letter with comments on investigation of the … · infiltrat.i.al area of t1us reported leak....
TRANSCRIPT
I I
~ I I
middotGeor --lrans
Specialists in Solving Ground-Water Problems
December 7 1987
Mark Stoler Esq The Grace Specialty Chemicals Company WR Grace and Company 62 Whittemore Street cambridqe MA 02140
Dear Mark
At your request I have reviewed the Coffin and Richardson reportdeacribinq the results of their investiqation of the Cryovac Plant sanitary sewer and storm drainaqe systems The princip~l conclusions are
1 he CryCNac plant utility bullap is an accurate representation of the sanitary sewer and storm dra~naqe systems
2 The sanitary sewer and storm drainaqe systems are not interconnected
3 he sanitaJy sewer system is totally competent and there is no evidence of leakaqe
4 There are two leak areas in t~e storm drainaqe system
a A negligible leak within the upper twenty two inches of the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts to the storm drainage systaa lbe a1eanouts are only used to provide access for cleaninq out the storm drain line whid1 is 48 indles below the floor level under normal circumstances the vertical portion of the cleanout does not have water in it Consequently this is a negligible pctentialleak of the storm drainaqe system
1740 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough Massachusetts 01719 USA (617) 2640550
)
I Imiddot
~ I I
Mark Stoler Esq 2 December 7 1987
b A leak in the storm drainage line between a floor c1eancut and the manhole east of the main building (see attached figure) The leak area is probably at the transitial from cast iron pipe to reinforced concrete pipe near the outer wall of the assembly area The Coffin and Ridlardsal dye testing indicated that this leakage flowed eastward toward the manhole appraximately 60 feet east of the building The dyed water flowed in the bedding material beneath the storm drainage line and leaked into the manhole which had been plugged for the testing Monitoring well cluster 16 is located downgradient of the potential infiltratial area of t1Us reported leak Consequently I woold expect that water quality analyses from well 16S might provide an indication of whether there has been any grcmxlwater oa1taminatial resulting from this reported leak Marltoring well 16S was sampled on two occasions in November 1985 for volatile organic CXIIIpCl1l1ds The attached laboratory data sheets show that only methylene chloride a common laboratory solvent was reported for this well and it was only found in low concentrations
Based on the reported chemical analyses for monitoring well 16S and the fact that the storm drainage system is n~ intemlmected with the sanitary sewer or any ether drainage system it does not appear that leakage from the stoJm drain has been a source of groundwater contamination
If yoo have any questims regcmiing Jtrf reliew and comments feel free to call
Sincerely
~ Guswa PhDu~~ ~esident JHGSW 12071000 GEOBO
GeoTranslnc
-----------
bullbullbull
____ _----- f I
NOTICE If the film fmage Is less clear than this WELLS G AND Hnotice It Ia due to the ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
of themiddot document lmedmiddot
-_ --middot --all _Ora)
4Y11 NOfJWIHntUC3 3JI$ IWAOAyen) _tt-G
-shy- ____J___bull
---~2
-a--shy _ NCIUWNYWXJ
-~~ ~-~
- shy
~n tlsK middotmiddot
S~W ltMiiiIbullI3HW
Uflo middot- -~middot- _ _ -~
~
I I
~ I I
Charles E Cannon Imiddot I
VIto F Pennacchio middot Francia J Lynch Richard D Stuart Paul J Lanza
Ranthus B Fouch Ill Ronald J Satkevich David W McAnaney
Dtnnla H CarrCoffin ampRichardson Stephen B Alcott
Ralph G Grieco Joel S Lollheratein
Conaulllng Englneara
January 9 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Foley Hoag amp Eliot One Post Office Square Boston Massachusetts 02109
Attention Amy Woodward Esquire
SUBJECT CR Project No 1789 W R Grace Cryovac Division Woburn Massachusetts
Gentlemen and Ladies
I The investigations of the integrity of the sewerage and drainage systems at the W R Grace Cryovac Division plant in Woburn which you authorized have been completed Our investi shy) gation utilized several investigative techniques with the following results
SMOKE TESTING
Smoke testing was used to verify where appurtenances inside (and outside) the plant discharge to Smoke was introduced at four key locations The first was in the cafeteria over the cleanout for the sanitary sewerage system The cleanout cap was removed and smoke was blown into the cleanout pit An observer on the roof noted that each of the roof vents for the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 1 in Appendix A) while the roof drains did not Observers in the building noted that the floor drains and floor cleanouts (beneath the brass plates on the floor) indicated on the map to be connected to the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 2) The storm drain floor cleanshyouts did not Also the open trench in the passivating area emitted smoke (see Photo 3)
One Constitution Plaza Boston Massachusetts 02129 Telephone 617-242middot5000
I I
_ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -2- January 9 1986
Smoke was then introduced into the storm system from the manhole in the paved area just behind the building This sysshytem is believed to discharge to the south ditch Similar reshysults were obtained The roof drains emitted smoke (see Photo 4) while the roof vents did not Inside the plant the app~oshypriate floor cleanouts emitted smoke (see Photo 5) However due to an apparent blockage of the outlet pipe no smoke was observed in the south ditch Additional data were obtained on the south ditch following cleaning of the line with water discharged through a nozzle under 2000 psi pressure Smoke was introduced into the manhole along the north ditch Smoke
emitted from the catch basin in the north parking lot anwas intermediate manhole and the outlet pipe No building appurshytenances emittecl smoke
Smoke was also introduced into catch basins in the parkshying lot south of the plant It was verified that the three catch basins are interconnected No middotother appurtenances at the plant emitted smoke An inspection was performed on the warehouse southeast of the plant No sanitary or drainage facilities are located in this building
In general the smoke testing indicated middotthat no intershyconnections exist the appurtenances are connected as shown on the utilities map of the plant and there are no obvious d-efects
LEAKAGE TESTING
Leakage tests were performed on both the sanitary system and the storm system within the plant The results are as follows
Storm System
The initial leakage test was performed by placing a plug in the storm manhole in the paved area behind the plant Watermiddot colored green by the addition of fluorescein dye was then flushed into the system through several floor cleanouts in the floor of the plant It took approximately four hours to fill the entire system The water rap i dly leaked out and in 24 hours all of the water was gone None of the dyed water appeared in t he south di tch Further l arge quantities of green water began leaking into the manhole in the parking lot Thi s i ndicated that the pipe might be leaki ng fa irly close to the manhole
11-- r~middot )-middot
_
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
)
I Imiddot
~ I I
Mark Stoler Esq 2 December 7 1987
b A leak in the storm drainage line between a floor c1eancut and the manhole east of the main building (see attached figure) The leak area is probably at the transitial from cast iron pipe to reinforced concrete pipe near the outer wall of the assembly area The Coffin and Ridlardsal dye testing indicated that this leakage flowed eastward toward the manhole appraximately 60 feet east of the building The dyed water flowed in the bedding material beneath the storm drainage line and leaked into the manhole which had been plugged for the testing Monitoring well cluster 16 is located downgradient of the potential infiltratial area of t1Us reported leak Consequently I woold expect that water quality analyses from well 16S might provide an indication of whether there has been any grcmxlwater oa1taminatial resulting from this reported leak Marltoring well 16S was sampled on two occasions in November 1985 for volatile organic CXIIIpCl1l1ds The attached laboratory data sheets show that only methylene chloride a common laboratory solvent was reported for this well and it was only found in low concentrations
Based on the reported chemical analyses for monitoring well 16S and the fact that the storm drainage system is n~ intemlmected with the sanitary sewer or any ether drainage system it does not appear that leakage from the stoJm drain has been a source of groundwater contamination
If yoo have any questims regcmiing Jtrf reliew and comments feel free to call
Sincerely
~ Guswa PhDu~~ ~esident JHGSW 12071000 GEOBO
GeoTranslnc
-----------
bullbullbull
____ _----- f I
NOTICE If the film fmage Is less clear than this WELLS G AND Hnotice It Ia due to the ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
of themiddot document lmedmiddot
-_ --middot --all _Ora)
4Y11 NOfJWIHntUC3 3JI$ IWAOAyen) _tt-G
-shy- ____J___bull
---~2
-a--shy _ NCIUWNYWXJ
-~~ ~-~
- shy
~n tlsK middotmiddot
S~W ltMiiiIbullI3HW
Uflo middot- -~middot- _ _ -~
~
I I
~ I I
Charles E Cannon Imiddot I
VIto F Pennacchio middot Francia J Lynch Richard D Stuart Paul J Lanza
Ranthus B Fouch Ill Ronald J Satkevich David W McAnaney
Dtnnla H CarrCoffin ampRichardson Stephen B Alcott
Ralph G Grieco Joel S Lollheratein
Conaulllng Englneara
January 9 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Foley Hoag amp Eliot One Post Office Square Boston Massachusetts 02109
Attention Amy Woodward Esquire
SUBJECT CR Project No 1789 W R Grace Cryovac Division Woburn Massachusetts
Gentlemen and Ladies
I The investigations of the integrity of the sewerage and drainage systems at the W R Grace Cryovac Division plant in Woburn which you authorized have been completed Our investi shy) gation utilized several investigative techniques with the following results
SMOKE TESTING
Smoke testing was used to verify where appurtenances inside (and outside) the plant discharge to Smoke was introduced at four key locations The first was in the cafeteria over the cleanout for the sanitary sewerage system The cleanout cap was removed and smoke was blown into the cleanout pit An observer on the roof noted that each of the roof vents for the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 1 in Appendix A) while the roof drains did not Observers in the building noted that the floor drains and floor cleanouts (beneath the brass plates on the floor) indicated on the map to be connected to the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 2) The storm drain floor cleanshyouts did not Also the open trench in the passivating area emitted smoke (see Photo 3)
One Constitution Plaza Boston Massachusetts 02129 Telephone 617-242middot5000
I I
_ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -2- January 9 1986
Smoke was then introduced into the storm system from the manhole in the paved area just behind the building This sysshytem is believed to discharge to the south ditch Similar reshysults were obtained The roof drains emitted smoke (see Photo 4) while the roof vents did not Inside the plant the app~oshypriate floor cleanouts emitted smoke (see Photo 5) However due to an apparent blockage of the outlet pipe no smoke was observed in the south ditch Additional data were obtained on the south ditch following cleaning of the line with water discharged through a nozzle under 2000 psi pressure Smoke was introduced into the manhole along the north ditch Smoke
emitted from the catch basin in the north parking lot anwas intermediate manhole and the outlet pipe No building appurshytenances emittecl smoke
Smoke was also introduced into catch basins in the parkshying lot south of the plant It was verified that the three catch basins are interconnected No middotother appurtenances at the plant emitted smoke An inspection was performed on the warehouse southeast of the plant No sanitary or drainage facilities are located in this building
In general the smoke testing indicated middotthat no intershyconnections exist the appurtenances are connected as shown on the utilities map of the plant and there are no obvious d-efects
LEAKAGE TESTING
Leakage tests were performed on both the sanitary system and the storm system within the plant The results are as follows
Storm System
The initial leakage test was performed by placing a plug in the storm manhole in the paved area behind the plant Watermiddot colored green by the addition of fluorescein dye was then flushed into the system through several floor cleanouts in the floor of the plant It took approximately four hours to fill the entire system The water rap i dly leaked out and in 24 hours all of the water was gone None of the dyed water appeared in t he south di tch Further l arge quantities of green water began leaking into the manhole in the parking lot Thi s i ndicated that the pipe might be leaki ng fa irly close to the manhole
11-- r~middot )-middot
_
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
-----------
bullbullbull
____ _----- f I
NOTICE If the film fmage Is less clear than this WELLS G AND Hnotice It Ia due to the ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
of themiddot document lmedmiddot
-_ --middot --all _Ora)
4Y11 NOfJWIHntUC3 3JI$ IWAOAyen) _tt-G
-shy- ____J___bull
---~2
-a--shy _ NCIUWNYWXJ
-~~ ~-~
- shy
~n tlsK middotmiddot
S~W ltMiiiIbullI3HW
Uflo middot- -~middot- _ _ -~
~
I I
~ I I
Charles E Cannon Imiddot I
VIto F Pennacchio middot Francia J Lynch Richard D Stuart Paul J Lanza
Ranthus B Fouch Ill Ronald J Satkevich David W McAnaney
Dtnnla H CarrCoffin ampRichardson Stephen B Alcott
Ralph G Grieco Joel S Lollheratein
Conaulllng Englneara
January 9 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Foley Hoag amp Eliot One Post Office Square Boston Massachusetts 02109
Attention Amy Woodward Esquire
SUBJECT CR Project No 1789 W R Grace Cryovac Division Woburn Massachusetts
Gentlemen and Ladies
I The investigations of the integrity of the sewerage and drainage systems at the W R Grace Cryovac Division plant in Woburn which you authorized have been completed Our investi shy) gation utilized several investigative techniques with the following results
SMOKE TESTING
Smoke testing was used to verify where appurtenances inside (and outside) the plant discharge to Smoke was introduced at four key locations The first was in the cafeteria over the cleanout for the sanitary sewerage system The cleanout cap was removed and smoke was blown into the cleanout pit An observer on the roof noted that each of the roof vents for the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 1 in Appendix A) while the roof drains did not Observers in the building noted that the floor drains and floor cleanouts (beneath the brass plates on the floor) indicated on the map to be connected to the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 2) The storm drain floor cleanshyouts did not Also the open trench in the passivating area emitted smoke (see Photo 3)
One Constitution Plaza Boston Massachusetts 02129 Telephone 617-242middot5000
I I
_ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -2- January 9 1986
Smoke was then introduced into the storm system from the manhole in the paved area just behind the building This sysshytem is believed to discharge to the south ditch Similar reshysults were obtained The roof drains emitted smoke (see Photo 4) while the roof vents did not Inside the plant the app~oshypriate floor cleanouts emitted smoke (see Photo 5) However due to an apparent blockage of the outlet pipe no smoke was observed in the south ditch Additional data were obtained on the south ditch following cleaning of the line with water discharged through a nozzle under 2000 psi pressure Smoke was introduced into the manhole along the north ditch Smoke
emitted from the catch basin in the north parking lot anwas intermediate manhole and the outlet pipe No building appurshytenances emittecl smoke
Smoke was also introduced into catch basins in the parkshying lot south of the plant It was verified that the three catch basins are interconnected No middotother appurtenances at the plant emitted smoke An inspection was performed on the warehouse southeast of the plant No sanitary or drainage facilities are located in this building
In general the smoke testing indicated middotthat no intershyconnections exist the appurtenances are connected as shown on the utilities map of the plant and there are no obvious d-efects
LEAKAGE TESTING
Leakage tests were performed on both the sanitary system and the storm system within the plant The results are as follows
Storm System
The initial leakage test was performed by placing a plug in the storm manhole in the paved area behind the plant Watermiddot colored green by the addition of fluorescein dye was then flushed into the system through several floor cleanouts in the floor of the plant It took approximately four hours to fill the entire system The water rap i dly leaked out and in 24 hours all of the water was gone None of the dyed water appeared in t he south di tch Further l arge quantities of green water began leaking into the manhole in the parking lot Thi s i ndicated that the pipe might be leaki ng fa irly close to the manhole
11-- r~middot )-middot
_
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I I
~ I I
Charles E Cannon Imiddot I
VIto F Pennacchio middot Francia J Lynch Richard D Stuart Paul J Lanza
Ranthus B Fouch Ill Ronald J Satkevich David W McAnaney
Dtnnla H CarrCoffin ampRichardson Stephen B Alcott
Ralph G Grieco Joel S Lollheratein
Conaulllng Englneara
January 9 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Foley Hoag amp Eliot One Post Office Square Boston Massachusetts 02109
Attention Amy Woodward Esquire
SUBJECT CR Project No 1789 W R Grace Cryovac Division Woburn Massachusetts
Gentlemen and Ladies
I The investigations of the integrity of the sewerage and drainage systems at the W R Grace Cryovac Division plant in Woburn which you authorized have been completed Our investi shy) gation utilized several investigative techniques with the following results
SMOKE TESTING
Smoke testing was used to verify where appurtenances inside (and outside) the plant discharge to Smoke was introduced at four key locations The first was in the cafeteria over the cleanout for the sanitary sewerage system The cleanout cap was removed and smoke was blown into the cleanout pit An observer on the roof noted that each of the roof vents for the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 1 in Appendix A) while the roof drains did not Observers in the building noted that the floor drains and floor cleanouts (beneath the brass plates on the floor) indicated on the map to be connected to the sanitary system emitted smoke (see Photo 2) The storm drain floor cleanshyouts did not Also the open trench in the passivating area emitted smoke (see Photo 3)
One Constitution Plaza Boston Massachusetts 02129 Telephone 617-242middot5000
I I
_ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -2- January 9 1986
Smoke was then introduced into the storm system from the manhole in the paved area just behind the building This sysshytem is believed to discharge to the south ditch Similar reshysults were obtained The roof drains emitted smoke (see Photo 4) while the roof vents did not Inside the plant the app~oshypriate floor cleanouts emitted smoke (see Photo 5) However due to an apparent blockage of the outlet pipe no smoke was observed in the south ditch Additional data were obtained on the south ditch following cleaning of the line with water discharged through a nozzle under 2000 psi pressure Smoke was introduced into the manhole along the north ditch Smoke
emitted from the catch basin in the north parking lot anwas intermediate manhole and the outlet pipe No building appurshytenances emittecl smoke
Smoke was also introduced into catch basins in the parkshying lot south of the plant It was verified that the three catch basins are interconnected No middotother appurtenances at the plant emitted smoke An inspection was performed on the warehouse southeast of the plant No sanitary or drainage facilities are located in this building
In general the smoke testing indicated middotthat no intershyconnections exist the appurtenances are connected as shown on the utilities map of the plant and there are no obvious d-efects
LEAKAGE TESTING
Leakage tests were performed on both the sanitary system and the storm system within the plant The results are as follows
Storm System
The initial leakage test was performed by placing a plug in the storm manhole in the paved area behind the plant Watermiddot colored green by the addition of fluorescein dye was then flushed into the system through several floor cleanouts in the floor of the plant It took approximately four hours to fill the entire system The water rap i dly leaked out and in 24 hours all of the water was gone None of the dyed water appeared in t he south di tch Further l arge quantities of green water began leaking into the manhole in the parking lot Thi s i ndicated that the pipe might be leaki ng fa irly close to the manhole
11-- r~middot )-middot
_
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I I
_ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -2- January 9 1986
Smoke was then introduced into the storm system from the manhole in the paved area just behind the building This sysshytem is believed to discharge to the south ditch Similar reshysults were obtained The roof drains emitted smoke (see Photo 4) while the roof vents did not Inside the plant the app~oshypriate floor cleanouts emitted smoke (see Photo 5) However due to an apparent blockage of the outlet pipe no smoke was observed in the south ditch Additional data were obtained on the south ditch following cleaning of the line with water discharged through a nozzle under 2000 psi pressure Smoke was introduced into the manhole along the north ditch Smoke
emitted from the catch basin in the north parking lot anwas intermediate manhole and the outlet pipe No building appurshytenances emittecl smoke
Smoke was also introduced into catch basins in the parkshying lot south of the plant It was verified that the three catch basins are interconnected No middotother appurtenances at the plant emitted smoke An inspection was performed on the warehouse southeast of the plant No sanitary or drainage facilities are located in this building
In general the smoke testing indicated middotthat no intershyconnections exist the appurtenances are connected as shown on the utilities map of the plant and there are no obvious d-efects
LEAKAGE TESTING
Leakage tests were performed on both the sanitary system and the storm system within the plant The results are as follows
Storm System
The initial leakage test was performed by placing a plug in the storm manhole in the paved area behind the plant Watermiddot colored green by the addition of fluorescein dye was then flushed into the system through several floor cleanouts in the floor of the plant It took approximately four hours to fill the entire system The water rap i dly leaked out and in 24 hours all of the water was gone None of the dyed water appeared in t he south di tch Further l arge quantities of green water began leaking into the manhole in the parking lot Thi s i ndicated that the pipe might be leaki ng fa irly close to the manhole
11-- r~middot )-middot
_
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
j
I I I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -3- January 9 1986
In an effort to isolate which portions of the pipe might be leaking a second leakage test was performed on the drainage system by inserting a plug farther upstream in a cleanout within the assembly area This prevented water from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout and the manhole in the paved area The results from this test were significantly different from the first test Water was introduced through the floor cleanouts and the water level was brought within an inch of the floor Initially the -later level dropped rapidly for approximately two feet Then is seemed to stabilize The storm line was reshyfilled to within an inch of the floor and again the water level dropped this time stabilizing at twentyshytwo inches below the floor The water was left in the pipes overnight and after being in the pipes for a total of 16 hours the water level was still twentyshytwo inches below the floor
It appears that the leakage is occurring in the vertical portion of the floor cleanouts and that the 15-inch main line is competent The 15-inch line is some 48-inches below the floor therefore only the upper half of the floor cleanouts is subject to leakshyage Undec normal operating conditions the vertical portion of the pipe will not have water standing in it Thus any leakage out of this portion of the pipe will be negligible
During the second test water was prevented from entering the section of pipe between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant As leakage from the pipe upstream of the cleanout was negligible it is our opinion that the majority of the leakage is from the section between the cleanout and the manhole However in our opinion if the drainage system leaks it is not a serious problem The reason for this is that the drainage system is designed to ~mpty into the south ditch From the south ditch the stormwater will eventually enter the soil matrix Therefore if the stormwater leaks out of the pipe it is only entering the soil matrix slightly sooner than it would have by traveling all the way to the south ditch There is no significant difference between these two occurrences
CJi
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I I
~ I I
Foley Hoag amp Eliot -4- January 9 1986
Sanitary System
The sanitary sewerage system was also tested for leaks The invert of the 6-inch sanitary line is some 73 feet belo~ the level of the floor A plug was in-middot stalled in the cleanout pipe which was accessed through the floor in the cafeteria This allowed testing of the sanitary sewer upstream of the plug within the plant
The sinks and showers were turned on and the water level was brought to within tt-70 inches of the floor Initially the water dropped approximately 15 inches in two hours This initial drop could have been due to saturation of the pipe walls or loss of air that had been trapped in the line Following the initial drop there was no water loss for eighteen hours In our opinion the sanitary system within the plant is totally competent There is no evidence of leakage
The leakage tests on the storm and sanitary lines were performed at different times During the tests Coffin amp Richardson personnel went throughout the plant to determine which floormiddotcleanouts contained water The cleanouts conshytaining water during the test on the storm system were painted blue Those that contained water during the test on the sanitary -system were painted orange The results were identical to those obtained during the smoke testing and the color coding will facilitate future differentiation between floor cleanouts for the storm apd sanitary systems
TELEVISION INSPECTION
The drainage system between the cleanout in the assembly area and the manhole behind the plant was televised in an effort to determine where the leakage was occurring The inspection was performed by Utilities Pipeline Services using a closed circuit television camera A videotape of the inspection will be provided once it has been transcribed from Beta to VHS format In general the pipe is in good condition There was no significant scaling or rusting on the inside of the cast-iron pipe and the reinforced concrete pipe is sound The transition from cast-iron pipe to reinshyforced concrete pipe occurs sixty-nine feet downstream of the cleanout or very near the outer wall of the assembly area The transition appeared to be the only place where
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I
( J
Foley Hoag ampEliot -5- January 9 1986
the water could be leaking from the drainage system At the transition bricks and mortar were observed sticking out from the joint and into the pipe While the obstruction is not severe enough to hinder flow out of the pipe it indicates that the joint may not be watertight In our opinion this is where a majority of the leakage is occurring It had been suggested that the leakage may be occurring through an abandoned line to the south ditch that existed before the assembly area had been built There was no evidence of a side line or a branch on the interior of the pipe that was televised
In addition to televising the storm line Utilities Pipeline Services attempted to clean the line from the storm manhole to the south ditch They removed a large mass of roots which appeared to be primarily responsible for blockage of the line When the plug was removed from the storm line at the conclusion of the second test the water that had been behind the plug was observed entering the south ditch Efforts to flush water into the south ditch prior to removal of the roots had been unsuccessful
In conclusion we found no discrepancies between the sanitary and storm systems existiug at the plant and the utility plans provided by W R Grace Further we found no evidence of leakage in the sanitary system The leakshyage from the storm system will cause no effects signifi shycantly different from those if the stormwater flowed to the south ditch
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact this office
Very truly your~
caze~ Charles E Cannon President
~-~ Joel S Loitherstein
CECJSLejs Project Engineer cc Sandy Lynch Esq
Mark Stoler Esq
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
-----------NOTICE If the film
Image
Ia Ieee clearmiddot than thla notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
e=-z
~
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
lt ~
Q
z ~ p
~
0-
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
-----------N
OTIC
E If th
e film
rmage
Is less clea
r than this
notice It Is due to the
qu
ality o
f the
middot document
belna filmed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-~
---middot
~~
t
-- middot middotmiddot=~~
- ~ -~
~~-
bullf ~~-Hil t
bull 10 l -~middot bull
bull
~ bull i -1 -1
bull 0
bull
middot~
-~ -bull
bull bull I
middot ~ - ~
I I
I
bull bull bull
foh
bull-ts
~
middot=-middot lt
~ bull
bull ~ lbullf
middotmiddot - ~-
gmiddot p
middot middot ~( lomiddott
bull 1~ -~~~
1 r middotbull
bull bullbull ~fmiddot
3l -
-middotmiddot
-~ middotV middot
-1~~11
middotmiddot ~-~~ _JJ~~ ~
lt middot -~~~
J bullmiddot
bull
bull ~ ~middoty middot middot rJ~ ~
j~ ~_- to
=
middot f
middot
~-
r N
li ~ amiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
_ - ~~c
)
Jl r middotmiddotl1 middot - ~
~- -~middot~ I
bull
J
bull middot middot Ct middot ~J ~
bull
~ bull
amp -middott ~ middot ~
middotmiddot middot middot middot~ ~
bull bull ---~
~
-- --~
middotmiddotmiddot middot
~t = bullmiddot
middot
lbullr middotmiddot middotmiddot bull
~ gt-l ~ -
middotsmiddot i -
middot1 -middot~~middotmiddot- middot
middot~fl
I
middot bull-
bull I
bullmiddotbull __ -
lr ~middotmiddotmiddot
middoti middot~bullc
-middot-- ( middotmiddot~~ middot
~~~~Imiddot _ middot middot ~l~middot
middot~~
I 11 middot~
middot~
bull ta~middot bull middot~-~~ft~
~
middot t
middot 1~-middot~ -~ ~ j-i f)~ t- r) ~ILF
bull bull fmiddotmiddot middotmiddot middot_~ ~ r
I~-middot
_ middot4~middot middotbull
bull ~_
I I middot
bull
bull bull
-=~ middotc middot ~
bull
ltbull-middot ( bull bull
bull
J
bull bull
bull bull
bull
bull ~ -
middot
bull middot=
- middot-middotmiddot ~ rmiddotbull~ l
middot ~ middot middot middot middot bull o
~ bull
~
_ ~ t - ~
middot middot_ 1 t
k
[lt~-
$middot I t-
J_bull_
middotmiddotmiddot
bull
bull bull
bull
bull bullbull bullbull ~
bull middot j 1 C1
middot bull
bull bull v
0
li) bull
middot middot middotmiddot J
~-
~
~ middot middot- middot middot~middotmiddot~ -
I
fC
~middot ~ ~
= middotmiddot middot ~ _~r-middot middot ~ =
middot
t ~middot~--
middot middot
_
-
~
--
~
middot middot ~- ~ ~
bullbull ~~ w--
bull
I ~
middot
--
-~i -~ ~
middot J middot
middot middot -ltmiddot~71 l~gr middot
middot~ Rj
middotI
middot ~ middot
Ibull ~f bull middot
r~ t
~ _
middott
t~~imiddotmiddotmiddot
middotlt~1~
~A middot-middot middotbull middotmiddot -bull
((f- middot ~
middot
bull
t~ t ~~
- _middot~~-
middotmiddot middot tmiddot middot middot~ ~
middott~middot ~r- ~middot I
middot
I bull middot
middot
middot ~ 1middot --opound-~
bmiddot~
bull middot
~ lrmiddot
r
~ r
middot
~
l-= ii~
A
)~
I
bull
bullbull
~ middot -- r
~
middot
~~~ ifJ
L middot ~ li
middot
~~~middot~middot
li f
-
middot middotmiddot middot 4 --~middot
t-en w
t-w
~
0 EE
en
w
()t-zen
-gt
-a
en gt cgt
-()~ ~ ~z
Olt
E
CJ)
cn
z
cnO
t-z w
gt
u 0 0 a
WE
L10
02
en w
t-w
~
0 E
en ()E
zw
-t-
a en
=gt
gt-
CC
I)
Cgtgt-
za
-lt
~t-
0-
E
Z
enlt
en
t-gtZ
o
o
z lt
w
J 0 a 0 0 J u
n
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
-----------NOTICE If the film
rmage
Ia leas clear than this notice It Ia due to the quality of themiddot docum
ent belna film
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
-I
1middot w ~~I
i l
~i ~ ~~ ~middot~ middot ~~tt~ ~l
~~h ~~tfli
I middot J~
~middot
middotmiddotmiddot middot middot~~(
-lbull ~
middotmiddot I
bull ~
middot ltCmiddotmiddotmiddotbull
I tfc
~ tmiddot ~
middot~- - ~middot1~
jj
(f~
0
(I)
0 1-
0 J
0
1-
f) w
w
~
0 ~ en CJ z a gt~
cw
C
JI-zen
-gt
~en
0gt
~a
enlt
c(l-
w-
az
c(~ C
Jz
~0
c(
gt f)
f) c(
0
z J
0 z w
a
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
----
F
-------N
OTIC
E If the film Im
age Is less clear than th
is notice It Is due to
the u
t-u o
f the-docum
ent lm
ed
WE
LL
S
G A
ND
H
A
DM
INIS
TR
AT
IVE
R
EC
OR
D
~111 -~- - -
bull ~-~f)X
bull middotmiddotmiddot middot ff4ifbull
-1 -~- --
I middot ~ middotJ ~E~t
t bull
middot bullImiddot
bull ~
r
I t bull I 1 ~middot -~
~ bull bull bull (bull - i) middot -middoti~V
I
1 bull -~~ _-(middot~ _ middot J
bullbull middot bullr ~-1 ~ ~
bull middot(-
~ ~+bull I
Ot
- middot
middot~t~j middot
middotmiddotmiddot J
0
~-~ 1~ t-
)1~~ ~ middot ~ middot r~~~
to -
bull
bullbullbullbull
bull bullmiddot1 middot ~~
lt
~
1 middot -8)~_~ ~
- -~middot --
Y
bullbull ~
bullbull
Fmiddot - ~~
Ciit~middot-t
~l J~cr ~~~--~~~ lt~--~~middot-1 l-middotmiddotmiddot -bullbullbull
middot1poundtbull ~
I -
~- bull middotII t
i~ middot middotmiddot
l-en w
1
-
w
~
0 e
n
C
lUJ
ztshy
_en
o
gtshy
gt0
0
(lC
zo
-
1-
~
() 0
Z
rno
()
z lt(
a 0 LL 0 0 a
~n
II)
0 1-
0 I 0
1-
U)
w
1-
UJ ~
0 ()
(l zw
-tshy
O
en gt
gtshy
Ocn
()
~
~
0
~
0 O
tshy
en
() z
1-
0 gt 0 z lt
( w
J 0 0
0 0 J LL
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I Imiddot I I
EOFNVInlt)NMtN 1AL ~---shy
SIfV~N P MASLANSK Y MSCE CPG PHGCoN~ULTANl~ INc CAROL J MASLANSKY PhD
December 4 1987
Mr Mark Stoler Esq w R Grace amp Co 62 Whittemore Avenue Cambridge MA 02140
Dear Mr Stoler
At your request I have reviewed the EPA plans for soil borings at the Cyrovac site as set forth in the September 1987 Ebasco Work Plan and in Barbara Newmans letter to you of November 2 1987 In addition I spoke with Ms Newman on November 24th at which time she stated that EPAs primary concern is that contaminated material may sti 11 exist in tt1e western port ion of the former drainage ditch located under what is now the southeast foundation wall of the plant and the adjacent asphalt area to the rear of the plant
It is my opinion that the proposed soil borings are not necessary for characterization of on-site contamination This conclusion is based upon my extensive experience at the site From 1982 through 19~6 I supervised field investigations at the Cryovac site During these investigations 29 test borings were drilled 63 on-site monitoring wells were installed approximately 60 slug tests and 30 packer tests were performed and over 300 soil samples were collected Chemical analyses of more than 245 water samples and 51 soil samples were also performed In addition I supervised excavations in 1983 and 1985 Specifically
1 The western portion of the drainage ditch was excavated and then backfilled with clean backfill during building additions in 1966 and 1974 This conclusion is hased on my discussions ~ith the building contractors who performed the work review of photographs taken while construction was in progress and analysis of boring logs
2 Soil analyses obtained during boring of wells Gl4 and GlS in 1985 showed no evidence of contamination These wells are located directly next to areas where EPA intends to conduct borings
1n gt AlON WOODS ROAD WHITE Pl AIN S NY 1G60S 91 4middot6117middotS6117
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
I I I I
Mark Stoler EsqDecember 4 1987
3 The back asphalt area as well as most of the backyard of the plant was excavated under my supervision in June 1983 and July of 1985 A total of 35 pit or trench excavations were made In both instances the excavations were observe by USEPA and its contractors Thus the proposed boringsin these area would be duplicative and provide less det~iled information than has already been collected
In addition the proposed work particularly between the main building and the warehouse will be an unnecessaryinconvenience to plant operations and may jeopardize plantsafety Both natural gas and water lines ezist in vicinity of Gl4 and GlS If extreme caution is not exercised drilling in this vicinity could result in the rupture of these lines
Very truly yours
~rmJ~ _ Steven P Maslansky-CP~President
SPMcjm
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858
------- ----
0 _ETC ENVIRONMENTAL
DATE 121
TESTING bullIHI CERTIFICATION
DATA MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 1(DM-1H) -History of All Parameters Present Selected Sample Point
Chain or Cuotly Dbullbull lfequlfH fOt ETC ota llla_eem Summbull~ lfepoft
GEOENVIRIHIENTAL CONSULTANTS WRCJIOIINIJiof _IHklooo middotmiddot 165
ETC Sbullmlllo No cowy Faelllry Sbullmple Polm Dbulltbull
Sbullmple PointI Sbullmplint Dbulltbullbullmiddot bullnd ETC Sbullmple Not
lf IDi If IDi 851101 851126 K4154 K5771p UnitI
rp Volatile Cooounds
Methylene chloride ug1 28 480
P __ -__Oetw-- - -bullbullbullbullbullteet- ____ I I
ptWf tuewnaop -bulltt JO lttJt1mb
crHO~~~ ~hl~YH~SINIHOY bulltt ot enp bull1 tl bulltattouH Oml f) Sll~M ltt ubulltt rett~ I 11
bullBbullwJ WUJ bulltt Jl =3lUON
- barcode 563858
- barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 563858