Billerica Street Site', November 1989, Table 4-1

EN."R • t ',II t .... _hb.. • ...., ~ 11&1-...... " ' ... 1'4'~

January 4" )991

ENSft RotCfOOOO No : '7 ~' · ~ "ENSR 00c:um0n1 No.: EAS-8068

MS, MlWI'eon RatblU EnvIronmentalAnao'ysI l.Iossachu$eltt DopL of ErN\rorvnenLai PrOlOCl«t !5 Common ....'UIttl Avonue W~, MA 01801

RE: Fonner Co,uf, Dump SIlo. La... ". , ~ as.uehu$O n, OEP 5.10 No. 3-713

Dear Ms. Rabbet!:

In ,PIoparing the Phaso In RomodlAl Response Plan, ENSR tw disOo\loflld a Olaaopancy in Iho gJouod wr1&CQ oIoVlllion data. T~ data In I1lO Phaso U rOpoi't are 'l,WTY'nwizod In !ho altachod table. The ground surface elovalklo cakUao!ed Irom wol WIIM (,lata does not C.OlrOSpond to elovolion do)la ptO'Adod In the bonng logs, t'IOI' doe!I R corrospond 10 oIevalion 01 PVC ol lhe wells, ..... flIct1 are ~ mo~od kOOfo:Mg 10 thO logs Ho"... ovor. YlsuailnspoctJon or the ....-elllln

~\'o would apptoOalO you 3$Si5tanoe In c:IariIy(ng \his I:uoo. tv provld.ng us .... utI lIllY addillonaJ InlOfmatlon ....fIIch you may haVo available. S."."Iy .

•no . .. ,."... SCAkhb • , ELEVATION DATA

(1) Source; Wehren Engineering, 'Phase II Site Investigation Report lor the 93 Billerica Street Site', November 1989, Table 4-1.

(2) Calculation: Addition of Depth 01 Well Screen (BGS) to Elevation.

(3) Source: Wehren Engineering, ·Phase II Site Investigation Report for the 93 Billerica Street Site", November 1989, Appendix D. • • ENSR Con,uhing and Engineering 35 Nagog Park Acton, Massachusetts 01720 ENSR Document No. 1765-012-002 (508) 635-9500 ENSR Reference No. 053-RLM-119 (508) 635-9180 (FAX)

August 24, 1990

Maureen Rabbett Environmental Analyst MA DEP 5A Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801

RE: Supplemental Investigation Former Costa's Dump, 89-103 Billerica Street DEP Case No. 3-{)713

Dear Maureen:

Enclosed please find the sampling results from the Supplemental Investigation conducted at the Billerica Street Site in Lowell, MA. We have enclosed the tabulated analytical data, the hand auger and test pit logs, and a figure showing the sample locations.

All work was performed in accordance with ENSR's work plan dated January, 1990, with the following exceptions. Test pit excavations were not performed on the 121 Billerica Street property, due to the fact that backhoe access was not feasible, because most of the property consists of dense woods and wetland. Four hand auger samples were collected from this property instead, as shown on the enclosed figure.

In addition, due to an administrative error by the subcontract laboratory, New England Testing (formerly Cambridge Analytical Associates), samples submitted for cyanide analysis were only analyzed lor total cyanide, and not weak and dissociable cyanide.

Observations in On-site Test Pits

Seven additional test pits were excavated on site. Test pit nos. TP-20 and TP-21 showed visual evidence of potential coal gasification wastes; TP-20 contained lenses of blue material, and TP-21 showed traces of black tar-like material. No coal gasification wastes were noted in test pits TP- 18 and TP-23, however, these test pits had a slight coal tar odor. In TP-22, no coal gasification wastes were present, however, an empty rusted drum and other refuse were noted. The HNu reading was 0.4 units inside the drum, but was not above background in the test pit. Based on these observations, the demarcation line showing the approximate extent of coal gasification wastes was redrawn as shown on the figure. • •

Maureen Rabbelt August 24, 1990 Page 2

121 Billerica .Street Property

Four hand auger samples, HA-l1 to HA-14. were collected from this property. Each was a composite from zero to three feet. Clinker and ash material was found in the top six inches in holes HA-l1, HA-13, and HA-14. HA-12 did not contain any visual evidence of' material such as clinker or ash. Silt and was present from six inches to three feet in all four holes. No blue material was noted in any of the four holes.

Total concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in these samples ranged from not detected in HA-14 to 23.53 mg/kg (ppm) in HA-12. Total concentrations ranged from <1.2 mg/kg (HA-14) to 21 mg/kg (HA-12). Cadmium, and silver were below detection limits In all four samples. Concentrations of other metals ranged from 0.6 mg/kg mercury in HA-12 to 1200 mg/kg lead in HA-13.

The above sampling results are consistent with the data from the hand auger samples (HA-3, HA-4, and HA-5) collected from this property by Wehran Engineering in September, 1988. Sample HA-4 contained PAH compounds at concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 11 mg/kg, with a total PAH concentration of 64.7 mg/kg. Total cyanide concentrations In these samples ranged from 7.5 to 170 mg/kg. Metals concentrations in HA-4 ranged from 0.43 mg/kg of mercury to 300 mg/kg of lead.

87 Billerica Street Property

Hand auger samples HA-15 and HA-16 were collected from this property. Both samples contained sand and with some clinker and ash material. HA-16 contained a higher proportion of clinker and material than HA-15.

Total PAH concentrations in HA-15 and HA-16 were 7.74 mg/kg and 39.74 mg/kg, respectively. Total cyanide was detected only in HA-15, at a concentration of 1.6 mg/kg. Sample HA-16 contained higher metals concentrations than HA-15. Concentrations ranged from 0.39 mg/kg mercury to 760 mg/kg lead in HA-16.

The above sampling results are consistent with the data from the hand auger samples (HA-9 and HA·1O) collected from this property Wehran Engineering in September, 1988. Sample HA-9 contained PAH compounds at ranging from 0.3 to 14 mg/kg, with a total PAH concentration of B6 mg/kg. Total cyanide concentrations in HA-9 and HA-l0 were < 1.2 and 3.1 mg/kg, respectively. Metals concentrations in HA-9 ranged from 0.25 mg/kg of selenium to 120 mg/kg of lead. • •

Maureen Rabbett August 24, 1990 Page 3

Summary of Findings

Fill material in the form of ash and clinkers appears to extend at least part way onto both the 121 and 87 Billerica Street properties. This fill material was found at depths up to 8 Inches on the 121 Billerica Street property, and down to 3.5 feet on the 87 Billerica Street property.

PAH compounds and cyanide were detected on the 121 Billerica Street property, 20 feet west of the eastern fenceline. PAH compounds and a trace level of cyanide were detected on the 87 Billerica Street property, and appeared to be correlated with the presence of ash and clinker fill material.

The data obtained during this supplemental investigation will be used during the Phase III study of this sile.

If you have any questions regarding the results of this investigation, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely, ~7l1~ Rosemary Mattuck Environmental Scientist 1:.:, !/!:-lr Project Manager

co: Jack Rourke, Colonial Gas Lawrence Putnam, III, Colonial Gas Ralph Child, Palmer and Dodge Robert Clemens iiIJII,,= - • / /~ LEGEND

s "'H~-l

• "HA-2 0 BORING AND IDENllFlER 1988) --- .IoIE-1 SHALLOW MONITORING WELL • BY ENGINEERING :Ii. "".... UW-lOiStIlLtW_1S W£TlANO III HAND AUGER SIolW-2S AND IDENllFIER

SURFACE .0- SEDIMEN u AND IDENllFlER (JUNE. 1988)

C:J TESTPIT AND IDENllFlER (JUNE, 1 \ 6-S0 ~ CHAIN UNK FENCE w STOCKADE FENCE ~.. DELINEA llON OF WOODED AREA 1 j

C'rIOe'Ai"'''' C'AIJCH j III @

CJ TEST PIT LOCAllONS

HAND AUGER * SAMPLE LOCA llON ...... ~ .. BILLERICA STREET I3IHA-6 )

FIGURE 1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS BILLERICA STREET SITE SAMPLING DATA JUNE,1990

SAMPLE NO. Weh,an Eng. Sampling Data, Sept. 1988

HA-ll ~ HA-13 HA-14 HA-15 HA-16 E!l;:l ~ ~ !:!1!=l! tia:.lQ

BASElNE\JTRI\L COMPOUNDS NO NO (Results In mglkg)

3-NITAOANILINE ACENAPKTHENE 0.97 1.00 UlO O'SENZOFURAN 1.10 1.00 2.00

J = Estimated result below detection limit BILLERICA STREET SITE SAMPLING DATA JUNE,1990

SAMPLE NO, I Wehran Eng, SamQling Data, SeQt, 1988

HA-ll HA-12 HA-13 HA-14 HA-15 HA-16 FB-1 HA-3 HA-4 .!:!a:.§ HA-9 HA-10

BASEINEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (cont'd) (Results In mglkg)

FLUORENE 0.78 1.00 2.00 4-NITROANILINE

9:« .J 3'

FLUOAANTHENE 0.65 3.00 0.00 1.30 4.S0 9,20 1~.00 2,4Q 0.15 3.10

BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 0.211 J 1.80 0.34 J 0.66 3.30 4.00 6,00 0,43 J 2.70 0.42 J 0 .• ' 3.80 5.10 0.50 .' BENlO(A)PYRENE 0,42 J UO 0.:11 0.68 2.80 4.50 6.10 INOENO(I,2,3.-COIPVRENE 0.38 J 2.00 0.25 0.66 2.00 2.00 3.70 OIBENZ(A,H)ANTHFlACENE 0,73 1,00 o.sO BENlO(G.H,I)PERYLENE 0,38 J 2.00 0.24 0.65 1.IlO 2.00 3,30

TOTAL PAH (mglkg) 4.28 23.5.'1 4.14 0,00 7.14 311.7' 0,00 64.70 66.00

J '" estimated result below detection limit BILLERICA STREET SITE SAMPLING DATA JUNE,1990

SAMPlENQ, Wehlan Eng, Sampling Data, Sapt 1988

HA-l1 HA-12 ~ HA-14 HA-15 HA-16 FB-l ~ ~ HA-9 !J&:lQ

METAlS (mg/l

.13 '"A 2.5 CADMIUM BOl BOL SOL BOl BOL BOl 2.5 I 2.9 l!6 •.3 16 24 a.o 23 1. iOO •

SELENIUM BOL BOl BOL BOl BOl 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.25 SilVER SOL BOl BOl BOL BOl BOL •.0 1.S 0.48

TOTAL CYANIDE (mglkg) 11 21 '.1

HA ~ Hand Auger Sample FB - Field Blank BDl ~ Below Delection limit NA • Not Analyzed mglkg • parts per million •

J ., Estimated result below detection limit • •

ENSR Consu~ing and Engineering Letter of Transmittal

AlTENTION: DATE:

Maureen Rabbett September 13, 1990

PROJECT:

Former Costa's Dump Site, Billerica S1reet, Lowell, MA 1765-001-002 DEP Site No. 3-0713 53-RLM-l07

WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING:

REMARKS:

These logs should have been included in our letter repert dated August 24, 1990.

SIGNATURE:

35 Nagog Park Acton, MA 01720 (50s) 635-9500 • HRND RUGER BORING lOG • Project No 1765-001·002 Data· Star1_-,,6::!12;;,:6:..:19:;::O __ Boring HA·11

Project Nams,--"C",o;,;;lo",n;,;;ia::..1G=as=- ______Collection Method, _.c;H\2a!!:nd.....oA""u90lSiU,r______

Location Billerica Siroo! TOlal Osmh-.:3,-' ___ SamplePoln! Descnption' ______

Sample Depth Lithologic Type & Depth Feat Description No, Range - O·S" clinker and ash malenai (no blue staining) - - - '-

- S"·3' dark brown very line silt and sand - r- ~' - r- - f- -' f- - f- -

f f- r-- 3' End of borino at 3'· no blue material ------j

i SamplaNo, Sample Type Depth Time Type 01 Container Type of Preserv, Analysis RequirG

I EN3I • HAND AUGER BORING lOG • Project No 1765-001-002 Date Stal't_.....;6;;.;12",,7.;..f9;;.;0,-_ Boring HA·12 Project Name'_-'C"'o"'lo:,:.o:::ia:.:,I.:::G:::a"'5______Collection Method, _"'H"'a""nd=A.lI.ug.,e"'r______

LoC~!!nn_~I'!.'1..~r:.e~ ______Collector -..JJ:1i!!;!QIL ___ ' ______

TotaIOeOI0--=3;..' ______

Sample Pain! Oescrlptioo, ______~ ______

Sample Depth Lithologic TypeS. uapm Feet DescriptIon ., No. Range I- O-S" organic material and tan mad,sand wrth soma coarse sand - I- and silt - I- - r- £;"·3' black organic-rich Sitt with soma line sand - _I' ------:' - - I I I -

3' of rin at 3'· no blue matarial

Sample No. Sample Type Depth Time Type of Container I Type 01 PreseN. Analysis ReqUlrad

HA-12 composrte Q..3' BN,RCRAmat.

tot., W+OCN

, HRNO RUGER BORING lOG • Erat • Sheet of 1 Project No~..;1c:.7.:::.S5::.-O.:::.0::.1:..;-O:::O:=2,--______Date _ Start_....;:;S;,:12::..7:.,:19",0__ Baring _!..!HA~-:.!.13:1.-_

Project Nams_-'C:..;o"lo"n"ia::;;i,.;G::;a::.;s'-______ColleClion MethOd. _.!.H"'a"'n"'d"'A"'u"'g"'sC\., _____.,.-

Localion Billerica Streel______.• ColieClor _),DadoJ_v __

Sample Point Descripllon ______

Sample Depth Feel Type & p!M No. Ran" O-S" tan-rus!lbrown line to moo, sand. some ash and clinKer, trace at glass

8"-3' dali< brown organk;.rich sil!, traca 01 tine-mad, sand

3' a 3'- no blu material

Sample No. Sample Type Depth TIme Type of Containe, Type 01 Preserv. Analysis Required

HA-13 composrte 0-3' BN,RCRAmet.

lot.. W.OCN

I • HAND AUGER BORING LOG • Project No 1765-001-002 Date - Slal1_.....::.6:.:;12;.;.7:.:;19",0__ 80ring HA-14

Project Name._...... :C:!::o:.:;lo:::.n::.:ia:::.I.:;;;G::;3::;:S______Collection Melhod. _LH"''''J.!nOl!..OA'''u'''oe'''r______

Sampla Point Dascriplion' ______

Sample lithologic Type & uepth DeSCription No. Ranqa - 0-4" 4" rusllbrown line to med, sand. some ash clinker, and - - l",re of "I~.s - - '-- 4"-20" brown sill, vary line sand and organic material - l' - - - r~' - I I I - L- - r- - r- _ 3' Fnri of borino at ~'- no blue material ------

SampleNo. Sampla Type Depth Time Type of Container Type 01 Preserv. Analysis Required I

HA-14 composite 0-3' BN.RCRAmel. to\.. W+OCN IteR • HRND RUGER BORING lOG • _""1"'-7.;:;65::,.-.;:;00;;.1:--00=2;.... ______Date - Start_.....;:o",12;:..7:..:IS",O__ Boring HA-15

Hand Auger J DadQlv

Sample Point Descrlpllon' ______

Sample Depth _lilhOI09,IC Feel Type & Depth No. Range - 0-4" topsoil - - - - '- 4"·2' brown fine sand, some gravel, Irace of clinkers and ash @ 20' - _I' - f- - f- - f- - f- End of borino at 2'· no blue materia! - f-- 2' I- - f- - f- - f- - f-- 3' - I- , - f- - f- - f- -

Sample No. Sample Type Deplh Time Type 01 Container Type 01 Presarv. Analysis Required

HA-15 compode 0-2' BN,RCRAmel. 101., W+DCN HRND RUGER BORING lOG EN3I • • Project No 1755-001-002 Date - Slan _.....::6;.;;12::.7;,;:19",0 __ Boring HA-16 ,_.....::C:.::o::::lo::;n::::iil::.I.::Ga=s______Collection Method __"'H"'iI"'od=A"'ug""e.,,' ______

Sample Point Description ______

I Sample Depth lithologic Feet Type & Depth No_ Range Description f- 0-4" topsoil - f- f- tan tine sand and some gravel - f- 4"-" - I'

1'-16" orav line sand, some gravellrac" of ash and. ,lass - - - 16"-3'6" gray with rust and black maUling ash and clinker material - LI I I ------3'

3' "- no blue alerial

Sample No. Sample Type Depth TIme Type of Container Type ot Presel'V. Analysis Required

HA-16 composne 0-3' BN,RCRAmat. tot., W+DCN

i ------,----

SOil & ROCK DESCRIPTION & COMMENTS

0-6" Topsoil and grass

6" 4' Clean fine-med. sand and gravel (fill material)

-.: 4'-5' Black, organic-rich silt and sand. swamp gas odor and abundant rOOls- original ground surface

5 5'- 7' Tan medium- coarse sand

7 BOTTOM OF TEST PIT @> 7' Hnu reading in pit= ND

TEST PIT PLAN GRC:XJNDWATER TIME (HOURS NCHIH DATE DEPTH (FEET) r.-- ,-tIIj AFTER COMPlETION) I I 0 T EJI:R CONSUlTING & ENGINEERING ------

SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION 8. COMMENTS

o l' Brown, sandy topsoil and grass

1 '·6' Brown to red/brown med. sand. some Sill, metal, tires, and wire- slight coal tar odor 2

6 I 8OITOM OF TEST PIT 6' Hnu reading in pit= units

TEST PIT PLAN GfDUNDWATER TIME (HOURS NCmH /4- ---aoi DATE AFTER COMPLETION) DEPTH (FEET) I 0 T I E~ CONSULTING & ENGINEERING SAMPlE

TYPE DEPTH SOil & ROCK DESCRIPTION 8. COMMENTS & NO. RANGE North end of pit South end of pit

Topsoil

0-4' Clean brown line sand and siit Brown line sand with metal debris and electrical insulators

- 4 r--

4'-8' Clean tan·redlbrown mad. sand Clean lan-fed/brown med. sand

BOTTOM OF TEST PIT @ 8' i

TEST PIT PLAN GfDUNDWATER TIME (HOURS NORTH DATE DEPTH (FEET) r-- --iI>\ AFTER COMPLETION) I 0 T !EN:R. CONSUlTING&ENGlNEERlNG _...:::::.:.=:::.....:=::.:.-_TEST PIT TP-20 SH.-1....a=_1_

R8MARKS~ ______

SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION & COMMENTS

6·-4' Brown fine sand and sill. Irace of refuse

4 4'·6' Black fine sand and silt. coal tar odor, lenses of blue material and some red/orange material. Stained backhoe bucket blue. 5

6'-8' I Clean Ian med. sand

B BOTTOM OF TEST PIT @S' Hnu reading in pit=O.2 units

I'mTH DATE DEPTH (FEET)

T o E~ CONSULTING & ENGINEERING - PROJECT COLONIALGASW SITE Billerica Street TEST CFcPIT.TP-21.sH DATE- 6/26/90 LOCATION - ELEVATIONGROUND TOTALDEPTH 6'6" CONTRACTOR SOIL EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT USED BK H*OE ___ LOGGED BY.DadolyJ. REMARKS

SAMPLE SOIL & ROCK DESCRIPTION&COMMENTS

0 Topsoil

6 "-4' Tan-brown fine sand and silt with someglass,andmetal, other refuse; traces of black tarry materialodor)(no

4' - 6 ' 6 *" Clean tan-rust med. sand

- 5

EN3-7 CONSULTINGTEST PIT PLAN & ENGINEERING0ORTH HnuBOTTOMOFTESTPITAFTR TIMEreading COMPLETION) (HOURS GROUNDWATERin pit=ND@6'6"DEPTH(FEET) SOil & ROCK DESCRIPTION & COMMENTS

0-4' Tan-rusVbrown fine sand and silt, some refuse- exposed empty, rusted drum at approx. 3'

I I . L 4 BOTTOM OF TEST PIT @4' Hnu reading In pll=ND Hnu reading In drum=O.4 units 5 note: glass bottle from lest pit dated 1934

TEST PIT PLAN GFO.JNDWAlER TIME (HOURS -tIIo f'KlR1H DATE DEPTH (FEET) r-- AFTER COMPLETION) 0 T EN:R CONSUL11NG& ENGINEERING ------

SOIL 1\ ROCK DESCRIPTION 1\ COMMENTS

0-6· Tan sandy loam and turf

6··4' Black fine sand and sill with leather scraps. brick. metal, and glass- moderate coal lar odor

... " 4 L 4'-6' Clean lan-rust mad. sand

6 8OTIOM OF TEST PIT @6' Hnu reading in pit=O.4 units

TEST PIT PLAN GROUNDWATER TIME (HOURS --liD NOR1H DATE f-- AFTER COMPLETION) DEPTH (FEET) I T' 0 E.N:R CONSULTING & ENGINEEAlNG , • Power S81Vlce Company Drill<> New England Power Service Westborough, Massachusetts 01562-0099 Tel. (508) 366-9011

August 9, 1990

Samue 1 J.- Bennet t, Esq. Office of General Counsel Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Re: Request

Dear Mr. Bennett: As you know, I am interested in all the Department of Environmental Protection's documents, and any other records, as in M.G.L. 7, on the above-referenced our of August 3, you approved reservation that some documents be if they are deemed certain materials are withheld from me with a brief description of the content. this letter is to constitute a records review, pursuant to M.G.L.

I will contact you and Maureen Rabbett of the Department's northeast region in the next of days to a mutually convenient time to the review of files in your possession and those at Ms. Rabbett's office.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. Sincerely,

Electric Company

CERJ/as c: Maureen Rabbett, DEP Woburn

A New England Elecmc Sy.tem company , TCLt:PI!O,1 CO!1VE?,'\T LOt: tlOTt: • •,HSS DEQE/ ,: ::0/ DSEII

ACTION IRED/REFERRED TO

,> T£LEPIION~• COtlVE 5,IT10,i IlorE MASS DEQE/N ~O/DSHW

F"Oi'\

R::??':::SE::~:lnc '" • '. Formerly ERl

ENSR Con.ulling BY FAX and Engineering 35 Nagog Park ENSR Document No: 220-KS-179 Acton, Massachusetts 01720 ENSR Reference No: 1765-001-800 (508) 635-9500 (508) 635-9180 (FAX) June 25, 1990 Ms. Maureen Rabbett Environmental MA Department of Protection 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 RE: Billerica street Site, Lowell, MA CDEP site No. 3-713)

Dear Maureen:

understanding of our conversation conclusions of that you. Based a ENSR will proceed with the field work for the supplemental testing tomorrow, as planned. o ENSR will not monitor for particulates using the Mini-Ram. o I will ask Kathy Harvey, our Health and call regarding the derivation of the cited on 5-1 of the work plan. As we that action was used at other related sites, and was cited to illustrate ENSR's experience with under similar circumstances.

to complete Phases questions, today's call {with to 5 PM today so we can

Sincerely, J(M~ Kathleen Sellers Environmental Engineer cc: Jack Rourke Rob Clemens Kathy Harvey TELEPHONe: CO!lV£~St\TrO;i nOTES NASS DEQU::~~O/DS"\i

"~-""-"-"-" -"-"-" -" ------"------~ -GJ 0 j __ ~\\}er\~ _K:~ ____ t1_~ ___ LUdt __ ~boot 2.. f5" fD_q J yY\_~ - w i

I \. -Bo'ID 1 ho~ -Lj- _ \JJC>S___ cl~ued -~ -t h€C \~ ,___ \ f' \.A,J(!.:S_ ~~~

8~\~ ci:-::, \enned.

hOW If -there- the tt,-e, ~~t tv\q 1+ '\rn-jX)'~+ ~ ~

~y" HaK'~_" "~it _" \ -b ~0 ~\ t4l-t;? - fJ7ib• BonvnomoeaId f!I'•~ 0~ifg~~ ~(iktofv - %~~ 6~~

Daniel S. Greenbaum U'oIw/Y0 ~~ 01&01 Commissioner (617) 935-21()O June 26, 1990

ENSI CDnsulting & Engineering RE: LOWELL - Former Costa's Dump Site 35 Nagog Par.k 89-103 Billerica Street Acton, HA 01720 Phase III Scope of Work DIP Case No. 3-0713

Attention: Kathleen Sellers

Dear Ms. Sellers:

In ,January 1990, the Department of Environmental Protection (DF.P) received a work plan by ENSR Consulting and Engineering entitled "Phase III work Plan - Billerica Street Site - Lowell, Massachusetts - DEP Site Number J-713". The work was submjtted.on behalf of the Colonial Gas Company, a Potentially Party (PIP).

Prior to approving this work plan, the Department had raised several areas of concern regarding the These concerns and comments were outlined by the Department in a to the Colonial Gas Company, dated Harch 8, 1990. ENSR responded to the Department's letter on April 24, 1990. further clarification was submitted by ENSR on June 5, 1990 following a May 17th telephone conversation between Kathleen Sellers, ENSR and Maureen Rabbett, DEP.

lit this time, the Phase III Scope of Work for the suhject site is by the For the sake of consistency, the site should be to as No. 3-0713, former Costa's Dump, 89-10) Billerica Street, as this is how it is listed on the DEP Bureau of liaste Site Cleanup List of Confirmed Disposal Sites. 1111 fu~ther correspondence should reflect this change. • •

Kathleen Sellers Page 2

If you have any questions please contact Maureen Rabbett at the letterhead address or (617) 935-2160.

~ery truly yours, I\~~ Maureen A. Rahbett ~

Engineer

RJC/MR/ae cc: DEP, OGC, 1 Winter st., Boston. MA 02108, Attn: Sam Bennett DEP, BWSC, 1 Winter St., Boston, HA. 02108, Attn: Doug Fine DEP, BWSC, SAC, 1 Winter st., Boston, MA 02108 BOH, JFK Civic Center, Rm. 202, Lowell, MA 01853, Attn: Bob Desmarais, Colonial Gas Co., 40 Market St .• P.O. Box 860, Lowell, MA 01853 Attn: Jack Rourke Attn: l.any Putnam III Palmer & Dodge, 1 Beacon St., Boston, HA 02108, Attn: Ralph Child • FormerlylRT

ENSR Reference No. 053-RLM-110 ENSR Consultl"g ENSR Document No. 1765-001-002 and Engineermg 35 Nagog Park Aclon, M.5sachuscu.s 01720 (508) 635·9500 June 8, 1990 (508) 635-9180 (FAX)

Maureen Rabbett, Environmental Analyst MA DEP, Northeast Region 5A Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 RE: Billerica street Site, Supplemental Investigation DEP Site No. 3-713 Dear Maureen: In response to for the particulate monitoring data from the test at the Five Sites I have provided below to the Mini-ram meter which exist in notes. Please that this air monitoring, in ENSR's Health and Safety Plan, was conducted for health and safety of ENSR's on-site field personnel not as part of any formal air program. No formal air monitoring program was the Work Plan for the Five Sites; therefore it was in the Monarch street Phase II Report. The "data" mentioned in field notes is the time I at instrument to action was not being exceeded, and since it never was, I did not feel it was necessary to record the readings. The Health and Plan for the Supplemental the Billerica states that we will not be Mini-ram meter during the test excavations because has been our experience (at the Five the action level of 2.5 mgjm3 has not been exceeded during type of If you feel that ENSR does not have enough recorded data back up this conclusion, and therefore you would like us to monitor for particulates with the Mini-ram during the test pit we would be happy to do so. However, we will not wait for action level to be exceeded to take mitigating steps; if it gets dusty, we will wet down the area. •

4-11-89 160 Martin street Site TP-3: "Mini-ram meter reads zero (0.00) the whole time." 4-11-89 129 Martin Street Site TP-1: "Mini-ram readings between 0.00 - 0.06." 4-14-89 Riverby Street Site TP-7: "Mini-ram readings are all 0.00," TP-9: "Mini-ram readings 0.00."

We hope this letter has resolved this outstanding issue. It is our understanding that letter of May 29th has authorized Colonial to proceed the supplemental testing. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Rosemary Mattuck Environmental Scientist

Kathleen Sellers project Manager

cc: Jack Rourke, Colonial Gas Ralph Child, Palmer and Dodge Robert Clemens Kathy Harvey • ERT • Formerly

ENSR Document No. 1765-001-220 ENS/{ Consulting ENSR Reference No. 22-KS-173 and Engineering 35 Nagog Park Acton, Massachusetts 01720 (508) 635-9500 June 5, 1990 (508) 635-9180 (FAX)

Ms. Maureen Rabbett Environmental Analyst MA Department of Environmental Protection 5 Commonwealth Avenue ~Ioburn, MA 01801 Re: Billerica Street Site, Lowell, Massachusetts (DEP site No. 3-713) Dear Ms. Rabbett: This letter responds to for final modifications to the language in the "Phase Plan - 93 Billerica street site - Lowell, Massachusetts - DEP Site Number 3-713" which ENSR submitted to you 1990 on behalf of Colonial Gas Company and revised to you of 24, 1990 Reference No. discussed on 17, this clarifies two literature reports on levels of on goals. Each

24, 1990 noted that the background level the "Phase II Investigation for the Site, Lowell, Massachusetts" for the Massachusetts Department would be reconsidered during the Phase upon data from the supplemental site and a review of the literature on levels in soil. latter is intended to provide a for site-specific data. For example, one typical levels of total found in in London range from 0 to 5 These data indicate the levels of cyanide which may in uncontaminated soil in used for and residential a useful of Lowell data. data will not used to supplant either local data or health-based remediation goals developed for the site.

J. Fitchko, 1989. • •

Ms. Maureen Rabbett Page Two June 5, 1990

By this letter, and in lieu of resubmitting the work plan, we revise the first paragraph on page 3-3 of the work plan to read as follows: "The Phase III will determine health-based remediation goals from the of the Phase II risk assessment. The study will consider the extent of remediation to eliminate risk of harm to health, safety, welfare, environment. " have any or would like to discuss these issues ~nr~'h~r please the undersigned. We look forward to working with you on tne Phase III study. Sincerely,

Kathleen Sellers Environmental Engineer

Robert H. Clemens Principal KSjRHC/lw cc: Lawrence Putnam III, Colonial Gas Company Jack Rourke, colonial Gas Company Ralph Child, Palmer & Dodge Sue Coia-Ahlman, ENSR ~• fJommomoeaItIv if•~ 0~rz/0~~ ~~JV~~ 6' ~ Jfuenaf? 01&01 DanielS. Greenbaum U'obtu'l'l? ~ Commissioner May 29, 1990

ENSR Consulting and Engineering Re: LOWELL - Former Costa's 35 Nagog Park Dump si te/89-103 Billerica Acton, MA 01720 street Testing 3-0713 Attention: Kathleen Sellers Dear Ms. Sellers:

the of Environmental protection Work plan for Supplemental Billerica Lowell, Massachusetts No. 3-713". This by ENSR and Engineering on of company, a Responsible Party (PRP) at the subject site. unable to approve the Work Plan as reauescea clarification on several issues within the , 1990 correspondence to Mr. Larry putnam III Company) . Colonial's response to the was submitted in a letter dated May 3, 1990. response adequately all of the concerns except the issue of air monitoring. The of Work states that "ENSR has also used a Mini-Ram aerosol previous excavation activities to determine if excessive were generated. Total dust never exceeded the action of 2.5 ENSR clarified this was performed during excavation at the five air was not in the "Work Plan for Phase II Field Lowell, Broadway street, Monarch Street, 129 Martin 160 Martin street" in october 1988; nor was it discussed in the entitled "Phase II site Investigation Monarch , Massachusetts DEl.' site No. 3-1608". On the basis of this air monitoring data that dust monitoring is no longer generate excessive rrm~nr~ March 29, on which ENSR these

Original Printed on Recycled Paper •

ENSR Page -2-

the submittal of this information the Department amended Scope of Work. If have any contact Maureen Rabbett at (617) or letterh~,ad address.

Very truly yours,

Maureen A. Rabbett Analyst

RJC/MR/dv cc: DEP, OGC, One Winter street, Boston, MA 0210a ATTN: Sam Bennett DEP, BWSC, One winter Street, 02108 DEP, BWSC/SAC, One winter Street, MA 02108 Board of Health, JFK civic , Lowell, MA 01853 Colonial Gas company, 40 Market , P.O. BOK 860, Lowell, MA 01853 ATTN: Jack Rourke Larry Putnam III Palmer & Dodge, 1 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108 ATTN: Ralph Child .. .. [7kq~if~ ~~~f(/0~~ !JJ~ifG~~ 't:JOW'eatb if Wcuw Jit<7 6'~ Daniel S. Greenbaum Commissione! ~02108

James C. Colman As.sisrant Commissioner

M.EMORANDUM

TO: Lowell Coal Gas sites Local Information Repositories

FROM: Douglas Fine, DEP/BWSC Public Participation

DATE: May 3, 1990

RE: Amendment to the November 13,1989 CAC Meeting Minutes in the Lowell Coal Gas Waste Site Information Repositories.

Enclosed find an amended version of the November 13, Lowell Coal Gas Sites Cleanup Committee meeting minutes. Please page 5 with the enclosed. (The minutes should be located in the "Public of the or nall sites" file. If or please feel free to Thank you for continuing assistance.

enc.

Ofigin~i Printed on Recycled Paper !l- "" • 5 assistance to the community. Ms. • assistance agreed to in the 'Memorandum of for data, not for the she would talk with about having Wehran assistance to the Williams asked why DEP technical assistance of funds, and now DEP is saying that may be available.

Bob Desmarais stated that Mr. Williams has not been renters of his of the status of 'street Mr. Desmarais said that Williams should be renters for public health reasons. Mr. Williams he has been informing all prospective renters.

Mr. Williams wanted to confirm where any new documents for the Monarch Street information will be sent. Mr. Fine all future materials the Monarch street go to Ms. Dufresne's house.

Comments on the october 16. 1989 CAC Meeting Minutes

Jack asked that will of • 103 within Phase II" to read "Colonial said that he would make this statements made on page four five sites' Risk Assessment deadline did not factor in involvement, DEP review, etc.

Next Meeting

December 11, - Mack street, Lowell.

Fine, Branch, and am,=ncied • TELEPIiONiC CONV£?SATIO'/ NOTES MASS DEQE/N~RO/DSHW • Formerly ERT

ENSR Co,""ulling ENSR Document No: 1765-001-220 and Engineeri.ng ENSR Reference No: 220-KS-167 35 "agog Park Acton, Massachuscus 01720 (508) 635-9500 April 24, 1990 (508) 635-9180 (FAX)

Ms. Maureen Rabbett Environmental Analyst Metro Boston Northeast Department of 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801

RE: LOWELL - Phase III Work Plan, Former Costa's Dump, Billerica street, DEP Case No. 3-0713

Dear Maureen: This letter outlines the which we propose to make to the "Phase III Work 93 street Site, Lowell, Massachusetts, DEP NO.3-713" in to the comments which to Colonial Gas company on 8, 1990. The behind the changes is discussed below, followed by the proposed changes.

Rationale The portion of the work plan in question (page 3-3) reads: "certain locations may not remediation. For MW-3 on western end of the observed only silt and sand. A soil sample 5.0 micrograms per gram (or parts per million) total less than the 18.0 micrograms per gram observed in the sample. Thus the area around MW-3 need not be remediated to human health from potential ill effects due to contact." is Soil health-based levels, derived risk assessment, to determine which • •

Ms. Maureen Rabbett April 24, 1990 Page Two areas of the site require remediation. levels of chemical compounds will also be considered phase III study, as required by the Massachusetts contingency (MCP) and discussed briefly below. The "Phase II Investigation Report for the 93 Billerica street Site, Lowell, Massachusetts", prepared by Wehran the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection November 1989, identifies the background level of total 18 gram of soil (see Table 6-9). That cited in III work plan, as indicated above. to the concerns expressed in your letter of March 8, background level will be reconsidered based upon two o As know, two four street) and two hand-augered holes The data obtained from cyanide may provide on are concentrations of cyanide in soils unaffected by waste disposal. a

with the health-based remediation goals street site from the Phase II risk provide the basis for the Phase III study to evaluate remedial alternatives

II are feasible, and whether they would, if implemented: eliminate significant risk of harm to health, safety, welfare, and the environment ... ; and (2) reduce, to extent possible, the level of oil or hazardous material in the environment to the level that would exist in the absence of the disposal site." (40 CMR 546(3) (a»

Work Plan Reyisions By this letter, and in lieu of reSUbmitting the work plan, we revise the first paragraph on page 3-3 to read as follows: , . • •

Ms. Maureen Rabbett 24, 1990 Three

"The will determine health-based remediation of the Phase II risk assessment. The the extent of remediation necessary to risk of harm to health, welfare, environment, as indicated by the based remediation goals, and the extent to which remedial actions to the extent possible, concentrations to

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this issue further, call the We look forward to the s approval of the plan so that Phase III may proceed.

Sincerely, ~~S Kathleen Sellers Environmental Engineer 1

cc: Colonial Gas Company Gas Company Palmer & Dodge • • Formerly ERT

ENSR Consulling ENSR Reference No. 1765-001-002 and Engineerins ENSR Document No. 053-RLM-I02 35 Nagog Park Acton, Massachusetts 01720 (508) 635-9500 (508) 635-9180 (F.U) '. May 3, 1990

Ms. Maureen Rabbett Environmental MA Department of Protection 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801 RE: Billerica street Site, Lowell, MA (DEP Site No. 3-713) Dear Maureen: ENSR is in receipt of the Department's letter of March 29th which DEP comments on the Supplemental Testing Work Plan for Billerica Street site. Our response to these comments is provided below on behalf of Colonial Gas, with the numbers below corresponding to those in your letter.

1. from the 87 Billerica street property will be composites over a depth of 0 to 3 feet using a If a hand auger can not achieve the required will be used to drill the hole. QA Plan has been revised to

2. The Mini-Ram aerosol which was referred to in the Health and Plan during the test pit excavation at Five Sites, not at the Billerica Street site. ENSR did not mean to the impression that such data had been collected at site. That experience was cited to illustrate ENSR's experience that test pitting generally does not generate excessive airborne particulates.

3. Water will be available on site to wet down the area should excess dust become the test excavations. As and Plan, respiratory will be donned if dust is generated, area will be wetted down to suppress the dust. • •

Maureen Rabbett May 3, 1990 Page 2

, 4. Figure A-1 in the Health and Plan has been revised to map out the route from the site to hospital (see attached. )

5. Composite soil samples be collected from test excavations. However, soil not from the entire wall of the test what samples will be collected from test pit will on the different strata observed in the excavation. For example, a stratum of a mixture of different types of waste and be composited; a from a stratum of natural at the bottom of an would be collected as a The nature of the sample will be recorded log. We would like to obtain formal oral or written of this work plan before If possible, we like to begin field work on the testing program by May 14th, so that work on Phase proceed without delay. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, 11&~ Rosemary Mattuck Environmental Scientist

Kathleen Sellers Project Manager cc: Jack Rourke, Colonial Gas Co. Putnam, III, Colonial Gas Co. Child, Palmer and Dodge Clemens ."1

Section No.: 3 • • 2 of 3 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

stainless steel bowl. When enough soil to fill all the sampling containers has been placed in the bowl, the soil will be .thoroughly mixed using a decontaminated stainless steel spoon. The sample containers will be filled from the mixed soil in the bowl using the stainless steel spoon. A field duplicate and field blank will also be collected for quality assurance and quaE ty cont rol (QA/QC) purposes.

3.1.2 Hand Auger Sampling

Two soil samples will be collected from the property at 87 Billerica Street in accordance with ENSR SOP 7110, Rev. 1. These samples will be collected as composites over a depth of 0 to 3 feet using a hand auger. SoU will be removed from the hole and placed in a decontaminated stainless steel bowl. The soil will be mixed with a decontaminated stainless steel spoon and then placed into sample containers. The ENSR geologist/engineer collecting the sample will wear gloves at all times during sample collection and will decontaminate or change gloves before each sample is containerized. A field duplicate and field blank will also be collected for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) purposes.

3.2 Decontamination

All sample collection apparatus will be fully decontaminated before sampling and/or between sampling events.

0266h 1765-001-002 '0 d tL

NOllV:)01 lVlldSOH ~'V 31:.m~1:J

~""""'"'''''''''.''''''' , ...... ! ...... ,.~ ..... " ...'!~.~!'~!:-::;;j;;:~

! S

------.1 r

S7b (lonvnomueait-Jb if~ 0~ifg~~ ~~ Kortkarb~ 6' ~ JU)'t"JlLI'LP 'lPoIHvrlQ ~ 01&01 Daniel S. Greenbaum Commissioner

THROUGH: Rodene DeRice EA III FROM: Maureen Rabbett, DATE: April 26, 1990 SUBJECT: oxide Box waste Disposal

The Department is in receipt of a letter from ENSR dated March 13, 1990, that addresses the issue of oxide box waste (OBW) and associated The letter references that state of Indiana manufactured gas plant in citizen's still oxide box waste. concluded: rev iew and with 5 EPA' s the Indiana DEM classified the OBW as a waste in • The OBW is disposed of in a landfill, where it is co-mingled with the solid waste covered daily." The Department has been concerned about elevated levels of cyanide associated with the oxide box waste. The writer contacted EPA Region V and spoke with both William RCRA Enforcement Chief, and Walt Francis, a Chemist at EPA. these individuals were involved with the citizen's Gas & Coke Plant Case in 1986. The oxide box waste was never analyzed for thr of in fact, it was only tested for reactive walt Francis the samples collected EPA reactive sulfides. Based upon this . was not a RCRA hazardous waste. Mike Office of Research & standards, contacted Oliver at the . OEM. Mr. Oliver is the Section Chief Projects Solid Waste Management Branch. Mr. Oliver also that this waste was never for cyanide and that reactive sulfide was' the only parameter for. • •

Memorandum Page-2-

The Indiana OEM and EPA Region V may have reactive sulfide much review and contamination was never even discussed The of this reference to the Massachusetts is

MR/dv 9hb(f~if~• • ~~pf';;~~ q;~f'/g~~ {lJtut:atU f'/

~ James C. Colman Assistant Commissioner

April 9, 1990

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Disposal sites: 89-103 Billerica street, Monarch Street, Lowell, MA

Documents: o DEP's Response to Public Comments on the Supplemental Investigation Work Plan for the 89-103 Billerica Street Site April 1990 (DEP/BWSC)

o DEP's Response to Public Comments on the Phase II site Investigation for the Monarch Street site April 1990 (DEP/BWSC)

o Letter to the Cleanup Advisory committee from Sarah weinstein (DEP/BWSC) regarding technical assistance April 9, 1990 (Weinstein, DEP/BWSC)

o Resume - John McCarthy, Environmental Health and Engineering (Consultant to Colonial Gas Company)

These documents are available for public review. Copies of these documents may be reviewed at the following locations:

o Health Department, JFK civic Center, Arcan Drive, Lowell (508-454-8821)

o Lowell Public Library, 401 Merrimack Street, Lowell (508-454-8821)

(Continued)

Original Printed on Recycled Paper • • a Greater Lowell Environmental Campaign, 3 Waverly Avenue, Lowell (508-453-5848), call for appointment o Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, , call Renee Mason for appointment of documents relating to the Billerica street sites can ,be viewed at the following location: Billerica street c/o Kathy Kirane, 51 Stavely street, Lowell ), call for appointment Monarch Street site can also o Monarch street c/o Shirley Dufresne, 24 Monarch street, Lowell ), call for appointment Copies of documents relating to the Martin Street sites can be viewed at the following location: o Martin Street Neighborhood c/o Hank's Street, Lowell (508-454-0272), call for

If you have contact Doug Fine, 5578). • • ~(J~if~ ~~if6~~ 0~r/~~ aJtu'(XUl/ r/ 1fJtMte- Jitt7 ~ DanielS, Greenbaum 'fIJUztu. ~ .JlfO~ 0.2106' Commissioner c:9ne. Jtreet;

James c. Colman Assistant Commissioner April 9, 1990

Dear Cleanup Advisory Committee Members,

Some members of the Lowell Coal Gas sites Cleanup Advisory Committee (CAC) have requested technical assistance from the Department for review of the report entitled Phase II site Investigation. Monarch Street Site. Lowell. MA (DEP Number 3- 1608), February 1990. The Department is committed to helping the public participate in the site assessment and cleanup decision making process to the fullest extent possible. Technical assistance for the review of site documents is an essential component of a public participation program. Technical assistance can be provided by utilizing a number of resources: DEP in-house technical staff; DEP's conSUltants; or conSUltants hired separately. To make the most of limited resources, the Department will continue to offer technical assistance to the CAC using DEP staff.

The resources that are currently available to the Department are not adequate to fully implement M.G.L. c. 21E as amended by initiative petition in 1986. For example, due to budget constraints DEP has hired only 248 of the 519 staff that were authorized for this program. This resource shortage has resulted in 932 disposal sites with no assessment and cleanup staff assigned to them. Of these 932 unassigned sites and locations, 98 are classified as priority, which are potentially threatening public health and the environment.

The Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program has also been affected by the Department's resource shortfall. The TAG program, as outlined in the MCP, is designed to provide technical assistance to groups of individuals that are affected by hazardous waste disposal sites. Despite the clearly noted need for this program, DEP lacks both the funds and the staff to operate it. until adequate resources are available to operate a TAG program, the Department cannot offer any grants to affected groups for review of site assessment and cleanup documents.

On June 7, 1989 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was

Origina! Printed on Recycled Paper • • issued of to the 89-103 Billerica MOU, DEP agreed to retain an environmental technical assistance as needed to the and at other meetings held Involvement Plan. assistance was to make a technical consultant available to the CAC to review evaluations of various for cleanup of the 89-103 Billerica street site. assistance was not intended to be made available of reports on the other coal gasification sites in

on December 6, 1989 Richard Chalpin, Regional Engineer, stated in a memorandum to the CAC DEP will assistance to the CAC for review of 89-103 Billerica documents. Mr. also stated that DEP can only provide assistance within limitations of the Department's financial constraints. The Department has offered, and will continue to its in-house technical staff to assist the CAC in interpreting reports on the Lowell coal gas sites. The Department does not have the authority to require PRPs consultant assistance to affected groups for review of DEP can not the Colonial assistance the CAC for the

valuable into the site assessment and process the Monarch street site and other Lowell coal gasification waste disposal sites. The would like to continue to provide for to play an active role in the these sites, the Department's severe budget DEP staff to these sites are available to the CAC to help clarify and technical information. Please coordinate for assistance contacting Doug Fine, DEP Coordinator, 617/292-5578.

Sincerely, ( Wti~,~e.I/\ Sarah Weinstein, Director Planning and Program Development

cc: Lowell Coal Gas sites Lowell Coal Gas Sites !?M!~r;/ ~~~e/G~~ (jJ~if6~~

idOIuV'.DU/ if

James C. Colman Assistant Commissione-r April 9, 1990

Dear Cleanup Advisory Committee Members,

The resources that are currently available to the are not to fully implement M.G.L. c. 21E as initiative in 1986. For , due to budget constraints hired only 248 of 519 staff that were authorized for this This resource shortage has resulted in 932 disposal sites no assessment and staff assigned to them. Of these 932 unassigned sites locations, 98 are as priority, which are potentially threatening public the environment. The Assistance Grant affected

resources are to operate a cannot offer to affected assessment and On June 7, 1989 a MemorandUm of Understanding (MOU) was

Original Printed on Recycled Paper • • a mediation of to the 89-103 street site in MOU, DEP agreed to retain an environmental technical assistance as needed to the Clean-up and at other meetings held pursuant to the Involvement Plan. assistance was intended to make a technical consultant available to the CAe to review evaluations of various for cleanup of the 89-103 Billerica street site. assistance was not intended to be made available of reports on the other coal gasification sites in

On December 6, 1989 Richard , DEP/NERO Regional Engineer, stated in a memorandum to CAC that DEP will to the CAe for review of 89-103 Billerica Mr. also stated that DEP within limitations of the s constraints. The Department has offered, and will its in-house technical staff to assist the CAC in reports on the Lowell coal gas sites. The Department does not have the authority to PRPs consultant assistance to affected groups DEP can not the Colonial assistance the CAC for the

valuable into the site assessment process the Monarch Street site gasification waste disposal sites. The to provide for the these sites, 's severe DEP staff sites are to the CAC clarify technical information. Please for assistance contacting Doug Fine, DEP Coordinator, 617/292-5578. Sincerely, ,,~, Wt.,~s\e.;r-, Sarah Weinstein, Director Planning and Program Development

cc: Lowell Coal Gas sites Lowell Coal Gas sites ~(l~if~• • ~~ifg~~ (l)~ of (:JoIW(.IWVlU!.lltAzE .!:l.~'?CtuJ'Fl/ {jJtlI'(!(lIU if

James c. Colman AU/Mant Commissioner SUMMARY OF DEP'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE WORK PLAN FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION AT THE 89-103 BILLERICA STREET DISPOSAL SITE. LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS

26, comment will were submitted.

1) Comment: The work plan samples together for will not be able to contamination came. Response: In general, DEP finds these plans for collection of composite soil The Department has asked consider that if contamination is found in these composite samples, further sampling of of soil may be required to determine of contaminants. Additional be particularly likely if discovered from test pit excavations to a depth of eight feet and samples by scraping up the side. 2) Comment: Directions to the nearest should be included in the Health and Plan. This information has been included in other Health and Safety Plans for other sites (e.g. Silresim). Response; The from • • 2

3) Comment: method should be used during the as was used in investigations (Draeger Tube?). Response: Air test pit excavations this site other coal gas waste sites in Lowell has never detected the of cyanide with the This is unusual iron cyanide are very bound. However, is recommending arrangements be made to wet down the area should excess dust become a problem during test pit excavations. gf!l G'omnzofimealt/v :t~Lt& ~~f'I'{;~ --1!7air.P

Daniel s. Greenbaum Commissioner ~02106'

James Colman Assistant Commts.sionef

'fO: 89-103 Billerica street ~oa1 Gas site Local Information Repositories

FROM: Douglas Fine, DEP/BI'ISC, Public Participation

DATE: April 9, 1990

RE:

Enclosed find the documents to be added to the 89-103 Information Repositories:

site Work

Thank you for making this information available to the public.

Orlgina.! Printed on Re<:yc:led Paper • 46 YM (J0/Jl/lWTU0eaft!v if~ ':VeDat"{:;;'U!/W e/0~ ~ 6na~1"f:/UZ/ /J2e<~'J.Q&.~ (}Jo.Uofl/ - 6' 6'omnwm.oeaftA"

Daniel S, Greenbaum 1P0'~ ~OI6'OI Commissioner March 29, 1990 Re: LOWELL - Work Plan for company 40 Market street P.O. Box 860 Dear Mr. Putnam: is in receipt of and Engineering at the Billerica 3-713" and dated

The work by ENSR is being conducted to define the areal extent fill material soil contamination and to determine the extent of coal wastes on site. The approach outlined in scope of work is acceptable, certain areas need further clarification: 1. states that... . . will over a depth of 0 3 feet using a section 3.1.2 of the Assurance states "A auger drill holes down to a of three feet. Samples will then be collected from holes using a hand Starting at this depth, soil to fill the containers will be removed from hole and a decontaminated stainless steel bowl." These sections seem to be inconsistent with each other. Soil from the top three feet should be collected for This soil should also be examined in the field for visual staining.

Original Printed on Recycled Paper • Colonial Gas Page -2-

2. section 5 of the Health and Safety states that "ENSR has also used a monitor during excavation activities to determine if dust levels were generated. Total dust readings never exceeded the level of 2.5 mg/m3". It is not clear when ENSR conducted this air monitoring. The Department's Air Quality surveillance Branch monitored real time conditions during field activities at the ect site between June 27-30, 1988. A RAM-I tim~ monitor was used to measure TSP concentrations. Please forward

3. Section 5 of the Health & Safety Plan, Appendix recommends no air monitoring beyond an detector, arrangements should made to wet down the area excess dust become a problem during test pit excavations.

4. section 9 of the Health and Plan, should contain a mapped route from site to Hospital.

Once these issues have been addressed Department's satisfaction the of work approved. If have any questions cantrlcr Maureen n"hhprr at the address or (617)

Very truly

Analyst k7.~Ld J.~" ~ Regional En;i~~~~enta1 • • Colonial Gas Company Page -3-

RJC/MR/dv cc: DEP, , One winter street, MA 02108 DEP, One winter street, Boston, 02108 ATTN: Bennett JFK civic Room 702, Lowell MA 01853 DEP,BWSC, one street, 5th Boston, 02108 ATTN: Doug Fine ENSR Consulting & Engineering, 35 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 ATTN: Robert Clemens Rosemary Mattuck Palmer & 1 Beacon street, Boston, MA 02108 ATTN: •

MEMORANDUM

TO: Helen Waldorf

FROM: Debra Darby, Paul Craffey

SUBJECT: Pre 1 Assessment for the Former at 89 Billerica Street, Lowell

DATE: March 15, 1990

Attached is the Preliminary Assessment for the Former Costa's Dumpsite at 89 103 Billerica Street site in Lowell Massachusetts. This site has no history of RCRA This will be submitted to EPA under the the ending March 31, 1990. • • Brief Introduction

and on 1, 1988, a Notice of of M.G.L. c. 21E, was Messrs. Leo and Donald and The of Lowell Massachusetts. NORs were active investigations conducted of Environmental Protection The )pl0",rrmp'nr iminary field investigation gasification waste which contained cyanides. was allegedly disposed of Colonial used the coal gasification process produce gas 1950's.

in a Phase II Site Investigation resulted in the issuance of a forth Corporation 198B. As aforementioned Phase II of soil contamination with base/neutrals metals polychlorinated biphenyls, organic compounds has been Site Location and Description

The former Costa's is located on 89 - 103 Billerica Street, in the of , in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. is in the USGS Billerica coordinates are 71 17' 34" longitude and

site from Boston, travel north on Route 93 to Route 495 until the Woburn Street Exit. Bear and travel 100 yards. Bear onto Follow Eugene street the end and left onto Street. The Former Costa's Dumpsite is the fenced in area on the western side of the street.

The 3 acre site consists of 1.25 acres of land and 1. 75 acres of residential land. The site is bounded the Concord River on the west, by Billerica street to the and by residential properties to the north and south.

The area in which the site is located has been zoned as a residential district for multi-family dwell This area is also within zone A4 of the 100 indicated on the U.S. and Federal Insurance for the city of City of Lowell Code and zone A4 indicates a high area ~Jithin • •

Former costa's Dumpsite preliminary Assessment March 31, 1989 Page 2 site History to the 1989 Wehran a small leather site before 1925. was known as costa's Dump. Various waste was Manuel S. Costa, former owner of the , and on site. The waste that was 's Dump characterized as containing coal products, road debris, leather ceramic insulators and electric bandages, bottles, light ceramic plates, or electric The dumpsite consisted of a and a couple of storage sheds. The waste paper which was resold by Mr. shed down in the 1940's. During the 1930's and 1940's an odorous blue- material was of the of the circular This fires. The area material disposed of on site. During 1940's Colonial Gas alledegly used this area to dispose of waste from the coal gasi process. Operations of the dumpsite ceased sometime in the 50's to property vacant between 1960 and 1979. In nrnnprrv by Messrs. Leo and Donald Tully. were constructed by the Tully. In the Windsor Development purchased developed the homes were built and by until 1989. In 1989 the purchased the duplex homes from the owners. • •

Former Costa's Dumpsite Preliminary Assessment March 31, 1989 Page 3

Hydrogeological Features

The site's geology consist of glacial till and alluvial deposit. The glacial till is approximately 34 feet below grade. This material predominately consist of dense coarse gray fine grained sand and silt material with fine gravel and a trace of clay.

The alluvial deposit overlies the glacial till. The deposit consist of stiff gray silt with fine sand lamination with a trace of organic material. The alluvial deposit ranges in thickness from approximately 12 feet to approximately 29 feet.

Above the predominate silt deposit layer there exist a unit of medium to dense rust brown to grey coarse to fine grained sand with a small amount of silt. This layer ranges in thickness from o to approximately 7.5 feet in the north to south area of the site. According to the 1989 report submitted by Wehran Engineering corporation the material appeared a rust color near the water table and grades to a grayish color with increasing depth.

The fill material which lies above the silt layer consist of a variety of man made materials mixed with light to dark brown sand, silt and organics from the original marshland. The fill layer ranges in thickness from zero feet in the vicinity of the marshland to 7.5 feet on the northeastern portion of the site towards the center. The fill material consisted of a black- tar like material and blue stained soil and various solid waste.

The ground water flows across the site from the southeast to the northwest towards the Concord River. Calculated flow rate is 0.5 feet per day in the northwesterly direction. Ground water elevation ranges from 98.65 feet MSL in the northwest portion of the site near the Concord River to 100.01 feet MSL on the southeast portion of the site. According to the 1987 report by Wehran Engineering the predominant ground water flow component at this location is horizontal. water supply systems

The ground water at this site is not used as a potable water source. The entire area is supplied by water from the Merrimack River. This surface water body is approximately three miles north of the site. • •

Former costa's Dumpsite preliminary Assessment March 31, 1989 Page 4

contaminants

Results of sample analysis indicated that contamination is widespread throughout the site. The contamination is primarily found in the on site soils especially in the fill material. The contaminates found on site include elevated levels of total cyanides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, VOCs, base neutral/extractable compounds, and various metals

The highest concentration of cyanides are concentrated in the soils as complex metallo - cyanides. These compounds are immobile and generally remain sorbed onto the soil which would account for trace amounts found in the groundwater. The surface water and ground water investigation also indicated that the contaminants found in soils were either non detected or detected in trace amounts.

The air monitoring program was conducted using both portable and stationary ambient air monitoring equipment. Real time monitoring indicated no apparent air emissions problem at the site.

Remediation History

In 1979 a portion of the property was subdivided for construction of residential duplexes. During the construction of the duplexes the surrounding neighbors and construction workers complained about odors emanating from the site. The odor was associated with the excavated material. The investigation by the Department included the collection of soil and ponded water samples. Analysis of the soil indicated phenol contamination as high as 200,000 ppb. On November 20, 1979 DEP ordered the removal of all contaminated soil form the property. Geochem Inc. removed two truckloads of soil from the site on December 17, 1979. Clean sand was used as backfill.

Continuing complaints of odor problems prompted the Department to further investigate the area in May 1980. According to the 1987 Miller Engineering Report a chemical oder was present and the top half inch of sand fill showed evidence of blue colored contaminated soil. The sand below this half inch of contaminated sand appeared to be clean. Upon analysis of the material it was determined that phenol was present at low levels. The department concluded that by covering the sand fill with loam • •

Former costa's Dumpsite Preliminary Assessment March 31, 1989 Page 5

eliminate the order. In June 1980 indicated that all odor either loam or pavement and

Prior to November 1987 on site was uncertain. was discovered that coal waste was this site. As a result finding cyanide became a concern and subsequent were analyzed for this as well as for On November 2, 1987 collected surface and on December 17, 1987 Clean Harbors Inc. collected soil from the site. Total cyanide concentrations ranged form 2 ,600 mg/kg.

of the lot

it would be families. In January 1988 the homes were relocated and the secured with fencing. began on 14, 1988. Conclusions

The Department was able to identify four responsible parties, (PRP) this time. four PRJ's identified are Messrs. Leo and Tully, Colonial Gas Company and Winsor Park Corporation. On July ,1987, 1 1988 11, 1988 a NORs were issued, under of M.G.L. c. 21E, to Messrs. Leo and Donald Tully, and Winsor Park Corporation NORs were release of on site.

In June 1989 the Colonial Gas the four duplex homes from the residents. Departr:,ent reached amediated settlement with the Colonial Gas company and •

Former Costa's Dumpsite Preliminary Assessment March 31, 1989 Page 6

recovered past Presently the remediation activities are by the Colony Gas Company. In December 1989 the were razed to facilitate remediation activities.

Published

Recommendation

Based on the above recommends that this site be given present, issues at 21E the Colony Gas by Office. Any further required under 21E be addressed the of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional • ••

Bibliography

of Environmental Protection Northeastern 24, 1987 Letter to Mr. Robert Desarous Health" .

Environmental Protection 26, 1988 Briefing Paper, , Lowell" .

of Environmental Protection Northeastern "February I, 1988 Notice of Responsibility

Environmental Protection Northeastern 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Director, NERO",

Environmental Protection Northeastern 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Rabbett to Director, NERO".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 15. 1988 Notice of Responsibility Letter".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 5, 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Rabbett to Edward Director, NERO".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern "August II, 1988 Notice of Responsibility • e·

Bibliography

of EnvIronmental Protection Northeastern 24, 1987 Letter to Mr. Robert Desarous Health".

Environmental Protection 26, 1988 Briefing Paper, Lowel " .

of Environmental Protection Northeastern "February 1, 1988 Notice of Responsibility

Environmental Protection Northeastern 17, 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Director, NERO".

Environmental Protection Northeastern 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Rabbett to Director, NERO".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 15, 1988 Notice of Responsibility Letter".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern "August 5, 1988 Memorandum from Maureen Rabbett Kunce, Regional Director, NERO".

of Environmental Protection Northeastern "August II, 1988 Notice of Responsibility • •

MEMORANDUM

TO: Helen Waldorf FROM: Debra Darby, Paul Craffey

SUBJECT: Preliminary Assessment for 93 Billerica street Lowell Massachusetts.

DATE: March 15, 1990

Attached is the Preliminary Assessment for the Former Costa's Dumpsite at 89 - 103 Billerica street Site in Lowell Massachusetts. This site has no of RCRA This will be submitted to EPA the the ending March 31, 1990. • •

MEMORANDUM

TO: Helen Waldorf

FROM: Debra Darby, Paul Craffey

SUBJECT; Preliminary Assessment for 135/137 Billerica street Lowell Massachusetts.

DATE: March IS, 1990

Attached is the Preliminary Assessment for the 135/137 Billerica Street site in Lowell Massachusetts. This site has no of RCRA operations. This report will be submitted to EPA MSCA program for the Quarter ending March 31, 1990. • • Brief Introduction 10, 1987 a Notice of the M.G.L. c. 21E, was Bevis in care of the Spindle company of Lowell Massachusetts. This NOR of a report submitted by Miller is dated February 13 1987 Assessment, Lot #1 Street, Lowell, MAli. As result of the site assessment condition of soil and groundwater contamination volatile organic compounds have been documented site. site Location and Description The Lot #1 is located at 137 Billerica street in Lowell, Massachusetts and is in the USGS Billerica The coordinates are 71 17,' 34" longitude and 42 itude.

To access the site from Boston, travel north on Route 93 to Route 495 Route 495 until the Woburn Street Exit. Bear and travel approximately 100 yards. Bear onto Follow street to the end, and turn left Billerica Street. 135/137 is the vacant lot on the western side of Billerica Street.

The 1.85 acre site consists of two lots of land and is bounded on the north TFB Trust and the City of Lowell properties. The section of the site is bounded owned by Judith A. Machado and Florence M. of the site is Billerica Street and the Concord River is to the west. This area is flat, sloping ightly towards the Concord River. Surface from lot #1 appears to enter into the Concord River.

The area in which the site is located has been zoned as a residential district for multi-family This area is also within zone A4 area of the 100 as indicated on the U. . of Housing and Development, Federal Insurance Flood Insurance Rate Map for the city of Lowell. the city of Lowell Code and Inspection zone A4 indicates a high area within the 100 year

The majority of the site is cleared with regroHth of field vegetation such as srnartweed and wild grasses. Several varieties of small such as black raspberry are found on lot 137. Small diameter trees are scattered boundary as defined by the Concord RiVer. The to be utilized as an access to the Concord River area for variety paving and construction abuttors to the south. • •

Preliminary Assessment 31, 1989 Page 2 site History

of Lowell tax record the property has a a house since with a mobile home added were reported to be connected to the The northern section of the property was reported to have the site of a small engine repair shop since 1971. The structures associated with the repair shop were removed in 1985-1986.

On June 11, 1987 The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff visited the site as a result of a complaint by Ms. Judith Machado that people dandelions from the 135/137 Billerica Street food consumption. The purpose of the site investigate allegation of an immediate public dandelions were seen at the time of this inspection. There was no indication that the vegetation was environmental stressed nor was there any indication of discolored

No trespassing were posted on the site on June 11, 1987 by the Department of Health. On July 22, 1987 the Miller Engineering Inc. obtained 20 surface soil samples from the site.

Site Geology

The general geology of this site is similar to a neighboring site's geology. Reference is therefore made to the·1989 Wehran to the overall geology at 135/137 of this area consist till

The alluvial deposit overlies the glacial till. The consist of stiff silt with fine sand lamination with a of organic The alluvial deposit thickness from approximately 12 feet to approximately

Above alluvial deposit layer there exist a unit of medium to dense rust brown to coarse to fine grained sand with a small amount of silt. This ranges in thickness from o to approximately 7.5 feet in the north to south area of the site. • •

Preliminary Assessment , 1989

submitted by Wehran Engineering rust color near the water with increasing depth.

of medium dense fill Engineering boring the fill material characterized as medium dense to black material. This consist of coarse to fine sand with some ash, brick and silt. The fill material ranged Water supply systems

The water at this site is not used as a potable water source. entire area is led by water from the Merrimack River. This surface water is approximately three miles north of the site.

Conclusions

On July 10, 1987 a NOR was issued, under the authority of M.G.L. c. 2 to the owners of lot Billerica Street. This NOR was for the release of materials on site. A February 13, 1987 site Assessment Report written by

Miller Inc., revealed soil and water contamination. December 8, 1987 written by Miller Engineering indicated that the was contaminated but that the levels of the contaminants were below the Maximum Contaminate Levels, Soil sample indicates that the phenolic this site ranged 0.48 ppm to 86.0 ppm.

Non-Priority

Recommendation

Base on the above information recommends that this site be given At present, issues at G.L. c. 21E, the Northeast action required under 21E be addressed Environmental Protection Northeast • •

Bibliography

of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional . "June 1, 1987 Complaint r~emo from Ms. Judy Machado to Regional Officen . of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 17, 1987 Memorandum from Maureen Rabbett to the Record" . of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional "Lycott Environmental Research Inc., Laboratory analysis of soil samples", of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 10, 1987 Notice of Responsibility Letter'l, of Environmental Protection Northeastern Regional 31, 1987 Miller Engineering to Mr. Kevin Bevis". of Environmental Protection Northeastern uJune 12, 1989 Minutes of the Lowell Coal Gasi waste Disposal sites Guidance committee Meeting", · ., 9M(l~eI'~ 0~if0~~ ./f1dro}o~ JV~ ~

Daniel s. Greenbaum Commissioner

March 8, 1990

Mr. Larry Putnam III Re: LOWELL Phase III Work Plan Colonial Gas Company Former Costa's Dump 40 Market "Street Billerica street P.O. Box 860 DEP Case No. 3-0713 Lowell, MA 01853 Dear Mr. Putnam: The Department of Environmental Protection is in a scope of work entitled "Phase III Work Plan 93 Billerica Site Lowell, Massachusetts, DEP Site No. 3-713" and dated January 1990. Pursuant to section 40.546 of the Plan (MCP) , Phase III requires the Alternatives and the Final Remedial Response The Department entered into an Administrative Consent Order with Colonial Gas in 1989. Section 5.4 order requires Colonial to for approval scope of work for Phase III within days of Final Phase II Site Investigation The general outline presented in consistent with section 40.546 of the MCP. presented in section 3.2 of the plan risk is not acceptable. The work pl;an locations on the property may not requl.re remediation... A soil contained only 5.0 micrograms per gram total cyanide, less 18.0 micrograms per gram observed in the background Thus the area around MW-3 need not be remediated to protect from potential ill effects due to direct contact."

Original Pr~nied 00 Recycled Paper • • Colonial Gas Page -2-

In the final Phase III Site for the Department of a hand for of determining boundaries of the The cyanide concentrations in these surficial soil samples ranged from <1.2 micrograms to 170 These not an a local concentration for cyanide. the exposure section 6.5 of the report soil sample No. provides an indication of concentrations in the area. To assume that 18 croarams gram total is representative of a concentration is determine local must consider and or hazardous that have not originated from site and are throughout the general vicinity subject site. is not a naturally substance such as arsenic, nor is common such as lead in urban areas or from combustion sources. If a is to be considered, it should be collected from the local area in the Both M.G.L. 21E and the MCP that disposal sites be cleaned levels that would the absence of the disposal site M.G.L. 'Chapter 21E, section 3A(g) states:

DP,rnlal,eln~ remedial action shall include measures reduce, to the extent , the level of oil or hazardous materials in environment to the level that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern".

MCP, Section 40.545, (3) (j)2:

"If a remedial action is for a disposal site to 310 CMR 40.545(3) (g)3. and if the levels of hazardous materials which would exist in the absence of this site would achievement of the total risk limits to 310 CMR 40.545 (3) 3. b. achievement of such of oil and hazardous upon approval of the Department, be considered requirements for a permanent solution. ,.9 • • Colonial Gas Page -3-

This background issue must be resolved prior to Departmental approval of the Phase III Scope of Work. If you have any questions please contact Maureen Rabbett at (617) 935-2160 or the letterhead address.

very truly yours,

Maureen Rabbett ;:2nv~o~mc~~t

Ricblrd J. chafpin Regional Environmental Engineer RJC/mr/dv cc: DEP, ORS, One winter street, Boston, MA 02108 ATTN: Mike Murphy DEP, BWSC/SAC, One winter street, Boston, MA 02108 DEP, OGC One winter street, Boston, MA 02108 ATTN: Sam Bennett Board of Health, JFK civic center, Room 202, Lowell, MA 01853 ATTN: Bob Desmarais ENSR Consulting & Engineering, 35 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 ATTN: Robert Clemens· Kathleen Sellers Palmer & Dodge, 1 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108 ATTN: Ralph Child • • MINUTES LOWELL COAL GASIFICATION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES CLEANUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 5, 1990

The agenda items of were: an update on site work Street site, presentation on Plan (MCP) assessments and a review of the Phase II the Monarch street site. Eighteen people the meeting including: members

staff of the Department of Environmental Protection (formerly DEQE) , Michael of Research and Standards), Doug Fine participation Branch), and other citizens. Update on site Work Planning at 89-103 Billerica Street Jack Rourke announced that the duplexes at 89-103 Billerica Street have been torn down. The duplex demolition debris has been sent to the Hookset Landfill in New Hampshire. consulting and gave a review of the Work for at 89-103 Billerica Street. Ms. of this is on of presentation At the close of Ms. Mattuck's TBT Trust mentioned that he was done on his to 's Mr Child for the record that more site investigation work at Billerica has required. • • 2 Norine Brodeur stated that there is a difference in what contaminants are being tested for at the Billerica Street site and what is tested for at the Monarch Street site. Ms. Brodeur that the G.L.E.C. is at a when to the viability of site due to a assistance. She said that technical assistance should be provided by the State or Colonial. Ms. Brodeur said that the state has not given her a or "no" answer on the availability of technical assistance. MCP Risk Assessments Mike on risk assessments as outlined what the risk assessment is intended to step-by-step process used to assess risks at a At the close of his presentation, Mr. Murphy stated that everyone in the room that some amount of remediation will be needed at the street site. He went on to that the Monarch street Phase II report, which includes the assessment, is technically sound and professionally done. Norine Brodeur asked if there were of contaminants that were looked at in the street risk assessment. Mr. that the Billerica Street risk assessment chemicals, and a sub-set of those was selected as important the risk assessment (For volatile organic to be in such low not be included the risk assessment.) The Monarch assessment looks at the same chemicals as those in the Billerica Street risk assessment. Norine Brodeur asked what was the "38" that was referred to in the Billerica street risk assessment. Mr. Murphy responded that 313 is a method for conducting risk assessments that is outlined in the MCP. This is the same risk assessment method that will be used for all five of the other Lowell coal gasification waste disposal sites. Anne Welcome mentioned that a use of the Monarch Street site included children wading will this use be addressed in the risk Mr. Murphy said the risk assessment for the future and it can not address past. Norine Brodeur asked what the "guidance" was that ENSR referred to in the Monarch Street report. What form does this take and is Mike responded that Monarch Street the method" and the "DEP DEP has written guidance which certain methods of risk assessment for consistency sake. In the Monarch Street report, ENSR has • •

recommended alternative ways of at risk. DEP intends to make decisions based upon the DEP method. The same process that was used for the Billerica street will be used at Monarch street. Review of the Phase II site Investigation for Monarch Street the Phase site. gave the risk assessment of the handouts used for Mattuck said that once the Phase III Final Remedial report should take six and made available for public comment. Jack Rourke said that John (Environmental Health and consultants to conducted interviews with Dufresne's and a visual of the Dufresne house on December 18, 1990. It is Mr. ~~LdrL.UV·S view that the most source of the odor is from gas " however it is that the odor is coal waste. Mr. for odors months, and he to the house in the 1990. A letter summarizing Mr. McCarthy's observations was available. Anne Welcome said that residents of the Monarch street neighborhood have been with these odors in the since the 1940's and it is swamp odor. Wanda Ratli that the odors may or public welfare issue, and will be

Anne Welcome stated that the below the site used to contain large fish. Now all of fish are gone.

Denise Hansford said that the Monarch street report makes reference to "very low levels" of these levels below the safe levels set DEP? that DEP has not set levels for and that the index is used to determine what is a site contaminated with cyanide. Norine Brodeur asked if the levels of cyanide at Monarch street were lower than the levels at Billerica said that levels in the blue material at both sites were similar. Ms. Brodeur said that the risk at Billerica street Wehran (Consultants to DEP) as did Wehran call risk and will ENSR remediate that Billerica street • • 4 will be remediated? Ms. that the Phase III will determine exactly will be needed. Ms. Brodeur asked how it was determined where on the site to test, and what method to use. Ms. Mattuck that the choices for locations were somewhat the on and the site, since a backhoe for pitting and installation of monitoring wells. auger was used to collect in the areas trees. Ms. Mattuck surface soil collected for the risk assessment and were terms of soil and dermal contact. Some locations were from recollections of where blue surface soil had been seen. Ms. Brodeur asked why not taken from closer to the front of the site. Ms. that were taken from the front of the site. Dufresne why the in her yard was not tested. Ms. asked if blue soil was seen in her yard. Ms. Dufresne responded she has not seen any blue soil because it is six feet under the surface. Anne Welcome asked if the Phase II states that no fill was placed under Monarch Street. Ayers asked when are going to be developed to the boundaries of site. Ms. Mattuck that this Phase II report is intended to define the site Bob Williams said that since the lenses of contamination are intermittent and since there were more taken from locations to the north and west of the site, there should be more sampling taken to the east of the site the Dufresne's) in case fill was dumped there. Ms. that no fill, only natural deposits were found to the site. Bob Williams said that should be done along the bank since contamination was found on bank. How was the area of contamination defined in the stream area? Mr. Williams stated that a lot of were made to determine the site "footprint." stated that ENSR has concluded that the amount of testing far is enough to determine the site boundaries.

Colonial was asked why will not test the Dufresne nrnn~rrv Mr. Rourke testing in Ms. Dufresne's not make her Mr. Child said that one of the reasons that the Dufresne was not tested ~las because Ms. Dufresne never had there was soil dumped on her Ms. that she has previously loads of fill was on the former Shea property which now includes the house. Ms Ayers said that 2lE states that technical assistance will be provided, and that if technical assistance had been

• 6

Bob Williams asked DEP to send him a copy of the November CAC Doug Fine said that he will mail these iams.

Doug Fine said that Colonial has that steps be taken to update the Lowell Coal Gas mailing list. This was in light of the size of the mail and the of time that has since the mail was first developed. Mr. Fine be the entire list to remain on the and This memo would state that anyone who taken off the mailing list. Members of the CAC, staff, state and local officials, and other individuals identified by DEP would remain on the list of whether they respond to the memo. Mr. Fine asked on this Ms. Brodeur addressed should said that this if resources

Comments on 12/11/89 CAC Meeting Minutes

There were no comments made on the December II, 1989 CAe meeting minutes. Next Meeting of the the end determine the any issues that are raised. for the next CAC meeting.

by Doug Fine, DEP/BWSC Public Participation Branch, 1990 • • .' l

MEETING NOTICE

LOWELL COAL GASIFICATION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

CLEANUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE I Monday, March 5, 1990 TIME: 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: LOwell Heritage state Park, Mack Building 4th Floor Conference Room 25 Shattuck Street Lowell, Massachusetts (Directions and parking information attached.) AGENDA ITEMS: o at 89 - 103 3-0713) o Review of the Phase II site at Monarch street (DEP Site ~ 3-160B)

ALL MEETINGS ARE OPSN TO THE PUBLIC.

DISPOSAL SITES INCLUDED ARE:

89-103 Street ~!eadowcroft Street 135-137 street Monarch Street 160 street 129 Martin street • •

'\ , 87M (:)"""0 fJl/lUh~ruv tt!~ ~ f(/g~../f./fil4ri'&- ~'11~~ ~'11'1fJ~ ~ Daniel S. Greenbaum ~

James c. Colman Anl.t,ant Commi.ufOfltf

February 21, 1990

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Disposal Sites: Monarch Street Lowell, !IlA

Documents: 0

Consulting and , Consultants to the Company)

This document is available for public review and cOlllment. This document may be reviewed at the following locations: o JFK Civic Center, Arcan Drive, Lowell

o Lowell Public Library, 401 Merrimack street, Lowell (508-454-8821) o Greater Lowell Environmental campaign, 3 Waverly Avenue, Lowell (508-453-5848), call for appointment o Monarch street c/o Shirley :24 Monllrch Street, Lowell • call for o Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, I call Renee Mason for appointment

(continued)

Originai P,;nt.d QI\ Rtcyclad P."", •

comments on this document must be regeived by Monday, M~rch 19. 199Q. Please direct comments to: Douglas rine Public Participation Branch Bureau of waste site Cleanup One street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02108 617-292-5578 g:'k,~if~• • ~ ?/cff~./J/IllA~ (jJ~p/~~ ~?!,

James C. Colman Au/stint Comml"IOl1ef

February 21, 1990

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Disposal Site: 89-103 Billerica street towell, MA

Doou:ments: 0

These documents for public review an~ comment. Copies of these uocuman~s be reviewed at the following locations:

o Health Department. JFK Civic Cent~r, Arcan Drive, to~ell (508-454-8821) o Lowell Public Library, 401 Merrimack street, Lowell ( 50B"454-8821) o Greater Lowell Environmental campaign, 3 Waverly Avenue, towell (508-453-5848), oall tor appointment o Billerica street Neighborhood c/o Kathy Kirane, 51 Stavely Street, Lowell (508-459-2277), call for appointment (continued)

Orlgln,l Printed on Recvcled Paper • • o DEP, Northeast Regional Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, Woburn (617-935-2160), call Renee Mason for appointment

Comments on this document must be received by Monday. March 19. 1990. Please direct comments to: Douglas Fine Public Participation Branch

DEP f Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Ona Winter street, 5th Floor Boston, ¥~ 02108 617-292-5578 ~r!~ ~ cz/6~ 0~if~~ {jJtI/'f!IUb if UJa&t.f7 BIeom.p Daniel S. Greenbaum Commiuioner ~

James C. Colman AssiSlint Commiss.ioner SUMMARY OF DEP'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE WORK PLAN FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION AT THE 89-103 BILLERICA STREET DISPOSAL SITE, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS

1) Comment: The work all of the samples together is done, you will not be able from where the contamination came.

Response; these plans for collection The consider that if these composite samples, layers of soil may be exact location of Additional will be likely if discovered excavations to a depth and samples by the side.

2) Comment: Directions to the nearest should be included in the Health and Plan. This information has been included in other Health and Safety Plans for other sites (e.g. silresim). Response; The from 9,

Original Printed on Recycled Paper • • 2 3) Comment: method should be used during the as was used in investigations (Draeger Tube?). Response: Air test pit excavations the other coal gas waste sites in Lowell has never detected the of cyanide with the This is unusual iron cyanide compounds are very bound. However, DEP is arrangements be made to wet down excess dust become a problem during excavations. .. . g'k (5onvno-muealt/v e/~ ~~t;/'8~~ ~if~~ {jJ/.U'eO.tI/ if J;u. ~ Daniel S, Greenbaum Commissioner ~ fPt/itu- Jfr«t., ~, ~ 02106'

James C. Colman Anistant Commissioner

MEMORANDUM TO: 89-103 Billerica street Coal Gas site Local Information Repositories FROM: Douglas Fine, DEP/BWSC, Public Participation DATE: March 2, 1990

RE:

Enclosed documents to be added to the 89-103 Information Repositories:

Document Repository Section Notice of Document Site Work the Billerica street Investigation Work Billerica Street Phase (February 21, 1990) to Comments on the Site Work Plan for the Billerica Street Duplexes (December 12, 1989) Letter to DEP from Colonial Site Work Demolition of the Street Duplexes (December 11, 1989)

Thank you for making this information available to the $I .t ~(f~if~• • ~ f//0noironmenLaJ ~

Daniel S. Greenbaum Commissioner

james C Colman As,sistant CM'lmissioner

February 21, 1990

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Disposal site: 89-103 Billerica street Lowell, MA

Documents: 0

January 1990 Engineering, the Colonial Gas Company)

These documents are available for public review and comment. Copies of these documents may be reviewed at the following locations: o , JFK civic Center, Arcan Drive, Lowell

o Lowell Public Library, 401 Merrimack street, Lowell (508-454-8821) a Greater Lowell Environmental Campaign, 3 Waverly Avenue, Lowell (508-453-5848), call for appointment

o Billerica street c/o Kathy Kirane, 51 Stavely street, Lowell for appointment (continued) ., • o Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, , call Renee Mason for appointment

Douglas Fine Public Branch DEP, Bureau Site Cleanup One Winter Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02108 617-292-5578 . .. f7k(5~if~ ifg~~ q;~lf~~ ~lf'fIJ~ ~ Daniel S. Greenbaum Commiuioner 61,w.'Wvtto< Jl/'«4 ~ ~ 02106'

James C. Colman Assistant Commissioner

MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Rourke, Colonial Gas Company FROM: Fine, Public participation Branch DATE: 21, 1990 \D") RE: Lowell Coal Gas sites - Information Repositories, and Aarch

Hello Jack. Here is information for you regarding the a review of our public comment procedure, about our March 5th CAC meeting.

Upcoming Mailing Please find the following documents enclosed in this fax: o March 5, 1990 CAC Meeting Announcement o Directions to the meeting and information (can be onto the back of the announcement) o of Document Availability for the "Monarch street Phase II Report" (two o Notice of Document "Work Plan for the Investigations street," and the Work Plan for Billerica Street" (two pages) These documents are to be sent to the entire Lowell Coal Gas Sites mailing list note that the information the Monarch Street are that should receive Billerica street to double check to make sure that s reports in the appropriate repositories.) (continued) • • Public Comment Periods comments on sites Public states that documents subject to the local information that the document

March 5 CAe Meeting very interested in conducted by John Dufresne's house. March 5th CAC to corne out to a future on his findings. Let's talk

Thank you for your assistance on these matters. If you have or comments please contact me. I will be in with you again soon.

cc. Maureen Rabbett enc. • •

TELE HON CON V SArION NOTES MASS DEQE/nsao/os ~I , ; ~e~'lI'~• • ~~if~~ 0~ r/&wironmenad ~ ~r/'fIJ~ ~ Daniel S. Greenbaum Commjulc:mer ,. James C. Colman Assistanf Commissio1M!'f

SUMMARY OF DEP'S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR THE DUPLEXES AT THE 89-103 BILLERICA STREET COAL GAS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS

DECEMBER 12, 1989

The public comment on the Demolition Plan December 4, 1989 and closed December 11, 1989. This identifies the comments received on the Demolition Plan and explains how each comment will be addressed. Comments appear exactly as they were submitted. Analysis of Wipe samples

1) A non-technical summary of the results should be as part of the Analysis of the Wipe Samples.

December 11, 1989 CAC meeting is intended to with a non-technical explanation of and an to obtain about the wipe results.

2) meant free in the 's cover letter: "On the basis of has concluded that the material of 4 on this site is essentially free contamination by either lead, PAH, or cyanide."

Of the 96 wipe samples collected, a level of contamination above the contained cyanide at a trace concentration of 3 centimeters This concentration was detection limit 2 ug.

3) Why is "ug" used this analysis instead per million (ppm) or per billion (ppb).

Original Printed on Recycled Paper • • 2 The unit of "ug" is used for analyses of this case the unit of measure used was "ug" per 100 square centimeters wiped.

4) Client Sample ID1I 74290, why is the ">" or "<" for measured concentrations of cyanide in ug it only has (3). As indicated in the comments section of each data , "<" means that the element was not detected, and that its concentration is less than the indicated value is the detection limit). A value in brackets a concentration within five times the detection limit and therefore of lower In # 74290, the detection limit for is 2 ug per and the cyanide was measured at a concentration of 3 ug per filter.

5) Comment: What is the meaning of the "Recovery" section? Response: section is a quality assurance "Recovery" is when a quantity (ie. is put into a for order to accuracy of the at how much was put in. For if 100 ug cyanide for and the analysis percent recovery is 50%.

6) Comment: What is the meaning of the "blanks" section? "Blanks" are a that have not see if analysis can accurately there are no contaminants present.

7) for all of previous investigations?

The were only for the three site Some were also found at but these were found at the back of the site (away from the duplexes) and were not tested for in the wipe samples. • • COLONIAL GAS COM PAN Y

December 11, 1989

Ms. Msureen Rabbett Msssachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Metropolitan Boston - Northeast Region SA Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA

Dear Maureen:

He: Demolition of Homes on Billeris;a St., Lowell, MA

Colonial Gas has decided on a demolition contractor for the four (4) duplex homes on Billerica Street, Lowell, MA. The contractor is Jay-Mor Wrecking Co. of Pelham, Nfl. Mr •.Robert .Levi of Jay-Mor has informed me that the demolition debris will be taken to the Hookset Town Landfill in Hookset, Nfl. Also, Mr. Levi has assured Colonial Gas that he has all the proper permits that would be needed to dispose of this material at the Hookset Town Landfill.

Should you have any questions regarding the demolition plans, please do. not· hesitate to call. ~f.:€:r~~ Mgr. of Claims & Safety JR:DLT

Colonial Gas Company' Lowell Division. 40 Market Street. P.O. Box 860. Lowell. MA 01853.5081458·3171 • •

!7lic{j~• •

q;~ rf'6/lU~ ~ 0/Wt/leeI"UlQ/ ~{i/~-JV~~~ 6G~~ 935-2160 Daniel S. Greenbaum '1fJ~ ..!I1assad~ 016'01 Commissioner

December 18, 1989

Larry Putnum III RE: LOWELL- Building Demolition Colonial Gas Company DEP Case # 3-0713 40 Market Street P.O. Box 860 Lowell, MA 01853 Dear Mr. Putnum: The Department of Environmental Protection is in receipt of a report prepared by your consultant, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. The report is dated November 30, 1989 and details the analytical results of 96 wipe samples collected from 4 homes at the subject site. The samples were analyzed for total lead, total cyanide and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The determined that no PAH compounds or lead were detected in the samples. sample contained a level of cyanide above the detection limit of 2 (no. CG-103-II1 3 ug/l00 em».

ENRS concluded that the material is non-hazardous and can be disposed of in any solid waste tbat accepts demolition debris. The Department is in agreement with this determination.

The demolition, slated to begin on December 18, 1989, should be conducted in accordance with the ENSR Health and Safety Plan for the Demolition of 89,97,101 and 103 Billerica Street in Lowell, MA, submitted to the Department September 25, 1989. Tbe demolition debris should be handled and transported in accordance with all appropriate local and state solid waste regulations.

In a to the Department dated December 11, 1989 we were informed demolition contractor, Jay-Hor Co. of Pelham, NH will dispose of the debris in the Hookset Town Landfill Hookset. NH.

OriginaJ Printed on Recycled Paper • •

Page .2

In accordance with the Public Involvement Plan of 11, 1989 December 5, 1989) Section 4.1.2 "the Lowell Fire and Department public is a concern". In to announce the start to the public, the party for the action will provide information to local media outlets Lowell Sun, WLLH-AM (Radio) and WCAP-AM (Radio). Colonial is responsible to fulfill these notification obligations.

If you have any questions please contact Maureen Rabbett at (617) 935-2160 or the letterhead address. Very truly yours, a.....v~->--ck c-~ Maureen Rabbett Environmental (). U"'-"C ____ Richard J. Chalpi Regional Engineer RJC/MR/ram co; DEP/IlWSC/SAC, 1 Winter st., Boston, MA 02108, DEP/BWSC, Public Participation, 1 Winter St., Boston, MA 02108 Attn: Doug Fine Lowell BOH, JFK Civic center, Rm 202, Lowell, MA 01852, Attn: Bob Desmarias Colonial Gas Co., 40 Market St., P.O. Box 860, Lowell, MA 01853 Attn: Jack Rourke Palmer lie Dodge, 1 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108, Attn: Ralph Child Palmer lie Dodge, 1 Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108, Attn: Doug Johns December II, 1989

Ms. Maureen Rabbett Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Boston Northeast Region Avenue Boston, MA

Dear Maureen:

Re: Demolition of Homes on Billerica St., Lowell, MA

Colonial Gas has decided on a demolition contractor for the four (4) duplex homes on Billerica Street, Lowell, MA. The contractor is Jay-Mor Wrecking 00. of Pelham, NH. Mr. Robert Levi of Jay-Mor has informed me that the demolition debris will be taken to the Hookset Town Landfill in Hookset, NH. Also, Mr. Levi has assured Colonial Gas that he has all the that would be needed to dispose of this material at the Landfill. Should have questions regarding the demolition plans, please do hesitate call.

Mgr. of Claims "' Safety JR:DLT

Colonial Ga, Company. lowell Division. 40 Market Street. P.O. Bo)( 860 • lowell, MA 01853' 508/458·3171 (/'1 '1 • eJel /) ~ (!/omnwruoeaIt/v '?/~ q;~if6~~ ~~%~~ 6~~

Daniel S. Greenbaum '1P~~OI&OI Commissioner

MEHORANDUM

TO: Cleanup Advisory Committee

FROM: Richard J. Chalpin, Regional Engineer e{j < ewr- DATE: December 6, 1989

SUBJECT: Technical Assistance for Lowell Public Involvement Sites

The issue of technical assistance for the Cleanup Advisory Committee at the 8 Lowell sites (including the former Costa's Dump, 135-137 Billerica St., Monarch St., Riverby st., Broadway, 129 Martin St., 160 Martin st., and Meadowcroft St.) has been discussed at a number of the public involvement meetings. The Cleanup Advisory Committee, the Guidance Committee, requested, at the November 13, 1989 meeting, that receive technical assistance to conduct air monitoring at a residence at 24 Monarch street. Technical Assistance Grants as described in Subpart G of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) 40.700 will not be available for the foreseeable future. Background

In June 1989 a settlement was reached on the Former Costa's Dump site. The parties to the settlement include the of Environmental Protection, the Colonial Gas Company and the residents at the site. The resolution reached between the participating parties was re,~nltd,'d in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The parties involved recommended the formation of a Cleanup Advisory Committee which could function as a subcommittee of the existing Guidance Committee and should include six members; one representative each from Colonial. DEP, the city of Lowell, the Guidance Committee, the Greater Lowell community and the 'affected neighborhoods. DEP proposed to retain l1ehran Engineering, Inc. or an equivalent environmental consulting firm to provide as needed to Cleanup Advisory and at other pursuant to Public Involvement Advisory Committee, in the MOU, was not considered existing Guidance Therefore, it was never The Guidance Committee did however, change theil title to the Cleanup Advisory Committee in August 1989.

Original Prinledon Recycled Paper Lowell • • Page 2

The of technical assistance proposed in the MOU did not include field studies. intent was to make a consultant available to review technical reports by Colonial Gas and their consultants, after they were the Department. The Department's Position

The Department still intends to honor its offer to provide consultant assistance to the Advisory Committee to the best of its ability. This means that the assistance will .be provided in the following manner at this time: (1) Upon receiving and reviewing a technical submittal from Colonial, DEP will determine whether any consultant assistance is needed to help DEP expedite its review of the reports. Should it be necessary, DEP would make the consultant available to the Committee to assist in explaining any of DEP's findings in a meeting.

(2) Upon request from the Advisory Committee, the Department will determine, after DEP review of the technical reports, whether consultant assistance is necessary to help the Committee better understand or interpret such In that case, DEP would make the consultants andlor their available for a PIP meeting. (3) At this time, DEP's technical assistance in either case must come from our own staff; the source for additional report presentation and must be Colonial and its consultants. The agreement in the MOU never intended for the Department to provide consultant assistance for anything other than technical report review and interpretation.

However, even with this understanding, the Department now finds itself in a position where it must minimize its use of consultant services and costs. The Department budget has been reduced since July 1989, and we now face an additional 18.24% cut. In FY-88, the and the Governor authorized DEP to expand to 1149 state-funded staff, the majority of new staff being in the 21E Today, the has 712 State funded staff for all programs; the target of million set the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and Administration and (A&F) will support only 397 staff for This situation drastically effects our ability to provide state ZIE assistance in any form to any site. Therefore, the Department cannot commit consultant assistance to the Advisory Committee to a degree beyond that described in this memorandum. December 4, 1989

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

Disposal SHe: 89-103 Billerica St., Lowell, MA

Document: AnalySiS of duplex houses on

Copies of this document may be reviewed at the following locations:

Health Department, JFK Clvic Center, Arcand Drive, Lowell (508) 454-8821 Lowell PubliC Library, 401 Merrimack St., Lowell (50B) 454-8821 Greater Lowell Environmental Campaign, 3 Waverly Ave., Lowell (508) 453-5646. call for apPOintment Kathy Kirane, 51 Stavely Street, Lowell (50B) 459-2277, call for apPOintment DEI'. Regional Office, 5 Commonwealth Ave., Woburn (617) call Renee Mason for appOintment

Douglas Fine Public Participation Branch Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup One nter 5th Floor Boston, MA 617/292-5578

Colonial Ga, Company. lowell Oivi.ion' 40 Market Stroot. P.O. Box 860. lowell, MA 01853.5081458-3171 1 9h&e~ttf'~• • ~~~ef~~ ~~ef~ ~lfI'~~

Daniel S. Creenbaum J.If1IJ~""AJJ.! ef'W~ J~ 8~ Commissioner 0.210&

MEMQRANPUM

'1'0: Lowell Coal Gas Waste Site Mailing List

1.I:.J.IIiIPI~lIiIll..l. Sites: 119-103 Billerica Street 135-137 Billerica Street Broadway 129 Martin Street 160 Martin Street Meadoworoft street Monaroh Street '" " ..... r·Dv Street Massachusetts FROM: Douq Flne, BWSC/PUblic Participation Branch'!)~ DATE I December 4, 1989

SUBJECT: MOII'UU7cm. Street Nei.qhl'lorhood Local Information

The Local aalou.o&t.urv containinq information on the MonarCh Street formerly located at 37 Monarch street, attn: ane! Lowell, Massachusetts has been ~oVI ed. new Monarch street Ne:Lgl:libo:rhclo4 Attn: Shirley Dufresne Hours: by 24 Monarch Street Phone: 5011/970-1787 appt. Lowell'IMA 01854 The Lowell Coal Ga. Waste Disposal sites PUblic Involvement Plan has been updated to reflect this ohanqe.

Orlslnol Printed on Recycled Paper PAGE.IlIIlIS • •

NEETING NOTICE

LOWELL COAL GASIFICATION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES I I I I I I I

PATE: \ Monday, December 11, 1989 I TINE I I 7100 p.m. I LOCATION;I Lowell Heritage state Park, Mack Building I 4th Floor Conferenoe Room I I 2S Shattuck Street I Lowell, Massachusetts I I (Directions and parking information attached.) I AGENDA ITEMS I I I (;) Review ot the Demolition Plan tor the I Duplexes at a9-l03 Billerica Street o Status Report on Site Work Planning

ALL MEETrNGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. I I DISPOSAL:6ITIS INCLUDED AREI 89-103 Billerica street Meadowcroft street 135-137 Billerica street Monarch street 160 Martin Street Broadway , 129 Martin Street Riverby Street Lowell, Maslllachuliletts

PAGE.004 DEC 5 '89 13,38 • '. '

PAGE.005

DEC 5 '6 9 1:3,:39 December 4. 1989

NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY

D1 sposa 1 SHe: 69~103 Billerica St •• Lowell, MA

Document: Analysis of Wipe Samples from four (4) duplex houses on Billerica St., Lowell, MA

Copies of this document may be reviewed at the following locations:

Health Department, JFK CiviC Center, Arcand Drive, Lowell (508) 454-6821 Lowell Public Library. 401 Merrimack St., Lowell (508) 454~8821 Greater Lowell Environmental Campaign, 3 Waverly Ave •• Lowell (508) 453-5848, call for apPOintment Kathy Klrane, 51 Stavely Street, Lowell (506) 459-2277. call for apPOintment DEP, Northeast Regional Office, 5 Commonwealth Ave., Woburn (617) 935-2160, call Renee Mason for apPOintment

Douglas Fine Public Participation Branch DEP. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup One Winter Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02108 6171292-5578

Colonial Ga. Company' Lowell Divi.ion .40 Ma,ket 51 ....t • P,O. Box 860 • Lowell. MA 01853 • 508/458·3171 B~f{/~• • ~~~if&w~~ ~~~~if&~~~~~w

Daniel S. Creenbaum ~~ if1{J~ Ji0 ~ Commi55loner ~ 1{Jtn,tg.. Jtree4 rilJ~ ~ 0210&

MEMQBANPUM

TO: Lowell Coal Gas Waste Pisposal Site List Sites: 89-103 Billerica Street 135-137 Billerica street Broadway 129 Martin Street 160 Martin Street Meadowcroft Street Monaroh street Riverby street Lowell, Massachusetts

FROMt Doug Fine, BWSC/Public partioipation

DATE I December 4, 1989 SUBJECT: Monarch Street Neighborhood Local Information Repository

The Local Information Repository containing information on the Monarch Street disposal sit. formerly located at 37 Monarch street, attn: Bob and L1sa Williams, Lowell, Massachusetts has been moved. The new looation 181

Monarch street He1~~c)rtlocd Attn: Shirley Dufresne Hours: 24 Monarch Phone: 508/970-1787 Lowell, MA 01854 The Lowell Coal Gaa Waste Disposal sites Public Involvement Plan has been updated to reflect this change.

Original Prtnt!!d on Recycled Pap&!' DEC 5 '89 13:38 PAGE.003 • • 1

MEETING NOTICE

LOWELL COAL GASIFICATION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

CLEANUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DATE: Monday,. December 11, 1989 TIMEz '7:00 p.m. LOCATION: Heritaqe state Park, Mack Building 4th Conference Room 25 Shattuck Street Lowell, MassachUsetts (Direotions and parking information attached.) AGENDA ITEMS I o Review of the Demolition Plan tor the Duplexes at 89-103 Billerica street o Status Report on Site Work Planning

ALL MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

DISPOSAL SITES INCLUDED AREI Billerica Street Meadoworoft Street Billerica street Monaroh street 160 Martin street Broadway . 129 Martin street Riverby Street towell, Massachusetts

PAGE. elM DEC ~ '99 13:38 • '. '

PAGE.00:5

DEC 5 '89 13,39 ,. \ • • Formerly ERT

ENSR Document No. 1765-001-004 EKSR Consuliing ENSR Reference No. 053-RLM-081 Wld Engineering 35 Nogog. Pork December 1, 1989 Acton, Massachusctts 01720 (508) 635-9500 (508) 635-9180 (FAX) Mr. Jack Rourke Colonial Gas 775 Dutton Lowell, MA 01853

Dear Jack:

find the laboratory results from the 96 wipe from the outsides of the 4 houses at the Street site. These total lead, total cyanide, and (PAH) . Please note that no or lead were PAH detection limit was 10 m~crograms detection limit was 5 one of the at a trace wiped. This above limit of 2 ~g. This was from the side wall of house no. 103, by downstairs porch.

On the basis of these has concluded that the material of the on this site is free contamination by either lead, PAR or cyanide. the demolition debris is and can be disposed of in solid waste landfill that debris. The and Plan should be to assure that the demolition does not contact potentially contaminated soil.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely, .,.t;;~/Ji~ Rosemary Mattuck Environmental Scientist

cc: Kim Freeberg Putnam, III, Colonial Gas Harvey Palmer and Dodge Clemens DEP Kate Sellers • Formerly ERT

ENSR Consult;n!!, und Engineering

33 lndustrial \'(/ay Wilmwgton. MA 01887 (508) 657,,1290

November 3.0, 1989

Ms. Mattuck ENSR and Engineering 35 Nagog Park Acton, MA 01720

REFERENCE: Project No. 8500-089-225 (1765-001-004) colonial Gas November 4, 1989

Dear Ms. Mattuck:

Enclosed are the results of analyses at your request on the sUbmission ¥o.~~.¥<.n above. Please feel free to us if you have any questions concerning the enclosed data.

Sincerely yours,

Mgr. (508) Mb/!t/ h.;~ -I#Jf Laboratory Manager • • LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION the results of analyses conducted on 8500-089-225 (1765-001-004), received the T~hnrArnrv on November 4 1989. Upon the condition, of and individual were Lurm~LLU'H Management numbers were I.D. number is subsequently provide positive sample with recommended USEPA nrotor,ol. Table I summarizes the field numbers, and analytical methodologies • TABLE I • Project Sample Summary

------CG-B-I 74267 Total eN SW846:9010 CG-B-II 74268 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-1 74269 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-I1 74270 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-III 74271 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-IV 74272 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-V 74273 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-VI 74274 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-1 74275 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-II 74276 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-II1 74277 Total CN SW846:9010 CG-97-IV 74278 Total CN SW846:90l0 CG-97-V 74279 Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-VI 74280 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-VII 74281 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-101-1 74282 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-101-I1 74283 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-101-III 74284 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-IOI-IV 74285 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-IOI-V 74286 wipe Total CN - SW846:90l0 CG-101-VI 74287 wipe Total CN SW846:9010 CG-IOJ-I 74288 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-10J-II 74289 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-10J-III 74290 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-103-IV 74291 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-10J-V 74292 wipe Total CN - SW846:9010 CG-B-I 74293 1< wipe Reactive CN SW846:9010 CG-B-II 74294 1< wipe Reactive CN SW846:9010 CG-89-1 74295 1< wipe Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-II 74296 * Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-II1 74297 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-IV 74298 * Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-V 74299 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-89-VI 74300 1< ReactivE! CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-1 74301 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-I1 74302 1< Reactive CN SW846:9010 CG-97-II1 74303 1< Reactive CN SW846:9010 CG-97-IV 74304 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-V 74305 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-VI 74306 * Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-97-VII 74307 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-101-1 74308 1< Reactive CN - SW846:9010 CG-101-II 74309 1< CN - SW846:9010 CG-I01-III 74310 * CN - SW846:9010 CG-IOI-IV 74311 * CN - SW846:9010 CG~101-V 74312 * wipe CN - SW846:90l0 CG-101-VI 74313 * wipe CN - SW846:9010 CG-103-1 74314 * wipe CN - SW846:9010 CG-103-I1 74315 * wipe CN - SW846:9010 •r • TABLE I (continued) project Sample Summary

CG-I03-V 74318 * CN 5W846:9010 CG-B-I 74375 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-B-II 74376 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-1 74377 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-II 74378 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-II1 74379 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-IV 74380 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-V 74381 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-89-VI 74382 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-97-1 74383 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-97-II 74384 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-97-II1 74385 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-97-IV 74386 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-97-V 74387 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-97-VI 74388 Lead - 8W846 6010 CG-97-VII 74389 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-I0I-1 74390 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-I01-I1 74391 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-101-III 74392 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-I0I-IV 74393 Lead - 8W846 6010 CG-I01-V 74394 Lead - 8W846 6010 CG-101-VI 74395 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-I03-1 74396 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-I03-I1 74397 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-I03-III 74398 Lead - 5W846 6010 CG-I03-IV 74399 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-103-V 74400 Lead - SW846 6010 CG-B-I 74401 PAHs - 8W846 8270 CG-B-II 74402 PAHs - SW846 8270 CG-89-1 74403 PAHs - SW846 8270 CG-89-II 74404 PAHs - 8W846 8270 CG-89-II1 74405 PAHs - SW846 8270 CG-89-IV 74406 wipe PAHs - 5W846 8270 CG-89-V 74407 wipe PAHs - 8W846 8270 CG-89-VI 74408 wipe PAHs - 5W846 8270 CG-97-1 74409 wipe PAHs - 8W846 8270 CG-97-I1 74410 wipe PARs - SW846 8270 CG-97-II1 74411 wipe PARs - 5W846 8270 CG-97-IV 74412 wipe PARs - SW846 8270 CG-97-V 74413 wipe PARs - 5W846 8270 CG-97-VI 74414 wipe PARs - SW846 8270 CG-97-VII 74415 wipe PARs - SW846 8270 CG-I01-1 74416 PAHs - 5W846 8270 CG-101-II 74417 PARs - 8W846 8270 CG-101-III 74418 PARs - SW846 8270 • • TABLE I (continued) Project Sample Summary No. 8500-089-225 Colonial Gas November 4, 1989

Identification CG-101-IV 7441.9 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-101-V 74420 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-101-VI 74421 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-10J-I· 74422 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-103-II 74423 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-103-III 74424 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-10J-IV 74425 PAMs - SW846:8270 CG-103-V 74426 PARs - SW846:8270

not analyzed; no detectable amounts of present in samples.

Note~ (total and reactive) were Environmental Engineering, Inc. • • II. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of the quality control assurance concurrently with the for were within acceptable control and criteria for all by this are established and are monitored formal QA/QC I descriptions various which have been required in explanation of qualifiers, and control limits are summarized in III and III. ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

managers, the Laboratory Method used in this contains by this outline and summarize anomalies analytical techniques which apply to this set Gas samples. reactive) were Inc. As unless in the sample. , contained trace to the detection for that sample. • •

TOTAL CYANIDE ANALYSIS ON FILTERS SAMPLE RESULTS METHOD BLANK RESULTS QA/QC FORTIFIED SAMPLE RESULTS )1; Ii E R iii 11'

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field IO: CG-B-I 74267 Ell SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009001

Date Rcceivc~: 11/06/39 fJlatrix: FI!.iTER oate Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations ug per tIlter cyanide <2

comments; "<" menna that thQ ele.!fter,t walli! nu'" tl",L",..,t",d and that its concentra'tion is less than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a conoentration within five times the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. •B·H G I H B B R I H Q INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-B-II 7421158 Ell SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009002

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured Conoentrations in ug per filter cyanide <2

commentsl "<" means that the was not detected and that its concentration is less than thc indicated value in );;l:&ck",t.. ind.i.t.:ut..e:> Ii ooncentration within five times the limit and therefore of lower precision. ENE It a y AND •BNVIRONHBNTAL •~NCINE!RINO INOR~ANT~ AnALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.1 CLIENT: ENSR 10: CG-89-I 14269 SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009003

Received: Matrix: FILTER Prepared:

Elements Identified and Mea~urcd Concentrations in ug per filter <2

means that the element Qe~ec~eQ and that its concentration is less than the indicated indicates a concentration within five times the dete(~tl.on of lower precision. E N B R G Y AND •I N V I RON MEN TAL •~ N GIN I B R I N a INORGANIC ANALYSIS nATA RHP.~T

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-89-II 74270 Ell SAMPLE IO NO.: 90009004

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elementa Identified and Measured Concentrations 1n ug per filter Cyanide <2

Comments: "<" means that the element than the indicated value. within five times the i N ERG Y AND •ENVIRONMENTAL •ENGINEERING INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 1D NO.: CLlENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-B9-II1 74271 Ell SAMPLE In NO •. : 90009005

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared:

Concentrations in uq per filter

means that the ae~ec~,eQ and that its concentration is less than the indioated indicates a concentration within five times therefore of lower precision. E N B R I'll Y AND •ENVIRONMENTAL •» N a I NEE R I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEE'l'

CLIBNT SAMPLE In NO.1 CLIENT: ENSR

Field In: CG-89-IV 74272 E3I SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009006

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

comments: was not detected and that its concentration is less A value in brackets indicates a concentration detection limit and therefore of lower precision. ENE It G Y

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-89-V 74273 E3I SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009007

Date Received I 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

Comment.s! "<" means that the element was not detected and that its concentration is less than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration within five times the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. B N B it G Y .1\ N II •m H GIN B B it I N G INORGANIC ANAL¥SIS OATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CL1ENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-89-VI 74274 E31 SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009008

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identlried and Measured concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

comments: H

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT S.!I.. !-!PLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-97-I 74275

Date Racaivect: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured concentrati nl"lFl 1n W} per filter Cyanide <2

mean~ th~t the element less than the indicatod v~lua. within five times the I'l N l!J R G Y ~ II D 'II V :t ROil H :iii N or ~ L tt.N GIN III II It I N a

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-97-II 74276 Ell SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009010

Date 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter cyanide <2

Comments: "<" means that the element was not detected than the indicated value. A value in brackets within five times the detection 1 imit. "nci t·hl'!'rtl!!fortl!! ENE R G Y AND ~N V I RON K ~ N TAL ~N GIN E E R I N G

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-97-III 74277 E31 SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009011

Date Received: 11/06/ij~ Matrix! ,l<'.I.LTt:H Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrattons in uq per filt.er Cyanide <2

Comments I "<" means that the element was not detected and that its concentration is less than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration 9.,-1 ...... ;_ .(14 ...... -1_ ...... ""_ ".11 ...... 4_ ... 1 ,,_..: ...... _ ...... ".,. .... _ .... .p ..... _ ...... p , .... t,t .... _ ..... _ .... ",4""4,.,'" ...... -...... - ..... __ ...... _ .... ~ .. _ ...... _ ... a~ __ ~ .. __ ...... _ ...... __ ... _____ --,._- r------.M ENERGY A H D •W H V I RON KEN TAL •B.N G % NEB a IN 0 UlonCAUIC JUfAL1l:::r::: DATA fllI:GET

CLIENT: ENSR Field 10; CG-97-IV E3I SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009012

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrixl FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identifie~ and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

comments: concentration ie lace a concentration precision. ENE R G Y AND •B N V I a 0 • N B H TAL •I.N G I H B E R I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR 10: CG-97-V Ell SAMPLE IO NO.: 90009013

DC! L.. R.;".: ... .i. ved ; Matrix: l."ILTER Date Prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in uq per filter Cyanide <2

comments: "<" means that the element th~n the indicated value. within five times the E N I R G YAH D •B H V r RON M B N ¥ A ~ •B.H a IN! B R X H G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE IO NO.: CLIENT: ENSR

Field 10: CG-97-VI 74280 E31 SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009014

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

Comments: "<" means that the and that its concentration is less than the indicated indicates a concentration within five times of lower precision. :I N II R G 11' AND tit N V I RON H I!I N TAL -E. !I GIN I B lit I N G

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: KNSR Field ID: CG-97-VII 74281 Ell SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009015

Ol'lt.", R"cO?i"ed 11/06/89 oat. 11/09/89

El"' ...... I.. .. Iutml..lfled and I'leasured Concentrations in ug per filter <2

was not detected its concentration is less value in brackets II. concentration limit and ther~f~rn f\'!.. rt!Y' I"'':''''.a:-i t:.i·.... ·n~ ENERGY AND •B H VIR 0 H M B H TAL •E.H GIN B B R I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-IOI-I 74282 Ell SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009016

Date Received: 11/n~/Rq Matrb:: FILTER oate Pr$pared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

CommentS: its concentration ia leaa a concentration of lower precision. B N B R Ii Y J\ H D 'N V I R CI H H II JI T J\ L 4I!.N GIN l!I l!I R :r l!I G

INORGANIC ANALlSIS OATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CL!El~'l': ENS" Field ID: CG-IOI-II 74283 Ell SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009017

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Data Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Con.::.mtl:.'ut1uiI8 ill ug per filter cyanide <2

comments: "<" means element was not detected and that its concentration is less than the value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration within five the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. BNBRGY AND •BNVIRONHBN'l'AL •B.N GIN E E R I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-10l-III 74284 Ell SAMPLE 10 NO.: 9000~018

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrixl FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter <2

Comments: It<" means that the element was not detected and that its than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a within five times the detection limit and therefore of lower E N B R Ii 'I AND •BNV.tRONHIIHTAr.. •B.H GIN II B a .t N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field ID: CG-101-IV 14285 131 SAMPLE IO NO.: 90009019

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured

concentrations in uq per filter Cyanide <2

comments: the element was not detected and that ita concentration is less value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. ENBRGY

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLlEiNT: EiNSR Field 10: CG-IOI-V 74286 E31 SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009020

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter cyanide <2

means that the element was not deteoted and that its concentration is less than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration withtn five times the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. ENE 11. G Y AND •PlNVIRONMBN'1'AL •ENG I N B B 11. I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.1 CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-l01-VI E3I SAMPLE IO NO.:. 9000'021

Dat!e 11f06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured concentrations in uq per filter Cyanide <2

Commentsl "<" means that the element was not detected and that its concentration is less than the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates III concentration within five times the detection limit and therefore of lower precision. BNERGY ANI) •BNVIRONMBN'l'AL •a N GIN B B R I :to G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field IO: CG-103-1 14288 .ElI SAMPLE IO NO.: 90009022

Date Received: Matrix: FILTER 0 ...... SO ..· .. l' .... · .. Il,

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in uq per filter Cyanide

comments I "

CLIENT Sl\MPI,E ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-103-II 74289 E3I SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009023

Date Reoeived: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date prepared: 11/09/89

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter cyanide <3

and that its less brackets indicates a and therefore of lower AND •B N V I RON KEN TAL •I.N G I NEE R I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.: CL tENT: ENSR

Field 10: CG-I03-II1 74290 E3I SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009024

Date Received: 11/06/89 Matrix: FILTER Date Prepared: 11/09/a9

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in ug per filter (3]

element was not detected concentration is less IY~.~Q~~U value. A value in i!I concentration the detection limit and lower precision. E N B R G Y AND •BNVIRONMENTAL •1.1'1 GIN B B it I N G INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE 10 NO.! CLIENT: ENSR Field 10: CG-I03-IV 74291 E31 SAMPLS 10 NO.: 90009025

DatI!! R-ec-ei.,'

Elements Identified and Measured Concentrations in uq per filter Cyanide <2

comments: element wa. not detected and that its value. A value in brackets indicates a the detection limit and therefore of lower !l N I!l :II. G Y AND tt If V I :II. 0 N K II H TAL _. N GIN ]!I ]!I R I N G

INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

CLIENT SAMPLE ID NO.: CLIENT: ENSR 74292 F,~l ,~AMPLE ID NO,l 90009026 Field 10: CG-103-V Date Received: Matrix: FILTER Date prepared:

Elements Identified and Measured concentrations in ug per filter Cyanide <2

Comments I "<:" means that the element was not cilllltllllcted and that its concentration is less the indicated value. A value in brackets indicates a concentration five times the detection limit and therefore of lower preCision. E N Ii: R G Y AND •E N V I RON MEN TAL •ENG I NEE R I N G PREPARATION BLANK

preparation Blank Matrix (soil/water) I WATER

Ell Project No.: 900090

Explanation ot Cod.~: C Column: U = Less than indicated B - Between the M = Method Codesl P a C .. ENE Ray AND •E N V I RON MEN TAL •ENG I NEE R I N G

DUPL1CA~E RESULTS

£31 SAMPLE IO NO.: 90009016 Field 10: CG-10l-I

ENSR Lab. no.: 74282 Matrix (soil/water): FILTER

concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kq dry weight): uq

of Codes! c Lass than indicated detection limit(OL) = Between the OL and the EPA required OL cent differ$nce if do criteria: less than less required p = AA, CV Vapor Hg EN ERG Y AND •EN V I RON MEN ~ A LEoN• GIN E E R I N G SPIKE SAMPLE RECOVERY

Ell SAMPLE ID NO.: 90009003 ENSR Lab. no.: 74269 Matrix (soil/water); FILTER Field 10: CG-89-1

Concentration units: uq/L

Explanation ot codesl C Column: U - Less than indicated detection limit(OL) B - BetWeen the DL and EPA required DL %R - Per cent Q 2 Qualifier. EPA criteria: %R between 75 and 125% M - Method Codes: AA, CV - Cold Vapor Hq NR - element ENE R G Y AND •E N V I RON MEN T A ~ •ENG I NEE R I N G

SPI~E SAMPLE RECOVERY

Ell SAMPLE 10 NO.: 90009017 Matrix (aoil/wateF): ENSR Lab. no.: 74283 Field 10: CG-IOI-II Concentration unitsl u9/L

Analyte tR Q M Cyanide 97.4 - C

of Codes: C : U = Less than indicated B ~ Between the OL - Per cent Qualifier. Set criteria: %R between 75 and 125% with M = Method Codes: P ~ AA, .CV Cold vapor Hq Nfl .. ",lAmAnt not • •

POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS ON FILTERS

SAMPLE RESULTS

METHOD BLANK RESULTS

QA/QC FORTIFIED SAMPLE RESULTS • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74401 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-B-I DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 10/17/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FWORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) FYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======SURROGATES, , RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 66 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 76 TERPHENYL 79 NA NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * : OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74402 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-B-II DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/17/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

:======~======a: PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U BENZ CA) 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 70 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 81 TERPHENYL 83 NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR"NO : 74403 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-89-I DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/17/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) .PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

=====~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 67 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 75 TERPHENYL 78 NA = NOT ANALYZED U AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74404 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CO-89-I1 DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/17/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

~======~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 64 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 72 TERPHENYL 72 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74405 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-89~III DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE : DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO :

======;======~======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(BIFLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (AI PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-OS 71 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 73 TERPHENYL 70 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74406 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 . FIELD ID : CG-89-IV DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE : DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO :

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTMALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD}FYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I}PERYLENE 10 U

==~==~======--======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 60 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 78 TERPHENYL 80 NA ; NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DE1ECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74407 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-89-V DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/06/89 SAMPLING SITE : DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO :

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(BlFLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123 10 U DIBENZ(A, 10 U BENZO(G,H, 10 U

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-DS 66 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 73 TERPHENYL 70 NA NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY uw • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74408 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-89-VI DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO{K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO{G,H,I}PERYLENE 10 U

~======~======~======:======~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 69 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 75 TERPHENYL 70 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74409 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD 10 : CG-97-I DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL, MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

~======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ AN'rHltAC:ENE 10 U 10 U BENZO (B) FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(KlFLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123, PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)AN'TffitAC:ENrE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======c=

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 68 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 70 TERPHENYL 66 NA NOT ANALYZED U u UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * ; OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO 0: 74410 DATE SAMPLED FIELD ID : CG-97-II DATE RECEIVED CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER)

NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

===~======~==~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 69 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 73 TERPHENYL 70 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74411 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-97-III DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO ; 8500-089-225

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) .... _.... _...... ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U· PYRENE 10 U 10 U 10 u BENZO(B) 10 u BENZO(K) 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123, 10 U DIBENZ(A,H) 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

===~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 66 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 72 TERPHENYL 74 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74412 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-97-IV DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYR!NE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 65 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 76 TERPHENYL 75 NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74413 DATE SANPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-97-V DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE : DATE ANALYZED : 11/20/89 PROJECT NO :

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======~======-=

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 60 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 65 TERPHENYL 61 NA NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74414 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD 10 : CG-97-VI DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/18/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225 ======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123 , 10 U DIBENZ(A,H} 10 U BENZO(G,H,I}PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, l RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 73 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 76 TERPHENYL 71

NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74415 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-97-VII DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/08/89 SAMPLING SITE DATE ANALYZED : 11/20/89 PROJECT NO :

======~======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U Fl,uORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 78 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 83 TERPHENYL 80 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * OUTSIOE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74416 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-101-I DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/08/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/20/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 59 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 65 TERPHENYL 73 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74417' DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-I0I-II DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/08/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/21/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO{B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U OIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-05 58 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 59 TERPHENYL 69 NA NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY BY u.w • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO " : 74418 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD 10 : CG-101-III DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/08/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/21/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

=~~======:======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER)

NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 66 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 69 TERPHENYL 70 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY 1Il1A) • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74419 DATE SAMPLED FIELD 10 : CG-101-IV DATE RECEIVED CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225 ======PARAMETER RESULT CUG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K}FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-DS 65 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 67 TERPHENYL 75

NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74420 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-101-V DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/08/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------_ .... _- NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FWORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 51 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 52 TERPHENYL 57 NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT • = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74421 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 . FIELD ID : CG-101-VI DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/09/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

======~===

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ(AlPYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,HlANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PBRYLENE 10 U

======~======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-05 71 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 72 TERPHENYL 74

NA ~ NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * s OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74422 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-103-I DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/09/89 SAMPLING SITE : DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO :

======~======~======T======--==== PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======:======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-DS 48 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 56 TERPHENYL 75

NA ~ NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74423 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-103-II DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/09/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

======

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U . PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

====E======~======~======SURROGATES, , RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 47 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 50 TERPHENYL 72 NA = NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74424 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-I03-III DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT ; COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/09/89 SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL, MA DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT . (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FWORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

===~~======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 53 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 57 TERPHENYL 63 NA NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * - OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 7,1'425 DATE SAMPLED FIELD ID : CG-l03-IV DATE RECEIVED CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED SAMPLING SITE: LOWELL,MA DATE ANALYZED PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ ANTHRACENE 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A)PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CDIPYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I}PERYLENE 10 U

====~~======~======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 51 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 55 TERPHENYL 64

NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : 74426 DATE SAMPLED : 11/01/89 FIELD ID : CG-10)-V DATE RECEIVED : 11/04/89 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/09/89 SAMPLING SITE DATE ANALYZED : 11/22/89 PROJECT NO :

====;====;~~======PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ CAl PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CDlPYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 59 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 57 TERPHENYL 63 NA NOT ANALYZED U = UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

ENSR NO : MB891458 DATE SAMPLED FIELD 10 : METHOD BLANK DATE RECEIVED CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED SAMPLING SITE: ENSR,WILMINGTON,MA DATE ANALYZED PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER)

NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ 10 U 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO(123,CD)PYRENE 10 U DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE 10 U BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 10 U

======~======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

77 78 TERPHENYL 99 NA NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY • • ENSR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN FILTERS

. ENSR· NO : MB891465 DATE SAMPLED FIELD ID : METHOD BLANK DATE RECEIVED CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS DATE EXTRACTED 11/07/89 SAMPLING SITE: ENSR,WILMINGTON,MA DATE ANALYZED 10/20/89 PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

PARAMETER RESULT (UG/FILTER) ------_ .... _--- . NAPHTHALENE 10 U 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10 U ACENAPHTHYLENE 10 U ACENAPHTHENE 10 U FLUORENE 10 U PHENANTHRENE 10 U ANTHRACENE 10 U FLUORANTHENE 10 U PYRENE 10 U BENZ (A) ANTHRACENE 10 U CHRYSENE 10 U BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZO(KlFLUORANTHENE 10 U BENZ (A) PYRENE 10 U INDENO{123 10 U DIBENZ 10 U 10 U

~======~======

SURROGATES, % RECOVERY

NITROBENZENE-D5 64 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 69 TERPHENYL 74 NA = NOT ANALYZED U UNDETECTED AT SPECIFIED DETECTION LIMIT * = OUTSIDE RECOVERY LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY ENSR •CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING • SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SAMPLES BASE NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS ON FILTERS

ENSR NO : LCS891271 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS

SAMPLE ID : LAB CONTROL SAMPLE PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

EXTRACTION DATE : 11/08/89 ANALYSIS DATE : 11/17/89

======

COMPOUND SPIKED CONC. SAMPLE CONC. RECOVERY (UG) (UG) (%) ------_ .... __ ...... - ---- ...... _- l,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 57.6 58

N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE 100.0 53.3 53 l,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 55.4 55

ACENAPHTHENE 100.0 62.6 63

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 100.0 55.6 56

PYRENE 100.0 67.9 68

SURROGATES, %R (%)

NITROBENZENE,D5 61

2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 69

TERPHENYL, D14 71

NA NOT ANALYZED * = OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY ENSR •CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING • SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SAMPLES BASE NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS ON FILTERS

ENSR NO : LCS891272 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS

SAMPLEID : LAB CONTROL SAMPLE PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225

EXTRACTION DATE : 11/08/89 ANALYSIS DATE: 11/17/89

======

COMPOUND SPIKED CONC. SAMPLE CONC. RECOVERY (UG) (UG) (%) ------1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 60.4 60

N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE 100.0 69.0 69

l,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 65.5 66

ACENAPHTHENE 100.0 73.8 74

2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 100.0 72.4 72

PYRENE 100.0 82.9 83

SURROGATES, %R (%)

NITROBENZENE, 05 75

2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 86

TERPHENYL,014

NA NOT ANALYZED * - OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY ENSR •CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING • SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SAMPLES BASE NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS ON FILTERS

ENSR NO : LCS891279 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS SAMPLE ID : LAB CONTROL SAMPLE PROJECT NO : 8500-089-225 EXTRACTION DATE : 11/09/89 ANALYSIS DATE : 11/20/89

COMPOUND SPIKED CONC. SAMPLE CONC. RECOVERY (UG) (UG) (t) ------_ .... - ...... ------...... _----- 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 52.0 52 N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE 100.0 63.0 63 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 59.6 60 ACENAPHTHENE 100.0 68.9 69 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 100.0 69.3 69 PYRENE 100.0 67.3 67

SURROGATES, tR (t)

NITROBENZENE,D5 74 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 79 TERPHENYL,D14 85

NA NOT ANALYZED * OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMITS

REVIEWED BY QC BY ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING • SUMMARY• OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SAMPLES BASE NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS ON FILTERS

ENSR NO : LCS891280 CLIENT : COLONIAL GAS SAMPLE ID : LAB CONTROL SAMPLE PROJECT NO :

EXTRACTION DATE : 11/09/89 ANALYSIS DATE : 11/20/89

======:=

COMPOUND SPIKED CONC. SAMPLE CONC. RECOVERY (UG) (UG) (t) _.... _...... -_ ...... _------1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 44.7 45 N-NITROSO-OI-N-PROPYLAMINE 100.0 45.7 46 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 100.0 45.2 45 ACENAPHTHENE 100.0 62.6 63 2.4-DINITROTOLUENE 100.0 64;7 65 PYRENE 100.0 62.8 63

======~======~======SURROGATES, tR (tl

NITROBENZENE,D5 51 2-FLUOROBIPHENYL 67 TERPHENYL, D14 77

NA NOT ANALYZED * = OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMITS

REVIEWED By QC BY • •

LEAD ANALYSIS ON FILTERS SAMPLE RESULTS METHOD BLANK RESULTS QA/QC FORTIFIED SAMPLE RESULTS 027E

ENSR ANAL n I CAL lAJl()l!A TORY SUllMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS CUENT: Colonjat Gas LEAl) ON FILTER PARAMETER: lead SAMPLI NG SITE: L""" II. MA MATRIX: Filter PROJECT NO: 8500·089·225 METHOD: SW846:6010 UNITS: uglfilter

ENSR No.·1 74375 74376 74377 74378 74379 74380 74381 74382 74383 74384 FIELD ID'I CG·B·I CG·B·II C.·89-1 CO·89·1I C.-89·1I a;-89'IV CG'89-V CG'59-VI a;·97·1 C.-97·1I "DETECTION DATE SAM?LED'I 11/01/89 1 11101189 1 11/01189 11/01189 1 11/01/89 11/01/89 11/01/89 1 11/01189 11/01/89 1 11/01/89 LIMIT DATE ANALYZED· 1 11/15/89 I 11115/89 1 11/15/89 11115/89 1 11115/89 11115189 11115/89 1 11/15/89 11/15/89 1 11115189 *AHALYTE 1 1 1 1 1 1 ____ I 1 1 1 1 1---____ RESULT 1 BOL 1 SOL 1 BOL SOL 1 BOL SOL SOL 1 BOL SOL 1 BOL 5.0 • 1_____ 1 I 1 1 1 1---1---- 1 1 1 1 '_---_'----'-___ 1 1 1___ 1___ _ I I I 1-----1---_1____ 1 1---1---- 1 1

1 _____ '----____ I 1---1---- I 1 ,____ ~ ______I 11 ___ 1 ____ 1 1 ______-I 1______1 1 ______--I 1______1 1 ______-I 1______1 1 • ______I 1______1 1 ______I 1______1 1 ----1-__ 1___ 1 1______1 1 -----,---_,____ 1 1______1 1 ------_____-1 1___ 1___ _ BOl=Below Oetect1oo Limit TECH REVIEW/DATE: r5llJ ¢t/N QC/DAYE: MW lI/dol8" EHSR ANALYTICAL LAIIOIIATOI!Y SlIMIIARY OF ANAL H leAL RESULTS CLIENT: Colml.1 G•• LEAIl ON FILTER PARAMETER: Lead SAMPliNG SITE: Lowell, MA MATRIX: FlIter PROJECT NO: 8500-089-225 "E1HOO: SW!l46:6010 UNITS: U9/lllter

I EHSR NO"I 74385 14386 74387 74388 74:189 , I 74390 I 74391 74392 74393 74394 FIHO 10 -I CO-91'111j CO·97·IV I CC·97-v CO·97·VI I CC-97-VIII CG'10H I CO-l01'1I1 CO-l0HIII CO-I01'IVI CC·l01-V I *DETECTIOH DATE SAI4l'LED'1 11/01189 I lUOll89 I 11/01/89 11101189 I 11/01189 I 1l!01l89 I 11/01189 I 11/01/89 I 11/01/89 I 11101189 I LIMIT DATE ANALYZED -I 11/15/89 I 11/15/89 I 11/15/89 11/15/89 I 11/15/89 I 11/15/89 I 11/15/89 I 11/15189 I 11115/89 I 11115/89 I *ANAlYTE I I I I I I I 1 • 80L I IIDl 80L BOl I 5.0

•

TECH RE~'I E"/I)~1Ti : •...".iIU..up.apu... __.• _" ..... 021E

ENSR ANAL TTl CAL LAIIIlRATIlIIY _fir Of ANAL n I CAL RESULTS CLIENT: Colmlal G.. lEAll ON FILTER PARANETER: : load SMPllNG SITE: lo,",U, I4A I'I/ITRIX: filter PROJECT 110: 851)0-089'225 METHQO: SIII!46:61110 UNITS: us/f iI fer

I 74395 I 74396 I CC-I01·yll 0;.10H I *l)ETECIIOli 11101189 I 11101{89 I LIMIT 11115/89 I 11115/89 I I • 5.0

•

Sl)L"ohlow TfC~ 027E

ENSR ANALYTICAL LAIIOIIATORY S1JM\RY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS CliENT: ColoniaL G•• QUAl! n CONTROL CHECK S_LES PARAMETER: .leo

1 I I I I ENSR NO"I "113914911 1 "9891499 I _1500 lCS8912911 lcS891291 I Lcs891293 I LCS891298I FIELD 10 I NA 1 NA 1 U ~A 1 I .A I 1 *l)ETECTlOII DATE WlPlED I NA I Hi 1 NA NA I % 1 NA 1 % I liMIT DATE ANAL YlED 1 11115/89 I 11115/89 I 11115189 11115/89 I RECOVERY I 11/15/89 I RECOVERY I SPII(£ JiIlDED '1 NA I NA I NA 100 I I 100 I • IIIIL BIll 76.9 77 I 86.6 87 5.0

• • •

CHAIN OF CUSTODY SHEETS

~D SAMPLE RECEIVING CHECKLISTS co -0 I

REMARKS

'1 '4 Lj- 0 3

Time

Date Time Received by (Signature I Date

Relinquished by: (Signatlire) Date Time

Sample Disposal Method:

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY IN.' 00 - og<1 - ~,)...s d.

REMARKS

Time Date Time

Dale Time Received by: (Signature)

Relinquished by: (Signature) Dale Time

Sample Disposal Method: Disposed of by:

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY EN..~

tU"1.11. 'l A..lI tSSoo --o'1!.'t .5 'b CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

Type of Sample REMARKS

Dale I Time

Date Time Dale Time

Sample DIsposal Method: SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY ENt..

1974 3·84 - d.-a-s If "6 CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

Dale Time Received by: (Signature) DSle Time Dale Time Received by: (Signature) Date Time • by: (Signature) Dale Time Date Time

Sample Disposal Method: Disposed of by: (Signature SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY EN..-'

,q?4 .1 Rot \. ~ ~ CHAIN Of CUSTODY RECORD s

Type 01 Sample

Time Time

Dale Time Dale Time

Dale I Time ,S Sample Disposal Method:

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY ( I InL EN.' i "69 - 6 &.f'i CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD /If.A ,

Date Time

Relinquished by: ,Signaturel Dale Time Time

Sample Disposal Method: Time

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY E3~ 11lc- EtL-' (, 0;1

1 Q78 'l /.'!iA CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

No.

Type 01 Sample

Time Date Time

Date Time Received by: (Signaturel Date Time

Relinquished by: (Signature) Dalll Time Dale Time UI~Ir;1ld>' Sample Melhod: Disposed 01 by: (Signature) Dale Time

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY EK.-R

VII/I'" lQ1A:.t A.d, "g'S: co -0 8;'1. - d.-:'d.S" g..o\~ CHAIN Of CUSTODY RECORD IlA-

Dale Time Dala

Dale Time Received by: ISignature) Dale

Relinquished by: (Signature) Date Time

Sample Disposal Method:~~~ Disposed of by: (Signature)

SAMPLE COLLECTOR ANALYTICAL LABORATORY E C- EN.' • ERT LABORATORIES • SAMPLE RECEIPT CHECKLIST

NOTES:

2. present on receipt NOTES: coe 3. ./ COC tape on shipping NOTES: container no coe tape 4. broken/leaking NOTES: intact of receipt see notes 5. on NOTES: on 6. preserved correctly NOTES: ~~ ___~:m~)rClpE~r preservatives ______~;~::~ •• ~;A;r:;ei:c;;o:mm:ended

7. within holding time NOTES: received within holding holding see notes 8. samples NOTES:

NOTES:

, J

Samples and logged in • • APPENDIX I

QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

1. Method Blanks control consisting of all reagents, internal carried through an or instrumental 2. surrogates labelled compounds added to analyses used to evaluate efficiency by measuring recovery.

Control Sample with a group of analytes. The LeS the day of routine methods within defined An has been for most routine methods. Control limits defined by the most months of Les data for methodology with an the mean plus or minus 3

5. Matrix spike and Matrix Spike of the sample matrix known of compounds and to the entire procedure in order to the effect of measurable analyte recovery. The MSD is a of the matrix used to measure method precision. • • APPENDIX II

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE REFERENCES

1. "Guidelines Test Procedures for the of Pollutants the Clean Water Act", 40 136; Federal Register, Vol.49, No.209, 1984.

2. US EPA. Test Methods for EValuating Solid Waste, Methods. (SW 846 ) Washington, D.C.,

3. US EPA. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600j4-79-020. Cincinnati, OH, March, 1983. 4. American Public Health Association, American Water Works water Pollution Control Federation. Mpthnd~ for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th & 16th Ed., Washington, D.C., April, 1985. 5. 1984 Annual Book of ASTM Standards Section 4: Construction, Vol. 04.08: Soil & Rock; Building Stones. 6. 1984 Book of ASTM standards, Part 31: Water. 7. Manuals of Soil Vol. 1: Soil Classification and K.H. Head, 1980. 8. US EPA. Methods for the in Finished Cincinnati, OH, sep 9. Methods of Soil Chemical and ~~~LDD'1D

10. CUrrent EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Invitation for Bid protocols for analysis of organic and inorganic hazardous substances.

11. methods and covered by • APPENDIX III •

DATA QUALIFIERS AND SURROGATE QA/QC CONTROL LIMITS

1. B - Found in Method Blank. 2. J - Estimated value 3. U = Undetected

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPQUNDS compound soil Toluene,d8 88-110 81-117 4-Bromof1uorobenzene 86-115 74-121 1,2-dichloroethane,d4 76-114 70-121

SEMI-YOLATILE ORGANIC COMPQUNDS compound Water Jl.Qil Nitrobenzene 35-114 23-120 2-Fluorobiphenyl 43-116 30-115 p-Terpheny1 33-141 18-137 Phenol 10-94 24-113 2-Fluorophenol 21-100 25-121 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 10-123 19-122 • APPENDIX IV •

MATRIX SPIKE QA/QC CONTROL LIMITS

COMPOUND H1\1U rum.. 61-145 59-172 71-120 62-137 Chlorobenzene 75-130 60-133 Toluene 76-125 59-139 Benzene 76-127 66-142

SEMI-VOLAtILE ORGANIC COMPOUHD MATRIX SPIKE CONTROL LIMITS

COMPOUND H1\1U ~ 39-98 38-107 46-118 31-137 24-96 28-89 26-127 35-142 41-116 41-126 1,4-dichlorobenzene 36-97 28-104 Pentachlorophenol 9-103 17-109 Phenol 12-89 26-90 2-Chlorophenol 27-123 25-102 4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 23-97 26-103 4-Nitrophenol 10-80 11-114

PESTICIPE MATRIX SPIKE CQNTROL LIMITS*

COMPOUND ~ :m.u. Lindane 56-123 46-127 Heptachlor 40-131 35-130 Aldrin 40-120 34-132 Dieldrin 52-126 31-134 Endrin 56-121 42-139 4,4'-DD'l' 38-127 23-134 '" '" These limits are for advisory purposes only. !7Jte; (J~• rtf'•~ ~~e/~~ q;~e/~~~

Daniel $, Greenbaum ~e/1P~ &~ Commissioner 1Pimb< JInd; (lJ~ ~ 0.910&

November 29, 1989

Disposal Site! 89-103 Billerica street. Lpwell. MA

Document I 0

document may be reviewed at the following

J'K civic Center, Arcan Drive, Lowell

o Lowell Public Library, 401 Merrimack st, Lowell (508-454- 8821). o Greater Lowell Environmental campaign, 3 Waverly Ave, Lowell (508-453-5848), call for appointment. o Kathy Kirane. S1 Stavely Street, Lowell (508-459-2277), oall for appointment. o PEP, Northeast Regional Office, 5 commonwealth Ave., Woburn (617-935-2160), call Renee Mason for appointment.

ror more information, please call Douqlas Fine of PEP at 617-292-5578.

OrigInal Printed on Recycled Paper NOV 29 '89 8:48 PAGE.008 I \ • PALMER &. DODGE • ON E BEACON STREET

BOSTON, MASSACH USETTS 02108

TELEPHONE: (617) 573·0100

TELECOPIER (617) 2'27-4420 TELEX 951104

October 3D, 1989

Maureen Rabbet t Environmental Analyst Department of Environmental Protection SA Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01801

Re: Demolition of Billerica Street Houses

Dear Maureen:

As a followup to our conversation before the last Lowell public meeting on October 16, 1989, I am writing to confirm that ENSR will carry out the demolition of the Billerica Street houses in accordance with the plan submitted to DEP on August 15, 1989.

We a're proceeding with the sampling of the houses this week with the understanding that DEP has no material objection to the demolition plan and the attachments thereto. We believe that Colonial has addressed to DEP's satisfaction the precautionary measures necessary to prevent accidental transport of soil from the site.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. ytru tr Df:j::sfC cc: F.L. Putnam Jack Rourke Kathleen Harvey Ralph A. Child • • Formerly I!:RT )

october 17, 1989 ENSIl Consulting and Engineering Nagog Park Maureen Rabbett Arion. '\1assnchu~lts 01720 DE? 508-6,15-9500 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 1801 Dear Maureen: the Lowell Coal Gasification Waste Disposal Committee Meeting of October 16, 1989 ENSR the wipe of the Billerica <.le'fJ""·"'''''', in our of September 25, 1989. Sampling will be performed on Tuesday, October 24, 1989. ENSR expects to receive data around November 25th, 1989. As announced by Jack at the Colonial Gas expects to begin demolition the week of December If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

035354.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Wipe Sampling Strategy for Billerica Street Duplexes

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

1.0 DUST, DIRT AND SOIL PATHWAYS

ENSR assumes that there are three major ways that dusts, dirt or soils could have entered the Billerica street duplexes. One path is via foot traffic, which could have tracked outside dirt into the home. Dirt would most likely be concentrated at the backyard deck stairs, the wooden thresholds of the front and back doors and the iililllediate interior floor spaces associated with these entrance ways (kitchen linoleum and living room carpets). The second path would involve the transfer of dirt from residents I hands (adults who may have been gardening or children who were playing in the yard) onto outer screen door handles, inner doorknobs I interior hand rails located in the foyer and coat closet door handles. The third route of entry into the home would be dust blowing in through open windows. Dust or dirt may also have settled on the exterior portions of the duplexes.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 1 • •

2.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS

2.1 strategy I - Reoccupancy

A rigorous wipe sampling of the exterior and interior surfaces of each unit of the duplex would be needed if the homes were to be reoccupied. A greater number of samples would be collected from the interior of the units since occupants would typically spend more time indoors. ENSR estimates that 24 interior samples would be collected from each unit in duplexes at 89, 97 and 101 Billerica street. Assuming the wipe samples are to be analyzed for total cyanide, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and lead, the total number of interior samples collected from each unit of the above mentioned duplexes is 72. Each contaminant (lead PAHs, cyanide) is analyzed using a different method. Each method destroys the sample filter. Each wipe sample can therefore only be submitted for one analysis. It is therefore necessary to collect three wipe samples from each sampling location (4 for sampling strategy *2 (demolition». There are 6 units at these addresses, bringing the total number of wipe samples from the interior of these units to 432. Thirty-eight (38) samples would be collected from the interior surfaces of 103 Billerica Street, totaling 114 samples (38 samples x 3 analytes). Eleven exterior samples would be collected from 103 Billerica street and 14 samples from 101, 97 and 89 Billerica street. The total number of exterior wipe samples would be 159 (53 samples x 3 analytes). The total estimated number of interior and exterior wipe samples needed to adequately determine the extent of contamination, if any, in each of the units, if they were to be reoccupied, is 705. Table 1 indicates where surface wipe samples would be taken from 89, 97 and 101 Billerica street.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 2 • • Table 2 indicates where surface wipe samples would be taken from 103 Billerica street. The performance of such a sampling effort assumes that an action level, above which reoccupancY,will be prohibited, can be determined. Currently, there are no federal or state regulations or guidelines specifying such an action level.

2.2 strategy II Demolition

Assuming that the exterior surfaces of the duplexes would be more contaminated than the interior surfaces, ENSR proposes to collect 6 wipe samples (from the sides of the house, the deck and stairs) of each duplex to determine disposal requirements if the homes are demolished. Samples would be collected from exterior surfaces that are in greatest contact with the soils. Samples would be analyzed for total lead, PAH compOUnds, total cyanide, and reactive cyanide. A total of 96 wipe samples would be collected using this strategy (each contaminant is analyzed using a different method).

035257.KH. 1765-001-004 3 • •

3.0 SAHPLB ANALYSIS

Prior to initiating any sampling, ENSR must determine whether or not lead based paints were used on any of the interior or exterior surfaces of the duplex units. The presence of lead based paints will overestimate the amount of lead present. As indicated in section 2, three wipe samples will be collected from each identified location under sampling Strategy I. Each filter will be held with a pair of stainless steel forceps and used to wipe a 100 cm2 area,as measured by a paper sampling template. The 100 cm2 area will be 10 cm x 10 em square or a rectangle. One sample will be analyzed for total cyanides using color metric methods in accordance with EPA SW-846 (third edition) method 9010. The sample will be pretreated in accordance with method 90l0A. A second sample will be analyzed by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy for total lead using EPA SW-B46 (third edition) method 3010-6010. Prior to analysis, the sample will be acid digested by a modified EPA SW-S46 method 3050. The third filter will be analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry confirmation according to EPA-S46 method 8270. In addition to the above referenced methods, samples collected under sampling Strategy II would also be analyzed for reactive cyanide.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 4 • •

4.0 COST ESTIMATE

The costs associated with implementing each of the sampling options (reoccupancy and demolition) is provided below.

4.1 REOCCUPATION OPTION COSTS

Leag Analysis: 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $30/sample $4,320 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ $30/sample $1,140 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ $30/sample $1,260 11 exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ $30/sample $ 330

Total Cyanide Analysis 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $45/sample $6,480 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ $45/sample $1,710 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ $45/sample $1,890 11 .exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ $45/sample $ 495

PAH·Anal:tsis 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $325/sample $46,800 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ 325/sample $12,350 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ 325/sample $13,650 11 exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ 325/sample $3,575

Total Analytical Costs $94,000 labor (2 l?erson!': @ S65/hour for 20 hours) $2.600 Data Validation/Report (1 person @ $65/hour for 12 hours) 780 Miscellaneous Expenses $700 Peer Review (1 person @ $80/hour for 3 hours) $240

Total Costs for Sampling for Reoccupancy $98,320

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 5 • •

4.2 DEMOLITION OPTION COSTS

Lead Analysis: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $30/sample $ 720

:rotal cyanide: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $45/sample $1,080

PAM Analysis: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $325/sample $7,800

Reactive Cyanide Analysis 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $35/sample $ 840

Total Analytical Costs $10,440 Labor (1 person @ $65/hour for 12 hours) $ 780 Data Validation/Report (1 person @ $65/hr for 8 hrs) $ 520 Miscellaneous Expenses $ 250 Peer Review (1 person @ SaO/hour for 2 hours) $ 160 Total costs for Sample Implementation (Demolition) $12,150

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 6 • •

TABLB 1 WIPB SAMPLES PROM 89, 91, AND 101 BILLERICA STREET FOR REOCCUPANCY

Interior Location # of Sample Locations per unit door thresholds 2 (front, screen door handle area 2 (front, back) inner door handle area 2 (front, back) coat closet door handle area 1 window sills/ledge 6 (living-, dining rooms, kitchen, one window of each bedroom) hand rail 1 air conditioner unit space 1 wall 6 (one wall in living- and dining room, each bedroom and bath) attic area 2 kitchen floor (by door entrance) 1

Exterior II of Sample Locations per Duplex back and front siding 8 (one from HE, SE , NW and SW quadrant) sides 4 (one from upper and lower quadrant) porch or deck 2 (one from stairs and landing)

035251.KH, 1765-001-004 7 • • TABLE 2 WIPE SAMLES FROM 103 BILLERICA STREET FOR REOCCUPANCY Interior Location # of sampling Locations door thresholds 3 (front, back, upstairs) screen door handle area 3 (front, back, upstairs kitchen) kitchen floor (by door entrance) 2 (upstairs,"downstairs) living room window sills 2 kitchen window sills 4 (2 each in upstairs, downstairs) living room wall 1 kitchen wall 1 bathroom window 2 (one from downstairs and upstairs) hand rail 1 downstairs bedrooms (3) window 3 sills downstairs bedrooms (3) walls 3 upstairs bedrooms (3) window 4 (2 in large room, 1 in sills each of the other rooms) upstairs bedrooms (3) walls 3 upstairs den window sill 1 upstairs den wall 1 attic 2 Exterior back siding 1 tront siding 4 (one from NE, SE, NW and SW quadrant) sides 4 (one from upper and lower quadrant) porches 2 (one from upstairs landing, one from down stairs steps)

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Health and Safety Plan

for

the Demolition of 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica Street in Lowell, MA

Project Number: 1765-001-004

Prepared by: Kathleen Harvey Date: August 7, 1989

Approved by: Date: Health and Safety Manager

Approved by: Date: Project Manager

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Health and Safety Plan for the Demolition of 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA

Project Number: 1765-001-004

I, the undersigned, have received a copy of the above referenced document. ,I have read this document and understand its contents and requirements. I agree to abide by the requirements of this health and safety plan.

Signature Date

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

1. INTRODUCTION

This health and safety plan has been written as a guide which specifies the health and safety procedures required to minimize any potential risk to personnel involved in the demolition of the homes locatea at 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica Street in Lowell, MA. The plan also describes measures for securing the site after demoli tion. The provisions of this plan apply to all personnel who will be exposed to safety and/or health hazards related to demolition activities. The procedures in this plan have been developed based on current knowledge regarding the specific chemical and physical hazards which are known or anticipated for the proposed demolition. The requirements of 29 CFR 1926.850 through .860 (OSHA demolition standards) have been incorporated into this plan. All demolition" activities must be conducted in complete compliance with these federal regulations and all other applicable federal, state and local health and safety regulations.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 1 • •

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Billerica street properties allegedly received coal gasification by-products (oxide-box wastes) approximately forty to fifty years ago. During previous investigations at the Billerica street properties, blue surficial staining of the soil (indicating the presence of ferro/ferri cyanide) was noted. Phase I and Phase II investigations of these properties confirmed the presence of oxide-box wastes in the soils. The cyanide compounds associated with oxide-box wastes (ferro/ferri cyanide) are present in a form which makes thelll generally unavailable for absorption into the human body. The cyanides in oxide-box wastes are typically complexed with metals, such as iron. Consequently, the cyanide compounds are more stable, than free cyanide. Thus, the toxic effects of free cyanide are not apparent. However, as a result of the acidic nature of spent oxides, contact with the contaminated soils may cause slight skin irritation. The oxide-box wastes may contain low levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAR) and phenolic compounds. Repeated and prolonged contact with certain PAR compounds has been associated with the development of cancer. Contact of PAR compounds with the skin may cause photosensitization of the skin, producing Skin burns after subsequent exposure to ultra-violet radiation (i.e., sunlight). Phenolics are generally strong irritants which can have a corrosive effect on the skin and can also rapidly penetrate the skin. Chronic overexposure to phenols and ohenolic compounds may cause liver and kidney damage. The primary routes of entry of any of the contaminants on site would be either the inhalation of dusts or dermal contact with the soils. The use of tarpaulins, limiting vehicular traffic to asphalted areas and using water to suppress dusts (if generated) will greatly minimize contact with the material.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 2 • • Physical Hazards: Caution signs will be posted on the fences to warn against potential hazards or to caution against unsafe practices.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 3 • • 3.0 WORK ACTIVITIBS

The four duplexes located at 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA are slated for demolition. Demolition is to be accomplished using the clamming method. Prior to the commence ment of demolition activities, tarpaulins will be placed across the front, back and side yards of each duplex to prevent any building fragments from falling onto soils sUspected of being contaminated. Tarpaulins will also be in the dirt crawl spaces of the duplexes prior to demolition. The tarpaulins will prevent contractors from coming in contact with the soiL The tarp will also serve to repress dust generation during demolition activities. Vehicles will be stationed on the asphalted sections of each duplex's front yard. To minimize dust generation, vehicles should not cross over the yards. All electric, gas, water, steam, sewer and other service lines shall be shut off, capped or otherwise controlled outside the building line before demolition work is started. If it is necessary to maintain any utilities during demolition, such lines shall be temporarily relocated, as necessary, and protected. Windows and other glass shall be removed from the houses prior to demolition to avoid any hazards associated with the fragmenta tion of glass. The demolition of exteriqr walls and floor co~struction shall begin at the top of the structure and proceed downward. Only those workers necessary for the performance of the operations shall be permitted in the demolition and immediate .affected areas. During demolition, continuing in~pections shall be made as the work progresses to detect hazards resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors, or walls, or loosened material. Removed building materials will be immediately placed into a dumpster or other storage receptacle. Any materials that fall onto the tarps should be picked up immediately to avoid tripping hazards.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 4 • • A water truck will be available throughout demolition, and if dust is generated, the affected area will be sprayed with water to suppress the dust. The foundations of the duplexes will be left in place. Once demolition is completed, clean fill or gravel will be placed over the crawl space tarpaulin. One of the duplexes has a full basement, rather than a foundation and crawl space. This basement will be filled with clean gravel or other clean fill material.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 5 • • 4.0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE BQUIPKENT

The use of heavy machinery to demolish the houses will require the wearing of steel-toed footwear. Wherever an overhead hazard exists (falling or flying objects), hard hats will be worn. Eye protection will be worn at all times during demolition. To avoid being cu\.: when handling any building debris, heavy cotton work gloves should be worn.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 6 • •

EMERGENCY REFERENCE

AMBULANCE: 937-3200 POLICE: 937-3200 FIRE: 459-2444 HOSPITAL: 433-1761 Location: St. Joseph's Hospital 220 Pawtucket Road Lowell, MA

DIRECTION TO HOSPITAL: MAP INCLUDED? Follow Rt. 3A N to Pawtucket Road.

POISON CONTROL CENTER: 1-800-682-9211

NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER: 1-800-424-8802 o ENSR REPRESENTATIVES:

ENSR, Acton, MA 508-635-9500 - KEVIN POWERS (HSM) X4558 (home) 617-773-0484

- KATHY HARVEY (HSO) x4557 (home) 617-665-6797

.0 AGEN9Y REPRESENTATIVE: Maureen Rabbett, Mass DEQE (9~5-?160) o CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Rourke, John Harrington, Col. Gas

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 7 • •

MEETING NOTICE

LOWELL COAL GASIfICATION WAST! DISPOSAL SITES

CLEANUP ADVISOR~ COMMITTEE

DATE: Monday, october 16, 1989

TIMEI 7100 p.m. LOCATION: Lowell Heritage state Park, MaCK Buildinq 4th Floor conterence Room 25 Shattuck Street Lowell, Massachuaetts (Diractions and parking information attached.) AGENDA ITEMS: o Cleanup Advisory Committee Orqanization o Review of the Demolition Plan for the DUplexes at as-103 Billeriea street o Discussion of the "Phase III - Development of the Remedial Response Alternatives and the linal Reme4ial Response Plan" as described in the Massachusetts Contin9en~y Plan CMep)

ALL MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

DISPOSAL SITES INCLUDED ARE: 89-103 Billerica street Meadowcroft street 135-137 Billerica street Monarch street 160 Martin street 129 MArtin street • • MINUTES LOWELL COAL GASIFICATION WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

CLEANUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

October 16, 1989

items of the October 16, 1989 were: Committee organization, review demolition at 89-103 Billerica discussion of and a status on site work. meeting

, (Billerica Street neighborhood), fi~~UQL~ Masse (Martin Street neighborhood), Bob Williams (Monarch Street neighborhood), Jack Rourke Gas Company), Jay Enis Gas Company) Norine (Greater Lowell Anne Welcome (Greater Lowell Environmental Robert Desmarais (Lowell Board of Health) staff of the Department of Environmental Protection (formerly DEQE) , Maureen Rabbett (NERO), Sarah Weinstein (BWSC/Public Participation), and other citizens.

Cleanup Advisory Committee Organization

Weinstein described how with DEP done noted be asked sit the front table so that everyone could them. Ms. Weinstein said that any suggestions for ways to make CAC work better would be welcome.

Demolition Plans for Duplexes at 89 - 103 Billerica street Jack Rourke described Colonial's to demolish the duplexes at 89-103 Billerica street. Rourke noted that the cost of rehabilitation of the units is high, and that not be marketable even if rehabilitated. He also noted relocate the units would take time and site Demolition will around December 1, and about four days. demolition crane will on the driveways, and tarps will be around the houses and in the crawl spaces. All debris will be removed. The foundation • • 2 will be filled in with After demolition is completed Colonial will maintain area, cut the grass, etc. Kathy Kirane asked about the time-frame for site cleanup. Mr. Rourke that Colonial to submit the Work for the within three of getting the Phase II. Norine Brodeur asked if DEP has this demolition plan. Maureen Rabbett said that DEP the plan. She continued that some "wipe samples" taken at the duplexes to determine the levels of aromatic and the building materials. will use wipe to determine where to of the demolition material. I,ow levels of certain (i.e., lead) are allowable in solid waste landfills. Hiqher levels may require that the debris be treated hazardous waste. Jack Rourke that the wipe be collected on one Mr. Rourke samples will take four weeks to analyze, and that will not begin until the samples have been analyzed. Kirane asked if there are health risks associated with the Mr. Rourke responded that the houses would be hosed down during and all would be taken. Karen Mahini asked the foundations will be Mr. Rourke that this is a temporary measure the final remedial action is conducted. city councillor) asked what Colonial after remediation. Mr. Rourke that this is still undecided. Leigh Ayers stated that would be nice if the land could become consE,rvation land. Al Hebert that someone should check with Lowell's Anne Welcome added that Lowell has no and that this land could be protected if Lowell had such zon1ng. Denise Hansford asked if the vacant lot behind 89-103 Billerica street will be cleaned Maureen Rabbett said that Colonial has been meeting with and that Colonial has to for Sarah Weinstein said that plan in the local information will send out a "Notice of Document to the Lowell Coal Gas waste Disposal Sites mailing

Phase III Feasibility study Maureen Rabbett described the for DEP approval of the Final Remedial She also noted that the consent decree for Street site DEP of the Phase III Scope of Work. A Study broadly and then focusses down to • • 3 examine the best possible remedy that would: eliminate significant risk, and, where feasible, reduce the levels of oil or hazardous materials to "background levels" (eg. levels that would exist if the site had never been there). The following steps are followed when conducting a Phase III: 1) Identification of Remedial Response Alternatives - Some Remedial Response Alternatives might include on-site soil washing, groundwater treatment, material for treatment and then returning it, site disposal as a last choice. Cleanup tried in small areas on-site or tried in a has tried bioremediation in reaction chambers some interesting results but this may not be of the contaminants at 89-103 Billerica Response AlternatiVes - The most response are identified and a is conducted. 3) Preparation of the Remedial Response Plan - This documents all of the steps for remediation spells out the recommended technology, and states this is a temporary or a solution. the implementation of the Norine Brodeur announced that EPA is sponsoring a remedial technology conference in Lowell on November 20, 1989 at the Lowell Hilton. This is one of eight such conferences nationwide. Maureen Rabbett said that Wehran (consultants to DEP} should submit the final Phase II to DEP in the next couple of weeks. After DEP the Phase II, Colonial has 60 days to submit a Phase III of Work. Mark Phillips asked if there is any EPA funding for innovative or alternative technologies. Ms. Rabbett responded that there is for field pilot studies that use innovative technologies. Mr. Rourke noted that the results go to EPA and are not made public. Update on the Other Five Sites Jack Rourke said that all of the samples have been collected and sent to the lab. Some of the results have come back. DEP will probably get the Monarch Street and the other sites by January 1, expressed concerns that the abutters are the odors. Mr. Rourke said that no odors have by air monitoring during field testing. Colonial have been there once a week since the monitoring was and have not smelled anything. Ms. • Rabbett said that odors should be addressed in the risk • • 4 Ms. Brodeur commented at the could smell the odors they How do you factor that • Rabbett answered thai: 'the compounds are semi- nose is better to semi-volatiles which are geared up Volatile The that attached will be at. into the air in concentrations; they as a welfare issue than as a public

Bob Williams assessment did not include street risk assessment did. feet of the fence on Monarch street. Mr. of the risk assessment was based on exposure said that the scope of the Risk Assessment Ms. Rabbett said she had met with DEp f standards and ENSR on two earlier . These were not approved because the contained neither exposure scenarios (e.g. what would the material is left nor consideration of land uses. Mr. Williams said the Risk Assessment should include residents and asked if the Scope of Work for the Risk would be available at the November meeting of the committee. Anne Welcome asked if the street residences would be tested. Doug Johns of Palmer to Colonial) said that these Risk Assessment Johns continued that the the Risk Assessment the public involvement stated that due to assistance available to the local Advisory Committee are the only has for out issues. for public comment on Norine Brodeur said that Anne Welcome'S research leads her to believe that the Monarch Street site is bigger than she expected. It was mentioned that the fenced-in area of the Monarch Street site is not Ms. Rabbett said that sometimes this is a mixed Mr. Rourke said that signs aren't necessary in this situation since the pathway is He said that the city put ight in to the fence. Bob Desmarais that the city will not post the area unless it is the Department of PUblic Health. Anne Welcome Bob both that the existing fence is adequate, and has helped. • • 5 CAC Function Norine Brodeur said that function of the CAC as outlined in the Memorandum of gives community members more for involvement more power than CAC as outlined in the final PIP. She people should take advantage of all opportunities they get for public involvement. Ms. Brodeur commented there should be one committee that has all opportunities. Next Meeting

The next November at 7:00 P.M. at the - Mack 4th Floor Conference Lowell.

Prepared by Sarah Weinstein and Division of Planning and Program Development,

• ~(J~ef~• • ~~~p/~~ 0~p/{J~~{J~

Daniel S. Creenbaum ~p/~amlJ'~ Commissioner cWze, 1P1nLu<- J'~ ~, 0.210&

TO: Maur~an Rahbatt, awsc. NERO

THRU, C.... ol RowOln West, Di rec:tcH-, (JRS (#euI

FROM: Mich"ll?l .1. Murphy, OR~! 111 g'?!] OAl"" October 1<::, 1989

SUAJE"C r I PhaBe II Sit. !nvG~tlg.tlon for 93 Billerica str •• t Site, Lawall, MA, S",ptember. 198'1

[ hay. reviewed this most recent draft Df tha repo~t cited above. Th. raport has bean a m.nn~r that i. canalstant wi th tha Mass.1chusfiltts Cont Investigation pro~edur •• And ri.k qua •• cf my r.viGw was the Introduction, Ri.k A•• esament, Concluaion•• and Recommendations section. of the report. g~ctian. of the rapert are well dona an~ should ba con.ldmrad approvable pDnding tha aditorial change. Indic~ted below.

This r~port r.fl_ct. thg apprnaches and procadurew in use by DEP at the time of the report's preparation. SineR rl.k B$se •• mlnt and rlmk communication are rapidly evolving fiRld~, this report may not reflect all of th~ mo~t recent DEP appreache. and fa,- risk nSSe$SmRnt ,mo rjsl< coinffiunlcation. Th""'efoY",,,. Is r~port chould not be considered a definitive for .as!;eI1>SmerH of similar sit""., .m:l Ph,,!;;&, III ac:tivi Ie.,; .. 1: this sit!> incorporate Inform.tion and ~ppro.~heg nat contained in this j I r<2port.

Issues which involve possible futur~ eh."g •• in Information and approach includ~1

1, Allo,"able tnhilliltion c1Qses !Ire new c2.1c:.ulat~d fram A'llowable Ihni'shulcl Concentr'Jticm. (DEP) r,~ti;er than oral Ref.wence D()se~ ..

100% Recycled Paper , •

2. The assignment of do~e-re$ponse v~lues to indlv!du~l polynuclear aromatic nydroeArbon compound •.

3. Assumptions concerni sOlI ingestion rates And Absorption afflciRncy for cyani in the acube toxicity evaluation .

I • Last page of exacutiv~ • third line from top of page - change to read, ".xc.ad site risk limit",

2, Table 6-5 should hava a footnote indicating why cadmium, chromium and nickel wer. not evaluated fer carcinogenic .ffecta v!. ingestion or inhalation exposure.,

3. Table 0-7 should include the carcinogenic PAH compounds in TlAble 6-5.

4. Tabl. 6-11 should contain a footnot~ indicat! that there iii il detailed di~~u~sion of the impact of using no values for most of the PAH compounds.

5. 5e~t.iDn 6.8 should ref .. ,. to "chOlmic:allil of ~Qnc"rn" and not indicator "c hemicalsi! ..

6. Section 0.8.3 should specifically state that the non-cancer .. is;':s from expo;;ure to Po'IH", have oem, underestimat!!'d. bec¢\usE! RfCs wer. not avallaDIG for most of the PAH compounds.

7. Table 6-16 should contain. footnote Indlcat that future evaluation at th~ ~ite would utilize doses der ved from Allowable Threlilhold Concentrations (DEP) for Inhalation eXpDsures ""thYr than oral Reference Dos., ••

8. Tabl" 6-17 should contain aome reference to the omiReian of cadmium. chromium and nicN~l from the inhalation risk ;;?viilJuation.

9. Section 6.6.8 should refer to chemicals of concern and the li.t of carcinogens should include c~dmium. chromium and nickel.

la, Table 6-4 footn~t •• should ref.r to ch.mic~l. of concern not indicator ~h.ml~.l ••

Colonial Gas Co. sPOkesman Jack Rourke told the Cleanup, Advisory Committee Monday that Colonial, which now. owns the four uninhabited duplexes, would begin testing the homes next week for lead and cyanide. If the houses are "clean," the rubble will get>to a landfill. But if the tests show con tamination, Rourke said he has "no idea what to do." The build ings, now surrounded by barbed wire fences and tall floodlights, would have to be sprayed with water during the demolition to keep dust down, Rourke said, and getting rid of the refuse could be very expensive. Some' 'committee members thought the cost could go as high as $1 million. Colonial Gas, which claimed tI!sponeibility for toxic C\ial8'lllli, ' PI;€~'it Sel) DEMOUSHI4 . ,

Billerica St.~ouses. to be demolished DEMOUSH/From Page 1 fication wastes buried on the site, paid each of the eight .du plex ownen about $250,000 In a settlement last spring, Cyanidecontaminati6n on the sita "",ulted &om ·the dumping of coal gas wastes. produced by Colonial's predecessor, the Lowell Gas Light Co. Billerica Street and sev"rai other spots in Lowell served as legal dumping grounds for. the. waste. in the :19308 and '40.. . Foui-smeillng .cyanide fumes several other spots In and fears of II'public health risk drove the Billerica Street fami Lowell served as le;,1 lies from thek homes in Decem dumping grounds In the 'ber 1987" ;Five other cOI\I.gas dump sites' in tll~dty lire' now 19308 and '408. under investigation.. !lion to destroy the duplexes. Rourke said test results on "I'm 'glad the houses are final- Billerica'Streetshou!d be·back ly going," Karen Mahini, a within a month, and Colonial former of 103 Billerica hopes to' begin knocking down St. . .., , " . the . ,. , ~,l~a,t,.~1\\llp"te. Bob Williams, wli(l owns a ! ne lounu.. 110ns home near another toxic dump covered with gravel site on Monarch said he until a new use for the land is trusts Colonial to foUnd. Committee members say clean up the Billerica finding a new use coul

m: Billerica street Team: 'Maureen Rabbett) Dick Chalpin, Mike Murphy, Sarah Weinstein, Hank Southworth, Greg" vasili ard

DATE: September 27, 1989

SUBJECT: 'lhank you

cc: Jim Colman Ed Kunce Ken Tom

100% Recycled Paper • • Formerly EIU

ENSR Consulting september 25, 19B9 und Engineering :15 ~ag(jg Purl< :\(tl)ll. ;\"1a~sachu~lIs 01720 50S-6.>S-'l500 Maureen Rabbett DEP 5 Commonwealth Avenue Woburn, MA 01BOl

Dear Maureen:

and minimize in the of the secure the site after demolition; and 2) a wipe determine demolition debris disposal requirements 2.2 on page 3 of the Wipe Sampling Program Document).

Colonial's is based on several factors. homes will facilitate and at the sites. Second, the in order to - on the site demolition costs. to determine regulations or action level for associated with as is the marketa- even if they were as habitable. though is no reason to believe that the contamination posing a significant risk, and the most prudent course.

to determine debris collect six (6) duplexes. These six "''''mj,l..l.'''''' will be collected from exterior surfaces that have the potential for contact with fugitive dust.

035277.KH, 1765-001-004 • • A demolition will be obtained from the all utilities will be notified the ENSR will ensure that the the of G.L. c. that Air Division of DEP notification for demolition of that an air permit will be required.

Sincerely, ~~m~~ Kathleen Harvey, MPH Regional Health and Safety Manager /lIlk cc: Ralph Child (Palmer & Dodge) Richard Larry Putnam John Harrington Jack Rourke (Colonial) Kate Sellers (ENSR) Robert Clemens (ENSR)

035277.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Wipe Sampling strategy for Billerica street Duplexes

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

1.0 DUST, DIRT AND SOIL PATHWAYS

ENSR assumes that there are three major ways that dusts, dirt or soils could have entered the Billerica street duplexes. One path is via foot traffic, which could have tracked outside dirt into the home. Dirt would most likely be concentrated at the backyard deck stairs, the wooden thresholds of the front and back doors and the immediate interior floor spaces associated with these entrance ways (kitchen linoleum and living room carpets). The second path would involve the transfer of dirt from residents' hands (adults who may have been gardening or children who were playing in the yard) onto outer screen door handles, inner doorknobs, interior hand rails located in the foyer and coat closet door handles. The third route of entry into the home would be dust blowing in through open windows. Dust or dirt may also have settled on the exterior portions of the duplexes.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 1 • •

2.0 SAMPLE LOCATIONS

2.1 strategy I - Reoccupancy

A rigorous wipe sampling of the exterior and interior surfaces of each unit of the duplex would be needed if the homes were to be reoccupied. A greater number of samples would be cOllected from the interior of the units since occupants would typically spend more time indoors. ENSR estimates that 24 interior samples would be collected from each unit in duplexes at 89, 97 and 101 Billerica Street. Assuming the wipe samples are to be analyzed for total cyanide, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and lead, the total number of interior samples collected from each unit of the above mentioned duplexes is 72. Each contaminant (lead PARs, cyanide) is analyzed using a different method. Each method destroys the sample filter. Each wipe sample can therefore only be submitted for one analysis. It is therefore necessary to collect three wipe samples from each sampling location (4 for sampling strategy #2 (demolition». There are 6 units at these addresses, bringing the total number of wipe samples from the interior of these units to 432. Thirty-eight (38) samples would be collected from the interior surfaces of 103 Billerica street, totaling 114 samples (38 samples x 3 analytes). Eleven exterior samples would be collected from 103 Billerica Street and 14 samples from 101, 97 and 89 Billerica Street. The total number of exterior wipe samples would be 159 (53 samples x 3 analytes). The total estimated number of interior and exterior wipe samples needed to adequately determine the extent of contamination, if any, in each of the units, if they were to be reoccupied, is 705. Table 1 indicates where surface wipe samples would be taken from 89, 97 and 101 Billerica Street.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 2 • • Table 2 indicates where surface wipe samples would be taken from 103 Billerica street. The performance of such a sampling effort assumes that an action level, above which reoccupancy will be prohibited, can be determined. Currently, there are no federal or state regulations or guidelines specifying such an action level.

2.2 Strategy II - Demolition

Assuming that the exterior surfaces of the duplexes would be more contaminated than the interior surfaces, ENSR proposes to collect 6 wipe samples (from the sides of the house, the deck and stairs) of each duplex to determine disposal requirements if the homes are demolished. Samples would be collected from exterior surfaces that are in greatest contact with the soils. Samples would be analyzed for total lead, PAR compounds, total cyanide, and reactive cyanide. A total of 96 wipe samples would be collected using this strategy (each contaminant is analyzed using a different method).

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 3 • •

3.0 SAHPLB ANALYSIS

Prior to initiating any sampling, ENSR must determine whether or not lead based paints were used on any of the interior or exterior surfaces of the duplex units. The presence of lead based paints will overestimate the amount of lead present. As indicated in section 2, three wipe samples will be collected from each identified location under sampling strategy I. Each filter will be held with a pair of stainless steel forceps and used to wipe a 100 cm2 area, as measured by a paper sampling template. The 100 cm2 area will be 10 cm x 10 em square or a rectangle. One sample will be analyzed for total cyanides using color metric methods in accordance with EPA SW-846 (third edition) method 9010. The sample will be pretreated in accordance with method 9010A. A second sample will be analyzed by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy for total lead using EPA SW-846 (third edition) method 3010-6010. Prior to analysis, the sample will be acid digested by a modified EPA SW-846 method 3050. The third filter will be analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons using gas chromatography with mass spectrometry confirmation according to EPA-846 method 8270. In addition to the above referenced methods, samples collected under sampling strategy II would also be analyzed for reactive cyanide.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 4 • •

4.0 COST ESTIMATE

The costs associated with implementing each of the sampling options (reoccupancy and demolition) is provided below.

4.1 REOCCUPATION OPTION COSTS

Lead Analysis: 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $30/sample $4,320 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ $30/sample $1,140 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ $30/sample $1,260 11 exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ $30/sample $ 330

Total Cyanide Analysis 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $45/sample $6,480 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ $45/sample $1,710 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ $45/sample $1,890 11 exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ $45/sample $ 495

PAR Analysis 24 interior samples x 6 units @ $325/sample $46,800 38 interior samples at 103 Billerica @ 325/sample $12,350 14 exterior samples x 3 units @ 325/sample $13,650 11 exterior samples at 103 Billerica @ 325/sample $3,575

Total Analytical Costs $94,000 Labor (2 persons @ $65/hour for 20 hours) $2,600 Data Validation/Report (1 person @ $65/hour for 12 hours) 780 Miscellaneous Expenses $700 Peer Review (1 person @ saO/hour for 3 hours) $240

Total Costs for Sampling for Reoccupancy $98,320

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 5 • •

4.2 DEMOLITION OPTION COSTS

Lead Analysis: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $30/sample $ 720

Total Cyanide: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $45/sample $1,080

PAM Analysis: 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $325/sample $7,800

Reactive Cyanide Analysis 6 exterior samples x 4 units @ $35/sample $ 840

Total Analytical Costs $10,440 Labor (1 person @ $65/hour for 12 hours) $ 780 Data Validation/Report (1 person @ $65/hr for 8 hrs) $ 520 Miscellaneous Expenses $ 250 Peer Review (1 person @ $80/hour for 2 hours) $ 160 Total Costs for Sample Implementation (Demolition) $12,150

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 6 • •

TABLE 1 WIPE SAMPLES FROM 89, 97, AND 101 BILLERICA STREET FOR REOCCUPAMCY

Interior Location

door thresholds 2 (front I back) screen door handle area 2 (front, back) inner door handle area 2 (front, back) coat closet door handle area 1 window sills/ledge 6 (living-, dining rooms, kitchen, one window of each bedroom) hand rail 1 air conditioner unit space 1 wall 6 (one wall in living- and dining room, each bedroom and bath) attic area 2 kitchen floor (by door entrance) 1

Exterior # of Sample Locations per Duplex back and front siding 8 (one from NE, SE, NW and SW quadrant) sides 4 (one from upper and lower quadrant) porch or deck 2 (one from stairs and landing)

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 7 • • TABLE :II WIPE SAMLES FROM 103 BILLERICA STREET FOR REOCCUPANCY Interior Location # of Sampling Locations door thresholds 3 (front, back, upstairs) screen door handle area 3 (front, back, upstairs kitchen) kitchen floor (by door entrance) 2 (upstairs, downstairs) living room window sills 2 kitchen window sills 4 (2 each in upstairs, downstairs) living room wall 1 kitchen wall 1 bathroom window 2 (one from downstairs and upstairs) hand rail 1 downstairs bedrooms (3) window 3 sills downstairs bedrooms (3) walls 3 upstairs bedrooms (3) window 4 (2 in large room, 1 in sills each of the other rooms) upstairs bedrooms (3) walls 3 upstairs den window sill I upstairs den wall 1 attic 2 Exterior back siding I front siding 4 (one from NE, SE, NW and SW quadrant) sides 4 (one from upper and lower quadrant) porches 2 (one from upstairs landing, one from downstairs steps) 035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Health and Safety Plan

for

the Demolition of 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA

Project Number: 1765-001-004

Prepared by: Kathleen Harvey Date: August 7, 1989

Approved by: Date: Health and Safety Manager

Approved by: Date: Project Manager

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

Health and Safety Plan for the Demolition of 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA

Project Number: 1765-001-004

I, the undersigned, have received a copy of the above referenced document. I have read this document and understand its contents and requirements. I agree to abide by the requirements of this health and safety plan.

signature Date

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 • •

1. INTRODUCTION

This health and safety plan has been written as a guide which specifies the health and safety procedures required to minimize any potential risk to personnel involved in the demolition of the homes located at 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA. The plan also describes measures for securing the site after demoli tion. The provisions of this plan apply to all personnel who will be exposed to safety and/or health hazards related to demolition activities. The procedures in this plan have been developed based on current knowledge regarding the specific Chemical and physical hazards which are known or anticipated for the proposed demolition. The requirements of 29 CFR 1926.850 through .860 (OSHA demolition standards) have been incorporated into this plan. All demolition activities must be conducted in complete compliance with these federal regulations and all other applicable federal, state and local health and safety regulations.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 1 • •

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Billerica Street properties allegedly received coal gasification by-products (oxide-box wastes) approximately forty to fifty years ago. During previous investigations at the Billerica Street properties, blue surficial staining of the soil (indicating the presence of ferro/ferri cyanide) was noted. Phase I and Phase II investigations of these properties confirmed the presence of oxide-box wastes in the soils. The cyanide compounds associated with oxide-box wastes (ferro/ferri cyanide) are present in a form which makes them generally unavailable for absorption into the human body. The cyanides in oxide-box wastes are typicallY complexed with metals, such as iron. Consequently, the cyanide compounds are more stable than free cyanide. Thus, the toxic effects of free cyanide are not apparent. However, as a result of the acidic nature of spent oxides, contact with the contaminated soils may cause slight skin irritation. The oxide-box wastes may contain low levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAR) and phenolic compounds. Repeated and prolonged contact with certain PAR compounds has been associated with the development of cancer. Contact of PAR compounds with the skin may cause photosensitization of the skin, producing skin burns after subsequent exposure to ultra-violet radiation (i.e., SUnlight). Phenolics are generally strong irritants which can have a corrosive effect on the skin and can also rapidly penetrate the skin. Chronic overexposure to phenols and phenolic compounds may cause liver and kidney damage. The primary routes of entry of any of the contaminants on site would be either the inhalation of dusts or dermal contact with the soils. The use of tarpaulins, limiting vehicular traffic to asphalted areas and using water to suppress dusts (if generated) will greatly minimize contact with the material.

035257.KH, 1765-001~004 2 • • Physical Hazards: caution signs will be posted on the fences to warn against potential hazards or to caution against unsafe practices.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 3 • • 3.0 WORK ACTIVITIES

The four duplexes located at 89, 97, 101 and 103 Billerica street in Lowell, MA are slated for demolition. Demolition is to be accomplished using the clamming method. Prior to the commence ment of demolition activities, tarpaulins will be placed across the front, back and side yards of each duplex to prevent any building fragments from falling onto soils suspected of being contaminated. Tarpaulins will also be in the dirt crawl spaces of the duplexes prior to demolition. The tarpaulins will prevent contractors from coming in contact with the soil. The tarp will also serve to repress dust generation during demolition activities. Vehicles will be stationed on the asphalted sections of each duplex's front yard. To minimize dust generation, vehicles should not cross over the yards. All electric, gas, water, steam, sewer and other service lines shall be shut off f capped or otherwise controlled outside the building line before demolition work is started. If it is necessary to maintain any utilities during demolition, such lines shall be temporarily relocated, as necessary, and protected. Windows and other glass shall be removed from the houses prior to demolition to avoid any hazards associated with the fragmenta tion of glass. The demolition of exterior walls and floor construction shall begin at the top of the structure and proceed downward. Only those workers necessary for the performance of the operations shall be permitted in the demolition and immediate affected areas. During demolition, continuing in~pections shall be made as the work progresses to detect hazards resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors, or walls, or loosened material. Removed building materials will be immediately placed into a dumpster or other storage receptacle. Any materials that fall onto the tarps should be picked up immediately to avoid tripping hazards.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 5 • • 4.0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

The use of heavy machinery to demolish the houses will require the wearing of steel-toed footwear. Wherever an overhead hazard exists (falling or flying objects), hard hats will be worn. Eye protection will be worn at all times during demolition. To avoid being cut when handling any building debris, heavy cotton work gloves should be worn.

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 6 • • EMERGENCY REFERENCE

AMBULANCE: 937-3200 POLICE: 937-3200 FIRE: 459-2444 HOSPITAL: 433-1761 Location: st. Joseph's Hospital 220 Pawtucket Road Lowell, MA

DIRECTION TO HOSPITAL: MAP INCLUDED? Follow Rt. 3A N to Pawtucket Road.

POISON CONTROL CENTER: 1-800-682-9211

NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER: 1-800-424-8802 a ENSR REPRESENTATIVES:

ENSR, Acton, MA 508-635-9500 - KEVIN POWERS (HSM) X4558 (home) 617-773-0484

- KATHY HARVEY (HSO) x4557

(p~l)1e) 617-665-6797 I o AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: Maureen Rabbett, Mass DEQE (935-2160),- o CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jack Rourke, John Harrington, Col. Gas

I ,I

035257.KH, 1765-001-004 7