.\. 1

~6£ if. ~~if6~~ 0~'lf'IJ~~ ~'lf'U'~J@~

Daniel S. Greenbaum 6k 1PVUu- J'b'ab. ~~0.2100'Commissioner

James C. Colman Assistant Commissioner

Leslie McVickar, Remedial Project Manager u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Division (HEC-CAN6) JFK Federal Building Boston, MA 02203-1122

Dear Ms. McVickar,

September 13, 1991

RE: State ARARs ­Clarification Letter Silresim, #3-0352

This letter clarifies our letter to you of August 19,1991 which identified the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the Proposed Plan at the Silresim site. As a result of our last week meeting with you, Maggie Leshen and Ruthann Sherman, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed and considered your comments and those ARARs discussed and has decided the following:

LOCATION-SPECIFIC

1. 310 CMR 10.00: applicable, especially 310 CMR 10.51 to 10.60. Work may occur within the buffer zone thus providing wetlands jurisdiction. Although no alteration of a resource area is anticipated, that does not effect the legal applicability of the standard. Work within the buffer zone requires. 11se of erosio.n and sedi~entation controls designed to avoid or minimize any · alteration of the resource area.

2. 990 CMR 1.00: relevant and appropriate. 990 CMR 5.04 provides substantive requirements for the siting of hazardous waste facilities.

CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC

1. 310 CMR 6.00: relevant and appropriate. These requirements set ambient air standards that must not be exceeded.

])(I) 01-4 ::J:r I-ll) Zl"'l 1-4(1) (I)H -43: l) 1>0 -4:1: 1-41"11 <:I 1"111-4

0 l)]) l"'lr 0 00 l:JO Ol:J

1J

Oriainal Printed on Recycled Paper

I I

~ I I

Page 2 ARARs

2. 310 CMR 7.00: 7.01, 7.02 (2) (a)2 are applicable to sources emitting over one ton. Emission sources shall not contribute to conditions of air pollution including violations of Ambient Air Levels (AALs). This requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) on emission sources in non-attainment areas. - 310 CMR 7.06, 7.09, and 7.10 are all applicable to all

sources. - 310 CMR 7.18 (VOC emission controls) applies to sources over

100 tons per year.

3. 310 CMR 8.00: relevant and appropriate. 310 CMR 8.07 lists sources that are required to take certain actions in air pollution episodes. It would require a plan in the event of an episode.

ACTIOB-SPBCIPIC

Hazardous Waste Regulations

1. 310 CMR 30.310, 30.320, and 30.402: these are not ARARs in that they are off-site requirements that must be met at the time of remedial implementation.

2. 310 CMR 30.500 and 310 CMR 30.561: relevant and appropriate. In accordance with EPA's 1988 CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual, the consolidation of general soil contamination to improve their stability followed by replacement in the same area is not considered treatment to which RCRA facility requirements would apply, howe~ ·they are relevant and appropriate to this action.

3. 310 CMR 580: relevant and appropriate.

4. 310 CMR 30.590: relevant and appropriate.

5. 310 CMR 30.610: this is not an ARAR since no surface impoundments are contemplated. · .

6. 310 CMR 30.620 through 310 CMR 30.633: relevant and appropriate. In accordance with CERCLA guidance, the consolidation of general soil contamination into one hazardous waste unit does not trigger full RCRA requirements. However, EPA needs to justify why the liner requirement is not relevant and appropriate to this action.

7. 310 CMR 30.640: relevant and appropriate.

8. 310 CMR 30.650: this is not an ARAR since no land treatment unit is contemplated.

9. 310 CMR 30.660: relevant and appropriate.

])(f) 01-4 ::~:r 1-4::0 ZITI 1-4(/)(/)1-4-t3: ::0 l>O -t::t HI'TI <3: I'TII-4

0 ::Ol> mr 0 00 ::00 0::0

"0

-----~ ..

,--........ Page 3 ARARs

10. 310 CMR 30.680 and 310 CMR 30.690: applicable. CERCLA guidance finds that post-1980 storage of RCRA wastes triggers RCRA storage requirements. Waste will be stored prior to and during processing. Containers and tanks should meet RCRA requirements while the waste is being stor~1 and processed.

Water Pollution Control Regulations

1. 314 CMR 4.06(2) and 314 CMR 4.04: applicable. They set anti ­degradation requirements for the brook.

2. 314 CMR 7.00: this is not an ARAR. This is an off-site requirement. However, a permit from the POTW will be required in any instance.

3. 314 CMR 9.00: applicable. This regulation applies to any potential impacts to the Brook, ie: such as the installation of an outfall, even though the EPA does not anticipate that any dredging will be required.

4. 314 CMR 12.00: applicable. These regulations apply to the operation of pretreatment works such as those contemplated at the site.

Air Quality Control regulations

Policy I PEP-91-002, to be considered. The emission of air contaminants and the remedial response actions resulting in the emissions of air contaminants may be subject to review pursuant to 310 CMR 40.00 (MCP). This policy provides guidance in regard to emissions of less than one ton per year of air contaminants. The Department intends to issue this guidance in the very near future therefore a copy of this policy will be provided under a separate cover.

Right to Know Regulations

105 CMR 670.00, 310 CMR 33.00 and 441 CMR 21.00: relevant and appropriate. The Department does not enforce 310 CMR 33.00. These regulations, as a set, regulate disclosure of information regarding hazardous materials to DEP and workers.

Other comments Raised at the Meeting

1. The Record of Decision must discuss meeting all off-site standards at the time of implementation since we do not list those off-site standards today. The Department is in agreement that we would not want to limit off-site actions to today•s standards for actions taken tomorrow.

l H/1Ot-t ::lr 1-1::0 ZITI1-1(/) (/Il-l -4::1 :;o ~("') -4J: 1-11'11 <::l1'111-1

("') :;o~ I'Tir ("') 00 ::00 0::0

"0

Page 4 ARARs

2. State comments on the Feasibility Study regarding NPDES permits does not require any action on your part. It was information we thought would be useful to you.

3. The State comment noting the use of water sprays and dust suppressants being applicable to particulate emissions, not volatile emissions was in the fourth full paragraph on page 189 of the FS-4.

4. The State's first comment on the Proposed Plan regarding emissions testing: It is appropriate to describe measures that will be taken to protect public health from VOC emissions during remediation. There is no mention in the proposed plan or the FS that these emissions are going to be monitored even though ARARs require monitoring. Please comment in the ROD.

COHCLUSXOH

Although it appears that the Department can concur with the Record of Decision (ROD) as written, the Department strongly recommends that the EPA consider uvjoxidation rather than air stripping. As in other superfund remedies, air stripping could be identified as the back up technology. We feel this would add flexibility to the ROD.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 292-5819.

Sincerely,

:~twJA.t Helen WaldcJ'f Section Chief

cc: Steve P. Winslow, OGC Donald Nagle, OGC Madeline Snow, Division Director John Fitzgerald, NERO Evelyn Tapani, Project Manager Maggie Leshen, EPA Ruthann Sherman, EPA Charles Lindberg, GZA Jim Rogers, Silresim Trust

]>(/) 01-4 3r ·~ :0ZITI 1-4(/) (/)1-4 -43 :0 l>O -4J: HJTI <3 JTIH

n :Ol> JTir n on :00 0:0,