PB97-964104
EPA/541/R-97/077
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Grand Ledge, MI
9/30/1997
-------
Declaration
Selected Remedial Alternative
For The
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc. (Parsons) Site
Oneida Township, Eaton County
Michigan
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected Remedial Action (RA) for the Parsons site, Oneida
Township, Eaton County, Michigan which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980 PL 96-510, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part
300). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedy utilizes long-term monitoring with a contingency plan to assure protection of
public health. The long-term monitoring consists of the development and implementation of a
program to monitor the water quality in private water supply wells located within approximately
1/4 mile of the site for a period of 15 years. Concentrations of some metals and the pesticide
dieldrin were detected at concentrations above applicable health-based drinking water criteria in
Remedial Investigation (RI) site monitoring wells. While no private water supply wells sampled
during the RI were contaminated, they are installed in the same aquifer as the site bedrock
monitoring wells, although deeper. The threat posed by the site is the potential for chemicals
detected in the site bedrock monitoring wells to migrate vertically downward and horizontally in
the direction of groundwater flow eventually impacting private water supplies at some future date.
This unquantified potential threat to private water supplies necessitates the remedy. The
heterogeneous nature of the soils at this site does not allow for precise definition of all
components of lithology and potential migration pathways. Therefore, it is prudent to exercise
caution by implementing a long-term monitoring program to assure continued protection of public
health. In addition to sampling point-of-consumption private water supply weHs, selected RI
monitoring wells will be included in the program to provide data for tracking post-investigation
conditions. Trend analysis of the analytical results will be performed to detect groundwater
degradation in advance of drinking water criteria exceedances in the private wells. Specific
threshold levels for dieldrin and arsenic, two site chemicals of concern, have been established.
Unacceptable groundwater degradation as determined by trend analysis or by confirmed detection
of either arsenic or dieldrin in excess of the threshold levels, will trigger implementation of the
-------
contingency plan. The contingency plan consists of providing the public with an alternate water
supply such as bottled water, if threshold levels are exceeded in the private wells, while the
existing Grand Ledge municipal water supply system is extended into the area and all private wells
are connected to the system.
The monitoring plan will focus on the bedrock aquifer where private water supply wells are
installed to assure the continued acceptable quality of groundwater in water supply wells. Primary
components of the remedy are as follows:
long-term monitoring of private water supply wells;
long-term monitoring of selected on-site monitoring wells;
trend analysis of analytical results to identify indications of groundwater degradation and
potential threat to human health;
monitoring for exceedance of threshold levels for dieldrin or arsenic; and,
contingency plan alternate water supply in event of unacceptable groundwater degradation
while the existing Grand Ledge municipal water supply system is extended and private wells
are connected.
Statutory Determinations
The selected RA is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the RA, and is cost effective.
The selected RA constitutes a Final Groundwater Remedy under CERCLA and complies with the
requirements of Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451,
as amended, for an Interim Response. The statutory preference for remedies that reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element is not achieved with this action. However, unless or until
indications that groundwater degradation is occurring and contamination threatens private water
supplies, extension of the municipal water supply system is not supportable.
This RA win resuh in potentially hazardous substances remaining on she above heahh-based levels. A
review will be conducted within five years after a>nimencement of the RA ahemative implementation
This will ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
William E. Muno, Chief/Superfund Division Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Michigan Department of Environmental
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Site Name, Location and Description
B. Site History
C. Community Participation
D. Summary of Current Site Conditions
E. Summary of Risk
F. Rationale tor Action and Scope of the Selected Remedy
G. Groundwater Alternatives
HL Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
I. The Selected Remedy
J. Statutory Determinations
K. Summary
L. Responsiveness Summary
M. Glossary
Appendix
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
A. SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Oneida Township
Eaton County, Michigan
The Parsons Chemical Works, Inc. site (Parsons) is located at 3562 West Jefferson Street, in
Oneida Township, on the western fringe of the city of Grand Ledge, in northeastern Eaton
County, Michigan. The Parsons site occupies a parcel of land approximately six acres in size.
The site, which is generally flat with little vegetation other than grass and a few small trees, is
bounded by Jefferson Street to the north, Oneida Street to the east, Lawson Road/MUlbrook
Printing Company's driveway to the west, and Millbrook Printing Company, to the south. The
entire study area encompasses approximately 775 acres. The Grand River is located
approximately 3/4 of a mile north of the former Parsons plant. In the immediate vicinity of the
former Parsons plant, in addition to Millbrook Printing to the south, the Church of the Nazarene,
and its associated parsonage, is located immediately to the west. Businesses are located to the
north across Jefferson Street, and two residential subdivisions, Russell Subdivision and Fairview
Subdivision, are located to the east across Oneida Street. See Figures 1-4 in the Appendix for
details.
The city of Grand Ledge has a municipal water system which supplies Grand Ledge residences
and businesses as far west as Kennedy Place, a city street. West of Kennedy Place, a four-inch
municipal line continues from the 12-inch municipal line and provides municipal water to
residences, businesses and industries with frontage on West Jefferson Street west to Lawson
Road. See Figure 5 in the Appendix for details. Millbrook Printing, the Church of the Nazarene,
its parsonage, all of the residences and businesses in the two subdivisions with the exception of
those fronting West Jefferson Street, and any residences located outside the above-described
municipal system boundaries, rely on private wells for their water supply. Approximately 50
private wells are located within 1/4. mile of the site.
Beyond Millbrook Printing to the south, west of the Church of the Nazarene, and north of the
businesses along West Jefferson is primarily agricultural property, natural area and sparse rural
population.
-------
B. SITE HISTORY (See Glossary for definitions of terms used in this section)
Parsons occupied the site and operated from 1945 through mid 1979. Their operation consisted
of mixing, manufacturing and packaging agricultural chemicals including pesticides, herbicides,
and solvent and mercury-based compounds. Floor drains in the Parsons plant discharged into a
septic tank and leach field, which were connected to a catch basin leading to a county drain
system. The county drain discharges into an unnamed creek located northwest of the site, which
ultimately discharges into the Grand River approximately 0.75 miles to the noith, within the
boundaries of Fitzgerald Park, a large county park. The stream bank on the west side of Lawson
Road where the drain outfall is located, eroded over time until the conduit at the drain outfall was
washed out. Once the conduit washed out, the drain discharged onto the ground on the west side
of Lawson Road and contaminated the soil bank above the creek bed. In addition to the discharge
of liquid wastes, activities at the plant resulted in the deposition of agricultural chemicals on soil
around the perimeter of the building, particularly behind the plant to the south covering an area of
approximately three quarters of an acre.
Various government agencies received reports about discharges from the plant, and investigated.
Concerns arose when soil and sediment samples, collected in the late 1970's from the drainage
ditch and unnamed creek, were found to contain pesticides and elevated concentrations of heavy
metals. In 1980, the current owner, ETM Enterprises, Inc. (ETM), moved into the building and
began a fiberglass parts manufacturing operation. ETM contracted with a consulting firm to
conduct a limited study to try to find sources of the contamination. Following the study, ETM
excavated, removed and disposed of the septic tank and leach field.
Between the late 1970s through the mid 1980s, several soil sampling events took place at the site.
The analytical results revealed the presence of elevated concentrations of mercury, arsenic and
chromium. Pesticides including dieldrin, chlordane and DDT and its breakdown products, ODD
and DDE, were also detected in the soil samples. The Parsons site was also included in a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded dioxin study during this time period. Low
concentrations of dioxin were detecte' in soil samples in two areas; the first was on ETM
property in a small area on the south side of Jefferson Street and the second was on the unnamed
creek bank where the drain conduit had washed out. These two areas were fenced to prevent
direct contact with the contaminated soils. This soil was subsequently addressed by the Non
Time-Critical Removal (NTCR) discussed below.
The Parsons site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the EPA in
1988, and officially placed on the NPL in 1989, designating it a Superfund site. The state of
Michigan conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) via a cooperative
agreement with the EPA to determine the extent of environmental contamination, to assess the
risks the contamination posed to human health and the environment, and to determine the most
appropriate remedy for the contamination. Also in the late 1980s, the state of Michigan and the
EPA initiated a cooperative effort to conduct a NTCR utilizing an innovative soil remediation
technology, known as In-Situ Vitrification (ISV), to remediate some of the site soil known to be
contaminated. The NTCR began in 1990, when the EPA contracted with Geosafe Corporation to
-------
perform ISV to remediate 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the Parsons site. The ISV
NTCR field work began in October 1990 and concluded in early summer 1994. The
post-treatment investigation was completed in fall 199S. A complete description of the Parsons
ISV project is available in the Information Repository located in the Grand Ledge Public Library,
131 East Jefferson Street, Grand Ledge, Michigan.
The field work portion of the RI/FS was initiated in March 1993, and placed in the Administrative
Record in June 1996.
C. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Section L, the Responsiveness Sur>mary, discusses the involvement of the community during the
RI/FS and remedy selection process and shows that the public participation requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980 PL
96-510, Sections 113(kX2X»-v) and 117 have been met at this site. The decision is based on the
Administrative Record located in the Information Repository.
D. .SUMMARY OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
The RI report documents the results of the RI at the site. For additional details concerning site
conditions, please refer to the complete report.
Hydrogeologic Study:
Groundwater quality: A total of 18 borings were drilled into the shallow saturated zone in the
unconsolidated glacial deposits overlying the bedrock and as deep as 20 feet into the bedrock.
The bedrock consists of fractured, weathered sandstone beginning at approximately 30 feet below
ground level within the study area. Seventeen monitoring wells were subsequently installed in the
borings. Figure 6 shows the location of all of the borings/monitoring wells.
The work was performed in three phases. Groundwater samples were collected from different
combinations of the 17 monitoring wells in 1993,1994 and 199S. Figure 7 in the Appendix
contains a summary-table of the groundwater sampling data from the RI. The RI revealed the
presence of elevated concentrations of metals and the pesticide dieldrin in some samples from
wells screened in both the shallow saturated zone and in the top 20 feet of the bedrock aquifer.
Because the bedrock aquifer is the only useable aquifer at this site, the following discussion is
limited to contamination detected in the bedrock aquifer.
Metals in all of the filtered groundwater samples collected from the bedrock aquifer complied
with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as specified in 40 CFR 141 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) with the exception of the first of three samples collected from monitor well
(MW) 8. The filtered groundwater sample collected in 1993 from MW8 contained cadmium at a
concentration of 8.2 parts per billion (ppb). The MCL for cadmium is 5 ppb. The same sample
had a lead concentration of 598 ppb. The MCL Action Level for lead is 15 ppb. The analyses of
-------
two subsequent samples collected from MW8 did not detect cadmium or lead. The non-detection
of lead and cadmium in two successive sampling episodes suggests that the high results in the
1993 sample were anomalous or at least no longer typical of groundwater in the vicinity of the
well.
The concentration of manganese in filtered groundwater samples was elevated in five of the
bedrock wells. There is no MCL for manganese. However, pursuant to Part 201 of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Pan 201), the generic
residential health-based drinking water criterion for manganese is 860 ppb. Part 201 also
stipulates an aesthetic criterion for manganese of SO ppb. One sample from MW8 exceeded the
health-based drinking water criterion. Subsequent samples from this well contained
concentrations less than 860 ppb.
No organic compounds were detected in site monitoring wells in excess of MCLs or non-zero
MCL Goals (MCLGs). No MCL has been promulgated for dieldrin. However, the Part 201
generic-health-based drinking water criterion for dieldrin is 0.053 ppb. The Part 201 criterion was
exceeded in some of the groundwater samples from wells screened at the top of the bedrock
aquifer. No detections of dieldrin were found in deeper groundwater samples. In the wells where
the concentration of dieldrin initially was detected in excess of the Pan 201 criterion, subsequent
sample results were found to be less than the criterion.
The lead concentration in the unfiltered sample from MW11, a background well screened in the
bedrock aquifer, was elevated at 100 ppb. The lead concentrations in unfiltered samples from
on-site bedrock monitoring wells ranged from 2 ppb to over 600 ppb. This suggests that while
some of the on-site wells appear to have been impacted by site contamination, lead in area
groundwater is elevated for reasons apparently not connected to the Parsons site.
The groundwater was determined to be moving in a north-northeasterly direction. Groundwater
is estimated to be moving at a velocity ranging from less than one foot per year to 100 feet per
year.
Approximately 50 private wells located within 1/4 mile of the site obtain groundwater from the
bedrock aquifer. Approximately 45 of these wells are located directly east of the site. The private
wells are all believed to be installed at least 100 feet into the bedrock. Five private water supply
wells were selected for sampling during the RI based on their proximity to the site. All of the
samples were found to be in compliance with MCLs and applicable generic residential
health-based drinking water criteria pursuant to Part 201. The table in Figure 8 in the Appendix
compares the highest concentrations of arsenic, dieldrin, lead and manganese detected in any
residential well to the most stringent applicable health-based criterion.
To summarize, with the exception of one sample result, believed to be anomalous, metals in the
filtered groundwater samples from site monitoring wells comply with MCLs and non-zero
MCLGs. The pesticide dieldrin for which there is no MCL, was detected in some samples but
does not exceed the Part 201 criterion in bedrock wells based on the most current round of
-------
samples. Manganese concentrations, for which there is no MCL, exceed the Part 201 generic
health-based drinking water criterion in site rrionitoring wells, but not in residential wells. It is
also significant to note that unfiltered samples from the site monitoring wells were turbid and not
suitable for drinking water. No residential well samples exceeded MCLs, non-zero MCLGs or
health-based Part 201 drinking water criteria
Soil; Currently, an estimated 3,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with elevated concentrations
of metals and pesticides remain on the site pending a second EPA-lead NTCR. This contaminated
area was identified during the IS V project and prior to the RI. Because the soil would be
addressed in a NTCR, the EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
agreed this contaminated soil would not be addressed further in the RI. The depth of the
contamination is generally estimated at not more than two feet with the highest concentrations in
the top six inches. Thi*, combined with the fact that the highest contamination detected in the
bedrock aquifer was found hydraulically upgradient from the contaminated soil area, indicates that
the contaminated soil in this area is not contributing to groundwater contamination. The soil is
fenced to avoid accidental contact. Figure 9 depicts the general location of the soil.
With respect to the rest of the site soil, during the RI, 83 soil samples from 44 locations were
collected at selected depths across the site and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL)
organics, Target Analyte List (TAL) inorganics, dioxins, furans and cyanide. With the exception
of the above-mentioned contaminated soil, no additional soil was identified on ETM property that
poses an unacceptable direct contact hazard. Again, the contamination was detected in relatively
shallow soils indicating that the contamination was not contributing to the groundwater
degradation. The table in Figure 10 in the Appendix shows the average site soil concentrations
and the associated direct contact standards pursuant to Part 201.
One soil sample collected from a monitor well auger cutting on the north side of West Jefferson
Street, in the area identified as Area 2 on Figure 11 in the Appendix, contained 408 parts per
million (ppm) of arsenic. This sample is discussed further in Section E, Summary of Risk.
Sediment and Surface Water; Sediment and surface water samples were collected and analyzed
for TCL organic compounds, TAL inorganic analytes, dioxins, furans and cyanide. No
unacceptable levels of contaminants were detected. The table In Figure 12 summarizes the
sediment and surface water data.
Summary of RI:
The groundwater in the shallow saturated zone and the top portion of the bedrock aquifer beneath
the site was found to be contaminated with varying concentrations of elevated metals and the
pesticide dieldrin. The volume of water in the shallow saturated zone is insufficient to sustain
useable wells, even for intermittent watering of lawns and gardens. Therefore, while potential risk
associated with exposure to chemicals in the site bedrock monitoring wells was a concern,
exposure to water in the shallow saturated zone was not a significant consideration. Five of the
approximately 50 private water supply wells located within 1/4 mile of the site were selected for
8
-------
sampling based on their proximity to the contaminated site monitoring wells. None of the private
wells sampled were found to have been impacted by Parsons' contaminants.
The results of the soil sampling conducted as part of the RI revealed that, with the exception of
the soil previously identified as pending a second NTCR, minimal unacceptable levels of
contamination remain on the site. The Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), summarized in Section
E, indicated that there is no unacceptable level of risk from direct contact with soils on the
Parsons site itself. The soil that is to be addressed as a NTCR was not evaluated in the BRA so
no level of potential risk has been established. There is risk associated with exposure to one of
the three soil samples collected on the north side of Jefferson Street which contained a high
concentration of arsenic. This soil will be quantified and addressed as part of the second NTCR.
Risks posed by the site are further discussed in Section E.
At the date of the Record of Decision (ROD), the current property owner continues to operate
the ETM company. The site has been restored to its pre-ISV condition. As described in Section
A, the property immediately surrounding the Parsons site is mostly developed. The exception is
the parcel of property owned by Millbrook Printing south of the site which is largely vacant.
Millbrook has indicated an interest in developing this property into a light industrial park.
E. SUMMARY OF RISK (See Glossary for definitions of terms used in this section)
Based on analytical data collected during the RI, a BRA was performed using site-related
chemicals. The BRA assumes no corrective action will take place and that no site-use restrictions
or institutional controls such as fencing, groundwater-use restrictions or construction restrictions
will be imposed. The BRA determines actual or potential carcinogenic risks and/or toxic effects
the chemical contaminants at the site pose under current and future land-use assumptions using a
four step process. The four step process includes: contaminant identification, health effects
assessment, exposure assessment and risk characterization.
1 CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
The levels of contamination found in different media at the site can be found in Chapter 6
of the RI. Indicator parameters of chemicals of potential concern were selected for
evaluation in the BRA based on their toxicities, level of concentration and widespread
occurrence. The chemicals of potential concern detected in all media sampled are listed in
Table 6-1 in the RI. The chemicals detected in groundwater constitute the primary
concern at this site. A list of these chemicals is found in the table in Figure 13 in the
Appendix.
2 HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
i
The potential health effects for the contaminants of concern are calculated in the BRA.
Summaries of the results may be found in Figures 14 for Chronic Non-Carcinogenic
Effects, Figure IS for Subchronic Non-Carcinogenic Effects, and Figure 16 for
-------
Carcinogenic Effects. In Section 6 of the RI report, this information is in Tables 11,12
and 13.
3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The BRA examined potential pathways of concern to human health under both current and
future land-use scenarios for the immediate site property and surrounding area. The
following major pathways were selected for detailed evaluation under the current-use and
future-use conditions. The assumption was made that future use will be residential except
for the utility worker:
- inpestion of surface and subsurface soil;
- dermal contact with surface and subsurface soil;
- inhalation of fugitive dust;
- ingestion of ground water;
- dermal contact with groundwater;
- dermal contact with sediments;
- ingestion of sediments; and
- utility worker exposure.
4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
For each potential human receptor, site-specific contaminants from all relevant routes of
exposure were evaluated. Both non-carcinogenic health risk effects and carcinogenic
health risks were estimated.
a. Non-Carcinogenic Health Risks
Soil: Three soil samples were collected during the drilling of MW6. The location
from which these samples were collected is identified as Area 2 on Figure 11 in the
Appendix. The concentration of arsenic found in one of these samples was 480
ppm which is significantly higher than the Part 201 Generic Residential Direct
Contact criterion for arsenic of S.J ppm. The chronic Hazard Index (HI) for
humans contacting or ingesting soil with this arsenic concentration equals or
exceeds the acceptable HI of 1 for dermal contact with, or ingestion of, the soil.
The HI values for dermal contact and ingestion are 1 and 2, respectively.
The subchronic HI for humans contacting or ingesting soil with arsenic at this
concentration equals or exceeds the acceptable HI of 1 for dermal contact with, or
ingestion of, the soil. The HI values for dermal contact and ingestion are 1 and 7,
respectively.
10
-------
The HI for humans contacting or ingesting soil from all other areas of the site was
less than one, indicating the potential risks associated with contacting or ingesting
soil from the site is within acceptable levels under the applicable statutes.
Groundwater: The chronic HI for humans ingesting groundwater from the site
bedrock monitoring wells, which are screened in the top 20 feet of the bedrock
aquifer, exceeds the acceptable HI of 1. The HI value for ingestion of site
groundwater from the RI monitoring wells is 30. The concentration of manganese
found in some of the monitoring wells accounts for about 66 percent of the HI
value. The zinc concentrations in some of the wells account for 20 percent of the
HI value. To a much lesser extent, minimal impacts can be associated with
exposure to chromium, antimony and cadmium.
The subchronic HI for humans ingesting groundwater from site monitoring wells
exceeds the acceptable HI of 1. The HI value for ingestion of site groundwater is
70. Again, the potential health effects associated with exposure to this
groundwater are primarily attributable to manganese which accounts for about 67
percent of the HI while zinc accounts for 23 percent. The balance of the HI is the
result of potential impacts from antimony, vanadium and cadmium.
The chronic and subchronic risks associated with dermal contact with groundwater
from the bedrock aquifer are both within acceptable limits.
The results of the investigation revealed that no contaminants in excess of the
health-based drinking water standards, pursuant to Part 201 were present in water
from private water supply wells sampled which are installed much deeper in the
aquifer than the on-site monitoring wells. However, the manganese concentration
in two of the residential wells slightly,exceeded the aesthetic standard of SO ppb.
Note that the Part 201 health-based drinking water criterion for manganese is 860
ppb. See Figure 8 in the Appendix for a summary of the highest concentrations of
arsenic, lead and manganese detected in any of the private wells sampled. Dieldrin,
the pesticide detected in site monitoring wells, was not detected in any private
drinking water wells.
b. Carcinogenic Health Risks
Groundwater: The BRA process determined that there is no unacceptable
carcinogenic risk associated with use of groundwater from this site.
Soil: Area 1 - The potential excess lifetime cancer risk posed by the site soil in
Area 1 as depicted in Figure 11 falls within the EPA's acceptable risk range of one
in 1,000,000 to one in 10,000. Risks from ingestion of, and/or dermal contact
with, the soil in Area 1 present carcinogenic risks in the range of four in one
11
-------
million to six in one million. The calculated risk posed by the soil in Area 1 is
acceptable under Part 201.
Soil: Area 2 - Three soil samples were collected during the drilling of MW6. The
location of these three samples is identified as Area 2 on Figure 11 in the
Appendix. The concentration of arsenic found in one of these samples was
480 ppm which exceeds the Part 201 Generic Residential Direct Contact criterion
for arsenic of 5.5 ppm. The potential excess lifetime cancer risk posed by
exposure to this concentration of arsenic falls within the EPA's acceptable risk
range of one in 1,000,000 to one in 10,000. However, the risk exceeds the Part
201 acceptable risk level of one in 100,000. The risk from dermal contact or
ingestion ranges from two in 100,000 to four in 100,000. The risk is almost
entirely attributable to the high concentration of arsenic found in the soil sample.
The volume of soil contaminated with arsenic at high concentrations will be
quantified during the second NTCR so that it can be determined how to address
the contamination.
F. RATIONALE FOR ACTION AND SCOPE OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This ROD addresses the final remedy for groundwater at the Parsons site under CERCLA. The
selected remedy meets the Part 201 criteria for an Interim Response. The threat posed by the site
is the potential for unacceptable concentrations of contaminants found in the top 20 feet of the
bedrock aquifer in on-site monitoring welb to migrate downward and horizontally in the
direction of groundwater flow ultimately degrading the groundwater quality in the off-site private
drinking water wells. The scope of the investigation did not identify the original source or sources
of the contamination nor was the full vertical and horizontal extent of groundwater contamination
defined. Therefore, it is not known how widespread an area is impacted by elevated metals
concentrations. Extensive additional investigation efforts would be required to definitely
determine whether the private water supply wells will, or are likely to, become contaminated at
some future date.
The water in the private water supply wells sampled during the RI was in compliance with all
applicable health-based drinking water standards. The RI did not determine whether groundwater
deeper than 20 feet into the bedrock aquifer, where water supply wells are installed, will become
impacted by the concentrations of contaminants found in the top 20 feet of the aquifer in the
future. Contamination resulting from operations at the Parsons plant has probably been present
since the 1950's and it is reasonable to infer that if impact is going to occur in the private wells
adjacent to the site, it would have been detected by now.
However, to provide an additional level of assurance it has been determined that the private water
supply wells and selected site monitoring wells should be sampled periodically for 15 years for
indications of groundwater degradation. If groundwater degradation as defined in Sections G
and I occurs, the contingency plan, also defined in Sections G and I, will be invoked.
12
-------
G. GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVES
Prior to the RI/FS, the EPA and the MDEQ agreed that any additional contaminated soil
identified during the RI will be addressed by the second NTCR to take place in the late 1990s.
Therefore, no remedial alternatives were evaluated for soil remediation. The following
alternatives are specific to addressing groundwater.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
Alternative 6:
Alternative 7:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
No Action
Control Alternatives Not Requiring Groundwater Remediation
2A: Long Term Monitoring of Residential Wells and Selected RI
Monitoring Wells, With Contingency
2B: Plume Delineation Followed by Alternative 2 A
2C: Residential Well Replacement Followed by Alternative 2A
2D: Municipal Water
Groundwater Collection-Precipitation-Granulated Activated Carbon
(GAC)-Discharge
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Electrolytic Recovery-GAC-Discharge
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Ion Exchange-GAC-Discharge
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Mixed Bed GAC and Metal Adsorption
Resin-Discharge
Groundwater CoUection-Filtration-Reverse Osmosis-GAC -Discharge
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
No Action - No remediation or monitoring.
Control Methods Not Requiring Groundwater Remediation - Four options
were considered to prevent exposure to unacceptable concentrations of
contaminants of concern:
Alternative 2 A: Long Term Monitoring of Residential Wells and Selected
RI Monitoring Wells. With Contingency - consists of sampling private
water supply wells directly to monitor for the site contaminants of concern
and document any trends which may indicate deterioration in the
groundwater quality. Unacceptable deterioration in groundwater quality
13
-------
would result in implementation of the contingency plan described below.
Sampling of selected RI monitoring wells will also be included in the long-
term monitoring plan to detect changes in the water quality since the RI.
The monitoring program will continue for 15 years. In addition to tracking
trends which may indicate deterioration in the groundwater quality,
threshold criteria have been established for two of the chemicals of concern
which, if exceeded and confirmed by a second sampling event, will trigger
invocation of the contingency plan. All of the private water supply wells
will be sampled during the first year of the monitoring program. After the
first year, the monitoring program may be modified as appropriate. The
specific monitoring program will be designed during Remedial Design
(RD). The Eaton County Health Department enforces a private water well
permitting policy which is expected to assure prevention of installation and
use of new drinking water wells in zones of contamination. An agreement
will be pursued whereby the Eaton County Health Department notifies the
MDEQ in the event County Health Department permits are issued for new
wells in the area of concern so that they can be incorporated into the
monitoring program. The contingency plan is as follows: If trend analysis
of the monitoring results indicates groundwater degradation is occurring in
the zone where private wells are installed; or, confirmed exceedances of the
stipulated threshold values are observed; an alternate water supply such as
bottled water will be provided, as necessary, while the existing city of
Grand Ledge municipal water system is extended and all businesses and
residences are connected to the municipal system. The threshold values are
as follows: Detection of dieldrin or detection of fifty percent or more of
the MCL for arsenic. To constitute a threshold exceedance in a private
well a detection must be confirmed by a second sample. The MCL for
arsenic is SO ppb.
Alternative 2B: Plume Delineation Followed by Alternative 2A - consists
of drilling additional borings to a minimum depth equaling that of the
private wells and employing vertical aquifer sampling (VAS) to completely
define the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination in the aquifer.
Following the VAS, permanent monitoring wells would be installed at
selected depths and a long-term monitoring plan would be developed to
track the contamination. Refer to Alternative 2 A for a description of the
contingency plan to be implemented if unacceptable groundwater
degradation occurs.
Alternative 2C: Residential Well Replacement Followed by Alternative
2A- consists of sampling all of the private water supply wells in the vicinity
which could potentially become impacted by migrating chemicals and
analyzing for chemicals of concern. Wells would be replaced as necessary
by redrilling into an unimpacted portion of the aquifer. To assure
14
-------
continued safe drinking water availability, a monitoring program similar to
the one described in Alternative 2A would need to be implemented in
conjunction with this alternative.
Alternative 2D: Municipal Water - consists of extending the existing
Grand Ledge municipal water supply system into the areas potentially
impacted by the chemicals and connecting all of the private wells to the
municipal system. In order to assure protection of human health, all private
wells would have to be abandoned and there would have to be a
moratorium on the installation of new wells.
GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Five groundwater collection and treatment alternatives were evaluated in detail. All five of the
alternatives include groundwater collection, filtration, use of GAC and discharge following
treatment. Each alternative employs one additional treatment technology in addition to the steps
listed above. The five individual treatment technologies considered are listed below with the
respective Alternative number:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Groundwater Collection-Precipitation-GAC-Discharge - A process
whereby a substance in solution is transformed into a solid phase, typically,
by the use of a flocculent added to the contaminated water. The resulting
agglomerated particles settle and can be filtered from the water.
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Electrolytic Recovery-GAC-Discharge -
An electrolytic reduction process for metals removal based on the
oxidation-reduction reaction which takes place at the surface of conductive
electrodes (cathode and anode). The electrodes are immersed in an
aqueous solution under the influence of an applied direct current electrical
At the cathode, the metal ion is reduced to its elemental form.
Alternative 5:
Alternative 6:
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Ion Exchange-GAC-Discharge - A
technology that removes inorganic compounds from contaminated liquids
by introducing an ion exchanger (in the form of an insoluble, solid salt) into
a contaminated solution. The ion exchanger attracts all contaminants
possessing an affinity for it until the resin becomes saturated and
breakthrough of the contaminants occurs. The contaminated media is then
regenerated.
Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Mixed Bed GAC and Metal Adsorption
Resin-Discharge - Filters the water through a mixed bed of granular
activated carbon and metal adsorption resin such as tricalcium phosphate
resin to remove organics and inorganics simultaneously.
15
-------
Alternative 7: Groundwater Collection-Filtration-Reverse Osmosis-GAC-Discharge - A
method of organic and inorganic contaminants removal that works through
a process of forcing water through a semipermeable membrane with
microscopic pores thus using hydrostatic pressure to overcome the osmotic
pressure of the contaminated solution. In essence, the contaminants are
removed by filtration.
H. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The relative performance of each remedial alternative was evaluated in the FS and below using the
nine criteria set forth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) at 40 CFR §300.430. An
alternative providing the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to the nine criteria is determined
from this evaluation. The nine criteria can be divided into three general categories: Threshold
Criteria, Primary Balancing Criteria, and Modifying Criteria.
Threshold Criteria
The following two threshold criteria, overall protection of human health and the environment, and
compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are criteria that
must be met in order for an alternative to be selected.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a remedy
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and to the environment.
Alternative 1 does not satisfy the requirement for overall protection of human health and
the environment.
Alternatives 2A through 2D all provide protection to h nan health. Alternative 2A is
protective because it will provide advance warning of indications of groundwater
degradation and provides a contingency for an interim alternate water supply until the
existing municipal system can be extended, if it becomes necessary. The contingency plan
is invoked if specified threshold concentrations are exceeded in private drinking water
wells; or trend analysis indicates degradation is occurring. Alternative 2B will also
provide advance warning for groundwater degradation and have the same contingency
plan. Alternative 2C will provide non-contaminated wells to businesses and residences
relying on private water supplies. Continued protection will be dependent upon continued
long-term monitoring as described in 2A. Alternative 2D will provide a permanent source
of safe drinking water but a local moratorium on continued use of existing private wells
will be necessary to assure continued protection of human health.
16
-------
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 provide protection to human health by treating the
groundwater to health-based levels fora 1 x 10-5 risk level for carcinogens and to a HI of
less than one for non-carcinogens, pursuant to Part 201.
The impact by the site chemicals on the environment, if any are deemed so minimal that it
was determined that a complete ecological assessment was not warranted..
2. Compliance with ARARs
This criterion evaluates whether an alternative meets ARARs set forth in federal, or more
stringent state, environmental standards pertaining to the site or proposed actions.
With the exception of Alternative 1, all of the alternatives are expected to comply with
ARARs. The selected remedy constitutes a final remedy for groundwater under
CERCLA. The selected remedy complies with Michigan ARARs for an Interim Response
pursuant to Part 201 of Act 451.
Primary Balancing Criteria
»
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to expected residual risk and the ability of an alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once cleanup levels
have been met.
Alternative 1 provides no long-term effectiveness and will not mitigate possible future
health risks from potential ingestion, inhalation, and/or dermal contact with impacted
groundwater.
Alternatives 2A and 2B will not eliminate existing or future potential health risks,
however, they can provide advance warning if the impact will become a threat and provide
time to implement the interim* alternate water supply contingency until the municipal water
supply can be extended into the area and residences and businesses are connected.
Alternative 2C initially mitigates existing and future health risks from potential ingestion,
inhalation, and/or dermal contact with impacted groundwater by providing a new water
source if wells are impacted. However, for the mitigation to remain effective, the
long-term monitoring program similar to Alternative 2A would need to be implemented.
Alternative 2D will mitigate existing and future health risks from potential ingestion,
inhalation, and/or dermal contact with impacted groundwater. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 are expected to reduce risks to human health and the environment.
17
-------
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
This criterion evaluates treatment technology performance in the reduction of chemical
toxicity, mobility, or volume. This criterion addresses the statutory preference for
selecting Remedial Alternatives which include, as a principal element, treatment that
permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
Alternative I will not reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contamination.
Alternatives 2A through 2D, will not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
groundwater contaminants because these alternatives are designed to prevent exposure to
site chemicals, in the event they migrate to zones where private water supply wells are
installed, rather than remediate contaminants.
Alternatives 3 through 7 will reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants
present in the groundwater.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness considers the time to reach cleanup objectives and the risks an
alternative may pose to site workers, the community, and the environment during remedy
implementation until cleanup goals are achieved.
Alternative 1 provides no short-term effectiveness.
Alternative 2 A v.ill be effective as quickly as the long-term monitoring plan can be
designed and implemented. Since the remedy utilizes existing wells, no risks during
implementation are anticipated. Alternative 2B will be effective, although not as quickly,
because it entails drilling additional wells, VAS, and evaluation of analytical results to aid
in well location selection prior to developir the sampling plan. Risks associated with
implementation are minimal but could include the potential of cross contamination of the
deeper portion of the aquifer during VAS and physical hazards associated with well
drilling. Alternative 2C involves minimal potential risk to site workers as well, but could
pose risks similar to Alternative 2B. Alternative 2D will cause temporary disruption to the
community, will pose physical hazards associated with construction activities to workers,
and will take longer to implement than 2A, 2B and 2C. However, it will be a permanent
solution to the threat to local private drinking water wells. To assure continued
effectiveness, Alternative 2D will also necessitate a local moratorium on private water
supply wells.
Alternatives 3 through 7 will be effective once on-line. Construction of treatment
equipment and extraction wells will be disruptive and pose remedy specific construction-
related physical hazards.
18
-------
6. Implementability
This criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an
alternative, and the availability of various services and materials required for its
implementation.
Alternative 1 requires no implementation.
Alternatives 2A through 2C can be easily implemented.
Alternative 2D will be moio complex but still relatively easy to implement.
Of the groundwater treatment alternatives, all are implementable but there are increasing
degrees of complexity associated with their implementation. In all the groundwater
treatment cases, it will be preferable to utilize a hazardous waste landfill as close to the
site as possible to minimize costs for the transportation of the residual materials associated
with each respective treatment technology. The precipitation processes as described in
Alternative 3 tend to be proprietary in nature and thus the availability of the services and
materials required for the implementation of an on-site precipitation system may be
uncertain. Alternatives 4 and 5, the electrolytic recovery system and the conventional ion
exchange system, respectively, may require relocation of underground utilities.
7. Cost
This criterion compares the capital, Operation & Maintenance (O&M), and present worth
costs of implementing the alternatives at the site. The Table in Figure 17 in the Appendix
shows the Cost Summary.
Modifying Criteria
8. Support Agency Acceptance
The EPA is in agreement with the selection of Alternative 2 A for addressing the site
chemicals in groundwater detected during the RI at the Parsons site. The alternative
represents a Final Groundwater Remedy under CERCLA. The alternative constitutes an
Interim Response under Michigan Act 451, as amended, Part 201.
9. Community Acceptance
Comments have been submitted by the community, local and state government officials
and adjacent property owners. Comments and responses to those comments are described
in the Responsiveness Summary.
19
-------
I. THE SELECTED REMEDY .
Based upon considerations of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP and balancing of the nine
criteria, the state of Michigan, as an agent of the EPA, has determined that Alternative 2 A, Long
Term Monitoring of Residential Wells and Selected Remedial Investigation Monitoring Wells
With Contingency is the most appropriate remedy for addressing the groundwater at the Parsons
site. This alternative constitutes a Final Groundwater Remedy under CERCLA. The remedy
complies with Michigan Part 201 for an Interim Response. The components of the selected
remedy are described below.
Alternative 2 A: Long Term Monitoring of Residential Wells and Selected Remedial Investigation
Monitoring Wells With Contingency - The data collected during the RI indicate that the threat
posed by the site is the potential for unacceptable concentrations of chemicals found in the top 20
feet of the bedrock aquifer in on-site monitoring wells to migrate downward and horizontally in
the direction of groundwater flow ultimately degrading the groundwater quality in the off-site
private drinking water wells. The heterogeneous nature of the soils at this site prevented precise
definition of all components of lithology and potential migration pathways. Therefore, the
likelihood of this occurring could not be determined without greatly expanding the scope of
investigation. It is possible that the chemicals found in the top 20 feet of the bedrock aquifer will
never impact the deeper private wells. Therefore, extending the existing municipal water system
based on the known conditions, is not supportable. It was determined that returning to the site
and conducting further extensive investigation of the hydrogeological unit to completely define
the full horizontal and vertical extent of contamination and determine more clearly the migration
pathway of the chemicals of concern could cost more than extending the municipal system. In
lieu of further investigation, a long term monitoring alternative with a backup contingency plan
has been selected as a reliable means to assure a continued safe drinking water source for
residences and businesses around the Parsons site.
The long-term groundwater monitoring program wilt consist of the design and implementation of
a plan to sample private water supply wells in the immediate vicinity of the site for a period of 15
years. Trend analysis will be utilized to identify signs of groundwater quality degradation in the
aquifer where private wells are installed. In addition, selected RI monitoring wells will be
included in the monitoring program to further aid in the trend analysis. If trend analysis indicates
that groundwater used for private water supply is being adversely impacted by chemicals from the
Parsons site, the contingency plan, defined below, will be invoked. In addition to trend analysis,
"action threshold values" have been established for two of the chemicals. If confirmed analytical
results indicate that either of these threshold values are exceeded, the contingency plan will be
invoked.
All of the approximately SO private wells located within 1/4 mile of the site will be sampled the
first year and the samples will be analyzed for all potential chemicals of concern as described
20
-------
below. Following the first year of sampling, the program will be evaluated and modified as
appropriate. Specific sampling intervals and frequencies will be determined in the RD.
Site Chemicals of Concern: Assessment of the analytical data from the RI indicates the primary
chemicals of concern at the site are three metals, lead, manganese and arsenic, and the pesticide
dieldrin. Arsenic was selected because it was detected in unaltered monitoring well samples at
elevated concentrations but was not detected in background monitoring wells at elevated
concentrations. This suggests that impact by arsenic detected in private water supply wells would
be attributable to the site.
Lead was identified as a chemical of concern because lead was detected in some RI monitoring
well samples at elevated concentrations and lead was a constituent in some of the Parsons'
products. As previously stated, the concentration of lead in the upgradient bedrock well was also
elevated suggesting that elevated lead levels in groundwater in the area may not all be attributable
to the Parsons site. One sample from a private water supply well was found to contain 3 ppb of
lead which is 75% of the Part 201 health-based drinking water criterion of 4 ppb. Although this
could be attributable to other sources such as regional elevated lead concentrations or the
plumbing in the residence, the unknown nature of the source of the lead renders it a chemical of
concern.
In addition to the Part 201 health-based drinking water criterion for manganese of 860 ppb, there
is an aesthetic criterion for manganese of SO ppb. Manganese was detected in high concentrations
in some of the site monitoring wells during the RI. The high concentrations of manganese in the
site monitoring wells account for nearly all of the potential chronic and subchronic
noncarcinogenic health risks measured in the BRA. This potential risk is present only if someone
were to consume the water from the monitoring wells. Manganese concentrations in all five of
the private wells are well below the health-based criterion and pose no health risks to users of the
private wells. However, two private wells had concentrations of manganese that were at or near
the aesthetic criterion of SO ppb. The concentrations of manganese in some of the background
monitoring wells were also elevated, which indicates that elevated manganese may not be strictly
attributable to the site. Manganese was selected for long-term monitoring because of its high
concentrations in some monitoring wells on the site. While the concentration in private wells may
never approach the health-based criterion, an increase in the concentrations may indicate that
manganese is migrating vertically and horizontally.
The final chemical to be monitored is the pesticide dieldrin. Dieldrin is a carcinogen. It was
detected in very low concentrations in some of the RI monitoring wells but was not detected in
any of the private water supply wells. Because it poses serious health risks at very low
concentrations and was detected in site wells, it was selected for monitoring.
Action Threshold Values: Action threshold values have been established for arsenic and dieldrin.
Arsenic was detected at elevated concentrations in RI site monitoring wells. However, it was not
detected at elevated concentrations in background wells, suggesting that the elevated arsenic is
directly site related. Arsenic was not detected at elevated concentrations in private water well
21
-------
samples. The MCL for arsenic is SO ppb. If arsenic is detected in two successive sampling events
at 25 ppb, or 1/2 of the MCL, where it was previously not detected or significantly lower, the
contingency plan will be invoked. If the pesticide dieldrin is detected in a private water supply
well and the detection is confirmed in a second analysis, the contingency plan will be invoked.
Figure 8 in the Appendix is a table which compares the Part 201 health-based drinking water
standard and/or the MCLs to the highest concentration of each chemical of concern detected in
the private water wells sampled.
Contingency Plan: If trend analysis indicates the quality of the drinking water in the private wells
is degrading, or indicates that MCLs are likely to be exceeded, the existing Grand Ledge
municipal water supply system will be extended. All of the businesses and residences will be
connected to the system. An alternate water supply, such as bottled water, will be provided to all
affected businesses and residences if the water is determined to be unacceptable until construction
is completed. Likewise, if either of the chemicals for which threshold levels have been established
are confirmed to be present at the threshold level, the contingency plan would also be
implemented.
The monitoring program is expected to operate for a period of IS years. In the event that
municipal water becomes available during this time period independent of the conditions in this
ROD, the monitoring program could be terminated.
The selected remedy will result in potentially hazardous substances remaining on site above
health-based levels. A review will be conducted within five years after commencement of this
alternative. This will ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
The existing Eaton County Health Department private water well permitting policy for the
installation of new private drinking water wells will aid in assuring any new wells are incorporated
into the long term monitor g plan. At the county level, a panel reviews each application for a
private well. A decision to permit the installation of a well is made based on the county-wide
groundwater quality mapping network in effect in the county. Depending upon the location under
consideration, the county invokes specific construction conditions, monitoring requirements and
periodic evaluation. A cooperative agreement will be pursued to arrange for the Eaton County
Health Department to notify the MDEQ of any applications for new wells in the vicinity of the
Parsons site. Any new wells permitted in the vicinity of the site will be incorporated into the
monitoring program, as appropriate.
J. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake RAs that protect human health
and the environment. Section 121 of the CERCLA has established several statutory requirements
and preferences. These include the requirement that the selected remedy, when completed, must
comply with ARARs imposed by federal and state environmental laws, unless the invocation of a
22
-------
waiver is justified. The selected remedy must also provide overall effectiveness appropriate to its
costs, and use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies, or resource recovery
technologies, to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute establishes a preference for
remedies which employ treatment that significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of
contaminants.
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Implementation of the selected remedy will protect human health and the environment by
reducing the risk of exposure to hazardous substances present in groundwater.
2. Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all identified federal ARARs, and with those state
requirements which are more stringent. The selected remedy constitutes a Final Remedy
for groundwater under CERCLA. The selected remedy complies with Part 201
requirements for an Interim Response. With the exception of two parameters in the initial
sample collected from one bedrock monitoring well, MCLs in filtered samples are met.
The metals detected were cadmium which slightly exceeded the MCL, and lead which was
detected at 598 ppb. However, analytical results from two subsequent sampling episodes
did not detect these two parameters. Therefore, the current status of compliance with
MCLs in bedrock wells is demonstrated. There are no exceedances of non-zero MCLGs
in the filtered bedrock groundwater samples.
See Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of the FS report for complete lists of federal and state ARARs.
Below is a discussion of the key ARARs for the selected remedy.
Federal SDWA
40 CFR 141 - Federal Drinking Water Standards promulgated under the SDWA include
both MCLs and MCLGs. The NCP at 40 CFR 300.430 (e)(2)(i)(B) provides that MCLGs
established under the SDWA that are set at levels above zero, shall be attained by RAs for
ground or surface waters that are current or potential sources of drinking water.
At the Parsons site, MCLs and non-zero MCLGs are applicable, and relevant and
appropriate, because the bedrock aquifer below the site is presently being used by
residences surrounding the site and will continue to be used in the future as a drinking
water source. The selected remedy shall assure that MCLs and non-zero MCLGs
continue to be met in the private water supply wells around the site.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. 1994 PA 451. as amended
This code incorporates the former Michigan Environmental Response Act, 1982 PA 307.
as amended, and establishes health-based drinking water criteria for residential use.
23
-------
3. Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness compares the effectiveness of an alternative in proportion to its cost of
providing environmental benefits. The Table below lists the costs associated with the
implementation of the selected remedy.
TABLE
Total estimated costs for the selected remedy at the Parsons site:
Total Total Total
Alternative Capital Cost O&M. IS Yr. Present Worth
2A $7,250 $201,544 $208,794
The selected remedy for this site is cost effective because it provides the greatest overall
effectiveness proportionate to its costs when compared to the other alternatives evaluated,
the present net worth being $208,794.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The most appropriate response to the contamination found at the Parsons site was
determined to be long-term monitoring. However, if groundwater degradation is detected
as defined in the ROD text, the contingency plan will provide a permanent solution.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
Based on current information, the EPA and the state of Michigan believe that the selected
remedy is protective of human health and the environment and is cost effective. The
statutory preference for treatment of the hazardous substances present at the site as a
principal element was not applicable as groundwater extraction and treatment was not the
most appropriate remedy.
K. SUMMARY
The selected remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements established in Section 121 of the
CERCLA, as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, to protect human
health and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will provide overall effectiveness
appropriate to its costs, and will use permanent solutions and alternate treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable. The remedy constitutes a final groundwater remedy under
CERCLA and complies with the Michigan Part 201 ARARs for an interim remedy.
24
-------
Treatment is not a component of the selected remedy because it cannot be demonstrated that the
chemicals detected in the upper 20 feet of the bedrock aquifer will migrate vertically downward
and laterally sufficiently to cause groundwater degradation in excess of applicable health-based
drinking water standards. The interpretation of site-specific hydrogeologic conditions indicate
that if groundwater is going to be degraded by the site chemicals of concern, it would likely be
detected within 10 years. As an added level of protection, the monitoring program will be
maintained for a period of 15 years. If degradation is detected, an alternate water supply will be
provided, if necessary, while the existing Grand Ledge municipal water supply system is extended
and the affected businesses and residences are connected.
L. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The public participation requirements of CERCLA Sections 113 (kX2Xi-v) and 117 have been
met during the remedy selection process. Section 113 (kX2XBX»v) and 117(b) requires the EPA
to respond "...to each of the significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in written
or oral presentations." on a proposed plan for an remedial action (RA). The Responsiveness
Summary addresses concerns expressed by the public, potentially responsible parties, and
governmental bodies in written and oral comments received by the EPA and the state regarding
the proposed remedy for the Parsons site.
Background
The MDEQ issued Progress Report #1 to the public in February 1993, at the beginning of the RI.
The Department also hosted a public meeting on February 18, 1993, to provide background
information on the Parsons site, explain the Superfund process, and provide details of the
upcoming investigation. Phase I of the RI was completed in October 1993. Progress Report #2
was issued in July 1994, announcing Phase II of the RI which was completed in 1994. The third
and final phase of field work. Phase IIA, was completed in January 1995.
•
The RLrS report and the Proposed Plan for the Parsons site were released to the public for
review in May 1996. An information repository was established at the Grand Ledge Public
Library, 131 East Jefferson Street, Grand Ledge, Michigan. A copy of the RI/FS report was
provided to the Oneida Township Offices located at 11041 Oneida Road, Grand Ledge,
Michigan. The Administrative Record was made available to the public at the Lansing, Michigan,
office of the Superfund Section, Environmental Response Division, MDEQ, 301 South Capitol
Avenue, and at the information repository.
A public meeting was held on June 6, 1996, to discuss the FS and the Proposed Plan. At this
meeting, representatives from the MDEQ and the EPA answered questions about the site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. Formal oral comments on the Proposed Plan were
documented by a court reporter. A verbatim transcript of this public meeting was placed in the
information repository and Administrative Record and written comments were also accepted. The
meeting was attended by approximately 15 persons, including local residents.
25
-------
The FS and Proposed Plan were available for public comments from May 14, 1996, through
June 14, 1996. Comments received during the public comment period and the MDEQ's
responses to those comments are included in Section L, Responsiveness Summary, which is a pan
of this ROD. An advertisement announcing the availability of the Proposed Plan and start of the
comment period was published in the Grand Ledge Independent Newspaper which was delivered
to all residents of the greater Grand Ledge, Michigan, area. In addition, copies of the Proposed
Plan were mailed to all persons on the site mailing list. Over 350 copies of the Proposed Plan
were mailed.
During the comment period, the MDEQ received six significant oral comments concerning the
Proposed Plan.
Summary of Significant Comments
Comment 1: Several commenters expressed a strong preference for Alternative GW2D which is
to extend the existing Grand Ledge municipal water supply out to this area and have all the
residences and businesses connected to municipal water. It was pointed out that if the
contaminants of concern do end up contaminating the potable water supply, by monitoring it for
years, we will have only delayed the necessity of extending the municipal system and will have
spent the money and time and still end up at the same end point.
Response 1: Because nearly all those parties commenting on the Proposed Plan expressed a
preference for Alternative GW2D, MDEQ staff carefully reevaluated the proposed RA of long-
term monitoring of residential wells. The Department concluded that the proposed remedy
remains the most appropriate alternative for the site. The chemicals present in the groundwater,
although having existed for many years, have not impacted the adjacent residential wells. The RI
revealed no evidence that the chemicals of concern were moving vertically downward as well as
laterally to the extent that an impact will be expected.
In addition, by developing and implementing a monitoring plan that actually monitors the point-
of-consumption quality of the private water supplies, the degree of protection of human health is
most confidently assured. Monitoring with trend analysis should allow implementation of an
interim remedy in advance of standard exceedance at the well. In the event that groundwater
degradation is detected in excess of applicable standards, immediate actions as needed, such as
bottled water, can be implemented until the municipal system can be extended.
Comment 2: One company owner from the area commented that he has to purchase bottled
water for his employees because even though they have their water tested every six months and
it's supposedly safe, his employees are afraid to drink it. He further stated that fire protection will
be greatly improved with a municipal system.
26
-------
Response 2: The water supply well at Millbrook Printing Company, the company owned by the
commenter, will be included in the monitoring program. Increased fire protection, while certainly
important, is beyond the scope of the Superfund program.
Comment 3: A local health department official stated that it has been known for some time that
homes in the area east of the site are situated over a fragile aquifer and that there is a shallow
overburden on top of sand rock. He advised that they've had wells contaminated in the area quite
easily from their own sewage system. He further stated that they put restrictions on developments
within 1,000 feet of the site as it is.
Responses: No pursuit of deed restrictions to prevent or limit the installation of new water
supply wells in this area beyond the requirements currently imposed by local ordinance, are
anticipated by the state at this time.
Comment 4: One citizen is very concerned about the area of contaminated soil that is to be
addressed during a second NTCR at an unknown future date. The citizen expressed concern that
during the process of pollination, contamination will become airborne and cause health problems.
She further expressed concern that the Department was too casual in their attitude about the
integrity of the fence and signs restricting access. She felt better protection against accidental
contact with the contamination was needed.
Response 4: Pursuant to Part 201, current criteria for direct contact with specific contaminants in
soil on industrial and commercial property have changed considerably since the cleanup criteria
were established for the ISV removal project. For example, the cleanup criterion for dieldrin for
the ISV project was 80 ppb. The current direct contact criterion for dieldrin in soil on industrial
property is 31,000 ppb. This concentration is the maximum amount of dieldrin detected in soil
samples collected from the area awaiting action under a second NTCR. Therefore, according to
the current criteria, the risk posed by the contaminants in the soil is considerably less than
originally appeared. In addition, a recent site visit revealed that the area is very heavily vegetated
and remains fenced 1:0 that exposure as a result of accidental direct contact is very unlikely. With
respect to the concern over chemicals in pollen, a MDEQ lexicologist has advised that, while
information concerning plant uptake of organic chemicals is limited, her opinion is that levels of
contaminants in the pollen of plants growing in the affected area will likely be very low. These
levels in pollen are not expected to present a significant health risk. The area should be monitored
to assure the integrity of the fence until the EPA returns to implement the NTCR.
Comment S: One citizen commented that she did not feel that monitoring was any different from
doing nothing. She stated that, if some problem was found during monitoring, it will probably
take at least another five to ten years before anything could be done about it. She also expressed
concern for the environment and property owners who want to expand into the Grand Ledge
area.
Response 5: Long-term monitoring will be protective of human health because the groundwater
quality will be confirmed at the point-of-consumption and in the event quality degradation is
27
-------
detected, immediate steps can be taken to provide temporary alternate water supplies until a
permanent solution can be determined. The text of the Parsons ROD states that an alternate
water supply will be provided immediately upon observation of unacceptable groundwater
degradation or exceedance of either threshold concentration. Development of the Grand Ledge
area is not expected to be adversely impacted by the selected remedy. No impact on the
environment by site contamination was observed.
Comment 6: The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) commented that the
proposed monitoring program should be adequately protective of public health. Replacement of
the private wells in the site area with connections to the municipal water system might be required
some day, but the available evidence does not indicate that step is required at this time. Further
groundwater sampling to fully identify the area of elevated contaminant concentrations will
contribute to a more complete evaluation of the potential threat to public health.
With respect to the soil sample found to contain elevated arsenic, the MDCH commented that
sampling and analysis of surface soil from the off-site area where the elevated arsenic
concentration was found in the subsurface soil will contribute to a more complete evaluation of
the potential threat to public health and permit the development of appropriate interim responses.
Response 6: The MDEQ acknowledges that the MDCH supports the selected remedy for
groundwater as the most appropriate remedy for the site at this time. With respect to the
comments on the elevated arsenic concentration in the off-site soil sample, the MDEQ agrees with
this observation. The MDEQ plans to pursue additional soil sampling as an interim measure in the
vicinity to preliminarily quantify the volume of soil similarly contaminated, and to take actions as
indicated to prevent direct contact with the soil until the EPA can return and implement the
second NTCR on the remaining contaminated soil.
28
-------
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS. INC.
SUPERFUND SITE
SUPPLEMENT to the RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
September 1997
Following are a series of comments and requests for further explanation submitted to
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Response Division
(MDEQ, ERD) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department's responses. Where possible, the ERD has condensed the EPA comment.
A copy of the full text of EPA's comments is available in the Administrative Record for
the site.
Introductory Comment
A limited extent of contamination investigation was completed by the MDEQ at the
Parsons site. Based upon the results of this investigation the EPA determined that the
data collected from on-site monitoring wells and existing residential wells was sufficient
to determine the most appropriate response action at the site without performing a
further extent-of-contamination investigation off-site as was recommended by the
MDEQ. The MDEQ determined that the selected remedy is adequate to protect public
health from exposure to unacceptable levels of chemicals of concern and to provide
advance indication of groundwater quality degradation. It is uncertain whether
contamination of adjacent private water supply wells is likely to occur. Therefore, long
term monitoring of private water supplies was included in the ROD for the Parsons site
with a contingency for providing alternate water supply.
Item #1: Please expand upon your discussion of how the Eaton County Health
Department's (ECHO) private water supply well permitting process will interface with the
selected remedy for the site to enhance the protectiveness of the remedy. In addition
explain whether ECHD's program is integral to the site remedy.
Response to Item #1: Informal discussions with the county sanitarian revealed that
county officials implement a process for evaluating well permit applications to attempt to
assure drinking water wells are not installed in zones of contamination. Eaton County's
Environmental Health Policies and Procedures states that it is unlawful for any person
to construct any new water supply system unless the owner or his representative has
obtained a construction permit issued by the Health Officer to construct same. Their
process consists of having a panel of three officials review the application and jointly
determine whether or not to issue a permit to the driller; or if to issue a permit with
special conditions attached to assure protection of human health. The MDEQ
-------
anticipates developing an agreement between the two agencies whereby, in the event
the ECHO issues a well permit within a specified area surrounding the Parsons site, to
be determined during the remedial design phase, they will notify the MDEQ. If a permit
is issued within this area, special conditions such as minimum depth will be imposed.
Upon notification the MDEQ will incorporate the well into the long term monitoring
program to confirm that the quality of the well's water is acceptable. This additional
notification measure adds a dimension of assurance that any new potentially impacted
private water supply wells are incorporated into the monitoring program. This
information is in the ROD so that interested parties will be aware of all the measures
being taken by the agencies to protect public health. This process when viewed
collectively with the actions by the MDEQ and interaction with the county is an
additional tool for protection of public health.
Item #2: Discuss Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(F) of the NCR that states in part, "EPA
expects to return usable groundwater .to their beneficial uses wherever practicable":
Include in the discussion an explanation of the apparent conflict posed by the presence
of elevated concentrations of some chemicals in groundwater which in some cases
pose a potential unacceptable risk, and the fact that the remedy is for monitoring with
contingency rather than actual groundwater restoration.
Response to Item #2: Adjacent to the Parsons site, private wells supply drinking water
to approximately 50 homes and businesses. These wells are completed in the bedrock
aquifer. Data from the Rl indicate that dieldrin, manganese and lead are present at the
top of the bedrock aquifer in concentrations in excess of applicable drinking water
criteria. The contamination appears to be contained in a narrow zone of weathered
bedrock that is at the top of the bedrock and below a thick clay layer. The water is very
turbid in this interface zone and is not useable as a drinking water source even if it was
free of the contaminants contained in this narrow zone. Filtered and unfiltered samples
from permanent monitoring wells that were installed during Phase 3 of the Rl to 20 feet
into the bedrock, while still somewhat turbid, were found to be in compliance with
applicable MCLs and Part 201 generic residential health-based drinking water criteria.
Still deeper in the aquifer, where the private wells are installed, the turbidity is much
lower and the groundwater is useable as a source of drinking water. Private wells
sampled during the Rl were in compliance with the drinking water criteria.
While the referenced NCP expectation is applicable at the site, the groundwater in the
useable portion of the aquifer does not require restoration. Section 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(F)
does not apply to the contaminated portion of the aquifer at this site because it is not
useable due to its high natural turbidity.
Item #3: Describe any additional protective measures that will be implemented to
prevent someone from drinking the contaminated groundwater at the Parsons site
-------
property. An example would be a deed notice. Discuss whether the state of Michigan
has the authority to place a deed notice on the property.
Response to Item #3: The MDEQ agrees to pursue the issuance of a deed notice to
the property owner of record for the parcel of property located at 3562 West Jefferson
Street, address of the former Parsons Chemical Works, Inc. plant, on which ETM
Enterprises currently exists and where most of the Rl was performed. The purpose of
the deed notice will be to notify the owner that groundwater contamination was detected
in portions of the aquifer during the Rl and to recommend that the property owner utilize
the municipal water supply that is available to property owners on Jefferson Street. The
notice will also advise that in the event water supply wells are contemplated on this
property, special care must be taken to assure that the wells are installed in safe
portions of the aquifer. It is not anticipated that a deed notice would become part of the
chain-of-title for the property. A copy of the deed notice will be submitted to the Eaton
County Register of Deeds with a request that it be filed with the deed to this parcel of
property.
Item #4: Please explain in more detail how the state of Michigan concluded that a
complete ecological assessment was not warranted at the Parsons site. In particular,
address protection of the nearby Grand River from Parsons contaminants. Address
potential future risk to the environment in light of a monitoring-with-contingency remedy.
Response to Item 4: The Rl report, Section 4-Nature and Extent of Contamination and
Section 7-Summary and Conclusions presents the surface water environment data and
conclusions regarding release to surface water.
Sediment samples were collected from the Grand River, the unnamed creek and the
county drain connecting the Parsons site to the creek and analyzed for volatile organic
compounds, semi-volatile organic com ounds, pesticides and PCBs, dioxins and furans
and inorganic constituents. No promulgated sediment criteria exist. In lieu of criteria,
the MDEQ uses low and severe effect values generated by the State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Division of
Marine Resources in the document "Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated
Sediment" (November 22, 1993) or the Province of Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Water Resources Branch document "Guidelines for the Protection and Management of
Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario" (March 1993) as guidelines for assessment of
potential impact on the ecosystem by contaminated sediments. It was determined,
upon evaluation of chemical concentrations detected in sediment samples, that one of
two conditions were present: Either the concentrations were near or less-than the
lowest effect level listed in the above-referenced documents; or, if the concentrations
were indicative of greater potential impact, it was observed that similar concentrations
of the detected chemicals were found in samples collected upstream of the confluence
of the unnamed creek and the Grand River. This would indicate that the origin of these
chemicals is not the Parsons site but rather a source further upstream from the site.
-------
With no measurable exceedances of surface water criteria and no indication of site-
related contamination at a concentration likely to cause significant impact in sediment.
impact to aquatic populations is not indicated and therefore, the determination was
made not to pursue evaluation of local ecosystems and aquatic populations beyond this
point.
The contaminated soil at the Parsons site and on the stream bank above the drain
discharge, was removed and remediated during the In-Situ Vitrification project, further
reducing the risk of site contaminant migration. The county drain connecting the site to
the unnamed creek was examined as part of the RI/FS for evidence of a continuing
source of discharge. The drain was found to be visually intact and clean. Again, it was
concluded that no evidence existed to suggest a continuing source of contamination to
surface water via soil.
As detailed in the Rl report, the selected remedy will not prevent potential migration of
the chemicals detected in groundwater. Therefore, the potential exists for the
groundwater contamination to migrate to surface waters. However, it is the opinion of
the MDEQ that off-site migration of site contaminants via groundwater significant
enough to have impact upon the surface water environment is unlikely. In the event
that migration of significance does occur, the residential well sampling to be conducted
as part of the remedy will detect evidence of it and the potential for impact to surface
water can be addressed as appropriate. Following is a brief discussion of the logic
used to reach this decision: The direct discharge of chemicals of concern from the
former Parsons plant dates back to the 1940's. Yet, the surface water and sediment
samples showed no evidence of site-related residual impact on the environment. Also.
both filtered and unfilterd groundwater samples were submitted for analysis during the
Rl A comparison of the filtered sample analytical results to the unfiltered sample
results indicates that the concentrations of chemicals of concern are directly related to
the degree of turbidity in the samples suggesting that the chemicals adsorb to soil
particles. Since soil particles in groundwater are less mobile than the groundwater,
combined with the distance the groundwater must migrate to reach the surface water, it
is reasonable to conclude that the potential for migration of the chemicals of concern to
surface water is not significant.
Item #5: Please provide a discussion on the statutory requirement for remedies that
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable {NCR 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(E)} compared to
the remedy selected for the Parsons site.
Response to Item #5: The Rl indicated that no exposure to contaminated groundwater
has occurred and there is no data to indicate that exposure at a future date will occur
There is no data to suggest that the contamination detected in a narrow band at the top
of the bedrock is migrating. Furthermore, because the groundwater at the top of the
-------
bedrock aquifer is naturally turbid, it is not anticipated that a water supply well would be
installed in this zone. Since it is uncertain whether an exposure to the general public
may occur, cleanup of the affected groundwater at this time is not justifiable. Therefore,
it is not practicable to satisfy the statutory requirement for remedies that utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable
[NCR 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(E)] at the Parsons site.
Item #6: Section 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(F) of the NCR establishes a preference for remedies
employing treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility
or volume of the contaminants as a principal element. Please discuss whether the
proposed remedy satisfies this statute, and if not. explain why.
Response to Item #6: The statutory preference for remedies employing treatment
which permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of the
contaminants as a principal element does apply to this site. It is not satisfied for the
reasons identified in the response to comment number 5.
Item #7: The text in several places in the FS suggests that the remedy will not achieve
the remedial action objectives (RAOs) developed for the site while the ROD states that
it will. Please explain this inconsistency and discuss how the RAOs will be achieved.
Response to Item #7: Remedial action objectives 1, 4. 5, 6 and 7 are achieved by the
proposed remedy. Objective 3 is achieved additional discussion is included in the
response to alleviate your concerns.
As stated in the FS, Remedial Action Objective (RAO) #2 (prevention of migration of
contaminated groundwater to surface water) is nc achieved by the proposed remedial
action. However, as indicated in the response above to comment number 2 and
number 4, it is uncertain whether contaminant migration is occurring and the potential
for migration significant enough to impact surface waters is minimal. In retrospect, it
may nave been more appropriate to word this objective to the effect that the remedy will
prevent migration or be designed to detect unexpected migration (via monitoring
prog ram)-should it occur.
Remedial Action Objective #3 refers to complying with specific State and Federal
ARARs. In the FS on pages 10-10 and 11-4. the text states the alternative does not
comply with contaminant-specific ARARs, particularly those which govern drinking
water standards and Part 201 Generic Residential Health-Based Cleanup Criteria. It
is true that the selected remedy will not reduce the concentration of manganese in all of
the site monitoring wells to the Part 201 generic residential health-based criterion for
manganese. However, as stated in above responses to comments 2 and 3. the
criterion is applicable only for groundwater that is a useable source of drinking water
-------
The exceedances of manganese that were measured in bedrock aquifer wells were
detected in wells screened at the top of the bedrock where the high natural turbidity
would preclude designation of this zone as a useable drinking water source. The
analytical results from groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells installed as
shallow as 20 feet into the bedrock, both unfiltered and filtered, reveal compliance with
the applicable health-based drinking water criterion for manganese. Therefore, the
useable portion of the aquifer is in compliance with the ARARs. This holds true for the
other identified chemicals of concern.
Refer to the response for Item #4 for a discussion regarding the statement that location-
specific ARARs may be violated.
Item #8: Please explain why the FS states that the site ARARs will not be met and the
ROD states that they will. Also discuss which is correct.
Response to Item #8: The concerns expressed in item #8 are all discussed and
explained in the discussions of previously raised issues. The only items not already
discussed relate to the reference to MCLs as "to be considered" in Table 8-1 of the FS
and whether or not hazardous waste is going to be generated as part of the proposed
remedy.
The ROD clearly identifies the MCLs as ARARs. This response serves as a clarification
to the FS in the record.
The selected remedy will not generate hazardous waste. Therefore, closure and post
closure requirements are not applicable. Wastes might have been generated for some
of the groundwater treatment alternatives and the closure and post closure
requirements may have been applicable to some of those remedies.
Item #9: Please address any inconsistency between the FS and the ROD with respect
to long term residual risks associated with the groundwater.
Response to Item #9: Again, this item asks for discussion that is covered in previous
items. The MDEQ feels the requested explanations are all addressed adequately in the
above item discussions. See Items #4 and #7 for discussion on potential impact on
surface water. See Item #3 for discussion of additional protective measures. See
Items #5 and #6 for discussions on permanent remedies. This response serves to
clarify the RI/FS in the record.
The MDEQ sincerely hopes that the responses and discussions provided in this
submittal successfully allay the remaining concerns of the EPA and respectfully
requests that the EPA sign and thereby demonstrate concurrence on the Parsons
Record of Decision so that the selected remedy can be implemented.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
to£-iO
EATON COUNTY
Figu.v€x I
-------
EATON
= s --jc:: i '-
>-5 v'St ! ^f
' "t
-
K. !• *•• 1 ^^ ^^ A \ I P^ I ^~ *^ ^^ ^~ ?!** -•* '~ *" " * *; '«> ^ — IV* *^g-^^l.^ p^^^^^Cr - f *
Hi-^=i-;GRAND LEDGEp^:-:7_-..^;r:- -^Q-^ sS g.=j=&^=Sa^y=>
12 -• ^-..-.-^ ;. !'-^= • j . ^riTYnf LANSING
PARSONS CHEMICAL^ j , = 4 '- *Z^2l^&^
SITE ? " —' ^^ ^^^ J
/' '_• .! '..-^r^; /^«5_i^2
" •— J!t
•* "' r..
-x.
••^'. :x.
< ::
n
N
I i.
12*
IV',-
-------
CITY of
GRAND LEDGE
04
^s?< =,. ,—-. ;
••^."~ I.*! A M
i--" »
IMSill _~.
^PARSONS CHEMICAL _
WORKS, INC.
SUPERFUNDSITE
,. ,*. M. II I I.It
•""'••.::•.:•:...„ ;;. ,9 \ i t—if-1"
f\*tWM »t*MM I !•>*•• ttt\
1
-------
FAIRGRCVE & RUSSELL
S'JEL /JSIONJS
MILL5ROCK PRINTING
•=f r STM E\7E3PRlSES/formeriy PARSON'S
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
STUDY AREA
CHURCH of :he NAZA==\=
WEST JEFF53SON S7REE1
ANDERSON ARCHESV
-------
CITY OFGRAND LEDGE
EXTENT OF MUNICIPAL WATEK SUPPLY
k V».*t
' * **ll(»..l»,|
I II ,•*..,» || , \
...,..v «
- -. Arjfeftj
,, <•• •Hrnnt
p
MUNICIPAL WATER AVAILABLE ' ||
KKNNj»vM.ACf... EAST Ol? HEAVY BLACK LINK. ;T| "f,
.
,.;>:i;ARSONS-,
i HI — "^^^ *^ \.j*"'C 'N>w '
..'.',:•..:,':;!:;::!;:•....'»',•;*•:"" ; ^^'<^xi^\\
In.... •• I » i:il >\> ( ~-$<£?Z~) II
«. Ik i/'Vv \"^r H
................ «....,.„, i..\ V\. XV )-» fiTTir
« » v- ^sAV-J HlDl
...»-. .I...... «>\\ v-.C ill
•..„.,« ..vv._ \C\\ Si\ f"
.; ::::;::;: .!::;v:::I,h.,:.:\^,. Ti\Y U\
ItM.t I*. • I •••••* f *•
• ' 1 41*. I t* •.**.• I I
I I t|,llt....t 1 I «..t«> I II
IM«*..,»4 *t
mid INIIATCIIICI) ARKA
ALONGJKI'TKRSON
J WESTERN EXTENT OF 12
•^^MT,
nc.i
I .......
j-.—. , —•»»_ —•*••.::— » «• .-
-------
*
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC.
MONITORING WELLS LOCATION MAP
rt
LEGEND
SHALLOW WELLS;
MW1. MW2. MW3, MW4.
MW5, MW6, MW7. MW12.
MW13. MWISjrtWU
TOP-of-aEDBQCK Wjfl
MW8. MW9. MW10
VAS WELLS:
MWH. MW17. TW19
MILL3ROOK WELLS:
MIL-MW1. MIL-MW3
MIL-MW4
SUMPS & MW102-104 art
from the ISV project and
are not pare of the Ri
N
• --i>". -->j—
r; -cass Is
n
"^
•>. I
FIGURE 6
-------
S OF DETECTIONS -
PA3SONS CHEN.iCAL WORKS SITS
ANALYTc
'
.
CLEANUP
CRI7E3U
Uv>1]
FSECUtNCY OP
pcsmvE
OtiiCl IONS'
FSfCUHNCY
Of
EXCHANGE
MAXMUM i SAMPLE NUMBS)
CCNC. '^) j
i
i
i
i :T?T^
SAJUP^r;.
i
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS [A9SX 1933 SAMPUNG ROUND)
""•urioroathona
' S,
1/12(3%)
NCNH
3 :.i j >CW-CW-MIL\s-i:-s:hythexvO sntnaiate
|
;-i-;vocryipmr>«lata •
330
5.D
130
-*/12(33%i
7/12 (53%)
1/12(3%)
NONE
NONE
NONE
2.3 :.)
0.90
?cw-cw.MW03-:c:
>CW-G W-MW03- ; 0 1 .
?CW-GW-MW07-10I. S,
>CW.<3W.MW08- 1 0 )
PCW-GW-MWOS- i c i
=-=«
=-:.3:
Ci-'-s-s: i .
C»/".-33 j
C-t-ISflS .
ipcsncices IAPRIT T»aa SAMPUNG xruNOi : • . ... .1
Aldrin
nona Chlofdan*
gamma) CNordano
CicMrin
-A'-OOE
•«-A'-OOT
£.-
H«o- acnlor aoond*
aiona.3HC
b
18/13 (89%)
1/1 a (8%i
1/1 a (6%>
ma (6%i
in a (8%>
1/18(8%)
NONE
4/1S(22«fct
3na (17%)
1/1 a (8%)
3/13(17%>
1/13 (8%)
| 1/13(8%)
NONE
NONE
WON*
a/ia?4*%>
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
0.0069 UPS)
0.001 UP}
0.0028 DPI
0.39
0.001 UP)
0.003 UP)
0.002 UP)
O.OOOU
0.0013 UP)
-
0.01 2 Ul
NONE | 0.0032 um
NCNE | O.COK-P)
NCNE
2. 902 '-PI
NONE | Z.Xi '-•?!
NCSS j :.:c: -PI
PCW-C W. MVV09- 1 0 2
PCW«GW>MW01-I01
PCW-GW-MW02-102
PC/VHJW-MWOaVlOl
PCW-GW-MW09-102
PCW-GW-MHAArVS- 1 0 1
PCW-G W-MILMW3- 1 0 1
PCW-GW-MW02-102
PCW-GW-MVV01-102
-
PCM-CW-MWOIOOI
PCA/-« W^4W02- 1 0 :
'PCW'fiW'MWOA.101
?C*AM* W-MW0 1 - 1 0 1
ea.3c.-33 ;
0*<-.3.33 j
oaao.-s: |
c^/13.93 ;
ca/:c.-9: :
04/15.9: .
ft*;'S.93 1
08.1C.-9 3
08.-S.93
- '
C«.'3/93
:a :c 33
t^.'* 9;
=-,:.,:
( ?cw-sw.Mv*04.io: j c-'ij:
| >CW-GW.MIIMW1-13:
:*•=?:
- *a:io and aircantas* or oumo«r of
- • 'atio. •PC 34rc*nTa;« af numo»f or
- • i.-.jiyrs ii 'ouno in ::•>• associatae
Sa:»eiont
sir ta
iaric is <»«il is :n«
3v 111 s.ir
a«r :s:
:al .-xr
ta/r*sia
rr!«ta5f
» or :n«
:?sui! •«
value.
rarjat
•»u»~Sl-
3' 141
3C/VS "»:-.-••-: ';r
•-••" :f'
FIGURE?
-------
7A3LE 4-2 (CONTINUED)
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
=REQUENCIES OF DETECTIONS - GSOUNDWATEa
ANAtrTc CLEAN Ur>
CHITEH1A
0/e/ii
pcsmvE
CETECTiONS1
FRcCL'ENCY
Of
VtAJCUUM
CONC. U/Srll
&LS NUMBER
£%,
TOTAL INORGANICS iAPfUL 1993 SA.Mr-J.HG aGUNOl
Aluminum 100
Antimony 5.0
Arsenic 50
Sanum 2.3CO
Ear/Ilium 4.0
ii/:j«ico%i
2,'i: (17%)
ic/12 (33%i
12/12(100%)
11/12 (92%)
12/12. M=C%)
2/12C:7%l
NONE
NCNc
2/12(17%)
172.=00
22 .31
23
1.330
11.4
?CW-GW-MWC5-101
>CW.GW-MWC3- ' 0 1
.•CW-GW-MWC8-1 0 1
PC W-G W-MW08- 1 0 1
?CW-GW-MW08-101
7~
=4/:2.«
C4/12.-93
04H 3.«
TOTAL INQRGANICS IAPML 1993 SAMPLHC ROUND] . • , :'
Cadmium 5.0
Calcium . NA
Chromium 10O
Cobalt _ 37
Capo«r 1 .OOO
Iran 300
Ltad 4.0
Macncsium 420.000
Mangan«»« SO
Mercury 2.0
Meted 100
j?3taj»ium NA
Stleftium • SO
S.lv,- 34
JSodium 160.000
|Tniilium 2.0
'''anadium 34
3/12(25%)
12/12(100%)
12/12(1OO%)
12/12(100%)
12/121100%)
12/12(100%)
12/12(100%)
12/12(100%)
12/12(100%)
2/12(17%)
12/1 2 (100%»
12/12(100%)
NONE
1/1213%)
12/1 2 (100%)
NONE
1-12,100%,
NONE
-
4/12(33%)
5/12 (42%)
NONE
12/12!100%)
. 2.5 IS)
1.710.000
PCW-GW-MWC3-101
PCW-GW'MWO«-101
856 (•CAMJW-MWO8-101
233 -
410
aas.ooo
12/12 (100%> '| 552
1/12 '*%)
12/12 (100%)
NONE
4/12(33%)
-
NONE
NCNiE
1/1213%)
NCNj
4/1 2 :SC%)
554.000
13.300
0.19i3)
531
32.700
PCA/-GW-MV«)8-1 01
PCW-G W-MW08- 1 0 1
PCW-GW-MW08-1 0 1
POV-GW-MWO8- 1 0 1
?CW>C W^AVOf. 1 0 1
KW^S W-WW08- 1 0 1
PCV/-GW-MIUMW3-1 0 1
PCW-GW-MWC8-101
?CW^3 W-MWO8- 1 0 1
-
23.2
"*
:°5.:co ?cw^w.vcwc5-ioi
:4/13.93
C4/13.93
04/13/93
54/13,93 i
j
54/13.33 !
04/1 3«
C4/13.-93
54/13.33
C4/15/93
04/:3.33 J
S4n3.« !
-
34/:3.«
?4.-3«S
_
397
i ^ . ^ •
a/-:2 :rss.
25 i
cw-G W-MWC8-1 o i i : -. •: 3:
• aiio and aarceniage a' -.urroar of fosiOv* :e:9cnort ;er :st»
- • 'atio and p^rcentaQe 3> r!a:3;rae.'1.^»ss »s»s::;'—*'sr.
: • 2cncen:.-ation of anaiytc axcaedad :.-.e saiisrassn .-anje a.' :.^e CC.VS r»:-.r-0r: -jr :.-
:' :.-« sstc-ie analysis.
i anaivucal r«sui: s an estimated »a>u«,
• -s*c -or a ;efjciC«
-------
TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED)
PARSONS CHEMICAL.WORKS SITE
FREQUENCIES OF DETECTIONS - GROUNDWATHR
j ANALYTc
I
!
CLEANUP
CRITS/UA
U/5-U
FHECUENCY Cf
pcsmvE
BE.. ci.ilONS'
rnSC'JENCY
CP
£XCrS7ANCg
MAXMUM
COMC. U'S'D
SAMPLE NUMBS*
.
=ATC ;'.
SAAI?. T- ,
'DISSOLVED INCACAMIC3 (APRIL 1993 SAMPLKC RCUNDI
Aluminum
Arjonie
sanv/n
Sarvlltum
100
30
2.0CO
4.0
Cadmium 1 5.0
10/10 (1GO%)
3/10 (30%)
10/10 (100%)
1/10(10%)
3/10 (30%i
2/10 CCS)
NCNc
:.so
5.9 13)
NONE | 196 (9)
NONE
3.33 (31
1/10 (10%) I 3.2
r>cw-Gw-MW03-:o:
>CW-GW-MWCS- ! c :
PCW-S W-MWOS- i o i
PCW-GW.MW08-1C1 .
PCW-GW-MW08-101
-c*.-ra.-33
Si.-: 3.33 ;
54/13.33 ;
3-i,-:3.-33 I
04/T3.-93 !
IOISSOLVED INORGANICS (APBU-. T9S»SAMPt«O KOUND)
C«leium
Chromium
Cobclt
Copp«r
Iron
(.••d
M«$n«cnifn
NlekH
?ot«nium
Sdiraum
Sodium
V*n«tiium
3nc
i
NA
100
37
1.000
300
*.o
42O.OOO
^o
100
NA
. so
160.000
fr*
2.400
10/10 (100%)
2/10(20%)
2/10 (20%)
6/10 (90%)
10/10 (100%)
10/10(100%)
10/10(100%)
lO/lfl MOQ^I
9/10(90%)
10/10 (100%)
2/10 (20%)
10/10 (10O%)
2/10 (20%)
10/10 (100%;
-
NONE
NONE
NONS
1/10(10%)
S/10 (50%)
NONE
NONS
-
NONE
2/10 (20%)
NONE
*/1 0 (4O%)
21 3. CCO
27.9
5.4 IB)
29.1
21.000
S3fl
59.400
Ofi9
35.3
2.220
5.5
298.0OO
8.5 (31
34.7OO
PCW-CW-MW08- 1 0 1
PCW-GW-MW08-1 01
PCW^JW-MWOa-101
f«CW^;W-MW08-101
PC//-G W-MWOI- 1 0 1
?CW-G W-MWO»- 1 0 1
PCW-CW-MWOf-101
P'~VW-G W-MWO8- 101
PCW-G W-MWOt- 1 0 1
PO/tMSW-MWO*- 1 0 1
PCW-GW-MWO6-101
PO//-G W-MWOS- 1 0 1
?CW-GW-MWO«-1C .
?CW^:W^4W08-101
0-.-1M3 ,
04/13,33 j
04/13,33 j
04/13,33 i
04/T3.33
C4.-1 3.33
04/13.33 '
C4>'13i33 '
C4/13.33 ;
04/14.33
C4/14.33 .
C4/-.3.33
:*.r3.3i
S4.-. 333
{VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND* MAY 1984.SAMPUNGROUNDY: NOME DETECTED
JSEMI - VOLATILE CAGAMC COMPOUNDS (JULY 1S94 SAMPUNG ROUND) : NOME OET£CTH>
(JULY 1394. SAMPUNC ROUND!
0.253
! ,~;
• • 3at:o and sercantaQo of nvmoe,f of posicvv jatscsons 09f ?o!al nufaef at lemeies.
- • :-at:o and aercan:j£a of numcer of vxceeGancn 3er :o:ai nurraf si ter^jiei.
> is .'ound in ;ha asfocraiad fan* as wail as trta farraia.
> idannfication nai 3aan eonfinrne :v ;a* snrarnatocraan/maia ia«c:rs/"»!;r.
: • Concentration of analyse axcaedod :ne caiisraeon ranja a.' :.ia 3C.VS -i-jtr..—e«t 'of :.".» icsct^c ana'-i>si*. Samoia ~t
s • 'eaonse anaivjcal .'»sui: i$ an ijamatec vaiua.
• «3ed for a aasticiea/aroc.-uor target anaiyrs «wr^r» t^^r? s a ;.'9aicr mar Z3% c.r?«ri**c« *3' ts'»ct»C c
:.-.« :««o loiumrs.
'- • -~»lv".a -as arai-/T»e !cr 3u: lot 2etec:jC.
-------
TASLE --2 (CONTINUED)
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORJCS SITE
?r.=GUcNCiES OF DETECTIONS - GRCUNDWATEn
j A.SALYTE
1
i
0.£A«UP
CAIIcHlA
U/s/ii
FREQUENCY Cf
PCSnrVE
OETcCTlCNS1
rRECSJESCY
OP
EXCEED AN C2
MAXM'-'M 1
CCWC. ±-i*1
SAM?t£ NUMBER | :A
| SAJM;
i
1
:7C7iL INCflGAJNICS JJULY 1994 SAA4PUNG RCUNOI
^o-*
irtirr.ony
^,.n,c
Sanum
-:C^GW.MW16.101
PCM-GW-MW1 6-101
PCW-GW-MW1 6-101
PCW-GW-MW08- 102
PCW-G W-MW1 6-101
"CW-GW-MW1S-1C1
?Cd 3«r;.nt»j« of numocr o' f«:»iC«r.c«j s«r :s:ai
• • -naivra » found in :.*i« tsiocivtad 3i«n< if <••>! t.:«e and •«-an«iy;9d.
- 3j=or:sc analytical r»sul: :* an «tt:r-.a:»d vaiua.
-;eo !of a 3»s-jc:o«.«roc.-iO' :ar;a: ar.ar/;« *r«r» :.".eri -s
:o:a< iu
/rs «aa aro«v:»d :'a» out -ot :«
-------
7ASLE -t-2 {CONTINUED)
?A?.SONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
FREQUENCIES OF DETECTIONS • G30UNDV/ATE3
A.NALVTE
G.EANUP
rHECUHNCY Of
POSITIVE
Sc.cCiiCAtS1
FRSC'JEKCY
Of
E5CCSSANCS
IMAXML'M
CONC. U/g4>
SAMPtf NUMBS*
s^i
DISSOLVED INORGANICS (JULY 1994. SAMSUNG KOUNOJ
»..
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
C.Vomium
Cobalt
500
so
2.000
4.0
s.o
NA
100
37
VCN£
2.-S !22%i
9.3 (100%)
NONE
NCNS
NCNE
NONE
NONE
NONE 1 NC'NE
9/9 (.JO%)
NONE
NONE
-
NONE
NONE
—
1 53 (3)
PCw-Gw.Mw:o.i:2 ! c: :: **
PCW-GW.MW06-102 07:734 '
_
;
172.000 . PCA/.GW-MW06-102 C7/:;.-34 !
-
- • •
-
1
OISSOtVEDINC)«CUUai«ri99SSAMPUN^ '
|S£Vl.VCtATTLf ORGANIC COMPOUNDS HANUARY 193S SAMPLMO AROUND! : NONE DCTcCTeX*
?ESTieC€S U'ANUAftY 1996 SAMPLMC ROUNO1
:=•'«""
O.C53 -
S/:9 (25%)
•'19 '5N. : Coo '_') ?C""-GW-»XWC3 ; T' I-r:
t '
• .3atio «nd acrcaniag* of numoor ol 9O9i3
«nd a«rcant«c« o/ numstr ol •xe**eane«i stf
vrt it found m :n» a*iod«iMl 3Kn« a* «»l ai :.
C • 'sinciCo icansfieation nas baen C3nflrrr>«c :y ;a> c
1 " -anc»n:ra:ion of anaiyta axc*ea*e :ne :a
-see Jar a
af
if an «xurva;ac va>ue.
ior :ar;et anai-/:* «-.ero ^s
3ur »ot ;*:sc:ec.
;raa(ar :?-an Is
'or :r.a i:«c::1c *n»lv»'«. S«/roie "a
;:"ar»-«es ':• Satac:»« soncant.-a'j
-------
TA2LS 4-2 {CONTINUED)
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
FREQUENCIES Or DETECTIONS -
ANAJ.YTS
.
CLEANUP
U/C/1)
FBECUENCY Or
pcsrnvs
CE7EC71CNS'
FRSC'JESCY
OP
EXCS3ANCS
MAXMUM
C2NC. :>•;.«
SAM?Uf .SUWBEH CAT^
i
TOTAL INORGANICS {JANUARY 13SS SAMPLING aCUNCI
1
Antimony
A:iemc
2anUm
jsaryllium
Caemum
ICaicium
Ihromium
!00
5.0
30
2.000
4.0
5.0
NA
100
13/-3 CCCSI
1-19 r,i%i
13/19 135%)
19/19 C.OO%)
13/19 (58%)
14/19 (74%)
19/19 (100%)
13/19 (100%)
19,". 9 (1SC%;
2/V9 n :%)
4C3.CCO
73.9
i;i9iii%. =3
1 /1 9 (S%)
6/19 132%)
12/19(63%)
2970
46.1
47.2
3.76O.SOO.
5/19(25%)
943
?CW.GW-r«vi 7-^o c • . • ; 3 =
?CW.GW.r^l7.33
?CW.GW.7W19-38
?C//-GW.7\V17-4O
PCW*GW-TVV *9*3fl
.
PC-/V-GW-TW1 7-4O
PCW-CW-7VV1 7-4O
" PCW^JW-TW 1 9-33
= :.-i«5
= :/T9«
51. -.5.1 5
OJ/:s.-35
5T.C.-35
•3-,-.C.-35
e:/:s.3S
TOTAL lNORCUkN«S:UaU)r s ,. ^ - -,t;
Cobalt
Coooar
Iran
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
?o«.«um
Saienium
[Silver
37
1.000
. 300
4.0
420.000
30
2.0
100
NA
50
34
jsodium 1 160.000
Thallium
{Vanadium
l~rc
2.0
54
2.4CO
16/19 (84%)
18/19 (95%)
7/19(37%)
NONE
19/11(100%) 1 19/19 (100%)
19/19 (100%)
19/19 (100%)
19/19(100%)
3/19(16%)
17/19 189%)
19/19(100%)
1/19(5%)
3/19(15%) .
19/19 (100*1
1/13 ;S%I
•.7/19 I39SI
-.9/i9..ises»
17/19 (89%)
1/19 (5%)
19/19 (100%)
NONE
7/19(37%)
-
NCNS
NON£
2/19 («C%»
1/19 !5%l
T.-;9 •::?%>
12. '3 S3«S.
516
801
1.590.000
402
1 .340.000
33.600
1.1
1.060
57.000 .
13.5
-.0.5
.3C.OGO
:.3 iB)
!.3tO
PCW-GW-TW17-40
• PCW-GW-7W1 7-40
PCW^JW-7W17-40
PCW-GW-TW1 7-*O
PCW-GW.TW17-W
PCW-GW-7W17-4O
rCW M - •
1 • 'auo aric aarcanuge of numoer of 3O«inv» ;a!*c3ons s»r total nur-eaf :? :a<—C'ei.
- • ?ano anc sarrsntasa ai numoar of axcaaeance* sar :s:ai numo»» of >arr;.et.
s • Ar.aiyte >» !ound ,n :ne associated Stan* aa «*H la :na tarr.oia.
of anaiVTa «>caeaad :na causra'.cn -arja or t>« CC.VS -«t-.,—•-: '3.-
' • '.Jed for i ;
tn» :;
-------
TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED)
"ARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITS
FREQUENCIES OF DETECTIONS - GaOUNDWATER
i AMALYTT
i
i
CLEANUP
cairjsu
0/gyl)
rSSC'JENCY Of
PCS.T7VE
CETECnONS'
FRSCLH-NCY
OF
EXCESS ANC£
MAXUUM
CSNC. U/S*)
.
SAMPLf NUMBER
.
- — :
CAT5
SAArfP'_£5
INORGANICS (JANUARY T93S SAMPUNG ROUND)
Uiuminum ' N
:A:jonie
I
• sarium
ICO
SO
2.000
9/19 ;*7%)
TO/: 3 (53%)
IS/19 (ICON!
7/19 ij/%)
•NONg
S-u.
PCW'GW'MWCS
32.3 j PCW-GW-7W17..V3
NCN£ I 181 .
PCW-GW-TW1 7-35
-* • -- **
— "'.'.I.3S
IVIC.or '
= •"-'» I
13tr/lliuin
4.0
NONE
NONE
Cidmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cabrtt
DISSOtVB* MOKQANieS
Cop par
ron
Lead
Magnesium
Mtnemnttu
Niekal
?ou*«ium
S«l«nium
podium
Vinadi... .
Zne
S.O
NA
100
37
UANUAJtYil
1.000
300
*.o
420.000
SO
100
NA
50
16O.OOO
64
2.4OO
NONE
19/19 (100%)
1/19(5%l
a/19132%1
Mt^SAMPUNGRO
10/19(53%)
19/19 (100%l
2/19(11%)
19/19 (100%)
19/19(100%)
6/19 (32%)
19/19 (100&)
NONE
19H9 (1OO%)
NCNg
19/19 (100%)
NONg
•
NONE
NONE
UNO* , •-
NONE
ID 9 (5%)
1/19(5%)
NONE
15/19 179%)
NONE '
-
NONE
2/19 (11%)
NONE
4/19 !2:%)
- .
1^6.900
11.9
14.4 (3)
'~'-V '-', .;
8_2 IB)
495
4.9
44.000
563
31.2
13.OOO
-
291.900
-
4.370
-
. PCw-cw-Mwoa
PCA/-CW-TW17-44
PCW^W-TW17-43
S-. fs *•• TW1*>41
PCW-GW^WOS
PCW-GW-MW02 4
?CWmW-MW03
f»CW-CW-MJL>
PCW-GW-MIA
f»CW-GW.TW19-3t
-
>C*^^jW-MWOS
*
PCW-CW.MWC9
-
ov-ii.-ss
3:/lS.-35
C 1/1 0.3 5
01/24.35
01/10/95
01/I3.3S ,
01/24.3S
C 1/2 4,35
01/24A5
01/15/95
~
SVZ3.3S
"
S".':*.35
' • 3«no and garetntagt of nwmoer ol sbiOvi iauetio^j ;«r :otai nui-tear of »r*ai«i.
I • 3«tio and 9arc«n:tg» of numoer at •icaecancvt 9«r total numo*' 3i •af'S'M.
« found *n :.*•.• •itoeiatad S'»r« i< otll • >*rr.;i«.
idanotleauon nas 3»»r> con(i»rr.».ato;fsa""^'a*» «s«s:rs«"»t
: • Cancantrauon a< anaf/Tt axeeadad ai=ra:on ;ar;» of :.i« CC.'VS .rs:.-^.^«nt ?s
: lu(»d antf '»-ao«lv7»a.
- • *»oor:9d analytical .-«sui: J an einrr-atatf -
-------
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
of
CONTAMINANTS-OF-CONCERN
detected in
PRIVATE WATER-SUPPLY WELLS
CONTAMINANT IN
RESIDENTIAL WELL
ARSENIC
LEAD
MANGANESE
DIELDRIN
HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
DETECTED
9.4 ppb*
2J>ppb
63 ppb
not detected
'parts per billion
PART 201 DRINKING
WATER STANDARD
50 ppb
4 ppb
860 ppb**
0.053 ppb
** aesthetic cone
50 ppb
FIGURE 8
-------
HAKbUNb CHEMICAL WORKS, INC.
LOCATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
TO BE ADDRESSED AS A
NON TIME-CRITICAL REMOVAL
\
V
\
JErrERSON AVE./GRANO LsOGc HIGHWAY
Black area indicates
location of contaminated soil.
\
MIU-SROOK
?.=:NTiNG
FIGURE 9
-------
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
AVERAGE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS IN AREA 1
and the
ASSOCIATED DIRECT CONTACT STANDARDS
CTfrVJCAL
dlorcaa*
Dieldria
Ssdria
t.lnfaa*
Mecioxycilor
ARtisoey
Arsenic
3ariun
X*^ WMMM4 t**V
Cabalt
Capper
Lead
• Manganes*
M«rc-iry
Sici«i
ATRftiSK SOTT.
CONCZHTRAZZOH
5.1
25
6.1
1.8
34
• 6,100
6,500
64 , 000
21 , 000
9.300
16,000
11.300
SOO.OOO
490
15,000
All figure* are
ir. ?ar=s per
biliior.
•a^srnprrcai
CONTACT
STAOTA3D
7,600
620
72,000
7,600
2,100,000
•
150,000
6.600
30,000,000
630,000,000
2,100,000
15,000,000
400,000
2.000,000
130.000
32,000,000
FIGURE 10
-------
SOIL AREAS 1 & 2
-------
TAOLEE-13n
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
SURFACE WATER
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMPUf
c:si VAI.IIK*
PCW SWCOMOI
PCW-IW-OM-IOI
pcw-swoni.ioi
pew sw on i ioi OOP
pcw-swoni-ioi
PCW SWHSlAMK-101
PCW SW UCI-IOI
rcwswucMoi
pcw-swucj-ioi
PCW-SW-UC4-IOI
pcw-sw-uct-iot
PCW swuc» ioi
DAIij*
DAM PUD
OWJ/ti
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/lini
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/>l/tl
Ol/l«/t)
01/17/11
OI/M/II
Ol/If/ll
OI/II/*)
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/ll/*l
IHQW^^rP* •
MtTMII
MnMll
MCTM41
MnM4«
M(TM4«
MHM«I
MnM4l
MHMII
^HMII
MHMI*
MCtMtl
MnMie
t&fttitfmi&M
J*|H * *, v vy
N/A
)••
lit
Ml
1«O
III
141
ll.l
IT?
141
111
411
111
•
1
t
I
•
•
mmmi^
t sH^tf^
H
1.0
1.0
1.0
l.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.1
1.0
1.O
1.0
1.0
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1
u
u
u
u
no
•O.I
01.0
««.a
«>.»
•4.1
•.00
47.1
I*.*
• 1.4
• l.t
••••
• l.(
•
I
I
•
•
U
I
1
I
I
•
I
" lcAUiWv "
f.
N/A
101.000
10.000
•0.000
71.100
ir.*oo
140
11.000
101.000
II.COO
••.too
•'.too
•>,coo
u
> , oinMtiuM
77-loial
l.T
(.•
1.7
*.*
I.I
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.)
1.0
I.I
1.1
1
1
1
1
1
u
u
u
i
u
1 .
1
cofffit
18
1.0
1.4
J.»
I.I
}.t
l.O
i.O
J.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
u
•
1
•
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
; WON .
N/A
HI
111
iro
no
• >i
i «
no
i;oo
in
in
in
it*
i
II
r
•:
•
t
•
I
• I'uri 4 of I'uil J I of Hie N«lur»l lltiourcn ind Envlronnicnlal Prolecllon Art. 1 994 1'A 451
Nnllouul Tuilrs Hulr, Federal Kcflsler, December 22, 1992
Cuiiiiiilwulrr/Siirfuce Witter Inlerfare Value
or.
nS3029S02M
E-81
-------
TABLE E-13b
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
SURFACE WATER
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
. ' lAMftlf
c;si VAI.IIK*
rcwsw-cDi-ioi
rcw-sw-oni-ioi
rcwswonj-ioi
rcw SWOM-IOI-OUP
rcw jwom-ioi
PCW-SW-niLAMX-10l
PCW-SWUCI-IOI
fCWSWUCJ-IOI
PCW-SWUCMOI
fCW-SW-UC4-IOI
PCWCWUCt-IOI
PCWSWUC4-I01
> 0AT|5<'>
tHJtnw
OI/17/tl
oifii/ti
ou it «ti
oi/ii/u
OtHt/lI
Ol/l*/tl
oi/»/u
OMII/tl
. Of/l«/ll
<>»/]«/•!
Ot/J'*^* s
MHMII
MnMJ*
MHM41
MHM4I
MRM4*
MfTM4l
MHM4r
MOMII
MnMtl
MITMII
MHMI1
MHMIO
• .•
i.i
i.»
>.i
i
•
1
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
^iMAwiii^'''^
*•&•*&*?•&«<&*$??
N/A
11.100
J4.iOO
14.iOO
11.400
14.100
111
It.MM
11.100
ll.MO
1«.»00
1MOO
11.000
• .
ffiMitijfap
>v >.*# •> >••? •%%?%*•• yA
N/A
44.1
•».i
•1.1
•i.J
•1
1
•0.1
4(4
74.1
>0.t
•1.7
M.I
U
T'ft s ^ ^ •>'
f^TAMJVM
?v--ji<^ /%' s "
N/A
1.410
l.tiO
i.«to
4.140
1.140
• 1*
'1.140
1.010
1,170
1,410
1.1 10
1.110
•
•
•
1
•
1
•
•
1.
•
•
1
^ ', v
N/A
».7IO
11,400
n.ooo
M.tOO
ll.MO
770
it.too
4I.*00
It.WO
11.100
J 1,100
11.000
•
: DNC ' ' : .-:.:.
II
74.4
l.f
7.1
t.7
• .1
1.7
I »
1
(.1
1.4
I.J
a.i
•
t
•
i
i
a
u
a
a
i
B
; TOTAL CYAMOt
S.1
to
to
10
to
10
10
10
10
IJ.i
10
10
to
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
•Tun -4 ut 1'iiH Jl <>l Ihr Nulunil Ur«uurrr> and Knvlronnitnlil Hrolrcllon Act. 1994 I'A -ISI or.
Niillonul I oilr. Hulr; Krilrivl Ittelalrr, DecrinUr 22.1992
(;i-iiiinilwulrr/Sui-fufe \Vulrr Inlcrfurr Value
H'-i.U>7'J!.l>2M
E-02
-------
TADLE E-14o
POSITIVE DETECTIONS Or SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS i>o/k0)
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
. -. : IAMCU 1
fcwso ani-ioi
few so oni-ioi
fCW »O OftJ-IOI
PCW JO OO4.IOI
few inont-ioi
rcw-so-onMoi
few «o oni.ioi-ouf
fCYVW O/II-IOI
fCWIO UCI-IOI
fCWIO UCMOI
PCW-SO-UCMOI
fCW*O-UC4 101
fCW-SO-UCI-IOI
fcw«ouc4 loi-our
fCW»O UCI-IOI
OAti
IAMNIO
OI/J4/IJ
0(/14/ll
OI/1./.1
Ol/ll/f J
Ol/ll/tl
01/11/11
Ot/ll/tl
o*/»/ti
Of/ll/ll
Ol/ll/*)
01/11/11
06/)*/*l
Ol/U/fl
Ot/II/ll
01/11/11
-i,* 3 > **
nxi?
nxi*
11X11
ITX40
11X41
nx4i
nx4j
ITX4(
lfX4l
rtx4(
ITX«7
nx«4
11X10
IIXII
nxn
*cnM*rti
fc ^ l<
no
JO
440
410
too
1(0
41
41
400
400
110
410
1*0
400
410
«:-.-:
U
J
U
U
'
u
J
J
u
u
u
u
u
• u
u
•10
410
410
410
11
11
(10
44
400
400
110
410
IM
1 400
410
U
U
U
U
i
i
U
J
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
JftfewJ
1(0
44
• 1
410
"
• 1
U
14
400
400
IM
410
IM
400
410
U
J
J
U
J
J
i
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
tffiS"
100
110
IM
47
110
1*0
•00
;io
100
400
IM
41
>M
400
41O
J
J
J
J
J
U
u
J
u
u
u
« pwifwn
nUOflAMII
110
• 10
700
110
I.(OO
,*oo
1.100
I.4OO
II
400
IM
110
41
14
4 JO
1
nrf
j
j
J
u
u
j
j
j
u
•MlO(f.hJI
140
no
IM
410
400
>JO
1)0
410
400
400
)M
410
IM
400
410
J
J
J
U
J
1
J
J
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
..::.IIN1O||
:' '•'.'; rriMHI
IfO
140
100
410
4M
• 10
MO
410
• 1
40O
IM
11
IM
400
4 JO
i-: ,
Jtj;
J
'
•»
u
J
J
J
J
u
U
J
U
u
u
.' . nmiMAtf
1.IOO
4 JO
• 1
410
110
100
1)0
tao
4OO
40O
ito
410
IM
40O
4 JO
II
J
"
1
J
J
J
U
u
u
II
u
u
u
E-03
-------
TAOLE E-14b
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 0'0/W
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
• AMfll 1
rcw so oni-ioi
rcw so O«MOI
rcw so o«> 101
rcw so an4.ioi
rcw so o«» 101
fCWSOOM-IOI
rcw so OHMOI our
row so oft»-ioi
fCW SO UCMOI
rcw*o-uci-ior
fCW SO-UC 1-10 1
rcw souc4 ioi
rcwto uc4MOi
rcw- so-uc*- 10 1 -our
rcw so ucF-ioi
OMt IAMHH)
OI/I4/I)
Ot/K/tJ
out tnt
Ol/IO/tl
Ol/il/ll
OI/JI/I!
omtni
01/1 1/*)
Ol/JI/t)
Ot/IMl
Olf)t/tl
Ol/l*/t>
0*/l*(*l
O9t20/V t
1 O0/*f A/V J
CU-V
4
ITX1I
HXlt
11X11
11X40
0X41
ITX41
ITX41
11X4*
11X41
11X41
"«*'
IIX»4
nxto
11X11
11X11
* -. -^ *
tto
44
II
410
II
11
14
400
400
1*0
410
1*0
4OO
410
U
i
1
u
J
i
t
i
J
u
u
u
u
u
V
:$jjjl
110
ito
ito
t*
•40
• 10
4*0
• 10
•1
400
IM
•o
»'
400
410
1
1
J
J
'
1
J
i
U
u
J
*
u
u
II
••
440
410
IM
•10
110 .
IM
400
400
IM
410
IM
400
410
t
*
U
U
i
u
•»
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
;«*~-*
•to
11
440
4IO
4*
•to
11
It
400
400
IM
4M
IM
4M
410
U
i
U
u
j
u
t
j
u
u
u
u
u
w
u
•«*»««•
tto
420
11
410
410
ito
It
41
4M
400
ir
11
1*0
400
410
U
U
J
U
u
u
J
i
u
u
1
1
u
u
u
nrtrOVMnxALM
no
410
44O
410
410
410
1*0
ito
400
400
JtO
410
110
41
410
I
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
)
u
rtKnHtwj
PHIIIMAT1
i. too
I4O
1JO
It
1*0
no
140
ito
400
IF
to
40
II
40
41
tu
IU
tu
tu
tu
III
IU
IV
u
IU
IU
tu
IU
IU
•u
E-04
-------
TAfllE E-Mc
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (,/o/W
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMrtl 1
rcw »o uni-ioi
rcwiooni-iot
rcw to oni-iot
rcwmoiu.ioi
rcwioon4-ioi
rcw-sn-aniioi
rcw 10 OHI-IOI UUP
fcw-iu-ont-ioi
row to uci-ioi
rcw to UCMOI
rcwin-ucMOl
rcw to uc«.ioi
rcw in net 101
rcwiouci IOI-OUT
rcw to UCMOI
:OA|IIAMrtJQ
OI/14/tl
01/14/11
OI/14/tl
Ot/ll/tl
Ot/II/tl
Ol/II/tl
Ol/II/t*
Ol/ll/tl
Ot/II/tl
Ot/lt/tl
Ol/lt/tl
0./1I/.1
Ot/lt/tl
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/lt/tl
>"*<
nxii
nxii
ITX1I
11X40
11X41
11X41
11X41
11X41
nx4t
ITX4I
11X11
nxt4
11X10
ITXtl
itxtt
KT^fe
100
•to
TIO
110
I.IOO
1.400
I.IOO
1.100
110
10 .
ito
tr
11
10
4M
' i
i
J
U
J
t
*
U
?<$3%
•to
II
11
410
It
tl
• 1
II
400
4OO
ito
410 .
ito
400
410
U
i
i
V
i
*
*
i
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
^R^,
It
no
140
it
MO
1M
110 4
• 110
400
4OO
410
400
410
ito
410
J
J
J
t
J
J
i
t
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
/<>tii£5.
•to
410
440
410
14
tio
tto
11
400
4OO
ito
410
ito
400
410
U
U
U
U
J
u
u
i
u
u
u.
u
u
U
u
NAhntiAi
tio
410
44O
410
41
14
"
14
11
4OO
ito
14
ito
II
410
m<
u
u
u
u
J
1
1
J
I
u
u
J
u
i
u
: PltfMMOtll
110
140
JIO
tl
I.IOO
140
too
HO
110
11
It
110
11
11
410
mi
J
J
J
1
J
J
i
)
1
V
"—
MO
110
110
no
1,100
I.IOO
I.IOO
I.IOO
110
II
JtO
too
II
14
410
J
J
1
u
J
J
J
u
nS3029507M
H-05
-------
TADLEE-IGa
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF PESTICIDES and PCOs (//g/kgl
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
IAMP1I t
PCW-JO ont-ioi
I*CW SO CM 10 1
PCWSO-OMMOI
PCWSOOM-IOI
rcw lo-nni-ioi
ccwsoonMoi
rcw JOOM.IOI our
fCW SO 0*1-101
fcwiouci tot
ftW JOUCMOI
I-CW tOUCl-IOI
PCWIOUC4-IOI
fCW fO-l/CI-101
fCWId UCI.IOI
fCW III UCI IOI OUP
fCW U) UCLIOI
DAU
lAMPtro
OI/I4/I)
OI/J4/4)
Ok/14/1)
Ol/ll/t)
Ol/ll/l)
Ot/lt/t)
01/11/11
01/11/11
Ol/ll/l)
Ol/ll/l)
Ol/ll/l)
Ol/ll/f)
Ol/)l/fl
Ot/ll/tl
Ol/ll/l)
Ot/ll/,)
CMP*
11X11
fIXll
11X11
11X40
11X41
11X41
11X41
11X44
11X41
11X44
11X41
11X44
11X41
11X10
11X41
11X11
AJJDPIH
1
1.1
I.I
1.1
1.1
1.1
1
1.1
0.11
1
0.11
I.I
1.1
1
1
I.I
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
JP
V
JP
p
u
u
u
u
'"*&.
»
1.1
i
i.i '
1.1
1.1
I
i.i
I
i
i
0.14
I.I
1
1
1.1
U
U
u
w
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Jf
u
M
u
V
£$8
»•
1.1
1.1.
O.J1
1.1
1.1
1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.04
1.0
1.0
1.1
£?
Jf
w
w
Jf
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
»
u
w
u
^$%j£
*
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
*
I.«
4.4
1.4
0.11
1.1
0.14
0.11
I.I
I.I
U
u
w
PJ
u
4V
u
u
f
*
Jf
•»
*
»
JP
w
, 4 i s * >
4
0.11
0.11
1.4
1.1
•
1
4
1
I.I
o.rr
u
O.ll
O.ll
1.?
1.1
f
Jf
Jf
*
JP
p
p
JP
'
J
»
J
V
. 4.<'*»
140
1.1
I.I
14
4.1
11
11
11
11
II
•1
1.1
1.?
10
4.1
PI
JP
P
P
P
P
P
P
JP
JP
U
4.4'^Of
110
1.7
1.4
I.I
I.I
II
10
II
11
I
11
i.;
i.i
1.1
4.1
IX
JP
P
J
J
J
U
4.4'«OT
i.i
1.1
1.4
1
1.4
11
110
1.4
14
110
M
4.1
II
II
4.1
P
JP
if
If
JP
P
1
P
P
1
J
P
P
P
U
nivonN
i.i
O.ll
O.I*
1.1
O.ll
1
1.1
O.ll
10
4
1.1
4.1
O.ll
II
II
4.1
U
JP
If
ft
if
If
If
If
U
JP
u
Jf
u
(MOO MAT AN 1
II
O.JI
0.14
4.1
0 II
41
I.I
4 1
4
1
) 1
4.)
4.1
I.I
4
4 I
U
IT
Jf
U
JP
U
JP
V
u
u
u
u
u
II
u
u
ll'.i307!)5O7M
E-OG
-------
TAOLE E-IDb
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF PESTICIDES and PCDs (//g/M
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMHCIT .
rcwsooni 101
PCW-SO OAMOI
PCW MVOAMOI
rcw so oni-ioi
PCW-SO oiu-iot
rcwsooflMOi
PCW-M)-Ofll- 10 1 -OUP
PCW-SO ont-ioi
PCWSO-UCI-IOI
PCW-MUCMOI
PCVVSO VCMOI
PCW-SO-UC4-IOI
PCW-M-UCI-IOt
PCW-SO-UCt-IOI .
PCW-«O-UC*-IOI-OUP
fCW-SO UCMOI
OAII ...
01/14/M
0*/14/*1
Ol/14/*l
0»lll/*l
Ot/lt/t)
Ol/lt/*l
Ot/l*/*l
Ol/lf/tl
O.MI/.J
Ot/lt/fl
Ol/lf/tl
Ol/lt/tl
0*/2l/tl
01/11/11
Ol/l*/*l
Ot/lt/tl
i'llf
IIXIF
llXlf
11X11
ITX40
ITX4I
11X41
IIX4J
IIX4t
nx4t
11X4*
irxti
irxt4
nxii
irxto
11X41
IfXIt
SSI
1.1
4.1
0.11
4.1
4.1
O.tl
1.
0.11
4
4
1.1
4.1
4.1
I.I
4
4.1
JP
u
»
u
u
»
u
JP
u
u
y
u
u
u
u
u
4.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
4.1
l.l
4.f
I.I
I.I
0.11
••»
1.4
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.11
JP
J
JP
PJ
p
»
»
»
p
*
»
»
»
JP
JP
JP
itt
l.f
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
1.4
1.0
4.1
4
4
I.t
.».*
4.1
I.I
4
4.1
Iff
u
u
u
u
u
JP
V
u
u
u
u
JP
u
u
u
u
£!&'iUu^U
§?*!«•"??'
'mm
•••
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
l.l
l.t
4.1
4.
4
1.1
4.1
4.1
l.f
•.11
4.1
I.S&v:
Lfsr;
fe
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
u
va?
1.1
l.l
l.f
- l.l
0.14
l.l
1
I.I
l.l
1
1
1.1.
l.l
a
1
1.1
&l
JP
u
p
u
JP
JP
u
u
u
u
u
-p
u
u
u
0
.!;. IKFT ACIIUMil .
1
1.1
1.1
11
1.1
O.It
0.14
l.l
O.M
1
1
O.lt
l.l
1
1
l.l
u
u
u
u
u
JP
JP
u
.J
u
u
J
u
u
u
u
Minttxvcium
l.l
O.M
I.I .
11
It
4
J «
I.I
1.4
• 10
10
11
O.lt
M
O.I*
.11
JP
JP
JP
u
u
JP
JP
JP
JP
u
u
u
JP
u
JP
u
PCS 1014
no
• 1
4*
41
41
ft
It
4*
40
40
J*
41
41
It
4O
41
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
PCI 1114
tto
II
Jl
II
f 1
II
*•
• 1
40
40
11
41
41
1*
4O
"
*
u
p
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
nG3029502M
E-07
-------
TABLE E-1G
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF DIOXINS and FURANS l//o/kg)
SEDIMENTS
TEF-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATIONS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMNf 1 '' '
rCWSOOftl-IOI
rcw-sooftMoi
rcw loanMoi
rcw-sooM-ioi
rcwiooK* ioi
rcw to oil-lot
rcw icvonMo i -our
fCWlOOM-IOI
PCWtOUCl-IOI
rcw-oouci-toi
OA1I
•AMfUO
Olfl4/»l
OI/14/tl
0111 4/*l
Ol/II/tl
OKll/tl
O»/ll/*l
OI/>«/tJ
OtMI/ll
OI/JI/II
0*/l»/tl
:S@
ruio
Mill
MM!
Mill
MII4
Mill
Mil*
Mill
Ml*l'
Mill
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.0
u
(I
u
w
u
V
u
u
u
RlM'V
•.0
0«
0.0
OjO
0.0
0.0
0.0
•A
0.0
0.0
lt$&
u
II
II
w
w
V
u
u
II
u
9J»
9A
9»
9»
9*
0.0
0.0
9*
•.Oil
•.0
u
u
u
u
u
u
II
u
i
u
0.0
04
0.0
0.0
•»
9»
9»
9»
9*
9»
U
U
U
II
V
u
V
w
u
u
9M
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
•JO
9A
9*
9*
IJ&'S
n
u
u
u
II
u
u
u
u
II
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
O.O
0.0
•A
0.0
0.001
0.11
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
II
J
t
0.04
0.0
0.0001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0011
0.0
0.0
u
J
w
u
w
u
••
u
u
iS$
0.01
0.0
0.0001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0014
0.0001
0.0
pi,"
•*;•:•
u
n
u
u
u
u
J
t
V
• OCDO •
0.01
O.OOOI
O.OOO1*
O.OOOI1
0.00014
0.000*1
0.00011
0.001*
o.ooo n
0.0
JS
J
it
Jt
1
1
J
u
: flOTAU .
0.0
O.O
O.O
0.0
O.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.oooo r
O.O
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
u
•IOTM.
0.11
0.0001
0.001 1
O.OOO 11
OOOOI4
0.000(1
0.00*1
o.oon
0.011
0.11
ll'.JOI'l'tllJ
E-00
-------
TABLE E-17a
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS (rno/W
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMrUf:
PCW-SO-OM-IOI
rcwjooni-ioi
fCW JOOAMOI
PCW 9O OfM.IOI
rcw-sooni-ioi
rcwjoonMoi
PCW »O OM-IOI-OUP
rcw»o o«» 101
rcw to UCMOI
few »o UCMOI
PCWMIUC) 101
rcwtouc* ioi
fCW 4O UC4-IOI
rcw >o ucf-ioi
FCW-MMSCI-IOI-OUr
rcw touc;-ioi
OAII ^
lAMHID
04/J4/M
OI/14/tl
01/14/tI
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/ll/fl
Ol/ll/f •
0»/1I/IJ
o»/i4Wi
oi/ji/»>
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/llrtl
OI/II/II
OI/14/fJ
Ol/ll/*l
OI/14/V1
OI/I«/t)
roiMi.
moiMMMel
f
MIIMJ4
MIIMlt
MIIM1I
MtTMIl
MUMlt
MftMll
MI1M40
MCIM4I
M(fM«>
MI1U44
MITM*0
MIIMII
MIIMII
MftMll
MnMt*
MnMii
••?$$
MIO
1,140
1.110
I.IIO
I,4t0
J.MO
J.OIO
I.IM
I.MO
I.JiO
J.I40
4.1*0
>.0*0
1,040
4.IJO
1,4*0
f > ? ^ X
!A^*w-\
•.M
•.to
1.70
1.70
(.10
10.1
1.10
7.10
1.70
•••0
• JO
1.10
I.»O
7.10
1.10
l.«0
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
•
u
u
* X ' »^
fit A "fW B^PM & '. j
|%^s^^%
M.I
1.40
l.»0
l.«0
l.iO"-
7.10
4.10
•.00
4.10
1.10
• .40
I.JO
1.40
1.10
4.10
MO
9
•
!''••<**(**•-<
>^-.t, ?} *>t
41*
14. •
II. 1
11.0
l*.l
• 1.1
• 7.(
ll.l
ll.»
10.(
t4.«
>!.»
K.I
Ji.7
11.7
10.7
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
I
•
•omiAM
*. * x
0.70
O.li
0.11
0.1*
0.1»
0.4 •
O.K
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.1*
O.K
0.1*
0.14
0.11
0.14
•
.U
u
u
u
u
u
u
•
u
1
1
u
•
•
u
GMMUM
10
1.1
0.10
o.to
O.M
1.1
I.I
I.I
0.70
o.»o
1.1
0.10
o.to
O.7O
0.70
0.10
U
u
u
u
u
I
u
u
1
u
u
u
u
1
CAICIVW
4*.*00
Jl.JOO
11.100
MOO
11.400
n.too
I/.MX)
1MX>0
I.IM
>.JK)
4.0*0
J4,)OO
1*,*OO
• 1.100
n.too
JJ.40O
—
•CltWMlW
>•(
14. 1
<.IO
• .10
ll.l
11.*
If.l
ll.l
1.40
4.10
1.10
1.10
4.10
ll.(
10.4
4.10
r-oo
-------
POSITIVE DETECTIONS Or TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS. (mgfltol
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS DTE
I«MKI f :
rcw so DIM- iti
rcwsooni 101
rcwtooKi 101
rcw »o oiu-101
rcw tcror,t.|oi
rcw*ooM-ioi
rcw< so oni-ioi our
rCWSOOM 101
rcw»ouci-ioi
PCWIOUCMOI
rcw-touci 101
rcw-souc4-ioi
PCWSOUCI-IOI
PCWIOUCI-IOI
rcw 10 uc< lot our
rcw jouci 101
.- oAii ;;•:;;
.: : »AMr\ip •
01/14/11
. 01/14/11
01/14/11
ot/il/il
Of />»/»»
Ol/JI/lt
ot/itni
Ol/ll/t)
Ol/ll/tl
Ol/ll/*l
Ol/Jt/t*
01/1MI
e*/i*/*i
0*/l«/*l
Ol/ll/tl
OI/JI/II
^:wiofAix>p
»srf
MHM14
MnMll
MIIMtl
MIIM1F
MIIUM
MUM)*
MI1M40
MIIM4I
MIIM4*
MIIM44
MHUM
Mnmi
MHMII
MIIMII
MIIMI4
MIIMII
t.1
I.I
IJi
I.I
f.l
1.4
I.I
1.0 '
4.1
M
•.10
4.H
1.10
4.40
4.10
1.10
•
I
U
•
I
•
•
•
1
•
1
1
1
•
I
U
411
ll.l
1.10
4.10
io.r
»!.?
14.4
Jl.«
(.10
I.M
4.10
1.10
1.10
IO.I
11.4
MO
0
0
•
•
•
•
U
in
11.000
0.410
1.IM
0.440
1.140
14.000
10.400
I0.4OO
n.roo
I.I 10
11.000
10.100
0.000
10. (OO
10.000
I.I 10
I
m
1
iliiiP^
ffl&$m%
nr
10.1
I
1.10
It.l
41.1
11.0
41.1
1.40
1.40
9A»
ll.l
4,40
•40
1.40
*.oo
fMAdwIiiUM.,
I.I 10
I.?IO
1.410
1.140
1.4 10
.1.110
1.400
I.IIO
1.410
1.110
I.IIO
1.000
I.M3
11.100
10.000
I.IIO
MAMOAMilt
^W?\:': '-i'
Ml
111
111
141
JOJ
441
110
141
Ml
III
HI
411
114
11,1
III
141
MisftcvAV.
D.ll
0.11
0.11
0.11
O.ll
O.ll
a. it
0 II
o.tt
O.ll
O.ll
O.ll
O.ll
O.ll
O.ll
O.ll
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
w
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
HICK a
111
ll.l
l.»0
4.10
ll.l
II. 1
14 *
1) »
1 MI
1.10
IO.I
MO
4. JO
ll.l
ll.l
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
E-90
-------
TABLE E-17c
POSITIVE DETECTIONS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
SEDIMENTS
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
lAMrll ».. .' /•:
rcw jo OHi-ioi
rcwsocruioi
rcw »o OBJ. 101
rcw sooHt-iot .
rcw so tin* 101
rcw su oni 101
rcw so nniioi our
rcw so oni 101
rcw souci-ioi
rcw to no 101
rcw so uo loi
rcwsn-ucMoi
fCW-SO-UCt-IOI
rcw so uct-ioi
rcw so uc«-ioi our
rcwso uci-toi
OAlt ,
' lAMrtlB
01/14/11
OI/14/tl
OI/14/tl
Ot/ll/tl
Ol/it/tl
Ot/ll/tl
Ot»l/tl
Ol/ll/*l
Ol/ll/tl
01/11/11
01/11/11
01/11/11
01/11/11
Ol/lt/tl
Ol/lt/tl
Ol/lt/tl
10IAI
IMOMANMI
MIIM14
MltMll
MITMlt
MIIM1I
MIIMIt
MftMJt
MIIM4O
MIIM4I
MIIM41
Ml f Ml 4
MIIMM
MHUII
unuu
MfTMIl
MIIMI4
MI1MII
**!te
101
III
III
III
III
404
III
111
110
114
101
111
140
111
• 10
It*
tJM
* >'
•
t
•
•
0
I
I
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
I
I
$*s
9.14
0.11
O.M
o.to
0.10
O.M
0.11
0.11
0.10
•.It
0.41
0.11
0.11
0.41
O.4I
O.4t
$t
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
|$M
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
1.1
1.1
I.I
I.I
I.I
$1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
' U
U
'^ * '
144
111
III
111
111
101
III
. 141
101
111
114
III
III
141
111
•1.1
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
1
I
•
I
•
1
I
I
I
tiWAln
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
O.M
0.11
O.tl
0.10
0.11
0.41
0.11
O.tl
0.41
O.It
OM
m
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
' 1
VAMMMUM
14.4
1.10
1.10
4. to
4. JO
t.?0
too
>.FO
1.10
100
10.0
ll.l
t.oo
ll.l
14.1
t.lo
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
nwc
tti
it
u.i
jt.t
• i i
in
101
101
JI.4
11.1
10.1
11.4
It.l
' 14.1
ll.l
10.1
10TM. CVANM
1.10
O.IJ
O.ll
0 *l
O.tl
t.l
o to
0 U
0.11
044
o.tt
o.tt
O.tl
O.It
o.tt
O.tl
U
U
U
II
U
II
V
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
E-91
-------
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, .NC. SL'FErifVJ.VD SlTr:
METALS AND PESTICIDE IDENTIFIED
for EVALUATION in the
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
as
CONTAMINANTS of CONCERN
in
GROUNDWATER
%^$0?jj&tt&^%W£:£*
^FIBBUSItCKOK ii^^-PRACTCACS.::-- p'aANfiieoPOeTSCrSi;
••:::• oeTEcmo*tr;r;:i: cajA>irrrATic« UMITS i coNcarnMTioMC.^
<»OtWOWATE^t:6vwEtAC^f5S?rCS^CS«^^ • .'T .: ."'• ' ' " • '.
ALUMINUM'
ANTIMONY*
CADMIUM*
CHROMIUM2
IRON*
US AD*
MANGANgSc*
VANADIUM'
2NC*
6(6)
1(61
*tai
S!6)
Sffl)
5(61 .
9(81
5(81
6i6)
C5«X«OWATc3:;SHAa.
-------
TABLE 6-11
CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SITE
:-.K:O:/-^^:^y.wbstwepAT»«wor;- V ' ."• ":r.. '••'..•'.
OE3MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL • SUflrACS SOIL Afl£A 1
INGESTION OF SOIL • SURFACE SOIL AREA 1
OgrtMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL • SURFACE SOIL AR£A 2
INGSSTION OF SOIL • SURFACE SOIL AREA 2*
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SEDIMENT
INGESTION OF SEDIMENT
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNOWATER • LOWgS AQUIF5S
INGcSTION OF GaOUNOWATSS - LOWER ACUIF53
INHALATION OF FUGlTIVg OUST
TOTAL POPULATION CHRONtC HAZARD RISK ESTIMATE
?C«e*«*
5.0 £-2
2.0 £•!
1.0 z-Q
2.0 £-0
3.0 £-3
3.0 £-3
7.0 c-t
3.0 £-1
4.0 £-7
3.0 E-1
Kousnaju.
1-0 S-' 1 2.C £•;
i.O £-1
1.0 £-0
2.0 £-0
8.0 £-3
7.0 £-3
7.0 e-i
3.0 £ - !
4.0 £-7
3.0 E- 1
:.0 £•:
NA
.^A
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0 £-7
T.O E-1
NOTTS
NA • NOT APPLICABLE AS A RESULT OF NO EXPOSURE TO THIS SCENARIO.
FIGURF
-------
TABLE a-12
SUBCHF.ONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS SfTc
POPVtAT-iCN SUBSOStOHIC HAZAflC fCSK ESTWAT
r..:..-...;.:..;. _ .-\- viexrwwHe PATHWAY. •;;• •• .; ••• •
... ; / ... • : ' " .' . •
:.• '• ' •• -• .-• . " :.
C£SMAL CONTACT WITH SOL • Sw'R?*C2 SOIL A*£A 1
:NG=ST;SN c<= SOU. • sua.=3ACE sen. AREA i
CE3MAL CONTACT wtTH SOIL • SURrAC* SOIL Afl£> 1
iNGSSTiCN C? SOIL - SU'RFACS SOIL A«£A 2
06SMAL CONTACT WITH SSOIM6NT
INCcSTION CP ScOtMENT
OE3MAL CONTACT WITH CaOL'NCWATSa - SHALLOW AGUIFS3
oeaMAL CONTACT wirn caouNOWATsa • LOWES AGLUFSS
INCeSTION OF GROUNOWATcS - LOWES ACUIFiS
INHALATION CP rUGiTIVE OUST
OE^MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL • SUBSURFACE SOIL AR£A 1
OESMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL - SUBSURFACE SOIL AREA 2
OE3MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL • SUBSURFACE SOIL AftgA 3
CE3MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL - SUBSURPACS SOIL A*£A *
QE3MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL - SUBSURFACE SOIL AREA S
OE3MAL CONTACT WITH SOIL • SUBSURFACE SOIL ARfiA «
TOTAL POPULATION SUBCHRONtC HAZARD WO£X ESTIMATE
:. " ' c«t2«et i-«
• ** c •
s.: :•:
i.C £-C
7.C c-C
*.2 c-3
3.0 £-2
NA
i.O £-0
7.0 £-1
:.o --s
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.0 :-l
CSMktetCUi.;'
9.C ;•-
.Si A
' :.c £-:
NA
NA
.
2.0 £•: :
NA
NA
3.0 £-9
3.3 £-5
1.0 £-3 J
2.0 £-1
3.0 £-3
S.O £-5
0
*.0 s-2
NA • NOT A?P'JCA3LS AS A RESULT OF NO LX7CSLIRS TO THIS SCENARIO.
FIGURE 15
-------
~-3u= 5-: 2
GANGS' SISJC ES-.V
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS S,T=
?OPUVATX>* ?ATM
I ASWLTS--
SE3.MAU CONTACT WITH SOIU • SURPACi SCiU
A*£A 1
A'CeSTtCN Cr SC.'U • SwRrACS SCH. ASSA :
3E3.MAU CONTACT WITH SCIU • SUftPACS SCIU
AAEA Z
iNCSSTiCN CP SCIU • SURPACS-SCIU A«£A 1
QE3MAU CONTACT WITH ScDlMfi.NT
INGSSTION OP ScOlMSNT
CS3MAU CONTACT WITH GftQUNOWATSt •
SHAULCW ACUIP53
063MAU CONTACT WITH GAOUNOWATeS •
UOWO AaUlPM
JNG6ST10N OP GSOUNOWATW • UOWEA
AGuiPsa
INHAUATiON OP rOCmVg OUST
C63MAU CONTACT WITH SOIU • SUBSUR?AC3
son. AA&A t
CESMAU CONTACT WITH SOIL.- SUSSUXPACS
SOILAMftA Z
OCSMAU CONTACT WTTX SOU. • SUSSUnrACS
SOIU AACA 3
OE3MAU CONTACT WITH SOU. • SUttUftPAC.*
SOIU AREA A
CEAMAU CONTACT WITH SOIU - SUSSURPACS
SCIU AAEA S
OMMAU CONTACT WITH SOIU • SU8SURPAC5
SCIU AAEA 4
TpTAU ^OPUUATIC** CANCSS RISK sSTIMATS
A.S J-S
= : M
2.0 s--4
*.0 s-*
:.3 £-9
1.0 s-9
NA
0
0
1.0 MO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i.O :-!
2.3 £•«
S.3 £-5 i
:.= £- • i
:.c£--
S.3 £-3 .
7.0 £-9
NA
0
0
1.0 MO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5 3 s-l
:.:i-a
, : M
:.3S-s
1.C I-4
J.C £-10
. i.3 £-9
NA
0
0
!.0 £-t I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
! :.,-:.
:.= £,
*3!.i
.VA
' .MA
NA
.MA
NA
NA
MA
3.3 Ml
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.3 --S
i — li: —
i > - r .»
1 " •
1
1 '.i
1
i - ri
SA
NA
- = r:c
NA :
NA
1.3 *•:*
• «
1.2 £::3
l.Si-»
:.: £-s
3.: ! •:
:.: : '
,.:»
=.
r= r,,s SC3
-------
oritMIUAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND Si i =
ESTIMATED COSTS of REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Ausrnazive
GW2A
GW25
GW2C
GW2D
GW3
GW4
GW5
GWS
GW7
Caprral Ccs:
S 7,250
S545.S25
S3S3.501
SS52.£S1 .
S436.247
S443.4S7
5554,775
5225.447
5505,347
Tctal Q &.M '
3 2G'.f4i (15 yrs sarnpiinc)
S 'CO. 772 ("5 yrs sampiinc)
-Q.
-0-
51. 172,31 5 (10 yrs)
51, 141 .41 2 (10 yrs)
52,046.301 (10 yrs)
51 ,509.1 23(10 yrs)
55,553, 170 (10 yrs)
S 2CG.7r^
S c4£.5=7
S 3S3.501
+ Icng-csim ^cn?:cr:r.c
S 6c2.SSl
51,508.552
S1.584.SQ9
S2.S11.07S
S2;OS4,575
SS.C53.01 7
• Rfurut rmoruM*at yrie+trt wars
FIGURE 17
-------
GLOSSARY
Administrative Record
A file which contains all information used by the lead agency to make its decision on the selection
of a response action under CERCLA. This file is available for public review.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)
Section 121 (d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions meet legally ARARs of other
environmental laws. Legally "applicable" requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criceria or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site. "Relevant and
appropriate" requirements are those requirements that, while not legally applicable to the RA,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site that their use is
well suited to the RA.
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by federal or state governments ("to-
be-considered or TBCs") do not have the status of ARARs; however, where no ARARs exist, or
for some reason may not be sufficiently protective, non-promulgated advisories or guidance
documents may be considered in determining the necessary level of clean up for protection of
human health and the environment.
Aquifer
An underground rock formation composed of sand, soil, or gravel that can store and supply
groundwater to wells and springs. Most aquifers in the United States are within 1000 feet of the
earth's surface.
Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA)
The BRA is an analysis of the potential adverse health effects caused by hazardous substance
releases from a site in the absence of any actions to control or mitigate these releases. The BRA
assumes no corrective actin will take place and no site-use restrictions or institutional controls
such as fencing, groundwater use restrictions or construction restrictions will be imposed. There
are four steps in the BRA process: data collection and analysis; exposure assessment; toxicity
assessment; and risk characterization.
Cleanup
Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that could
affect public health and/or the environment. The term "cleanup" is used broadly to describe
phases of responses, such as the Remedial Design or Remedial Action (see separate entries).
-------
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act fCERCLA)
(also known as "Superfund")
A Federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) to investigate and clean up abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. The Acts created a tax placed on chemical and petroleum industries that provides
revenues to a Trust Fund. The Fund is used when those responsible for contamination at
Superfund sites cannot be found, or cannot perform or pay for the cleanup work.
Contaminants of Concern
Any of a number of organic compounds or inorganic substances that were detected at a
concentration near the current regulatory standard for that particular substance. The material
would be "of concern" because if the concentration increases enough to exceed the regulatory
limit, it could be a potential risk to human health or the environment.
Degradation
Worsening in quality or acceptability.
Dioiin Study
As part of its Dioxin Strategy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the
National Dioxin Study, an investigation in the 1980's to determine the extent of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) contamination in the environment. The EPA
categorized potential sites into groups called "Tiers" according to the operations that took place
at the location. For example, the Parsons site was grouped into Tier 3-Formulators, blenders and
packagers of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (2,4,5-TCP)-based pesticides.
Feasibility Study (FS1
Process of evaluating alternative methods for cleaning up a site. It generally is performed at the
same time as the Remedial Investigation (see separate entry}.
Groundwater
Water found beneath the eat ./s surface that fills pores between materials, such as sand, soil, or
gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient quantities that it can be used for drinking
water, irrigation, and other purposes.
Hazard Indei (HP
The HI, an expression of non-carcinogenic toxic effects, measures whether a person is being
exposed to adverse levels of non-carcinogens. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or
across multiple media. The HI for non-carcinogenic health risks is the sum of all contaminants for
a given scenario. Any HI value greater than 1.0 suggests that a non-carcinogen potentially
presents an unacceptable health risk.
-------
Hazardous Substance
Any material that poses a threat to public health and/or the environment. Typical hazardous
substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive.
Hvdraulicallv Downgradient
In the direction of lower water level elevation. Water would move toward this point from an
"upgradient" point.
Hvdraulicallv Upgradient
In the direction of increasing water level elevation.
Information Repository
A file containing current information, technical reports, and reference documents regarding a
Superfund site. It is usually located in a public building that is convenient for local residents, such
as a public school, city hall, or library.
Institutional Controls
Under CERCLA: Institutional Controls are actions taken that limit human activities at or near
facilities as a means to protect health and environment and assure the continued effectiveness of a
response other than engineered controls or actual hazardous materials cleanup. Institutional
Controls can be used in conjunction with engineered controls or actual cleanup. Examples include
notice letters, warning letters, deed restrictions, land use restrictions, land use agreements,
warning signs and local private well permitting policies.
Under Part 201: Institutional Controls under Part 201 are actions taken that adequately limit
human activities at or near facilities as a means to protect health and environment and assure the
continued effectiveness of a response other than engineered controls or actual hazardous materials
cleanup. Institutional Controls can be used in conjunction with engineered controls or actual
cleanup. However, the actions that constitute Institutional Controls under Part 201 are
significantly more limited in number and scope than under CERCLA. Mechanisms that may be
considered include an ordinance that prohibits the use of grounuwater or an aquifer in a manner or
to a degree that protects against unacceptable exposures as defined by the applicable cleanup
criteria. An ordinance that serves as an exposure control must be published and maintained in the
same manner as zoning ordinances and must include a requirement that the local unit of
government notify the department at least 30 days prior to adopting a modification to the
ordinance, or to the lapsing or revocation of the ordinance.
In-Situ Vitrification
An innovative soil remediation technology which electrically melts soil at high temperatures.
During the process most organic compounds are destroyed and inorganic materials are
permanently encapsulated into the solidified obsidian-like rock which forms upon cooling.
Lead
A heavy metal commonly found in soils near ore manufacturing plants. High levels of lead in the
human bloodstream can impair fetal development and negatively impact the central nervous
system, and tends to be correlated with lower intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in children
-------
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level: The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is
delivered to any user of a public water system. The MCLs are reviewed and updated by the
Office of Water; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal: A non-enforceable concentration of a drinking water
contaminant that is protective of adverse human health effects and allows an adequate margin of
safety.
Migrate
To move from one point to another, with the speed and direction determined by local conditions.
Monitoring Weils
Special wells drilled at specific locations on or off of a hazardous waste site where groundwater
can be sampled at selected depths and studied to determine the direction which groundwater
flows and the types and amounts of contaminants present.
National Contingency Plan WCPl
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The plan provides the
organizational structure and establishes procedures for responding to discharges and releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
National Priorities List (NPLi
The NPL is a published list of hazardous waste sites in the country that are eligible for extensive
long-term cleanup action under the Superfund program.
Non Time-Critical Removal (NTCR1
Removal response actions are actions taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
their contractors to address hazardous substances that are released or whenever there is a release
of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare. There are several categories of Removal Actions. A Non Time-Critical
Removal is a removal where, based on the site evaluation, the lead agency determines that a
removal action is appropriate and that there is a planning period of more than six months available
before on-site activities must begin.
Operation and Maintenance (QAM)
O & M activities are conducted at a site after it is cleaned up to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. 1994 PA 451. as
amended
Formerly known as Act 307, the Michigan Environmental Response Act.
-------
Parts Per Billion (nobl / Parts Per Million f nnml
Units of measurement commonly used to express low concentrations of contaminants. For
example, a drop of contaminant mixed in a competition-size pool would represent about 1 ppb of
the contaminant.
Record of Decision
A public document that explains the cleanup method that will be used at a Superfund site. The
ROD is based on technical data gathered and analyses performed during the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (see separate entries), as well as public comments and
community concerns.
Remedial Action fRAl
The RA phase is the actual construction or implementation of the cleanup method. It follows the
Remedial Design (see separate entry) of the selected cleanup alternative at a Superfund site.
Remedial Design (RD1
The RD is an engineering phase during which technical drawings and specifications are developed
for the selected cleanup remedy that will be implemented during the subsequent Remedial Action
phase (see separate entry) at a Superfund site.
Remedial Investigation (RH
The RI is an analysis phase, during which and investigation is conducted including assessments
and numerous studies into the nature and extent of the contamination on site. During the RI data
is collected through sampling and monitoring to characterize the site. It generally is performed at
the same time as the Feasibility Study (see separate entry). Ultimately, the information gathered
will help to evaluate cleanup alternatives.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS1
The RI and FS are typically referred to together as often they are performed at the same time.
The P: portion of the study examines the nature and extent of the contamination; the FS considers
and evaluates different methods to address or resolve the contamination problems or conditions
found during the RI.
Responsiveness Summary
A summary of oral and/or written public comments received during a public comment period on
key documents prepared by the EPA or state, agency and the agency's responses to those
comments. A responsiveness summary is required as part of a Record of Decision (see separate
entry) at Superfund sites.
Superfund
The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and
Liability Act (see separate entry)
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization /\ct (SARA)
Modification to CERCLA enacted on October 17, 1986
-------
Surface Water
Bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams.
Volatile Organic Compound fVOO
An organic (carbon containing) compound that evaporates (volatilizes) readily at room
temperature.
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDliX
PARSONS CHKMiCAL WORKS, INC. SUPIiRh'UNI) SITI:
GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN
DATE
8/9/74
8/1 3/75
.Vl/79
5/7/79
H/7/79
6/26/80
2716/81
5/4/82
2/14/83
12/6/K4
5/6/85
5/14/85
5/23/85
HMnMK9HfflQnH^^§t^^K^^8%
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
Parsons Chemical Sampling Data
Memo re: results of samples collected
near Parsons
Tdeconre: Anonymous Up
Idler re: Sanitary Survey -Oneida
Township, Eaton County
Letter re: Pareons Chemical Co. -
Mercury in runoff
Letter re: Fluid Discharge from Ground
to Grand River
Pkue 1 Hydrogeologic Investigation
Proposed Work Plan for Removal of
Contaminated Soils
Interim Report Phase HI Hydrogeologic
Investigation
PKliminary Assessment
I xttcr re: Parsons Chemical Tier 3
D»oxin Study Site
Request for immediate removal
Letter re: Site Contamination
tf*KflOE>*A'ttlu^v/iffiftSH tffiffiC&slifcjS
AUTHOR
MDNR
Jim Miller, MDNR
Karl Zollner, Jr., MDNR
John Cosens, MDNR
Frank Baldwin, MDNR
James Kent, MDPH
KECK
KECK
KECK
MDNR - tiarry-t-aton
CHD & Company
Contractor
Barb Grabowski, MDNR
Andrew Hogarth, MDNR
Robert Bowden, U.S.
F.PA
X^MH^£9ffiK^£^9
RECIPIENT
MDNR
Jim Rossio, MDNR
Andrew Hogarth, MDNR
Al Howard, MDNR
Jack Bails, MDNR
Durwood Zank, Barry-Eaton
CHD
MDNR
MDNR, HTM Enterprises,
Inc.
William Iverson. MDNR
MDNR
Andrew Hogarth, MDNR
Richard Bartelt, U.S. EPA
Andrew Hofutri. MDNR
f 1WtfJB; L'tttV-mSSf'S^la^U1*!
m»^M*^f:?^''-&$.
LOCATION
tafnnnrtion Repotllor)1
AdmM&htlive Record
lnfaim*k» Repository
AdnimiktrMne Recoid
infurawbun Rcpo»bx>
AJniinfalMlJvc Rcuuid
Infonnaricii Repoaatoty
Ajdminnfa^ivc Kccutd
InfcflMUoo RepueMui)
AdminimaJlve Hccotd
lafcfiMtion Rcpojilory
Ae Record
Infomtation Repository
AdutiniMrjIivc RcuxO
tefoRiulion ReposMofy
AdninittmliM: Rtcocd
Iniomution RepMitorr
AdmUstntive Kcctxd
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPURKUND SITU
GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN
DATE
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
LOCATION
6/5/85
Request for assistance
Andrew Hogarth, MDNR
Richard Bartelt, U.S. EPA
InTuflMfon Repository
AdmlohinohM Record
6/17/85
Interview Notes & Site Inspection
Notes
Richard Dagnall, E & E
File
bfoflMtign Rcpotibiry
Administrative Record
5/6/86
5/28/86
She Inspection Report
E&E
Pat Donovan, Barry-Eaton
CHD
MbfnatkMt Repot Itory
Adminbuaih*
Final report on tier 3 dioxin screening
E&E
U.S. EPA
AUrolnuir*i*c Rrcmd
7/23/86
Letter reviewing "tier 3 dioxin
screening" report
Thomas Rohrcr, MDNR
Gary Klepper, MDNR
Repository
Adminblnlte Reword
8/8/86
Letter re: Former Parson Chemical
Sic, Katon County
Danid Cummins. MDNR
David Mohnke, ETM
Enterprises, Inc.
InflMnaOcw Kcpusluxy
1/16/87
Letter re: construction and site study
request
Patrick Donovan, Barry-
Eaton CHD
Daniel Cummins, MDNR
bifbnMtfkw Repository
AdmioblrMKre ftcconJ
Tbe National Dioxin Study Tiers 3,5,6,
&7 -excerpts
U.S. EPA
Various
M Repcuilwy
AdminWriiive Record
3/4/87
Toxicological FA'aluation of Dioxins,
Pesticides and Metals Data
KirpalSidhu.MDPlI
Nancy Rotlscafcr, MDNR
Administrative Record
2/2/89
l;cih Consumption Advisory Below the
Pirsons Chemical Site
George Jackson, MDNR
Deborah Larseii, MDNR
InfocmMxMi Repoubxy
Admlnbir«ive Rceunl
4/89
Eagioccring Evaluation and Cost
Analysis
U.S. EPA
MDNR
RcpoMtoc)
Adkninulnlhre Record
5/4/89
MDNR Borings
Deborah Larsen, MDNR
John Rodwan, MDNR
Repoiitocy
Adraiobimhre Rcoird
7/31/89
Soil cleanup levels for contaminants
MDNR
U.S. EPA
lnftmali
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN
RECIPIENT
1XKTATION
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
Issues at she
InnmnaitM Kcpofitoiy
Admmisintive Record
MDNR
US EPA
InRNimaion Repotltory
AAtunUlMlivc Rtconl
Fish contaminant Monitoring
Ir.-Situ Vitrification Removal at
Pirsons Chemical Site
Interested Parties
Separate
Administrative
Record Exists.
Sec NOTE**
5/93
2/92
Sunpling Data & Chain of Custody
ftmns
Health and Safety Plan
Various CLP labs
Halliburton NUS
MDNR
MDNR
MDEQ
9/92
Work Plan
Phase 1
Halliburton NUS
MDNR
trfuwtion ftepos iKKy
11/92
11/92"
Phase I Quality Assurance Project Plan
Revision 2
Halliburton NUS
MDNR
Field Sampling Plan
Phase I
Halliburton NUS
MDNR
AdmtnisMtiw Record
Information Kepoutory
Administrative Record
lufumvMiuii Rcpusteiy
6/94
Vork Plan
Phased
Brown & Root
Div. of Halliburton NUS
MDNR
taforMMion Rcpuihwy
6/94
12/94
Hiase II Quality Assurance Project Plan
Revision 3
Brown & Root
Div. of Halliburton NUS
MDNR
Field Sampling Plan
Phased
Brown & Root
Div. of Halliburton NUS
MDNR
Vork Plan
Phase 1IA
Brown & Root
Div. of Halliburton NUS
MDEQ
Admlnbtmivc Ke«onl
Ufunnaliun Kepof itor>'
AdministtMlvc Retord
Inromution Kqwutory
lnform«io«
-------
ADMIN1STRATTVK RliCORD INDF.X
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
GRAND LEIXiB, MICHIGAN
DATE
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
LOCATION
1-96
1/96
1/92
5/96"
3!
8-97
REMEDIAL INVRSTIGA DON
REPORT-final volumes 1-8
Brown & Root
Div. of Halliburton NUS
MDEQ
Feasibility Study Report-final
volumes 1-3
ARAK's summary Volume 1 RI/FS
Report
Brown & Root
Environmental
Brown & Root
Environmental
MDEQ-formcrly MDNR
MDEQ
Infcrnution Repository
AdMfctntiwe Mount
hforaMtion Repository
AdmablralUc Rcoonl
Proposed Plan
Comment Letter
MDEQ
U.S. EPA
Community/Mailing List
MM
MDEQ
Repmltmy
AdminutMtirc Record
3/29/89 Letter re: MDNR's position on ETM'i
liibility
12/11/86
Newspaper Article
Editor, Grand Ledge
Independent
Marjorie Mohnke, ETM
Enterprises
Community
Inbnrartion RqwsiMy
Adnioi
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC SUPER-FUND S1TI:
GRAND UiDGK, MICHIGAN
DATE
1/92
2/9/93
2/9/93
2/18/93
2/23/91
3/12/93
7/7/94
7/26/94
3/19/%
5/1 4/%
6/1 1/%
7/%
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
Community Relations Plan
Progress Report #1
Public Notice of Information Meeting •
Grand l
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPKKFUND SITE
GRAND LEDGE, MICHIGAN
DATE | TITLE/DESCRIPTION
I AUTHOR
| RECIPIENT
I LOCATION
5/14/92
8/22/96
12/29/80
04-04-84
1980
Interim Preliminary Public Health
Assessment for Parsons Chemical
S»perfuud She
Health Consultation
MDPH
MDCH
Division of Health Risk
Assessment
Deborah Larsen, MDNR
Deborah Larsen, MDEQ
Interim Guidelines & specifications for
pjeparing Quality Assurance Project
Pbns
Pieparation of Stale -Lead Remedial
Investigation Quality Assurance Project
Plans for Region V ;
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Acl(CERCLA) Supedund
U.S. EPA
U.S. liPA
Various
Various
liiKvnMinn Repontory
Adniiittrilifc Record
Informarioa Repository
MDEQ. U.S. EPA
MDEQ, U.S. EPA
MI)EQ,U.S.EPA
1986
10/88
Supcrfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)
U.S. EPA
Various
Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations & Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA
u.s. EPA
Various
MDEQ, US. EPA
MDEQ, U.S. EPA
6/95
Put 201 of the Natural Resources and
favironmental Protection Act, 1994,
FA 451, as amended (formerly known
as (lie Michigan Environmental
Response Act)
State of Michigan
Various
MDEQ
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND S1TK
GRAND LKDGK, MICHIGAN
DATE
Til LtVDESCRlPTlON
AUTHOR
RECIPIENT
LOCATION
6/92
revised
.V93
11/22/93
6/05/95
1G/I3/V5
2/96
G lifelines for die Protection
ard Management of Aquatic Sediment
Quality in Ontario
D. Persaud, R. Jaagumagi
and A. Hayton
Water Resources Branch
Ontario Ministry of the
Environment
Various
MDEQ
Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediment
New York Stale
Department of
Knvironmental
Conservation
Div. of Fish and Wildlife
Div. of Marine Resources
Various
MDEQ
Interim Enviromncnlal Response
Division Operational Memorandum #8
(ieneric Residential Cleanup Criteria
MDNR at time of writing
Currently MDEQ
Various
MDEQ
Environmental Response Division
Operational Memorandum Revision 2:
Remedial Action Plans Using Generic
Industrial or Generic Commercial
Cleanup Criteria and Other
Requirements
MDNR at time of writing
Currently MDEQ
Various
MDF.Q
Memorandum from Michigan
Department of Public Health to
Michigan Department of Environmental
(Jualily
Richard t Bcn/ie, P.H.
Supervising District
Engineer
Drinking Water Regulations and Health
Advisories
Office of Water U.S. IvPA
Washington, DC
Deborah Larxen
Project Manager
Environmental Response
Div.
Various
MDEQ
MDEQ
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPKRFUND SITE
GRAND LKDGK, MICJIIGAN
DATE
7/88
7/88
TITLE/DESCRIPTION
Guide to Developing Superfund
Proposed Plans
Guide to Developing Superfund
Records of Decision
AUTHOR
U.S. HPA
RECIPIENT
Various
LOCATION
MUfcQ. U.S. tPA
-------
ADMINISTRATIVF. RHCORI) INDF.X
PARSONS CHF.MICAI. WORKS, INC. SUIM-RFUNI) SI IK
GRAND LKDGE, MICHIGAN
Acronyms Used:
MDKQ: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDNR: Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MDFH: Michigan Department of Public Health
MIX'}!: Michigan Department of Community Health
CHD: County Health Department
CI.P: Contract Laboratory Program
U.S. EPA ir.S.-Environmental Protection Agency
E & F: Ecology & Environment, Inc.
ARAKs: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
OR WOULD LIKR TO REVIEW THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ANALYTICAL DATA,
CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS OR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT THE SITE PROJECT MANAGFR
MSTHD BHLOW.
MDEQ CONTACT
Ms. Deborah Larsen
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Response Division
Superfund Section
POBox30426
Lansing, Michigan 48933
517-373-4825
Updated 09-29-97
------- |