United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-89/086
September 1989
SEP A
Superfund
Record of Decision
BEC Trucking, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-89/086
3. Redpienr;• Acceaaion No.
4. Tide «nd SubtMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
EEC Trucking, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Oat*
09/28/89
7. Autfior(a)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name md Addim*
10. Pro|ecVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or G»nt(G) No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Addresa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notn
16. Abetrict (Umlt: 200 word*)
The EEC Trucking site, also known as the Binghamton Equipment Company, is in the town
of Vestal, Bropme County, New York. The 3.5-acre site is an open lot which overlies a
Class II aquifer. Land use neighboring the site is primarily commercial/industrial, but
includes wetlands or marsh area to the west. Prior to the mid-1960s, the EEC Trucking
site was an unimproved marshland. The original owner, Haial Trucking, later to become
EEC Trucking, filled some of the marshlands with various fill materials, including fly
ash from a local power company. EEC Trucking, Haial Trucking's successor, operated a
combination truck body fabrication and truck maintenance facility. Paint thinners and
enamel reducers used during operations, and waste hydraulic oil and waste motor oil
reportedly generated during operations were stored in a drum storage area on the western
portion of the site. A 1982 State inspection identified approximately 50 drums, 20 of
which contained waste engine or cutting oils, enamel reducers, paint thinners, and waste
solvents. The drums in the storage area were removed in 1983 along with some stained
soil around the drums. In 1988 extensive sampling of ground water, surface water, and
soil revealed low-level contamination. The suspected source of onsite ground water and
surface water contamination appears to be a leaking underground storage tank on a
neighboring property. Remedial activities are currently being undertaken at the
neighboring site to address any ground water or surface water contamination at the site
resulting from the tank's leakage. (Continued on next page)
17. Document Analyal* a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision -EEC Trucking, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: none
Key Contaminants: none
b. Menti«er*/Open-&tded Term*
e. COSAT1 FMdrtSroup
18. AvaUabUty Statement
18. Security CUae (TMa Report)
None
20. Security CUae (TN* Page)
None
21. No.o
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-89/086
EEC Trucking, NY
16. Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action. A monitoring program
will be established to ensure that this remedy continues to be protective of human health
and the environment. The estimated cost for this remedial action will be determined
during the development of the proposed monitoring program.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
EEC Trucking, Town of Vestal, Broome County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the EEC Trucking site in Vestal, New York, developed in accor-
dance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, 42 USC § 9601, et seq., and, to the extent
applicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for this site. The attached index
identifies the items which comprise the administrative record -
upon which the selection of the remedial action is based.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
consultation with the State of New York, has determined that the
EEC Trucking site does not pose a significant threat to human
health or the environment; and, therefore, taking additional
remedial measures is not appropriate. This determination is
based on previous clean-up activities conducted at the site in
1983, remedial investigation activities conducted by EPA in 1988,
and a Feasibility Study in 1989, which evaluated appropriate
remedial action alternatives. Thus, "No Further Action" is the
selected remedy for the EEC Trucking site. A monitoring program
will be established to ensure that this remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the environment.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy, no further remedial action with monitoring,
is protective of human health and the environment.
William J. Maszy/nskiy/T.E. Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
EEC TRUCKING SITE
TOWN OF VESTAL, BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. 0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2 . 0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
3 . 0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
4. 0 SCOPE AN.D ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
5 . 0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
6 . 0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO FURTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVE 9
8. 0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 10
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I TABLES
APPENDIX II FIGURES
APPENDIX III ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
-1-
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Binghamton Equipment Company or EEC Trucking site is a flat-
lying, open lot of approximately 3.5 acres located in the Town of
Vestal, Broome County, New York (see Figure 1). The area sur-
rounding the site is primarily commercial/industrial. The site
is bordered by 1) Stewart Road to the south, 2) properties owned
by Lou Korchak to the east and north, including Kay Terminals, a
petroleum tank farm and distribution terminal located on the
eastern border of the site, and 3) the Stewart Trailer Park to
the west, which includes-a wetlands or marsh area directly
adjacent to the site (see Figure 2).
The BEC Trucking site is located in the glaciated portion of the
Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. The bedrock underly-
ing the site consists of the Late Devonian shales interbedded
with sandstones of the West Falls Group. The overburden at the
site has been divided into seven units: sand (ice contact
deposit), silty sand (outwash deposit), silt and silty clay
(outwash deposit), sand and gravel (outwash/braided stream
deposit), silty clay (lacustrine deposit), fly ash fill and fill
material, consisting of silt and very fine sand. The geologic
cross section is shown in Figure 3.
The site drains to the north and west for surface water runoff,
through the drainage ditch and marsh, and the direction of
ground-water flow at the site is northwest (see Figure 4). The
water table is encountered approximately seven feet below the
surface. Ground-water flow velocities range from 3.9 feet/year
to 23.7 feet/year at the site, based on field measurements. The
aquifer system in the Vestal area is classified under the federal
ground-water classification system as a Class II ground water
(current and potential source of drinking water) and under the
New York State system as a Class GA ground-water (source of
potable water supply).
Field observations show that the western marsh area also receives
surface water runoff from the south side of Stewart Road. A
wetlands delineation performed at the site identifies a stream
which interfaces directly with the marsh area to the west of the
site and eventually discharges to the Susquehanna River.
The Town of Vestal manages the local public water supply system,
which includes a series of water supply wells at various
locations throughout the Vestal area. The closest drinking water
wells to the site are those of the Town of Vestal Water District
#4 Well Field, which is located near the southern bank of the
-------
-2-
Susquehanria River and is about 5000 feet to the north of the
site.
Residents and commercial/industrial operations in the vicinity of
the site are serviced by the Vestal public water supply system;
there are no known private wells used for drinking purposes which
are impacted by the site. A private well at the Stewart Trailer
Park is no longer used as a potable water supply; the sampling of
this well indicated no significant contamination of concern. Any
private one or two-family dwelling can legally connect to a
public water supply system when such a system is within 100 feet
of said dwelling.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Prior to the mid-1960s, the BEC Trucking site was an unimproved
marshlands. The original owner, Haial Trucking, later to become
BEC Trucking, filled in some of the marshlands with various fill
materials, including fly ash from a local power company. This
material was dumped across the site to bring the pre-existing
grade up to a level above the marsh; the thickness of the fill
ranges from 5 to 10 feet. Natural imported silt, sand and gravel
fill materials were used as soil cover across the site and are
currently exposed at the surface. Data from and visual inspec-
tion of the soil borings and test pits indicate the thickness of
the surface soil cover ranges from 1.5 to 2.3 feet.
Haial Trucking used the property for storing trucks and tankers.
BEC Trucking, Haial's successor, operated a combination truck
body fabrication and truck maintenance facility. Quantities of
waste hydraulic oil and waste motor oil were reportedly generated
during this operation. Paint thinners and enamel reducers were
also used during the operation. Drums containing waste engine
oil, cutting oil and other liquid waste products were routinely
stored in the drum storage area on the western side of the site.
In 1982, the Town of Vestal notified the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) that drums were being
stored at the site. In May 1982, the NYSDEC performed a site
inspection which revealed approximately fifty 55-gallon drums in
the drum storage area. About twenty drums contained various
liquid-type waste materials, including waste engine or cutting
oils, enamel reducers, paint thinners and waste solvents; the
others were empty.
In January 1983, a composite sample was obtained from eight of
the existing drums. The analysis of the waste oil sample
revealed a total organic halides (TOX) concentration of 1.4 parts
per million (ppm). An Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity
-------
-3-
analysis indicated concentrations of lead (44.6 ppm) and cadmium
(1.14 ppm). There was no soil, surface water, ground water or
sediment sampling performed at the site during the course of this
preliminary investigation. The site was included on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986 with a Hazard Ranking System
(MRS) score of 37.52, which was primarily based on two assump-
tions 1) the potential for exposure to lead in ground water and
2) that such an exposure pathway could develop. EEC Trucking is
currently ranked at 764 on the May 1989 update of the NPL.
In 1983, COGS, Inc. purchased the BEC Trucking property and a
portion of the property was transferred to Downside Risk, Inc.
In 1986, John E. Walsh, the current site owner, purchased all
outstanding stock of COGS, Inc. and Downside Risk, Inc.
In August 1983, COGS, Inc. contracted with an NYSDEC-approved
waste oil hauler to perform a removal of the fifty surface drums.
Some stained soil around the drums was excavated and contained in
drums on-site. This activity represented a removal action that
was performed at the site.
In September 1987, a notice letter was sent to John E. Walsh,
president of COGS, Inc. and Downside Risk, Inc., notifying him of
the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process and
offering him the opportunity to conduct the RI/FS. In March
1988, Mr. Walsh notified EPA that he declined the offer to
conduct the RI/FS.
Later in 1988, EPA conducted an RI, which included extensive
sampling of ground water, surface water and sediments, and
surface and subsurface soils.
The site is currently used for open storage of assorted construc-
tion materials, including fencing, and for sawmilling operations
by the present owner.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
There has been limited community interest shown with respect to
activities at the site. Prior to beginning field investigation
activities, EPA met with some of the local community groups and
Town of Vestal officials to give a preliminary overview of the
Superfund activity. A public meeting was held when the final RI
and FS reports and Proposed Plan were released for public com-
ment.
The RI and FS reports were reposited in the Vestal Town Hall and
the Vestal Public Library. The Administrative Record for the
-------
-4-
site has been located in the Vestal Public Library. The public
comment period commenced on July 20, 1989 when the RI/FS docu-
ments were made available through a press release. A public
notice, published on July 27, 1989 in two local newspapers,
announced the availability of the Proposed Plan.
A public meeting was held on August 8, 1989 at the Vestal Town
Hall. Here EPA presented the results of the RI/FS and the
preferred remedial alternative for the site as identified in the
Proposed Plan. Approximately fifteen persons attended the public
meeting. A transcript of the public meeting has been made
available in the repositories. The public comment period closed
on August 21, 1989.
All comments have been addressed in the Responsiveness Summary
(see Appendix V).
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The BEC Trucking site was considered as a single operable unit
RI/FS, including both on-site and off-site investigations.
The specific objectives of the RI for the BEC Trucking site were
the following:
To identify all potential source areas of contamination;
To characterize the nature and extent of possible contamina-
tion in environmental media on-site and off-site, including
soils, sediments, surface water and ground water;
To determine the hydrogeologic and geologic characteristics
of the site to assess potential present or future impacts on
downgradient receptors; and,
To assess the present and future potential risks to public
health and the environment caused by site contamination in
the absence of any remedial action.
The field investigation consisted of the following: 1) geophysi-
cal surveying, 2) soil-gas surveying, 3) test pit excavations,
4) surface water and sediment sampling, 5) surface and subsurface
soil sampling, and 6) monitoring well installation for ground-
water sampling and hydrogeologic testing (see Figure 5). This
investigation was conducted during the summer and fall of 1988.
Ground-water was sampled in two rounds; the data that were used
-------
-5-
for the RI/FS analysis, including the risk assessment, were from
the second round of sampling.
The 1983 removal of the fifty drums that were stored on-site
represented a removal of source contaminants. The HRS score was
based primarily on potential contamination which was identified
as a result of the composite sampling of eight of the drums
containing waste materials. No other sampling was performed on
the site at that time; there had been no reports of ground-water,
surface water or soil contamination resulting from activities at
the site. No prior investigation of these potential pathways of
contamination was conducted until the 1988 RI activities.
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The field investigation identified five potential source areas of
contamination on the site (see Figure 6). These potential source
areas are as follows, with the major contaminants identified: l)
the former drum staging areas—no major contaminants, 2) the
southeast corner of the site—polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
3) an oil/gasoline seep area—lead, volatile organics and PAHs,
4) the drainage ditch areas—lead and PAHs, and 5) the fly ash
fill area—arsenic.
The field sampling and the risk assessment, conducted during the
RI, revealed limited and low level contamination (see Tables
1-6), with the following three areas of concern:
-carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), e.g.,
benzo(a)pyrene and chrysene, in surface soils and sediments
-benzene in ground water
-arsenic in ground water
During the course of the RI, an in-ground oil seep/leak was
observed entering the drainage ditch on the east side of the
site. Subsequent investigations by the NYSDEC spill response
personnel revealed that this seep/leak was directly related to an
underground storage tank on the Kay Terminals property, which
contained leaded gasoline and diesel fuel. Currently, on-going
remedial activities are being undertaken by the property owner; a
ground-water pumping and treatment system to remediate the source
of contaminants is being developed to address any related
ground-water and surface water contamination on the EEC Trucking
site resulting from the Kay Terminals spill.
PAHs are very common in industrial soils and are produced from
various combustion processes. Since PAHs can be related to on-
-------
-6-
site operations, the primary remedial action objective was to
consider limiting current and future human exposure to cPAH-
contaminated soils only.
Benzene was detected at a level of 3 parts per billion (ppb) in
the ground water from only one on-site monitoring well (MW-3).
This value is above the NYS standard of non-detect for Class GA
ground waters, but below the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL)
of 5 ppb.
Reduction of benzene in ground water is not considered as a
remedial action objective due to the following: 1) the petroleum
spill, containing benzene, appeared to originate off-site from
the Kay Terminals property and is being addressed under another
action, 2) Kay Terminals is permitted to discharge up to 1 ppb of
benzene in its storm water discharge into the drainage ditch on
the east side of the site, and 3) benzene was found in only one
on-site monitoring well at a relatively low level of contamina-
tion. The benzene found in the ground water appears to be
related to off-site conditions. As a result of the current
remedial activities that are being conducted by the adjacent
property owner, benzene should not pose a significant problem in
the future.
Arsenic was detected at levels of 54 ppb (unfiltered) and 38 ppb
(filtered) in the shallow ground water from only one on-site
monitoring well (MW-2A). Both of these values are above the NYS
ground-water standard of 25 ppb for Class GA ground waters and
the unfiltered sample is above the EPA MCL of 50 ppb for arsenic.
Reduction of arsenic in ground water is not considered as a
remedial action objective due to the following: 1) the applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) were minimally
exceeded at only one on-site monitoring well, downgradient of the
fly ash fill; 2) the arsenic contamination is localized and has
leached or is leaching from the on-site deposits of fly ash; 3)
no arsenic plume has been identified, thus there is no apparent
migration off-site; 4) fly ash has been used as fill material in
other areas in the Town of Vestal; 5) there has been no docu-
mented use of arsenic in past site operations; 6) the fly ash
fill has been in place at the site for over twenty years; and,
7) the impact of the fly ash fill on the site should not signifi-
cantly change in the future.
Consumption of potentially-contaminated ground water, through
private drinking water wells in the area, is highly unlikely, for
various reasons:
1. The site is currently zoned industrial; future uses will
likely remain industrial.
-------
-7-
2. Ground water beneath the site discharges to the north-
western area of the adjacent wetlands; and, therefore, any
migration of potentially contaminated ground water to an
off-site downgradient well is unlikely.
3. New residences in the vicinity would be expected to be
connected to the public water supply system; the development
of private potable water wells is highly unlikely.
4. If any potable water wells were to be developed, those
wells would likely use the bedrock aquifer system. Ground-
water samples collected from the lower portion of the over-
burden aquifer, just above the bedrock aquifer, did not
exhibit elevated levels of the indicator contaminants.
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Public Health Evaluation/Risk Assessment is contained in the
RI report, identifies specific contaminant risks, and addresses
the potential impacts to human health and the environment asso-
ciated with the site. The Risk Assessment was performed using
conservative guidelines as outlined by EPA in the Superfund
Public Health Evaluation Manual. The purpose of using conserva-
tive assumptions is to explore the potential for adverse health
effects so that the final estimates will actually be near or
higher than the upper end of the range of actual exposures and/or
risks.
Exposure pathways considered were direct contact (dermal absorp-
tion-skin contact and ingestion-direct consumption through the
mouth) with surface soils, ground water and surface water and
sediments and inhalation of volatiles and airborne particulates.
Risks from these exposure pathways were evaluated by comparing
concentrations of chemicals in the contaminated exposure medium
at points of potential exposure to chemical-specific ARARs. In
addition, quantitative risk estimates were developed for all
site-related chemicals not governed by any direct ARARs, by
combining the estimated intakes of potentially exposed popula-
tions with health effects criteria. Chemicals of concern or
indicator chemicals were selected based on their on-site
frequency of detection, their potential for adverse health
effects, the levels at which they were detected compared to
background data, and their relation to known or suspected on-site
operations.
Two cases were evaluated, a worst case scenario and an average
case scenario. The average case scenario is based on highly
-------
-8-
conservative assumptions, e.g., consuming two liters of ground
water a day over an entire lifetime of seventy years. The worst
case scenario is the result of the maximization of all variables
used in the risk equations. Rather than being a realistic
measure of risk, the worst case scenario represents the maximum
possible risk to the most sensitive segment of the potentially
exposed population. Both the average and worst case scenarios
are considered to be over-protective and well above the normal
every-day cancer risk.
The quantitative risk assessment identified minimal risk to human
health. Excess lifetime cancer risks are probabilities that are
generally expressed in scientific notation, e.g., 10"6. An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 10* indicates that an individual has a
one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure condition at a site.
The context within which to judge the relative risk from each of
the exposure pathways has been established by EPA. For car-
cinogens, the target risk range is a 10"* to 10'7 excess lifetime
cancer risk. Overall cancer risks under both the maximum and
average case current use scenarios for nearby residents were
within EPA criteria for the protection of human health. Under a
future use scenario, only the maximum case scenario exceeded EPA
criteria. The majority of the risk is a result of the ingestion
of ground water from a shallow, overburden well. For non-car-
cinogens, health criteria are generally developed using risk
reference doses (RfDs) developed by EPA. The RfD, expressed in
mg/kg-day, is an estimate of the daily exposure to the human
population (including sensitive sub-populations) without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The
RfD provides a benchmark to which chemical intakes may be com-
pared. The Hazard Index (the sum of expected dose/RfD ratios
exceed one) is a measure of non-carcinogenic risk and provides a
useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media. In general, where the Hazard Index is above one, observed
concentrations pose unacceptable risks of exposure. Hazard
Indices for nearby residences were, likewise, below EPA criteria
for the protection of human health with the exception of the
maximum case, future use scenario. Cancer risks and hazard
indices for workers were below EPA criteria for all scenarios.
Based on the results of the risk assessment and the remedial
action objectives analysis, the only area of concern is the area
of cPAH-contaminated soil. This result was based on one soil
sample which exceeded the risk-based cleanup level, corresponding
to a lifetime cancer risk level of 10"6, which was the point of
departure in the overall W4 to 10'7 risk range. A summary of the
-------
-9-
risk assessment values for average and worst case scenarios
related to both the 10"6 risk level and the Hazard Index is
presented in Table 7.
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
Based upon the findings and analysis of the RI/FS, the EPA, in
consultation with the State, has determined that the EEC Trucking
site does not pose a significant threat to human health and the
environment. The EPA, therefore, has selected the "No Further
Action" Alternative as the selected remedy for the site. No
Further Action involves performing no further remedial action at
the site to remove, remediate or contain any contaminated soils.
Additionally, a monitoring program will be designed to include
surface water, ground water, and sediment sampling stations along
the western and northern margins of the EEC site, as well as, at
various locations in the adjacent wetlands. This monitoring
program will verify that the remedy continues to be protective of
human health and the environment, particularly with respect to
the potential exposure pathways to the adjacent wetlands. The
monitoring program will be further delineated in the post-ROD
phase of the project. The cost of this alternative will be
determined during the development of the proposed monitoring
program.
Further information on the other alternatives that were con-
sidered is contained in the Feasibility Study.
Since the original drums of lead-contaminated waste oils, sol-
vents and paint thinners have been removed in a previous removal
action, any remaining hazardous contamination is below health-
based levels. Fly ash will remain at the site; its impact on the
environment does not currently present a problem and is not
expected to present a problem in the future.
The concentrations of cPAH contaminants that presently exist on-
site are near the remedial action objective risk level of 10
(one in one million) which is within the acceptable range of
10"4 to 10"7 as recommended by EPA for a remediation goal. The
concentration of the cPAHs and other organic compounds in surface
soils would tend to be reduced over time through bio-degradation;
thus, the risk of exposure would also be further reduced.
Action-specific ARARs are not applicable for a No Further Action
Alternative.
This alternative would be easy to implement. Taking no further
action would also prevent any disturbance to the sensitive
-------
-10-
wetlands area, on and adjacent to the site. As indicated pre-
viously, the monitoring program will verify that the remedy
remains protective of human health and the environment in the
future.
Based on the analysis of current information and data available
from the RI/FS, EPA believes that the selected remedy, no further
remedial action with monitoring, will be 1) protective of human
health and the environment, based on risk, 2) cost effective, and
3) implementable.
8.0
CON OF 8IGNIP3
EPA's preferred alternative for the EEC Trucking site, as docu-
mented in the Proposed "Plan, is the "No Further Action" Alterna-
tive with monitoring. There have been no significant changes
made to the selected remedy, since it was originally presented in
the Proposed Plan.
-------
APPENDIX I
TABLES
-------
Table 1
BEC TRUCKING SITE - VESTAU
(first
Chemical
Organic:
1,1. 1 -Trichlorethane
Benzene*
Xylenes
Toluene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Inorganic:
A I urn" nun
Antimony
Arsenic *
Barium
Ca I c i urn
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead *
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
and second round of
Frequency of
Detection
-1/7
1/7
1/7
2/7
1/7
13/14
3/14
5/14
13/14
14/14
7/14
3/14
12/14
10/14
10/14
14/14
14/14
14/14
2/14
14/14
5/14
12/14
samples)
Concentration
Range
3-4
2-3
5
2
2
7.6-32,400
24-60
24- 132
34-253
92,000-384,000
4.0-36
4.1-33
4-60
77-22,000
2-67
870-50,000
12-3,100
770-26,000
9-16
6,300-96,000
2.8-41
6-170
Background
(HU-1)
<5
<5
<5
<5
17-2,170
<60
<10
34-83
92,000-98,000
3*
4.1
3.1-13
77-5,500
2-15
15,000-16,000
144:449
3,300-4,200
9-16
91,000-96,000
<50
6.4-21
1-xdicator Chemicals
-------
Table 2
Chemical
Organic:
Carbon I
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xytenes
Inorganic:
AI uni nun
Arsenic
Barium
Calciun
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
SEC TRUCKING SITE
- VESTAL. NY
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER (uq/l)
Frequency of
Detection
ilfide 3/7
1/7
1/7
* 1/7
1/7
Phthalate 1/7
6/7
6/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
3/7
5/7
7/7
6/7
7/7
7/7
1/7
2/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
7/7
Concentration
Range
7-51
25 •
65 *
6 *
60 •
3
56-19,500
2.3-10.1
20.7-508
72,600-195,000
22.3-28.8
6.0-13.4
8.2-72.5
294-67,000
3.3-284
14,100-37,900
114-4,700
0.3
12.2-24.6
1,480-12,000
21,300-59,100
29.2-32.7
3.3-908
Background
(SW-1)
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<10
<200
<10
20.7
72,600
<10
<50
19.1
294
<5
14,100
114
<0.2
<40
1,480
21.300
<50
3.3
Detected in SW-2 only.
-------
Table 3
BEC TRUCKING - VESTAL, NY
ORGANIC CHEMICALS 1H SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Frequency of Concentration Background
Chemical Detection Range (tig/Eg) (50-01.
VotatHes
Methylene Chloride 1/10 <5-6 6
Acetone 2/10 14-13,000 14
Carbon Disulfide 4/10 21-280 <5
2-Butanone * 1/10 170-2,200 <10
Vinyl Acetate 1/10 8 »* <1Q
Benzene 3/10 2-11 <5
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1/10 8 ** <10
Toluene 1/10 94 ** <5
Ethylbenzene 1/10 16 •» <5
Xylenes 1/10 410 ** <5
Semi-Volatiles
4-Methylphenol 1/10 87 <330
Benzoic Acid . 1/10 160 <330
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 1/10 92 <330
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 4/10 100-2100 <330
Non-Carcinogenic PAHs * • "
Naphthalene 2/10 42-500 <330
2-Methylnapthalene 1/10 46 <330
Acenaphthylene 1/10 26 <330
Acenaphthene 2/10 83-330 <330
Fluorne 2/10 170-450 <330
Pheananthrene 4/10 120-5700 1500
Anthracene 3/10 230-980 230
Fluoranthene 5/10 270-13,000 1800
Pyrene 5/10 250-9700 1900
Indeno(1,2,3-O))Pyrene 2/10 540-1900 <330
Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene 3/10 52-1400 <330
Dibenzofuran 2/10 80-230 <330
Total Non-Carcingenic PAHs 5/10 690-61,900 5930
Carcinogenic PAHs •
Benzo(a)Anthrocene 4/10 150-4000 950
Chrysene 4/10 170-4500 rO
Benzo(B+K)Fluoranthene 4/10 320-9100 1200
Benzo(A)Pyrene 4/10 150-4000 590
Total Carcinogenic PAHs 4/10 720-26,300 2920
• Indicator Chemicals *• Detected in SD-02 Only
-------
Table 4
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
opper
Iron
Lead *
Magnes i urn
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium *
Silver *
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
EEC TRUCKING SITE - VESTAL,
Inorganic Chemicals in Sediment Samples
Frequency of
Detection
11/11
1/11
11/11
11/11
3/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
8/11
2/11
5/11
1/11
11/11
11/11
Concentration
Range
5,000-16,000
29.8
3-44
27-149
0.3-1.5
6,380-76,000
10.3-34.7
4.2-16.1
20.9-63.5
16, 800-36, 80_0
40-992
316-11,700
291-1,290
11.1-30.7
334-1,000
1.5-4.2
0.96-4.2
137
8.4-39.8
98.3-592
NY
(mg/kg)
Background
SD-01 New York State
6,200 50,000
<12 <1
4.9 4.1
37.1 300
0.3 <1
76,000 7,900-12,000
16.5 30
5.7 3-5
25.2 20
19,500 20,000
98.3 15
11,700 5,000-7,000
472 200-300
14.4 7-10
433 16,000
<1 0.2
0.96
<1000 7000
11.5 7-300
98.3 5-290
• Indicator Chemicals
-------
Table 5
CHEMICAL
Volatiles
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Chloroform
Benzene *
2-Butanone *
4-methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
Xylenes
Semi-Volatiles
Benzoic Acid
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
4-Methylphenol
Non-Carcinogenic PAHs *
Naphthalene
2-Hethylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-CO)Pyrene
BenzoCG.H,I)Perylene
Dibenzofuran
Total Non-Carcinogenic PAHs
Carcinogenic PAHs *
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(8+IC)Fluoranthene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
* Indicator Chemicals
EEC TRUCKING SITE
Organic Chemicals in
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
1/18
1/18
2/18
2/18
2/18
1/18
- 1/18
1/18
2/18
3/18
1/18
J 3/18
1/18
2/18
1/18
1/18
6/18
6/18
12/18
8/18
12/18
12/18
6/18
4/18
2/18
Is 13/18
11/18
11/18
> 11/18
10/18
- VESTAL, NY
Surface Soils
CONCENTRATION
RANGE (uq/kg)
<5-73
74-91 (Duplicates)
1-3
2-10
<10-140
•00-25
<10-5
<10-790
58-100
120-1700
<330-92
100-540
<330-34
82-130
<330-50
<330-26
47>640
52-890
42-9700
110-1300
64-6200
63-6400
200-2200
490-1900
160-240
170-310.000
35-3000
42-3300
122-3800
68-2500
11/18
207-14,800
BACKGROUND
RANGE (ug/fcq)
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
-------
Table 6
CHEMICAL
Aluninum
Antimony
Arsenic
Bar-ion
Beryllium
Cadmium
Ca I c i urn
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Lead *
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Si Iver
Sodium
Tk a 111 urn
i n« i fc i v^ii
Vanadium
Z i nc
•Indicator Chemicals
J
FREQUENCY
32/32
1/32
30/32
30/32
24/32
23/32
29/32
32/32
32/32
25/32
32/32
30/32
32/32
32/32
14/32
32/32
30/32
5/32
3/32
20/32
32/32
32/32
BEC TRUCKING SITE - VESTAL. NY
NORGANIC CHEMICALS DETECTED IN
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (mg/kg)
RANGE NY
6200-14,000 50,000
9.1 <1
4-50 4.1
51-357 300
-0.4-0.9 <1
1.3-7.6
1300-74,700 7900-12,000
10-49 30
5.3-19 3-5
19-158 20
10,000-84,700 20,000
3100-11,000 5000-7000
140-660 200-300
5-511 15
0.1-1.5
15-32 7-10
310-1900 16000
0.5-3.3 0.15-0.2
0.2-3.1
49-1800 7000
10-30 70
34-920 45
BACKGROUND
EASTERN US
7000-100,000
-------
Table 7
SurmaTV of Rt Risk Assessment
Lifetime Cancer Risk Greater than 10 or Hazard Index Greater than 1
NEARBY RESIDENTS
Pathway
Carcinogenic PAHs
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Matrix Type
Soil
Sediment
Soil
Sediment
Fugitive Dust
On-Site Dust
Lifetime Cancer Risk
Worst Case Average Case
1.27E-05
1.12E-05
1.67E-05
1.48E-05
3.68E-05
9.20E-06
3.38E-08
1.06E-08
3.52E-08
1.10E-08
3.37E-11
1.52E-12
Ingest ion
Inhalation
Groundwater
Vapors while
showering
Arsenic (Carcinogenic Effects)
Ingest ion Groundwater
Arsenic (Mon-Carcinoqenic Effects)
Ingest ion Groundwater
Lead (Non-Carcinogenic Effects)
Ingest ion Groundwater
•Chronic Effect Hazard Index
2.60E-06
3.17E-06
2.91E-03
3.09E+00
1.18E+00
9.54E-07
8.71E-07
3.88E-04
3.09E-01
2.88E-01
Carcinogenic PAHs
Ingest ion
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
OH-SITE WORKERS
(Current Use Scenario)
Matrix Type
Soil
Soil
On-Site Dust
Lifetime Cancer Risk
Worst Case Average Case
9.52E-06
3.97E-05
2.96E-05
1.89E-08
8.18E-08
3.09E-12
40 years exposure
-------
APPENDIX II
FIGURES
-------
^wl^^^^^'^^^^^^^^ri^
^S^^^^P^"^r ^^:!<^ii^teisS
SSppP^< -| ';:. -''-^f&^ *P$3f
iS^v • >< ^i^^^^F^m
•-?*&:&
• «"\ ire •>
'"Mx^i
\\ftVH •••"" ;^^,A^^^™'»V -:^. ^
M4 ••v/\(ip^!!^^^I
fv?^ ^~) "l BEC BUCKING SITE. VESTAL. NEW rOUK
/ / ).-^.X\ J !> wrui vr,D^ • Ffplire I
SCALE 1:24000 ''
S '__ ^ M|| |M « , , „ |"" ^
^ IOW • 1000 KOO KM HOP VMO *000 MOB rill X
^ tit-wm •• n^i^iCC^rZZri^MMI I •r^ra^.n 3
- -p ; -.. . .. . ^ .
SOURCE: U.S.GEOLOQICAL SURVEY, 1972
;• n vv • \ v\<. /—I
W))^. )
-/' / - '% '• r-^^V—X
•KX/.'/'\\\''' J NEW YORK
f?/^ --\t
-------
ilu
ilk
STORM WATER
CULVERT
KAY TERMINAL INC.
STEWART TRAILER PARK
FENCE
STORAGE
AREA
KAY TERMINAL
DISCHARGE
DRAINAGE DITCH
STDRMWATER
DISCHARGE
A ***
iJU
Figure 2
EEC TRUCKING SITE
VESTAL NY
MAY 8, J989
-------
NW
SE
850-
640-
8
2 830-
*
§
..OH
800-
EXPLANATION
|.<•....'.I ML n
I'••••:':• i »>*»•(• Art rtUtHn* tomta (If YH
Iff. SM. tm. mi* 10 - 30% mtrowMM
rmlmjcottln. loon, try u mint
fllI. fnitahmtr Hf Att. Sit T,
It o#M ftrlHS.S Y4/1I. illjxtf c
•n'ttl 10-
fottltl. loan, dry to mont.
P~3 CL/CH SUit CLAY t»1 CLAY. Hjnototftru
Uftl oluotitY. iofl to mmtum iHH. uohl
U ml. lacMiat «nr//v otwtak nami.
MI7CL SIlTtndSillrClAY.mtfinoitodatt,
Ytllo*idl oroxa 110 M iM. 1/11. MI*
It - 3n *tr »i» l» Hat and. lorn
otmtkitr. loot* a mtoium f ft// or atom.
mont u ml
ML/CM Sittf lima torn SAHO. modtna
Inmn fo oroml HO YH ifi.
More: TfiTHTS*t*tncfftu.ioiomito<*riLY
AfTfUCXCAVATIOH. TMtKtfOHl KrtTCH
loom. Ml
SW Km tAMO. on,* tnm, IS Y* 3/H
foorlf toitil, mouifulti. m* M-JO%
luoroundldoiftt/. atfdium dtam. NVI
MOHOCK - mHOmdSHAH
HORIZONTAL SCALC: I"-6V
VCH TICAL [XAOGfHA TION: 6: 1
SYJtl. mi* M -
loon to mtdium dfnm. **t
Jt JZ.
fOTlMTIOHllRIC SUfifACl
U • INVIRONUf NTAL mOTfCTIOH AQiNCT
•1C THUCKIHOSITI
DfMf OWL INVC»Tia*TION(rEASI«ILITV ITVOT
Figure 3
GEOLOGI££BOSS SECTION
-------
MONITORING WtLL
IHDICA TtS GROUND H
FLOW DIRECTION
fOTtNTIOMETRIC SURFACE
CONTOUR INTfRVAL • I FOOT
BEC TRUCKING
BOUNDARY
CONTOUR INTtRVAL ' I fOOT
tXCffTNC AND Sf OF SITE WHtRl } FOOT
CONTOUR INTERVAL WAS USED FOH CLARITY
U.S.CNVIRONMf NTAL PROrECTICM AC1WCV
BCC TflUCKINO SIIC
ACMf DIAL INVf STIOAriON/FEASIBIlirv ITUOV
POTENTIOMETHIC SURFACE MAP
-------
EXPLANATION
• M SURF ACf. SOILSAUfLl
• B SURFACt SOIL COLLOCATf
AM SHALLOW SUBSURFACC SOIL
SAMPLE
AM SHALLOWSUBSVaFACCSOIL
COLLOCATE
•M* MOHITOfliHG WfLL
— TF nsrnr
O M SUHF4CIWA Tin AHO SCOIHfNT
SAItPLf
^W STRCAM GAUGf
CONTOUR INTCRVAl - I fOOT
IXCtPTNCANDSfOFSITfWHfHejrOOT \
CONTOUR INTCRVAL WAS USfO fOH CLARITY \
O I INVIKONMIMTAl mOTICTION AOCMCV
•1C IKOCHUW IITI
•IMIOUI iMvima«TioN/PiAiiiiiiTT rruor
Figure 5
SITE
LOC'
'ITH SAMPLE
AND GRID .
-------
»\ / N .^'
-' _ _' -••; -"»"
BEC TRUCKING SITE
BOUNDARY
OIL SEEP
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF
OIL CONTAMINATION
:• x-x'
• >
/•' /'V/V/.T/f!
-^ / ,^:FLV ASH I ','
/7^^""-»
(' .^'' •!&'!'.
CONTOUR INTCHVAL • I fOOT
tXCtPTNl AND if OfSITC WH[*£ 1 FOOT
CONTOUR INTfHVAL WAS USfDfOH CLAMITY
Figure 6
SITE MAP INDICATING APPROXIMATE
AREAS OF CONTAMINATION
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
08/89/89
Draft Index Document Nuaber Order
BEC TRUCKING Documents
Page: 1
Document Number: BEC-881-0881 To 0023
Title: Final Disiawnity Relations Plan
Type: ?LfiN
fiuthor: Manning, Kathleen S: ICF Incorporated
Recipient: none: US EPS
Parent: BEC-881-8M3
Date: 82/01/88
DocuBient Number: 3EC-081-8803 To 0804
Title: (Letter forwarding Final DDmaunity Relations Plan)
Type:'CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian D: US EPfl
attached: BEC-081-S081
Date: 82/29/88
Docunjent Number: BEC-001-8029 To 8119
Title: Final Work Plan for RI/F3
Type: PLflN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Parent: BEC-881-8838
Date: 83/01/88
Document Number: BEC-801-3038 To 0830
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Work Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: fllvi, S Shaheer: US EPfl
flttached: BEC-881-3829
Date: 83/11/88
Document Nusber: BEC-881-8438 To 8579
Parent: BEC-W1-8448
Date: 86/81/88
Title: Final Field Operations Plan: Field Saapling and Analysis Plan, Site Management Plan, Health
and Safety Plan
Type: PlftN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
-------
88/W39
Draft Index Document Number Order
EEC TRUCKING Documents
Document Number: BEC-001-0440 To 0440
Date: 86/28/88
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Field Operations Plan, including Field Sampling and flnalysis Plan,
Site Management Plan arid Health and Safety Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: fllvi, ,1 Shaheer: US EPfl
Pttsched: SEC-W1-0438
Document Number: BEC-001-0580 To 0697
Title: Final Feasibility Study Report
Type: PLfiN
fluthor: Sorgoi, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Date: 07/01/89
Document Number: BEC-W1-0638 To 1827
Title: Final Remedial Investigation Report
Type: PLAN
fluthor: Sorgoi, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Date: 06/01/89
Document Number: BEC-001-1028 To 1112 Parent: BEC-001-1029
Title: Town of Vestal Water District No. 4 Sroundwater Exploration
Type: PUN
fluthor: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
Date: 04/01/83
Document Number: BEC-091-1029 To 1029 Date: 04/07/83
Title: (Letter forwarding Town of Vestal Mater District No. 4 Groundwater Exploration report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
ftttached: BEC-M1-1K8
-------
08/89/89
Draft Index Docusent Nunber Order
BEC TRUCKING Documents
Page: 3
Document Number: BEC-OT1-1113 To 1123
Title: (Superfund Update describing Proposed Plan for remediation of the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Duda, Daraian J: US EPfl
Recipient: none: none
Date: 07/01/89
Document Number: BEC-001-1124 To 1198
Title: Preliminary Investigation of the BEC Trucking Site - Phase I Sumary Report
Type: PLAN
fluthor: none: Ecological Analysts
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Date: 09/01/84
Document Nusber: BEC-M1-1199 To 1231
Title: Sdderidca to the Final Remedial .Investigation Report
Type; PLflN
fluthor: none: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
attached: BEC-001-1202 BEC-W1-1212
Date: 07/01/89
Document Number: BEC-Q01-1202 To 1210 Parent: BEC-081-1199
Title: Report of Stage Ifl Cultural Resources Survey
Type: PLflN
Puthor: Fiedel, Stuart: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Date: 06/01/89
Document Number: BEC-001-1212 To 1230
Title: Wetland Delineation Report
Type: PLflN
ftuthor: Henry, Richard: Roy F Ueston Inc
Recipient: Charters, David W: US EPfl
Parent: BEC-W1-1199
Date: 07/01/89
-------
08/09/39
Draft Index Author Nan Order
BEC TRUCKING Documents
Page: 1
Docuaent Number: BEC-001-1124 To 1198 Date: 09/01/84
Title: Preliminary Investigation of the BEC Trucking Site - Phase I Suamary Report
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Ecological Analysts
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environoental Conservation
Dociment Nuraber: BEC-001-1199 To 1231
Title: Addendum to the Final Reaedial Investigation Report
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: 3EC-081-1202 BEC-W1-1212
Date: 07/01/89
Docuaent Number: BEC-001-1113 To 1123
Title: (Superfund Update describing Proposed Plan for remediation of the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE .
Author: Duda, Danian J: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Date: 07/01/89
DocuBent Nuaber: BEC-001-1202 To 1210
Title: Report of Stage 1A Cultural Resources Survey
Type: PLAN
Author: Fiedel, Stuart: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Parent: BEC-001-1199
Date: 06/01/89
Docuaent Number: BEC-W1-0029 To 0119
Title: Final Work Plan for RI/FS
Type: PLAN
Author: Sorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Parent: BEC-081-M38
Date: 03/01/88
-------
88/39/39
Draft Index fluthor Naiae Order
BEC TRUCKING Docusents
Page:
Document Number: BEC-001-0438 To 0579
Parent: 8EC-081HJ440
Date:
Title: Final Field Operations Plan: Field Sampling and flnalysis Plan, Site Management Plan, Health
and Safety Plan
Type: PLfiN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Docuisent Number: BEC-081-0580 To 8697
Title: Final Feasibility Study Report
Type: PlflN
fluthor: Sorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Docuaent Nusiber: 8EC-001-0698 To 1827
Title: Final Reiwdial Investigation Report
Type: PLAN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Dco.isent Waster: BEC-001-1212 To 1238
Title: Wetland Delineation Report
Type:
ftuthor: Henry, Richard: Roy F Ueston Inc
Recipient: Charters, David U: US EPfl
Date: 07/01/89
Date: 86/81/89
Parent: BEC-W1-1199
Date: 07/81/89
Document Niaber: BEC-881-8M1 To 8828
Title: Final Ccwaunity Relations Plan
Type: PLfiN
Author: Manning, Kathleen S: ICF Incorporated
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Parent: BEC-881-8883
Date: 82/81/88
-------
38/0S/89 Draft Index fluthor Name Order Page: 3
BEC TRUCKING Documents
Docuwnt Number: BEC-001-1023 To 1112 Parent: BEC-081-1329 Date: 04/01/83
Title: Town of Vestal Water District No. 4 Sroundwater Exploration
Type: PLfiN
fluthor: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
Document Number: BEC-301-1029 To 1329 Date: 04/07/83
Title: (Letter forwarding Town of Vestal Water-District No. 4 Groundwater Exploration report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
attached: BEC-W1-1E8
Document Nuaber: BEC-031-3333 To 3004 Date: 02/29/88
Title: 'Letter forwarding Final Comaunity Relations Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fiuthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian D: US EPfl
attached: BEC-001-C801
Docuisent Muster: BECHW1-0O To 3033 Date: 33/11/88
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Work Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: fllvi, « Shaheer: IS EPfl
flttached: BEC-381-0329
Docuaent Number: BEC-301-0440 To 3440 Date: 06/28/88
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Field Operations Plan, including Field Sampling and Analysis Plan,
Site Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: fllvi, H Shaheer: US EPfl
flttached: BEC-031-3438
-------
88/09/83 Draft Index Chronological Order Page: l
EEC TRUCKIN6 Docunents
Docuaent Number: BEC-W1-102S To 1112 Parent: BEC-831-1323 Date: 04/01/83
Title: Town of Vestal Water District No. 4 Grcundwater Exploration
Type: PLfiN
fluthcr: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
Docuisent Number: BEC-081-1829 To 1823 Date: 84/87/83
Title: (Letter forwarding Town of Vestal Water_ District No. 4 Groundwater Exploration report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
ftuthor: Martin, Robert J Jr: engineer
Recipient: none: Vestal NY, Town of
attached: BEC-081-1828
Document Number: BEC-881-1124 To 1138 Date: 09/81/84
Title: Prelirainary Investigation of the EEC Trucking Site - Phase I Suaaary Report
Type: PLAN
fluthor: none: Ecological Analysts
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Document Number: BEC-881-M01 To 3828 Parent: BEC-W1-0883 Date: 82/81/88
Title: Final Comunity Relations Plan
Type: PLflN
fluthor: Manning, Kathleen S: ICF Incorporated
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: BECHW1-0883 To W04 Date: 82/29/88
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Coanunity Relations Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian D: US EPfl
attached: BEC-C01-8M1
-------
38/39/83
Draft Index Chronological Order
B£C TRUCKING Documents
Page: 2
Docuaent Number: BEC-001-IW29 To 0113
Title: final Work Plan for RI/F5
Type: PLAN
fluthor: Sorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Parent: BEC-081-0030
Date: 03/01/88
Document Number: B£C-i301-0320 To 0020
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Work Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fiuthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: fllvi, M Shaheer: US EPfl
attached: SEC-Wt-W£9
Document Number: BEC-001-8438 To 8579
Parent: BEC-001-«440
Date: 02/11/88
Date: 86/01/1
Title: Final Field Operations Plan: Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site Management Plan, Health
and Safety Plan
Type: PUN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Dccuoent Number: B£C-001-044« To 0440
Date: 06/28/88
Title: (Letter forwarding Final Field Operations Plan, including Field Sampling and finalysis Plan,
Site Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Sachdev, Dev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: flivi, M Shaheer: US EPfl
flttached: BEC-001-0438
Docuaent Number: 8EC-«81-0698 To 1827
Title: Final Remedial Investigation Report
Type: PLflN
fluthor: Gorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Date: 06/01/83
-------
88/89/89
Draft Index Chronological Order
B£C TRUCKING Docunents.
Page: 3
Document Number: BEC-081-1202 To 1210
Title: Report of Stage Ifl Cultural Resources Survey
Type: PLAN
fluthor: fiedel, Stuart: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Parent: BEC-W1-1199
Date: 06/01/89
Docutient Nuaiber: BEC-081-0530 To 0697
Title: Final Feasibility Study Report
Type: PLAN
fluthor: Sorgol, John F: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
Date: 07/01/89
Docusent Number: BEC-W1-1113 To 1123
Title: (Superfund Update describing Proposed Plan for remediation of the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
fluthor: Duda, Daraian J: US EPfl
Recipient: none: none
Date: 07/01/89
Docuaent Number: BEC-001-1199 To 1231
Title: flddendus to the Final Remedial Investigation Report
Type: PLflN
ftuthor: none: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPfl
fittached: BEC-OT2-l£0£ BEC-W1-1212
Date: 07/01/89
DocuisenfNuHber: BEC-W1-1212 To 1238
Title: Wetland Delineation Report
Type: PLflN
fluthor: Henry, Richard: Roy F Heston Inc
Recipient: Charters, David U: US EPA
Parent: BECnWl-1199
Date: 87/01/89
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC CONCURRENCE LETTER
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 - 7010
Thomas C. Jortlng
Commissioner
Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region ii SFP261989
26 Federal Plaza ""-. * V
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Muszynski:
RE: BEC Trucking Site
NYSDEC Site Code: 7-04-007
Record of Decision
The State of New York has reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the BEC Trucking Site, dated September 1989, and concurs with the
selected "no further action" alternative.
The ROD will incorporate a wetlands monitoring plan, which will be
jointly prepared by both the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Additionally, as specified in the Responsiveness Summary, the
consultant's on-site SB-gallon drums of drill cuttings and fluids will
be properly disposed of within a reasonable time frame. Due to the
growing public concern regarding these drums, we request that they are
properly disposed of by December 1, 1989.
Please contact Mr. Michael 0. O'Toole, Jr., P.E., at (518) 457-5861 if
you-wish to further discuss this project.
MDK:slj Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
bcc: £. Sullivan (2)
M. O'Toole (2)
C. Goddard
J. Slack
R. Lupe
M. Kauffman
R. Heerkens, NYSOOH, Syracuse Vsy:? en
J. Madigan, NYSDOH, Albany § __ "'
D. Wazejnkewitz, Region 7
A. Fossa~7"~DAR
J. Colquhoun, OFW
J. Kelleher, DOW
20 "d 0GTSfr9c2Tci8926S8 01 NO I IWfcHSNOD' a I riN3' SAN. WOdd £S:80 686T-ic-d3S
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE
BEC TRUCKING SITE
TOWN OF VESTAL, BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a
public comment-period from July 20, 1989 until August 21, 1989 to
provide an opportunity for interested parties to comment on EPA's
proposed remedial action at the BEC Trucking site in the Town of
Vestal, New York. On August 8, 1989, EPA held a public meeting
to present the proposed" remedial action plan. Approximately 20
community residents attended the meeting. Copies of the proposed
remedial action plan were distributed at the meeting and placed
in the information repositories for the site.
The purpose of the responsiveness summary is to document EPA's
responses to comments and questions raised during the public
comment period.
The following comments, divided by specific topics, were received
during the public comment period:
Comments on the RI/FS Work Plan and Sampling Plan
1A. Comment: Questioned whether the number of monitoring wells
installed on the site and the number of ground-water samples
taken at the site adequately represented the conditions at the
BEC site.
IB. EPA Response; The number of well locations specified, that
is, the two on-site locations and the two immediately down-
gradient off-site locations, is sufficient for a site of this
size (3.5 acres), given the history of activities at the site and
the existing geologic/hydrogeologic conditions.
2A. Comment; Questioned the insufficient number of soil samples
taken.
2B. EPA Response; The remedial investigation utilized thirty-
two surface soil samples and twenty-eight subsurface soil samples
in determining its findings; these actions represent well-
selected sampling events. The BEC Trucking site has been
thoroughly investigated with respect to surface and subsurface
soil sampling.
-------
-2-
3A. Comment; Questioned whether the Susquehanna River Basin
Commission was consulted on the RI/FS.
3B. EPA Response; Through much research, all available data with
respect to ground-water and surface water flow was gathered.
This Commission was not consulted directly, since the ground-
water studies referenced utilized ground-water and surface water
modeling for their determinations. This modeling would include
recharge/discharge scenario of the aquifer system and the
Susquehanna River.
4A. Comment; Questioned whether Alan Randall's hydrogeologic
studies and maps on the aquifer system were utilized during the
RI/FS.
4B. EPA Response; Mr. Randall's studies and maps, along with
other pertinent reports, were utilized in providing hydrogeologic
site background. These have been referenced in the RI report.
Ground-water and surface Water Related Issues
5A. Comments; Questioned whether 1) the seasonal variations of
rainfall may affect pollutant concentrations, as compared to the
Nanticoke landfill, and 2) drought periods which can affect
aquifer systems, resulting in ground-water variations.
5B. EPA Response; Seasonal variations of rainfall, including
drought conditions, and the resulting fluctuation in ground-water
are expected to have a minimal effect on constituent concentra-
tions at the EEC site, due to the following:
EEC Trucking operations ceased eight years ago.
Consequently, the ground water underlying the site has
probably achieved steady-state conditions.
Infiltration from surface water run-off is secondary to
direct ground-water flow from upgradient portions of this
aquifer with respect to recharging the aquifer at the site.
Also, the fly ash material acts as a cap inhibiting direct
percolation into the water table.
The EEC Trucking site is not comparable to the Nanticoke
Landfill. A hazardous waste or municipal landfill situation
is significantly different from the EEC Trucking site.
Usually, a landfill is a deep source spread over a wide
surface area. Surface water run-off can infiltrate through
-------
-3-
these large source areas and, thus, generate leachate
volumes which are not comparable to the EEC Trucking site
which was not used as a landfill.
6A. Comment: Questioned the difference between text and data
tables, regarding the dissolved lead in Monitoring Well #3.
6B. EPA Response; This is a typographical error which has no
impact on the conclusions of the RI/FS. The level of lead in
question (5ug/l) is one-tenth the current federal maximum con-
taminant level (MCL) and, consequently, is not of concern.
7A. Comment: Questioned the effect of acid rain (pH 4.0) on the
solubility of lead.
7B. EPA Response: Low pH rainfall (pH 4.0-4.5) has been falling
in the general vicinity of the EEC Trucking site for the last
decade. Consequently, the effects of low pH rainfall of lead
have been assessed by Remedial Investigation.
8A. Comment; Questioned why the proposed 10 ug/1 MCL for lead
was not used.
8B. EPA Response: Even though a new drinking water MCL for lead
may be forthcoming, until it is promulgated, the existing MCL is
the governing value. Since the reference dose for lead was
obtained based on the current MCL of 50ug/l, a five-fold reduc-
tion of the MCL would result in a five-fold increase in the
hazard index for lead. Despite this, all lead exposures to
children under current use-average case scenarios, would remain
within acceptable limits.
9A. Comment; Questioned the potential for migration of lead from
the march sediments into the underlying water table.
9B. EPA Response; Since the wetlands area, northwest of the
site, is a ground water discharge, downward percolation towards
the water table is expected to be minimal.
10A. Comment; Questioned whether any private wells in the
vicinity of the site were analyzed in the RI/FS and what effect
there would be on them.
-------
-4-
10B. EPA Response; Any private wells in the area are not ex-
pected to be impacted. The aquifer in which chemicals were
detected discharges into the wetlands area to the north and west
of the site. The only private well identified in the RI is on
the Stewart Trailer Park property; the sampling results indicated
no significant contamination of concern. This bedrock aquifer
well has a depth of over one hundred feet in the bedrock aquifer,
more than twice the depth of any monitoring well for the BEG
Trucking site.
11A. Comment; Questioned whether the new well at the Green Acres
Landscaping company would have an effect on the BEC Trucking site
and the site contaminants on the Green Acres well.
11B. EPA Response; It is highly unlikely that the ground-water
flow regime will be altered by the Green Acres well. This is due
to both the distance, across Jensen Road, and the elevation of
the well relative to the site. In addition, this well will be
drawing from the bedrock aquifer, approximately twice as deep as
any monitoring well for the BEC Trucking site. Furthermore, the
proposed monitoring program will be able to detect any changes in
ground-water flow patterns.
12A. Comment; Questioned why the potential use of area ground
water was not addressed.
12B. EPA Response; At the present time, all potable water is
supplied by the Town of Vestal public water supply system.
Future non-potable water uses through private wells should be
addressed by the Town of Vestal.
Risk Assessment Issues
13A. Comment; Questioned whether both non-carcinogenic effects
and carcinogenic effects were studied.
13B. EPA Response; Non-carcinogenic or chronic effects as well
as carcinogenic effects were taken into consideration during the
Risk Assessment. For instance, arsenic and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were evaluated for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects. Other chemicals evaluated for non-car-
cinogenic effects were lead, selenium, silver, 2-butanone
(methylethyl ketone), xylenes and ethylbenzene. For all chemi-
cals of concern, the only chemical not evaluated for non-car-
cinogenic effects was benzene. This was due to the lack of
-------
-5-
chronic or sub-chronic reference dose values (RfDs) for benzene.
Non-carcinogenic effects include all types of adverse health
effects including neurotoxicity.
14A. Comment: Questioned whether the impact of chemicals on
humans with exceptional sensitivities was addressed.
14B. EPA Response; EPA's risk assessment methodology is intended
to be over protective in order to account for the generic varia-
tion of human populations. Consequently, even those individuals
who may be sensitive to a particular chemical are considered to
be protected. For instance, RfDs used in calculating the
potential for adverse health effects that are obtained from valid
human studies have a multiplier of ten built in to account for
variations in human sensitivity. In addition, conservative
assumptions regarding exposure rates were utilized throughout the
risk assessment.
ISA. Comment: Questioned whether synergistic effects were
studied.
15B. EPA Response; Although it is true that synergistic effects
are not taken into account due to the lack of information regard-
ing the synergistic actions of chemical mixtures, other efforts
have been taken in order to ensure that such effects do not pose
an unacceptable risk to human health. For example, all car-
cinogenic PAHs were assumed to have a potency factor equivalent
to that of benzo(a)pyrene, the most toxic of all studied cPAHs.
A similar step was taken for non-carcinogenic PAHs where all non-
carcinogenics were assumed to be as toxic as naphthalene, also
the most toxic. The end result of these actions was to greatly
overestimate the risks posed by PAHs in order to account for any
possible synergistic effects. In addition, potency factors and
reference doses have safety factors ranging from 10 to 10,000.
These safety factors take into account uncertainties regarding
the toxicological effects of a chemical.
16A. Comment; Questioned whether children would be affected by
any contaminants by playing in the wetlands.
16B. EPA Response; With respect to the wetlands area that is
directly adjacent to the site, the risks identified were minimal.
The exact nature of the risks in the area of the wetlands that is
a few hundred feet to the west of the BEC site were not addressed
by this RI/FS.
-------
-6-
site contamination and Related Issues
17A. Comment; Questioned whether the removal of drainage ditch
and marsh sediments could be a remedial action.
17B. EPA Response: Although run-off from the EEC Trucking site
may have contributed to the presence of lead and PAHs in the
drainage ditch and marsh area sediments, it is not the only
source. Storm water run-off from Vestal Highway and other local
feeder roads, the off-site oil seep, and other non-point
sources have also contributed to the chemicals found in the
drainage ditch and wetlands area sediments. Without addressing
all the source areas, the drainage ditch and marsh area sediments
would quickly become recontaminated following any such remedia-
tion.
ISA. Comment; Suggested that the removal of the PAH-contaminated
soil would protect the public water supply system.
18B. EPA Response; PAHs are strongly sorbed to soil and would
not be expected to migrate into the ground water as a result of
surface or rain water percolation. Thus, potential for ground-
water contamination from these soils is very low.
19A. Comment; Suggested that, since the low cost for removal of
contaminated soil was minimal in relation to the protection of
human health, Alternative #2 (removal of contaminated soils to an
approved landfill) would be a more preferred alternative than
that of Alternative #l-No Further Action.
19B. EPA Response; Since the no further action .alternative
already represents a minimal risk to human health, any further
benefit to human health resulting from the selection and imple-
mentation of Alternative #2 would be negligible. Cost was only
one of many criteria used in determining the preferred alterna-
tive. The risk analysis supported EPA's preferred alternative
determination as no further action.
20A. Comment; Questioned that, even though the use of fly ash as
a fill material was prevalent in the area and represents a common
arsenic source, fly ash remediation should be considered.
2OB. EPA Response; The areawide use of fly ash represents a
"background" situation. Remediation to below these "background"
levels is not viable under this remediation scenario due to the
steady state conditions exhibited in the fly ash/ground water
interface. The sampling results show only one hit of arsenic
-------
-7-
above the MCL more than twenty years from the original fly ash
placement on the site.
21A. Comment: Questioned whether the off-site operations of Kay
Terminals were the only source of benzene and related compounds.
2 IB. EPA Response; Since no on-site source of benzene was
identified and since the one monitoring well hit of benzene
detected was downgradient from the Kay Terminals discharge, it is
very likely that the discharge is the source of the benzene. It
should be noted that the only benzene detected at the site was
adjacent to the drainage ditch and in one monitoring well (MW-3).
No benzene was detected- in the southeast corner of the site where
other on-site volatiles were detected.
22A. Comment; Questioned whether the proximity of a wetlands
with related contaminated sediments would suggest further removal
of additional contaminated soils.
22B. EPA Response; Although wetlands sediments did contain low
levels of some chemicals, a specific source could not be located
on-site. Furthermore, these chemicals are the result of non-
point source run-off. Also the wetlands is fed by a source
stream which could also be introducing possible contaminants into
the wetlands. Consequently, remediation of additional soils is
not warranted.
23A. Comment; Questioned whether on-site barrels would be
removed.
23 B. EPA Response; Most of the barrels currently on-site contain
materials used and produced during the remedial investigation
phase of the project; four other barrels contain soils from the
original removal action. These barrels will be properly disposed
of by the EPA contractor within a reasonable time frame.
24A. Comment; Questioned whether BEC Trucking was ever used as a
hazardous waste dump.
24B. EPA Response; Even though historic information indicates
that hazardous materials may have been stored and used at the BEC
Trucking site, the results of the RI/FS do not identify the site
as a hazardous waste dump.
-------
-8-
25A. Comment: Questioned why the off-site petroleum spill/oil
seep was not being addressed in the RI/FS.
25B. Comment: The off-site spill is being addressed under the
New York State spill response program, which will include pumping
the contaminated ground water to a collection-type facility and
treating it to specific remedial action levels. The Superfund
program does not address petroleum-type contamination; such
contamination is addressed under other federal programs.
26A. Comment: Questioned whether after-the-fact contamination can
be measured.
26B. EPA Response; Results of the RI/FS indicate that, nearly
eight years after EEC Trucking ceased operations, no direct
contamination from the EEC site can be shown to be migrating to
any public water supply well; no contamination plume has been
identified.
Future site Activity and Proposed Monitoring Program Issues
27A. Comment: Questioned the nature of future activity at the
site.
27B. EPA Response: The current owner has not indicated any
specific site activity for the future. Currently storage opera-
tions and sawmilling are the extent of site activity. If future
site activity would deal with hazardous materials, all activities
would be monitored under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act program of EPA and NYSDEC.
28A. Comment; Questioned whether monitoring represents an
adequate control of contaminants by offering no protection.
28B. EPA Response; In the absence of contaminant migration,
monitoring is sufficient to protect public water supplies. If
monitoring reveals contaminant migration, steps can be taken to
control any such migration. The proposed monitoring program will
be developed as an early warning system so that any necessary
corrective measures can be taken to be protective of human health
and the environment.
29A. Comment; Questioned what the specifics were for the
proposed monitoring program.
-------
-9-
29B. EPA Response; The specific details of the proposed monitor-
ing program will be established shortly after the Record of
Decision is signed. The work will be coordinated by EPA and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
Department of Health.
------- |