United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/134
March 1991
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
C&J Disposal, NY
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/134
3. Recipient1* Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
C&J Disposal, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
03/29/91
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addreu
10. ProjecVTask/Work Unit No.
11. Contract* C) or Gr«nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
IX Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Notea
16. Abatract (Limit: 200 worda)
The C&J Disposal site is a former industrial waste disposal area in the Town of Eaton,
Madison County, New York. Land use in the area is rural and residential. Surface
drainage flows toward a small pond located in a wetland area 100 feet from the disposal
area, and ultimately drains into Woodman Pond. Located 3,000 feet to the south of the
site, Woodman Pond serves as a backup drinking water source for the nearby Village of
Hamilton. Currently, twelve area residences use ground water as a source of drinking
water. In 1976, C&J Leasing dumped paint sludge, liquid industrial wastes, and 75 to
100 drums into an onsite disposal trench. The trench was subsequently covered with
fill, burying the wastes and drums. In 1989, C&J Leasing conducted an unauthorized
site excavation, which left two large holes and three stockpiles of soil and waste
material in the trench, as well as scattered crushed drums, cans, and plastic scrap
material. It is believed that many buried drums were removed offsite during this
excavation. EPA believes that onsite contaminants are primarily adsorbed or bound in
the 1,250 cubic yards of waste material and soil and are not presently migrating into
the ground water. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses onsite contaminated soil and
debris, and provides a final remedy for the site. The primary contaminants of concern
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Analyeia a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - C&J Disposal,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, TCE, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
. .. _ , .., phenols), metals (lead)
b. Identiflers/Open-Ended Terms c
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Claas (This Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thia Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
108
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instruction* on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/134
C&J Disposal, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
stract (Continued)
affecting the soil and debris are VOCs including benzene, toluene, TCE, and xylenes;
other organics including PAHs and phenols; and metals including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes dewatering the trench and treating
the water before recharge, if necessary; excavating approximately 1,250 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and debris from the disposal trench, followed by offsite treatment or
disposal; transporting drummed wastes generated during the field investigation to an
offsite RCRA facility for treatment and/or disposal; backfilling the trench;
revegetating the site; and monitoring ground water for one year. If all or a portion
of the soil and debris is classified as RCRA hazardous wastes and require incineration
to meet land disposal restriction (LDR) regulations, and the wastes are managed prior
to May 8, 1992, the soil and debris will be disposed of offsite without treatment under
a National Capacity Variance. If the wastes require treatment other than incineration
under LDR regulations, the necessary treatment will be conducted offsite under a
Treatability Variance. That portion of the soil and debris not classified as a RCRA
hazardous waste will be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle-D facility. After May 8, 1992,
this ROD provides for a contingency remedy, which includes offsite thermal treatment of
organic wastes, and treatment and disposal of inorganic wastes in accordance with LDR
requirements. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action, assuming
offsite disposal without treatment, is $672,400, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$86,000.
ERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Removal of contaminated soil and debris will ensure
hat Federal and State regulations for ground and surface waters are not exceeded.
Cleanup criteria will be based on background levels found in offsite and native soil
samples. There were no chemical-specific ARARs provided for soil.
-------
ROD FACT SE2ET
SITE
Nane:
L-ccation:
EPA Region:
E3S Score (date)
N?L Rank (date) :
C & J Disposal
Tcvn of Eaton, New York; Madison County
II
42.94
657
ROD
Date Signed:
Ksnedv:
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
3/Z9/9/
Selected Remedy: Removal and Off-Site
Treatment/Disposal
Contingency Remedy: Removal and Off-Site
Thermal Treatment
$ 586,400
$ 86,000
$ 672,400
LEAD
EPA Remedial
Primary Contact:
Secondary Contact:
PRPs:
F3P Contact:
Jack O'Dell (212-264-1263)
Douglas Fischer (212-264-9792)
Occidental Chemical Corp. (Occidental
Petroleum)
C&J Leasing
Birge Company
Charles Picariello -
Geneso (aka James) Picariello
Duane, Morris & Heckscher (Occidental
Chemical)
Tyre:
Heditra:
Origin:
Organics (phthalates, phenols, VOCs), metals
(lead)
Soil
Bulk liquid/sludge dumping in 1976 and
earlier
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
C & J DISPOSAL SITE
TOWN OF EATON
MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MARCH 1991
-------
Declaration for the Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
C&J Disposal Site
Town of Eaton, Madison County, New York
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the C&J Disposal site (the "Site"), located in the Town of Eaton,
Madison County, New York, which was 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. This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for
the Site.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy and the
contingency remedy. The information supporting this remedial
action decision is contained in the administrative record for the
Site. The administrative record index is attached.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD) , may present an imminent and
substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This operable unit is the final action for the Site. The selected
remedy will address the contaminated soil and debris in the
disposal trench at the Site.
The remedy includes:
Excavation of approximately 1,250 cubic yards of contam-
inated soil and debris from the disposal trench, followed
by transportation to a permitted, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)-compliant waste management
facility for treatment/disposal.
Transportation of the drums containing wastes generated
during the field investigation to a permitted, RCRA-
compliant waste management facility for treatment/
disposal.
Temporary dewatering of the disposal trench prior to
excavation, and treatment of the water, if necessary,
prior to recharge.
-------
Backfilling of the trench with clean fill and returning
the Site to a vegetated state.
Quarterly monitoring of the groundwater underlying the
Site and downgradient residential wells for one year.
Because of the variety of contaminants at the Site (various
organics and lead), their uncertain volumes and distribution, and
possible treatment requirements, an exact disposal regime will have
to be determined in the remedial design (RD) phase. Testing of the
excavated soil and debris during the RD will be by Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis. If all or a
portion of the soil and debris is classified as a RCRA hazardous
waste, for the contaminants that would require thermal destruction
as a treatment under the RCRA Land Disposal Requirements. (LDRs),
the waste may be disposed of, without treatment, in a permitted
RCRA-compliant minimum technology hazardous waste landfill. This
can be done before May 8, 1992 under a National Capacity Variance
for Third-Third wastes. Disposal after May 8, 1992 would require
treatment in accordance with LDRs. If the soil and debris, after
testing, is found to contain wastes which, under LDRs, require a
form of treatment other than thermal treatment, the necessary
treatment will be conducted at a permitted, RCRA-compliant off-
site facility (on-site treatment is not practical) prior to off-
site disposal. This can be done through a soil and debris
Treatability Variance up until the time that final treatment
standards are promulgated for soil and debris. Conversely, that
portion of the soil and debris not classified as hazardous by the
TCLP analysis can be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle-D facility.
For estimation purposes and to account for different disposal
regimes, the present worth cost for this alternative presumes that
all of the contaminated soil is RCRA hazardous-waste and will be
disposed of at a land disposal facility without treatment, under
a National Capacity Variance. This cost is intermediate between
the possible lower costs afforded by Subtitle-D disposal and the
additional costs for any required waste treatment.
In the unlikely event that this alternative can not be implemented
before the RCRA LDR deadline of May 8, 1992, the portion of the
waste that has been classified as an organic RCRA characteristic
waste would be thermally treated at an off-site facility. Any
residue from the thermal treatment would be treated further, if
necessary, to comply with disposal regulations. Any portion of the
waste classified as hazardous on the basis of inorganics (i.e.,
lead) alone, would be treated and disposed of in accordance with
LDR requirements. This contingency remedy would involve the same
on-site remediation activities as the selected remedy.
Declaration of Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy are protective of
ii
-------
human health and the environment, and comply with federal and
state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
Appropriate to the remedial action, and are cost-effective. The
selected remedy and the contingency remedy utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element will not be satisfied for those scenarios where treatment
is not required under LDRs. However, even under those scenarios,
the selected remedy will be protective of public health and the
environment.
Because the selected remedy and the contingency remedy will not
result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-
based levels, the five-year review will not apply to this action.
Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
C & J DISPOSAL SITE
TOWN OF EATON
MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MARCH 1991
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
SITE NAME/ LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 3
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OP RESPONSE ACTION 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 5
DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES 8
SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES 11
THE SELECTED REMEDY 15
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 16
DOCUMENTATION OP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 19
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 2 - TABLES
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Site is located in the Town of Eaton, Madison County, New York.
It is near the intersection of Routes 12B and 46, north of the
Village of Hamilton. The Site includes a rectangular disposal
trench which measures approximately 140 feet by 40 feet. Access
to the Site can be gained by entering a New York State Department
of Transportation (NYSDOT) storage area at the intersection of
Routes 12B and 46, and following a former New York, Ontario and
Western Railroad railbed approximately 800 feet to the south
(figure 1).
The disposal trench is situated between the former railroad bed to
the east and an active agricultural field (classified AA-Prime
Farmland) to the west. Mature trees and heavy undergrowth are
found to the north and a small pond is found to the south (figure
2) . The Site is also 'at the intersection of three adjoining
properties. These are owned by C&J Leasing, New York State (the
former railbed area) and Joan and Howard Mosher (the agricultural
field).
A small pond which lies to the south, approximately 100 feet from
the disposal trench, ultimately drains to Woodman Pond (3,000 feet
to the south) which serves as a backup drinking water source for
the Village of Hamilton. There are thirteen residences in the
vicinity (within 1,800 feet) and downgradient of the Site.
Currently, twelve residences are actively utilizing private wells
as their source of drinking water (figure 2).
The small pond is part of a New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-designated wetland (HA-2),
which is a Class I wetland (the highest New York State wetland
designation). A second state-designated wetland (HA-1, Class II)
is located approximately 1,800 feet west of the Site. These two
wetland areas comprise the ecologically significant habitat area
known as "Fiddler's Green."
The Site is situated in a glacially scoured valley floor in which
recent deposits and unconsolidated glacial deposits overlie
bedrock. The area forms the drainage basin of the Chenango River,
which is a major tributary to the larger Susquehanna River Basin.
The localized surface drainage pattern at the Site is toward the
small pond and wetland. The Site is not located within a 500-year
flood plain area as designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, but is within a flood-prone area as identified by Cornell
University and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Madison County
Planning Department, 1988).
The Town of Eaton is a rural, central New York community. The 1980
population of the Town was 5,182 with an average rural density of
55 persons/square mile (mi2) outside of incorporated villages (U.S.
Census, 1980; Madison County Department of Planning, 1988). The
neighboring Town of Hamilton is similarly rural with a total
population (1980) of 6,027, and average rural density of 39
-------
persons/mi2 outside of incorporated villages (U.S. Census, 1980;
Madison County Department of Planning, 1988) . The closest
population center in the vicinity of the site is the Village of
Hamilton (population 3,725), located approximately 1.5 miles to the
southeast.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1976, C&J Leasing, located in Paterson, New Jersey, was
observed dumping what appeared to be paint sludges and other liquid
industrial waste materials in a trench on or adjacent to land owned
by C&J Leasing. Inspections were subsequently conducted by the New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), NYSDEC and the Village
of Hamilton Engineer. During a March 22, 1976 inspection conducted
by NYSDEC and the Village Engineer, approximately 75 to 100 drums
were observed lying in a stagnant pool of liquid wastes in the
previously described trench. The trench was subsequently covered
with fill, reportedly by C&J Leasing, apparently burying the drums
observed in March 1976.
Sampling was conducted at the Site by NYSDEC in 1985 and by the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) contractor, NUS
Corporation, in 1986. Surficial soil samples obtained from the
Site revealed the presence of phenolic compounds, phthalates,
various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was
detected in the sediments of the adjacent pond. A final Hazard
Ranking System score was derived for the Site based on the findings
of the Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection (PA/SI) prepared
for EPA by NUS Corporation in 1986.
Private residences in the vicinity of the Site use groundwater as
their drinking water source. NUS Corporation sampled taps from two
private wells downgradient. of the Site during its 1986 sampling
effort, but did not detect any contaminants. Additional sampling
by NYSDOH in 1988 of four private wells downgradient from the Site
did not reveal any contamination with volatile organic compounds
or priority pollutant metals.
The Site was placed on the Superfund National Priorities List in
March 1989.
In April 1989, prior to the start of remedial investigation (RI)
field activities, the Site was subject to an unauthorized
excavation by the principals of C&J Leasing, leaving two large
holes and three stockpiles of soil and waste material in the trench
area. A few partially crushed 55-gallon drums, a number of 5-
gallon cans (some crushed) and scraps of plastic waste material
were found scattered around the Site. The drums and cans contained
waste residue identical to the waste observed on the Site. In
April 1989, or earlier, drums that were believed to have been
buried may have been removed and taken off-site. An extensive
-------
follow-up investigation has failed to determine where the drums
were taken.
RI field investigations began in October 1989 and upon completion,
the Site was secured with temporary fencing and covers on the waste
piles. In December 1990, site security was upgraded with the
installation of more substantial fencing both around the disposal
trench and with gates and fencing across the access road to the
Site. In addition, to improve safety and to reduce surface water
ponding in the trench, the external soil pile was moved back into
the trench. Drums from the RI field sampling were placed within
the enclosed trench area. The trench was covered with a synthetic
liner to prevent sediment runoff and wind-borne contaminants from
leaving the Site (figure 2).
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Notice letters were sent on July 15, 1988 to the C&J Leasing Co.,
the Birge Company, Charles Picariello and Geneso (aka James)
'Picariello identifying them as potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). The notice letters also notified each PRP of an impending
RI and feasibility study (RI/FS) ta be conducted at the Site and
invited each PRP to either perform the RI/FS or finance it.
None of the PRPs agreed to perform or finance the RI/FS. As a
result, EPA sought access to the Site in order to conduct the
necessary activities. After C&J Leasing Co. refused to grant
access to its _property at the Site, EPA issued a unilateral
administrative order on May 5, 1989 to gain access. In response
to an unauthorized excavation of the Site in April 1989, a second
unilateral order was issued, also on May 5, 1989, directing Charles
Picariello and C&J Leasing Co., to "refrain from disposing of,
moving, placing, or handling the previously excavated materials or
any other materials of any type at the Site."
On the basis of evidence linking contaminants at the Site to
"Firestone Plastics" of West Caldwell, New Jersey, EPA issued a
notice letter to Bridgestone/Firestone on November 16, 1990.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation purchased the West Caldwell
facility from Firestone in 1980, and was also issued a notice
letter as Firestone's corporate successor in interest with regard
to the West Caldwell facility.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released
to the public for comment on January 25, 1991. These two documents
were made available to the public in both the administrative record
and an information repository maintained at the EPA Docket Room in
Region II, New York, at the Hamilton Village Library in Hamilton,
New York, and at NYSDEC's offices in Albany, New York. A public
comment period on these documents was originally held from January
-------
25, 1991 through February 25, 1991. Following a request from a
PRP, however, the comment period was extended to March 12, 1991.
In addition, a public meeting was held at the Hamilton Central
School in the Town of Hamilton, New York on February 13, 1991. At
this meeting, representatives from EPA and NYSDEC discussed the
problems at the site, the alternatives considered, and the
preferred alternative and answered questions. Responses to the
comments received during the public comment period are included in
the Responsiveness Summary, which is appended to this ROD.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This response applies a comprehensive approach and therefore only
one operable unit is required to remediate the Site.
The purpose of this response is to address the principal threats
posed by the conditions at the Site by:
Eliminating the potential for direct human or animal contact
with the contaminated soil and debris at the Site.
- Preventing the migration of contaminants from the Site through
surface water runoff to the pond, wetlands and agricultural
field adjacent to the Site, and ensuring the protection of the
groundwater from the continuous release of contaminants from
site soils.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI conducted by EPA during 1989 and 1990 indicated that, with
the exception of some low levels of contamination in the sediments
of the adjacent pond, the contaminants at the Site are confined to
the waste disposal trench, (Figure 2). No significant levels of
contaminants were found in surface soils at various distances from
the trench. The total volume of waste material and contaminated
soil and debris in the disposal trench is estimated at 1,250 cubic
yards (i.e., contained in the area of 140 feet by 40 feet and to
a depth of 6 feet). The waste is non-uniformly distributed and is
comprised of soil mixed with a plastic-like residue and/or a
similar synthetic matter, crushed drums and plastic bags (drum
liners) contaminated with the same or similar plastic residue, and
some wood debris. The plastic occurs as large clumps, layers, and
as small, highly distributed fragments. The primary contaminants
in the trench area are various phthalates (bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, di-n-octylphthalate, di-n-butylphthalate, etc.), phenols
(4-methylphenol, etc.) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) ,
(benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, 4-methyl-2-pentanone,
etc.). Lead, which was detected above background levels in only
one sample during extensive RI sampling, was found at significantly
elevated levels during more limited testing by NUS Corporation
(1986) and EPA (post-RI, 1990). It is not possible to attribute
the above chemicals found at the Site to any specific RCRA "listed"
-------
hazardous wastes. A wide variety of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the disposal trench and surrounding
surface soils are attributable to the old railroad bed and are,
therefore, considered background. The maximum detected concentra-
tions of soil contaminants at the Site are shown in Table 1 .'
While some of the waste materials are in direct contact with the
shallow groundwater, the contaminants are presently adsorbed or
bound in the waste material and/or are adsorbed to the soils and
are not migrating to the groundwater from the trench. Extensive
chemical analysis of the eight local residential wells (serving
twelve residences) during the RI further confirmed the prior
results, i.e., that no contaminants from the Site had migrated to
these wells. Seven grouncwater monitoring wells (four shallow and
three deep), installed during the RI in and around the Site, also
indicated no migration of contaminants from the trench to the
groundwater.
Testing of the water in the adjacent pond indicated no
contamination from the Site. Low levels of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
"phthalate and lead found in the sediments in the pond are
apparently attributable to overland sediment transport by surface
water runoff.
The RI/FS report provides greater detail of the.nature and extent
of contaminants found at the Site.
The potential for direct human exposure, as well as the potential
for future contaminant migration to groundwater and surface water,
exists at the Site. Presently, there are no permanent controls in
place to prevent contaminant migration from the site.
SUMMARY O7 SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a risk assessment of the "no-action" alternative to
evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment
associated with the Site in its current state. The risk assessment
focused on the soil contaminants which are likely to pose the most
significant risks to human health and the environment (i.e.,
chemicals of concern). The chemicals of concern and their
concentrations in site media are shown in Table 2.
EPA's risk assessment identified two potential exposure pathways
by which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases from the
Site under current land-use conditions.
- dermal contact with surface materials
- incidental ingestion of surface materials.
The potentially exposed population assessed was residents living
near the Site and using the Site for recreational purposes. The
-------
receptor was assumed to be a local resident (70 Kilogram (kg) who
jogs through the Site an average of once a month, over a period of
9 years. Exposure is only assumed to occur half the year, as
frozen ground, snow cover and outerwear preclude contact during the
winter months. Exposures were based on reasonable maximum
concentrations, calculated as the 95th percentile upper confidence
limit of the geometric mean.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that the
toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive.
Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual indicator compounds were summed to indicate
the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential
carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (reference doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
adverse health effects. -RfDs, which are expressed in units of
milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily
exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a
lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of
chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated soil) are compared with the RfD to
derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular
media. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media.
A HI greater than 1.0 indicates that potential exists for non-
carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging
the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within
a single medium or across media. The reference doses and HI for
the chemicals of concern at the Site for dermal contact and
incidental ingestion are presented in Table 3. A summary of the
non-carcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals is found in
Table 4.
a
It can be seen from Table 4 that the HI for non-carcinogenic
effects from dermal contact is 4 and, therefore, indicates that
non-carcinogenic effects may occur from the exposure routes
evaluated in the risk assessment.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the EPA for the chemicals of concern.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
-------
units of (ng/kg-day)'', are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at the intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The CPFs for the chemicals of concern
for dermal contact and incidental ingestion are presented in Table
5. A summary of the cancer risks associated with these chemicals
is found on Table 6.
For knovn or suspected carcinogens, the EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10" to 10* to be
acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site^related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure conditions
at the Site. The cumulative upper bound risk at the Site is 2 x
10". Hence, the risks for carcinogens at the Site are at the high
end of the acceptable EPA risk range of lO^1 to 10*.
While the RI did not provide any analysis of future risks due to
the migration of contaminants from the trench, three exposure
pathways, which are now minimal or incomplete could become
significant in the future. These included: 1) the transport of
contaminants through surface water runoff to the pond and wetlands;
2) the wind-borne transport of fugitive dust to downgradient
receptors (pond & wetlands, local residences, etc.) and 3) the
.release of contaminants to the groundwater and migration to local
downgradient wells used for drinking water. In this latter case,
changes in soil chemistry brought on by adjacent agricultural
activities (fertilizer, lime or pesticide application) or natural
phenomenon (bio-degradation of the waste material matrix, or algae
or mold blooms, in the trench pits, etc.) might cause the release
of contaminants into the groundwater.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sampled.
Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual
-------
levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error can stem
from several sources including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations
of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the risk assessment
provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near the
Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related
to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangement
to public health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A total of six alternatives were evaluated in detail for
remediating the Site. These alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1; No Action
Capital Costs: $0
Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: $50,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $528,500
Time to Implement: 1 month
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
Under this alternative, no remedial action to control the source
of contamination would take place. However, long-term monitoring
of the Site would be necessary. The monitoring program would
consist of sampling seven existing on-site monitoring wells on a
quarterly basis for 30 years.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
-------
alternative 2: Liaited Action
Capital Cost: $30,000
O & M Cost: $50,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $558,500
Time to Implement: 6-9 months
This alternative would be similar to the no-action alternative,
but would add land-use restrictions and permanent securing of the
Site. This alternative could affect all three land parcels with
deed restrictions and possibly require the relocation of a
telephone fiber-optic cable under the former railroad bed. By
erecting a permanent fence around the Site, the potential for
physical contact with the contaminated soil and debris would be
limited. The impact of the deed restrictions and site security on
the productivity of the agricultural field would have to be
assessed.
As with the no-action alternative, quarterly groundwater monitoring
for 30 years, as well as five year reviews, would be instituted.
If justified by the five-year review, remedial actions nay be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 3; Containment
Capital Cost: $85,000
O & M Cost: $56,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $712,500
Time to Implement: 12 months (includes design)
This alternative would involve filling and regrading the trench,
removing the monitoring well in the disposal trench, installing a
multimedia cap to prevent rain infiltration, permanently lowering
the water table to eliminate the possibility of contaminant
migration (via the groundwater) , and discharging groundwater from
the dewatering operation, to the adjacent pond. This alternative
would also require deed restrictions.
The multimedia capping system would consist of an upper vegetative
layer, a drainage layer, and a synthetic membrane. Because the
contaminated soil and debris is presently in contact with the
groundwater, the water table would have to be lowered permanently.
This could be accomplished by operating pumping wells near the four
corners of the trench to produce the necessary water table
drawdown. Hydrologic modeling has determined that pumping a total
of 100 gallons per minute would be required to maintain the water
table approximately three feet below the waste. The groundwater
would be piped and discharged to the adjacent pond and wetlands in
accordance with appropriate state and federal regulations.
Long-term groundwater monitoring would be performed and five year
-------
reviews would also be implemented as part of this remedy.
Alternative 4: Removal and Off-Site Treatment/Disposal
Capital Cost: $586,400
O & M Cost: $86/000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $672,400
Time to Implement: 6-9 months (includes design)
This alternative would involve the excavation of the contaminated
soil and debris from the disposal trench, followed by off-site
transportation and treatment/disposal at a permitted, RCRA-
compliant facility.
Under this alternative a temporary dewatering trench would be
installed to lower the water table in the disposal trench before
the excavation of the waste. Excavation would be anticipated to
extend to a depth of six feet throughout the trench area and result
in the removal of approximately 1,250 cubic yards of soil and waste
material. The monitoring well in the center of the disposal trench
would be removed. Confirmatory sampling and laboratory analysis
of remaining soils in-situ would be performed to verify that site-
specific cleanup criteria were met. Cleanup criteria for the
chemicals of concern would be based on background levels found in
off-site soil samples obtained from the abandoned r'ailroad bed and
native soil samples adjacent to the Site. Upon confirmation that
the contaminants of concern had been removed, the excavations would
be backfilled with clean fill and vegetated. All monitoring wells
and eight residential wells in the vicinity of the Site would be
sampled on a quarterly basis for a period of one year following the
completion of site remediation. If site contaminants are detected
in the groundwater, monitoring would be continued and if levels
contravene drinking water standards, corrective action will be
instituted. '
Because of the variety of contaminants at the Site (various
organics and lead), their uncertain volumes and distribution, and
possible treatment requirements, an exact disposal regime will have
to be determined in the RD phase. Testing of the excavated soil
and debris during the RD will be by TCLP analysis. If all or a
portion of the soil and debris is classified as a RCRA hazardous
waste, for the contaminants that would require thermal destruction
as a treatment under the RCRA LDRs, the waste may be disposed of,
without treatment, in a permitted RCRA-compliant minimum technology
hazardous waste landfill. This can be done before May 8, 1992
under a National Capacity Variance for Third-Third wastes.
Disposal after May 8, 1992 would require treatment in accordance
with LDRs. If the soil and debris, after testing, is found to
contain wastes which, under LDRs, require a form of treatment other
than thermal treatment, the necessary treatment will be conducted
at a permitted, RCRA-compliant off-site facility (on-site treatment
is not practical) prior to off-site disposal. This can be done
10
-------
through a soil and debris Treatability Variance up until the time
that final treatment standards are promulgated for soil and debris.
Conversely, that portion of the soil and debris not classified as
hazardous by the TCLP analysis can be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle-D facility.
For estimation purposes and to account for different disposal
regimes, the present worth cost for this alternative presumes that
all of the contaminated soil is RCRA hazardous waste and will be
disposed of at a land disposal facility without treatment, under
a National Capacity Variance. This cost is intermediate between
the possible lower costs afforded by Subtitle-D disposal and the
additional costs for any required waste treatment.
Alternative S - Reaoval and Off-Site Thermal Treatment
Capital Cost: $1,133,500
O & M Cost: $36,-000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $1,219,500
Tize to Implement: 6-9 months (includes design)
This alternative involves excavating the soil and debris
(approximately 1,250 cubic yards) from the disposal trench as
described in Alternative 4 and transporting the material off-site
for thermal treatment. Thermal treatment involves the thermal
destruction of the contaminants, and is principally used in
destroying organic waste. The resulting ash/residue would be
treated, if necessary, and disposed of in a permitted RCRA-
conpliant off-site Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facility.
There are several thermal treatment options available (i.e., low
temperature, incineration, etc.). Also, as in Alternative 4, the
contaminated soil and debris would be disposed of on the basis of
TCLP analysis. Portions of the waste not classified as hazardous
could be disposed of at a Subtitle-D facility. Any portion of the
waste classified as hazardous on the basis of inorganics (i.e.,
lead) alone, would be treated and disposed of in accordance with
LDR requirements.
As described in Alternative 4, any alternative involving the
removal of the soil and debris from the trench would incorporate
confirmatory sampling of the trench upon completion of the
excavation work. Cleanup criteria would be based on background
levels found in upgradient soil samples obtained from the abandoned
railroad bed and a native soils sample. Upon confirmation that the
contaminants had been removed, the excavation would be backfilled
with clean fill and vegetated. All monitoring wells on site and
the nearby residential wells would be sampled on a quarterly basis
for a period of one year.
The estimated present worth cost of this alternative does not
include the off-site treatment of the ash/residue/soil which would
vary with the type of thermal treatment performed. (i.e.,
11
-------
stabilization/solidification at an estimated cost of $130/cubic
yard).
Alternative 6 - In-Situ Vitrification
Capital Cost: $1,030,000
0 & M Cost: $46,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $1,551,800
Time to Implement: 6-9 months (includes design)
This alternative involves on-site treatment by melting the
contaminated soil and debris with heat generated from an electrical
current. Four electrodes would be implanted into the soil in a
square pattern, spaced 30 feet apart. A mixture of graphite and
glass grit would be placed on the surface to provide a conductive
path for the electric current. Resistance in the soil would cause
the temperature to rise to near 2,000 degrees centigrade resulting
in the destruction of the organic contaminants and the
encapsulation of any remaining material in a glass-like mass. This
process would require temporary dewatering of the Site, which would
be accomplished by excavating a temporary dewatering trench
adjacent to the Site as described in Alternative 4. A treatability
study would be required to determine the effectiveness of in-situ
vitrification with the Site's soils and to determine if clean-up
levels could be achieved. As a result of the process, a 25-45%
reduction in volume would occur and clean fill would be brought in
to fill and revegetate the Site.
Because the material would be left in place, groundwater monitoring
would be required for a period of 30 years to confirm that the
contaminants of concern are not migrating from the vitrified mass.
This alternative would also require five-year reviews.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against nine evaluation criteria, namely
overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance
with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs),
long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume, short-term effectiveness, implementability,
cost, state acceptance, and community acceptance.
Each criterion will be briefly addressed below with respect to the
alternatives for the remediation of the Site. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 7.
A. Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health and the
environment. Alternatives 4 and 5, by contrast, would be fully
protective of human health and the environment because the
12
-------
contaminants would be completely removed from the Site.
Alternative 2 would provide some measure of protection fron direct
contact with contaminants through permanent fencing of the Site,
but would not prevent contaminants from migrating from the Site
through surface water runoff, air transport or release into the
groundwater and migration to downgradient drinking water sources.
Alternative 3 would prevent surface contaminant migration from the
Site and could minimize contaminant migration through the
groundwater, but would require permanent dewatering of the disposal
trench and discharge of untreated groundwater to the pond and
wetlands. This could result in adverse environmental impacts.
Alternative 6 would 'reduce the chance of contaminant migration to
other environmental media by destroying most of the organic
contaminants of concern. Any contaminants not destroyed would be
encapsulated in a glass-like mass that would be insoluble and,
therefore, not be likely to leach contaminants. Subsequent
covering of the Site with clean fill would eliminate the potential
for physical contact with the vitrified mass.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Waste constituents are present in the soils at the Site but are
not currently present in the groundwater or surface water. There
are no chemical ARARs for soils, but there are federal and state
regulations for groundwater and surface water. Alternatives 4, 5
and 6 would eliminate the potential for cross-media impacts which
could result in exceedances of these ARARs, whereas Alternatives
1 and 2 would likely not aeet ARARs in the event of a release of
contaminants from the Site. Permanent dewatering of the disposal
trench under Alternative 3 would not be expected to result in the
exceedance of ARARs for groundwater, but could exceed discharge
limits for solids, turbidity, etc. into the wetlands. Temporary
dewatering of the disposal trench under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6
would also have to comply with surface water discharge
requirements.
Concerning location-specific ARARs, Alternatives 2 through 6 may
involve remedial activity at or within the perimeter of a 100 feet
buffer zone of the pond/wetlands. These activities would be
performed consistent with accepted practices to protect the
wetlands. The excavation of soil and waste under Alternatives 4
and 5 would occur just outside of the 100 feet buffer zone.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would involve action-specific ARARs.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would be subject to New York State and federal
regulations regarding transportation and off-site treatment/
disposal of wastes. Also, in the case of Alternatives 4 and 5,
the variety of contaminants at the Site will require a specific
disposal regime. This will be done as ARAR determinations are made
regarding disposal under RCRA LDRs. Alternatives 4 and 5 involve
the excavation of contaminated soils on-site, and would require
compliance with fugitive dust, VOC emissions regulations, as well
13
-------
as RCRA Dilution Prohibition regulations regarding waste
segregation. In the case of Alternative 5 (thermal treatment),
compliance with air emission standards would be required at the
off-site treatment facility. In the case of Alternative 6, on-
site treatment would be subject to ARARs for air emissions during
the vitrification process. Treatment of off-
gases may be required to meet the requirements of New York State
Regulations for Prevention and Control of Air Contamination and Air
Pollution and must comply with New York State Air Guide1 for the
Control of Toxic Ambient Air Emissions.
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would involve no controls and, therefore, would not
be effective in permanently preventing exposure to contaminants on-
site or eliminating the potential for contaminants migrating off-
site. Alternative 2 could be effective in preventing direct
exposure over the long-term, but would not be effective in
protecting against migration of contaminants off-site and the
resulting exposure. Alternative 3 would be effective against
contaminants migrating from the Site, but potential groundwater
contamination may adversely impact on the pond/wetlands. Also, the
installation of a permanent dewatering system could have a long-
term impact on the agricultural field. Alternatives 4 and 5 would
be fully effective and provide permanent remediation by removing
the wastes from the Site. Alternative 6 would be highly effective
in protecting against on-site exposure and off-site migration.
D. Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility or Volume
Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide no reduction in toxicity,
mobility or volume. Alternative 3 would provide a reduction in
mobility of the wastes, but no reduction in toxicity or volume.
Under Alternatives 4 and 5, contaminants would be removed
completely. However, land disposal (Alternative 4) would not
reduce toxicity and volume of the waste, but would control and
manage the mobility of the contaminants (as the material would be
treated or placed in a secure facility). In the case of thermal
treatment (Alternative 5) , an overall reduction in volume and
toxicity would be achieved, as well as elimination of waste
mobility. Treatment (stabilization/solidification) of the
subsequent ash/residue/soil, prior to disposal in an appropriate
landfill, would control and manage the mobility of any remaining
contaminants. Under Alternative 6, the organic contaminants of
concern would be destroyed or encapsulated. The nobility potential
of any residual contaminants would be greatly reduced or eliminated
by encapsulation in the vitrified mass. As a result of the
vitrification process, the total volume of contaminated soil and
debris would be reduced by 25-45%.
E. Short-Term Effectiveness
14
-------
Alternative 1 would be ineffective in protecting against direct
on-site exposure to contaminants and in protecting against off-
site migration of contaminants. Alternative 2 would readily
protect against direct exposure on-site, but would not address
short-term migration of wastes off-site. Alternative 3 would have
a minimal adverse environmental impact during capping and
installation of the dewatering system. However, the impact of
pumping untreated groundwater into the pond/wetlands could be a
significant short-term concern. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be
expected to have minimal adverse environmental impacts during
excavation and temporary dewatering operations. Appropriate
measures would be taken during excavation to prevent transport of
fugitive dust and exposure of workers and downgradient receptors
to volatile organic compounds. Alternative 6 would be expected to
have minimal adverse environmental impacts during dewatering,
construction, and operation. The remaining remediation activities
under alternative 6 would take place in the trench area and in the
adjacent land between the trench and Route 12B and would have
minimal adverse effect.
F. Implementability
.
Alternative 1 would be easily implementable, as only groundwater
monitoring is involved. Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 6 would each
require groundwater monitoring for 30 years and beyond, and
Alternatives 4 and 5 would require monitoring for only one year
each. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 permanent securing of the Site
would be easily implementable but final agreement on deed
restrictions could be lengthy. Alternative 3 would be the most
difficult to implement. The installation of a permanent dewatering
system could have and adverse impact on the adjacent agricultural
property, this requiring compensation, and groundwater discharge
to the pond/wetlands would require a New York State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit and state and federal approval
to discharge into wetlands. Alternatives 4 and 5 use proven
technologies, established administrative procedures, have
sufficient facilities available for disposal and, therefore, would
be easily implemented. Alternative 6 would be implementable
provided treatability studies demonstrate adequate effectiveness
of this technology for the Site. Administrative activities would
include securing electricity for the process, obtaining and
coordinating subcontractor activities, and providing adequate
safety for the Site during remediation.
G. Cost
Estimated present worth costs range from a low of $528,500 for no
action with groundwater monitoring (Alternative 1) to a high of
$1,551,800 for in-situ vitrification (Alternative 6).
H. State Acceptance
15
-------
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy, Removal and Off-Site
Treatment/Disposal (Alternative 4) and also concurs with the
contingency remedy, Removal and Off-Site Thermal Treatment
(Alternative 5), if the selected remedy cannot be implemented.
I. Community Acceptance
The community has expressed strong support for the selected remedy,
Alternative 4 and also for Alternative 5 the contingency remedy,
both of which involve removal of the waste from the site. The
Village of Hamilton, whose citizens are in the closest proximity
to the Site, passed a Resolution endorsing the selected remedy.
A similar resolution was passed by both the County of Madison and
the Town of Eaton.
The community comments and concerns received during the public
comment period are identified and addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is attached as Appendix 5 of this document.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives and public comments, both
EPA and NYSDEC have determined that Alternative 4, Removal and Off-
Site Treatment/Disposal, is the appropriate remedy for the Site.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
- Approximately 1,250 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris
will be excavated from the trench and transported to a permitted,
RCRA-compliant facility for treatment/disposal.
- The drums containing wastes generated during the RI will be
transported to a permitted, RCRA-compliant waste management
facility for treatment/disposal.
- The water table in the disposal trench will be lowered to
facilitate removal of the soil and waste. This will be done by
installing a dewatering trench along the west side of the disposal
trench and pumping continuously. The discharge water will be
pumped (and treated, if necessary) to an upgradient infiltration
trench or pit for recharge to the groundwater. This would be done
in accordance with state and local discharge requirements.
- The monitoring well in the center of the disposal trench will be
removed to facilitate the excavation.
- Confirmatory analysis will be performed after excavation to
verify the complete removal of contaminants. Cleanup criteria will
be based on background levels found in off-site samples obtained
from both the former railroad bed and native soil samples. Upon
confirmation that the contaminated soil and debris have been
removed, the excavation will be backfilled with clean fill and the
16
-------
Site will be revegetated.
- The six monitoring wells at the Site and the eight local
residential wells will be tested on a quarterly basis for a period
of one year following completion of site remediation. If site
contaminants are detected in the groundwater, monitoring will be
continued and if levels contravene drinking water standards,
corrective action will be instituted.
- A wetlands assessment, 500-year floodplain assessment, Stage 1A
cultural resources survey, and consultation with the Soil
Conservation Service concerning potential impacts to ecologically
significant agricultural lands, will be undertaken, as necessary,
during the remedial design phase.
Because of the variety of contaminants at the Site (various
organics and lead), their uncertain volumes and distribution, and
possible treatment requirements, an exact disposal regime will have
to be determined in the RD phase. Testing of the excavated soil
and debris during the RD will be by TCLP analysis. If all or a
portion of the soil and debris is classified as a RCRA hazardous
waste, for the contaminants that would require thermal destruction
as a treatment under the RCRA LDRs, the waste may be disposed of,
without treatment, in a permitted RCRA-compliant minimum technology
hazardous waste landfill. This can be done before May 8, 1992
under a National Capacity Variance for Third-Third wastes.
Disposal after May 8, 1992 would require treatment in accordance
with LDRs. If the soil and debris, after testing, is found to
contain wastes which, under LDRs, require a form of treatment other
than thermal treatment, the necessary treatment will be conducted
at a permitted, RCRA-compliant off-site facility (on-site treatment
is not practical) prior to off-site disposal. This can be done
through a soil and debris Treatability Variance up until the time
that final treatment standards are promulgated for soil and debris.
Conversely, that portion of the soil and debris not classified as
hazardous by the TCLP analysis can be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle-D facility.
For estimation purposes and to account for different disposal
regimes, the present worth cost for this alternative presumes that
all of the contaminated soil is RCRA hazardous waste and will be
disposed of at a land disposal facility without treatment, under
a National Capacity Variance. This cost is intermediate between
the possible lower costs afforded by Subtitle-D disposal and the
additional costs for any required waste treatment.
In the unlikely event that the selected remedy, Alternative 4, can
not be implemented before the RCRA LDR deadline of May 8, 1992, the
contingency remedy, Alternative 5, would be implemented in its
place for the portion of the waste classified as hazardous based
on organics. Any portion of the waste based on inorganics (i.e.,
lead) alone would be treated according to LDRs. Alternative 5
17
-------
involves the same on-site remediation activities as the selected
remedy.
Renediation Levels
The purpose of this response action is to reduce the present risk
to human health and the environment due to the contaminated soil
and debris in the disposal trench at the Site. The excavation and
removal of contaminated waste material and soils will reduce both
the carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard to acceptable
levels and will restore the Site to a fully useful state.
This response action will also ensure protection of the groundwater
used for drinking water by the twelve residences in the immediate
vicinity of the Site and will ensure protection of the surface
water which drains into the adjacent pond and wetlands. The pond
ultimately drains into Woodman Pond, a back-up potable water supply
for the nearby Village of Hamilton.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete,
the selected remedial action for this site must comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under federal and state environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be
cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,or mobility of hazardous
waste as their principal element. The following sections discuss
hov the selected remedy and the contingency remedy meet these
CERCIA Section 121 requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy will protect human
health and the environment by complete removal of the contaminants
of concern from the Site. This will reduce the current
carcinogenic risk of 2x10^ to much lower levels and will reduce
the non-carcinogenic hazard of 4 to an acceptable level of less
than one.
Conplete removal of contaminants from the Site will also remove a
substantial threat to local drinking water supplies and to the
back-up drinking water supply for the Village of Hamilton, as well
as eliminating the continuing threat to the adjacent pond and
18
-------
wetlands. No unacceptable short-tern risks will be caused by
implementation of the selected remedy or the contingency remedy.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected remedy, removal and off-site treatment/disposal, and
the contingency remedy, removal and off-site thermal treatment,
will comply with all chemical-, action-, and location-specific
ARARs for remediation of the Site. Although there are no chemical-
specific ARARs for soils, there are federal and state regulations
for groundwater and surf-ace water. The complete removal of
contaminants will prevent a release of contaminants to the
groundwater or surface water and assure compliance with these
regulations. The selected remedy and the contingency remedy will
comply with location-specific ARARs concerning activity in the
vicinity of wetlands, and with action-specific ARARs i.e., state
and federal regulations regarding transportation of hazardous
wastes and their treatment/disposal (RCRA).
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportionate
to its cost, and is the most cost-effective of the six alternatives
developed for the Site. While not as cost-effective as the
selected remedy, the contingency remedy is cost-effective. The
selected remedy and the contingency remedy achieve risk reduction
rapidly, are easy to implement and with the complete removal of
contaminants from the Site, eliminate long term monitoring and
review.
0
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and New York State have determined that the selected remedy
and the contingency remedy represent the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in
a cost-effective manner for the Site.
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy will result in a
permanent reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants at the Site, greater than the containment and in-situ
vitrification alternatives and equal to the removal and off-site
thermal treatment alternative (contingency remedy). The
contingency remedy affords greater reduction in volume, but at
greater cost, and even greater costs if disposal of the residues
is considered. The selected remedy and the contingency remedy
achieve protection of human health and the environment in a shorter
time period and are more easily implemented than the containment
and in-situ vitrification alternatives.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
19
-------
The selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by the
Site through land disposal, although, depending on the results of
the TCLP testing, a portion or all of the waste may require
substantial treatment (e.g., solidifcation/stabilization, soil
washing, etc.). The contingency remedy may require post-treatment
of the ash/residue. The statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment as a principal element will not be satisfied for
those scenarios where treatment is not required under LDRs. How-
ever, even under those scenarios, the selected remedy will be
protective of public health and the environmemt.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
20
-------
FIGURES
-------
s-- \ ?M
VILLAGE OF HAMILTON
2000"
200
-------
FIGURE 2
C.&JD/SPOSAL S/TC
SAMPLE. LOCATION MAP
EATON d)> MADISON Co.
nmnmin
RESIDENTIAL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
C & J DISPOSAL SITE
Disposal Trench
feet by 40 feet)
SOURCE: NYSDF.C/
NUS CORPORATION
WEHI1AN NEW YOflK, INC.
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CSJ DISPOSAL SITE
CONTAMINANTS - KA3IMUM DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
Concentration
Contaminant (uo/kq)
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 29,000,000
di-n-octyl phthalate 220,000
di-n-butyl phthalate . 110,000
butyl benzyl phthalate 19,000
4-nethylphenol 17,000
2,4-dinethyl phenol 210
benzene 5,900
ethylbenzene 190,000
toluene 650,000
xylenes 560,000
4-aethyl~2-pentanone 1,100,000
2-butanone 250,000
1,2-dichloroethane 8,400
trichloroethene 3,000
lead 637*
* mg/kg
-------
Table 2
C&J DISPOSAL SITI!!
SUMMARY Of PARAMETERS FOR SELECTION OP CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Parameter
Benzene
Toluene
Etliylbciuenc
Total Xylcnes
4-Methylphcnol
2.4-Dimethylphcnol
di-n-Dulylphthalate
Dutylheniylphthalate
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-Octylphthalate
Maximum
Concentration
d'y'M
Watte Piles
5900 t
650000 OJ
190000 J
5f>0000 J
17000 J
210 J
110000
19000 J
29000000 DJ
220000 J
Detection limit
(l'9/ku)
15000
15000
15000
15000
24000
420
24000
24000
2400000
24000
frequency of
Detection
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
4/5
2/5
4/5
5/5
5/5
3/5
Maximum
Concentration
(t'U'M
Surface Soils*
U
U
U
U
U
U
120 J
U
150000 D
U
Detection l.linlt
(iMl'M
430
11000
Ficquenry of
Detection
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
1/10
0/10
2/10
0/10
* Does nol include samples SS 01 and SS 02, which are upgradient of the site.
Dafa Qu.i/iYi'ers:
0 - Analyte found in associated blank as well as sample
J - Value is estimated
D - Compound identified at a secondary dilution factor
U - Compound was not delected
-------
Table 3
ORAL CHRONIC REFERENCE DOSES
Parameter
Benzene
Butylberuylphthalate
di-n-Butylphthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
bis (2-Ethylhexyf)phtha!ate
4-Methylphenol (p-cresol)
di-n-Ottylphthalate
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
RfD
0.0007
0.2
0.1
(O.ooca)* 0.02
0.1
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.3
2
Notes:
HQ
Exposure
RfD
Hazard Quotient = E*posure/'R'D
Average daily intake (mg/kg/day)
Reference dose for chronic intake (mg/Vg/day)
RfD used in dermal risk calculation only
-------
Table 4
C&J DISPOSAL SITE
SUMMARY OF MULTIPATIIWAY CHRONIC HAZARDS
Parameter
Ron/cne
Dulylben/ylplitlialatc
(Ji-n-llulyl|>lillialate
2,4 Dimetliylphcnol
Elliylbun/enc
bii(2-[lliyllioxyl)ph»lialatc
4-Mctliylplicnol (p crcsol)
-------
Taile 5
ORAi CARCINOGENIC POTENCY FACTORS
Parameter
Benzene
Butylben/ylphtholale
di-n-Gulylphthalate
2.4-DimelhyfphenoI
Ethylbenzene
bis (2-EthylhexyQphihalate
4-Melliylphenol (p-cresol)
di-n-Octylphiholote
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
CPF
0.029
-
-
-
-
0.014
-
-
-
-
Notes:
Risk
Exposure
C?F
Exposure xCPF
Average daily intake (mg/kg/day)
Cardnogenic Potency factor (mg/kg/day):'
-------
Table 6
C&JDISPOSALSITIC
SUMMARY OF MULTIPATHWAY CARCINOGENIC RISKS
Parameter
nerwene
nutylhonzylphthalnte
-------
TaLble 7
C&JDISPOSALSITE
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
AJternative
1. No Action
2. Limited
Action
3. Containment
4. Removal
and Off-She
Treatment/'
Disposal .
5. Removal
and Off-Si:e
Thermal
Treatment
6. In Situ
Vitrification
Protection
of Human
Hearth and
Environment
None
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Potentially
High
Compliance
with
ARAKs
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Potentially
Yes
Reduction
in Toxicity.
Mobility or
Volume
No
No
Mobility
Toxicity
Mobility
Toxicity
Mobility
Volume
Toxicity
Mobility
Volume
Short-Term
Effectiveness
None
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Long-Term
Effectiveness/
Permanence
None
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate to
High
Implement-
ability
High
High
Low to
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
to High
Cost
(S)
528,500
558,500
712.500
672.400
1.219,500
1,551,800
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
G3/".5/r" !-cex :coj-er.: Vjrc«r Crcer Page: 1
C 4 J IIS^SAL Cc
.: lurrxr: C.O-OO'.-OOC'. To CC01 Oa:e: 01/29/27
Titlt: C.ttze.- fcr-areir^ t"e Sits Inspection iepcrt and :.u.e :j.a:ars Jariing Systea documents fer
t-< sits)
>.t.Sc.-: F;rt3^, ?ersr S.: Wi;: Ccrpcrat icn
iecipter.:: Ketsirj, Oti.-j: 'JS H-i
A-.ticr.e-: C.~ -001-COC2
..... .. [[[ A.
Ooc--ne-.: «U3>;-: C:3-OC', -OCZc To OU3 ?ar-r.t: CJD-CO', -CC01 Ca:e: 01/29/37
Ti;:-: Fir*! :.-af: Site Ins^fction Repcrt and hazard Rarjrin; Sys tea Model CSJ Oispcsal Site, Haailtcn
Ty?:: tZ.:CR7
X'-t-1-^.-: JUrtor., Peter S.: »,'S Ccrpcra:ion
i e-: ' p i er : : ncr« : US L: A
±>!.-: C:0-CC1-0'. To 01C3 Date: 10/03/15
Title: Preliminary
Type:
JLrthcr: ncne: US E=A
Recipier.t: ncne: none
A: tachec: C.T5-001-OU9 C.'0-OOI-OISO CJO-001-0151 CO-CX31-0153 CJO-C01-0157 C-'0-001-0133 CJO-001-0159
C.D-OO1-0161
Docjtsr.l fcj=bcr: C-T>-C01-C%9 To 01i9 Parer.t: C.'3-001-01Ci Date: 10/2i/25
Title: 0*e3c detailing tan'. ing and investigation trip to four HTS Region 7. sites, including CiJ
Disposal site, on October 1-3, 1985)
Type:
Csrcitian HISSIVj ATTAC:-*Z:'4T
-------
,15/91
Index Document K^rber Cruer
C I J DISPOSAL Docuaents
Page: 2
Docxrent Ku*>er: CJO-001-0150 To 0150 Parent: CJD-C01-01U Date: C2/12/36
-Title: (Letter responding to Request for Infonaation for the CiJ Disposal site, Site ID K-«t±er 727CCX)
Type: COMESPOCEXCE
Condition: HISSHTC ATTACHHEXT
Airthor: Goddard, Charles H.: KY Dept of Environraental Conservation
Recipient: Rathbooe, John: Village of Haailton - Municipal Utilitits Cemission
Docuaent Hu*«r: C,T)-001-0151 To 0152 Parent: CJO-C01-0'4i Dats: / /
Title: (Photographs taken at CiJ Disposal site)
Type: GRAPHIC
Author: none: none
Secipiesit: none: none
Mi«ber: CJD-001-0153 To 0156 Parent: CJD-001-014A Date: 10/07/82
Title: Organic* Analysis Data Sheet (for soil samples)
Type: DATA
Author: none: EXSCO
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuaent Bv«t*r: CJO-001-0157 To 0157 Parent: CJD-001-0144 Date: C5/01/86
Title: (Meao recaonending action to review a barrel reooval project at CSJ Disposal site)
Type: COR££SPOOXCE
Author: Deiick, Walter: US EPA
Recipient: Kelly. Kevin: US EPA
Docuoent Kuxxr: CJD-001-0153 To 0153
Title: (Kevo i u HT» iiling a barrel reaoval progr
Type: CORK£SPONDXC£
Condition: MISSING ATTAOflCXT
Author: Goddard. Oarles «.: US EPA
Recipient: King, David: US EPA
Parent: C-T)-C01-014A
at the CSJ Disposal site)
Date: C5/15/S6
-------
02/15/V.
Index Oocvsaesi: KLrr*r C.er
C t J 3IS2CSAI Doc--nents
Page: 3
Cocu=eflt Muroer: CJD-C01-0159 To 0160
Parent: C.;-CO'.-31C:
Ca:e: C6/29/S7
Title: (Heno forwarding attached registry charge s>.«t. prcpcsi.-.s that CiJ Disposal site t« rec'.assi f ie.arl« W.: US EPA
Hr::piem: Cress, Larr-/: US £?*
Coc-jaer.t HLrc«r: CJD-001-OT61 To 0162
Fzrent: C.'3-CO:- j'.~
Oa:e: / /
Title: tractive Hazardous Waste Disposal Repcrt (f:r CiJ Disposal sit;)
Type: RE?CST
Author: none: US £?A
Recipient: none: US E?A
Oo
-------
15/71
Index Dm-rant Xtcber Crcer
C I J DISPOSAL Docuaems
Kircer: CJD-001-0187 To 0361 Parer.t: CJ3-001-01SS Date: Oi/01/2?
Title: Saecling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for RI/FS CiJ Disposal Site Eaton, New Tort
Type: PLAH
ALTthor: Buidobro, Patio: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docaent tusixr: CJD-001-0362 To 0363 Date: C3/C9/i?
Title: (Letter forwarding copies of the RI/FS Work Plan)
Type: CORK£S?OBENC£
Ai-lhor: Sachdev, Oev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Alvi, N. Shahe-r: US EPA
Attached: CJD-001-0364
: CJO-001-036i To 0462 Parent: CJO-001-OI62 Da:e: 03/C9/i9
: Rl/FS Work Plan
type: PVOi
Author: Buidobro, Pablo: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Doc^ent *uaber: CJD-001-0463 To 0606 Date: 01/01/91
Title: Volu*e 1: Remedial Investisation
Type: REPORT
Author: Savino, Anthony: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
lluaber: CJD-001-0607 To
Title: (Remedial Investisation Report) Voluae 1A: Appendix; Appendices A - H
Type: REPORT
Author: Savino. Anthony: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Date: 01/01/71
-------
C3/15/7* Index Ocor>ent Kurber u. ^c Pegs: 5
C 1 J OISrCSAL Ooc--r«ms
Coc--«r.t Hu±*r: C-ID-C01-1W7 To 1424 Date: 01/01/91
Title: (Seoe-diat Investigation Report) Volirae 13: Appendix; Appendices H - K
Type: REPCST
Author:' Savino, Anthony: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: rone
Dcxr-ner.t Kurccr: c:3-001-Ki5 To 1427 Da:e: C9/13/90
Title: CLetter px-«entir^ MTSEC and t.k.e M.T. State Oepartnent cf Health's eonrvents on the Draft
RI Repcrt)
Type:
Author: Schick, Robert V. : IfT Oept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Sir^eraan, Joel: US E?A
Coc-j«r.t Hvri>;r: C.-D-C01-U22 To 1422 Date: 02/20/E?
Title: (Letter regarding consent for iccevs to property in orcer to perfona sampling activities)
Type: CC*A£S?O*OENC£
Avthor: Picariello, Claries: C ( J Leasing Coopany, Inc.
Recipient: Schlagel. Joel: US EPA
Attached: CJD-001-U29
Oociaent Musber: CJD-001-U29 To U30 Parent: U>-Q01-U23' Date: 11/02/28
Title: (Letter requesting access to site parcels to perfora Rl activities, with attached consent
fora)
Type: CZR2ES7QNDEMCS
Author: Schlagel. Joel: US EPA
Recipient: Picariello, Diaries: C I J Leasing Canpeny, Inc.
Docuaent Uixcer: CJO-001-U31 To 1521 Date: 01/01/91
Title: Voline 2: Feasibility Study
Type: REPORT
Author: Savino, Anthony: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: C,T>-001-1522 C,1)-001-1531
-------
Index Doc-jaent Number Croer Page: 6
C i J DISPOSAL Docusents
Coer-ner.t Munber: CJO-001-1522 To 1530 Parent: CJD-C01-1431 Dste: 01/01/91
Title: Sixer-fund Proposed Plan - C I J Disposal Site, Towi of Eaton, Ksdison Ccinry. Kev Ycrt
Type: PtAX
Author: none: US EPA
Eec:pier.t: none: none
Docxoent luK-er: CJD-001-1531 To 1531 Parent: CJD-001-1431 Date: 02/19/91
Title: (Letter stating support for Alternative 4 or Alternative 5)
Type: COttESPOKDENCS
A^hc-r: tuiper, Robert H.: Rod i son County Board of Sirervisors
Bec-pier-.t: O'Dell. Jack: US EPA
--nent *j±xr: CJD-001-1532 To 1532 . Care: 01/30/91
e: CXeao regarding New York State DOH coaxnent and review of Prcposed Reraedial Action Plan (PRAP)
for C & J Disposal site)
Type: CCRRESPCMDEHCE
Author: Block, Arthur: US Dept of Health t Hunan Services
Recipient: O'Dell, Jack: US EPA
KLBber: CJD-001-1533 To 1534 Date: 01/24/91
Title: (Letter regarding CiJ Disposal site, Eaton (T), Kadison Cou-ity site No. 7-27-OC4, Prcposed
Eeaedial Action Plan (giving HTSOEC concjrrence with PHAP and offering cements on Record of
Decision)
Type: CORAESPCICEJJCE
*i.thor: Sulliven, Eduard 0.: KT Dept of Environmental Conservation
Rec-:?ier.t: Tsiaais, Ciristos: US EPA
-------
G/"3/~ I.-cex Iccuaer.t KLRC*.- Crier Page: 7
C 4 J OISPCCAL C3C--r>er>:s
v--*-- CJC-30Vi533 To 1537 ta:j: 11/30/90
Title: (Letter prcv-::ir«; i -turits on the Draft Feasibility Stucy review by HTSTEC end IfTSSCH)
Type: C3UI SOC EXC;
JL.-r-.cc: Sc^.ick, irc^r-: W.: IfT De-pt of E/^viroreiental Conservation
itcipier.:: Sir»;?raar, Jo»l: US tr*
CJC-OO1- 1535 To 1541 Dz:»: 11/27/90
Title: C^-s» disctjssins feasibility SV-cry praje^:: review ne»tin? held on November 20, 1590. List
oi ztterrie^s jrt-
: S^vino, *j".t±>onr: rba^cs Services
: O'^ell. Jaci: US L?A
-.t rjtxser: CX-001-15«i2 To 15-42 Date: 10/U/S3
Title: (Letter respcndin; to Septeaser 13. 19S2 letter revesting current and fct-jre action of C
I J Disposal site and providing tpcUte of status of activities at the site)
Type:
Canditicn: HISSIHG ATTAC3CXT
A^-^or: BA^onn, Kelvin: US E?A
£ec-pient: Lir-in. 6di-y A.: BY Dept of Health
Do- rant fc-ccj-r: CJC-001-15i3 To 1544 Date: 09/13/SS
Title: (Utter dis=jssins questions ttat haft arisen pertaining to the status vx! prosr-ss of the
*ite irrvest: jatior/reoetiiation, reojesting copies of reports and an updated starts of the site)
Type:
/L.-t*»r: Litwin, Gary A.: KT Oept ef Health
Ze=:pierrt: K«an. Ciroline: US E?A
-------
S/91 Index Docjaent Kunber Order Pace: 8
C S J DISPCSAL Doc-jaents
r.t Kvrccr: (UTJ-OOI-IS-S To 15^3 Date: 07/C4/90
Title: Sespcrs* to Succleoental Request for Information
Type: CORifSPOCOCE
Author: V«ton, Alan F.: Occidental Cheaical
Recipient: Miles, Jan: US EPA
Attached: C.-D-001-15-i9
Docjaer.t MLiaber: CJD-001-l5i9 To 1W9 Parent: CJO-001-1545 Date: 01/OS/8*
T::le: (Letter discussing disposal of solid uzste dcring 19SO, sutnitted with S^ppleaental Rerpcrsse)
Type: CCRJl£;?C»a;£)iC2
Ai.thor: Ailing, E.3.: ncne
Bj^ipier.:: none: KJ Sweau of Uaste Managejaer.t
-.t H«CE
Condition: MISSIKG ATTAO9CXT
Author: Roaen. Oiristine M.: Bridgestone/Fir«stone, Inc.
E-cipient: Beausejour. Kafalie: US EPA
r.t lumber: CJO-001-1532 To 1552 Date: 06/04/90
Title: (Letter resarding extension of tiae to respond to Request for Information)
Type: COMES?Oe>O
-------
03/15/rl IrtUi Ccxr-raer.: Wuroer Crier Pa==- 9
c i J DISPOSAL Doc-.r«nts
Ccojaer.t rjne.-: CJD-3G1- '.535 To 15:6 Date: 06/14/90
Title: (Seipors-i ts A's April 26, 199C, tetter recuestir-; infc.^at icn concerning t!-.e sale of a
fcraer 5.*-aoes:3Te/r irestor*, Inc. facility)
Conditicn: )«tS::
-------
715/91
Index Docuaer.t Kiccer Crcer
C t J DISPOSAL Dcoxjer.ts
Pace: 10
Oocuaent Berber: CJt>-001-'571 To 1533 Date: CS/TO/S9
Title: Request for Inforsaticr. Pursuant to Section 1C4 of dCUA and Section 3CG7 of RC5A
Type: CORRESPONDEHC
Author: Luftig, Stephen D.: US EPA
Recipient: Hevin, J.J.: Bridgestorie/Firestone, Ire.
Docuaent MLrfcer: CJD-001-15S1 To 1528 Date: 07/25/S9
Title: (Response to 104
-------
Iroex Docvner.t i\ccxr Cr-^er Page: 11
C £ J DISPCSAi Ccc-.-cer.ts
Oocuaer: luaoer: C.'0-00'.-'!6i4 To 16*1 ri.-er.:: CJD-C01 -16C3 Ca:e: C6/22/S9
Title: (Litter fcraarsing arswtrs to question 3 of the Issues: fcr Infcr=aticn Letter)
Type: COttf SPOKE E«C£
AutJyy: Picariello, Charles: C I J Leasing Conpiny. Inc.
Rec-pier.t: Kiles, Jca.n: US £?A
: C.'0-001-U'.2 To 16% Date: 01/Z:/S9
Ti:le: (Lerrtr asting t>.«t E?A be grantee acrti-s t: p^rt-ls 127-1-Z5 a.-d 137-1-27, on the C S J Disjxsa!
site, to perform 81 activities)
Type:
Aire>cr: Schta^el, Joel: US E?A.
ecipier.t: Pitariello, Ovirles: C I J Leasing Cootiny, Inc.
r.t tvaoer: CJO-001-14'5 To 16".9 Date: Oi/Zi/90
Title: SLppleaental Bequest for Irrfcrnation; C t J Oispc&al Site
Type: CSX£S?OCaC£
Author: luftig, Stephen 0.: US E?A
Recipient: Aurott, Secr^e V.: 8ridsestor«/F irestore, Ire.
t>ocL«ent iLKier: CJO-001-1620 To 1629 Date: CK/ti/90
Title: Jequest for Information P-jrsuant to Section 104 cf CiCLA and Section 3C07 of RC^, C J J
Oispcsal Site, Eaton, lev Tort
Type: CRR£S?affiE*CZ
AirC-«r: Laftig, Stephen D.: US E?A
Recipier.t: none: Occibertal C-.
r: CJD-001-1630 To 1630 Date: 01/29/90
Title: (tetter respording to a &*ce=t*r 21. 199 letter requestir.g infcrsation on the presence of
federally listed endangered or threatened icecies in the vicir.ity cf the site)
Type: COlRfSPOCEUCE
Aurrxx-: Cocin, Lecrard P.: US Fish t Uilclife Service
Recipient: Sar^rore, Robert W.: US E7A
-------
|/91 Index Dooxaent Nixfcer Order Page: 12
C i J DISPOSAL Docuaents
Document Huaber: CJD-001-1631 To 1631 Date: 12/21/89
Title: (Letter requesting a written stateoer.t indicating whether any endangered or threatened species
Ulich are listed or proposed to be listed Bay be present in the project area)
Type: CORR£SPO*E*C£
Ccodition: MISSIHG ATTACHMENT
Author: Hargrove, Robert U.: US EPA
Recipient: Corin, Leonard P.: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Doc-jnent Kuaber: CJD-001-1632 To 1633 - Date: 05/05/89
Title: (Letter confirming a Kay 5, 19E9 telephone conversation and forwarding two Adrainistrative
Orders issued by EPA pursuant to CEICLA, incomplete Administrative Crd«r attached)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
ALthcr: Simon. Paul: US EPA
Recipient: Picariello. Charles: C C J Leasing Conparr/, Inc.
c: CJD-001-163i CJD-001-1639
Docuaent Kurber: CJD-001-1634 To 1638 Parent: CJD-001-1632 Date: C6/05/89
Title: Achinistrative Order (Index Mo. II CE2CLA-90216)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Musrynski. Williaa J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docuaent Huit«r: CJD-001-1639 To 1643 Parent: CJD-001-1632 Date: 05/05/89
Title: Achinistrative Order directing compliance with Request for Access (Index Ho. II CEJZCLA-90213)
Type: LEGAL DOOJHEMT
Author: Huszynski. Uillian J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
OS/15/71 Iroeji locjaer.t K-j»er C.-aer Page: 13
C I J 3IS?C£Ja Oco-nents
Docuaerit Ktrber: C,-0-001-16ii To 16ii Cate: 10/13/S9
Title: (letter fonarding the Conmniry Zelatiora Plan for the C i J Oispcsal site)
Type: CRAESPOCEXCH
/Urthcr: £ack.dev, Oev a.: Ebasco Services
Bec-pier.t: Alvi. X. 3;»ie
-------
Irrie* Docvraent Hurber Croer
C I J DISPOSAL Docuaer.ts
Page: 14
Poc-jae-.t r-COb.-: CJ>XI1-',£73 73 *.i~ Parsr.t: C,t)-C01-1672 Date: 03/07/90
"Title: (Letter rj^a. :ns ~A irrf &.-==:; oral visit Ksdis^i Ciu-iry H^C-Heus release discussing the terch
15, 19SC aeeti.ig with BEO a::acr.eO
Type: CXII3>>C>iC;
Airt-Sor: Tcrt.s, S-»v-r. J.: Kac:.»cn Cou-.ry Planning De^.-tae-.t
Recipient: So-i^jaur, fctalie: US E?A
Doejae-.t K-JSCC-: CX-XI1-1676 7o ".£77 Pa.-ir.t: CJO-C01-16r2 Date: 02/13/91
Title: Resiluf'o-. iecarcirg D ; s?c-s ; t i cri of the CiJ Dispc&a'. Sits
Type: UES«1 CXX^>EVI
A^Sor: too.-, FTIC'. C.: VUl^;; of taailtoo. Hew Ycrk
t ±c ; p i er. t : ix^*e : rw
it K-ory-r: CX- 001-1673 To 1i73 Par-it: CJD-001-1672 Date: OZ/M/^I
Title: CXe^spsper «r:icle er.i::lec:) E?A slates rtnp site cltarxp hearing at KCS
Type: CA:i^a^'J»CCKC£
Author: SterrBLT^. Sus^n terry: CSeranso Valley News
tecipient: nons: none
DociBent fcjnber: CJXXT1-167? To laW Par-it: CJD-C01-1672 Date: 02/03/91
Title: (₯e*spE?er Article er.t:tlec':) E?A s^ecs cleanus at Eaton chemical site
Type: CDttSSOCOfCH
Aithcr: We'.r=h. ^ria T.: Syrar-s* Gerald Aaericin
tecipierrt: nor»s: rcne
anr»i-; CX-OC1-16c'. To '.6£1 Fs.-ent: C:D-C01-1672
Title: C^svsfsper trtic'.e ertitlec:) E7A secures deep sits
Type: C3.T
Author: none: d^rango Yaile-j' Mews
tecipierrt: ncne: rone
Date: 02/01/91
-------
Cocuaer.t l^co-r Crier Pa-e. 15
C 1 J OI^CSAl Docuaert;
Co&aer.t Munoer: C-"0-OC1-:6£2 To 16c3 Date: 0'./29/9',
Title: (Mevs !eleas« - EPA Proposes Zeaedy fcr SLcerfund Si:e in Eaten, «-* Tc.-i)
Type:
Ai^-Sor: Harris, Tvetts: LS L=A
Zdipier.t: none: none
: C-'D-001 -16SA CJO-'X'. -',
Cocujer.t ""-r»r- c-,"0 00 1 - 1 t£A Ta Idoi Parer.t: C.'3-CC'. - '.632 Da:s: 0'./7?/T'
Title: (Mevsp^per article entitled:) SJ^erfind site in Eatsr. plotis t?.4ri clei--xs>
Type:
AiTLSo<-: Welych, Raria T.: S-JTSCLS* Hera 1 2 Aaerican
iecipier.t: none: none
-.t r_nc*r: CJO-001-1625 To 16d7 Parer.t: CJ3-C01-1632 Date:
Title: (Kevspaper article entitled:) EPA results of reoedial invest isatioryf eisibi I i ty st-jdy slated
for release
Type: CRKfSPOCEKCE
Author: Sterrturg. Scsan Henry^ Oierango Valley ievs
Recipient: none: none
r.t tu»er: CJO-001-16S8 To 1623 . Date: 12/01/90
Title: Fact She-st - EPA Sl^xrhjnd Action at fonaer Waste Disposal Site in Eatai, Mev Tcrk
Type: C3M1SPOCE3MZ
AutSor: none: US EPA
tecipier.t: none: none
Doc^Hent Nicber: C."0-001-16£9 To 16?2 Date: 12/01/S9
Title: Fact Sheet - EPA Conducting Investigation of C t J Disposal Site
Type: COUESPOCEKC
Author: none: US EPA
lecipierrt: none: none
-------
T3/1
715/71
Index Doc-jnent Nirber Crier
C 4 J DISPOSAL Doc-jaents
Page: 16
Doc^nert Ifcxcer: CJ)-001-1693 To 1693 Date: 10/77/S9
Title: (Keagpaaer article entitled:) EPA Begins Study of C 4 J Disposal DLrp Si:e
Type: G3U£S?OCEHCS
Ai.TT-.cr: Stemourg, Susan Henry: Cher^nso Valley Kevs
Recipient: ncne: none
EtocjKT.t BLiiaer: CJD-001-1694 To 1697 Date: C£/01/£?
Title: Fact She-t - EPA Conducting Investigation of C 4 J Disposal Site
Type: O3tt£S?CM3EHCE
Ai-rvor: none: US EPA
» ;< : p i rt: none: none
Attached: CJD-001-1698 CJD-001-1700
nt Eucer: CJD-001-1698 To 1699 Parent: C.'D-C01-16?i Date: 05/19/E7
Title: (Se^spaper article entitled:) Hazardous tixp disging incer investigaticn
Type: CCRRESPONDEHCE
AirAor: Clese, Gene: Chenango Valley Hews
Eecipienx: none: none
Poejrrt Bjber: CJO-001-1700 To 1700 Parent: CJO-001-1694 Date: 05/05/t?
Title: (*e«specer article entitled:) Unidentified cocpany digs v^> Tcwi of Eaten hazardous
Type: ORJtESPOKDEKCc
Ai-tSor: Sterrtxjrg, Susan Henry: Dienanso Valley Xews
Secipierrt: none: none
r: CJD-001-1701 To 1701
DOTM»TC
Title: CS««spaoer article entitled:) Haailton Site Added to Tcxic Cleanup List
Type: CCRi=S?OKDEMC£
Author: Weibexahl, Susan: Utica Observer Dispatch
Recipiers: none: none
Date: C6/2Z'£3
-------
02/15/91 Inotx Docuaent Ku±>er Croer Pare: 17
C i J DISPOSAL
Dociant Ktcfcer: C.D-001-1702 To 1702 . Oa:::
Title: (Mevspaper article entitled:) HaiiltonDuap Targeted
Type:
Condition: ILLEGIBLE
Author: (Illegible). Jonathan 3.: Syraei* Herald - Jounal Kici sen/Met. -3
Recipient: none: none
Docuaent Xurber: CJO-001-17U3 To 1703 C^ts: 1Z/25/90
Title: (Hevspaper article entitled:) E?A Sejls Suspected Wute >J=p Site
Type: G»RESPOM5EHC£
ALTtSo*-: Ovjffy, Lori: The Post - Standard
iiecipient: none: none
Doejaent Xucfcer: CJD-001-17W To 1704 D2:s: Q3/7:/70
Title: (Letter of regret that EPA repr«s«ntitivea were net afcl« to attend Karch 15, 1990 oe~»:ing
to discuss the status of the site)
Type:
Author: Sinseraan, Joel: US EPA
Recipient: Turtle, Steven J.: Kadi son Couiry Planning Oeparraer.t
t Kurber; CJD-001-1705 To 1716 Da:e: 01/22/29
Title:
-------
4 - NY £ DEC LITTIR CF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf P.oac. Albanv. New Yo.'X 12233
Thomas C Jorllng
Commissioner
7 i93i
i-srcir.cy a_~.i Rirreiial r.esr
Unit£-i Sis.t6£ Er.vir~.vr.5r.ta"-
Recicr. I"
2 Fedoral ?lar&
\\i-.\ 'i-.r'x., Ne- Vcr>. 102 "S
Disrcsoi S_t*, Ea-on, Xddistr. Ccuntv, Site So. "7-27-CCA
T'r.e fir.al cr^ft P.eccrc of Incision (?.^D) for the CiJ disposal Si-e received by
the N^w YcrV. State Cepartr.ent of E.-vircr.-r.ental Cor.ser.-aticn (NY322C) on March
27, 1351. hes teen reviewed. T>-.e K":SDEC ccr.curs with th* selected P.eaeiy as
presented in th» crsft ROD. Ihis r»--edy calls for axcavation ar.d rt^oval cf
"the c = r.t£_iir.ated soil ar.d re.T.=-ral tc pertittsa waste lanagernent facility for
treat-~«nt/cispcsal.
If yc-j hive any questions ccr.cerr.ir.c this ratter, please contact
Mr. Michael J. C'Tcole, Jr., ?.E. at (513) 457-5881.
S-r.cerely,
cnrr.issicr.sr
-------
APPENDIX 5-P-ZSPOSSIVZKZSS
-------
Responsiveness Summary
CSJ DISPOSAL SITE
TCVN C? EATON, MADISCN COUNTY, NEW YORK
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections:
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview. This section briefly
describes the purpose of the Responsiveness Summary.
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section
provides a brief history cf community interest and concerns
regarding the CSJ Disposal sire.
III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Responses. This section summarizes comments submitted
to E?A at the public nesting and curing the public comment
period and provides EPA "s responses to these comments.
Attached to this Responsiveness Summary are -he following appendices:
Appendix A includes the legal notice announcing the start, of the
public comment pericd and the agenda, for the public meeting; Appendix
E includes the Fropcsed Flan; Appendix C includes the public meeting
sign-in sheet; and Appendix D contains correspondence received by EPA
during the public consent period.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
EPA held a public comnent period from January 24, 1991 through March
12, 1991 for interested parties to comment on EPA's remedial
investigation and feasibility study and Proposed Plan for remedial
action for the CiJ Disposal Superfund Site in Eaton, Madison County,
New York.
EPA held a public meeting on February 13, 1991 at the Hamilton
Central School, Hamilton, New York to describe the remedial alterna-
tives and to present EPA's preferred remedial alternative to
remediate the C&J Disposal site.
The purpose cf this Responsiveness Summary is to provide a summary
of citizens' comments and concerns associated with the site and the
preferred remedy that were raised during the public cozcent period
and EPA's responses to those concerns. All comments summarized in
this document will ce considered in EPA's selection of the remedial
alternative for cleanup of the si.e.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INYOLVZMENT AMD CONCERNS
Past community involvement specific to the C & J Disposal site has
net been extensive. While officials and a few citizens cf Hamilton
and Eaten Townships have been monitoring developments at the site, no
organized citizens groups are kr.cvr. to be actively involved with the
site. In June 19£c, local newspapers released articles concerning
the results of a site investigation funded by EPA. The articles
-------
r.czed the potential threat of contamination to the Village of
Hamilton vater supply and tc nearby private wells. At that time, the
Village vas using Woodman Pond as an interim municipal water supply.
Due to the concern expressed by residents and officials, the Village
ceased use of Woodman Fond as a primary water supply beginning in
September 19S3.
Ccmmunity groups have been established on both the local and county
levels in response to other environmental' issues in the area. The
Natural Resources Conservation Council was formed in Eaton Township
tc address such issues as development of a solid waste program and
protection of local water resources. The Madison County Environmen-
tal Management Council vas also established in response to the
proposed siting of a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(.VYS3ZC) . The council now serves in an advisory capacity en issues
including water resources and solid waste. County residents and
officials were also active in seeking to close a county landfill
shovn tc be contaminating local groundwater. NYSDEC subsequently
closed the facility.
A Community Relations Plan for the C&J Disposal site was completed
by E?A in October 19S9. Input received at that time indicated the
fcllcwing site-related issues to be of community concern: the
schedule for site cleanup; the nature and extent of surface water and
groundvater contamination; and methods for disseminating site-related
infcrma-ion to the pub-lie.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA'S RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS
PUBLIC MEETING
Issues and questions raised at the public meeting for the C&J
Disposal site are summarized below and are organized into the
fcllcwing areas:
A. Cleanup Fundinc/Fotentiallv Responsible Party (PRP) Responsi-
bility"
E. Remedial Alternative Selection Process
C. Grcundwater Contamination/Other Community Impacts
C. Cleanup Schedule
E. Other Concerns
The public meeting for the C&J Dispcsal site began at 7:30 p.m. on
February 13, 1991 with presentations by EPA, and was followed by a
question and answer session. Approximately 15 residents and local
officials attended the meeting.
Ccncerr.s expressed at the public meeting are as follows:
-------
LEAJP Ft^DISG/r?.? ?-IS POSSIBILITY
(GxyChem) was
EPA r-ESPONSZ: Cn the basis cf evidence linking contaminants at the
Site to "Firestone Plastics"', I?.-, issued a notice letter to Bridge-
stcr.e/Firestcne en No-vernier If, 1990. As Bridgestcr.e/Firestcr.e ' s
cert crate successor, OxvChet was also civen notice en November 16,
1993. It vas later learned -ha- CxyChem would represent both itself
and Bridgestcne/Firestrr.e en the basis of an indemnification
C. = :
CCXXZ>ns : A citizen asked if CiJ Leasing was responsible for cleanup
costs at the site. Another citizen asked whether the principals cf
CiJ leasing cr the corpcratirn itself are responsible for the cleanup
costs. If the latter is the case, what is to prevent the fim fron
redistributing its assets cr declaring bankruptcy in order to avoid
payi.-.c the cleanup costs.
EPA P-ESPONSE: N'ctice leiters were sent on July 15, 19 = 3 to the CSJ
Leaning Co., the Eirge Ccrrany, ar.i Charles and Geneso (aka Janes)
Ficirieilo (the principals cf CiJ Leasing Co.) identifying the- as
?.= ?=. The notice letters also notified each PP.? cf an i-pencing
Penedie.1 Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to be conducted
at the Site and invited sich PP.? to either perf cm the RI/FS cr
finance it. None of the PP^s agreed to perform cr finance the RI/FS.
As was noted, en the basis of evidence linking contaminants at the
Site to Firestcne Plastics, OxyChen became a FRP.
The PRPs are responsible fcr either undertaking or financing the
investigatory and cleanup efforts. EPA intends to attempt to recover
the costs which it has already incurred. In addition, negotiations
with the PRPs regarding either funding cr undertaking the cleanup of
the site will begin after a re-edial alternative is formally
selected. If the PRPs do net make a good faith offer, the agency
will perform the work and will attempt to recover the costs at a
later date. While companies can certainly redistribute their assets
cr declare bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid paying for investigatory
and cleanup costs at Superfur.d sites, EPA will use the court system,
if necessary, to seek recovery cf its costs.
._h~r: A local official asked if GxyChem is aware cf its responsi-
bility at the site and if it has allocated any ncney fcr the C&J
Disposal site remediation project.
EPA RESPONSE: As ncted in the previous response, EPA has informed
CxyChem that it has been identified as a PR? fcr the C&J Disposal
site. EPA has no knowledge cf CxyChem allocating any funds for
site-related cleanup costs.
-------
B. REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION PROCESS
COMMENT: A citizen asked if certain remedial alternatives are
permanently eliminated from consideration because they do not meet
all of EPA's evaluation criteria.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA and NYSDEC have identified Alternative 4 as the
preferred alternative for remediating the C&J Disposal site since it
best satisfies the balance cf all cf the evaluation criteria.
However, cne cf the other alternatives which have been developed and
evaluated could be selected after careful consideration of all
comments received by EPA.
COMMENT: A citizen asked if the PRPs are able to select a remedial
alternative ether than the preferred alternative if such a remedy
would be less costly to implement.
EPA RESPONSE: If credible technical evidence for selecting another
alternative is presented, EPA. is bound to consider the comment and
evaluate it using the established criteria. A PRP suggestion of
another alternative based solely en the costs involved is not a sound
basis for EPA to alter its decision regarding selection of a final
remedy. EPA factors all nir.e cf its evaluation criteria, including
cost, intc the alternative selection process.
COMHENT: A citizen expressed concern that a situation where EPA
technical experts prefer a remedy different frcm cne suggested by PRP
experts cculd occur and asked who would arbitrate such a dispute.
EPA RESPONSE: The EPA Region II Administrator will assess all the
relevant input and make the final decision.
C. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION/OTEER COMMUNITY IMPACTS
COMMENT: A citizen asked how direct contact between waste material
and grcuncwater in the disposal trench could not have resulted in
groundwater contamination.
EPA RESPONSE: The waste in the disposal trench is primarily composed
cf plastic materials which appear to be relatively stable. High
levels cf phthalates in the waste material which have leached into
surrounding soils are likely bended to organic matter in the soil and
have limited water solubility in that form, and thereby have minimal
potential for migration through groundwater. Leachate from contami-
nated soils that may have been in contact with drums removed in the
unauthorized 1SS9 excavation has not been detected in groundwater
samples either. However, these conditions could potentially change
and would be monitored over time under any cf the remedial alterna-
tives not involving removal of the contaminated wastes.
COMMENT: A citizen asked why permanent lowering cf the water table
by operating pumping wells is included under Alternative 3 if the
-------
grcuj-.dwater is not currently contaminated and may not be in the
future. The citizen also asked if installation of a protective cap
without employing pumping wells would be a ncre cost effective
remedy.
EPA P-ESPONSS: Installing a protective cap without installing pumping
wells would obviously be less costly than implementation of both
technologies. However, since the leachability of the contaminants in
the soil and waste material ever time cannot be conclusively
characterized, prudent engineering practices dictate against simple
installation cf a protective cap without implementing supporting
r^redial measures such as cewaterir.g.
CCXXINT: A citizen asked about the rationale behind establishing a
quarterly monitoring well and residential well sampling program for
cr.e year following the completion cf site remediation (under
Alternatives 4 and 5).
I --. RESPONSE: An initial round cf monitoring well and residential
v -1 sampling would provide some baseline data on groundwater quality
t; wh-ich pre-remediaticn and subsequent quarterly sampling results
c--r. be compared. These subsequent sampling results would ser/e as
cr-.firmatcry data to verify that groundwater contamination is not
occurring curing the pcst-ccnstructicn period. The one-year duration
cf the sampling program would certainly be extended if results
indicate groundwater contamination is, in fact, occurring.
COOCENT: A citizen asked where the thermal treatment facility
described in Alternative 5 would be located.
EPA RESPONSE: ' If Alternative 5 were ultimately selected for
implementation, an off-site Treatment, Storage and Disposal facility
for handling the excavated waste .material would be selected through
a competitive bidding process.
CCXHZNT: A citizen asked when the public would be informed of the
route that trucks transporting waste off-site would take.
EPA RESPONSE: It is likely that a public meeting wculd be scheduled
prior to the implementation cf site construction activities, at which
time waste transport routes and other issues impacting the community
would be discussed.
D. CLEANUP SCHEDULE
COCKZNT-: A citizen asked if negotiations between EPA and the PRPs
regarding cleanup cost recovery could adversely impact the schedule
for implementing Alternative 4 as it is described in the proposed
plan.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA intends to select a remedy for the site by the end
cf March 1991. A notice letter will be sent to the PRPs soon
-------
afterward, giving them the opportunity to make a good faith offer to
finance or perform the design and construction of the remedy that is
selected in the RCD. If the FRFs cake a good faith offer, it is
a-r.ricipated that a settlement could be reached a few months later.
If the FRFs do not make a coed faith offer, EPA will undertake the
re-edial work itself.
COXXZNT: A citizen asked for assurances that the cleanup action at
rl-e site will ta>:e place in a timely fashion regardless of who bears
rr.e financial responsibility for it.
EPA F.ESPONSS: EFA's objective under Alternative 4 is to complete
remedial action, which involves the actual waste removal and
disposal, by May 1592.
E. OTEER CONCERNS
COXXZNT: A local official informed EFA that the Hamilton Village
Corliss ion and the Heard of Trustees have adopted resolutions
endorsing Alternative 4 - Removal and Off-Site Treatment/Disposal -
frr the cleanup of contamination associated with the C&J Disposal
si~e. The official also expressed appreciation for EPA's efforts
regarding the C&J Disposal site.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges and appreciates the support.
CO.yXENT: A citizen asked if C&J Leasing's activities at the site
constituted criminal cr civil violations.
EPA RESPONSE: C&J Leasing's waste disposal activities at the site
vere in violation of New York State civil law.
COXXENT: A citizen asked if a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) is
available to eligible community groups interested in the C&J site
cleanup.
EPA RESPONSE: An interested community group whose membership may be
affected by contamination at the C&J site can apply for a TAG. This
errant provides funds to local communities for the purpose of hiring
technical consultants to aid in the interpretation and understanding
of site-related technical data.
COXXENT: A citizen asked for the C&J site's NFL ranking and its
hazard ranking system (HRS) score.
EPA RESPONSE: The C&J Disposal site is listed as No. 651 on the NPL.
The site's KRS score is 42. S4.
VRITTEN COMMENTS
-------
Issues and questions raised in letters- (see appendix D for copies of
the letters) and their responses are summarized below:
MXZirr: A resident expressed ccncerr. regarding the potential threat
tc the drinking water from the sire and the diminished value of his
property due to its proximity tc the CaJ Disposal site.
EP.-. F_ISjCKSI: Samples collected from private wells located downgra-
dier.t from the site in 1S35, 1SE3, 1S3S, and 1SSO did not reveal any
cc-.tam:Lr.aticr. and the likely removal of contaminants from the site
alievia.ce any such ccr.cerns.
CyZ^.T: The Beard cf the Tcvr. c: Eaten ar.d the Ccunty of Madison
prcviied endcrseranis cf Alterr.at ive 4.
Er?. FJISPONSE: Kc response necessary.
CC>{MZ?rr: Eased up -. its reviev c: the Proposed Plan and the RI/7S
report, CxyChem prc.csed two options for more limited remedial action
plins at the C&J Disposal site. CxyChem relieves both options are
more ocst-effective as well as protective cf human health based upon
their reassessment cf risks.
Option 1 includes adding a waste separation step. This step is
designed to reduce the quantity cf material requiring off-site
disposal by separating the plastic material and hazardous waste soils
from the- r.cn-hazarcous soils found within the trench at the site.
Waste characterization analyses would be employed to determine
hazardous versus non-hazardous waste volumes.
Option 2, OxyChem's Suggested Alternative, includes the following
components:
Grade the site using imported ccnmcn clean fill to achieve a minimum
12 inches cf fill ever the waste at a minimum grade of 1 percent
Cover fill with 6-inches of tcpsoil.
Grcu_ndvater monitoring fcr volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and BNAs
at four dcvngracient wells semi-annually.
The present worth cost cf this alternative is $SS,700.
Ecth options presented by CxyChem are predicated upon the following
assumptions:
The waste found in the trench has been in place approxi-
mately 15 years and no impact on groundwater quality with
regard to organic compounds was detected. As such, the
potential for contaminant migration fron the waste is not
expected new or in the future.
The VOCs and ENA compounds detected within the soil
samples show affinity for the soils.
7
-------
The health risk assessment in the R_/rS has been overesti-
mated. OxyChem's reassessment indicates, that the
incremental cancer risk is 2 x 10" net 2 x 10J as presented
in the RI/FS. The principal reason for the difference in
the cancer risks estimated is due in OxyChem's opinion, to
incorrect exposure assumptions used in the RI/FS.
With either option, these site conditions ana reduced
risks suggest that crcur.cwc.ter ncnizoring at quarterly or
semi-annual frequencies will be sufficient to monitor the
effectiveness of these alternative remedial plans.
EPA RESPONSE: Neither option proposed adequately satisfies the nine
evaluation criteria employed in the detailed evaluation of alterna-
tives and the risk assessment dees nc~ overestimate the incremental
cancer risk at this site. Alternative 4 is mere protective of human
health and the environment and beiter eliminates the potential for
future exposures and pollutant releases and tetter satisfies the
statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121.
OPTION 1 - MODIFICATION TO ALTERNATIVE 4 BY INCLUSION OF A WASTE
SEPARATION STEP
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This option cculd be protective of human health and the environment
if the plastic waste and contaminated soils could, in fact, be
completely separated and completely removed. The non-homogeneous
nature and lack of structural integrity of the waste material limits
the potential of OxyChem's option to be as protective as Alternative
4 which calls for complete excavation and removal of all waste and
soil and replacement with virgin soils.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARS)
Temporary impacts to nearby wetlands are more of a potential concern
with this option, as presumably, its implementation would involve
excavation, a screening operation, and the staging of screened soil
piles fcr several weeks until Toxicity Contaminant Leaching Procedure
(~CL?) , VCC, and ENA analytical results are obtained'for waste
segregation purposes. This ncre expensive operation would require
mere intrusion into the wetland iruffer zone and for a longer time
period compared to Alternative 4. Although these impacts can be
mitigated, i.e., by appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls,
as well as fugitive and emissions controls,, cr by conducting all or
a portion of the remediation under a temporary roof, the need fcr
these mitigative measures will increase the cost proposed for this
option.
Cleanup levels at which the soil could be backfilled would have to
-------
be developed before the analytical data were received so as to avoid
maintenance cf staged piles cf soil Icngar than necessary.
Even if the soils are net deemed hazardous waste en the basis of the
TCI?, The r.cr.-hazardcus soils may be classified as industrial waste
by the J.'YSZEC. Placing these wastes back into the trench could
cc.-.stitute disposal cf industrial wastes, and as such, must be
performed consistent with 6 NYC?-". Part 360 regulations. There are no
previsions for addressing this requirement in this OxyChem cption.
It should be pointed cut that Alternative 4 does not preclude the
ccirse separation cf wastes and scils during the initial/single step
cf exoavat ir.g the disposal tre.-.ch. However, the lack cf structural
integrity cf the waste curing a subsequent, discreet, notarized
separation step could result in substantial distribution cf smaller
contaminated fragments into ur.ccr.taminated or lesser contaminated
soils. The RC7A Dilution Prohibition (40 CFR 263.3) clearly
prohibits this activity, thus ruling cut a highly mechanized
separation step.
Therefore, this alternative would not con fern to ARA?.s as well as the
selected alternative.
Lc.-.g.-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The long-tern effectiveness and pemaner.ee of this option will be a
function of how effective the waste segregaticn process is. It is
anticipated that this separation -process will not be completely
effective cue to the ncn-hcr.cgeneous nature cf the waste materials
and its lack of structural integrity. Therefore, a far greater
potential exists for leaving soce residual waste in place, using
OxyChem's Option 1. Whether the waste left on-site is residual waste
frcn a screening operation or whether it is waste fron a 15-year old
placement, does not preclude that conditions at the site could change
in the near future, and release contaminations to the groundwater.
The complete removal cf contaminants as proposed in Alternative 4
insures long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Reduction cf Toxicity, Mobility, and Voluzie through Treatment
As with Alternative 4, the OxyChem option would remove the soil/waste
material in the trench area, thereby reducing the potential toxicity
and mobility cf the in-place contaminants; however, not as effec-
tively for the reasons noted above. The volume of waste requiring
dispcsal wculd te less, but land dispcsal cf the hazardous waste
fraction would not reduce its overall toxicity unless preceded by
treatment, which was net considered by OxyChen. The residual
ncn-hazardcus contaminated soils left in place, however, would not be
treated. Therefore, this cption is not better than Alternative 4.
Short-Tern Effectiveness
-------
This CxyChem option is not as effective on a short-term basis as
Alternative 4 because of the need for greater materials handling and
staging requirements. The potential for both adverse impacts to the
environment, due to greater potential for larger encroachment within
the wetland buffer zone, as well as greater worker exposure, make
this option less effective.
Implementability
The RI/FS analytical data, although adequate to characterize the
extent of site contamination, were not designed to characterize the-
distribution or physical characteristics of the plastic waste and
contaminated soil. As such, the existing data are not adequate to
permit OxyChem's proposed segregation step without extensive
additional testing during the excavation process. From the test pits
installed during the RI, the plastic waste pieces observed ranged in
size from tiny fragments to large clumps. OxyChem has assumed that
some type screening operation would result in removal of all the
plastic waste and that a significant portion of the soils would be
acceptable as backfill. This may not be feasible as further waste
characterization would be required. Further, the existing data also
do not suggest that the soil in the trench is uncontaininated.
CxyChem has nade no distinct provision to segregate contaminated soil
iron non-contaminated soil in the field, only the obvious plastic
waste.
The time to implement this option would be longer than that for
Alternative 4 because the acceptable levels of contamination tha.t
could be backfilled would have to be established and additional
characterization of the .waste would have to be done to determine the
feasibility of a screening operation, e.g., types and sizes of rotary
screens to be used.
Cost
CxyChem has based its cost analysis for this option on an assumption
that two-thirds of the volume excavated could be backfilled. There
is no basis for this assumption, and in fact, the actual volume may
be less if upon excavation segregation methods are less effective.
No testing costs are included for waste characterization purposes nor
dees the cost account for the possible need to comply with 6 NYCRR
Part 360 requirements fcr those materials left in place as backfill.
In addition, no backup was provided fcr the $20,000 estimate for
waste segregation. As such, it is questionable if this alternative
is as cost-effective as proposed. Furthermore, while the proposed
costs fcr Alternative 4 were conservative (based on a hazardous
disposal of all 1,250 cubic yards), such separation of waste and
soils during excavation could reduce costs further and lesser the
difference between Alternative 4 and OxyChem's Option 1.
10
-------
State and Community Acceptance
Ecth ir^SDIC and the public have indicated accepzar.ee cf Alternative
4 in its current structure.
In summary, Cpticr. 1 is net considered as feasible a remedy as
Alternative 4. This option dees not comparably meet cr exceed
Alternative 4 when evaluated against the criteria noted above.
OPTION 2 - SUGGESTED R2XZDIAL ALTERATIVE
Overall Protection of Eumam Health and the Environment
It should be noted that both Option 1 , and mere particularly Option
2, are predicated cr. CxyChem's assumption that the waste material has
teen stable ever the past 15 years and that it will continue to be
stable. This is net a sound assumption. While the lac>: cf ground
water contaminants found as a result of the fev tests conducted since
1SS3 provide some very short-term comfort (presently), it doesn't
-ear. that the waste is stable (the waste has changed significantly
from its 1976 description) and it doesn't mean that conditions that
cculd trigger a large scale release could not occur. In fact, the
longer the waste remains en-site, the creazer the chances are that a
release will occur. Therefore, with Option 2, the potential for
future contaminant migration would not be eliminated.
The graded, vegetated soil cap would reduce infiltration through the
waste, but not nearly to the extent that a low permeability cap
designed in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 requirements . Also, a
cap alone would not prevent direct contact cf contaminated soils or
waste materials with grour.dwatsr . Therefore, waste/soil constituents
could in the future be entrained in the leachate from the trench and
the waste would still be in contact with the water table.
Also, the decreased groundwater monitoring prcpcsed by Oxychem would
significantly increase the risxs that any future contaminant nigra-
tior. might not be adequately assessed, either in magnitude or in time
and, therefore, dcwncradient receptors are net adequately protected.
Therefore, this alternative is not considered as protective as
Alternative 4.
Compliance with A£ARs
Ever, if the waste is considered non-hazardous, 6 N'YCPJR Part 360
closure requirements would probably be applicable. The soil cover
proposed would not meet the requirements cf an impermeable cap.
Therefore, this alternative would net ccmclv with A?_-_?.s as well as
Alternative 4.
Lcng-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Because the potential for future migration exists, especially with
11
-------
waste/soil in contact with the water table', this option would not be
effective in being protective and meeting ARARs in the long-term.
The only way to verify the long-term effectiveness and permanence of
this option would be to monitor groundwater, cap integrity,. and
possibly surface water, for an extended period of tine (i.e.,
30 years).
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volune through Treatment
This option does little to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume' of in
place wastes. The soil cap would minimize, tut not eliminate, the
potential for contaminant transport as the waste would still be in
contact with the water table and subject to potential leaching cue to
rainfall infiltration. No volune reduction or treatment to reduce
tcxicity is provided for. Alternative 4 is more effective in
reducing the potential for future contaminant migration from the
site. Alternative 4 does reduce toxicity and volume, on site, in
contrast to OxyChem's option, as it calls for the disposal of the
waste materials in a secure facility off-site. This disposal
activity may be preceded by treatment if required, in light c~ land
disposal restrictions.
Sbort-Term Effectiveness
This OxyChem option would be as effective on a shcrt-term basis as
Alternative 4.
Implementability
This OxyChem option would not be implementable since the proposed cap
dees not meet 6 NYCRR Part 360 requirements. The reliability of this
cption for contaminant containment is also questionable as the
proposed cap does litzle to control rainfall infiltration or prevent
groundwater from being in contact with the in place wastes.
Cost
This option as presented by OxyChem, does not achieve the same
remedial response goal as Alternative 4. As such, this limitation is
reflected in the lower cost estimate provided by OxyChem for this
alternative. Upgrading the cap to satisfy 6 NYCRR Part 360 require-
ments, an ARAR, would increase the cost for this option considerably.
As part of the RI/FS process, a more protective containment option
than that proposed by OxyChem was evaluated which included capping.
Ey comparison this option had a present worth value of $712,500.
State and Community Acceptance
As with Option 1, this cption represents a significant modification
to the Proposed Plan which has already received NYSDEC and public
approval. Further consideration of this cption would delay implemen-
tation of a remedy at this site.
12
-------
In summary, although more cost-effective as presented, the OxyChem
Succested Alternative fails to meet many of the previously described
criteria. This alternative is net as protective of human health and
environment as Alternative 4. It dees not comply with ARARs, nor is
it effective or permanent on a long-term basis. Lastly, this option
is not implemer.table and if implemented would do little to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, cr volume of the in place wastes.
RISK ASSESSMENT
The Superfund program has been designed to protect human health and
the environment from current and future potential threats frcm
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances frcm sites. To achieve
this purpose, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) has developed guidance en the
human health evaluation process. The Risk Assessment Guidance for
Sucerfunc (RAGS) (EPA/54 6/1-89)is the guidance document EPA adheres
to in developing the human health risk assessment conducted as part
of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process.
The baseline risk assessment process as outlined in the RAGS consists
of the following components:
data collection and evaluation
exposure assessment
toxicity assessment
risk characterization.
The exposure assessment component c: the RAGS provides the specific
equations and parameter values for common Superfund site exposure
pathways. It outlines the revised National Contingency Plan's
reasonable maximum exposure (RXE) concept under both current and
future land-use conditions. The RXE is defined as the highest
exposure that could reasonably te expected to occur at a site. The
guidance clearly outlines several of the assumptions that should be
considered in calculating the RXE. Furthermore, the guidance defines
the concentration value used to calculated the RXE as S5th upper
confidence limit (UCL) en the arithmetic mean concentration contacted
over the exposure period, rather than the mean itself. The guidance
goes en to say -that "'if there is great variability in measured or
r.cdeled concentration values - such as when too few samples are taken
or when model inputs are uncertain - the upper confidence limit on
the average concentration will be high, and conceivably could be
above the maximum detected cr modeled value. In -these cases, the
r.aximum detected cr modeled value should be used to estimate exposure
concentrations. This could be regarded by some as too conservative
an estimate, tut given the uncertainty in the data in these situa-
tions, this approach is regarded as reasonable."
13
-------
The risk assessment completed for the C & J Disposal site, by EPA's
contractor, Wehran Engineering (Wehran), did adhere to the exposure
assumptions stated in the RAGS. Furthermore, the RME was based on
concentration values that were either the 95 UCL or the maximum
detected concentration. Wehran only used the maximum detected
concentration when the 95 UCL exceeded the maximum. This is in
agreement with the RAGS. OxyChein's contention that average concen-
trations be used is not supported in the RAGS.
In addition, EPA believes that the risks quantitated for the site, by
Wehran are an underestimation of potential site risks because only
one current recreational scenario was assessed. The scenario
assessed assumed an adult jogger ran by or through the site a total
of 6 times over a 9 year period. In EPA's opinion, a current
recreational scenario could have estimated the risks for a jogger
who ran a total of at least 100 tines over a 30 year exposure
duration. The exposure duration value (30 years) is in the RAGS
guidance and represents the national upper-bound time (90th percen-
tile) at one residence. In calculating the RME, Region II uses this
number.
Furthermore, future land-use scenarios were not assessed by Wehran
It would not have been unreasonable to quantitate the risks posed by
a future on-site residential scenario. Future land-use scenarios
assume no site remediation.
In conclusion, OxyChem's claim that the "assumptions used in the
RI/FS soil exposure scenario were overly conservative" is not in
accordance with the RAGS document. Several of the exposure assump-
tions used were not as conservative as those commonly used in EPA
Region II. Furthermore, other future land-use scenarios could have
been considered and the risks calculated with those pathways would
have been greater than the current land-use risks. EPA believes
that, while more conservative modeling could have been performed by
Wehran, the risk assessment was sufficient to characterize the risks
present at the site, at a minimum, and Alternative 4, which involves
removal and off-site disposal, would also be fully appropriate for
more conservative modeling.
14
-------
Appendix A
the legal nc~ice announcing the start cf the puilic cczi^snt period
and the agenda for the public nesting
-------
THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRQN'MSS'TAL PIGTKTnON AOENC'
PROPOSES C!.F»>:l!P REMEDY
AND SCHEDULES A f wBLIC MEY7INC FCS
THE C At j D1SPQSAJ. SVPERF'JND SITS Vi
EATON, MADi5O* CO'JNTY, NSW YO»»:
:-. ,,.
s?tr-«r fc- Ihc C & J
cvbiic m^»dnc \r> d
**«ib"Uy Stud/ (R'.'Fi) o.nd the rropc^etf Pld" for :nc
p*ync e^ tUe rem*di«tio:v
c§!(> fcr th-e
l. vs«tt* fm»t«nVr., and cft'-jit? tresimer.vtfljpova' for i
C A- J Oltpojal S'Jtssrfvnc >it« '.i Ea:on, Vi*^i)9n Cov^tf.
ll.Y. TK« eoi! <>/ clea-'jc prcj^t Is appro* .-ratc:y
4672. -OO. Supti-fwircJ i> the friera: ?rcg:«m is
wast? s'les.
E?A hn t^Sodv'ed a p-jb"c fr^-'Jr-t ?: d'j:yj? 1^ f .idings
c? tts r.«mKl;fti lrtvc?t!a»:;cn.T*i:it::iry S:y^v (^i/1'S). o^
tSeC&Ji
. . . .-!!! b«he?dat ?:>
d§y, Frbrvary '3. 19*! »', th? ttarr-,.iton Cer.lral ?:ch
'''c:'. K*f*.d'lc'< A-'t, Mamli-.c". NY. THe Propoic^ P:j.-. dc-
iCr>b*> tne r*rr.rt'al alieTurtvo cor.jldf*d '6' Ih'i C & j
i-tc TK* rele»:c 01 t'n* rVcpcie-d riant »r;^ vKe >ched^lto
titioi fcjpoi.iibill'iei v»r»d«f jcetlon I'7(8) of th'j com-
L'nbili.jy A."ct tCeRCl/0 of 19*0. ' "'
of th« tix
dufir.g \h
.°A fcvicv.
Tve(hol frf c.
p«rmancr>t sccu'lng C- th> site; 3; fi.'llrj 1,15! rtzarulri2 Cf
tr-C d.ipoti't Irerch (tiie contaminant source), ip^ia'l^no1*'
o' a rfc!er?:vc cap. to p-*\-c^; d:tit"t*.-ii;t of th; coi>-
area »rd p«rrrv4rtnt l«rtve/in| c( l.w.C w^tCf table
' ' r,- ef CCn5irr.irv*nt mijratl^n v'.J
cr« cf 1^30 cubic y»rii c- co^-
toll jind w««tt matpo«ur^i ^nti line dUpeu! sf the
rrv»:eri«l in 3 p«:n>ilitd facility; 5) o.cavaVon cf jcil'wju'.e
rrvaJe'ial ?» In Alternative 4 and j'ar^B^rtation cf the mrttr-
rial ofT.»l'.« for |He'rp.|! trestmp.it; 6.' On-S!!* trtatmcnl b">'
fr^Hing the *«:Lw«»;e fna:e*i»i »»ith neat generatetJ from
an electrical c>'"*"L Bas^d upv a" cvoiuaticn c! UHT/B
various alle-rm^vti, E?A 'i 'eco^rrxr^irs A!tcm«tr-e .--'c.
4 a* ?ht prefe'rei alic'n»tJ%«. Irvolvinf ei;«v«»:on.off-iiie
t-'arnpcrtalion. *nd trc^br-tni'^iipo^il p! Ihi tC
wa»tt materiali.
EPA w«tcom«t ix.'bl!c com.-rven: on tS«j ArJmini)ira'.Ii't Re-
COftJ «nd *:! J(tef.n.M.v«-i kii.nlir^d tbCVX. SPA YV-
flrit-.Sue renpfrcy »i";cr ih» owb'ic comrrwnt
of £nvlrcr>rr.«n|,-;| crnyi'.atlc^. I
ft--ay «e!*e: an option oiK«- Uvei the
'
in \?
orj
cxxxirrerititio^ ef tne prc'-fll fir.dins* Ij p.TM'iied i
Aijmir.ijtfjtive Rccere Fii«. which C,cnW = f\J Rl'rS R?
*-xJ lS» PrCPOStd PUn. TKr»e COCUTTrenU a?C BvaileJt
pubiic review »( «K« H.ami^c'iTutlic UOfa'y. 7 Bro.i^
'^V^'-f ^^^.'Hofl. N.Y. T.K^ svfc!;r. ir.^y CC-THT.«.-.I in T^^tc;^
at iKe public rrMfl.^a ind-or tufc.r>ri >Yfi:ten
-------
t UNITED STATES EN V:=r CNVENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY
CC-S «. >vrr: --^s?^.
W YCSK 10272
AGENDA
C & J Cispcsal SuDerfund Site
l-;amiltcn Central Schccl
l-amiltcn, sevv >crK
rehruarv 13,
I. Wslcone & Introduction
I_
Overview of Superf'.
Process at the
C & J Disposal
Sucerfund Site
Yvette Karris
Cc^riunity Relations Coordinator
U.S. E?A, Region 2
Jcel Singernan
Acting Chief
NY/Caribbean Superfunc Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
III. Site Background
History
Raymond M. Kapp
Senior Environmental Scientist
Wehran Envirotech
(Consultants to EPA)
IV. Presentation of
Results of the
Remedial Investigation
& Feasibility Study
(RI/FS)
V. Presentation of EPA's
Preferred Alternative
VI. Concluding Remarks
VII. Questions & Answers
Jack O'Dell
Project Manager
Western New York Superfund
Section
U. S. EPA, Region 2
Joel Singer~an
Yvette Karris
-------
Appendix B
the Proposed Plan
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
C&J Disposal Site
Town of Eaton,
Madison County, New York
EPA
Recion 2
January. 1S91
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives
considered for the C&J Disposal Superfund site located
in the Town of Eaton, Madison County, New York, and
iden'.ifes the preferred remedial alternative with the
rationale fcr this preference. The Proposed Flan was
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EFA; with support from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA is issuing
the Proposed Plan as part of its public participation
responsibilities under Section 117(3) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 USC Section 9617 (a), as
amended, and Section 200.430(0 of the National Contin-
gency Plan (NCP). The attematrves summarized here are
described in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (FU.TS) Report, which should be consumed for a
more detailed description of all the attematrves.
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement
to the RJ/FS report to inform the public of EPA's and
NYSDEC's preferred remedy and to solicit public com-
ments pertaining to all the remedial attematrves evalu-
ated, as well as the preferred alternative.
Chances to the preferred remedy or a change from the
preferred remedy to another remecty may be made if
public comments or additional data indicate that such a
chance will result in a more appropriate remedial action.
The finaJ decision regarding the selected remedy will be
made after EPA has taken into consideration all public
ccmmsnts. We are soliciting public comment on all of
the ajtemsives considered in the detailed analysis phase
of the RLTS because EPA and NYSDEC may select a
remedy other than the preferred remedy.
Tne detailed information and data used in determining
the nature and extent of the contamination on-site and
in the development of remedial alternatives is contained
in the Rl/FS report. Tne Proposed Pla~. nic.'.iiC'is re/
information from the Rl/FS report, but it is net a sucs1.;-
tute for that report.
Copies of the Rl/FS report. Proposed Flan, a'.c s-ccc".-
ing documentation a/e available at the foi.'cv.-ir.g repcs to-
nes:
- Hamilton Village Public Library
13 Broad Street
Hamilton. N.Y. 133-J5
- New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wort Road, Room 222
AJbany, N.Y. 12233-7010
- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Drvisicn
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-102
New York. NY 10278
COMMUNfTY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are considered in se'ecting
an erfectrve remedy for each Superfund site. To tr:s en a
the Rl/FS report has been made available to the public
for a public comment period which concludes on Febru-
ary 22. 1991.
Pursuant to Section 117(3) of CERCLA, a public meeting
will be held during the public comment period a: the
Hamilton Central School, West Kendrick Avenue. Hamil-
ton, N.Y. on February 13, 1991. at 7:30 p.m. to present
the conclusions of the Rl/FS, to further elaborate en the
reasons for recommending the preferred remedial
alternative, and to receive public comments.
Written and oral comments will be' documented in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of
-------
~s:on (ROD), the document which formaJizes the
ertJon of the remedy.
A3 wTiaen comment should be addressed to:
Jecx O'DefL Project Manager
Western New York Superfund Section I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
25 Feoersi Plaza, Room 29-102
x York, New York 10278
SITE BACKGROUND
Tne C&J Disposal she is located in the Town of Eaton,
Mac'son County, New York. It is near the intersection of
Ro--.es 123 and 46 just north of the Village of Hamilton.
The s.ie includes a rectangular disposal trench which
measLres 140 feet by 40 feet. The trench is situated
berr.'.s-e.n a former railroad bed and an active agricultural
fieJc. The site is also at the intersection of three land
pa-ceis, one of which is owned by C&J Leasing. A small
po". on the C&J property, lies to the south and is within
; X '.='. of the disposal trench. The pond, with an
acf.= :en: wetland to the west, ultimately drains to Wood-
-~ For.d which serves as a backup drinking water
L-:e fcr the Village of Hamilton. There are thirteen
res'.c-ervces in the vicinity (within 1800 feet) and downgra-
die~ ct the site. Currently, twelve residences are utiliz-
ing private wells as their source of drinking water (see
DuTL-g the mid-1 970's, the trench v/as reportedly used for
the disposal of solid and liquid industrial waste materials.
In March 1976, C&J Leasing of Paterson. New Jersey
v/as observed dumping what appeared to be paint
slucces and other liquid industrial waste materials in the
trercn. Inspections were subsequently conducted by the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH),
NYSTEC. and the Village of Hamilton Engineer. During
inspections conducted by NYSDEC and the Village
Enc'reer, approximately 75 to 100 drums were observed
layL-jc in £ stagnant pool of liquid wastes in the previous-
ly oescrroed trench. The trench was subsequently
ccvered with soil, reportedly by C&J Leasing, apparently
burying the drums.
Sarpung was conducted at the site by NYSDEC in 1985
and by EPA's contractor, NUS Corporation, in 1986.
Surfcia! soil samples obtained from the site revealed the
presence of phenolic compounds, phthalates, various
voiatle organic compounds (VOCs), pofynuclear aromatic
Ccca-sons (FAHs), and lead. Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
a'are was detected in sediments from the adjacent
--
The sie was placed on the Superfund National Priorities
Lis: (NFL) in March 1989.
During the 1986 sampfing, NUS also sampled drinking
water from two private wells downgradient of the site but
did not detect any contaminants. Additional testing by
NYSDOH in September 1988 of four private wells do-.vn-
gradient from the site did not reveal any contamination.
In April 1989, prior to the start of Remedial Investigation
(Rl) field activities, the site was subject to an unautho-
rized excavation by the principals of C&J Leasing. As a
result, two stockpiles of soil and waste material v/ere
accumulated within the trench and one stockpile 'of soil
and waste material v/as accumulated outside the trench.
Most of the drums believed to be buried earlier had
apparently been excavated and disposed of off-site. EPA
is continuing to investigate this matter.
The Rl conducted by EPA during 1989 and 1990 indi-
cated that the primary contaminants in the trensh area
and external soil and waste pile were non-halogenated
VOC's (benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, 4-
methyl-2-pentanone. etc.). various phthalates (bis(2-
ethylexyOphthalate,di-n-octylphthalate,di-n-butylphthalate,
etc.) and phenols (4-methylphenol, etc.). Lead, which
was not detected above background levels during
extensive Rl sampling was found at elevated levels during
more limited testing by NUS (1986) and USEPA (post Rl).
All of these contaminants are presently adsorbed or
bound in the waste material and/or are adsorbed to the
soils and have not migrated to the groundwater. from the
trench. Extensive chemical testing of the twelve residen-
tial wells during the fil further confirmed the prior results.
i.e., that no contaminants from the site had migrated to
these wells. Seven monitoring wells, installed during the
Rl in and around the site, also indicated no migration of
contaminants from the trench to the groundwater.
Testing of the pond water indicated no contamination
from the site. Low levels of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
found in sediments from the adjacent pond are attributed
to overland sediment transport by surface water runoff.
At present, the site is secured with temporary fencing.
To provide increased safety, the external soil pile v/as
moved back into the trench. Finally, all soil and waste
material piles have been covered with protective covers
to prevent contaminated soil transport.
-------
SUMMARY OF SfTE RISKS
A baseline hearth risk assessment was performed as a
part of the Rl to evaluate trie carcinogenic risks and non-
carcinogenic chronic lifetime effects associated with the
C&J Disposal site; assuming that no remediation occurs.
This risk assessment was based on the impact of the ten
chemicals ol concern, Le. benzene, butyl benzyl phthal-
ate, di-n-butyl phthalate. 2,4-dimethyl phenol, ethyk
benzene, bis(2-thylhexyi) pttthaJate, 4-methylphenol. di-
n-ocryl phthalate, toluene, and total xylenes.
Because the s.te is no; permanentry secured and is
subject to trespassing, it is assumed that individuals
ccu'.d come in direct contact with contaminated soils and
wastes found at the surface. Therefore, human exposure
pathways include dermaJ contact and incidentaJ ingesticn
of surface materials. The maximum exposure carcino-
genic risk and non-carcir.ogenic hazard were calculated
for these exposures. The carcinogenic risk was esti-
mated at 2 x 10^ and is at the high end of the accept-
able range of 10"4!? 10"*? EPA considers risks in the
ra.-^ge of lO^to I0"6to be acceptable. This risk range
can be interpreted to mean than an individual may have
a one in ten thousand to a one in one million increased
chance of developing cancer as result of site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under
the specific exposure conditions at the site.
The non-carcinogenic Haza/d Index (HI) for the same
maximum exposure was estimated to be 4. An exceed-
ance of unity, that is 1.0, in the HI indicates that condi-
tions existing at the site are not adequately protective of
human hearth.
The low levels of bis (2 ethylhexyf) phthaJate detected in
the pond sediments are apparently attributable to the
site. However, the pond is privately owned and currently
not known to be used extensively for fishing or wading.
Furthermore, compared with the NYSDEC Fish and
Wildlife Sediment Criteria Guidance values, the contami-
nant concentrations are tow and the impacts on humans
or wildlife under current conditions are negligible. While
exposure derived from sediment pathways (direct contact
and bioaccumulation) may currentry be considered
minimal, the potential movement of contaminants from the
site to the pond under current circumstances represents
a threat.
Exposure pathways presently considered to be incom-
plete include the wind-borne transport of fugitive dust
and the migration of contaminants through groundwater.
In the former case, temporary cover measures and the
presence of natural vegetation significantly limit dust
generation to downgraclent receptors. In the latter case,
the absence of contaminants in the groundwater at the
site, as well as in the downgradient residential wells
sampled from 1986-19SO. indicate that no significant risk
cf exposure to humans from groundwater consumption
exists at the present time. However, the soil contamina-
tion may pose significant indirect risk by being a potent-
ial source of future groundwater contamination. EPA
policies and regulations allow remedial actions to be
taken whenever cross-media impacts result in exceeden-
ce of cne or more Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
Even though there is no current evidence cf MCL
exce-edence, changes in soil chemistry brought on by
either agricultural activities (fertilizer, lime, or pesticide
application) or natural phenomena (bio-degradation of the
waste material matrix, or algae or mold blooms in the
trench pits, etc.) might cause the release of contaminants
into tr.e groundwa'.er. Consequently, soil remediation is
warranted to remove this continuous source of contami-
nation to the groundwater to ensure compliance v.itn
Federal and State groundwater standards. In both
groundwater migration or air transport, there are no
permanent measures in place to prevent releases of
waste constituents through these pathways. Actual cr
threr-ned releases of hazardous substances from this
srte. rf not addressed by the preferred alternative or one
cf the other alternatives, may present a current or future
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that the selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be cos;
effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize
penr-anent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a principal element
for the reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume of the
haza/dous substances.
The remedial response objectives for the C&J Disposal
site are:
- E::minate the potential for direct human or animal
contact with the contaminated soil and waste.
- Prevent the migration of contaminants from the site
through surface' water runoff and ensure protection of
the groundwater and surface water from the continuous
release of contaminants from soils.
Accordingly, the feasibility study (FS) report evaluates.
six remedial alternatives, in detail, for addressing the
contamination associated with the C&J Disposal site.
These alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1- No Action with Monitoring
Capital Costs: SO
Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: S50,000/yr
-------
Preset Worth Cost: 3528,500
Tirr>e :o Implement: 1 month
I
is Superfund program requires that the 'no-action*
atte-rr-alive be considered as a baseiine for comparison
with ctn^r aJtematives. Under this alternative, no
rerr/e-iiaJ action to control the source of contamination
wccii take place. However, long-term monitoring of the
site would be necessary. The monitoring program would
ccns'st of sampling seven on-site existng monitoring
weC-s on a qua/terry basis for 30 years.
Because this attemat'rve would result in contaminants
remaning on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
rev>?
-------
Tnird Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) if remediation is
taxen at the site before May 3. 1S92. Conversely. if me
waste is net cLassrfied as a FC.-A hazardous waste on
the basis cf TCL? ar.aiysis fcr the contaminants cf
ccncem, it could be disposed c! in a permitted landfill
accepting industrial waste. Lastly, if me waste, cr portion
of the waste, fails the TCLP analysis due to other constit-
uents not identified as contaminants cf concern (e.g.,
teac). that waste would be restricted from land disposal
unless pretreated (e.g., stabilization/solidification). Costs
in this case could be an additional $160,000 (based on
stabilization Si Si30/cutic yard). The pretreated waste
would have to meet TCLP requirements to permit land
cispcsaJ and pcss-.'ory require a treatabiiiry variar.ce to
ALTH=.NA7'.VE 5 - Ferr.cva! and Off-Site Thermal Tre;:-
Cacr.a! Costs: $1.133,500
04M Costs: $36,000
Present Worth Costs: $1,219,500
Time to Implement: 6-9 months
This cte.T.atrve involves excavating the soil/waste material
(approximately 12£'0 cubic yards) from the disposal
trer.ch as described in Alternative 4 and transporting the
material crl-srte for thermal treatment. Thermal treatment
involves the thermal destruction of the contaminants, and
is principally used in destroying organic waste. The
resulting ash/residue would be treated, 'rt necessary and
disposed of in an off-site Treatment, Storage and Dispos-
al (TSD) facility. There are several thermal treatment
options available (i.e.. low temperature, incineration, etc.).
The above costs are based on incineration. This cost
does no; include the off-site treatment of the remaining
astx'residue.'soil, for any of the thermal treatments.
As described in Alternative 4, any alternative involving the
removal of the soil/waste material from the trench would
incorporate confirmatory sampling of the trench upon
completion of the excavation work. Cleanup criteria
would be based on background levels found in upcra-
d~tent soil samples obtained from the abandoned railroad
bed and a native soils sample. Upon confirmation that
the contaminants of concern had been removed, the
excavation would be backfilled with clean fill and vege-
tated. All monitoring wells on site and the nearby residen-
tial wells would be sampled on a quarterly basis fcr a
period of one year.
ALTERNATIVE 6 - In-Situ Vitrification
Capital Costs: $1,030.000
O & W Costs: S-iS.OOO/yr
Present Worth Costs: $1,551,800
Time to Implement: 6-3 months"
This alternative involves cn-srte treatment by melting the
soil/waste material with heat generated from an electrical
current. Four electrodes would be implanted into the soil
in a square pattern, spaced 30 feet apart. A mixture of ±
graphite and glass grit would be placed on the surface
to provide a conductive path for the electric cjrrer.t.
Resistance in the soil would cause the temperature to
rise to near 2.000° C resulting in the destruction of the
organic contaminants and the encapsulation cf any
remaining material in a glass-like mass. This p-ocess
would require temporary dewatering of the site, which
would be accomplished by excavating a temporary
dewatering trench adjacent to the site as described in
Alternative 4.
Because the material would be left in place, crcur.-.-.atsr
monitoring would be required for a period of 30 years 10
corrfirm that the contaminants of concern are net migrat-
ing from the vitrified mass. This alternative wc-jid also
require five-year reviews.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Eased upon an evaluation of the various alternatives.
E?A recommends Alternative 4 as the proposea rerr.edy
for the site. This alternative consists of remove c; the
contaminated soil and off-srte treatment/dispose!
The preferred alternative achieves risk reduct.-cr. me-
quickly and at substantially less cost than the oth
options. Therefore, the preferred alternative wii! prcv;u-
the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives v;:tn
respect to the evaluation criteria. EPA believes that the
preferred alternative will be protective of human health
and the environment, will comply with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs;. will be
cost effective, and will utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. This remedy is also consistent with the
statutory preference for the use of a remedy that involves
treatment as a principal element.
In the unlikely event that Alternative 4 cannot be imple-
mented before the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
deadline of May 8, 1992. Alternative 5 would ce imple-
mented in its place for the portion of the waste that has
been classified as a RCRA characteristic waste. Arterna-
tive 5 involves the same on-site remediation activities and
also has NYSDEC concurrence.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives.
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely short-term effectiveness: long-term effec
tiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity.
or volume; implementability; cost; compliance w
ARARs; overall protection of human hearth and in
mobili^M
:e wfl
ind the
-------
environment; and state and community acceptance.
evaluation criteria are explained below.
o Overall protection of human hearth and the environ-
ment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks posed
through each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
o Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a
remedy would meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of other Federal and State
environmental statutes and requirements or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may
be required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes.
B Reduction of toxicrty, mobility, or volume through
^eatment is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy
may employ.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any- adverse impacts
on human health and the environment that may be
posed during the construction and implementation period
until deanup goals are achieved.
o Imolementabilitv is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materi-
als and services needed.
o Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the net present worth costs.
o State acceptance indicates whether, based on its
review of the RI/FS report and Proposed Plan, the State
concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the
selected remedy at the present time.
o Communrty acceptance will be assessed in the ROD,
and refers to the public's general response to the alter-
natives described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS
report
WK comparative analysis of the six remedial aHematives for
the C&J Disposal site based upon the evaluation criteria
noted above, follows:
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and Environment
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health
and the environment, but is included for comparison with
the other alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5, by contrast.
woukl be fully protective of human health and the
environment because the contaminants are complete!-/
removed from the site. Alternative 2 would provide some
measure of protection from direct contact with contami-
nants through permanent fencing of the site, but does
not prevent contaminants from migrating from the site
through surface water runoff, air transport or release into
the groundwater and migration to downgradient drinking
water sources. Alternative 3 would prevent contaminant
migration from the site, but would require permanent
dewatering of the disposal trench and discharge o!
untreated groundwater to the pond and wetlands. This
coukj result in adverse environmental impacts. Alterna-
tive 6 would reduce the chance of contaminant migra-
tion to other environmental media by destroying most c!
the organic contaminants of concern. Any contaminants
not destroyed would be encapsulated in a glass-like
mass that would be insoluble and, therefore, not likely tc
teach contaminants. Subsequent covering of the si:e
with clean fill would eliminate the potential for physical
contact with the vitrified mass.
Compliance with ARARs
Waste constituents are present in the soils at the site but
are not currently present in the groundwater or surface
water. There are no chemical ARARs for soils, but there
are federal and state regulations for groundwater and
surface water. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 v/ould meet these
ARARs, whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 v/ould likely no;
meet ARARs in the event of a release of contaminants
from the site. Alternative 3 would not be expected to
exceed ARARs for groundwater, but could exceed dis-
charge limits for solids, turbidity, etc. into the wetlands.
Concerning location-specific ARARs, Alternatives 2
through 6 may involve remedial activity at or within the
perimeter of a 100 feet buffer zone of the pond/wetlands.
These activities would be performed consistent with
accepted practices to protect the v/etlands. The excava-
tion of soil and waste under Alternatives 4 and 5 v/ould
occur just outside of the 100 feet buffer zone.
Alternatives 4, 5. and 6 involve action-specific ARARs.
Off-site disposal (Alternatives 4 and 5) would be
subject to New York State and federal regulations
regarding transportation and disposal. Due to the
presence of lead in the waste, disposal at a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted facility
is assumed. Current RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
would allow the disposal of the excavated soil and waste
in a land-based unit until May 8, 1992 (Alternative 4).
-------
i r>e final ct~.a.'ac:=n2H*jcn of wastes and the apprcpriate-
r.ess of a Testability Variance under LDRs would be
determined ty TCLP testing. In the case cf Alternative 5
(tnermaJ treatment) compfiance with ajr emission stan-
dards would be required at the off-site treatment faciirry.
In the case cf Alternative 6. en-site treatment would be
sublet to ARARs for air emissions during the vitrification
process. Treatment cf off-gases may be required to
meet the requirements of New York State Regulations for
Fre.-errtion and Conuo^ cf Air Contamination and Air
FoSction and must compty with New York Slate Air Guide
- 1 for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Emissions.
Lore-Term E"ecti"/eness and ^enraner.ce
Aiematrve 1 would involve no controls and, therefore, is
rex effective in permanently preventing exposure to
contaminants on-site ex- eliminating the potential for
contaminants migrating off-site. Alternative 2 could be
elective in preventing direct exposure over the long-
term, but would not be effective in protecting against
migration of contaminants off-site and the resulting
exposure. Alternative 3 would be effective against
contaminants migrating from the site, but potential
grccrxJwarer contamination may adversely impact on the
pocd/wetlands. Also, the installation of a permanent
de^atering system could have a long-term impact on the
agricultural field. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be fulty
elective and would provide permanent remediation.
AJtemative 6 would be highly effective in protecting
against on-site exposure and off-site migration.
Reduction in Toxiciry. Mobility, or Volume
Alemaiives 1 and 2 would provide no reduction in
taxJc.ty. mobility, or volume. Alternative 3 would provide
a reduction in mobility of wastes, but no reduction in
tcobcrty or volume. Under Alternatives 4 and 5. corrtami-
rtsrss would be removed completely. However, land
disposal (Alternative 4) would not reduce toxicity and
volume of the waste, but would control and manage the
mobility of the contaminants (as the material would be
pfeced in a secure facility). In the case of thermal
tres^nent (Alternative 5). an overaJI reduction in volume
and toxJcrty would be achieved, as well as eliminating
waste mobility. Treatment (stabilization/solidification) of
the subsequent ash/residue/ soil, prior to disposal in an
appropriate landfill, would control and manage the
mociDry of any remaining contaminants. Under Alterna-
tive 6. the organic contaminants of concern would be
destroyed or encapsulated. The mobility pctentia. cf any
residual contaminants would be greatly reduced or
e*rr,inated by encapsulation in the vitrified mass. As a
result of the vitrification process, the total volume of
sod "waste would be reduced by 25-457o.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would be ineffective in protecting against
direct on-srte exposure to contaminants and off-site
migration of contaminants. Alternative 2 would readily
protect against direct exposure on-site, but would not
address short-term migration of wastes off-site. Alterna-
tive 3 would have a minimal adverse environmental
impact during capping and installation of the dewatering
system. However, the impact of pumping untreated
groundwater into the pond/wetlands could be a signifi-
cant short-term concern. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be
expected to have minimal adverse environmental impacts
during excavation and temporary dewatenng operations.
Appropriate measures will be taken during excavation to
prevent transport of fugitive dust and exposure o!
workers and downgradient receptors to VOCs. Alterna-
tive 6 would be expected to have minimal adverse
environmental impacts during dewatering. construction
and operation. The remaining remediation activities would
take place in the trench area and in the adjacent land
between the trench and Route 125 and would have
minimal adverse effect.
Imolementabilrrv
Alternative 1 would be easily implementabie as only
groundwater monitoring is involved. Alternatives 1, 2. 3
and 6 would require groundwater monitoring for 30 years
each, and Alternatives 4 and 5 would require monitoring
for only one year each. Under Alternatives 2 and 3
permanent securing of the site would be easily imple-
mentabie but final agreement on deed restrictions could
be lengthy. Alternative 3 would be the most difficult to
implement. The installation of a permanent dewatering
system would have a 30 year impact on the adjacent
agricultural property and groundwater discharge to the
pond/wetlands would require a New York State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit and state and
federal approval to discharge into wetlands. Alternatives
4 and 5 use proven technologies, established administra-
tive procedures, have sufficient facilities available for
disposals and therefore these alternatives are easily
implemented. Alternative 6 would be implementable
provided treatability studies demonstrate adequate
effectiveness for the site. Administrative activities would
include securing electricrty for the process, obtaining and
coordinating subcontractor activities and providing
adequate safety for the site during remediation.
Cost
Present worth costs range from a low of 5528,500 for No-
Action with Groundwater Monitoring (Alternative 1) to a
high of Si,55",800 for In-Situ Vitrification (Alternative 6}.^
-------
!_, A~.eotance
concurs with the preferred alternative.
..Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
assessed in the ROD following a review of the public
'comments received on the RI/FS report and the Pro-
posed Plan.
CONCLUSION
EPA believes that the preferred remedy described above
is fully protective of human health and the environment,
meets aJl the ARARs, offers the best balance among the
evaluation criteria discussed above, and satisfies the
statutory preference of treatment as a principal element
in remedy selection.
It is important to note that the remedy described above
is the preferred remedy for the site. The final selection
will be documented in the ROD only after consideration
of all comments on any of the remedial alternatives
addressad in the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
-------
Appendix C
iblic nset-inc sicrs in sheet.
-------
REGION II
ILIC MEETING
FOR
C & J Disposal Buperfund Site
Hamilton, New York
February 13,1991
MEETING ATTENDEES
NAME
<1( ' /^(f/c't /'
/LJ/V^/Si/i/;
/>£
STREET
/', /-.
(Please Print)
CITY
1 /
JL) V ^
/i.
M
ZIP
A//V 1C 2
PHONE
'
//,-
MAILI:
REPRESENTING LIST
A/1? >
\\v
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
C K J Disposal Buperfund Oito
Hamilton, New York
February 13,1991
MEETING ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
., i ' MAII
NAME BTREET ( CITY ( ZIP ' PHONE REPREBENTINO LIST
\. v.x\ ''...v \(^ ';'*.;.».'» 1 V..v \ iV/l. .'(.(Q
,
\
-------
UNITED STAT^KNVFRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^^ REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
C & J DiDposal Buporfund Oite
Hamilton, New York
February 13,1991
MEETING ATTENDEEO
(Please Print)
NAME STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING LI
_ /// _
._ MV >:
ti^V
-------
Appendix D
;ncer.ce received ty EPA curing the public ccrTuaent period
-------
. , ~.-. .,
:-;arilt,cr. , lie'.v Ycrz
!-'arch. ~ 1-91
V. .^ = -L -!. . ."". - ~. ~ ; J1
_
"-/=. " -.-v <
..C _ - A . .
U-". r u ' L ^ 3 ~ C £ ;
:y , :'ev.- Ycrl-:.
l«<~ *. _ (J*..-. .. ,-s.i
- J
Arcean 5. Rocrar.
Lcrr.s. I. !-'er>:t
-------
(Q&
ROBEK7 H. KUlPErl CNDY L URTZ
^ CIS) ^2201
(Q&u/nfy ^cav-d of
-------
RE c OZi L" T ~ "" \
INFORMING THZ ENYIRCN.VENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THE
HOARD OF THZ TOWN C7 EATCN, NY, POSITION RELATIVE TO THE
CLEAN-UP OF THE CSJ LEASING HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE IN THE
TOWN OF EATON, NY.
VTEEREAS, Inspections at the site by the New York State Department of
Health ar.d Village of Eaniltcr. Engineer revealed approximately 75 to 100
druns cf liquid wastes arc
KEZEEAS, the site, ccr.tair.s a snail pond, which is adjacent to wetlands
that ultimately drain tc Kcc-cr.ar, Pcr.d which serves as a backup drinking
water source for the Village cf llar.ilten and
*TEZ?Z_SS, sair.plir.es frcra the site by the New York State Department of
Envircr.rj5r.tai Conservation ar.c FPA's contractor, NUS Corporation revealed
presence cf phenolic ccrpcurcs, phthalates, various volatile organic
ccrrcurds, pclynuclear arcnatic hydrocarbons and lead. Arse Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
rhthal=te detected in sedirerts frcr. the adjacent pond and
KETFIAS, the site vas clacec cr. the Superfunc National Driorities
r- ir. ."arch 1989 ar.c
KEEP.EAS, further study by NUS Corporation indicated concentrations
low, the potential nover-ent of ccr.taninates from the site to the pond under
curreri circuristances represents a threat and
KHZ PEAS, CERCLA requires that the selected site rer.edy be protective
cf hunar- health and the envircnr.ent, comply with other statutory laws, and
utilize permanent solutions,
srcw, THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED, the Board of the TCV.T. of Eaton endorses
as a nlnlrur. solution ALTERNATIVE 4 - Removal and Off-Site Treatnent/Disposal
as set fcrrh in the Superfur.c Prcpcsec Plan, C&J Disposal Site, dated
January, 1991, EPA-Regior. 2.
3. J=-e: E. Episcopo, icvn C:erk. Trvn of Eaton, certify that the above resolution
vas -J.2- passed at the M^rch 11, 1991 reeting of the Town of Eaton Board. Councilman
Ra- Simons aoved the resoluticr be accepted and Councilman Johr. Pearsall seconded
the ncricn and the follevins vote resulted: Supervisor Anthony Zazzara-aye;
Co ri_n£n John Pearsal 1-aye ; Ccucci ir^sr Ray Simmons-aye ; Councilnian Thomas Ciarrocchi-aye.
>.->- -/ ^
-------
February 27, 1991
Mr. Jack O'DeU, Project Manager
Western New York Superrund Section I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency"
26 Federal Plaza - Room 29-102
New York, New York
1027S
Dear Mr. O'Dell
Re: C&J Disposal Site
Review of PFLAP and RJ/FS
Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxvChem) wishes to make the following
comments on the following documents related to the C
-------
OxyChem
February 27, 1991
Page 2 of 2
Review of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) indicates that the
health risk has been overestimated by the risk assessment included in the RJ/FS (Chapter 6).
The incremental cancer risk posed by the conditions at the Site has been reassessed and
found to be on the order of 2£-07 not 2E-04 as presented in the RI/FS. The principal reason
for the difference in cancer risks estimated was due to incorrect exposure scenarios used in
the RI/FS.
Based on a reassessment of the risk, and identified site conditions, OxyChem believes that a
more limited remedial plan can be implemented to protect human health. OxyChem's
suggested remedial plan is:
Soil Cap - grade site using imported common clean fill to achieve a
minimum 12-inches of fill over the waste at a minimum
grade of 1%
cover fill with 6-inches of topsoil
vegetate topsoil
Croundwater - VOCs and BN'As at 4 downgradient wells (MW-02D &
Monitoring S and MW-03D
-------
February 27,1991
Reference No. 3S7S
ATTACHMENT 1
OXYCHEM COMMENTS ON USEPA PROPOSED PLAN
FOR C&J DISPOSAL SITE
(January 1991) AND C&J DISPOSAL SITE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY (January 1991)
A) L'SEPA Proposed Remedial Action Plan
The following comments are presented on the USEPA's Proposed Plan.
Disposal
As discussed in Section B of this Attachment, the risk, as estimated by USEPA,
is due to the one high level concentration of DEHP in a subsurface sample,
(the other DEHP soil concentrations are lower by approximately a factor of
100), and the analytical results are indicative of phthalate content in a plastic
rather than a soil with phthalate compounds present. OxyChem
recommends that the PRAP include the option to separate plastic material
and hazardous waste soils from the non-hazardous waste in order to reduce
the volume of waste requiring disposal. The plastics and hazardous waste
soil would be appropriately disposed of and the remaining non-hazardous
waste soils would be placed back in the trench. Suitability of the soil for
placement into the trench would be determined by analyzing the soils, after
plastic removal, for YOCs, BN'As and by employing TCLP procedures on
selected soil samples. The space created by the removal of the plastic and
unsuitable soils would be backfilled with dean imported soil.
If this approach of separating and disposing of only the plastic and unsuitable
soils at an off-site location were implemented, it is estimated that a cost
savings of approximately 5200,000 for disposal would be realized (See Table 1 -
OxyChem Revised PRAP - Waste Separation). This alternative assumes that
approximately 1/3 of the material would require off-site disposal as a
hazardous waste and 2/3 of the material would be reused as backfill. If the
materials separated for off-site disposal are not hazardous materials, the cost
of disposal and transportation for both the EPA and OxyChem Revised
PRAP's would be greatly reduced making waste separation (plastic and
unsuitable soils) less advantageous. The estimated cost of waste separation is
520,000.
-------
February 27,1991
Reference No. 3878
-2-
Monitoring
Analysis for VOCs and BXAs is appropriate for the site. However the
frequency of monitoring and number of locations can be reduced. Reduction
of monitoring frequency and locations is supported by the following:
i) The waste has been in-place for approximately fifteen years and no
impact on groundwater quality with regard to organic chemical
compounds was detected during the RI/FS ie. no organic compounds
above contract required detection limits were detected in the
groundwater, including groundwater analyses from the well placed
within the waste (MW-04S).
ii) The organic compounds detected within soil samples, including both
VOCs and BXAs, show affinity for the soils.
Therefore, since no organic compounds, including the more soluble and
mobile VOCs, were detected in the groundwater after approximately fifteen
years of waste placement, it is not expected that these compounds would now
start to migrate in the groundwater. Thus, the nature of the chemicals and of
the site hydrogeologic characteristics indicate that monitoring of the four
downgradient wells, MW-02D & S and MW-03D & S at quarterly intervals for
one year would be sufficient to determine if groundwater containing
site-related chemistry is migrating from the site. The locations of these wells
is such that if chemistry is detected at these locations, ample time would still
be available to determine other remedial actions, required if any, and to
implement them before local domestic water supply wells were impacted.
Cost Review
The items which are overestimated in the RI/FS are:
i) groundwaier monitoring (reduced level of monitoring will suffice);
and
ii) oversite/coordination.
The following items were underestimated:
i) Soil excavation; and
ii) Disposal Costs.
-------
February 27,1991
Reference No. 3S7S
Ln addition, a numerical error was detected for placement of 2000 cubic yards
of dean fill ie. 2000 x S20 = 540,000 not 530,000. A comparison of estimated
costs for the PRAP using the original and revised plans are listed on Table 1.
B) RI/FS Ri^k Assessment
Assumptions used in the RI/FS soil exposure scenario were overly
conservative resulting in an incremental cancer risk and a total chronic
hazard index that are too high. Therefore, the risk has been reassessed (see
Appendix A) using more appropriate exposure scenarios.
Review of RI/FS Risk Assessment Assumptions
1) Dermal Exposure
The dermal exposure is over-stated. In the RJ/FS assessment, it was assumed
that S600 cm-, representing approximately one-half of the total body surface,
would be soiled. A more appropriate assumption would be to assume that
the person is clothed and that the areas soiled would be the feet, lower legs,
hands and lower arms. The surficial area soiled would be 1590 cm-.
In addition, the RI/FS assumes that 100% of the chemical contained in or on
the soil particles is absorbed through the skin in the 1-hour exposure period.
This is unrealistic considering that almost all the carcinogenic risk and
chronic hazard are due to DEHP which has a high affinity for adsorption to
soil (Koc = 7244). More appropriate assumptions would be that 15% of the
chemical on the soil particles is actually in contact with the skin and that 47c
of this chemical is adsorbed in the exposure period. Therefore, a more
appropriate adsorption factor would be 0.6% (Hawley, 1985).
Another factor compounding the high risks calculated in the RI/FS was the
use of maximum concentrations. This is especially important of DEHP
recognizing that almost all the risk is due to this one compound. Using the
maximum concentration for DEHP is overly conservative since it is from a
subsurface sample which was described as a "discrete waste sample, in which
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected", and contact with
subsurface soils is highly unlikely for the casual passer-through. Further, the
RI/FS states "the high phthalate levels detected analytically are derived from
the laboratory extraction process and may not represent the degree of
phthalate leachability under ambient conditions". The phthalate
-------
February 27,1991
Reference No. 3878
-4-
concentration detected in this sample (29,000 mg/kg) is indicative of phthlate
content in a plastic rather than a soil with phthalate compounds present.
A more reasonable assumption would be to use average concentrations.
Rgassessement of Risk
Tne risk reassessment was performed using OxyChem's exposure scenarios
presented above with the average of detects for soil concentrations (CS).
The risk reassessment estimated an incremental cancer risk of 2E-07 and a
hazard index of 6E-03.
Specifics of the risk reassessment are presented in Appendix A.
Need for Remediation Based on the Risk Reassessment
The estimated risk levels presented above and on Table A-l of Appendix A
are low level. These low levels of risk allow consideration of a more limited
remedial alternative.
C OXYCHEM SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon review of the RI/FS, the USEPA Proposed Plan and the OxyChem
risk reassessment, the following remedial alternative is suggested by
OxyChem.
i) Cap and Monitor
Soil Cap - grade site using imported common clean fill to achieve
a minimum 12-inches of fill over the waste at.a
minimum grade of 1%
- cover fill with 6-inches of topsoil
vegetate the topsoil
Groundwater - VOC's and BN'A's at 4 downgradient wells
Monitoring quarterly (+1 blank, 1 duplicate, 1 MS/MSD) for the
first year, annually thereafter for the next four years.
- at the end of the five years, perform an assessment to
determine continuing monitoring requirements, if
any.
-------
February 27,1991
Reference N'o. 3S78
-5-
Since all the estimated health risks are due to surficial soil contact and
inhalation, capping of the site to sever these exposure pathways is
appropriate. The existing pit, if any, would be filled with dean imported fill
and the site graded to a minimum 1% slope while ensuring a minimum of
twelve inches of dean fill over any waste. This would be overlain by six
inches of vegetated topsoil. Since the groundwater pathway has not been
deemed to represent a complete exposure pathway in the RI/FS , monitoring
of the four dowr.gradient wells, MV/-02D &. S and N1W-03D &S, quarterly for
one year, then annually for the next four years would be sufficient to detect
groundwater migration, if any, and, if detected, would allow ample time to
evaluate and implement additional remedial actions before the migration
would impact local domestic well supplies. After the five years of
groundwater quality monitoring, an assessment would be performed to
determine continuing monitoring requirements, if any.
Tne estimated present worth cost for this alternative is 590,000 (see Table 1).
-------
TABLE 1
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
A) Temporary Dewatering of Site
B) Excavation of Soil/Waste
from Trench
Waste Separation
C) 2000 cubic yards clean fill g<20/yd
Soil Cap/Fence
D) Disposal Costs
(Hazardous)
E) Transportation
Analytical Costs
C) Oversite/Coordiaation
H) Groundwater Monitoring
First Year
Analytical Costs
Labor & Expenses (following years)
Following Years
Analytical Costs
Labor & Expenses (following years)
Total Capital
Annual O
-------
February 27, 1991
Reference No. 3S7S
APPENTJDCA
C&J DISPOSAL SITE
REASSESSMENT OF RISK
The follcnvir.g risk reassessment was performed using more realistic and
appropriate exposure scenario and chemical concentrations than those used in the
R1/F5. The risk reassessment has been performed using OxyChem's exposure
scenario combined with soil concentrations (CS) which axe the average of detects.
Table A-l presents the results of the risk reassessment using the exposure scenario
presented in Table A-2. The exposure scenario is presented (see Table A-2) to allow
comparison with the scenario used in the RI/FS.
From Table A-l, it is apparent that DEHP presents the greatest percentage of the total
risk from exposure to surface soil, representing in excess of 90^ for both excess
cancer risk and Hazard Index. This evaluation indicates that the high concentration
of DEHP at one sub-surface soil sample was responsible for a significant part of the
total risk attributed to the site surface soils. It is important to note that this was not a
surface soil and therefore direct exposure to the soil from the sample location is
highly unlikely. Therefore, use of the maximum concentration from this
subsurface soil is overly conservative.
Conclusion
If more appropriate assumptions are applied to the exposure scenario and average
soil concentrations are used, the estimated risks related to exposure to surface soil
would fall within an acceptable range and the present conditions could be
considered protective of public health.
Extent of Remediation Required
The principal compounds detected at the site are VOCs, PAHs and phthalates.
Because of the risk reassessment and the low solubility and high KQC values of
PAH's and phthlates, particularly DEHP, migration as solutes in groundwater is not
expected for these compounds. This is supported by the fact that the above
compounds, including VOCs, have not been detected in the well immediately below
the waste fifteen years after disposal. The VOCs detected at the the site are more
soluble and mobile than the PAH's and phthalates. However, these compounds do
-------
February 27,1991
Reference No. 3878
-2-
not contribute significantly to the estimated health risks. Therefore, a more limited
remedial action can be considered.
Reassessment of Risk
The risk reassessment was performed using OxyChem's exposure scenario presented
above with the soil concentrations which are the average of detects. The risk
reassessment estimated incremental cancer risks and hazard indices of 2E-07 and
6E-03 respectively.
-------
, i
Ji'A:
f-.-i
.' i :
~ ;*./". ^"- .-""' A i l"
*'* --. 1 I i * ,. 1 I*
' -../: ; \j»'-. .i-' i
ORlGiNAL
.- AS'. ''-. ":
is' ;s: A:.:T:
-------
' A
TABLE A-2
rlXl.I '-.
11.-.
I KG!
I *. "...' '. .S..!i; ^» s i -11 -
* v c r s'..' - r i! *.. r ..;-*. t 11
:S" JVIIAS : : .i 5. .-:L: .':«". I'.A:. .A.. :I:"*:I- --" -'-'- -
.f'.'Li Af::ff;!:NT .".AS"AL. A:LI'. I--.-- :?: :: I-" I-
A'.T: .".fi r:..v IlrlSVLi v ;::."";:": - . TA.'.IT. .".I.
-------
Mcyor
U£//:iTi K. Pike
Er.^ir.t er
Jihn P.ztkbone
Cliri-T rea-jrer
Pzxi C. Kogut
VILLAGE OF HAMILTON
Municipal Office
P.O Box 119-3 Broad Siree:
ha.T.;.':on. New YO.-'K 12345
:3-5, 82-:-: 1-
Trustees
Lawrence J. Baker
H'illard Fuller
Jane M. Erb
Daniel P. Bergen
c: t:
1 1 F- I C Q "T I O
C£^Ti"Y tnat t^e at tac^e^ is a t^-ue. coclete aic acca"a*. e
a f -. : 1«.: : c - arcpte^ c / t ~ e <.': 1 .
-------
RESOLUTION REGARD ING DISPOSITION OF THE CiJ DISPOSE SITE
UHEREflS the Municipal Utilities Commission of the Village of
Hamilton, tne Trustees of the Villas? of Hat:lton, the New YorU State
Department of Health have identified an area north of tne Village of
Hamilton in whicn unknown industrial waste materials were deposited,
and
WHERESS this area, subsequently known as the "C4J Disposal Site",
is located immediately tc the north of Wcac-mai Pond, an alternate
source of potable water fc' the Village of Hamilton, ana
WHEREflS these agencies ar.c the New Yor* State Departtent of
Environmental Conservation and tne United States Environmental
Protection Agency have invest;gatec the disposal site to determine
the extent of env:ronmental daia^e, ans
WHEREfiS the United States Environmental Protection Agency has
determined that there are seve-al a] t e-r.at: ves tc cons:der in
remediating the situation at the "L&J Dispose^ Site,' arc
WHEREAS the United States Environmental Protection figency has
scheduled a public hearing at the hatilton Central School at 7:30 pe
on Wednesoay, 13 February l9^»: tc ciscusv t-.e findings and proposes
alternative remediation strate;:es,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the municipal Utilities
Commission and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kami]ton find
acceptable only one alternative tc resolve the environmental damage
found at the 'C4J Disposal Site': complete removal of all sources of
contamination anc all contaminated sc:l and other material fror the
site, to be transported to and deposited in or destroyed at a
disposal site approved by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation ar.c the Unitec States Environmental
Protection flgency.
------- |