United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-90/124
September 1990
<>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Sarney Farm, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/124
3. Recipient'* Acce**lon No.
, Trie Mid Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Sarney Farm, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
9/27/90
6.
7. Aumort.*)
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
8. Performing Organization Name and Addrate
10. Projeel/T«*k/Work Unit No.
11. Conlr»e«C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Spomoring Organization Name and Addre**
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type ot Report» Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Not**
16. Ataetract(Umit: 200 word*)
The 143-acre Sarney Farm site includes a former 5-acre landfill in Amenia, Dutchess
County, New York. Land use in the area is agricultural and includes -wetlands. The site
overlies a bedrock aquifer, which is currently used as a drinking water source.
Approximately 2,000 residences are located within one mile of the site. In 1968, the
portion of the site that included a 5-acre sanitary landfill was purchased by Harris
[aul-A-Way. Investigations later that year revealed that industrial wastes including
>proximately 40 drums of waste solvents were being disposed of illegally in several
onsite areas. In 1970, the State ordered the illegal dumping to cease. Site studies by
private parties have identified two trench areas used for hazardous waste disposal, and
acting as localized sources of onsite soil contamination. In both areas, soil
contaminants have infiltrated into the onsite ground water, but only in limited amounts.
Approximately 40 drums were crushed or buried onsite in the two disposal areas. In
1987, EPA initiated a removal/treatment action for organic contamination, including
installing an in-situ soil washing system at two areas. One of these areas is addressed
in this Record of Decision (ROD). This ROD addresses the remediation of onsite
contaminated soil, debris, and ground water in two source areas. The primary
(See Attached Page)
17. Docunent Anclyeie a. Deecriptor*
Record of Decision - Sarney Farm, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (toluene), other organics (pesticides), metals (lead)
b. Menllfiera/Open-Ended Term*
e. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availabilly Statement
19. Security CUM (Thi* Report)
None
20. Security da** (Thi* Page)
None
21. No. Of Page*
134
22. Price
SeANSU39.18)
See Inttmctioni on Htnn*
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/124
Sarney Farm, NY
fcirst Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including
toluene; other organics including pesticides; and metals including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes removing waste drums from trench
areas 2 and 4 and disposing of these offsite at a permitted facility; treating onsite
approximately 2,365 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the areas surrounding the drums
storage area using low temperature thermal treatment, or if soil contamination is at
highly elevated levels, the surrounding soil may be removed offsite and disposed of with
the drums; backfilling the excavated areas with any onsite-treated soil; allowing for
natural attenuation of ground water; conducting hydrogeologic studies onsite to better
define the hydrologic condition of the site; ground water and surface water monitoring;
and implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions. The present worth
cost for this remedial action is $907,500, which includes an annual O&M cost of $15,300
for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:. Chemical-specific cleanup levels for soil are based on
risk-based levels (10~5) and include TCE 0.2 ug/1, and toluene 3.3 ug/1. These levels
are based on the maximum soil concentrations needed to reach a 99.9% treatment
efficiency. Ground water contaminant levels are expected to decrease once source
contamination is eliminated. The estimated time frame for ground water attenuation to
acceptable levels is 30 years.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Soils:
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
0 & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Sarney Farm
Amenia, Dutchess County, New York
II
33.3 (June 86)
836 (August 90)
September 27, 1990
Excavation and Off-site Treatment of
Drums/On-site Low Temperature Thermal
Treatment of Contaminated Soils
Long-term Monitoring/Hydrogeological Testing
$
$
$
644,000
263,500
907,500
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): Carlos R. Ramos (212-264-5636)
Secondary Contact (phone): Douglas Garbarini (212-264-0109)
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Soil - toluene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone,
naphthalene, bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Groundwater - 1,2 dichloroethane, vinyl
chloride
Soil, groundwater
Pollution originated as a result of illegal
disposal of hazardous wastes at this
location. Drums and liquid wastes were
dumped into trenches.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Sarney Farm, Amenia, New York
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Sarney Farm site, in Amenia, New York, developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and, to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan. The attached index
(Appendix C) identifies the items that comprise the
administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
The State of New York has concurred with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment of public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
A remedial action will be undertaken for contaminated soil and
buried drummed wastes found at localized areas of the Site. In
addition, ground and surface water will be sampled and monitored
periodically; hydrogeological testing will also be performed.
This action complements a removal action initiated in October
1987, consisting of the installation of a soil flushing system
which collects and treats leachate emanating from two areas of
the Site. The remedy addresses the principal threat posed by the
drummed waste and contaminated soil.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Excavation of contaminated soil and buried drums.
Transportation of contaminated drums to an off-site
treatment and disposal facility.
-------
On-site low temperature thermal treatment of contaminated
soil.
Grading of the excavated areas with the treated soil.
Long-term monitoring program for surface water, groundwater,
and residential wells to verify that contaminants are not
migrating from the site, installation of additional
monitoring wells (if necessary),'and hydrogeological testing
to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of
human health and the environment.
Declaration
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 (or resource
recovery) 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.
v
Because the remedy for this site will result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health based levels in the
groundwater, the five-year review will apply to this action.
/ s ,--• /./v */ >
Constantine Sidainon-Eristoff "/ / Da^e
Regional Administrator / '
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
BARNEY FARM SITE
AMENIA, NEW YORK
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 9
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 14
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 19
SELECTED REMEDY 28
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 30
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 32
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX D.
FIGURES
TABLES
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX E. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Nur.be r Name
1 Sarny Farm Site Location Map.
2 Sarney Farm Site Plan
3 Previous Investigation Leachate Water
Sampling Locations
4 Residential Well Sampling Locations
5 Diagram of Removal Groundwater Treatment
System
ill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 ' Summary of Chemicals Detected in Test Pit
Soils
2 Summary of Chemical Detected in Soil Boring
Soils
3 Summary of Chemical Detected in Well Boring
Soils
4 Normal Background Soil Inorganic Levels
(ng/1)
5 Summary of Inorganics Detected in
Background Soil Samples
6 Results of Water- Samples Taken During
Removal Action (1987)
7 Results of Leachate Water Samples Taken
from the Sarney Site, 1980 to 1984
8 Results of Water Samples from Residential
Wells in the vec-inity of the Sarney
Property, 1985 to 1986
9A Summary of Chemical Detected in Groundwater
Round- I Analyses
9B Summary of Chemicals Detected in
Groundwater Round- II Analyses
10 Summary of Chemicals Detected in
Residential Wells
11 Results of Surface Water Samples From the
Sarney Property Site July 9-10, 1986
12 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Surface
Water
13 Summary of Chemicals Detected in Surface
Sediment Soils
14A Indicator Chemicals Selected for the Sarney
Farm Site
iv
-------
14B References Doses for the Indicator
Chemicals at the Sarney Farm Site
14C CPFs for the Indicator Chemicals at the
Sarney Farm Site
ISA Present-Use Scenarios at the Sarney Farm
Site
15B Future-Use Scenarios at the Sarney Farm
Site
16 Exposure Pathways Risk Summary
17 List of ARARs for Soil Treatment
Alternatives
18 Summary of Cost for Soil Alternatives
19 List of ARARs for Groundvater Treatment
Alternatives
20 Summary of Cost for Groundvater
Alternatives
21 List of ARARs for the Selected Alternative
-------
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
The Barney Farm site (see Figure 1) is located 90 miles north of
New York City, on a westward sloping ridge of fanning and grazing
land in the Town of Amenia, in rural Dutchess County, New York.
It is bordered by Benson Hill Road to the south, a treeline and
cultivated fields to the west, Cleaver Swamp to the northwest,
and the steeply sloping east flank of the ridge to the east. The
site contains four areas denoted as Areas 1-4 in Figure 2, where
former dumping of waste reportedly took place. According to 1980
Census data over 2000 people live within 1 mile of the Site. The
bedrock aquifer is the sole source of local groundwater supplies.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In February 1968, Richard and John Giannattasio (doing business
as Haul-A-Way Company, Inc.) applied for a permit to operate a
five-acre sanitary landfill on the property which at the time was
owned by Herbert Davidson. In April 1968 the Dutchess County
Health Department (DCHD) issued a permit with the provision that
no industrial waste was to be deposited at the Site.
Subsequently, in June 1968, Haul-A-Way Company, Inc. purchased a
143-acre parcel containing the approved five-acre landfill site.
In November 1968, dumping of industrial waste on the Site was
reported. A subsequent DCHD inspection confirmed that barrels of
waste solvents were dumped in and alongside a trench in the
northern end of the large pasture south/southwest of Cleaver
Swamp. Also, the DCHD received a complaint that barrels were
being taken into a wooded area on the Site northeast of the large
pasture in June 1969. A subsequent inspection in this area
revealed another excavated trench at the Site containing several
drums. The DCHD informed Haul-A-Way that this form of waste
disposal was not permitted and a subsequent investigation in
January, 1970 revealed that illegal dumping had stopped.
Ownership of the property was transferred to Joseph A. Fruroento
and Charles J. Miller in August, 1970 and in March, 1971 the land
was purchased by the present owners, Arthur and Joan Sarney, for
use as a pasture.
As a result of DCHD analyses of water samples from the Site in
1980 and 1982, the NYSDEC placed the property on a list of twelve
Dutchess County hazardous waste sites to be considered for
further investigation and possible clean-up. The site was
proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL), in
October, 1984 and received a final listing status in June, 1986.
The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) were notified in
writing in June 1985 via a notice letter and given the
opportunity to conduct a remedial investigation (RI) and
feasibility study (FS) under EPA supervision. However, none
-------
elected to undertake the activities. EPA is actively searching
for additional potentially responsible parties. To that regard
information request letters were issued in May 1990. A notice
letter will be mailed to the identified PRPs asking them to
notify EPA of their interest or lack of interest in conducting
the remedial design and remedial action.
In 1984 Camp, Dresser, and Mckee (COM) was retained by EPA as a
contractor to conduct work at the Site. CDM obtained 13 surface
water samples and 14 sediment samples from the Site, as well as
water samples from 21 private wells surrounding the Site and
issued a report on October 1985. In addition, COM completed a
geophysical study of the Site and issued a report of the findings
in October 1986.
In October 1987, based on the sampling results, EPA initiated a
Superfund removal/treatment action for organic contaminants at
the Site. EPA installed a treatment process consisting of an in
situ soil washing system for organic contamination at Areas 1 and
2. The siting of the treatment facility at the lowest elevation
point of the pasture permits collection of leachate from areas
further south, including Area 3. An examination of the
subsurface soils during the construction of the treatment system
around Area l revealed little or no evidence of contamination in
this area. The treatment system was not utilized in Area 4 since
its application was not believed to be well suited for the site
conditions in this area. The treatment system is currently
operating. When operating, samples of the treated effluent
stream that is recirculating to the soil have shown that all
detectable organic contaminants are being removed from the
influent through the aeration treatment process. Due to
contractual budget limitations, the Agency transferred
responsibility for completing the RI/FS to Ebasco Services, Inc.
and completed the study in May, 1990. Field activities included
additional sampling of ground and surface water, residential
wells, soils and sediment.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The FS for the Site focuses on reviewing and evaluating
alternative methods for remediating all the contaminated areas of
the Site. The areas of concern addressed by this response action
include soil and groundwater. These areas of the Site pose the
principal threat to human health and the environment because of
risk from possible ingestion, inhalation or dermal contact with
the soils and/or groundwater.
The overall objective of this response action is to reduce the
concentrations of contaminants in the soils to levels which are
protective of human health and the environment and to prevent
current and future exposure to the contaminated groundwater.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the Sarney Farm site were
released to the public on May 11, 1990. These documents were
made available to the public in both the administrative record
file and the information repositories maintained at the EPA
docket room in Region 2 and at the Town Halls of Amenia and Dover
Plains. A press release concerning the availability of the RI/FS
reports, the Proposed Plan, and the initiation of the public
comment period was issued on May 11, 1990. In addition, a public
meeting was held on May 23, 1990. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA and NYSDEC answered questions about
problems at the site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. A 30-day public comment period was provided,
ending on June 10, 1990. All comments which were received by EPA
prior to the end of the public comment period, including those
expressed verbally at the public meeting, are. addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix E).
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Sarney Farm site, in Amenia, New York, chosen in accordance
with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable,
the National Contingency Plan. The decision for this site is
based on the administrative record.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
In general, the Remedial Investigation concluded that the wastes
present at the Sarney Farm site were comprised of soil
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
approximately forty drums containing liquid solvents. These
sources of contamination were localized in two areas: a trench in
the northern end of the large pasture (Area 2), and a trench in
the woods northeast of the large pasture (Area 4). Based on the
soil gas data and trench work (done during the removal and the
RI), further evaluation of Areas 1 and 3 was not deemed
necessary.
The soil contaminants can be transported by infiltration into the
underlying overburden and bedrock aquifers at the Site. Although
contamination in the trenches was quite extensive, sample results
for the groundwater indicated limited contamination in this
medium. The wastes present at the site are not considered to be
listed waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
The soil contamination in Area 2 was estimated to be 80 feet
long, 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep for a total of 890 cubic
yards. The extent of contamination in Area 4 was contained in an
area 100 feet long, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, with a total
volume of 740 cubic yards. Due to a bulking factor of 1.45, the
quantity of contaminated soil which will be treated totals,
-------
approximately 2,365 cubic yards. This estimate is subject to
change as more information is obtained during the remedial design
phase.
Groundwater contamination within the overburden aquifer was
limited to the areal limits of the site study area. It should be
noted that the overburden aquifer was not found to be
sufficiently productive so as to support a well for residential
use because of the aquifer's low productivity and hydraulic
conductivity. The depth of the overburden aquifer ranges from 2
to 48 feet in depth at the site. The bedrock aquifer is
classified as a Class Ila aquifer, since it is currently utilized
as a source of drinking water while the overburden aquifer is
classified as lib due to its potential as a source of drinking
water. The on-site bedrock aquifer was contaminated in the areas
north of Areas 2 and 4 in the vicinity of the swamp. No
contaminants were detected above the State or Federal maximum
contaminant limit (MCLs) of 5 parts per billion (ppb) in the
residential wells in the bedrock aquifer.
The 110 acre state regulated wetland represents the most valuable
on-site ecological habitat. Commonly referred to as Cleaver
Swamp, the area is actually a Class II palustrine emergent marsh
dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia). Preliminary
hydrologic investigations suggest that the majority of overland
and groundwater flow from disposal areas is discharged northwest
into the wetland, along with some discharge into the unnamed
stream (or ponds) to the west. The flow of overburden
groundwater through Areas 1 and 2 is interrupted by the in-situ
soil washing system currently operating there.
In general, the surface water and the sediments from Cleaver
swamp (a 110 acre state regulated wetland), ponds and a stream on
the western side of the site did not indicate the presence of
contaminants in significant levels.
A more detailed discussion of the nature and extent of
contamination in each medium is presented below.
SOILS
Previous investigations by EPA indicated that there were four
potential areas where liquid wastes and/or buried drums could be
found at the site. The soil gas survey conducted by Ebasco as
part of this RI/FS and covering the totality of the site, further
defined Areas 2, 3 and 4 as the potential sources of
contamination. Based on the results of the soil gas survey and
the examination of subsurface soils during the removal action no
further evaluation of Area 1 was deemed necessary . Therefore,
Areas 2, 3 and 4 were the object of a more detailed evaluation.
Soil sampling and well borings were also performed throughout the
Site. Samples were analyzed for EPA's target compound list (TCL)
-------
including the following parameters: volatile organic compounds •
(VOC), base neutral or extractable aromatic compounds (BNA), and
metals.
Surface Soils
The test pits confirmed the presence of liquid wastes and filled
drums in Areas 2 and 4. Within these areas, soils close to and
around the areas of buried drums were indicated to be the hot
spot areas. The test pit soil samples were all collected from a
depth of less than 4 feet, and for the purposes of this
discussion are considered to be surface soil samples. High
concentrations of toluene (3,300 ppm), 2-butanone (14,000 ppm),
4-methyl-2-pentanone (6,600 ppm), trichloroethene (220 ppm),
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (84 ppm), di-n-butylphthalate (2.7
ppm), naphthalene (10 ppm) and 2-methyl-naphthalene (15 ppm) and
other compounds were present in Areas 2 and 4. No significant
levels of contaminants were detected in Area 3. Table 1 present
a summary of the compounds detected in the test pit soil samples.
The contents of the drums found in areas 2 and 4 were not
sampled. However, visibly stained soils surrounding the drums
were sampled and it was assumed that some of the same compounds
found in the soils were also present in the drums. It was
estimated that approximately forty drums, some visibly intact and
other crushed, were buried within Areas 2 and 4.
Subsurface Soils
Ten soil borings were drilled in Area 2, and monitoring well
borings were also drilled in other areas to determine the extent
of subsurface soil contamination. The soil borings closest to
Areas 2 and 4 exhibited the highest concentrations of organic
contaminants. Contaminants were predominantly present up to a
depth of 8 feet in appreciable amounts (greater than 100 ppb) of
volatile organic compounds). A soil boring in Area 2 (highest
detected concentration), at a depth of 2 to 3.5 ft, indicated the
presence of organic compounds such as toluene (2,600 ppm),
4-methyl-2-pentanone (18 ppm), naphthalene (43 ppm),
2-methylnaphthalene (4.5 ppm), di-n-butylphthalate (43 ppm), and
bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate (6.2 ppm). Tentatively identified
compounds (TIC) encountered in soil boring samples included
triphenyl phosphate acetic acid (1.5 ppm), and tetrahydrofuran
(0.012 ppm). A summary of the analytical results is presented in
Tables 2 and 3.
The most frequent contaminants were bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
which was detected in 6 of 21 samples (6/21), toluene (8/23),
2-butanone (6/23), 4-methyl-2-pentanone (6/23), chloroform
(5/23), and acetone (10/23). None of the samples indicate the
presence of any pesticides or PCBs.
-------
Among the inorganics, chromium was the only metal of concern
present in the soil boring samples. Chromium was detected in all
of the samples at estimated concentrations ranging from 8.7 to
54.4 ppm. The highest detected level was less than half the
average U.S. Soils range of 150 ppm (see Table 4) but was above
the site background levels of up to 15.3 ppm, as shown in Table
5. The highest concentration was obtained close to the surface
(2-2.6 ft) while the sample with the lowest concentration was
collected at a depth of 15-15.8 ft. There was no apparent trend
in the spatial distribution of this metal. Lead was not detected
in any of the soil boring samples above U.S. background levels
(30 ppm) but was detected in 7 of 15 samples above the site
background of 6.5 ppm.
GROUNDWATER
Previous investigations of the Sarney site groundwater
concentrated on the overburden groundwater and leachate water
(see Figure 3; Tables 6 and 7). No monitoring wells were drilled
to test on-site bedrock aquifer groundwater during prior
investigations. For the bedrock aquifer groundwater, samples
were collected from the residential wells in and around the site
(see Table 8).
x
A total of 12 on-site wells and 10 residential wells were sampled
for over 120 contaminants during the RI groundwater sampling
program. The on-site wells that were sampled are as follows:
three existing overburden wells, four newly installed overburden
wells, and five newly installed bedrock wells. Two rounds of
groundwater samples were obtained on two thirds of the monitoring
wells.
As noted above, there are two distinct aquifers at the site, the
overburden aquifer and the bedrock aquifer. The sampling results
for the bedrock aquifer are broken into two distinct categories
(on-site bedrock aquifer and residential bedrock aquifer) in
order to facilitate the discussion.
On-site Overburden Aouifer
Based on the first round of sampling the overburden aquifer was
not contaminated above New York State or Federal MCLs for organic
compounds (see Table 9A). All the organic contaminants that were
detected had concentrations of less than 5 ppb except for
di-n-butylphthalate, which was detected in the existing
monitoring wells, MW-01 and MW-03 with a maximum concentration of
120 ppb. Based on the second round of sampling only monitoring
well 2, which was located north of Area 2 towards Cleaver Swamp,
indicated the presence of 1,2-dichloroethane (380 ppb), toluene
(130 ppb), and trichloroethene (11 ppb) at high estimated
concentrations (see Table 9B). Both MW-03, located east of Area
2, and EW-2S, located northeast of Area 4, indicated the presence
-------
of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (14 ppb). Based on the available-
data, it is believed that within the overburden aquifer, the
groundwater contamination was confined to the areal limits of the
on-site study area.
No tentatively identified compounds were detected in the
overburden aquifer for either the VOC or BNA fractions. None of
the samples indicated the presence of pesticides or PCBs.
On-site Bedrock Aquifer
The on-site bedrock aquifer was contaminated (greater than MCL
levels) by 1,2-dichloroethane (131 ppb) and vinyl chloride (14
ppb), in the areas northeast of Area 4 and north of Area 2
towards the Cleaver Swamp (see Table 9A). No other compounds
were found above the MCLs. Both bedrock aquifer monitoring wells
(EW-3D and EW-4D) located north and northeast of Area 2 indicated
the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (17 ppb), in the
second round of sampling (see Table 9B).
Lead as total metal was detected in concentrations ranging from
2.5 to 12.7 ppb. Lead as dissolved metal was not detected in any
of the samples.
In Area 4, the disposal pits are believed to be the sources of
contamination affecting the soil and groundwater media within the
areal limits of the pits. The proximity of the bedrock surface
in this area, and exposed bedrock outcrops in the vicinity,
suggest that the contamination from this area migrates downward
into the underlying bedrock. It is probable that part of this
contamination may flow in limited areas towards the swamp due to
a potential upward hydraulic gradient, as evidenced by existence
of "artesian" conditions at EW-2D.
Residential Bedrock Aquifer
All the residential wells were located in the bedrock aquifer
(see Figure 4). Ten of the previously tested 20 residential wells
in the vicinity of the site were sampled by Ebasco. Table 10
presents a summary of the compounds detected in residential well
water samples.
None of the residential wells sampled by Ebasco indicated the
presence of any organic or inorganic contaminants that were above
State or Federal drinking water standards. Contrary to the
on-site bedrock aquifer, residential wells in the bedrock aquifer
were not contaminated with 1,2-dichloroethane or vinyl chloride.
Among the organic compounds detected in trace amounts were
di-n-butylphthalate (3 ppb), 2-hexanone (0.9 ppb),
diethylphthalate (4 ppb), chlororoethane (0.9 ppb), carbon
disulfide (0.1 ppb), chloroform (0.2 ppb), 1,2-dichloroethene (3
ppb), 1,2-dichloro-propane (0.2 ppb), trichloroethene (2.1 ppb),
-------
chlorobenzene (0.1 ppb), and cis-l,2-dichloroethene (1.4 ppb)..
All the samples were negative to the presence of pesticides or
PCBs. No Tics' were identified in either the VOC and BNA
fractions for the residential well samples. None of the
residential well water samples indicated the presence of arsenic.
Other metals were detected at trace levels, including lead (5
ppb) and nickel (10 ppb).
This information was consistent with past sampling conducted by
EPA and others. A complementary sampling of the residential
wells was conducted by the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) in June 1990. 1,1-Dichloroethane (2 ppb) was the only
compound reported by NYSDOH to be found above the analytical
detection limit (0.5 ppb) in the residential wells. This value
is below the current New York State Maximum Contaminant Limit
(MCL) of 5 ppb.
Surface Water
Under this investigation, a total of 12 surface water samples
were taken from Cleaver Swamp, ponds and a stream situated on the
western side and adjacent to the site under investigation. Of
these twelve samples, one was positive for. vinyl chloride (68
ppb). Trace amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane were detected in
almost all sample locations within Cleaver Swamp for surface
water at concentrations less than 5 ppb, indicating that the
surface water in Cleaver Swamp was not contaminated at levels of
concern with this compound. Some of the samples indicated the
presence of 2-butanone at low concentrations (less than 5 ppb).
Surface water samples taken from Pond I, III, & IV and also from
the stream indicated that the surface water was not contaminated
with these compounds. A summary of the chemicals detected in
previous and current investigations is presented in Tables 11 and
12. Aside from a single .sample collected within the marsh, none
of the recent sampling results indicated inorganic contamination
at significant levels. This 1 sample was of concern due to
arsenic detected at a concentration of 52 ppb.
Sediment
The only compound of concern was di-n-butylphthalate whose
concentrations were relatively high (150 ppb) within the wetland
region at depths of 1-2 feet. Previous site history indicated
the presence of phthalates. Sediment samples taken from Pond I
and Pond III also indicate the presence of pyrene (87 ppb). The
analyses of the sediment samples (see Table 13) indicate that
sediments from Cleaver Swamp and the ponds west of the Sarney
Property Site are not contaminated by volatile organics.
Inorganic sediment data indicate that metals, although varying in
concentration throughout the site, do not exceed ickground
levels fcr glacial till, with the exception of le_-. which was
8
-------
found throughout the marsh and unnamed stream, and selenium which
was found at elevated levels for two sites within the marsh. As
selenium was not detected in any of the surface water samples,
and demonstrated limited occurrence within the marsh sediments,
it is assumed to be largely unavailable for biological uptake.
Based on inspection of available data sets, the majority of on-
site contaminants appears to enter the marsh and become contained
relatively close to the disposal areas. It is not known whether
this is attributable to a "filtering effect" often associated
with wetland ecosystems, or a constant influx of contaminants
from overland flow and groundwater discharge (coupled with
continuous transport out of the marsh ecosystem). The
insignificant levels of contaminants found in the stream suggests
that transport of contaminants via the marsh is limited.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the
potential human health impact associated with Sarney Farm if the
contamination at the Site is not remediated.
Selection of Indicator chemicals
Indicator chemicals (compounds and chemical classes for which
quantitative risk assessments were constructed) were identified
for each medium on the basis of their frequency of occurrence,
levels of occurrence, demonstrated relationship to site
activities, local and regional background levels, and
availability of toxicological parameters for risk assessment.
The selected indicator chemicals are listed in Table 14A.
Dose Response Evaluation
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
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of 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 potential exists for non-carcinogenic health
effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI
provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media. The reference doses for the indicator
chemicals at the Sarney Farm Site are presented in Table 14B.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the 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. The CPFs for the indicator chemicals
at the Sarney Farm Site are presented in Table 14C.
For known or suspected carcinogens, the EPA considers excess
upper bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10*4 to
10 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual
has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure
to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the site. The 10 risk level is the point of
departure for determining remediation goals for alternatives when
ARARs are not available or are net sufficiently protective
because of the presence of multiple contaminants at a site or
multiple pathways of exposure.
Exposure Assessment
Two basic scenarios were developed based on present
(agricultural) and potential (residential) land use at the Site.
Under both scenarios several pathways (direct contact, inhalation
and ingestion) were evaluated for exposure to surface and
subsurface soils; sediments and surface waters in the pond,
streams, and wetland areas; and groundwater used for drinking and
domestic purposes from the bedrock aquifer on the Site. Exposed
populations included on-site and off-site residents, farm workers
and construction workers. Two estimates were developed,
corresponding to the maximum concentration detected or "worst
case scenario" and a representative exposure or "most reasonable
case". Worst-case exposure scenarios were developed using the
10
-------
highest observed concentrations, or the arithmetic mean in the.
case of site soils, for each contaminant in the medium of
interest. Representative-case exposure scenarios were developed
using a more realistic but still conservative exposure
assumptions, and taking as their inputs the geometric mean of all
the analyses of the indicator chemicals in the medium of
interest. The specific exposure scenarios considered are
described in detail in Tables ISA and 15B.
Risk Characterization Results
The results of the baseline risk assessment for the Sarney Farm
site are summarized below by medium of exposure and exposure
pathway. A more detailed summary is presented in Table 16.
o Groundwater
Of all the exposure pathways considered, including both current
and future use scenarios, only one presented a risk which was not
within EPA's acceptable representative-case excess cancer risk
range. Under this scenario, future use of bedrock groundwater,
the calculated potential representative-case excess cancer risk
posed was 3.44 x 103. The worst-case excess lifetime cancer risk
associated with the same scenario was 1.0-7 x 10'2. Under the
present use scenario, the representative and worst-case excess
cancer risks were 1.55 x 10* and 3.09 x 10"6, respectively. More
than 99% of the risk was associated with ingestion of groundwater
containing arsenic, vinyl chloride and 1,2-dichloroethane.
However, arsenic was not recommended for cleanup because of the
following: the risk was calculated with the CPF for inhalation of
arsenic since there is currently no CPF for arsenic exposure via
ingesticn, yielding overestimates of risk; and dissolved arsenic
levels were all below the Federal or State MCLs.
Non-carcinogenic health effects were also a concern for bedrock
groundwater utilization under the future-use worst-case
exposures. The worst case CDI/RfD ratio was 5.55, stemming
largely from the ratio of 5.22 for lead exposure. The
representative-case just slightly exceeded the hazard index
threshold at 1.14, with the lead CDI/RfD ratio at 1.07.
The risk assessment concluded that based on the residential well
sampling results there was no unacceptable risk to residents
currently utilizing these sources as a drinking water supply.
o Soils
Under the worst-case, present-use scenario, residential or worker
exposure to surface soils resulted in lifetime cancer risks
significantly below EPA target range. The total potential excess
cancer risk associated with each of these pathways was
approximately 4 x 107. For residents, the representative-case
11
-------
future-use scenario represented no significant excess cancer risk
(2.08 x 10f); however, the worst-case future-use scenario
resulted in life time potential excess cancer risk significantly
greater than the target risk range, at 3.04 x 103. This risk was
associated with inhalation of volatile organic compounds
emanating from subsurface soils into home basements built on
Areas 2 and 4. The representative-case and worst-case risk to
residents exposed to soils under the current use scenario were
1.41 x 10! and 3.86 x 10'.
Worst-case future use exposure estimates for residents to site
soils also indicated a significant potential concern for non-
cancer health effects. This risk was associated with inhalation
of volatile organic compounds emanating from subsurface soils
into home basements built on Areas 2 and 4. The CDI/RfD ratios
for 2-butanone and 4-methyl-2-pentanone exceeded the hazard index
threshold of 1 by more than two orders of magnitude at 436 and
233, respectively. The CDI/RfD for toluene was about one order
of magnitude greater than the threshold at 7.8. No non-cancer
risks were found for the worst-case present-use scenario for site
residents.
None of these compounds presented significant risks for residents
under representative-case present-use or future-use exposures.
o Surface Water
The worst-case and the representative-case present-use potential
excess cancer risks were 4.68 x 10"* and 1.36 x 10s, respectively.
In both representative and worst-case risks, the majority of the
risk results from exposure to arsenic. Only 1 of 12 samples
collected had detectable levels of vinyl chloride. This one
sar.ple resulted in vinyl chloride posing a risk under the worst
case scenario. This did not occur in the representative case.
As noted above, there are large uncertainties associated with the
risk estimates for arsenic, especially in regard to the use of a
CPF for inhalation since no CPF is available for the oral route
of exposure to arsenic. Therefore, neither arsenic or vinyl
chloride was recommended for cleanup in the swamp. No other
risks were associated with exposure to swamp water or swamp
sediments. No health risks were posed by exposure to the
sediments and surface water of the ponds and stream associated
with the site.
In no case did the current uses of the site (the present-use
pathways) pose a health risk to any receptor under the
representative case exposures.
Environmental Risks
As noted above, Cleaver swamp represents the most valuable on-
site ecological habitat. Sampling data for the swamp and other
12
-------
on-site surface water bodies indicate infrequent detection of
indicator compounds at low concentrations in this media and
further suggest that contaminants entering the marsh are
contained relatively close to the disposal area and that
contaminant transport to the nearby stream is limited.
The available data on the effects of compounds on aquatic and
terrestrial flora and fauna is limited. However, the high
functional ecological value of the marsh as wildlife habitat, in
conjunction with relatively low levels (and numbers) of known
contaminants, indicates that the adverse impacts caused by
physical disturbance of this ecosystem (through remediation
alternatives involving excavation of the wetlands) would
significantly outweigh the potential benefits of subsequent
surface water/sediment treatment. Furthermore, assuming the
sources(s) of contaminants are removed or immobilized (i.e.,
contaminated drums and soils), it appears that current
contaminant levels within the marsh and stream pose negligible
risks to flora and fauna. All alternatives for remediating the
sources of contamination should incorporate measures to ensure
that the habitat is not negatively impacted during the
remediation. Remediation of these sources would effectively
reduce the loading of contaminants to the wetland.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to
estimates of how often an individual would actually come in
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the
point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in
extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing
the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. In the risk assessment
13
-------
for Sarney Farm, arsenic posed a high level of cancer risk due in
part to the use of an inhalation Cancer Potency Factor for
arsenic in the absence of appropriate criteria for evaluating
oral exposures. It is uncertain to what extent the risks due to
arsenic are overestimated due to the use of the inhalation CPF.
These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative
assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout
the assessment. As a result, the baseline risk assessment
provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near
the Sarney Farm site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate
actual risks related to the site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with
the NCP, five remedial alternatives were developed for
contaminated groundwater; three remedial alternatives were
developed for treatment of soil and disposal of drums.
The alternatives were further screened based on technical
considerations such as effectiveness, implementability and cost.
The remedial alternatives not retained for a detailed evaluation
were: land use restrictions, fencing and posting of warning signs
(SC-2); and, excavation, off-site incineration and disposal of
soils and drums (SC-3).
A description of the remedial alternatives retained and evaluated
in detail is provided below. The time to implement as used
herein means the time required for site preparation and for
actual on-site construction and start-up activities. It does not
include the remedial design phase which typically takes 12-18
monts to complete.
CONTAMINATED DRUMS AND SOILS ALTERNATIVES (SO
o SC-1 No further action
o SC-4 Off-site treatment/disposal of drums and on-site low
temperature thermal treatment of soils
o SC-5 Off-site treatment/disposal of drums and off-site
soils treatment/disposal
SC-1 NO FURTHER ACTION
Capital Cost: none
Present Worth Cost: $264,000
Time to Implement: Immediate
In this alternative, no further remediation of soils and drums
14
-------
beyond the current EPA removal action would occur. Contaminated
soil and drums would remain in place and continue to act as a . •'
source of groundwater contamination.. A long-term monitoring
program would be implemented in order to assess the migration of
the contaminated groundwater. The monitoring program would
include an annual inspection of the Site as well as sampling and
testing of the surface water and groundwater every six months for
30 years, or as deemed necessary. In-addition, because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site,
CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every 5 years to assure
that the remedy continues to be protective of human health and
the environment. This five year review would be accomplished
through the monitoring program.
SC-4 OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF DRUMS AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE
THERMAL TREATMENT OF SOILS
Capital Cost: $644,000
Present Worth Cost: $644,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative involves excavating the drums in Areas 2 and 4
and approximately 2,365 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil.
The excavated drums would then be placed in overpack containers
and transported to a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) permitted off-site treatment and disposal facility. The
facility would incinerate, or treat in some other way, the
drummed wastes and then dispose of the drum residues. The
contaminated soil would be treated on-site using a low
temperature thermal treatment unit. In the soil treatment
facility, hot air would be injected into the soils at a
temperature of 260 degrees Centigrade. Volatile organic
compounds in the soil (e.g. toluene) would be volatized into the
air stream and combusted in an afterburner where they would be
destroyed. The off-gas from the afterburner would be treated in
a scrubber for particulate adsorption and gas removal. After
treatment the soil, which would no longer contain hazardous
substances above health based levels, would be used to back fill
and regrade the excavated areas. Proper engineering measures
would be implemented to control air emissions, fugitive dust,
run-off, erosion and sedimentation. The RCRA land disposal
restrictions would not be applicable since the treated soil would
not be a RCRA hazardous waste.
SC-5 OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF DRUMS AND SOILS
Capital Cost: $1,657,100
Present Worth Costs: $1,657,100
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative consists of excavating the contaminated drums
and soils as described in SC-4. The drums would then be placed
15
-------
in overpacks and transported to an off-site RCRA permitted
treatment and disposal facility. For the purpose of developing a
cost for this alternative, low temperature thermal treatment was
chosen as the most cost-effective technology for the off-site
treatment of soils. Treated soils would be disposed of by the
treatment facility operator in accordance with RCRA regulations.
Clean fill would be brought in to. back fill and regrade the
excavated areas. Proper engineering measures would be
implemented to control fugitive dust, run-off, erosion and
sedimentation.
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES fGWl
o GW-i No further action
o GW-2 Carbon adsorption treatment systems at residential
wells
o GW-3 Collection and treatment of groundwater using an air
stripper
o GW-4 Collection and treatment of groundwater using hydrogen
peroxide with UV light
o GW-5 Collection and treatment of groundwater at existing
on-site aeration system
A description of the remedial alternatives retained and evaluated
in detail is provided below. The time to implement as used
herein means the time required for site preparation and for
actual on-site construction and start-up activities. It does not
include the remedial design phase which typically takes 12-18
months to complete, long-term operation of the treatment system,
or long-term monitoring.
GW-1 NO FURTHER ACTION
Capital Cost: none
Present Worth Cost: $263,500
Time to Implement: Immediate
A no further action alternative would involve conducting a long-
term program to monitor the migration of contaminants in the
bedrock aquifer underlying the Site. The monitoring program
would involve the sampling of existing monitoring wells installed
on-site plus the residential wells located in the vicinity of the
site. In addition, testing would be performed to further
delineate site-specific hydrogeological conditions, including:
evaluation of topographical features (i.e., bedrock outcrops),
measurement of water levels in the bedrock wells, and performance
of "Packer Tests" in the bedrock wells. Pending the results from
this testing, additional monitoring wells may be installed; the
number and location would be determined at the time. This
testing would provide more information on fracture angles and
patterns, and extent of contamination.
16
-------
Under no further action, the existing on-site treatment system
would be disconnected once the buried drums were excavated and
properly disposed of in an off-site facility. For the purposes
of evaluating this alternative, it was assumed that the wells
would, be sampled every six months for 30 years. However, the
frequency and duration of sampling could be altered based upon
the results of the monitoring program. Surface water samples
would also be collected and analyzed for contaminants. The
information generated as part of the monitoring program and the
hydrogeological testing would be used to ensure that the
alternative is protective of human health and the environment.
Deed restrictions would be placed on the property in order to
prevent groundwater use in Areas 2 and 4. A five year review
would also be performed, as required by CERCLA, since
contaminated groundwater would be left on-site. Fact sheets
would be distributed to the public, Town and County to inform
them of the results of the monitoring program and to indicate
whether contamination is spreading or otherwise causing a problem
which must be addressed.
GW-2 CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT AT RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Capital Cost: $50,000
Present Worth Costs: $310,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative would involve setting up small individual carbon
adsorption systems at existing residential wells as a point-of-
use water treatment alternative. The water would be pumped from
the individual well using the existing pump through a residential
carbon adsorption system which would remove the organic
contaminants. In addition, the installation of new wells in
potentially affected areas would be discouraged through the
release of routine site fact sheets to the Town and County if the
results of the monitoring program indicate that contamination is
spreading or otherwise causing a problem.
GW-3 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATER USING AN AIR
STRIPPER
Capital Cost: $632,900
Present Worth Costs: $1,640,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative is to pump and treat the groundwater from the
plume area to prevent the migration of the contaminants. The
major features of this alternative include groundwater pumping,
collection, treatment and on-site discharge to Cleaver Swamp, and
a long-term monitoring program. The groundwater would be
pretreated using lime and polymers to remove iron. Following
pre-treatment the water would be pumped to an air stripper where
the volatile organic contaminants (e.g. 1,2-DCA and vinyl
17
-------
chloride) would be..removed.
This alternative would treat contaminated groundwater to levels
required by the Federal and State MCLs for public drinking water
supply systems and the State surface water quality standards for
discharge of effluent to surface water. However, it should be
noted that engineering practicability and cost effectiveness of
pump and treatment is questionable in lieu of the Site
hydrogeological characteristics. The productive aquifer
underlying the Site consists of medium to coarse grained
fractured limestone bedrock. The movement of contaminants in
this type of geology is highly influenced by the extent and
location of the fractures, something extremely difficult if not
impossible to determine accurately. The estimated time frame for
treatment of the groundwater is 20 years, however this number is
subject to much uncertainty.
GW-4 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATER USING HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE AND UV LIGHT
Capital Cost: $734,000
Present Worth Costs: $2,250,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative is similar to Alternative GW-3 in that it would
attempt to clean up the contaminated bedrock aquifer. The major
features of this alternative include groundwater pumping,
collection, pre-treatment and a monitoring program as in
Alternative GW-3. However, in this alternative the water would
be treated using chemical oxidation with hydrogen peroxide and UV
light. This treatment would reduce the volatile organic
contaminants (e.g. 1,2-DCA and vinyl chloride) to levels required
by the Federal and State MCLs for public drinking water supply
and State surface water quality standards. The water would then
be discharged to Cleaver Swamp. The same engineering limitations
discussed under Alternative GW-3 apply to Alternative GW-4. The
estimated aquifer restoration timeframe for this alternative is
also 20 years.
GW-5 COLLECTION OF GROUNDWATER AND TREATMENT AT EXISTING ON-SITE
SYSTEM
Capital Cost: $482,900
Present Worth Costs: $1,380,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
The major features of this alternative include groundwater
pumping, collection, treatment and on-site discharge, and a long-
term monitoring program. The groundwater would be pumped to the
existing on-site aeration system. This system would remove the
volatile organic contaminants (e.g. 1,2-DCA and vinyl chloride)
from the groundwater.
18
-------
The aeration system would be part of the existing treatment
system consisting of an in situ soil washing system for organic
contamination. The system as constructed consists of a network
of french drains tied into a 1500 gallon collection/treatment
tank (Figure 5). The tank incorporates three treatment processes
consisting of two air lifts, floating absorbent blankets, and
biological treatment. This system is currently operating at a
flow rate of less than 12 gallons per minute. The current system
would be modified (i.e., to increase contact time between
groundwater and the packing) in order to ensure that the
contaminants would be reduced to the required levels. From the
collection/treatment tank the groundwater is pumped through
packed beds of imbiber beads. The beads are made of an organic
resin which adsorbs most of the remaining contaminants in the
groundwater. The groundwater is then pumped through a carbon
adsorption bed for final polishing before being discharged to
Cleaver Swamp.
This alternative would reduce contaminated groundwater to levels
required by the Federal and State MCLs for public drinking water
supply. The pumping, collection, discharge system and monitoring
program would be the same as discussed in Alternative GW-3. The
same engineering limitations discussed previously under GW-3
apply to Alternative GW-5. The estimated aquifer restoration
timeframe for this alternative is also 20 years.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has developed nine criteria (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01),
codified in the NCP §300.430 (e) and (f), to evaluate potential
alternatives to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions.
They are summarized below:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls. A comprehensive risk analysis is included in the RI.
Compliance with ARARs
Addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver. A complete listing
of ARARs for this Site can be found in section 3 of the FS.
Short-term effectiveness
Involves the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
19
-------
adverse ir.pacts on human health and the envirc nent that may be
posed during the construction and implementat .-n period of this
alternative.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals
have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness
of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by
treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume
Refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy may
employ.
Impler.entabilitv
Involves the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement £he chosen solution.
Includes both capital and operation and maintenance costs. Cost
comparisons are made on the basis of present worth values.
Present worth values are equivalent to the amount of money which
must be invested to implement a certain alternative at the start
of construction to provide for both construction costs and 0 and
M costs over a 30 year period.
Community Accept5r.re
Indicates whether, based on a review of the comments received on
the RI/FS and Proposed Plan during the public comment period, the
community supports or opposes the preferred alternative.
State Acceptance
Indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan, the state concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred alternative.
ANALYSIS
CONTAMINATED DRUMS AND SOILS ALTERNATIVES
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 provide treatment of contaminated
20
-------
soils and drums and would reduce the concentration of
contaminants in the soils to levels which would be protective of
human health and the environment under both current and potential
future uses. SC-4 involves on-site low temperature soil
treatment whereas SC-5 involves soil treatment off-site. The no-
action alternative would leave hazardous substances on-site which
would continue to leach into the aquifer and also continue to
pose a threat under the future use scenario. Therefore, the no
action alternative would not be protective of human health and
the environment.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 would de designed and implemented to
comply with all action-specific ARARs since the sources of the
contamination would be removed and the threat to human health and
the environment posed by those sources would be eliminated.
There are no applicable Federal or State regulations that can be
utilized to specify the numerical cleanup levels for contaminants
in soils at the site. ARARs pertinent to air quality standards
would be attained. The transportation and treatment of wastes at
an off-site facility would be accomplished in accordance with
State and Federal hazardous waste management requirements. The
off-site facility would be fully RCRA permitted and, therefore,
would meet applicable regulations. Drummed wastes would be
treated using specific technologies or specific treatment levels,
as appropriate. Under alternative SC-4, contaminated soils will
be treated to health-based levels. Since the treated soils would
no longer contain hazardous constituents above health-based
levels, they could be redeposited on-site in compliance with all
RCRA standards. As noted above, the land disposal restrictions
would not be applicable to the disposal of the treated soils.
No action-specific ARARs would be triggered by the
no action alternative. The leaking drums and contaminated soil
would continue to severely damage the existing environment as
contaminants would continue leaching into the groundwater and
surface water.
A list of all the ARARs is provided in Table 17.
3. Lonq-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 would be similar in their
effectiveness over the long-term, as wastes would be removed and
treated, thereby eliminating the potential threat to human health
and the environment both through direct contact and leaching of
contaminants into the groundwater. There are no long-term
effects on human health that would result from the implementation
of these alternatives.
21
-------
Alternative SC-1 would not be effect: .-e over the long term.
There is potential for exposure to contaminants through direct
contact and leaching of contaminants into the groundwater under
current and future land uses.
4. Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Treatment represents a permanent remedy. Treatment would reduce
the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants in the
soil. Alternative SC-4 would involve on-site low temperature
thermal treatment, whereas alternative SC-5 would involve off-
site low temperature thermal treatment, or some similar treatment
technology. Under alternative SC-4, soils would be treated to
reduce concentrations of contaminants such that the soil would no
longer contain hazardous substances above health based levels,
thereby, reducing the toxicity, mobility and volume of
contaminants. The same goal would be accomplished through
alternative SC-5. Therefore, both alternatives would reduce
concentrations in soils to the same action levels and would be
very similar in their ability to reduce the mobility, toxicity,
and volume of contaminants. In each alternative, the drums would
be treated off-site, thereby reducing the mobility, toxicity and
volume of the contaminants. The no-action alternative would not
result in a reduction of toxicity, nobility, or volume, since
there would be no treatment associated with the alternative.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness concerns for the alternatives SC-4
and SC-5 include human health threats, adverse impacts on the
environment, and safety of workers during implementation
activities. The major activities of these alternatives are
treatment of contamina* soil and off-site disposal of drums. A
potential health threat ,o area residents would be direct contact
with spilled wastes. However, this exposure pathway would be
eliminated by restricting access to the site to authorized
personnel only. The implementation of the alternatives would be
monitored to ensure that all regulations are followed and to
minimize worker exposure. Therefore, the short-term human health
threat resulting from these alternatives would not be
significant.
The short-term impacts on the environment would consist mostly of
traffic-related problems during transportation. Although
decontaminated and covered, passage of trucks through communities
might raise community concerns. Alternative SC-4 would have less
impact in this regard, since soils would be treated on-site
resulting in less truck traffic.
Workers on-site during activities could be potentially exposed to
contaminants. To minimize and/or prevent such exposures, use of
personal protection equipment would be necessary. There is a
22
-------
potential impact to air associated with alternative SC.-.4 due to
volatile organic compounds which would vaporize. However, these
would be treated by a carbon adsorption system and properly
disposed of. There are no short term impacts associated with the
no action alternative.
6. Impleraentabilitv
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 would not require substantial
construction, institutional controls or a monitoring program.
Alternative SC-5 is more easily implementable than SC-4, since
SC-4 would require design and testing on-site for the treatment
unit. Commercial treatment facilities are already in existence.
No technological problems should arise as all the treatment
technologies are well established and possess proven track
records.
The quantity of waste to be treated from this site is not
expected to be affected by the general market availability.
However, depending on the facility, a lead time for waste -
acceptance at the treatment facility may be needed. Alternative
SC-4 is better than SC-5 in this regard, since contaminated soil
would be treated on-'site. Under the no action alternative, there
would be nothing to implement and therefore no implementability
concerns.
7. Cost
Capital and present worth costs associated with alternatives
SC-4 and SC-5 are $644,000 and $1,657,000, respectively (Table
18). These include costs for mobilization, sampling and
handling, disposal, demobilization, contingency, and other costs
associated with site remediation. Present worth costs for the no
action alternative are $264,000. There are no capital costs for
this alternative.
8. State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selection of treatment
alternative SC-4. This alternative is in agreement with the
State's interest in public and environmental protection, since
this remedy utilizes permanent treatment to the maximum extent
possible.
9. Community Acceptance
The community has raised no objections to alternative SC-4 as the
preferable treatment alternative. Several concerns were raised
during the public comment period. These concerns are addressed
in detail in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix £). In
general, the principal concerns are related to the potential
health risk to the people living or working around the site. The
23
-------
residents also urged that the drums be removed from the Site as
soon as possible to prevent further degradation of the aquifer.
CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The results of the RI show that only on-site wells near the
sources of contamination(i.e., soils and drums in Areas 2 and 4)
were found to contain levels of indicator chemicals above the
MCLs. If the sources of contamination were removed from the
Site, natural processes such as biodegradation, volatilization,
dilution and flushing would attenuate the aquifer contamination,
and the potential risk to future site residents via groundwater
would be eliminated. The nature of the flow at the Site would
serve to maximize the effectiveness of biodegradation and
volatilization processes. As a result, all the alternatives for
groundwater remediation, including GW-l (no further action),
would be protective of human health and the environment assuming
the sources of contamination are removed. The no further action
alternative would "remediate" the aquifer in approximately 30
years through natural attenuation, a slightly longer period of
time than required under alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5. Deed
restrictions would prevent the use of ground water in Areas 2 and
4 until natural attenuation reduced the level of contaminants
below MCLs.
The point of use treatment in Alternative GW-2 would provide the
same protection to human health and the environment as
alternative GW-l since none of the residential wells are
currently contaminated. Continued monitoring would ensure that
the remedy remains protective. GW-2 would also gradually restore
the site groundwater via natural processes. It provides extra
assurances that residential well water would remain suitable for
drinking in the future. However, the long-term monitoring
aspects of GW-l would also provide sufficient assurances for the
same. Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5 would also provide an
uncertain degree of aquifer remediation within 20 years.
However, due to the hydrogeological conditions at the Site
(fractured bedrock aquifer), it is uncertain whether any pump and
treat alternative would achieve a significantly greater and/or
faster aquifer restoration than GW-l or GW-2.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative GW-l would bring site groundwater into compliance
with State and Federal ARARs via naturally-occurring contaminant
attenuation processes after removal of the source material. The
inherently slow groundwater flow is expected to passively control
the migration of contaminants offsite. By definition, no action-
specific ARARs would be triggered by the no action alternative.
Alternative GW-2 would be designed to meet all contaminant-
24
-------
specific and action-specific ARARs. It would take approximately
30 years for both alternatives to meet the chemical-specific
ARARs in the aquifer.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 would be designed to meet all
contaminant-specific and action-specific ARARs by removing the
volatiles from the groundwater. The groundwater would be treated
to satisfy the drinking water standards thus eliminating
contaminants before they reach the tap. These alternatives would
eventually bring the aquifer into compliance with chemical-
specific ARARs via active restoration and source control in
approximately 20 years. However, this number would be subject to
much uncertainty due to the Site hydrogeological conditions.
A summary of State and Federal ARARs is provided in Table 19.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness
The no action alternative (GW-l) would diminish the level of
contaminants in the groundwater through natural attenuation
processes (biodegradation, dilution and dispersion) in
approximately 30 years. A monitoring program involving sampling
of on-site monitoring wells and residential wells in the vicinity
of the site every six months for thirty years, as necessary,
would take place. Additional testing would also be conducted to
better assess the site hydrogeological characteristics. The
monitoring program and the hydrogeological testing would insure
that contaminants in the residential wells do not exceed maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs), and that action is not otherwise
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Alternative GW-2 would permanently protect the individual
residents using the groundwater as a potable water source if
contaminants reached the residential wells at levels above MCLs.
Long-term maintenance of the treatment units such as replacing
the filters would be necessary. GW-2 would meet the State and
Federal standards for safe drinking water. In order to prevent
exposure to contaminants through groundwater migrating into the
site surface waters and off-site, both GW-l and GW-2 rely on
extensive monitoring and will continually assess any adverse
impact to human health and the environment.
Upon completion of the treatment alternatives (GW-3 through 5)
the concentration of the contaminants (e.g., 1,2-DCA and vinyl
chloride) would be reduced to a level which meets or is less than
the Federal and State MCLs. All potential risks to the public
health and the environment would be eliminated upon completion of
these treatment remedial actions; however, due to site-specific
hydrogeological conditions (fractured bedrock aquifer) their
effectiveness would be reduced to a certain degree. Some of the
difficulties encountered by the treatment alternatives would be
the lack of detailed data on the bedrock fractures, and the
25
-------
difficulties of mapping the fractures in the bedrock aquifer and
placing the wells in the proper areas to capture all of the
contaminated groundwater. In addition, flow through a fractured
aquifer is generally highly variable. On account of this, the
estimated period of time needed before meeting the MCLs under the
treatment alternatives (20 years} may be comparable to that
achieved under the natural attenuation (no action) alternative.
Alternatives GW-3 through GW-5 would be similar in that they are
well developed and commercially available technologies widely
used for the treatment of VOCs present in groundwater. These
treatment systems are very reliable but monitoring would be
performed to verify their performance. Alternative GW-1 would be
the easiest to implement, followed by GW-2.
4. Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Under GW-l there is no treatment which reduces toxicity, mobility
or volume, however natural attenuation would dilute contaminant
volume over time such that it does not pose a threat to human
health and the environment. Alternative GW-2 involves treatment
of the groundwater at the point of use and potential restrictions
on future use, which would reduce the toxicity and volume of
contaminants in the groundwater used by individual residents.
However, this reduction only protects those individuals who use
the groundwater as a potable water source if contaminants were to
reach residential wells at levels above MCLs. Both alternatives
GW-l and GW-2 make use of natural attenuation processes (e.g.,
biodegradation, dilution, volatilization) to reduce the toxicity
and mobility of the contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives GW-3 and GW-4 would remove greater than 90% of the
1,2-DCA and greater than 99% of the vinyl chloride from the
groundwater. The performance of the currently operating on-site
facility (alternative GW-5) indicates it can remove the
contaminants from the groundwater at above 90% efficiency.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 would result in reduction in the
toxicity of the groundwater, and the volume of contaminants in
the groundwater would be reduced as the water is remediated. It
should be noted that the success of any of the treatment
alternatives would depend on their ability to capture the
totality of the contaminant plume. Due to the site-specific
hydrogeological conditions mentioned previously, it is uncertain
whether any of the treatment alternatives would successfully
locate and extract all of the contaminated plume.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
None of the alternatives would remediate the aquifer in the short
term. There would be no construction involved in the
implementation of alternative GW-l, therefore, there are no
short-term threats to workers, neighboring communities or adverse
26
-------
impacts on the environment. The implementation of this
alternative would have no impacts on the environment or the
public health. Alternatives GW-2 to GW-5 involve construction in
implementation and pose minimal short-term threats to the
workers, neighboring communities and the environment. The no
action alternative would be implemented immediately, whereas
alternatives GW-2 to GW-5 would be implemented in about fourteen
months from initiation of construction.
6. Iiriplementability
Alternative GW-1 would not entail the installation of any
additional equipment, therefore, it would be easiest to
implement. The monitoring program and hydrogeological testing
designed for the site could be easily implemented and would be
effective at monitoring contaminant migration from the
groundwater into the surface water as well as off site. All
technologies for alternative GW-2 are proven and are commercially
available. The small carbon adsorption systems are capable of
handling flows in the range of 0.1 gpm to 10 gpm and could be
easily installed if contaminants appear at wells above MCLs. A
proper maintenance program for the carbon adsorption units (e.g.
replacement of expended filters) would need to be implemented.
All components of this alternative would be carefully selected to
meet the site specific constraints. Conditions external to the
site, such as equipment availability, materials and services
would present no problems at this time.
All technologies for alternative GW-3 are proven and commercially
available. Air stripping is considered a cost-effective
technology for removing volatile organics. The ultra violet
light hydrogen-peroxide oxidation process involved in alternative
GW-4 is relatively new, and, only a few vendors can supply the
equipment and services. This process also requires that a high
voltage line be brought in to operate the oxidation chamber. The
existing on-site treatment system may have to be modified
slightly in alternative GW-5; however, this is not expected to
pose any problems.
Each of the treatment technologies have been proven effective in
treating groundwater. However, in view of the complex
hydrogeological conditions at the site, resulting from the
presence of a fractured bedrock aquifer, it is uncertain whether
the totality of the contaminant plume would be captured.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether these
alternatives, if implemented, would be more successful in
remediating the aquifer than GW-1 or GW-2.
7. Cost
There are no capital costs in alternative GW-1. The capital
costs involved in alternatives GW-2 to GW-5 are: $50,000,
27
-------
$632,000, $734,000, and $482,900, respectively. The present
worth cost in alternative GW-1 is $263,500. The present worth
costs in alternatives GW-2 to GW-5 are: $310,000, $1,640,000,
$2,250,000, and $1,380,000, respectively (see Table 20). Of the
treatment alternatives, GW-5 would be the most cost effective.
Overall, GW-l would be the most cost efficient proportional to
its effectiveness.
8. State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selection of alternative
GW-1. The State believes additional hydrogeological
investigations are necessary to ensure that the selection of
GW-l is protective of human health and the environment.
9. Community Acceptance
The community has raised no objections to alternative GW-1 as the
preferable alternative. Several concerns were raised during the
public comment period. These concerns are addressed in detail in
the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix E). In general, the
principal concerns are related to the potential health risk to
the people living or working around the site.
SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy combines the drums and soil treatment
alternative SC-4 with the no further action alternative for
groundwater GW-1. The EPA believes that this combination of
alternatives best satisfies the criteria used to evaluate
alternatives. Cost estimates associated with the preferred
alternative are:
Capital Cost: $644,000
Present Worth: $907,500
The preferred alternative will involve the following actions:
Drums located in two areas of the Site will be removed,
overpacked as necessary, and transported off-site to a permitted
treatment and disposal facility. The drums in both areas are
close to the surface. A shovel and a backhoe will be used to
remove the overlying soil. In some areas of the Site the
groundwater is very close to the surface, therefore it may be
necessary to construct dewatering trenches upgradient of drum
excavation areas in order to control groundwater intrusion. The
soil surrounding the drums will be placed in a designated area
and tested. If found to be contaminated it will be placed with
the other contaminated soil and treated using on-site low
temperature thermal treatment. Highly contaminated soil
contiguous to the drums (if present) may be sent off-site with
the drums.
28
-------
An initial cleanup level has been established which will result
in all soils being treated at acceptable risk-based levels, i.e.
10' risk levels. For the indicator chemicals, this will result
in cleanup levels of 14 ppm for 2-butanohe, 0.2 ppm for
trichloroethene, 3.3 ppm for toluene, and 6.6 ppm for 2-methyl-
2-pentanone. These numbers are based on the maximum soil
concentrations encountered and a treatment efficiency of 99.9%,
using a low temperature thermal treatment system. Average
cleanup levels (reflecting lower contaminant concentrations) will
be proportionally lower.
During the design phase, a more sophisticated soil-to-groundwater
model will be used to determine whether different soil quantities
and/or greater treatment efficiencies are required in order to
protect the groundwater. The cleanup levels derived from the
modeling effort will represent average contaminant concentrations
of the indicator chemicals in the soil which will theoretically
produce contaminant concentrations in the groundwater at the
nearest receptor which meet potable water standards. The nearest
receptor is considered to be the Sarney residence.
It is estimated that 2,365 cubic yards of soil will require
treatment. However, this estimate will be refined during the
soil sampling to be conducted as part of the design phase
(including soil gas locations Z-0 to 2-18). Excavated soil will
be transported to an on-site treatment facility i.e., a low
temperature thermal treatment system. The thermal treatment
process will be designed to handle 5 cubic yards of soil per
hour. The treated soil will then be removed and tested to ensure
that the soil no longer contains hazardous constituents above
health-based levels and has achieved the health based clean up
levels specified. This treatment will reduce the level of all
indicator chemicals to below the health based clean-up criteria.
The treated soil will then be used to backfill the excavated
areas on site. This will eliminate the potential migration of
contaminants from the contaminated drums and soils into the
groundwater or surface water.
Natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination (e.g.
biodegradation, dilution, dispersion) will reduce the levels of
contaminants in the Site aquifer and the potential risk to the
public from contamination will be eliminated. The slow nature of
the groundwater flow on the site will serve to maximize the
effectiveness of natural attenuation processes via
biodegradation, volatilization and groundwater dilution. These
naturally occurring processes should serve to attenuate the
groundwater contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels over
time (approximately 30 years). Until that time, deed
restrictions will be placed on the property to prevent the use of
ground water in Areas 2 and 4. The long-term monitoring program
will be designed to include surface water, groundwater, and
29
-------
residential well sampling to verify that the remedy continues to
be protective. The remedy will also include testing to better
define the site hydrogeological conditions, including: evaluation
of topographical features (i.e., bedrock outcrops), the
measurement of water levels and the performance of "Packer Tests"
in the bedrock wells. Pending the results from this testing,
additional monitoring wells may be installed; the number and
location would be determined at the time. The monitoring program
and the hydrogeological testing, which will incorporate the five
year review, will be further delineated during the remedial
design phase of the project. These activities and the required
five year review process will ensure that in the future, if there
is evidence of significant changes in conditions which present a
significant risk to human health or the environment, appropriate
remedial action will be taken.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-4 is considered fully responsive to this criterion
and to the identified remedial response objectives. Removal of
the drums and treatment of soils on-site will prevent the release
of contaminants to the environment and will constitute excellent
protection of both human health and the environment. Natural
attenuation of the groundwater contamination (GW-l) will reduce
the levels of contaminants in the Site aquifer. The minor
potential risk to the public from groundwater contamination
should be eliminated by removal of the source and natural
attenuation. The long-term monitoring program will ensure that
public health is protected.
2. Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy for source control, SC-4: off-site
treatment/disposal of drummed wastes and on-site treatment of
contaminated soils via low temperature enhanced volatilization,
will comply with all related chemical-, action-, and location-
specific ARARs. The off-site facility will be fully RCRA
permitted and, therefore, will meet applicable regulations.
Wastes will be treated using specific technologies or specific
treatment levels. The selected source control remedy will be in
compliance with ARARs such as the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. In addition,
contaminated soils will be treated to health-based levels. Since
the treated soils would no longer contain hazardous constituents
above health-based levels, they could be redeposited onsite in
compliance with all RCRA standards.
The selected groundwater remedy, GW-l: no action with provisions
for long-term monitoring and hydrogeological testing, will comply
with the associated ARARs over time. They include: NY
30
-------
Groundvater Quality Standards; and Federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs).
A summary of ARARs associated with the selected remedy is
presented in Table 21.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective in that it provides overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. Alternative SC-4 is less
expensive to implement than SC-5 and treatment will be conducted
primarily on-site. Alternative GW-1 is the least expensive
groundwater alternative and it is not expected to have any long-
term impact on human health or the environment. Based on the
information generated during the RI/FS, the estimated present
worth cost for this remedy is $907,500, and the capital cost is
$644,000.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy is considered to be a permanent remedial action, since the
drums will be permanently removed off-site and treated and the
contaminated soils will be treated on-site. The potential for
future release of the waste to the environment will be
eliminated. Treatment will reduce and/or eliminate the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the contaminants. Treatment of
contaminated groundwater at the site is not considered
practicable for treatment due to technical factors such as
locating the "plume" and properly placing extraction wells. For
this reason, and because EPA believes that natural attenuation
will restore the aquifer within 30 years, a no action alternative
which includes a monitoring program and deed restrictions, is
considered to be protective.
No adverse impacts and threats to human health and the
environment are foreseen as the result of implementing the
selected remedy. Workers on-site during activities could
potentially be exposed to contaminants. However, to minimize
and/or prevent such exposures, personal protection equipment will
be used.
The selected remedy will require some construction for on-site
soil treatment and a monitoring program for groundwater. No
technological problems should arise as all the treatment
technologies are well established and possess a proven track
record.
31
-------
5. Preference for Treatment as the Principal Element
The selected remedy fully satisfies this criterion for the source
of contamination which is considered the principal threat at the
site.. Groundwater will not be treated due to minimal
contamination and because EPA believes that natural attenuation
will restore the aquifer within 30 years. The groundwater will
be carefully monitored to ensure protection of human health and
the environment. If deemed necessary and feasible groundwater
treatment will be provided in the future. The wastes found at
the site indicate that treatment methods (e.g. off-site
incineration, low-temperature soil treatment) will need to be
used. Incineration will be the preferred technology for drums
located in two areas of the site. The drums will be sent off-
site to a RCRA permitted treatment and disposal facility.
Groundwater will be monitored on a long-terr basis to see if
there is any significant change in conditions. As noted
previously, groundwater is expected to reach MCLs in 30 years
once the source of contamination is removed (contaminated soils
and drums). Although this period will be somewhat longer than
the 20 years estimated under any of the treatment alternatives,
it should be considered that the efficiency of the treatment
alternatives is questionable.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Sarney Farm site was released to the
public on May 11, 1990. The Proposed Plan identified alternative
SC-4 combined with Alternative GW-1 as the preferred
alternative. EPA reviewed all written and verbal comments
submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of these
comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the
selected remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed
Plan, were necessary.
32
-------
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
-------
^..
5**i«* *
, ^lirv.
- I. •'. -
>/ -" . '--^7Sx/: ""^ '
' • ^-' ' ,.?^..
- \- —'-'• -«ii -•"• - --- f
W-
/7/V^r' •
y';N>^
i .
-••Vx.'-l
VASSAIC /+'•* •
JJover Plains ;
i M i V -^ A ' •
:\vxV-.:-. \ ^^-/j.
^^ 'v :A
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
8ARNEY PROPERTY SITE
BASE MAP.-USGS. 1984
JFttURE 1
LOCATION MAP
CONTOUP IMTC4VAL JO
UOMTIC «t*Tie*i- O*TVH o> nn
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-------
WATERING HOLE 'I ,'TTV
FORMER 5 ACRE, /,/ /,' / j
SANITARY LANDPILL. // / /
\ I
SARNEY RESIDENCE
TREELINE
RESIDENCE
AREA NO. 1
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SARNEY PROPERTY SITE
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-------
CLEAr.'.Sj
IN WOODS
f , £L EAVER_ SWA MP^
AREA 4 TEST PIT WATER:
12-DIC*LOROETHANE:1.950
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE:2.270
- FORMER 5 ACRE
PERMITTED LANDF
SAPJSEY RESIDENT
CULVERT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SARNEY PROPERTY SITE
_SOO
"SCALE IN FEET
LEACHATE AND TF.ST PIT WATER RESULTS.ppb
-
TEST PIT WATER AND LEACHATE
RESULTS FOR U-DICHLOROETHAN*
AND TETflACHLC «OET -N LENE.
1982 AND 196*
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
-------
VINCHIAREUO
n DEPTH UNKNOWN
KEY:
HI RESIDENCE
• WEIL (OtPm m FEET)
J KELt. SAMPLED
CAPO F/tf. 00 NOT fffMSf IF VMIU4U.Y.
250 0 250
•
SCAI.E III FEET
I | OAIT «Y
EIIASCO SER'/ICLS IHCORPOR.iIEJ
MPI
0»lf
iC'lf .
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AKENCY
RESIOENIIAL »(ELL
'.OCAIIOMS
IP*
ajio.oo*
It i—
FIGURE 4
-------
FIGURE 5
EXISTING ON-SITF, GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
COLLECTION/
TREATMENT
TANK WITH
TWO AIR LIFTS
AIR AIR
Q
PACKED
BED OF
IMBIBER
BEADS
ACTIVATED
CARBON
BED
DISCHARGE TO
CLEAVER SWAMP
-------
APPENDIX B. TABLES
-------
TABLE 1 .
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN TEST PIT SOILS
COMPOUND
•• Class : SEMIVOLATILE (ppb)
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Nitrophenol
Phenanthrene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
No. of Sairptes = 23
1
2
3
1
1
7
2
3440.00 9
5
47.00 J
5000.00
56.00 J
82.00 J
260.00 J
79.00 J
480.00 J
150.00 J
55.00 J
47.00 J
10000.00 J
15000.00 J
82.00 J
280.00 J
2700.00
4600.00 J
84000.00 BD
1300.00 J
47.00
7500.00
5180.00
82.00
280.00
855.40
2540.00
15600.00
357.00
•• Class : VOLATILE
Methylene Chloride
*:s::-.e
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
TricfUoroethene
Benxene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Toluene
NO. of Samples * 23
4.00 J
17.00 J
2.00 J
6.00
17.00 J
3.00 J
1.00 J
14.00 B
2.00 J
4.00 J
17. OC J
2.00 J
6.00
14COOOOO.OO J
220000.00
1.00 J
6600000.00
3300000.00
4.00
17.00
2.00
6.00
3340000.00
110000.00
1.00
1370000.00
723000.00
•• Class : PESTICIDE / PCB (ppb)
Aroelor • 1254
510.00
Nc. of Samples » 23
510.00 510.00
•• Class : METALS
Alininun
Antimony
Arsenic
Bar inn
Beryl I tun
Cadmiun
Calciun
Chroniiim
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesiun
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potasxiun
Sodiin
Thai I tun
Vanadiun
Zinc
(ppn)
No. of Samples * 23
6490.00
4.40 J
1.20 J
17.10
0.61
0.54 J
486.00
7.60
3.60
10.50 J
11300.00
4.30 J
7320.00
239.00 J
0.10 J
10.00
1360.00 J
62.40
0.54 J
11.50 J
19.10 J
25900.00
7.60 J
9.00 J
57.80
3.90
63.80
131000.00 J
59.90 J
22.30 J
86.20 J
38800.00
134.00
68800.00 J
753.00 J
0.25 J
37.00
3060.00
456.00
0.62 J
47.30
85.70 J
15200.00
6.00
3.79
36.40
2.05
4.65
53300.00
24.40
10.60
26.60
23200.00
18.60
40900.00
660.00
0.16
22.90
2110.00
267.00
0.58
28.90
46.80
13800.00
5.78
3.57
1.24
14100.00
21.80
9.47
23.30
21400.00
11.40
30400.00
441.00
0.16
21.20
2050.00
0.58
26.40
42.60
23
2
23
u
11
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
7
23
23
12
2
23
23
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SOIL BORING SOILS
COMPOUND
•• Class : SEMIVOLATILE (ppb)
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Di-n-Dutytphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 3
•• Class : VOLATILE
MINIMUM
29000.00
3600.00
26000.00 J
60.00 J
330.00 J
4.00 j
6.00 J
1.00 J
15.00
1.00 J
2.00 J
2.00 J
4.00 J
12.00 J
5.00 J
995.00
13.10 J
0.45 J
10.60
0.72
0.67
1580.00
8.70
4.10
. 4.30 J
9700.00
5.30 J
11700.00
221.00 J
0.09
5.90
724.00
2.30 J
421.00
0.11 J
12.30
24.00
MAXIMUM
43000. 00 D
4500.00
43000.00 0
6200.00
6*0.00 J
4.00 J
75.00
1.00 J
15.00
2.00 J
1100.00 JD
4.00 J
4.00 J
18000. OC J
2600000.00
36500.00
13.10 J
9.20
81.60
2.40
8.90 J
147000.00
54.40 J
20.70
59.60 J
37800.00
23.50
86000.00
1880.00 J
0.30 J
34.40 J
13400.00
2.40 J
446.00
0.56 J
58.90
115.00 J
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
No. of Samples
36000.00
4050.00
345CO.OO
2153.30
485.00
Mo. of Samples
4.00
32.30
1.00
15.00
1.80
166.00
3.00
4.00
3056.50
3250CC.OO
No. of Samples
11200.00
13.10
2.84
34.30
1.63
1.62
80400.00
19.50
9.25
22.30
20800.00
10.75
49200.00
457.00
0.19
19.60
2500.00
2.35
429.00
C.26
23.80
49.10
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
= 21
= 23
30.70
= 22
9130.00
13.10
2.27
1.57
1.16
36800.00
17.10
8.53
19500.00
44800.00
403.00
0.16
17.70
1930.00
0.22
18.90
NO. OF
DETECTS
2
2
2
6
2
1
10
1
1
5
6
3
2
6
8
22
1
22
13
19
18
22
22
22
19
22
15
22
22
2
22
22
2
3
9
22
15
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
1,1-Diehloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Chloroform
2-Butanone
7,-icntoroethene
Benzene
4-MethyI-2-Pentanone
Toluene
•• Class : METALS (ppm)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Bariun
Beryl I tun
Cadmium
Caicium
Chr onion
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
Magnes i urn
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potass inn
Silver
Sodium
Thai I ion
Vanadium
Zinc
8enzo(b)Fluoranther>e and BenzodOFluoranthene are isomers that coeluted.
The value given is the total amount for both isomers.
-------
COMPOUJ
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN WELL BORING SOILS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
•• Class : SEMI VOLATILE (ppb)
Di-n-Butylphthalate
•• Class : VOLATILE (ppb)
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
CMcroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-6jtanone
Tr icMoroethene
Toluene
Chi ora&eniene
•• Class : METALS (ppm)
Ar.: itncny
Arsenic
Bar 11x1
Bcry! I iun
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Scleiium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC NO. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
45.00 J
NO. of Samples = 25
45.00 J *5.00
No. of Samples = 23
6.00
360.00 J
1.00 J
6.00
5.00 J
2.00 J
1.00 J
2.00 J
5420.00
18.00 J
2.00 J
17.20
0.64
0.34
6250.00
9.60
4.50
10.50 J
11300.00
4.80
15100.00
319.00 J
0.16
12.90
1290.00
0.54 J
82.00
0.55 J
10.80
22.50 J
53.00 J
360.00 J
15.00 J
8.00
5.00 J
2.00 J
7.00 J
2.00 J
NO.
29200.00
18.00 J
19.70
102.00
2.8C
1.90 J
132000.00
44.10.
30.10
89.00 J
43200.00
36.90
81700.00
1560.00 J
2.60
51.80
6200.00
0.69 J
393.00
0.60 J
59.90
113.00 J
21.20
360.00
3.80
7.00
5.00
2.00
3.10
2.0C
o< Samples
12300.00
18.00
5.92
48.70
1.80
1.00
62400.00
18.80
11.90
29.20
23800.00
10.80
42900.00
698.00
0.98
25.50
2910.00
0.60
212.00
0.58
24.30
53.20
* 22
11700.00
18.00
4.65
44.80
0.90
50100.00
17.60
10.20
24.30
22100.00
38700.00
624.00
0.43
23.60
2700.00
0.60
190.00
22.00
47.80
6
1
5
2
22
1
22
22
9
16
22
22
22
22
22
21
22
22
3
22
22
4
19
2
22
22
-------
11/28/89
TABIE
HORHAl BACKGROUND SOIL IMORf.AMIC IEVEIS (IDQ/I )
Compounds
General
Alluvial
r.laciat Till
Site Background
Ant imony
Arsenic
Beryl 1 ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
lead
Nercury
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
line
„
5
-------
COMPOUND
•• Class : NETALS
A I mi nun
Arsenic
Bar-Sun
Calciun
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassim
Sod i in
Vanadivn
Zinc
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF INORGANICS DETECTED IN BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLES
(ppn)
MINIMUM
7110.00
2.00 J
19.70
1.10 J
91600.00
6.90
5.60
16.20 J
12100.00
(.30 J
65100.00
301.00
9.70
1430.00 J
62.90
13.00
23.40
MAXIMUM
10300.00
2.00
30.20
1.10
108000.00
15.30
7.60
25.00
16900.00
6.50
74100.00
319.00
12.80
2150.00
80.60
19.00
3C.OO
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN MEAN.
No. of Samples = 2
8710.00
2.00
25.00
J 1.10
99800.00
12.10
6.60
J 20.60
U5CC.OO
J 5.40
67600.00
310.00
11. 3C
J 1790.00
71.80
16.00
26.70
NC. Of
DETECTS
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-------
RESULTS OF WATER SAMPLES
IHG REMOVAL ACTION (1987)
.mpgyjld.
1LAT1LES (ppb)
•thylene chloride
.•ichlorofluo route thane
. 1-dlchloroethylene
. 1-dichloroethane
rans-1,2-dichloroethylene
ichlorodi fluoromethane
,2-dichloroelhane
. 1, 1-tHchloroethane
richloroethylene
iiluene
otal xylenes"
iietone*
-hexanone*
-nwthyl-2-hexane*
-butanone*
etrahydrofuran*
OTAL HETALS (ppb)
ntimony
rsanic
admium
upper
licVel
ihallturn
inc
total Phenol (ppb)
Tank
11/19/87
Tank
11/25/87
i
Tank
12/2/87
Tank
12/9/87
Tank
12/15/87
Tank
12/30/87
Discharge
12/30/87
MA
Frequency Range
HO-7.8
7.8
10
10
•10
20
36000
7.8
93
26
30
3
32
76
5
9
1200
32
220
74
1-1
10
b
"*
-
—
-
-
-
-
94
-
—
69
-
-
10
20
5
10
10
7.7
12
4
76
81
10
10
10
10
10
7.4
62
49
10
10
10
3/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
4/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
NO-93
NO-26
NO-4
ND-30
ND-3
NO-32
NO-76
NO-5
NO-9
HO- 1200
4/7
1/7
2/7
3/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
HD-20
HO-5
NO- 10
HO- 10
MO-40
MD-20
HO-02
1/7
ND-36000
lotes
>ource of data: Provided by McGahren.
• = Compound was not detected
.10 z Not detected
rlA = Not available
• = These compounds were tentatively identified. They were not done as part of the regular analysis.
I709K
-------
TABLE 7
RESULTS OF TEST PIT WATER. LEACHATE. AW) ' .>ND WATER SAMPLES
SARNEY PROPERTY. I')RO ID I M4
Parameter!
ORGAN1CS (pobl
Beniene
Chloroform
0Ibrorachloro-
methane
1,2-dichloroethane
Methylen* chloride
Phenols
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
frans-1,2-
rfichloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane
Trichloroethylene
METALS (pobl
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Chloride
pH
TOC (ppm)
Area
Pit
Water
1982
2.3
38.7
2.3
1.6
10
750
35
10
NA
7.4
NA
1.8
20
1600
9
90
NA
6.9
NA
1.2
10
3B50
7
40
MA
7.6
NA
Area 4
I'it
Water
_J962
58.7
187
24.9
1950
18.2
2270
120
210
84.4
12
10
3610
5
60
90
19000
6.
NA
Livestock
Pond
13QO
Livestock
Pond
NE Corner
Leachate
1984
NA
23
NA
NA
4200
9
9200
;.i
13
')HO
NA
HA
3200
20
9300
NA
NA
1/7
2/7
2/7
2/7
3/6
2/7
1/6
1/6
1/7
2/7
1/7
4/7
7/7
5/7
1/7
5/7
3/3
5/5
1/1
Range
NO-58.7
NO-187
Nfi-24.9
NO-I950
ND-18.2
ND-23
ND-2270
NO-120
ND-230
ND-8'1.4
MO-12
NO-20
750-4200
NO-35
NO-bO
ND-90
9200-19000
6.4-7.6
13
NOTES:
Source of data: Provided by McCahren. 1988.
- Compound was not detected.
NO - Not detected
NA - Not available
0766K
-------
RESULTS Or RESlDTTJTIAl wr.ll SAMPLES
WICIMIIY OF SARNEV PROPERTY SHE
ConauunJs
Barry
Barry Duplicate Rogers
7/8/86 7/8/00 7/8/86
Taylor P. Tabor B. Tabor
7/8/86 _ZZ2/_gjL_ 7/9/86 6/16/86 6/16/86
N.Benson C. Benson Pleasanton J. Benson Sherman
6/16/86 6/18/06
Stranq
_£/JQ/06_ _OY ! U.ZI16. .
VOLATILES (ppb)
Acetone 6J 7J 7J 9J 3J 6J
Chloroform - IJ
Styrene - - - - -
SEHIVQIATILES (ppb)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthai ate 3J
INORGANICS (ppb)
Aluminum ______
Barium ______
Cadmium
Calcium 65800 63400 81000 67700 49200 63000
Chromium 13 - - It 13
Copper - - - - - •
Iron 80 J 30 J 485 69J 2680 1830
Lead R R R R R R
Magnesium 27200 26200 36600 27800 25800 29600
Manganese - - 113 - 16 120
Mercury ______
Nickel ______
Potas.ium 2970J 2630J 4210J 1490J 3950J 3b30J
Sodium 2830J 2790J 5300 4090J 4000 4910
Zinc R R R R R
R
8.7
3IJ
88300
9.4J
1300
44900
22
0.3
6040
8750
I4J
63J
80000
23J
3680
38200
4330
6560
7410
9.5J
28J
55900
11J
98J
5.2
27000
4820J
4090J
43
69000
31
26J
37200
24400
2160J
I2J
22J
90000
22J
34J
5.4
46600
4430J
77200
34
41J
29J
85700
16J
1540
42400
55
5660
16000
69
0766K
-------
TABLE * (Cont'd)
RESULTS OF RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLES
VICINITY OF SARNEY PROPERTY SITE
Compoundt
rfdd
L.O^nvon W. Brown Hurlburt
6/18/B6 6/1 9/86 6/19/86 6/19/66
d d
Keller Vinchiarello
6/20/B6
VOLAT1LES (ppb)
Acetone
Chlorofom
Styrene
SEMI VOLATILE* (ppb)
Bi*(2-ethy1he»yl)
phthalate
3J
-
-
-
INORGANICS (ppb)
Aluitinun
Bar < urn
Cadniun
Calcium
Chroniuff
Copper
Iron
Lead
Hagnes i un
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sod i un
Zinc
45J
36J
-
81300
_
8.4J
60J
_
39100
-
—
6.SJ
4660J
'-
12200
I2J
33J
20J
—
79500
_
8J
21J
-
38500
-
—
—
5310
-
8770
302
_
-
—
64500
_
7.3J
43J
—
33200
-
—
—
3200J
-
2780J
27
3U
-
-
75300
_
IIJ
38J
-
34400
-
-
-
ZL'SOJ
-
26200
I5J
_
I3J
-
53000
—
7.2J
68J
—
22700
-
-
-
4I80J
-
4I60J
I6J
Clapper
6/I8/B6
25J
95900
IIJ
144
48400
17
4770J
21000
I6J
F. Brown
6/18/86^
22J
95300
8.9J
46400
53bO
51300
17J
d Hewlett1*
Hewlett Duplicate
6/17/86^ 6/17/86
21J
65800
IIJ
23-10
32000
21
43IOJ
3520J
25
39J
I2J
65100
20J
1700
31900
18
6.3J
4530J
4020J
38
Sarney
8/7/85
IJ
NA
BL
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
BL
Sarney
Uupl 11.ate
8/7/85
5J
20
NA
BL
NA
NA
NA
NA
29
NA
BL
0766K
-------
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUMDUAIER ROUND-I ANALYSES
COMPOUND
•• Class : SEMI VOLATILE
DI-n-Butylphthalate
Butytbeniylph that ate
•• Class
VOLATILE
CM orome thane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulflde
1. 1-Olehloroethene
1, 1 -Di eh toroe thane
Chloroform
1 ,2-0 I chloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichl oroe thane
Trichloroethene
Bentene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Henanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobeniene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene
(P(H)-Xylene
0-Xylene
Trichlorof luoromethane
cis- 1,2-0 ich toroe theno
N-Propy I benzene
,3,5-Trimetylbentehe
,2,4-Trimethylbeniene
, 3-Oi Chlorobeniene
,4-Oichlorohen/cnc
,2-Dichloroben/eno
,2.4 -Tr ichlorobenicMc
N.iplithalene
1 ,2,3-1 r ichlorobcn/cno
OVERBURDEN UEIIS
MINIMUM
71.00
4.00 J
0.70 J
3.90 J
0.40 J
0.60 J
0.40 J
0.20 J
2.30
1.10
0.20 J
0.40 J
0.10 J
0.50 J
0.60 J
0.80 J
71.00 JB
0.30 J
0.10 J
0.20 J
O.tO J
0.80 J
0.60 J
i.no
1.00
0.80 J
0.20 J
o.cn j
0.20 J
MAXIMUM
No.
120.00
9.00 J
No.
0.70 J
3.90 J
0.40 J
0.60 J
0.40 J
0.20 J
2.30
1.10
0.50 J
0.60 J
0.10 J
4.30
0.60 J
O.BO J
71.00 JB
0.30 J
0.10 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
0.80 J
O.tO J
t.on
l.(M)
O.HII j
O.?0 J
0.40 J
0.20 J
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
of Samples
95.70
6.50
of Samples
0.70
3.90
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.20
2.30
1.10
0.30
0.50
0.10
2.40
0.60
0.80
71.00
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.80
0.70
1.00
1.00
O.BH
0.20
0.40
0.20
MEAN
No. OF
DETECTS
= 8
BEDROCK WELLS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM ARITHMATIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
No. of Samples = 5
No. of Samples = 5
3
2
1
2
2
3
14.00 J
0.60 J
52.00 J
0.10 J
0.60 J
0.40 J
16.00 J
1.20
0.40 J
0.20 J
0.30 J
0.40 J
1.20
0.70 J
0.20 J
0.70 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
0.10 J
o.jn j
0.20 J
14.00 J
0.60 J
52.00 J
1.60
1.00
0.40 J
131.00 J
1.20
1.50
0.50 J
0.30 J
0.50 J
1.60
0.90 J
0.40 J
3.10
0.20 J
0.20 J
0.90 J
1.50
0.20 J
14.00
0.60
52.00
0.90
0.80
0.40
60.00
1.20
1.00
0.40
0.30
0.50
1.40
0.80
0.30
1.90
0.20
0.20
0.50
0.90
0.20
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
2
0^30 3
1
2
2
2
2
1.60 3
I
2
0.40 3
-------
TA81E 9A (Conl,).)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDUAIER ROUND-I ANAITSES
OVERBURDEN WELLS
BEDROCK VEILS
COMPOUND MINIMUM
•• Class :
Alunlmm
Arsenic
Bariun
Calciun
Chromlun
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
Magneslu*
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potasslui
Sodlun
Vanadlun
Zinc
•• Class :
Aluminum
Arsenic
Bariun
Catciim
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Polasslun
Sodlun
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL METALS (ppb)
5570.00
2.00 J
39.00
78300.00
13.00 J
5.30
12.00
7050.00
5.60
48900.00 J
364.00 J
0.24
18.30
2960.00
1140.00
14.00
57.40 J
DISSOLVED METALS (ppb)
9.00
57200.00
31200.00
15.00 J
1880.00
1080.00 J
3.00
MAXIMUM
No.
54900.00 J
2.00 J
277.00 J
244000.00
106.00
46.00
134.00 J
87100.00 J
9.00 J
175000.00 J
4560.00
0.24
111.00
13300.00 J
2770.00 J
93.70
406.00 J
No.
44.30
67500.00
35800.00
53.40
4040.00 J
2000.00 J
4.00
ARITHHATIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
MEAN
of Samples =
26428.30
2.00
105.70
124075.00
44.50
18.30
52.10
33011.30
6.90
80862.50
1336.40
0.24
50.00
6787.50
2076.30
38.90
165.20
of Samples =
20.38
61075.00
33225.00
29.60
2822.50
1605.00
3.50
MEAN DETECTS
8
20274
32
6496
18
8
20
2429
4836
200
17
732
327
.14
67
4
6
1
8
8
a
7
8
8
3
8
a
2
7
8
8
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
MINIMUM
200.00
2.20 J
9.10
16600.00
6.90
1040.00
2.50 J
13000.00
16. SO J
4.50-
5050.00
2400.00
2.30
IB. 30
21.10
2.20 J
3.90
8150.00
40.50
11900.00
4.00
5530.00
2390.00 J
9.30
3.00
MAXIMUM
No.
2440.00
3.40 J
25.50 J
60800.00
12.40
27700.00
12.70
34600.00
236.00 J
7.50
25900.00
13500.00
7.40
21.80 J
No.
121.00
2.20 J
15.60
59800.00
83.10 J
32700.00
51.80
2B400.00
14700.00 J
9.30
8.00
ARITHHATIC
MEAN
of Samples
936.60
2.80
19.00
37200.00
9.80
11996.00
6.40
22280.00
119.40
5.60
15074.00
7554.00
4.40
20.20
of Samples
63.70
2.20
9.00
32910.00
61.80
22120.00
16.40
17068.00
8162.00
9.30
5.60
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
= 5
669.30
17.70
33727.90
9.50
6668.10
5.30
21101.40
77.80
5,50
12233.90
5975.60
4.00
= 5
51.00
7.80
26627.90
58.00
20625.90
9.90
13728.60
6376.00
NO. or
DETECTS
5
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
4
1
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
1
3
-------
COMPOUND MINIMUM
•• Class : SENIVOLATILE (ppb)
Bentolc Acid
Pyrene 1.00 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 2.00 J
TABLE 9 n
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN CROUHOUAIER ROUND-11 ANALYSES
OVERBURDEN WELLS
MAXIMUM ARITHHATIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
Ho. of Samples = 6
1.00 J
14.00
1.00
8.80
6.96
MINIMUM
8.00 J
9.00 J
BEDROCK WELLS
MAXIMUM ARITHHATIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
No. of Samples = 3
8.00 J 8.00
17.00 13.00
•• Class : VOLATILE
Chtoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chioroethane
Carbon Dlsulflde
1,1-Dlchloroethane
Chloroform
t.2-0ichtoroethane
2-Butanone
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
4-Methyl -2-Pemanone
Toluene
Oichlorodi fluoromethane
Trlchlorofluoromethane
cis-I.Z-Dlchloroethene
1,4-Oichlorobeniene
(PPb)
No. of Samples = 6
No. of Samples = 3
0.26 J
0.30 JT
0.65 J
380.00 J
88. 50 J
0.20 J
0.40 J
29.40 J
130.00 J
0.76 J
0.54 J
0.55 J
2.40 J
0.26 J
0.30 JT
0.65 J
380.00 J
88.50 J
0.54
10.70J ,
29.40 J
130.00 J
0.76 J
3.03 J
0.55 J
2.40 J
0.26
0.30
0.70
380.00
88.50
0.40
5.60
29.40
130.00
O.RO
1.80
0.60
2.40
2.10 J
4.IOJ
2.0J J
0.70 J
1.10 J
2
7 0.44 J
1
1
1 J.80J
2
1 1.10J
1
2.10 J
4.10 J
2.0J J
1.40 J
1.10 J
1.70 J
3. BO J
2.60 J
2.10
4.10
2.03
1.00
1.10
0.90
3.80
1.60
-------
TAfllE
(I'.orml.)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETEC1ED IN CROUNOUAIFR RHINO-11 ANALYSES
OVERBURDEN WELLS
COHPOUHO
•• Class : TOTAL NCTALS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
MagnesliM
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
•• Class : DISSOLVED METALS
Aluminum
Bariin
Calcium
Iron
Magnesiun
Manganese
Potassiun
Sodium
Thallium
line
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC No. OF
HEAH MEAN DEIECIS
(ppb)
2270.00
9.20
66800.00
15.20 J
22.60
20.60
3950.00
3.10 J
37100.00
194.00
15.70
3(90.00
1550.00
20.00
47.00
S (ppb)
104.00
35.00
50900.00
44.00
30000.00
a. oo
1750.00
928.00
No.
34900.00
157.00
148000.00
75.90
23.90
64.50 J
52100.00
18.10 J
77700.00
2030.00
72.80 J
10600.00
3360.00
59.50
189.00
No.
160.00
64.00
69000.00
90.00
38200.00
131.00
3020.00
2860.00
of Samples =
16355.70
72.90
93771.40
33.80
23.10
47.10
24785.70
9. JO
53042.90
819.60
36.30
6507.10
2217.10
40.40
118.00
of Samples =
132.00
49.50
58725.00
67.00
33475.00
69.30
2193. JO
1939.50
7
10515
46
89859
29
43
16966
' 8
5K31
564
31
5911
2IJ7
J7
4
7
7
7
7
2
5
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
J
4
31.10
BEDROCK WELLS
MINIMUM
1070.00
5.00
8.70
1.70
15800.00
9.50
7070.00
3.80 J
19800.00
78.80
11700.00
6470.00
MAXIMUM
No.
5290.00
6.10
37.50
1.70
91900.00
14.10 J
11300.00
6.60 J
48900.00
188.00
28900.00
14800.00
ARITHMATIC
MEAN
of Samples
3460.00
5.60
21.20
1.70
63300.00
11.80
9030.00
5.70
36500.00
142.60
17966.70
9386.70
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
= 3
2833.70
17.90
49235.90
8864.90
5.50
34057.40
133.60
16506.10
8705.50
No. OF
DETECTS
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
10J.OO
57.90
50.30
Ho. of Sanples
10.00
38.00
24.00
2
2
4
2
4
4
J
4
J
67.00
7580.00
960.00
17100.00
2.00
10300.00
6680.00
0.60 J
5.00
74.00
47900.00
1040.00
21600.00
56.00
29600.00
15200.00
0.60 J
7.00
70.00
34393.30
1000.00
20300.00
29.00
16833.30
9623.30
0.60
6.00
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN RESIDENTIAL WELLS
COMPOL'D
•• Class : SEMIVOLATILE (ppb)
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-Bvjtylphthalate
•• Class : VOLATILE (ppb)
Chisromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
1.2-Oiehloroethane
1 , 2-DicMoroprcpane
Tric.u. ioroethene
2-He«anor.e
CMorcbenzene
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
•• Class : TOTAL METALS {ppb)
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
No. of Samples
Antimony
Bar iun
Calciun
Chromitm
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesiun
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Si Iver
Sodiin
Vanadiun
Zinc
4.00 J
2.00 J
0.90 J
0.10 J
0.20 J
3.00 J
0.20 J
2.10
0.30 J
0.10 J
1.40
22.00 J
23.00
4.00
44200.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
31.00
2.00 J
19400.00 J
3.00
6.00
1560.00 J
5.00
1890.00
4.00
16.00 J
4.00 J
3.00 J
No. of Samples
0.90 J
0.10 J
0.20 J
3.00 J
0.20 J
2.10
0.90 J
0.10 J
1.40
No. of Samples
74.00 J
23.00
34.00 J
85100.00
10.00 J
5.00
72.00
4110.00 J
5.00 J
40000.00 J
48.00 J
10.00
5560.00 J
145.00
67500.00
6.00
302.00 J
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN MEAN
* 11
4.00
2.30
= 11
0.90
0.10
0.20
3.00
0.20
2.10
0.50
0.10
1.40
NO. OF
DETECTS
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
= 12
48.00
23.00
15.00
66158.33
5.75
5.00
24.20
773.17
2.90
30041.67
17.00
8.22
3820.00
1-.67
16-.27.50
4.63
84.80
2
1
12
12
12
3
5
6
10
12
4
9
12
3
12
a
5
-------
TABLE M
RESULTS OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES FROM THE SARMEV PROPERIY SITE
JULY 9-10, 1986
Compound
Sw=fl3 s.H-04
S.IM16 sw-o_7 SW:08 sw:no S.VMQ sw-n $vM2 S.IM
VOA (oobl
Styrene - 8.7
BNA (ppb)
phenol - - -
2 methyl phenol - 12
4 methyl phenol - - -
INORGANICS (ppb)
Arsenic - - -
Chromium - - 12
Cobalt - -
Copper 22J - 22J
Lead HE - 19 12E
Mercury - - -
Nickel - -
Selenium - -
Vanadium - - -
Zinc R R 142 60
Cyanide - - - 12
NOTES:
Source of data: Provided by McGahren. 1988.
- Compound was not detected.
R - Indicates analysis was rejected
J - Value is estimated
-
38
-
73
45
105
42J
248
3J 564EJ
-
119
23M
228
51 983
-
-
_
-
-
-
34
—
74
148EJ
-
38
_
77
285
19
- - -
_ _ _
-
- - -
_
12
_ — «,
30
56 11 R
_
_
_
26
472 65 R
28
8.7 2/13
1/13
1/13
1/13
1/13
15 - 13 6/13
1/13
30 31 - 7/13
R R R 8/8
1.06 - 1/13
2/13
1/13
22 21 5/13
R R R 7/7
- 3/13
ND-8.7
ND-38
NO- 12
NO-73
ND-45
NO- 105
NO-42J
ND-248
3J-564EJ
NO- 1.06
NO- II 9
NO-23N
NO-228
51-983
NO-28
E - Serial dilution agreement was less than 10%
N - Spike sample recovery was outside of
d - These samples were done in duplicate.
NO - Not Detected
control limits
(75
The mean value is
to 125%)
presented here.
1709K
-------
TABLE 12
COMPOUND
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC No. Of
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
•• Class : SEMIVOLATILE (ppb)
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Pyrene
•• Class : VOLATILE (ppb)
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylent Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Triehloroethene
Benzene
T oIuene
Chlorobeniene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
(PSM)-Xylene
0-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
N-Propylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1.2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
N-Butylbenzene
1,2,4•T r i chIorobenzene
Hesachlorobutadiene
1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene
•• Class : TOTAL METALS (ppb)
Aluninun
Antimony
Arsenic
Bariun
Cactnium
CalcJLRi
Chromiun
Coo*It
Copper
Iron
lead
Magnesiun
Manganese
Nickel
No. of Samples = 13
38.00
160.00 J
2.00 J
0.50 J
68.000
2.40
0.70 J
1.30 J
0.20 J
4.50
0.20 J
0.30 J
3.00
•2.80
5.00BJ
3.50
2.20
0.40 J
0.20 J
1.00
0.10 J
0.20 J
0.20 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
0.10 J
0.10 J
0.30 J
0.60 J
0.50 J
29.00 J
28.00
, 52.00 J
7.00
7.00 J
19300.00
3.00 J
5.00
5.00
44.00 J
4.00 J
9360.00 J
22.00 J
6.00 J
38.00
160.00 J
3.00 J
No. of Samples
0.80 J
68.00 D
2.40
0.70 J
19.00 J
1.00
4.50
4.50
1.10 J
3.00
2.80
5.00BJ
3.50
2.20
0.40 J
. 1.10
1.00
0.10 J
0.20 J
0.20 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
0.10 J
0.10 J
0.30 J
0.60 J
0.50 J
No. of Samples
29.00 J
28.00
52.00 J
72.00 J
7.00 J
102000.00
6.00
8.00
7.00
89100.00
6.00 J
29400.00 J
571.00
12.00
= 13
38.00
160.00
2.50
0.63
68.00
40
70
10
0.42
4.50
1.43
0.73
3.00
SO
00
50
20
0.40
0.65
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.60
0.50
29.00
28.00
52.00
21.60
7.00
42560.00
4.67
6.33
6.25
18225.60
5.00
15730.00
224.40
9.50
3
1
1
1
6
6
1
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
1
5
3
3
4
5
3
5
5
4
-------
COMPOUND
TABLE 12 (Contd.)
SIWMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
ARITMMATJC GEOMETRIC NO. OF
MEAN MEAN .DETECTS
Class
TOTAL METALS (ppb)
(Contd.)
No. of Samples - 5
Potassium
Si Iver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
•• Class : DISSOLVED METALS
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Calcium
C *• * o1^ i um
Cera • t
:~«>**A r
c£oer
Iron
Lead
Magnes i um
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Si 1 ver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1560.00 J
6.00
1880.00
500
• wu
24.00 J
(PPb)
22.00
18.00
6.00
14200.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
48.00
2.00 J
6520.00
13.00
6.00
1660.00 J
5.00 J
840.00 J
3.00
7.00
11000.00 J
6.00
3630.00
6.00
24.00 J
No. of Samples
66.00 .
36.00
19.00
52100.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
140.00
2.00 J
2t7CO.OO
104.00
14.00
6800.00 J
8.00 J
2170.00 J
7.00
10.00
3964.00
6.00
2755.00
5.50
24.00
= 8
35.71
26.67
9.25
36937.50
4.14
5.50
4.00
94.00
2.00
'iBCSO.OO
66.88
9.17
2646.25
6.67
U2S.50
4.29
8.33
5
2
2
2
1
7
3
8
8
7
2
2
6
1
8
8
6
8
3
4
7
3
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SEDIMENT SOUS
COHPOUD MINIMUM
•• Class : SEM1VOLATILE (ppb)
Di-n-Butylphthalate 95.00 J
Pyrene 68.00 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyt)Phthalate 52.00 J
MAXIMUM ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC NO. OF
MEAN MEAN DETECTS
No. of Samples = 13
150.00 J 118.80 4
87.00 J 77.30 3
52.00 J 52.00 1
•• Class : VOLATILE Cppb)
No. of Sairples = 14
22.00 J 22.00 J 22.00
•* Class : METALS Cpprn)
Alur.inun
Arsenic
oa-i jr
Scry'. ! :LTI
Caenitn
Ca::;ir.
No. of Samples = 14
Cctalt
Copoer
Iron
Lead
Magnesiun
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Seleniv/n
Silver
Vanadiun
Zinc
2160.00
0.38 J
18.90 J
0.33
1.10
12100.00
9.40
5.30
8.80
4660.00
4.60 J
3630.00
64.70
8.20
463.00 J
0.76 J
0.93 J
8.5
15.60 J
21900
5.00
97.10 J
0.87
1.10
89400.00
32.70
12.70
176.00
26000.00
59.60 J
56500.00
1140.00
23.80
3510.00 J
10.90 J
1.30 J
42.90 J
74.10 J
9600.70
2.60
41.70
0.50
1.10
42735.70
16.00
8.30
34.00
.13831.40
19.90
25912.90
307.80
14.60
1228.30
4.80
1.10
21.30
46.10
4020.40
2.20
26.80
0.50
1.10
16929.70
11.30
6.40
19.60
6066.90
12.60
8494.00
171.10
10.80
597.40
2.80
1.10
14.80
30.90
U
U
14
10
1
14
12
11
14
14
14
14
14
12
14
3
2
13
14
-------
12/07/89
IABIE | A A
INDICATOR CHEMICALS FOR THE SARNEY FARM SITE
CHEMICAl
Volatiles
Vinyl chloride
Carbon dlsulfide
1,1-Oichloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Olehloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Bentene
(•Methyl -2-penlanone
Toluene
Chlorobentene
fthytbeniene
Trichtoroethene
Trlchlorof luorome thane
Chloromethane
Semi -vol at lies
Of-n-butyl phthalate
Naphthalene
2-Hethylnaphthnlcne
Bfs-2(ethylhe»yl )phthalate
Butyl bentyl phthalate
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
Inorganics
Arsenic
lead
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Grounduntcr
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
•
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
X
Soils
-
•
.
X
-
X
•
X
X
X
X
•
X
.
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
.
-
.
.
POND/STREAM SUAHP POND/STREAM
Sediments Sediments Surface Water
• • *
X
.
.
X
X
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
X
X
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
X
.
.
SWAMP
Surface Wnter
X
X .
-
.
X
X
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
-
X
.
.
.
.
' •
Indicates that the compound w.is detected nhove site h.icdgrounil level and h.is been selected as nn indicator for the medium.
Indicates that the compound w.is not selected a-.; .in indit.itor for the mediun.
-------
Table IAB. References Doses for the Tndlcntor Chemicals at tin; Snrney F.-irm Site
CHEMICAL
Noncarclnogens
Bis-2(ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Butanon*
Butyl beniyl phthai ate
Carbon Ditulffde
Chlorobeniene
Chloroform
1,1-0lchloro«than«
Olethylphthalate
Ol-n-butyt phthalete
Di-n-octyl phthalate****
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone*
lead**
2-Methylnaphthalene***
(•Methyl-2-pentanone
Naphthatene
Nickel
Total Phenolics t
Toluene
1.1.1-Trlehloroethene
Tlchlorofluoromethane
Vanadiun
Zinc
Oral
Reference Dose(b)
(mg/kg-day)
2.00E-02
5.00E-02
2.00E-OI
1.00E-OI
J.OOE-02
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
8.00E-01
1.00E-OI
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
5.00E-02
1.43E-04
4.00E-01
5.00E-02
4.00E-01
2.00E-02
6.00E-01
3.00E-OI
9.00E-02
3.00E-01
7.00E-OJ
2.00E-01
Source(a)
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
PMCL
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
Inhalation
Reference Dose(b)
(mg/kg-day)
Not Determined
9.00E-02
Not Determined
5.00E-03
Not Determined
1.00E-01
Not Determined
Not Determined
Mot Determined
Not Determined
2.00E-02
Not Determined
Not Determined
2.00E-02
Not Determined
Not Determined
Not Available
1.00E«00
3.00E*00
2.00E-01
Not Determined
Not Determined
Source(a)
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
PMCL
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
a) Source : HEA • Health Effects Assessment docunent
PMCL • Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level
b) These are the maximum acceptable dally intakes via oral ingest loo and Inhalation given by the EPA (1989).
* : RfOs are assumed to be the same as for 4-methyl -2-pentanooe on the basis of the compounds being Isomers.
** : A tentative value was computed by the USEPA using the proposed National Drinking Water Standard
of 5 ug/l (USEPA 1968) and a reference drinking rate of 2.0 I/day (USEPA 1986b).
**• : The oral RfO Is assumed to be the same as for naphthalene on the basis of the similarity of the two compounds.
Note : For those compounds where inhalation criteria are not available, the oral criteria will be applied as the inhalation criteria
in the evaluation of the potential risks.
•••• : The oral RfO is assumed to be the same as far bis(2-ethylh»*yt)phthalate on the basis of the similarity of the two compounds.
f : The oral RfO is conservatively assumed to be the same as that for phenol.
-------
CHEMICAL
IABLE . 14C
TOXICIIT CRITERIA USED FOR CARCINOGENIC INDICATOR CHEMICALS
Carcinogens
Arsenic
Beniene
Bls-2(ethylhexyt)phthalate
Chloroform
t,1-Dlchloroethane
1,2-Dlehtoroethane
1,2 -01 eh I oropropane
Trlchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Oral
(mq/kq-davr-1
Not Available
2.9E-02 (A)
1.4E-02 (82)
6.IE-03 (B2)
9.1E-02* (B2)
9.1E-02 (B2)
6.8E-02* (B2)
1.1E-02 (82)
2.3E*00« (A)
Source(a)
HEA
NEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
Inhalation
(mq/kq-dav)'-t
5.0E»01 (A)
2.9E-02 (A)
Not Determined
B.1E-02 (82)
Not Determined
9.1E-02 (B2)
Not Determined
I.3E-02* (82)
2.95E-01* (A)
Source(b)
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
•) Cancer potency factor for each exposure route as defined by IRIS (EPA, 1989) unless denoted by " • ". Alphanunerics
In bracket* represent EPA Weight of Evidence classifications, which are defined as follows:
Croup A • Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence from epidemiologlc studies to support a causal association between
exposure and cancer.
Croup Bl - Probable Human Carcinogen, limited evidence of carcinogenic!ty in humans from epidemiologlc studies.
Croup 82 - Probable Human Carcinogen. Sufficient evidence of carcinogenic!ty in animals, inadequate evidence of
carcinogenic Ity in humans.
Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen. Limited evidence of carcinogenic!ty In animals.
b) Source : HEA • Health Effects Assessment document
Note ! For those compounds where Inhalation criteria are not available, the oral criteria will be used as the cancer potency
factor in evaluating the potential risk posed by those compounds.
-------
11/Z8/B9
MULE 15A.
PRESENT-USE SCENARIOS AT 1116 SARMET FARM SITF
Present-Use Scenario Definitions
1. Site Surface Soils
•) Site and Area Residents
b) Site and Area Residents (Downwind)
c) farm Workers
2. Greundwater
•) Site and Area Residents
3. Surface Water In Downstream Ponds, Streams and Swamp
a) Site and Area Residents
b) Site and Area Residents (Downwind)
Circumstances of Ennosure
Recreational Use of Site /
Trespassing
Living Downwind of
Contaminated Areas
Working on Site
Use of Croundwater from
Current Residential wells
Recreational Use by Pond Owners
and local Residents / Trespassing
living on Site or Downwind
of Site
Ages Enoosed Pathways of E»posurg
All Ages Direct Contact / Ingcstion /
Inhalation of Suspended Soils
All Ages Inhalation of Volatile Organic
Compounds Released from Soil
Adults Direct Contact / Ingest ion /
Inhalation of Suspended Soils/
Inhalation of Volatile Organic
Compounds Released from Soil
All Ages Ingestion / Direct Contact /
Inhalation of Volatiles While
Showering
All Ages Ingestion / Direct Contact
All Ages Inhalation of Volatile Organic
Compour
-------
ii/?a/89
future-Use Scenario Definitions
1. Site Surface Sells
•) Site and Area Residents
b) Site and Area Residents
c) Farm Workers
lABIF
15B
MHIIBE-IISE SrtMARIOS Al I HE SABNFT MRM SI IF
Cifcunstances of Exposure
. living on Site
living Downwind or on
Contaminated Areas
Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Ages E»nosed
All Ages
All Ages
Pathways of Fnpos'ire
Direct Contact / Ingest Ion /
Inhalation of Suspended Soils
Inhalation of Volatiles
Released from Soil
Identical to Present- Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Use Scenario
2. Site Subsurface Soils
a) Construction Workers
b) Site Residents .
Working on Site
living on Site
Adults
All Ages
Direct Contact / Ingest ion /
Inhalation of Suspended Soils
Inhalation of VolatIle .Organic
Compounds in Basement Air
3. Croundwater
•) Site and Area Residents
Use of Croundwater from
Bedrock Aquifer (including
residential wells)
4. Surface Water In Downstream Ponds, Streams and Swamp
•) Site and Area Residents Identical to Present-Use Scenario
b) Site and Area Residents (Downwind)
Identical to Present-Use Scenario
All Ages
Ingest ion / Direct Contact /
Inhalation of Volatiles While
Showering
Identical to Present- Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Use Scenario
Identical to Present- Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Use Scenario
5. Sediments in Downstream Ponds, Streams and Swnnp
a) Site and Area Residents
Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Identical to Present- Identical to Present-Use Scenario
Use Scenario
-------
12/01/89
TABLE |fi
SARNtr FARM SUE
RISK 10 FARMWORKERS EXPOSED 10 SOILS
PREStMT-USE SCENARIO
PATHWAYS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soil
Inhalation
total from
all pathways
PAIHUATS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soil
Inhalal ion
Total from
all pathways
CARCINOGENS
Sifmat ion of
Worst-Case Compounds Representing Conpoimd
lifetime Cancer Risk Majority of risk CPF'CDI
2.07E-07 Trichloroethcne 1.KE-07
2.16E-07 Trichloroethcne I.19E-07
6.38E-09 M/A
4.29E-07 Trichloroethcne 2.33E-07
Sunmation of
Average-Case Compounds Representing Conpoiind
lifetime Cancer Risk Majority of risk CPF'COI
8.22E-10 M/A'
I.07E-IO M/A
1.40E-12 M/A
9.30E-IO N/A
NONCARCINOGENS
Simnat ion of
Worst -Case Compounds Representing Compound
Hazard Index Majority of risk COI:R(0 Ratio
3.40E-02 2-Butanonc 2.7SE-02
3.30E-02 2-Butanone 2.B7E-02
T.79E-03 M/A
6.88E-02 2-Butanone 5.62E-02
Suinut ion of
Average- case Compounds Representing Compound
Hatard lndi<» Majority of risk COI:RfO Ratio
4.1 IE -05 M/A
5.33E-06 N/A
7.17E-08 N/A
4.65E-05 N/A
(•) Exceeds Target Risk level of 1.0E-05.
(••) Eiceeds COI:RfO Ratio of One.
NA Not Applicable, calculated levels for each compound are two orders of m.iQni tiidu below risk levels.
-------
t/13/90
SAPMFf (OHM SI It
RISK io RESintNis ixPOSfo in sous
PRF.SENl (JSI SCtMAM Ml
PA1HUAYS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soil
Inhalation
r.AHCMinr.tNS
Sotinot ion of
Worst -Case Compounds Representing Compound
lifetime Cancer Risk Majority ol risk CPCCOI
2.12E-07 Irichlorocthcnc 1.161-07
1.58E-07 N/A
2.66E-09 M/A
Ground level 1.32E-OB N/A
volatile inhalation
lotal from
all pathways
PAIHUATS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soil
Inhalation
3.86E 07 Trichlorovthone 1.16E-07
Suninot ion ol
Average-Case Compounds Representing Compound
liletimo C. inter Risk Majority ol risk CPF'COI
I.2JE-09 N/A
I.10E-IO M/A
t.9«.E-U M/A
Ground level 7.3CE-M N/A
volatile inhalation
total Iron
all pathways
1.CIE-09 N/A
MOMCARCIMOGf MS
SuniKit ion of
Uorst-C.'isc Compounds Representing Con^raund
Mdinrrl liKlox Hnjority of risk CDI:RID Ratio
6.3U-02 2-Bulanonc 5.711 02
2.28E-02 2-Butanone 1.SIE-02
7.UE-04 M/A '•'
J.58E-03 M/A
9.02E 02 2-Butanone 7.22E-02
Stminat ion of
Average-case Confmtmds Representing Compound
ILitard Index Majority of risk COI:RIO Ratio
3.04.E-05 M/A
I.70E-06 M/A
B.76E 09 M/A
1.40E 07 M/A
3.22E 05 M/A
(•) Eiceerhi Ijrgot Risk level of I.(IF 05.
(••) CiceedH CDI:RfO Ratio of One.
MA Not Applicable, calculated levels lor each CO«{>OIIIK| .ire tun orders of m.iqniiude lie low risk levels.
-------
12/01/89
TABLE 16
SARHET FARM SITE
RISK 10 COMSIRUCIIOH WORKERS EXPOSED 10 SOILS
fUTURE-USE SCENARIO
PATHWAYS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soit
Inhalation
Total from
al 1 pathways
PATHWAYS
Soil
Ingest ion
Direct
Contact
Soil
Inhalation
lotal from
al 1 pathways
CARCINOGENS
Surma t Ion of
Worst-Case Compounds Representing Compound
lifetime Cancer Risk Majority of risk CPF'CDI
T.18E-Of N/A
1.23E-07 N/A
3.63E-09 N/A
2.45E-07 N/A
Sunmat ion of
Average-Case Compounds Representing Compound
lifetime Cancer Risk Majority of risk CPf'COl
2.17E-M N/A
2.8IE-12 N/A
3.64E-13 N/A
2.49E-1I N/A
Sunmntion of
Worst -Case
lifetime Cancer Risk
3.26E-01
«.m-01
/
1.47E-02
8.18E-OI
Si f uno t ion of
Average-case
lifetime Cancer Risk
1.0IE-05
1.3IE-06
1.73E-08
T.UE-05
NOHCARCINOCENS
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
2-Butanone
t-Methyl -2-Pcntanone
2-Butanone
4 -Methyl -2-Pentanone
Toluene
N/A
2-Butanone
4-Methyl -2-Pentanone
Toluene
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Compound
CDI:RfD Ratio
2.KE-OI
1.01E-01
3.T2E-01
1.47E-01
1.23E-02
5.26E-01
2.48E-OI
1.23E-02
Compound
CDI:RfO Ratio
(•» Exceeds Target Risk level of 10E-05.
(*•) Exceeds COItRIO Ratio of One.
NA Not Applicable, calculated levels for each compound are two orilors ol m.itjni lutle below risk levels.
-------
Mill I | j} (f.11.I'd)
•.AHNI r IflUM SI IF
KISk III UIMI'IMIS fXI'HSin II) SUMS
1111IIHI US! Sit MAM HI
CARCINflCtMS
NONCABC IMOGENS
PAIMVAYS
of
•vprage C.ise
Iifct imp Cancer Risk
Compounds Representing
Majority pi rist
Soil J.43E09
Ingi.-sl ion
Direct 2.4BE 10
Contact
Soil 1.2IE-12
Inhalat ion
Ground level I.88E-09
volatile inhalation
Basement model 1.52E-08
volatile inhalation
total from
all pathways
2.OBI-OB
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sunin.it ion of
Average-Cose
Hatnrd lndu«
1.39E IK
4.IOF
-------
<./!5/90
I AMI I |6
SA»NI Y rABM SI It
RISK IO KISIWNIS CXl'l)S(l) III
tlllUHE USE SUNARIU
CARCINOGENS
Sifitn.it ion of
Worst -Case
PATHWAYS Lifetime Cancer Risk
Soil 2.92E -Of
Ingest ion
Direct 2.16E 0?
Contact
Soil 3.27E 09
Inhalation
Ground level \.7\l 07
volatile inhalation
Basement model 3.04E-03
volatile inhalation
Total from 3.04E 03
all pathways
Compounds Representing
Majority. of risk
Trichloroethene
Bis(2-Ethylhe«yl)
Phthalale
Irichloroethene
N/A
N/A
• Irichloroethcne
* Chloroform
• Bentene
• Irichloroethcne
• Chloroform
* Benicne
Bis(2 Ethylhe.yl )
Phthalate
Compound
CPF'COI
1.60E-07
1.31E-07
i.wt-07
--
2.52E-03
4.80E 04
3.73E-05
2.52E 03
4.80E-04
3.73E 05
1.31E-07
NONCARC IMOGENS
Sunniol ion of
Worst -Case Compounds Representing
lloi.ird Index Majority of risk
1.621-01 2-Butanone
4-Hethyl -2-Pentanonc
3.33E-02 2-Butanone
5. WE 04 N/A
4.64E-02 2-Butanone
6.7BE»02 •• 2-Butanone
•• 4-Hethyl-2-Pentanone
•• Toluene
6.7HE«02 •• 2-Butanone
•• 4-Methy(-2-Pentanone
•• toluene
Compound
COI :RfO Ratio
1.08E-01
4.39E-02
2.21E-02
--
3.73E-02
4.36E»02
2.33E»02
7.75E»00
4.36E»02
2.33E»02
7.75E»00
(•) Exceeds target Risk level of l.OE-05.
(••) Exceeds COI:RfO Ratio of One.
MA Mot Applicable, calculated levels for each compound .ire two orders of magnitude below risk levels.
-------
A/1
I All) I
16
SABNft IAPM SI IF.
I'AIHUAr RISKS
lUlUHl USE. SCtHAHIO
CARCINOGENS
NONCARCIMOGENS
PAIMUAVS
Sunni.it ion of
Average-Case
lifetime Cancer Risk
GrourxHititer
Ingest ion
3.42E-03
Compounds Represent ing Conpound
Majority of risk CPf'CDI
Arsenic 3.39F-03
Vinyl Chloride 2.56E-05
1.2 Oichloroethnnc 4.7BE-06
1,1 Oichlorocthane 1.01E-06
Bentene 1.B4E 07
Chloromethane 1.241-07
Irichloroethene \.22l-07
Suniut ion of
Average-case
Hatard Index
1.I3E>00
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
lead
Vanadium
Nickel
Compound
CO I:RfO Ratio
1.07E»00
3.66E 02
I.69E-02
Shower
Oernwil Contact
4.46E-07
Bcn/ene
3.34E 07
3.83E 05
N/A
Inhalation of
volat iles while
showering
total from
all pathways
I.59E-05 1,2 Oichloroclh.ine
Vinyl Chloride
1, 1 Oichloroethnne
Bcniene
Irichloroethene
3.44E-03 * Arsenic
• Vinyl Chloride
1,2 Oichloroethnne
1,1 Oichlorocthane
Bcniene
Irichloroothcnc
Chloromethane
7.5IE-06
S.16E 1)6
1.S9E-06
2.901 07
2.27E 07
3.39E 03
3.08E-05
I.23E 05
2.60E-06
8.08E-07
3.C9E 07
1.24E-07
8.16E-03
N/A
I.KE'OO
lead
Vanadium
Nickel
I.07E»00
3.66E-02
1.69E-02
C) Encecds target Risk level ol l.OE-05.
(*•) Encc'.-Us CDI:RfO Ratio of One.
M» Hot Applicable, colcul al cd levels lor c.ich cu'is of in.iyni ID.II- lx_-low risk levels.
-------
4/ IJ/VII
I Alii (
If)
SAPIIfT | ARM SHE
I R PAIHUAT RISKS
fUlURt-USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENS
PAIHWATS
Grounduater
Ingest ion
Sunma t i on o I
Worst-Case
lifetime Cancer Risk
1.03E-02
Shower
Dermal Contact
Inhalat ion of
volat iles while
showering
Total from
all pathways
5.81E-06
4.08E-04
1.07E-02
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
1,2 Dichlorocthanc
1,1 Dichloroethanc
Chloromethane
Irichloroethene
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2 Dichloroethane
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
1,2 Oichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroethanc
Irichloroethcne
Benzene
Chloromethiine
Vinyl Chloride
Arsenic
1,2 Dichlorocthanc
1,1 Oichloroethane
Benzene
Inchloroethene
Chloromethane
Confxnmrl
CPf 'CDI
1.02E-03
8.80E 03
3.78E 04
3 . 4 7E • 06
8.66E-07
7.33E 07
4.60E-07
3.62E-06
1.346-06
8.35E 07
1.03E-04
2.98E-04
2.73E-06
6.B2E 07
3.62E 07
3.3IE-07
Sunnat ion of
Worst -Case
Hazard Indci
S.54E«00
2.14E 04
1.17E-02
1.13E-OJ 5.55E»00
8.8BE-03
6.77E-04
6.20E -06
1 . 66E 06
1.12E-06
1 . 20t 06
MOMCARCIMOGENS
Conpounds Representing
Majority of risk
lead
Vanad i uni
Nickel
2inc
N/A
N/A
lead
Vanadium
Nickel
Zinc
Compound
CDI:RfD Ratio
5.22E«00
2.10E-01
5.88E 02
3.031 02
2. 10E-01
5.88E-02
3.03E-02
C> Encceds l.irgut Risk level ot 1.UE-OS.
(") Encci'ds COI:RfO R.ilio ol One.
NA Not Applicable, c.ilcul .ite<1 levels for e.ich compound ai e two in >)i:i
ol in.iijni imh.- below i isl levels.
-------
4/ll/VU
UlllE
16
(tout M)
(Ak'M SI IE
CiROUMOUAUR I'AIMUAY RISKS
PRESEHt-USt SCtMAR 10
CARCINOGENS
NONCARCIMOGENS
PATHWAYS
Suiin.it ion of
Average-Case
lifetime Cancer Risk
Grounduater
Ingest ion
Shower
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of
volatilcs while
showering
lotal from
•II pathways
07
9.07E-10
I.29E-06
I.55E-06
'Compounds Representing Compound
Majority of fist CPF*CDI
Irichloroethcnc 1.05E-07
Chloronicthaiie 1.03E-07
Chloroform l.BtE-08
N/A
Chloroform 1.01E 06
Irichloroethenc 1.95E-07
Chloromcthane 7.87E-08
ChloroformI.06E-06
Irichloroethene 3.00E-07
Chloromethanc 1.82E-07
Suniiut ion ol
Average-case
Hatard Indcn
3.16E-03
3.06E OS
6.69E 03
9.88E 03
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Con pound
COI:RfO Ratio
(•) Exceeds target Risk level of I.OE-OS.
(••> Exceeds CDI:RfO Ratio of One.
NA Not Applicable, calculated levels for each compound are tuo orders of magnitude below risk levels.
-------
16
SARMI T f AHM SI It
GSDUNOUA11 R PAIHUAY RISKS
I'RESLHI USE SCENARIO
CARCINOGENS
MONCARCINOGENS
PATNUATS
Suninat ion ol
Worst-Case
Ii fetimc Cancer Risk
Crounduater
Ingest ion
1.25E-06
Compounds Representing Compound
H.ijority ol risk CPF*COI
Irichlorocthene 7.33E-07
Chlorocncthanc • 3.71E-0?
Chlorolonn I.49E-07
Simmt ion of
Worst-Case
Hai.ird Index
M6E-03
Compounds Representing
Majority of risk
N/A
Compound
CO):RfO Ratio
Shower
Dermal Contact
3.67C-09
N/A
05
N/A
Inhalation of
volatile: while
showering
total from
all pathways
1.84E-06
3.09E-06
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Chloromcthanc
trichloroethenp
Chloroform
Chloromclhane
I.01E-06
6.82E-07
1.42E-07
1.13E-06
1.16E-06
5.13E-07
7.081-03
1.511-0?
N/A
N/A
(•) Exceeds target Risk level of I.OE-05.
(••) Exceeds CDI:RfD Ratio of One.
NA Not Applicable, calculated levels for each con^xmd ore two orders of magnitude below risk levels.
-------
Table 17. List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the Soil and Drum Treatment Alternatives.
SOILS
Regulatory Level
Federal
Description
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 52); for the operation of the soil treatment unit
RCRA - Standards Applicable to Transport of hazardous Waste (CFR 263.11, 263.20-21
and 263.30-31); for the transport of wastes off-site
RCRA - Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities (CFR 264.10-
264.18); for the treatment of wastes off-site
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR 264.30-264.37); for the treatment of wastes off-site
RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR 264.50-264.56); fot the treatment of
wastes off-site
DOT Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials (49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1-172.558); for the
treatment of wastes off-site
New York Hazardous Waste Manifest System Rules (6 NYCRR 372); for the treatment of wastes off-
site
New York Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility Permitting Requirements
(6 NYCRR 370 and 373); for the treatment of wastes off-site
OTHERS ARARs COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Regulatory Level Description
Federal OSHA - Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1926)
OSHA - Record Keeping, Reporting and Related Regulations (29 CFR 1904)
State
-------
TAHl.r IR
CO.1:1!1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SOURCi: CONTROL
ALT
SC-1
SC-4
SC-5
CAPITAL
COST
$0
$644 ,000
$1,657, 100
ANNUAL
04.M COST
$15, 300
$0
$0
DISCOUNT
RATE =4%
$297, 000
$644 , 000
$1 ,657, 100
PKESEI
DISCOUNT
RATE =5%
$263,500
$644 , 000
$1,657, 100
n WORTH
DISCOUNT
RATE =7%
$211,800
$644 ,000
$1,657, 100
DISCOUNT
RATE = 10%
$160,000
$644 ,000
$1,657, 100
Comment
The Present Worths for Alternative SC-1 includes
the costs of a $10,000 review every five years for
-------
Table 19. List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the Groundwater Treatment Alternatives.
GROUNOWATER
Regulatory Level Description
Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NAAQS)
40 CFR 52
CWA Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for Protection of Human Health and Aquatic Life
SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
State 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality Regulations Part 703.5
Drinking Water Standards (10 NYCRR Part 5)
6 NYCRR Ambient Surface Water Quality Standards Part 701
6 NYCRR Groundwater Treatment Quality Standards Part 703.5
6 NYCRR NY State Pollution Elimination Discharge System Part 750
NYS Ambient Air Quality Standards and Control Apparatus Permit Requirements
(6 NYCRR Part 212)
-------
TABLE 20
COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSTS - GROUNDWATER
ALT
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
GW-4
GW-5
YEARS TO
REMEDIATE
30
19
13
7
30
19
13
7
19
13
7
19
13
7
19
13
7
CAPITAL
COST
so
SO
SO
SO
550,000
550,000
550,000
550,000
5632,900
5632,900
$632,900
5734,000
§734,000
$734 ,000
5482,900
$482,900
$482,900
ANNUAL
O&M COST
515, 300
§15, 300
515, 300
515, 300
515, 100
§15, 100
§15, 100
515, 100
590,000
§90,000
590,000
5136,200
§136,200
5136,200
§80,700
§80, 700
580,700
PRESENT WORTH
DISCOUNT
RATE =4%
§297,000
§211,900
$159,300
593, 100
5342,800
§258,900
§207, 100
$141,800
51,728,900
§1,445,400
51,086,700
§2,391,900
§1,963,100
51,420,500
51,464,700
51,210,700
5889,500
DISCOUNT
RATE = 5%
$263,500
§193,400
5148,700
$89,000
, $309,700
§240,700
§196,600
5137,800
$1,635,300
§1,392,900
51,068, 100
52,250,300
§1,883,700
51,392,400
$1,380,800
$1, 163,700
$872,800
DISCOUNT
RATE =7%
$211,800
§162,700
$130,200
$81,600
$258,800
§210,400
5178,300
5130, 500
51,479,300
§1,301,200
$1,034,000
52,014,400
§1,745,000
$1,340,700
$1,241, 100
$1,081,600
$842,200
DISCOUNT
RATE = 10%
5160,000
§128,400
$107,900
572,000
$207,600
§176,600
§156,400
$121,000
$1,304,200
$1,190,600
$989,400
$1,749,500
§1,577,700
$1,273,200
$1.084,300
§982,500
$802,300
Comment
rhe Present Worths for Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2
include the costs of a $10,000 review every five years.
The remediation times for Alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5
includes one year to implement and the remaining years
lor operation.
Mternatives GW-1 and GW-2 are evaluated for the 7, 13 and 19
/ears cases, because once the source is remediated (one year
to implement) the natural flushing may remediate the bedrock
'jroundwater on-site during the remaining 6 to 18 years.
-------
Table 19. List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the Groundwater Treatment Alternatives.
GROUNDWATER
Regulatory Level Description
Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NAAQS)
40 CFR 52
CWA Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for Protection of Human Health and Aquatic Life
SOWA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
State 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality Regulations Part 703.5
Drinking Water Standards (10 NYCRR Part 5)
6 NYCRR Ambient Surface Water Quality Standards Part 701
6 NYCRR Groundwater Treatment Quality Standards Part 703.5
6 NYCRR NY State Pollution Elimination Discharge System Part 750
NYS Ambient Air Quality Standards and Control Apparatus Permit Requirements
(6 NYCRR Part 212)
-------
APPENDIX C. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
Table 21. List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the Selected Remedy.
SOILS
Regulatory Level
Federal
State
GROUNDWATER
Federal
State
OTHERS
Description
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 52); for the operation of the soil treatment unit
RCRA - Standards Applicable to Transport of Hazardous Waste (CFR 263.11, 263.20-21
and 263.30-31); for the transport of wastes to an off-site treatment facility
RCRA - Standards for Owners/Operators of Permitted Hazardous Waste Facilities (40 CFR 264.10-264.18); for the
treatment of wastes off-site
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention (40 CFR 264.30-264.37); for the treatment of wastes off-site
RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR 264.50-264.56); for the treatment of wastes off-
site
New York Hazardous Waste Manifest System Rules (6 NYCRR 372); for the treatment of wastes off-site
New York Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility Permitting Requirements
(6 NYCRR 370 and 373); for the treatment of wastes off-site
Air Emissions (6 NYCRR 200-234); for the operation of the soil treatment unit
Freshwater Wetlands Act (6 NYCRR Part 663); for activities at the site
DOT - Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials (49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1-172.558); for the treatment of
wastes off-site
SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Groundwater Quality Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 703)
Drinking Water Standards (10 NYCRR Part 5)
OSHA - Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1926)
OSHA - Record Keeping, Reporting and Related Regulations (29 CFR 1904)
-------
p. 14 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by A.R. Pleasanton. 6/6/86.
p. 15 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Conrad Benson. 6/7/86.
Work Plans
p. 16-55 Report: Interim Report for the Sarnev Property
Site, prepared by CDM. 10/3/85.
p. 56 - 129 Report: Final Work Plan for the Sarnev Property
Site. Volume I, prepared by CDM. 3/31/86.
p. 130 - 147 Report: Final Work Plan for the Sarnev Property
Site. Volume II, prepared by CDM. 3/31/86.
p. 148 - 152 Statement of Work. Sarney Farm Property, Remedial
Planning Activities. 9/8/88.
Remedial Investigation Reports
p. 153 - 528 Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Site in the State of NY. Phase II
Investigations. prepared by Wehran Engineering.
6/85.
p. 529 - 905 Report: Final Remedial Investigation
Report Sarney Farm Property Site. Volume I.
prepared by EBASCO. 5/90.
p. 906 - 1291 Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report.
Sarney Farm Property Site. Volume II. prepared by
EBASCO. 5/90.
Correspondence
p. 1292 Letter to Mr. John McGahren, US EPA from Mr. David
Carruth, DE Associates, Re: request under FOIA.
11/28/88.
-------
SARNEY FARMS
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE INVESTIGATION
Correspondence
p. 1 - 3 Letter to party not named from Ms. Donna Hearn,
Town of Dover Planning Board, Re: Proposal for two
subdivisions. Questionnaire is attached. 10/10/86.
p. 4 Letter to Mr. John McGahren, US EPA from Mr.
Arthur Sarney, Re: Changing the name of the site.
8/2/89.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Sampling and Analysis Plans
p. 5 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by David Hewlett and Shirley Hewlett.
5/31/86.
p. 6 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Kenneth Sherman and Nancy Sherman.
6/1/86.
p. 7 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by James Benson. 6/1/86.
p. 8 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Norman Benson. 6/2/86.
p. 9 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Bonnie and Gordon Strang. 6/2/86.
p. 10 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Norman Benson. 6/2/86.
p. 11 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Lawrence Benson. 6/3/86.
p. 12 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Charles Clapper. 6/3/86.
p. 13 EPA Sampling Permission Form, Sarney Property,
signed by Ellen Taylor, no date.
-------
p. 1526 Letter to Ms. Karen Sudy, US EPA from Ms. Margaret
Tribble, Cyanamid, Re: Denial of Cyanamid as PRP.
7/2/85.
p. 1527 Letter to Ms. Karen Sudy, US EPA from Ms. Margaret
Tribble, Cyanamid, Re: List of other PRPs.
9/25/85.
p. 1528 - 1536 Letter to Mr. George J. Sella, Jr., American
Cyanamid Company, from Mr. James Marshall, US EPA,
Re: Indication of the company as PRP. 7/30/86.
p. 1537 - 1539 Letter to Mr. James Andrea, Sterling from Mr.
James Marshall, US EPA, Re: Indication of the
company as PRP. 8/29/86.
p. 1540 - 1542 Letter to Mr. P.F. Oreffice, Dow Chemical Company,
from Mr. James Marshall, US EPA, Re: Indication of
the company as PRP. 8/29/86.
p. 1543 - 1545 Letter to Mr. Robert Cobalt, Morton Chemical
Division from Mr. James Marshall, US EPA, Re:
Indication of the company as a PRP. 8/29/86.
p. 1546 - 1548 Letter to Mr. Thomas Wyman, CBS, Inc., from Mr.
James Marshall, US EPA, Re: Indication of the
company as a PRP. 8/29/86.
p. 1549 - 1557 Letter to Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA from Ms. Margaret
Tribble, Cyanmid, Re: Request for information.
9/4/86.
p. 1558 - 1559 Letter to Mr. Michael McCauty, Quarles and Brady
from Mr. Jack Axelrod, Morton Thiokol, Inc., Re:
Information concerning Morton Thiokol. 9/5/86.
p. 1560 - 1562 Letter to Mr. James Marshall, US EPA from Mr. Jack
Axelrod, Morton Thiolol, Inc., Re: Information
concerning Morton Thiokol, Inc. 9/11/86.
p. 1563 Letter to Mr. Paul Simon, US EPA from Ms. Nancy
Bryson, Crowell and Moring, Re: Letter to
Sterling. 9/24/86.
p. 1564 - 1565 Letter to Mr. James Marshall, US EPA form Mr. Paul
Ware Jr., Goodwin, Procter and Hoar, Re: Request
for information. 9/24/86.
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan
p. 1293 - 1512 Report: Final Supplemental Feasibility Study.
prepared by EBASCO. 5/1/90.
RECORD OF DECISION
Correspondence
p. 1513 - 1514 Letter to Mr. Doug Touchuk, US EPA from Ms. '
Jacqueline Scott, HWIC, Re: receiving proposed
remedial solutions and RODs. 2/15/90.
ENFORCEMENT
Notice Letters and Responses
p. 1515 Letter to Mr. Norman Nosenchuck, US EPA from Mr. &
Mrs. Arthur Sarney, Sarney Farms, Re: Operations
at his farm. 11/10/83.
p. 1516 - 1517 Letter to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYDEC, from Mr.
Arthur I. .Sarney, Re: Involvement with site.
12/9/83.
p. 1518 - 1521 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Sarney, Sarney Farms
from Mr. William Librizzi, US EPA, Re: Indication
of the property as hazardous. 6/5/85.
p. 1522 Letter to Ms. Karen Sudy, US EPA from Ms. Margaret
Tribble, Cyanamid, Re: Intent of EPA to RI/FS.
6/7/85.
p. 1523 - 1524 Letter to Ms. Karen Sudy, US EPA from Mr. Paul
Brown, Dow Chemical Company, Re: Declining of EPA
request to do a RI/FS. 6/21/85.
p. 1525 Letter to Mr. Robert Howe, US EPA from Mr. & Mrs.
Arthur Sarney, Sarney Farms, Re: Confirmation of a
telephone call. 6/29/85.
-------
p. 1609 Letter to Mr. Charles Motes Jr., Milford
Department of Health from Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA,
Re: Information relating to the Giannattasios.
3/17/87.
p. 1610 Letter to Mrs. Louise Leary, Norwalk Department of
Health from Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re:
Information relating to the Giannattasios.
3/17/87.
p. 1611 Letter to Mrs. Edith Carruth, Stamford Department
of Health from Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re:
Information relating to Haul-A-Way, Inc. 4/20/87.
p. 1612 - 1616 Memo to File from Mr. Doug Zimmerman, US EPA, Re:
Donahue Property Norwalk, Ct. and a related PRP to
Sarney Farms. 5/19/88. A map and photos are
attached.
p. 1617 Letter to Ms. Denise Rioux, Connecticut Secretary
of State from Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re:
Information pertaining to PRPs. 9/15/88.
NATURAL RESOURCES TRUSTEES
Correspondence
1618
1619
Letter to Mr. Leonard Corin, US Fish and Wildlife
Service from Mr. Robert Hargrove, US EPA Re: To
determine if there are any federal endangered/
threatened species or critical habitats present in
the vicinity of the Sarney Property National
Priorities List Site. 5/5/89.
Letter to Mr. Robert Hargrove, US EPA from Mr.
Leonard Corin, US Fish and Wildlife Re: Response
concerning the threatened/endangered species in
the Sarney Farms area. 5/24/89.
-------
p. 1566 - 1571 Letter to Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA from Mr. Rodney
Walsh Jr., Pitney Bowes, Re: Request for
information. 10/1/86.
p. 1572 - 1576 Letter to Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA from Dr. Roger
Wolfe, Sterling Drug Inc., Re: Request for
Information. 10/10/86.
p. 1577 - 1582 Letter to Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA from Ms. Donna
Binkowski, Dow Chemical, Re: Request for
information. 10/14/86.
p. 1583 - 1587 Letter to Ms. Susan Shaw, US EPA from Mr. Arthur
Vogel, Quarles and Brady, Re: Request for
information from Morton-Thiokol, Inc. 10/16/86.
p. 1588 - 1596 Letter to Mr. Richard Giannattasio, Milford Barrel
Company from Mr. James Marshall, US EPA, Re:
Indication of him as a PRP. 12/23/86.
p. 1597 - 1599 Letter to Mr. John Giannattasio, Touchdown Waste
Systems Company from Mr. James Marshall, US EPA,
Re: Indication of him as a PRP. 12/23/86.
p. 1600 - 1603 Letter to Mr. James Marshall, US EPA from Mr. John
Giannattasio, Re: Request for information.
1/25/87.
Correspondence
p. 1604 - 1605 Letter to Mr. David Ruff, Duchess County
Department of Health from Mr. Vince Pitruzzello,
US EPA, Re: Information regarding Sarney Farms.
9/19/85.
p. 1606 Letter to Mr. Charles Kurker, US EPA from Ms.
Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re: PRP search. 2/12/86.
p. 1607 Letter to the Arizona Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division from Ms.
Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re: Search for John
Giannattaio. 7/31/86.
p. 1608 Letter to the Texas Secretary of State from Ms.
Susan Shaw, US EPA, Re: Information relating to
the Giannattasios. 9/23/86.
-------
Correspondence
p. 1691 - 1697 Letter to Mr Robert Murphy, CIGNA, from Mr. Paul
Simon, US EPA, Re: Freedom of Information Act
Request. Date illegible. Attachments:
A) 1/19/87 response from Richard Giannattasio
B) 1/20/87 certification from Richard Giannattasio
C) 9/24/86 letter to Mr. James Marshall, US EPA,
from Mr. Paul F. Ware jr., Goodwin, Proctor &
Hoar.
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Comments and Responses
p. 1620 - 1622 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Barry from Ms. Karen Sudy,
US EPA, Re: Notification of beginning an RI/FS
in their area. 5/29/86.
p. 1623 - 1625 Letter to Mr. Lawrence Benson from Ms. Karen Sudy,
US EPA, Re: Notification of beginning an RI/FS
in their area. 5/30/86.
Community Relations Plans
p. 1626 - 1655 Report: Final Community Relations Plan, prepared
by CDM. 3/31/86.
Public Meeting Transcripts
p. 1656 - 1673 Final Public Scoping Meeting Summary, prepared by
CDM. 9/23/86.
Fact Sheets and Press Releases
p. 1674 Fact Sheet for the Sarney Farm Site. 2/89
p. 1675 - 1685 Press release, "EPA Announces Proposed Cleanup
Remedy For Sarney Superfund Site." 5/15/1990
Proposed Plan
p. 1686 - 1690 Superfund Proposed Plan for the Sarney Farm
Superfund Site. 5/90.
-------
;w York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Wolf Road, Albany, New Yorfc 12233 -701C
Thomift C. Jorilng
CommUftlorwr
SEP 2 4 1890
Mr. Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Caspe:
RE: Barney Property Site l.D. No. 314007
Dutchess County, New York
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
has reviewed the revised draft Declaration for the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the above-referenced site. The NYSDEC concurs with the
selected remedies which include:
1. Alternative SC-4, Buried Drums and Contaminated Soils - Excavation
and off-site treatment and disposal of 40 contaminated drums.
Approximately 2365 cubic yards of soil will be excavated and treated
on-site with low temperature enhanced volatilization and on-site
redepositicn.
2. Alternative GW-1, No Action Groundwater - This alternative includes
long-term monitoring program for surface water, groundwater and
residential wells and additional hydrogeological investigation
including placement of additional monitoring wells, if needed, to
ensure that the remedy will be protective to the human health and
the environment.
Our acceptance of the groundwater remedy is based on the understanding
that the additional investigation as outlined in our letter dated
June 11, 1990 will be completed and the groundwater remedial alternatives
will be re-evaluated. If the re-evaluation suggest that an alternative
other than the No-Action groundwater alternative would be more protective
to the human health and the environment, then the ROD will be reopened.
-------
APPENDIX D. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
APPENDIX E. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Kama! Gupta, of my staff, at
(518) 457-3976.
EdwafcU). Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc: H. McCabe, USEPA, Region II
D. Garbarini, USEPA, Region II
C. Ramos, USEPA, Region II
R. Tramontane, NYSDOH
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
A. PUBLIC MEETING AND SITE HISTORY
The public meeting for the Sarney Farm Property site began at
7:00 p.m. on May 23, 1990 with presentations by EPA and was
followed by a question and answer session. Approximately 20
.residents and local officials attended the meeting.
Doug Garbarini, Chief, Eastern New York and Caribbean Remedial
Action Section; Rahul Gupta, ' Sarney Farm Property Remedial
Project Manager; and Cecelia Echols, Region II Community
Relations Coordinator, represented EPA. EPA contractor personnel
were represented by Mario Verdibello, ARCS II Site Manager, and
Gerry Zanzalari, ARCS II Community Relations Specialist.
Ms. Echols opened the meeting and explained that the purpose of
the meeting was to discuss the results of the FS and to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternative for cleanup of the Sarney
Farm Property site. Members of the community were encouraged to
ask questions or express concerns regarding the site which would
be factored into EPA's final Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Sarney Farm Property site. They were also informed that EPA
would accept comments throughout the remainder of the public
comment period which closes on June 10, 1990. Ms. Echols then
introduced Mr. Doug Garbarini.
Mr. Garbarini provided an overview of the Superfund process and
explained how a site may be placed on EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL) through the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) process.
Placement on the NPL makes a site eligible for federal funding
for site remediation. He explained that the initial examination
of a site is called the Remedial Investigation (RI) wherein the
nature and extent of site contamination is determined. Samples
of soil, air, sediment, surface water, and groundwater are
collected and analyzed by EPA-approved laboratories. The
contaminants detected through this analysis are then evaluated
regarding their potential risk to human health and the
environment; and the potential routes through which flora or
fauna may come into contact with these contaminants are
identified. The next stage of the investigation is known as the
Feasibility Study (FS). EPA develops a number of alternatives to
remediate site contamination based on established criteria. Once
these cleanup alternatives are developed and evaluated, EPA
prepares a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) which presents
EPA's preferred remedial alternative(s) for cleanup of the site.
This preferred remedial alternative is then presented to state
agencies and the public for review and comment. Upon receipt of
public and state agency comments, EPA evaluates the responses and
factors them into its final selection for a site remedy. A
responsiveness summary addressing public comments is then
prepared and becomes part of the ROD. The next stage of site
-------
FINAL RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SARNEY FARM PROPERTY SITE
AMENIA, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public
comment period from May 12, 1990 through June 10, 1990 for
interested parties to comment on EPA's Draft Feasibility Study
(FS) and Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for remedial action
at the Sarney Farm Property Superfund Site in Amenia, New York.
EPA held a public meeting on May 23, 1990 at the Amenia Town
Hall, Amenia, New York to describe the remedial alternatives and
to present EPA's preferred remedial alternatives to clean up the
Sarney Farm Property site.
A responsiveness summary is required for the purpose of providing
EPA and the public with a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns about the site raised during the public comment period
and EPA's responses to those concerns. All comments summarized
in this document will be considered in EPA's final decision for
selection of the remedial alternative for cleanup of the site.
The responsiveness summary is organized into the following
sections:
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview. This section briefly
describes the public meeting held on May 23, 1990 end
includes historical information about the Sarney Farm
Property site along with the proposed remedial alterna-
tives to clean up the site.
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns.
This section provides a brief history of community
interest and concerns regarding the Sarney Farm
Property site.
III. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During
the Public Comment Period and EPA's Responses to
Comments. This section summarizes comments submitted
to EPA at the public meeting and during the public
comment period and provides EPA's responses to these
comments.
Attached to -this responsiveness summary are three appendices:
Appendix A is EPA's agenda for the public meeting; Appendix B is
EPA's Proposed Plan for the Sarney Farm Property site; and
Appendix C is the public meeting sign-in sheet.
-------
hazardous waste sites and received final listing ,status in June
1986. Placement on the NPL made the site eligible for cleanup
funds under federal Superfund legislation.
In 1986, EPA contracted with Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) to
conduct an RI at the site. Based on the results of samples taken
from the site, EPA conducted a removal/treatment action at the
site to remove organic contaminants. EPA installed an on-site
treatment facility to wash soil and remove contaminants. This
treatment system is currently operating. Due to contractual
limitations, EPA transferred responsibility for completing the
RI/FS at the Sarney Farm site to Ebasco Services, Inc., who
completed the study in May 1990.
B. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Superfund legislation requires that each site remedy is selected
to be protective of human health and the environment,
cost-effective, and in accordance with statutory requirements.
Permanent solutions to contamination problems are to be achieved
whenever possible.
In the course of conducting the RI/FS, EPA has determined that
remedial action at the Sarney Farm site should encompass both
soil and groundwater cleanup alternatives. To maintain
consistency with the FS report, the remedial alternatives
described below will address the cleanup of groundwater
.separately from soil remediation.
The FS developed and evaluated alternatives for remediating soil
contamination (SC) and buried drums as well as groundwater (GW)
contamination at the site. A "No Further Action" alternative was
also evaluated for the groundwater and soils to provide a
baseline for comparison and to provide an appropriate alternative
in the event that no contravention of standards nor significant
health or environmental risks were found to exist at the site.
The alternatives presented below are those which were evaluated
in detail following the preliminary screening of alternatives.
They have been indexed to correspond with the descriptions of
alternatives carried through detailed analysis in the FS report.
Two alternatives described in the FS were not carried through for
detailed analysis. These were: Alternative SC-2 which involves
land use restriction, fencing and warning signs, and SC-3 which
involves excavation/off-site incineration and disposal of drums
and soil.
Alternative SC-2 was dropped from future consideration since it
would not prevent the contaminants in the drums and soil from
migrating into other media, e.g., groundwater and surface water,
and further impacting the environment and public health.
Alternative SC-3 was screened out because it uses a similar
-------
cleanup is known as the Remedial Design (RD) phase where the
design of the remedy is detailed. This is followed by the final,
or Remedial Action (RA) phase where the selected remedy is
implemented and site cleanup actually occurs. Upon completion of
the RA, site closure occurs, and, if necessary, continuing site
monitoring may be conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the
remedy. The RI/FS can encompass a time frame from 18-24 months;
the RD takes 12-18 months; and the RA can take as long as 30
years if the remedy includes the pumping and treatment of
contaminated groundwater. If the remedy is as simple as removing
items such as drums, remediation can take as little as six months
to complete. Mr. Garbarini then introduced Mr. Mario Verdibello.
Mr. Verdibello provided a brief history of the site and a
description of past investigative activities conducted by EPA at
the site. The site is located in the Town of Amenia, Dutchess
County, New York. The site is bordered by Benson Hill Road to
the south, trees and agricultural areas to the west, steeply
sloping land to the east, and Cleaver Swamp to the northwest.
In February 1968, Richard and John Giannattsio (doing business as
Haul-A-Way Company, Inc.) applied to the Dutchess County Health
Department (DCHD) for a permit to operate a five-acre sanitary
landfill on the property, which, at that time, was owned by Mr.
Herbert Davidson. The DCHD issued the permit in April 1968 with
the provision that nd industrial waste be deposited at the site.
In June 1968, Haul-A-Way Company Inc. purchased a 143-acre parcel
cf the property containing the landfill site.
In November 1968, dumping of industrial waste on the site was
reported and a subsequent site inspection by DCHD confirmed that
barrels of waste solvents were placed in, and near a trench in
the northern end of a large pasture area south-southeast of
Cleaver Swamp. Another site inspection revealed that barrels
were also being placed in another excavated trench to the
southeast of the original trench. The DCHD informed Haul-A-Way
that this type of disposal was not allowed under conditions of
the landfill permit and a subsequent site inspection in January
1970 revealed that illegal dumping had stopped.
In August 1970, ownership of the property was transferred to
Joseph A. Frumento and Charles J. Miller and in March 1971, the
land was purchased for use as a pasture by the current owners,
Arthur and Joan Sarney.
DCHD obtained water samples from the site in 1980 and 1982 and,
as a result, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) added the Sarney Farm site to a statewide
list of hazardous waste sites eligible for possible cleanup under
a state-administered Superfund program. In 1984, the site was
proposed for inclusion on 'EPA's National Priorities List of
-------
scil and drums would remain in place and continue to act as a
source of groundwater contamination. A long-term monitoring
program would be implemented in order to assess the migration of
the contaminated groundwater. The monitoring program would
include an annual inspection of the site as well as sampling and
testing of the surface water and groundwater every six months for
30 years. In addition, because this alternative would result in
contaminants remaining on-site, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as
Superfund, requires that the site be reviewed every 5 years to
assure that human health and environment are being protected by
the remedial action being implemented.
SC-4 : OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF DRUMS AND ON-SITE TREATMENT OF SOILS
Capital Cost: $644,000
Present Worth Cost: $644,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative involves excavating the drums and approximately
2,365 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated soil. The drums would
then be placed in overpack containers and transported to a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted off-site
treatment and disposal facility. The facility would incinerate
the drummed wastes and then dispose of the drum residues. The
contaminated soil would be treated on-site using a low
te.r.perature thermal treatment unit. In the soil treatment
facility, hot air is injected into the soils at a temperature of
250°C. Volatile organic compounds in the soil, e.g., toluene,
are volatilized into the air stream and combusted in an after
burner where they are destroyed. The off-gas from the after
burner would be treated in a scrubber for particulate adsorption
and gas removal. After treatment, the soil would be used to
back-fill and regrade the excavated areas. Proper engineering
measures would be implemented to control air emissions, fugitive
dust, run-off, erosion and sedimentation.
I
SC-5: OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF DRUMS AND SOILS
Capital Cost: $1,657,100
Present Worth Cost: $1,657,100
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative consists of excavating the contaminated drums
and soil as described in SC-4. The drums would then be placed in
overpacks and transported to an off-site RCRA licensed treatment
and disposal facility. For the purpose of developing a cost for
this alternative, low temperature thermal treatment was chosen as
the most cost-effective technology for the off-site treatment of
soils. Treated soils would be disposed of by the treatment
facility operator in accordance with RCRA regulations. Clean
fill would be brought in to back-fill and regrade the excavated
areas. Proper engineering measures would be implemented to
control fugitive dust, run-off, erosion and sedimentation.
-------
technology as alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 .and would achieve the
same goals, however it is almost four times the cost of SC-4 and
two times the cost of SC-5.
The preferred alternative will combine what the EPA and NYSDEC
believe is the most appropriate alternative for remediating the
contaminated soils and drums at the site with the most
appropriate alternative for the contaminated groundwater. A list
of the remedial alternatives considered are presented in Tables 1
and 2, followed by a description- of each alternative.
Table 1.
(so
o
o
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Drums and Soils
SC-1: No Further Action
SC-4: Off-site Treatment/disposal of Drums and On-site
Soil Treatment
SC-5: Off-site Treatment/disposal of Drums and Off-site
Soil Treatment
Table 2. Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater (GW)
o GW-l: No Further Action
o GW-2: Carbon Adsorption Treatment System at Each
Existing Contaminated Residential Well
o GW-3: Collection and Treatment of Groundwater Using an
Air Stripper
o GW-4: Collection and Treatment of Groundwater Using
Hydrogen Peroxide with UV Light
o GW-5: Collection of Groundwater and Treatment at Existing
On-site Aeration System
In addition to the description of the alternatives, cost and
schedule information are also provided (see Table 3). The
present worth costs are estimates which take into account both
the capital cost and the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
for 30 years. Time to implement as used herein means time for
site preparation and for actual on-site construction and start up
activities. It does not include the remedial design phase which
typically takes 12-18 months.
SC-1: NO FURTHER ACTION
Capital Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Time to Implement:
None
$264,000
Immediate
In this alternative, no further remediation of soils and drums
beyond the current EPA removal action would occur. Contaminated
-------
GW-3: COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATER USING AN AIR
STRIPPER
Capital Cost: $632,900
Present Worth Cost: $1,640,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative is to pump and treat the groundwater from the
plume area to prevent the migration of the contaminants. The
major feature of this alternative includes groundwater pumping,
collection, treatment and on-site discharge to Cleaver Swamp, and
a long-term monitoring program.. The groundwater would be
pretreated using lime and polymers to remove iron. Following
pre-treatment the water would be pumped to an air stripper where
the volatile organic contaminants, e.g., 1,2-DCA- and vinyl
chloride, would be removed.
This alternative would treat contaminated groundwater to levels
required by the federal and state maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) for public drinking water supply systems and the state
surface water quality standards for discharge of effluent to
surface water. However, it should be noted that engineering
practicability and cost effectiveness of pump and treatment is
questionable in lieu of the site hydrogeological
characteristics. The productive aquifer underlying the site
consists of medium to coarse grained fractured limestone
bedrock. The movement of contaminants in this type of geology is
highly influenced by the extent and location of the fractures,
something extremely difficult if not impossible to accurately
determine. The estimated time frame for treatment of the
groundwater is 20 years, however this number is subject to much
uncertainty.
GW-4: COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATER USING HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE AND UV LIGHT
Capital Cost: $734,000
Present Worth Cost: $2,250,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative is similar to GW-3 in that it would attempt to
clean up the contaminated bedrock aquifer. The major features of
this alternative include groundwater pumping, collection,
treatment and on-site discharge, and a long-term monitoring
program. The pumping, collection, pre-treatment and monitoring
program for this alternative is the same as Alternative GW-3. In
this alternative the water would be treated using chemical
oxidation with hydrogen peroxide and UV light. This treatment
would reduce the volatile organic contaminants, e.g., 1,2-DCA and
vinyl chloride, to levels required by the federal and state MCLs
for public drinking water supply and state surface water quality
standards. The water would then be discharged to Cleaver Swamp.
The same engineering limitations discussed under Alternative GW-3
apply to Alternative GW-4. The estimated aquifer restoration
time frame for this alternative is also 20 years.
-------
Teble 3. Contaminated Soil Treatment Alternatives Cost Summary
CAPITAL 0&MA PRESENT. .TIME
COST ' COST WORTH COST (MONTH)
SC-1 $ 0 $15,300 $ 264,000 0
SC-2 $ 644,000 0 644,000 . 14
SC-3 $1,657,100 0 1,657,100 14
A per year
GW-l: NO FURTHER ACTION
Capital Cost: None
Present Worth Cost: $263,500
Time to Implement: Immediate
A no further action alternative would involve conducting a
Icr.g-term program to monitor the migration of contaminants in the
bedrock aquifer underlying the site. The monitoring program
would involve the sampling of existing monitoring wells installed
on-site plus the residential wells located in the vicinity of the
site every six months for 30 years. Surface water samples would
also be collected and analyzed for contaminants. This
information would be continually used to assess any potential
future impact and to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. A five year review would be performed since
contaminated groundwater would be left on-site. Fact sheets
would be distributed to the public, as well as town and county
officials to inform them of the results of the monitoring program
and to indicate whether contamination is spreading or otherwise
causing a problem which must be addressed.
GW-2: CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT AT RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Capital Cost: $50,000
Present Worth Cost: $310,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative would involve setting up small individual carbon
adsorption systems at existing residential wells as a
point-of-use water treatment alternative. The water would be
pumped from the individual well using the existing pump through a
residential carbon adsorption system which would remove the
organic contaminants. In addition, the installation of new wells
in potentially affected areas would be discouraged through the
release of routine site fact sheets to the town and county if the
results of the monitoring program indicate that contamination is
spreading or otherwise causing a problem.
-------
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced
or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls. A comprehensive risk analysis is
included in the RI.
Compliance with ARARs. Addresses whether or not a remedy
will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and/or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver. A complete listing of ARARs for this Site can be
found in Section 3 of the FS.
Short-Term effectiveness. Involves the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on
human health and the environment that may be posed during
the construction and implementation period of the
alternative.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health 'and the environment over time, once, cleanup goals
have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and
effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage
the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes. ?
Reduction of toxicity. mobility and volume. Refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies, with
respect to these parameters, a remedy may employ.
Implementability. Involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement the chosen
solution.
Cost. Includes both capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Cost comparisons are made on the basis of
present worth values. Present worth values are equivalent
to the amount of money which must be invested to implement a
certain .alternative at the start of construction to provide
for both construction costs and 0 and M costs over a 30 year
period.
Community acceptance will be based on a review of the RI/FS
and Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and whether or not the
community supports or opposes the preferred alternative.
State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and PRAP, the state concurs with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative.
10
-------
GW-5: COLLECTION OF GROUNDWATER AND TREATMENT AT EXISTING
ON-SITE SYSTEM
Capital Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
Time to Implement:
$482,900
$1,380,000
14 months
The major features of this alternative include groundwater
pumping, collection, treatment and on-site discharge, and a
lor.g-term monitoring program. The groundwater would be pumped -to
the existing on-site aeration system. This system would remove
the volatile organic contaminants, e.g., 1,2-DCA and vinyl
chloride, in the groundwater. The existing system would have to
undergo some modification prior to use in this scenario. This
alternative would reduce contaminated groundwater to levels
required by the federal and state MCLs for public drinking water
supply. The pumping, collection, discharge system and monitoring
program would be the same as discussed in Alternative GW-3. The
same engineering limitations discussed previously apply to
Alternative GW-4. The estimated aquifer restoration timeframe
for this alternative is also 20 years.
Table 4. Groundwater Treatment Alternatives Cost Summary
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
GW-4
GW-5
A
B
CAPITAL
COST
0
50,000
632,900
734,000
482,900
0&MA
COST
15,300
15,100
90,000
136,200
80,700
PRESENT
WORTH
263,500
310,000
1,640,000
2,250,000
1,380,000
TIME TO
IMPLEMENT5
3 WEEKS
14 MONTHS
14 MONTHS
14 MONTHS
14 MONTHS
Per Year
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4,
approximately 20 years of
remedial action objectives,
Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2
and GW-5 would each require
actual operation before reaching
i.e., meet MCLs in groundwater;
natural attenuation would result
in objectives being met in approximately 30 years.
C. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternative combines source control alternative
SC-4, Off-site Treatment/disposal of Drums and On-site Low
Temperature Thermal Treatment of Soils, with GW-1, the No-action
groundwater alternative. Based on current information, this
combination of alternatives provides .the best balance among the
nine criteria that EPA uses as a means of evaluation. This
section provides a glossary of the nine criteria and an analysis,
with respect to these criteria, of all of the alternatives under
consideration for remediation.
-------
action alternative would "remediate" the aquifer in approximately
30 years through natural attenuation.
Alternative GW-2 would provide .the same degree of .protection to
the public health as no further action. Alternatives GW-3, GW-4
end GW-5 would provide an uncertain degree of aquifer remediation
within 20 years. GW-3 and GW-5 present minimal short-term
hazards to on-site workers during the remedial action through
accidental ingestion and exposure to air emissions. Alternatives
GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 employ proven and reliable technologies for
remediating contaminated groundwatet. However, it should be
stressed that the long-term effectiveness is questionable due to
the difficulty in predicting the extent and location of fractures
in the bedrock aquifer and in properly locating extraction wells
in the precise areas to capture all of the contaminated
groundwater. Alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 would reduce• the
toxicity and volume of contaminated groundwater at the site. The
point of use treatment system in Alternative GW-2 would reduce
the toxicity and volume of contaminated groundwater used by
individual residents. However/ it would not alter the toxicity,
mobility or volume of contaminants in most of the site
groundwater. Alternative GW-1 would be much easier to implement
than Alternatives GW-2, GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 because the existing
monitoring wells could be used and no additional equipment would
be required. Alternative GW-4 would be the most expensive to.
implement, followed by Alternatives GW-3, GW-5, GW-2 and GW-1.
All of the alternatives for groundwater remediation are
protective of human health and the environment, including the no
action alternative. This is because there is no ingestion of
contaminated groundwater occurring at present nor is any use of
the contaminated portion of the aquifer envisioned during EPA's
five year review period. To help insure that additional wells
intended for potable water use are not installed in the affected
area during this period, EPA would distribute fact sheets to the
public, and town and county officials to periodically provide
information on the condition of the aquifer. In the long run all
the treatment alternatives would meet groundwater ARAR's, with
the possibility of alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5 achieving
this requirement in the aquifer in the shortest period of time.
Therefore, none of the alternatives are designed to be effective
in remediating the aquifer over the short term. There may be
minor, easily mitigable construction impacts associated with
alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5. There would be very gradual
reduction in toxicity, and volume of contaminated groundwater
under alternatives GW-1 and GW-2, largely as a result of natural
dispersion and biodegradation (attenuation) of contamination.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4 and GW-5 may accelerate this reduction
through their respective pump and treatment strategies for
groundwater, but would not be effective in remediating the
aquifer over the short term.
Mr. Verdibello then introduced Mr. Rahul Gupta.
12
-------
ANALYSIS
Contaminated Drums and Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 provide treatment of contaminated
soils and drums and are therefore considered to be protective of
human health and the environment. Alternative SC-1 would leave
contaminated soil and drum wastes unremediated and would
therefore not be protective of human health or the environment.
It would not comply with ARARs nor .would it be effective in the
short or long term. There would .be no reduction in the mobility,
toxicity, or volume of contaminated materials. There would be no
implementation issues and it would involve the least expenditure
of funds of the three alternatives.
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 present short-term risks to on-site
workers, the community, and the environment since they entail
excavation, containment and transport of the contaminated drum
wastes as well as excavation and treatment or transport of the
contaminated soil. SC-5 would result in less of a short-term
risk to on-site workers, the community and the environment
because the contaminated soil would -be treated off-site; however,
it would also create potential risks due to the off-site
transport of contaminated soil. Both SC-4 and SC-5 would provide
long-term permanent protection to the public health and the
environment against the drum wastes and contaminated soil within
a 14-month period by reducing the mobility, toxicity, and volume
of the waste. Both SC-4 and SC-5 would be readily
implementable. Alternative SC-5 would be more expensive to
implement than SC-4. Both SC-4 and SC-5 comply with ARARs.
In summary, alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 are similar, however SC-4
is advantageous over SC-5 since there is a limited chance of
off-site spillage of contaminated soil while being transported to
an off-site treatment and disposal facility. In addition,
alternative SC-4 provides full protection of human health and the
environment at a lesser cost than SC-5.
Contaminated Groundwater Alternatives
The results of the RI show that only the wells near the sources
of contamination were found to contain levels of the contaminants
of concern above MCLs. If the sources of contamination were
removed from the site, natural processes such as biodegradation,
volatilization, dilution and flushing would attenuate the aquifer
contamination, and the potential risk to residents via the
groundwater and surface water would be eliminated. The slow
nature of the groundwater flow on the site will serve to maximize
the effectiveness of biodegradation and volatilization
processes. As a result, all alternatives for groundwater
treatment, including no further action, would be protective of
human health and the environment assuming the sources of
contamination, i.e. soil and drums, are removed. The no further
11
-------
five-year review process will ensure that in the future, if there
is evidence of significant changes in conditions which present a
significant risk to human health or the environment, appropriate
remedial action will be taken.
14
-------
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Rahul Gupta, EPA Remedial Project Manager for the Sarney .Farm
site presented EPA's preferred remedial alternative. .
The preferred alternative combines the source control alternative•
SC-4 with the no further action alternative for groundwater
GW-1. The EPA believes that this combination of alternatives
represents the best balance among the evaluation .criteria used to
evaluate remedies. Cost estimates.associated with the preferred
alternative are:
«
Capital Cost: .$644,000
Present Worth: $907',500
Specifically, the preferred alternative will involve ' the
following actions:
Drums located in two areas of the Site will be removed for
off-site disposal to a permitted treatment and disposal
facility. The drums in both areas are close to the surface. A
sr.ovel and backhoe will be used to remove the overlying soil. In
sere areas of the site the groundwater is very close to the
sur:=ce, therefore it may be necessary to construct dewatering
trencres upgradient of drum excavation areas in order to control
grouncv-ater intrusion. The soil surrounding the drums will be
placed in a designated area and tested. If found to be
contaminated it will be placed with the other contaminated soil
end treated using on-site low temperature thermal treatment.
Highly contaminated soil contiguous with the drums (if present)
may be sent off-site with the drums.
Excavated soil will be transported to an on-site treatment
facility, i.e., a low temperature thermal treatment system. The
thermal treatment process will be designed to handle five cubic
yards of soil per hour. The treated soil will then be removed
and tested to ensure that the soil has achieved the health based
clean-up criteria. Based on the results of the RI there are a
few areas of soil that are contaminated with large concentrations
of the contaminants of concern; further delineation of these
areas will be conducted during the remedial design. This
treatment will reduce the level of all contaminants of concern to
below the clean-up criteria. The treated soil will then be used
to backfill the excavated areas on site. This will eliminate the
potential migration of contaminants from the contaminated drums
and soils into the groundwater or surface water.
Natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination, i.e.,
biodegradation, dilution, dispersion, will reduce the levels .of
contaminants in the site aquifer and the minor potential risk to
the public from contamination will be eliminated. The slow
nature of the groundwater flow on the site will serve to maximize
the effectiveness of natural attenuation processes. These
natural occurring processes would serve to attenuate the
groundwater contaminant concentration levels to acceptable levels
over time. The long-term monitoring program and the required
13
-------
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED
DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES
TO THESE COMMENTS
Comments raised during the public comment period for the Sarney
Farm Property site are summarized below and are organized into
the following categories:
A. Nature and Extent of Contamination
B. Future Activities
C. Other Concerns
A. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
COMMENT: A resident inquired about how many drums were
discovered at the site and the number of drums that may be
ruptured.
EPA RESPONSE: Approximately forty drums were discovered
and the exact number of ruptured and leaking drums is
difficult to estimate.
COMMENT: A resident asked if the potential health risks
from contaminants leaking from ruptured drums could increase
since it will be 12-18 months before these drums are removed
from the site.
EPA RESPONSE: As part of the RI/FS, EPA has determined
that soils in the disposal area are very low in permeabil-
ity. This means that any contaminants which may leak from a
ruptured or leaking drum will not travel very far.
These drums have been in place since 1970 and our
studies indicate extremely low contaminant levels in
site soils with the exception of soils in the immediate
vicinity of the drums. Therefore, only minimal
increases in soil contamination can be expected between
the present time and the removal of the drums. In
addition, a leachate collection and treatment
system is currently in place and operating at one of
the drum disposal areas on the site (Area II).
This system collects any material that may leak from
the drums and treats it to remove contaminants.
COMMENT: A resident asked approximately how many cubic
yards of contaminated soil would be remediated.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA will excavate approximately 2,365 cubic
yards of soil. This amount is based on excavation of soil
in excess of that contained in the disposal trenches.
As this soil is being excavated, soil sampling will
continue to ensure that all contaminated soil is
removed.
16
-------
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Residents of Dutchess County have been actively involved in
environmental issues throughout the county and have been aware of
local hazardous waste problems since 1980. In particular,
residents have expressed interest in active and abandoned
landfills and the potential hazardous Waste threat to local
groundwater supplies.
A Final Community Relations Plan for the Sarney Farm Property
site was completed by EPA in March 1986. Concerns expressed by
citizens and local officials included potential surface and
groundwater contamination; potential negative effect on human
health; potential adverse impact on local property values; and
federal and state approach to hazardous waste cleanup.
15
-------
8. COMMENT: Concern was expressed that contamination could
possibly be moving out of the underlying unconsolidated
material.
EPA RESPONSE: The studies indicate that the contaminants
were detected only in specific on-site wells in the bedrock
aquifer. None of the samples taken from other wells have
exhibited any site-related contamination. Our conclusion is
that there is very little flow of groundwater in the bedrock
aquifer in the site vicinity and, if the contaminant source
is removed, there is little, if any, chance of contaminant
levels increasing. Additional testing will be conducted in
the future to further delineate site-specific
hydrogeological conditions. This information, in
combination with with long-term monitoring, will ensure that
the remedy remains protective of human health and the
environment.
9. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA investigated the possible
northward movement of site-related contaminants.
EPA RESPONSE: Surface water samples were taken from
streams and ponds adjacent to the site. No significant
contamination was detected in any of these samples. Also,
the surface water flow is toward the south, thereby further
eli.T.inating the potential for contamination north of the
site.
10. COMMENT: Concern was expressed that the levels of
contamination detected were less than originally envisioned.
EPA RESPONSE: The RI "performed at the site was objective
in nature. EPA did not have any expectations regarding the
nature and extent of potential site contamination but is
reporting the results of sampling just as it was analyzed.
Our results indicate that the detected contamination is
essentially confined to the site study areas, and that there
has not been any widespread dispersal. No significant con-
tamination has been detected by EPA or the New York State
Department of Health in any nearby residential wells and
removing the source should result in elimination of the
majority of the problem. EPA is not considering groundwater
remediation at this time, however, additional groundwater
investigations will occur in the future.
11. COMMENT: A resident asked how EPA determines the amount of
contaminants that may be present in the buried drums.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has determined through its investiga-
tions, that there are approximately 42 drums buried on the
site. The exact number of drums and volume of contaminants
in each cannot be exactly determined until the drums are
actually removed from the trenches. The possibility exists
18
-------
COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA would notify people if
site-related contamination is detected in residential
wells.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA will notify all residents of the results
of samples collected in their respective wells.
5. COMMENT: A resident asked about the nature of contaminants
detected at the site.
EPA RESPONSE: The buried drums contained toluene, a paint
solvent; 2-butanone, (also known as methyl ethyl
ketone) which is a common industrial solvent. Vinyl
chloride, an adhesive which is also used in the
manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and
dichloroethane, a solvent, were detected at low levels
in groundwater. In addition, naturally-occurring
levels of arsenic were detected in one on-site well,
and in one surface water sample.
6. COMMENT: A resident asked how many of the on-site
wells were contaminated.
v
EPA RESPONSE: Of the twelve wells drilled on the site,
contaminants in excess of state maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) were detected in four of these wells.
Three of the wells which exhibited contamination are
bedrock wells, and one well was a shallow well.
7. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that by drilling
wells into the underlying bedrock, contaminants could
potentially be spread into areas of previously
uncontaminated groundwater.
EPA RESPONSE: Since the wells drilled are encased in
steel, it is highly unlikely for contaminants to spread
to uncontaminated areas. Additionally, when wells are
drilled, they are pumped to determine if the quantity
of water produced by the well is sufficient to produce
an adequate water sample. If a small water vein is
tapped and does not provide sufficient water quantity,
the well is then drilled deeper into the ground. Any
contaminants that may leak into the well prior to
finding a vein of sufficient quantity could potentially
contaminate those veins, however, if the vein is
insufficient in quantity to produce enough water for a
sample, it is also insufficient in quantity to be used
for a water supply. Therefore, no potential water
supply veins or aquifers would be contaminated. In
addition, the level of contamination detected was below
the MCLs in the residential wells, as discussed
earlier.
17
-------
3. COMMENT: A resident inquired as to whether EPA would
rely on its own resources in the case of a potential
on-site accident or depend on local emergency services.
EPA RESPONSE: Prior to undertaking any site-related
activities, EPA develops a site Health and Safety Plan
(HASP) which addresses most any potential site-related
hazard. As part of this HASP, local emergency service
providers are contacted and alerted regarding the type of
activities being,, conducted at the site. If an emergency
were to occur, EPA would depend on use of local facilities
and resources. A Health and Safety Officer (HSO) is present
on the site at all times when remedial activities are being
conducted, and it is the responsibility of the HSO to ensure
that all remedial activities are conducted within
established safety guidelines.
4. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA would continue to
monitor nearby wetlands following the completion of
remedial action.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA plans to conduct monitoring in the
adjacent wetlands as part of the ROD. It will be undertaken
during the design phase.
5. COMMENT: Concern was expressed that residents may feel
safer with the placement of carbon filters on
residential water supplies since they are unsure of the
schedule of residential well-testing in the future and
that remedial activities may disturb contaminants and
result in the potential contamination of uncontaminated
water supplies.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA has considered the installation of carbon
filters; however, based on current sampling results, EPA has
determined that carbon filters are not necessary to protect
the potable water supply of the residents. People
occasionally consider well testing and filter maintenance an
inconvenience. The filters do reach a point of saturation
where the filter element is no longer effective and allows
contaminants to pass through. At this point, the filter
element must be removed, properly disposed of, and replaced.
The drinking water standards are developed based on the
assumption that a person would consume two liter of water
per day for 70 years. Since the level of contaminants in
this case is minimal, even if a particular well was not
tested for some period of time, very little, if any, risk
would be incurred from drinking water from a residential
well. No groundwater remediation will occur at this time.
Additional groundwater investigations and studies will occur
in the future.
20
-------
that the drums nay be empty which could indicate that the
contents have leaked into surrounding soils. In that case,
EPA would remove the drums, along with any remaining con-
tents, and, if highly contaminated soil is present, it would
be removed to an off-site facility for treatment. The
remaining lower-level contamination would be treated at the
site. .
12. COMMENT: Several residents inquired when the last on-
site and residential well-sampling occurred and when
these wells would be sampled again.
EPA RESPONSE: The last round of sampling took place in
April 1989. The Dutchess County Health Department (DCHD)
conducted residential well sampling in June 1990. Should
followup sampling be required, it can be initiated by EPA
within a few weeks time.
NYSDEC RESPONSE: Approximately 10-15 wells were sampled by
Dutchess County under direction of the New York State
Department of Health. DCHD is currently contacting area
residents to conduct additional sampling. Any residents
wishing to have their well tested should contact the DCHD.
B. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
1. COMMENT: A resident inquired about the physical
appearance of workers on the site; if heavy equipment
would be used and what the site would look like when
the remedial actions are complete.
EPA RESPONSE: During the actual removal of drums, workers
in protective clothing will be present on the site along
with various pieces of equipment required to complete the
particular task at hand. The reason for protective clothing
is to ensure the safety of people actually working on the
site. This protective clothing may range from fully-encap-
sulating suits, to normal, everyday work clothes. The site
will be restored to its previously undisturbed condition.
Once contamination is removed, soil will be replaced and the
site will be graded and landscaped to whatever conditions
existed prior to remediation.
2. COMMENT: A resident asked if the site would be safe
for agricultural use when remediation is complete.
EPA RESPONSE: When site remediation is complete, the site
will be sufficiently clean to allow agricultural use. In
addition, the only areas of concern here are the areas
directly over the disposal trenches. Other portions of the
site are not affected by contamination.
19
-------
EPA RESPONSE: The low-temperature thermal treatment system
which EPA is selecting as the remedial alternative for
treatment of contaminated soil will be equipped with highly
absorbent activated carbon filters that absorb and collect
any potentially hazardous emissions from treatment of the
soil. These filters are then transported off the site to
an EPA-approved disposal facility.
2. COMMENT: A resident inquired about the low temperature
thermal unit EPA plans to utilize to treat contaminated
soils at the Sarney site.
EPA RESPONSE: The unit is a low-temperature heating
system designed to evaporate contaminants in the soil. The
system can be fueled by electricity or natural gas.
Soil is placed into the unit and heated to a temperature of
less than 400° F. The contaminants in the soil are
essentially boiled out of the soil and the gases given
off by these contaminants are then collected in
activated carbon filters. These filters are changed as
they become saturated and are disposed of at EPA-
approved facilities.
3. COMMENT: A resident inquired about the on-site leachate
collection system.
EPA RESPONSE: This system actually collects and cleans
any rainwater or runoff that collects in the drum disposal
trench.
4. COMMENT: A resident asked how to obtain results of EPA
tests at the site and surrounding area.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA will provide all sampling results
directly to the affected residents upon receipt of
validated data from our laboratories.
5. COMMENT: Several residents and a local official asked
if the people responsible for burying the drums would
also be responsible for the financial aspects of site
cleanup; if these names are public information; and the
time in which a PRP must respond to EPA.
EPA RESPONSE: Under Superfund legislation, EPA has
identified and contacted several PRPs. This information
is available to the public upon request. These PRPs have
received copies of EPA's PRAP and will receive Notice
Letters based upon EPA's choice of a final site remedy.
These Notice Letters will request that the PRPs assume
22
-------
6. COMMENT: A resident asked what steps are next in the
remediation process.
EPA RESPONSE: Following signature of the Record of Decision
by the Regional Administrator, the ROD will be made
available to the public. Following this, the RD is begun.
This typically takes approximately 12 to 18 months. EPA has
already budgeted funding for this activity in the event the
PRPs do not perform the work. Subsequently, the remedial
action will be initiated.
7. COMMENT: A resident asked about EPA's target date to
initiate drum removal.
EPA RESPONSE: The Sarney Farm site is about to enter the
remedial design (RD) stage, of remediation. This process
typically encompasses 12-18 months. EPA will attempt to
speed up the removal of the drums to remediate the principal
source of contamination, possibly by separating the drum
removal portion of the project from the soil treatment
portion. Utilizing this approach,the design timeframe may
be reduced to 6 months. Construction could then be
initiated upon solicitation and award of construction
contract within 3-4 months of design completion.
COMMENT: Concern was expressed that contaminants may
continue migrating through the groundwater and that EPA's
preferred remedial alternative may not adequately address
groundwater contamination.
RESPONSE: None of the residential wells sampled by EPA or
the New York State Department of Health indicated the
presence of contaminants in excess of the Federal and State
standards. Based on this and other information gathered as
part of the RI/FS, EPA believes that any potential future
risk from the groundwater will be eliminated by the removal
of the source (i.e., contaminated soil and drums), and
natural attenuation processes. EPA will continue to assess
groundwater conditions at the site, and will conduct a long-
term monitoring program. Additional studies to be conducted
in the future will further delineate the hydrogeological
conditions at the site.
C. OTHER CONCERNS
1. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding potential
harmful emissions resulting from the on-site thermal
treatment of contaminated soils.
21
-------
8. COMMENT: A resident asked how EPA defines a PRP.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA conducts what is known as a PRP
search. These searches may be conducted by the
contractors and civil investigators who are employed by
EPA and/or EPA staff. Site records are examined in
order to determine who owned and operated the site at
the time it was contaminated; anyone who may have
participated in transporting hazardous materials to the
site; who may have produced the materials, and the
current owners of the site. Anyone who is identified
as participating in any of these activities can be
considered a PRP.
9. COMMENT: A resident asked if a listing of other NPL sites
in the State of New York is-.available to the public.
EPA RESPONSE: Yes. This listing is available to the
public. EPA will send this to the town supervisor or to
individuals upon request.
10. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that the RI/FS
reports were not available at the Dover Plains Town Hall
information repository.
EPA RESPONSE: It was EPA's intent to make the RI/FS
available at both the Dover Plains and Amenia Town Hall.
Unfortunately, the documents were only available at the
Amenia Town Hall at the time of the meeting. Another copy
of the RI/FS was sent to the Dover Plains Town Hall when it
came to EPA's attention that the document had not been
previously received.
11. COMMENT: A resident commented that people did not want to
cooperate regarding residential well sampling because test
results were not received by residents and there is a lack
of confidence in testing procedures.
EPA RESPONSE: It is EPA's policy to provide test results
to residents and EPA will do whatever is necessary to ensure
accurate and timely responses to requests for test results.
12. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA had completed any similar
contaminant cleanup on other sites.
EPA RESPONSE: Yes. There have been approximately 200
remedial action starts nationwide. As an example of
treatment of contaminated groundwater, in the Town of
Vestal, New York, EPA has recently completed construction of
an air stripper which treats contaminated water. This
treatment is currently on-going.
24
-------
financial responsibility for any remedial action.
If the PRPs indicate that they will commit to implement
the remedy, EPA will negotiate a settlement document to
memorialize that commitment by the PRPs. If the PRPs
do not volunteer to perform the work, EPA has the
authority to either require the PRPs to do the work, or
to implement the remedy itself and then seek recovery
of the cost of the remedy from the PRPs.
6. COMMENT: A resident asked how the site is placed and ranked
on the NPL; how many Superfund sites are in the region,
and the ranking of the Sarney Farm site.
EPA RESPONSE: When a site is initially placed on the
NPL, it is ranked according to the degree of risk it
presents to public health and the environment.
However, as more sites are added to the list, the
ranking of a particular site may change. The data used
to place a site in the list is usually preliminary so
its ranking may not be an indication of actual risk.
There are approximately 200 sites in EPA Region II on
the NPL with between 80-100 in the State of New York.
As of July 1989, the Sarney Farm was ranked number 668
out of 848 total sites on the NPL.
7. COMMENT: A local official expressed concern that,
although documents received in 1985 indicate that the
Sarney Farm site is the number one cleanup priority,
EPA may change the priority of site remediation based
on potential hazards presented by other sites across
the nation.
EPA RESPONSE: When sites are ready for remediation
they are prioritized nationally according to the risks
present. If the PRPs do not offer to perform the work,
and if funds are not sufficient to fund all sites
nationally that are ready for remediation, then,
typically, funds will be disbursed to those sites which
pose the greatest risk. The Sarney Farm site may be a
primary local priority but may not be ranked that
highly on a nationwide basis. Other Superfund sites
that pose greater risks to human health and the
environment would probably receive a higher priority
than the Sarney Farm site.
23
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
13. COMMENT: A resident asked if a PRP is usually agreeable to
paying for site remediation, and what the incentives
are for a PRP to assume financial responsibility.
EPA RESPONSE: It is difficult to predict whether a
particular PRP will agree to assume this
responsibility. As indicated above, even if a PRP does
not agree to carry out EPA's selected remedy, EPA has
the authority to order the PRP to perform the work. If
such an order is violated by the PRP, the PRP may be
held liable for substantial penalties. In addition, if
EPA performs the work itself, it can recover the costs
it incurs from the PRPs. Also, PRPs occasionally feel
they can perform the work at less expense than EPA.
Therefore, they would assume site remediation efforts
in the interest of reducing overall costs.
14. COMMENT: Several residents asked if funding for the cleanup
could potentially not be obtained, and, if so, could
the project be partially funded.
EPA RESPONSE: The remedial design will be funded upon
signature of the ROD. Finding for the remedial action
is uncertain at this time depending on the availability
of funds and the priority of the project with respect
to all other remedial actions nationally.
25
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I I
26 FEDERAL PUAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
AGENDA
Public Meeting
Barney Farm Superfund site
Amenia Town Ball
Amenia, New York
Mav 23. 1990
7:oo P.M.
I. Welcome & Introduction
II. Overview of Superfund
III. Site Background & History and
Results of the Remedial Invest-
igation & Feasibility Study
IV. Preferred Alternative
V. Questions and Answers
VI. Closing
Cecilia Echols
Community Relations
Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Doug Garbarini
Chief, Eastern New York
and Caribbean Remedial
Action Section
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Mario Verdibello
Site Manager
EBASCO, Services, Inc.
(contractor to EPA)
Rahul Gupta
Remedial Project Manager
Sarney Farm Superfund Site
U.S. EPA, Region 2
-------
is the trench in the woods northeast of the large
pasture (Area 4).
The contamination is derived from leaking drums and
wastes dumped in those trenches. The contaminants
of concern in the soils and drums in those trenches
are: 2-butanone, trichloroethene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone1
and toluene. Samples collected near leaking drums in
the trenches in Areas 2 and 4, contained high concen-
trations of contaminants and were analyzed as liquid
phase samples (see Table 1). The contaminants can
be transported by infiltration into the underlying over-
burden and bedrock aquifers at the Site.
Table 1. Maximum Concentration of SoJoctDd
Contaminants Detected in Soil and Drum Samples
(ug/l)
2-mjTUKKt
n^LC
4-ICT
TOLUENE
AREA 2
2.900
H.O.
91,000
61,000
AREA*
4,000,000
22.000
6,600.000
3,300,000
tough contamination in the trenches was quite exten-
sive, sample results for the groundwater indicated
limited contamination in this medium. Analyses were
performed for over 120 contaminants for samples
collected from 12 on-srte wells and 10 residential wells.
Very few wells had detectable concentrations of con-
taminants. Table 2 summarizes the maximum concen-
trations of the contaminants of concern in the ground-
water and surface water.
Table 2. Maximum Concentration of Selected
Contaminants Detected in Groundwater and Surface
Water Samples (ug/l)
1,2-DICNLOKOETIUUE
Vim CHLORIDE
AKSE3IC
•
•DT DETECTED
OH-SITE
131
U
6.1
KAUT
RESIDENCES
«•»•:
1.0.
UFACE
UATERS
4.5
6B
52
Of the 12 monitoring wells installed at the Site, only 2
contained contaminants (1,2-dichJoroethane and vinyl
chloride) in excess of the applicable Maximum Con-
taminant Levels (MCLs). With the possible exception of
one well, in which the presence or absence of 1,2-
dichkxoethane (1,2-DCE) could not be confirmed, no
contaminants were detected above the MCLs in the
residential wells sampled. Previous sampling conducted
by COM in 1987 showed no contaminants present in
the residential wells. In view of these findings 1,2-
dichkxoethane was not selected as an indicator chemi-
cal for residential well groundwater. The risk assess-
ment concluded that based on the residential well
sampling results there was no unacceptable risk to
residents currently utilizing these sources as a drinking
water supply. EPA has promulgated an acceptable risk
range of 10" to 10* which translates to an individual
having a 1 in 10,000 to a 1 in 1,000,000 increased
chance of developing cancer as result of site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under
the specific exposure conditions at the Site.
Of all the exposure pathways considered, including both
current and future use scenarios, two presented a risk
which was not within EPA's acceptable risk range. One
was for the scenario under which future construction of
residential structures was to occur orvsite in the con-
taminated Areas 2 and 4, and assumed that future resi-
dents inhaled the volatile contaminants trichloroethene,
2-butanone, 4-methyt-2-pentancne, and toluene from
these soils. The probable worst-case cancer risk was
from trichloroethene inhalation and was calculated to be
2.52 x 1CT3. Under the second scenario, future use of
groundwater directly below areas 2 and 4, the calcu-
lated potential excess cancer risk posed by the worst
case exposure was 1.07 X 1CT2. More than 99% of the
risk was associated with ingestkxi of groundwater
containing arsenic, vinyl chloride and 1,2-
dichJoroethane.
Exposure to vinyl chloride and arsenic via accidental
ingestion of the surface water and dermal contact with
surface water was determined to be a minor risk due to
a single detection of vinyl chloride at one sample
location. In addition, the risk posed by vinyl chloride is
just below the target level risk, and the single detected
level of arsenic (52 ug/l) is barely above the Safe
Drinking Water Act MCL of 50 ug/L Probable worst-
case cancer risk associated with arsenic and vinyl
chloride were determined to be 4.4 x 10" and 2.9 x
10"s, respectively.
-------
Super-fund Proposed Plan
Sarney Farm Superfund Site
Amenia, New York
EPA
Region 2
May 1990
ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Remedial Action Plan is issued to
describe the preferred alternative for remediating the
source of contamination and managing the migration of
contaminants associated with the Samey Farm Super-
fund Site pursuant to Section 117(a) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1960, as amended and
Figure 1
Section 300.430(7) of the National Contingency Plan
(NCR). The preferred alternative has been developed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as
the lead agency for Site activities, and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), the support agency for the Site. The
preferred alternative is based on two key documents:
the Remedial Investigation (Rl) report which character-
izes the nature and extent of contamination, as well as
the risks to public health and the environment posed by
the Site; and the Feasibility Study (FS) which describes
how the various remedial alternatives were developed
and evaluated.
This Proposed Plan provides background information on
the Samey Farm Site, describes the alternatives being
considered to remediate the Site, presents the rationale
for selection of the preferred alternative, and outlines
the public's rote in helping EPA make a final decision
on a remedy.
This Proposed Plan is being distributed along with the
Rl and FS reports, to solicit public comment regarding
the most acceptable way to remediate the Samey Farm
Site. Detailed information on any of the material
included in the Proposed Plan may be found in those
reports. The reports have been placed in information
repositories which are located in the Town Halls or
Dover Plains and Amenia, New York. The precise
location of the repositories are feed later in this
document.
Additional documentation concerning the remedy
selection is available in the administrative record for the
Site. Copies of the administrative record wfll be avail-
abte for viewing at either of the two repositories starting
on May 11,1990.
-------
Iihe no-action groundwater alternative GW-1.
on current information, this combination of
alternates provides the best balance among the nine
criteria that EPA uses as a means of evaluation. This
section provides a glossary of the nine criteria and an
analysis, with respect to these criteria, of all of the
alternatives under consideration for remediation.
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
Overall protection of human health and the
environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how risks
are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treat-
ment, engineering controls, or institutional controls. A
comprehensive risk analysis is included in the Rl.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or
not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver. A complete listing of
ARARs for this Site can be found in section 3 of the FS.
Short-term effectiveness involves the period of
time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may
Dsed during the construction and implementation
of the alternative.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers
to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may
be required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes.
Reduction of toxicitv, mobility, and volume refers
to the anticipated performance of the treatment tech-
nologies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy
may employ.
Implementabilitv involves the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to imple-
ment the chosen solution.
Cost includes both capital and 0 and M costs.
Cost comparisons are made on the basis of present
worth values. Present worth values are equivalent to
the amount of money which must be invested to
implement a certain alternative at the start of construc-
tion to provide for both construction costs and 0 and •
M costs over a 30 year period.
Community Acceptance will be based on a
review of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, and whether or
not the community supports or opposes the preferred
alternative.
State acceptance indicates whether, based on
its review of the RI/FS and PRAP, the state concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred
alternative.
ANALYSE
Contaminated Drums and Sol Aftematives
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 provide treatment of con-
taminated soils and drums and are therefore considered
to be protective of human health and the environment.
Alternative SC-1 would leave contaminated soil and
drum wastes unremediated and would therefore not be
protective of human health or the environment. It would
not comply with ARAR's nor would it be effective in the
short term or long term. There would be no reduction
in the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminated
materials. There would be no implementation issues
and it would involve the least expenditure of funds of
the three alternatives.
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 present short term risks to
on-site workers, the community, and the environment
since they entail excavation, containment and transport
of the contaminated drum wastes as well as excavation
and treatment or transport of the contaminated soil.
SC-5 would result in less of a snort-term risk to on-site
workers, the community and the environment because
the contaminated soil would be treated off-site; how-
ever, it would also create potential risks due to the off-
site transport of contaminated soil. Both SC-4 and SC-
5 would provide long-term permanent protection to the
public health and the environment against the drum
wastes and contaminated soil within a 14-month period
by reducing the mobility, toxichy and volume of the
waste. Both SC-4 and SC-5 would be readily impte-
mentabte. Alternative SC-5 would be more expensive
to implement than SC-4. Both SC-4 and SC-5 comply
with ARARs.
In summary, alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 are similar,
however SC-4 is advantageous over SC-5 since there
is a limited chance of off-site spillage of contaminated
-------
This alternative involves excavating the drums in Areas
2 and 4 and approximately 2365 cubic yards (cy) of
contaminated soil. The drums would then be placed in
overpack containers and transported to a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted off-
site treatment and disposal facility. The facility would
incinerate the drummed wastes and then dispose of the
drum residues. The contaminated soil would be treated
orvsite using a low temperature thermal treatment unit.
In the soil treatment facility, hot air is injected into the
soils at a temperature of 260°C. Volatile organic
compounds in the soil (i.e. toluene) are voiatized into
the air stream and combusted in an after burner where
they are destroyed. The off-gas from the after burner
would be treated in a scrubber for paniculate adsorp-
tion and gas removal. After treatment the soil would be
used to back fill and regrade the excavated areas.
Proper engineering measures would be implemented to
control air emissions, fugitive dust, run-off, erosion and
sedimentation.
SC-5 OFF-SITE TREATMENT! OF DRUMS AND SOILS
Capital Cost: $1,657.100
Present Worth Costs: $1.657,100
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative consists of excavating the contaminated
drums and 'soil as described in SC-4. The drums
would then be placed in overpacks and transported to
an off-site RCRA licensed treatment and disposal
facility. For the purpose of developing a cost for this
alternative, low temperature thermal treatment was
chosen as the most cost-effective technology for the off-
site treatment of soils. Treated soils would be disposed
of by the treatment facility operator in accordance with
RCRA regulations. Clean fill would be brought in to
back fill and regrade the excavated areas. Proper
engineering measures would be implemented to control
fugitive dust, run-off, erosion and sedimentation.
Table 5. Contaminated So9 Treatment Alternatives
Cost Summary
GW-1 NO FURTHER ACTION
c-1
C-4
CAPITAL
COST
S 0
6M.OOO
1.657.100
OM*
COST
15,300
0
0
UOKTI COST
264,000
6U.OOO
1.657.100
TIIC
OOfTB)
0
u
u
Capital Cost: none
Present Worth Cost:
Time to Implement:
$263,500
Immediate
TEA!
A no further action alternative would involve conducting
a long-term program to monitor the migration of con-
taminants in the bedrock aquifer underlying the Site.
The monitoring program would involve the sampling of
existing monitoring wells installed orvsJte plus the
residential wells located in the vicinity of the Site every
six months for 30 years. Surface water samples would
also be collected and analyzed for contaminants. This
information would be continually used to assess any
potential future impact and to ensure protection of
human health and the environment A five year review
would be performed since contaminated groundwater
would be left on-site. Fact sheets would be distributed
to the public, Town and County to inform them of the
results of the monitoring program and to indicate
whether contamination is spreading or otherwise
causing a problem which must be addressed.
GW-2 CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT AT
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Capital Cost: $50,000
Present Worth Costs: $310,000
Time To Implement: 14 months
This alternative would involve setting up small individu-
al carbon adsorption systems at existing residential
wells as a point-of-use water treatment alternative. The
water would be pumped from the individual well using
the existing pump through a residential carbon adsorp-
tion system which would remove the organic
contaminants. In addition, the installation of new wetts
in potentially affected areas would be discouraged
through the release of routine site fact sheets to the
Town and County if the results of the monitoring
program indicate that contamination is spreading or
otherwise causing a problem.
GW-3 COLLECTION AND TREATMENT OF
GROUNDWATER USING AN AIR SIHWEH
Capital Cost: $632,900
Present Worth Costs: $1,640,000
Time to Implement: 14 months
This alternative is to pump and treat the groundwater
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
the surface. A shovel and a backhoe will be used to
remove the overlying soil. In some areas of the Site the
groundwater is very close to the surface, therefore it
may be necessary to construct dewatering trenches
upgradient of drum excavation areas in order to control
groundwater intrusion. The soil surrounding the drums
will be placed in a designated area and tested. If
found to be contaminated it will be placed with the
other contaminated soil and treated using on-site low
temperature thermal treatment. Highly contaminated
soil contiguous with the drums (if present) may be sent
off-site with the drums.
Excavated soil will be transported to an on-site treat-
ment facility i.e., a low temperature thermal treatment
system. The thermal treatment process will be de-
signed to handle 5 cubic yards of soil per hour. The
treated soil will then be removed and tested to ensure
that the soil has achieved the health based clean-up
criteria Based on the results of the Rl there are a few
areas of soil that are contaminated with large concen-
trations of the contaminants of concern; further delinea-
tion cf these areas will be conducted during the
remedial design. This treatment will reduce the level of
all contaminants of concern to below the clean-up
criteria The treated soil will then be used to backfill
the excavated areas on site. This will eliminate the
potential migration of contaminants from the contami-
nated drums and soils into the groundwater or surface
water.
Natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination
(e.g. biodegradation, dilution, dispersion) will reduce the
levels of contaminants in the Site aquifer and the minor
potential risk to the public from contamination will be
eliminated. The slow nature of the groundwater flow on
the site will serve to maximize the effectiveness of
natural attenuation processes. These natural occurring
processes would serve to attenuate the groundwater
contaminant concentration levels to acceptable levels
over time. The long term monitoring program and the
required five year review process will ensure that in the
future, If there is evidence of significant changes in
conditions which present a significant risk to human
health or the environment, then appropriate remedial
action will be taken.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION
PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that
the remedy selected for each Superfund site meet the
needs of the local community, in addition to being an:
effective solution to the problem. To this end, this
Proposed Plan is being distributed to the public during
the 30 day public comment period. The Proposed Plan,
RI/FS reports, and others documents which are pan of
the administrative record file for the site are available for
public review at the following repositories:
Dover Plains Town Hall
Dover Plains, New York
Telephone: (914) 632-6111
Business hours: Monday to Friday
8:30 am. - 4:00 p.m.
Amenia Town Hall
Amenia, New York
Telephone: (914) 373-8118
Business hours: Monday to Friday
9:30 am. - 4:00 p.m.
Written and verbal comments on the Proposed Plan and
the RVFS reports wffl be welcomed through June 10,
1990, The' comments and EPA's responses to those
comments will be documented in a Responsiveness
Summary. The Responsiveness Summary will be
appended to the subsequent Record of Decision (ROD)
which formally documents the selected remedy for the
Site.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Rahul Gupta
Remedial Project Manager
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
EPA has identified the preferred alternative described
here based on the information available at this time.
The final decision on the remedy to be implemented will
be documented in the ROD only after consideration of
all comments received and any new information pres-
ented. The public, therefore, is encouraged to review
and comment on all of the alternatives described in this
Proposed Plan and in the FS report
^i^^ss^w^v.-**^***^*^*^.^*****.!' />*-^'XvS^^JxWj*^ v and
the Proposed Remedy.
-------
/y
(
UNITED flTATKH PROTECTTi AOENCY
R EQflUN 11
PUDLIC AVAI^^PTI.TTY nronroN
FOR
OARNEY FARM OUPERFUNI) niTE
AMENIA, NEW YORK
MAY 23, 1990
ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
MAILING
NAME STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING LIST
•V1 -I ' /', • ' /// .
-------
UNITED OTATEB PROTECT I -N AGENCY
REGION II
PUDLIC AVAILABILITY 8EOOION
FOR
BARNEY FARM 8UPERFI1ND SITE
AMENIA, NEW YOUK
HAY 23, 1990
ATTENDEEB
(Ploaae Print)
NAME
to*8'* fV/-/r
STREET
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
MAILING
REPRESENTING LIST
ltQu I >
------- |