PB95-963801
EPA/ROD/R02-95/244
July 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
GCL Tie & Treating, Inc.
OU2, Sidney, Delaware County, NY
3/31/95
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Operable Unit 2
GCL Tie & Treating
Sidney, Delaware County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
March 1995
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
GCL Tie & Treating
Sidney, Delaware County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of the remedial action for
the GCL Tie & Treating site (the Site) in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. §§9601-9675 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. An
administrative record for the Site, established pursuant to the
NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the documents that form the basis
for EPA's selection of the remedial action (see Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has been consulted on the planned remedial .action in
accordance with section 121(f) of.CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(f), and
concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV) contingent
upon further concurrence based on any changes made to the
selected remedy during the remedial design.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public- health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy pertains to the last of two operable units
for the Site and addresses the non-GCL property soils,
contaminated groundwater, and surface-water sediments located at
the GCL Site. The first operable unit addressed the
contamination in the GCL-property soils.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Extraction, collection, and on-site treatment of groundwater
contaminated with organic compounds; discharge of treated
groundwater to the surface water. The selected remedy
provides two options for primary treatment of organics:
carbon adsorption or biological treatment.
-------
Information will be obtained during the remedial design to
reassess the time frame and technical practicability of
achieving State and Federal drinking water standards in the
aquifer. Should the remedial design data indicate that
groundwater restoration through extraction and treatment is
feasible and practical, additional work will be conducted to
determine which groundwater treatment option (carbon
adsorption or biological treatment) is more appropriate and
cost-effective. If groundwater restoration is not feasible
or practical, the remedy will focus on containing the
groundwater contamination within the GCL-property boundaries
in which case chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for all
or some portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impacticability of achieving further contamination reduction
within a reasonable time frame. Under such a scenario, it
may be determined that natural attenuation or enhanced
biodegradation (e.g.. introduction of air to increase the
rate of biodegradation) would be able to reduce the
concentration of contaminants in the aquifer groundwater to
levels which are similar to those achievable under
extraction and treatment, but at a lower cost. Such
information would be utilized during the remedial design to
maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the system;
and,
• Excavating and treating contaminated sediments on-site
through a thermal desorption process along with the GCL-
property soils. The selected remedy will also provide for
the mitigation of damages to the aquatic environment which
may occur during implementation (i.e.. revegetation).
In addition, EPA will recommend to local agencies that
institutional control measures be undertaken to ensure that
future land use of the property continues to be
industrial/commercial, and precludes the use of Site groundwater
for human consumption until drinking water quality is restored in
the aquifer.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions
set forth in Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621 as: (1) it
is protective of human health and the environment; (2) it attains
a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances,
pollutants and contaminants, which at least attains the legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) under
State and Federal laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and (5)
it satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at a site.
-------
A review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA §121(c), 42
U.S.C. §9621(c), will be conducted five years after the
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the
environment, because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels.
Jeanne
Regiona
M. Jfox. s^
L/Adminj^^ra
rator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Operable Unit 2
GCL Tie & Treating
Sidney, Delaware County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
March 1995
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
.TABLE 9
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF NON-GCL PROPERTY SOIL ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUMMARY OF SURFACE-WATER SEDIMENTS ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN USED IN THE RISK
ASSESSMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
TOXICITY DATA FOR CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC
RISK EVALUATION
CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC RISK LEVELS
LIST OF ARARs AND TBCs
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SELECTED
REMEDY
IV
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The GCL Tie and Treating site (the Site) occupies approximately
60 acres in an industrial/commercial area of Delaware County, New
York (see Figure 1). According to an analysis of historical
photographs conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and accounts by local residents, wood-preserving activities
at the Site date as far back as the 1940's.
The Site is bordered on the north by a railroad line. A
warehouse and a municipal airport are located to the north of the
railroad line. Route 8 and Delaware Avenue delineate the eastern
and southern borders of the Site, respectively. A drainage ditch
(Unalam Tributary) and woodland area lie between Delaware Avenue
and the Site. The western portion of the property abuts a small
impoundment and wetlands area. The Site eventually drains via
overland flow to the Susquehanna River, which is located within
one mile of the Site.
The Site includes two major areas, generally referred to as the
"GCL property" and "non-GCL property" (see Figure 2). The 26-
acre GCL property housed a wood-treating facility called GCL Tie
& Treating, and includes four structures. The primary building
housed the wood pressure treatment operations including two
treatment vessels (50 feet in length,by 7 feet in diameter), an
office, and a small laboratory. Wood (mostly railroad ties) and
creosote were introduced into the vessels which were subsequently
pressurized in order to treat the wood. The remaining three
structures housed a sawmill and storage space. The non-GCL
portion of the Site includes two active light manufacturing
companies (which did not conduct wood treatment operations)
located on a parcel of land adjacent to the GCL property.
Approximately 1,100 people are employed in a nearby industrial
area. About 5,000 people live within 2 miles of the Site and
depend on groundwater as their potable water supply. The nearest
residential well is within 0.5 mile of the Site. Two municipal
wells, supplying the Village of Sidney, are located within 1.25
miles of the Site. A shopping plaza consisting of fast-food
restaurants and several stores is located approximately 300 feet
south of the Site. Other facilities (i.e.f a hospital, public
schools, senior citizen housing, and child care centers) are
located within 2 miles of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Site first came to the attention of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1986, after
one of the pressure vessels used at the ,GCL facility
malfunctioned, causing a release of an estimated 30,000 gallons
of creosote. GCL personnel excavated the contaminated surface
soil and placed it in a mound; no further action was undertaken
-------
at the time.
In September 1990, NYSDEC requested EPA to conduct a removal
assessment at the Site. Consequently, EPA conducted sampling of
the GCL Tie and Treating facility in October 1990. As a result
of the data and information that were obtained as part of the
assessment, a Removal Action was initiated by EPA in March 1991.
Activities conducted as part of the removal effort included: site
stabilization (e.g.. run-off and dust control), delineation of
surface contamination, installation of a chain-link fence,
identification and disposal of containerized (e.g.. tanks, drums)
and uncontainerized hazardous wastes (e.g.. wastes in sumps);
preparation of approximately 6,000 cubic yards (cy) of
contaminated soil and wood debris for disposal; and a pilot study
to determine the effectiveness of composting for bioremediation
of creosote-contaminated soils.
The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in February 1994 and was added to the NPL in May 1994.
In September 1994, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for the
first operable unit which called for the excavation and on-site
treatment of approximately 36,100 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and debris by a thermal desorption process.
EPA has been conducting a search for potentially responsible
parties (PRPs). To date, only one PRP has been identified and
notified of his potential liability under CERCLA; however, this
PRP was not considered to be a viable candidate to undertake the
necessary response actions. If EPA determines that there are one
or more viable PRPs, EPA will take appropriate enforcement
actions to recover its response costs pursuant to CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9601 - 9675.
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Remedial Investigation (RI) report and the Proposed Plan for
the Site were released to the public for comment on March 1,
1995. These documents were made available to the public in the
administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II,
in New York City and the information repository at the Sidney
Memorial Library in Sidney, NY. The notice of availability of
the above-referenced documents was published in the Oneonta Daily
Star on March 1, 1995. The public comment period on these
documents was held from March 1, 1995 to March 30, 1995.
On March 8, 1995, EPA and NYSDEC conducted a public meeting at
the Civic Center in Sidney, NY to inform local officials and
interested citizens about the Superfund.process, to review
current and planned remedial activities at the site, and to
respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
-------
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in
writing during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V) .
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The GCL Tie & Treating site was selected as a pilot project for
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) initiative. The
purpose of SACM is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and
efficient. Under this pilot, activities which would normally
have been performed sequentially (e.g.f site assessment, NPL
placement, removal assessment) were performed concurrently. In
June 1993, while attempting to determine if the Site would score
high enough for inclusion on the NPL, EPA initiated RI/FS
activities to delineate further the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site. These activities would not typically
have been initiated until after the Site had been proposed for
the NPL.
Site remediation activities are sometimes segregated into
different phases, or operable units, so that remediation of
different environmental media or areas of a site can proceed
separately, resulting in an expeditious remediation of the entire
site. EPA has designated two operable units for the GCL Tie &
Treating site as described below. .
»• Operable unit 1 addresses the remediation of contaminated
soils found on the GCL-property portion of the Site via thermal
desorption. This operable unit is currently in the remedial
design phase.
>• Operable unit 2 addresses the contamination in the soils on
the remainder of the Site (non-GCL property), and in the
groundwater, surface water, and surface-water sediments. This is
the final operable unit planned for this Site and the subject of
this ROD.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of contamination found at the Site were
assessed through a comprehensive sampling of soil, groundwater,
surface water, and surface-water sediment. Sampling was
conducted during the Fall/Winter of 1993. The investigation
focussed on contaminants typically associated with the creosote
wood-preserving process. Creosote contaminants typically found
included numerous polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as
benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo
[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[l,2,3-c,d] pyrene and
dibenzo[a,h]anthracene.
The following paragraphs discuss the characterization of
contamination in the operable unit 2 study area, namely, in the
-------
groundwater, surface water, surface-water sediments, and non-GCL
property soils.
Soils
Approximately 130 soil samples were collected from monitoring-
well and soil borings drilled on the GCL property and on the non-
GCL property. Samples also were collected at off-site locations
to provide information on background conditions. Table 1
summarizes the analytical results for the soil samples collected
on the non-GCL property. In general, relatively low levels of
contaminants were detected with total PAHs ranging up to 24 parts
per million (ppm). Generally, the concentrations of metals
detected ori-site were not significantly above background
concentration ranges with the exception of beryllium (up to 3.2
ppm), copper (up to 176 ppm) and lead (up to 46 ppm), which were
above their representative background concentrations of 0.6 ppm,
26.2 ppm and 11.2 ppm, respectively.
Surface Water
Surface water samples and sediments were collected at 7 locations
along the drainage ditch and the impoundment. Table 3 summarizes
the analytical results. Of the 14 inorganics detected in the
surface water samples, only arsenic (up to 11.4 parts per billion
[ppb]), copper (up to 35.2 ppb) and nickel (up to 19.6 ppb)
significantly exceeded State or Federal ambient water quality .
standards. The only organic contaminant detected was
chloroethane at a level of 12 ppb.
Surface-Water Sediments
Elevated PAH concentrations were detected at 3 of the 7 sediment
sampling locations along the drainage ditch and the impoundment
along the western side of the Site. Table 2 summarizes the
analytical results. The extent of contamination (see Figure 3)
is approximately 2,850 feet in length, 1.5 feet in width and 0.5
feet in depth in the tributary, as well as a 5-foot wide strip
along the edge of the impoundment. PAHs were detected in these
areas with total concentrations ranging up to 23,850 ppb. The
PAH contamination detected in the unconsolidated sediments is
most likely attributed to runoff from the Site soils. Arsenic
(up to 16,400 ppb), copper (up to 51,900 ppb), lead (up to 70,200
ppb), manganese (up to 547,000 ppb), mercury (up to 690 ppb),
nickel (up to 43,600 ppb), and zinc (up to 173,000) were detected
in concentrations which exceeded their respective sediment
criteria values. However, arsenic, copper, manganese, nickel,
and zinc were detected at concentrations relatively equivalent to
their respective background levels. The relatively elevated
concentrations of these metals could be attributed to regional
background variations or from off-site sources, as these
contaminants are not typically associated with the wood-
-------
preserving operations conducted at the Site.
Groundwater
Site-specific geology within the GCL property is characterized by
a layer of fill approximately 5 feet thick on the western portion
of the Site which gradually decreases to approximately 2 to 3
feet on the eastern section of the GCL property. The fill
consists predominantly of silt and clay with significant amounts
of wood and assorted debris. The fill is underlain by silt and
clay type soils.
There are two hydrogeologic systems consisting of the overburden
and bedrock units. The overburden unit can be further divided
into shallow (approximately 5 to 16 feet in depth) and
intermediate (approx. 11 to 25 feet in depth) groundwater zones.
Groundwater is first encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 8
feet below grade around the Site. As a general rule, groundwater
flow in the overburden aquifer appears to be in a north-
northwesterly direction; groundwater movement in the bedrock
appears to be in a northerly direction. Permeability of the
overburden and bedrock soils is relatively low; groundwater flow
through the bedrock aquifer occurs primarily through fractures.
Six previously existing groundwater monitoring wells and 14 new
wells were sampled during the RI. Two rounds of samples were
collected and analyzed for a full range of organic and inorganic
constituents. Table 4 summarizes the analytical results. The
data in Table 4 indicate the contaminants associated with the GCL
site wells influenced by the Route 8 Landfill contamination
(column 3 of the table) and the GCL Site wells not influenced by
the Route 8 Landfill contamination (column 4 of the table). Two
main groups of organic compounds were found in the groundwater
above drinking water standards, namely, PAHs and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Referring to column 4, PAHs, including
benzo[b]fluoranthene (up to 3 ppb - drinking water standard of
0.2 ppb), benzo[a]pyrene (up to 2 ppb - drinking water standard
of 0.2 ppb), chrysene (up to.4 ppb - drinking water standard of
0.2 ppb) and benzene (220 ppb - drinking water standard of 5 ppb)
significantly exceeded drinking water standards, and are the same
type of contaminants as those found in high concentrations in the
Site soils. Referring to column 3, chlorinated VOCs such as
vinyl chloride (up to 4,700 ppb - drinking water standard of 2
ppb), 1,1-dichloroethane (up to 1,200 ppb - drinking water
standard of 5 ppb), cis-l,2-dichloroethene (up to 4,300 ppb -
drinking water standard of 70 ppb), and trichloroethene (up to
1,000 ppb - drinking water standard of 5 ppb) were also found at
concentrations exceeding the drinking water standards, however,
they are most likely not related to the .activities that took
place at the GCL site. It is likely that these chlorinated VOCs
originated from the Route 8 Landfill, located across from
Delaware Avenue and hydraulically upgradient from the GCL Site.
-------
The data obtained during the RI suggest that the contaminant
plume originating at the Route 8 Landfill extends beneath much of
the GCL Site. Currently, the Route 8 site is being remediated
under the New York State hazardous waste remediation program; a
groundwater collection and treatment system designed to address
the groundwater contamination was constructed and recently
started operation.
Aluminum (up to 6,210 ppb), iron (up to 37,600 ppb), manganese
(up to 17,300), antimony (up to 44.3 ppb), chromium (up to 166
ppb), and nickel (up to 131 ppb) were detected in groundwater
samples in concentrations significantly above drinking water
standards. However, the presence of most of these metals at
elevated concentrations in background and off-site wells is
potentially indicative of background levels and/or off-site
sources.
It is estimated that the GCL contaminant plume extends over an
area of approximately 173,500 square feet (see Figure 4) with a
thickness of approximately 45 feet. The volume of contaminated
water which exceeds drinking water standards is estimated at 10
million gallons.
During the RI, a creosote product layer (referred as dense
nonaqueous phase liquid [DNAPL]) was discovered in the shallow
groundwater, in a localized area near the wood treatment/process
buildings. DNAPLs are heavier than water, and have a tendency to
sink. PAH compounds, which are the principal components of
creosote, are extremely immobile and tend to attach to the
aquifer soil particles rather than move with the groundwater.
The DNAPL appears to be perched on many thin soil layers rather
than in a single well-defined pool. It is estimated that the
DNAPL.layer ranged from 1 to 2 feet in thickness, and contained
concentrations of PAHs in excess of 8,000 ppm. The volume of the
DNAPL layer is estimated at 10,000 to 30,000 gallons. The data
suggest that the DNAPL layer is contained within the property
boundaries. DNAPLs constitute a highly significant source of
soil and groundwater contamination at the Site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future Site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
the human health and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the Site, if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the
-------
site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates -
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the
frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways
(e_._g. , ingesting contaminated soil) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicitv Assessment—determines the types
of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and
the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization—
summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related
risks.
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the GCL property in its current state. The Risk Assessment
focused on contaminants in the soil, surface water, surface-water
sediments, and groundwater which are likely to pose significant
risks to human health and the environment. A summary of the
contaminants of potential concern in sampled matrices is listed
in Table 5.
An exposure assessment was conducted for reasonable maximum
exposures to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
actual and/or potential exposures to the contaminants of
potential concern present in the sampled media. Reasonable
maximum exposure is defined as the highest exposure that is
reasonably expected to occur at the Site for individual and
combined pathways. The baseline risk assessment evaluated the
current health effects which could potentially result from
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact of soils, and ingestion
and dermal contact of surface water and surface-water sediments
by Site trespassers; ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact of
groundwater by off-site residents; the ingestion and inhalation
of soils by.off-site residents; and ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation of soils by workers (see Table 6). These exposure
pathways were evaluated separately for adults and children. The
future-use scenario evaluated the same scenarios and also
evaluated the potential health impacts resulting from ingestion,
inhalation and direct contact to soil by future on-site workers.
Site-related and nonsite related fe.g.. Route 8 Landfill)
potential health threats were evaluated. The property is
currently zoned for industrial/commercial use only. Input from
the community and local officials, indicated that
industrial/commercial use of the property would be the preferred
use of the property in the future. Therefore, it was assumed
that future land uses of the property would continue to be
industrial/commercial.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
-------
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual compounds of concern were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern.
Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern
are presented in Table 7.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1CT4 to 10"6 to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
conditions at the Site. The total potential current and future
carcinogenic health risks for all pathways are summarized in
Table 8. The total potential current and future carcinogenic
health risks from exposure to non-GCL property soil are: 9.2 x
10"6 for off-site children residents, 3.9 x 10"6 for off-site adult
residents, 1.4 x 10"5 for on-site workers, 4 x 10"6 for children
trespassers, and 4.2 x 10"6 for adult trespassers. The potential
carcinogenic health risks from exposure to surface water is 3.5 x
10"6 and 1.7 x 10"5 for children and adult trespassers,
respectively. For surface-water sediments, the risk is 1 x 1CT5
for both children and adult trespassers. The site groundwater is
not currently being used for human consumption, however, under a
hypothetical future use scenario the potential carcinogenic
health risk due to exposure to contaminated groundwater was
calculated. For future children and adult residents the total
potential risk (from site-related and upgradient contaminant
sources) is 1.1 x 10'1 and 1.4 x 10'1, respectively. For site-
related groundwater contamination only, the potential risks for
future children and adult residents are 2.8 x 1CT4 and 2.4 x 1CT3.
These risk numbers mean that approximately three persons out of
ten thousand and two persons out of one thousand respectively,
would potentially be at risk of developing cancer if exposed to
site-related contaminated groundwater over a lifetime.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
8
-------
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligrams/kilogram-day (mg/kg-day), are estimates, of daily
exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a
lifetime (including sensitive individuals). The reference doses
for the compounds of concern at the Site are presented in Table
7. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media
(e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is
obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media that impact a particular receptor population. An HI
greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media.
It can be seen from Table 8 that the His for noncarcinogenic
effects from ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact to all
media (reasonable maximum exposure) are less than 1.0 for all
receptors, except for exposure to groundwater (up to HI=497) and
exposure to surface water under current and future uses (up to
HI=6).
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Problem Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of
concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological
effects of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints for
further study. Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of
exposure pathways and receptors; and measurement or estimation of
exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment—
literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking
contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological receptors.
Risk Characterization—measurement or estimation of both current
and future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with evaluating the contami-
nants associated with the Site in conjunction with the site-
specific biological species/habitat information. Principal
ecological communities at the Site consist of a deciduous wetland
area within the southern portion of the -Site (Unalam tributary),
and an emergent wetland/open water complex (impoundment) to the
west of the Site (see Figure 2). The wetland areas support a
wide array of animal species, including 5 mammal species, 3 frog
. 9
-------
species, and 17 bird species.
This risk assessment evaluated the Site ecological communities
and their responses to toxicological exposures. The threat of
lethal accumulations of contaminants in plant and animal
populations was evaluated. The results of the ecological risk
assessment indicate the potential for ecological impacts due to
the presence of PAH contamination in the surface water and
sediments of the Unalam Tributary, drainage ditches, wetlands and
pond. Since both aquatic plants and invertebrates form a portion
of the diets of wading birds and waterfowl, their diet poses a
potential exposure route. Although adult mallard ducks subjected
to dietary exposure of levels similar to those found on Site
displayed no toxic effects, studies have shown significant
mortality and deformities in mallard embryos and ducklings
following exposure to similar levels of PAHs. Therefore,
ingestion by breeding adult waterfowl may affect nesting success
in the wetland habitats present on and adjacent to the Site.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
environmental parameter .measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to.low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
. 10
-------
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment Report.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based
levels established in the risk assessment.
The following remedial action objectives were established:
>• Prevent public and biotic exposure to contaminant sources
that present a significant threat (contaminated groundwater and
surface-water sediments); and,
*•' Reduce the concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater
to levels which are protective of human health and the
environment (e.g.. wildlife).
> Prevent further migration of groundwater contamination.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(l) of CERCLA,.42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), mandates that
a remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions
which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants at a site.
Section 121(d) of CERCLA 42, U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies
that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of control
of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which
at least attains ARARs under State and Federal laws, unless a
waiver can be justified pursuant to Section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA,
42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
11
-------
In the spirit of the SACM initiative and relying on the Agency's
technology selection guidance for wood-treating sites, EPA
considered technologies which have been consistently selected at
wood-preserving sites with similar characteristics (e.g.. types
of contaminants present, types of disposal practices,
environmental media affected) during the development of remedial
alternatives. As referenced below, the time to implement a
remedial alternative reflects only the time required to construct
or implement the remedy and does not include the time required to
design the remedy, negotiate with responsible parties, procure
contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation and
maintenance at the Site.
The alternatives developed for groundwater (GW) are discussed
below.
Alternative 1: No Action
Capital Cost: Not Applicable
O & M Cost: $27,200 for biannual monitoring
$20,000 each five-year review
Present Worth Cost: $380,700 (over 30 years)
Implementation Time: Not Applicable
The Superfund program requires that the No Action alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
The No Action alternative for the contaminated groundwater would
only include a long-term monitoring program. The contaminated
groundwater and DNAPL present in the subsurface would be left to
naturally attenuate without any treatment. The long-term
monitoring program would consist of semiannual sampling for PAHs
at existing wells on-site and around the Site. A 30-year
monitoring period was assumed for estimating the cost of this
alternative. A total of six existing monitoring wells would be
utilized to sample the groundwater to determine whether the
concentrations of the contaminants of concern have been lowered
to cleanup levels through natural attenuation and to monitor the
migration of contaminants and free-phase DNAPL in areas
surrounding the Site.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants being left
on-site above health based levels, the Site would have to be
reviewed every five years for a period of 30 years per the
requirements of CERCLA. These five-year reviews would include
the reassessment of human health and environmental risks due to
the contaminated material left on-site, using data obtained from
the monitoring program.
. 12
-------
Alternative GW-2, Option A: Extraction, on-site treatment via
activated carbon adsorption, and discharge to surface water
Capital Cost: $1,883,100
0 & M Cost: $603,300 per year
Present Worth Cost: $9,369,400
Implementation Time: 24 months
The major features of this alternative are groundwater
extraction, collection, treatment, and discharge of treated
groundwater. The treatment system would consist of an oil/water
separator, followed by pretreatment for manganese removal
(necessary to eliminate its potential interferences with
subsequent treatment processes) and removal of organic
contaminants by activated carbon adsorption. The treated
groundwater would be discharged to the small unnamed stream
adjacent to the Site. Although it is likely to take considerably
longer than 30 years to achieve remediation goals, the treatment
plant design and cost estimate is based on an operating period of
30 years.
The extraction/collection system would ,include a combination of a
collection trench for shallow groundwater and an extraction well
for the intermediate groundwater. The trench would be
approximately. 700 feet long and would be located at the
northwestern (downgradient) boundary of the Site. It is
estimated that approximately 0.4 gallons per minute (gpm) of
groundwater would be pumped from the collection trench, and
.approximately 26.4 gpm would be pumped from the extraction well
to the on-site treatment system.
In addition to groundwater extraction, if the DNAPL were found to
be pumpable, DNAPL extraction wellpoints would be installed in
areas of suspected DNAPL. It is envisioned that four wellpoints
would be installed in the shallow overburden and would have low
sustainable pumping rates (less than 1 gpm in total). Total flow
to the on-site treatment system would be approximately 30 gpm.
All pumping rates and numbers of wells would be refined during
the design phase based on pumping tests. Extracted groundwater
would be delivered to a collection tank before treatment.
Because of the nature of the creosote contaminants and the
observation of DNAPL during field activities, oily product is
likely to be present with the extracted groundwater. Heavy or
light product would be separated using an oil/water separator.
Solids and/or heavy product would settle by gravity into the
separator's sludge hopper and would be removed periodically for
disposal to a permitted treatment facility. Lighter product
would float to the surface and be removed by a skimmer for
disposal/reuse at a licensed off-site treatment/recycling
facility.
13
-------
The pretreatment system would consist of an individual treatment
train designed for the removal of manganese. Manganese would be
removed through pH adjustment, oxidation, precipitation,
coagulation, clarification, neutralization, and filtration steps
with the addition of caustic, acid, and polymer. Sludges
produced during this step would be stored in drums or rolloffs,
and sent out to an approved disposal facility. Filtration may be
required to further pretreat the.effluent.
After pretreatment, groundwater would be pumped to a carbon
adsorption system consisting of two carbon beds connected in
series. Organic contaminants (PAHs) would be removed by the
carbon adsorption units to target groundwater cleanup levels.
The spent carbon would be collected and shipped for off-site
disposal or regeneration and reuse.
Treated groundwater would be discharged via a culvert to the
small unnamed stream located on the southern border of the Site.
This stream in turn discharges to an unnamed tributary to Unalam
Creek, which eventually discharges to the Susguehanna River. The
discharge structure would include appropriate erosion control
devices such as rip rap and energy dissipation features. The
discharge would comply with the New York State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NYSPDES) requirements. All waste
residuals generated from the treatment process would be
transported off-site to a permitted treatment and disposal
facility, or (in the case of carbon) to a recycling facility.
The goal of this alternative is to restore groundwater to
drinking water quality. However, due to the characteristics of
creosote (e.q...., it is extremely viscous and difficult to pump)
and the complex hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely that this
goal would be achieved within a reasonable time frame for areas
containing the creosote layer (e.g.. shallow groundwater).
Current estimates of shallow groundwater remediation are on the
order of several hundred years. As such, it is likely that
chemical-specific ARARs would be waived for those portions of the
aquifer based on the technical impracticability of achieving
further contamination reduction within a reasonable time frame.
If groundwater restoration were not feasible or practical, the
alternative may then focus on containing the extent of
groundwater. contamination within the Site boundaries.
Restoration of the groundwater outside the DNAPL source areas
fe.g.. intermediate groundwater) is likely to be feasible, since
it is mostly contaminated with mobile organic contaminants (e.g.,
benzene).
During design or operation of the system, it may also be
determined that natural attenuation or enhanced biodegradation
(e.g.. introduction of air to increase the rate of
biodegradation) would be able to achieve a similar level of
contaminant removal and containment as groundwater extraction and
14
-------
treatment, but at a lower cost. Such information would be
utilized during the remedial design to maximize the effectiveness
and efficiency of the system. The information would also be used
to reassess the time frame and technical practicability of
achieving cleanup standards.
Alternative GW-2, Option B: Extraction, on-site treatment via
biological treatment, and discharge to surface water
Capital Cost: $2,058,600
0 & M Cost: $626,500
Present Worth Cost: $9,832,800
Implementation Time: 24 months
This option is virtually identical to Alternative 2, option A.
The only difference is that, following pretreatment, the
remaining contaminants in the groundwater would be pumped to an
aerobic biological reactor for treatment. This reactor would
contain bacterial cultures capable of degrading the contaminants
in the groundwater. Wastes (e.g.. sludges) generated during the
treatment process would be disposed off-site at a permitted
disposal/treatment facility.
Alternative GW-3: Extraction, on-site pretreatment, discharge to
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for final treatment
Capital Cost: $1,904,000
O '& M Cost: $6.13,.600
Present Worth Cost: $9,518,200
Implementation Time: 24 months
The major features of this alternative are groundwater
extraction, collection, pretreatment and discharge to the local
POTW. In order to comply with POTW influent requirements,
manganese would have to be removed from the groundwater. This
would be accomplished by using conventional pretreatment methods
for manganese removal such as the treatment train described under
Alternative GW-2. The extraction/collection system and
pretreatment for this alternative would also be the same as that
discussed for Alternative GW-2. Therefore, only those operations
that differ from previous alternatives are discussed below.
Treatment of organic contaminants would be accomplished by the
Village of Sidney POTW utilizing a conventional sanitary
wastewater treatment process consisting mainly of aerobic
biodegradation. The facility was designed for a maximum
wastewater treatment capacity of 1.7 million gallons per day
(MGD), and currently operates at an average capacity of 0.6 to
0.7 MGD. Effluent from the pretreatment system would be
discharged to the sanitary sewer line via a metered control
manhole, which would record flow to the POTW. The nearest
sanitary sewer is located parallel to Delaware Avenue,
. 15
-------
approximately 80 feet south of the roadway.
Groundwater would have to meet pretreatment requirements prior to
discharge to the POTW. The Village of Sidney Municipal Code
governs sewer use within the Village and regulates the discharge
of wastes into the POTW. The Village has indicated that final
acceptance of the pretreated GCL wastewater would not be
available until a detailed application is submitted.
As described under Alternative GW-2, due to the characteristics
of creosote and the complex hydrogeological setting, it is
unlikely that groundwater restoration would be achieved within a
reasonable time frame for areas containing the creosote layer
(e.g.. shallow groundwater). The discussion of waiving chemical-
specific ARARs for a portion of the aquifer and/or containing the
groundwater contamination described for Alternative GW-2, would
similarly apply for GW-3.
The remedial alternatives developed for surface-water sediments
(SD) are discussed below.
Alternative SD-1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0
O & M Cost: $18,900 for biannual monitoring
$20,000 for each five-year review
Present Worth Cost: $277,700
Implementation Time: 6 months
The No Action alternative for the sediments at the GCL Site would
consist of a long-term monitoring program. For cost-estimation
purposes, it is assumed that sediments would be monitored
semiannually and that eight sediment samples would be collected
and analyzed.
Because this alternative does not include contaminant removal,
the Site will have to be reviewed every five years for a period
of 30 years per the requirements of CERCLA, as amended. These
five-year reviews would include the reassessment of human health
and environmental risks due to the contaminated material left on-
site, using data obtained from the monitoring program.
Alternative SD-2: Excavation, treatment, and disposal with GCL-
property soils
Capital Cost: $298,400
O & M Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $298,400
Implementation Time: 12 months
The contaminated sediments would be excavated during periods of
16
-------
no or low flow using conventional earth moving equipment such as
backhoes, bulldozers, etc. Excavation would be performed under
moistened conditions to minimize the generation of fugitive dust.
Erosion and sediment control measures such as silt curtains would
be provided during excavation to control migration of
contaminated sediment. Adjacent wetlands would be protected by
erosion and sediment control measures.
The sediments would be treated via thermal desorption along with
the GCL property soils as specified in the Record of Decision
dated September 30, 1994 for the Site. A typical thermal
desorption process consists of a feed system, thermal.processor,
and gas treatment system (consisting of an afterburner and
scrubber or a carbon adsorption system). Screened sediments are
placed in the thermal processor feed hopper. Nitrogen or steam
may be used as a transfer medium for the vaporized PAHs to
minimize the potential for fire. The gas would be heated and
then injected into the thermal processor which would operate at a
temperature of 700°F to 1000"F. PAH contaminants of concern and
moisture in the contaminated sediments would be volatilized into
gases, then treated in the off-gas treatment system. Treatment
options for the off-gas include burning in an afterburner
(operated to ensure complete destruction of the PAHs), adsorbing
contaminants onto activated carbon, or collection through
condensation followed by off-site disposal. Thermal desorption
achieves approximately 98 to 99 percent reduction of PAHs in
soil. If an afterburner were used, the treated off-gas would be
treated further in the scrubber for particulate and acid gas
removal. A post-treatment sampling and analysis program would be
instituted in order to ensure that contamination in the
soil/sediment had been reduced to below cleanup levels. The
treated sediment would be redeposited along with treated soils in
excavated areas on the GCL property.
Remedial activities will be conducted in a manner to minimize
impact to wetlands to the extent feasible. The excavated areas
of the intermittent stream and wetlands edge would be backfilled
with clean material and restored to pre-excavation conditions. A
wetland restoration plan will be prepared for any wetlands
impacted or disturbed. The restoration would take place as soon
as practicable after the sediments have been excavated, in order
to minimize the period of impact to the stream and wetland. All
applicable wetlands management guidelines would be followed.
The total volume of sediments to be excavated is estimated to be
125 cy. Further delineation of the extent of contamination will
be conducted during the remedial design phase.
17
-------
Alternative SD-3: Excavation and off-site disposal
Capital Cost: $820,300
O & M Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $820,300
Implementation Time: 6 months
This alternative consists of excavation of 125 cy contaminated
sediment as described in Alternative SD-2 and transportation of
all contaminated materials to an off-site RCRA permitted facility
for treatment and disposal. One hundred twenty-five cy of clean
fill would be used to restore excavated areas. Wetlands would be
restored as discussed in Alternative SD-2.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in
section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a detailed
analysis of the viable remedial alternatives pursuant to the NCP,
40 CFR §300.430(e)(9) and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. The
detailed analysis consisted of an assessment of the alternatives
against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative
analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each
alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adeguate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy
would meet all of the applicable (promulgated by a State or
Federal authority), or relevant and appropriate requirements
(that pertain to situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at a Superfund site such that their use is well
suited to the site) of State and Federal environmental
statutes or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of
the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
18
-------
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementabi 1 itv refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance
costs, and the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Community acceptance factors to be discussed
below include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
Groundwater
•> Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Over time, Alternative GW-1 would provide some limited protection
of human health and the environment since contaminants would be
attenuated through natural processes (e.g.. biodegradation,
dispersion). However, it is unlikely that full restoration of
groundwater resources would be achieved. Alternatives GW-2 and
GW-3 would be protective of human health and the environment,
since they would actively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the groundwater, and would protect
groundwater surrounding the GCL site from further contamination.
Although GW-2 and GW-3 would result in significant reduction in
the mass of contaminants present in the aquifer, it is unlikely
19
-------
that full restoration of groundwater resources would be achieved
within a reasonable time frame.
+ Compliance with ARARs
Alternative GW-1 would not comply with Federal or State drinking
water standards or criteria or those ARARs required for
protection of groundwater. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would be
designed to treat the aquifer to chemical-specific ARARs
associated with State and Federal groundwater and drinking water
standards. Extracted groundwater would be treated to achieve
NYSPDES requirements under Alternative GW-2; under Alternative
GW-3 the extracted groundwater would be treated to local
pretreatment standards prior to discharge to the POTW. Each of
these alternatives would be capable of removing a significant
mass of contaminants in the groundwater. The goal of these
alternatives is to restore groundwater to drinking water
standards. However, due to the characteristics of creosote and
the complex hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely that this
goal will be achieved within a reasonable time frame for areas
containing the creosote layer (e.g.. shallow groundwater).
Current estimates of DNAPL remediation are on the order of
several hundred years. As such, it is likely that chemical-
specific ARARs will be waived for those portions of the aquifer
based on the technical impracticability of achieving further
contamination reduction within a reasonable time frame.
*•' Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative GW-1 would not provide for active treatment and would
rely on natural attenuation processes to restore the contaminated
aquifer. Therefore, this alternative would not be an effective
long-term remedy.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the potential risk
associated with contaminated groundwater by extracting and
treating the groundwater to remove a significant mass of
contaminants from the aquifer. The time to achieve these risk
reductions is limited by the effective extraction rates from the
aquifer. However, it is unlikely that DNAPL contamination
present in the shallow aquifer can be completely remediated due
to the tendency of DNAPLs to attach to the aquifer. Although
none of the alternatives would be able to clean the aquifer to
drinking water standards in a short period of time, the treatment
alternatives would protect surrounding groundwater from further
contamination.
*• Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative GW-1 would not involve any removal or active
treatment of the contaminants in the aquifer; therefore, would
not be effective in reducing the mobility, toxicity, or volume of
20
-------
contaminants. However, over time, natural attenuation processes
would provide some reduction of the toxicity and volume of
contaminants.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility
and volume of contaminants in the aquifer to a larger extent than
GW-1, since extraction and treatment of groundwater are provided.
»• Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative GW-1 would result in no
additional risk to the community during remedial activities,
since no construction or remediation activities would be
conducted. Workers involved in periodic sampling of site soils
would be exposed to minimal risks because appropriate health and
safety protocols would be followed for this activity. For
purposes of this analysis, monitoring of the Site would occur for
30 years.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 involve construction and operation of
an on^-site treatment plant. Procedures for proper handling of
the treatment reagents would be followed for all treatment
alternatives. Any process residuals generated would be properly
handled and disposed off-site. The risk to workers involved in
the remediation also would be minimized by establishing
appropriate health and safety procedures and preventive measures
to avoid direct contact with contaminated materials and
ingestion/inhalation of fugitive dust. All site workers would be
OSHA-certified and would be instructed to follow OSHA protocols.
It is estimated that the treatment alternatives would take well
over 30 years to achieve the remedial action objectives.
However, a 30-year period was used for cost estimation.
Operation of the treatment plant would be stopped when remedial
objectives are achieved i.e.. levels of contaminants in the
aquifer are reduced to State and Federal drinking water
standards, unless it is determined that ARARs would be waived in
portions of the aquifer.
*• Impl ementabil itv
Alternative 1 would not involve any major site activities other
than monitoring and performing five-year reviews. These
activities are easily implemented.
The treatment components of Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would be
easily implemented, as the technologies are proven and readily
available. The carbon adsorption technology proposed for use in
Alternative GW-2A is a proven and efficient method for removal of
organic contaminants. Biological treatment, specified in
Alternatives GW-2B and GW-3, has been used successfully for
groundwater contaminated with creosote wastes. The manganese
21
-------
removal pretreatment technology required under Alternatives GW-2
and GW-3 is proven and readily available. Sufficient space is
available on-site for a treatment plant.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would require institutional management
of the operation and maintenance of the treated groundwater
discharge system. Off-site disposal facilities are available for
the disposal of the oil/water separator sludge and skimmings
generated from Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3. Disposal (or recycle)
facilities are also available for recovered DNAPL and the other
residues generated from those alternatives.
Alternatives GW-2A and GW-2B both provide for discharge to the
small stream located at the Site's southern border. Based on the
review of the treated groundwater discharge requirements for the
Route 8 Landfill site and the successful operation of the
groundwater remediation system at this site, discharge to the
stream is expected to be readily implementable for Alternative
GW-2.
The Village of Sidney expressed its interest in having the
pretreated groundwater transmitted to the local POTW as described
under Alternative GW-3. There is a degree of uncertainty,
however, as to whether final approval would be granted which
would be contingent upon factors such, as available capacity,
waste characteristics, and POTW permit requirements concerning
effluent and sludge quality. Due to this uncertainty, this
alternative is considered less implementable than Alternative
GW-2. '
> Cost
GW-1 is the least expensive of all alternatives but would not
involve treatment. Alternative 1 has a present worth cost of
$380,700 which is associated with conducting a sampling and
analysis program and five-year reviews over a 30-year period.
Alternative GW-2A would be the most expensive treatment
alternative followed by GW-3 and GW-2B. However, the cost
differences between GW-2A, GW-2B and GW-3 would be so small as to
not be significant.
> State Acceptance
The New York State has concurred with the selected remedy.
*• Community Acceptance
No objections by the community were raised concerning the
selected remedy. The Village of Sidney has requested that EPA
select Alternative GW-3 which includes discharge of the
pretreated groundwater to the local POTW. A responsiveness
22
-------
summary which addresses all comments received during the public
comment period is attached as Appendix IV.
Sediments
»• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SD-1 would not meet any of the remedial objectives
and thus would not be protective of the environment.
Contaminated sediments would remain on-site and would continue to
pose a risk to the biota. Natural flushing would reduce
contaminants in the sediments somewhat, especially after the
contaminated soils on the GCL-property are remediated.
Alternative SD-2, involving on-site sediment treatment and
Alternative SD-3 involving off-site treatment/disposal of
sediments, would remove contamination and eliminate any
environmental threats posed by the sediments. Therefore, these
alternatives would meet remedial objectives. .
> Compliance with ARARs
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for the contaminated
sediments. Alternative SD-1 would comply with appropriate
requirements such as New York State Technical and Administrative
Guidance Memoranda.
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would be designed and implemented to
.satisfy all. appropriate requirements and location-specific ARARs
identified for the Site. Excavation activities would be
conducted in compliance with the OSHA standards, soil erosion,
sediment control and wetland protection requirements.
Alternative SD-2 also would comply with ARARs related to on-site
treatment (e^g^., disposal of treatment residuals, stormwater
discharge requirements and air pollution control regulations
pertaining to fugitive emissions and air quality standards).
Under Alternative SD-3, excavated sediments would be sent to an
appropriate treatment/disposal facility in accordance with
applicable ARARs.
+ Long-Term Effectiveness
Alternative SD-1 would monitor contamination in the sediments and
would not remove and/or treat contaminants. Therefore, this
alternative would not reduce the long-term risks to the
environment associated with the sediments.
Alternative SD-2 calls for on-site sediment treatment along the
GCL-property soils. The soil treatment.system would reduce the
levels of PAH contaminants in sediments by 98 to 99 percent.
Alternative SD-3 would provide long-term protection by removing
23
-------
the contaminated sediments which would be sent to an approved
disposal facility. Soil cover and revegetation would provide
protection against erosion. No long-term monitoring would be
required.
»• Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative SD-1 would not provide immediate reduction in
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants because treatment
is not included as part of this alternative. Some reduction may
be realized after the GCL-property soils have been remediated
through natural attenuation processes.
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of contaminants by removal and on-site treatment
(Alternative SD-2) or off-site disposal (Alternative SD-3).
>• Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative SD-1 would not pose any
additional risks to the community, since this alternative does
not involve any construction or remediation. Workers involved in
periodic sampling of sediments would be exposed to minimal risks
because appropriate health and safety protocols would be followed
for this activity.
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 include activities such as excavation,
screening, shredding, and handling of contaminated sediments
which could result in potential exposure of workers and residents
to fugitive dust, and possible suspension of sediments. In order
to minimize potential short-term impacts, the area would be
secured and access would be restricted to authorized personnel
only.. In addition, dust control measures such as wind screens
and water sprays would be used to minimize fugitive dust
emissions from material handling. The risk to workers involved
in the remediation would also be minimized by establishing
appropriate health and safety procedures and preventive measures,
(e.g.. enclosed cabs on backhoes and proper personal protection
equipment) to prevent direct contact with contaminated materials
and ingestion/inhalation of fugitive dust. All site workers
would be OSHA certified and would be instructed to follow OSHA
protocols. Some increase in traffic and noise pollution would be
expected from site activities. Short-term impacts may be
experienced for about a six-month period which is the estimated
time for construction and remedial activities.
Under Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3, short-term impacts on the
environment from removal of vegetation and destruction of habitat
could occur. A plan would be prepared and implemented to
minimize and restore (i.e.. revegetate) any damage to the
environment. Erosion and sediment control measures such as silt
curtains and berms would be provided during material handling
24
-------
activities to control migration of contaminants.
»• Implementabilitv
Alternative SD-1 would not involve any major site activities
except monitoring and sampling. These activities would be easily
implementable.
Alternative SD-2 would be easily implemented, as the technology
is proven and readily available. The thermal desorption
component of this alternative has been shown to be effective for
destruction of PAHs, and is commercially available. Sufficient
land is available at the Site for operation of a mobile thermal
desorption system and supporting facilities. Alternative SD-3
involves pff.-site disposal. Capacity for the small volume of
sediment should be available at a permitted facility.
Implementation of Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would require
restriction of access to the Site during the remediation process.
Coordination with state and local agencies would also be required
during remediation.
*• Cost
Alternative SD-1 is the less expensive alternative, but does not
provide treatment of contaminated sediments.. Alternative SD-1
has a present worth cost of $277,700 which is associated with
conducting a sampling and analyses program and five-year reviews
over a 30-year period.
Alternative SD-2 is the least expensive of the treatment
alternatives and has a present worth cost of $298,000. The most
expensive Alternative is SD-3 with a present worth cost of
$820,300.
> State Acceptance
The New York State has concurred with the selected remedy.
*• Community Acceptance
No objections from the community were raised regarding the
selected surface-water sediment portion of the remedy.
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA and NYSDEC have determined, after reviewing the alternatives
and public comments, that Alternatives GW-2 and SD-2 are the
appropriate remedies for the Site, because they best satisfy the
requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621, and the
NCP's nine evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives, 40 CFR
§300.430(e)(9). The total capital costs of the groundwater
portion of the remedy are $1.9 million for GW-2A and $2.1 million
25
-------
for GW-2B; the operation and maintenance cost is $0.6 million a
year for both GW-2A and GW-2B; the present worth cost are $9.4
million for GW-2A and $9.8 million for GW-2B. The total capital
cost of the surface-water sediment portion of the remedy is $0.3
million; no l.ong-term operation and maintenance costs are
expected.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
• Extraction, collection, and on-site treatment of groundwater
contaminated with organic compounds; discharge of treated
groundwater to the surface water. The selected remedy
provides two options for primary treatment of organics:
carbon adsorption or biological treatment.
Information will be obtained during the remedial design to
reassess the time frame and technical practicability of
achieving State and Federal drinking water standards in the
aquifer. Should the remedial design data indicate that
groundwater .restoration through extraction and treatment is
feasible and practical, additional work will be conducted to
determine which groundwater treatment option (carbon
adsorption or biological treatment) is more appropriate and
cost-effective. If groundwater restoration is not feasible
or practical, the remedy will then focus on containing the
groundwater contamination within the GCL property boundaries
in which case chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for all
or some portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impacticability of achieving further contamination reduction
within a reasonable time frame. Under such a scenario, it
may be determined that natural attenuation or enhanced
biodegradation (e.g.. introduction of air to increase the
rate of biodegradation) would be able to reduce the
concentration of contaminants in the aquifer groundwater to
levels which are similar to those achievable under
extraction and treatment, but at a lower cost. Such
information would be utilized during the remedial design to
maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the system;
and,
• Excavating and treating contaminated sediments on-site
through a thermal desorption process along with the GCL-
propefty soils. The selected remedy will also provide for
the mitigation of damages to the aquatic environment which
may occur during implementation (i.e.. revegetation).
In addition, EPA will recommend to local agencies that
institutional control measures be undertaken to ensure that
future land use of the property continues to be
industrial/commercial, and precludes the use of Site groundwater
for human consumption until drinking water quality is restored in
the aquifer.
26
-------
Remedial Goal
The goal of the groundwater portion of the remedy is to restore
groundwater to drinking water quality. However, due to the
characteristics of creosote (e.g., extremely viscous and
difficult to pump) and the complex hydrogeological setting, it is
unlikely that this goal will be achieved within a reasonable time
frame for areas containing the creosote layer (e.q_,._, shallow
groundwater). Current estimates of shallow groundwater
remediation are on the order of several hundred years. As such,
it is likely that chemical-specific ARARs will be waived for
those portions of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further contamination reduction
within a reasonable time frame. If groundwater restoration is
not feasible or practical, the alternative may then focus on
containing the extent of groundwater contamination within the
site boundaries. Restoration of the groundwater outside the
DNAPL source areas (e.g.. intermediate groundwater) is likely to
be feasible, since it is mostly contaminated with mobile organic
contaminants (e.g.. benzene). The treated effluent will meet
NYSPDES requirements.
During design or operation of the system, it may also be
determined that natural attenuation or enhanced biodegradation
(e.g.. introduction of air to increase the rate of
biodegradation) would be able to achieve a similar level of
contaminant removal and containment as groundwater extraction and
treatment, but at a lower cost. Such information would be
utilized during the remedial design to maximize the effectiveness
and efficiency of the system. The information would also be used
to reassess the time frame and technical practicability of
achieving cleanup standards.
The goal of the sediment excavation and treatment is to
eliminated potential threats to the aquatic environment due to
the presence of elevated concentrations of organic contaminants.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§9621(b)(l), mandates that a remedial action must be protective
of human health and the environment, be cost-effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a
preference for remedial actions which employ treatment to
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
at a site. Section 121(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a degree of cleanup
that satisfies ARARs under State and Federal laws, unless a
waiver can be justified pursuant to section 121(d)(4) of CERCLA,
27
-------
42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4). As discussed below, EPA has determined
that the selected remedy meets the requirements of -section 121 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9621.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is considered fully protective of human
health and the environment. Extraction and treatment of
groundwater through the implementation of Alternative GW-2 will
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants in the
groundwater and result in overall protection of human health and
the environment. If groundwater restoration is not feasible or
practical, and the selected remedy focusses on containing the
extent of groundwater contamination, the remedy will reduce the
mobility of contaminants in groundwater and result in overall
protection of human health and the environment. Prior to
discharge, the groundwater will meet all state (e.g.. NYSPDES)
and/or federal discharge standards. Alternative SD-2, the
excavation and treatment of the contaminated surface-water
sediments through a thermal desorption process, will remove the
organic contaminants from the surface-water sediments. Treatment
of the surface-water sediments will result in the elimination of
the ecological threats posed by these sediments.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected groundwater remedy, Alternative GW-2, may not be
able to comply with associated chemical-specific ARARs for at
least some portions of the aquifer (e.g.. shallow aquifer) within
a reasonable time frame. Therefore, it is likely that chemical
specific-ARARs will be waived for those porions of the aquifer
based in technical impracticability. However, the treatment
system with meet other ARARs, including:
Action-Specific ARARs:
• RCRA - Land Disposal Restrictions
• RCRA - Standards Applicable to Transport of Hazardous Waste
• RCRA - Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted Hazardous
Waste Facilities
• RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention
• RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
• DOT - Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials
• New York State Hazardous Waste Manifest System Rules
• New York State Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
.28
-------
Disposal facility Permitting Requirements
• New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Requirements
• OSHA - Safety and Health Standards
• OSHA - Record-keeping, Reporting and Related Regulations
Chemical-Specific ARARs:
• New York State Groundwater Standards
Location-Specific ARARs:
• Clean Water Act - Wetland Protection
The selected surface-water sediment remedy, Alternative SD-2,
will meet all ARARs, including:
Action-Specific ARARs:
• RCRA - Land Disposal Restrictions
• RCRA - Standards Applicable to Transport of Hazardous Waste
• RCRA - Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted Hazardous
Waste Facilities
• DOT - Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials
• New York State Hazardous Waste Manifest System Rules
• New York State Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal facility Permitting Requirements
• New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Requirements
• OSHA - Safety and Health Standards
• OSHA - Record keeping, Reporting and related Regulations
• Clean Water Act - Wetland Protection
Chemical-Specific ARARs:
• None
Location-Specific ARARs:
• Clean Water Act - Wetland Protection
29
-------
A full list of ARARs and TBCs (e.g., advisories, criteria, and
guidance) being utilized is provided in Table 9.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective in that it provides overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total capital costs
of the groundwater portion of the remedy are $1.9 million for GW-
2A and $2.1 million for GW-2B; the operation and maintenance cost
is $0.6 million a year for both GW-2A and GW-2B; the present
worth cost are $9.4 million for GW-2A and $9.8 million for GW-2B.
The total capital cost of the surface-water sediment portion of
the remedy is $0.3 million; no long-term operation and
maintenance costs are expected. A breakdown of the costs
associated with the selected remedy is provided in Table 10.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or
Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The groundwater
portion of the selected remedy will reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants in the groundwater
underlying the Site and prevent further degradation of the area
groundwater. The selected remedy employs permanent treatment of
the PAH-contaminated surface-water sediments on the Site through
excavation, treatment and disposal with GCL-property soils. The
potential for direct and indirect threats to human health and the
environment will be eliminated. The selected remedy represents
the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with
respect to the evaluation criteria.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
In keeping with the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy, the remedy provides for the
treatment of contaminated groundwater and surface-water sediments
which constitute the remaining threats known to exist at the
Site.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
. 30
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
Figure 1. GCL Tie & Treating She Location M£=
-------
lluii:
iila I «yoi4 MI^I nn Aiitfinl 100.1 iwAilpl'"l'MI'"l>l1 Hhl«*!i»»
lUUil. Ililuhei 111115,
ai IOM,U»/ turr M
i lon;i.
u.s. F.Nviin)NMri-irAi.
GCI. in: .v i HI.A i IMC. :,iu
II «liO 000 I;T.
lAI'I'IIOX.)
IIIS'IOI^ICAI. I.AHD l-ril.
Sill! I.AVOHI MAI'
-------
Figure 3. •• 1'utcnClul lixtent of Jjurfaco-w.itei: Sediment Cont;im:l.ii;itJon
"•• " " " ~ .""t ; .""
f| M
Mt
t
. f U
•(I,.
'
IO II
It 17 It |>
-------
lr Igure 4 PuleullaJ. ijxU^'i
.
ol Groinulwalei' ('on Lc'imina lion
m
/
n n< ir*»mi w4> uitwi c
5i~~"^'-V.'Ur~-^°'J~=s"~r^—•• _^y=^-~j=a
I
OCI Iff • TMAIIM
UI>T> nincta tM^o
-j~.:.a
IE
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF NON-GCL PROPERTY SOILS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(All values in parts per million [ppm])
CONTAMINANT
Volatile Organics
Tricaloroethene
Toluene
Total Volatiles
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
0.01
0.024
0.042
Polyaroniatic Hydrocarbons
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrvsene
Benzo[b]fi.uoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Total PAHs
9.5
6.3
1.5-
2.7
3.2
3.2
2.9
24
Metals
AltTmTmm
Arsenic
Beryllium.
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc .
14.300
10.4
3.2
0.91
20.8
176
46
29.6
78.9
Benchmark levels for comparison are NYSDEC soil cleanup objectives (VOCs only), background levels (metals
only), and risk-based cleanup levels for industrial use (PAHs only, consistent with Record of Decision for
Operable Unit 1).
-------
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(All values in parts per billion [ppb])
CONTAMINANT
Arsenic
Copper
Maneanese
Nickel •
Zinc
BENCHMARK LEVEL FOR
COMPARISON
0.018
12
Not available
6.1
110
HIGHEST .
CONCENTRATION
11.4
35.2
8.710
19.6
116
Benchmark levels for comparison are the lower value for that contaminant from either USEPA water quality
criteria or NYSDEC ambient water standards.
-------
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF SURFACE-WATER SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(All values in parts per billion [ppb])
CONTAMINANT
BENCHMARK LEVEL
FOR COMPARISON
HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
Polvaromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrvsene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[1.2,3-cd]pyrene
Total PAH
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
8.8 •'
Not available
2.200
4.000
4.300
3,100
1.700
1,100
23.850
Metals
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
5,000
26,000
19,000
27,000
428,000
110
22,000
85,000
16,400 :
32,000
51,900
70,200
547,000
690
43,600
173;000
Benchmark levels for comparison are the lower value for that contaminant from either USEPA criteria for
aquatic sediments (human health basis criteria) or NYSDEC sediment criteria.
-------
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(All values in parts per billion [ppb])
CONTAMINANT
Volatile Organics
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methvlene chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Benzene
BENCHMARK LEVEL
FOR COMPARISON
2
5
5
7
5
70
5
5
WELLS INFLUENCED
BY ROUTE 5 LANDFILL
CONTAMINATION
[Highest Concentration]
ALL SAMPLES EXCEPT
WELLS INFLUENCED BY
ROUTE 8 LANDFILL
CONTAMINATION
[Highest Concentration]
4,700
19
25
17
1,200
4,300
1.000
9
8
15
36
48 :
220 :
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo[a]anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo [alpyrene
Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
0.1
.0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
6
4 :..
3
2
2
0.7
Metals
Alurp'i'nuTi
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron.
Manganese
Nickel
50
6
50
100
50
50
100
6,210
10
51.1 .
166
15,400
3,360
131
2.230
44.3
7.8
40.7
37,600
17,600
74.2
Benchmark levels for comparison are taken from USEPA and NYSDOH drinking water MCLs. Blank spaces
denote a value below Analytical detection limit.
-------
Table 5: Chemicals of Potential Concern
Croundwater
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon tetrachloride"
Chlorobenzene*
Chloroform
Chloroethane"
•1,2 Dichlorobenzene
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,2 Dichloroethane"
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene"
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride*
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene"
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane"
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methy I naphtha lene"
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene.
Aldrin
Alpha BHC
beta BHC-
gamma BHC
Chlordane
ODD*
DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Antimony
Arsenic"
Barium*
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Soil
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f 1 uoranthene
Benzo(k)f I uoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene.
DDT
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Ethylbenzene
Flouranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methoxychlor
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
PCBs
Pyrene
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Surface Water
Arsenic
Barium
Chloroethane
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Sediment
Acenaphthene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f I uoranthene
Benzo(k)f j uoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlordane
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
Chrysene
DDT
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endosulfan
Fluoranthene
Indenod ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylene Chloride
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyrene
* Not a contaminant of concern when Route 8 Landfill wells are excluded.
-------
Table 6
GCL Tic & Treating Itl/FS Risk Assessment Potential Kxposurc Pathways
PRIMARY SOURCE SECONDARY SOURCE
act
PRODUCTION —^- SPILL/ -
ACTIVITIES DISCHARGE
SOIL
WATER
TERTIARY SOURCE
STORM WATER
RUN-OFF
•>- SEDIMENT -3
PERCOLATION/
INFILTRATION
SOIL
SURFACE WATER
->• SEDIMENT
INFILT RATION f
PERCOLATION
GROUNDWATER
INGESTION
DERMAL
INHALATION
INGESTION
DERMAL
INGESTION
DERMAL
INGESTION
DERMAL
INHALATION
CURRENT/FUTURE USE RECEPTORS
nESIDitilS WDI1KEBS SITEUlESPASSEnS
YC A A OC A
• • • • •
Notes:
YC - Young Children
A - Adults
OC - OlUdf Children
ni'A?ll/M4n/!M(>
-------
Sheet I of 5
Table 7
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
AND CARCINOGENIC RISK ['VALUATION
Chemical Name
VnTalllcs
.-
'
1
Aceltrtle
lleiwcne
2-Hiitaiionc
Coilum leliaclilntide
Clilorj>l>eiizene
Oiloioclltnne
Uilmoform
1,1 Dichloroeihonc
1,2 Diciiloruelhane
1,1 Dichlorociliene
tij - 1,2 - Dichlnroeiliene
Irani - 1,2 - Dichloruefhciic
l'lliyll>i-(M
2.1X)I:-02
,
I.(X)H-02
I.(KII--OI
_
9.001-03
I.UUI--02
2.(X)li-()2 .
I.OOI--OI
6.(X)li-02
5.00I--02
2.(XII:OI
I.(X)IM)2
2.00I--OI
.
•I.IXIIMH
.
.
2.(K)l;i()0
.
.
i.ooEion
.
2.00H-02
I.UORiOl
•
5.00U-OI
.
,
. . •
.
I.OOIUOO
3.00I-+00 .
-•
I,(X)IUO(>
.
4.00I--OI
I.OORfOO
l.tXIHiOl
-
-
.
.
2.8fili-()l
-
_
.
.
I.43I--OI
.
.
-
.
2.861- -01
-
2.8r,i;-oi
.
f.MR-OI.
2.8
-------
Table 7
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOOENIC
AND CARCINOGENIC RISK EVALUATION
Sheet 2 of 5
Chemical Niune
Scinl-Volallles
Aceiia'plillicne
Aniline
Anthracene
l)cnzo(a)aitlliraccne
Benzo'(a)pyiene
l)cnzu(l))(luoraitlliene
llenzo(glii)|>cryleiie
l)eiizo(k)niioranllienc
iti9(2-cfhylhexyl)|ihlhalale
llulyl benzyl phllialale
Cnilmrolc
•1 CMoroanitine
4 Cliloto-3 inctliylpheiiol
2-Cliluroplicii()l
1 >il>eii'/,(a,h)i>"ll» acetie
Chiysenc
l,2-l>ichloruucn/.cnc
l,4-l)iclilorol>cii7.cnc
Dielhyl |4illtalale
2,4-Dimelliyiphcnul
|)i n-lnilyl plilhnlate
l)i-n ottylplillmlnte
2,'l-l)inilr(iloliieiic
NoiicarcinoRtn Reference Dose
Rfl) RfC R(l)l
(oral) Inhalalion (inlinlnlion)
(mg/Kg-day) (nig/Cu.m) (ing/Kg-day)
6.00I--02
3.(K)li-OI
-
-
-
-
.
2.00K-02
2.
-------
Table 7
Sliccl 3 ui 5
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOdliNIC
AND CARCINOGENIC RISK EVALUATION
1
Chemical Nainc
re.sllcldi-n
1
I'lumene
Iliioiaiitlivnc
Iiideiio(l23-cd)|iyrene
2 Mclliylnaplillialene
2-Mcdiyl|Jicm>l
heiu>l
Naphthalene
4-Nilro|>henol
I'eiilacliloruplrenol
Hieiioiillirene
Ilieiiul
I'yrene
AMiin
alplm DIIC
IKIB IIIIC
delta lillC
gnmma IIIIC
Clilordmie
1)1)11
DDK
DDT
I)il)cii7.(ifur(in
Uiehliin
Noncarcinocen Reference Dose
KID KfC Kf|)l
(oral) Inhalation (inhalation)
(nig/Kg-day) (ing/Cu.ni) (ing/Kg-ilay)
4.00H-02
•ux)iM«
-
.
S.OOIi-OZ
5.(X)li-03
4.00B-02
-
3.(X)I!-02
-
r,.(K)l; 01
3.00I!.()2
3.(K)li-05
.
.
-
3.(X)I:-M
6.00I;-05
.
-
5.(XII;-0-I
-
5.IMII'.
-------
Table 7
TOXICITY DATA POR NONCARCINOGIiNIC
AND CARCINOGENIC RISK EVALUATION
Sheet 4 of 5
Chemical Nome
Inorganic.*
l-iidniulfan
Pmlcuulfoii siilfnlc
l-jidrin
linJrin aldehyde
lindrin kelune
lle|ilaclilur
lleplachlor epoxide
Melhoxychlor
(•CIJi (Aroclor 1016)
Anlinioiiy
Arsenic
llaiiuni
Dcryllhim
Chromium III
Cliruiniuin VI
Colrall
Copper
Uail
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel (Kefineiy Dust)
Selenium
Silver
NoncarcinnRen Refcicnce Dose
IUI) IUC RIDI
(oral) Inhalation (inhalation)
(ing/Kg-day) (mg/Cu.in) (mg/Kg-day)
6.0012-03
3.0012-04
-
.
5.00I--04
1.3012-05
5.00I!-03
7.00E-05
4.0012-04
3.00IMH
7.00I2-CI2
5.0012-03
I.OUlH(ll)
5.00I--03
-
3.7IE-02*
5.(Xlli-H3
3.(X)li-W
2.(Xlli-02
S.(X)Ii-(l3
5.(X)I: 03
.
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
s.oon-w
-
-
-
-
.-
I.SOIi-03**
5.0im-05
3.0012-04
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
-
.
.
-
-
-
.
-• -
.
-
-
.
-
-
CnrcinoRcn Slope Paclor
.SI' Weigh! Unit Kisk SIM Weight
(Oral) of (Inhalation) (Inhalntinn)
-------
Table 7
Sheet 5 ui' 5
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARC1NOGENIC
AND CARCINOGENIC RISK EVALUATION
Chemical Nninc
'Iliallilnn
Vaiiniiinii)
Zinc
Noncarcinogen Reference Dose
KID RfC RfDI
(uinl) Inhalation (inlmlnlinn)
(ing/Kg-dny) (nig/Cu.m) (ing/Kg cloy)
.
7.00K-03
3.(X)I;-OI
.
-
-,
•.
.
Carcinogen Slope Factor
SI' Weight Unit Risk - SIM Weight
(Oral) of (Inhalntimi) (Inhalation) of
(mg/Kg-Jay)- 1 Hvidence (iig/C'ii.in)- 1 (mg/Kg-«lay)-l Evidence
.
.
.
.
1)
.
•
.
.
-
.
.
-
lil'A Weight at Evidence classifications are as follows: . -
tiiuu|> A: Iliunan Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from epidciniologic studies lo 3ii|ip»il a cniual association between eX|H)9lire aild cancer.
(iroup III: I'rohalile Iliunan Carcinogen. Limilcd evidence C: I'onible Iliunan Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogcnicity in animals.
iroup I): Not classified. Inadequate evidence of cntcinogenicily in animals.
vlotc: - No data/Not available.
I'or Adults Only.
NAAQS
KfC/IUI) and Unit ((isk/SI' inhalation dnln cunvcrsiiiii for C(K's only in snil nml giimndwnlrr ns per IIHA.ST.
IW507.LYN
-------
Table 8
SITE WORKER RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT/FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
Shed I of I
Present/Future Use Scenarios:
Carcinogenic Risk Levels Noncarcinogcnic Hazard Index Values
Exposure to non-GCL Property Soil Reasonable Maximum Exposure Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Silc Worker
"l) Inhalation 8.90E-I2 l.2fiE-<)9
2) IngcsUon I.40E-05 2.OIE-U1
3) Dennal Contact 6.88E-08 3.57E-04
Total Health Risk = Soil Inhalation + Soil Ingestioii + Soil Dermal Contact
Summation Results - Site Worker:
Carcinogenic Health Effccls = 1.40E-05 Noncarcinogcnic Hcallh Effects = 2.4UE-03
DO. ' N
-------
Table 8
OFF-SITE RESIDENT RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT/FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
Shed I (if 2
Present/Future Use Scenarios:
Exposure to Non-GCL Property Suil
Off-Site Resident Adults
I) Inhalation
2) Ingcslion
Off-Site Resident Young Children
1) Inhalation
2) Ingcslion
Carcinogenic Risk Levels
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
I.49E-I2
3.92E-06
2.0GE-11
9.1GI>06
Noncai'cinngcuic lla/.aul Index Values
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
2.201 j-W
5.95E-04
I.54E-09
5.50E-U3
Exposure to Groundwater (including R8 wells)
Off-Site Resident Adults
1) Inhalation
2) Ingcstion
3) Dcnnal Contact
Off-Site Resident Young Children
1) Inhalation
2) Ingcslion
3) Dcnnal Contact
2.98E-02
1.05E-01
2.48E-03
2.78E-02
9.80E-02
9.-24E-05
4.8SE-OI
1.17EIO2
9.95 E+00
2.27EMH)
5.45IMG
l.85F-i(M)
IJ«567.LYN
6-44
-------
Table 8
SIlCCl ?, of 2
OFF-SITE RESIDENT RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT/FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
Carcinogenic Risk Levels Noneaieinogcnic Hazard Index Values
Exposure to Groundwatcr (excluding R8 wells) Reasonable Maximum Exposure Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Off-Site Resident Adults
I) Inhalation' 6.99E-U5 0.1711-0?.
2) Ingcslion 2.38E-04 l.()f»Ei()2
3) DcnnaJ Contact 2.15E-03 I.72EMH
Off-Site Resident Young Children
1) Inhalation 6.54E-05 2.88E-OI
2) Ingcstion I.33E-U4 4.9vclls) - Off-Site Ucsidcnt Children;
Carcinogenic Health EITccls = I.26E-OI Noncarcinogenic llcallh liliccls = 5.49EKI2
Suiiiinatioii Results (excluding R8 wells) - Off-Site Resident Adults:
Carcinogenic Health Effects = 2.4GE-03 - Noncarcinogenic llcallh Effects = 1.23EI-02
Suiiiinatioii Results (cxcludinu U8 wells) - Uff-Silc Resident Children:
Carcinogenic Health EITccls = 2.88E-04 . Nonqarcinogcnic llcallh Effects = 4.98E+02
IXJ567.LYN 6-45
-------
Table 8
.Slicel I of 2
SITE TRESPASSER RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT/FUTURE USE SCENARIOS
Present/Future Use Scenarios:
Carcinogenic Risk Levels Noncardnogcnic Hazard Index Values
Exposure tu non-OCL Property Soil Reasonable Maximum Exposure Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Adull Trespassers
1) Inhalation 1.20E-il l.7f>E-()9
2) Ingcslion 3.92E-06 5.95E-04
3) Dermal Conlacl 3.35E-07 l.45P,-()3
Older Child Trespassers
1) InluQalion ' 3.74E-12 2.20E-09
2) Ingcsticm 3.92E-Of» ' 2.3Xli-()3
3) Dermal Contact 9.24E-OH 2.UOP.-03
Exposure to Surface Water
Adull Trespassers
1) Iiigestion 1.52E-05 3.I8E-I-00
2) Dcnnal Contact 2.15E-06 9.32E-03
Older Child Trespassers
1) Ingcslion 3.05E-06 6.3f)E-MK)
2) Dermal Contact 4.87E-07 3.78H-03
Exposure tu Sediment •
Adult Trespassers
1) Ingestion 1.08E-05 2.7()ri-()3
2) Dermal Conl.'ict 2.I5E-Ofi 9.32I--03
VN
-------
Table 8
SITE TRESPASSER RISK LEVELS AND HAZARD INDEX VALUES
SUMMARY ACROSS EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PRESENT/RJTURE USE SCENARIOS
Sheet 2 of 2
Exposure to Sediment (Conl'd)
Older Child Trespassers
I) Ingcslion
2) Dermal Contact
Carcinogenic Risk Levels
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
S.fiOE-Ofi
5.94E-U7
Noncarcinogcnic Hazard Index Values
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
I.OKE-07.
Total Health Risk = Soil Inhalation + Soil Ingeslion + Soil Dermal Contact i Surface Water Iii|>eslion i Surface Wafer Dvnnal Contact
+ Sediment Ingeslion + Sediment Dermal Contact
Summation Results • Adult Trespassers:
Carcinogenic Health Effects = 3.41E-05
Summation Results - Older Child Trespassers:
Carcinogenic Health Effects = 1.66E-05
Noncarcinogcnic Health Effects = 3.I9Ei()0
Noncarcinogcnic Health Effects = 6.38E+00
I»567.LYN
6-47
-------
Table 9. List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAfis) and To-Be-Considered (TBC) for the Selected Remedy
REGULATION
STATUS
REGULATORY
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION
RATIONALE
ACTION-SPECIFIC
RCRA- Land Disposal Restrictions
(40 CFR 268)
RCRA- Standards Applicable to Transport
of Hazardous Waste (CFR 263.11, 263.20-21 And
263.30-31)
RCRA- Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted
Hazardous Waste Facilities (40 CFR 264.10-264.18)
DOT- Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials
(49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1-172.558)
New York State Hazardous Waste Manifest System
Rules (6NYCRR 372)
New York Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and
Disposal Facility Permitting Requirements
(6 NYCRR 370 and 373)
OSHA- Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1926)
OSHA- Record keeping, Reporting and related
Regulations (29 CFR 1904)
ARAR
ARAR
ARAR
ARAR
ARAR
ARAR
TBC
TBC
Federal
Federal
Federal
Federal
NY State
NY State
Federal
Federal
Regulates Land Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes
Regulates Transport of
Hazardous Waste
Regulates Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage or Disposal
Facilities
Regulates Transport of
Hazardous Waste
Regulates the Manifesting of
Hazardous Wastes
Regulates Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage or Disposal
Facilities
Regulates Occupational
Exposure/Protection
Regulates Record Keeping and
Reporting Requirements
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Off-site Disposal of Treatment
Residues
Workers Health and Safety
Workers Health and Safety
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR 50)
Safe Drinking Water Act
(40 CFR 141)
New York State Air Criteria Requirements
6 NYCRR 200-212)
New York State Pollution Discharge Eliminantion
System (SPDES) (6 NYCRR 750)
New York State Surface and Groundwater Quality
Standards (6NYCRR Part 703)
TBC
ARAR
TBC
TBC
ARAR
Federal
Federal
NY State
NY State
NY State
Regulates Air Emissions
Regulates Standards for
Drinking Water Protection
Regulates Air Emission
Requirements
Regulates Discharges to Surface
Waters
Regulates Surface and
Groundwater Quality
Operation of Thermal Desorption
System
Groundwater Treatment
Operation of Thermal Desorption
System
Groundwater Treatment
Groundwater Treatment
-------
REGULATION
STATUS
REGULATORY
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION-SPECIFIC
New York State Wetland Protection Regulations
(6 NYCRR 661)
New York State Floodplain Management Regulations
(6 NYCRR 500)
National Historic Preservation Act
Executive Orders on Floodplain Management and
Wetland Protection #11988 and 11990
ARAR
ARAR
TBC
TBC
NY State
NY State
Federal
Federal
Regulates Disturbance of
Freshwater Wetlands
Regulates Disturbances to
Floodplain Areas
Regulates Protection of Historic
and Cultural Resources
Requires Assessment of Impacts
to Floodplains and Wetlands
RATIONALE
Surface-water Sediment Remediation
Surface-water Sediment Remediation
Surface-water Sediment Remediation
Surface-water Sediment Remediation
-------
Table 10 .Shed I of .1
Alternative GW-2A
TREATMENTOITION I: EXTRACTION/PHASE SEPARATION/PRETKEATMENT/CARIJON ADSORPTION/ DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
FACIIJTY/CON.STRUC'TION
I. SOCURITV SYSTEM
I. Waining Signs
2. Fence Completion
3. E<|iiipmenl Piirking mul Storage Area
If. SUPPORT FACILITIES
i. Office Trailer
2. Dccuiiliiininalion Trailer
III. GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION
I. Trenches
2. Pumps
3. Piping
4. Extraction Well
5. Pumps
(•>. Piping
7. Hot Spol Extraction Wells
8. Pumps
9. Piping
IV. COLLECTION
I. Collection Tank
2. Pumps
3. Piping
V. PHASE SEPARATION
VI. OFF-SITE DNAPL RECYCLE/DISPOSAL
I. Tank
2. Contractor
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (IVA*) DOLLARS)
MATERIAL
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES
31
1 ,200 II
2.500 sy
1
1
1
2
i.ooon.
i
2
5(X) ft
4
8
1,00011.
1
2
5(X) II.
1
1
125 Ions
(30,0(X) gal)
UNIT
PRICE
80
18
8
I4.3IX)
42,900
59.400
2,000
r»
7,000
1,500
6
• 2,000
1 ,000
6
5,000
2.000
6
I5.IKX)
5,000
I.KOO
COST
2,500
21, MX)
20.IMX)
I4.3IX)
42,90
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION
DIN2.I.YN
-------
Table 10
Shod '2 til 3
Alternative GW-2A
TREATMENT OPTION I: I-XTK ACTION/PI I ASE SliPARATION/PRF.TREATMENT/CARHON AIXSORPTION/DISCIIAUCiE TO SURFACE WATER
FACILITY/CONS'! RUCTION
VII. CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION SYSTEM
1. Rapid Mix Tank
2. Flocculator
3. Claiificr
4. Causlic feed tank
• 5. Caustic feed pumps
6. Polymer feed lank
7. Polymer feed pumps
• 8. Acid feed tank
9. Acid feed pumps
10. Process piping
VIII. FILTRATION SYSTKM
I. Filter feed water sump
2. Filler feed pumps
3. Process piping
4. Dual media pressure filters
IX. SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM
X.
1.
2.
3.
Sludge pumps
Filler press
Filiniie pumps
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1995 DOLLARS)
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES
I
I
I
I
2
I
2
I
2
15011
I
2
15011
2
2
I
2
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM
I. Activated carbon adsorber • 2
2. Treated water lank I
3. Treated water pumps 2
4. Process Piping • 5(X)
All niimlieis arc rounded (o nearest hundred.
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE COST
5,000 5,0(f()
Included in Clarificr Unit
INSTALLATION
UNIT
PRICE COST
3,000
3,000
750
50.0IX)
1,500
1,500
50.0IX)
3,001)
1.001)
25,000
1,250
2,000
25.000
2,500
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION
COST*
R.OOO
35.0IX)
1,000
500
9,000
500
9,000
500
15
35,000
1,000
1,000
9,000
1,000
9,000
1,000
2,300
5,000
300
1,000
2,500
1.000
2,500
1,000
50
5,000
300
2,000
2.500
2.000
2,500
2,000
7,500
40.000
1,300
3,000
11,500
3.000
11,500
3,000
9. 800
9,000
1,800
15
50,000
9,000
3,000
2,300
IOO,(XJ()
2.500
2,000
50
4,000
2.500
4,000
7,500
8,000
11.500
7,fioo
9,800
108.000
3.500
75.000
5,500
li).o(X)
5,000
2,000
6
20,000
5,001)'
4,000
3,000
5,000
3,000
2,000
15
IO.O(X)
3.000
4.000
7.500
30.000
8,000
R.OOO
I(),5(XI
DIMM.YN
-------
Table 10 Sheet 11 ol
Alternative GW-2A
TREATMENT OPTION I: HXTU ACTION/I'M ASH SIMRATION/PRIZTRIiATMENT/CARBON ADSORITION/DISCIIAROli TO SURFACE WATER
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1995 DOLLARS)
FACILITY/CONSTRUCTION
xi. TREATED"WATER DISCHARGE
I. Pi|)clhic
2. Outfall structure
XII. OFFICE AND CONTROL UUILDINC!
XIII. BLGCTKICALS
XIV. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS
XV. PROCESS WATIiR SUPPLY
XVI. FOUNDATIONS AND PADS
XVII. HEALTH AND SAFETY
XVIII. TREATABILITY STUDY
XIX. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES
1 ,000 II
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE COST
6 - 6,000
5,000 5.000
40.0IX) 40,000
Included in installation
Included in installation
1,200 1,200
5,000 5,000
Included in installation
Included in installation
Included in installation
Total Direct Construction
Contingency @ 20% of '1
1NSTAL
UNIT
PRICE
15
50,()(X)
KX).(X)I)
fiO.IHX)
1,1(00
7,500
50.0IX)
r>o,o(X)
50,(HX)
Cosl (TDCC)
•DCC
LATION
COST
I5.IMX)
Included
50.0IX)
lOO.IXK)
60,0(X)
t,HOO
7,500
50.000
60,(I(X)
50,01 X)
Engineering® 10% ofTDCC
Legal and Administrative
@ 5% ol TDCC
Toial ('oiisliiKlinii Cosl
DIRECI
COST*
21,01X1
5,000
90.1 WH)
I(X).(X)0
fiO.O(X)
:t.ooo
I2.51X)
50.01X)
r,o,o,x»
SO.OIX)
1.394.900
279,(X)0
139,500
r)9.7(X)
I.HK:I,IOO
* All iMiinlicis arc rounded to nenrcsl hundred.
1)1142 I.VN
-------
Table 10 Sheet I ol 4
Alternative GW-2B
TREATMENT OITION 3: EXTRACTION/PHASE SEI'ARATION/PRETREATMENT/lHOLOCilCAL TREATMENT/DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1995 DOLLARS)
MATERIAL
FACILITY/CONSTRUCTION
1.
11.
III.
IV.
SECURITY SYSTEM
1.
2.
3.
Winning Signs
Fence Completion
Equipment Parking and Storage Area
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES
31
1.200 If
2,500 sy
UNIT
PRICE
80
18
8
COST
2,500
21,600
20,000
INSTALLATION
UNIT
PRICE
20
8
4
COST
600
9,600
10,01X1
DIRF.C
COST*
3.100
31,200
30,01X1
SUPPORT FACILITIES
1.
2.
Office Trailer
Decontamination Trailer
1
1
14,300
42,900
14,300
42,9
5.000
4,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
15
3,000
4,200
7,500
8,000
8.000
I0.5(X»
DIRECT CONSTRUCriON
V. PHASE SEPARATION
I5.0IX)
15,01 X)
Included
I5.0IX)
DIH2.I.YN
-------
Table JO
A:i.tcni,-iE:l.vc CW-2U
TRHATMENT-OITION 1: EXTRACTION/PHASE .SEIVWATION/PIUiTKGATMt»NT/mOLO(.ilCAL TREATMENT/DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1995 DOLLARS)
Shi-el 2 i)l 'I
FACILITY/CONSTRUCI'ION
VI. OFF-SITE DNAI'L RECYCLE/DISPOSAL
I. Tank
2. Contractor
VII. CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION SYSTEM
I. Rapid Mix Tank
. 2. Flocciilalor
3. Cl;iril1cr
•4. Caustic Iced lank
, 5. Caustic Teed pinnp.s
6. Polyiner Teed tank
7. Polyincr Iced pumps
8. Acid Iced lank
9. Acid Iced pinups
10. Process piping
VIII. FILTRATION SYSTEM
1. Filler feed walcr sump
2. Filler feed pumps
3. Process piping
4. Dual media pressure fillers
IX. SLUDGE HANDLING SYSTEM
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES.
I
125 Ions
(30,000 g
1.
2,
3.
Sludge pumps
Filler press
Pillralo pumps
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE COST
5 ,<)<)()
1,800
5,000
225.1XH)
INSTALLATION
UNIT
PRICE COST
.«.()()(> 3.0(10
Included
750
50,000
1,500
1,500
50,000
3.001)
1.01)1)
25.0IX)
1.250
2,000
25.000
2,500
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION
COST*
K.OOO
225.000
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
150)1
, 5,000
Included in
35,000
1.000 .
500
4,000
500
9,000
500
15
5,000
Clarillcr Unit
35,0(X)
1,000
1,000
4,000
1 ,000
9,000
1,000
2,300
3,000
5,000
3(X)
1,000
2.500
1,000
2,500
1.000
50
3.000
5,000
3(X)
2.000
6.500
2,000
2.500
2,000
7,500
8,000
40.0IX)
1.300
3,000
11.500
3,000
II.5IM)
3,000
9.KOO
1
2
150 11
2
9,000
1 ,800
15
50,000
9,000
3,fiOO
2,300
100,000
2,500
2,000 .
50
4,000
2,500
4,000
7,500
8,000
II.5(X)
7/100
9,800
I08.(X)0
3,500
75.0IX)
5.500
1)1142.I.YN
-------
Table 10 Shed 3 of
Alternative GW-2R
TREATMENT OITION 3: EXTRACTION/PHASE SI-PARATION/PRETREATMENT/IJIOLOCilCAL TREATMENT/DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (199-5 DOLLARS)
ESTIMATED
FACILITY/CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES
X. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
I. Bioliealnieiil Unil I
2. Treated Water Tank I
3. Treated Water Pumps 2
4. Process Piping 5(K) It.
XL TRIiATIil) WATER DISCHARGE
I. Pipeline 1,000
2. Outrall Structure LS
XII. OFFICE AND CONTROL BUILDING . LS
XIII. ELliCTRICALS LS
XIV. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS LS
XV. PROCESS WATER SUPPLY LS
XVI. FOUNDATIONS AND PADS LS
XVII. TRHATAHIUTY STUDY LS
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE COST
Included
5.000
2,000
6
6
5,000
40,000
Included
Included
1,200
5,000
Included
in installation
5.000
4,000
3,000
6,000
5.000
40.000
in installation
in installation
1.2(10
5.000
in installation
INSTALLATION
UNIT
PRICE
MO.tXIO
3,000
2,000
15
15
50.000
IOO,(X)0
80.0W
1,801)
7,500
60,01X1
COST
I4(),(X)0
3,000
4.000
7,500
I5.0IX)
Included
50,0(X)
100,000
80.000
I.XOO
7,500
r>o,()(X)
DIRECI
COST*
MO.(X)0
8.000
8.000
10.500
21.000
5.000
90.0W
I(X),(X)0
80.0(X)
3,000
I2,5(XI
r>o.oix)
DIMZ1.YN
-------
Table 10 .
Alternative GW-2B
TREATMENT OITION .1: EXTRACTION/PHASE SI-PARATION/PRETREATMIiNT/mOLO(!ICAL TIlfiATMIiNT/DISCIIARCJIi TO SIJRI'ACIi WATI-R
4 ol 'I
FACILITY/CONSTRUCTION
XVIII. HEALTH AND SAFETY
XIX. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (I"-"S DOLLARS)
MATERIAL
INSTALLATION
DIRliCT CONSTRUCTION
JiSTI MATED
QUANTITIES
I.S
LS
UNIT
PRICE
. Included in
Included in
COST
installation
installation
UNIT
PRICE
50,()(X)
COST
50.0IX)
50,0(X)
COST'
5«MMX)
50,0(X)
Tolal Direct Conslriiclkin Cost (TDCC)
Contingency @ 20% of TDCC
Engineering @ 10% of TDCC
Legal and Ailininislralivc @ 5% of TDCC
Tolal Construction Cost
1,524,900
3<)5,(XX)
152,500
7r).2(X)
2,05K,fiOO
* All numbers are rounded lo nearest hundred.
DII42.I.YN
-------
Table. 10
ALTERNATIVE SD-2: EXCAVATION/DEW ATERING/TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL WITH GCL PROPERTY SOILS
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (1995 DOLLARS)
FACILITY/CONSTRUCTION
1. SITE PREPARATION
II. SUPPORT FACILITIES
III. CLEARING AND GRUBBING
IV. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT EXCAVATION 125 cy
V. DEWATERING
VI. ON-SITE THERMAL DESOR1TION
VII. DISPOSAL
VIII. STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION
IX. HEALTH AND SAFETY
X. MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
ESTIMATED
QUANTITIES
Shared with GCL
Shared wilh GCL
I.fi8«sf
1 125 cy
125 cy
125 cy
125 cy
125 cy
LS
LS
MATERIAL INSTALLATION
UNIT UNIT
PRICE COST PRICE COST
properly soils action.
properly soils action.
Included in installation 0.15 3(X)
Included in installation 25 3,100
400 50,000 Included
2(X) 25,000 Included
I0: 1,300 Included
40 5.000 10 1.300
KXI.OOO UX).(XK) included
35.01X) 35.01X) .Included
Total Direct Construction Cost (TDCC)
Contingency @ 20% TDCC
Engineering @ 10% TDCC
Legal and Administrative @ 5% TDCC
DIREC
COSI
3(X)
3.100
50.000
25.0(X)
1,300
6,300
100.000
35.000
221. (KM)
44.2IX)
22.IIXI
II, MX)
Total Construction Co.sl
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION
2W/100
All numbers rounded to the nearest hundred.
DIU2.I.YN
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
6CL TIE & TREATING SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300001- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report. GCL
300936 Tie & Treating Site. Sidney. New York. Volume I of
II. prepared by Mr. Howard Lazarus, P.E., Site
Manager, Ebasco Services Incorporated, January
1995.
P. 300937- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report. GCL
300959 Tie & Treating Site. Sidney. New York. Volume II
of II, prepared by Mr. Howard Lazarus, P.E., Site
Manager, Ebasco Services Incorporated, January
1995.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001- Report: Final Feasibility Study Report. GCL Tie
400511 & Treating Site. Sidney. New York, prepared by .
Mr. Howard Lazarus, P.E., Site Manager, Ebasco
Services Incorporated, January 1995.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
-DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ' . Fax:518-485-8*04
New York State Department f Environ me
50 Woff Road, Albany, New York 12233-7010
Mar 29 "'95 1&=50 P. 01/02
Post-It1" brand fax transmilla! memo 7671 f of page* >
CO.
Dtpt.
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan
Director _. . .
Emergency & Remedial Response Div.s.on
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway, 1 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
^
5/5
MAR 30 i3S5
Commissioner
Dear Ms. Callahan:
GCL Tie & Treating Site ID # 413011
Draft Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
following:
SD-2 Sediment
excavation, treatment, and disposal with GCL property soils.
2.
3.
4.
the site;
Post-treatment sampling and analysis to ensure attainment of
established cleanup levels;
pre-excavation conditions;
and vegetation plans; and site security and access.
-------
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Fax:518-485-8404 ' Mar 29 '95 16:50 P.'02/02
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan Page 2
GW-2, Groundwater extraction and treatment.
1. Ground walKi and DNAPL extraction through 3 combination of
collection trenches and extraction wells;
2. On-5ite treatment to ARAR levels;
3. Remedial design to include: plume and DNAPL area delineation;
investigation of current aquifer conditions and hvdrologic parameters;
evaluation of additional groundwater treatment alternatives; plans,
operating specifications, and performance parameters for on-site
groundwater treatment; engineering controls and mitigation options for
discharges.and other residual wastes generated during the remedial
action; off-site disposal options for unbeatable residues; sampling and
analytical protocols; and maintenance, site security and access.
The NYSDEC and NYSDOH concur with the selected remedies for Operable
Unit 2. Our concurrence is conditioned on the completion of a Remedial Design
which further evaluates the feasibility and practicability of groundwater treatment.
It-is understood that the results of the additional investigations of the plume and
D'NAPL areas will be used to develop a detailed evaluation of the actual scope of
the groundwater remedial program. Alternatives to the full scale program outlined
in the ROD might include enhanced bioremediation or DNAPL removal only,
alternatives which would represent significant capital and O&M cost savings and
yet be equally protective. The operation and maintenance (subject to the
90%/10% federal/State split) of any system will be the responsibility of USEPA for
a period of ten (10) years.
It is also understood that EPA may seek technology-based chemical-specific
waivers of ARARs for the DNAPL areas of the site if it is determined from the
Remedial Design or through operation of a groundwater treatment system that
contaminant reductions to standards are not feasible or cannot be achieved within
a reasonable time frame. The NYSDEC reserves concurrence on this issue.
If you have any questions, please contact Walter E. Demick, P.E. at (518)
457-5637.
Sincerely,
Michael J. OToole, Jr.
Director
Div. of Hazardous Waste Remediation
-------
APPENDIX V •
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GCL TIE & TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
INTRODUCTION
A' responsiveness summary is required by the Superfund
legislation. It provides a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns received during the public comment period, and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's)
responses to those comments and concerns. All comments
summarized in this.document have been considered in EPA and
NYSDEC's final decision for selection of a remedial alternative
for the GCL Tie & Treating site.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Community involvement at the site has been moderate. EPA has
served as the lead Agency for community relations and remedial
activities at the site. EPA initiated its community relations
activities on August 19, 1993 with the conduct of community
interviews with local officials and residents. Public meetings
were held on August 19, 1993 and August 5, 1994 to discuss
planned site activities and seek comments on the preferred remedy
for contaminated soils (Operable Unit 1), respectively.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) reports.
and the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2 of the site were
released to the public for comment on March 1, 1995. These
documents were made available to the public in the administrative
record file .at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York City,
and in the information repository at the Sidney Memorial Library,
Main Street, Sidney, New York. The notice of availability for
the above-referenced documents was published in the Oneonta Daily
Star on March 1, 1995. The public comment period on these
documents was held from March 1, 1995 to March 30, 1995.
On March' 8, 1995, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Civic
Center "in Sidney, New York to discuss remedial alternatives for
the second operable unit of site remediation, namely,
contaminated groundwater and surface-water sediments, to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternative, and to provide an
opportunity for the interested parties to present oral comments
and guestions to EPA.
Attached to the Responsiveness Summary are the following
Appendices:
Appendix A - Proposed Plan
-------
Appendix B - Public Notice
Appendix C - March 8, 1995 Public Meeting Attendance Sheets
Appendix D - March 8, 1995 Public Meeting Transcript
Appendix E - Letters Submitted During the Public Comment
Period
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments expressed at the public meeting and written comments
received from the Village of Sidney and New York State Electric
and Gas Corporation during the public comment period have been
categorized as follows:
A. Selected Remedy
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
C. Health Effects
D. Land Use
.E. Impact of Cleanup Activities on the Local Economy and
Job Market
A summary of the comments and EPA's responses to the comments is
.provided below.
A. Selected Remedy
Comment #1: EPA received correspondence from the Village of
Sidney requesting that EPA consider selecting Alternative GW-3
for the groundwater remedy. The Village indicated that the
relatively low estimated pretreated groundwater effluent flow of
approximately 30 gallons per minute generated under Alternative
.GW-3 would not be expected to interfere with the treatment
process at the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Although
the Village could not presently commit to accepting the waste
stream, they expressed their desire and willingness to pursue
this issue by obtaining additional information on the impact of
the potential discharge on the POTW1s effluent and sludge
quality, and consulting with NYSDEC and Delaware County on these
issues.
Response fl: Given the information currently available, and
lacking a firmxcommitment from the Village of Sidney, EPA
believes "that Alternative GW-2 is the best, choice for remediating
groundwater at the site. EPA's main concern regarding
Alternative GW-3 is the uncertainty associated with whether the
Village would be able to obtain the necessary clearances (from
-------
local and State agencies) to accept the groundwater effluent.
Less uncertainty is associated with the implementation of
Alternative GW-2 since a similar groundwater pump and treat
system is being utilized for remediation of the Route 8 Landfill,
located just southeast of the site. The treated effluent from
the Route 8 Landfill is discharged into the same drainage ditch
contemplated as a discharge point under Alternative GW-2. The
Route 8 discharge has been able to meet all New York State
.Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NYSPDES) requirements.
The effluent generated under Alternative GW-2 would meet
standards similar to those required for the Route 8 Landfill
system.
Pending the results of the work to be conducted during the
remedial design phase, and pending further input from the Village
as to whether they will enter into a long-term commitment to
accept the; waste stream, EPA may re-evaluate the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of utilizing the POTW. If after evaluating
the additional information EPA determines that the Village is
willing and able .to accept pretreated groundwater at the POTW and
that this is the most cost-effective alternative, EPA may
consider modification of the groundwater remedy.
Comment #2: Village representatives were interested .in obtaining
information regarding the anticipated chemical characteristics of
the groundwater following separation and manganese pretreatment
which could potentially be discharged to the POTW.
Response #2: A detailed characterization of the groundwater at
various stages of treatment would be available during the
remedial design phase.
Comment #3; Proposed Remedy, page 12. The "goal" of Alternative
GW-3, referred in the last paragraph of the alternative
description, is not stated.
Response #3: The "goal" of the active groundwater restoration
alternatives was detailed in the Alternative GW-2 description
summary. The groundwater remediation goal is the same for both
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3, namely, to restore the groundwater to
drinking, water quality.
Comment #4i: Village officials submitted additional cost data,
including information on likely discharge fees associated with
discharge of pretreated effluent to the POTW.
Response f4: EPA considered the revised estimate and
acknowledges that this estimate would result in an overall lower
cost for'Alternative GW-3. However, as'noted above, significant
uncertainty exists regarding the implementability of Alternative
GW-3. This uncertainty, rather than cost, was the significant
-------
factor in selecting Alternative GW-2 rather than Alternative
GW-3.
Comment #5: The Village also noted that although the closest
connection point to the public sewer system is on the south side
of Delaware Avenue, the most expedient connection point would be
to the public sewer on Unalam property which runs in a north-
south direction in the vicinity Of the Unalam water well.
Response 15: This information will be considered during the
remedial design phase for any action which may require connection
to the sanitary sewer.
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
Comment 11: A commenter suggested that groundwater contaminant
boundaries in the shallow intermediate and deep zones had not
been established and was confirmed as indicated by contamination
found in perimeter wells. It was also noted that since there are
residential groundwater users located northwesterly of the site,
the potential impact to these users due to offsite migration,
whether site or nonsite related, should be considered.
Response #1: Contamination due to GCL site activities has been
established. The .information obtained as part of EPA's RI
indicates that GCL-related groundwater contamination is limited
vertically to the shallow and intermediate deep zones, and
horizontally to a 'narrow portion of the aquifer beneath the GCL
•facility. There is no evidence that suggests that the GCL
contaminant plume has moved beyond the GCL property boundaries.
Groundwater contamination, especially in the wells along the
northern perimeter, is attributed to the Route 8 Landfill.
Although additional information will be collected during the
remedial design phase (including installation of new monitoring
wells, and sampling of existing and newly installed wells) to
refine further the extent of the GCL contaminant plume, it is
unlikely that private residential wells will be sampled unless
the data generated during the remedial design suggest that such
action is warranted. The selected remedy will be designed to
contain the GCL groundwater contamination within the property
boundaries so that offsite wells (including those located
northwesterly of the site) are not affected. Individuals
concerned with the quality of their residential well water could
have their private wells tested by the New York State Department
of Health (NYSDOH).
Non-GCL contamination associated with the Route 8 Landfill plume
is already being remediated under the NYSDEC's hazardous waste
remediation program; a groundwater collection and treatment
system designed to address the groundwater contamination was
constructed and recently started operation. It is expected that
operation of the Route 3 Landfill remediation system will
-------
significantly reduce or eliminate groundwater contamination from "
upgradient sources. EPA will work with New York State and the
responsible party for the Route 8 Landfill site to evaluate the
effectiveness of the groundwater restoration system.
Comment #2: EPA should consider including monitoring of existing
downgradient wells in all alternatives including "no build" for
reasons mentioned, above.
Response #2: All of the groundwater remedial alternatives
evaluated in the Proposed Plan, including the selected remedy,
include further delineation of the GCL contaminant plume.
Although the exact location and number of wells to be installed
and sampled will be determined'during the remedial design phase,
sampling of existing residential wells will be conducted provided
it is deemed to be necessary for developing the remedial design
(see also comment #1 above).
Comment #3: It appears that there is significant groundwater
contamination which is not related to the GCL site. Since the
full extent of the non-GCL contamination was not addressed in the
RI, is EPA planning to define other contaminant plumes, even if
they are not related to the GCL site?
• Response f 3: Two contaminant plumes were identified in the area.
of study: the GCL site plume and the Route 8 Landfill plume. The
.Route 8 Landfill plume is considerably deeper and larger in
extent than the GCL plume, and consists of some contaminants
(e.g., PCBs) not found in the GCL contaminant plume. The Route .8
Landfill contamination is not related to the activities conducted
at the GCL site; remediation at the Route 8 Landfill.site is
being undertaken by a private party under the supervision of
NYSDEC. One of the activities being conducted at the Route 8
Landfill is the installation and sampling of numerous monitoring
wells to define .the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination. Individuals interested in learning more about
remedial activities at the Route 8 Landfill should contact NYSDEC
Region 4 in Schenectady, NY., at (518) 357-2045.
EPA's RI focussed on contamination which resulted from wood-
preserving activities at the GCL site. The contaminant plume
originating at GCL appears to be limited to the
shallow/intermediate portion of the aquifer and contained within
the property boundaries. However, additional sampling of
existing cind new monitoring wells will be conducted during the
remedial design phase to further detail the extent of groundwater
contamination and to .ensure that the contamination will not
impact areas outside the GCL property.
-------
C. Health and Environmental Effects
Comment #1: Residents expressed concern about health threats
resulting from exposure to contaminated groundwater.
Response #1: The results of the RI indicate that site-related
groundwater contamination is contained within the GCL property
boundaries. No private or public drinking water supply wells
exist within the boundaries or immediately adjacent to the GCL
contaminant plume. Therefore, there is no known current human
exposure to contaminated groundwater from the GCL site; the
groundwater remedy will prevent future exposure to contaminated
groundwater. However, due to the existence of other potential
sources of groundwater contamination in the area such as the
Route 8 Landfill, households which have private wells should
consider having their water tested for drinking water parameters.
NYSDOH has recently sampled private wells in the Delaware County
area and should be contacted for additional information on
regional groundwater quality.
Comment #2: A resident expressed concern about health and
environmental threats resulting from the discharge of treated
groundwater to the surface water.
Response #2: The groundwater remedy provides.for discharge of
treated groundwater to the drainage ditch that runs along the
southern border of the site. The treated groundwater would
comply with the NYSPDES requirements, which are designed to
protect both human health and the environment. Therefore, no
significant impact to human health or the environment is expected
due to the discharge of treated GCL site groundwater to the
drainage ditch.
D. Land Use
Comment #1: Village officials and residents have expressed
concern about future land use of the site property. They noted
that the site is zoned for industrial use, with no change in
zoning expected.
Response #1: The remedy that EPA has selected for the site
soils, sediments and groundwater will allow for an
industrial/commercial use of the property in the future. In
addition, EPA will recommend to local agencies that institutional
control measures be undertaken to ensure that future land use of
the property continues to be industrial/commercial, and precludes
the use of Site groundwater for human consumption until drinking
water quality is restored in the aquifer.
6
-------
E. Impact of Cleanup Activities on the Local Economy and Job
Market
Comment #1: After the selected remedies for soil, surface-water
sediments and groundwater are implemented, can the land be
utilized?
Response #1: Based upon input from community and local
officials, the selected soils, sediments and groundwater remedies
will be designed to allow for an industrial/commercial use of the
property in the future. EPA shares the Village's interest of
returning the property to productive use as soon as possible. To
achieve this, the most important step is completing the soil
remediation. As no viable potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
have been identified to implement the site remedies, EPA would
utilize the Superfund to pay for the remedies. It is expected
that EPA will complete the design and procurement of a contractor
to remediate the soils and surface-water sediments in
approximately 1.5 years. In addition, the remedial action for
soils and surface-water sediments should be completed
approximately 1 year thereafter. During this time, EPA will be
conducting the additional investigatory work needed to implement
the groundwater remedy. Although a small portion of the property
may be required for the long-term operation of the groundwater
restoration system, the majority of the property could be
returned to productive use shortly after implementation of the
soil and sediment remedy.
Comment #2: Representatives of local industries were generally
concerned about the job market. They noted that manufacturing
jobs have decreased in the area and expressed their desire that
remediation activities not cause any further losses of jobs.
They asked whether local merchants and contractors will be
utilized or benefit from the remedial work to be conducted at the
site.
Response f 2: EPA does not anticipate any negative impact to the
local economy as a'result of the remedial activities planned for
the GCL property. It is EPA's intent to remediate the property
as quickly as possible, so that it can be returned to productive
use.
All cleanup activities to date have been funded by the Federal
government. When hiring contractors to perform work at a site,
EPA must abide by federal procurement regulations. The
regulations are intended to ensure fair, competitive bidding,
resulting in the hiring of responsible firms, capable of
performing the type of specialized work required at Superfund
sites. EPA cannot assure that local contractors will be hired to
perform work at the site. Conducting work at hazardous waste
sites requires certain level of worker health and safety
training, which is often difficult for small local companies to
-------
afford. However, local contractors capable of performing
requisite Superfund site work are frequently utilized, since they
may have a competitive advantage over nonlocal contractors who
would incur expenses for travel, lodging, etc. In addition, EPA
contractors often utilize local services and suppliers (e.g.,
lodging, food, and general supplies).
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
GCL TIE & TREATING SITE
Operable Unit 2
Town of Sidney
Delaware County, New York
EPA
Region 2
February 1995
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial
alternatives considered for the contaminated
-grpunriwatgr »nH ynrfape-wgt-gf ggd'TifmtS located-
• at the-GCL-Tie & Treating-site and identifies the
preferred remedial, alternative with the rationale
for this preference. The Proposed Plan was
developed by the U.Si Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), as lead agency, with support from
the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA is
issuing the Proposed Plan as part of its public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, and Section 300.430(f) of the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). The remedial -
alternatives summarized here are described in the
remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) reports which should be consulted for a
more detailed description of all the alternatives.
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a
supplement to the RI/FS reports to inform the
public of EPA's and NYSDEC's preferred remedy
and to solicit public comments pertaining to all
the remedial alternatives evaluated, as well as the
preferred alternative.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is
the preferred remedy for contaminated
groundwater and surface-water sediments at the .
site. Changes to the preferred remedy or a
change from the preferred remedy to another
remedy may be made, if public comments or
additional data indicate that such a change will
result in a more appropriate remedial action. The
final decision regarding the selected remedy will •
be made after EPA has taken into consideration
all public comments. We are soliciting public
comment on all of the alternatives considered in
smfllysis.sectio" oFt.ke FS because ... .
*
EPA and NYSDEC may select a remedy other
than the preferred remedy.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure
that the concerns of the community are
considered in selecting an effective remedy for
each Superfund site. To this end, the RI/FS
reports, Proposed Plan, and supporting
documentation have been made available to the
public for a public comment period which begins
on-Mareh 1st and ends on Masch-SOth, 1995.
Dates to remember:
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
March 1st to March 30th, 1995
Public comment period on RI/FS reports, Pro-
posed Plan, and remedies considered
March 8th, 1995
Public meeting at the Civic Center, 21 Liberty
Street. Sidney. NY
A public meeting will be held during the public
comment period at the Sidney Civic Center on
March 8, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. to present the
conclusions of the FS, to elaborate further on the
reasons for recommending the preferred remedial
alternative, and to receive public comments. ;.
-------
Comments received at the public meeting, as well
as written comments, will be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record
of'Decision (ROD), the document which
formalizes the selection of the remedy.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Carlos R. Ramos, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Copies of the Remedial Investigation'and
feasibility StiudytReporfcl dated January *
1995,^Proposed iPIan,' anbVsuppOrting ^ ..
-»x«S~ ^s*^4>w*^^*••'''?' '••" '''' - '; * •••-•"
^^SOjBroadway^lB^tPlopr^/v/ ,\;;- ;
SITE BACKGROUND^
The GCL Tie and Treating site occupies
approximately 60 acres in an
industrial/commerdal area of Delaware County,
New York (see Figure 1). According to an
analysis of historical photographs conducted by
EPA and accounts by local residents, wood-
preserving activities at the site date as far back as
tKe 1940's.
The site is bordered on the north by a railroad
line. A warehouse and a municipal airport are
located-to the north of the railroad line. Route 8
and Delaware Avenue delineate the eastern and
southern borders of the site, respectively. A
drainage 'ditch (Unalam Tributary) and woodland
area lie between Delaware Avenue and the site.
The western portion of the property abuts a small
impoundment and wetlands area. The site
eventually drains via overland flow to the
Susquehanna.River, which is located within.one
mile of the site..
The site includes two major areas, generally
referred as the "GCL property" and "non-GCl/
property". The 26-acre GCL property housed a
wood-treating facility called GCL Tie & Treating,
and includes four structures. The primary
building housed the wood pressure treatment
operations including two treatment vessels (50
feet in length by 7 feet hi diameter), an,office,
and a small laboratory. Wood (mostly railroad
ties) and creosote were introduced into the
vessels which were subsequently pressurized in
order to treat the wood. The remaining three
structures housed a sawmill and storage space.
The non-GCL portion of the site includes two
active light manufacturing companies (which did
not conduct wood treatment operations) located
on a parcel of land adjacent to the GCL property.
Approximately 1,100 p'eople are employed'uTa"""
nearby industrial area. -About 5,000 people' live
within 2 miles of the site and depend on
groundwater as then: potable water supply. The
nearest residential well is within 0.5 mile of the.
site. Two municipal wells, supplying the Village
of Sidney, are located within 1.25 miles of the
site. A shopping plaza consisting of fast-food
restaurants and several stores is located approxi-
mately 300 feet south of the site. Other facilities
(i.e., a hospital, public schools, senior citizen
housing, and child care centers) are located within
-2.miles of .the site.
- • • • .•*•-•
. ...... • • ••. • • ^=. •.
The site first came to the attention of the-- .
NYSDEC in 1986, after one of the pressure
vessels used at the GCL facility malfunctioned,
causing a release of an estimated 30,000-gallons of
creosote. GCL representatives excavated the
contaminated surface soil and placed it in a
mound; no further action was undertaken at the
time.
In September 1990, NYSDEC requested EPA_to
conduct a removal assessment at the site.
Consequently, EPA conducted sampling of the
GCL Tie and Treating facility in December 1989
October 1990, and August 1990. As a result of
the data and information that were obtained as
part of the assessment, a Removal Action was
initiated by EPA in March 1991. . .
-------
Activities conducted as part of the removal effort
included: site stabilization (e.g., run-off and dust
control), delineation of surface contamination,
"installation of a chain-link fence, identification "
and disposal of containerized (e.g., tanks, drums)
and uncontainerized hazardous wastes (e.g.,
wastes in sumps); preparation of approximately
6,000 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil and
wood debris for disposal; and a pilot study to
determine the effectiveness of composting for
biore'mediation of-creosote-contaminated soils.
The site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in February 1994
and was added to the NPL in May 1994. In
September 1994, EPA signed a Eecord of Decision
for the first operable unit which called for the
excavation and on-site treatment of approximately
36,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris
by a thermal desorption process.
EPA has been conducting a search for potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).- If EPA determines
'thartHere~afe' ofiiS" or -ffiore viableTRPs, EPA-will—
take appropriate enforcement actions to recover
its response costs pursuant section 107(a) of
CERCLA, 24 U.S.C. § 2907(A). To date, only one
PRP has been identified and notified of his
potential liability under CERCLA; however, this
PRP was not considered to be a viable candidate
to undertake the necessary response actions.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
The GCL Tie & Treating site was selected as a
pilot project for the Superfond Accelerated
Cleahup:Model (SACM) initiative. The purpose of"
SAGM is-to-make Superfund cleanups more
timely and efficient. Under this pilot, activities
which would normally have been performed
sequentially (e.g., site assessment, NPL
placement, removal assessment) were performed
concurrently." In June 1993, while attempting to
determine if the site would score high enough for
inclusion on the NPL, EPA initiated RI/FS
activities to delineate further the nature and
'extent of contamination at the site. These
activities would not typically have been initiated
until after the site had been proposed to the
NPL."
Site remediation activities are sometimes
segregated into different phases, or operable
units, so that remediation of different
environmental media or areas of a site can
proceed separately, resulting in an expeditious
remediation of the entire site. EPA has
designated two operable units for the GCL Tie &
Treating site as described below. • -
»• Operable unit 1 addresses the remediation of
contaminated soils found on the GCL-property
portion of the site. This unit is currently in the
remedial design phase.
>• Operable unit 2 addresses the contamination
in the soils on the remainder of the site (non-
GCL property), and in the groundwater, surface
water, and surface-water sediments. This is the
final operable unit planned for this site and the
focus of this Proposed Plan.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
The nature and extent of contamination found at
the GCL site was assessed through a
comprehensive sampling of soil, groundwater,
surface water, and surface-water sediment.
Sampling was-conduet«d-during-fefee-Fall/WiRter-—
of 1993. The- investigation focussed on
contaminants typically associated with the
creosote wood-preserving process. Creosote
contaminants typically found included numerous
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as
benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo
[k]fiuoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[l,2,3-c,d]
pyrene and dibenzo[a,h]anthracene.
The following paragraphs discuss the
characterization of contamination in the operable
unit 2'study area, namely, in the non-GCL__
property soils, groundwater, surface water, and
surface-water sediments.
Soils
Soil samples were collected from monitoring wells
and soil borings drilled on the GCL property and
on the non-GCL property. Samples were also
collected at off-site locations to provide
information on background conditions. Table 1
summarizes the analytical results for the soil
sampling for the non-GCL property. In general,
relatively low levels of contaminants were
detected with total PAHs ranging up to 24 parts
per million (ppm). Generally, the concentrations
of metals detected on-site were not significantly
above background concentration ranges with the
exception of beryllium (up to 3.2 ppm), copper (up
-------
to 176 ppm) and lead (up to 46 ppni), which were
above their representative background
concentrations of 0.6 ppm, 26.2 ppm and 11.2
ppm, respectively:
Table 1. Summary of Non-GCL Property Soils
Analytical Results
(All values in parts per million [ppm])
Table 2. Summary of Surface Water Analytical
Results
(All values in parts per billion [ppb]) :
CONTAMINANT
Volatile Organia
'richloroethene
oluene
Total Volatile;
BENCHMARK LEVEL FOR
COMPARISON
0.7
1.5
10
HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
0.01
0.024
0.042
Polyaronatic Hydrocarbons
Fluoranthene
*yrene
Benzo(a|amhracene
Ihrysene
Oenzo(blfluoranthene
Genzo(klfluoranthene
!enzo(alpyrene
Total PAHs
Mcuk
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
SO
50
78
7,840
678 -
78
8
500
9.5
6.3
1.5
2.7
3.2 •
3.2
2.9
24
11,300
8.5
0.6
i.o • •
16.2 "
26.2
11.2
24.4
S7.0
14,300
10.4
3.2
20.8
176
46
29.6
78.9
Benchmark levels lor comparison are NYSUtC soil cleanup objectives tVOCs only),
background levels (metals only), and risk-based cleanup levels for Industrial use
(PAHs only, consistent with Record of Decision for operable unit 1). •
Surface Water and Surface-Water Sediments
Surface water samples and sediments were
collected along the Unalam tributary and the
impoundment. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the .
analytical results.
CONTAMINANT
Arsenic
Copptr
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
BENCHMARK LEVEL FOR
COMPARISON
0.018 '
12
Not available
6.1
110
HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
11.4
35.2
8,710
19.6
116
benchmark; levels tor comparison are the low value lor that contaminant Horn
either USEPA water quality criteria or NYSDEC ambient water standards.
Table 3. Summary of Surface-Water Sediment
Analytical Results
(All values in parts per billion [ppb])
CONTAMINANT
Polyaranutic Hydrocarbon*
enzofalanthracene
Chrysene
Benzo|b]fluoranthene
ienzolklHuoranthene
Benzo(a]pyrene
lndeno( 1 ,2,3-cd|pyrene
Total PAH
BENCHMARK LEVEL FOR
COMPARISON
20.8 . '.
20.0
2O.8
20.8
20.8
8.8
Not available
HIGHEST
CONCENTRATION
2,200
4,000
4,300
3,100
1,700
1,100
23,850
Metati ..'-"• .
Arsenic" : ".
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
5,000
26,000
19,000
27,000
428,000
110
22,000 . •
85,000 -~ ' • • -:
16,400.^
32,000
51,900 -
70,200
547,000 •
690
43,600
173,000 ^i.
Benchmark levels tor comparison are the low .value tor that contaminant tram
either USEPA criteria for aquatic sediments (human health basis enteifa) or
NYSDEC sediment criteria. . " .
Of the 14 inorganics detected in the surface water
samples, only arsenic (up to 11.4 (parts per
billion) ppb) and copper (up to 35.2 ppb)
-------
significantly exceeded state or federal ambient
. water quality standards. Elevated PAH
concentrations were, detected at 3 of the 7
sediment sampling locations. PAHs were detected
in these areas with total concentrations ranging
up to 23,850 ppb. The PAH contamination
detected in the sediments is most likely
attributed to runoff from the site soils. Lead,
chromium, and mercury were detected in
concentrations above background levels which
could be attributed to regional background
variations or from off-site sources, as these
contaminants are not typically associated with the
wood-preserving operations conducted at the site.
The results of the sediment sampling indicate
that unconsolidated sediments along the Unalam
tributary and the impoundment along the western
side of the site contain elevated levels of PAHs.
The extent of contamination is approximately
2,850 feet in length, 1.5 feet in width and 0.5 feet
. in depth in the tributary, as well as a 5-foot wide
. strip along the.edge, of the. impoundment.
Groundwater
Site-specific geology within the GCL property is
characterized by a layer of fill approximately 5
feet thick in the western portion of the site which
gradually decreases to approximately 2 to 3 feet in
the eastern section of the GCL property. The fill
consists predominantly of silt and clay with
significant amounts of wood and assorted debris
on the GCL property. The fill is underlain by silt
and clay type soils.
There are two hydrogeologic systems consisting of
the overburden and bedrock units. The
overburden unit can be further divided into
shallow (approx. 5 to 16 feet in depth) und
intermediate (approx. 11 to 25 feet in depth)
groundwater zones. Groundwater is first
encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 8 feet
below grade around the site. As a general rule,
groundwater flow in the overburden aquifer
appears to be in a north-northwesterly direction;
groundwater movement in the bedrock appears, to
be in a northerly direction. Permeability of the
overburden and bedrock soils is relatively low;
groundwater flow through the bedrock aquifer
occurs primarily through fractures.
Six previously existing groundwater monitoring
wells and 14 newly installed wells were sampled
during the RI. Samples were collected during two
separate rounds -of sampling, and analyzed-for a
full range of organic and inorganic constituents.
Table 4 summarizes the analytical results. .Two
main groups of organic compounds were found in
the groundwater above drinking water standards,
namely, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
PAHs. PAHs, including benzo[b]fluorantliene (up
to 3 ppb), benzo[a]pyrene (up to 2 ppb), chrysene
(up to 4 ppb) and benzene (220 ppb) significantly
exceeded drinking water standards, and are the
same type of contaminants as those found in high
concentrations in the site soils. Chlorinated
VOCs such as vinyl chloride (up to 4,700 ppb),
1,1-Dichloroethane (up to 1,200 ppb), cis-1,2-
dichloroethene (up to 4,300 ppb), and
trichloroethene (up to 1,000 ppb) were also found
at concentrations exceeding drinking water •
standards, however, they are most likely not
related to the activities that took place at the
GCL site. It is likely that the chlorinated VOCs
originated fi=om-the--former Route 8 Landfill*• •••
located across from Delaware Avenue and
hydraulically upgradient from the GCL site. The
data obtained during the RI suggest that the
contaminant plume originating at the Route 8
Landfill extends beneath much of the GCL site.
Currently, the Route 8 site is being remediated
under the New York State hazardous waste.
remediation program; a groundwater collection
and treatment system designed to address the
groundwater contamination was constructed and
recently started operation.
Aluminum, (up to 6,210 p'pb), iron (up to 37,600
. ppb), manganese (up to 17,300), antimony (up to
44.3 ppb), chromium (up to 166 ppb),-and nickel
(up to 131 ppb) were detected in groundwater
samples in concentrations significantly above
drinking water standards. However, the presence
of most of these metals at elevated concentrations
in background and off-site wells is potentially
indicative of background levels and/or off-site
sources. . .
It is estimated that the GCL cbntaminnpfc plume
extends over an area of approximately 173,500
square feet with a thickness of approximately 45
feet. The volume of water which exceeds
drinking water standards is estimated at 10
million gallons.
During the RI, a creosote product layer (referred
-------
as dense nonaqueous phase liquid [DNAPL])
wasdiscovered in the shallow groundwater, in a
localized.area.near_the wood treatment/process
buildings. The DNAPL appears to be perched on
many thin soil layers rather than in a single well-
defined pool. It is estimated that the DNAPL
layer ranged from 1 to 2 feet in thickness, and
contained concentrations of PAHs in excess of
8,000 ppm. The volume of the DNAPL kyer is
estimated at 10,000 to 30,000 gallons. The data
suggest that the DNAPL layer is contained within
the property boundaries. DNAPLs are heavier
than water, and have a tendency to sink. PAH
compounds, which are the principal components
of creosote, are extremely immobile and tend to
sorb to the aquifer rather than move with the
groundwater. DNAPLs constitute a highly
significant source of soil and groundwater
contamination at the site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
Based upon the results of the investigations, a
baseline risk assessment was conducted to
estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions. The baseline risk
assessment estimates the human health and
ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the site, if no remedial action
were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-
related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum -exposure scenario: Hazard
' Jdepri/lcaffpiri-identifies the contaminants of
concern at the site based" on several factors such
as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, dnd
concentration. Exposure Assessment-estimates -
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these
exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment-
determines the types of adverse health effects
associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure
(dose) and severity of adverse effects (response).
Risk'Charocterization—svamnaiizes and combines
outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments
to provide a quantitative assessment of site-
related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting
contaminants of concern which would be
representative of site risks.. These contaminants
are summarized in Table 5, and include several
contaminants which are known to cause cancer in
laboratory animals and are suspected to be human
carcinogens. In addition, since the current land
use of the property is industrial, and based on
input from the community and local officials, it
was assumed that future land uses of the property
would continue to be industrial.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health
effects which could result from exposure to
contamination as a result of:
> Ingestion and inhalation of soil by young
children and adult residents living off-site;
•• Ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with
soil by older children and adults trespassing on
the site;
~V Tngestion and dermal contact with surface
water and sediments by older children and adults
trespassing on the site;
>• Ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with
groundwater by children and adults living in the
vicinity of the site in the future; and
>• Ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with
soil by on-site workers.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable
exposures are an individual lifetime excess
cardnogemc risk m_the range of lO^-toJ-O"6 (e.g.,
a one-in-ten-thousand to;a:one-m-a-miilion excess
cancer risk) and a maximum health Hazard Index
(which reflects noncarcinogenic effects for a
human receptor) equal to 1.0.. A Hazard Index
greater than 1.0 indicates a potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects.
The results of the baseline risk assessment
indicate that of all pathway- scenarios evaluated,
only one, future consumption of groundwater,
poses a potential health threat Although site
groundwater is not currently being used for
human consumption, under a hypothetical future
use scenario, children and adults consuming
contaminated groundwater in the vicinity of the
site would be at risk. The total potential
-------
Table 4. Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results
(All values in parts per billion tppbl)
CONTAMINANT
Volatile Otjanlct
Vinyl chloride
JhJoroctnmc
ficthyicnc cfuortdc
1.1-Ofchloroethene
1,1-Dichlonechane
cis-1 ,2-Olchloroethene
'richloroethene
ienzene
BENCHMARK LEVEL FOR
COMPARISON
2
5
S
7
S
70
5
5
GO. PROPERTY
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
•
8
IS
36
•48
220
MON-Ca PROPERTY •
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
4,700
19
25
17
1,200
4300
1,000
9
3FF-SITE
-UGHEST CONCENTRATION
3
13
29
30
Polyaromalic Hydrocarbon!
3enzo(a)anthracene
Chryiene
Denzo(b|fluorantliene
Benzolklfluoramhenc
Benzofalpyrene
lndeno(1,2,3-cdlpyrent
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
y
4
3
2
2
0.7
Mctali
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cniuiuiutix . -
Iron • • •
Manganese
Nickel
SO
6
SO
100.
SO ....
so
100
2,230
44.3
7.8
40.7 —
37,600
17,600
74.2
6,210
10
51.1
166 ......
15,400'
3.360
131
827
5.4 '
177 "••
1,220
519
35.2
wncnnunc levels lor comparison are taken trom UStPA and NYSLKJH drinking water MCLs. blank spaces denote a value below analytical detection limit.
carcinogenic health risk due to ingestion,
inhalation and dermal contact with contaminated
groundwater (from i»ite related-and upgradient
contaminant sources) by future children and adult
residents is 1.3 x 10"1. For site-related
groundwater contamination only, the total
potential carcinogenic health risk is 7.1 x 10"4.
These risk numbers mean that approximately one
person out of ten and one person out of ten-
thousand respectively, would be at risk of
developing cancer, if the site were not
remediated. The total potential carcinogenic
health risks (via exposure to surface water,
sediments, and soils) to tbTe-other potential
receptors were within EPA's acceptable range and
varied from liT6 to lO'12. The HI is less than 1.0
for all receptors, except for exposure to
groundwater under the future use scenario (up to
HI=387) and exposure to surface water under
current and future uses (up to HI=6).
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing ....
"site^related" ecological risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario: Problem Formula-
tion - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of
contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure
pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for
further study. Exposure Assessment—&
quantitative evaluation of contaminant release,
migration, and fate; characterization of exposure
pathways and receptors; and measurement or
estimation of exposure point concentrations.
Ecological Effects Assessment-literature reviews,
field studies, and toxicity tests, linking
contaminant concentrations to effects on
ecological receptors. Risk Characterization—
measurement or estimation of both current and
future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with
• evaluating the-contaminants associated wifch-the
site in conjunction with the site-specific biological
species/habitat information, Principal ecological
communities at the site consist of a deciduous
wetland area within the southern portion of the
site (Unalam tributary), and an emergent
wetland/open water complex (impoundment) to
the west of the site (see Figure 1). The wetland
areas support a wide array of animal species,
including 5 mammal species, 3 frog species, and
17 bird species.
This risk assessment evaluated the site ecological
• communities and their responses to toxicological
exposures. The threat of lethal accumulations of
contaminants in plant and «nimn1 populations was
evaluated. The results of the ecological risk
assessment indicate the potential for ecological
impacts due to the presence of PAH
contamination in the surface water and sediments
of the Unalam Tributary, drainage ditches,
wetlands and pond. The invertebrate and plant
communities present at the site appear to
bioconcentrate PAHs. Since both aquatic plants
and invertebrates form a portion of the diets of
wading birds and waterfowl, their diet poses a
potential-exposure route. Although adult mallard
ducks subjected to dietary exposure of levels
similar to those found on site displayed no toxic
effects, studies have shown significant mortality
and deformities in mallard embryos and ducklings
following exposure to similar levels of PAHs.
Therefore, ingestion by breeding adult waterfowl
may affect nesting success on the wetland
habitats present on and adjacent to the site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by the
preferred alternative or one of the other active
measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare or the
environment. • . ... .
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to
protect human health and the environment.
These objectives are based on available
information and standards such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
and risk-based levels established in the risk
assessment.
Organic contamination-has been detected at the — -
site at concentrations above levels determined to
be protective of human health and the
environment in groundwater and sediments,
respectively. Therefore, the following remedial
action objectives have been established for the
contaminated soil: • •
> Prevent public and biotic exposure to contami
nant sources that present a significant threat (con
taminated groundwater and surface-water
sediments); and,
>• Reduce the concentrations of contaminants-in;
the groundwater to levels which are protective of.;
human health and the environment (e.g.,
wildlife).
»• Prevent further migration of groundwater
contamination.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy
be protective of human health and the : •;"-":
environment, be cost-effective, comply with other
statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions ".
and alternative treatment technologies and
resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the statute
8
-------
Table 5. Chemicals of Potential Concern
Croundwater
/ "etone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene*
Chloroform •
Chloroethane*
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,2 Dichloroethane*
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1,2 Dichloroethene
trans-1,2 Dichloroethene*
Ethyibenzene
Methylene chloride*
4-Methyl^2-pentanone
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene*
Toluene- •• - •
1,1,1 -Trichleroethane -
1,1,2-Trichlioroethane*.
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Acenaphthene
Anthracene •
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-MethylnaphthaIene*
2-Methyiphenol -
4-Methyiphenoi
. Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
Aldrin
Alpha BHC
beta BHC*
gamma BHC
Chlordane
ODD*
DDE •-_ . .
Dieldrin ... : .
Endrin
Heptachlor epcxide
* Not a contaminant of concern when Route 8 wells are excluded.
Antimony
Arsenic*
Barium*
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Soil
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzoia)anthpacene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
DDT
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Ethyibenzene
Flouranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methoxychlor
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene- • --- --.
PCBs
Pyrene
Styrene
Toluene
Xylenes
Surface'Water
Arsenic
Barium
Chloroethane
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Sediment
Acenaphthene
Aldrin
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene... .
. Ben2o(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chlordane
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
Chrysene
DDT
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endosulfan
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylene Chloride
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol .: . .
Pyrene
-------
includes a preference for the use of treatment as
a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
Implementation time includes time necessary to
contract and design the alternative.
In the spirit of the SAGM initiative and relying oil
the Agency's technology selection guidance for
wood-treating sites, EPA considered technologies
which have been consistently selected at wood-
preserving sites with similar characteristics (e.g.,
types of contaminants present, types of disposal
practices, environmental media affected) during
the development of remedial alternatives.
The alternatives developed for groundwater (GW)
are:
Alternative 1: No Action
Capital Cost:
0 & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Implementation Time:
Not Applicable
$27,200 for biannual
• • monitoring
'$20,000 each five-year
review ~
$380,700 (over 30
years)
Not Applicable
The Superfund program requires that the No
Action alternative be considered as a baseline for
comparison with other alternatives. The No
Action alternative for the contaminated
groundwater would only include a long-term
monitoring program. The contaminated
groundwater and DNAPL present in the
.subsurface would be left to naturally attenuate
"without-any treatment. The long-term
monitoring program would consist of semiannual
sampling for PAHs at existing wells on-site and
around the site. A 30-year monitoring period was
assumed for estimating the cost of this
alternative. A total of six existing monitoring
wells would be utilized to sample the groundwater
to determine whether the concentration of the
contaminants of concern have been lowered to
cleanup levels through natural attenuation and to
monitor the migration of contaminants and free-
phase DNAPL in areas surrounding the site.
Because this alternative would result in
contaminants being left on-site above health
based levels, the site would have to be reviewed
every five years for a period of 30 years per the
requirements of CERCLA. These five-year
reviews would include the reassessment of human
health and environmental risks due'to the
contaminated material left on-site, using data
obtained from the monitoring program.
Alternative GW-2, Option A: Extraction, on-
site treatment via activated carbon
adsorption, and discharge to surface water
Capital Cost:
0 & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Implementation Tune:
$1,883,100
$603,300 pen year
$9,369,400 •
24 months
The major features of this alternative are
groundwater extraction, collection, treatment and-
discharge of treated groundwater. The treatment
system would consist of an oil/water separator for
phase separation, followed by pretreatment for
manganese removal (necessary to eliminate
potential interferences with subsequent treatment
processes) and removal of organic contaminants—
by activated carbon adsorption. The treated ;.
groundwater would be discharged to the small
unnamed stream adjacent to the site. Although it
is likely to take considerable longer than 30 years
to achieve remediation goals, the treatment plant
design and cost estimate is based on an operating
period of 30 years.
The extraction/collection system would include a
combination of a collection trench for shallow
groundwater and an extraction wellfor the
intermediate groundwater. The trench would be
approximately 700 feet long and would be located
at the northwestern (downgradient) boundary-of-
the site. It is estimated that approximately 0.4
gallons per minute (gpm) of groundwater would -•
be pumped from the collection trench, and
approximately 26.4 gpm would be pumped from
the extraction well to the on-site treatment
system.
In addition to groundwater extraction, if the
DNAPL is found to be pumpable, DNAPL :
extraction wellpoints would be installed in areas
of suspected DNAPL. It is envisioned that four
wellpoints would be installed in the shallow
overburden and would have low sustainable
pumping rates (less than 1 gpm in total). Total
flow to the on-site treatment system would be
10
-------
approximately 30 gpm. All pumping rates would
be refilledduring the design phase based on
pumping tests. Extracted grbundwater would be"
delivered to a collection, tank before treatment.
Because of the nature of the creosote
contaminants and the observation of DNAPL
during field activities, oily product is likely to be
present with the extracted groundwater. Heavy
or light product would be separated using an
oil/water separator. Solids and/or heavy product
would settle by gravity into the separator's sludge
hopper and would be removed periodically for
disposal to a permitted treatment facility. Lighter
product would float to the surface and be removed
by a skimmer for disposal/reuse at a licensed off-
site treatment/recycling facility.
The pretreatment system would consist of an
individual treatment train designed for the
removal of manganese. Manganese would be
removed" through pH adjustment, oxidation,
precipitation, coagiilatibn, clarification,
neutralization, and filtration steps with the
addition of caustic, acid, and polymer. Sludges
produced during this step would be stored in
drums or rolloffs, and sent out to an approved
disposal facility. Filtration may be required to
further pretreat the effluent
After pretreatment, groundwater would be
pumped to a carbon adsorption system consisting
of two carbon beds connected in series. Organic
contaminants (PAHs) would be removed by the
carbon adsorption units to target groundwater
cleanup levels." The spent carbon would be
collected and shipped for off-site disposal or
regeneration and reuse.
Treated groundwater would be discharged via a
culvert to the small unnamed stream located on
the southern border of the site. This stream in
turn discharges to an unnamed tributary to
.. Unalam Creek, which eventually discharges to the
Susquehanna River. - The discharge structure
would include appropriate., erosion control devices
such as rip rap and energy dissipation features.
The discharge would comply with the> New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NYSPDES) requirements. All. waste residuals
generated from the treatment process would be
transported off-site to a permitted treatment and
disposal facility, or (in the case of carbon) to a
recycling facility.
The goal of this alternative is to restore -
groundwater to .drinking water quality. However,
due to the characteristics of creosote (e.g.,
extremely viscous and difficult to pump) and the
complex hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely
that this goal will be achieved within a reasonable
time frame for areas containing the creosote layer
(e.g., shallow groundwater).' Current estimates of
shallow ground water remediation are on the
order of several hundred years. As such", it is
likely that chemical-specific ARARs will "be waived
for those portions of the aquifer based on the
technical impracticability of achieving further
contamination reduction within a reasonable time
frame. If groundwater restoration is not feasible
or practical, the alternative may then focus on •
containing the extent of groundwater
contamination within the site boundaries.
Restoration of the groundwater outside the
DNAPL source areas (e:g.; intermediate
groundwater) is likely to be feasible, sinceit is
mostly contaminated with mobile organic
contaminants (e.g., benzene). ..;..,.., ;i
During design or operation of the system, it may
also be determined that natural attenuation or
enhanced biodegradation (e.g., introduction of air
to increase the rate of biodegradation) would be
able to achieve a similar level of contaminant
removal and containment as groundwater
extraction and treatment, but at a lower cost.
Such information would be utilized during the
remedial design to maximize the effectiveness and
efficiency of the system. ;-The imVma^'rm would
•• - also-be used to reassess the time frame .and.
technical practicability of achieving cleanup
standards.
Alternative GW-2, Option B: Extraction, on-
site treatment via biological treatment, and
discharge to surface water .
Capital Cost: $2,058$QO ' '
O & M Cost: $626,500 . . . .
Present Worth Cost — $9,832,800 ^
; Implementation Time: 24..months -.
This option is virtually identical to Alternative 2,
option A. The only difference is that, following
pretreatment, the remaining contaminants in the
groundwater would be pumped to an aerobic
11
-------
biological reactor for treatment. This reactor
would contain bacterial cultures capable of
_ degrading, the contaminants in the groundwater.
Wastes (e.g., sludges) generated during the
treatment process would be disposed off-site at a
permitted disposal/treatment facility.
Alternative GW-3: Extraction, cm-site
pretreatment, discharge to publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) for finpl treatment
Capital Cost:
O & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Implementation Time:
$1,904,000
$613,600
$9,518,200
24 months
The major features of this alternative are
groundwater extraction, collection, pretreatment
and discharge to the local POTW. In order to
comply with POTW influent requirements,
manganese would have to be removed from the
groundwater. This would be accomplished by
using conventional pretreatment methods for —
manganese removal sucn'as the treatment' £fain
described under Alternative GW-2. The
extraction/collection system and pretreatment for
this alternative would 'also be the same as that :
discussed for Alternative GW-2. Therefore, only
those operations that7 differ from previous
alternatives are discussed below.
Treatment of organic contaminants would be
accomplished by the Village of Sidney POTW
utilizing a conventional sanitary wastewater
treatment process consisting mainly of aerobic
biodegradation. The facility was designed for a -
maximum wastewater treatment capacity of 13 . .:.
million gallons'per day (MGD),'and currently
operates at an average capacity of 0.6 to 0.7 MGD.
Effluent from the pretreatment system would be
discharged to the sanitary sewer line via a
metered control manhole, which would record
flow to the POTW. The nearest sanitary sewer is
located parallel to Delaware Avenue, .
approximately 80 feet south of the roadway.
Groundwater would have to meet pretreatment
requirements prior to discharge to the POTW.
The Village of Sidney Municipal Code governs
sewer use within the. Village and regulates the
discharge of wastes into the POTW. The Village
has indicated that final acceptance of the
pretreated GCL wastewater would not be available
until a detailed application is submitted.
It is noted, however, that due to the
characteristics of creosote (e.g., extremely viscous
and difficult to pump) and the complex
hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely that this
goal will be achieved within a reasonable time
frame for areas containing the creosote layer (e.g.,
shallow groundwater). Current estimates of
DNAPL remediation are on the order-of several
hundred years. As such, it is likely that chemical-
specific ARARs will be waived for those portions
of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further
contamination reduction within a reasonable
timeframe.
The alternatives developed for surface-water
sediments (SD) are:
Alternative SD-1: No Action
Capital Cost:
O & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Implementation Time:
$0
$18,900 for biannual
monitoring
$20,000 for each five-
year review
$277,700
6 months
The No Action alternative for the sediments at
the -GCL site would consist of a long-term
monitoring program.: For cost-estimating
•purposes, it is assumed that sediments" would be
monitored semiannually and that eightsediment
samples would be collected and analyzed. '
Because this alternative does not include contami
nant removal, the site will have to be reviewed
every five years for a period of 30 years per the
requirements of JCERCLA^ as^amended.^These
: five-year Teviews would Jindude^tiie. reassessment
ofhuman health and^ envjujp^enj&alJrSk^due to
the contaminated maten^" left pn-|ite^ing data
. obtained from the monitoring
12
-------
Alternative SD-2: Excavation, treatment and
disposal with GCL- property soils
Capital Cost: $298,400
0 & M Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: . $298,400
Implementation Time: 24 months
The contaminated sediments would be excavated
during periods of no or low flow using
conventional earth'moving equipment such as
backhoes, bulldozers, etc. The total volume of
sediments to he excavated is estimated to he 125
cy. Excavation would be performed under
moistened conditions to minimize the generation
of fugitive dust. Erosion and sediment control
measures such as silt curtains would be provided
during excavation to control migration of
contaminated sediment. Adjacent wetlands would
be protected by erosion and sediment control
measures.
The sediments would be'treated via thermal
desorption along with the GCL property soils.(see
Record of Decision dated 9/30/94); the design of
the remedy was recently initiated. A typical
thermal desorption process consists of a feed
system, thermal processor, and gas treatment
system (consisting of an afterburner and scrubber
or a carbon adsorption system). Screened
sediments are placed in the thermal processor
feed hopper. Nitrogen or steam may be used as a
transfer medium for the vaporized PAHs to
minimize the potential for fire. The gas would be
. heated and then .injected into the thermal
. processor atia-typical operating temperature of
700°F to 1000°F, PAH contaminants of concern
and moisture in the contaminated sediments
would be volatilized into gases, then'treated in
the off-gas treatment system. Treatment options
for the off-gas include burning in an afterburner
(operated to ensure complete destruction of the
PAHs), adsorbing contaminants onto activated
carbon, or collection through condensation
followed by .off-site disposal. Thermal desorption
- achieves approximately 98 to 99 percent reduction
of PAHs in soiL If an afterburner were used, the
treated off-gas would be treated further in the
scrubBer for particulate and acid gas removal A
post-treatment sampling and analysis program
would be instituted in order to ensure that
contamination in the soil/sediment had been
reduced to below cleanup levels. The treated
sediment would be redeposited along with treated
soils in excavated areas on the GCL property.
The excavated areas of the intermittent stream
and wetlands edge would be backfilled with clean
material and restored to pre-excavation
conditions. The restoration would take place as
soon as practicable after the sediments have been
excavated, in order to minimize the period of
impact to the stream and wetland. All applicable
wetlands management guidelines would be
followed.
*
Alternative SD-3: Excavation and off-site
disposal
Capital Cost:
0 & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Implementation Time:
$820,300
$0
$820,300
24 months
This alternative consists of excavation of 125 cy
contaminated sediment as described in'
Alternative SD-2 and transportation of all
contaminated materials to an off-site RCRA
permitted facility for treatment and disposal.
One hundred twenty-five cy of clean fill would b :
used to restore excavated areas. Wetlands. woulr;
be restored as discussed in Alternative SD-2.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alter-./i
tives, each alternative is assessed against nine
evaluation criteria, namely, overall protection of
human health and the environment, compliance
with ARARs, long-term effectiveness and -
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume, short-term effectiveness^ ."-.^
implementability, cost, and state and community
acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are described below.
»• Overall protection pf human health and the
environment addresses .whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how ^
risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engi-
neering controls, or institutional 'controls.
> Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) addr'esses
-------
whether or not a remedy will meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other federal. and environmental
statutes and requirements or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
»• Long-term effectiveness and Permanence
refers to the ability of a remedy to
reliable protection of human health and the
environment over tune, once cleanup goals have
been met.
»• Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume
through treatment is the anticipated performance
of the treatment technologies a remedy may
employ.
*• Short-term effectiveness addresses the period
of time needed to achieve protection and any ad-
"verse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until
cleanup goals,are_achieved._
> Imolementabilitv is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed
to implement a particular option.
»• Cost includes estimated capital and operation
and maintenance costs, and net present worth
costs.
»• State acceptance indicates whether, based on
its review of the FFS report and Proposed Plan,
the concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred alternative at the. present time.
>• Community acceptance will be assessed in the
Record of Decision (ROD) following a review of
the public comments received on the FFS report
and the Proposed Plan.
A comparative analysis of the remedial
alternatives based upon the preceding evaluation
criteria follows.
Groundwater .
> Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Over time, Alternative GW-1 would provide some
limited protection of human health and the •
environment since contaminants would be = -
attenuated through natural processes (e.g.,
biodegradation, dispersion). Alternatives GW-2
and GW-3 would be protective of human health
and the environment, since they would actively
reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of •
contaminants in the groundwater, and would
protect groundwater surrounding the GCL site
from further contamination. Although GW-2 and
GW-3 would result hi significant reduction in the
mass of contaminants present hi'the aquifer, it is
unlikely that full restoration of groundwater
resources would be achieved within a reasonable-
time frame.
»• Compliance with ARARs
Alternative GW-1 would not comply with federal
or state drinking water standards or criteria or
those ARARs required for protection of
groundwater. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would
be designed to treat the aquifer to
chemical-specific ARARs associated with/state and-
federal groundwater and drinking water
standards. Extracted groundwater would be
treated to achieve NYSPDES requirements under
Alternative GW-2; under Alternative GW-3 the ex
tracted groundwater would be treated to local
pretreatment standards prior to discharge to the
POTW. Each of these alternatives would be
capable of removing a significant mass of
contaminants in the groundwater. The goal of
these alternatives is to restore groundwater to
drinking water standards. However, due to the
characteristics of creosote (e.g., extremely viscous
and difficult to pump) and the complex^
hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely..that this
goal will be achieved within a reasonable time
frame for areas containing the creosote layer (e.g.,
shallow groundwater). Current estimates of
DNAPL remediation are on the order of several
hundred years. As such, it is likely that chemical-
specific ARARs will be waived for those portions
of the aquifer based on the technical
impracticability of achieving further
contamination reducti.onrwith.in a reasonable
timeframe. : ,; ... .-
>• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative GW-1 would not provide for active
treatment and would rely on natural attenuation
14
-------
processes to restore the contaminated aquifer.
Therefore, this alternative would not be an
effective long-terni remedy.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the
potential risk associated with groundwater
' ingestion by extracting and treating the
groundwater to remove a significant mass of
contaminants from the aquifer. The time to
achieve these risk reductions is limited by the
effective extraction rates from the aquifer.
However, it is unlikely that DNAPL
contamination present in the shallow aquifer can
be completely remediated due to the tendency of
DNAPLs to sorb to the aquifer. Although none of
the alternatives would be able to clean the aquifer
to drinking water standards in a short period of
time, the treatment alternatives would protect,
surrounding groundwater from further
contamination.
>• Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
• Through Treatment
Alternative GW-1 would not involve any removal
or active treatment of the contaminants in the
aquifer; therefore, would not be effective in
reducing the mobility, toxicity, or volume through
a treatment process. However, over time, natural
attenuation processes would provide some
reduction of the toxicity and volume of
contaminants.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants in
the aquifer to a larger extent than GW-1 since
extraction and treatment of groundwater are
provided.
*• Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative GW-1 would
result in no additional risk to the community
during remedial activities, since no construction
or remediation activities would.be conducted.
Workers involved in periodic sampling of site soils
would be exposed to minimal risks because
appropriate health and safety protocols would be
followed for this activity. For purposes of this
analysis, monitoring of the site would occur for 30
years.
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 involve construction
and operation of an on-site treatment plant.
Procedures for proper handling of the treatment
reagents would be followed for all treatment
alternatives. .Any process residuals generated
would be properly handled and disposed off-site.
The risk to workers involved hi the remediation
would also be minimized by establishing
appropriate health and safety procedures and
preventive measures to avoid direct contact with
contaminated materials and ingestion/inhalation
of fugitive dust. All site workers would be OSHA-
certified and would be instructed to follow OSHA
protocols.
It is estimated that the treatment alternatives
would take well over 30 years to achieve the
remedial action objectives. However, a 30-year
period was used for costing purposes. Operation
of the treatment plant would be stopped when
remedial objectives are achieved i.e:, levels of
contaminants in the aquifer are reduced to State
and Federal drinking water standards, unless it is
determined that ARARs must be waived in
portions of the aquifer.
»• Implementabilitv . .
Alternative 1 would not involve any major site
activities other than monitoring and performing
five-year reviews. These activities are easily
implemented.
The treatment components of Alternatives GW-2
and GW-3 would be easily implemented, as the
technologies are proven and readily available.
The carbon adsorption technology proposed for
use in Alternative GW-2A is a proven and
efficient method for removal of organic
contaminants. Biological treatment, specified in
Alternatives GW-2B and GW-3, has been used
successfully for groundwater contaminated with
creosote wastes. The manganese removal pretreat
ment technology required under Alternatives GV.-
2 and GW-3 is proven and readily available.
Sufficient space is available on-site for a
treatment plant. - —
Alternatives GW-2 andt3W-3 would require-
institutional management of the operation and
maintenance of the treated groundwater
discharge system. Off-site disposal facilities are
available for the disposal of the oil/water
separator sludge and skimmings generated from
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3. Disposal (or
15
-------
recycle) facilities are also available for recovered
DNAPL and the other residues generated from
those alternatives....Although treatment processes
utilized in Alternative GW-3 are proven, it is
uncertain whether the Village of Sidney POTW
would accept the treated groundwater.
Acceptance of the GCL.effluent by the POTW
would be contingent upon factors such as capacity
available, waste characteristics, and permit
requirements.
•• Cost
GW-1 is the least expensive of all alternatives but
would not involve treatment. Alternative 1 has a
present worth cost of $380,700 which is associated
with conducting a sampling and analyses program
and five-year reviews over a 30-year period.
Alternative GW-2A would be the most expensive
treatment alternative followed by GW-3 and GW-
2B. However, the cost differences between GW-
2A, GW-2B and GW;3_would be so small as to not
be significant.
»• State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred remedy.
>• Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred
alternative will be assessed in the ROD following
review of the public comments received on the
RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan.
Sediments
. >• Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternative SD-1 would not meet any of the
remedial objectives and thus would not be
protective of the environment. Contaminated
sediments would remain on-site and would
continue to pose a risk to the biota. Natural .
flushing would reduce-contaminants in the
sediments somewhat, especially after the
contaminated soils on the GCL-property are
remediated.
Alternative SD-2, involving on-site sediment
treatment and Alternative SD-3 involving off-site
treatment/disposal of sediments, would remove
contamination and eliminate any environmental
threats posed by the sediments. Therefore,'these'"
alternatives would meet remedial objectives.
»• Compliance with ARARs
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for the con
taminated sediments. Alternative SD-1 would
comply with appropriate requirements such as
New York State Technical and Administrative
Guidance Memorandums. ,
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would be designed
and implemented to satisfy all appropriate
requirements and location-specific ARARs
identified for the site. Excavation activities would
be conducted in compliance with the OSHA
standards, soil erosion, sediment control and
wetland protection requirements. Alternative SD-
2 would also comply with ARARs related to on-
site treatment (e.g., disposal of treatment
. residuals, stormwater discharge requirements and
air pollution control regulations pertaining to
fugitive emissions and air quality standards).
Under Alternative SD-3, excavated sediments
would be sent to an appropriate
treatment/disposal facility in accordance with
applicable ARARs. !
»• Long-Term Effectiveness
Alternative SD-1 would monitor contamination in
the sediments and would not remove and/or treat
contaminants. Therefore, this alternative would
not reduce the long-term, risks to the
environment associated with the sediments.
Alternative SD-2 calls for on-site sediment
treatment along the GCL-property soils. The soil
treatment system, currently under design, would
reduce the levels of PAH contaminants in
sediments by 98 to 99 percent.
Alternative SD-3 would provide longrterm
protection by removing ihe contaminated'
sediments which would be sent to.an approved
disposal facility. Soil cover and revegetation
would provide protection against erosion. No
long-term monitoring would be required. -
16
-------
»• Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume
Through Treatment
Alternative SD-1. would not provide immediate
reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of
contaminants because treatment is not included
as part of this alternative. Some reduction may
be realized after the GCL-property soils have
been remediated through natural attenuation
processes.
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants by
removal and on-site treatment (Alternative SD-2)
or off-site disposal (Alternative SD-3).
>• Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative SD-1 would.
not pose any additional risks to the community,
since this alternative does not involve any
construction or remediation. Workers involved in
periodic sampling of sediments would be exposed
to minimal risks because appropriate health and
safety protocols would be followed for this
activity.
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 include activities such
as excavation, screening, shredding, and handling
of contaminated sediments which could result in
potential exposure of workers and residents to
fugitive dust, and possible suspension of
sediments, hi order to minimize potential short-
term impacts, the area would be secured and
access would be restricted to authorized personnel
. only. In addition,.dust control measures such .as .
wind screens and water sprays would be used to
minimize fugitive dust emissions from material
handling. The risk to workers involved in the
remediation would also be minimized by
establishing appropriate health and safety
procedures and preventive measures, (e.g.,
enclosed cabs on backhoes and proper personal
protection equipment) to prevent direct contact
with contaminated materials and
ingestion/inhalation of fugitive dust. All site
workers would be OSHA certified and would be
instructed to follow OSHA protocols. Some
increase in traffic and noise pollution would be
expected from site activities. Short-term impacts.
may be experienced for about a six-month period
which is the estimated time for construction and
remedial activities.
Under Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3, short-term im
pacts on the environment from removal of
vegetation .and. destruction of habitat could occur. .
A plan would be prepared and implemented to
minimize and restore (Le., revegetate) any
damage to the environment. Erosion and
sediment control measures such as silt curtains
and berms would be provided during material
handling activities to control migration of
contaminants.
>• Implementability
»
Alternative SD-1 would not involve any major site
activities except monitoring and sampling. These
activities would be easily implementable.
Alternative SD-2 would be easily implemented, as
the technology is proven and readily available. •
The thermal desorption component of this
alternative has been shown to be effective for
destruction of PAHs, and is commercially
available. Sufficient land is available at the site
for operation of a mobile thermal desorption
system and supporting facilities. Alternative SD-3
involves off-site disposal. Capacity for the small
volume of sediment should be available at a
permitted facility. Implementation of
Alternatives SD-2 and SD-3 would require
restriction of access to the site during the.
remediation process. Coordination with state and
local agencies would also be required during
remediation.
- Cost
Alternative SDrl.is.the less expensive alternative,
but does not provide treatment of contaminated
sediments. Alternative SD-1 has a present worth
cost of $277,700 which is associated with
conducting a sampling and analyses program and
five-year reviews over a 30-year period.
Alternative SD-2 is the least expensive of the
treatment alternatives and has a present worth
cost of $298,000. The most expensive Alternative
is SD-3 with a present worth cost of $820,300.
»• State Acceptance . ."
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred remedy.
17
-------
»• Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred
alternative will be assessed in the ROD following
review of the public comments received .on the
RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon an evaluation of the various
alternatives, EPA and NYSDEC recommend
Alternatives GW-2 and SD-2 as the preferred
alternatives for remediation of contaminated
groundwater and sediment on the GCL site.
Alternative GW-2 would address the contaminated
groundwater through the extraction, collection,
on-site treatment and discharge of treated
groundwater to the surface water. Alternative
GW-2 provides two options for primary treatment
of organics, carbon absorption (GW-2A) and
biological treatment (GW-2B). Given the
information currently available, both options
appear to be equally reliable and cost-effective.
Therefore, a more detailed evaluation of the two
options will be conducted during the remedial
design through treatability studies. The
additional information gathered from the
treatability studies will be used to determine
which option is more appropriate and cost-
effective. As noted above, the information
gathered during remedial design would also be
used to reassess the timeframe and technical
practicability of achieving State and Federal
drinking water standards.
Alternative SD-2 will address the contamination
by excavating and treating contaminated sediment
on-site through a thermal desorption- process.
Treating the contaminated sediments along with
the GCL-property soils provides an effective and
cost-effective method for addressing the
contaminated sediments. Alternative SD-2 will
also provide for the mitigation of damages to the
aquatic environment which may occur during the
implementation of this alternative.
The preferred alternative would provide the best
balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the evaluating criteria. EPA and the
NYSDEC believe that the preferred alternative
would be protective of human health and the
environment, would comply with ARARs (unless it
is subsequently proven to be technically
impracticable), would be cost-effective, and would
utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery " "
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The remedy also would meet the statutory
preference for the use of treatment as a principal
element.
18
-------
Halo;
ni«
ni« Layout M<^> dhtU«d (mm Anginl 1083 wiW pholofjmph. I Ibloifc cl«
lettimiwaiBUartfbdbyMfcJphotoginptM Mudlng Jino 1063. Odobe
i.Odoher (DOS.
Wtltr Dillnigi I
MlileilcM«l»(U Slang* Ai*ti
Viulcnl r«nta
0 200 JOO FT.
(APPnOX.)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PR01CCTION AGENCY
GCL TIC & TREATING 51 IT
FIGURE 1
HISTORICAL LAND U5L"
SITE LAYOUT MAP
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC NOTICES
-------
1
The Oneanta Daily Star
March 1, 1995
witn ttie union were never the same,"
Alou said. "I am not a strikebreaker. It
isn't us managers putting this show on.
"If I leave, it won't be on any kind of
a leave of absence. If I run away from
this, it's for the rest of my life. Other-
wise I'm going to stick around to see the
end of this."
Alou also attacked acting commis-
•gh, St. Louis, Texas
.em, that we have no
to make," Hemond
ancel the games was
baseball. operations
m of the commis-
Pedro Borbon, 48 years old and 15
years removed from the majors, signed
for real Tuesday as a replacement
player, threw in the bullpen and de-
clared himself ready to pitch.
The Reds erroneously issued a news
release Monday saying they had signed
Borbon. General manager Jim Bowden
later said that the right-hander would
"Sometimes it gets to a point you
want to cry because you've got to make
a decision on something you love more
than anything in the world and maybe
something that's going to ruin you for
the rest of your career," said Carter,
who plans to play in exhibitions but not
as a regular-season replacement.
Free agent pitcher Todd Stottlemyre.
who spent the last six seasons with To-
ronto, thinks the players will face a
huge task trying to win back fans.
"I think it'll be important ... that
maybe the.players do stop and sign a
few more autographs, talk to the fans,"
Stottlemyre said. "They've been the
ones who've lost the most in this thing
and you have to have respect for that."
reer
rent New York Giants
up. Before taking the
ylor stood shaking his
smiling widely as wres-
aels delivered a wild,
i rant.
." met Bam Bam.
""Bam *Bigelow"was"on
ill field, playing- in the
wouldn't be hearing
•Tence Taylor," Bigelow
d with a straight (for
"I know I could have
:ter job than LT."
ight end Howard Cross,
in the crowd, was re-
giggles at this point.
•low concluded his com-
:This is my world. LT"
Tinned and announced,
Dt to love that. That was
Ues Thomas Randolph,
.om and Willie Beamon
:ically agreed.
11 entertainment and
. cornerback Randolph.
1 well."
SERVICE
W YORK, INC.
:'with the New York
:h 10.1995.
: new feature to the
UWORX will allow
. digital capability as
iow are proposed rates
=5 (PER HOUR OF USB
$13.20 ' '
'$13.20
$13.20 .
v°/EPA
THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Invites .
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
PROPOSED CLEANUP OF THE GCL
TIE & TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
at
DELAWARE AVENUE, SIDNEY, NEW YORK
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) will hold a public meeting to discuss the findings of the Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and the Proposed Plan (PP) for the GCL Tie & Treating Superfund Site.
The meeting will be held on.Wednesday, March 8,1995 at 7 pm in the Sidney Civic Center, 21 Liberty
Street, Sidney, NY. The release of the Proposed Plan and the scheduled public meeting are in accordance
with EPA's public participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of T980.
Site remediation activities at this site were segregated into two different phases, or operable units, so that
remediation of different environmental media or areas of the site could proceed separately, resulting in
the expeditious remediation of the entire site. The first phase remedy, which was selected this past sum-
mer, addresses the contaminated soils and debris on the GCL property portion of the site; this phase is
currently in the remedial design stage. The second and final phase, addresses contamination in the groundwater
and surface water sediments. . " .
Eiased on the available information, the goal of the preferred groundwater remedy for the second phase
is to restore groundwater to drinking water quality. However, due to the characteristics of creosote (e.g.,
extremely viscous and difficult to pump) and trie complex site hydrogeological setting, it is unlikely that
this goal will be achieved within a reasonable time frame tor at least some portions of the aquifer. If groundwater
restoration is not feasible or practical, the alternative may then focus on containing the extent of ground-
water contamination within the site boundaries, and/or using natural attenuation or other processes to achieve
contaminant reduction. The preferred remedy for contaminated surface-water sediments is treatment via
thermal desorption along with the GCL property soils.
EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC, may modify the preferred alternative or select another response ac-
tion presented in this Proposed Plan based on new information or public comments. Therefore, the pub-
lic is encouraged to review and comment on all of the alternatives identified herein. Documentation of
the project findings is presented in the site file. These documents are available at the:
Sidney Memorial Library
Main Street
Sidney, NY
Comments of the Proposed Plan will be summarized and responses provided in the Responsiveness Summary
section of the Record of Decision. The Record of Decision is the document that presents EPA's final, se-
lection for response actions. Written comments on this Proposed Plan should be sent by close of busi-
ness, March 30, 1994 to:
Carlos R. Ramos, Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
-------
APPENDIX C
MARCH 8, 1995 PUBLIC MEETIKG ATTENDANCE SHEETS
-------
/ .NAME
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. REGION II .
PUBLIC MEETING
. FOR
GCL Tie 6 Treating Superfund site
Sidney, New York
Wednesday, March 8, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Please Print clearly)'
STREET
|Q\ OTkil
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
J A Lt># w, j yj)f .
j?/ ^/./^/y >.:>/-
1 3% 3?
1*7-
•0/t-
(•3v^ ^r
REPRESENTING
fy
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
GCL Tie & Treating Superfund Site
Sidney, New York
Wednesday, March 8, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
REPRESENTING
T& a.7* <^
Ui
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING ;
FOR
GCL Tie fi Treating Superfund Site
Sidney, New York
Wednesday, March 8, 1995
ATTENDEES '
STREET
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
By&o
-------
APPENDIX D
MARCH 8, 1995 PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC MEETING
GCL TIE & TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
A public meeting held at the Sidney Civic. .Center,
21 Liberty Street, Sidney, New York, 13838, on Wednesday,
the 8th day of March, 1995, commencing at 7:06 p.m.
APPEARANCES:
BEFORE:
CECILIA ECHOLS
Community Relations Coordinator
DOUGLAS GARBARINI, Chief
New York/Caribbean Superfund Section I
CARLOS RAMOS
Project Manager
Ruth I. Lynch
Registered Professional Reporter
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
MS. ECHOLS: Okay, we're ready to begin. Good
evening, I'm Cecilia Echols, Community Relations
Coordinator for the GCL Tie and Treating Superfund
Site. We're here to speak about the second operable
unit regarding the site and to give EPA's preferred
remedy for the groundwater and surface water sediments.
I would assume that everyone received a proposed plan
in the mail and has been able to review it, if not I
think- everyone received one from the table in the back.
I hope everyone has signed in.
The public comment period began on March 1st, it
ends on March 30th. If you have any comments or
questions to ask the EPA you can send in your written
comments to Carlos Ramos, his address is in the
proposed plan. And he will address all of your
questions in a responsiveness summary which will become
part of the record of decision. If you're interested
in finding out more information about the GCL Tie and
Treating plant, there is an information repository at
the Sidney Memorial Library on Main Street. And I'm
gonna pass it over to Doug.
MR. GARBARINI: Okay, thank you, Cecilia.
My name is Doug Garbarini, I'm the supervisor in
the Region II New York City office, and Region II is
one of ten regional office across the country that EPA
Empire Court Reporters
One .Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
•7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
has, and we're responsible for environmental protection
in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands. I think before we get into the project
details here of the GCL site, what I typically do is go
through a ten-minute spiel on the Superfund process.
But looking out here, I think all of you were present
at the last meeting, so I don't want to necessarily .
bore you with that. There might be one new face.
AN ATTENDEE: I was at one — one meeting, I -
don't know whether —
MS. ECHOLS: The last one. was in August you
were here probably for.
AN ATTENDEE: Yeah, original one.
MR. GARBARINI: The original one.. Okay. Do you
have a little bit of familiarity with the Superfund
process, or do you — .
AN ATTENDEE: Yeah.
MR. GARBARINI: Would you like me to go over
anything for you?
AN ATTENDEE: I'm just interested in listening to
what's being said anyway. I haven't got any ax to
grind or anything.
MR. GARBARINI: Okay, I guess, then, what we'll
do is just get right into the project details. .And if
you have any overall related questions about the
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Superfund process, you know, feel free to ask them at
that point in time.
Yeah, I guess in general, you know that it's —
we're here representing the Federal Government, and the
Superfund program just deals with federally — federal
^
sites on the national priorities list, I guess you're
pretty, much familiar with that. Okay, so what I'll do
is just pass it right on over to Carlos.
MR. RAMOS: My name's Carlos Ramos, and I am the
project manager for this specific site. And I won't
give you too much detail and background because most of
you know the site, you know where it is and everything,
but I just want to go briefly about some of the
features-of the site.
This is what they call the historical GCL — can
everybody see this, or am I blocking views?
MS. ECHOLS: I'11 turn off the lights.
MR. RAMOS: Okay. This is the site, this is the
historical size of the site. We divided the site into
two areas, what we call the GCL portion, which is this
area in general, and the non-GCL portion, which is kind
of historical site. We did sampling throughout all the
property, we took surface sediment samples from the
drainage ditch that runs around the south to the side,
this is the blue line here, and also from the
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
impoundment area on this other portion of the site. We
took soil samples from all the areas of the site. We
took groundwater samples through all the site.
. And just to show you the property, you're pretty
much familiar that the shopping center, the Kmart is on
^
this outer edge of the property, the northern area is
Keith Clark and the airport, and Route 8 is on eastern
portion of the site. Just to give you an idea of how
the site, looks. . . - .. • : .
MS. ECHOLS: Excuse me, by the way, all of this
information that Carlos is looking at is in the
handout. Okay?
MR. RAMOS: The second slide is just to refresh
your minds regarding how EPA is — is working at this
site. You know, how — how is our cleanup working at
this site.
We have three main phases. The first one started
is what we call a. removal action. And a removal action
was designed to address the most immediate threats
associated with the site. And that was the disposal of
wastes contained in drums, in tanks, and so forth.
That phase is completed already. All the immediate
threats, potential threats associated with the site in
terms of immediate concerns are being addressed, and
that — that activity's close.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
Last summer we came here to talk about the focus
feasibility study and to talk about cleaning up the
soils on the GCL portion of the site, and that was that
yellow portion of the figure I showed you before. That
work is already in the remedial design phase. Tonight
*
we are here basically to talk about this last portion
of the site, which is the remedial investigation that
we did in the remaining portions of the site, and that
includes -gr.oundwater, surface water and soils on the
non-GCL portions of the site. That's outside that
yellow area.
So we did the remedial investigation, we -- we
actually defined the nature and the extent of
contamination of the site, we did a feasibility study
which tells you what, can you -- what shall we do or
what alternative do we have, for addressing that
contamination found at the site, and we are here
tonight with a proposed -remedy. And inform you on ...
that.
Now I'm just gonna go briefly about some of the
sampling soil results that we found at the site. This.
figure again is in your handout. Specifically for the
non-GCL property soils. And just let me superimpose
another one here. Remember, the non-GCL is the
western — the eastern portion of the site. Which is
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 '
19
20
21
22
23
24
.-25
the non -- non yellow one.
You can see from -- from this figure, you compare
the benchmark, which is just a level to help you
compare it, the concentration we found on the site
versus what could be considered as a safe level, in
*
some cases it's just background, like in the case of
metals, these are typical background concentrations for
this area. That means if you are testing soils that
were not contaminated,' these were the typical
concentration that you will find. You can see we
didn't find really much on the .non-GCL property soils.
We just try to take concentrations of organic
compounds and some concentrations of metals which are
close to background in most of the cases. The
components that we are most interested with are these
components here, which are creosote-related compounds,
and creosote was the contaminant that we found at this
property. So these" are: the-ones that.we are more
concerned about, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, as you can
see that even those, these benchmark, and what we found
at the site, the non-GCL property, is — is way below
benchmarks. So that means that there's really nothing
much to be concerned about on the non-GGL property, as
far as soil contamination.
We're going to the groundwater, we have, a similar
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
...25
analysis. We have here five columns. The first column
is the contaminants of concern, the second column is
the benchmark, which in this case is the drinking water
standard. The next column is what we call a GCL
property-highest concentration. Those highest
^
concentration are for that yellow portion of the site.
Then we go into non-GCL property and off-site
contamination, which were wells located outside the
influence of the site.
We have three types of contaminants here also,
three — three criterias. We have volatile organics,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and metals. Of these three
contaminants the only one which is site related is
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, because those were the
materials used at the site and those were also the
materials found in the site soils. For a .specific case
of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, you see that you compare
the benchmark and the GCL concentration-,-we indeed
have concentration in the groundwater which is above
the drinking water standards for most of the
polyaromatic hydrocarbons. We see that we don't find
the hydrocarbon off site of the GCL property
wells. We didn't find them in locations outside the
GCL site influence.
You look at volatile organics, you see that we
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
found very rather low concentration of most of the
volatile organics at the GCL property. To compare that
to the MCL, or the maximum contaminant level, the
drinking water standard, which is the same thing, _these
are relatively low levels. We compared those levels to
*
non-GCL property wells, you can see they are much, much
higher on wells which are not actually affected by the
GCL site but which are actually affected by other sites
in the region. So'that tells you that there is a
groundwater problem in the area which is not site
related. Related to other .sites in the area.
When you go to metals you'll see that some of the
metals are elevated, but there are no metals we can see
that are much concern. So in the case of manganese,
which is much higher elevated, we also find it in
other wells outside of the property. Most of the
property relates to polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which is
related to the operations .of the GCL property, and.
volatile organic compounds, which are not related to
the GCL site.
We go into surface water, we see that we didn't
have as much a problem there neither. There were
some — some of the metals that were slightly elevated,
but not really in that significant amout. .Arsenic is
too high.
Empire Court .Reporters
One Marine Midland .Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
10
<*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23'
24
-25
Then we jump in surface water sediments. And
again we have contaminants of concern and then we have
»
the benchmark levels which are kind of guidance volumes
that we use to define whether contaminants may be high
or low, and we have the concentrations that we find at
\
the site. As you can see here, again we have kind of a
relatively high concentrations of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons. On the sediments which we collected from
the — that drainage, ditch at the site. ..Metals can •-'
kind of vary through, most of the time metals were at
the -- you know, within one or two times benchmark
levels.
Here we are, okay. And this is just a figure
that summarize the extent of groundwater contamination
that we found at the site. And let me explain this
thing. The orange dots are water wells that we found
or installed at the site, and we sampled them. You can
see they cover pretty much the whole property, there_. ~
are some around here also, you can see with the colors.
And what we did, we sampled all those wells twice, at
different times of the year, we collected the data, and
we — based on that data we developed the extent of the
groundwater contamination at the site. And this is
what you have here.
In this area you have an aquifer to be called.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
-18 .
19
20
21
22
23
24
- 25
overburden, which is the first aquifer you encounter,
and then we have what we call a deep aquifer, which is
kind of bedrock in this area. The contamination that
we found which is related to this site is all within
the overburden, it's on the overburden aquifer. Within
that overburden aquifer we -- we divided that zone —
that aquifer into two zones, we call them shallow zone
and then we have the intermediate zone. And that's
where we had contamination which is related to the GCIr
site. The green color, that's the shallow aquifer. In
that area we found that we actually had what we call
.pure creosote. And that was creosote that was
used during the operation of the GCL facility, and
through the years made its way into the soils, into
the groundwater. It's a very limited area, about 250
feet in diameter, as far as we know. This, of course,
will be very further delineated, but right now
that's the approximate?extent of contamination.
Creosote is a very viscous material, it really
binds pretty well to the soils. Once — once it moves
to a certain distance it tends not to move anymore.
It doesn't move very rapidly also. Kind of it's like
you're pouring oil, it's pretty much putting oil into
the ground, goes down to a certain level, but at some
point it reaches a depth where it doesn't move anymore.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
12
1
2
3
4 •
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-25
That's what we have here.
The yellow zone is an area where we have a
different type of contaminant, which is benzene.
Mostly benzene. Which is more soluble and more --
more mobile than — than creosote. And that's a bit --
bit bigger plume than the one before. But .it still
is a relatively small area of the site if you look at
the site as a whole. This is a relatively small area.
Okay. .This area is to show you the approximate
extent of sediment contamination at the site. This is
the drainage ditch that runs about the southern edge of
the site, and the approximate extent of the soil
contamination is around this area here.
Okay. So what we did with this information? Now
we know what's at the site, and we know where that
contamination is. Based on that we -- we start what we
call a risk assessment. A risk assessment is a
document that looking at the concentrations and looking
at the selection of contaminants at the site tells
you what kind of risk might be associated with that
contaminant. And to do that the first thing that we do
is that we identify chemicals of concern. And that's
done based on the frequency, on the toxicity and the
distribution of those contaminants at the site. Once
we do that we go through a screening process and we.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
13
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
determine which -- which chemical we should be paying
more attention to and which chemicals will be driving
the risks at the site.
Okay. And this is basically the result of the
risk assessment that we did. And in the risk
*
assessment we look at different things. We look at
different scenarios and we try to check all the
potential population's that could be in contact with
contamination and could-be at risk. In this case we
have children and adults living off site but near the
site; children and adults trespassing on the site. We
have -- we have — we have children living in the
vicinity of the site, we have.adults living in the
vicinity of the site, and we have on-site workers. And
for those scenarios we have different pathways. For
children living off site, what will happen, they will
ingest or inhalate some of the soils at the site. What
would happen with them if they ingest or inhalate some
of the soil. And to each one of those pathways and
scenarios we calculated a potential health risk number.
We have to tell you what would be the potential risk to
that person.
So if you go scenario for scenario, you will see
that most of the risks are really reasonable. The EPA
has what we call an acceptable risk range, which is.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
actually 1 to 10,000 to 1 in a million. That's what we
call acceptable risk range. If we are within that risk
range, .usually we don't take any action at a site. In
this — in this case you can see that for most of
these pathways, the risk are very small, they're in the
*
range of 9 out of a million, 4 out of a million, and so
forth.
The only two pathway scenarios where they have
some significant risk is for people ingesting, inhaling
or in dermal contact with the groundwater. And that's
an assumption that that — that's a pathway that
assumes that somebody will be drinking that
contaminated water at the site, which is not the case.
The contamination, as you saw, is a very localized to
what's in the site; nobody's drinking that water. But
this scenario assumes that somebody in the future might
drink that water. And if that were the case then you
will assign;the risk number to that. ...
In the case of people exposed to groundwater,
you'll see that the risk are much more significant.
In the range of 2 out of a thousand. And we have here,
we decorated the risk of groundwater two ways, since we
know that we have a. real groundwater problem in the
area, we have contamination there which is not related
to GCL in that area, we calculated the risk posed by
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
.- 25
exposure to all the contamination in the groundwater,
site related and non site related, and that's the
total. How we decorated the number just for the GCL
contamination. .
As you can see, once you take out in1those times
*
the contamination, the risk is much more smaller.
Okay. Knowing all the contamination that we have
at a site, knowing all the risks posed by the site,
we develop.our alternatives for that contamination at
the site. An alternative available focus on those two
medias which are the concern. One media that is a
concern is the groundwater where we found contamination.
which is above drinking.water standard. The other
concern- is the surface water sediments, since we found
contamination which Is above the benchmark levels that
we have established. We went through a process where
we — we tried to look at different technologies and
different ways ...of getting up the groundwater. And we
developed these three alternatives for the groundwater.
The first once that we have is no action. We are
required by law to first consider no action, as a
baseline. Just to give you a comparison number for the
rest of the alternatives. So we did no action, which
actually what is involved is long-term monitoring.
Just going out there and sampling the wells year after
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
year to see what will happen to the contamination. The
cost for that activity over a 30-year period will be
roughly $380,000.
The next, alternative that we developed was
extraction of the groundwater, on-site treatment of
^
that groundwater, and discharge of the treated
groundwater to surface water. Which was that drainage
ditch that runs around the southern edge of the
property. . - .
In terms of treating the groundwater, we had
different ways that we could do that. We could do
carbon absorption, which is a very common treatment
technology where you put your contamination through a
carbon filter and at the end you have clean groundwater
and the carbon retains the contamination. You can also
go a way of biological treatment, which is not too
far from what you have in your local wastewater
treatment facility. - . ... .
We have 'some problem at this site regarding the
cleaning up of the aquifer. And these — and it
relates to the -- to the type of contamination we have
there, and — and the geology that we have at the site.
And the first one that we have is that creosote, as I
mentioned before, tends to bind pretty tightly with
the soil particles. So it is very difficult to clean .
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up areas where we have creosote contamination. And our
experience has been that in places where we have
topical contamination we pretty much can pump the water
for many, many, many years and still there will be some_
residue creosote in the water. So that's — that's
*
very unlikely that we'll be able to clean up that
portion of the aquifer containing creosote.
However, there is another portion of the aquifer,
and that was the benzene area I showed you before in
green, and that area is -- we would like it to be
clean. And about — well, before we start actually
pumping and treating, we would like to try some things
which have been tried at other sites to clean up
groundwater. And we would like to see whether
technology such as bioremediation would work for the
benzene, specifically. We have seen that sometimes
benzene can be biodegrated. By treating the soils
you provide the material-with some help. Like '.in some
cases you can provide oxygen or nutrient to the
bacteria and that helps to clean up the water.
So this is one of the things that we have to
try before we start pumping and treating to see how-
much of that we can -— how much contamination reduction
we can achieve that way. If not/ you know/ you know,
we will be then pumping and treating. .
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Our first concern is to make sure that the plume
doesn't move from the site, it doesn't leave the site
and move anywhere. And that's — that's our first
priority. And once we made sure that that's done, then
we -- we have time to address the groundwater either
«
through pumping it, to pumping and treating, or to
using some of these natural attenuation processes which
might get us the same type of attenuation, at a more
lower cost. ' .
For the second alternative we have extracting the
water, doing on-site treatment and then sending the
discharge to a POTW, which is your local wastewater
treatment facility.
%
And those are the two alternatives that we have
for the groundwater.
The costs associated with those two alternatives
are two million, pretty much. The differentiation of
the .cost estimates are wide enough that there's no
significant difference to those numbers. So either
alternative would cost about 2 million in capital
costs, and the alternative, the alternative for on-site
treatment and the discharge of surface water, will
take -- cost about ten million.
You can see there is a long-term operation and
maintenance cost of the wastewater treatment facility.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For the -- the discharge to a POTW, the total cost is
about $9.5 million, that's including the operation and
maintenance over a 30-year period.
The other media that we are addres_sing is surface
water sediments, and again we have three alternative,
*
the first one being no action, which we're again
required to include. And the cost of just monitoring
the sediment contamination will cost -- will be roughly
about 277,000 over a 30-year period. "The other —
alternative that we have is the first one, on-site
treatment of those sediments, using the same thermal
desorption system that we're going to be using £or the
GCL property soils.
As you might remember from before, last summer we
selected the remedy for the soils which actually
includes excavation of the soils and treating them
on-site using that thermal desorption system. Since
the sediment has the same type of contamination, you
could excavate the sediments .and run them through the
same treatment system as you — as you've already
assigned for the soils. The cost of doing that will be
roughly $300,000.
If you were to take the same sediments and you
were to send them off site to a private treatment and
disposal facility, that would cost you roughly
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
20
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IT
12
13
14
15
16 '
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$820,000.
So those are — we have three alternative, then,
for groundwater, and three for surface water sediments.
Do you have any questions at any point, please
feel free to interrupt me.
• ^
The next thing that we did was we put those six
alternative through a detailed evaluation process, and
for doing that we have a set of criteria that include
nine elements. And this is what is required by law.for
us to do. The first criteria is overall protection of
human health and. the environment.--Second one, in
compliance with all applicable regulations. The third
one is long-term effectiveness and permanence. The
next one is reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment. Next one is short-term
effectiveness, implementability, cost, the state
acceptance, and that's New York State acceptance; and
the. last one,, which.is the-one that-we are here-for, is
community acceptance.
So we put our alternatives through that nine
criteria process. And based on that we are
recommending that we implement on the site the second
alternative for the groundwater,.which is extracting
the groundwater and treating the groundwater on-site
with the discharge of the treated groundwater to
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
21
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surface water. And we are proposing that we implement
.on-site treatment of the sediments with the soils
on-site.
So those — those two items must constitute our
preferred alternative for the site, and we will'-- we.
would like to hear from you in terms of what you think
of cleaning of the property using those -- those two
alternatives.
MS. ECHOLS: Finished?
MR. RAMOS: I think that's pretty much it, yeah.
.MS. ECHOLS: Okay, we're gonna open up for
questions and answers. Please state your name loudly
so the stenographer can record it properly.
Any questions? Let me turn on the lights.
Don't be shy now.
AN ATTENDEE: Are you gonna further investigate
the possibility of using our wastewater treatment
facility? . . ...
MR. RAMOS: Yes.
AN ATTENDEE: Instead of this, you know, as John
Woodisheck expressed earlier?
MR. GARBARINI: Yeah. I guess based upon the
meeting that we had this afternoon it sounded like John
was going to be sending in a comment letter to us.
AN ATTENDEE: I just thought the people here
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
• 23
24
25
might like to know that, that the thing is even
though these are your recommendations at the moment,
John Woo'disheck, the village .engineer, indicated that
he thought it could be done more cost effectively by
putting it through our wastewater treatment plant,
there are certain details that would have to be worked
but, but. I thought the people should know- that.
MR. GARBARINI: Yeah, I think that's very
important. As with any of the alternatives that were
mentioned there, the people here could express their
desire for us to implement any one of those, but I
think the Town's willingness to allow us to use the
POTW is a very important consideration foflus. And I
guess John will be putting something in writing to that
effect.
AN ATTENDEE: Right.
MR. GARBARINI: It had seemed a lot more
uncertain to us going back a. few months ago whether
there would be the ability to use the POTW. But if we
could get something in writing. K
AN ATTENDEE: John will get something to you in
writing.
MR. GARBARINI: And I guess actually in going
through our cost analysis we had used the higher end
range of treatment costs for going through the POTW.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
But apparently John is indicating that's probably a •
high end range cost, and maybe he will give us some
additional cost- information. That may make that
alternative the less costly or significantly less
costly than the one we're currently proposing.
AN ATTENDEE: Okay, thank you.
MR. GARBARINI: I guess, I guess one thing I just
can't emphasize too much here regarding the groundwater
remedy is the fact that when we deal with pump and
treat systems, we really are dealing with some great
unknowns as to how long .it might take to clean up an . .
aquifer and how effective actual pumping and treating
might be. We get into a lot of these cases where we
have dense, nonaquous phase liquids on-site, and as
Carlos has mentioned we found out that it could take,
you know, centuries to clean them up. So that's a
very, very important consideration. We do have the
benzene plume...here, which looks like it might.be
manageable. And we're really gonna start to target our
efforts at cleaning that benzene plume up. But again,
during the design phase we'll be doing greater
investigation of the subsurface.
AN ATTENDEE: Good question.
MR. GARBARINI: And that could definitely impact
the type of remedy we ultimately implement here.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-11 "-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 :
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We had stated that we would try to achieve the
ARARs, which are basically drinking water standards for
the groundwater. But it may not actually be possible
to achieve those levels. So that's an important
consideration in selecting a remedy as well as how .long
we actually operate the system that is designed to
achieve those levels.
AN ATTENDEE: I should point out that if it were
feasible to use the wastewater treatment plant, we —
we aren't proposing that we lock you into a long-term
.contract, -because .at some time you -- at some point ...
decide that you didn't need to do it anymore or
whatever. So there'd be that flexibility built into
the agreement, which — which could be lived — lived ,
by by both parties. I'm sure we could work that out.
MR. GARBARINI: Okay.
AN ATTENDEE: We aren't particularly interested
in — I mean this .isn't baseball, but this is, you
know.
MR. GARBARINI: Right. Right.
AN ATTENDEE: Go on strike?
MR. GARBARINI: As I had mentioned to you
earlier, sometimes we're a little bit reluctant to go
ahead and select a remedy that involves sending the
discharge off to a POTW —
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ir
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
AN ATTENDEE: Right.
MR. GARBARINI: — when we really don't have a
firm commitment on behalf of the town. Certainly as
you understand with potential change in administrations
and all that, we have to take that all into
cons-ideration. So the stronger opinion we get from you
on that end of things the better the likelihood that we
would, you know, select that alternative.
AN ATTENDEE: Well, it's in our best interest as
taxpayers to keep the costs down as much as possible,
and if we can — and we,have.the capacity at our
treatment plant and it's doable from your standpoint,
why not So.
MR. GARBARINI: I appreciate that.
AN ATTENDEE: James Carr. I assume that area
down there will be locked as far as further usage for
quite a period of time for anything else?
MR. GARBARINI: The'site? . .
AN ATTENDEE: That GCL will be a 30-year plan?
MR. GARBARINI: No, not necessarily.
AN ATTENDEE: Okay.
MR. GARBARINI: Basically the key thing that we
are concerned about is getting the soils and the
leftover creosote scraps of wood out of there,
basically, and treat it. And then obviously if —
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
depending upon what our ultimate groundwater remedy
looks like, we're gonna need some space for piping and
for the treatment facility itself. So, but aside from
that small amount of area, the rest of the property
would be useable. After the soil work is all
completed.
AN ATTENDEE: I should point out that that area
is zoned industrial, and there's -- I can't see
anybody's intention of ever zoning it otherwise. I
mean it's -- it's all contiguous with other industrial
facilities,, so it -- there'd_be no point, the point
being that nobody is going to sell it for a housing
development.
AN ATTENDEE: Which wouldn't be recommended by
you people anyway.
MR. GARBARINI: Exactly. And I guess we'd be
very interested in working with you and trying to get
the property back to some sort of use as soon as
possible also.
AN ATTENDEE: Let us know who owns it.
AN ATTENDEE: Do you have any — do you have any
target, target dates or time frame, or, am I putting
you on the spot?
MR. GARBARINI: Well, you're putting us on the
spot, but that's fine. Basically, as Carlos mentioned,
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ..
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•25
27
we're about to go through the remedial des.ign process
no>w for the soil treatment system. So generally, you
know/ that takes us anywhere about — I'd say about 18
months or so to complete that process. And then I
think we were projecting about another year to trea£
the contaminated soils after that. So I think we're
probably looking at about two and a half years from now
before the soil work is all done. And in the meantime
the design, if we go ahead and move forward with the
.selection of the groundwater remedy, we would be out
there probably doing some significant additional
investigatory work to try and figure out exactly how
to implement the remedy. And I'd — I'd say the design
of 'that system would probably be more in the order of .-
maybe two and a half years, two, two and a half years.
AN ATTENDEE: Thank you.
MS. ECHOLS: Any more guestions?
AN ATTENDEE: --Brent Hollenbeck for the Daily
Star. I talked with Carlos last week. I'm still a.
little unclear as to the total, total cost of the
Phase 1 and Phase 2. I know the EPA talked about a 15
million cost at one point, and I wasn't sure if that
was just for Phase 1 or if that included Phase 1 and
Phase 2, the entire cleanup at the site. Do you have
an overall total cost estimate for the work there?
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
28
1
2
3
. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TL1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. RAMOS: Yes, but you called it Phase 1, this
is remedy/ we selected last summer for the soils, and
that's roughly close to five — you know, 14 point
something, I guess, or roughly about $15 million.
That's only for the soils. What we're saying today,,is
the cost for this additional work that needs to be done
at the site, and that's — that's the cost for the
groundwater and the sediments, and the groundwater I
guess the cost is roughly about ten million over a
30-year period, and for the sediments about $300,000.
So you add all .that up, I guess we have 15 plus 10,
plus 25, plus 300, so it's about 25.3, roughly.
AN ATTENDEE: 25.3 million for the both phases? .
MR. RAMOS: Yeah, all the phases.
MR. GARBARINI: That is an estimated cost too.
One thing that we've learned since the last public.
meeting, actually when we came — arrived at those
costs of. the $15 million, is that there is the
possibility that approximately one-third of the
material may be able to go over to the New York State
Electric and Gas authority for treatment. We're going
to be exploring that option with them based upon some
input we got from the community and -- and NYSEG also.
So that could result in some significant savings on
that front. And again, this — this estimate for the
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 •::•
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
groundwater, we're looking at $2 million in capital
costs, and then the projected cost for 30 years of
treatment bring it up to the $10 million total. So
there's — depending upon what our future
investigations reveal, that number could be very 0 -
different.
MS. ECHOLS: Any more questions? Okay.
MR. GARBARINI: People want a few more minutes
to think about things before we close the meeting?
See if you have any other questions?
AN ATTENDEE.;- Does anybody check your risk
ctnalysis figures?
MR. RAMOS: We do have our contractor working out
the numbers and we have our in-house risk assessor that
verify the numbers. So they are checked twice, by our
contractors, by ourselves. Plus we brought it up for
public comment also.
AN ATTENDEE: -~ So if — if someone had made a —
mistake, say, and — and I guess the one risk area was
the groundwater, if someone actually ingested the
groundwater?
MR. RAMOS: Yeah.
AN ATTENDEE: That's the one that is requiring
this to be cleaned up?
MR. RAMOS: Yes.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'25
30 .
AN ATTENDEE: And there's only —..
MR. RAMOS: In addition to that risk, the
contaminations in the groundwater is above the drinking
water standards. So just by being above the drinking
water standard, which is a health based number, an 0
action may need to be taken. This just quantifies a
number of what would be the risk. But yes, we have a
very lengthy internal review and extensive review
process, comes from the contractor to us, we review
them, we send them also to New York State and they
review them.
AN ATTENDEE: So that was two -- there was a risk
of 2 in 1,000 or 2 in 10,000 was it, that —
MR. RAMOS: For —
AN ATTENDEE: For drinking the groundwater?
MR. RAMOS: If the groundwater will be roughly at
two — two in a thousand for adults living in the
vicinity of the site.
MR. GARBARINI: Lots of time at sites groundwater
remedies will just be driven by the fact that levels
are above drinking water standards.
AN ATTENDEE: How much, can you reach that —
just from background information for future thought, to
reach that 2 in 1,000, how much water did the
individual have to drink over how much — what period
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
of time? .
MR. RAMOS: I don't recall the exact number. But
it's — it considers the amount of water that the
person drinks, it includes the body weight/ children
have a different body weight than adults; it includes
the typical contaminated areas, it includes the amount
of time, I mean the — the — for example, children who
were drinking water for a year, that can happen. So
there are different -- all these factors are — are put
together into a formal list, then you come up with a
calculation on that. . .The specific numbers, liters
of — of water per day, I don't recall. We can check
it out when the meeting's finished, I have the report
there. And we can — do you remember that by any
chance, off the top of your head? I'm sorry, do you
remember from the top of your head?
AN ATTENDEE: No. It's a reasonable amount. All
the — there is three factors there too, there's --
there's not only ingestion but there's inhalation, if
you have volatiles and you — typical case is in a
shower, where it volatilizes and it also contacts
with the skin. Through washing of hands and other
things. All the parameters that went into the models
are in the remedial investigation report.
MR. RAMOS: Yeah.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
.32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•11 :-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
AN ATTENDEE: And they're all based, as Carlos
said, upon body weight, upon number of days in the
area, especially when you deal with older children who
may be gone. And all those are based upon EPA
acceptance standards and practices which we employ ^
quantitative amount.
AN ATTENDEE: But it's just like not casual
contact if you —
AN ATTENDEE: They're based on prolonged
exposure.
MR. GARBARlNI:- And lots' of cases, I'm not saying
for this site that was done, but in a lot of cases
standards of acceptances are something like 2 liters
a day over the course of 30 years, assuming a lifetime.-
of 70 years, something like that.
AN ATTENDEE: And then there is an increased
possibility of the 2 in 17000 that they could develop
some .-.-
MR. RAMOS: That's — that's a potential risk,
doesn't mean that you're gonna get any cancer, that's
just a potential risk. And that's just a way for us to
assess the potential problems that maybe that will be
caused by the site. So it's not that it's gonna
happen, but there's a potential that it can happen.
MR. GARBARlNI: Especially, as you know, we've
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
all discussed before, no one is currently .drinking the
groundwater at the site, and it is zoned industrial.
So.
MS. ECHOLS: Okay. Any more questions?
AN ATTENDEE: Thank you for the presentation and
the opportunity to ask questions. Appreciate your
coining.
MR. RAMOS: As Cecilia mentioned, the.comment
period ends on March 30th. So if you have any comments
you want to put in, you know, on paper, please feel
.. free to do-that.- .And send it. to us, we'll be. happy to. .
include that in our responsiveness summary section of
the record of decision. Or, you know, just a comment,
if you want to call us up and just let us know about
it, that's fine.
AN ATTENDEE: Who reads that?
MR. RAMOS: Who reads what?
AN ATTENDEE..::_ .Reads the public comment.
MR. GARBARINI: Basically the way the process.
works is the public comments will come in to .Carlos and
Cecilia, either written or verbal here tonight, then
there will be — the responsiveness summary will be
prepared. It usually goes — that's part of a larger
document called the record of decision. And a record
of decision is the document that provides a conceptual
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
plan for the remedy, it actually selects the remedy
that's gonna be implemented, and that's signed by the
*
highest ranking official in the Region II office, the
regional administrator. And so the entire document
generally goes through the loop all the way up the ,
chain of command, so a lot of people read it.
AN ATTENDEE: Well, what just appears to me is .
that you've already got -- you've got those nine
criteria, you've already made your decision, we've got
public comment tonight, it's kind of after the fact.
MR. GARBARINI: ..No. No. That's not the case.
The idea, that's why we're using the term the
preferred alternative. We're saying that that's what's
preferred at this point in time. We've basically taken
our -- we've — we've figured out what the nature and
extent of contamination is, we have determined what the
risks are, we have determined that there are some
unacceptable risks. ;and some- levels of contamination in
the groundwater that look like they heed remediation,
we've looked at different alternatives for cleaning up
the site to acceptable levels, and now what we're doing
is saying based upon our evaluation of those
alternatives we are preferring the one alternative for
the groundwater, alternative two, and alternative three
for the — alternative two for the soils — sed — I'm
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
1
2
3 '
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
: 35
sorry, surface water sediments also. But that's why
we're soliciting comments/ because we could ultimately
change that when we sign the record of decision. And
that would also be documented, any significant changes
would be documented in the record of decision.
MR. RAMOS: I just -- I mean we take comments
very seriously. Last year we did modify the remedy
between -- the remedy for the soils to incorporate the
comments that we received here. So, you know, we do
indeed take very seriously your comments. And in many
cases we will modify or change remedies based on that.
MS. ECHOLS: Sir?
AN ATTENDEE: Glen Umbra, from Unadilla. Do
you — it says here in the risk assessment, it just
says potential excess cancer risk for GCL related only.
There seems to be a lot more, you know, chemicals,
metals in there other than what is just from the
polyaromatic from the..plant.itself. Are you gonna —
are you doing anything with these other, you know, the
other high metal con' — you know, concentrations that
are in there? Is there any risk from them being there?
MR. RAMOS: You talking about the metals —
excuse me, let me just put that table up. Okay. Here
we are. Yes. Your comment specifically about the
non-GCL risk?
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AN ATTENDEE: Right, well, you've.only '— you've
only covered — there's only so many things from the
GCL plant that's on the — in the ground there.
MR. RAMOS: Yeah.
AN ATTENDEE: There seems to be a heck of a lot
more with your volatile organics and your metals that
are in there.
MR. RAMOS: That's true.
AN ATTENDEE: Are you taking that into
consideration with these risks?
MR.. RAMOS: Yes, it is. When.we have the risk..
that we calculated for total, which is this — this
column here, we have total risk, it includes
everything; includes metal, volatile organic compounds,
all the contamination that we found there, which is —
which isn't the less contaminant of concern. Let me
just backtrack a bit here. You can see this is more
from.this figure. These are the contaminants of
concern. You can see quite a few of the contaminants
have to be more clear asterisks next to it. And
there's a note at the end to say not a contaminant of
concern when Route 8 landfill wells are excluded. And
what that means is that those were contaminants which
were included in the risk assessment for total risk.
But we know that they are not site related. So that/
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
to answer your question, we have, yes, you're right,
there are many other contaminants which are not GCL
site contaminants. But they were indeed included when.
we calculated the total risk.
AN ATTENDEE: You already have the Route -- the
Route 8 site's already there, you're gonna be setting
up another site, another whatever you want to call it,
»
on that site, the GCL site, to —
MR. RAMOS: You're talking about groundwater
restoration system.
.. AN ATTENDEE: Right. . :.
MR. RAMOS: Exactly.
AN ATTENDEE: So you're gonna be more or less,
are you gonna be working hand in hand with the other
one to be remediating that site? Of everything?
MR. RAMOS: From the very beginning, for example,
we went to Una-Lam and asked them for the information
that they have.,in the groundwater. They have a very
€jxtensive network of -- of monitoring wells. So from
the beginning we went there to say, you know, you have
wells in the area, can we have your data. So they
supply us with data. After we examine that data we
say, you know, we want samples on your wells as part of
your investigation. So we use — we used their wells
and took samples for us. And we used that to determine
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
what was site related, and what wasn't site related.
And also determine the full extent of contamination
from the GCL site.
After that the Route 8 landfill was in the
process of putting together groundwater extraction and
treatment system, they have remediation system on
their — under the — under the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation oversight/
which is actually addressing groundwater contamination,
they're already there pumping their own water and
treating the groundwater. And we certainly -- we
will continue to make efforts in the future to make
sure that one system doesn't interfere with the
other system, second, make sure that whatever they — :
you know, we do, just addresses our plume, if they're
doing something to help us then we don't have to redo
it.
Certainly as more information is developed from
their system and more information is developed from: our
system, we will make sure that -- that both systems
are — are operating in the fashion that they
compliment each other and they don't actually interfere
one with the other. So there will be a lot more
coordination in the future as we move from the design
.into the actual remedial action phase.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
"18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
AN ATTENDEE: Okay. What about the — you said
over land flow, you're gonna be -- that was one option
of pumping it out and then just over land flow to
the — after you treat it?
MR. RAMOS: Discharging into the drainage ditch.
AN ATTENDEE: The drainage, where does that flow?
MR. RAMOS: That flows eventually through the
Una-Lam and further down the line to the Susquehanna
River. And that's the same point where — actually
where that landfill is — is discharging their treated
water.
AN ATTENDEE: Okay. My — my — I guess what I
was asking is there •—
MR. RAMOS: I'm sorry.
AN ATTENDEE: Is there a potential risk for the
farther on, like the back River Road and on the back
side of the airport farther on down Gifford Road?
MR. RAMOS: No, we didn't find any contamination
outside, as a matter of fact we have a well which is
close to the railroad tracks, let me just pull the
other figures with the nice colors on.
MR. GARBARINI: Are you concerned about the
existing contamination or contamination that might be
caused by our discharge?
AN ATTENDEE: Both. Both from, you know,
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
.40
going — it would be heading — well, this is north so
it would be heading toward west, toward the back River
Road and back of the airport. Where.there's a farm
back that way.
MR. RAMOS: From groundwater or from discharged
water?
AN ATTENDEE: Discharge water.
MR. RAMOS: Okay, the water which is gonna be
discharged somewhere around this drainage ditch here.
And we'll meet all — all the cleanup standards, that's
the Federal Government and. the state required to make
sure that doesn't have any impact in the — in the eco
system or in the drinking wa' — in the surface water
or supposed to be made for the underlined.
MR. GARBARINI: You could probably — you could
drink the water that we're gonna be discharging in
there.
' MR. RAMOS: Basically many times it's - it's more
cleaner than drinking water.
MR. GARBARINI: Yeah.
MR. RAMOS: You know, sometimes — sometimes some
of these cleanup numbers are more stringent than
drinking water standards. So. It is extremely good
quality water. So, and that's — I mean that's for the
discharge.
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
As of contamination of the property, so far we
haven't found any GCL related contamination of the
groundwater outside the property/ there is some
contamination in the area, in the groundwater, but it's.
not site related. It's probably that renewed program
with the VOCs for the Route 8 landfill, and that's, as
I mentioned before, being addressed, they're now
operating groundwater pump on two different systems so
hopefully that will resolve significantly that problem.
That's — I mean creosote, you know, has a good
side- and a bad side. You know./ the -- the bad ;Side is
.that once it gets into the groundwater it's very hard
to clean. But the good side is that it doesn't move
freely much. So once it gets there and reaches a
certain level it really doesn't move much more.
Doesn't move more, much, it will stay pretty much put.
And that's why after all these years at the site you
only have, you know, some ..very limited areas of
groundwater contamination.
MR. GARBARINI: They really — our primary
concern too is making sure that the contaminants don't
migrate off site. So the key thing is to make sure
everything is contained. I mean we could — we could
ultimately just end up in designing some sort of remedy
where we made sure if the contaminants aren't already
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
42 -
1 contained, just made sure that they don't migrate off
2 site. And then perhaps when we look at the pumping and
3 treating we may find out that hey, we're really not
4 doing the groundwater any good by continuing to pump
5 and treat. So let's just hold our horses and make sure
6 that we contain the contamination. Because :—
7 AN ATTENDEE: The groundwater flow actually does
8 flow that — toward the west, right?
9 MR. RAMOS: It flows towards the Susquehanna
10 River.
11 AN ATTENDEE: .To the .northwest, right? .
12 . MR. RAMOS: No, actually it runs toward — funny
13 thing is that groundwater movement there is a bit
14 complex in terms of shallow aquifer is a little bit
15 different than the deep aquifer in a different
16 direction. But generally it moves toward the
17 Susquehanna River. This is north here, the Susquehanna
18 is near ..north, kind .of northeast kind of fashion. So
19 this is most of the general flow of the groundwater.
20 there. In different areas it moves a bit different,
21 but it moves always toward the Susquehanna.
22 AN ATTENDEE: Where does your ditch go you're
23 talking about?
24 MR. RAMOS: It will be on-site, it will —
"25 AN ATTENDEE: On-site, where does it— it's got
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
to go somewhere, is it just gonna be a lagoon?
MR. RAMOS: Exactly, it would be on the edge —
you mean the collection?
AN ATTENDEE: Where is it gonna go eventually,
the ditch?
MR. RAMOS: Oh, the ditch where we're gonna be
discharging the water? Yeah, that's the -- .
AN ATTENDEE: It isn't gonna go north towards the
Susquehanna.
MR. RAMOS: Eventually, eventually goes to the
.Susquehanna. - • . ^
AN ATTENDEE: Yeah, it will, but it has to go
west, as he says, before it ever gets there. East, I'm
sorry, I'm sorry.
MR. RAMOS: Yeah, this is additional here, the
discharge to this point, let's say discharge here the
water would direction this way.
AN. ATTENDEE: It's, gonna go that .way..
MR. RAMOS: That way, until eventually --
AN ATTENDEE: That's toward the town wells.
AN ATTENDEE: On the other side of Route 8.
AN ATTENDEE: Okay, okay, now I see.
AN ATTENDEE: It goes both ways, doesn't it?
Right about — right about where your pen is it starts
going the other way, doesn't it?
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-ll-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
MR. RAMOS: You are down here, this is a wetland
here, if you are within the wetland area, it goes that
way.
AN ATTENDEE: Right.
MR. RAMOS: It goes toward the west.
AN ATTENDEE: How far?
. AN ATTENDEE: It's heading west, and the
groundwater flows toward the back River Road toward the
barn, toward that farm.
. AN ATTENDEE: No.
MR. 'RAMOS:" That water moves towards the
Susquehanna that way.
AN ATTENDEE: Surface water does.
MR. RAMOS: Surface water. There's a point
here, there's like a barrier here, from — from some
point here down the groundwater moves — moves east.
At some point here it moves west.
AN ATTENDEE: Surface.water. .
MR. RAMOS: Surface water we're talking about,
yeah. Surface water. So if it went to the chart, it
would chart someplace here, which would eventually go
towards this, from the drainage ditch to that Una-Lam,
and eventually it would reach into the Susquehanna
River.
But as I mentioned before, the water that will be
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
discharging there is'-- is many cases cleaner than
drinking water. So we -- you know, we are not
discharging -- if we were to pump and treat, you know,
we would not be discharging any water that have
contamination that would affect either the biol -- the
biology of the stream or people down the line.
MS. ECHOLS: Any more questions?
Okay, I guess we're gonna wrap it up. And as
Carlos said, the public comment period ends on
March 30th, if you have any comments you can write into
our ..office, our address is .in the proposed plan. And _
thanks so much for coming out.
MR. GARBARINI: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMOS: Thanks a lot.
(Proceedings were adjourned at 8:06 p.m.)
Empire Court Reporters
One Marine Midland Plaza
Binghamton, NY 13901
-------
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18-
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
CERTIFICATE
46
1
2 .
3 IN THE MATTER OF: Public Meeting
GCL Tie & Treating Superfund Site
4
ON: • Wednesday, March 8, 1995
5
BEFORE: RUTH I. LYNCH
Registered Professional Reporter
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct transcript, to the best of my ability, of the
stenographic minutes of a public hearing held in the
above-mentioned matter, on the above-mentioned date, and
of the whole thereof, taken by Ruth I. Lynch, Registered
Professional Reporter.
EMPIRE COURT REPORTERS
Signed this ^O_^day of /^L
-------
APPENDIX E
LETTERS SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
-------
FAXED & MAILED
VILLAGE-OF SIDNEY
Sidney Civic Center, 21 Liberty Street
Sidney, New York 13838
Phone (607) 561-2324
Fax (607) 561-2310
March 21, 1995
Mr. Carlos R. Ramos
Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency . .
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Re: GCL Tie & Treating Site Operable Unit 2
Village of Sidney, Delaware County, New York
Dear Mr. Ramos:'
The following comments are provided in review of the above
.referenced project:
1. Ground water contaminant boundaries in the shallow
intermediate and deep zones have apparently not been
established and confirmed as evidenced by contamination in
perimeter wells. At the preliminary meeting on March 8, 199.5
it was noted by EPA representatives that contamination due to
GCL site activities have .been established and that
contamination especially in the wells along the northern
perimeter is attributed to the Rt. 8 landfill project. As
there are residential ground water users located
nort'hwes'terly of the site the potential impact to thes-e • users
due to off site migration whether., GCL or non GCL related
should be considered.
2. With respect to alternatives evaluation consider including
monitoring of existing down stream wells in all alternatives
including "no build" for reasons mentioned above.
3. After soils are remediated through operable unit 1 and 2 and
the ground water recovery system is in place, can the land be
utilized? ....
4. Ref. page 12 of Summary: The goal of alternative GW-3
referred in the last paragraph of the alternative description
is not stated. I would suggest inserting "the goal of
alternate GW-3 is " prior to last paragraph (complete
the statement as appropriate).
-------
Mr. Carlos R. Ramos
U.S.E.P.A.
March 21, 1995
Page 2
5. Although the closest connection point to the public sewer
system on the south side of Delaware Avenue, probably the
most expedient connection point would be to the public sewer
on Unalam property running in a north-south direction in the
vicinity of the Unalam water well which sewer continues along
the southerly side of the railroad near MW-04 shown on figure
1-12 (see attached sewer drawing).
i
6. Can EPA furnish the anticipated makeup (even worst case) of
the discharge following separation and manganese
pretreatment, i.e., what would be discharged to the public
sewer under alternate GW-3?
7. EPA has identified two basic technologically feasible
remediation alternative with treatment "onsite (GW-2) and
treatment offsite at the Village POTW (GW-3). Carbon
adsorption and biological treatment would be options within
the .GW-2 alternative. . .
$5/1000 gal', was used as the treatment cost at the POTW which
implies $92,000/yr. O&M cost.
The current rate for sewage treatment is S2.26/1000 gal. At
30 gpm this rate would imply $35,635/yr. O&M cost.
The Present Worth (P.W.) of $92,000/yr.,
30 yrs., 7% = $1,141,628
The P.W. of $35,635/yr., 30 yrs., 7% = 442,194
P.W. difference = $699,434
Therefore, the potential P.W. of alternate GW-3 = $8,818,766
Both-alternatives, GW-2 "and GW-3, are expected to require
' phase separation and pretreatment. The GW-2 alternative may
require bench or pilot studies for: bioreaction sizing,
nutrient addition, media replacement; provision for removal
of excess biomass, recycling of biomass, and/or excess
biomass disposal; contaminant degradation levels evaluation
with further bench or pilot studies to determine if carbon
adsorption would be needed to polish the effluent prior to
surface discharge. In other words, the selection of GW-2 is
not without possibly significant further investigation.
With respect to alternative GW-3 (treatment at the Village
POTW): 30 gpm is small in comparison with the normal 416 gpm
average plant flow and is not expected to interfere with the
. treatment process. Discharges from the POTW as in the case
of GW-2 are liquid (effluent), solid (sludge) and air. Plant
effluent is discharged to the Susquehanna River via a SPDES
permit regulated by NYSDEC. Dewatered sludge is disposed of
at the Delaware County landfill regulated by Delaware County
and NYSDEC. Air discharges are not regulated.
-------
Mr. Carlos R. Ramos.
U.S.E.P.A.
------- March 21, 1995
Page 3
If EPA requires a long term commitment on behalf of the
Village to accept the effluent, the Village prudently should:
1) Get a formal opinion on the likely impact on our effluent
and sludge discharges based on a profile of the expected
influent.
2) Obtain concurrence of NYSDEC with respect to the SPDES
discharge permit.
3) Obtain concurrence of Delaware County and NYSDEC with
respect to the sludge discharge to Delaware County
landfill. .
I expect that Delaware County would require that our sludge
not exceed land application criteria and I have no reason to
believe that it would exceed this criteria as a result of
accepting this discharge.
The- revenue te--the Village of- Sidney -would benefit the sewer fund.
budget. One of the reasons and probably the primary reason that
the Village has not implemented water metering for residential
customers is due to the loss of revenue that would take place in
the switch from flat rate to metered rate. The revenue accrued
from accepting this flow could help make complete water metering
feasible thereby providing a secondary benefit to the Village and
help meet the "NYSDEC objective of metering.
We request that EPA consider making alternative GVJ-3 the
preferred alternative.
It is understood that with preliminary conceptual approval the
Village would pursue the three items outlined above in a timely
fashion ..... and--- would complete same on a mutually .agreed upon
schedule. . .
We would appreciate your consideration and response, and if you
have any questions , please contact me.
Sincerely,
VILLAGE OF SIDNEY
J. Woodyshek, P.E.
Village Engineer
JJW:hj
Attachment
cc: Mayor Davis
Trustees
Frank Holley
-------
-------
March 17, 1995
Mr. Timothy Fields, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Fields:
- It was indeed a pleasure meeting you at-Temple-University's workshop on
"Impact of Environmental Remediation Requirements on Inner City Revitalization" and
listening to your update on the Superfund program and the Brownfield Redevelopment.:
Program. As we had discussed, I've attached information for your review on what
NYSEG is doing for remediation of former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) sites.
NYSEG has obtained permits from NYSDEC to burn coal tar soil (CIS) from
MGP sites in our utility boilers. In the last six months, NYSEG has provided an
environmentally safe and economic remediation technology for clean-up of four MGP
sites in the northeast.
Maybe just a drop in the bucket when considering the estimated 1,500 to 2,500
-•sites-that-may exist nationwide^ but it was only.six months,, and doesn't.include..th.e _..:
other utilities across the country with similar capability. .•••.:-•
The biggest asset to this movement has been the EPA's approval of EEl's MGP
site remediation strategy. Rather than having to manage the MGP contaminated soils
as a characteristic hazardous waste, the strategy allows for blending the other less
contaminated material on site to render the entire volume non-hazardous. As a result,
the utility can transport and burn the material as a solid waste. In addition, the cost
associated with remediation is significantly reduced. As the cost of remediation goes
down, this is an incentive to clean up more sites.
If the strategy developed by EEI for MGP sites could be utilized on other
contaminated sites, similar remediation activity would begin to take place. Many sites
have contaminated material of high BTU value, making them ideal for combustion in
An Equal Opportunity Employer
New York Slate Electric & Gas Corporation Corporate Drive-K/rtwooo industrial Park. P.O. Box 5224. Binghamton. New York »3902-5224 #07; 729-2551
-------
Mr. Timothy.Fields, Jr. " " Page 2 March-14;-1995-
utility boilers as an alternative fuel. So, rather than these sites continuing to cause
harm to the environment until Superfund or the PRP's have the money to dean them
up, lets begin to extract the beneficial use from these sites.
I will be developing a cost estimate for remediation of the GCL tie and treating
creosote contaminated Superfund site located in Sidney, NY which will demonstrate
how the EEI strategy document, when applied to this site, results in significant
remediation cost savings, while at the same time meeting the required site clean-up *
standards. It is anticipated that the estimate-will be completed by the end of April.
Once completed, I will provide copies to you, Carlos Ramos, Remedial Project
Manager (Sidney site), and Doug Garbami, Chief NY Region Superfund Section I.
I believe that this strategy wiN support the objectives of the Brownfield
Redevelopment Program, as well as the new direction of the Superfund Program.
I look forward to your suggestions and comments on this idea.
Sincerely,
Keith C. Day
Attachments
cc: C.'Ranios - EPA '1
D. Garbarni - EPA
A. Butkas - DEC
W. R. Weisman - Piper & Marbury
KCD:tfas:fle«s.wp
-------
APPENDIX VI
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY STATISTICS l?OU SOILS '• yOLATII.K OHCANICS
OCL Tic and Trailing!Site . ' .
i
Compound
ClilotoineUune
OromoinelluiK'
Vin)1 chloride
0
0.
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
13
0
5
3
5
Undelec
31
31
31
31
29
3D
28
31
30
30
31
31
30
30
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
28
31
31
30
31
30
31
IB
31
26
28
26
Eillmite
' 0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
1.
1
a
0
i
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
9
a
4
2
2
RtjK
0
0
(I
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
o-
o-
o:
0
o-
.0
o-
o-
0
o-
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Frequenc;
Detected
. 0.00
O.UO
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.0)
0.10
0.00
0.03
. 0.03
0.00
O.UO
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
• o.oo
o.uo
• 0.03
0.00
• o.oo
• o.io
1 0.00
• o.oo
0.03
• o.uo
0.03
0.00
0.42
o.oo
0.16
' 0.10
0.16
Minimum
Concentration
Detected
o'.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.00
130.00
1.00
D.UO
2.00
; 2.00
• 0.00
0.00
9.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
O.UO
2.00
0.00
1.00 .
0.00
2.00
11.00
11.00
nUilmum
Concentration
Sii-iccied
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
130.00
3.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.00
0.00
o.oo-
. 1100.00.
0.00
'o.oo
6.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
89.00
0.00
100.00
1 20.00
560.00
Mcdlii
6.00
.6.00 ,
6.00
6.00
6.110
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.110
6:00
6.00
6.00
6.00.
6.UO
6:00
6.00 '
6.00
6.00
6.00 '
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.110 '
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00*
.6.00
6.00.
Geometric
Mean
6.506)
6.5063
6.5063
6.5063
6.9307
8.0771
5.9255
6.5063
6.2798
6.2798
6.506)
'6.5063
16.3670
: 6.4218
. ''6.506)
, -6.5(163
:. 6.5063
•6.506)
6.6534
6.5063
•6.5063
7.2/141
.6.5063
6.506)
'6.35
7.8250 i
7.8976 J
7.S9J6 «
7.8250 «
7.BJ50 >
7.9070
7.7825 >
7.8250 i
7.8250 i
7.8J50 «
7.8250 «
8.0980
7.8150 i
7.8J50 >
I8J0568
7.8250 «
7.8250 «
7,1276 *
7.8250 >
7.8557 i
7.8250 i
16.9206
7.8250 i
12.6898
II £795
39.6264
CcnccimiiiolMira given In ugfti; (jipb). : ., •
|lw "A" In UK lu ilglil column Imliulei'diil I)K 9i1i Upper Confidence l.imil a greglcr Ihen Hie iii>xiniuin ilelecled coliccnlnlinn.
lUte I ol I
UM1SI/VOI..XI.S
-------
Table 1
CIIGMIUAI.SUMMAKY STATISTICS FOR SOILS - SKMI-VOUTIM! ORKANICS
! . (;CI/l'lcandTrcnllii|i.Sllc
Compound
Phenol
bii(2-Cliloroelhyl|ellier
2-Clilorophenol '
1 ^-Dichlorubcnzene
1 .4-Dichlornbcnzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobcnieno
2-Mclhylphenol
2|2>oxyt)ii-l-Chloropropano
4-Melliylplicuol
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
lexachloroclliaiio
Nitrobenzene
sopliarone
2-NJIrophenol
2,4-Diinclhylphenol
biiU-Cliloroethoxy (methane
!,4-Diclllorophenal
,2,4-Trichlorobciizeiie
(aptulialciio
.Chloroaniline
llexachlorobulidiene.
4-Cldoru-3-inclliylphenol
2-Meihyhiiiphilinlcno
leiachlorocyclopenladieno
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Triclilorophenol
-Chtoronaphlhaleno
-Nilroaniline
Dimclhylphllialalo
Accitaphdiylene
,6-Dinitrotoluene
•Nilroaniline
Acuiaphlhene-
.4-Dinitroplicnol
-Niirophenol
Dibenzofuran
^-Diiiit/olotueno
ielliylpdlhalale
-Clilorophcnyl plienylellier
uorcne
Nilroanilinc
.6-L>iniUO'2*inelhyipheliol
Vail
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
138
29
29
29
30
29
29
Z9.
29
29
29
139
29
21
137
29
29
30
29
29
29
139
28
29
Occu
0
0
o-
0.
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
471
0
0
0
. 8
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
33
0
0
8
0
1
0
37
0
0
tlndelee
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
91
29
29
29
22
29
29
29
29
29
29
113
29
21
102
29
29
22
29
28
29
102
28
29
Estimated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
• 0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
27
0
0
7
0
• 1
0
28
0
0
Rtjtc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.
2
2.
. 2
2
2
2
2
2
2 .
2
2
20.
2
2
2
1 .
2
2
2
2
2
2
19
2
10
21
2
2
1
2
2
2
19
3
2
I'requene
jlclcclcd
i 0.00
! o.oo
1 0.00
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
. 0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
; .0.00
j 0.00
:•. o.oo
. 0.00
.0.3-1
0.00
0.00
.0.00
.0.27
0.00
o.oo
O.IK)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
o.oo
0.26
0.00
'o.oo
0.27
o.oo
0.03
0.00
0.27
:, lino
i 0.00
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
30.011
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 35.00
0.00
0.00
34.00
0.00
0.00
. 691(10
0.00
1 10.00
. 0.00
19.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1600.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
92000.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
36000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11000.00
0.00
0.00
410000.00
0.00
0.00
31000.00
0.00
110.00
o.oo
240000.00
0.00
0.00
Media
193.00
193.00
193.00
193.00
193.00
193.00
193.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
I9S.OQ
I93.no
W.oo.
195.00
165,00
195.00
195.00.
195.00
I917.5H.
195.00.
193.00
475.00
195.00
475.00
195.00
165.00
195.00
490.00
165.00
475.0|)
475.00
195.00
195.00
95.00
95.00
65.00
480.00
475.00
( eomclrl
.Menu
• 244.6336
244.6336
,2*44.6336
244.6336
244.6336
i-14.6336
2/14.6336
244.6336
222.896.)
244.6336
244.6336
244.6336
2-14.633f.
244.6336
244.6336
244.6336
244.6336
2J4.6336
2-15.4386
244.6336
244.6336
244.6336
2(|>.5522
24[f.6336
244.6336
592.5723
244.6336
540.5496
244.6336
176.8729
244.6336
660.4250
216.6689
592.5723
592.5723
26^4305
244.6336
240.5143
244.6336
210.8038
i 00. 158 7
5921.57J3
Arlllimcll
, Mean
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
59319655
436.8276
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
2566.5145
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
1528.7.133
593.9fi55
593.9635
1469.8276
593.9655
1442.9310
593.9655
318.7626
593.9655
1859.7619
4347.5547
H69.8276
1469.8276
2083.1333
593.9655
591.5517
593.9655
3023.7698
1507.5000
1469.8276
Standard
Deviation
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
M97.4433
I497.J433
1497.4433
1101.9699
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
13377.9568
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
6332,2726
M97.4433
H97.44J3
3750.1475
1497.4433
3758.6376
1497.4433
1078.5680
1497.4433
4371.5159
5846.9136
3750.1475
3750.1475
7211.1072
1497.4433
498.1906
497.4433
1223.5957
3813.3711
3750.1475
meant;
5.4998
5.4998
5.499H
5.4998
5..I998
5..I998
5..I998
5.4WS
5.41167
5.4998
5.4998
5.49')S
5.499S
5.499B
5.4998
5.49')8
5.4998
5.4998
5.5030
5.4998
5.4998
5.4998
3.5fi2fl
5.4998
3.4998
6.3845
5.4998
6.2926
5.4998
5.1754
5.4998
6.4929
5.3784
6.3845
6.3845
5.5662
5.4998
5.4828
5.4998
5.3509
6.3972
(1.3845..
9ldev(;
0.8891
0.8891
0.889!
.0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.7903
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.88,91
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
1.3191
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
1.1940
0.8891
0.8891
0.8975
0.8891
0.9682
0.8891
0.6475
0.8891
1.0403
1.2673
0.8975
0.8975
1.3121
0.8891
X8998
0.8891
1.2796
0.9113
1.8975
n(T
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
138
29
29
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
39
79
71
37
29
29
30
29
29
29
39
28
29
(.offer
qimrlll
134.275
134.275
134.275
134.275
134.275
134.275
134.275
134.275
130.7788
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
100.7926
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
116.4235
114.2756
134.2756
323.4150
134.2756
181.2871
134.2756
114.2701
134.2756
327.3428
92.1478
323.4150
323.4150
07.8696
34.2756
31.0644
34.2756
88.9090
24.5192
23.4131)
Upper
Quarllle
445.6921
445.6921
445.692
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
379.8998
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
597.6636
445.6921
445.6921
445.6921
383.IOHI
445.6921
445.6921
1085.7317
445.6921
1038.7747
445.6921
273.7728
445.6921
1332.4295
509.4578
085.7317
085.7317
633.5971
445.6921
441.3642
445.6921
499.8168
109.9203
085.7317
•i
Upper 9
535.9449
5,35.9449
535.9449
535.9449
535.9449
535.9449
535.9449
535.9449
423.4977
535.9449
535.9449
533.94-19
535.9449
535.9449
535.9449
5315.9449
5J5.9449
535.9449
7714.1675
5*5.9449
53*5.9449
5J5.94-I9
992.0109
53J5.9449
535.9449
1314.9355
535.9449
1341.5739
535.9449
242.2552
535.9449
2086.6320
629.2528
314.9355
314.9355
233.1480
535.9449
535.5947
535.9449
623.0291
372.8563
311.9.155
X
X
X
X
X
X
•'
*
\\
•M
M
XI
X
X
x
X
X
»
-
-j
Conccnlrfliioru nre given in ug/kg (ppb). . ;. '
Tlift "x* in (lie fu right column indicates thai the 95% Upper Coiifiilencc Limit is grcnicr ilien (lie iiiaxiinuin ileieclctl coiicaitraiion.
I'atf I ol 2
IlillSI.SMV.XI.'!
-------
V Table 1 . .
CIIKMICAI, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOIl SOII.S - SKMI-VOI.ATI1.K OIICANICS
«CL Tic and TrcnlhiR Sllc
Compound
N-Nilro»odiplienyUinlno
4>Uroniophenyl pheoyledier
llcxachlorobenzene
Pcnlachlorophenol
riKiianthicnc
Anthracene
Catbazoh)
Di-n-bulytplilhalate
Flliorantheno
Pyrcno
Bulylbenzylplillialata
J.T-Dichlolobaizidino
Duuo|i)inlhricene
Cliiyseno
bii|l-GlliyllK>»yl)p"lhalala
Di-n-ociyliJilluUle
lenzo(b|fhioranlheno
lenzo|k]nuoianluem
Icuiolb/klduorainlicne
£izo(a)pyrehe
Indenol 1.2.3-cdJpyreno
XbenzafaJilantbraceno
)en»|g.h.i|peryleno
Valid
29
39
29
29
140
MO
30
29
143
144
19
20
143
142
31
28
30
30
113
141
139
137
137
Occur
0
0
Q
0
51
40
9
0
58
60
0
0,
48
4»
10
0
•8
9
37
41
33
22
26
Undtltcl
29
29
29
29
87
100
21
29
85
84
29
20
95
91
21
28
22
21
76
100
106
III
III
Efllmaltd
0
0
0
0
37
31
9
0
36
38
0
0
32
32
10
0
7
8
20
29
19
16
19
Hcjcc
1
2
1
2'
IB
18
r
2
15
14 '
' 2 '
II
13
"6
0'
3
1
1
14
17
19
21
21
Frequent;
• i)«lcc(ed
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.29
0.30
0.00
0.41
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.35
0.32
' 0.00
' 0.27 '
0.30
0.33
0.29
0.24
0.16
0.19
Minimum
'Concentration
DcfttUd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.00
J5.00
4I.OU
0.00
26.00
49.00
0.00
0.00
47.00
22.00
40.00
0.00
240.00
150.00
34.00
150.00
100.00
60.00
28.00
Multnum
Concentration
StSidii
0.00 •
0.00
0.00
o.oo
570000.00
330000.00
27000.00
0.00
980000.00
600000.00
0.00
0.00
190000.00
210000.00
180.00
0.00
77000.00
81000.00
12000.00
64000.00
14000.00
8300.00
- 8700.00
Medlsa
195.00
195.00
195.00
475.00
165.00
165.00
192.50
195.00
165.00
163.00
195.00
187.5Q
165.00
165.00
190.00
197.50
205.00
105.00
165.00
165.00
165.00
165.00
165.00
lieomelrlc
Menn
244.6336
244.6336
144.6336
592.5723
263.0221
218.1026
124.9271
244.6336
324.0151
321.0549
244.6336
I89.3M8
2J8.27I3
179.7824
115.2594
246.8517
359.5353
369.6181
181.8111
174.1705
130.8309
100.6938
209.8463
Arithmetic
Mean
593.9655
593.9655
593.9655
1469.8276
5346.5429
3964.4357
1272.4331
593.9655
8356.6923
5325.5278
593.9655
189.7500
1949.6294
2521.5182
558.9032
608.3929
3090.3333
3286.3333
732.8584
1157.6241
416.5468
360.1460
379.7126
Standard
Deviation
1497.4433
1497.4433
1497.4433
3750.1475
48683.0623
29885.3442
4978.1315
1497.4433
82059.4096
50039.9020
1497.4433
12.9244
15945.2828
18321.5524
1453.7869
1522.8677
13985.9126
14717.5741
1619.1043
6106.1583
1248.5085
1008.8369
985.9136
nicnn(jj_
5.-199B
5.4998
5.4998
6.3845
5.5745
5.3850
5.4158
5.499H
5.7808
5.7716
5.4998
5.2435
5.5540
5.6340
5.3718
5.5088
5.8848
5.9125
5.6448
5.6141
5.4417
5.3018
5.3464
sldev(j)
0.8891
0.8891
0.8891
0.8975
1.351 1
1.2478
1.1885
0.8891^
1.4859
1.4381
0.8891
0.0678
1.1378
1.2736
0.9773
0.9041
1,3446
1.3764
1.1627
1.0364
0.7431
0.6604
0,7403
«(1
29
19
29
29
140
140
30
29
143
144
29
20
143
142
31
28
30
30
113
141
139
137
137
l.oner
Quarllle
134.2756
134.2756
134.2756
323.4150
105.9520
93.9811
100.8803
134.2756
118.9022
121.6650
134.2756
180.8676
119.8698
118.4779
111.3270
114.1323
145.1344
146.0415
129.0759
136.3059
139.8147
128.5421
127.3508
Upper
Quorllle
445.6921
445.6921
445.6911
1085.7317
655.9152
506.1521
501.5071
445.6921
882.9591
847.1137
445.6921
I98.I9R4
556.4709
660.6987
416.2206
454.2959
890.6616
935.5214
619.6998
551.8784
381.0966
313.3449
345.7808
Upper 95
535.9449
535.9449 I
535.9449 *
1314.9355 x
874.8563
612.5094
811.4556
535.9449 »
1358.0923
1133.0200
535.9449 t
194.8931 *
6,14.1456
816.5507
532.2508 it
558.3151 >
1821.0814
2010.7316
719.2950
583.0572
344.5796
2.78.1171
312.6983
Concentrations are given in ug/kg (ppb). ' . .
ITIit"»" In the far right column Indicates that die 95% Upper Confidence Limit lj greater then Hit nmilimim delected concentration.
UTBSI
Page 2 if 2
SMV.XU:
-------
Table.1
CII1CMICAI, SUMMARY STATISTICS POR SOILS • MICTAUS
(id. Tic nml TrcnllhR Sllc
Mclil Aiu)j(c>
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Uiriuin
Ueiylliuin
Cldmiuin
Cikiuin
Guomium
Cobill
Coppci
lion
Lied.
Magnesium
MaiigineK
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Suve,
Sodium
fdilliuin
tanldium
'.ins
Villd
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
31
Occur
31
|
30
31
14
3
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
0
31
30
0
0
31
9
30
31
Undelccl
. 0 •
30
1 i
0'
11
28,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
31
01
1
31
31 •
0
n
0
0
Efllmilcd
0
1
10
0
0
0
5
0
0
11
0
31
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
. 0
8
0
7
Reject
•o
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Frequency
Delected
1. 00
0.03
0.97
1.00
0.45
0.11)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.0Q
o.oo
1.00
0.97
0.00
0.00
1.0(1 '
0.29,
1.00
i.oo
Minimum
Concentration
Detected
3670.00
10.40
4.30
22.80
0.22
0.86
303.00
8.SO
5.50
10.80 •
13600.00
$.50
1500.00
114.00
0.00
13.50 •
429.00
0.00
0.00 •
52.50
0.19 •
5.70
34.10
Miilnituu
Concentration
Delected
14300.00
10.40
13.60
82.SO
3.20
1.10
14200.00
23.30
17.20
176.00
32100.00
46.00
5380.00
865.00
0.00
29.60
1400.00
0.00
0.00
412.00
1.30
20.50
78.90 '
MedUn
10100.00
4.10
7.00
39.80
0.25
0.35
1070.00
14.00
10.10
22.20
22200.00
9.80
3350.00
440.00
0.06
21.20
990.00
0.25
0.65
126.00
0.38
13.20
57:00
(ieoinelrlc
Mean
9689.5184
3.8572
6.4865
40.1772
0.3245
0.3918
1352.9337
14.0705
9.4667
24.4416
22116.6306
11.0092
3336.9784,
395.6301
0.0601
21.15)4
835.7229
0.3588
0.5450
127.7032
0.37? 1
12.8662 :
55.6731
Arithmetic
Mean
9987.7419
4.0903
7.0703
43.1290
0.4202
0.4158
2338.9032
14.4903
9.8065
30.4677
22745.1613
12.2871
3429.3548
439.4194
0.0603
21.5677
899.1774
0.6052
0.5719
151.2226
0.4715
13.4933
57.0097
Stand trd
Deviation
2387.3105
1.4961
2.2424
16.8031
< 0.5168
0.1859 __,
3069.9587
3.5234
2.6825
30.3286
5270.0942
7.7355
778.1257
187.4675
0.0056
4.2366
. 297.1177
0.7899
0.1648
96.3311
0.3061
4.1003
12.1220
tne>n(j)
9.1788
1.3500
1.8697
3,6933
• 1.1254
•0.9370
7.2100
2.6441
2.2478
3.1963
10.0041
2.3987
8.1128
5.9805
•2.8121
3.0517
6.7283
•1.0250
•0.6070
4.8497
•0.9885
2.5546
4.0195
»ldc»(;)
0.2568
0.3533
0.5)98
0.1808
0.5791
0.31(13
0.9977
0.2494
0.2695
0.5843
0.2-158
0.4351
0.2459
0.4945
0.0902
0.2015
0.4316
0.9096
0.3501
0.5761
0.7692
0.3207
0.2266
•t(j)
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
31
l^on-er
Quirllle
8148.1087
3.0391
4.5065
31.0751
0.2196
0.3178
690.1415
11.8913
7.8928
16.4793
18737.3610
8.264)
2826.7983
283.4069
0.0565
18.4383
624.5892
0.1942
0.4303
86.560)
0.2215
10.3628
47.7813
tipper
Quirllle
11522.5227
4.8956
9.3363
. 51.9453
0.4796
0.4830
2652.2526
16.6491
11.3544
36.2511
26105.3489
14.6658
3939.2357
552.2915
0.06)8
24.2638
1118.2275
0.6627
0.6902
188.4017
0.6253
15.9743
64.8682
Upper 95
10880.6957
4.6188
9.1024
49.1030
0.4737
0.4552
3458.7,178
15.7304
10.7134
35.8710
24672.2994
13.9356
3722.9406
531.8669
0.0620 i
21.0)88
1063.6061
0.7977 »
0.651 1 i
185.8991
0.6785
15.0851
61.4204
BOIES; -
'Coneemiitlonj ttt given in mgAit (ppm).
(The V in tin fu iltht column Indicate! lint Die 95% Upper Confidence Limit Is gicucr Own i)» minimum delected concenmtion.
I'lte I of I
U niSI.MTI..XI.S
-------
Table 1 .
CIIICMICAI, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SOILS - I'KSTIUDES
(JCi/llc ITrcnflrtjj'Sllc
CCilipGiiilu
alplia-UIIC
bcla-DllC
della-HIIC
gnninia-llllC
llcplnclitor
Alclrin
ii ii *i
Endcuulfan 1
Dieldrin
1)1)1!
liiulrlil
indoaulfim II
DIN)
liulusulfnn sulfnle
DDT
rfc'riioxyclilor
Sndrin ketonc
£ndriit aldehyde
Ipha-Chlordane
gmiuiH-Chlofdiinc
oiaphciie
Aioclor-1016
Aroclur-1221
Afoclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aioc!or.|24B
Aroclor-1254
roclot-1260
V=!!d
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
29
27
27
30
29
19
26
28
29
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
Oscar
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:!;:i;d
o.oo
• Q.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Ml.)
:
'0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
, 0.0,1
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.01)
0.00
0.00 •
p.o«
0.00,
(1.00.
0.90
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.07
Minimum
:!:c!cd
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
rt 111!
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
" 2.20
11.00
0.00
1.40
0.68
•1.00
. 0.00
0.00
o.cio
• 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HO.OO
440.00
12.00
Maximum
roiicenlrnllon
!>:!e:!:d
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.20
. 11.00
0.00
120.00
39.00
38.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
140.00
440.00
14.00
Media!
1.00
I.OU
I.OU
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.9S
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
10.25
2.03
2.00
1.00
1.00
Kio.no
20.00
40.30
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
19.50
(itnuirlrlc
Mean
1.1588
1.1588
1.1588
(.1588
1.1588
1.1-188
1.1588
2.2226
2.2700
2.2880
2.0151
3.3926
2.2700
2.4937
9.7336
3.6982
2.2700
1:0739
I.I58R
115.88-16
2216999
45.9115
22.6999
22.6999
24.3637
25.0575
22.0923
Arllluiifllc
Mee»
1.4448
I.4-M8
I.44.-I8
1.4448
1.44-18
1. -1.179
1.4-148
2.7554
2.8017
2.8574
2.0144
3.0/50
2.8017
6.4500
11.1608
4.6500
, 2.8017
1.2889
1.4448
144.4828
.28.0172
56.9828
28.0172
28,0172
32.2241
41.7500
27.5862
Sli.nJ.rd
!)tv(9l!ei!
1.6433
1.6433
1.6-133
1.6-133
1.6433
1.6461
1.6433
3,1376
3.0912
3.2001
0.4324
3.W)2
3.0912
21.8927
6.4096
8.0121
3.0912
1.5429
1.6433
164.3.149
30.9116
03.8108
30.9116
30.9116
37.1682
81.1187
31.0791
nifnnfyj
0.1474
0,1474
0.1474
0.147-1
0.1474
O.IJHR
II nHrio
0.1474
0.7987
0.8I9A
0.8277
0.7007
11.8 /2.|
0.8198
0.9138
2.2756
0.9926
0.8198
0.0713
0.1474
•1.7526
3.122-1
3.8267
3.122-1
3.1224
3.1931
3.2212
3.0952
siitevft.
0.5171
0.5171
0.5171
0.5IJI
0.5171
(1.5235
0.5171
0.5032
0.5071
0.5246
0.1576
0.5755
O.S07I
0.8,319
0.6243
0.8075
0.5071
0.4314
0.5171
0.5171
0.5071
0.5133
0,5071
0.5071
0.6068
0.7356
0.5262
n(»
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
29
27
21
311
29
29
26
28
29
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
l,ow»r
Ouarlllc
0.8176
0.8176
0.8176
0.8176
0.8176
0.8071)
0.8176
1.5827
1.6123
1.6060
I.8IJ8
1.6227
1.6123
1.4226
6.3877
1.56-18
1.6123
0.8027
0.8176
81.7569
16.1233
32.4724
16.1233
16.1233
16.1789
15.2543
15.4902
tlppfr
Ounrllle
1.6426
1.6-126
1.6426
I.M26
1.6426
U.J55
1.6-126
3.1210
3.1959
3.2596
2.2412
3.5278
3.1959
4.3712
14.8321
4.6524
3.1959
1.4.366
1.6426
1 64.2581
3I.95B9
64.9124
31.9589
31.9589
36.6891
41.1607
31.5082
(loot r 95
1.6027 s
. 1.6027 i
1.6027 x
1.6027 x
1.6027 x
: 1.5989 x
1.6027 x
: 3.0153 x
3.1095 x
3.2146 x
.2.1524
'3.4942
3.1095 X
5.0216
15.3039
5.2891
3.1095 J
1.3834 i
-1.6027 x
160.2730 x
31.095-1 x
6,3.2696 x
3,1.0954 x
31.0954 x
36.9529
44.0149
30.8272 n
MOUiS:
Concern/aliens are given In ug/kg (ppb), . - §
The "x." in (lie far right column indicates Dial (he 95% Upper Confidence Limit It greater Hint (lie niaxliiiuinitnccted c
I'afte I of I
IMIISI.I'Sr.XI.S
-------
Table 2
CIIEMICALSUMMAIlYSTATIJmtS FOIl SURFACE WATER • VOLATILE OIUJANICS
GCLTIc nnd Trailing Site
Compound
Chloromelliine
BromoiueUiane
Vinyl chlaidc
Clilorocdiane
kleUiylete chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
l.l-DichloioedKiK
|.l-l)ichlorix:Uuiie
1,2-DichloroeilKrra
JMoroform
l,2iDidiloroeUiiin
2-UuUnoire
,1,1-TricliloroeUiane
'ubon telracliloride
IroniodichlorotneUiane
,2- Dicliloropropane
c'a- 1,3-DichloiopropeiK
TricliloroeUieM
Uibromoclilorome thine
1-,1,2-Trichioroedume
eiizeiie
If till- 1 .3 -Dkliloropr opeiw
Iromofonn
4>MeUiyi-2-penUnone
•HexanoiiG
elracritof oclhe ne
1,1,2,2-Tclrichloroellune
'olueiK
ChlorobeiiMne
!mylbcnzcne
Styretw
ylenci
V.lld
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
<
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Occur
. (1
0
0
I
0
q
0
0
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
a
.0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untletec
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
l!fllili»led
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
llejec
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l-'renucliCY
Delected
o.uo
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
• Minimum
Concentration
. Detected
0.00
; 0.00
: 0.00
u.oo
! 0.00
0.00
: 0.00
0.00
! o.oo
• o.oo
< 0.00
1 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Q.OO
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
12.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Meet In
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.110
5.00
5.00
8.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
S.oo
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
S.OO
5.00
5.00
5.00
ficomclrlc
Mean
S.UOOO
5.0000
5.0000
5.7855
5.0000
6.134)
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
7.9187
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
•5.0000
5.00UO
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.UOUO
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.01100
Afllnntclle
mean
5.0000
5.0000
: 5.0000
6.1667
• 5.0000
• 6.8J33
5.0000
5.0000
i 5.11000
1 5.0000
1 5.0000
8.3333
. 3.0000
! 5.0000
> 5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
3.0000
5.0000 .
5.0000
Standard
Deviation
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2.8577
0.0000
4.2505
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.0768
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IHQ»n(Tj
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.7553
1.6094
1.8139
I.60V4
1.6094
U.OV4
1.6094
1.609-1
2.0692
1,609-1
1.6(194
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.609-1
1.609-1
1.609-1
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
ildevfj
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3574
0.0000
0.4557
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.3430
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
n(T
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
l>ower
Qunlllc
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
4.5459
5.0000
4.5106
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
6.2830
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
S.oooo
5.0000
5.0000
S.OOOO
5.0000
5.0000
Upper
Qnaillle
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
7.3631
5.0000
8.3423
5.0000
5.0000
5.01)110
5.0000
5.0000
9.9802
5.0000
S.OOOO
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.01100
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
S.OOOO
5.0000
5.0000
S.OOOO
5.0000
5.0000
Upper 95
5.0000 i
5.0000 I
5.0000 x
8.9S06
S.OOOO x
11.4082 I
s.JKxxi x
5.0000 x
S.ODOO x
5.0000 I
5.0000 X
11.9564 I
5.0000 i
5.0000 I
5.0000 i
5.0000 x
5.0000 l
5.0000 x
5.0000 >
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 i
5.0000 >
5.0000 x
5.0000 i
5.0000 i
s.oooo i
5.0000 x
5.0000 i
5.0000 x
S.OOOO x
S.OOOO «
(Joncentiat iom lie (jiven in uiiiu of ug/L (pph).
The "x" in UK fa right column indicates that UK 95ft Upper Confidence Limit u greaii
r Ihen lite maximum detected concentration.
IV I of I
IIII1SWVOI..XI.S
-------
Table 2
CHEMICAL.SUMMARY STATISTICS I'OKSUIWACIC WATI5K - SKMI-VOLATILEORCANICS
tiCI/llc mid Trailing SHc .
Compound
rhtnol
bh|2-Chloroeiliyl]ether
2-Chtoro|>licnol
1,3-Dielilorobenzene .
1,4-Dicliloiobenzene
1 ,2-UicliloiotKnzene
2-McUiylplicnot
2,2'-oxybis-I-Chloropropane
4-Methylplicnol
N-Niuosodi-n-propylaniine
Hexachloroelliatie
Nitrobenzene
sophorone
2-NilropItcnol
2,4-Diiiiclliylplieiiol
bi3l2-C!ilofoeihoxy]mcthano
2,4-DicMoroplieiiol
1.2.4-Trichlorobcniene
[aphtha lene
4-OitoroaniliiiD
ex acbloro butadiene
4:-Chloro-3-inethylphenol
-Methyl naphthalene
exachlorocyclopeatadiena
2,4,6-Tiichlorophenol
,4,5-Trichloroplienol
•Cbloronaplithalene
•Nilroaniline
Diinelhylpbllialalo
Acenaphthylcne
,6-Diniirololueiie
Nilroaniline
ceniplilhene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nilrophenol
Dibenzofurmi
2.4-DinUrololucno
eiliylphlhalate
"hlorophcnyl phenylelhtr
uoreiie
Nilroaniline
i-Dinitro-2-inciliylplienol
V.ll
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 '
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
6
.6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
6
Occu
0
0
o
p
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
,0
0
•0
0
0
• o
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Undcltc
6
6
6
«
6
(,
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
6
Eillmalc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
llcjfc
0
I)
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
p
. 0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0 :
0
o ;
0 :
5
,0
I'ltquenc
lltltcltii
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.uo
0.00
' 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
Minim inn
Oiicciitrnllon
Ucfccitu
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
• o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
Maximum
('ontcnlrftllon
iiiicc'.c;!
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo .
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o.oo
Mtc!!;!
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
12.50
5.00
12.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
12,50
5.00
12.50
12.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00 •
12.50
12.50
i (tcnmclrl
Menn
5.0000
5.001K)
5.00UO
5.0000
5.0000
5.11000
5.0000
' 5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000 .
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
12.5000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0UOO
5.0000
12.5000
12.5000
Arlllinttllc
Mefln
5.0000
J.0000
5.0UOO
5.0000
5.0000
i.OHHU
5.0000
5.0000 .
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
12.5000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
12.5000
Slnndnrd
Devlallo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IDIV/OI
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
»DIV/DI
0.0000
lncnn(^
1.6094
1.61)9.1
1.609-1
1.6094
1.609.1
1 .609.1
1 .SII94
1.609.1
1.609-1
1.609-1
1.6094
1.609-1
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6004
1.6094
1.6094
2.5257
1.6094
2.5257
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
2.5257
1.6094
2.5257
2.5257
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
2.5257
2.5*57
3(dev
-------
Table 2
CIIEMICALSUMMAHY STATISTICS FOR SURFACE WATKIl
(JCL Tic nnd Trent lug Sllc
SEMI-VOI jVTIl.E OUC ANICS
Compound
N-Nitrosodiphenyuunlns
4-Bromophenyl plienylotlier
llexachloroberizeno
Penlacliloroplienol
Phcnanihreno
Anthracene
Carbazolo
Di-n-bulylphlhilato
Fluorantliene
Pyiene
Oulylbenzylphdialite
3!?-Dichlorobenzldino
3enz0[*)uidiracene
Clirysene
blsll-BUiylhexyltFlilhalale
)i*n*oclylplitlui1ato
Uenzolbjriuoriuilhene-
Jenzo[k|nuoraAi1ieno
)«nto[a)pyrene
lnd«io[l ,2,3-cdJpyreno
>ibenzot'a,li)»nuiracene
Henzo|g,li,ijperyleno
V«lld
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
6
t
6
6
6
6
•6
6
6
6
Occur
0
0
0
0
P
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
Undclecl
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
<
«
6
Estimated
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
Reject
0
0
0
0.
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
Frequency
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00.
0.00 .
Mtdlon
5.00
5.00
5.00
12.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Geometric
Mean
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
• 5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
Arithmetic
Menn
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5:0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
•Standard
Deviation
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
»D1V/UI
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
•0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
meim(j)
1.6094
1.6094
1.609-1
2.5257
1.609-1
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1 .6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.6094
1.609-1
1.6094
sldev(j)
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
•DIV/OI
o.oooo
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
n(r)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
6
«
«
6
6
6
6
Lower
Querllle
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
»DIV/OI
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
Upper
Qunrille
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
12.5000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
KDIV/OI
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
Upper 95
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
12.5000 x
5.0000 *
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 i
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
»DIVAM 1
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
5.0000 x
MQIES: ; '
Coiicemriiloni we given In ujilu of u&rt, (ppb). . .
Tim "«" In llio tu right column Indicated that Ilia 95% Upper Coiificlenco l.iiuil it greater Ihcn Hie minimum Jelectrrl coiicenlralion.
Tag
UTIISWSMV.XLS
2 of 2
-------
Table 2
CHEMICAL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SURFACE WATER • METALS
(JCL Tie nnd Trcnlhm Silt;
Mclil AnaEjic:
Aluminum
Antimony
Anenic
[janum
Ikrylliujn
-•dmiuin
Calcium
3iromiuiR
Cobill
Copper
Iron
Lied
hlagnejium
klanganett
rieicury
Nickel
'otujlum
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thilliuin
Vuudium
inc
VeJU
<
f
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
<
«
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
Occur
6
0
3
6
0
0
6
3
0
3
6
0
6
6
0
2
6
1
0
6
6
0
<
Unefelcc
0
6
3;
0
6.
6'
0
3
6
)
0
0
0
0
6
4
0
S^
6.
0
6
6
0
!!:!!::i:!cd
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
ricj— !
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Preqtiencj
L'ciccijJ
1.00
0.00 .
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.00
1,00
0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
•DIV/UI
1.00
1.00
0.00 :,
0.3]
1.00
0.17
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00 '
Minimum
Concentration
Dttec'.cd
124.00
0.00
5.00
48.10
0.00
0.00
37900.00
6.20
0.00
16.80
756.00
0.00
2480.00
110.00
0.00
12.30
3450.00
2.00
0.00
4940.00
0.00
0.00
14.20
Minimum
Concentration
DelKied
8420.00
0.00
11.40
298.00
0.00
0.00
64400.00
12.20
0.00
13.20
1 1700.00
0.00
16400.00
8710.00 .
0.00
19.60
9620.00
2.00
0.00
34000.00
0.00
0.00
116.00
.MrJ!:r.
2292.00
18.00
3.50
66.05
1.00
I.JO
44150.00
4.60
4.00
11.15
3I30.OO
I01V/OI
5071.00
1097.10
0.10
6.00
5880.00
1.00
3.00
18185.00
1.50
6.00
48.75
Ocomelrlc
Mean
1311.8401
18.0000:
4.0S85
8)'.8)20'
1.0000
1.5000
41254.9556
5.1372 .
4.0000
11.6946.
3113.512]
nuiv/ui •
5291.4066'
777.6803:
0.1000 :
.8.2597 '
5725,3877
1.1225 .
3.0000 :
14572.7417.
1.51)00 '.
6.0000
46:2014
Arlllimcllc
Me£»
3432.6667
18.0000
5.3667
107.0500
1.0(100
1.5000
4)100.0000
6.0667
4.0000
15.7500
4889.3)3]
IUIVAII
6780.0000
22)6.0000
0.1000
9.3500
614).)))}
1.1667
3.0000
22688.333J
1.5000
6.0000
54.9500
Standard
!!c:!s!bn
3686.7409
0.0000
4.2472
96.8497
0.0000
0.0000
1)768.9506
3.8588
0.0000
12.6464
4561.6412
HUIV/OI
5)85.0720
3302.6)86
0.0000
5.6546
2469.3940
0.4082
0.0000
20407.I8S4
0.0000
0.0000
33.8460
nu>n(r)
7.1807
2.8904
1.4008
4.4288
0.0(100
0.4035
10.6275
I.C365
1.386)
2.4591
8.0435
JUIV/UI
8.5738
6.656)
•2.3026
2.1 114
8.6327
0.1155
1.0986
9.5869
0.4055
1.7918
3.8330
:!.-!=s^j!
1.78)8
0.0000
0.82)4
0.7011
0.11000
0.0000
O.J271
0.6270
0.0000
0.8592
1.0972
ADIV/UI
0.7616
1.701)
0.0000
0.5152
0.4 164
0.28)0
0.0000
1.0871
0.0000
0.0000
0.6854
"(S
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Lower
QavlRt
394.3376
18.0000
2.3287
52.2374
1.0000
1.5000
3)084.1057
3.3651
4.0000
6.5500
1485.1662
>DIV/OI
3165.3926
246.7522
0.1000
5.8)46
4)2).0)09
0.9274
3.0000
6998.8444
1.5000
6.0000
29.0953
Upper
Qua;i!!c
4)77.406)
18.0000
7.07)2
134.3)58
I.OOOU
1.5000
5I44J.7772
7.8424
4.0000
20.8801
6527.1880
•IDIVAII
8845.3432
2450.9879
0,1000
11.6926
7582.6579
1.3586
3.0000
30)42.8379
l.iOOO
6.0000
73.3649
!!f per SJ
1597293.2913 *
18.0000 >
21.0544 »
290.1790
1.0000 \
1.5000 J
607()3.I92I
14.3631 «
4.0000 «
69.143) X
506)8.9535 *
»DIV/BI 7
22192/45)2 <
505323.5278 K
0.1000 I
17.4672
9853.0333 »
1.5428
3.0000 i
2259)0.3156 »
1.5000 >
6.0000 i
151,5501 *
Cnncenlralidns are given in unlliof ug/1, Qipb). ...
x" In (lie (u light column Indicates thai Ute 95% U|i|Kf Confidence Limil b Riealei tlren Uw inaxiinuin detected concentiition.
I'.je I of I
• irmswtiii..xi.s
-------
Table 2
'
CIIHM.CAL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SUUFACU WATBU -
GCI/nenwl Treating Sllc, '
Compound
alrJIia-BIIC
bcla-UIIC
delta-DIIC
gamina-DltC
lleplichlor
Aldrin
llcptachlor epoxlde
Eixlosullan 1
Dieldiln
UDU
Endrln
Rjidosulfnii II
DUD
EndosuUan sullale
our
Methoxycliloi
Endrin kctonc
latorin aldehyde
alplia-Qdordane
Ramma-Clilordane
'oxapliene
Aroelw-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Afbclor-I2
-------
Table 3
CIIEMICALSUMMARYSTATISTICSKOIlSEDIMENT r VOI.ATII.K(MOANICS
! «CI, Tie nmrrronllnK Silo .
Compound
Chloiontcihinc
Dioinomediane
Vinyl chloride
Chloioelliiiio
Mclhyfeic chloride
Actloire
Caibon dhulfiile
l.l'DkliloiocUicne
I.l-Dicliloioetliane
1,2-Dicliloiocllicne
Cliloiofoini
,2-DidiloioetltiiK
2-OuUnoue
yj-Trtchloioeilume
Cubon lelracliloride
DromodichloiaiKUune
.2-Didtloropropine
cb. I.J.Dicliloropropsne
TricliloroelheiK
)ibronioctilorome(luite
1.1,1-Trlchloroelluiie
«nzene
iraiu>l,3-Dichloropropeno
romofoim
4-Metliyl-2-petiunone
•llexinone
etradiloroelhene
1,1,2,2-Telncliloiaelhiiw
olueiK
ilorobenzene
nUiylbciucirt
SlyieiK
Xyknei
Vill
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Occu
0
0
0
0:
1
0
0
0
0
a.
0
0
0
a
0
0
.0
a
0.
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unrfelec
6
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Klllinafed
• o
0
0
0
1
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
.0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rejec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
premicnc
Detected
1 0.00
'0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
0.01)
0.00
0.00
o.oo
15.00
o.oo
0.01)
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IS.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00 •
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
r.ic.iiii
a. 25
8.25
8.25
8.25
10.00
10.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
B.2S
8.25
8.2S
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
.8.25
8.25 .
Geometric
Mesa
.8.71)2
8.7132
8.71)2
8.71)2
9.578)
14.0659
. 8.7 13Z
8.7132
8.71)2
8.71)2
8.7132
.8.71 32
8.71)2
.8.7132
,8.7132
8.7132
8.7132
8.71)2
8.71)2
jB.7132
8.71)2
,8.7132
H.7I32
8.71)2
8.7132
.8.7132
8.7132
•8.7132
.8.7132
.8.71)2
• 8.7132
.8.7132
8.7132
Arithmetic
mean
9.08))
9.118)3
9.08)3
9.083)
10.1667
21.9167
9.1)8))
9.083)
9.08V)
9.08)3
9.08))
9.08)3
9.08)3
9.08))
9.083)
9.0833
9.0833
9.0833
9.0833
9.08)3
9.083)
9.08))
9.08)3
9.08)3
9.08))
. 9.08)3
9.08)3
9.0833
9.08))
9.08)3
9.08))
9.08))
9.083)
Standard
Devlilloi
2.8534
2.8534
2.8534
2.8534
3.6968
21.4229
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.8534
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.15)4
2.85)4
2.8534
2.8534
2.8534
2.8534
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.83)4
2.8534
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.85)4
2.8534
2.85)4
tnein(j
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.1618
2.1648
2.2595
2.6855
2. IMS
2. IMS
2. IMS
2.16-H
2.16-ta
2.16-tfl
2.1 MS
2.lf>l8
2. 16-18
2.1648
2.1648
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.1618
2.16-18
2.1648
2.1648
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.1648
2.16-18
2.16-W
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.16-18
2.16-18
ilderlL
0.3177
0.3117
0.3177
0.3177
0.3861
0.9647
0.)I77
0.)I77
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
O.JI77
0.)I77
O.)|77
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
O.W7
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
nlf
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
l/mcr
yuiillle
7.032)
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.3818
7.649*
7.0)23
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.0323
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.03S3
7.0)2)
7.0)23
7.0)23
7,032)
7.0323
7.0323
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.0)2)
7.0323
7.0)23
7.032)
7.0)2)
7.0)23
7.032)
7.0323
7.0)23
7.0)2)
7.0)23
Upper
Quarllle
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
12.428)
28.1180
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
10.7959
Upper 95
12.6285
12.6285 »
12.6285 x
12.6285 i
15.5818 *
1)1,7117 >
12.6285 >
12.6285 >
12.6215 i
12.6285 «
12.6285 x
12.6285 I
12.6285 >
12.6285 >
11.6185 »
12.6285 >
12.6285 >
12.6285 «
12.6285 i
12.6185 i
11.6185 i
12.6285 „
12.6285 «
12.6285 «
12.6285 i
12.6285 >
12.6285 <
12.6285 >
12.6285 <
11.6185 »
12.6285 >
12.6285' <
12.6285 »
(.'nicenlf ttloia lie tlveti III uniu nf u|^k|! (|i|ib|.
• TlK "x" in tin fir riRll! column indicate* dial UK 95% U|iper ConMdeiKe Limit is Kiealer then lite ttelecleil rnlicclilralinil.'
I'.rr I "I I
-------
Table 3
.SUMMAItY.STATISTICS I'ORSEUIMKNT • SHMI-VOI.ATII.KOHCANICS
CCLTIpniiilTrenllngSllc i
Compound
Phenol
bii| 2-Ctiloroetliyllelher
2-Oilorophenol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Diciilorobenzeno
1 .2-1 )icliluiobcii7.eno
2-Metliylplienol
2,2'-oxyl>ij-l-Chloropropane
4-Meihylplienol
N-Nitrojodi-n-|>fopyliuniiie
I lexachloro ethane
Nitrobenzene
lopliotoiie
2 -Nilro phenol
2,4-Uimelhylplienol
bi3(2-ChloroeUioxylntechane
2,4-Dicliloiophcnol
1 ,2/1-Trichlurubenzeiio
Juplillialene
4-Cliloroanilino
[cA«clilorobui»dicne
4-Cliloio-3-nicthylpticuoi
-Mclhylnaphilialcne
M acli lorocyc lopenlid icno
.4.6-Triclilorophenol
,4.3'Triclilorophenol
-Cliloronaplillialeue
2-Nitroaiiiline
Dimethylphlltalato
Acenaplilhyleno
f6»Dimi/otolucn6
•Nitroaniline
Accnapliihene
2.4-Diiiiuoplienol
4 •Nilro phenol
)ibeiizofurau
,4-Diniiroioluene
Dielhylplillialale
•Chlnroplieiiyl pheuylcttier
uorcne
4 -Njf roan Hi lie
,6-l.)iiiiuo-2-mel1iylphcnol
Valid
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
Occu
1
0.
1
0
0.
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Undtlcc
5
6
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
i
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
5
6
i
6
i
6
6
6
4
6
Efllinaled
1
0
' 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
1
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Ittjcc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0 >
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
2
0
Frequent
Delected
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
11.00
,u.oo
0.00
0.00
u.oo
u.oo
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
. :0.00
Minimum
Coneenlrnllon
Delected
730.00
0.00
690.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
o.oo
980.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.uo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
680.00
o.uo
690.00
0.00
560.00
(f.00
u.uo .
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
750.00
0.00
690.00
0.00
U.OO
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.uo
980.00
o.oo-
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.uo
0.00
0.00.
0.00
• o.oo
680.00
0.00
690.00
0.00
560.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo.
0.00
o.uo
Median
335.00
267.50
335.00
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
335,00
267.50
267.50
267.50
650.00
267.50
650.00
267.50
267.50
267.50
610.00'
335.00
650.00
695.00
267.50
335.00
267.50
267.50
267.50
775.00
65U.001
(icoinelrle
.-Mean
^M 7. 1586
280.7.163
312.5055
280.7463
280:7463
281). 7.163
28U. 7.163
280.7463
280.7463
280.7463
280.7463
280.7463
280.7.163
2J0.7463
2*0.7463
280.7463
280.7463
2|0.7463
2(0.7463
2(0.7463
2$0.74G3
352.5291
28*0.7463
200.7463
280.7463
61J9.I797
280.7463
67.9.1797
280.7463
28U.7463
2(J0.7.(63
648.0741
331.6974
679.1797
695.1859
200.7463
321.1357
280.7463
280. 7463
280.7463
69.5.2879
679.1797
Arllhmell
Mean
376.6667
293.3333
366.6667
293.3333
293.3333
293.3313
293.3333
293.3333
.293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
293..1333
293.3333
415.0000
293.3333
293.3333
Z93.333J
710.111)00
293.3333
710.0000
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
650.0000
365.0000
710.0000
725.0000
293.3333
345.0000
293.3333
293.3333
293.3333
740.0000
710.0000
Standard
Deviation
204.1976
93.2559
182.5833
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
291.3074
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
226.2742
93.2559
226.2742
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
70.7107
179.0531
226.1742
22U.4314
93.2559
139.0683
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
282.9605
226.2742
ineontj
5.8206
5.6375
5.8067
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.63/5
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6.175
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
5.8651
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
6.5209
5.6375
6.5209
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
6.4740
5.81142
6.5209
6.5442
5.6375
5.7719
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
6.5443
6.5209 '
9ldev(I
0.5083
0.3289
0.4825
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.32S9
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
U.5965
U.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3313
0.3289
0.3313
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.1090
0.4781
0.3313
0.3257
0.3289
0.4232
0.3289
U.3289
0.3289
0.4204
0.3313
n(T
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
l.ouer
Quit III
239.281
224.882
240.113
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.882
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
235.7326
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
5.13.1547
124.8821
543.1547
124.8821
224.8821
224.8821
602.1253
240.2421
543.1547
158.057 1
224.8821
241.3660
24.8821
24.8821
24.8821
23.5847
43.1547
Upper
Quorllle
475.0724
35U.4880
46U.448
350.4880
3J0.4880
35U..IH81
35U.4H80
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
35U.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
527.1939
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
849.2700
350.4880
849.2700
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
697.5292
457.9680
849.2700
866.0109
350.4880
427.2687
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
923.2990
49.2 700
Upper 95
7QI.960I
414.2380
654.2036
414.2380
414.2380
41-4.2380
41.4.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
4I4.238U
4I4.238U
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
908.6905
4)4.2380
414.2380
•114.2380
UX>ii.6l59
414.2380
1006.0159
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
1002.6683
646.4972
1006.0159
1020.4732
414.2380
559.9252
414.2380
414.2380
414.2380
622.4045
006.0159
ft
MQIES: • i .
All concentrations are given in ugAg(ppb). ' |
The "n" in ihe tut right column imlic»lc> that ihe 95% Upper Confidence l.unil jj gi|,ilcr Ilieli Hit maximum delccled conccniraiinn.
race I of 2
lirilSI)SMV.XI.S
-------
: Table 3
I
CHEMICAL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SEDIMENT • SI£M1-VO1,AT1I,E()R«ANICS
; (JCI.TlcomlTrcnllnR.Sllc
Compound
N-NitroiodiphenyUmino
4-Dromoplioiyl plienylelha
leiachlotoboiiMno
Pentachlotophcnol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Caibazole
X-n-buiylpliilialalo
Fhioranihent
Pyiene
lutylbenzylplilhatalo
3.?-Dielilorobenzidin<>
enzolalanthracene
Chiyiene
biill-Bihylhexyllplilhataio
>i-n-octylp1itbable<
lenzotbJUuorHillieno
enzolkltluorontheno
cnzo[a]pyrene
lndeno[l,2,3-cd|pyrene
>ibenzota,hJuithraceDe
leiizo(K,li,iJperyleno
Valid
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Occur
0
0.
0
|i
0
1
0
0.
3
3.
0.
0
3
4:
1:
0
•3
2
3
1
0
2
Undelec
6
6
6
5
6
5
6
6
3
1
6
6
3
2
5
6
3
4
3
5
6
4
Estimated
0
0
' 0
1
0
1
0
0
3
4
0
0
3
3
1
0
3
2
2
1
0
2
Rejec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.83
0.00
0.00
• 0.50
0.67
0.17
0.00
0.50
0.33
•0.50
•0.17
•0.00
0.33
• Minimum
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000.00
0.00
1200.00
0.00
0.00
770.00
620.00
0.00
' 0.00
540.00
510.00
1200.00
0.00
1100.00
1700.00
540.00
1100.00
0.00
750.00
Maximum
Detected
0.00
0.00
0.00
1000.00
0.00
1200.00
O.OO
o.oo •
2600.00
3000.00
0.00
0.00
2200.00
4000.00
• 1200.00
O.OO
4)00.00
3100.00 .
1700.00
1100.00
0.00
850.00 '
Median
267.50
267.50
267.50
825.00
267.50
267.50
267.50
267.50
51 O.OO
1215.00
267.50
267.50
395.00
855.00
392.50
267.50
692.50
267.50
480.00
317.50
267.50
335.00
Mean
280.7463
280.7463
280.7463
739.5362
280.7463
339.3132
280.7463
280.7463
604.7652
9*79.2567
280.7463
280.746)
516.1651
7-76.0742
424.6479
$0.7463
690.95M8
501.7616
473.756)
351.6187
280.7463
376.4232
Mean
: 293.3333
293.3333
. 293:3333
776.6667
293.3333
429.1667
293.3333
293.3333
1056.6667
1386.6667
293.3333
293.3333
818.333)
1)71.6667
525.833)
29).3333
13)4.1667
939.1667
628.3333
419.1667
293.3333
448.3)))
Deviation
93.2559
93.2559
93.2559
245.4927
93.2559
386.3731
93.2559
93.2559
1104.3128
1052.1533
93.2559
93.2559
838.7471
1477.3411
385.8810
93.2559
1600.1638
1201.2594
557.9755
341.5906
93.1559
286.1060
m«.n(,)
5.6375
5.6375
5.6375
6,6060
5.6375
5.8269
5.6375
5.6375
6.40-18
6.8868
5.6375
5.6375
6.2466
6.6542
6.051)
5.6375
6.5381
6.2181
6.1607
5.8625
5.6375
5.9)07
"««1»
0.3289
0.3289
0.3289
0.3576
0,3289
0.6835
0.3289
0.3289
1.1951
1.0372
0.3289
0.3289
1.0513
1.2357
0.7134
0.3289
1.2935
1.2056
0.8080
0.6483
0.3289
0.6508
„(,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
ijjiariiie
224.8821
224.8821
224.8821
580.9962
224.8821
213.9610
224.8821
224.8821
270.0388
486.4041
224,8821
224.8821-
253.9948
337.1380
262.4272
224.8821
288.7102
222.4612
274.6630
227.0486
224.8821
242.6594
Quartlie
350.4880
350.4880
350.4880
941.3381
350.4880
538.1023
350.4880
350.4R80
1354.4014
1971.4956
350.4880
350.4880
1049.3507
1786.3768
687.1460
350.4880
1653.8165
1131,7240
817.1653
544.5340
350.4800
583.9231
Upper 9S
414.1380 x
414.1380 x
414.1)80 »
1 144.5449 x
414.2380 I
1113.9161
414.1380 x
414.2)80 <
160)8.0704 x
12054.7707 x
414.2380 X
414.2380 x
6777.7014 x
235-28.6109 x
1516.2698 x
414.2380 i
31261,2924 x
14059.6839 x
232J.7585 x
1042.7293
414.2380 x
1 124.1 168 x
: All concentriiloni are given III ugAg(ppb), •
.^Tllfi "x" In d)6 far figJU column indicate} that Uio 95% Upper Confidence l,ilnll is greater then lire maximum delected concentrallon.
P«ge2 o(2
UHISDSMV.XLS
-------
Table 3
CIIICM1CAL SUMMAIIV STATISTICS FOR SKIMMtiNT
CCI, Tic mid TrcnlliiR.Site
I'GSTICIDKS
Compognd
atpha-DIIC
bel>-nilC
ddla-nilC
ganina-BIIC
llepladilor
Alclrtn
lleptnclilorcpoxlde
GndosuKan 1
Dleldrln
DOG
Undrln
Endoculfan II
ODD
nndosufftut autfale
DDT
Melltbxycldor
llndrlh ketune
Endrih aldehyde
alplta-Chlordiinc
gairana-Qilordane
Touplicne
Aiocloi-1010
Aioclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aioclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
.roclor-1254
Arocloi-1260
Valid
5
5
5
5
S
4
5
]
4
5 .
5
5
5
5
4
2
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Occur
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Undtlicl
5
s
s
s
5
Z
5
5 .
4
3
5
1
J
J
3
2
. J
5
5
3
S
S
5
5
S
4
S
5
Estimated
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0 .
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Reject
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
• 1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
frequency
Delected
. 0.00
0.00
p.oo
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.01).
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.80
0.00
. 0.00
0.25 .
o.oo
O.QQ .
0.00
Q.oq .
0.25
o,oq :
o.oo1
o.op :
o;op: ;
0.00
0.20
o.oo
0.00
Minimum
Concentration
Detected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
2;50
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.^6 ..
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
90.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
0.00
O.S2
0.00
0.00
0.00
• 3.80
0.00
6.60
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
.0.00
.0.00
Median
1.30
1.30
1.30
.1.30
1.30
1.06
1.30
1.30
2.55
2.55
2.55
1.50
2.55
2.55
7.85
59.00
2.55
2.55
1.30
4.18
130.00
25.50
50.00,
25.50
25.50
90.00
25.50
25.50
Geometric
Mean
2.5746
2.57.46
2.57-16
2.5746
2.57-16
I.654R
2.5746
2.57-16
3.8799
3.5659
5.0151
2.1187
5.0151
5.0151
4.6998
36.9439
5.0151
5.0l4l
2.57-
2.67(
6
7
257.4<{09
50.15)3
I00.fr
5,0.15
50.15
00
3
3
64.539,1
50.1513
50.151)
Arithmetic
mean
4.2900
4.2900
4.2900
4.2900
4.2900
3.3225
4.2900
4.2900
6.8250
4.9100
8.2600
4.7440
8.2600
8. 2600
9.3000
59.0000
8.2600
8.2600
4.2900 :.
4.9025
429.0000
82.COOO
167,9000
82.6000
82.6000
95.5000
82.600(1
82.6000
Standard
Deviation
4.4323
4.4323
4.4323
4.4323
4.4323
4.7925
4.4323
4.4323
9.1255
5.1367
8.5295
5.7291
8.5295
8.5295
9.5600
65.0538
8.5295
8.5295
4.4323
4.8875
443.2324
85.2946
175.2592
85.2946
85.2946
79.1565
85.2946
85.2946
incin(j)
0.9-157
0.9457
0.9457
0.9457
0.9-157
0.5037
0.9457
0.9-157
1.3558
1.2714
1.6125
0.7508
1.6125
1.6125
1.5475
3.6095
1.6125
1.6125
0.9-157
0.9823
5.5509
3.9150
4.6115
3.9150
3.9150
4.1673
3.9150
3.9150
sldev(j)
1.1490
1.1490
1.1490
I.L490
1.1490
1.2626
1.1490
1.1490
1.1261
0.8158
1.1315
1.6029
1.1315
1.1315
1.5044
1.4772
1.1315
1.1315
1.1490
1.3941
1.1490
1.1315
1.1456
1.1315
1.1315
1.0826
1.1315
1.1315
n(T
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Lower
Quirllle
.1859
.1859
.1859
.1859
.1859
.7060
.1859
.1859
.8150
2.0566
2.3374
0.7185
2.3374
2.3374
1.7033
13.6381
2.3374
2.3374
1.1859
1.0427
118.5873
23.3741
46.4628
23.3741
23.3741
31.0900
23.3741
23.3741
Upper
Quarllle
5.5896
5.5896
5.5896
5.5896
5.5896
3.8789
5.5896
5.5896
8.2941
6.1828
10.7604
6.2-178
10.760-1
10.7604
12.9683
1(10.0872
I0.76W
10.760-1
5.5896
6.8407
558.96-18
I07.6IHJ
217.9897
107.60-13
107.60-13
133.9752
107.60-13
107.6043
Upper 9S
121.1389 *
121.1389 x
121.1389 x
121.1389 x
121.1319 • x
1611.4639 x
121.1389 x
121.1389 x
941.5504 x
26.7700 x
210.9570 x
33jK>.3699 X
210.9570 x
210.9570 x
79*37.1645 x
2.62IU28 x
21.0.9570 x
210.9570 x
121.1389 i
11522.8303 x
12113.8857 i
2109.5705 >
463,1.4394 x
2109.5705 x
2109.5705 x
2003.2465 x
2109.5705 X
2109.5705 x
MU1ES: ['•'
Concentrations tie given In units of ug/lcg (ppb). : .
Tito "x" In the far right column ItuScalea dial die 95% Upper Confidence Limit is greater then die maximum detected concentration.
Page I nfI
uinsi)i«;r.xi.s
-------
Table 3
CIIICMICAI, SUMMARY STATISTICS 1'OH SEDIMENT - MICTALS
! GCL Tie niidTrcalliiK Site
Mclil Analflei
Aluminim
Anliinoliy
/Vracnic
Uitium
[kiyllium
lUianiuni
Calcium
Quomium
Cobalt
Copper
ion
tied
Migneiium
Minjinesc
Mercury
Nickel
'olusluni
Selenium
Sll«r
Sodium
hillhiin
Vinidium
Ziic
Valid
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
fi
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
Occur
6
0
6
6
0
0
6
6
«
«
6
6
6
6
2.
6
6
0
0
6
0
6
6
Undelcc
0
6
0
0
«
6
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
.0
6
6.
0
6
0
0
Billmiled
1
0
1
1
0
0
6
1
I
6
|
6
1
|
0
|
1
0
0
. 1
0
1
G
Rejec
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 •
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fieqiitncj
Delected
1.00 .
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
o.on
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.3.3
i.oo •
1.00 '
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00,
1.00
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
10700.00
0.00
7.00'
45.70
0.00.
0.00
t 2280.00
15.00
7.JO
21.90
15600.00
22.80
2560.00
310.00
0.47 .
14.40
801X10
0.00
0.00
. J7S.OO
0.00 :
15.901
63.00:
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
27800.00
0.00
16.40
127.00
0.00
0.00
13600.00
32.00
16.40
51.90
40)00.00
70.20
6160.00
547.00
0.69
43.60
4480.00
0.00
0.00
002.00 .
0.00
38.90
173.00
Median
14550.00
6.68
8.25
88.70
0.37
0.58
2915.00
19.90
8.60
30.0S
23700.00
28.45
3480.00
391.50
0.12
24.40
1220.00
3.70
1.10
519.50
0.58
I9.5S
150.00
ticomvlrlc
Mean
15J6I.80IO
6.6104
9.0957
85.4538
0.3671
0.5565
3621.1085
21.0698
10.0354
31.8510
2)772.1423
34.3205
3638.1499 '•
392.0690 .
0.1686, 1
24.5810 *
1468.6617 '
3.6666 '
1.09-14 '
539.I2H
0.5565
21.8569 '
118.5629
Afllhmcllc
r.ie»n
16133.333)
6.7917
9.5000
89.483)
0.)775
0.5708
4600.000(1
21.7500
10.5167
33.1667
24916.6667
37.30W
3820.0000
399.1667
0.2567
26.3000
1755.1667
3.7667
1.1250
562.1667 .
0.5708
22.983)
128.7000
Standard
!kv!;!fc =
6071.1339
1.7571
3.4653
27.3744
0.0989
0.1400
4.122.0)12
6.1899
3.7064
10.7925
8696.7618
18.6845
1363.7008
85.3075
0.2609
10.6733
1366.7510
0.9714
0.2962
188.1)55
0.1400
; 8.6456
50.7998
RscanCy]
9.6396
1.8886
2.2078
4.4480
• 1.0018
.0.5861
8.1945
3.0478
2.3061
3.4611
10.076)
3.5357
8,1992
5.9714
•1.7802
3.2020
7.2921
1:2993
0.0902
6.2899
•0.5861
3.0845
4.7754
S!der(£
0.)282
0.25-12
O.)0)7
0.3491
0.2565
0.2-192
0.6519
0.2724
O.J2&I
(1.3058
U.JJIO
0.4-125
0.3355
0.2CM8
0.9791
0.4029
0.59S4
0.2537
0.2554
O.)09)
0.2-192
0.3)38
0.4686
n(f
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
.6
6
6
l>ower
Quirlile
12310.4910
5.5688
7.4105
67.5232
0.3089
0.470-1
2319.9844
17.532)
8.0519
25.9139
19013.9081
23.4622
2901.1194
341.4780
0.0871
18.7)01
980.8)96
3.0899
0.9212
437.5900
0.4704
17.4489
86.4244
Upper
Ouirllle.
19169 A 166
7.8469
II. 16-1)
108.1458
0.4)66
0.6584
5651.9-161
25.3211
12.5074
)9.H82
29721.1254
.46.2607
4562.4233
450.1551
0.3264
)2.2596
2199.1029
4.)5IO
1.3002
664.2M5
0,6584
27.3784
162.6327
Upper IS
22642.1657
8.7175 »
12.8992
l)0.)507 \
0.4859 *
0.7288 x
1 1098.5257
28.5169
14.7482
4SJII7
35199.3125
62.1498
5426,6068
484.1015
1.6087 I
41.2402
)804;'15I8
4.8)20 >
1.4458 >
771.1589
0,7288 x
32.5114
226.4990 «
Concentnllojuare(!ven[Inmgftn(ppm). ' . .
IllK "»" in the fir right column Indicate! Dial lire 95% Upper Confidence l.imil a (tealer HKII UK Minimum dclecleil cnncenlrilion.
rue I ol I
-------
! Table 4 .'••'_
CHEMICAL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOU GHOUNDWATEIl - VOLATILE OIUiANICS
(ALL SAMPLES]
' (JCL Tie onrtTreallnj! Site
Compound
ChloroinelhaiK
[IfuinomelliaiK
Viiiyldiluide
ridufoclltane
Melliyleu: cliloiidc
Acetone
CM ton disutfide
1.1-DidilocoeUicne
1,1-Dichloroelhane
cil-l.2-DidiloioeUiene
Irani- 1,2-Diclilofoelliciw
Clilorofoiiii
l.2-l>idiloioetlitne
Mlutanone
l.l.l-TiicMo.oeiluiK
Ctilxmlttiachloride
BfOinodichloromctlline
l.2-niclilnio|i[ opine
cia- l.3-Dicldoropiu|>ene
TrKldoroelhenc
Dibromocliloroinelhane
1,1.2-Trichloioediane
1,2-DibroitKiliKdianc
lenzcne
uilu- 1,3-DicliloropropeiK
Droiiioform
4-Meiliyl-2-[xmaiioiie
2-llcxanoiic
Teli achloroellic ne
Dioinodiloroincdiane
1,1,2.2-Tctiacliloioeiliane
Toluene
CliKiiobeiuene •
Utliylbeiuelte
Siyiene
Xylenci
1.2-Diclilorobciuci*
1.3-Oiclilorobeiueiie
1.4- Diditorolieiuclie
l,2-nibromo-3-chloro|>(optne
V.lld
•10
40
10
40
40
16
40
4Q
40
40
40
40
40
2
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
37
21
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
n
Occur
I
0
IS
i
3
6
0
13
20
24
6
II
4
I
IJ
2
0
1
0
18
0
5
0
g
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
9
2
12
4
10
7
0
0
0
Mndclvcl
39
40
25
35
37
10
40
27
20
16
34
29
36
0
27
38
40
39
40
22
40
55
40
32
40
40
30
21
37
40
40
31
38
28
36
30
33
40
40
22
L'lllmaled
1
0
8
1
1
6
0
i
10
12
3
8
0
2
6
0
0
1
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
0
i
0
1
0
0
6
2
4
1
3
4
0
0
0
Hejec
0
0'
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
I'reijm-iicjr
Delected
0.03.
0.00
0.38
0.13
0.08
0.38
n.oo
0.33
0.50
0.60
0.15
O.J8
(|.IO
\,.m
Q.33
0.05
n.oo
0.03
p.oo
0.45
0.00
0,13
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.05
0.30
0.10
0.25
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00 •
Minimum
t'oiM.-1-nlrallon
Delected
0.80
0.00
0.10
2.110
8.00
3.00
0.00
0.20
10.00
0.02
0.20
0.20
1-1.0(1
6.00
0.60
2.00
000
0.20
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.30
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
O.SI)
11.00
0.00
2.00
0.70
0.20
11.00
Q.50
U.)0
n.oo
0.00
0.00
Mtilmuin
Concenlrallon
Delected
0.80
0.00
4700.00
19.00
25.00.
8000.00
0.00
17.00
1200.00
4)00.00
5.00
110.00
23.00
520.00
200.00
7.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
1000.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
220.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
180.00
0.70
580.00
130.00
2200.00
1200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
O.SO
0.50
O.SO
0.50
2.00
3.50
O.SO
0.65
12.75
17.50
0.50
0.50
2.00
263.00
0.75
0.50
O.SO
0.50
O.SO
3.00
O.SO
•0.50
O.SO
0.50
0.50
O.SO
2.50
2.50
0.50
O.SO
O.SO
O.SO :
O.SO
O.SO .
o.so
0,50
0.50
o.so
0.30
0.50
(leolltHlrlc
Mean
1.2016
1.1876
6.8336
1.61 -19
4.S692
9.0737
1.1876
2.2170
7.8663
11.7593
1.7128
I.BI30
3.J24-I
55.8S7P
3.3)8<[
1.3131
1.1876,
I.IGIII
1.1876,
4.93)4
1.1871!
I.447IT
1.1876;
3.4339
1.1876
1.1876
6.021)9
3.32S4
1.229-1
1.1876
1.1876
2.4497
1.2077
2.34-H
1.557-1
2.9841
1.8020
1.1876
1.1876
0.6565'
Arlllunellc
Mean
7.09SO
7.0875
391.7900
8.075(1
S6.062S
909.5938
7.0875
9.0500
111.7250
397.4198
11.0500
12.0750
9.7750
263.0000
24.8875
7.2875
7.0875
7-1180(1
7.0875
60.5650
7.0875
7.4575
7.0875
21.7875
7.0875
7.0875
34.6297
7.023H
7.1125
7.0875
7.087S
16.5125
7.0975
33.3375
12.1750
97.4000
48.8925
7.0875
7.0875
1.3636
Standard
Deviation
15.8382
15.8413
I09S.SSSI
15.8007
145.4642
2490.1469
15.8413
15.5539
277.8728
834.8435
22.3390
23.S66I
15.5819
363.4529
46.5880
15.7907
15.8413
I5.H446
15.8413
174.9370
15.8413
15.7281
15.8413
52.2861
15.8413
15.8413-
79.9957
14.2876
15.8310
15.8413
15.8413
33.3094
IS.837I
103.6189
27.2834
356.2928
194.2211
15.8413
15.8413
2.7953
meaiifj
0.1836
0.1719
1.9291
0.4793
I.SI93
2.2054
0.1719
0.7961
2.0626
2.4646
0.5381
0.59SO
1.2013
4.0228
1.2056
0.2725
0.1719
0.1490
0.1719
1.5957
0.1719
0.3700
0.1719
0.8895
0.1719
0.1719
1.7952
1.2016
0.2066
0.1719
0.1719
0.8959
0.1887
0:8520
0.4430
1.0933-
0.5989
0.1719
0.1719
•0.4208
ildovlj
I.635S
1.6102
3.2245
1.7117
2.0746
2.6361
1.6402
1.7580
2.6508
3.4673
1.8661
1.9783
I.4U29
3.1552
2.2174
1.6520
1.6-102
I.65H9
1.6402
2.3-184
1.6402
1.6636
1.6-102
2.0379
1.6-102
1.6402
1.6755
0.9011
1.6285
1.6-102
1.6402
2.0323
1.6328
2.2561
1.9029
2.6083
2.2635
1.6402
1.6402
0.8815
n(r
40
40
40
40
40
16
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
2
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
37
21
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
22
Ijnwer
Qiiarllle
0.3986
0.3927
0.7817
0.5089
1.1271
1.5325
0.3927
0.6771
1.3154
1.1336
0.4864
0.4773
1.2224
6.6-166
0.7480
0.4308
0.3927
0.3790
0.3927
1.0113
0.3927
0.4713
0.3927
0.6154
0.3927
0.3927
1.9-141
1.8106
0.4098
0.3927
0.3927
0.6218
0.4014
0.5117
0.4314
O.SI35
0.3913
0.3927
0.3927
0.3622
Upper
Quirlllo
3.6222
3.5912
60.6178
5.1251
18.5224
53.7258
3.5912
7.2587
47.0-101
121.9857
6.0323
6.8873
9.IM09
469.4098
14.9048
4.0032
3.5912
3.5544
3.5912
24.0480
3.5912
4.4477
3.5912
9.6254
3.5912
3.5912
18.6464
6.1076
3.6887
3.5912
3.5912
9.6SI3
3.6338
10.7413
5.6228
17.3403
8.2979
3.5912
3.5912
1.1899
Upper 95
10.3188 x
10.3174 x
20128.9616 i
16.8239
134.5584 «
63752.4643 x
10.3174, x
26.0795 x
1809.0187 i
1 17126.1930 x
27.0999 x
39.7522
19.900-1
4.I6BH24 x
1 56.2246
1 1. 7509 x
I0.3I74- x
IO.S656 <
I0.3I74 x
362.3978
10.3174 x
13.3361 X
10.3174 x
63.9591
10.3174 x
10.3174 x
60.2417 x
8.1490 l
10.3774 x
10.3174 i
10.3174 x
63.2741
10.3007 x
124.9673
27.3674
579.6993
98.5379
10.3174 x
10.3174 x
1.5338 x
HUD'S:
Cuicciitiaiium aic given in unili uf ug/l. (1'lib). •
Tlie "x"-in the lai litlil column indicate) lint the 95ft ll|i|Ki Confidence Limit U greiler Ilian ilic mitiimmi deiericil ciiiiivnttiiiini.
irriKiWVI.AJfl.S
-------
Table 4
CHKMICAI.SIJMMjAKY STATISTICS FOR GllOUNDWATKIl
. : IAI.LSAMPI.liSI
1 CtXTie nnd Trailing Site
SEMI-VOLATILE OIICANICS
•
Con^nC
riitnoi
bii|2-Cliloioeiliyl|ciliei
2-Cliloiupheiiol
2-Meibylpliciiol
2,2'*oxybii-l-Clilofopropaue
4-Mclliylphenol
^•Nitroiodt-ii-iroirylamine
lexBcbluiuelliano
"liuobeiuene
iopliorune
l-Nilrni>lieiml
!,4-Diinelbylplienol
>i3(2*Qilorocl)ioxy|inelhaiie
2,4-niclilorophcnol
,2.4-Tricliloroben/eue
lapliihalene
•Clilofoanihiio
lexaclilorobutadicne
-ChloiO'3-inelbyt|4icaol
-Methylnaplnliklene
cxaclilofvcyclopcntatlieii*
,4,6-Tricbloroplicnol
2,4,5-THcliloropbcnol
-Cbloronapbtbalcno
2-Niiromilino
>tinediylphtlialale
Acciiaplifliylcno
,6-Diniuofi)ltie!ie
-Nilfoaniljiio
Acenaplillieno
,4-Duiiuoplicnol
-Niuo]ilieiiul
beiizofuran
,4-DuiiUololueno
ielliylpliltioblo
4-Cblofophenyl pbeuylelher
Fluoieno
4-Niirowiliin
4.6-Dinhio-2-ineiliylplicnol
N-Nllroiodipuciiylaniino
4-Ilioiiioplieuyl nlieiiylcllin
lleiichlaiobeiueiio
Vsl!
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
.9
39
39
39
Oeeu
7
0
0
a
p
s
0
0
0
0
0
]
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
7
0
0
o
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
Undcler
31
39
39
36
39
34
39
39
39
39
39
38
39
39
39
27
39
39
39
32
39
39
39
39
39
39
32
39
39
32
39
39
32
39
38
39
32
39
39
39
39
)•>
Billm.it
5
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
I
0
4 ,
0 '
0
0
0
0
Ittler
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Delected
0.18
O.UO
(1.1(0
0.09
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
' 0.00
0.03
0.00
0.0(1
o.oo
0.31
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.0(1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
. 0.00
0.18
O.Oil
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.00
o.ob
0.110
0.00
0.00
Minimum
Delected
1.00
0.00 .
o.oo
0.70
O.OO
1.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
'4.00
0.00
O.flll
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
•0.00
92.00
:o.oo
O.IK)
•0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
o.oo
25.00
0.00
n.oo
35.00
0.00
0.80
n.oo
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Minimum
Delected
42.00
o.oo
n.oo
3.00
0.00
26.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
4.00
0.00
• o.oo
0.00
12000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
o.oo
25.00
0.00
0.00
310.00
0.00
0.00
180.00
0.00 .
0.80
0.00
140.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
n.oo
Media
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
J.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.30
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
IO.IX)
2.50
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.00
2.50
io.no
10.00
2.50
2.30
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.00
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
Me/in
2.8027
2.5117
2.51.17
2.45,39
.2.51,17
2.6-192
2.51.17
2.5117
2.5117
2.5117
2.5117
2.5-122
2.5117
2.5117
2.5117
7.8505 '
2.5117
2.5117
2.5117
5.5709
2.5117
2.5M7
IO.IM69
2.5117
IO.IU69
2.SII7
3.4134
2.5117
10.IM69
4.6357
IO.IH69
IU.0-169
-1. 5.116
2:5117
2.4394
2.5117
3.5043
10.0-169
10.0169
2.5117
2.5117
J.SII7
Mean
4.1667
2.5128
2.5128
2.4923
2.5128
3.3462
2.5128
2.5128
2.5128
2.5128
2.5128
2.5513
2.5128
2.5128
2.5128
806.9718
2.5128
2.5118
2.5128
72.6282
2.5128
2.5128
10.0513
2.5128
10.0513
2.5128
4.7564
2.5128
10.0513
23.0385
10.0513
10.0513
16.3974
2.5128
2.4692
2.5128
11.5256.
10.0513
10.0513
2.5128
2.5128
3.5118
Devlnllon
7.5353
0.0801
0.0801
0.3239
0.0801
4.2475
0.0801
0.0801
0.0801
0.0801
0.0801
0.2512
0.0801
0.0801
0.0801
2379.4252
0.0801
0.0801
- 0.0801
253.5510
0.0801
0.0801
0.3203
0.0801
0.3203
0.0801
5.5142
0.0801
0.3203
63:8486
0.3203
0.3203
36.9265
0.0801
0.2858
0.0801
31.5056
0.3203
0.3203
0.0801
0.0X01
0.11801
meant;
1.031)6
0.9210
0.9210
0.8977
0.9210
0.9742
0.9210
0.9210
0.9210
0.9210
0.9210
0.9330
0.9210
0.9210
0.9210
2.0606
0.9110
0.9210
0.9210
1.7176
0.9210
0.9210
2.3073
0.9210
2.3073
0.9210
1.2277
0.9210
2.3073
1.5338
2.3073
2.3073
1.5133
0.9210
0.8917
0.9210
1.2540
2.3073
2.3073
0.9210
0.9210
0.9210
)ldet(/
0.6177
0.0292
0.1)292
0.2119
0.0292
0.5213
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.0800
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
2.9149
0.0292
0.0192
0.0291
1.7795
0.0191
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.0292
0.685-1
0.0292
0.0292
1.3843
0.0292
0.0292
1.3024
0.0292
0.1855
0.0292
1.0746
1.0292
0.0292
0.0292
1.0292
U.II292
n(r
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
19
59
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Quorlll
1.8475
2.4627
2.4627
2.1270
2.4627
1.8637
2.4627
2.4627
2.4627
1.4627
2.4627
2.4086
2.4627
2.4627
2.4627
1.0986
2.4627
2.4627
2.4627
1.6770
2.4617
2.4617
9.8509
2.4627
9.8509
2.4627
2.1496
2.4627
9.8509
1.8219
9.8509
9.8509
1.8863
2.4627
2.1524
2.4627
1.6972
9.8509
9.8509
2.4627
2.4627
2.4627
4.2515
J.56I7
2.5617
2.8311
2.5617
3.7657
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
2.6832
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
56.1014
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
18.5064
2.5617
2.5617
10.1467
2.5617
10.2467
2.5617
5.4203
2.5617
10.2467
11.7956
10.2467
10.2467
10.9346
2.5617
2.7647
2.5617
7.2357
10.2467
10.2467
2.5617
2.5617
2.5617
Upper 95
4.1361
2.5327 x
2.5327 x
2.6635
2.5327 x
3.5657
2.5317- »
2.5327 x
2.5317 x
2.5327 i
2.5327 n
2.6066
1.5327 x
2.5327 i
2.5327 x
5730.3856
2.5327 x
2.5327 x
2.5327 x
70.6635
2.5327 i
2.5317- »
10.1310 x
2.5327 x
10.1310 x
2.5327 x
5.4144
2.5327 x
10.1310 x
22.6367
10.1310 x
10.1310 X
18.7338
2.5327 x
2.6136 x
2.5327 x
9.5293
10.1310 x
10.1310 x
2.5327 x
2.5327
2.5327 .
C-'mieeiiiiaiioiii are given in ug/1. (|vM. • .
Tlic ">" iii Clio far rijjlil column inilicalei llial Ihc95% Upper Culllulciicc l.iinil is greulcl llitu Ilia ll
iniimi itcletlcil lonccii.riiiidi).
l'*ee I ol 2
UTIKiW.SVA.XLS
-------
Table 4
CHEMICAL SUMMARY STATISTICS I?OR GROUNDWATER • SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
[ALL SAMPLES)
GCL Tie and Treating Site
Compound
Peuuchloiophenol
PheuAMhreno
Aniliricene-
Di-n-buiylpliih»l«io
Fluonnlhene
Pyruw •
Butylbenzylphmilile
3,3'-Diclilorobenildine
Ocnzo(>]ullii»cene
Cliryune
bii|2-Bl>iyllieiyl)phil»ble
Di-n-oclylphlliilate
Deiuo|b|nuoi«J\(liene
Benzo|lEinuoruilhen6
BcnzoMpyrcflO
lnden6|t,2,3-cd)pyKn>
Dibenzo[ft.h)uiiliiicene
Denzo|g,h,Uperylei»
Valid
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Occur
0
7
5
i
5
°i
0
1
3
5
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
Uodelecl
39 •
32
34
38
3-1
34
39
39
37
36
34
39
37
38
38
38
39
38
Kjllmiled
0
5
2
1
2
3
0
0
1
3
4
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
Reject
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Frequency
DelecUd
0.00
0.18
0.13
0.03
0.13
0.13
0.00,
0.00
0.05
0.08
0,13
q.oo
q.os
0.03
q.03
o:o3:
0.00'
; 0.0,3-
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
2.00
0.80
0.30
0.70
0.40
0.60
0.00
2.00
0.30
0.70
0.00
0.20
2.00
2.00
0.70
0.00
0.60
Mulmum
Conccnlrillon
Delected
0.00
180.00
16.00
1.00
54.00
32.00
0.60
0.00
6.00
4.00
51.00
0.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
0.70
0.00
0.60
Medlili
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
• 2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Geometric
Mean
10.0469
3.5585
2.7439
2.4534
2.8967
2.7325
2.5117
2.5117
2.5541
2.3517
3.3364
2.5117
2.365}
2.4974
2.4974
2.43I|
2.5117
2.42IJ
Arllhmellc
Mem
10.0513
13.3205
3.1615
2.4744
4.5949
3.6385
2.5128
2.5128
2.5897
2.4564
8.3154
2.5128
2.4667
2.5000
2.5000
2.4667
2.5128 .
2.4641
Slindird
Uevldloit
0.3203
38.2965
2. 5908
0.2552
9.1268
5.2242
0.0801
0.0801
0.5721
0.5004
18.7803
0.0801
0.3889
0.1147
0.1147
0.3012
0.0801
0.3166
meon(y)
2.3073
1.2693
1.0094
0.8975
1.0636
1.0052
0.9210
0.9210
0.9377
0.8552
1.2049
0.9210
0.8609
0.9152
0.9152
0.8883
0.9210
0.8844
sldev(j)
0.0292
1.1227
0.4515
0.1504
0.6781
0.5963
0.0292
0.0292
0.1479
0.3785
1.0401
0.0292
0.4080
0.0467
0.0467
0.2067
0.0292
0.2311
"(T)
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
Loner
Qunrllle
9.8509
1.6684
2.0234
2.2167
1.8332
1.8275
2.4627
2.4627
2.3115
1.8218
1.6540
2.4627
1.7961
2.4199
2.4199
2.1146
2.4627
2.0718
Upper
Quarlllt
10.2467
7.5896
3.7211
2.7153
4.5770
4.0858
2.5617
2.5617
2.8221
3.0359
6.7301
2.5617
3.1148
2.5774
2.5774
2.7948
2.5617
2.8301
Upper 95
10.1310 it
10.4995
3.4817
2.5866 »
4.5575
3.9469 •
2.5327 >
2.5327 x
2.6901
2.8241
8.5728
2.5327 «
2.9019
2.5320 *
2.5320 ' »
2.6317 ' *
2.5327 * x
2.6546 i
Concenuittons uo given in ug/L (ppb). . '
The ">" in lilt (« light column iiidiclla Iliil Ilio 95% Upper Confidence. Limit ii greater Mien ilio minimum drlecled concentration.
't '
I'ige 2 of 2
UTDOWSVAJCCS
-------
Table 4
CIHCMH :AI, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR ttKOIJNDATKK - I'lCS
(AM. SAMI'l.luS|
(iCMlc nnil Trailing She
"ciiipouni!
alpln-DIIC
beta Bl 1C
delia-BlIC
gaiimia-nilC
llepuctilor
Aid; in
lleptadilorcnoxiile
pjidosulfaii I
Diel.tr in
1)1)0
Enilrln :
tndiJGulfan II
DI)I)
Utdoiulfui mlfate
DOT
ilclliujychlor
Undiln kclonc
•ndiin ildcliyde
alplu-Qifordane
gajiwna-Oilordane
Toxaphene
Aioclor-1016
Aioclor-1221
Aroctor-1232
Aioclui-1242
Aloclor-1248
Aioclor-1254
Arocloi-1260
Vs!!d
39
38
38
39
38
39
32
38
39
39
39
37
38
38
39
38
39
38
39
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Oeee.
4
4
5
6
0
•1
8
0
8
4
7
1
2
5
1
|
1
8
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Uadtice
35
34
.33
33
38
35
U
38
31
35
.32
36
36
33
38
il
38
30
32
33
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
!£!!h!!*!>d
4
4
5
6
0
•1
8
0
8
•1
7
1
2
5
I
1
1
8
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
iltjte
0
1
1
0
1
0
7
1
0
0
0
2
I
1
0
I
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Delected
0.10 '
0.11
0.13
0.15
o.on
0.10
0.25
0.00
0.21
0.10
0.18
0.03 .
0.05
0.13
0.03 ,
0.03
O.OJ .
0.2l'
O.lS
D.I3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Minimum
Delected
0.0006
0.0021
0.0004
0.0025
O.OflOO
(1.0(11)5
0.0009
0.0000
o.oooi
0.0006
0.0100
0.0006
0.00-16
0.0008
0.0052
0.0140
0.0092
0.0016
0.0006- •
0.0005
o.oooo
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
Mnxlmiiin
Dtltelfd
0.0081
0.0130
0.0028
0.0520
0.0000
0.0048
0.0390
0.0000
0.2600
0.0046
0.1800
0.0006
0.0130
0.0620
0.0052
0.0140
0.0092
0.1400
0.1200
0.0330
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mtdlbi
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OI
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01 .
0.01
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
o.in
o.io
0.10
Menu
0.0052
0.0060
0.0045
0.0059
0.1)1)56
. (1.11052
0.0051
0.0056
0.1)1 10
0.0096
0.0128
. 0.0105 -
0.01 II
0.0102
: O.dlll
. 0.0546
0.0112
0.0118 .
0.6059
0.0051
0.564-1 •
0.1129
0.2258
0.1129
0.1129 :
0.1129
0.1129
0.1129
niton
0.0072
0.0079
0.0069
0.0088
. 0.0074
0.1107 1
0.0073
0.0074
0.0263
0.0139
0.0185
0.0146
0.0147
0.0161
0.0145
0.0727
0.01.16
0.0182
0.0107
0.0067
0.736B
0.1474
0.29-17
0.1474
0.1474
0.1474
0.1474
0.1474
Dtvlition
0.0101
0.0102
0.0104
0.0126
0.0102
0.0101
0.0101
0.0102
0.0556
0.020-1
0.0295
0.0208
0.0204
0.0224
0.0202
0.1022
0.0201
0.0271
0.0210
0.0086
1.0183
0.2037
0.4073
0.2037
0.2037
0.2037
0.2037
0.2037
mtin(j)
-5.2591
-5.1242
-5.3979
-5.1319
-5.1771
-5.2596
-5.2874
-5.1771
-4.5114
•4.6506
-4.3615
-4.5591
•4.4975
-4.5896
. -4.5039
•19080
-4.4892
-4.4373
-5.1361
-5.274J
-0.5720
-11814
-1.4882
-11814
•11814
•2.1814
•11814
•11814
ildtv(j)
0.7086
0.5799
0.8510
0.7026
0.5211
0.6606
0.7356
0.5211
I.IH-IO
0.7853
0.6502
0.7253
0.5411
0.9434
0.5289
0.5679
0.5152
0.7813
0.8718
0.6288
0.5211
0.5211
0.5211
0.5211
0.521 1
0.5211
0.5211
0.5211
n(T)
39
38
38
39
3E
39
32
38
39
39
3»
37
38
38
39
38
.39
38
39
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
Qimlllt
0.0032
0.0040
0.0025
0.0037
0.0040
0.0033
0.0031
0.00-10
0.0049
0.0056
0.0082
0.0064
0.0077
0.0054
0.0077
0.0372
0.0079
0.0070
0.0033
0.0033
0.3971
0.0794
0.1589
0.0794
0.0794
0.0794
0.0794
0.0794
Quirllle
0.0084
0.0088
0.0080
0.0095
0.0080
0.0081
0.0083
0.0080
0.0244
0.0162
0.0198
0.0171
0.0160
0.0192
0.0158
0.0801
0.0159
0.0200
0.0106
0.0078
0.8022
0.1604
0.3209
0.1604
0.1604
0.1004
0.1604
0.160-1
Upper 95
0.0085 x
0.0085
0.0088 A
0.0096
0.0076 x
0.0080 x
0.0088
0.0076 x
0.0366
0.0171 i
0.0195
0.0175 >
0.0153 X
0.022*6
0.0150 I
0.0769 >
0.0150 x
0.0211
0.01 18
0.0077
0.7617 x
0.1523 x
0.3047 x
0.1523 x
0.1523 x
0.1523 x
0.1523 x
0.1523 x
HOIES:
Concciilraltnm aic given in (mils of ug/1. (ppb).
MIC "x" In the fai right column indicates Uial die 95% l)|>t>cr l.'unliilcncc l.lniil Is grc.iltr I hen lite minimum dciccu-il cuitcnuntlixi.
Page I of I
U'lllliWI'rA.Xl.S
-------
Table 4
CHEMICAL SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR GROUNUWATEK - TOTAL METALS
[ALL SAMPLES]
«CL Tie and Trcnllng Site
Tolil Mini Anilflci
Atuiniiimi
Antimony
Ancoic •
Barium .
Beryllium
Cedjnium
Calcium
Qiramium
Cobill
Copper
Iron
Lted
Magneiium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel '
Potauiuin
S«lcruum .
Silver
Sodium
Tlullhim
Vanadium
Ziic .
Valid
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
26
40
40
17
27
40
39
40
37
40
39
40
40
40
40
21
Occur
39
6
30
40
0
0
40
14
10
14
37
11
40
39
0
31
36
2
2
40
7
20
25
Modeled
0
34
. 10
0
40
40
0
12
20
26
0
15
0
> 0
40
5
4
37
38
0
33
20
3
Eillmaled
11
1
8
5
0
0
6
8
4
4
13
4
5
7
0
8
6
2
2
5
2
5
8
Reject
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
3
13
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
o
12
Prefriiencj
Defected
1.00
0.15
0.75
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.54
0.50
0.35
1.00
0.44. .
1.00.
1.00
0.00.
0.86
0.90
0.05
0.05
1.00
0.18
O.SO .
0.89
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
48.50
9.50
1.20
. 7.20 .
0.00
0.00
1660.00
4.30
3.30
3.10
83.20
1.20
. 312.00
1.80
0.00
3.90
564.00
1.20
4.00
3260.00
. 1.70
2.80
8.60
Mailraum
Concentration
Delected
6210.00
44.30
51.10
1080.00
0.00
0.00
113000.00
166.00
79.10
25.60
37600.00
14.90
34400.00 '
17300.00
0.00
131.00
16000.00
2.40
4.60
98100.00
2.80
28.70
1360.00
Median
368.00
10.83
3.35
84.35
0.10.
0.50
36350.00
4.30
4.00
3.00
4510.00
1.45
4775.00
338.00
0.10
14.10
1605.00
1.40
1.85
12350.00
1.00
3.50
21.70
Geometric
Mean
412.0567
10.9869
3.5632
95.3896
0.2428
0.9809
30904.7310
7.5092
6.0806
3.5843
2739.8107
2.4226
4048.2UO
385.0584
0.1000
15.1292
1757.1517
1.1322
I.97IF
11877.0684
0.969'a
4.0811
26.5146
Arithmetic
Mean
968.7615
14.9738
7.9913
171.8515
0.3863
1.2800
43969.5000
. 26.1923
. 12.6725
5.5525
8928.2676
3.7463
7376.1750
3060.9811
0.1000
17.3689
2849.2000
1.2308
1.0150
18740.0000
1.0788
6.1900
111.9393
Standard
Deviation
1388.0310
11.1625
12.5409
241.0794
0.3726
0.9084
29422.4093
47.9610
17.6005
5.7557
10979.1419
3.8303
8415.9-123
5014.7572
0.0000
31.2903
3815.8931
0.4438
0.5429
20269.9099
0.5513
6.9601
342.8202
mein(r)
6.0212
2.3967
1.2707
4.5580
• 1.4154
•0.0193
10.3387
2.0161
1.8051
1.2766
7.9156
0.8848
8.3060
5.9534
•2.3026
2.7166
7.4715
0.1241
0.6788
9.4632
•0.0307
1.4066
3.2777
lldcv(j)
1.3433
0.8226
1.2508
1.0798
0.9825
0.7438
1.0351
I.SI24
1.1953
0.9091
1.9096
0.9228
1.2690
2.5593
0.0000
1.1463
0.8996
0.4543
0.1877
0.8382
0.4536
0.8621
1.3855
n(j)
39
40
40
. 40
40
40
40
26
40
40
37
27
40
39
40
37
40
39
40
40
40
40
28
l/mer
Quirllle
166.4818
6.3072
1.5313
46.0369
0.1151
0.5938
15371.3190
2.7068
1.7147
1.9410
755.4566
1.2999
1719.6593
68.4932
0.1000
6.9813
957.7164
0.8333
1.7371
7315.0641
0.7141
2.2818
10.4120
Upper
Quirllle
1019.8756
19.1387
8.2857
197.6498
0.4712
1.6202
62131.2747
20.8320
13.6199
6.6190
9936.4572
4.5149
9529.8160
2164.7415
0.1000
32.7863
3224.1333
1.5383
2.2376
22668.1391
1.3170
7.3028
67.5208
Upper 95
1849.9286
20.4753
13.1724
259.9124
0.5667 i
1.6578 i
78288.5710
61.8507
20.2637
7.5107
52648.78.76 «
5.6987.'
15498.7394
64477.2653 «
0.1000. >
47.43021
3633.0802
1.4400'.
2.1129:
24490/1049
1.2302 :
8.0151 •
151.6867
MQIES
Concenuillons are sivelt ill U|/l. (ppb).
The 'i"in the lu right column uidicilei (l»l llw 95% Upper Confidence Limit u gieiler then ilie Minimum dcieiltd cimitnuilion.
I'.ge I of I
UTnOWTMAJCI.S
-------
Table 4
CIIKMICAI. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR GUOUNIWATKR - DISSOI.VKI) MI5TAI,S
. I Al,l, SAMPLES)
OCT.. Tie anil Treating Silo
ViiKliit Mail Aaiijils
Aluminum
Antimony
Ancitlc
Dkrium
DoyUiuiH
ddinlum
Ctlcbm
Chromium
Cobill :
Copper
lion
Lied '
tlitnciiuin
tltngineM
ktcrcury
Nlctd
'oluiium
Selenium
Sim
Sodium
TUlHum
Vkiudlum
ZlK '
VsB:!
19
40
40
40
40
40
40
IS
40
40
31
38
40
39 .
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
26
OC£U*
26
1
22
40
0
0
40
15
16
4
31
J
40 .
37
0
20
V,
3
|
40
9
6
19
L'ndsisi!
13
39
18
0
40
40
0
20
24
36
0
36
0
2
40
20
4
37
39
0
31
34
7
EsHi-M-d
8
0
7
7
0
0
10
10
3
3 .
»
0
7
9
0
4
7
1
1
7
3
3
8
RfjMl
1
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
5
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Frcqutncj
p.l.cud
0.61
0.0]
0.55
1.00
000
0.00
1.00
0.4)
0.40
0.10
1.00
O.OS .
1.00
0.9S
0.00
0.50
0.90
0.08
0.03
1.00
0.23
0.15
0.73
Minimum
Concentrftllon
Delceled
17/10 •
18.30
2.00
«.30
0.00 '
0.00 •
1760.00
, 3.10
3.90
4.90
17.70
1.70
72.60
1.60
. 0.00
4.20
477.00
2.50
3.50
1140.00
1.60
J.70 •
9.10
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
3650.00
18.30 .
36.40
1060.00
0.00
0.00
116000.00
40.70
9110
24.50
36100.00
Z.90
34600.00
17600.00 .
0.00
73.50
15200.00
3.30
3.50
91500.00
3.40
27.90
74.00
Medlin
24.00
8.90
2.25
69 JO
0.10
0.65
36100.00
3.50
4.00
2.20
168.00
MS
4345.00
313.00
0.10 .
6.00
1465.00
1.40
1.85
12100.00
1.00
1.75
12.15
Geometric
Mctn
46.1812
10.1181
'2.4597 •..
84.5737
0.2346
1.0343
29824.4693
3.8421
4.9748
2.2388
514.9117
0.9326
3131.3196
175.9328
0.1000
6.9657
1611.3113
1.2491
1.8359
12810.3137
1.0S86.
2.6612
12.2732
Arithmetic
Mem
223.1577
. 13.1813
6.0588
159/1750
0.3513 '
1.3163
43733.0000
5.1700
12.7900
2.9113
7396.6419
1.0763
6922.1400
3055/4256
0.1000
13.9625 •
2651.8250
1.4225
• 1.8688
18546.2500
1.2313
3.3963
16.5596
Slindird
Diibllon.
654.9187
9.2515
9.8065
238.2946
0.3029
0.8878
30S84.I586
6.5707
20.3596
3.7193
12468.8819
0.5633
8572.8165
5144/4906
0.0000
19.5192
3627.7350
. 0.8242
0.3693
19565.3293
0.7740
4.4701
15.2686
memfy)
3J326
2.3143
0.9000
4/1376
-1.4499
0.0338
10.3031
1.3460
1.6044
0.8060
6.2440
•0.0698
B.M92
5.1701
•2.3026
1.9410
7.3854
0.2225
0.6076
9.45SO
0.0570
0,9788
2.5074
llde?(j)
1.4148
0.7467
1.3041
1.1000
0.9291
0.7103
1.0869
0.6763
1J26I
0.5984
2.6199
0.5552
I.S58I
3.3525
0.0000
1.1312
0.9028
0.5184
0.1900
0.8370
0.5291
0.6722
0.7670
n(|)
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
35
40
40
31
38
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
26
Lowir
Quirllle
17.5409
6.1137
1.0204
40,2652
0.1253
0.6405
14325.1059
2/4345
2.0334
M95I
87.9187
0.6412
1094.4642
18.3253
0.1000
3.2473
876.8297
0.8805
• 1.61 51
7282.8956
0.7407
1.690)
7.1151
Upptr .
Quitllle
' 121.5845
16.7453
5.9290
177*104
0.4391
1.6702
62093.7100
fi.0614
12.1710
3.3515
3015.6733
1.3564
8958.8705
1689.0468
0.1000
14.9420
2964.7120
1,7721
2.0870
22532.8I4«
1.5110
4.1891
20.5918
Upper 95
251.9726
17.1603'
10.0886
238,3523 .
0.5058 , i
1.6814 i
82230.8982
6.1317 '
2U247
3.2317
15661 5.94 M >
1.2988
21327.0473
I.044B«06 i
0.1000 i
20.7083
1148.5001
1.6731 '
1.9698
24125.9165
M3I8 !
4.M63
33.9177
-•«*
.-a
N01BS!
Conccntftlioiu ue |ivcn h unit) of u
Tlit •>' in ttic lit riila column indlciui dui dig j)5« Upper
l.iiuu ii |«iu> tlicu lie liiKuituin ilelecleil CMieenliilinn.
Pip lot I
u rnr,wi)MA-XUs
-------
Table 4 \
CIIICMKJAI, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR GROUNMVATEH >- VOLATILE OUUANICS
1 | NO R8 WELL SAMPLES] j
1: fiCL Tie nnd Treating Site !
(Compound
Clilominediinc
UrimioiiKdiane
Vinyl cilia icte
ClitaroelluiK
Mciliykie chlwhk
Acetone
Cftibou disulfitle
l.l-l)iclilofoclhenc
I.l-Dicliloioel)iane
cn-l.l-DidikHoctlieiM
mm- 1,2-UiclilorocilKiK
Oiloiofonu
l.2-Dicliloioedian«
2-UlllWone
1,1.1-TlichlaiuelliilK
Cubou tetfaclilaride
llruliiodicliluiuuicdiane
1.2-Dichloropropane
cii-l.3-l>iciiliuo|uo|ieiie
Triclildruedicne
)ibromochJoruiiielliBne
1.1.2-Tiichlorocdiaiie
,2-Dibromuiiietliine
Jemeite •
Ham- l.3-l)ichli>tu|iioperie
Irottiofoiiii
4-MeUiyl-J iKlilanoiM
2-llcxanunc
tiliaclilotoelliene
HroillodiloroiiKlliane
, l.2,2-Tclr*i;liluruclliaiie
'ulueiK
Cldurubeiueiic
Hlliylbeiuene
SlyfClie
Xykiiei
1,2-Dklilorubonzeiie
1.3-nklilorobeti/ciie
l.4-l>Uliloiobcii/cnc
l,2'l)jhroiiiii-)-chluiu|irui>aiie
Villd
26
26
26
26
26
9
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
1
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
24
14
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
13
Otxur
1
0
J
1
0
4
0
6
7
10
1
4
I
1
6
P
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
4
4
4
0
0
0
Unduluc
25
' 26
11
25
26
5
26
20
19
16
25
22
25
0
20
26
26
26
26
17
26
26
26
21
26
26
20
14
26
26
26
19
26
19
22
22
22
26
26
15
Eillinilcil
1
0
2
0
0
4
0
3
3
5
1
4
0
|
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
a
I
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
lluj«.
0
a
0
0
0
17
0
a
0
' 0
0
0
0
25
n
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
a
0 '
0
a
2
12
0
0
n
0
n
n
0
0
0
u
0
M
'Kreipicncjr
IMi'clcil
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.04
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.2)
0.27
0.38
0.04
0.15
0.04
i.on
0.23
0.00
o.oa
0.00
o.no
0.3$
o.pa
fl.OO
0.00
0.19
O.IK)
o.oo
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
n.cx)
0.27
o.is
0.!5
0.15
0.00 .
0.00
0.00 '
Minimum
CoiKtiiilrallon
Dclrclcil
0.80
0.00
0.10
10.00
0.00
3.IH)
0.00
0.50
10.00
0.02
0.40
0.30
18.00
6.00
j.no
0.00
0.00
0.00
n.no
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
o.oo
0.00
2.01)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
13.00
11.00
67.01)
0>30
o.mi
o.no
0110
Miilimini
ColKCIIlMlloll
Iteleeled
0.80
0.00
28.00
10.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
8.00
46.00
54.00
0.40
0.50
18.00
6.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
220.00
0.00
0.00
18.00
fl.OO
o.uo
0.00
0.00
180.0(1
0.00
580.00
130.00
2200.00
1200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MlMll.l
0.50
0.50
0.50
' 0.50
1.00
4.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
6.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
(•toniplrli
Mc,i,
0.7.^2
0.1118
e.sr,99
0.8212
2.074)
3.9442
0.7)18
1.0560
1.6266
1.5370
0.7255
0,7054
1.5784
6.00QO
1.4255
0.73 IjS
0.73 18
0.7318
0.7318
1.940-1
0.7318
0.7318
0.7318
1.4577
0.7318
0.7318
4.266)
3.8)5)
0.7318
0.7318
0.7)18
I-.5830
0.7318
1. 88118
I.I 105
1.6218
l.)080
0.7.118
0.7318
1). 74551
Arllhinelk
Mean
1.7231
I.7IIS
3.0231
2.0769
6.2115
4.3)3)
1.7115
2.4423
6.2308
10.0688
1.7077
1.6962
3.0000
6.0000
8.1346
1.71 15
1.7115 '
1.7115
1.7115
9.3462
. 1.71 15
1.7115
1.7115
23.3654
1.7115
1.71 15
9.9792
9.2857
1.7115
1.71 15
1.71 15
13.4615
1.7115
41.5769
9.8462
119.2500
60.5692
1.7115
1.7115
1.7667
Slimtird
Derlillon
3.3820
3.3858
6.2342
3.7435
14.9614
2.0616
3.3858
3.4852
10.2491
15.4814
3.3873
3.3918
4.4217
«D!V/DI
14.6973
3.3858
3.3858
3.3858
3.3858
16.0548.
3.3858
3.3858
3.3858
63.1760
3.3858
3.3858
17.2567
17.2490
3.3858
3.3858
3.3858
36.8369
3.3858
127.5335
29.1221
438.3157
239.3188
3.3858
3.3858
3.3-127
nieinfj
-0.2942
-0.3122
•0.1393
•0.1970
0.7296
1.3722
•0.3122
0.0545
0.4865
0.4298
•0.3208
-O.M9I
0.4564
1.79 IB
0.3545
-0.3122
-0.3122
•0.3122
•0.3122
0.6629
-0.3122
•0.3122
•0.3122
0.3769
-0.3122
•0.3122
1.4507
1.344)
•0.3122
•0.3122
-0.3122
0.4593
•0.3122
0.6317
0. 10-19
0.4835
0.2685
•0.3122
-0.3122
-0.2937
flllevfy
0.9974
1.0001
1.3685
1.1201
1.2515
0.4526
1.0004
1.2132
1.6744
2.2178
1.0047
1.0212
1.0335
nmv/oi
1.7697
1.0004
1. 000-1
1.0004
1.000.1
1.7916
1.0004
1. 0004
1. 000-1
2.0020
1.0004
1. 000-1
1.1062
1.0879
1. 0004
1.0004
1.0004
1.8956
I.OOIM
2.2785
1.6761
2.5212
2.1692
1. 000-1
I.OOIM
I.OSII
" Ihe far light column ilulicales dial die 95% U|>|>ei Timf itlenie I .huit is K
i llicti die nunimiiiii iklculcil i
1'agc I of |
imimvnvi..xf.s
-------
Table 4
(.'IIKMICAI.SIIMMAItY STATISTICS I'Olt (.KOIINDWATIUl - SUMI-Vdl.ATII.KOHCANICS
; |NO 118 WICM.SAMI'l.KSI
;.: <;CI. Tie nnd Trtulltij! Sl.lc
Cs:r.pc!!::d
Ilicuol
bii|2 CMuiotUiyl|tilKi
2-Qiloiophciiul
2-McthylplKiiul
Z.I'-oiybii- l-Cliluia|iio|iaiK
4-Mtiliyl|ilKiiol
^'Nil/oiodi-ti-prupyUmine
IcjudilorocthaiK
Niliobenutw
lopiiorotie
2-Niiniplienol
2.4 DiiMlhylplKiiol
>il|2*Cliloroediaiy)inedurM
2,4 nichliifoplKiuil
.2.4-Tmlilorobtnzene
Naplilliilcne
•QilofointtuM
lexiclilorobuiailiene
•(liliiiu-)-tiielliyljiliciiiil
2-Metliylna|ilillulciic
cxaclilufocyclupciiUilieno
,4,6-Tiichltifoplieiiol
2,4.5'Tricliloroplienol ' .
.Qiloioiuplillialciie
2-Niuoinilim
Diinclliylphihalaic
AcenaphtliyleiK
.6*Dinitn)tolueiie
•Nilrouiiline
AcciuplillKiK
2,4-Duuui>|>licnol
4-NilioplKiiol
)ibeiuofufan
2,4-DiniUotoluenc
Diclhylphllialale
4-ClilofOpncnyl plicnyMier
riuorenc
4 Niuouiiliiie
•1.6 l)iniuo-2-iiiciliyl|'lKiiol
•Nilfosodiptieiiylauiuie
4-DfOiiiophenyl pltetiykilicr
lleucldoiobeiiuiie
VaU
25
25
25
25
21
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
95
IS
11
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
15
One*
}
0
0
3
0,
4.
0
0
Oi
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
0
7
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
llndtlet
22
25
25
22
25
21
25
25
25
25
25
24
25
25
25
15
25
25
25
IS
25
25
25
25
25
25
18
25
25
18
25
25
18
25
24
25
18
25
25
25
25
25
Kttlraale
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
RclM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Freqlienc
Mclfclei)
0.12 '
0.00
0.00
0:12 '
o.ob
o.ie
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oq
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.28 '
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.04
o.oo
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 •
o.no
Minimum
Concentration
Octet led
. 2.00
0.00
o.on
0.70
0.00
i.no
u.uo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
(UK)
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
O.IUI
92..00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
o.on
25.00
0.00
0.00
3S.no
0.00
0.80
0.00
'2.00
0.00
o.no
n.no
0.00
0.00
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
42.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
26.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1400.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.00 .
0.00
0.00
310.00
o.no
0.00
180.00
0.00
0.80
. 0.00
140.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Media
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.50
1.50
1.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.5O
2.5O
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.00
2.50
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.00
2.50
10.00
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.50
10.00
10.01)
2.50
2.50
1.50
(jcbmelrl
Mean
3.0819
2.5183
2.5183
14284'
2.5183
2.7611
2.5183
2.5181
2.5183
2.518)
2.5183
2.5661
2.518)
2.518)
2.5183
16.7023
1SI83
2.518)
2.518):
8.7257
2.518)
2.518)
10.0732
2:5183-
10.0732.
2.5183
4.0638
2.5183
10.0732
6.5509
10.0732
10.0732
6.3445
2.5183
2.4061
2.518)
4:2339
10.0732
10.0732
15183
15183
2.518)
Arllhmcll
Mem
5.1400
2.5200
2.5200
2.4880
2.5200
3.8400
2.5200
2.5200
2.5200
3.5200
2.5200
2.5800
2.5200
2.5200
2.520(1
1257.6280
2.5200
2.5200
2.52(10
111.9000
2.5200
2.5200
10.0800
2.5200
10.08(10
15200
6.0200
2.5200
10.0800
)4.5400
10.0800
10.0800
24.1800
2.5200
2.4520
2.5200
16.5800
10.0800
10.0800 '
2.5200
15200
2.5200
Standard
Devlallo
9.3291
0.1000
0.1000
0.4076
0.1000
5.2772
0.1000
0.1000
0.1000
O.I 000
0.1000
0)122
0.1000
0.1000
0.1000
289).V549
0.101)0
0.1000
0.1000
311.9521
0.1000
0.1000
0.4000
0.1000
0.4000
0.1000
6.5962
0.1000
0.4000 •
77.9155.
0.4000
0.4000
44.5334
0.1000
0.3584
0.1000
38.6975
0.4000
0.4000
0.1000
0.1000
0.1000
meanly
1.1256
0.9136
0.9236
0.8873
0.9236
1.0156
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
0.9424
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
2.8155
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
2.1663
0.92)6
0.9236
2.3099
0.9236
2.3099
0.9236
1.4021
0.9236
2.3099
1.8796
2.3099
23099
1.8476
0.9236
0.8780
0.9236
1. 4-131
2.3099
2.3099
0.9236
0.9236
0.9236
sldev(j^
0.7347
0.0365
0.0365
0.7661
0.0365
0.6506
0.0365
0.0365
0.0365
0.0365
0.0365
0.0994
0.0)65
0.0)65
0.0)65
3.4137
0.0)65
0.0)65
0.0365
2.IIM6
0.0365
0.0365
0.0365
0.0)65
0.0365
0.0365
0.8097
0.0365
0.0365
1.6392
0.0365
0.0365
1.5)66
0.0365
0.2323
0.0365
1.3133
0.0365
0.0)65
0.0365
1.0)65
(1.0365
"(;
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
IS
25
25
25
25
25
lx>wer
Quarllle
1.8773
2.4571
2.4571
2.0294
2.4571
1.7801
2.4571
1.4571
2.4571
1.4571
2.4571
2.3996
2.4571
2.4571
2.4571
1.6693
2.4571
2.4571
2.4571
2.1093
2.4571
2.4571
9.8284
2.4571
9.8284
2.4571
2.3534
2.4571
9.8284
2.1677
9.8284
9.8284
1.2499
2.4571
2.0571
2.4571
1.7456
9.8284
9.8284
2.4571
14571
2.4571
Upper
Quarlll
5.0594
2.5810
2.5810
2.9060
15810
4.2827
2.5810
15810
2.5810
15810
2.5810
2.7441
2.5810
2.5810
2.5810
167.1140
2.5810
2.5810
2.5810
36.0963
2.5810
2.5810
10.3241
2.5810
10.3241
2.5810
7.0174
2.5810
10.3241
19.7969
10.3241
10.1241
.17.8909
2.5810
2.8143
2.5810
10.2692
10.3241
10.3241
2.5810
2.5810
2.5810
Upper 95
5.6010
2.5519 x
15519 x
2.7732
2.5519 x
4.5077
2.5519 »
2.5519 <
2.5519 i
2.5519 i
2.5519 x
2.6699
2.5519 «
2.5519 i
15519 i
476660.2074 I
2.5519 x
2.5519 x
15519 »
474.6334
2.5519 x
2.5SI9 «
10.207-1, x
2.5519 i
10.2074 i
2.5519 *
8.2023
2.5519 x
10.2074 I
78.4969
10.2074 I
10.2074 x
57.2626
2.5519 x
2.6887 >
2.SSI9 x
21.9390
10.2074 x
10.2074 x
2.5519
2.5519
2.5519 .
Coiiccnlf altuni •» given in utiili of ug/l. (ppb). ;
'I IK V in ilit lu light column indicate! dial Ihe 95% ll|i|Kt Condclcntc Limit li gtcalef Iliui il'ie Minimum ilclcclcilviiiiicntialiiiii.
Page I of 2
UTII(iW8SV.XI.S
-------
Table 4
CIIKMICALSIJMMAKYSTATISTICS FOR «ROUNDWATER
|NO 118 WELLSAMPLKSI
OCL Tie and Treating Site
SBMI-VOLATILK OROANICS
Compound
PcnUcbloioplienol
Phciunlliieiie
AnihiiceiK
Di-n-butylphdiibie
l*1uoiandtene
Pyieno
lluiylbeiuylididiilale
).y-Dlchloiabeiuidine
Beiuo|a|inlhtacene
CluyKM-
bu|2-EdiyOKiyl|phduliu
[)i-ivoclylplilli»!ile
Dciuo|b|niioi»uilMi»
Uenzo|k|nuoiaiiihene
Beiuolllpyienc
lndcno|l,2.3-cd|pyrene
Dibenxo[»,h]indiricene
lleiuolt.h^lpcfykiK
Villd
2$
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2$
25
25
21
25
25
25
25
25
25
Occur
0
7
5
0
5
5
0
0
2
3
3,
0
2
1
|
1
0
1
Undclccl
25
18
20
25
20
20
25
25
23
22
22
25
23
24
24
24
25
24
Killmiltd
0
5
2
0 '
2
3
0
0
I
3
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
Reject
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Frequency
Delected
0.00
a*
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.20
o.op
0.00
0.08
0.12-
0:12
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.04
• 0.04
o.ot
•0.0-
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
2:00
0.80
0.00
0.70
0.40
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.30
0.70
0.00
0.20
2.00
2.00
0.-70
0.00
0.60
Maximum
Concentration
Delected
0.00
180.00
16.00
0.00
54.00
32.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
. 4.00
51.00
0.00
3.00
. -2.00
2.00
0.70
0.00
0.60
Median
10.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Cnmefrlc
Mean
10.0732
4.3363
2.8908;
2.5183
3.1457
2.8721
2.5183
2.5183
2.5849
2.2726
3.8182
2.5183
2.2930
2.4959
2.4959
2.3933
2..SI83'
4.3786'
Arithmetic
Mean
10.0800
19.3800
3.5320
2.S200
5.7680
4.2760
2.5200
2.5200
2.6400
2.4320
11.1480
2.5200
2.4480
2.5000
2.5000
2.4480
2.5200
2.4440
Standard
Deviation
0.4000
47.0703
3.1984
0.1000
i 1.3091
6.4833
0.1000
0.1000
0.7147
0.6283
23.0566
6.1000
0.4883
0.1443
0.1443
0.3776
0.1000
0.3969
mcan(j)
2.3099
1.4670
1.0615
0.9236
1.1460
1.0550
0.9236
0.9236
0.9497
0.8209
1.3398
0.9236
0.8298
0.9147
0.9147
0.8727
0.9236
0.8665
•lde»(j)
0.0365
1.3720
0.5612
0.0365
0.8416.
0.7455
0.0365
0.0365
0.1850
0.4727
1.1886
0.0365
0.5107
0.0588
0.0588
0.2587
0.0365
0.2892
n(>)
25
15
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25.
Ijairtr
Quarllle
9.8284
1.7184
1.9797
2.4571
1.7829
1.7368
2.4571
2.4571
2.2815
1 16521
1.7123
2.4571
1.6247
2.3989
2.3989
2.0100
2.4571
1.9569
Upper
Quarlllo
10.3241
10.9424
4.2213
2.5810
5.5501
4.7493
2.5810
2.5810
2.9285
3.1262
8.5139
2.5810
3.2361
2.5969
2.5969
2.8496
2.5810
2.8911
Upper »5
10.2074 >
25.7833
4.2609
2.5519 <
6.6570
5.2960:
2.5519 i
2.5519 x
2.8090
3.0633
15.0616
2.5519 »
3.2072 i
2.5517 i
2.5517- x
2.7198 »
2.5519 I
2.7593 • *
MU1ES:
Concentrtlioiu ue liven in unill ol ug/1. (p|)b).
tin "«' in die lu rl|hi column Indicant dial ihe 95% (l|juei Confidence l.iinil it gieilef llitn I|K Minimum delected conceiiuiiion.
Pige2of2
uninwasvjcLS
-------
Table 4 .
CIIKMICAI. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOIl OKOUNDWATHIl - I'I!STICID1!S
|N(> R8 WELLSAMl'UiSI
' G(JL Tie amnYeallne Site '
Compound
•Iplu-BIIC
bcia-DlIC
ufug/l.(|vl>)' ' - '
Hie "i" In llie (u iltlii column Indicates ihti UK 95% I'lv" Confidence l.lniii Is gicuici then ilic mnxhiuim iiriccieil c«u:ciiiiaiUii.
Pojc I nljl
-------
Table 4
CIIICM1CAI,SUMMARY STATISTICS Will OROUNDWATER - TOTAL MMTAl-S
|NO R8 WELL SAMPLES)
(JCL Tie and Treating Slle
Total Metal Analilei
Aluminum
Antimony
Anenic
Blrhun '
Ueryllhiin
Caorniuin
Calcium
QuomUun
Cob.ll
Copper
Iron
l.ied '
Matneiium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel '
Poluiiuin
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
TlullMra
Vanadium
ZBIC
Valid
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
17
26
26
25
15
26
25
26
26
26
2)
26
26
26
26
Ifr
Occur
25
3
17
26
0
0
26
t.
12
II
25
8
26
25
0
22
22
2
2
26
)
II
15
UndelKt
0
2)
9
0
26
• 26
a
9
14
15
! 0
. 7
0
. 0 '
26
. 4
4
2)
24
0
23
15
1
Eillmiltd
4
1
2
1
0
a
2
5
2
4
10
2
1
2
a
4
2
2
2
I
1
4
)
Reject
1
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
1
II
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
to
Frequency
Detected
1.00
0.12
0.65
1.00
O.OD
0.00
1.00
0.47
0.46
0.42
1.00
0.1)
1.06
1.00
0.06
0.8i
0.85
0.08
0.08
1.00
0.12
0.42
0.94
Minimum
Concentration
Delected
51.10
10.00
1.20
7.20
0.00
0.00
1660.00
7.20
6.00
3.10
83.20
1.20
222.00
2.80
0.00
3.90
' 564.00
2.20
4.00
3260.00
1.90
3.60
8.60
Miilmum
Concentration
Delected
6210.00
44.30
7.80
192.00
0.00
0.00
84400.00
166,00
79.10
25.60
37600.00
14.90
13500.00 .
17300.00
0.00
131.00
16000.00
2.40
4.60
98100.00
2.80
28.70
55.50
Median
383.00
25.50
2.25
72.55
0.50
1.98
42400.00
3.50
4.00
3.00
1220.00
1.45
4845.00
518.00
0.10
21.90
1715.00
1.00
2.00
12250.00
1.00
3.50
16.90
(ieomelrlc
Mem
456.7848
15.9860
2.0241
59.5281
0.3915
1.4099
30257.2)10
9.2521
6.9288
4.5510
1958.8044
2.4819
3518.6312
519.9522
0.1000
19.7564
2025.9305
1.0053
2.0402
12295.7921
0.9402
4.97'JS
18.2276
Arithmetic
Mean
937.0200
19.8904
2.8423
76.9962
0.5404
1.7000
42456.1538
35.6088
14.4769
6.4519
9441.8360
4.1233
5774.1923
4194.3600
0.1000
34.5808
3610.0000
1.1)60 .
2.1038
18619.6154
1.0558
7.6115
21.7563
Standard
Deviation
1310.8667
10.9227
2.2175
49.3756
0.3821
0.8735
24770.7665
57.1847
20.2464
6.0162
12978.8596
4.2990
4215.3013
5920.1028
0,0000
34.6814
•4568.6184
0.5345
0.6606
2)202.0221
0.5710
8.1)41
13.4530
m««n(j)
6.1242
2.7717
0.7051
4.0864
•0.9)77
0.34)5
10.3175
2.2248
1.9357
1.5153
7.5801
0.9090
8.1658
6.2537
•2.3026
2.98)5
7.6138
0.0052
0.7130
9.4170
•0.0617
1,6041
2.9029
ildcv(j)
1.2441
0.7582
0.8877
0.8309
0.9097
0.6870
1.0685
1.7182
1.1896
0.8227
2.1258
1.0537
1.2705
2.8163
0.0000
1.1905
1.0610
0.5346
0.2268
0.8445
0.4792
0.8890
0.6279
n(i)
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
17
26
26
25
15
26
25
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
26
16
Lower
Quirllle
197.3201
9.5848
I.I 120
33.9822
0.2119
0.8870
14715.0725
2.9027
3.1052
2.6125
466.7799
1.2191
1493.1461
77.7651
0.1000
8.8486
990.2224
0.7009
1.7507
6955.1566
0.6804
2.7302
11.9334
Upper
Quirllle
1057.4305
26.6621
3.6841
104.2782
0.7233
2.2412
62215.1217
29.4903
15.4605
7.9278
8219.9664
5.0527
8291.7308
3476.4991
0.1000
44.1103
4144.9216
1.4418
2.3776
21737.3256
1.2990
9.0600
27.8418
Upper 95
2027.9584
29.7422
4.5509
122.7801
0.9116 t
• 2.3903 x.
92709.3092 x
2D.5797 x
26.9110
9.2733
115169.5709 t
9.5954
16230/1205 >
589338.6180 x
0.1000 x
76.8764
6122.7012
1.4497
2.268" 1
25877,1747
1,2696
11.2042
31.6778
i
UQIB& '• .
Concentrations ire liven In uniu of ug/l.fj>pb). •
The "x" ill tlK fu rfgll! column Indicate! dial UK 9Sft Upper Confidence Limit i) greater ilieii die maximum delected concentration.
Page I of I
-------
Table
CllliMICAI.SIIMMAItVS-l ATISTICS I'OII (JltOllNDWA I Kit - I)I.SS(II.VKI) MKTAI.S
INOHfl WEIJ.SAMri.HS)
I aCI, Tie Riitl Trcnllny Sllc
Illuolvtd MtKI
1.4536
52.7082
0.3713
1.4255
30I58.MI9
3.9027
6.1080
3.5981
565.8455
0.7607
2722.1184
264.7784
0.1000
9.5039
1921.0640
1.1053
2.0106
12144.3582
0.9490
3.1989
II.37M
AillluiKlIc
Mem
197.6380
16.8481
2.2692
69.0692
0.4865
1.7154
42085.3846
5.4563
16.0808
3.3596
9169.3183
0.9038
5289.1769
4225.3400
0.1000
18.5115
J417.5385
1.3038
2.0269
18176.5385
1.0558
4.4423
14.6300
Standard
lltvlillon
409.5587
9.3273
2.2449
47.0617
0.2978
0.8678
25075.1098
7.7821
23.6162
4.3903
14082.0306
0.6096
4146.7830
6078.2413
0.0000
22.7849
4324.5141
' 0.9035
0.3099
22128.5439
0.5529
5.3619
11.0131
intindr)
4.0098
2.6077
0.3740
3.9648
-0.9907
0.3545
10.3142
1.3617
1.91 81
0.9548
6.3383
4.2735
7.9092
5.5789
•2.3026
2.2517
7.5606
0.1001
0.6984
9.4016
-0.0524
1.1628
2.4315
il
2.4161 >
89569.1536
6.5355
33.2046
3.8558
1.087006 ,
I.I 201
23874/4389 >
2.760G«07 I
0.1000 «
34.8626
5757.1 109
I.&454
2.1100
25288.678 1
1.2541
5,69>l
23.7948
•'•
Concciitfilioiu »ie given etutult of iit/t. b). - '
Hie '»" in OK far rigtri column inJicMci dial die 95% t'n*1 Catifiileiicc Ijiuitu gretlei IlKfi (lie maxuitimi ileleclc.l cirfltcn:i tllon.
I of I
111 11OW8MD.XI.S
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site;
Site name: GCL Tie & Treating, Operable Unit 2
Site location: Sidney, Delaware County, New York
HRS score: 48.54 (10/14/93)
Listed on the NPL: 5/94
Site ID #: NYD981566417
Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2;
Date signed: March 31, 1995
Selected remedy: Extraction and on-site treatment of
contaminated groundwater, with a contingency for containment
and/or natural attenuation; excavation and on-site treatment of
PAH-contaminated sediments on-site along the GCL-property soils
(OU-1) via a thermal desorption system.
Estimated Construction Completion: 2 years
Capital cost: $1.9 - $2.1 million for groundwater portion
$0.3 million for surface-water & sediment portion
O & M cost: $0.6 million a year
Present-worth: $9.4 - $9.8 million for groundwater portion
$0.3 million for the sediment portion
Lead; EPA, remedial
Primary Contact: Damian Duda, (212) 637-4269
Secondary Contact: Doug Garbarini, (212) 637-4263
Main PRPs: Harris Goldman
Waste;
Waste type: PAHs
Waste origin: On-site spills
Estimated waste quantity: Approx. 10 million gallons of
contaminated groundwater; 125 cy of sediments.
Contaminated medium: groundwater, sediments
------- |