Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FlorenceConservationArea-GarfieldAve-SiteAssessment
1 y d for: Frepare The City of Northampton Yz a - 210 Main Street s t ton, Massachusetts N~rthamp 5 x 1 r r d, t . , 1 May 2003 i I SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Tighe&Bond f I LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION G SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF SITE RELEASE INVESTIGATIONS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 2.1 Phase II Summary .............................................................2-1 2.2 Phase III Summary ............................................................2-1 2.3 Phase IV Summary ............................................................2-2 SECTION 3 (REVISED) METHOD 3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 3.1 Method 3 Risk Characterization ...3-1 3.2 Feasibility of Achieving Background ..................................3-1 SECTION 4 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION J 4.1 Implementation of AUL for Capped Area ...........................4-1 4.2 Monitoring and Maintenance of Capped AUL Area 4-2 J SECTION 5 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME r I~ SECTION G REFERENCES APPENDIX A FIGURES rl APPENDIX B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL METHOD 3 RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C AUL DOCUMENTS. J . APPENDIX D PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DOCUMENTS. APPENDIX E BWSC TRANSMITTAL FORMS j f AUL/RAO Report - Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) i r _ r-, II SECTION1 INTRODUCTION- Tighe&Bond On behalf of the City of Northampton, Tighe & Bond has completed this Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) and Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement report for the former Verona Street landfill located at 39 Verona Street in the City of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts (the site). A Site Locus map (Figure 1) and a MassGIS Natural Resource Map (Figure 2) which includes the site area, are provided in Appendix A for reference. i. 'J The former Verona Street landfill site was first listed by the Massachusetts Department :.7 of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a Location to be Investigated (LTBI) on April 15, 1989 following the submittal of an earlier environmental report that identified elevated concentrations of various metals in the suspected disposal area at the site. On October 1, 1993, the site was first listed as Confirmed Disposal Site #1-00524. A Phase I Report and Tier Classification were submitted to DEP in May 1993 and June 1997, respectively. A Phase II/III Report and Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan (RIP) l were submitted to DEP in October 1999 and August 2001, respectively. Lastly, a Phase J IV As-Built Construction and Final Inspection Report was submitted to DEP in February 2003. A Tier II Extension Submittal was included with the February 2003 submittal requesting an extension of the deadline (to May 20, 2003) for closing out the site release with an RAO Statement. This additional time was requested to complete a property line survey and to complete the placement of an AUL on the property for proper site closure under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Historical research indicates that the former landfill operated as a stone quarry 1 beginning in the early 1890s. In 1943, after stone quarrying operations ceased, the site was authorized by the City of Northampton to operate as a burning dump. The types of refuse disposed at the burning dump were typical household rubbish in addition to ! commercial and industrial waste from 'local businesses. Wastes were disposed at the site between approximately 1943 and 1957, the year the landfill ceased operation. As described in the Phase IV. Final Inspection Report (February 2003), a modified landfill capping system was installed at the site in general accordance with the Phase IV RIP. Using a Method 3 Risk Characterization, the capping of the former landfill has eliminated the potential risk of harm to health under current site uses and conditions. However, an AUL has been implemented to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk for future site conditions and to allow for site closure with a Class A-3 RAO. AUURAO Report- Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 1-1 it SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF SITE RELEASE INVESTIGATIONS ~I AND RESPONSE ACTIONS Tighe&Bond I'j For reference, the following sections briefly review site investigations and reports completed since October 1999. I` 2.1 PHASE II SUMMARY During the Phase II investigation, the site assessment activities that were conducted included the following: • test pit excavations to further delineate the limits of landfill refuse as determined during Phase I investigations; • installation of three (3) additional groundwater monitoring wells; • installation of five (5) soil gas monitoring points; • collection of soil (surficial and subsurface) and sediment samples for laboratory analysis; and collection of groundwater samples from three (3) existing site monitoring wells J and the three (3) newly installed monitoring wells, for laboratory analysis. As part of the Phase II investigation, a combined Method 1/Method 3 Risk Characterization was used to evaluate site risk. In summary, the findings from the Phase II risk assessment indicated that a condition of "No Significant Risk of Harm to Health" did not exist at the site due to the detection of several metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in exceedance of applicable MCP standards. The elevated levels of these contaminants were detected in soils located within the landfill area and the "smeared refuse" located along a portion of the perimeter of the former landfill. The Phase II risk assessment indicated, however, that there was no impact to site groundwater (contaminants detected were well below Method 1 Cleanup Standards for the conservative GW-1 and the applicable GW-3 groundwater categories). Lastly, a Stage I environmental screening evaluation (performed under Method 3 risk characterization) indicated that there was no environmental impact from the former landfill site beyond the immediate refuse disposal area. 2.2 PHASE III SUMMARY As part of the Phase III remedial alternative evaluation, removal of the wastes was immediately eliminated as a closure option due to excessive costs and the potential liability of disposing of this refuse in another landfill. Further review of remedial options for the site consisted of various landfill closure options and the no action alternative. The findings of the Phase III evaluation indicated that, since there was no AUURAO Report - Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 2-1 SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF SITE RELEASE INVESTIGATIONS T191 e&Bond t significant impact to groundwater at the site, the goal of the Phase IV would be to prevent direct contact with the wastes within the landfill, where. elevated concentrations of metals, PAHs and PCBs were detected in soils. 2.3 PHASE IV SUMMARY As part of Phase IV, a modified landfill capping system was installed at the site in general accordance with the Phase IV RIP and our specification package (April 2002) for the Verona Street Landfill Closure Project. In general, the capping of the landfill included the following: • site clearing; • relocation of "smeared refuse" to the area to be capped; • site re-grading and compaction; • placement and compaction of a 12-inch layer of low permeability soil over the defined landfill refuse area; • placement and compaction of a 6-inch layer of an alternative vegetative support layer over the low permeability soil; and • placement of turf reinforcement, hydroseed and mulch over the vegetative support layer. The Phase IV As-Built Construction Plan (with cross section diagram) is provided as Figure 3 in Appendix A for reference. As indicated by the plan, the capped area slopes toward the center of the landfill, and there are rock check dams through the lower, center portions of the capped area for moderating site drainage. A gas venting layer or gas vent system was not installed as part of this closure project because an evaluation of soil gas in the immediate vicinity of the landfill (conducted as part of Phase II) demonstrated that landfill gas is not being generated at the site. J ALIURAO Report - Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 2-2 it SECTION 3 (REVISED) METHOD _3 RISK- CHARACTERIZATION Tighe&Bond 3.1 METHOD 3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION As indicated earlier, a combined Method 1/Method 3 Risk Characterization was used to. evaluate site risk as part of the Phase II investigation completed in October 1999. The findings of the Phase II risk characterization indicated that a condition of "No Significant Risk of Harm to Health" did not exist at the site due to the detection of several contaminants that exceeded the applicable Method 1 Cleanup Standards in soils within the landfill area. However, it was determined that there was No Significant Risk to human health and the environment associated with site groundwater and off-site surface water and/or sediments. Following the capping and placement of an AUL at the landfill (as further reviewed in Section 4), a revised Method 3 Risk Characterization was completed for the site by KERA Environmental, LLC (KERA) of Worthington, Massachusetts. In accordance with the 310 CMR 40.1012(2), a Method 3 Risk Characterization is required to evaluate current and future risk at a site when an AUL is being used to achieve and maintain a level of No Significant Risk where Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) exceed not only Method 1, S-1 standards, but also applicable S-2 and S-3 standards. As reviewed in the Phase II Report, EPCs for cadmium, nickel, lead and PCBs exceeded the applicable S-3/GW-3 standards for soils within the refuse area and the smeared refuse along the perimeter of the former landfill (which is incorporated into the capped area as part of site closure, as described in Section 2.3). The findings of the Method 3 Risk Characterization have determined that there is a condition of No Significant Risk associated with site soils. This finding is based on the implementation of the AUL for the capped landfill area, which restricts access to subsurface soils for the current trespasser (involved in non-intensive surficial activities) and for any future users. Therefore, any planned future activities within the. capped landfill area that include those restricted by the AUL must be approved and conducted under the supervision of a Licensed Site Professional (LSP). For soils situated "outside" of the capped landfill area, the Method 3 risk assessment findings indicated that a condition of No Significant Risk currently exists for the human health of current trespassers and future residents, contractors or utility workers. The complete Method 3 Risk Assessment report prepared by KERA is provided in Appendix B. 3.2 FEASIBILITY OF ACHIEVING BACKGROUND As indicated, concentrations of metals, PAHs and PCBs are above background levels in the site soils, with the most impacted soils being within the former burning dump area. However, this soil remains within the boundaries of an AUL, beneath landfill cover AUL/RAO Report - Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 3-1 H I~ _l r ~L i .J I I 'J I SECTION 3 REVISED RISK CHARACTERIZATION Tighe&Bond material. Additionally, the impacted soil, even in its untreated state, was demonstrated to have a minimal impact on the underlying groundwater. The only option for reduction of contaminant concentrations to background consists of excavation and removal of the contaminated soil for off-site disposal at a landfill facility. This option was not considered feasible because: • it does not reduce the contaminant concentrations, but simply moves them from one location to another; and • in addition to the expense of stabilizing the soil, it would entail additional trucking and disposal tipping fees totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Based on the finding that a condition of No Significant Risk has been achieved for the AUL Area (and for site soils outside of the AUL area) and that the reduction of soil concentrations to background would require substantial additional costs for off-site removal of the soil at negligible benefit to the public, it is our opinion that it is infeasible to remediate the soil to background conditions. I~ I 1 u SECTION 4 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION - Tighe&Bond 4.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF AUL FOR CAPPED AREA Exposure scenarios for the site were developed based on the current and foreseeable uses of the property. An AUL consists of a deed restriction on an area of the site specifically limiting the future uses of the delineated area. AULs are required on those sites evaluated by Method 3 Risk Characterization where a condition of No Significant Risk has not been achieved. The AUL limitations form the basis of the exposure assumptions for the risk characterization. Contaminant concentrations of concern at this site are present in soils beginning at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet (thickness of capping material) to a maximum depth of approximately 12 feet below grade (based on earlier boring log information generated from a soil boring advanced within the approximate center of the refuse area). An AUL has been implemented at this disposal site in order to achieve and maintain a condition of No Significant Risk as described in the MCP. This risk characterization is based on the elimination of all exposure pathways for the characterization of risk of harm to human health for soils below the capped AUL area and the unlimited use for areas outside the capped AUL area. The characteristics and extent of the contamination in site soils were described in Section 3.0 of this report and in the earlier Phase II Report (October 1999). The remaining potential site risks (safety, public welfare and the environment) have achieved a Condition of No Significant Risk through the closure of the landfill. A copy of the AUL, as recorded with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, is included in Appendix C. The area of the AUL is depicted on Figure 4 and the Activity and Use Limitation Plan in Appendix A. The restriction of future uses and activities conducted in the AUL area is necessary to maintain the "limited" exposure assumptions used in the risk characterization. As indicated by the AUL Plan and as further described in earlier site reports, the landfill site is located in an area zoned for residential use. During earlier site. investigations, there was evidence of "trails" within the wooded area that surrounded the landfill, which indicate that trespassers frequent the City owned property. Therefore, potential trespassers (adults and children) from the surrounding neighborhood are expected under current site uses. However, the installation of the landfill capping system prevents direct contact human exposure pathways to the soils within the AUL area. In addition, the type of "non-intensive" activities that are anticipated during trespassing is limited because of the topographical slope and rock check dams that were included in the design of the capping system (i.e. a future, unofficial ball field is not anticipated for the site). Lastly, although there is an existing sewer line on the site property, there is no utility or easement that traverses the capped AUL area. Therefore, there is no foreseeable potential direct AUL/RAO Report - Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 4-1 I SECTION 4 ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION I ighe&Bond contact exposure pathway area because excavation is not anticipated within the capped i~ AUL area. Given these considerations, land uses and activities specifically permitted by the AUL are, in general, any activity that would not promote erosion or excessive/differential settlement of the landfill capping system. The permitted and prohibited activities are further detailed in the AUL Opinion provided in Appendix C. I~ L 4.2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPPED AUL AREA As part of the AUL, obligations and/or conditions to be undertaken and/or maintained for the capped landfill to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk as set forth in the AUL shall include post-construction monitoring and maintenance on an annual basis until the capping system is no longer required at the site. The findings from these annual inspections must be reported to DEP in written form. The repair of any significant settlement or erosion of the capping system with similar materials (as necessary) shall be conducted as part of post-construction monitoring and maintenance. The post- construction monitoring and maintenance program is further detailed in the AUL provided in Appendix C. Since groundwater has not been impacted by landfill leachate generated during the past 40+ years (as reviewed in Phase II Report) and the installation of the capping system further reduces the volume of precipitation entering the waste mass, groundwater monitoring is not proposed as part of post-closure activities. 4-2 On behalf of the City of Northampton, Tighe & Bond has completed this AUL and RAO Statement report for the former Verona Street landfill located at 39 Verona Street in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. The site is the location of a former burning dump from approximately 1943 to 1957, the year the landfill ceased operation. In April 1989, the site was assigned Confirmed Disposal Site #1-00524 following the identification of. elevated concentrations of various metals in the suspected disposal area at the site. As part of landfill closure, which was completed under Phase IV of the MCP, a modified landfill capping system was installed at the site to restrict access to the impacted soils within the landfill area. Further review of the landfill cap was described in Phase IV Completion Report (February 2003). Based on the exceedance of applicable Method 1 risk characterization standards in site soils within the capped landfill area, a condition of No Significant Risk could not be demonstrated using a Method 1 risk characterization (summary data tables and the Phase II Site Plan from the Phase II Report are provided at the end of this Section and in Appendix A, respectively, for reference). Therefore, a site-specific Method 3 risk characterization was performed and an AUL was implemented for the capped landfill area. Results of the Method 3 risk characterization indicate that, under current site uses u and with the implementation of the landfill closure and an AUL restricting future site uses, a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to health, public welfare, safety and the environment has been achieved for the site. Furthermore, it is our opinion that a l ' Permanent Solution, as defined in the MCP, also applies for the site. In conjunction with the implementation of the AUL to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk, a l~ Class A-3 RAO has been achieved for RTN 1-00524. In accordance with the public notification procedures of the MCP (310 CMR 40.1403), public notification of the AUL and RAO has been made to Northampton public officials in the form of a letter, with a copy of the recorded AUL attached (note that. a new computer system was recently installed at the Hampshire County Registry and their personnel were not certain if hard copies of marginally referenced documents will be available in near future). Additionally, a legal notice was published in the Daily Hamphire Gazette. Copies of the notification letter and legal notice are included in Appendix D. Signed originals of DEP submittal forms, including the AUL Transmittal Form (BWSC-113) and RAO Statement Transmittal Form (BWSC-104), are included in Appendix E. U AUURAO Report- Verona Street Landfill, Northampton MA (RTN 1-00524) 5-1 n q n-, l~ 0 0 0 Table 64 EPCs - TOTAL METALS, PESTICIDES a nd PCBs in SURFICIAL SOILS F VERONA STREET LANDFILL (mg/kg) Ni Pb It, Zn DDE* PCBs rS..ple ID Investigation As Ag Ba Cd Cr Cu IIg Surficial soil samples collected within refuse disposal area 24 (190) 94 ( 0 20) 1,490 1 0.5 3,800 (Lycott) 352 Initial Inv. 11.7 4.0 138 34 (354) . O.81 0 (Lycott) 353 Initial Inv. 7.4 ? O 9 (12 0) 27 (289) ( 16) 1690 (3.1) 30 0.002 1,2 (Lycott) 358 Initial Inv. 16. 7 3 0 . 0) (11 38 (245) E (43) 970 (3.6) 1,320 0.008 (Lycott) 455 Initial Inv. 13. 22 9 . 0 . (28.0) 47 (285) (79) 1,950 (3.0) 2,300 ) 553 Initial Inv. . 2 12 0 3 (7.0) 79 (297) 0.45 (37) 2,110 (<l.0) 1,910 (Lycott) 557 Initial Inv. 0 30 5 . 0 7 (8.0) 51 (139) (<0.02) (24) 1,370 (1.9) 1,910 - (Lycott) 652 Initial Inv. . . 0 4 0) (3 27 (97) 0.13 (14) 500 (<1.0) (197 - - (LyCott) 655 Initial Inv. 5.7 14 6 . 4 0 . - (4.0) 222 (137) 0.22 (20) 1,520 (5.8) (610) - - (Lycott) 658 Initial Inv. . 14 1 . 0 9 - (5.0) 31 (152) 3.16 (28) 3,190 (2.3) 1,670 - - (Lycott) 752 Initial Inv. . 14 . 4 7 500 (27) 1 72 (880) 1.7 (91) 2,300 16 2,800 - (<0.01) SS-1/SS-23 PhI/STM 18 . 11 , 500 39 1 170 1,500 1.7 (200) 2,900 19 3,500 SS-2 Phase I Phase I 17 3.8 , 1,900 45 110 2,100 0.84 (91) 3,200 19 3,500 SS-3 SS-4/SS-22 PhI/STM 24 4.0 1,800 92 930 2,800 1.2 2,600 99400 60 58 37 4,200 - 900 7 (<0.01) SS-5 Phase I 26 5.0 2,600 280 4 110 70 51,000 000 68 1.3 (120) 84 (41) 0 69 3,700 8.5 - , 26.000 SS-6 Phase I 18 4.5 ) 970 (6. , . - 8 6 SS-24 TP-2 ash (0.5-P)111 STM Phase II 550 r 00 - 1,1 (28) 10 1,100 - - TP 4 sh (3-3.5')(11 Phase II (26) 70 1,100 (43) 13 820 - - 17 5 411 119 1 128 25,800 1.2 1,600 2,733 21 4,080 0.005 8.6 EPC , Surficial soil sam les collected immediatel outside of the refuse is osal area S_ (2) Phase I 2.7 <0.7 66 <0.7 19 13 <0.3 30 (23) <10 48 SS-8(1) Phase I 4.0 <0.7 100 0.67 15 24 <0.3 20 92 <10 91 SS-9(2) Phase I <1 <0.6 41 <0.6 11 8.6 <0.3 14 (19) <10 - 36 - TP-1 soil (2.5-3')(3) Phase II 90 0.3 - 11 11 (30) (23) 1 3 56 44 <0.038 TP-2 soil (2-2.5)(3) Phase II - - 62 0.3 12 (10) 1 45 - - TP-4 soil (2-2.5')(3) Phase II 40 0.1 13 (16) <2 25 SS-I1 STM - 0.93 1 6 13 (14) <2 19 SS42 STM . 84 0 13 (15) <2 26 SS-13 STM . 2 1 18 430 <2 120 SS-14 STM . 110 25 65 190 <2 240 <0.042 SS-15 STM/PhII 3 0 16 - - - 350 <3 230 SS-16 STM STM/PhI1 - . - 78 1.4 23 280 <2 180 SS-17 SS-18 STM - - 1.0 15 - - - 99 (27) <3 <3 42 75 <0.082 SS-19 STM/PhII - 85 1.1 1 0 21 13 - 51 <3 46 SS-20 STM . 6 0 16 <2 27 SS-21 SS-25 STM STM/PhII . <1 54 21 7 50 (14) <3 <l 41 60 MW-5 (0-2') Phase II 0.78 93 9 140 1 27 74 <2 740 MW-6 (0-2') Phase II . 1 81 1 20 16 ND 14 180 <2 110 ND 2.4 ND . nd Sam le locations 7 4.0 17 5.0 <0.2 12 <2.0 <1.0 41 (Lycott 151 l itial In,. -F _ 0 3 25 <1.0 0.15 19 <2.0 <1.0 58 (Lycott 252 nitial Inv. _ 55 . <0.6 20 11 <0.3 22 24 300 <10 10 53 500 2 000 000 30 80 1,000 5,000 1,000** 10,000* 20 60 300 700 600 40 , 5,000 ❑ 10 ❑ 2 CL I 300 ),000 800 10,000 NA 600 7,000 6,000 400 10,000 90 100 U FDDE is pest, ide here is n:MCP is ic ethod I Clean-up St ndards for C . The va indicated represent Reportable Concentrations for S-1 ( lues 1,000 mgtkg) and S-2 soils (10,000 mg/kg) , P :d from smeared re esidential d f fuse material i arden areas in n area con the site d immediately outside the disposal area sidere area ' . p i' S - c.'- 1(') Sni's=s in ca aremhes di Bold indicates exceed Bold with italics indic old, italics and unde ~Baa t rom r ted below smeared r t te hat result not inclu ance of S- I/GW-3 St at exceedanceofS indicates exceed rline g efuse material ded in EPC ca andard -3/GW-3 Stan ance of UCL culation dard se the respective result is not within 10 times the upper concentration values detected Print4l21/20034:21 PM of ° I ° o f o f o f o f ° I ° e ° I e I e l o f ° ° I ° °o°I c I v l a l °o l h l c l H I e l °e l e I v l c l e l c l ° I °o , ~ v''i °ol ~ I c l c l °o l °°o l c l ° I ro l r I c I r l c I c I c l °o ,I °o 7~~6 y G0 I e ° a CI v ?I °v <I v° GI v ? °v <I °v OI v RI °v <I °v CI v ?I °v OI v CI °v <I °v GI v <I °v °v o OI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI vI yl v vI VI V c c ~I of cl cl cI cl cl cl cl oI of y a I vl SI l !q O QI VI •I VI OI OI VI ~I ~I VI OI OI OI ~I VI I I I ti = s SI of of of of oI °I °I °I °I °I °I ° ° V ~ Q o G v C oI pI o I I f f O I O I NI O rl O ~,I O mI O rI O NI O I G I ° d „ , y V V V V o o O O O O O O O ° - V V p o q« e o ~ 0 0 0 l 0 0 l 0 0 0l ~ ° o ~ ° o o ~ ° o N v °v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v W Z 9 5 F ~ b p o = m m m m m m n CL E y a v v v vI VI vI vl VI vl v~ vI v v v v v v S F4vFiv N F' v O A ~ < < I I . v I v I < I o f v I < I v l c l o a h ~ v ~ -v V V V V V V ti ~ W y o m V° I ~ I ° I ° I M I ^ I M I M I N I N I 1 I e I ^ I ^ V ^ I ° s l ~ I o f g l o I o f ~ o f o f ° I o f l o I s I V I o m o H m m ~ f y e H s I i t o f e l e I v l o I ° I o f ° I e I o f e ~ V I o f e l V a O Z Z I Z I Z I I c I h I l- ~I ~ I o I ^ I c I ° I ° I Z l c lz Z v ~ H I N I H I _ I c l c l cI v l c 4 d ~ a o I 0o I c I c o I f c I I l ~ i e F z P ,y O o v° °v o °v °v °v v y o I °v °v l °I V I v I V I v v C F 0. ` l l f N l G N f o I C o I N I l l of NoI ,I v - 3~ $ E m a v v o v o O' ~ O' ~ m v "'I 61 "'I m m g 2 I I NI al I eI I I ~ I m O 0. m 0.1 m m MI e N O ^ o ~ N ~ ~ o G c y e gg ~ ti _ r ~ `e o fi 8 ~ 6 8 Q m U O R a w 3 I_ 0 -0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Table 6-3 EPCs - TOTAL METALS in SUBSURFACE SOILS VERONA STREET LANDFILL (mg/kg) P Investigation g Ba Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Sb Zn d within landfill refuse area V__1e,te 60 300 8 21 0 79 1,800 11 12000 Phase I 20 2.1 9 , . S usurfae scoecd immediately outside landfill refuse area 89 MW-2 (5-7') Phase I 1.2 0.62 110 <0.6 34 63 <0.3 41 <50 <3 120 MW-3 (5-6) Phase 1 1.1 <0.5 190 <0.6 14 24 0.24 15 130 <3 <3 80 BH-1(10-11') PhaseI <1 0.69 120 <0.6 34 45 0.42 42 <50 60 MW-7 (15-17) Phase TI M 000 30 30 100 1 000 1,000* 1 20 300 40 300 <2 10 2,500 , Method 1 S-1/GW-3 Method 1 S-3/GW-3 30 200 5,000 80 , 5,000 10,000* 60 700 600 40 5,000 UCL 300 2,000 10,000 800 10,000 NA 600 7,000 6,000 400 10,000 NA - Method 1 Clean-up Standards not applicable for this metal * There is no MCP Method 1 Cleanup Standard for Cu. Values represent RCS-1 (1,000 mg/kg) and RCS-2 (10,000 mg/kg) Bold indicates exceedence of S-1/GW-3 Standard Bold with italics indicates exceedance of S-3/GW-3 Standard Bold, italics and underline indicates exceedance of UCL J:\N\N0228\Ph2tab\EPCs.xis(Mtls-Subsurface) Print4/21/20034:24 PM 0 s°M ooo°o°o ~ o rn o o0 0 00 y3ono'no N ~ (V v ff~vl ~ o 00 !uz$ r V to 00 3 N V v v v H W M z z z .L a 3 a ~ o v 0 0 0 v ° d d v v G ~ a ~ M ~ o 0 c ~ F ~ ? v u v v ` ) F F~r n ~ z z " ~ wd w O Con M 0 00 3 N O C V O_ V O_ V O y v A ~ ~ o V N o W o o V o oo e d u o A A A A W Nzzzz d N 00 3 a o 0 0 0 ~ N V V V N u A O~ O l~ V ~ \ N V V V V w eq n A 3 A E E O c a N l0 a~ D X N U IL W m N t a N N N O Z Z Li L~ ~ III. - ~`Y~ 'i f I 140 1=0 1401,21 001 2G - m p - I 'I i i~ 'SF~ fir! CdjA _ II O N ICI. U' 1 ~ it I: ^I TR III ~ ~ N i G IIUII \ f A v ' I~ I I ? ~ ' N. III ....1 I ~ill,ll'ill Ali 9 w ~ I I I s~ U- Q ~ i 7 EIGHg REE j~ 5 III ~ II - Qi I I iI I I I i I SITE LOCATION Paowcs j I I~ I Q B I I. Z3 Q ronD ~flly S ~E I ~Q: iv 1 FLO EN ®l OAD O 3. } i I`" I -7-S a ~ n.~ lI III _ m LyjJ" BAKER 1N F ry"~ O \ S HILL 121 09 °~'st m N i f y' 9 E 's~F/rte • 2 1 !i ' Q' !'T' 'rsf...: i T l f w BASED ON MassGIS MAP - FEBRUARY 2002. CIRCLES INDICATE 500-FOOT AND 1/2-MILE RADII. Non Potential Drinking Water Source Area: Medium Yield Public Community Surface Public Water Supply(PSWS) Water Supply-Surface Water FIGURE 2 pl= Non Potential Drinking Water Source Area: High Yield © Community Pudic Water Supply - Groundwater E::~` i Poland ally Productive Medium Yield Aquifer Nan-Community Non-Trana;erd Public Water Supply MassGIS MAPPING ® Potentially Productive High Yield Aquifer ® Non-Community Transient Public Water Supply EPA Designated Sole Source Aquifer NHESP 1999.2001 Massachusetts Certified Vernal Pools ® DEP Approved Wellhead Protection Area (Zono2) Multi-Lana Highway, NOT Limited Access ® DEP Interim Wellhead Protection Area(NJPA) ®LimitedAae, Highway VERONA STREET LANDFILL Public Surface Water Supply Prefect- Area (Zone A) Major Road - Connector y Lake, Pond, Stream or other Fresh Water Feature - MirorStreetorRead VERONA STREET Bay Estuary or other Saltwater Feature - Track orund N Tovm tyBoun Counry NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Fre sh WaterNon-ForesledWetiand • Sellwelarwetlend F-!-h Train NHESP 1999.2001 Priority Habits ts for State-Protected P Ina a E Rare Species and Estimated Habilels for Rare Wildlife' _ Af;Zducl Protected and Recreational Open Space Major Drainage Basin Tighe&Bond © Anew of Critical Environmental Canwm (ACEC) Q Sub Drainage Basin .S Solid Waste Landfill (-l USGS Quadningle Boundary •NHESP 19994001 Priority FiahMab for Slalo-Prdxted Pas Sped ee: NOTeydwawato'S19dlkad ar pd~dgrelear.drr Meead+a~n~FF~amrr.Spw«Ad- SCALE: FEBRUARY 2003 NHESP 1999-2001 Fsdnded HaUW la RmyAldde: FaUee vMhthe k1A Wedende Rgectlon Ad Reeiatlone f910 CAIR 10). 1 :25000 N0228.apr l K1EITAv ` ENVIRONMENTAL -J, DRAFT METHOD 3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION (310 CMR 40.0900) for Former Verona Street Landfill Northampton, MA 1 May 14, 2003 i Prepared for Tighe & Bond, Inc. Westfield, MA j~ Prepared by I KERA Environmental, LLC i Worthington, MA I~ 11 I'• 4 S. WORTHINGTON ROAD, SUITE A, WORTHINGTON, MA O 1 098-951 5 TEL: 413-238-0200 FAx: 413-238-0202 EMAIL: KEWALD@RCN.COM I~ 1 i In support of a Class A-3 Response Action Outcome, KERA. Environmental, LLC has prepared a Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Method 3 Risk Characterization (310 CMR 40.0900) for the Verona Street Landfill (Site) located in r Northampton, MA. Current and future risk of harm to human health for receptors II potentially exposed to soil was covered in this risk characterization along with safety and public welfare. , The consideration of human health and environmental risk associated with groundwater, sediment and surface water is discussed in the Phase 11 Comprehensive Site Assessment, October 1999 (Phase II). The Phase II report was prepared and provided by Tighe & Bond, Inc: of Westfield, MA on behalf of the City of Northampton. As described in that report, the former Verona Street Landfill Site consists of approximately 5.4 acres of 1 undeveloped land. The former landfill was capped, as further described in the Phase IV As-Built Construction and Final Inspection Report, February 2003. The risk characterization assumes the implementation of an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) to assure an effective capping system over the "Refuse Area", restricting access to subsurface soil and assuring inaccessibility to the current Trespasser who may be involved- in low-intensity activities at the Site. The I surrounding area was then evaluated for risk to current Trespassers and future Residents, Contractors and Utility Workers who may be exposed to' soil during I 1 routine activities. Analytical data characterizing soil at the Site are presented in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Phase 11. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. (PAHs) and heavy metals were identified in soil surrounding the refuse areas. However, all of the PAHs and' arsenic (As) were detected a concentrations below background and therefore were not carried through the risk characterization. See Table 1 A of this document for detection statistics, background comparisons and exposure point concentrations for soil surrounding the refuse area. VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-ES-1 ra - - - - KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Executive Summary Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) reflect concentration averages for soil compounds of concern (COC) with '/Z the detection limit applied in cases of COC non-detects. Conclusions Cumulative cancer and non-cancer risks for each receptor were calculated as part of this risk assessment and are expressed as Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) and Hazard Index (HI) values, respectively. The ELCR and HI values were then compared to the applicable DEP risk criteria (1.0E-05 and 1.0, respectively) to evaluate risk posed by the Disposal Site. The comparisons indicate that a condition of No Significant Risk to human health is demonstrated for the future Residents and Contractors. These results assume a conservative estimation of exposure to lead: Further, it should be noted that inhalation is the only mechanism of carcinogenicity for the few carcinogenic metals detected in_ soil at the Site. Particulate inhalation is not considered a significant route of exposure for the residential scenario, thus cancer risk was only reported for Contractors. Results indicating NO Significant Risk are provided below: HI HI >A? ELCR ELCR > 1 E-05? Resident (0-6 vr) 0.9 NO Resident (7-18 yr) 0.08 NO Resident (19-30 yr) 0.05 NO ResidentUdrime na na Contractor 0.2 NO 5E-08 NO The landfill cap, constructed over the refuse area, was considered an effective barrier against exposure for current Trespassers involved in non-intensive surficial activities at the Site. In addition, because of the less frequent and less B-ES-2 VerRAFinal.doc; 5114/03 Executive Summary KERA ]ENVIRONMENTAL, intensive nature of the Trespasser scenario, quantitative results for the Residential scenario are considered protective for future Trespassers with I~ access to surficial soil across the surrounding area of the Site. Finally, due to the 1 similar yet less intensive and less frequent nature of the Utility Worker exposure, quantitative results for the Contractor scenario are considered protective of the f future Utility Worker involved in excavation at the Site. Thus a condition of No Significant Risk exists for Trespassers and Utility Workers, as well as future Residents and Contractors who may be involved in related activities at the Site. No dangerous structures, corrosive materials, drums, lagoons or conditions affecting the overall.Site safety are present at the Disposal Site. A 'condition of No Significant Risk of harm to safety, therefore, exists at the Disposal Site. The assessment concluded that no average compound concentrations in soil are present at the site at levels that exceed the MADEP Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs), and no conditions defined in Section 40.0994(2) of the MCP are present at the site.. Thus, a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to public welfare exists. The conclusions stated above assume the proper implementation of the AUL to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk for current and future activities at the Site. Any planned future activities and uses that include those restricted by the AUL must be approved by and conducted under the supervision of a Licensed Site Professional (LSP). VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-ES-3 ~-i Table of Contents KERA ENVIRONMENTAL EXCUTWE SUMMARY B-ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION B-1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS. B-3 2.1 Physical Characteristics B-3 2.2 Release History B-4 2.3 Soil and Groundwater Classification B-4 2.4 Current and Foreseeable Future Uses B-5 3.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION B-6 3.1 Summary Site Compound Characteristics B-6 3.2 Selection of Site Compounds of Concern B-6 3.3 Comparison of Site Compound Concentrations to Background Concentrations B-7 3.4 Criteria for Eliminating Compounds from the Preliminary List of Compounds of Concern B-7 3.5 Soil Compounds of Concern and Exposure Point Concentrations B-8 3.6 Comparison of Exposure Point Concentrations to Suitably Analogous Standards or Guidelines B-8 3.7 Chemical and Physical Properties B-9 3.8 Toxicity Profiles B-9 4.0 DOSE RESPONSE B-9 4.1 Carcinogenic Effects B-10 4.2 Non-Cancer Effects B-10 4.3 Relative Absorption Factors B-11 5.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT B-11 5.1 Activity and Use Limitation B-12 5.2 Receptors B-13 5.3 Points of Exposure B-14 5.4 Routes of Exposure B-15 5.5 Exposure Pathways B-15 5.6 Exposure Profile - Current Uses B-16 VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-i i i 11 y / I I/ j` i r KERA E> [VIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 5.7 Exposure Profile -Foreseeable Future Uses B-16 5.8 Exposure Equations B-17 6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION .(310 CMR 40.0993) 6.1 Cancer Risk B-18 B-1 8 6.2 Non-Cancer Risk B-19 6.3 Risk Equations B-19 6.4 Conclusion of Human Health Risk Characterization B-20 7.0 RISK OF HARM TO SAFETY (310 CMR 40.0960) B-21 8.0 RISK OF HARM TO PUBLIC WELFARE (310 CMR 40.0994) B-22 9.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS B-22 10.0 CONCLUSIONS B-24 11.0 REFERENCES B-ii VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 1 I Table of Contents KERA LNVIRONMEWAL ( ATTACHMENTS A Compound Detection Statistics, EPCs and Properties: Tables 1A through 3A B Toxicity Profiles C Compound Toxicity Data and Relative Absorption Factors: Tables 1 C through 5C r ^ D Exposure Profiles and Assumptions: Tables 1 D through 3D E Hazard Index and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Calculation Tables: Tables 1 E through 9E B-iii Risk Characterization KEPAi F-WI;RONraENTAL l 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Method 3 Risk Characterization (Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) 310 CMR 40.0900) KERA Environmental, LLC (KERA) was conducted to evaluate potential risk associated with exposure to soil at the former Verona Street Landfill in Northampton, MA. This report relies on currently available soil data to quantitatively evaluate risk to future Residents and Contractors. Current and future Trespassers 1 ff and future Utility Workers were evaluated qualitatively based on the implementation I _I of an AUL for the refuse area and quantitative results for future Residents and Contractors. Risks of harm to safety and the public welfare were also evaluated, however risk of harm to the environment was not within the scope of this document. The consideration of human health and environmental risk associated with groundwater, sediment and' surface water is discussed in the Phase 11 Comprehensive Site Assessment, October 1999 (Phase 11). According to the Phase 11 report, the Site is surrounded by residential development in the Florence section of Northampton, MA and consists of approximately 5.4 acres, including a capped landfill (refuse area). No surface water bodies are located on the property, however the Meadowbrook Pond and an unknown tributary to the Mill River is located about 250 feet down gradient of the Site. Although formerly operated as a burning. dump between 1943 and 1957, the Site c ? has been vacant since 1995 and an abandoned residential structure and outbuildings were removed in 1998. Between September 2002 and February 2003 the landfill was capped in accordance with the Phase IV Remedial Implementation Plan, August 2001. A site investigation was conducted prior to the capping / process, at which time conditions of soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment were delineated. This assessment is discussed in detail in the Phase 11 report. Briefly, data indicated elevated concentrations of PAHs, heavy metals in soil from the refuse area as well as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in. one soil sample collected from this area. Samples collected from soil surrounding the refuse area VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-1 I1` KFERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents identified. high concentrations near to the perimeter of the refuse area. Soil in the vicinity of these samples was deposited into the refuse area prior to capping. PAHs and metals in the remaining soil were detected at significantly lower concentrations and distributed fairly evenly, both vertically and horizontally, across is area of the site. Three methods for conducting a risk characterization are described in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). A Method 1 risk characterization uses a set of soil and groundwater standards that are compared directly to Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) for Site Compounds of Concern (COCs). The Method 1 standards were developed by the DEP according to a defined set of exposure scenarios that represent a conservative estimate of potential exposures. A Method 2 risk characterization involves either a derivation of additional standards to supplement the set of Method 1 standards, or a modification of individual Method 1 Standards. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0942, an RAO may be supported by a Method 1 or 2 risk characterization where impacted soil is limited to soil and groundwater, Method 1 or Method 2 Standards are available for all Site COCs, no bioaccumulating compounds are present within the top two feet-of soil and residual compound concentrations are below the applicable Method 1 or 2 standards. Method 3 risk characterization is a site-specific approach, which provides an opportunity to incorporate less conservative, site-specific conditions into the risk calculations. The evaluation takes into account the types of compounds, their concentrations and potential exposure pathways linking receptors (e.g., human; ecological) to site-specific contaminated media (e.g., soil, groundwater, drinking water, indoor air, etc.). Cancer and non-cancer risk of harm to human health are characterized by Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) and Hazard Index (HI) values, respectively. Risks of harm to the public welfare, safety and the environment are characterized separately based on qualitative assessments and comparisons to Upper Concentration Limit (UCL) and/or best available standards or guidelines. Risk of harm to the environment may, in some cases, require a site- B-2 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL _I specific, quantitative ecological, evaluation. These concepts will be defined and detailed as needed in the sections below. The elevated concentrations of heavy metals detected in soil at the Verona Street Landfill included exceedances of available Method 1 soil standards, compounds detected in sediment and bioaccumulating compounds in the top two feet of soil, thus a Method 3 approach was selected for characterizing risk at the Site. Sections 1.0 through 5.0 present general characteristics of the Site that are applicable to the Method 3 risk characterization, including: a description of the risk characterization method, applicable categorization of Site soil and groundwater, hazard identification, dose response. and exposure assessment. The human health portion of the risk characterization is presented in Section 6.0. Assessment of the risk of harm to safety and the public welfare are presented in Sections 7.0 and 8. 0, respectively. Conclusions regarding possible risk to human health, safety and the public welfare are presented at the end of each of section. Uncertainty analysis is discussed in Section 10.0 and final conclusions are provided in Section 11.0. 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS As per MCP 310 CMR 40.0904, an adequate characterization of the Site is required to support a risk characterization. 2.1 Physical Characteristics According to the Phase 11 report, the Site consists of approximately 5.4 acres of heavily vegetated, vacant land, which includes the former Verona Street Landfill (refuse area), capped (completed) in February 2003. No surface water bodies are located on the property, however the Meadowbrook Pond and an unknown tributary to the Mill River is located about 250 feet down gradient of the Site. VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-3 r 1 K ERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 1 2.2 Release History The property was formerly operated as a burning dump. Household waste and commercial and industrial waste from local businesses were deposited, at this location between ' 1943 and 1957, the year the landfill ceased operation. Compounds detected in soil and other environmental media at the Site are associated with the normal operation of such a landfill. 2.3 Soil and Groundwater Classification Categorization of Site soil and groundwater as specified in the MCP is usually conducted to identify the Method 1 standards applicable to the Site. However, these categorizations are also useful for a Method 3 assessment (310 CMR 40.0930), by providing an indication of the types of exposures that may be associated with the Site. Based on potential exposures, the DEP has defined three categories of groundwater and three categories of soil. Groundwater is classified according to the following potential exposures: GW-1: groundwater that includes potential or current sources of drinking water. GW-2: groundwater that is considered to be a source of oil or hazardous material (OHM) vapors to indoor air. It includes groundwater where the average annual depth of the water table is less than 15 feet from the ground surface and within 30 feet of an occupied building. • GW-3: groundwater at all disposal sites, based on the potential of the impacted soil to be a source of discharge to surface water. Groundwater may be classified as one or all of these categories. The site is not located in any Massachusetts defined drinking water source area, nor are there any private drinking water supply wells located within 500 feet of the Site. In addition, there are no occupied structures at the Site, thus GW-1 and GW-2 classifications do not apply to the Site. The GW-3 classification applies at all Sites based on discharge to surface water, thus Site groundwater is classified as GW-3. B-4 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 Risk Characterization _ KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Three soil classifications for use in risk characterizations have been developed by the DEP based on the following characteristics of exposure potential: soil ' accessibility, frequency of exposure to soil, and intensity of exposure to soil. Based on the relative degree of importance of each of these factors, soils are classified as S-1, S-2 or S-3 soils. Category S-1 soils represent the greatest exposure potential while category S-3 represents those with the least. Potentially accessible soil in the capped refuse area is classified as S-2 due to the presence of children involved in low-intensity, low frequency activities. For the remaining, surrounding area, impacted soil is located within the layer from zero to three feet below grade, therefore, soil is classified S-1, readily accessible. Although impacted soil is also located at depths greater than three feet below grade, it was assumed that future construction in this area might involve excavation of subsurface soil and subsequent deposit at the surface. Thus, for the purpose of this risk characterization, subsurface soil is classified as S-1. 2.4 Current and Foreseeable Future Uses Although the Site is currently vacant, posted against trespassing and a snow fence surrounds the capped refuse area, there is evidence of casual recreational use by local children. Future uses of the capped refuse area will be restricted to current, non-intensive activities. Residential activities and other activities that could disturb the engineered barrier and alter accessibility to impacted soil are restricted by the implementation of an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL). The AUL also includes routine monitoring of and reporting on the capping system to assure long-term integrity of the barrier. Residential development is planned for Site property surrounding the refuse area. In addition to anticipated residential activities, future activities involving construction workers, utility workers and trespassers are expected for this area of the Site. VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-5 _ .i KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 3.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION This section presents the rationale to support the selection of Site compounds of concern (COCs), to be carried through the risk characterization. 3.1 Summary Site Compounds Characteristics Although compounds have been detected in groundwater, sediment and surface water associated with the Site, this assessment of risk is limited to compounds detected in soil. See the Phase 1/. report for a discussion of evaluations of environmental media other than soil. Forty-eight soil samples collected from within the refuse area and from the surrounding soil and were analyzed for heavy metals, semi-volatiles (SVOC; EPA 8270), volatiles (VOC; EPA 8260) and/or extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH; DEP Method 98). Elevated concentrations of metals, SVOCs, 2 VOCs and the pesticides, DDE and PCB were detected. Assessment of the distribution of detected compounds indicated that the majority of high concentrations were limited to the refuse area, from 0 to 6 feet below grade. Heavy metals (arsenic (As); silver (Ag); barium (Ba); cadmium (Cd); chromium (Cr); copper (Cu); mercury (Hg); nickel (Ni); lead (Pb); Antimony (Sb) and zinc (Zn)) and 13 of 17 EPH target analytes were detected in soil surrounding the refuse area from 0 to 17 feet below grade, but at significantly lower concentrations. i 3.2 Selection of Compounds of Concern In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0993(3), compounds that persist at elevated concentrations at the Site, may contribute to current and/or future risk to human health and the environment. These compounds should be carried through the risk assessment. Criteria for selecting a preliminary list of compounds of concern (COCs) are described below: EPA method target compounds that are detected at levels equal to or greater than the laboratory quantification limits. Compounds that are detected one or more times • Any compound that is not detected but has a history of use at the Site B_6 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 1 Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL In addition to the above criteria, see Section 6.4.1 of the Phase report for a detailed. discussion of how compounds were selected to be included in the j preliminary list of compounds of concern (COCs). Based on the above mentioned discussion and the implementation of an AUL prepared to eliminate future contact with soil within the boundaries of the refuse area, the following compounds were included in the preliminary list of COCs to be carried through this risk characterization: EPH target analytes (anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, 2-methyl naphthalene, pherianthrene and pyrene) and heavy metals (As, Ag, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb and Zn). 3.3 Comparison of Site Compound Concentrations to Background Concentrations The MCP (310 CMR 40.0902(3)) requires that site COC concentrations be compared to background concentrations. Compounds that are detected below background are not carried through the risk assessment. According to the DEP, background concentrations are those concentrations of oil and hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site, which are ubiquitous and attributable to geologic, ecologic and atmospheric conditions, or conditions unrelated to the site. In addition to limited, site-specific background levels, Site compounds were j compared to background levels provided in the technical update, Background J levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil (DEP, May 2002). These comparisons are presented in Attachment A, Table 1A of this document. 3.4 Criteria for Eliminating a Compound from the Preliminary List of. i Compounds of Concern Some of the preliminary COCs may not reflect true site-specific conditions and thus may be eliminated based on the following considerations: VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-7 j I KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents • Compound is present at levels below background for all detects • Compound is detected at low frequency, low concentration, and has no history of use at the site. • Any compound that is detected in both sample and quality control blanks that is evaluated and determined to be attributable to laboratory contamination. 3.5 Soil Compounds of Concern and Exposure Point Concentrations Based on the elimination criteria discussed above the following compounds were included in the final list of COCs to be carried through the risk characterization: Sb, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag and Zn. COCs are listed in Attachement A, Table 1 A of this document. Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were derived from average concentrations for soil surrounding the refuse area and include incidence of non-detections at a value of '/2 the detection limit. Because the distribution of compound concentrations was fairly even throughout the soil strata, and because 'no exposure depths were specific to a particular receptor, two preliminary sets of EPCs were calculated to reflect 1) surficial soil and 2) surficial/subsurface soil. The final EPCs were selected from the maximum EPC for each compound. Finally, since Pb is of particular concern to sensitive receptors (young children), a conservative EPC was developed for this compound based on detected concentrations within an order of magnitude of the maximum detected concentration. EPCs are listed in Attachment A, Table 1A of this document. 3.6 Comparison of Site EPCs to Suitably Analogous Standards or Guidelines (310 CMR 40.0993(6)) No conditions at the Site require comparison to Massachusetts Drinking Water. Quality Standards (i.e., applicable suitably analogous standards). The need to consider comparison to Ambient Water Quality Criteria is discussed in the Phase 11 report. B_8 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 _ l Risk Characterization KERA F-NVI>RONMEN[TA]L, 3.7 Chemical and Physical Properties The specific chemical and physical properties of compounds govern their fate in the environment (e.g., characteristics of migration and affinities for environmental media). These properties also influence chemical toxicokinetics (i.e., absorption, distribution and elimination of the chemical after exposure). A list of the key chemical and physical properties for the Site COCs is provided in Attachment A, if Table 2A. Accompanying definitions are provided in Table 3A. 3.8 Toxicity Profiles Summaries of the potential human-health effects associated with COCs are documented in toxicity profiles. They include information about absorption, distribution and elimination of chemicals after exposure, and specific non- carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects of COCs. Human toxicity profiles are available in the Documentation for the Risk Assessment Short Form Residential Scenario (DEP, 1992). Compounds not included in the above reference (Ba, Cu and Sb) are provided in Attachment B. 4.0 DOSE RESPONSE 1 Dose-response relates the amount of compound experienced by the receptor (person, animal, organism) with a consequent adverse health effect. This relationship is characterized by a series of reference values derived from a I j thorough evaluation of scientifically defensible dose response studies. These reference values reflect the maximum compound level to which a receptor may be exposed with no significant adverse effect. While accounting for these non- I~ cancer and carcinogenic effects, the values must be adjusted to reflect chemical bioavailabil.ity. To this end, a relative absorption factor (RAF) is applied. Non- cancer and cancer reference values, and RAFs are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Available sources for reference values include USEPA's Integrative Risk Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-9 KET:.a. ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents (HEAST), DEP Background Document for the Development of Method 1 Standards (1994), Spreadsheets for the Development of the . VPH/EPH Standards (2002), MADEP Proposed Changes to the MCP Numerical Standards, GW-2 Groundwater (2002) and EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (Revision, 2001) and/or current literature. Chemical-specific reference values and factors are provided in toxicity data tables, Attachment C of this document. 4.1 Carcinogenic Effects The EPA assumes a non-threshold (linear) response relationship between the quantity of carcinogen to which a receptor is exposed, and the development of cancer. The guiding principle, therefore, is that no dose exists below which there is no risk of cancer. Carcinogenic effects are characterized by the cancer slope factor (CSF) for ingestion and dermal exposures, and by unit risk (UR) for inhalation exposures. The EPA classifies chemical carcinogens according to a weight-of-evidence scheme from Group A, human carcinogen, to Group E, no evidence of human carcinogenicity. Carcinogens classified under Group A, 131 and 'B2 are necessarily evaluated in this human health risk characterization. The classification scheme is defined in Attachment C, Table 1 C of this document. 4.2 Non-cancer Effects Evaluation of non-cancer toxicity assumes that there is a dose, below which, no adverse effects are observed.. The dose is known as the threshold dose. Based on this concept, dose response studies are designed to identify a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL). This dose level, adjusted to account for differences between study conditions and application conditions, is used to derive the reference dose values that characterize non-cancer effects. Ingestion and dermal exposures are evaluated using the reference dose (RfD). The reference concentration (RfC) is used when inhalation exposures are evaluated. RfDs and RfCs are derived separately for chronic and subchronic exposures (see Section 5.0 for discussion of chronic and subchronic exposures). B-10 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Toxicity values for cancer and non-cancer health effects are provided in Attachment C, Tables 2.C and 3C, respectively. 4.3 Relative Absorption Factors (RAF) The relationship between the amount of chemical and its ultimate effect depends on its capacity to absorption into the blood or tissue, i.e., its bioavailability. .Bioavailability depends of the type of contaminated media and whether that media is ingested, contacted through dermal exposure, or inhaled. RAFs are chemical-specific factors used in exposure equations to adjust for bioavailability. RAF values for Site compounds are provided in Attachment C, Tables 4C 5.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Exposure values represent the quantity of chemical exposure estimated for each receptor given the conditions of his/her involvement with the site. Carcinogenicity_ exposure values assume effects over a lifetime. The Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) for oral and dermal exposures is presented in units of mg/(kg*d), i.e. milligrams of compound per kilogram of body weight per day. The corresponding inhalation value is the Lifetime Average Daily Exposure (LADE), presented in units . of µg/m3, i.e., micrograms of compound per cubic meter of inhaled air. Non-cancer exposures are characterized by chronic (from approximately 7 to 30 years) and subchronic (from approximately 2 weeks to 6 years) exposures. Acute, one day, exposures may also be considered for imminent hazard scenarios. Values for oral and dermal routes of exposure are characterized by the Average Daily Dose (ADD) presented in units of mg/(kg*d). , The corresponding non-cancer value for the inhalation route of exposure is the Average Daily Exposure (ADE) presented in units of µg/m3. Exposure values are calculated for each chemical, in each type of media, by each route of exposure, for each receptor. For example, subchronic and chronic ADDs for each chemical will be calculated for the residential receptors who I_) may be exposed to groundwater compounds by ingestion of, and dermal contact VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-11 1K1ERA. ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents with, drinking water. Exposure values are incorporated into calculations to determine the health risk for each receptor. The Exposure assessment is based on assumptions derived from current and reasonably foreseeable future uses of the Site (Section 2.4). These assumptions will serve to define the current and future exposure scenarios and many of the exposure assumptions, which are detailed in the following sections. 5.1 Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) Exposure scenarios, incorporated into the risk assessment for Verona Street Landfill Site, were developed based the on. current and foreseeable uses described above. An AUL consists of a deed restriction that specifically limits allowable uses and activities for a delineated area of the Site. At the Verona Street Landfill Site, an AUL has been implemented for the defined "refuse area" (see Phase 11 Site Plan, 1999). In keeping with the nature and function of a landfill, elevated concentrations of a variety of compounds are encased within the landfill liner and cap. The AUL was implemented to assure that the encasement would remain in place and undamaged, and that future activities and uses of the Site would not disturb the integrity of this barrier to exposure. A copy of the AUL, as registered with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, is included in Appendix C of this RAO/AUL Report. The area of the AUL is depicted in Figure 4 in Appendix A. Restriction of future uses and activities conducted in the AUL area is necessary to maintain the exposure assumptions used in the risk characterization. For purposes of evaluating representative exposure pathways in this risk characterization, the following initial AUL restrictions, precluding the following Site activities, were assumed: • Any activity that would promote erosion or excessive/differential settlement of the landfill capping system; • Any planting of vegetation within or above the landfill capping system that would compromise the integrity of the landfill capping system via root infiltration; j B-1 2 VerRAFinal.dac; 5/14/03 Risk Characterization KE:FZA ENVIRONMENTAL • Any construction or use of subsurface wastewater, disposal systems or underground injection wells within, below, above, or adjacent to the engineered barrier; or • Any other use that would adversely affect the integrity or functionality of the landfill capping system. These restrictions are expected to inhibit any future development of the former refuse area. 5.2 Receptors Receptors are those people (employees, contractors, children, residents, trespassers) who have access to Disposal Site compounds, currently or in the foreseeable future. They are characterized by age, weight and potential frequency and duration of contact with environmental media. The following receptors were considered for the Verona Street Landfill Site: . Current Foreseeable Future Trespassers Trespassers Contractors Utility Workers • Current and future Trespassers are not expected to contact. impacted soil in the refuse area due to the landfill capping system, which prohibits access. Access to surficial soil across the remaining area of the site is less frequent and less intensive than exposure assumptions used to quantify risk for the residential scenario. Thus, this pathway was evaluated qualitatively based on results of residential risk. • The future Utility Worker was qualitatively evaluated based on the Contractor scenario, which is expected to be protective of the Utility Worker involved in excavation activities for one 8-hour day over one year. This approach is protective unless a separate EPC is required to adequately assess the Utility Worker, or if conditions at the Site trigger concerns about acute exposures. A separate EPC was not required and no Site compounds or conditions have triggered concerns of acute exposures. VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-13 { Y {J 'i KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents r~ I Future Resident, subchronic, is a child, 0 to 6 years old, 15 kg, living in a home located in the immediate vicinity of accessible contaminated - soil, who participates in indoor and outdoor activities 24 hours/day for 365 days/year for a period of up to 6 years. • Future Resident, chronic, is a child, 7 to 18 years old, 45 kg, living in a home located in the immediate vicinity of accessible contaminated soil who is likely to participate in outdoor activities at the Site 109 days/year (dermal) or 153 days/year (ingestion) over a period of 12 ` years. Although this child may be involved in outdoor activities for only a fraction of a 24 hour day, the ingestion studies used to evaluate soil r ingestion and dermal exposures cannot be modified to accommodate a fraction of a day, thus the exposure is estimated to take place over 24 hours/day. • Future Resident, chronic, is a young adult, 19 to 30 years old, 70 kg, living in a home located in the immediate vicinity of accessible contaminated soil who is likely to participate in outdoor activities at the Site 109 days/year (dermal) or 153 days/year (ingestion) over a period of 12 years. Although this resident may be involved in outdoor activities for only a fraction of a 24 hour day, the ingestion studies used to evaluate soil ingestion and dermal exposures cannot be modified to accommodate a fraction of a day, thus the exposure is estimated to take place over 24 hours/day. • Future Contractor, subchronic, an adult who may be on-Site for up to 8 hours/day, 5 days/week for a period of 6 months (120 days/1.80 days), and assuming an ingestion rate of 100 mg/d with a ventilation rate of 3.6 M3 /hr. Although this contractor may be involved in activities at the Site for only a fraction of a 24 hour day, the ingestion studies used to evaluate soil ingestion and dermal exposures cannot be modified to accommodate a fraction of a day, thus the exposure is estimated to take place over 24 hours/day. 5.3 Points of Exposure Exposure points characterize the location where a receptor may encounter contaminated media. Based on consideration of current and future uses of the Site, including implementation of the AUL, impacted soil within the boundary of the refuse area is considered inaccessible. , However, direct contact with compounds in soil surrounding the refuse area during excavation, residential and/or trespassing activities would reasonably be expected and thus soil surrounding the refuse area represents an exposure point for the Site. B-14 VerRAFinai.doc; 5/14/03 ~1 Risk Characterization K>ERA F-NVIRONM»NTAL Discussions describing elimination of the remaining possible exposure points (air, drinking water, sediment and surface water) are provided in the Section 6 of the Phase 11 report. 5.4 Routes of Exposure The route of exposure describes how a compound passes from environmental media into the receptor's body. Routes of exposure associated with soil include ingestion, dermal contact and particulate inhalation. Each of these routes of exposure was evaluated for the Contractor scenario. Risk associated with particulate inhalation is considered negligible for the Residential receptor (MADEP 1992) except under highly contaminated conditions. Conditions at the Site to not trigger the evaluation of particulate inhalation for the residential scenario. Therefore, only ingestion and dermal exposures were evaluated for this receptor. 5.5 Exposure Pathways Exposure pathways trace exposure scenarios beginning with the source of site compounds, transport of compounds through all possible environmental media, to specific exposure points, and ultimately, by each route of exposure, to contact with each receptor. The following table highlights the exposure pathways associated with the Verona Street Landfill Site. Source Migration Path Landfill soil Landfill soil is VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 Exposure Exposure Route Receptor Point soil Ingestion Contractor Dermal' Contractor Particulate Inhalation Contractor soil Ingestion Resident Dermal Resident B-15 KE1RA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 5.6 Exposure Profile Current Uses j This exposure profile describes how current receptors at the site may be exposed to compounds (Attachment D, Table 1 D). As discussed in Section 5.2, the current, Trespasser is not expected to come into direct contact with soil i compounds in the refuse area due to the engineered barrier capping the landfill. However, current Trespassers may come into contact with surficial soil surrounding the refuse area during occasional light recreation or visits to the Site, usually during the warmer months of the year. (Due to the less intensive and less frequent nature of Trespasser access to surficial soil surrounding the refuse _ area, quantitative results for the residential scenario are considered sufficiently protective of this receptor.) 5.7 Exposure Profile Foreseeable Future Uses j This exposure profile describes how future receptors at the site may be exposed to compounds (Attachment D, Table 2D). Future residents from 0 to 6 years of age may experience subchronic exposure to soil compounds through ingestion or dermal contact while playing and participating in other indoor and outdoor activities 24 hours/day for 365 days/year for a period of up to 6 years. Older J future residents from 7 to 18 years of age and from 19 to 30 years of age may, ( experience chronic exposure to soil compounds through ingestion or dermal 1 contact while playing and participating in outdoor activities for some part of each of 153 days/year (ingestion) or 109 days/year (dermal) for a period of up to 12 years. The Contractor may come. into contact with Site compounds in soil surrounding the refuse area while conducting excavation activities at the Site for 8 hours/day, 5 day/week over a period of six months. During this period, incidental ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of soil particulates would be considered routes by which soil compounds could enter the body. A qualitative evaluation of the Utility Worker based on quantitative results for the Contractor is expected to be B-16 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 I-l ~i iJ _ i Risk Characterization KERA ENVIIRONMVNTAL sufficiently protective since the Utility Worker scenario is of a similar yet less extensive exposure; therefore, Utility Worker was not evaluated separately. 5.8 Exposure Equations The exposure equations used to determine ADD and ADE values representing exposure profiles discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 were obtained from Section .l 7.0 of the DEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, 1995 (Guidance), Section 8.0 of the DEP Documentation for the Risk Assessment Short Form Residential Scenario, 1992 (RSF) and DEP No. 2 Fuel Oil Residential Short Form (spreadsheet), Version 2.2, 2002 (VPH/EPH) and DEP Technical Update, April 2002: Characterization of Risk Due to Inhalation of Particulates by Construction Workers. See Attachment D for . exposure assumptions and related definitions. Exposure equations are presented below: Non-Cancer Average Daily Dose/Exposure: ADDdermal = rOHMI sc/sd * SA * AF * RAF * EF * ED * EP BW * APnon-cancer ADDdermal(o-6) = [OHM]soil * DCR * RAF Note: DCR is the dermal contact rate for a child from 0-6 years (Table 8- 9; DEP 1992) ADDingestion = fOHMlsoii * IR * RAF * EF * ED * EP BW * APnon-cancer. ADDPJ.-GI = [OHM Particulate * f RP air * PGi * VR * RAF * EF * ED * EP BW * APnon-Cancer i VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 I^ } i_ B-17 K1E]RA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents ' ADEpl Lung = (OHM particulate * iRPlair * PLung * VR * RAF * EF * ED * EP Inh/d * APnon-cancer Lifetime (Cancer) Average Daily Dose/Exposure: LADDsoil = Same as above but replacing APnon-cancer with APCancer LADEinnal. = Same as above but replacing APnon-cancer with APCancer Note: Lifetime inhalation exposures, LADEs, were calculated for soil compounds if the toxin targets the respiratory system and URs were available. 6.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION (310 CMR 40.0993) The MCP requires that the characterization of risk of harm to human health must include consideration of all applicable or suitably analogous public health standards (310 CMR 40.0993(3). For example, if site groundwater is classified as GW-1, then Massachusetts Water Quality Standards must be satisfied. If EPCs do not exceed any such standards, then Method 3 can be used to characterize human health risk at the site. For the purpose of this risk characterization, no analogous standards apply to this Site. (See the Phase assessment of surface water for a discussion of the need to consider Ambient Water Quality Criteria.) 6.1 Cancer Risk Cancer risk is characterized by excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR), and is calculated by multiplying compound-specific LADD values by the chemical- specific CSF for oral, and dermal exposures. Compound-specific LADE values are multiplied.by the chemical-specific URs to determine the inhalation E.LCR. Summing ELCR values across compound, route of exposure and impacted media derives a cumulative ELCR for each receptor. Several heavy metals (Cd, Cr and Ni) are considered carcinogenic by inhalation exposure. Thus, these B-18 VerRAFinal.dcc; 5/14103 t` lJ Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL metals were included in the characterization of risk by particulate inhalation, evaluated for the Contractor scenario. 6.2 Nbn-Cancer Risk Subchronic and chronic non-cancer risks are characterized by the Hazard Index (HI) value, computed by dividing compound-specific ADD values by the chemical-specific subchronic or chronic RfDs. Similarly, inhalation AIDE (non- cancer) values are divided by chemical-specific subchronic or chronic RfCs to determine the HI for corresponding compounds. Hls are summed across compound, route of exposure and impacted media for each receptor, to derive cumulative subchronic and chronic non-cancer risks. All COCs are considered to pose non-cancer risk. Cumulative non-cancer risks, therefore, were calculated for Residents and Contractors who may come into contact with soil compounds at the Site. 6.3 Risk Equations The risk equation for ELCR integrates exposure values with cancer reference values. ELCR is then used to characterize cancer risk to Utility Workers, Contractors and Residents who may be exposed to Site compounds in soil through ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation during excavation, landscaping or recreational activities that may take place at the Site. Equations for determination of the ELCR, as presented in the DEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization (1995), are as follows: ELCRcompound = LADD * CSF or LADE*UR ELCRroute = EELCRcompound i ELCRcumulative = EELCRroute 11~ The risk equation for HI integrates exposure values with non-cancer reference values. The HI is then used to characterize subchronic and chronic risk to Utility Workers, Contractors and Residents who may be exposed to impacted soil at the VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-19 K ERA ENVIRDND/dEWAL Table of Contents Site. HI equations, as presented in the DEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization (1995), are as follows: Hlcompound = ADD/RfD or ADE/RfC Hlroute = EHlcompound Hlcumulative = EHlroute The summary cumulative HI and ELCR values for future Residents and Contractors are presented in Attachment E, Table 1 E. Contributions (in percent) from each compound and each route of exposure, to the cumulative chronic and subchrohic HI values and cumulative ELCR values for future receptors are detailed in Attachment E, Tables.2E and 3E. 6.4 Conclusion of Human Health Risk Characterization Cumulative ELCR and HI values (dimensionless) for each receptor are compared to risk criteria (dimensionless) to determine whether a condition of No Significant Risk (NSR) exists at the Site. A condition of No Significant Risk exists at the Site if both of the following statements are true: Cumulative HI is less than 1.0 for each receptor, and Cumulative ELCR is less than 1 in 100,000 (1 E-05) for each receptor. The cumulative ELCR values for future Contractors possibly exposed to soil compounds through contact during excavation are presented below. Risk Characterization Risk Criteria Status ELCRcontractor = 5 x 10-8 (1.0E-05) NSR The cumulative HI values for future Residents and Contractors possibly exposed to soil compounds through contact during residential activities and excavations are + presented below. l B-20 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 I Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Risk Characterization Risk Criteria Status 1I HIRes(0-6yr.) = 0.9 (1.0) NSR = 0.08 (1.0) NSR H I Res,(7-18 yr.) HIRes,(1s-30yr.) = 0.05 (1.0) NSR I Hlcontractor = 0.2 (1.0) NSR The calculated ELCR values for the future Contractors scenario is less than 1 E-05, indicating a condition of No Significant Cancer Risk to future Contractors and, by implication, future Utility Workers. The calculated HI values for both future Residential and Contractor scenarios are below the non-cancer risk criteria, HI = 1.0, indicating that residual compounds in soil surrounding the refuse area pose No Significant Non-Cancer Risk to future Residents and Contractors, and again by implication, to current and future Trespassers and future Utility Workers who may j ` come into contact with residual soil compounds at the Site. Thus, assuming the implementation of an AUL to restrict access to subsurface soil within the boundary of the refuse area, a condition of No Significant Human Health Risk exists at the Verona Street Landfill Site for the receptors evaluated in this risk characterization. 7.0 RISK OF HARM TO SAFETY (310 CMR 40.0960) In accordance with 310 CMR 40.0960, an evaluation has been made relative to the risk of harm to safety posed by current and reasonably foreseeable conditions on the Site. There are no dangerous . structures, explosive vapors, corrosive, flammable or reactive substances, uncontained hazardous materials and other unsafe conditions. In summary, no conditions that may have been considered a threat to public safety are left on Site property. A condition of No Significant Risk to safety therefore exists at the Site. VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-21 F-I KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 8.0 RISK OF HARM TO PUBLIC WELFARE (310 CMR 40.0994) The assessment of risk of harm to public welfare for the Verona Street Landfill Site is evaluated by considering such factors as the presence of nuisance conditions (i.e. odors), loss of property value, restriction of the use of another person's property, and monetary costs attributable to the degradation of resources due to the release. The MCP specifies two criteria to evaluate public welfare risk. The first involves the impact to the community in the vicinity of the Site with respect to the aforementioned factors. No odors or other factors that may have an adverse impact on the public welfare remain associated with the Site. The second criterion for evaluating the risk of harm to public welfare consists of comparing average soil and groundwater concentrations to Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs). The DEP defines UCLs as the concentration of oil and/or hazardous materials, which, if exceeded by the average concentration in the area of the release, indicate the potential for significant risk of harm to public welfare under future conditions. Average soil concentrations are listed along with corresponding UCLs in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the Phase 11 report. The comparisons indicate that average concentrations of Site compounds are below their respective UCLs. Based on both nuisance and UCL criteria, a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to the public welfare exists at the Site. 9.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS The inherent uncertainty in estimating non-cancer and cancer risk is characteristic of all risk assessment. Uncertainties arise from limitations in sampling methodology, sample analysis, exposure assumptions and available toxicity information. Conservative assumptions were made in this risk characterization to compensate for the effects of these uncertainties. Specific examples of the nature of these uncertainties are described in the following paragraphs. B-22 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Sample locations are selected to.provide a representative characterization of Site compounds. It is nevertheless an estimate, the nature of which may result in either an overestimation or underestimation of risk. Sampling methodology was designed to minimize these uncertainties. As part of site investigations, which began in 1993, surficial and subsurface soil samples were collected from 20 locations within the refuse area and from 22 locations immediately surrounding the former burning dump, as well as background soil samples from the site property and abutting properties. These sample .locations effectively delineated the vertical and horizontal extent of impacted soil at the Site. It is assumed that sample compound levels remain constant throughout the collection and handling process. Sampling, storage and handling strategies are designed to minimize volatilization, degradation and contamination of samples. Despite these efforts, varied chemical and physical conditions limit the effectiveness of these strategies and thus introduce uncertainty into the ultimate risk characterization. The exposure assessment portion of the risk characterization is by nature uncertain since it must be generalized for practical purposes. It does not account for the detailed variability among receptor characteristics, their behavior around exposure points and duration of exposure. Therefore, conservative exposure assumptions were made, based on reasonable observation, experience and documentation. In addition, since Pb is of particular concern for sensitive residential receptors and concentrations detected in surficial soil surrounding the refuse area ranged by orders of magnitude, EPCs were conservatively derived by averaging only values within an order of magnitude of the maximum detected concentration. This assumptions, in addition to the more general exposure assumptions, may overestimate risk. _ RfCs and RfDs reported in the EPA databases are derived from available toxicity data for each compound. These values are often based on animal studies VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-23 KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents conducted for individual chemicals under a variety of controlled exposure conditions, and evaluating a variety of endpoints and effects' levels. The use of these studies requires assumptions about appropriateness of the model as a biological system that reflects the . human system. They are often conducted using doses that are far greater than those representing environmental condition. In addition, they do not reflect the chemical mixtures of most environmental exposures. Extrapolations to account for differences in exposure duration, inter- and intra-species variation, and lowest observable adverse effects levels and no observable adverse effects levels are usually required. These assumptions and extrapolations necessarily introduce uncertainty into the available RfCs, RfDs, CSFs and URs that are used in the risk calculations. This uncertainty is inherent and carried through when calculations based on the use of these toxicity values are performed in series. Uncertainties may not be additive by nature, but they can never be smaller than the least certain component. Series calculations may therefore result in overestimation or underestimation of the risk. To balance these inherent uncertainties, conservative assumptions, as described in the previous paragraphs, were made. Some compounds are presented as Group C or D Carcinogens, which means that data is insufficient to estimate a human cancer slope factor. Therefore, risk was calculated without a full knowledge of carcinogenicity. This limitation could result in an underestimation of risk. 10.0 CONCLUSIONS Exposure assumptions were derived from current and future foreseeable uses of the Verona Street Landfill Site, including the implementation of an AUL to restrict access to subsurface soil within the boundary of the refuse area. Based on these assumptions, impacted soil within the refuse area is considered inaccessible to the current Trespasser, thus a condition of No Significant Risk has been exists for this receptor. Also based on these assumptions, cumulative ELCR and HI values B-24 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 i I Risk Characterization KERA ENVIRONMENTAL calculated for future Residents and Contractors are less than the DEP risk criteria of 1.0E-05 and 1.0, respectively, indicating a condition of No Significant Risk. These quantitative risk results are considered sufficiently protective of current and future Trespassers and future Utility Workers who may have contact with impacted soil surrounding the refuse area, since these scenarios are less frequent and less intensive than the Residential and Contractors scenarios. The results of this Method 3 Risk Characterization indicate that a condition of No Significant Risk exists for current and future Trespassers and future. Residents, Contractors and Utility Workers who may have access to surficial and subsurface soil at the Verona Street Landfill Site. A survey of conditions affecting overall Site safety (e.g., dangerous structures, corrosive materials, drums and lagoons (MCP 30 CMR 40.0960)) indicates that a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to safety exists at the Verona Street Landfill Site. Finally, a qualitative assessment of conditions defined in 310 CMR 40.0994 of the MCP, and comparison of average compound concentrations to UCLs, indicates that' a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to the public welfare, both currently and in the future, exists at the Site. " VerRAFinal.doc 5/14/03 B-25 ~l LJ r i ij I~ I.~ i~ l~ J 'J KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table of Contents 11.0 REFERENCES Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Background Documentation for the Development of the MCP Numerical Standards. April 1994 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Documentation for the Risk Assessment Shortform: Residential Scenario. October 1992 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Draft Commercial/Industrial Short Form Exposure Scenarios. 1996 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, July 1995. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Implementation of MADEP VPH/EPH Approach, Final Policy. October 31, 2002. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 310 CMR 40.0000, The Massachusetts Contingency Plan. October 1999. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 2 Fuel Oil Residential Short Form, Version 2.2 June 2002. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Technical Update: Calculation of Enhanced Soil Ingestion Rate. April 2002. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Technical Update: Weighted Skin-Soil Adherence Factors. April 2002. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Technical Update: Characterization of Risks Due to Inhalation of Particulates by Construction Workers. April 2002. Tighe & Bond, Inc., Phase I Site Investigation. May 1993 Tighe & Bond, Inc., Short Term Measures Report. May 1994 Tighe & Bond, Inc., Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment and Phase III Identification, Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Action Alternatives. October 1999. Tighe & Bond, Inc., Phase IV As-Built Construction and Final Inspection Report. February 2003. B-26 VerRAFinal.doc; 5/14/03 I • N 2 r" n n m D D N g T O n m m m m m D W ' s w s w o z: m CD o o s w m ° ° o ~ 3 a c v O o 5 N m c m 3 3 3° 0 o m 'm d oi3 'N m o 0 o p N y 3 3 y y iv m m c? c o 0 w a 0 . a l rv to ~ ~ o ~ ~ to ~ a u r 1 mm m m o ° r3 c C' ~ rv t o . to to W o m o 5' m N CL ~ to - w a O . 2 m z i _ ' 0 o . = M A A a a A JP m A' ~P A A A? a A A A N m tp p N y tp O N N N W V N m N D d U 3 3 p A A A W W O ~O fp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 W m to O O N w A 'J O O N 0 W ~ U) m p ry~ X N N N N V j O N W 0 w m D J C? 91 m W N O W ~D f0 N N m W v D C N O m A O W m~ f0 W I 3 EP Cl) 3 m N y n v c N 9i tD LJ O A m m j W A (0 A 13 d 13 A N Lo N 1 W O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD .0 C rt O N N C) W C 7 Cl) H ' N• tp N Z 9! -4 O° O O m C (JJt A p O W W W W W W W W W tWi1 W W O zg C~ ~ co • o . m 0 cj v = i~ ° - O -z ~ O ~ ~ o m a . x A A a W m m W m N W o. 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z. N° N m N W I - m w i 0 u x 3 w 0 3 f O N N O W N O v C) A 4 N m m N co N m V •s N co C C N l CD m ~ N C N D ' n m o w tm 0 N v v A 77 N J p 0 V W tG d ID M tD o. a 7 I ~ m m r A n n n n n n n n n n n n n ~ m n ~ 1 c N ~ a W N m T, N N A N rn rn N N iv m to m m m m m m m m m m T. T. T. T. T. F S. T. x T. .S T. T. 0 L'1 GJ GI L) GJ 0 ~ 'O T• . II O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D 0 ~ - (D 3 W O K )'C) a W N N O N O O y, W s a P N N N N cn N ~ . O W O O _ . ~ v I O N_ I m 0 O m 0 W a 0 0 0 o A a 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 C O p O 0 ° p ° O O 00 ° 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 O O O O O f~ - I. O O ° • O O O O O O ~j rn m z 0 Z 3 ' m z a r I z N (n Z r 0 n 0 D g 0 m 5 ° m n m 0` ufDi oa. ° ' ' o CD m c c a v c 3 3 M 0 N cD 3 S o d D ? 0 3 3 X 3 N S 0 1 Q CD CD s A N N O O W ~l o D a A a a a A a . O O O O 0 0 0 co v co O O V O O W - N N . A N W f D W ~ L O T V W c0 W O - I O N M . O y O W N s W N I~ X N co 10 cD V N N N V N cj o O n X (D N 1 N O o fD m C n ~ l o (D CD o o to w 0 m o s 0 m 0 v A r m ~ N .J ~I 'J !~I n T• m D Q' O C N D 3 0 CD O n (D r :3 ::r v m (J) 3 D N C (D r :3 ~ a ~ -D n =)7 h Z (n 0 u CD 0 0 3 -B IL CD O 3 o m O r 7 3 v 0 m w D) 7 Vl O O (D 3 70 (0 o CD . m ~o O co 0 o Z m r Imo. ~I d x i1 d ° J o o c d o N ~ O' O ~ W _ j . o ° 1 • _ N N O' ° N ( ff d ~ v o ° j H A m^ 5 3 d ° 3 ~ ~ d. d n m. y fp ~ C Idl1 ~ N O ~ ' o a v No ~ m ~ udi m F 0 ° c ° m d a c d O N O Q d C) C j d d° N O p 4 N w = 0 w° C N w f0 O_ d C o a c u o N O d C ? B ° d c c m C f N 3 d z o ~ d O ~ i 0 0 0. d ? ; to ~ J -n p m O ~ ° O • ,J • o S N SD ° G d d d a d 0 w m : o i N C f O T , S C O O c ° N o o y . C j ~ K N o. - d_ N O. y N N ry a ~ . o • = d g d ~ y ~ Zvi a m o d f c so O K N ~ N o ~ s c ~ T c w O o ~ c ~ m d ry . f O d O j fD Q o m i `c m ~ a m m T D N p 0 U O'O 0 w o d C w Q d M d o N o. O d m 0 0 0 d 0 0 d m d CD IT n s 3 C.) 7 'O N 0 D ID O C 7 m n i 1 r v z m a a n m m O Z m a ~ r KERA ENVIRONMENTAL. ATTACHMENT B RAIS Toxicity Profiles Toxicity Summary for ANTIMONY r, NOTE: Although the toxicity values presented in these toxicity profiles were correct ` at the time they were produced, these values are subject to change. Users should always refer to the Toxicity Value Database for the currect toxicity values. DECEMBER 1992 Prepared by Robert A. Young, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., Chemical Hazard Evaluation and Communication Group, Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis Section, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for OAK RIDGE RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM. *Managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., for the U. S. Department of Energy. under Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Antimony (Sb) is a naturally occurring metal that is used in various manufacturing processes. It exists in valence states of 3 and 5 (Budavari, 1989; ATSDP., 1990). Antimony is a common urban air pollutant (Beliles, 1979). Exposure to antimony may be via inhalation, oral and dermal routes (ATSDR, 1990). Antimony is sparingly absorbed following ingestion or'inhalation (Felicetti et al., 1974a; Gerber et al., 1982; ATSDR, 1990). Both gastrointestinal and pulmonary absorption are a function of compound solubility. Antimony is transported in the blood, its distribution varying among species and dependent on its valence. state (Felicetti et al., 1974b). Antimony is not metabolized but may bind to macromolecules and react covalently with sulfhydryl and phosphate groups (ATSDR, 1990). Excretion of antimony is primarily via the urine and feces, and is also dependent upon valence state (Cooper et al., 1968; Ludersdorf et al., 1987; ATSDR, 1990). Acute oral exposure of humans and animals to high doses of antimony or antimony- containing compounds (antimonials) may cause gastrointestinal disorders (vomiting,. diarrhea), respiratory difficulties, and' death at extremely high doses (Bradley and Frederick, 1941; Beliles, 1979; ATSDR, 1990). Subchronic and chronic oral exposure may affect hematologic parameters (ATSDR, 1990). Long-term exposure to high doses of antimony or antimonials has been shown to adversely affect longevity in. animals (Schroeder et al.,• 1970). Limited data suggest that prenatal and postnatal exposure of rats . VerAttachB.doc; 4/15/03 1 i l I' ATTACHMENT B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL to antimony interferes with vasomotor responses (Marmo et al., 1987; Rossi et al., 1987). Acute inhalation exposure of humans may cause gastrointestinal disorders (probably due to ingestion of airborne antimony) (ATSDR, 1990). Exposure of animals to high concentrations of antimony and antimoriials (especially.stibine gas) may result in pulmonary edema and death (Price et al., 1979). Long-term occupational exposure of humans has resulted in electrocardiac disorders, respiratory disorders, and possibly increased mortality (Renes, 1953; Breiger .et al., 1954). Antimony levels for these occupational exposure evaluations ranged from 2.2 to 11.98 mg Sb/m3. Based on limited data, occupational exposure of women to metallic antimony and several antimonials has reportedly caused alterations in the menstrual cycle and an increased incidence of spontaneous.abortions (Belyaeva, 1967). Reproductive dysfunction has been demonstrated in rats exposed to antimony trioxide (Belyaeva,_ 1967). No data were available indicating that dermal exposure of humans to antimony or its compounds results in adverse effects. However dermal application of high doses of antimony oxide (1,584 mg Sb/kg) resulted in the death of rabbits within one day (1BTL, 1972). Eye irritation due to exposure to stibine gas and several antimony oxides has been reported for humans (Stevenson, 1965; Potkonjak and Pavlovich, 1983). The U. S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1991, 1992) has calculated subchronic and chronic oral reference doses (RfDs) of 4E-4 mg/kg/day based on decreased to and alteration of blood chemistry in rats chronically exposed to potassium antimony tartrate in the drinking water (5 ppm equivalent to 0.35 mg Sb/kg/day). An uncertainty factor of 1,000 was applied: 10 for extrapolation from a lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) to a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL), 10 for extrapolation from animal data, and 10 for protection of sensitive populations. The primary target organ for acute oral exposure to antimony appears to be the gastrointestinal tract (irritation, diarrhea, vomiting) and targets for long-term exposure are the blood (hematological disorders) and liver (mild hepatotoxicity) (ATSDR, 1990). Inhalation exposure to antimony affects the respiratory tract (pneumoconiosis, restrictive airway disorders), with secondary targets being the cardiovascular system (altered blood pressure and electrocardiograms) and kidneys (histological changes) (Renes, 1953; Breiger et al., 1954). Only limited evidence exists for reproductive disorders due to antimony exposure (Belyaeva, 1967). Although some data indicate that long-term exposure of rats to antimony trioxide and trisulfide increased the incidence of lung tumors (Wong et al., 1979; Watt, 1980; Groth et . Li al.; 1986; Bio/dynamics, 1989), the U.S. EPA has not evaluated antimony or antimonials for carcinogenicity and a .Weight-of-Evidence classification is currently unavailable. ,J J Verktachldoc; 4/15/03 2 ATTACHMENT B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL I,I RAIS --Toxicity Profiles Toxicity. Summary for COPPER NOTE: Although the toxicity values presented in these toxicity profiles were correct at the time they were produced, these values are subject to change. Users should always refer to the Toxicity Value Database for the currect toxicity values. DECEMBER 1992 Prepared by: Rosmarie A. Faust, Ph.D., Chemical Hazard Evaluation and Communication Group, Biomedical and Environmental. Information Analysis Section, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. _J Prepared for: Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Restoration Program. *M[anaged by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400. Copper occurs naturally in elemental form and as' a component of many minerals. Because of its high electrical and thermal conductivity, it is widely used in the . manufacture of electrical equipment.. Common copper salts, such as the sulfate, carbonate, cyanide, oxide, and sulfide are used as fungicides, as components of ceramics and pyrotechnics, for electroplating, and for numerous other industrial applications (ACGIH, 1986). Copper can be absorbed by the oral, inhalation, and dermal routes of exposure. .1t is an essential nutrient that is normally present in a wide variety of tissues (ATSDR, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1987). In humans, ingestion of gram quantities of copper salts may cause gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal effects With symptoms such as severe abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, hemolysis, hepatic necrosis, hematuria, proteinuria, hypotension, tachycardia, convulsions, coma, and death (U.S. AF, 1990). Gastrointestinal disturbances and liver toxicity have also resulted from long-term exposure to drinking water containing 2.2-7.8 mg Cu/L (Mueller-Hoecker et al., 1988; Spitalny et al., 1984). The chronic toxicity of copper has been characterized in patients with Wilson's disease, a genetic disorder causing copper accumulation in tissues: The clinical manifestations of Wilson's disease include cirrhosis of the liver, hemolytic anemia, neurologic abnormalities, and corneal opacities (Goyer, 1991; ATSDR, 1990; U.S. EPA, 1987). In animal studies, oral exposure to copper caused hepatic and renal accumulation of copper, liver and kidney necrosis at doses of >=100 mg/kg/day; and hematological effects at doses of 40 mg/kg/day (U.S. VerAttachB.doc; 4/15/03 3 ATTACHMENT. B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL r•. ~ I IA i !1 'J _i t. J I J EPA., 1986; Haywood, 1985; 1980; Rana and Kumar, 1978; Gopinath et al., 1974; Kline et al., 1971). Acute inhalation exposure to copper dust or fumes at concentrations of 0.075-0.12 mg Cu/m3 may cause, metal fume fever with symptoms such as cough, chills and muscle ache (U.S. AF, 1990). Among the reported effects in workers exposed to copper,dust are gastrointestinal disturbances, headache, vertigo, drowsiness, and hepatomegaly (Suciu et al., 1981). Vineyard workers chronically exposed to Bordeaux mixture (copper sulfate and lime) exhibit degenerative changes of the lungs and liver. Dermal exposure to copper may cause contact dermatitis.in some individuals (ATSDR, 1990). Oral or intravenous administration of copper sulfate increased fetal mortality and developmental abnormalities in experimental animals (Lecyk, 1980; Ferm and Hanlon, 1974). Evidence also indicates that copper compounds are spermicidal (ATSDR, 1990; Battersby et al., 1982). AReference Dose (PM) for elemental copper is not available (U.S. EPA, 1992). However, EPA established an action level of 1300 ug/L for drinking water (56 FR 26460; June 7, 1991). Data were insufficient to derive a Reference concentration (RfC) for copper. No suitable bioassays or epidemiological studies ate available to assess the carcinogenicity of copper. Therefore, U.S. EPA (1991a) has placed copper in weight-of- evidence group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. VerAttachB.doc; 4/15103 4 ATTACHMENT B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL -t RAIS Toxicity Profiles Toxicity Summary for BARIUM ~ -I NOTE: Although the toxicity values presented in these toxicity profiles were correct at the time they were produced, these values are subject to change. Users should always refer to the Toxicity Value Database for the currect toxicity values. Prepared by A. A. Francis, M.S., D.A.B.T., and Carol S. Forsyth, Ph.D., Chemical Hazard Evaluation Group in the Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis Section, Health Sciences Research Division, Prepared for OAK RIDGE RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM *Managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400 The soluble salts of barium, an alkaline earth metal, are toxic in mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. Barium is excreted primarily in the feces. At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant and at higher doses affects the nervous system eventually leading to paralysis. Acute and subchronic oral doses of barium cause vomiting and diarrhea, followed by decreased heart rate and elevated blood pressure. Higher doses result in cardiac irregularities, weakness, tremors, anxiety, and dyspnea. A drop in serum potassium may account for some of the symptoms. Death can occur from cardiac and respiratory failure. Acute doses around 0,8 grams can be fatal to humans. Subchronic and chronic oral or inhalation exposure primarily affects the cardiovascular system-resulting in elevated blood pressure. A .lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) of 0.51 mg barium/kg/day based on increased blood pressure was observed in chronic oral rat studies (Perry et al. 1983), whereas human studies identified a no- observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 0.21 mg barium/kg/day (Wones et al. 1990, Brenniman and Levy 1984). The human data were used by the EPA to calculate a chronic and subchronic oral reference dose (RfD) of 0.07 mg/kg/day (EPA 1995a,b). In the Wones et al. study, human volunteers were given barium up to 10 mg/L in drinking water for 10 weeks. No clinically significant effects were observed. An epidemiological study was conducted by Brenniman and Levy in which human populations ingesting 2 to 10 mg/L of barium in drinking water were compared to a population ingesting 0 to 0.2 mg/L. VerAttachB.doc; 4/15/03 5 ATTACHMENT B KERA ENVIRONMENTAL No significant individual differences were seen; however, a significantly higher mortality rate from all combined cardiovascular diseases was observed with the higher barium level in the 65+ age group. The average barium concentration was 7.3 mg/L, which corresponds to a dose of 0.20 mg/kg/day. Confidence in the oral RfD is rated medium by the EPA. Subchronic and chronic inhalation exposure of human populations to barium-containing dust can result in a benign pneumoconiosis called "baritosis." This condition is often accompanied by an elevated blood pressure but does not result in a change in pulmonary function. Exposure to an air concentration of 5.2 mg barium carbonate/m3 for 4 hours/day for 6 months has been reported to result in elevated blood pressure and decreased body weight gain in rats (Tarasenko et al. 1977). Reproduction and developmental effects were also observed. Increased fetal mortality was seen after untreated females were mated with males exposed to 5.2 mg/m3 of barium carbonate. Similar results were obtained with female rats treated with 13.4 mg barium carbonate/m3. The NOAEL for developmental effects was L 15 mg/m3 (equivalent to 0, 8 mg barium/m3). An inhalation reference concentration (R.fC) of 0.005 mg/m3 for subchronic and 0.0005 mg/m3 for chronic exposure was calculated by the EPA based on the NOAEL for developmental effects (EPA 1995a). These effects have not been substantiated in humans or other animal systems. Barium has not been evaluated by the EPA for evidence of human carcinogenic potential (EPA 1995b). VerktachB.doc; 4/15/03 6 U) o U O C m co C C •t N E m a > N O CL N m L w m c U C U ~ a) m C a) ~ U m •II O (CU C 7 C U N N •U a) ) -0 O 7 E O a) M Q C , m E _ Co CO p a ` O N - U =3 0 c C U O a U C a) L ` Co O =3 cn N L U 0 N cu O L O_ 0) m O C U j •G N C E p O c Q) V-C O 0, O . c 7 L U C C • U a a) U m 'p O N U C: E O O O "O U) C O U C O U ,E C ' ' U N C U) ! cn -C E O '5 O ~ N E C "0 m ' L N 7 O_ X. N E a) • _7 . y U cn N N C C M m U O C ' y w m a) m a) E V m U C N C E N U Q U L L ` C • (D L ~ 'Q q) N .L-. Q -a) ' CC N ~ W D ( U a . C- oo 4L O _r_ a) TI. N C N p to o ~ U) -C U O ca C C m E m a) E p O Z m 0 .Q co Ol C O r ~ O Z U W z W o O ( CD o, z Z O c Z ` U U p p z W U Q Q U m U Z U U m z ~ O m W u U o ' J = L U W U) W z m. m o Q m C/) > m :2 0 C/) W E = O O O CL CL Z Z. L U U) N N m U Q Q m U W W c = n O' a o - a) O p O C O C O F- (D 0 O N V" N N l0 U m U lQ U R, U r U l0 Q d I w z 0 - a W 1 Y _ U W d r ~ I 1 U~ td N N m Q ❑ Q d L_ ' c m K E J U L = Y = ' C U Q o ~ a= E ~ Uz _ -0 U W l lQ m c ~ J D! N p C C p p o U N v- N N N O m .o o m ~ o Q o 0 a l U ii v 2 v c 8 u ~ C J C c ' C N m,E 10 E E L L L . G C QW N O p r r ~ v E i ' c FS d V C 8 E N. c E u I o O 9 U ~ m m c o y ` m ? c U U . w Q co U U U'J z U1 IV i i I a o I N ' ~Cl v v u c U x (J II z a W LL 1 4 m ~ W U c Q 0 Y w v 0 cu _ c C ~ m~ U U U U U U U U U U U C N O O O O O O O O O O 11 ' u~ 000000 00 ow • m a 0000 00 0o ° In 117 N r (h s- c+) r r r t. E O (I O ~ m ~ N O O O O 000 00 0000 v E o~ wwuiwww wwww , 00000°0 0 °0 00 0° 00 0 0 0 U S 1 ° a' c m - L O C (D' o c O Z_ U w v c -C c ` v a , W J (D m > 2) ° a E c F J 0 Q NO U w 0) CL O j z IQ o Q' d W- L t L= L X - L L L UUU U U U U - ~ . d U u O 0 00 O O O O O . O U o x W 0 0 O O O O t U m o E - O . O O q O O O U7 O O O O 7) Q Il- r CV ~ C7 CV In co U w O. _ fir u O O C' N M co N C V N CI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O . . o o x W W W W W LL1 W Lb Lu tLi E °o °o °0 00 00 l0n 00 °0 0 0 °o I C' I~ r C7 Q 1- M . N U) CO ' N 0 o U D o Z L E F a c c u m Z O a, E N C j V w E S f E E a D ~ x t5 ,E U 'L Q m U U U Z U) N ! a f _ j z w ~ z 0 I- I z c W r~ W t U I^ ~ O l_1 i I U _ •o I_ m R C ~ U C I o U ~ 0 N ~ Q 7 n c f _ 2 U E 0 O Z N C O tp C o o co O_ R $ c N O a w a > a t ~ U rn N ~ I U I _ to r _ I r--t I J~ W a 4 I z z z z z z z z z z II II z z z z z z z z C' z z z z z z z z z z z z O O O o M N o ~ G C C G ~ C O G C O 0 0 ~ o ~ a o o m N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N V R m z h E E _v d C = ~ U 6 a° Y v o C C c l0 L C m N N V C Q m U U U J Z fn N o 0 N N e X U U a a . w 0 co Q ^ rn v D N Q C VI N 7E E U)) f00 y O O O y C C\l . O In Q O U Y U = V W U Z. p ❑ C n. o U Q 4C1 a N o. O a m w° a o E ~ x o w ° E ❑ > n 0 (0 LO ul O LL U O > O 7E U N N N ❑ R N a C P N IL w m m d y LL N rn li > ❑ Z . w > E O - U Y O N U_ i O O w N lO N N U E N O O O ~ \ > m C Q O C ~ ~ O co N ❑ O O i N L LO CY) U W 0 .O M !1 T if a ° aJi W. o m ❑ ' . E 3 c m v E 'v > _ ~ a ° 0 o N w ❑ N 2 O a w O) w O W o W O❑ > Ul O U Q E Y O O N ❑ .C yr O C 0 * O U E C E U C. C E U 0. W O N L Sc ? 3 ~E E O N d y ~ t > U E N ` L 7 T = E ❑ O` j to N J a i N -Np O .C O N a , U N N O • C N U Y 2 O II OI. O N W in > N = O N +'C• w O •N LL E U N Q d E i N m C m LL Q h a O X C . N CO m Ip Cn N 0+ v N L . .0 ` .N . C W . E 0 = U ❑ a CD CL oN ° ° . to . o F - o a E E c a) LL IL W 0 N CN a) N N LL II N m y a ° O E N O O ❑ O 0 O m Q N LO C ❑ = O a) U C N m U N N C. N CL y ? U C O O - a C C co O ❑ N N O x X ❑ _ LL n d U y C y N cm t5 y N p m N N E 'm .N N C. C. w L' L fn O N N O N E O N O O ° Ln > N o co 'o .-0 '2 o R= m a 'm a a) III Q 4) m w S 2 t..7 t ~ (L a. a. Q Q V .0 Q O O > a) U 2 W U- W N t N N O _ U N O t O N Y lC ,4) > N m U U U U W W C 2 Z Z ❑ Z O = Q' Q O Z N U C L N x O O N LO r v U- N U U LL LL U x - L U) U . v) rn Q U 0. > Q O D -j o co in U U U U❑ w w C7 2_ z z z z z 0 0 cr j j j w - It x (3: { N X U L U l9 Gl it z z I~ 0 Y CL ` In cu Q 0 U " r I I O 21 YY LL CI , 0 (D co -t O y t0 1 r I N = C w E 12 t0 m - . ' y O O T ~ E LLJ . ` y y 0 CL x 0 O ~ LLJ 7 . m y L L LL Q ¢ ¢ U l U Z Z 'E -U ~ Q D_ " v J d L IQ N V ~ V V " CO - C N N CV N . ~ . O °v CVN "m LLI LL. i Z m v o o N m 0 ox v md ~ a v ~ H m• u) " - II m m N m ° co - Go~vv 1 O ~ ~ m o ~ Z O d V K lL Q ~ C l ~ U S7 ' X ~ 4 -1 F7 I i Z LLI O W - l I Y C a N N N C C T T T T U r n n n ~ Q o CLs c III. ~2 N C U T T T T O~ C r r ~ r - N p ~ Q T t 'O Y Y v e Y Y m n r 1 . y 0 m m m m r o d d d d W C N _ r 1 c O J x W 1' `L' m a R C X W Q N N N 'N f N I m F ` V v v v v ~ ~ m ~ m t ~ o ~ O C ~ n 'd ~ n ~ n 2l 'd ~ X `7 W W T ^ T o d ai c 0 W W 1 m Q7 C ~ ~ _ ` ~ O N A N T U `z` r m N U o 3 i f ' U l_ f ~ k q 10 A T T n r `m T T tD (D T T b ~ L L N N L m ~o M M m N c ~ O N T a ~o y. o o a g N N T T T n n r T T T IA LLS LLS O O O Y Y Y n ~ n T T 1 t0 ~O i11 C C C e Q a v v `O N N 0 0 0 m m m N N N a a m m c ~ L 0 u b U. E 2 k2 a T T T n r n T T T O O O m m m Y Y Y 0 0 0 r r r T T T e e c c v Q Q Z 2 Z N N T Q Z Z Z o 3 ~ € m n O y U o 3 Zl gi rn a m w CL: W v 0 N N C N C CL N ~ N N ~ N U LL t O m ~ O ~p C m € m c v ~ C °1 N v E m ~ U a ~ w `w p` K v v m 3 2 o U c ? 0 v m N N d N u ~ V O 9 ppc n m O U y q s € ° c ~q u~i P m m O C N o v v 3 N ~ W N W ~Opp 9 O O b ~ w a c v m o y 2 a U n ovo a'm n o F q F c g a Z Z KERA ENVIRONMENTAL Table 3D: Exposure Assumptions and Related Definitions Documentation for the Risk Assessment Shortform, Residential Scenario (1992) Calculation of Enhanced Soil Ingestion Rate (DEP, 2002) Weighted Skin-Soil Adherence Factors (DEP, 2002) Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization (DEP, 1995) and Draft . Characterization of Risk Due to Inhalation of Particulates by Construction Workers (DEP 2002) #2 Fuel /Diesel Residential Shortform, version 2.2 working draft; June 2002 (spreadsheet) CommercialAndustrial Short Form Exposure Scenarios (DEP, 1996). AF - Adherence Factors: Construction Worker: 0.29 mg/cm2; Child Resident, 0-6yr: 0.35 mg/cm2; Child Resident, 7-18yr; 0.21 mg/cm2; Adult Resident: 0.13 mg/cmZ i AP(non•cencer) - Averaging Period; see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 2D AP(cancer) - Averaging Period; see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 2D BW - Body weight; see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 2D j i CSF Cancer Slope Factor; (mg/(kg*d))"1; see Table 2C ED - Exposure Duration, see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 2D EF Exposure Frequency; see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 2D EP - Exposure Period; see Exposure Profiles Tables 1 D and 20 3 Inh/day /d; inhalation rate for adults - 20 m IR - Ingestion rate (soil): Resident 7-18 and 19-30, 5.0 E-05; Resident 0-6, 1.0E-04 kg/d; Contractor, 1.0 E-04 kg/d " . MUItoER - 0.2; Chemical-specific, depends on dermal permeability MUItiNH 1.0; Chemical-specific, depends on Henry's Law Constant [OHM] - EP C; Compound concentration in soil or groundwater; units consistent with toxicity reference values; see Tables 1 A and 2A Psi - 2 - portion of inhaled particle to reach the GI tract Plung - 0.5 - portion of inhaled particle to reach the lungs RAF - Relative Absorbance Factor, specific for each compound by exposure route and duration; --i see Table 3C RfC - Reference concentration; chronic or subchronic inhalation values, specific for each compound; see Tables 1 C and 2C RfD - Reference dose; chronic or subchronic oral values, specific for each compound; see Tables 1 C and 2C l'. RP - Respirable particles: construction site, 6.0 E-08 kg/m3; open field, 3.2 E-08 kg/m3 SA - Surface area: contractor, 5834 cm2/d; Resident 0-6: 2433 cm2/d (integrated into the DCR (DEP 1992)); Resident 7-18, 3830 cmVd; Resident 19-30, 5654 cm2/d (based on DAFs TechUpdate, April 2002) UR - Unit Risk, (µg/m')"'; see Table 2C 11 VI - Volume Ingested, 1 Ud for chronic and subchronic drinking water evaluation VR - Ventilation rate; chronic 10 m3/d; subchronic 4.3 m3/d VR - Ventilation rate for contractor, 3.6 m3/hour I I VerAttachD.XIs; Exposure Values-Definitions; 4/15/2003 n m O 0 N, ~I lr c U •O J y W (D E 5 U J W_ m Y O LC ~ 0 d U U ~ w o N E n W? E o J Oc = 'y N O d 0 Z E W Z p v •O c c O J v d d Ln 'O N C C 'O O Rj 2 w W > D 3 O m W E :3 m 2 O O V) C, 0 IL EQ W U) W a) O a OI w OF a w U w x O G ~ D ~ L 0 CD O O 0 o L 00 0 0 00 N c h N s h N O O W W r O ~ N s O O O O O O O W W O W o C) 0 0 ~ O 00 (N0 M N N M O O O W W W O O N r N M 'O N O a •0 Lr w o : c o m w m •y E m Z m a i y c E O U U . ~ E c m y m O y O C .II U pp R y N y0-. ca d y O O O X N ` o a> 0 0) 2 N c aa)i > f0 _ 7 y O C 'v a) y O C O U E y c R O C 'O y m -O ~ a7 :Q ~ N = m c m ~ `m m - 2 c d o N N E ~ `m U C > LL 'o Ln O O co W to a O N O O Q m w d l0 E U O U 0 U CO O O . N N V Z E y X W u _ U N a) r 'i f.. z w , r-j z 0 x _ y z w I w 0 0 N ' L c m 0 0 t .-1 N m CL o 0 W F . c E Q ❑ g cu O O Cu c O O Z U - ,n w O ~ ca O N ~ N 00 O C6 a) o E .Or > ❑ r l LL O v 1° U) 111 L C • I -O O X rn J a) (II S fU E c -o (n ❑ I. ~ L Q cu N Cu S o cu r 1 I w Z w U d . LQ ~r co rn N r ~ Lo N co ~ r• r' ~ O M O O N N N N 'IT N M M 0000000000 W W W W W W W W W W ~ a7 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d1 O N (O I- O M r O O r- r r- r- I` (O M N N N Cl) Cl) M Cl) N Vt N M 'T 0000000000 . i I ~ I I I I ~ I I WW W W W W W W W W Lo I- co V- OO (O O 0 M I-- Lo CO I- O O O M V• M CO M 0 L1') I~ M N c- V N M M N M ~ ~f M c1' M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W O In m O r- O V' O ti O 0 0 (•M N m~ 1~41 O O m N 0 f- • M 0 'G' O O N m0E' ~ N ' " O L Y U C. Q 0 :p C m w L .c O.. O N N .U = r- < mU U UJ ~ZU)N O O r Q w tD ai O F.. 0 O O Q W rn ro m O ° U) o c f- o 0 L N U m w E O co Q o p C ° U fl., c O E cu U C Z U) cf3 4=- C ~ (D J y O ~ .n N N p 4 p N - c U a °L . W E ' a , l.l.l > ❑ v N Y ~ w N U 3 ~ ~ O0 a) • ° ti c cu - • - U c U A ° U W E E in o Q J J H N O' U x o w W co O Cd O W C) 0 (N r O W co J F¢- I- 0 4 10 w jo 'o O ~k O > O 1 J ' a f - O a , m 0 N N v O U) N c V U to X W t U i r I ii I J W z i a _ > z w LL, I N (D C O .2 o O I- N ~ = a) W ~ - ❑ i 'E5 < ~ C i CII ~ ~ I ~ LJ Oo cc r L O vZ i . U 'C- O p L J U N I w. CII O a N a) o U (D o Q 03 'N N a) O N = C cr " E L ` O Q ^ L N L y N m C C ,O a) N r -O 0 2 c3 U L U) E ( N ❑ = Q ca I`~ r , . J W z w U LI)() m m t() t-- ti N m Noaioo m I- m m m N V M V' V' O o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W T V' V' V' O CO 0 o 00 V• rn M m o o m ao rn rn T (O T u•i V' N T N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W LL W W W W LL N m m m m V CO V IT o O 0 N O ti N t-- N M ' 00 C0,, 00 C0, Cp T CV T V• M V V m V N V' V LO V' 00000000430 W W W W W W W W W W o N N T M M O O CO m V M T V T In T LO M t- co Sri m V- V' C6 6 t 0 0 T 0 O V7 p X in w o 0 U O C F- o ' T N ` co U W Q) T Q w 2 r O C "O CL U E CO L p U Z C ~ ~ a) .D C C6 ~ a) N 0 ai ° o m v - (n N O C c U J " W > ~J J W a) Q Y N N L N a) U N N V C Q O m U J aa) W E o U ❑ v_. Q Cl) J J I- N O U W, w LO ID .a ca . IN Q W 0 t` V A E E R O o C rr 7 O L 'C V 0-0 a M 0 Y a) .U C =Q lb m L Ct]UU . O. N UJ U a) - C 2ZCnIV of O O W 0 0 'O O 0 0 0 W O O O O O 0 0 0 O J Fa-• O O Cf) F-I O, co C) N in V' O N iC .C N N X W z U Q i Ir d z W z -y z w i w o ~~roir~oc~'ioo I ' t 1 N y C (f) O 0 W °?mtiT~°OmmNm E m lzr v m Rzt N V m It d' O O O O O O O O O O W W W W W W W W W W T O M I- LO O d' 00 0 0 M T r N CO N O CO O m LC) co CO d' co C7. (7 r-' T T I _ p Q • L C R O CD r-+ 5 , I J C, F= C6 M L O 1 I' o') Z _.J U 4= • C ~ p c r U J U f ca a) a~ _ -r- C L C (U 0 _ 0 C6 J L 0 N I tn ~ x O ~ O ~ O C C C 72 U E m V' tt m 'd' m 'd' m lO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W r M M i- 0 I- M N M 1l r M 0 0 0 O M N d' V' N V N M M T r ti N V' V 'cp m V• "N V' V' m d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W m O M M M T O M M LO O) O N T CO 'CA O U) (3) r O 't m N CV N CV m N T U N N ❑ • ca V) 2 Q rI W CO CV cc I i i ~ 1 W r z LLI N U E v E R E E= E L2 Y L U C R ~QmU .C U O (U UJ O - C 2ZC)N O N O C1 x W _ (Ct U O O U) O C I- 'O Q r i N U) C) N w .E p C) M O CA r U • C O L .G U m w H c (n L C/) t _ V) L ~ L O C co 42 -p ~ O N O N N J N J 'v W E W U) ❑ V) Q U / N~ LL L O U) ~ CU N N U C C C O ~ cu U J a) W E E y=+ 0 m J ~ Q H N N U W W N 0 0 T N (7 W O v N O W m Ir M M J O F- io a O + W Q 0 ❑ 0 O O + W O O 0 O O W 0 O O J O F- ❑ O U J F- O O O N to C) cn R C N Cr N X W i .c U Q I i I 2 W r~ Z o z w -~w y CQ 0 a> N l CL w C O Q. J ~ E 'a U C L = L O ~Z i o = . U CII ~ J o 2 oL m w c o L > x Q) L r'C L = I j ~ 3 N O N w o 00 1 a) Q c cu = i 1 f W Z w U " i r O C'7 00 N V' O r r` C'7 (O 00 V' CV d CM 6 V' O r T N M M M M r M V•- M r' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c W W W W W W W W W W W m V' r~ m 00 ti 0) 00 1` 00. rP t~ 0 r r- r r m (O O co 00 N f-- LO ti (0 r r W (O N T (0 M Cl) m V• Cl) M d- - m N O O O O O O O O O Cl O i 1 i i w w w w w w w w w w w ~ O CA ~ ti r m m CO r V• LO w M V r CA m O m O (n(nwwmmomom CO O O O O O O O O O O O w w w w w w w w w w W _ _ m ~ ~ N N V' ( O ( 0 CA N m LO • V' .M M N Cri CV M CO C6 N M m V' m N LD M V' V' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O w w w w w w w w w w W m 0 m N 0 m O O m V" T V' r V' 0 0 N V' M O N CY) CN r N CO V' r (n (p V' r Y7 • M m m V• m N LO m m It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 O wwwwwwwwww w ~ O w O N N m m ~ I` N O m O N ti m m r m m O N r r LO r O (0 r CA CO ll. V T 0 E . R 00 0 0 - _ 0 7 C2 L U c m m C 0 - c =QmUUC>3:o E is Fo- 0 ~ N N n o C) I- o O N T V) W o 0 Q x w o. U • C O Q U V 7 ~ 0 J y 0 00 O C O C ~ N T i cc = U J L- W O OZ (9 N C: O cu a i i 0 CA LL J ~ -.0 / N T' - L m LL J C E W 0 J cB W o L N U) > L N N a) T N _ O M L CU N J (D . w E m 3 ° U -o CO 4? D O N 0) w J cn 6 c LO N Q N LO N J c U W E ° Lx 0) Q a) I- 0 0 F- 0 r~ r N O O LO V OT O 00 O co r o 0 c W W W W O N O N O O O M T C Y5 Ln N wi O co O C) CD W W W NCO O N CO LO N 00 0 O 0 O T W LO m L6 O O w O 0 0 O O w O O O O 0 t w O O O I U) J Q 0, O O O 0 0 0 U) J F- 0 F-- 0 U E 0 E N Q 0 Y U U Z O O N N V N X W L U Q i r~l .J t 'jI 1 i F- r V) a W ~ c p O U E O J o ~ a L z = U L1 O ~ L a y0_ CQ X " r ~ 'O L N N _ O Q = N . a LLI O o y T N m J ~ C ~ S 1 ~I II ~ • J I I ti o O N O 7 0 4- M v ~M- V' N N r 0 6 4 O r V' C!7 U7 d' U) 'd' (D U) M ~ O O O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W N m N m r-m M O N O NU') M O IT N m I` N r M N r r C[7 UJM N r M U] m M m O m O ti M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W ui w ui W W U1 W O (O M U7 CO O V r M CO ~ 'ct r N CC) d' CO r (O O r N I- N r m O M tt r 0000000000 W W W W W W W W W W Vt r M m M,I- I` N M M rP 0 0 0 M'I 00 r- 114, w V' N r r r r m r l!7 ,,I* mm mom (omorl- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W M N•N M V I- N M r O O m r r~ ~p O CO U) r~r r l1- m M N M r LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W mNrvml~COV'ma' N O~ r 00 r oD r N O r M V CO M ch N U0 d' - O OI T m O 0 GQ U1 UI O O o T N U7 C ~ N J E_ wo O Q X w 0 U Q O L C L .O U . L Y E N al ~ y_ CQ O C _ 0- C N O O U a~i > Z _ - • W E O Z).'a L C vO- J N rn U.(D ° o T J w h W in C u C N W ❑ N A2 0 L CU U C CU L i N N a) CA U o co o . 3 U c W ~ T CD E 0 4 J U cf) X Q aa) O w c a d U) C n LLJ U J a) T W E O ~ U) c4 J F- O I- 0 "ttI O W O 00 U7 O w Co U7 C6 LO O W 00 Co T O W N O M O W CO M Cl) J I- O O ~ IlO O co O r O r O W W W LL 0 O O M m r r U7 T O co O wwW M Il_ I,- O M 0) r r LO V T E E O ~ 'CO- --o CZ Co 0 > O C ~Q M L m mUU O CIT UJ N UC 7ZCnN y V ~ ~ a Y O m t,~ .so U Z co O W .a. T 0 0 w 0 0 0 O O w O O O O~ Oj 00 O J F- O. O Cl T O O O O 0 0 J I-- 0 This Notice of Activity and Use Limitation ("Notice") is made as of this 19~` day of May, 2003,.by the City of Northampton, 210 Main Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts 01060 together with their successors and assigns (collectively "Owner"). WITNESSETH: t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ 12 FGIbb II III VIII ~J II 111111 I II I I IIIIIIIIIIIII ~ 0 Bk: 7205Pg: 166 Page: 1 of 16 Form 1075 Recorded: 05/20/2003 10:36 AM NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION M.G.L. c. 21E, § 6 and 310 CMR 40.0000 Disposal Site Name: (Former) Verona Street Landfill DEP Release Tracking No. (s): 1-00524 r+ 00 a In 'IT 0 w, z WHEREAS, the City of Northampton of Hampshire County, Massachusetts is the owner in fee simple of those certain parcels of vacant land,located at 39 Verona Street in the City of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts pursuant to a deed recorded with the Hampshire County.Registry of Deeds in Book 4685, Page 81; WHEREAS, said parcels of land, which is more particularly bounded and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Property") is subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation. The Property is shown on a plan recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 58, Plans 10 and 11; WHEREAS, a portion of the Property ("Portion of the Property") is subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation. The Portion of the Property is more particularly bounded and-described in Exhibit A-1, attached hereto and made apart hereof_ The Portion of the Property is shown on a plan recorded with the Hampshire County Registry ofDeeds in PlanBook i qc , Plan C ; WHEREAS, the Portion of the Property comprises all of a disposal site as the result of a release of oil' and/or hazardous material. Exhibit B is a sketch plan showing the relationship of the Portion of the Property subject to this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation to the boundaries of said disposal site existing within the limits ofthe Property and to the extent such boundaries have been established. Exhibit B is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, one or more response actions have been selected for the Disposal Site in accordance with M. G.L. c. 21E ("Chapter 210) and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.0000 ("MCP" Said response actions are based upon (a) the restriction of human access to and contact with oil and/or hazardous material in soil and/or (b) the restriction of certain activities occurring in, on, through, over or under the Portion of the Property. The basis for such restrictions is set forth in an Activity and Use Limitation Opinion ("AUL Opinion"), dated May 20, 2003 (which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and and made a part hereof)' 12 5 PG I b i NOW, THEREFORE, notice is hereby given that the activity and use limitations set. forth in said AUL Opinion are as follows: 1. Activities and Uses Consistent with the ALL Opinion. The ALL Opinion provides that a condition ofNo Significant Risk to health, safety, public welfare or the environment exists for any foreseeable period of time (pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000) so long as any. of the following activities and uses occur on the Portion of the Property: (i) Activities that will not compromise the integrity or functionality of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area; and (ii) Such other activities and uses not identified in Paragraph 2 as being Activities and Uses Inconsistent with the AUL. r 2. Activities and Uses Inconsistent with the ALL Opinion. Activities. and uses I which are inconsistent with the objectives of this Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, and which, if implemented at the Portion of the Property, may result in a significant risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare or the environment or in a substantial hazard, are as follows: (i) Activities that will promote erosion or excessive/differential settlement of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area; (ii) Any planting of vegetationthat will compromise the integrity ofthe modified landfill capping system via root infiltration within the ALL area; (iii) Any construction or use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems or underground injection wells within, below, or adjacent to the AUL area; and (iv) Any other activity that will adversely affect the integrity or functionality of the modified landfill capping system within the ALL area. 3. Obligations and Conditions Set Forth in the ALL Opinion. If applicable, obligations and/or conditions to be undertaken and/or maintained at the Portion of the Property to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk as set forth in the ALL Opinion shall include the following: (i) :Post-construction monitoring and maintenance of the modified landfill capping system must occur on an annual basis until the modified capping system is no longer required at the site to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk. The findings from these annual inspections must be f i i P 125PGB i reported to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in written form; (ii) Corrective actions must be taken to remediate and/or mitigate conditions that would compromise the integrity and purpose ofthe modified landfill capping system, and (iii) Repair of any significant settlement or erosion ofthe capping system with similar materials, as-necessary. 4. Proposed Changes in Activities and Uses. Any proposed changes in activities and uses at the Portion of the Property which may result in higher levels of exposure to oil and/or hazardous material than currently exist shall be evaluated by an LSP who shall render an Opinion, in accordance with 310 CAM 40.1080 et seq., as to whether the proposed changes will present a significant risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare or the environment. Any and all requirements set forth in the Opinion to meet the objective of this Notice shall be satisfied before any such activity or use is commenced. 5. Violation of a Response Action Outcome. The activities, uses and/or exposures upon which this Notice is based shallnot change at anytime to cause a significant risk of .1 harm to health, safety, public welfare, or the environment or to create substantial hazards due to exposure to oil and/or hazardous material without the prior evaluation by an LSP in accordance with 310 ChM 40.1080 et seq., and without additional response actions, if necessary, to achieve or maintain a condition of No Significant Risk 'or to eliminate r~ substantial hazards. If the activities, uses, and/or exposures upon which this Notice is based change without i l the prior evaluation and additional response actions determined to be necessary by an LSP in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1080 et seq., the owner or operator ofthe Portion I - of the Property subject to this Notice at the. time that the activities; uses and/or exposures change, shall comply with the requirements set forth in 310 CMEt 40.0020. 6. Incorporation Into Deeds, Mortgages, Leases, and Instruments of Transfer. This Notice shall be incorporated either in full or by reference into all future deeds, easements, mortgages, leases, licenses, occupancy agreements or any other instrument of transfer, whereby an interest in and/or a right to use the Property or a portion thereofis conveyed. r I Owner hereby authorizes and consents to tie flgn coYdhti6n and/or registration of this Notice, said Notice to become effective when executed under seal by the undersigned LSP, and recorded and/or registered with the appropriate Registry(ies) of Deeds and/or Land Registration Office(s). Signatory authority documentation for City of Northampton. is attached hereto as Exhibit D. ~-I WITNESS the execution hereof under seal this G day of May, 2003. City of N rthampton f By Mayor Mary C fare Higgins City of Northarfipton f` COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS '/it 5r, ss 2003 Then personally appeared the above-named Mayor Mary Clare Higgins and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free act and deed before me, i Notary Public: ' My Commission Expires: Ii . a; The undersigned LSP hereby certifies that he executed the aforesaid Activity and Use Limitation Opinion attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof and that in his Opinion this Notice.ofActivity and Use Limitation is consistent withAe terms set forth in said Activity and Use Limitation Opinion. 3 Date: F s ~ , f/e "per 0 Evan T. Johnson, P.E., LSP Tighe & B Q F q LSP 96 AA Evan y~ T. m o JOHNSON ) Na. e136 r" n 9~ p c~ STER4 SITE PR~E~S COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS sslt ( 2003 J J Then personally appeared the above named Evan T. Johnson acrd-acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act app c (bed before Notar~ Public:%~,'~ My Commission Expires: eyed&ld 7 3 Upon recording, return to: Mayor Mary Clare Higgins 210 Main Street Northampton MA 01060 f-' I i i i EXHIBIT A r City of Northampton Verona Street Landfill Property Description The land in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, as shown on a plan called "Plan Of Land In Northampton, Massachusetts, Belonging to Emma M. Handfield; Scale 1" = 40', dated July 17, 1959 and prepared by the Davis Engineering Co." recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, Plan Book 58, Page 10, said parcels being bound and described as follows: Parrnl Nn l Beginning at an iron pin in the northerly line of Verona Street at the southeasterly comer, of Parcel 2 on said above-referenced plan of land, situated at the northerly end of Verona Street; thence N 05°-57'-50" W along the Easterly side of Parcel 2, a distance of 63..24' to an iron pin; thence N 770-31'-20" W along the Northerly side of Parcel 2, a distance of 100.00' to an iron pin; thence S 12°-28'-40" W along the Westerly side of Parcel 2, a distance of 60.00' to an iron pin at land now or formerly of Peter Aloisi, thence N 77°-31'-20" W along land of said Peter Aloisi, a distance of 306.86' to a concrete bound, at land now or formerly Joanne Montgomery, said point being the southeast corner of the parcel herein described. thence N 14°-15'-30" E along land of said Joanne Montgomery, land now or formerly of Anthony W. and Anna P. Patrick, land now or formerly of Lewis J. and Florence R. Kmetz, land now or formerly of Christine Douglas, land now or formerly John D. and Theresa M. Collins and land now or formerly of Warren D. and Irene T. Jones, a distance of 315.00' to an iron pin, said point being at the northwest corner of the.parcel herein described; thence N 84°-09'-15" -E along land now or formerly William A. and Sydney C. j Letendre a distance of 553.83' to an iron pin,. said point being the northeast `.J corner of the parcel herein described; ( thence S 00°-38'-10" E , along land now or formerly of the Northampton (`J Meadowbrook Associates a distance of 509.42' to an iron pin, said point being in the southeasterly corner of the parcel being described; thence N 76°-12'-05" W along land now or formerly Francis E. and Bertha Barnes, and land now or formerly Michael J. O'Connor and Anne M. Lucey, r~ i~ n 1 I} I~ ICII l_ . ~I !J 205PG 1 ?2 partly by each, a distance of 204.35' to an. iron pin in the easterly sideline of said Verona Street; thence N 13°-41'-40" E along the easterly sideline of Verona Street a distance of 2.46' to a stone bound; thence N 77°-31'-20" W along the northerly line of Verona Street a distance of 20.01' to the point and place of beginning; and containing 5.40 acres. Parcel No. 2: Beginning at an iron pin in the northerly line of Verona Street said point being N 77°-31'-20" W a distance of 20.01' from the stone bound which marks the Northeasterly corner of Verona Street, on the northerly line of Verona Street; thence continuing N 77°-31'-20" W along the.northerly end of Verona Street and land now or formerly of said Peter Aloisi, a distance of 120.00' to an iron pin; thence N 120-28'-40 E along Parcel 1, a distance of 60.00' to an iron pin; thence S 77°-31'-20" E along Parcel 1, a distance of 100.00' to an iron pin; thence S ,05°-57'-50" E along Parcel 1, a distance of 63.24' to an iron pin at the point and place of beginning; and containing 0.15 acres. r l r-~ I_ J ~r- - JANW022MAULEx.bibit A.doc i3 L0 .5 ps ;I Ex~IT A-1. I City of Northampton Verona Street Landfill Activity and Use Limitation Description I~ The land in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, as shown on a I J plan called "Activity And Use Limitation Plan, for the Verona Street Landfill, dated May 14, 2003 and prepared by Tighe & Bond, Consulting Engineers, Westfield Massachusetts, Scale 1" = 30"' recorded in Hampshire County Registry of Deeds, said parcel being bound and described as follows: - CO=* encing at an iron pin located along the southerly property line of land now or formerly the City of Northampton, said point being the Northeasterly corner of land now or formerly of Michael J. O' Conner and Anne M. Lucey as shown on the above 'referenced plan; - thence N 76°-12'-05" W a distance of 53.49' to a point; thence N 13°-47'-55" E along a tie course, a distance of 128.35' to the point of beginning; thence N 66°-55'-40" W a distance of 92.24' to a point; thence N 48°-04'-21" W a distance of 79.29' to a point; n thence N 370-05'-58" W a distance of 65.77' to a point; thence N 13°-15'-31" W a distance of 53.02' to a point; - thence N 38°-09'-54" E a distance of 46.77' to a point; thence N 62°-57'-45" E a distance of 53.57' to a point; -1 thence N 82°-31'-22" E a distance of 30.38' to a,point; thence S 66°-36'-24'.' E a distance of .53-88' to a point; l thence 'S 34°-11'-10" E a distance of 92.19' to a point; thence S 15°-21'-52" W a distance of 62.56' to a point; thence S 41°-23'-06". E a distance of 29.15' to a point; thence N 84°-41'-51 E a distance of 39.83' to a point; thence S 49°-28'-30" E a distance of 31.29' to a point; thence S, 020-52'-03" W a distance of 19.02' to a point; 12 0 1L thence S 58°-19'-34" W a distance of 76.53' to a point; thence S 78°-12'-00" W a distance of 12.62' to the point and place of beginning; and containing 0.90 Acres. J: gN\NO228\AUL\Exhibit-Al. doc ~J ill ~ A 10 Fo p0 c~ LEGEN AREA OF BEDROCK E X P 0 S U RE l R EXISTING PROPERTY LINE J~ AUL AREA,. DISPOSAL SITE AND RA0 BOUNDARY AS-BUILT CAP ■ STONE BOUND FOUND • IRON PIN FOUND - - - - IRON _ PIN - - - EXHIBIT B SITE SKETCH VERONA STREET LANDFILL 39 VERONA STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS RTN: 1-00524 j TIGHE & BOND INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS' F WESTFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS SCALE. 1' =60'_ DATE MAY__20, 2002___ N0228\AUL SKETCH PLAN j i ' 2 _ U 1b ~ Exhibit C - Activity and Use Limitation Opinion In accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.1074, this Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) Opinion has been prepared for a portion of a parcel located at 39 Verona Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The subject property is currently owned by the City of Northampton and is currently vacant. A portion of the property ("Portion..of Property") is subject to the AUL Notice. The disposal site is identified as Release Tracking Number (RTN) 1-00524. Site History ,I Historical research indicates that the former Verona Street landfill operated as a stone quarry beginning in the early 1890s. In 1943, after stone quarrying operations ceased, the site was authorized by the City of Northampton to operate as a burning dump. The types of refuse disposed. at the burning dump were typical household rubbish in addition to ,commercial and industrial waste from local businesses. Wastes were disposed at the site between 1943 and 1957, the year the landfill ceased operation. A residential structure was constructed on a . portion of the site sometime after 1957. The structure was located on the landfill parcel, but did not encroach upon the former waste disposal area. The City of Northampton purchased -l the site property in June 1995 and had the residential structure and an accompanying garage J demolished and removed from the site in the, fall of 1998. The former. landfill site was first listed as a Location to be Investigated (LTBI) on April 15, 1989 following the detection of elevated levels of metals in site soils. On October 1, 1993, the DEP listed the former landfill as a Confirmed Disposal Site (#1-00524). A Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment was completed for the former landfill in October 1999. The Phase II investigation included test pit excavation to delineate landfill refuse, the installation of soil gas points and additional site monitoring wells, and the collection of soil (surficial and subsurface), groundwater, and sediment samples. In summary, the findings from the Phase II investigation indicated, that a condition of "No Significant Risk of Harm to Health" did not exist at the• site due to the detection of several metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) above the applicable Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) standards. The elevated concentrations of these contaminants were detected in soils located within the refuse-area and the "smeared refuse" that was encountered along the perimeter of the former landfill. The Phase II risk assessment, however, indicated that there was no impact to site groundwater and no environmental impact beyond the refuse disposal area. As part of site closure, a modified landfill capping system was installed at the site in general accordance with a Phase IV Remedial Implementation Plan. Using a Method 3 Risk Characterization, the capping of the former landfill has eliminated the potential risk of harm to health has been eliminated under current site - conditions. However, an AUL must be implemented to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk for future site conditions and to allow for site closure with a Class A-3 Response Act ion Outcome (RAO). ~-I i B r) ^ -1 PI -7 f r-~I i i Reason-for AUL An AUL was implemented because the risk characterization is based on elimination of certain exposure pathways for the characterization of harm to human health, and because the risk characterization relies on limited future site uses to maintain that reduced exposure potential. Permitted Activities and Uses Set Forth in the AUL Opinion The AUL Opinion provides that a. condition of No Significant Risk to health, safety, public welfare or the environment exists for any foreseeable period of time pursuant to 310 CMR J 40.0000 so long as any of the following activities and uses occur in the Portion of Property: i j i. Activities that will not compromise the integrity or functionality of the modified ` landfill capping system within the AUL area; and (l ii. Such other act ivities and uses not identified in Paragraph 2 as being Activities and Uses Inconsistent with the AUL. Activities and Uses Inconsistent with the AUL Opinion Activities and uses which are inconsistent with the objectives of the AUL Notice, and which, if implemented in the Portion of Property, may result in a significant risk of harm to health, safety, public welfare or the environment or in a substantial hazard, are as follows: L Activities that will promote erosion or ' excessive/differential settlement of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area; ii. Any planting of vegetation that will compromise the integrity of the modified landfill capping system via root infiltration. within the AUL area; iii: Any construction or use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems or underground injection wells within, below, or adjacent to the AUL area; and iv. Any other activity that will adversely affect the integrity or functionality of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area. Obligations and Conditions Set Forth in the AUL Opinion The obligations and/or conditions to be undertaken acid/or maintained in the Portion of Property to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk as set forth in this AUL Opinion shall include the following: ~I - `-1 ~I i i. Post-construction monitoring and maintenance of the modified landfill capping system must occur on an annual basis until the.modified capping system is no longer required at the site to maintain a condition of No Significant Risk. The findings from these annual inspections must be reported to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in written form; and r 1' PG I I Corrective actions must be taken to remediate and/or mitigate conditions that -1 would compromise the integrity and purpose of the modified landfill capping system; and M. Repair of any significant settlement or erosion of the capping system with similar materials, as necessary. LSP Certifications LSP assuming responsibility for Activity and Use Limitation Statement: Evan T. Johnson, P.E. I attest that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information on which this AUL Opinion is based and in my professional judgment, this AUL Opinion complies with the requirements for said opinions established under 310 -CMR 40.1074(1)(b). The AUL Opinion j Form is attached hereto as Exhibit C/.~ F i 1 Signature :~j1 Seal: fl ~s J' 47 Date: ~110''Iej Go1 Z`PET N JOHNSON U License Number: 6135 x No. s~ y S T E~~~ S\°~Q - SITE PR04`~S ~J t ~ Ali I_ `J I ~ 5 n i fr rj'ry. P6 I CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS /J I May 1, 2003 Upon the recommendation of Mayor Mary Clare Higgins n ~I . RESOLUTION Be it resolved that the city of Northampton authorizes the Mayor to sign.the enclosed deed restriction which is a NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION (hereinafter Ci referred to as the Notice of AUL) in accordance with the provisions of M_G.L. chapter 21 E, Sec.6 and 310 CMR 40.0000 for property owned by the City of Northampton and known as the Verona Street Landfill located at 39 Verona Street, Florence, as shown ~I on Exhibit B or the attached Notice of AUL. . ' In City Council, May 1-, 2 003 Rul6s suspended, passed two readings and enrolled. ' o Attest '~M City Clerk G4 Approved:: N!a'ry, Clare Higgins, Mayor A true1copy. i . o Attest:' L City Clerk 'i J X11 ` Revised 5/8/95 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-1 14 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Release Tracking Number T ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION (AUL) OPINION FORM ❑ Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1070 - 40.1084 (Subpart J) 1 - 00524 COMPLETE THIS FORM AND ATTACH AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE AUL DOCUMENT TO BE RECORDED AND/OR REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND/OR LAND REGISTRATION OFFICE A. LOCATION OF DISPOSAL SITE AND PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AUL: Disposal Site Name: Verona Street Landfill 39 Verona Street Street: Location City/Town: Northampton ZIP Code: 01060 Address of property subject to AUL, if different than above. Street City/Town: ZIP Code: B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check one) © Provide the LSP Opinion for a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuantto 310 CMR 440.1074 (complete all sections of this form). Provide the LSP Opinion for an Amended Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1081(4) (complete all sections of this form). Provide the LSP Opinion for a Termination of a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1083(3) (complete all sections of this form). Provide the LSP Opinion for a Grant of Environmental Restriction, pursuantto 310 CMR 40.1071, (complete all sections of this form). ❑ Provide the LSP Opinion for an Amendment of Environmental Restriction, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1081(3) (complete all sections of this form). Provide the LSP Opinion for a Release of Environmental Restriction, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1083(2) (complete all sections of this form). C. LSP OPINION: I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with this submittal, including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of (i) the standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1), (ii) the applicable provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2) and (3), and (iii) the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(5), to the best of my knowledge, > if Section B indicates that a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is being registered andlor recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and (ii) complies with 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(b); > if Section B indicates that an Amended Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is being registered and/or recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 andp (ii) complies with 310 CMR 40.1080(1) and 40.1081(1); > if Section B indicates that a Termination of a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation is being registered and/or recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and (ii) complies with 310 CMR 40.1083(3)(a); > if Section B indicates that a Grant of Environmental Restriction is being registered and/or recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and (ii) complies.with 310 CMR 40.1071(1)(b); > if Section B indicates that an Amendment to a Grant ofEnvironmenta/Restriction is being registered andlor recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 C'MR 40.0000 and (ii) complies with 310 CMR 40.1080(1) and 40.1081(1); > if Section B indicates that a Release of Grant of Environmental Restriction is being registered andlor recorded, the Activity and Use Limitation that is the subject of this submittal (i) is being provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000 and (ii) complies with 310 CMR 40.1083(3)(a). I am aware that significant penalties may result, including, but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment, if I submit information which I know to be false, inaccurate or materially incomplete. Check here if the Response Action(s) on which this opinion is based, if any, are (were) subject to any order(s), permit(s) and/or approval(s) issued by DEP or EPA." If the box is checked, you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable provisions thereof. SECTION C IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE. Do Not Alter This Form Page 1 of 2 ,qwv P -1 11 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-1 14 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup - Release Tracking Number ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION (AUL) OPINION FORM _ oos24 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1070 - 40.1084 (Subpart J) C. LSP OPINION: (continued) LSP Name: Evan T. Johnson LSP 6135 Stamp: OF MgsJ q~ Telephone 413-562-1600 n Ext.: 254 o EVAN yG ~ T. 413-562- 52°1:-7 11 o JOHNWN rn . j FAX: d No. 6135 • ~ ! V0.'" P Si t L ~ ~ I~ gna ure: S l Lt 4 ms G S T ER S S~° SO ZVI`J 5 s/7E PROF Date: YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY FIND THE DOCUMENT TO BE INCOMPLETE. E Revised 5/8/95 Do Not Alter This Form ATTEST; HAMPSHIRE, REGISTER • ~dA.ATA~TNE SON Page 2 of 2 I-------- Official Receipt for Recording in: Official Receipt for Recording in: Hampshire County Registry of Deeds Hampshire County Registry of Deeds 33 King St. i 33 King St. Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Issued To: TODD KIRTON OF TIGHE & BOND Issued To: 53 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD i TIGHE & BOND 53 SOUTHAMPTON ROAD WESTFIELD MA 01085 WESTFIELD MA 01085 Recording Fees - Recording Fees * Document Recording i Description Number Book/Page Amount Document Description Number Book/Page Recording Amount PL 00020626 196 20 $75.00 VERONA STREET LANDFILL NOT 00020629 7205 166 $75.00 VERONA STREET, LANDFILL $75.00 ----$75.00 Collected Amounts . Collected Amounts Payment Type Amount I Payment Type Amount - Cash $75.00 00 $75 Cash . $75.00 I Total Received Less Total Recordings: $75.00 $75.00 I Total Received $75.00 Less Total Recordings: $75.00 Change Due $.00 Change Due ~$.00 Thank You MARIANNE DONOHUE - Register of Deeds I Thank You MARIANNE DONOHUE -Register of Deeds By: Marilyn H 1 By: Marilyn H ReceiptH Date Time 0026737 05/20/200310:22a " I ReceiptR Date Time 0026743 05/20/2003 10:36a Reprinted By:. Mari 1 yn H Reprinted On: 05/20/2003 10:22a Doc: 95MIM2 OR I6/01 Ofi110C199511.v OUITCLAIM D-EM i ~ i KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, Katharine M. Georgianna,`;of 10708 West Road, Williamsburg, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, being unmarried, for consideration of Two Hundred Forty.,Thousnnd,,and No/100 Dollars ($240,000.00) paid, grant to the City.,of.Northampton,- a Massachusetts imunicipal corporation, with a principal business address. of 210 Main Street, Northampton, Hampshire County, Xassachusetts, with quitclaim covenants, the land in Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusatts, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT-,A ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED FIEREIN. WITNESS our hands.and'seals this day of June, 1995. Katharine M. Geo a COMHONWEALTH'OF MASSACHUSETTS June /S, 1995 HAMPSHIRE, ss. _ Than personally appeared the above-named Katharine M. Georgianna, and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument free act and dead, before me, u s S odre , Notary. Public My Commission Expires: 1/2'3/01 - Doc. 550010292 OR AM5/n 46/1011.99511;17 EXHIBIT A The land in' the village of Florence, City of Northampton, ,Hampshire County, Massachusetts, in two parcels as shown on a plan of land entitled "Pl an of Land Northampton, Mass. Belonging to Emma M. Handfield" dated July 17, 1959, by Davis-Engineering Co., and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Plan Book 58, Pages 10 and 11, being bounded and described as follows: PARCEL I That certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon, being Parcel 1 on the a bove-referenced plan, situate at -the Northerly end of Verona Street in said Northampton (Florence), bounded and described as follows:, Beginning at an iron'pin on the said Northerly line of Verona Street at'. the Sou theasterly corner of Parcel 2 on said above-referenced plan of land, .the nce running N. 5' 57' 50" W. along the Easterly side of said Parcel 2, sixty- three and-24/100 (63.24) feet to an iron pin; thence turning and running. N. 77' 31' 20" W. ' along the Northerly side of said Parcel 2, one hundred and 00/100 (100.00) feet to an iron pin; . thence turning and running S. 12' 28'40" W. along the westerly side of said Parcel 2, sixty and oo/loo (60.00) feet to an iron pin at land formerly of Peter Aloisi; thence turning and running N. 77' 311. 20" W. along said land formerly of Peter Aloisi, three hundred six and 86/100 (306.86) feet to a concrete bound at land now or formerly of Anthony W. Patrick et ux.; thence turning and running N. 14' 15' 30" E. along said land now or formerly of Anthony W. Patrick et ux., land now or formerly of E.P. Jamieson, land now or formerly of L.C. Judge, land now or formerly of John D. Collins et ux., and land now or-.formerly of G.W.•Beaupre.et ux., three ' hundred fifteen and 00/100"(315:00) feet to an iron ' . pin at land.now.or formerly of Bartolo Aloisi; - thence turning.and running N. 84` 09' 15" E. along said land now or.formerly'of 'Bartclc Aloisi, five hundred fifty-three and 83/100 (553.83) feet to an iron:pin at other land now or formerly of Bartolo Aloisi; thence turning and running S. 00' 38' 10" E. along said cther land.now or formerly of Bartolo Aloisi, five hundred nine and 42/100 (509.42) feet ]fix: 9MM OR /4685/0093 06/20/M 11,11 N. 76' 12' 05" W. N. 76' 12' 05" W. N.1.13.,411 40" E. N...77' 31' 20" W. to an iron pin at land now or formerly 'of Geneva Boisvert; thence turning and running along said land now or formerly of Geneva Boisvert, ninety-four and 35/100 (94:35) feet to an iron pin at land now or formerly of William B. O'Connor,et ux.; thence continuing along said land now or formerly of William B. O'Connor et ux., one hundred ten and 00/10o (110.00) feet to an iron pin on the Easterly line of said Verona Street; thence turning and running along said Easterly line of Verona Street, two and 46/100 (2.46) feet to a stone bound on the said Northerly line of Verona Street; thence turning and running along said Northerly line of Verona street, twenty and 01/100 (20.01) feet to the iron pin at the place of beginning. Containing 5.40 acres, more or less. TOGETHER WITH and SUBJECT TO the "right of way described in a deed from Emma M. Handfield"to Rita Handfield, dated July 23, 1959, and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book 1306, Page 91. BEING the same premises conveyed to Daniel L. Georgianna and Katharine M. Georgianna by deed of William L. Burgart, dated July 27, 1972, and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book 1649, Paga 48. PARCEL II That certain parcel of land with a trailer thereon, located at the Northerly end of Verona street in said Northampton (Florence), and shown as Parcel 2 on the above-referenced plan, further bounded and described as follows! Beginning at an iron pin, located N. 77":_`d111 .20" W. a distance of twenty and 01/00 (20.01) feet from the stone bound which marks the Northeasterly corner of Verona Street, on the Northerly line of Verona Street; thence proceeding N. 77' 31' 20" W. a distance of,twenty, and 00/100 (20.00) feet to an iron pin which marks the Northwesterly corner of said Verona Street; thence proceeding in the same ,course, a distance of one hundred and 00/100 (100.00) feet, along land now or formerly of the Estate of Peter Aloisi to an iron.pin at land now ..or formerly of Emma M. Handfield; thence proceeding Doc, 45001.0297 OR /4685/00 4 06/2011995 11.0 N. 12' 28' 40" E. a distance of sixty and 00/100 (60.00) feet to an iron pin; thence prodeeding S. 77' 31' 20" E. a distance of one hundred and 00/100 (100.00) feet to an iron pin; thence proceeding S. 05. 571 50" E. a distance of sixty-three and 24/100 (63.24) feet to the iron pin at the point of beginning.' Theflast three courses are,along other land now or formerly of said Emma M. Handf ield . TOGETHER.with a right of way for passage by foot and by vehicle over that part of the now existing driveway which abuts the Easterly side of this parcel. BEING the same premises conveyed to Daniel L. Georgianna and Katharine M. Georgianna by deed of Edmund J. Butch, Administrator, dated February 2B, 1975, and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Book 1819, Page 15. PARCEL I and PARCEL 11 together being the same premises conveyed to Katharine M. Georgianna by deed of Daniel L. Georgianna, dated August 12, 1983, and recorded in the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds at Back 2377, Page 322. Property Owner Certification. (Former) Verona Street Landfill Property 39 Verona Street Northampton, MA RTN 1-00524 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(f), I, Mayor Mary Clare Higgins (City of Northampton) hereby certify as follows: 1) The City of Northampton owned the former Verona Street Landfill property located at 39 Verona Street in Northampton, Massachusetts at the time the Activity and Use Limitation was recorded at the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds on May , 2003. 2) The City of Northampton waives the 45-day notification conditions, 310 CMR 40.1074(1)(e), which require that record interest-holders (including without limitation, owners, lessees, tenants, mortgages, and holders of easements or licenses) be notified at least 45 days prior to recording the Notice.of Activity and Use Limitation. fi iI i~ . Signature t/-V" c Mayor Mary/( City of North: Date / J: \N\N228\PhaseIV\AUL-RAO\OWNER-CERTIF.DOC i Tiffg:'h e. &Bond Consulfin9 ' Engineers ' Environmental Sfiecialists May -2 2003 : lvls: 'Mary , Clare Higgins• Mayor J Northampton City. Halt, ; 210. MV in Street _ `Northarriptori; IvIA• 01060 • ' V Re: AUL and RAO Statement ' Verona ;Street Landfill 39 Verona Street; Northainptori;: Iv1A" 1;=0052 4 TN 4 ; Dearp'Mayor Higgins: - r - JIn.:accordarice ;with' tle, Public,. Notification Procedures of the. IvlassachiisettsCoritingency, Plan ('CP) .3 10-:-CMR.40•.1403_we `,are-'hereby; notifying, you: of .submittal .'.:Massacusetts°.' ' Department of .Environmental` Protection (DEP) .of anActivity,'and Use L rnitatiori `(AUL) and, • - .`Res oilse 'Action 'Outcome (RAO)' fox .ttie'aliove=referenced site.. A Release Tracking, Number` '0.0-52.'W as, former landfill. iri tApril 1989 for.. e release, Of'elevated. concentrations of metals Ito "site' so:1s.= `As.'yo r are aware,. a modified:landf 11.capping system:' was installed at'.th&-:s fe-=as part' of site' i n fca t iati on.; With the. iiriPlenentation;of-the'ADL to maintain:-a'condit on of No S g': reined. Risk; 'a. Class -.4-3 la applies to the •site -This Class A-3 depends 'upon' the kUL,'wM-'d" ` o don'.of "the; pro ertwhere: -limited y ;f oz ' a: p. p 'implemented < and wiL1 lie ~:maintained~ been ` . cbiitan"unatron reinai'ns: in% soil's- beneaLih, t landfill capping system:' The i'mplenientation;of the . , ATJL achieves a coed tionof No Si` m 16ant Risk o harm. to health.; `public .wel`fare,• safety, and ; the eriv%ro'nme U..:. The ,:L was.: recorded- with the- Haiiipshire' County Registry -of,'Deeds' on u IVIay '20;; 2'003; -'as 'required: 'by.thd:-..MCR- ' :.A copy of the -recorded AUL is: enclose'The' , attached egal notice is"to bpiiblished iii the Daily'h'ainpshire' Gazette:` -J - - 53 Southampton Road,' Westfield, MA 01085 Tel. '413-562-1600 Fax. 413-562:5317 . i-~ bfftces: Bellows Falls, VT, Middletown, CT, Norwalk, •CT,..and Worcester,-MA 0nginal panted on recycled paper Tigh'&B'dnd Consul* En ineers EnVZ7-Onmental.Sbecialists- I L_j , Or iginal punted on recycled paper. - NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION (Former) Verona Street Landfill 39 Verona Street Northampton, Massachusetts DEP Release Tracking Number: 1-00524 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.1070), a NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION on the above disposal site has been recorded and/or registered with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds on May 20, 2003. The NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION will limit the following site activities and uses on the restricted area of the above property: • Activities that will promote erosion or excessive/differential settlement of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area; L • Any planting of vegetation that will compromise the integrity of the modified j landfill capping system via root infiltration within the AUL area; • Any construction or use of subsurface wastewater disposal systems or underground injection wells within, below, or adjacent to the AUL area; and • Any other activity that will adversely affect the integrity or functionality of the modified landfill capping system within the AUL area. J Any person interested in obtaining additional information or reviewing the NOTICE OF ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATION and the disposal site file may contact Evan I~ Johnson, P.E., LSP of Tighe & Bond, 53 Southampton Road, Westfield, Massachusetts at (413) 572-3254. [1 r-~ i~ i J 1 ~ IJ J LJ f-' r~ U f ~J r~ I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT & Release Tracking Number DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM I _ 00524 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180 (Subpart B), 40.0580 (Subpart E) & 40.1056 (Subpart J) A. SITE OR DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY LOCATION: Site Name: (optional) Verona Street Landfill Street: 3 9 Verona Street Location Aid: City/Town: Northampton ZIP Code: 01060 ❑ Check here if this Site location is Tier Classified. If a Tier I Permit has been issued, state the Permit Number: Related Release Tracking Numbers that this Form Addresses: If submitting an RAO Statement, you must document the location of the Site or the location and boundaries of the Disposal Site subject to this Statement. If submitting an RAO Statement for a PORTION of a Disposal Site, you must document the location and boundaries for both the portion subject to this submittal and, to the extent defined, the entire Disposal Site. If submitting a Downgradient Property Status Submittal, you must Provide a site plan of the property subject to the submittal and, to the extent defined, the Disposal Site. B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check all that apply) ❑V Submit a Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement (complete Sections A, B, C, D, E, F, H. I, J and L). ❑ Check here if this is a revised RAO Statement. Date of Prior Submittal: ❑ Check here if any Response Actions remain to betaken to address conditions associated with any of the Releases whose Release Tracking Numbers are listed above. This RAO Statement will record only an RAO-Partial Statement for those Release Tracking Numbers. S pecify Affected Release Tracking Numbers: ❑ Submit an optional Phase 1 Completion Statement supporting an RAO Statement or Downgradient Property Status Submittal (complete Sections A, B, H, I, J, and L). ❑ Submit a Downgradient Property Status Submittal (complete Sections A, B, G, H, I, J and K). ❑ Check here if this is a revised Downgradient Property Status Submittal. Date of Prior Submittal: ❑ Submit a Termination of a Downgradient Property Status Submittal (complete Sections A, B, I, J and L). ❑ Submit a Periodic Review Opinion evaluating the status of a Temporary Solution (complete Sections A, B, H, I, J and L). Specify one: ❑ For a Class C RAO ❑ For a Waiver Completion Statement indicating a Temporary Solution Provide Submittal Date of RAO Statement or Waiver Completion Statement: You must attach all supporting documentation required for each use of form indicated, including copies of any Legal Notices and Notices to Public Officials required by 310 CMR 40.1460. C. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (check all that apply) ❑ Assessment and/or Monitoring Only ❑ Deployment of Absorbent or Contaminant Materials ❑ Removal of Contaminated Soils Q Temporary Covers or Caps ❑ Re-use, Recycling or Treatment ❑ Bioremediation O On Site O Off Site Est. Vol.: cubic yards ❑ Soil Vapor Extraction Describe: ❑ Structure venting system ❑ Landfill O Cover O Disposal Est. Vol.: cubic yards ❑ Product or NAPL Recovery ❑ Removal of Drums,Tanks or Containers ❑ Groundwater Treatment Systems Describe: ❑ Air Sparging ❑ Removal of Other Contaminated Media ❑ Temporary Water Supplies Specify Type and Volume: ❑ Temporary Evacuation or Relocation of Residents ❑ Other Response Actions ❑ . Fencing and Sign Posting Describe: SECTION C IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE. Revised 417/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010 (in part) Page 1 of4 Do Not Alter This Form I 7 '.J I i n r1 r-~ i I -J u IJ I~ I ~l Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT & Release Tracking Number W DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM _ 00524 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180 (Subpart B), 40.0580 (Subpart E) & 40.1056 (Subpart J) C. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (continued) Check here if any Response Action(s) that serve as the basis for this RAO Statement involve the use of Innovative Technologies. (DEP is interested in using this information to create an Innovative Technologies Clearinghouse.) Describe Technologies: D. TRANSPORT OF REMEDIATION WASTE: (if Remediation Waste was sent to an off-site facility, answer the following questions) Name of Facility: Town and State: Quantity of Remediation Waste Transported to Date: E. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME CLASS: Specify the Class of Response Action Outcome that applies to the Site or Disposal Site. Select ONLY one Class: 0 Class A-1 RAO: Specify one of the following: 0 Contamination has been reduced to background levels. 0 A Threat of Release has been eliminated. Class A-2 RAO: You MUST provide justification that reducing contamination to background levels is infeasible. Class A-3 RAO: You MUST provide both an implemented Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) and justification that reducing contamination to background levels is infeasible. If applicable, provide the earlier of the AUL expiration date or date the design life of the remedy will end: ❑ Class B-1 RAO: Specify one of the following: 0 Contamination is consistent with background levels 0 Contamination is NOT consistent with background levels. Class B-2 RAO: You MUST provide. an implemented AUL. If applicable, provide the AUL expiration date : ❑ Class C RAO: ❑ Check here I you will conduct post-RAO Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring at the Site. Specify One: 0 Passive Operation and Maintenance 0 Monitoring Only 0 Active Operation and Maintenance (defined at 310 CMR 40.0006) F. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME INFORMATION: ❑ If an RAO Compliance Fee is required, check here to certify that the fee has been submitted. You MUST attach a photocopy of the payment. Check here If submitting one or more AULs. You must attach an AUL Transmittal Form (BWSC-113) and a copy of each implemented AUL related to this RAO Statement. Specify the type of AUL(s) below: (required for all Class A-3 RAOs and Class B-2 RAOs) Q Notice of Activity and Use Limitation . 0 Grant of Environmental Restriction Number of AULs attached: one (1) Specify the Risk Characterization Method(s) used to achieve the RAO described above and all Soil and Groundwater Categories applicable to the Site. More than one Soil Category and more than one Groundwater Category may apply at a Site. Be sure to check off all APPLICABLE categories, even if more stringent soil and groundwater standards were met. Risk Characterization Method(s) Used: Method 1 Method 2 ® Method 3 Soil Category(ies) Applicable: © S-1 S-2 Q✓ S-3 Groundwater Category(ies) Applicable: GWA GW-2 ✓Q GW-3 > When submitting any Class A-1 RAO or a Class B-1 RAO where contamination is consistent with background levels, do NOT specify a Risk Characterization Method. > When submitting any Class A-2 RAO or a Class B-1 RAO where contamination is NOT consistent with background levels, you cannot use an AUL to maintain a level of no significant risk. Therefore, you must meet S-1 Soil Standards, if using Risk Characterization Method 1. Revised 4/7/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010 (in part) Do Not Alter This Form Page 2 of 4 r- --I i 77 ~I .1 r I. f=~ LJ J r-~ ~J LJ I_J !_J ~t Lil r-~ I J Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT & Release Tracking Number DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM ❑ _ 00524 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180 (Subpart B), 40.0580 (Subpart E) &40.1056 (Subpart J) G. DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS SUBMITTAL: ❑ If a Downgradient Property Status Submittal Compliance Fee is required, check here to certify that the fee has been submitted. You MUST attach a photocopy of the payment. ❑ Check here if a Release(s) of Oil or Hazardous Material(s), other than that which is the subject of this submittal, has occurred at this property. Release Tracking Number(s): O Check here if the Releases identified above require further Response Actions pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000. Required documentation for a Downgradient Property Status Submittal includes, but is not limited to, copies of notices provided to owners and operators of both upgradient and downgradient abutting properties and of any known or suspected source properties. H. LSP OPINION: I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with this transmittal form, including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of (i) the standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1), (ii) the applicable provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2) and (3), and (iii) the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(5), to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, > if Section B indicates that a Downgradfent Property Status Submittal is being provided, the response action(s) that is (are) the subject of this submittal (i) has (have) been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000, (ii) is (are) appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s) as set forth in 310 CMR 40.0183(2)(b), and (iii) complies(y) with the identified provisions of all orders, permits, and approvals identified in this submittal; > If Section 8 indicates that either an RAO Statement, Phase I Completion Statement andlor Periodic Review Opinion is being provided, the response action(s) that is (are) the subject of this submittal (1) has (have) been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000, (ii) is (are) appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s) as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L. c. 21E and 310 CMR 40.0000, and (iii) complies(y) with the identified provisions of all orders, permits, and approvals identified in this submittal. I am aware that significant penalties may result, including, but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment, if I submit information which I know to be false, inaccurate or materially incomplete. ❑ . Check here if the Response Action(s) on which this opinion is based, if any, are (were) subject to any order(s), permit(s) and/or approval(s) issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked, you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable reof. OF hfLSP Name: Evan T. Johnson LSP 6135 Stam AS~gcy Telephone:- 413-562-1600 E 4 EVAN G T. m FAX: (optional) 413 - 562-5317 o JOHN-SON No. 6136 Si nature: O Q Date: 2-a ZC)r1 ~~sFO C ; T E I SITE PRA 1. PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: Name of Organization: City of Northam ton Name of Contact: Mary Clare Higgins Title: Mayor Street: 210 Main Street City/Town: Northampton State: MA ZIP Code: 01060 Telephone: 413-586-6 950 Ext.: FAX: (optional) J. RELATIONSHIP TO SITE OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: (check one) © RP or PRP Specify: ® Owner Q Operator Q Generator Q Transporter Other RP or PRP: ❑ Fiduciary, Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status (as defined by M.G.L. c. 21E, s. 2) ❑ Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way (as defined by M.G.L. c. 21E, s. 50)) ❑ Any Other Person Submitting This Form Specify Relationship: Revised 417/95 i i Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010 (in part) Do Not Alter This Form Page 3 of 4 I' J I n I I L-_J r~ I~ ~J `J ! i! u r~ i I ~I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT & Release Tracking Number DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM _ aos24 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180 (Subpart B), 40.0580 (Subpart E) & 40.1056 (Subpart J) K. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON SUBMITTING DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS SUBMITTAL: I, , attest under the pains and penalties of perjury (i) that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this submittal, including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form; (ii) that, based on my inquiry of the/those individual(s) immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material information contained herein is, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, true, accurate and complete; (iii) that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I/the person(s) or entity(ies) on whose behalf this submittal is made satisfy(ies) the criteria in 310 .CMR 40.0183(2); (iv) that I/the person(s) or entity(ies) on whose behalf this submittal is made have provided notice in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0183(5); and (v) that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the person(s) or entity(ies) legally responsible for this submittal. [/the person(s) or entity(ies) on whose behalf this submittal is made is/are aware that there are significant penalties, including, but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment, for willfully submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete information. gy; Title: (signature) For: Date: (print name of person or entity recorded in Section 1) Enter address of the person providing certification, if different from address recorded in Section 1: Street: City/Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone: Ext.: FAX: (optional) L. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: If you are completing only a Downgradient Property Status Submittal, you do not need to complete this section of the form. Mary Clare Higgins attest under the pains and penalties of perjury (i) that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this submittal, including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form, (ii) that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material information contained in this submittal is, to the best of my knowledge and lief, true, acc rat and comp ate, and (iii) that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally responsible for this submitta . th p son or d whos b half~this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significant penalties, including, but not limited to, possible fin n i r' rim n o 1 fully u mitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete information. By: Title: Mayor (sig: Mo o For: City f Northampton Date: (print name of person or entity recorded in Section 1) Enter address of the person providing certification, if different from address recorded in Section I: Street: City/Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone: Ext.: FAX: (optional) YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM, YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING A REQUIRED DEADLINE, AND YOU MAY INCUR ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE FEES. Revised 4/7/95 ~I I I L-J Supersedes forms dWSC:-UU4 and Ulu (In part) Do Not Alter This Form Page4 of4 i j I r~ i i I I _I j~ In l_J i L J .D I i ~ ~J I _l LJ L r-' I J I~ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-113 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Release Tracking Number ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION (AUL) TRANSMITTAL FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056 and 40.1070 - 40.1084 (Subpart J) 0 0524 A. LOCATION OF DISPOSAL SITE AND PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AUL: Disposal Site Name: Verona Street Landfill Street: 39 Verona Street Location City/Town: Northampton ZIP Code: 01060 Address of property subject to AUL, if different than above. Street: City/Town: ZIP Code: Check here if this Disposal Site is Tier Classified. If the Disposal Site subject to the AUL is also subject to a Tier I Permit, provide the Permit Number: Related Release Tracking Numbers affected by this AUL: B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check one) Submit a certified copy of a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1074 (complete all sections of this form). Submit a certified copy of an Amended Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1081(4) (complete all sections of this form). ❑ Submit a certified copy of a Termination of a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1083(3) (complete all sections of this form). Submit a certified copy of a Grant of Environmental Restriction, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1071, (complete all sections of this form). Submit a certified copy of an Amendment of Environmental Restriction, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1081(3) (complete all sections of this form). ❑ Submit a certified copy of a Release of Environmental Restriction, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1083(2) (complete all sections of this form). You must attach all supporting documentation for the use of form indicated, including copies of any Legal Notices and Notices to Public Officials required by 310 CMR 40.1400. C. AUL INFORMATION: Date AUL was recorded and/or registered with Registry of Deeds and/or Land Registration Office: May 20, 2003 Name of Registry of Deeds and/or Land Registration Office where AUL'was recorded and/or registered: Hampshire County Book and Page Number and/or Document Number of recorded and/or registered AUL: Book 72 05 /Page 166 D. PERSON SUBMITTING AUL TRANSMITTAL FORM: Name of Organization: Cit of Northampton Name of Contact: Marv Clare Hi aai n s Title: Mayor Street: 210 Main Street City/Town: Northampton State: MA ZIP Code: 01060 Telephone 413-586-6950 Ext.: FAX: (optional) E. OWNER OF PROPERTY. IF NOT PERSON SUBMITTING AUL TRANSMITTAL FORM: Provide a mailing address for the owner of the property if that person is not submitting the AUL Transmittal Form. Provide addresses for additional owners on an attachment. Name of Organization: Name of Contact: Title: Street: City/Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone Ext.: FAX: (optional) J Revised 5/8/95 Do Not Alter This Form Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-113 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Release Tracking Number ACTIVITY & USE LIMITATION (AUL) TRANSMITTAL FORM Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056 and 40.1070 -40.1084 (Subpart J) E - 00524 F. RELATIONSHIP TO DISPOSAL SITE OF PERSON SUBMITTING AUL TRANSMITTAL FORM: (check one) RP or PRP Specify: J0 Owner O Operator O Generator O Transporter Other RP or PRP: Fiduciary, Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status (as defined by M.G.L. c. 21E, s. 2) Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way (as defined by M.G.L. c. 21E, s. 5Q)) ❑ Any Other Person Submitting AUL Specify Relationship: G. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON SUBMITTING AUL TRANSMITTAL FORM: 1. Marv l r Hi aai nG attest under the pains and penalties of perjury (i) that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this submittal, including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form, (ii) that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material information contained in this submittal is, to he best of my kn wledge and belief, true, accurate and complete, and (iii) that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the a ti ' legally res sihie for this bmittal. I/the person or entity on whose behalf this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significan 9 na i , il5c udi ! t/ of limit d o, possible fines and imprisonment, for willfully submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete By: Title: Mayor (signature) For: C4 Y of Northamp, 7 l 5 Date: (print name of person or entity recorded in Section D) Enter address of person providing certification, if different from address recorded in Section Street: City/Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone Ext.: FAX: (optional) YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM, YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING A REQUIRED DEADLINE. AND YOU MAY INCUR ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE FEES. `J Revised 5/8/95 Do Not Alter This Form Page 2 of 2