Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFitzgerald - Consulting Engineer - ?/?/??Report to Hatheway & Patterson Inc. Assessment of Current Groundwater Conditions of the Rumford River and Recommendations for Immediate and Long Term Solutions. Prepared by M.A. Fitzgerald Consulting Engineer Franklin, MA 02038 PI IPpnCF r This report will review the hydrocarbon contamination of soils and groundwater at the Rumford River as it crosses under the Penn. Central Railroad bridge in Mansfield, Massachusetts. This report will investigate past actions taken to contain the contamination and recommendations for further actions to be taken. This report has been prepared at the request and expense of the Hathaway & Patterson Co. Inc., 15 County Street Mansfield, Massachusetts and is intended for internal use only. HISTORICAL ASPECTS The history of Hatheway and Patterson as applies to is Mansfield operations is as follows; Incorporated January 3, 1927 Relocated at 15 County St., Mansfield Circa 1952 Commencement of Non -pressure creosoting operations 1953 Commencement of Pressure wood preserving operations 1958 Commencement of close cycle waste treatment operation 1972 Commencement of Kiln Drying operations 1977 Termination of Petroleum solvent treating operation 1981 In November 1972, Town of Mansfield officials requested that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) inspect an apparent oily seepage from the banks of the Rumford River at Location "A" t (see Figure 1). At that time, the DEQE requested and obtained samples of oil products used at Hathaway & Patterson (H & P) because of the proximity of the H & P operation. H & P was informed that DEQE wished to have reasonable evidence of the source of the seepage before a cleanup operation was commenced. For that purpose H & P also furnished DEQE with analytical procedures for measuring chemicals used as wood preservative by H & P. In December 1972, DEQE advised H & P to begin operations to contain the oily seepage within 24 hours of notification. H & P contracted with Coastal Services, Inc. to provide and install deepwater booms, and sorbent at Location "A" and two locations downstream. During the ensuing months these further actions were taken: Test wells were established A collection pit at Location "A1" was installed A collection trench at Location "A2" was installed Maintenance of booms and sorbents and removal of substantial amounts of oily groundwater from collectors by an industrial waste disposal firm were daily continous operations. Subsequently, temporary electrical power and piping were supplied to the site to commence pumping. Oily groundwater was pumped back to H & P property and into the existing wastewater treatment facilities, where oils were separated and reused. Groundwater was thermally evaporated. Continuous pumping operations were conducted through most of 1973. In addition the downstream booms were moved to Locations "B1" and 19211, where they proved more effective. By the summer of 1973, seepage had essentially ceased at Location "A", but in November 1973, a new outbreak of seepage occurred at Location "AY. A plywood bulkhead was constructed at that location resulting in very effective trapping of oil along the riverbank. The oil was removed by sorbents on a continuous basis. In September 1974, an "L shaped" non -permeable barrier was installed as designated at 11B3" with four recovery pits. During construction of this barrier, virtually no oils were seen in the groundwater beyond 19211. By 1975, the amount of oils recovered declined, and by 1976 only trace amounts were recovered. Pumping operations were ceased and the small amounts t recovered were returned to the H & P wastewater treatment facilities in hand carried buckets. Additional problems were encountered because of frequent vandalism to the recovery equipment and malicious dumping of drums containing the recovered oils. From 1977 to 1981, frequent monitoring of the area was deemed the only required action. In mid November 1981 a minor surge in activity was observed by the H & P personnel during routine monitoring. Environmental officials were notified of the situation, that it was being closely monitored, and was under control. No official response was made. However, in December 1981, a third party, in the process of performing percolation tests in anticipation of purchasing the land upon which the site is located, reported oily soils and/or oily groundwater to officials who were apparently unaware of the prior existence of the situation or the specific notification given in November. ASSESMENT OF CURRENT CONTAMINATION In order to assess the impact of the recent discovery of oily groundwater in percolation test pits, a survey of past quantities of recovered oil was conducted. The following data is approximate but can be considered to be indicative of the trend of recoverable oil quantities. Data furnished by H & P personnel, based on various measurement methods. Date/Time Interval Location Amount Jan. 1972 Pit 2000 gals March 1972 - June 1972 Trench 300 gals Nov. 1973 - Jan. 1977 Bulkhead 200 gals 1974 - 1976 Barrier 10 gals 1976 - 1977 Bulkhead 30 gals 1978 - Oct. 1981 All Locations 0 gals Dec. 1981 Bulkhead 3 gals Jan. 1982 Bulkhead 0.5 gals. Results are as follows: Location T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 Chloride Equivalent No oil found 2.73% Background Background Background Background In this test procedure, error can be introduced by any migratory chloride compounds, (such as NaCl roadsalt) but in all but the obvious case, results were below threshold. Since the sampling technique was not reported, it is impossible to use these samples to estimate the volumes of recoverable oil at any location. Clearly a greater sample volume of the contaminant needs to be recovered before additional work can be performed to determine the quantity and nature of the hydrocarbon solvents. Obviously, the greatest portion of contamination was removed at the beginning of the project and with the exception of the 1981 minor resurgence, the trend has been towards ever decreasing quantities of oily seepage. Interviews with H & P personnel involved with the recovery operation indicate a periodic recurrence of the problem generally occurring concurrently with periods of increased precipitation. ANLAYSIS OF SAMPLES Several samples of oily groundwater were obtained from the Briggs Engineering Company of Norwell Mass, which represented a third party performing investigations. The locations of samples taken are at locations "T-1 through T-611. Only the sample from "T-2" had sufficient free oil to do extensive study of the oily components. However, since this location is adjacent to the previous recovery operation it can be assumed to be essentially related to the prior oil contamination. In the limited time available we have been able only to analyze for chlorinated hydrocarbons which would be be presumed to have come from wood preserving operations at H & P. The analytic method used was the standard method for determination of the chloride equivalent of pent chlorophenol, known as the line ignition method. The background sensitivity of the procedure is appoximately .01% by weight. Analysis was performed at H & PIS testing laboratory with correlation from the laboratory of the Forshaw Chemicals Co., Charlotte, N.C., a major supplier of such chemicals. EXISTING SITE The area of the oil seepage is generally comprised of fill material. This fill material appears to be somewhat consistent in its composition, however, excavated material did indicate a mixture of coal cinders. Field inspection of the soil indicated that the fill material did contain a fair amount of sandy silt. As the existing subsurface is primarily a gravelly fill soil, permeability through the area is relatively high. If the gravel has been placed over an in -situ material that is less pervious, the groundwater table will experience extreme changes in depth throughout the year. Also since the gravel does appear to contain substantial amounts of sandy silts, capillary action will further decrease the depth of the table from the surface. It is possible that this extreme range of groundwater table depth is leaching oils that had previously been absorbed by the sandy silts and coal cinders. At the location of the railroad bridge, the Rumford River drastically changes its level due to the scouring pad installed during construction of the Penn Central railroad bridge. This difference in elevation is approximately four to five feet. Such a difference in river level will result in upset groundwater conditions due to increased hydraulic gradients. This condition will make prediction and actual determination of groundwater flow somewhat difficult in the questioned area. It was noticed that a dump, containing a number of drums, exists on the southeast side of the property, possibly contributing to the condition at the Rumford River. At this location a drainage outflow header also exists. At this time the origin of this drainage line is not known but it appears to be typical of highway drainage. It was also noticed that an underpass does exist approximately 1500' from this outfall. A review of existing Hatheway & Patterson facilities indicates extraordinary means have been employed in recent years to ensure no escape of oily contaminents into the groundwater supply. There also are significant amounts of surface oily contamination at the railroad tracks presumably due to normal locomotive use RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made for action to be undertaken immediately so that assessment of the contamination may be initiated and further seepage contained: 1. Continue daily monitoring and recovery of oily substances at existing trap locations. 2. Deed restict the site against construction of potable water wells or irrigation. 3. Clean up dump site on the southeast side and check for possible l contaminant source. �. 4. Further investigation of the drainage header and/or installation of an oil trap. 5. Investigation of the use of bacterial agents to breakdown the oil. The following are recommended actions to be taken as soon as weather permits: I. The installation of a permanent observation pit to determine the extent of the contamination and relative amounts. Location to be determined. 2. Based on the results of the above action, the installation of Pumping/recharging stations. Such an operation will establish a closed loop seepage path, further increasing the rate of removal of any remaining oily contamination by the flowing groundwater. This action should be undertaken such that it is protected from vandalism and is easily accessable for servicing. 3. Investigation into the feasbility of installing a groundwater intercept trench if the above recommendation does not remove the recoverable oil. ✓ > In the opinion of this engineer, Hatheway & Patterson Inc., has the capabilities, facilities, and management techniques to initiate compliance wth the above recommendations. X Pa Pv L a QIy� x %TZ„ xT3� a� a� �F t x L �EcovER`( c�c.) FiT F\6U2E 1 s,TE PLar l RuMFORD RWE12