United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office 01
Emergency and
Remedial Response.
EPAIROD/R05.89/091
June 1989
~EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
V,
I)
Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH
u.S: £nvironmentaJ Protection A
RegIon III Information Reso pne1
Center (3PM52) ur"
84~ Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 191Q7
. .
. ,(..'
. ~.~~:..:~
t~..~.
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA RegIon 3
PhIIac:teIphIQ, PA 19107
[E~~ ~@~@~~ C@I~~~ti(m
11ro~IID~WiJ@]~@1ffi R@j~Hj)ME'~~ C~1I1JtlPJr
m~ !E~~ OO@@~@1I1J 2J
~foJl~~(Q1@J~~UiJ~~. I?~ ~ ~~ lQJ!,

-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11: REPORT NO. 12.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-89/091
3. Reclpien1'. Acce88lon No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION

Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH

Third Remedial Action - Final

7. Au1ttor(a)
5. Report Date
06/29/89
&.
a. P8rf0nnlng OrganlDtion Rape. No.
g. Perfonnlng OrgainlDtion Name and Add.....
10. ProjectlT88IIIWortI Unit No.
11. Contr8ct(C)« Grant(G) No.
(C)
12. ap-oring Organlz8llon Name and Addreu

U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.'
----- .--' -
Washington, D.C. 20460
(G)
13. Type of Report . Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. SuppIem8nWy No-
11. Aba1r8Ct (UmIt: 200 _rd.)
The 9-acre Laskin/Poplar Oil site is in Jefferson Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio.
Included on the site are: a residence, a greenhouse cvmplex, a boiler house/garage
containing 4 boilers, a smokestack, 4 oil storage pits, 1 underground and 32 above
ground oil storage tanks, a retentic. pond, a freshwater pond, and miscellaneous small
buildings. In the 1960s storage pits and tanks were installed to store waste oil for
~he boilers that heated the greenhouses. The Poplar Oil Company continued to accept
.e waste 011 throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In 1981 EPA found PCBs in onsite ground
water and soil which resulted in several emergency actions that included draining and
regrading 2 retention ponds, diverting surface runoff to other retention ponds,
removing offsite and incinerating 302,000 gallons of waste oil, treating and
discharging offsite 430,000 gallons of contaminated surface water, and solidifying
205,000 gallons of sludge. From 1985 to 1986 the Poplar Oil Company removed ~n
additional 250,000 gallons of waste oil and wastewater in response to an administrative
order. Two additional orders were issued ordering workplan development and
incineration of materials in the pits, tanks, and heavily contaminated soil. The.
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, onsite structures, and debris are
organics including PCBs, PAHS, pesticides, and dioxin; and metals including lead.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analy". L Deacrlpeora
Record of Decision - Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH
Third Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, structures
Key Contaminants: organics (PCBs, PAHs, dioxin,
pesticides), metals (lead)
b. IdentiflerlllOpen-Ended Terma
Co COSA TI FIeIdIGroup
, Avallabilly Statement
18. Security a... (TIll. Report)
None

20. Security a... (TIIla Page)
Nnnl">
21. No. o' Pagea
150
I
22. Price
(See ANSl-Z3g.18)
See I""trucl/o"" on ReWl,..
272 (4-77)
(Formet1y HTl5-35)
Depertmenl o' Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/ROS-89/091
Laskin/Poplar Oil, OH
Third Remedial Action - Final
,6.
Abstract (Continued)
o
The selected remedial action for this site includes draining onsite freshwater and
retention ponds with offsite discharge and refilling; thermally treating contaminated
soil, ash, and debris from the boiler house area with onsite disposal of ash if the
ash can be delisted, otherwise offsite disposal in a RCRA landfill; demolishing and
thermally treating or decontaminating. dioxin-contaminated structures; constructing an
up-gradient ground water diversion trench; installing a multi-layer cap over
contaminated soil exceeding a 10-6 excess cancer-risk level; monitoring surface and
ground water; and imposing access and land use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $11,000,000, which includes present worth O&M
costs of $1,000,000.

-------
81 OS-~
IB::IARATI~ PCR 'DIE ~ c:I l'H'!Tq:af
Site Name ani I.ocaticn
Laskin Pq>lar oil Site
Jefferson, ario
u
Statement of Basis am Purcose

'!his decision document presents the United States Environmental
Protection Jlqercy's (U.S. EPA's) selected remedial action for the Iaskir1
Pq>lar oil site located in Jefferson, Ohio. '!his decision document was
develcp:d in aCXX)rdanoe with the Carprehensive Environmental Response,
O::Itpensation, am Liability Act (CERCIA), as amen:ied by the SUperfund
Amen:bnents am ~uthorization Act (SARA), am the National Contirqency
Plan (NCP). '!his decision is based on infocnation am documents
contained in the administrative record for this site. '!be attached. Wax
identifies the items that cx:rrprise the administrative record- upon which
the selection of the remedial action. is based.
'!he State of Ohio does not concur with the u.S. EPA's remedy selection.
'n1e Chio Environrrental Protection Jlqercy (OEPA) has in:ticated a
preference for a different alternative which was presented in the u.S.
EPA's Feasibility Study. A brief discussion on this issue is presented
later in this document. .
A'!;S'-~ of the Site
Actual or threatened relp;:toc:p..s of hazardous substances fran this site, if
not adiressed by inplement'in; the response action selecta:i in this Record
of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent am substantial en:1argerment
to p.lblic health, 'Nelfare, or the environment.
J:esc:ri.Dtia1 of the selected Remedy

'!his h:medy is the final remedial action for the I.askin Pq>lar Oil site.
'!be canbination of the 5aJrce ReJroval ~le Unit am the remedial .
action chosen in the attad1ed Record of Decision constitute the final arx:l
overall lc.-ly for the site. '!be primary goals of the remedial actions
at the T ~!C:I1dn Pq)lar oil site are:
.. .
to eliminate any human exp:sure to residual hazardous waste
di ~ of or contaminated materials at the site, am:
to address all potential risks to human health an:1Ior iJrpacts to
the environment.
'!be Remedial Investigation (Rt) for the Laskin Pq>lar oil site identified
areas of concern that include areas of di.spose:l hazardous waste,
contaminated soils, sediments, groun:iwater, structures am debris.

'n1e p:>tential risks associated with the site are posed by direct contact

-------
-2-
with incidental in;1estion or inhalation of OCI'1taminated soils, sediments,
material in the boiler ho.1se, an:i human oonsurrptioo of ccntaminated on-
site groordwater. 'Ihe selected l~I~Y addresses all site 00I1CeZT1S by a
canbinatiat of ccntainrnent, treatment, an:i site use restrictia1S.
OJntaminated soils an:i sediments will be contained by a DI.1lti-layer cap
which will greatly reduce infiltration, thus reduc:in3' the'likelihood of
future gromd water contamination. A groon:iwater diversion trench will
be installed ara:arx:i the site to prevent graJrXiwater fran pass:in3' through
ccntaminated soils. Dioxin-cx:>ntaminated materials inside the boiler
ho.1se includi.n;J soils, ash, an:i stxuctural debris will be thermally
treated. Ash resul t:in3' fran the incineration p~c: will be disposed of
on-site (if delistable) or off-site at a Resa.Jrce Conservation an:i
RecxJvery Act (~) facility. An att.enpt to decontaminate arrj- dioxin-
contaminated stroctures that are not amenable to themal treatment will
be made. If any of this ~terial cannot be themally treated or
decontaminated, it will be properly contained in a 00JiC:l~ vault on-
site. 'Ihe OOUclete vault will be placed on-site beneath the cap.
Additionally, because the dioxin waste an:i contaminated material will,
remain on-site, the selected remedy will provide for-lorg-te1:m monitor:in3'- -
for groon:iwater, surface water, an:i performance of the t:renc:::h:- ani cap. ' '
Cot L ecti ve action measures will also be taken should -1I'Oni tor:in3' in:1icate
, a failure of any ~1p.Jnent of the I~lIt:\ly. Site use am acoess
restric, ions will be placed on the pJ:'q)erty to ensure:-:t".he integrity ani -
perfonnance of the Ieu-.1y. ' ,.- - ~ "

'!he major ~1p.Jnents of the selected Ietllt~.1y consist of the following:
- ~.-
'\
o
Drain retention am freshwater ponds. Discharge surface watar fran
pords to CerneteIy Creek, with treatment if required. Backfill
freshwater .pom with clean fill am grade retention pam area.
'!hermally treat contaminated soil, ash, an:i debris fran the
boiler house area am dispose of ash on-site (if delistable)
or off-site in a ~ lan:lfill. '
Dem:>lish an:i thermally treat or decontaminate dioxin-
contaminated stxuctures. If material can not be
decontaminated or thermally treated, contain material in an
on-site cx:n::rete vault am place beneath the cap for
tenporalY storage until proper effective disposal can be
secured for the material.
construct a groon:iwater diversion trench up-gradient of the
c:xr1f..iJIIidnted soil ani grcmrlwater.
O::I1RIuct, a IrIllti-layer cap aver soils in exceedanoe of 10-6
excess lifetime cancer risk level or Total Hazard In::lex of 1.
De-water site by natural groon:iwater flow to CeJretety creek.
Conjuct grcmrlwater an::l surface ,'....ter monitoring to ~s
quality of groon:iwater migrating towards Caretery creek.
Inp:Jse a~ ani use restrictions.
Estimated Tbtal COSt: $ 11,000,000.00
Estimated time to canplete: 2 years
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

-------
-3-
Declaraticn
'!be selected l~u&jy is protective of human health am the environment,
attains federal am State requirements that are ~licable or relevant
am ~rqJriate to the remedial action, am is cost-effective. '!his
Lt::medy utilizes pe.nnanent solutions am alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. Treatment
is not a major Culp.lnent of this remedy, as thermal treatment of
aR'roximately 300 albic yards of dioxin~ntaminated material is the only
treatment c::x:JtpJl1ent of the re.medy. '!he 1987 SOOrce Reroova1. operable Unit
does address the prin:ipal threat posed by the site thra1gh thermal >
treatment of cxmtaminated sa.tree materials. '!he principal threats are
considered to be the waste oil, sludge, am saturated soils near the pits
an::l tanks (afProxilnately'5,000 c.y.), which will be thermally treated on-
site urder the Source Rem:Jval Operable Unit. 'Ibe canbination of the two
remedial actions satisfy the statutoty preference for treatment as the
principal element of the final Iemedy. '!he Ie.uedy also will reduce the.
volupe, toxicity, am IrCbility of hazarilous substances present a'c me
site. - > >
- _. - -
Because this IeIl.edy will result in hazardous substances remaini.rxJ on- >
>.- " ,site, a. reView will be corrlucted within five years a-fter o:mnencement of -
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate..:-
protection of h\JItlan health an::} the envirornrent. .


kj(~v
... oW.:
: 1:'..-:

-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRI PrION
. . . .
. . . . .
SITE HISroRY AND ~ ACTIVITIES
. . . .
a:::MIJNI'I"i REU\TIONS HIsroRY
........
........
4 . 0 REU\TICNSHIP TO 'DiE OPERABLE UNIT OR RESFa-lSE AerIeN
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
'6.4
6.5
6.4
7.0
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.7
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
. . . .
SITE Oi1\RA~srrc:s . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gro..JJ""dw'a.ter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

surface Water and Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soil.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sm1ctures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.Air .........................
~Y OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . .

In'trOOuct.ion 0 . It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ }.sc:!.Oe:SJ'tent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. 2 . 1 Irqestion of Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.2 Ingestion of surface Water. . . . . . . . . . .. .
6 . 2 . 3 Ingestion of COntaminated Soils . . . . . . .
6.2.4 Airborne contam.inant Inhalation . . . .

'I'oxici t;y.Asse.s.srner1t . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . .

SUmrrary of Risk C'1aracterization . . . . . . . . . . .
Analytical Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . -. .
Potential F\1ture Risks. . . . . . . . . 0 . 0-0 . . . . . II
rx:x:tJMENI'ATION OF SIGNIFICANT CiANGES
. . . .
........
DESCRIPI'ION OF AI..:!'ERNATIVE . . . . .

Al t.erT1ati ve 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Al ternati ve 3A . . . . . . . . .

Alternative 38 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 4A . . . . . .
Alternative 48 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Al ternati ve SA . . . . . . . . .
Al ternati ve 58 . . . . . . . . .

Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.....
. . . . .
. . . . .
.....
........
.....
'. . .
.....
........
.......
SUMMARY OF 'DiE Cx:J1PARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AL'I'ERNATIVES . . . .
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . .
O:IIiUiance with Awlicable or Relevant and AwI'q)riat.e

~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LcnJ-Term Effectiveness an:i Pertnanenoe . . . . . . . . . . .
Reduction of 'I'oxicity, Mobilit;y, or Volume. . . . . .
Short-Term Effectiveness. . .. . . . . . . .
Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
():::s't......... .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
State Acceptance . . . . . . .
Corranun.i t;y Acx::eptance . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.....
. . . .
........
10. 0 'mE SEIECI'ED REMEDY
.....
......
. . . .
.....
2
3
4
'\
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
11
11
13
15
15
16
16
17
18
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
30
30
31

-------
10.1 Drain Freshwater arrl Retention Pon:is . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. 2 S~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10.3 I4Ulti-layer c:ap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10.4 ~ter COntrol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10.5 InciJ 88tion of COntaminated Material. . . . . . . . . . .

10.6 00nCr8t8 Vault. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. 7 GrtU'1dWater arrl Iard Use Restrictions. . . . . . . . . . .
10.8 Reduction of Site Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.1 '!he selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the

E:r1vir'or1rrer1t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.2 'the selected Remedy Attains AAARs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.3 'the selected Remedy is Cost-Effective. . . . . . . . . . .
11.4 'the Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and
Alternate Treatment Technologies or Re.so..1rOe Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable. . . . . . .
11.5 'the selected Remedy Reduces Toxicity, Md::>ility, or Volurre
of Waste Materials ~ a Principal Element. . . . . . . . .
32 
32 
32 
33 0
33
34 
34 
34 
3S 
3S 
3S 
37 
38 
39 

-------
FIGJRE 1-1
FIGJRE 1-2
FIGJRE 1-3
FIGJRE 5-1
FIGJRE 5-2
FIGJRE 6-1
FIGJRE 6-2
. .FIGJRE 10-1
FIaJRES
Jeffersa1, QUo
Iaskin Pcplar oil Site Map
SUb Areas of Iaskin Pcplar oil site
Sa DmRry of Shalla. Aq.1i.fer GraIrdwater O::.ntam.i.natia1

Sa mwn;:!Iry of SUrface Soil ani Retentia1 Pcni ~; mPrJt
O::.ntam.i.natia1
Exposure Pathways AnaI ~'7'..ed t.Jn1er ~~d1t Ian1 Use
CD1diticns
Exposure Pathways Analyzed Urrler ruture Ian1 Use
o:ntiticns
AR>rrw;nRte I.IJcatia1 of Diversim Tren:h, M.1lti-layer
cap, ani Diaxin Vault - Alternative ]A
"

-------
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6-4
Table 6-5
Table 6-6
Table 6-7
Table 6-8
Table 6-9
Table 6-10
Table 9-1
~
IIazcmbJS SlJbst,arc.e List 0 .'\~ Detected at the
Laskin ~lar oil site

sa~ry of Qv:micals Detected at the Iaskin ~lar
oil Site Presel1ted. by F\Jnct.iooal Grropirg
~ Q:rftami.nants of 0:n:2rn at the Iaskin
Fq>lar oil site

Risk Q1aracterizatim sa~ry - Iaskin Fq>lar Oil
site
sa Jll'l'Mry of Grc:J.Irdwater 0... .oentratias that ~
Drinkin3 Water Starrlards at'the T ~~1dn ~lar Oil site
sa~ry of IIazcmbJS Substances List O1emical
Cancentratias an1 Associated Humn Risks in
Grc:J.Irdwater at the Laskin Poplar oj~ Site

SUDDary of en-site Soil ani seni1lPl'1t ~m Risks by
Media an1 Exposure Set:tin:J at the Iaskin Pcl>lar Oil site
sa mwMry of SUrface Water ~m ani ADiJient Air
lri1alatim Risks by Media an1 ExpoE:Ixre Set:tin:J at
the Laskin Poplar oil site
Carcinogenic Potency Factors for O1emicals Detected
at the Iaskin ~larOil site

Refererce D:Jse Factors for 01enic:als Detected at the
Laskin Pcl>lar oil site
General Ui'r.ertainty Factors in Risk ~c:mprrt:.s

Ui'r.ertainty Factors Specific to the Laskin Fq>lar
oil site Risk A&'ooc::l'l~
Awlicable or Relevant ani Awrq>riate RBpirements
for O:nsidered Alternatives at the Laskin Fq>lar oil
site

-------
!
-------
-2-
1..0 SITE tW4E, ~CIl, AND r£5CRIPrICIl
j
'!he I.askin ~lar oil site is 50 miles northeast of Clevelard, in Ashtal:::W.a
eo.mty,. Jeff~ Township, Chio, west of the village of Jefferson (estiJnaterl
pq:ulation 3, 012 in 1986). It is southwest of the i11tersectioo of Chio Ralte
307 ard Poplar street, ard imnediately south of CeneteIy creek' (Figure 1-1).

'!he predaninant developed lard uses adjacent to the site are recreational ard
residential. '!he site is boorrled on the north by a wocxled ravine thraJgh
which Ce1reteIy creek flows ard the old Poplar Street right~f-way; on the
south by cpen fields, a horse show arera, ard viewin; stards of the Ashtal::ula
County Fai~; on the west by a wooded area ard softball fields; ard on
the east by Poplar Street ard the ca.mty fai.1:gr'ooros (Figure 1-2). East of
Poplar Street, in the fai.1:gr'ooros, is a horse racetrack. Alt.haJgh m:st of
the recreational facil i ties are liJni terl to use durin; the sumrrer, a certain
curount of activity occurs year'ro..Ird, especially irI relation to operation of
the racetrack ard horse stables.
Several residential properties are locaterl no~ of the lasJdn Poplar Oil
site along State Highway 307. Water for all hane.s within 0.5 mile of the
site is obtained thrOugh the Ohio Water Sarvice, a private water facility.

'!he 9-acre site oontains the residence of the property owner (Mr. Al virl
laskin), a greenhouse CXJTi'lex, a boiler house/garage containin; 4 Jx)ilers
formerly used to heat the greenhouses, a snokestack, 4 in-qrouni oil storage
pits (2 of which have been filled in previous response actions), 1 \.U'rler-
'Cjround ard. 32 aboveqroun:l storage tanks, a retention pord, a freshwater pord,
2 drained pords (ponds 18 ard 19), ard miscellaneoos small l:W.l~s arrl
sheds. Three small treatment porrl!; oonst.J:\1ctaj by the u. s. EPA oontractors
during emergency actions are at the bdttan of the south sl~ of Cemetery
Creek ard north of the retention pord. .
local stratigraphy consists of till overlyirg shale bedroc.k. The shale is
.weathered to a depth of approxiltately 8 feet. At the laskin Poplar oil site,
gI"'OOlrlw'ater in the surficial aquifer flows in the weathered shale, till, ard .
overlJurden soil ard discharges at CemeteIy creek. Groun:lwater flow in the
urrwe.athered shale is slow. on-site ponds are hydraulically oonnect.ed to the
gI"'OOlrlw'ater. Gro..D'dwater flows 0Jt of the ponds at a steep gradient in the
earthen dikes on the c:lown;radient side of the pords. '!he on-site pits ard
tanks are above the water table. Much of the site surface consists of fill
material.
Surface elevatiens at or near the site ran:Je fran 855 to 925 feet above mean
sea level (msl), with elevations near the freshwater pord ard tanks rangirg
fran 915 to 925 feet msl. '!he lower plateau, oont.a~ the retention pard,
is relatively flat with elevations awroximately 10 to 20 feet lower than the
area of the pits ard tanks. North of the retention pord, the site slopes
steeply dC1w'l1WaId ~ Ce1reteIy creek.
-------
-3-
2.0 SIn: HISltR!' AND ~ ~
'!he greenhaJses at the Laskin Poplar Oil site were in ~tion for
awroximately 80 years, beginni.n; in the early 18905. In the 19505, boilers
were installed to heat the greeMCAlSeS. storage pits ard tanks. were
installed durin; the 19605 to store the oil that fired the boilers, ard the
Poplar oil O::Irpany continued to accept wste oil durin; the 19605 arrl 19705.
'!he c:atpany resold sate of the waste oil arrl oiled gravel arrl dirt roads in
17 townships of Ashtab.1la Co.Jnty. In 1977, the U.S. EPA arrl OEPA identified
PCBs in the waste oil. In 1981, a cn1rt order ~ activities at the
Laskin Poplar Oil 0:Jtpany.

In early 1981, the united states Environmental Protection kJercy (U.S. EPA)
corx1ucted an investigation at the site and detected polyc:hlorinated biJi1e.nYls
(FCBs) in grourrlwater and soil!;. In 1981 and 1982, the U.S. EPA perfonned
several eme.rge.r:x:y actions at the site. '!he eme.rgercy actions inclooed the
follC1w'in;: two porrls, 18 and 19, were drained and regraded; surface r\.11'1Off
was diverted to a retention pord to prevent flooclirq: 302,000 gallons of
waste oil was rezroved and taken to an off-siteincinerator: 430,000 gallons
of contamiriatedsurface water was treated and disd1arged off~i te: - an:i - ,- ---
205,000 gallons of sludge ws solidified. - ,-
- -
d,
- In 1983 the site was placed on the U.s. £PA's SUperfurd National Prio~ities '0
List (NFL) of uncor.trollecl hazardous waste sites. 'the - U. s. EPA is 'the -lead -.
agency responsible for managing the investigation and remediation of the - - -
Laskin Poplar oil site. '!he Ohio Environmental Protection kJercy (OEPA) is
the SURX>rt agercy for the Laskin Poplar' Oil SUperfurd activities.

Remedial Investigation (RI).activities were corx1ucted fran December 1983 to
November 1984. Activities included saI!i'lirq of soils, sedin'ents, oiled road
surfaces, surface water, boiler ard sn'Okestack: installation of nonitori.n;
wells, and saIT'plingof grourrlwater. '!he activities were part of the R1ase I
RI at the site. DJrirg the winter of 1985-1986, the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) rem:JVed aR'roximately 250,000 gallons of waste oil anJ waste
water, in response to an administrative order issued in August 1984.
A- secord adminiStrative order was issued to the ~ in late 1986, orderin;
them to devel~ a work plan to address the storage pits, tanks, an:i their
contents, ani soils ~ the pits an:i tanks. A third administrative
order issued in FebruaIy 1988 ordered. the PRPs to incinerate the materials in
the pits, tanks. am a portion of the nest heavily contaminated soil. '!he
PRPs are currerit1y devel~irg a design for the U.s. EPA/s review and aR'roval
of this work.
'I
u
A Fhase II RI was con:1uct' d in fall an:i winter of 1987-1988. Work inclooed
geq:t1ysical studies: bathymetric surveys: installation of nom torirq wells,
and; sampl irq of grourrlwater, surface water, soils, an:! sediments. 'n1e
results of the RI are briefly diSCllSSoE'(i later in this document.

FollC1w'irq CClrT'pletion of the RI, a Feasibility study (FS) was prepared which
-------
-4-
esented an array of alternatives to address site contamination. Eight
alternatives for tbe Laskin ~lar oil site were evaluated by the u.s. EPA.
Ba.se:i on the U.S. £PA's evaluation, a preferred alternative was p~ arrl
. presented to the p.1blic for review arrl ccmnent. '!he p~ alt,en\ative was
doo.Jmented throUgh a Pl~ Plan arrl presented at a p.Jblic meeti.n:] on April
26, 1989 in Jefferson, alio. 'Ibis RecDrd of Decision (ROD) documents the
U.S. EPA's choice of that preferred al~tive.

on April 19, 1989, the U. S. EPA sent a special notice letter to a rn.unber of
mPs. 'Ibis letter notified the mPs of their liability arrl responsibility in
corducti.rq the design and ilti>lementation of the U.S. EPA's preferred remedial
alternative for the raskin Poplar oil site. Technical discussions bet'ween
the U. s. EPA an:! the PRFs have irdicated the mPs ~ to be interested in
canyi.rq 0Jt the selected alternative.
'!he U.s. EPA held an organizational meeti.rq on May 10, 1989, in Clevelani,
Ohio, wi th representatives of the mPs, the United states r.eparcnent of
Justice (001), the OEPA, an:! the u.s. EPA in atterrla.n:e. At that meeti.n:],
PRP responsibilities urrler CERCI.A section 122 were discusser-1 an:! the mPs
-'were enc::o..u-aged to organize into a groop to prarote efficien::y in. <::cII:;>let.in3.._-
the Remedial oesigrv'RemE!dial Action (RDfAA) negotiations. - -

_3-.0 ~ REIATICNS ~
.
- -
~e U.S. EPA has corxlucted a cxmnunity relations prcqram to keep the pub~ic :
.informed of pl::~..ess during the RI/FS for the raskin Poplar oil site ard to
diSOJSS upc::atI.in;J events. 'Ibe RI was released to the p.Jblic in ~,
1988, arrl the FS an:! Prop:)5ed plan were rel~~~ in April, 1989. 'Ibe U.S.
EPA provided the public with an opportunity to cxmrent on the u.s. EPA'S
preferred alternative and the other alternatives presented in the Feasibility
study durin; a 30 day public ~lllient period fran April 12 to Hay 12, 1989.
D.lri.rq this tima period, interested in:iividuals were e.nc:x:J.JI'"aged to review the
FS arrl PloposeM Plan am sen:1 written ccmnents to the u.s. EPA. Iniividuals
were also enc::o..u-aged to review the Adrninistrati ve Reccrd for the site. locatOO
at the eounty Disaster SerVice Offices, in the Ashtal::W.a eounty CDJrtho.JSe,
25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, ario: an:! the Asht.ab.1la eounty District
Library, 335 west 44th Street, Ashtal:W.a eounty, ario. All fonnal reports
developed by the U.S. EPA are available at these locations.

Notification of the availability of the doo.,ments was pJblished in the
follo..rlrg new9(~rs on the dates irdicated:
'the AshtabUla. tamty Sentinel - April 17, 24:
'!be Jefferson Gazette - April 20:
'the Valley News - April 12, 19:
'Ibe Pyma News - April 12, 19.
In addition to the fonral reports, the U. S . EPA distrib.1ted SUII1t'a!Y fact
-------
-5-
sheets on the ~ Renoval Operable unit (Atr:;Just, 1987), Remedial
Investigation (Mar'd1, 1989), and the Feasibility Study (April, 1989).

on April 26, 1989, the U.S. EPA held a fornal public meetirq at the Ashtal::W.a
~ty Q:urthoose in Jefferson, Chio. D.1rirg the Deetirq, the u.s. EPA made
presentations to the ccmnunity on topics such as: saIT1?lirg reSults for soil,
gro.1nd water, surface water, and sediment; risk assE'S-'5rnent results; the
5O.lI'Oe reIl'Cl'lal operable unit; the remErlial action goals; the leluedial
alteIT\atives devel~ in the FS; and the u.s. EPA's preferred alternative.
Followirq the presentations, the u.s. EPA answered questions fran interested
parties present at the Deetirg.
A transcript of this meetirq is included as part of the h:bninistrative Record
(see h:bninistrative Record irrlex, attad1ed as Appen:lix A) for the Iaskin
Poplar oil site. '!he u.s. EP~'s re:sponses to ~lIuents received durirg this
p.Jblic meetirq and to written CulUlents received durirq the public ~uuent
period are included in the Resp:>nsive.ness SUnunary attad1ed to this document.
'Ibis decision document presents the United States Environmental Protection
k;Jercj's (u.s. EPA's) selected remedial action for the Iaskin Poplar oil site
located in J'efferson~ Ohio. '!his decision document was develcp?d in
accordance with the Cati>rehensive Environmental Response, Catp!nSation, and
Liability Act (CERCIA), as ar:-errled by the SUperfurd Amen:1ments and
Reauthorization Act (sARA), am to the extent practicable, the National
Contirgency Plan (NCP). '!his decision is ~~ on information ard documents
contained in the administrative recx>rd for this site,
4.0 REIATICNSHIP 'It) '!HE O~ UNIT ~ ~ ACl'I~
The problems at the Iaskin Poplar Oil site are carplex. As a result, the
u.s. EPA organized the work into two operable units (oos). '!he Source
. ReIocIval Operable unit (SRaJ) ard the final operable unit. Cont.aminants
addressed by these two operable units are:
SRaJ :
Addresses 6, 000 gallons of residual oil, 60,000 residual
gallons of wastewater, 700,000 gallons of pmpable and
no~le sludges, ard 5,000 OJbic yards (c.y.) of
conta:mi.nated soil.
- Final 00:
Addresses exposure to contaminated soils spread
thrcughcut the site, ard in the boiler hoose and
greenhcuse areas: c1ioxin-contaminated debris; ard
groordwater c1irect.ly beneath the site (chiefly urrlerneath
penis 18 ard 19).
'!he U.S. EPA has already selected a L~(.edy ..vr the SR:U. '!he mPs are
c:un-ently in canpliance with the design portion of an administrative order to
design and irtplement a let,edy for the materials addressed in the SR:U. '!his
Record of Decision (ROD) doo..nnents a remedy consistent with the SlaJ remedy.
This final ROD, in cx:rnbination with the SR:XJ, addresses all the contaminated
materials on-si te.
-------
-6-
,.0 srm ~cs
!he RI consisted of on-site scientific studies ard laboratory analyses to
determine the nature ard extent of contamination at the site ard affected
areas. DJrirg the RI saITi>les were taken fran surface ard sub-surface soils:
surface water: sedilrents: gro.JJ'dw'ater: residential \o1ells: ard soils, ash, ard
debris fran i.r1side the boiler hCAJSe. -'!he RI report for the L:!skin ~lar Oil
site was n:i
19. Halogenated alkanes, ketones, ard polynuclear aranatic hydroc:.arl:)Qns
(PAHs) were detected in the shallow aquifer.
Organic contaminants were detected at la..l levels «30 u;jl) down;Jradient
between the site ard Cemetery creek. GI"CAJl"rlwater cOllected up;radient of the
site contained no detectable concentrations of HSL organic compoun:ls.
several HSL organic compoun:ls were detected in the deep aquifer gro.JJ'dw'ater
at la..l concentratia1s «10 u;jl). H~er, the occurrenoe was sporadic ard
the contami.nanta are thcught to be the result of laboratory or bottle
contamination. Groordwater in the deeper aquifer does not a~ to be
significantly cx:ntaminated. Analytical results i1rli.cate that the residential
\o1e1ls near the site have not been affected by site gro.JJ'dw'ater cont.amination.

5.2 surface Water am SAii nPrTt
Surface water analytical results from the on-site retention porrl am fresh
water porrl did not detect contaminant concentrations above arrj water quality
~. ~lirg Wicated sediments fran the porrls are cont.aminated
/ .
-------
-7-
with PAHs, R:Bs,benzene, toluene, anj xylenes (Figure 5-2).
SUrface water sanples fran Cemetery Creek did not detect any HSL
contaminants. lfa.Jever , sed~ts in the creek were CXJntaminated with PAHs at
similar cx:u:~ltrations both UPStream anj downstream of the site, W'hict~
~ests that the contaminants in the sediment are not solely the result of
activities at the I.askin Poplar Oil site. .
5.3 Soil
Soil contamination ispresertt thro.Jghout tl1e site, witl1 PAHs anj R:Bs bein;
tl1e mast prevalent contaminants. lead is tl1e only inorganic chemical of.
concern above backg'raJrd levels in the on-site soil, exclucting soil wit.~
structures, attributable to tl1e activities of t.he Laskin Poplar Oil 0:::Irpany
(Figure 5.-2). On-site soil sanples for polYchlorinated d.iJJenzO-p-dioxins
(PCDD) anj polYchlorinated dibenzo-P-furans (KDF) contained less than 1 part
per billion (ppb) of 2,3,7 t 8-tetrachlorinated d.iJJenzo-p-dioxin ('IOD)
equivalents. Under U.S. EPA guidance, no action is called for if the 'IOD
equivalent level is un:!er 1 ppb. '!he areas where soil contamination is
conc:::entrated are near tl1e pits, porx:1s 18 and 19, and the retention pond. '!he
highest conc:::entrations occur at tl1e pit bOttars, 15 to 25 feet, and continue
=- to, a deptlJ_of approximately 40 feet.
NIJrneraJ.s off-site sanples were alSo taken to establish background levels and
contaminant mi~tion. Results did not indicate that.~ff~ite- soils have
. --~ affected by site activity. .

5.4 Structures
-
Soil 5a1!i'les fran tl1e boiler house floors, boilers, and smoke stack are
contami1'lated with PAHs, PCBs, dioxin, anj inorganic c::aTpourds,
primarily lead arrl zi.'1C. It is a.ssumed that the boiler house itself is also
contaminated with similar c::aTpourds, includin; dioxin resultin; fran
operations of the boiler house. '!he ash and residues still in tl1e boiler and
smokestack contain several inorganic chemicals at conc:::entrations several
orders of nagni tude above backg'raJrd and dioxin c:onoentrations up to 65 ppb
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents.
Analytical results fran the greenhouse soils are CX)ntaminated prinarily with
PAHs an:! pesticides I at o:>ncentrations of aboJt 1,000 ug/kg and 2, 000 ugjkg
l'e::i-pect.ively. '!he pesticides cx:w.d be attriliJted to previous greenhouse
operations rather than Laskin Poplar Oil 0:::Irpany activity.

5.5 Air
On-site air scmplinq and IOOnitorin; was corrlucted durin; the first P'1ase of
the RI for the site, but not CX)rrlucted durin; the Fhase II RI field activity.
IrtteIpretation ~~ the results indicated that on-site or off-site air
contamination to.'Ql1d not occur unless there is a substantial surface
-------
-8-
~i.sturbanoe of the site. Dlrirg the construction ~ of the l.~lIedy,
ntrols will be iq)lemented to minimize eXposure. Inhalation risks are
ai~ in Sectim 6.2.4.
6. 0 ~ OF SITE RISKS
'the U.S. EPA corducted a risk as-SE'S51rer1t to det.ermine if the site poses
potential effects on p.Jblic health arrl.the environment. '!he risk as-~5lrel1t
was developed in acxx>rdance with U.S. EPA' procedures, as OJtlined in the
StlPerti.1rrl Public Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM: U.S. EPA 1986g). 'n1e stu:ty
corcluded that the site COlld pose a significant risk to human health ~
direct contact with, incidental irgestion, or inhalation of on-site -
contaminated soils: direct contact with, incidental in;estion, or inhalation
of media inside the boiler ho.JSe, an:i: irgestion of con~ted grc:urdwater.

6.1 Introduction
Contaminants of Concern
'!fie risk as-o;Pssment did not use the Wicator selection p~~ sug;ested'in - .
the SPHEM. Instead, all J<:nown con~ts at the site were reviewed to-
det.ermine whether they had e.nvirorurental criteria or critical toxicity values .
(Le., cancer potency factors, reference dose values, aquatic life protection
criteria, drinkin;J water health advisories, or other drinK.ing:'wat.er
st.anJards). If the contaminants were subject to these values. or criteria,
- "'ey were selected for evaluation in the health as.50E"5-sment. '!he Contaminants
.' p:>tential concern for the Iaskin Poplar oil site are listed in Table 6-1-

Not every chemical reviewed had a critical toxicity value or an environmental
criterion. HC7Wever, the chemicals that did not have such values or criteria
occurred infrequently with no unifonn distr:ib.Ition on-site or off-site.
. Review of the data indicated that anission of those chemicals fran the
quantitative risk evaluation 'NOUld not substantially alter the conclusions of
the risk asses..o:;ment.
6.2 ~ ~QfIP'1t

'n1e contaminants of concern identified in varic:us environrre.ntal media dUrirg
the RI were evaluated to determine the level of risk they pose to p.Jblic
.' health an:i the env:irorunent. '!he risk as!:'~srnent identified varic:us potential
exposure scenaric8 for contaminants at the Iaskin Poplar Oil site. 'n1e
potential risks U6nse.rvative aSSlnTlption that the gro..1rdwater
-------
-9-
would be used for a water supply because there are no legal restrictions for
qro,Jrdwater use. 'lhe risks ~iated with future grourrlwater use resul tin:]
fran site and area develcpnent were estimated baged on the R1ase II .
grourrlwater narltorin; well data.
Urder this asstmption, the as..9oE'ssment identified a potential risk fran
dri.nk.irg site gro.m:i water. '!he pltm"e of contaminated grourrlwater is limited
to the area shown in Figure 5-1. o:>ntam.i.nated grourrlwater has not migrated
off-site and is not threatenirq any private grourrlwater SUWlies in the area.
Grourrl water in this area contains PAHs, halogenated alkanes, and ketones.
Certain levels detected exceed the U.S. EPA's Maxim.mt Contaminant Levels
(MCIs) for dri.nk.irg water (Table 6-3). '!herefore, oonsurrption of the
grourrlwater does pose a risk to hmnan health. -

The ri:;k evaluation for grourrlwater ingestion is sumnarized by in:Uvidual
rronitorin:] well in Table 6-4.' Groun:iwater in rronitoring wells where
carciDogens were detected caused excess lifetime cancer risks rangin:] fran
2xlO-2 to lXlO-6. Non-carcinogenic hazard irdices ranged fran less than 1 to
. 61.
Although these risks are significant, exposure is unlikely to. occur at this
time. Grourrl water on-site is o.lIT'entlynot used as a drinking water sourcs
and will be drained within 2 years as part of the :t:er..edy for the site.
. - Residents in the area are connected to a municipal water supply and will not
be ilTpact.ed by the dewaterin; activity. The canbination of diversion trench
.and cap aver the site will virtually eliminate any further generation of
contaminated grourrlwater.
6.2.2
Ingest.im of SUrface Water
Irxiividuals may be exposed to contaminants rel~~c:M to the surface water 011-
site (the freshwater and retention ponds) or adjacent to the site at
cer.etery creek. ~ may result fran d1ildren trespassing on the site
or playin; in the creek.

'!he risks associated with incidental in;estion of water fran the ponds are
summarized on Table 6-6. '!he risks to trespassers who may irqest surface
water fran the retention or freshwater ponds are very limited. Carcinogens
were not detected in water fran either pord. 'the estimation. of
noncarcinogenic risk in:ticated that the hazard in:tices for either exposure
are 1II.lch less tbana1e.
'!he risk asc;()Ciated with ingestion of creek water is also shown on Table 6-6.
Organic and inorganic oontamiJ1a.nts attriWtable solely to the site were not
detected in the waters of Cemetery creek. Potential grourrlwater di.sd1arge to
- Cerretery Creek was estiltated and r~ - ':s for exposure to contaminants were
evaluated. Because sane of the estimated values were below the U.S. EPA
Contract L:ilioratory Pl~Ld1n (CIP) Routine Analytical SeIvice (RAS) detection
limits, risks were also estiltated asst1l'T1.in3 contaminant levels at detection
limits to yield a conservative estiltate of exposure levels.
-------
-10-
~1I'e to the <:reek is assumed to be infrequent. Risks as-srr'iata:J with
fCin:qens range fran lxlO-7 to 4x10-8 for the RaJti.ne Analytical Service
(zQS) detectia1 limit an:! maxiInum predicte::l concentrations, respectively.
'!he hazard i.n:1e.x is less than one for 00th sets of coo::entraticns.
.. '!he discharge of contaminants to the creek COJld result in the exposure of
aquatic organisms in the creek. '!he makeup of the aquatic <:XJt1Tiinity in the
creek is not Jle do fish
the creek, it is unlikely that they will ca~ ani consume substantial
aroounts of fish.' .
.
In summary, the risk as~srnent :in:ticated that al thoogh there are mechanisms
for release of contaminants to Cemetery creek, the potential exposures that
result may not pose substantial risk. '!he ass-=-sment concluded that:
o
Because no oontar.U.nants associated with the site were detected at
the creek, there were no current measurable iJrpacts fran the site
at the creek. .
o
~~ on ooncentrations projected at the creek in the future,
noncarcinogenic risks for trespassers (site residents are assumed
to be aware of the risk i.ncurred by consumirg creek water) were
below levels of concern, cancer risks for trespassers were less
than 4x10-8, an:l neither federal water quality criteria or State
water quality stardards are exceeded at the carrpletion of the
remedial action.
6.2.3
Irgesti.cn of o:ntaminated Soils
'!he risk ass€'$-sment evaluated three soil exposure settin;Js: exposures of
site trespassers un:ler O1rI"ent site use; exposure of construction \IIOrkers
during future site developnent; an:] exposure of OlI"IWlt an:l future residents.
'!hese uses COJld result in persons c::anirg into direct contact with
contaminants in the soil and bein;J exposed t:hrcogh the soil irgestion an:]
. de.rnal absotptia1 routes of exposure. .

'!he u. S. EPA has net developed st.ardard soil in;Jestion exposure assurrptions
as it has for ddnkin;J water exposures. Infornation on soil irgestion
exposures was reviewed and representative soil in;estion rates were selected.
'Ihese exposure scenarios and irgestion rates are presented in Section 6.5.
Dennal absotption is also a potential exposure roote associated with soil
contact. Calculations in the risk ~sment irrlicated exposures t:hrcogh
dertral absorption were tW'O orders of magnitude less than exposures t:hrcogh
soil i.rqestion. Because of this, risks associated with soil ingestion were
ssumed to be representative of direct contact soil exposures.
-------
-11-
Access to the site is not currently restricted; anj aa=ordi.rqly a trespassin;
Wi vidual (incl\J1in;J children) co.lld reach the site anj in;est oontaminate:i
soil. Risks to site residents arrl construction workers ~ also calo.llate:i.
The risk assessment identifie.1 a potential risk frat! in;estin; contaminate:i
soils at the Laskin Pq>lar Oil site. Carcino;enic risk reaches a high of
2xlO-3 to a resident in the ooiler hci1se who in;Jests soil fran 0 to 14 feet
with the highest detected concentrations of PAHs arrl PCBs. '!his sarre soil
provide::) the highest o.mulative noncarcino;enic HI at 10,000 due to
con.stIJttJtion of soil containirq ~rganic contaminants (residential ch.ild-
worst case scenario).
Soil arrl sediment. in;Jestion risks urder the three different scenarios
(residential, trespass, ard construction) are surmarize.1 in Table 6-5.
,
6.2.4
Ai.J:OOrne CDrt:aminant Inhalatia'1
On-site exposures urrler current lard use corrlitions may include risks ~rat!
the inhalation of volatilize.1 or resusperrled contaminants. The presence of -
contaminants in surface soil, sub-surface soil, arrl gro.11"rlwater presents the
potential for inhalation exposures. Inhalation risks. for trespassers were
calculate:i separately for exposures to volatilized ard resusperrle.1
contaminants .
A.i.rbot'11e contaminant concentrations at the site bo..1n:1aries were assumed to be
equivalent to airbot'11e concentrations on-site. Risks ~ calo.llatErl for a
70kg adult who is e>
-------
-12-
adverse potential risks as~iated with the site are 5l.IItUi'aIized belC7W.
SUrface Water
AI thcAJgh there are pathways for the release of contami.na11tS to
Cemetery Creek, the p:>tential exposures do not appear to pose an
\m300eptable risk. ~~ on c:;:oncentrations projected at the creek,
trespassers are at an excess cancer risk level less than 4xlO-8,
an:! releases of ~ater into Cemetery creek are not predicted
to exceed arrj federal ~ or State Water ~ity St.a.roaros.

G~ter
o
o
'!here are no current exposures associated with gro.m:lwater, but if
residential ~lls were installEd on-site, residents wo.1ld be
~ to a excess ],ifetime cancer risk ran;in3 fran 2xlO-2 to .
lXIO-6, ani concentrations of noncarcinogens at levels that exceed
their respective RfDs.
Soil aid Sedilrent
~ - -- - -
o
TrespaSSeI'S could be exposed to PCDD/PCDF, PAHs, an:! PCBS in
surfa~ soil that could yield an excess lifet~- ~ rj,skof
2xlO- . .- - -. .'

rrre.spa..ssers in the boiler house cculd be ~ to KDD/PCDF
cont.ar:'ination that could yield an excess lifetime cancer risk- of
2xlO-4.
o
o
Boiler house soil has lead concentrations of 212,000 rrqjln:i sed:iJnent ani seeps by trespassers
cou1d yield excess lifetime cancer risks of 3xlO-S due to PAH ani
PCB contamination.
o
eonstI'UCtion activities at the site cou1d lead to excess'lifetime
cancer risks of 3xlO-6 fran contact with PAHs ani PCBs in surface
ani ~1rface soil.
o
. .
Future site residents cou1d be ~ to PAH ani PCB
contamination that yields excess lifetime cancer risks of 2xlO-3
to 7xlO-S ba-c:M on contaminants present at 0 to 2 feet ani 2xlO-3
to lxlO-4 ba-=-i on contaminants present at 0 to 14 feet.

Contact with contami.nated surface soil could be a potential
exposure ro.rt.e to animals, althc:ogh specific animal risks were not
quantifiEd.
o
-------
-13-
m
'!here is no curreJ1t unacx:eptable risk associated with ambient air
inhalation at the site. !he excess lifetime risk associated with
ambient air inhalation at the site ran;es fran lXlO-6 to 5xlO-8.
'!he noncarcinogenic hazard .in:iex is less than one. .

Limitations arrl AsSlJJTi)tions
o
!he risk assessrre.nt is subject to uncertainty fran a variety of so.lI'OeS
inclu::iin;: .
o
o
o
o
5aITiJlin; ani analysis
Fate ani transport estination
Exposure estimation
Toxicological data
uncertainty factors in the risk assessment due to uncertainty ~lIuon to risk
assessments in general are summarized in Table 6-9. Uncertainty factors in
this particular site's risk assesSJT!O...nt are surmarized in Table 6-10.
6.. 5 Analytical Methcds
General
!he risk a.s.sE'5-~t calculated doses for those cont.am.i.nants' of concern fourd
on-si te at concentrations higher than background. Noncarcinogenic risks were
estimated by calculatirq a Hazard Irrlex (HI), the ratio of the exposure dose
:to the acceptable Chronic intake. Cancer risks were estinated bymultiplyirq
the average lifetime exposure dose by the CPF.

In general, the RfD is an estinate (with uncertainty spann.i.N3 perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the hurran pcp1lation (inclui:in;
sensitive sub;roups) that is likely to be """ithout an a~reciable risk of
deleteria.1S effects durin; a lifetime. '!:":-= RfD is generally ~res~ in
units of milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (ug/kg/day).
'!he HI awroach assumes dose additivity, which means tha.t the estin'ated daily
intake of each chemical is divided by its RfD ani the resultirq quotients are
sunmed. '!he ~tirq sum is the HI. 'Mri sirqle chemical with a daily
intake greater than the RfD will cause the HI to exceed unity. Of coorse,
the hazard incIIx can excee::i unity even if no sirqle chemical exceen~ its RfD.
~ the HI ~~ one, there may be concern for a possible noncarcinogenic
health risk.
'!he dose-response relationship for carcinogens is ~ressed as a CPF or slope
factor. CPFs are presented in units of the inverse of milligrams of chemical
per kilc:qram of body weight per day. !he approach used by the u. s. EPA to
estimate the CPF fran animal studies or human data assumes a dose-response
relationship with no threshold.
-------
-14-'
"he potential for carcinogenic effects is evaluated by estimatin; excess
lifetime cancer risk. Excess lifetime c:anc:ar risk is the i.ncremental
increase in the probability of developirq c:anc:ar over the backgro.In:i
pI"C)b3bility (Le., if no exposure to site contaminants cx:DlITE!d). For
exant=>le, a lXlO-6 excess lifetilre c:anc:ar risk means that for every 1 million
peq:>le ~ to the carcinogen thrc:A1ghoot their lifetimes, ~ average
incidence of cancer is increased by one extra case of cancer.
Grc::urlwater
'!he risk a.ssE>c;..~t assumed that a 70-kg adult wculd drink 2 liters of
~ter per day over a 70-year lifetime.
SUrface Water
'!he chemical concentration in CeIreteJ:y Creek was estimated usin; a fo.lr-step
process :
1.
'!he site was divided into three distinct areas of flew (flow tubes) ,
each ~~ized by a representative discharge an:i concentration.

'!he average discharge was dece.rm.ined for each flow tube.
2.
3.
A representative concentration for each d1emical detected was determ.ined
for eaC'b flow tube, an:i the estimated d1emical mass loadin; fran each
flow tube to CeIreteIy creek was calculated.
4.
'!he resultant r.hernical concentration in Cer.etery Creek was determined.
Soil

Prd:able average case doses for exposure were calculated based on ingesting
0.1 g/day of ,soil containirg average contaminant levels. Worst case doses
were calculated based on ingesting 1.0 g/day of soil containirg ma.ximJm
contaminant levels. '!he risk ~sment used the resulting doses to estimate
potential I:isks.
To evaluate exposures as-sociated with trespassing, the risk ~
. assumed that site visits by an irdividual (70 kg adult, 35 kg dlild) wculd be
2 days per week, 16 weeks of the year (sunrner IIa1ths) for 10 years.
~ion exposure calculations for a site resident assumed a Ixdy W1eight of
70 kg, daily soil intake, 70 year lifetime, an:i 70 year, full-time exposure.
Exp:sure calculations for construction workers assumed a 70 kg worker wculd
be in;lesting contaminated soil for 8 hoors/day, 5 days/week, for a pericxl of
1 year.
-------
";15-
Air
No quantitative cn-site ambiertt air quality saITi'lirq was perform:rl durirq the
Fhase II RI, an:t the inhalation exposure is based erttirely upon m:rlel irq
efforts.

Possible release mechanisms include volatilization of organic.<:x:IT'pOOrrls fran
the subsurface ard mechanical resuspension of both organic and inorganic
~ in -the surface soil.
'!he risk as.s.e-ssment assune:i that the volatile contaminant levels in the
subsurface were at equilibrium between the pore air, the soil, and the
groondwater for estillatirq the release of VOCS. .
'!he assessment assumed the airborne concentration of respirable susperded
material was, 100 ug/m3. It W'8S fu11:her assune:i that all of the airborne
material was derived fran the surface soil at the site. '!he resultirq
airborne concentrations of contaminants were the product of the surface soil
concentration ard a mass loadirq of 100 ug/m3. ---
6.4 Potential F\Jt:ure Risks
- .
. .
Although the site is not operatirq, .there is no site develc.pnent,ard
groondwater is not bein;J used for drink:i.rq water ;i.xpa:.e5; there is.still.a
:... potential threat of future contaminant rel~A~ that-may-~er public. - .
health ard the environrnento A major l~ueJial action objective for the site
is to reduce this threat of future contarninant rel~A~ in addition to
reducirq o.Jrrel'1t risks iderttified in the risk ~to Several factors
contribute to the potential threat of future rel~A~.
-
'!he major concern of the site are the SOJrCe wste oils contained in pits ard
tanks. '!his major concern is bein; addresse::l as part of the SaJrce ReIraval
q:erable unit (see Section 4.0). '!his secorxi remedial action deals basically
with the residual contamination cont2.ined in soils, sediments, groondwater,
ani the boiler hoose area. .
7 ~O ~~ OF SIQITFICANI' awas

'nus Ie=ord of Decision selects Alternative 3A, as described in th~ PL~
Plan, as the preferred L~I~al alternative for the Iaskin Poplar oil site.
the U. S. EPA has reviewed ard resporxied to all \";ullments received fran the
interested parties, includirq those fran the state and neighborirq
CXI11TI..Jnities, ck'irg the public \";ulillent period. O:mnents were made on
Alternative 3A and other l~,.e..1ial alternatives. B::tc:M on the public
ccmnents, the U. S. EPA has determined that there is no need for arrj
significant d1an;]es to Alternative 3A.
In the event that additional data or information durirq the design of the
remedy reveals the need for a JOCrlification, the U.s. EPA will notify the
public of any chan;Jes to the remedy presented here in this Record of
Decision.
-------
-16-
o t£SCJUPl'Iai aI ~
. .
'l11e U.S. EPA identified potential risks that shculd be addressed by remedial
" response actions at the raskin Poplar oil site. These risks are as.c::rriated
with: direct contact with, incidental i.n:3estion or inhalation of
contaminated soils ani certain sed:ilnents on-site: direct contact with,
incidental i.n:3estion or inhalation of "COntaminated soils in the greenha.1se
area: direct oontact with, incidental i.n:3estion or inhalation of oontaminated
soils ani ash in the boiler house, ani i.n:3estion of on-site contaminated
gro.m:i water.
The FS identified tec:hnologies that cculd eliminate or reduce the risks for
each of these media. 'Ihese mediurn-specific tec:hnologies were screened basen
on ~tibility with waste ani site d1aracterization. '!he survivirq
technolCX;ies were then assemblB:! into site-wide remedial alternatives. 'Ibe
FS then evaluated the alternatives re~ on protectiveness: long ani short-
term effectiveness: meetirq applicable, relevant, ard appropriate
requ:i.rements: reduction in toxicity, lOObility, or volurre: iIrplerrentability,
ani cost. 'Ibis evaluation process was carried out accordirg to procedures
specified by the U.S. EPA in CERClA, SARA, the NCP, ani th~ U.S. EPA CWidance
documents includirq Interim Guidance on S\.roerfun:l selection of Rer.'edv (CSWER-
Directive No. 9355.0-19, December 24, 1986) ani Interim Firel QIidance for
- Corductira Remedial Investiaations ani FeasibUitv Studie.S-Urder CERCI.A
- (cs-."ER Directive No. 9355.3-01, OCtOber, 1988). -. --
-.- . _.
. ~he alternatives to reduce site risks that are evaluated in detail inclu:ie a
no action alternative, ani eight other alternatives. The eight other
al ternati ves r-a.n:Je fran one which rel ies upon oontaim'ent of waste , with
little or no treatinent, up to an alternative that relies alJrost c::c:IT\>letely
upon treatJrent, to reduce site risks. The FS looked at alternatives
involvirq treatJrent in order to reduce the toxicity, ItObility, or volurre of
site wastes.
Each of the eight remedial alternatives evaluated in detail is described
briefly belo«. 'l11e descriptions include oontainment catp:>nents, treatment
1.k1I1~; institutional controls, estimated time for ~lerrentation, cost
. (estiJnated to bJo significant figures), overall protection, ani OCIIt'liance
with a(:plicable or relevant ani a(:propriate requiretrents (ARARs). Section
9.0, wch describes the c:atparative analysis of the alternatives, SUWlies
additional detail C2\ these subj ects.

8.1 Alternative 1
'!he U.S. EPA is required to evaluate a "No Action" alternative. uroer this
alternative, there would be no further site remediation perfonned beyord the
waste materials aO:iressed in the soorce ReIroval Operable Unit. No additional
crsts or t:i1re would be required beyord the source rerroval action.
-------
-17-
8~2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 ccnsists mainly of a oontairuTent option. Firstly, retention
ard freshwater pads wcW.d be drai.ne:i ard the surface water wcW.d be
disd1arged to Cemetery creek. SaITplin;J of surface water W'OUld. be o:xrlucted.
prior to discharging surface water into cemetery creek. If levels detected
excee::i the Chio Ambient Water ~litY criteria, or the u.s. £PAis Ambient
Water QJality criteria (AJoQ:), treatJrent wcW.d be required prior to
dischargin;J water. The fresh water perd W'OUld be back filled with clean soil
material. '!he retention perd would be ~Qded arxi shielded by the soil
c:aver .
The boiler hoose W'OUld be demolished. Materials amenable to decontamination
would be decontaminated, an:i disposed of in an off-site sanitary larrlfill.
If the dioxin~ntaminated structures cannot be decontaminated, then they
would be disposed of in a ooncrete vault on-site. Dioxin-oontaminated soils,
ash, arrl debris fran within the boiler hoose W'OUld also be disposed of in the
ooncrete vault on-site. The ooncrete vault W'OUld be placed on-site beneath
the soil a:Ner and would be in ccmpliance with tank an:i storage RCAA .
. reqt.: ~ reme.nts. '!he storage of dioxin material is a tenp:>rary n-easure until a
t.echr)Ology is deve:!.~ and proven to address dioxin material.

!he gree.nhoose struc:t:ures wculd be dismantled, decon1:.aminated (if neoessa.ry)., ..
arxi disposed off-site to a sanitary larxifill. CcntaIni.natecfSoils iran within
the greenhoose area wculd be consol idated with contaminated soils near the
pi ts and tanks. The greenhouse area would then be regraded an:i vegetate::i to
alla.v for proper drainage. .
A 2 foot clean soil caver would be placed over all soils that excee::i lxlO-6
excess lifetime cancer risk levels ard total hazard Wex of one. !he soil
c:aver would be place:l over a~roxiJnately 3.5 acres of the site. The soil .
c:aver would prevent direct contact with conta.:~i..'"Iated soils blt alla.v
infiltration of surface water ~ the c:aver.

tJrrler Alternative 2, a long-term moni~ring program wcW.d be ~lemente::i to
IrOnitor contaminant concentrations an:i migration. 'this program would inclooe
the installation of additional mnitoring wells north of the Laskin Pc:plar
oil site. . '!he mnitorin;J pI~La11\ walld be designed to assess the quality of
grcun::lwater read\in:;J Cemetery creek. Additionally, the program wcW.d sarrple
water fran the._~ ani lower aquifers that nay flew urder Cemetery creek
arrl join regia'8l qrou1"X3-water flew. At a miniImlm, the program would meet
the sub;tanti ve~ °i'8iquirements for grcurxi-water moni taring urder the ~ as
described in 40 CFR 1264, SUbpart F.
If the levels L: contaminants in grourrl water do not increase over time, the
sanplirq schedule wcW.d be re-evaluated an:i a reduction in the frequency of
sarrpling may be considered. A statistical test wcW.d be develc:p:d to
determine when a significant increase in the level of contaminants had
occurred.
-------
-18-
Institutional CD'1trols and use restrictions 'w1CUld be i.Irpose:i to prahihit site
?E!, land devel\.¥l8::lat, and groun:i.....ater extraction. 1v:x::es5 restrictions
...o1ld also be enforced to prevent arrj interfererx::e or vardalism at the site.

'!he U.S. EPA W'OOld t'eCuuuerd that on-site residents teltp:>rarily relocate
durirg construction of the remedy for safety reasons. Strirgen~ measures
wo.1ld be taken to ensure the health and safety of '-'Orkers on-site as W1ell as
the local res idents near the site.
Alternative 2 relies mainly on containment, institutional controls, and
noni torirg . COntainment of soil prevents e.>ilizatiat, ard
&:.f~. ~ilizatiat of the incinerator.
8.3 Alternative]A
Al ternati ve 3A has the same '-'U1~nents as Al ternati ve 2 .wi th the exception of
the soil eDler. Additionally, Alternative 3A incorporates a grourdw'ater
control system an:J thermal treatmentn of dioxin~nt:.aminated material.

'!he grourdw'ater control system is a cx:mbination of a rrulti-layer cap and
grourdw'ater diversion trench ~Lddient fran the site. ~ diversion trench
wo.1ld collect \..itr"YLadient grourdw'ater and ~ the grourdw'ater arolJ"rl
the site and discharge to CeIret.ery Creek ~ere it would continue its oorna.l
flow pattern. '!his diversion trench 'NOlld prevent regional grourdw'ater fran
passin;; t:hrtu;Jh conta..ninated soils. '!he nulti-Iayer cap W'OOld significantly
reduce infiltration of surface water into the cont:.aminated soils. ~ether,
these two ted1nolCX;ies would virtually eliminate further generation of
-------
-19-"
contaminated ~ter an:l effectively de-water the site. Safe Dri.nkirg
Water Act (SDolA) ICs wcW.d not aR'ly to the Lt:ll-.]y because the ~ter
in the ,shallow aquifer beneath the site wcu1d be virtually eliminated.

'!he nil ti -layer cap ~d be placed CNer soils with greater than 1xlO~
excess lifetime cancer risk levels an:l a total hazard Wex greater than one.
Prior to cap iJ1stallation, a detailed geotechnical investigation wcW.d be
c:x:nfucted to measure the properties of the soil an:l clay use::l to constroct
the cap. '!he p.1I'pOSe of this investigation wcu1d be to determine the
stability of these materials urder flood corrlitions. '!he o:Ner wcW.d then be
constructed with side slopes flat enough to protect the contained area fran
damage due to flood.irq. In addition, the cap wcu1d be oonstxucted, operated,
ard ,maintained to ensure its perforrnance in containin;J, contaminated soils.
'!his alternative does meet Ohio closure requirements' for solid 'WaSte
lardfillsan:l requirements for lan:lfill closure outlined urder 40 CFR
~264.310. '!he cap 'NCW.d be designed an:l constructed to prat¥Jte drainage,
minimize the erosion of the c:cver, ard provide lOnJ-term minimization of
migration of liquids through the urderlyinq contaminated soils.

- Alternative ,3A f.nc:x)rporates treatment of soorce material. '!he contaminated
-'soil to be treated contains dioxin ard RCRA-listed wastes (includirq, rot_net_'
limited, to, 1<035, FOOl, and fOOS). Dioxin-contaminated soil, ash, and
, de.briswcW.d be incinerated on-site by a rrobile incinerator., ~roxiItately
~ - ~.~99 ~ 9. y~ .- of g..~oxi.n-contaminated material fran the boiler, hoose area ~d_be.
- -_. incinerated. ~ The residue ash wculd be tested for ha'za.rdC:uSoOnstituentS'~ . anj-
hazardous characteristics (RC::RA characteristic waste' testS). ._, Analytical' '
~ts wc:uld be c::cJTpared to the u.s. EPA's delistinq criteria. If levels do
not exceed the delistinq criteria, the residue ash wollld be disposed of 00-
site beneath the cap. If the ash does not meet the delistin;J criteria, the
ash 'NCUld be disposed of ofZ-site in a RCRA hazardous waste facility. '!he
ash wc:uld be required to meet the treatment staroards specified in the Iarrl
Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268) for any restricted RCRA-listed waste
(inc:loo1.rq, but not limited to, 1<035, FOOl, ard F005) it contained prior to
disposal off-site. ' .
"
Dioxin-contaminated structures would be dismantled an:l decx)ntami.nated or
thermally treated. Dioxin material that cculd not be decx)ntaminated or
incinerated, ~d be stored on-site in a c:on::rete vault as descri}:)ed urxier
Al temati ve 2.
Al ternati ve 3A in:::orporates the groon::i-water moni torin], surface water
monitorin;J, ard site restrictions already described urrler Alternative 2.

'!he costs of Altemative 3A an:l the estimated time to iJtplement this
al ternati ve are:
Capital Ccst:
Present Worth 0 & M Costs:
Total Ccsts:
TiIre to IIrplement:
$ 10,000,000'
$ 1,300,000
$ 11,000,000
2 years
-------
-20-
.4 Alternative 38
Alternative 3B has the sanE cx::I\'POnents as alternative 3A except that 'the
ccntaminated grourdwater is addressed in a different manner. Alternative 3B
" provides a permeable soil cx:Ner rather than an ~le nulti-layer cap
aver. '!he soil cx:Ner wculd allow rainfall to pe.roolate through: the
ccntaminated soils an:i enter grourdwat.er. A grourdwater collection trerd1
wculd be installed dowrqradient fran the site rather than a diversion trerd1
as described in Alternative 3A. '!be trerr.h wculd collect grourdwater flow
passirq through the site. GI"CJUTrlwater wculd then be treated an:i disd1arged
to CemeteI'y Creek, at levels below that required to maintain »Q:s in
~teI'y Creek.

A c:x:ITibination of air stripping and activated ca.rbon wculd be used ~..o treat, aL.
flow rate estimated at 5 gallons per minute. Total volume of com:.a.minated '
~ter with contaminant 06ncentrations that result in risk above the
lxlO-6 level is (based upon 10% porosity) 650,000 gallons. 'Ihe grourdwater
treatment system would be designed to produce effluent that meets the
.- discharge starrlards of the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination-
, - :SySte:rp (NPDES} permit. Grourdwater and surface water nonitOring. would be.". ' .,.
performed. Influen~ and treated grourdwate.r effluent would be nonitored'- -- - '
regularly as required per the NPDES permit. .'
-- --
- - - -
--
---
- -'-
_0 -- Ba~::~ tile predicteJ rate of contaminant ltCIVement an:i th~ aligniner1t=9f-~'- ". ~ ~ ~-~- -- -:
tone ~ter collection system, the time required to -redUce' contamiriarit' --' - ,-- - -. -- .
_~els in the grourdwater to below MCLs is estimated to be greater - than_50,-
'years .

'!be soil cover would consist of a well~cted, low-~ility cover at
least 24 inches thick. '!he soil Ct:Ner would be place1.aver the san-e area of
contaminated soils as previcusly described in alternative 3A. '!his top soil
layer would be planted with grass. . However, the soil a:Ner wculd not meet
Ohio closure requireIrents for solid waste landfills.
'!be oosts arD time to ~lement Alternative 3B are listed bela«:
Capital Cost:
Present Worth 0 & M COsts:
Total Q:)sts:
Time to IJrplerent:

8.5 Altematiw 4A
$ 8,700,000
$ 2,100,000
, $ 11,000,000
2 years
Alternative 4A is identical to Alternative 3A, except that a volume of highly
CXI"1taIni.nated soil is thermally treated alo~ with the dioxin-oJntaminated
material. Contaminated soils that exceed 10-3 excess cancer risk levels,
awroximately equivalent to 3,000 c.y., ~d be thermally treated.

Contaminated soils in excess of 10-3 excess cancer risk were defined in the
"U. '!bese soils are contaminated priJrarily with PAHs, Fa3s, and lead.
~ineration would be effective in destroying the organic contaminants in
-------
-21-
soil. However, incineration WOJld not address the lead or any heavy Jretals
contained in soils. .
!he residue ash \iICUld be tested for hazardous constituents, cin:3 hazardous
characteristics (~ characteristic waste tests). Analytical results WOlld
be CXITp3i'ed to. the u.s. £PA's delistin; criteria. If levels do rot exceed
the delistirg criteria, the residue ~ WOlld be disposed of on-site beneath
the cap. If the ash does not meet the delistin; criteria, the ash ~d be
disposed of off-site in a RCRA hazardous waste facility. ':he ash WOlld be
required to meet the treatJtent stan::lards specified in the Iarrl Disposal
Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268) for any RCRA-listed waste (includ.irg, rot not
limited to, Iris DaY require
disposal to an off-site ~ ~zardous waste facility (if not deli ;~le) .
Off-site disposal would cost an additional $ 120,000. .

The costs and tilre to ~lement Alternative 4A are as follows:
capital costs: $
Present Worth 0 & M costs:
Total Costs:
Time to IIrpleme.nt:

8.6 Alternative 4B
12,000,000
$ 1,300,000
$ 13,000,000
2 years
". - .----
, "
Alternative 4B is identical to Alternative 3B, except that a volume of highly
contaminated soil is thermally treated along with the dioxin-contaminated
rraterial. ContaI'tlinated soils that exceed 10-3 excess ca.nCer risk levels,
approximately equivalent to 3,000 c.y., would be thernally treated.
The c:csts and ~leme.ntation tilre for Alternative 4B are as folla..'S:
capital COSts:
Present Worth 0 & M Costs:
Total COSts:
Time to Inplement:
$ 11,000,000
$ 2,100,000
$ 13,000,000
2 years
8.7 Alternative SA
Alternative SA is identical to Alternative 4A, except that a greater volume
of soil would be incinerated. Alternative SA defines a volume of soil
equivalent to the 10-4 excess cancer risk level. '!his resu1 ts in a volume
equivaJ ent to aR'roximately 37,000 c. y.

As in alternative 4, residue ash has the potential of not passirg the u.s.
£PA's delistirg criteria for hazardous waste. Urrler Alternative SA,
approximately 6,000 c. y. has the potential of exoeedirg the delistirg
criteria. 'Ihis anount of residue ash would still be considered hazardous
waste and therefore would require off-site disposal to a RCRA hazardous waste
-------
-22-
facility. Off-site disposal of 6,000 c.y. wcW.d i.ncrea.se the total 
-------
-23-
ingestion for lead. 'lhus 15,000 c. y. of ash may require containment or off-
site disposal. 'lhis alternative does not provide a o::Ner, therefore off-site
disposal WOlld be required for the ash. '!he off-site disposal of abc::ut .
15,000 c.y. of residue ash would increase the total c:osts of this alternative
by approximately $6,000,000.
under Alternative 6 the site would be regraded with clean material to allow
prq:e.r site re-vegetation am drainage. No qroorrlwater c:tiversion or
collection t.rend1 would be required since allsoorces of contamination would
be I'eJTOVed. However, qroorrlwater encountered or collected during the
excavation of soils would be treated am then c:tischarged to Cemetery creek.
!his alternative allows grourdw-ater to flow unrestricted ~ Cemetery
creek. Groorrlwater am surface water ronitoring would, be corrluct.ed to assess
quality of qroorrlwater discharging into Cemetery creek.
Institutional controls am act:ess restrictions would be iltposed on the
property until dioxin-contarninated material in vault is I'eJTOVed for final
treat:rrent am disposal. '!he estimated costs for this alternative are as
follows:
capital Cost:
Present Worth 0 & M Costs:
Total Costs:
Time to IIrplement:
$ 41,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 42,000,000
4 years
-
9.0 s..H9.RY OF '!HE a:MPARATIVE ~SIS OF ~
'!he U. S. EPA used the following nine criteria to evaluate each of the
al~ti"es identified in the FS report. '!he remedial alten1ative selected
for the site must represent the best balance amen; the evaluation criteria.
1.
Overall Prctectim of Human Health am the Envi.rcnDent acXh'esses
W'hether a I~lIedy adequately protects human health an:! the
environment an:! W'hether risks are prq:e.rly eliminated, reduced, or
controlled t.hro1gh treatment, en;ineering controls, or
institutional controls.
2.
O:IIpliance with ~licable or Relevant am ~rqri.ate
~J; .--=l1ts acXh'esses W'hether a l=ledy meets all State an:l
federal laws an:! requirements that apply to site corx:litions an:!
clearmp c:ptions.

L.. -r'I8I:m Effectiveness ani PeI:Danence refers to the ability of a
I-emedy to reliably protect human health ani the environment over
time once cleanup goals have been met.
3.
4.
~m of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume are three principal
neasures of the overall perfonnance of an alternative. 'lhe 1986
Superfun:j Amerrlrrents arrl Reauthorization Act (SARA) erq:hasizes
that, W'henever possible, the U.s. EPA should select a remedy that
will pennanently reduce the level of toxicity of the contaminants
-------
-24-
at the site, the spread of contaminants away fran the site, arrl
the vol\8l!, or arrcunt, of cont:.arninants at the site.
s.
Short-'l'erm Effectiveness refers to the liJlement the L~lIedy.
6.
7.
_.'
Q)st includes capital an:i cperation an:i maintenance costs of--
~lementing a l~uedy.

State ~ Wicates whether, based on its review of the RI,
FA, FS, an:i Proposed Plan, the State of O1io (OEPA) concurs with,
opposes, or has no c::amnent on the alternative the u.s. EPA is
proposi.rg as the remedy for the site.
8.
9.
O:mmmi.ty ~ irrlicates whether the p..1blic concurs wi~the -
remedy presented in the U. S. EPA 's Propc6Erl Plan. - .-
-. -
9.1 OVerall Protect:.ia1 of Human Health ani the Envi..rcnIent
- - -. - -.- ~ .
,. -
-.. - --.--.-
ith the exception of the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), each
alternative wc:uld protect hunan health an:i the env.ironmcnt.

Alternative 6 would eliminate kno.vn risks identified in the RI. It WOlld
prevent exposure to the contaminated soil an:i prevent or minimize future
release of contami.nants to grourdwater an:i the creek. '!he thenna1 treatment
technologies to be Employed would be very reliable. Use restrictions WOlld
not be required. to achieve protection goals aver the long term.. Howev~, ~.
restrictions would be necessary prior to rerroval of the concrete vault.
Alternatives JA, 4A, an:i SA would prevent direct cxmtact with or irqestion or
inhalation of contami.nated soil by containing it with a l'IUlti-layer cap,
whereas Alternatives 2, JB, 4B, an:i 5B wcW.d provide that protection usirq a
soil a::Ner. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, an:i 6 wcW.d treat iJa..L=uenta1ly greater
ana.mts of soil. Alternatives that treat greater am:::AJnts of soil (4, 5, ani
6) wcW.d be no mere protective given that restrictions on lan:i use are still
required.
'!he level of protection against contaminated grourdwater is differentiated
between alternatives that include grourdwater control ("A" alternatives),
those that include grourdwater collection ("B" alternatives), an::! those with
no action taken on grourdwater other than use restrictions (Alternatives 2
an:i 6). Assuming no action were taken other than use restrictions, the
rernainil"g potential risk wccld be minor sirx::e the aquifer has PJOr
'haracteristics for use as a dri..nkirg water source an:i because local
...~idents use municipal water. Alternatives that include grourdwater control
-------
-25-
would provide additional protection fran oontaminants in grcunjwater by
eliminatirg groundwater above the unweathered shale. GI'O.JJ'dwater collection
alternatives would provide additional protection by oollectirg ard treatirg
all grcunjwater. Over time this would also reduce the levels of cont.am.inants
in the soils oo-site.
Alternative 2 would manage most of ~e risks identified in the RI, b.Jt wculd
not be fully protective because the grcunjwate.r would not be controlled or
oollected ard treated. '!he CXNer would prevent exp:sure to the contaminated
soil. Drainirg ard back-fillirg the pards would reduce future release of
oontaminants to grcunjwater by reducirq infiltration. Institutional controls
an:! aCCE'SS restrictions \WCUld prevent excavation of contaminated soil ard
debris. '!he ooncrete vault 'NOUld reduce direct oontact with c:tioxin-
oontaminated soil and debris.

Urrler Alternative 1, no retredlal action 'NOUld be oonducte::l at the site, ard
therefore risk to human health ard the enviroranent as identified in the risk
a5~t ~d not be reduced. As this alternative is j\.XJged to not be
protective of hlm'aJ'1 health ard the enviroment, Alternative 1 will be ~
fran further consideration or diSC'ltSSion.
902 Q:.q>l:i.arDe with Awlicable or ~evant ard ~rcpriate ~
Altematives 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, SA, ard 5B would achieve the- requj.J:'elrents of
health-based TBC criteria for soil by usirg a CXNer -to prevent direct contact
with oontaminated material. '!he soil Cl:Ner in Alternatives 2, 3B, 4B, ard 5B
would not CClti'ly with RCRA requirements or OEPA requirements for a closure
cap because of the potential higher perrreability of the caver soil than the
underlyirq soil. '!he multi-layer cap in Alternatives 3A, 4A, and SA would be
designed to adlieve the cap requirements of ~ and the Chio Hazardous waste
regulations.
'!he dioxin vault used in all alternatives would be designed to achieve RCRA
tank and storage criteria. All alternatives 'NOUld meet ARARS related to
flcxxi plains and W'etlands, ard fugitive emissions fran grading ardexcavation
would be controlled so that Ohio Air ~ity Stardards are not exoee:ied.

Alternative JA, 4A, am SA wo..1ld meet groon:iwater quality ARARs by isolatirq
the cont.arni11ants fran the uncontaminated grcunjwater and eventually
eliminatirg the contaminated grcunjwater by dewaterirg the site.
Alternatives 38, 48, ani 5B would meet ARARs pert.ainin;} to grcunjwater
quality by coll8ctirq am treatirg the oontaminated grcunjwater. 'Ihese
al ternati ves wa1ld incorporate a grcunjwater treatJrent system. whidl WOlld be
designed to produce effluent that meets the discharge stan::!ard.s of the NPDES
permit and the Ohio Water Q..1ality Stardards. Air stri~ emissions WOlld be
limited to levels that would meet Ohio Air ~lity Stardards.

Alternative 6 would achieve ARARS pertainirg to grcunjwater quality by
removirg the sources of grcunjwater oontamination ard allCJI,Virg existirq
oontaminated grcunjwater to attenuate naturally.
-------
-26-
-.,;.('\io water ~ity Standards wccld be met at the 
-------
-27-
drainage of water that infiltrates the top layer, allowi.n:j seepi.n:j water to
be rem::7Ved, reduci.n; the possibility that the water W1CUld penetrate the
barrier layer.

Alternatives that include groundwater collection ard treatment would require
lorYJ-term ~tion ard maintenance of a collection/treatment'system ard
enforcement of aquifer use restrictions to provide lorq-term protection fran
c.onsurtption of contaminated groundwater. Althoogh it ~~t'S W'\li.kely that
the shallow aquifer groundwater would be used, the alternatives that include
groundwater control would avoid the need for lorq-term aquifer use:
restrictions altcqether. '!he reliability of the "B" alternatives in
preventi.n:j off-site migration of contaminated groundwater would deper'd upon
- maintenance of the groundwater collection ard treatment system.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, SA, ard 5B lie between Alternatives 2 ard 6 in
te.rms of long-term effectivent!ss am. reliability, since they would achieve
~-= rena.rcU ard treatment of sore contaminated soil. Because these alternatives
- wcUld provide adequate protection aver the long term, the m=st significant
differences between Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, SA, ard 5B relate to their
. : lorq-teiin-reliability. Alternatives 3A ani 3B 'NOUld provide only slightly
. - '. greater reliability since only a very small portion of the total mass of
. contaminants 'NOUld be treated. Alternatives 4A am 4B 'NOUld be nearly as
reliable as Alternatives SA an:! 5B, since the contaminated soil near the -
<"qroun:F sui'faee' would be nmoved an:! treated. Alternative 6 wculd" provide~ the.;.-" .
',-, highest degree of long-term effectiveness since no contaminated media 'NOUld
. be' left at the site followin;} corrpletion of the wrk (including the rerroval
of the clioxin~ntaminated material in the vault). Alternative 6 is the only
alternative that does not rely on long~term maintenance or monitori.n:j.

9.4 RE!ductim of Toxicity, JIotbility, or VolUIJE
.. - . --
- - -
Alternative 6 would achieve the greatest level of toxicity reduction by
treati.n:j all contaminated soil. It should be noted, however, that the mass
ot contaminants nm:JVed is not di.rect1y proportional to the volume o~" soil
treated. For exarrple, the irICl elnental ma:;s of contaminants rem::wed in
Alternative 6 is only 20 percent more than the contaminant mass rem::wed in
Al ternati ves SA or 5B, although Al ternati ve 6 treats aver .54 percent nore
soil (by volume) than Alternatives SA or 5B.
Un:ier Alternatives '3B, 4B, an:! 5B, groundwater treat:ment 'NOUld not achieve a
major reductic:n in the toxicity of contaminants on-site. Less than 10
percent of the -- of oontaminants on-si te are estimated to be present in
the saturated .on an:! groundwater. M.1ch more significant reductions in the
toxicity of the ccntaminants on-site would be achieved with soil thermal
treatment. It is estimated that Alternatives 4A an:! 4B 'NOUld achieve a 5
percent reduction in the volume of contaminated soil, an:! that Alt..ernc',t .ives
SA ard 5B would achieve a 60 percent reduction. .

Alternative 3A would use the least amount of treatment by thermally treati.n:j
300 c.y. of contaminated soil an:! an urrletermi.ned arralnt of debris.
-------
-28-
..'5 Shcrt-Tem Effectiveness
Alternatives 3A 8nd 3B wccld provide the trOSt i.Inmediate benefits a.nj least
, short-term risk to the cxmnunity. All alternatives wculd result in a small,
tertp:>raIY i.nc;reaSe in risk to the ccmnunity fran generation of oontarni.nated
dust. 'Ihis potential risk wculd be slightly greater for alternatives that
involve excavation and thennal treatJrent because of rrore extensive soil
han:lli..rg and the potential release of VOCs duri..rg excavation. 'these risks
wccld be mitigated usi..rg c:::cmnon oonstruction techniques to m.inimize dust.
Ambient air rroni tori..rg duri..rg oonstIuction wculd irdicate W'hether there ....-as
aITj need for additional mitigative measures.
Alternatives that provide grourdw'ater oontrol wccld achieve their goa11!L1Ch
faster (approxiInately 2 years follawirg iItplementation) than grourdw'ater
oollection and treatJnent (rrore than 50 years). ~trictions on ~-ater
use wccld prevent direct expost1re durirg de-wateri..rg of the site aquifer.

~- as~~ -potential aquatic ilnpacts durirg dewaterirg of the site aquifer,
- est-i:!ratBa ooncentrations in the surface water were cCIlp1recr-to--federal--»Q:s - -
:- and- to: both proposeO anj existirq Ohio Water Q.1a.lity staroar;ds. - - e:mparisons - -
were Irilde both inside and outside the mix.i.rq zone. 'Ihe=-predic:t.e.d.-surface .
w-ater ooncentrations outside the mixirq zone were Irilde-=-by dilutirg- the-. -:-7-~ -_::--~
"hi~ qrcurdwater contaminant oonc:en'".rations with the creek nOIoI .estiJlates... c. " . "
- - As grourdw'ater discharges to the creek, there would ce awroXi:mate1y -CL60:1: ::-:.-:-:.:.~ ~ - ~ -.
}ilution ratio of creek water to grourdw'ater. !!cSt of the c:heItdcals in the ".:. - c:."" - .
~ter are VOCs anj would be expected to volatilize once they are
discharged to the creek. 'lberefore, the predicted surface water
concentrations are seen to be conservative estiJrates. None of the estiJrated
SUrface water concentrations outside the 1tlixirq zone exceeded arty of the
federal ~.
- -
Inside the mi.x.irg zone, the surface water oont.ami.nant concentrations were
assumed to be the maximum grourd.water oontaminant concentrationS to preclude
arrj aSsumptions aboJt dilution effects (actual oonta.mi.nant- levels shoold be
lower due to dilution). Separate federal mi.xin;J zone criteria were not
available, so the mixin;J zone c:oncentrations were ~ directly to
federal ~. Mixin;J zone concentrations exceeded the federal »Q:s for
oor anj hexavalent du:at\ium. No other dlemicals exceeded the federal ~.
'!he Ohio Water ()Jality Starrlards oontain acute criteria within the 1tlixirq
zone. No mixin;J zen> ccncentrations exceeded any of these acute o;taTdards.

It is iItp:>rtant to r¥:Jte the very oonservative aSsumptions used in this
determination. 'lhe assumptions are as follC1NS:
o
oor ....-as only detected in one rronitorirq well on-site, bJt it was
assumed the oont.ami.nant existed at this ooncentration in a nuch
larger area (the entire flaw tube) for the ~ of the risk
as~t. .
o
Analysis of grourdw'ater was perfonned for total d1.ranium
-------
-29-
(hexavalent and trivalent) concentration, but the risk assessment
assumed the chranium concentration was entirely due to hexavalent
chranium.
o
'!he maxim.Jm chemical concentration det.ected .in each flow tube is
considered to represent the chemical concentration of the entire
flow tube.
'!he result of the conservative approach to the water quality investigation
was the finiing that ev=?.." .in the worst possible case, ~ wculd only be
exceede::i for two contarn.l..nants, the period of exoeedence wo..1ld be brief, and
the water quality standards will not be exceede::i at the CXlt'pletion of the
rem:dy (when tl1e aquifer is de-watered).

AlternativeS that include thennal treatment pose a possible increased risk to
the CXJTV!1I.1nity from thennal treatment emissions. Proper operation of thennal
treatment unit will not pose a significant increase .in risk to the cx::mm.mity.
Alternatives 3A and 38 would expose the public to this possible risk for the
shortest aIroUnt of time. _.-.. '.-
-...-- -- .._u
-- -'- -~_.
. .
Alternatives that include thennal treatment of soi1'- ~d. J10t adlieve: :.
remedial action goals as quickly as contai.nrrent-only alten1atives.- ''!he
increased tilre required forthennal treatment wculd, b@. ~::c_IrOnths- for:_.~_- -::~ :~ - .
Alternatives 3A and 38, 8 nonths for Alte:rT'lative 4A-an:r_"8,~ 20-months for- -
Alternative SA and 58, and 30 IrOnths. for Alte:rT'lative 6.
.~ . - ~.
9.6 IJJplementability
Of the alteJ:natives involving theI1T'al treatment, Alternative 3A would be the
easiest alternative to ilrplement, requir~ a cap and construction of the
diversion t.re.nch but not requiring pe.nni ts for- discharge of treated
grourrlwater to the creek. Implementation of Alternative 3A would be
~licated by the need for JOObilizing, startup, and testing of an on-site
incinerator, but this requirement holds true for all al ternati ves other than
Alternatives 1 or 2.
Additional OOstacles to iltplementin:J Alternative 38 incl\X1e the pennittin:J,
construction, and operation of the grourrlwater collection and treatment
system. An N1?DES permit wculd be required for discharge of treated effluent
to Cemetery Creek. Alternatives 4A an::! 48, SA an::! 58, and 6 wculd be
P109l~ively mare .diffiOJlt to i.1TqJlement, requiring treatment of
increrrentally greater quantities of soil. Other than the time required to
~lete the t%1Iatment action, there are few differences between the
iJrplementability aspects of Alternatives 4A and 48, SA an::! 58, an::! 6.

9.7 0Jst
'!he nost significant factor affecting capital cost is the quantity of soil
treated. Sare econany of scale walid be achieve::i for thennal treat:ment of
greater voltnneS of soil since IT'Obilization and dezrobilization costs wc.uld be
essentially the same between alternatives. Use of an incinerator already
-------
.'
-30-
mX>i1ized on-site (like the one required for the Source ReIroval ~le
nit) WOlld significantly reduce cost of these.two alternatives. An
estiInated $3 million to $4 mill ion of the capital cost a.s.~iated with the
zrd,:)i1ization, startup, testirq, an:i denobilization of the on-site incinerator
could be deducted fran the estimated capital cost if the treatrrent unit for
the Source Removal ~le unit remedial action W'eI'e already qn-site,
tested, an:i available. . .
Because the cost of cawirq is greater than the cost of a soil o::Ner, the "A"
al ternati ves have a higher capital cost than the "B" ccunterparts. "B"
alternatives have a higher O&M cost because of operation of the gro.,urlwater
treatrrent facility.
9.8 State Acceptance
'!he State of Ohio does not concur with the u.S. £PAis selection of
Alternative 3A as the preferred remedial alternative for the Laskin Poplar
oil site. '!be state has ~ressed a preference for Alternative 6.
9.9 Chrm nU. ty Acceptance
_.
'!he U.S. £PAis preferred remedial alternative for the Laskin PoPlar: oil si1;:e
was presented at the start of the pmlic canment period t.hrou9h distril::uti6n .
of a fact: sheet, pJblication of display advertisements .j.n the A,shtat:ula
COUnty sentinel, on April 17 arD 24; the Jefferson c;azette~ ;.on=-April 20';
the Valley News, on April 12 an:i 19; an:! the Pyma NeWs',' on April 12 an:! 19.
;he advertisement informed the pmlic of the placement of the proposerl plan
an:i pmlic \';uIIiLent FS in the site infonnation repositories. A fornal pmlic
meetirq to dic::t"'Jl~5 the proposerl plan was held in Jefferson, Ohio on April 26,
1989. Cam'ents received irdicate that ItCSt residents are suwortive of the
u.s. £PA's preferred alternative.
Several residents ~ressed concem aba1t the u.s. EPA/s prc.posed
incineration of wastes ani contaminated soils. citizens are corr.erned that
the U. S. EPA provide close inspection ani oversight durirq the actual
incineration prooess at the site. citizens are mainly concerned about
emissions fran the incinerator stack enterirq the air, am noise durirq
incinerator operations. Residents requested that a strict m:>nitorirq program
be enforced an::l that the u.s. EPA make sure that the results are provided to
the pJblic. It is ~~tIlLen:3ed that the u.s. EPA facilitate a means of
informal contact with the local cx:mnunity by settirq up a network with
o:rmunity repIsiud:atives. Further, the u.s. EPA will require that
'corrective acticn prcgram options be developed as part of the m:>nitorirq
program. '!his will allaw p~ response if emissions exceed levels at arrj
cx:rrpliarx::e point in the m:>nitorirq system.

Finally, several residents ~resse:1 concern that the u.s. £PAis preferred
alternative represents a conceptual design, specific elen-ents of wd'\ will
be determined later with lbnited ir1p..lt iran local residents. To address this
-------
-31-
concern, the U.S. EPA will consider exterdin;J the Laskin Pc.plar oil
Infonnatia1 O::Imdttee thrcA.1gh the remedial design/remedial action phase of
this project.

Publ ic Q..alK.ents a1 the proposed plan arrl the FS are addressed in the
Responsiveness SUn1nary, attached to this document.
10.0 'DiE SEUrI'ID RD!ED'i
Based on the fin:tirqs of the Remedial Investigation arrl the Feasibility
stOOy, arrl the evaluation of the nine criteria for the I.askin Pc.plar oil
site, the U.s. EPA has selected Alte!:native JA. In the judgement of the u.s.
EPA, Alternative 3A represents the best balance am::>rq the. .evaluation criteria
arrl satisfies the statutory requirements of protectiveness, carpliance with
ARARs, cost-effectiveness, the utilization of permanent solutions arrl
treatment to the maximum extent practicable. .
'the major ~l~nents of the selected IeI..edy consist of the following':
o
Drain retention and freshwater ponds. Discharge surface water- -
from ponds to Cemetery Creek, with treatment if required. -- - -- .-'.- -. .
Backfill freshwater pard with clean fill am grade retention pon:l.
area .
Thermally treat cont.aminated soil, ash, and debris fran.--:- --. -:"-=-=.'.:::: - '~.- -' .' -:-::.:
the boiler house area and dispose of ash on-site (if-. - :- - - :.:- - - =...:. =:.-". -
delistable) or off-site in a RCRA landfill.
Demol ish and thermally treat or decontaminate dioxin- ,-
contaminated structures. If material can not be
decontaminated or thermally treated, contain material in
an on-si te concrete vault an:l place beneath the cap for
~raxy storage until proper effective disposal can be
secure!d for the material. -
Construct a gt"OUl"X:lwater diversion tre.nch ~ddient of
the contaminated soil am grourrlwater. -
Construct a uul ti-layer cap over soils in exoeedance of
10-6 excess lifetime carx:er risk level or Total Hazard
Iniex of 1.
te-water site by natural grourrlwater flow to Cemetery creek.
COrduct qI"OJn:1water ard surface water ronitorin;J to
as~-"1" quality of gt"OUl"X:lwater migrating' towards Cemetery
creek.
IIrpo8e aooess and use restrictions.
. -
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Al ternati ve 3A provides treatment of contaminated material fran the boiler
haJse area. While this treatment may not be considered a primaIy cx:mponent
of Alternative 3A, the principal threat of the I.askin Pq>l~Y Oil site is
being' addressed with the the.nnal treatment of waste oils, sl1.Xlge, ard
saturated soils in the Source RemJval Operable Unit.

Alternative 3A addresses all remaini.rg ~lic health ard envirorarental
-------
-32-
")\reats posed by oontaminated media at the site not addressed by the ~
.,~ ~le unit. -

10.1 Drain FresI'I.Iater and Petenticra Penis
The freshwater and retention porrls on-site would be drained to Cemetery creek
to reduce infiltration to grourdwa~, and the freshwater porrl would be
filled with clean fill. The retention porrl would be regraded. Sanpling of
surface water would be corducted prior to discharging surface water into
Cemetery creek. If levels detecta:i exceed the Ohio Water ~ity Stardards,
or the federal ~, treatment will be required prior to discharging. water.
F\1rther analysis for waters of both porrls will :be required at the time of
. discharge to verify that the discharge will cause no violation of NPDES
requirements .
10.2 St:ruct:ures
'!he boiler house will be deIrOlished ard decontaminated or thentally treated.
0- If.the. dioxin-contaminated structures cannot be decontaminated or .thermal],y -
,~-~treated, 'they will be disposed of in a concrete vault on-site. Arri un~ted ..~
con~ted soils, ash, and dehris from within in the boiler house will-aJ.so. -
be disposed of in the concrete vault on-site. 'Ihe concrete vault,' will be
, placed on-si te beneath the soil a:Ner. The storage 0( dioxin ma.~j.al is.~,. - - - - -
- - - t.e.ziix>rary measure until a ted1nology is developed and proven to address ,- - ~ - -
. dioxin material. '!his dioxin-ccnta.minated material will be rem:iVed' an:! -
iisposed of when. appropriate treatrrent is available, and the storage vault
will be rronitored and maintained in the interim. -
- . ~ .
-
... -- ...
'!he greenhouse structures would be disnantled and decontaminated.
COnta.mi.nated soils fran within the greenhouse area would be consolidated with
contaminated soils near the pits and tanks, to be placed urder the cap. '!he
greenhaJSe area would then be regraded and vegetated to allow for proper
drainage.
10.3 MJlti-Iayer cap

COntaminated soils fran the greenhouse (awroxiInately 500 c.y.) would be
consolidated with approximately 57,000 c.y. of contaminated soils that
exceed a lxlO-6 excess cancer risk and total hazard iIrlex greater than 1.0.
The contaminated soils ~d be contained beneath a soil/geanembrane mJl ti-
layer cap ~rox~tely 3.5 acres in size. 'Ihe cap a:Ner would prevent
direct contact with contaminated soils and the gearembrane/geotextile liner
would significantly reduce the infiltration of surface water thrcogh the
a:Ner. The cap would meet the State of Ohio requi.reIrents for lardfill
closure and those outlined under 40 ern S264.310.
While the cap specifications will be finalized in the design p~s, it is
anticipated that the cap will consist of a geanembrane/geotextile liner
overlain by a drainage layer, a geotextile filter, a layer of fill soil, arrl
a layer of topsoil. Infil tration collected by the drainage layer will be
discharged to CeIretery Creek. To provide a stable slope for the cap, abaJt
-------
-33-
26, 000 c. y. of c:cntam.inat.ed soil W'O.lld be mova:i to adrieve the desired
grad.ing. An esti8ted 50,000 c.y. of clean soil 'MOlld be ~rt.ed to
cx:nstruct the cap. '!he cap 'MOlld not exterrl into the flocdplain area aroun:i
cemetery Creek.
10.4 Grourdwater Cb d...tul
. .
Grcordwate.r flOw'irq t.ow-am the site 'MOlld be diverted to cemetery Creek. A
diversion trench 'MOlld be oonstructed ~LC1dient of the capped area, in
order to intercept all qrcundwa.te.r flaw in the shallOw' aquifer movirq
northward toward the site. A drain in the trench W'O.lld oorrluct the
intercepted floW directly to Cemetery Creek. TreatJnent 'MOlld not be required
because the upgradient qrcundwa.te.r is not oontaminat.ed. Al though the trench
am cap 'MOlld de-wate.r the site, qrcundwa.te.r an:! surface water monitorirq
would still be provida:i because hazardous substances 'MOlld be oontained on-
site. SrMA MCLs would not a~ly due to the dewate.rirq of the aquifer beneath
the site.
Urder Alternative 3A, a lon;-term monitorirq program 'MOlld be iIrplen-ent.ed to
monitor oonta.mi.nant oonoentrations am migration. '!his program would include
. the installation of additional JrOnitorirq 'w"ells north of the Laskin Poplar
Oil site. '!he monitoring program would be designed to assess the quali~ of-.
qrcundwa.ter reaching cemetery creek. Additionally, the p~ would sanpl*'!
water fran the upper am lower aquifers that may flaw un::ier cemetery creek
am join regional grourd-water flow. At a minimum, the program 'MOlld meet
the substantive requirements for grourd-wate.r nonitorirq urrler the ~
Conservation an:! Re.o::Nery Act (RffiA) as described in 40 CFR Part 264,
~F. .
- ~-
.-
Water in Cer.etery creek will be monitored to ensure no short term acute
heal th risk to exposErl Wi viduals or aquatic organisms durirq the dewaterinq
of the shallow aquifer beneath the site.

Alternative 3A relies mainly on containment, institutional oontrols, .an:!
moni tori.ng. Contai.nment of soil prevents exposure to oontaminated soils.
Restricti.ng gro.m::i-wate.r use on-site 'NCUld be effective in eliminatirq risks
fran drinki.rq this groun:i water. Fencinq 'NCUld restrict access to the site.
Potential future risks, as described in section 10.8, wcu1.d be reduo:d.
'!he trench would oonsist of a biodegradable slurry lined with a geote.xtile
filter. '!he t._.J& wcu1.d be aR'roximately 1,170 feet lon:J, an:! wcu1.d be
excavated to a dI!pt:h rargirq between 26 am 40 feet. '!he trench would be
back filled with gravel to a depth of about 5 feet belOw' the existing grourd
surface. Clean fill wcu1.d be place:i above the gravel.

10.5 Incineratim of O:rItamina.ted Material
Alten'\ative 3A pI"q)OSeS to incinerate aR'roxbnately 300 c.y. of contaminated
mate.rial fran the boiler hoose area. '!his oontarninated material would be in
addition to the existing voltnne of oontarninated material to be incinerated in
the SRaJ. '!he residue ash would be tested for hazardous oonsti tuents, and
-------
-34-
~zardous characteristics (~ d1aracteristic waste tests). Analytical
:esults walld be CXIIpaI'ed to the u.s. EPA's delistirg criteria. If levels do
not exceed the delistirg criteria, the residue ash walld be disposed of on-
site beneath the cap. If the ash does not meet the delist~ criteria, the
ash walld be disposErl of off-site in a ~ hazardaJS waste facility. '!he
ash residue rrust meet the ~ treatJnent stardards for incineration of soil
containin;J hazardaJS waste outlined in 40 Cffi 1264.343. These stardards
inclooe a ~ of 99.99% for solvents 'and mixed, organics, and a r:m: of
99.9999% for dioxin. 40 Cffi 1761.70 specifies a required r:m: of 99.9999%
for incineration of PCBs in concentrations greater than 50 parts per mill ion
(J:Pn) .
10.6 a.....;,u:te Vault
Dioxin~ntami.nated debris that can not be decont:.aminated or treated 'NOUld be
dismantled and placed in a cortrete vault meeting RCRA tank and storage
requirerents. The concrete vault would have to contain approximately 600
c.y. of rraterial (based on a conservative estimate) and would be placed
beneath the cap. Containment of these rraterials would be tenporary until
treatment or disposal technologies becane available for dioxin~ntaminated
materials.
10. 7 G1:'ourdwater ani Ian:1 Use Rt:..:..LL ictims
. Restrictions on gI"OU1"rlwater use for drinJd.n; water purposes ~d be placed
,?n the Laskin Poplar oil site. an-rently there are no residential wells
,.:ocated on the strip of land between the 5i te and Ceiretery Creek. AI thcu:;h
grourdwater beneath the area between the site ard cerretery creek is not
contaminated, gI"OU1"rlwater should not be used for drinking water. After th~
site is de-rwatered, there will be essentially no grourdwater available for
any p.n-pose.

Restrictions W"OUld be placed on future use of the site to maintain the
integrity and perfOtmanee of the remedial alternative. The restrictions
W"OUld be inpcsed to prohibit site use, lard develc:ptent, and groun:i-water
extraction. For exanp1e, a restrictive oovenant or similar provision would
be iltposed on the property, plac~ future 0Nne.rS on notice of site
con:titions and barring them fran oonst.roction or excavation that would damage
the lCIIClly. Access restrictions wcW.d also be enforced to prevent any
interference or varDalism at the site.
10.8 REduct.im of site Risks
, .
Strl.rqent health and safety I!'eaSUreS will be taken due to the heavy equiprent
ard intense clean-up ~tions dur~ construction of the lClledial
alternative. Measures will be taken to ensure the health ani..safety of
workers on-site as well as the local residents near the site. The u.s. EPA
~ullerrls that on-site residents tenp:>rarily relocate durirg constJ:uction of
the re.luedy for safety reasons. '
-------
-35-
10.9 Qst
'!he total estimated present tNOrth of alternative 3A is $11,000,000 which
inclooes an annual ~tion and maint..enance present tNOrth of approximately
$1,000,000. 'l1'1ese cnsts are ba5ed on a present tNOrth value of 30 years and
n;~ rate of 5\. ~~ on the a.ssurtption that an incinerator would be
~tirg on-site prior to the iJrplementation of this alternative, the
estilrated actual present tNOrth of al ternati ve 3A is less than $ 11, 000,000.
The costs associated with site preparation, JrObilization, and demobilization
for the incinerator rarqe between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000. The b.1rrU.n; of
the contaminated material fran the boiler house area would be abart $400,000.
If the incinerator is already operatirg and could be used in the final
remedial action, the total estimated present tNOrth for alternative 3A cou1d
be $7,000, 000 to $8,000,000. ,'the estimated time to cx:Itplete al ternati ve 3A
is 2 years. Figure 10-1 displays the diversion trench, multi-layer cap, ard
dioxin vault ~IY--'nents of Alternative 3A. .
11.0 ~ ~CR;
.-----. - - .-
. :"-11.1 'Ihe selected Re:medy is Protective of JtJman Health ard~ the.:Env-L.UI~

.'the Lt::medial alternative selected for the Laskin Poplar O-il-~it;.e will
':eliminate Olrrent and potential future risks to human health and.the
environment by the folla..:irg means:
o
Incine.ratirq contaminated ash, soil, and debris fran the boiler
house area.
o
Preventirq exp:sure to contaminated soils by cawirq contami.nated
soils with an ir.permeable multi-layer e;ap, and with restrictions on
future use.
a
Preventirg exp:sure to contaminated gra.u'd water by restrictirg
grcun::1water use and dewaterirg the site aquifer.
Limitin;J future qro.m:i-water oontamination by significantly
reducin;J infiltration thrc:u;h contaminated soils. '!he
effectiveness of the cap will be evaluated by a lon;-term grourd-
water JllCl'dtori.rg program. '!he program will require regular an::!
5Yst8aatic sant:>lirg of monitorirg 'Nells north of the site.

U.2 'Ihe Selected Remedy Attains MARs
o
'I11e selected leilledy will meet or attain all awlic...":"le or relevant an::!
awt:q)riate federal ard State requirements. These requirements are listed
below.
-------
-36-
~c::al Specific
o
Since the aquifer will be de-watered at the cx:ITpletion of the
remedial action, MCI.s pranulgated urder the SIJrolA will rot at:-Ply
upon oatpletion of the remedy. Administrative cri1t.rols will be
used to prevent use of groordw'ater in the interim.

O1io Water Q.Jality StarrlardS listed in CAC O1apter 3745.
Discharges to cereteIy creek fran the on-site aquifer prior to
cx:q:>letion of the da.-aterirq process are rot anticipated to cause
these standards to be violated. '!he water in the creek will be
ItOnitored to verify no acute risk to hlmlan health ani the
environment. '!he standards will be met upon c::atpletion of. the de-
waterirq p~s.
o
o
Health-based soil to-be-considered (TOC) criteria will be met by
preventirq direct contact with the soil by use of a multi-media
cap. .
Location Specific
o
Fill material may be placed in the flood plain of, CerneteIy creek
durin;1 the construction phase cf the remedy. Mitigatin; measures
will be used to ensure no violation of 40 CPR 5264":18 or .ExeaJtive .
order 11988.
o . Fill material may be placed in a \oIetlarrl durirq the construction
phase of the remedy. Mi tigatin; measures will be used to er'c:;'..l...'""e
no violation of Executive Otder 11990.
o
The remedy will meet the intent of the Great lakes Water QJality
~ in Sectiat 118 of the Clean Water' Act.
Action Specific
o
'!he thermal treatment unit will meet the substantive air emission
requiremeI1ts in Sectiat 101 of the Clean Air Act, 40 em Part 52,
ani the emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ootlined in
40 CFR 161. '!he unit must further meet the substantive air
emissicn; requirements of ON:: 3745-15-06, 3745-15-07, 3745-16,
3745-17-02, 3745-17-{)5, 3745-17-{)7, 3745-17-<>8, 3745-17-<>9, 3745-
18-02, 3745-18-04, 3745-18-06, 3745-21-{)2, 3745-21-{)3, 3745-21-
OS, and 3745-21-{)7.
o
'!he thernal treatment unit will meet the substantive requirements
of ~ suq,art 0 for in=:ineratim of hazarcbJs waste outlined in
40 em U264. 340 thrc:u]h 264.351. 'lhese incluie the DestIUction
arrl ReITOVal Efficiency (Lm:) requirements for solvents arrl mixed
organics (99.99%) ani dioxin (99.9999%). Tarlc ~ a...luul
kt (TSCA) standards for in=:ineratim of R:Bs with concentrations
-------
-37-
greater than 50 RD are c:utli.ned in 40 ~ 1761.70 (1m: of 99.9999\
~).
o
TenpJrary storage of contaminated material stockpiled for
treatment will meet the substantive requirements of 40 ~
SS264.171 thrtu:Jh 264.178. The material stockpiled""for storage
an:l the vault used to sto~ the clioxin-contaminated material
un::3erneath the cap will also meet the substantive requirements of
40 ~ 55264.191 thrtu:Jh 264.198.

Ohio requirements for the closure of solid waste lan:lfills (CAe
3745-27-()9 am cw: 3745-27-10). '!he IrUlt:iJnedia cap will exceed
the required thickness of 2 feet ani will meet all other
substantive requirements wi thin these regulations.
o
o
,
Relevant ani appropriate portions of RCRA requirements for closure
of hazardous waste lanifills with wastes in place. The low-
permeability cap will ~ly with the requirements for lardfill
closure outli.ned in 40 em 5264.310. '!he grouni-water nonitorin;
program will meet the substantive requirements of 40 ~ U264.90
thrtu:Jh 264.101 (SUbpart F). '!he prcqram will include a corrective
action Cull-'Jnent that will be triggered if grouni-wat~ protection
standards are exceeaed at ~ point of CCIIi'liance in me nonitorin;
system. " .

The surface ir.pourrlments will be closed in accordance with the
requirements of 40 ~ 55264.221, am 264.226 thrtu:Jh 264.228.
o
o
Disposal of restricted ~-listed waste (incl\Jd.in;, bJt not
limited to, 1<035, FOOl, arx:l F005) both on-site arrl off-site nust
rreet the applicable or relevant ani appropriate requirements of
the Lard DL~ Restricticns cutlined in 40 ~ Part 268..'

. ArTy incinerated material that is not delistable will be taken to a
RCRA-pe.rmitted facility in c:::orrpliance with the requirements of 40
em 55264.301 thrtu:Jh 264.304, 264.310, am 264.314.
o
li.3 'Ib:! Selected Remedy is Q:st-Effective
Alternative 3A represents a cost-effective lenedi.al alternative for the
Iaskin Iq)lar oil site. '!his alternative attains the same reductions in
current risks fran soil in;Jestion arrl groun:i-water in;Jestion as Alternatives
3B thrtu:Jh 6, which are considerably 1TOI'e expensive and/or require higher O&M
expencli tures. Alternative 3A also provides an adequate d~ of lon;-teDn
protection, CXJrpared to these nore expensive al ternati ves. Al t:hc:u;h .
Alternatives 3B thrtu:Jh 6 may offer slightly increased long-teDn re.liabl.lity,
the relative cost increases o..1tweigh the expected benefits. Miitional
'-'U1't-Vnents of these alternatives, such as grcwrlwater treatment arrl increased
incineration activity, do not increase the effectiveness of these
alternatives in proportion to the increased costs. 'these additional measures
are not justified based on current site corrlitions ani contamination levels.
-------
-38-
:11.4 'lbe Selected ~ Utilizes Permanent Solutic.ns ani AI t.ezT\ate
Treatment Tectu1ologies or Re:sa.rroe RecaveI:y 'I'ect1mlogies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable '
'!he remedial action selected for iIrq:>lementation at the raskin Poplar Oil site
satisfies the statutoI)' requirements of CERCI.A Section 121. '!he selected
U:'II.ed'y is consistent with the NCP, protects hurran health and environment,
attains ~, ard is cost-effective. '!he u.s. EPA has determined that the
selected t'eIDedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
final ~le unit at the Laskin Poplar oil site. Of those alternatives
that are protective of human health and the environment and OCJTply with
AFAFs, the u.s. EPA has determined that this selected L~/edy provides the
best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-tenn effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or voltme achieved thrcugh treatment, short-
ter1n effectiveness, i1tp1enentabi1ity, cost, also considerin:J the statutoI)'
preference for treatment as a principal element and consider:irq state and
c:c:mnuni ty acceptance.

'the selected remedy is judged to provide the saIre degree of protectiveness as
the al ternati ves that incinerate greater aITOJnts of soil. 'the selected
Lemedy offers this protectiveness at a substantially lower cost, which is
zrore cost-effective.
;he selected remedy treats contaminatEd soilfran the ooi1er haJse area.
selected remedy is zrore effective in the short-term, caus:irq less of an '
~ct on the local cx:mm.mity, and requ:.. 'i.rq only 2 years to iIrq:>lement, as
~ to the 4 years requirej for the alternative that i.nc:orporates
incineration t:)f all soils above the 10-6 risk level. 'the selected lelt.edy
also achievesgroun:twa.ter remediation in this 2 years, while ~~
treatment alternatives would require an estimated 50 years to ~lete.

While the selected lelnedy does not offer as high a 'degree of lon;-term
reliability ard permanence as the qJt:ions which incinerate a greater am:JUI'1t
of soil, it will significantly reduce the inherent hazards posed by the
contaminated soils through containment un::!er a II1Jl ti -layer cap and dewater:irq
of the shallow aquifer on-site. . 'In the judgement of the U.S. EPA, the
principal threat at the site (the waste oil, sludge, and saturated soils near
the pits and tanks) is bein:J addressed by the treatment portion of the Source
Rem::1Val ~le unit. 'therefore, this final operable unit follows-up the
treatment i.nc::mparated in the SourceRen'OVal ~le Unit with a remedial
action 'that priDBrily contains the remainirr; contaminants.
'the
'!he selected Lelnsdy does not satisfy the statutoI)' - preference for a permanent
solution in that it leaves cont.ami.nated soils on-site. H~er, sa.lI"ce
control and conta.iment v-AlipJnents of the selected remedy shc:uld
significantly reduce the mobility of cont.ami.nants contained in the soils.
Because the selected alternative is not a permanent solution and will leave
-------
-39-
wastes in place at the Iaskin Poplar Oil site, the effectiveness of this
remedial action III.JSt be reviewed at least once every 5 years.

li.S 'Ihe Selected ~y p.:rlnr~ TcDd.city, Mobility, ar Volume of Waste
Materials as a Princi.pa.l Element
Alternative 3A will reduce the toxicity am volume of oont.aminiitnts within
Iaskin Poplar Oil site. '!his reduction will be a~ltJlished t.hr'oogh thennal
treatInent of the contaminated material fran the boiler house area. By
treatj,n; this material, the selected letuedy addresses one of the principal
threats posOO by the site t.hr'oogh the use of treatInent ted1nolo;ies.
'!herefore, the statutory preference for l:e1l1edies that e.rrploy treatInent as a
principal element of the final remedy is satisfied t.hr'oogh the c.anbination of
this secon::I am final reroedial action am the Salroe RettovalOpE>.rable Un5.t.
-------
FIaJRES
ard
TABU:S
}DIE: All figures ard tables are t.aken fraD the I.askin Pq>lar oil O"wmuru.ty
~ticns Plan (MarCh, 1989), the ~;~1 :rnvestigatim (~ ~,~ ~r,
1988), or the Feasibility St:1.dy (1\pril, 1989).
-------
1 un,,, U 0(1
. !il I

I ,- I
:.. III I
,.. z
:) of
.. 3
III Z
., '1 . :I
~
 ~
 ~
 ~
 I
 ~
 ~
 I
( IIUC" 51 ..
 ~.
 o
PilI( 51
LASKIN!
POPLAR
SITE
0~
AStIlAIilIlA 51
..

~ \&I '.,..
. .8 I" .
~ .. VI"
- ,
n
'"
~. ,-
I" UI
"
WAIN"I SI
COllA I I.III~(
court'. .
NICKANNA DR
.
lOWN IlAll
SUSAN Oft.
Ii.
~
It'
,.
III
,
:.J
it
I..
It.
.
II
I SAIIH 51
~
.



",1


.

,

.

r

.

l_.
W 5111111 51
MAIKUN DR
1fWN.. Y DR
~
4
a:
~
W ,nil 51
r (nof SI
"'IS..
NGH 5C11OOl
."
$
:\
''J
j
C(f1AA 51 ..
"lYf" Oft
IINIIA I A
"III Ilf 11'" . .
1----'
I

L._.__--1

VIllAGE or J(ff L"SOU 1101/'41>"""
'\
-------
FI~ 1-2 ~ iq>1ar oil Site Map
~
, '"
.-.
~-
@
. 110
. I
8C.A~ I. 'liT
-------
...~\,\'
.~ _4- r..
, r-:\\;'~~ "..:../ ... 1<'1\
,_.:~,,~>./ ' ~',
,~,~ ' ~,
, "," ,.'\',;,\

- ---:. " ;,~ " ,,', ,." --' " ,-,' ". '~' 0
" ,.'a'" ,.."" ,.", ',""" '\
" ,,' " ..,' .,.,.... ,,' :'119' ,.:: ':,' '-:;U, ~ -- ' '~--1~'.,:,~I"~ ',' --...::" ,(\1...
.,' "" .." ,:- ~ -'~ V- " .............' "-" ..... ," . ~I\ '
'. ."", ' - ,-",,;''';;; ~~ -- I" "<:, ",'-:>.'. ,....,..;~ ,:>':,~" ..
I~~-,-- - -;:-=::::-:~;i':/< ",>:"~X0" "",,>::~t\
, -,.' B -;.~~..-~~., - II ~~J:-;"',>.., '~::~<~,.,,2'<~'- ,", ~,' ,.~~;';.<.,
I ~O~~ ',.,-\0;" .-~' ~-- '-- '-C,'~' ~~' "~'~~~., :~8'~~~:'"
~ FIL\9[" .---..2------ ;,;.'/ ) Rt,TI NTI~'~ '\;;~" -. ,'~~y~(J~ ~,~.:">. S
I', . ,,- , --.: . ~ ~-- ~ ..... ~ ",,'"
JI " . t_:;/~''I;;,~=~:;::r' n:::: ~l'~' ~\'~~~:.;s~~~,>,:' , ,
, .. ". ~. ';' " .'--. ....} .::;, "..'''''1 '-- '~"" }.\' ~ : '.~""'
I .'P(jN[i, III, ~,.. " t, 0,,1 \'. a ' ,..... "I ! ")\~ ~/"~, R'."
. 4 ': I. ' ,), .. ' V'~ .."j'.~l I '. '~ '

\.. -' , 1~ - RlilJI.-...., ".1. C. .JaHOII -f' ,..~_. '
I-..........~ -" ;..- '~GIi. r'.';'" -,-' ,-, - . v ' ..IJ" ...1. ~ , "
<;;/. ~-----'~...-'...,--"-'---

\; -.;~;:-:::;C~3"£:':,,::-';'----O~"'-" -;15- ~Ol~:: - - ,.~-,". ')"'"
~~ " ..\ \. _II " ---.

\,~ i)( FRESHWATER PON~ \)\\~i1JU1-~ . ~REENHOUSES -'~.-'''--
.'!~':~'
-
.''''411
,
"
I',
ua...
. PHAII'"IIOtL _'0lIl1
N01l &AWll LOCAYIOO81 All' -a....",.,
o PIIAIlIIlIIUII.AC. lOlL _US
. 'HAllIIII'IO'l 10"10lIl1
A 'HAil 11111'''''' AC' IO'L _lll
. ,., U I "A lOlL .Oft'1OCI
o '"' lOll lOftING
, J
@
. .
. I '
ICAlIl" '11'
 j'
  ..
  W
 ~
 I
 ~
 ~
 l-
 i
 o 
0 ~
.
,-- en
. .-. 
J . .... 
r: 
0f  
/
/
/
-------
FIGJRE 5-1 S--ry of Shalla.l Aquifer ~ter Q:nt:aminatim
"A&..GO.HAT.a
AL.KAN.. . AL.K8N8.
...' '..0
.oe..,.
--"'''0
.
A~-'"
.:...'.' =-
A
c;-.' .:
~~,,~
K8TON8.
;~~~~lZ:{-;::~~',

f """''''( ',.. "...., &- "'" / \
I C-:;- \ A "./ I
-,. I J )- 1"' .~.., I
I 0'1.'. (D f L_~..J
,-- " j '~
-.. -----,- ~~
~~ - - \
\ r--~
......_J
::..:.:.;L,.,.'.'

::'\.~C~7
...
G88'7., ..
6
6--."
aC817" .
.
"""'0
18AM.
6G~'.'J
.
-.....
.0"'"
. ""'.0
6
6-""
.~n"
.
-,It.
~
~
6-'."
ir=~~5{:~;\

-,. L~ ::::::::::::Z~::~::':'::::;';':':"""~'. r D ('tP:.:J
~--------\...J t~
\ r-.....J
......_.J
.w
...... ... -...
u...
~......,.... '--'--'-."
I I
I I
~~
I .'- I
,,:..:.,'"'C" .
.. ..
.. .-
.- ,.-
..- ,.-
-
".. '-"fIn" ..y.....ftOII"".f. - '.. ........
... CoI............,. .8C8I.... ..,.,....~..... I''''''''.
...-.u "'..,...... .-...,.... .c"\oIa... C088I'''''
"I""_,,..T... "OIC "...'... CD.f'-"'-
., 0""'. t..-"""",,, ....,..... CDa8"tOIII
ea:.........t,... ~I..c. '.Ole.,"... ...- '..
.~. .. "... ..... ....,~. - ..,...., ,. "".
.....,....,..... ..oc..,-
"GU.I ...
SUM""." 0' SOO..uo. AOU"'.
GIIOU"O"AU. c;o..T""'''AT'O",
...,. . -.".......
-------
FI~ 5-2 sa 1IftTRry of SUrface Soil am JEtentim Pcn:i SA-'1; 1TPr1t O:rrt:.a:minaticn
PCBs
.-...
.-
.-..
-
- -
-~ -..J "
...,.--- ....
( -:..-:- / . " ........
I _.~.. .! -. .'- I~=: C .-_........ "").
.8 8,.....-- ............tJ.:.f'.~::~-:-. "
I (r':'~~::~~:':"~;':;'~~J/c \..
. '::::::::::::){~I'tci'..:......:~~,-~:. . a\
I -..l ..::""':::.. "'.. i';;"~~~' . .-"- W:,
\ r.p;~~(j~;;,:: .:;~~...~::~rP=::.-~:. :~!
1-:- - ........:- 11 '1;.::- '..J :.::~~~.r...~..,~~~
\..~ --- -:'.' J -- \ .":::::~~;
- --' ,.. '::~=j.:.
" '(- ..
'-_J
PAHs
a-.,.
..-'0'
.-..
--." --............
--- -.'j .......
~--- ......
/ 7 B - .-. / .............
..... ~ .. ..........
I ~Q ,.,. -... ... ....
.~ '''''' ~.:-:07:.:7:;~:.::-1~'f.'~.: ~- 1,,-
!"""""'f.i'-""""""""""S-~-- / '\


~j!~~~f~:~;~J~~


~:.. -- -- -- -:.~ -- ~- ~""':'::-::~
- ,. ~.. "".
,.. I-'C.I
\
-_J
LEAC
a-t..
'.--"
.--
. ---....-
. --- -~'I ......
r ----- .,........

7 B -.- / ",

I --. - I~C1".",'.-. ')...
~~ ~~~=:'::::~(,--:. :~: ".~ I "
I tl~;i:':'''~ .,~:f~~~~p.~~ " D >~
I -- I:, ~'~' {";'.'A "':::il~:::::'!'~~'~,;::,;;::/"".J.I~:'~
.,:11,..1.1:'" 11'~lj::::::::::::::e"" ~'-"",,;::,~
L J~I- .t"'''_'~'''':T~.:::::::::::::. - ";f;7':t::.::::..,
, _:- ~~-~~':~:~f~;~i~:~!i!mGj;#!
'A..- - -~/-r \ .,.." C~ISM,;.....
-' 'I: 'I..tu~
" I
"_J
....-
. -.--.-
a --.-.......-........
.....-
e.....-..~. --
c-.- ,'''''.,
~ .......". ..,

c:J.. .-

L3'- '.'-
C=:J ".-
"...-
a....- .....~
c-...-.. IWI&I.C.
c::J ..-o1"IC. '.
c:J.. .-
I:::::::; ,- ,..-
f":.~"-::":":.:.:."i ..-" ,--
I'.~.::I'.- ._.;.
-..--
""....
~ .............
c-.- """..,
c::::J --?Icor '.
c::J.. .-
I:::::::j ..-
. ~.._--
. --.-----.-
---
. ..,..--.-
.zt.
I. "'( mt.., QI' eO"'."U'.'IO.. I-OtCArtO 0" 'Mt 'c....r .., GC-CItA.UZCD
'.0.. &taG ..'r."o....'c: le"",c- s........£ ..oc...r,o..'S.. ".1'0...1'I0Il 0-
ACTw... ::O"o.tIO...' (I'~~\ 0"", ., hl( "tClr.c ..OC"",o..s
CO.'.,,'..'IO.. .. or.(1 ..OG.A~tO.., ....." Olrr(. "0.. co..o".o., .
OCCU"'''' ..r ht( s.....-u..c t.OC"".O..S .I.~C hie -"SS...CC 01' ,...e
..., tIC"",r .. . CM&IC( ,. t.., CO..o.f.o.., .r TM(U L.QC.Ar.o.s
. -...-
@
-
..... - ....,
"GUIilI 602
SUMIO"IIIY 0' SUIII'ACI SOI~
-0 IIIITINTION "ONO
1I011O'NT CONT_'N.,TtOOO
~..............~
-------
          ~
OONTALeWn' CONI' At.8WfT OONTAUNANT EXf'08lfE  EXPOSlH:  EXr06ED ~
scua: RB..fASE lRANfPOfTT POM  ROUIE  P'OfU..A 1Q,I
          cr
      .   ....
      Ingestion   t
GREENHOUSE        'respossers
SOll/ Direct Contoct Onsite by Receptor Onsite   
OOllERHOUSE Places the Role 01 Release and   Dermol Absorbtion  
 Tronsport in hposure    
      Ingestion   f
        'resposser.
 Direct Contact Onsite by Receptor Oosite  Dermot Absorbtion (Surface Soil Only)
         'respossers ~
 VoiotUizotion  Oosite  Inhalation   i
CON'AUINATED      
SOIL/   Air      Wildlife
SURfACE AND Wind-Or Uechonicol       
SUOSURfACE    Offslte  Inhplotion Nearby Residents
 Driven Erosion   
        Visitors 10 f oirgrounds f
 leaching Groundwater Cemetery Creek. Ingestion Aquotic Organisms
      Oioconcentrotion   [
 Runoff    Ingestion People Who Consume fish
         'respossers [
      Dermal Absorbtion  
   Solubilized in       ~
 Discharge Water 'reotment Ponds. Ingestion  
 Through Suspended in      'respossers [
 Seel?/Pipe Wale.   Oermol Absocbtj()O  
RETENTION          ~.
POND      Ingestion   rJ.
 Oirect Contact Onsile by Rttl:"fllor Clnsile    Trespasser s ~
   . --    . 
 Places Ihe Role 01 Re'eu~c Wit'   Oermol AbsorMioo   
 Transport ill f .po~'" e     
. INClUDES OOTH SEOU.AENT AND SURfACE WATm.       
-------
"1IU2VIC~-J .".'11
CONTAWfANf
sornce
COHT Aa.8Wf1'
~
COHT AMNI.NT
TJW010Ilf
EXPOSlIE
POM
Exrosut:
ROUTE
EXPOSED
~TlON
--.---. -
--
Ingestion
     Construclion Worker
 Direct Contact Onsite by Receplor Onsite  
 f ociloted by hcoyolion 0'   future Site Users
  Subsurface Soil  Dermal Absorbtion 
CON T At.AINA TED     
SOil    Ingestion 
 leaching Groundwoler Onsite Inholotion fulure Sile Users
    Dermol Absorbtion 
~
~
cr
N
f
;
f
[
1
I
I
[
~
~
rJ.
~
-------
. .
FIGJRE 10-1
Awraximate I.ccatic:n of Diversic:n Trend1, Multi-layer Cap,
am Dioxin Vault - AlteD1ative 3A
. .
\
\ .
\
"" "',
"~\.. .-.
. ~.-:.."" '. .
. "
'.
\
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
.
------------.-..-----.----.-.---
,.
. .'
"
.--------------------.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
,/
. \
Z...
0..J
-:I
~c
g~
..Ie
IUcn
...0
c~
~!:a
;CO
OIU
a::
~...
~~
eo
)
. i ,
" . \
I
\

\
~ . ' ,
.
..
C      
~Q     
...Z     
:::0     
~c.     
QC:     
Z:.o.I     
<~     
Q~     
1.1.1:     
~cn     
<1.1.1     
a: c:.     
Q~     
     5 
   z  en 
    loll 
 ~=  0  C 
  ~ ..J 
 ~u en c < 
 cz ~ !:51O;15 
 !:5~ ~ ..J~!i 
 ..J~ :J C~W 
 wz w z-::: 
 ~o ~ c~~ 
 it:; i~ ~zz 
 c",,- 
 -c: .u uc:C: 
 )(... 
 ~~ ~~ Io.~;:) 
 ozQ 
 ~c ~~ enQC 
 ~... ~Io. 
 cO cO ~V1\oj 
 ~c:~ 
Q I I -w~ 
I .. ..J> c: 
Z I loll ""-I0Il 
~cC~ 
1.1.1 I i !~~ 
Co:) . 
. 
1.1.1 I    
..J .    
 .    
    8  
    -  
      ~
  @   loll
    \oj
    ...
    ~
    ...
    ~
    <
      u
      '"
    o  
-------
Table 5-1 Haz..cirdaJs SUbst.arx::e List ~ Detected at the Laskin Pct>lar
oil Site
(PI;. 1 of J)
IlL COMPOUNDS DETECTED AT THE.~SKIN POP~AR OIL SITE
..:a8as....."..&:&8"""''''''....................zw..aaaa::....:s..2W&=-:..:8a:a===...caaa:...:..:..
OI-ical
Surface
Soil
Subsurhce
Soil
Sediment
GrO\.l1d"'ater
Wel ls
Surface
Water
&a::::Ia'::.:.aa ~= --
----=----=am:=a.~&8=.==~.=....a====;:~========a&:=..===a==.================z:a...======
'OLY AND IICTCLIC AROMATIC ~YDROCAR8CNS   
lenzoCa)antnracene X X X
lenzoCa)pyrene X X X
lenzo(b)tluorlntnene X X X
lenzoCk)tluorentnene X X X
C/'I f"YSene X X X
DibenzoCah)enthrancene X 1 X
Indeno(1,2,J-cd)pyrene X 1 X
AClNj:tI tPlene 1 1 X
AClNj:tIthylene '1 1 
Ar\th"acene 1 X X
lenzOC;hi)pe~lene X 1 1
fluorenthene X 1 X
ftuorene X X 1
Z-Methylnaj:tlthalene X 1 X
lIaj:tlthalene X X X
PI'IlNnthrene X X 1
Pyrene X X X
P~!~CLI: CQMPOUNCS
2 -Co'! loroc=nenol
~-Chloropnenyl Phenyl Ether
2,4-0ichlorophenol
Z,4-0imethylphenol
2.'-Oinicropnenol
4,6-0inicro-Z-methylj:tlenol
Z-"etnylphenol (o-CresOl)
'""etnylpnenol (p-Cresol)
'-II i c ropneno l
~-NicrOSodij:tlenyl..ine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Z,-.6-Yr;chlorophenol
2,-,5-Trichlorophenol
 X
x . X 
 1 
 1 
X X
x 1 
 1 
X X
x 1 X
1 1 1
 X 
 X 
X
1
1
PMTHLATES
lia(Z-ethylhcxyl)pllthalate
lutyl benzyl pIIth.llt.
Diethyl phthalate
Oimethylpllthalate
Oi-n-butyl pIIth.L.e.
o i -n-octyl pIIth.L..
X X X I
X X X
x  X
  1 
1 1 X X
I X  
X
X
OTHER SEMI-VOLATILE CCMPaUIDS
lenzoic Acid
Ifs
-------
  T8ble 5"-1 (Plge 2 of 3)   
NSL COMPOUNDS DETECTED AT THE LASKIN POPLAR OIL SITE  
.........................aaa=_=====a:a:z::====:s:=:..a==.aa=_====:a:==a===-a:.==8=:&2-=::===:::8=======
  Surface Slolbsurfice  G-r~ater Surface
OIellli cil  Soil Soil Sediment Wells W.ter
888888,,"'..~..===.8==.===..=:==--=======::a~===========-....===----=-===========-==--=======-===========
POLTCHLCRINATEO IIPijE~TLS     
Polychlorinated biphenyls X X X  
PESTICIDES      
beta IHCeHCC")   X   
OIL ordane  X  a  
4,4'-ODO  X    
4,4'-00E  X X X  
4,4'-00T  X X  X 
del ta INCeHCCH)  X  x  
D;eldrin  X  X  
Endosulfan I  X    
Endosulfan II  X    
Endosulfan Sulfate X    
Endr;n    X  
gamma IHC(Lineane)      
H~Uchlor   X X  
Heptachlor Epoaide   X X  
8E~:ENE/TOLUENE/XYLENE      
lenzene   X X X 
Ethylbenzene  X X X X 
Styrene  X X   
Tol...  X X  X 
Xylenes  X X X X X
NALOGE~ATED ALKENES AND ALKANES     
t.r=on disulfide   X   X
OIlorofonl  X X  X 
1,1-0;chloroethane  X X  X 
1,Z-0;chloroethane (EDC) X X  X 
1,Z-Olchloroethene   X   
',2-0ichloroethylene (trans) X X   
',Z-Oichloropropane   X   
'luorotrichloramethane X  X  
Methylene chloride  X X   
Tetrachloroethene  X X X  
',',Z-Trichloroethane  X    
',','-Tr;chloroethane  X X X . X 
Tr;chloroeth-  X X  X 
Vinyl eft'ori.   X  X 
aTONES      
Acet-  X X X X 
Z-Iutanone (MEK)  X X X  
Z-Heaanone Clutylmethylketone)     
'-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIlK) X X  X X
-------
T.ol. s-:. \
CPage 3 ot 3)
.S~ COMPOUNDS OETECiEO AT THE ~S(IN POP~R OIL SITe
...................&a........aa=aaaaa........za......a..88.&8saa...a&&a8&:".:&&ZS....=-_as=::::a..=.a;
saa=sa.........::a.a:..a.aaa=&:s&a...==.:aa..=-==..=.~--=..a.8.&a..:==a...====...=:S8a==:-==s--=-===
OI.,.i cal
SI.Ir-hce
Soi l .
s~ur-face
Soi l
Sedl.."t
Grou"ldwater-
w.ll s
Sur-~Ic:e
Water
IWCRCAWIC CME~ICA~S
AlYlli"'-'ll
An t ; mony
A,.senic
'.r-iUli
'.r-,lL iI..
eaaai UI
c:a L C hAIl
OIr-OIIIi""
Coba L t
C~,.
Cy8l'l i de
If'an
Lead
Ma,nesiUli
M."ganese
Mer-cur-,
NickeL
PousiYII
Sel-"iUli
Sll"."
Sodi"",
ThaLlIUli
vanediUli
Zinc:
x X X
X X
x X X
X X 1
X 1 1
x X 1
Ie 1 1
X  1
X 1 1
Ie X 1
X Ie 1
Ie 1 X
Ie 1 1
X X 1
X X X
X X X
X X
x X X
 X 
X  
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
1
--I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
c===:ans:a.aa8:.. ::--=--=====_:.a::::c:=:a --
-~.....::.::=sa....-..a;;8:8'8=a:.=a.=.a====..==-====a=========:=
,
-------
Table 5-2 Sl1'lm\.'\ry of Q1emicals Detected at the IDskin iq:)lar oil site 
Presente:1 by F\Jnctimal Grc1Jp~   
..................................................-[[[-
     FtSH 
DETECTED CMEMICALS CHEMICAL GlOUPIMGS VQUTILITT I'08ILln II QAC:::.MJ LA T 1 (JIj CARCINOCEN"
........................-[[[
Z.M(TMT~NAPHTMALENE PAM JllCDERATE SLIGHT IIIGH 
3,4.IENZOFLUORANTHENE PAH    
ACENAPMTHENE  PAH LOW SLIGHT JIICD~A TE 
ACENAPMTMTLENE PAH HIGH SLIGHT MCCERATE 
ANTHItACENE  PAM - HIGH SLIGHT HIGH 
IENZO(A)ANTMRACEHE 'AM LOW II'I406IL£ HIGH TES
IENZOlA)PTRENE PAM LOW IMMOBILE HIGH TES
8ENZO(I)FLUORANTHENE 'AH JllCDERA TE II«I6ILE HIGH TES
IENZO(GHI)PERTLENE PAH NOM 1.-osiLE HIGH 
IENZOlt)FLL~NTHEHE PAM JllCDERA TE 1..aILE HIGH TES
CHRTSENE  PAH La" IM'IOIILE HIGH TES
DIBENZOCA,H)ANTHItACENE PAH IICIII I"-ILE ill~H TES
FLUOItANTHENE  PAH La" IMCIIILE IIIGH 
F~UOREHE  PAH JllCDERATE SLIGHT HIGH 
INDEHOC1,Z,3.cg)PTRENE 'AM NOM 1..aILE HIGM TES
NAPHTHALENE  PAH JllCDERATE LOW JIICD e ItA T e 
PHENANTHRENE  PAH JllCDERATE SLIGHT HIGH 
pnENE  PAH LOW ItlGlLE HIGH 
Z,4,S.TRICHLOROPHENOL PHENOLIC JllCDERATE HIGH JllCDERATE 
Z,4,6.TAICHLOROPMENCL PMENOLIC LOW SLIGHT JIICD EItA T E TES
Z,4.DICHLOROPHENOL PHENOLIC La" JllCDERATE LOW 
Z,'.DI"E~HTLPHENOL PHENOLIC La" HIGH . JllCDEItA TE 
Z,4.0INITROPHENOL PHENOLIC NOM ~- n IUGH -110- DATA 
Z.CHLOROPHENOL 'HEMOLIC JllCDERA TE IIIGH La" 
2-"ETHTLPHENOL PHENOLIC La" VERT HIGH - NONE 
,,6.0INI~RO.2.METHYLPHENOL PHEMOLIC MCCERATE aERATE aERA~E 
~.CH~ORO.3.METHTLPhENOL PHENOL.IC    
;0. "'ET HTLPHENOL  PMENOLIC 110M VERT IU GM NONE 
'.IIITAOPHENOL  PHtMOLIC    
PENTACHLOROPHENOL PHENOLIC LOW I~ILE HIGH 
PHENOL  PHENOL It LOW VERY HIGH NONE 
IIS(2.ETHTLMEXTL)PHTHALATE PHTHALATE NON I~ILE ICCERA~e "ES
BUTYL IENZTL PHTHALATE PHTHALATE LOW SL.I GHT HIGH 
OI.II.SUTTL PHTHALATE PHTHALATE NOM IMMOBILE HIGH 
OI.II.OCTTL PMTHALATE PHTHALATE JllCDERA TE IICMOSILE HIGH 
OIETHTLPMTHALATE 'HTHALATE    
OIMETHTLPHTHALATE PHTHALATE , VERT HIGH La" 
1,Z,4.TIICHLOR08ENZENE OTHER ~IVOLATILE HIGH SLIGHT HIGII 
1.Z.0ICHLOR08ENZENE OTHER ~IVOLATILE HIGH La" aERATE 
1,].0ICHLOROBENZEIIE OTHER 5E"IYOLATILE    
].IIITROANILIIIE OTHER SPIVOLATlLE    
4.CHLOROPHEIITL P"ENTL ETMER OTHER 5E"IVQUTILE aERATE St.IGHT HIGH 
10ZOlC ACID  OTHER ~IVOLATILE IICIII IIIGH La" 
IEIIZTL ALCOHOL OTHER SPIVOLATILE    
CMLOR08ENZENE  OTHER SEMIVQUTILE HIGH aERATE LOW 
DI8EIIZOFURAN  . OTHER SEMIVOLATlLE La" SLIGHT HIGH 
I SOP ItORONE  OTHER SEMIVOLATILE LOW HIGH La" 
..IIITROSODIPMENTLAMIWI otHER SEMIVOLATILE MOOERA TE LOW aERATE TES
MOCLOR. '221  PCI HIGH 1JM:8ILE HIGH 'YES
AlOCLOR. 'Z42  PCB HIGH 1JM:8llE HIGH TES
Al1:n0R.1ZIoI  PCB HIGH 1JM:8ILE IIGH TES
AROClOR. '254  PCB IIGH 1JM:8llE IIIGH TES
AROClOR.'2.6Q  PCB IIGH IJM:8llE IIIGH YES
2,3,1,a.TalD EQUIVALENTS ~/PC)F    
-------
   ,~'b\t s.~    
  ..      
  ...-.............._......_--.-._................_--~-.-.---.-..-.....-.-..-.--.-.....-.-.........................
       FISH 
  DETECTED CHE-ICALS CHEMICAL caOUPINCS VOLA T III TY ..ILITY IlCAC::..MJLA T: Clo C.UC:IICCE~~
  -------......-.-.-.---.-.-..-.-.....-.-..-.-.-.-..-.--...-.-----.-..-.---.-.--.--.-.---.-.............-...-----..
  AlD,U N 'UTICIDE     
  ALPMA CHLOCANE HSTICIDE  NIGH SLI GHT NIGH YES
  I(TA IHC 'UTICIDE  Law SLIGHT MCl)ERA TE TES
  CHlCJIDANE PESTICIDE  HIGH SLI GNT HIGH YES
  DELTA INC PESTICIDE  lION SlIGNT MCl)ERA TE 0
  DIELO.IN PESTICIDE  Law Law "IGH YES
  EIIOOSULFAN I PESTICIDE  *x)ERA TE V£RT HIGM *X) ERA TE  
  ENCO~LFAN II PUTICIDE  *X)UA TE V£RT HIGH . MCDEU TE 
  ENCOSULFAIt ~LFATE PESTICIDE  HIGH S&.IGHT IIIGH 
  ENOUN HSTICIDE  Law SlIGHT IIIGM 
  GA*A IHC PESTICIDE  Law Law MCDERATE YES
  (WOU CHLCJlDANE PESTICIDE  IIiGH SLIGHT HIGH YES
  HEPUCHLOIt PESTICIDE.  HIGH SLI GHT MIGH YES
  HEPTACHLOR EPOXIOE PESTICIDE  MCDERATE MODERATE MIGH TES
  BENUNE In  HIGH HIGH Law TES
  ETHTLBENZENE In  HIGH . Law LOW 
  o.nLENE In  HIGH MCDERA TE *X)EU TE 
  ST"ENE In  HIGH Law Law 
  TOLUENE In  HIGH MODERATE Law 
  nLENE In  HIGH MODEUTE MCDUATE 
  ""1.T.ICHLOItOETHANE  MALOG. ALaNE/ALKANE HIGH ICIIERA TE Law 
  1,',2-TRICHLOItOETHANE MALOG. ALKENE/ALKANE HIGH UGH Law YES
  1,'-OICHLOItOETHANE MALOG. ALaNE/ALKANE ICIIERA TE V£IY HIGH IIONE YES
  1.2-0ICHLOROETHANE MALOG- ALKENE/ALKANE ICIIERA TE VERY IIIGH IIONE YES
  ~2-0ICHLOItOETHENE MALOG. ALKENE/ALKANE IIIGH IIIGH NCNE 
  Z-OICHLOROPROPANE "ALOC. ALaNE/ALKANE IIIGH HIGII IIONE 
  CARSON DISULFIDE MALOG. ALaNE/ALWE HIGH IIIGH Law 
  CHLOItOFORM MALOG. ALlENE/ALKANE IIIGH VERT IIIGH 8ICNE 'rES
  FLUO.OTRIC~LO.OMETHANE NA~OC. ALleNE/ALKANE    
< .- MErHYLENE CHLORIDE MA~OC. ALaME/ALKANE HIGH VERT NIGH NONE YES
  TETRACH~O.OETHEHE MALOG. ALa"E/ALICANE NIGH IQ)ERATE LOW 
  TRANS-',Z-OICHLCROETHTL!HE MALOG. ALlENE/A~ICANE HIGH NIGH NONE 
  TRICHLOROETHENE MALOG. AL~ENE/ALICANE IIIGH NIGH LOW YES
  VINYL CHLORIDE MALOG. AL~ENE/ALKANE HIGH IIIGH NONE TES
  Z-aUTANOME CETONE  MCl)ERATE VERT HIGH 110 DATA YES
  Z.WEXANONE aTONE  I.OW V£RT NIGH Law 
  '.METHYL.Z-PENTAHOIIE aTONE  *x)ERATE V£RT NIGH lIOII E 
  AaTONE aTONE  ICIIERATE VERT HIGH IDlE 
  ANTIMONY AIITtMCN1'   V IIICN IDlE 
  AaSENI C MUJI! C   IIIGH IDlE 
  IA/W'" WII.JII   Law. IDlE 
  IUTLLII.JII IIR1'LLII.JII   LOW Law 
  . ~.II.JII CADMII.JII   Jl:lDERA TI MCZIERATE 
  CI1RCJUI.JII CMICliIll.JII     
  CClAL T . CClALT   Y .IGH IDlE 
  caPPER CCPPU   II aM  IDlE 
  ("fAIl IDE  CYANIDE   V IIIGH IIOIIE 
  LEAD LEAD   MCIIEUTE Law 
  MANGANUE IWlGAJlESE   IIIGH lONE 
  "'ERCJRT MERQJlT   MODERATE IIONE 
  IIIIXEL IlarL   1111011 IIONE 
  SELEIIII.JII SElENII.JII   IIIGH IDlE 
  SILV£R SILVER   V III GH lONE 
  TMALL II.JII THALL II.JII   V IIIGN IIONE 
  TIN TIll   IIIGN IDlE 
  VANADrl.Jll VAMADII.JII   v IIIGH IDlE 
  ZINC ZIMC   MCIIERATE ICIIERATE 
  ........................................-..............-.-...........------------...-.-...........---.-.....-....
 (l'g~C l ~~)      
-------
Table 6-1 Pctent.i.al Ccntaminants of C:I'DeI:n at the Iaskin Pq?lar oil Site
[[[8..................:=
Acetone
Ant imony
Arsenic
Ba r I um
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Ber:'zo(a)eyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzO(k)fluoranthene
Beryl! ium
beta HCCH
Bis(2-Chroroethyl )ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )ehthalate
.
2-Butanone (MEK)
Cadmi um
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chiorobenzene
ChlorOform
Chromium
Chrysene
Coeeer
DOT
Oibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Dibutyl ehthalate
1.1-0ichloroethane
1.2-DiChloroetnane (EDC)
2.4-0ichloroel'lenol
Oieldrin
Diethvl phthalate
2.4-0initrOehenol
I Endosu I fan
EthylbenZene
Cyanide
Camma HCCH (Lindane)
Heetachior
Heetachior Eeoxide
Indeno(1.2.3-cdleyrene
Isophorone
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
MethylehenOI (Cresoi)
Methylene Chloride
4-Methyl-2-eentanone (MISK)
Nickel
N-Nitrosodiehenylamine
PCB
Pentachioroehe~ol
Phenol
Selenium
S i I ver
Styrene
2.3.7.8-TCOO (Dioxin)
Tetrachloroethe~e
Thall ium
Toluene
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1.1.1-Tricnloroethane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichiorofluorome~~a~e
2.4.S-Trichloroehenol
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Vanadium
Vinyl Chi or ide
Xylenes
Zinc
(a)
[[[
-------
.1811 Characle,lBllloo $U81!IUIU'i/
Lullln I'oplu 011 Slie
(Pige , 0' It
""oj.. .lId
1'\10"" c lloule
Polenl181 Iv
I.pond f'opu 'III on
. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. '. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0"" '. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
cen.nl
IIPo.u..,olnl
11.11 Ch.,.cle,II.llon S~,y
Che-lc.l. 01 COAc.,n
~oll 109ulloo
on....
"e.p...e..
. . - - .. . .. .. . .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. ..
'''11 ull..I.:
...u.e. no ,..I,lcilon. 10
.11. .cu...
......... ..
'.ce.. II'ellme c.nce,
J . '0-' 10 ) . 10-7
, . '0,7 10 ) . '0-'
tUI..d Indel Ilceeded
PAtit. PC8.
Dlo.ln
leld
~oll. '''h. .esldue

'''oj.'' Ion
1101 'If hOu..
".'PI.... .
......,................ ... ....- .................. ,.-,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,hll ..11..1.:
. ...I11III. no ,.,I,'cU.. 1o
.'1. ICC..,. ...1--- ".k
'0' ..po.u,. 1o dlo.l. Ind
..II" In ..h.
"""""""""" .
""""""""""""""""""""""""""0 ...........
'.e... 11..11-. c.nce,
J . 10-I. '0 J . 10"
. . 10-6 10 J . 10-4
Hal.,d .nde. '.ceeded
.. AUt, PC8 .
Olo.ln
leld. Cld8lua, ",cu'V,
~otl 109ullon
".'PI.....
""""""""""""""""""""0"""""""" .
.....0'0...........0... "0""0""0"""""", '0' .'0 -"""""""
Greenhou..
.. """"""'"
'.e... 1""1-. clnc., ,Isk e.II..I.:
4 . 10-' 10 » I 10-'
PAH', DI.ld, In
."I11III, no ,..I,lcilon. 1o
.11. .ce....
~
~
It)
0'\
I
t\J
~
~,

Har.,d .nd.. '.ceeded' &.8«1, Indo.ui'ln 9

soil loge~; ;~.............. .~~;;~.,.... .~~;~~~.~;;~ .~~~~'~;~. .~~~~~~. ;;~'II~ .~~~~~; .~;~~ .~~;;.~;~;.................".. ...,....... .~~~~;;~~ .~;;~.~~~~;:~; .;~;. j

J . 10-) 10 7 . 10-' PAHI, PCB. ..po.u... 10 OCCU,. 11.111'
, . 1o" 10 J . '0'1 Dlo.ln ,..... '0' .urllc. Ind .ub-
Halard .ndex (ueeded leid, Cld8lua, .u,lIu '0118.
Ch,enh.., .n1l8Of'lV I


'."'II~......... .~::;~.......... ;,.:~~::~;:....... ;:;~:;::;;:':~~:~~; ;;,::,,;~;::.. ..~.. :~:................... .;::~;~~. ,:.;;;;;;~:.;~... f.
sedlmenl
Har.,d Inde. '.ceeded
. . . . . . . . . . ~~~~. . , . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . ~
~
~
o
~
~u,lacl wile. Inge,llon
onili.
'lupI.....
[[[ .
, ,
"""""'" .
,.c'" II'ell.. clnce, 'I'll .,II8AI.:
NO cI,clnogen. delecled
NOne
..IU8I. no ,..I,lcilon. 10
.11.lcce... lu,'.c. ..1.,
I. ,...I'v.'y unconl..lnl..d:
conll.ln.I'on In ..«I'..nl.
Hall,d .nde. NO' '.c.eded
NOn'
SUlhcc w.ler Inge.llon
C881I.,y
C,eek
0,..1', 1..ldenl.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" .
...................................... """"""
.................................... en
~.
rJ
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .
""""'" .
,.c." I"ellme c.nce, ,I.k ......1.:
. . 10-I
vinyl ch'o,ld.
II,k ..1...1.. I'. 'I..d on
~e'lng 0' .' oundwl I.,
dllchl'.e 10 c,..II. COAII.ln-
Inl. nol delecled In c,e.k,
tUl.,d Indel NOI (.ceeded
NOn.
~u,hce ..ale. ConUcl
ce_lery'
C.eek
AQIlItI c 0' 'I"".'
.................. .
................................. .
".....,... .
"""""""'" .
NO Sille o. fedelll, C.ller II llceeded
bued 011 luedlcted Cieek cOIlCell'ullunl
81.11 e.II..I.. .r. b...d on
.udellog 0' g, OUnd.i I.,
-------
Table 6-3 $1J"wn::ary of GraJrrlwater C:n:Ent:ratims that ~ ~ Water
Standards at the Iaskin R:plar oil Site
Welt
Loc8tian
"'''''''''''.''''''..zaw....aa::a==........''''......''..=.........aaa::a8a:-.==..~a..==...=
a..fcal
Concentratian
III/l
"'."""""""'~..~====a==&====.-=-:"'---.&a.==a...a:a=."&&:a==&=..a....=&.=...-.-.
GWOZ'87
Arsenic
DOT
Ifckel
4a
0.11
1210
Criteria Ca)
Ltc eeded
Crit.ria
L.vel
WC.IISIe
WC'IISIe
WC'TOX
0.0025
0.001Z
15.'
CWOOi. - 87
1,Z:Ofchloroethane
19
[[[
MCt.Ci
MCt.
WC'IISIe
o
5
0.9':'
.........-..........--.......-........-.-...-....-.........--................................
MOI.87 1,200ichloroethane 200 MCt.Ci 0
    Met. 5
    WC-IISIe 0.9"
 lenzene 100 MeLCi 0
    Me\. 5
    WC'IISIe 0.61
 Iylenes 650 DWA 1.8
    MCt.Ci-PROP "0
 Vinyl chloride 350 MeLCi 0
    Met. Z
    WC'IISIe 2
G:J009.87
35
..........---....-.-...................................-..............-......................
O.OClS
Arsenic
we'RISK:
GW011'S7
4
, , ,
[[[-..-...-.
1.2'Oichloroet~ane
,MCt.G
,1oIQt'IIsr
o
o.tIIl.
M1-Q3
2
[[[
Q.003;
le~lliYII
WC - I ISle
[[[
GW87 -OS
1,Z-Oichloroethane
,
Ma.G
wac.IISIe
o
0.9'
GW81.06
z
...................................-.-......--.--...-..............-..-......................
wac'llS&:
o . 0025
-0
Arsenic
-------
'Page J 0' It
Allk Cha,acle,I'I.lon 51~'Y
18IlIIn Pop'l' 011 5'"
Medii Ind
l.pO.u.. loul.
l.po.U.. Polnl
-........................................ ........................ ........... .............. .... .................. ..... ................ -.....-.. ..... .......... ......................... - -..
,.ol.n.1801,
IIPo..d fopuillion . .lIk Cha..clerll8l8on S...-ry
Che.ICII. 0' conce.n
AI.bo.n. conll.'nlnl
,nhllallon
""P"""
.... .. [[[ .. ............ .. ...... .................... .... ...... .. .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .... .. .0. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ........ .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .
ec-nl
On....
lice.. 11"'1-. clncer .I.~ .,II..le:
4 1 10-8 10 . ~ 10-'
~'Ird Ind.. NOI ,.ceed.d
Airborne conl,.'nlnl
I nhalilion
...,denll
.......... ...... ... ... ........ [[[
.
.... '"""""'''.'''''''''''''.0.......
1118 8OundI,y
f.cen 11,.11... cence, ,...~ ..11..1.:
, . 10-8 1o I . 10-'
I-.I,d Ind.. NO' flceeded
Vlnvl chlo.lde, A..enlc
................. .
......... .
vinyl chloride. Ar.enlc
0".11.
""""0 <'0 '0" ................... "'.'0'''''0'''' to..... """""" ,'................. -"0"""""""
""'...0..................................... ....
Al'borne conll.lnlnl
Inhlll"on
Ie.,denl..
vl.llo.. 10
III , I' ound8 and
1IIIp..~
lie... 111.11.. clnce, rl.k .,II.lle:
4 II '0-" 10 I . 10-8
~'Ird end.. NOI f.ceed.d
Vln,1 chlorld.
Croundwll.r Int.. I Ion
,ulur. ...Idenl.
""'" .... ....... ...... "0""""'0 "0"', '0""0.... "0"""'""""""""""""""""""""",
.......................................... .
On....
p,'n.lnI888., Illndl.da and c.III,11
e.ceed.d'
f.ce., 111.11.. cine., .Iak "".lle:
, . 10-' 10 8 II 10"
~llld Inde. (Icee~ed
Ar.enlc. I,'ylllu.. po'.
Hlc~.I. 1.I'Plchlo.oelhane.
len,ene. xylene..
"Ichlo.oelhan.
vinyl chlorld.. 8en,en..
'. J'Plchlo,oelh.ne.
00'. "Ichloroelhan.
Acelone. Mln.lne.e.
Phenol. Melhylphenol.
4-MelhVI-,.pen'anooe.
sedl...nl In...llon
............................................ ......................................... ".."'....0'0..... ........................ oooo..
. . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ... .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . .... .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .
ce.I..y
Cree'
0' ""..
...lden88
..1.,. ba..d on .0." C.I~
"o18l1ltllllon Ind 'UII'/len.
.Ion 1....lIon..
."..". ".o.o."" ...... "0" 0
.,.~. .I..d on 80r.. Clle
"olllllllilion Ind .elUIpen.
.Ion ""~lIon. Ind UPO""t
..llIn...
.11" bl.ed on .0..1 CII~
vollliliulion and 'Ullillen.
.Ion ""~lIoni
Aequlre, .11. dev.lopmenl.'o,
e.polu,u 10 occur. II" IIIIQ
al'..na'I". .ale, 'UPpIV
reducu polenllli or UPOIIII~
(valuallon ba.ed on con-en.
I,allon. delecled In ~I'o"
In. ..111. nol predlcled
concenlullon. .
NO conla.lnlnl. al..lhllied
1o Ihe .lle de lee led 10 Iht
aedllN!nl. howell... a
pOlelllllllV C~le'e
mech.nl I. 10' (OI"I..lnllll
,eleue ..II...
-------
Table 6-3 (Page Z of 2>
SUMKAAT 0' ~CUNDWATE. CCN~ENTtATIONS THAT EX~EED DIINKING WATER STANDARDS
AT THE LASKIN POPLAR OIL SITE
...............===aa===:==s==s:=:s=-....-=..........................-=:a.......:s:=a.:z======
wetl
Location
Concentration
Ut!l
Criuria (a>
bceeded
Criteria
l.evel
themi cal
.......~..................a.....~..,,&:..........."'..:sa&888a&a888."'...."sa:..:::...:=:=
Mr-,] Arsenic 17 WC-IISI: 0.0025
 1.2-0ichloroethane 3 MCLG 0
   WC-IISt 0.9~
 Trichloroethane " JeCLG 0
   WC-IISt 2.a
 Nickel 20 WC-TOX 15."
-
-
.4a==~."'S8....-.::=a.---==
---
_.......====.=========.====~=
Ca> Crite,.fa:
MCL - Mui- Cont8llinant Lrtel
MCLei - MuillUll Cont"inant Level Goal
WC.IISK - water Qu.lity Criter;a for human health
(drinking wate,. only) at 10-6 caneer r;lk
weC.TOX - Water Qu.lity Criteria fo" human h.alth-.
toaicity protect;on for noncarcino;ens
DWHA - Drinking Water Health AdVisorie.--Lifetfme
level
."
.;.
"I~
:.~...
-------
Table 6-4 51 DmRry of Ba.za.rdaJs SUbstances List O1emical 0:rx::entrat.icr1s am
Ac;..~ji!lted a.man Risks in Grt:I.Jrmrater at the Iaskin Pcplar oil Site
""=..........."'..""'8Zaa:=~.822==a=::.a..=..=a=a::a.:a----..===a=&8...=za.8==a.:......==-==a=a.==.....
(b)
(b)
C!\8IIIi cal
C:oncentrati 0t'I
~/l
(.)
1"f8"t:
H.zard
Inde..
Adult:
H.zard
Index
Well
Loclt i 0t'I
bcess L i fet imi
C:.,..;er _isk
......:.....:_==aa...8......=====:_====..==-==....:....==...=.&a=======..=.===:=.=..=~..=......=....=a.a==:
Moz.a1 Anen i c " 2 JI 10-3  
 OCT 0..11 1 JI 10-6  
 Acetone 2'000  2' 7
 ICaru.a".se 1320  ' 1
 '.ICethyl-Z-pentanone 2800  6 Z
 ICethyl p/'Ieno l 1910  ' 1
 Total (vith Arsenic)  Z JI 10-3 IIA IIA
 Total (~ith~t Arsenic)  1 .'0-' '0 11
-.....................0..___.-...,...---.............-..........00000_._....................-...............
Mo'-a7
1.2-0ichloroethane
19
5 :& 10-5
5 :& 10-5
ToU'
.............................-..............,.....-...-.-[[[
Ci'JO08.S7 Vinyl chloride 350 Z JI 10-2  
 1.2-0ichloroethane 200 5 JI 10-4  
 Menzene 100 a :& 1005  
 Acetone 10000  10 3
 "ethyl ptlenot Z360  5 1
 Phenol 720  2 0.5
 Toul  2 :& 10-2 1.1 " 5
......0.00000000_.____-.-....-....-.0....-.0._.....-.-..............-.................................
Ci\JOQ9-S7 Arunic  35 2 :& 10-3  
 ICethylene chl oride 3000 ,":& 10°'  
 . AcetOt\e  55000  55 15
 ICetllylptlenol 2150  I. 1
   ..  
 Total C~ith Arsenic)  2 I 10-3 IIA ....
 Total (~itn~t Arsenic)  7 JI 10-' 61 17
.............~...._._-_...._-........._.........__[[[
M11-a7
1.2-0ichloroethane
4
1 :& 10-5
Tout
1 . 10-5
.-.-...................................-..........-.--.-.--.-.-.--.........................................
GW87-OS
1,Z-OichlorOtthane
4
1 :& 10-5
Tout
1 . 10.5
----.---...........-....-..-.-.-.-.-.......--....-.....-.-..-........-.-.------.-.--....-.....-............
GW81-oa
Acetone
6500
7
7
2
Tot.t
2
-- -
-.-...-..-.-.....-.........-.-.-.---.........--..................................................-......
~3
CMoroforw
1.2-0ichloroethane
Tr;chtoroeth.,.
13
3
4
Z . 10-5
a JI 10-'
1 :& 10-6
Tot.l
3 a 10-5
c1
cO.2
~==a=a:~=-z:z~--=
Ca) IConltoring wells vlth no carcinogens not tlated-
-------
Table 6-5 9mwrRry of cn-site Soil am Serli1nP'1t I1qest..icn Risks by I'Btia am
Expo6'JT1! Sett.in;J at the Iaskin Pq>lar oil Site
--
_~..a".8'8a8"Sa:~s~a:'S:r:r:I=.a8.====s=:=aa.:s==
Major Contributors to Risk
_-=-~..=~aa..2as=.:a~=.=~;;a.=aa.=:==:====:========
-... ___888--
---~-
bpoSlolre sett'"
..v--
-~..:-- -
-_a8--
SURFACE SOIL-TRESPASS

EXCESS LIFErI"E CANCER RISK
Nign"t Oeucted Concentration (a)
Avera;e Concentration (b)
PCI)O/PCI)F Risk
RATIO OF DAILT INTAKE TO REFERENCE OOSE
"uil/Ull C~ICYlated Mazard Indu (Oli ld)
Average Calc~lat~ Naza~ I~ (Olild)
. i sit SUIIYry
1 & 10-6
3 & 10-7
6 & 10-7 to 3 & 10-a
3
0.2
PAHS, PCBs
PAMS, PCls
2,3,7,a-TC=O E~ivalent
IOILIR MOUSE-SOlLER ASH-TRESPASS
..................-.........-..............----[[[-..-....
Lead
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK
Nighest Oetected Concentration (wiUh Arsenic)
Nignest Oetected CQnCentration (witnout Arsenic)
Average Concentration (with Arsenic)
Avera;e Concentration (without Arsenic)
RATIO :, DAILY INTAKE TO REFERENCE DOSe
"U:/IUII c.lCYlated Huard Inde. (Oli ld)
Avera;e C~ICYlated Maza~ Index (Olild)
8 . '0-7
7 . 10-'1
IIC (c)
IIC
14
IIC
Arsenic
'ic(2-etnylnexyl)p"t~alate
BOILER MOUSE-BOILER RESIDUE-TRESPASS
..-.-.----....-............-.-.-..........-.----[[[
Leid. ~Q:lil.r.l
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER ~15K .
Nig~est Detected Concentration (~ith Arsenic)
Hignest Detected Concentration (without Arsenic)
Avera;e CQnCentration (with Arsenic)
. Avera;. CQnCentration (without Arsenic)
Mignest Pc:lD/PCI)F Rislt
RATIO OF DAILT INTAKE TO ~E~ERENC: DOSE
Ma.imum C~leulated Mazard Ind~ (Child)
Average ~lc~lated Maza~d Ind~ (Child)
1 & 10-6 .
1 & 10-10
IIC
NC
1 . 10-5 to 1 . 10-6
Z3
lie
Arsenic:
'is(2-ethylhexyl}:r.:~ala:e
2,3,7,!-TC::: e~;~a,e~:
[[[
Lead. "e:-C;.lr"f
IOILER HOUSe-BOILER MOUse SOIL-TRESPASS

DCESS LIFETIME CANC!R RISK
Highes~ Detected Concen~...~;on 
3 & 10-5
2 & 10-5
Me
Me
6 & 10-5 to 5 & 10-6
433
IIC
PAHs, PCls, Arsenic
PANS, PCSs
2,3,7,a-TC:O :~ivalent
IOILER HOUSE-STACK ASH-TRESPASS
...............................--......-[[[
Lead
DC!SS LIFETIME CANC!R 1151:
Highest Oeucted Concentration
Aver". Concentration
lIighest PCOO/PCI)F lisk

-------
T8ble 6-5
(PI,e 2 of 3)
.................
Eaposure Sett;"9
I; III S~...,
"..=...=...a=.=..:a..=.=.a==a.=".~a.=.aa.=:.==aa-==&:=a==========.===2~========:==
Major Contributors to R;s~
.."."..."....~ZZS&8==.==..=...====a======.=.=====.-
--.~.=====.8.a...===.s.a==================:===
caEENHOUSE SOIL-TRESPASS
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER Ilse
II;'''est Detec~ed Ccnc:encruion
Averl,e Ccnc:encrac;on
4 a 10-7
3 a 10-7
tATIO OF OAILT INTACE TO REFERENC! OOSE
Muif1U8 MUlt"d I..... CQli len
Averl,e Mlzara Indea CQlila)
1
0_7
----...-.......---..----......-.-.........................................---.......................................
Leld, Endosy(tln
Lead
SEEP AND RETENTION PONO SEDIMENT-TRESPASS

EXCESS LIFETIME CANCEl IISr
III,"est Oeucted Ccnc:entrlt;Oft
Averl,1 Ccnc:entrac;on
3 II 10-5
6 a 10-6
RATIO OF OAILT INTACE TO REFERENCE DOSE
Maximum Hazard Indea (ChiLd)
Averlve Haz.~ Indea (Child)
3
1
...............00...0.........000.........00.........-.........----.......-.................................'..000. -~
Le8d
Lead
SURFACE ~NO SUBSURFACE SOIL-CONSTRUCTION Cd)
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RiSe
HI;!'Iest Detected Ccnc:entrltiClf'l
Averlg. Cancl"tration
3 a 10-6
2 a 10-7
RATIO OF DAILY INTAKE TO IEFE-ENC! DOSE
Maaimum Hazard Indea
AVlrlve Hlza~ Indea
200
2
[[[-..._.....................................-.__.~_..oo_-~.
--.
.Si,;RFACE SOIL (0-2 FEEn-RESIDENriAL Cd)
EXCtSS LIFETIME CANCER RrSe
Hi gnest Oetected Ccnc:encrlc i Qt'I
Averlge Cancencracion
PCDO/PC)F R;sk
2 a 10-3
7 a 10-5
5 a 10-5 to 2 a 10-6
IATIO OF DAilY I.TACE TO IE FERENCE OOSE
"U;IIUI Hau~ II'Idu (ChiLd-1 ./day)
10000
"a.f~ .azlrd Indel (Child.O.' "dly)
..aalllUl Nazard Inde. (Adult)
Avera,1 II.ul'd Indu (Cllt ld- 1 ./day)
Av.rqe ..ul'd IndeJi (CMld-O- 1 ,/day)
Avera,. ~ Indu (Adul t)
1000
ZOO
98
10
2
PAHS
PAHs
PAMS, PCBs
PAHS, PCBs
PAMI, PCBI
PAHI, pcas
Le8d
PAHI, PCSs
PAHS, PCIs
2,3,7,a-TC:O Equivalent
LI8d, Cactn; \III, C"'rom; \III, An: ;/IIOny.
'ari\lll, Copper, "Inganese, MicKe.,
Zinc
Llad
Llad
lead, "a",anese
Lead
lied
-...-..-.....-...--.-....................................-.....-..-.........-..........-.--.............--.--_.~O... ~
SURFACE AND SUISUI'ACE sail (0-14 FEET)-.£SIOENTIAL Cd)

EXCtSS LIFETIME CANCER RISI:
Nill"est Dltected Ccnc:entntion
Averl~- Cancentrat;on
PCDO/PC)F lisk
2 . 10-3
1 a 10-4
5 a 10-5 to 2 a 10-6
tATIO OF OAILT INTAI:! TO REFERENCE DOSE
MuillUll "Iza~ Inde. (Chi Ld-1 ll/day)
10000

1000
200
100
10
2
Mea I!IUII Hlzard
Maa i IIU1I Haul'd
Avere..e Hazard
Averlve MaU~
herlge Hazard
Indea (ChILd-0_1 ll/day)
I ndea (Act.I L t)
Index (Child-' V/day)
lneea (ChILd-O.' Il/day)
Index (AcS.ILt)
-=======8a:8::===..c:-==::==za:===:=========8=a....:8.Z.Z====-
PAHS, PCSs
PAHI, PCSs
2,3,7,8-Tc)0 Equivalenc
Lead, Cactni\lll, Chrom;\III, Antimony,
'.r;U8, Copper, N1ckel, Zinc
Llad
Lead
Lead
-------
....a:s....------A
--......=......::a=---=-====~====.:=======.........aa..~----~~==..=:==:::=::::==::::::::::
Tlble 6-5 . (Plge 3 of 3)
$.. Appendl. Q for cllcullclons ~ .ssumptions.
(I) M..imum c.lcullted risks .re based ~ the highest dete Me Indicates th.C ~ Ire. ~I;hted concentr.tions were calculated. Aver.ges vere
~t cllcul.ted beeIUS':
,> Ole. ~II Insufficient to c.lcul.te .n Iver.g..
Z> Risks Ire c.Lcullted for e.en soil or sediment semple enelyzed.

(d)'Oid not Include dati frOM Are. 3, pits and tanks.
..
-------
Table 6-6 SI.1~ry of SUrface Water ln3estioo an:1 Anbient Air Inhalatia1Ris.ks
by Media am Exp::sure Set:tinJ at the Iaskin Poplar Oil site
."""~a......--- -----------cazzaa.~a-======~-==...:a=&8..aa:8.8S8--=Z==..=.....===..&a=2=a:=========::
..................-
----
MA~OR CONTRIBUTORS TO IISK
---.&a~"....:aaa"'.====".~=z..:a.=a.=.===..."&a..........====a=========
AI.,ACE WATEIt:
..-.-..-.....-
'RESH WAT£R AND RETENTION PONDS - INCESTICN IT TRESPASSER
EXCESS LI'ETIME CANCER IIS(
Maai~ C.l~lated Risk (a)
. ItA
No ~~cinG9ens det~:ed
~TIO 0' DAILY INTAtE TO REFERENCE DOSE
MufllUl Hazard Indu (a)
'~esl'l"at.~ Pard
"tenclon Pard
0.0001
0.0007
.-......---........-....-..................--..........-.........-...............-.....-........................-
~ETERY ClEEK - INGESTION IT TRESPASSER
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK
Maximum Haza~d Index (b)
3 x 10-5 co 2 x 10-12
Vinyl chlo~ide
~TIO 0' DAILT INTAtE TO REFe~ENCE DOSE
Maxi~ Haza~d Index Cb)
0.005
..__e_.....................-.......-...............................-.......--...............................-....
AMatENT AIR:
.........-..
VOLATILIZED CONTAMINANTS - INNA~!O BT T~ESPASSER
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCE~ RIS~
M.ximum C.lc~laCed Risk (C)
" x 10-8
Vinyl cnlo~ic., Me:~ylene cntorice
~TIO OF DAILT INTA{E TO REFe~E~C: DOSe
M8.imum N8Z8~d Indea (c)
cO.00001
[[[-..........-....---.--.-.-..............-
RESUSPEHDEO KATE~IAL - INHALED BT TRESPASSE~
EXCESS LIFE~IME CANCER RIS~
Maximum Cal~lated Risk (with A~senic) (c)
M8Ximu. C.l~laced Risk (wiChouc A~senic)
6 x 10-9
1 x 10-9
Arsenic, PANs
PANS
~TIO Of DAILY INTAKE TO REFE-ENCE DOSE
Maxf~ N8za~d Indax (c)
0.004
...............................-.........................-..........-............................................
VOLATILIZED CCNTAMINAMTS . INHALED IT SITE 8QJNDART RESIDENTS
EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER Rln:
M8ximum C.lcul.Ced Risk (C)
1 x 10-6
Vinyl cl'llo~ide, Methylene cnlo~;de
~TIO 0' DAILT INTAII TO REFERENCE DOSE
M.xi~ Haza~ 1nd8a (C)
cO.DO001
.......................-[[[
RESUSPENDED KATERI~. INMALED IT SITE BOUNOART RESIDENTS
EXCiSS LIFETIME CAMCER RIS~
Maximum c.lculated Risk (with A~senic) (c)
Maxi~ Calculaced Risk (wiChouc A~senic)
2 x 10-7
; x 10- 5
A~senic. PANS
PANS
-------
SIMCAIT 0'
Table 6.6 (',;e Z of Z)
SUI FACE WATER INCEST ION AMO ~8IENT AIR
IT MEDIA AND EXPOSURE SETTING
LAselli POPL.&I OIL SITE
INHAL.&TION IIS(5
-....-
--__8S.........~a:::.":a&8S.-----.....-::....a:..==.=.~.=.:.~..:.==.:.=".===========
KAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO RIS~
C8'88"""'" --
."''''''''''.8..a..-s:aa....==..-=---.....a..........=..............a...:.=~:a======.a:==t:
VOLATILIZED CCMTAMIIiANTS - IIiHALED IT Off SITE IESIDENT

Dcns LlfETINt CANal 11$11:
..ui.... ~1c:ulIUd lisk Cd)
1 a 10-8
VInyl chloride, "ethylene ehlor;ce
RATIO 0' DAILT I.TACE TO IE FERENCE DOSE
..ui!IUD Hlzard Indea
0.000000002
.-.-[[[-......-.......................
IE SUSPENDED KATERIAL - INHALED IT O'fSITE IESIDENT
Dass LlFETINt CANal IISI
Mui~ ~lCYl.ted Ilsk (w;th A~Sen;C) (e)
"uilUl ~lc:ul.ted lisit (without A~senic)
2.4 a 10-10
4 a 10-"
A~."ic, PAHs
PAMs
RATIO Of DAILT INTAe! TO REFERENa DOSE
....i~ H.za~d Indu Cc)
O.DOOZ
--=_...--
--"&8Z88~..............-=........=----=.......aa==-===."'.=.===.=.========.=..======.au:
Ca)' liltl
(b) lisks
Ce) lilkl
Cd) lIlts
.~e based on
are based on
a~e based on
are based on
the high£st detec:ed concentrltion in onsite surflce wlter.
the highest p~edic:ed concent~.tions in Cemetery C~..k.
-------
a[[[G...as..:a:;~Qa~.c~cc..= =sca.......aa;a...;...........................................
  INGE S II OH    INHAUIIOH 
 .... - - -. . - .. . eo - - - ~... ... - - - - - - . - . - . . - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - -  [[[
 (8)   CI) 
 U.S. EPA Clrc:fnogenlc   U.S. EPA Clrc:fnogenlc 
 tercinogen POlenc)' feCI or  Ib) Clrconogen POlency hClor Cb)
CHEMICAL CII..II lcel ion Ckg-dlY/IIIJ) Source . Clluil icellon (kg-day/lAg) Sourci
... - - -... ....... ...................... ..-..... -.... ..... - - - -.... -. -...... - - - - -.. -.  ....-...... -... ......... ..... ................. ...... .....
Arieolc A 1.15 HEA/HfEO(6-1-81t)  A 15 IIIISn-I'U)
Beolene A 0_029 ' 1IIISU-'-88)  A 0.029 SPHEH( 10-1-86)
8emo(l)pyrene 12 11.5 SPHEMC 10-'-86)  82 8_4 "fA/HEEO(6-1-U)
Beryllium     81 4.86 SPHEH( 10-1-86)
Bii(2-chlorOlthyl).thlr 12 1.1 IRISn'I-88)  82 1.1 IRISU-)I-8T)
Bil(2'elh)'Ihexyl)phlhI18t. 12 0.014 IRI5(9-'-88)    
Cldlliun     81 6.1 IlilSn'I-8ft)
Chi or dIne  12 I.) IRISe)'I-88)  82 I.J IIIIS()-1-ft8)
Chloro'or. 82 0.061 HEA/HEEO(6-1-88)    
Chromium Che.lvllent)     " " IRl$n-I-811)
001 12 0.34 11115(8-22-88)  112 0.]4 IRI5(8-22'88)
l.l-0Ichloroethlne CEOC) 82 0.091 IIIISn-I-88)  82 0.091 IRISU-I'88)
Dieldrin 12 16 IRIS(9-'-88)  82 16 11115(9-1-1111)
Heptlchlor 82 4.5 IRISU-I-88)  82 4.5 IIIISn-1-811)
Hepllchlor Epo.lde 82 9.1 IRISn-I-88)  82 9.1 IIIIS()-1-811)
beta HCCH C8HC) C 1.11 IIIIS()-1-88)  C 1.8 IIIISU+88)
g&mml HeeN (llndlne) 12/C 1.1J SPHEMC 10-1-86)    
Methylene chloride 12 O.OOTS 11115(5-21-81)  82 0.014 IRI$(5-21 '81)
Nickel     A I. 19 SPHEHC ,o- 1 -86)
N-Nilrolodlphenyl..lne 12 0.0049 1111 sn- 1-88)    
PCB 12 1.1 HEA/HEEO(6- 1 -88)    
PAH. 12/C 11.5 SPHEM( 10.1'86)  11IC 6.11 SPHE"( 10-1-86)
2.3,1,8-ICOO (Dioxin) 82 156000 SI'H("(lO- 1-86)  82  
lelrlchloroelhene 12 0.051 SPHE"(l0-1-86)  12 o.oon "fA/HffO(6'1-811)
I, ~ ,2- Ir Ichloroelhlne C o.on IRISU-I'88)  C 0.051 IR'SU-I-88)
I rI chi oroelJlene 12 0.011 IR'Sn-I-88)  12 0.01) IR'SU'1-811)
2,4,6-lrichlorophenol 12 0.02 IRISU-I-88)  12 0.02 IRISes-I-8I1)
vinyl chloride A 2.J SPHE"(lO-I'86)  A 0.295 SPHE"( 10-1-86)
[[[~.....-[[[
(a) U.S.
A:
11:
12:
C:
EPA C.rclnogen CII..I'lclllon C'.'$ dill be.. 2-10-1988)
Hu.an clrcinouen.
Probabl. h~n clrclnogen, II.lled hu.en evidence.
Probable h~n clrclnogen, .u"lclenl evidence In 101..1.
Po..lbl. human carcinogen.
Inldequale or no ev'dence .In htnans.
-------
Table 6-8 Re.feren::e tbse Fact:crs for 01aDica1s Det.ected at the I.a.skin ~1ar
oil Site
"........"."""'.............28-=8.8.8.:'8.....==8=_..-..8.8:&8.=-._:.82...:................===8::....
   INGEST ION  INHALATION
  ..........-.....................- ............................-......
  'eference  'eferenCe 
  Oose (If 0)  (a) Oose (1#0) (a)
CME"'ICAL  III/tV/day- SoI.Irc. ../tv/day Source
......................-.-.-........-...................--.--.-.... ...................................
Acecone  0.1 IIIS(]-01.88) 3 SIIHE--n 0"'56)
Ant I..",.,  0.00Ql. 1.IS(]-OHI8)  
IIriUII  0.05 IIIS(].01-88) 0.0001 HEA/"E:~C~"'!!)
Beryl I i UII  0.005 IIIS(3-01.58)  
'1.(2.et~ylheayl)pnt~alate 0.02 IIIS(]-01-58)  
2.SutanG"e ("'E1) 0.05 1.IS(]-01.88) 0.09 HEA/HEEOC6,'.Ba>
C.on lUll  0.0005 NEA/MEED(6-1.58)  
Carbon disulfide 0.1 /115(3-01-88)  
Chlordat'le  0.00005 IU5(3-01-58)  
Chlorobet'lzet'le 0.021 $IIHE"'(10-1.86) 0.0057 NEA/NE:OC6"-!!>
Chloroform  0.01 /115(3-01-58)  
ChromiUII (hexavalent) 0.005 IIIS(]-01-88)  
C:lpper  0.037 SIIHE"'(10-1-86) 0.01 SII"E..nO.'-!6)
Free =yanide 0.02 IIIS(11.16-86)  
OOT  0.0005 IIIS(3-01.58)  
Olbutyl phthallte O. I 1115(1-31.86)  
1,1.0ichloroethane 0.12 SPHE"( 10- 1 -86> 0.135 SII"E!O(~~'1.~:
2,'.OIChloropnenol 0.003 1115(]-01-58>  
Ol.thyl phthilite 0.8 II 1$(]-01-88>  
2,'.OinitrOphenol 0.002 1115(]-01-88>  
Endosulfln  0.00005 1115(]-a1-88>  
Et!'lylbenune 0.1 IIIIS(3.01 .88>  
He~Uclllor  0.0005 1111$(3-01-88)  
Neotachlor E~aide 0.000013 111$(3-01-88>  
Isootlorot'le  0.15 1115(6-30-58>  
L.id  0.0011, SPMEfi'(10-'-86>  
Gatm18 NCCH (Lindane) 0.0003 IIIS(3-~-88>  
Manganese  0.22 SPHE"( '0- 1 -86) 0.0003 Si'''E''(~::.'~~)
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 SPMEM(10.'-86> 0.00005' Si'NE"C~C-'-~)
Methylene chloride 0.06 II I S(5-21 -87)  
,.~.thyl.2.~ntanone 0.05 II rS(3-01 -58>  
"ethyl otIenol 0.05 $l>MEM( 10- 1 -86 > 0.1 SII~E"C1C"'!6)
Nickel  0.02 1115(3-01-88>  
Pet'ltachlorophenol 0.03 IIIS(6-30-88>  
P"'enol  0.01. 1115(3-01.58)  
Stlet'liUII  0.003 SPMEfi'(10-01-86> 0.001 $1I~E:oI( 10"-1S6 >
SI tver  0.00] IIIS(6-30-88>  
5 tyrene  0.2 1115(6-30-88)  
Ttcrachloroethene 0.01 1115(]-01.86>  
Thall il.8  O. 00Ql. SP""0-01-86>  
Toluene  0.3 1115(3-01-58> 1.5 $i'HEMC10'1.86)
1,2,'-Trichlorobenzene 0.02 1115(3-01-88> 0.003 NEA/HE:~(6.1.aa>
'.1,1-TrichtorOlth8ftt 0.09 11115(3-01-88) 0.3 HEA/MEEO(6.1.!!)
1,1,2-TrichlorOlCb8ne 0.2 IIIS(3-01-58>  
Trichloro#luorQ88th8ne 0.3 1115C3-01.58> 0.2 HEA/MEEO(6."!S>
2,',5-Trichlor~l 0.1 1115(]-01-88>  
Yanad lUll  0.02 IIIS(11-16-86>  
Iylenes  2 1115(]-01-88> 0.' SIIMEMC10.t.86>
Zinc  0.21 $l>ME"(10-1-86> 0.01 $IIHE:oI(10.1.56)
.-.......-....-...----..-.--.-.--..-.-----.-.....-.-.--.--.------.-.-.--.--.-.-.........-.-..............
(I> Soyrces: $PME"'. .5uperfund Public Hellth Evaluation "',nuat,- Tlble C.6, (U.S. EPA, 1986)
I' IS - U.S. EPA It'ltegrated Aisk Inform8tion System (U.S. EPA, 19&!b)
MEA/MEED. Quarterly update for MEA and NEED Chemicals (U.S. EllA, 1988d)
-------
Table 6-9 General t7rx:e.:-tainty Factors in Risk As-c:&>c:.~'1t.s
Uncer~ainty Factor
The cancer potencies used are upper
95 percent confidence l~its .
derived from the linearized ~ulti-
stage ~odel. This is considered to
be unlikely to underestimate the
true risk.
,
Risks are assu=ed to be additive.
Risks ~ay not be additive because of
synergistic or antagonistic actions
or other che~icals.
Ca~cer potencies and acceptable
intake levels are primarily derived
usi~~ laboratcry L~imal st~dies and,
when available, human epide~iol09ical
or clinical st~dies. Extrapolation
0: data from high to low doses, from
one species to another, and from one
exposure route to ano~~er may intro-
duce uncer~aint:. In general, ~~ese
tend to use conse~'ative assumptions.
. Not all carcincgenic potencies or
acceptable intakes used represent
the same degree of certainty. All
are subject to change as new.
evidence becomes available.
Assumes absorption is equivalent
across species. This is implicit in
the derivation of the acceptable
intake.s or cancer potency factors
used in this assessment.
GL'!'810/4
Effect of
May
Over-
estimate
Risk
x
I
Uncertainty
May
Over-
estimate
or Under-
esti:nate
Risk
May
Under-
estimate
Risk
x
x
-
x
x
-------
Table 6-10
~ Factors Specific to the Iaskin Poplar oil site
Risk ~c::mp'1t
..
Uncer~a~~~v Fac~or
-
A11 c! t~e da~ly in~ake of drinking
water is from the groundwa~er source
bein~ evaluated.
No~ all chemicals found a~ ~he si~e
have been assigned cri~ical ~xicity
values. They are not included in
~~e quantitative assessmen~.
All in~ake of contaminan~s is
assumed to come from the medium
being evaluated. This does not take
into account ot~er contaminan~
sources suc~ as diet, exposures
occ~rrir.g at loc~tions other than the
ex~csure point bF~ng evaluated, or
o~er envi:onme~~al media which may
ccntribute to the in~ake of the
c~e:r..ical (1. e., relative source
co~~r~u~ion is not accounted fer).
Sampling of environmental media may
resul~ in loss 0: eontaminan~s
present, especially VOCs.
~pcsures through dermal absorption
are nc~ quantified.
The public health evaluation is
based on Hazardous Substance List
chemical analysis only. However,
those chemicals ..y represent a
subse~ of the.. ch4llfticals possible at
the site.
The standard assumptions regarding
body weight, period exposed, life
expectancy, population characteris-
tics, and lifestyle may not be
representative for any actual expo-
sure situation.
<..pa~t: \ 0 ~ ~ "\
Uncer~ainty
May
Over-
esti:na~e
or Under-
estimate
R:..sk
Ef:eco; of
May
Over-
es~i1tla':e
Risk
x
May
Under-
estimate
Risk
,
x
x
x
x
x
x
-------
.c
TQ.~\c. b-lO
Uncertai~ty Factor
T~is assessme~t is based on the
prese~t u~cerstanding of the site
characteristics. Conditions at the
site or understanding of the site
may change over time.
,
The exposures evaluated assum~ that
chemical concent~ation remains
constant over the entire exposure
period. Transfer, transfo~ation,
and tra~sport processes may alter
chemical concent~ation in a medium.
The amo~~t of media intake is as-
sumed to be constant and representa-
tive of the.exposed population.
Assumptions regarding dischar;e and
dilution of grou~cwater into
Cemete~ Creek are considered to be
worst case.
Trespass exposures are based o~
infrequent contact with contaminated
lrIaterial.
Residential exposures are based on a
lifetime of exposure.
Boiler house is assumed to be
readily accessible to trespassers.
Risks were no~ added across exposure
pathways.
GLT810/5
(Page 2 of 2)
Effect of Uncertainty
May
Over-
estima te
P.isk
x
x
x
May
t1nder- .
estimate
Risk
May
Over-
estilrlate
or Unde r-
estilrlate
P..:.sk
x
I
x
x
x
x
-------
          Page (' 013) ~
          ~
           CD
           'f
           ....
--.----          ~f
  AI" '-.aIM.' ,,"'...IM I AI. '......,..... M,......'M18 ..,....'M'" .''''''IM .. III""""""" MII...."'I" ...11.........
    Ca# UIIiI)UIrIIU..'.. _e....." 'MI.I II"""" '''.1 I' . w..... 10& .au. ".110&. laut ......,... 10& 
    COlI'"'" ....0 .~..I'. ''''''''''''', ,... &HI) COV'.. "'UftOuNU..... e"'.- ~"I.. ...0 8AOu111Ow.a".  Ii
....... NOOC'- _e...... 010.. I",.,,,,,,, AtrIUDtO...IRtJt"..tNI ORO\..o...." Coecl-'- ,,,,,.IW.., 8AOU18OW.ltA CON'-, 'AU''''.' ...... ...-.
- - ---- ----    -.----    
CllfIAICAl-SI'EUflC         p'.~
WiCu ""... wu IIOI...n 11'"''-''' .''''0_'' WU III" _'f II' ",..-."".. II' "'..-,..... 11'''''_'''' .. II'........,,,,,.. ~_.- ~R
~,.... "'-I.....   -.-,-,... eo...e,_...o  '."CO"'''''''UD   ...... (0.''''''''''
",...,," ,,,''" lOll.   COto'_'I- '''.IING 8"VUNOwa't..  1Oa"'~tu.'   ... ...........
L ~1'..oU'''lit ,... I. A'"    ......- .... 10"   ",puce UMOuND."".   .., IOUACI... ~!
       ""A'MI 'f' '''''8   CCN........tlDll ~ II
          "610"'0'" '.IAIC.
..,..-(. .'u" .'.0 IN' '''''''0 It. _'8""'" . II' "'..-,"". II'" .......,... . ... aa'......'RIt. II' "'..-...., .......-".,. .. .11""'" "' ""......,... i~
~ ,,,,,),,,,,: hI., . .,,,ute        
..".....I"'..lIu~ ... HOt ...It ... -..... II' .....-.... I 11''''''-'''' I .11 "'..-,"" I. II'''' ~.-....... .., ...U"""'... '" II' "'..-.... lot _COll'_'-
..., .. ,0.......,. "'0  ....,CI CON'act   IMIII a AI""'- 10&.  MlOtI"""" 808 ..,  -u'l """.1. h
1.'"11.'''''     .... II "1."10  II """.'0 - .....11.  ...0 '''''''''0
      AIwO ''',aUO    
lOCATION-SPECIFIC        
't LtO" Ih MI,'  f., -...... 1M' II' ....-,.... .......-".. . ... .. ..-,.... "' "'..-.... 8 11'''''-'''''' ... AI. ""IM.  !f.
,at( 101"'" ""01.""  '."""'10....000       
   1\..1......110.''''       
   """'u"l.'       
.oc..,,,*  .... II ..II' II' "'..-."" I "' "'..-.... , .., '" ..-..... II' .. .......... . N' .. ..-,"" 8 II' "'.......... I 
.~{.fMII'I'  ,., ,"fiNAl. ...,       
   8' "'ACID'" hOUO       
   "...... ...'..laNG        ~ 
   ....'uACl .., 8.        
   ""0        cnft
-Ih....ol  '&& 8M"'" MA' ... .....-,... . .., "'..-.... . ... ....-."" I .., "'..-..... .., "'..-,"" I II' ....-.... . II' "'..-,... . ..,. 
,-,,-ull"l 0""1""'"  11"'-"'10"        r: 
   ........        
   ..UII.'" a,DC.AIUAIO        
   ..... II u,IO         
'"",.. uw&Il  -, IIIn ,... ... "'..-.... I .., ....-..... .., ....-,.... ... M """'M' ... .. ..-..... ...........,.... II. '" ..-,"".  
"'........". .....  ....... 01 .... .AIA'         
&.1'"''.'''1'''''  ~.".."AQU""""         
U. "u".'"  MoN."""         
tlJ.-.hJ-fiCji         lit,,,.......  
          COlI'''''''''' ,0 ......-.-  
          w!U" .two... ....  
          ...1 ."~D 10 ~
.c I 101/-  .:!!'tClf~         
I.ll All AlII AC I           ~
.IM .."..ullOtl   I'''~ INA''''.'''''''' ,......... '''AIMI..' Utili ... ..:nAMA'''', IA It, "",""'...INI .. "' AI ......,..,8 .. ... AI ......... wi Ie .., ..,.-,... '" 
I'I,",""'''~   ... WI" ......."".. AHa'.", ...."',..      
:'Il.loUl, .".   "'.0"""."."'1 ............,. .....~       [
     NO""""'''.'      
        \   
-------
ARAonOCUMENl A nON
Page (2 01 3)
  .--- -       
 MIINM'IWC. Mil.....,... .,,-,... M "11""",1,,, . MII""'M tA M'INlAIIWV" ...........'" M""""""" ... """"IWII
   ''''.8AOUNO..'''' 80& CO~.. 1"1'" -"'80'" 'AlAI ".1I0Il.. 80& ,.... '''''804... ...., .. 'ICM... 10.. 
   COII'M)L AHD 8*»UHQ..',,, IAtA'MI"', '".''''' cow... '*D 81M)UNO.."" Call,'" Co"." UIO OIlW)UNO..',. 
.""" "')10(:'- -40-" .... I"..'".", ... OaQ...IAUt"lld 8AOuNO.."" CUll'", 'A,..ue... 8AOuNO..".CO'''1IIOL '"'a'''I''' ....., I"'"
.."AQVA&, 0' AlA  - ....- 'MA'''''' -, ,...- 'IlIA,"'''' """ "' . "-'M M "' .....-,"".. II' "'''IUIAII'W'''' IC. ~"""'INt .. "' "'...... M
'''''''''HI.11OfiI1\.AII88   .., ..."..... ''''18I0Il AND'" '1""',,,     
.I"A"   NOUIAI MC..' I  ...., IIItn NIIa...SIlON     
    IUU.......",,,I,     
falt'lOtI .,..,.AltOI   'HI""" '"IA''''''''''' ,...~ '''IA''''''' UNI' ... &\11"".'''''' M Ut 61.11-.''''1 II "' MI,-"""" M 'U AI ""...'Nt.. ... ... .......... ..
'0" "ALa"OOul   .., 11((1 .,. ''''111011 AHO AlA ..........     
."""'uul."'1   AlOUdIt' MI..', ..., "III """"'"10"     
.."".t    NO"""''''....     
CLEAN WATER ACJ         
.,C 110.. 101    08"haAG' 01''''.''''  "',,""NAIIV'18  ... At "AIM,,,,, ., 
    8AUUNOwa"A -u     
    COMl\' ..," ."I.wlOI     
    ."""OU"""YI'\.AI8     
....1.0....... IOUUtoUl'    .""'.A'." 'AlAI.....'  ... AU.""..,,.,. ..  '''&I.'IIIII'''''M .1 
Ots.chA"'O' ',,"'A'1OtI    ...., Willi u.., ...It..     
J' II'" "1II1II.,., '''''0' II    DlKftAAG'"AHOAAO,     
..,,'" In..         
.8'''"'11''         
""A ,n..         
..."" ou..UI' ..".. ovwn H. At """"'INI , "' ...-,.... 8AOuNOw.'... ,AI.,....., ... Al.U""'M . II' ...-."" . "' ...-."". I" AI. ......,,.,. .. .11 41" ......,.,. .
1'."0""U8 "AHO..q,~.   UNfi MU Mlfl WAil'     
.."" U. MO' "".""0   lOAG -Uoe.IIO'"     
 '0 II "'IOU"O        
II " "ROC. OUN'    8t8OU8tDw.... 'au,......  ... M"AIM'""  '" At """""'1'1 
",,111. I»    tIM' WtU ...n II If      
    ''''0( 'DuN.     
RCRA         
'1.0.,,,, Alou.M.....  -. 100' ...n 8U...n CI# "' ......-."". "' AU'''''''V' aa "' ...........,"". .....-.""... .11 M"""""" I CtlNif c..o.... "'..
'1""... , n.".  CI# .'GUIA''''H'' "_"''''.01      .".1" -CO",..,..,.II D
"'  01 ..0-1" '0"""_"'"      ""1'''''''' 18 "'I8O\1D
  " "YU8"'"        
"OAAO' co..,......   "_"-'01 II' .....-,""... II. AL""""" M ... ...........""... "' ........,...... ... .UI AlIA"", .. ... AiU"""IWt..
..".. II. tI. ~'"   C_-IIO-"-      
   .'OC_'D 1- ,...-      
   ,.....,..'" ~...n      
   ''''" ..-...."'.      
"OIUOI''''  "MA"OAOIO"'" "'.....-_. I" Ai 'IAHA''''I . ..-. ... "'''- II' ",,"""fM... .., .1I"""lfWI .. au AI."_AINI .... II' "4"""'II1II'"
""111 l8. .......  £OfiIIMI".',O 110_'''' -II.....  10" 'HI-AI. 'A'AIUt,..    
  M.'I""" ..... '1 lOtI ,...- ,""',...'"  AND W...... 10111    
  euellC f 10 'HI II UIO YAUl.I lOA  UNIAIAI.OOlO.".    
  RIQUtA,,,'H1I  ,*I"'...IID 010.".  CQNI"WIr.""'"o ""'18"'''"    
   CONIA""""U M..I.......  ...., If &ull'" 10    
   ""I. II 1U8"C I 10  11I1t,' "t~I""''''''1I    
   1,..1' AlUI""''''""      
-------
~u..t.~ I ...''VUIIU''''''')
...,... tit ... .." .':. ,..
.",'.0'111 ~
,O('"J..IOI."""
,10 ,..
",,,".1"."'''.
."....., .. ,.e h' nl
.",..u .."1"""''''.''''.
.....11 ... '.........1'
U'..u...I'''UU~I'.
"."U."U\
..-, ," 0........01
0''''' .... OU.U"
".~'''''U.
1"""\ .... 01
...... ,.
I'" If 01"'.' (08'"
,..... I. ..
,h'. jl too' "..",..
101...101 .....itl U':..I"\J:''''
." """"~.'-.Jul
.,.', :I .,,\ 88 e'
..... '0
101"'" ..'" ,..""".
".," "I"'VI"'8V"~
I", 'N Iv.,
-"'''IA'H\. ,
IIU ..; I 11M'
......... I
""""""''''''
----- ---------~..
-----
... --. -----.-----
:.u- CO""
. -.--------.
'UlU4C'~'
......., ""'....
''''''''''-''&0,
."'.."'.......
.... .. "...
.... ..OIAtt.&.
I' ."",a..o8
''''.110''8 OUAINO
COH""'-"IIONIHOUI.
..II""'''
tI, Uu.MI w, '''1
..., NUl ..... C*'
AI.hll'" "'.""8 Of
,U'" ....,..... .1".1'
".."'. 'U'tlllU.'"
"U..,..",."U
..II"!.' .,,,'1
IU.""UU 'U ,...".
"")u"""'"''
... ........INt ..
CAlI 0""""".""1"
CO"IMt)t.~
o.ua......" a'..,,,,
.11 .U'''''''''.. I
..., 1i808I&II..I''''''
AI"''''''' .'U I,IAII'"
'0 A"'''' """'''10
'A(...",
ON....,...".....
........,... 101'" Af80
"Of,,",' ...... .., ....
.....i AlQv.N:...""
01'"'' 01110"" Of
AI""vt. .,,, .....
""'."01181""'"''
MOl AP...I&:"'~I '0"
,",,'" ,"M"CO"''''''''''''
VIOIO."'CO"''''''''''O
""'. "tat
II' "'''''''''v' .
.......... .".......,
'...'iIOHI..'
",,'0 ...., ,..,"
..."w"..,....
088"" ,...........
,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,W'U
"".'''IU
"'0101""''''''''
w.u ..... C"" N"" .
-..,. V4Ut."O"
UIU." (,0"."""."0
........... .,,,..
1"1.""1'0 ...."
""U"""""I"" O..tII"
..itA"" ......."'.., UNI'
..LIIII" 1.")1
"'0""""'""
ARAR DOCUMEN
AI ..,....''''' M
...,... CO.,,,
OAOWID..'." ,"'a'",'"
AHOO8I)." ,........,...,
--"
'U &to "A....It". .
- - ----~-~
'ON
-------""
Page(~
'-1)
--.--
..I.-I""
I" ....,.......W8 ..
ON." ......~
'"LA''''''' UN'
.", ..,.. ,...M
..eu..........'.
II' ","ANA'WI"
0..,... ....".......
,........... ,,"',...
"UIIAGt &t.,.. w.Lt"'''
"1'" ",U"".......t.
Mil"""""'" ..
'AI.' '., eo... 111M.
CO.,".''' 8AOUNO..".
.......,......
.. ".....,... ..
,..., ,.. lOlL.
C"'. MilO
.~..... C088'~
...IINIA'''''' ..
.alA' ,.... 81M.. ..
COW.. ""8"OU1tO.....
,...........,
,...... ,... IDa
.........."" ..
'..... tot J 10'"
CaP. AND
OMOuHD."". CC)trt'''''
......,......."" J
III aU I .... "W' .
... ........,..,. I
... ..."--.",,,.
... "II-I'" .
II' .UI.ut.twl &A .11 A4.nAN..,IV' 1.to ... .. II"""''''' ... .11 ............,... IU 4& ,.AIM."'''' ....-..
.11 .,,"""".NI ... ... AU......I..,. .. ... ,,""""IY' .. OIl ..........,..... "I ..".....IIItI... N' ................
II. MII""".'w'''' ~.. at ".....,....... ..I ....11"...lwe .. ... At.'I""'''' .. IC' ... .........,. .. ... ."""'"''
8AOU11D.A.'. ,...........
......, .... ..111 .aU"
OIKttAttG. 1f&H0*"'U1
ICI - """"''''8 IA
AlA .'IUPPI"
....SIolOH8 WIU
.. $0 un' ....,.
"IQUtNUtNII
0lIl11"'''''''''''''
,,,.....,... .......
.., ....' ......
"I QUIIt&'" "'I
II' ,. """""M'
GH"" ...,.......
'UI4IWi... ...,..,
, .",...... 1..1..
",Qu,,""'""
NI ,...,.... ....,...... .. 'OR 'Ul.L 01 KIP'IO" O' a.A..'"
U"". ""':.I "''''''''''..n .,~..u.. ......, ..u,a. h.&I ...111 6M,,"' ..It' PA"U,nO IN .... .""1
. 11'1"'" ,.., "I t.UI ""oU.. I~ t80. ".. ......." '011 ,.e( .1'1111'.."""
II' ...11"""''''' ...
... _11"""'l1li8"
... MII"""fWI ..
II.M"""'''''''
II' ",'I,..'NI ..
... M.......'''''IA
... ..II"",AI.., ... II' "II_I"''' ... M'.""""". ... M'~""'8WI M
II'''' .........Yt .. ... .............. .. 'II "'''''''''''fWI U on A&"IWA'Nl6A
-------
APPnmIX A
ADmf.rSIRATIVE ~ INI:EC
-------
-
.~..
. -"
i~.:~' ;.:;.;:: :;'7~
1 ().)/~)i0i;
1 OO/C~;!(::)
1 00/00/01)
1 00/0(1/00
1 0(11 00/(:(;
2 (4)/(1«-)
2 (1(:.">:':'-:.
2 OO/'~~ ,II:::'
3 OO/Ovl ~.')
3 (jC/:>:;,' ;::;;
4 00/00/00
5 00/001(:0
5 OO/OO/(J(1
6 OO/~/(.)
6 00/00/00
TITlE
lk.tiS r"e ~ntedo~i Stcesl:S:-,;;J
Sl.;c;~:-"/ of Q'Jant 1t1es of
WiS~i O:ls piCked up by
Laski n Oi 1 from
~i~la1 Sh!irir.;
S~ry of Shipments ~o
Lasiun Oi 1
l${I Re5\y"~ toR"uest
fer Inf:~a~icn fro~ ee~ar.
~OA scheCuling of ~tln;
of 8prilary8 generators
f.;,r10:00 alii, July 1, 1~e2.
Handwr'i tten nc.t! re
~~ve.-~~ion Mit~
Haynol re cocUP!~:s
Re~:..cs,; f::" I rd ~:"'.:a ~ : :.~
P~la! Qr;a~i:a~i~~ C~ar~
(Ref. For La=~ln Pc~:al' Si teJ
~~~ec .E~~:~l: C..
Not it:! Letter
Nvti:e let,;er to flrst
her of PAPs
Handwritten nete5 of
vario~s ~on! calls
blt..n \5~ and Au:
'List of Mastes sent, dates
.... 8)IJnts
Yari~Js lan~fests detalling
shlplents to Las~ir. ~ste Oil.
Various Pas between
Coppe~ld and Laskin
Various checks and re:1i~~s
bet~n Laskin ~~ste Oil
Serv 1 ce .nd SlJfllICl ~ t Na t i .:.r...l
Liquid SeI"'V1Ce
~...::.;" -:...~ i\£::::i:; IN;..:.\
Las~ln/~,clar ail
~s~ta::llla, (}110
"""" .-~. ~
JPIc~'hee - US6={I
Steve~ LelTer - USE~{I
BS:~~rS: .!"t';il~"5 - 1.$.0
Kaisc!" Al~lnu:a
EAKurerlt for I'ABI"I:...n - USEPA
E;:.I.llrent for AABrown - US~
Li ~':.:,n Gt'ut Lakes
~ef'b~'1c - Ce"aTl
Perfec~i,;,r:
wrpc.rat ,.:,n
1~~:;$ - S.
£ll).ktnscor. - ~
6A.)""nson - G1~
.. .. - -.. . -
"'. ..'..;, :. ..:.
H;r-:,,~": ::="
.-
a:;".e~
Q~~c!"
C;:.:-!'es;:r.,r.c e~~"?
wr'!'?$;Ii::r:-:ar::-2
H4~"": -;-; ~W'. '.
C :'''~''''=~:.::' :;.. :.
o:~.=1"
CoN?:p":~::~~
(:.jrm ~:.r.:;" ::-
er.-..u:-:: ~:.: : ::-:
q=':':I~"~
O:~e:'
"inl f::: ~
Ac:r~I~:". ': ::. ;
I).:.:';:.:;".: :
~--=C'lJr.:: ~;
[koCu~".: -;
-------
lJag~ N.;,
2
0-:) :Z/ Be
H:~~: O~:;~: D~T:
6 ()J/OOil)v
7 r,.) 1 (() 1 Q,)
8 00/(0/1)0
8 00/00/00
e ()I)/(.~/(J(I
? r:((..~:!' >.:.
'3 OO/('{Ji(~)
10 OO/CiV/C,j
11 O('IOO/CO
11 OO/(}~/C'J
1~ OO/OO/C)()
to! 00/00/00
nrL.f
Vanous ~;!'e~i~e':ts ::e:..E~'.
~OO!~~~ anc las~:n
Van~us Cheo:kS bet,,!!:.,
Lis~:n Was:e e:l an~
Unl:~ Pr,:,QIJc:ts
Vi~lO~5 8ir.:fes~s anc c:ne:~s
irem ~Jplar Oll Cu. to
Nat 10na.~ Forge,
~.:erlal Cat. Sifety
Shiet t:tliQ "EAh:~l~
S" and Conv!~5aticn ~~t=s
of cal~ fro~ ~.Lasktr.
t1tl~ "EXn1:tt C.
Vit':OCS re':!:~:: lS=',j~
tc Ka:ae~ ~lu~:~~: ,
C~e:lI:':s~ Cor~. ~~ ;":::02:"
c:: w'! Inc.
V.:":~US ~e:v; ls;~e: =:
Las.:.-: :,j~;~e Q: 1 Se~"/ :::
. ~ ~:I Nc;r~ ~
Ei:~ Se'.v.:g :':~:i.
Ire,
Vir:ou; cnec~; be:Je!!~
. 6e~!"al ~efrac:~"r:e5
an<: Lis:un
Qle:~s, Pas re
ASS !na"'5~rie;
Various ea~lled c:ne:w;
fro8 Laskin Wist! all Servlce
to L;'.Sidley, In:.
VarIOUS c:r.ec~:s, PC:
between S~ffal~ ~lc2d
Plastlcs ar~ ~asKln
Waste ail Serv1ce
VarlOY5 manifes~s, Shl:CI~;
doc1.lClents and cMc:lI.s fr-::u
Laskln Waste Oil Servic:! to
Perry ShlP BUIldlng.
VarlOUS cr.ec~s, POs,
AD~;~IS~~;~IVE ~E:GF2 INC~~
Las~:~/;o~lar 0:1
As."1ta::u!a, 01'\10
Al;T~CQ
RE:iPIENi
~i~:;c- w~:;:;,~-=
~":'::a!' 0:; :~;
Kcilse~ Al:.i::~,;J
OC.::.2.-<',- jT~~
C:.r:" ~::!
A.--~,..... -
....... .,.. .. :
D-::'~~'::
.....' ".,,,.-
r'~.,.. -..~
50.::::: ~::.':c:c
~::'..l!':~ :";
D':-c'~,:e".::
Ac:-:'.~': : ~.;
~..:;: '~::a'" : =
~ur,~ :~1;
o.:r:u:ae~t 5
~:Jnt : r:;
Do<::'.oa:~r1: 0
~:-:"~r.~ ~ !'I;
[kC:'.1:.ent~
A:::IUr.~: ra;
l).)c'Jliler:t s
Planifes.s
Ac:~IJrlt 1 r:;
-------
je.;= ',.:.
3
J2./l~/::
t~~~.\ ~:jC:S ~~
1 Z OO:':,(,j\x'
1; 1))/1).;:0;"
14 00/(10/(\1
15 O{, / ':.~ .' ..:.(:
If. (]I:', ':..: ;' (/I)
16 OOn)O/(.;.)
16 OO/Of.J/01}
17 001 IN / ()(J
18 00100100
20 OO/WI(,>()
2~ 00/001')\)
~Q/I!!~ISTAATl'JE RECU;,D l~X
Las~ln/~)plar all
j:\shta::luli. Qhl/)
T1 1\.£
~.rrriC~
R[.::;J:E."-
OCCJP*£,~ r!;'~
Ca:~'1',~2": ~
arid ~/;'s re Te"I~.e=;2~
6as Plpe~lne C~.
Ac:~IJ!',~; ~.;
Var:~"lS cne:l
-------
~,,;:? ~:.
02: 12.'3:
~
rN:::: ='~~::= D~~E
21 OO/OO/()..)
~ 00/(;.)1(;:;
~ 0I)"i.'1Ij!(.~
~ 00/0.)/00
,5 i/j/(i,"00
~ oo/,)o/(}.)
30 00/00/00
40 oo/C'(Voo
~9 00/00/00
49 00/00/00
AC~:~:STRArIVE RECQR: I~i~
Las:.t~n/~.j~!ar 011
A5nuDula, Ol'l1c,
TITLE
~~C~
RE::~:E.1j7
011 Service anc: ~':~" Ir,c.
Varl0~S Ohec~s, POs,
De~')Sl ~ ar,o Cosh r!':',r~:
of trinsa:tlcr~ )e~Reen
~tec Ind. and Lask HI
Waste 01! Servlce
D~I~~r.~s pr~uce: in
res~~nse tc ~ue=~s
S9, 9 and 1~
Va~ious che:ks be~we~~
Dlver-Ste!l City Aut~
Crushe~ and LasklTl
VartO~S manifests, c~ecks
anc re!:el;~s be~i1I~!'I RP~
Varve and LasklTl ~iste Ol!
VarlO~5 POs ana cheCK
register evi:er.::r.;
tra~actions oet.ee~
6e~era~ Ele~trlC a~
~a5~ln all ~iste
Vario~s manifests, recel~ts
ana c:ne-:I(S betweeTl Laskln
Waste Oi1 $!rvive ar~ tne
Plttsburgh & Conneaut Cock ~.
Various lanifesti, che:k
copies ind .Ct~Ynt pay.~le
sheets relat1ng Miste oil
. shiplents to Laskin 011
Slrviet fro. r.erter Forge, Inc.
Shipping Dccwaent3 I)f
ltistf liquids shi~~
frel Koppers Co8;1any
'or the year 1978.
Various lanlfests and
stat~.ent3 froa Poplar
Oil Co. to Ohio Proach
& Machine Co.
Various 8anlfests, che~ks
and tes: results f1'1)11
Rockwell Internatlona1 Corp.
DC:J~S'l. ry~~
A::::>';r,~ :~;
Dr:.: '.I!r.e'. : S
~~~er
Ac:-="':~.~ ~r~;
01.-.: 'lr2!r.t s
"0",: -e;::
~---:=;~~.:: ~';
~
.,": :';:~ "':;
.......c:-:
. :.. - -'-
"-i:',: ~eia
""~Il fest ~
~arll fes':s
"arl: fest;;
-------
\;e N,:.
. , 1 ~.-~:
41 ,-. --
5
~:;l ~;.~::: ~7E
~ OO/('f.)/O(I
~~ OO/()!)/~~
~ OO/QOh'IA)
~: c,;.,/OIJ/('(:
:: c(' " .:..: .:.:
61 OQ/iJ.)/('i.:
6~ OO/OC/(i'.}
D5 oo/«()/W
7£ 00/00/(1)
82 00/00/00
63 00/00/00
At~!N:STRA7IVE REC~~~ IN[~X
Laskl"/~'jp!ar all
As~~ a~'ll ii, 0/': ~"
TITlE
tc L!s~~~ Was~e all :erv::e.
VarIous checKs, PGs
etc sMIHn; tra~sac': ~,)n=
be~.e~~ CQnral1 and
Lask.n Waste all
Vario~s checks, POs etc
bet.een Ge~era! Elec':rlc
and Laskin .
Oc~u~nts relat:~ to
PoI1CY , Proce(~re,
Recor'Cs CenUr Proc!OIJM!
and Rt':'Ort:s $c!'\et:ale
tItled "Exhl~lt F".
Viri:~s c~ec~s! PC~.
I~v~::gS e~: be~wp.e~
Lis~:n Wa=~e 0:1 5ervl:~
a~ 9r~~ln;-=e~rlS
~i~:~e$~S, b:: c~~~~e~~~.
te:~ r'@s-~: ~ 3. aT\C :cr.:r'i:: 3
oe':wee~ ~,jc""ell In':e~'r.i'::~r4>~
Cero. and LaskIn Was':e e:l
Ser-v:C!.
Reo~est for Particl~a~l~n
in Res~nse Rctivltles .it~
sup~or':lng OOC~8fn~s titlec
"Exnl:nt E".
VarlOUS Pas ariO Invol~s
bit..... ~es ana Lask I n
CopitS of Chain of Custo~y
rtCQrds with oover letter
datfl:l 7/17/87
VarlOUS POs bet~en
Cop;!r-elc Steel Co.
ana Lask:n Waste Oll
VarIous checxs, POs
re Linde DivlSlon,
Asntaoula, OH
Varl0US cn~ks, Pas
AU-r:~~R
.:: f"
- .
~~
.i.;'i: ~.
iJi~: ~~
t:~. .
r;~':
-gine!" A11.I:I:M~
,,"
,-
f~~:
x'-;:""".
~~

li::

1;;:--
.-
.).".:
;-.r;.,..-
-
. .R. ~!"~y-lJS5=Q Wash. I D. C.
RECIPIENT
R...Turne~.i::er
AldIn.
~--. ,.r,- -...-
iJ~..... -..' . f...~
~:::'Il~. ~ : ~;
0: :'':=E~.::
~:':'u!'~: r.;
c.:,,=';ra~~': .
!r.:1=:"
~~'..r;~:~:;
~~'~r.~:
ill;":;;::::
c.:: r''''t::i: "~ !~:!
Ac:':'f.1r,~ ~ r;;
c.X'.lJ'CC!n~ S
C::o-.er
Ac:o\:nt : ng
Oc.c'Jloer,; s
I«:-:,un:; r,; Cvc~:'fr,:; ,
~OUr.tlr.;
-------
Pag! N<,.
0.; 112/88
&
INCD PA~;: D~-:-E
H: OO/Ol)/(:~)
143 OO/r)i)/()1)
1~: 00/00/00
2(;£ 00/('1\;. (I:)
Z:': OO.',~::~,..,~:(.
flU
betweer. ~~ertlal
Sh~a~lng and Las~ln
..ste 01! Serviet
Var:o~s aanlfests, lnv~letS
anc 0:115 of lad:n~s f~~
Laskin Was~e 011 Service
to Perfec~lon ~rp.
VariOUS chec~s, PCs,
M! TR\;, Minerva, OH
Doc~ent3 prod~:ed in
M!s~onse to reqU!S~3 13;
ar.,: 131
Varl0~S ~e:k5 and lnvOlCtS
Ce~Re!~ G~ an~ Laskin
Var:~U5 ~ur~ acc~~e~ts
re U.S. of Am!~:~s v.
A1v:~ ~1sk:n. e~ a1
- ;~w.e" "f 3~ Par',;,
De~!r.~ot't we: - 10/3~/::
- Answer of 3c Party
Defen~ant ~.lack 11/1-/86
- Answer of 3d Par-:y
De;enCant Kaiser Alu=inua
& Chemical Co. - 11/04/86
- Answer and Aff.rtatlve
DeftnSlS of 3d Party Defend.n':
~ - 11/12/86
- AnsMtr of 3d Party
Defendant Pit~5burgn &
Lake Erie RailrGad
10/21/26
- Ans~r of 3d Party
Defendant Kilmel Pontiac
10/31/86
- Answer of 3d Party
Defendant Perry Shl~-
Building Corp. - 101Zl/8t
~~r~jlSTFt~~~~ ~::!JRD IktEX
Las~:~/~r.~!ar all
As.i:aou!., ChIC'
rt]7:~: ;
R£~:~':E."~
"'-r- "'-.,- - .-
IJ\.,;- :. ~ I T ~ :
1\. -".~":
IJI... -'.., .-
"...": :?;:;;
At.."":";IJ~.: ~ r.;
00c'.:.~~t5
C':~c~
~ ..~,~: r:;

~:~.~.'E"I~=.
C':e::: ..;;/:-::
-------
'a;e n:.
'JZ;lZi!C
7
AD~INI5TRAiiVE REaJRD IrG£1
L.sk1n/P~plar 011
Ash~abllli, ()110
IN:);l ~~:~ O~i!
TITlE
~~p.
RECIPIE.'Ij
DOO.;~E~j ':' j'{~~
- ArrS:''l'!" of 3d j:'a"~i
Defe~an~ TGP - U~ca:~~
- R~..e!' of Zc Pa:"~y
Defe~c~r.t Ruo~er
Rec!a1~:~; Co. - Unca:ea
- Ani~!" of 3d Party
Defer~ir.~ Ni~lonal For;e
Cu. - UnCiU<1
- Ans~r of 3: Par~y
De~e!'\CiT'lt Ct.:., 8r:ji~~ &
~Ch:T.e Cu. - UrlCa~et
- Rn<;;wer cf 3d Pa:"~l
Cefe~ant Locke ~.cn:~~y
C,. - UT'ICi:ec
- Ar:sfler- ;;. 30 ~art y
De#en~an~ ABS - 9/~/:S
- A~s~!" of z: Pa:"~y
te~!p~i!".: ~,1~"~::ir
C~~I\..;i~: - lJ',;a~e:
,
- Ans-e:" of 3c Par~y
De.=~Giot ~nc~~r ~~~r
Fre~;r.: 11/14/86
- Ans.er ana Afflr!atlve
Defen~es ~f 3d Party
Defeneant ~! - 11/~/86
- Answer of 3d Party
Deflndlnt Chev~n - Uraaatec
- AM.r 0' 3d Pal.ty
Defendant Conrail - 10/31/a~
- Answer of 3d Party
Defendant Coppe~ld
Undated
- AnsAer of 3d Party
Defencant General Electric
Undat2d
- Answer of 3d Party
Defendant Interlake
-------
.. P..;~~:.
02 I! 2.' 2=
~
!~:~:( ;.~.:::: ~~::
~~:. u(/ X.'(:(i
A:~:N:::~QTIV~ RECCRt IN~::X
Lask:n/Poplar all
ASi1tabula, Onl"
nn.:
A'''::..,C~
RECiPIE,.,'7
Stl'~":P ~" - Url:~:~':
- ~r.swer of 30 Par~f
Defe~~3~t Ll:t:~ G~ea:
La~e~ c.:t.~. - 3/17/S7
Var:ous ~.urt dC~~de~~~
re U.S. of ~er::3 v.
Alv:n F. Lask1n et al
- ABS InCus~rles Res~n~e
to 3d PaI'ty Pialnt:ffs h:
Set I)f Inarr,);a':,:,r:es
- gig/,S
- Res~~n$e of 3C Party
Defer~ant Ka:s!r Ai~~. t~
Ri~~es~s fer ~jC~:~~~~ vr
tkIC'J:lierl': S
- A::!~::iin C:.~a~:..:::: ~1?~:::,r,5:
to ~ Party P:a;r.:;ffs 1$:
Se: of I~:er~;a~:r:!5 ~~
Re::;es~s ,.:,r- ~t"~:'l::: :.r.
_! ~ "" IC:
,..' ....--
- Res~'~e ~f 3c ~ar:i
Oefer'Can: we: to 1 s: Se:. of
In:!rToga:ories a~ Re~~es:
fer Produ~:io~ of Docu~er.:s
11/11/86
- Anchor ~tcr Fre1;r.t's Is~
Set of Interrl);a:~rle~,
R~u!~s for AC~:$Slons ar.~
ReqUlSts for Produ~~1~n of
Dc:Ic8Ints to 3d Party
Pl.ifttiffs - 12/19;66
- Response of 3d Party
Defendant lJ()CAl, to 1st Se':
of Interrogatories and
Request for Productlon
Undated
- Anchor ~tor Fr!lght's
Rlleneed ResptJnse to 1st
Set of Interrogatorles and
ReQ'lest $ for Produc:t 10n
of Doc'.ur.ents - 11/13/86
X:~"~).- ~~.::
~';~:"::".;:. :'","::''':
-------
Pige ~':..
02/:2/:2
9
IN:'£X PQfE~ o.:~
~~:~rSTPJ;ilVE RESO~ l~.~X
La5~ln/C~plar 011
AS:'1tiouJa, ~lu
TITlE
~i.;Cg
RE~!PtE.~.
DC::..:~;.\, ~ ~!::
- 30 P;rty DeferCi~~ U~:t~~
PMoIJC~S IA. ~t:~ f')f Flllf';
of ~~ap~er 11 ar~ o~ Aut~roat::
Stay - 8/27/e~
- 30 Party Plal~::ffs
~,tlun to ~d Part:es, D1S::55
Partles, Remove Du~J1cate
Hall!s
of Par~ies and to Correct the
~pt:on as to Certa:n P'r~le5
2/5/87
- Cc,nrail's Not::! of
~rre':';lon
of TYPf')gra~'lcal ~r 1n
1st Se~ of Inter~;a~~r:es,
R~~ests for Hd~i!s:on ar:
Rec~ests for ~uct10n of
D':C~alerl~S P~~OIlr.:e~ to
3d Party Plalnt:ffs - 10/:~;e~
- A~:~r of 3G CortI
~e~ :~:.:ri~
~~:Ne;t R'l:~r ~~
Ir.t","T'1jgator:es
8 tn~'u;n 5't
- Conrail's Respunse to 1st
Set of Interro;at~r:es ar.c
Re~~ests for ProduC'::on of
Docl1:ents to 3d Party
P1ainti ffs
ll/7/86
- PttroleWi Exception Coso
ObjKtions to Cise fII;:t Or-:er
IhIAttd
~ CopPft"ltlcl Steel ecG!)any's
Responses to Interrogatory
. Nos. 8-55 arid R~'Jlsts fur
Productlon Nos. 2-21 -
11/c::i/86
- Notice of Appearance of
Attys for Oh10 ~acn ,
Madani! Co. - CJ/24/a~
- Notice of Appearar.ce or
-------
Pi;; .'.:.
02/12:' ::
t,'.
"
!N:::A o~.j::: DAi::
8~(1 OO/r~/OO
2 T7/00/«()
1 77/07/26
6 78/0(1/00
A~~!~!Si~7:V: RE::~~ I~:::~
La~~ln/Pr;o!a~ 0:1
AS:'1:a:'lla, Or.:(.
TI~
1\. ,.. ",:1
....,/,:U..
RE::~:~-
A::ys for Per'ry 5h:;:rJ::::~;
lO/31/S€.
. ~~tlon :~ wa:v~
N:-:;I.:lrem~r,t ~f L,:.ca: R'~::
11/05/36
- Re~~:."s~ of ~: lac" t.:
1 st 5e: of Ir.ter'Ngit.:,r:es
.n~ req~es~ for ProOU:~I~~
of doc'~e~ts - 11/12/8€.
- ~rfectiCln (AI";; Res~:'ns=
to 1st Se; of Inte~r~gi:~r:es
. arlO R~uest; for Proc!IJC: 10:'1
of o.xUlIIents - 11/14/86 .
- ~~tlce of Withcrawal of
C."::'1sel for 3d Pirty Ce':er~a'.:
'e~~J Shl~~uI:dln;
-. Kalse~ ~l~=. Ar.swer t~
1s: Set of !r:ter~l;at,~.::s
:l/::lS:
. ~at!ack's 1st 5e~ of
Ir:tet'l"Ogat'jr:e5, Re~;:l~:s
for ~r8l$Sions ar:: Req:Jesa
for ProaIJct l"" of DocIJftle~: s
1/';/8i
- Perf~ion Co~' 51st Set
of Interro;at~ries, Re~ues:s
for AdMIssIons ar.C Recuests
for ~uction of Dcct~~ts
l/a/B7
Ph.. I RI Data
Ciw Not. 2lSIt, ~%,
2271 Ind $AS 7595
'Yarious cnecks bftwee~
Cochran Oi 1 Co. and
Liskin Waste ail ServIce
One cancelled check fl"Oll
Liskin Wiste 011 Service
to Andy Skldaoor.
Yarl0US checks ind
~:'~"'~'f - ~~.:::
Scu~:: :~I;' :~:.i
Ac:.jur.: ; ~.;
o.)C,.:::r: s
~:'~IJ~: :~I;
Ocr.'JII:~r.: :
Ac~"l~: : r.;
-------
Pa;!? ~..:.
~/:2.'::
1:
!N(:l ~.:S~: ~7E
1 ie/ (: i / i;(,
1 7S 1.::/('2
3 7::~):...(~'?
1 7e,"~s/':'~
1 7e. :-?::
'+ 7::::~:
2 i:.,::/:£
1 7E/::/27
1 79/i)~.' it)
1 79i(;4/~4
1 791(14I'Ci
1 79/Of./05
1 7g/06/0e
TITlE
Inv':'l:M brtwe~"
La~~:" Wast~ 011 5erv:e~
aT~ Eio:-: et ';" E~u: ~~!'\~
Sa: ;r.<:e cue "n aC~'l~:
r.n ~/ J'.'I7:
OTle che':!\ l ss,,~ by Las\:: n
W.s;~e all Ser'vice to) 0 & p
01 ~ , Gas Ir:::.
U~.e<:~te~ C~n;:"a:: be:~~~"
Te"~'es;c!: Gas Pt~e: lne '':'),
i~C ~as~ln Wis~e all
Le::er a;~erj~~t re
O.5~:$i: of .a5~e :r!::~~i
c.,,:~:. C:';.oie", Je!':":/
T::-e ~rf.: I..as~ In
T~R eval~a~i~n of
feas~::ll::y of ~nc:r.~;.!~l':~
r.,f !I~~.~.-3~ ,.i: C':~~3::..;~:;
:C=~ at le\'e ~:, .~;: ~':. s.:..:. ~;.,~
See:;:; : n; res'l~ t 5 ft'::!
tWo:' s~:lc:;e sa=;:es
Let:er aavis:-~ tnat
Suli(~!' 1025 :::-es I'W)t
contain any PCB's.
C':2':k fT'l:lIll HFLJS~.ln .,f
Po~lar Oil Co. to Ur.icn
011 1ft t~e ~ur.t of
S54O.oo
IftvoiCi frat Popl ar 011 Co.
to LOC:~.e ""c:!'!ine Co.
Jefferson firm se~10US
polluter, U.S, says in
sui t
011 Cc,rcernir.; PCBs
Den1al of hincllng bulk
quantlt1es of 011
C()ntalnlng Pas
A~~I"::;7~7IVE R£:J!\: !N:S~
LaSlll!\/P'~plar 011
AS:'\~i::lla, Ot::u
,..... ..
"'-' ~:.~
&t-:~~~r.;~~r~l!
Las,:n Was;e 011 Se~v~ve
RC~:~2$ - ienn~ser 6as Pipell:-~
Br-:"'~i; r.;-F 2~!' 1 S
!",.a~=rs~c .. TRW
Erie ies::r:~ Lac,=,ra;.jrlfS
J. Taylor - Star~arc 011 Co.
~~aikin - Poplar Oil Co.
Poplar Oil Co.
Clevelar~ Plain Dealer
RR6~nroth .. UCC Metals Dlv1S10n
RF~ataruskl - B~).nln~-ferrls
RE::P:~;:
Le., :~, Ijc.:a -.'
Se...,::~
Q , ~ c:: & 3...
CC':'..;.~" -: n~'s
C':oC',;;,~".: :
..
'-: ':-~::':''':::.,::
t<:::It,i!'".: ~ r.;
j.: : OJ'::' :
U~~:!'I c:! ::!"'"I::! C:r.::-a:-;;
Lasim. ~:';;: 01:
Sel"il:!
DCe; T,! .. Eo:':'
Ki:SC" Ah:.~:!'\';:; &
C'a,
ICari<
Shears~rfe::1Qn
Co
Un1'~r. Ol ~
Lcc~e ~&.~r1e Cf.I.
FIFuSiJ"tl ~ I.Ct
AP~askln - Laskln
Waste
C.:1r"rES;;:', :,,: 2".=:
~~: :d;~.: : r.;
0.:-: :...!!~ "!: s
c:..'~~ :.: ~-:=x=
Soi~:: ::";::C~4
\...C:!"'!"'e=~.: ~;:er.=e
~:':er
Ac:~unt : n;
De,e u:ne ~ ~ s
NeMSCi~r Ar::c:e
JIIe!~ r ar,.: '.I:':
wrresp,:.rlCiu,ce
-------
Pa:= ';':.
02/~Z"'::
.,:,
...
r~:~::.: ~.~.;:: ~~
4 79::(1/11
12 ];/1c)/:2
10 7'?/:O/Zl
6 8(t:r:Z/O~
~/'::.:..'~~
s:.~:~~
5::, ::/~~:
1 e%~,,;)6
8C/(j'3,'l~
3 8110(:/')0
z.3 81/05/0it
4 81/08/00
1 81/08/18
10 81111/11
TIT!.:
~c~ :n ~lne~il 0:1 A';::~:~
E~.c il)s.:~; :;rC~~J:~ lr:f,:,rr':-i::: ",
sne~~s a~c cc~~:r~:~; ~~o:
lA::: .OS:i! oJ: 1 C'jn:a: ",$ r:,:
PCBs
Ac=~~'~:n; Dee!. re:
s~l~~e~~s of was~i! ~113
~, ~;lar with ccver
s.-==~ tl~le~ .Exr.i:::: ~/.
Shlp~lng au:~or::a~:~r. 3r:
te5~ln; res~!~s f~r :~:::
WQ5~e ~C: CiOG~:t~rs a~:
O~l--G~::!. WGi~c 5:'.l~::
R~,:~'r: cf ~~':~:! t:o~;'ie"':i~ ~;~.
.~:~ ~a$~lr.'s i~~Y re
>:ur:! Oi PC: ~:~~i~~~a:::.
~:'s
;::e ~Ir: :':r.: ::.
OC'.": ...:..-":~,.
... . .. .. _,.2 ..
5.... ...
. ~. . ...
lOC~~2: O~ P~r.e St.
c.jnt~. iC-;
f,~", Oll/j.ji:ir
re~I"" a 1
Direc~lve nc~ ~o US!
Lask.n Ww:e ail Se'.'/ice
Lft~ers re;irCl~g
IinlflSt
SOil inG Grouna Wa~er
Stuqi
Prc~uct Inforsation she!~
on EnerglJ 1 Ii.P
Lubricating Hydraull~ all
Certlfi~ate of Analysis
for 1-sample for EP-
toxicity of .aste 011
druID contents
CertifIcate of AnalysIs
AC~!~lST~AT:VE RE::~ I~X
Lask:n/Pcc!ar all
AS:'1tob'lla. Ct\:~
~L :r-.C~
",::: I ~:: - TS:
R~3.i.~~j~~. - u::
Ka: 3e~ Al 'J~': ~:.:::
c.::::s Ir;~!., Inc.
:~.~~;:~ - ~.:.
~J...9'~~3c!': -OE;:
Ka~S2~ Al~.inu= ~.
WE?c'9can - TR'eJ
R,so.:, r:!Y - ~P!
K~iS: - Soil ies:ln; :ervl~es
SCHIO, Boron Oil Co., & 8P
"lcrooae Labc,rat~ries
'hcrobac LalY.'ratc,rIe5
RE~ ::. !::'\~7
K..~ ! ~) - t!.::
~_iS;"lr.
L~ ~a~:'a-~a:s:~
Al:.:~.n:.:
~:..:t,;~.
- c:::::.
C~.~';~~:
,.,-- .
- ..;:..-~
Pc.e!a!" Q:: C:.
s..n 1 a - TF.\i
Laskl~ W~!:e 0::
Service
DP;pc~e - US~~'Q
lYiser Al'J3lnUIII
Ku~r Al u:1l rlu:a
~::~..~'... ~~.::
Sc~':~: -; :.::ci
C.j"~H::'':=':=
~~:".1.~:~;
u':~'';~:~;: :
~~~-a:~
I'.;A-"-'. --..-.,
"""'-,~-"'-, ..:1.. '. i
!i~: :~:
'oCr: ,. ~ -:: _:~
.~::'.:': ;:.
c..:~-~"'~~
1IIe~'~ a!"tC '~:J
Cc~~e= ;.: ~;C~!,,'~~
Rep.:r-: s/:~ ,~: :2$
Qt:'\e!"
S.;r.~lln;iCo:a
s..~:;: ~J;/~a:..
-------
p;;~ N'~,
02/12'82
13
!~:;X ~~E5 ~~
1 8:'12/,~
2 az,"jl)'(:(;
:; ~/(a)/(,w~~
4 S",'(..:;':O'
7 e~ '\', :':
~ 82 :,):/.:.~
1 82/(:6/;2
1 8Z/(;c/:5
1 82!CO/16
1 8Z/06/16
1 82/06/16
TITL£
for Y~lSir 40. Pres; 5:uc;~
a~ "DPI~ Was~e
~,aricterizat~on
Re?~r';
E~!"sing sall1;)llr.~ ~a~a
f~~ 8FI storage tan~
~t~ of telc~ns =e~.cen
~ and USE.:)~
Ncotes of pnc.ne I:Onve~"Sa~: or.s
.lt~ Wn~hill:ps re Tnw
dc~ur.~n'; subm:t';al and
~uest for seeting
N~tis of varicus pn~~e
c3IIs betke!~ ~~ and
Se"or& HI Jui y ar~ HI;;'lS:
t':cZ
~tes of varlvUS ~~~~e
~r.v!~sat~ons ce~we!~ Sf:
a!'~ tr:~~ in JIJ!':: ar:c
JIJ!j 1~:2
Re~isc~ Propr.~3~ ,
for Re~iC:al ActlOr. P11n
PhON! convel"Sat 1 on II i tn
.IlCNes: Ruaber Co. .r.ere
they agree to submit
~r~s related to Lask:n.
R~rd of phone c:onve!"Sition
btbeen USEFA and Be~,in Inc.
Record of phone conversatl~n
brtMtrn Pickands Mather ind
lJSa)A
Retord of phone conversatlon
bet.een General Refractorles
and USEPA
Phor:e cony. MIttl Locke
~c:hine Co., Leroy Oavis-
Plant M~r. agreeIng to
sub~it records relate1
to Laskln.
~";~!57R~TIVE RE:::JfW INDD
Las~~n/P~~!ir Ol!
As:::ac1Jli, LII1C.
~;:~OR ,
RE::::'!EIt~
:~\1:~'=~"wi;r. - ~;.
~~~..,~ - :[;:.::.
1\1'1-, ...:' - -,-:
1.'-..... -' ,...-
c.:.r-":::: '::'::
c.:010::~ ',: :;: : : ~
~e:"'~r"=
c.:~:!:'"r,: :::: ':~:
Re,::r:
f".........., . f/IIO -. .. ...
""";""". .'O _.:. . "",
F.~::-:'''~
C::i;;;! -' : = A: : : .
!"e::~.':
SC:a.a::~: - CE~
D~:' :';;n~:o:" - ~:..:. C~;:"
US~_.
:".'~
USEPA
C:a~'.l!'.: :Ii~ :.:.~
Re-:::,,:
c.:~';~:: :a::: r,
R!'::,~: .
CJz!n1~n:::-;~cn
P.eo:-)I':
C('r.lDU~: C it:: C\n

reC:'Jr:
ec'r.IIlJt'oI c: at:: ~n
Ret=or~
-------
..;e ~,;.
~/W:.c
III
:s::) !:'~~::; ~7~
1 ~',~:/1E.
1 8;:(i.'!7
! e~ '~'t...~7
1 8~J.:i/:i
D.o- ,,',. .~
.....:. '. to j . .
! e~.'..::i
TIM
Las;. 1 r./P.:,~: ar ~:: :"': ~:~
C~n...e":.i~ lcn ...:t.- S~',e~'o:.:I's
Rece,r: of ;:'''o:r'~
~:nvers~t:v~ ~::-
CS:n: th - LeC ~
As~ta~ula fa:l1:~:
De!ual of ar.y gl;: 1 ~ :Ii'
Ohio 9r~a:~ & ~~:~e C~.
.
thrc~;~ t~el~~~~:e: ~f
I:Ofi:rl::u::n;
vlc,la-: l,~ns.
:c. ar;:,
AC~;~;:i~~71VE RE:Ur.~ :~~£I
Las~ln/!:'Q~!ar 0:1
As~ta:'ll~a. OhiO
Aln~'C ~
RE:IP IE.liT
Q~:_"~', - 0':::
PIc;:., ~ 1 at i~; pr.:.r.e
~~nve~Si::~~ Ni~~ ~~
re IE:~:~; i~~ ~~i:
ir.~!~r::2i~ 1t)n ne-e:e: ~I:
ael~~s~~a:e nC~::i::~::i
P.e-:,"jr-j. ~,f pn':ln~ ~:.,. .~t":a~ ~:'"
.::~ Thc~i; S~:.;~~:~~, a~~j.
f~lr' ~~~~::t"S :.:,
Pt.cr:e :tro',e~a'; :,:r: w: ';~
~tl..:~, Ir.c:. a;~!g:r:;
t~ subz:: ~;r:s r!~a:e:
tc usk In.
,c.-,
u.;:-~
Ja:oes Alar;r..-jl,..:SC:" c.:~~"~'::::::'
Alu.lln ~s: 'I':
. .... '. . -.... , ..
_. '.. ..Q....
c:: :..:
A. :':::"An~i"lCn~!s~:-ri, Hur:, et a~.
Cit~!~.ne f,.'/C .
U5E.~
::"'r::::"..:=~::
&:II:~:-: - US:;..
CF ~x - \JSE;A
~:-:.:.~a" :.:~.
Te',1:: e~,:,:', 5"1 ~h - t.-'££.::
\. :~,~.. :::~: :,."
.~:~:,.:
~::;.:.
C':':,":'.".::::: :..
:-,e::~'"':
1 8Z/:)~/17 Ph~r. conversatlon .i~~ US~'A  c.:~l,jn: :4:::-
  ~r;e We~ls ~f Na~:onat   ~e::~:
  F~r~e Mne~e ~e a;~s to   
  su~it I"t:orcs of any    
  ~~pany dealln;s wi~~ LGsk:~.   
1 8'" "/'." ,.- .Phont conversation wltn U5:?A  c.:.;';::.H.::..: : c r,
,. Jt,. ./ 
  O\io _Iroicn & "i::-: 1 r.e Ce.   Re~~t':
  .n.... they agl"!f te. SUMl t   
  any ~rds I"tlated to Laskin   
  and I"t!qUKt S a Wr.l ng.   
1 8Z/06/1i Phone conversation with US~A  C,.l1:;jar.: C:o'; : c ~I
  Charles Patters~n,Chlef   Re::r~
  Engineer - "ereer For;e   
  Mho a;rees to SUC~lt rec~ras   
  related to Liskln.    
3 SZ/Of./17 Confir.i~g agree~ents  a:::;:u t ~ - I£C CfClX - US::PA c.:.rrc::: :'~: ;!r,:~
  aide I"t Sijperfund claiM   
-------
).;~ ,';:.
IS
.." ," .....
J... ...;.::':
I';:::: ~~G::: DAT!
3 6Z!0E./17
&.'0€.!16
1 &/Ot/18
e~/()r../ ~e
1 82.'(;€'/18
... .' ,..- .."
co:.. '.,~; .Q
C~ :t.' . .:
"".... ...c...""
8~ II'., ,. c:
,.,. .'..,.""
1 &:106/:8
A:~rs:ST;A7i'J£ RE:JhU I~t£x
laS~ln/~jptar 0.1
Asnt aOu~ a, 0:1: 0
TITlE
~~~
Re~con~e to 6/:S/82
tele,="nfe,.e"~ .l~:-, re~.)I~s.
Lec,:j' ~a,:;s - lOC"e "Q~:"e C~"
Re:or~ 0' P~I:;l".e ~nve!'H: l~r,
ce:..e~ U;:;~ an: B~;:
Re~~ of pMM c:t'nversa: l"n
be~liEeT'l CO!Qf,1e-.lal Shear:n;
and ~'A
Re~)ro of ph~ne c:t'~~e~~a~.~~
be:illi1'E" Ge~.e!'!l E~~~rl:
and US£;'~
Rec:'.~ of ~'ne ::-nverso~ :on
be:~n Co;:2!"'1ielc ar': U:s:~
CJ~~:r~:n; a;:~:~:=rl: to
senG ::.C!;aI21'\': S
c..=:x - ~:~
E~~~$ln; ~R~ 1:s: ir.:
~n! l~l~S a;,-e::;
-------
p, ; €I ~.:.
:).;.: lZ/e5
1~
IN::~ PAGE: O~~
1 82/06/19
1 8.'2.'1)6119
2 S~. (,f:: '?
1 ea/06/Z1'
1 82/0£/21
1 8C:/06/21
1 ~/06i21
1 82/06/21
T!T1.E
~.nVel~at~vn ~f b/:7/S2
1" ~~:ch ~~~par.y a;gr:~~
to::' se'C c~p:es of al J
doc~1e~:s re:i~l~g to
Lask~n/Pvclir.
Ccr. f 1 rill. '; Ion of pl':vn!!
co~versatlun uf 6/17/8Z
in Mnlch Notional For;!!
a~r!!: to senc the ~~~
documents of any dea!:nC~
tney loy hive hac wi~h ~asJ:~.
Let:er er.clOSlr.; lis~ cf
.~rl.a~y. g~'u~,PRP lis:,
\:.j;:y of Koppe!" invoi::es ar.:
pl!!din~ ecve~' s.":ee~s.
C:.nflMlS
~~~e ~".'e~a~:orl o~ E/:7.::~
lliher9 K-:.p~!"'s a5r9~ t.: se!'~
all d~~u~~ts re:it:~; t:
La5~.:n~';::!a~. .
~~~:~~4~lC~ ~g~:=~ re:
te:!~~.:r'.e ~r."'!~i: ~Ijn .:f
E.I: 7/SZ .he!"!! it leiS a;'''!e:
that ~m!r F.)r;e .i 11 s~
all aocu.ents relatln; to
any trar.sac~ions .it~ La5~:n.
Rec,rc ~f phQnt CQ"Versa~:on
bet we!\'I Cupes ~nc: USE.:'A
Record of ph~ne ccnversit:cn
bltMltft BLittle - 8F! ane
USEPA
Confirming ~1'5 agree~e"t
to send dccUllents re
transac~ions with Laskin
Waste Oil Service
Co~finlln; phone c:onV!!!~it lvrt
in IIHch Atec agreed tl)
prQdUC1! doc:u..:ents
Enc!osing PRP list inC
c:onfirllng agr!!!!~nt to
send dCC'JtllH,ts relating
Ar.,~;~1:-:'~A~:~! ~,E~~ I~:~X
Las~:~/~0p!ar 0::
AS~'~i:...:a, ()1:c,
1'II~"1"~
1'0\,;. '\'."
RE: :~' :S\:
~.!"',.:.~f~~i::~:"', I"v:
Ca~:-:~"::~ :;. - ~~:~
6. .e ~ ; s -'j~: : : . ~:
F,j:";C:
Cat~e~:~e .~~ - ~'~
Thcl~.:s
Be..""V"Gt'-~ ," ...,.=.~:
~ .'... - .. ~.... -
CQ~~.=.'~~g ,~\o.
- ~S.:
~. :,2:- :..::. -.';'"-::"
F,"'-:
..' ~..
OJ 0)( - I.E:-A
B!~t'inSC'n - 81;:
cc:.. -:\ - ~ ':::
c: ...~~:.: ~::E;.c=
Cc r.~~:: ~,:::,,::
...: ~"~::: ...:?~.:=
c.:,gI:i:''::I:: i: : c.r,
lie:J~
(::fQrlj~~~: ::::: ':~I
Re-:':r":
C.:.rr!5::,r.-:~t1C:
eLFc-. - 1.~;'A
6Weiver - ~i!': 1 nc. Cc.rl~;~:,r,::2r:c=
a..Fox - ~ .
JPlcrin - CoICer': 1 al Col'res:r.r,de!'\C1!
Shrng
-------
Ij~;,? ~..".
u.::::~/~
17
n::~.' p~.;~: Den
1 8,)(.'£/,:
1 e.2'::'~'.2:
5 8;:;/:;:'/;;:
1 82/(:6:,2
1 82n:.'~~
1 8~..C:/22
1 &::!(-t/Z3
1 82 /lJt.iZ 4
1 ~/~/Z4
1 82/C6/24
1 82/0f,/,..
1 82/06/24
TIn.!
co trln2iC~I~ns .;~~
laslo;n Cll
E~clc2;~;'~"~ l~s~
Le~~e~ c:.::~~~~; :a:e:~:'e
~n.ers~;10n in .~.~ Ka~sef
I;res to se~ ai I d.j:s.
reli:~~; to tra~Si::~~S
M.:n Ij~:lar all c~.
Res~:~: ~f Inilys:s ~f
~.l ~~~~ ~:U~:~ a~~ ~a~~~
frc~ ~;l~~!l '~r;'? Cu.
Le~~fr s:atln; ~:-:it ~:'e,'e
MiS no a;~!!~e~~ :: ~a~:a~~!
I~:. t~ i"Y ~i~~i~
LG:~. ~r../~:.::;r.
"'e;:'~~~;
~':~!i ~ r:. Ml-:~ ~: i'":
~:!!:':"!"- at~i. f:'~ l~ ~~ :.~
Ir:Cf~i~~'~e-; ~: Gcr.~e:
a~y :~i::V!~~-~ ~:~~
~a:..'~r,.
P!'\c.ne ~'n...ersa: l~r. .:::'l
R~n Les~:e ~f P.c:~"~t~ Ir.:.
Nner! t~ey re~~es. a eee~:~;
In: igr~ to fur~i5n any
d.)c~Pe~ts re~at:ng to
Las~lr,.
R!C')rc of ;3t'Ic'~ ~onve"Sit ion
bt~...en &"1 and l.'S~A
EnelCSlng PR~ list
EnelMing PI1P list arid
confiMling Igreement to
send do~'JII1en~ i
Phone call: le~t 8!ssage
.ith 8er;unce~,of K~ppers
1"1: lleetl ng
ConTlr.lng tel~~n and
~~es: f~r doc~~ents
~ reviewing wastes sent
At"~N!S~~~iIVE RE~O?~ I~D£l
laskln/~~)o~.r Q11
Asntab'Jla, ()1~"
AU7HQR'
~_:~'A - US~'.:;
Co:~="~:"e FI=:-
- ~::;~
Do~~el N~r~3~-F~n~le~:h~.~i=~2
~~:er; K~,c,tjf~ - ~::a:k., Inc.
!..:~::.;
us~.:.
CLFox - USE;A
c..F .)x - USEPA
Catnerl~e Fvx - us:;~
JT~~h'?e - L&~A
LFChar la - 6M
RE:;c.::y
.;:~:~:~:: - T~~
Jc:;~; ;~=r.._..:: :~'
A: ..;:.
J.:~~'l:-~;::=";~
F,:.r;!
Co:~~e":",: =:- -
t''''-- ..
'--=~-
BL: t ~: = ... S~:
5RE~: - G-:~:
Ele~~~~=
JaCkson -
wppe~-..el~
CFox - l.&.:A
DC::.:":',- n:.:
C: ~~es::. :="::
;....:~..~::: "':=':~
- . .
.."... ....... .....
-~ ....... : - ~ . ~
~'''~.e::-: ~:: :-.::
,..~v.. ,. ..........,.
,.,...,. ...".. ....: ....
~E: ::.:
c.:,~~~~~" ::;.: ~:.
Re~:-:
c.:~~';:"::: ~ ~ :':",
~e::t"':
Ct:1rr~s:.: ~~ ~r::-=
c..:r~",= : : : r(: : ~
CcCiin;un.CQ~ ~;r
Re=" rC
Correspc,r.~e:~~
Cvrres~:'nC2~C\!
-------
~ l;C: ,~;.
0':'1 we:
1:
~~.:~: c...:.~;~ ~7:
~/~":'/~ '
82/(.=/~~
e~ I"" ' :.~
.....' '..''''''
82/(;6/26
ez/~ '29
S~,\ ~/2=
"
.
e~ ':i::
~.. .. ....
... . .-
00A. . - --
A~ ...-,; ':~
~,...../..."",
D~ 'f'" '''''''C
IX;.:~I';-
6::,/<:;£1,,9
82/06/29
&:/06/28
2 82/0E./2'3'
Hit!
to ~~Si\:t! i?':C :rl~er.: tl:
at ~errC '~5!"; ~ n~
~'h.:,ne :C(,. f~ ~(j:::e~s:
WIll a~~erf.: :we~:~n;, l,,(\k~r:
f:~ r(L:~~':;. "111 c,=c:e.'a~:.
Ccnrlnmi::Cr, of pr.v~e
C',n\;:~a: ~ vn re':; I.es: ~ n;
C~~l~ of Ka:ser a~~~e~~s.
.
C,:.nf:r';:r.; 'Jeet HI;
Cvnf~rm~~: ME!";:n;
C:,nf:t":11: ~;
.et; : ~;
C.:r.~ ~ r:I;~;
r:!!~ ~ ~.;
t..~.~. ~ : ,.::~.;
~ei';: ;;;
iA...;. .--..-
-- .....' -."..
=::~:: ~ ~.;
C:~~:~2~~; ;c~e:~:~:
OtC:e~~~;
Foi:e.-~~ le-::ar :G
pr.~r~ ~nVersa~I:r.
sc~~~n; Wlet~ns t~
C1SC~!S v~l~~~ary
C~23~~~ 'or J~ly
1, 1Se2.
. CorJi~;1r.1rl of IHt~ng
sdlldultcl for 7/1/~ t~
di~JSS vvlu~tarJ cle3n-~~.
ANlysis of SialC!es
Phone ~nvl!r~a~ Ion ..i tn
David Jac~bson of Pl!rfect~on
!AI". where they rec;';e~~
. Deftlng with the US~
and .gree ~o SU~=lt any
doc~nts cOnc!rnlng LaskIn.
Res~n;e to tele:~one
conversat ,.In oJf 61:6/82
A~~:N:SiRATIVE RE:ORD IND:~
Las~.n/PJp:ar 0.:
A;~ta:)ula, 'Orl1"
AI.F~C~
RE::C':::';~
Cat~~":r,e F;:t":"::;:;;'
Ja:.:?S G:cinr,-~.a.~~!" ItlJ~;r'lJ~
C~: ~~: 1'~: .:' t -i.;~;.::
J....,:,. --
I... II':':
I:~--"
\J:::'~'"
c;.~'e~:~"":~
- :~,"a~,
..~:::'~ee
- US:': ~
CCS.:;h - l£:
..:~:~~ee - US::.:~:;
J~:~ i~
~,~~;
- :.:u:~~:::: C.:"''''=~ :':~"=:~iC=
J~-:;~-:!
t!:;.: ;:
~~~r:i
- I~
:~ :-;e: -
L:S~: ~
-- -
~:"==: - ~..
t..e':::'~:
.;~:-:;=
7;..:.'::-~: "-
1'''-- ""
- ...::.-!"!
;. ~ :~. =:"~ = -t:..:,
Jl'!c;'h!,: - l..'S~:'A
WP-;~:: ~::; - r~..
Jo~a:~an ~:o~ee ~ us::;~
1'\!"''- .w:-,.. -.....:"
~....,. -" 1,--
c.: r;: .:" ~ : ; : ~ : "
"e: :,":
c.:.t""e;:~'. ::~::
c.:rr'e:::~;:;"::?
C~rr'e:::'~~~,:e
W)'t"::: ::"~:~~:
- ,
~,'''''':::: ~.::. ==
I.';:'''?;:: -=:" =:
'w:":""?~: :"::!".:-;
,I'br:,
A. ~C-_i~~~:;'-~~':~ ~r!~s:-:\'-=c:":.~
Jc,n..:harl ~~'l'ie-: - LS'A
Thc~..~
Be..g ,; r( S'"-T',.:-o=-e"-;
PWRe~s:un - DL.
PQBrlc:k
US£PA
R. Isrln;r1al;s-f'hcwes~Ru::::~rRe~!al:lln c.~~l!r:r.2 F'.I -
US~
Ce,r:,,?::: r..: :r::
Corres:.:.r.:=~=:!
c,Jmllln i c: a ~ Ion
ReC'JN:
Cor:'es~,=,r;~!!~~
-------
'.s~ S.:.
I?
)2/ ~.:.':S
Iti:::1 ~;:; DQ:E
6 82!OO/ZS
1 ~/u7 /(;6
1 8.2/0i /06
3 8~/C7!Ct.
~2. :j7:{.7
1 \I:' .,..- 'r.'"
....... '.' I..'
6' ,'- ..'.~
r..J I~ I I '. ,
1 82/07/08
1 8Z/07/0S
1 62/07/08
1 82./07/0';
~~;';::i~~7iV:: RE~R: IN::A
lds~:n::~:!ar all
~S:":Q:'Jia. Ohl"
TITl!
~..;~:
R£:!OI2i~
ind letter of 6ilS/S.:..
Cf.Iver' let ~ 2r f c,:- At 2!:
pr.,c..c:,: ~"r. .)f OOC'JCi2'\:~
t~ us::~~
6:.~s.er - ~:2C !r~.
C}'". - ~;;:
Re!::r: 07 tel~.n a~c
~uest f"r docu~r.ts
by Gen Electrl:
E~clt'S.rl; dcc'.we!\ts
J!"!:~I'~~ - lJ':::~
S~:HI: - Gel'
Ele':t!"l:
Requas~ f~r d'~'~1en~s
~~OW~!\~ tra~ac:tic~
bE':wE!!!'1 ~nrall an:
Laslun wista Ol! Serv.::e
J;; ~'":~:..:" = - C.)nrai 1
JJ\:~~:: - I:,;~';:
Re:~r: o~ te:=~n
:c':ili2:!"
Cc~es a!'1C ~s:;,
Re:'J!5'; fr..,' OC<:'.i~~;t s
- ge~a.~
J~:~"".=~ - US~:.:.
:..........~.,..:': :.
St":''''ln;
lli=:~l:Y tjf
~~;"'Q:""I
Phc.r.e :: ::'l5::'~!\ "f
Ca;~~~":~e ~':'A
- l.'::~~
lrpJ':':=E~
inC sao:~es wltn Be!";~~=~
of Koppers. ~.
Phone c:or.. c:orarntrl;
Bergun~er of Y~p~ers Co.
.isq~vin;s about ijpC~ml~g
1e!~ln;.
Ci~~e~:ne ~~X - USE~~
Give over the p/'Ic,r.e ~l'Ie
'i81 Ind idcre5s of ae!~.~;
to IIr;lJnder of Koppe1""j C;.
SlCNbry.
Cathc:r':ne Fex - US~A
Phone conversation Wl~~ !'Iarv
Patte~'n of "erter Forge.
~rc:rr l'IiS questlons a~ut
sampling p~tOC?ls,' l1St of
USE~ waste disposal sites.
SiyS Act~unting is lookln; fer
Laskln dc,CU»ents.
Catnerlne Fox - USEPA
Rec:ord of telc:on re stot~S
of GE reC'OrO seart.'
DC.:-..-~..- n;~
C-:'~..~~:..: r ::~ ~
c,: n ~. ;: ~: : :.~
ftS: :~'"":
CC'r!"es:-:,r.::y~
e:,t~!"~S; :r:-:=~~
C~x"~~: :;:;:'.
p':':'jr~
~:"."e!:.: "'c=;'~=
c..::~"~-.; :;::: ~
~=-: ::"':
ec.~ia~ ~~ :a~::;:
Re:-: :-:
c.:'IW~'~n 1:; ~ : '=':":
~@::.;!--=
~'~r::ca';lon
Recc~
c.coo11it,mlc:at :ojr,
Rec~rd
-------
~Q;e ':.
0'::/ ~2 i::
C"j
I~:::: ~~: ~.E
2 8c;Oi 1(1";
2 e,,'0;/l~
1 e2.i':'7/: ~
1 e~/~~/::
1 !~.~,. ':
. ~ 8,/~)7!:~
1 8:;10711:'
1 82/07/14
2 8C:/07/14
2 6Z/(/7/:5
TiT'':
AE's~:,rlse te. lE'ttt'!. t;,T
July 8, 19S~ .nd
eC;'Jl;){.It'.': a~p!"~vQ~s
R=-:';~=: ~y ;le~.f2:~:~'~ :~..c.
t:1at :hey oe tre~~e': as,
geri~a~Jr of be~i;n
~il as cthe~s have ~een
tr!i:2~.
~'~~,re ~,r,,*~~a~:c,n "l~~
aar~ Pa::er$~n ~f ~e~:!!"
F~r;e tell1ng h1. ne will
re:1!i ve a CO?y I)f p""c:~:.M!S
fer 501::lp1ing.
:~~~e c~n.:~Si~~:~ M;~~
TcrlY R!.;':':el'-U5~;' .i!.H:; h::
t,:. :~2:'" 0:"1: loc..;: g!Jl:i~;. e:
or tee~~l~Ue$ fer 1utsi:i
l::,ra':~~y testln; Qf sam:;::.
c:'...~!. le"re." tc- S:l:CU: ':':ci:
(jf aC:~llr'~~~; ~:-:~: :e:.::~:
Nl~~ ~1$~l~ WiS~2 ~:: a~:
P.:;:lar'
C 11 Cpo
Enc!OSlng ~~bl1 ~a':erlal
Sifety Data Bulle~lns ~n
Rirus 37, Mobll D1£ 011
Li;~:, ~bil DTE Oil
Meoiu=, ~jDl1 DTE Oil
Heavy ~i'JII, Mobil DTE
ExtrA Hlavy, liIc.bl1
Rirft "'7
Not.s of 8fetlng .1~n
PU:kar.ds lI!ather
FollOM up letter to that
of 6/18/SZ Dy Nat.onil Forge
giving waste quantitle5.
Cc.::?ero..elc Respc.nce to
Reques~ for Inforration
SU~:1I1 ~hl of dc,C'UDents
AL,,:INl STAAT;~ R.::::F.j INCEX
Las~ln/P'j~li" 011
AS!',tab'lla\ Oh:o
Q~~~:R
RCI. :ilJ~
- US:a
Ca'... ~::::~ - Qr~2r & Ha~::!':
Ca:~et'~lr~ r,:,M - ~-:~
Co:~.e":r.! F.:x - ~~A
"c:.... ~'i '; ~ e"s.:,r~~:":!" ~ ~:"";e
E.'t.a:r..v - PIc 0 1 : 011 Cor~.
6ec.r;t' Wells - Nitlonal Forge
LBGriffit~ - At~y for Cop~erweld
RE~!~!~f
1'1C~ir~s 1iI~:~:.
Ca~~e":~e ::. -
us;;~
Cot:-:e~~.~ =:.
us :::~
JBursley - i.iC:
LlrlCe nl v
tither: ne Fox -
lIDA
.mtPhee - lf~~
~be,.hal'~er .. 6er,eral Refractories ClFox - U5::'A
DC:..;~S.\7 ~;~
c.:,..~:: :.::"'::
c..:--<::::-::"<4E
c.:;.I!iI. ".: :~:;:.
~= :.:~:
c..-.,....... ..
.<1., ... ..=-...
~~:":~
:"':::f'~~ ::::::0
!J(i:-:r":
C:.r~!:,: ~:-:="-:-C:
~:ln; ~:';~
1ArM!S~~ r..:e',.:<.!
Ccrr!sC'.rr;;erc
Cvrr'~ :.:,~:c ?~~~
-------
Pi;e ~~"
0<./:2:::
2:
Ir;:::~ POG~: ~~7::
2 8~!07 nt
~.'O~/:i
1 8-:;,'C7.: ~ ';
2 e2.':)7,::
: Q: -:'
~ w.....J"..
1 8.;!(,;;2;
1 82/07/t2
2 82/07/2:2
S &:./07i"
2 SZ/07!c:3
1 82/C7/~6
co &:./07/2!
,"
TI Tt£
ErlClc's:~; c,:oe:.;ue-,t;
oe~~.lln; er.~:'s
~~i~sac~~:"~ ~::~
La;~:~ -a::e 01; SerVice
Ii...:, :.rc c f pI'!.jf.e c:or,ve:-sa: Dr,
be:~eer. ~~:~er:1al Shejrln;
arl~ t!E~:'A
C,ve" le~:e!' only to
SIJcr:::~taiof i dl'af~ Li:~P.
:~,='.l.:!e~:~ er.-;ltl~ '.T:":e
Deter:lni:.on of Pvty-
c~;'r.~te: 91~!~yls ir.
Trar.S.~~i~~ F,u:~ ane
~a5:e :~:.
~I~'~:":e:;;rl;
--".-..
I t:'_-.,..
or ~~:!S Qf ~~I~::~;
~I: :'.:~~e".~;
if;<: ~ur::-,e"
acv:::e -Jr, re-:'j,.c; s: ,;,.:~
C~r.~i:: s;~:~~::~ci: IJf
c:.':':~:;,,::. a~ M::'':~.~
for ~'nf:cerl::a::y
Rec';'r-: of pro':'TI! :c,r"
-------
Oc;e r..:,.
u.;/12/:2
,.
..
--
!".-. ~.-.- C,...
,,~:'.\ ,..~~:.: ....:.
, 8Cii)i /2:3
(: 82/07/3('
'3 az:,.:.:,/ze
8;;.":': "~2
~
e~ ":,6, :2
4 a~:~,::';2
a2/08/(.4
8Z/08/C~
1 82/08/0'3
82/0e/(J'3
8VOB/!E.
T!7"..E
~~:i?n::~~ ~; ~;~~:~~~;M ,
La~~ Sr:e i\~ tria: 1~ IS ~':
a ~jte',t: a: 1 y Res~ r,s I::: e
P';f'~~.
TI\\I ~~.: Ie! :.:' liS~;' :~ai:
-~~ eme~;i~~y rem~va~
::::on in neces:ary, and
-.:: rt~~va~ aC:l~r. sn.)Uld
be ~a::~ u~~ll ~~:~et;on
0; ~va~::"=: :')r. .,f al:e'""o: :',es
E~,::~s::"I; CC,:les of all
T~" j.:::,.:J:!r.:s 1"t1a': :r.;
::' ~~! Lask:.\ ~.
~:::!3== ':J~ :::~'~;:!'''~=
ar~
l~f:t~::,~f':
~y u-S;;';
C;,"'~r:;::..~,.,,:
;e~ ~ ~:":; ~.:.:,,"~~.
a~~'!i':'i-",-; re;:~:~~; .:;\!
e- :iir.~e ,'i :~::~J'.~"::
:i:..-:~'" :J:~::' o!"': :~:
~:-::-:~.:e ~~ :.,~~.: a~ :~i~ :,:r!,,!
t:-:o': Ka:s~'~:'1e .s ar:;)n;
t~e )1t~ as ~:: are
mi"'~rIS: ~le
fc:' ~i:ar::U5 wastes.
Re~wil of Re~~es: for
dcc~nts i~icitln;
Co~~ld llablllty
PhonI conv'rsatl~r. ~l~~ ~~n
L~lll of RGckhi~~ re:
Dc,cuaenti ir~ MEttlng da':e.
Re:~rd of telc~r. bet~eer.
Pl:~anas ~at~er ane USE~
R~r": of til:orl beti4ee~1
Interlake ar~ ~~EPA re
~r.ver'~tlon ~lt~ Biros
~tes of telcon bet~en
Cf.:x ane SBalr r!
Laskin Waste all ServIce
AD:'!:~rS7~~~;VE RECQo~ H;:~I
Las~.n/Pop!ar 0:1
A;~':at:'~la. ()!:~
~~:-::~
R~~orac~-~:t:;Jur;~'~a~~ ~r:i? ~;
WP;:-:l: l:os - TRioi
WF;~lll::s - TP.W
~- :.:.}( - ~~:,;
W~:i:;;~:~ - ~::y f~r :~:
J i:.~e s e: ir:r.-.~i: ser- H: ~: ~ :~~
L96ri ff: tn - Atty fe-I" ::.:,p~e!"We::
Ca~~e~ir~ Fex - ~~
REf:.:~ :~\;
5~e,,:~
U::~ :'~
it': :"'.Y &
~:::~
17(,1 -
e:'":~~:~~,
1::;1"\0:
-~'::...~
U5~:;.
C4~-.=.~: ~.=
,j7iP,:-':".ee
~l!':c'. -
;w::-;;
~~~:.:
- .:~~.; .....
1 ",: e.
.~ ...... ..
.. ---
... :'A- ~::..'-
u:~:.:
~::..'.::'.- ~'.::
C ~":":::: '::'::
... :..: "'~:.:.".::':?
C......",:.:-..-,.......=.. ...:
... . ._._1,_- .e
:.: "'.":=:: ," ::,,::
~"..: ," " :: : : .. : ; .' : =
. ," '":':'" . ..-:. ... =
"".' ......-. -- --
C;1"'~~:",::.:,-::~~-= i
C~~I~'~~;: :i~:: r.
~e:.~' :
C-:':='l:-,::a: :~~I
Re.:.~r:
Cc~:o:;~.:ca:: ~'r

rec.,!,~
CO~';~::i:::~
R~.,,.~
-------
r..;e N.,.
t~' !2:~
23
I~:~( ~:::;::: ~~7;
1 82/~;8: 1&
I ~,';a/!7
I e~/::,9i,3
41 ~;~a!ZI;
, Q: .~'~,
w ... .....--.
"
:~ "':.' 2~
1. ~/O~/(:7
Eo SZ/'~; /;)e
1 S2.'1):/lO
2 e2/:')9/!O
1 82/0'3/14
I 8Z/0'3/15
TITlE
Enclosir.; dc:~~nts
5o":<>:n; 8F!';; lnvolven:e":t
at ~tIe 5. a
Re~:rc of ~el~~ ~t~een
6en!!~al Refra:~ol'les an:
t;S::i'Q
Re~rd of telt".;,r. between
Pl:kan~s JIIather arC USZ:'A
~ 1IIe!~. ng
Fir~l Analyses Resul~s
f~ Sa~pl~n;s Su~eys
5/21/el an~ 6/24/9:
Fu:~l res~'J!'<5= ~o
lnr~~:~~n re~~!S. ~'~:a:~e:
In let~er di.i~ :/:3,82
ir( uc: re~~ei~ t~i~ all
clai~s .gol~~t it
be Mi~l1:rall~
Er~::s,~; ::::es
...
prl!:~ j;ra;:~: ~rc::
r-!~':Ir~
on Las...::'! Ol!
Sla Ins~ec~loTi
Doc'~nt Exenan:! .l:h
Co~es-vlllC.in
~'"CEIe~ts on er~ ~icle
eo.- llt~er to and
,lIpJlNt ion
of'Ohio B~ac~ & ~ac~ine C~.
.Shi~ing. Clocurae~ts.
No record of ene.lcal
COftpr.~itlon of liquids
Kop~ers Interoffice Cc.rr.
revltMing Bergunder's
files to deter"lne ~he
qu~ntitles of ..sta oil
MhlCh aay have been d:sposed
at Laskin.
Arr.:~15i~iIVE RECORD I~CE~
Las~ln/P~plar all
As.,~aoula. Cnlu
AI.!:~O~
c:..C'ox - us£.::.
D;~~~~ay - L~:~
c::::(.~ ';~ - uc:
7;~=~I~~2Y - P:::-a~=
'Io~:'i~t.
~,)jre - .At~y for C\7I~
TJ~inthey - Pl~anas ~,;~e~
K.~Jore-Sq~ir2s,Sincers
WWFals;raf - At~y for &Fi
J. k. [).ern - Kop;:,~rs C\7I.
&. Ce;::~:!y
A£::~ :E:'i:
w.r.:s;ra; - At~:
f,)l' 9ft
~~'l~~=r - u:~::;;
C='jr - :$:
;'=:1 ... ...;:::.:
.11Ic:-;~ - i.:~:~
n:~ - f:~:~
JI:!,::~~I:r ~;~e! -
L~
a!VI - IJ:::'Q
i'~'J~e!' -
Kup?eTS (;.:).
,.~. ..;,.- -," =
IJ\.,".... -' ,"'...
~,.~!!::.:' :;":;
C:;':, -' ::=.: ::.
"t:: :..:
C~'01:;';',::::: :.
KS:-: ,-:
~=~"i:~ .:
c.:.... ":-: :': "':;:.: :
. '.'..":':"". .:- .-",:,
... .' ....... -. ....
~::'":"'::
:: ..::~::
L..-;:-"~~ ;"~r.ce .:-::
c.:~~::: :',.: :",:;
Cur,?!:,:,r;,::',,:,:
Cor~:,:"r:C:5!',:=
,,~'-:. :~c i,if~
-------
~1;'? ~.
oz/ ~~/8a
~...
IN:~X PAG~: ~7E
2 &!O~/,:
1 B.:::lY;/22
4 82/0'3124
1 Si2/10/C5..
2 B:.: :UCi
1 82: lCI/07
Z 82/10/07
100 82/10/:5
1 &::111/17
S 82112112
2 82/12/22
4 82/12/22
TITlE
Re;ues: t~at Rc:~~~;: :2
de:etc( f~ t~~ 115: ;f
Pii;' s
Lett~!. i':"'~Sl"S ee-2"a:
""tors that autn~r repr~:2r.:s
the interests of t~e ~lt~~n
entitles in the Likln :ase.
L~atin~ inaividua: of&!te~~
of C!rtain :;~s
Pho~e ~Mve~satl0n wtt~
A~~re~ ~~andrt:~, a:~l'
for Ohto Broac~ & ~a~tr.e
C). de~ailin; ~e
atffere~ ~et.ee~ ~ii.:~
lr....;iCes i~ tf"itei' ':-:\.
~rlf:~Si: tC,r. cf p!'I,:-e
conve~Sit:cr. on 1~/~/:2
.~e~e ~~anori:~ aeeres:e:
~ar';ES :u:e on t~: ~i=j.:' '".
1 rIY': t:-S-S arre ~:~ :"1e e: &.: 2''''
.lt~ t~e IJS~A ab~~t t~:sl
gallr.,!! c1IIOunh.
R~~~~ of tel:on betwe:~
Inte~lake a~ USE;~ rt
exempting Interli~e as PRP .
Request to el.linate
Interlake 15 a PP9
Enclosing varlOU5 healt~
ind IIflty shnu on
"*1 products
Enclosing do:u:ents
I"eqIJested by ~
Attaching S~ary of
Analysis and ConcIUSlvr.S
USV~ and State of Onl'.) Y.
Las~in Weste Oil ~
~nfir.ing scheduled me'?tln;
Prel181nary ~s22ss~e~t
~C~!NIST~7IV~ REc:JRD INt:EX
Laskln/~opla~ Oil
Asntab',lla, OhIO
AUj'~aR
Rana~e Lesl:e - Rc=~-e~:
Juri!'" ;.
C' ~,2~fe. Jr.
- ~:~~::r. I~.
JP.~er~~~~a - Conrail
Cat~e!':ne Fox - t;5~:~A
r:C~3"!r~.:~-\.ies~':'''i, Ht;r:, ~i~~cr;~~: i:
TJMa~t~ey - PtC~i~S ~at~er
E.'ilie,:'Y - l'Ic,b: 1
S~eac - General ElectrtC
J/ilBruc:k - Pe<::Ct,
TJMGnt~ey - Pickands Mather
KGKrueger - Ecology & EnvirorGEnt
RE:PIE,'(;
J.~~e! - u~;;~
L. C':a<,. - S"'-::"i:
~~,~f~
J1'c:~!! S CFo -
L'S~.~
Ca~.~e": ~:i ~.: -
u::::: ~
~~ee - l!5~~
CSeld~rf - Ge~e~sl
El~
CFo. - USE.:'A
TJ~nthey -
PicKanas !IIt~r
J~Phee - U:E?A
~
Cr-' -:. - -r:
.....- -' ~..
c..:~'~::::~.::o":?
c,,: ..~~::: ..--==,,:?
C;;'t'''e:: :.r::~r,Ci
c.;<...;,;-::..~ :c~,
"-0 ..~-
"C'..., '.
c: )".;=:: ..~;: ::
(:.:.;010; -".: :..:: ;.r,
Re.: ::.:
Ccr~es~riC~",~
C'lr~c:::-::,:,,;ae~
~t~SX~:!n..~
~r~::r.:e~~
Cc'r:"'?s~;,nce:~
Rep-:r'~ 51St 'J~: e2
-------
~;e ~:.
~/12. ::
~
...~
;Nr::~ ~~S D;::~
131) 8Z.' 12/2:
.,~.
--
e: 'C;!('~
2 S:/Ol/lZ
3 a~/O:,'ie
&:.If)c..'2S
2 e:. '::. .:.:
~ Q ~ "~ "':
- -.....'...
, eZ,'C3/03
<\ !3/0Z/:S
83/03,:'3
<\ aJ/OZ/21
1 !3,O:/22
1 eJ/OZI2S
2 83/0Z/Z0
TITLE
Sta~i!lIIent of Nc,n-A;~: .ea::;; tj
P'Jrsuant t,) the ~et~;e'J(d
Exe;1;~ .or. ur,::e~ CE,C~A
S~~~.~ary of Pe~:~' Rev:E~
Aetlvltles ~e LaS~lr.
AcCltiona: inforsit;on rei
..s~e oi~ cons~.:ut.~~.
.
Re~'Jes~ to re~:.::,ve Pl:I<..r:ds
~a:~e~ f1~1tI ;:IF;' liS':
Re: te"at lon of ."1!Ci'Jes':s
for ~ to ~nc'Jr III t~
Stat~~er:t of ~~n-~::;::;~::l~f
un::!' oe';Mi~\l1: exE:::t :-:r,
to:, CE:~:-_A aM f.:,r
ac:.:r.:-i ~~;~r;er.~
l!~:it5! ':Ir. re:::r::5! ~:~:(r:s
perfor~e: Oy t~eL~~:~.
Nt::::! :e~:='" t,:,
f:rs: tle!' PR~s an:
R~IJ5!st fljr cleaMo
uss.--A invltat1cn te ~r.::~:';
r:-esPl)nse ana reteC 1a1 a::,; 1C:':5.
FO:A Reques':
9F1 R"pljnse to Not 11:e
Lettll"
~l.int frl)m first tler
COS. re 3/9/Sj letter
frol USEPA
Resoonse to Hot lce Lette!'
R~rd of telcon between
USEPA and Pickards ~ther
re res~or.se to notl~ letter
Re~~est for Informat11)n
A:~!~:Si~7IVE R£::?: I~~~~
LaSkln/Poplar 01:
As~,:ac:u!a, On!')
AlJ7~C~
Ce,r:ra: !
C:a~' i'I.:,~1( - a~:l' fer Pe!'fe:';;vr,
T J!"ir,:~,!!t - p;:L'ar:cs 1'Ia';~er
JR~c!,c-,\o"a - Cc,r:r..; 1
&. ::~.s:~~.;=i~ls - l:s.::'~
B;;:.,:. r.: ~ C ... ~ ~ : : s
- ~~:~
&0511 Co~s:ant!!~~~ - US~:~
CtSL1~:~ - uc:
~Fa!sgraf - Atty fo!' 8FI
KC~;or~ - At~y for Cu~es
~:~; !:.~-
Ca::'1e"lT,e Fc~ -
C$'A
JT~;~ee - U£~~~
c;.c.~. , J~;::'"1!!!
~;,
R.~es;:e -
..:~...-:. .
~;:~~::~:: - 7~~
N. ~errlst!:~~,.:?c-:
.~r. ~
eGC~~tin~!:C$ -.
US:':'A
BC-C~nstant~:~. -
US~A
~rrSt..r.~c~:.
USE~A
.n,?;ioIers - Atty for ec>lolr:M!r'c!il Shr; ~nst.rla:J. -
~A
~6reenberq - Ea;le Plcher
8GConsta~te:os -
USEPA
c.::. -:': -,::
C": - ;.,
.
...-:'" :.,
I..,:~...:: :J: "": ;".:!
!-: ~~.: :-.:" '=:'::
t..,...: .....~~:::'r.:~':~
. .....-:.:-,...-:"....:
-- .....- -- -.
~~ '.""";;:=;~t:=.(-:
.~:":-f:~:'~'::=.;::
t:.:'~~;::r~e~.~
c.-~'~~:rC:rr:-:
c.c:"~:-:Tl':e:'~
Cc::":"es;c:r~~r:,;!!
Cr;s'~r.l::at lCr.
Re':':iI"U
ec.r~:x,~er;c:!
-------
J:ti;~ ~.:.
0211.? 12:
,~
INC,£} ~~~~: 0::7:
2 !Z/O;/31
11 i &.:/vlt/(:c)
1 e:/O~i,7
, e~/'j4,'~!
e,z/:::5;(!!
c I:~. 'r: . '.7
- ..,..... ..",,1 '..'.
a.;.':;~.":'5
1 S:..~.~.~'~
1 SZ/lj 71(:0
1 .83/Ci/21
4 8Zi07/,:f.
66 !Z/07/2';
2 e.;/OS/0'3
1 83/08/12
2 83/08/17
TITlE
R~I;~$t fer re5::.~e
Rer,:~~:til A.:. l.:,r. !'a~:2"
Plan (R.~~;"
is; ResD~ns~ ~o E,~
not 1C:e leta" ar,C TG=
Re~~es~ fer Inf~~~at:~~
.
Of f eO' t:ly O!'\ l': 91"':a:~ &

Mac!'\:ne CJ. t~ set:le

.1~~.t~e uSt:~ t~elr
flnir.cli~ 11.bl:I~Y,
R~~e5: f,~ %eg!:~;
Re~a; of 3j':.~:
iriC rec~!:-; f~t"
c iar 1 f: :it :.:.r,s
le:~i~
R~'!e5': fljr 2e:::~;
Hi~::W..:~~='" -:-:-:a ~
Ce,nra:l as a ha~ii~-::)';:
was':e ge~~t'a:.~r
,,:\. SIte Su:cal"'j
6/1! prepal"tC t~ pMviae
EPA wltn .11 sn.~oin;
dOCUle~ti in its possessl~n
Coa8ents and su;;estior~
on NAy 1983 letter
f1'Q8 SA
A~rN!S:RAi!VE REca"D IhC~~
Lask:n/P~p!ar all
As:'1taoIJla, ()\:IJ
A:.JT~OR
RE:!~ rr;;T
JRJe"c~~ra - ConraIl
B":;~v~~or,:=~:-c:. -
USE.::~
~~ HIll ar~ E~lv;y & Er.v:r~~~~~~ ~S~~
EI3,".:.c.r-e - rs;
Bsc.:.M:=~:c: ::
US£~~
Ar::rgw "':~=r'::':~-ioie~"C>r\, Hllr::,~.. a~
J~r!~~;~
~~~I~!"'_:~:';';'
s"::: - ~~~~a~ E!:~~ric
J!''':~'-::i - \..~::~
Li~.:s: - ~::i '.)r e-.
~'-,~::a'''.~:.:: -
~..:.
S~:== - S:~~~i: E::t~r~:
J~:~-~ - ~'::':
US~A
LETosl - A~ty for ~
B"'~nst i:O:: c; .~: -
US~
KC!'1c.ore - Atty for c:.:,ces
B6C"rrS~ irlt = ::.: -
U5£"wIA
York Plin Field Inves;:;it:on C~~~ Hll~ ana Ecol~gy & Envlror~nt US~:~
Feasibility Study
Notice of a possibly solvent
suc~~r to Sta~dar~
Transfol'1ler. .
Confirslng ~eetlng and
agenda
Request for USiiPA to
M!~gni:1! Cop~ not PRP
~::_..~.,- -,::
::....;:::..::..:?
.~::..~~
..'" .... .. .
_: ""'? : : : " : :. :?
c: ".'C?::: ...:: ".:-:
c: '"~'::: : ..: ~ . : =
- :.r";:::" : =.. :;
1".:....'-ctE:-:":=' ::
.~...:",.,::,;~. \:.;:.:
:.;: "'.=~.
~;:-~"g:: :~.::.,:~
C,:r"~::: r::p .::
Re~.:.~t ~ /:: ';::::
K.'Ioorl-Squ I M!, Sa~:oe~ et al
£tCQn!tanu: os-\.~S: A Corres::-: r:c",:<:
SReac - ~rleral Elec~rlC
J~t,ee - tF.E~
KC."Ioore - ~ty for Copes
9'3Contiintebs -
USEP~
Ccrr~~: :' r:d :~c:
Cc.rres p.:,~,: e!":Ct'
-------
Dia;~ N.:.
02/ !~/ ae
,7
l~~~~ ~~::::s O~~E
2 8j/0:/00
. e~ /:)9/C\~
1 e3/;~/ l~
j e3/(1'?/! 9
1 ~/(J:/Z-:
5 !~1~)9/30
1 elt"('~/:2
2 ~. .:,::7
2 8"!')2i:~
5 84/03/22
39 84/(14/30
7 84105/23
~ e./CE,/25
Tm.!
lf~;>.:) ~s=,:r.=~ te.
9/2/e~ le~~er
Draf~
Off~r t~. e;(:~arl;= c.;C"~';er,:;
C,~nf~~~lOr. 6f ~j PCEs
HI TR1n 5,.1
Nc.~?S of ~~~ng
~ sawO:ln;
TR;~ 5C~ ~)t ha:a~~~s
-a;te ur~2r RC2~
&::f:\:t 4!~ cc-es r".:
c-)r.:..:~ ;'C;;'
R~~~~~ ~~ r!&~al~ ~r~~
aC~;Qn un~:l fur~~er
d: s.:us;i.:ms
wn"a: ~ Re::'~~:==
fe.r infjr:!:~::';:'1
:.:. ~:-:;l5?=:
Oeta~: of SU::!S;CI'
~;a':lyns~i;l
of Scnl~scerger Ltd. to
Standira Trinsformer.
~citlonal inforqatlon
shc""ln; that Cepes ~ste
oil .as not ha:ardvus
undlr Su~erfund act
- ...- .'
Final-1ocused R~oial
InvlStigatlon Feasiblllty
Study - Liquld R~cval
ReqlJes': fc.r ans.er to
April 1984 letter and
affirlJih"n of .illingn!ss
to continue ne;~tiatlons
Rer:e-al of Copes Reque5~
that SPA rec-jgnl:e tha~ It
is no: a PRP
~!N::7?~7IvE R£CO~D INL:X
Lask:n/P~plar all
AS:1:a:Julia, ~l,"
~:~.:=!
&:::: r:~ ~ an~ e l os - US::=-A
L:-:- ~ s: - Qt: y f t:tr 6,'"
~_~:7f - ~as:er Chemical Cor~.
r.~S~l\r ~ ng . !i\as;el' Cne~: l:a1 Ccr~.
JF:~~J - 60J 1 f
~~i~~o~ ~ At~j f:r S~
J~... :":~'.:.a - er..r,~a: ~
Jljr-:~rl Th,~:s~rr-s....., 1 u:::e'1e!' L t 1:.
~~~~ - At~y for ~ces
RE:IP IE.\ i
Lr' ~s 1
6!'!
- ~:!' f::1~
BG- .
-_.~r.-:~a:"':~::; ..
us~~
D\.."\l tltlQn . W~:
DWt'n~Jar, - C::eiE
0\...,: ~:;l.iar. - Co;:.i:
DA:':l:!"~:~
- ~.::::.
J~C:1":~;
- ~~:.:
J. ~~e~ - ~:::.~
B6:Un5~ar:t;i:~: -
US:;'A
~ Hi 11 and EI:~logy & Envlror.:aent USc;~
KC~o~ - Atty for Copes
KC~CI)re - Atty for Copes
BGC~nstar.teI.:.s -
~
~Mtana;os .
USEPA
DC:::..-:E.~" ~T~;
c.:.-~::.:r..;:'~
c.~ "..:=:: r'~=" ::
c.:,'.~::r.c:r.~
r:::: "':; "'::::
~:'~"~:~:!".::~:;~
\",.::'"?~~:'~':?''' ::
c: ""~:::'!'-::."'::
::.;-": ~ : : ~ .: = ..~::
C:.~'~:::r~=r ::
~~".~::--:.~~~~::~
Re:::: ~.~ s/s: ~:::::
c.:.rres;;:ro=~C!!
c.:.r~ s ;.:.r:e;:r,:<:
-------
~a~= '~~.
~/;2:::
,~
H.:'::.I, ~':';~3 o.:~
, 8~;Q7/C3
1 8iti(;'3/2S
.: e...'~Ol(;:
~ ~ e~ I !!:;/.)~
2
e~:: -::,. : 7
.
.;.
o.:.,::/:~~
: E: ~'~..'~S
Z. a:i'~I1/':~O
£4 8!/U5!Zl
l€JS 8~/t)8/(:()
3 85/08/15
2S 8c.iOlt/CC
3 86/06/12
3'3 8f./Oe/~"3
'3 8t./09/16
34 8£/11/00
TIn.E
H2a;~~ lSSues r!:a~e:
t~ TCCJ
"'~!"ce!" For";e' s r!~~eS~ to
t~e ~=~ that ~~e:r ~e5~~~~
to the A;Ency's lr.f~rma~lon
- r!~'Jes~ be tM!ate~ as
C.;"nf1 cel"t li1 e'JS 1 r.ess
lnf~,r'.st l-:.n.
Flno; ~!"i( Plarl
Fe~s::::lty Stu:y
611! ~:-s;)-:,r.se tu us:;e;
ln~oruatlon R~ues~
s.. iie:::r:s: to: ~r.~:"::'Ia: l,:ri
P.e:'~es~ ~'j !.r:t:.;
N,:'~a a!':~ o:~iC:-1~~:"'~ re
.lt~C~c.~l ~f S~ re~e~~i!
ies~: ..,~ v~:
fu 0; :nr::.
ar:: r;:a:=:
=-::2;'='~~:=
L1S~1~; of su:star~es
iCle?"::l-le-: at s:.~e
Affi::avit of Ji!oIES
M. Herd s
Dl~_ln Data Re~r~
Dioxin testlng M!5ul~s an~
~;I"OYal of W)rk plan
Colt AnilyilS for the
Liskin/Poplar Site
SU~~le!e~ta! Affidavit
of James L. CilhOIJn
R~rd of Decision (ROO)
Aaende1 ~ministritive
QM1er
Soils Scllllpl1ng Plar,
~~iN15TRA~lv! REC:~~ !N:;~
Las~ln/~~:~ar 0;:
Pts:'~ a:'l Ls,. Oti ~,~
Il1j~~~
REC:;:~'t-
V:'~"U). - ~~:
R7tl'W: ; rl;
In::~-'
- u.;:-."~
OC':":~:'.'" ~T:~
C:t'''es:.:'',::'' ': =
TC/u ~c~''':~ - l:£:;'
~,~::- ~o~:s - l..~:':' .~~:.~~~..:-:~
C~..:.~ HI; 1
& :~W 1 r':Ir,,~e": ~:::;.
a:--: ::"':,. ~';:..
6M
DG;':~r'":..l - A~~~,
f:'" :~
J'~::- ::
i\r~.. ~ .,~=
-$;'
J~"::.:-;
:~:C~:::: :
- ~,;:'::':"~ -..
~:"': :- ~';;
~!..~~s - R~&C ~i!.e (Dlv Qf we::
BN!nll La:s
USE.: ;
~~pklns - US~~
JI(~::::: -
K,,?ce:"'5 C~.
Wes~C/n-5~er
l/:E;' ~
JLCal!'\CIun - ~l ~e Cons 1 ~: Ind IWCI)
U5~~
USEPA
Eng:neering 5cler~
USE:?A
- ~£.::
,,---
- ...:.:."'"
- ~-::: ~
Re:;:'"~ 2:'5: ~r;::-:
~'r~"es:,.:,r.c:r :~
C.....a--",,"-"''''''
.. _:...'...= ".:"
rlC ~.': .' :. ~,.: ;,:..~
~ ""'::: : ~ : = ...::
C: -;~
~:-,c:"
So:,1::.in; :::1:a
C:r~;:.:'!":C:~:;;
RE::"~:/::~::==
~:-Ie!"
~~!"arlC'J~
Ple301!\;~lCr~e ,
Re~v~~s/S:1l:~f:".
-------
:c.;!! ~.;.
'<., :21 ac
2c:
lN~::~ ~~5 ~7::
v
3€. 8~1 11 IOu
. 8€.:11IlZ
6(: 87/1)1 I;;'}
l(.~:' e:/:)3.1I:~
1~~ 8il:';':>,'
1 8~!~7;;::e
e~ :~::
1 S~, I~~" ~6
1 ei/'J~:Z=
1 87/08.'05
12 87/C8/1j7
~ 87/'~iOi
150 87/02110
5 87/08/12
1211 87/(;e/2~
TITli
50::10: I~~ O:..r, f~!'
PI:S an:: Ta~:,(s
L~.c"e ~aC~l~e ~""::Q~lyt s

~ff~~a~ll: ~\.l:"5:Ja~~ T1:
LasklTl/P";plar Ja.r.:
De~ens~ Qg~~t
Re~ojlal Qct lc.n
Sc~~l1ng ~~lVl~le$
K~~::S of SG.:s
~~~~n; - Vol~~ Z
Re~~-e<: la: Qc':. c.r: Wt,rl.:
Plar. fc~ Tar.~ ar~ Pl':
Wa s~ i!$ - V.:. !:.::.1!! :
Iae~:.~;Ci~l~r ~f
F~~!!".i: AI;~~:
RE~~~S~ f~~ :::a:~ ~~;:;
. .
~E':~!"": {\~ C:':~.P"=~~a: ;I:)n
.I:~ J.Le~s!!' ~ .la~cfa~';~;
Re~~r: of te:::~ ~I~r.
D.Petr~ky re ~:
Re;\llatlons
~ecord of tel~n .i~~
L.Faolnski re p~s
1n 51)115
Operable Um: Draft ROD
. Ptlas« FIiSiol~l~l Stuay
(PfS) Source ~iterlal
Resaval
Laskin/?o~lar SIte
Fir.al Work Plan
Phase 2 RI
S~ary of State ARRRs
TronsC~lpt of puolic
hearln; held at the
RC~rN:ST~;~IVE RECO~ I~~iX
las~ln/~'plar Ol!
ASi":U01l:a, Ohl':'
~7h'G~
£~;;.~,'?:"H'; S::e~
Cad ~ I:II~J.:.r:'!~ - lxwe ~..:,. ~;e Co.
J\e~:..lf & Ec:~y
Er.;; ~IE'?". r:; -~ l e~lce
Er:;:ne'?~lns-Scler~
~.,;l:.;.. - U~~:~
W;':a~~~'l~ - Z:,
~:i:~~: :
- US~~
RD..;nall - US:.~
RDa;~all - USEPA
Df'!£;Je~er - l.E£!:~
USA
O
-------
~ci;e ~I:,
o.::::2/~9
~
!~:~~ PPG£: ~7E
2 87/08/25
Z 8i i(I3/00
1 87/0'W'13
2 8ilO'Jlll
4 8i.'0'3/::
1 87/(;:/:4
1 87/0'3/16
2 e7/0'3/1~
3 87/0'3/1E.
65 87/0C3/16
3 87/09/17
4 87/0'3/17
TI1t.E
As~ta~ula CQU~:Y
C,\:r:hCl'!se, Jerfers.,r'o,
QrHO on 8i2E,/8;
Req'lest fcr l!~a"Slun CoT
t\~e t~ su~~t ~'~e~ts
OTI t!'le PFS
TRW Res po,nSI! to Re'J'Jest
for l"f~rMatl~~ a~
FOIA R~uest
~;~IST?;~:'.;: RE:;:~] ltOCe:~
Las~:,/P0:!ar all
Asr:t~:'J:a, ()I,')
~t:i~'QR
RECIP !E.~i
we::.:.u;~:~~. - ~:1 f:r Un:~n Cor::::e ..T)I':~~I~ - t.~:::':'
~~re~r.!~ - Rt~y fer T~A
~arl:~ - u::::::.
Response to L.e~17I Irtfol'raa.ler, Paul S\Oi.'~::!r~-Starca...: Trar.sfOr"Air u::::~
Request.
Le;al q~es:.~ns to tMe
USE.~ In rnccnse to
8/ :8/9i le~~e~,
Res::onSi! of Na~:Gr.a1 For;!
C~~;any t~ 8/1818i US~~
Ir.f:rsat~on ~~~es: al~~;
Wl~ ~~e AffldD¥l~ of
L!rry V,Fr'; e~ TO!" -'a: ::~.e:
FQr;e c.:.-a:;:or.y.
R~;~ o~ tel:~~ with
CLlnQ!MY and r&al"riball
re Cleanup Levels
Re~ra of telcon wIth
RTraver M! 5011 Wisn:n;
R~rd of telcon Wl~n
c.hling r'1! Petrolel.1z
Exclusion
RnpoMe to U5~~
request for inforlition
letter of 8/18/87.
Comme'!"tial Shearing Resp~n5e
to R~uest for Inforsat1on
Invitation to revi~
dati and files
Respcnse to NotIce Letter
ir~ Invitation to Inspect
dOC'lRnt s
R. Kru~ s fe,r ~~ lo~I Forge
Rfj~.c~: ~\.~:: ~:r Ni:~.j~.a~ For;!
fWag~a ~ :
- ;$<:
RDagnal: - \$'A
RDa;r,o~ ~ - U:~'A
B1111e N~lan - Koc:e~ ~.
JGHrltz - C~~rcial Shear1n;
Wagg~~er-Ht:y for V.rious Dfnt;
Wagg"ner-~tty fcor V.rious Dfnts
J. ~!\e! - ~~
occ..."',£."'. :Y~ ~
c.::-~ ~ :-:..;::-" : =
~~?::.o:r,ce.:t'
Cc'r~5;-:~.:e'.: ;:
c.,rreE:( r~E:'.: ~
Ru~~' ~:.!'.~:.S - ~-:::: ~ :':~;:-:~.c='".::
~ftI'~~I::::: :'"
RE!':': r-:
CorI&i:;~t: ::i ~ : : ~
R~~
C:8IJ!":~:i': ::...
AeC"';~
Rut~ "iiroC':S - Us::~ ~:::'rrCarc~
~~s - USE.t~
RJIIanc:os - US~A
R."Iar.co; - USE;:>A
Cor~x.rlCer,~
eor!"t'S :tm: e~:c~
~rf'1!so~n:::enC2
-------
p~;~ s.;,
~' :2:::
3:
l~:;;~i ~~~: ~;E:
36 81 /(.~! 18
1 8: /('':/~:
1 87 /')"i ;"2
2 e7/~:~:'~
.. e:-: :):,'~';:
5 e: ,'l'S.' ':'2
..~ e7:~::~.:.
Z 87/09,23
4 81/09/~Z
4 87/09/23
:5 87/09/23
32 87/09/23
2 87/09/2~
TIiLE
~!~IS7RAT!VE R£:':FG INr;£l
Laskln/Pop:ar 01! .
AS:'1tocula, ()1l0
ACNJ~
P.eS;;::'Me ~c' L.~t~A Infc.r!Da~~,~n /II. Ar:r: BraC:12::-a::v. f:.!" v.a~se!"
Re~~est 0' 8/18/27 -lth
E~"ltl~S A and B
R~,:,~rc ':If t!lc:-:'!'\ w1t:-:
BSy~~le.s~~ re Lar~
Ihspc-sal i1e;'.ilations
Unl,'n CadHce Res\",nse
to Req~es~ for Info~atlon
,
F.~s:..:.r,se of R-'CJ.iwell
In~e~!'\O~l~nal to the
8/la/e7
Infvrcition Req~est
Pert ir~~I~ fac':s to Laskinl
~'c.~! at' as it I'!: a: es to
Lv:~e r~:".ne Co,
en ~es~rrSe t~ "c,t~:e
Le-:ter
~=::.~rlse
t.:. ~:~ =~!'~e;.
di~ed 8/~eiS7 ..it:'1 endljsl.in!
C'=oCUAlents
IiIot :ac:~., Inc:. reponse to
UEE:~ Inf~rmatl0n Request.
Conru 1 Rt!~'nse to
. Request for Infor=ation
WCI Resconse to Request
for Inforaat ion abolJt
Potttar uskin 011 Site
~'Rotor Freight's
Response to Request for
I nfoMiiti on
Response to Inforaitio8
Request
By Pittsburgh' Conneaut Dock
Co.
R~spons! to 8/25/87
USEPA InfQrsatlon re~uest.
Rr;'a;ral: - U~;..:.
RE::;':E.~T
RI.:::", /IIar:c":'s - l.~':'
WECc1u;~~~n - At~y Tor Unlon Car~~Q~ ~~a~~s - U::;~
Dav~= Nos~ - R~:~-ell
Day~: I~'~e~ - l?CK! ~i.~~~e Co.
Dt.r.,,:ar - e~I
Ro:c~. E~;;: - llt~:,n 6r~ii: Liik!!S
DC:~~~~~ iT:~
.:.~.~:::o( r~2.:?
C:~,,:,:'..r,~::: ~ ::0,
Ii!!: :t":
C:.r'''~=:~~ ::-."'.:C:
R\:~~ !II~:';=':; - !.;~:.~ ~:i~..~~:':!':-':="-::
R~:~ ~;~::: - u:~::
R:".i.'~:~
. ,.--...
- :':::'.."
s. ~,...S~ ;"-: =::5
L:S~
K.~c,walsl(1-SGu~r!!, SciriQe!"":&:n=~ey RIi:n !l\ir,:,::-;.:t:;::
K~~owa!skl - At~y for Conrall
~,~.alski - At:y for WCI
RPlcinc':'S - U::;'A
~ir~:s - US:~A
KI'\Y.".alski - ~ty for A'(rC~"r ~tc.r RJII.canc':s - US:':Q
J.Kleln-Reec,SNltn, et a1.
DavId Jat":)~(,n - Perfec:ion Cvr?
~ ~""'C?::~~C~"::
C:""=:::.:~' ::
, ''',-'::--''-:'.-:
-... ... -.... '-... ...-
C:~"~S~':'~'~:" :-~
Cclr~es ~,:,r.c:~
Cc,r'Jl"es:,c rrC="~
~'r~~S~'~i:e"::;
Ruth "'rrCQS - l.&.~ :"I't'es~~,~.:e~,c:
Ru~:"\ "anc~s - u:st:;Q C0rr!S:)C.ncerc:!
-------
~ a~e r.j.
OZilZ/S.3
x
INt:X ~:: ~~E
5 87/')'3/,~
1 87/1f3/Z~
, 87/C):/~
94 8i/(J~i~~
2 8'" ::/:. .;.~
: e-. " ': ::.
1 87/()'3/3C
1 8710~/30
1 87/(/3/30
4 87/()'3/ZO
44 87/09/30
1 87/10/0f.
TITtE
C~,:nran ~est)o:,nse to
fte~uest fer InfQ~G~10n
6e~evi ~tor$ re!~~se
to ~nfcr~a:lon re~~~s:
. aM reqr..est for
c:onfiderltla:ty
1iIi~ lack, Ire. ina:ve"~er.~:y
ou8itted Affidavit to ,he
re!~or.se to R~uest for
lnt"rmat ior. SU~A:1 tted ,jr,
C3/Z3/87.
lntcrla~e Steimsnl~
re!~jr~~ to i~~lrles
I..:!! in let';e!' da:ea
8J:S/~7
Rc::~ of te!ce,r, Ni~h
8S:-....,. M! Lare Cl:;~~a:
Ilestnct lOft
Let:!!!' fT"':.tII ~i~:a:~ ~'J~:::
re;:e~~.n; dls..:~:~n:=e~~ in
the ~ list:n; of wa!t!!
~~nts on a 'Ie~'
voluae~ric: ~SlS.
~Iplaint of EPA's
listing of yolwae only
ind ftClt types of
subshrces sent
Co8pl&int regar'Uir,g yoll.1.!f!
only listing of "1Stes .
Recqlst to delete double
listing of WCt on PRP
volWII listing and C08~laint
aoolJt Ere VOIUJIf listing
instead' of type of literial
K~rt RespQnse to
R~uest for Inforeation
Reco~ of DeClS10n (RODI
O\evT'1:)n Response to
AC~:~:S~:~7!\! RECC,~ INV:X
La;li: r./P.jp! ar Od
;s:1:a!:'~lci, !)I~o
~;~..::
CF!p .::;r
- A<;:y f~,r (:(,cnran
1t'":"'::"S - UE~:oQ
J. Co:-; ls:e Pee:, II H!..: lack, I~.
'TJ~o~:~ey . P::ka~s ~t~er
Rr~;"a:l - ~~
r'JC"2::;'~ - A<;:y fc;r ~..::acf
AECIPI~!
~ci'~~ - ~E:':;
Ji'II::~I~ - u£::
R1J~~ ~ar.c-:!...j::~:'A
RP'..:':C":"5 - USE.~
Th,:~=
8G:"~:a;: -$":'
MY."Ioi~S\l.l - Atty for Anchor Mot.:,r TBaricil! - ~~:'\;
~J'.Y.C/Ioa:sk. - Atty for Corlra:l
Kr:'~ilskl - Atty for WC!
FAStal~lfOrt~ - K~rt
USEPA
DE"hneya~ - O'Ievron
TBari:all - U::?~
TSar::.:l - U£:'A
RlWcos - lJSC;A
AAincQS - USt~
~~E.'j7 if=::
Cc.rr!:~:.rl:e"::
"eO::" a~.:';:.
Cc,~"~es:1: ~.:e~~:
c,.:'r~!s :'C'~.:2.'::
C':,I\"~:"r:~::'; ~:-
Re: :1":
c.:~..t'\,?,::.:" :i"::
Ccr:"!s:x:'r::i!~:i!
Cr.irresp':,r::er:: :!
CorrespN;:;~.~
Corr!S~..Jnce~
~rK,rant.:IJr.
Corresp..,nC2r,:e
-------
)a;~ '-1("
)2.' iZ/ ~3
l3
I~:i:X ~..;::: ~~
3 8iIlO/Of,
11
8'" :,~~,'(,c
. 8'1:1:)/1)3
Zoo 8':'.. :j!2')
,co 8':' ::,:::'~
.
~.. .. ,':
- . ~' ...
b 87::,':S
T1Tl!
Re:'Je~': ror
Irl:'or::i~ .:I~
LJC:~~ Res;vfrSe t.:,
Re~'lgs': fo:!r Inf",.~'::'~n
~r:IE"l:an C'fa~..:':::: Res:::~I::
to:! Re,::ues~ tiJr tnf'jnlc1t l'Jn
Res:~~~e of 0 & P O:~
& 6as tv t~e U~~M'S
.
tnf.:'!"'.=at :c:n ~e~IJes~.
Reso~nse ~~ L~:;~
8/~e::; tnf~~a'::~~
Reo:':es':
c.:.~:a"~"::: ~g:::~=2 ~o
Ae~:.iS~ f~r I~f"r':i~ l'~~
t.:.':'2:.:~ ~~: :I:.w-'l; ~e:::'r:s:
~~. ~e':'.~:~ f~.:' ~~f:."f~:i: :.:,:-:
Cr.c~:'an ~es~"f:se to
'Rc:ues,; tCI' tnf:.rcit:c.n
AD.!S:S7AAilVE RE~RD INCD
Lasl:~ -
U$'~
OC':. ...,;t.- :';:'~
c.:.t':"~S:: ~::;!'::~
~,.,.?::.:.c:.,~
Ruth ll\ar.:'~ - US:::,,, Cc "''':::: ~:::'::
RU'::I :'JIa~s - liS;;;;
~~P,~~'; - t::~: ~
R!i!in~'s .
U:~~
R.~ir\~'S - ~;.:~
\. :.r~2s~,:'r.:=!',: =
r. "''''''0: "".,.'," -''':'
\"t.. ..-...' ,.c: ...-
c,:;~"~s::"::..:-: .
~~"'::::-~' ::""'::
-------
~ic
'..
:" !H~! ~AGIS !.~~I
j8 6: 04'J 7
2 !~'C5:CS
H !~ '~5/l1
J1 :~'J5n2
7 SF C 5 .'1 :
1 S: H:2'
10 :: CS'-l:
4 SF 'C;IC:
; :: 04. O~
11 87,107108
3&9 19104107
20 19104112
42 "lUlU
r;ru
Spe:l.l '::~:e ~ec~e:.
CCI't:~ or tte 1S.
C:llt::S oc c~e F:'F:S!~
Pl.: br c:e Couas!; f,:
Ptrte:t,oc CC:F.
CJ"e~:s 00 ::t 1;
by ebt Coa:stl tor
tbe L.sklD r.sk 10rce. '
C:I'!~:S 0: :be IS a~d
tbt PropCst~ Plao.
. CJII!:: 00 tbe 1S.
COllt:: 0:
::! 1:.
,.:: SbHe:
.Rt't1~a; Iorest,ga:;c:
CCI~!t:!1 at t~! Lask~:
rop;a~ Ol~ S::!8,
,.:: 5tH::
.'t";bl1,c: See:y
Co.rltttd for t:t
Lasilc Poplar all
Site, Jeffersoo,
Obi o. .
lealt: Assess.eot.
'ablie COI.ect IditioD
1".ibilicr Study.
'ro,osed , 1 ao
L"ilC Popl,r Oil Site
JettersoQ, Ocio.
rr.ascript of Public
lurug.
A~M:N:~~iA~:IE Rr:CF.: INJEI ap:A~E
LASII'iPOPLA;. OIL COKFAN? s:rr
ASI~Aa~~A COUlrr, OHIO
urBOR
'o:lao 'ledergaag-USE?A
LYCD Cla;t-Ltaserar
fraasp: Ca:l OC
RlCIPIlI~
Ste serrlce 11':
GlO. febe:-aSIF!
Strol;-tr!t:laQ.Ltrr.lr:lliS~1 ~lca ft:t:'~S!l~
oc:s
Dougla, Baraa.-luller 'Btory Gioa feber-aSB?!
So:a!tr , Beals-OIPA
Vera If. la11
C.!:llree-Siwlres.Sacdt:s ,
DurStY
USBFA
aUlA
GIDa febtr-aStlA
Gioa febe:-aS!?A
Gloa fe~tr-US!?A
AfSDR-Dep:. of Btaltb 'Ba.a: Louise
Ser. 1.biosii-USIPA
CB21t Bill
USIPA
USlP!
USlPA
DC:~M!.~~ rf?:
~::.~=.~:!.
,....~.,(....;...~
.......~.......
::::~s;::::::!
:::;~S;:::!::~
"",....,c.....1,..,
I."....r-.......
".._,c...J,..,
...".-re....--..
:~:::~S~:::!::!
c::::!!;:::~::!
1::: $:!!:
!3:: ~=!~:
Re~:rt!/S::;::!!
Rt;:::s 'S:~:~!S
Rtp:::s ::c:~es
r:aa'crl~:
-------
.-; !)...;:: :L.:
. ~!
!~':~.::
.
oc 0'- I-~
.,c"'
!!/~.~/~!
!~.
~~":.'22
...' :
.....!
AI:" ~
:--..!- =:-
....-. _.~_...
.... ---.. .
~a"2:::'
:e~.;- ~. -.e 5:~.:e

~e~:.'!." ::e-!:" e "."-:.
~e-;;:'!'
~e::-:
:-'..e!:' ;::-:-
\,:'
:~e :.;
."-ee.
~e~e~.!' :~ves~.;!~~:~

Qe==-~: V:," '!'.'::-
."'.eg
~e-e:'!' :~veS:';3:':~

;e::-: V:'~-e --!!
-~ .--!e.
~ : ¥ : '. : :"':,:' ... . ',':
'.AS' :'; ":= .L=
~:. - ':'. .1
A~ ...::
... .... ..
:~:: 1
,.., "I'\.o:.~' '¥ <::.-:
.. .... ..", '...
::~" '"''''. ~~::
:-:'-e;;-'-;.::'~-:~
".."y
'"'....,.. ......
r .
-:.;"" ",.;'"
.. .
..j:~.:
":.'0':' -
~_..... ....'
:::~.:I. ..
~e::.::
-;::~
...=..._--~
......:" 7
..... "
\": .
.!~:_:':;
...... .....
'e:: '
..... !It
~:::--.::./::..:';::
..'::=A
:S::--':S.':':..;:':!;
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
L~SKJ~ POPL~R OIL SITE
Jefferson. Ohio
1:.5. EPA
June 16. 1989
a
. --. . .
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LASKIN POPLAR OIL SITE, JEFFERSON, OHIO
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has
gathered information on the types and extent of .
contamination, evaluated remedial measures, and recommended
remedial actions at the Laskin Poplar Oil site. Several.
public meetings were held to explairi the intent of the
project, describe the results, and receive comments from the
public. Public participation in Superfund projects is
required in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). Comments received from the public
are considered in the selection of the remedial action for
the site. This documedt summarizes the comments received
regarding the proposed final remedy and describes how they
were incorporated into the decisionmaking process.
The community relations responsiveness succary has five
sections:
o
Overview discusses U.S. EPA's recoccended .
alternative for remedy of exposure to contaminated
ma;er~al at the Laskin Poplar Oil site.
o
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
provides a brief history of cot:m1ur.ity interest and
concerns raised during remedial planning
activities at the site. .
o
Public Comments Received during Public Comment
P~riod summarizes both oral and written comments
received from the community and U.S. [PA's
responses grouped by the following topics:
general comments, recommended alternative
comments, and incinerator comments.
o
Potential Responsible Party Comments summarizes
comments received from the PRPs and U.S. EPA'~
responses.
1
-------
o
Ohio EPAComments and U.S. EPA Responses
summarizes comments received from Ohio EPA and
U.S. EPA's responses.
In addition, Attachment A identifies the community relations
activities conducted by U.S. EPA during the remedial
response activities at the site. Attachment B is the
revised Figure 4-8 from the Feasibility Study report.
Attachment C is a letter from U.S. EPA to Ohio EPA
explaining its rationale for selecting Alternative 3A.
The ~etailed transcript of the Feasibility Study public
meet~ng and the written comments are not included, but they
are ~vailable for public inspection from U.S..EPA, Region V,
in Chicago. Copies are also available in the Administrative
Record at the following repositories:
Ashtabula County Disasters Services
Ashtabula County Court Bouse
25 West Jefferson Street
. Jefferson, Ohio 4404 7
216/997-9341
.Offices
Ashtabula County District
335 West 44th Street
Ashtabula, Ohio 44004
216/576-9148
Library
OVERVIEW
During the public comment. period, the u.S. EPA presented
eight alternatives to remediate the potential for exposure.
to ~ontaminated groundwater and soil at the Laskin Poplar
Oil site and also a no-action alternative. The EPA
rec9mmended capping the contaminated soil and installing a
groundwater diversion trench around the contaminated soil.
The cap and the trench would prevent water from filtering
through the contaminated soil.. All dioxin-contaminated
materials amenable to thermal treatment would be
incinerated; the rest would be disposed of beneath the cap
in a concrete vault.
2
-------
The public commen~s received were generally suppor~ive of
[PA's recommendation. Most of the comments received at the
public hearing pertained to operation of the incinera~or.
Some concern was expressed about the ability of the
,incinerator to safely and effectively destroy material
contaminated with PCBs and dioxin. Most of the discussion
about the incinerator, however, concerned the monitoring of
stack emissions and reporting the test results tO,the
interested public.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Comcunity involvement in this project began in 1974 when
residents living near the site began complaining to the site
owner and local o££ictals about bad odors resulting from the
fiting of the boilers and from the onsite ponds and pits.
In July 1978, concerned citizens submitted a complaint to
Ohio [PA requesting that operations at the site cease. From
1978 to 1980, residents sought to stop the oil recy~ling
activities of "the Laskin Poplar Oil Company and became
involved in several local court cases. In 1980, local
residents formed a citizens' group called the Committee for
Clean Environment. The purpose of the group was to monitor
, events at the site and to work for quick remediation by
local and state governments of site-related problems. Their
efforts succeeded in 1981 ~hen the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas issued a court order banning oil recycling
activi~ies by the Laskin Poplar Oil Company.
In 1983, the,U.S. EPA placed the site on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Local residents attended a public
hearing that described the remedial investigation (RI)
process, and they and officials contributed to the
formulation of the community relations plan (CRP). In
August 1987, area residents attended an availability session
to discuss onsite progress with U.S. EPA staff. Later that
month, ar.. residents attended a public meeting to comment
on the feasibility study for the source material removal
operable unit. In March 1989 a number of residents and
local officials were contacted to update the CRP. In April
1989, residents attended a public meeting concerning U.S.
[PA's recommended remedial action.
3
-------
Citizen interest and involvement has been mobilized largely
through the efforts of a few individuals, particularly Mr.
Vern Ball. Hr. Ball, a Jefferson Township Trustee, acts as
a key contact for exchange of information on the site in the
Jefferson community.
Throughout the RIIFS process, the public expressed these
concerns:
o
. "

Bealth issues related to the pathways of possible
exposure to contaminants during the period of
Laskin's operation. These include exposure to the
burning of PCB contaminated oil and exposure to
dioxin. "
o
.
Health issues related to potential exposure to
contacinants associated with the site.
o
The amount of time U.S. EPA has spent conducting
the RIllS. Residents have expressed frustration
over the length of time the RIllS has taken to
complete. The community has been co~cerned about
the site since the late 1970s and some residents
wonder why remediation has not been expedited.
o
The frequency of information distributed to the
community. Receiving accurate information about
the EPA's activities at the site is a major
concern of local"residents. Residents have found
the fact sheets and availability sessions are a
good technique for providing information to the
community. Residents have expressed a strong
interest in the proposed incinerator. Some
residents have suggested that a fact sheet
describing the operation and monitoring procedures
for the incinerator should be distributed to the
.. "--.-.--.. -. .
" ""community.
o
The operation of the incinerator, including
incinerator by products , length of operation, and
frequency of emission tests.
4
-------
o
Use of local contractors during remedial action.
A state government official indicated that local
contractors should be used as much as possible in
the remedial action work. It was felt that the
U.8 of local contractors was important to all
county residents.
."

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND U.S. EPA RESPONSES
This responsiveness summary addresses both oral and written
comments received by the U.S. EPA concerning the RIIFS for
the Laskin Poplar Oil site. The comment period was held
from April 12 to May 12, 1989. A public meeting was held on
April 26 at the AshtaQula County Courthouse to allow the
public to present oral and written comments.
GENERAL COMMENTS
L
Mr. Gordon Housel had questions regarding the
effect of the cleanup on the sumoer fair. His
questions pertained ~o:
o
The ability of people to park on Laskin's
property during the fair
o
The starting date for onsite cleanup
activities
o
The level of activity during Fair Week and
the rest of the summer
U.s. EPA's Response: No incineration will take
place this summer. If demolition work occurs this
summer, the community relations coordinator (CRC)
for the site will work closely with fair officials
to minimize any adverse effects on the fair. U.S.
IPA has no authority to prohibit vehicles from
parking on the southeast corner of the Laskin
property during the fair unless parking interferes
with the remedial work.
5
-------
2.
Ms. Margaret Schossler and Mr. Ray Sapporito had
questions regarding a cancer study done in the
area. They asked:
o
For a clarification becween a risk assessment
and a cancer study
o
When the study was conducted
o
The scope of the study
u.s. EPA's Response: As part of the RIfFS
process, two different assessments were performed
to determine the impacts of the onsite
contaminants on the community. The first
assessment, ,a risk assessment, was performed by
consultants during the Rt to evaluate the
potential for adverse effects to public health or
the environment if no remedial action were taken
beyond the scheduled pit, tank, and soil removal,
(Source Removal Operable Unit remedial action).
The risk assessment identified ways that people or
wildlife could be exposed to contaminants fr~~_t~e
site and evaluated potential exposure settings fer
existing and possible future site uses. Under
existing site conditions, exposure may occur if
people have direct contact with exposed
contaminants in the surface soil, surface water,
sediments, and structures on the site. Risks were
a1so evaluated for the future site use setting of
residential development of the site. Exposures
that may be of concern if such development occurs
include exposure of 'construction workers to
contaminated subsurface materials, and exposure of
future residents to contaminants present in the
shallow groundwater if it is used as a water
8upply. Exposure to contaminants was evaluated
for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health
effects. The risks from onsite exposure and
future site use are summarized in Table 1-2 of the
FS report.
6
-------
,
The second assessmen~ performed was a heal~h
assessment. The health assessment was performed
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
18gistry (ASTDR). A health assessment examines a
population's level of exposure to contaminants
through environmental and human exposure pathways;
i.e., ingestion of groundwater, surface water, and
soil. The data used by ASTDR in their health
assessment were taken from the RI conducted in
1986. Unlike a risk assessment, a health
assessment does not consider future uses of the
site in determining the effects of the
contaminants on a population's health. The health
assessment is concerned only with a population's
historic exposure to onsite contaminants through
exposure pa~hways. If the health assessment
reveals that a population has been exposed to the
onsite contaminants through environmental and
human exposure pathways, a health study is usually
done. During the health study, the local'
population undergoes a number of medical tests to
determine the possible effects of the contaminants
on their health. A cancer study is one possible.
study within a health study. Because local"
residents have not been exposed to the
contaminants on the Laskin site through such
exposure pathways as groundwater, surface water,
and ingesting soil, the ASTDR determined there was
no need to conduct a health study. A copy of
ASTDR's health assessment is located in local
repositories.
3.
Hr. Alvin Laskin indicated that the PRPs are not
going to pay for the cleanup. Be stated that they
will add the cleanup cost to the cost of their
products and the public will pay the price.
u.s. EPA's Response: PRPs may raise the cost of
their products to pay for the cost of the remedial
action; however, u.s. EPA has no way of knowing
whether that will happen. U.S. EPA's -
responsibility under CERCLA is to identify the
PRPs and obtain compensation from them to pay for
7
-------
the necessary remedial action. U.S. EP~ has no
control over the source of funds PRPs use to pay
for remedial action work.
4.
Hr. Gene Trhlin inquired whether u.s. EPA has
sufficient funding to police the PRPs and enforce
its proposed alternative.
u.s. EPA's Respon~e: Under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), U.S.
EPA can obtain oversight costs from the PRPs. If
a negotiated settlement with the PRPs fails, U.S.
EPA can proceed with the remedial action and use
the courts to recover the remedial action costs
from the PRPs; or it can seek administrative or
judici~l orders requiring the PRPs to perform'the
remedy. During the course of the PRP remedial
design and action, U.S. EPA will do whatever is
necessary to monitor and verify the progress of
the PRPs' remedial actions. Funding and
contractor assistance are available for oversight,
and the state of Ohio may also be active in this
area.
5.
Mr. Gene Trhlin a150 asked whether the EPA
representatives knew of any aetio~ being taken to
prevent oi1 spills such as the one in Alaska.
u.S. EPA's Response: The u.S. EPA does not wish
to respond to comments on the Alaskan oil spill
since it is not relate~ :0 the Laskin Poplar Oil
cleanup.
6.
Ms. Margaret Schossler expressed a concern that,
with big contracts such as this one, the
activities that are promised to be done are never
done.
. - U.S. EPA's Response: The recommendations made in
the ROD and other pertinent documents will be
followed in completing the remedial work onsite.
During the course of the remedial action there may
be minor modifications to the recommended
8
-------
J
7.
ac~ivi~ies, but ~he charac~er of ~he cleanup
cannot change subs~antially withou~ giving the
public an opportunity to comment on the changes.
The schedules of activities for this project are
available to the public at the local repositories.
If anyone feels that the cleanup is not proceeding
according to the plan, the CRC or the RPM should
be contacted to resolve the problem.
Mr. Alvin Laskin stated that he videotaped a
2S0,000-gallon discharge of oil into Cemetery
Creek from a dike that had been weakened from
digging done by U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA's Response: In the process of working on
the dike, tqere was a discharge of oil into
Cemetery Creek. The action is viewed as a spill,
not an intentional discharge. .
8.
Mr. Alvin Laskin stated that the EPA has approved
the burning of oil containing up to 50 parts per
million of PCBs by a greenhouse in Massachusetts.
u.s. EPA's Response: The Massachusetts oil site
is a completely different situation. The
Massachusetts greenhouse is burning
PCB-contaoinated oil at a temperature that
destroys the PCBs. Laskin's boilers operated at
considerably lower temperatures, and sampling
indicates that he burned oil with much higher
levels of PCBs. .
9.
Leaseway Transportation Corporation stated that
Alternative 6, the state's recommended remedial
action, will yield no enhanced protection and
could cost more than four times that of
Alternative 3A, the recommended remedial action,
ana take twice as long to complete. Leaseway
further stated that because of the time required
to complete Alternative 6, local residents and the
environment may actually be exposed to more
hazardous constituents than under Alternative 3A.
9
-------
u.s. EPA's Response:: Alcernacive 6 would
eliminace the need for long-term managemenc of che
site. Bowever, it as well as Alternacive 3A would
provide adequate procection of human health and
the environment. Because of the cost of
Alternative 6 and the potential adverse impacts on
the community over its 4-year implementation
period, it has been judged by u.s. EPA .to be less
desirable than Alternative 3A.
COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
1.
Mr. Charles Long expressed his support for the
recommended alternative. Be asked whether the -
freshwater pond and retention pond would be -
drained and filled and where the dirt to fill the
p
pond would be found.
u.s. EPA's Resp~nse: Under the recommended
alternative, both the freshwater pon~ and the
retention pond will be drained and filled. Some
of the soil used to fill the ponds may be found
onsite. In the event that onsite soil is .
incapable of filling both ponds, clean fill.will
be imported.
2.
M~. Gene Trhlin asked about the depth of the
groundwater diversion trench, its purpose, and che
purpose of the cap.
u.s. EPA'~~sponse: The groundwater diversion
trench wi~- ~e 25 to 40 feet deep and will prevent
groundwater that is flowing north to Cemetery
Creek from flowing into the site and coming into
contact with the contaminated soil. The proposed
multilayered cap will cover approximately 3.5
acres and will virtually prevent water (rain,
8nowmelt) from filtering through t~ the
. contaminated soil beneath the cap.
\)
3.
Mr. Alvin Laskin said it appeared that the
groundwater diversion trench would destroy the
front of his house.
10
-------
4.
. .
u.s. EPA's Response: The construction of the
underground trench proposed under the plan should
not disturb Mr. Laskin's house.
Mr. Gene Trh1in had questions regarding the cost
of the remedial alternative. His questions
pertained to:
o
The method used to determine the cost
o
Cleanup activities included in the cost
o
The method used to award contracts for
remedial action
u.s. EPA's Response: The estimated cost of this
project is based largely on existing contracts
from other Superfund sites. The cost of this
project includes the total range of constructionu
activities required to complete the remedial
action, and the cost estimates were made based on
the assumption that U.S. EPA would perform the.
remedial action at the site. The incinerator is a
large part of the cost, Also included in the cost
are activities such as earthmoving and well
drilling and material costs for items such as the
fill and synthetic material in the cap. As a U.S.
EPA project, any remedial action contracts
associated with this project will be let to the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder. If the
PRPs perform the remedial action they are not
required to award the contracts to the lowest
bidder; however, they may choose to do so.
5.
Ms. Martha Demshar expressed concern about
children gaining access to the site and asked
type of fencing would be used onsite and the
extent of the site that would be fenced.
what
u.s. EPA's Response: The current proposal
includes a 6-foot-high cyclone fence topped with
barbed wire located around the perimeter of the
11
-------
6.
7.
8.
property. Signs on the fence will identify the
property as a Superfund site.
Hr. lay Sapporito supported EPA's recommendation
.. long as the project oversight that was
described actually takes place.
U.S. EPA's Response: From the design phase
through completion of construction and during
monitoring, U.S. EPA and its representatives will
oversee all remedial action work.
Mr. Vern Ball expressed a preference for removing
all contaminants onsite as recommended under
Alternative 6, but added that Alternative 3A is
the most ec~omically feasible alternative, the
least disruptive to the community, and it has the
least potential for further environmental damage.
UQS. EPA's R.asponse: Alternative 3A is the
recommended remedy because 1t will minimize and
mitigate threats to public health and welfare and
the environment. The recomcended alternative
provides adequate protection of public health and
the environment, and the shorter period of
incineration will have less short-term impact on
the comcunity than Alternative 6. In addition,
Alternative 3A will provide this protection at a
substantially lower cost, making the selected.
remedy more cost-effective than Alternative 6.
Leaseway Transportation Corporation supports. the
selection of Alter~ative 3A because of the
expedient way it prevents contaminants from
migrating offsite in a manner that was consistent
with all obligatory criteria of the National
Contingency Plan (except state acceptance).
Leaseway questioned the need for a multilayered
engineered cap in Alternative 3A. They asked
whether a solution less extravagant than a
multilayered cap but more effective than 2 feet of
soil could be used without jeopardizing the
alternative's effectiveness.
12
-------
u.s. EPA's Response: U.S. EPA acknowledges the
support for its recommended remedy. An engineered
cap is more reliable thana soil cover because it
ia thicker and because the synthetic barrier would
provide visual indication of whether the cap has
been breached or exposed. In addition, the
multilayered cap virtually eliminates the
potential for surface water to move through the
soil and come into. contact with the contaminated
material and generate contaminated groundwater.
COHHENTS ON THE INCINERATOR
L
Mr. Vern Ball and Ms. Margaret Schossler had
questions regarding the material to be incinerated
and the byproducts of incineration. The questions
pertained to:
o
o
o
o
The type of pollutants to be incinerated
The byproducts of incineration (dioxin, ash)
Pollution control measures on the incinerator
The toxicity of the byproducts
U.S. EPA's Response: Under the recommended
alternative, an incinerator would burn soil and
ash from the boiler house. The materials being
incinerated are contaminated with PCBs, dioxin,
and other contaminants. The end products of
incineration are ash and flue gases. It is
difficult to predict the composition of the ash,
but it will be tested regularly to ensure that it
does not contain unacceptable levels of
contaminants. If the ash contains unacceptable
levels of contaminants it will either be .
reincinerated or treated as a hazardous ~aste and
. .._.~!:.~~.~ed of in an offsite licensed hazardous waste
f.c~lity. The dioxins should be completely
.'incinerated. Although dioxins are formed by the
incomplete combustion of PCBs, the proposed
incinerator has the capability to destroy dioxin.
To control air emissions, the incinerator will be
equipped with a number of pollution control
13
-------
2.
3.
devices including a par~icula~e scrubber ~ha~
captures particula~es, acid gases, and me~als.
Ms. Margaret Schossler asked about the ownership
of the incinerator to be used in the remedial
action and the role of the PRPs in incineration.
u.s. EPA's Response: The incinerator proposed for
this project will be owned by the remedial ac~ion
contractor. Its aesign will be examined and
approved by u.s. EPA before it is allowed to begin'
operation. The incinerator will come from a
manufacturer, and is not U.S. EPA's incinera~or.
The PRPs are under a u.s. EPA administrative order
to conduct ~he operable unit incineration and as
such are responsible for hiring a remedial action
contractor to perform the incineration. There is
as yet no resolution of whether PRPs or u.s. EPA
will conduct the final remedial action. It is
U.s. EPA's intent to have the PRPs conduct t~~
final site remedial action, including .
incin~,ration, in which case the same incinera~or
used for the Source Removal Operable Unit could be
used.
Mr. Ray Sapporito said that his readings of
research on PCB incineration indicated that
effective PCB destruction through incineration is
possible if the burn temperatures are hot enough.
u.s. EPA's Response: PCBs can be destroyed
effectively t~rough incineration if the
incinerators are built and operated accQrding to
specifications that include the proper'
temperatures and residence time..
4.
Ma. Margaret Schossler felt that incinerators were
incapable of burning at a temperature high enough
to destroy PCBs.
u.s. EPA's Response: Dioxins can be formed as a
result of low temperature burning of PCBs. If
14
-------
v
5.
temperatures are not high enough there is the
potential for the formation of dioxin. The EPA is
aware of this and will prevent this phenomenon
from occurring by requiring an incinerator capable
of producing temperatures sufficient to destroy
PCBs and by requiring a test burn and process
controls that ensure the incinerator meets
regulatory standards.
Ms. Margaret Schossler, Mr. Gabe Demshar, and Mr.
Vern Hall had questions regarding monitori~g
incinerator emissions and reporting laboratory
results of emission tests. Their questions
pertained to:
o
The peqple responsible for onsite monitoring
of incinerator emissions
o
The frequency and duration of monitoring and
inspection activities
o
The responsibility of hiring a laboratory to
t"st emissions
o
The ratio of onsite to offsite analyses
o
The availability of test results for public
inspection
(:)
The turnaround time on emission tests
o
The frequency of test burns and their role in
determining standards for normal operation
o
The air sampling plan
u.s. EPA's Response: Before full operation of the
incinerator, a test burn will be done to establish
the operation parameters. When the incinerator
is operating full time, its emissions and
operational parameters will be monitored regularly
to ensure that the incinerator meets the standards
set in the test burn. Although the onsite
15
-------
6.
.
monitoring will be done by the remedial action
contractor and not u.s. EPA, u.s. EPA staff or its
representatives will regularly monitor the results
of ~he contractor performing the emission tests.
The frequency of the tests depends on the sample
being tested. Some parameters require continuous
monitoring, whereas other parameters require less
frequent monitoring. Some of the tests will be
performed at the onsite laboratory. Other tests
will be performed in offsite laboratories. Some
parameters will be monitored by equipment .
installed on the incinerator. The test results
for the various samples can be placed periodically
in the local repositories. The parameters to be
tested for and the testing procedures will be
documented ~n a Quality Assurance Project Plan
that will be developed and approved before actual
testing.
Mr. Vern Ball and Mso Margaret Schosslerasked
about the length of time the incinerator would
operate and its noise level.
u.s. EPA's Response: It will take approximately
3 months to incinerate the dioxin-contaminated
materials onsite. As part of the source removal
operable unit, the incineration will take
approximately 8 months. It is important to note
that incinerationn times are not additive. If
incineration under the Source Removal Operable
Unit remediation and the final remedy are
combined, the incineration time for all the
material in both operable units will be
approximately 10 months. Once the permits are
secured for operating the incinerator and the test
burns are completed, the incinerator will operate.
24 hours a day. The incinerator will be equipped
~th devices that lessen the noise.
7.
Ms. Margaret Schossler stated that hazardous waste
incineration is riddled with unknowns and :~at
u.S. EPA's oversight of hazardous waste
incineration has been inadequate. She a1so said
16
-------
"
8.
that the risks to health and the environment of a
community that has an incinerator has risen. She
stated that incineration is a controlled and
officially sanctioned toxic waste leak through
.~.ck emissions and ash disposal.
u.s. EPA's Response: By law, the Superfund
program is mandated to protect human health and
the environment in selecting a cleanup strategy.
The incineration planned for this site has been
proven effective in other locations. U.S. EPA
will monitor every phase of the: incineration
process from the design phase to emission tests
when the incinerator is fully operational to
ensure that the standards are being met. With the'
stringent controls and oversight U.S. EPA
,
maintains in the incineration process, the health
of the community and the environment will be
protected.
Mr. Gene Trhlin stated that incineration is the
lesser of two evils we have ~o accept until there
is better tech""l.ology.
u.s. [PA's Response: Incineration is the most
effective means of destroying the contaminants
present at the site. Incineration is a proven
technology and when done according to our
specifications the community's health and the
environment are protected.
9.
Mr. Vern Ball recommended that the incinerator's.
emission t&st results be posted at the Ashtabula
County Disaster Services Office.
U.s. EPA's Response: Since the Ashtabula County
Disaster Services Office functions as a local
repository, emission test results can be placed
.there periodically.
17
-------
PRP COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND U.S. EPA RESPONSES
This section addresses the written comments submitted on
behalf of the PRPs during the comment p~riod. A copy of the
comments received are available from U.S. EPA, Region V.
The comments in this section were submitted by:
o
Freedman, Levy, Kr,oll , Simonds, Counsellors at
Law, on behalf of Perfection Corporation
o
Squire, Sanders' Dempsey, Counsellors at Law, on
behalf of Ashland Oil, Inc., Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Company, Consolidated Rail.
Corporation, White Consolidated Industries, Inc.
(including i~s Copes-Vulcan and former R-P&C Valve
Divisions), Shell Oil Company, Mobil Oil
Corporation, Sun Refining and Marketing Company,
Inc., Matlack, Inc., and Anchor Motor Freight,
Inc.
o
Fuller' Henry, Counsellors at Law, and
Engineering-Science, Inc. on behalf of the Laskin
Task Force
In addition to the comments listed below, the firm of
Freedman, Levy,Kroll' Simonds ~lso submitted commen;s
concerning the Phased Feasibility Study of. August 1987.
Those cocments and U.S. EPA's responses are found in the
Responsiveness Summary that followed the Phased Feasibility
Study and will not be repeated here.
1.
Freedman, Levy, Kroll' Simonds stated that U.S.
EPA has inappropriately named Perfection in a
CERCLA. 106 Order and certain liable parties have
inappropriately sued Perfection in a third-party
q -:~~1:10.n.'q

.ti~s ~.E'PA" S Response: The question of Perfection
Corporation's status as a PRP and being named in a
106 Order are .J.ot factors in the choice of
remediation action. These legal matters are under
18
-------
2.
<,
considera~ion by U.S. [PA Regional Counselor are
the subject of ongoing li~iga~ion.
Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds stated tha~ U.S.
IPA's heavy reliance on thermal treatment in the
remedial action is not justified. The expensive
thermal treatment recommended by U.S. EPA has
increased ~he total cleanup cos~ to a level in
excess of what is necessary to pro~ec~ public
heal~h. .
U.S. EPA's Response: U.S. EPA s~udied nine
al~erna~ives before selec~ing the recommended
remedial action. Within the nine alternatives the
level of treatment varied. Some alternatives had
no provisioa for treatment while others made it a
major component of the cleanup process. In the
process of selecting the recommended remedial
action, U.S. EPA did not focus solely on the cost
of the alternative. The alternative's cost'was '
only one of ,nine criteria considered. Af~er'ea~h
alterna~ive was evaluated for ~he nine cri~eria,
Alternative 3A was selected as the remedial~ action
because it represented the best balance amo~g the~-'-:-
evaluation criteria. Alternative 3A will
incinerate the least amoun~ of con~aminated
material of the four alternatives that relied on
incineration.
3.
. .

Squire, Sanders' Dempsey, and Freedman, Levy,
Kroll & Simonds stated several concerns about U.S.
EPA's ability to perform remedial action at 'the
Laskin site. They are:
o
U.S. [PA may only perform remedial action at
the Laskin site if that action is necessary
as a result of a release or threatened
release of hazardous "substances
o
The fact that petroleum and its constituents
are not hazardous substances means that U.S.
[PA cannot use Superfund monies to respond to
releases of petroleum. .
19
-------
4.
5.
o
The feasibility study does not distinguish
petroleum from hazardous substances, and thus
fails to indicate whether any potential
Agency remedial action would be authorized by
law.
u.s. EPA's Response: It is clear that..there have
been releases and threats of releases of hazardous
substances at and" from the site. Whether those
substances are mixed with petroleum products has
no bearing on the obligation and authority of the
u.s. EPA to respond to such threats or require
others to do so. The scope of the petroleum
exclusion is, as this commenter is aware, the
subject of 1itigation pending in the Northern
District of Ohio. The u.s. EPA believes the FS
correctly addressed the types and effects of the
hazardous substances present at the site.
Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds stated that U.S.,
EPA's."land ban" concerns may have been based on
error..eous constructions of the law and u.S. EPA .- ;
has never satisfactorily explained how it has
reached its conclusions. The commenter did not
specify the nature of the "erroneous
constructions" of the "land ban" law.
u.s. EPA's Response: The applicability of the
land ban is based on u.S. EPA's interpretation
that when wastes from different units are put into
one unit, placement of hazardous waste has
occurred, thus triggering the restrictions. The
tanks are clearly separate units from the pits or
whatever other area that could be chosen for
consolidation.
Th. Laskin Task Force and Freedman, Levy, Kroll &
Simonds stated that if U. S. EPA selects.-
Alternative 3A, the source removal operable unit
and the final remedy should be co~bined.
20
-------
6.
, '
u.s. EPA's Response: ' U.S. EPA would like ~o
combine ~he source removal operable uni~ and ~he
final remedy in an effor~ ~o reduce ~he ~o~al cos~
of the remedial ac~ion, ~o reduce ~he impac~ on
the communi~y, and to accelera~e ~he cleanup
required under ~he Source Removal Operable Uni~
remedial .c~ion.
.'

Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds s~a~ed ~ha~ U.S.
EPA and ~he PRPs should reach a se~~lemen~ on ~his
si~e by focusing on a se~~lemen~ in a coordina~ed
fashion.
U.S. EPA's Response: I~ is in ~he public'S bes~
in~eres~ ~o reach a ra~ional and in~egra~ed
se~~lemen~ a; the si~e and U.s. EPA is ac~ively
pursuing ~his. The scope and form of ase~tlement
are not issues ~hat need ~obe addressed in
connec~ion wi~h ~he ROD.
7.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey s~a~e~. ~ha~, ~o ~he
extent that u.s. EPA's proposed remedial action
purports ~o be based on ~he need ~o address
problems present~d by PCBs and certain other
hazardous subs~ances, ~he PRPs should not be held
liable for such cos~s because ~hey sen~ no
ma~erials aside from pe~roleum.
u.S. EPA's Response: Issues of PRP liabili~y are
no~ properly addressed in connec~ion wi~h ~he ROD.
8.
Squire, Sanders' Dempsey s~a~ed ~ha~ U.S. EPA
must consider a~l phases of remedia~ion at the
site in determining the overall cost effec~iveness
of the remediation. Since the final proposed
remediation included capping, the FS should have
considered whe~her ~he use of a cap could
eliminate the need for heat treatment, thereby
lowering the to~al cost of remediation at the
site.
u.s. EPA's Response: The FS determined that
capping the contaminated area of the site would
21
-------
no~ reduce ~he ~oxici~y, mobili~y, and volume of
the dioxin-con~amina~ed material. Under SARA,
there is a preference for selecting al~erna~ives
that include treatment. This is particularly
tmportantwhen dealing with dioxin because of i~s
high toxicity. Alternative 3A provides a balance
where certain contaminated materials are treated
and others are contained in a cost-effactive
manner that proteots human health and the
environment.
The Source Removal Operable Unit remedy was
selected before ~he final remedy, consisten~ with
Section 300.68(c) of the National Contingency Plan
(November 20, 1985), which states that operable
unit implementation may begin before selection of
an appropriate final remedial action if such
measures are cost-effective and consistent.with
the permanent remedy. The findings of "
cost-effectiveness and consistency with the '-. -.
permanent remedy were m~de for the Source Re~o~~l ,- ..
Operable Unit in the ROD for that remedy sele~~~~~.
dated September 30, 1987. . = ~ ~ - -.: - - .-
.. -. - ... .
Hazardous waste landfill capping' was considered in
the operable unit remedy selection and was. :
de~ermined an inappropria~e remedial. action £~r"-
these materials given the CERCLA Section 121
preference for remedial actions that include
treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazar~ous
substances and concerns about the long-term .
effectiveness of capping to contain these
materials. It was in the judgment of the U.s. EPA
that, since the soils to be remediated ~der the
Source Removal Operable Unit remedial action are
-Oq- ,~turated, the nonaqueous liquid hazardous
.aterial contained in the soil would still have
0: "'t"K.-:"'potential to migrate even after the site is
dewatered.
The final remedy, which includes placement of a
hazardous waste landfill cap over the remaining
22
-------
9.
v
10.
.
11.
site contaminated soils, is consistent with the
Source Removal Operable Unit remedy selection and
does not render that remedial action not
cost-effective.
The Laskin Task Force and Squire, Sanders'
Dempsey acknowledge Alternative 3A's superiority
to Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 with respect to cost
effectiveness, imp1ementabi1ity, and protection of
the environment and human health.
U.S. EPA's Response: U.S. .EPA acknowledges
suppot~ for its recommendation. .
The Laskin Task Force and Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey sta~ed that the dioxin vault should be
placed in a location that will minimize
disturbance or damage to the site, including the
cap, if future dioxin' .removal or treatment i:3
necessary.
--
- .
U.S. EPA's Response: The final location of t~e
dioxin vault will be determined during remedial ~.. : . - . --.
design. The vault will be located to minimize. - .-
disruption to to.e cap and provide protection to
the public during the temporary storage of the
dioxin-contaminated material. .
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey stated that the proposed
remediation of the retention pond and drainage of
the freshwater pond, two areas considered
uncontaminated by U.S. EPA, unnecessarily increase
the total project cost.
U.S. EPA's Response: The retention pond and the
freshwater pond are being filled because they act
85 recharge areas for the groundwater onsite and
-.ch.f are ° in direci .conflict with the cap. Filling
che ponds will help lower the groundwater table
onsite, reducing the amount of water that passes
through the contaminated soil.
23
-------
12.
13.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey stated that u.s. EPA
cannot support its proposed remedial action for
the source control operable unit with a risk
.asessment that is inaccurate and incomplete.
u.s. EPA's Response: This comment has been
answered in the Responsiveness Summary for the
1987 phased feasi~ility study. .
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey stated several concerns
about the feasibil~ty study's assumptions about
dioxin contamination and the proposed remedy.
They are:
o
The assumption that the entire boiler house
struct~re is contaminated and that the soil
is contaminated to a depth of 3 feet is
inappropriate 0 .
o
The feasibility study provides no valid basis
for the selected dioxin remedy.
o
There is no need to segregate ,the dioxin-
cc~taminated material and other matter. u.S.
EPA should consolidate the boiler house
equipment under the cap.
u.s. EPA's Response: Sufficient information was
gathered during the RI to compare alternatives in
the FS and choose a remedy in the Record of
Decision. In addition, dioxins were found in the
soil floor of the boiler house,in the boilers,
and in the ash from the smokestack. With
documented dioxin eontamination this widespread,
it was felt that other parts of the boiler house
were also contaminated and the decision was made
to incinerate the entire structure. . While it is
. true that the FS did assume the boiler "floor was
contaminated to a depth of 3 feet, that assumption
was viewed as a conserv~~ive estimate. Additional
data must be collected during the remedial design
to refine the extent of dioxin contamination.
24
-------
o
14.
~
These da~a will ~hen precisely define ~he soil
that needs to be incinerated.
The site-specific remedial action goals for the
boiler house soil and ash are identical to those
for the other onsite soil, but because of the
presence of highly toxic dioxins they are not
grouped with the other soil. Dioxin-contaminated
materials must conform to special treatment and
disposal requirements (i.e., destruction and
removal efficiencies). Keeping the dioxin-
contaminated materials separate will allow for the
ultimate disposal of materials that cannot be
thermally treated or decontaminated.

Squire, Sanders' Dempsey stated that the heat
~rea~men~ remedy for dioxin-contaminated equipment
and soil may not ba cost-effective if the PRP-
directed cleanup of the source operable unit does
not include onsite incineration.
u.S. EPA's Response: It has already been
determined that incineration of the source
material in the source operable unit will take
place onsite.
15.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey stated that it may be
unnecessary to pursue both heat treatment and ~he
concrete vault.
u.s. EPA's Response: The concrete vault, unlike
thermal treatment, is not viewed as a permanent
treatment. The vault will hold dioxin-
contaminated wastes that are not amenable to
incineration or decontamination at this time.
When the ultimate disposal of the dioxin-
contaminated materials is determined by U.S. EPA,
. they will be removed from the vault and disposed
of. Currently, there are no known commercial
facilities that will accept dioxin-contamina~ed
material for treatment or disposal.
25
-------
17.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey s~a~ed ~ha~ U.S. EPA has
violated due process, SARA administrative
procedures, and ~he Freedom of Informa~ion Ac~ by
failing to provide sufficient time to comment on
the remedial inves~iga~ion and the feasibility
study.
u.s. EPA's Response: The public comment period
must last a minimUm of 21 days as specified under
the National Contingency Plan. A 30-day comment
period for the site extended from April 12 to
Hay 12, 1989. On April 12, 1989, the u.s. EPA
published announcements of the availability of ~he
Proposed Plan and FS documents in tWo separate
local newspapers. The U.S. EPA feels adequate
time was previded for review of and comment on the
feasibility study~
Furthermore, the RI report has been available for
public review since December 1988. It was
available at the u.s. EPA Region V offices in
Chicago and in the tWo established public
repositori~s near the site (Ashtabula County
Disasters Services Office and the Ashtabula County
District Library). A copy of the RI report could
a1so have been ob~ained from the u.s. EPA.
18.
The Laskin Task Force stated that the addi~ional
benefit of an interceptor trench should be
evaluated after the impacts of draining and
filling the ponds is assessed. The groundwa~er
table should be monitored throughout the site
remediation and the decision about the necessity
of the diversion trench should be delayed until
near the end of remediation.
.u.s. EPA's Response: The purpose of the
"arounawater trench is to prevent groundwater
. flowing toward Cemetery Creek from coming in
contact with the contaminated soil. It is true
that groundwater inflow at the site is a small
percentage of the base flow from the site. During
. the remedial design phase, after the pond
26
-------
.'
19.
, ' '
dewatering, groundwater volumes will be reassessed,
and the location and size of the trench will be
reexamined. Current information from the site,
however, indicates that the diversion trench is
necessary to effectively divert upgradient
groundwater to prevent that groundwater from
coming into contact with contaminated soils.
The Laskin Task Force stated
residents should relocate to
site during construction and
remedial action.
that the onsite
an area away from the
operation of the
u.s. EPA's Response: Although U.S. EPA does not
intend to relocate the site's residents during the
remedia~ ac~ion, it would be to their advantage to
relocate during that time and the U.S. EPA will
inform them accordingly.
20.
The Laskin Task Force stated that capping th~- '
contaminated soil onsite will attain the goa~s of .',
protecting public health by isolating contacinated
soil from possible future contact and limit~n~ .:.
infiltration and future impacts r~ groundwa~e~: : - .
quality.
u.s. EPA's Response: U.S. [PA acknowledges
support for its recommendation.
21.
The Laskin Task Force stated that the methods for.
implementing the components of Alterna'Cive 3A,
including choosing 'Che loca'Cion of 'Che dioxin
vau~'C, should be described in 'Che remedial design
documen'C, no'C in 'Che Record of Decision.
u.s. EPA's Response: The feasibili'Cy s'Cudy's
__..lec'Ced al'Cerna'Cive and 'Che Record of Decision
. ~, ,- ','- - --.... - -
:d.~cribe 'Che generalconcep'C of the remedial
, . 'ac'Cion. The f'irial vaul'C location will be
de'Cermined during 'Che remedial design phase.
27
-------
OHIO EPA COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PuBLIC
COMME.NT PERIOD AND U.S. EPA RESPONSES
This responsiveness summary addresses the written comments
submitted by the Ohio EPA during the comment period. A copy
of the comments received are available at u.S. EPA, Region
V, Chicago.
1.
A number of comments and questions concerned the
proposed cap and diversion trench. These include:
o
Alternatives 3A, 4A, and SA do not
convincingly demonstrate that the remedy will
eliminate recharge to the area of groundwa~er
contamination under the site.
,
o
In Alternative 3A, an uncapped area ranging
in width from 25 feet to 50 feet will exist
between the cap and the landfilloB~ will
surface runoff from the cap and precipitation
falling on that area be diverted?
o
Bow will surface drainage from the capped
area be tied into the diversion trench?
u.s. [PA's Response: The FS report describes the
general concept and the approximate location of
the cap and trench. The engineered scheme
presented in the report will be designed to
provide effective dewatering of the site. During
remedial design, the exact locations of the ~ap
and trench will be determined based upon design
investigations. The cap will be designed to all~
virtually no infiltration into the contaminated
soil inside the diversion trench, as it is
anticipated that there will be no uncapped area
inside the diversion trench_(s.e_~t~achment B).
~l surface runoff from ~he .cap will be directed
outside the perimeter of the trench .further
preventing recharge to the contaminated area.
'"
28
-------
2.
Bow will the deed restrictions, access
restrictions, and site fencing apply to the onsite
resident? Also, what is the proposed location of
the site fencing?
u.s. EPA's Response: The effect of the proposed
institutional controls on the site residents will
be to bar interference with or damage to the
remedial action (i.. e., excavation through the cap,
installation of groundwater wells). Additional
and augmented onsite fencing will be installed as
part of the Source Removal Operable Unit remedial
,action, which is currently being designed. The
location of the fence will be determined during
design.
.
3.
The following requests were made for collection of
additional data:
o '
Additional groundwater and surface water
testing is needed before remedial design.
o
Soil samples should be taken on slope.
o
A boring should be taken in the boiler house.
.
o
The boile~ house dimensions should be
measured accurately.
o
Bydrotesting should be performed to detercine
the need for groundwater treatment.
u.s. EPA's Response: It is the opinion of the
U.s. EPA that sufficient data collection was
performed during the remedial investigation to
compare alternatives in the feasibility study and
choose a remedy for the site. During remedial
design, additional data will be collecte~ to. .
ensure the proper design of the remedial actio~.
Collection of additional data could possibly
include any or all of the commenter's suggested
actions. An exception would be hydrotesting. The
need for hydrotesting is questioned since the
29
-------
4.
. '
remedial action will effectively
aquifer beneath the site, making
groundwater unnecessary.
dewater the
treatment of site
Cross section B-B' should be added to Figure 1-4
in the feasibility study.
u.s. EPA's Response: This cross section is
presented in the R1 report (Figure 3-3).
5.
The final feasibility study was not clear whether
a specific task (i.e., preparation of a specific
area for incineration) would be taken in the final
RD/RA or during the Source Removal Operable Unit
RD/RA.
,
u.s. EPA's Response: The feasibility study,
assumed that the final remedial action and the
Saurce Control Operable Unit remedial action_w~uld
not be conducted concurrently. However, the'" ,
feasibility study.did estimate that there co~ldbe
a cost savings if the tWo remedial actions were' -,
done concurrently. It is not currently kn~ - if - ~ '
the site must be prepared either once or tWice' fci~' - -
incineration activities.
6.
Because Alternative 6 leaves dioxins in an onsite
vault, it does not meet RCRA closure performance
for contaminated groundwater. Therefore this
alternative cannot be considered a clean closure.
u.s. EPA's Response: When the dioxin vault 'is
removed and the groundwater has dissipated, the
site will be considered a clean closure. Until
that time, short-term management of the site is
required.
7.
- The dioxin vault does not appea; to meet Resource
. Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements
concerning secondary containment and detection of
releases.
30
-------
U.S.' [PA's Responsei The vault will be designed
to meet RCRA tank requirements (40 CFR
Section 264.192), the relevant and appropriate.
regulations for determining the storage structure
for the dioxin-contaminated waste.
8.
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act all~s FEMA to
assess valuation of property if acquired as a part
of the remedial action.
u.s. EPA's Response: The remedial action does not
at this time include acquisition of the property.
It is possible, however, ~hat information gathered
during the design of the final remedy would
indicate a qeed to acquire the property and
relocate the site residents to properly implement
the remedy. If this situation arises, the U.s.
EPA will follow the appropriate procedures to
~elocate and properly compensate the property"
owner.
- .. -' .
9.
Since the m~st protective multilayer cap is.the .
composite design u&ing both a geotextile materiaI~'
and a clay layer, it appears reasonable to import'
fill that would allow for the selection of the
more protective technology.
-
u.s. [PA's Response: The multilayer cap (soil and
geotextile) proposed in Alternative 3A, the
selected alternative, exceeds RCRA's hydrauli~
conductivity criteria for closure. The addi~ional
cost of importing clay ($300,000) was based mainly
on additional transportation COStS. Clay was
assumed to require transportation over a greater
distance. The cost differential betWeen soil and
clay could be less depending on the location of
. '-;;~u.provider. At the time of construction
.. ~bidding,.-.the cost differential betWeen clay and
soil fill could be evaluated and the clay
necessary to construct a 2-foot layer in the cap
could be imported in lieu of the corresponding
amount of soil.
31
-------
10..
11.
12.
..
13.
14.
An east-west cross sec~ion of ~he proposed grading
plan and a cross sec~ion showing the proposed cap
in relation to ~he diversion ~rench should be
provided.
u.s. EPA's Response: These cross sections will be
developed during remedial design.
Where will con~amina~ed soils be s~ockpiled while
building ~he RCRA landfill?
u.s. EPA's Response: The recommended al~erna~ive
does not include an onsite RCRA landfill. This
option was eliminated from consideration due to
implementability concerns, including lack of room
onsite to allow stockpiling of contaminated soil
during construction of a RCRA landfill.
Site groundwater monitoring must comply with RCRA
post-closure groundwater monitoring requiremen~s.
Monitoring should include both the shallow and
deep aquife:'so
u.s. EPA's Response:
recommendation.
u. S. EP.~ agrees with this
Alternatives 2 through 53 should include deed
restrictions, access restrictions, and site
fencing. Alternative 6 should include deed and
access restrictions and site fencing for the
dioxin storage area.
u.s. EPA's Response: Table 4-3 in the FS report
indicates that deed restrictions or other use or
institutional restrictions will be used.
, -
. -. --~ -.
Th. no-action alternative states that risk would
not increase from no action." 'Hypothetically,
events could take place under the no-action
altern~ ~ive that could increase risk to receptors.
32
-------
L
15.
16.
(,
u. S. EPA' s Response:" Tht! risk assessment
addresses those risks with a reasonable
probability of occurring. Hypothetically, many
extremely low probability events not considered in
~. risk assessment could occur, which would
increase risk at the site under no action above
the risk currently described in the FS report. It
should be noted, however, that the FS ~eport
describes the risk at the site as unacceptable
under the no-action alternative.
Treatment of groundwater under Alternatives 3A,
,4A, and SA would result in a greater reduction in
onsite contaminant mass than the incineration of
dioxin-contaminated materials.
U.S. EPA's Response: Contaminated groundwater is
not seen to pose a threat at this time because of
the lack of exposure routes under current use
conditions. Dewatering the site under
Alternative 3A will prevent any future generation
of contaminated groundwater. However, not
actively remediating the dioxin-contaminated
material does pose an unacceptable public health
threat. The U.S. EPA agrees with the commenter's
assessment, but stands by its determination that
Alternative 3A is the appropriate remedy.
. ,
Ohio EPA's preferred alternative,is Alternative 6.
While subject to results of needed treatability
studies, Alternative 6 seems to leave the Laskin
Poplar site suitable for unlimited future use.
Alternative 3A requires an indefinite period of
institutional controls to be adequately
protective.
u.s. EPA's Response: The U.S. EPA responded to
these concerns in a letter to Richard L. Shank - - -. - .
ctated Hay 22, 1989 (see Attachment C).
GLT902/001.S0
33
-------
.
A1:1:achmen1: A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
AT LASKIN POPLAR OIL SITE
-------
. Attachment A
CQHKUHITt RELATIONS ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
~~ AT LASKIN POPLAR OIL SITE
,,:~.: '
~~-'
All:"","
'.~. ""II.,.
',.-.. -'
1983 ',~,.-'
'""
,.
A>.'
u
. ."," j.~~ ~
1983-
August 1987
March 1989
April 1989
(,
. .- -'.--~-'---
~LT90,2/~~~.:5,~-,- -~:.-
... ... ..... .
Public meeting held to describe Phase I
III process.
Community Relations Plan prepared
Fact sheet prepared describing Phase II
III study and focused Feasibility Study

Availability session held with U.S~ EPA
s~ff to discuss onsite progress
Public meeting held to accept comments
on the focused FS for the source
material removal operable unit
Community Relations Plan updated
Fact sheet prepared describing II
findings and the scope of the sitewide
FS
Fact sheet prepared describing completed
FS, alternative methods for site
cleanup, and the recommended remedial
action
Public meeting held to accept comments
on the sitewide FS and U.S. EPA's,
proposed final remedy.
-------
-'-'~~-"~.';-~:'.~

--:-: . ..":r ~ - .

.t- -- ~~'f"':: .. . ,,':. .
:-. .(",,; ...;;.....
. . -
-.-.,'.. . .."..
... ..".
'":~--'
.. ,
.
Attachment B
FIGURE 4-8 (FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT), REVISED
.. -
.
.. - .- -----
-.'-- _.
\.
-------
. " " . "'0 ',' .:- '.... ",,' . t. . '. .... .. ..;....::f!:"- /' I Il .' "," l' .
'" , . , " .." , "J ; \ \ ~", ,'"", "" ,.,.' ,',q ." " .', ' , \' I " , 11-'1


~ ':, ", ,,' ./ ':',~. ' ,,:,:..., '~~~:;~'~;~::":",",' .",:, -' .'~:"'" ~-::~~';--'~~~~.~~-:~~'~-:-~~r:':/:!.\.~.."<~,..,~,,,,~,, ',. ~ "-"""",,' ,,''''~I

(\",\ ',.'," ,," ~.....' : ,,", '''';'';;r''~ .,.....I\\\., ,"'~,"""""""""" I,,~, I,
......' -." .... -. , .. " ""~ I . '-.;"......,.... , .".4"" ."'" r"";:- ~,..~' ", ,~, ',' ,-" ," I
. .".' ,.-., ""'" ; -:. ". ." I "". #11M . ~,........ - ".' .. ;,..--' '.. " "". ... I
" ~....~:~' " -", '--"'",', I.'" '''-.J'' '" , ..' . '",';.~:j' '- '-':'---". ,." '-'. -- ~' ';,..;'>';<' ::," '~"'" """',,"', ":"'," -,- ,. I
"~'(:- , , !"'" '- ",,1.,..- ','" "-- ...-,." " . "f'/A,t' A''''' ,~ '-,- "'.. ' """'''':''~'~:::",'''',,'' ", ,"'" '-'" .. "1
.. ' ~ "-:,' ", """'-- \ , -"'1."........... "'':'.; '4f/'rj ',' "';, '.' ~"""" ',"., ." " . .. I
,,', :" ""~i<\' "..," ' ,-."'" '---- -"- '~~. '~ ',' .': ""'1'~/ , .#.,., ,,'''''' '~'"\ ~'\"~" :-;,..:-.:---' "" " '..' '" I

:/',1 L-:",":. ~" '\ '"~,': ,>~ '-, ..,:-,. ~:.''','.' ,',:.. ' :~-...,.,::.:.~;: ::~~)~. '(~' .;",,' ':'" ,.~\\ \ '>:;~~:,:~~~:,T:::~;::,'~~" .,..,:,:",'.~',","~--~,~..'.' ~,~~.

) . ""." " '''.. .. - '- .. '''''' ",." "':'" .-~"./' J .'" I ',-.,',' " ..,., \ ' ''''''',' '''','''., ""'- :'"\''' '; ; I
,. ... - -,.-' ',' . ' l .... ' ' " " , . -. .~", J
" ;, >~ 'I: '~' ", -,,', "'~, "'i. ,,; ,-,-""" '.., -- '. -'" ' '. ,,'\ " ',\.~ ."'~~,~":'\;" -',:' I
"",:-,~. .~.' ..." "..-......, -~' '4.I'.~'-r", ,'. ..'...'- "". ""'''..' ._~:. '''''''''''''''''~~:.':~aI8o.,.1> i...
" ',,-"',: ~' ""'" ' ,',..»'",:, ';\' .,' .', ~"',.:.,"-.,, ',',"\ """'~':~'~~'1'-I' I '

~ . . ,," : "... " , , . --" I '. ... , '--.. . .. ,-... . . ~,. ..., . .' '.:-'\.i' J,. ,

,', '" ,,,,' '., .' "',,' ,'-' :(", ,I'::',"" "../""~~,:, . --."--""""" ' "~' '.. ~"::-"" -"".' '~ ' ' ". -, ..' 1 'I It
. . " ' "','.", "... J~ . ...... '."""" "".- - ""'. ".,,'. . ... . . . tI(

-, <~ ..,:,."..,,~, --"'..... L'::"~' ~~ ',/':l',,"f'~"\":'" ~~-."'\.'-" '..:,:.':'.\',,", :::',", \).;~ ~ II '/1 I -I
, .' ", '<:",' ':;:~<"," :',: ' ,..",,:. :; '(,/. ' ~~.,.~" " ::--""".. -...,.~.,:~ ~ ~,~' :'\".;\"- \" , )' 1 ' n.

, ..."'." '''. ',' '';.' '.. , . -".' ",,""'.'j'," -... , ~~.....: ' '" "'''',: '-"...: .;:-~" '.' ',." II , I I' ~
,. . "". .~.: "" . . .1,1- t. - ~ ..' ~...:.. .." 1-, . '" .. . ,", ,;'" L", ...., , I
,J', ' "'''''~''::''':,,:,,;",:,..;: --. "":...,-,,,,,,,,--,: ,-8:; . k,"""::,-, ':.': ,:' """- ':.:..,-'.---. ". ':;," U "'. I I',
; , . ' ',' .! ,(... . ,." '.-!:.',. .." ", . .~ ,,--v-., " I ' ,~ ' ~
", " " \ \ \~:', ,I'~:i~~. ~,,~,;" \,~,,:',' "'::'~ .::',':' " I.
. , ,\.. I ~ . ':-~':""L...-.~~"","'.-:.'..".~.,. .' --, . ,.'.:. '.',.::...,.:-,~ ,~':. ""'.'" .,": "
..." . -', " . " \\\\ /' " I' ""'"'f--"",,=: ,,,,' ;,:;., ' '. "'i - -'-'~"""'- .:..: -~ .. '.,. a ..."'i:,,-..;. ..:' ~ ~.:... .,_~..,II" '" "', ~ -, \...,1 \ , ,I"",
.,' ...., , , , .,. .."..\, ,i..; ,'-.1'- ~_:',""";' ":.,.""" .......--:-: ,- ..:.~ ':-., ;"" '" .. ....~ '",,'::', ' ~":\ \ t '
" .." " ' , \ " ,', ...-c'r.:.._."...~\V", .' r ...-_..-:..~_. ,~,..-,,- "'".-''''''''' """"" "'. , ' ~' ~ \ 1 '
r" .' , "', \, ','ll II' '-"'a,,""" .,"" .' '. '''!! x', ',,,,, ",' "\,:.. "" ,:""...'",:, ',~,"':"",'..'-i "J I,'
..,., \ '} I (" .~ ' '"'1'"' ~ . '. ,,.','-""'" ".",...., 0.. " ,... ~'" , II
. ',' \ ' .i ,/ ,': ..i1(.' . .}'" ", :" ' ~'~,...," ~.... :'l'~"'" '...',~~ . ",>,' ,'~ . i r!: .
, I. it I, I ..,.., ;.....4-.., ...c..:::::",,' .. ,,,,,,~'-.:- ,. II ",1' " '\. '... ,,'-," ~ I .
, " I . I I J, ,",.:..OH01" "...,.'.:,..' i7',' 'EN :,~ ,::J":,,/,",',:-o., ",~~ <'~',,"~, ~', ':'
I , ,,' /, I I", '."1- .~ '.' "..'." ""','"./' ~,.,.~~rIO'" ,\,~:~,:-.....,- .: '~'." '<\:'.,' , ,,',,' . ~~bt rl
, I, I, ',;' ",.'; FILLt:O ~'-~ " ,- - --- ---'."""'-.;--.UNO \.,' ", \\."... '"i "" ~"" ,,"', ' '- -..;:0. ,
, ' ..' ..' . ". - -', ..,' .. ,.. ". '.. I -. l'
. '.' I i,-... ,-"'..:"..,. ......;;:-..,-'---. i"'""""" t..,.' ". it, ..,:...~ ' ...'., . It'.

, I ' ,:, :" I:!, ~' ' , .-- " 'itf:t.::..~"" . ,~< ;"~' ,.'i'~':' \. ~\.,:", 'r::"" 'I .; ',"'\.",' ",., -, ~ ,I",) I ~' ~
. '/ I ., ; "....,.. ,..,' . " a. "'" ,",. . \.\,:' . '.. --' , "~ ,-., ' . '. " ,', "
, ,.... I " ' .' I' '.. '....', ;, .r-,' ";..' "" '\1 ,,', "\ rl. '" "",,'~" ", " '" ,'.

\' :r ,.~. ~ ,"'", - J)'~. ... . ., " '. ,
. '.'} ". VA~ "':s" I '...~.....:';:-- '" ....., : /'" "~/ . ., '.,"'~',~ ''',,'", ,: .,." .
, I .: i ' "', E ......, "'r ,,~.,-,-,~...-,- ';". ....,... ',' ,. , " .' ,. \ " I'

-",; ..' , , I, I :' ,rJb, l~", ,,?,."~ (I JII i 11.1.1. )(' -r-")f~~"\~-"- I Rrt 1f!NCC. it,~ ::' ~ ,. . ':, ~
, ( ; I , -. , III' NO. ., \' 'Fill ) """nl~",../, Pt.:"))"'~ '. -'r '. . I .:' ":--" ' , ;
'\ : \ ' ' I : \IO'l...AI" '. \" . ':' ',\.dl~' ,'t t ;;:;,.1(' ...:..., .:~- \1, - : ~-.._' ~ "'~"" /
, 'I I ' " I ' I '" '- I -~-l--" \,...' ,"If ~.: .1'. ~., ,.',,' . .
" , i I ,{' I I \ \ "" -;"<', ,~!./ - '"::.-.r-:-- - I! ...,."/~ - r I. " ~ ' ',,--
" " ' , ,..'\l ' ' \"',:._-.-.~:~:}.'t~?--;::::--::.....,.. ~--~ J :,~::7'---'\........ .... :~3:.;'~', . .".. ',-.:'-_..:_~-), ,.: .
'.. \ ' "'''', / , " I'~I" .:'~:..--o;:;.'''''''''~..",:---',''Ii=!7.~ ,'C.',... ~ ~"""I.t.-...a"" BOILI.1 \ 'I
",,1' , , , J" .~"p" ...... ... - '~'[-t -~. 't I
" '. " "<. .\ : I ~,'''~,;;t!A~.... " ~,': .>~, -'~ ~~-', . ~ I HOU~ -~j",-~'~'~~.'r.~ I
'I " 'J' ,,'-;' I '\'. ~ ,', ,t'''':'', L-..I -; ,..' t ",..., '\~
, " "'.,' ,., ~ ,-..' !, . '
. 'I.. ,.//-..-." .WI:" . ....';"".- _;._..~L- ...&&.1:.._--------_.
LEGEND
DRAINED AND FILLED
, FRESHWATER POND
I
APPROXIMATE tDCA1ION
r DIVERSION 1RE~
APPROXIMATE UI81S
OF THE CAP
REVISED (6-12-
FIGURE 4-8
ALTERNA11VE 3A
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
CAP AND DIVERSION TRENCii
.
o @,~
1 J
SCALE II fEET
NCn!:
FINAl UMITS OF CAP AND UJCA1IOH, '
OF DIVERSION tRENCH.lO lIE '
DETERMINED DURING REIEDIAl one(l'f,
-------
.~~.
~~~

":~
..
I
.
Attachment C
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 3A
LETTER TO OBIO EPA
MAY 22, 1989
-------
SRi\-14
MAY 2 2 1989
Richard L. Shank, Ph.D.
Director .
C!1io Environmental Protection 'Agercy
P.O. Eox 1049
1800 Watermark Drive
ColumbUS, Chio 43266-01'49
Dear Dr. Shank:
'D1ank you for your letter of ~ril 25, 1989. I am writing to acXiress
your concerns aOOut the proFOSal of RAnedialAltemative 3A as the united .
States Envilann-=:uLal Protection Agercy's (U.S. £PA's) Frefened remedy
for the LaskinS/poplar Oil site. 1Jhis preferred remedy w.s irclooed in
the PrQp:>sed Plan, 'Nhich \o1aS issued 1\pril 12, 1989. I alsO feel it is
necessary to briefly examine the necessity of a treatability study in
order to properly evaluate Rem=dial Altemati ve 6.

'As you indicated, our initial review of ~temative 6 suggested the
raredy might allow for unlimited future ..se at the site. However, UFOn
further review, we corv:luded Alternative 6 would, in fact, require 10119-
term operation and maintenan:e (O&M) . '!his O&M involves on-site
managarent of arrj rana.inin9 dioxin-contaminated debris am haZardous
waste dispJsal of arrI leaCH:ontaining residue ash tllat would rot meet
haZardoUS waste delist.ing criteria. Treatability stOOies do ~ appaar
necessary to conclude that a significant p:>rtion of this material wi 11
need to be managed a ha.zarCOUS waste.
. - .. ...
Alternative 6 alSO involves greater sl'¥:>rt-term risks than ~ternative 3A.
Ranedial JUtemative 3A is fully protective of human heal~ and the
envirOIlr1'lt!&t.. Alternative 3A, in canbi1lation with the operable unit
. cur-rently being designed, treatS the JI'Ost hazardous material at the site.
. camentS received fran the carmunity tlu.1S far have expressed great
concern abOut ircineration activities at the site. '!his can:em was a
factor in the prOIX>sal of Remedial Alternative 3A, 'Which incinerates only
the lTost, ha.zarCOUS materialS, and miniInizes the duration of incineration.
-------
-2-
I appreciate your concern in this matter, and thank you for taking the
time to conment early in the process. I hope we can reach an:agreenlent
on the remedy at Laskins/Poplar. If you have any questions or additional
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
. Q
r
{\
.. ' ''.l
Sfncer~'y yours,
..,.
\
Origi,H:1 !j:n~d l:}.
If-I Fran!: i~~. C:\';n~::,
"
.~~
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
~
. -
,
, .
~,if .
-------