UriBd States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office ol
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R02-95/116
September 1990
v>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Metaltec/Aerosystem, NJ
-------
30273-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. RBWTNO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/116
1 milpfrnfi li iiidiui tin
S. RoportO**
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
09/27/90
7. Au«on»
8. Ptrtoimtng Orgmiatlen Ropt Mo.
8. Pwfonnlng Org«Mn«on Nan* and A
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/116
Metaltec/Aerosystems, NJ
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes onsite ground water pumping and
treatment using precipitation, air stripping, and carbon adsorption, followed by
discharge of the treated water to onsite surface water; disposing of precipitated
sludge from the ground water treatment process offsite; regenerating the spent carbon,
and disposing of the residual offsite; and ground water monitoring. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $4,348,900, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $466,300 for 10 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water goals are based on
Federal or State MCLs and include PCE 1 ug/1 (State MCL), TCE 1 ug/1 (State MCL),
toluene 2,000 ug/1 (MCL), and xylenes 44 ug/1 (State MCL).
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPL Rank:
Metaltec/Aerosysterns
Sussex County, New Jersey
USEPA Region II
48.95; September 1983
182
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
Capital Cost:
0 & M/Year:
Present Worth:
09/27/90
Groundwater extraction and
treatment
$748,100
$466,300
$4,348,900
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement:
Primary Contact (phone):
Secondary Contact (phone)
Remedial
Ron Rusin, Project Manager, USEPA,
(212) 264-1873
Robert McKnight, Chief NNJRAS,
USEPA, (212) 264-7509
WASTE
Type (metals,PCS, &c):
Medium (soil, g.w., &c):
Origin:
Est. Quantity cu.yd.:
Volatile Organic Compounds and
metals
Groundwater
Contaminated soil
8,000 cu. yd. soil remaining on
site (ROD signed 6/30/86).
-------
DECORATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
Site Name and Location
Metaltec/Aerosystems, Franklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
groundwater at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, in Franklin
Borough, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision
is based on the administrative record for the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy presented in this document addresses the current and
future threats to human health and the environment associated
with the contaminated groundwater resulting from the Metaltec/
Aerosystems site. A previous Record of Decision, signed on June
30, 1986, selected a remedy for the areas which are the sources
of the groundwater contamination. This decision document
addresses the groundwater itself.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater and restoration
of the groundwater to drinking water standards;
Treatment of extracted groundwater to levels attaining
New Jersey surface water discharge limitation
requirements;
-------
-2-
Discharge of treated groundwater to a surface water
body; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy
will not result in hazardous substances remaining on the site
above health-based levels, once fully implemented, the five year
review will not apply to this action.
/Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff/X^ / ,25ate
Regional Administrator ^^^__
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Metaltec/Aerosystems site is located at the intersection of
Maple, Gilson, and Wildcat Roads in the Borough of Franklin,
Sussex County, New Jersey. The approximately 15.3-acre site is
located about 40 miles northwest of New York City and 12 miles
north of Interstate 80. Another major highway, State Highway 23,
traverses the area. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The
property is shown on the Borough of Franklin tax map as lot 63,
block 7, and lot 64, block 1.04. The site currently contains the
former Metaltec/Aerosystems plant, several parking areas, and a
vacant area from which contaminated soil was excavated in 1988.
The surrounding area is semi-rural, and primarily supports
residential uses. The nearest residence is located about 600
feet south of the site. A horse farm and agricultural land are
located adjacent to the property, to the north and west. A
private golf course is located directly northeast of the site.
Historically, the area was a major supplier of zinc and iron ore,
however, the nearest mine is more than three-quarters of a mile
away. A municipal well, which was removed from service because
of contamination from the site, is located 400 feet east of the
site and is set in the bedrock aquifer. The Borough's main water
supply is the Franklin Pond, located three-quarters of a mile to
the northeast.
Topography at the site was generally formed by stream erosion, as
controlled by bedrock structure and lithology. Topographic
relief ranges from steeply sloped to gently rolling hills. The
most pronounced ridges are underlain by Precambrian crystalline
rock. Less resistant limestones, dolomites, and shales underly
the major stream valleys. Within one mile of the Metaltec site,
land surface elevations range from 760 feet above the mean sea
level (MSL) to less than 500 feet above MSL in the Wallkill River
Valley. Elevations at the site range from 512 to 539 feet above
MSL.
The Metaltec/Aerosystems site is drained by a small, unnamed
tributary to the Wildcat Brook, which flows approximately 2,000
feet to the Wallkill River. Marshy areas exist along portions of
the unnamed tributary. Wildcat Brook is located approximately
one quarter mile northwest of the site in the middle of a broad
flood plain. Surface water in the vicinity of the site is
classified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) as fresh-water number 2, nontrout (FW2-NT).
Streams classified as FW2-NT are not used as potable supplies,
nor are they maintained as trout fisheries.
-------
The geology of the Metaltec site, as determined during the
supplemental remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS), consists of four major lithologic units:
glacial deposits
gneiss
marble
dolomite
The overburden geology consists of both stratified and unstrati-
fied glacial drift, with various mixtures of stiff sandy and
silty clay, and sand and gravel deposits. The thickness of the
overburden varies greatly across the site, from 15 feet or less
beneath the parking lot area (near wells OB-4A and OB-4B), to
approximately 100 feet (near the BR-5 well location) to the north
of the site.
A three-part aquifer system exists beneath the site, which
includes glacial and marsh deposits, granitic gneiss, and
dolomite. Although the marble noted above is lithologically
different from the granitic gneiss, it is not considered to be a
different aquifer system. The overburden aquifer is variable in
composition and includes sands, silts, and gravel beneath the
parking lot area, and clayey silts to the east and northwest near
the BR-5 bedrock well location. Estimated permeabilities of the
overburden aquifer range from 102 to 10'7 centimeters per second
(cm/sec). Fractures within the bedrock aquifers are the primary
pathways for groundwater flow. Fractures are located in the
granitic gneiss bedrock, and trend in a northeast to southwest
direction, following the granitic gneiss/dolomite contact. A
secondary directional component exists in the granitic gneiss
trending northwest to southeast. Groundwater in the area of the
site is Class IIB, indicating that it is a potential source of
drinking water.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Aerosystems Technology Corporation (Aerosystems) and the
Metaltec Corporation (Metaltec), a subsidiary to Aerosystems,
formerly conducted manufacturing operations at the site.
Metaltec/Aerosystems products included metal ballpoint pen parts,
paint spraying equipment, lipstick cases, and a variety of other
metal products from 1965 until 1980. When active, the site
included the Metaltec plant, a process well, a wastewater lagoon,
a drum storage area, wastewater-soaked ground, and two piles of
waste material.
In 1980, NJDEP conducted an inspection of the site and a
subsequent sampling program. The results of the sampling
indicated that various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), most
significantly trichloroethene (TCE), were present in the
facility's wastewater lagoon and surrounding soil. Due to the
-------
presence of VOCs, which were also detected in the groundwater in
the vicinity of the site, a well supplying drinking water to
Franklin Borough, several area residential wells, and the
Metaltec process well, were closed. Area residents and the
Metaltec facility were placed on a public surface water supply
from a local pond. In 1981, under an administrative order issued
by NJDEP, Metaltec/Aerosystems removed some contaminated waste
material from the lagoon, including remnants from a 55-gallon
drum, metal pen parts, bottles, and other debris. In 1982,
Metaltec/Aerosystems partially excavated and filled the
wastewater lagoon.
In September 1983, the site was placed on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Priorities List of Superfund
sites. In June 1984, EPA began an RI/FS at the site to determine
the nature and extent of contamination, characterize site risks,
and develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. The RI
determined the following:
An estimated 10,000 cubic yards (yd3) of soil were
contaminated with various VOCs in an area referred to
as Parcel 1.
An estimated 4,000 yd3 of soil were contaminated with
inorganic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds
in areas referred to as Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Both the shallow and bedrock aquifers beneath the site
were contaminated with elevated levels of the
contaminants found in the soil on the site.
Following a public meeting, at which the results of the RI/FS
were presented, and a 30-day public comment period, EPA signed a
Record of Decision (ROD) on June 30, 1986, which selected
necessary remedial actions for the site, the municipal well, and
affected.or threatened private wells. The remedy selected in the
1986 ROD included:
Excavation and treatment via heat addition (rotary
dryer) of approximately 10,000 yd3 of 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 yd3 of contaminated
soils within Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Provision of an alternate water supply for affected
Borough of Franklin residents by constructing a
pipeline connection from new potable water wells to the
existing public water supply system*
-------
Preparation of a supplemental RI/FS to determine the
extent of groundwater contamination, and to develop and
evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives.
On July 16 and August 20, 1986, EPA wrote to Metaltec/
Aerosystems, requesting that they perform the remediation needed
at the site. Four separate meeting were held with corporate
representatives, to discuss the required work. Neither company
indicated a willingness to perform the work.
By a letter, dated January 29, 1988, EPA issued special notice to
Metaltec/Aerosystems demanding that they either perform or
finance the remedy required for the site. In the fall of 1988, a
cost recovery action was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice,
on behalf of EPA, in New Jersey District Court.
Between July and November 1988, EPA excavated 4,800 yd3 of
contaminated soil from Parcels 2, 3, and 4, in accordance with
the 1986 ROD. The remedy for Parcel 1 has been designed and is
presently awaiting funding. Construction of the alternate water
supply pipeline began in July 1990, and is planned to be
completed in the fall of 1990.
HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed to ensure the public
opportunities for involvement in site-related decisions,
including site analysis and characterization, alternatives
analysis, and remedy selection; to determine, based on community
interviews, activities to ensure public involvement; and to
provide opportunities for the community to learn about the site.
On August 4, 1988, EPA conducted a public information meeting at
the Franklin Borough Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to
provide residents and local officials with an update on past
activities conducted by EPA, to describe the soil remediation
planned for the near future, and to discuss the upcoming
supplemental RI/FS to examine the groundwater contamination.
The supplemental RI and FS reports, which addressed the
groundwater contamination, were released to the public in July
1990. A Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, was released on July 27, 1990. The documents were
made available to the public at information repositories
maintained at the Franklin Borough Hall and the Sussex County
Library. A public comment period was held from July 27 through
August 27, 1990. A public meeting was held on August 16, 1990,
to present the findings of the study and the Proposed Plan, and
to solicit public input. The issues raised at the public meeting
and during the public comment period are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
-------
the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). The decision for this site is based on the administrative
record.
SCOPE AND ROLE 'OF ACTION
This document addresses the requirement of the 1986 ROD which
called for the preparation of a supplemental RI/FS, and deals
specifically with contamination in the groundwater below and
hydraulically downgradient from the site. As noted earlier, the
remediation of the sources of the groundwater contamination,
namely contaminated soil, were addressed in the 1986 ROD. All
remedial actions selected in that ROD, with the exception of the
excavation and treatment of Parcel 1, have been completed or are
underway. Under this ROD, the contaminated shallow and bedrock
groundwater aquifers will be pumped and treated for restoration
of the aquifers. This restoration will take an estimated 10
years to complete; however, actual aquifer conditions during
remediation may affect this duration. This action will address
the remaining potential threat resulting from the site.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Although the 1986 ROD selected affirmative remedial actions to
clean up the site and provide an alternate water supply to
properties with contaminated or threatened drinking water, the
data obtained during the initial RI/FS were insufficient to fully
characterize the groundwater contamination plume. Therefore, it
was necessary for EPA to conduct the supplemental study.
Groundwater
To characterize the groundwater contamination, eight groundwater
monitoring wells were installed and sampled during the
supplemental RI/FS. In addition, groundwater sampling was
performed on the 13 wells installed during the first RI/FS. Two
rounds of groundwater samples were obtained from three former
residential wells, which were converted into.monitoring wells
during the initial RI, four potable residential wells, the
Metaltec plant process well, and the Borough well. Samples taken
from the shallow and bedrock aquifers were analyzed, and the
results demonstrated that the groundwater is contaminated with
volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and inorganic
compounds, from the water table down into the bedrock as deep as
300 feet. Figure 2 shows the locations of the monitoring wells
and the extent of groundwater contamination. Well BR-4 shows the
highest contamination.
-------
A pump test conducted in 1989, and the analytical results of the
sampling of the granitic gneiss aquifer, suggest that high
concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants at the site
are currently confined to the area of wells surrounding the
lagoon (e.g., BR-4 and BR-6). These results also showed that
wells at the site, in general, have higher levels of
contamination relative to those upgradient of the site. Tables 1
through 7 show, the maximum concentration of each of the major
contaminants found in the groundwater and Table 8 shows the
average contamination found during the pump test. The organic
contaminants of concern which were found include vinyl chloride,
chloroethane, methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
TCE, tetrachloroethene, toluene, and total xylenes. The
inorganic contaminants of concern include chromium and lead.
Manganese, copper, and zinc shown in the tables represent
background levels found in the area.
Transport models were used to predict the movement of
contaminants in the groundwater. The transport models, which
were synthesized from the hydrologic investigation and behavior
of specific chemicals, were substantiated by actual site-specific
chemical data. It appears that the site-related contaminants are
transported through the bedrock aquifers and the adjacent
overburden material, with some ultimately discharged to the
tributary to Wildcat Brook. The concentrations become
undetectable at the confluence with Wildcat Brook.
Of the contamination found in the groundwater, TCE is the most
extensive and the slowest moving. The models predict that under
natural attenuation processes, it would take an estimated 80
years for the concentration of TCE in the granitic gneiss
aquifer, at a concentration of 22,000 parts per billion (ppb),
the average value determined during the pump tests, to reach
1 ppb. Estimates show that other organic compounds would require
less time than TCE to reach 1 ppb levels. The modelling also
shows that metals would require less time than the TCE to reach
acceptable levels.
Surface Water
Surface water sampling investigations were also conducted to
determine the presence and extent of contamination. Samples of
surface water were obtained from nine locations, including areas
along the unnamed stream, the confluence of the unnamed stream
and Wildcat Brook, and at a spring to the east of the former
Metaltec facility.
Site-related contaminants were detected in a number of surface
water samples obtained from the spring and the tributary to
wildcat Brook. However, the contamination found in the tributary
was determined to be a result of contaminants being transported
-------
through the bedrock aquifer and the adjacent overburden, and
finally discharged through a spring which leads to the tributary.
Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the results of the surface water
sampling.
Sediments
Sediment samples were also collected from the surface water
sampling locations to more fully characterize the chemical and
hydrogeologic processes occurring at the site. Contaminants
identified in the sediments provided additional data in
developing the RI conclusions, namely that a portion of the
contaminated granitic gneiss bedrock aquifer underlying the site
discharges to the overburden, which in turn discharges to the
tributary to Wildcat Brook.
Sediment samples obtained adjacent to the spring feeding the
tributary to Wildcat Brook (at location S-4) yielded higher
contaminant concentrations than downstream samples, however.,
associated risks were considered to be insignificant. The sample
collected from Wildcat Brook at the confluence with the unnamed
stream, yielded undetectable amounts of contamination. Tables
12, 13, and 14 summarize the results of the sediment sampling.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted an Endangerment Assessment (EA) of the "no action"
alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment associated with the Metaltec site in its current
state. Because the remedy selected in the 1986 ROD included the
removal of contaminated soil from the site, potential impacts
associated with contaminants in the soil were not assessed during
this study. The EA focused on the contaminants which are likely
to pose the most significant risks to human health and the
environment (chemicals of potential concern). These "chemicals
of potential concern" and their concentrations in site media are
shown in Table 15.
Chemicals of potential concern were identified in the ground-
water, surface water, and sediments. In all media, VOCs (in
particular, TCE and 1,2-Dichloroethene) were identified as
chemicals of potential concern. In addition, chromium, copper,
lead, manganese, and zinc were identified as chemicals of
potential concern in groundwater. The highest concentrations of
VOCs were detected in wells located near the former wastewater
lagoon.
EPA's EA identified several potential exposure pathways by which
the public may be exposed to contaminant releases from the
Metaltec site. These pathways and the populations potentially
affected are shown in Table 16. The potential exposure routes
identified in the EA include inhalation of contaminants
-------
volatilized from surface water, direct contact (e.g., dermal
contact) with contaminants in the surface water or sediments, and
the ingestion of contaminated groundwater under a future land use
scenario.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately, it was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual indicator compounds were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively. The
Health Effects Criteria for the chemicals of potential concern
are presented in Table 17.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans
which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular media. The hazard
index is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media. A hazard index greater than 1
indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI
provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)', are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10^ to
1 X 106 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
8
-------
individual has no greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a
million chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to
site conditions.
The hazard indices and cancer risks associated with the potential
exposure pathways at the Metaltec site are presented in Table 18.
The conclusions of the human health quantitative risk assessment
are as follows:.
For potential exposures of residents to chemicals that
have volatilized from the tributary to Wildcat Brook,
the estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer risk
is less than 1 x 10"6 under the average case and 2 x 10 *
under the plausible maximum case. It should be noted
that conservative assumptions were used to estimate
exposure and that half of the estimated excess lifetime
inhalation cancer risk is due to 1,1-dichloroethene, a
Group C carcinogen (limited evidence of
carcinogenicity). The hazard index is less than one
under the average and plausible maximum case, indicat-
ing that residents are unlikely to be at risk of
noncarcinogenic effects.
For potential exposures of children to surface water or
sediment contaminants while playing in the tributary to
Wildcat Brook, the estimated lifetime upper bound
excess cancer risks are less than 1 x 10 under the
average and plausible maximum cases, respectively. The
hazard index is less than one under the average and
plausible maximum cases, suggesting that children
playing in the tributary are not at risk of
noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to chemicals in
surface water.
Potential risks associated with hypothetical exposure by
ingestion of groundwater from different areas included:
The estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer risks
associated with downgradient wells located in the
granitic gneiss/overburden aquifers, are 3 x 10"4
(average case) and 3 x 102 (plausible maximum). For
both cases, the risks are due primarily to vinyl
chloride, although the mean and maximum concentrations
of 1,1-dichloroethane and trichloroethene, and the
maximum concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are
associated with risk estimates greater than 1 x 10*.
It is not known if the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate in the groundwater is related to the Metaltec
site. Similar concentrations in both downgradient and
upgradient wells suggest that the source of this
-------
chemical may be unrelated to the site. Further studies
will be conducted during remedial design to evaluate
the presence of this contaminant.
The hazard index for the wells is less than one under
the average case and greater than one (30) under the
plausible maximum case. The maximum concentrations of
1,2-d.ichloroethene (total), trichloroethene, and
chromium are each associated with individual CDIrRfD
ratios greater than one. The maximum concentrations of
each of these chemicals was detected in wells located
near the former waste lagoon, suggesting that as the
source.
The estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer risks
associated with wells located in the dolomite/
overburden aquifers, are less than 1 x 10* under the
average case and 4 x 10"6 under the plausible maximum
case. Risks under the plausible maximum case are due
primarily to trichloroethene. The hazard index is less
than one under the average case, and greater than one
(10) under the plausible maximum case. The maximum
concentrations of chromium and manganese are each
associated with an individual CDI:RfD ratio greater
than one. The maximum concentrations of chromium and
manganese were detected in well OB-5, along with high
concentrations of other inorganic chemicals. It is
possible that the concentrations observed in well OB-5
are the result of past dumping in this area, although
the presence of naturally occurring deposits of these
metals is, again, an additional possibility.
Potential risks associated with exposure to lead in groundwater
were not quantitatively evaluated in this assessment because
toxicity criteria have not been developed for this chemical.
However, lead has been classified by EPA as a Group B2 carcinogen
(probable human carcinogen), and also is known to cause other,
noncancerous effects. Therefore, exposure to lead could add to
the estimated risks.
Environmental Risks
Potential impacts associated with the contaminants of potential
concern were also assessed for nonhuman exposures at the Metaltec
site. It was determined that aquatic life in Wildcat Brook and
its tributary were unlikely to be affected by contaminants
released to the surface water.
10
-------
Uncertainties in the PHF/F&
As in any risk assessment, the estimates of risk for the Metaltec
site have many uncertainties. In general, the primary sources of
uncertainty identified included the following:
Environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
Environmental parameter measurement
Fate and transport modelling
Exposure parameter estimation
Toxicological data
As a result of the uncertainties, the risk assessment should not
be construed as presenting an absolute estimate of risks to human
or environmental populations. Rather, it is a conservative
analysis intended to indicate the potential for adverse impacts
to occur.
Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The goal for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination at the
Metaltec site is to restore the groundwater to the more stringent
of the Federal or State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which
have been devised to protect drinking water. MCLs are
enforceable standards based on health risks associated with an
individual's consumption of two liters of water per day over a
70-year period. Therefore, health risks associated with the
groundwater contamination resulting from the site will be reduced
to within the acceptable range of between 1 x 10"* to 1 x 10"6 for
carcinogens, and the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be
less than one. The MCLs for the contaminants of concern at the
site are shown on Table 19. The area of attainment is the
contaminated groundwater plume. Surface water and sediment
contamination in the tributary to the Wildcat Brook will not
require additional remediation since the tributary is fed by the
groundwater, which will be cleaned up.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by SARA, requires that each
site remedy be protective of human health and the environment,
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
11
-------
(ARARs), utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, and be cost effective.
The RI identified the groundwater itself as the principal
environmental medium affected by contamination. The source of
the groundwater contamination is addressed by the 1986 ROD.
Surface water contamination in the tributary to Wildcat Brook
will not require additional remediation since the tributary is
fed by the groundwater, which will be cleaned up. Sediment
contamination is considered insignificant and will not require
remediation.
In the FS, three basic alternatives for addressing the
groundwater contamination were evaluated in detail: (1) No
further action, with monitoring; (2) Pump and treat the shallow
and bedrock aquifers using air stripping and carbon adsorption;
and (3) Pump and treat the shallow and bedrock aquifers using
hydrogen peroxide - ultraviolet photolysis (H202-UV) oxidation and
carbon adsorption. A description of each of the alternatives, as
well as an estimate of their cost and implementation timeframe,
follows.
Alternative 1: NO FURTHER ACTION, WITH MONITORING
Implementation Period: Not applicable
Capital Cost: $ 0
Annual Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $ 23,000
Present Worth: $ 358,200
This alternative would not involve the implementation of specific
remedial actions to address groundwater or surface water
contamination. Under this alternative, a long-term monitoring
program would be implemented to determine whether groundwater and
surface water contaminant concentrations are changing with time,
and to track the migration of contaminated groundwater. The
monitoring program would include sampling the groundwater through
the use of existing monitoring wells.
Alternative 2: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/AIR
STRIPPING/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $ 748,100
Annual O&M Costs: $ 466,300
Present Worth: $4,348,900
The major features of this alternative include groundwater
pumping, collection, treatment, and discharge of treated
groundwater, and a performance monitoring program. The
groundwater cleanup goal under this alternative is the
12
-------
achievement of MCLs. The alternative involves the use of an
existing well on the Metaltec property for groundwater extraction
at a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute
(gpm), an extraction rate shown to be sustainable over an
extended period of time. Pumping tests concluded that a 10 gpm
pumping rate at BR-4 produces measurable drawdown at most of the
wells located in the granitic gneiss aquifer which have been of
concern in the site area. At that flow rate, it is estimated
that it will take a period of approximately ten years to reduce
the TCE levels to 1 ppb, although actual aquifer conditions
during remediation may affect this duration. During remedial
design, the possibility of using multiple extraction wells to
accelerate cleanup will be explored. Studies will also be
performed during remedial design to determine the optimum pumping
rate to control the groundwater contamination plume. The
extracted groundwater would first be treated to remove metals,
with the resultant sludge being disposed of off-site. The VOCs
present in the extracted groundwater would be removed by air
stripping, and any remaining organic contaminants would be
removed by carbon adsorption. The spent carbon would be
collected by the supplier and taken off-site for disposal or
treatment and reuse. The treated groundwater would be discharged
to the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meeting surface water
discharge requirements. Because of the unfavorable
characteristics of the site hydrogeology (i.e., a complex bedrock
fracture system and its associated hydraulic characteristics),
reinjection of treated groundwater was eliminated from
consideration as a remedial technology.
Alternative 3: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/H202-UV
OXIDATION/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $ 926,500
Annual O&M Costs: $ 467,300
Present Worth: $4,535,000
As in Alternative 2, this alternative involves the use of an
existing well on the Metaltec property for groundwater extraction
at a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gpm, with remediation
to the MCLs. In this alternative, however, the VOCs would be
removed through H202-UV oxidation instead of through air
stripping. The other treatment unit operations would remain the
same as in Alternative 2. The treated groundwater would also be
discharged to the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meeting
surface water discharge requirements.
13
-------
SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation Criteria
The three alternatives noted above were evaluated using criteria
derived from the NCP (published in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 300) and SARA. These criteria relate
directly to factors mandated by SARA in Section 121, including
Section 121 (b)(1)(A-G). The criteria are as follows:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Comparisons
Table 20 summarizes the relative performance of the three
candidate alternatives in relation to the evaluation criteria.
A comparative discussion of the major components of the
alternatives, using the evaluation criteria, follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment is the
central mandate of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Protection is
achieved by reducing health and environmental threats and by
taking appropriate action to ensure that, in the future, there
would be no unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment through any exposure pathway.
The "No Further Action" alternative would not provide any
additional protection of human health and the environment than
has been provided by the remedy selected in the 1986 ROD. No
treatment would be provided, and only natural processes would
attenuate groundwater contamination. A long-term monitoring
program would be necessary to determine the extent to which
14
-------
groundwater and surface water contaminant concentrations would
change with time, and to track the migration of contaminated
groundwater.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would both provide protection of human
health by eliminating risks through the extraction and treatment
of contaminated groundwater. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce
the risk associated with use of the groundwater, to within the
acceptable range of between 1 x 10" to 1 x 10"*, by reducing the
level of contaminants within the affected aquifers. These
alternatives would also prevent further migration of contaminants
to the tributary to Wildcat Brook. Either of these alternatives
would augment the action being taken under the 1986 ROD which
directed the provision of an alternate water supply.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that
remedies for Superfund sites comply with Federal and State laws
that are directly applicable and, therefore, legally enforceable.
Remedies must also comply with the requirements of laws and
regulations that are not applicable, but are relevant and
appropriate; in other words, requirements that pertain to
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a
Superfund site such that their use is well suited to the site.
Combined, these are referred to as "applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements". Primary ARARs for the Metaltec site
include the more stringent of the Federal or State MCLs, New
Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act Ambient
Water Quality Criteria, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Standards, the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, and the Clean Air Act.
Alternative 1 would not comply with the site-specific cleanup
goals and, therefore, would not attain ARARs.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are intended to meet the groundwater cleanup
ARARs, which are the MCLs, after their estimated 10-year
implementation periods are completed. The treated water to be
discharged to the tributary to Wildcat Brook will meet New Jersey
surface water discharge limitation requirements.
To ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,
a cultural resources survey will be prepared during remedial
design.
Waivers from ARARs are not required for Alternatives 2 and 3.
15
-------
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
This evaluation criterion relates to the performance of a
technology or remedial alternative in terms of eliminating or
controlling risks posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances.
The "No Action" alternative would not reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants through treatment; only
natural processes would attenuate groundwater contamination.
This natural attenuation, however, could take an estimated 80
years to reach drinking water standards.
Alternatives 2 and 3 address principal contamination threats, and
would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
contaminated groundwater through the use of extraction and
treatment methods. Sludge resulting from treatment for metals
removal would be disposed of off-site, and spent carbon from the
removal of VOCs would be regenerated or disposed of off-site. It
is anticipated that, at the conclusion of the remedial action,
the groundwater quality will be within MCLs. The treatment
provided under both of these alternatives would be irreversible.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness measures how well an alternative is
expected to perform, the time to achieve performance, and the
potential adverse impacts of its implementation.
The major risk associated with the contaminated groundwater is
the use of it for potable purposes. A temporary alternative
water supply is currently in use in the affected area, and
provision of a permanent alternative water supply is being
implemented under the 1986 ROD. Therefore, that risk has already
been significantly reduced.
Alternative l would provide no short-term effective remediation
of the groundwater contamination.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would begin to be effective at the onset of
the extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater. An
assessment would need to be made during the design activities to
ensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas would be
mitigated. Treated water would be monitored prior to its
discharge to the tributary to Wildcat Brook to ensure the
effectiveness of the treatment system.
Neither of the active pumping alternatives would create any
short-term, health-related concerns for the public during
construction or the implementation period.
16
-------
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence address the long-term
protection and reliability that an alternative affords.
Under Alternative 1, the uncontrolled migration of contaminated
groundwater would continue for an estimated 80-year period. This
would allow the risks to increase as the contamination migrates,
with only natural attenuation to decrease the risks. However,
long-term monitoring would track the movement and spread of
contamination, and could be used in conjunction with
institutional controls to reduce the chance of unintentional use
of contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide long-term protection by
reducing the groundwater contaminant concentrations to the
cleanup goals. Therefore, health risks associated with the
groundwater contamination resulting from the site would be
reduced to within the acceptable range of between 1 x 10" to
1 x 106 for carcinogens, and the Hazard Indices for non-
carcinogens will be less than one. Once groundwater remediation
is complete, no long-term monitoring would be necessary.
Alternatives 2 and 3 both provide a permanent remedy.
Implementability
Implementability considerations address how easy or difficult,
feasible or infeasible, it would be to carry out a given
alternative from design through construction and operation and
maintenance.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would be relatively easy. No
remedial action would be undertaken which would require special
consideration. The groundwater monitoring program would be
relatively straightforward, utilizing standard hazardous
substance sampling and analytical techniques.
Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 is also considered to be
relatively easy. No special implementation considerations are
anticipated. While it is expected that both Alternatives 2 and 3
would reduce groundwater contamination concentrations to MCLs,
the type of treatment system included in Alternative 2 has had
previously demonstrated success in treating contaminated
groundwater at the Metaltec site. A similar system was used for
treating the flow from the dewatering operation during the
remedial action at Parcels 2, 3, and 4, and for treating water
extracted during the pump test. While the technology included in
Alternative 3 has not been used at the Metaltec site, it has been
used elsewhere for industrial waste treatment, and could be
effectively used for contaminated groundwater treatment.
However, the equipment required for Alternative' 2 may be more
readily available than the equipment required for Alternative 3.
17
-------
Cost
Costs are evaluated in terms of remedial action capital costs,
operation and maintenance costs, and present worth.
The present worth of Alternative 2 is $4,348,900. The lowest
cost alternative is Alternative 1, at $358,200. The highest cost
alternative is-Alternative 3, at $4,535,000.
State Acceptance
The State Acceptance factor addresses whether the State of New
Jersey supports, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred
alternative.
The State of New Jersey supports the remedial action called for
by the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
This evaluation factor addresses public reaction to the remedial
alternatives which were considered, and the preferred
alternative.
Issues raised during the public comment period and at the public
meeting held on August 16, 1990, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of this ROD.
SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121(b) of CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to select
remedial actions which utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery options
to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, EPA prefers
remedial, actions that permanently and significantly reduce the
mobility, toxicity, or volume of site wastes.
After careful review and evaluation of the alternatives evaluated
in detail in the feasibility study, and consideration of all
evaluation criteria, EPA presented Alternative 2, Pumping/
Precipitation/Air Stripping/Carbon Adsorption/Discharge, to the
public as the preferred remedy for the groundwater contamination
at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site.
The input received during the public comment period, consisting
primarily of questions and statements submitted at the public
meeting held on August 16, 1990, is presented in the attached
Responsiveness Summary. Public comments encompassed a range of
issues, but did not necessitate any major changes in the
preferred alternative for the site. Accordingly, the preferred
alternative has been selected by EPA as the remedial solution for
the site.
18
-------
The goal of the remedial action at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site
is to restore the groundwater to MCLs. Based on information
obtained during the remedial investigation and on a careful
analysis of the remedial alternatives, it is expected that the
selected remedy will achieve this goal. However, studies suggest
that groundwater extraction and treatment remedies are not always
completely successful in reducing contaminants to health-based
levels in an aguifer. Actual operation of the remedial system
may indicate the technical impracticability of reaching health-
based water quality standards using this approach. If it becomes
apparent, during implementation or operation of the remedial
system, that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are
remaining relatively constant at levels higher that the
remediation goal, that goal and the remedy may be reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
estimated period of 10 years, during which the remedial system's
performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. Modifications may include:
a) installing additional wells, or utilizing other existing
wells, for the extraction of groundwater;
b) discontinuing operation of extraction wells, under a
multiple-well design, in areas where cleanup goals have been
attained;
c) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points; and
d) pulse-pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and
encourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into the
groundwater.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedial
design and remedial action phases for the site. These activities
are described below.
The aquifers will be periodically monitored during the
remedial design and remedial action phases, as well as
following the completion of the remedial action.
During the remedial design, studies will be undertaken to
further delineate the extent of contamination and
groundwater flow patterns, and to determine if the
remediation of the groundwater contamination can be
accelerated by optimizing the extraction system.
19
-------
An assessment will be made during the remedial design to
ensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas will be
mitigated.
A cultural resources survey will be prepared to ensure
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the regulations contained in
the NCP. EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of
human health and the environment. Additionally, several other
statutory requirements and preferences have been established.
These specify that, when complete, the selected remedy must
comply with ARARs, unless a statutory waiver is justified.
The remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, there
is a preference for remedies which employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
following sections discuss how the remedy selected for the
Metaltec/Aerosystems site meets these requirements and
preferences.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment
through the extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
The extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater will
significantly reduce the threat of potential exposure to
contaminated groundwater. The potential risk estimated under a
future use scenario in the PHE, is 3 x 102. The remedy, upon
completion, will restore the aquifers to the MCLs. Therefore,
health risks associated with the groundwater contamination
resulting from the site will be reduced to within the acceptable
range of between 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6 for carcinogens, and the
Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be less than one.
There are no short-term adverse impacts associated with the
selected remedy which cannot be readily controlled. In addition,
no cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
20
-------
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant
and appropriate action-, contaminant-, and location-specific
requirements. The ARARs are presented below.
Action-Specific
The selected remedy will be in compliance with all Federal and
State ARARs. The cleanup goals for the remediation of the
groundwater are the MCLs which are standards for drinking water.
Discharge of the treated water to the unnamed tributary to
Wildcat Brook will attain New Jersey surface water discharge
limitations. At present, the discharge limits for the
contaminants found at the site have been set at the method
detection limits, which are presented in Table 21. During
remedial design, ambient surface water sampling will be performed
to enable the development of site-specific surface water
discharge limits.
Contaminant-Specific
MCLs will be used as cleanup goals for the groundwater
remediation.
Location-Specific
The site is not within the coastal zone as defined by the State
of New Jersey. Additionally, there are no Federally designated
wild and scenic rivers and there are no significant agricultural
lands in the vicinity of the site. The project area may be
sensitive for the discovery of cultural resources. Therefore, as
discussed earlier, a cultural resources survey will be prepared
during remedial design. Additionally, a wetlands assessment will
be performed at that time to determine the presence of and
potential impacts on wetland areas.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alterative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective
manner for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. Of the alternatives
that are protective of human health and the environment, and
comply with ARARs, EPA and the State have determined that the
selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms
of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, cost, and State and community
acceptance.
21
-------
Alternative 2 reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
contaminants in the groundwater; complies with ARARs; provides
both short- and long-term effectiveness; and protects human
health and the environment equally as well as Alternative 3.
The costs for both of the alternatives is also relatively close.
However, Alternative 2 may be more easily implemented than
Alternative 3. Alternative 1, while representing the least cost
and easiest implementability of all of the alternatives, is
evaluated as tfie worst alternative in terms of the other
evaluation criteria. Therefore, the selected remedy is
determined to be the most appropriate solution for the
contaminated groundwater at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site.
The State of New Jersey is in concurrence with the selected
remedy.
The Proposed Plan for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site was released
for public comment on July 27,1990. The Proposed Plan identified
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative, EPA reviewed all
written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment
period. Upon review of those comments, it was determined that no
significant changes to the remedy, as it was originally
identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
Cost Effectiveness
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 effectively address the threats posed
by the groundwater contamination at the site for relatively close
costs. However, the selected alternative affords the higher
level of overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. The
selected alternative is determined to be cost-effective because
it provides the highest degree of protectiveness among the
alternatives evaluated, while representing cost value.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater, the
selected remedy addresses the threats posed by the site through
the use of treatment technologies. Therefore, the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element is satisfied by the selected remedy.
22
-------
/*' IIHiMKI** «» IAAMNII
All N Mirfl * Wit I
Will mCAIION
SOU SAMPt I COIN I
SI.All IN II I I
US I NVinilNWI NIAI fill III I IIIIN
Al.l 941 1
MI IAI it i:
FMUIIIF '
MKTAI.TKC/AKKOSYSTKMS
i IIASI o «'»" «-: «
-------
I III COplAMNANIS
IN mi c;
Al Ml 1*1 II i: Sill
-------
MI IAI iir/Aiuir.v'.iirv; Mir
MIMMARV III I III MM Al ', III III II |l |N l'inr,
wm . in (.RANIIK uu iv. AMU ovi MIIHI'IHM IMM.NAIHIHI 01 mr Mir
UN 11',: IMI/I
Compound
Valid Analyses
f limit nl ( mint nl
Oi.i in i rni.PS lliidi'lpi.l '.
Minimum M.iHimuM fipnmptrir Mp,»n'
(.om.piil i ,it inn (QHI ml i .ilign gl Vjlid An.lly.rj
fmint nf
I \t .rn.ll.-il
V.I 11,,.-.
fniint nf
Ri» jpi I rrf
V.i I IM» s
Vol.ll i IP t)ri|.»nicj
Hclhylnne (hlnridp 3
Acetone 7
1.2-Difhlnrnethylene (total) 7
A
Chloroform 7
Irichloroelhylene 7
0.7
4S
2.100
17
S
140
6.r.r.7
36.09
2.MH
1.6/n
7.177
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
t'lej
hiv(2-Cthy1he»ynphtha1ate
IS
5.267
Inorganics
Chromium
Copper
lead
Manganese
Zinc
7
3
3
7
3
4
2
2
7
3
1
1
1
0
0
S"
12.5'
2.5*
IR
26
119
38
40
11.900
IS8
IB. 60
21. IB
14.42
249.67
49.76
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
4
0
4
17 Mtlls: OH-1. OB-2. OB-3. BB-I. BR-2. Bt-3. Boro Wi»l1 and
?' Valid »na\y\r\ - orcurrrncps » undptecl*.
Half Ihp CIP contract detection linit.
* Not \ilp-rptated.
1' Half thp flP contract detection limits are used for the iin
"Oala are ropnrted only for CO«poundf occurred at leas! onrp in «nnrent r^l inns run,*' to or enr.ppd the CIP contract detectinn limits, iinlpss I hp (onpounHs
slioxpd miltiplp orrurrrnces in other %»el It/stat ions and/or |hp rnnpnimils h,lvp hiqh tnniiily".
-------
MI IAI iir/AiwnsvMiM', r,iif
MIMMADV III IHIMIIAI-, III III III) IN I'Hill
wins iNf.MAriiiii (,ni i'.', AMU nvi I'liiii'iii N iirij'Aim NI in mi MM
iimi',: ii,|/1
Compound
Volat i IP Orijani(.s
Acpt onp
Chloroform
1 ,?-Di«hlnroethylpne (total)
Ir tchlnropt hylene
$emivolat i let
niv(2-CthylheKy1)pMna1ate
Inorganics
Chromium
Copper
tead
Nanqanete
fine
fount of 2/
Valid Anal »*«
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
12
I mint of
0< i if* i pn^rs
1
4
S
II
4
12
R
9
10
9
fiiiinl nf
M
\f
II
r,
1?
«
fl
R
5
1
Minimum Hi.. mum f.pnmplrir MP.III 3/
film nil i .it ion f on< rnl i .it iqn o> V.ilid An,il|-,r^
r,M) 6.040
1 4.? 2.119
? tl 3.137
1 24 4.000
S' 41 7.156
5' 7-M) 31.40
6.6 55.9 14.34
2.4 16.1 4.4Bfl
2.5* I..1BO 47.09
10* 229.0 42.24
( mini nl
1 r. 1 i m.it rrf
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
fount of
Mo ]« t Pil
V.i (UPS
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
!' WplK: OB-1. 08-2. 08-3. RR-I. RR-2. Bfl-3. Roro Wpll and T run ft,.
U V^lid analyses - occurr^ncrt » un4*t«ctf.
Half thn CIP contract detection limit.
Not ndr\r
-------
lAnir
Wl II
Ml IA| II r /Al PO'.VMIM'. Mir
MIMMAIJY III I III Mil Al', III III III! IN I'll)',
IN (,R AMI I II I .nil',', AND IIVI millimi 'I DM Mil Mill IIOWN(,MAO| | NT
111 nil Mil "
UN II',; ,i.|/'
(gmpounj
Volatilp Ori|.»ni(S
Vinyl Chlnririp
Ch loropl hanp
Mplhylpnp rhloridp
AiPtonp
I.I Oirhloroplhylene
1 . l-DirMnrnilhanp
l.7-0irhlornpthylpne (total)
1,1. l-lr if hlnroe thane
I r i r h 1 or OP t h y ) pnp
toluene
JpmivglalHf i
bit(2-f thf1hpi«yl tphthalate
Chromium
Copper
lead
Maorjanete
Zinc
Count of <'
V«l id Anjljrfts
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
I om»l ill
Oi.i.iif i PCM. PS
^
1
1
7
7
:i
4
4
1
.1
2
2
3
1
4
2
Count ill
Iliiilrl fi \ \
1
1
1
7
7
1
n
0
i
i
2
2
1
2
0
0
Mini mum
Com rut i .it ion
V
*l*
7.S-
V
7 r,-
7.5*
71
.1.7
7.S-
2.5*
5"
5*
12.5'
2.5*
210
51.5
M.IM tmum
I oni i-iit r,lt 'on
\ . -100
440
MO
i.min
(,/
1 .'iOO
in.oon
7 . r.o
1.100
?«,
21
26
149
51
3.100
70
CtPnmptrif Mr.»r. ''
gf V.il id Anal y\p$
<1')f> . flfl
177. S/
70.51
S/.97
n.sio
7?ft.no
1172. fl
247.24
279.02
16.75
,.«.
11.29
5fl.fl5
10.28
12IW.2
61.76
Tnnnl nf
1 % 1 i m.il rrf
V.lllH-S
n
n
i)
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
i
i
i
i
i
fnunl of
0
0
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
2
V WelU OR-4A. OB-4B. OB-10. BR-4. IM-6. Bft-6. BR-IO. HPW and
2' Valid analyst r octurrenc** » undptPtt*.
Half thp amount of the CIP contract detection I tail.
Not %itr-r*lat»d.
3' Half thp amount of the CLP contract detection linitf are usprf lor thp unrfptprt*.
"0*la »rp rpporlpd only for compounds occurred at Ipast onrp in rnnrpnl rat ion\ pqiial to or p»rpprf thp CIP contract oVtprtlon li«iil%. «n|p\\ Ihp < ompoun.K
miltiplp otrurrpncet in other Mel ls/%tal ioni jnrf/or Ihp rnrnpiiunrfs li.ivo hic|h to>icilf".
-------
MI I |
MI IAI if r/Ai wosv'.irrn Mir
MIMMAHr III I III Mil Al'. Ill II I II II IN I'lWl
|N r.RANIIII I .Ml I'.'. Anil IIVH'lll|lr|i| N llfl MM ANII imwW.PAOK Nf
in mi MM ''
UNM'.: in i/ 1
Compound
Volatile Ori|.inics
Vinyl Chloride
f hlnrnelhane
1 , l-0i« hloroelhjine
1 .7-OMhliiropthylpne (total)
t , 1 . l-lrirhloroe thane
Ir irhlororthylene
toluene
Semi volatile*
bis<7-rthylhe»yl (phthalate
Inorganic,)
Chromium
Copper
lead
Manqaneve
2inc
Count of <'
Val id Analyses
14
14
14
14
12
14
14
14
14
14
12
14
10
fount nf f
Oi < in i fin ps 1
6
1
f,
II
7
17
2
3
7
7
II
12
7
('mini " /(Ml
7 .'' 6.nnn
2.s* i.inn
7.V 1.700
7.S- IIS
5* 77
5* 769
5* 54.5
2.3' 17.3
7.5' 3.115
10* 4116
fipo«wp|rir Me^n^
Of Vjl id Analyses
.
41. 74
1 1.44
75. '17
70 1 . 4fl
51. A)
141.70
4.176
6.091
9.993
12. «4
4.163
345.942
4fl.44
( oiinf of
1 -.1 l«l.!l,.(|
V.I 1 HP'.
0
1
0
0
n
i
0
t
i
i
i
i
3
Count of
Hi- ji-i led
V.I 1 UPS
n
0
n
0
2
0
n
0
\
0
0
2
0
5
J' Wells: OR-4. On-4B. 08-10. BH-4. BR-6. BR-8. BR-IO. HPW and V
2' Valid analp/trs = occurrrnc«t » ondetectt.
Half th* CIP contract detection limit.
3' Hal' Ih* CIP contract detection U«Ut are «m»d for the undetertn.
"0.>t* »rf reported only for coiqinundt occurred at least nnre in ronrpnlrat ions pquxl to or exceed the CIP contrart detection limits, unless the ro«f>ou»i
-------
TABLE 5
ME7AL7IC/AESOSVS7EKS SI7E
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN
1958 BACKGROUND WELLS
SCREENED IN DOLOMITE
UKITS: ug/1
£edr:ck Well BR-9
Lead 1.7B
Kar. = ar.es e 61.7
Zinc 35.2
rr.-pcur.d also detected in Blank.
-------
MT IAI frr/ArprmsiiMs Mir
MIMHARY III I III MM Al', Ml II (II II IN llnT,
Will'. IN Mill DM) II AMU IIVI I/MIN'IM N IMIWMI.MAIIIINI
III Illl MM ''
Compound
Vol.it i Ir <)ri)jni<.%
Acetone
Chloroform
Trichlnrorthylene
Ben/ene
fount of V
Valid
ToiMil ol
I.I III I Ptll p^
2
2
I
( Ollltl ol
Illllll.-lpl. 1%
Hinimiim
Tnni (<>! i !< ion
M.i.imum
Com. nil i .it ign
Gpnmrtrir
0| Vjlid A
( mini of
1 '. 1 i «,il rH
V.llue\
fonnl of
MP (PI t pil
e|«
O.ri
7.S-
0.01
?;n
fi.f.S
i./
2 5
1%.10
? on
2.661
1.416
0
0
0
0
?
0
0
0
Pheno 1
Inorganics
Chromium
Copper
Hanqanese
line
6
6
6
6
4
1
2
6
4
2
5
4
0
2
2
V
5'
I2.S*
7.5'
10-
/
11
10
2.160
50
5.2flfl
10.13
20.23
91.49
22.36
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
(/ Well*: OB-5, BR-5. 99-7. Nieve*. NonMn. Serin and Wheats.
V Valid analyses - occurrence* and ondetects.
Half the CIP contract detection Halt.
Not site-related.
3/ Half the the CIP contract detection Units are used for the undeletes.
"Oata are reported only for compound* occurred at least once in concentrations equal to or eRCped »he CIP contract detection limits, unlpss I HP cnmpnun.K
shnwed mulliplp oiiurrenr.es in other ««el I* /\t»t ion% and/or thp rompnund^ havp hiqh Ionic ily".
-------
(ADIT 7
MM Al M I /Al U()r.VM| Mr, '.Iff
MIMMAHY III IHIMMAI', III II I 11)1 III 1111(1
wi 1 1 ', in HIM IIHI M
01
AND IIVI imilllhl M IHIUTII.IMIHI Ml
nil MM ''
nun1,; u.|/i
CnmpQtinil
Vglat i IP Organic.}
A« Ptonp
1.7-rtithloropthylpne (total)
1 r i c h 1 ornp t h y 1 ene
5emj volatile.
his(7-Mhylhp>iyl)phtha1ate
Inorganic,;
Chromium
Copper
lead
Nanqanese
Zinc
fount of *' foiiiil nl (mint nf
Val irf Analyse} Oi.i.m i rm.rs Unili-(n 1 .
13 1 I/
13 1 17
13 1 1?
13 1 1?
13 3 10
13 13 0
II 65
13 85
10 R 7
1 mint nf
Minimum M.i>ims V.ilui'S
t
S' m.onn n.in; o
?.r." 1 0 7. MS 0
7.%* ?f. ?.°°1 0
> 1 5.1.31 0
V 616 10.477 0
6.B 374 17.16 0
O.R 171 7.631 0
7.5" 17. BOO 77.9B 1
7 1.160 64.5? 1
Tnunt nf
Vr joi t nt
V.| 1
-------
TABLE 8
Uy.r TEST DATA
AVI=.-.:E G-r'-N^wArgg VGA
.£ ,,J £,
C 7 = a r. : c
vir.yl Ch::::ie '
C.*-'-'-e-i-£-e
Ket.-.ylerie Chlcride
i , . - i,.......,c...sr. e
1,1 - D i c '" ! - 7 c e fc h a n e
1 , ^ - t . c .w. . _ r - e t h e r. e
1 1 1 - "' ' ~k % - » ^^* hine
T 7 '. r .w. 1 ~ r ; s t h e r. e
j 6 . . :...... .S...SH6
T C I 'J £ T. r
>:: g-ss
Tr : a 1
Ava.._e - -wm».- Tn-r-»-:C CC'
irE? G 7 s r. i t e Gr.eiss
1 7:-.
..:... i..5S^
C *. r " "* i _
C:;re:
7. '. ~z
Le = ;
*y' O T 3*O ^ *
1240
20
158
78
117
8750
i i en
22000
5 ^
27
92
2
29354
,. a>^ nafc.
19
28
15
44
5
^^-,>.,ti=r.
ug/L
uo /L
ug/L
ug/L
UQ /L
ug/L
\JO /I
uo /L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ten
mg/1
mg/l
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
-------
Ml IAI lir/AIRimMIM', Mlf
SUMMARY 01 (IIIHItAI1, III Ml Mil IN I 'inn AM) I'll)')
MIKI All WAN If '.AMI'I I ', IM'I.HAIMI Nl 01 III! Ml) "
UNI I
-HI/ I
tW0«nd
Inorganic^
Manqanpse
Zinc
Count of *
Valid Anal jses
3
3
fount of ( nunl of
()<.<.ui~t <*n<.rs U't jp< tfH
V.ilurs
0
0
V Stations: S-l. 5-2 «nd S-fl sailed In I
-------
in
Mf IAI TI r/Ai nnsvsirns 51 rr
MIMHAflV Of MIIMHAI', III III Mil IN I'inn and lint
Simrurr WAIIR SAMIMIS AH mi INI HI on IMIMMI,UAIIIIMI in IMMIMHAI soiium or
mil IV IKI/I
fount ol '' I mini nl 1 . (Jmlpt n 1 s
Volat i Ic Organic?
Vinyl rhlorirtp 11 . ' n
1 . l-Oirhlnrnrthane 11 .1 10
I.I nithloroethene 11 1 1?
1.2-nirhlornethylene (total) 1] 91
Irichloroethylene U II ?
Inorganic,}
Chrowiun 4 4 0
Manganese 4 40
Zinc 4 1 1
Minimum Minimum
f.on(,iinl i .it inn Con< '''it i ound« occurred at leatt onre in concentration* equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection Units, unleft the cowpoun,
\howed Multiple occurrences in other welli/ttationv and/or the compound* have hiqh
-------
i Am r 1 1
Ml IAI IM /Al irnVMHS SHI
SIIMMAUY 01 IMIMKAIS (MM Mill IN I'lim AND 1'in'l
IN WHIM A I IIWIHIK MWI A( I WAI Ik '.AMM I S
Al III! IIIHI Mil Nl I Wllll III) (INNAMIII MWI AM "
UNI 1
u.|/l
Co«PO«nd
Inorganic.*
ChrontiuM
Manganese
line
Count of '' Conn! nl
Val id Analjs.es (Kturrenics
1 1
1 1
1 1
Cniinl ol Miiiiimim
UndciClti CO'Hnil i ol * On
0
0
0
M.I »i mum Geometric Mean
Cv"l.cntr' lstim.i|ed
0
0
0
Count
Nfjfi
Value
0
0
0
ol
ted
i
> Station: S-6 sampled In I9B5. I9B8. and
2^ Valid analyses - occurr*nc*s » undetccts (I9R9 Hptal analysrs art- not available).
Half the CIP contract detection li*it.
I' Half the CIP contract detection limits are used for the undelects.
"Data are reported only for co^Mundt occurred at least onre in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection linits. unless the rowpoi/n
showed Multiple occurrences in other wells/stations and/or the compounds have hiqh toxicity".
-------
I ABIC 12
Ml IAI lir/AIROSVSflMS MIF
SIIHMANV 01 IHIHIIAIS III III II n IN
SAMI'IIS (III I HII II IN I'lMII liri.HAIIIINI Of (HI SHE. !/
AS INni(AIII)
tUMI'WNO
INORGANICS «"i/l(
ChrnniiMi
Copper
lead
Hanqanese
Zinc
1' Stations:
V Valid ana
((MINI nr 2/ rotiNi or
VAU" ANALYSIS VAIUIS
0
n
0
0
0
Hall the CLP contract detection lioit.
Half the CLP contract detection lldits were used for the undrtectt.
"Data are reported only for compound* occurred at leatt once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection liaits. unless the compounds
showed Multiple occurrence* In other wells/stations and/or the compounds have high tonicity".
-------
i ABI r 1
MC IAI iir/AiRo^YSirM^ snr
MIMMABY or i HI MII AI s 111 ii i mi IN i-inn
SAMI'I I ', All.IAI INI III lift IIIIWMi.HAIIM Nl 1)1 I'OIINMAI
MM Mil I r. III I UNI AMIMAI HIM. "
A1, ItUMfAlin
rniiNi or 2/
lOMroUNO VAI in ANALYSIS
vmAilir gnomes l«"i/»i>
Vinljr chloride 4
Nelturlene chloride** 4
1 . l-Pichloroethane 4
1,2-Oirhlnroethylene 4
(total)
'«r"' .
INORGANICS <"»AoJ
Cop.-r 4
l*ad 4
Nanqantf* 4
Zinc 4
rmiNi nr rmiNi 01
lK
-------
I A
MI IAI irr/Af pniYSirMS Mir
MIMMAMV Ol I III Mil /M'. Ill HI II n IN
wnnrAi nnnoK Mnmrw SAMHIS (oiuiitii IN rmn AI nil U>NI miner WIIH mr imNAMrn smrAM. }/
UNI IS: AS INIIKAIMI
rot IN! nr V COHNI 01
COMPOUND VAI III ANAlYSf.5 0<.<-UWHI Ntf S
INORGANICS (««?/M)
Chromium 1 1
Copper 1 1
lead 1 1
Hanqanese 1 1
fine 1 1
(Oi INI or MIN
UNO! IK IS (ONI IN
n
n
0
0
0
GIIIMf IRK ?X
MAXIMUM Ml AN 01
I.ONI INIIIAI ION (.IIMI INIRAIION VAI III ANAL YSf$
I'l 7
riNINI 01
rsi IHMMI vAigi
or
RIJK.II II VAUJI ',
Ml
?«
?6/
0
0
0
0
0
0
" Stations: S-6
*' Valid analyses - occurrences and
Hair the CLP contract detection liait.
3' Half the CLP contract detection Halts were used for the undetects.
Data are reported only for compounds occurred at least once In concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unless the co«poim<
showed Multiple occurrences In other wells/stations and/or the confound* have high tonicity".
-------
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF PO1FN1IAL CONCFRN
AND CONCFNIRAIIONS IN CROtlNnWAlER,
SURFACE UA1ER AND SIDIMLNIS
Ground Water
Surface Water
UG = Upgradient
DC * Oowngradient
NO « Not detected at concentrations above the EPA CIP detection limit.
« Not selected as a chemical of potential concern. Maximum concentration is within
the range of background concentrations.
Sediment
Chemical
Organic Chemicals (ug/kg):
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1 , 1 -Oichloroethane
1.1-Oichlorethene
1.2-Dichlorethene< total)
Methylene chloride
Toluene
1 . 1 , 1 - Tr ichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Inorganic Chemicals Cmg/kg):
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Avfl
6.8
7.2
NO
2.3
NO
3.1
NO
NO
4
NO
33
H
4.5
47
42
Granitic
UG
Mean
550
4
NO
4.2
NO
97
NO
NO
24
NO
790
56
36
1,400
230
Gneiss
DC
Avg Moan
NO
6.1
11
ND
26
200
4.3
54
140
50
10
13
4.4
350
48
ND
22
3TO
ND
700
6.000
140
1.100
3.200
1,200
270
55
17
3.400
490
Dolomite
AVG MEAN
9.4
5.1
2.5
3
10
18
7.6
73
65
18.000
7
3
26
820
370
120
13.000
1.200
Avg
2.9
2.7
29
39
4.7
*6.6
89
11
Mean
19.0
5.5
1.200
790
20
6.8
200
15
AVG
220
4.4
9.3
3.4
14
12
42
27
890
19
MEAN
550
25
480
7
270
27
320
59
2.900
660
-------
US.: 16
e". -J" -se
.6~«: t:-es*
.-e-e: s-.-es-
:.«:-:s' r.'..-e .«-.: use. *
is- e'
s.«''tivv» e.t '-*.: e' e'.^f
-i.:e$ t' e»::s.-e *ss:: -.«.*: »',th
-,r.-r>3-n use e' j-sy.s-a-.e-.)
-------
*:.. "": :?:*:?:i ty CHE»::*.S or PSV.K-IA. CON:ES», AT THE muiisc SITE
Cie--:s-
D:se
Se'e:v
?*::: (
Sourct (e)
C-;«--: :«
Acr.t-.e
1.2-:-" ':-s«fe-e
Tr',:: :-:e:-e-r "
* 0
'<
(e)
i.c:
i.c:
i.c:
i.c:
i.c:
1,00
i.o:
1C
i:
i.c:
i.c:
IRIS
IRIS
IR:S
HEA
HEA
IRIS
HA (h)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HA in)
6.1E-C3
8.U-C2
I.OE-01
7.5E-03
l.IE-02
D
B2
D
62
62
0
D
82
[62; CO
J-:-;r:
C--:-.-
Lie:
2-r:' '"
sec
:c:
IRIS
MEA
D
62 (IT.)
D
D
{I C-J -rt-e-:s ::<
U! Sfr; -H-.-.-i .!!
-e-e
W.«
A*'j«
e
e >: e: .
i: e
e *?t:i?
inc'uoe:
! i'SSSS-*1
': :.« .«:is* ir. se-S'tw.xj «w.j tht m«ro«rs o* tftt hjirnr.
'r- :i« i-:e-'.6T'.y ^ *f.-«5:'»t IP.; »-T4- Of. I tc tht e»i« e' h.-ie-s:
'* * "^ * , fc»»»*«.»*v <( M AwkwjMA'aKkBi* / M» I ^ i f ' * * t N J 6 ^ '
v >'V * * C S ' . J <> Cft> C ^w < ' 'y ' ^ - LwM«»* *W nw^»«
: :-.e":e T-. iti e '.^e i*'.t;*iti:
Ir/en:4tie- Sys'.er is e? 6/1/55.
'::".: e>:e:'. ts >:.*:
:s ' :8V:- i:^e-*
s'..: es. £>"::»:
£..: ss «; t:;:.i*.e e»-:e':e '*z~ t""t' stjts. C--f:ss't'it -.~4* C»":ins;t*.. liit-.tii
ir-.te: t»iot~:i fsnr t:-
h.T4-. c»:t. 0--N:t C'
:-e:'f.s -s i^-».»f:- re'«-tri:t os
*.* is»is:'y.
: as ts hjT
»tr1fnd RfD.
; «r.c
.'i'.e: tesei s- f:;:se: :-?>»in; '. $*.»n3i-d. US'
'.e :-s:if.s is <.'.:»'t: : ;i-:e* cc:t-.:y f«:tsv
' e--:e-:e :'«J5-'-.ce:: ':' t:*.f.*.it' iin»'ii*.io" c*
r] i:i"us -.:: :e.t':i«: t p:-.e-:j ^«::s!- fs- Itt: bw*. fws eUssifiti u «( « g-oue 62 e»rcinogen.
tMs chtrric*!.
« .-.:e- T«. * : L-A.
-------
TABLE 18
Hazard Indices (HI) and Cancer Risks Associated with the Potential
Exposure Pathways at the Metaltec Site
Exposure Pathway
HI
Avg. Max.
Upper-Bound
Cancer Risk
Avq. Max.
Inhalation of chemicals that have
volatilized from surface water
Dermal absorption of chemicals in
Surface water
Dermal absorption of chemicals in
sediments
Inqestion of groundwater
< 1
< 1
< 1
0.9
< 1
< 1
< 1
30
< 1
< 1
< 1
3
X 10'6
x 10*
X 10"6
x 10"*
2
< 1
< 1
3
x
x
x
x
%106
106
10'6
102
-------
TABLE 19
FEDERAL AND STATE MCLa FOR CONTAMINANTS OP CONCERN AT
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
CONTAMINANT
FED. MCL (ua/1)
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xylenes
Manganese
200
5
5
2,000
10,000
N.J. MCL (ua/1)
2
2
10
26
1
1
44
50
-------
20
SUMMARY Qf fiROWnWAIIR AUlRNAIIvrS ANALYSIS
rACI0«5
At irRNAIIVT
S.hgrt-lerm U lec.1. i
- lime until protection
i% achieved (after
construction contract
if awarded)
- ProtectIon of C«
nity durinq remedial
act ions
lonq-term qrnnnitw.tt er iwoni t nr ini|;
restrict development nf i|f mind
w-atpr In* potahle or «iitti< ip.il
water uses. Public Aw.trpnpv.
ram. I ivy year review-..
In 7
Could be in|>1r«wn|yit in
MWht; but will lake Hfl
to achipvp clranup qoalt.
*%trl<:trd acfPtt ami
liqnt vill frotrct
exposure.
Al IIPNAI IVf 7
rilHI-IMI./l'lll I | C| |AI MM/
Alll Mill I'l'l Mt./( /Ml II I IH
|ll »! fc.ll tty |ll !< i |l i I .ll ill I ;
1 i r».|l ». IM| .i»i ^ I i i |I|M>» §
t.lvlintt .iil'.ot |il i nn ;
,!,-., I,.. ..... llr.lt. < w.ll.-r into
I r itiiit .11 y I ii Wi lilt .it Mi mid .
AI rrumivr i:
rilMP|HI,/rUI ( M'l I AI MIN/IKn> IIV
OX MIA I lllfl/( AMIKJN AHVOHI'Ii
I'mnp ,ii»»l fiittpit i|rniinrlw.it rr ;
|»i « t i n.it l»y pi PI i |t i t 4t i no ;
I i.-.It !!. in.| IKO, -IIV II.. ill -
I Hill .Hill .1.1).Ml All-, 01 pt Kin;
ili .i li.u i|p lip.ilpil w.ilrr
inlii li.lnit.iiy In UiMf.lt Drnnli .
Groiiiiclw.it pr ro I I PI t i cin anil S.imp
trp.itnpfit -.ysti'm wntilit t.ldr* up
to I yp.ir fen i|psii|*i .intl
c nns I rui t i fin . Ill yp.irs
lor I rr.it wit lit .iihipvp
r (pan- up i|n.iI .
Nnrnul roo^t riir I inn pr«s
(rp^triflrrl 4rrp%%. fnntrnl nf
liiqitivp rnii^\inn\. pt r . ) will
prnlprt «i|.iinvl pipnMUP And
dprnwl (out ,1ft .
Allrrn.it ivp
Allprnativp
- Protection of workers Minimal protection required
durinq remedial action! dvrlnq famplinq and monitorinq.
Contlmted nlqratlon of qroond-
M«t«r contaminant* fro* the
- Cm tionmpntat Impi
long- f r», Cffecl I »e«f.ji
of Hesldoal
Ritk
Hi* contamination would remain
at the tit* and miqrate
o«f-»tle.
Health and safety protection
and air emissions control
required.
No adverse environmental
imparts enr.ept site clearinq.
No residual riskf. once
remediation is complete.
of Contrail Grovnrfwater monitorinq wilt track No Innq-tprm control required.
contaminant miqration. Institu-
tional control Should restrict
the development of qrowndwaler for
potable and municipal water uses.
Health and Safety Protection
required.
Same as Alternative 2.
Samp as Alternative 2.
Same as Alternative 2.
-------
AI
NO *UIUN
fAfiir 20 (font*)
SUMMARY Of GHWMIIWAII.R AMIRNAIIVrS ANALYSIS
AI 111"M 11VI 7
rilMriNI./r'IH irllAIIIIN/
I ; AIM MIM IT I Ml./I /.Illlllfl
Air.uuri KIM/HI M tiniu.i
- ff p I i .lh i I i V y ill ruiil.rnlt Croundw.it Pr mnn or ini| i *. iplij
hip Ini 11.11 dint) i onl .imni.int
mii|» at ion.
in o I Hub i I i I y
lumiily VI Vulump
- Treatment prorett and No treat men! provided for qrnund-
rpmpdy water.
- Amount of cool aminated
Mlcrial
nt; natural
wnuld conl iniii* lo
- Reduction of loi
mnh i I i t y or vo 11
lake plarr.
by
of the No treatment
of
No trvatovnt Involved
AI IfRNIIVT 1:
riIMP i MI./PHI i i PI iAiii)N/ii.n..iiv
IIKIIIAI KIN/' nlllUIN AII',UMPI I (|N/III'.niARI.r
f,.imi» .i'. A11 pi n.il i vi» 7.
,inl llr.ll ^y'.lom |»ro-
.f. I|PM I i ln*>l .tlinvi*
Pump .%nil lrp.l|
.!. iff M I I lifll jhllvp
pmv i llplf
All % i i|o 1 1 i r .til 1 y i nut .1*1 i n.tt pif All \ i r|ti 1 1 i rani r on| a**vinat i*rf
i|rimnilw.ll pr will IIP i.lplnrril; i|rniinilw.il pr Mill IIP raptlirprf;
I onl .imin.lnl \ will lip pllpilivply « nnl Ami n.lnl «: will bp pllpf-
ipmnvpH liy prpi ipi I .il ion. ,«ir I i vp I ^ i|p*;|royp~ber will be
either regenerated or
di^poted nf off-tile
Sludqe produced fro« prerlpl-
talion would be disposed olf-
\ile
- Ability lo construct No construction Involved
No technology
Caty to
»f liability of
noloqy
f»\f of unoVrtahina
ailililion*! rroriltal
aft ion. il
Nnnilorinq Contirfpr-
al inn*
Niqratlon or
pjllmAfi ran bp_nmni l.orprf
fatily i*-p I minted.
All trip tpchnoloqip* arp
rplijblp
l»\j In ondprlakp. hill
nnnp pupprlpd.
Niqratinn or pipofurp
yt ran bp immitnrpd
(atily implemented.
Same at Alternative ?.
Same at Alternative ?.
S.imp at Allernalivp 7.
-------
20 (rnnfd|
SUMMARY Of.OROIINIIWAII.R Al. II.RNAI IVT^ ANALYSIS
»At KIRS
l""l»lc« I « t » iv «|no.l (<»
' I rijonni .»! *iltt t»l '.III-M! t.tlltftn
AI irnNiivr 1:
niHl-IMl./r-UH li'llAllflN/II.O.-IIV
OHIIAI IHN/IARIMM AHMWI lON/l'r.niAP<,l
t ,,,...!,....I ...n .o.).,....I -ill,
,ll I .1.) . )..,! .Ml . .I.I..I..V1 .
Illlll l.'ijiit.nl .lllfl l.'mf'lll.ltilllt.
,i\ Allernat i
Allern.il i ve
Avxilalii 1 il f of »»»mr it Allern^livr
Coop I \f\
nbility and
volime of rontaminanl Mill Id
he reduced hjf treatment;
lhl<; alternative will prevent
further nM|r4tinn of rnntani-
nan|\ to I lie trihiitarjr to the
WiMrat I) rook and Wai I kill
River. Ihit alternative will
protect huwan health anil
env i i onmettt .
0.177
0 .*»»
ifit
U and
1.
Sa«e
» __
Saw
»\ Alternative
** Alternative
a% Alternative
2
?
Z
at Alternative
-------
TABLE 21
c i u c T ; c " i *
PAR 4 Y[ U F
V'oc Compc .>:£
AW
*£tfc-3i»"v ;:-r
jonc':
>tc- V'or»:-o
?o:5r-:r»
Dx >:: rx"<» r-»
3Wf*
r-Dx-y' »!'' ;'*
OW:T
**.: :: :-«-> :--
>:<::: '!*-*:»
'.CK-.rw'v-
»:.:»:>
1.1 ->":>-"- 1
;. "->-: :r:r--
J-^r-:-::-::*-1* 1
>/^?«v
He-.- J---..V
*>»'-' ><»«y
V>.-*r» >-: >
'J.."-'«-»- :>-
>.»:<*'>#'
i0rj«««
.'-i'r««.->- :>/«-.
1.1. '-'':<;<:*
^ 1 * . * 1 , J* fw v
ur<-y*~
''irucT'.-rr-* :*
** >.r«>
k'v. Co-^.-:<
;-><::'; 1
2 ' -Vx :::
;<.:i-«-^:-^.:
*.£! :-"- !«
; 4. j- ??*:
:.(r ::i^:
4.1, :;*><
f-><-:-K-C/«:
V rv^r->:
°Vv
;.4.(-::c^»ww<
DCSJ/S^-S' Cc-^-.:j
VTPC...>W
>. »
^.. ;. fc-.'vj-^
BT-- : Cy^
^: r r "-
OP-.T : "«-
^:- .. ,',... ;*-.
j^ ;-> yvr ^.-.-.
[ L i It' r t I
C""'?'':
.. .
C !:?'
C '.'.
'. :"
r ;:
w . ..
i r
C.."?'
t c
y .v
4 ; '
t :~
I':
^ "
" ", "
9:' !
'
;
b . '. .
. ; ;
4V
1; I
i-'
X
y/.
\j
j;
r r,*,* ;
c :::
c ::::
.- -. :
.....
i v '. » * 1 5 (ell
[PA 1«!
Wtthod
£?«
£."«
K:
K
K'
£C'
£!'
£!'
K:
£:
6!'
£!'
f!'
K'
K:
£!'
K'
6:-
£:'
£."t
£?:
£It
£?i
£?i
£?i
£?i
«-
l?i
6?'
£?'
£?:
e:;
£::
to. o- PO: ^
M
M n
c.;
CY
cu-
c:-:
c::-
C'J
c.;
i U
C:F 1
C..-:
c::
CC:
c.;
c::-
c::
Cu
C '£
i]
/ 7
; /
M
4;
J£
1.5
27
1.S
44
7§.
2.t
4 1 1
J.i
-------
TABLE 21 cont'd'
Cr t r f * i < k *fv
PAR AW E 1 E R
SC ' " «^^ 3^ ' ^^
»; ::-?<-7r-:v ;«
36 ;.'-;:"*- **::
«->;-c:'>»> "1
Jt>r:: !:> ». **»
'."->-< *»:"
' X- *h "*» V '-' JJ~ *4VW
>>:*;.*:«
2.: ->-c::-'X »
>> >'xr«
"fc»^'*i' ^,"N" *
!>».' > v>:
-^ V:.;;j..-<
;.£-!:': j^*
^.K.yv >-.:.: .
J.^;-*./-^ ;- V
I? «::>:''
rwr-:-:-«n»
i'ue'»>
*!:: r:^:"-
»:-:::.::-
»;;:-.- a- <::» ::->
f»iW9»-:-*
ro*-.; '; :--- '-'-'
v ::-«
V:"v.->
i : :»:"
,-K -CiM-K--.-:- -
v-s :«.: -«--::
K.K TV^:-*''"~ -
»»V-^'« 1
"cr-
J4.1.^.:-;y^
resii:'i3«
«.?-
(L7V-?-I
*>>:
GUV:-^
>:-*<
>T»TV
4 4 -y
4 4 .'£
44 -K.;
>>*
;&*.*, {f -
^.v..,-,^^ ..
> :-;*!*. :
rftw-iir l ;
***"
;: ty,-.
i^^ .-
' < i r e t / i
C'l'.n: ~1
^ .. '
* " -.
' ": 1
*'.'"
ex:-
c :::
"'" *.'
;'.:: 1
w .
*";","
.: ' >:::
«. -.
c
' '.~'.i
4;
. .*. . !
' *.**
: I*
;*:
.
'.'*'.
: ' ::
:.
-.-.;;:
4 '.-
C X " :
'. '.'.'.
y
.* "i"i" * *
' Y :
c :::
c:1'-:
c ::::" 1
C XAX:
C X-:x: \
ex-:::;
c:o:'ji 1
c;::
c;:: 1
c i:: 1
» ?.
' ';
': -
,: » , t 1 t / « |
[P* les!
Mf'^y
trt
6?i
trt
t?t
-
t?i
£?i
£:
K'
srt
£:t
tri
?"'.
£:.
(1C
£":
£"'.
£:'
£.":
£.':
£.":
£":
f."1:
t"-
£::
£.':
£.":
e:t
£ri
K:
K:
K\
605
f?5
60!
Kl
WE
60J
K-i
6.:-
60:
6!:
£:
61:
r
kO. or PO.
5^
2.S
2.5
2.5
2.5
C it
u;
U5
IS
ie
nc
5?
2.r
1 C
1 1
c?
rv:
'6
] 7
2.?
19
IV
i c
5«
1C
1.5
C»
CK2
OOK
COC^
cc«
cc1.;
C0.'<
CC''.
CK;
1C
00"
OK-
C C»-
OK1:
c :::
.
-------
I [ U C T i C * i, t » t 1,
IA3LE 2 1 cone ' d
U U 1 * fc T S ( e 1 1 t e ! ii 1 1 e ' « ' "
n I « j j e i M ' ' * « « e l e i
PAR AH [ 1 [ E
WX e>
CKi
nc
K*
"C
C .'.'./"
c ::;-}
».v.*v<-
*»-: 10::
CT
.- ICT
c.;
ne
nc
:»' te1:
c.;
c;
-.- ir:
CO:
p^ - »;>::: .-
S: :; - «:
Is
-------
TABLE 21 cor.t'd
t n [ C ' i c i» 1 1 v [ '. ; f C * * C ; 1 1 'i * * 1 S (oil e I u » » ere i
w"!«ti e t >*''»« r. e i «
[H R
vy. 0- PO;.
^p is::
.9 WV
.» Sc-v
»:= i
'.: »: r""*'""^1
; '.i-Vy..:
-c.v.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
FRANKLIN BOROUGH
SUSSEX, NEW JERSEY
SEPTEMBER 1990
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION , 1
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW 3
A. Site Description 3
B. Site History 3
C. Summary of EPA's Preferred Alternative 5
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS 6
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND RESPONSES 7
A. Purpose of Groundvater Remediation '. 7
B. Technical Issues 8
C. Future of the Maple Road Well 10
D. Cost and Scheduling Issues 11
E. Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
Comments and Issues 11
IV. APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Proposed Plan
Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets
Public Meeting Agenda
List of Information Repositories
The Pubic Notice which appeared in the July 29,
issue of the New Jersey Herald
1990
Appendix F: Written Comments and EPA's Responses to Those
Comments
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
FRANKLIN BOROUGH
SUSSEX, NEW JERSEY
INTRODUCTION
This draft Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizen's
comments and concerns and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) responses to those comments regarding the
supplemental remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)
report and Proposed Plan for the Metaltec/Aerosystems (Metaltec)
Superfund site. EPA, in consultation with the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), will select a
final cleanup remedy for the Metaltec site only after reviewing
and considering all public comments received during the public
comment period.
EPA held a public comment period from July 27, 1990 through
August 27, 1990 to provide interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the supplemental RI/FS report and
Proposed Plan for the Metaltec site.
EPA held a public information meeting to discuss the remedial
alternatives described in the supplemental FS and to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternatives for controlling
contamination at the Metaltec site. The meeting was held at the
Franklin Borough Hall, Sussex County, New Jersey on August 16,
1990 at 7:00 p.m.
In general, the community was responsive to EPA's Proposed Plan.
A majority of the local officials and residents recognized the
importance of restoring the condition of the aquifers at the
Metaltec site. They emphasized that the Borough would like the
groundwater remediated so they could reinstate use of the Maple
Road well which currently cannot be used as a potable water
supply well. However, they expressed concern about the length of
time the Superfund process has taken in the past and stressed
that they would like EPA to expedite the remediation in order to
avoid delay and additional costs that could be incurred as a
result of a delay.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW: This section briefly
describes the site background and outlines the EPA's
preferred remedial alternative.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This
section provides the history of community concerns and
interests regarding the Metaltec site.
-------
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS AND RESPONSES: This section summarizes oral
and written comments received by EPA at the public
meeting and during the public comment period for the
Metaltec site.
IV. APPENDICES: There are four appendices attached to this
report. They are as follows:
Appendix A: This appendix contains the Proposed Plan
that was distributed to the public during the public
information meeting held on August 16, 1990 at the
Franklin Borough Hall;
Appendix B: This appendix contains sign-in sheets from
the August 16, 1990 Public Information Meeting held at
the Franklin Borough Hall;
Appendix C: This appendix contains the Agenda for the
August 16, 1990 Public Information Meeting held at the
Franklin Borough Hall;
Appendix D: This appendix contains an updated list of
the information repositories designated for the
Metaltec site;
Appendix E: This appendix contains the public notice
which appeared in the July 29, 1990 issue of the New
Jersey Herald; and
Appendix F: This appendix contains the written comment
received by EPA during the public comment period and
EPA's response.
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS flmcv&PY OVERVIEW
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Metaltec Corporation, a subsidiary of Aerosystems Technology
Corporation, operated a manufacturing facility at the
intersection of Maple and Wildcat Roads, in the Borough of
Franklin, Sussex County, New Jersey. The 15.3-acre site is south
of Maple Road and both east and west of Wildcat Road. The
Metaltec Corporation manufactured a variety of metal products
from 1965 until 1980. When active, the site included the
Metaltec plant, a process well, a wastewater lagoon, a drum
storage area, wastewater-soaked ground, and two piles of waste
material. The site is bordered by a golf course, private
residences, and an unnamed tributary to Wildcat Brook (a
tributary to the Wallkill River).
B. SITE HISTORY
In 1980, NJDEP conducted a site inspection which revealed that
various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), most significantly
trichloroethene (TCE), were present in the facility's wastewater
lagoon and surrounding soil. Due to the presence of VOCs in the
area's groundwater, the Franklin Borough water supply well,
several area residential wells, and the Metaltec process well
were closed. The area residents and the Metaltec facility were
hooked up to a public surface water supply from a local pond.
In September 1983, the site was placed on the EPA's National
Priorities List of Superfund sites. In June 1984, EPA began an
RI/FS at the site to determine the nature and extent of
contamination, characterize site risks, and develop and evaluate
remedial alternatives. The 1984 RI determined the following:
An estimated 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of soil were
contaminated with various VOCs in an area referred to as
Parcel 1.
An estimated 4,000 cy of soil were contaminated with
inorganic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds in
areas referred to as Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Both the shallow and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were
contaminated with elevated levels of the contaminants found
in the soil on the site.
EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 30, 1986, which
selected remedial actions for the site, municipal well, and
affected or threatened private wells.
-------
As a result of the 1986 ROD, a pipeline to provide an alternate
water supply for affected Borough of Franklin residents is
currently being constructed. In addition, approximately 5,000 cy
of contaminated soils were excavated from Parcels 2, 3, and 4,
and disposed of off-site at an approved landfill. The remedy for
Parcel 1 has been designed and is presently awaiting funding.
Although the 1986 ROD selected affirmative remedial actions to
clean up the Metaltec site and provide an alternate water supply
to residents with contaminated or threatened drinking water, the
data obtained during the initial RI/FS were insufficient to fully
characterize the groundwater contamination plume. Therefore, it
was necessary for EPA to conduct the supplemental RI/FS.
The supplemental RI/FS deals specifically with contamination in
the groundwater below the Metaltec site and hydraulically
downgradient from the site. The FS evaluated the remedial
alternatives for cleaning up the contaminated shallow and bedrock
aquifers. To characterize the groundwater contamination, eight
groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled. In
addition, groundwater sampling was performed on the thirteen
wells installed during the first RI/FS. Samples taken from the
shallow and bedrock aquifers were analyzed and the results
demonstrated that the groundwater is contaminated with volatile
and semi-volatile organic compounds, and inorganic compounds,
from the water table down into the bedrock as deep as 300 feet.
Surface water and sediment sampling investigations were also
conducted to determine the presence and extent of contamination.
Site-related contaminants were detected in a number of surface
water and sediment samples obtained from the tributary to Wildcat
Brook. However, the contamination found in the tributary was
determined to be the result of contaminants being transported
through the bedrock aquifer and the adjacent overburden, and
finally discharged through a spring which leads to the tributary.
During the supplemental RI/FS, an analysis was performed to
estimate the health and environmental problems associated with
the Metaltec site. This analysis, referred to as a baseline risk
assessment, was presented in the RI report as the Public Health
Evaluation and Environmental Assessment (PHE). While conducting
this assessment, the focus was on identifying contaminants of
concern in each contaminated media, evaluating pathways of
exposure (i.e., ways in which humans and environmental receptors
[fish, birds, mammals, etc.] nay come in contact with
contaminants), and quantifying the degree to which that contact
poses a risk to human health and the environment. Because the
remedy selected in the 1986 ROD included the removal of
contaminated soil from the site, potential impacts associated
with contaminants in the soil were not assessed during this
study.
-------
Contaminants of potential concern were identified in the
groundwater, surface water, and sediments. In all media, VOCs
(in particular TCE and 1,2-Dichloroethene) were identified as
contaminants of potential concern. In addition, chromium,
copper, lead, manganese, and zinc were identified as chemicals of
potential concern in groundwater. The highest concentrations of
VOCs were detected in wells located near the former wastewater
lagoon.
The exposure pathways evaluated in the PHE were those believed to
be associated with the greatest potential exposures. The
exposure pathways which were evaluated included inhalation of
contaminants volatilized from surface water, direct contact
(e.g., dermal contact) with contaminants in the surface water or
sediments, and the ingestion of contaminated groundwater under a
future land use scenario.
C. SUMMARY OF EPA*8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
EPA's selection for cleanup of the site is based on the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA). These laws require that a
selected site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective and in accordance with other
statutory requirements. SARA also emphasizes permanent solutions
incorporating on-site remediation of hazardous contamination
whenever possible.
The remediation alternative to control contamination at the site
is selected by the EPA Region II Administrator and will be
documented in a ROD. The goal for the cleanup of the groundwater
contamination at the Metaltec site is to restore the groundwater
to the more stringent of the Federal or State Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) which have been devised to protect drinking water.
The groundwater would be pumped and treated for restoration of
the aquifers. This restoration will take an estimated 10 years
to complete; however, actual aquifer conditions during
remediation may affect this duration. Surface water and sediment
contamination in the tributary to the wildcat Brook will not
require additional remediation since the tributary is fed by the
groundwater, which will be cleaned up. After careful
consideration of all reasonable alternatives and the evaluation
criteria, EPA recommended the alternative described below.
-------
Alternative 2: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/AIR
STRIPPING/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $ 748,100
Annual O&M Costs: $ 466,300
Present Worth: $4,348,900
The major features of this alternative include groundwater
pumping, collection, treatment, and discharge of treated
groundwater, and a performance monitoring program. The
groundwater cleanup goal under this alternative is the
achievement of MCLs. The alternative involves the use of an
existing well on the Metaltec property for groundwater extraction
at a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute
(gpm), an extraction rate shown to be sustainable over an
extended period of time. Pumping tests concluded that a 10 gpm
pumping rate at BR-4 produces measurable drawdown at most of the
wells located in the granitic gneiss aquifer which have been of
concern in the site area. At that flow rate, it is estimated
that it will take a period of approximately ten years to reduce
the TCE levels to 1 ppb, although actual aquifer conditions
during remediation may affect this duration. During remedial
design, the possibility of using multiple extraction wells to
accelerate cleanup will be explored. Studies will also be
performed during remedial design to determine the optimum pumping
rate to control the groundwater contamination plume. The
extracted groundwater would first be treated to remove metals,
with the resultant sludge being disposed of off-site. The VOCs
present in the extracted groundwater would be removed by air
stripping, and any remaining organic contaminants would be
removed by carbon adsorption. The spent carbon would be
collected by the supplier and taken off-site for disposal or
treatment and reuse. The treated groundwater would be discharged
to the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meeting surface water
discharge requirements. Because of the unfavorable
characteristics of the site hydrogeology (i.e., a complex bedrock
fracture system and its associated hydraulic characteristics),
reinjection of treated groundwater was eliminated from
consideration as a remedial technology.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Public concern about the site was at its highest in 1980 when
VOCs were found by NJDEP in the Borough of Franklin municipal
supply well and three residential wells at levels exceeding both
federal and state drinking water standards. Community members
whose wells were not found contaminated were concerned that the
contamination might spread and affect their water supply wells.
All residents with contaminated wells were connected to alternate
water supplies.
-------
EPA initiated community relations activities in 1984 and
developed a Community Relations Plan (CRP) to identify community
concerns and address their requests. Following the release of
the initial RI/FS, EPA held a public information meeting on June
17, 1986. Approximately 40 residents and local officials
attended the meeting. Subsequently, a responsiveness summary was
prepared and the ROD was signed. The CRP was updated in 1988
during the supplemental RI/FS activities. The 1988 CRP reflected
similar concerns that were previously identified in the 1984 CRP.
Residents expressed a continued concern over declining property
values and the groundwater contamination in the Franklin Borough.
There has been very little active interest in the Metaltec site.
It has declined since the early 1980s. The primary interest
currently lies with those residents who live near the site and
are directly affected by the contamination.
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS. CONCERNS
AND RESPONSES
This section summarizes oral comments raised at the public
meeting and during the public comment period, and EPA's
responses. The comments and corresponding responses are
organized in the following categories:
A. Purpose of Groundwater Remediation
B. Technical issues
C. Future of the Maple Road Well
D. Cost and Scheduling Issues
E. Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Comments and Issues
A. PURPOSE OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Comment: One resident wanted to know why it was necessary to
spend millions of dollars to clean up the groundwater
contamination if there is no immediate health threat to the
public, and it does not affect the vegetation and wildlife in the
area.
EPA Response: In order to fund any cleanup, EPA must determine
that the site poses an actual or potential risk to the public
and/or to the environment. Although the public is currently
using an alternative potable water supply, and there' is no
immediate risk to public health, the contamination has impacted
the environment and created a potential threat. Since
groundwater is a potential potable water source, it is critical
to protect drinking water resources for the future. The
objective of this remedial action is to confine the contamination
plume and eventually eliminate it from the groundwater.
-------
Comment: One citizen stated that he is an employee for Webco
Industries, a glue backing company that currently leases the
Metaltec facility. The conunenter reported that Webco uses
thousands of gallons of water per day in its cooling process. He
suggested that instead of EPA spending millions of dollars to
clean up the groundwater, Webco could use the groundwater for its
cooling process.
EPA Response: "EPA indicated that groundwater quality must be
restored because, if left untreated, it could pose a potential
risk to the community and the environment. The groundwater to be
extracted under the remedy is contaminated and, therefore,
requires treatment prior to disposal. The costs for construction
and operation of the remedy would be incurred regardless of the
disposal scenario.
The possibility of utilizing the treated water for cooling
purposes, however, is an issue that EPA will consider during the
remedial design of the remedy.
Comment: One citizen wanted to know why it was necessary to
clean up the groundwater in 10 years if the groundwater would be
remediated in 30 years through natural degradation. The citizen
noted that the if EPA selected Alternative 1: No Further Action,
With Monitoring, the government and citizens would save $4
million dollars and the groundwater would still be cleaned up.
EPA Response: EPA emphasized that the 30 year time frame
identified in Alternative 1, the "No Action" alternative, is a
very optimistic estimate and the actual restoration time could be
substantially longer. Estimates in the FS report indicate that
it could take 80 years for levels of vinyl chloride to reach the
cleanup goals through natural attenuation processes.
B. TECHNICAL ISSUES
Comment: An engineer for the Franklin Borough of Public Works
asked if the treated water, which will be discharged into Wildcat
Brook, will comply with NJDEP's surface water quality
requirements. In addition, he requested EPA to forward the
Borough a copy of the Discharge Monitoring Reports, a monthly
report that states how the treatment system performs during that
monitoring period.
EPA Response: Yes, the discharged water will comply with NJDEP
surface water criteria. As information from the monitoring
program is produced, it will be forwarded to the Borough of
Franklin.
-------
Comment: A reporter asked EPA to explain the air stripping
process for Alternative 2.
EPA Response: An air stripping unit operation would typically
consist of countercurrently contacting heated air with the
extracted groundwater (containing VOCs). The heated air (at a
temperature above the volatiles' boiling point) is introduced
through a distribution plate to ensure uniform air flow through
the stripping column. To ensure intimate water/air contact, a
large surface area is provided by polypropylene packing (in the
shape of pall rings, saddles, etc.) in the column. The volatiles
and air from the column are passed through a vapor phase carbon
bed unit to remove volatiles prior to air discharge to the
atmosphere. The devolatilized water from the column is sent to a
liquid phase carbon bed adsorption unit for further treatment.
The spent carbon would be collected and taken off-site to an
approved disposal facility, or regenerated for future use.
Comment: A local reporter asked when EPA, following the
selection of a remedial alternative, plans to implement the
remedial action.
EPA Response: Following selection of the remedial alternative,
EPA will begin the remedial design phase for the selected
treatment process. Once initiated, the remedial design could
take approximately one year to complete. Following the remedial
design, EPA will initiate construction of the collection and
treatment system. However, specific time frames for the start-
up of the remedial action can not be developed until the remedial
design is complete. Once the treatment system is constructed, it
will take approximately ten years to clean up the groundwater to
levels which will meet federal and state drinking water
standards.
Comment: A local official stated that there are several
residents who still use private wells for their water supply. He
wanted to know if EPA would provide a potable water alternative
for these residents should their wells be adversely affected by
either the groundwater contamination in the area, or the draw-
down of the aquifer created by the groundwater extraction.
EPA Response: Under Alternative 2, the pumping rate will be
relatively low, approximately 10 gallons per minute. This
relatively low pumping rate should not create a significant draw-
down effect on the aquifer beyond the immediate area of the
existing contamination. Further, the extraction and treatment of
the groundwater should confine the contamination plume to the
-------
currently affected area. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate
private wells, which are currently unaffected by the plume, to
become contaminated by the Metaltec site in the future.
In the unlikely event that more residential wells become
contaminated, EPA would be likely to institute an action to
provide residents with a suitable water supply. EPA is currently
constructing a pipeline to provide affected Borough of Franklin
residents with an alternate water supply.
C. FUTURE OF THE MAPLE ROAD WELL
Comment: The Borough of Franklin engineer wanted to know if EPA
plans to use the Maple Road well during the remedial activities.
NJDEP has required the Borough of Franklin to provide it with a
notice to seal the well or a justification as to why the well
should remain unsealed. EPA was requested to provide the Borough
of Franklin with a justification, if any, to keep the well open.
EPA Response: EPA has indicated to the Borough that it plans to
use the well for future sampling activities. Other potential
uses of the well during remedial action will be determined during
the remedial design. EPA will explore the potential of NJDEP
allowing the well to remain unsealed.
Comment: Another local resident wanted to know if the well could
be used as a potable water source in the future.
EPA Response: The objective of this remedial action is to return
the groundwater quality to levels that will meet the current
federal and state drinking water standards. If the well is not
sealed and the groundwater is remediated, it may be possible to
use the well as a potable water source in the future.
Comment: A Borough of Franklin Councilman wanted it on record
that the Borough would prefer to leave the well unsealed. He
stated that he anticipates the Borough to expand and would like
to use the well as an additional water supply once the
groundwater is remediated.
EPA Response: EPA acknowledged his request and stated that it
was on record with EPA.
10
-------
D. COST AND SCHEDULING ISSUES
Comment: One resident asked EPA to explain why it was necessary
to spend $54,000 to install a fence around the Metaltec site. He
stated that when he solicited bids for the same project, he
received bids for $8,700, $1,700 and $17,000. He wanted to know
why EPA did not hire a contractor that could build the same fence
for less.
EPA Response: The installation of this fence was administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). COE solicits bids from
reliable sources and selects the contractor based on the lump sum
bid. EPA assured the resident that this overall bid was the
lowest bid for the work. The government contracting process is
often intricate and can sometimes lead to higher costs. Added
factors must be considered including the bidding procedures and
liability insurance requirements that are required by Superfund
law.
Comment: A newspaper reporter asked if the volume of public
acceptance or rejection of EPA's Proposed Plan could alter EPA's
decision making process.
EPA Comment: Community acceptance of a cleanup alternative is
very important. Under CERCLA and SARA, EPA is required to
evaluate community acceptance as one of the nine criteria that
EPA uses to select the most suitable remedy. EPA also considers
the overall protection of human health and the environment,
compliance with federal and state regulations, and cost
effectiveness. The preferred alternative is believed to provide
the best balance among alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria. EPA will evaluate all community concerns in
the decision-making process.
E. POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY (PRP) COMMENTS AND ISSUES
Comment: The president of Aerosystems Technology Corporation
(Aerosystems) stated that he had hired a certified testing
company to analyze the groundwater at the Metaltec site. Those
results revealed contaminant levels which were significantly less
than the analytical results obtained by EPA. EPA values, which
were approximately 29,000 parts per billion (ppb), were inflated
compared to the testing company values, which were as low as 7
ppb. He asked EPA to explain the disparity between the results.
EPA Response: EPA implements a rigorous quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) program to collect and analyze
groundwater samples at all Superfund sites. The samples were
analyzed through the contract laboratory program (CLP), which
follows strict EPA regulations. Since EPA did not regulate or
11
-------
monitor the sampling performed by Aerosystems' certified testing
company, the results were not validated and can not be used for
Superfund purposes.
The supplemental RI revealed levels of 29,000 ppb of total
organics on the Metaltec site. EPA performed a 14-day pump test,
averaging the results of numerous samples which were collected at
that time. The BR-4 Boring wells located in the Metaltec parking
lot revealed a very high level of VOCs. EPA is confident that
the results are an accurate representation of the contamination
in the area.
Comment: The same commenter stated several of his monitoring
wells were broken into and claimed that the vandals contaminated
the wells by pouring benzene around the mouths of those wells.
He believes that EPA wells were tampered with as well and wanted
to know if the sabotage could have affected the sample results.
EPA Response: Only one well, upgradient of the site and in a
residential area, was broken into. Nevertheless, that well did
not reveal any significant contamination.
Comment: The commenter also noted that some of the contaminants,
which were identified in the supplemental RI report, including
zinc, copper, lead, chromium and magnesium, are endemic minerals
to the area. A 1963 journal describes that the Borough of
Franklin had mines abundant with copper, zinc, chromium,
magnesium and lead. The New Jersey Zinc Company operated in the
area for approximately 50 years. He wanted to know why EPA needs
to clean up these minerals if they are naturally occurring
minerals.
Response: The supplemental RI report notes that metals are
indigenous to the Franklin Borough area and that this may be a
cause for their detection in the groundwater. Nevertheless, in
order to efficiently remove the contaminants of concern, VOCs,
the groundwater must be pre-treated by removing the metals.
12
-------
Appendix A
Proposed Plan
***********
Appendix B
Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets
***********
Appendix C
Public Meeting Agenda
*********************************************************
Appendix D
List of Information Repositories
Appendix E
The Pubic Notice which appeared
in the July 29, 1990 issue of the New Jersey Herald
Appendix F
Written Comments and
EPA's Responses to Those Comments
13
-------
LIST OF INFORMATION REPOSITORIES
FOR THE METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE
SUSSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
1) Franklin Borough Hall
40 Main Street
Franklin, New Jersey,
2) Sussex County Library
RD 3 Box 76
Newton, New Jersey
14
-------
Appendix F
Written Comments and
EPA's Responses to Those Comments
-------
wildest Rd
Franklin. Nj 074!6
1.
AV /Vj>/7Jc7e?/: (.'S
'-.: r/.* ::'?~'rfcn3 Proposed Flan. nelsltec/Aervsysttms S
** -/ /' ' Sort van, New,. i?r$?y - EPA Peg) on 2, <.
j- r ,rr ! lew-rd your plan to decontjmmate grvudwater b
:."', :: v ',:-r*:irit3tion/air stripping/carton adsorptQinsdis
" r :. :.; jxj -1-'.;'' / sjz&ort Mis ttprtscti. > 'our agency is tc< £#
. ..... r-'Jvr-j *a- -r^r efforts it >5 takin to restore the
"'r zr.iv .^ci'jon tnat I have is. "What effect will this oul
:: - - r,s \- c on pn vate wells in the area '"'
Joseph T. Z
-------
Joseph Zoltak
RD #1 217A
Franklin, New Jersey 07416
Dear Mr. Zoltak:
This is in response to your August 17, 1990, letter concerning
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Plan
for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, located in Franklin Borough,
New Jersey.
EPA does not anticipate that the groundwater extraction will have
a significant effect on the private wells in the area. The
relatively low pumping rate planned for the remedy, should not
create a significant drawdown on the aquifer in the area. If,
however, an adverse impact were encountered, mitigative steps
would be initiated.
Your comments are always appreciated. If you have any further
questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to write
or call me at (212) 264-1873.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald Rusin, Project Manager
Northern New Jersey Remedial Action Section
------- |