United States
Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-88/049
June 1988
EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Henderson Road, PA
-------
50272 -lftl
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. EPA/ROD/R03-88/049 12.
PAGE . .
.. Title end Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Henderson Road, PA
- :rst Remedial Action
J. Reeipient's Acce..lon No.
So RellOft Dete
06/30/88
q
6.
_..
-
7. - _~thor(s)
8. Performinll Orllenization Rept- No.
~
9. Performinll Oraeniutlon Neme end Address
10. Project/Teak/Work Unit No.
- _. -_.-
---
11. Contrect(C) or G,ent(G) No.
(C)
(G)
----
12. Sponiorinil Orll8niz8tlon N8me end Addre..
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
11. TYII8 of Repoft & Period Covered
Agency
800/000
u.
15. Supplementery Notes
16. Abstf8ct (Limit: 200 words)
The Henderson Road site is an active waste facility situated on 7.6 acres of land in
Upper-Mer ion Township, Pennsylvania. The land in the vicinity of the site is zoned for
light industrial, heavy industrial and residential use. The site is approximately
2,000 feet south and upgradient of the Upper Merion Reservoir (UMR), where ground water
is part of a public water supply serving 228,000 customers. A water supply well.
350 feet southeast and upgradient of the site serves 15 employees of a lumber company.
e site area is also characterized by sinkholes resulting from dissolution and
-~bsequent collapse of the dolomite and limestone bedrock. The O'Hara Sanitation
Company (OSL) presently occupies the site with several automobile repair shops and a
drilling contractor. The OSL presently conducts onsite waste storage and waste
recycling operations. An. anonymous phone call to the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) in 1977 stated that ABM Disposal Service Company
transported and then injected industrial waste into a well located inside the OSL
maintenance garage. Limited information is available on the types or volumes of
materials disposed of before PADER was notified of injection activities at the site.
Results of PADER and EPA sampling conducted between 1977 and 1981, and ground water
monitoring conducted in 1986 revealed the presence of organic and VOC contamination both
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document An81ysis 8. Descriptors
Record of Decision
Henderson Road, PA
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media~ gw, sediments
Rev Contaminants: organics, VOCs
b. rtl8ntlfiers/0Il8n.End8CI Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
I--
11
.Iebility Stetement
! 19. Security C:ass (This Report)
None
21. No. of Palles
134
--
20. S8c:urlty Class (This Pelle)
None
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Re.,erse
O,,"ONAL FO... 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTI~35)
Depertment of Commerce
-------
--~A/ROD/R03-88/049
Dderson Road, PA
First Remedial Action
l~.
ABSTRACT (continued)
on and offsite. Of the 35 chemicals of concern identified at the site, fifteen were
found in UMR in 1986. Certain site-related chemicals also have been detected between
the site, UMR, and the adjacent water supply well. Additionally, the site is located in
an area of regional ground water contamination. Studies also indicate that the central
plume of. contamination from the site has not yet reached the UMR, based on an estimated
travel time for ground water from the site to reach UMR. However, onsite ground water
is still highly contaminated and the extent of contamination in the rocks and fractures
in the unsaturated bedrock has not been fully characterized. A potential might exist
for increased offsite loading to the ground water. The primary contaminants of concern
include VOCs and organics.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: installation of onsite and
downgradient (if necessary) ground water recovery wells and treatment using air
stripping with probable discharge to an adjacent stream, and possible discharge of a
portion of the treated ground water onto an area near the injection well as part of the
unsaturated zone treatment (soil flushing); closure of the injection well; excavation of
contaminated oil pit sediments and removal of significant waste, if feasible, directly
out of the injection well; installation, operation and maintenance of a carbon
~~sorption water treatment system at an affected offsite active well; deed restrictions
fecting ground water usage; ground water monitoring; collection and evaluation of data
during RD/RA phase for ~ossible pilot testing of in-situ volatilization (ISV) of VOCs or .
another appropriate treatment technology in the unsaturated zone; and periodic
reevaluation of cleanup goals. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action ranges from $5,500,000 (without ISV, unsaturated zone treatment or downgradient
pump and treatment) and $12,200,000 (with ISV).
-------
RECORO OF DECISION
DECLARATION
, ,
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Henderson Road NPL Site
362-372 South ~enderson Road
Upper ~erion Township, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial
action for the Henderson Road NPL Site ("the site") Injection
Well Operable Unit in Upper 'Mer ion Township. The selected
remedial action has been developed in accordance with CERCLA,
as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. The attached index identifies
the items which comprise the administrative record upon
which the selection of the remedial action is based. .
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurred on the
selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit is the first of two operable units
that address contamination at the site. This operable unit
addresses the source of the contamination by remediation
of the on-site ground water and shallow contaminated sediments,
possible removal and treatment of a source of contamination
in the unsaturated zone, and possible remediation of the
downgradient contaminant plume. The function of this
operable unit is to address ground water contamination
caused by injection of hazardous substances into the O'Hara.
Sanitation Company garage well (the "injection well") prior
to 1977 and reduce the risks associated with exposure to
ground water contaminated from the injection well. The second
operable unit, the Landfill Operable unit, will address surface
water, air, and ground water potentially impacted by previous
landfilling and trenching on-site, in addition to potential
. leakage from on-site underground storage tanks.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
-- installation of clusters of ground water recovery
wells on-site and, if necessary, downgradient;
-- air stripping of ground water and probable
discharge to the intermittent stream adjacent to
the site; a portion of the ground water may be
reinjected to the aquifer in the vicinity of the
of the injection well as part of unsaturated zone
treatment ("soil flushing");
-------
- 2 -
-- closure of the injection well, including excavation of
contaminated oil pit sediments, in accordance with federal
Underground Injection Well Program requirement~ and
removal of significant waste, if feasible, directly out
of the injection well;
-- placement of deed restrictions li~iting or prohibiting
use of ground water on the affected properties;
-- i~stallation of a treatment system at water lines con-
nected to the one off-site active well cons~dered to be
currently affected by the injection well;
-- periodic on- and off-site monitoring of ground water
throughout Operation and Maintenance;
-- further data collection and evaluation of the unsaturated
and saturated zones during Remedial Design and periodically
during Remedial Action, leading to a determination whether
to pilot test for, and possibly, institute in-situ
volatilization of volatile organics or other treatment in
the unsaturated zone; .
-- periodic reevaluation, throughout Operation and Maintenance,
of clean-up goals.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and
the environment, is expected to attain federal and State re-
quirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to
,this remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for_remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume as a
?rincipal element and utilizes permanent solutions and alter-
native treatment technologies to the maximum extent prac-
ticable. . .
Ground water pumping with or without treatment in the
unsaturated zone may result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels. Therefore, a review will
be conducted within five years after commencement of the
remedial action and every five years thereafter, throughout
operation and maintenance to evaluate whether technologies
implemented provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment, whether additional treatment, particularly
in the unsaturated zone, is appropriate, whether progress is
being made in meeting clean-up goals, and whether clean-up
go~ should be ravised.
I
June 1988
-------
RSCOR) OF ~ECI5IO~
~~CISIO~ S~~~ARY
I. SITE ~AME, LOCATIO~, AND DESCRIPTION
The Henderson Road NPL Site ("the site") consists of 7.6
acres locat~d at 362-372 South Henderson Road in Opper ~erion
Township, Pennsylvania (see Exhibit 1). The site is located
i~ the Chester Valley, an east-west trending subdivision of
the Piedmont Uplands in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The pied-
~ont Jplands is characterized by mature, dissected rolling
hills.
The highest elevation on the site is its northwest corner,
approximately 19~ feet above sea level. The east end of the
site, in the intermittent stream bed, is the lowest point of
elevation, at approximately 126 feet above sea level. Two
sloping areas characterize the site. Land' surfaces slope to-
ward the central portion of the landfill from the north, south,
west, and east, at slopes of approximately two percent. At the
extreme east of the site, land surfaces slope at approximately
eight percent and increase to 40 percent toward the stream bed.-
A level area at an elevation of approximately 160 feet lies in
the northwest portion of the site, north and east of the office!
maintenance garage complex located on the site (see Exhibit 2).
Flood plain mapping was not conducted as part of the Remedial
I~vestigation for this operable unit. '
The site is bounded on the north by the pennsylvania
Turnpike, on the south by Conrail tracks, to the east by the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Norristown
High-Speed Line right-of-way, and to the west by South Hender-
son Road. O'Hara Sanitation Company, Inc. occupies the site
with several automobile repair shops and a drilling contractor.
O'Hara Sanitation Company presently uses the site for waste
storage, waste recycling, vehicle maintenance and parking, and
office facilities. Land in vicinity of the site is zoned for
light industrial, heavy industrial, and residential ~se (see
Exhibit 3).
The site is approximately 2099 feet south and upgradient
of the Upper Merion Reservoir ("UMR"), where ground water is
pumped at a rate of 7.5 mgd as part of a public water supply
serving 228,009 customers. The site is about 359 feet south-
east of and upgradient from McIlvain Lumber Company, where a
water supply well serves 15 employees (see Exhibit 4).
-------
- :2
The aquifer beneath the site ~nd from which UMR and
t~e McIlvain well draw water meets the requirements of a
Class IIA aquifer, defined under the EPA Ground Water
Protection Program as a current source of drinking water.
;ccording to the Ground Water Protection Program, Class II
ground water should generally receiv~ the very high level
of protection that represents the "base line" degree of
protection tha~ is the standard of-EPA programs.
The population within 1,500 feet of the site consists
mainly of employees of businesses that surround the site.
Within one mile of the site the total estimated residential
population is 5,000. The nearest residential dwelling is 560
feet southwest of the site. The nearest school is 3,000 feet
south of the site.
An intermittent stream along the eastern edge of the
site flows. in the direction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike,
to the north of the site. The stream has no Commonw~alth
of Pennsylvania Stream classification. It empties into
the main of the Schuylkill River which is classified as a
cold water fisheries stream below the mouth of the Little
Schuylkill River. Thus, the intermittent stream would be
classified as a cold water fisheries stream. .
There are no species of special concern or exemplary
natural communities in the Henderson Road area as det.rmined
by the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. No endan-
gered reptiles or amphibians are expected to inhabit the area.
The Chester Valley contains highly folded dolomite and
li~estone rocks. Sinkholes are common in the Chester Valley,
including the area of the site, due to dissolution and subse-
quent collapse of the dolomite and limestone bedrock.
Ground water pumping at UMR draws down water from an
approximate area of 2.4 square miles, which includes the site,
and ground water that is induced to flow from the bed of the
Schuylkill River. UMR pumping has depressed the ground water
table at the site to about 120 to 160 feet below the surface.
Ground water is believed to flow from the site to the UMR
via fractures and related solution features in a direction
which predominantly follow~ strike but also has a northerly
component. Based on a calculated flow rate ranging from
2.4 to 13.3 feet per day in the vicinity of the site, ground
water is calculated in the Remedial Investigation ("R!")
to take approximately 0.6 to 3.4 years to flow from the
site to UMR. However, hazardous substances beneath the
site may not move at the rate amd manner that ground water
moves. .
-------
- 3 -
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCE~ENT ACTIVITIES
Disposal activities related to this operable unit were
initially -brought to the attention of PA DER in 1977 by an
anonymous phone call. The caller stated that ABM Disposal
Service Company transported and then injected industrial
waste into the well located inside the O'Hara Sanitation
maintenance garage. Records acquired since 1977 indicate
that disposal of wastes from sources into the injection
well may have occurred between 1974 and 1977. Generators
of hazardous substance are potentially liable under CERCLA
in addition to the owners and operators.
PA DER and the EPA have conducted on- and off-site
sampling since 1977. The site was proposed for the NPL in
1983. In December, 1985, an Administrative Order on Consent
was signed by EPA and nine respondents for the completion of
an RI and Feasibility Study ("FS"). In 1987 the site was split
into two operable units (see Section IV). The draft final
RI/FS for the injection well operable unit was completed
in April, 1988.
Special notice letters for RD/RA of the injection well
operable unit have been sent to 13 potentially responsible
parties ("PRPs"). A moratorium on RD/RA activities has
commenced and is expected to end on July 11; 1988. Informal
discussions with PRPs inoicate that a proposal to complete
RD/RA activities is forthcoming. No civil law suit has been
filed. Comments on the Proposed Plan from the Henderson Road
Site PRP Steering Committee are included in the Administrative
Record.
III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
The draft RI/FS and proposed Plan were made available
to the public for comment on April 22, 1988. Public comment
period closed on May 31, 1988. Although opportunity for a
public meeting was made available, no request for such a
meeting was received. EPA met with the Henderson Road Site
PRP Steering Committee, at their request, to describe the
Proposed Plan and to receive additional comments on the
Proposed Plan. EPA also met with Philadelphia Suburban Water
Company to discuss the proposed Plan. Finally, representatives.
from EPA discussed the RI/FS and Proposed Plan with the owners
of the McIlvain Well, Hubing Well, and Delaware River Basin
Commission. Representatives from PA DER, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
have particip~ted in development of the RI/FS since the first
draft was produced. .
Surface and subsurface features associated with the
injection well operable unit include ground water and UMR
water affected and potentially affected by disposal of
-------
- 4 -
hazardous substances into the injection well, ass~'medly
between 1914 and 1977. The waste has migrated to an area
beyond the injection well's immediate envir~ns. Gross
and/or dissolved contamination appears to exist in the
void spaces and fractures in the unsaturated and saturated
bedrock.
The Responsiveness Summary provides a response to each
of the significant comments received from the public.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT AND RESPONSE ACTION
This Record of Decision ("ROD") for the injection well
operable unit addresses the first of two planned activities
at the site. This ROD for the injection well operable unit
3ddresses ground water contamination and UMR contamination
caused by or potentially caused by disposal of hazardous sub-
stances into the injection well. Ground water pumping and,
if determined to be feasible and cost-effective, unsaturated
zone treatment, are proposed to reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of contaminants related to the injection well
operable unit. A second ROD, for the Landfill Operable Unit,
will address endanger~ent and potential endangerment from
contaminated or potentially contaminated surface water,
ground water, sediment and air related to landfilling,
trenching, and hazardous waste storage at the site. Together,
the RODs for the Injection Well and Landfill Operable Units
will address exposure and potential exposure to all contam-
ination resulting from site activities.
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Contamination and Affected Media
Limited information presently is available on the types
of materials disposed before PA DER was notified of injection
activities at the site. 6,GGG gallons of SmithKline and
French waste allegedly were disposed in one occurrence in
March, 1977, and records from ABM Disposal Company indicate
numerous "loads" from other sources were'transported to the
site. However, total quantities of wastes disposed
are unknown.
Results of PA DER and EPA sampling activities between
1977 and 1981 are listed in Exhibit 5. Constituents detected
in greatest concentrations include toluene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
dimethylbenzenes (xy1enes), 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,1,4,5-tetra-
methy1benzene, and 2,7-dimethylnapthalene, 1,2~-trich1orbenzene,
1,4-dichlorobenzene, naptha1ene, 1,2-dich10robenzene, and
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol. ..
-------
- ~ -
Results f!~m on- a~~ off-site ground ~ater "moni:orin3 i~
1986 are presented in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. Toluene~~d xylenes
~ere found in greatest concentrations on-site. However, the
Risk ~ssessment indicates that vinyl chlorine, l,l~dichloroethane
a~d tetrachloroethane pose the greatest ?roportion of the
ootential cancer risk associated with consumption of ground
~ater beneath the site (see Exhibit 12.) Compounds found in"
~ighest ~oncentration in unt(eated UMR water include trichloroethene,
l,l,l-trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride. However, the
Risk Assessment shows vinyl chloride, chloroform, 1,2,3- tri-
chloropropane and dichlorobromomethane to pose the greatest
carcinogenic risk in UMR. l,l-Dichloroethane was the most pre-
valent compound detected at the McIlvain well. 1,2-Dichloroethane,
along with methylene chloride and trichloroethane, comprise
the carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of McIlvain well
water.
B. Location of Contamination and Known Pot~nt"ial Routes
of Migration
The presence in 1986 of plastic pellets in one on-site
well, nonaqueous phase liquid in a second on-site well, and
some site-related contaminants in two hydraulically-connected
upgradientwells indicate that the waste has spread to an
area beyond the injection well's immediate environs. Contam-
ination has been found on-site as deep as 295 feet and as
shallow as 175 feet beneath the surface in the saturated
bedrock zone. Offsite, contamination has been found as
~eep" as 505 feet in the Crooked Lane well. (This well
appears influenced by regional contaminants, too.) Based
on OVA readings obtained during drilling, contamination
also is considered present in the voids and fractures in
the unsaturated zone. ~o soil sampling in the vicinity of
the 20 foot deep oil pit adjacent to and formerly connected
to the injection well has been conducted. This pit may be
a source of the toluene and xylene detected on-site.
When the injection well was used for waste disposal,
the injected material passed through the unsaturated zone
and saturated zone. The large solution features in the
unsaturated zone may have allowed liquid and solid waste to
spread both vertically and laterally. "Mounding" may have
caused the injected waste to move not only downgradient, but
upgradient too. For example on April 28, 1977, shortly after
the last disposal into the injection well, the depth "to
liquid/water in the injection well was approximately 79 feet
above the local water table. Water quality results, dated
1979 and 1983 at the Hubing well*, located about 1999 feet west
of the injection well, and results from on-site "upgradient"
sampling in 1986 support this theory of upgradient spread.
* The Hubing well, while apparently affected in the 1979's
from the injection of wastes at the site, did not exhibit
ground water contamination related to the site in 1986.
-------
- 6 -
-
Several compounds detected in ground water beneath the
site have been detected in UMR since 1979, when UMR water
first was analyzed for volatile organic compounds. Fifteen
of the 35 site-related chemicals of concern were found at
uMR in 1986. Certain site-related chemicals also have been
detected between the site and UMR and at the McIlvain well.
The site is located in an area of regional ground water
contamination. Two compounds, 1,l,2,2-tetrachloroethane and
1,2,3-trichloropropane, which contribute between about one-fifth
fifth to one-eighth of the risk associated with untreated UMR
water in 1986, were not detected at the site in 1986,
(trichloropropane accounts for the second highest proportion
of carcinogenic risk in one model). Furthermore, five organic
compounds have been been detected in excess of health-based
levels in four off-site wells not considered to presently be
affected by the injection well operable unit. Exhibit 9
shows other potential regional sources of contamination.
The FS states, "it appears impossible that the central
plume of contamination from the site has not yet reached the
UMR", based on an estimated travel time for water from
the site to reach UMR of ~.6 to 3.4 years. However, ground
water on-si~e is sti~l highly contaminated and the extent of
contamination in the voids and fractures in unsaturated bed-
rock has not been fully' characterized. In EPAls opinion,
a potential exists for increased off-site loading to the
ground water.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The po~ential scenarios fot exposure to contaminants
associated with the site are:
. current or future ground water extraction on-site;
. current or future ground water withdrawals between
the site and UMR;
. current or future ground water withdrawals upgradient
from the injection well, where the effects of mounding
still may be observed;
. current or future consumption of water at the McIlvain
well;
. current or future consumption of treated and untreated
UMR water.
-------
- 7 -
Thirty-five chemicals of concern are affiliated with
the site (see Exhibit 10). Exhibit 11 describes the various
exposure scenarios modeled in the Risk ~ssessment and
SU1\:'T\arizes t;,e carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk affiliated
wit~ each model.*
Exhibit 12 shows the carcinogenic risk associated with
each chemical of concern based on exposure models used in the
Risk ~ssess~ent. Chemicals of concern contributing the greatest
proportion of carcinogenic risk are volatile organic chemicals.
However, certain base/neutral extractable organics, acid
extractable organics, and metals are included in the chemicals
of concern. Exhibit 13 shows the hazard index ("HI") for
individual chemicals of concern for the site, UMR, and
McIlvain well. li2-Dichlo~opropane contributes the greatest
proportion of noncarcinogenic risk at the site and UMR. The
noncarcinogenic risk at the McIlvain well is far below any
cause for concern.
. The carcinogenic risk on-site, base~ on maximum concen-
trations found in 11 wells, is 3.6 x 10-. The present
risk associated with untreated water at UMR is 2.28 x 10-4
(using maximu~ values) and 8.6 x 10-5 (using average values).
The draft Risk Assessment attributes 82 and 88 percent, b~sed
on ~axi~um and average concentrations, of the present ris~ in
untreated water to site-related chemicals, although other
sources may contribute to the contamination found at UMR.
Also, analyses in the Risk Assessment of a potential worst-
case release to the UMR predict a level of carcinogenic risk
rang in; from 1.23 x 10-3 to 2.57 x 10-4 for untreated'
water. T~e risk affiliated wi~h potential carcinogens in
the McIlvain well is 6.8 x H~- -.
For the exposure scenarios modeled in the Risk Assessment,
the highest HI for chemicals with noncarcinogenic effects is
386 (water at maximum concentrations on-site). The HI asso-
ciated with untreated UMR water is considered low, ranging
from 0.6 to 2.3. A potential worst-case release to the
UMR from the site would produce a HI ranging from 2.9 to 13.7.
The HI for the McIlvain well is calculated at 0.999.
* Models 2 through 5, which simulate a dilution of site
chemicals with 97 percent of the UMR recharge basin, dilute
on-site concentrations 33 times (1.9 divided by 9.03).
-------
- 8 -
The primary exposure route froit! the site is ,through
drinking t~eated UMR water. MCLs presently are met in treated
UMR water The total risk from treatedUMR water is
4.4 x l0-~ (using maximum concentrations) and 1.9 x 10-5
(usin~ averages). The extent to which treatment at UMR would
protect human health if ~MR water-quality degrades further,
such as modeled in ~odels 2 through 5 of the RI, has not
been quantified.
In light of the substantial uncertainties associated with
the characterization of contamination and ground water movement
in the vicinity of the site and EPA's ~eneral standard for
clean-up of Superfund sites to the 10- risk level, the
potential for adverse health effects~ based on carcinogenic
risks, is considered sUbstantia~. "No action" is unacceptable
and ground water cleanup to 10- risk or background levels
is r-ecommended.
VII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes were made to the selected alternative
after the Proposed Plan.EPA recently released to the public
the following three documents that further clarify the
preferred remedy outlined in the Proposed Plan:
. Recommendations for Cleanup Criteria- Henderson Road
Injection Well Operable Unit;
. Henderson Road Injection Well Site Final Report on
Additional Work on Effluent Treatment Piloting and
Other Remedial Measures;
. Recommendations for pre-Design Investigations- Final
Report for the Henderson Road Injection Well Operable
Uni~.
These documents are considered a logical outgrowth of
information made available to the public. These were devel-
oped by EPA because EPA's preferred remedy differs from each
of the alternatives listed in the FS. These documents were
developed to clarify certain key components of EPA's
preferred remedy and to f~cilitate negotiations with PRPs for
RD/RA settlement.
-------
- 9 - .
...
VIII.DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
.A. Summary of Alternatives
The seven screened alternatives evaluated in the FS and
E?A'S preferred alternative, Alternative 7a, are summarized
i~ the following table:
Option Gr~und Injection Institu- Treatment In-situ On-site Down-
water Well tional at Volatil- Pump & gradient
~onit::>r- Closure Controls McIlvain ization Treat Pump &
ing Well Treat
Alter-
n a t i OJ e
1 X
2 X X X X
3 X X X X X
4 X X X X X
5 X X X X X X
6 X X X X X X
7 X X X X X X X
7a X X X X X X X
(more extensive (pending (pending
than alternative further . further
7) works: other work)
technologies
also to be
considered)
-------
- ~:) -
~
- .
:reat~ent Comoo~ents
.
The options comprising the above alternatives are de-
scribed below.*
Monitoring- For. all alternatives, three additional on-
site and two or three additional downgradient well clusters
are proposed in the FS for periodic ground water sampling.
The 12 wells drilled and sampled for the RI plus the additional
proposed ~ells would be sampled quarterly for the first
year and analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatile
compounds and total metals. Six of the wells exhibiting
the most elevated contaminant levels during the first year
would be sampled on a quarterly basis for the duration of
operation and maintenance.
T~ose alternatives which include ground water recovery
would include the additional recovery wells in the ground
water monitoring program.
The monitoring program comprising Alternative 7a is more
extensive and refined than that proposed for ~lternatives 1
through 7, for two reasons. Monitoring during well construc-
tion, operation and maintenance under Alternative 7a will be
fundamental in determining whether to institute in~situ aera-
tion or other unsaturated zone treatment at the site.
Section VIII.D describes this proposed additional site
monitoring and describes monitoring for pilot testing needed
to select treatment technologies for ground water. Additional
characterization of the unsaturated zone also is needed prior
to selecting a treatment option for the unsaturated zone
(including, possibly, no action) as part of EPA's preferred
alternative. Secondly, EPA's opinion is that additional work is
needed to characterize the saturated zone to most effectively
design a ground water recovery program. Details of the monitoring
program will be developed in Remedial Design.
Monitoring under Alternative 7a also w~ll include monitor-
ing at the Hubing well, which EPA considers to have been
affected by "mounding" from the injection well, the McIlvain
well, which may presently be affected by the Injection Well
Operable Unit, and UMR.
~ection Well Closure- Injection well closure will involve
excavatlon of the well cap and any contaminated sediments in the
shallow vicinity of the injection well, backfilling of the adjacent
oil pit, and permanently sealing the two discharge pipes leading into
the pit and the floor entrance to the pit. This would remove a
potential pathway for contaminated surface waters to enter the sub-
surface water to enter the subsurface zone.
*The PRPs proposed additional changes to thei~recommended alterna-
tive in a letter dated June 17, 1988 to EPA. These recommendat' ,s
are not discussed in this ROD, except where the PRPs'recommenda Jns
are incorporated into EPA's selected remedy. The Responsiveness
Summary addresses the June 17 letter.
-------
- 11 -
since the soils in the vicinity of the injection well
and oil pit have never been sampled, t~e type and volu~e
of material to be treated are unknown. Excavation of
sediments in deep bedrock fractures is considered infeasible.
The contaminated soil and sediments in the vicinity of the
injection well pit and oil pit will be excavated and disposed
at an approved landfill ar, if prohibited by the Land Ban,
incinerated or otherwise disposed appropriately.
Institutional Controls - Institutional controls may include:
. use restrictions, to be obtained by site owners or
operators from owners of property affected by the
injection well operable unit, prohibiting the construction
6f any water supply wells;
periodic inspection by regulatory agencies to ensure
that the injection well remains sealed;
. prohibition of ground water extraction, as a restric-
. tive covenant, for the property comprising the site.
These controls are expected to mitigate the risk from exposure
and potential exposure related to direct ingestion of ground
water affe~ted by the site until the aquifer restoration ob-
jective is achieved (see Section VIII.D on "aquifer restoration
objective") .
Treatment at McIlvain Well - The McIlvain well water
supply would be treated at the point of use by an activated
carbon system. The type of activated carbon system commonly
used in household applications is expected to remove the ~ol-
atile organic contaminants, which comprise the 6.75 x l@-
ris~ for carcinogens at the McIlvain Well, to below the 1.@ x
10- risk level. Pilot testing is not anticipated to be
needed for installation of this system. Carbon would
continue to be replaced at the McIlvain well until aquifer
restoration objectives are achieved.
One assumption related to this option is that the
McIlvain well is the sole active well affected by the
Henderson Road Site and used for drinking water purposes.
In-Situ Volatilization - In-situ volatilization (ISV)
remediation would involve the use of extraction wells
selectively located through the unsaturated fractures and
voids in bedrock which would generate a vacuum in the sub-
surface. This vacuum would act to reduce the apparent
-------
- ~2 -
~oili,; ~0int of t~e ~olatil~ or1anic5~it~in t~e zo~e of
inf:uence in the subsurface, resultin9 in 3 greater proportion
of the contaminant partitionin~ into the vapor phase. ~he
exiting gas stream would be withdrawn through the e~traction
wells, and would carry these organics into a carbpn adsor?tion
system to control emissions into the at~osphere,~'if necessary.
Organic compound vapors in the unsaturated bedrock
voids and fractures, and possibly some dissolved volatile
organic compounds in the 9round water, would be extracted with
ISV. If volatile organic conta~ination in the unsaturated
zone is a significant portion of the source of contamination,
future ground water degradation could be reduced with ISV.
Recovery of some acid extractable organics and base/neutral
organics with some volatllity from the unsaturated zone may
be achieved. However, ISV would have no effect on phthalate
wastes in the unsaturated zone.
The estimated reduction of volatile organic compound
waste in the unsaturated zone ranges from 90 to 99 percent.
Although 'this option is not expected to reduce the mobility
of any phthalates, which are not volatile, phthalates are
considered to be im~obile. The volume of waste that would
be treated is unknown because the extent of volatile organic
compound contamination in the unsaturated zone has not been
determined. See Section VIII.D.
A pilot study would be required to determine whether the
ISV system could remove contamination effectively from the
unsaturated zone, and, if so, to refine the 9perating parametei
for the ISV system. A pilot study would provide the basis
for evaluating organic removal efficiency from the subsurface
zone in the vacuum strea~, the removal efficiency of the
GAC offgas treatment system, -and the potential effects of
shortcircuiting of the withdrawal system (i.e., the character-
istics of the fractures in which a vacuum would be created
for ISV, along with other factors, ~ay limit the ability
to effectively establish a vacuum in certa~n parts of the
area being treated).
Criteria to discontinue the vacuum extraction process are
discussed in Section VIII.D.
In-situ volatilization is a relatively new technology
and application of this technology in fractured formations
is very limited. Because of this, and because the extent of
contamination in the unsaturated zone is not fully character-
ized to date, ISV is not considered highly reliable without
conducting a pilot study.
On-site Pump and Treat - Three to five 8-inch recovery
wells are proposed in the FS to be installed on-site and
pumped to remediate on-site ground water at abOut 400 foot
depths. If necessary to ensure ground water containment,
-------
- 13 -
addition~l on-site recovery wells would be inst~lled.
Treatment is proposed to include a sedimentation/precipitation
basin to -remove elevated concentrations of zinc and Some
organic compounds, and an air stipper, to remove elevated
concentrations of volatile organics. Vapor phase carbon
adsorption, if needed to control air emissions, would be
added to the treatment train. A biological treatment
system also is proposed if pre-design treatability studies
indicate additional ground water treatment would be needed
to meet performance criteria ARARs. The air stripper
effluent is likely to be discharged to the intermittent
stream along the eastern portion of the site. One other
discharge option is injection of part of the effluent to
the aquifer in the vicinity table of the injection well.
~ brief pump test on~site has shown that sufficient draw-
down of ground water at the site could be achieved in order
to induce the contaminants in the surrounding area to
flow into one well. However, due to the uncertainties of
ground water flow in fractured bedrock, the well field that
would be established may not be capable of capturing all of the
contaminated water on-site at a reasonable pump rate. Certain
field activities are recommended as part of Alternative 7a to
improve prospects for capturing contaminants in the ground
water. See Section VIII.E.
Air stripping"technology is based on the principle of
vapor-liquid equilibrium. Contaminated water is contacted
with large volumes of ambient air. The concentration of
contaminants in the influent air is far below equilibrium,
providing the driving force for transfer of contaminants from
water to air. Contaminated water is pumped from the water
source to the tower, where it is countercurrently contacted
with air. The water entering the tower trickles down over a
packed media which generates a thin film of water for air
contact. The thin film provides a large surface area for air
to water contact. Packed column aeration has been demonstrated
to provide a cost-effective system for removing volatile
organics from the ground water.
Exhibit 14 outlines possible treatment processes to
be used on ground water pumped at the site. Additional
treatment could include pH adjustment, granular activated
carbon, PACT activated sludge process, and filtration.
-------
- 14 -
P~io~ to pilotin; full scale design, on-and off-sit~
wells will be sa~pled and analyzed for the follow~ng para~eter.
. 30DS
':00
. ~mmonia -N
. Phosphates
. pH
TSS
. TS
. TDS
. oil and grease
. alkalinity
hardness.
Based on results from this sampling and design criteria
listed in Exhibit lS,"the required pilot processes can be
determined and certain technologies may be screened~out.
Pump and treat is expected to achieve a slow but
steady reduction of tha amount of soluble contaminants at
the site. However, in addition to the uncertainties and
limitations described above, the rate that the soluble
remnant waste infiltrates the aquifer is unknown. This data
gap increases the uncertainty related to the potential for
on-site pumping to achieve aquifer restoration. Finally, the
potential to restore the downgradient portion of the aquifer
is limited with only on-site pumping performance criteria
:"RARs.
The phthalates typically exhibit limited amenability to
air stripping. However, it is anticipated that the technologies
~alected through the pilot testing outlined in Exhibit 14
should achieve performance criteria ARARs.
off-Site Pump and Treat - As described in the FS, off-
site ground water pumping and treatment would involve in-
stallation of approximately three downgradient recovery
wells, in addition to the on-site recovery wells described
above*, from which water would be treated through air stripping.
Effluent from the stripping tower would be discharged either
to the adjacent intermittent stream or reinjected to the
aquifer. Section VIII.E describes field activities recom-
mended as part of Alternative 7a to improve prospects for
capturing ground water contaminants.
*Off-site pumping
on-site pumping;
pumping are only
pumping program.
is not being considered as an option without
consequently, treatment compGftents of off-site
described here as part of an on- and off-site
-------
- 15 -
Depending on the yields obtained from on- and off-site
pumping and the location of contaminants in the/~round water,
off-site pumping in addition to on-site pumping is .expected .
to improve prospects for capturing on-site and downgradient
contaminants. In the FS, primary treatment levels for
off-site pumping are addressed as an additional level of
protection to on-site pumping i.e., in the FS, downgradient
contamination is expected to be less severe than on-site
contamination, so pumping downgradient is considered to be .
less effective in remediating the aquifer. In Alternative
7a proposed by EPA, off-site treatment would be implemented
only if off-site treatment would achieve a similar order of
magnitude reduction as on-site treatment i.e., if downgradient
pumping would be just as effective as recovering contamination
as on-site pumping, downgradient recovery would be implemented.
In the FS, the downgradient treatment system is described
as expected to be less complex than the on-site treatment
systemsi based on relatively low levels of contaminants
expected in the FS to be detected downgradient. The system
is proposed to include a sedimentation/precipitation basin to
remove metals and a smaller packed tower than the on-site
air stripper(s) to remove volatile organics. Emissions
controls are determined in the FS to be unnecessary (on
a preliminary basis), because PA Air Toxic Guidelines are
expected to be met. In Alternative 7a proposed by EPA, down-
gradient pumping is ?roposed only if criteria for siting
downgradient wells described above are met. Thus, under
Alternative 7a, relatively high concent~ations of contaminants
would be found downgradient in order for downgradient recovery
wells to be operated. If contamination downgradient is just as
high as on-site than a similar treatment system would be needed
under Alternative 7a for ground water pumped from downgradient
and on-site.
The sampling program and design criteria described above
for on-site pump and treat would be applicable for ~ff-site
pump and treat pilot testing and technology screening as well.
Should additional treatment be needed to address less volatile
contaminants, the technologies listed in Exhibit 14 would be
considered.
As with on-site pump and treat, clean-up goals for
off-site pump and treat as part of Alternative 7a are MCLs,
other ARARs, or background levels, depending on the chemical
of concern. See Section VIII.D.
-------
- .:. ') -
,...
....
Implementation Timefra~es
~
The estimated remedial action timefr3mes for each
of the alternatives are summarized below:
. .;lternative
Estimated Time
to Achieve
Aquifer Restoration
(excluding background
contaminants)
Comments
1
NA
Not expected to achieve
aquifer resto~ation.
Costs based on 30 years O&M.
2
NA
Not expected to achieve
aquifer restoration. FS
costs based on 30 years O&M.
3
Unknown
Extent of wastes in unsatur-
ated zone is unkown, so can-
not predict extent to which
ISV would accelerate cleanup
or whether aquifer restora-
tion would be achieved with-
out pilot test. Assumed 2~4
years of ISV O&M in Terra
Vac estimate in FS. without
ground water pumping, minimal
reduction in toxicity, mobility
and volume of existing con-
taminated ground water is
expected.
4
> 30 yeaI:s;
Will achieve reduction in
toxicity, mobility and
volume, but unknown whether
aquifer I:estoration could be
achieved.
5
> 39 years; possibly
less than Alternative 4
Will achieve reduction in
toxicity, mobility and volume
but unknown whether aquifer
restoI:ation objective could
be achieved. More likely to
achieve aquifer restoration
. than Alternative 4.
-------
- ,. I -
6
> 3~ years; less
;: t e r :1 a t i 'J e 4
t'1 a n
:annot predict ext~nt t~ wh~=~
I3V would accelerate cleanup.
Will achieve reduction in
toxicity, mobility and volu~e.
More likely to achieve aqui:er
restoration than ~lternative
4 and 5, but still unknown.
7
> 30 years; less
Ihan ~:~ernatives
5 and 6
Cannot predict extent t~
which ISV would accelerate
cleanup wit~out piloting.
will achieve reduction in
toxicity, mobility and
volume. More likely to
achieve aquifer restora-
tion than ~lternatives
through 6 and possibly 7,
but still unknown.
7a
> 30 years; less than
Xlternatives 5 and 6;
possibly less than
_~lternative 7.
Cannot predict extent to
which ISV would accelerate
cleanup without piloting.
Will achieve reduction in
toxicity, mobility and
volume. More likely to
achie~e aquifer restoration
than ~lternatives 1 through
6 and possibly 7, but still
unknown.
D. Description of Major ARARS for Selected Remedy
Remedial Objectives - In the FS, two different clean-up
goals are proposed for ~lternatives 4 through 7. under the
first Alternative, the ground water recovery and treatment system
would operate in an attempt to clean the ground water beneath the
site property line to drinking water standards ("aquifer restor-
ation"). Thirty years of O&M are estimated for cost purposes.
Under the second Alternative, remediation would occur only until
contamination at the site is reduced to a point where, once
diluted with the UMR recharge basin (a three percent contribution
from the site to the recharge basin is used for the model),
drinking water standards are achieved at UMR. Both scenarios
are based on an assumption that no other sources contribute
or will contribute to contamination at UMR.
-------
- 18 -
EPA has selected aquifer restoration as the/clean-up goal
for the site because data uncertainties and complexities re-
lated to the movement of wastes t~rough the aquifer make
predictions difficult regarding potential off-site release
which would pose a risk to human health and the environment.
Under Section 12l(d) (2) (B) (ii) of SARA, alternate concentration
li~its ~ay not be applied at the property line if human exposure
may occur beyond the boundary of the facility unless: .
( I )
(I I)
there are known and projected points of entry of ground
water into surface water,
on the basis of measurements or projections, there
is or will be no statistically significant increase
of constituents from ground water in surface water
at the point of entry or at any point where there
is reason to believe accumulation of constituents
may occur downstream; and
the remedial action includes enforceable measures that
will preclude human exposure at any point between the
facility boundary and all known or projected points
of entry of ground water into surface water.
(III)
~PA is not prepared to conclude that the existing measure-
ments or projections establish that there is or will be no
statistically significant increase of constituent~ as describef
in (II) above.
Clean-up Criteria (ARARs) for Capping and Plugging the
Injection Well
The injection well currently is listed in the EPA Underground
Injection Well Control Program. Closure of the well, including
capping the well, will conform with applicable EPA injection
well closure standards (4~ C.F.R. Part 144.28).
Clean-u Criteria (ARARs) for Ground Water Pum in - Exhibit
16 lists cleanup crlterla (ARARs) propose for chemlcals of
concern that will be treated and monitored. As shown in
Exhibit 16, these ARARs are based on the most conservative
value derived from the following: MCLs, MCLgs, aquatic water
quality criteria, drinking water equivalent levels, Suggested
No Adverse Effect levels, models developed during the Risk
Assessment, processes described in the Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual, and specific values accepted by EPA (where
no other ARARs exist). Consistent with EPA Interim ARAR
Guidance dated July 14, 1987, MCLs, where available, were used.
-------
- 19 -
These are based on identifyin9 the aquifer of conc~rn as
equivalent to a Class IIA aquifer, a current sodrce of drinkin;
water. Also, five chemicals that are considered regional con-
taminants (l,l-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene,
trichloroethene and 1,2-dichlorpropane are proposed to be
remediated to the most conservative value of the following
three criteria:
. Average concentrations of the compounds in the
Estock, Hubing, and HR-l averages will be modified
as additional background wells are developed;
Average concentrations of the compounds in wells
on-site (excluding HR-2-l95, HR-4-l95, HR-4-295,
HR-S-192, and HR cluster 1);
. Proposed chemical~specific ~RARs for a Class IIA
aquifer (Exhibit 16) multiplied by a dilution
factor of 33 as discussed in the FS.
ARAPs proposed in Exhibit 16 are based on the assumption that
regional ground water contamination will not change in the
future. Should background contamination increase based on
samplin; results from the above well plus new wells to be
installed, the target criteria for regional contaminants
could be changed, using the same criteria listed above, with
averages recalculated with new values. .
Clean-up criteria would be applied to ground water quality
monitored at both the recovery and monitoring wells. The
operation of the ground water recovery and treatment system
may be discontinued when the upper limit of the mean concentration
of each indicator parameter (from the five most contaminated
monitoring and/or recovery wells associated with the ground water
treatment and recovery system as defined by each period of
sampling or other basis to be determined in Remedial Design)
is less that the appropriate clean-up criteria. A statistical
tool, such as the Student's T test, would be used to define
the upper range within which the mean concentration of a
representative sample would occur. The upper limit of the
sample mean must be below the specified clean-up criteria
for four consecutive quarterly ~onitoring events before the
treatment system would be discontinued. This will ensure that
seasonal fluctuations in site conditions are accounted for in
the evaluation. If all parameters meet these criteria, except
for those that have been identified as regional contaminants
(as specified above), the criteria may be waived for these com-
pounds if sufficient information determines that regional
influences are responsible for the observed levels of contam-
inants above the specified criteria. The pump-and-treat system
would be reactivated if the concentration of the indicator
parameters shows a statistically significant increase above the
cleanup criteria in two consecutive quarters.
-------
--2" -
Individual ground wat~r extraction wells ~ay be re~oved
from the ground water recovery and treatment system independent
of full system shutdown. If ground water contaminant levels
from an i~dividual extraction well are below the clean-up
criteria for four consecutive quarters, then the well may be
taken off-line. Monitoring of off-line wells should continue on
a quarterly basis. The reactio~ of ground water quality at
other wells, from the shutdown of individual extraction
wells, also would be observed to ensure that the effectiveness
of the ground water recovery and treatment system is maintained.
The well would be reactivated as a recovery well if the
concentration of the indicator parameters during the quarterly
~onitoring exceeds the clean-up criteria for two consecutive
quarters. ~gain, requirements for recovery well or system
shut down for those parmeters that are regional contaminants
may be waived if sufficient information determines that
regional influences are responsible for the observed con-
ta~inant concentrations.
Clean-up Criteria (ARARS) for Injection Well Sediment
Excavation - If soils in the vicinity of the injection
well and oi1 pit are shown to have the potential to cause
future ground water contamination above health-based goals,
they will be removed to a feasible, cost-effective depth.
EPA plans to excavate shallow soils and sediments that do not
meet RCRA standards for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity
or toxicity and those that fail the TCLP test. In addition,
the TCLP will be used to determine the degree of excavation
required around the injection well pit and oil pit.
Clean-up Criteria for ISV- The proposed alternative'in-
eludes ISV as one potential technology to be implemented should
remediation of the unsaturated zone prove necessary. On a pre-
liminary basis, criteria to discontinue the vacuum extraction
process is proposed at 400 ppb total volatile organics in the
offgas when averaged over a three-month period. ~t 400 ppb,
the system is expected to experience diminishing returns in
terms of reduction in concentration and reduction in contaminant
remova.l. Refinement of criteria for discontinuance of an
ISV system would be needed through a pilot study.
Since a treatment process has not been selected for the un-
saturated zone for this ROD (ISV was only proposed as one option
and evaluated, for costing-purposes, on a preliminary basis) ,
clean-up criteria for other potential unsaturated zone treatment
processes (e.g., unsaturated zone flushing) have not been
developed.
-------
- 21.-
Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Ground Water 7reatment -
Indicator oarameters for assessin3 the performance of the
ground wat~r treat~ent system are based on the f6110wing
criteria:. .
Risk: ~ny compounds that hypothetically could impact
UMR (based on Modell of ihe RI) with a carcinogenic
risk greater than 1 x 10- or a non-carcinogenic
hazard index risk greater than 0.5;
Magnitude of~aximu~ concentration in relation to the
proposed cleanup criteria: ~ny compound that exceeds
the aquifer restoration criteria;
Treatment process specific compounds: Compounds that
are treated by each of the ground water treatment
processes. . .
For discharge of the treated effluent to the dry swale along
the eastern portion of the site, compliance with NPDES dis-
harge permit requirements which include the PA toxic strategy
~ust ~e attained. It is likely that the proposed effluent
standards will be acceptable for surface discharge. PA DER
may require that discharge at the property boundary
will not adversely impact water quality and aquatic life
at the point where it discharges igto the Rointof continuous
flow and that treatment to the 10- or 10- cancer risk
level must ~e achieved. The Delaware River Basin Commission
and PA DER will be contacted for review and guidance on
speclfic effluent requirements.
If part of the treated water is discharged back to the
ground water through an infiltration gallery to "flush" the
unsaturated zone, the treated effluent must meet drinking
water standards or human health criteria, whichever is
;nore stringent.
Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Air Emissions- Exhibit.
17 lists air quality guidelines that would apply to air emissions
from air strippers or any other treatment options implemented
at the site. The emissions of all toxic air contaminants listed
in Exhibit 17 must meet the requirements of Pennsylvania air
toxic guidelines entitled, "Interim Operating Guidance for Air
Toxic Substances: New and Modified Sources," dated September
27, 1985. This guidance establishes rules for determining the
concentrations of toxic air contaminants from a source measured
at the property line (or at any point off the property) and
establishes limits for the concentrations of toxic air
pollutants.
-------
- 22-
~~e :Jllowin~ conditions m~st ~e met :Jr t~e emissions
of any toxic air ?oll~tant:
~hen t~e ~axi~um ambient concentration of any toxic
air conta~inant is wit~in a factor of three below t~e
air ~uality guidelines, every effort should be made
to reduce the concentration by improvements in air
?ollutant release characteristics, reductions in
operating schedule, and other factors that may reduce
t~e maximu~ ambient concentration;
~hen the maximum ambient concentration of any toxic air
conta~inant is within a factor of three greater than the
air quality guidelines, consideration should be given to
reducing t~e amount of toxic substance that would be
,emitted by im?roving the air ?ollution control equipment
or procedures;
When t~e maxi~um ambient concentration of any toxic air
contaminant is wit~in a factor of three greater than
t~e air quality guidelines and cannot be reduced to sub-
stantially less than the air quality guidelines, the.
PA DER Air Toxic Coordinator must approve or disapprove
the constr~ction of the source;
If the maximum ambient concentration of any toxic air
contaminant is substantially greater than the air quality
guidelines, the emission of the air toxic substance must
preveht an unacceptable risk to public health.
Furthermore, if VOC emissions are determined to jeopardize
the attainment of the ozone standard, emission controls must
be implemented in order to reduce VOC emissions to an acceptable
level. This determination is made by the PA DER on a case-by-
case basis after submittal of plans to PA DER.
The emissions of toxic air contaminants and
compounds to the atmosphere can be controlled to
necessary in order to achieve these requirements
vapor phase activated carbon.
volatile organic
the extent
by using gas
Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Off-site Dis osal- Off-site
disposa 0 azar ous waste must e per orme 1n accor ance with
the requirements of the EPA's Off-site Policy, which prohibits the
use of a facility that has significant outstanding Class I
violations under RCRA. The materials that are expected to be dis-
posed off-site would be soil or sludge excavated from the base of
the injection well pit, cuttings from the drilling of wells, and
contaminated equipment or garb used by workers. (Spent activated
carbon from remedial treatment systems would be reclaimed and
reused at a recycling facility). The contaminated materials
are likely to be sent to a hazardous waste incinerator or other
appropriate disposal facility, as RCRA Land Disposal Re~trictions
-------
- 23 -
("Land 3an") are likely to be appli:able or relevaDt and
appropriate for these ~aterials.
't'
~ .
Description of the Preferred Alternative
EPA1s oreferred alternative is Alternative 7a. This
differs from the alternative recommended by the ?RP Respondents
in the RI/FS, which is Alternative 4. Indeed, while ce~tain.
components of EPA's alternative are similar to those comprising
the alternatives eval~ated in the RI/FS, EPA1s preferred
alternative differs fro~ all seven alternatives analyzed in
the RI/FS. This is beca~se EPA determined that an additional
alternative or alternatives were needed to address the high
level of ~ncertainty pertaining to the characterization, fate,
and transport of contaminants related to this site. EPA also
disagrees with the recommendation, in the RI/FS, to select
UMR restoration as a clean-~p goal.
As vario~s drafts of the RI/FS were developed, EPA commented
that significant ~ncertainty still existed regarding the vertical
and lateral extent .of contamination in the ~nsat~iated and sat~r-
ated zones. EPA determined that data gathered to date was suffi-
cient to screen and evaluate FS alternatives and begin Remedial
Design/Remedial Action. However, EPA expected that additional
characterization would be necessary in order to design a treat-
ment system. Since none of the alternatives proposed in the
FS addresses this need,. EPA prepared a report entitled, "Draft
Pre-Design Recommendations for the Henderson Road Injection Well
Operable Unit", the major components of which are incorporated
into the EPA preferred alternative.
EPA1s preferred alternative is comprised of the following:
. injection well investigation, possible remediation,
and clos~re;
. on-site gro~nd water investigation, pumping and
treating with air stripper and other treatment
technologies, if necessary to meet effluent and
emission performance criteria;
. downgradient ground water pumping and treatment,
depending on f~rther analyses of downgradient
ground water hydraulics and contamination;
. installation, operation and maintenance of a carbon
absorption water treatment system at the McIlvain
well;
* The PRP Respondents disagree with EPA that additional charac-
terization is needed. See Responsiveness Summary.
-------
SIHW' or 11« nll'~!!!,_~~!!~~'n~!.!.~
..m. ........1... ,re...." .,. ..... ...~ ..... .."tier ,......,.. -'II'" 10 ...w.... '..'''''' "".""'''
OMI.....,..... .. ...... .Jau'"
8' nU",,'fI
1J]I8;-TUII UrrCTlvnIDJ
rwnt.cIl ftJaSI
OItft.IAIOIIIIIII -
----_._~
f. ... kl''''''- """0'''..
I.
1.,.ul- ...1. Clo--...,
I........t-..I fAl8t'.'.
~ Ih... 11..1.-, ..
....,.., ,.. ...... .....,
..... """0""0.
I.
1.'.-. h.. ..." f:loeu..,
....... ul ..... Cullt ''''.,
" Ih... f,..t-... ...
au...... h. ...... s.,.",.
I. '81l1li ""...11".1'-.
..... """""IIG.
1.,oc.l... 11011 CI_...,
.....11",1_1 ea.,,,,,,
~11..t. "..1.- ..
.h....II.. "'..r """
"'-51.. - ... ~
... -"."..
1.\...1.. 11011 CI_...
,..11,."...1 CoellO'.,
""11..t. "..-.... ...
&1.....,1.. ...... """
... -5'" ... -....1...
..... .... ,. - ...
""'''.'''''
I-,.el'- ..., I CI...... .
I.., ,...,....1 c..".'I.
Irk 11.... b..I.... ..
AI....... I.. ...... ""'"
.-$1.. "-p ... ......
I.-Sit. -".1..11.11_.
-- -"."'"
I.IHI t. ..... (I......,
1..11',,"_1 c..c.....
... 18..1. b....... ..
.,.....,1.. 118'8' ...,.."
...-$1.. ... ~''''I.''
, "MIl' ...., "..', .......
--.1... ........ ...
-II......
..,....- 110" CI_.,
..... 11...1..... ""'.'8,
"':11..1. h....... ...
al.......I.. ...... """
...-5'.. ... ,,-.......
...... .... f,.... I.......
...1..1"...._. "-....-
I.... .... ....41..-1
0..,..... I ...1...
....... - ,...1" ,'oI.cl-
... '0. ..., roc-I.,
..r.,... .
-.. ,....c. .........
",,".r. t.- ~..d "',"
t",,"'.tl- ... '-"
"'U8 .....1.1.. 0",,,.
....c." ... ..... .. "...
....... .... ... -.. _.
"...(t. -...... --......
.... ",1...1. _I......
...1.........- ....... '1-
... .... c....t...,-
" ."...1...
-.. ,....... ........ ....
.... ... .......... ..,.....
I. .1.. ,.....cll.. .. ...
..". ......1. .... _tl.r.
-.. ""'''1 ........ _II.
... "".CI .....,... .......
1_1...1. .... ... ...".
'..''''. I'" _"...
......, ,......... ., ........
... ......... ....,..... 100-
cI...l.. .... ... ...11. ........
'" I'" _"...
I....... ..1..11....... .fI....
,,".c'l.. .... .. ... .........
" "-.'81 .11 _'CI ...-
....1.. "-"'" ,r." I-
"'''' .-...... .. .. ...
........ -,.... "".
......1.. .... _"...
.......--.-
....... - or "1-.1",
"""..--.-
.. .... _"...
....... - -. -
I. .... _"...
... .... ......1.. I. -.
_".. ..........- -
..-.... ... ""I" ,..-
_181.1. - -".'
.........1.. -
..........
... .... "'_1.' ,. -.
-".' ........... -
.... . ... ......1...
... .... ......1.. .. -.
...,U.. r......fI. &aAI8
.... . .... ..........
.. .-.. ...-...
,. -t 8pU.r n......-
.1.. - .... . ...
......... .- ....1-
.t'.nNt IMe, .... ,...
......1.. .- fa.
tIf.... "'_1.11,. .... '... ........ ,.c_I.. I.
........ .-. .. ""8«"- - _".. ........-
10.. _..1_'.. .... ..... 11_"""".'"
......... ., ..........11, ... .....
........ ......., _II. I. .....
I. ...... ....ee ...r','"
It.. .. fO"""" '«1"0"
'''''-, ....h - .... 0" """8.
II." -14 ... red....... ..
.....,..U ..... ........
po'.D,'a' .."'"... -,..
8'" .. ... ---II .......
"".'. .... ...ne. -t-
..,.. --I. ,..-. a~ .,..,
"-H.. .,.. .. ... MAl'.
....,..
1a8t9.. ... 8OU'C8 ..t-
....1 ... """" -.....
UftC_I...... .,..... ....
I. .he I...., I...'. ..,..
.1..lIlc_l, .-. ....
....
"""" -- 8OIIrC8 ...-
..'.1 ... """'" - ...
."...1.. ._..1..... ...-.
..... .. .... I....... I.....
_I' ....11..-1, .......
.... .....
"".'" ... eau.c. _t-
..,.1 ... "'.". .....01..
C'08''''''''' ..... .,...
'0 .... 1_.. I._I. -..
....,1, ..... i.. .....
Of'... ....... ..... ...-
...... ..... ,........
............, "'" I_r
..... lA, ., ........-.. ...
....e. .......1 ...
'..'o~'" ,e. ..",".r.
.....-. ... .....to .,-
.rI.1 ... ..... I. - ....
......... c__I..... ........
....r -, ..... I'."."
.18' '_11_.
po...,: .... .-.... .... ...-- .. .....1- ...1.. ... .-.-.... """ -_I.... ....11 ... ."'''''
1....11.11... .1...1. .. '_h"'" I. .... ..I.t... .-,. .
.
-i;Jii'iiOoi.. -MI". n ---.
".".1 n .... ........ ""-n.. u,ralVV«.sJ
-------":--V." mri --- S,,"I"-INI n -
'-Alllin UIUW! AlU,'",,,
b.... no. r"'.a lo"d.,
"I"" Of "0'&88.
bell, 1...I_n."',
--.---.-------..---,-.. ~.. - ~
1.""1'
k---,........,
.....,.. b8 8....
""'0<". 0' 'OdI'U walt...
ta .. .,.. 84>"..
.."..108 0' .ourc8 eot I
..u.... ..... ........ ''''.1-
'UII t. 1'--' .....
.ul-.. ..... .....'cll,.
"JU'. ...... ....I~ ....
...11 h, .r .011 ...
,.. .,...... ...... Coni.'''''"
... .'1. ..... --I. ......-
,ue.. I, ..."'. ....-
... ,.1... "a.."",,=-
.1. '''''01 "91--..
Ie,...... 801.- ... -II",
.', c.........I.. I. ....
.... ...-.... .... Ir"" -....
""II .... ... 011-.1...
&..t... .0''''' .... -"11',
.1 ICMtU. .....'.1. ..1Id ..-
...... _III" .... ..I.-
.1 "'.."0 .... ."-""-"'"
."....... .rUUflll ...,.
1......" H'" ""."- oU...
,. 8D.IIII, ... .01... ..
c-.-.",.,- I- - ...
0.,....1.. ..'I. 1e4ut.. ..01-
.,... "'1"', 0' c.....I..I'-
la ,.-..-.1 ..... '--'h, .. ....
0" -. U I.
lad... ..01.... .... .."1.,
o' ..It .... I''''' .....
~0I8' .......... ...... - ....
... -.....
MwI... ..... ,h', .....1" .. to
....... ....... .. u. .U. ....
......11'", ""'0'1". _II..
"1_.. 'W,.... .. ..,....",.
'u.l... C'CIf""."U8a L..w
.hr.J.. .... ,....
"'nu.. 'IIC:..... ,. ..,.,.....
."". Cun8lrvc. ... .....
.t...1 .... .,.,.
H'.' 'Dn.... ,. .'poII"'"
""'" c..... ruel'", ....
.ha.. I.'. .....
Mlna.. 'M"."'. .. ..,.......
'."" ~....... ... .... ..,
.ho,' t.... ".,.
II'", ......... I. ..,......
."'1"'" cu",,,.,,,,. ....
a""'1 .... ...r..
111.-. .......... ,. ..,...,.
""'" ~...t 'lid 'M. ...
.Iw.. ,.,. .....
MI-' '.n..... .. ..,.....,.
.""'" e""".cll08. IAN
.hu,t '.r. .1...
bell, I...I-n''''.
~ 1o c..."..
1"'''' 1.-.".
",,'8I"","U8 -,
he.. ....... 1.....-
..At ...... ,.
1..11, 1,.1_....'1..
u... "8". I eclvw-
1..1... ....,11..
".'0...1.... -, ..,.
.. .ch"","..
bell, 1..1_"'1..
Ut.. ,.0... ,.,h"o-
1..1... ....,11..
'."0"""" -, ....
.. ocM.".....
I~I--- ."., nc.,.
'Of .....,.. ""'.1'11-
...... ...Ie.. .., ...
.. .".e. e.'a "",U..
r..t 0""" -, 180'
.. achl.......
""-".'., I.CI"
for ,....". ",,10.11'-
..t'" "'-te" .., ...,.
.. ef',ct .... ".11..
............ -, ..... ...
ac:h'..""..
. '
1...'_"""'. .a.c~,.
'0' 1.-.1... ..,..'1'-
...,.. wltteh -, ...
.. ....~. "a, _..r
,11.. '" ...11 ......11,
po' ... 1.1 ...""""-
.blll., ,."'1_.
I . ~ , I
kc.p' .bl'I.,
.'"",,1. b8 luw,
t,. H=I
"'...p'."'" ,
......... .. IUiIII.
". .In
II.....IJ be .--,,,,.1,
...'upt.t.I.. ,,-.. ..
~c.... I., 'u .....,
-.- .,,,,,.. d.- ~
.p. "- I'>M;
..,.". I.,.. ...
..",&:c".8
,...,11
C b. 'b'J
.....,. "- .--...18',
en'.....r.,., "Ui8 ...
,.,..'" 'a' '0, UUII
..- .,,,..., d....-
... -~:
-J.", 'u.. .,.
.....~. ada.
~. J.'b
111...... ha.,.. M.t.
I..,... v, 8&."CI""".
'... '0, ...,...., h' to
kll'... ''''''h' ....,
",,,"c. (h.....p.
t"'M: ..,11'.,.. "'.
........8 ..111 .......
111,"1.'1 ....... h8.. hI.h
'...1 v. ..,.,....,.."..
""vll.. .... 8UOU".
rte...., v"'«,'...'
......" ,'-r.
.n'cp' .IK", r::aa;
, -,.,. I",. ........
,..11. ..1.'.-
,. ~', I
11...1. ....,.. hi.'..'
,...1,- v' ... «.' .,....
AI"I'., ..... ..""'..
d...... ub'«,:' h..
-.au'" ."...".
Ot.'. .... ...'. a ,..M:
""8(."1,,,.. _oulJ
..... ..1.,.8
'"
I,'.: :..
-------
- 24 -
. on-site, upgradient and downgradient gra~n~ water
:nonitoring (including at the Hubing and'McIl.."ain
wells and UMR) throughout design, operation and
maintenance of the ground water treatment system
and for the period following discontinuation of
?umpi ng; .
. periodic evaluation of the progress of the treatment
system in achieving ARARs and, if appropriate,
reevaluation of the aquifer restoration objective and
ARARs, considering feasibility and cost-effectiveness;
. further investigation of the unsaturated zone prior
to determining whether direct unsaturated zone treat-
ment should be instituted and, if so, selecting an
appropriate technology. In-situ volatilization* and
soil flushing are two treatment technologies
under consideration. Other technologies could be
selected instead or a decision may be made to fore-
go direct remediation of the unsaturated zone; and
. institutional controls to restrict or limit the use of
ground water on properties affected by the injection
well operable unit.
Exhibit 18 shows how the investigative activities proposed as
part of EPA's preferred alternative will factor into revising
the current conceptual model of the site (i.e., the extent/nature
of contamination, fate and transport, existing and potential risk,
and costs of potential remed(ation). Exhibits 19 through
21 outline, in more detail, the progress of events for the
injection well, unsaturated zone, and saturated zone investig-
ations. Section VIII.S briefly describes the pilot testing and
criteria that will determine final ground water treatment
design.
Estimated costs for EPA's preferred alternative
range from $ 5.5 million (if no ISV or other unsaturated zone
treatment is instituted and no downgradient & pumping) to 12.2
million (if ISV is instituted). Exhibit 22 provides documentation
of these costs.
IX.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A Summary of the comparative analysis of alternatives
is provided on the following table. Costs included in the
table are estimates only.
* ISV is used as a basis for determining the costs of the
unsaturated zone component of "the preferred alternative.
-------
- 25 -
x. THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has selected Alternative 7a based on consideration
of the following:
. the comparative analyses qf alternatives described
in Section IX;
. particular emphasis on overall protection of human
health and the environment and compliance with ARARs,
in light of the uncertainty related to a potential
off-site release;
. the overall implementability of each alternative; i.e.,
further characterization is included in the preferred
remedy to improve prospects for achieving aquifer
restoration. periodic evaluation of progress in achieving
clean-up goals is included in order to address the
current uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of
proposed unsaturated and saturated zone-remediation.
Risk Level to be Attained
A.
If the aquifer restoration objective, modified to
address regional contamination,is attained, on-site clean-up
will be achieved to the levels specified in Exhibit 16 or other
levels to be established based on additional well installation
and future on- and off-site monitoring~ The ARARs proposed
in Exhibit 16 will result in carcinog~nic risk levels for on-site
ground water of approximately 7 x 10-. Since the c~rrent
on-site carcinogenic risk is calculated at 3.6 x 10- , the
risk reduction effected by successful implementation of EPA's
selected remedy would be about 50-fold. A risk level of 7 x
10-4 is within the range of risk of 10-4 to 10-7, which
is gene~ally considered "acceptable" by EPA. However, complete
aquifer restoration is not considered feasible because of
background contamination. Should background contamination
increase or decrease the risk level would change too.
Ground water quality and the risk associated with the
respective contaminants found in the 11 on-site wells is
substantially different from UMR water quality. This is not
-------
- '26 -
~nex~~ct~d, since the si~e has ~een esti~ated t~ cont:ibute
on:y" ~ small ?ercentage of t~e total :echarge to~U~R. Because
0: t~is relatively small ground ~atcr contribution fro~ the
sit:, most =~anges in loadin; fr~m t~e site are ex?ected to
~a~e ~ini~3: i~?act on UMR.*
The Risk ;ssessment attributes 44 a~d 33 percent
(~ased on ~axi~u~ and average concentrations used in ~odels
l~ through 13) of the risk in treated UMR water to chemicals
detected at the site. The total risk from treated UMR water
has ~een caiculated ~t 4.4 X 10-5 (using maximum concentra-
tions) and 1.9 X U;'- (using averages~. Thus, if all
the risk from Henderson Road-related chemicals were eliminated,
risk from_drinking treatgd water at UMR would be reduced to
1.9 X lJ-~ and 4.3 X l~-. This assumes the site is the
sole contributor of all concentrations of chemicals found at
~oth J~R .and the site. ~lso, this is not viewed as a signif-
icant risk reduction. . .
However, under a worst case hypothetical scenario for a
potential'release from the site to UMR, maximum concentrations
at the site would be dil~ted en route to UMR and added to the
existing ~aximum untreated water concentrations at UMR. Risk
associated wit~ this scenario have been calculated at 1.3 x
1~-3 (model 3). Treatment at UMR would be expected to reduce
t~is risk. ~hile the assu~ptions used in this ~odel may be
conservative, the ~ncert~inties associated with the site,
as described earlier, warrant an approach most protective of
human healt~. Clean-up to ~CLs, or other ~RARs modified to
address background contamination, would reduce prospects for
a release such as calculated in model 3 of the Risk Assess~ent.
The following premises are fact~red into the goal of
achieving an on-site risk of 7 x 10- through aquifer
restoration:
recovery wells will be situated, vertically and.
laterally, in major fractures so that on-site ground
water contamination will be fully contained~
recovery wells will be situated, vertically and
laterally, in major fractures so that any site-related
downgradient contamination of magnitude similar to
on-site contamination will be significantly contained~
* Certain hazardous substances, when released even in minute
quantities, can have substanti~l impacts on an aquifer due to
their ~igh toxicity.
-------
- ~i -
ground water ?u~pin~ will not result in significantly
increased on-site contamination from regional cQnta~in-
.ants being pumped to beneath the site~t higher levels
than currently detected in the "background" wells
-(see Section VIII. D) ; .
if unsatu~ated zone treatment is elected, such treatment
will remove unsaturated zone contamination to the extent
that an other~ise potentially significant, long-term
release to the ground water is removed;
nonaqueous phase liquids posing substantial risk
will be removed through injection well closure and
ground water pumping;
any other conditions are not occurring or ~ill not occur
that will preclude achievement of aquifer restoration
in a cost-effective fashion, such as a leveling-off of
ground water quality levels at concentra~ions above
proposed ARARs.
Because the nature, extent and location of hazardous sub-
stances disposed into the aquifer is uncertain, because back-
ground contamination may change in the future, and because the
remediation implementation timeframe may exceed 3~ years,
EPA proposes conducting a formal evaluation of the clean-up
goals and progress in achieving those goals every five years,
from the commencement of ground water pumping (See Section'
VIII. E). Depending on the outcome of those five-year "evalu-
ations risk levels to be attained may change.
B.
Rationale For EPA's Selection Of Its Preferred Alternative
Additional characterization of potential ground water
flow paths, depth of ground water contamination,
background and downgradient ground water quality, and
aquifer hydraulics is needed in order to improve pros-
pects for siting recovery wells at key locations for
successfully containing on- and off-site contamination
and designing an appropriate ground water treatment
system;
.
Injection well investigation and closure is necessary
to further characterize the type and extent of contam-
ination, possibly remove potentially extensive
contamination still in the immediate vicinity of. the
injection well, and remove any potential sources
of new contamination. .
-------
- 23 -
Ground water pumping is needed on-site to contain
on-site contaminated gr~und water;
G~ound water pumping would be needed downgradient if
a significant amount of contamination (i.e., magnitude
compara~le to on-site contamination) is detected
downgradient and may be cost-effectively recovered
-(i.e. if prospects. for achieving ARARs are expected
to be high, based on yields).
Characterization of unsaturated zone contamination
is needed to determine the nature ~nd extent of remnant
waste in the unsaturated zone and help determine the
implementebility, impact on human health, and cost-
effectiveness of instituting ISV or other unsaturated
zone treatment.
.unsaturated zone treatment may be needed to address the
criteria for long-and short-term effective~ess; i.e.,
if substantial amounts of hazardous substances pose
a long-term threat of release from unsaturated zone
to the ground water, unsaturated zone treatment
would be appropriate.
Treatment at the McIlvain well is needed to mitigate
the existing and potential carcinogenic risk
associated with that well.
Ground water monitoring is needed to continually assess
the perf~rmance of the remedial program and respond
to changes as needed, e.g., EPA may decide to implement
unsaturated zone treatment after observing ground
water monitoring results for several years and de-
termining that a substantial, continual release
from the unsaturated zone is probably occurring.
~onitoring of
will identify
be addressed.
identify when
the McIlvain and Hubing wells and UMR
any increased risks that would need to
Monitoring at McIlvain is needed to
treatment may be discontinued.
.
Hazardous substances are expected to remain on-site for
at least several years after remediation has begun.
Section 12l(c) of SARA requires review of remedial
actions, no less often than every five years after
initiation of remediation, for those remedial actions
-------
- 23 -
~~at r~sul~ in any h3z3rdous s~bsta~ces r~~ainin;
a~ t~e s~t~. If, upon such revie~, E?A~~eter~ines
t~at 3ction is apprapriat~ in accord3nce wit~
Section 1~4 or 136, such' action should be requir~d.
I~ addition to possibly deter~ining that unsaturated
zone treatment, if not previously i~ple~ented, is
needed during one of the five-year revie~s for the
Henjerson Road Site Injection Well Operable Unit,
other ~odifications t~ the re~edial progra~ may be .
selected. Alternatively EPA may determine, based on
additional data, t~at:
- a potential off-site release is not expected;
- background contamination is changing such that
clean-u? goals need to be redefined for regional
contaminants; or
- aquif~r restoration, modified to address background
contamination, is not likely to be achieved.
EPA then may reevaluate clean-up objectives and
their affliated ARARs.
T~e Selected Remedy will allow
~at~r, and ~cIlvain wll remediation
a conservative, cost-effective, and
addr~ssin; the complexities related
injection well, ground
to commence, yet ?rescribes
flexible approach to
to thi~ operable unit.
c. Points of Compliance
Section l2l(d) of SARA directs the point of compliance
to be at t~e property line. However, on-site recovery wells
wi~l be located at strategic locations for containing on-site
contamination. Off-site recovery wells, if developed, will be
sited where significant downgradient contamination may be
cont~ined. Monitoring wells will be sited to observe the
effects of ground water pumping and most effectively
characterize ground water flow and quality. These locations
may not coincide with the property line.
Clean-up criteria for ground water pumping, sediment
excavation, and ISV (on a preliminary basis only), as described
in Section VIII.D, are based achieving ARARs in ground water
beneath the site. This may result in remediation of ground
water to levels below ARARs at the property line, but, unless
~RARs change through the periodic evaluation that is part of
Alternative 7a, will not result in exceedence of ARARs at the
property line.
-------
- 30 -
XI.
THE STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
A. Protection of Human Health and the Envikonment
- . .
The treatment prescribed in the selected remedy is
designed to achieve an on-site risK, affiliated with the
injection well operable unit, of approximately 7 x 10-4.
The existing on-site risk, based on maximum concentrations,
. is 3.6 x 10-2. A 50-fold risk reduction for ground water
beneath the site is expected with successful implementation
of the selected remedy. This, in turn, is expected to reduce
the downgradient risk from a potential significant off-site
release.
If no significant future off-site release occurs,
treatment at UMR is expected to continue to achieve a
carcinogenic ~iSk of 4.4 X 10-5 (based on maximum values)
and 1.8 x 10- -(based on average values). Treatment at
the ~cIlvain well is ex~ected to reduce the carcinogenic
risK to below 1.0 x 10- .
Treatment at UMR is expected to continue to achieve a
HI of 1.5 (based on maximum values) and .71 (based on average
values). The HI for untreated McIlvain well water is .009;
treatment ~ay reduce this low HI even further.
No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-med~a impacts
are expected from implementation of EPA's preferred remedy.
Air pollution controls will be implemented, if needed, to
meet State air emissions requirements and to address PSWC
concerns regarding the effect of new air strippers on their
existing treatment system.
B. Attainment of ARARs
with the exception of five bacKground contaminants, the
selected remedy will attain the ARARs of a Class IIA
aquifer. ARARs and the rationale for their selection are
listed on Exhibit 16. ACLs are proposed for l,l-dichloro-
ethane, l,2-dichloroethane, benzene, 1,2-dichloropropane,
and trichloroethene, as described in Section VIII.D. The
process that has been and and will continue to be used to
select ACLs is generally consistent with Section 264.94 of
RCRA regulations and 1987 ACL Interim Final Guidance. Additional
data on background contamination gathered during RD/RA (e.g.,
data from new background monitoring wells) will be incorporated
into the evaluation of ARARs that is planned for every five
years throughout operation and maintenance.
-------
- 31 -
Other factors that will be considered in the five-year evalua-
tions will include i~ple~entability (i.e. is grourid water
quality improving at an acceptable rate during re~ediation)
and cost-effectiveness (i.e. is unsaturated zone treatment a
cost-effective option to supplement ground water pumping).
Section VIII.D refers to RCR~ "land ban" and off-site
disposal requirements, NPDES per~itting requirements, Injection
Well Progra~ requirements and state air pollution emissions
r~quirements. Ground water withdrawals exceeding 10,000 gpd
and surface and ground water discharges exceeding 50,000 gpd
will require a per~it from the Delaware River Basin Commission.
C.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected re~edy, with estimated costs ranging from
$ 7.2 ~illion to $ 12.2 million, affords overall effectiveness
proportional to its costs such that the remedy represents a
reasonable value for the money. Exhibit 22 compares estimated
costs affiliated with each component of Alternative 7a with those
estimated by the PRPs for Alternative 7. Since Alternative 7
is comprised of a combination of Alternatives 1 through 6, the
respective estimated costs comprising all alternatives are
included in Exhibit 22.
unsaturated zone characterization, injection well investig-
ation and closuie, and ground water pumping are needed to meet
evaluation criteria for reduction in toxicity, mobility, or
volume (characterization is needed to identify toxicity,
mobility and volume) and snort-term effectiveness. Additional
characterization of the saturated zone is needed to improve
prospects for achieving aquifer restoration (ARARs). The.
phased approach to determining whether and how to institute
unsaturated zone treatment, emphasis on long-term monitoring,
and scheduled reevaluation of the remedy and proposed ~RARs
constitutes a cost-effective approach to balancing cost and
overall effectiveness in light of the existing data gaps.
The aquifer restoration objective is estimated to cost
about $ 1.5 million more than implementation of Alternative 7a
to achieve UMR restoration. This is considered reasonable at
this time considering the mandate under the Ground Water Pro-
tection Program to provide a high level of protection to Class
IIA aquifers. Should data gathered during Remedial Action
indicate that aquifer restoration will be significantly more
costly than estimated at this time or that imp1ementabi1ity
is less feasible than currently estimated, this new information
will be factored into the periodic evaluation ofARARs. This
is a cost-effective and practical approach.
-------
- 32 -
Utilization Of Permanent Solutions Employing Alternative
Technolo ies To The ~axi~um Extent Practlcable
J.
The selected remedy more effectively ~eets t~e evaluation
criteria for selecting a remedy t~an Alternatives 1 through 7.
. The selected remedy ?otentially offers the highest
level of protection from contamination both on- and
off-site by strategically locating recovery wells in
order to remove remnant waste and gross contaminants.
. The selected remedy has the greatest potential to
meet 3quifer restoration ARARs both on- and off-site.
. Removal of most source material and treating on-site
and, possibly, off-site ground water may offer the
greatest risk reduction.
. The selected remedy is expected to have the highest level
of state and community acceptance.
. Institution of injection well pit excavation, removal
of significant waste in the injectio~ well (if detected),
pumping and, 90ssibly, unsaturated zone treatment will
reduce the volume and mobility of soil and ground watet
contamination and represents the maximum extent to whic~
permanent solutions and treatment can be practicably
utilized. Excavation of bedrock to the bottom of the
injection well is considered infeasible.
E.
Preference For Treatment As A Principal Element
The selected remedy involves treatment (i.e., ground
water pumping and air stripping, well pit excavation and
probably, incineration, carbon adsorption at the McIlvain
well and possibly ISV, soil flushing, or other unsaturated zone
treatment) of ground water, surface water and air to address
the principal threats posed by the Injection Well Operable Unit.
The ROD for the Landfill Operable Unit will address remediation
of threats or potential threats to ground water, surface water,
and air caused by the landfill, previous trenching operations,
underground storage tanks and other relevant surface operations.
-------
aa
'INNSYLVANIA
r~1IiA!
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSvivANIA
DePARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REsOURCES
Poat 0ffI08 lox 2013
Hamaburg. P.nnaytvanl. 171 20
,-
Deputy Secretary for
Envlronmemal Protection
711-787-5027
June 30, 1'88
Stephen R. Was.er.ug, Director
Ha8ardoul Waite Kan8g8m8nt Divilion
BPA Ileqion III
841 Che.tnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
ael Letter'of Concu~r8nce
Kender.on Road Superfund Bite, Record Of Deci.ion (ROD)
Dear Mr. Wa..er,ui'
The Record Of Deci.ion for the aender.on Road .ite hat been
reviewed by the Department. I hereby concw: with the SPA'.
propo.8d r8ZDttdy, with the following concii tion. . .
.
EPA will a..ure that the Departaent i. PJ:OVid8d an
opportunity to fully participate in any negotiation.
with re.pon.ible partie..
The Department will ))e oiven the opportunity to concur
with eleci.ion. related to the de.ign of the remaciial
action, to ...ure compliance vith DBR de.ion .pacifiC
ARAR. -.
~h. Department vill be given the opportunity to concur
with dec1.1on. related to implement1ng any downgraciient
pump and treat action, any action for the un.aturat.ed
loi1 zone, anci any change in cle.nup tarqet., in order
to aSIure coap1iance with DBa cleanup AftAR..
'*
'*
'*
The D8pa~nt will re..rve our right and
r..pon8ibi11ty to take independent enforcement action.
pur.uant to .tate lav.
-------
-. - - ......
-- ..- --
..~, ..
- - --
- - --.
- - -"
. - -, -.'
. -' '-'--
*
Thi. concurrence with the .electea remedial action 1.
not intended to provide any a..uranc.. pur.uant to SARA
Section l04(C)(3).
Thank you for the opportunity to concur with thi. BPA aecord
Of Decision. If you have any que.tion. reqarding th1. matter
plea.e do not he.1tate to contact ...
S1Dcuely, ~
v&c:!lk~
-------
:-D"DE.~~ ROAD SITE ..
Ar::MI~ISTRATIVE RECORD * * *
INDEX OF ~
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Background ( 0' HARA)
1)
Merrcrand\.lt\ to Mr. Keit.~ Welks fran Mr. Paul M. Yaniga re:
groundwater contamination, 7/12/77. P. 1-2.
Letter to Mr. Mark "Rosenberg, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, fran Mr. John W. Hubi.ng, Sr., Ray Printing C011pany, re:
ccrnplaint about water contamination, 7/20/77. P. 3-5. A letter
re:;arding well water sart1?les taken at the canpany is attached.
2)
3)
Mem:>rarxh.JT\ to Mr. Wayne L. Lynn fran Mr. Paul M. Yaniga re:
Industrial Waste - S.W. Disposal, 9/27/77. P. 6-7.
4)
5)
t'laste Discharge Inspection Reprt, 12/19/78.
P. 8-8.
Record of Telephone Conversation to Mr. Don Knorr, Pennsylvania
Department of Envirortnental Resources, £ran Mr. Mushen::> re: ASH
Disposal injection well in Upper Merion 'IWp., 1/30/79. P. 9-9.
6)
Rea:>rd of Telep,one Conversation to Mr. Dick Riegler, Philadelphia
Suburban Water Canpany, fran ABM-O'Hara injecticn well, 2/6/79.
P. 10-10. .
7)
Letter to Mr. Michael M.Jsheno, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E.
Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Q:rnpany, re: results of water
:samples taken at O'Hara test well, 2/15/79. P. 11-11.
Letter to Mr. Michael Musheno, tr.-S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E.
Shull, PhiladelFhia Suburban Water O:rrpany, re: results of ~ter
samples taken at O'Hara test well, 2/23/79. P. 12-12.
8)
9)
Sampling data analysis form re: volatile and extractable organics of
four drinking water sanples, 3/1/79. . P. 13-13.
10)
Mertcrarrlum to Mr. Rarron G. Lee, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Larry Miller, U.S. EPA
frc:rn Mr. Michael t-hmheno, U.S. EPA, re: ABM injection an:i inspected
impact on Philadelphia, 3/1/79. P. 14-14.
11)
Mertcrarn\.lO to Files fran Mr. Michael ~heno, U.S. EPA, re: disposal
of indU8trial wastes, 3/1/79. P. 15-17.
* Administrative Record available 5/31/88.
** SURX'rting Sampling Data is located at the EPA III Central Regional La,tx)ratory
in Annapolis, Mazy1ard.
Note: C011pany or organizational affiliation is identified in the index cnly
when it appears in the record.
1
-------
12) Letter to Mr. Donald Knorr, Pennsylvania Department of, Environmental
Resources, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water
Company, re: results fron water samples at O'Hara Test Well, 3/27/79-
P. 18-18.
13) Report: A Report on the Pollution Potential of Waste Disposal
Activity at the Property of O.'Hara Sanitation Company, prepared by
International Environmental Engineers, Inc., 4/21/79. P. 19-57.
14) Memorandum to Files from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: monitoring
of O'Hara Sanitation Company's Henderson Road garage facility, 6/22/79.
P. 58-58.
15) Memorandum to Mr. John Austin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Rick Dreisch,
U.S. EPA, re: samples from O'Hara injection wells, 6/29/79.
P. 59-59.
16) Memorandun to Mr. Rick Dreisch, U.S. EPA, fron Mr. John Austin, U.S
EPA, re: purge and trap analysis of samples from O'Hara Station #1,
7/3/79. P. 60-60.
17) Memorandun to Mr. Walter Lee, U.S. EPA, fron Mr. T. 0. Munson, U.S. EPA,
re: purgeable organics analysis of O'Hara injection well samples,
7/6/79. P. 61-61.
18) Memorandim to Mr. Daniel Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John Austin,
U.S.. EPA, re: examination of samples for solvent extractable compounds
amenable to gas chromatography, 9/24/79. P. 62-62.
19) Letter to Dr. Walter E. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. David Ben-Hur, Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc., re: analytical results of water samples,
3/3/80. P. 63-77. Hie results are attached.
20) Letter to Dr. Walter F. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. David Ben-Hur, Jacobs
Engineering Group, re: analytical sample results, 3/24/80. P. 78-81.
. The results are attached.
21) Memorandun to File frcm Mr. Anthony S. Bartolomeo, U.S. EPA, re: site
visit to O'Hara Sanitation Company, 5/1/80. P. 82-83.
22) Memorandun to Mr. Anthony S. Bartolomeo, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Ranald
Jones, U.S. EPA, re: trip report for A.B.M. O'Hara, 5/1/80.
P. 84-85.
23) Memorandun to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. T. O. Munson,
U.S. EPA, re: GC/MS Purgeable Organics Analysis of ABM O'Hara RCRA
Samples, 5/19/80. P. 86-86.
24) Memorandun to Mr. Anthony S. Bantolcmeo [sic], U.S. EEA, frcm Mr. Daniel K.
Donnelly, U.S. EPA, re: Extractable Analysis of ABM O'Hara Samples,
7/1/80. P. 87-90. A table of O'Hara Sample Comparison is attached.
-------
35)
25)
MeITDrandLrn to Files fran Mr. Michael Musheoo, U.S. EPA, re: well
drilliI'r3 arx3. m::>nitoring program in the Upper Merion Re~ervior, 9/15/88.
p.. 91-91.
26)
Mem)r~1.Jt\ to File fran Mr. Joe M:Govern, re:
Sequences of Events, 9/26/80. P. 92-93.
O'Hara TOO F3-8009-13,
27)
~ran::ium to File fran Mr. Robin Attken, U.S. EPA, re: O'Hara Well
Drilling Activities of January 30, 1981, 2/10/81. P. 94-94.
28)
Me'ror~um to File fran Mr. R::)bin Aitken, U.S. EPA, re:
well drilliI'r3 aCtivities of February 2, 1981, 2/10/81.
O'Hara
P. 95-95.
29)
Merrorandl.Jt\ to Fiies fran Mr. Fbbin Aitken, .u.s. EPA, re: O'Hara Well
Drilling Activities of January 28th and 29th, 1981, 2/11/81.
P. 96-96.
30)
Letter to Mr. R::)bin M. Aitken, U.S EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water ~, re: O'Hara sample test results,
2/17/81. P. 97-97.. .
3l}
Mencrand\.lt\ to File fran Mr. Fbbin Aitken, U. S. EPA, re:
wells, 3/9/81. P. 98-98.
5amplin; of O'Hara
32)
Handwritten melTDrandun to File fran Mr. C. K. lee re: preliminary
observation of test results for water sartplin; in O'Hara Sanitation
MJnitorin9 Wells, 4/29/81. P. 99-248. .
33)
Letter to Mr. James Dragna, u.S. EPA, £ran Evelyn E. O:>nrad, Midwest
Research Institute, and Mr. Earl M. Hansen, Midwest Research Institute,
re: results of water sample analysis, 5/11/81. P. 249-292. Graphs
an:l charts are attached.
34)
Me'rDrandl.Jt\ to Mr. ~n Naman fran Mr. Stan EUnb1e re: ooncerning safety
~rkjn9 in well at O'Hara sanitation Joo, 5/11/81. P. 293-295. A
table and a form regardin; chemical u:luf0tlition are attached.
Let ter to Mr. FCbert Kerns fran Mr. Joseph J . Melvin, U. S. EPA,. re:
sample results and h~eol~ical data, 8/9/82. P. 296-296.
36)
MEJtcrarn\B to M8. Lima YQUn:3 Boornazian, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Joseph G.
Mc:.'GoYern, E'.o:)logy and Envirorrnent, Inc., re: ncni.tori.n;J well keys,
10/11/82. P. 297-304. The following are attadhed:
a) handwritten notes regardin; well No.3:
b) a chain of custody reoord:
c) a mEl'lDrandl.D regard in;) October 22, 1982 meetin;J at O'Hara site:
d) a file check-up of available doc:\Jnents:
e) a Service Request Fbrm:
f) a mE!ltlX'aOO\.In regarding field activities of February 7 , 8, 1983:
9) a letter regard~ information on Mr. Ashlam Shah of International
Enviramental Engineers.
3
-------
37)
38)
39)
~randll!1 to Mr. Robin M. Aitken, U.S. EP~, frc:m Mr. Leo J. Clark, u.S.
EPA, re: Trip Report ')f O'Hara Site, 2/16/83. P.305-310. - ~ well
pumping data sheet ana a site plan are attached. "
Mencrandun to Mr. Daniel K. D:>nnelly, U.S. EP~, fran Mr. Rick Dreisch,
u.S. EPA, re: water sarrples for VOCs by GC/MS Superfund (2/9/83-
2/10/83): 830209-01-03, 2/16/83. P. 311-334. The water samples
data am Ciain of Custody Records are attached.
Data: Analytical Results for EPA wells 1, 2, 3 drilled at Site, C1urch
Road am O'Hara Lanjfill, (uridated). P. 335-391.
Background (Philadel~ia Suburban COrrespondence)
1)
Ha.zUwritten mem:>ran:lllt\ to Mr. Mike M. [sic] fran Mr. Don K. [sic] re:
results of Pennsylvania Department of Enviromental Resources
samples, 4/23/79. P. 1-1.
2) Mertcrandun to Files fran Mr. Michael Musheoo, U.S. EPA, re:
developnents in the ABM-<)'Hara injection well case, 4/26/79.
P. 2-4. .
3)
Mertcrandun to Mr. Daniel K. I):)nnelly, U. S. EPA, £ran Mr. Rick
Dreisch, u.S. EPA, re: resolved concentrations of six HalO:Jenated
canpounds found in Bridgeport drinking water, 4/27/79. P. 5-5. .
4)
Msrorandun to Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Daniel Dxu1elly,
U.S. EP~, re: interim report on Philadelphia SUburban Water sanples,
4/28/79. P. 6-8. 'n1e interim report is attached.
Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. ~ull, Philadelpua SUburban Water CCrtpany,
fran Mr. Ram:>n G. Lee, u.S. EPA, re: analytical results of water
supply sampling, 4/30/79. P. 9-9.
5)
6)
Letter to Mr. Kemeth E. Shull, Philadelpua SUburban Water Catp!my, fran
Mr. Ranon Lee, U.S. EP~, re: request for Public Water Supply data, organics
l'IDnitoring capacity, and CDrrective action feasibility, 4/30/79. P. 10-10.
MerTDrandllt\ to Files £ran Mr. Michael ~heno, U.S. EPA, re: .
sample results in the Aa+<)'Hara injection well case, 4/30/79.
P. 11-11.
7)
8)
Letter to Mr. Ram:xl G. Lee, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelpua
Suburban water 0::IIpny, re: bacJtgrour₯i information CX1 Upper Merion Reservoir
Station, 5/4/79. P. 12-13.
9)
Letter to R.S. ~acken, Inc. £ran Mr. tonald F. Knorr re: presence
of organic chemic:als in -.11 water, 5/10/79. P. 14-14.
10)
Upper Merion
~,O£arx1l1t\ to Files fran Mr. Michael ~hen:), U.S. EPA, re:
To.mship Groundwater M:X1iterinq Survey, 5/18/79. p-;-'lS-23.
4
-------
20)
21)
11) MetDraOO\.It1 to Mr. Daniel K. rbnne"lly, u.s. EPA, fron Mr.T. o. Munson,
u.s. EPA, re: organics analysis of Philadelphia Suburbah Water
samples, 5/18/79. . P. 24-24.
12) MetDrarrl\.lt1 to Mr. T. O. Munson, U.S. EPA, fron Mr. Rick Dreisch, U.S. EPA,
re: preliminary fimings of trihalanethanes at Philadelphi~ Suburban Water,
5/21/79. P. 25-25. .
13) Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia SUbuI-ban Water O::rrpany,. fron
Mr. Rartcn G. Lee, U. S. EPA, re: re: request for assistance in pinIX'inting
sample locations, 5/21/79. P. 26-27.
14) Telephone conversation record with Mr. Tan ~ re: May 16, 1979 sample
results, 5/21/79. P. 28-29. An interim report on Philadelphia SUrburban
Water Samples is attached.
15)
Men'orarrll.lT\ to File fran Mr. Michael M..1sheno, U.S. EPA, re: May 23
samplin; of Philadelphia Suburban Water Catpany Reservoir aOO
Distribution System, 5/23/79. P. 30-31.
16)
Split Samples FOr.m, 5/23/79.
P. 32-32.
17) Men'oraOO\.It1 to Mr. Walter Lee, U.S. EPA, iran Mr. T. o. Munson, U.S. !:PA,
re: sunnary of Philadelphia Suburban case, 5/25/79. P. 33-39.
18)
Men'orarrll.m\ to Mr. Larry S. Miller, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Gregory Koltonuk,
U.S. EPA, re: a:rrpliance ncnitering investigations at Knickerbocker
Lan:1fill, Philadelphia Water SuR'ly - Upper Merion & other assorted
areas, 5/29/79. P. 40-42.
19)
Letter to Mr. R.am:In G. Lee, U.s. !:PA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Q:rtpany, re: Philadelphia Suburban
Water Catpany's reasons for not taking the Upper Merion Reservoir
out of service, 5/30/79. P. 43-44. .
Mercorarrl\.lt1 to Mr. Daniel K. [):)nnelly, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Rick Dreisch,
U. S. EPA, re: water supply results, 6/6/79. P. 45-47.
Men'orand\.lt1 to Mr. Walter Lee, U. S. EPA, am Mr. Michael ~heno,
U.S. !:PA, £ran Mr. Daniel K. [):)nnelly, U.S. !:PA, re: samples collected
at the site, 6/7/79. P. 48-51.
22) MertDrand\.IU to Mr. Rarrcn G. Lee, U. S. !:PA, iran Mr. Joseph ():)truvo
U.S. !:PA, re: evaluation of the Philadelt:hia SUburban Water Supply,
6/19/79. P. 52-54.
23) Mem:>randU1\ to Files fran Mr. Michael r-t.1SheBJ, U.S. !:PA, re: inspection
of Fisher Scientific O:Itpany's Kin; of Prussia DistributiCX1 Facility,
6/22/79. P. 55-56.
24) Letter to Mr. Kemeth E. Shull, Philadelphia &.1burban Water O::Itpmy,
fron Mr. Ra1cn G. Lee re:. request for meeti.n;J to discuss Upper
Merion contamination problen, 7/6/79. P. 57-57.
5
-------
25)
.26)
27)
. 31)
32)
.------- "~" -----'-
~randl11\ to Files fr:::rn Mr. ~chael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: May 23
sampl~ of Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany Reservoir and
Distribution System, 7/6/79. P. 58-59. '
Maroran::Il11\ to Mr. T. O. Munson, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Rick Dreisch re:
analysis of benzene an:l toluene, 7/24/79. P. 60-61.
Letter to ~. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Catpany, .
fran Mr. Ram:>n G. Lee, U.S. EPA, re: meetin3 on July 18, 1979 ooncerning
contamination of the Upper Merion Reservoir, 7/31/79. P. 62~4. .
28)
Letter to Mr. Ram::m Lee, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
PhiladelP"lia Suburban Water Q:Xt'Ipany, re: trichloroethylene sampl'!
results fron the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/20/79. P. 65-65.
29)
Letter to Mr. Ram:>n G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
PhiladelP"lia Sublrban Water C::rtpany, re: trichloroet1'1ylene sample
results fran the Upper Marion Reservoir, 8/23/79. ' P. 66-67.
30)
Letter to Mr. Ram:Jn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
PhiladelP"lia Suburban Water Q:rrpany, re: additional
trichloroethylene sample results fran the Upper Marion .Reservoir,
8/24/79. P. 68-68. '
Letter to Mr. Rarn:xl G. Lee, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
PhiladelP"lia Suburban Water Q:Xt'Ipany, re: additional sarti)le results
fron the Upper Marion Reservoir, 9/4/79. P. 6~69.
, . ,
Letter to Mr. Ram:x'1 G. Lee, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:Itpany, re: additional'
trichloroethylene in sample collected fran the Upper Marion Reservoir,
9/6/79. P. 70-70.
33)
Letter to Mr. Rana1 G. Lee, u.S. EPA, fran Mr. KennethE. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Q:Xt'Ipany, re: ~ sarti)le results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/17/79. P. 7.1-71-
Letter to Mr. Rarrcn G. Lee, u.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Q:Xt'Ipany, re: analysis of trichloroethylene
in samples collected fran the Upper Meria1 Reservoir, 9/21/79. P. 72-73.
34)
35)
Letter to Mr. Rana1 G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia SuburDan Water Q:rrpany, re: analysis of trichloroethylene
in saJll)les fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/24/79. P. 74-74.
Letter to Mr. R5II:Jn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia SUburban Water ~y, re: T.e.E. [sic] sample
results fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/5/79. P. 75-75.
36)
37)
Letter to Mr. Ramen G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E., 9'tull,
Philadelpua Suburban Water Q:Xt'Ipany, re: 'Ia: sanple results
fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/19/79. P. 76-76.
6
-------
44}
45}
46}
47}
38}
Letter to Mr. Rarton G. Lee, TJ. S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban W:I. ter O:mpany, re: resul ts of T. C.E'- in s~les
collected fran the Upper ~rion Reservoir," 10/19/79. P;" 77-78.
39}
Letter to Mr. RarTcn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water C:ltqJany, re: additional 'la: ~le
results fran Upper Marion Reservoir, 10/23/79. P. 79-80.
40}
Menorandum to Mr. Daniel K. ronnelly, u.s. EPA, fran Mr. T. O. Munson,
U.S. EPA, re: Purgeable organics Analysis, 10/30/79. P. 81-83.
41}
Letter to Mr. Ram:>n G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:mpany, re: additional 'Ia ~les fran
Upper Merion Reservoir, 11/1/79. P. 84-91. Five letters- regarding 'ICE
saztq:)le results and a chart of 'Ia semple results are attached.
42} Menorandun to Mr. Ben Lacy, and other U.S. EPA staff fran Ms.
Karen DeWald, U.S. EPA, am" Mr. Michael ~, U.S. EPA, re:
status" rep::>rt on contamination of Philadelphia Suburban Water
cOmpany's Upper Merion Reservoir, 12/26/79. P. 92-93.
43}
Letter to Mr. Ram:x1 G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull
Philadelphia Suburban Water C:Irpany, re: latest TCE sample results £ran
the Upper Marion Water Reservoir, 1/2/80. P. 94-94.
Letter to Mr. Rebert L. 'I'oormsend, P1yncuth 'IQmship Office, fran Mr.
Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelfhia Suburban Water O:Itpany, re: analytical
results of water samples for TCE levels in Upper Merion Reservoir,
1/8/80. P. 95-96".
Letter to Mr. Ram:x1 G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water a:mpany, re: TCE analytical ~esults,
1/16/80. P. 97-97.
Letter to Mr. Ram:x1 G. Lee, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water C:Irpany, re: analysis of 'Mater
samples, 2/6/80. P. 98-98.
48}
Letter to Mr. Michael M:O.Jrdy, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water C:Irpany, re: TCE results £ran Upper
Merion Reservoir water, 2/6/f₯). P. 99-99.
Letter to Mr. Ra'tcn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia SUburban water Q:mpany, re: latest 'It:E results fran the
Upper Marien Reservoir, 2/12/80. P. 100-100. "
49}
Letter to Mr. Ramen G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban water C:Irpany, re: 'ta: results fran the Upper
-Merion Reservoir, 3/4/80. P. 101-101.
50)
Letter to Mr. Richard Rei91er, Phi1adelpua Suburban Water 02tpny,
fran Mr. Lee N. Gr\bnan, Le99ette, Brashear's, anj Graham, Inc.,
re: data regardin3 February 29 meetin3 with the EPA, 3/11/80.
P. 102-102.
7
-------
51)
- 55)
Letter to Mr. Michael McO..1rdy, u. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: carparison of ,the gas
chranatograms of the Upper ~rion water with those of 'four nearby
sources, 3/13/80. P. 103-103.
52)
Letter to Mr. Rarron G. Lee, u. S. EPA, fron Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water CCXnpany, re: 'Ia: sample results frcm
the Upper Merion Reservoir, 3/17/80. P. 104-104.
53)
Letter to Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water COtpany, re: Hydrogeological stooy
made in the area of the Upper Merion Reservoir, 3/19/80. P. 105-105.
54) Letter to Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S.EPA, £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: transmittal of the Quarterly
Progress Reports on Trace Organic Research Pertaining to the Upper
Merion Reservior, 3/21/80. . P. 106-115. '!be report is attached.
Letter to Mr. Richard Riegler, Philadelphia Suburban \l6ter Canpany,
fran Mr. G. Sidney FOx, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., re: Upper
Merion Reservoir TCE proolem, 4/30/f!J:). P. 116-118. A site map is
attached.
56)
Menorarrlun to Files fran Mr. Michael M.1sheno, U.S. EPA, re:
~i ladelphia Suburban Distribution System M:xli term; , 7/2/80.
P. 119-161. Organics Analysis Data Sheets for sample n\nbers Ii20
Blank #7, H2O Blank, 00110-00118 and 00120-00123 are attached.
57)
Letter to Mr. Michael Musheno, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
~iladelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: results for volatile
organics, 7/9/80. P. 162-163. 'n\e results are attached.
58)
Letter to Mr. Tim Jolly, Pennsylvania Department of Envirorrrental
Resources, fran Mr. Richard R. Riegler, Philadelphia Suburban .
Water Canpany, re: Hydrogeological Survey Data - Upper Merion
Reservoir T.C.E. [sic] Stooy, 7/24/80. P. 164-164.
59)
MertoraOOun to Files fran Mr. Michael Musheoo, U.S. EPA, re: organic
rrcnitoring of the pits located near tne Upper Merion Reservoir,
8/11/80. P. 165-165.
60)
Letter to Mr. Rancn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: latest T.C.E. sanple results
fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/11/SO. P. 166-166.
Letter to Mr. Rancn G. Lee, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:Itpany, re: results of sarrple analysis of
Upper Merion Reservoir for T.C.E. [sic], 9/30/80. P. 167-167.
61)
62)
Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kemet:h E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: T.C.E. [sic] sample results frr-'
the Upper Merion Reservoir and Gu~f Road School, 1/8/81. P. 168-170.
A sarrple location map arrl a chart of Upper MeriCX\ Reservoir Depth
Samples are attached. .
8
-------
63)
64)
68)
69)
'75)
Letter to Mr. Richard Riegler, Philadelphia Suburban Water'~y, frcrn
~. Lee N. Gru1:man, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. ".re:' Upper .
Merion Reservoir 'Ia: Stooy, 3/3/81. P. 17.1-185. Graphs of test
results are attached.
Me!rorandun to Mr. Earl H. Graham fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull re: Upper
Merion Reservoir 'Ia: problem, 4/6/81. P. 186-188.
65)
-
Letter to Mr. Ram::r1 G. Lee, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, .
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: 'It:E sarrple results fran Upper
Merion Reservoir, 5/20/81. P. 189-189.
66)
Letter to Mr. ~ J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: 'It:E sanple results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 7/14/81. P. 190-191-
Letter to' Mr. ~t J. Blanco, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
PhiladelFhia Suburban Water Canpany, re: latest 'It:E sarrple results
from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/18/81. P. 192-192.
67)
Letter to Mr. a,bert J. Blanko [sic], U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E.
Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: 'It:E sartt?le results
fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/28/81. P. 193-193.
Letter to Mr. PDbert J. Blana:>, U. S. !:PA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: 'It:E sample results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 12/29/81. P. 194-194.
70)
Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U. S. EPA,' £ran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:Itpmy, re: 'la: concentration found in
the Upper Merion Reservoir water, 1/13/82. P. 195-195.
Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. S'\ull,'
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: organic o:npoums found in
Upper Merion Reservior water, 2/19/82. P. 196-196.
71)
72)
Rep:>rt: Progress Rep:>rt, Packed Tower Aeratioo for Upper Marion
Reservoir, Design Remediations, prepared by Mr. 'n1anas L. Yohe, Mr.
Richard R. Riegler an:} Mr. Preston tA1i.tweiler, 3/22/82. P. 197-252.
73)
Letter to Mr. a:>bert J. Blanoo, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Qi)urt)an Water Canpany, re: 'It:E sample results £ran the
Upper Marion aeservoir, 4/2/82. P. 253-253.
Letter to Mr. It:)bert J. Blana:>, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. S'\ull,
PhiladelFhia Suburban Water O::mpany, re: . latest 'It:E semple results
fran the Upper Merion Reservoir, 5/3/82. P. 254-255.
74)
Letter to Mr. ~t J. Blanoo, TJ. S. EPA,fran Mr. Kenneth E . Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Canpany, re: 'ta: ~le results £ran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/15/82. P. 256-257.
9
-------
76 )
77)
78)
79)
80)
81)
82)
Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blano:::> , TJ. S . EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water CaTlpany, re: TeE sample results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/7/82. P. 258-258.
Letter to Mr. Rebert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:n;any, re: . 'ICE sample results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 11/2/82. P. 259-260. A graph of m::nthly
averages of TCE is attached.
,
Letter to Mr. ~bert J. Blanco, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull;
Philadelphia Suburban Water COtpany, re: 'I'CE sample results fran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 12/6/82. P. 261-262. A graph of m:xlthly
averages of TCE is attaChed.
Letter to Mr. ~bert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Catpany, re: 'I'CE sample results fran the
Upper Merion ReserVoir, 4/8/83. P. 263-264. A graph of nonthly
averages of TCE is attached.
Letter to Mr. C. K. Lee, NUS Corp:>ration, fran Mr. 'n1anas J. Fbberts,
Philadelphia Suburban Water O:rtp1ay, re: transnittal of the Philadelphia
Suburban Water COnpany Grourx1-water Contamination at Upper Merion
Reservoir Interm Report, 5/16/83. P. 265-274. '!be report is attached.
Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,
Philadelphia SUburban Water Catpany, re: 'I'CE sample results £ran the
Upper Merion Reservoir, 6/13/83. P. 275-275.
Letter to Ms. Paula lAJOOrsky, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Thcmas L. Yohe,
Philadelphia SuDurban Water Catpany, re: transmittal of VOC data r~
c!!rl treated water fran the Upper Marion Reservoir, 4/3/86. P. 276-279.
. Background (Philadelphia Suburban - Reports)
1)
Report: COtrpletion Report, Crooked Lane Well of the Philadelphia Suburban
Water Catpmy, prepare::! by Mr. Jack 8. Graham, Leggette, Brashears &
Graham, Inc., 3/66. P. 1-8. Four water well log font8 are attached.
2) Report: 'Ia: and Other Organics in Ground Water: A Case St~, prepared
by Mr. Kenneth E. 9\ull and Mr. 'lb:Inas L. Yoke, Philadelphia Suburban
Water Calpmy, 4/23/81. P. 9-58.
3)
Report: Influence of the Recovery Water Isvel on Stability an1 Si..nkhole
Activi, MeriCX1 Reservoir, Phi lade 1 . Suburban Water
prepared by Wxdward-Cl e Consultants, urmted. P. 59-90.
4)
ia Suburban Water
5)
Report: TCE am a:w We Are Dealing With It (IX) author cited), (urdated).
P. 100-102. ---
6)
10
-------
Preliminary Assessment arrl Site Inspection Reports
1)
Report: preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection of O'Hara
Sani tation Cacpany,. Inc., prepared under TOO. No. F3-830S-0S,
EPA No. PA-162, Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by NUS eoq:oration,
5/23/85. P. 1-172.
2)
RefX)rt: O'Hara Sanitation r-nutoring Wells, prepared by Ecology
and Envirorrnent, Inc., ( undated) . P. 173-331.
11
-------
10)
REMEDIAL EmDRCE1-1ENI' PI.ANNL~
Potentially Responsible Party COrrespondence
1)
Mem::)randl.l1\ of Installment Sale Agreement between r-bntganery County
Industrial DeveloI;mE!nt Authorty ani Mr. William J. and Mrs. Betty E.
O'Hara, 10/9/75. P. 1-8. A deed is attached.
2)
D..1n and Bradstreet report re:
P. 9-9.
O'Hara Sanitation Canpany, 4/3/80.
3)
Letter to Mr. William O'Hara, Jr., O'Hara Sanitation O::rIpany, fran Mr.
.1ose:fh .1. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: EPA's plans to determine the extent of
ground water contamination in the area aroun:! the Upper Merion Reservoir.
1/7/81. P. 10-11. A certified mail receipt is attached.
4)
Letter to Mr. .1osefh J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. 1t:>bert J. Kerns,
LaOOis, Williams and Kerns, re: grantiD;1 of pennissiQn to drill for
samples, at O'Hara Sanitation, 1/28/81. P. 12-12.
5)
Letter to Mr. Robert J. Kerns. u.s-. EPA, fran Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, u.s
EPA, re: arran;ing a meet~ to discuss grourd water oontamination in
Upper Merion area, 5/19/82. P. 13-13.
6)
Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns fran Mr. Jose:fh J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: lack
of resp:>nse to request for additional technical data, 10/6/82. P. 14-14.
7)
Letter to Mr. .1ose:fh J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Robert J. Kerns, Land.'
Williams and Kern, re: request for additional technical data, 10/13/82.
P. 15-15. .
8)
Harrlwritten rnertDrandl.l1\ to File fran Mr. R:>bin Aitken re:
meeting on O'Hara site, 10/22/82. P. 16-16.
OCt. 22, 1982
9)
Letter to Mr. ~t Kerns, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Josefh J. Melvin, U.S. EPA,
re: release of additional technical information, 11/17/82. P. 17-17.
Letter to Mr. JoseP'1 Melvin, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Robert Kerns, landis,
Williams, and Kerns, re: acJax:J;..rledcpent of receipt. of technical
information, 12/2/82. P. 18-18.
11) Letter to Mr. It:bert Kerns, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Jose~ Melvin, U.S. EPA, re:
i.nportance of inmediate clean-up of O'Hara site, 12/10/82. P. 19-20. A
certified mail receipt is attached.
12)
I.A!tter to Mr. J08eIi\ .1. Melvin, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. ~rt J. Kerns,
Landis, Willisns and Kerns, re: additional technical information,
12/31/82. P. 21-21.
13)
Letter to Mr. It:bert Kerns, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. JOseP'1 J. Melvin, U.S.
£PA, re: two primary <}:)als in negotiat~ a clean-up aettlerrent, 1/26/83.
P. 22-23.
12
-------
14)
Letter to Mr. tbbe.rt Kerns, u.s. EPA, fran Mr. JoseFh J. Melvin, u.s. EPA,
re: analysis confirmation of serious grourrl water cont.amination at O'Hara
site, 3/31/83. P. 24-36. A consent decree is attach~.'
15)
Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, u.s. EPA, fran Mr. Pcbert J. Kerns, taoois,
Williams and Kerns, re: request for additional inSormation, 4/15/83.
P. 37-37.
16)
Letter to Mr. Terrence A. Shannon, NUS Corporation, fran Mr. Robert J.
Kerns, Landis, Williams and Kerns, re: denial of permission to inspect
O'Hara site, 5/13/83. P. 38-39. An envelope is attached.
17}
Letter to Mr. ~ J. Kerns, I..arrlis, williams and Kerns, fran Mr. Joseph
Melvin, u.s. EPA, re: EPA inspection of O'Hara facilities, 5/31/83.
P. 40-40.
18)
Letter to Haven O\EIT\ical fran Mr. SteFhen R. WassersU;, u.s. EPA, re:
104{e} request letter, 8/17/84. P. 41-44. A certified mail receipt is
attached.
19)
Letter to O:>ngolel.Jh o:>rporation fran Mr. Stephen R. WassersU;, u.s. EPA,
re: 104{e} request letter, 8/17/84. P. 45-47. A certified mail receipt is
attached .
20)
Letter to Gould, Inc. fran Mr. SteFhen R. WassersU;, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e)
request letter, 8/17/84. P. 48-51. ~ certified mail receipts are
attached .
21)
Letter to 9ni.thKline O\emicals fran Mr. SteFhen R. Wassersu;, u.S. EPA,
re: 104( e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 52-54. A certified mail receipt
is attached.
22)
Letter to O'Hara Sanitation CDtpmy, Inc., fran Mr. SteP\en R. Wassersug,
u.S. £PA, re: l04(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 55-57. A certified
mail receipt is attached.
23)
Letter to ti:wN!t Al\1'nim.J1\ Corp:>ration fran Mr. Stepum R. Wassersu;, U. S.
EPA, re: l04(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 58-60. A certified mail
receipt is attached.
24)
Letter to OUlders PrOOucts, Inc. fran Mr. SteP\en R. WasserSu:J, u. S.
EPA, re: 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 61-62. A certified mail
receipt. is attached.
Letter to ODega O\emical fran Mr. Stephen R. Wusersu;, u.s. EPA, re:
104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 63-67. 'lbree certified mail receipts
are attached.
25)
26)
Letter to Mr. Robin [sic] fran Mr. Qux:k Dalena re: a)rrespornence
pertain~ to ~ Disp:>sal, 8/22/84. P. 68-106. '!he oorrespol'dence
is attached. .
13
-------
32)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
27)
Letter to Mr. Rebin AitXen, U.S. EPA, fr::mMr. Bruce A. Schuck, E.F.
fbughton & 0:>., re: 104(e) request infomation resp:>nse,. 8/29/84.
P. 107-110. A certified mail receipt and a l04(e) letter are attacheci
Mem::>randun to File fran Ms. K. fbdgJdss, U.S. EPA, re: l04(e) request
for Sandvik Inc., 8/31/84. P. 111-113. '!he 104(e) letter is attached.
28)
29)
Letter to Mr. Robin AitXen, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. John M. Hatch, Al\.It\aX
AlllTlin\.lT\ Corp:>ration, re: supporting exhibit files, 9/10/84.
P. 114-133. The exhibit files are attached.
30)
Letter to Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. William J. O'Hara, Jr.,
O'Hara Sanitation Cb. Inc., re: l04(e) request for infomation, 9/14/84.
P. 134-138. An envelope and a 104(e) letter are attached.
31)
Letter to Mr. Robin Aitken, u.S. EPA, fran Mr. Richard George, ~leum
Cbrporation, re: 104(e) request for information, 9/21/84. . P. 139-139.
Record of teleph:)ne converSation to 9nithKline ChEmicals fran Mr.
Robin Aitken re: 104(e) letter dated August 17,1984, 10/30/84.
P. 140-141. A certified mail receipt is attached.
33)
Letter to Mr. WilliamJ. O'Hara, Sr., O'Hara sanitation 0:>. Inc., franMr.
Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to speoo public
funds to investigate ~ take corrective action at the Hemerson ~
site, 11/9/84. P. 142-145.
Letter to Mrs. Betty E. O'Hara, O'Hara sanitation 0:,. Inc., £ran Mr.
Stephen R. Wassersug, u.S. EPA, re: EPA Consideration to speoo public
funds to investigate ~ take corrective action at the Hemerson Read
Site, 11/9/84. P. 146-149.
Letter to Mr. tbug1as Hickey, r-bntgatery O:>unty Industrial
Developnent Authority (~DA.), franMr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA,
re: EPA consideration to spen:1 PJblic funds to investigate am take
corrective action at the Hemerson lOad site, 11/9/84. P. 150-154.
Routing and Transmittal Slip re: 00 signature on returned certified
mail receipt, 11/14/84. P. 155-156. A cer1;ified mail receipt is attached.
Letter to Mr. R:i)!n M. Aitken, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. John M. OJllen, SnithKline
Bedaaan, re: l04(e) request informatioo, 11/15/84. P. 157-162.
'I\-IO letter. regarding 1977 9nithKline Beckman/A!14 incident and a handwritten
rxrt.e regard~ the investi~tion at HeB:ierson ibid are attached.
Letter to MIs. Paula Lubarsky, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Steven E. Speece,. TiJroney,
Koox, Hasson and Weand, re: l04(e) letter sent to Mr. William J. am Mrs.
Betty E. O'Hara, 11/19/84. P. 163-164.
39) Mem:>ram\n to Mr. Joe Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Ms. Paula IdJorsky, U.s. EPA,
re: 9tU.thKline Beckman response to l04{e) letter,-ll/21/84. P. 165-165.
14
-------
47)
48)
49)
40)
Letter to Ms. Paula lJ..1borsky, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. John M. CUllen, SmithKline
Beckman, re: prel~ response to November 9, 1984 letter, 11/21/84.
P. 166-167. An envelope is attached.
41)
L:!tter to Mr. SteFhen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. 1O;er B. Reyrx>lds,
Reynolds, McLaughlin, Josel and Reynolds, re: l04(e) letter to
MCI~, 12/5/84. p. 168-169.
42)
LettE'-\" to Ms. Paula lJJborsky, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. D:>uglas L. Hickey, Jr.,
r-bntganery County Industrial Developnent Authority, re: resp:nse
to EPA notification of 11/9/84. P. 170-171.
43)
Letter to ~. JoseFh Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Steven E. Speece,
TL"tDney, Knox, Hasson and WeaOO, re: response to EPA questions ooncerning
O'Hara property, 12/18/84. P. 172-173.
44)
Letter to Mr. JoseP'1 J. Melvin, u. S. EPA, fran Mr. John M. CJllen,
SmithKline Berkman, re: SmithKline Beckman discussion of the ABM
matter, 1/14/85. P. 174-174.
45)
Letter to Me. Paula tJ..1borsKy, u. S. EPA, fran Mr. D:>uglas L. Hickey, Jr.,
M:>ntganery County Irrlustrial Developnent Authority, re: P-bntganery
County Industrial Developnent Authority O1ange of address, 1/15/85.
P. 175-175.
46)
Letter to Mr. Michael Giangiordano, M:mtganery Q)unty Industrial
Deve10pnent Authority, fran Ms. Paula Lubarsky, u.S. EPA, re: request
for iriformation on Henderson Fbad Site, 5/22/85. P. 176-176.
Desk maroran::hm to Ms. Paula LuborsKy, £ran Mr. Dave crc:wnover re:.
letter fran Waste Management to O'Hara and Department of Enviromental .
Resources, 6/7/85. P. 177-179. A letter regardin3 telephone oonversation
.on May 13, 1985 and a letter regarding ~ste materials are attached.
MertDrarx:h.rn to File fran Ms. Paula Lubarsky, U. S. EPA, re:
Road Notice Letter response, 6/17/85. P. 180-18).
~erson
50)
Letter to Mr. Bill Taylor, Gould Inc., £ran Mr. ~land w. Schreoongost,
U . S. EPA, re: EPA oonsideration to spern plblic fun::ls to investigate
am ta)ce oorrective actioo at HeDierson ~ site, 6/13/85. P. 181-185.
Letter to Mr. JoseP'1 Skrobak, Sandvik Steel CDtpany, fran Mr. Jiblan:1
w. SChrecongost, U.S. EPA, re: EPA cc:nsideration to spem public furds
to investigate am take oorrective action at Hen:ierson lbad site,
6/13/85. P. 186-190.
51)
Letter to Mr. John M. Hatch, AlI.InaX Al\.lnimn Q)rporation, fran Mr. ~lam
w. Schreoo~, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spen:l PJblic furds
to investigate am.c.ake oorrective action at Hen:ierson 1Qd site, 6/13/85.
P. 191-195. A certified mail receipt is attached.
15
-------
60)
52)
Let~er to Mr. C1arles D3.1ena, Oiilders ?rooucts CatTpany, Inc., fran
Mr. Roland W. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, re: ". EPA consideration 1:.0 spend
public funds to investigate and take corrective action at Henderson
~d site, 6/13/85. P. 196-198.
53)
Letter to Mr. John W. Kane, Jr., SCott Paper Cat1pany, fran Mr. Roland
W. SchrecoD:]ost, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to investigate and
take corrective action at Herrlerson ~d site, 6/13/85.
P. 199-203. "
54)
Routing and Transnittal Slip to Mr. John Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr.
Jessie BliD:]ino [sic], re: QJngolelm Corp::>ration, 6/14/85. P. 204-208.
A letter regardiD:] EPA consideration to investigate am take corrective
action at Henderson ~d site is attached.
55)
Letter to Ms. Marilyn Kl\.J;, QJhen & Shapi.ro, fran Ms. SUsan D. Cooke,
united States Departmant of Justice, re: docunents on United States
-v- Wade related to the ABM-Q'Hara site, 6/20/85. P. 209-20999. Grid
for April 1974 through Decsnber 1975, am January 1977, am a key to
grid are attached. .
Letter to Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Peter C. McGuire,
Al\.JT\aX, Inc., re: 104(e) request information, 6/19/85. P. 210-211.
56)
57)
Letter to Mr. Hershel J. Ric1'man, QJhen, Shapiro, Polisher, ShieJanan
an:JCbhen, fran Mr. JoseI*l J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: meeti.n3 regardiB;J
the proposed Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Stuiy for the
Herrlerson ~ad site, 6/21/85. P. 212-213. A certified mail receipt
" is attached.
58)
Letter to Mr. Steve Speece, Tim:x1ey, Knox, Hasson, and Weand,. fran Mr.
Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: meetiD:] regardiD:] the proposed
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the Hemerson lead
site, 6/21/85. P. 214-214.
59)
Letter to Mr. Everett Milton, Gm, Inc., fran Mr. Jose{X\ J. Melvin, U.S.
EPA, re: meetiD:] regardin3 the proposed Rsnedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study for the Henderson ~ Site, 6/21/85. P. 215-215.
Let ter to Mr. Nicb:>las DiBenedictus [sic], Scott Paper CCrcpany, fran
Mr. Jose{X\ J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation
and Feuwility Study for the Henderson R:)ad site, 6/21/85. P. 216-216.
61)
lBtter to Mr. Richard George, COD:]ole\.ll1 QJrporation, £ran Mr. JOseP'l J.
Melvin, U.S. £PA, re: proposed Renedial Investigation and Feasjj)ility
Study for the Henderson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 217-217.
62)
lBtter to Mr. Rebert Andrews, OU1ders Products CCrcpany, Inc., £ran
Mr. Josefh J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation and
Feasjj)ility Stooy for the Herderson IOad site, 6/21/85. P. 218-218.
16
-------
63)
64)
65)
67)
69)
Letter to Mr. Peter ~ire, AlU'TIaX Incorporated ,fran Mr Joseph J.
~lvin, U.S. £PA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Stooy for the Herrlerson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 219-219. ""-
Letter to Mr. Roland W. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, fran Mr". Scott Patterson,
Saul, EWing, Remick and Saul, re: response to June 13, 1985 EPA request fOr
information, 7/1/85. P. 220-220.
Letter to" Ms. Paula lJ.Jborsky, u. S. EPA, fran Mr. Nicholas DiBenedictus re:
Henderson Road site - CERCI.A and ~ Information Request, 7/15/85.
P. 221-224. Two transactions with O'Hara for dl.l'l1p abbreviation forms are
attached .
66)
Letter to Ms. Paula lJ.Jborsky, u. S. EPA, fran Mr. Michael Giangiordano,
l-bntgarery County Iooustrial Developtent Authority, re: M:x\tganery
County Industrial DevelofJ11Sr1t Authority's' Articles of Ina:>rporation,
Bylaws, and Resolutions a:>ncerning O'Hara Sanitatioo Co., Inc., 8/14/85.
P. 225-256. 'n1e Articles of Ina:>rporation, Bylaws and Resolutions
are at~che:i.
Letter to Mr. Michael Steiner, TinDthy, Knox and Weand, fran Mr. Steven
E. Speece, Pennsylvania Department of Enviromental Resources, re:
request for all doc::unents and reoords pertaini.rv3 to the O'Hara Site,
3/25/85. P. 257-258.
68)
Letter to Mr. Joseph Mazzie, SUn Oil Co., £ran Mr. Stephen Wassers~,
u.S. EPA, re: Heooerson ~ site, 8/19/85. P. 259-264. Acertified
mail receipt is attached.
Letter to Mr. John W. Kane, Scott Paper Q:mpany, fran Ms. Paula Luborsky,
U.S. EPA, re: Heooerson ~ site, 8/20/85. P. 265-267. A list of
Potentially Responsible Parties is attached.
70)
MstDran:lI..m to File fran Ms. Paula IJ..1b:Jrsky, U.S. £PA, re:
Road Site, 8/21/85. P. 268-268.
Heooerson
71)
MEm:>randl.Jn to File fran Ms. Paula lAJborsKy, u. S. EPA, re:
8/23/85. P. 269-269.
SUn Oil,
72)
Letter to Engineering Services, Inc., fran Mr. Step\en Wassers~,
U. S. EPA, re: request for infonnatioo concerning release of hazardous
s\i)stance8 into the environnent, 8/27/85. P. 270-273. A certified
mail receipt is attached.
Letter to MIl. Paula UJtorsky, U. S. EPA, £ran Mr. Michael Giangiordan:>,
fot:ntganery County Irx1ustrial Developnent Authority, re: O'Hara
Sanitation, Inc., 8/28/85. P. 274-297. '!he fotxltganery O:Nnty Industrial
Developnent Authority Resolutions and a transnittal letter are attached.
73)
74)
Letter to Me. Paula l.L1borsky, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Arthur J. Rayrrcrd,
Sun Refining and Market~ 0::I1pny, re: Henderson R:)ad Site, 9/3/85.
P. 298-298.
17
-------
75) Letter to Ms. ~ureen Barden, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Edward J. Ciecron, Sun
Refinin; and Marketing Catpany, re: !ieooerson ~ Site, -9/24/85.
P. 299-300. .
76) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. FDward J. Ciecron, Sun
Refinin3 and Marketing O:mpany, re: oonfinnation of telep}X)ne
conversation regarding Hemerson Road Site, 10/2/85.' P. 301-301.
77)
Letter to Mr. Patrick O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation ~y, fran
Pennsyl vania Department of Environnental Resources, re: NJtice of
Violation, 10/21/85. P. 302-310. '!he foll~ are attached:
a) A transnittal oote~
b) a water quality report~
c) a laboratory report for sample NJ.
d) a special analysis report~
e) a laboratory report for sample no.
8518204~ .
852891.
78)
Letter to Mr. John Wilmer, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Stephen E. Speece,
TiIroney, Knox, Hassen and Weand, re: N:>tice of Violation - October
21, 1985, 11/12/85. P. 311-312.
79) Letter to Engineering Services, Inc. fran Ms. Kathryn FtJdgJdss,
U.S. EPA, re: Hemerson lbad Site, 11/12/85. P. 313-315. A certified
mail receipt is attached. .
80) Letter to Mr. SteP1en E.
fran Ms. Maureen Barden,
Feasibilty Stooy (RI/FS)
P. 316-316. .
Speece, Ti.na1ey, Knox, Hassen and Weand,
U.S. EPA, re: Remedial Investigation!
at the Henderson ~ Site, 11/15/85. .
81) Merrcrandum to Fi le fran Ms. Paula IAJborsky, U. S. EPA, re: Herxierson
~d Site, 104(e) Response, 11/21/85. P. 317-317.
$2) Letter to Mr. Steven E. Speece, Ti.na1ey, Knox, Hassen and Weand, fran
Ms. Maureen Barden, U. S. EPA, re: Herxlerson R:)ad Site, 11/21/85.
P. 318-319.
83)
Letter to Me. Gerallyn In,ms-Valls [sic], U.S. EPA fran Mr. Bradford F.
Whitman, Dechert, Price and ~, re: Henderson R'Jad Site, 2/26/87.
P. 320-320. .
84) Letter to Mr. Walter S. Graham, U.S. EPA, £ran Mr. Michael C. Veysey,
Gould Electra1i.cs, Inc. re: Henderson !bad Investigatiat and
Feasibilty Stooy, 3/6/87. P. 321-321.
85) Letter to Mr. Nicholas DeBenedictus, SQ:,tt Paper ~, £ran Mr. James
Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson ~ National. Priority List (NPL)
Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 322-329. A certified mail receipt
is attached.
86) Letter to Mr. JO&eP1 Skrobak, Sandvik Steel ~, £ran Mr. James
Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Herx1erson R'Jad NPL Injectia1 Well Site, 5/11/88.
P. 330-337. A certified mail receipt is attached.
18
-------
87)
. Let~er to Ms. Betty O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation Cmpany, Inc., fraTI
~. James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson ~ NPL Injection Well
Site, 5/11/88. P. 338-346. A certified mail receipt and a Henderson
Road NPL Site Investigation Request instructions sheet-are attached
Letter to Mr. J. Kucera, Ahmax Alumimrn COr'p:)ration, fran Mr. James
Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Heooerson lOad NFL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88.
P. 347-354. A certified mail receipt is attached.
88)
89)
Letter to Mr. Michael Giary;iordano, lwbntgarery O::>unty Industrial
Developnent Authority, fran Mr. James Seif, U. S. EPA, re: Herrlerson
Fbad NFL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 355-359. A certified
mail receipt is attached. .
90)
Letter to Mr. Edward J. Ciechon, Jr., Sun Refining arxl Marketing
Canpany, fran Mr. Janes Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson R:>ad NPL
Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 360-367. A certified mail receipt
is attached. .
91)
Letter to Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould, Inc., fran Mr. James Seif,
U.S. EPA, re: Heooerson Fbad NFL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. .
P. 368-375. A certified mail receipt is attached.
92)
Letter to Mr. Richard George, O::>ngole\.ln o::>rporation, fran Mr. James
Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Herrlerson PDad NPL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88.
P. 376-383. A certified mail receipt is attached.
Letter to Mr. John Cullen, SnithKline BecJhen,
Shapiro, Polisher, Shie}(man and COhen, re: Hemer80n It)Bd NPL
Site, 5/20/88. P. 410-410.
Letter to Ms. Gerallyn D:Jwns-Va11s [sic], U.S. EPA, fran Bradford
F. W'\itman, Dechert, Price and Rhoads, re: CEICIA Sectial l04(e)
Information Request, 5/24/88. P. 411-411.
97)
-
98)
Letter to Mr. D::>U:Jlas Hickey, fob1tqcmery O::>unty Industrial Deve1op1B1t
Authority, fran Ms. Paula I.J.Jborsky, U.S. EPA, re: Henierson lOad Site,
(undated) . P. 412-412.
19
-------
100)
101)
102)
103 )
99)
Letter to .'!r. William J. 0' P.ara . O' P.ara Sanitation Cat;>any. fran Mr.
M. Seif. U.S. EPA, reo l04(e) request fbr information, 5/11/88. P.
421. A Certified mail receipt; and a Henderson !Cad NPL Site 5eO:>nd
Infonnation Request InstrUCtions Sheet are attached./
Letter to Continental Fibre Carpmy fran Mr. Bruce Snith, U.S. EPA.
re. infbrmation CDnc:eming release of hazardous substances into the
environnent, 5/17/88. P. 422-426. A Certified mail receipt; is attached.
James
413."
Letter to Mr. Morris S. QJpp, Superior Tube O:npany, iran Mr. Bru=e
Snit.\, U.S. EPA, reo request fbr information conc:eming release of
hazardous substances into the envirorment, 5/17/88. P. 427-431.
A certified mail receipt is attached. .
Letter to Mid-EaSt Aluninun CbIpony iran Mr. Bruce Snith, U.S. EPA, reo
request for infonnation ooncerning release of hazardous substances into
the enviroment, 5/17/88. P. 432-436. A certified mail receipt; is
attached .
Letter to Vicks Manufacturing Cat;>any fran Mr. Bru=e Snith, U.S. EPA, reo
request for information ooncernin; release of hazardous substances
into the envircnnent, 5/17/88. P. 437-442. A Certified mail return
receipt and a IbUting and Transmittal slip are attached.
Signed Orders
1)
Administrative Order on Cbnsent in the Matter of Henderson Road Site,
11/1/85. P. 1-36.
-
20
-------
REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Reports
1) Report: Site Investigation and Inventory, Upper MerJ.on TownshJ.p,
Pennsylvania, Volume I, prepared by Mr. Peter M. Stokely, The Bionetics
Corporation, 6/84. PT 1-36. References are attached to P. 36.
2) Report: Description of Current Situation Henderson Road SJte, prepared
by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., and Roy F. Weston, Inc., 2/85. P. 37-142.
3) Report: Letter Report, prepared by NUS Corporation, 9/9/85. P. 143-154.
4) Report: A Hydrological Study For Potential Sites Near Norristown Prepared
Under TDD No. F3-8303-42, EPA No., Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by
NUS Corporation, 3/13/86.P. 155-233.
5) Report: Status Report Henderson Road Prepared Under TDD No. F3-8511-02,
EPA No. PA-162, Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by NUS Corporation,
4/1/86. P. 234-286.
6) Report: Status Report No. 2 For Henderson Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania, prepared by NUS Corporation, 5/6/86.P. 287-303.
7) Report: Status Report Henderson Road Prepared Under TDD No.
F3-6511-02, EPA No. PA-162, Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by
NUS Corporation, 6/17/86. P. 304-327.
9) Report: Status Report, Field Trip Summary, prepared by NUS Corporation,
9/25/86. P. 328-337J.
9) Report: Status Report For Henderson Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania,
prepared by NUS Corporation, 3/10/87.P. 338-361.
10) Report: Final Draft, Remedial Investigation Well Operable Unit, Volume 1,
For Henderson Road Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, prepared by BCM Engineers, 4/4/88.P. 362-606.
11) Report: Final Draft, Remedial Investigation Report Injection Well
Operable Unit, Volume II - Appendices 1 through 8 For Henderson Road
Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, prepared
by BCM Engineers, 4/4/88. P. 607-904.
12) Report: Final Draft, Remedial Investigation Report Injection Well
Operable Unit, Volume II - Appendices 9 through 25 For Henderson Road
Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, prepared
by BCM Engineers, 4/4/88. P. 905-1167.
13) Report: Final Draft, Feasibility Study Report For Henderson Road
Injection Well Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
prepared by BCM Engineers, 4/5/88.P. 1168-1593.References are listed
on P. 1474-1474.
14) Report.- Split Sanple Results (12/19/85) - BCM & EPA - Standing Water in
Injection Well Pit (no author cited),.(undated). P. 1594-1737.
21
-------
15)
Rep:>rt: Feasibi1it St Report In 'ection Well able Un,it for
Hendersoo Read PRP CCmnittee, prepared by Ba.1 ~ineers, Inc., 6 88.
p. 1738-2049. ' .
16)
Report: Feasibility Study Report Injection Well Operable Unit for
Hendersal Read PRP CCmnittee, Volurre I, prepared by Ba.1 ~ineers,
Inc., 6/88. P. 2050-2294.
Report: Feasibility Study Report Injection Well Operable Unit for
Henderson Road PRP CCmnittee, Volurre II - 'ces 1-8, prepared
by Ba.1 Engineers, Inc., 6 88. P. 2295-2641.
17)
18)
Report: Feasibility St\X!y Report Injecticn Well Operable Unit for
Henderson Road PRP CCmnittee, Vol\mle III - ices 9-25, prepared
by B01 EngJ.neers, Inc., 6 88. P. 2642-29
-
..
22
-------
mMJNITY INVOLVEMmr
Carmunity Relations Plans
1)
Final Camunity Relations Plan for the Henderson Road Site, Upper Merion
Township, r-bnt~ County, pennsylvania, prepared by Camp, Dresser and
McKee, Inc., 6 22 85. P. 1-24.
Fact Shee~~ Press Releases, Public Notices
1)
News Release re: LDN Levels Of Industrial Q:lrcp:)unds FourXis In 'n\e Philadelphia
Suburban Water COtpany's UWer Merion Reservoir, 5/21/79. P. 1-1. .
2)
Press Release fran U. S. EPA Erwiromenta1 News entitled "Olemicals Discovered
in Reservior," 5/21/79. P. 2-2.
3)
Press Release fran U.S. EPA Envirormental News entitled "EPA Releases Results
Of Water Saitq:)les Ch Upper Merion Reservoir, 7/3/79. P. 3-3a.
4)
Press Release fran U.S. EPA Erwironnental News entitled "EPA Schedules
Public Meeting For Henderson R;)ad Superfund Site," 6/28/85. P. 4-4.
5)
Press Release fran U.S. EPA Environnental News entitled "EPA Enters COnsent
Order To Investigate 'nie Henderson Road Superfund Site," 12/9/85. P. 5-5.
6)
Fact Sheet re: clean-up alternatives (undated).
list is attached.
An atten:3ance
P. 6-7.
7)
Public N:>tice re: public meetin; at ~ of Prussia, 4/22/88. P. 8-9.
An article entitled "EPA Exten:is Public Review of Toxic Site Cleanup Plan"
is attached.
25
-------
SITE SPD:IFIC GUIDANCE rx:x:.u.tEm'S
1)
MatDraro.un to Weldwire aro. 0 I Hara Files fran Mr. AnthonY S. Bartolaneo,
U.S. EPA, re: air pollution potential fran Upper Marion Reservoir
Aeriation vs. Typical Dry Cleaning Plant, 5/14/80.
Letter to Mr. James Dragna, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Dennis K. Stewart, United
State~ Department of the Interior, re: transuittal to the Lineament
and Fracture - trace analysis for Kessler Site, Upper Merion ~hip,
Pennsylvania report, 6/28/82. 'n1e report is attached.
2)
3)
Letter to Ms. Ste!=hany Del Re, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. O\arles R. ~, United
, States Department of the Interior, re: contaminants in the ground water,
10/21/83.
4)
Menoraro.un to Mr. O\arles J. Walters, U.S. EPA, fran the Toxioologist,
Department of Heal th an:3 Hunan Servces, re: guidance for rene:1iation of
the subject site groundwater, 4/21/88.
-------
GENERAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS *
i) "Promulgation of Sites from Updates 1-4," Federal Register, dated 6/10/86.
2) "Proposal of Update 4," Federal Register, dated 9/18/85.
3) Memorandum to U. S. EPA from Mr. Gene Lucero regarding community relations
at Superfund Enforcement sites, dated 8/28/85.
4) Groundwater Contamination and Protection, undated by Mr. Donald V.
Feliciano on 8/28/85.
5) Memorandum to Toxic Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X from
Mr. William Hedeman and Mr. Gene Lucero re: Policy on Floodplains and
Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA Actions, 8/6/85.
6) Guidance on Remedial Investigations under CERCLA, dated 6/85.
7) Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, dated 6/85.
8) "Proposal of Update 3," Federal Register, dated 4/10/85.
9) Memorandum to Mr. Jack McGraw entitled "Community Relations Activites
at Superfund Sites * Interim Guidance," dated 3/22/85.
10) "Proposal of Update 2," Federal Register, dated 10/15/84
11) ETA Groundvater Protection Strategy, dated 9/84.
12) Memorandum to U.S. EPA from Mr. William Hecknan, Jr. entitled
"Transmittal at Superfund Removal Procedures - Revision 2," dated 8/20/84.
13) "Proposal of Update 1 , " Federal Register, dated 9/8/83.
14) Community Relations in Superfund; A Handbook (interim version), dated
15) "Proposal of First National Priority List," Federal Register, dated
12/30/82.
16) "Expanded Eligibility List," Federal Register, dated 7/23/82.
17) "Interim Priorities List," Federal Register, dated 10/23/81.
18) Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System: A User's Manual
(undated).
19) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Air Surveillance (undated).
20) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Site Safety Plan (undated).
* Located in EPA Region III office.
-------
SOURCE USGS 7 5 mm Quadrangle / Nornttown PA / Photor»vi*«a 19S3 ^
north
2000ft.
HENDERSON ROAD
EXHIBIT 1
Location MI
-------
.n.ylvanl"
rump**
_«P- -L_ 28
IfOEND
ONI NUMKH
R8 CONBTIHICTO)
«V WELLS IN iACH
30 GROUNOWAIER ELEVATION (FT . MSU
* OHOUMOWATER ElEVATIOM CONTOUR
"** dHTERREDXr T.. MSI)
Otoundv*!*' d«ptri« l«k*n Mitch 76. 181)8
nd M.ich 7«. !;
HENOCMSON NOAO
REMEDIAL IN VCS TIG AI ION
Kmg ol Pfussi*. PA
EXHIBIT 2
Site Specific Water Table ~>
March 1U86
-------
ZONING REGULATIONS
«CIl*KC»
i3MffT*«Tig
: i COM
_ j ._ SC |MO»»IMf CtNTC*
J
SOURCE. USGS 7 J rrwi
HENDERSON ROAD
EXHIBIT 3
-------
»r T.".dex
* _- <'
\, .^-t-.rA V . ,
i; ,^*^."*-i - <**,'
LEGEND
Well Owner
PSWC-HENDERSON ROAD SCHOOL
V.W. BRUCE CO.
BASSE"* S'EEL !. "J3E
COLUMBIA 301.ER CO.
R.S. McCRACKEN CO.
ES'OCK
PSWC-TEST *E_^
PSWC-CROOKED .ANE
ST. AUGUSTINE CEMENTARY
J.M. POLLUTION CONTROL CE:
KEYSTONE COKE
WASTE TECHNIQUE
3EAROFF AUTO PARTS
" -'^/
HUB ING BUSINESS FORMS
STANLEY KESSLER, INC.
PSWC SUPPLY WELL INTAKE
' «*'> -.
;;;;/.'v >«^r; - II
HENDERSON ROAD
©rMrni.ii
-------
Sample Date:
Sample Description:
Constituents Found:
W
I
W
~
EXIII 1\ 1'1' ':i
Contaminants Identified by DEH Ldboratory
3/22/77
SKF Plant
Waste Shipped
to O'llara Site
Dimethyl aniline
Camphor
Menthol
Nitrobenzene
Aluminum Bromide
Aqueous Cyanide
(Complexed with
Iron)
n-butyl Lilhium
Butyl Tosylate
IICl
Potassium lIydroxide
Neo Pentyl Alcohol
Isobutylchloroformate
Urea
Nitrobutane
Butyl Alcohol
2-Bromobutane
Carbpn Tetrabomide
Ferrous oxalate
p-Bromoanisole
4/18/77
O'liara Injection
Well
Butylcellusolve
"phthalic anhydride"
Phthalic acid esters
Sulnil j t lIted d 1"UIII'" tics
Dimethyl anilIne
Camphor
Menthol
12/19/78
O'liara Jfnjection
Well
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene
Dichlorobenzene
Me thy I nap!! tlH~ I CIW
Dime thy 1 naph I hl~ I t 'IH~
"Numerous ~nidentified
hydrocarbons"
-------
(EXIIIB. - 5 CONT'D)
Comparison of nesult~; of Testin'J hy (J,JB I,ahoratoric~,
Annapolis Field.Uffice, (Jnd Sverdrup/Aim
6-11-79
790611-22 (I)
1790011-22)
Annapolis
Field
Office
H:PA)
Sample Date:
Sample No.:
..aLoratory:
6-11-79
790611-22
PJB Laboratories
3-)-81
C042J
Sverdrup/ARO.
Inc.
4-30-80
800501-01
Annapolis
Field
Office
(EPA)
(2)
P~Ji!g/ I)
Compound
Concentration,
Nf()
NI-'
Nf
10
NI-'
NI-'
NI-'
NF
]0
NI-'
NI-'
NI-'
Nf
Nf
NF
NI-'
16
N..'
N..'
NI-'
NI-'
NI.-
NI-'
NI-'
Hethlyene chloride+
. Trichlorofluoromethane
1,1-0ichloroethylene.
1,I-Oichloroethane+
Trans-l,2-dich1oroethylene+
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene+
~ Chloroform.
j 1,2-Dichloroethane*
"
1,1,1-Trichloroethane+
1,2-Dichloropropane+
Trichloroethylene.
Benzene.
Tetrachloroethylene.
Toluene+
Chlorobenzene+
Ethylbenzemt+
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene+
Butylbenzy1 phthalate
Phenol+
4,6-0initro-o-cresol
]80
10
] 1
3, ] 00
830
10 - 1000
10
10-100(4.5)
1000-10,000 (7800) 300
10 - 100 (0)
- (42)
10-100(-).
100 - 1000(820)
10 - 1000(62)
100 - 1000 (580)
]0 - 1000
10 - 100
1 - 10
10,000
10 - 100 (11)
100 - 1000
4
30
200
10
200
3
80
10
>1,000
30
40
74
1,800
]20
. 2,200
1,200
810
2,900
5,200
1,700
6,000
138,000
86,000
220,000
420,000
152,000
98,000
30,000
110,000
100 - 1000
1 - 10
1 - 10
.
Known Carcinoqen
-------
(EXHIBIT 5 CONT'D)
Sample Date:
Sample No.:
Laboratory:
6-11-79
790611-22
PJB Laboratories
Compound
1,2,3 - Trichloropropane
rhiobisme thane
'-chloropropene
'yclohexane
lexane
lethylcyclohexane
-llexanone
thylcylohexane
, 3-Dimethylcyclohexane
, 1 , 3-Trimethylcyclohexane
onane
-Ethyl-2-methylheptane
>decane
. 5-Dimethynaphthalenc
6-Dimethylundecane
3-Dimethylhexane
6, 11-Trimethyldodecane
tadecane
omobenzene
Methyloctane
4-Dimethylbenzene
4-Dichlorobenzene
3-Dichlorobenzene
tadecanoic Acid
2-Dichloroethylene
ne thy 1st de
i 1-chloio-l-propenc
tethy 1 -2-propanone
(3)
13)
(3)
(3)
13)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
<3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
6-11-79
790611-22
(790011-22)
Annapolis
Field
Office
(EPA)
icentration, ppb (
4-30-80
800501-01
Annapolis
Field
Office
(EPA)
ng/i)
3-3-81
C0423
Sverdrup/ARO.
Inc.
10-100
100-1000
-100
To-ioo
10-100
-------
( EX" In I 'I' 5 CON'!' I IJ )
. 6-11-79
7.90611-22
(790011-22t
Annapolis
Field
Of f ice
(EPAt
-------__~~~centration_, pl'-~g/q (2t
S.'tmp 1 e Da te:
Samp 1 e No.:
LaLoratory:
6-11-79
790611-22
P.JD Laboralor ies
~ompound
1,J-Oimethylbenzene
1,2-0imethylbenzene
1,J,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
1,2,J-Trichlorobenzene
2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
1,6,7-TrimethylnaphtheJene
2-Ethy1-1-hexanol
l.' 2-Hethylnaphthalene
\~. 1, 6-Dimethylnapht ha 1 ene
-I 2-Hethy1propanoic. Ac id
2-Hethy1butanoic Acid
2-Ethy1butanoic Acid
2-Hethylhexanoic Acid
4-Hethy1pentanoic Acid
2-Ethy1heptanoic Acid
2-Hethy 1 Phenol
Benzoic Aci1
Benzeneacet c Acid
Benzenepropanoic Acid
2,4,6-Trich1orophenol
p-ch1oro-m-cresol
2-Ch1oropheno1
2,4-Dichloropheno1
2,4-Dimethylpheno1
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitropheno1
Pentachlorophenol
Acenapthene
B'~nz id ir.e
4-30-80
800501-01
Annapolis
Field
Of f ice
(P.PAt
1000-10J>OO
1000-1(\000
1000-10,000
1000-10,000
1-10
1000-1(\000
100-100
1-10
1-10
J-)-81
C042J
Sverdrup/AHO.
Inc.
--_..__._-~--_.. .,"
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF'
NF
NF'
Nt-'
. 1 , .
-------
(tiXHIulT L> CCNT'n)
Sample Date: 6-11-79 6-11-79 4-30-80 3-3-81
Sample No.: 790611-22 790611-22 800501-01 C0423
Laboratory: PJB Laboratories (790011-22) Annapolis Sverdrup/ARO
Annapolis Field Inc.
Field Office
Office (EPA)
(EPA)
Compound Concentration, ppb (ug/1)
llexachloroethane NF
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether NF
2-Chloronaphthalene NF
3-3-Dichlorobenzidine NF
2,4-Dinitrotoluene NF
2,6-Dinitrotoluene NF
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine NF
(as Azobenzene)
Fluoranthene NF
4-c'h lorooheny I ohenyl eLlicr NF
l-Dromophenyl phenyl ether NF
>is (2-chloroisopropyl)ether NF
»is(2-chloroethoxy)methane NF
lexachlorobutadiene NF
lexachlorocyclopentadiene NF
sophorone NF
itrobenzene NF
-nitrosodimethylamine NF
-nitrosodiphenylamine NF
-nitrosodi-n-propylamine NF
is(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NF
i-n-butyl phthalate . NF
i-n-octyl phthalate NF
tethyl phthalate NF
tmethyl phthalate NF
nzo(a)anthracene NF
nzo(a)pyrene NF
4-Benz^ uoranthene NF
nzo(k)i oranthene NF
rysene NF
enaphthylene
-------
Corresp:>ndence arrl supporting Doc\mIentation
1)
Letter to Mr. O1arles Griffith, Pennsylvania Intergovernrnental Council,
fran Mr. '!bana.s P. Eichler, U. S. EPA, re: notice of pr<:p:)sed SUperfund
Project, 8/7/84. P. 1-2.
2)
Merrorarrl\.lt\ to Mr. Thanas P. Eichler, U. S. EPA, fran Mr. Gene wcero,
U. S. EPA, re: recamendations to proceed with Renedial Investigation/
Feasibility StlXiy, 9/13/84. P. 3-4. A mem:>randum regarding
'authorization to proceed wi. th Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StlXiy
is attached.
3)
Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Hershel J. Richman, Cohen,
Shapiro, Polisher, Skiekma.n and Q:)hen, re: transmittal of the Potentially
Responsible Party fOsition paper, 2/23/88. P. 5-25. '!be fOsition paper
is attached.
4)
Letter to Ms. Gerallyn I:bwnes-Valls, U.S.EPA, fran Ms. Frances L. Q:)stanzi,
Pennsyl vania Department of Enviromental Resources, re: caments ,on the '
Remedial Investigaticn/Feasibility Stooy, 2/26/88. P. 26-35. A mem:>raOOlIn
regarding h~03eol03ic activities is attached.
5)
Letter to Ms. Cindy Rice, u.s. Fish arrl Wildlife Service, fran Mr. SteVen
M. Jones, B01 Eastern Inc., re: federally listed threatened and en::!aD;Jered
species, 4/11/88. P. 36-37. A site map is attached.
Letter to Ms. Gerallyn I:bwnes-Valls, U.S. EPA, fran Mr. Alan R:lbinson,
801, re: envircnnental impact, 4/14/88. P. 38-40. A letter regarding
threatened or endangered species is attached.
6)
7)
Letter to Ms. Gerallyn rn-mes-Valls, U. S. EPA, fran Me. Debra Glover,
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., re: r~llI-=ndations for cleanup criteria,
5/17/88. P. 41-57.
8)
Let ter to Me. Maureen Barden, U. s. EPA, fran Mr. Mark T. Kropilak,
Philadelphia Suburban Water ~, re: resfOnse to the Rsnedial
Investigation/Feasibility St\Xiy and proposed plan of action, 5/20/88.
P. 58~1.
9)
lA!tter to Mr. Alan Ibbinson, BOot Eastern, Inc., fran Ms. Gerallyn
I:Dmes-Valls, U.S. EPA, re: transmittal of the "Heooerscn RJad
Inject1a1 well Site Report on Effluent Treatment Pilot~ and Other
~jal MBasures, II 6/2/88. P. 62-91. 'Ihe report is attached.
10)
lA!tter to Mr. Alan RJbinson, BOot Eastern, Inc., fran Ms. Gerallyn
D::wnes-Valls, U.S. EPA, re: transm:ittal of the "Heooerson !bad Injection
Well ~able Unit Rt:cutaud1dations for Pre-Design Investigatia1s
~FOrt, II 6/3/88. P. 92-132. '!be report is attached.
Report: Notes on the Remedial Investigation/Feasibili:y Study and EPA 's
Plan of Action, suDnitted to EPA by Philadelphia Suburban water ~,
6/3/88. P. 133-136.
11)
23
-------
12) Report: Selected ARARs for the Henderson Road Site Reconnended Remedial
Alternatives, prepared by the Henderson Road PRP Camitt.ee, 2/23/88.
P. 190-211.
13) Report: Significant Issue Henderson Road NPL Site Injection Well Operable
Unit, (no author cited), 4/88.P. 212-216.
14) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, fron Mr. Bradford F. Whitman,
Dechert/ Price and Rhoads, re: cements on the proposed Remedial Plan,
5/19/88. P. 217-219.
15) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Mark J. Kropilak,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: response to the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan of Action, 5/20/88.
P. 220-223.
16) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Bradford F.
Whitman, Dechert, Price and Rhoads, re: contents of EPA proposed
Remedial Plan, 5/31/88. P. 224-238. The comment is attached.
17) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John P. Judge,
Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, re: public Garment on
EPA's Proposed Plan. 6/1/88. P. 239-279. The public conroent is
attached.
18) Report: Henderson Road Injection Well Site Report on Additional Work
on Effluent Treatment Piloting and Other Remedial Measures (no author
cited), 6/2/88. P. 280-308.
19) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Preston
Luitweilar, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: estimates for the
capital and operating costs of the treatment systems at the Upper Merion
Treatment Plant and cements on the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study, 6/8/88. P. 309-317. A Cost Summary for Aeration Towers at the
Upper Merion Treatment Plant and notes on the Remedial Investigation and
EPA's Plan to Action are attached.
20) Letter to Mr. Bruce Smith, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Mark J. Kropilak,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: contaminants found in the Upper
Merion Reservoir, 6/9/88. 318-321.
21) Letter to Mr. James M. Seif, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Hershel J. Richman,
Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen re: recommended remedial
alternatives to the Final Feasibility Study Report, 6/17/88. P. 322-326.
22) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Hershel J.
Richman, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, re: conroents on
the "Henderson Road Injection Well Operable Unit Recommendations for Pre-
Desigh Investigations" report prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
6/23/88. P. 327-333. The coments are attached.
24
-------
::xr.I3IT 6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CNSITE GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
HENDE~SON ROAD _SITE
UPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA
Sample Location: HR-1-260 HR-1-280 HR-1-275
Samp 1 e I. D. : N610020 N610021 N610849
Sample Date: OS/29/86 OS/29/86 06/10/86
Parameter UNITS
Base/Neutrals Oroanics
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l <20.0 <20.0 9.6
Di-n-butyl phthalate ug/l <20.0 <20.0 3.2
Di-n-octyl phthalate ug/l 2.8 <20.0 <20.0
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ug/l <20.0 <20.0 3.8
Volatile Oraanics
Benzene ug/l <1.0 <1.0 20.7
Chlorooenzene ug/l <1.0 <1.0 8.5
Chloroethane .ug/l <1.0 <1.0 1.9
Chloroform ug/l <1.0 <1.0 7.8
l,l-Dichloroethane ug/l <1.0 1.6 18.4
1 ,2-Di ch 1 oroethane ug/l <1.0 <1.0 26. 1
l,2-Dichlopropane ug/l <1.0 1.1 27.0
Ethylbenzene ug/l <1.0 10.6 29.6
Methylene chloride ug/l <1.0 1.0 12.9
Toluene iJg/l 2.2 35.5 126.0
1 , 1 ,1- Tri ch 1 oroethane ug/l <1.0 <1.0 3.7
Trichloroethene (TCE) ug/l 5.5 1.2 1.5
m-Xylene ug/l <1.0 22. 1 49.9
p-Xylene ug/l <1.0 10.7 43.4
-------
:~x~:=~: 0 :8~~1~)
~ .
~=.-:'e
~:ca:~:':
,.:a-""~.= . ....
-......._..wI..
!""a~a~e:;'"
S~~;ie :ate:
~~.: 75
~-.""~.. ..,... .
"'-'.,A ~'(."':a-"~""'-" ''''''':II~.-S
--..-- - - """-
:er'1z:Ji: ACij
2.:-Ji~et~yl~henol
?henol
2-Methy1cr'\e~ol
(o-Cresol)
4-Methylphenol
(p-Cresol)
wg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
9ase/~e'J:"al s
biS(2-Ethylhexyl)
phtha late
Butyl benzyl phthalate
1 ,Z-~icnlorobenzene
l,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Naphthalene
Benzyl alcohol
. 4- C h lor 0 an; 1 ; n e
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
.Volatile Or~anies
Benzene ug/1
Chlorobenzene ug/l
Chloroethane ug/l
Chloroform ug/l
1 . l-D; en 1 oroethane ug/l
1 . 2-D; eh 1 oroethane ug/l
. 1 , l-Oi eh 1 oroethene ug/l
l,2-0iehloropropane ug/1
Ethylbenzene ug/l
Methylene chloride ug/1
Tetraeh1oroethene* (PCE) ug/1
To 1 uene ug/1
Trans-l,2-d1ch1oroethene ug/l
1.1.1-Tr;ehloroethane ug/l
Triehloroethene (reE) ug/1
Triehlorofluoromethane ug/l
Vinyl chloride ug/1
m-Xylene ug/l
p-Xylene ug/l
"iR-2-175
'45~CC22
C5/29/85
410.0
43.0
28.0
J90.0
330.0
7.2
20.0
93. 1
4.4
<40.0
9.6
520.0
8.0
1,170.0
218.0
654.0
134.0
2,980.0
159.0
36.4
1,460.0
2.970.0
220.0
291.0
66.600.0
785.0
168.0
610.0
<1.0
78.9
72,000.0
1.300.0
"811 41\ ,,,., ~
~~_,_i.,:
., . . - A - ..
":....:~~
C5/::/S5
<50.:CO.'J
< i 2 . ceo. 'J
<12.CCO.O
<12.COO.0
<12.000.0
18,000.0
210,000.0
<100.0
<100.0
<12.000.0
<12,000.0
<12,000.0
< 1 2 ,'000 . 0
500.0
310.0
<100.0
340.0
1,600.0
410.0
<1.0
1.600.0
7.800.0
850.0
9,800.0
246,000.0
400.0
700.0
140.0
<1.0
<1 00 . 0
37.000.0
19.000.0
. 1,1 ,2,Z-Tetrachloroethane and/or tetrach1oroethene
.
-;(-2-295
~5:CS:O
C5/1:/85
<100.0
4.2
4.J
32.0
~20.0
17 .0
7.4
<1.0
<1.0
2.4
5.4
<20.0
8.2
266.0
29.2
823.0
14.5
545.0
69.6
19.4
225.0
138.0
105.0
8.3
4,200.0
65.3
40.3
51.6
<1.0
21.7
- 146.0
91.0
HR-2-Z95 D~~
'16:0851
05/10/86
(:cc.o
5.6
2.2
31 .0
<20.0
'0.0
<20.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.4
<20.0
<20.0
2.2
270.0
26. 1
845.0
15.2
556.0
71.9
19.6
237.0
138.0
107.0
8.2
1 , 1 00 . 0
66.8
41.5
52. 1
4.4
21.8
149.0
91.3
-------
(-....---- -
:'...-:l.::J.- -=
-,....,~fr"\ .
---:.",... ..,' )
Sa~:~e
. ... - =-.".1'"\'"
--"'"_. w,o.
~~-~E-20S .HR-~E-19S Oup HR-3-Z9S
N6050~6 N60S047 N610112
03/19/86 03/19/86 05/30/86
HR-S-~92
N609813
OS/27/85
?ara:nete:-
S a~= ; e :. J. :
Sa:,::p:e !:)ate:
L;nits
:"'Js;:a1 o"::e"":~~s
Soec; f~ c C=~du=~a!"'!ce I.'ml":os/c:n 790.0 803.0 NT NT
""eta's
Arsenic mg/1 0.004 0.003 NT NT
Cacmi~m mg/l 0.003 0.01 NT NT
C'romium mg/l 0.002 0.001 NT NT
Coeper mg/1 0.04 0.04 NT NT
S; 1 ver mg/l 0.0006 <0.0005 NT NT
Zinc mg/l O. 11 O. 11 NT NT
Inorganic Non-'-1eta11ics
Cyanide mg/l 0.006 0.005 NT NT
O!":anics
CCO mg/l 85.0 31.0 NT NT
Total Phenolics mg /1 0.08 0.08 NT NT
,A";..I ~x":ractable Or:anics
,-...,j
Benzoic Acid ug/l NT NT 100.0 <1 00 . 0
2.4-Dimet~ylpheno1 ug/1 < 10.0 < 1 0.0 19.0 <20.0
?henol ug/l <10.0 <10.0 24.0 <20.0
2-'-1ethylphenol (o-cresol) ug/l NT NT 43.0 <20.0
4-Methylphenol (p-creso1) ug/l NT NT 64.0 <20.0
NT - Not tested as part of this study
-------
, -.,....----
,:'.\::_~.:. :
--,..~- I ~ \
- --"'- -)
Samcle Location:
. - .., 1 e I "'I .
~a,,,p . u. .
Sample Date:
Units
~a~a~eter
:~~~/~~!'.":I~ 0~::.~;:s
---- -...--
:~s~2-~:~yihexyl)~hthala:e ug/1
3J:ji :er.zyl ~h:'alate ug/l
1 ~-~;:,lorcoenze~e ug/1
~.: ",,:c.,'or"'oe"'z~ne Ug/1
t ...-...,. I ". \."I Ii -'
~~~h~hal;ne ug/l
N-~it~cSCdichenylam;ne ug/1
J-Chloroanil;ne ug/1
2-MetMylnaphthalene ug/l
Volatile Cr~an;cs
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ch1oroethane
Chloroform
'.1-Dieh1oroethane
, .2-vicnloroethane
1.1-Dieh1oroethene
1.2-Dienloropropane
::,ylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetraehloroethene (PCE)
Toluene
Trans-1,2-D;ehloroethene
1 . 1 . 1- Tri ch 1 oroethane
Triehloroethene (TCE)
ir4ehlorofluoromethane
Vi nyl eh 1 ori de
m-Xy1ene
p-Xylene
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ugl1
ug/1
ug/1
ugli
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
HR-RE-2C5 HR-RE-205 Dup HR:3-295
N605046 N6C5047 N610112
C3/19/86 03/19/86 05/30/86
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
< 1 0.0
< 1 0.0
<10.0
NT
NT
110.0
<100.0
<100.0
<100.0
2,000.0
74.0
<100.0
120.0
110.0
<100.0
<100.0
2,700.0
<100.0
220.0
<100.0
NT
73.0
NT
NT
NT - Not tested as part of this study
19.0
<10.0
<10.0
<10.0
< 10.0
<10.0
NT
NT
110.0
<100.0
<100.0
<100.0
2,000.0
76.0
<100.0
120.0
100.0
55.0
<100.0
2,700.0
<100.0
230.0
<100.0
NT
78.0
NT
NT
5.6
44.0
13.5
74.9
12.0
4.0
58.0
10.0
1,700.0
280.0
994.0
433.0
1,120.0
297.0
102.0
1,800.0
6,500.0
614.0
86.0
27,000.0
40.8
1 ,200.0
. 18.4
95.3
36.4
10,000.0
8,000.0
HR-5-i92
N609813
OS/27/85
33.0
<20.0
<1.0
21.1
<20.0
<20.0
5.0
<20.0
'29.0
19.7
101.0
<1.0
15.9
<1.0
4..2
<1.0
25.1
3.6
4.8
258.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
<1.0
<1.0
21.1
17.9
-------
: ::!::::3:: -: -"".-"':"11- \
"- -'1.',. -" i
Sa:r.cle Location: Tri~ Blank Field 81 an k T rip' '8 1 an k Field Bla!'1K
Sa:r.cie I. D.: N6050~9 N605048 N609917 N609918
S amp ie e'ate: 03/19/86 03/19/86 OS/28/86 OS/28/86
~arame,;er Units
?~vs':3.1 o!"c:er::es
S;;ecifiC Conductance umhos/c:n 3.69 4. 12 NT NT
t-Iet3.1S
Lead ing / 1 0.002 <0.002 NT NT
Silver mg/l 0.0006 0.001 NT NT
Zinc mg/l 0.01 <0.01 NT NT
Or~ar'l, i ': s
Total Phenolics mg/l <0.002 0.003 . NT NT
Base/Neutral Organics
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)pbthalate ug/1 10.0 22.0 <40.0 <20.0
VolatQe Orcanics
Chloroform iJg /1 82.0 78.0 3.2 <1.0
Toluene ug/l <10.0 <10.0 2.9 2.9
NT - Not tested as part of this study
Source:
BCM Eastern Inc. (BCM Project NOs. 00-5528-02 and 00-5528-03)
-------
: -...--- ~- -
~:'.\.'"':..l=J.- 0::
--..,..., - ~
-......~... ;..; I
Sample Location:
Sample 1.0.:
Sample Date:
UNITS
?a!"a~eter
P"vs~ca'
D"::e":'es
Specific C~nductance
Me":a's
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Inorcanic Non-Metallics
Cyanide
Oroanics
CCD
Total Phenolics
Sase/~eutral Orcanics
bisC2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
l,2-Dichlorooenzene
Volatile Orcanics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
l,l-Dichloroethane
l,2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1.2-Diehloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetraehloroethene* CPCE)
Toluene
Trans-l.2-diehloroethene
1 . 1 . 1- Tri ch 1 oroethane
Trichloroethene CTCE)
Vi nyl eh 1 ori de
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
umhos/cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/.l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
Jg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/l
NT - Not tested as part ~f this study
-* -. J , ". (I ~ T /1 ~ r., t ~, '-, '7 ,.T, ~ t, t [c. e, ,,; ,f .", ,-., ,-'.-, .
HR-4-195
N609814
C5/27/86
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
<20.0
-26. 1
142.0
13.9
354.0
143.0
8.2
5.7
17.6
37.6
10.2
10.9
7.2
188.0
25.8
92.0
100.0
11.0
22.9
70 ,.,.i, ..; ~ .~ .
HR-4-~42
N60S044
03/19/86
1 ,220.0
<0.002
0.003
,0.004
0.04
0.002
0.0006
6.54
0.01
121 .0
0.02
14.0
<10.0
530.0
74.0
2.100.0
360.0
62.0
<45.0
67.0
580.0
84.0
<45.0
6,400.0
31.0
m.O
29.0
<45.0
NT
NT
HR-4-29S
N60SC45
03/19/86
1 , 1 80.0
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.04
0.002
0.002
5.92
<0.005
134.0
0.03 .
29.0
<10.0
370.0
36.0
1,200.0
270.0
30.0
<45.0
33.0
320.0
44.0
<45.0
1.400.0
41.0
<45.0
35.0
<45.0
NT
NT
-------
EXIIIIH T "7
SPLIT SAMPLE RESULIS
ItENOERSON ROAD SITE
UPPER HER ION , PINNSYlVANIA
-------.------- -----'---------- ..-. ..__..._.....~.._---_...._---_. ....-- ------------- -'-"--.-------.--. - "---.--.. . ... .-..
~alllple Loc.tion: HR-RE-205 HR-4-242 HR-4-295 HR-5-192 HR-2-1158 PSWC Crooked L.ne QU4f ry/UHR
S.unp1e 1.0.: N605046 ([2}1 N60544 ([213 N60S045 ([2]0 N6098 I 3 860602-01 N610022 860602-06 N609919 860602-03 N609916 86060l Ol
S'lIIpIe o.te: 3/89/86 }/89/86 3/89/86 3/89/86 3/89/86 3/89/86 5/27/86 5/21/86 5/29/86 5/29/81 5/28/86 5/28/86 5/28/86 5/28/8/
I .."'eter (ugll)
'.".'-- ... ---. ---.. ....-. - - '_n, ... -.-
..\ i In
lene 110 100 530 380 310 340 129 15 1,110 1,300 J
-------
II:XII'II "I' ., CON'I" /) )
. . . .. .. "-'.- .-..-.---..-....-.-- -
\dmple Loc.tion: tfR-RE-205
SHlple 1.0.: N605046 ([2]1
S'lIIple O.te: 3119/86 3119/86
IIIIIId
""---
t i 'el
I ine NO NI 205 NI NO NO NO' NO NO NO NO NO
'uro.ni line NI NI NI 5 I. I J 8 NO NO NO NO NO
Ihyl-2-pent.none NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ND NO 800 J NO NO NO NO
thy'phenol HI 110 f NI 13 F NI 10 <20 1.2 J 490 540 <20 HO NI NO
thylphenol NI 24 f HI HI NO <20 NI 330 620 <20 NO NI NO
lillethylphenol NO 28 f <10 11 f (10 4 J <20 NI 43 114 <20 NO NI NO
II NO <10 NO <20 NO 28 72 <20 NO NO NO
lichlorobeOlene NO NO tI) NO NO NO ND ND 4.4 6.5 J NO NO NO NO
Ii ch1orophen01 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO I. 1 J ND NO NO ND
Inthrene NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ND O. I NO NO NO NO
ollyl Phth.hte NO NO ND ND NO NO NO NO NO 4.1 NO NO NO NO
. - -.-._u_-.- -- '. '-...-.. -..- "-----.-.-- .
HR...t-242 HR-4-295
Nfi0544 ((21] Nfi05045 ((230
3/19/86 3/19/86 3/19/86 3/19/86
.. ---.-. ---'-.. - ---. ._... - . - - ..... -- -'.-........ .
tfR-5-192 HR-2-115 PSWC Crooked tane Quarry/UHR
N609813 860602-01 N6100n 860602-06 N609919 860b02..03 N609916 860602-02
5/21/86 5/21/86 5/29/86 5/29/81 5/28/86 5/28/86 5/28/86 5/28/81
---.------------
-------------.---.-------- -...-.- -- -.-.
I e nU8lberll.b ident ification:
I N pref,i. - 8(" or 8(" subcontractor (ConpuChea)
rt prefi. - L.b not identified - EPA 1.b, EPA contractor
I No 1etters in prefi. - NUS Corpor.tion for EPA
[ ,... "A '.p.'" 1 is' 5_1. Il60602-116 .. , ,.. V.II "-2-195. A. "-2-105 vu ._1'" .. 6110/86. .., 5/29/86. It is un'.,,'ood 'h., 'h. ""-2-'.,
I design.tion w.s either incorrectly recorded or is . typogr.phiC.1 error
'his concentr.tion reported by laboratory, but evidence e.ists to doubt presence of conpound (lI.y or lIay not be present)
Estill.ted v'lue; presence of conpound is indic.ted, but the response is less than the quantification 1illit
Ihe associated nUllerica1 v.lue is an esti.ated quantity bec.use quality criteria were not II!t '. "
'he ..teri.I was analYled for, but not detected; the associ.ted nunberical value is the est'lI.ted sa.ple qu.nt.ficat.on 1'II.t
'4ut detected
'4ot tes ted
'5: 8(" Eastern Incl
USI.PA 100 No. d-85 11-02 , Lab Cue 5149
NUS Corpor.tion - August 3, 1986, letter frOll "a rei a Lynn Case (NUS) to H.rold 8yer, EPA reo lOON F3-8511-02
ed By:
8C" Eastern Inc. (8C" Project Nos. 00-5528-01 and 00-5528-02)
------------ ------.---.
-------
-...._--- -
:...-"";-=- - ='
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CFF-SITE G~CUNDWATER SAMPLES
HENDERSCN ROAD S!iE
UPPER MERION. PENNSYLVANIA
Sample Lc:ation: .
Same 1 e r. D. :
Same1e Date:
Parameter (~nits)
Hubing
N6098l0
OS/27/86
Estock
N609811
OS/27/86
McIlvain
N609812
OS/27/86
Quarry
N6099l6
OS/28/86
Metals (me/')
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Total Phenolics (mg/1)
Volatile Organics 'uall)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
C~loroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
l,2-Dichloroethane
l,l-Dichloroethene
l,2-Dicnloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
7etrachloroethene (PCE).
Toluene
Trans-1.2-dichloroethene
l,l.l-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene (TCE)
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
3.9
7.4
2.5
3.3
<1.0
6.9
<1.0
<1.0
1.8
4.2
2.6
1.1
150.0
lZ0.0
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
. < 1 .0
<1.0
1.3
<1.0
1.9
<1.0
Z.9
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
.1.1 .2.2-Tetrachloroethane and/or tetrachloroethene
NT - Not tested as part of this study
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
<1.0
4.7
4.9
13. 1
2.3
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.9
<1.0
Z.Z
<1.0
(.{I.O-.
1.1
0.004
0.007
O.OZ
0.13
0.13
<1.0
3.Z'
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
13.3
3.3
3.6
Z.9
(1 . O'
4.5
1Z.9
". .
-: .. .
~
-------
. -.....---- -
. !".....\::_~1':: ::
....,....,--, ~,
......1.... Wi
Sa::1p1e Locat~cn:
S amp 1 e I. D. :
Sa:T1ple Da-:e:
?ar:~e:er (units)
PSWCL
N5099l9
OS/28/85
?S~AP
N5C9920
OS/28-/86
Trip Blank Field Blank
N609917 N609918
OS/28/86 OS/28/86
Vcl::~'~ Or:a~i:s
(ucl1)
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1.1-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene* (PCE)
Toluene
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene
Tricnlorcethene (TCE)
3.0
3.9
<1.0
3.4
1.5
28.3
2.7
6.0
44.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.1
23.04
<1.0
1.1
<1.0
<1.0
3.2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.9
<1.0
<1.0
. 1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane and/or tetrachlbroethene
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.9
<1.0
<1.0
-------
McCOY QUARRY
MERION RESERVOIR
* HENDERSON ROAD
LEGEND
1 CONRAIL SPUR 7. GLASGOW LANDFILL
2. RIVER ROAO COKE WORKS 8. GLASGOW QUARRY
3. MONTGOMERY COUNTY LANDFILL 0. PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC QUARRY
4 SCHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY -t«. STANLEY KESSLER COMPANY
S.PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE 11.LUKENS STEEL
.CRATER RESOURCES. INC. 12.COOPERS CK. CHEM. SITE
(PICKLE LIQUOR SITE) 13. O'MARA LANOMU.
PA Photorevu«a 1983
^
"Orth 6 2000ft.
HENDERSON ROAD
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Kinn of Pru««ij| PA
EXHIBIT 9
Land I
Groundwa
<
-------
:';'~113II 10
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
HENDERSON ROAD SITE
UPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA
-
senzene
senzoic Acid
3enzyl Alchohol
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benz~l.Phthalate
~-Chloroan~l~ne
Chlorobenzene
C"lloroform
,. ~-Dichlorobenzene
~'l-Dichloroethane
~'l-Dichloroethene
i'2-Dichloroethane
l'2-Dichloroethene (trans)
l'2-Dichloropropane
2:4-Dimethylphenol
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
;othy lbenz ene
Methylene Chloride
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene .
s-nitrosodiphenylam~ne
?henol
~etrachloroethene (PCE)
~oluene
:,l,l-Trichloroethane (TCE)
'/inyl Chloride
~-xylene
p-xylene
Carbon Tetrachloride #
:ibromochloromethane #
Dichlorobromomethane #
Cadmium. #
Copper # #
Zinc. .
,
..
Included on the basis of detection limits. Not detected in
samples from the site.
Included on the. basis of criteria for aquatic life.
Source:
BCM Eastern Inc. (BCH Project No. 00-5528-02)
-------
Molle I
$~~MrjQ.J :
Hode I I:
Hodel 2:
.Hodel 3:
Hodel 4:
S~ef!~r.jQ..1l :
Hod~1 5:
EXIII B I 'I' I I.
SUMMARY Of CANCI R RISK J AC tORS AND tlAlARO I NUl Cf. S
tI[N()[RSON ROAD SITE
UPPLR HlRION, PENNSYLVANIA
...... - -. --...- -.------.---..
.. ----.- . .-. ..
,... - ..... ..
Descript ion
. . - - ----.------------'-.---------.--- ...-...- .--- . -_. -.. ...-.
... .... - u. -
.. -. --.
Based on a hypothetical sample using aggregate maximum
concentrations
-------
( ";XII rn l'r L~ CONT' 0 )
" .. - ...
Model
. - - - . _....
Model 8:
Model 9:
S{~n!HJQ -IY:
Mode I 10 :
Model II:
Model 12:
Model 13:
- .----- .. - ._--- n
n ----"--.'--"U"...-._u
. .-..- - "...-- .. .u -.-.. -
Description
--- --" .--. - -.'--------. - -'--'--.. ----------------- _. -"--. ---- --_. .--.
Maximum concentrations in untreated UMR water for all
chemicals found in the UMR
Average concentrations in untreated UMR water for all
chemicals found in the UMR
Based on concentrations of chemicals found In treated UHR
water. Aggregate maximum values used.
Maximum concentrations in treated UMR water for chemicals of
concern
Average concentrations in treated UHR water for chemicals of
concern
Maximum concentrations in treated UMR water for all
chemicals found in the UHR .
Average concentrations In treated UHR water for all
chemicals found in the UMR
--------
Htllvaln Hell Hater
eFR - Probability of cancer incidence in a population of 1,000,000 people
. HI - Hazard Index
Source:
OCM Eastern Inc.
-------
I~X'II t "I' 12
eARelNOG(Nle RISk ASS(SS"(NI
HINOERSON ROAD SIIE
tJPPU "UION. PUNsn VANIA
Chetliul
. Model I
Clf Percent
hposure "odel. besed on Conceniniions.I Site
"ode I 2
Model J
Model I,
CRf Percent
"ode I S
CRf Percent
Carcinogens found Only .1 SIIe
lis(2'Elhylhe.yl) Phth.I.te
4.Chloroenil ine
N.Nlirosodiphenyl..ine
Carcinogens found .t She end UNI ,
6.64
)1.49
S.60
0.0
O. I
0.0
0.20
0.92
0.11
0.1
O.S
O. I
0.01
O.JI
0.01
0.0
0. I
0.0
CRf Percenl
Clf Percent
Benrene 2. S2S . 11 1.0 1S.11 6.9 16.S1 6.0 0.1lo 0.1, 21. II, 10.1
C"'oro'or. 1.002.09 2.8 ) 1. 91 2.9 82.8S 6.S S2.11 28.0 1.64 ).0
1,I'Dlchloroe'hene 1,148.00 21.4 2J2."" 21.) 2JS.0lt 18.4 2.60 1.4 62.66 24.4
1,2'Dlch1oroelhene 1,066.00 2.9 J1.9O 2.9 J2.S0 2.S 0.S2 0.) 1.80 ).0
1,'.Dlchloroelhene '.690.29 10.1 S1.J1 4.7 S9.66 4.7 8.29 4.4 24.86 9.7
Melhylene Chloride 182." O.S S.1,6 O.S 6.17 O.S 0.71 0.4 LOS 0.4
'etr8Ch~oe'hene 14,280.00 )9.1, 428.40 )9.3 U}.19 n.o S.19 .2.9 ).M 1.4
Irichlo 'hene 191.11 O.S S.7S O.S 9.8' 0.8 4.~ 2.1 1.26 O.S
Vinyl Chloride 6,S71.U 18. I 197. II, 18. I 262.86 20.6 6S.11 )4.8 111.71 U.S
C.rbon 'e'r.chlorlde' 171.4) 1.0 H. II, 1.0 14.86 1.2 3.71 2.0 3.09 1.2
o I chi or. C8IIM thane' 171.4) 1.0 H.'" 1.0 Ir.7.S4 ).7 36.40 19.3 ).09 1.2
o ibr080Chl or08e,hene' 21,0.00 0.7 7.2 0.7 n.68 1.1 6.1,8 ).4 1.99 0.8
'ot.I Cancer lis. f.clor 36,283.96 1,090.98 1.116.SS 188.66 2S6.S9
(Per 1,000,000 Peop'e)
0.20
0.92
0.11
0.0
O. I
0.0
0.0
O. I
0.0
0.20
0.92
0.17
-------
(EXIIlBIT 12 CONTI D)
-------
--- ----~-_.._- -.--. ._---- - --_..
Eaposure Models based on Data 'or Upper Mer ion Reservoir
Untreated UNA Yater
Ireated UNR Yater
Chet8iul Mode I 6 Model 7 Mode I 8 Model 9 Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 Model H
---- -.-----.
(fIf Percent CRf Percent CRf Percent CRf Percent CRf Percent CRI Percent CRI Percent CRI Pel t "lit.
Carcinogens lound at Site and UHI
BE'IIlene O. '" 0.4 0.74 1.0 0.74 0.3 0.74 0.9 0.74 ).9 0.71, 12.0 0.71, 1.7 0.71, 1,.0
(hloro'or. ~2.11 28.1 1. 39 1.8 ~2.11 2).1 1.)9 1.6 2.~~ n.) 0.69 11.2 2.~~ ~.8 0.69 1.7
1,10ichloroethene 2.60 1.4 1. 10 1.1 2.60 1.1 1.10 1.~ 1.~6 8.1 O,~2 8.4 1.~6 3.~ O.~2 2.8'
1.2 Oichloroethene 0.~2 0.) 0.26 0.3 0.~2 0.2 0.26 0.) 2.08 10.8 0.26 4.2 2.08 4.7 0.26 1.1,
1,l'Oichloroethene 8.29 4.4 1.66 2.2 8.29 3.6 1.66 1.9 4.91 2~.9 1.66 26.8 4.97 11.3 1.66 8.8
Methylene Chloride 0.71 0.4 0.02 0.0 0.71 0.3 0.02 0.0 0.09 0.5 0.02 0.3 0.09 0.2 0.02 0.1
letra(hloroethene 5.)9 2.9 1. 11 1.5 5.)9 2.4 1.11 1.) 0.44 2.3 0.15 2.4 0.1,4 1.0 0.1~ 0.8
" ichl oroethene 4.05 2.2 2.11 2.8 4.05 1.8 2." 2.4 1.95 10.1 O.~O 8.1 1.95 4.4 0.50 Z.l
"tOyl (Mor Ide 65.11 35.1 65.11 86.1 65.11 65.11 n.9 0.65 1.4 0.65 10.5 ' 0.65 1.5 0.65
28.8 I.')
{arbon 'etrachloride. 1.11 2.0 0.)7 0.5 1.11 1.6 0.11 0.2 2.91 15.5 0.11 0.2 2.91 6.8 0.)7 2.0
Oich'orObr0808ethene' 36.1,0 19.4 0.74 1.0 36.40 16.0 O. '" 0.1, 0.71, 1.9 0.11 0.2 0.11 0.8 0.11 2.0
. Oibt~Mor-thene' 6.48 3.5 0.24 0.3 6.48 2.8 0.24 0'.1 0.48 2.5 0.24 0.1 0.48 1.1 0.24 I.J
Carcinogens found Only at UMI
I. 0.00 0.0 6.29 0.51 0.1 0.00 0.0 0.00 0 0.~7 1.1 0.51 . J.O
1.'.2.2-'etrachlorethene 0.00 0.0 2.8
1.2.3"rlchloropropane 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 34.29 n.o 10.29 11.9 0.00 0.0 0.00 0 21,.57 ~5.9 12.00 64.0
10te' .hnur Ii... factor 181.'" n.80 227.95 86.51 19.22 6.11 4).99 18.14
(Per 1.000.000 People)
. Chet8ical, not found in site' related ,~Iel. RI,. calculations based on detection li.itl.
Source:
ICM hstern Inc.
(pro;ect No. 00'5~28-02)
---- --_._-_.-_._----_._..~-----
-------
-.'..~-T- ,-
:...::_..:... - -,j
HAZARD INDEX (HI) FOR CHEMICALS WITH NON'CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
HENDERSON ROAD SITE
UPPER NfRION, PENNSYLVANIA
ClleI!Iicel
"ode I 1
Mode I 2
"0=1 3
MI Percent
MI Percent
MI Percent
Chemiclls with Non-clrcinogenic Effects Found only It Site
-...........................-[[[
lenzoic Acid 0.5857 0.2 -0.0176 0.2 0.0176 0.1
BenZyl IICOllol 1.4857 0.' 0 . 0429 0.' 0 . 0429 0.3
lis(Z.Ethylhexvl) Phthilite 0.4857 0.1 0.01'" 0.1 0.01'" 0.1
lutyl 'enzyl Phthilite 3.3416 0.9 0.1002 0.9 O. 1002 0.7
..Chloroeni l irw 1.6511 0.4 0.0416 0.4 O.~ 0."
2,lo-Di..thyIDhenol 0.1117 0.0 0 . 0034 0.0 0 . 0034 0.0
Oi'"-butyl ~thilitl 0.0519 0.0 0.0016 0.0 0.0016 0.0
2-"'thyl~thllene 0 . om 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0003 0.0
Z''''thylptlenol 1 1. 6600 3.0 0.3500 3.0 0.3500 2.6
"-"'thylCflenol ".71"3 1.2 0.1414 1.2 0.1"'" 1.0
NICflthllene 0.0014 0.0 0 . 0000 0.0 0 . 0000 0.0
Phenol 0.0200 0.0 0 . 0006 0.0 0 . 0006 0.0
"Xylene 1 .0216 0.3 0 . 0309 0.3 0 . 0309 0.2
p'Xylene 0.2114 0.1 0.0011 0.1 0.0011 0.1
Ch..iClll with .on-Clrci~ic Effects Found It Sft. end u.I
[[[
Chlorabenzene 0 . 3Z8O 0.1 0.0098 0.1 0.0132 0.1
Chlorofo,.,. 1 .2311 0.3 0.0311 0.3 0.1023 0.7
'.4-0ichlorabenzene 1.0700 0.3 0.0314 0.3 0.03Z0 0.2
'.'-OichlorOltllene 0.7095 0.2 0.0213 0.2 0.0215 0.2
'.'.OiClllorOltllene 0.3238 0.1 0.0098 0.1 0.0114 0.1
1.2-0iclllorOltllene (trena) 11.2143 2.9 0.3311 2.9 0.3443 2.5
1,Z-OiCIIloroprapene 300.1519 71.0 9.0Z25 71.0 11.0216 80.5
Ethyl DIN- 2. Z286 0.6 0.Q669 0.6 0.0707 0.5
"'thyl- ChloriOe 0.40loI 0.1 0.0121 0.1 0.0131 0.1
TetrlChlor08th- 14.0000 3.6 0.4200 3.6 0.4253 3.1
Tol\8W Z3. 4286 6.1 0 . 7029 6.1 0.7a33 5.1
-------
(~:.~:--::=.:: :3 '::~~:'J)
CI'lIIft;C:11
Model 6
Mode I 4
HI Percent
Mode I 5
HI Percent
HI Percent
CI'I.-icIIS witl'l ~~'clrcinogenic Effects Found Only It Site
[[[
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Ilconol
lisC2'Ethylhexyl) Phthilite
Butyl lenZyl Phthilite
4'Chlor08ni~i,.
2.4'OiMlthylpft8n01
Oi'n-butyl Phthilite
2'Methyl"8Dhthalene
2 - Methy I CIfI8nO I
4'.Methyl C1f18n01
"..,thalene
Ph8nO I
...ylene
p-.ylene
0.0176 0.6
0.01029 1.5
0.01i06 0.5
0.1002 3.5
0.0416 1.1
0.0034 0.1
0.0016 0.1
0.0007 0.0
0.3500 12.1
0.110110 4.9
0.0000 0.0
0.0006 0.0
0.0309 1.1
0.0081 0.3
0.0076 0.2
0.0126 0.10
0.0007 0.0
0.0006 0.0
0.0200 0.6
0.0013 0.0
0.0006 0.0
0.0004 0.0
0.1257 4.0
0.01071 1.5
0.0000 0.0
0.0004 0.0
0.0088 0.3
0.0010 0.0
Ch..i~als with "~-carcino;enic. Effects Found at Site and UMR
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0;0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
[[[
Chloroe.nzene O. 0034 0.1 0 . 0034 0.1 0.0034 0.2
Chlorofo1"8 0.0651 2.2 0.01i06 0.5 0.0651 3.0
'.4'0Ichloroe.nzene 0 . 0006 0.0 0.0071 0.2 0.0006 0.0
'.'-Oichloroetn8ne 0 . 0002 0.0 0.0051 0.2 0.0002 0.0
','-Oichloroethene 0.0016 0.1 0.0041 0.2 0.0016 0.1
Trena-',2'Oichloroethene 0.0071 0.2 0.0171 2.5 0.07110 3.2
1,2-0icnloropropene 2.0050 69.2 2.6734 85.9 2.0050 91.'
Eth'lltlenzene 0 . 0031 0.1 0.0131 0.10 0.0038 0.2
Methylene Chloride 0.0016 0.1 0.0023 0.1 0.0016 0.'
Tetracnloroetnene 0.0053 0.2 0.0036 0.1 0.0053 0.2
-------
~::XHr3:T
13 C~NT':j
Cllllllical
Mcllva;n
IIoOeI 1
III Percent
Model 10
HI 'e,.c8tlt
Model 11
HI 'ercent
III
'ercent
Cllllllicals witll won'carcinogenic Effects Found Only at Site
[[[-................
8enzo;c Acid
8enzyl alcOllol
Bil(2'Etllyllle.yl) Plltllalate
B~tyl 'enzyl PlltllaLate
"ChloroeniliN
2."Dim8tllylplll"Ol
Di.".autyl Phthalata
2''''tllyl~thalene
2''''tllylplll"Ol
4'Metllylplll"OL
Waplltllalene
PIlI"OI
..Xylene
p'Xyl...
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
Ch..icall with Mon'carcinogenic Effect. Found at Sita end u.R .
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0'
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000. 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
0.0000 0.0
[[[
ChJorOCl8nzene 0.0005 0.1 0.0005 0.0 0.0005 0.1 O.DOSO 55.3
ClIlorofol'll 0.0011 0.3 0.0031 0.2 0.0009 0.1 0.0000 0.0
1,'-Oic~lorob8nzene 0 . 00Q6 0.1 0.0004 0.0 0.0004 0.1 0.0000 0.0
',1'Oic~loroet~ane 0 . 00(11 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0031 34.1
','-Oicllioroetllene 0.0003 0.1 . 0.0010 0.1 0.0003 0.0 0 . 0000 0.0
T"ane,'.2-DiCIILoroetllene 0 . 0029 0.5 0.0029 0.2 0.0014 0.2 0.0000 0.0
',2-DicIILoropr0p8n8 0.6015 98.0 1.4369 91.2 0.7'018 98.8 0 . 0000 0.0
Etllylblnzene 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0.0000 0.0
Metllylene Chloride 0.0000 0.0 0 . 0002 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0009 10.1
Tetracllloroethene 0.0011 0.2 0.0004 0.0 0.0001 0.0 0 . 0000 0.0
Tol~ 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0
'.','.Trichloroethane 0.0008 0.1 0.0003 0.0 0.0002 0.0 0.0000 0.0
Carbon TetrlCftlori~ 0.0041 0.7 0.0321 2.2 0.0041 0.6 0.0000 0.0
TOTAL IIAZ.UID IImEr 0.6139 1.4711 0.7100 0.0090
-------
,M AdJu.......
l.r.W.8h U.'.~
,.
,. ~.., ....1. ......1 ,. .~ ...1, ~..~... ..... .. Ih" 18111.1
...",.. ....... .~. .~ '."8.18' 8~.1' .. ,11.',,'.
1..11."...-
-.~(lII..'"
51.... ..
DIe,...1
,11 AdJ..''''''
I..i..." v....
Of I w.
I.
II ~.., -,.,. ... t'8C. .we." r_... .... .... '..11_1... ....... "-
,II.....
I..".....
... UII....,
SI.... ..
DI.,.u'
,11 ..)........
I.. i..." V....
I.
I' ~.., -..... wac. ... .....~..., .....Ie. ... .... ~..~... .~...~ 1..1'....
,."..,.. ....,. .. ,11.....
--.-U"....,
"",. ..
01.,...'
,. ..,...-..
led..." v....
t.
., ...., ..,.... wac. ... .,..........,. .....,~. ... .... ~..~... .~. '..1....
... ......1. ...... .. ,.......
'... 11.1.....
-.e.,
teN.. ,...,.... .,......... ,. ......'1.", ,. (vi...... .11....1..).
... ..... ,.... ......... ...... ... ....,.,.. ,... ..~.......,..
"Ie. .... ,..... ICN.. .e....I., ... -.. ... ,..'..r.'.
II".. ..
01.,....
I'''.. ..
DI.,.u'
CDM
EXHIBl'f
Pilot Study
14
Proces~
~chematics
.
..
Henderson Roed Inlectlon W( '118
Montgomery County. Penns." ___t\lft
.
"'~.#""""""""'9W~. Ie"',"
...-s .'898R*" eOftltAenrI
-------
. ::XHI3I'7 15
DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSED
GROUND WATER TREATMENT JECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Design Criteria
Use In Desian
Neu t ral1 za t i on/
pB Adjustment
Chemical Type
Effects potential.
effluent quality and
chemical handling
requi remen ts.
Chemical Dosage
Effects chemical
storage volume and
ultimate cost of
technology.
Mixing Require.ents
Effects .bing tank
sizes or length of
static .ixen.
Settling/
Precipi tat ion
Chemical Type
Effects settling
velocity and sludge
quaU ty.
Effects effluent
quaUty, sludge
volume and settling
rate.
Chemi cal Dosage
Flocculation Ti.e
Effects she of
flocculation tanks
and rate of floc
forution.
A,itation Rate
Effec:ts floc:
foraat1on and .ettle~
ability of solids.
Detention Ti.el
Oyerflov Rate
Effec:ts sett11nr tank
size and effluent
quaU ty .
Effec:ts slud,e
storare and disposal
r~ir..ents.
Sludre Production Rate
-------
'(~X~I=IT l5 ;~~T'8)
DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSED
GROUND VATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Air Stripping
'lov Rate
Effects pumping
requirements and
tower diameter.
Liquid Loading Rate
Effects tower
diallleter.
Air To Vater Ratio
Effects removal rate
and blower capacity.
Required Rellloval Efficiency
Packing Type
Effects tower height.
Effec ts removal
efficiency and
hydraulic capacity.
Tower heigh t
Effects tower height.
and pUlllping require-
.en ts .
Carbon Adsorption
Flow Rate
Effects carbon bed
size and empty bed
detention ti...
Empty Bed Detention Ti.e
Effects scale up of
full scale system.
Effects carbon bed
diueter.
Liquid Loading Rate
Breakthrough Ti.e
Effects frequency of
carbon replace.ent.
PACT Proc...
rloy Rate
Effects lize of
process tankaae.
Effect. cOlt. and
organici re.oval.
Required Carbon Dos.,e
Required MLSS
Effects biological
organil. Iroyth rate.
Required Nutrient Addition.
Effects biological
o~ni.. .royth rate.
-------
(EXBI2IT 15 C~~~I~)
DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSED
GROUND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES .
Hydraulic RetentionT1mel
Cell Retention Tiae
Effec:ts sludge
produc:tion and
quali ty.
Sludge Produc:tion Rate
Effec:ts storage and
disposal requirement.
(311121)NY-AMB
-------
:::'::::3:: :-:
PROPOSED CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ARARs FOR
A CLASS IIA AQUIFER
Parameter (ug/l)
ARAR
(ug /1)
Method/
Source
Metals
Arsenic 50.0 MCL
Cadmium 10.0 MCL
Chromium 50.0 MCL
Copper 1 . 300 . 0 MCLG
Lead 20.0 MCLG
Silver 50.0 MCLG
Zinc 5.000.0 Mc
Other Parameters
Cyanide 200.0 AHQC
Acid Extractable Or9anics
Benzoic Acid 700.0 Ma
2,4-Dimethylpheno1 400.0 AHQC
Phenol 3.500.0 O~EL
2-Methylphenol 42.0 Ha
4-Methylpheno1 72.0 Ha
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLG - Maximum Contaiminant Level Goals
AHQC - Ambient Hater Quality Criteria
SNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect Level
D~EL - Drinking Hater Equivalent Level
EPA - Recommended by EPA
Ma - Model in Appendix A of RI
Mc - Organoleptic
... - EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. DER. Hashington DC
EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSHER Directive 9.285.4-1). October 1986
-------
.::~~:~:: :6 ::~:':)
Parameter (ug/l)
ARAR
( ug /1 )
Method/
Source
Sase/Neutral Extractaoie Oraanics
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Nap~thalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Benzyl alcohol
.4-Chloroaniline
Z-methylnaphtha1ene
Volatile Oraanics
Benzene
Carbon Tetrach10ri~e
Ch10robenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Dibromoch10romethane
- 512.0
820.0
620.0
470.0
75.0
770.0
350.0
71.0
364.0
35.0
1,750.0
Ma
MCLG
AWQC
MCL
SNARL
Ma
***
Ma
Ma
Ma
5.52
5.0
60.0
19,000.0
100.0
100.0
(2)
MCL
MCLG
EPA
MCL 1
MCL1
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Levels
MCLG - Maximum Contaiminant Level Goals
AWQC - Ambient Hater Quality Criteria
SNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect Level
DHEL - Drinking Hater Equivalent Level
EPA - Recommended by EPA .
Ma - Model in Appendix A of RI
Mc - Organoleptic
*.* - EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, DER, Washington DC
EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSHER Directive 9,285.4-1), October 1986
(1) - This is MCL for total tr1halomethanes
(2) - Alternative concentration limit based on background contamination
-------
(::X;iIBIT 1£ :8NT'D)
ARAR Method/
Parameter (ug/l) (ug /1 ) Source
:~:nlorccromomethane 100.0 MCL
1.l-Dichloroethane 5.06 (2)
1.Z-Dichloroethane 6.02 (2)
1.l-Dichloroethene 7.0 MCL
1.Z-Dichloroethene 70.0 MCLG
1.Z-Dichloropropane 6.28 (2)
Ethylbenzene 680.0 MCLG
Methylene Chloride 47.0 ...
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 6.9 ***
Toluene 2.000.0 MCLG
Trichloroethene (TCE) 25.8 (2)
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 200 MCL
Tr1chlorofluoromethane 12,000.0 EPA
Vinyl Chloride 2.0 MCl
m-Xy1ene 175.0 DWEl
p-Xy1ene 175.0 DWEl
MCL - Maximum Contaminant levels
MCLG - Maximum Contaiminant Level Goals
AWQC - Ambient Hater Quality Criteria
SNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect level
DHEL - Drinking Hater EQuivaTent Level
EPA - Recommended by EPA
Ma"- Model in Appendix A of RI
Mc - Organoleptic .
... - EPA."Sup~rfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, DER, Washington DC
EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSWER Directive 9,285.4-1), October 1986
(1) - This is MCl for total trihalomethanes
(2) - Alternate concentration limit based on background contaminat+on
-------
;:...".~:~~ ,-;
_..~~-_J. - .,
INTERIM OPERATING GUIDANCE FOR AIR TOXIC SUBSTANCES:
NEW AND MODIFIED SOURCES (PACER)
Annual
CAS No. Substance ATG(ug/M3)
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 1.47
7440-36-0 Antimony (and compounds) 1.2
7440-38-2 Arsenic (and compounds) 0.024
1332-21-4 Asbestos" 0.0132
71-43-2 Benzene 12.5
92-87-5 Benzidine 30
50-32-8 Benzo(a)Pyrene (combustion product) 0.0007
7440-41-7 Beryllium (and compounds) 0.01
542-88-1 Bis(Chloro Methyl)Ether 0.0113
7440-43-9 Cadmium (and compounds) 0.0556
56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.67
67-66-3 Chloroform 4.35
107-30-2 Chloromethyl Methyl Ether 0.0657
7440-47-3 Chromium VI (and compounds) 0.00833
91-94-1 3.3'Dichlorobenzidine Not established
117-81-7 Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 120
77-78-1 Dimethyl Sulfate 12.4
123-91-1 Di OXine 86.3
106-93-4 Ethylene Dibromide 18.4
107-06-2 Ethylene Dichloride 3.85
75-21-8 Ethylene Oxide
96-45-7 Ethylene Thiourea 0.7
-------
1-....----
\ :'.\.-:.=~ ~
~ i :'JNT I :) )
CAS No.
Substance
Annual
ATG(ug/M3)
106-89-8"
50-00-0 (A)
87-68-3
680-31-9
302-01-2
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
74-83-9
74-87-3
101-14-4
75-09-2
60-34-4
7440-02-0 (A)
92-93-3
127-18-4
108-95-2
67774-32-7
53469-21-9:
11 097-69-1
57-57-8
75-56-9
Epichlorohydrin
Formaldehyde
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexamethyl Phosphoramide
Hydrazine
Lead (and compounds)
Manganese (and compounds)
Mercury (and compounds)
Methyl Bromide
Methyl Chloride
4,4'-Methylene B1s(2-Chloroaniline)
Methylene Chloride
Monomethyl Hydrazine
Nickel (and compounds)
4-Nitrodiphenyl
Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (combustion product)
Perchloroethylene
Phenol
Polybrominated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
2-Propiolactone
Propylene Ox; de
9.06
5.88
0.639
0.0176
0.314
1.5
.24
0.24
465
2,470
0.545
24.2
0.94
0.24
2.7
0.48
172.4
461
Not estilbl1shed
0.18
Not estabti shed
--
26.7
-------
-. ." . - - .. --
,;;,."""-=J. -
1 / ':'2;::':))
CAS NO.
Subs tance
79-34-5
Tetrachloroethane
7440-28-0
119-93-7
Thallium (and compounds)
o-To1idine
79-01-6
593-60-2
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Bromide
75-01-4
106-87-6
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Cyc10hexene Dioxide
75-35-4 -
79-00-5
Viny1idene Chloride
Vinyl Trichloride
309-00-2
92-67-1
Aldrin
4-Aminodipheny1
3-Amino-1.2.4-Triazo1e
61-82-5
58-89-9
Benzene Hexachloride
58-89-9
Lindane (and isomers)
111-44-4
Bis(2-Ch1o~oethyl)Ether
Bis(2-Hydroxyethyl)-
Dithiocarbamic Acid. Potassium Salt
23746-34-1
133-06-2
63;"25-2
Cap tan
Carbaryl
130-90-4
57-74-9
Chloramben
Chlordane
510-15-6
Chlorobenzilate
An~ua 1
ATG(ug/M3)
165
2.4
Not established
76.9
52.4
6. 12
137
2
1 . 300
0.035
0.8
1.8
1.2
1.2
700
"
Not established
35
3.5
1 .333
0.35
7
-------
(~:\:::=:: ~ 7 :.:~;:':;)
CAS No.
Substance
Annual
ATG(ug/M3)
50-29-3;
53-19-0;
72-54-8
96-12-8
DDT/DDD
1.8
94-75-7
60-57-1
1.2Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid
0.964
105
79-44-7
57-14-7
Dieldrin
Dimethylcarbamyl Chloride
0.035
1.06
115-29-7
72-20-8
l,l-Dimethyl Hydrazine
Endosulfan
2.94
2.4
Endrin
0.07
18
142-59-6:
12427-38-2:
12122-67-7
76-44-8
Ethylene Bisdithiocarbamic
Ac i d Sa 1t s
118-74-1
115-32-2 .
Heptachlor
HexachlorObenzene
0.18
0.204
Ke1thane
8.8
0.88
143-50-0
72-43-5
Kepone
Methoxychlor
35
28.9
74-88-4
2385-85-5
Methyl lodi de
Mi rex
0.88
19
91-59-8
534-52-1
2-Naphthy1amine
N1trofen
0.75
21.8
79-46-9
62-75-9
2-N1tropropane
N-N1trosod1methylam1ne
0.00121
1.8
56-38-2 .
Parathion
-------
~ EX.~~:;I7
l"7 '::8~:: I :) )
CAS Nc.
Substance
Annual
ATG(ug/M3)
87-86-5
135-88-6
1120-71-4
75-55-8
82-68-8
61789-48-2
140-57-8
1746-01-6
961-11-5
88-06-2;
95-95-4;
25167-82-2
93-76-5
1582-09-8
8001-35-2
Pentachlorophenol
N-Phenyl-2-Naphthy1amine
12
45
Propane Su1tone
Propylene Imine
- Not established
Quintozene
11.2
2.4
Strobane
7.7.
18
Aramite
2,3,7,8-Tetrach1orinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxin
Tetra
Trich10ropheno1 isomers
0.0000303.
3.500
2,4,5~Trich10rophenoxy
Acetic Acid (2,4,5-T)
Trif1ura1in
1 , 1 50
1.2
Toxaphene
. Department revisions to AMS Air Quality Guidelines. These revised
ATG values are effective immediately. The values correspond to a
maximum lifetime ris~ of one in 10.000 and are based on U.S. EPA -
derived unit ris~s for carcinogens in air.
.. Department will continue to use the AMS Annual Air Quality
Guidelines of 0.005 fibers of asbestos >5 u/cm3 as the ATG in
cases where only fiber counts are reported by the analytical
technique.
*.* Maximum 24-hour Time-Weighted Average (TWA).
-------
EXHIBIT 13
Overview of Predesign Activities
Progress of Events
Srt* and Install Wall*
Collect and Anaryz*
Groundwat*r Samples from
all Sit* Raiated Walls
Injection Well
Investigation
Log Existing Open
Hole Monitoring Wells
Sample Existing
Monitoring Wells
Revise Conceptual
Mriel
Unsaturated Zone)
Investigation
Saturated Zone
Investigation
Revise Conceptual Model
In the Unsaturaied Zones
1
Site and Insttl
Groundwater Recovery Wels
Design Ground Water
Pump and Heat System
Srtt and Instan Walls
Sampto Ov*rturd*n
Cor* Contruovmly
*ulyz» Cor* « A* S*mpi*i
Irvtal WM CMTIQ
Evaiuat* Naad to Parform
Praliminory Tattng ot VES
Pafform VES Preliminary Tatting
I
Evaulata Naad to Parform Datailad
Pilot Study ol VES
i
Design VES for
Site Remodeation
HydraulcaRy and CnemcaRy
Test Groundwater Recovery Wels
*
Perform Groundwater Treatabilty Studies
4
-------
Detailed Outline of Progress of Events for
the Injection Well Investigation
Prepare General Plan
Begin Well Drilling
Detect Significant Waste *E5
Material In Well Bore "'
\NO
Drill to Original Well Depth
I
Enlarge Borehole
J
Log Injection Well and
Existing Open Hole Wells
I
Correlate Fractures between
Injection Well and Existing Wells
i
Collect and Analyze Ground Water
and Floating NAPL
I
Evaluate Data and Revise
Conceptual Modal
I
Perform Unsaturated
Zone Investigation
Collect and Analyze
Waste Sample
I
Perform Unsaturated
Zone Investigation
-------
Detailed Progress of Events for
Unsaturated Zone Investigation
Site and Install Unsaturated
Zone Borings
J
Collect Split Spoon Samples
from Overburden
I
Collect a Shelby Tube Sample and
Analyze for Physical Parameters
Collect and
Analyze Air
Sample from
Cored Interval
\
Collect and Screen (for VOCs)
Core Samples In Fracture Rock
J
YES
Product Is Visually Observed
\NO
Record Physical
Characteristic of
Core Section
NO
I
Nas Water Table
been encountered
IYES
Collect and Analyse Water
Sample from Cored Interval
Collect Sample of Fractured
Rock/Sediments and
Analyzed Product Filled
Section for-Organics
NO
Advance Core te Final Depth?
I YES
Enlarge Soehole Diameter
I
Install Monitoring Well Across
Unsaturated and Saturated Zones
-------
J
Complete Installation
of Monitoring Well
Develops Shallow Wolfs
Inspect Wells to Determine
Presence off Floating NAPL
T YES
Is Floating NAPL Observed Sample and
I ..o Analyze NAPL
I NO i
Evaluate all Data Collected
End Unsaturated Zone) NO Does OuantHy «' Volatile
Investigation and * Organic Contamination
Proceed to Saturated Present In Unsaturatod
Zone Investigation *on« *«» Significant
Threat to Ground water Quality
i
Perform Preliminary Testing off VES
I
Evaluated VES Data with other
Data Collected During the
Unsaturared Zone Investigation
Devise Hypothetical
VES Treatment Scenario)
I
Compare Costs of Removal off
Volatile Organlcs with VES
Versus Ground Water Treatment
-------
(EXHIBIT 20 CONT'D)
Are Costs of Removal by
VES Less than or
Comparable to
Croundwater Treatment
of
Iras
Develop Plans for
Longterm Pilot Study of
VES
1
Perform Pilot Study
VES
J
Evaluate VES
Performance and
wr«*?omm*nd Whether NO
VES Is a Viable Remedial
Measure
IxES
Design VES System
Terminate for the
Investigation of VES
Is not a Cost Effective
Remedial Measure
Terminate Analysis
-------
Detailed Progress of Events for
Saturated Zone Investigation
til* MonltoHnf W*fl Ucatten*
I
nD
I
N«U
Orf ante Vapor L«v«te
with O**th
I
D*t*r*nln« ler««a
i
T
Newly ln«t«B*4
Monlt*rtnfl Wall*
I
-------
V T " "*
,
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14 .
15
16
17
i a
19
2p
2 1
22
23
. 4
25
26
* ^
lr
1 r
\ ^
*** «
ANNUAL
OUTLAY
(S)
2,663,360
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
250.455
290.455
250.455
250.455
290.455
290.455
290.455
250.455
290,455
250,455
250,455
250,455
290,455
250,455
290,455
t, ? 0 , t c 5
2-0 455
250,455
29C, 455
290,455
250,455
250,455
:;:,4£5
; J />!«_ fv«.'c^n..
(CAPITAL AND
DISCOUNT
FACTOR
1.000
0.909
0.826
0.751
0.663
0.621
0.564
0.513
0.467
0.424
0.386
0.350
0.319
0.290
0.263
0.239
0.216
0.198
0.160
0.164
0.149
0.125
0. 123
C.112
r\ « f- ^
6!092
0.064
O.C76
O.C£9
O.C63
ci'.-i)
(S)'
'2,663,350.00
264,023.60
239,915.83
218.131.71
158,360.77
130.372.56
163,816.62
149,003.42
135,642.49
123,152.92
112,115.63
101,659.25
92,655.15
64,231.95
242.079.67
69.418.75
63,319.19
57,510.09
52.261.90
47,634.62
43,277.60
39.211.43
25,725.97
22.530.96
2r.S26.41
26.721.66
24.353.22
22.074.56
fe u . v 4 1 . 4 0
:£.25s.67
-------
Mil I HIT 22
CAPITAL COST MIMMAHY - 7A
WITHOUT UW AND OOVNCkADIKNT PUMP AND TREAT
TA3K
HCM
EPA
(9)
Injection well investigation
Installation of monitoring wella
Installation of Hcllvain treatment sysli-n
Excavation of contaminated sediments
Landfill disposal
Installation of recovery wells onsite
Gtounil water treatment system onsite
Including 1SV
Subtotal
Ground water pilot study contingency (l.SX)
TOTAL
Costa obtained from BCM
51.200
515.300
31.010
5425,000
3630,000
31.837.540
394.500
31,932.040
330.000
31,014.200
31,200 *
315.300
31.040
3425,000
3630.000
32.116.740
394.500
32,263.440
-------
w r i. r.
C^ n» «
VJ
V "v Ml' t"^*"'' »'
ft .' * ,. A . N . i .' n .< '
SV^ASY
. ft jK
Year 1:
Ground water sampling
Expenses and labor
Sedisent sanpiing
Air saitpling
Kcllvain treataent
Koll.vain sacpling
(total VCCs) plus expenses
Hubing 'saopling
(total VOCs) pius expenses
Sedimentation /Precipitation
( cr.site)
Air stripper (onsite)
GAC replacement
Recovery well bore cleanout
Effluent sampling
TOTAL for Year 1
Year 2:
Ground water sar.plin;
Expenses and later
Mc!lvaiTi tre&tier.t
* : 1 1 v a i r. sat p ling
:trtal V-ICs/rlus expenses
HJ;;:.:; ssr.pl ir.y
(total VOCs/ p-ius expenses
; cn=ite)
Air striiper (cnsite)
GAC replsrener.t
r.e-rsvery well bcre cieanout
Ef:l-ent sar.plir.g
TOTAL for year 2
Year 2-30:
Ground water saapling
Expenses and labor
flcllvain treatment
Kcllvain sampling
(total VOCs) plus expenses
Hubing sacpling
(tota. VvCs) plus expenses
Sec mentation /Precipitation
( or.ii te)
Air stripper (cnsite)
GAC replacement
Recovery well tore clean&ut
Effluent sanpling
(SJ
£61.550
£25,000
£0
SO
3180
SI, 000
SO
£60.000
£22,000
£102,000
£10,800
£15,300
£301,830
££4,150
£25,000
SlsO
51,000
£0
£60,OCO
£22,000
£102,000
no, £00
. £7,100
S2S2.220
£46,650
$20,000
$160
$1,000
$0
£60,000
$22,000
$102.000
$10.800
$7.100
EPA
($)
£108,600
£70,760
£3.600
£3.300
$160
SI. 600
SI. 600
S60.000
£22,000
£102,000
£10,600
315,300
£399,940
£43,575
£41.600
£1£0
£1,600
f ' 1 10
» . , * w J
£60, COO
£22,000
£10 cC'O
57,100
£250,455
£43.575
£41,600
S1EO
$1,600
$1,600
$60,000
$22,000
$102,000
$10.600
$7,100
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
fcr years 3-20
26?,730
£2?0.4E5
All Bonitoring wells should be analyzed for the full TCL at least
every five years (if not mere frequently) to evaluate the effective-
ness of the alternative. The analytical coat for this analysis is
-------
0?E.=.A7ICNS AND KAINTENANTi
5CM
e»t /* * «
5 » t , L/ v 0 .
Ccsts obtained from BCM
-------
./-....:
(S !
( S )
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
15
19
2C
2 1
12
23
24
25
26
.;
2 ;
4. 7
- -'
399,940
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,455
290,45.5
290,455
920,455
290.455
290,455
250.455
250,455
290,455
250.455
250,455
290.455
290,455
29C.455
290,455
290,455
290,455
2'??. 455
;9:,455
i.CCO
0.909
O.S25
0.751
0.633
0.621
0.564
0.513
0.467
0.424
0.3S6
0.350
0.319
0.290
0.263
. 0.239
0.218
0.198
o.ieo
0.164
0.149
' 0.135
0.123
0.112
0.102
0.092
O.OS4
C.076
C . 069
C.C63
359,540.00
264.023.60
235, 515. £3
213,131.71
153,350.77
150.372.56
163.616.62
149,003.42
135,642.49
123,152.92
112.115.63
101, 655-. 25
52,655.15
64,231.95
242,079.67
69,418.75
63,319.19
57,510.09
52,261.90
47,634.62
43,277.60
39,211.43
35,725.57
32,530.96
29,626.41
26,721.66
t4 , 2 ~" . 22
:2,C74.56
f *\ " * f f-
. J, vi. . 4i>
lc.:?c.67
3,:S7.193.42
-------
EXHIBIT 22
»* « !».
n _ . i r..»r. . . . i
7 A - IT.". v U T I £ V
(CAPITAL AND CaK)
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
» *
i. A
* -1
-------
EXII181T 22
CAr ITA I. (;O:";T ~UHHARY - 7A
WI TlIOUT I!)V
TASt:
---------..----.------..----------------..---------------------------------------------------
(J(H
(9)
EPA
U)
I n.»'(' , ion welJ t IIV..:;, i qilli or.
I n:1la II.... ion of' .011' t.Of II"J wel1f1
IIIHt.cJ Ilalion o( Hell vi,in lrf!al8ent. syslell
F:xC-1v.1I.Jon of conli,.inalecJ secJillenls
1..:"1(1{ I 11 cJ i sl,osa 1
In~lallalion of ..pcovery ,u~119 on:,il@
1,.:-tl-1I};.lICin o( rt't:ovf,'IY welJs downqradit!nl
(;,olln" wall'I' llf>al"'''nl ~Y9"p.m onf'il"i?
<;, ounJ Walf>f lIeal.",.l sY9lell dowllql aJient.
$0
~./65.000
$1.200
$15.300
s 1. 040
$425.000
8300.000
$630.000
$348.000
830.000
31,014,200
'1,200 .
815,300 .
81,040 .
'425.000 .
8380,000 .
8630.000 .
8348,000 .
~;uhlolal
82.565.540
82.029,440
(;loun(1 waler pi lol Sludy conlIIH".ncy (15%)
:)116.700
8146.700
TuTAL
82.712.240
82,991,440
.Cosl!! frolD DCtt
.'
-------
CJ E.'-ATI CMS
r<*~~
\- vi .
TASK
Year 1:
Ground water saapling
Expenses and labor
Sedisent sampling
Air sampling
"cllvain treatment
Kcllvain sampling
(total VOCs) plus expenses
Hubing saapling
(total VCCs) pius expenses
Sed mentation /Precipitation
(er.site)
Sediitentata on /Precipitation
(dcwncradier.t)
Air stripper (onsite)
Air stripper (downgradient)
GAC replacement
Keccvery well bcre cleanout
Effluent saspiing
TCTAL fcr i'e*r 1
Year 2:
- , j wa**- s- -1 *rc
Ex; = r.£rs ar.d larcr
.^rllvain treotr.er.t
* : T 1 v a i n s a r p 1 1 r. g
' total VtCs) plus expenses
Hutina saEtling
(tital VvCs) p.us expenses
2 ediirer.tati en /Precipitation
Seciff.entiti on /Precipitation
(ciwr.-rra-iient)
Air stripper (dcwngradient)
GAC replaceaent
recovery well bore cl«*nout
Effluent saapling
TCTAL for yt*r 2
Year 3-30:
Ground water saspiing *
Expenses and labor
KCilvain treatment
.^cllvain sampling
(total VOCs) plus expenses
Hubing saapling
(total VOCs) plus expenses
Sedi nentation/ Precipitation
(onsite)
ieciir.entat ic n /Precipitation
( ccwngradient)
Air stripper (cnsite)
Air stripper (dowr.gradient)
GAC replaceaent
Recovery well bore cleanout
» * U l'"»^|- t (*
.-..w ..-.i..«. i.
-------
i:.ss AN: ^A-NTI;-
CCS" S'J.^APy
" £ £ ^
--Iue.it sa/r.?J
"- * , <.,. ,-s-.
^.«*. fcr years 3-30 «14.5CO
-------
, -; m:; - - - '
v ^ rt r * * r. rt .1 ^ ,
v r & r
* Hn .\
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
« "t
^ /
13
19
10
21
*l A
4. *,
:3
* c
» «
1:
27
IE
L. r
i
. ^
ANNUAL
OUTLAY
(S)
8,463,760
373,655
373,655
373,655 -
373,655
373,655
373,655
373.655
373.655
373.655
373,655
373.655
373,655
373.655
1,351,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
273,655
273,655
273,655
57-5 «, e :
373,655
373.655
373.655
273 6^5
373,655
273.655
^ T £ * ^ » »*
FACTO:?
1.000
0.909
0.626
0.751
0.683
0.621
0.564
0.513
0.467
0.424
0.386
0.350
0.319
0.290
0.263
0.239
0.218
0.198
0.160
0.164
0.149
0.135
0.123
. ..2
0.1C2
C.C92
O.OS4
C . 0 / 6
0;0£9
O.C63
Fr.Z££NT
. & K, fft , ,
*<*r<.*r.
(S)
8,463.780.00
339,652.40
308,639.03
260,614.91
255,206.37
232.039.76
210,741.42
191.665.02
174.496.69
158,429.72
144,230.83
130,779.25
119,195.95
108,359.95
355,485.27
69,203.55
61,456.79
73,983.69
67,257.90
61.279.42
55.674.60
50.443.43
45.559.57
41. £45. 36
38,112.61
34.376.16.
31.367.02
4.9, *»/ . / o
25,7£2.20
23. 54;. 27
-------
EXIIIIIIT 22
CAPITAl. Clo':;T :JUHNARY - 7A
WITtII:iV
TA~.:
BCH
(~ )
I::PA
(8 )
-~_. --------------
....-------------------..-------------.-----------------------------------
'n.Jf.ct IC.n wPlJ in""Cll\(,at.ion
'h::t:,llalion 0" lIonllorinl' w~lls
'n:lta))alJon of Hcllvain treat.III,'nl sV~tPIII
[)«:.\Val ion of cont.a.inated sedillents
I.ancl( ,11 dispo:lal
I n:'la II alion of recovery we 1l:J c>r8f1i le
1..:il.lllitt.iun o( recovf'ry Wf!! 1~ clown41°~cll..,.l
1.1"1..".01 W
-------
YEAR
,
2
' 3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
*
13
20
21
22
23
_4
25
2i
27
25
2 r
'i
ANNUAL
OUTLAY
451,440
373,655
373,655
373.655
373.655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373.655
373,655
373,655
1,351,655
373,655
573,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
373,655
- 573,655
573,655
575.655
573,655
372,655
573,655
* ^ ^ i c. c
* ' ~
FACTOR
1.000
0.903
0.826
0.751 -
0.683
0.621
0.564
0.513
0.467
.0.424
0.366
0.350
0.319
0.230
0.263
C',239
0.218
0.153
0.160
0.164
0.149
0.135
0.123
C . 1 1 2
0.1C2
O.C92
O.OS4
0.076
O.C69
1 "if-"*
*J .
-------
EXHIBIT ::
HENDERSON ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY
ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 7
1. Inlection Well Investigation
A. The well will be redrilled using air rotary. The first
pass will be with a 6 inch bit to open the well. The second
pass will be with an expandable bit.
t ,
B. Downhole logging will be conducted on the injection
well and the existing monitoring wells.
2. Installation of Monitoring Wells
Onaite Monitoring Wells
A. All wells will be drilled and installed in multiple
stages to allow for:
- Exploration and lithologic identification using split-
spoon saaples and shelby tube collections in the over
burden using aud rotary.
- Continuous coring through the unsaturated fractured
rock for vadose cone exploration (gas sampling) and
fracture trace identification.
- Air rotary drilling to enlarge the borehole for well
casing installations.
B. Overburden thickness is approximately 40 feet.
C. Depth to water is approximately 125 feet below ground
level (BGL). Therefore unsaturated rock thickness is 65
feet.
D. A total of 15 wells are to be installed onsite:
10 wells installed to 140 feet (BGL)
- 2 wells Installed to 250 feet (BGL)
- 3 veils installed to 450 feet (BGL)
E. Veil construction materials for the 4 inch monitoring
wells will be PVC risers and 20 foot stainless steel
screens. The B wells for the unsaturated cone Investigation
will have 50 foot screens.
*
F. Continuous coring is to be completed in the bedrock in
8 shallow well borings to a depth of 15 feet below the water
table. One hour per sample is allowed for vadose zone gas
collection in these 8 shallow wells.
-------
EXHIBIT 22
G. Level B safety protection i» to be used unless
downgrading la Approved by the alte Health and Safety
Coordinator.
H. Three houra per well allowed for well development.
. I. All cutting* are to be contained In drums. The druaa
are to be tranaported to a aecure location onalte for
storage.
J, Hob/demob includes all coata to the driller to
complete the work* obtain permits, create acceaa, allow an
appropriate per diem and Incldentlal coat*.
K. Three houra per well la allowed for proper
decontamination of drilling and aampling equipment.
L. Expected time frame to complete the well inatallatloni
la:
50 houra per shallow well
- 40 houra per intermediate well
70 houra per deep well
H. Two rlga are uaed for drilling.
Offalte Monitoring Wella
A. All wells will be drilled and inatalled in multiple
atagea to allow for:
- Exploration and llthologlc identification ualng aplit-
spoon aamplea and ahelby tube collections in the over
burden ualng mud rotary.
Air rotary drilling to enlarge the borehole for well
caalng inatallationa.
B. Overburden thickness la approximately 65 feet.
C. Depth to water is approximately 125 feet below ground
level (BGL). Therefore unaaturated rock thickneaa is 40
feet.
D. A total of 13 well* (downgradlent and upgradient) are
to be inatalled offaltet
3 well* Inatalled to 140 feet (BCD
5 wells Inatalled to 250 feet (BCD
- 5 well* Inatalled to 450 feet (BCD
E. Veil construction material* for the 4 inch monitoring
wella will be PVC risers and 20 foot stainless steel
screens.
-------
EXHIBIT 22
TDS
Oil and Grease
Alkalinity
Hardness
D. Quarterly saapllng of these well* will be conducted
for Votatile Organic Analysis (VOA).
E. Labor and expenaea include veil purging, tine and
atariala for obtaining the aaaplea, and transportation to
the laboratory under proper chain-of-custody procedures for
analyaia.
F. Quality Aaaurance/Quallty Control (OA/OC) aaaplea,
auch aa trip blanka, field blanka, field dupllcatea, etc.,
will alao be obtained during each round of aampling in
accordance with current EPA ground water aampling protocola.
Year 2-30
^_ A. The upgradient well cluster, and five downgradlent and
thirteen onalte wella which conalatently exhibit the higheat
levela of contamination, will be aaapled quarterly for VOAa.
B. Theae twenty wella will alao be aaspled annually for
7CL aealvolatile compound* to evaluate the
migration/attenuation of theae coapounda.
C. The remaining twenty wella will be aampled annually
for VOAa.
D. The labor and expenaea and QA/QC follow the aaae
procedurea aa outlined for year 1.
General Note
All of the Monitoring wells should be analyzed for the
full TCL at least every five years tlf not eore frequently)
to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative. The cost
for this analysis end aaepling is not included in the total
cost for this alternative.
-------
EXHIBIT 22 . . -
F. Level C safety protection Is to be used unless
downgrading is approved by the site Health and Safety
Coordinator.
G. Three hour* per well allowed tor well development.
H. All cutting* are to be contained in druas. The druas
are to be transported to a secure location onaite for
storage.
Z. Mob/demob Includes all costs to the driller'to
coaplete the work, obtain peraita, create access, allow an
appropriate per dlea and pay for incidentlal costs.
J. Three hours per well is allowed for proper
decontamination of drilling and saapling equipaent.
K. Expected tlae fraae to coaplete the well installations
is:
- 30 hours per shallow well
- 50 hours per intermediate well
- 80 hours per deep well
L. Two rigs are used for drilling.
3. Ground Water Sampling
Year 1
A. The injection well will be sampled for the full Target
Compound List (TCL). The existing aonitoring wells will be
sampled for TCL volatile* (VOA) and any floating product for
TCL volatlles and seal-volatiles.
B. The unsaturated cone wells will be sampled for VOAs.
It was assumed that 4 of these wells would have floating
product which would be analyzed for the TCL volatlles and
seal-volatile*.
C.After the Installation of the monitoring well* all of
the well* installed a* part of the RI, along with the
additional well* installed upgradlent, downgradient, and
on*lt* will be aampled for the full TCL and the following
conventional parameter*t
- BOD ,
- COD
Aaaonia-N
- Pho*phate*
- pH
- TSS
- TS
-------
--- -
- .-:-;;- ,--
sa
INSYLVANIA
~....
COMMoNWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DePARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Pott 0fft08 101 20.3
H8rrteburg. P.nn.ytv.nl. 171 20
Deputy hcrwtary for
r Envtron""nta' Protection
717-787-5027
June 30, 1988
Stephen R. Wa..er.ug, Director
Ha.ardou. Waite Kanaq8m8nt Divillon
IPA ~eiion III
841 Che.tnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
ae,tAtter.of Concurrence
Henderlon Road Superfund Slte, Reco~ Of Decilion (ROD)
I
I
I.
Dear Mr. Wa..er,ui'
-The Record Of Deci.ion for the Bender.on Road .ite ha. ~.n
reviewed by the Department. I hereby concur vith the If A' .
propolec1 ruaedy, vith the following cond.ition.'
1-
*
EPA will a..u:e that the Department il p~ided an
opportunity to fully participate in any negotiation.
with relpon.ible partie.. .
The Department will be Oiven the opponunity to concur
'with deci.ionl related to the de.19ft of the remedial
action, to allure compliance with DIR del1gn .peclflc
ARMI .
~he Department will be given the opportunity to concur
with decilion. related to impl888nt1nq any down;radient
pump and treat action, any action for the un.aturated
1011 aone, and any chang. 1n cleanup t&~g.t., 1n order
to' a.8ure coapl1ance with DBa cleanup ARAR..
*
*
."
The Depart88nt vill re..rve our right and
r..pon.ibility to take independent 8nforc...nt action.
pur.uant to .tate law.
-------
.
Th1. concurrence with the .elected remedial action 1a
not intended to provide any a..uranc.. purauan~ to SARA
Section l04(c)(3).
Thank you for the opportunity to concur with th1a ZPA R.co1
Of Oeci8ion. If you have any que.tiona regarding th1a matter.
plea.. co not h8.itat8 to contact m8. "
81Dc8rely, ~/LI1'1
~a2!J~~
xa~k )I.' ~~ ',' ",
",':
1_..
------- |