United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/RCXVR02-9
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT Ha
EPA/ROD/R02-90/104
3. Recipient. Accoeelon Mo.
4. TlUeendSubtttle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Sealand Restoration, NY
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
9/28/90
7. AuOwr(a)
a. Performing Organization Rapt No.
9. Perforrnlng OrgalnbajJon Name and Addreaa
10. Pro|oct/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(O) No.
(C)
(O
12. Sponsoring Organization Hum ind Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
IX Type o< Report t Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Not*
16. Ab«lr«ct (Umlt: 200 worde)
The 210-acre Sealand Restoration site is a former liquid waste disposal and storage
facility in the town of Lisbon, St. Lawrence County, New York. Both wetland and woodland
areas are onsite. The site is underlain by a shallow alluvial aquifer and a deeper
bedrock aquifer, which may be hydraulically connected to one another in the site area.
Approximately 25 private wells and one municipal well are within one mile of the site.
The municipal water system draws from the bedrock aquifer. In 1979, supposedly
uncontaminated liquid petroleum wastes and mineral oils were disposed of in several
locations, including a land application/disposal area, a cell disposal area, and a drum
storage area. In 1980, the State found Sealand to be in non-compliance by accepting
contaminated wastes, permits were revoked, and disposal operations ceased. From 1983 to
1984, the State conducted a remedial investigation that identified several onsite areas
of concern. The land application area was contaminated with PCBs as a result of improper
landspreading practices. The cell disposal area was found to have sediment contaminated
with potentially high levels of a chemical solvent. The drum storage area contained 200
empty or nearly empty drums seeping tar-like residue onsite, a tanker trailer containing
less than 1,000 gallons of waste oil, and a storage tank containing 5,000 gallons of
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Analytta a. Deecriptora
Record of Decision - Sealand Restoration,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, toluene, xylenes), organics
(PCBs, pesticides), metals (chromium, lead)
b. ldentlfler*/Opeiv€ndedTenn»
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
It. Security Cuna(Thte Report)
None
20. Security CUM (Thl* Pag*)
None
21. No. of Page*
49
22. Me*
(See ANSI-Z39.ia)
See /nelructfon* on Revere*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/104
Sealand Restoration, NY
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
waste oil. From 1987 to 1990, the State removed the contaminated soil and debris and
documented these as part of this Record of Decision (ROD). The purpose of this ROD is to
review the State action and to determine its appropriateness for reimbursement of costs
from Superfund. A follow-up investigation will be conducted to determine the extent of
ground water and wetlands contamination, as well as any remaining soil contamination. A
subsec^uent ROD will address these media, if deemed necessary. The primary contaminants
of concern potentially affecting the soil and debris are VOCs including benzene, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including PCBs, and pesticides; and metals including
chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site, performed by the State, was found to be
appropriate as an interim action, and included excavating 1,445 drums and 4,762 cubic
yards of contaminated soil, along with the removal of 375,000 gallons of liquid waste
from the cell disposal area, incinerating these wastes offsite, and disposing of
residuals at a RCRA hazardous waste facility; capping the cell disposal area with a
multi-layer cap; installing a leachate monitoring system; removing 200 empty or nearly
empty drums, 5,000 gallons of oily waste from an above-ground storage tank, and 1,000
gallons of waste oil from the tanker trailer, along with the excavation and removal of 20
cubic yards of contaminated soil all from the drum storage area; treating and disposing
of these wastes offsite in a RCRA-permitted Subtitle C facility; and backfilling the area
with clean soil. The estimated capital cost of this remedial action is $20,000,000. The
cost of O&M as well as the total present worth cost associated with the remedy have not
yet been determined.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: No contaminant-specific goals were provided.
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Sealand Restoration Site, Town of Lisbon, St. Lawrence County,
New York
Assessment of Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response actions
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may have presented an
imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the interim remedial actions
selected and implemented to address contaminated soils and solid
wastes for the Sealand Restoration site (Site), located in the
Town of Lisbon, St. Lawrence County, New York, which were chosen
in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the interim remedial
actions for the Site and is based on the administrative record
for this Site. Copies of the NYSDEC RI/FS and supporting
documentation are included in the administrative record file and
are available at the Information Repositories at the following
locations: the Lisbon Town Hall, Lisbon, New York, NYSDEC, 50
Wolf Road, Albany, New York; USEPA, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
N.Y.
NYSDEC's implementation of the interim remedial actions indicates
its concurrence with the selected interim remedies.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and the County of St. Lawrence undertook remedial
actions from 1987-88 and from 1989-90 to remove, treat and
dispose of hazardous substances present at the Sealand
Restoration site. As NYSDEC authorized state resources to fund
the remedial work, NYSDEC intends to formally submit an
application to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
obtain credit for the expenses incurred pursuant to §104(c)(5)(B)
of CERCLA. As part of EPA's preparation for review of the State
of New York's application, EPA has examined the implemented
remedr.es. The purpose of this decision document is to announce
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
EPA Remedial
Primary Contact:
Secondary Contact:
Main PRPs:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. Quantity:
Sealand Restoration
Lisbon, N.Y.
Sm=29.36 (Sgw=48.98, Ssw=13.43)
9/28/90
Off-site Incineration/Disposal
$20,000,000
To be determined
To be determined
Robert Nunes (212) 264-2723
Joel Singerman (212) 264-1132
Sealand Restoration, Inc.
Volatiles, Sem-Volatiles,
Inorganics, Low-level PCBs.
Soil, groundwater
On-site drums
Contaminated Soil: 4,782 cubic yds
-------
- Conducting a cultural resources survey to comply with
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act;
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective.' This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource.
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and it
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as their
principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted.
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
1/2- V/i
Date'
-------
EPA's finding that the NYSDEC selection of response actions
needed to address contaminated soils and solid wastes at the Site
was appropriate. Ultimately, EPA must determine that the
expenditures were reasonable, documented, direct, out-of-pocket,
non-federal expenditures subject to the limitations specified in
CERCLA section 104(c)(5) before giving the state credit for EPA's
share of the costs. This decision document also calls for a
supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to
investigate the need for further remedial work at the Site.
The interim actions undertaken from 1987-88 in a drum storage
area and from 1989-90 in a cell disposal area were intended to
address principal threats to human health and the environment
attributed to the presence of contaminated solid and liquid
substances. Under these remedial actions hazardous substances
were excavated and taken off-site for treatment/disposal.
The major components of the implemented remedies include the
following:
- Excavation and treatment, via off-site thermal
destruction, of all solid wastes removed from the cell
disposal area;
- Placement of an engineered multi-layered cap and cover
over the cell disposal area to significantly reduce
infiltration of rainwater into the disposal cell so as to
prevent leachate generation and groundwater contamination.
Installation of leachate monitoring system for future
monitoring of the cell disposal area;
- Disposal of the treatment residuals at an off-site RCRA
hazardous waste facility; and
- Excavation and off-site treatment/disposal of solid and
liquid wastes removed from the drum storage area.
The major components of the follow-up investigation are:
- Confirmatory surface/subsurface sampling to ensure that
past State and County remedial actions were effective in
removing contaminant source materials;
- Supplementing existing information as to the nature and
extent of site-related surface/subsurface soil
contamination in the landspreading area;
- Supplementing existing information as tq the nature and
extent of site related groundwater, surface water and
wetland contamination;
- Estimating risks posed by site contamination to human
health and ecology;
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY. . 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 5
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 6
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 6
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 7
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 9
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 10
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 10
STATE REMEDY SELECTION 12
EPA EVALUATION 12
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX 6 - NYSDEC RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
SEALAND RESTORATION SITE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminants. Improper
landspreading practices apparently resulted in runoff of oily
wastes into nearby streams and wetlands. After the site was
abandoned, most of the fields were cultivated and crops were
harvested. The northern fields were subsequently plowed with
corn, and the southern fields were utilized as hayfields. These
fields are currently not in use.
The cell disposal area located in the southern part of the Site,
Area 2, was originally designed as a disposal site for oil spill
debris containing no readily drainable fluids. Oily waste
materials such as chemical solvents used in clean-up operations
were disposed of in the pit for approximately one year. Remedial
actions conducted in 1984 and 1989-90 uncovered a total of 1,680
buried drums and 4,912 cubic yards of contaminated soils. The
disposal cell was located less than 100 yards from a 100-acre>
NYSDEC-designated wetland. This wetland area drains into an
unnamed tributary to Sucker Brook.
The drum storage area, Area 3, was an unapproved disposal area
located in the northern part of the Site, in the vicinity of a
house and barn. Approximately 200 empty or nearly empty drums
were stacked in the barnyard. Residue from these drums
accumulated as a tar-like sludge on the ground surface, beneath
and around the drums. Alongside the barn was a 2,000-gallon
tanker-trailer containing less than 1,000 gallons of waste oil.
A 20,000-gallon capacity waste storage tank containing 5,000
gallons of waste oil was located southeast of the barn (see
Figure 4). The tank was used for temporary storage of waste oil
until it could be landspread on the fields.
Private wells in the area are mainly used for domestic and
agricultural purposes with only one municipally-owned public
water supply within three miles of the site. The Hamlet of
Lisbon is served by a municipal water supply which is owned and
operated by the Town of Lisbon. This system consists of a supply
pumped from the bedrock aquifer. The bedrock aquifer may be
hydraulically connected with the overburden aquifer in the Site
area. Approximately 25 additional private wells located on Pray,
McFadden, and Tuck Roads are located within a one-mile radius of
the site.
SITE HISTORY
In 1977, officials representing Sealand Restoration, Inc.
acquired the former 210 acre dairy farm for use as a disposal
facility. In 1979, Sealand Restoration, Inc. was permitted to
accept waste products. Under the terms of an NYSDEC-issued
permit, only uncontaminated waste, petroleum wastes and mineral
oils were acceptable for disposal; specific approval was required
for stockpiling of any wastes or disposal of any contaminated
wasters.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Record of Decision (ROD) identifies the alternative response
actions considered for the Sealand Restoration, Inc. (Sealand
Restoration) site (Site) , and describes the response actions
implemented by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) and the St. Lawrence County Environmental
Management Council at the Site.
As the Site was not yet proposed for listing on the EPA National
Priorities List (NPL), and was, therefore, not eligible for
cleanup under the federal Superfund program, the County of St.
Lawrence and NYSDEC conducted remedial actions in 1987-88 and
1989-90 to remove, treat and dispose of existing sources of
contamination in the drum storage and cell disposal areas at the
Sealand Restoration site. Since NYSDEC expended state resources
to fund the remedial work, and since the Site has since been
listed by EPA on the NPL, NYSDEC intends to submit an application
to EPA to obtain credit for the expenses incurred pursuant to
Section 104(c)(5)(B) of CERCLA. As EPA considers the types of
response actions undertaken to be appropriate interim actions,
EPA is presenting this ROD to announce this finding. This ROD
also calls for a supplemental Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to assess residual contamination at the
Site.
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Sealand Restoration site is located in the Town of Lisbon,
St. Lawrence County, New York (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 2,
the irregularly shaped Site, comprising two parcels of land
approximately 210 acres in total area, is situated south of Pray
Road, about 2.5 miles southwest of the Village of Lisbon.
Two different corporations operated at the Site: Sealand
Restoration, Inc. and Sealand Industrial Services, Inc.
The area surrounding the Site is predominantly farmland with a
significant amount of wetlands drained by intermittent low-flow
streams. (See Figure 3.) The area is sparsely populated;
however, residential homes and farmhouses can be found as near as
100 feet from the facility's property line.
The areas of contamination on the Site include Area 1 (the
landspreading area), Area 2 (the cell disposal area), and Area 3
(the drum storage area). (See Figure 4.)
The landspreading area, Area 1, actually consists of twelve
distinct open fields where liquid, biodegradable wastes
considered "vegetable oil" was intended to be spread on the
ground in a thin layer. This oil was to be worked into the soil
prior to cultivation and planting with corn. However, the wastes
which were landspread were characterized as a petroleum oil-
based liquid containing generally low levels of metals and
-------
received, and written responses to those comments. (See Appendix
6.) Based on the RI/FS, and considering all the public comments,
the NYSDEC decided to implement the proposed alternative for the
drum storage area.
From 1987 through 1988, utilizing two appropriations from the
State of New York totaling $90,000, the County of St. Lawrence
implemented a portion of the proposed remedial plan at the site.
This work included: (1) removal, transportation, and off-site
disposal of 200 drums and the tar-like sludge from the drum
storage area located near the barn (this includes approximately
20 cubic yards of contaminated soils); (2) draining,
transportation, and off-site disposal of the 5,000 gallons of
waste oil in the waste-oil tank; (3) dismantling, transportation,
and off-site disposal of the waste-oil tank; (4) removal and off-
site disposal of the tanker-trailer and (5) removal of small
quantities of acids and miscellaneous contaminated debris (hoses,
buckets, etc.). All of these wastes were located in the drum
storage area (Area 3). The removal was conducted by
Environmental Oil, Inc. of Syracuse, New York. Solid wastes were
disposed of at the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. facility in
Model City, New York. Liquids and oil soaked debris were
received by Environmental Oil, Inc. in Syracuse, New York.
Flammable liquid wastes were disposed of at the Solvents and
Petroleum Service, Inc. facility in Syracuse, New York.
Corrosives and combustible liquids were disposed of at Frontier
Chemical Waste Management in Niagara Falls, New York.
In 1987, the NYSDEC requested EPA to conduct a removal action in
the cell disposal area. In 1988, EPA informed NYSDEC that the
EPA was unable to conduct a removal action because of budget
constraints. Therefore, NYSDEC authorized funding to conduct the
removal of the waste disposal cell. NYSDEC requested that EPA
authorize pre-award costs for performing this work in January,
1989. From 1989 through 1990, Sevenson Environmental Services,
under contract with NYSDEC, implemented the remaining elements of
the proposed remedial plan. The contractor removed 1,445 drums,
4,762 cubic yards of contaminated soil, and 375,000 gallons of
liquid from the cell disposal area (Area 2), at a cost of
approximately $20 million. Solid wastes were transported to
Rollins Environmental Services in Deer Park, Texas or to L.W.D.
in Calvert City, Kentucky. Liquid wastes were sent to ENSCO in
El Dorado, Arkansas, Thermal Oxidation Corp. in Roebuck, South
Carolina, or to Frontier Chemical Waste Process in Niagara Falls,
New York. The disposal cell was back-filled with clean soil and
covered with a multi-layered cap to significantly reduce
infiltration of precipitation and control the generation of
additional leachate which would impact the underlying
groundwater. A leachate monitoring system was installed to
periodically monitor the groundwater within the closed cell. The
project was completed in March 1990.
-------
In 1980, NYSDEC determined that Sealand Restoration was out of
compliance with the permit and the use of the facility as a
disposal area was ordered to cease. The landspreading permit was
voided in April, 1980. On November 10, 1981, officials from
Sealand Restoration signed an Administrative Consent Order with
the NYSDEC under which the firm agreed to undertake measures to
address contamination at the site. Shortly after signing this
Order, Sealand Restoration officials defaulted on the Order and
filed for bankruptcy.
In 1983, Engineering Science, Inc. performed an NYSDEC Phase I
Study. After completion of the Phase I Study, Dames and Moore
was hired to perform an NYSDEC Phase II Study.
During 1984, St. Lawrence County received a $100,000 Local
Assistance Grant from the New York State Legislature to perform
limited remediation at the site. This included the removal of
133 surface drums, 60 full or partially full buried drums, 42
empty buried drums, 150 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the
cell disposal area. (See Figure 4.) The work was conducted by
Fourth Coast Pollution Control, Inc. These wastes were
transported to SCA Chemical Services, Inc., Model City, New York.
In 1986, using funds provided in the State's 1984 authorization,
1,000 gallons of liquid from the 20,000 gallon waste-storage tank
located in the drum storage area were removed by Fourth Coast
Pollution Control, Inc. and received by Quantex Chemical, Inc. in
Kitchner, Ontario.
From 1986 through 1987, Dames and Moore, under contract with the
NYSDEC, conducted an RI/FS (NYSDEC RI/FS), for the disposal areas
on Site. The results of the RI identified three distinct source
areas needing evaluation. (These are Areas l, 2, and 3 as
described in the Site Location and Description section.) The FS
concluded that the removal and off-site disposal of contaminated
wastes and soils from the cell disposal area (Area 2) , and drum
storage area (Area 3) , were the preferred remedial alternatives.
The NYSDEC prepared public notices of the availability of the
RI/FS, including the description of the proposed remedial plan
contained therein, for public review and comment. On July 22 and
July 25, 1987, such notices were published in the Watertown Daily
Times, announcing a public meeting at which NYSDEC officials
would be available to discuss the proposed remedial plan and
receive and reply to public comments. NYSDEC also provided a 30-
day period for submission of written comments on the proposed
remedial alternatives in the RI/FS.
The public meeting was held on August 5, 1987, and a transcript
was made. After the close of the public comment period, the
NYSDEC prepared a written summary of the comments it had
-------
6
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report for the Sealand Restoration site was made
available to the public from August 5, 1987 to September 4, 1987
in the NYSDEC Albany office and Regional Office located in
Watertown, New York and at the St. Lawrence County Planning Board
office, Canton; Public Library, Ogdensburg; and Town Clerk,
Lisbon. A public meeting was held on August 5, 1987 at the
Lisbon Town Hall to report results of the RI at the site, -:
describe the basis for the proposed remedial clean-up plan,
describe the alternatives which were considered, and receive
public input on the alternatives. As noted above, all comments
received were considered, and a responsiveness summary was
prepared. (See Appendix 6.)
Subsequent public meetings were held on February 14, 1989 and
October 19, 1989. At the February meeting, discussions were held
on implementation and time schedules for excavation and disposal
of buried drums and contaminated soil from the cell disposal
area. At the October meeting, information on the progress of the
Site clean-up was provided.
On August 24, 1990, EPA notified the 61 recipients of EPA's
information request letters of our intention to issue this ROD
ratifying the State's proposed plan, and soliciting their
comments on that plan. Their comments were received during the
30-day comment period EPA provided.
As part of the planned supplemental RI/FS at this site, EPA
intends to conduct an extensive community relations program in
order to solicit comments on the scope of future site activities
and explain the relationship between the effort undertaken by
NYSDEC and the work to be effected by EPA. All community
relations activities will be coordinated with the ongoing public
involvement efforts of NYSDEC.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD discusses the interim response actions implemented at
the cell disposal area and the drum storage area only. It does
not address contaminant pathways such as the groundwater and
surface waters that may have been impacted by contaminated wastes
present at the Site. Although the NYSDEC RI/FS did address
potential site-related groundwater and surface water
contamination as well as soil contamination and stored hazardous
waste, EPA believes that further investigation is needed to
evaluate the nature and extent of site-related groundwater,
surface water and wetland contamination, and to evaluate the
nature and extent of site-related surface/subsurface soil
contamination in the landspreading area and drum storage areas.
Confirmatory sampling is also required to ensure that past State
and County remedial actions were effective in removing
-------
On August 27, 1990, the Sealand Restoration site was listed on
the NPL.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In mid-June 1980, NYSDEC ordered Sealand Restoration, Inc. to
stop dumping and spreading the oily waste both in the disposal
cell and on the fields. Sealand Restoration, Inc; was
subsequently fined $4,500 for polluting the environment.
On November 18, 1981, representatives of Sealand Restoration,
Inc. signed a Consent Order under which it was agreed to
undertake measures to address the problems determined to exist at
the Site. Due to non-compliance with the terms of the Order, a
Notice of Intention to Vacate a Suspended Penalty was issued on
December 14, 1981, and the case was referred to the State
Attorney General's office.
On May 31, 1983, the State Attorney General's office filed a
complaint before the State of New York's Supreme Court in Albany
County. A default judgement was entered on July 20, 1984, under
which Sealand Restoration, Inc. was required to address the
contamination at the site and a pay a fine of $8,000. No payment
has been collected from Sealand Restoration, Inc.
The site is currently vacant. An attorney previously responsible
for Sealand Restoration, Inc. affairs has indicated that Sealand
Restoration, Inc. is out of business. According to the deed on
file in the St. Lawrence County courthouse, Sealand Restoration,
Inc. is still listed as the owner of the site property.
EPA is currently conducting a search for potentially responsible
parties (PRPs). Based upon preliminary information obtained from
this search, EPA sent information request letters on August 24,
1990 to 61 individuals and companies who may have knowledge of or
been involved with the disposal of contaminated wastes at the
Site. The responses to those letters are currently being
evaluated as a basis for further action. All future enforcement
activities contemplated by EPA will be coordinated with the
ongoing efforts of the New York State Attorney General's office.
Because some of these individuals and companies may be PRPs, and
might ultimately be liable for any expenses incurred by EPA in
connection with response activities at this site, EPA also
notified each of these parties of our intention to issue this ROD
determining that the remedial plan proposed and implemented by
the State was appropriate under CERCLA. EPA solicited comments
from these parties on the remedial plan selected by the State,
and has considered and responded to all comments received. (See
Appendix 5 hereto.)
-------
8
of groundwater sampled from a monitoring well (Well DM-8, see
Figure 5) located approximately 100 feet downgradient of the
disposal cell indicated a concentration of 40 to 50 ug/1 each of
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and benzene; all volatile
organics. The New York State standard for total primary organic
concentration is 50 ug/1. The New York State and federal
drinking water standards for benzene arid trichloroethene are 5
ug/1. NYSDEC groundwater standards for cadmium and manganese
were also exceeded in monitoring wells located near the disposal
cell.
Groundwater samples collected from private wells have not
revealed detectable contamination in the homeowner wells
attributable to the Sealand Restoration site. Groundwater
contamination will be reassessed as part of the subsequent
planned RI/FS.
Drum Storage Area
Approximately, 20 cubic yards of contaminated soils and 200 empty
or partially filled drums containing contaminated material were
present in the drum storage area. Residual tar-like sludge from
the drums accumulated on the ground surface beneath and around
the drum stack. The sludge was 2 inches thick and covered about
150 square feet. The drum storage area encompassed approximately
2,500 square feet. Several drums were estimated to have 5
gallons or more of a tar-like, oily substance in them, and the
thick tar-like waste accumulated on the ground according to
observations made during the RI field work conducted in 1986.
Surface water did not appear to be in contact with the waste in
the drum storage area.
The analysis of a composite waste sample (W-2), taken during the
RI, revealed the presence of six volatile compounds and five
semi-volatile compounds. No pesticide/PCB contamination was
reported, though detection limits were high due to interference.
Reported concentrations for all metals tested were low or not
detected. This waste sludge material can be characterized as a
mixture of petroleum oil-based product with organic solvents.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1.
The soils beneath the drum stacks in the drum storage area were
sampled at two locations; IN and 2N, at two depths, 18.inches and
30 inches. The sampling and analysis for HSL organic and
inorganic compounds was undertaken to assist in determining
whether migration of contaminants downward through ''he soil
column was taking place. At the 18 inch depth for 1N-S and 2N-
S, one semi-volatile compound, di-n-butylphthalate, was detected
at low concentrations. Also detected were low levels of
insecticide Beta-BHC and Heptachlor at 1N-S, and 4,4'DDT at 2N-
S, all below contract laboratory program (CLP) detection limits.
The deep samples at the same locations, 1N-D and 2N-D, contained
-------
contaminant source materials. Therefore, a subsequent RI/FS is
planned to address these concerns. As noted previously, EPA is
currently developing a workplan for the subsequent RI/FS. The
remedy specified herein is considered to be an interim action;
the final remedy for the site (addressing the soils, sediments,
surface water and groundwater) will be proposed at the conclusion
of the supplemental RI/FS. -
The NYSDEC RI/FS indicated that the presence of contaminated
soils and stored hazardous waste in the drum storage area and the
cell disposal area posed a principal threat at this site because
of risks to human health from dermal contact, ingestion of
contaminated substances, and inhalation of harmful dusts or
vapors. The contaminated soil and stored hazardous wastes also
provided a direct source of contamination for groundwater and
surface water at the site. Two principal response actions were
undertaken to reduce the threat from immediate hazards and to
remove the potential sources of contamination present on the
site. The two actions, conducted from 1987-88 in the drum
storage area and from 1989-90 in the cell disposal area,
implemented the preferred remedial alternatives identified in the
NYSDEC RI/FS.
The remedial actions taken were authorized by the State of New
York subsequent to the 1987 public meeting, but were implemented
prior to the issuance of this.ROD. Although the issuance of a
ROD normally precedes remedial action, the EPA considers the
previous decisions by the State of New York and the County of St.
Lawrence to proceed with remedial action, rather than to delay
cleanup until federal funds became available, to be beneficial
and necessary in order to reduce risks to the public from
existing site hazards and to prevent further potential
contamination of groundwater and surface waters in the area.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A description of contaminants present in the cell disposal and
drum storage areas is provided separately.
Cell Disposal Area
Prior to the remedial work conducted in 1989, the cell disposal
area, which measured approximately 100 feet by 75 feet, contained
1,445 buried drums, 4,762 cubic yards of contaminated soils, and
375,000 gallons of liquid. Analysis of a composite waste sample
of the liquid for Hazardous Substance List (HSL). organic
compounds conducted during the RI indicated the presence of 11
volatile organic compounds in concentrations ranging from 52 to
7400 micrograms per liter (ug/1) including chlorinated, aliphatic
hydrocarbons and petroleum derivatives. Semi-volatile compounds,
pesticides, and metals were also detected. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 1. (Waste Sample W-l.) Analysis
-------
10
or vapors from the cell disposal area existed. The potential
migration of contaminated groundwater to drinking water aquifers
could present additional human health risk in the form of
ingestion of contaminated drinking water or dermal contact with
water used for domestic purposes.
Groundwater contaminant migration would also pose environmental
health risk to downgradient wetlands and ultimately, Sucker
Brook, a pike spawning ground. Aquatic life, animals and birds
inhabiting the wetlands, could have been adversly impacted by
such a release.
Drum Storage Area
Although the drum storage area was relatively small in size
(approximately 2500 square feet), it was of concern because it
was not a permitted disposal area, with proper site preparation.
Groundwater contamination was possible since the drum storage
area receives precipitation, and the waste materials were in
contact with the ground surface in some locations. Human health.
risks from the drum storage area included adverse impacts
ictributed to dermal contact with or ingestion of wastes, and
inhalation of contaminated dusts or vapors. In addition, the
risks associated with groundwater contamination include ingestion
and dermal contact with contaminated groundwater from homeowner
groundwater wells used for drinking water or for domestic use.
Risks to the environment included adverse impacts to plant and
animal life due to migration of leaked waste oils from the waste
storage tank or tanker-trailer, or from contaminated groundwater
to surface waters and adjacent wetlands.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the implemented alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply with
other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative tfeatment technologies and resource recovery
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition,
treatment as a principle element for reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, is preferred.
The NYSDEC RI/FS evaluated, in detail, five alternatives for
addressing the cell disposal area (CD) and three alternatives for
addressing the drum storage area (DS). These alternatives were
further evaluated and modified by NYSDEC prior to selection and
implementation of the remedy to determine compliance with the
-------
low concentrations of 1,1,1 trichloroethane, di-n-butylphthalate,
Beta-BHC and Heptachlor. Only Beta-BHC at 24.1 ug/kg at 2N-D
exceeded the CLP detection limit. The presence of insecticide
compounds may be related to the farming activities which have
taken place at the Site previously.
Also included in the removal of contaminants from the drum
storage area was the 20,000-gallon waste storage tank and the
2,000-gallon tanker-trailer to the west of the barn.
The waste in the 20,000-gallon waste storage tank was
characterized as a petroleum oil-based liquid containing
generally low levels of metal and PCS contaminants. Table 2
presents the results of analyses performed for St. Lawrence
County on the liquid tank in 1986. Benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, methyl isobutyl ketone, chromium and lead
are among the compounds found which are listed HCRA hazardous
wastes. Additional analyses taken in June of 1985 indicated that
lead concentrations exceeded the extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity standard. Approximately 6,000 gallons of this waste
were removed in separate actions undertaken by the County in 1986
c.r.cL 1937.
The analysis of waste in the tanker-trailer to the west of the
barn is presented in Table 3. The waste was characterized as an
oil- or grease-based substance containing heavy metals and
chlorinated organic compounds including two dichlorobenzene
compounds at concentrations of 190 and 210 parts per million
(ppm). Dichlorobenzenes are semi-volatile or halogenated
aromatic compounds used mostly as industrial solvents.
Approximately 1,000 gallons of this waste was removed by the
County in 1987.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Qualitative site risks are discussed separately for the cell
disposal area and drum storage area. As part of the subsequent
RI/FS, a quantitative risk assessment will be conducted in both
areas.
Cell Disposal Area:
The hazardous waste present in the cell disposal area posed the
risk of adversely affecting public health and the environment.
Several of the contaminants detected in the cell disposal area
are suspected carcinogens in humans or are known carcinogens in
animals. Other chemicals detected are known human carcinogens.
Exposure to the contaminants can also result in non-cancer
effects. Human health could have been impacted by ingestion of
or dermal contact with the surficial tar, liquids or drum
contents. In addition, the potential inhalation of harmful dusts
-------
12
Alternative CD-4; Excavation, Removal, and Off-Site Incineration
of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils; Cover and Cap
This alternative called for the excavation of contaminated
materials from the cell disposal area as described in Alternative
CD-2. All solid and liquid wastes were taken to an off-site RCRA
permitted Subtitle C facility for incineration and ultimate
disposal.
It also included the placement of an engineered cover and cap to
inhibit the infiltration of precipitation through residual
contaminants in the cell disposal area, thus minimizing leachate
generation and groundwater contamination. A leachate monitoring
system was installed prior to backfilling so as to provide for
future monitoring of the cell.
Alternative CD-5; Excavation, Removal, and On-Site Incineration
of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils; Cover and Cap
This alternative was identical to Alternative CD-4 except that
wastes and highly contaminated soils were to be treated on-site
by thermal destruction methods as specified in Alternative CD-3.
STATE REMEDY SELECTION
Based on its review of these alternatives, and comments received
during the public comment period, NYSDEC selected Alternatives
CD-4 and DS-2 for implementation. These were the alternatives
identified as the Preferred Remedial Alternatives in the proposed
remedial plan contained in the RI/FS.
EPA EVALUATION
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA agrees
that Alternative DS-2, "Excavation, Removal, and Off-site
Treatment/Disposal of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils," and
Alternative CD-4, "Excavation, Removal, and Off-Site Incineration
of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils; Cover and Cap," are
appropriate choices for remediation of the principal threats
posed by the drum storage and cell disposal areas, respectively.
Alternative CD-4 included the off-site incineration of all
hazardous wastes excavated from the cell disposal area, and
Alternative DS-2 provided for off-site disposal of all hazardous
waste contained in the drum storage area.
Both alternatives selected and implemented by the State and the
County, (Alternative CD-4 and DS-2), are appropriate and
reasonable interim actions under the federal Superfund program.
The principal threats posed by contamination at and emanating
from the cell disposal area and the drum storage area have been
mitigated and/or eliminated by these actions. The following
discussion will explain EPA's rationale for determining the
-------
11
Land Disposal Restrictions which became effective subsequent to
the RI/FS report. These alternatives, which are combined below
where they are identical, are:
Alternative CD-1/DS-l! No Action
This alternative allowed only for the periodic monitoring and
reassessment of public health and environmental impacts posed by
the Site. Land use restrictions included a site security fence
and limitations on future land uses to reduce the potential for
direct contact with contaminated materials.
Alternative CD-2/DS-2; Excavation, Removal, and Off-site
Treatment/Disposal of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils
This alternative included the off-site treatment and disposal of
solid waste and contaminated soil from the drum storage area and
the cell disposal area.
The drum storage area contained approximately 200 empty or
partially filled 55-gallon steel drums, approximately 20 cubic
yards of contaminated soils, a 20,000 gallon above-ground storage
tank containing 5,000 gallons of oily wastes, and a 2,000 gallon
tanker-trailer containing less than 1,000 gallons of waste oil.
For the cell disposal area this alternative included the
excavation, treatment/disposal of 1,445 buried drums, 4,762 cubic
yards of contaminated soils and 375,000 gallons of liquid wastes,
and backfilling with clean soil.
Hazardous wastes were to be treated, as necessary* pursuant to
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR 268 and disposed of in
a RCRA permitted Subtitle C facility. An environmental
monitoring program would be established to assess the long-term
effectiveness of this alternative.
Alternative CD-3/DS-3; Excavation. Removal and On-Site
incineration of Wastes and Highl
This alternative included the excavation and removal of wastes
and contaminated soils as described for Alternative CD-2/DS-2.
It provided for on-site thermal destruction of contaminants
through incineration.
Incineration of hazardous wastes was to comply with required
treatment standards for spent solvents subject to Land Disposal
Restrictions in 40 CFR 268. Incinerator residuals such as ash
and filters are considered hazardous waste by the "derived-from
rule" (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)) and were to be disposed of in
accordance with Land Disposal Restrictions.
-------
14
with RCRA. The interim action itself was deemed to be
protective; however, further actions may be necessary in order to
fully protect human health and the environment. This will be
determined via the subsequent RI/FS, as noted previously.
Alternative DS-2 is the least expensive alternative in terms of
present worth costs, and the costs are proportional to its
effectiveness. It is also the more expeditious of the two action
alternatives, since Alternative DS-3 would have required test
burns of one to two years duration to determine its
effectiveness. Both action alternatives were preferred over
Alternative DS-1, "No Action," in terms of protection of human
health and the environment.
-------
11
appropriateness and reasonableness of the remedies selected by
NYSDEC and illustrate how the selected actions comply with the
mandates of CERCLA. (See Summary of the Remedial Alternatives
for CERCLA mandates) .
Cell Disposal Area
Alternative CD-4, "Excavation, Removal, and Off-Site Incineration
of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils; Cover and Cap," is a
permanent remedy which employs treatment to reduce and/or
eliminate the toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants which
pose a principal threat at the Site. It was designed to be
protective of human health and the environment and to comply with
all other environment statutes, especially RCRA, in terms of
treatment and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as proper
closure of a disposal cell. It should be noted that this was an
interim action, and while the action itself is deemed to be
protective, further actions may be necessary in order to fully
protect human health and the environment. This will be
determined via a second operable unit study, as noted previously.
Alternative CD-4 is identical to Alternative CD-5, except that
Alternative CD-5 employs on-site incineration for destruction of
contaminated materials. Alternative CD-4 was considered more
reliable in reducing the mobility, toxicity and volume of
contaminants than Alternative CD-5, since it employs standard
incineration technology, and an on-site incinerator would have
required test burns to prove its efficiency. Alternative CD-4
was implemented far more expeditiously than Alternative CD-5
could have been since the test burns could have taken one to two
years. It was also determined that Alternative CD-4 was more
implementable than Alternative CD-5 due to expected public
opposition to on-site incineration. Both alternatives offer far
nore protection of human health and the environment than
Alternatives CD-I, CD-2 and CD-3 due to the presence of the cap
and cover which will minimize the generation of leachate and its
subsequent migration to the groundwater.
Although Alternative CD-4 is the most costly of the alternatives
considered, its cost is deemed to be proportional to its
effectiveness due to the reliability, timing, and
implementability factors cited above. A total cost of
approximately $20 million was expended by NYSDEC for the
remediation project in the cell disposal area.
Storage Area
Alternative DS-2, "Excavation, Removal, and Off-Site
Treatment/Disposal of Wastes and Highly Contaminated Soils,"
called for the removal of all of the designated, contaminated
material from the drum storage area. All contaminated wastes
were to be disposed of at a Subtitle C facility in accordance
-------
TAbi-i. 1
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS
DETECTED IN WASTE SAMPLES
C91f7AH*XAIfT VAJ12
Tlnyl CMorldf
i*.«n.
l.l-9lehlate*ttun«
J-B«.non.
1.1. l-tiiesioeo.ta.il.
..«.«
2-g.xanon.
4-K.tlyl-2-P.nt.nan.
Talu.n.
ttMylb.nx.n.
Total lyl.n.i
4-«.t!>yl9n.nol
2. 4-9ts«tf.ylpn«r.ol
2-fl.thylnaatAt.naltn.
Fiuoe.n*
Fluaranta.fl.
Cicy..n.
Ol-n-<3«yi fntnal.t.
fcxlo.ulJ.n II
4.4-100
£ndclR K.ton.
Jkluainva
Ars.nie
tarivia
l«ryllius
Cadaivai
CtlCiua
Ckrnia
Ceaai:
Cap9«r
cyacidt
Iran
L»d
Haqa«*ii3
llaa<;U.M
licm.l
•otaitiia
Salaam
Sa41eB
t»aUla.
Vuudiia
1 1 •»! 1 W-l 1
1 iwvrn *»T3XiwxsTt stzacti
1 TITS 1 (a«/l) 1 (us/*?) 1
^
• T
V
V
V
V
V
V
*
V
»
7
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
»
»
»
" '
H
»
H
H
H
R
K
H
N
H
H
N
H
H
R
N
II
n
HI
74111
»«
ma
321 7411-3
. 77B
311
14...B
331
2711
111 7<9(B
(9 441)
94 24.191
141
421
II. lit
js.iae
37 1JJ
17.I8IJ
lillJ
.15-
.I9J
.I1J
* X
3E
3IB
(41
7
313.111 t444.4|
t
46
311
14J t.U
1 137S.1
» X
la4.HI 1444.4]
3151 17.2
4(1 11.1
1411
JZ X
(l.lll
X
2S3 1CJ
Xlae
14.7*5
I! ta< mult is • T«IU« fti*ctc tl«n ac iqtial to Chi ln»tru»«nt
dittc«iaa llait but !•«• tamn ta« contricr-nauirtd dtcterion
c. ta* *«iu« U cceattid la Srictiti (i.a
• • «n«lyt« taaad la blank *» mil u uapl*
I • ladle*t*< *a ••tla*tid **la* at aoe
pciKne* at lB««tJ«t«nc«
du* ta ta«
I • teta
J • d*t*
ra«a«B*nd« »»la» ta b« r*j*c:id
on r»caa»«nd» »»la« to b<
• Indicates duelicati
• ralatil*
«n«ly«ii La oat vttaia eantiol liaisa
a«t*l
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLES
-------
TASLE 3
ANALYSIS OF WASTE IN TANKER-TRAILER
OCTOBER, 1986
UPSTATE LABOnA"Oai£5. INC.
Analysis Results
Report Nunber 10298W1:
Date: October 29, 1965
Client I .D. : St. Lawrence County - Sealand Restoration Site
Tcvn of Lisbon
Smple »86-09-05
ULI I. P.; 25086001
Parameters Results
pH 6.0 *
Specific Gravity 1.0606
Total Phenols 41
Total Volatile Solids 96: of TS
Total Solids • 922
X Ash • 22
I Sulfur 0.722
Total Chloride <400
Oil and Crease 922 of TS
Methyl Ethyl Ketone . <1Q
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <1Q
Acetone <10
Total PC3's <2
Total Arsenic 0.24
Total Barium ' 26
Total Cadmium 0.18
Total Chromium 3.9
Total Copper 19
Total Cobalt 1.2
Total Lead 8.8
Total Nickel 1.6
Total Selenium 0.013
Total Silver 0.20
Total Zinc 7.1
Total Antimony J.6
Total Mercury 0.21
EPA 601:
Chiocomethane
-------
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF WASTE IN STORAGE TANK
Analysis *.«3ult3
l~ift Mu»K«r J13SSOIO
»»teH U, 1986
Fourtli Coa«t 1.0. t Sealand Sit* Sample Ho. 103
UL! 1.0.; 03386011
»ir**«etera
p"
Specie ic Cr.vity
s.iirirf* *
Total fhenoll
Total Fhcspl*ocu»
Tool Volatile SolUs
Total Solid!
I Ail.
Total Chloride
I Sulfur
I Oil Jnd Cr<:3;«
Total Chco-iu«
Total Copper
Tot.il Nick.l
Total CadffltuMi .
Total Lcaii
Total Silv.r
Total Zinc
Total Antimony
Total Mecetiry
Total ftarium
Total Selenium
Total Arsenic
Total Cobalt
nenxene
Toluene
Rthylbencene
Xylenes
Mrtnyl tthvl K*ton*
Methyl Isobutyt Ketone
Acetone
Otlorom«than«
Olchlocodlduoromethane
Vinyl diloririe
Oiloroothane
Mechyleno Qilorldv
Tclcltloco(luecomethan«
l,I-OUhlotoeth»ltne
t.l-0ichlatne;thane
t-l,J-OUhloroethrlene
Chlocofocm
l,2-0ichioroethin«
1.1,1-TricMoroethane
CirUon Toltrichlonde
BromeillehleromOian*
l,2"0ichlorepropane
Trichlncocthylene
Dtbramochlorometnine
I,l,2-Trtchloco«thnne
e*l. J*01chloropropylen«
Z-Chlatoechylvinyl ether
Rrowofom
l.l,:,:-letcachlotoethane
Tetraclilocoelhyltne
Chlor^bentane
Tcichlocotrifluoroethane
Keaut t!
7.0
0.916
17 pi**
3.0 ppm
9SI
131
t.7t
1300 ppn
0.231
>30I
<2i ppxi
40 ppxt
210 pp-"
2 ppm
13 ppo
<10 pp»
64 ppn
OO ppo
<0.1 ppm
<60 ppm
0.2 pom
<1 ppm
<10 ppm
<20 ppm
<20 ppn
<20 ppm
<20 ppm
<20 rnm
<20 ppm
<20 ppn*
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<2Q
<20
<20
<20
-------
REGIONAL LOCATION
Lisbon, New York
CANADA
MA03.
(-•—•--n
Atlantic
i
0 c o n n
HOMILES
OQ
H
n
SCALE
-------
APPENDIX 2
FIGURES
-------
LATITUDE: 44*42" I3~N
LONGITUDE: 75*2|'47"W
>CriMIICI!l UKI
LIIIOM. «» IIHII 1» OMtHtMIH
-------
EXPLANATION:
SPARSELY POPULATED RESIDENTIAL
AHEAS
GRAVEL PIT LOCATION
LATITUDE: 44*
SITE LOCATION MAP
SHOWING RESIDENTIAL AREAS
H-
QQ
to
•(runnel! U.K.I. i.i'ierodiirHie ««r
IICIQM, H» KtKtl *NO OHUNMUMt
IMI, m littti gu>ii
-------
EXPLANATION!
0 POINT SAMPLE*. IHSTALLtO «T tMPWt SOILS
INVCSTIOATION* INC. UNOEN DIRECTION Of
OAUCS • UOOKC («/««!
BfVtTTICiTIONS IK. UNOWI OmeCTION Of
0*UU • UOORC IVB« - VMI
MONITORING WELLS
GROUNOWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
!»«« INSTALLATIONS.'.
-------
C~J KNOWN UNOSPKCAO »«e»S
Area 1
Area 2
DISPOSAL CtLL
INTERCEPTOft f
INSET 8 ' oisouacc
ON-SITE.
DISPOSAL AREAS
-------
99/26/98 Index Document Nuiber Order Page: 1
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-081-8001 To 0187 Date: 86/11/86
Title: Sesland Restoration Site Reaedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Quality Assurance Plan
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Oases & Floors
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docuaent Nuaber: 310-801-8188 To 0140 Date: 12/28/85
Title: Sealand Restoration Site Reaedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Health and Safety Plan
Type: PLAN
Author: Keefe, Larry: Daises & Moore
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docusent Nuaber: SLD-801-8141 To 0163 Date: 88/89/90
Title: (Letter of Transaittal forwarding attached 1984 work aanifests and test results for druas
reaoved fros the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ziaaerian, Keith: St Laurence NY, County of
Recipient: Nunes, Robert: US EPA
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-081-0164 To 0192 Date: 87/24/90
Title: (Letter of Transnittal forwarding attached drua saapling results and aanifests/bills for aaterials
reaoved in 1987-1989 froa the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ziaaerian, Keith: St Lawrence NY, County of
Recipient: Nunes, Robert: US EPA
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-881-8193 To 8251 Date: / /
Title: Sealand Restoration'Site Reaedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Work Plan
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Daaes & Moore
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
89/26/98
Index Document Nuiber Order
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Page: 3
Docuaent Nuaber: 310-881-1899 To 1091
Date: 11/15/88
Title: (Neao suaaarizing bids received for reioval project, and recoamending that the contract be
awarded to Sevenson for Alternate 2, off site incineration)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: HISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Sullivan, Edward 0: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Jorling, Thoaas C: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-001-1892 To 1093
Title: (Heao regarding Conceptual Contract Approval for Sealand Restoration)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: HARSINALIA
Author: Rockaore, Alan: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Date: 03/26/88
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-0B1-1094 To 1102
Title: Sealand Restoration Site Evaluation of Reaoval Project Bids
Type: FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL
Author: none: NY Dept of Environsental Conservation
Recipient: none: none
Date: / /
Docuaent Nueber: SLD-001-1103 To 1119
Date: 01/11/89
Title: (Meao forwarding attached final Citizen Participation Plan and the information sheet and agenda
for an upcosing public inforaation aeeting)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Slack, Joseph L: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Rockaore, Alan: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
-------
09/26/919 . Index Docuaent Nuaber Order Page: 2
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-081-8252 To 0488 Date: 09/81/86
Title: Final Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive Ha:ardous Haste Sites in the State of
New York - Phase II Investigations - Sealand Restoration Site
Type: PLAN . ' '' '
Author: none: Danes & Moore
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaenta! Conservation
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-081-U481 To 0738 Date: / /
Title: Sealand Restoration Site Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Voluse I of II: Report
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Daaes & Moore
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Attached: SLD-081-8739
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-001-8739 To 1085 Parent: SLD-001-3431 Date: / /
Title: Sealand Restoration Site Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Volune II of II: Appendices
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Daaes & Moore
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-001-1087 To 1088 Date: 88/15/98
Title: (Letter forwarding docuaents for the EPA checklist of Administrative Record Compilation)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Hill, Douglas: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Nunes, Robert: US EPA
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-881-1889 To 1889 Date: 11/15/83
Title: (Heao recoaiending "that the contract be awarded to Sevenson Environmental Services, for Alternate
2, off site incineration)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MARGINALIA; HISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Sullivan, Edward 0: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
-------
89/26/98 . Index Docutent Nusber Order Page: 5
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-881-1135 To 1135 . Date: / /
Title: (Letter transacting additional relevant records and the draft ROD for the Seaiand Site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Lupe, Raysond E: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation ':
Recipient: Pavlou, George: US EPA
Attached: SLD-881-1136 510-881-1137 SLD-B01-1138 SLD-881-1153
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-881-1136 To 1136 Parent: SLD-081-1135 Date: 83/33/88
Title: (Letter stating that due to current budget restrictions and lisitations, no action will be
taken at the site in FY 88 and no individual will be assigned to the project)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Luftig, Stephen D: US EPA
Recipient: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docuaent Nmber: SLD-881-1137 To 1137 Parent: SLD-881-1135 Date: 36/89/88
Title: (Heao acknowledging concurrence with the recoaaendation that the site be reaediated through
State Superfund)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: Bifera, Frank V: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Slack, Joseph L: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Docuaent Nunber: SLD-BB1-1138 To 1152 Parent: SLD-381-1135 Date: 88/84/88
Title: (Meao describing the site, sunarizing discussions since 97/29/88, and presenting recoaaendations
relative to reioval of retaining wastes at the site; materials attached)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: Slack, Joseph L: NY Dept of Environaentai Conservation
Recipient: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
-------
89/26/98
Index Docuaent Nuaber Order
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Page:
Docuaent Nueber: SLD-BB1-112B To 1122 Date: 86/84/98
Title: (Heeo forwarding attached revised Public Inforaation Sheet)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE ' . • -.
Author: Van Hoesen, James: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Nevin, Charles 0: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Docunent Nuaber: SLD-8Bi-1123 To 1128 Date: 88/85/37
Title: Sealand Restoration Site Public Inforaationai Meeting (presentation)
Type: PLAN
Author: Curtis, David J: NY Dept of Environsental Conservation
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuaber: SLD-8B1-1129 To 1132 Date: 87/18/87
Title: (Meao stating that a public informational meeting is required, and forwarding attached proposed
agenda and participant list)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ricotta, Frank T: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Nevin, Charles 0: NY Dept of Environ§ental Conservation
Docuaent Nuaber: SLD-B81-1133 To 1133 Date: 83/29/89
Title: (Heao regarding press release announcing the award of a contract for drua and soil excavation
reaoval and disposal to Sevenson Environaental Services)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Roclcaore, Alan: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Nevin, Charles 0: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Attached: SLD-881-1134
Docuaent Number: SLD-881-1134 To 1134 Parent: SLD-881-1133 Date: 89/28/89
Title: (NYSDEC Region 6 News Release stating that a public aeeting will be held 18/19/89 to discuss
the ongoing reaediation work being done at the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nevin, Charles 0: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: none: none
-------
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OP CONCURRENCE
-------
09/26/98 Index Docuient Nuiber Order Page: 6
SEALAND RESTORATION Docuaents
Document Nuaber: SLD-BB1-1153 To 1281 Parent: SLD-3B1-1135 Date: 88/15/88
Title: (Heio describing the site reatdial construction project, suaaari:ing staff discussions regarding
remediation, and presenting complex questions requiring upper lanageaent decisions; aaterials
attached) •
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Q'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
Recipient: Sullivan, Edward 0: NY Dept of Environaental Conservation
-------
APPENDIX 5-RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SEP-27-1990 13=49 FROM NYS. EMU IR. CONSERVE! I ON TO 8-5926S72122646607 P. 02
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
Comml9«lon«r
27
Mr. Bob Nunes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Nunes:
RE: Seal and USEPA ROD
Site #654014
The following paragraph describing site risk associated with the
^'.'. disposal area at the Sealand Restoration Site, It is provided
following our conversation on September 27, 1990 for revision of the
USEPA Sealand ROD.
Cell Disposal Area
The hazardous waste present in the cell disposal area posed the
risk of adversely affecting public health and the environment. Human
health could have been potentially impacted by ingestion of or dermal
contact with surfical tar, liquids or drum contents. In addition, the
potential inhalation of harmful dust or vapors from the cell disposal
area existed. The potential migration of contaminated groundwater to
drinking water aquifers could present additional human health risk in
the form of ingestion of contaminated drinking water or dermal contact
with water used for domestic purposes. Groundwater contaminant
migration would also pose environmental health risk to the
downgradient wetlands and ultimately, Sucker Brook, a pike spawning
ground. Aquatic life, animals and birds inhabiting the wetlands,
would be Impacted in the event of such migration.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions at
(518) 457-5677.
Douglas R. Hill
Environmental Engineer
Central Remedial Projects Section
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action (A)
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
-------
appropriate pursuant to the requirements of CERCLA and the
NCP. Since some of the 61 parties may be PRPs liable for any
costs incurred by EPA in connection with response action at
the Sealand site, EPA undertook to inform those parties of the
proposed plan, the alternatives considered, and EPA's
evaluation thereof. EPA also solicited comments form these
parties concerning that proposed plan. Section 104(c)(5)(B)
of CERCLA clearly grants the president the authority to credit
a state for remedial action costs incurred by the State which
are 'reasonable, documented, and direct out-of-pocket
expenditures, and which were funded prior to listing of the
facility on the National Priorities List (NPL).
To determine if the remedial actions conducted at the Sealand
Restoration site were reasonable, the EPA needs to determine
if the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance
with the requirements of CERCLA, and to review the engineering
components and remediation goals of the selected remedy. The
Agency also needs to confirm that the public was provided with
an adequate opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
remedial plan prior to its implementation. Finally, it is
appropriate for the Agency to provide the public with a
consolidated source of information about the history,
characteristics, and risks posed by the conditions at the
site, cleanup alternatives considered, their evaluation, and
the rationale behind the selected remedy. As these are
normally functions carried out during the development of a
Record of Decision (ROD), EPA considers the issuance of this
ROD to be an appropriate way to document EPA's findings for
this site.
Q: One commenter stated that it is not appropriate to publish
a Proposed Plan and solicit comments before any potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) have been identified.
A: EPA provided information about the State's proposed
remedial plan, and EPA's evaluation thereof, together with
information request letters to 61 persons and companies who
may be PRPs. Although these recipients did not receive
general notice that they are PRPs, there exists sufficient
information to warrant the submittal of Request for
Information letters. These individuals and companies were
given 30 days in which to provide information concerning their
actions relating to the Sealand Restoration site and to
provide comments to the Agency on the remedial plan carried
out at the site by the State.
Q: One commenter objected to running of the comment period
concurrently with the period during which the same persons
are also required to respond to Requests for Information under
Saction 104(e).
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SEALAND RESTORATION- SITE
Lisbon, N.Y.
September 1990
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a public
comment period from August 24, 1990 through September 24, 1990 for
interested parties to comment on the remedial plan selected and
implemented by the State for the Sealand Restoration site.
Information describing that plan and the other alternatives
considered was distributed to 61 individuals and companies and
placed in repositories at the following locations: Lisbon Town
Hall;, NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York; USEPA, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York. EPA received three written comments
during the comment period. Comments were received from the Ford
Motor Company, the General Motors Company, and the New York Power
Authority.
The comments have been summarized and are presented in this
section. EPA responses to the comments are also provided.
Q: All three commenters objected to the use of a "Proposed
Plan" for the purpose of approving past response actions,
including the past expenditure of funds. One commenter
asserted that the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 117, which
provides for the issuance of a Proposed Plan "before adoption
of any plan for remedial action to be undertaken..." does not
contemplate the use of a Proposed Plan in connection with
making a determination of whether or not the State or any
other party is entitled to reimbursement for response costs
it has incurred. Another commenter stated that EPA is
choosing alternatives in order to justify passing the costs
of such investigations and remedial activities to those
claimed to be liable under CERCLA, and states that such
procedure. is not in conformance with CERCLA, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) or other applicable law or regulations.
A: Although the document EPA distributed to the 61 parties in
August, 1990 was titled "Proposed Plan", in fact the proposed
plan for this site was prepared by NYSDEC in 1987; the RI/FS,
which identified the Preferred Remedial Alternatives. The
Preferred Remedial Alternatives were submitted for public
review and comment in August of 1987 and were subsequently
selected and implemented by the State and the County. The
purpose of this ROD is to set forth EPA's reasons for
concluding that NYSDEC's selection of that proposed plan was
-------
Q: One commenter stated that the information in Tables 1 and
2 did not indicate that the wastes were "hazardous wastes"
under 40 CFR 261. The commenter also stated that because
Table 2 indicated total concentrations and not extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity concentrations, the wastes were not
hazardous wastes.
A: The commenter misinterpreted the text in the document EPA
distributed to the 61 parties to mean that the information in
Table 2 referred to EP toxicity concentrations and not total
concentrations. The commenter is correct to indicate that
Table 2 shows total concentrations and not EP toxicity
concentrations. More to the point, however, the wastes found
at the site do contain hazardous substances as that term is
used in CERCLA. Both Tables 1 and 2 as well as indicate the
presence of specific compounds in both the cell disposal and
drum storage areas which are spent solvents and therefore are
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes
as per 40 CFR 261. All compounds which are listed hazardous
under RCRA are also hazardous substances under CERCLA.
Q: One commenter stated that although groundwater analyses
indicated levels of some chemicals above drinking water
standards, the levels were not compared to background levels.
The commenter adds that without a comparison to background
levels, . any conclusions that the groundwater was
"contaminated" would have been premature.
A: The commenter's assertion that background levels were not
provided is incorrect. Groundwater flow patterns for the
overburden aquifer indicate that monitoring wells DM-1, DM-
4, and DM-5, although located within the site boundary, were
located upgradient of the cell disposal area. Monitoring well
DM-5 was also sufficiently removed from the drum storage area
to act as a background well for that location. With the
exception of,one detection of nickel in monitoring well DM-
1, no hazardous substance list (HSL) compounds were found in
these wells.
Q: One commenter states that the Proposed Plan contains
insufficient technical data to determine whether or not the
interim actions performed were appropriate, cost effective or
consistent with the NCP.
A: The documents EPA provided to the 61 parties identify and
solicit comment on the preferred alternative for remediating
the site or operable unit, and explain the reasons for the
preference, and describe other remedial options that were
considered. These documents do not include a specific
evaluation of alternatives with respect to nine specific
criteria, because the proposed plan selected by the NYSDEC
-------
A: EPA's position is that it is neither unreasonable nor
inappropriate to require parties to answer requests for
information and solicit public comments concurrently.
Furthermore, EPA has granted all requests for extensions of
the time period in which to respond to the Section 104(e)
Request for Information. ' :. :.
Q: All three commenters objected to the denial by EPA of
requests to extend the public comment period. One commenter
wished to register its strong objection to the refusal of EPA
to extend the comment period as requested in a September 13,
1990 letter to EPA, and considered the refusal to extend the
comment period to constitute arbitrary and capricious action
by EPA. This commenter stated that it reserves the right to
submit future comments as information becomes available
concerning the site. Another commenter stated that the
30-day comment period does not offer sufficient time to
evaluate a program that has been proceeding for several years
without public input.
A: The NCP allows for extensions of public comment periods if
timely requests are submitted. The NCP indicates that timely
requests are generally within the first 2 weeks of the comment
period. Since both requests were received after the passage
of the first 2 weeks, they were not considered timely, and
were, therefore, denied. As for additional comments received
after the close of the public comment period, EPA will
consider those comments with respect to subsequent work to be
conducted at the site.
The assertion that the 30-day comment period is not sufficient
to evaluate a program that has been proceeding without public
input is not justified. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has solicited community
participation throughout the history of the site. The
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) report for
the Sealand Restoration site, including the States proposed
remedial plan was made available to the public from August 5,
1987 to September 4, 1987 in the NYSDEC Albany office and the
NYSDEC Regional Office located in Watertown, New York, and at
the St. Lawrence County Planning Board office, Canton; Public
Library, Ogdensburg; and Town Clerk's Office, Lisbon. A
public meeting was held on August 5, 1987 at the Lisbon Town
Hall to report the results of the RI performed at the site,
describe the basis for the proposed remedial clean-up plan,
and receive public input on the alternatives considered.
Subsequent public meetings were held on February 14, 1989 and
October 19, 1989. At the February meeting, discussions were
held on implementation and time schedules for excavation and
disposal of buried drums and contaminated soil from the cell
disposal area. At the October meeting, information on the
progress of the site clean-up was provided.
-------
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards,(ARARs).
A: The selection by NYSDEC of off-site incineration as the
preferred remedial action in the' cell disposal area was
considered the most appropriate action to comply with existing
ARARs, particularly the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
in 40 CFR 268, since the composition of the waste was known
to include spent solvents which are regulated under LDRs. The
selection of off-site disposal of excavated soils and wastes
from the drum storage area was also conducted to satisfy
ARARs.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not provide
long-term effectiveness.
A: The implemented remedial actions effectively removed
contaminated soils and drummed wastes, thus permanently
eliminating a major source of groundwater contamination from
the site. Had these measures not been implemented, the
contaminants would have continued to migrate and created
leachate. The implemented action for the cell disposal area,
Alternative CD-4, provided a high degree of effectiveness,
since the disposal cell was covered with a multi-layered
engineered cap to control the infiltration of rainwater
through residual contaminants and to minimize leachate
generation. The expected lifetime of the cap is estimated to
exceed 30 years. The implemented alternative for the drum
storage area, Alternative DS-2, specified off-site treatment
and disposal of the excavated materials. This effectively and
permanently removed the source of contamination from the site.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not provide
short-term effectiveness with respect to hazardous materials
transferred to other sites.
A: The interim remedial actions taken at the site included
off-site transport and disposal of contaminated soils to a
RCRA-permitted facility. Such activities posed some short-
term risks of exposure to the community during transportation
of the wastes to a treatment facility. However, mitigative
measures to reduce the probability of exposure were
implemented.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not recognize
the preference for onsite treatment.
A: EPA has no policy or guidance recognizing a preference for
onsite treatment as opposed to offsite treatment. There is
a statutory preference for the treatment of hazardous wastes
-------
was not intended to be a final, complete remedy for the site.
In addition, such a comparative analysis would not assist EPA
in approving an action which already has been completed. The
actions were considered interim remedial actions and were
undertaken to reduce the threat from immediate hazards and to
remove the potential sources of contamination present. EPA
does consider the actions taken by the NYSDEC to be
appropriate, cost effective, and to be consistent with the
objectives of the NCP.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not comply
with EPA criteria for selecting remedial actions.
A: The criteria employed by NYSDEC included compliance with
federal and state regulations, protection of human health and
the environment, implementability, cost effectiveness, short-
term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness, and community
acceptance. The criteria are discussed in detail in the
State's RI/FS report prepared by Dames and Moore. EPA
considers the criteria utilized by NYSDEC to evaluate the
remedial alternatives to have been appropriate.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not meet
cleanup standards.
A: As the actions taken were intended to be interim actions
only, EPA recognizes that soil, surface water, and ground
water cleanup standards must be addressed as part of the final
remedy for the site. It is for this reason that confirmatory
soil sampling and additional groundwater and surface water
sampling are to be conducted as part of the supplemental RI/FS
for this site.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not protect
human health and the environment.
A: The implemented alternatives for the cell disposal area
and drum storage area are protective of human health and the
environment. The alternatives specified the removal of
drummed wastes and contaminated soils from the disposal cell
and drum storage areas and the placement of a cover and cap
over the remaining residuals in the cell disposal area. Their
implementation resulted in the reduction of the risks
associated with direct contact, and minimized the migration
of contamination into the groundwater. This resulted in the
elimination of a long-term source of existing and potential
groundwater and surface water contamination and likely limited
the expansion . of the contaminated groundwater plume. EPA
considers the interim actions taken to be effective in
mitigating the risks to public health and the environment
associated with the migration of those contaminants off-site.
-------
8
community at this time.
Q: One commenter stated that the description of the response
actions performed by the NYSDEC and the St. Lawrence County
is inadequate.
A: The descriptions provided by EPA of the actions already
taken by the State were not intended to provide an exhaustive
review of the actions taken, but rather to provide the public
with a summary of their scope and results. Further
information is available in documents located at the
repositories. The NYSDEC will, shortly, be receiving a final
remediation report from their consultant concerning the
remediation project in the cell disposal area. This report
will provide a more comprehensive summary of the project.
Q: One commenter objected to the costs of inspection,
investigation, remediation, removal, oversight, or indirect
costs of St. Lawrence County.
A: The action undertaken by St. Lawrence County to remove
wastes from the drum storage area in 1987-88 was authorized
using funds appropriated by the New York State Legislature.
The recommendation to remove wastes from this area was
specified as the preferred alternative in NYSDEC's RI/FS
report. EPA considers all actions taken related to the
remediation of the drum storage area were necessary and were
beneficial in reducing risks to human health and the
environment from exposure to hazardous wastes. EPA has not
yet undertaken a review of the State or County expenditures
in implementing those actions.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions taken by the
NYSDEC and St. Lawrence County did not address contamination
pathways and that further investigation by EPA illustrates
the inadequacy of the studies performed in the past by state
and county agencies.
A: A baseline human health risk assessment which utilized
procedures outlined in the draft Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual was conducted during the NYSDEC RI/FS. The
risk assessment identified contaminants of concern, exposure
pathways, media transport routes, and human exposure points.
An EPA review of the baseline risk assessment section in the
NYSDEC RI/FS report concluded that the document thoroughly
discussed all exposure scenarios presented. In the
supplemental RI/FS, a baseline human health and environmental
risk assessment will be undertaken to determine present risks
posed by the site. It should be noted that the NYSDEC action
was an interim action which may need to be supplemented by EPA
in order to eliminate risks or reduce them to acceptable
levels.
-------
to reduce their toxicity, mobility, and volume. The
incineration of the hazardous materials from the cell disposal
area is consistent with the statutory preference for treatment
of hazardous wastes.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions do not reduce
the volume, mobility, or toxicity of the materials.
A: The implemented alternative for the cell disposal area,
Alternative CD-4, resulted in significant reductions in the
volume and toxicity of the treated material by thermal
destruction of the waste. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and semi-volatile organics would be removed from the material.
Alternative CD-4 reduced the mobility of contaminants, by
minimizing, leachate generation through the construction of a
multi-layered cap to control rainwater infiltration.
Q: One commenter stated that past actions are not cost
effective.
A: The implemented remedy for the drum storage area,
Alternative DS-2, with a present worth cost of $90,000, was
the least costly of the drum storage area alternatives. The
implemented remedy mitigated site hazards as effectively as
the off-site incineration alternative.
The implemented remedy for the cell disposal area, Alternative
CD-4, was cost-effective because it provided overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost; the net present worth
value being approximately $11,928,620. (The final remediation
cost was later estimated to be $20 million, due to the
additional drums, soil, and water that were found in and
removed from the cell.) Although this cost was 40% higher
than Alternative CD-5, which included on-site incineration
with cover and cap, Alternative CD-5 was not selected due to
anticipated community opposition to on-site incineration and
the additional time needed for trial-burn testing and
regulatory approvals prior to implementation.
Q: One commenter stated that the past actions have not been
demonstrated to be acceptable to the community and that EPA
assumed what community reaction would be.
A: The implemented alternatives were presented to the
community at the public hearing held by NYSDEC on August 5,
1987 and a 30-day public comment period was also provided at
that time. A transcript of the public meeting does not
indicate any objections by the public concerning the remedial
alternatives proposer* ?••>- NYSDEC. A copy of NYSDEC's written
responses to comments :".s .included in this ROD as Appendix 6.
EPA was not involved in the assessment of community reaction
in 1987. EPA has not received adverse comments from the
-------
APPENDIX 6 - NYSDEC RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
Q: One commenter stated that EPA's intention to take
confirmatory samples at the site indicates that the past
sampling performed by the State and County was inadequate.
A: Confirmatory soil samples will 'be collected at the site
during the supplemental RI/FS so as to supplement the existing
data base and to identify current conditions at the site. The
data will be compared with soil cleanup action levels to
determine if any additional remediation of soils is warranted.
Q: One commenter stated that the disposal of the contaminated
soils was not in conformance with Land Disposal Restrictions.
A: Since the wastes present in the cell disposal area were
known to contain spent solvents, NYSDEC selected offsite
incineration of the excavated soils and wastes from the cell
disposal area so as to ensure compliance with the Land
Disposal Restrictions.
The disposal of the wastes from the drum storage area were
not subject to Land Disposal Restrictions at the time of
implementation.
Q: One commenter objected to the costs of public meetings on
the grounds that no notice of such public meetings were
promulgated or given to the alleged PRPs.
A: The notice of public meeting held on August 5, 1987 was
published in the Watertown Daily Times on July 22 and July
25, 1987. The publication of the notice in the local
newspaper satisfied public notification requirements of public
meetings in accordance with the NCP.
-------
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) held a Public Informational Meeting on August 5, 1987 at the
Lisbon Town Hall to discuss the Sealand Restoration Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) performed by Dames and Moore,
under contract to the NYSDEC. Present at the meeting were
representatives from: NYSDEC, Dames and Moore, New York State Department
of Health (NYSDOH), St. Lawrence County, Town of Lisbon, concerned
citizens, and the news media. ' . • ••
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study was made available for
public review on July , 1987 at the City of Ogdensburg Public Library,
the Lisbon Town Hall, the St. Lawrence County Environmental Management
Council's Office in Canton, the NYSDEC Region 6 Office and the NYSDEC
Central Office. The following is a summary of the questions, comments
and responses received during the comment period, either at the public
meeting or through correspondence.
QUESTION: Was testing done on various levels in each of the on-site
monitoring wells installed during the Remedial Investigation?
RESPONSE: In many locations different levels of the wells were tested.
In each wel'l location, Dames and Moore installed a shallow
well and Deep well to monitor the upper and lower level.
Continuous split spoon samples of the soils were collected
during dri11 ing.
QUESTION: Was contamination greater in the shallow or deeper aquifer at
the downgradient well locations adjacent to the disposal cell?
RESPONSE: The nature of contamination is different in the differnt
levels. In the upper zone, volatile organic contamination was
found, while in the lowere zone inorganic metals were
observed.
QUESTION: What was the depth of bedrock?
RESPONSE: Bedrock varied with an average depth around 30 feet.
QUESTION: Does the NYSDEC know the extent of contamination at the bottom
and sides of the disposal site?
RESPONSE: At this point in time, extent of contamination is unknown
directly under the disposal cell. This is the reason that the
NYSDEC wants to do a reassessment on the bottom of the cell
once excavation is completed. The NYSDEC is hoping for a
clean closure. However, this will be based on sampling of the
bottom of excavation, its analysis and the reassessment of the
trench bottom.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SEALAND RESTORATION SITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
Town of Lisbon, St. Lawrence County, New York
by the
New York. State Department of Environmental Conservation
-------
RESPONSE: No. The County has been granted this money through the Local
- Assistance Grant Program. There has been no contingencies
upon EPA's approval. The County is proceeding to engaged a
contractor to clean up the empty drum storage area behind the
barn.
QUESTION: How fast will the contamination migrate per year from the
disposal cell? :' :
RESPONSE: The answer to this question is unknown. Off-site migration
depends upon the configurations of soil in the direction of
migration. Low levels of contamination have been found in the
monitoring wells downgradient. At this point, these levels do not
raise a concern in relation to the homeowner wells. A well (well
#9) was constructed further downgradient of the disposal cell to
address this concern. No detectable organics were observed in this
well during the times of sampling.
QUESTION: How much will the cost be for cleanup of the disposal cell?
RESPONSE: The RI/FS Report has documented an estimated cleanup cost to
be approximately $2.1 million.
QUESTION: Will the cost for cleanup be higher next year with respect to
this year cleanup costs?
RESPONSE: Yes.
QUESTION: How often will wells be monitored around the site?
RESPONSE: The environmental monitoring program will be accomplished
after site cleanup. This question has been answered
previously and will be dependant upon a design of this program
based on reassessments after excavation.
QUESTION: Are the lands now being farmed? Will it be alright to farm
the lands?
RESPONSE: The NYSDEC has instructed farmers not to use the land until
the RI/FS is completed. NYSDEC was at the site just prior to
the information meeting and observed that farmers have taken
hay from the front fields. Planting and harvesting of corn
has not been performed on-site for the past two years. The
NYSDEC study shows low levels of contamination detected in the
farmlands. The results were obtained from 40 samples
collected throughout the farmlands. Levels of contamination
has been reported well below typical landspread application
rates. Therefore, as long as levels of contamination are
below the typical_Liiid_spread application rates used for
farmlands, farm^geratfonjcan be performed in all areas except
directly over the ,'di sposal cell.
-------
QUESTION: How often will monitoring be accomplished at the site after
remediation? Who will fund this monitoring? and, Where would
the reports be provided for public information?
RESPONSE: 1. The Environmental Monitoring Program has not been
designed to date. The intent would be to perform
quarterly monitoring for the first couple of years and
then reduced to anual or biannual monitoring depending
upon the sample results. Eventually, the decision will
be made that the site is cleaned and monitoring will not
be necessary.
2. NYSDEC will be responsible for monitoring and the funding
associated with this monitoring.
3. In the initial years, there will be a on-going public
information process to keep the public informed of site
progress. This process may be implemented through
keeping the established repository.at the Town of Lisbon
Town Hall or at the NYSDEC Regional Office.
COMMENT: A local repository would be a benefit for the local residents.
QUESTION: How deep will excavation be accomplished in the empty drum
storage area?
RESPONSE: The area is shown as a 25 X 25 X 1 cubic foot area in the
RI/FS. Again, the depth of excavation will depend on soil
analysis of the bottom of the excavated area.
QUESTION: What is the condition of the drums near the barn area?
RESPONSE: These drums are primarily empty and stored on their sides.
The drums are in fairly good condition with only a few showing
obvious deterioration.
QUESTION: When is cleanup going to take place?
RESPONSE: The timeschedule depends upon the USEPA decision. The NYSDEC
submitted a request for removal action to the USEPA on May 1,
1987. The USEPA may be making this decision by the fall of
this year. It looks now that if the USEPA does this removal
action, the work will not be started until next Spring. If
the USEPA disapproves this action, the NYSDEC would be
targeting work as soon as possible , therafter.
QUESTION: Would the money the County received from the NYS Legislature
be held back until the USEPA decision is made?
-------
24. *JON MONTAN CANTON, N.Y. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY EMC
25. KEITH ZIMMERMAN CANTON, N.Y. ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY EMC
26. *ALAN GOGAN-TILSTONE BALDWINSVILLE, N.Y. DAMES & MOORE
27. *FRANK T. RICOTTA ALBANY, N.Y. ' NYSDEC, DSHW-BERA
28. *DAVID J. CURTIS ALBANY, N.Y. NYSDEC, DSHW-BERA
29. JEFF TRAD ALBANY, N.Y. NYSDEC, DSHW-BERA
30. *JOHN KENNA WATERTOWN, N.Y. NYSDEC, REGION 6
31. *RONALD HEERKENS SYRACUSE, N.Y. NYSDOH, SYRACUSE REGION
31. PAMELA MORELY CANTON, N.Y. COURT STENOGRAPHER
* PANEL MEMBERS
-------
SEALAND RESTORATION
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1987
7:00 P.M.
NAME
1. .ANTHONY LABARGE
2. STEPHEN WALLACE
3. GAIL TEELE
4. RANDALL TEELE
5. VICTOR E. PISANI
6'. STEVEN TEELE
7. EDWARD J. KNIGHT
8. HOLLIS MCBATH
9. EILEEN MCBATH
10. LEONA HUTCHISON
11. ELENANOR GEARY
12. JOHN SHEEHAN
13. BETSY KAPLAN
14. WILLIAM BARTLETS
15. EVERETT THOMPSON
16. WILLIAM P. FIENAN
17. SANDY D. SAHIO
18. TIM FLACK
19. MARY LOGAN
20. WINIFRED VEITCH
21. RITA MARTIN
22. DEMETRA HURST
23. ARTHUR HURST
ATTENDANCE
ADDRESS
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
MASSENA.N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
RTE 1,
OGDENSBURG, N.Y.
MCFADDEN RD.,
LISBON, N.Y.
WATERTOWN, N.Y.
POTSDAM, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
RTE 2, BOX 323,
LISBON, NEW YORK
WADDINGTON, N.Y.
BATAVIA, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
BOX 185,
WADDINGTON, N.Y.
RTE 1,
WADDINGTON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
LISBON, N.Y.
AFFILIATION
LISBON TOWN SUPERVISOR
NYSDOH, MASSENA DISTRICT
LISBON/MADRID CO. LEGISLAJOR
WATERTOWN DAILY TIMES
SENATOR MCHUGH's OFFICE
-------
QUESTION: Who owns the site?
RESPONSE: The Owner-on-Record in the St. Lawrence County Courthouse is
Sealand Restoration, Inc. with a mailing address to Mr. John
Fedak, Ogdensburg, New York.
QUESTION: Who is financially responsible?
RESPONSE: The NYSDOL is looking into this matter.
QUESTION: When was Sealand Restoration in operation?
RESPONSE: 1979-80
Is ther any immediate danger in leaving the contamination in
f()r another year?
RESPONSE: There is always an imminent danger when drums of contaminates"
are present and leaking into the environment. There is a
definite known release of contaminants identified
contaminating the environment. The RI/FS sample analysis show
only low level contamination eminating from the site and do
not show immediate concerns to private water supplies.
Public Health risks are due primarily to uncontrolled hazards
at the site. The remedial actions recommended control these
concerns. Migration pathways or flow of contamination off the
site is not a main issue. A snow fence and the main gate
constructed at the site address these concerns.
QUESTION: How will the NYSDEC know that remediation will be done
properly at the site and off-site.
RESPONSE: An on site monitor will be provided at the site during site
remediation. Also the NYSDEC/USEPA requires that all TSDF are
in compliance with USEPA requirements. Laws are much more
stringent during the past few years. Tighter controls have
been put into effect and should alleviate this concern.
------- |