OOOR86107
ROD ANNUAL REPORT
FY f85
v-xEPA
JUNE 19S6
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
THE ROD ANNUAL REPORT FOR FY'85
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Record of Decision (ROD) process was very successful in
FY'85. A total of 64 RODs, three Enforcement Decision
Documents (EDDs) and one Negotiation Decision Document (NDD)
were approved; 52 of the 64 first operable unit RODs targeted
for the year were signed by September 30. This was also the
first year that ROD approval authority was delegated to the
Regional Administrators (RAs). Regionally approved RODs
comprised 88.1% of all signed RODs, which exceeded the 60%
target. Exhibit 1 shows the dramatic increase in RODs over the
past few years.
Tne FY'85 RODS addressee a wide variety of technical
problems including area-wide ground water contamination and
compliance witn otner environmental laws. CERCba compliance
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations continued to oe an important issue. Two major RCRA
breakthroughs, concerning CEKCLA compliance, occurred during
FY'85. Tne first involved consolidating contaminants that have
migrated offsite. These contaminants can be consolidated
onsite without the CE'RCLA program being considered a
generator. Tne second concerned cleanup levels above
background. Tnis has been determined to be consistent with
RCRA if the site-specific exposure analysis shows that remnant
contamination aoove background levels would not be harmful to
public health and the environment. Exhibit 2 provides a
statistical analysis of key FY'85 ROD items concerning final
remedies, capping and alternative technologies.
ROD information and data was widely distributed in FY'85.
The first issue of the Superfund ROD Update was distributed at
tne ROD annual workshop in April. The Update was designed as a
means to share information and identify Regional contacts for
eacn ROD. In addition, full text RODs were made available to
the public through the National Technical Information Service
and the Environmental Law Institute.
As another means to ensure information and technology
transfer, the ROD Annual Report has been designed to provide
the Regions and Headquarters with summary data on FY'85 RODs.
This report consists or the following sections:
Executive Summary of the report highlighting FY'85
accomplishments.
-------
I
pa
h-1
I
X
w
CC
<
Ul
>
_l
<
o
DC
UJ
0.
CO
Q
O
cc
Q
UJ
z
O
(7)
cc
LU
m
S
=>
z
CO
t
CO
S
cc
<
LU
<
U
00
>
LL.
O
CO
O
(O
O
CNJ
SQOd Q3NOIS JO d39lMnN 1V1O1
0)
E
o
O
Q
c
g
"w
'o
CD
C
o
I
o
O)
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INDEX OF APPROVED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
REMEDY CATEGORIZATION AND ANALYSIS
The following analyses were generated from the Index of
Approved Remedial Actions, which details the selected remedies
for 66 approved FY '85 RODs/EDDs. The criteria used to define the
analyses are indicated by the dot points below each category.
TOTAL NUMBER OF FY'85 SIGNED RODs/EDDs USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS - 66*
Number of Sites % of
Title of Analysis Meeting Criteria Total
FY'85 RODs/EDDs addressing Ground Water 23 34.8%
Any site whose remedy includes ground
water treatment, either onsite or offsite
Any site whose remedy includes construction
of air stripping or other facilities for
treating contaminated ground water
Installation of ground water monitoring
wells, or any form of pumping or monitoring
without treatment was not included
Treatment rf contaminated wells was not
included
FY'85 RODs/EDDs with Offsite Disposal 36 54.5%
Any site w^ose remedy includes offsite
disposal . wastes, including, but not limited
to the foil ng materials: soil, sludges,
construction debris, contaminated ground or
surface water, and tanks and drums
FY'85 RODs/EDDs using Alternative Technologies 11 16.7%
Any site whose remedy involves incineration,
chemical stabilization, chemical neutralization,
biological treatment, biological degradation,
or soil flushing with chemically treated solutions
FY'85 RODs/EDDs selecting the No-Action Alternative 3 4.5%
Any site whose selected remedy is No-Action
* The Crystal Chemical, TX ROD was not included in this analysis. The
ROD is an Enforcement Confidential Negotiation Decision Document (NDD),
thus the remedy for this site has not been finalized. In addition,
the Westinghouse Sites, IN EDD was not included in this analysis.
-------
EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)
Number of Sites % of
Title of Analysis Meeting Criteria Total
FY'85 RODs/FDDs with Final Remedies 20 30.3%
Any site with 'No further action1 appearing
in the "Media to be Addressed or Subsequent
Remedial Actions" column of the Index
FY'85 RODs/EDDs with Alternate Water Supplies 10 15.2%
Any site whose remedy addresses the following:
Extending an existing water supply system
- Installing a permanent alternate water
supply system or "provision for" a
permanent water supply system
- Installation of new wells to supply
public water needs
- Replacement and/or relocation of
existing water supply
FY'85 RODs/EDDs with Onsite Landfilling 4 6.1%
Any site whose remedy includes the specific
construction of an onsite waste containment
facility or disposal cell to contain wastes
generated on- or offsite
Any site whose remedy involves construction
of a cap or slurry wall, or onsite containment
of waste without the specific construction
of a containment cell was not included
FY'85 RODs/EDDs with Temporary or Permanent 1 1.5%
Relocation of Residents
Any site whose remedy includes the temporary
or permanent relocation of residents
FY'85 RODs/EDDs with Capping 24 36.4%
Any site whose remedy includes the
construction of a synthetic, soil or clay
cap
Any site whose remedy includes filling areas
with clean soil, covering areas with clean
soil, or grading and revegetating excavated
areas was included
-------
EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)
Number of Sites % of
Title of Analysis Meeting Criteria Total
Future RODs/EDDs to address Ground Water 24 36.4%
Sites where ground water appeared in the
"Media to be Addressed or Subsequent
Remedial Actions" column of the Index of
Approved Remedial Actions
Future RODs/EDDs to address Soil 11 16.7%
Sites where soil appeared in the "Media
to be Addressed or Subsequent Remedial
Actions" column of the Index of Approved
Remedial Actions
Any site addressing excavation of soil
and/or sediments as a subsequent remedial
action
-------
ROu Summaries for each site describing site conditions
ana contaminants, performance stanaaras, ana
institutional controls.
Inoex of Approved Remeoial Actions which summarizes
all remedial actions approved to date, as well as any
subsequent actions to be taken at a site.
ROD Keyword List provides major key word categories
ana their subcategories for all ROUs approved to date.
Information and data on approved remedial actions, contained in
this report, will be very useful in preparing FY'86 RODs.
-------
ROD SUMMARIES
-------
APPROVED RECORDS OF DECISION (RODs)
FY 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Region Site/State Page Number
I Beacon Heights, CT 1
I Cannon/Plymouth, MA 3
I Charles George, MA (2nd Remedial
Action) 5
I Hocomonco Pond, MA 6
I McKin Site, ME (2nd Remedial
Action) 8
I Nyanza Chemical, MA 9
I Picillo Farm, RI 10
II Bog Creek Farm, NJ 11
II Bridgeport, NJ 12
II D'Imperio Property, NJ 13
II Friedman Property, NJ 14
II GEMS Landfill, NJ 15
II Goose Farm, NJ 16
II Helen Kramer, NJ 17
II Lipari Landfill, NJ
(2nd Remedial Action) 18
II Love Canal, NY 20
II Olean Well Field, NY 21
II Sinclair Refinery, NY 22
II Swope Oil, NJ 24
II Wide Beach, NY 25
III Douglassville, PA 26
III Harvey-Knott, DE 28
III Heleva Landfill, PA 29
III Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA 30
III Lansdowne Radiation, PA 31
III McAdoo Associates, PA
(2nd Remedial Action) 32
III Moyer Landfill, PA 33
III Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD 35
III Taylor Borough, PA 36
III Tyson's Dump, PA 37
IV American Creosote, FL 38
IV Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL 39
IV Davie Landfill, FL 41
IV Varsol Spill Site, FL 42
IV Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL 43
-------
Region
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
X
X
X
Site/State
A&F Materials Company, IL
Acme Solvents, IL
Byron/Johnson Salvage, IL
Cemetery Dump, MI
Charlevoix, MI (2nd Remedial Action)
Chem-Dyne, OH
Cross Brothers, IL (IRM)
Eau Claire, WI (IRM)
Kummer Landfill, MN
LeHillier/Mankato, MN
Main Street, IN
Morris Arsenic, MN
New Lyme, OH
Northernaire, MI
Old Mill, OH
Schmalz Dump, WI
Verona Well Field, MI (2nd Remedial
Action)
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
MOTCO, TX
South Valley, NM (IRM)
Triangle Chemical, TX
Ellisville, MO
Milltown, MT (Supplemental ROD)
Woodbury Chemical, CO
Celtor Chemical, CA (2nd Remedial
Action)
Del Norte, CA
Jibboom Junkyard, CA
Ponders Corner, WA (2nd Remedial
Action)
South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA
(2nd Remedial Action)
Western Processing, WA (2nd Remedial
Action)
Page Number
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
-------
BEACON HEIGHTS, CT
September 23, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Beacon Heights Landfill site is located two miles east of the inter-
section of Connecticut Routes 8 and 42 in Beacon Falls, Connecticut. From
the 1920s until 1970 the site was known as "Betkoski's Dump" and consisted
of approximately six acres on which active dumping occurred. According to
records at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP),
wastes accepted at the dump included municipal refuse, rubber, plastics, and
industrial chemicals and sludges. Landfill operations consisted primarily
of open burning along with the burial of noncombustibles. In 1970, the
Betkoski property and adjacent properties totaling 83 acres were purchased
by the Murtha Trucking Company, and the name was changed to Beacon Heights,
Inc. Landfill. At this time, the landfill area was expanded to approxi-
mately 30 acres. Records of the CT DEP, including a 1973 report by the
landfill engineer, listed rubber, plastics, oils, hydrocarbons, chemical
liquids and sludges, and solvents as being disposed of at the landfill.
Landfill operations reportedly ceased in 1979.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of Bet-
koski's Dump and other contaminated soils for consolidation on the main
landfill prior to closure; RCRA capping of the consolidated wastes including
gas venting and stormwater management controls; installation of a perimeter
leachate collection system; collection of leachate and transportation to a
licensed waste water treatment facility or onsite treatment followed by dis-
charge to a tributary of Hockanum Brook; extension of a public water supply;
fencing; installation of a more extensive ground water monitoring system;
and enforcement of State and local institutional controls on ground water
use in the impacted area. Total capital cost for the selected remedial al-
ternative is estimated to be $17,397,000 with O&M costs approximately
$235,000 per year. In addition, a Supplementary Decision Document will be
prepared following design to justify the decisions reached on the manner and
location of leachate treatment, the extent of excavation in the satellite
areas, and the need for air pollution controls on the landfill gas vents.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Wastes will be excavated to background or
to alternate levels protective of human health, welfare, and the environ-
ment. Pre-design/design sampling will be necessary to define the excavation
criteria.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; State and local institutional controls on ground
water use will be enforced in the impacted area.
COMMENTS; 1) Consolidation Outlying Betkoski Dump wastes and
contaminated soils and sludges around the site will be excavated,
consolidated and placed on top of the landfill prior to closure. 2) ROD
Addendum A ROD Addendum will be prepared following the design phase to
justify the decisions reached on: the manner and location of leachate
-------
BEACON HEIGHTS, CT
(Continued)
treatment (onsite or offsite); the exact extent and coverage of the RCRA cap
on the landfill and the extent and depth of satellite areas to be excavated
and consolidated on the main landfill; and the need for air pollution
controls on the landfill gas vents.
KEYWORDS: Capping; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; In-
stitutional Controls; Leachate Collection/Treatment; Soil; Sur-
face Water; Venting; VOCs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CANNON/PLYMOUTH, MA
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Cannon Engineering Corporation (CEC) Plymouth Site is located in
Cordage Park, a business and industrial park bordering Plymouth Harbor, in
Plymouth, Massachusetts. The site consists of 2.5 acres which includes
three above ground storage tanks, two of which are estimated to have nominal
storage capacities in excess of 250,000 gallons each, and one which has an
estimated 500,000 gallon capacity. The tanks were originally used for the
storage of #6 marine fuel oil and bunker C oil. In 1976, CEC rented one
tank for the reported storage of waste oil and later rented a second tank.
Allegedly, CEC used the tanks to store hazardous wastes. In 1979, CEC was
licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) to store motor oils, industrial oils and emulsions,
solvents, laguers, organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, cyanide and
plating waste, clay and filter media containing chemicals, plating sludge,
oily solids and pesticides. Potential problems observed at the site
included slow leakage at the bottom seams of one of the tanks; adequacy of
earthen dikes surrounding the tanks; odor complaints; and leaks from tank
side valves. The principal contaminants of concern identified in the soil
during the RI included polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides,
and lead. Surface water samples collected from seeps along the tidal stream
and shore contained iron, selenium, lead, manganese and silver. PAHs, lead,
and pesticides were detected in sediment samples collected from the tidal
stream. Low levels of pesticides and some metals were also detected in
harbor sediments. Ground water samples did not exhibit analytical
indications of organic chemical contamination however, low levels of some
metals were detected.
It has been determined that selection of the cost-effective remedial
alternative would best be served by generating supplemental information and
deferring selection of the final remedial alternative. The ROD for
CEC-Plymouth Site will be amended following evaluation of the new data. The
ROD amendment will specify the remedial measures deemed appropriate to
address contamination remaining at the site. The tasks necessary to
generate supplemental information necessary for further remedial analysis
are: removal and offsite disposal of tanks no. 1, 2, and 3 and associated
piping; supplemental sampling of soil, ground water, surface water and
sediments; and assessment of the floodplains. Total capital cost for this
portion of the remedial decision is estimated to be between $350,000 and
$433,000, with no O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Excavation of contaminated material, if
implemented, to a level protective of human health and the environment
(RCRA).
-------
CANNON/PLYMOUTH, PA
(Continued)
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: ROD Addendum Selection of the cost-effective remedial
alternative will best be served by generating supplemental information
(additional sampling/analysis, floodplain assessment) and deferring
selection of the final remedial alternative until the new information has
been generated and evaluated. The ROD for the CEC-Plymouth Site will be
amended, following the evaluation of the new data, to specify the remedial
measures deemed appropriate to address contamination remaining at the site.
KEYWORDS: Deferred Decision; Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Offsite Disposal;
Pesticides; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); Sediments; Soil;
Surface Water.
-------
CHARLES GEORGE, MA
(Second Remedial Action)
July 11, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Charles George Land Reclamation Trust Landfill (CGLRT) site is a
69-acre landfill located in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts about 30 miles
northwest of Boston and 4 miles south of Nashua, New Hampshire. From 1955
until 1971, the site was operated as a municipal dump. In 1973, CGLRT was
issued a permit by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control to
handle hazardous wastes in addition to municipal and domestic refuse. Dis-
posal of hazardous wastes and substances, primarily in the form of drummed
and bulk chemicals containing volatile organics and toxic metal sludges,
continued from January 1973 to at least June 1976. The exact quantity of
hazardous substances disposed at the site is unknown. Records submitted by
the landfill operators and other available information show that at least
2,500 cubic yards of chemical waste material were landfilled.
The selected remedial action includes the installation of: a full syn-
thetic membrane cap; a surface water diversion and collection system; a vent
network with an off-gas collection system venting to the atmosphere; and a
full peripheral leachate collection system. Total capital cost for the se-
lected remedial alternative is estimated to be $13,613,725 and O&M costs are
approximately $1,252,901 per year. A third remedial action addressing
ground water contamination is expected following the completion of field
studies.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Mitigation of the offsite spread of contam-
ination. Impacts to wetlands will be substantially minimized.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Acids; Air; Capping; Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Leachate
Collection/Treatment; RCRA Part 264; Sludge; Surface Water;
Surface Water Diversion/Collection; Toluene; Venting; VOCs;
Wetlands.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOCOMONCO POND, MA
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Hocomonco Pond site consists of approximately 23 acres, located in
the Town of Westborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts, and is bordered on
the northwest by Hocomonco Pond. Research into the past activities at the
Hocomonco Pond Site indicates that from 1928 to 1946, the site was used for
a wood-treating operation by Montan Treating Company and American Lumber and
Treating Company. This business consisted of saturating wood products
(e.g., telephone poles, railroad ties, pilings and fence posts) with creo-
sote to preserve them. During the operations, wastes were discharged into a
pit lagoon (referred to as the "former lagoon"). The lagoon was excavated
on the property to intercept and contain spillage and waste from the wood-
treating operation. As this lagoon became filled with waste creosote,
sludges, and water, its contents were pumped into two depressions, referred
to as Kettle Pond, which is located east of the site, near the west side of
Otis Street. In addition, site contamination extends into Hocomonco Pond
and its discharge stream. The wood-treatment facility operated until the
mid-1940s when it was converted into an asphalt mixing plant. Discarded
aggregate and asphalt are common throughout the site. The last use of the
site was as a cement plant from which dry cement was distributed in bulk.
The selected remedial alternative for this site includes: grading and
capping of the former lagoon and relocation of the storm-water drain pipe
currently located adjacent to the east side of the former lagoon; for the
Kettle Pond area, dewatering the pond and lowering the ground water level in
the immediate area, soil/waste excavation based primarily on visible
contamination criteria, with additional removal of soils based on sampling
and analysis of soil quality and leaching properties. Additional excavation
will be done to remove contamination to the extent necessary to ensure
mitigation of ground water contamination. This remedial alternative also
includes: dewatering of sediments with disposal in an onsite landfill;
mechanical dredging and onsite disposal of contaminated sediments for the
Hocomonco Pond and discharge stream; sealing the storm drain for Otis
Street; removal and onsite disposal of contaminated materials at three
isolated areas of contamination (soil near Monitoring Well-1, tank bases
adjacent to former lagoon, and drain channel sediments at the southwest side
of Hocomonco Pond); and air and water guality monitoring and post closure
activities consistent with RCRA regulations. Total capital cost for the
selected remedial alternative is $2,213,000 with O&M costs approximately
$56,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; The extent of soil/waste removal in the
Kettle Pond area will be based primarily on visible contamination criteria
but will include additional removal of contaminants based on sampling and
analysis of soil conducted during excavation to ensure that contaminated
soils are excavated to the extent necessary to ensure mitigation of ground
water contamination. The extent of excavation beyond the visible contamina-
-------
HOCOMONCO POND, MA
(Continued)
tion criteria is expected to be approximately two to three feet. The
cleanup level for ground water and the duration of the pump and treatment
phase at the Kettle Pond area will be determined for the site conditions
existing after soil/waste removal. Final ground water cleanup levels will
be set based upon background levels. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or a
demonstration of Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) according to 40
C.F.R. Part 264. The action levels for air contamination at the site
boundary may be those proposed by the Centers for Disease Control, 2 ppm
total concentration of volatile organic compounds in the air at the site
boundary.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: The area of the site cap, in the former lagoon area
and onsite landfill for Kettle Pond sediments, will not be available for
future development, and deed restrictions are required. In addition, deed
restrictions are required for the embankment area at the east side of Otis
Street.
COMMENTS; 1) Consolidation Materials from Kettle Pond, Hocomonco Pond
and discharge stream, and isolated areas will be disposed of onsite.
Materials will be disposed on top of the former lagoon, in the onsite RCRA
landfill constructed for the Kettle Pond soil/waste, or a combination of
both will be used depending on final design considerations related to the
facility's capacity and on the topography of the cap.
KEYWORDS; Arsenic; Capping; Carcinogenic Compounds; Chromium; Dredging;
Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals;
Inorganics; Onsite Disposal; Organics; Phenols; Sediments;
Sludge; Soil; Surface Water; Wetlands.
-------
MCKIN, ME
(Second Remedial Action)
July 22, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The McKin Company site is located on the west side of Mayall Road be-
tween Route 115 and Pownall Road in Gray, Maine. The site is approximately
seven acres with 4.5 acres cleared and partially excavated. Between 1965
and 1978, the McKin Company operated a waste collection, transfer, and dis-
posal facility at the site. The Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) for the
McKin site was prepared in April 1983. Initial Remedial Measures (IRMs)
implemented at the site included cleaning and removal of all remaining
above-ground tanks. This work was completed in September 1985 and repre-
sents the most recent removal action to take place at the site. Presently,
the site consists of a fenced enclosure containing an incinerator, a con-
crete block building, an asphalt-lined lagoon, miscellaneous debris, and one
buried fuel tank. An outer fence along Mayall Road and portions of the
northern and southern site boundaries restrict vehicle and pedestrian access
to the site.
The selected remedial action includes: onsite soil aeration; offsite
disposal of approximately 16 drums; soil tests; a ground water extraction,
treatment, and surface water discharge system; an offsite ground water and
surface water monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the onsite
source control and offsite ground water extraction and treatment system; and
removal and site closure activities. Total capital cost for the selected
remedial alternative is estimated to be $3,919,000 with O&M costs of approx-
imately $38,900 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Target ground water guality performance
standards of 92 ppb 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 28 ppb trichloroethylene.
Target soil performance standards of 0.1 ppm trichloroethylene averaged over
a treatment volume and for heavy metal soil contaminants, the levels
established in the Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity tests (40 CFR
Part 261.24) or the results of solute fate and transport modeling.
Trichloroethylene performance standards are based on a cancer risk of 10"5.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; EPA is not confident that long-term institutional
restrictions could be implemented and enforced on the affected land to en-
sure that contaminated ground water is not utilized.
COMMENTS; ROD Addendums A pilot soil aeration study will be performed
during remedial design to determine if soil aeration of the contaminated
areas can be performed in a manner protective of public health and the
environment. If it cannot, a ROD Addendum will be prepared to select
another source control remedy. In addition, a reevaluation of performance
standards for offsite ground water contamination levels or onsite soil
contamination levels may be necessary.
KEYWORDS: Aeration; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water
Treatment; Offsite Disposal; Oils; Soil; Surface Water; Trichlor-
oethylene (TCE); VOCs.
-------
NYANZA CHEMICAL, MA
September 4, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump site occupies 35 acres on the north and
south sides of Megunco Road in the Village of Ashland in Middlesex County,
MA, approximately 35 miles west of Boston. The Nyanza site was occupied
from 1917 to 1978 by a succession of companies involved in the production of
textile dyes and intermediates. Large volumes of industrial waste water
generated by these companies, containing high levels of acids and numerous
organic and inorganic chemicals, including mercury, were partially treated
and discharged into the Sudbury River via a small unnamed stream (referred
to as Chemical Brook). Large volumes of chemical sludges generated by the
waste water treatment processes along with spent solvents, off specification
products, and other chemical wastes were buried onsite. The area that
contains the largest amount of buried waste and exposed sludge is referred
to as the "Hill" section.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of all
outlying sludge deposits and contaminated soils and sediments associated
with these deposits to background levels; consolidation of this material
with the Hill sludge deposits; capping of the Hill area in conformance with
the technical requirements of RCRA; construction of a ground water and
surface water diversion system on the upgradient side of the Hill;
backfilling the excavated areas to original grade and revegetating the
wetland areas; and construction of a more extensive ground water monitoring
network to enable future evaluation of the effectiveness of the cap. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to range
from $5.6 to $9.8 million, with annual O&M costs of $92,000 for year 1 and
$70,000 for years 2-30. EPA will undertake an additional RI/FS to evaluate
the extent of and risks posed by offsite ground water contaminant migration
and sediment contamination in the Sudbury River and wetlands contiguous to
the site. If additional remedial actions are determined to be necessary, a
Record of Decision will be prepared.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Excavation of all outlying sludge deposits
and contaminated soils and sediments associated with these deposits to
background levels for chromium, lead and mercury.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS; Consolidation All outlying sludge deposits and contaminated
soils and sediments associated with these deposits will be consolidated with
the Hill sludge deposit onsite, prior to capping.
KEYWORDS; Acids; Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water;
Ground Water Diversion; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals;
Inorganics; Organics; Sediments; Sludge; Soil; Surface Water;
Surface Water Diversion/Collection; Wetlands.
-------
PICILLO FARM, RI
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Picillo Farm site is located in Coventry, Rhode Island,
approximately 20 miles southwest of Providence. Drums containing hazardous
and bulk wastes were illegally disposed within an 8-acre area of the Picillo
Farm in 1977. A series of trenchesthe northwest trench, northeast trench,
west trench, south trench, and two slit trencheswere used for this
activity. In September 1977, an explosion and fire at the site brought the
dumping activities to the attention of regulatory agencies. Since that
time, a number of investigations and remedial activities have been conducted
at the site. PCBs, organics, and phenols were identified in onsite soils.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: disposal of
approximately 3,500 cubic yards of primarily PCB contaminated soils and
disposal of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of primarily phenol contaminated
soils onsite in a RCRA/TSCA landfill; and implementation of site closure
activities. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $841,600 with O&M costs approximately $12,120 for the first
year, $25,648 for years 2-4 and $19,048 for years 5-30 (with the exception
of year 16 at $34,048).
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not specified.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; RCRA/TSCA Onsite LandfillBased on the selected remedy
contaminated soil would be disposed of in an onsite landfill consisting of
an impermeable double bottom liner with a leachate collection and leak
detection system that would protect against contaminant migration. Due to
high ground water, the State is exploring other remedies.
KEYWORDS; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Inorganics;
Leachate Collection/Treatment; Onsite Disposal; Organics; PCBs;
Phenols; RCRA Landfill Specifications; RCRA Onsite Disposal
Requirements; Risk Level; Tetrachloroethylene (PCE); TSCA Onsite
Disposal Requirements; VOCs.
10
-------
BOG CREEK FARM, NJ
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The twelve-acre Bog Creek Farm is located in Howell Township, Monmouth
County, New Jersey. The site consists of a four-acre disposal area, a man-
made pond and a dike. Bog Creek Farm was purchased in June 1973 by Western
Ranch Corporation, an entity owned by Fred and Margaret Barry. It is al-
leged that in 1973 and 1974 the Barry's dumped wastes at Bog Creek Farm gen-
erated from a paint manufacturing operation that they owned. These wastes,
reportedly bulk liguids and sludges, were dumped on the ground and in a
trench. Samples of the wastes taken during the RI confirmed the presence of
a wide variety of organic compounds and heavy metals. Total Volatile Organ-
ic (TVO) concentrations in the soil were found as high as 44,000 ppm. The
pond and a bog which lies just east of the site are particularly contami-
nated with TVO concentrations as high as 20 ppm and 494 ppm, respectively.
The cost-effective remedial actions selected for this site include:
removing the waste water and sediments from the pond and bog; regrading and
covering the pond and bog to prevent reponding; treating the waste water
onsite and discharging to the nearby stream; excavating the waste deposits
and contaminated soil 10,000 ppm TVOs; incinerating excavated materials at
a temporary facility onsite or at an offsite facility in accordance with
RCRA; conducting a further analysis of the impact of the residual contami-
nated soil to determine the extent of additional site remediation necessary;
evaluating soil washing, segregation and other innovative technologies for
the residual contaminated soil; covering the excavated area with a compacted
soil cap; constructing a security fence surrounding the site and work areas;
and implementing a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness and relia-
bility of the remedial action. The estimated capital cost for the selected
remedial alternative is $9.2 million and O&M costs are approximately $54,400
annually.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Excavation of the source material in the
soil 10,000 ppm TVOs as the first operable unit. This concentration
targets the original source of liquid in addition to solid waste.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Not specified.
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; ACL; Alternative Technology; Capping; Excavation; Ground Water;
Heavy Metals; Incineration; Inorganics; Organics; Remnant Contam-
ination; Soil; Toluene; Wetlands.
11
-------
BRIDGEPORT, NJ
December 31, 1984
ROD ABSTRACT
This 30-acre site is located approximately one mile east of the Town of
Bridgeport and two miles south of the Delaware River. The site is an aban-
doned waste oil storage and recovery facility which operated from 1950
through the early 1970s. The site includes a tank farm consisting of over
90 tanks and process vessels, drums, tank trucks and a 12.7-acre waste oil
and waste water lagoon. The lagoon is divided into three layers: an oily
upper layer, an aqueous middle layer, and bottom sludge/sediment deposits.
Sampling of these lagoon layers revealed average PCB concentrations in
excess of 500 ppm. Sampling of the ground water revealed organics, such as
benzene, methylene chloride and toluene, at concentrations up to 1,000 ppb
and acetone at levels up to 70 ppm.
The cost-effective remedial alternatives selected for the first operable
unit for the lagoon include: disposal of oily waste and sediment/sludge via
onsite incineration; removal and disposal of contaminated water via onsite
treatment system; drum excavation and removal; and maintenance pumping to
prevent further migration of the contaminated plume. For the tank farm the
first operable unit includes: complete removal of tanks and waste;
installation of a water supply pipeline from an existing pump station; and a
second phase RI/FS to determine appropriate ground water cleanup and lagoon
closure remedies. The estimated total project capital cost for this remedy
is $57,672,000 and the estimated present worth 30-year operation and
maintenance costs for the waste supply pipeline is $20,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Contaminated sludge will be excavated until
dredge spoils contain soils which do not appear to be visibly contaminated.
"Visible contamination" is defined as the oily characteristics of the
sludge. Once non-oily sludge or soil is observed, the initial excavation
will stop. Treatment and disposal of contaminated water must meet a TOC
limit of 50 ppm on a 30-day average as well as other limitations specified
by the State to protect the water quality of the receiving stream.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not specified.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Alternative Technology; Alternate Water Supply; Competitive Bid-
ding; Excavation; Ground Water; Incineration; Oil; Organics;
PCBs; Sludge; Soil; State Criteria; Toluene; Wetlands.
12
-------
D'IMPERIO PROPERTY, NJ
March 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The D'Imperio Property site is an inactive waste disposal dump located
in a semi-rural region of Atlantic County within the New Jersey Pinelands
Reserve. The site is relatively flat with slopes ranging from one to three
percent. Two wetlands are located to the north and south of the site, ap-
proximately 2,000 and 4,000 feet away, respectively. The site lies in a
cleared area with wastes deposited randomly on the surface and some wastes
partially buried. The exact period of disposal activities at the D'Imperio
site is unknown. However, it is believed that unauthorized dumping took
place from the late 1960s to 1976. The results of the RI indicate that
wastes disposed of at the site resulted in the contamination of the under-
lying ground water. In addition, the soil adjacent to and underlying the
disposal area is also contaminated. Critical contaminants identified onsite
include benzene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylben-
zene, tetrachloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene, xylene, arsenic,
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial alternative for the D'Imperio site includes exca-
vation and transportation of 3900 cubic yards of contaminated waste and soil
and surface drums to a RCRA-regulated disposal site; construction of a RCRA
cap following completion of the excavation; and pumping and treating contam-
inated ground water from two affected aquifers prior to reinjection or sur-
face discharge. The treatment process is estimated to take 17 months and
will provide for the removal of both organic and inorganic contaminants.
After 17 months an evaluation will be made to determine the effectiveness of
the cleanup program as well as the need to continue pumping and treating the
contaminated ground water. The estimated capital cost of the selected reme-
dial alternative is $4,251,551, with operations and maintenance costs esti-
mated to be $1,169,449 for the life of the project.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Remove 3,900 cy of waste materials and
highly contaminated soils; construct a cap in accordance with RCRA; pump and
treat three pore volumes; and monitor and compare to appropriate drinking
water standards with follow-up evaluation to assess the need for additional
pumping and treatment versus establishing an alternate concentration limit.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Not specified.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; ACL; Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground
Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; O&M; Organics; Soil;
State Criteria; State Permit; Toluene; Trichloroethylene (TCE).
13
-------
FRIEDMAN PROPERTY, NJ
April 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Friedman Property site is located in Upper Freehold Township, Mon-
mouth County, New Jersey and is an open, vacant lot with scrub vegetation.
The site is bordered by an unnamed tributary to Lahaway Creek, a single-
family residential property, and Routes 537 and 539. Between the late 1950s
and the early 1970s the site received bulk liquids and household and
demolition debris.
The selected remedy for the Friedman Property site consists of no action
with regard to remediating the low levels of contamination detected at the
site, monitoring onsite wells annually for a five-year period, and recom-
mending that the State of New Jersey reguest the appropriate local authori-
ties to implement deed restrictions on the property. Annual O&M costs for
well monitoring are estimated to be $12,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: N/A
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Deed restrictions for onsite excavation and agri-
cultural and residential use.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Ground Water Monitoring; Inorganics; No Action Alternative; Or-
ganics; Phenols.
14
-------
GLOUCESTER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES (GEMS) LANDFILL, NJ
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The 60-acre GEMS Landfill site is located in Gloucester Township, New
Jersey. Gloucester Township has owned the GEMS from the late 1950s up to
the present. During this time period the GEMS Landfill has been operated by
various parties as a disposal site for solid, liquid and hazardous wastes
and substances. Records indicate that a variety of industrial wastes in-
cluding asbestos, solvents and other materials were disposed of at the GEMS
site between 1970 and 1979. In 1980, sludge from the City of Philadelphia
northeast waste water treatment facility was disposed of at GEMS. Analyses
of the sludge revealed the presence of dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane
(ODD). The results of the RI show that ground water, surface water (Holly
Run) and soil are severely contaminated with organic and inorganic hazardous
substances. Also, volatile organic compounds are volatilizing into the at-
mosphere and significantly degrading air quality.
The cost-effective remedial actions selected for this site include:
construction of a landfill cap with regrading of existing landfill side
slopes, an active gas collection and treatment system, a ground water
pumping and treatment system (treatment preference is pretreatment and
discharge to the POTW), surface water controls, and a security fence; and
implementation of a monitoring program. The State's proposed remedial
action includes construction of a ground water/leachate collection and
pretreatment system (in the Holly Run area only), relocation of Holly Run,
connecting ten residences to an existing water main, and implementation of
limited runoff controls as an initial phase of the selected remedy. The
estimated capital cost for the selected remedial actions is $27,365,000 and
annual O&M costs are approximately $601,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Construct a cap in accordance with RCRA
except there will be no synthetic liner due to steep slopes. Discharge
criteria have not yet been established for the ground water leachate and
landfill gas treatment. Discharge criteria will be established by the State
under existing regulations and are dependent on the point of discharge which
will be determined in the early stages of the remedial design.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Air; Capping; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Inorganics;
Leachate Collection/Treatment; Organics; Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW); Soil; Surface Water; Venting.
15
-------
GOOSE FARM, NJ
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Goose Farm site is located approximately two miles northeast of the
Town of New Egypt in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The Goose
Farm was used as a hazardous waste disposal site from the mid 1940s to the
mid 1970s by a manufacturer of polysulfide rubber and solid rocket fuel
propellant. The majority of manufacturing wastes, lab packs, 55 gallon
drums, and bulk liquids were dumped into a pit dug through the fine sand.
Investigations have found contaminated soils containing volatile, acid and
base/neutral organic pollutants throughout the disposal area. In addi-
tion, sampling shows contamination of ground water up to 570 ppm total pri-
ority pollutants and contamination of the surface water up to 1100 ppb total
volatile organics.
The recommended remedial alternative for this site is expected to be
implemented in a phased manner. First, the contaminated soil and ground
water underlying the site will be flushed. The ground water will be recov-
ered using a well-point system and will be treated onsite prior to reinjec-
tion into the soil. Following soil flushing and ground water recovery and
treatment, extensive testing will be conducted to determine the need to cap
the site. In addition, during and after soil flushing and ground water re-
covery and treatment activities, extensive testing will be conducted to de-
termine the extent of PCB contamination in the former drum pit area. Test
data will determine the need to remediate PCB-contaminated soil. If such
remediation is deemed necessary, a supplementary Record of Decision will be
prepared. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is esti-
mated to be $3,014,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; The proposed ground water treatment system
will be designed to meet the effluent limits established in the NJPDES
permit.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not specified.
COMMENTS: Soil Contamination Evaluation Methodology (SOCEM) If a steady
state of contamination removal is achieved, the SOCEM model or a similar
model will be used to evaluate whether alternative concentration limits are
appropriate.
KEYWORDS: ACL; Alternative Technology; Capping; Ground Water; Ground Water
Treatment; Organics; PCBs; Phenols; State Criteria; State Permit;
Soil; Trichloroethylene (TCE).
16
-------
HELEN KRAMER LANDFILL, NJ
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Helen Kramer Landfill is located in Mantua Township, Gloucester
County, New Jersey. The site encompasses a 66-acre refuse area and an
11-acre stressed area between the refuse and Edwards Run which is located
immediately east of the landfill. The Helen Kramer Landfill site was
originally operated as a sand and gravel pit. The site became an operating
landfill between 1963 and 1965, during which time landfilling occurred
simultaneously with sand excavation. Very little is known about the
landfill activities between 1965 and 1970. From 1970 to 1981 it was alleged
by area residents that sporadic chemical dumping occurred. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection files and other reports indicate that
materials containing hazardous substances were disposed of at the landfill
during this period. Sampling conducted during the RI showed that the
underlying aquifer is heavily contaminated with organic compounds including
trichloroethanes, benzene, toluene, and phenols. Inorganic chemicals found
in the ground water include arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, and iron. The
aquifer is discharging into Edwards Run which is also heavily contaminated
with similar organics and inorganics.
The cost-effective remedial actions selected for this site include:
construction of a ground water leachate collection trench, a clay cap, up-
gradient slurry wall, active gas collection and treatment system, and a se-
curity fence; dewatering, excavation, and filling of the leachate ponds and
lagoons; implementation of surface water controls; a monitoring program; and
collection and treatment of ground water/leachate from the trench (treatment
preference is pretreatment and discharge to the publicly owned treatment
works (POTW)). The estimated capital cost for this remedy with pretreatment
of the ground water/leachate is $36,478,000 and with complete onsite
treatment is $38,089,000. O&M costs vary over the 30-year life of the
remedy. First year O&M costs are projected to be $1,047,900 for
pretreatment and $792,100 for complete onsite treatment.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Construct a cap in accordance with RCRA
except there will be no synthetic liner due to steep slopes. Treatment
discharge criteria will be established by the State and/or local POTW under
existing regulations.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Air; Arsenic; Capping; Excavation; Floodplain; Ground Water;
Ground Water Treatment; Inorganics; Leachate Collection/Treatment;
Organics; Phenols; Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); Slurry
Wall; Soil; Surface Water; Toluene; Venting; Wetlands.
17
-------
LIPARI LANDFILL, NJ
(Second Remedial Action)
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Lipari Landfill site is located in Mantua Township, Gloucester
County, New Jersey and is adjacent to the towns of Pitman and Glassboro.
The site is approximately fifteen acres in size; six acres of which were
used for hazardous waste landfilling activities. Trenches excavated for
sand and gravel were backfilled with municipal refuse, household wastes,
liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes, and other industrial wastes. Al-
though no detailed records were kept, it has been estimated that 12,000 cu-
bic yards of solid wastes and 2.9 million gallons of liquid wastes were dis-
posed of at the site. Wastes reported to have been disposed of include sol-
vents, paint thinners, formaldehyde paints, phenol and amine wastes, dust-
collector residues, resins and ester press cakes. Initial removal and reme-
dial actions completed at the site include: fencing the entire fifteen
acres and the adjacent marsh area, installing a bentonite/soil slurry wall
keyed into the underlying aquitard, covering the site with an impermeable
synthetic membrane liner, and installing a passive gas-venting system (see
the ROD dated 8/13/82 for additional information).
The cost-effective remedial actions selected for this site include:
installation of ground water/leachate and injection wells within the con-
tainment system to dewater and flush the system; pumping and treating the
ground water/leachate from within the containment system (treatment prefer-
ence of the collected leachate is onsite pretreatment and discharge to the
publicly owned treatment works (POTW)); installation and monitoring of
ground water wells downgradient of the site; flushing the containment system
to cleanse the encapsulated material of water-borne contaminants; and
continued pumping and treating of the ground water should applicable
standards not be met once flushing is terminated. Identification of
remedial action alternatives to mitigate potentially contaminated offsite
areas will be made in the near future. The estimated capital cost for this
project is $3,464,000 and annual O&M costs are estimated to be $715,000.
These cost estimates will be affected by the offsite/onsite treatment
systems ultimately designed.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Comprehensive evaluation within five years
of source control and offsite remediation. Source control evaluation will
consider marginal benefits from successive flushing cycles along with the
potential effect of the release of leachate into the ground water.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not Specified.
COMMENTS; 1) Offsite Policy The benefits of cleansing the containment
system of water-soluble contaminants justifies the additional cost relative
to enhanced containment. 2) Remedy Selection Discharging pretreated
leachate to the POTW is dependent on approval by the State and the POTW. If
such approval is not provided, the leachate may be treated onsite and
discharged to nearby surface water or transported offsite for treatment at a
permitted hazardous waste facility.
18
-------
LIPARI LANDFILL, NJ
(Continued)
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Chromium; Containment; Deferred Decision; Ground Water;
Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Leachate Collection/
Treatment; Organics; Phenols; Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW); SNARL; Soil; Toluene; Water Quality Criteria.
19
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOVE CANAL, NY
May 6, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the City of
Niagara Falls and is approximately one-quarter mile north of the Niagara
River. Between 1942 and 1952, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation (now
Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various
chemicals into Love Canal. The solid and liquid wastes deposited into the
canal include acids, chlorides, mercaptans, phenols, toluenes, pesticides,
chlorophenols, chlorobenzenes, and sulfides. The results of the site
investigation conducted by Malcolm Pirnie provided evidence that the site is
contaminated with benzene and its derivatives, toluene, trichlorobenzene,
arsenic, zinc and dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD).
The selected remedial action includes hydraulic cleaning of designated
sewers, removal and disposal of contaminated sediments followed by
television inspection; repair of the damaged flood gate at the 102nd outfall
storm sewer; limiting access, dredging designated portions of the creeks and
hydraulically cleaning Black Creek culverts; erection of a berm at the 102nd
Street outfall area which will control sediment migration until issues
concerning the source of contamination from the 102nd Street Landfill are
resolved. All waste will be stored onsite in an interim storage facility.
In addition to the above remedial action, a permanent administration
building will be constructed on the site. Total capital cost for the
selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $8,929,000. (Since the ROD
was approved, cost estimates for the sewer and creek cleanup have
increased. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is now
estimated at $12,000,000.)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The Centers for Disease Control has recom-
mended that residential soils should not contain TCDD at average concen-
trations exceeding 1 ppb.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Air; Arsenic; Dioxin; Direct Contact; Excavation; Inorganics;
Onsite Disposal; Organics; Phenols; Public Exposure; Risk Assess-
ment; Sediments; Soil; Surface Water; Toluene.
20
-------
CLEAN WELL FIELD, NY
September 24, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Clean Well Field is located in the eastern portion of the City of
Clean, and also encompasses part of the Town of Clean, in Cattaraugus
County, New York. Early in 1981, the three municipal wells (Well numbers:
18M, 37M and 38M) at the site were found to contain levels of trichloroethy-
lene (TCE) at concentrations above the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) Drinking Water Guidelines (50 ppb). These wells were closed and an
old surface water filtration plant was reactivated to provide water to city
residents. Private wells in the area were subsequently tested and many were
found to be contaminated. Approximately one half of the contaminated pri-
vate wells have shown TCE levels over 1,000 ppb. The highest level of TCE
recently detected in a private well was 3,100 ppb (sample taken June 1985).
Significant concentrations of several volatile organics, (e.g.,
trans-l,2-Dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-Dichloroethane)
were also observed in the soil and ground water upgradient from the
municipal wells.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: reactivating the
municipal wells and constructing a packed tower air stripping system north
of the Allegheny River at municipal well 18M to treat the ground water to a
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 ppb for TCE; construction of a similar
air stripping system south of the river to treat water from wells 37M and
38M; discharging all treated water into the public water supply system; ex-
tending the City of Clean water lines into the Town of Clean and hooking up
93 private well users to the public water supply system; inspecting the
McGraw-Edison industrial sewer and analyzing repair and replacement options;
recommending institutional controls restricting the withdrawal of ground
water for drinking purposes where MCLs are exceeded; and initiating a sup-
plemental Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to evaluate source
control measures. The air stripping systems will also treat the other
volatile organics found in the ground water to a 10"6 risk level. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$1,996,780. O&M costs total approximately $799,040 per year and include the
City of Clean's regular well maintenance costs of $611,500.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Treating ground water to 5 ppb for TCE.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; The ROD recommended establishing institutional con-
trols to prohibit withdrawal of ground water from portions of the aquifer
which exceed 5 ppb TCE.
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Air Stripping; Alternate Water Supply; Ground Water; Ground Water
Treatment; Institutional Controls; Organics; Trichloroethylene
(TCE).
21
-------
SINCLAIR REFINERY, NY
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The former 103-acre Sinclair Oil Refinery is located in the Town of
Wellsville, Allegany County, New York. The site was originally developed as
an oil refinery during the late 1800s and was operated by the Wellsville
Refining Company. Products manufactured at the site included lubricating
oils and grease, fuel oil, naptha, gasoline, lighter fluid and paraffin. In
1924, the W.ellsville Refining Company sold the property and plant to Sin-
clair Refining Company which maintained and operated the refinery until
1958, when operations ceased as a result of a fire. While the refinery was
in operation, the southernmost portion of the property was used as a land-
fill to dispose of approximately 230,000 yd3 of wastes. Substances depos-
ited in the landfill consisted of drummed waste, oily and tarry sludges, and
hazardous waste compounds in other forms. The landfill consists of the
"Central Elevated Landfill Area" (CELA), a 9.2-acre landfilled area to the
north, the "South Landfill Area" (SLA) to the south, and a 1-acre sand and
gravel borrow area between the two landfilled areas. This 12.5-acre land-
fill sub-site is considered in this Record of Decision (ROD).
The selected remedial action for this site includes: removal and off-
site disposal of approximately 300 drums on the surface of the CELA; excava-
tion of the 2.3-acre SLA to a depth of approximately 20 feet to remove all
waste material; filling of the excavated area with clean fill; consolidation
of the excavated SLA wastes onto the CELA; RCRA capping of the consolidated
wastes on the CELA; partial channelization of the Genesee River to protect
the landfill from erosion and flooding; and erection of a fence to secure
the entire landfill area. Total capital cost for the selected remedial al-
ternative is estimated to be $8,759,000 with O&M costs approximately $30,000
per year. A separate ROD will be prepared to address cleanup of the refin-
ery area once the Feasibility Study is complete.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Water-related remedial response criteria
were based upon published State ground water standards and ambient water
quality criteria for potable water supplies for the constituents found in
ground and surface water samples. In general, contaminated ground water
beneath the landfill site, surface water within the site and the Genesee
River will be controlled such that perimeter monitoring wells or river sam-
ples show total organics concentrations of 100 ppb. Remedial criteria for
ground and surface water contaminants include: toluene 10 ppb; 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane 50 ppb; arsenic 5 ppb; zinc 30 ppb; PCBs .0095 ppb. Soil cri-
teria were calculated based on State ambient water quality criteria, com-
pound solubilities in water, and soil/water partition coefficients.
Remedial criteria for soils included: toluene 72 ppb; Trans-1,2-
dichloroethylene 325 ppb; arsenic 15,000 ppb; zinc 53,000 ppb; PCBs 12.1 ppb.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Not specified.
COMMENTS; Consolidation Excavated wastes from the SLA will be consoli-
dated on the CELA and capped.
22
-------
SINCLAIR REFINERY, NY
(Continued)
I
I
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water; Heavy Me-
_ tals; Inorganics; Organics; PCBs; Phenols; Soil; State Criteria;
Surface Water; Toluene.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
23
-------
SWOPE OIL COMPANY, NJ
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Swope Oil Company site is located in an industrial complex in north-
ern Pennsauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey. Swope Oil operated a
chemical reclamation operation at this two-acre site from 1965 until
December 1979. Operations included buying, selling, dealing in, manufac-
turing, and processing, chemicals, chemical compounds and paints. Products
processed at the site included phosphate esters, hydraulic fluids, paints
and varnishes, solvents, oils, plasticizers, and printing inks. Waste liq-
uids and sludges from the Swope Oil operation were discharged to an exca-
vated, unlined lagoon. Contaminated material was also ponded within a diked
tank farm and in an exposed drum storage area. The company, which ceased
operation in December 1979, has declined to take any action at the site.
The cost-effective remedial actions selected for this site include:
construction of a cap; preparation of a supplemental RI/FS to evaluate the
extent of ground water contamination and to develop and evaluate appropriate
remedial alternatives; removal of tanks and buildings with offsite inciner-
ation, treatment (aqueous wastes) or disposal (non-incinerable wastes) of
tank contents, and offsite disposal of tanks and building debris; excavation
and offsite disposal of the buried sludge waste area; excavation of up to
1.5 feet of contaminated soil containing PCBs greater than 5ppm and offsite
disposal; excavation of up to 1.5 feet of contaminated soils below the la-
goon containing PCBs greater than 5ppm and offsite disposal (this remedial
action will be reevaluated should removal of 1.5 feet of soil not achieve
the 5ppm goal); and sampling, excavation and offsite disposal of contami-
nated soils containing greater than 5ppm PCBs in the parking lot area and
along the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the lagoon. The estimated total
capital cost for this remedial action is $5,590,356 and the O&M costs are
estimated to be $33,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Soil cleanup to 5 ppm for PCBs which is
consistent with State of New Jersey policy. Draft EPA policy will establish
a cleanup level of 10 ppm. The incremental cost of excavation to 5 ppm is
insignificant due to the rapid decrease in PCB concentrations with depth.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not Specified.
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Excavated materials will be transported for
disposal at approved RCRA and TSCA facilities. Approximately 145 cubic
yards of PCB contaminated soil will be disposed of at the TSCA facility.
KEYWORDS; Capping; Excavation; Ground Water; Incineration; Offsite Dis-
posal; Organics; PCBs; Sludge; Soil; State Criteria.
24
-------
WIDE BEACH, NY
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Wide Beach Development site is a small lakeside community located in
the Town of Brant, in southern Erie County, New York. Between 1968 and 1978
approximately 155 cubic meters of waste oil, some of which was contami-
nated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), was applied to the local road-
ways for dust control by the Wide Beach Homeowners Association. The source
of the contaminated waste oil is being investigated, however, drums labeled
as dielectric coolant were found onsite. In 1980, the installation of a
sanitary sewer line in the development resulted in the excavation of highly
contaminated soil from the roadways and their vicinity. Because it was not
known at that time that a PCB problem existed, excavated soil was used as
fill in several yards and in a community recreation area. Subseguent
sampling revealed the presence of PCBs in the air, roadway dust, soil,
vacuum cleaner dust, and water samples from private wells.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation of
soils in the roadway with PCB concentrations greater than 10 mg/kg to a
depth of approximately 0.5m from the base of the existing asphalt roadway
surface (installed as part of an immediate removal action), in the drainage
ditch to a depth of approximately 1m, in the driveways to 30cm, in the yards
to a depth of approximately 15cm, and in the wetlands to a depth of
approximately 20cm; excavation and disposal of contaminated asphalt
material, retaining uncontaminated material for reuse in repaving; chemical
treatment of the PCB-contaminated soils and reuse as fill in the excavated
areas; repavement of the roadways and driveways; treatment of the perched
water in the sewer trench; construction of a hydraulic barrier at the end of
the sewer trench; conducting a pilot plant treatability study to determine
an effective treatment scheme for chemically neutralizing the
PCB-contaminated soils; and sampling for PCBs in soils from the back yards,
the sewage lift station, and sediments in the disconnected septic systems to
better define the extent of the contamination. Total capital cost for the
selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $9,295,000 with no O&M
costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The remedial response levels for PCB
contamination at the site are:
Soil 10 mg/kg (EPA/NYSDEC soil removal criterion)
Air 1.67 ug/m3 (NY State ambient air level)
Ground water 1.00 ug/1 (NYSDOH advisory level)
Surface water 7.9 x 10"s ug/1 (Clean Water Act ambient water
quality criterion for 10~6 lifetime cancer risk).
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Alternative Technology; Excavation; PCBs; Soil; Wetlands.
25
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DOUGLASSVILLE, PA
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Douglassville Disposal site occupies approximately 50 acres of land
along the southern bank of the Schuylkill River in southeastern Berks Coun-
ty, Union Township, Pennsylvania. Site operations included lubricating oil
recycling in 1941 and waste solvents recycling in the 1950s and 1960s.
Wastes generated from these operations were stored in several lagoons lo-
cated in the northern half of the site until 1972. In November 1970, ten
days of heavy rain caused the lagoons to overflow and breach safety dikes
releasing 2-3 million gallons of wastes. The dikes were repaired and a Fed-
eral decree was issued stating that no more waste material was to be stored
in the lagoons. Actions were also initiated to dispose of remaining waste
materials. Before this action could be carried out, tropical storm Agnes
caused the Schuylkill River to overflow its banks and inundate the entire
site. An estimated 6 to 8 million gallons of wastes were released and car-
ried downstream by floodwaters for about 15 miles. Oil recycling operations
continued until 1979 when corrections mandated by the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources (PADER) became cost-prohibitive. The site
operators then turned to refining waste oils for use as fuel in industrial
boilers, and oily waste sludge from this new recycling process was land-
farmed in the area of the western lagoon. PADER halted this practice in
1981, and mandated operational corrections.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: removal and con-
solidation in the facility sludge disposal area of contaminated soils and
sediments from the waste water treatment drainage ditch, drainage swale,
buried lagoon and drum disposal area to a depth to be determined in the pre-
design study; capping of the former sludge lagoon area and the facility
sludge disposal area in accordance with RCRA; installation of levees and
dikes to protect the site from the 100-year flood in compliance with Execu-
tive Order 11988; a pre-design study of the contaminated soils to determine
the extent of the areas to be capped and the extent of soils to be excavated
from the drainage ditch areas. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $5,569,500 with O&M costs approximately
$196,000 per year. Ground water pumping and treating and construction of
the slurry wall are being deferred until a supplemental RI/FS is completed.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Pre-design borings will be taken to deter-
mine the vertical extent of contamination. Background concentrations for
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury were identified by sampling and
through literature. Cleanup criteria for PCBs, phthalate esters, PAHs, pes-
ticides and volatile organics were not identified.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; Consolidation The selected action involves consolidating
contaminated soils and sediments into the facility sludge disposal area to
prevent further ground water contamination. Since the sludge disposal area
is contaminated with the same types of substances as other areas onsite,
consolidation of wastes is in compliance with RCRA.
26
-------
DOUGLASSVILLE, PA
(Continued)
KEYWORDS: Acids; Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Deferred Decision; Excavation;
Ground Water; Inorganics; Levees; PCBs; Pesticides; Phenols;
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); Sediments; Soils;
Surface Water; VOCs.
27
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HARVEY-KNOTT, DE
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Harvey-Knott Drum site is located in New Castle County, Delaware,
approximately one-half mile east of the Maryland-Delaware border. Harvey
and Knotts Trucking, Inc., operated an open dump and burning ground on the
site between 1963 and 1969. The facility accepted sanitary, municipal, and
industrial wastes believed to be sludges, paint pigments, and solvents.
Wastes were' emptied onto the ground, into excavated trenches, or left in
drums (some of which were buried). Some of these wastes were either burned
as a means of reducing waste volume, or allowed to seep into the soil. Con-
tamination of soil, surface water, and ground water has occurred as a result
of disposal of these industrial wastes.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: cleaning the on-
site drainage pond by collecting and treating surface water; removal and
offsite disposal of contaminated sediments, sludges, and bulk wastes to a
gualifying RCRA facility; removal and offsite disposal of all crushed or
intact surface drums, debris, wastepiles, and sludges to a qualifying RCRA
facility; installation of ground water extraction and treatment facilities
to collect and remove contaminants in the shallow ground water; applying
treated ground water to flush contaminants from onsite surface and sub-
surface soils; and preparation of the site surface for installing the flush-
ing pipe network which entails (a) grading the entire application area,
(b) covering the area with a 24-inch layer of clean soil, and
(c) establishing permanent vegetation as a precaution against direct
contact. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $3,572,000. Decisions on the extent of aquifer restoration,
cleanup actions in offsite streams and wetlands, and final site closure will
be deferred pending (a) additional soil investigation during design,
(b) analyses on the effectiveness of the chosen alternative and (c) the
impacts of the site on the adjacent wetlands.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Target soil and Alternate Concentration
Levels (ACLs) for ground water contamination will be established during the
design phase. Final levels will be determined as additional information is
gained through operation of the systems.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Institutional controls are applicable at this site
but will be addressed in a future Record of Decision.
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Wastes will be landfilled offsite in a
RCRA-permitted facility.
KEYWORDS; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Heavy Metals; Inorganics;
Offsite Disposal; Organics; PCBs; Soil; Surface Water; Surface
Water Collection; Wetlands.
28
-------
HELEVA LANDFILL, PA
March 22, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Heleva Landfill site consists of a 20-acre landfill located on a
93-acre tract of land in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The site is sur-
rounded primarily by farm and pasturelands, with the village of Ormrod (pop-
ulation approximately 100) and town of Ironton (population 150) located ap-
proximately one quarter mile away. The site began operations as a sanitary
landfill in 1967, accepting 250-350 tons/day of mixed refuse including pa-
per, wood, and orchard wastes. In addition, industrial wastes with high
levels of trichloroethylene (200 ug/1) were sent to the site as early as
1967. The site was closed in May of 1981 by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources because of operational deficiencies.
The selected remedy for the Heleva Landfill site consists of extending
an existing water main from Ormrod to Ironton, capping the entire 20-acre
landfill according to RCRA standards, constructing surface water diversion
and gas venting systems, conducting a pre-design study to fully delineate
the source of contamination and determine sinkhole activity, constructing a
treatment facility onsite, pumping and treating highly contaminated ground
water, monitoring and sampling existing wells and surface water, and con-
ducting operation and maintenance for a period of at least two years. The
total capital cost of the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$7,253,000. Annual O&M costs are estimated to be $62,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The following cleanup criteria were defined
for the contaminated ground water: TCE 1.8-5.0 ppb; PCE 1.0 ug/1; Vinyl
Chloride 2.0 ug/1; 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 21.7 ug/1; Toluene 15,000 ug/1.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS: ROD Addendum If contaminant targets are not reached after two
years of pumping and treating the ground water, the RA will make a deci-
sion on the technical feasibility of reaching the targets. If the targets
cannot be met, they may need to be adjusted.
KEYWORDS; Air; Capping; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment;
Hydrogeologic; Surface Water; Surface Water Diversion/Collection;
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE); Trichloroethylene (TCE); Venting.
29
-------
LACKAWANNA REFUSE SITE, PA
March 22, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Lackawanna Refuse site is located along a section of the north-south
border between the Borough of Old Forge and Ransom Township, in Lackawanna
County, PA. Five strip mine pits of five to six acres each were excavated
in this area during the last century, and three were later used for waste
disposal in the 1970s. One abandoned pit (Pit 5) contains about 15,000
buried drums of hazardous waste as well as municipal refuse. Pit 5 is ap-
proximately five acres and is estimated to be 30-50 feet deep. The pit has
only a thin cover of soil above the waste. The contents of 20 drums were
sampled and found to contain various solvents, paints and thinners, sludges,
organic acids, and toxic metals.
The selected remedial action includes: removal of all drums and highly
contaminated municipal refuse from Pit 5 for disposal at a RCRA-regulated
facility (Excavated material from Pit 5 would be incinerated if adequate
incinerator capacity is available; if not, only liquids would be inciner-
ated, and solids would be landfilled in compliance with RCRA requirements);
clay capping (with gas venting systems) of Pits 2, 3, and 5; installation of
surface water drainage diversions and construction of a leachate collection
and treatment system for all three pits; removal and disposal of the top
layer of contaminated soil from the bore hole pit and the access road; re-
construction of the road with appropriate drainage and sedimentation con-
trols; and removal of the dried paint and contaminated soil in the paint
spill area for offsite disposal at a RCRA regulated facility. The estimated
total project capital cost for these remedial actions is $12.5 million.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation limits will be determined by
background contaminant levels found in "clean area" soil borings.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Acids; Capping; Incineration; Offsite Disposal; Sludge; Soil;
Solvents; Surface Water.
30
-------
LANSDOWNE RADIATION, PA
August 2, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Lansdowne Radiation site consists of a duplex located at 105/107
East Stratford Avenue in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. The building is located
on a side street in a residential area, approximately two miles from Phila-
delphia. The dwellings are contaminated with radium and other radionuclides
as the result of work done in one of the houses to refine radium and produce
medical devices from 1924 through 1944. Radiation levels in the houses ex-
ceed current EPA guidelines and the Centers for Disease Control has issued a
Public Health Advisory which states that, "..exposure levels are in excess
of those considered safe for human habitation."
The selected remedial action includes permanent relocation of the resi-
dents in 105 and 107 East Stratford Avenue. This will entail purchasing the
property at fair market value under the Uniform Relocation Act. There will
be no O&M costs associated with this action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: EPA guidelines for permissible levels of
radiation are: gamma 0.17 rem/year; radon 0.03 working levels; soil activ-
ity 5-15 pCi/g.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not specified.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Public Exposure; Public Health Advisory; Radioactive Materials;
Relocation; Soil; Wood.
31
-------
MCADOO ASSOCIATES, PA
(Second Remedial Action)
June 28, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The McAdoo Associates site is an eight-acre track of land located in
Schuylkill County in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is situated approxi-
mately 1 1/2 miles south of McAdoo Borough on U.S. Route 309. The site and
adjacent area was once used extensively for deep and strip mining of anthra-
cite coal. Mining activities started in 1884 and continued periodically
until 1962. After the site was acquired by McAdoo Associates in January
1975, two rotary-kiln furnaces and a vertical liquid waste incinerator were
installed and operated as part of a metals reclaiming operation. A log
maintained by McAdoo Associates shows acceptance of a variety of wastes from
January 1977 through November 1978. These wastes include: paint sludge,
spent solvents, metallic sludges, acid and caustic liquids, toluene, waste
oil/water, solid wastes and other miscellaneous residuals. None of the in-
coming waste streams received prior to January 1977 were logged into the
facility.
The selected remedial action for the McAdoo site includes: removal of
the tank and debris; limited excavation of soils with offsite disposal in a
RCRA facility; capping; diversion of surface water and maintenance of sur-
face water diversion ditches and cover. In addition, a comprehensive mining
engineering study to determine appropriate cap design and an evaluation of
the dilution factor will be undertaken during the design phase. The total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$2,360,000. O&M costs will be determined once the mining engineering study
is complete.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation of hot spots which exceed se-
lected soil contamination criteria as defined in the ROD (i.e., Cadmium
0.2 ppb; Chromium 809 ppb; Cyanide 33 ppb).
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS: ROD Addendum If the results of the mining engineering study
conclude that subsidence is significantly different than anticipated, the
selected remedial action will be reevaluated and a ROD Addendum prepared, if
necessary.
KEYWORDS: Capping; Cleanup Criteria; Deferred Decision; Excavation; Ground
Water; Mining; Offsite Disposal; RCRA 264; ROD Addendum; Sludge;
Soil; Solvents; Subsidence; Surface Water; Toluene.
32
-------
MOYER LANDFILL, PA
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Moyer Landfill is an inactive privately owned landfill located in
the Lower Providence Township in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The site
was operated as a municipal landfill from the 1940s until April 1981, during
which time it received municipal refuse and sewage sludges. According to
local Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials, the landfill accepted
a variety of solid and liquid hazardous wastes, including polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), solvents, paints, low-level radioactive wastes, and
incinerated materials in bulk form and/or containerized in drums. In 1972,
when the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) rules
and regulations became more restrictive, this landfill was cited, and
finally in 1981, it was closed and brought into receivership of the U.S.
District Court.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: interim soil/clay
capping, composed of a material having a permeability of 10"4/10"s
cm/sec to a depth of 36"; erosion and sedimentation control measures; sur-
face water diversion; leachate collection treatment and discharge; extrac-
tion, scrubbing and upgrading methane gas for delivery to the Philadelphia
Electric Company (PECO); security/fencing measures; ground water monitoring;
and all closure activities in compliance with RCRA at the conclusion of the
gas generation phase (10 to 20 years). Total capital cost for the selected
remedial alternative is estimated to be $6,298,500 with O&M costs approxi-
mately $332,000 per year. This alternative contemplates broad remedial work
and its implementation will depend upon the success of the gas generation/
recovery program and the contributions from generators and other potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).
If negotiations with the PRPs fail and/or the methane gas alternative
fails, EPA and PADER recommend: miscellaneous work preparatory to installa-
tion of a RCRA cap (grading, flattening of steep slopes, retaining walls and
installation of rip-rap at areas that are most likely to be eroded); gas
venting and monitoring; surface water collection and discharge to Skippack
Creek; leachate collection and treatment that will meet the 10~6 risk
level in the ground water and discharge requirements in the stream; ground
and surface water monitoring; and maintenance of the cap. Total capital
cost for this alternate remedial action is estimated to be $15,384,800 with
O&M costs of $343,100 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Through the methane gas recovery system,
approximately 1.5 million cubic feet per day of raw landfill gas can be gen-
erated for a period of close to a decade. The 1.5 million cubic feet of gas
per day is estimated to have a methane content of 58% and, after processing,
approximately 625,000 to 700,000 cubic feet of pipeline standard gas per day
could be available for introduction into the PECO pipeline. In addition,
the leachate collection system, for both alternatives, will be designed to
meet the 10"s risk level in the ground water and appropriate discharge
requirements in the streams.
33
-------
MOYER LANDFILL, PA
(Continued)
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Capping; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy
Metals; Leachate Collection/Treatment; PRP; Radioactive Mater-
ials; RCRA Closure Requirements; Surface Water; Surface Water
.Diversion/Collection; Toluene; Trichloroethylene (TCE); Venting;
VOCs.
34
-------
SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE, MD
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Sand, Gravel and Stone site consists of approximately 200 acres, and
is located in Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland. The site was previously oper-
ated as a sand and gravel quarry under the name Maryland Sand and Gravel-
stone Company. Currently, the site is occupied by the Sand, Gravel, and
Stone Company. It was reported that about three acres onsite were used for
the disposal of waste processing water, sludge, still bottoms, and about 90
drums of solid and semisolid waste between 1969 and 1974. On July 16, 1974,
1,300 gallons of flammable products in drums were reportedly received and
dumped. On August 5, 1974, 5,000 gallons of nonflammable materials were
received at the site. Pits, excavated onsite, were used as surface impound-
ments, where approximately 700,000 gallons of waste were dumped.
Remedial measures at the site will be implemented in two phases. Se-
lected remedial actions approved at this time include: excavation and off-
site disposal of buried materials (drums and/or trucks) at an approved RCRA
facility; installation of shallow ground water interceptors downgradient
from the waste sources; collection and treatment of contaminated ground wa-
ter; recirculating the treated effluent to the ponds and shallow aquifer or
discharging to Mill Creek. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $7,095,000 with O&M costs approximately
$753,000 per year. The decision on the remedial measures for the contami-
nated soils, the lower unconsolidated sand and bedrock aquifers, final site
closure requirements and post closure operations and maintenance activities
has been deferred until the Phase II RI/FS is completed.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Treatment and discharge of ground water
will continue until heavy metal and organic compound levels in the shallow
ground water aquifer reach background levels, an acceptable cancer risk le-
vel (10~6), or meet standards set by the Agency.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: 1) Offsite Disposal Drums will be disposed of offsite at a
RCRA-approved facility. 2) Consolidation Soils excavated as a result of
trench construction will be consolidated onsite.
KEYWORDS: Excavation; Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Offsite Disposal; Phe-
nols; Sediments; Soil; Surface Water; VOCs.
35
-------
TAYLOR BOROUGH, PA
June 28, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Taylor Borough site is located at the toe of Bald Mountain, approxi-
mately three miles south of the City of Scranton. The population within a
one mile radius of the site is estimated to be 1,007 persons with approxi-
mately 265 residential dwellings. The site is situated on a tract of land
that was previously coal mined and left unreclaimed with numerous open and
surface mine spoil pits. Subsequent to the mining activities, unreclaimed
portions of the 125-acre site were used for a municipal landfill operation
by the City of Scranton. Municipal waste was disposed in pits and spoil
material was used as a cover. As a result of the landfill operation, which
ceased in 1968, the topography of the site consists of relatively rolling
terrain between steep slopes of mine spoil piles and unreclaimed pits. In
addition, after the landfill operation ceased, drummed industrial wastes
were found on the surface of the site.
The selected remedial action includes: removal and offsite disposal of
approximately 125 crushed and intact drums, as well as their remnants, to a
qualified RCRA facility; collection and treatment of contaminated surface
water; excavation of contaminated soils and wastes from the former drum
storage areas for offsite disposal to a qualified RCRA facility; backfilling
and placement of a 24-inch soil cover over the former drum storage areas and
installation of a chain link fence around the perimeter of both soil covered
areas. Total capital cost is estimated to be $4,237,000. O&M costs are not
specified in the ROD.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation of contaminated sediments,
soils, and wastes to background levels in the former drum storage areas and
Ponds 1 and 2.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Restriction of future land use mechanism not
specified in the ROD.
COMMENTS; 1) RCRA Strip and deep mining of coal have affected the site's
foundation, possibly prohibiting the construction of a '264' landfill. In
addition, there is a potential for subsidence or settlement from past
underground mining activities. As a result, in order to close the facility,
the cover material must have a permeability less than or equal to the
permeability of the natural subsoils present. The soil cover will provide
the same direct contact barrier as clay. 2) Offsite Disposal All
excavated materials will be landfilled in a qualified RCRA facility.
KEYWORDS: Air; Benzene; Deferred Decision; Excavation; Filling; Monitor-
ing; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydro-
carbons (PAH); Soil; Soil Cover; Subsidence; Surface Water;
Toluene; Trichloroethylene (TCE).
36
-------
TYSON'S DUMP, PA
December 21, 1984
ROD ABSTRACT
The Tyson's Dump site is located in southeastern Pennsylvania, approxi-
mately 15 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The dump is an abandoned septic
and chemical waste disposal site which operated from 1960-1968. Unlined
lagoons were filled with wastes and covered, and new lagoons were created.
Major contaminants found at the site were volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
primarily xylenes, toluenes, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. In addition,
chlorinated benzene compounds were detected.
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site includes
excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils and wastes; upgrading
of the existing air-stripping facility to treat leachate, shallow ground
water, and surface run-on; and excavation and offsite disposal of contami-
nated sediments within the tributary which receives effluent from the exist-
ing air-stripping facility. The estimated capital cost for the selected
alternative is $10,718,000 and operation and maintenance costs for five
years are estimated to be $351,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation of unconsolidated material down
to bedrock and lateral excavation based on detectable background levels.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: 1) Offsite Disposal Contaminated materials will be disposed of
offsite at a double lined, RCRA-permitted landfill in compliance with the
current offsite disposal policy. 2) Additional studies required Further
studies will be conducted to determine if removal of surface soils on the
hillside will be necessary.
KEYWORDS: Air Stripping; Capping; Chlorinated Benzenes; Deferred Decision;
Excavation; Ground Water; Interim Measure; RCRA Landfill Stan-
dards; RCRA Locational Guidance; Soil; Stream Sediments; Surface
Water; VOCs.
37
-------
AMERICAN CREOSOTE, FL
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The American Creosote Works, Inc. (ACW) site occupies approximately 12
acres in a moderately dense, commercial and residential district of
Pensacola, Florida. Wood-preserving operations were carried out at the ACW
site from 1902 until December 1981. Prior to 1950, creosote was exclusively
used to treat poles. Use of pentachlorophenol (PCP) started in 1950 and
steadily increased during later years. During its operations, liquid
process wastes were discharged into the two unlined, onsite surface
impoundments. Prior to 1970, waste waters in these ponds were allowed to
overflow through a spillway and follow a drainage course into Bayou Chico
and Pensacola Bay. In subsequent years, waste waters were periodically
drawn off the ponds and discharged into designated "spillage areas" on
site. Additional discharges occurred during periods of heavy rainfall and
flooding, when the ponds overflowed the containment dikes. Data gathered
during the RI indicate that major contaminants in the ground water are
aromatic hydrocarbons common to creosote, such as, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. In
addition, onsite soil samples show that the areas where wood-preserving
operations were carried out are contaminated with PAHs.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavation of all
contaminated soils and sludges, both on and offsite, with consolidation and
onsite disposal in a landfill that meets RCRA standards. Total capital cost
for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $5,678,000 with
annual O&M costs approximately $50,000 for years 1-5 and $19,000 for years
6-30. At a later date, the Agency will consider a second operable unit
which will involve the selection of an alternative for the management of
migration of contaminants in the ground water at the site. Operable units I
and II will be the basis for the site's remedial design.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation of contaminated soils and
sludges to maximum concentration levels of 12.0 mg/kg Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 0.13 mg/kg benzene.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; 1) ROD Addendum The State of Florida will evaluate whether the
use of other alternatives is possible for portions of the contaminated
material presently onsite. These alternatives would be implemented through
use of the State Fund or a combination of the State Fund and CERCLA.
2) Consolidation Contaminated soils being excavated from areas off the
site will be combined with contaminated soils and sludges from areas on the
site. These consolidated contaminated soils and sludges will then be placed
into an onsite landfill constructed to RCRA design standards.
KEYWORDS; Arsenic; Consolidation; Deferred Decision; Excavation; Ground
Water; Heavy Metals; Onsite Disposal; Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs); RCRA Landfill Specifications; Sediments;
Sludge; Soil; Toluene; VOCs.
38
-------
BISCAYNE AQUIFER SITES, FL
September 16, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Biscayne Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for 3 million
residents of southeast Florida. It is a highly permeable, wedge-shaped,
unconfined shallow aquifer composed of limestone and sandstone.
Three Biscayne Aquifer hazardous waste sites on the EPA's National
Priorities List were addressed as one management unit for the remedial
investigation and feasibility study: (1) Miami Drum Site, (2) Northwest
58th Street Landfill, and (3) Varsol Spill Site. These sites are located
near each other in north Dade County, Florida. The remedial actions for the
three hazardous waste sites are being addressed in four phases:
Phase I: Varsol Spill Siteimmediate area soil and ground water.
Record of Decision (ROD) signed 3/29/85.
Phase II: Miami Drumsource control (soils and encountered ground
water), completed September 1982. ROD signed 9/13/82.
Phase III: 58th Street Landfillimmediate area soil, surface water,
and ground water Enforcement Decision Document (EDO)
planned.
Phase IV: Study Area Ground WaterROD signed 9/16/85.
The selected remedial action for Phase IV includes adding air
stripping to the existing water treatment system in the study area and
operating the Miami Springs and Preston municipal wells for the dual
purpose of providing potable water and recovering contaminated water
from the aquifer. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alter-
native is estimated to be $5,268,000 with O&M costs approximately
$334,400 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; Cleanup goals for Biscayne Aquifer
have been recommended for 50 priority pollutants including the follow-
ing: PCBs, 8.0 x 10"s ug/1; Arsenic, 50 ug/1; Lead, 50 ug/1; Mer-
cury, 2 ug/1; Vinyl chloride, 1 ug/1; TCE, 28 ug/1; PCE, 9 ug/1; Ben-
zene, 0.7 ug/1; Phenol, 3.5 mg/1; Pyrene, 0.2 ug/1. These goals are
based on EPA primary drinking water standards, EPA criteria for cancer
risk (10~6) and other studies noted in the ROD.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Dade County prohibits discharges to surface
and ground waters that adversely affect water quality. Dade County
also controls well installation and operation. A supplemental insti-
tutional control called the Biscayne Aquifer Protection Plan was pro-
posed for action. This plan would provide County-level responsibility
for ensuring adequate consideration of waste issues not addressed by
Federal or State agencies. These issues include waste generated by
homeowners, small industries and individuals that affect the Biscayne
Aquifer water quality.
39
-------
BISCAYNE AQUIFER SITES, PL
(Continued)
COMMENTS; Extent of CERCLA response The extent of CERCLA response must
be established when there is an area wide problem with multiple contaminat-
ing sources, both CERCLA and non-CERCLA. Source control remediation cannot
be ensured at non-NPL sites under CERCLA. Aquifer contamination from non-
NPL sources will continue until non-CERCLA source control measures can be
implemented. Institutional controls must also be implemented to restrict
future aquifer use.
KEYWORDS: Air Stripping; Aquifer Use Restrictions; Ground Water; Institu-
tional Controls; Sole Source Aquifer; Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene;
Vinyl Chloride; VOCs.
40
-------
DAVIE LANDFILL, FL
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Broward County Solid Waste Disposal facility (a.k.a. Davie Landfill)
is located 10 miles southwest of Fort Lauderdale, Florida near the inter-
section of Orange Drive and Boy Scout Road. The landfill area includes a
50-acre garbage landfill, an 80-acre trash landfill and a 56-acre sludge
lagoon. The facility began operation in 1964 accepting trash and ash from
the county's adjacent garbage incinerator. In November 1971, a lagoon was
created in an unlined natural depression onsite. Grease trap pump-outs and
septic tank and treated municipal sludges were disposed in the lagoon which
contains an estimated 75,000 cubic yards of sludge. Initial sampling of the
lagoon contents characterize the waste as being in the high range of typical
waste water treatment plant sludge hazardous constituents. In addition,
concerns have been raised about the relatively high cyanide and sulfide
concentrations detected.
The selected remedial action includes: dewatering and stabilization of
the sludge lagoon contents and placement in a single lined sanitary landfill
cell and installation of a cap on the cell that meets the regulatory re-
quirements of 40 CFR 264.310{a). This ROD addresses only source control
measures. The decision concerning cleanup of ground water contamination
will be made following an evaluation of these actions and monitoring data.
Total capital cost for the selected remedial action is estimated to be
$3.0-$3.7 million with annual O&M costs of $100,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The following cleanup goals have been rec-
ommended to prevent potable water contamination from exceeding applicable
drinking water standards or a cancer risk level of 10"s: Lead, 1000 ppm;
Chromium, 25 ppm; Cadmium, 25 ppm; Arsenic, 2 ppm; Mercury, 20 ppm. These
levels will be reexamined in the remedial design to verify calculations and
to address other contaminants as needed.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Cyanide; Deferred Decision; Ground
Water; Hazardous Constituents; Onsite Containment; Sludge;
Sulfide.
41
-------
VARSOL SPILL SITE, FL
March 29, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Biscayne Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for three mil-
lion residents of southeast Florida. Three Biscayne Aquifer hazardous waste
sites on the EPA National Priorities List were addressed as one management
unit for the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS): 1) Var-
sol Spill Site (Miami International Airport), 2) Miami Drum Site, and
3) Northwest 58th Street Landfill. The Varsol Spill Site is located in the
northeast section of Miami International Airport (MIA). Industrial opera-
tions associated with a typical commercial airport have resulted in hydro-
carbon contamination of surface and ground waters in the vicinity of MIA.
Since 1966 there have been approximately 15 hydrocarbon spills and leaks
totalling approximately 2 million gallons, including the loss of an esti-
mated 1.5 million gallons of varsol. In 1970, an unknown amount of jet fuel
was spilled into a drainage canal onsite. In April 1981, construction ac-
tivities revealed a thick hydrocarbon layer floating on the water table in
an excavated trench. One responsible party installed 54 shallow observation
wells. Sampling results showed that the hydrocarbon layer diminished with
time. In another area, Dade County installed 43 monitoring wells to deter-
mine the extent and magnitude of jet fuel spilled. Recovery operations for
this jet fuel are currently underway.
The remedial investigation of the site showed no trace of varsol in and
around the airport at this particular time, thus the recommended alternative
for this site is no action. Several factors probably contributed to the
dissipation of the hydrocarbon layer in the aquifer. For example, some of
the solvent was recovered, biodegradation is believed to have taken place,
and the hydrology of the area indicates that some of the solvent contributed
to and became part of the "background" contamination in the aquifer. A
separate ROD was prepared in September 1985 to address the area "background"
contamination (see Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL).
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; N/A
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS: Ground Water; No Action.
42
-------
WHITEHOUSE WASTE OIL PITS, FL
May 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits site is located near the community of
Whitehouse, FL and occupies approximately seven acres of an upland area im-
mediately adjacent to a cypress swamp. Two major east-west highways, U.S.
Highway 90 and Interstate 10, are approximately 0.5 miles south of the
site. A low-density residential area is located west and northwest of the
site. The site itself consists of seven unlined pits, constructed by Allied
Petroleum, where waste oil sludge, acid and contaminated waste oil from an
oil reclaiming process were disposed. The first pits were con- structed in
1958, and by 1968 the company had constructed and filled seven pits with
approximately 127,000 cubic yards of waste. Allied Petroleum then went
bankrupt. Consequently, the pits were abandoned, and remained an "open
dump" for several years. Recent activities have increased the volume of
contaminated material to an estimated 240,000 cubic yards.
The selected remedial action includes: construction of a slurry wall
around the entire site; recovery and treatment of contaminated ground water;
removal of the contaminated sediments from the northeast tributary of
McGirts Creek; and capping the entire site. Total capital cost for the
selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $3,049,000 and operations
and maintenance costs are estimated to be an additional $96,630 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: No specific cleanup goals were defined in
the Record of Decision, Response objectives were defined as follows:
Ground water quality should meet Florida Department of Environmental Resour-
ces (FDER) Primary Drinking Water Standards; surface water quality should
meet State water quality standards; and soil and sediment contaminant migra-
tion offsite should be treated to background levels or minimal risk levels.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS: Consolidation Waste sediments excavated from the northeast
tributary of McGirts Creek will be consolidated onsite in the waste
contaminant area bounded by the slurry wall.
KEYWORDS; Arsenic; Capping; Chromium; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment;
O&M; Phenols; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); Slurry
Wall; Soil; Surface Water.
43
-------
A&F MATERIALS COMPANY, IL (EDO)
June 14, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The A&F Materials site is located on three and three quarter acres of
land on West Cumberland Street in Greenup, Illinois. The site is bounded by
open farmland/woodland, the Village of Greenup waste water treatment plant,
and private residences. In addition, the City of Newton occasionally with-
draws drinking water from the Embarras River, which is located twenty-one
miles downstream from the site. The A&F Materials facility began operation
in March 1977 and continued until it shut down in 1980. The operation pro-
cessed waste materials (including, but not limited to oil, sludge, caustic
and sulfuric acid) into fuel oil and fire retardant chemicals. During the
course of operations, there were numerous violations of the permit issued to
A&F Materials by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. By March
1978, four storage lagoons began to overflow, contaminating soil and
drainage pathways leading to the Embarras River. In addition, twelve steel
storage tanks containing a mixture of waste oils, sludges, spent caustics,
spent acids, contaminated water and other waste products were located on
site. These tanks failed on several occasions, releasing their contents
into the surrounding environment.
The selected remedial action includes: removal and disposal of all
soils contaminated over the recommended action levels, including soils con-
taining greater than 1 ppm PCBs; monitoring of the ground water; cleaning
and removal of onsite equipment and buildings; testing and disposal of soil
underlying the building if it is found to be contaminated above the recom-
mended action levels; grading of the site; and removing the fence suround-
ing the site. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $824,000. Consenting defendants are required to submit an
O&M plan for approval.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: All soils containing greater than 1 ppm
PCBs will be removed. Action levels have been recommended for 25 key soil
contaminants. Among them are: benzene, 1 ug/gm; toluene, 12 ug/gm; tri-
chloroethylene, 1 ug/gm; pyrene, 1 ug/gm; napthalene, 2 ug/gm; chromium,
80 ug/gm; cadmium, 5 ug/gm.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Wastes and building debris will be disposed
of at an EPA-approved facility.
KEYWORDS: Excavation; Filling; Ground Water Monitoring; Heavy Metals; Off-
site Disposal; Organics; PCBs; Soil; Surface Water.
44
-------
ACME SOLVENTS, IL
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Acme Solvents Reclaiming, Inc. facility is located approximately
five miles south of Rockford, Illinois. From 1960 until 1973, the facility
served as a disposal site for paints, oils and still bottoms from the sol-
vent reclamation plant located in Rockford. In addition, empty drums were
stored onsite. Wastes were dumped into depressions created from either pre-
vious quarrying activities or by scraping overburden from the near surface
bedrock to form berms. In September 1972, the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (IPCB) ordered Acme to remove all drums and wastes from the facility
and to backfill the lagoons. Follow-up inspections revealed that wastes and
crushed drums were being left onsite and merely covered with soil. Sampling
of the site revealed high concentrations of chlorinated organics in the
drinking water. The major source of hazardous substances at the facility
are the waste disposal mounds. These mounds contain volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds and PCB concentrations of up to several
hundred mg/kg.
The selected remedial action for this operable unit includes: a
provision for an interim alternate water supply to affected residences by
installation of home carbon treatment units; excavation and incineration of
waste materials and contaminated soils, with disposition of non-incinerable
wastes to an offsite RCRA landfill; continued investigation of bedrock
contamination and remediation; continued investigation of contaminated
ground water; and performance of pump tests to evaluate the effectiveness
and cost of plume control. Estimated capital costs will be determined
during the design phase.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The Soil Contaminant Evaluation Methodology
(SOCEM) was used to estimate soil cleanup levels for several indicator
chemicals.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Alternate Water Supply; Excavation; Ground Water; Incineration;
Inorganics; Offsite Disposal; PCBs; SOCEM; Soil; Trichloro-
ethylene (TCE); VOCs.
45
-------
BYRON/JOHNSON SALVAGE YARD, IL
March 13, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard site is located 4 miles southwest of
Byron, Illinois and consists of 20 acres of woodlands in a rural, agricul-
tural area. The yard operated during the 1960s and early 1970s as a sal-
vage yard and unpermitted landfill. Domestic refuse and industrial drums
have been collected and sometimes buried onsite. Ten surface water sampling
points from- nearby Woodland Creek and Rock River, and three ground water
sampling points have yielded high concentrations of cyanide and other toxic
chemicals including lead, arsenic, halogenated organics and low-level PCB's.
The selected remedy for this first operable unit consists of offsite
disposal of all surface and buried drums, offsite disposal of highly
contaminated soils which exhibit the EP toxicity characteristic, and in-situ
treatment with sodium hypochlorite and ammonia of all contaminated soil con-
taining greater than 1 ppm amenable cyanide. Offsite disposal would include
disposal at a lined, RCRA-approved landfill and, if possible, incineration
or treatment of liquids. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $1,170,919. O&M costs are estimated to be
$6,000 per year. (Since the ROD was approved, cost estimates for the
disposal and transportation of contaminated materials have increased. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is now estimated at
$2,500,000.)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Soils with leachate that have metal concen-
trations exceeding 100 times drinking water standards will be removed during
this operable unit. Soil containing greater than 1 ppm amenable cyanide
will be treated in-situ. The EP Toxicity characteristic will be used as an
initial indicator for highly contaminated soils which will be removed. The
ongoing RI/FS for ground water contamination will evaluate the need for
additional soil removal.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Arsenic; Excavation; Heavy Metals; O&M; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; PCBs; Soil.
46
-------
CEMETERY DUMP, MI
September 11, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Cemetery Dump site is located in Oakland County, Michigan, approxi-
mately 35 miles northwest of Detroit. The 4-acre site was a sand and gravel
pit which had been backfilled. Citizen reports allege that approximately
300 to 600 barrels were dumped and buried onsite in the late 1960s or early
1970s. In September 1981, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
excavated and transported offsite approximately 20 to 30 barrel fragments.
Analysis of the barrel contents indicated the presence of paint sludges,
solvents, PCBs and oils.
This ROD is a source control remedial action that includes excavation
and disposal of approximately 250 drums at an offsite RCRA facility. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial action is estimated to be
$1,883,261. Any additional remedial actions will be addressed in the final
Record of Decision upon completion of the RI/FS.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; The objective of the selected action is to
eliminate the threat of release from the contaminant source to a potential
Class I aquifer and to remove the threat of contact to the surrounding
community and the wildlife in the area.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Excavation; Inorganics; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Soil.
47
-------
CHARLEVOIX, MI
(Second Remedial Action)
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The City of Charlevoix is located on the shores of Lake Michigan in
Charlevoix County. The city's single municipal well supplies potable water
to a year-round population of 3,500 which increases to approximately 5,000
during the summer tourist season. In September 1981, while conducting tests
for trihalogenated methane compounds, the Michigan Department of Public
Health (MDPH) detected trichloroethylene (TCE) ranging in concentrations
from 13 to 30 ppb in the Charlevoix water supply. Data from the monitoring
program showed gradually rising levels of TCE in the raw water. Although
not present in the municipal well, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was
subsequently detected in the aquifer. In June 1984, a Record of Decision
was signed which approved an initial remedial measure (IRM) for an alternate
water supply to replace the contaminated municipal well. The selected IRM
consisted of a Lake Michigan water intake structure and a water
filtration/flocculation treatment plant.
The selected remedial action involves natural attenuation of the TCE and
PCE plumes to Lake Michigan. The aquifer would be restored to safe levels
for consumption after 50 years. During the 50-year purging period,
institutional restrictions on the installation of private wells in the
contaminated aquifer will be enforced by local health officials. In
addition, long-term monitoring of the plumes will continue. The estimated
annual O&M costs for monitoring are $17,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The concentrations of TCE and PCE expected
in the nearshore surface waters of Lake Michigan as a result of the con-
tinued release of the contaminant plumes under natural flow conditions are
0.008 ppb and 0.01 ppb, respectively.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Institutional restrictions on the installation of
private wells in the contaminated aquifer will be enforced by local health
officials.
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Ground Water; Institutional Controls; O&M; Tetrachloroethlylene
(PCE); Trichloroethylene (TCE); VOCs.
48
-------
CHEM-DYNE, OH (EDO)
July 5, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Chem-Dyne site is located within the limits of the City of Hamilton,
Butler County, Ohio which had an estimated 1980 population of 66,400. The
site covers approximately 10 acres of land, and lies within the bedrock
aquifer of the Great Miami River. The Chem-Dyne site probably began receiv-
ing hazardous substances as early as 1974. Additionally, Spray-Dyne, one of
the numerous Chem-Dyne "affiliated companies", produced antifreeze onsite by
recycling chemical wastes and by using virgin chemicals. By 1976, Chem-
Dyne was a rapidly growing corporation storing, "recycling", and disposing
of almost every type of industrial chemical waste. Operations of Chem-Dyne
resulted in uncontrolled releases of hazardous materials. In five years of
operation the facility accepted waste from approximately 200 generators.
The materials handled included pesticides and pesticide residues, chlori-
nated hydrocarbons, solvents, waste oils, plastics and resins, PBB, PCBs,
TRIS, acids and caustics, heavy metal and cyanide sludges, and packaged lab-
oratory chemicals. More than 30,000 drums and 300,000 gallons of bulk
materials were left onsite when the operation closed in February 1980.
The selected remedial action includes: installation of a ground water
extraction system with subsequent treatment of the contaminated water (air
emissions from the treatment system shall be treated by carbon adsorption);
demolition of onsite buildings; removal of selected soil; and installation
of a site cap. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is
estimated to be $11,600,000 and O&M costs are estimated to be $597,000 per
year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OF GOALS: Ground water will be treated to less than
100 ppb total VOCs so that compliance well samples meet background levels or
a cancer risk level of 10~6.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; Offsite Disposal Wastes will be disposed of offsite at an
EPA-approved facility. The ROD did not specify whether the disposal
facility has a double or single liner.
KEYWORDS; Acids; Air; Arsenic; Capping; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground
Water Treatment; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Organics; PCBs;
Pesticides; Soil; Surface Water.
49
-------
CROSS BROTHERS, IL (IRM)
March 25, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Cross Brothers' uncontrolled hazardous waste site is located approx-
imately 14 miles east of the City of Kankakee, Illinois, within Pembroke
Township of Kankakee County. The site consists of a 20-acre parcel of land
surrounded primarily by low density single family housing. Abner and James
Cross operated a drum and pail reclaiming operation at the site from 1961
until 1980. The operation employed a crude process to incinerate the resi-
due material that was contained in nearly all of the drums and pails re-
ceived for reconditioning. Essentially, the operation consisted of invert-
ing the containers to allow the residue materials to drain out onto the
ground. Then solvent would be added to the containers to dissolve any re-
maining residue. Throughout the container reclamation process, the Cross
Brothers' operation was extremely haphazard, allowing the indiscriminant
dumping of great quantities of residues (largely dyes, paints, inks and
solvents).
The selected remedial action includes offsite disposal of surficial and
buried waste materials and visibly contaminated soil. Total capital cost of
the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $377,728.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The goal for this initial remedial measure
is to remove drums, containers and visibly contaminated soil. No specific
cleanup levels have been defined at this time for contaminated soil and
ground water.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; Offsite Disposal Offsite disposal criteria were not defined in
the ROD.
KEYWORDS; Excavation; Offsite Disposal; Soil; Solvents.
50
-------
EAU CLAIRE, WI (IRM)
June 10, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Eau Claire Municipal Well Field consists of a 500-acre site located
in the northwest corner of the City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The Eau
Claire municipal well system supplies drinking water to approximately 57,500
residents and to numerous commercial and industrial establishments in the
City of Eau Claire and the Town of Washington. In March 1981, as part of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ground Water Supply Survey, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) tested the Eau Claire muni-
cipal water supply for volatile organic compounds. The following organic
compounds were identified in the municipal water supply: 1,1-dichloro-
ethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and trichloroethene.
The selected remedial action includes construction of air stripping fa-
cilities to remove volatile organic compounds from the contaminated flow
(11.2 million gallons per day (mgd)) from the north well field. The treated
water will be discharged into the municipal water treatment plant and
distribution system. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is esti- mated to be $1,420,000 with O&M costs estimated to be
$195,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The performance goal for the aeration
treatment system is to achieve a 99.6% removal of the critical contaminant
1,1-dichloroethene from the municipal water supply. Two other compounds
identified at the site are also suspected human carcinogens (trichloroethene
and tetrachloroethene). The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes Recommended
Maximum Concentration Levels (RCMLs) for non-threshold toxicants, such as
carcinogens, to be zero.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Air Stripping; Alternate Water Supply; Ground Water; O&M;
Organics.
51
-------
KUMMER LANDFILL, MN
June 12, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Rummer Sanitary Landfill occupies approximately 40 acres in the
southern portion of Northern Township, Beltrami County, Minnesota. The site
was operated as a solid waste facility from 1971 until October 1, 1984.
During the period of operations, municipal refuse, demolitation debris, and
industrial waste were accepted at the site. However, the disposal of hazar-
dous wastes was never documented at any time during operations. The land-
fill is situated above a shallow surficial sand aquifer which serves numer-
ous downgradient private wells east and southeast of the landfill. At
present, the Kummer Sanitary Landfill appears to be the major source of vol-
atile organic contamination found in private drinking water wells in the
area.
The selected remedial action includes provisions for an alternate water
supply. These provisions consist of constructing two wells in a deep uncon-
taminated aquifer, a water tower and distribution system. Total capital
cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $1,624,850
with O&M costs estimated to be $28,440 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: To reduce the public cancer health threat
to less than 10" by providing a safe and reliable alternate water supply.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Alternate Water Supply; Ground Water; O&M; Organics.
52
-------
LEHILLIER/MANKATO, MN
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The LeHillier/Mankato site is located in south-central Minnesota approx-
imately 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis-St. Paul, adjacent to the City of
Mankato. The LeHillier area contained numerous natural and manmade depres-
sions resulting from changes in the channels of the Minnesota and Blue Earth
Rivers, and from excavation of sand and gravel. Between 1925 and 1960,
these depressions were filled with miscellaneous rubbish. No records of the
dumping activities or types of waste materials were kept. In the fall of
1981, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) received information
alleging that hazardous wastes had been disposed of at several dumps or fill
areas in LeHillier. A followup investigation confirmed the existence of
these disposal areas and contamination of the shallow sand and gravel aqui-
fer with volatile halogenated hydrocarbons, primarily trichloroethylene
(TCE). However, the source of TCE was not identified.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: extraction, with
partial treatment by air stripping, of the contaminated ground water plume
through adaptation of eight existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
ground water and flood control wells and construction of two new extraction
wells; extension of the LeHillier community water system to affected
residents and businesses not currently serviced; and proper abandonment, in
accordance with State well codes, of individual wells formerly used as
drinking water supplies. This action will manage contaminant migration
until contaminant levels reach drinking water guality. Total capital cost
for the selected remedial action is estimated to be $800,000 with first year
operation and maintenance costs of $70,000. The State of Minnesota will
continue O&M for the remaining duration which should not exceed 9 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Extraction and treatment of the TCE plume
to less than the 10" excess lifetime cancer risk concentration of 2.8
ug/1, which is considered acceptable for public use. The time to achieve
acceptable concentrations in the aquifer has been estimated at 5 to 10 years.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Air Stripping; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment;
Trichloroethylene (TCE).
53
-------
MAIN STREET, IN
August 2, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The City of Elkhart is located in north central Indiana in Elkhart
County. Three well fields supply drinking water to approximately 37,000 of
the city's residents. Main Street Well Field is the largest of the three
well fields consisting of 15 wells and supplies 70-80 percent of the city's
water needs. In April 1981 during an U.S. EPA Ground Water System Survey,
volatile organic compounds were detected in water furnished from Main Street
Well Field. The compounds detected included trichloroethylene (TCE),
1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane.
Concentrations of contaminants ranged from 2.0 ppb of 1,1-dichloroethane to
94 ppb of TCE.
The selected remedial action includes construction of air stripping fa-
cilities to remove volatile organic compounds from the contaminated flow of
the Main Street Well Field. The treated water will be discharged to the
existing water treatment plant and distribution system. Total capital cost
of the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $1,106,000 with O&M
costs estimated to be $158,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The air stripping treatment system is de-
signed to achieve a 99.1% removal of TCE, the contaminant found in highest
concentration; 88.9% removal of PCE; and 96.7% removal of
1,1-dichloroethylene.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Air Stripping; Ground Water; Organics; Soil; Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE); Trichloroethylene (TCE).
54
-------
MORRIS ARSENIC, MN
August 7, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Morris Arsenic site is located in Stevens County, approximately one
mile northeast of Morris, Minnesota. In the early 1940s, approximately
1,500 pounds of arsenic-laced grasshopper bait was reportedly buried in a
gravel pit near the intersection of Highways 28 and 59. The subsequent con-
struction of the Highway 59 Bypass through the general location of the bur-
ial site has made the discovery of the exact burial location difficult. It
has been presumed that the arsenic was mechanically dispersed during highway
construction since top soil cleared from the site for road bed preparation
was later spread along the side slopes.
The site poses no imminent health hazard to the public due to the fact
that migration of arsenic in the ground water does not appear to be
occurring at the site and contaminant levels found in the ground water were
similar to the expected natural background concentration. In addition,
levels of arsenic found in the soils at the site are within the range of
natural levels of arsenic in soil. Therefore, since the site poses no
significant threat to public health, welfare or the environment, the
"no-action" alternative was selected.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: N/A
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: EPA has recommended to State, County, and local
officials that a deed notice be placed on the property noting previous use
of the site for the disposal of a hazardous substance.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Deed Restriction; Ground Water; No Action; Soil.
55
-------
NEW LYME, OH
September 27, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The New Lyme Landfill is located near State Route 11 on Dodgeville Road in
Ashtabula County, approximately 20 miles south of the City of Ashtabula,
Ohio. The landfill occupies about 40 acres of a 100-acre tract. Operations
began at the site in 1969, and were initially managed by two farmers. In
1971, the landfill was licensed by the State of Ohio and operations were taken
over by a licensed landfill operator. According to documentation, the New
Lyme Landfill received household, industrial, commercial, and institu- tional
wastes and construction and demolition debris. However, numerous violations
of the license occurred, including: open dumping; improper spreading and
compacting of wastes; no State approval for disposal of cer- tain industrial
wastes; and excavation of trenches into the shale bedrock. In August 1978,
the landfill was closed by the Ashtabula County Health De- partment.
Documents indicate that wastes at the New Lyme Landfill site in- eluded: coal
tar and coal tar distillates, asbestos, resins and resin tar, paint and paint
sludge, oils, lacquer thinner, peroxide, corrosive liquids, acetone, xylene,
toluene, kerosene, naptha, benzene, linseed oil, mineral oil, fuel oil,
chlorinated solvents, 2,4-D, and laboratory chemicals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: construction of a
RCRA cap over the landfill; installation of extraction/containment wells
around the perimeter of the landfill to dewater the landfill and to elimi-
nate leachate production; onsite treatment of contaminated ground water and
leachate using biological disc, sodium hydroxide precipitation and granular
activated carbon; onsite consolidation of contaminated sediment; installa-
tion of gas vents; fencing of the site and installation of a ground water
monitoring system. Total capital cost for the selected remedial action is
estimated to be $10,798,000 with annual O&M costs of $252,000 for the duration
that water treatment is necessary. After that time, the annual O&M costs are
estimated to decrease to $44,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Implementation of the selected remedial
action will eliminate the exposure pathways of direct contact with leachate
seeps, ingestion and inhalation of soil, and exposure to ground water.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS: Consolidation Contaminated sediment will be moved onsite and
consolidated under the RCRA cap.
KEYWORDS: Asbestos; Capping; Granular Activated Carbon; Ground Water; Ground
Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treatment; Leachate
Collection/Treatment; Oils; Onsite Containment; Sediments; Sludge;
Soil; Solvents; Toluene; Venting; VOCs.
56
-------
NORTHERNAIRE, MI
September 11, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
Northernaire Plating is the site of a former electroplating facility
located at 1002 Sixth Street in Cadillac, Wexford County, Michigan. Elec-
troplating operations were conducted at the 12.75-acre site from 1971 to
1981. Waste contaminants from electroplating commonly include copper, nic-
kel, chromium, zinc, lead, tin and cadmium, as well as metal complexing
agents. In 1978, two domestic wells were found to be contaminated with hex-
avalent chromium. In addition, process waste waters containing cadmium and
chromium were discharged into the municipal sewer system. A private sewer
line permitted exfiltration of these waste waters through poorly sealed
joints. A drywell in the sewer line at the facility allowed plant effluent
to be discharged directly to the highly permeable unsaturated soil.
This ROD is a source control remedial action that includes: excavation
of soil and sewer line sediments to meet response objectives of 50 mg/kg
chromium and 10 mg/kg cadmium, excavation and replacement of the sewer line,
and disposal offsite at a RCRA facility; cleaning the facility's floor of
dust and residue; breaking up a 30ft. X 10ft. area of the concrete floor and
the drywell in the building, sampling the soil under the building for
cadmium and chromium, and excavation and disposal offsite at a RCRA
facility, if necessary; and backfilling with uncontaminated soil. Any
additional remedial actions will be addressed in a separate Record of
Decision upon completion of the RI/FS. Total capital cost for the selected
remedial action is estimated to be $75,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Excavation of soils and sewer line sedi-
ments to meet response objectives of 50 mg/kg chromium and 10 mg/kg cadmium.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; N/A
COMMENTS; Offsite Disposal Soil and sewer line sediments will be
transported to a privately-owned offsite RCRA Subtitle C facility.
KEYWORDS: Cadmium; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water; Offsite Disposal;
Sediments; Soil.
57
-------
OLD MILL, OH
August 7, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Old Mill site is in the Village of Rock Creek, Ashtabula County,
Ohio. The site consists of two parcels of land; the Henfield property and
the Kraus property. Land use in the vicinity of the site is represented by
a mixture of residential, agricultural, and commercial/industrial develop-
ments. The Henfield property is approximately three acres, and includes
four dilapidated wood buildings and four concrete silos. The Kraus property
is approximately ten acres, partially covered with piles of railroad bal-
last, and has one empty abandoned bulk liquid tank. In 1979, the U.S. EPA
and Ohio EPA found approximately 1,200 drums of toxic waste, including sol-
vents, oils, resins and PCBs, stored on both the Henfield and Kraus proper-
ties. Superfund emergency removal activities and enforcement actions re-
sulted in a removal action that began in November 1981 and was completed by
October 1982. Today, contaminated soil and ground water remain onsite.
The selected remedial action includes: removal and offsite disposal of
a select volume of contaminated soil; extraction and treatment of contami-
nated ground water; implementation of aquifer use restrictions; and provi-
sions for an alternate water supply. Total capital cost for the selected
remedial alternative is estimated to be $3,917,000 with O&M costs approxi-
mately $45,000 per year. Since publication of the ROD, the cost estimate
has increased to $5,100,000, reflecting an additional lOOOy3 of soil that
was not accounted for in the ROD.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: A ground water cleanup level of 10"s
cancer risk level has been proposed. Soils contaminated with base/neutral
compounds will be removed to background levels and soils contaminated with
VOCs will be removed to a cancer risk level of 10"6.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Aquifer use restrictions will be implemented until
aquifer contamination falls below a 10"6 cancer risk level. Land use re-
strictions are required to protect the ground water monitoring and treatment
system.
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Wastes, contaminated soil and building debris
will be disposed of offsite in a RCRA-approved landfill. Non-contaminated
building debris will be disposed in a sanitary landfill.
KEYWORDS: ACL; Alternate Water Supply; Aquifer Use Restrictions; Excava-
tion; Ground Water; Ground Water Monitoring; Ground Water Treat-
ment; Institutional Controls; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Oils; Organ-
ics; PCBs; River/Stream Sediments; Soil; Solvents; Surface Water.
58
-------
SCHMALZ DUMP, WI
August 13, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Schmalz Dump site is located in the Town of Harrison, Wisconsin, on
the north shore of Lake Winnebago. The site occupies approximately five
acres of wetland in the federally designated Waverly Beach Wetlands area.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and court docu-
ments, industries dumped wastes at various locations along the north shore
of Lake Winnebago for several years. Mr. Gerald Schmalz, site owner, began
filling his property in 1968. Records show that the wastes hauled there
consisted of car bodies, stone, water tanks, trees, pulp chips and mash.
Between 1972 and 1973, the site accepted fly ash and bottom ash from a local
utility, and in 1978 and 1979 Mr. Schmalz accepted the demolition debris
from a building owned by Allis-Chalmers Corporation.
The selected remedial action includes excavation and offsite disposal of
3,500 cubic yards of contaminated building debris and sediments. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$2,088,300, with no O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Removal of all contaminated debris and one
foot of underlying sediment. PCBs will be removed in the dewatering process
to below 0.5 ppb.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Chromium; Excavation; Heavy Metals; Offsite Disposal; PCBs;
Sediments; Soil; Wetlands.
59
-------
VERONA WELL FIELD, MI
(Second Remedial Action)
August 12, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Verona Well Field is located approximately 1/2 mile northeast of
Battle Creek, Calhoun County, Michigan. The well field consists of three
wells west of Battle Creek River and 27 wells, with a major pumping/water
treatment station, east of the river. The Verona Well Field provides pot-
able water to 35,000 residents of Battle Creek, and part or all of the water
supply requirements for two major food processing industries and a variety
of other commercial and industrial establishments. In 1981, county health
officials discovered that water from the Verona Well Field was contaminated
with volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons. The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources investigated potential sources of the contamination, and
identified the Thomas Solvent Company facilities, the Grand Truck Rail Road
marshaling yard, and the Raymond Road Landfill as possible sources of the
volatile hydrocarbons.
An IRM was signed in May 1984 that provided for the installation of in-
terceptor wells and air stripping to prevent further deterioration of the
well field. This second remedial action is a source control measure that
includes construction of a ground water extraction well system to contain
and collect contaminated ground water in the vicinity of the Thomas Solvent
Company's Raymond Road facility. Contaminated ground water will be pumped
to the existing Verona Well Field air stripper for treatment. In addition,
air extraction wells will be installed to enhance the volatilization of the
VOCs from the contaminated soils. The next operable unit will address
source control at the Thomas Solvent Annex and the Grand Truck marshaling
yard. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated
to be $1,660,000 with O&M costs approximately $90,000 for the first 2 years
and $46,000 for each year thereafter.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The objective of the selected remedial ac-
tion is to treat the contaminants in the soil on the Raymond Road property,
and to minimize migration of the highly contaminated ground water surround-
ing the site. The soil cleanup levels are not specified in the ROD, how-
ever, it is estimated that within three years, the ground water concentra-
tion will decrease to 100 ppb volatile organic compounds.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS; N/A
KEYWORDS; Air Stripping; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Soil;
Solvents; Tetrachloroethylene (PCE); Toluene; Trichloroethylene
(TCE); VOCs.
60
-------
WAUCONDA SAND AND GRAVEL, IL
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Wauconda Sand and Gravel Landfill site is located in Lake County,
Illinois, approximately two miles north of the Village of Wauconda. The
74-acre site is comprised of a 43-acre unpermitted landfill and a nine-acre
permitted landfill. Before 1950, the site property was used as a sand and
gravel pit. From 1950 until 1977, Wauconda Sand and Gravel Company operated
the northern portion (43-acre unpermitted fill) of the site as a landfill.
Landfill operations during this period consisted of dumping refuse into the
mined-out gravel pit. The refuse deposited at the landfill consisted of
residential garbage, construction debris, and industrial sludges and drums
with undetermined contents. In 1980, a private well adjacent to the eastern
boundary of the landfill was sampled by the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and inorganic, organic and PCB contamination was detected.
Initial remedial investigations concluded that low levels of metals and
organics were contaminating the ground water and surface water (Mutton Creek).
The selected remedial action for this site includes: installation of
leachate collection drains to stop surface leachate discharge into Mutton
Creek; providing for proper disposal of leachate (either at the Wauconda
Sewage Treatment Plant, or a hazardous waste treatment facility in accor-
dance with Agency policy); regrading settled, depressed and eroded areas on
the existing landfill soil cover with sufficient slope to promote rain run-
off; revegetating bare and eroded areas to prevent erosion of soils into
Mutton Creek; and fencing. This operable unit only addresses leachate dis-
charge to Mutton Creek; ground water decisions are being deferred until ad-
ditional RI/FS work is completed. Total capital cost of the selected reme-
dial alternative is estimated to be $1.6 million with annual O&M costs of
approximately $50,000 for a 30-year period.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The main objective of the selected remedial
action is to eliminate the discharge of contaminated leachate to Mutton Creek
and further erosion of contaminated soils.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Inorganics; Leachate Collection/
Treatment; O&M; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Soil; Surface Water.
61
-------
BAYOU ECMFOUCA, LA
August 15, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Eayou Bonfouca site, a 55-acre abandoned creosote works facility, is
located off of West Hall Avenue and Bayou Lane in Slidell, Louisiana. The
site is a flat, mostly overgrown parcel and is located primarily within a
designated 100-year floodplain. The earliest records of the Bayou Bonfouca
site date back to 1904. The creosote plant treated pilings for use in the
construction of a railway across Lake Ponchartrain. Over the years, the
plant operated under the ownership of various creosote companies, with the
last property owner being the Braselman Corporation. Onsite creosote waste
deposits have contaminated the floor of the bayou, two drainage pathways
through the site, an adjacent creek bottom, on- and offsite soil and upper
ground water zones.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation, trans-
portation and disposal at a RCRA landfill facility of creosote waste and the
highly contaminated soil beneath the creosote piles and debris; and
transportation and disposal of contaminated water by deep-well injection at
an approved RCRA facility. Additional investigations will be undertaken to
examine the contaminated drainage pathways, ground water zones, and bayou
sediment. These areas will be addressed in a second remedial action. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$903,000, with no O&M requirements.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Source control.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not specified.
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Deferred Decision; Excavation; Floodplain; Ground Water; Offsite
Disposal; Sediments; Soil.
62
-------
MOTCO, TX
March 15, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The MOTCO site is located about 2 miles southeast of the City of
LaMarque, Texas and occupies approximately 11.3 acres near the junction of
State Highway 3 and the Gulf Freeway. The site has been used for recycling
styrene tars and disposal of industrial chemical wastes. Due to numerous
complaints, the City of LaMarque passed an ordinance prohibiting disposal of
liquid wastes in surface impoundments which forced the owners to close the
site. Subsequent owners attempted to recycle the wastes in the lagoons but
later abandoned the project. The results of the RI indicate that there is
contamination of the shallow ground water and subsurface soils with particu-
larly high levels of organic contamination. The onsite lagoons contain
stratified wastes which contain PCBs.
The cost-effective remedial alternative selected for this site involves
transporting surface water in the impoundments by pipeline to an indus-
trial waste water treatment plant, incineration of non-PCB liquid organics
at an approved RCRA facility, incineration of PCB liquids and organics at an
approved TSCA facility, and offsite disposal of the tars/sludges and soils
at a RCRA (double lined) facilty. The option to incinerate material onsite
was retained due to possible cost escalation of offsite incineration. The
estimated total cost for this alternative is $42,300,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Source control.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not specified.
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal The requirement for a double lined landfill
facility is estimated to increase the cost between 7 and 17 percent
(depending on which incineration option is implemented).
KEYWORDS: Alternative Technology; Excavation; Floodplain; Ground Water;
Heavy Metals; Incineration; Inorganics; Offsite Disposal; Organ-
ics; PCBs; Sludge; Soil; Surface Water.
63
-------
SOUTH VALLEY, NM (IRM)
March 22, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The South Valley site is located mostly in the inner valley of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Industrial development in South Valley began in
the 1950s with metal parts manufacturing. By the 1960s, organic chemicals
were being handled in the area. Presently, petroleum fuels and various
other organic chemicals are stored and handled within the area. South
Valley has been designated as the State's highest priority site for cleanup
due to the presence of potentially high concentrations of hazardous
substances in the ground water near the City of Albuquerque's well field.
The selected initial remedial action includes installing a new water
supply well to replace the capacity of the contaminated well, San Jose No.
6. Total capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to
be $775,000 with O&M costs approximately $12,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; 10~6 Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk
Concentrations for 1,1-dichloroethene 0.25 ug/1; trichloroethene 2.8 ug/1;
tetrachloroethene 0.9 ug/1.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Alternate Water Supply; Drinking Water Contaminants; Drinking
Water Standards; Ground Water; Organics.
64
-------
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL, TX
June 11, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Triangle Chemical Company site is a 2.3-acre tract located on Texas
State Highway 87, just north of the Bridge City, Texas City limits. The
Triangle Chemical Company operated a chemical mixing and blending facility
from the early 1970s until 1981. During the company's operating period,
various types of industrial cleaning compounds, automobile brake fluid,
windshield washer solvents, hand cleaners, and pesticides were produced.
Raw materials and finished products were stored onsite in bulk surface stor-
age tanks and 55-gallon drums. Currently, approximately 51,000 gallons of
hazardous materials are stored in 12 above-ground storage tanks. The re-
sults of the RI indicate that onsite soil contamination is extensive for
volatile organic compounds; however, ground and surface water in the vicin-
ity of the site are not significantly impacted.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: incineration and
deep well injection of the tank and drum contents; decontamination of all
onsite structures; offsite disposal of trash and debris; and mechanical
aeration of contaminated soils to background levels. Total capital costs
for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $385,000 with O&M
costs approximately $500 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup of contaminated soils to background
levels.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Alternative Technology; Background Levels; Floodplain; Incin-
eration; Organics; Soil; Toluene.
65
-------
ELLISVILLE, MO
July 10, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Ellisville Area site is located in St. Louis County, Missouri, about
twenty miles west of downtown St. Louis. The site is comprised of three
non-contiguous properties: the Rosalie Investment Company property, the
Callahan property and the Bliss and contiguous properties. Containerized
and bulk liquid and solid wastes were reportedly disposed of on these
properties during the 1970s. The types of wastes include solvents, oils,
sludges, pesticides, and flammable gelatenous materials. Dioxin
contamination has been detected at the Bliss portion of the site.
The selected remedial action includes the:
Callahan Property. Stabilize and control erosion of the fill
area; remove and dispose the plastic cover over the fill area and
the cover's hold-down blocks; remove and salvage the barbed-wire
and chain-link fences around the site; and remove the gravel in
the two drum storage areas. A preliminary cost estimate for the
remedial action is $12,000.
Rosalie Property. Soil excavation; offsite disposal of contami-
nated soil, buried drums, cans and other debris; and soil testing
and analysis. A preliminary cost estimate for the remedial
action is $52,000.
Bliss Property. U.S. EPA is currently working on an expanded
feasibility study for this site, since additional cleanup options
should be evaluated for the dioxin contaminated soil.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Removal of contaminated soil to a depth
which will result in contaminant levels that do not pose a public health
threat at the Rosalie property.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS; Dioxin; Excavation; Inorganics; Offsite Disposal; Organics;
Pesticides; Sludge; Soil; Solvents; Toluene.
66
-------
MILLTOWN, MT
(Supplemental ROD)
August 7, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments site is located in Missoula County,
Montana. The site is adjacent to the Milltown Dam where the Big Blackfoot
River joins the Clark Fork River. Constructed in 1906, this hydroelectric
dam formed a reservoir that trapped sediments from mining, milling and
smelting operations in the upper Clark Fork valley. During the years since
construction, the reservoir storage has been almost totally filled with ar-
senic contaminated sediments. In May 1981, Milltown's four community water
supply wells were found to be contaminated with arsenic and other heavy met-
als. The highest arsenic levels measured have been between 0.54 to 0.90
milligrams per liter (mg/1).
The original ROD was signed in April 1984 approving the installation of
an alternate water supply, and the flushing of the plumbing system of each
house to remove suspended materials from the water system. This supple-
mental ROD approves the replacement of household water supply appurtenances
and on-going sampling of residential water systems to fulfill the intent of
the original ROD.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS; EPA drinking water standard for arsenic of
0.050 mg/1.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: Supplemental ROD Replacement of household water supply appur-
tenances and continued sampling of individual residences are necessary to
ensure that the public is not exposed to excessive levels of arsenic and
heavy metals.
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Ground Water; Heavy Metals; Internal Plumbing; Soil.
67
-------
WOODBURY CHEMICAL, CO
July 19, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
Woodbury Chemical Company operated a pesticide manufacturing facility at
54th Avenue and Jackson in heavily industrialized Commerce City, Colorado,
from the late 1950s until 1965 when the facility was destroyed by fire.
Fire rubble and debris contaminated with approximately 1,565 pounds of
organochloride pesticides were disposed on an adjacent empty lot which is
the designated CERCLA site. Results of the remedial investigation show
contaminated soils and sediments onsite, contaminated sediments offsite, and
trace levels of dieldrin in the ground water; however, significant
contamination is limited to the rubble piles. In addition, several separate
investigations conducted between October 1976 and June 1985 indicated three
general types of contaminants: pesticides, metals, and other organic
compounds. However, only the pesticides are considered to be directly
attributable to the site with the other contaminants attributable to low
level area wide ground water contamination.
The cost-effective remedial action for this site includes: excavation
and offsite transport, incineration, and ash disposal of highly contaminated
rubble (total pesticide concentration in excess of 100 ppm) at an EPA
approved incineration/disposal facility; excavation and offsite disposal of
contaminated soils, to a cleanup level of 3 ppm total pesticide concentra-
tion, at an EPA approved facility; backfilling with clean soil, regrading
and revegetating the site; and ground water monitoring and site maintenance
for a three-year period. Total capital cost for the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $2,450,000. A three-year O&M period for the
site is estimated to be $21,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup of contaminated soils to 3 ppm and
contaminated rubble to 100 ppm total pesticide concentration. A soil
cleanup level of 3 ppm was selected based on residual soil pesticide levels
in urban environments and modeling of contaminant migration to ground water
to identify an acceptable risk level at the site boundary.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: Incineration/Offsite Disposal Although the selected offsite
remedy exceeded the cost of an onsite RCRA landfill by 60 percent (i.e.,
$930,000), the additional cost was justified by greater long term ground
water protection in an area with potential ground water fluctuations. In
addition, the selected remedy does not require long-term monitoring and will
result in the destruction of over 70% of the pesticide contaminants.
KEYWORDS: Excavation; Incineration; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Pesticides;
Soil.
68
-------
CELTOR CHEMICAL WORKS, CA
(Second Remedial Action)
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Celtor Chemical Works site consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and
is located in the northern end of the Hoopa Valley in Humboldt County, CA.
The Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe is the owner of the Celtor site. The Tribe
leased the land in 1958 to the Celtor Chemical Corporation which processed
sulfide ore for copper, zinc and precious metal extraction. In June 1962,
the company was delinquent in its royalty payments to the Hoopa Valley In-
dian Tribe and subsequently abandoned the site. Mine tailings generated
from the milling operations were left onsite. These tailings, along with
nonspecific releases of processed ore, are believed to be the cause of the
acidic surface waste runoff and elevated metals concentrations in the soils
throughout the site. In addition the tailings may have caused numerous fish
kills for which the California Department of Fish and Game cited the Celtor
Chemical Corporation.
Initial remedial actions were implemented at the site in October 1983,
and included excavation and offsite disposal of all visibly contaminated
material. This material included all tailings, non-concrete structures, and
a portion of the pasture adjacent to the site. The selected alternative for
the second remedial action includes excavation and offsite disposal of all
soils contaminated above site-specific action levels at a RCRA-approved haz-
ardous waste disposal facility. Total capital cost is estimated to be
$3,065,338 and O&M costs are estimated to be $7,000 for an initial one-year
period of grounds maintenance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Action levels for soil contaminants were
based on acceptable EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria and are as
follows: arsenic, lOOmg/kg; cadmium, 25 mg/kg; copper, 2,500 mg/kg; lead,
500 mg/kg; zinc, 5,000 mg/kg. Action levels for surface and ground water
were also defined based on MCLs or DWRs as promulgated under the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act, and for the Trinity River based on EPA standards for protec-
tion of aquatic life. However, surface and ground waters will not be ad-
dressed at Celtor, as excavation and removal of waste soils is expected to
adequately protect human health and the environment.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: N/A
KEYWORDS: Arsenic; Excavation; Flood Plain; Heavy Metals; Offsite Disposal;
Soil; Surface Water.
69
-------
DEL NORTE, CA
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Del Norte County Pesticide Storage Area site, located approximately
one mile northwest of Crescent City, CA consists of less than one acre of
land contaminated with a variety of herbicides, pesticides, and volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds. Interim and emergency storage activities
that occurr.ed during site operations from 1970 to 1981 have resulted in on-
site soil and ground water contamination. Available documentation about
actual day-to-day site operations is inadequate. However, site investi-
gations revealed that a sump, approximately 15 feet by 20 feet, is the pri-
mary area of soil contamination, with organic compounds detected to a depth
of approximatey 15 feet below grade. It is suspected that wastes and/or
rinse water were disposed of in the sump. Primary contaminants detected in
both soil and ground water are 2,4-D and 1,2-dichloropropane.
The selected remedial action for the site includes: excavation and off-
site disposal of approximately 700 cubic yards of soils from the sump and
trench areas to a RCRA-approved facility; extraction of contaminated ground
water; carbon adsorption treatment of ground water contaminated by organics
and pesticides; offsite disposal of spent carbon filters to a RCRA-approved
facility; treatment of chromium contaminated ground water by coagulation and
sand filtration technologies; offsite disposal of chromium-rich waste brine
to a RCRA-approved facility; piping treated ground water to the county sewer
main; and ground water monitoring in accordance with RCRA Part 264. Total
capital cost is estimated to be $1.24 million with no O&M requirements.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup levels for three priority pollu-
tants were defined in the ROD: 1,2-dichloropropane, 10 ppb, based on an
excess cancer risk of 10~6; 2,4-D, 100 ppb, based on EPA Maximum Contami-
nant Levels (MCLs); total chromium, 50 ppb, based on MCLs.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Wastes will be disposed of at a RCRA-approved
Class I offsite disposal facility.
KEYWORDS; Chromium; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Strategy; Ground
Water Treatment; Offsite Disposal; Organics; Pesticides; Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW); RCRA Part 264; Soil.
70
-------
JIBBOOM JUNKYARD, CA
May 9, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Jibboom Junkyard site is located on the east bank of the Sacramento
River, approximately 6,000 feet from the State Capitol Building. The nine-
acre site is the former location of the Associated Metals Company salvage
yard. Today, a majority of the site, 6.7 acres, is covered by Interstate 5
and the adjacent Jibboom Street. The property was used for a metal salvage
operation until 1965. All grades of metal were salvaged, along with rail-
road cars, army tanks, batteries, and some transformers. Results of seven
EPA and DOHS sampling efforts indicate that there is extensive lead, zinc,
and copper contamination onsite. Most of the contamination is limited to
the top one foot of soil, and no offsite contamination has been detected.
Subsurface contamination above background levels was only detected at four
locations.
The selected remedy for the Jibboom Junkyard consists of excavation and
removal of contaminated soils to a RCRA-approved offsite Class I hazardous
waste disposal facility. The total capital cost of the selected remedial
alternative is estimated to be $1,460,000, with no O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The performance standard outlined in the
ROD is excavation of all contaminated soils containing lead above 500 ppm.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: N/A
COMMENTS: Offsite Disposal Waste will be disposed of offsite in a
RCRA-approved offsite Class I landfill.
KEYWORDS; Excavation; Heavy Metals; Offsite Disposal; PCBs; Soil.
71
-------
PONDERS CORNER, WA
(Second Remedial Action)
September 30, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
Ponders Corner, or the Lakewood site as it is identified in the National
Priorities List, is located in Pierce County, Washington, south of the City
of Tacoma. In July 1981, EPA sampled drinking water wells in the Tacoma, WA
area for contamination with purgeable halocarbons. The sampling showed that
Lakewood Wells HI and H2 were contaminated with 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-
DCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). In mid-August
1981 Lakewood water district took wells HI and H2 out of production.
It was determined that the septic tanks and the ground disposal area of
a commercial cleaners were the probable source of well water contamination.
Solvents used in the dry cleaning process were disposed in the septic tank,
and liquid wastes consisting of solvent-contaminated sludges and water draw-
off were disposed on the ground outside the cleaners. Initial Remedial Mea-
sures (IRMs) implemented in June 1984 at the site included the construction
of air stripping towers for wells HI and H2. The recommended alternative
for this second remedial action includes: operation of the H1-H2 treatment
system to continue cleanup of the aquifer; installation of variable-fre-
quency controllers on the well pump motors; changing fan drives to reduce
treatment tower air flow; installation of additional monitoring wells, up-
grading existing wells, and continuing routine sampling and analysis of the
aquifer; placement of administrative/institutional restrictions on the in-
stallation and use of wells; excavation and removal of the septic tanks and
drainfield piping on the cleaners property; and placement of administrative
restrictions on excavation into the contaminated soils to reduce the risks
associated with uncontrolled excavation. Total capital cost for the se-
lected remedial action is estimated to be $334,970 with O&M costs approxi-
mately $85,700 per year. The aquifer cleanup level will be addressed in a
later decision, based on data gathered during the operation of the selected
remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The maximum recommended occupational air
levels for the three volatile organic chemicals of concern are: tetrachlor-
oethylene, 670 mg/m3; trichloroethylene, 540 mg/m3; 1,2-dichloroethylene,
790 mg/m3. These standards are recommended by OSHA and are based on the
threshold limit value-time weighted average for an 8-hour exposure.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Administrative actions regulating well installation
and use of the contaminated aquifer will be required. Additional restric-
tions on excavation will be necessary to limit exposure to contaminated soil.
COMMENTS; Deferred Decision EPA will defer decision on the appropriate
level of ground water corrective action.
KEYWORDS; Air Stripping; Aquifer Use Restrictions; Deferred Decision; Ex-
cavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Treatment; Offsite Disposal;
Organics; Soil; Solvents; Tetrachloroethylene (PCE); Trichloro-
ethylene (TCE); 1,2-dichloroethylene.
72
-------
SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL WELL 12A, WA
(Second Remedial Action)
May 3, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The South Tacoma Channel, Well 12A site is in the City of Tacoma, Wash-
ington, and includes industrial, commercial and residential areas. Well 12A
is one of 13 wells used by the City to meet peak summer and emergency water
demands. Research into the past ownership and activities on these proper-
ties indicated that waste oil and solvent reclamation processes and paint
and lacquer thinning manufacturing occurred on the site, identified as the
source area. As a result of these processes, both the underlying ground
water aquifer and portions of the superficial soils show contamination with
organic solvents.
The selected remedial action includes: air stripping of the ground wa-
ter (continue to operate the IRM); extract and treat the ground water at the
source to remove volatile organics; drill and sample additional soil test
borings during the design phase; remove an appropriate length of railroad
track adjacent to the Time Oil property, and excavate; perform additional
undercutting; install the drain field piping in the excavated areas and cov-
er with a permeable material; pave or place soil cover on the portions of
the unpaved Time Oil parking lot; transport and dispose of all excavated,
contaminated soils in a RCRA-permitted landfill; maintain institutional con-
trols; monitor ground water and after two years of operation, evaluate the
effectiveness of the ground water extraction and treatment system. Total
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$1,590,000, and O&M costs are estimated to be $50,000 per year.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Specific ground water cleanup goals have
not been established. However, a drinking water cancer risk level of 10"6
has been recommended.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; Institutional controls and deed restrictions will
prohibit private-party access to portions of the aquifer where cancer risk
levels exceed 10"6.
COMMENTS: 1) Offsite Disposal No determination has been made as to
whether the disposal facility will be single or double lined. 2) Deferred
Decisions Decisions regarding site closure and the level of ground water
quality to be achieved are deferred.
KEYWORDS: Deed Restrictions; Deferred Decision; Dilution; Excavation;
Ground Water; Institutional Controls; Offsite Disposal; Soil;
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE); Trans-l,2-dichloroethylene;
Trichloroethylene (TCE); 1,1,2,2-dichloroethane.
73
-------
WESTERN PROCESSING, WA
(Second Remedial Action)
September 25, 1985
ROD ABSTRACT
The Western Processing site occupies approximately 13 acres in Kent,
King County, Washington. Originally, Western Processing was a reprocessor
of animal by-products and brewer's yeast. In the 1960s the business ex-
panded to recycle, reclaim, treat and dispose of many industrial wastes,
including waste oils, electroplating wastes, waste pickle liquor, battery
acids, steel mill flue dust, pesticides, spent solvents, and zinc dross.
Some of the Pacific Northwest's largest industries had contracts with West-
ern Processing to handle their wastes. In March 1981, EPA inspected the
site and found numerous RCRA violations. Further investigations found ex-
tensive contamination of soil, surface water and ground water both on and
offsite. This prompted EPA to issue a CERCLA Section 106 order in April
1983 requiring the owners/operators to cease operations immediately. Cur-
rent investigations have found approximately 90 of the 126 priority pollu-
tants in the soil or ground water on and off the Western Processing site, or
in Mill Creek.
In August 1984, the first remedial action was approved and a group of
over 190 PRPs eventually agreed to undertake surface cleanup and stormwater
control actions. This second remedial action includes: intensive soil sam-
pling and analysis on and offsite during the remedial design; selective
excavation and offsite disposal of highly contaminated soils, drums and bur-
ied wastes in Area I (about 10% of the material in the top six feet of soil)
to reduce the source strength; excavation, or cleaning and plugging all
utility and process lines in Area I; following the remedial design, excava-
tion of all soils which exceed the 1x10"s excess cancer risk level;
covering/capping all remaining surface soils contaminated with priority
pollutants above background levels; maintenance of cover/caps; excavation of
utility manholes/vaults near the site; removal or decontamination of the
lead-contaminated house in Area 8; construction of a ground water extraction
and pre-treatment plant, with operation for a period up to five years; con-
struction, operation and maintenance of a stormwater control system; inten-
sive monitoring of Mill Creek, the east drain, the ground water and the
ground water extraction system performance, combined with tests and imple-
mentation of system modifications; excavation of contaminated Mill Creek
sediments; bench-scale tests of soil solidification techniques, and if sys-
tem performance should dictate, pilot scale tests of in-situ solidification
technologies; and performance of supplemental remedial planning studies if
shallow ground water contamination beyond the currently contaminated zone or
significant regional contamination is detected. Total capital cost for the
selected remedial alternative is estimated to be $18,100,000 with O&M costs
approximately $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 depending upon the results of pilot
scale studies on innovative technologies. The final operable unit for this
site may include further ground water and soil remedies plus site closure
activities. These remedial actions will be addressed in another ROD
following the performance evaluation of the second operable unit.
74
-------
WESTERN PROCESSING, WA
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Two major performance standards are out-
lined in the ROD: 1) Prevent further degradation of shallow ground water,
and 2) Reduce ground water contamination to levels that will protect aquatic
organisms in Mill Creek. These levels are based primarily on Maximum Con-
centration Limits (MCLs), but if these limits cannot be met. Alternate Con-
centration Limits (ACLs) may be established in a future ROD. All soils con-
taminated with PCBs over 2 ppm will be excavated. "Hot spots" with any
contaminant exceeding a cancer risk level of 1 x 10~5 will also be
excavated.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Institutional controls on both State and local lev-
els may be proposed to restrict ground water extraction from Area I. These
controls would be addressed in a future ROD. Title and deed restrictions
may be recommended if offsite areas are capped rather than excavated.
COMMENTS: 1) Consolidation Offsite contaminated soils will be excavated
and consolidated onsite in Area I, if they contain no PCBs or extremely haz-
ardous waste as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology
(WDOE). 2) Offsite Disposal Selected waste materials will be disposed of
offsite at a RCRA-approved double lined landfill.
KEYWORDS: ACL; Alternative Technology; Capping; Chromium; Creek Sediments;
Deed Restrictions; Excavation; Ground Water; Ground Water Treat-
ment; Heavy Metals; Institutional Controls; O&M; Offsite Dis-
posal; Onsite Containment; Onsite Disposal; Organics; PCBs;
Phenols; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH); RCRA Closure
Requirements; RCRA Landfill Specifications; Soil; Surface Water;
Toluene.
75
-------
ROD KEY WORD LIST
-------
05/23/86
SUPERFUND RECORDS OF DECISION;
KEY WORD INDEX
Listed below are major key word categories and their sub-categories for Superfund
Records of Decision (RODs). Opposite each of these categories are the sites whose ROD
contains the listed key word. The Superfund managers in each Region have copies of all
RODs.
KEY WORDS
(By Category)
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
Acids
Arsenic
Asbestos
Carcinogenic Compounds
Chromium
Dioxin
ASSOCIATED ROD SITES
Site, State, (Region)
Charles George, MA (I)*; Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Western
Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Chemical Control, NJ (II) ; PAS
Oswego, NY (II) ; Bruin Lagoon, PA (III) ; Douglassville, PA
(III); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III); A&F Materials-IRM,
IL (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI);
Tar Creek, OK (VI); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Western Processing, WA (X)
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Chemical
Control, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Helen
Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY
(II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II);
Douglassville, PA (III) ; McAdoo-IRM, PA (III) ; Moyer
Landfill, PA (III) ; American Creosote, PL (IV); Davie
Landfill, PL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, PL (IV);
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V);
Morris Arsenic, MN (V); Milltown, MT (VIII); Milltown-S, MT
(VIII); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; McColl, CA (IX); Western
Processing, WA (X)
New Lyme, OH (V); Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX)
Charles George, MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Taylor
Borough, PA (III); Reilly Tar, MN (v)
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); D'Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Sinclair
Refinery, NY (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II); Douglassville, PA
(III); Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); McAdoo-IRM, PA
(III) ; Davie Landfill, PL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits,
FL (IV); Northernaire, MI (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V);
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Del Norte, CA (IX); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Love Canal, NY (II); Times Beach, MO (VII)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-1-
-------
05/23/85
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued)
Heavy Metals
Inorganics
Mining Wastes
Oils
Site, State, (Region)
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I); Kyanza Chemical,
MA (I); Re-Solve, MA (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property,
NJ (II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*;
Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II) ; Pijak
Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NJ (II) ; Enterprise
Avenue, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); McAdoo-IRM, PA
(III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD
(III); Wade, PA (III); American Creosote, FL (IV); Miami
Drum Svcs, FL (IV); A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V); A&F
Materials-EDD, IL (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V);
Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V);
Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI);
Old Inger, LA (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI);
Milltown, MT (VIII); Milltown-S, MT (VIII); Woodbury
Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor
Chemical, CA (IX)*; Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX); Stringfellow
Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Western Processing, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo
Farm, RI (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II);
Chemical Control, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II);
Friedman Property, NJ (II) ; GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen
Kramer, NJ (II) ; Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II) ; Love Canal, NY
(II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II) ; Douglassville, PA (III) ;
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III);
McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); Wade, PA (III); A&F Materials-IRM, IL
(V) ; Acme Solvents, IL (V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V);
Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Wauconda Sand &
Gravel, IL (V); MOTCO, TX (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI);
Ellisville, MO (VII)
Tar Creek, OK (VI); Milltown, MT (VIII); Celtor Chemical
Works, CA (IX)
McKin, ME (I)*; Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
(II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III) ; Enterprise Avenue, PA (III) ; Miami Drum
Services, FL (IV); A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V); Forest
Waste-IRM, MI (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); New Lyme, OH
(V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V);
Reilly Tar, MN (V); Old Inger, LA (VI); Ellisville, MO
(VII); Western Processing, WA (X)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-2-
-------
05/23/8G
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued)
Organics/VOCs
PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons)
PCBs (Polychlorinated
Biphenyls)
Site, State, (Region)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I); Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I); McKin-IRM, ME
(I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I);
Sylvester, NH (I); Re-Solve, MA (I); Western Sand & Gravel,
RI (I) ; Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II) ; Bridgeport, NJ (II);
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II) j Chemical Control, NJ (II);
D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Friedman Property, NJ (II);
GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer,
NJ (II) ; Lipari Landfill, NJ (II) ; Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II);
Olean Well Field, NY (II) ; PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm,
NJ (II) ; Sinclair Refinery, NY (II) ; Swope Oil, NJ (II) ;
Douglassville, PA (III) ; Drake Chemical, PA (III);
Harvey-Knott, DE (III) ; McAdoo-IRM, PA (III) ; Moyer
Landfill, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Taylor
Borough, PA (III); Tyson's Dump, PA (III); Wade, PA (III);
American Creosote, FL (IV); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL
(IV); A&F Materials-IRK, IL (V); A&F Materials Company-EDO,
IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V);
Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V);
Charlevoix, MI (V); Charlevoix, MI (V)*; Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH
(V); Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V); Rummer Landfill, MN (V); Main
St. Wellfield, IN (V); New Brighton-Interim Water
Treatment, MN (V); New Brighton-Water Supply System, MN
(V); New Lyme, OH (V); Old Mill OH (V); Verona Well
Field-IRM, MI (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Wauconda
Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO,
TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); South Valley-IRM, NM (VI);
Triangle Chemical, TX (VI); Aidex-IRM, IA (VII); Aidex, IA
(VII)*; Ellisville, MO (VII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII);
Del Norte, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits-IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X); South Tacoma, WA (X); South
Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing,
WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Douglassville, PA (III) ; Taylor
Borough, PA (III); American Creosote, FL (IV); Whitehouse
Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Reilly
Tar, MN (V); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Picillo Farm, RI (I); Bridgeport, NJ (II) ; Burnt Fly Bog,
NJ (II) ; Chemical Control, NJ (II) ; Goose Farm, NJ (II);
Hudson River, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Pijak Farm,
NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Swope Oil (II); Wide
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-3-
-------
05/23/86
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued)
PCBs (Polychlorinated
Biphenyls) (continued)
PCE (Tetrachloroethylene/
Perchloroethylene)
Pesticides
Phenols
Radioactive Materials
Sludge
Site, State, (Region)
Beach, NY (II); Douglassville, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE
(III); Lehigh Electric, PA (III); A&F Materials-IRM,
IL (V); A&F Materials-EDO, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V) ;
Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V) ;
Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Forest Waste-IRM, MI (V);
Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard
Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Wauconda Sand &
Gravel, IL (V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX
(VI); Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX); Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
Western Processing, WA (X)*
Keefe Environmental, NH (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Fischer
& Porter, PA (III); Charlevoix, MI (V); Charlevoix, MI
(V)*; Main St. Wellfield, IN (V); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI
(V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; San Gabriel/ Area I, CA
(IX); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Taconia Channel-Well
12A, WA (X)*
Cannon/Plymouth MA (I); Chemical Control, NJ (II);
Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II) ; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Love
Canal, NY (II) ; Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Douglassville, PA
(III) ; Drake Chemical, PA (III) ; Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV) ;
Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Old Inger, LA (VI); Aidex-IRM, IA
(VII); Ellisville, MO (VII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII);
Del Norte, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
Western Processing, WA (X)
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Goose Farm,
NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II);
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm,
NJ (II) ; Sinclair Refinery, NY (II) ; Douglassville, PA
(III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Whitehouse Waste Oil
Pits, FL (IV); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Ellisville, MO
(VII); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III) ; Moyer Landfill, PA (III) ;
Denver Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII)
Bridgeport, NJ (II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ
(II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III) ;
Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III); McAdoo Associates,
PA (III)*; Davie Landfill, FL (IV); Berlin & Farro, MI (V);
Forest Waste-IRM, MI (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH, (V); New
Lyme, OH (V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI);
Old Inger, LA (VI); Ellisville, MO (VII); McColl, CA (IX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-4-
-------
Primary Hazardous
Substances Detected
(continued)
Solvents
Synfuels
TCE (Trichloroethylene)
Toluene
05/23/86
Site, State, (Region)
Keefe Environmental, NH (I); McKin, ME (I)*; Western Sand &
Gravel, RI (I); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Chemical Control,
NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II) ; Lipari Landfill, NJ (II);
Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II);
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA
(III); McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*;
Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V); Berlin
& Farro, MI (V); Charlevoix, MI (V); Cross Bros., IL (V);
New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V); New Lyme, OH (V); Old
Mill, OH (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Bio-Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Ellisville, MO (VII);
Taputimu Farm, AS (IX); Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X); Ponders
Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma, WA (X); Western Processing,
WA (X)
Western Processing, WA (X)
Charles George, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I);
McKin-IRM, ME (I); Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); D'Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Olean Well Field,
NY (II); Fischer & Porter, PA (III); Heleva Landfill, PA
(III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III) ; Taylor Borough, PA (III) ;
Acme Solvents, IL (V); Charlevoix, MI (V); Charlevoix, MI
(V)*; LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); Main St. Wellfield, IN
(V); New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V); Verona Well
Field-IRM, MI (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Bio-Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); San Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX); South
Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*;
Western Processing, WA (X)
Charles George, MA (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II);
Bridgeport, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Goose
Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Love Canal, NY (II);
Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo
Associates, PA (III)*; Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Taylor
Borough, PA (III); American Creosote, FL (IV); New Lyme, OH
(V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Triangle Chem., TX (VI);
Ellisville, MO (VII); Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-5-
-------
05/23/86
Contaminated Media
Air
Ground Water
Site, State, (Region)
McKin-IRM, ME (I); Sylvester, NH (I); GEMS Landfill, NJ
(II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Heleva
Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Wade, PA
(III); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V);
Outboard Marine, IL (V); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V);
Mountain View/Globe, A2 (IX); Taputimu Farm, AS (IX);
South Tacoma, WA (X)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Charles
George, MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); McKin-IRM, ME (I);
Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Re-Solve, MA
(I); Sylvester, NH (I); Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Bog
Creek Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport, NJ (II) ; Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
(II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ
(II); Friedman Property, NJ (II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II);
Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm,
NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II); Olean Well Field, NY
(II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price
Landfill, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II) ; Spence Farm,
NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II) ; Bruin Lagoon, PA (III) ;
Douglassville, PA (III); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Fischer
& Porter, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Heleva
Landfill, PA (III); Matthews Electroplating, VA (III);
McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Moyer
Landfill, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III); Tyson's
Dump, PA (III); Wade, PA (III) ; American Creosote, FL (IV);
Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV); Davie Landfill, FL (IV);
Miami Drum Services, FL (IV); Varsol Spill Site, FL (IV);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials-IRM, IL
(V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Charlevoix, MI (V); Charlevoix,
MI (V)*; Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V);
LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); Main St. Wellfield, IN (V); New
Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V); New Lyme, OH (V);
Northernaire, MI (V); Old Mill, OK (V); Outboard Marine
Corp., IL (V); Reilly Tar, MK (V); Verona Well Field-IRM,
MI (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Wauconda Sand & Gravel,
IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX
(VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Old
Inger, LA (VI); South Valley-IRM, MM (VI); Tar Creek, OK
(VI); Aidex-IRM, IA (VII); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Milltown-S, MT
(VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX); Del Norte, CA (IX);
McColl, CA (IX); San Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX); Stringfellow
Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South
Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*;
Western Processing, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-6-
-------
05/23/86
Contaminated Media
(continued)
Sediments (Creek/River/
Stream)
Sludge
Soil
Site, State, (Region)
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Hudson River, NY
(II); Love Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Wide Beach,
NY (II); Douglassville, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III);
Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III) ; Tyson's Dump, PA (III) ;
American Creosote, FL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL
(IV); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V);
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI);
Milltown, MT (VIII); Woodbury Chemical (VIII); Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I) ;
Bridgeport, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); American Creosote,
FL (IV); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX
(VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I); McKin-IRM, ME
(I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I);
Re-Solve, MA (I); Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II);
Chemical Control, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II);
GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer,
NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II);
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II);
Love Canal, NY (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ
(II); Price Landfill, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II);
Spence Farm, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II); Wide Beach, NY
(II); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Douglassville, PA (III);
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III);
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA
(III); Lansdowne Radiation, PA, (III); Lehigh Electric,
PA (III) ; McAdoo-IRM, PA (III) ; McAdoo Associates, PA
(III)*; Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); Sand, Gravel &
Stone, MD (III) ; Taylor Borough, PA (III) ; Tyson's Dump, PA
(III) ; Wade, PA (III) ; American Creosote, FL (IV) ;
Hollingsworth, FL (IV); Miami Drum Services, FL (IV);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials-IRM, IL
(V) ; A&F Materials-EDO, IL (V) ; Acme Solvents, IL (V) ;
Berlin & Farro, MI (V) ; Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V) ;
Cemetery Dump, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Cross Bros.,
IL (V); Forest Waste-IRM, MI (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH
(V); Main St. Wellfield, IN (V); Morris Arsenic, MN (V);
New Lyme, OH (V); Northernaire, MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V);
Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Schmalz
Dump, WI (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Wauconda Sand &
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-7-
-------
05/23/86
Contaminated Media
(continued)
Soil
(continued)
Surface Water
Wetlands
Wood
Site, State, (Region)
(V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI);
Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA
(VI); Triangle Chem., TX (VI); Aidex-IRM, IA (VII); Aidex,
IA (VII)*; Ellisville, MO (VII); Times Beach, MO (VII);
Milltown, MT (VIII); Milltown-S, MT (VIII); Woodbury
Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor
Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Norte, CA (IX); Jibboom Junkyard,
CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits, CA (IX)*; Taputiinu Farm, AS (IX); Ponders Corner-IRM,
WA (X); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma, WA (X) ;
South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing,
WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); McKin-IRM, ME (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I);
Re-Solve, MA (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
(II); GEMS Landfill, MJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Hudson
River, NY (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill,
NJ (II); Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II) ; Love Canal, NY (II) ;
Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III); Douglassville, PA (III); Drake Chemical,
PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Fischer & Porter PA
(III); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III);
Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA
(III)*; Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD
(III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tyson's Dump, PA (III);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); A&F Materials-EDO, IL
(V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V);
Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard
Marine Corp., IL (V); Reilly Tar, NM (V); Wauconda Sand &
Gravel, IL (V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); MOTCO,
TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI); Celtor
Chemical Works, CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; McColl,
CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX) ; Stringfellow
Acid Pits, CA (IX)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II);
Helen Kramer, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Wide Beach, NY
(II); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Old
Inger, LA (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI)
Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III); Old Inger, LA (VI)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-8-
-------
05/23/86
Public Health and
Environmental Threats
Direct Contact
Public Exposure
Public Health Risk
Risk Assessment
Risk Level
Volatilization
Remedy Selection
Consent Decree
Cost/Benefit
Cost Recovery
Deed Restriction
Fund Balancing
Ground Water Strategy
Negotiated Settlement
No Action Alternative
O & M
Site, State, (Region)
Hudson River, NY (II); Love Canal, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ
(II); Spence Farm, NJ (II); Forest Waste-IRM, MI (V)
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II) ; Lansdowne
Radiation, PA (III); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V); McColl,
CA (IX)
Re-Solve, MA (I); Reilly Tar, MN (V)
Love Canal, NY (II); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V)
Picillo Farm, RI (I); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Fischer &
Porter, PA (III); San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Hudson River, NY (II)
Fischer & Porter, PA (III); A&F Materials Company-EDO, IL
(V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V)
Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II)
Wade, PA (III)
Friedman Property, NJ (II); South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A,
WA (X)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V)
Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Tar Creek, OK (VI); Del
Norte, CA (IX)
Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Wade, PA (III)
Friedman Property, NJ (II); Taylor Borough, PA (III)*;
Varsol Spill, FL (IV); Morris Arsenic, MN (V)
Re-Solve, MA (I); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II); D'Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY
(II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Price
Landfill, NJ (II); Spence Farm, NJ (II) ; Bruin Lagoon, PA
(III); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III);
Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); Whitehouse Waste Oil
Pits, FL (IV); Byron/Johnson Salvage Yard, IL (V);
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-9-
-------
05/23/86
Remedy Selection
(continued)
O&M
(continued)
PRP
PRP Alternative
Supplemental ROD
Shared Costs
Temporary Remedial Measure
Other Agencies
COE
DOD
Water Supply
Alternate Water Supply
Community Services
Enhancement
Drinking Water Contaminants
Site, State, (Region)
Charlevoix, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Eau Claire-IRK,
WI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Verona Well
Field-IRM, MI (V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Old Inger,
LA (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Milltown, MT
(VIII); San Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits, CA (IX)*; Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X); South Tacoma
Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III) ;
Wade, PA (III)
Lone Pine Landfill, NJ (II)
Sylvester, NH (I); Milltown, MT (VIII)
Matthews Electroplating, VA (III); Milltown, MT (VIII)
Hudson River, NY (II)
Old Inger, LA (VI)
New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V) ; New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V)
Charles George, MA (I); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II);
Bridgeport, NJ (II) ; Clean Well Field, NY (II); Price
Landfill, NJ (II); Fischer & Porter, PA (III); Matthews
Electroplating, VA (III); Acme Solvents, IL (V) ;
Charlevoix, MI (V); Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V); Kummer
Landfill, MN (V); New Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V);
Old Mill, OH (V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Verona Well
Field-IRM, MI (V); South Valley-IRM, NM (VI);
Milltown, MT (VIII)
Price Landfill, NJ (II); Milltown, MT (VIII)
Fischer & Porter, PA (III); Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V); Main
St. Wellfield, IN (V); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V); South
Valley-IRM, KM (VI)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-10-
-------
05/23/86
Water Supply
(continued)
Fire Protection
Internal Plumbing
Water Rights
Site Specific Character-
istics
Flood Plain
Ground Water Table
Hydrogeologic
Seismic
Sole-Source Aquifer
Subsidence
Standards/Regulations/
Permits/Guidance
Air Emissions
Air Permits
Air Quality
ACL
Site, State, (Region)
Western Sana & Gravel, RI (I) ; New Brighton-Interim Vvater
Treatment, MN (V); New Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V);
Milltown, MT (VIII)
Milltown-S, MT (VIII)
San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Drake Chemical, PA (III); A&F
Materials-IRM, IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Highlands
Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Triangle Chemical, TX
(VI); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*
Re-Solve, MA (I); A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V)
Heleva Landfill, PA (III); Berlin & Farro, MI (V)
McColl, CA (IX)
Price Landfill, NJ (II) ; Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV)
McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Taylor Borough, PA (III);
Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI)
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria
Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V)
San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Bridgeport, NJ (II); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V);
San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Sylvester, NH (I); Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Bog Creek
Farm, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ
(II); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI);
Aidex, IA (VII)*; Old Mill, OH (V); Western Processing, WA
(X)*
New Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-11-
-------
05/23/86
Standards/Regulations/
Permits/Guidance
(continued)
Aquifier Use Restrictions
Background Levels
Site, State, (Region)
Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV); Old Mill, OH (V); Ponders
Corner, WA (X)*
Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III) ;
Taylor Borough, PA (III); Reilly Tar, MISi (V); Triangle
Chemical, TX (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*
Clean Water Act 404 Permit PAS Oswego, NY (II); Old Inger, LA (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI)
Discharge Standards
Drinking Water Standards
Environmental Standards
Feasibility Study Guidance
Document
Institutional Controls
NEPA
Public Health Advisory
RCRA
RCRA Part 264
RCRA Closure Requirements
RCRA Landfill Specifi-
cations
Old Inger, LA (VI)
Old Inger, LA (VI); South Valley-IRM, NM (VI); Milltown, MT
(VIII)
San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Friedman Property, NJ (II); Olean
Well Field, NY (II); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV);
Charlevoix, MI (V)*; Old Mill, OH (V); Old Inger, LA (VI);
Denver Radium Site Streets, CO (VIII); Ponders Corner, WA
(X)*; South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western
Processing, WA (X)*
Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V)
Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III)
Western Sand & Gravel, RI (I); Love Canal, NY (II);
PAS Oswego, NY (II); Aidex, IA (VII)*
Charles George, MA (I)*; PAS Oswego, NY (II); McAdoo
Associates, PA (III)*; Wade, PA (III); Reilly Tar, MN (V) ;
Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Old Inger, LA (VI); Aidex, IA
(VII)*; Del Norte, CA (IX)
Bridgeport, NJ (II); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III);
Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Tyson's Dump, PA (III); South
Tacoma, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Picillo Farm, RI (I); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Tyson's
Dump, PA (III); American Creosote, FL (IV); Bio-Ecology
Systems, TX (VI); Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-12-
-------
05/23/86
Standards/Regulations/
Permits/Guidance
(continued)
RCRA Locational Require-
ments
RCRA Onsite Disposal
Requirements
SNARL
State Criteria
State Permit
TSCA Onsite Disposal
Requirements
Water Quality
Water Quality Criteria
Wetlands Regulations
Testing/Pilot Studies
Leachability Tests
Treatability Studies
Technology
Aeration
Air Stripping
Alternative Technology
Site, State, (Region)
Tyson's Dump, PA (III); Berlin & Farro, MI (V)
Picillo Farm, RI (I); McColl, CA (IX)
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; San Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX)
Bridgeport, NJ (II); D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Goose
Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II); Swope Oil, NJ
(II); South Tacoma, WA (X)
D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ (II); Verona
Well Field-IRM, MI (V)
Picillo Farm, RI (I); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II)
Fischer & Porter, PA (III); Outboard Marine Corp.,
IL (V); Milltown, MT (VIII); South Tacoma, WA (X)
Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V)
PAS Oswego, NY (II)
Re-Solve, MA (I)
Old Inger, LA (VI)
McKin, ME (i); Triangle Chem., TX (VI)
Olean Well Field, NY (II); Main St. Wellfield, IN (V);
Tyson's Dump, PA (III); Biscayne Aquifer Sites, FL (IV);
Eau Claire-IRM, WI (V); LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); Verona
Well Field-IRM, MA (V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; San
Gabriel/Area I, CA (IX); Ponders Corner-IRM, WA (X) ;
Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma
Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*
Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II) ; Bridgeport, NJ (II) ; Goose Farm,
NJ (II); Wide Beach, NY (II); MOTCO, TX (VI); Triangle
Chemical, TX (VI); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*;
Western Processing, WA (X)*
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-13-
-------
05/23/86
Technology
(continued)
Best Reliable Technology
Capping
Containment
Dike Stabilization
Dredging
Excavation
Site, State, (Region)
Reilly Tar, MN (V) ; Western Processing, WA (X)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Hocomonco
Pond, MA (I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Re-Solve, MA (I);
Sylvester, NH (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); D'Imperio
Property, NJ (II) ; GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Goose Farm, NJ
(II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II); PAS
Oswego, NY (II) ; Sinclair Refinery, NY (II) ; Swope Oil, NJ
(II); Douglassville, PA (III); Drake Chemical, PA (III);
Enterprise Avenue, PA (III) ; Heleva Landfill, PA (III) ;
Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III) ; Matthews Electroplating,
VA (III); McAdoo Associates, PA (III)*; Moyer Landfill, PA
(III); Tyson's Dump, PA (III); Wade, PA (III); Davie
Landfill, FL (IV); Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV);
Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); New Lyme, OH (V); Old Inger, LA
(VI); Aiuex, IA (VII)*; Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX); South
Tacoma, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Hudson River, NY (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Drake
Chemical, PA (III); New Lyme, OH (V); Outboard Marine
Corp., IL (V); Times Beach, MO (VII)
Bruin Lagoon, PA (III); Ellisville, MO (VII)
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Hudson River, NY (II); Love Canal,
NY (II); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Tar Creek, OK (VI)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Nyanza
Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Bog Creek Farm, NJ
(II); Bridgeport, NJ (II); Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II);
D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II);
Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Love Canal, NY (II) ; PAS Oswego,
NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II); Sinclair Refinery, NY (II);
Spence Farm, NJ (II); Swope Oil, NJ (II) ; Wide Beach, NY
(II); Douglassville, PA (III); Drake Chemical, PA (III);
Lehigh Electric, PA (III) ; McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo
Associates, PA (III)*; Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III);
Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tyson's Dump, PA (III); American
Creosote, FL (IV); Miami Drum Svcs, FL (IV); A&F
Materials-EDO, IL (V); Acme Solvents, IL (V); Berlin &
Farro, MI (V); Byron/Johnson Salvage, IL (V); Cemetery
Dump, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V); Cross Bros., IL (V);
Northernaire, MI (V); Old Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine
Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump, WI (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA
(VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Old
Inger, LA (VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Ellisville, MO (VII);
Times Beach, MO (VII); Denver Radium Site Streets, CO
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-14-
-------
05/23/86
Technology
(continued)
Excavation
(continued)
Filling
Granular Activated Carbon
Ground Water Diversion
Ground Water Monitoring
Ground Water Treatment
Hydraulic Barrier
Incineration
Land Treatment
Site, State, (Region)
(VIII); Woodoury Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical Works,
CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Norte, CA (IX);
Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX); Ponders Corner,
WA (X)*; South Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well
12A, WA (X)*; Western Processing, WA (X) *
Lehigh Electric, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III); Wade,
PA (III); A&F Materials-EDD, IL (V); Tar Creek, OK (VI);
Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII)
New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New Lyme, OH
(V); Reilly Tar, MN (V); Old Inger, LA (VI); San
Gabriel/Area 1, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid Pits, CA (IX)*
Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); McKin, ME
(I); Nyanza Chemical, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Burnt
Fly Bog, NJ (II) ; Friedman Property, NJ (II) ; Krysowaty
Farm, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Pijak Farm, NJ (II);
Drake Chemical, PA (III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Taylor
Borough, PA (III)*; A&F Materials-EDO, IL (V); New Lyme, OH
(V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX
(VI); Aidex, IA (VII)*; Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII)
McKin, ME (I); Sylvester, NH (I); Sylvester-S, NH (I);
D'Imperio Property, NJ (II); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Goose
Farm, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill, NJ
(II)*; Clean Well Field, NY (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II);
Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV); Chem-Dyne-EDD, OH (V);
LeHillier/Mankato, MN (V); New Lyme, OH (V); Old Mill, OH
(V); Verona Well Field, MI (V)*; Del Norte, CA (IX);
Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA
(X)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
South Tacoma, WA (X)
Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II) ; Bridgeport, NJ (II) ; Swope Oil, NJ
(II); Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III); Acme Solvents, IL
(V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V); Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH (V);
MOTCO, TX (VI); Triangle Chem., TX (VI); Woodbury Chemical,
CO (VIII); Western Processing, WA (X)
Old Inger, LA (VI)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-15-
-------
05/23/86
Technology
(continued)
Leachate Collection/
Treatment
Site, State, (Region)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; Picillo
Farm, RI (I); GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ
(II); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Moyer Landfill, PA (III);
New Lyme, OH (V); Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V)
Levees
Offsite Disposal
Onsite Containment
Onsite Disposal
Relocation
Douglassville, PA (III); Old Inger, LA (VI)
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Keefe Environmental, NH (I);
McKin-IRt«i, ME (I); McKin, ME (I)*; Re-Solve, MA (I); Burnt
Fly Bog, NJ (II); Chemical Control, NJ (II); D'Imperio
Property, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II); Pijak Farm, NJ
(II); Spence Farm, NJ (II) ; Swope Oil, NJ (II) ; Bruin
Lagoon, PA (III) ; Enterprise Avenue, PA (III) ;
Harvey-Knott, DE (III) ; Lackawanna Refuse Site, PA (III) ;
Lehigh Electric, PA (III); McAdoo-IRM, PA (III); McAdoo
Associates, PA (III)*; Sand, Gravel & Stone, MD (III);
Taylor Borough, PA, (III); Miami Drum Services, FL (IV);
A&F Materials-IRM, IL (V); A&F Materials-EDO, IL (V); Acme
Solvents, IL (V); Berlin & Farro, MI (V) ; Byron/Johnson
Salvage Yard, IL (V); Cemetery Dump, MI (V); Chem-Dyne-EDD,
OH (V); Cross Bros., IL (V); Northernaire, MI (V); Old
Mill, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp., IL (V); Schmalz Dump,
WI (V); Wauconda Sand & Gravel, IL (V); Bayou Bonfouca, LA
(VI); Highlands Acid Pit, TX (VI); MOTCO, TX (VI); Triangle
Chem., TX (VI); Aidex-IRM, IA (VII); Aidex, IA (VII)*;
Ellisville, MO (VII); Denver Radium Site Streets, CO
(VIII); Woodbury Chemical, CO (VIII); Celtor Chemical
Works, CA (IX); Celtor Chemical, CA (IX)*; Del Norte CA
(IX); Jibboom Junkyard, CA (IX); McColl, CA (IX);
Stringfellow Acid Pits-IRM, CA (IX); Ponders Corner, WA
(X)*; South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*; Western
Processing, WA (X); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Re-Solve, MA (I); Enterprise Avenue, PA (III); Davie
Landfill, FL (IV); New Lyme, OH (V); Outboard Marine Corp.,
IL (V); Bio-Ecology Systems, TX (VI); Times Beach, MO
(VII); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Hocomonco Pond, MA (I); Picillo Farm, RI (I); Love Canal,
NY (II); Drake Chemical, PA (III); Enterprise Avenue, PA
(III); American Creosote, FL (IV); Aidex, IA (VII)*;
Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX); Western Processing, WA (X)*
Lansdowne Radiation, PA (III) ; Times Beach, MO (VII);
Mountain View/Globe, AZ (IX)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDO Enforcement Decision Document
-16-
-------
05/23/86
Technology
(continued)
Packed Column Aeration
Plume Management
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW)
Slurry Wall
Spur Levees
Stabilization
Surface Water Diversion/
Collection
Venting
Miscellaneous
Competitive Bidding
Deferred Decision
Depth of Excavation
Dilution
Environmental Impacts
Federal Facilities
Site, State, (Region)
Fischer & Porter, PA (III)
Price Landfill, NJ (II); Verona Well Field-IRM, MI (V)
GEMS Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari
Landfill, NJ (II)*; Del Norte, CA (IX); Stringfellow Acid
Pits, CA (IX)*; Western Processing, WA (X)*
Sylvester, NH (I); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Lipari Landfill,
NJ (II); Lone Pine Lanofill, NJ (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II);
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits, FL (IV)
Times Beach, MO (VII)
Re-Solve, MA (I); Bruin Lagoon, PA (III)
Charles George, MA (I)*; McKin, ME (I)*; Nyanza Chemical,
MA (I); Harvey-Knott, DE (III); Heleva Landfill, PA (III);
Moyer Landfill, PA (III); Taylor Borough, PA (III)
Beacon Heights, CT (I); Charles George, MA (I)*; GEMS
Landfill, NJ (II); Helen Kramer, NJ (II); Heleva Landfill,
PA (III); Moyer Landfill, PA (III); New Lyme, OH (V)
Bridgeport, NJ (II)
Cannon/Plymouth, MA (I); Lipari Landfill, NJ (II)*; Swope
Oil, NJ (II); Douglassville, PA (III); McAdoo Associates,
PA (III)*; Taylor Borough, PA (III); Tyson's Dump, PA
(III); American Cresote, FL (IV); Davie Landfill, FL (IV);
Bayou Bonfouca, LA (VI); Ponders Corner, WA (X)*; South
Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ (II)
South Tacoma, WA (X); South Tacoma Channel-Well 12A, WA (X)*
Hudson River, NY (II); PAS Oswego, NY (II); Highlands Acid
Pit, TX (VI); Tar Creek, OK (VI); Stringfellow Acid Pits,
CA (IX)*
New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-17-
-------
05/23/86
Miscellaneous Site, State, (Region)
(continued)
Key Indicator Analysis Enterprise Avenue, PA (III)
Municipally-Owned Site Enterprise Avenue, PA (III)
Off-Base Contamination New Brighton-Interim Water Treatment, MN (V); New
Brighton-Water Supply System, MN (V)
Remnant Contamination Bog Creek Farm, NJ (II); Krysowaty Farm, NJ (II)
* Second Record of Decision
S Supplemental Record of Decision
EDD Enforcement Decision Document
-18-
-------
INDEX OF APPROVED
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
Ol C
4J O
4->
r-J 0) (O
O- O
1. QJ
O- D
in
4->
C
OJ
cr
a;
QJ 4-> VI
I- C C
o a) o
OJ o
QJ in «C
JD -O
O OJ
-O <1J
QJoi
S-
OJ
C
3
o
o
4- J_
O)4->
4-> c:
re o
X 0
O OJ
c u
3 S-
O 3
s- o
tut/i
I/O O
t-LL. S-
V 4->
4-»I C
ico: o
X v O
QJT3
"O4-> C OJ
C-i- lO U
3 ! S-
O<*- 4-> 3
S-f- QJ O
I/O
o
u
OJ
o
o
00
oo
z
o
1-HIO
000
.
arro
LUCVJ
in
oo
00
X
LU
S-
o>
.C C
4-> O
O '"
C TJ
IO -
3 C
O O
O
in
o
OJ -
ca o
o ~a o> c
Q) c en o
C -4-> 1- C !-
o * a.--- -4->
i- c a.4-> «3 4J > IO
IO -M -i- «t 4->
u c i/> oi in
X O C O 10 C
UJ U O C£ Cl»-t
J-> O
Q) I- IO 4->
-U QJ O)
1-+J i- >>
V> IO 4-> J^>
M- x on.
4- Q) O O.
O OJ *J I. 3
4-> -I O3 V>
"O t/) (/)
C 10 C E J.
10 S O 3 QJ
t. IB 10
+J OJ O ^f S >i
10 in (j i
j: c o o o.
o OJ >,3:-i- Q.
r 3
QJ -i- T- o .a 1/1
1 r I 4-> 3
i- Q.<
<4- IO (J O) IO
O <0 CW»- Q.
+J M- L. O i-
C IO IO (J
o *> jc c -r-
t- i C O O C
+-> IO Q) 3
E O t/> E - w E
OJ 0) O -U-0 C
j-ii a. 10 o-u
t/ji in aj-Q 4-1 x
>, o i- i. c x oj
t/> C_> ~O 4-> IO UJ C
o
s-
CT)
to
c
O)
X
Q) OJ
S- 4->
QJ (O
4-> O)
I- <4- C
t/> O
i.
OJ C O
S- O-M
4J 4-> C
c 10 o
QJi E
QJ IO l-
o*-> ai
C 4->
Q) C 10
in
-V -4
c
10
O IO
-o
c
<0 3
in O
r- C >.
a 10 4->
r- O U
in x 10
It- Q)<*-
<«- Q.
o->- "a
0.01
T3 >
CT3 O
IO O) S-
4-> a.
r IO Q.
lO-i- IO
> o
§o =c
in a:
at in o
ct «3 a:
a.
Q.
S-
a>
X
a)
T3
c
Ql
c
o
o
0
Q.TD
IO C
O ro
0) C
C O
ro---
S- to
E QJ
Q) >
O OJ 4->
QJ S- O
I Q) QJ
r .C r
O D.-
O to O
O O
i/l E
ro 4-1 QJ
Ol ro 4->
I ro
t- ro
0)
i: O-
4-> 4J
o
^ 10
-w *
>>Q)
> S-
Q) OJ
c E Q.E
OJ OJ
C , OJ >,3 >,
i to > to LI_ in
T3
OJ
01
OO
0)
4->
ro
a
Lf)
00
ro
C\J
LCI
CO
o
CO
PO
00
C>J
c\j
in
00
in
00
o
ro
IO
5 o
QJ-i-
4-1 E ->->
in OJ o
a: <
10
r- C
o o
l/t Q) O
r-a: =c
ro
r- C
"8.2
4-> E 4->
tO Q) U
^-Q;<
10
r- C
-o o
QJv-
-o E4->
O) O
IO
f C
XJ O
QJ.r-
» E *-*
s-
0)
o
u
10
Q)
CO
O)
01
S.
o
QJ
CJ3
o o
c P S-
C >> (O
lOr- .C
OQ- O
O)
O)
S-
o
Q)
to
OJ
o
CL.
o
o
o
o
o
Ol
Q)
a:
-------
c
o
i- 01
OI 40
J-> IO
5*
01
o u
c 10
3 l(-
o s-
!- 3
CS 1/1
Ol
40 l_
IO Ol
40
-o s-
c 3
3t 0_
O-i-
i. O O
croo z
IO 01
S 40 in
C T3
-o 01 c
C E TO
3 - i
O TJ 40
s- ai oj
O 1/1 1
O CO
UJ ~^
3E CO
UJ CXI
Q: ~^
in
Q O
o o
a:
a. 1/1
_
O
X
c
o
a
TJ
01
3 i
r IO
"4-101
<4- S-
OI-I-40
o- 001/1
"4- T3 IO
O C Ol Ol
10 S- 01
Ol i IO i-
O> IO
10 40 c U
JC !- IO 00
U ooi
oo
r O O)
TD 3fo
>4- C
JC O t- IO
40 O
i- C "O
S o c c
43.2(2
O 4O
3 IO O
_ S- S- (J
40 i_ 40 o c
IO Ol Ol 40 O
Ol 40 C 01 E
t. IO O Ol O
h- *o<*o
i or
c
QJ
i
QJ
Ol
i-
O)
00
ai
o
10
01
c 10 ai 10
o jc o *
i- o c
40 oo ia ai
o--- e o
ic-o s- 10
S- O M-
40 J. o^ J.
X Ol J- 3
O) 40 01 00
10 O.
t- * -O
O) (- C
40 01 Ol IO 3
ia <_i 40 1/1
X 10 10 i. o
4- ;* 01 i
"OS- 40 E U
C 3 "O IO ro
3 00 C * S- TJ
O 3 OlC
l_ T3 O "O O IO
oic s- c s_
IO Ol 3 O.1
IO O 10
01 L. 0»
40 40 40 y) o> C O
U C IOT3 -i- E
3 Ol 3 t- O) S- Ol
i-EEi IO40QI-
004040 O) iO-CJT-40
IO01IO40>COO-^OI
oicaioooiioo- C4o
i- Ol_>>01400_ O"-
IOCJ4OOOO£OOO EoO
Ol
c
o;
CO
01
40
IO
PO
CO
ro
oo
in
oo
in
oo
3
10
i- C
T3 O
40 E 40
00 01 O
a: <
"85
ODC
(. Z
ui 10
40
01 C
z:
ai
40
i/i
10
u
01
o
10
10
>,
-------
o
ir
I
O
1-HO
O CO
IT)
oo
00
ce
X
UJ
C3
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent O&M Deletion
Remedial Actions Requirements Date
CO
c
o
4->
3
r~*
ro
r
T3
CO
CrT
-o
01
c
CT
r
CO
CO
ro
Q
>,
4->
f
>
'r~
£
CO
4->
rO
4->
CO
^
CO
4->
CO
o
01
o;
t-
co
ro
o
f
I
c «t
ro o:
o
0. ro
>> C
ll CO
ro i
E -
r- O
i. CO
O.
o
it- 11
O 4->
ro
C
ro !-
in E
O rC
D-4->
CO C
t O
0 Or-
CO r «r-
4-> O«t-
r- CTD
in CO C
LO
CO
~^
o
ro
Ol
ro
i- C
-o o
r-
4->
O
ro
CO
!_
3
O
^J
CO
4->
CO
ro
S-4->
CO C
4-> 0
ro o
T34J C
C-r- 0
3 CO -r-
O<+- 4->
too c
C
O
o
01
ro.
O
It- CO
0
*4§£
CO ro "
O C o
O.T-
m E <*-
r- IO O
T34->
C -
CO O CM
4-> 0
CO >>4-J
It-. -r-
<4-J= 1
O CT)
-,- CO
C -r-
ro "O co
C ro CO
0 l~
r- CO -t-
4-> 4-> 4->
ra C C
> CO CO
0 C Q.
X 0 ro
uj o o
ro
00
-^
i^.
IO
f- C
-o o
CO »
. Qi *
<
Z
*l
CO
>
o
CO
1
CO
Q:
r
0
C
O
4->
O
ro
S_
co
JZ
i.
3
14-
o
^
ra
^
s_
3
r
CO
ro
it-
O 0.
c 0
O
r- CO
ro O
i >
ro S_
4-> a>
m a.
CM
00
CM
CM
r^
a:
re
z
ui
i.
CO
4->
CO
CO
>
>^
CO
o
and treatment
c
o
4->
O
ro
i.
4J
X
CO
i.
CO
s
3 4->
O CO
CD CO
ro
oo
-^
CM
CM
01
ro
c
i
CO
r
O.
CL
3
CO
canister filters . Source control
Ground water
nent alternate
ra
c co E
0 i. J-
JO 3 CO
S- in CL
ro ro
O QJ ro
E
,
O S- Oi
f- o f O.
-W CL4-> 0.
ro E <0 3
i QJ i CO
r- 4J .
10 ro S-
4-1 ro 4-> CO
CO C04->
C co c ro
i i ro ' ' S
-^
CO
C\J
Ol
ro
a o
OJ !-
+J E -^-*
trt 0) O
r^ fv^ «I
=a
"O *" "*
ca:
rO
CO
C"QJ
i. >
CO ra
!-> i.
coca
CO
TE
o
0
CO
co ti-
re E 0
QJ ro i
S. QJ CO -r-
ro I- I T3 E O
E 4-1 C C 3 CO
O JZ in -f- ro i
1- 4-> O T3
QJ
J3 4-> C O 4J
in ro -^ CO o
4J S- QJ 4-> -C ra
C QJ O> ro 4J O.
QJ > S.T- Ol E
E O *O O CO QJT3 J=
en c .- QJ -i in CO 4-J
ro TD 4-> CO j. -a !-
O rol*- CO S
c a> -a co. oiO4->
rO^O C-f-O C4->rOro
ro ro E '- S- CO
OJC7>L.4->O COCOCrO
4-> CO Q) C ro -r- -r-
S ra O4-> O C CO
f* S -f- i i -p- 4_)
CO Ol o CO -^ O ro
4-> o coo c o c co >
ro CO O O
C 3?4->4->4->4->4->QJ
QJ ro ro ro ro
> 4-> > S- 3 S- l/l S-
OTD raiaair cor QJ
EC COrjc rojr-r->
O S-X"- >4->OO
rv^ o ^ 1 1 i (j 1 1 1 Q t/j f ^
en
oo
o
ro
ai
ro
r- C
o o
4-* £ -I-*
^o± <
s
«l
E
S-
rO
U-
OJ
CO
S-
o
Ol
o
ca
CM
o
TO CO
C CO
ra CO
CO
CO in
4-> ra
r- c
co O o
a +J
c E o
3 ro ro
0 S-
i- Olr
rO O ra
i. -r-
QJ O.T3
O Qj
C 01 E
CO C CO
It- -I- t.
i.
>, O t-
4-> 4-> O
(- C CO
3 O CO
0 E CO
CO CO c
l/> ro 4J CU
CO C >
i S- QJ -r-
' ro E 4->
rO QJ o
4_> v/ ^ QJ
a. in &_ 0.0-
ro C O E >*_
0 i-1 X"-" Q)
and sediment/ . Ground water
eration . Lagoon
c
4-> O
CO C
Ol
r »
r- CO
O C
O
| '^
ro
CO OJ
O Ol
Q.-O
CO 3
O CO
r
00
₯
ro
CM
rO
o
in £
i Oi
o
z
»>
1 ^
J^
o
Q.
QJ
Ol
-o
s_
ca
CM
O
contaminated closure
nt
oval offsite
the ground water
posal of tanks and
>4- QJ E CO
o E cot- "-
4-> J- O T3
rO QJTT Ol CO
CO S_ C C 4->
O 4J ra T- *.
CL Q. CO
co a) c E 4-
i- 4-> O 3 <*-
"O -r- -i- Q. O
c04->
T3 C ro QJ T3
C O > O (Z
ro *O C >o «
^^X C r
(O S- 4-> > QJ
O O) E C O 4->
c
o
4->
^
supply pipeline
S-
CO
4->
rO
3
rO
it-
o
c
o
4->
re)
^_
ro
4J
CO
C
-------
T3
01 C
4-> O tt>
(J'i- 4->
tt) 4-> IO
i-jtt> o
O 3
O"
cu
a:
ttl -w in
s- c c
-O ttl O
-
(U O
Ol VI eC
O T3 tt>
a> cu o:
4-> in
in tt>
S in
i. T)
(U ttl C
10
s
o
o
oo
z
o
.
ii vo
O CO
UJ^,
X CO
UJ OJ
o: .
LO
00
uj
4J4-> i
S- +>
3M- ttl
U. O S
I
c
o c
o i.
i tti
r- "JC
i in 4-> TJ
E i- c m
It- 3 O IO S.
O S- C 10
TJ VI ttl
tt)
u
S-
O - 3
J- O O
CD 1/1
1 OO
U
IO
S-
O)
13
l»-
o
S-
Ol
i-
3
o
o
VI
Is
3
O
tt)
oo
C£
Q_ I/)
X
UJ
10 C
VI VI IO
O ttl 4-> ^
Q.f VI C -i-
VI !- C O M-
- ex o o
-O O $-
4J Ol i O
tt)' IO IO M-
4-> ie i c
vi o. E oi tt>
<*_ V) O -r- 4->
<*- IO S. S- IO
O 1- O X
I V> i
VI
TJ
- c
IO Ol O ttl 3
TJ VI 4J O
C 3 !- C (-
O i "O VI o Ol
I- VI ttl l/l !-
4J 4JTJ tt) 4J S-
IO IO C S- IO O
> V> C IO O 4-J 4->
IO TJ 'I- i 4-> OJ
O *i E 4-> VI CTI C
X 3 IO tt) tt) tt) O
UJ O"-t-> 3t CC > SI
4-> tt) C
IO 4-> IO
O VI
>> s-
fc. V) ttl
OJ i
S J- OIM-
Ol ttl C 10
in S-r- j_
VI CU-Q 4-1
S- E VI S-
O) S. 3 X
TJ O E O O
C 4-> !- .0
i- VI O O <*-
>,M- VI VI O
O O tt) C
4-> tt) O C
V) C IO J= -I- O
IO O 4- 4J 4-> *i-
Ol*i~ Ol O 4-> .^
4-> M- 3 IO U
l(- OT3 O S- C 3
0 3 C >-> -r- i.
J_ IO Ol VI E 4->
i 4-> C C IO
IO VI VI - O 4-> E
> C C C 0 C 3
§O VI tt)"O O O
ttJ W f C OJ IO
o: cCJ3 c_j 10 o >
o QJ
o
i IO
10 <*-
VI l-
O 3
ex m s_
VI 0.0)
i- TJ IO 4-»
TJ c o ie
IO ^
ttl <
r- ^ 0 C
vi o ee 3
14- VI O
<4- IO S-
O « Ol
tt) M-
TJ 4-> O 4-»
C VI IO
IO IO C tt)
X 0 S-
C -I-4J
0 TJ 4->
- ttl OTJ
4J | % 3 f
IO IO S- IO
> C VI 4J
10 - E vi o.
C
r- o
VI »-
o o
01 Z
C C 4-1
O -r- in
i- S- OJ
4J O S-
O 4->
lO-i- TJ
c cu
O O ttl
>*- o
O tt)
01 ^
c o
i- o
TJ
IO VI
s- 10
Ol VI Ol
ttl tt)
i. O. tt)
o >
»r -I
O. VI 4->
IO O
O i 10
OM- O
TJ
C C C
ttl VI
TJ O1S-
c s- u O)
IO IO 4-» ^^ V)
JZ IO IO i
Olo » _l O E
C VI V. 10
r-.^ tt) t- 4-> S-
O-TJ O IO C Ol
E IO -I- o O
3TJM- i. O S-
Q-C S- CQ O-
IO 3 L.
S- VI T> tt) O)
OJ4-> c 4-> C
4-> C S- IO lO-i-
, r 1. E C
4J S- O i 3 tt)
vi 01 «4-> o vm- M-
>, E 3: o
VI M ttl i~ *+- *4
O4-> tti it- o c o
4-> VIJJ O O
C C >,IO C-r-
s_
O)
4->
IO
s-
TJ O)
C 4-J
3 IO
£s
O1TJ
c
TJ 3
c o
10 s-
01
o 10 -
vi oj o
Tji"1
OJ O
he
determine
IO
s_
Olttl
O4->
S-'i-
D-in
^ E -
O-i-IO -r- -r-
UO1OIOUCC4JOCOOJ
3<=3ttl3tt)3IO3ttl3
1.-1-S-1- S-EO-^J-ES-TJ
VIVIVI VllOOIttlVli VIOJ
C'l-CTJCOJ ECO.C4J
OXOCOS-"4-OJOEOX
o tticj ro c_>4-> oo:o>- -r- C JT
r- .^ .^ 4->
E VI 4-> 4->
IO O VI CX
4-» Ol tt) tt) IO
C C '1-7I4J O
O-i- C
(J >>- 4-> O
1 tt> O 4-1
J= S- S- 3
VI OJ TJ TJ
3TJ TJ C OJ
i c c o oi
U- 3 IOO C
o
tt>
c
Ol
CO
~^
CO
OJ
01
if)
CO
CM
CTi
IO
"°.S
1J c ) *
VI ttl O
i- C
-o o
4-» E *-*
I/I tt) O
IO
il
4-> E *>
v> tt> U
r- CCCC
iO
i- C
-a o
a> -i-
vi 5)
a:
01
o
co
S-
3
ca
10
o
tt)
.c
t- tt)
tt) a.
>,
C S-
IO OJ
O) i.
i.
UJ
CD
S-
IO
o
o
CD
OJ
o
OJ
o
OJ
o
OJ
o
OJ
o
OJ
o
-------
o
OJ C.
4-1 O QJ
QJ4-* IO
1-5 QJ O
O 13
cr
I
01
QJ +J 00
s- c c
O QJ O
-03-1-
3 C IB
i -C C
10 o
> QJ E
OJ4-> IO 00
4-> 4J
S-O.CC
QJ 3 O Q)
-c c u E
4j 10 -i-
S- OJ s_ T3
3> O QJ
10 -U
X*
QJ
-
S- O
3 S-
UOCD
OO
z
O
O CO
LU-^
Z 00
LUCM
o: ~^
O O
0£
O- 00
o
X
E S-i
S- T3 -
QJ O
4-> C i/i
QJ -r-
-O i.
c o
O
e 10 a)
(O C QJ
S- - C
cn E
o 10 QJ
i- 4J C
Q. C-i-
O E
en o S.
C QJ
r- CO 4J
4-> U QJ
CO Q--O C
QJ O
+J <4- --
O IO 4J
4-> QJ IO
4J E
O X-f- QJ
(_> QJ Q. S-
O)
IO
.c
o
cu
S-
O)
T3
C
IO
i
i C
IO O
X *
s-
3i
i O
CO U
O 00
C ID
fO CT1
fO
JC
O
IO
TD
C
na
QJ
I O
C (J
OJ IO
00 i 'i
i O.-0
O E QJ
C S-
o c
1 O OM-
J .1- o
J S- 4J
. QJ O >,
a>
CO
CO
IO
^ s_
S- O
3 QJ O "- -r- -
OS- 4-> 00 IO
J- 4-> >> O >lU
cn 10 10 co x
Ci QJ
4J O O 4J 4J
(J -r- O C
->r 3 QJ
.
4J
OO '4J OO IO IO
c co c cu x
o o c o s- QJ
O O>-i O 4JQ
00 CU
t3 (J
c c
O Q>
Q.U-
QJ C-Q
o o w
s- S-'QJ
3 QJ S-
00 O.
o-o
4-> S- C
c O-io
QJ
E QJ C
cu s- o
f 3 *r
O. o04->
E c 10
o o o
4J "-!-
JJ cnio
E O on
10 10 it- o
t- O CL
cnr in
O 10 +J-f-
S- -i- c"a
Q.T3 QJ
4) E
cn E -u f
C QJ IO o
i- S- ttJ C
S- i- QJ
O 4- 4-> S_
I-" O +J
i- "O
c co c E
O CO IO O
E a) s_
c c ti-
+J QJ O
C >-r- QJ
QJ
C
QJ
S-
o
00
=
E
a;
s-
c:
OJ
QJ
IO
0)
s-
QJ
X)
i-
o
QJ
4-2
10
OJ
M- 4->
O IO
C
s-
IO OJ
00 4->
O r-
O. QJ IO
OO 4->
r- 00 4J
T3 * C
X QJ
QJ C
10
in QJ -r- 4->
+J E 4-« O IO
C Q) O QJ-C
aji aii o
C CLlt-t 10
O E M- O O)
CLH- 1 QJ <_) 1 -
c o
o
o c
o
QJ CO M- >,
U -4-> 40 4-1
IO *- IO -r-
i CO 3 i
Q.O^ i-
i o. 10 o
C QJ > IO
ii-o UJ M-
00 IO S-
1|_ QJ
l|_ i O-
O -i-
O IO
T3 00
10 T3 O :
QJC|_f
O 10 C
r- C O
10 E oo
> 10-r-
lO 4J >
O C O
X O S-
LU UO-
CO
i.
IO
QJ
O
Ct-
00
V)
o. en
o. c
c
o
o
QJ
O
u
IO IO
X X
>> T3
S- C
S- 3
3 O
r S-
oo cn
O O
C C
o o
IO IO
OJ
o
a o.
c
o 10
s- o
cn o
IO
IO
t/> Q. CO
C IO C
.-.Oi-i
E
W 4->
r O> I
Ol S- >
O) O t/>
+-> o
10 S-
jz c.
IO JC IO
)
i I IO t/1
-o
0)
c
cr
oo
OJ
CM
en
CO
LO
CvJ
o
CM
oo
»
ro
"»s.
oo
in
oo
o
oo
co ai u
o±<
IO
i- C
-o o
4J S *->
oo 33 u
IO
-o o
QJ-I-
E4J
OJ U
O O
QJ.r-
4J E4J
CO Q) O
T3 O
QJ-r-
O)
4->
IO
4^
to
IO
U. 4->
QJ O
CO O
IO
S.
QJ
QJ
S-
Q)
C
o
CO
TO
i.
IO
4^
IO
c
IO
S.
IO
O-
S.
IO
Q.
c
o
cr
QJ
a:
C\J
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
-------
00
Z
O
.-110
Q CO
IT)
Q O
X
UJ
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent O&M Deletion
Remedial Actions Requirements Date
oo
c
O
4->
(J
<
,_
re
«r
T3
OJ
QJ
C£.
-o
CU
CT
OO
CU
4->
re
Oi >, OJ
4-> 4-> QJ C
re "!- oo j_
JZ T3 OOi CO
o c s. -r- i_ re .0
re re QJ o QJ OJ i
QJ 4-* re 4-> QJ r &-
i E re 4 re 4-) o cu
~^ O) X X -r- 4J
s. 4-> cu oo o re
QJ 00 CU 4->TD 4-> S
4J >)U 00 C CO
re oo re re 3 jc E H
X M- * O 4-> CU O
4-> 1- S- 4->
O C 3 00 Ol<*- OOi
c QJ oo 3 o >>re
3 E OS. oo-i-
O c: »-o o 4J $-
S.-I--SS-4JC4JCO
4-> o N c -i- QJ re
4-> CCL. re o-o E E
re o jr E re c
QJ O O i. O 00
s. 4J 13 ^3 01 re QJ .1 *
4-1OI CO C C 4->4-> C
i~ oi > re x c re re
T3 4-» Ol O O Of C
re c re QJ oo E
r-jr a. re oo .c a. re
Q..C o re 4-> * oo re 4->
C 4-> 00 00 i 3 U C
3 -i- V- l-C QJ i C O
O.X'OO1 'XLJ-QJO
Completion of field
e investigation on the
extent of offsite
o
re
M-
3
00
1 i.
r- 0)
re >,
1
^1 1
L. "*~
S- 4->
f 3
« E
re re
t[ *|
o o
c c
0 O
[ * 4_]
re re
,_,
re re
4-* r * i
oo oo re
C C QJ
IIf 1 00
«^
oo
oo
CM
^
Ol
ion ground water contami-
nation
4J
O
Ol
1
o
o
s-
QJ
re
o
c
3
O
Ol
o^
o
c
o
1 *
to
^
r
1/1
S^
i
h-
O
CL,
re
^^
n
i-
QJ
1 *
re
X
o
c
3
O
S_ 4->
01C
re
o"o.
4J QJ
C4J
E oo
4-> C
re o
QJ
£o
s . Further evaluation
of permanent remedial
alternatives
t~
Ol
I
00
T3
T3 CO
QJ4J
4J re
re c
01 E
r- re
004->
QJ C
T3 O 00
c u"o>
re s- cu
QJ QJ L.
i 4-> U
o re
>>QJ O
r T3 S-
re~o
i- re 4->
3 QJ £
re > E
o E-O
>>CU 0)
nzo: oo
LO
CO
**^
ir>
-o QJ
C J=
re 4J
00 S_
4-> re
k) g
*i
co re
o QJ
s. QJ oo re
O 4J4->
4->
Q)X)^
.C O 3 4J
o o u re
re ^~
QJ o^~ c E
s. re s.
13 QJ QJ
i- QJi JO
QJ 01(J
x re re
QJ Et>
oo re c 4->
T3 « U
tj i- QJ S
CO 1- O14->
CL re *o w
00 O.CU C
£ CO i. O
00
4-> Ol
c c
.^^
'^3 *^
CU 3
00 .O
'1 c
o o
QJ4J
oire
r re s-
i~ S- 4->
re o oo
'i_ +} *^
i * tj) ^
3 '^
O "O
4-1 »- rO
(U
OJ C C
&. O (O
« e^
l/l t ^^
T3 S-1*
CSJ 4-J oo
°£«
"o
S-
c
o
u
QJ
U
s_
3
O
oo
TJ >>
C
4J 3 Q.
0 O Q-
3 S- 3
00 4-> $.
c re cu
O 0) 4J
o i. 3E
00 O
I OO -r-
^ E r~~
QJ CO <^
5 4-> 3
00 O.
f ^^
re oo o
CL 4->
i- Ol
U C CO
C O-iT
3 a.re
E -i-x:
s- o
QJ 4J 00
4-» 00 -i
re i -o
^ &.
4-> re s-
0 01
re o 4-1
QJ S re
ce 4-> x
LO
CO
^.
CM
^
01
OJ
O X
4_1 Q)
00
00
QJ
c re
r I.
S- oo
CU 3
4J "O
re c
c oo c
re s- o
QJ QJ OO
i OO'i
O 3T3
UJ
Oil 1
c S
r- QJ re
1 « J J_^
00 CD
i- O) O
X 4->S
QJ re
e-o*o
cu c i_ a)
4J QJ 0.0.
00 4-> 00
>> x ro c
oo uu oi»<
00
c
0
O. 1
O 00
cu
4-> i.
c
CU 00
01*0
OS- 00
re 4-> U-
i C ^»
o. o >
QJ u Old?
S- 00
i 3'
T3 re o
C C S. S-
re o QJ 4-1
r- 4J C
s_ 4J re o
i- 3 5 (J
re 4->
Q.T- -a QJ
QJ 4-1 C U
S- 00 3 S-
C 0 3
QJ -r- S. O
M O100
i C O1QJ
c E *- re
re c 4-^ *^
0
-a u !-'-
c QJ s- c
re c^ 4Ji '
00
re
4-1
CO
Ol
OOT3
O^. 3
14-4-)
O oo
I OO
re.*
> c
o re
g4-"
!- Ol
o
QJ re
1 « 'I
i- S-
00 3
M- oo
t[ r^
O 3
LO
-^
C "
re-
c o
O 00
1 \ ^2
re QJ
re re
u c
X 'I-
QJ E 0-0
i- u
E XI
i- <*- C
_i o re
^^
CO
\
10
vo
re
r~ C
T3 O
re
^ o
Qj-i-
+-> E J-'
OO CU L)
o;«a:
T3 O
CU-i-
TJ
C
re .
S- O
re o
a.-
_
c
QJ re
re
c
re
QJ
o
a
"aJ
re
QJ
o
01
cu
c\j
O
cvj
O
CvJ
O
-------
o
cu c
4-1 O CO
(J-r- 4-1
CU4J re
-5 CU O
Oi
j- cu
Q- O
O =
cr
CU
a:
i
in
cu 4J in
i- c c
o o> o
U 3--
et CT4-1
CU O
cu in ^C
.a X)
3>
o oo re
o -o cu
aj 41 o:
r- C i
O CU O
inE s. s-
i- o> 4J
1-O C 4-> C
to to o O > C U
r-"X. re 3 i-
T3T3 O O 3
T3 C X S- O
c o re
O> U C
E S- 3
= 30
r- O i.
CD
C
o
o
o.
CU-i-
c in
C
1O CU O 1- S (J
O 4-1
r- J. C U
r-»v. re 3 t.
T3-O O O 3
O C X S- O
«c re cu 000
S}
II 10
OCO
UU ^
o o
LU
> U.
oo
a:
a. oo
o
x
LU
Q
T3
c
>i en >,
i- c: s_
s- - cu
3 -a >
i re o
in i.
en
i. i.
cu CU
(1) i- 4J
E 1/1 Cn re
I^-g
cu c: s. re
o. re o cu
re O.-1-
re c-o
i*- o o c:
o E re
c 10 s- s-
o CM cu cu
i- 4-1 4J
"o s- » S c
3 re cu
L. Q-TDTJ £
4J C C 4-1
in «C 3 3 re
C C£. O O O)
0 ct '"o *"
3
S-
T3
O
re
in
o
Q.
in
«r
o
CU
4-1
^
in
M-
O
T3
C
re
M-
o
re
in
o
a
in
^j
cu
*->
r
U)
'1
t[
o
-0
in c
^£ re
u
re c
0.0
"D
re
c
re
4J
O
r- O
O
in<*-
o
o
CUi
4-1 re
(0 >
c o
E cu
re s.
4-1
CT3
O C
o re
re
cu en
>> c
CU r
> Q.
on- re
r- tn
re
>
re
o
X
cu
cr
c
r-
i-
3
^J
S_
cu
4-1
re
(-
o
4-
in
^~
r
CU
IS
O)
4-1
in
c
o
en
c
E
re
cu
i.
4-1
in
o
c
re
f
o
in
re
(O *O fO i __
> > JO'I- C4J 4->
§re -r- o. 3 -t- -
o o in E o c -a
C X - 3 S- O -D
o£ re LU > Q- uijt. ^C
S-
a>
4J in
in
in
C C
O re
re
OT3
o c
r- re
cu
a cu
£:-
rei*-
a>
O4J
s- c
3 CU
O E
in 4-1
re
cu
4J S-
C 4-1
CU
cu cu
E714-1
re re
c 2
re
i en
o.
o
Ci in o re
cu cu cu
E S p~ in > 1/1
CU 4-1 *r- r CU
o >>*i in o
rei i >,!_ T3
o.-'- . 4-1 a>
o. a. o re c: E
cu 3 re c o
in c
O O
o
oo
OvJ
O
a
c
re
re
-3
a.
csj
o
CM
O
cu
c
£
c :
oo
CM
o
E
re
cu
o
c
cu
a.
-------
uo
z
o
Q CO
S m
UJ OJ
IT)
O O
O O
0£
Q. 00
X
UJ
o
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent O&M Deletion
Remedial Actions Requirements Date
01
c
o
^
!-»
X
IO
-o
Ol
Ol
a:
Ol
c
o
CO
Ol
[ *
IO
o
>,
>
4-1
S
Ol
4-1
IO
4-1
CO
*v^
Ol
4-1
«f
CO
c
_0
#
i.
Ol
4-1
IO
C
3
0
&
00
J>£
C
IO
4-1
4-
O
f
IO
01
o
o.
01
o
Ol
4-1
r-
01
4-
<4-
O
-o
C
IO
Remova
LO
CO
^^
OJ
^^
Ol
4-1
01
'-D
Z
»
i
0
Ol
0.
i
CO
OJ
o
0
CO
Ol
I- 4-
0 O
4-1 I
C 10
Ol Ol
E O
4"^ Q.
IO 01
Ol 01 !-
1-4-1 -0
4-1 C
Ol Ol
4-1 4-1
C C -
01 o O O. 01
i- -i- U IO 4-
1-4-1 (j 4-
jQ IOJ* O
Ol S- C4-
0 Ol 10 OT3
C 4-1 C
CTIT- C IO
C O1*- O
i- C O-i- C
T3'i- 4-1 O
1 1 IO 'I
i- O)
34J oil IO
J3-I- O IO >
01 Q-4-> IO
"DM- 01 01 O
Ol <_>
CQ
O-
0
IO
Ol
o
Q.
01
u
Ol
4-1
r
Ol
4-
4-
O
T3
C
IO
0 C
Ol O
fe5
IO
Ol >
4-1 10
01 (J
IO X
SLU
1
«^
o
Ol
-o
Ol
4-1
IO
c
r-
contam
CQ
O
Q_ >,
C 4- TD
<4- -i- O 3 4J
O JZ 4-1 CT ~U
i l_l T3 00 Ol C
4-1 i C C E IO
C T3 - 01 01 >,4-l
O) Ol <4- S- 4J IO Ol
E 4-1 4J 4-1 !- Ol O)
4-1 IO COO IO r S_ IO
> t. -1-4-is
Q)-t- OIIOOI1-JQ Ol
i. E S S CD (OCQ 01
4-1 IO O OJOl'i- 4-1CJ
4-1 > 01 i. IO Q_
i c 01 -i- j_ ai i
IO O IO (-CIO l-Ol-i-
O O -O-i-JD4-l> O
r Ol *P" Ol
E t- i T31-CJ 4J4-1
Ol Or--i- COI'i- CO C
JZ r IO O IO 4-> I IO Ol 'l~
U -1-1 -1-01 IO3 10^
O IO &_ l/l Ol S IO CX*4- Ol
O0101OITDIO>> S- Ol CQ
C O4-1OIOIIOT3T3 4-1 O
IOT3 O. 10 -U S- S Ol >)-E O Ol Q-
Ol Ol E IO IO ^D ?~ t t_) ^ c-
C 4-1 -r- Ol IO O C !-- l-
Oi M-IOO) S- U4-1OIOIO1
XO4-ooulxOlS_OOIOO(J'OOl
LT)
CO
^
o
01
10
- c
-o o
4-» E 4-1
oo Ol o
r a: -
z
f
JZ
u
IO
Ol
CO
Ol
-a
3e
OJ
o
of liquid . No further action
goons
er diversion
iIO 4-1
IO i IO
oo S
O <4-
Q. O 13
00 C
r- C 3
T3 O Q. O
r- 3 i.
Ol 4-1 C Ol
4-1 IO IO C
i- N Ol O IO
01 f- i M-
(4- Oil O 4-1 4-
O C J3 T3 IM
Ol 10 C !- C
T3 4J4J O O
C C 01 O.T- T-
Or 4J 10 U
i IO C 4-1 3 i
IO C (J Ol Ol S- Ol
> O-i- 3 4-1 C
§O 01 ^ Ol 01 c
O)>>) 4- J^ CX C IO
Qii Q.LUQOO u
OJ
CO
OJ
10
"io
i- C
~& O
4-1 E-1-*
01 Ol O
r- o:=t
<
O-
,
c
o
o
IO
_J
c
3
1-
co
CO
0
contaminated . Further study of con-
drainage taminated ground water
d lagoon to assess need for future
4- Ol Ol
O JZ -r-
4-1 i,
C 3
0 E _o
r- 0
4-1 S- "
IO 4- Ol
o
f- 01 IO
p 4-1 2
O C 00
OO Ol
c E oi
O'i- Ol
O T3 IO
Ol C
T3 00 -r-
C lO
IOT3 t-
c -o
r IO
IO »
> 01 JZ
o i o
So£
Qi Ol "O
LO
CO
OJ
^^
Ol
IO
i- C
T5 0
Ol*i-
4J E 4-1
01 Ol U
Q-
*
0)
r~
r-
>
01 C IO
O) Ol >> O
i- Ol 3 Ol
T3 4-1
T5 014-
T3 O O
c o c
lOi O14-1
4-'i- c
01 01 O)
Ol t- Ol 4-1
Ol IOT3 X
> O) 01 Ol
01 >,!.
i 1 Q. Ol
0 C
O4-1-'-
10 3 1-
4-1 ET3 Ol
01 O C 4-1
c s- o oi
11 4-OT3
Ol
cappin
-------
-o
Ol C
4J O
O *!- 4-1
Ol 4-1 IO
-3 Ol D
D. O
O 3
CT
01
I
00
0; 4-1 oo
«- c c
-o aj o
03-1-
o
oi oo «£
.0 jQ
31
O CO iO
O O>
"o 01
o> ai
oo
1 Ol
OI4J
4-1 >O
IO X
O
S- 3
C
o
o
Ol
y
o
CO
o
£g
IO Ol S-
E s- e 01
Ol O.T3 T3
I- E O) C
4-1 Ol OO IO
00 4-1
T3 4J
01-0 Ql-r-
4-l C 4-1 3
X: C C
O C -i- O
<0 O E O
0) -i- IO
01
C
o
4->
O
O
o 10 o c
IO O O
J- X 0^ -
Ol O) O 4->
o
-O 01 3
C IO Ol i- 00
IO - IO 4-1 C
CL 1_ O C IO
IO IO 4-1 O i.
O Q- 01 O -o
i-
01
o
i -C O
I Ol O
4-1
01 M- 4J Ol
o i- o oi 01
CL O E Ol
Ol 4-1 Ol IO >
i- IO C S-
-o o-i- 10 xi
i-. O.C
Ol T3i IO
4-1 C-i- T3
!-!-<(_ Ol Ol
01 ^4 OTO
*4 >) O OO IO
U- Ol IO IO (_
O -VCD O-tD
"c E i
>, IO IO J-
4-1 4-13
i- Ol C 01
1 r O
i- O O
O Ol 4-1
10 x oi c
M- o -
013
Ol CT3 4-1
c - 01 c
r- O.
S. E
3 3
4-1 a
o
10 H-
14- o
3
C C
IO Ol O
E oo'i-
104-1
C Ol 10
"~ "oi^
00 J- IO
4-1 4J
C 4-1 OO
01 c c
§oj -^
^
s. ai
3
O i
4-1 00 M-
4-1 M-
C C Ol
o ai
r- 3 -o
4-1101
*O M_ 4_1
s- 14- ro
Ol 01 Ol
10 l_
C 4-1
E ''"<»-
3 00 O
ii t.
0 > 0)4-1
a) s- ro
> Ol OIT3 i IO X
o i-4-i o> x:
t. 0.-1-
too
0 C
1-1 4JO
J>£ 4-1 O Ol
O C OO o
IO IO *t~ IO
a. c o<4-
oo
"o;
X
a
i *
iO
i
E
IO
4-1
C
o
o
'[
o
4J
c
01
4-1
IO
ai
s-
1
4-1 "O OO
01 C 00 C4-1 C
fl Ol'i- IO C IO
O E S- IO Ol
D- -i-Xl l_ C Sv
r- OIT3 C 4-1 E
~O OO IO IO IO Ol**-
T3 X4J C O
eH "4- C C C-i-
o >o OT3 ox: -
S- - C O 00 CM C
O) "4-1 3 3 O
4-1 IOOOOO4-11 X:-r-
IO OOEIO&-3M-4-14J
X O3S-O1O -i-lO
CLi- 4-1 (. X 4->
Ol 01T3 X 4JX: O Ol
o oiioom-oioi
10 -a * oi 3 c 01
M- 01 S. s. i Ol -r- >
j_ OIO1OI4JM-O&-
3 4-1 4-> 4-1 IO Ol Ol
01 -f-oiro *O^->c
oiioxc-i-'l-O-i-
4J >*- X oi 3 o x:
IO M_ TO 4-1 OO OO OO
Ol O-^COOr *'f-
S- 13 >>- 01 10 i
4-1 "O3OOOO4-1OI-O
CJD S. OO-i- S. 10
08 IO O14-1 Ol IO 4-1
CO 00
4-1 O) ! OO r Ol 4-1 Ol Ol O)
O4-ilOOIi E S-C
OI*i->OllO4-l>>'O'i *
i 01 O"O4J lOi Q.'Oi
i M-E301OID.O1IO-1-
OO^Oli CS-QL!_S-O
O O O£ 00 i t 4-1 IO Q- OlOO
CL
CL
3
01
S-
Ol
ia
01
IO
c
i.
Ol
p
IO
c
10
4-
o
c
o
4-1
ro
IO
4-1
01
C
ter main
er diversion
(O 4J
S CL ro
ro f
01 o
c Oi
|~ >o o
XI (JO
4-1
>, ^'S
i C4-1
3-1-0
I*- E <0
IO
O 4-1 Ol
4-1 C'
O 0
>i ox:
l/l 3 *| ^x
E 4-1 O C
01 OO -f-
4-1 Ol 01
01 C O
>, Ol S- Ol
00'^ 3 C
00 O !-
Ol Ol OO E
C "O i-
r- Ol Ol HI
4-1 t- x: 4-1
C CL4-> Ol
Ol 13
> IO Ol
01 4-1 » C
IO O Ol 03
Ol 3 C
"O tr~ C
O Ci O
C O Ol-i-
lO O TO4-1
reatment
4-1
Ol
4-1
00
C
o
c
IO
'[
o
c
o
4-1
o
3
S_
4-1
OO
C
0
o
c
Ol IO
o
S- 01
3
o
00 01
S- 01
o> c
IO 4-1
X oo
o x
C 01
3
O Ol
S- i
Ol CL
4-1 IO
IO 00 S-
Ol Ol
t- "O 4-1
4-1 c ro
IO X
>l'O'-~
4-1 C> S- 01
i- IO O O O
i S_ 4-1 IO
i CL4-1 4-
o E c c S-
IO 3 O O 3
14- Q- OST 00
s
^»
o
s
O
in
CO
o
01
LO
oo
OJ
CM
4-1
00
-a o
Ol-i-
T3 O
Ol-i-
4J
00
IO
r- C
-o o
Ol-i-
4J
l O
o o
Ol-i-
=c
O-
-C
o
et
a_
ai
m
i- 01
I. 3
es
o o
00 Q-
o
i<:
5-
T3
C
iO
>
01
ro
O
ro
O
ro
O
ro
O
-------
T3
O) C
40 O Ol
O-i- 40
Ol 40 IO
r-j Ol O
O-
(- 01
Q. Q
to
40
C
o is
O"
O>
0?
I
to
oi 40 in
s- c c
-o oi o
O 3-r-
«C CT40
Ol O
Ol CO ct
-O -O
3
O OO IO
4O T-
S- T3
IO O Ol
o -o oi
o> oi o:
3E CO
u
IO
i.
Ol
IO IO
C1-
o o
*r
40 r
r- IO
i > Ol
O O co
Ol Ol O
0 s- jz
s_
(U
s-
Ol
o
c
S-
O)
"O Ol
3 -r-
O T3
01
c
o
S-
01
3
M-
1/5
Z
O
O CO
UJ .
SE ro
UJ oj
cc -^
o o
a:
r> uo
CO
c
o
40
3
^~
ia
TD
^
01
o;
3 E Ol
i_ ai 01
o 40 10 in
to c 10
it- Sv- en
O in 10 E
i- t- >o
CT3 O S-
IO O Ol
to - 1- C T) O
o 40 oi o 10 s-
Q. i O 40 !- O Q.
to - ai 10 40 s.
- 1- i S 0 01
O t 3 to C
"O o a) I- in -r-
O) Ol o O 40 1)1-
40 40 ro to O O
r- IO Ol l|- C O 40
in c 40 S- o to -
it- i- nj 3 o c
it- E-C co 14-0
O IO o T3 O E
40 ro l*- C CO
T3COIO lOECt-
C Or Ol O O
10 0 C 0140-r-
ia o c to40 40
c >> - - >>o c
Ol 4O40C O.CO3 O>
p-jzoiooo. i-E
40 Ol 3 i -i- IO Ol+o Q.
lO-l-l_r tOOCCOO
>JZ4OIOJ_ -f C '
10 to 40 a> >t40 o o>
o'OCin>ioco>
x coc-i-i oioioi
LU too i i-a <_> >a:o
to
40
c
O)
a
to
Ol
i_
it-
o
c
o
4->
IO
O
O
Ol
s_
40
c
IO
E
i-
Ol
a.
o M-
01 o
40 i
10 co
c o s-
E 43^
IO IO O
40 CO 40 o
cm 0101
o-"- c oro
OS- >- Ol C
-O T3 > IO
it- Ol i
O T3 r -i- T3 C
- 3 C O
i "O O J3 ro !
IO C CO CO
> ia o> 010
§M- 40 c S-
tO O -r~ -r- Ol
i- CO T3
i- Ol i C rO Ol
E IO O S- N
O S_ CO Orr-
C O O **- i *t_ c>-
ns> to o o^ oi o
o->- <*- E 040 c:
X O M- Ol 10 *- 3
UJ to o o co in s-
Ol
O T3
E co c
aioi 10
S- c
IO C
T340 O
C -
iO Ol 40
Ol IO
C IO >
IO i. IO
O) O U
40 X
<_) muj
0
CO
<4-
o
CO
40
"- 3
O m
in Ol
l_
T3
Oli
40 ia
IO 0
C !-
r- 40
E >>
4o'io
c c
O IO
o
Ol in
>140 Ol
i IO CO
J3 3 >>
to IO IO
i- > C
> LU IO
o
01 Ol
JZ 40
40 ro
c
C)- !-
0 E
r 40
10 C
CO O
0 0
a.
to ~o
i- C
"O ro
Ol co
40 !-
r- S.
to n
14- Ol
t--o
o
k
Ooi
c c
ia ro
40
re oi
> 40
E m
Ol C
a: o
in
f
^
O
CO
il-
O
C
o
40
ro
>
ro
0
X
ai
o
Ol
40
£ i
O-i-
m_ j
version
r
T3
S_
o>
D. S. 40
IO Ol IO
O 40 »
IO
< f 01
o: o
O Ol IO
o; o "4-
10 i.
IDI+- 3
S- to
1-
0
CM-
O O Ol
r- O
40 C C
O O iO
3-1- C
J- co Oi
40 J_ 40
to !-
O'i- IO
o o s:
40
>)
D
3
40
to
Ol
C
c
E
0)
>
to
c
Ol
!- JZ
Ol Ol
> i.
O 0.
O E
T3 O
C
IO IO
CO 40
Ol 0
JZ 3
O T3
40 C
r- O
-o o
JZ
40
01
C
C S-
013
r--o
to
01 S_
a o
40
0.0
IO IO
04-
01 C
40 O
re-f-
r- 40
i- 3
O-i
O'i-
i_~a
a.
Q.O1 O)
IO JZ CO
40 ra
01 JZ
c ai a.
i 40
E 10 c
L- 3 Ol
Ol. r-
40 10 in
ai > ai
T3 UJ -O
>>
J3
Ol
O
'> E
S- 01
0140
in 1/1
>,
S- to
11
40 Ol
IO C
*>-
40
r CO
rO'i-
Q. X
r- 0)
O
r- *+-
C 0
3
E§
t. x
a. OJ
T3
Ol
$
00
0)
40
IO
o
in
oo
OJ
~^
ro
IT)
oo
CM
^
ao
cb
ID
if)
CO
^
CO
OJ
o o
O) -r-
4-> E -"->
CO O) O
^o: <
O
Ol-i-
10
CO IO
C OL
IO
<
o.
i.
4-*
U
Ol
01
J=
o>
ro
O
O
O
PO
o
-a o
O) »
T3 E -U
C OJ U
OJQ: <
CO
OJ
-------
o
O) C
4-> O OJ
O !-»->
0) -*-> IO
1-1(1)0
Oi
J- 0>
0.0
O 3
01
cu
O£l
CU 4-> in
i- C C
a ai o
-
.0 .0
3-
O l/> IO
10 o a>
-o T3 a>
cc
0.
CU
in cu cu
IO CUC i 4J
en s: o i CU
IO I.Q C 4->
(O.IJ
i- d> l
O >
o) .c -r- en i
a
c
IO
en
O O
(J+J
c cu
O E
+J O
O )-> r
CU CU
-4->5_ O Q)
C IOIOJCOE
i- S-COJ 4J
at
O
IO
I. M-
c
i a. -«
VO
o- i- c s T3
CC. O ^ O IO
a. ^-. aii i_ -1 _ _ _ _
o .MI CD i_ m to 4-» oo 10 ai 10
<4- C i O
ii 10 ion- i ii i
S-C
CT13
- 4J
IO
IO
r 3
r- o
o s_
00 CO
T3 IO S_
3 C
ttl CT3
-C O C
+-> O 3
s- o
3<4- S-
u. o en
c s-
cu o
>a s_
r CU *-
1/1 -t->-r-
O 3
a. TJ cr
in c 10
i- 10
TJ >
c in
cu o-o
+J "- C
r- +J O
U D-
10
s- o
j->-u
X
cu cu
I.?
CU IO .
4->JZ -^
IO o 4)
* m cu
1- i.
T3-0 CJ
en w
it-i
It- IO
O-i-
S-
O O)
c: 4->
10 10
o m
r- 3
4-> O
IO"CJ
> t.
IO IO
O IM
X IO
LU^:
-a
cu
in 10
E c
-!->
<+- C
O O
u
"io ->
m c
- cu
a E
4->
CU IO
4-> CU
- s-
m 4->
<<-
<4- T3
O C
in 10
T3 J->
C C C
IO IO O
T3
R) c
in 10
O
a. '
in in
r- 0)
in
a) 10
(-> S
o
c
i- CU
I CU
T i.
s- a> oj -c
cu en +j
EIO IO
i- en
o o t- c
n_ +j o->-
1/1 c
cu +J -i-
JT E c 10
cu
u
CU-i-
M- O
>*- o
o^--
3-C i
O4J
CD S S
re cu u
> s_ a>
ET3 i
cu c o
o; 10 cj
u- m
<4-i
CM-
ID
TT in
L. C
CU IO TD
J-> CU
10 C 4->
S O 10
>- c
OJ+J T-
o 10 E
IO > IO
l|_ IO 4->
i- U C
3 X O
i/)LLj O
CU t.
o
IO CU
Q.4-1
E 10
o
s_
O tn
X IO
+-> cu
T3 S.
c cu
IO >
cu o
. en en
IO.-C S-
m i- CM - cu
4-> Oo3i >
C 4-> i i O
cu in M- u
E wi4-
i- E 10 J^ i
O 3 O) U -r-
O) L. S- IO O
(/) -a .»->
10
CU C<4-
S.-I- O
IO IO
-E S-
O) (_) O)
en *J
10 m cu
s- E
o<*----
*J O J-
JT IO
-a io+j
i -a
i-iD ai
cu 10 c s.
E+-> 3
o c: s- o
M->> 10 u
-a
cu
c
Cf
IO
D
if)
co
LO
co
o
CO
in
CO
CO
CM
-o o
QJ -r-
10
r- C CU
-o o
10
r- C
o o
0) -r-
+> E 4->
u) cu u
^-cc <
<
Q-
<
Q.
c
o
cr
a>
T3
c
IO
c.
cu
o
ro
o
4-
CD cu
c
«o
-0+J
coo
10
oo
ro
o
CT1
3
o
S-
o
CD
-
n
o
-------
oi c
4-> O Ol
U '- 4->
O* -M IO
r-5 Ol D
0. O
O 3
CT
O)
o;
I
Oi >-> in
s- c c
-D oi o
oi u
oi in CC
(O
S- -)->
Ol C
-l-> O
10 o
-O +J C
C -i- O
3 (/) !-
O >4- 4->
i. M- o
v LU
S-
01
o
&
s_
Ol
IO
O) c in
3_1 O) ^-. C
I/I S- US 3
o .-a oo o
r JJ-O >- S-
OOO IO U. CD
S-
ai
3
O
i.
CD
S-
ai
T3
c
o
&
10
3
o
&
oo
o
i-i C
a. 10 o
.
i/i-'-i/>
D
O
M_ >,
It- 4J
OOJ-4-"!-
JC C<
4-> a> -
re 3 a
t/>C' 1
a)
«0)
WIO
-
<+- -aioo|4-
C IO I.
tt)Q.
>a-
+J 4-> '--
O"-O>IO
WX1. -
-
o> s c
10 4J 10
C >> S
-r- OJ 4->
-
-
LU O rD M- CD CjJ (_>+-> 4->
i-
J2
OJ
0)
>
0)
I/)'!- C L.
<4- O-O i- O).
if- in c "o a..
(O
o
O)
O)
TJ
c
10
o c c
O ro
o >4J
i- C S- in
+J «f- IO -f-
3 Q.
js 01
c>io:3a>
-a o> w
c -M oi
10 io>
i f- Q. in 10 in
O E J-
>
O£ O 3 *-> O IO O
-4-> O O£
IO .Q O
a o;
i- in
i IO O)
o a> 4->
in t. T-
C IO l/l
O C
O E O
o
-a s- c
C M- ro
ia
in c
C i f-
O -r-
r- O Ol
s-
> IO S
*j in <-
in ST"
i oi ro
S- c oi Q.
o
o
i Ol
10
Q.
IO
o
ro -i- T--I- +J -
ro-u 10 o
10 i. -i-
-o a) ai c
Is. o. 3
>o E
10 a>
o <->
X
T3
=c*
J-+J t
O) C
*J 0) IO
IO+J !-)->
S c ui
Ol O O) C
o-o
in a)
fO o
t/1 (J
o c
Q.
o ro
c o
o +j x c
i- C 0) O
4J O) -
ra E oi +J
> -w c o
fO ra - IO
O 01 l-
X s. 3 O
LU r- -O 3:
O
t-
ie
S-
3
in
10
a
s. ai
Olj->
-u 10
10 c
*!
10
<\j
3 C
o o
S- O
Ol
<*-
a o
01
+j>
IO IO
c m
i- o
E Q. Q-4->
10 in 10 c
+J -r- O Ol
CT3
O I- Ol
O "O O) J^
Ol
s.
O Ol
r- +J
fj T- 4J o in
C
+J i. +J > E
in
c
3D.
.
i- IO (C M- K-
C 4-> UT3 S-
O C l_ X O) 3
cj a> I LU in co
o
Ol
c
o
oo
O)
OJ
>».
OJ
00
^
O
LO
00
o
ro
LO
OO
^
vo
~^
Ol
LO
oo
o
CO
CM
00
LO
00
CT>
OJ
LO
00
o
CO
IO
i- C
a o
O>-r-
1 g4-l
> o
-*->
in
a o
01 -r-
IO
-o o
(O ro
r- C -r- C
U O "O O
oi - oi <-
ino>o inaio inaio m
i C£ *£. t O?«£ i C£ ^ r
0)
3 -r-
O Q.
O) r
+J !-
r- O
JZ
c
o
CO
o
CO
o
nl-
O
3-
O
3-
O
-------
o
01 C
4-> O
O
S- 0)
Q- O
oo
O
1 HO
OCO
LO
QO
LU
§Lu
o
a:
Q. oo
Media to be Addres-
sed or Subsequent Oi
Remedial Actions Requ
S-
o>
IO
T3
c
o ^
J- O
CD 00
E
i.
14- TD
o
o
« c
IO IO
in
O in
D.-0
>,_ ^
T3 0-
O) ^-
4->
r- *s
in c
14- IO
in
c
o
4->
3
rm
,
4->
>
4->
3
l+- 4-*
O
T3 O>
C 4->
i -f
re E IO Ol
O 4->-*->
01 o 10
et u S
.
oo
CO
-^
ro
oo
^^
S
on
H- 1
1
in _l
Ol
3
4J
OO
^^
Ol
00
1 »_ I
IO
r- *
i. CL
01 3
4-> C
IO Ol
S Ol
i_
M ^3
3
cl
0
r" LO
?1 0
in
c
8
IO
o.
10
u oo
u_
r t 1
i- a:
i_
10 4J
I. U
0 3
t-o
§
lo
c
o
o
10
i-
o>
i~
3
14-
o
z
in
C 4J
- o c
o-i- a)
in4-> E
0 Q.
1 IO !-
r- 3
iox> cr
01 O)
14-T3
O C Ol
Ol 4->
r E '*-
10 E m
in O c
o o o
a. 01
in S- OV+-
- CO
^J? Zr_
Ol 4^ O IO
4-> 4J >
- i. -r- O
in 01 c E
If- > O Ol
14- O E i-
O
a i-T3
-00) Ol C
C 4J 4-> iO
IO iO iO
c S 01
i -r- C
ia E in x> i-
> ai 3 O 01
O O) !_
a: ui CDO
LO
co
^
^f
1
l£>
o
LU
_l
in i i
r
10
i. >>
ai c
4-> 10
10 a.
s: e
UL- O
3
LO
o
«
Ol 01
c _c
r- 4J
T3
o>
- >
3 O
JO JO
IO
Ol
J= T3
4-> Ol
4->
Ol IO
C C in
^ *^ r~
>> E 0)
i 10 >
S- 4-> 01
0) Ci
o o
C 0 C
3 O
14- !-
i -i- 4J
i- L)
l/l O f"" *O
c in ^3
f 14- O Ol
Ol
4->
ID
JZ
4->
Ol
c
o
c
3
o
i.
3
I/I
Ol
o
c
0)
14-
Ol
o>5
c
p- l^
T3 O 0.-OT3 O
i in c 10
i- oii- o)
3 C -0 E
4_) e~ o
S-i
O1IO
>
0) O
rt)
r r
(Or
(0 U)
E4-) +->
tl c c
^J
C ^1 [ *
i-JO C
0 O) 4->
14_ 4_) IO
in o>
C >> i-
O in 4J
^
in >^ c
.-, 0
> O.JO
O 0. i-
(. 3 IO
a. in o
LO
co
^
00
CT1
IO
r- C
"O O
212
_l
tl
in
4->
c
>
o
oo
g
<
LO
o
lO-i-i
1/I4J-1-
O IO O
O.1- in
in 01
i- CT3
o Ol
a 10 10
re * E
Ol O>
C ^ 4J
o JO in
i- re re
i * t- 5
re 01
> C J-
re *^ 01
o ojc
X C4->
UJ-p- O
.
i.
i. 01
01 4->
4-> re
re*
Ol
o o
c re
3 14- '
O S-'i-
1-30
CD OOOO
^ f~~ 4^
i -i- re
^ 14- *
i- -o
14- C T3
o m re c
C 01 3
re 4-> o
r U> -d l-
re c 01
T3 S re
Ol T3
4-1 OQ in C
re o 01 re
c a. 4->
E c re 01 01 -
IO in O S 4J 4-> O
4-> re c M- -i- in
c Oi DTD in in
O i. "O 4J -1- 14- 14-
orec-r-3>4-o-O
re i/i o" o re
O'i-OQl|_r in U-O
o o o a) s- -->-
o 01 4-> i/J of re
--aoiinrerei c
4JC4JO1.S1 4J-1-
rererea.a) T-OE
> i-incTJM-sre
re E re *r * -r \^ ^3 4_>
E 4J
in
re
3T3
o c
t- 3
l/l O
O) J-
CCCD
*
(O
(/)
fO
WO
O.4-> 5
in re in
- c
*o *^ ^
E r^
01 re re
- c 14-
m o o
4- U E
If- 4-> O.
o >. c o.
"O -C E r
C O!4->
re *^ re t.
j= 01 01
c i_ >
O"O 4J O
- c
4-> re 3 01
re 4J T3
> in -i- M-
re E in c
u 3 i re
X i- C >>
LUT3 1-1 0
LO
CO
OO
1
00
re
- c
-o o
4-> E 4J
in Si u
_j
C i <
0
in
c «
-C O>
O Ol
-3 re
^^ >
C *
i. OO
CO
LO
0
S-
Ol
4->
re
XJ
c
3 i
O -
!= 0
CD 00
S
f- O
O ceT
i m re
re r
in -r- 4->
o o >
*4- C C-i-
O -r- -i i
re re-i
c c «
re o ^3 if-
u c
c reo
o in
r- E m 01
4-> 3 4Jr
« t_ C4->
> T3 Ol-i-
« >4->
X LO O 3
LU CM 1/1 OO
in
co
^~
v,^
en
To
T3 O
Ol-i-
4-> E 4->
in a) u
a: <
£
»
o.
E
i
>^
^_
Oi
E
O
o
S-
o<
4->
re
o
c
o
i-
CD
0>
re
c
S-
Ol
4->
re
4-J
c
Ol
c
re
E
S.
Ol
CL
re
0 >,
f- r
Q.
C Q.
O 3
1- 00
in
^ ^
> O)
O 4->
t_ re
Q- 2
.
«J-
co
oo
1
10
s
C£.
t i
S
»
X
o
CJ
r
s_
fO
^:
o
m
o
-------
4-> O Ol
LJ-i- 4->
OJ -(-» IO
OOJ O
o-
S- 0)
O- O
5-fc
O 3
cr
OJ
a; *-»
s- c c
o a) o
O 3-"-
<: CT-M
01 f
J-T3
IO O CU
"O "O CU
cy oar
c
o
+J
o
ra
C
o
o
10
i.
3
r- I.
O S-
QiCD
(O O
2 O
o ai
c o
3 !_
O 3
O
r E
O IO
i- 4->
4-> C
c o
0 0
o
cu
CU 4J
(J -r-
S- V)
3 ll-
CS M-
GO o
r_
0
i- t-
4_> CU
C +J
O IO
O S
CU "O
o c
I. 3
3 O
o Z
I/) CD
r
O
S- S-
4-> CU
C4->
ore
l/)
£S
U-
o
X
UJ
CZI
cu
?»
ro o
JZ r
0 t-
in
-Q ro
s-
0 3
-U 4->
ro
l/l C
CU
!fc
i T3
O. C
3
4-)
C C
ro ro
V)
C
o
4->
a
r_f-
ra
-rj
CU
CU
QC
C 01
E J=
ro (J
+J !-
§S
U CU
J^
* 10
O 1
5S
m monitoring of plumes
trols on installation
S- C
CU O I/I
U O r
CTli CU
C 10 S
0 C
i/li o CU
C !- JJ
O CU 4J IO
i- 3 3 >
4-> C 4J v
r-T--r- J_
O 4J +J O-
C C
(J
IO
S-<4-
-W O
X
CU 4->
C
t- cu m
CU E 01
+J*J c
IO IO 't-
i cu 13 o.
S- r 10
T3 -U -r- f (J
C ST-
34-> J. JD O<
o c: cu v> c£
S- CD 4-1 CD O
CT13 IO +JT3 Q:
CT S-r- 0)
IO CU
I/I T3
It- JO CU
O 3 J->
in ro
C C
o jc f-
1 4J» E
+J S
10 * 4J
i c
IO CO (J
+J-U
,J=
i i in +j
in-u 10
C U
o eu>*-
O
it- cu
O in c
0
C «*-!-
O O 4->
r- U
4Jr 3
- 10 S_
> 4->
o O in
Oc?
in (Or
0 E-r-
Q. 0
IO
r- T3 C
in co-i-
<*--£
l»- J- iO
O 34J
J3 C
o o
C T3 O
10 C
10 >,
C r
Or JQ
r- (O-r-
4J -I- in
rO (J-r-
>- >
ID M-
o s--o
X 3 C
UJ in ro
ir-stripping facilitie
om the contaminated
discharge to municipal
lant and distribution
ro t. D-
14- "O
>f- C 4-1
O l/l * C
0 CO
CO 1- E
O5» CU 4->
i- 4J IO
4-1 CD rD CD
(J > S l-
3 O 4->
i- E "O
+J CU C l-
in «_ 3 cu
c o +J
O 0 S- 10
04-1 01 f
E
CO
4->
in
>i
in
c
o
r-
4-1
U
3
S-
+J
in
c
o
U
cu
o
c
cu
U.
alternate water suppl
c
ro
i-
O
M-
in
c
O
in
>
O
i.
Q-
ontaminated waste oil
aminated waste water
O4->
C
4- O
O U
Clt-
o o
4J4J
10 C
i. CU
CU E
C4-1
r- IO
U CU
£ib
4->
i E
1 CO
1- i. 4-1
r- o in in
rO >> -
o in r
>,O CO
JZI _>! S
s- cu a. 13
cu a. o. cu
4-J 4-> 3 4->
ro s- co in ia
S 10 e c
cu s- -
-0 >) CO CO E
C 1 t- 4J ro
3 C rO IO 4->
O CU X C
S_4J 1/1 in O
Cn r i- «- 1- 14-
IO S- CO r ro O
CO O r r
J- 14- -I- T3 4J
4-1 CO ZC CU C
Oli CU -U CO
T3 C JD -J O E
C"- iO CU C
IO O.4J "O>4- O
O. D. C4-TJ
O_'i CO CO iO C
E i- IO
3J_> o X O JO
CL in rfl UJ J->
^^
oo
in
CO
CM
~~.
cn
-o o
a
Q
UJ
IO
D O
a> T-
p E )->
in a> o
t a: <
ao
Q) -i-
*-* E *->
in cu o 1/1
cr: < i
IO
-r- c
-o o
O) -r-
E
cu
x
o
>
cu
I-
10
-SZ
o
o
*
CO
O
J=
O
in
in
O
S-
CD
S-
»^-
10
O
3
IO
UJ
z:
t
ai
jj
in
(O
O)
S-
o
n-
TD
3
^
!_
IO
oai
0.0
mo
10
o
J->
IO
-^
c
S-
CD
in
o
un
o
in
o
in
o
in
o
in
o
in
o
-------
00
z
o
O CO
CO
UJ 00
cr: -^
m
o o
UJ
> U.
o o
CC
Q. 00
Q. *
O
X
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent O&M Deletion
Remedial Actions Requirements Date
r-stripping facilities . Complete RI/FS
m the contaminated on ground water
harged into water
'5
in
c
o
4_>
a
IO
r
o
QJ
Q-:
o
01
c
cr
l/i
03
4-*
S
>J
f
*
o u
s- in
!*---
M- TO
o in
o .
C 0 i.
o »
-M
u
3
i.
4->
in
c
o
o
9
in
00
00
oo
4J
z
^«t
o>
4->
IO
4->
OO
Ol
4J
00
»
+->
0)
1 «
oo
c
o
c
o
Ol
Ol
o;
in
0
O> ID
> S
Q) c
t. 3
O
O i.
4J OO
IO
i- C
-§.2
5 u
nd drinking water
ro
E
in
X
i/l
C
£
j->
IO
OJ
I.
4->
4->
>>
in
c
o
3
JO
!_
in
o
No further action
c
o
r
4->
O
O
z
.
in
CO
l-»
CO
ro
o o
4-> E 4J
z
£
(ft
0
c
0)
in
^*
in
(
i.
S
LO
o
of municipal . Ground water
activated
ipping
+J i- 4->
C ro i/i
OI- 1
£ 3 1.
rO ro 10
ttl I-
&» U'U
t. VI O
. IO
c ar >
o !-
-u E c
"T7I t- E
i- OJ4J
i. 4-> ro
ca c QJ
~£ 1
Z
in
O
01
M
IO
o
c
3
O
s_
CD
s_
CL3
CL
ini
o>
S- IE
OJ
4-> ttl
"B ro
i- i-
i Q.
J2
3T3
O.OI
O1U
CZ GJ
4->D-
in ro
X O
-o E
t= QJ
OJ+J
"x >,
ui in
.
ro
CO
-^
cr>
en
£
ct:
i i
z
Cr
O CL
4-> CL
JC a--.
^ (L)
I» t- 4^
CO O) l/l
+-> >>
3e ro oo
z3-
in
O
blic water supply . Ground water
contaminated municipal
Q.OI
u
^'5.
4-> Ol
in J-
'x 0
0 E E
c QJ OJ
OI4J 4->
4-> in i/i
X >l >>
LU I/I I/I
^>
00
oo
00
C£.
z
s:
Ci
O CL
+-> CL
JC 3-
cnoo E
I t- 4-*
4-> >>
X ro OO
Z^
in
0
andfill . No further action
e extraction/con-
dewater landfill
hate
f ground water and
logical disc,
recipitation
ated carbon
on of contam-
, monitor
r 4-> oooa.>T- o>
ro O ro i- i j-> O
S. S- 4J ttl 4->-O (U 4J ro C
0)0) i C 00-O4JOI
> Q- vi QJ cri»-- ro *r- c 14-
OO- OtECX 0)
.-4J4J---01-OE «l-
Q.-C" ttl IO rOl/ll_ IO in-i i QJ
rOCXCO)3-Or C"O O 4->
Oro >-»- >i3O E 4-> OJ J= C UI/I4J X
i i C - 4-> 10 C
, ^.gji ttlrOEt- 4IT3OT3
IO IO E tt> 4->-C 3 O14-> QJ O C
4J 4J C t- O -i- -I- 4J 3
ininp--"a i/iro-o*o inrom o
cc ro O r l/l ro O " Cy CTl
in
CO
-^
oo
en
'ro
i- C
o o
OJT-
+J E 4J
10 S u
r o; «t
s
*
u_
x^
_l
ttl
E
_J
X
ai
z
in
o
s_
QJ
ro
C
3
O
s.
CD
l(- 1 T3
O >, T3 C
r T3 C ro
tt) C ro
IO 4-> >> ro ttl
O > i- 4-> O IO
Q.T- i in O >
- a. o -o <*- o
T3 ro X
tt) 4-> O O
4-> O
r- ttl S- . r
in C tt) O 4J -r-
(*_ r~ 4-1 r- 0) (/I
O "-M- 3 .
L 4J T-l 0- tt)
"O <1) JD CTJ-i- in i
IO ttl OO in T3 c S-j* tt)
,
X O Xi ro s. i.
UJ in o o JZCQ -o
tn
CO
^
x»^
en
ro
- c
"S .°
4-> E 4->
in a) u
-:-«
i i
s:
«
QJ
(_
r-
ro
c
j^_
tt)
f
4->
!_
0
Z
in
O
4J
in-i-
J-^i-
JO O
tt) rO
oo o
ttl in
rOi c
!-- 0)
E4->-
rOjO u
O 4J
(-><:-
0£ *
ro tt)
-------
o
CD c
*j o
V- 4
O> 4-> ro
r-3 Ol Q
Oi
S- Ol
o. o
54=
O 3
cr
a>
or
Oi 4-> in
S- C C
-o 01 o
^ 3"-
s-
3
c
o
o
<0
ai
4-1
ra
C?
O'i- (O
S-0 O>
tSOO Q.
o
3
T3
S-
o>
c
3
O
4->
ro
O
O in
o o
tt) O C
3 J*:
CO)
r- O t.
+j S- at
C 3 JC
O O J-l
ooo o
O
s-
4->
C
o
o o
(-""O
C CD
003 (_)
U- O l_
ii Ol o
cz in
in
Oi in «
J- Oi i.
3!- 0)
t->T3 4->
3T3 ro
U- ro S
oo
O
1-1 ID
O OO
UJ .
X CO
LU CM
a; --.
in
o o
O o
c£
a. oo
X
LU
o
o -o
>-> a>
CO
O
Q.
in
CM
, v.
TD (O ra
O J- lO-r- S
I/I C 0) (-> S -4->
4-> O 4-» in C"O
c- 10 a> o a> c
10 4J > S. T- 4J 3
CO"~ O O
i- <0*J OIJ3 CLJ.
E 1- u in 3 01
*O 4J (O 3 Q. in
4J x a>-a
c ai s- j- t. u a>
o ID ai o c-w
o i-< M-if- ai (O
a> 3 - T3 c
It- 4J C 3 U1
S- C
Or Ol
M- "O E
o t. i-
ai re
i a>4-> +J
IO (J IO c
1/1 E o
o -u u
D. CCQ
in ai tj-o
i- E !-> (O
r- ro c 10
in--- o c s-
<*- t- o"- ai
i<- at E j->
o *-> ai to ro
o m
a)
aj c 01 m T- a) o
o 3 c o > in u
u o - a. o o
a> i_ m E i- -c >>
Q.CS 3 i i Q. -!-> J3
T3 E-r- C
c in o T3
(O T3 C O C
Q) O 3
C -M >> O
O lO-Uf V.
r- C O Ol Ol
U f- 3 4->
IO E S_ "O 4->
> (0*J J- S_
ro 4-> in ai a>
O C C"0 >
X O O O i-
LU U(_> E O
ra
in
O m
CL-r-
in i.
r- JD
t-> en
*r C
in »-
O 'r
3
O JD
C
rO"O
a>
C+J
O ro
> rtf
rO+J
O C
X O
r Oi-o in *->
r -O C t- -i-
U O !-
in O 3 u
c s- >o c 10
i1Q.-2 ID 14-
ai
c
cr
oo
a>
CO
in
00
10
in
co
oo
^
CM
in
oo
o
ro
ro
r- C
O O
ai-i-
4-> £!->
in ai o
IO
f- C
-o o
m a> o
r a: «t
ro
r- C
T3 O
m ai u a:
r-o: <: >-i
ro
II
"O S >->
c a) o
T3 ro
in
o
in
O
in
O
in
O
in
o
in
O
in
o
-------
>t Id
o co
UJ ^
ZOO
LU CM
an ^-
in
o o
Q. 1/1
Q. =C
o
X
UJ
o
Media to be Addres- Projected
sed or Subsequent O&M Deletion
Remedial Actions Requirements Date
in
c
o
r~
M
3
r
ID
XI
CU
C£.
xi
cu
c
cr
oo
cu
4->
IO
O
>1
4->
>
4->
H
41
4->
IO
4->
if}
--X
cu
4->
r
OO
C
O
^
en
cu
a:
cu
o
i-
CU in
10
-o eu
C !-
XI CU XI 4->
cu > cu -
in o Tn in
in o O
cu l- "a
i- i CU C
D.T- 3
CU OXt O
xi m cr s-
O-O CU
4-1 M
eu -c cu
I/) 4-J 4-1 4-1
r- nj {_>
CU 2 1 * 3
XI C
CU t- CU O
a: 100; o
_i
'
«
XI
c
<0
oo ^"^
^3
IO -
X* 4-1
C C
o o
(J O
3
IO
1
in
0
of creosote waste . Ground water
Bayou
,_
iO
in
o
Q.
in
XI
cu
4->
in
M-
O
in
00
in
^
CO
IO
XI O
CU-i-
t/i (D o
<:
_i
iO
u
3
O
c
0
CD
^3
O
IO
CO
IO
0
onsite disposal cell with . No further action
leachate collection
1 cover
and place in onsite cell
« IO
M- I- C CU
O CU-r- 4->
c 14- in
C-r- IO
0 XI *
i- C
4-> U IO CU
U-r- N
34J «-r-
i. CU EI
4-1 r- Q) -r-
c c >4-l
o in in i/)
s
10
IO
IO
«- c
§°
4-> E -M
1/1 Q) O
X
1
>^
o> *
O
r £
O CL)
U4J
UJ trt
it??
>r
CO
10
o
s- E
CU 4-J
>, in
O in in
O c
r- C
cu in-r-
> i.
O 010
J3 C 4->
IO T--I-
C C
CU t- O
4-> 10 E
in L-
XI CU
M- C 4->
O fO CU 3
IO CM- O
>!- i.
CU IO 4-1 Ol
r- r- O
CU 0.31
CUXI 4-> IO
in o m 4-1
r- o c in
10 r- o cr
in
CO
t^
-^
01
o
rz
ro
CM
t
IO
O
£
fl)
JZ
C-3
1
to
f *
V)X
^_
0
^o
0
en
c t-
r-M- CU
O 4-> t- C XI
in CU cno CU
-J >»4J -r-
O 0 C (J 3
«C4-> 10 10 cr
cu
4->
in E
ID CU
S 4J
in
M- >,
O in m
i 01 en
10 T- C
in in -r-
O i.
Q. 0) O
in c -u
XI C C
1- O
cu cu 10 E
4-1 4-> S
r- !- S.
10 inxi cu
M- C 4J
M- XI IO n)
0 CU 3C
cu cu
xi in u xi
c c c
10 XI CU 3
CM- O
C 10 i.
o 4-> en
r- i i O
4J lOi 3 i
IO -i r- fc. r-
> l-M- 4J IO
10 cuj^ in 4->
o 4-1 o C in
X iO IO O C
UJ ECQO I-H
oo
^
in
CM
IO
IO
<- c
^"S-2
in cD u
XI
0
in x
XI I-
c
IO
1 [ *
J= T-
O1Q-
3:
i-
cu
4-1
IO
s
XI
c
3r-
O >r~
i. O
in
in o
xi in
1 3 XI
c cr c
O !- IO
O i
M- o S-
O 'i IO
C 4-1
cy $- cu
E O 01
4-1 XI
10 M- 3
CU O r
i- in
4J C
S. OM-
CU i- o
IO 4^ 4J
O IO iO i
- * s- 10
01 cu in
O4-1 C O
i -i- -r- CX
O Q. o in
r- c 'r
cu l~~°
CU 4-3 CU CU
4-1 IO 4-> 4-1
in-i- in in
M- e <«-it-
M- IO M- M-
O4-1 OO
in
00
in
ro
IO
* c
XI O
CU -r-
4-1 E 4J
in cu o
X
I
«
o
o
h-
O
£
^O
o
S-
cu
10
c
o o
t- o
CD ^
>,
4-1
J=
Ol
"in 1^ j_
cu cu
M- *4-l
>> O 10
cu s
- 1/1 en 4-1
> CU C -r- -O
10 cn-r- m c
CU XI Q. C 3
J= 3 Q. O 0
r- 10 J_
M- in u xi 01
0 CU
XIXI 4-1 f
4-1 C C 3 O
C IO IO Or
E in 4-1 in 01 10
4-1 ci c s:
IO -r- CU T- 3 in
cu o E o
1- in c in 4->
4-1 -r- IO 10
XI IOXI CU 0)
xi cu 4-1 cu in i.
C 4-1 C4J 4-1
10 10 o 10 xi
r C O C C XI
r- -r- IO C
CU E CU E iO
4-> IO 4-1 IO CU
r- 4-1 !- 4J in O.
in cr in c o £
C O C O i 3
O (J O Q-
s
in
CM
^.
en
IO
r- C
XI O
CU -i-
in S o
i CC <
<
_l
»
t-
cu
01
c
XI
o
IO
o
IO
OJ
1/1
M-
M-
o
cu in
S-'i-
(O 3
JZr-
OM-
«n
-XI
x> cu
XI IO
cr c
i. lO-i-
O> E
M- 4-1 IO
r- IO 4->
3 ,
i. XI
O Ol
LUO;
i i
CMPO
-------
a
a> c
+J O 0)
o - +J
0) *J IO
r-5 O) Q
o-
«- a>
Q. o
54:
cr
O)
or
1
CO
OO
C C
o> o
3-r-
O) O
CO *f
J3
3-
OO IO
J-T3
O ttJ
"o a:
to
/
0
<_
o
o
O)
o
s-
3
o
oo
£_
a>
IO
T3
c
3
O
o
c
o
4->
O
IO
!_
a)
JC
4->
!_
3
<4-
o
z
r~
J. O
croo
r- O
IO
O
s_
cs- >+j
IO IP -i- O
O. QJ IO
coo
IO J_ O) I.
-c a. <_ a>
(O JC
r-
i -- 1- r- J-
I0i -I- 3
010 SM-
OO
O
i IO
ooo
LO
oo
oo
OL
CL.OO
X
LU
r~
>
'OL
Q.
3
-r-
O 4->
«t IO
,__ ,__
IO IO
l~~ t *
*O 00
aj
>^
CO
cn
c
r
i.
O
tft-
c
el
s.
aJ
iO
3E
*Q
CO C
i 3
O
0) i-
S cn
io>
(/) iO
10 a f *
O) 3 CO
1_ i c
IO Q- '
00
OO i
CO
O O rr~ "O
r- 3 i_ Q)
4-> (_ J3 4-1
O [_* QJ IO
a> oox) c
r-3 -I-
c oo a>-o E
r- 4-> 4J C
> a) oo c
4J C JC O
0) C O CO 0
SO 10
o t-t-
O. i 4J O
a) E 10
O) 3 <4- C
T3 4- f- O O
"DO -r-
a r 4J
CT3 C IO IO
IO C O CO 1.
10 H- O CL IO
O J^ IO CO
r- c C -I- i
4J IO -I- T3 IO
IO 4-J E O
J_ 10 4J4-> C
CJC C-r- 10
f- 4_> O CO JC
O O 0>- o
C "*- 0)4- Q)
"i O QO S
o
c
10 C
o
OO'l-
-04->
r- O
3 O)
O""r")
-r- C
r *»~
_y ^~
r r f
3 , cn
o *^ 10
o. c
OO CO »-
T-T3 IO
0-r- i.
ai'o
4-> CO OJ
i- 1 4J
C0'>- f-
<»- E oo
t- ai c
O u) O
o
ai
^ O)
t- JC
3 4->
tl
oj- O
o
cn
i C
IO
co -a
CL'f* QJ
OO O (/>
f- CO
a "o
a c
S-
T3 C Cn
c o
,0 o
cn
CT3 C
O C-i-
t- lOi
4J <
IO OO'i
^ QJ I)
IO f % xy
O CO O
X 10 10
UJ SCO
\y *
S_ 00 OJ
0 0) 4J
4-> IO OO
HI if- C
C I- O
O)3
i c co cn
f -i- c
S CO O 13
j_ -^
C <1) 3
r- i- 4-> J3
i- a) c
O 4-> 'f~ 10 j:
r- S U14->
C C
§^D '^ 'I
CJC O
3 00
Cn i
a 10
if-i C S
O IO IO
3 -a
c c en c
o c c 10
r IO 'f~
CO-i- E 00
CJD 3 J_
0} IO 3 O
4-1 O.-O O O
r- X C IO i
CO LU IO > V-
Ol
S-
r- 0)
0 1 4-> *
C - "D co
O 4->T300 OOJD
O ""^ O iO O IU CO
i- a. 10 1 jo s_ fl) ] * t_ >^
r~ 1 IO C 1 (/) | * IO QJ r~
O 4-> X +-> ^~ o o *^* ^ *^ t ' c
[ * Q) f ^3 UJ c t/* *+ E O iO
C CO-r-lcnO) i IO JO OJQ.^-> >J- CCC
4J t_ I/I IU O f ~ v 10 IO >V D O IO IO
l_(3(O-r-jCJClOC J- 4->CO
OJC "O4-> co-i- cnDl-io »cn
o T3 i- - tj aiioo-coc-r-
IM QJ *^ C d) S- c C -C t- O O IO 4-*
Q.M(4_IO>QJIOt* 4-> O S- > t OOO
t O> IO 4JQ_^IO OJ
C-'flJflJ OQJJZ
IOi-jC>i-O>O > OJ>Ooo
JCO4->QOJ O OJOE-'-OQ.E'
IOIO E>E3r LJC03-r-
r-PM- OJOJZ Sc-r-OJ S- lOX-i- S- O
IO O
c_> i i i i a: i i
r CVJ
ai
cn
oo
a>
LO
OO
CM
Od
oo
10
10
LO
co
CO
00
OJ
00
s
o
ro
LO
OO
T3 O
e
00 0)
a:
85
+>
oo
IO
i- C
"842
0)
+j
IO
4J
OO
o
OJ
lO
O
oo
Ol
0)
S-
o
IO
-------
OO
o
1IIQ
OCO
LO
O O
LU
=» U-
00
C£
Q. 00
X
UJ
o
s- Projected
O&M Deletion
Requirements Date
QJ 4-1 tO
S- C C
0 (U O
-0 3-1-
in
c
o
r*
+->
£
IO
1
a)
o;
CD
CT
00
0)
IO
o
Si
4->
>
2
o>
4-1
10
K
^.
01
4-1
t
OO
c
0
CT
CD
|
O
in
4J
C i
C I/)
iO O
E 0.
Q) -r-
Q- -0
f**
t
HI O
Cn in C
IO T-
1- T3
O O> CD
[ * 4-1 O'
in IO iO
C J-
E -i-O
i- E 4-1
i. IO to
Q) 4-1
4-1 C S-
C O O
i- o <*-
01 V, to
4-1 r Q)
r- JT 4-1
in OV*
c -i- in
O J=
i.
4-1 4J 0)
O >> V. J= >i
3 4-> O 4J 4->
J- -I- Q. 0 -r-
4-1 i in r
in -r- C E -r-
C 0 10 0 0
o 1
£
O f-
^ 0
« lO
J= U.
o
iO Q)
O) E Ti
CO T- ro
t- s-
tn o> o
O) 4-1 4-1
E C I/}
i » «
[ .. -
^^
O
c
o
4-1
iO T)
> O)
(J U
x o>
CD <4-
>> (O
_Q
(jj_
l/l O
o>
- o
l/l !-
^J
S- 10
jc o
4-1
0 0)
14-
o >>
i.
C 10
O i-
r- O in
IO E C
O 4-1 T3
4-1 T-
in "U to
CD C CD
to
4-1
C
gz
r
-o
O)
00
.
^
OJ
>. 4-1
i S- iO
Q.O) tn 3e
CL4-1 O)
3 to f-i
in y 4-1 10
1-14- t 4-1
O) O !- C
4-1 O CJ
IO C IOT3
x o '*--
r- in
TD4J C O)
C 10 O V,
3 O -i-
o o inii-
«_ to o
s- E cr>
01 in c
CT3 C-r-
4-1 IO i- O-
r~ | * tO
X C T3 in
§IO O">
C I/)
o « o S
Cr O. CT>4-1
10 a. o. i in
JO O) 3 C >>
^ ry in O in
^.
COLO
*^ ^^-
i r>.
^OT
O
O
IX
t-i
£ 10
C O)
2 E
O O>
4-»
Q.
Q.
i- 3
CO
Q
c
o
4-1
O
(O
s_
O)
j=
4-1
I-
3
14-
o
z
,
CD
O) i
D JO
T- XI
0 3
- S.
in if.
CD O
Q.
c
f- O
o -
I 4-1
1 !- IO
10 O !-
to to O)
O C
D.-0 -
in O) o
I-4J C
c '"
O)-i- O)
4-1 E 4-1
in4-i in
If- C f-
^
CT>
.
r^
IO
r- C
-a o
in o> o
. a:<
o
^J
*,
»o
J-'»-
3 E
y^ QJ!
"O -c~
00
o
3
CO
o
S-
!- CD
(1)4-1
*O 2
5
13 O
i 3M-
- O S-
O J- 3
...
cn
c
f
r
IO
4-1
4-
o
IO
in
Or-
Q.-1-
to o
r m
o
"^
"O QJ
C 1 *
IO IO
r~
4-1-1-
0 1
(*\ | *
to c oo
c: O LL.
10 o .
c
Q) 10 4J
4J O
i- I/) 3
I/) Q) *O
<*-r- C
l(--f- O
O Q.O
ro
00
"*
o
H>4
^~
iO
o
r-«C
E cj
5 .
w
t-Jx:
O J-
4-1 O
i 1
0)
o
c
o
r-
4->
0
IO
s-
O)
JZ
t-
3
M-
O
Z
14-
O
f_
iO
y">
o
o.
(A
r"
T3
CD
>^ n)
IO 4-1
X§
LU O
If)
CO
0
CO
01
IO
*- c
^"842
us
«£
C_3
t
IO
o
1
_c:
^
o
4-1
r
Q)
a>
o
c
o
o
IO
i.
J=
4-1
!_
3
1*-
o
z.
.
^3
CD
4-1
IO
C
»
E
IO
c
« o
r- O
0
O
If-
O 4-1
C
r Q)
0 E
>4J
§ U
i-
IO
i- C
in S (J
ce i.
o
?
o
O) Q.
c
r- o
i- 4-1
trt t.
S- CD QJ
CD4-> 4-1
4-1 tO IO
r- 1C S
If- T3
-C C
CO 3
O-r- O
JO i- S-
s- i in
ie E
O 3 T3
r- QJ
4-1 E 4-1
C O >) O)
n c~ -r- t,
tn o i 4^
If- If- O If-
O O it) O
If-
IO IO
c
ng -o
QJ
C -t->
O W
i- C
1 * (f
ro E
> IO
IO 4-1
0 C
X O
1 1 t l_)
Lf)
CO
^^
Ol
LT)
IO
r- C
4-14?
in O) O
r- (*<
-
\s
C
3
E
o
o
JO
JO
'->
en
0
c
0
4-1
O
»o
i.
CD
.^
4-1
!_
3
O
z
m
in
4-1
to
IO
2
M-
O
r
IO
in
O
a.
i/)
r-
T5
CD
4-1
i
in
if-
if-
O
T3
IO
C
O
4-1 !-
10 o
> in
IO
0 T3
X C
LU IO
,3.
co
-X
a-
IO
r- C
o o
in CD o
o;<
^C
o
*.
CD
4-1
OO
i-~
f"^
O
(_y
s:
Ol
o
-------
T3
cu c
4-> O O)
O"~
O)4-> ro
. -i-jCU D
e^
O.O
in
4->
c
5t
O 3
rj
cc
S- C C
-a o;
c
o
o
IO
L.
O)
t-
0)
>o
*
T3
C
o
s.
to
o
S- S-
4-> O)
CJ->
O IO
O X
a)-a
o c
1- 3 i
3 o -i-
o s- o
oocs oo
O
IO
s.
(U
- 3 C
O O O
OO 1/5 _J
IO
c
3 i
O -r-
O)
S-
T3
O 00
UJ -v,
S!rr>
LU OJ
o; *«.
m
o o
UJ
gu.
o
a:
Q. OO
o
x
f residents
inerized mobile
o 10
4->
c c
0 O
- u
+->
(J.
«t
r
m
t
o
cu
E
o
r r~~
CU IO
S- '1-
i-
4J 3
C JD
CU
c cu
§+J
^
in
cu c
Q. O
cncu
c u
Q.IO
O.C
IO CU
0-t->
c
>v-
_Q 10
E
CO
S.X1
3 C
in 10
o
r- 01
u c
in -r-
CU CU 0
E4-> C
O-r- CU
-COOL1-
\
s_
1- 1
IO C
o
S- U
cu
X+J
O IO
4-> CU
i.
T3 4J I.
cu cu
-* O4->
(J -4J IO
10 i
O. in
ET3
<*- CU C
O 4J 3
in o oo
C >ii_ U.
O in 01 .
^ » <
4-> OTO o:
10 c cu
r -^+J 4->
F CXIO o
IO Q.C 3
4p3 *F » ~U
in s- E c
C (-> IO O
I* W4J O
cu
l/l
<*-
o
TJ
c
1C
Q.
IO
o
C QJ
1-4J
4-I.C
c u
r- IO
10 O)
El
**M
cu o
4->
r- **
in rO
in
cu o
0 Q.
c in
CU *r-
LL.T3
D
c
10
t-
cu
<0
a
c
3
o
!_
Ol
+>1
10 1
cuo
l-D.
Q
"O 4-*
c
ro CU
Ol
>-> s-
O ro
rO f
I- 0
4-> in
LU-D
ide materials
onsite storage
terials to mainland
O i
i- ro
-!-> CU
in in
0)
0. T3
^^ c
< ro
ro
u cu cu
I 4-> +J
£- ro
CU f) C
j: c -i-
(JOE
^y ^3 ^>
o cu c
ro J_ o
Q.O (J
rO
E^_
cu ra
j-> in
in O
ra a.
S in
r-
i T3
^~
ra CU
ai+j -i-
i- I- in
4-> O <4-
i in o
r- C
U ro i.
CU +J CU IO L. O
o: in o M-l <*-
4->
ro
in
1
o
4->
a.
CL
in
1
s-
r-
ro
M-
o
c
o
4_>
u
3
s-
4-> in
Ci
o cu
(U
in
in
<4-
O OO
u.
o »
cz a:
ro
C 4->
CU (J
4J 3
C TJ
- c
£5
H1-H2 treatment
it-
CD
c
0
+J
IO
s_
Ol
Q.
o
cu
3
r <1J
!-> »->
c in
<3£
o
4->
in a.
t. a; cu
cu >> s--a c in c
i O> CU IO 08 O O
r- i- f i. l«-
ocu 00101 in o t/i
S- C 4-> O. C C C
4-> CU 3-i- O O
C 4-> > -i- ro M-
OCU C^Q. 4-Jinin 4->
ej(j CUinE O" OOiu
3 E IO -r- r Q. C >-
>,T3 4J> 1/1 S-CUin-i-S-
L) CU ro CU 4-> X * CX4->
ct- cuscu i/i "o-i-in
0) I- 3 CU <*- CXCU
3O 4JO1C S. O OJ 1-
CT4J C fr~ 4-> "O
CU C CU CU "f" " CU
l-m oi.c(.>ioinCU>
14_ i. O O CU -i- 3 CU'|- '-lO'OO ro
^O >C«3J-C C i.
JD E -r- O 1/1 CT4J ro -D -r- 4->
ro t-E' roin crOl/l
r- Q. in T3 -i- c ro s_ '-
S- E 4-> *CU>*-CO T3C
ro 3 c C CU 5 O - *- C *-
>O.a)rac E4->O"OE
r~- r CU F C *^ IO r [ * IO IO
i i s_ cy i - in i ra
ro cu->-oiie4J>>CUio>inCU
in o* 10 in *'~ ra 10 in o c ro
£ oS!5£q$«s:.= 13*a;
in
r-
O
in
M-
0
c
o
( *
ro
>
(_)
X
o
(SJ
o
d)
c
Cf
CO
oo
PO
CO
CM
PO
CO
1-^
ro
CO
oS
in
CO
o
ro
T3 O
d) -I-
in 01 u
a: <
ro
i- C
o o
- c
T3 O
T3 E
c cu
CMC£
T3 E*->
CM O£«t
i O
ai
n* *>
JD
ia 10
U3 O)
c
OO
T3
5
o
<
>o
cu
14- >
aim
t- »
10 en
r QJ
3->-
in j.
c o
5>I+J
= ^ 10
ES-
i-
10 CU
o
o
in
t-
O)
a
c
o
Q_
en
o
S.
91
C
S-
o
o
i.
cu
o
c
o
D.
-------
o
QJ C
4-> O QJ
QJ 4-> IO
r-> QJ O
!_ OJ
Q. Q
5-fc
O 3
cr
(U
o;
QJ
S-
-03-1-
_
(U U
QJ in -
I- T3
IO O Q)
"O "O Q)
01 d) o;
C
3 i
O -i-
s- o
CD 1/1
C
o
o
IO
i.
(V
j-
3
i.
Q)
C
3 r-
o *
J- O
CS 1/1
s.
O)
c:
3
o
s-
U3
O
I
O
11 ID
Q 00
LU CM
os .
in
o o
LU
gu_
o
o;
Q. co
Q- <
X
LU
S-
3
IO
O)
1- 4J i IO
O) IOr in
4-> QJ'i- O
10 J- » Q.
* 4->
o; 3 o 10 IO CH-
10 (O
t.
10 cn
QJ c
4-> Q.
CL
T3 "-
C S-
IO 4->
Ul
Q. I
Is
Q.O
O
QJ u
3 3
c s-
4-> in
c c
o o
oo
4J O O"-
x s- o
QJ CT"D in
c
QJ M- IOT3
i. O QJ
QJ C 4J
_c cy o 10
S en-.- c
S-4J-I-
§10 10 E
_c > *o
4J O 10 4J
in in u c:
>,-- x o
in ~a LU u
contro
tutiona
ns
cjio
c
r- QJ
.c o
in c
3 10
i C
>4- QJ
r- »- in
> in t .. _ . _
c o - E ^ 4J
« E in in c c
_ I- QJ C M- IO O
: Q: 4-> Q O Q 4->O
S- C4->
OJ 10 i C
> IO E C Q.H-
I S QJ -r- E
4-> IO i IO
O « 4-> lO4->
C >> C T- C
I 3 in T- T3 O
O E QJ E
I ii CT)C 4_> O) S-
QJ t3 in i. QJ
L IO QJ E C >> 4^
QJ4-> 4-> IO ini IO
I i. IO IO IO X
«t 1. QJ QJ i4J
: QJ L. 4J O CT3
I C Q.4-> IO 1. QJ C
I -i- O J- 4-> E 3
"O QJ C QJ O
> in~o c Q. O" i-
QJ C IO O O O. Ol
. C IO O.
) -r- C i- 3 H-
r 4-> O 4-> QJ m -t
I O *i~ O 4-* m
>W34J3lOEinQJ
lulS-OS-St-OJJ-'
> QJ 4_> (O I % £^ O '^ IO
loms-ini-if-TJS.
>OC4->COL-3O>
: i-ox O4JQJ4->--
i 0.0 QJ o in Q. in E
CO
oo
IT)
OO
r ro
oo
to
00
LO
CO
t- C
o o
Q) -r-
~O E 4->
c a> o
cocc <£
IO
i- C
"S.2
1 E 4-^
o
IO
- c
o o
QJ
C
c
IO
5<
QJ
c
c
10
0<
E - E
o «t o*f
O CM (JCSJ
IO I lOr
4-> OJ 4->
§* §'
I/) I/I
C 01
i- O
a> o
4-> S-
in a.
ai
a>
u
o
i.
a.
c
i.
QJ
-------
CD C
4-» O
o-
i. O)
Q-O
O 3
CT
O)
OC
I
to
0) +J to
J- C C
O O) O
03-1-
f. CTJ->
O> o
0} (/) ct
JO JD
3 r
o t/i «
-0 T3 0)
0) 010;
o
o
i HO
oco
UJCSJ
ce: .
in
oo
oo
a:
o. i/>
o
X
UJ
O.
C
QJ
o
ui
Q.JJ d)T-
IO to 3"O
4J - to
c
r- O U to >- 0) -C -il!
t/1 X -M (O r O QJ
C O) » 4-> >O 10 c
C i !- E JT Oi-
lO 'I f*~ "O (J T- I -
O C T3 C 4J -
c , 10 c - i i S- - O+JOiOO'O>
IO a)3-C4-><*-"-lO
(J t C Ifl i. r O
X OJ<4- IO C O) O X
LU 00 O E ' Q_ W)UJ
CM
CM
I
------- |