iirtvironmental Protection
Utvice or
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-83/007
June 1983
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Matthews Electroplating
Site, VA
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
IPleDSt rttld Instructions on the ,evene before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-83/007
.. TITLE AND SU8TITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION: ne. In') IQ.
Matthews Electroplating Site, VA I. fJERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORCSI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
~. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/tORANT ~o.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 "M" Street, S. W. ~ONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D. C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
11. A8STRACT
The 1.7 acre Matthews Electroplating site is located in Roanoke County, Virginia,
approximately two miles west of Salem. Between 1972 and 1976, two buildings on the
site housed an automobile bumper electroplating operation. Groundwater sampling has
confirmed that a well at the plant was heavily contaminated with hexavalent chromium.
The off-site ground water investigation revealed that 10 local residential wells also
had chromium cont~~ination.
The cost-effective remedy selected for this site is to provide municipal water
service to the affected neighborhood. The capital cost of this alternative is
estimated to be $662,000 and the present worth of operating and maintenance costs for
thirty years was estimated at $292,000.
Key Words: Chromium, Drinking Water Standard, Municipal Water Supply, Shared Cost,
Capping, Ground Water Contamination, Source Control
.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANAL YSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Site Name: Matthews Electroplating Si te, VA
Contaminated media: gw, soil
Key contaminants: hexavalent chromium,
chromium
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT HI. SECURITY CLASS (Tlu's Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None IF.
~SrCURITY CLASS (Tlu's pale) 22. PRICE
None
E'A p- 2220-1 (Rn. 4-77)
~"EYIOUI EOITION II 0810L.ETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
REPORT NUMBER
Insert 'he lPA reporl number as it appeus on the cover of the publil:ation.
LEAVE BLANK
2.
3.
RECI,.ENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by foIl:h report recipient,
4.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate dearly Ind brieny the subjecr covera~ uf 'he report. and be di~rlay~'d rrominl:nlly, S~'I ~lIhli,k. if "",,'11. in ~lIIali~'r
type or otherwise subordinate it to main tide. When a report is rrepared in morr than "n~' volunll:, n'I"'atth~' rrilllary litk. ..,III v"I:aI11~'
number Ind include subtitle for the specific title.
REPORT DATE
Each report shall cury I date indicatinllt lea,t month and year, Indicate th~' hasis UII whkh il \\;1' ~'Ie\'l~'d (I',X.. Jill.. i'li$JiIlI'. JIlII'lIl
IIpprolNll. dillt O!prtptl1'tllion, tIC.).
5.
I.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Lelve blank.
7.
AUTHOR IS!
Give name(s) in ~'o)nvcntional order (Joim R, ~. J, Robt.,,, Dot:. 1'11'.). Li~t authur's affilial1UII if il ,lilh'rs frum II", I'l:rfurlllin~ ,"~ani.
uuon.
8.
'ERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert ir performing orpnization wishes to anign this number,
I.
'ERFORMING ORGANIZATtON NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code, List no more than two leveh of an ur~;anil;aliullal hire..rdl)!,
10. 'ROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the propam element number under which the reporl wa~ prepared. Subordin;ate numlx'r, 111.1)' be indll,I.',11II l'a'~'lIlh~',,',.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or arant number under which report w..s prcparcd,
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TY'E OF REPORT AND 'ERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etr_, and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGkNCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful. such ..s:
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements. etc,
11. ABSTRACT
Include I brief (200 words or Itss) factual summary of the most sillnilk..nllnformaliun .'ulI!aln.,,, III Ih" '''1'1111. II II", "'''11'1 '"111;1111' a
sianificant bibliography or literature survey. mention II here,
Prcpared III ~oopcriltlon wllh, 1 r;II1,la III III III, "'~''''III,',1 .II ,'1111 h'..' II ,,' ..I.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(I) DESCRIPTORS. Select from the The~urus of En&inecrir.¥ and Sd~'lItilk Terms Ihe prupcr aulhll,,"'11 1."111' Ihal lI.lenl1l)! Ihe maJm
concept oC the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be u:.cll ;as inlle:\ entrie) lur <:..I;alu~rnt:,
(b) IDENTIfiERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS. Use identifiers for pro)Ccl n..",~s, code lIames. e'!u'pmenl d""t:nalor~. ~'I~, USC "'11:11'
ended terms written in descriptor form Cor those subjects Cor which no de scrip lor e~ists,
(c) COSA TI HELD GROUP - Field and grOl,lp assianments .re to be tilken !'rom Ihe I Y6S ('OS 1\ 11 Suhi~'l'l ('al..t:"'y Ust, ~inc~' the mil'
jority oC documents Irt multidisciplinary in nlture, the Primary Field/Group ;aSSI&nmelltl'j willix' '1""".1 i., IIi" ,pline. arl:lI uf humiln
endelvor. or type of physicil object. The application(s) will be cron.referenccd with sc,'unllary Ill'Id/( ;r"u" ~"II!IIIIICII" Ihal will t"I1"",
the primary posting(s),
1.. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote relelsabillt)' to the publil: or limitalion Cor reasons other than sc~uri'y for ex;amrle "J{~lcaw (;lIhlllll~"I." ('lie all!, a~;III;,hilil)' III
the public. with address and pril:e,
11..20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the Nation..1 TcchnlcallnCormation servi<:e,
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages. including this one and unnumbered pilge'. but exdulle di,lflbutiun li,t. " an)!,
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National rechnicallnformation Scrvice ur Ihe Government Prinlln!; Office, ,I' knuwn,
EPA ,..'" 2220-1 (R... 4-77) (R...,..)
-------
ROD ISSUES ABSTRACT
~:
Matthews Electroplating, Virginia
~
Region:
III
AA, OSWER
Briefing Date:
June 2, 1983
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 1.7 acre Matthews Electroplating site is located in Roanoke
County, Virginia, approximately two miles west of Salem. Between 1972
and 1976, two buildings on the site housed an automobile bumper elec-
troplating operation. Groundwater sampling has confirmed that a well
at the plant was heavily contaminated with hexavalent chromium. The
off-site ground water investigation revealed that 10 local residential
wells also had chromium contamination.
..
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The cost-effective remedy selected for this site is to provide
municipal water service to the affected neighborhood. The capital cost
of this alternative is estimated to be $662,000 and the present worth
of operating and maintenance costs for thirty years was estimated at
$292,000.
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
1.
The EPA agreed to extend an existing water
supply system to users of private wells with
chromium contamination above the drinking
water standard of 50 ug/l. However, the
county has requested modifications to the
proposed design of the extended water dis-
tribution system. Their requests include a
larger water pipe size and additional fa-
cilities to accomodate future growth. It
was decided that EPA would pay for the dis-
distribution system as originally proposed
and that any modifications to the proposed
design would be funded by the county.
-1-
KEY WORDS
. Chromium
. Drinking Water
. Standard
. Municipal Water
Supply
. Shared Cost
-------
Matthews Electroplating, Virginia
/ June 2, 1983
Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
2.
Capping of the entire site, to prevent fur-
ther leaching of hexavalent chromium into
the ground water, was proposed as an addi-
tional remedial action. The site inves-
tigation showed that there is only moderate
soil contamination in two areas and the
chromium in these areas is bound up in an
unleachable form. Capping of the site is
unnecessary since the contaminated areas no
longer contribute any significant amount of
contaminants to the ground water.
-2-
KEY WORDS
. Capping
. Chromium
Ground Water
Contamination
. Source Control
-------
..
28
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNAT.IVE SE~ECTION
Site: Matthews Electroplating, Roanoke County, Virginia
Documents Reviewed
I have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis
of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Matthews
Electroplating Site:
-Study titled, -Field Investigation Report, Matthews
Electroplating Site, Salem, Virginia,- October 29,
1982.
~Study titled, -Report on Supplemental Field
Investigations, Matthews Electroplating Site, Salem,
virginia,- January 18, 1983.
-Study Titled -Feasibility Study Report, Matthews
Electroplating Site, Salem Virginia,- January 18, 1983.
-Staff summaries and recommendations
-Recom"mendations by the Virginia Department of Health
and the virginia State Water Control Board.
Declarations
Consistent with the co"mprehensi ve Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, and the National Oil
and Hazardous substances Contingency Plan, I have determined
that providing municipal water' service to the neighborhood near
the old electroplating plant is an appropriate level of
response to the contamination problems at this site. This
action is a cost-effective remedy, and it effectively and
reliably mitigates and minimizes damage to, and" provides
adequate protection of the public health, welfare and the
environment.
. '-.-..-.' - ..
I . ,
~.....,'" .'....--. ,~ -
, . '-.",-- . .-
Lee M. Thomas
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
-------
Remedial Implementation Alternative Selection
Matthews Electroplating ~ite
Roanoke County, Virginia
Record of Decision Summary Sheet
EPA has completed the following reme~ial Superfund activities
at the Matthews Electroplating Site, located near Salem,
Virginia: -
Activity
Date Completed
1. Remedial. Investigation
October 29, 1982
2. Feasibil~ty Study
3. Public meetings
January 18, 1983
April 12, 1982 and
December 16, 1982
Region III has reviewed the information in each report and has
given careful consideration to the comments received during the
public comment period. Based on our review, EPA Region III has
determined that the following action at the site is
cost-effective and effectively mitigates and minimizes damage
to, and provides adquate protection of the public health,
welfare, and the environment:
Action
Estimated Cost
Extension of Municipal Water
Supply
S662,OOO
APR 1 5 1983
-'~ J /' .//'
_..~._.- 0-. r 7 /C'~ 4.-
~eter N. Bibko .
.~g1onal Adm1strator
j
Date
-------
Narrative Summary
Matthews Electroplating Site
Ristory
rbe 1.7 acre Matthews Electroplating site is located in Roanoke County,
Virginia, approximately two miles west of Salem. Between 1972 and 1976, two
buildings on the site noused an automobile bumper electroplating operation.
The bumpers were straightened and prepared for plating in one building, and
then plated with chromium and nickel in the electroplating shop.
The Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) began receiving complaints
about the operation of the plant in 1975. Groundwater sampling in November
of 1975 confi~ed that a well at the plant was heavily contaminated with
hexavalent chromium, and that the well of a nearby church was also
contaminated. The SWCB issued an emergency order prohibiting the discharge
Df water from the plant in January 1976, but the facility went out of
business Ihortly thereafter. The local relidents with contaminated wells
still do not have a reliable lource of lafe drinking water.
rbis site was referred to EPA as a potential Superfund candidate by the SWCB
in 1981. The site was ranked with the Hazard Ranking System (score: 31.86),
and it was included on the Interim priority List as Virginia's State
Priority Site. Funding for the Site Investigation and Feasibility Study was
approved in October 1981. Weston Itarted the Site Investigation on April
13, 1982, and completed the Feasibility Study on January 18, 1983.
Current Status
The site investigation was aimed primarily at determining the level of soil
and groundwater contamination on the site, and at measuring the extent of
groundwater contamination in the surrounding area. The Itudy showed that
the on-site well contained 41 ug/l of total chromium, just below the
drinking water Itandard of 50 ug/l. Two areas of moderate loil
contamination were identified, but it was determined that the chromium in
these areas was bound up in the loil. It was concluded that these areas no
longer contributed any significant amounts of contaminants to the
groundwater.
The off-lite groundwater inveltigation revealed that 10 local residential
welll had been effected by the chromiUm contamination. Three residential
wells were above the drinking water standard for chromium, and leven other
well. had detectable levels that were below the standard. The contamination
extended approximately one half mile to the louthwest of the old plant site,
apparently following a fracture trace in the limestone bedrock. Although
the groundwater in the area generally flowl to the .outhwest, the Itudy also
found lome chromium in a well to the north of the site. This finding
luagests that the local groundwater flow may be changing, lince lome local
re.idents have stopped using their contaminated well.. If the chromuim
contamination moves to the north, a community well for the Broadview
.Subdivision would be threatened.
-------
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation, the Feasibility Study
identified seven preliminary remedial action alternatives:
1. No Action
2. Surface Management
. Site grading
. Place cover soil- -
. Revegetation
3. Infiltration Controls
. Replace/upgrade clay cap
. Site grading
. Place cover soil
. Revegetation
4. Point-of use Treatment of Groundwater
5. Centralized Treatment of Groundwater
. Extend distribution of existing community well system
. Develop new community system
6. Provide Alternative Drinking Water Supply
. Bottled water
. Extend municipal water supply
7. Contaminated Soil Removal
These preliminary alternatives were then evaluated on the basis of their
technical feasibility, cost and environmental effectiveness. The final
remedial action alternatives that were examined in depth in "the Feasibility
Study included the following:
Estimated Estimated Total Cost
Alternative Capital Cost O&M Cos t (Present Worth)
L No On-site Action O' $19,800 S19,800
2. Surface Management $78,000 $9,900 $87,900
3. Site Capping $121,000 $9,900 $131,000
4. Contaminated Soil
Removal $1,236,000 $5,000 $1,241,000
5. No Off-site Action 0 $40,800 $40,800
6. Community Well System $573,000 $350,000 5923,000
7. Extension of Municipal
Water Supply $662,000 $292,000 $954,000
-------
Based on the results of a human health assessment, it was determined that
the "No Action" option results in excess health risk. The "No Action"
alternative is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Since contamination
from past oper.~ions on the site has already entered the groundwater, it was
determined that the on-site remedial options (Surface Management, Sit~
Capping and Contaminated Soil Removal) would not result in any significant
improvement in groundwater quality. The Community Well System Alternative
was also rejected because it did not provide the kind of flexible and
reliable water supply ~Istem that is necessary in this situation.
Public Input
Two public meetings were held near the site during the study period. The
meeting to discuss the alternatives was held on December 16, 1982, at the
Roanoke County Administration Building. Approximately 20 residents attended
this meeting,' and nine written comments were received following the
meeting. The local residents clearly supported the construction of a new
water supply system, and Roanoke County officials endorsed the extension of
the municipal water lines from the Salem water treatment plant.
Recommended Alternative
Sectio~ 300.68(j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) [47 FR 31180, July
16, 1982] states that the appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined
by the lead agency's selection of the remedial alternative which the agency
determines is cost-effective (i.e., the lowest cost alternative that is
technologically feasible and reliable) and which effectively mitigates and
minimizes damage to and provides adequate protection of public health,
welfare, or the environment. Based on our evaluation of the
cost-effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives, the comments
received from the public, information from the Site Investigation and
Feasibility Study Reports, and information from the State, we recommend
Alternative 7, above. The alternative includes the extension of the
municipal water system from the water treatment plant in the City of Salem.
We have determined that implementation of this alternative will effectively
mitigate damage to and provide adequate protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment.
The capital cost of this alternative is estimated to be $662,000, and the
present worth of operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $292,000
for thirty years.
State Input
After giving careful consideration to the cost effectiveness of each
alternative. and evaluating the public comments we received, the Virginia
State Water Control Board and the Virginia Department of Health (the two
agencies that share Superfund responsibilities in Virginia) recommen~ed that
we implement Alternative 7 (extension of municipal water 8upply). Letters
supporting the State's recommendation appear on Attachment A.
-------
Pro~osed Action
We request your a~~roval of Alternative 7 for remedial action at the
Matthews Electro~lating site. In addition, we request an allocation of
$662,000 for construction of the project, and $30,000 for the preparation of
plans and specification (for a total allocation of $692,000).
Tentative Schedule
Final Design
Initiate Construction
¥inish Construction
-
June 1983
August 1983
April 1984
If you have a~y questions, please call Eric Johnson at (FTS) 597-0496.
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Letters from Commonwealth of Virginia; Funding Resolution,
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
-------
R. V. D.is, P..E.
ES8IUtiw OINctor
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
2111 Hamilton Street
Post Office Box 11143
ichmond, Virvini8 23230
18041257.Q056
ffB .L { ;983
IOARD MEMBERS
MiII8rCI B. Rica, Jr.
CJ\8irm8n
Watkins M. Abbin, Jr.
.Iotln H. Ari8il, Jr.
Georve M. Comall
~tI S. Cf8llWall, Jr.
O.id H. Millar
Patrick L.. Standing
Hr. Stephen R. Wassersug
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reg ion II I
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Hr. Wassersug:
For the last year, the Water Control Board staff, Mr. Eric Johnson, and the
Roy F. Weston consultants have been cooperating in the preparation and develop-
ment of the site investigation and feasibility study for the Matthews Electro-
plating Super-Fund site near. Salem, Virginia. .These prel iminary efforts have
been completed and the final IIFeasibil ity Study Reportll was publ ished last
month.
As a result of the completed investigations, pub tic participation and our
assessment of the chromium contamination probtem at the site, the State Water
Controt Board staff is hereby reccmmending that Alternative No.7, "Extension
of the Municipal Water Suppty,1I be accepted as the remedi~t action for this
site. This alternative has clearly been the preferred choice of at I concerned
parties, and we certainty bet ieve that it is the best resotution to the chromium
contamination problem.
My staff truly appreciates the cooperative efforts and progress that have been
accompt ished to' date, and we look forward to your continued assistance as we
strive to obtain a resolution to the contamination at the Matthews site.
Sincerely yours,
.-, ~ ., -
/( . ~., -...:.- ..."'k--
R. V. Davis, P.E.
Executive Director
Ipth
..-.-. .. . .... ,~ ,."'." .""
R .,..- ,. . ~ ' . i .-' , .
. - '. ~ . . ,.' . - ...-.
. '..., '. .
cc:
C. W. Maus - WCRO/SWCB
W. F. Giltey - SHD
Att\.~ .~,. .
ti':\ i',-.
. .. -~I.
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
,~-
&>!->c '~~~
,~. : r'. ~
~ ~ .~~
..' "j'"
...... ,.'."" ~~ .~
'*~~ ~...::...."
1\'""',.~~~d
~r
CO~1]\t1IONy\/E:iLT1-1 of VIRGI01.~
: ... ..".~ -: :'.1."
Department of Health
Richmond. l'a. 2'J219
;,U"E~ 3: "E'u,,£";
February 18, 1983
Stephen R. Was8ersug, Director
Air & Waste Management Division
USEPA, l.egion III
Curti. Building
6th and Walnut Street8
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Was8ersug:
The final -Feasibility Study Report- undertaken by the Roy F. Weston
consultants on the Mathew8 Electroplating auperfuud aite near Salem, Virginia
has been revei wed.
Considering the inveatigation findings, the public response and our
.valuation, the Alternative No. " Extension of the aunicipal water lupply is
the recommended remedial action for the lite. It clearly provided the most
.ffective ..anl of a.8uring adequate protection of public health for area
re8idents now relying on chromium contaminated groundwater for drinking water.
We will continue to work with you, Mr. Eric Johnson and others in seeking
an early resolution to this contamination 8ite.
Sincerely, '
~. f~ Mrector
Division of Solid &
Hazardou8 Waste Management
WFG/..
cc:
ll. V. Davis
"""- ...a.
~'.i .=' .. .
."" ',!....,
... :.... t
~..'''' '\"' .
l' ...) "
..
~',~~\~"'.'
.
. ..
I,
~.... . "" . . ;: ~,
Ej-" 1"\,-' . .d ,.i.
-------
R. V. DlVit. P. E.
Ix8CUtiw8 DiNctor
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
2111 Hamilton Street
-
POI1 Offlc8 Box 11143
ictImond. Virvini. 23230
18041257.0056
April 1, 1983
, ,.:
:' ,A9D'''''~!''.':'''~''.
J .",n. mbJ'~,.7-....t"":.
..tilllf'Ci B. Ri.'fI, .If.
~:rmu. "
W8tkins M. Abbitt, Jr.
John H. Arillil. Jr.
George M. Cornell
JOIIPh S. Ct'8gW8I1. Jr.
DlVid H. Miller
Parick L. St8nding
Mr. Eric Johnson
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The intent of this letter is to provide you with an update of our activities
in proceeding with the resolution to the pollution and drinking water problems
at Matthews Electroplating site in Roanoke County. We realize that we are very
close to the initiation of remedial measures that will relieve the drinking
water problems that the area currently experiences, and we want to assure you
that our agencies are striving to expedite this process.
We have reached a stage where the mechanism for the State share of the reme-
dial construction costs must be developed. As you are aware, Roanoke County
has recently made a commitment to provide the ten (10) percent funding to the
State, and we are currently searching for an appropriate mechanism, within
the State, to accept this money and then transmit it to the Federal Fund as
~pecified by regulations. A meeting has been scheduled on April 7, 1983 to
hopefully mediate the minor problems that have been raised concerning the
manipulation of these funds through State accounts, and we hope that once
these problems are solved then we will be ready to enter into a contractual
agreement and proceed with remedial clean-up.
Thank you for your understanding of ~hese issues and for your continued support.
Sincerely yours,
i2'£I~
R. E. Bowles, Director
Bureau of Surveillance
and Field Studies
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunij;y Employer
------- |