United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/025
June 1986
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleae read Instructions on the rtvene before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-8 6/025
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
6. REPORT DATE
June 30. 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
D. ABSTRACT
The Metaltec/Aerosystems site is located at the intersection of Maple, Gibson, and
Wildcat Roads in Franklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey. The property consists of
an abandoned manufacturing facility that once produced metal ballpoint pen casings,
paint spray guns, lipstick cases and other assorted metal parts. The site is presently
used to assemble ice machines and the manufacture of glassware for research purposes.
In its current state, the site contains several sources of hazardous substances that
pose a threat to public health and the environment. These sources include a back filled
lagoon area, two open areas which adjoin the Metaltec building, and an open parcel of
land located near the swamp at the northeast corner of the site. These parcels of
property exhibit high levels of pollutants and contaminants in the soil and the
underlying ground water. Hazardous substances detected include trichloroethylene,
trans-l,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride,' and copper.
The cost-effective remedial action selected for this site includes: excavation and
treatment via heat addition (rotary dryer) of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of
organic contaminated soils within Parcel 1 and offsite disposal at an approved landfill;
excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
within Parcels 2, 3, and 4; preparation of a supplemental RI and FS to identify the
extent of ground water contamination and develop and evaluate appropriate remedial
(See Attached Sheet)
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Croup
Record of Decision
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
Contaminated Media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: VOCs, heavy metals, TCE,
vinyl chloride
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
None
21. NO. Or PAGES
81
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage/
None
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the LPA report number is it sppean on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Sol MI hi it Ic. it' uwd. in Miulicr
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, rcpi-at the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
8. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate (he hasis on which it wa» x-lectod (e.g.. Jat> oj mm: dole <>/
appronl, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S) '
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doc. J. Robert Doc. «•/<•.;. List author's affiliation if it differs from the pcrformin): ..rpani-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an orpini/aiional hircarcliy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may IK included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGkNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. I Mnshtum »i. I'rcx'tiicd ji nuiii-n-mi- nf.
To be published in, Supersedes. Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less] factual summary of the most significant information contained m ihe report. It ilu' rcpoit Miniums j
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS • Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper autlmri/cJ terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries lor cataloiunt:.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS • Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI HELD GROUP -1 icld and group assignments are to be taken from the (965 COSA'I I Subject ( atepiry List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment!\) will be spculic discipline, urea of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary I icld/droup jssi|Mtincnis that will follow
the primary posting! s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release (.'nliiinieil." (tie any availiiluliiy i<>
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, il any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4.77) (R«v*nc)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-86/025
Metaltec/Aerosystems,NJ
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
alternatives; and provision of an alternate water supply for affected
Borough of Franklin residents by constructing a pipeline connection to the
Borough of Hamburg public water supply system. The estimated capital cost
for the selected alternative with disposal in a sanitary landfill is
$7,005,000 and with disposal in a RCRA landfill is $11,735,000. The annual
O&M cost is $179,000.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site Metaltec/Aerosystems, Franklin Borough, New Jersey
Documents Reviewed
I am basing my decision on the following documents describing
the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for
the Metaltec/Aerosystems site:
- Metaltec/Aerosystems Remedial Investigation Report, Camp
Dresser and McKee, May 1986.
- Metaltec/Aerosystems Feasibility Study of Alternatives, Camp
Dresser and McKee, May 1986.
- Staff summaries and recommendations.
- Responsiveness Summary, June 1986.
Description of Selected Remedy
- Excavation and treatment via heat addition (rotary dryer) of
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of organic-contaminated
soils within Parcel 1 and off-site disposal at an approved
landfill.
- Excavation and off-site disposal at an approved landfill of
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils within
Parcels 2, 3. and 4.
- Preparation of a supplemental remedial investigation and
feasibility study to identify the extent of groundwater
contamination and develop and evaluate appropriate remedial
alternatives.
- Provision of an alternate water supply for affected Borough
of Franklin residents by constructing a pipeline connection
to the Borough of Hamburg public water supply system.
-------
Declarations
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I
have determined that the remedy described above is an operable
unit involving control of the source of the contamination which
is cost-effective and consistent with a permanent remedy.
It is hereby determined that implementation of this remedy is
the lowest cost alternative that is technologically feasibile
and reliable, and which effectively mitigates and minimizes
damages to and provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare and the environment. Implementation of this operable
unit is appropriate at this time, pending a determination of
the need for any further remedial actions. It is also hereby
determined that implementation of the selected remedy is appro-
priate when balanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for use at other sites.
The State of New Jersey has been consulted and agrees",with the
selected remedy.
Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
•* _ METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY 4
CURRENT SITE STATUS 5
Summary 30
ENFORCEMENT 32
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 33
1. No acton - municipal well not in service 36
2. No action - municipal well returned to service 36
3. Source control of Parcel 1 via lowering 37
water table
4. Excavation and off-site disposal of Parcel 1 39
soils to be RCRA landfill
5. Excavation, treatment and disposal of Parcel 1 •- ' 43
soils to an appropriate landfill
6. Excavation and off-site disposal of Parcels 2, 3 44
and 4 soils to an appropriate landfill
7. Higher rate well-head treatment of Maple Road Well 45
8. Lower rate well-head treatment of Maple Road Well 45
9. Interconnection with Borough of Hamburg Water 45
Supply System
Disscusion 46
COMMUNITY RELATIONS 47
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 48
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 49
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 52
SCHEDULE 52
FUTURE ACTIONS 52
ATTACHMENTS
1. . Responsiveness Summary
2. Written Public Comments
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Metaltec Locator Map 2
2. Metaltec Site Map 3
3. Contaminated Soil Parcels 6
4. Test Pit Locations 7
5* Hand Auger Sampling Locations 10
6. Monitoring Well Locations 12
7. Trichloroethene Distribution in 20
the Surficial Aquifer
8. trans-1,1-Dichloroethene Distribution 21
in the Surficial Aquifer
9." Trichloroethene Distibution in the 22
Bedrock Aquifer
10. trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Distribution 23
in the Bedrock Aquifer
11. Surface Water Sampling Locations 25
12. Schematic Geological Profile 28
13. Schematic of Rotary Dryer/Mixer 51
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST PITS 8
2 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: HAND AUGERS 11
3 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: BEDROCK WELLS 13
4 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: OVERBURDEN WELLS 14
5 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: RESIDENTIAL WELLS 19
6 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: SURFACE WATER 26
7 CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS: SEDIMENTS 27
8 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 34
9 CAPITAL COSTS, O&M COSTS, AND PRESENT WORTH 35
10 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF VOC's - • 38
DEWATERING STRIPPING TOWER
11 STATE AND FEDERAL REMEDIATION STANDARDS AND 40
CRITERIA
12 MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION LEVELS (SITE SPECIFIC) 41
13 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INHALATION OF INDICATOR 42
CHEMICALS - EXCAVATION OPERATION
iii
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Metaltec/Aerosysterns site ("the site") is located at the
intersection of Maple, Gilson and Wildcat Roads in Franklin
Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey ( see Figure 1). It is
approximately one mile northeast of Route 213. The sixteen-acre
property is designated on Franklin Borough tax maps as Lot 63,
Block 7 and Lot 64, Block 1.04. The property consists of an
abandoned manufacturing facility that once produced metal
ballpoint pen casings, paint spray guns, lipstick cases, and
other assorted metal parts (see Figure 2).
The site is presently used by Clawson Corporation, a subsidiary
of Aerosystems Technology Corporation, to assemble ice machines;
and Sussex Scientific, which is involved in the manufacture of
glassware for research purposes. In its current state, the site-
contains several sources of hazardous substances that pose a
threat to public health and the environment. These sources
include the following: :-
1. a backfilled lagoon area located north of the Metaltec
Corporation building;
2. two (2) open areas which adjoin the Metaltec building; and
3. an open parcel of land located near the swamp at the
northeast corner of the site.
All these parcels of property exhibit high levels of pollutants
and contaminants in the soil and the underlying groundwater.
Many of. the substances detected at these parcels are hazardous
substances, within the meaning of that term as defined in
Section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 42 U.S.C. 9601(14).
The site is located in a rural residential setting. The nearest
residence to the Metaltec/Aerosystem site is a house located 600
feet south of the Metaltec plant. In addition, there are several
homes adjacent to the site boundaries, a golf course to the north-
east, and a farm to the northwest.
The Metaltec/Aerosystem site is located in the New Jersey
Highlands physiographic province. The topography in Highlands
is characterized by several northeast-southwest ridges separated
by steep, poorly drained stream valleys. The site is located
in a valley drained by a small, unnamed, northward-flowing
stream. The well borings indicate the presence of three geologic
formations local to the site. A basement complex of Precambrian
-------
-2-
1.100
i.aoo
•g
(••t
COM
Figure 1
ROAD MAP
(NOVEMBER 5, 1975)
BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN
METALJEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-3-
N
Appro* lMt«
location of
eld S»rln 4 imp
•total t«c/A*roty*taM»
property HM
Frank! In
Mtar tupply
Mil
too
•col*
COM
ptwmwi A fiwn«9»m»nf
Figure 2
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SI
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERS
-------
-4-
age lies beneath the site, to the east lies the Franklin Formation
of Precambrian age. Also located adjacent to the site is the
Kittatinny Formation of Cambrian-Ordovician age. The Precambrian
Gneiss contains two distinct aquifers, the surficial aquifer
and the bedrock aquifer. Both of these aquifers have been
contaminated with organic chemicals emanating from the lagoon
area at the Metaltec site. The flow of both aquifers is to the
northwest under static conditions. A municipal supply well is
located 250 feet east of the site and is set in the bedrock
aquifer. The borough's main water supply is Franklin Pond,
located three-quarters of a mile to the northeast.
SITE HISTORY
The Metaltec Corporation, a subsidiary of the Aerosystems Tech-
nology Corporation, operated a metal-plating business from 1965
to mid-1980 when the manufacturing operation moved to a new
industrial park. The operation is currently owned by Aerosystems
Technology, whose president is Charles Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher
purchased the property in 1965 from Andrew Serin who was also
involved in plating activities.
In April 1980, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (NJDEP), Division of Water Resources began an invest-
igation at the Metaltec site. The NJDEP initially focused its
investigation on an unlined waste water lagoon at the facility
west of Wildcat Road. Analytical results indicated the presence
of high concentrations of several organic compounds in the wash
water samples, and metals and oil in the sediments. The organic
compounds found were 1,2-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene (TCE), and trichloroethane. The heavy metals
found in high concentrations were nickel and chromium. These
results further indicated that other pollutants may have been
discharged into the unlined lagoon and onto the grounds.
NJDEP srtaff also identified several areas of dumped and spilled
materials near the Wildcat and Maple Roads intersection. On
November 13, 1980, a pile of green material was observed in this
area (see Figure 2). Analyses of samples collected from one of
the piles showed high concentrations of metals and organic
compounds.
Subsequently, NJDEP analyzed water samples from several private
potable wells, the Metaltec process well, and from the nearby
Borough of Franklin public water supply well in August and
September 1980. These analyses revealed that the borough water
supply well and three private domestic wells were contaminated
with organic chemicals indentical to many of those found at the
Metaltec site. As a result, the borough's water supply well and
three residential wells were removed from service in September
1980.
-------
-5-
NJDEP issued an administrative order to the Metaltec Corporation
in June 1981 to clean up existing contamination and to conduct
an extensive hydrogeologic study. In August 1981r an*'unknown
quantity of material was excavated from the former lagoon area
and the green pile area. The Metaltec Corporation hired Dunn
Geoscience to conduct a study of the area, but the firm never
fully complied with the administrative order. In May 1984, EPA
took the lead on the site activities.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Gross soil and groundwater contamination have been documented
at and in the vicinity of the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. Four
discrete parcels of property exhibiting high levels of hazardous
substances have been identified on the Metaltec property (see
Figure 3). These parcels contain both organic and inorganic
contamination. Although no uniform pattern was observed, the
soil within one of the parcels does contain high concentrations
of volatile organic contamination. In addition, the overburden
and bedrock aguifers beneath the site exhibit contamination from".
both organic and inorganic hazardous substances. A series of
15 test pits and nine hand auger samples were taken in the
vicinity of the Metaltec facility. A monitoring-well'network was
developed which included nine off-site potable wells, the Maple
Road Borough Supply Well, five bedrock and overburden well clusters
and three additional overburden wells. A total of 13 monitoring
wells were installed both on and off the Metaltec site. All
wells were sampled in the late summer and early fall of 1985.
The purpose of this sampling and monitoring effort was to define
the nature and extent of the soil, ground and surface water
contamination at the site. In addition, a 72-hour pump test
was conducted on the Franklin Borough Maple Road Well. The
test concluded that there is a hydraulic connection between the
area monitoring wells under pumping conditions.
Parcel "1 includes a portion of land on the Metaltec property now
used as a part of the employee parking lot and a privately owned
horse corral area across Gilson road (see Figure 3). A waste
water lagoon, which has subsequently been backfilled, once
occupied the parking lot area. It is alleged that an overflow
drainage culvert in the area of the horse corral existed at one
time. This parcel is conservatively estimated to contain
10,000 cubic yards of soils contaminated by hazardous substances.
Three test pits (Tl, T2, T3) were dug in the abandoned lagoon
area, and two test pits (T13, T14) were dug in the Vargennes
horse corral (see Figure 4). In addition, four hand auger
samples were taken of the surficial soils, numbers HA4, HA5,
HA8 and HA9, during the first phase of the remedial investigation
in June 1985 (see Figure 5). A total of five composite and one
discrete subsurface soil sample were taken from the test pits
and analyzed (see Table 1). A total of four surficial soil
samples were taken and analyzed (see Table 2). In addition,
-------
N
Parcel 3
Former
wastewater
lagoon
Former green pile area
100
=
tcol*
FOTMT M»tw»t«r lagoon
tare*I• of eont«lnat*tf soil
0 100
B
f«»t
COM
Figure 3
CONTAMINATED SOIL PARCELS
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-7-
farmer MSt*«at*r lagoon
Burlod gr**n po«tf«r pi I*
100
E-
•col*
100
f»«t
COM
Figure 4
TEST PIT LOCATIO
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERS
<
-------
-8-
TABLE 1
DETECTED COMPOUNDS IN COMPOSITE TEST PITS 1 THROUGH 6
Contaiinant
Volatile Organic Compounds:
Rethylene chloride
Acetone
trant-1. 2-Dichloroethene
2~Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethant
Trichlorotthtnt
2-fleianone
Titrachloroethene
Toluene
Total Bylenes
TP1 TP2 TP2 TP3 TP 4 TPS TP 6
Composite Composite Duplicate Composite Composite Composite Composite
6/25/85 6/25/63 6/25/65 6/25/85 6/25/65 6/25/85 6/25/65
Ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) tug/kg)
-------
-9-
TABLE 1 (Con't)
HILLILD (WOUNDS IN CBWSITE TEST PITS 7 THROUGH IS
IP 7 TP 8 IP 9 TP 10 IP II TP 12 TP 13
Contaminant CMpotiti Goiposite Coapofiti Coipcxit* Coeposite Composite tapotite
8/21/85 8/27/85 8/2&/B5 8/27/85 8/27/85 8/27/85 1/26/B5
Ug/kg) tog/kg) (ig/kg) (if/kg)
-------
-10-
#) Borough of Franklin
•atar supply wall
l*tal tac/*ro»ysta»»
property I In*
Subfturfaca soil taapla
Surface toll Mapla
N»t«: MA9 l» duplleata
HAND AUGER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE 2
COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN HMD flUBER SAMPLES
Background
HR1
Contaailnant 12/9/89
(ug/kg)
Volattl* Organic Compound*!
Mvthylatw chlorld*
1, l-01chloro*than»
Trichlorwthana
Snlvolattl* Organic CoaptMNtoi
Rnllln*
fej«<8-CMoro»thyl)»th»r
1,3-DichlorotanMna
t,8-Dlchloroteni*n»
bU (8-Ch lore* •opropyl lather
HVH acn 1 orov% tiana
Naphthalana
1,4-OleMorobaniii*
Inorganlcit
PlwHlnoai
ChpcwliM
Coopar
Iron
L*ad
Magnavlw
NanganM*
tine
(3
(9
(9
(•g/kg)
21,000
18.6
9.7
18,000
7
990
434
146
Hne
18/9/89
(ug/kg>
8.2
7.3
(330
(•g/kg)
28,000
19.4
1,000
23,000
34.2
2,200
718
4O3
HR3
18/3/83
(fig/kg)
81.3
(9
4,900
6,300
8,800
680
330
8O7O
, v« v
16,040
88,700
*780
9,800
(330
(•g/kg)
27,000
17.8
16.1
86,000
13.6
1,800
736
177
HR4
18/9/89
(ug/kg)
(9
(9
990
390
(•g/kg)
11,000
16.9
41.1
12,000
9
17,000
909 ''
98 -
HR9
18/9/89
(ug/kg)
19.9
(9
(•g/kg)
17,000
18.9
89.3
9,900
9.2
22,000
448
86
HR6
18/9/89
(ug/kg)
(9
930
(•g/kg)
16,000
18
48
23,000
87.8
18,000
713
313
HOT
18/3/83
(ug/kg)
1,070
380
(•g/kg)
31,000
26.2
3,400
28,000
39.3
8,000
700
733
HM
18/3/89
(ug/kg)
7.4
34.3
1,030
(••/kg)
4,900
8.9
18.7
7,600
86.1
23,000
340
861
HR9 DUP
12/3/83
(ug/kg)
18/9/89
(ug'/l)
9.1
7.
930
330
(•a/kg)
7,300
7.
8
7
39.7
6,000
84.
10,00p
468
339
7
-------
-12-
N
BR-5.
006-6
006-7
OBR-3
006-3
• :, • CBorough of FrenMIn
| water supply Mil
.06-1
BR-1'
Bartinto
O *»ll Identified vlth
•Mber or owner «• MM
•o o to
COM
Figure 6
WELL LOCATIONS
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE 3
KIGC1B GDVBMB B
nu FBU
II/U/B warn n/ti/0 iua/a MX** II/U/B II/U/B H/U/B II/M/B II/U/B II/M/B
f*/U <*/!> tai/ll ta|/ll fa|/ll ta|/ll tat/I) U|/O fat/11 ta|/ll
Vinyl Chlflri* !,*••» C.1N* ,
tP tr IT* l«t* CF Ul 1» tr IM IF
01 IF 01 C»F IF BB tF
t 12 » S9M* %7»»
l.l-ticM»«U»« M«* O *
Ml • I,4M »
Oilorata* III* US S 3 4 MF
1,1,1-TrtcManUMM •• I* 8,811 * 8,311*
tr
U I HI* 8,Mt* 3.NO* IF
18* CM
Ill* II* 01 » VI* C8* tF 12* CV «L»T C»F
t.ea*
H4*
••twUtiltl
t* e* ** i* t*
Ms&€Uiyllinyl>fMI»ltt« C« IS OF •
II:
OJF (IfF tfF 1,831 IMF* 110* 171* M9*
3* 3* 9*11 3* 3* 3*
ite*
0,000 tt,SO B.HI* !«••* Ml* IM*
13 II
4SF M* 30 » M 31
ln» t,7» J,17*F OIF 5,0*0 C,«t 11,100 4I7F UK F ISIF 71*
3.8F M4R 30 14 .11F 141 • 13
U.300 11,200 23,000 15,20* B.7M tt.100 2M •
ZN* S* U 3,010 3,121 111* 14* 13*
NicM Mt .^rf?* **
PnlmlM l,» • |,Ca* • 1,300 • A^Bl *>•• J»i*° • » • 321 •
4,170 11,000 ^^V. 37,100 1,040 4,0601
-------
TABLE 3 (Con't)
n
M M2 tO Ml •% MS IMP IMP IMP F1OJ F1HJ
II/U/B ii/u/B n/tt/0 n/ti/e >»IIMN warn 11/12/0 II/U/B u/a/a n/u/a u/a/e
i*/i>
flttlliw &•«• t«it it
UK ttFOIFS 9 M3ZIF31IF B»BF «
Oilari* 31 M 7S W M IS S »
IkHMM HI IM 3» 3U 3tC M
Mfito B31BF SF« li 13
Total tflwh* wllii 4I« 2K IK tft 5tt m K « 41 . Bt
TMMIwly
CM V
»l 71 tl
91 91 II Ml II 91
tl I.MM l^mi II til I 91
1.3
ih
« «•
139 121
l.3,S-Trl»tt7l tmuvm 317
71 M
aeta^hyl-eyclttalmilMM III
'KM • ft
mi 3i
»MyUtt**«-t<3NMmMi Blltl 13 III III
tl
til
3,3,3-Tridilor^i pupa It
3SI lit I m I 17 Ml II • 131
Am. . I
F Ca*(Mri ftlM BWC.
I fcalyte !• fo«4 In M» Ma* • «ll • tt» M^lt.
Hjtorvtary naH^ M^ili toldliq !!•.
-------
-15-
TABLE 4
&IU.IU) GDFOJO5 IN WBBUHEN KLLS
•1 OK OU
CntMiM* 11/13/B 11/13/B 11/21/B
(•I/I) («|/U («|/1)
feUtilt Drpnic Co^onfe:
MbylM chlorite
fcftam
trw-l,2-Bidilar«rtlim
1,1-ftfMarafttow
1,1-ticftlarwthm
1,1,1-TridtlTOthM
Chlarvfor*
2*am
TricMvMttn
ToliM
Total tylomf
Vinyl ehlcriot
ftloraUuM
MMUNM
•rt»lrtlltGo*«n!>t
ftVBl
•i^-ttttyl^tthalitf
SSSSSSJT1*
te-Kdm*.)
hltrK
^SSS1
ftwiic
krl«
krylli* -
btot* •
CileiM
Oral«
Malt
GW
Irv.
iMtf
M«n»i«
•"»*•»
• •F
950
1
9
•
3 V
0.9*
2«
0
112,000
70t
1,000
17
tt
149,000 t
119
MO
210 F
177,000
96F
•9,300
11,900 t
• F 45 •
270 2,300 »
3
2
O.MF
••
'• 1 1| F
it
i,640 24,400
9t K
140* til
102,000 1 9^000
% 49
42F 21
10,700 2^900
IF 40
29,100 4&.HO
949 1 1,020
OMA
11/21/B
HO*
1,000*
13 +
130*
210 *
3,900 +
tf t*
1,300 +
430*
•4
0.051
19,300
13
Ittt
71,900
B
99
31,000
93
34,300
•,240
OM
11/21/05
140
2,000
10,000
1,500
1,100
MO
3,400
55
9
OB 004 OK O7
11/12/B 11/12^9 fcpliutt 11/13/B5
•+
* OO
*
t
•
0.4
•.09*
t* 0.1^
+
Jt
-
7t
t if
t
9M
0
0,5*
'•,
t
-------
-16-
TABLE 4 (Con't)
K1EOD OKUIfiS IN OUERBUnCN ICLiS
•1
CntMinwt 11/11/65
(•I/U
Mietol
Mmi«
fiodia
IhtlliM
Tin
IkMdiM
IiK
Oilerifed)
NrfemU)
Ktrttill)
6W«tt(U
ToUl dinolwd Klifed)
TfHtctivtly Uontifiod tapounfei
Ci»wiflRnyl^WJn0
r l vopQ&r uvtny i^u tw
liloum
IMran tolttilt)
1, 3-Biathy 1-tannn
iVopyl tgati
l-Cthyl-3-arthyl tomra
1,2,4-TriMthyI-tanani
i-CUiyl 2 •thyl*tPBB»
1,3,5-Trivthyl-tafiam
Ktt»nyl-2-^hyl tpim«
(IHMhylffUiyl)^MM.
hMMMCttie Kid
»*rtyUihydr»<(JO-f»«m
9>EthyltfibydPo4(3M)-f»MM
tHkthyl^epWDie Kid
IMm It^wUtili)
216
14,600
11,300
4*
216
1,960 F
30
770
1,306
1,290
441
141
13
042
11/11/65
(•I/U
94
4,3(0*
100,000
4*
B*
200 F
210
446
119
B&
29
141
91
OBJ IMA
11/21/85 11/21/85
44
493 •
29,200
4 f
96
156
70
440
243
350
4901
1,0001
19
to
741
47
9*300
23,600 F
4 *
53
192 F
45
372
177
496
2BI
24
24
96
96
36
B
0
10
14
ttii
•41 045 B6 86 OJ7
11/21/B 11/12/65 11/12/85 feplicitt 11/13/65
(4/1) U|/l) (i|/l)
-------
-17-
A host of organic hazardous substances and some metalic hazard-
ous substances .were detected in the subsurface soil in Parcel 1
(see Table 1) and the groundwater in contact with this soil
(see Tables 3 and 4). The surficial soils showed slight organic
contamination. The contaminants found in the highest concen-
trations in the subsurface soil were trichloroethene at 0.76
percent (7,600,000 ppb) and trans-1,2-dichloroethene at 0.66
percent (6,600,000 ppb). The groundwater taken from the former
lagoon area wells was also grossly contaminated with organics.
The bedrock well showed a host of volatiles including trichloro-
ethene at 2600 -3100 ppb, trans-1,2-dichloroethene at 6500 -
9700 ppb, and vinyl chloride at 1600 - 2700 ppb. It must be
noted at this point that trichloroethene is biodegrading into
trans-1,2dichloroethene and finally into vinyl chloride. The
surficial soil, which was clean fill brought in during the 1981
partial excavation, contained 15.9 ppb trans-1,2-dichloroethene
and 18 ppm magnesium.
Parcel 2 is located in the area of a loading dock adjacent to
northeast side of the Metaltec building. One hand auger sample,
number HA3, was dug in the surface soils and showed semivolatile
and inorganic contamination (see Figure 5). Test pit T9 (see
Figure 4) was dug in this area. The anlaysis reveals no volatile
organic contamination but does indicate some degree of semivolatile
and inorganic contamination (see Tables 1 and 2). Copper and
chromium were both found at 20 ppm in the subsurface soils. The
background concentrations for these metals are below detection
limits. The volume is defined as approximately 900- cubic yards
consisting of a 2500 square foot surface area and an approxi-
mate depth of 10 feet. It is estimated that 20 percent of this
material is located in the saturated zone of the surficial
water table.
Parcel 3 is located at the rear of the Metaltec building directly
outside the back door (see Figure 3). Again, one test pit, T10
(see Figure 4), was dug in this area. The analysis of the com-
posite soil sample indicates some degree of inorganic contami-
nation with chromium, copper, lead and zinc above background
levels,; as well as a slight amount of organic contamination
with trichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene (see Table 1).
The hand auger sample, HA2 (see Figure 5), confirms the presence
of the same contaminants in the surficial soils (see Table 2).
The volume is approximately 900 cubic yards consisting of a
2500 square foot surface area and a depth of about 10 feet. It
is estimated that 20 percent of this material is located in the
saturated zone.
Parcle 4 is located in the former green pile area. Two test pits,
Til and T12, were dug in this area. The analyses reveal inorganic
contamination with copper and zinc above background levels as
well as a slight amount of organic contamination; tetrachloroethene
and trichloroethene were detected above background concentrations
(see Table 1). The hand auger samples, HA5 and HA6, confirm this
contamination in the surficial soils (see Table 3). The volume is
estimated to be 1500 cubic yards. The surface area is approximately
-------
-18-
6750 square feet with a depth of about 6 feet, where a clay
layer is encountered. The entire parcel lies in the,.saturated
zone.
Organic contamination from the lagoon area has migrated to the
groundwater beneath the site. Consequently, three private
potable wells, the Metaltec process well, and the Borough of
Franklin public supply well where the groundwater contamination
was discovered in 1980 have been adversely impacted (see Table 5)
This groundwater system consists of two aquifers, the upper over-
burden aquifer and the lower bedrock aquifer. A pumping test
conducted on the borough supply well during the remedial investi-
gation demonstrated a hydraulic connection between the lagoon
area and the contaminated bedrock aquifer. Thus, a pathway for
contaminant migration is present in the area's groundwater be-
tween the former lagoon area and the Maple Road Municipal Supply
Well.
Gross volatile organic and metalic hazardous substances contam-
ination was found throughout the overburden and bedrock aquifers";
the monitoring well locations can be seen on Figure 6. Trichloro-
ethene was present in 11 of the 22 groundwater samples., .The
volatile organics detected in the overburden well samples (see
Table 4) were also present in the soil samples collected from the
former lagoon. Figures 7 and 8 depict the distribution of tri-
chlorothene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene, the two volatile com-
pounds detected at the highest concentrations in the surficial
aquifer. The detected concentrations are highest in the area
of the former lagoon (trichloroethene at 3,900 ug/1 and trans-
1,2-dichloroethene at 10,000 ug/1). Trichloroethene (8 ug/1 at
OB-1 and 3 ug/1 at OB2) and trans-1,2dichloroethene (1 ug/1 at
OB-1) were also detected in samples collected from the upgradient
overburden wells. These wells appear to have been set at the
upgradient fringe of the contaminant plume, but it is obvious
from Figures 7 and 8 that the greatest groundwater impact is in
the area of the former lagoon. No volatile organics were detected
in the wells north of Gilson Road (OB-5, OB-6 and OB-7). Other
volatile organics detected in the surficial groundwater wells
adjacent to the former lagoon are 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloro-
ethene, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. None of
these four volatile organic compounds were detected in the up-
gradient wells (OB-1 and OB-2).
Volatile organic concentrations were highest in the bedrock
aquifer samples collected adjacent to the former lagoon area
(see Table 4). The distribution of trichloroethene and trans-
l,2dichloroethene in the bedrock aquifer is shown in Figures 9
and 10. Trichloroethene and trans-1,2-dichloroethene occurred at
3,100 ug/1 and 9,700 ug/1, respectively, at the former lagoon
area. Trace amounts of trichloroethene and tjrans-1,2-dichloro-
ethene were detected in the well samples located upgradient of
the former lagoon (BR-1 and BR-2), but it is believed that,
while developing and purging these wells, the fringe of the
plume migrated into this area of the aquifers through fractures
-------
lUIMB M/B MMB
tte^A Vtet4 fffa^A Ib^A
MMS MMB M/B M/B M/B MMB M/B MMB MMB MMB M/B MMB
tat/It fat/11 ta|/ll fa|/lt faj/ll ta|/ll faint fa|/ll fa|/ll
1«
II
*•
«
H
II
1.1
T.I
n
11
91
IM
II*
T.n
u
m
ft
IM*
HI*
(Mtim
Mill
M*
»•
Ml
!•
IV*
m
u*
t,M*
«T
m
m M* MI
HI it* m* HI*
«,*» •,«•• «,«•• ««BI
N* N*
»* »•
IT* n* ii* N*
SB « t,iie* i,ni • t*»
M*
«•
r
M* Ml* M*
••
«•«• »,«*• W.M
m*
•it
i
M
vo
N*
II *
• N*
«*• c,m*
B
IB
M.HI n,M
IM u
Ito
tte
fttarMrill
Tt
w
w
«.«
<••
LI
a,«n •
«••
Mfitolll
*.»
m
B.T
HI
i*.t
BT
t,m
ID
4l.t
L»
i*
«.!
a
tn
«.!
o,m*
,M »
M*
»•
31
m
iu
i.s
m
J»
n.
9
M
ni
xi
in
c*i
&*
m
«••
»•
N
o
aa
it
a*
B
llIT*
MM*
m.i
sit
t»
w
<•!«•. tHp^ to M« Mfrtl* IMI, M MM
«• r«wn ff •
P
I* l«^ !• MB* • wll •
I* unit miiii| U Ml •lUit* cw«lr»l Ihrilt.
IH OVtt.
-------
-20-
N
Itetaltec Plant
process aatar mil
OBorougn of Franklin
9 Mtar supply «•) I
BarslnlO
• Overburden •all
O tedrock vet I
r JTrlcMoroethene concentration In eater
W) Nat detected
M 0*0
ll«
pla (ppb)
COM
Figure 7
TRICHLOROETHENE DISTRIBUTION IN SURFICIAL AQUIFER
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-21-
C Borough of Franklin
•at*r supply Mil
Barslnlo
Mil
O BKlrock Ml I
concentration In Mt*r Mapl* (ppb)
d«t«et«d
l*
COM
Mowmttcentuftvi
Figure 8
frans-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE DISTRIBUTE
IN SURFICIAL AQUI
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-22-
Barough of Frank! In
water supply veil
Bar»lnl»(ND
• Bedrock Ml I
O (Varburden Mil
f~}TrlcMoroethe«e concentration In wtar tamp I* (ppb)
• Estimated value
M> Not detected
COM
•OMfDfynenra/ enginee»i.
pfannet A menaoamenrconaUlantt
Figure 9
TRICHLOROETHENE DISTRIBUTION IN BEDROCK AQUIFER
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-23-
N
006-6
006-7
Borough of Frank! In
watar supply Mil
Barttnl*
• Bedrock Mil
O Ov*rburdM M||
C~j tran»-1,2.-D>cMoroatt>»na concentration In Mtar tan;
NO Not datectod
l*
(ppb)
COM
ptemw* A manao
Figure 10
JffiflS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE DISTRIBUTION
IN BEDROCK AQUIF
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERS
-------
-24-
in the bedrock resulting in the detection of these compounds.
Neither compound was found in the Barsini bedrock well which is
upgradient of BR-1 and BR-2. Another organic compound that was
detected in the former lagoon area is vinyl chloride. Vinyl
chloride (or chloroethene) is a biodegradation product of tri-
chloroethene, which was detected in samples collected in this
area from 1980 to the present. Vinyl chloride was not found in
any of the other bedrock monitoring wells. Other volatile
organics that were found exclusively in BR-4 were chloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethene, I,1-dichloroethane, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
2-butanone was also present only in BR-4 at an estimated value of
430 ug/1. This compound was also detected in the overburden
well at this location (OB-4B).
Tentatively identified compounds occurred most frequently at
BR-4. Several tentatively identified benzene compounds were de-
tected only at this well. The source of these parameters is
unknown at the present time.
The only volatiles present at BR-5 are common laboratory contami-
nants, such as acetone. The chlorinated compounds, such as
trichloroethene or trans-1,2-dichloroethane, were not:,detected
in the sample collected at this well.
The surface waters of concern at the Metaltec site include a
pond on the site, an unnamed tributary to Wildcat Brook that
runs northward through the site, Wildcat Brook, and the Wallkill
River. Six samples of the area's surface waters and sediments
were taken in the fall of 1985 during the remedial investigation
(see Figure 11).
Table 6 identifies the compounds that were detected in the stream
water collected and Table 7 lists the compounds that were found
in the stream sediments. 10 ppm of cadmium was detected in the
stream sediments at station 2 (S2). This area is adjacent to
the greien pile area and the contamination is attributed to the
green pile. Generally, volatile organic contamination was
below the detection limits utilized by the contract laboratory.
However, 40 ug/1 of trichloroethene and 47 ug/1 of trans-1,2-
dichloroethene were detected in the stream between the intersection
of Maple and Wildcat Roads and the confluence of Wildcat Brook
at Station 5 (S5). It is believed that these two pollutants
emanate from the former lagoon area on the Metaltec site. The
former lagoon area is located on a geologic contact between two
distinct geologic zones (see Figure 12). It is hypothesized that
the water present in the contact zones surfaces in the unnamed
stream and therefore the contaminants are being transported to
the stream water via subsurface groundwater system beneath the
Metaltec site. In addition, low levels of aldrin and heptachlor
epoxide were detected. These compounds are common pesticides
and may be emanating from the corn fields, grass fields, or
golf course in the area. Stream sediments at Station 5 also
showed 20 ug/1 of trans-1-2, dichloroethane.
-------
Borough of Franklin
rater tupply wll
COM
ntonmyiW tngtntm.
Figure 11
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING STATIONS
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW
-------
TABLE 6
DtlbULU CDVOMiS IN siMtm MRTEJ
«—
Sa^ilt 1
VI6m
(•I/I)
5/16/85
(•I/I)
V16/B5
(•I/I)
5/16/85
tolatilt Onpntc CoqMMirftt
Oilorofor*
B^BMVMM
^•nfcCfiT
Snlvolattlt GMPMH*
bit(2-EthylheRyl)pN
Pestlclde/POii
Aldrln
nvptaChlQr^ ajpovlov
Inorfanicst
Rlwiiwi
8ari«n
CadBiw
Calctvi
Oiroaiw
Iron
fUfneslvi
Nanfanest
Potas«i
-------
TABLE 7
KltttU COMIMS IN STKEfW SEDIMENT
GoMtMiMftt
Volatile Organic GMpMnfci
trans-l,2-DicMoroethent
1,1,1-Tridilorotthant
Vinyl «*tatt
Trichlorotthent
Sevivolttil* CoMomdit
Benzyl alcohol
4-Nethylpteral
Naphthalene
Pheianthrena
Fl
-------
Dip of bedding planes 90* N.M.
Borough of Frank!In
«*ater supply well
Former ..,
wastewater
Elevation In feet (HSU
Approximate nno of highly contaminated ground wter
Clay
Sand
Highly weathered rock
Itotet Fractures and contacts not to scale
0 100 tOO 400
tcolc
planners A mcn«9«m«ni crwrtuta
Figure 12
SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC PROFILE AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS, FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
-------
-29-
Because of similarities in the inorganic/metal contamination
found in Parcels 2, 3 and 4, these three soil parcels may be
combined when assessing risk. Parcel 1 will be addressed
alone, since it shows a high degree of organic contamination as
well as some inorganic/metals contamination. All of the parcels
were identified by test pit excavation and sampling. The bulk
of the contamination in all four parcels is below the surface.
The risk assessment performed at the site identified twelve in-
dicator chemicals which were present and are hazardous substances
under CERCLA. Indicator chemicals represent the most toxic,
mobile, and persistent chemicals at the site, as well as those
present in the greatest concentrations. These chemicals may be
broken down into two categories: organics (trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, vinyl chloride, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane) and inorganics (copper,
zinc, lead, chromium and manganese).
These 12 chemicals were selected so that the risk assessment
focuses on the significant contamination present at the site }n
regard to a public health perspective. Public health concerns
identified at the Metaltec site are summarized below.
* The unnamed tributary to Wildcat Brook shows elevated levels
of hazardous substances at one location downstream from the
Metaltec site. The surface water route is not .considered a
high risk exposure pathway through ingestion or dermal con-
tact due to the limited exposure of the populace to this
stream. No adverse impacts due to the contaminants at the
Metaltec site have been observed in the Wallkill River to
date.
0 Groundwater in the surficial and bedrock aquifers has been
severely contaminated by the Metaltec site. Hazardous sub-
stances (HSs) in the groundwater system have contaminated
both domestic water supply wells and a municipal supply
well near the site. These conditions make groundwater a
high-risk exposure pathway. Groundwater discharge to the
unnamed tributary also continues to transport HSs and other
contaminants in this area. In the event that groundwater
at the site is ingested, the contamination that is now present
could produce acute or chronic health effects.
0 Inhalation 6f air-borne contaminants is not a hazard to the
people living in the area around the Metaltec site. Contami-
nants are not dispersed in the air because the contamination
is primarily subsurface and, therefore, it has been concluded
that there are no off-site, air-related health risks. How-
ever, air contamination on-site can be severe at times.
For example, when the waste lagoon was disturbed, remedial
investigation personnel are required to wear respiratory
protection.
-------
-30-
In summary, the soil, groundwater and hydraulic studies in
which were Undertaken at and in the vicinity of the Metaltec
Corporation site indicated that, among other items:
1. Hazardous substances in the form of both organic and in-
organic substances exist in the soil in at least four dis-
crete parcels on both the Metaltec site and the Vargenne's
horse corral area located to the north across Gilson Road.
2. All four of these discrete parcels of contaminated soil
are in direct contact with the surficial groundwater
aquifer which underlies the Netaltec site.
3. Both the surficial (upper) groundwater aquifer and the
bedrock (lower) aquifer which exist beneath the Metaltec
site exhibit elevated levels of specific hazarous substances
which are present in the soil and the abandoned lagoon area
on the Metaltec site.
4. The Maple Road Municipal Well which is located less than
250 feet east of the Metaltec site boundary has been
abandoned due to the presence of contaminants which have
rendered it unfit for potable supply purposes. Some of
these contaminants are hazardous substances under CERCLA
and are identical to and/or are biodegradation products
of hazardous substances found in the soil at and/or the
groundwater beneath the Metaltec Corporation site.
5. The following hazardous substances were detected in the
soil on the Metaltec site in concentrations which far
exceed any background levels which could be expected in
soils in the area and/or any levels which were in fact
detected in any soil samples outside the Metaltec site:
a. trichloroethene
b. trans-l,2-dichloroethene
c. vinyl chloride
-d. copper
6. Some hazardous substances which are found at the Metaltec
site, trans-1,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene, have
entered the unnamed stream which flows through the site.
7. Some of the hazardous substances existing in the soil
and/or the groundwater at and beneath the Metaltec site
.are known to cause cancer in lower species and are known
or suspected carcinogenic compounds in humans.
-------
-31-
The environmental studies at and in the vicinity of the
Metaltec site clearly indicate that:
a* Hazardous substances as that term is. defined in
Section 101 (14) of CERCLA, 42 USC 9601 (14), have
been and are being released into the environment
at the Metaltec site;
b. a substantial threat of new and continued release of
hazardous substances into the environment exists at
the Metaltec site; and
c. an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health, welfare and environment exists due to the
release and substantial threat of release of hazardous
substances, other pollutants and contaminants into
the environment at and from the Metaltec site.
-------
-32-
Enforcement
Previous investigations pertaining to the Metaltec/Aerosystems
site have indicated that Mr. Charles Fletcher, the current
owner of the property, was also the generator and disposer of
the hazardous waste at the site.
In April 1986, EPA sent an information request letter, pursuant
to Section 3007 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. $6927, to Mr. Charles Fletcher, President of
Aerosystems Corporation, of which Metaltec is a subsidiary
requesting information pertaining to the site. The response
was hand delivered on June 17 at the public meeting held in
Franklin and is currently being reviewed.
-------
-33-
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The feasibility study process involves, as a first step, selecting
technologies that are appropriate for remedying the public health
and environmental concerns associated with a particular site.
In the case of the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, the remedial ob-
jectives are to address the soil contamination present at the
site, to restore the water resource lost when the Maple Road
Municipal Supply Well was shut down in 1980 because of organic
contamination, and to concurrently reduce the adverse public
health and environmental impacts associated with the high
levels of contamination found. The remedial measure should be
designed to alleviate the public health risks and environmental
impacts associated with the contaminated soils at the Metaltec
site. It should be noted that this Record of Decision does not
address the groundwater contamination emanating from the site.
Additional study will be required to fill the data gaps that
exist in the RI/FS at this time.
The remedial technologies selected for controlling the source
of contamination at the site fall into three catagories including
containment, treatment and removal of contaminated soils .associated
with the four pacels. No remedial technologies involving manage-
ment of migration are discussed. Information needed to assess
these alternatives is not known at this time. A supplemental
RI/FS will be conducted to determine the depth and extent of
lateral migration of contamination thereby closing the existing
data gaps. In addition, two remedial technologies were selected
to restore the drinking water source lost to the borough.
Considering available technologies and the site's physical con-
ditions, several remedial alternatives were developed to effect
source control (Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6) and to restore the
lost water supply (Alternatives 7, 8 and 9). The preliminary
remedial alternatives are listed and briefly described in Table 8.
Capital'costs, operation and maintenance costs, and the related
present worth values for the alternatives are provided in Table
9. A more detailed description of the technology screening and
remedial alternative development can be found in the Feasibility
Study Report for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site dated May 1986.
The remedial alternative descriptions that follow identify each
action, outline the effectiveness and cost of the action, and
address the action's consistency with other environmental laws.
Consistency with other environmental laws is described more
completely in a later section of this document.
-------
-34-
TABLE 8
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - No action
•no soil remediation
•restricted aquifer use
•groundwater monitoring program
Alternative 2 — No action
•no soil remediation
•operation of the Maple Road Supply Well
with no treatment
•groundwater monitoring program
Alternative 3 - Contaminated soil containment of Parcel 1
•lower groundwater table
•pump and treat groundwater for perpetuity
•discharge treated effluent to POTW
•groundwater monitoring program
Alternative 4 - Contaminated soil removal of Parcel 1
•dewater the excavation area
•excavation and off-site disposal of 'Parcel 1
soils to a RCRA facility
•treat the water and discharge to POTW
•groundwater monitoring program
Alternative 5 - Contaminated soil treatment of Parcel 1
•dewater the excavation area
•excavation of Parcel 1 soils
•treatment of Parcel 1 soils by heating and
driving off volatile organic contamination
•disposal of soil residuals in an appropriate
landfill facility
•treat the water and discharge to POTW
- . °groundwater monitoring program
Alternative 6 - Contaminated soil removal of other parcels
•excavation and off-site disposal of Parcels
2 and 3 soils
•excavation and off-site disposal of Parcel 4 soils
Alternative 7 - Well-head treatment using an intermittent high
rate system
•treatment of the Maple Road Supply Well
Alternative 8 - Well-head treatment using a continuous low rate
system
•treatment of the Maple Road Supply Well
Alternative 9 - Connection to the Borough of Hamburg Public
Water Supply System
-------
-35-
TABLE 9
CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
AND PRESENT WORTH VALUES
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
1. No action - municipal
well not in service
2. No action - municipal
well returned to service
3. Source control of
Parcel 1 via lowering
water table
4. Excavation and off-
site disposal of
Parcel 1 soils to a
RCRA landfill
5. Excavation, treat-
ment and off-site dis-
posal of Parcel 1 soils
ROTARY DRYER METHOD
Sanitary Landfill
RCRA Landfill
INCINERATOR METHOD
Sanitary Landfill
RCRA Landfill
6. Excavation and off-
site disposal of Parcels
2, 3 arid 4 soils
Sanitary Landfill
RCRA Landfill
7. Higher rate well-
head treatment of Maple
Road Well
8. Lower rate well-head
treatment of Maple Road
Hell
9. Interconnection with
Borough of Hamburg
Municipal Water System
CAPITOL
O&M COST
PRESENT WORTH
COST (5)
68,000
111
78,000
($)
803,000
68,000
1,072,000
6,410,000
4,983,000
8,453,000
9,176,000
12,646,000
1,659,000
2,919,000
2,505,000
1,409,000
363,000
1,552,000 14,699,000
1,064,000 11,102,000
78,000
78,000
78,000
426,000
561,000
101,000
7,263,000
5,718,000
9,188,000
78,000 9,911,000
78,000 18,730,000
0 1,659,000
0 2,919,000
6,221,000
6,698,000
1,315,000
-------
-36-
Alternative 1 - No Action (restricted aquifer use)
The results of the remedial investigation indicate that there is
significant contamination at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. The
former lagoon area, the green pile area, and the areas at the
north loading dock and the south back door of the facility build-
ing are contaminated with hazardous substances. Parcel 1 is
grossly contaminated with volatile organics, particularly tri-
chloroethene (TCE); sub-surface samples from the lagoon area
contains as much as .76% TCE, .73% tetrachloroethene, and .66%
trans-1,2-dichloroethene. Inorganic contamination is as high as
.80% chromium and .34% copper. Lead is also present at 40,000
ppb, slightly above the background concentration of 36,000 ppb.
Approximately one third of the contaminated soils in Parcel 1
lie in the saturated zone; therefore, much of this contamination,
in particular the volatile organics, is mobilized by the ground-
water and is migrating to the overburden aquifer. The indicator
organic chemicals found in gross concentrations in both the
bedrock and surficial aquifers include vinyl chloride, 1,1-di-
chloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethene, all in ~
concentrations of at least 100 times greater than EPA proposed
maximum contaminant levels in drinking water. None o.f these
compounds were found in the background sample associated with
this area. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of soil are contam-
inated in the area of the former lagoon and its overflow culvert.
A groundwater monitoring program will be instituted at the
Metaltec site to track the contaminant plume. This program will
be carried out in conjunction with a supplemental remedial invest-
igation and feasibility study to close the data gaps that cur-
rently exist. This monitoring program is common to all source
control alternatives, i.e. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The no-action alternative does not control the source. If the
site is left in its present condition and no remedial action is
taken, hazardous substances will continue to enter the ground-
water. ; Furthermore, the presence of these contaminants constitutes
a continued negative impact on the environment. Restricting the
use of the aquifers underlying the Metaltec/Aerosystems site
would eliminate the public health risk associated with the
consumption of the groundwater.
Alternative 2 - No Action (borough well returned to service)
This no-action alternative would return the site to its status
prior to the site discovery in 1980. As in Alternative 1, this
no-action alternative will not control the source and the con-
taminants will continue to migrate into the groundwater. The
aforementioned groundwater monitoring program would be instituted.
-------
-37-
Reactivation "of the municipal supply well, which pumps from the
bedrock aquifer, will change the natural northward flow direction
of the groundwater to an easterly direction toward the well. In
addition, the natural artesian conditions of the lower, bedrock
aquifer will reverse under pumping conditions. If pumping oper-
ations are resumed, it is conceivable that the level of volatile
organic contamination in the municipal supply well nay approach
those levels found in the groundwater directly beneath the former
waste lagoon. Again, this level of organic contaminAtion is at
least 100 times higher than the EPA maximum contaminant levels
for drinking water. The presence of these contaminants constitutes
a continued negative impact on the environment. This alternative
does not mitigate the source and allows contamination to be
re-introduced into the bedrock aquifer. Furthermore, the level
of risk to the consumers of the water pumped from the municipal
supply well is unacceptable. The two noaction alternatives
leave a concentrated source of contamination in the soils that
will continue to migrate. These alternatives do not effectively
contribute to the protection of public health and welfare and
the environment. Consequently, the no-action alternatives
(Alternatives 1 and 2) shall not be considered viable. This
no-action alternative provides a basis for evaluating other
remedial actions both in terms of their environmental benefits
and associated costs.
Alternative 3 - Contaminated Soil Containment
This alternative will actively lower the groundwater table beneath
the soils in Parcel 1 using a well-point dewaterinq system. As
with the no-action alternatives, a long-tern groundwater monitoring
system would be initiated. The dewatering treatment scheme will
include metal precipitation by pH adjustment, followed by air
stripping of volatile orqanics and granular activated carbon (GAC)
for the removal of semi-volatiles with final disposal of the treated
effluent at the local POTW. Implementation of this alternative
will eliminate direct contact between the contaminated soils and
the groundwater, thereby preventing further contamination of
the groundwater due to the percolation of water through the
contaminated soil.
The public health risk associated with the unit operations of
the dewatering treatment system have been assessed. The public
health risk related to metal precipitation is minimal as there
will not be public access to the treatment plant. Any sludge
generated will be disposed of at an approved RCRA facility.
However, volatile organic contaminants will be discharged into
the atmosphere from the stripping tower. Table 10 shows the
air-borne concentration levels that will result from the operation.
These values have been assessed to be well below the level of
concern associated with the 10~6 excess cancer risk recommended
by EPA (10~6 excess cancer risk translates to one extra cancer
death per million people exposed). Ingestion of groundwater
-------
-38-
TABLE 10
JIISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF VOCs 360 FEET
DOWNWIND FROM THE DEWATERING WATER TREATMENT STRIPPING TOWER
Chemical
Vinyl chloride
Tr1 chl oroethene
trans-1 ,2-01 chl oroethene
1 ,1 ,1-Trl chl oroethane
1,1-01 chl oroethane
Maximum
Concentra-
tion 1n
Ground water
(ug/Hter)
2.700
3,100
9,700
2.500
1,400
Emission
Rate
(g/sec)
4.3xlO'3
4.9xlO'3
l.SxlO'2
4.0xlO"3x
^
Maximum
Downwl nd
Concen- Dally
t rat ion Intake
(g/nr) (mg/kg/day)
8.6xlO*7 6.7xlO'7
9.8xlO'7 7.7xlO"7
3,0x1 O"6 8.6x10
Ss---* .7 -4
^8,0x10 ' 2.3x10
X. N .7 .4
X-4WO ' 1.3x10 *
r\ \ '<
/
^-
Vinyl Chloride \^^
Tr1 chl oroethene
trans-1 ,2-01 chl oroethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1,1-01 chl oroethane
s~>S$p
(^ potency
\ M ^^ I ^L
\ ^{kSWay;
2.5xlO'2
4.6xlO'3
^y
*-Carc1n-
. genie
f1 Risk
2xlO"8
4X10-9
Acceptable
Dally
Intake (ADI) Hazard
(mg/kg/day) Index
l.OxlO'1 9xlO"3
5.4X10'1 4xlO'4
1.2X10"1 IxlO'3
TOTAL
2x10
-8
1x10"
8The dally Intake has been adjusted for lifetime exposure for carcinogens only.
(118/5)NY
-------
will still pose a significant risk from the contaminants current-
ly present in the groundwater system. The risk would decrease
over time depending on the concentration of the contaminants
and the subsequent dilution and the degradation rates. However,
since these rates are uncertain, the contamination of the ground-
water could pose a significant risk to human health for some
time into the future. In addition, the reliability -of the alter-
native is questionable. In the event that the dewatering oper-
ation breaks down or is voluntarily shut down, the groundwater
would once again be in contact with the contaminated soils. This
alternative is more expensive than several other alternatives
that provide a higher degree of reliability and a comparable
degree of environmental.protection.
Alternative 4 - Contaminated Soil Removal to a RCRA Facility
(excavation and off-site disposal of Parcel 1 soils)
This remedial action will establish the aforementioned ground-
water monitoring program, dewatering of the parcel, and pre-
treatment and discharge of dewatered effluent to the local
POTW. In addition, an estimated 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soils within the parcel will be excavated, transported off-site
and ultimately disposed of in a RCRA approved facility. The
precise limits of excavation will be determined as part of the _
remedial design effort using a soil boring sampling program and
the following criteria. State and Federal remediation standards
and criteria are summarized in Table 11. Action levels set for
soil remediation criteria for the Metaltec site are outlined in
Table 12. The criteria are based on the concept of partitioning
coefficents, for the volatile organic contaminants,, which give
a general relationship between the concentration of contaminants
in the soils and the groundwater. The partitioning coefficients
for the indicator volatile organic chemicals have been calculated
to equal one. This translates into a 1:1 relationship between
the amount of residual contamination left in the soils and the
resulting contamination of the groundwater. The soil remediation
criteria for volatile organics were taken from the EPA maximum
contaminant levels for drinking water (40 CFR Parts 141 and
142, November 15, 1985) to ensure that adequate protection of
the groundwater is provided. The soil remediation criteria for
inorganic chemicals is based on New Jersey's Environmental
Cleanup'Responsibility Act (ECRA) guidelines.
The risks posed by the excavation and off-site disposal are as
follows. Prior to the actual excavation, the site will be de-
watered, thereby reducing the risks from inhalation of volatile
organic contamination associated with the groundwater. During
the excavation and loading of the soil, fugitive dust may be re-
leased into the atmosphere; contaminants may adhere to the dust
particles and inhalation of entrained organics could occur. The
results of the risk analysis are presented in Table 13. However,
the risk is overstated because the calculations for ths values
-------
TABLE 12
SELECTED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION LEVELS IN MEDIA OP CONCERN AT THE METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
SOIL
WATER
INDICATOR CHEMICAL
VOCs
Vinyl chloride
trans-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorofonn
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
NJDEP
Guideline
Total
Volatiles
not to
Exceed
1 mg/1
Back-
ground
Level
ugAg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
106 Cancer
Risk Level
or Haz Index*
ugAg
0.015
27
3.1
0.67
0.19
20*
0.033
Ground
Water
ug/1
0.015
27
3.1
0.67
0.19
20
0.033
MCL*
5
5
5
100
200
5
Partition
Coefficient
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
SOIL
REMEDIATION
CRITERIA
ug/1
5
5
5
100
200
5
Metals
mg/kg
rog/1
Chromium (total)
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Manganese
Column:
Notes: ND Not Detected
100
350
100
170
(1)
ND
370
36
ND
930
(2) (3)
V
,
0.050 50
5.0
0.020
1.0
0.050
(4) (5)
100
350
100
170
(6)
* Chemical is non-carcinogenic and therefore a hazard is developed.
Column (1) NJDEP standards developed under ECRA
Column (2) Background levels determined during remedial investigation
Column (3) Risk level based on partition coefficients and drinking water risk level or hazard index
Column (4) Maximum values for protection of drinking water quality (Safe Drinking Water Act)
Column (5) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) - Federal Register, November 15, 1985
Column (6) Partition Coefficients as determined by Hydrogual, Inc.
-------
TABLE 13
RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE INHALATION OF SOIL CONTAINING INDICATOR
CHEMICALS 200 FEET DOWNWIND FROM THE FORMER LAGOON AREA DURING SOIL REMOVAL
Indicator
Chemical
Carcinogens h
Chrom1um(VI)D
Tr1 chl oroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Noncarclnogens
trans-i ,z-Di cm oroethene
1,1,1-Tri chl oroethane
Copper
Z1nc
Lead
Manganese
Maximum
Concentra-
tratlon
1n Soil
(mg/kg)
8,000
7,600
710 •
6,600
17
3,400
1,000
40
< 390
Carci-
Downwind Effective nogenlc
Concen- Da^ya Potency
tration Intake Factor
(g/mj) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
8.0x10"^ 1.3xlO"J 4.1xlO"l
7.6x10",, 1.3x10 ,n 4.6x10,
7.1xlO"u 1.2xlO"lu 1.7xlO"J
6.6x10"^ 9.4xlO"?n
1.7x10,;: 2.4xlO"iu
3.4x10"^ 4,9x10^
IOvin ^^ -^tfin
.UAIU ,o^^X«^tAlU , n
4.0xlO"i|~ 5i7xlO~i
3.9xlOjy *.6xlO"
s'c \ \ _
\ \'^ ) .--'
Indicator
Chemical
.•"-
1 K
Carci- \\
.xjiogeriic \ f
A xi!*\,i'
\ ^ V
\Acceptable ;
> \Da1ly
X^^Intake (ADI) Hazard
1mg/kg/day) . Index
Carcinogens XC \ \V \ -^ ^
Chromium
Tr1chloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
NoncarclnoQens
trans-l,2-Dichl oroethene
I,l,l-Tr1chloroethane
Copper
Z1nc -
Lead
Manganese
2x10
1.0x10
1.1x10
1.0x10
1.0x10
4.3x10
3.0x10
-1
-1
-2
-1
-4
-4
9x10
2x10
5x10
1x10
1x10
2x10
-7
-11
-6
-7
-6
-5
TOTAL 5x10
-8
3x10
-5
Note:Although vinyl chloride Is considered an Indicator chemical, 1t has never
been found 1n the soils at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. Therefore, 1t 1s not
considered 1n this remedial alternative.
aThe effective dally Intake has been adjusted for lifetime exposure for carcinogens
only.
Chromium (VI) 1s a carcinogen by Inhalation,
-------
-43-
presented in the table account for the lifetime daily intake
whereas the excavation is expected to take only one month.
Other risks involve the transportation of materials to an off-
site facility. Approximately 500 trucks will enter and haul
waste from the site. The trucks will cause an unusually large
amount of traffic on the rural roads.
This alternative effectively mitigates the contaminant source
present in Parcel 1. It is proven reliable and will be of
benefit to the environment and to the long-term public health
of the community.
Alternative 5 - Contaminated Soil Treatment and Removal
(excavate and treat Parcel 1 soils to remove volatile organics)
This remedial action will also establish the aforementioned
groundwater monitoring program and the dewatering program with
pretreatment and discharge to the local POTW. Contaminated
soils within the parcel will be excavated using the remediation
criteria discussed previously and in addition, the contaminated
soil will be treated with heat either on-site or off-site,
depending on available space, to drive off volatile organic
contaminants. Approximately one acre of land will be needed to -
house the treatment facilities that would comply fully with
relevant and appropriate RCRA guidelines. An estimated volume
of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil will be treated to
remove volatile organics. Subsequently, the treated soil will
be disposed of in an approved RCRA or other appropriate landfill
facility depending on the nature and level of residual soil
contamination.
Two treatment technologies are being evaluated in this alterna-
tive. In theory, contaminants from the soil can be success-
fully volatilized by heating the soil material, thereby forcing
the contaminants into the vapor phase. The two following
sub-alternatives are identical except for the equipment involved.
Alternative 5A employs this theory using an asphalt dryer to
heat the soils passing the off-gas through a heat exchanger and
then gas scrubbing via granular activated carbon to purify the
air emissions. Alternative 5B employs a convential incinerator
to heat the soils, operating at lower than normal temperatures,
and treatment of the emissions in an afterburner.
Removing contaminants from the soil, as described in this altern-
ative, is considered more reliable than disposing of excavated
soils in a landfill. The required equipment has been used
extensively, albeit in other applications. No extraordinary
benefits or disadvantages are associated with the safety of
these technologies. Pilot testing will be required during the
design phase to accurately assess the effectiveness of this
soil treatment approach.
The risk to public health in regard to the dewatering operation,
and the excavation activities have been assessed in previous al-
-------
-44-
ternatives. In addition, temporary storage prior to treatment
may pose a threat if the soil is not kept dry and a leachate is
produced. However, this is not an area of concern as the storage
area will comply with all appropriate RCRA storage requirements
including a double liner and leachate collection system. If
the volatilization system is adequate, there will be'virtually
no discharge of contaminants to the air. Consequently, there
is no threat to public health.
The major benefit of this alternative is to the environment as
a whole. This alternative effectively mitigates the source of
contamination of the .soils in Parcel 1, as well as greatly re-
ducing the amount of contamination that will remain at the site.
This alternative is judged to be superior to no action and the
previously discussed source control alternatives in that the
contaminant source is removed, mitigation of the source is
achieved, and the volume of contaminated materials is signifi-
cantly reduced.
Alternative 6 - Contaminated Soil Removal (excavation and off-
site disposal of Parcels 2, 3 and 4)
This remedial alternative does not stand alone; it is intended
to provide increased protection to meet the requirement of the
National Contingency Plan to assess an alternative which exceeds
standards. This alternative may be combined with either Altern-
ative 4 or 5. Parcels 2, 3 and 4 contain a variety of primarily
inorganic and semivolatile organic chemicals. Available sampling
data indicate that the soil in Parcels 2 and 3 is contaminated
to the extent that it is classifiable as a hazardous waste under
RCRA. In addition, the concentrations of inorganic and semi-
volatile contaminants are in excess of cleanup guidelines under
the State of New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility
Act (ECRA). There are no Federal standards under RCRA applicable
to contaminated soils within Parcel 4. However, similar to
Parcels 2 and 3, contaminated levels exceed ECRA cleanup guide-
lines.
In view.; of the foregoing, State requirements will be considered
in determining the need for, and the extent of, soil cleanup for
Parcels 2, 3 and 4. The removal of these parcels will provide
an incresed level of protection to public health in the event
of any future disturbance of the contaminated soils. Cleanup
guidelines under the State's ECRA program are based on health
risk assessments for particular sites. Therefore, excavation of
Parcels 2, 3 and 4 soils will be in accordance with ECRA guide-
lines as shown in Table 12. Pending the results of additional
testing during design, these soils may be disposed of at RCRA
approved or other appropriate landfill facilities.
The supplemental activities beyond Alternatives 4 and 5 include
additional dewatering operations, treatment and excavation
activities. Therefore, the additional risks to public health
-------
-45-
are minimal* The benefit to the environment is substantially
increased, as virtually all soil contamination identified at
the Metaltec site will be removed from the environment*
\f
Alternative 7 - High Rate Treatment of Maple Road Municipal
Supply Well
This remedial action replaces the quantity of water lost to the
Borough of Franklin as a result of the Metaltec site. The al-
ternative will return the municipal supply well to service,
with treatment of contaminated well water at the well-head, as
necessary, to augment the borough's surface water supply. The
system will be operated at the same rate the well operated prior
to 1980. It is estimated that this well can supply approximately
100,000 gallons of quality drinking water per day. But, the
municipal well should not be reactivated until the source reme-
diation operation is completed.
The treatment will consistently produce drinking water that
will meet primary drinking water standards, thus posing no
threat to public health. From an environmental impact perspec- -
tive, this alternative restores the utility of a locally valuable
groundwater resource. However, it does not address the large
volume of contaminated soil at the site. :,
Alternative 8 - Low Rate Treatment of Maple Road Municipal
Supply Well
This alternative provides the same benefits as Alternative 7,
but uses a low flow rate treatment system in place of the
higher flow rate system. The capital cost of this alternative
is slightly lower than Alternative 7, and the operation and
maintenance cost is slightly higher. Overall, this alternative
has a slightly higher present worth value.
Alternative 9 - Interconnection with Borough of Hamburg Water
Supply System
This alternative extends the Hamburg municipal water supply into
the Borough of Franklin. From an engineering perspective, this
is a simple and reliable alternative to implement. However, it
is not certain when a firm agreement could be reached between
the two municipalities.
The alternative provides high quality drinking water to consumers
and poses no public health risk. However, it does not effect
remediation of the groundwater contamination caused by the
Metaltec site but simply supplies the borough with an alternate
water source.
-------
-46-
DISCUSSIONS
The alternatives developed for remediating soil at the Netaltec
site fulfill the National Contingency Plan requirement in that
at least one alternative from each of the following groups is
considered: the no-action alternative; alternatives that do not
attain applicable or relevant environmental standards but pro-
vide significant protection to public health, welfare and the
environment; alternatives that exceed applicable or relevant
environmental standards; alternatives that attain applicable or
relevant environmental standards; and alternatives that use
treatment or disposal at an off-site facility. In accord with
the off-site policy, alternatives that utilize treatment in
addition to, or in place of, land disposal have been carried
through the screening process. Alternatives that utilize only
on-site treatment and disposal have also been developed.
Several alternatives were dropped from further consideration in
initial screening. The reasons for eliminating these alternatives
were discussed previously and are summarized as follows:
- the containment alternative (Alternative 3) using a ground-"
water pump and treat system is considered relatively unre-
„ liable and ineffective. The alternative depends on ground-
water pumping to separate, the contaminated soils -from the
area's groundwater. Since the source deposits of waste
would remain at the site, groundwater pumping would be
required indefinitely. If the groundwater pumping system
proves ineffective or it is ever discontinued, continuous
release of contaminants into the groundwater will resume.
This would consitute a violation of applicable RCRA regulations
- both the no-action alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) fail
to meet any of the remedial objectives and would allow at
least part of the source of concentrated hazardous materials
to continually leach into the area's groundwater. The site
would remain a threat to public health, welfare and the
environment.
The remaining alternatives (4, 5 and 6) are similiar in the fact
that they all include excavation options, however, they differ
in the methods of disposal. These alternatives remove the
contaminated soil and offer protection from future exposure to
this hazardous material. If Alternative 4 or 5 is implementated,
the contaminated soils in Parcel 1 will be excavated down to the
concentrations identified in Table 12. By opting for Alternative
6, the additional excavation of Parcels 2, 3 and 4, the site is
virtually returned to near background conditions. Alternatives
7, 8 and 9 all involve the provision of an alternate public
water supply. These alternatives are designed to supply the
borough with a water resource that has been lost as a result of
contamination from the site. Either the low-flow or high-flow
treatment alternatives (Alternatives 7 and 8) or the inter-
connection with the Borough of Hamburg (Alternative 9) will
provide quality drinking water.
-------
-47-
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
On May 30, 1986, EPA made the draft RI/FS report available for
public comment by placing two copies of the documents in public
repositories at the Franklin Borough Municipal Building and the
Franklin Borough Library. In addition, a copy was sent to Mr.
Charles Fletcher, owner of the Metaltec/Aerosystems site and
Mr* Fenton Purcell of Lee T. Purcell Associates, an engineering
consulting firm under contract to Franklin Borough. The public
was notified of the availability of the documents by letter to
all those on the Metaltec/Aerosystems site mailing list. A
public meeting to discuss the results of the RI/FS was held in
.Franklin on May 17. The public comment period extended from
May 30 to June 27, 1986. The written public comments and
consequent responsiveness summary are appended to this document.
-------
-48-
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
•
Compliance With RCRA
The remedial alternatives (Alternatives number 1 through 6)
developed for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site were examined to
determine to what extent they would mitigate the source of
contamination at the site. For the purpose of evaluating
compliance of these alternatives with RCRA, the property line
was used as the facility boundary. Alternatives were assessed
with regard to the potential for contamination to migrate
beyond this boundary. The mechanism for such migration is
convection with the groundwater. This migration could also
carry site contaminants into the unnamed tributary to Wildcat
Brook which could constitute a violation of Clean Water Act
regulations as well.
Excavation of Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 reduces any releases from
the site to below background levels. Excavation of solely
Parcel 1 will allow some continued release of contaminants from _
the remaining parcels into the underlying aquifers. Aquifer
remediation was not examined at this time but will be addressed
in the supplemental groundwater RI/FS for the site. The.contami-
nants released after excavation will be less concentrated than
current levels. Other than the excavation alternatives (4, 5
and 6), all source-related alternatives (1, 2 and 3) allow some
degree of permanent migration of contamination from the site.
The development of a supplemental groundwater RI/FS and concurrent
monitoring program should be consistent with the principles and
regulatory requirements of 40 CFR $265, Subpart F with emphasis
on the following:
- fill in the gaps in the current understanding of the site's
hydrogeology (40 CFR S265.90(a), §265.91, and $270.14(1)).
- determine the horizontal and vertical extent of the
contaminated groundwater plume (40CFR §265.93(a)(2)).
- determine the rate of migration of the contaminated
groundwater plume (40 CFR $265.93(a)(2)).
The supplemental groundwater RI/FS will also develop alternative
technologies for corrective action for off-site contaminant
releases beyond the Netaltec property boundary consistent with
Section 3004(v) of RCRA.
-------
-49-
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency
Plan, in 40 CFR Part 300.68(i), specifies that the lead agency
will select "...a cost-effective remedial alternative which
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare and the environ-
ment. This will require selection of a remedy which attains or
exceeds applicable or relevant Federal public health or environ-
mental standards..." In addition, 40 CFR Part 300.68(c) states
that "Response action may be conducted in operable units... In
some instances, implementation of operable units can and should
begin before selection of an appropriate final remedial action
if such measures are cost-effective and consistent with a
permanent remedy." Evaluation of the suggested remedial alter-
natives leads to the conclusion the action described below is a
cost-effective operable unit consistent with a permanent remedy
for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site.
Additional groundwater study in conjuction with a monitoring pro-
gram will be part of the final remedy. To close the data gaps
in the hydrogeological study, additional work items, including
well locations and a sampling program, are recommended in the
future actions section of this document. . ,
This part of the evaluation will focus on remediation of con-
taminated soils within Parcel 1. Two alternatives.(Alternatives
4 and 5) are being considered for remediation of Parcel 1 soils.
Both alternatives involve excavation of contaminated soils down
to the levels set by the partitioning coefficient calculations
(see Table 11). Therefore, the cleanup criteria for the organic
substances in the soil are linked to Maximum Contaminant Levels
for drinking water and the cleanup criteria for the inorganic
substances are based on New Jerseys ECRA guidelines (see Table
12). The alternatives differ in the disposal option for the
excavated soils. The first option, Alternative 4, involves
off-site disposal in accordance with RCRA requirements and the
CERCLA-Off-Site Policy. The second option, Alternative 5, in-
volves 'treating the contaminated soils by heat addition, there-
by driving off/removing the volatile organic contamination
and discusses two treatment methods that would achieve this
objective. The treated soils could potentially be delisted as
a hazardous waste and subsequently placed in a sanitary land-
fill. This would depend on the nature and level of residual
contamination, information which will be obtained from pilot
studies to be conducted as part of the design effort.
Removal of the contaminated soil will require a dewatering oper-
ation in conjunction with the excavation activities. Costs for
these activities are common to Alternatives 4 and 5. Consider-
-------
-50-
ation must be given to the overall benefit of treating the soil
to remove nearly 100 percent of the volatile contamination before
disposal of the treated soil at an appropriate landfill facility
compared to simply shipping the contaminated soil to* a hazardous
waste landfill. The environment is better served if this soil
is treated and the chemical contaminants permanently removed.
Consideration must also be given to the fact that the treatment
unit must be pilot tested during the design of the selected
remedy. If this design proves ineffective, disposal to a
hazardous waste facility (Alternative 4) can be retained as a
contingency. Finally, this treatment option is in accord with
the National Contingency Plan and EPA policy that favors altern-
ative treatment remedies.
Alternative 5 utilizing the asphalt dryer technique is considered
the appropriate remedy for the Parcel 1 soils (see Figure 13).
This alternative is the most cost-effective, environmentally-
sound, and protective of public health. Since it only addresses
the contaminant source and not the resultant groundwater contami-
nation, Alternative 5 is considered a first operable unit.
In addition, Alternative 6 is being recommended for remediation
of Parcels 2, 3 and 4 soils. This operation will consist of
excavation of the contaminated soils and disposal at Jan off-site
landfill facility. These soils cannot be treated in the same
manner as the soils within Parcel 1 in that the contamination
is primarily of an inorganic nature. The removal o-f this
additional 4000 cubic yards of contaminated soil will return
the Netaltec site to near background conditions.
The final series of alternatives (7, 8 and 9) involve restoration
of a lost drinking water resource. The Franklin Borough Municipal
Supply Well has been out of service since January 1980. The
well once supplied approximately 100,000 gallons of water per
day to the borough's water distribution system. The Borough of
Franklin has independently hired an engineering consultant
firm, Lee T. Purcell Associates, to explore alternate water
supplies.
At this time, Alternative 9 is considered the most appropriate
alternative to replace the lost public water supply. This
recommendation is based on the considerably lower costs associated
with the purchase of water from the neighboring community of
Hamburg compared to the high costs of treating the closed Franklin
Borough Well. A decision on the ultimate use of the borough
well is being deferred pending the outcome of the supplemental
groundwater RI/FS.
-------
Metaltec/Aerosystetns
FIGURE 13
• Discharge of Gas to Vapor
Phase GA.C Unit
Steel Rotary Dryer/Mixer
Treated Soil Discharge
to Conveyor, to Hauling
Vehicles
Oil-Fueled Burner
and Blower
Paniculate Control
Device (Baghouse)
Drum Drive Motor
Trailer Mount/Dryer Frame
Soil, From Temporary
Storage Area. Feed
Mechanism (Conveyor)
ROTARY DRYER/MIXER WITH
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS. FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
Camp Ores
$^r&
McKee
-------
-52-
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance costs associated with a combination
of Alternatives 5 and 6 are related to the long-term groundwater
monitoring program. The cost of these activities is anticipated
to be $78,000 per year. Environmental monitoring will be
required until effectiveness of the remedy is assured. The
operation and maintenance cost for Alternative 9, interconnection
with the Borough of Hamburg, is estimated to be $101,000 per year.
Schedule: Project Milestones
-approve remedial action
-complete enforcement negotiations
-sign State Superfund Contract* July 1986
-initiate design* July 1986
-complete design* March 1987
-initiate supplemental groundwater July 1*986
RI/FS*
*dependent on CERCLA reauthorization
Future Actions
Additional studies, required to assess the extent of groundwater
contamination, have been discussed throughout this document.
Recommended additional work items for the supplemental RI/FS
will include the following:
0 A second set of groundwater samples should be collected
^from all of the wells sampled during the remedial invest-
igation to confirm the conclusions developed in the
feasibility study.
0 Surface water and sediment samples should be collected
from the unnamed stream and marsh area on the northern'
side of the intersection of Wildcat and Gilson Roads and
approximately 350 feet downstream of the intersection.
This will confirm the hypothesis of subsurface seepage mi-
grating from the former lagoon and into the stream and
determine if any residual soil contamination exists.
0 A deeper well should be installed to determine the
vertical extent of contaminated groundwater. This well
should be sampled to determine the interface of contami-
nated vs. uncontaminated groundwater.
-------
-53-
0 An additional overburden well and bedrock well should be
installed downgradient of the former lagoon in the Kit-
tat inny Formation as shown on Figure 5-3. The bedrock
well should be drilled through the entire thickness of
the Kittatinny Formation and into the underlying Precambrian
Gneiss. This will help determine the downgradient extent
of the contaminated groundwater.
0 An additional overburden well and bedrock well should
be installed adjacent to the Kittatinny Formation-
Precambrian Gneiss contact. The bedrock well should be
installed on the gneiss side of the contact. This will
help determine the lateral extent of contamination in
the gneiss and the influence of the contact zone on the
migration of contamination.
0 Additional samples should be collected from the Metaltec
process well and the Vargennes well to isolate zones
within the wells. This will help determine the vertical
extent of contaminated groundwater.
The data from the above-described investigative work will be used
to accurately access the full extent of groundwater cpntamination
resulting from the Metaltec site. This information will in turn
form the basis for the identification and evaluation of appropriate
remedial alternatives to address the groundwater contamination
problem as required under RCRA. A remedy for the groundwater
plume will be the subject of a subsequent Record of Decision
for the Metaltec/Aerosysterns site.
-------
ATTACHMENTS
-------
Attachment II: Responsiveness Summary
-------
FINAL RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
TO THE
DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEKS SITE
FRANKLIN, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC COKKENT PERIOD
Hay 29. 1986 to June 27, 1986
On Kay 29, 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Region
II began its public comment period on the draft feasibility study of alter-
natives to clean up hazardous waste contamination at the Metaltec/Berosys-
tems site located in the Borough of Franklin, Sussex County, New Jersey.
The purpose of this document is to summarize the community relations and
technical concerns about the draft feasibility study expressed by resi-
dents, local officials, and other interested parties during the public
comment period.
The responsiveness summary is divided into three sections:
Section A.
Background on conmunity involvement. This section
*?
n<
provides an overview of communityinterest and
involvement in the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. In
addition, this section describes community relations
activities that have been conducted at the site.
Section B. Summary of questions and comments received by EPA and
PA responses during the public meeting held on June 17,
1986, during the public comment period^ This section
summarizes verbal comments by local officials and
- residents at the public meeting on the draft feasibility
study of the alternatives for remediation of the
Metaltec/Aerosysterns site.
Section C. Summary of outstanding community concerns and EPA's
response'. This section summarizes outstanding community
concerns about the remedial alternatives being consi-
dered for the site. These concerns are decribed to
assist EPA in planning community relations activities
during the design and construction of the selected
remedial alternative. In addition, this section
includes EPA's response to these outstanding conmunity
concerns.
-------
-2-
A. Background on Ccnmunity Involvement and Community Relations Activities
at the Metal tec/terosystems site.
From 1965 until the mid-1980s, the netaltec Corporation, a subsidiary
of Aerosystems Technology Corporation, manufactured metal*lipstick
cases, pen parts, and cartridge cases. During its operations, the
Metaltec Corporation used trichloroethlene (TCE), a volatile organic
compound as a degreaser of its metal parts.
The Metaltec manufacturing facility was located at the intersection of
Maple and Wildcat Roads, in the Borough of Franklin, Sussex County, New
Jersey. Currently, several light manufacturing businesses, including
an ice packing business and a glass blowing business, are located on
the site of the former Metaltec facility. The site encompasses appro-
ximately 15.3 acres south of Maple Road and both east and west of
Wildcat Road.
Several residential properties and small farms are located adjacent to
and surrounding the site. In addition, a private golf course is loca-
ted northwest of the site. Franklin Pond, the primary drinking water
source for the Borough, is located approximately three-fourths of a
mile, northeast of the site. The Borough of Franklin Water Supply
Well, a secondary water supply source, is situated approximately 400
feet to the east of the site.
Nearby residents in the Borough of Franklin became concerned about
possible hazardous waste contamination from the former Metaltec
manufacturing facility following a site inspection by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 1980, The NJDEP
sampling results indicated that volatile organic compounds were present
in the facility's waste-water lagoon and surrounding soil. Also in
1980, NJDEP sampled the Borough of Franklin Water Supply Well and
several nearby residential private wells. The NJDEP sampling results
from the Borough of Franklin well and the four residential private
wells showed excessive concentrations of volatile organic compounds.
Residents and Borough of Franklin officials became alarmed at the
possiblity of hazardous waste contamination to the drinking water
supply in the vicinity of the Metaltec facility. Due to the presence
of volatile organics in the area's ground water, the Borough of
Franklin Water Supply Well and affected private water wells were
closed. Residents with affected private water wells were connected to
the municipality's primary water supply, the Franklin Pond.
In late 1981, under NJDEP supervision, the Metaltec Corporation removed
some contaminated waste from the lagoon including remnants from a 55-
gallon drum, metal pen parts, bottles, and other debris. In 1982, the
Metaltec Corporation partially excavated and filled the waste-water
lagoon. Nearby residents, observing the removal and excavation on the
property, expressed concern to local officals and to each other about
the potential impact of the hazardous waste contamination on properties
adjacent to the site.
-------
-3-
In June 1984, EPA and NJDEP signed & State Superfund Contract to per-
form a remedial investigation/feasibility study(RI/FS) at the Hetaltec/
Aerosystems site. EPA prepared the RI/FS work plan during late 1984
and early 1985.
On April 3, 1985, EPA held a public scoping meeting in the Borough of
Franklin to provide: (1) a description of the Super fund program; (2) a
background history of the site; and (3) an overview of the RI/FS work
plan. Approximately fifteen Borough of Franklin officials, residents
living near the site, and NJDEP officials attended the meeting. EPA
prepared a two-page fact sheet and enlarged site maps to identify the
site boundaries and the sampling locations. Participants at the public
scoping meeting expressed concerns about the following:
o Ground-water and surface-water contamination;
o Adequacy of sampling and testing methodology;
o Impact of the RI/FS on nearby residential property
values;
o Potential health risk to humans and animals in the
vicinity of the site;
o Cost of selected remedial action and who. pays; and
o Future housing developments in the vicinity of the site.
Several residents and Borough of Franklin officials requested that EPA
provide to community members information about the site on a regular
basis during the RI/FS. In addition, several residents complained that
the public scoping meeting had not been publicized widely. These
residents requested that EPA provide timely and accessible announce-
ments about future public meetings.
The remedial investigation (RI) field work was conducted between Kay
and October 1985. During the RI, several residents called the EPA
remedial project manager to receive a verbal status report about
technical activities at the site. The EPA remedial project manager
also provided information to local residents and Borough of Franklin
officials on a regular basis. In addition, EPA contractor field staff
distributed coonunity information handouts to interested citizens.
These handouts explained the purpose of the field activities and
provided the name and telephone numbers of community and technical
contacts at EPA.
EPA disseminated sampling results of the residential private wells to
homeowners and Borough of Franklin officials. The EPA remedial project
manager called residents with sampling results as well as mailed
letters and results packets to these residents.
-------
-4-
EPA maintains two information repositories near the site. The informa-
tion repositories are located at the Borough of Franklin Municipal
Building and the Borough of Franklin Public Library.
On May 29, 1986, EPA released the RI/FS report to the public and opened
its public comment period. On June 17, 1986, EPA conducted a public
meeting at the Borough of Franklin Municipal Building. Approximately
forty interested residents and local officials attended the meeting.
In addition, two representatives of NJDEP were present at the session.
EPA closed its public comment period on June 27, 1986.
B. Summary of questions and comments received by EPA and EPA responses
during the public meeting on the draft feasibility study (FS) report on
the Metaltec/Re rosys terns Site.
The first .section of this responsiveness summary described the commu-
nity involvement and community relations activities conducted by EPA.
This section of the document summarizes concerns expressed by citizens
during the public meeting held on June 17, 1986 during the public
comment period on the draft FS report.
Selection of Remedial Action Alternative
Residents living near the Metaltec/Aerosystems site and Borough of
Franklin officials expressed major interest in how EPA plans to remedy
the site. The paragraphs below summarize key concerns stated by
interested community members about the proposed remedial action
alternatives.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 - No Action. Generally, participants
agreed with EPA that the "no action" alternatives were unacceptable.
Neither alternative 1 (involving no soil or ground-water remediation
with restricted aquifer use) nor alternative 2 (involving no soil or
ground-water remediation and operation of the Borough of Franklin Water
Supply Well with no treatment) addressed the public's concern about the
impact of hazardous waste contamination from the site on surrounding
soil and ground water.
o EPA stated that the two "no-action" alternatives (Alternatives 1
- and 2) are unacceptable from a public health perspective. Neither
alternative 1 or 2 mitigate the continued release of hazardous
substances into the area ground and surface-water systems.
Alternative 3 - Contaminated soil containment. A resident who owns a
section of property with a horse corral within the largest contaminated
parcel of land expressed concern about whether the land could be used
in the future if EPA selected alternative 3. Although contamination
would be contained by lowering the water table below the contaminated
soil under alternative 3, this resident believes that any restriction
on her property is unacceptable. In addition, other residents living
near the site voiced opposition to restricting access to a section of
Wildcat Road that is also included within the boundary of the largest
contaminated parcel of land on the site.
-------
-5-
o EPA stated that Alternative 3 has been deemed unreliable, although
containing the contaminated soil is technically feasible. This
alternative, while actively lowering the ground-water table,
requires continuous operation and maintenance, and permanently
restricts the use of the entire parcel.
Alternative 4 - Contaminated soil removal to a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted facility and disposition of treated
extracted ground water. Two residents asked where EPA disposes the
soil after it is excavated from the site. In addition, several
residents asked whether holes would be left on the property or clean
fill would be brought to the site and the property landscaped.
Interested community members and local officials asked whether the
Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) was permitted to
accept treated ground-water from the vicinity of the excavated area.
One resident asked if the volume of treated ground water would impact
significantly on the amount of treated and waste water which the Sussex
County Municipal Utilities Authority is allowed to accept.
o EPA stated that the excavated soil will be disposed off-site in an
approved RCRA landfill. EPA explained that the open hole from the
excavated area will be filled with clean soil. The dewatering
operation that will be performed concurrently with the excavation
will generate contaminated water. This water will be pretreated
and discharged to the Sussex County KUA facility after
pretreatment. EPA has held preliminary discussions with the Sussex
County KUA. MUA representatives indicated that the facility is
capable of accepting and treating the pretreated ground water. In
addition, these representatives expressed interest in receiving
the treated ground water at the facility.
Alternative 5 - Contaminated soil treatment. A resident asked how the
soil would be treated.This resident asked specifically about the
rotary dryer being considered by EPA. In addition, this resident asked
whether soil with residual contamination would remain after it is
treated. Several residents asked whether volatile organic compounds
would be released into the air during the treatment of contaminated
soil on or near the site. Residents expressed concern that by heating
and driving off volatile organics from the contaminated soils,
hazardous waste contamination would affect the air quality. Residents
asked how carbon filters will prevent the volatile organics from
escaping from the treatment system.
o EPA explained that the organic contamination in the soil would be
driven out by adding heat. The gas released by the drying process
will be collected in a granular activated carbon unit (GAC). The
residual soil will be analyzed. Based on these results, EPA will
attempt to delist the waste soil as non-hazardous; subsequently,
EPA intends to dispose of the waste soil in a sanitary landfill.
The concept of a GAC unit was explained and preliminary
calculations indicate there will be no health threat as a result
of escaping volatile organics into the air. EPA said that a pilot
study will be conducted during the design phase to insure that the
design is appropriate. The duration of the Remedial Action (i.e.,
the dewatering, excavation and treatment) should take place within
3 to 6 months.
-------
Residents and local officials asked about the schedule for conducting
the pilot study and for testing the effectiveness of this type of
treatment system for soils at the site.
Alternative 6 - Contaminated soil excavation of par eels-2, 3. and 4
within the site boundary.Generally, residents and local officials
supported excavation and removal of contaminated soil from all affected
parcels on the site including parcels 2, 3, and 4.
o EPA responded that the three remaining parcels will be evaluated
according to RCRA and the State of New Jersey Environmental
Compliance Responsibility Act (ECRA) guidelines. In consultation
with NJDEP, EPA has conducted preliminary discussions which
indicate that these parcels will indeed be removed. The EPA
Regional Administrator will make the final decision about whether
parcels 2, 3, and 4 will be excavated.
Alternative 7 and 8 -Well-head treatment using an intermittent high
rate system or a continuous low rate system, respectively.
A local offical asked EPA to clarify whether alternatives 7 and 8 meant
that water could be treated to drinking water standards. This local
official asked, if EPA were to select well-head treatment at the
Borough of Franklin Hater Supply Hell, who would pay for the treatment.
plant and the operation and maintenance of the system. A resident asked
who would be responsible to do the following: (1) operate and maintain
the treatment plant; (2) provide training to employees who were running
the plant; and (3) supervise the operation of the plant.*'
Several residents asked what effect the pumping action from the Borough
of Franklin Hater Supply Hell might have on other private water wells
in the area. A resident asked ii the pumping action might be different
under drought conditions.
o EPA assured the public that the Borough of Franklin Hater Supply
Hell could be treated to meet drinking water standards. At this
time according to the Comprehensive Emergency Response and
Liability Act (CERCLA), the federal government will pay for the
capital costs and the State of New Jersey will pay for the
operation and maintenance costs of the treatment plant. Under
this type of program, the State of New Jersey subcontracts to the
municipality to maintain the treatment plant. EPA explained that
the reactivation of the Borough of Franklin Hater Supply Hell
would probably not draw water from any active local private wells
because of the hydrogeological conditions at the site. EPA said
that all nearby residents whose wells may be potentially affected
are already on a public water supply.
Alternative 9 - Connection to the Bproutfi of Hamburg Public Water
ply SystemTA local official asked whether EPA would pay Cor the
t-up connection to the water supply in the Borough of Hamburg. A
consultant for the Borough of Franklin stated that he did not know of
an existing surplus water supply in the nearby Borough of Hamburg. In
addition, the consultant asked why EPA gave Alternative 9 a negative
rating under its evaluation of institutional criteria. A resident
asked the mayor whether the Borough of Franklin had an agreement with
the Borough of Hamburg Public Water Supply System to purchase water
from the Borough of Hamburg.
-------
-7-
o EPA stated that the most cost-effective alternative for supplying
the 100,000 gallons of water/day lost to the Borough of Franklin
from the contaminated municipal veil is the purchase of water from
the Borough of Hamburg Public Water Supply System. The Borough of
Franklin, however, is currently negotiating a contract with the
Borough of Hamburg for the purchase of additional water. Because
EPA does not know whether an agreement for Franklin to purchase
Hamburg water will be reached by the two municipalities, EPA
provided a negative rating for this alternative. EPA will
consider the Hamburg water supply as a viable source when the
municipalities have reached agreement.
Possible Remedial Option - Identification of an Alternate Water Supply
A consultant for the Borough of Franklin asked whether EPA would
consider an alternate water source (if one were identified in the
future) to replace the contaminated source of borough water. The
consultant asked whether EPA would consider amending the Record of
Decision (ROD) to select this more cost-effective solution if an
alternate water supply were identified after the ROD was signed.
o EPA stated that it would fund another alternative to replace the -
lost water supply, namely a new well location. This alternative
was screened out as a result of failed efforts by the Borough over
the last five years to locate another well. :
The consultant asked if the Superfund would pay for the cost of an
investigation to identify an alternate water source within the Borough
of Franklin. Specifically, he said the Borough of Franklin was
interested in studying the viability of a surface-water source called
the "open cut". The consultant asked if Superfund would pay for the
cost of determining whether the "open cut" was contaminated from any
source. A resident asked whether the Borough of Franklin was obligated
by the State or EPA to look within the municipality's limits to locate
an alternate water source.
o EPA stated that Superfund is not authorized to provide funding to
the Borough of Franklin to investigate the "open-cut" as a
; possible alternate water supply. Local officials and
; representatives from EPA acknowledged that a concern exists that
the "open cut" may be or may potentially be contaminated from
mining operations in the vicinity of the surface-water source.
EPA said that the "open cut" must be investigated prior to being
considered a viable alternate water supply for the Borough of
Franklin. EPA said that the Borough of Franklin was not obligated
by the State or EPA to remain within the limits of the
municipality to identify an alternate water supply.
-------
-8-
Nature and Extent of Contamination
The owner of the former Metaltec/Aerosystems manufacturing facility
asked if vinyl chloride had been identified at the site. The owner of
the facility questioned whether trichloroethene (TCE) breaks down in
the soil to produce vinyl chloride as EPA has described in its RI
report. The owner said that three university experts claim that the
two compounds are not related. He said that he would share the
information that he had gathered with EPA.
A resident whose property is affected by hazardous waste contamination
at the site asked why the entire parcel of land illustrated on the site
map in the report had to be excavated or treated. She said that she
believed only part of her property was affected. Another resident
asked EPA to explain how the geology in the vicinity of the site
affected the mobility of the contamination and its ability to affect
various private water wells near the site boundary. A resident asked
whether it was possible for her well to draw contamination from the
rear of her property into her private water well.
o EPA believes that the TCE at the site biodegrades into
trans 1-2, dichloroethene and eventually into vinyl chloride. EPA
will investigate, however, any new information about the nature of
the contamination at the site which might dispute this hypothesis'!
EPA stated that the size of the parcels of land have been
conservatively estimated based on existing site data. During the
design phase, EPA will collect data from new soil borings to
further define the extent of contamination.
Ground-water Contamination and Long-term Monitoring
Several residents expressed concern about ground-water contamination
remaining in the vicinity of the site. In particular, three residents
requested information about long-term monitoring at the site. A
resident asked if his nearby private well could be contaminated in the
future. Another resident who owns property within the boundary of the
site asked whether at some point following the site remediation,
ground-water monitoring would no longer be required on her property.
" o EPA explained the complex hydrogeology in the vicinity of the site
and its potential affect on the area potable wells. Specifically,
EPA assured the concerned resident that his well was not
located in the same geologic formation as the contamination and it
was unlikely that his well would be contaminated by the site. In
addition, EPA said that wells in the vicinity of the site will be
monitored as part of a proposed ground-water program and following
the site Remedial Action.
EPA did not provide a schedule for monitoring activities beyond
the Remedial Action to area residents.
-------
-9-
Gost of Remedial Alternative
A local offical asked for clarification from EPA about whether all
costs for the selected remedy would be borne by the State of New Jersey
and EPA.
o EPA explained that the costs of the design and construction of the
remedial alternative will be shared by EPA and NJDEP. EPA is
currently conducting investigations of and negotiations with
potentially responsible parties about a cost recovery action.
Schedule for the Record of Decision
A resident asked when EPA would select the remedial alternative for the
site. In addition, several residents were interested about whether the
delay in reauthorization of the Superfund Program would affect the
design and construction of the site remedy.
o EPA said that the Record of Decision (ROD) is scheduled to be
signed June 30, 1986. EPA explained, however, that the agency
cannot say when the cleanup action will begin without a
. reauthorized Superfund or an interim bill.
Impact of Hazardous waste Contamination on Resale Values of Properties
in the Vicinity of the Site
Two residents expressed concern about the impact of hazardous waste
contamination on the resale value of their properties. These residents
said that the proximity of a Superfund site had made it difficult to
sell their properties to new owners. The residents expressed concern
that residual contamination and/or long-term monitoring would prevent
them from selling their properties in the future. Residents wanted
assurance from EPA that the selected remedy would eliminate all
contamination so that prospective buyers would consider normal market
values for purchase of property near the site.
o EPA stated that all contaminated soils in concentrations above
guidelines established by EPA and NJDEP will be excavated. The
site soils.will be returned to near background levels. EPA said
that homeowners may also seek financial relief for lower property
* values under the New Jersey Spill Fund.
Proposed Bousing Developments in the Vicinity of the Site
Several residents expressed concern about existing proposals for
housing developments in the vicinity of the site. One resident asked
whether EPA had the authority to impose a building moratorium in the
area because of the possibility of new wells becoming contaminated
before the selected remedy had been completed. Another resident asked
the mayor why new development was being allowed in the Borough of
Franklin when the municipality already has an inadequate water supply.
-------
-10-
o EPA explained that it has no authority over local development.
EPA said that the local zoning board has responsibility for
decisions affecting local development. EPA said that local
officials and residents have access to the results of the RI and
other information collected during the RI/FS.
Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs) Involvement
Several residents asked who will pay for the cleanup of the site. One
local official and a resident stressed that individuals who disposed of
hazardous waste at the site should pay for the remediation of the site.
One resident living near the site said that she had additional
information including affidavits signed by three previous employees of
the former Metaltec/Aerosystems facility providing further evidence
about who is responsible for disposing hazardous waste at the site.
The owner of the former Metaltec/Aerosystems facility stated that he
had sent to EPA an information package documenting previous owners'
disposal activities at the site as well as the disposal practices of
his own facility.
o EPA currently is investigating all allegations of potential
dumping in the area.
C. Summary of Outstanding Community Concerns
Although EPA representatives responded to many questions and concerns
raised during the public meeting on the draft FS report, several key
issues about the selected remedy were not yet resolved at the public
meeting. These issues include:
Selected remedy. Because EPA did not announce a preferred
alternative during the public comment period, residents and local
officials will want to know which alternative is selected and why
it was selected. In addition, residents and local officals will
want to be informed about the following: (1) technologies used
for treatment of ground water and soil; (2) disposal sites
selected for excavated soil; (3) schedule for design and
construction; and (4) a description of construction activities at
the site, especially those activities that may affect nearby
residents.
Contaminated around water. Concerned residents and local
officials will be interested in any additional ground-water data
collected by EPA following the approval of the ROD. in addition,
these interested citizens will want to know how the additional
ground-water data affects the selected remedy and ROD.
Ground-water monitoring program. Residents remain concerned about
the impact and/or potential impact of hazardous waste from the
site on their private water wells and property. Several residents
expressed an interest in selling their properties. These
residents believe that property in the vicinity of the site will
not be sold at market value unless new buyers believe that the
selected remedy has been effective and complete.
-------
-11-
Adequate source of safe drinking water. Local officals are
responsible for providing Borough of Franklin citizens with a safe
and adequate drinking water supply. As part of its selected
remedy, EPA must ensure a safe drinking water supply that provides
at least as much water as the supply that was lost due to
contamination of the Borough of Franklin Water Supply Well.
Residents and local officials will continue to express interest in
the progress being made by EPA, the State of New Jersey, and the
Borough of Franklin to identify an existing or alternate safe and
cost-effective water supply source.
EPA considered the above outstanding community concerns voiced by residents
and local officials during the public comment period prior to selecting a
Remedial Action for the site. EPA has addressed these concerns by
recommending the following:
o EPA will include Alternatives 5, 6 and 9 consisting of excavation,
treatment and off-site disposal of Parcel 1 soils, and excavation
and off-site disposal of Parcel 2,3 and 4 soils. A further
ground-water investigation will be conducted to close the current
data gaps in the RI/FS as well as an extended ground-water
monitoring program pending the outcome of this additional study. -
Finally, EPA will replace the lost water resource of 100,000
gallons/day by purchasing the water from a neighboring
municipality. :
o The selected remedy will effectively mitigate the contamination
now present at the site as the soil contamination and ground-water
contamination will be removed from the area's environment. A
schedule for implementation of the remedy will be made public as
soon as it becomes known. It must be noted that any activities at
the site will not take place until the U.S. Congress reauthorizes
the Superfund program or provides additional interim funding.
RP9/7
-------
PLEASE SIGN IN
Metaltec/Aerospace Site
Public Meeting
6/17/86
NAME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
ADDRESS OR AFFILIATION
PvitoftL ftssrc
J 7L rt;Jj:,
A j -'J •'.:
CXx
/t/>
I •: it
\
-------
I
H
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
"
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
PLEASE SIGN IN
Metaltec/Aerospace Site
Public Meeting
6/17/86
NAME
ADDRESS OR AFFILIATION
-------
Attachment 12: Written Public Comments
-------
/
Ralph Nleves
106 Wildcat Road
Franklin, N.J. 07416
June 18, 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 711
New York, N.Y. 10278
Att: Christine Schulz, Project Manager
Dear Ms. Schulz:
I wish to commend you and your staff for the excellent
presentation and complete Investigation done regarding the
Metaltec/Aerosystems site, and presented at the Public Meeting
held In the Borough of Franklin on June 17, 1986.
In as much as the areas have now been defined as contam-
inated parcels targeted for clean up, which excludes my
property, I wish to know the E.P.A.'s comments to the following
questions.
1. Depending on the alternative clean up of the
area, what will be the length of time Involved,
and how early will the work begin?
2, Since my home now has an alternate water supply.
how long will my private well be continued to be
monitored by the E.P»A,7
. 3, From past history of cases the E^P.A.has handled,
; affecting private homeowners, will the present
condition 1n the area have an Impact on the
market value of my home, and do you feel the home
could still sell during the proposed clean up?
I would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as
possible on these questions.
Very truly yours,
-------
INCOKPOIIAT1D MARCH I*. I til
BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN
46 MAIN STREET
FRANKLIN. NEW JERSEY O7416
(201) 827-8280 WILLIAM J. HOD*.
MAYO* ""
JAMCt *. DOMI
CkCHK/AOMINI*TM*'
»A^WT
June 26, 1986
Mr. Christopher J. Daggett
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza - Region II
New York, New York 10278
Re: Review and Comments on the Feasibility Study performed by
USEPA, entitled, "Draft Feasibility Study Report for the
the Metaltec/Aerostystems Site, Borough of Franklin, New
Jersey"
Dear Mr. Daggett:
We have had the opportunity to review the Draft Feasibility
Study and accompanying documents on the above-referenced project.
A Public Hearing was held on June 17, 1986 in our Borough Hall,
and we have asked our consulting engineers, Lee T. Purcell
Associates to review the report and make appropriate comments. We
wish to advise you that prior to issuance of a "Record of
Decision" your staff should review and incorporate our
Consultant's observations contained within their attached report
entitled, "Engineering Report, Review of the Draft Feasibility
Study Report for the Metaltec/Aerosystems Site, Borough of
Franklin, New Jersey".
The Mayor and Council and the Board of Public Works of the
Borough of Franklin, are vitally concerned that any remedial
measures recommended and/or employed to reinstate our lost potable
water supply should be on the basis of at least 200,000 gpd
capability.
Further, that the cost estimates to affect the alternative of
and interconnection with an adjacent community be updated to a
minimum of $600,000.00 and the adjacent community should be
contacted by USEPA and its consultants to determine what
additional costs that community may incur to upgrade its system to
affect this inter-connection alternative. The costs for the
interconnection now contained within your documents are
unrealistically low.
-------
Mr. Christopher J. Daggett, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Re: Review and Comments on the Feasibility Study performed by
USEPA entitled, "Draft Feasibility Study Report for the
Metaltec/Aerosystems Site, Borough of Franklin, New Jersey"
Page 2 - June 26, 1986
Finally if the Borough of Franklin is successful in
developing additional groundwater sources of potable water
quality, it is our understanding that costs associated with the
development of these additional groundwater supplies will be fully
eligible for grants under the Superfund Program.
The USEPA and its consultants should be commended on clearly
stating a very difficult project within our community, and we
look forward to the incorporation of our concerns in your
"Feasibility Study" and "Record of Decision" as stated herein.
I have instructed our Consultants to be available to assist
your staff to assure that there is a clear understanding of our
concerns in this regard.
Very truly yours,
BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN
William J.Hodas, Mayor
WJH:
encl,
cc:
John Frisco, USEPA
Christine Schulz, USEPA
Steven Neiswand, NJDEP
Vincent Monaco, NJDEP
Lee T. Purcell Associates.
-------
ENGINEERING REPORT '
REVIEW OF THE DRAFT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
FOR THE METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN. HEW JERSEY
June. 1986
This office has been requested by the Board of Public Works and
the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Franklin to review the
above-mentioned report, particularly as it relates to the diminution
of water supply capabi 1 ity of the water department due to contaminat ion
of the aquifer system from which the Maple Road well diverts water.
There are several points which require clarification in_the
documentation presented by USEPA and its consultants:
1. The USEPA documents indicate the Borough Has lost 100,000
gpd supply capability. This number is arrived at on the
basis of reported pumping results. It should be assumed'
that USEPA and its consultants had the opportunity to
review the results of a Diversion Rights Hearing held
before the Water Policy and Supply Council on April 5,
1971 and that Council's subsequent approval was for
diversion of 216,000 gpd from the wel 1 . It is our considered
opinion that the Borough of Franklin has lost more nearly
200,000 gpd supply capability because of the contamination.
This represents in excess of fifty (50%) percent of the
Borough's current average daily demand. Therefore, any
alternatives considered to replace lost potable water
-1-
-------
LEE T. PURCEI.Z. ASSOCXA
production capability should be based upon 200,000 gpd and
not 100,000 gpd.
2. The least costly alternative for replacing a portion of
*«
the water supply capabi 1 i ty lost to the Borough of Frank 1 in ,
due to contamination, is the so called, "interconnection"
with the Borough of Hamburg (USEPA's Alternative 9). This
office has verbally discussed the project cost estimates
for this alternative with USEPA and its consultants.
Further a letter was addressed to Mr. Daniel Bucko,
Environmental Planner, Camp, Dresser and McKee, dated May
14, 1986 (copy attached), which indicates that the absolute
minimum cost for this interconnection is $600, OOO-.OO.
Further, this $600,000.00 does not include any potential
upgrading of water facilities within Hamburg, which may
be required for this interconnection. .It is our opinion
that the stated project cost of $363,000.00 (Tables 4-4
and 4-5) is unreal istically low for the work required.
3. There are no detailed line item estimates of cost for the
investment and operation and maintenance costs for
Alternatives 7 and 8. The costs provided are a total cost
and appear to be extremely high based on our current
experience with this type of treatment in the State of New
Jersey. It is our understanding based on the Public Hearing
that these breakdown of costs are to be provided to the
Borough by USEPA.
A Public Hearing was held at the Borough Hal 1 , on June 17, 19b6,
beginning at 7:00 p.m. The following points of major concern regarding
-2-
-------
T. F»URCELL. ASSOCIATES
Franklin's water supply capability were raised by Borough officials
and representatives of Lee T. Purcell Associates. These points are
in addition to Items 1,2, and 3 above:
*„
1. The quest ion was raised about the possibi 1 ity of the Borough
developing additional groundwater supply for use as potable
water sources and if this alternative is not recognized
officially in the USEPA "Record of Decision", will the
costs associated with developing these alternative
groundwater supplies be fully eligible for grants from
"Superfund"? The USEPA officials present at the Hearing
indicated that these costs would be fully eligible under
the Superfund program and further that the "Record, of
Decision" can be amended.
2. USEPA representatives agreed at the Hearing'that they would
participate in negotiations between the Borough of Hamburg
and the Borough of Franklin regarding the interconnection
between the communities.
3. When asked about additional testing and preliminary costs
which may be associated with utilizing the so called, "open
cut" as an emergency supplemental supply, USEPA officials
said that these costs would not be eligible for Superfund
funding.
4. USEPA officials indicated that notwithstanding the
discrepancy in estimates of cost to affect the
interconnection, USEPA would pay for the actual cost of
the project under the Superfund program.
-3-
-------
L.EE T. FURCELZ. ASSOCIATES
Other items of minor importance which should be corrected prior
to final issuance of the Feasibility Study are as follows:
1. The sewage pumping station referred to on Page 1-9 of
Volume 1, Draft Feasibility Study Report, refers to the
sewage pumping station capacity as being 1 MGD and that it
is owned by the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority
(SCMUA). The station is owned by the Borough of Franklin,
but more importantly the design capacity is 216,000 gpd
and cognizance should be taken of this fact before any
discharges are made to the station as a result of dewatering
operations.
2. We are unaware of the location of the so called, "Hamburg
Well Site" near the Franklin border which is supposedly
capable of producing 1,000 gpm (Page 2-SjB of Volume 1,
Draft Feasibility Study Re port). Any information regarding
this site should be made available to the Borough
immediately.
3. Page 2-43 under Inorganic Removal/Precipitation, the term
VOC on the last line is incorrect.
These last three (3) items are of minor consequence and are
mentioned solely for clarification purposes.
As I stated during the Public Hearing on June 17, 1986, the
USEPA and its consultants have adequately documented a very difficult
situation in the Borough of Franklin. The only items of substance,
which in our opinion should be changed, are the quantity of potable
water lost to the Borough of Franklin as a result of the groundwater
-4-
-------
contamination, the estimates of cost to affect the interconnection
with the Borough of Hamburg, and the fact that if additional sources
of potable groundwater are developed by the Borough all costs
*,
associated with implementing these supplies will be fully eligible
under this Superfund Program.
Respectfully submitted,
x EEE->T2^Pt)RQELi, ASSOCIATES
"'Yen t on~pV~¥ u r c e 1
Pr incipal
FPP:as
attachment
-5-
-------
EPA Responses to Written Public Comments
Mr. Nieves concerns at the site were voiced at the Public
Meeting held on June 17. His comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary and a letter will be sent to him per-
sonally addressing these comments.
The Borough of Franklin has independently hired a water
and sewer consulting firm, Lee T. Purcell Associates who
reviewed the Draft Feasibility Study Report. Purcell1s
"Engineering Report Review of the Draft Feasibility Study
Report for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site Borough of Franklin,
New Jersey, June 19B6" was transmitted by the Mayor of
Franklin in a letter to Christopher Daggett, dated June 26,
1986. EPA1s response to the report follows:
Comment 1 -
The 100,000 gpd figure was arrived at based on a review of
well graphs of the pumping rates of the Maple Road Well.
It is felt that this is an approximate figure of the water
useage from the well when it was active. However, a more
thorough review of well logs will be conducted if ;the
Borough would supply this information. In addition, the
results of the Diversion Rights Hearing held before the
Water Policy and Supply Council on April 5, 1971 will be
reviewed.
Comment 2 -
The costs associated with the interconnection of the Borough
of Hamburg have been estimated by our consultants Camp Dresser
and McKee. We will investigate the decrepency between
Purcells and CDM estimates, however the actual cost of the
bid of the water main will be funded.
Comment 3 -
The breakdown of the costs of alternatives number 7 and 8
will be supplied to the Borough of Franklin.
The Engineering Report continues by addressing concerns
voiced at the public meeting. The concerns of the public
voiced at the Public Meeting have been summarized and have
been addressed in the Responsiveness Summary (Attachment
II). However, one of the statements made by Lee T. Purcell
Associates are in error. Namely, Comment t 2, stating
"USEPA representatives agreed at the hearing that they
would participate in negotiations between the Borough of
Hamburg and the Borough of Franklin regarding the intercon-
nection between the communities." EPA will not take an
active role in the negotiations but will inform the New
-------
Jersey Division of Water Resources and the Borough of Hamburg
of our assessment and decision to choose of this remedial
action in response to the water resource lost to the Borough of
Franklin as a result of the Metaltec Site.
Editorial comments made in regard to the Draft Feasibility Study
will be made accordingly.
------- |