harbors
Environmental
Services,
Analytical
Data
Package,
Volume
I,
Hatheway
&
Patterson
Site,
Mansfield,
Massachusetts.
Prepared
for
MADEP
(Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection).
August
21,
1998.
(24
pages)

52.
EPA.
Presumptive
Remedies
for
Soils,
Sediments,
and
Sludges
at
Wood
Treater
Sites.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Directive
9200.5­
162.
EPA/
54OiR­
95/
128.
Available
fiom
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfUnd/
resources/
presump/
woo~
wodtreat.
pdf.
August
4,
1997.
(20
pages)

53.
Roy
F.
Weston,
Inc.
Final
Soil
Sampling
and
Field
Screening,
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Site.
Prepared
for
U.
S.
EPA's
Emergency
Response
Team
(ERT).
Weston
Work
Order
03347­
040­
001­
0053­
01.
December
1994.
(145
pages)

54.
Martin,
Gerard,
MADEP,
to
David
Mcintyre,
US.
EPA.
Letter
re:
Request
for
EPA
Assistance
on
Former
Hatheway
and
Patterson,
with
dioxin
and
furan
analytical
results
attached.
September
23,
1998.
(22
pages)

55.
Krueger,
Elaine
T.,
Chief,
Environmental
Toxicology
Unit,
Bureau
of
Environmental
Assessment,
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts,
to
Richard
Haworth,
U.
S.
EPA,
Letter
re:
Regular
Public
Health
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
for
the
Rumford
River.
June
30,1999.
(2
pages)

56.
Krueger,
Elaine
T.,
Chief,
Environmental
Toxicology
Unit,
Bureau
of
Environmental
Assessment,
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts,
to
Scott
Leite,
Mansfield
Board
of
Health.
Letter
re:
Provisional
Public
Health
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
for
the
Rumford
River.
October
19,
1998.
(8
pages)

57.
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR),
Health
Consultation
for
the
Rumford
River
Site,
Mansfield,
Bristol
County,
Massachusetts,
prepared
by
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Public
Health.
June
16,1999.
(17
pages)

July
2001
11
Site
Summary
The
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Company
(€€
PC)
site
is
located
in
a
mixed
residentiavindustrial
area.
The
€PC
property
is
approximately
40
acres
and
located
at
15
County
Street
in
Mansfield,
Bristol
County,
Massachusetts
(see
Figure
1).
The
HPC
property
is
bordered
to
the
north
by
County
Street
and
residential
properties,
to
the
south
and
west
by
forested
and
wetland
areas,
and
to
the
east
by
T.
D.
Verroch,
Inc,
a
welding
and
masonry
supply
company
[refs.
3;
6,
p.
21.
In
the
southern
portion
of
the
property,
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
flows
from
east
to
west.
Palustrine
forested
wetlands
surround
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
111.
The
property
is
roughly
divided
in
half
by
the
Rumford
River,
which
runs
north
to
south,
and
by
a
railroad
track
right­
of­
way,
which
runs
east
to
west
(see
Figure
2).

ODerational
History
The
HPC
site
is
a
former
wood
preserving
facility.
Operations
at
the
HPC
property
included
preserving
wood
sheeting,
planking,
timber,
piling,
poles,
and
other
wood
products
[ref.
7,
p.
71.
HPC
began
wood
treating
operations
at
the
property
in
1953,
although
HPC
operated
at
the
facility
since
1927.
Little
is
known
about
operations
between
1927
and
1953,
although
a
portion
ofthe
property
was
used
as
a
coal
storage
area
for
locomotive
engines
[refs.
4,
p.
5;
5
pp.
4
and
5;
16,
pp.
1­
1;
1­
21.
HPC
historically
used
various
methods
and
materials
to
treat
wood
on
the
property.
From
1953
to
1958,
HPC
used
a
solution
of
pentachlorophenol
(PCP)
in
fuel
oil
and
it
also
used
creosote
to
treat
lumber.
From
1958
to
1974
HPC
continued
to
use
PCP
and
also
used
fluoro­
chrome­
arsenate­
phenol
(FCAP)
salts
in
water.
From
1960
to
1984,
PCP
in
mineral
spirits
and
chromated
copper­
arsenate
(CCA)
in
salts
were
used
by
HPC.
CCA
salts
and
PCP
in
water
were
used
from
1984
until
HPC
filed
for
bankruptcy
and
ceased
operations
in
April
1993
[refs.
4,
p.
5;
5
pp.
4
and
51.

Historv
of
Contamination
Problems
and
State
Actions
In
1971,
a
tar
mat
approximately
62
feet
long
and
6
inches
deep
was
discovered
by
Town
of
Mansfield
and
M&
DEP
personnel
[ref.
4,
p.
51.
At
the
end
of
1932,
a
citizen
complainted
of
"oily
water"
and
dead­
water
fowl
in
the
Rumford
River
downstream
of
Fulton
Pond
[ref.
251.
The
citizen
walked
up
the
Rumford
River
to
the
origin
of
the
oily
discharge
and
found
it
to
be
coming
from
two
large
below­
ground
tanks
containing
oil,
which
were
part
of
a
"...
timber
treatment
plant
on
County
Street
in
Mansfield."
[ref.
25,
p.
61.
The
citizen
described
an
"earthen
catchment
basin"
that
contained
"oil."
The
oil
was
discharged
from
the
catchment
basin
to
the
Rumford
River
via
a
tile
train
pipe
[ref.
25,
p.
61.
Five
samples
(A
through
E)
collected
in
December
1972
(Sample
A
was
Rumford
River
sediment
and
Samples
B
through
E
were
from
tanks)
qualitatively
revealed
PCP
contamination
up
to
3.66
percent
by
weight
(Sample
A)
[ref.
25,
pp.
3,4,5,
and
81.

Subsequently,
MADEP
and
the
Town
of
Mansfield
requested
that
HPC
contain
the
seepage.
By
1973,
HPC
developed
a
contaminated
ground
water
recovery
trench
located
along
the
east
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
just
upstream
of
its
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
4,
pp.
5,
8,
Figures
A­
4
and
A­
71.
Contaminated
ground
water
was
pumped
by
HPC
from
1973
through
1976.
Oily
seepage
was
again
detected
in
the
Rumford
River
in
1981
by
a
prospective
buyer
of
the
site
[ref.
4,
p.
81.
In
1987,
HPC
was
issued
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance
WON)
by
the
MADEP,
which
ordered
that
HPC
conduct
a
soils
and
hydrology
assessment
of
the
site
[ref.
8,
p.
I].
In
1988,
MADEP
issued
HPC
a
Notice
of
Responsibility
(NOR)
and
in
1990,
MADEP
issued
a
Request
for
Short­
Term
Measure
(STM)
to
address
the
imminent
contamination
of
the
Rumford
River
emanating
fkom
the
site
[refs.
4,
p.
8;
17,
p.
1­
I}.
In
1992,
the
U.
S.
EPA's
RCRA
program
personnel
conducted
inspections
of
the
HPC
facility
to
determine
compliance
with
RCRA
drip
pad
standards.
Observations
during
these
RCRA
inspections
determined
that
the
drip
pads
were
not
in
compliance
and
HPC
did
not
possess
appropriate
documentation
and
certification
for
operation
of
the
drip
pads
[ref.
4,
p.
81.
Penny
Engineering,
Inc.
operated
the
STM
for
HPC,
which
consisted
of
a
retaining
wall,
sumps,
and
ground
water
treatment
system
located
adjacent
to
the
east
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
just
upstream
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
19,
Figure
11.
Penny
Engineering,
Inc.
submitted
quarterly
monitoring
of
treated
ground
water
that
was
discharged
to
the
Rumford
River
[ref.
191.
In
January
1993,
MADEP
requested
that
HPC
perform
a
second
STM,
which
called
for
additional
site
assessment
followed
by
implementation
of
environmental
controls
designed
to
contain
releases
at
the
site
[ref.
4,
p.
X].

EPA
Removal
Action
Because
wood
treating
solvents,
chemicals,
sludges,
tanks,
sumps
and
drums
were
abandoned
by
€€
PC
on
the
property
with
no
electricity
or
heat,
conditions
at
the
site
posed
a
threat
of
hazardous
substance
releases.
Therefore,
in
December
1993,
EPA
Region
1's
Emergency
Planning
and
Response
Branch
initiated
a
two­
year
removal
action
to
address
problems
at
the
HPC
site
[ref.
4,
p.
11.
Upon
initiating
the
removal
action,
EPA
discovered
several
process
and
support
buildings
that
contained
large
tanks,
process
vessels,
drums,
sumps,
pits,
and
various
small
containers.
Outside
on
the
property,
EPA
discovered
three
drip
pads
(CCA,
PCP,
and
Driconm),
treated
lumber
storage
areas,
three
above­
ground
tanks
containing
PCP,
another
tank
containing
fuel
oil,
three
tanks
containing
fire
retardant
(Driconm)
in
water,
and
six
underground
storage
tanks
containing
various
process
wastes
[ref.
4,
p.
51.
A
removal
disposal
summary
table
indicated
that
the
following
materials
were
left
on
the
property
by
HPC
[ref.
4,
Table
C­
11:

July
2001
1
2
580
small
containers
containing
flammable
liquids,
aerosols,
and
spent
batteries;
12
chemical­
filled
drums;
45,861
gallons
of
Dricon'"
'
liquid
(from
tanks
T­
01,
T­
02,
T­
04,
and
sumps/
pits);
60
drums
(approximately
3,300
gallons)
of
waste
CCA
liquid
from
tanks
T­
17
to
T­
21;
65
drums
(approximately
3,575
gallons)
of
liquid
waste
from
tanks
T­
13,
T­
14,
T­
15,
T­
23,
and
T­
29;
62
drums
(approximately
3,410
gallons)
of
waste
sludges
from
tanks
T­
12a,
T­
l2b,
T­
16,
T­
13,
T­
14,
T­
27,
T­
29,
and
a
PCP
sump;
88
drums
(approximately
4,840
gallons)
of
waste
PCP
sludge
from
tanks
T­
05
and
T­
3
1
and
PCP­
contaminated
soil/
debris;
26,836
gallons
ofwastewater
and
sludges
from
tanks
T­
09,
T­
10,
T­
11,
T­
26,
T­
30a7
T­
30b7
T­
30c,
T­
31,
and
T­
32;
and
10,030
gallons
of
waste
PCP
liquid
from
tanks
T­
05,
T­
06,
and
T­
07.

Although
these
materials
were
removed
from
the
site
and
either
recycled
or
disposed
of
at
an
approved
facility,
they
are
likely
to
have
contributed
to
soil,
ground
water,
and
surface
water
contamination
at
the
site
prior
to
the
removal
action
[ref.
4,
p.
401.
Although
the
EPA
removal
action
addressed
direct
contact
threats
posed
by
contaminated
soils
by
covering
them
with
asphalt
or
gravel,
the
contaminated
soils
still
remain
at
the
site.
Only
portions
of
the
contaminated
soils
(evaluated
as
Sources
1
and
2
in
this
documentation
record)
were
covered,
and
future
hazardous
substance
migration
to
ground
water
and
surface
water
is
not
mitigated
by
these
covers
[ref.
4,
p.
1,
figures
A­
4
to
A­
81.
EPA's
removal
action
concluded
in
September
1995
[ref.
4,
p.
401.

HRS
Documentation
Record
Overview
For
HRS
scoring
purposes
in
this
documentation
record,
the
operations
of
HPC
have
been
separated
into
two
areas:
the
former
operations
area
located
north
of
the
railroad
tracks;
and
the
southern
wood
storage
areas
south
of
the
railroad
tracks.
Contaminated
soil
in
the
former
operations
area
is
evaluated
as
Source
1
and
contaminated
soil
in
the
southern
wood
storage
area
is
evaluated
as
Source
2.
The
ground
water
migration
pathway
and
the
surface
water
migration
pathway
overland
flow/
flood
component
are
scored
in
this
documentation
record.

Acronyms
and
Terminology
AST
ATSDR
CCA
CRQL
CRDL
EPA
ERT
EWD
FCAP
FWD
HPC
HpCDD
HxCDD
HpCDF
HxCDF
MADEP
m
g
b
mgh
MSL
MWD
NON
NOR
PA
PAH
PCP
PPE
ngn<
g
P
a
PPb
PPm
RCRA
SI
Above
ground
storage
tank
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
Chromated
copper­
arsenate
Contract
Required
Quantitation
Limit
Contract
Required
Detection
Limit
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Emergency
Response
Team
Town
of
Easton
Water
Department
Fluoro­
chrome­
arsenate­
phenol
Town
of
Foxborough
Water
Department
Hatheway
and
Patterson
Company
Heptachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
Heptachlorodibenzo
furan
Hexachlorodibenzo
furan
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Milligrams
per
kilogram
Milligrams
per
liter
Mean
sea
level
Town
of
Mansfield
Water
Department
Nanograms
per
kilogram
Notice
of
Noncompliance
Notice
of
Responsibility
Preliminary
Assessment
Polycyclic
Aromatic
Hydrocarbon
Pentachlorophenol
Picograms
per
liter
Probably
point
of
entry
Parts
per
billion
Parts
per
million
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Site
Inspection
July
13
START
svoc
SWD
TAL
TCDD
TCDF
P
g
k
UST
voc
XRF
July
2001
Superfimd
Technical
Assessment
and
Response
Team
Semi­
volatile
organic
compound
Town
of
Sharon
Water
Department
Target
Analyte
List
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
Tetrachlorodibenzo
fixan
Micrograms
per
kilogram
Micrograms
per
liter
Underground
storage
tank
Volatile
organic
compound
X­
ray
fluorescence
14
2.2
SOURCE
CHARACTERIZATION
2.2.1
SOURCE
IDENTIFICATION
Source
1
:
Contaminated
Soil
in
Former
Operations
Area
Source
Tvue:
Contaminated
Soil
Descriution
and
Location
of
Source
(with
reference
to
a
map
of
the
site):

HPC
is
a
former
wood
preserving
facility.
Wood
treating
operations
formerly
took
place
north
of
the
railroad
tracks
on
both
sides
of
the
Rumford
River,
which
flows
northeast
to
southwest
down
the
middle
of
the
property.
The
far
northwest
comer
of
the
property,
where
wood
treating
and
storage
occurred,
and
where
the
Rumford
River
enters
the
property,
is
included
in
this
source.
In
this
area
of
the
facility,
HPC
preserved
and
stored
wood
products,
including
sheeting,
planking,
timber,
pilings,
poles
and
other
wood
products
using
a
variety
of
methods
and
materials
[ref.
7,
p.
71.

Several
buildings
remain
in
the
former
operations
area,
including
cylinder
building
numbers
1,2,
and
3,
the
kiln
building,
the
mill
building,
the
stacker
building,
the
Dricon'"
'
building,
an
office,
and
a
laboratory.
The
wood
treating
chemicals
were
stored
in
above
ground
storage
tanks
(ASTs)
and
underground
storage
tanks
(USTs)
and
sumps
located
inside
and
outside
the
former
process
buildings
[ref.
6,
p.
2­
41.
Three
concrete
drip
pads
also
remain
[ref.
4,
p.
51.
RCRA
inspections
conducted
in
March
1992
revealed
that
the
drip
pads
were
"riddled
with
cracks,
seams,
gaps,
and
corroded
areas
in
the
concrete,
and
portions
of
the
drip
pads
were
not
curbed
or
bermed"
[ref.
7,
p.
2­
3
1.

The
following
methods
and
materials
were
used
by
HPC
to
preserve
its
wood
products
[ref.
7,
p.
71:

From
1953
to
1958,
a
solution
of
PCP
in
fuel
oil,
as
well
as
creosote,
was
used
to
treat
(dip,
not
pressure­
treat)
lumber,
allowing
chemicals
to
drip
off
the
wood
products
onto
the
soil
[ref.
4,
pp.
5,
81.

From
1958
to
1974,
solutions
of
PCP
in
fuel
oil
and
fluoro­
chrome­
arsenate­
phenol
(FCAP)
salts
in
water
were
both
used
in
a
pressure
treatment
process.
(FCAP
contains
25%
sodium
fluoride,
25%
sodium
arsenate,
37.5%
sodium
chromate,
and
12.5%
2,4­
dinitrophenol)
[ref.
4,
p.
21.

From
1960
to
1984,
PCP
in
mineral
spirits
was
used
to
pressure
treat
lumber
[ref.
4,
p.
5
3
.

From
1974
to
1984,
PCP
in
fuel
oil
and
chromated
copper­
arsenate
(CCA)
salts
in
water
were
used
[ref.
4,
p.
51.

From
1984
until
operations
ceased
in
1993,
solutions
of
CCA
salts
in
water
and
PCP
in
water
were
used
[ref.
4,
p.
51.

Wood
was
also
infused
with
a
fire
retardant
composed
of
boric
acid
and
anhydrous
sodium
tetraborate
[ref.
7,
p.
21.

EPA's
Wood
Preserving
RCRA
Compliance
Guide
indicates
that
the
majority
of
contamination
at
older
facilities
that
operated
for
many
years
before
current
environmental
regulations
and
disposal
options
existed
was
caused
by
poor
management
practices
including
the
allowance
of
excess
preservation
called
"kickback"
to
drip
onto
the
ground
from
treated
charges
of
wood.
Kickback
is
wood
preservative
that
is
generated
fiom
treated
wood
as
the
wood
begins.
to
return
to
normal
pressure
after
a
pressure
treating
process
(ref.
48,
pp.
2­
8,4­
22).

When
the
site
was
abandoned
in
May
1993,
wood­
preserving
products
and
waste
were
left
on
site
[ref.
5,
p.
31.
EPA's
TAT
contractors
reported
the
presence
of
20
55­
gallon
drums
and
eight
ASTs
located
in
various
process
buildings.
TAT
estimated
that
these
contained
a
total
of
45,000
gallons
of
preservatives
with
various
percentages
of
PCP,
CCA,
and
Dricon'".
One
AST
contained
fuel
oil
[ref.
5,
p.
3­
41.
Six
USTs
containing
various
wastes,
were
also
present
in
the
vicinity
of
cylinder
buildings
land
2
[ref.
5,
p.
1­
21.
Most
of
the
sumps
in
the
buildings
also
contained
water
and
sludge
fiom
the
treatment
process
[ref.
4,
p.
51.
Observations
of
the
45
foot
by
120
foot
CCA
drip
pad
along
the
northeast
boundary
of
the
site
during
the
1998
START
investigation
noted
that
the
drip
pad
was
stained
green,
typical
of
copper
salts
[ref.
6
,
p.
41.

The
EPA
removal
action
report
states
that
HPC
left
wood­
treating
solvents
and
sludges
in
tanks,
sumps,
and
drums
when
they
abandoned
the
site.
The
site
was
without
heat
or
electricity
and
impending
freezing
weather
conditions
posed
the
threat
OK
release
of
these
chemicals
[ref.
4,
p.
X].
EPA
ultimately
removed
82,727
gallons
and
355
drums
of
material
for
disposal
or
reuse
[ref.
4,
Table
C­
11.
During
this
investigation,
EPA
conducted
a
field
screening
analysis
of
arsenic
in
soil
[ref.
4,
p.
321.

July
2001
15
EPA
also
graded
several
portions
of
the
former
operations
area
of
the
site
to
control
runoff
and
placed
temporary
caps
of
geotextile
fabric,
gravel,
and
asphalt
in
areas
around
the
mill
building,
the
buildings
for
cylinders
1
and
2,
the
kiln
building,
the
Driconh"
building,
tanks
holding
fuel
oil
(No.
8)
and
PCP
(Nos.
5,6,
and
7),
the
contaminated
areas
adjacent
to
the
CCA
drip
pad,
and
various
other
areas
[ref.
4,
p.
34­
37].
EPA
also
had
a
large
portion
of
deteriorated
pavement
repaved
[ref.
4,
p­
37­
39].

Many
investigations
have
been
conducted
at
the
site,
including
the
following:

In
1987,
consultants
for
HPC
prepared
a
Soils
and
Hydrogeologic
Investigation
(Phase
I).
This
investigation
was
required
In
1988­
89,
consultants
for
HPC
prepared
a
Phase
TI
site
investigation
required
in
aNotice
of
Responsibility
(NOR)
letter
In
1993,
EPA's
removal
program
conducted
a
high
priority
PAIS1
[ref.
51.
In
1994,
MADEP
prepared
a
preliminary
assessment
report
[ref.
71.
In
1994,
EPA's
ERT
prepared
a
Soil
Sampling
and
Field
Screening
of
the
HPC
site
[ref.
531.
in
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance
(NON)
letter
from
MADEP
[ref.
8,
p.
11.

from
MADEP
[ref.
16,
pp.
1­
1,3­
1,3­
71.

July
2001
16
2.2.2
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
SOURCE
1
The
following
soil
samples
were
collected
during
a
May
1988
soils
and
hydrogeology
investigation
of
the
HPC
site
by
Keystone
Environmental
Resources,
a
consultant
for
HPC
[ref.
8,
Figure
3­
11.
See
Figure
3­.
1
of
Reference
8
for
sample
locations.
HPC
states
that
samples
B­
1,
B­
2,
and
B­
3
show
little,
or
no,
impact
from
site
operations
[ref.
8,
p.
4­
21.
However,
B­
2
shows
significantly
more
contamination
than
either
B­
1
or
B­
3.
Therefore,
samples
B­
1
and
B­
3
will
be
considered
background
soil
samples
although
they
may
be,
to
some
degree,
impacted
by
site
operations.
For
certain
substances
that
are
not
naturally
occurring
or
ubiquitous,
no
background
levels
are
used
for
comparison,
despite
the
concentrations
in
samples
B­
1
and
B­
3.
These
substances
are
phenolic
wood
preserving
compounds
and
their
byproducts.
Concentrations
significantly
above
background
and
directly
associated
with
HFC
operations
are
noted
in
bold
type.

Hazardous
Substance
(ppb
unless
otherwise
specified)

arsenic
(ppm)
chromium
(ppm)

Reference
acenaphthene
acenaphThylene
anthracene
benzo(
a)
pyrene
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene
chrysene
fluorene
phenanthrene
naphthalene
Reference
2,3,5,6­
tetrachlorophenol
2,4,6­
trichlorophenol
2,4­
dichlorophenol
2,4­
dimethylphenol
2,4­
dinitrophenol
2­
chlorophenol
2­
nitrophenol
4,6­
dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
4­
nitrophenol
4­
chloro­
3­
methylphenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
References
Background
Source
1
Contaminated
Samples
B­
1
B­
3
B­
2
B­
4
B­
5
B­
6
B­
7
B­
8
B­
10
(8­
10')
(6­
8')
(8­
10')
(6­
8')
(2­
4')
(6­
8')
,
(4­
6')
(6­
8')
(6­
8')
4
.0
1.05
1.31
4.65
2.62
1.04
1.56
4.56
1.27
5.63
6.91
37.9
8.13
9.67
44.7
9.40
6.03
15.6
8,
Appendix
E,
p.
E3
<50.0
~50.0
<50.0<
50.0<
50.0<
50.0<
50.0
2880
<50.0
<50.0<
50.0
192
K50.0<
50.0
<50.0<
50.0
1490
<50.0
­4.00
4.00
3.79
1.01
d
.0
0
4
.0
0
4.00
­40.0
4.00
<7.50<
7.50
12.3
<7.50<
7.50
NR
7.95
NR
7.95
29.5
35
47
5200
32.6
108
122
37.0
134
48.6
46.8
49.2
12500
86.6
<50.0<
50.0
~5
0
.0
<50.0<
50.0<
50.0<
50.0
323
<50.0
8,
Appendix
E,
pp.
E13­
E21
NA
NA
490
­400
1530
<10000
250
396000
650
NA
NA
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
<10000
4001050001270
NA
NA
<50.0
<50.0
37800
9360
<50.0
43700
<50.0
NA
NA
165
<50.0
<500
5770
61
20700
131
NA
NA
19500
4
0
0
3560
<10000
310
251000
4
0
0
NA
NA
205
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
<10000
4
0
0
167000
4
0
0
NA
NA
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
40000
4
0
0
241000
4
0
0
NA
NA
347
59.4
<500
7840
76.4
205000
137
NA
NA
4
0
0
4
0
0
1380
<10000
4
0
0
3430002760
NA
NA
<50.0
<50.0
490000
<50.0
529000
<50.0
NA
=
Not
applicable
(no
background
needed).
Substance
is
associated
with
site
operations
only.
NR
=
Not
reported.

In
December
1994,
EPA's
ERT
finalized
a
soil
sampling
and
field
screening
report
[ref.
531.
This
investigation
consisted
of
collecting
43
soil
samples
from
five
areas
at
the
site.
Areas
1,2,3,
and
4
are
situated
in
Source
1,
while
Area
5
comprises
Source
2
[ref.
53,
Figure
21.
Each
of
the
43
samples
was
analyzed
for
chromium,
copper,
arsenic,
and
lead
using
field
portable
~~
~

8,
Appendix
E,
pp.
E4­
El2
July
1
7
x­
ray
fluorescence
(XRF)
analysis.
Each
of
the
43
samples
was
also
analyzed
for
PAHs
and
PCP
using
immunoassay
field
screening
kits.
To
meet
quality
assurance
objectives,
10
percent
of
the
samples
were
sent
to
fixed.
laboratories
for
confmatory
analysis
using
Target
Analyte
List
(TAL)
metals
and'PCP/
creosote
compounds
[ref.
53,
p­
13.
Field
and
confirmation
sample
analysis
revealed
PCP
contamination
greater
than
5
ppm
in
the
former
operations
area
(Source
1)
[ref.
53,
p.
121.
Arsenic
concentrations
were
greater
than
30
ppm
in
all
samples
collected
in
the
Source
1
area.
Chromium
was
detected
at
greater
than
1,000
pprn
in
all
samples
collected
in
the
former
operations
area
of
Source
1.
Copper
and
lead
were
also
detected
at
elevated
concentrations
in
the
Source
1
area
[ref.
53,
p.
121.
No
soil
samples
from
Source
1
have
been
analyzed
for
dioxins
and
furans.
1
2.2.3
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AVAILABLE
TO
A
PATHWAY
Containment
Description
Release
to
ground
water:
This
contaminated
soil
source
was
not
intended
to
be
a
waste
management
unit
and
has
come
to
be
located
here
via
migration,
deposition,
and
spills.
No
evidence
exists
to
indicate
that
a
liner
is
present
below
the
contaminated
soil.
The
depth
of
contamination
also
indicates
that
no
liner
is
present.

Release
via
overland
migration
and/
or
flood:
'
The
source
contains
neither
of
the
following:
a
maintained,
engineered
cover
or
functioning
and
maintained
run­
on
control
system
and
run­
off
management
system.
This
source
was
not
intended
to
be
a
waste
management
unit
and
has
come
to
be
located
here
via
migration,
deposition,
and
spills.
EPA
has
paved
and
graveled
various
areas
of
the
source
to
address
imminent
threat;
no
system
has
been
installed
to
manage
run­
on
and
run­
off.
Containment
FactorValueRef.

10
8,
Appendix
A
~
~~

10
4,
pp.
34­
39
2.4.2
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
QUANTITY
2.4.2.1.1
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
estimate
the
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

2.4.2.1.2
Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
estimate
the
hazardous
wastestream
quantity.

2.4.2.1.3
Volume
The
contaminated
soil
northeast
of
the
railroad
tracks
appears
to
be
contaminated
to
a
significant
horizontal
and
vertical
extent;
however,
no
volume
estimate
is
provided
here
because
of
the
limited
number
of
available
data
points.
The
vertical
extent
of
Source
1
varies,
but
contamination
has
been
detected
at
8­
10
feet
below
ground
surface
[ref.
8,
Table
4­
21.
Extensive
ground
water
contamination
exists
in
the
Source
1
vicinity,
also
indicating
that
soil
contamination
extends
down
to
the
water
table
in
this
area.
However,
because
the
volume
cannot
be
adequately
determined,
the
area
(Tier
D)
measure
will
be
used.

Volume
Assigned
Value:
0
2.4.2.1.4Area
The
area
of
the
source
is
based
on
Figure
3­
1
of
Reference
8
and
Figure
2
of
Reference
53.
Figure
2
of
this
documentation
record
also
shows
the
sample
locations
used
to
define
Source
1.
The
area
between
the
samples
listed
in
Table
1
above
cannot
be
measured
with
certainty,
thus
the
area
of
Source
1
is
assigned
a
value
of
unknown,
but
greater
than
zero.

Area
Assigned
Value:
>O
2.4.2.1.5
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
Highest
value
assigned
from
reference
1,
Table
2­
5:
>O
July
200
1
18
2.2.1
SOURCE
IDENTIFICATION
Source
2:
Contaminated
Soil
in
Southern
Wood
Storage
Area
of
Site
Source
Type:
Contaminated
Soil
Description
and
Location
of
Source
(with
reference
to
a
map
of
the
site):

The
southern
portion
of
the
property
includes
all
areas
southeast
of
the
railroad
tracks
depicted
on
Figure
2.
Activities
known
to
have
taken
place
south
of
the
railroad
tracks
include
storage
of
treated
wood
and
response
activities
conducted
by
HPC.
Most
of
these
activities
occurred
on
the
eastern
quarter
of
the
property,
south
of
the
railroad
tracks.
In
this
area
of
the
facility,
HPC
stored
treated
wood
products
in
several
locations
including
two
buildings
and
several
uncovered
areas
[ref.
5,
p.
2,
Figure
21.

The
soil
in
this
portion
of
the
property
is
contaminated
with
metals,
phenolic
compounds,
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs),
PAHs,
and
dioxins
and
furans.
According
to
EPA's
Wood
Preserving
RCRA
Compliance
Guide,
wastes
generated.
at
wood
preserving
plants
that
use
or
formerly
used
chlorophenolic
preservative
formulations
are
likely
to
contain
dioxins.
The
majority
of
contamination
at
older
facilities
that
operated
for
many
years
before
current
environmental
regulations
and
disposal
options
existed
was
caused
by
poor
management
practices,
including
the
allowance
of
excess
preservation
called
"kickback"
to
drip
onto
the
ground
from
treated
charges
of
wood.
Kickback
is
wood
preservative
that
is
generated
from
treated
wood
as
the
wood
begins
to
return
to
normal
pressure
after
a
pressure
treating
process
[ref.
48,
pp.
3­
7,2­
8,
and
4­
22].
This
document
also
notes
that
preservative
drippage
and
process
residuals
may
accumulate
in
pathways
over
which
treated
wood
is
transported
and
in
treated
wood
storage
yards
including
preservative
that
is
washed
off
treated
wood
by
rainwater
[ref.
48,
p.
4­
41.

This
area
of
the
site
is
level
because
of
filling
activities
but
drops
off
abruptly
by
10
to
20
feet
to
the
south
in
a
line
running
east­
west
[ref.
7,
p.
21.
South
of
this
fill
line
is
a
densely
wooded
wetland
area
bounded
by
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel.
The
extensive
filling
of
the
site
included
the
rerouting
of
the
Rumford
River
from
its
previous
course
through
this
area
of
the
site
to
its
present
course
to
the
west
[ref.
5,
p.
21.

The
HPC
facility
originally
included
only
the
land
between
County
Street
and
the
railroad
tracks
as
far
west
as
the
Rumford
River.
Land
west
of
the
Rumford
River
was
used
by
Penn
Central
Railroad
for
bulk
chemical
transfer,
storage
of
electrichtility
poles,
and
storage
of
railroad
ties
[ref.
8,
p.
11.
HPC
purchased
this
land
in
1978.
In
1981,
HPC
purchased
the
land
south
of
the
railroad,
which
had
been
used
for
coal
storage
prior
to
1955
[ref.
8,
p.
11.

In
1972,
a
tar
mat
was
discovered
on
the
banks
of
the
Rumford
River
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
HPC
property.
It
appeared
to
originate
from
the
eastern
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
[refs.
4,
p.
8;
7,
p.
7;
8,
p.
1­
2;
16,
p.
2­
11.
HPC
took
efforts
to
control
the
seep
using
booms
and
sorbents,
installation
of
a
system
to
pump
oil­
contaminated
ground
water,
and
a
treated
plywood
bulkhead
to
trap
the
seepage.
In
1973
seepage
appeared
farther
downstream
and
in
1974,
HPC
installed
four
recovery
pits
along
the
river
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
11.
By
1982,
the
recovery
system
was
producing
only
traces
of
oil
[ref.
4,
p.
81.
However,
analyses
of
soil
samples
by
a
prospective
buyer
of
the
property
revealed
"oily
soils
and/
or
oily
groundwater"
[ref.
7,
p.
71.
According
to
HPC's
consultant
Keystone,
vandals
shot
holes
in
several
drums
of
recovered
oil
that
were
stored
on
the
€PC
property
along
the
east
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
and
then
tipped
the
drums
over
allowing
the
oils
to
seep
into
the
ground
and
the
river
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
31.

In
1990,
after
"oily
seepage"
was
again
reported
on
the
Rumford
River
in
the
vicinity
of
the
HPC
property,
MADEP
issued
a
request
to
HPC
for
a
Short
Term
Measure
to
address
the
imminent
hazard
to
the
river
caused
by
on­
site
operations
[ref.
7,
p.
71.
Keystone
conducted
an
investigation,
sampling
stained
soil
along
the
river
bank
and
found
that
a
major
constituent
of
the
contamination
was
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
(SVOCs)
[ref.
17,
p.
2­
71.
HPC
also
collected
soil
samples
during
installation
of
three
piezometers
located
along
the
river
[ref.
17,
p.
2­
71.
In
1991,
HPC
constructed
a
collection
trench
along
the
eastern
bank
of
the
Rumford
River;
the
intercepted
contaminated
ground
water
was
used
by
HPC
as
process
make­
up
water
[ref.
8,
p.
1­
11.

During
a
1993
EPA
TAT
investigation,
EPA
personnel
observed
a
pile
of
contaminated
soil,
apparently
excavated
from
the
trench
HPC
dug
along
the
Rumford
River.
Also
during
this
investigation,
EPA
personnel
observed
"oily
seeps"
along
the
southern
edge
of
the
fill
line
and
associated
areas
of
stained
soil
and
stressed
vegetation
[ref.
5,
p.
1­
21.
EPA
collected
samples
from
the
"oily
seeps,"
the
pile
of
contaminated
soil,
and
stained
soils
adjacent
to
and
south
of
the
railroad
right­
of­
way
[ref.
5,
P­
31.

July
19
The
EPA
removal
action
report
states
that
as
part
of
the
wood
preservation
process,
HPC
allowed
chemicals
to
drip
off
the
treated
lumber
onto
underlying
soils.
In
several
portions
of
the
southern
area
of
the
site
EPA
placed
temporary
caps
of
geotextile
fabric
and
gravel,
including
a
rectangular
area
next
to
a
large
bedrock
outcrop,
and
areas
adjacent
to
the
roadway
and
near
the
former
storage
shed
[ref.
4,
p.
3.51.

Many
investigations
have
been
conducted
to
identify
the
extent
of
soil
contamination
in
this
area
of
the
HPC
site,
including
the
following:

Keystone's
19S8­
S9
Phase
II
Site
Investigation
required
in
a
Notice
of
Responsibility
(NOR)
letter
from
W
E
p
[ref.
16,

EPA
Region
1
Removal
Program's
1993
PNSI
[refs.
4,
p.
1;
5,
p.
51.
EPA's
1995
Emergency
Removal
Action
(ERA)
[ref.
4,
p.
231.
EPA's
1998
Removal'Branch
sampling
event
(dioxin
contamination
assessment)
[refs.
40;
491.
pp.
1­
1,3­
1,3­
71.

2.2.2
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
THE
SOURCE
2
The
analytical
results
identified
below
come
fkom
two
sampling
events
where
soil
samples
were
collected
in
the
Source
2
area
(contaminated
soil
south
of
the
railroad
tracks
and
east
of
the
Rumford
River).
The
VOCs
and
SVOCs
in
the
first
table
are
from
the
HPC
Phase
II
sampling
event
[ref.
161,
while
the
metals
and
dioxins/
furans
in
the
second
table
are
from
the
1998
EPA
Removal
Branch
sampling
event
[ref.
40;
491.
To
identify
the
concentrations
of
hazardous
substances
significantly
above
background,
soil
samples
P­
1
and
P­
2
were
used
to
represent
background
levels
for
the
non­
dioxidhran
hazardous
substances.
The
HPC
Phase
I1
indicates
that
these
two
samples
may
represent
concentrations
associated
with
railroad
bulk
storage
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
91.
The
background
sample
is
not
used
for
comparison
to
chlorinated
phenolic
compounds
because
they
are
not
naturally
occurring
and
are
directly
associated
with
site
operations
and
wastes
at
the
site.

Hazardous
Substance
(&
kg
unless
otherwise
specified)
SQLs
have
been
adjusted
in
order
to
account
for
'YO
moisture
2,3,5,6­
tetrachlorophenol
2,4,­
dichlorophenol
2,4­
dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
benzene
toluene
xylenes
total
PAHs
total
copper
(ppm)

total
chromium
(PPm)
total
arsenic
(ppm)

Reference
Background
Samples
P­
1
p­
2
(8­
9')
(7.5­
8.4')

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<20
<20
<20
120
<30
<30
ND
ND
8.04
'
16.3
10.7
9.75
1.33
3.54
Source
2
Contaminated
Soil
Samples
B­
12B­
13B­
14B­
15B­
16B­
17PW­
1MW­
8BMW­
9B
m
­1
0
MW­
12
(10­
12')
(
5­
7')
(
5­
7')
(
5­
7')
(
5­
7')
(
5­
7')
(
6­
8')
(
4­
5.5')
(
8­
10')
(0­
2)
(6­
8')

793.5
6384.13
6035.210328.74
368.89
4
0
0
4
0
0
250.52
1081.93
<lo0
4079.92
975.64
<50
16937
<20.0
<20.0
140.37
3375.10
11.3
3
1.5
<300
<300
110515
X20.0
23.82
<30.0
2567.70
14.7
10.8
<300
<300
111801
<20.0
<20.0
<30.0
2011.90
12.6
9.88
<250
1250
95015
<20.0
<20.0
<30.0
1779.32
11.8
14.2
<50.0
<50.0
246.96
<50.0
196.88
92.76
<lo0
4
0
0
193
<20.0
120.0
<20
39.84
120.0
<20
<30.0X30.0
<30
ND
ND
ND
13
12.8
6.33
10.610.67.78
<50.0
275.36
4
0
0
<20.0
<20.0
<30.0
ND
6.35
7.83
225.84
<50
<loo
<20
<20
<30
82.41
8.19
14.2
1104
177.60
<loo
36
30.4
30
260.46
2.13
19.4
849.63
351.21
4
0
0
109
<loo
3510
25142.3
12.2
3.11
1.67
7.25
1.06
1.62
4
.0
0
4
.0
0
5
1.44
2.32
1.04
16,
Table
2­
4,
Appendix
C,
pp.
C3­
C48
NA
=Not
applicable
(no
background
needed).
Substance
is
associated
with
site
operations
only.
ND
=
Not
detected
above
detection
limit.

July
2001
20
2.2.2
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
SOURCE
2,
CONTINUED
Six
soil
samples
were
collected
by
EPA's
Removal
Branch
in
1998.
The
analytical
results
of
these
samples
are
provided
below.
Although
no
sample
is
designated
as
background,
sample
SSHp06
is
impacted
least
by
activities
at
HPC.
Therefore,
although
SSHP06
may
be
impacted
by
HPC
releases,
it
is
used
to
compare
with
samples
SSHPOl
through
SSHPOS
[ref.
491.
Sample
locations
are
shown
on
Figure
4
of
the
final
SI
[ref.
491.

Hazardous
Substance
(ppb
unless
otherwise
specified)

arsenic
(ppm)
chromium
(ppm)

copper
(PP4
Reference
pentachlorophenol
Reference
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDD
1,2,3,6,7,8­%
CDD
1,2,3,7,8,9­&
CDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD
2,3,7,8­
TCDF
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDF
1,2,3,6,7,8­&
CDF
2,3,4,6,7,8­=
CDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
HpCDF
Reference
CRQLI
CRDL
2
2
5
36,
T2;
37
T1
830
i8,
T3;
39,
T1
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Background
Sample
SSHP06
surficial
39.5
J
5.7
4.8
37,
Table
1
ND
39,
Table
1
ND
1.98
J
ND
12.8
J
ND
352
J
ND
ND
ND
0.458
J
6.8
J
ND
157
J
15.3
J
Source
2
Contaminated
Soil
Samples
SSHPOl
SSHP02
SSHP03
SSHP04
SSHPOS
surficial
surficial
surficial
surfkial
surficial
369
J
23.5
J
21.7
J
82.2
J
33.2
J
392
12.3
91.8
162
125
265
224
50.2
64.2
43.0
36,
Table
2
I
I
37,
Table
1
1300
340
J.
480
J
ND
820
J
38,
Table
3
39,
Table
1
4.77
J
1.01
J
ND
1.26
J
3.52
J
34.2
J
ND
28.1
J
10.2
J
25.5
J
79.1
J
ND
70.4
J
22.8
J
47
J
298
J
83.8
J
228
J
53
J
135
J
143
J
38.2
J
132
J
40.6
J
87.2
J
7020
J
2370
J
3710
J
1130
J
3280
J
2.34
J
ND
1.09
J
ND
2.1
J
11.9
J
ND
9.32
J
3.33
J
9.54
J
8.55
J
2.85
J
5.96
J
2.57
J
6.75
J
144
J
40.2
J
87.1
J
30.6
J
106
J
207
J
34
J
217
J
81.8
J
261
J
59.4
J
17.3
J
33.7
J
15
J
43.1
J
2710
J
902
J
1060
J
598
J
2460
J
328
J
109
J
195
J
61.9
J
222
J
40,
Data
Summary
Table
CRDL
=
Contract
Required
Detection
Limit
(for
metals
only).
CRQL
=
Contract
Required
Quantitation
Limit
(for
orgaaic
co,
mpounds).
J
­
Quantitation
is
estimated
due
to
factors
identified
in
the
quality
control
review
(see
reference
40,
Table
1).
NR
­
Not
reported.
Detection
limits
are
only
reported
when
the
sample­
specific
concentrations
is
below
its
detection
limit.
ND
­
Not
detected
above
the
CRQL,
CRDL,
or
DL.

July
2001
21
2.2.3
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AVAILABLE
TO
A
PATHWAY
Containment
Description
Containment
FactorValueRef.

Release
to
ground
water:
This
contaminated
soil
source
was
not
intended
to
be
a
waste
management
unit
and
has
come
to
be
located
here
via
migration,
deposition,
and
spills
of
wastes.
No
evidence
exists
to
indicate
that
a
liner
is
present
below
the
contaminated
soil.
The
extreme
depth
of
contamination
also
indicates
that
no
liner
is
present.
None
of
the
borings
within
the
source
area
appear
to
have
encountered
a
liner.

Release
via
overland
migration
and/
or
flood:
The
source
contains
neither
of
the
following:
a
maintained,
engineered
cover
or
functioning
and
maintained
run­
on
control
system
and
run­
off
management
system.
Although
EPA
has
paved
and
graveled
various
areas
of
the
source,
no
system
has
been
installed
to
manage
run­
on
and
run­
off.
~~
~~

10
16,
Table
2­
4
10
4,
pp.
34­
39
2.4.2
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
QUANTITY
2.4.2.1.1
Hazardous
Constituent
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
estimate
the
hazardous
constituent
quantity.

2.4.2.1.2
Hazardous
Wastestream
Quantity
Insufficient
information
is
available
to
estimate
the
hazardous
wastestream
quantity.

2.4.2.1.3
Volume
The
contaminated
soil
southeast
of
the
railroad
tracks
appears
to
be
contaminated
to
a
significant
horizontal
and
vertical
extent;
however,
no
volume
estimate
is
provided
here
because
of
the
limited
number
of
available
subsurface
data
points.
The
vertical
extent
of
Source
2
varies,
but
has
been
detected
at
8­
10
feet
below
ground
surface
[ref
8,
Table
4­
21.
Extensive
ground
water
Contamination
exists
in
the
Source
2
vicinity,
also
indicating
that
soil
contamination
extends
down
to
the
water
table
in
this
area.
Because
the
volume
of
Source
2
cannot
be
adequately
determined,
the
volume
of
Source
2
is
assigned
a
value
of
zero
and
the
area
(Tier
D)
measure
will
be
used.

Volume
Assigned
Value:
0
2.4.2.1.4Area
The
horizontal
area
of
the
source
is
based
on
Figure
3­
1
of
Reference
8
and
Figure
2
of
Reference
53.
The
samples
used
to
define
Source
2
are
also
depicted
on
Figure
2
of
this
documentation
record.
The
area
of
Source
2
is
unknown,
but
greater
than
zero.

Volume
Assigned
Value:
>O
2.4.2.1.5
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Value
July
,2001
Highest
value
assigned
from
reference
1,
Table
2­
5:
>O
22
SUMMARY
OF
SOURCE
DESCRIPTIONS
NS
=
Not
Scored
Descriution
of
Other
Possible
Sources
There
are
several
possible
sources
at
the
HPC
site
that
have
not
been
used
for
scoring
in
this
HRS
documentation
record.
Some
of
these
other
possible
sources
are
described
below.
These
hazardous
substances
in
theses
other
possible
sources
are
described
in
the
Site
Description
section
of
this
documentation
record.

I.

2
.

3.

4.

5
.
ASTs
and
USTs:
A
total
of
32
above
or
below
ground
chemical
or
waste
storage
tanks
were
identified
on
the
property
during
the
Emergency
Removal
Action
performed
by
EPA
from
December
1993
to
September
1995
[ref.
4,
Appendix
B,
Table
C­
11.

CCA,
PCP,
and
Dricon'"
drip
pads:
Large
drip
pads
were
used
to
allow
excess
CCA,
PCP,
or
Driconm
to
drip
onto
the
ground
from
freshly
treated
wood.
There
were
separate
dip
pads
located
in
the
main
operating
area
of
the
HPC
facility
for
wood
treated
with
CCA,
PCP,
or
Dricon""
[ref.
49,
p.
4,
Figure
31.

CCA,
PCP,
and
Driconm
sumps:
The
sumps
were
used
to
capture
excess
drippings.
from
the
treated
wood
placed
on
the
drip
pads.
There
is
a
sump
for
each
of
the
CCA,
PCP,
and
Dricon""
drip
pads.
According
to
the
EPA's
removal
action
report,
these
were
filled
with
chemicals
and
sludge
[ref.
4,
Table
C­
11.

Drums
and
miscellaneous
small
containers:
Drums
containing
flammable
liquids,
contaminated
dust
and
debris,
small
containers
of
spent
batteries,
and
miscellaneous
chemicals
were
found
abandoned
on
the
site
when
the
EPA
removal
team
first
entered.
These
materials
were
disposed
of
off
site
by
the
EPA
removal
team
[ref.
4,
Table
C­
11.

Other
contaminated
soil:
A
ditch
from
the
treating
area
runs
south
of
and
parallel
to
the
railroad
tracks
between
the
railroad
tracks
and
the
bedrock
outcrop.
Monitoring
well
Mw­
6,
located
in
the
vicinity
of
this
former
ditch,
has
shown
high
levels
of
PCP
[ref.
8,
p.
4­
12].
Upon
constructing
the
STM
trencwrecovery
system,
HPC
contractors
stored
a
pile
of
approximately
4
cubic
yards
of
"oil­
stained"
soil
near
the
construction
location
[refs.
18,
p.
2­
2;
191.
This
pile
was
again
observed
on
the
site
during
a
START
site
visit
in
April
1998
[ref.
50,
p.
71.

a
July
2001
23
3.0
GROUND
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
3.0.1
GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Ground
Water
Migration
Pathway
Description
The
site
is
located
approximately
30
miles
west
of
the
Atlantic
coast.
Present
topography
at
the
site
has
little
relief,
except
the
bedrock
outcrop
in
the
southern
half
of
the
site,
which
has
an
elevation
approximately
20
feet
above
the
surrounding
terrain,
and
the
river
channel
which
bisects
the
plant
from
north
to
south.
Because
the
site
has
been
extensively
filled,
its
original
topography
is
unknown
[ref.
8,
p.
2­
11.

The
HPC
site
is
located
within
the
Mohawk
Division
of
the
New
England
physiographic
province.
The
State
of
Massachusetts
is
characterized,
geologically,
by
largely
unconformable,
exposed
metamorphic
and
igneous
bedrock,
which
have
been
further
deformed
and
complicated
by
major
faults
and
folds.
The
southeastern
portion
of
the
state
and
part
of
Rhode
Island
are
dominated
by
a
major
depositional
area,
the
Narragansett
Basin,
formed
in
the
Triassic­
Jurassic
period
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
11.

The
site
is
located
in
Mansfield,
which
lies
approximately
four
miles
south
of
the
contact
between
the
Narragansett
Basin
and
the
adjacent
igneous
bedrock
of
the
Proterozoic.
The
uppermost
bedrock
unit
in
the
basin,
the
Dighton
Conglomerate,
has
been
identified
only
in
the
southwestern
section
of
the
basin
east
of
Mansfield.
The
Dighton
overlies
the
Rhode
Island
Formation
of
the
Pennsylvanian,
which
is
the
uppermost
bedrock
beneath
the
site.
Faults
in
the
underlying
crystalline
bedrock
near
the
border
of
the
basin
trend
north­
northeast
and
their
impact
appears
to
diminish
within
the
basin
due
to
the
depth
of
the
overlying
sedimentary
formations.
The
east­
northwest
trending
Mansfield
Syncline
lies
to
the
south
of
the
Hatheway
and
Patterson
facility
and
has
a
south­
southwest
dip,
thus
exerting
a
gentle
south­
southeast
dip
in
the
Rhode
Island
Formation
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
13.

The
unconsolidated
deposits
which
immediately
overlie
bedrock
throughout
much
of
the
Narragansett
Basin
are
composed
of
till
from
the
various
glacial
episodes.
In
some
areas
this
till
layer
is
approximately
15
feet
thick.
The
glacial
till
is
highly
permeable
and
composed
of
fine
to
coarse
sandy
gravel
with
lenses
of
sand,
silt,
and
clay.
Deposition
of
this
material
in
preglacial
valleys
has
provided
thick
sequences
of
permeable
material
which
are
a
major
source
of
ground
water
for
public
water
systems.
Near
rivers
and
streams,
the
glacial
till
unit
has
been
largely
eroded
and
replaced
by
recent
alluvial
sand
and
gravel
channel
deposits.
The
near­
surface
deposits
(sometimes
overlain
by
fill)
at
the
Hatheway
and
Patterson
facility
are
primarily
composed
of
these
alluvial
materials
deposited
by
the
Rumford
River.
The
alluvium
is
sometimes
underlain
by
a
thin
layer
of
glacial
till,
but
frequently
it
is
in
direct
contact
with
the
underlying
bedrock.
The
bedrock
beneath
the
site
slopes
steeply
from
north
to
south
at
a
ratio
of
approximately
1:
8,
with
an
anomalous
outcrop
south
of
the
railroad
tracksrref.
8,
pp.
3­
1,3­
2,3­
3,
Figures
3­
2
and
3­
31.

The
saturated
interval
was
encountered
during
drilling
at
an
approximate
depth
of
6
feet
below
grade,
throughout
the
site.
At
those
locations
where
bedrock
was
encountered
at
shallow
depths,
the
saturated
interval
was
elevated,
generally
3
feet
below
grade.
Ground
water
elevations
in
shallow
monitoring
wells
(MW­
1,
MW­
2,
MW­
3,
MW­
SA,
MW­
6,
and
MW­
7A)
were
used
to
determine
ground
water
flow
patterns
at
the
site.
The
ground
water
elevations
indicated
that
shallow
ground
water
flows
in
a
southlsouthwesterly
direction
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site,
toward
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
3
and
Figure
3­
41.

The
MADEP
has
reported
that
subsurface
contamination
likely
flows
through
the
former
beds
of
the
Rumford
River
(alluvial
deposits)
as
indicated
by
seep
outbreaks
observed
along
south­
central
property
areas,
and
historical
outbreaks
of
tar
mats
along
the
Rumford
River
as
it
now
passes
by
former
riverbed
flow
paths.
The
flow
course
ofthe
Rumford
River
has
been
altered
several
times
in
thi:
past
[ref.
5,
p.
91.
Prior
to
1850,
it
flowed
west­
to­
east
through
the
former
operations
area,
turning
southward
between
the
current
location
of
the
Mill
Building
and
the
Cylinders
No.
1
and
2
Building,
continuing
to
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel.
Between
1945
and
1950,
its
flow
was
altered
to
its
current
course
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
51.

To
address
imminent
hazard,
in
1990
the
MADEP
issued
HPC
a
Request
for
STM.
HPC's
consultant
installed
a
system
to
control
ground
water
and
oils
migrating
to
the
Rumford
River
from
the
oil­
stained
portion
of
the
river
bank
[Refs.
5,
p.
8;
7,
p.
7,
s;
17,
p.
1­
1;
19,
Figure
11.
In
1993,
following
HPC's
bankruptcy
filing,
the
ground
water
treatment
system
ceased
operation.
At
that
time,
a
layer
of
oil
was
detected
floating
on
ground
water
in
monitoring
wells
that
had
previously
been
clean.
EPA
and
Penney
Engineering,
€€
PC's
environmental
consultant,
speculate
that
the
significant
amount
of
water
used
to
fight
a
fire
at
the
adjacent
agricultural
supply
facility
in
July
1993
affected
the
flow
of
contaminants
in
the
ground
water.
It
was
also
determined
that
the
PCP
contaminated
oil
was
moving
off
the
property
to
the
southeast,
into
the
wetlands,
the
Rumford
Riyer,
and
eventually
to
Fulton's
Pond
mef.
5,
p.
81.

July
2001
24
GW­
General
AquifedStratum
I
(shallowest):
Alluvial/
Glacial
Deposits
Recent
alluvial
sand
and
gravel
channel
deposits
and
glacial
till
comprise
the
uppermost
stratum
beneath
the
site.
The
near­
surface
deposits
(sometimes
overlain
by
fill)
at
the
Hatheway
and
Patterson
facility
are
composed
of
these
alluvial
materials.
Site­
specific
geologic
information
generated
during
December
of
1987
indicated
that
the
uppermost
unit
generally
encountered
at
the
site
is
composed
of
various
fill
materials
(approximately
2
feet
in
depth),
underlain
by
the
alluvial
unit
composed
of
sand
with
little
to
some
gravel
and
little
silt.
The
alluvial
unit
is
sometimes
underlain
by
a
thin
layer
of
till.
The
alluvial/
glacial
.deposits
range
in
depth
at
the
site
fiom
0
feet
(at
the
bedrock
outcrop)
to
more
than
35
feet
(MW­
7B)
closer
to
the
Rumford
River
pefs.
8,
Appendix
A;
16,
Appendix
B].
No
intervening
layers
exist
between
the
alluvial/
glacial
deposits
and
the
underlying
bedrock
aquifer
[ref.
8,
pp.
3­
1
to
3­
41.

The
ground
water
flow
in
this
stratum
is
unconfined
and
generally
to
the
southhouthwest,
parallel
to
the
Rumford
River.
Flow
gradients
on
the
western
side
of
the
Rumford
River
were
not
determined
due
to
too
few
measurement
locations
to
triangulate
the
flow
direction
[ref.
8,
pp.
3­
3,3­
4,
Table
3­
1,
Figure
3­
41.
The
average
hydraulic
conductivity
ofthe
alluvial
deposits
beneath
the
site,
as
measured
by
contractors
for
HPC
is
3.6
x
lo3
centimeters
per
second
(cdsec.),
based
on
measurements
from
MW­
2,
MW­
4,
and
MW­
7A
[ref
8,
p.
3­
41.

AauifedStratum
2
(deepest):
Bedrock
m
o
d
e
Island
Formation)

The
Dighton
overlays
the
Rhode
Island
Formation
of
the
Pennsylvanian,
which
is
the
uppermost
bedrock
beneath
the
site.
Faults
in
the
underlying
crystalline
bedrock
near
the
border
of
the
basin
trend
north­
northeast
and
their
impact
appears
to
diminish
within
the
basin
due
to
the
depth
of
the
overlying
sedimentary
formations.
The
east­
northwest
trending
Mansfield
Syncline
lies
to
the
south
of
the
HPC
facility
and
has
a
south­
southwest
dip,
thus
exerting
a
gentle
south­
southeast
dip
in
the
Rhode
Island
Formation
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
11.

Ground
water
in
the
bedrock
stratum
exists
in
faults
and
fissures
and
the
bedrock
has
an
average
hydraulic
conductivity
of
5.66
x
lo4
cm/
sec.
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
2,
Appendix
Dl.
Ground
water
levels
in
the
bedrock
stratum
are
consistent
with
those
in
the
overlying
alluvial/
glacial
stratum,
indicating
that
ground
water
in
the
bedrock
and
alluvial/
glacial
stratum
act
as
a
single
hydrogeologic
unit
[ref.
16,
Table
2­
1,
Figures
2­
7
to
2­
1
11.
.In
addition,
the
hydraulic
conductivities
of
the
alluvial/
glacial
deposits
(shallowest
stratum)
and
the
bedrock
(deepest
stratum)
are
within
an
order
of
magnitude
[refs.
8,
p:
3­
4;
16,
Appendix
Dl.
Ground
water
contamination,
attributed
to
the
site,
has
also
been
detected
in
all
three
on­
site
bedrock
monitoring
wells
[ref.
16,
Table
2­
61.

For
HRS
scoring
purposes,
these
two
stratum
are
evaluated
as
a
single
aquifer.

July
2001
25
GW­
General
3.1
LIKELIHOOD
OF
RELEASE
3.1.1
OBSERVED
RELEASE
Aquifer
Being
Evaluated
Alluvial/
Glacial/
Bedrock
(from
this
point
on
referred
to
as
the
alluviumhedrock
aquifer)

Direct
Observation
An
observed
release
by
direct
observation
is
not
evaluated
in
this
documentation
record.

Chemical
Analvsis
In
November
1987,
as
part
of
a
Phase
I
investigation
required
under
an
MAEQE
notice
of
noncompliance,
HPC's
consultant,
Keystone
Environmental
Resources
(Keystone)
installed
monitoring
wells
MW­
1
through
MW­
4,
MW­
SA,
MW­
5B,
MW­
6,
MW­
7A,
and
MW­
7B
to
determine
potential
sources
areas.
MW­
1
was
installed
at
a
location
hydraulically
upgradient
of
the
other
wells,
and
on
a
lateral
gradient
with,
and
adjacent
to,
the
wood­
treating
area
(ref.
8,
p.
3­
2).
In
response
to
a
Notice
of
Responsibility
from
MAEQE,
Keystone
performed
a
Phase
I1
investigation
for
HPC,
including
the
installation
of
6
additional
monitoring
wells
MW­
SA,
MW­
8B,
MW­
9A,
MW­
9B,
"­
10,
and
MW­
11.
In
addition,
Keystone
installed
two
piezometers
P­
1
and
P­
2,
and
an
additional
pump
tesdmonitoring
well,
PW­
1
[ref.
16,
pp.
2­
2,2­
31.

Although
numerous
sampling
events
document
hazardous
substances
in
the
alluviumlbedrock
aquifer
attributed
to
the
HPC
site,
the
analytical
results
of
the
December
1989
Phase
I1
Site
Investigation
and
Preliminary
Health
and
Environmental'Assessment
(Phase
I1
Site
Investigation),
prepared
for
HPC
[ref.
161
are
presented
below
to
document
the
observed
release
to
the
alluviumlbedrock
aquifer.
The
Phase
I1
Site
Investigation
refers
to
three
rounds
of
samples
collected
fkom
each
monitoring
well
(February
6,
1989,
March
2,
1989,
and
April
5,
1989)
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
61.
However,
results
from
only
selected
wells
were
provided
for
the
February
and
April
events
[ref.
16,
Appendix
C].
Therefore,
this
documentation
record
will
use
the
results
from
the
March
2
sampling
event
to
document
an
observed
release
to
ground
water
by
chemical
analysis.

Additional
ground
water
sampling
events
are
summarized
following
the
Phase
11
Site
Investigation
results.

­
Background
Sample:

One
monitoring
well
(MW­
11)
is
located
hydraulically
upgradient
of
the
site
and
is
less
impacted
by
the
site.
Samples
collected
from
MW­
11
do
show
some
contamination
originating
from
the
site
(e.&
total
copper
and
total
chromium);
however,
it
reflects
background
conditions
for
most
site­
related
hazardous
substances
[ref.
16,
pp.
2­
10,2­
19,3­
25,
App.
C].
MW­
1
is
considered
an
observed
release
well
because
although
it
is
slightly
upgradient
of
the
operations
at
the
site,
it
is
immediately
adjacent
to,
and
hydraulically
lateral
from,
the
former
treating
area
(part
of
Source
1).
Samples
from
MW­
1
also
show
significant
contamination
attributable
to
the
site
[ref.
16,
Fig.
2­
1,
p.
2­
14].

Two
of
the
monitoring
wells
used
to
establish
the
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
ire
entirely
screened
in
the
bedrock;
MW­
8B
and
MW­
9B
[ref.
16,
Appendix
B].
Currently,
there
are
no
upgradient
or
"background"
wells
screened
in
the
bedrock
aquifer
to
establish
a
background
level
for
the
bedrock
stratum.
The
analytical
results
from
these
two
bedrock
wells
are
compared
to
the
background
alluvium
well
results
for
two
reasons:
(1)
the
water
levels
in
these
wells
reflect
water
table
(unconfined)
conditions
similar
to
those
in
the
alluvium
wells;
and
(2)
HPC's
Phase
I1
Site
Investigation
states
that
contamination
in
these
deep
bedrock
wells
is
a
result
of
downward
migration
of
contamination
from
the
site
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
19
and
Table
2­
11.
The
slope
of
bedrocWalluvium
interface
beneath
the
site
makes
it
possible
for
some
of
the
alluvium
wells
to
be
deeper
than
some
bedrock
wells
(e.
g.,
MW­
7B
and
MW­
8B)
[ref.
16,
Table
2­
1,
Figs.
2­
3
and
2­
41.

July
2001
26
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
Sample
ID
Stratum
Screened
Interval
(feet
above
MSL)
Date
Reference
MW­
11
alluvium
171.21­
161.21'
,
3/
2/
89
16,
Table
3­
1,
p.
3­
3a.

MSL
=
mean
sea
IeveI
­
Contaminated
Samples:

Sample
ID
Mw­
1
Mw­
2
Mw­
3
MW­
4
MW­
SA
MW­
5B
Mw­
6
MW­
7A
Mw­
7B
MW­
IA
MW­
8B
MW­
9A
MW­
9B
Mw­
IO
Mw­
12
Stratum
Screened
Interval
(feet
above
MSL)
Date
Reference
alluvium
170.35­
165.35
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A;
16,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
169.5­
159.5
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A;
16,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
168.47­
158.47
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A;
16.
P.
2­
6
alluvium
168.51­
158.51
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A;
16,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
170.58­
160.58
3/
2/
898,
App.
A;
16,
p.
2­
6
alluviundbedrock
157.1­
147.1
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A;
16,
p.
2­
6
alluvium'
Unknownz
3/
2/
89
8,
App.
A
alluvium
.
168­
158'
3/
2/
8916,
Fig.
2­
3
alluvium
148­
13S2
3/
2/
8916,
Fig.
2­
3
alluvium
168.56­
158.56'
3/
2/
8916,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
bedrock
149.45­
139.45'
3/
2/
89
16,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
168.83­
158.83'
3/
2/
8916,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
bedrock
125.85­
115.85'
3/
2/
8916,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
162.79­
152.79'
3/
2/
8916,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
alluvium
168.59­
158.59'
3/
2/
8916,
App.
B,
p.
2­
6
­
Concentrations
in
Background
and
Contaminated
Samples
(3189)
[ref.
161.

Concentrations
are
in
pglL,
unless
otherwise
indicated.
Concentrations
meeting
the
observed
release
criteria
[ref.
1,
table
2­
31
are
shown
in
bold
and
underlined.
Concentrations
preceeded
by
a
less
than
sign
(<)
are
the
detection
limits.

Hazardous
Sample
Substance
Contaminated
Samples
Bkgd.

MW­
11
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
6
MW­
MW­
MW­
4
MW­
3
MW­
2
MW­
I
5A
12
10
9B
9A
SB
8A
7B
7A
5B
arsenic
(total)
14.5
<10.0
<10.0
16.2
­40.0
17.4
865
29.0
276
654
82.2
66.9
1920
41.2
936
<10.0
arsenic
(soluble)
<10.0
40.0
­30.0
<10.0
4
0
.0
40.0
956
<10.0
214
142
38.2
4
0
.0
122
29.0
14.7
<10.0
`The
monitoring
well
casing
elevations
listed
in
Reference
16
(Table
2­
1
and
Appendix
B)
are
incorrect
based
on
comparisons
with
the
USGS
topographic
map
(see
ref.
3)
and
the
well
logs
from
the
Keystone
Soils
and
Hydrogeologic
Investigation
(see
ref.
8,
Appendix
A).
By
comparing
the
elevations
to
Appendix
A
ofreference
8
and
confirming
the
general
site
elevations
with
the
topographic
map,
it
was
determined
that
the
monitoring
well
casing
elevations
listed
in
Reference
16
(Table
2­
1
and
Appendix
B)
are
75.4
feet
too
low.
The
reason
for
this
error
appears
to
be
an
incorrect
transcription
of
elevations
on
the
well
logs
in
Appendix
B
of
reference
16.
Therefore,
the
well
casing
elevations
for
those
wells
that
only
appear
in
reference
16
Appendix
B
(Le.,
MW­
SA
to
MW­
12,
which
were
installed
after
the
Soils
and
Hydrogeologic
Investigation)
have
been
corrected
to
account
for
this
error.
Therefore,
75.4
feet
has
been
added
to
each
of
the
screen
intervals
in
the
cited
reference.

Well
logs
are
not
available
for
MW­
7A,
MW­
7B,
and
MW­
6.
Screen
intervals
for
wells
MW­
7A
and
MW­
7B
are
estimated
based
on
a
cross­
section
[ref.
16,
Fig.
2­
31.
Reference
16
refers
to
MW­
6
as
a
"shallow"
well.
Other
"shallow"
wells
discussed
in
Reference
16
are
all
screened
in
the
alluvium.
Therefore,
MW­
6
is
evaluated
as
an
alluvium
well.

July
2001
27
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
Hazardous
Substance
chromium
(soluble)

chromium
(total)
copper
(soluble)

copper
(total)

Reference
acenaph­
thene
acenaph­
thalene
anthracene
benzo(
a)
anthracene
benzo(
a)
PY=
ne
benzo(
b)
fl
ttoranthene
benzo(
ghi)
perylene
benzo(
k)
fl,
uoranthem
chrysene
dibenz(
ah)
anthracene
fluoran­
thene
fluorene
indeno(
12
3cd)
pyrenc
phenan­
threne
pyrene
Reference
2,3,5,6­
tetrachloro
phenol
2,4,6­
tri­
chloro­
phenol
2,4­
dichloro­
phenol
dimethyl­
phenol
2,4­
­
Bkgd.
Sample
MW­
11
­
<10.0
216
<25
289
­
<2.00
<2.00
<0.500
<0.020
<0.020
<0.020
<0.050
<0.020
<0.150
<0.030
<0.200
<0.200
<0.050
<os00
<0.200
­
T
._
­
.
~
­
~
".,

Contaminated
Samples
MW­
1MW­
2MW­
3MW­
4MW­
MW­
MW­
6
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
5A
5B
7A
7B
SA
8B
9A
9B
10
12
<10.0
4
0
.0
110.0
4
0
.0
4
0
.0
4
0
.0
­
14.5
<10.0
15.3
<10.0
<10.0
ClO.
0
<10.0
<10.0210.0
478
206
2890
350
1400
33.9
229
111
36.3
1590
4
0
.0
303
4
0
.0
193
481
<25
<25
<25
125
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
411
228
380
946
159
<25
62.2
83.8
<25
476
<25
537
<25
372
424
16.
Tab
2­
6.
ADD.
C
(tm.
C128.
C129.
and
C1301
Second
Round
Samdin!

<0.200
I
14.7
1
NR
I
<0.200
I
NR
I
<0.200
I
NR
I
NR
I<
0.200
I
NR
16,
App.
C
(pp.
C169
to
C184)
Second
Round
Sampling
4
.0
0
9.04
<0.500
July
200
1
I
1
t
I
­
<2.00
<2.00
<0.500
<0.020
10.020
10.020
<0.050
<0.020
<0.150
<0.030
10.200
<0.200
<0.050
<os00
<0.200
­

<OS00
1
316
I
6.09
­I"+
<0.500
250
<0.500
B
I
I
I
<os00
28
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
,
.
__
Hazardous
I
Bkgd.
I
.

Contaminated
Samples
Substance
Sample
MW­
11
2,4­
dinitr­

10.500
2­
nitro­
phenol
<0.500
2­
chloro­
ophenol
4.00
*
phenol
4­
nitro­
<1.00
phenol
4­
chloro­
10.500
3­
methyl­
phenol
pentachlor
(1.00
ophenol
phenol
0.613
Reference
MW­
I
MW­
3
MW­
2'

4
.0
0
127
4
0
0
<OS00
<5.00
<50.0
<0.500
c5.00
C50.0
<1.00
169
<loo
<0.500
77.4
353
13.4
1020
1810
"­
I
MW­
4
MW­
MW­
MW­
.
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
MW­
6
MW­
MW­
5A
12
10
9B
9A
XB
SA
7B
7A
5B
4.00
1270
<loo
­40.0
11.00
a.
00
1340
<10.0
4
0
0
1670
4
.0
0
4
0
0
<OS00
<50.0
"<
50.0
6
.0
0
0.733
<0.500
d5.00
<5.00
<50.0
<50.0
<0.500
<50.0
<0.500
<50.0
<50.0
<5.00
<0.500
10.500
<5.00
<5.00
GO.
0
317
<0.500
<50.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
.0
0
2010
4
0
0
<10.0
3.06
4
.0
0
1020
4
0
.0
4
0
0
4460
4
.0
0
2260
<0.500
2120
<0.500
3790
<50.0
15.00
348
<0.500<
0.500<
5.00<
50.0
1820
'
l
l
I
I
'
­l
I
'
l
!
,
I
I
I
I
C1.00
7850
4
0
0
237
25.9
7.53
1040
1780
17400
1090
46.7
pllo
<0.500
1
<50.0
I
3.96
I
~50.0
1
G0.0
1
<5.00
1
4.00
I
1.31
1
1.28
1
<5.00
1
GO.
0
I
GO.
0
1
A
.
C
.
C150
t
C165
SecondRound
Sam
lin
Reference
I
16,
App.
C
(pp.
'2131
to
C146)
Second
Round
Sampling
NR
=
Not
Reported
MADEP
Ground
Water
Sampling
­
June
1998
In
June
1998,
MADEP
collected
samples
from
monitoring
wells
MW­
3,
MW­
4,
MW­
5A,
MW­
5B,
MW­
6,
MW­
7A,
MW­
8B,
MW­
9B,
MW­
10,
and
MW­
12
[ref
51,
p.
241.
All
samples
were
analyzed
for
baseheutral
acid
extractables
(BNAs)
using
EPA
Method
8270,
metals
(total
and
dissolved),
phenol,
and
other
substances
using
various
methods
[ref.
51,
p.
241.
Samples
collected
from
MW­
SA
and
MW­
12
were
analyzed
for
dioxins
and
furans
as
part
of
this
sampling
event
[ref.
51,
p.
81.
The
sample
collected
from,
h4W­
12
was
considered
"oil,"
as
it
represented
product
floating
on
the
top
of
the
aquifer
[ref.
5
1,
p.
231.

Analytical
results
showed
extensive
contamination
of
various
substances.
Selected
concentrations
detected
in
a
ground
water
sample
from
MW­
12
include:
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(TCDD)
at
up
to
37.6
parts
per
trillion
(ppt);
2,3,7,8­
tetrachlorinated
dibenzofuran
(TCDF)
at
up
to
211
ppt;
1,2,3,4,7,8­
hexachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(HxCDD)
at
14,860
ppt;
1,2,3,6,7,8­&
CDD
352,060
ppt;
total
TCDD
at
227
ppt;
total
TCDF
at
2,460
ppt;
total
HXDD
at
790,840
ppt;
and
total.
heptachlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxin
(HpCDD)
at
4,316,360
ppt.
Additional
hazardous
substances
detected
in
the
ground
water
samples
include
pentachlorophenol
at
1,710
p
g
L
in
MW­
5A,
at
1,700
p
g
L
in
MW­
7A,
and
1,220
pg/
L
in
MW­
SB;
and
arsenic
at
363
pg/
L
in
MW­
3
and
at
219
p
g
L
in
MW­
6
[ref.
'51,
pp.
5­
91.
No
samples
were
collected
from
MW­
I
1,
the
background
well,
during
this
round
of
sampling,
therefore,
these
concentrations
are
presented
to
further
support
the
observed
release
documented
by
the
1989
Phase
I1
Site
Investigation.

Attribution:

The
hazardous
substances
detected
at
observed
release
concentrations
in
ground
water
are
attributed
to
operations
and
sources
at
the
HPC
site.
They
are
found
in
sources
at
the
site,
which
were
not
contained
against
a
release
to
ground
water
[see
sections
2.2.2
for
Sources
1
and
21.
The
substances
detected
in
the
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
consist
of
either
the
constituents
of
wood
preserving
materials
used
at
the
site
or
substances
created
by
the
transformation
of
constituents
used
at
the
site
[refs.
16,
p.
1­
2;
52,
Box
C;
45,
p.
11.
From
1953
to
1993,
HPC
preserved
wood
products
using
a
number
of
chemicals,

July
2
9
GW­
Likelihood
of
Release
including:
PCP
in
fuel
oil,
creosote,
fluoro­
chrome­
arsenate­
phenol
salts
in
water,
and
chromated­
copper­
arsenate
salts
in
water
[refs.
4,
pp.
5­
8;
16,
pp.
1­
1,
1­
2;
49,
p.
41.
The
wood
products
treated
at
HPC
were
allowed
to
drip
onto
the
ground
or
onto
concrete
drip
pads
that
were
found
to
be
riddled
with
cracks,
gaps,
and
corroded
areas
during
a
RCRA
inspection
[ref.
7,
p.
81.
The
former
General
Manager
and
President
of
HPC
(from
1973
to
1993)
admits
in
sworn
testimony
that
PCP,
CCA,
and
other
wood
treating
products
were
allowed
to
drip
onto
bare
soil
throughout
the
entire
site
[ref.
44,
pp.
30,32,61].
HPC's
Phase
I1
report
concludes
that
"...
environmental
impact
from
plant
operations
has
been
defined
to
the
north,
by
MW­
1
and
MW­
11
and
to
the
west
by
MW­
4"
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
19].
HPC's
Phase
11
report
firther
concludes
that
deep
wells
MW­
7B
and
MW­
9B
indicate
vertical
migration
attributable
to
the
site
into
the
lower
alluvial
aquifer
and
the
upper
bedrock
aquifer
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
19].
HPC
also
admits
that
the
ground
water
contamination
plume
extends
within
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
area
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
19].
In
addition,
the
ground
water
well
closest
to
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
(MW­
10)
has
consistently
shown
contamination
(including
PCP
and
PAHs)
attributable
to
the
€€
PC
site,
indicating
contaminant
migration
toward,
and
even
entering,
surface
water
[ref.
16,
Figure
2­
17].
No
other
possible
sources
of
ground
water
contamination
in
the
vicinity
of
the
site
are
referred
to
in
any
of
the
investigation
reports
used
to
prepare
this
documentation
record.

Hazardous
Substances
in
the
Observed
Release
Arsenic(
total
and
soluble)
Benzo(
b)
fluoroanthene
Chromium(
totalandsoluble)
Benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene
Copper
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(
a)
Benzo(
a)
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
2,3,5,6­
Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,6­
TrichlorophenoI
2,4­
Dichlorophenol
2,4­
Dimethylphenol
2,4­
Dinitrophenol
2­
Chlorophenol
2­
Nitrophenol
4­
Nitrophenol
4­
Chloro­
3­
methylphenol
July
2001
3
0
GW­
Likelihood
ofRelease
3.2
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
3.2.1
.TOXICITY/
MOBILITY
Hazardous
Substance
Mobility
Facto]
Toxicity
Factor
Source
No.
Value
Value
arsenic
chromium
copper
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(
a)
anthracene
benzo(
a)
pyrene
benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene
benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
benzo(
k)
fluorahthene
butylbenzyl
phthalate
dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene
dibenzofuran
di­
n­
octyl
phthalate
indeno(
l,
2,3­
cd)
pyrene
chrysene
fluoranthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
naphthalene
2,4,6­
trichlorophenol
2,4­
dichlorophenol
2,4­
dimethylphenol
2,4­
dinitrophenol
2­
chlorophenol
2­
nitrophenol
4­
nitrophenol
4­
methylphenol
(a.
k.
a,
p­
cresol)

4,6­
dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
4­
chloro­
3­
methylphenol
2,3,5,6­
tetrachIorophenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
benzene
toluene
ethyl
benzene
xylenes
(used
lowest
value)

July
2001
,
10000
10000
...
10
...

10
1000
10000
...
1000
100
10
10000
...
100
1000
10
100
100
...

100
100
10
1000
100
1000
100
1
1
100
100
1
NA
100
1
10000
100
10
10
1
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.01
1
0.01
0.0001
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
10000
10000
...
10
...

10
1000
10000
...

1000
100
0.1
10000
...
0.01
1000
10
100
100
...

100
100
10
1000
100
1000
100
1
1
100
100
1
NA
100
1
100
100
10
10
1
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
4
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
17
2,
p.
B­
14
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
8
2,
p.
B­
8
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
"

2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
IO
2,
p.
B­
20
GW­
Waste
Characteristics
Hazardous
Substance
Reference
Toxicity/
Present
in
Mobility
Factor
Toxicity
Factor
Source
NO.
Value
Mobility
Observed
Value
Release?
(Table
3­
9)

1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDD
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
16
1,2,3,4,7,8­
H~
CDD
2
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD
2
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDF
2
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
16
2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF
2
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
16
1,2,3,4,7,8­=
CDF
2
10000
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF
2
10000
.
0.0001
N
1
2,
p.
B­
11
NA
=.
Not
Available
in
reference
2.
...
=No
value
listed
in
SCDM.

Toxicitykfobility
Factor
Value:
10000
[Ref.
1,
Table
3­
91
3.2.2
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
QUANTITY
Source
No.
Source
Type
Source
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
1
contaminated
soil
>O
2
soil
>O
Sum
of
Values:
>O
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
10
[Ref.
1,
Table
2­
6
and
section
2.4.2.21
3.2.3
WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS
FACTOR
CATEGORY
VALUE
Toxicitykfobility
Factor
Value:
10000
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
10
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
18
(Table
2­
7)

July
2001
32
GW­
Waste
Characteristics
3.3
TARGETS
3.3.1
NEARESTWELL
Well
ID:
CateSprings
LevelofContamination
(I,
11,
orpotential):
potential
If
potentialcontamination,
distancefromsource
in
miles:
>1
­
2
Reference:
9;
20,
p.
3
The
Cate
Springs
well
No.
1
is
located
off
Maple
St.,
east
of
the
site
by
approximately
1.2
miles
[ref.
20,
p.
3;
Figure
3
of
this
report].
Figure
3
of
this
report
shows
the
drinking
water
supply
wells
within
4
radial
miles
of
the
HPC
site
[Figure
3
of
this
report;
ref.
91.

Nearest
Well
Factor
Value:
5
[ref.
1,
Table
3­
1
11
July
2001
33
GW­
Targets
3.3.2
POPULATION
3.3.2.4
Potential
Contamination
Although
private
drinking
water
wells
exist
within
4
miles
of
the
HPC
site,
these
private
wells
have
not
been
scored
in
this
documentation
record
[ref.
271.
Four
municipalities
have
public
drinking
water
wells
within
4
miles
of
the
sources
at
the
HPC
site
[see
Figure
3
of
this
documentation
record].
The
four
municipalities
are
the
Town
of
Mansfield,
the
Town
of
Foxborough,
the
Town
of
Sharon,
and
the
Town
of
Easton
[refs.
9;
20;
21;
22;
24;
261.
Each
municipality's
water
supply
system
is
described
below.

Town
of
Mansfield
Water
Department
(MWD)
The
water
supply
system
for
the
Town
of
Mansfield
is
provided
by
the
MWD
and
serves
a
total
population
of
20,400
people
(6,540
service
connections)
[ref.
20,
p.
1,3].
The
system
includes
eight
wells:

1:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Cate
Springs
Well
No.
1;
Albertini
Well
No.
2;
Albertini
Well
No.
3;
Witch
Pond
Well
No.
6;
Dustin
Well
No.
7;
Prescott
Well
No.
8;
Prescott
Well
No.
9;
and
Walsh
Well
No.
I1
(considered
a
single
well
­as
noted
by
its
having
only
one
water
supply
ID
No.­,
although
it
consists
of
42
co­
located,
blended
wells)
[ref.
201.

All
of
the
wells
draw
from
the
alluvium/
glacial
aquifer
(referred
to
as
the
"overburden"
in
the
reference)
and
the
entire
system
is
blended
prior
to
distribution
[ref.
201.
No
one
well
contributes
greater
than
40%
to
the
overall
system
(the
total
contribution
of
the
largest
well,
the
Walsh
Well,
is
only
25%
of
the
total
system)
[ref.
20,
p.
31.
One
additional
well,
Albertini
Well
No.
4,
is
no
longer
used
[ref.
20,
p.
11.
All
eight
wells
are
located
within
4
miles
of
the
HPC
site
[ref,
20,
p.
3;
Figure
31.

Calculation:
20,400
people/
S
wells
=
2,550
people
per
well.

Town
of
Foxborough
Water
Department
oFWDl
The
water
supply
system
for
the
Town
of
Foxborough
is
supplied
by
the
FWD
and
serves
a
total
population
of
approximately
.16,500
people
[ref.
26,
p.
11.
The
system
includes
11
wells
(Well
Nos.
1,
'2a,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
12,
and
13)
located
throughout
six
well
stations
(Station
Nos.
1,2,
3,3a,
4,
and
5)
[ref.
261.
Water
is
blended
and
pumped
to
two
holding
tanks,
where
it
is
gravity­
fed
to
the
system
[ref.
261.
All
wells
are
screened
in
the
"overburden"
(alluviudglacial
aquifer)
and
no
one
well
contributes
greater
than
40%
to
the
total
system
[ref.
261.
All
11
FWD
wells
are
within
4
miles
of
the
HPC
site
[ref.
26;
Figure
31.

Calculation:
16,500
people/
ll
wells
=
1,500
people
per
well.

Town
of
Sharon
Water
Department
CSWD)
The
water
supply
system
for
the
Town
of
Sharon
is
supplied
by
the
SWD
and
serves
approximately
16,000
to
17,000
people
[ref.
221.
The
system
includes
six
wells
(Well
Nos.
2,3,4,
5,6,
and
7)
[ref.
221.
No
one
well
contributes
greater
than
40%
to
the
overall
system
[ref.
221.
All
but
one
well
is
screened
to
about
50
feet
below
ground
surface,
with
one
down
to
80
feet
below
ground
surface
[ref.
221.
Other
wells
in
the
area
screened
at
around
50
feet
below
ground
surface
are
screened
within
the
alluviudglacial
aquifer
[ref.
21;
23;
261.
Three
of
the
SWD
wells
(Well
Nos.
5,6,
and
7)
are
within
4
miles
of
the
HPC
site
[ref.
22;
Figure
31.

Calculation:
16,000
people/
6
wells
=
2,667
peopie
per
well.

Town
of
Easton
Water
Department
(EWD)
The
water
supply
system
for
the
Town
of
Easton
is
supplied
by
the
EWD
[ref.
241.
Although
two
of
the
EWD
wells
(Well
Nos.
3
and
5,
southeast
of
the
site)
appear
to
be
within
four
miles
of
the
site,
EPA
did
not
score
them
as
being
within
the
distance
limit
because
their
exact
distance
from
sources
could
not
be
confirmed
and
the
additional
target
points
for
these
wells
would
not
affect
the
potential
targets
factor
value
[ref.
24;
Figure
31.

July
*
35
GW­
Targets
Distance
Category
0
­
%

>%­%

>3
­
4
Total
Public
Wells
References
Aquifer
or
Screened
Depth
0
I
0
I
I
MWD
Cate
Spgs.
#1
Alluvium
20
MWD
Prescott
#8
Alluvium
20
MWD
Prescott
#9
Alluvium
20
~
~~
~

MWD
Dustin
#7
FWD
#I
FWD
#2a
FWD
#4
FWD
#5
FWD
#6
FWD
#7
FWD
#8
FWD
#9
FWD
#10
FWD
#13
20
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
MWD
Witch
Pond
#6
hlWD
Albertini
#2
MWD
Albertini
#3
W
D
Walsh
#11
FWD
#12
SWD
#5
SWD
#6
SWD
#7
20
20
20
20
26
22
22
22
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
Alluvium
~
Estimated
Population
Served
0
0
0
7,650
2,550
2,550
2,550
17,550
2,550
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
19,701
2,550
2,550
2,550
2,550
1,500
2,667
2,667
2,667
44,901
Distance­
Weighted
Value
[Ref.
1,
Table
3­
12]
0
0
0
939
2,122
1,306
4,367
Sum
of
Distance­
Weighted
Population
Values:
4,367
Sum
of
Distance­
Weighted
Population
ValuesIlO:
436.7
­
Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value
is
rounded
to
the
nearest
integer
[ref.
1,
section
3.3.2.41.

Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value:
437
July
2001
36
GW­
Targets
4.0
SURFACE
WATER
MIGRATION
PATHWAY
4.1
OVERLANDIFLOOD
MIGRATION
COMPONENT
4.1.1.1
Definition
of
Hazardous
Substance
Migration
Path
for
Overland/
Flood
Component
Overland
and
In­
Water
SementsITarrret
Distance
Limit
The
HPC
property
is
located
within
the
Taunton
River
Regional
Drainage
Basin
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
6,3­
6;
3
1,
p.
811.
The
property
is
generally
divided
by
the
Rumford
River
into
eastern
and
western
portions
[ref.
49,
Figure
41.
The
Rumford
River
flows
generally
north­
to­
south
through
the
main
HPC
facility
[refs.
3;
16,
p.
2­
61.
Two
branches
of
the
Rumford
River
converge
near
the
northern­
most
portion
of
the
property
[ref.
31.
Surface
water
runoff
from
the
western
and
northern
portions
of
the
property
flows
over
land
into
the
Rumford
River
[ref.
16,
Figures
2­
14a
and
2­
14bl.
Surface
water
runoff
from
the
eastern
and
southern
portions
of
the
HPC
property
may
flow
directly
to
the
Rumford
River
or
southward
into
the
adjacent
wetlands
and
a
shallow
body
of
water,
referred
to
as
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
6,
Figure
1­
21.
Although
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
appears
to
be
a
stagnant
body
of
water,
it
flows
west
and
discharges
into
the
Rumford
River
[ref.
6;
16,
p.
3­
61.
At
one
time,
catch
basins
located
throughout
the
property
discharged
stormwater
runoff
to
the
Rumford
River;
however,
during
the
on­
site
reconnaissance,
START
personnel
noted
that
the
catchbasins
were
clogged
with
debris
[ref.
6,
p.
41.
See
Figure
4
of
this
documentation
record
for
an
illustration
of
these
surface
water
bodies.

The
Rumford
River
flows
southward
through
Fulton
Pond,
Kingman
Pond,
and
Cabot
Pond,
and
into
the
Norton
Reservoir
[ref.
3;
49,
Figure
41.
On
the
southeast
side
of
Norton
Reservoir,
the
Rumford
River
continues
to
flow
southward,
and
is
called
Threemile
River,
approximately
7.4
miles
downstream
of
the
probably
point
of
entry
(PPE)
[ref.
3
J.
Surface
water
continues
to
flow
south
for
approximately
7.6
miles
to
the
end
of
the
15­
mile
surface
water
TDL
located
on
the
Threemile
River,
approximately
0.3
mile
downstream
of
Route
44
in
Taunton,
Massachusetts
[ref.
49,
Figure
51.

PPEs
The
surface
water
pathway
PPEs
are
shown
on
Figure
4
of
this
documentation
record.
The
most
upstream
PPE
to
surface
water
(referred
to
in
this
documentation
record
as
PPE­
1)
is
located
approximately
300
feet
upstream
of
the
confluence
of
the
two
branches
of
the
Rumford
River
immediately
after
they
enter
the
HPC
facility
just
southwest
of
County
Street
[ref.
8,
Figure
1­
21.
PPE­
2
is
on
the
main
(east)
branch
of
the
Rumford
River
that
flows
from
the
Glue
Factory
Pond,
while
PPE­
1
is
on
the
western
branch.
PPE­
1
and
PPE­
2
are
located
along
the
northern
border
of
Source
1
[ref.
X,
Figures
1­
2
and
3­
1;
49,
Figure
2;
and
53,
Figure
21.
It
is
approximately
1,500
feet
(in
the
downstream
direction)
from
PPE­
1
to
the
confluence
of
the
Rumford
River
and,
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
8,
Figure
1­
21.
Another
upstream
PPE
(PPE­
3)
is
located
along
the
wetlands
surrounding
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel,
approximately
1,500
feet
upstream
of
its
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River
near
the
eastern
edge
of
Source
2
[ref.
8,
Figure
1­
21.
PPE­
3
is
located
within
the
palustrine
forested
wetlands
at
the
most
upstream
point
likely
to
be
impacted
by
Source
2
[ref.
8,
Figure
1­
21.
The
farthest
downstream
PPE
(PPE­
4)
is
located
just
downstream
from
the
confluence
of
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel.
PPE­
4
is
the
most
downstream
point
likely
to
be
impacted
by
Source
2
and
is
near
the
ground
water
treatment
area.
Many
other
PPEs
exist
between
PPE­
1
and
PPE­
4
along
the
Rumford
River,
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
and
the
wetlands,
where
runoff
from
source
areas
is
likely
to
enter
these
surface
water
bodies
[ref.
3;
8,
Figure
1­
21.
The
distance
between
PPE­
1
(the
farthest
upstream
PPE)
and
PPE­
4
(the
farthest
downstream
PPE)
is
approximately
1,500
feet
[refs.
3;
8,
F.
igure
1­
21.
Aithiough
the
surface
water
pathway
HRS
score
is
based
on
the
overland
flowlflood
component
of
the
surface
water
pathway,
another
significant
contaminant
migration
path
to
the
Rumford
River
is
via
ground
water
recharge
[refs.
8,
Figure
1­
2;
49,
p.
32,
Figure
21.

Rumford
River
Flow
Near
the
HPC
site,
the
course
of
the
Rumford
River
has
been
altered
several
times
in
the
past.
Prior
to
1850,
the
river
allegedly
flowed
west
to
east
through
the
former
operations
area
of
the
HPC
property
before
cutting
toward
the
south
between
the
current
location
of
the
Mill
Building
and
the
Cylinders
No.
1
and
2
building
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
51.
In
1850,
to
permit
construction
of
the
railroad
tracks,
the
river
was
rerouted
to
flow
to
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel.
The
Rumford
River
flow
was
altered
to
its
present
course,
between
1945
and
1950,
to
allow
for
the
construction
of
a
major
highway
underpass
[ref.
8,
p.
3­
51.
MADEP
has
reported
that
contaminants
flow
through
the
filled
former
riverbed
sediments
as
evidenced
by
seep
outbreaks
observed
along
south­
central
property
areas
and
historical
outbreaks
of
tar
mats
along
the
Rumford
River
by
former
riverbed
flow
paths
[refs.
7,
Figure
2a,
p.
7;
8,
Figure
3­
61.

July
2001
37
SW­
General
No
USGS
gaging
stations
are
located
along
the
surface
water
target
distance
limit;
the
flow
rates
are
estimated
for
the
various
portions
of
the
surface
water
within
the
15
mile
TDL.
The
flow
rate
reaches
100
cfs
approximately
11.5
miles
downstream
of
PPE­
4.
At
several
points
along
the
TDL,
the
flow
rate
of
the
Rumford
River
was
estimated
using
the
USGS
conversion
factor
of
1.8
cfs
per
square
mile
of
drainage
basin
[refs.
3;
28;
29;
and
301.
Approximately
7.4
miles
downstream
of
the
PPE­
4,
the
drainage
basin
area
is
22.3
mi2;
the
Rumford
River
at
this
point
is
estimated
to
flow
at
40.1
cfs.
Approximately
14.7
miles
downstream
of
PPE­
4,
the
drainage
basin
of
the
Threemile
River
is
approximately
81.4
mi2;
the
flow
rate
at
this
point
(near
route
44)
is
estimated
at
146.5
cfs
[refs.
28;
29;
and
301.
Field
observations
indicate
that
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
flow
is
less
than
10
cfs
[ref.
61;
however,
the
HPC
Phase
I1
Site
Assessment
estimated
that
the
flow
of
the
Rumford
River
at
the
site
is
approximately
11.6
cfs
[ref.
16,
p.
3­
61.

4.1.2.1
Likelihood
of
Release
4.1.2.1.1
Observed
Release
Direct
Observation
­
Basis
for
Direct
Observation:

Hazardous
substances
released
from
the
HPC
site
have
caused
adverse
effects
to
fish
in
the
Rumford
River,
and
also
to
the
fishery.
Tissue
samples
from
fish
caught
downstream
from
the
HPC
site
are
contaminated
with
dioxins
and
furans
released
from
the
HPC
site.
In
response
to
the
fish
contamination,
the
State
of
Massachusetts
has
closed
the
fishery,
warning
anglers
not
to
eat
fish
caught
in
the
Rumford
River
downstream
of
the
HPC
site
[refs.
55;
571.

­
Hazardous
Substances
in
Release:

Hazardous
~
~~
~

ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
ATSDR
Health
Advisory
restricting
fish
consumption
~
~~
~~
~~~
~~

55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
55;
57
Chemical
Analysis
Several
surface
water
and
surface
water
sediment
sampling
events
document
an
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
to
the
surface
water
pathway
at
the
HPC
site.
In
October
1998,
EPA's
Removal
Branch
collected
12
sediment
and
five
surface
water
samples
fiom
the
Rumford
River
[ref.
49,
p.
371.
These
sampling
event
results
are
summarized
in
the
December
1999
HPC
SI
[ref.
491
and
the
validated
data
are
presented
in
References
38
and
40.
In
September
1999,
EPA's
Removal
Branch
again
collected
samples
from
the
Rumford
River,
this
time
upstream
of
the
HPC
site
in
and
near
the
Glue
Factory
Pond
[ref.
341.
Four
sediment
and
seven
fish
tissue
samples
were
collected
as
part
of
this
effort
and
analyzed
for
PCP,
dioxins,
and
furans
[refs.
34;
33;
141.
'

Because
three
of
these
sediment
samples
were
collected
upstream
of
the
HPC
site,
they
are
used
to
further
establish
background.
levels
for
these
hazardous
substances
[ref.
34,
Figure
21.
These
sampling
events
documented
an
observed
release
by
chemical
July
2001
39
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
analysis
of
various
dioxins,
furans
and
PCP.
'
Sediment
and
surface
water
samples
collected
by­
HPC
are
also
presented
following
these
EPA
results
and
further
document
the
observed
release
to
surface
water
by
chemical
analysis.

­
Background
Samples
for
199811999
EPA
Removal
Program
Sampling
[ref.
38;
40;
49;
34;
33;
141:

SampleSampleLocation
Samule
ID
Medium
DeDth
Date
Reference
RRUS­
s
sediment
north
of
County
Rd
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40,
Data
Tables;
49,
Figure
4,
pp.
37­
38
RRUS­
2s
sediment
north
of
County
Rd
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40,
Data
Tables;
49,
Figure
4,
pp.
37­
38
~~
~
~~~~

GFPSsedimentsouthbank
of
Glue
0­
3"
9/
29/
99
34,
p.
1,
Table
2
Factory
Pond
Factory
Pond
GFPNsedimentnortheastbankofGlue
0­
3"
9/
29/
99
34,
p.
1,
Table2
RRB
sedimentdirectlydownstream
of
0­
3"
9/
29/
99
34,
p.
1,
Table
2
the
bleachery
on
the
Rumford
River
'RRUS­
w
surface
water
north
of
County
Rd
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40,
Data
Tables;
49,
Figure
4,
pp.
37­
38
RRUS­
2w
surface
water
north
of
County
Rd
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40,
Data
Tables;
49,
Figure
4,
pp.
37­
38
­
Contaminated
Samples
for
1998
EPA
Removal
Program
Sampling
[ref.
38;
40;
491:

Sample
Sample
ID
Medium
LocatiodDistance
from
PPE
Depth
Date
­03­
W
FP
"W
RRHPO3­
S
R
R
H
P
O
1
RRHP02
surface
waterApprox.
1,250
feet
downstream
of
PPE­
1,
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure4,
p.
37
on
the
€PC
property
about
250
feet
upstream
of
the
confluence
with
backwash
channel.
surfacewater
On
the
eastshore
of
FultonPondapprox.
1Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure
4,
p.
37
mile
downstream
of
PPE­
1.
surfacewaterAt
the
northend
of
KingmanPond,
approx.
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure4,
p.
37
1.25
miles
downstream
of
PPE­
1
sedimentApprox.
1,250feetdownstream
of
PPE­
1,
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure
4,
p.
37
on
the
HPC
property
about
250
feet
upstream
of
the
confluence
with
backwash
channel.
sedimentApprox.
300
feet
downstream
ofPPE­
1,
on
Surface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure4,
p.
37
the
€€
PC
property
where
the
Rumford
River
bends
westward.
sedimentApprox.
900
feet
downstream
ofPPE­
1,
onSurface10/
16/
98
38;
40;
49,
Figure
4,
p.
37
the
HPC
,property,
just
southwest
of
the
railroad
tracks.

July
2001
40
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
W
m
c
a
m
!3
*
3
m
2
E?
a,

'c
0
In
addition
to
the
analytical
data
above,
HPC's
Phase
I1
investigation
documents
an
observed
release
to
surface
water.
As
part
of
the
Phase
11
investigation,
three
surface
water
samples
were
collected
on
the
Rumford
River
backwash
and
nine
wetland
sediment
,samples
were
collected
from
an
area
just
east
of
the
confluence
of
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
[ref.
16,
Figure
2­
15].
Both
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
document
an
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis.

­
Background
Samples
for
Phase
I1
Investigation
[ref.
161
Sample
Sample
ID
Medium
sw­
3
surfacewater
On
theRumfordRiverbackwashchannel,
Surface4/
4/
8916,
Figure2­
15,
Table2­
6
approximately350feetupstreamofitsconfluencepp.
C198,
C199
with
the
Rumford
River.
MW­
10(
0­
2')
soillsediment*
Approximately100feeteast
of
sedimentsample0­
2feet1/
17/
8916,
Figure2­
15,
Table2­
4,
S­
5
near
the
wetland
pp.
c
3
9
,
c
4
3
*
No
background
sediment
samples
were
collected
as
part
of
the
Phase
I1
investigation.
However,
a
surface
soiVwetland
sample
was
collected
during
installation
of
MW­
10.
MW­
10
is
located
approximately
100
feet
east
of
sediment
sample
S­
5.
Although
sample
MW­
10
is
not
a
"clean"
background,
it
represents
a
reference
level
for
PCP,
2,3,5,6­
tetrachlorophenol,
and
2,4­
dimethylphenol
[ref.
49,
Figure
41.

­
Contaminated
Samples
for
Phase
11
Investigation
[ref.
161
Sample
Sample
ID
Medium
Date
Reference
sw­
1
surface
water
sw­
2
surface
water
s­
1
s­
2
s­
3
s­
4
s­
5
S­
6
s­
7
s­
8
s­
9
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
sediment
On
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel,
approximately
1,380
feet
downstream
of
PPE­
3
and
approximately
120
feet
upstream
of
its
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River.
On
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel,
approximately
1,260
feet
downstream
of
PPE­
3
and
approximately
240
feet
upstream
of
its
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
50
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
10
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
50
feet
east
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
150
feet
east
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
20
feet
east
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
5
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.

In
the
wetland
area
approximately
10
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
110
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
In
the
wetland
area
approximately
210
feet
west
of
the
Rumford
River
backwash.
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
48
9
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
4/
4/
89
41418
9
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
6
pp.
C198­
C200
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
6
pp.
C198­
C200
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
(25.0,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
pp.
C50,
C51
16,
Figure
2­
15,
Table
2­
4,
.
pp.
C50,
C51
July
2001
42
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
Concentrations
in
Background
and
Contaminated
Samples
for
1989
Phase
I1
Investigation
[ref.
161
Hazardous
Samples
(pgk)
Sample
Background
Surface
Water
Background
Water
Substance
Contaminated
Sediment
Samples
(pgkg)
Contaminated
Sediment
Surface
Sample
(P
m
(P
g
W
SW­
3
S­
1
S­
2
S­
3
$4
S­
5
S­
6
S­
7
S­
8
S­
9
SW­
1
SW­
2
MW­
10
(0­
2')

2,3,5,6­
366
<1278*
4
0
0
"
7084692621086
.
360
517
4
­0
0
d
.0
0
4
0
0
4
.0
0
Tetrachlorophenol
2,4­
4
4
3
"
<639*
<
400*
462*
880
233<
159*
367
458*
<0.500
<0.500
177.60
<0.500
Dimethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
,

16,
Tables
2­
4
and
2­
6,
Appendix
C,
pp.
C49­
C53,
C19S­
C200,
Appendix
J,
Table
E­
1
Reference
5429
4920
14303799
6233
1393
7905
4116
4984
34.7
39.3
a
0
0
6.82
Bold
Concentrations
listed
in
bold
type
meet
the
criteria
for
an
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
[ref.
1,
Table
2­
31.
*
SQLs
havebeenadjusted
to
account
for
percentmoisture.

July
200
1
43
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
State
Surface
Water
and
Sediment
Sampling
The
State
of
Massachusetts
collected
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
from
the
Rumford
River
on
June
11,
1998
[refs.
51;
541.
These
samples
were
analyzed
for
dioxins
and
furans
using
EPA
Method
1613A
[refs.
51,
p.
24;
54,
p.
11.
The
results
revealed
high
concentrations
of
dioxins
and
furans
in
both
surface
water
andsediment
[refs.
51,
pp.
8
and
9;
54,
pp.
4,5,
and
61.
These
results
corroborate
the
EPA
sediment
and
surface
water
sampling
conducted
four
months
later
in
October
1998
(see
results
above).

Attribution
The
substances
detected
in
surface
water
are
attributable
to
the
HPC
site.
They
are
found
in
sources
at
the
site,
which
were
not
contained
against
a
release
to
surface
water
[see
sections
2.2.2
for
Sources
1
and
21.
The
substances
detected
in
the
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
consist
of
either
the
constituents
of
wood
preserving
materials
used
at
the
site
or
substances
created
by
the
transformation
of
constituents
used
at
the
site
[ref.
16,
p.
1­
21.
From
1953
to
1993,
HPC
preserved
wood
products
using
a
number
of
chemicals,
including:
PCP
in
fuel
oil,
creosote,
FCAP
salts
in
water,
and
chromated­
copper­
arsenate
salts
in
water
[ref.
16,
pp.
1­
1,
1­
21.
The
wood
products
treated
at
HPC
were
allowed
to
drip
onto
the
ground
or
onto
concrete
drip
pads
that
were
found
to
be
riddled
with
cracks,
gaps,
and
corroded
areas
during
a
RCRA
inspection
[ref:
7,
p.
81.
The
former
General
Manager
and
President
of
HPC
(from
1973
to
1993)
stated
in
sworn
testimony
that
PCP,
CCA,
and
other
wood
treating
products
were
allowed
to
drip
onto
bare
soil
throughout
the
entire
site
[ref.
44,
pp.
30,32,61].
HPC's
Phase
I1
report
concludes
that
PCP
attributable
to
the
site
is
present
in
surface
water
samples
collected
from
the
Rumford
River
backwash
at
levels
below
the
proposed
(at
that
time)
EPA
standard
drinking
water
levels
[ref.
16,
pp.
2­
6,2­
191.
HPC
also
stated
that
the
ground
water
contamination
plume
extends
within
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
area
[ref.
16;
p.
2­
20].
In
addition,
the
ground
water
well
closest
to
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
(MW­
10)
has
consistently
shown
contamination
(including
PCP
and
PA%)
attributable
to
the
HPC
site,
indicating
contaminant
migration
toward,
and
into,
surface
water
[ref.
16,
Figure
2­
17].

In
1972,
a
tar
mat
was
discovered
on
the
banks
of
the
Rumford
River
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
HPC
property.
It
appeared
to
originate
from
the
eastern
bank
of
the
Rumford
River
[refs.
4,
p.
8;
7,
p.
7;
8,
p.
1­
2;
16,
p.
2­
11.
HPC
took
efforts
to
control
the
seep
but
in
1973,
seepage
appeared
again
farther
downstream
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
11.
According
to
HPC's
consultant
Keystone,
vandals
shot
holes
in
several
drums
of
recovered
oil
that
were
stored
on
the
HPC
property
along
the
east
bank
ofthe
Rumford
River
and
then
tipped
the
drums
over,
allowing
the
oils
to
seep
into
the
ground
and
the
river
[ref.
16,
p.
2­
31.
In
1990,
affer
"oily
seepage"
was
again
reported
on
the
Rumford
River
in
the
vicinity
of
the
HPC
property,
Keystone
sampled
stained
soil
along
the
river
bank
and
found
that
a
major
constituent
of
the
contamination
was
SVOCs
[refs.
7,
p.
7;
17,
p.
2­
71.

Dioxins
and
furans
are
commonly
associated
with
chlorophenolic
compounds
used
in
wood
preserving
and
are
present
in
contaminatedsoil
on
site
[ref.
48,
pp.
3­
7,2­
8,
and
4­
22].
Dioxins
occur
as
contaminants
in
the
manufacturing
process
of
certain
chlorinated
organic
products
such
as
PCP
[ref.
46,
pp.
3
and
81.
In
addition
to
their
presence
as
contaminants
in
wood
treating
products,
dioxins
and
furans
can
be
produced
by
the
combustion
of
wood
treated
with
PCP
and
other
chlorinated
phenols
[ref.
46,
P­
31.

Finally,
the
State
of
Massachusetts
issued
a
health
advisory
not
to
eat
fish
in
the
Rumford
River
downstream
of
the
HPC
site
to
Kingman
Pond
in
1999
[ref.
551.
This
advisory,
in
conjunction
with
the
ATSDR
Health
Consultation
upon
which
the
advisory
is
based,
both
attribute
the
dioxin,
furan
and
PCP
contamination
in
soil,
ground
water,
surface
water,
sediment
and
fish
tissue
to
the
HPC
site
[refs.
55;
57,
pp.
1,2,3].
The
State's
closure
of
the
fishery
due
to
dioxin
contamination
is
directly
attributed
to
HPC
alone
[refs.
51;
54;
55;
571.

In
addition,
the
only
other
possible
sources
of
dioxin
and
furan
contamination
are
a
former
bleachery
located
upstream
of
the
site
near
the
Glue
Factory
Pond
[refs.
3;
16;
341
and
the
Porter
Estate
,
which
received
various
unauthorized
wastes
including
wastes
from
HPC
[ref.
13,
p.
11.
Surface
drainage
runoff
from
both
of
these
sites
drains
to
the
main
branch
of
the
Rumford
River.
Background
samples
sediment
samples
RRUS­
S
and
RRUS­
2s
collected
just
upstream
from
the
HPC
site
are
located
on
this
branch
of
the
Rumford
River
and,
therefore,
account
for
any
upstream
contamination.
Sediment
samples
GFPS,
GFPN,
and
RRB,
collected
as
part
of
the
Glue
Factory
Pond
investigation,
are
also
used
to
establish
background
levels
to
account
for
any
possible
Contamination
originating
at
the
former
bleachery
or
the
Porter
Estate
sites.
In
addition,
EPA's
removal
branch
collected
seven
fish
tissue
samples
from
the
Glue
Factory
Pond
[ref.
34,
Table
11.
No
dioxins,
furans,
or
PCP
were
detected
in
any
of
these
seven
fish
tissue
samples,
further
proving
that
the
dioxin,
furan,
and
PCP
contamination
is
originating,
at
least
in
part,
from
HPC
{ref.
151.
Background
surface
water
and
sediment
samples
account
for
any
migration
from
this
possible
upstream
source
(see
section
4.1.2.1.1
of
this
documentation
record).

July
2001
44
SW­
Likelihood
ofRelease
Hazardous
Substances
Released
2,3,7,8­
TCDD,
1,2,3,7,8,9­
HxCDD2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF2,3,4,5,7,8­&
CDF
2,3,5,6­
TetrachIorophenol
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDD1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDF1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF2,4­
Dimethylphenol
1,2,3,6,7,8­
HxCDD1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDF1,2,3,7,8,9­
HxCDFPentachlorophenol
1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDD2,3,7,8­
TCDF1,2,3,6,7,8­&
CDF1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
HpCDF
Surface
Water
Observed
Release
Factor
Value:
550
July
2001
45
SW­
Likelihood
of
Release
4.1.3.2
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Waste
Characteristics
4.1.3.2.1
ToxicityJPersistenceIBioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Reference
Toxicity/
Persist./
Bioaccumulation
Persistence
Toxicity
Factor
Source
No.
Value
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
Factor
Value
arsenic
chromium
copper
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(
a)
anthracene
benzo(
a)
pyrene
benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene
benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene
butylbenzyl
phthalate
dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene
dibenzofuran
di­
n­
octyl
phthalate
indeno(
l,
2,3­~
d)
pyrene
chrysene
fluoranthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
naphthalene
2,4,6­
trichlorophenol
2,4­
dichlorophenol
2,4­
dimethylphenol
2,4­
dinitrophenol
2­
chlorophenol
2­
nitrophenol
4­
nitrophenol
4­
methylphenol
(p­
cresol)

4,6­
dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
4­
chloro­
3­
methylphenol
2,3,5,6­
tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
benzene
toluene
ethyl
benzene
xylenes
(lowest
of
three)

July
200
1
10000
10000
...
10
...
10
1000
10000
...
1000
100
10
10000
...
100
1000
10
100
100
...
100
100
10
1000
100
1000
100
1
1
100
100
1
NA
100
1
10000
100
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
1
0.0007
1
1
0.4
1
1
0.4
1
1
NA
I
1
1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
46
5
5
50000
500
500
5000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
500
50000
500
500
50000
500
5000
5000
50
50
500
500
50
500
5
500
5
5
5
50
50
NA
500
5
5000
5000
50
50
50
5
x
lo4
5
x
104
...
5000
...
5
x
104
5
x
lo7
5
x
108
...
5
x
lo7
5
x
106
5000
5
x
108
...

5
x
lo4
5
x
107
5000
5
x
lo5
5
x
lo5
...
5000
2
x
lo4
5
x
lo4
35
5
x
lo4
2
x
lo4
5000
5
5
200
5000
50
NA
5
x
104
5
5
x
107
2
x
105
200
­
200
20
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
4
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
17
2,
p.
B­
14
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
8
2,
p.
B­
8
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
"

2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
20
SW/
HFC­
Waste
Characteristics
Hazardous
Substance
Toxicity
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDD
50000
5
x
108
2,
p.
B­
16
Reference
Toxicity/
Persist./
Bioaccumulation
Persistence
Value
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
Factor
Value
1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDD
2
10000
1
50000
5
x
10'
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD
2
10000
1
50000
5
x
lo8
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDF
2
'
10000
1
50000
5
x
108
2,
p.
B­
16
2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF
2
10000
1
50000
5
x
108
2,
p.
B­
16
1,2,3,4,7,
X­&
CDF
2
10000
1
50000
5
x
10'
2,
p.
B­
11
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF
2
10000
1
50000
5
x
108
2,
p.
B­
I1
Notes:
*
Persistence
value
for
(rivers)
**
Bioaccumulation
factor
value
for
fresh
water
NA
Not
Available
in
reference
2
ToxicityPersistenceh3ioaccumulation
Factor
Vaiue:
5
x
10'

4.1.3.2.2
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
I
contaminated
1
II
Sum
ofValues:
>O
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
A
minimum
hazardous
waste
quantity
value
of
100
was
wsigned
because
a
target
for
the
surface
water
pathway
was
subject
to
actual
(Level
I
and
Level
11)
contamination
[ref.
1,
section
2.4.2.21.

4.1.3.2.3
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Maximum
ToxicityPersistenceBioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5x10'
(copper,
etc)
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
ToxicitylPersistence
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
10000
x
100
=
1x106
ToxicityPersistenceJHWQ
Value
x
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Factor
Value:
1x106
x
5x104
=
5x10"
'

Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
320
[ref.
'
1,
Table
2­
71
July
200
1
47
SW/
HFC­
Waste
Characteristics
4.1.3.3
Human
Food
Chain
Threat
Targets
Fulton
Pond
and
Cabots
Ponds
were
annually
stocked
with
trout
by
the
MA
Division
of
Fisheries
and
Wildlife
(DFW)
as
of
1994
[refs.
3
1;
35;
551.
Fulton
Pond
is
a
seven­
acre
impoundment
with
depths
to
25
feet
managed
as
a
catchable
trout
pond
and
annually
stocked
with
brook,
brown,
and
rainbow
trout,
but
also
contains
yellow
perch,
bluegill,
largemouth
bass,
white
sucker,
white
perch,
pumpkinseed,
brown
bullhead,
golden
shiner,
black
crappie,
redfin
pickerel,
American
eel,
and
chain
pickerel
[Ref.
351.
According
to
historical
records,
the
Rumford
River
was
also
stocked
at
one
time
by
HPC
pef.
351.
The
Rumford
River
is
also
a
fishery
and
contains
brook
and
rainbow
trout
and
warm
water
species
such
as
largemouth
bass,
chain
pickerel,
pumpkinseed
*

sunfish,
white
and
yellow
perch,
black
crappie,
and
bluegill
[pef.
351.
Threemile
River
and
the
Norton
Reservoir
also
contain
fis,
heries
pef.
351.

Actual
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Hazardous
Substance
2,3,7,8­
TCDD
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8­
HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8­&
CDD
1,2,3,6,7,8­
H~
CDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDD
1,2,3,7,8­
PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8­
PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8­&
CDF
1,2,3,4,7,8­
H~
CDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDF
July
200
1
SampleSample
I
D
S
Medium
sedimentRRHP02
sediment
R
R
H
P
O
1
RRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
sediment
RRHPOI
RRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
surface
water
RRHPO3­
W
sediment
R
R
H
P
O
l
RRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
surface
water
­03­
W
FP
RRKP­
W
sediment
R
R
H
P
O
1
RRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
sediment
­02
RRHPO3­
S
sedimentRRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
surface
water
RRHP02
RRHPO3­
S
surface
water
RRHPO3­
W
surface
water
RRHPO3­
W
FP
RRKP­
W
Distance
from
PPE­
1
900
ft.

300
ft.
900
ft.
1,250
ft.
300
ft.
900
ft.
1,250
ft.
1,250
ft.

300
ft.
900
ft.
1,250
ft.
1,250
ft.
1
mi.
1.25
mi.

300
ft.
900
ft.
1,250
ft.
900
ft.
1,250
ft.

900
ft.
1,250
ft.

900
ft.,
1,250
ft.

1,250
ft.

1,250
ft.
1
mi.
1.25
mi.

48
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
50000
50000
50000
5000
5000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
Refs.
2,
p.
B­
18;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
16;

2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
16;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
16;

2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
2,
p.
B­
11;
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
SW/
HFC­
Targets
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
HpCDFsedimentRRHP­
02900
ft.
50000
2,
p.
B­
11;
RRHpO3­
S
1,250
ft.
40,
Data
Summary
Table;
49,
Figure
4
Pentachlorophenol
surface
water
SW­
01
1,380
ft?
500
2,
p.
B­
16;

Pentachlorophenol
surface
water
SW­
02
1,260
ft?
500
2,
p.
B­
16
16,
Table
2­
6
16,
Table
2­
6
­
ClosedFisheries:

In
October
1998,
the
State
of
Massachusetts
Department
of
Public
Health
(MDPH)
issued
a
Provisional
Public
Health
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
for
the
Rumford
River
and
associated
impoundments,
i.
e.,
Fulton,
Kingman,
and
Cabot
ponds
and
the
Norton
Reservior
[ref.
561.
The
reason
for
issuing
the
provisional
advisory
is
that
"[
dlioxin
compounds
have
been
identified
in
surface
water
near
the
former
Hatheway
and
Patterson
sites
in
Mansfield."
A
provisional
advisory
was
issued
because
it
was
not
feasible
at
the
time
to
obtain
fish
tissue
sampling
data
in
a
timely
way
because
of
the
limited
availability
of
laboratory
resources
prudent
public
health
measure
to
issue
a
provisional
advisory
without
waiting
for
results
of
fish
tissue
sampling."
[ref.
561.

Following
the
US.
EPA's
October
1998
sampling
and
analysis
of
sediment,
surface
water
(see
observed
release
section
above),
and
fish
tissue
samples,
the
MDPH,
under
cooperative
agreement
with
ATSDR,
issued
a
Health
Consultation
for
the
Rumford
River
Site
[ref.
571.
The
conclusions
stated
that
"[
tlhe
concentrations
of
dioxin
in
fish
in
the
Rumford
River
below
Glue
Factory
Pond
to
and
including
Norton
Reservoir
constitute
a
public
health
hazard.
Therefore,
based
on
these
data
and
information
about
the
HP
[Hatheway
and
Patterson]
site,
a
regular
public
health
fish
consumption
advisory
should
be
issued
by
MDPH
in
follow­
up
to
the
provisional
advisory
issued
by
MDPH
in
October
1998."
[ref.
571.
­
nationwide
for
these
analytes
and
the
technical
requirements
involved
in
the
analysis.
The
MDPH
felt
that
it
was
a
"proactive
and
On
June
30,
1999,
the
MDPH
issued
a
regular
public
health
fish
consumption
advisory
[ref.
55;
471.
This
updated
fish
advisory
recommends
that
"[
a]
ll
persons
should
refrain
from
consuming
any
fish
caught
in
the
Rumford
River,
downstream
of
Glue
Factory
Pond,
Fulton
Pond,
Kingman
Pond,
Cabot
Pond,
or
Norton
Reservoir."
[ref.
471
The
advisory
attributes
the
dioxin
contamination
to
the
HPC
site
[ref.
471.
This
fishery
closure
is
therefore
attributed
to
releases
of
hazardous
substances
at
the
HPC
site
and
in
the
observed
release
by
chemical
analysis
of
sediment
and
surface
water
samples.

Level
I
Concentrations
Seven
fish
tissue
samples
were
collected
from
Fulton
Pond
(FPFISH001,
FPFISH002,
FPFISH003,
FPFISH004,
FPFISHOOS,
FPFISH006,
and
FPFISH007)
[ref.
57,
p.
31.
These
fish
tissue
samples
were
analyzed
for
dioxins/
furans
@PA
Method
1613B),
pentachlorophenol,
and
inorganic
arsenic
[refs.
42;
431.
Although
PCP
was
detected
in
each
fish
tissue
sample,
the
concentrations
detected
were
below
the
CRQL
[ref.
421.
Dioxins
and
furans
were
detected
in
each
of
the
seven
fish
tissue
samples.
Those
meeting
Level
I
concentrations
are
listed
below
[refs.
2,
pp.
B­
53,
B­
60;
431.

Sample
ID
Hazardous
Hazardous
SubstanceSubstanceConcentration
t
m
g
w
Concentration
(mgkg)

FPFISHOOl2,3,7,8
TCDF4.643
x
lo6
2.0
x
lo7
Cancer
Risk
ScreeningConc
2,
p.
B­
60;
43,
Data
Sum
Table
FPFISH0041,2,3,4,7,8HxCDD1.128
x
10"
2.0
x
Cancer
Risk
ScreeningConc2,
p.
B­
53;
43,
Data
Sum
Table
FPFISH0041,2,3,6,7,8HxCDD1.43
x
10"
5.1
x
CancerRiskScreeningConc
2,
p.
B­
53;
43,
Data
Sum
Table
The
distances
for
samples
SW­
01
and
SW­
02
are
in
feet
from
PPE­
3,
not
PPE­
1
July
2001
49
SW/
HFC­
Targets
,Most
Distant
Level
I
Sample
Sample
ID:
FPFISH
004
Distance
from
the
probable
point
of
entry:
1
mile
Reference:
40,41,
and
43
Level
I
Fisheries
Extent
of
Level
I
Fishery
Identity
of
Fishery
to
PPE)
Refs.
RumfordRiverfromPPE­
1to
the
1
mile
downstreamofPPE­
1
49,
Figure
4;
43
outfall
of
Fulton
Pond
Most
Distant
Level
I1
Samde
Sample
ID:
RRKP­
W
Distance
fiom
the
probable
point
of
entry:
1.25
miles
fiom
PPE­
1
Reference:
40,
Data
Summary
Table
Level
I1
Fisheries
Identity
of
Fishery
Extent
of
Level
I1
Fishery
Refs.

RumfordRiverbetweenFulton0.25mile,
relative
to
Level
I
fishery49,
Figure
4;
43
(Level
I
fish
sample)
and
Kingman
Ponds
(sediment
sample
RRKP­
W)
(Relative
to
PPE
or
Level
I
Fishery)

4.1.3.3.1
Food
Chain
Individual
Sample
ID:
FPFISH004
and
FPFISHOOl
Level
ILevel
II/
or
Potential:
Level
I
Hazardous
Substance:
1,2,3,4,7,8­
HxCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,8­
HxCDD,
1,2,3,4,6,7&
HpCDD
Food
Chain
Individual
Factor
Value:
50
July
2001
50
SW/
HFC­
Targets
4.1.3.3.2Population
4.1.3.3.2.1
Level
I
Concentrations
Identity
of
FisheryAnnualProduction
(pounds)
ReferencesHumanFoodChain
Population
Value
(Table
4­
18)
Rumford
RiverEulton
PondClosedduetoHPCcontamination:
pre­
closure
35;
40;
41
0.3
(fromPPE­
1
to
fish
tissue
stockinginspring
of
1994was414pounds,
plus
sampleFPFISH004)
any
fish
in
the
RumfordRiverupstream
to
PPE­
1.

Sum
of
LevelIHumanFoodChainPopulationValues:
0.3
Sum
of
Level
I
Human
Food
Chain
Population
Values
x
10:
,
3
Level
I
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
3
4.1.3.3.2.2
Level
I1
Concentrations
Identity
of
FisheryAnnualProduction(
pounds)
ReferencesHumanFoodChain
Population
Value
(Table
4­
1
X)
RumfordRiver(
fromtissueClosed
due
to
HPCcontamination:
>O
pounds
35;
40;
41
0.03
sample
FPFISH004
to
sediment
sample
RRKP­
W
in
Kingman
Pond)

Sum
of
Level
I1
Human
Food
Chain
Population
Values:
0.03
Level
Il
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
0.03
4.1.3.3.2.3
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Identity
of
Annual
Production
Type
of
Average
Refs.
Population
Dilution
Weight
Pi
x
Di
Fishery
(pounds)
Surface
Water
Annual
Flow
Value
(PJ
pi)
(Table
4­
13)
Body
(cfs)
(Table
4­
18)
Kingman
Pond
>O
lake
4
0
0
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
(downstream
of
W
K
­W
)

Rumford
River
>O
river
4
0
0
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
Cabot
Pond
283
(stocked)
lake
<loo
35
0.3
0.1
0.03
Rumford
River
>O
river
4
0
0
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
Norton
Reservoir
>O
lake
<loo
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
Rumford
River
10
river
4
0
0
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
Threemile
River
>O
river
4
0
0
35
0.03
0.1
0.003
Threemile
River
20
river
>loo
35
0.03
0.01
0.0003
Sum
of
Pi
x
Di:
0.0483
(Sum
of
Pi
x
Di)/
lO:
0.00483
Potential
Human
Food
Chain
Contamination
Factor
Value:
0.00483
July
200
1
51
SW/
HFC­
Targets
4.1.4.2
Environmental
Threat
Waste
Characteristics
4.1.4.2.1
Ecosystem
Toxicity/
Persistence/
Bioaccumulation
Hazardous
Substance
Reference
EcosystemToxicityiPer
Bioaccutnulation
Persistence
Ecosystem
Source
No.
Toxicity
Factor
Value
sist./
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value
Factor
Value
arsenic
chromium
copper
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
benzo(
a)
anthracene
benzo(
a)
pyrene
benzo(
g,
h,
i)
perylene
benzo(
b)
fluoranthene
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene
butylbenzyl
phthalate
dibenz(
a,
h)
anthracene
dibenzofuran
di­
n­
octyl
phthalate
indeno(
l,
2,3­
cd)
pyrene
chrysene
fluoranthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
naphthalene
2,4,6­
trichlorophenoI
2,4­
dichlorophenol
2,4­
dimethylphenol
2,4­
dinitrophenol
2­
chlorophenol
2­
nitrophenol
4­
nitrophenol
4­
methylphenol
(a.
k.
a,
p­
cresol)
4,6­
dinitro­
2­
methylphenol
4­
chloro­
3­
methylphenol
2,3,5,6­
tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
benzene
July
200
1
10
100
100
10000
...
10000
10000
10000
...

.I
.

...
100
...
100
...
...
1000
10000
1000
1000
10000
1000
1000
100
100
10000
100
100
100
...

10000
100
NA
100
10000
10000
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
1
0.0007
1
1
0.4
1
1
0.4
1
1
NA
1
1
1
0.4
52
500
5
50000
500
500
5000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
500
50000
500
500
50000
5000
500
5000
5000
50
500
50000
500
500
5
500
5
500
5
50
50
5000
5
50
500
5000
500
5
x
106
5
x
106
...
5
x
10'

5
x
10'

5
x
108
...
...
...
5
x
104
...

5
x
lo4
...
...

5
x
106
5
x
106
5
x
lo6
5
x
lo6
5
x
106
2
x
105
5
x
10'

5
x
104
2
x
lo4
5
x
104
35
5
x
lo4
500
...

5
x
105
5000
5
x
105
5
x
lo4
2
x
104
5
10'
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
1
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
2
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
3
2,
p.
B­
4
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
7
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
17
2,
p.
B­
14
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
X
2,
p.
B­
8
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
15
2,
p.
B­
6
2,
p.
B­
9
2,
p.
B­
5
"

2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
12
2,
p.
B­
2
SWENV­
Waste
Characteristics
Hazardous
Substance
Ecosystem
I
Persistence
Bioaccumulation
EcosystemToxicityPer
Reference
lsourcce
No'
I
Toxicity
Factor
Value
Factor
Value
I
Factor
Value
I
&st./
Bioaccumulation
i
toluene
ethyl
­

xylenes(
lowest
of
0,
p,
m)
2
1,2,3,7,8­
1,2,3,4,7,8­
H~
CDD
2
1,2,3,6,7,8­&
CDD
2
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
1,2,3,7,8­
2,3,4,7,8­
1,2,3,4,7,8­
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
100
100
100
10000
...
10000
...
...
...
...
...
0.4
0.4
0.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50
50
50
50000
50000
5000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
2000
2000
2000
5
x
108
...

5
x
107
...
...
...
...
...
2,
p.
B­
19
2,
p.
B­
10
2,
p.
B­
20
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
1
1
2,
p.
B­
11
2,
p.
B­
11
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
16
2,
p.
B­
11
2,
p.
B­
11
Notes:
*
Persistencevaluefor(
rivers)
**
Bioaccumulation
factor
value
for
fresh
water
NA
Not
Available
in
reference
2
Ecosystem
ToxicityPersistenceBioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5x
1
Os
4.1.4.2.2.
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
1
Sum
of
Values:
>O
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
A
minimum
hazardous
waste
quantity
value
of
100
was
assigned
because
a
target
for
the
surface
water
pathway
was
subject
to
actual
(Level
11)
contamination
[ref.
1,
section
2.4.2.21.

4.1.4.2.3.
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value
Ecosystem
ToxicityPersistence/
Bioaccumulation
Factor
Value:
5x
10%
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
100
Ecosystem
ToxicityPersistence
Factor
Value
x
Hazardous
Waste
Quantity
Factor
Value:
l
x
lo6
EcoToxicityPersistence/
HWQ
Value
x
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Factor
Value:
1x106
x
5x104
=
5
~1
0
'
~

July
2001
Waste
Characteristics
Factor
Category
Value:
320
[ref.
1,
Table
2­
71
53
4.1.4.3
Environmental
Threat
Targets
Level
I
Concentrations
None
observed.

Most
Distant
Level
I1
Sample
Sample
ID:
RRKP­
W
Distance
from
the
probable
point
of
entry:
1.25
miles
from
PPE­
1
Reference:
40,
Data
Summary
Table
4.1.4.3.1
Sensitive
Environments
4.1.4.3.1.2.
Level
I1
Concentrations
Sensitive
Environments
None
identified.

Wetlands
PPE­
3
is
located
on
the
northern
boundary
of
the
palustrine
wetland
that
surrounds
the
Rumford
River
and
the
Rumford
River
backwash
channel
(see
Figure
4
of
this
documentation
record).
This
wetland
is
shown
on
the
US.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
National
Wetland
Inventory
(NWI)
map
for
the
Mansfield
quadrangle
as
"PFOI,"
or
palustrine
forested,
broad­
leaved
deciduous
[ref.
111.
The
length
of
this
wetland
is
determined
for
HRS
scoring
purposes
by
measuring
the
perimeter
of
this
entire
wetland
to
the
point
downstream
where
the
Rumford
River
exits
the
wetland
as
shown
on.
the
NWI
map.
This
perimeter
is
approximately
1.25
miles
in
length
[Ref.
111.
This
yields
an
assigned
wetlands
value
of
50
from
table
4­
24
of
the
HRS
[Ref.
11.
Because
surface
water
sample
RRKP­
W
is
located
downstream
of
this
wetland,
the
entire
wetland
is
scored
as
Level
11.
I
,I
Wetland
adjacenttoRumfordRiver
1.25
miles
3;
8,
Figure
2
backwash
channel
from
PPE­
3
to
confluence
with
the
Rumford
River
Sum
of
Level
II
Wetland
Frontages:
1.25
miles
WetlandsValue(
Table4­
24):
50
Sum
of
Level
II
Sensitive
Environments
Value
+
Wetlands
Value:
50
Level
I1
Concentrations
Factor
Value:
50
Sensitive
Environments
Although
some
State
designated
threatened
species
exist
within
the
15­
mile
target
distance
limit,
no
potentially
contaminated
sensitive
environments
have
been
scored
in
this
documentation
record
[ref.
321.

Wetlands
Wetlands
exist
downstream
of
the
HPC
site
within
the
15­
mile
target
distance
limit
[refs.
10;
11;
121.
However,
these
potentially
contaminated
wetlands
have
not
been
scored
in
this
documentation
record.

Potential
Contamination
Factor
Value:
0
July
54