EPA/ROD/R02-96/274
1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA
EPA ID: NYD980535124
OU01
MALTA, NY
07/18/1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site
Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site
Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of the
remedial action for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area site (the Site) in accordance with the reguirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
§9601 et seg. and to the extent practicable the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. An administrative record for the Site, established pursuant to the
NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the documents that form the basis for EPA's selection of the remedial action
(see Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has been consulted on the planned remedial action
in accordance with CERCLA §121(f), 42 U.S.C. §9621(f), and it concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix
IV) .
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Site consists of one (1) operable unit and this ROD addresses the entire site. The remedy addresses the
principal threats to human health and the environment that are posed by conditions at the Site. Exposure to
soil contamination at the Malta Test Station will be addressed by excavation and off-site disposal of the
contaminated soil. Ingestion of contaminated ground water by on-site employees will be addressed by pumping
the Test Station water supply wells and treating the water to acceptable drinking water standards using an
air stripper. Monitoring of surface water and ground water, such as that
currently performed for the Early Warning Monitoring System (EWMS), will continue to ensure that off-site
ground water users are not impacted by contamination emanating from the Site. Ground water not captured by
the air stripper will be remediated to cleanup standards through natural attenuation and degradation
processes, which will reguire monitoring of this long-term project. The selected remedy is consistent with
several other EPA-approved response actions taken during the remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility
study, including decommissioning and removal of two (2) compressed gas cylinders; excavation and recycling of
560 empty, buried crushed drums; cleanouts of several septic tanks, catch basins, and dry wells; cleanout of
a sump; cleanup of surface debris; and disposal of waste generated during the RI.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
1) Continued pumping of the Test Station water supply well(s) and treatment of the water by air stripping to
provide an acceptable drinking water supply for the Test Station employees, which may be accomplished using
the existing air stripper. Continued monitoring of the influent and effluent of the air stripper in
accordance with New York State reguirements to ensure that it effectively treats the on-site water supply to
Federal MCLs, or if more stringent, New York State drinking water standards.
2) Natural attenuation and degradation of VOCs in ground water that are not captured by the pumping well(s)
until the ground water attains Federal MCLs, or if more stringent, New York State ground water standards.
3) Monitoring of surface water and ground water to ensure that off-site ground water users are not impacted
by contamination from the Site, that contaminated ground water does not migrate into uncontaminated areas
-------
(i.e., that the ground water plume is contained), and that the natural attenuation and degradation processes
are restoring the ground water to the cleanup standards. The existing surface water and ground water sample
locations of the EWMS may be modified as necessary to meet the first objective of this monitoring program.
4) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Building 23P area at a depth of 1 foot or less having a
concentration of more than 10 ppm of PCBs, soil at a depth below 1 foot having a concentration of more than
25 ppm of PCBs, and soil at any depth with a concentration of lead of more than 1000 ppm.
5) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection at any depth with a
concentration of more than 2 ppm of mercury.
6) Backfilling of excavations in the Building 23P area and at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection with
clean fill material, grading to blend with the surrounding areas, and revegetation.
7) Transportation of the excavated soil from the Building 23P area and Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch
Intersection and disposal off-site at an appropriate EPA-approved facility, consistent with RCRA regulations
and all other ARARs.
8) Implementation of institutional controls, which may include new deed restrictions, to prevent ingestion of
contaminated ground water, to restrict withdrawal of ground water within the vicinity of the plume that could
adversely impact ground water remediation, and to restrict the Test Station to its current
commercial/industrial land use.
9) Evaluation of Site conditions at least once every 5 years to ensure that the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. If justified by the review, EPA may reguire that additional remedial actions be
implemented.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the reguirements for remedial actions set forth in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621:
(1) it is protective of human health and the environment; (2) it attains a level or standard of control of
the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, which at least attains the legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate reguirements (ARARs) under federal and state laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and (5) it satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at a site
to the extent that it reguires treatment of the Test Station water supply.
A review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c), will be conducted five years
after the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adeguate
protection to human health and the environment, because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels.
![]()
Jeanne M. Fox Date
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund Site
Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
TABIiE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 5
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 9
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 14
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 15
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 20
SELECTED REMEDY 27
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 28
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 31
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund Site (the Site), also known as the Saratoga Research and Development
Center, is located on Plains Road in the Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York,
approximately 1.5 miles south of Saratoga Lake and 2 miles northeast of Round Lake (see Figure 1). The Site
includes a square parcel of approximately 165 acres of developed land, known as the Malta Test Station (the
Test Station), which has been used as a research and development facility for rocket and
weapons testing for more than fifty (50) years. The Test Station has thirty-three (33) buildings, numerous
rocket test stands, concrete guench pits, leach fields/septic tanks, dry wells, storage areas, disposal
areas, and a small artificial pond known as Muggett's Pond. A fence surrounds the majority of the Test
Station.
In addition to the Test Station, the Site includes portions of the predominantly undeveloped woodlands that
surround the Test Station, including a) the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building; b) Area D-3; c) the
Triangular Parcel; and d) areas adjacent to the Test Station that have been impacted by Site-related
constituents in ground water. The former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building was built between 1968 and 1970 by the
New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority, the predecessor agency of the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). It was used for experiments on low-level radiation of
medical equipment and food preservation and for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment research project
conducted by the General Electric Company (G.E.) and the Exxon Nuclear Company (now Advanced Nuclear Fuels,
Inc.). NYSERDA currently leases the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building to Optimum Air Corporation, which
manufactures equipment to dry industrial coatings. Area D-3, also owned by NYSERDA, consists of a ravine
(Ravine Ib) partially filled with debris and covered with vegetated soil, which reportedly was used by the
New York State Department of Transportation for disposal of construction and demolition debris during the
construction of Interstate 87. The Triangular Parcel, owned by Wright-Malta Corporation, is an area of forest
adjacent to the southeast corner of the Test Station that was evaluated, but never used, for research and
development testing. The portion of the Site beyond the Test Station boundary that has
been impacted by contaminated ground water is owned by the Luther Forest Corporation and forms part of a
safety easement of approximately 1,500 acres of pine forest surrounding the Test Station. The Luther Forest
Corporation, which built the Luther Forest housing development to the northwest of the Site, operates a
logging business within the safety easement (see Figure 1). The land outside the safety easement is zoned
for residential use. Approximately 12,000 people live within a two-mile radius of the Site.
There are two public water supply systems that serve the Luther Forest residential community, the Luther
Forest Well Field and the Cold Springs Well. The Luther Forest Well Field is located approximately 1 mile
southwest of the Site. These wells tap the Knapp Road sand and gravel aquifer to provide water for the
Luther Forest residential development. The Cold Springs Well is located approximately 1 mile northeast of the
Site. The Cold Springs Well and two (2) others located nearby, the Saratoga Hollow Well and the Saratoga
Ridge Well, tap unnamed sand and gravel aquifers near Saratoga Lake.
Ground water and surface water sampling conducted as part of an Early Warning Monitoring System (EWMS) has
been performed since June 1987 to verify that these public water supplies are not impacted by the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The U.S. Government (throught the Department of War, which later became the Department of Defense [DOD])
established the Test Station in 1945. Since then, all or part of the Test Station has been leased to G.E.,
Wright-Malta Corporation, Exxon Nuclear Company, Olin Corporation, Iso-Nuclear Corporation, Mechanical
Technology, Inc. (MTI), and Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) and used for a wide range of rocket and weapons
testing programs and for space and other research. Major research efforts conducted included Project Hermes,
reportedly the first U.S. rocket engine program (Army and Navy), and Projects Vanguard (Navy) and Vega
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA), which were designed to launch satellites into
space. Another NASA project at the Site involved simulating conditions for nose cone re-entry from space
into the earth's atmosphere. These activities involved, among other things, the use of carbon tetrachloride
(carbon tet) and trichloroethylene (TCE) as solvents and degreasers. Detailed information regarding the
history of the Site can be found in the Literature Search Report, which is
available in the informational repositories and is part of the Administrative Record File for the Site (see
-------
Appendix III).
In 1955, the U.S. Government established a perpetual restrictive safety easement surrounding the Test
Station. The easement covered approximately 1,800 acres in a circular area of one-mile radius from the
approximate geographic center of the Test Station, not including the Test Station itself. The holder of the
easement has the right to prohibit hunting and human habitation, remove buildings being used for human
habitation, post signs, and enter the easement area to exercise these rights. In 1964, NYSERDA's predecessor
purchased the 165-acre Test Station and the easement interest, and in 1968 it purchased an additional 280
acres within the easement area. Because a single entity (NYSERDA's predecessor) then held both the easement
interest and owned a portion of the property that was subject to the easement restrictions, the easement
restrictions on that 280-acre parcel were extinguished. In 1984, NYSERDA sold 81 acres of the original Test
Station property and its interest in the easement (now affecting approximately 1,500 acres) to Wright-Malta
Corporation, which continues to own this portion of the Test Station and hold the easement.
On July 23, 1979, approximately 8 grams of uranium hexafluoride gas were released in a portion of the former
GE/Exxon Nuclear building, depositing a thin film on the floor of the room. The area was cleaned and the
contaminated material was sent to licensed disposal facilities. A radiation survey of the building was
conducted on December 20, 1979 and all beta and gamma readings taken were within the limits of unrestricted
use.
In 1980, NYSERDA found drums containing 200 pounds of the amine nitrate CAVEA-B and 10 rusting 55-gallon
drums of hydrazine fuels and rainwater on a concrete storage pad, called Area S-4. Hydrazine and CAVEA-B, a
nitrogen-based mixture, were experimental liquid rocket propellants used at the Site. On July 16, 1980,
NYSERDA obtained a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for
restricted burning of some of the waste. From July 18-21, 1980, combustible waste was burned in accordance
with the permit requirements and the non-combustible drum contents were transferred to new poly-lined drums
and staged until they were disposed of off-site in July 1981.
In June 1985, transformers located on a portion of the Test Station leased to PTI (Areas S-8 and S-9) were
tested and found to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). NYSERDA and PTI conducted a cleanup and
decontamination of the transformers in 1987. In October 1985, a buried container of triethyl aluminum
exploded when it was punctured by earth-moving activities.
In 1985 and 1986, ground water at the Site was sampled and found to contain carbon tet, TCE, and chloroform,
along with several metals. In January 1987, an air stripper was permitted by NYSDEC and installed on the
Test Station water supply wells by Wright-Malta Corporation to treat ground water prior to its use by
employees at the Test Station. As purveyor of water, Wright-Malta Corporation is responsible for ensuring
that the on-site water supply is in compliance with Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. The New York
State Department of Health reviews the monitoring data collected from the on-site water supply. As noted
above, in June 1987, the EWMS was established between the Test Station and the Luther Forest Well Field to
detect any contamination emanating from the Site before it impacted the water supply for the Luther Forest
residential development. To date, the EWMS results have indicated that the Site has not impacted the water
quality of the Luther Forest residential development.
In 1987, NYSERDA sampled liquid and sludge from septic tanks at Buildings 20, 25, and the former G.E./Exxon
Nuclear building. Based on detections of VOCs in these samples, including toluene at the former G.E./Exxon
Nuclear building, NYSERDA had the septic tanks pumped out and rinsed in May 1988.
In 1988, a drum was discovered in storage Area S-2 and sampled. Analysis of the drum contents indicated the
liquid contained 4,270 parts per million (ppm) of lead, 235 ppm of zinc, and 93 ppm of copper. NYSERDA
disposed of the drum off-site in April 1989 in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations.
On June 10, 1986, EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). Final listing
on the NPL occurred on July 22,1987. Subsequently, at NYSDEC's request, EPA took the enforcement lead for
the Site. EPA identified the following potentially responsible parties (PRPs): Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Inc.
(the successor of Exxon Nuclear Fuels, Inc.; Curtiss-Wright Corporation; G.E.; MTI, NYSERDA; Olin
-------
Corporation; PTI; the U.S. Government (DOD [Army, Navy, Air Force], Department of Energy, NASA), and
Wright-Malta Corporation.
In September 1989, EPA unilaterally issued an Administrative Order to eight of the PRPs for performance of
the RI/FS. The Respondents to the Order are Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Inc.; Curtiss-Wright Corporation; G.E.;
MTI; NYSERDA; Olin Corporation; PTI; and Wright-Malta Corporation. In March 1990, G.E., NYSERDA, and DOD
entered into a participation agreement among themselves and undertook performance of the RI/FS.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In October 1991, EPA held a public meeting and issued a fact sheet to announce the start of the RI field
work. Following the meeting, EPA finalized its Community Relations Plan, which included information EPA had
gathered from interviews with local residents and community leaders. During the RI, EPA issued three fact
sheets (January 1992, February 1993, and September 1994) to report the progress of the investigation and sent
them to all persons on EPA's mailing list for the Site. In addition, in October 1991, EPA established local
informational repositories at the Malta Town Hall and the Round Lake Library and an
Administrative Record File at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York, New York. Throughout the RI/FS, EPA
added site-related documents to the local informational repositories and made them available for public
inspection.
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides communities with the opportunity to apply for Technical
Assistant Grants (TAG Grants) of up to $50,000 per site. In September 1993, EPA awarded a three-year TAG
Grant to the Ermine Lair Neighborhood Association, one of the three homeowner associations of the Luther
Forest residential development. The Ermine Lair Neighborhood Association chose not to utilize its TAG Grant
during the RI/FS.
On April 16, 1996, EPA mailed out copies of the Proposed Plan to all persons on EPA's mailing list. On April
17, 1996, EPA published a notice in a local newspaper, the Saratogian, announcing the availability of the RI
report, the FS report, and the Proposed Plan for public inspection at the informational repositories and
inviting public comment on these documents from April 17 to May 16, 1996.
On April 24, 1996, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Malta Town Hall to inform local officials and
interested citizens about the Superfund process, to summarize the results of the RI/FS, to review current and
planned remedial activities at the Site, and to respond to any guestions from area residents and other
attendees. Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The overall cleanup plan for the Site includes treatment of the on-site water supply system by air stripping,
remediation of the ground water plume by natural attenuation and degradation processes, and remediation of
contaminated soil by excavation and off-site disposal. The remedy is consistent with several response
actions that have already been performed in accordance with EPA-approved work plans submitted as part of the
RI/FS and which are described in detail in the Summary of Site Characteristics section of this ROD, including
1) decommissioning and removal of two compressed gas cylinders, 2) excavation and recycling of 560 empty,
buried crushed drums; 3) cleanouts of several septic tanks, catch basins, and dry wells; 4) cleanout of a
sump; and 5) disposal of waste generated during the RI, called investigation-derived waste or IDW. By having
these response actions performed during the RI/FS rather than at a later date, EPA substantially reduced the
scope of work reguired for this final cleanup remedy.
In addition, the remedy utilizes ongoing remedial actions where possible to meet the cleanup goals for the
Site. For example, acceptable drinking water for the Test Station employees is achieved by continued use of
the existing air stripper installed at the Test Station in 1987 and monitoring to ensure that off-site ground
water users are not impacted by Site contamination is provided by the ongoing EWMS. Institutional controls
to restrict ground water withdrawal within the vicinity of the plume and to restrict the Test Station to a
commercial/industrial land use are consistent with the current land use, the existing
fencing, and restrictions of the safety easement.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Site characteristics were determined through performance of a comprehensive RI. The purpose of the RI was
to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to obtain sufficient information to
conduct a risk assessment and to evaluate cleanup alternatives. Field work began in October 1991 and was
completed in May 1994. A total of 48 distinct areas of concern and the Site-wide ground water were
investigated.
The Site is situated on a topographic drainage divide. Streams in Ravines 6a, 6b, 7, and 8 north of the Site
flow northward toward Saratoga Lake. Streams in Ravines la, Ib, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, and 5 south of the Site
flow southward toward Round Lake (see Figure 1).
The Site is underlain by the unconsolidated aeolian sand, Lake Albany sand, and Lake Albany silty sand units,
which have a combined thickness of up to 250 feet (see Figure 2). The depth to ground water is approximately
15 to 55 feet below land surface. Below these sand layers is an approximately 100-foot layer of clay and
silt that hydraulically separates the Lake Albany sand/silty sand aguifer above from the bedrock below.
Muggett's Pond at the Test Station was created by excavating a small area (0.07 acre) down to the ground
water table of the Lake Albany aguifer. Ground water at the Site is influenced by the
topographic divide and by the geologic layering. In general, ground water flows from the Triangular Parcel
across the Test Station and discharges both northward to Ravines 6a, 6b, 7, and 8 and southward to Ravines
la, Ib, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 3. The water supply system for the Site consists of 2 active production wells
located at the Test Station. As noted above, an air stripper is currently treating the Test Station water
supply.
Analytical results from the RI samples of surface water, sediment, ground water, surface soil, subsurface
soil, and septic tank liguid were compared to screening levels established for the Site, also known as the
comparative criteria. The comparative criteria for ground water, surface water, and sediment were a
combination of their respective maximum measured background concentrations and available federal and state
regulatory standards, guidance values, and criteria. The comparative criteria for surface and subsurface
soil were a combination of the maximum statistical background concentrations; available federal and state
regulatory standards, guidance values, and criteria; and health-based comparative criteria (for 25 inorganic
anatytes including essential nutrients). Septic tank liguid samples were compared to the ground water
effuent standards for discharge to Class GA (drinking water) aguifers set forth in the NYSDEC Quality
Standards for Groundwater. In general, detections below the comparative criteria indicated no concern and
were not investigated further, while detections above the comparative criteria indicated a potential for
concern and were investigated further. All of the RI sample results were evaluated in the risk assessment.
Tables 1 through 9 show the comparative criteria and the analytical results for all RI samples that exceeded
the comparative criteria for surface water, sediment, surface soil, subsurface soil, ground water, dry wells,
and septic tanks. Key activities conducted during the RI and their results are as follows:
Radiation Survey: A radiation survey was conducted with a geiger counter to assess the potential presence of
residual radiation in the ambient air at the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building, where radioactive materials
reportedly had been used in the past. The survey revealed no radiation above background levels.
Geophysical Surveys: Geophysical surveys were conducted at 19 areas to identify locations of possible buried
metal. A total of 82 anomalies in 13 areas were interpreted as areas of possible buried metal. Subsurface
investigations (81 test pits and 9 soil borings) revealed that most of the buried metal at the Site is
construction-related scrap metal debris or scrap artillery projectiles. Two areas of empty, buried crushed
drums and an unlabeled compressed gas cylinder were found in Area S-l, a burn pit structure and a third area
of empty, buried crushed drums were found at Area D-l, and a compressed gas cylinder
labeled pentaborane was found at Area D-4. At Area D-5, 4 five-gallon pails of sodium hydroxide and 3
thirty-five gallon stainless steel drums, 1 approximately half-full with an unidentified black, oily caustic
liguid (pH>13) were found. During the RI, the compressed gas cylinders were decommissioned and disposed of
off-site. In October 1995, the stainless steel drums and 560 empty, crushed drums were excavated and taken
off-site for recycling. The chemicals (the sodium hydroxide and the black caustic liguid) were stored in
overpack drums and removed from the Site in February 1996. All these response
actions were performed in accordance with EPA-approved work plans.
-------
Soil Gas Surveys: Soil gas surveys were performed at 46 areas of the Site, with a total of 844 soil gas
points installed and sampled. These surveys were used as a screening-level tool to provide a
semi-guantitative evaluation of the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in shallow soil. The soil
gas analytical results were used to select locations for soil borings and monitoring wells.
Ground Water Investigation: Thirty (30) wells were installed at the Site to supplement the existing network
of 18 monitoring wells and water supply wells. Ground water samples were collected and analyzed in June
1992, November 1992, and March 1994. These sample results confirm the presence of VOCs in ground water above
Federal drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) and were used to prepare a map of the
ground water plume (see Figure 1). The 5-parts per billion (ppb) limit of ground water plume is well within
the easement area. Carbon tet and TCE were detected near the center of the Test Station at maximum
concentrations of 220 ppb and 280 ppb, respectively, compared to their MCLs of 5 ppb. The EWMS and RI ground
water and surface water samples show that VOC concentrations are generally steady or decreasing, suggesting
that the plume is not migrating in the subsurface into uncontaminated areas under current ground water flow
conditions. Three additional ground water samples taken from within the plume in January 1996 were
consistent with the RI results.
Surface Water Investigation: Fourteen (14) surface water samples were collected from 6 surface water bodies
(guench pits at Buildings 3, 4, and 25; Muggett's Pond; and Ravines Ib and 6a). EWMS and surface water data
from other sampling events were used to evaluate Ravines la, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, 6b, 7, and 8. Analytical
results from samples collected in Ravine 6a were interpreted to be representative of background conditions.
Samples from Ravine Ib at Area D-3 showed concentrations of several inorganics (aluminum, calcium, iron,
manganese, potassium, and sodium) above the comparative criteria. The 3 guench pits showed iron, manganese,
and antimony above the comparative criteria and the Building 3 guench pit also showed two (2) pesticides
(aldrin and heptachlor epoxide) above the comparative criteria. Surface water samples from Muggett's Pond
showed only iron and manganese above the comparative criteria. The data from the EWMS and other historical
sampling events indicate that low levels of carbon tet and TCE are present in the headwaters of Ravine 2b
where the ground water plume discharges to surface water, and that they volatilize before reaching midstream
or downstream sampling locations (see Appendix F of risk assessment report).
Sediment Investigation: Sediment samples were collected from Muggett's Pond and the ravines at the same
locations where the RI surface water samples were taken. Because the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch rarely
contains water, the results from samples taken there are reported in the following section on surface soil
investigation. Sediment samples from Ravine 6a were interpreted as representative of background conditions.
Samples from Ravine Ib showed only inorganic analytes above the comparative criteria, such as
aluminum, barium, manganese, and potassium. Sediment samples from the 3 guench pits and Muggett's Pond
showed detections above the comparative criteria for organic and inorganic analytes, including PCBs, lead,
manganese, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Additional sampling indicated that the exceedences were localized.
Surface Soil Investigation: Twenty-one (21) surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for a
background soil guality investigation, which was used in developing the comparative criteria for surface
soil. In addition, 67 surface soil samples were analyzed from 60 locations at the Site. The results showed
localized exceedences of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) at Buildings 6, 24, and 27 that are likely
attributable to nearby asphalt paving. PCBs were found at concentrations from 720 ppb to 20.3 ppm and lead
from 102 to 1090 ppm at Building 23P, and mercury was found at concentrations of 0.02 to 124 ppm at Muggett's
Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection, where a spur joins the main drainage ditch (see Figures 1 and 3).
Subsurface Soil Investigation: Thirty-three (33) subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed as part
of the background soil guality investigation. In addition, 254 shallow subsurface soil samples and 3 deep
subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed from 172 shallow borings, 3 deep borings (now monitoring
wells), and 23 test pit locations at the Test Station, Area D-3, and the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building.
The soil samples showed detections of inorganics and various VOCs and SVOCs above the
comparative criteria in small areas at several locations on the Test Station.
Dry Well Investigation: Thirty-one (31) soil and sediment samples were collected and analyzed from 23 dry
well features (dry wells, catch basins, floor drains, a swale, and an open sump) at the Site. Thirteen (13)
of the dry wells (12 on the Test Station and 1 at the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building) showed detections
-------
of inorganic and organic analytes above the comparative criteria. Additional sampling below and adjacent to
these dry wells confirmed that the exceedences were localized. The sump at Building 1A was cleaned out in
October 1992 and 4 catch basins and 1 dry well were cleaned out in October and November 1995 in accordance
with an EPA-approved work plan.
Septic Tank Investigation: Seven (7) liguid samples and 2 sludge samples were collected from septic tanks on
the Site. The analytical results showed detections above the comparative criteria, including inorganics,
VOCs and PCBs. These septic tanks were cleaned out from October 1995 to February 1996 in accordance with an
EPA-approved work plan. Additional soil sampling confirmed that these constituents had not contaminated soil
outside the septic tanks or beneath the cesspools.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks associated
with current and future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the human health and
ecological risk which could result from the contamination at the Site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the freguency and duration of these exposures, and
the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment-determines the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk
Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
guantitative assessment of site-related risks.
The human health risk assessment began with selection of contaminants of concern that would be representative
of Site risks. These contaminants included VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and inorganics in surface water, sediment,
ground water, soil, and dry well sediment. Several of the contaminants, including carbon tet and TCE, are
known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected to be human carcinogens. The summary of the
contaminants of concern for human receptors in sampled media is listed in Table 10.
EPA's baseline risk assessment addressed the potential risks to human health by identifying several potential
exposure pathways by which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the Site under current and
future land-use conditions. The current land use of the Test Station and former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building
area is industrial and much of the land surrounding the Site is subject to easement restrictions that
prohibit human habitation and hunting. Therefore, the potential current receptors identified were an on-site
employee, a utility worker, and a youth trespasser. Other potential receptors
identified were future on-site residents (adult and child), who could be present at the Site if the current
land use of the Test Station was changed to residential or if the easement restrictions were discontinued,
and a future excavation worker.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects that could result from exposure to contamination as
a result of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with ground water; ingestion and dermal contact with
surface and subsurface soils; and ingestion and dermal contact with surface water and sediments, for both
potential present and future land use scenarios. A total of 21 exposure pathways were guantitatively or
gualitatively evaluated under possible on-site current and future land-use conditions (see Table 11). For
each pathway evaluated guantitatively, the reasonable maximum exposure was assessed.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due
to exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that the toxic effects of the
site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
-------
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
milligrams/kilogram-day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to
be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are compared
to the RfD to derive the hazard guotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is obtained by
adding the hazard guotients for all compounds across all media that impact a particular receptor population.
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a
result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. The reference doses
for the compounds of concern at the site are presented in Table 12. A summary of the noncarcinogenic risks
associated with these chemicals across various exposure pathways is found in Table 13.
As can be seen from Table 14, the HI for noncarcinogenic risk, based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario, is less than 1.0 for a current on-site worker, a current utility worker, a current youth
trespasser, and a future excavation worker. The HI is approximately 2.0 for a future on-site adult or child
resident, assuming no remediation of contaminated soil at Building 23P. However, as shown in Table 14, the
HI was calculated to be less than 1.0 for each receptor and 0.8 for the child resident, a sensitive
subpopulation, when remediation of PCBs in soil at Building 23P was considered.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by EPA for the
contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Sfs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-1, are multiplied by
the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the
excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the
underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SF for the compounds of concern are presented in Table 12.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual lifetime cancer risks of
between 10-4 to 10-6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not greater than a 1 in
10,000 to a 1 in 1,000,000 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 cumulative upper-bound cancer risk at the Site for a current on-site employee, a current utility worker,
a current youth trespasser, and a future excavation worker were all within the acceptable risk range of 10-4
to 10-6 or lower (see Table 15). For example, the excess cancer risk to an on-site worker under current
conditions is approximately 7 x 10-5 (7 in 100,000), which is within the acceptable risk range. The risk
assessment indicated that the carcinogenic risk may be unacceptable under a future resident scenario due to
the concentration of PCBs in soil at the Building 23P area. For example, the carcinogenic risk with the
contaminated soil is 2 x 10-4 (2 in 10,000) for a future child resident, a sensitive subpopulation. Assuming
the top foot of contaminated soil is cleaned up to 10 ppm of PCBs and contaminated soil below a depth of one
foot is cleaned up to 25 ppm of PCBs, based on EPA policy, the risk is reduced by half to 1 x 10-4 (see Table
15) .
The baseline risk assessment indicated that the carcinogenic risk associated with ground water at the Site is
acceptable for all current and future human receptors (see Table 16). For example, the carcinogenic risk for
current Test Station employees who ingest ground water treated by the existing air stripper is 9 x 10-7 (9 in
10 million), which is negligible. If the existing air stripper were discontinued, the carcinogenic risk for
Test Station employees drinking untreated ground water would be 4 x 10-5 (4 in 100,000), which is higher but
still within the acceptable risk range. The carcinogenic risk calculated for exposure of a future child
resident, a sensitive subpopulation, is 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000), which is also within the acceptable risk
range. Although the risk due to ground water contamination falls within the acceptable risk range, the
remedy reguires treatment of the Test Station water supply to provide potable drinking water for the Test
Station employees, and monitoring of natural attenuation and degradation processes until the ground water
-------
plume attains ground water cleanup standards, consistent with the NCP. All calculations in the risk
assessment are conservatively protective of human health; therefore, any actual risk posed by exposure is
unlikely to be underestimated.
The baseline risk assessment did not include a calculation of the risk associated with lead in soil because
appropriate toxicity factors do not exist, and therefore the calculation could not be performed. However,
the maximum detection of lead in soil (1090 ppm at Building 23P) was determined to be unacceptable because it
is slightly above 1000 ppm, which is a generally accepted cleanup level used by EPA for lead in soil for a
commercial/industrial land use. For comparison, EPA's cleanup level for residential land use is 400 ppm.
Other detections of lead in soil at the Site were less than 1000 ppm and determined to be acceptable under
the Site's current commercial/industrial land use.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Problem Formulation - a gualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study. Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation
of contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways and receptors; and
measurement or estimation of exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment—literature
reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological
receptors. Risk Characterization-measurement or estimation of both current and future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with selection of contaminants of concern that would be representative
of Site risks and identification of the Site-specific biological species and their habitats. The summary of
the contaminants of concern for environmental receptors in sampled media is provided in Tables 17, 18, and 19
for surface water, sediment, and surface soil, respectively. Potential ecological receptors identified were
benthic invertebrates and aguatic plants, terrestrial plants, soil invertebrates such as the earthworm, and
terrestrial vertebrates such as the meadow vole, the short-tailed shrew, the red-tailed hawk, the barn
swallow, and the red fox.
The ecological risk assessment indicated that the soil contaminated with mercury at the Muggett's Pond
Drainage Ditch Intersection may pose an ecological risk to terrestrial species. A cleanup goal of 2 ppm of
mercury was established for these soils based on ecological risk calculations. The potential risk posed to
Muggett's Pond itself was determined to be minimal based on its small size (0.07 acre) and limited habitat
for aguatic receptors.
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. Conseguently, 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 is likely to
actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure would
occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
-------
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals.
These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the site, and is unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the site.
Site-specific uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for the Site include the fact that seven (7)
tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were not included in the guantitative risk assessment due to the
uncertainties associated with the identification and guantities of these compounds. Each of the TICs lack
both a cancer slope factor and a reference dose. The lack of current toxicity criteria for these TICs does
not allow guantitative estimation of risk. Thus, elimination of the TICs could lead to a slight
underestimation of the risks. Another site-specific uncertainty is associated with the future resident
scenario, which assumed ground water would not be filtered prior to consumption. Turbidity sampling of the
Malta Test Station water supply wells and several monitoring wells, as well as the current practice of using
a settling tank at the Test Station to reduce the solids content before ground water consumption, suggest
that a future resident water supply would also reguire some types of solids removal (e.g., settling or
filtration) before consumption. Therefore, the use of unfiltered water in the risk assessment has likely lead
to a slight overestimation of risk with respect to that scenario. More specific information concerning
public health risks, including a guantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the Risk Assessment Report.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in the
ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. They specify the
contaminants of concern, the receptors, and acceptable contaminant levels for each exposure route. These
objectives are based on available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate
reguirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment. The following remedial action
objectives were established for the Site:
Ground Water
! Prevent ingestion of ground water with concentrations of Site-related constituents (primarily the VOCs
carbon tet and TCE) above current Federal drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State
drinking water standards. Specifically, prevent the ingestion of ground water containing concentrations of
carbon tet above 5 ppb; TCE above 5 ppb, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) above 5 ppb; chloromethane above 5 ppb;
1,1,1,-trichloroethane above 5 ppb, and total trihalomethanes (which includes chloroform) above
100 ppb.
! Prevent ingestion of ground water with concentrations of Site-related VOCs that pose an unacceptable risk
to human health (total carcinogenic risk greater than 1 in 10,000 or a noncarcinogenic Hazard Index greater
than 1).
! Prevent further migration of the ground water plume containing Site-related VOCs above current Federal
drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State ground water standards, into areas with
concentrations of contaminants in ground water below such standards. Specifically, prevent further migration
of ground water containing more than 5 ppb of carbon tet, 5 ppb of TCE, 5 ppb of PCE, 5 ppb of chloromethane,
5 ppb of 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, and 7 ppb of chloroform.
! Restore ground water so that concentrations of VOCs in the aguifer at the Site are reduced to current
Federal drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State ground water standards. Specifically,
restore the ground water to concentrations that do not exceed 5 ppb for carbon tet, 5 ppb for TCE, 5 ppb for
PCE, 5 ppb for chloromethane, 5 ppb for 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, and 7 ppb for chloroform.
-------
Soil
! Prevent human exposure to soil at the Building 23P area containing concentrations of PCBs that pose an
unacceptable risk to human health (i.e., an excess cancer risk greater than 1 in 10,000) and concentrations
of lead in excess of generally accepted cleanup levels for lead in soil for commercial/industrial land use.
Specifically, prevent human exposure to PCBs in soil at concentrations greater than 10 ppm from the surface
to a depth of 1 foot and in soil at concentrations greater than 25 ppm for soil below a depth of 1 foot, and
prevent human exposure to lead in soil at the Building 23P area at concentrations greater than 1000 ppm.
! Prevent unacceptable ecological risk attributable to mercury in soil at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch
Intersection. Specifically, prevent ecological exposure to mercury in soil at concentrations greater than 2
ppm.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(1), mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human health
and the environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a
preference for remedial actions which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must
attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at
least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
§121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
This ROD evaluates in detail, five (5) remedial alternatives that address ground water contamination
associated with the Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site and four (4) remedial alternatives that address the soil
contamination. The time to implement a remedial alternative reflects only the time reguired to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time reguired to design the remedy, negotiate with the PRPs, or
procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation and maintenance at the Site.
The present worth cost for each alternative is calculated for 30 years at a 5% discount rate. The remedial
alternatives for ground water are:
Alternative Gl: No Action
Capital Cost: $0
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $0/yr
Present-Worth Cost: $0
Implementation Time: None
CERCLA reguires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives. Under Alternative Gl, no action would be taken to remediate, control or monitor the
contaminated ground water. The existing air stripper would be disconnected and would no longer treat the
Test Station water supply to acceptable drinking water levels. The EWMS would be discontinued and there
would be no monitoring of contaminants in surface water or ground water. There would be no institutional
controls to restrict human habitation at the Test Station or the withdrawal of ground water within the
vicinity of the plume. The concentrations of VOCs in ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels in
an estimated 110 years by natural attenuation and degradation processes such as dilution, dispersion,
adsorption, and possibly biological and chemical degradation. Ground water would continue to discharge
naturally to the ravines, where concentrations of VOCs are reduced to acceptable levels in surface water
through volatilization. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA
would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years.
Alternative G2b: Pump Test Station Water Supply Well(s), Treat using the Existing
Air Stripper, Natural Attenuation, and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $7,000
0 & M Cost: $17,100/yr
Present Worth Cost: $269,900
-------
Construction Time: None
Under Alternative G2b, the Test Station water supply well(s) would continue to pump contaminated ground water
and the existing air stripper would continue to treat the Test Station water supply system to acceptable
drinking water levels. The pumping rate for the Test Station water supply wells would be determined by
demand, which is currently estimated to be 0.6 gallons per minute (gpm). The concentrations of VOCs in
ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels by natural attenuation and degradation
processes, and to a lesser extent by the pumping and treating, in an estimated 110 years. Ground water and
surface water would continue to be monitored to ensure that off-site ground water users are not impacted by
contamination from the Site, that the ground water plume does not migrate into uncontaminated areas, and that
natural attenuation and degradation processes are restoring the ground water to cleanup standards. Ground
water would continue to discharge naturally to the ravines, where concentrations of VOCs are currently
reduced to acceptable levels through volatilization. The air stripper influent and
effluent would continue to be monitored. Institutional controls, such as new deed restrictions, would be
implemented to prevent ingestion of contaminated ground water and to restrict the withdrawal of ground water
within the vicinity of the plume that could adversely impact restoration of the contaminated ground water.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA
§121 (c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c) would require that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years to
ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. If justified by the review, EPA
may require implementation of additional remedial actions.
Alternative G3: Pump Test Station Water Supply Well(s), Treat at Maximum Capacity
of Existing Air Stripper, Natural Attenuation, and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $247,000
0 & M Cost: $46,200/yr
Present Worth Cost: $957,400
Construction Time: 1 to 2 months
Alternative G3 incorporates the provisions of Alternative G2b (pumping Test Station water supply wells,
treatment of the water using the existing air stripper, natural attenuation and degradation of ground water,
surface water and ground water monitoring, and institutional controls), except that the Test Station water
supply system would be operated to maximize the capacity of the air stripper (approximately 25 gpm). Water
pumped and treated in excess of the water supply demand of the Site would be discharged on-site in a manner
that enhances the ground water remediation and in compliance with applicable regulations. Various discharge
options, such as an outfall discharge structure at the head of Ravine 2a,
reinjection wells, or a surface infiltration trench or bed, would be evaluated during remedial design
(reinjection wells were assumed for cost estimating purposes). Under this alternative, the concentrations of
VOCs in ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels within an estimated 90 years. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA §121(c), 42
U.S.C. §9621(c)would require that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by
the review, EPA may require implementation of additional remedial actions.
Alternative G4a: Pump Test Station Water Supply Well(s), Treat using New Air
Stripper, Natural Attenuation, and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $348,700
0 & M Cost: $47,600/yr
Present Worth Cost: $1,080,400
Construction Time: 4 to 6 months
Alternative G4a incorporates many of the provisions of Alternative G3 (pumping the Test Station water supply
wells, treatment by air stripping, discharge of water in excess of on-site demand, natural attenuation and
degradation of ground water, surface water and ground water monitoring, and institutional controls).
However, Alternative G4a would require that the 2 on-site water supply wells be pumped at a combined pumping
rate of approximately 75 gpm to capture most of the ground water with concentrations of individual VOCs
greater than 50 ppb. A new air stripper would be required to treat this volume of pumped water. As with
Alternative G3, treated water in excess of the water supply demand of the Site would be discharged on-site in
-------
a manner that enhances ground water remediation and in compliance with applicable regulations. Various
discharge options, such as a discharge structure at the head of Ravine 2a, reinjection wells, or a surface
infiltration trench or bed, would be evaluated during remedial design (reinjection wells were assumed for
cost estimating purposes). Under this alternative, the concentrations of VOCs in ground water would be
reduced to acceptable levels within an estimated 80 years. Because this alternative would result in
contaminants remaining on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c) would reguire
that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by the review, EPA may reguire
implementation of additional remedial actions.
Alternative G4b: Pump Existing Test Station Water Supply Wells and Two New Wells,
Treat using New Air Stripper, Natural Attenuation, and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $649,600
0 & M Cost: $51,800/yr
Present Worth Cost: $1,445,900
Construction Time: 4 to 6 months
Alternative G4b incorporates many of the provisions of Alternative G4a (pumping of the existing water supply
wells, treatment by a new air stripper, discharge of water in excess of on-site demand, natural attenuation
and degradation of ground water, surface water and ground water monitoring, and institutional controls). In
Alternative G4b, however, water would be pumped from 4 wells (2 new wells and 2 existing water supply wells)
at a combined pumping rate of approximately 140 gpm, to capture all of the ground water with concentrations
of individual VOCs greater than 50 ppb. A new air stripper would be reguired to treat the increased volume
of pumped water. Treated water in excess of the water supply demand of the Site would be discharged on-site
in a manner that enhances ground water remediation and in compliance with applicable regulations. As in
Alternatives G3 and G4a, various discharge options, such as a discharge structure at the head of Ravine 2a,
reinjection wells, or a surface infiltration trench or bed, would be evaluated during remedial design
(reinjection wells were assumed for cost estimating purposes). Under this alternative, the concentrations of
VOCs in ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels within an estimated 60 years. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA §121(c), 42
U.S.C. §9621(c) would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by
the review, EPA may reguire implementation of additional remedial actions.
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative SI: No Action
Capital Cost: $ 0
0 & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 0
Construction Time: None
CERCLA reguires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives. Under Alternative SI, no action would be taken to remediate or control the contaminated soil.
The contaminated soil at the Building 23P area and at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection would be
left in place. No action would be taken to control access to the contaminated soil, such as maintaining the
existing fence around the Test Station or enforcing the easement restrictions. Because this alternative
would result in contaminants remaining on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C.
§9621(c)would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years.
Alternative S2: Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $16,800
0 & M Cost: $0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $16,800
Construction Time: None
Under Alternative S2, human exposure to contaminated soil at the Building 23P area would be reduced through
institutional controls, such as deed restrictions, that would restrict the Test Station property to its
current commercial/industrial land use and thereby eliminate a future residential scenario. Ecological
exposure to contaminated soil at Building 23P and the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection would be
-------
reduced through maintenance of the existing fencing around the Test Station, which would restrict access for
some species but not others. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above
health-based levels, CERCLA §121 (c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c) would reguire
that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by the review, EPA may reguire
implementation of additional remedial actions.
Alternative S3b: Asphalt Caps and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $ 27,000
0 & M Cost: $l,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 42,400
Construction Time: 1 week
Under Alternative S3b, asphalt caps would be placed over the contaminated soil at the Building 23P area
(estimated area 15 ftx 5 ft) and the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection (estimated area 3 ff x 30
ft), in addition to institutional controls to limit the Test Station to commercial/industrial land use (e.g.,
deed restrictions). Placement of the cap in the drainage ditch would reguire altering the ditch to maintain
flow and prevent erosion. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site above
health-based levels, CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (c) would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at
least once every 5 years. If justified by the review, EPA may reguire implementation of additional remedial
actions.
Alternative S4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal and Institutional Controls
Capital Cost: $25,100
0 & M Cost: $0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $25,100
Construction Time: 1 week
Alternative S4 involves excavation of the contaminated soil at Building 23P (estimated volume 3 to 5 cubic
yards [yd3]) and at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection (estimated volume 3 yd3). Excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean fill material, graded to blend with the surrounding areas, and revegetated.
The excavated soil would be transported to an appropriate off-site facility for final disposal. Institutional
controls, such as deed restrictions, would be implemented to restrict the Test Station to its current
commercial/industrial land use.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a
detailed analysis of the viable remedial alternatives pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR §300.430 (e) (9) and OSWER
Directive 9355.3-01. The detailed analysis consisted of an assessment of the individual alternatives against
each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each
alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adeguate protection and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based on a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the applicable (legally
enforceable), or relevant and appropriate (reguirements that pertain to situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at a Superfund site such that their use is well suited to the site)
reguirements of federal and state environmental statutes and reguirements or provide grounds for
-------
invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify the
major trade-offs among alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met. It
also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be reguired to manage the
risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment refers to a remedial technology's
expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment period on the
Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the
State supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with respect to the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives described in the
Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be discussed include
support, reservation, or opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
! Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl: No Action is not protective of human health and the environment, because it does not prevent
ingestion of contaminated ground water or reguire ground water restoration or monitoring to ensure that the
ground water plume does not migrate into uncontaminated areas. Alternatives G2b, G3, G4a, and G4b would be
protective of human health and the environment, because ingestion of contaminated ground water and plume
migration would be prevented through on-site ground water pumping and treatment, institutional controls, and
surface water and ground water monitoring. Although Alternative G4b would be the most protective of the
environment because it would restore the ground water in the shortest period of time, all the ground water
alternatives are expected to restore the contaminated ground water to acceptable levels within similar
relative timeframes (i.e, from 60 to 110 years). Alternative G2b would be somewhat more protective of the
ravine habitat than Alternatives G3, G4a, and G4b because there would
be no potential impact to the streams due to discharge of large volumes of treated water in excess of the
Test Station water supply demand; this impact could be reduced by using reinjection wells or infiltration
trenches upgradient of the streams rather than through a discharge structure at the head of Ravine 2a.
Soil Alternatives
Alternative SI: No Action is not protective of human health and the environment because it does not prevent
human exposure to contaminated soil at Building 23P or reduce ecological risks associated with contaminated
soil at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection. Of the remaining alternatives, S2 is the least
-------
protective of human health and the environment because it relies on institutional controls. Alternative S3b
is more protective of human health and the environment, because exposure to contaminated soil would be
reduced through capping and institutional controls. Alternative S4 is the most protective of human health
and the environment because exposure to contaminated soil would be reduced through excavation and off-site
disposal and institutional controls.
! Compliance with ARARs
Ground Water Alternatives
All of the ground water alternatives except the no action alternative would attain the chemical-specific
ARARs identified for the Site. The ARARs for the treatment of the Test Station water supply are the Federal
MCLs for drinking water or, if more stringent, New York State drinking water standards. Examples of these
levels are 5 ppb for carbon tet and 5 ppb for TCE. These standards would be met for each ground water
alternative utilizing an air stripper (i.e., all but Alternative Gl: No Action).
All of the ground water alternatives are expected to attain the chemical-specific ARARs identified for
restoration of the ground water plume within estimated restoration time periods ranging from 60 to 110 years.
The ARARs for ground water restoration are the Federal MCLs or, if more stringent, New York State ground
water standards. The estimated time to attain MCLs is 110 years for Alternatives Gl and G2b, 90 years for
Alternative G3, 80 years for Alternative G4a, and 60 years for Alternative G4b. As noted above, actual
timeframes for ground water restoration may be shorter or longer than these time periods, which are estimated
based on ground water fate and transport modeling.
There are no location-specific or action-specific ARARs associated with Alternative Gl, which reguires no
action. The remaining alternatives would be expected to meet all of their location-specific or
action-specific ARARs. Alternative G2b and G3 utilize the existing air stripper, which was permitted by
NYSDEC and has met the New York State Air Emissions Reguirements (VOC Emissions for Air Strippers and Process
Vents, General Air Quality). Alternatives G4a and G4b reguire new air strippers, which also could be designed
to meet these reguirements. Alternatives G3, G4a, and G4b, which involve discharge of treated
water in excess of the on-site demand, would have additional ARARs depending on the method of discharge
selected in remedial design. For example, discharge to Ravine 2a through an outfall structure would be
designed to comply with the Federal and New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Programs (NPDES
and SPDES, respectively), the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Federal Clean Water Act
(Part 404(b) Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Program). Discharge through reinjection wells or
infiltration trenches would be designed to comply with the Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act and SPDES.
Soil Alternatives
All the ARARs associated with the soil alternatives would be attained. There are no location-specific or
action-specific ARARs associated with Alternatives SI or S2. Alternative S3b would comply with RCRA
reguirements for detection monitoring. Alternative S4 would comply with RCRA reguirements for transport of
the excavated soil and disposal at an EPA-approved landfill. There are no chemical-specific ARARs that
establish the cleanup level for the PCB-contaminated soil at Building 23P, since the concentrations are below
50 ppm and therefore are not regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . Similarly, there are no
ARARs for the cleanup level of mercury in soil at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection or the lead
in soil at Building 23P. However, Alternative S4 would comply with EPA's "Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination," OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-01, dated August 1990, which utilizes the
TSCA PCB spill policy to establish cleanup levels for PCBs at restricted access (industrial) sites.
Alternative S4 would also meet the Site-specific cleanup level for mercury (2 ppm) and the generally accepted
cleanup level for lead in soil for a commercial/industrial land use (1000 ppm) .
! Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl is neither effective nor permanent because it would not prevent ingestion of contaminated
ground water and does not provide a means for restoring or monitoring the ground water plume. Alternatives
G2b, G3, G4a, and G4b all would be effective and permanent in the long-term, because each prevents ingestion
-------
of contaminated ground water, eventually restores ground water to acceptable levels, and includes provisions
for monitoring the ground water over time.
Soil Alternatives
Alternative SI is neither effective nor permanent because it would not address the long-term risks due to
exposure to contaminated soils at Building 23P and Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection. Of the
remaining alternatives, S2 is the least effective means of reducing long-term risk because it relies solely
on institutional controls. Alternative S3b uses capping, which is somewhat more effective in the long-term.
Alternative S4 would have the greatest long-term effectiveness and permanence, because the risks would be
reduced through excavation and proper off-site disposal to an approved facility.
! Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl: No Action would not employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of VOCs in
ground water. Of the remaining alternatives, G2b assumes the lowest pumping rate and would offer the least
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment by air stripping. Alternative G3 would reguire
a higher pumping rate than Alternative G2b and therefore would offer greater reduction through treatment.
Alternative G4b would reguire the highest pumping rate and would utilize treatment to the greatest extent to
reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. Alternatives G2b, G3, and
G4b would rely upon natural attenuation and degradation processes in addition to treatment to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of VOCs in the ground water.
Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SI and S2 reguire no action and institutional controls, respectively, and therefore would not
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated soil at Building 23P or at the Muggett's Pond
Drainage Ditch Intersection. The asphalt caps reguired by Alternative S3b would reduce the mobility of the
contaminated soil from wind and water erosion, but would not reduce its toxicity or volume. Alternative S4
provides the greatest reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume by excavation of the contaminated soil and
off-site disposal in an EPA-approved facility. Because of the small volume of soil involved (6-8 yd3), none
of the soil alternatives utilizes an on-site treatment technology to reduce the
toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants in soil.
! Short-Term Effectiveness
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternatives Gl, G2b, and G3 do not pose any short-term risk during construction because they rely on either
no action or utilize existing systems. Alternatives G4a and G4b reguire installation of a new air stripper
and disassembly of the existing one, which may pose short-term safety risks to construction workers.
Alternatives G4a and G4b are eguivalent with respect to this potential risk, which is expected to be easily
controlled through proper construction and standard health and safety practices. Alternative G4b is the most
effective during implementation, because cleanup goals would be expected to be met in the shortest period of
time compared to the other alternatives.
Soil Alternatives
Alternative SI and S2 do not pose any short-term risk because they rely on either no action or institutional
controls. Alternative S3b would pose minimal short-term risk to workers and the environment during asphalt
capping of the contaminated soil. Alternative S4 would pose minimal short-term risk for a short period of
time when the contaminated soil is excavated and disposed of off-site. However, this risk is expected to be
easily controlled through standard health and safety practices.
I
Implementability
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl would not reguire any construction, operation, or monitoring; therefore it is easily
implementable. Alternatives G2b, G3, and G4a would use the existing wells, and Alternatives G2b and G3 would
also use the existing air stripper treatment system, making these alternatives easy to implement.
-------
Installation of new pumping wells (G4b), installation of a new air stripper (G4a and G4b) and construction of
a discharge system for excess treated water (G3, G4a, and G4b) would reguire no specialty eguipment or
contractors and could be implemented using common construction practices.
Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SI and S2 reguire no action and institutional controls, respectively, and are readily
implementable. The routine asphalt caps of Alternative S3b and the excavation and off-site disposal reguired
of Alternative S4 could be easily implemented using readily available materials, eguipment, and construction
practices.
Ground Water Alternatives
Costs for the ground water alternatives Gl to G4b are as follows:
Capital O&M/yr Present Worth
Gl $0 $0 $0
G2b 7,000 17,100 269,900
G32 47,200 46,200 957,400
G4a 348,700 47,600 1,080,400
G4b 649,600 51,800 1,445,900
The capital and present worth costs for Alternatives Gl and G2b are relatively low or zero. Alternatives G3
and G4a are intermediate with present worth costs of approximately $1 million, and Alternative G4b is the
most expensive at approximately $1.5 million.
Soil Alternatives
Costs for the soil alternatives SI to S4 are as follows:
Capital O&M/yr Present Worth
SI $0 $0 $0
S21 16,800 0 16,800
S3b 27,000 1,000 42,400
S4 25,100 0 25,100
The present worth cost for Alternative SI is zero. Of the remaining alternatives, S2 is the least expensive
at $16,800, S4 is intermediate at $25,100, and S3b is the most expensive at $42,400.
! State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence is attached as Appendix IV.
! Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the selected remedy was assessed at the public meeting and during the public comment
period. At the April 24, 1996 public meeting, the Town Supervisor read a prepared statement signed by
himself and members of the Town Board in support of EPA's remedy. During the public comment period, EPA
received one letter, which was submitted by two of the PRPs (G.E. and NYSERDA) and supported EPA's remedy. A
responsiveness summary is attached as Appendix V.
SEIiECTED REMEDY
EPA and the State of New York have determined, after reviewing the alternatives and public comments, that
Alternative G2b: Pump Water Supply Well(s), Treat using the Existing Air Stripper, Natural Attenuation, and
Institutional Controls and Alternative S4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal and Institutional Controls, is
the appropriate remedy for the Site, because it best satisfies the reguirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C.
§9621, and offers the best trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the NCP's nine evaluation
criteria for remedial alternatives, 40 CFR §300.430(e) (9).
-------
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
1) Continued pumping of the Test Station water supply well(s) and treatment of the water by air stripping to
provide an acceptable drinking water supply for the Test Station employees, which may be accomplished using
the existing air stripper. Continued monitoring of the influent and effluent of the air stripper in
accordance with New York State reguirements to ensure that it effectively treats the on-site water supply to
Federal MCLs, or if more stringent, New York State drinking water standards.
2) Natural attenuation and degradation of VOCs in ground water that are not captured by the pumping well(s)
until the ground water attains Federal MCLs, or if more stringent, New York State ground water standards.
3) Monitoring of surface water and ground water to ensure that off-site ground water users are not impacted
by contamination from the Site, that contaminated ground water does not migrate into uncontaminated areas
(i.e., that the ground water plume is contained), and that the natural attenuation and degradation processes
are restoring the ground water to the cleanup standards. The existing surface water and ground water sample
locations of the EWMS may be modified as necessary to meet the first objective of this monitoring program.
4) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Building 23P area at a depth of 1 foot or less having a
concentration of more than 10 ppm of PCBs, soil at a depth below 1 foot having a concentration of more than
25 ppm of PCBs, and soil at any depth with a concentration of lead of more than 1000 ppm.
5) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection at any depth with a
concentration of more than 2 ppm of mercury.
6) Backfilling of excavations in the Building 23P area and at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection with
clean fill material, grading to blend with the surrounding areas, and revegetation.
7) Transportation of the excavated soil from the Building 23P area and Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch
Intersection and disposal off-site at an appropriate EPA-approved facility, consistent with RCRA regulations
and all other ARARs.
8) Implementation of institutional controls, which may include new deed restrictions, to prevent ingestion of
contaminated ground water, to restrict withdrawal of ground water within the vicinity of the plume that could
adversely impact ground water remediation, and to restrict the Test Station to its current
commercial/industrial land use.
9) Evaluation of Site conditions at least once every 5 years to ensure that the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. If justified by the review, EPA may reguire that additional remedial actions be
implemented.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(1), mandates that a remedial action must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions that employ treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must
attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be
justified pursuant to CERCLA §121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets the reguirements of CERCLA
§121, 42 U.S.C. §9621 and provides the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria:
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
-------
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Soil at Building 23P and the
Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection with concentrations of contaminants above acceptable levels will
be excavated and disposed of off-site. The Test Station water supply will be treated by air stripping to
provide a safe drinking water supply for Test Station employees, and the surface water and ground water will
be monitored to ensure that off-site ground water users are not adversely impacted by the Site. The ground
water plume will be restored by natural attenuation and degradation processes to
cleanup standards that are protective of human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all ARARs identified for the Site. Chemical-specific ARARs for the air
stripper at the Test Station are the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs (40 CFR §141.11-141.16) or, if more
stringent, the New York State Department of Health Public Water Systems MCLs (10 NYCRR Part 5, Subpart 5-1).
Specifically, these ARARs are as follows:
Federal MCLs: NYSDOH MCLs:
carbon tet 5 ppb chloromethane 5 ppb
TCE 5 ppb 1,1,1,-trichloroethane 5 ppb
PCE 5 ppb total trihalomethanes 100 ppb
Chemical-specific ARARs for restoration of the ground water are the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs (40
CFR §141.11-141.16) or, if more stringent, the NYSDEC Quality Standards for Groundwater for Class GA ground
water (6 NYCRR Part 703). Specifically, these ARARs are as follows:
Federal MCLs NYSDEC Standards:
carbon tet 5 ppb chloromethane 5 ppb
TCE 5 ppb 1,1,1,-trichloroethane 5 ppb
PCE 5 ppb chloroform 7 ppb
There are no chemical-specific ARARs for the soil cleanup. However, the remedy will comply with cleanup
levels for PCBs set forth in EPA policy (Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination, OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-01, dated August 1990) and will meet a generally accepted cleanup
level for lead in soil for commercial/industrial land use. In addition, the soil cleanup will meet a cleanup
level for mercury obtained from Site-specific ecological risk assessment calculations. Specifically, the
remedy will meet the following cleanup levels in soil:
Muggett's Pond Drainage Bulding 23P
Ditch Intersection PCBs, top foot: 10 ppm
mercury 2 ppm PCBs, below top foot: 25 ppm
lead 1000 ppm
Action-specific ARARs for operation of the air stripper are the New York State Air Emission Reguirements [VOC
Emissions for Air Strippers and Process Vents, General Air Quality], (6 NYCRR Part 200-212). The existing
air stripper is subject to the terms and conditions of the permit issued by NYSDEC. Action-specific ARARs
for handling, transporting, and disposing of the Site soils are the Occupational Safety and Health Standards
for Hazardous Responses and General Construction Activities (29 CFR §§1904, 1910, and 1926); the Department
of Transportation Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 CFR Parts 107 and 171-177), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act standards for transporters and hazardous waste facilities (40 CFR Parts 263 and
264), respectively.
There are no location-specific ARARs for the selected remedy. However, the remedy will comply with EPA's
policy regarding land use (Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04,
dated May 25, 1995).
Cost-Effectiveness
The remedy is cost-effective because it provides overall effectiveness that is proportional to its cost. The
ground water component of the remedy is the least expensive alternative that meets the ground water remedial
-------
objectives, and the soil component provides the greatest reduction in risk at an intermediate cost. In
addition, the remedy uses existing remedial actions where possible. The present worth cost of the remedy is
$295,000.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy addresses all of the media of concern and utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the selected remedy provides the best balance
of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
The selected remedy will reduce the toxicity and, to a lesser extent, the mobility and volume of contaminants
in the ground water through treatment by air stripping. Natural attenuation and degradation of VOCs will
eventually result in permanent restoration of the ground water plume. Excavation and off-site disposal of
the contaminated soil willsignificantly reduce the toxicity and volume of PCBs, lead, and mercury at the Site
and will offer a permanent solution to the risks posed by these wastes.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy reguires natural attenuation rather than treatment to restore the ground water. This is
consistent with the ground water policy set forth in the NCP, because ground water restoration by active
pumping and treatment is not warranted when the restoration time periods to reach MCLs and the costs of all
alternatives are compared. Moreover, the selected remedy is consistent with EPA policy (A Guide to Principal
Threat and Low Level Threat Waste, OSWER Directive No. 9380.3-06FS, dated November 1991), because ground
water at the Site is a low level threat rather than a principal threat. The selected remedy does, however,
reguire treatment of the Test Station water supply by air stripping to prevent ingestion of contaminated
ground water. The remedy does not reguire on-site treatment of the contaminated soil because of the small
volume involved (6-8 yd3).
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan. The ROD
clarifies one of the three goals of the institutional controls (to restrict the Test Station to its current
commercial/industrial land use rather than to restrict access), and clarifies that the pumping rate of the
Test Station wells is determined by the demand for water, which may result in a higher or lower pumping rate
than the current estimated rate of 0.6 gpm.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
Figures 1-3
Figure 1: Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site
Figure 2: Schematic Illustrating Conceptualized Unconsolidated Aguifer Systems in the
Vicinity of the MRFA Site
Figure 3: Areas Proposed for Soil Remediation
![]()
![]()
![]()
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
Tables 1-18
Table 1: Surface Water Sample Locations With Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 2: Sediment Sample Locations With Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 3: Surface Soil Sample locations With Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 4: Subsurface Soil Sample Locations With Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 5: Test Pit Subsurface Soil Sample Locations With Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 6: Ground Water Sample Locations With Unfiltered Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 7: Ground Water Sample Locations With Filtered Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 8: Dry Well Sample Locations with Filtered Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 9: Septic Tank Sample Locations With Filtered Analytes Above MRFA Comparative Criteria
Table 10: Constituents of Concern for Each Medium at the MRFA Site
Table 11: MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Table 12: Toxicity Values for Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Table 13: Estimated Noncarcinogenic Health Risks from Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA
Site
Table 14: Summary of Noncarcinogenic Risks (Hazard Indices) to Hypothetical Receptors
Table 15: Summary of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks to Hypothetical Receptors
Table 16: Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks from Exposure to Contaminants to Concern at the MRFA
Site
Table 17: Surface Water Concentrations
Table 18: Sediment Concentrations
Table 19: Surface Soil Concentrations
-------
Area
Bldg. 3
Bldg. 4
Bldg. 25
Muggett's
Pond
D-3
(Ravine Ib)
Ravine Ib
TABLE 1
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Sample
No.
SW-B3-02
Analyte
Iron
Cone.
10700
Ravine Ib
Ravine Ib
Notes:
1. All results and entena are in ug/1(ppb).
2. ! = Guidance value.
3. J = Semi-guantitive value due to QA/QC data validation reguirements.
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
300
SW-B4-02
SW-PTI-01
SW-B25-02
SWMUG01
SWD301
headwater
SW-1B-01
headwater
SW-1B-02
midstream
SW-1B-03
downstream
Manganese
Aldrin
Heptachlor Expoxide
Antimony
Iron
Iron
Antimony
Iron
Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Iron
Sodium
569
0.041J
0.087
28J
2550J
1890
22J
9310
1340
0101J
307
98000
31500
4080J
3490
171
116000
8340J
2120
3910
5740
71.5
932
5530
113
344J
4930
300
0.001
0.001
3!
300
300
3!
300
300
300
47.0
57900
300
300
845
47.0
57900
300
300
845
4840
47.0
845
4840
47.0
300
4840
-------
TABIiE 2
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Area
Bldg. 3
Sample No.
SD-PTI
Analyte
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Archlor-1260
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Methoxychlor
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Cone.
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
2.8BJ
294J
46. 2J
1430J
1200
20. 3J
38. 4J
101J
642J
307000J
5701J
987J
0.27BJ
141J
6490J
85J
7400
13000
0.8
19
27
85
0.08
5.0
0.8
26
19
24000
27
428
0.11
22
85
6
0.08
0.08
-------
Muggett's Pond
Muggett's Pond
Muggett's Pond
Drainage Ditch
SD-MP1 Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Benzo (b) Flouranthene
Benzo (k) Flouranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Indeno (1.2.3.-cd) Pyrene
Phenol (total unchlorinated)
gamma- Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
SD-MP2 Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Benzo (b) Flouranthene
Benzo (k) Flouranthene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Chrysene
Indeno (1.2.3.-cd) Pyrene
Aroclor-1260
SD-DD1 Mercury
PCBs (Aroclor-1254, 1260)
1.2
61.0
71.7
1.1J
32.8
219
64J
51J
70J
75J
210J
1.9J
280
1.4B
56.1
57.7
4.0J
26.5
261
700J
740J
390J
560J
480J
320J
1300
124
0.8
19
27
0.11
22
85
13
13
13
13
5
8xlOE-7
0.08
0.8
19
27
0.11
22
85
13
13
13
13
13
13
0.08
8.1!
1280
1000 !
-------
TABIiE 2 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Area
D-3
Ravine Ib
Ravine Ib
Ravine Ib
Ravine 6a
Sample No.
SD-D3
SD-1B01
SD-1B03
SD-6A01
Analyte
MFRA
Comparative
Cone. Criteria
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Aluminum
Potassium
Arsenic
51. 7J
50. 1J
2410
4960
85.70
0.22B
3.4B
31. 7J
1720
3210
528B
14. 5J
3120
437B
5.5
35.6
27
428
2890
35.6
0.14
2.8
19
1550
428
297
13.2
2890
297
5.0
Notes:
1. Inorganics are in mg/kg (ppm), organics are in ug/kg (ppb).
2. ! = Surface soil MFRA Comparative Criteria.
3. J = Semi-guantitive value due to QA-QC data validation reguirements.
4. B = Value is above the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) but below the Contract Reguired
Detection Limit (CRDL).
-------
Area
Bldg. 24
Bdlg. 25
Bldg. 25S
Bldg. 27B
Bldg. 27C
Muggett's Pond
Drainage Ditch
TABIiE 3
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Sample No.
S-l
Bldg.
Bldg.
Bldg.
Bldg.
Bldg.
Bldg.
6
20
21
23P
23P
23P
SS-S1
SS-6
SS-20/1
SS-21
SS-23P
SS-23P/03
SS-23P/04
SS-24
SS-25
SS-25S
SS-27B
SS-27C
SS-DTINT
Analyte/
Compound
Aroclor-1260
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Mercury
Mercury
Aroclor-1260
Aroclor-1260
Aroclor-1262
Lead
Aroclor-1262
Aroclor-1268
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Benzo (b) Flouranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a.h) Anthracene
Antimony
Copper
Lead
Lead
Dibenzo (a.h) Anthracene
Benzo (a) Anthracene
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Dibenzo (a.h) Anthracene
Mercury
Cone.
MFRA
Comparative
Criteria
1200P
91J
24. 4J
45. 5J
1600PDCJ
4100PDCJ
2600
1090
16000
4300
2100
1800
2800
1900
400
11.4
1000
897J
764
45J
380J
330J
93J
13
1000
61
8.1
8.1
1000
1000
1000
500
1000
1000
220
61
1100
400
14
10.8
999
500
500
14
220
61
14
3.1
Notes:
1. Inorganics are in mg/kg (ppm), organics are in ug/kg (pph).
2. J = Semi-guantative value due to QA/QC data violation reguirements.
3. P = >25% difference for detected concentrates between the two GC columns. The lower value is
reported.
4. C = Compound indentification was confirmed by GC/MS.
5. D = Analysis performed at a higher dilution factor.
-------
TABIiE 4
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MFRA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Area
S-2
Bldg. 6
Bldg. 11
Bldg. 14
Bldg. 24
Bldg. 25
Bldg. 26
Sample No.
S-84 0-2'
S-19 2'-4'
S-85 4'-6'
S-39 0-2'
S-81 2'-4'
S-75 2'-4'
S-80 0-2'
Analyte/
Compound
Acetone
Tetrachloroethene
Acetone
Total VOCS
Dodecane
Eicosane
Heptadecane
Hexadecane
Nonadecane
Octadecane
Pentadecane
Pentadecane, 2,6,10,
14-Tetramethyl
Tetradecane
Tridecane
Undecane
Unknown Alkanes
Total SVOCs
Acetone
Phenol
Phenol
Cone.
300BJ
1400EJ
580BJD
12680J
8700JN
6100JN
13000JN
13000JN
85000JM
110000JM
130000JM
66000JM
140000JM
96000JM
80000JM
172000J
1287000
710BJDE
140J
46J
Notes
1. Inorganics are in mg/kg (ppm), organics are in ug/kg (ppb).
2. J = Semi-guantitative value due to QA-QC data validation reguirements.
3. B = Compound was detected in associated method blank.
4. N = Compound was identified with a Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number.
5. D = Result is from a secondary dilution analysis.
6. E = Value reported is higher than the linear calibration range.
MFRA
Comparative
Criteria
200
1400
200
10000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
50000
500000
200
30
30
-------
Area
D-l
D-2
D-5
D-6
Sample No.
P-78 2'-4'
P.19 2'-4'
20
2'-4'
2'-4'
TABIiE 5
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
TEST PIT SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Analyte/
Compound
Tetrechloroethene
Diphenyl Ether
Total VOCs
Vanadium
Benzo (a) Pyrene
Cadmium
Arsenic
Cone.
Notes
1. Inorganics are in mg/kg (ppm), organics are used in ug/kg (ppb).
2. J = Semi-guantitive value due to QA-QC data validation reguirements.
3. E = Result is above instrument calibration range.
4. D = Result is from secondary dilution analysis.
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
2200EDJ
96000J
15962J
914
160J
60.8
9.1
1400
50000
10000
189
61
13.5
8.1
-------
TABIiE 6
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring
Well
MW-1
14D
MW-2
MW-3
Analyte/
Compound
MFRA
Comparative
Criteria
Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Iron
Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Antimony
Iron
Manganese
June
1992
Cone.
November
1992
Cone.
5900
3
66200
7
300
15
300
2280
13
300
5900
3
66200
7
300
15
300
5850
13
3
300
300
11300
19. OB
175000
24.9
35000
24.6
2770
ND
27.9
2370
10200
ND
143000
17. OB
30700
20.5
1600
ND
26. OB
18. 2B
6120
365
19200
ND
140000
21. IB
38600
20. 2J
2090
5850
43. 3B
2420
12800
45. 6BJ
88200
9.7B
23500
!
765
4110B
27. 5b
ND
12500
509
March
1994
Cone.
-------
MW-4
ID
Aluminum 5900
Antimony 3
Beryllium 3
Calcium 66200
Chromium 50
Cobalt 7
Iron 300
Lead 15
Manganese 300
Potassium 2280
Vanadium 13
Iron 300
Zinc 300
Carbon Tetrachloride 5
Trichloroethene 5
bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 5
42900
22. 6B
3.2B
465000
53.7
50.2
86900
56.5
6220
12800
97.5
1340
!
11
11
89B
18700
ND
!
235000
!
21. 2B
39800
22.61
2590
5910
47. 9B
4130
342
16
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
!
ND
ND
!
ND
!
!
ND
ND
-------
TABIiE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring
Well
M-23
2S
Analyte/
Compound
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
MFRA
Comparative
Criteria
5900
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
2280
13
300
5
5900
66200
50
7
300
15
35000
300
2280
13
5
7
5
June
1992
Cone.
36300
241000
81.0
27. IB
972
60800
273
67700
1930
11100
67.1
647
16
43000
364000
62.0
37. IB
87500
47.9
35500
3320
11100
93.1
140
ND
21
November
1992
Cone.
22700
166000
!
12. IB
35100
!
39700
1130
7450
42. 6B
!
14
39500
355000
58.3
29. 5B
76200
37.3
35200
2980
11200
84.0
67
8
18
-------
2D
3S
3D
Iron
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
Aluminum
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
300
300
5
7
5
5900
66200
7
300
300
2280
13
5
5
66200
300
15
300
5
5
4020
596
90J
ND
68J
13400
180000
13. 3B
26200
1130
3960B
28.OB
22
44
71400
19700
61
1560
7.01
16
2040
!
44
7
49
!
176000
8.5B
9710
1080
24
59
69200
20000
17.2
815
10
24
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring Analyte/
Well Compound
4S Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
4D Aluminum
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
10S Aluminum
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
10D Iron
IIS Aluminum
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Trichloroethene
11D Calcium
Iron
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
13S Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
5900
66200
50
7
300
15
300
2280
13
5900
50
300
15
300
2280
13
300
5
5900
66200
7
300
300
2280
13
300
5900
66200
7
300
15
300
13
5
66200
300
300
5
5
5900
3
66200
50
7
300
300
2280
13
5
June
1992
Cone.
40700
323000
60.2
38. 9B
86300
44.5
3480
10100
87.1
!
!
51500
!
1240
2520B
!
884
ND
6320
109000
ND
11700
450
2670B
13. 4B
521
8320
205000
17. 3B
28000
31.6
2070
20. 6B
14
!
1980
!
ND
9J
7040
25. OBJ
111000
504
7.2B
14300
495
7530
16. OB
6J
November
1992
Cone.
45800
285000
63.9
34. 2B
77100
33.1
2870
14100
94.7
8390
153.0
135000
17.8
2780
3270B
18. OB
1130J
320B
14600
147000
12. 5B
28700
974
5760
34. 9B
953
7200
252000
19. 8B
25300
27.9
2560
21. IB
17
76500
1350
322J
6
7
10100
ND
133000
748J
7.3B
19800
598
5640
21. 7B
18
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring Analyte
Well Compound
M-18 Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Tetrachloroethene
M-19 Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
M- 2 0 Aluminum
Antimony
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
5900
66200
300
15
35000
300
2280
5
5900
3
25
1000
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
5
7
5
5900
3
3
66200
50
7
203
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
June
1992
Cone.
14000
151000
38300
34.1
37700
7440
!
9J
227000
64.7
!
3440
20.7
1150000
263
243
942
416000
187
114000
48100
506
37200
400
1350
140
ND
140
93800
ND
6.3
656000
273.0
98. 6J
715J
213000
123
81500
8440
303J
16700
208.0
638
November
1992
Cone.
!
67400
4220
!
!
2530
2940B
6
92100
40. 9B
27.1
!
6.5
216000
199
83
311J
167000
94.2
41000
13700
237
21900
182
538
220
32
280
21700
59.8
!
298000
!
44. OB
!
50200
57.9
!
4330
!
3410B
41. 8B
!
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
MRFA
June
November
Monitoring
Well
M-21
M-22
M-24S
Analyte/
Compound
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Comparative
Criteria
5900
3
25
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
20000
13
300
5900
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
5900
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
1992
Cone.
87200
31. 2B
27. 4J
5.6
550000
330.0
89. 2J
331J
193000
89.1
94000
8220
322J
15500
22600
185
590
61800
4.6B
547000
94.9
72. 1J
266J
138000
84.4
50900
6480
147J
12100
139
402
88100
5.4
348000
121
68.7
278
181000
92.4
68900
6170
156
19300
186
468
1992
Cone.
36000
ND
!
!
185000
120J
33. IB
!
73400
32. 5J
!
2560
126J
8770
!
74.8
402J
35100
!
280000
156J
36. IB
!
79100
41. 9J
!
3080
111J
9030
78.2
379. J
23300
!
124000
137J
19. 8B
!
45500
23.15
!
1460
114J
5970
52.9
!
88100
-------
TABIiE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring
Well
M-24D
M-25S
M-25D
M-26S
M-26D
M-27S
Analyte/
Compound
Iron
Potassium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Sodium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Aluminum
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Chi or ome thane
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
300
2280
300
5
5900
3
66200
50
7
300
15
300
2280
20000
13
5
5
20000
300
5
5900
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
300
300
5900
3
66200
50
7
300
15
300
2280
13
5
June
1992
Cone.
662
2320B
724
10
28100
35. OB
176000
!
23. OB
60300
34
2050
7250
21700
59.2
ND
6J
!
568
48
80300
5.8
665000
121
91.3
308
170000
82.6
47200
9430
178
20900
181
472
342
518
!
ND
87800
!
28. 7B
13700
!
1220
ND
!
40
November
1992
Cone.
423
!
795J
!
25900
ND
165000
55.7
17. 4B
48900
23.6
1660
8000
!
55.1
22J
13J
20800
536
R
6410
!
397000
!
30. 8B
!
21400
63
!
3870
!
!
18. 2B
!
!
939J
38000
37. 4B
156000
57.4
28. 7B
72100
31.2
2920
10100
83.4
ND
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring
Well
M-27D
M-28S
M-28D
M-29S
M-29D
Analyte/
Compound
Iron
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chi or ome thane
Aluminum
Antimony
Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachoride
1,1, 1-Trichloromethane
Aluminum
Antimony
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Antimony
Iron
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Trichloroethene
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
300
300
5
5
5900
3
5
66200
7
300
15
35000
300
2280
13
300
5
5
300
5
5
5900
3
3
66200
50
7
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
5
5
3
300
300
5
7
5
June
1992
Cone.
!
544
75
28
20600
16. 7B
127
181000
21. 7B
44400
30.1
!
2110
6170
46. 2B
!
46
47
625
31
37
49600
19.8BJ
3.2B
284000
169
47. 5B
114000
49.8
51900
4730
166
12500
111
306
32
24
17.5BJ
388
831
79
ND
19
November
1992
Cone.
461
913
23
ND
12800
ND
211
392000
38. 8B
53200
1340
36300
5050
2690B
33. 9B
534J
33
49
456J
42
51
11100
ND
!
195000
!
22. OB
22900
27.6
!
2630
!
!
24. 8B
!
43
28
ND
!
1430J
84
14
24
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring Analyte/
Well Compound
M-30 Aluminum
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
M-315 Aluminum
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
M-31D Iron
Zinc
M-32 Aluminum
Antimony
Calcium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloromethene
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
5900
3
66200
50
7
200
300
15
35000
300
100
2280
13
300
5
5
5900
3
5
66200
50
7
200
300
15
300
2280
13
300
300
5900
3
66200
7
300
15
35000
300
2280
13
5
5
5
June
1992
Cone.
77400
5
261000
111
61. 8J
256J
128000
73.6
67400
6080
144J
17900
143
316
12J
8J
49500
4. OB
ND
142000
78.6
29. 8B
240
81000
60.2
1780
9450
170
2190
!
32200
17. 7B
200000
23. IB
52900
21.6
45000
1950
9340
60
56
8J
76
November
1992
Cone.
28500
!
96800
!
17. 8B
!
38200
17.2
!
1610
!
9240
49. IB
!
14
11
22100
!
9.6
!
!
8.8B
!
35500
!
739
7420
69.3
607
446J
6850
ND
102000
ND
9490
!
!
349
2560
!
63
18
95
-------
TABIiE 6 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH UNFILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Monitoring
Wells
M-33S
M-331
M-34
M-35S
M-35D
Analyte/
Compound
Iron
Calcium
Iron
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Potassium
Vanadium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Calcium
Iron
Manganese
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Iron
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
300
66200
300
2280
20000
5900
66200
50
7
300
15
300
2280
13
5
66200
300
300
5
7
5
5
300
March
1994
Cone.
909
93600
1730
12900
27400
16300
132000
76.4
9.7B
27000
18.1
876
6030
33. 2B
8J
94800
3760J
531
44
8J
57
58
1920
Notes:
1. All concentrations are in ug/1 (ppb).
2. ND = analyte/compound was not detected.
3. ! = analyte/compound was detected below the MRFA comparative Criteria.
4. R = analyte/compound was detected above the MRFA comparative criteria but was rejected.
5. J = Semi-guantitative value due to QA/QC data validation reguirements.
6. B (inorganics) = Value is above the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) but below the Contract
Reguired Detection Limit (CRDL).
7. B(organics) = Compound was detected in associated method blank.
-------
Monitoring
Well
TABIiE 7
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
GROUND WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH FILTERED
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
MRFA June
Analyte/ Comparative 1992
Compound Criteria Cone.
November
1992
Cone.
March
1994
Cone.
2S Calcium 66200 70800 82900
3S Calcium 66200 79500 68200
3D Calcium 66200 69700 66600
10S Calcium 66200 69100 !
13S Antimony 3 22.4B R
Calcium 66200 70700 80800
Chromium 50 512 834J
Potassium 2280 4440B 3660B
M-16 Calcium 66200 99800 98900
M-17 Calcium 66200 95700 88600
Zinc 300 ! 355
M-19 Calcium 66200 67600 !
Iron 300 546 !
M-21 Calcium 66200 99000 75800
Sodium 20000 20900 !
M-22 Calcium 66200 103000 101000
M-24D Zinc 300 537J 731J
M-25 Sodium 20000 21400 !
M-25D Sodium 20000 ! 20100
Zinc 300 589 492
M-26S Calcium 66200 74400 !
M-26D Zinc 300 365J 778J
M-27D Zinc 300 531J 817
M-28S Antimony 3 17.7 ND
Calcium 5 19 ND
Iron 300 379 !
M-28D Zinc 300 549 608J
M-29S Antimony 3 ND 48.5BJ
Calcium 66200 70500 73000
M-29D Potassium 2280 2610B ND
Zinc 300 727J 1660J
M-31S Iron 300 1480 4170
Manganese 300 313 394
M-31D Zinc 300 ! 393J
M-32 Calcium 66200 70500 75700
M-331 Potassium 2280 12400
: 12400
Sodium 20000 27500
M-35S Calcium 66200 74000
M-35D Potassium 2280 2840
Sodium 20000 20900
Notes:
1. All concentrations are in ug/1 (ppb).
2. ND = analyte/compound was not detected.
3. ! = analyte/compound was detected below the MRFA Comparative Criteria.
4. R = analyte/compound was detected above the MRFA Comparative criteria but was rejected
5. J = Semi-guantitative value due to QA/QC data validation reguirements.
6. B = Value is above the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) but below the Contract
Reguired Detection Limit (CDRL).
-------
Area
Bldg. 1
Sample No.
DW-1A-1*
Analyte/
Compound
Mercury
Bldg. 1
DW-1A-2**
TABIiE 8
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
DRY WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Cone.
40.7J
1100
550
1300
660
160J
23400
2.3
26.6J
131J
28200
254J
0.99J
719J
430
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
Aroclors-1254, 1260
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Aroclor-1260
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
8.1
220
61
1100
400
14
10000
0.8
26
19
24000
27
0.11
85
0.08
Bldg. 2
DW-2-3*
Bldg. 3
Bldg. 3
Bldg. 3
Bldg. 4
DW-3-1***
SS-B3DW***
DW-3-2***
DW-4-2*
Bldg. 5
DW-5-1-*
Arsenic 9.8
Mercury 207J
Benzo(a)Anthracene 8105
Benzo(a)Pyrene 890J
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 1200J
Chrysene 1100J
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 350J
4,4'-DDE 5700C
4,4'-ODD 25000BCD
4,4'-DDT 48000BCD
Arsenic 13
Aroclor-1260 15000JNCD
Aroclor-1262 9200J
Aroclor-1268 9300J
Aroclor-1260 10000J
Total VOCs 12830J
Unknown C13-Alkane 96000J
Unknown C14-Alkanes 176000J
Unknown C15-Alkanes 115000J
Unknown C16-Alkane 73000J
SVOCs 772000J
Arsenic 5.1J
Cadmium 2.2J
Copper 41.0J
Lead 56.6J
Mercury 3.0J
Zinc 171J
4,4'-DDE 7
4,4'-DDT 7 . 5
Aroclor-1254 110
Aroclor-1260 170J
8.1
8.1
61
61
1100
400
14
2100
2900
2100
8.1
1000
1000
1000
1000
10000
50000
50000
50000
50000
500000
5.0
0.8
19
27
0.11
85
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
-------
Area
Bldg. 5
Sample No.
DW-5-2**
Bldg. 15
DW-15**
Bldg. 20
DW-20H**
Bldg. 24
DW-24-1**
TABIiE 8 (Cont'd)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
DRY WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
MRFA
Analyte/ Comparative
Compound Cone. Criteria
Cadmium 12.6J 0.8
Copper 85.2J 19
Lead 85.9J 27
Mercury 5.2J 0.11
Nickel 27.1 22
Zinc 95.9J 85
4,4'-DDE 23J 0.1
4,4'-DDT 70J 0.1
Aroclor-1260 210J 0.8
Arsenic 22.3J 5
Cadmium 10.1J 0.8
Chromium 38.OJ 26
Copper 540J 19
Iron 91900 24000
Lead 938J 27
Manganese 679J 428
Mercury 1130J 0.11
Nickel 39.1 22
Zinc 1410J 85
4,4'-DDE 5.4J 0.1
4,4'-DDT 99 0.1
Arochlor-1254 350J 0.08
Arochlor-1260 1700 0.08
Lead 34.5J 27
Mercury 0.16J 13
Benzo(a)Anthracene 38J 13
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 29J 13
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 41J 13
Benzo(a)Pyrene 32J 13
Chrysene 38J 13
Arsenic 8.3 5.0
Copper 38.7 19
Lead 44.4 27
Manganese 554 428
Mercury 0.11J 0.11
Zinc 288 85
Benzo(a)Anthracene 79J 13
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 97J 13
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 45J 13
Benzo(a)Pyrene 54J 13
Chrysene 64J 13
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 36J 13
Phenol (total unchlorinated) 110J 5
4,4'-DDT 4.3J 0.1
Arochlor-1260 110 0.08
-------
TABLE 8 (Con't)
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
DRY WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Area
Bldg. 24
Sample No.
DW-24-2**
former GE/Exxon DW-GE/EX-2J
Building
Analyte/
C omp ound Cone.
Arsenic 9.1
Cadmium 0. 97B
Copper 38.9
Lead 43.2
Manganese 570
Mercury 0.11J
Nickel 23.1
Zinc 375
Benzo(a)Anthracene 84J
Chrysene 80J
Phenol (total unchlorinated) 550J
Arochlor-1260 160
Benzo(a)Anthracene 900
Benzo(a)Pyrene 1000
Chrysene 980
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 180J
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
5.0
0.8
19
27
0.11
22
22
85
13
13
5
0.08
220
61
400
14
Notes:
1. Inorganics are in mg/kg (ppm), organics are in ug/kg (ppb).
2. * = Subsurface soil MRFA Comparative Criteria used.
3. ** = Sediment MRFA Comparative criteria used.
4. *** = Surface soil MRFA Comparative Criteria used.
5. J = Semi-guantitive value due to QA/QC data validation reguirements.
6. N = >50% difference for detected concentrations between the two GC columns. The lower value is
reported.
7. B (inorganics) = Value is above the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) but below the Contract
Reguired Detection Limit (CDRL).
8. B (organics) = Compound was detected in associated method blank.
9. C = Compound identification was confirmed by GC/MS.
10. D = Analysis performed at a higher dilution factor.
-------
TABIiE 9
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SITE
DRY WELL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WITH
ANALYTES ABOVE MRFA COMPARATIVE CRITERIA
Area
Bldg. 13
Sample No.
SL1301
Bldg. 17
Bldg. 20
Bldg. 20
Bldg. 25
SL1701
SL20-N-01
SL-20-0-01
SL2501
former GE/Exxon
Bldg
SLGEX01
Analyte/
Compound
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Iron + Manganese
Acetone
1, 2-Dicloroethene
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene
Total Phenols
Toluene
Total PCBs
Sodium
Acetone
Total Phenols
Iron
Iron + Manganese
Toluene
Total Phenols
Aluminum
Iron
Sodium
Iron + Manganese
Aluminum
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Silver
Iron + Manganese
1, 2-Dichlorethene
Toluene
1, 4-Dichlorobenzene
Total PCBs
Sodium
Acetone
Toluene
Xylene
Total Phenols
Cone.
6010
60.1
174
2250
36400
327J
5.9
7330
36642
90
160
35
20
5J
0.7PJ
81200
89
610D
1250
1291.4
37
30J
2130
4460
76300
4591
2610
45.7
27200J
257J
212J
27345J
4000
41J
44J
1.71JP
53300
150
90
36
850
MRFA
Comparative
Criteria
2000
20
100
1000
600
50
4
5000
1000
50
5
4.7
2
5
0.1
40000 (g)
50
2
600
1000
5
2
2000
600
40000 (g)
1000
2000
20
600
50
100
1000
5
5
4.7
0.1
40000 (g)
50
5
5
2
Notes:
1. All results and criteria are in ug/1 (ppb).
2. (g) = Guidance value from NYSGWS.
3. J = Semi-guantitive value due to QA/QC data validation reguirements.
4. D = Reported values are from secondary dilution analysis
5 P =>25% difference for detected concentrations between the two GC columns. The lower value is reported.
-------
VOC'S
Acetone
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chioromethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
SVOCs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthrene
Butylbenzlphthaiate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dry
Wells
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ground Water
TABIiE 10
Constituents of Concern for Each Medium at the MRFA Site
Surface
and
Surface Subsurface
Ground Water
Sediment
Former GE/Exxon Building Malta Test Station Muggett's Pond
Sediment
Ravine Ib
Soil
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Soil
Surface Water
Muggett's Pond
Surface Water
Ravine Ib
x
x
x
-------
TABIiE 10
Constituents of Concern for Each Medium at the MRFA Site
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-Butylphthalate
Dinitrolouene 2,4-
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphalene 2-
Methylphenol 4-
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesticides/PCBs
Aroclor-1254
Arochlor-1260
Aroclor-1262
Aroclor-1268
Chlordane Alpha-
Chlordane Gamma-
DDD,4,4'-
Dry
Wells
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ground Water
Former GE/Exxon Building
Ground Water
Malta Test Station
x
x
Sediment
Muggett's Pond
x
x
Sediment Surface
Ravine Ib Soil
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
and
Subsurface
Soil
x
x
x
x
Surface Water
Muggett's Pond
Surface Water
Ravine Ib
-------
DDE, 4,4'-
DDT, 4,4'-
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide (Total)
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Dry
Wells
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TABIiE 10
Constituents of Concern for Each Medium at the MRFA Site
Ground Water
Former GE/Exxon Building
Ground Water
Malta Test Station
Sediment
Muggett's Pond
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sediment
Ravine Ib
Surface
Soil
x
x
x
x
Surface
and
Subsurface
Soil
x
x
Surface Water
Muggett's Pond
Surface Water
Ravine Ib
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-------
TABIiE 10
Constituents of Concern for Each Medium at the MRFA Site
and
Dry Ground Water Ground Water Sediment Sediment Surface Subsurface Surface Water Surface Water
Wells Former GE/Exxon Building Malta Test Station Muggett's Pond Ravine Ib Soil Soil Muggett's Pond Ravine Ib
Vanadium x
Zinc x
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Ground Water
Ingestion of Ground Water
Receptor
On-site
Employee
On-site Resident
Time-frame
Evaluated
Present Future
Degree of
Assessment
Quant. Qual.
Yes
NA
No
Yes
Inhalation of Ground Water
Constituents During
Showers
On-Site
Employee
On-Site Resident
No
No
No
Yes
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Two on-site production wells currently
supply potable water to the Malta Site.
However, ground water is treated via a
settling tank and air stripper prior to
distribution to the facility.
Future residential developement of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Future residents may elect to install a
private well on this property. Existing
public water supply is not hydraulically
connected to the water-bearing
unconsolidated materials beneath the
Malta Site.
Shower facilities do not exist at the Malta
Site so employees cannot become exposed
via this pathway.
Future residential developement of Malta
Site is unlikely, but may theoretically
occur. Future residents may elect to install
a private well on this property. Future
residents may therefore be exposed during
showers. Some of the detected ground
water constituents exhibit Henry's Law
Constants that are greater than 1 x 105
alm-m3/mole and molecular weights of less
than 200 g/mole. These constituents could
easily volatize from ground water, so
future residents may be exposed during
showers.
Data Grouping
All post-treatment ground water
results from on-site production wells
All filtered and unfiltered ground
water results from RI and results from
the past two years of monitoring of
Early Warning Monitoring System and
untreated production well data.
Samples to be divided into two groups
based on a ground water divide which
separates the former GE/Exxon
building from the Test Station. The
use of untreated water will be assessed in
the uncertainty section.
All filtered and unfiltered ground
water results from RI and results from
the past two years of monitoring of
Early Warning Monitoring System.
Samples to be divided into two groups
based on a ground water divide which
separates the former GE/Exxon
building from the Test Station. The
use of treated water will be assessed in
the uncertainty section.
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Dermal Contact with
Ground Water Constituents
During Showers
Receptor
On-site
Employee
On-site Resident
Time-frame Degree of
Evaluated Assessment
Present Future Quant. Qual.
No
No
No
Yes
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Shower facilities do not exist at the Malta
site so employees cannot become exposed
via this pathway.
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely, but may theoretically
occur. Future residents may elect to install
a private well on this property. Future
residents may therefore be exposed during
showers.
Data Grouping
All filtered and unfiltered ground
water results from RI, untreated
production well data and results from
the past two years of monitoring of
Early Warning Monitoring System.
Samples divided into two groups based
on a ground water divide which
separates the former GE/Exxon
building from the Test Station. The
use of treated water will be assessed in
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Surface Soils
Incidental Ingestion of On-
site Surface Soils
Receptor
Trespasser
On-site
Employee
Time-frame Degree of
Evaluated Assessment
Present Future Quant. Qual.
No No
Yes NA X
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Trespassing is not expected due to strict
Site security and perimeter fence.
Current employees may be exposed during
outdoor activities (e.g., lunch,
maintenance).
Data Grouping
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
Dermal Contact with On-
site surface soils
On-site Resident
Excavation
Worker
Trespasser
On-site
Employee
On-Site Resident
Excavation
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Future Residential Development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Workers may be exposed to surface soils
during excavation.
Trespassing is not expected due to strict
Site security and perimeter fence.
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
All surface soils (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Surface Soils
Receptor
Time-frame
Evaluated
Present Future
Degree of
Assessment
Quant. Qual.
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Data Grouping
Inhalation of On-site Surface On-Site
Soils Released as Fugitive Employee
Dusts
No
NA
No inhalation exposures to particulate
emissions are likely because vegetation,
pavement and prevailing wind patterns in
the area will limit releases to air.
On-site Resident
Excavation
Worker
No
No
No
Yes
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Workers may be exposed to volatile or
particulate emissions during excavation
activities.
All surface soil samples (0-2') from
RI. Possibility for separate specific
area analysis.
Subsurface Soils
Incidental Ingestion of On- Excavation
site Subsurface Soils Worker
Dermal Contact with On- Excavation
site Subsurface Soils(a) Worker
Inhalation of Subsurface Excavation
Soil Worker
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Workers may be exposed to subsurface
soils during excavation.
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Workers may be exposed to subsurface
soils during excavation.
Future residential development of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Workers may be exposed to volatile or
particulate emissions during excavation
activities.
All soil samples between 2 and 16 feet
below ground surface.
All soil samples between 2 and 16 feet
below ground surface.
All soil samples between 2 and 16 feet
below ground surface.
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Sediments
Incidental Ingestion of
Sediments from:
Quench Pits
Dry Wells
Muggett's Pond
Ravine Ib
Receptor
Utility Worker or
On-site
Employee
Utility Worker
On-site
Employee
On-site Resident
Trespasser
On-site Resident
Time-frame Degree of
Evaluated Assessment
Present Future Quant. Qual.
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
The quench pits are no longer in use, and
are located 30 to 35 feet below ground
surface.
Periodic maintenance is required to
maintain adequate flow.
Facility operations do not involve activities
at the pond.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
if Malts Site is developed for residential.
use.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
since access to easement is not restricted.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
if Malta Site is developed for residential
use.
Data Grouping
All dry wall sediment samples from
RI.
All sediment samples collected from
Muggett's Pond during RI.
Ravine Ib sediment samples from RI.
Ravine Ib sediment samples from RI.
-------
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Sediments
Dermal Contact with
Sediments from:
Quench Pits
Dry Wells
Muggett's Pond
Ravine Ib
Receptor
Utility Worker or
On-site
Employee
Utility Worker
On-site
Employee
On-site Resident
Trespasser
On-site Resident
Time-frame Degree of
Evaluated Assessment
Present Future Quant. Qual.
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
The quench pits are no longer in use, and
are located 30 to 35 feet below ground
surface.
Periodic maintenance is required to
maintain adequate flow.
Facility operations do not involve activities
at the pond.
Future residential developement of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
if site is developed for residential use.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
since access to easement is not restricted.
Future residential developement of Malta
Site is unlikely but may theoretically occur.
Wading may occur during warmer seasons
if site is developed for residential use.
Data Grouping
All dry wll sediment samples from
RI.
All sediment samples collected from
Muggett's Pond during RI.
Ravine Ib sediment samples from RI.
Ravine Ib sediment samples from RI.
-------
Pathway
Surface Water
Incidental Ingestion of
Surface Water from:
Quench Pits
Receptor
Utility Worker or
On-site
Employee
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Time-frame
Evaluated
Present Future
Degree of
Assessment
Quant. Qual.
No No
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
The quench pits are no longer in use, and
are located 30 to 35 feet below ground
surface.
Data Grouping
Dry Wells
Utility Worker
No No
It is assumed that water is not typically
present in these structures.
Muggett's Pond
Ravine Ib
On-site
Employee
On-site Resident
Trespasser
On-site Resident
No No
No No
No No
No No
Facility operations do not involve activities
at the pond.
Muggett's Pond is to shallow to support
swimming (less than two feet deep).
Although wading is possible, incidental
ingestion is unlikely during wading.
Ravine Ib is too shallow to support
swimming (less than one foot deep).
Although wading is possible, incidental
ingestion is unlikely during wading.
-------
Dermal Contact with
Surface Water from:
TABIiE 11
MRFA Site: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Surface Water
Receptor
Time-frame
Evaluated
Present Future
Degree of
Assessment
Quant. Qual.
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Data Grouping
Quench Pits
Utility Worker or
On-site
Employee
No
No
The quench pits are no longer in use, and
are located 30 to 35 feet below ground
surface.
Dry Wells
Utility Worker
No
No
It is assumed that water is not typically
present in these structures.
Muggett's Pond
On-site No No
Employee
On-site Resident No Yes
Facility operations do not involve activities
at the pond.
Wading is possible if site is developed for
residential use. However, Muggett's Pond
is too shallow to support swimming (less
than two feet deep).
All surface water samples collected
from Muggett's Pond during RI.
Ravine Ib
Trespasser
Yes
Yes
Wading may occur since access to the
ravine is not restricted.
Surface water sample collected from
Ravine Ib.
Air
All inhalation pathways are
addressed in ground water
or surface soil discussions.
On-site Resident
No
Yes
Wading may occur if site is developed for
residential use.
Surface water sample collected from
Ravine Ib.
NA = Not applicable; future site conditions are assumed to be identical to current site conditions for this specific pathway.
-------
TABIiE 12
Toxicity values for Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Consituent
Weight of
Evidence
Classification
Carcinogenic
Oral
Slope factor
(mg/kg-day)-1
Ref
Inhalation
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day) -1
Ref
Chronic Oral
Rfd
(mg/kg-day)
Noncarcinogenic
Ref
Chronic
Inhallation
Rfd
(mg/kg-day)
Ref
VOLATILES
Acetone
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chioromethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethane
SVOCs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butylbenzlphthaiate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,b)anthracene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Dinitrotoluene 2,4-
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methylnaphthalene 2-
Methylphenol 4-(*)
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
D
B2
B2
C
C-B2
D
C-B2
D
D
B2
B2
B2
D
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
D
D
D
D
C
B2
D
C
D
D
D
1.
6.
5.
1.
7.
7.
7.
7.
2.
7.
7.
30e-01
10e-03
20e-02
10e-02
30e-01
30+00
30e-01
30e-02
OOe-02
30e-03
30e+00
(A)
(A)
(Q)
(Q)
(S)
(A)
(S)
(S)
(A)
(S)
(S)
5,
8,
2,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
.20e-02
. 10e-02
. 03e-03
. OOe-03
. 10e+00
. 10e+00
. 10e+00
. 10e+00
. 10e+00
. 10e+00
(A,C)
(A,C)
(Q)
(Q)
(S)
(B)
(S)
(S)
(S)
(S)
1.
7.
1.
4.
1.
2.
6.
6.
3.
3.
2.
8.
1.
2.
OOe-01
OOe-04
OOe-02
OOe-03
OOe-02
OOe-01
OOe-03
OOe-02
OOe-01
OOe-02
OOe-01
OOe-01
OOe-01
OOe-03
(A)
(A)
(A)
(D
(A)
(A)
(R)
(A)
(A)
(W)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
7.80e-02
7.8e-02
7.30e-01
(A)
(S)
7.70e-02
6.10e+00
(A)
(S)
4.OOe-02
4.OOe-02
2.OOe-04
4.OOe-02
4.OOe-02
4. OOe-02
3.OOe-02
(A)
(A)
(B)
(X)
(J)
(X)
(A)
5.71e-04
1.14e-01
(F,D)
(A)
-------
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Aroclor-1262
Aroclor-1268
alpha-Chlordane
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
7.70e+00
7.70e+00
7.70e+00
7.70e+00
1.30e+00
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
1.29e+00
(A)
2.00e-05
2.00e-05
2.00e-05
2.00e-05
6.00e-05
(A)
(K)
(K)
(K)
(A)
-------
TABIiE 12
Toxicity values for Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Constituent
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Berium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium (diet)
Cadmium (water)
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide (total)
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Weight of
Evidence
Classification
B2
B2
B2
B2
D
A
B2
Bl
Bl
D
A
D
D
D
D
D
Carcinogenic
Oral
Slope factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 Ref
1.30e+00 (A)
2.40e-01 (A)
3.40e-01 (A)
3.40e-01 (A)
Noncarcinogenic
Inhalation
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 Ref
1.29e+00 (A)
3.40e-01 (A)
Chronic Oral
Rfd
(mg/kg-day)
6.00e-05
5.00e-04
Ref
(A)
(A)
Chronic
Inhallation
Rfd
(mg/kg-day)
Ref
l.OOe+00
4.00e-04
1.75e+00 (A) 1.51e+01 (A) 3.00e-04
7.00e-02
4.30e+00 (A) 8.40e+00 (A) 5.00e-03
9.00e-02
6.30e+00 (A,C) l.OOe-03
6.30e+00 (A,C) 5.00e-04
l.OOe+00
4.20e+01 (A) 5.00e-03
2.00e-02
2.00e-02
3.00e-01
1.40e-01
3.00e-04
8.40e-01 (B,V) 2.00e-02
5.00e-03
5.00e-03
7.00e-03
3.00e-01
(L)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(B)
(A)
(P)
(A,Y)
(B)
(A)
(A)
(A)
(B)
(A)
1.43e-03
1.43e-06
2.00e-02
5.71e-06
8.57e-04
1.43e-05
8.57e-05
(M,D)
(B,D)
(B)
(0,D)
(A,D)
(A,D)
(B)
-------
Notes:
TABIiE 12
Toxicity Values for Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(D
(J)
(K)
(L)
(M)
(N)
(0)
(P)
(Q)
(R)
(S)
(T)
(U)
(V)
(W)
(X)
(Y)
USEPA. 1995. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
USEPA. 1994. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)
ENVIRON derived from unit risk value.
ENVIRON derived from RfC.
derived from chronic toxicity value.
Supplement No. 1 to the March Annual Update. EPA 540/R-94/059. July
ENVIRON
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
1995.
1995.
1995.
1995.
1995.
Derivation of
Derivation of
Derivation of
Derivation of
a Provisional
a Provisional
a Privisional
a Provisional
Inhalation RfC
Subchronic RfC
for Carbon Tetrachloride
for Carbon Tetrachloride
(CASRN 56-23-5)
(CASRN 56-23-5)
Subchronic Inhalation RfC for Cloroform (CASRN 67-66-3)
RfD for Chloromethane (CASRN 74-87-3). February 3.
Provisional Oral RfD for Naphthalene (CASRN 91-20-3). February 3.
Based on Arochlor-1254
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
USEPA.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
ECAO.
1993.
ECAO.
ECAO.
February 3.
1995. Derivation of a Provisional Oral RfD for Aluminum (CASRN 7429-90-5)
1995. Provisional Inhalation RfC for Aluminum (CASRN) 7429-90-5). February 3.
1995. Derivation of a Subchronic RfC for Chromium (various CASRN). February 3.
1995. Derivation of a Provisional RfC for Cobalt (CASRN 7440-48-4). February 3.
1995. Derivation of a Provisional RfD for Iron (CASRN 7439-89-6). February 3.
1993. Interim Criteria for PCE and TCE (facsimile). November.
1994. Risk-based Concentration Table. Fourth Quarter (Roy Smith).
Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
1994. Derivation of a Provisional Subchronic Oral RfD for Hexachlorobutadiene (CASRN 87-6
February 3.
February 3.
February 3.
EPA/600/2-93/089.
3-3). January 24.
July.
1995. Derivation of a Provisional Subchronic Inhalation RfC for Chloromethane (CASRN 74-87-3). February 3.
Inhalation Slope Factor for Nickel Refinery Dust.
Based on pyrene.
Mased on naphthalene.
Personal communication with Susan Velazquez (IRIS contact for manganese)
indicated that the diet RfD for manganese should be used for both soil and water exposures.
(*)
No toxicity values availiable from IRIS, HEAST or ECAO.
-------
Receptor
Current On-Site Employee
Media
Ground Water
Table 13
Estimated Noncarcinogenic Health Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Scenario
Ingestion
Location
Malta Test Station (effluent)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
Malta Test Station (effluent)
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics)
Total
Estimated Risk
6.7e-02
O.OE+00
6.7E-02
6.7E-02
O.OE+00
6.7E-02
Surface Soil
(Excluding Building 23P)
Surface Soil
(Including Building 23P)
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
4.7E-03
3.5E-03
1.9E-01
2.3E-01
Current/Future Utility Worker Dry Wall Sediment
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
1.5E-03
1.1E-03
Current/Future Trespasser
Sediment
Surface Water
Incidental Ingestion Ravine Ib
Dermal Contact Ravine Ib
Dermal Contact Ravine Ib
1.1E-03
3.2E-04
4.1E-07
Future Excavation Worker
Surface & Subsurface Soil
(Excluding Building 23P)
Surface & Subsurface Soil
(Including Building 23P)
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
1.5E-03
1.1E-03
1.9E-02
2.4E-03
-------
Receptor
Future Adult Resident
Media
Ground Water
Table 13
Estimated Noncarcinogenic Health Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Scenario
Ingestion
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
Location
(total organics)
(unfiltered inorganics)
Estimated Risk
5.1E-03
O.OE+00
5.1E-03
GE/Exxon (total organics)
GE/Exxon (filtered inorganics)
Total
5.1E-03
O.OE+00
5.1E-03
Malta Test Station (total organics) 5.8E-01
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics) O.OE+00
Total 5.8E-10
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
5.8E-01
O.OE+00
5.8E-01
Inhalation of Volatiles while showering GE/Exxon
Malta Test Station
1.9E-04
1.8E-02
Dermal Contact
GE/Exxon (total organics)
GE/Exxon (filtered inorganics)
Total
2.8E-04
O.OE+00
2.8E-04
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
3.0E-02
O.OE+00
3.0E-02
-------
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 1.6E-02
(Excluding Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 5.9E-03
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 6.3E-01
(Including Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 3.8E-01
Sediment Incidental Ingestion Muggett's Pond 1.2E-02
Ravine Ib 8.2E-04
Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 5.8E-03
Ravine Ib 2.5E-04
Surface Water Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 3.3E-05
Ravine Ib 3.3E-07
-------
Receptor Media
Future Child Resident (1-6 yr) Ground Water
Table 13
Estimated Noncarcinogenic Health Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Scenario
Ingestion
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
Location
(total organics)
(unfiltered inorganics)
(total organics)
(filtered inorganics)
Estimated Risk
4.8E-03
O.OE+00
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
O.OE+00
4.8E-03
Malta Test Station (total organics) 5.4E-01
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics) O.OE+00
Total 5.4E-01
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
5.4E-01
O.OE+00
5.4E-01
Inhalation of Volatiles while Showering GE/Exxon
Malta Test Station
1.7E-04
1.7E-02
Dermal Contact
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
(total organics)
(filtered inorganics)
9.4E-05
O.OOE+00
9.4E-05
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
l.OE-02
O.OE+00
l.OE-02
-------
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 3.0E-02
(Excluding Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 2.2E-03
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 1.2E+00
(Including Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 1.5E-01
Future Child Resident (6-15yr) Sediment Incidental Ingestion Muggett's Pond 5.3E-02
Ravine Ib 3.6E-03
Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 8.9E-03
Ravine Ib 3.9E-04
Surface Water Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 5.IE-OS
Ravine Ib 5.OE-07
-------
TABIiE 14
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Risks (Hazard Indices)
to Hypothetical Receptors
Receptor
Current On-Site Employee
Current/Future Utility Worker
Current/Future Trespasser
Future Excavation Worker
Future Adult Resident
Future Child Resident
(1-6 years old)
Future Child Resident
(6-15 years old)
Notes:
(1) Assumes the adult/child resides on property located at the former GE/Exxon facility.
(2) Assumes on-site worker is exposed to effluent from the on-site air stripper-treated Malta Test Station
ground water or the adult/child resides on property located at the Malta Test Station.
(3) No exposure to ground water for the receptors indicated.
Former GE/Exxon
Facility
Excluding
Building
23P
5 x 10-2
4 x 10-2
(1)
Including
Building
23P
2 x 10°
1 x 10°
Malta
Test
Stations (2)
Excluding
Building
23P
8 x 10-2
7 x 10-1
8 x 10-1
Including
Building
23P
5 x 10-3
2 x 10°
2 x 10°
Site-wide (1)
Excluding
Building
23P
3 x 10-3
2 x 10-3
3 x 10-3
Including
Building
23P
2 x 10-2
7 x 10-2
-------
Receptor
Current On-Site Employee
Current/Future Utility Worker
Current/Future Trespasser
Future Excavation Worker
Future Adult Resident
Future Child Resident
(1-6 years old)
Future Child Resident
(6-15 years old)
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
TABIiE 15
Summary of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks
to Hypothetical Receptors
Former GE/Exxon
Facility
Excluding
Building
23P
1.0 x 10-5
1.2 x 10-5
(1)
Including
Building
23P
1.7 x 10-4
2.1 x 10-4
Malta
Test
Stations (2) Site-wide (1)
Excluding
Building
23P
4.5 x 10-6
6.6 x 10-5
1.3 x 10-4
Including Excluding Including
Building Building Building
23P 23P 23P
6.8 x 10-5
2.7 x 10-7
1.5 x 10-11
1.6 x 10-8 3.2 x 10-6
2.2 x 10-4
2.7 x 10-4
3.8 x 10-6
Assumes the adult/child resides on property located at the former GE/Exxon Facility.
Assumes on-site worker is exposed to effluent from the on-site air stripper-treated Malta Test
Station ground water or the adult/child resides on property located at the Malta Test Station.
No exposure to ground water for the receptors indicated.
-------
Receptor
Current On-Site Employee
Media
Ground Water
Table 16
Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Scenario
Ingestion
Location
Malta Test Station (effluent)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
Malta Test Station (effluent)
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics)
Total
Estimated Risk
8.9E-07
O.OE+00
8.9E-07
8.9E-07
O.OE+00
8.9E-07
Surface Soil
(Excluding Building 23P)
Surface Soil
(Including Building 23P)
Current/Future Utility Worker Dry Wall Sediment
Current/Future Trespasser
Future Excavation Worker
Sediment
Surface Water
Surface & Subsurface Soil
(Excluding Building 23P)
Surface & Subsurface Soil
(Including Building 23P)
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ravine Ib
Ravine Ib
Ravine Ib
1.6E-06
2.0E-06
3.0E-05
3.7E-05
1.3E-07
1.4E-07
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.5E-11
1.4E-08
1.8E-09
2.8E-06
3.6E-07
-------
Table 16
Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Receptor
Future Adult Resident
Media
Ground Water
Scenario
Ingestion
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
Location
(total organics)
(unfiltered inorganics)
(total organics)
(filtered organics)
Estimated Risk
4.6E-07
O.OE+00
4.6E-07
4.6E-07
O.OE+00
4.6E-07
Malta Test Station (total organics) 5.2E-05
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics) O.OE+00
Total 5.2E-05
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
5.2E-05
O.OE+00
5.2E-05
Ingestion of Volatiles while Showering GE/Exxon
Malta Test Station
5.5E-09
7.6E-07
Dermal Contact
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
(total organics)
(filtered inorganics)
2.5E-08
O.OE+00
2.5E-08
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
3.0E-06
O.OE+00
3.0E-06
-------
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 5.3E-06
(Excluding Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 3.3E-06
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion l.OE-04
(Including Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 6.2E-05
Sediment Incidental Ingestion Muggett's Pond 6.2E-07
Ravine Ib O.OE+00
Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 6.9E-07
Ravine Ib O.OE-00
Surface Water Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 2.2E-08
Ravine Ib 1.2E-11
-------
Table 16
Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risks from
Exposure to Constituents of Concern at the MRFA Site
Receptor Media
Future Child Resident(1-6 yr) Ground Water
Scenario
Ingestion
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
Location
(total organics)
(unfiltered inorganics)
(total organics)
(filtered organics)
Estimated Risk
4.6E-07
O.OE+00
4.3E-07
4.3E-07
O.OE+00
4.3E-07
Malta Test Station (total organics) 4.9E-05
Malta Test Station (unfiltered inorganics) O.OE+00
Total 4.9E-05
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
4.9E-05
O.OE+00
4.9E-05
Ingestion of Volatiles while Showering GE/Exxon
Malta Test Station
5.1E-09
7.6E-07
Dermal Contact
GE/Exxon
GE/Exxon
Total
(total organics)
(filtered inorganics)
8.6E-09
O.OE+00
8.6E-09
Malta Test Station (total organics)
Malta Test Station (filtered inorganics)
Total
1.1E-05
O.OE+00
1.1E-05
-------
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion l.OE-05
(Excluding Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 1.3E-06
Surface Soil Incidental Ingestion 1.9E-04
(Including Building 23P)
Dermal Contact 2.4E-05
Future Child Resistant(1-6 yr) Sediment Incidental Ingestion Muggett's Pond 2.7E-06
Ravine Ib O.OE+00
Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond l.OE-06
Ravine Ib O.OE+00
Surface Water Dermal Contact Muggett's Pond 3.4E-08
Ravine Ib 1.8E-11
-------
TABIiE 17
Surface Water Concentrations
Muggett's Pond (• g/L)
Freguency
of
Constituent Detection
Maximum
Ravine Ib (• g/L) Background (• g/L)a
Maximum
Mean
Maximum
Mean
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/1
0/1
1/1
1/1
71.8
—
16.5
1.9
3.7
25,150
--
1,320
—
3,705
992
--
564
—
—
663
21.9
a Ravine 6a
b ND
- Not Detected
(Dete
4/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
1/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
2/3
4/4
4/4
1/4
3/4
1/4
1/4
3/3
4/4
307
3.5
113
1.9
5.7
116,000
4.8
31,500
0.9
14,800
4,080
0.03
3,520
2.1
5.9
5,700
68
156
2.2
52
0.6
2.7
81,350
4.1
9,513
0.7
12,175
1,543
0.03
2,076
0.95
4.0
5,387
25
47
1.9
21.3
NDb (0.3)
ND (3.3)
57,900
4.4
231
0.66
12,100
260
ND (0.07)
845
1.3
ND (6.7)
4,840
150
30.6
1.8
19.3
--
--
56, 633
2.7
138
0.53
11,700
106
--
644
1.0
--
3,857
66
-------
TABIiE 18
Sediment Concentrations
Muggett's Pond (• g/L)
Ravine Ib (• g/L) Background (• g/L)a
Freguency
of
Constituent Detection
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
Maximum
14,850
4.4
3.1
67
0.77
—
1.4
2,150
22
9.3
56
—
20, 600
61
3,565
206
4.0
26.6
1,140
0.6
2.1
35
47
261
Mean
14,075
3.4
2.7
64
0.73
—
1.2
1,985
20
8.5
55
—
18,800
59
3,565
198
2.5
26.6
1,079
0.5
1.7
25
40
230
Freguency
of
Detection
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
3/4
2/4
0/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
Maximum
4,375
3.9
74
0.2
17.9
2,590
7
3.4
28
1.4
14,350
5.9
1,565
2, 605
0.07
7.5
447
0.45
12.4
34
Mean
3,054
2.2
38
0.13
11.8
1,715
5
2.2
11
0.4
9,803
3.1
1,154
1,299
0.04
5.0
369
0.25
8.2
18
Maximum
2,890
NDb (9.5)
5.5
36
0.14
ND (20)
ND (0.6)
5,510
8.3
2.8
5.2
ND (0.1)
9,520
1.8
1,550
249
ND (0.04)
5.4
297
0.55
ND (1.2)
ND (11.9)
13.2
19
Mean
2,567
2.9
24
0.11
2,498
5.6
2.2
3.7
8, 647
1.5
1,106
212
4.3
278
0.34
12.2
13.5
-------
TABLE 18
Sediment Concentrations
Muggett's Pond
Ravine Ib
Backgrounda
Freguency
of
Constituent Detection Maximum
Organics (• g/kg)
Anthracene 1/2 120
Benzo(a)anthracene 1/2 700
Bezon(a)pyrene 2/2 560
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1/2 740
Benzo (g,h,i)perylene 2/2 240
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2/2 390
Carbazole 1/2 89
Chrysene 1/2 480
Di-n-butyphthalate 1/2 120
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2/2 140
Fluoranthene 2/2 1,100
Gamma-chlordane 1/2 1.7
Indeno (1,2,3- 2/2 320
cd)pyrene
4-methylphenol 1/2 210
Phenanthrene 2/2 440
PCB (Arochlor-1260) 2/2 1,300
Pyrene 2/2 870
Mean
**c
-k -k
315
402
163
221
* *
**
* *
100
578
**
198
-k -k
**
780
484
Freguency
of
Detection
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
0/1
Maximum Mean
a
b
c
d
Ravine 6a.
ND - Not Detected (Detection Limit).
Calculated mean is greater than the maximum value.
NA - Not Available.
Maximum
NAd
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean
-------
TABIiE 19
Surface Soil Concentrations
Constituent
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection
50/50
4/50
50/50
50/50
50/50
1/50
49/50
50/50
50/50
21/50
50/50
1/48
50/50
55/56
50/50
50/50
44/59
50/50
47/50
18/50
11/50
7/50
49/50
50/50
Background (mg/kg)
Maximum
(mg/kg)
12,100
11.4
7.3
78.7
0.64
192
10.6
67, 600
91.5
10.7
1,000
0.72
41,500
1,090
29,000
608
124
54.1
1,260
0.91
3.2
50
23.3
2,390
Mean
(mg/kg)
6,364
4.9
2.9
29.7
0.41
12.7
1.9
5,806
10.7
3.1
63.2
0.34
12,595
96.3
3,561
27.1
4.0
12.3
465
0.19
0.54
23.8
13.2
169
Maximum
9,000
13.2
3.1
49
0.38
NDa (19)
ND (0.63)
622
8
3.3
8.6
0.14
10,500
23.9
1,330
1,180
0.16
8.1
549
0.38
ND (1.3)
145
16.4
32.8
Mean
6,919
5.7
2.2
27
0.28
--
--
377
5.7
2.3
6.4
0.05
8,954
16.7
1,001
416
0.06
5.8
339
0.19
--
116
13.5
21.5
-------
TABIiE 19
Surface Soil Concentrations
Constituent
Organics
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Axoclor- 1242
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor- 1260
Aroclor-1262
Aroclor-1268
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benozpyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis (2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Carbazole
Chloroform
Chrysene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Delta-BHC
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Diethylphthalate
Frequency
of
Detection
Background (mg/kg)
Maximum
(mg/kg)
Mean
(mg/kg)
Maximum
Mean
1/50
1/50
2/53
2/53
28/53
3/3
2/3
8/50
7/50
9/50
4/50
9/50
2/50
1/50
1/50
3/47
10/50
1/50
10/50
12/50
1/50
7/50
3/47
2/50
0.096
0.09
0.03
0.370
4.1
16
4.3
2.1
1.8
2.8
0.44
1
0.95
0.054
0.088
0.006
1.9
0.0042
0.022
0.28
0.0063
0.4
0.4
0.2
**b
-k -k
0.03
0.04
0.222
6.2
1.7
0.29
0.28
0.30
0.26
0.26
0.32
-k -k
**
0.006
0.27
-k -k
0.003
0.012
**
0.258
0.26
-k -k
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
NAc
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
1.4
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
NA
0.019
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.021
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
0.39
0.15
0.18
-------
TABIiE 19
Surface Soil Concentrations
Constituent
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Fluoranthene
Gamma-chlordane
Heptachlor epoxide
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methoxychlor
2-Methylnaphthalene
N-Ni tros odiphenylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Frequency
of
Detection
3/50
1/50
1/50
1/50
1/50
14/50
1/50
1/50
5/50
1/50
1/50
3/51
5/50
15/50
2/50
1/50
1/50
Maximum
(mg/kg)
0.57
0.0031
0.0035
0.046
0.013
1.9
0.0031
0.0011
0.74
0.0088
0.038
0.10
0.52
2.3
0.002
0.002
0.006
Mean
(mg/kg)
0.26
~k ~k
* *
* *
~k ~k
0.28
~k ~k
* *
0.26
* *
~k ~k
~k ~k
0.26
0.23
* *
* *
* *
Background
Maximum
ND (0.370)
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.034
NA
NA
ND (0.370)
NA
ND (0.370)
ND (0.370)
0.022
0.032
NA
NA
NA
(mg/kg)
Mean
--
—
--
--
—
0.055
—
--
--
--
--
--
0.150
0.061
--
—
—
a ND - Not Detected (Detection Limit).
b Calculated mean is greater than the maximum value.
c NA - Not Available.
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MALTA ROCKET FUEL AREA SUPERFUND SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and Other Information
P. 100001- Quitclaim Deed, the indenture made between the
100011 People of the State of New York and the Wright-
Malta Corporation, December 20, 1984.
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports
P. 100012- Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site. Site
100025 Inspection Report, prepared by Chief Inspector Mr.
Ray Cowen, Senior San. Eng., NYSDEC, June 18, 1985.
P. 100026- Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System Review Form
100044 for Rocket Fuel Site, Malta, Saratoga County, NY,
Reviewer Mr. William Schneider, July 12, 1985.
1.6 Correspondence
P. 100045- Notice included in the Hazard Ranking System
100045 Package for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
NYD980535124, prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II, July 31, 1995.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
P. 300001- Standard Operating Procedure Summary Form,
300017 Selection of Well Construction Material, July 30,
1990. (Attached: (1) Standard Operating Procedure
for Selecting Ground Water Well Construction
Material at CERCLA Sites, SOP No. HW-6, prepared
by Mr. William A. Coakley, Superfund QA
Coordinator, Monitoring Management Branch, U.S.
EPA Region II, December 5, 1986, approved by Mr.
Vincent Pitruzzello, Chief, Program Support
Branch, ERRD, U.S. EPA Region II, December 15,
1986 and Mr. Gerard F. McKenna, Chief, Monitoring
Management Branch, BSD, U.S. EPA Region II,
December 5, 1986; (2) Summary Table for Comparing
Features of Various Ground Water Well Construction
Materials; (3) Bibliography for Well Construction
Material in Ground Water Monitoring.)
P. 300018- Plan: Project Operations Plan, Malta Rocket Fuel
300241 Area Superfund Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume I,
prepared by Geraghty & Miller Environmental
Services, August 1991.
-------
p.
p.
p.
3.2
P.
P.
3.3
P.
300242- Plan: Project Operations Plan, Malta Rocket Fuel
300440 Area Superfund Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume II,
prepared by Geraghty & Miller Environmental
Services, August 1991.
300441- Plan: Proposed Sampling Program to Establish the
300581 Extent of Contamination, Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Site, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., January 13, 1994.
300582- Plan: Sampling and Analysis Plan, Early Warning
300655 Monitoring System, Towns of Malta and Stillwater,
Saratoga County, New York, prepared by ERM-
Northeast, Inc., February 24, 1995.
Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
300656- Report: Early Warning Groundwater Monitoring
300993 System Report, Luther Forest Well Field, Malta,
New York, CERCLA 11-90219, prepared for General
Electric Company, prepared by Dunn Geoscience
Corporation, August 1991.
300994- Letter to Ms. Jill Siebels, Facility Coordinator,
301018 General Electric Company, from Mr. William J.
Miller, III, re: Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site.
Report for Additional Environmental Sampling, ERM-
Northeast Project No. 380.174.05, March 8, 1996.
(Attachments: (1) Maps 8; Tables 3, (2) Attachment
1, Summary of Cesspool Soil Analytical Results,
(3) Attachment 2, Summary of Ground Water
Analytical Results, (4) Attachment 3, Data
Validation Report.)
Work Plans
301019- Plan: Revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan for
301167 the Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta
and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume
I, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
Environmental Services, February 1991.
301168- Plan: Revised Remedial Investigation Work Plan for
301490 the Malta Rocket Fue] Area Site. Towns of Malta
and Stillwater. Saratoga County. New York, Volume
II, Appendices, prepared by Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., Environmental Services, February 1991.
301491- Plan: Enviroclean-Northeast Malta Rocket Fuel Area
301729 Site, Work, Safety, Health and Emergency Response
Plan, prepared for Enviroclean-Northeast, prepared
by Earth Resources Corporation, October 1994.
301730- Plan: Work Plan, Septic Tank, Catch Basin, and Dry
301806 Well Clean Outs, Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., June 30, 1995.
-------
3.4
P.
P.
P.
P.
301807- Plan: Work Plan, Excavation and Removal of
301839 Crushed, Buried Drums, Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Site, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., June 1995.
301840- Letter to Ms. Alison Hess, Project Manager, U.S.
301846 EPA Region II, Ms. Virginia Capon, Esguire, U.S.
EPA Region II, Mr. Victor Cardona, Project
Manager, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action,
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, from Ms.
Jill Siebels, GE, Facility Coordinator, re: Malta
Rocket Fuel Area Site, Work Plan for Additional
Environmental Sampling, January 17, 1996.
(Attachment: Letter to Ms. Jill Siebels, GE,
Facility Coordinator, from Mr. William J. Miller,
III, ERM-Northeast, re: Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Site, Work Plan for Additional Environmental
Sampling, January 17, 1996.)
301847- Letter to Ms. Alison Hess, Project Manager, U.S.
301851 EPA Region II, Ms. Virginia Capon, Esguire, U.S.
EPA Region II, Mr. Victor Cardona, Project
Manager, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action,
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, from Ms.
Jill Siebels, GE, Facility Coordinator, re: Malta
Rocket Fuel Area Site, Addendum to the 17 January
1996 Work Plan for Additional Environmental
Sampling, January 24, 1996. (Attachment: Letter to
Ms. Jill Siebels, GE, Facility Coordinator, from
Mr. William J. Miller, III, ERM-Northeast, re:
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Addendum to the 17
January 1996 Work Plan for Additional
Environmental Sampling, January 24, 1996.)
Remedial investigation Reports
301852- Report: Site Analysis Malta Rocket Fuel, Malta,
301869 New York, Volume 1, prepared by Environmental
Monitoring System Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA, March 1989.
301870- Report: Site Analysis Malta Rocket Fuel, Malta,
301879 New York, Volume 2, prepared by Environmental
Monitoring System Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA, March 1989.
301880- Report: Tank Inspection Report Wright-Malta
301970 Corporation Property, Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County,
New York, prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc.,
Environmental Services, May 1991. (Appendix: A-E)
301971- Report: Site Security Survey for the Malta Rocket
301987 Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and Stillwater,
Saratoga County, New York, prepared by ERM-
Northeast, Inc., October 14, 1991.
-------
301988- Report: Literature Search for the Malta Rocket
302227 Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and Stillwater,
Saratoga County, New York, Volume I, prepared by
Geraghty & Miller Inc., Environmental Services, May 1992.
302228- Report: Literature Search for the Malta Rocket
302435 Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and Stillwater,
Saratoga County, New York, Volume II, prepared by
Geraghty & Miller Inc., Environmental Services, May 1992.
302436- Report: General Electric, Report for the Cleanup
302490 of the Building 1 Sump at the Malta Rocket Fuel
Area Site, Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga
County, New York, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
January 4, 1993.
302491- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
302902 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume I,
Sections 1-5, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
302903- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
303334 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume II,
Sections 6-10, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
303335- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
303347 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume III,
Plates 1-8, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
303348- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
303703 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume IV,
Appendices A-C, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
303704- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
304035 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume V,
Appendix D, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
304036- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
304458 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume VI,
Appendix E, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
304459- Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
304665 Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume VII,
Appendix F, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc.,
February 14, 1995.
-------
304666-
304962
304963-
305487
305488-
305526
305527-
306221
306222-
306329
Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Volume
VIII, Appendices G-M, prepared by ERM-Northeast,
Inc., February 14, 1995.
Report: Correspondence Documenting Changes in
Scope or Field Protocol, Remedial Investigation
Report, Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of
Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York,
prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., February 14, 1995.
Report: Revised Pathway Analysis Report Malta
Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Risk
Assessment, prepared by ENVIRON Corporation, March,
1995.
Report: Final Revised Risk Assessment Malta
Rocket Fuel Area Site, Towns of Malta and
Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York, Risk
Assessment, prepared by ENVIRON Corporation, June 1995.
Report: Final Report, Cylinder Decommissioning,
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Malta, New York,
prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., October 1995.
306330- Report: Final Report, Excavation and Removal of
306462 Crushed, Buried Drums, Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Site, Malta, New York, prepared by ERM-Northeast,
Inc., December 1995.
306463- Letter to Ms. Jill Siebels, Facility Coordinator,
306482 General Electric Company, from Mr. William J.
Miller, III, Project Director, ERM Northeast, re:
Final Investigation Derived-Waste Report, Malta ~
Rocket Area Fuel Site, Malta, New York, April 17,
1996. (Attached: Table 1-6, Attachments A-C.)
306483- Report: Final Report, Septic Tank, Catch Basin and
306586 Dry Well Clean Outs, Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
Malta, New York, prepared by ERM-Northeast, Inc., April 1996.
-------
3.5 Correspondence
P. 306587- Memorandum to Director, Waste Management Division
306600 Regions I, IV, V, VII; Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division Region II; Director,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III,
VI, VIII, IX; Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X; Director, Environmental Services
Division, Regions I, VI, VII, from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, Acting Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, U.S. EPA Region II, re:
Distribution of the Land Use Directive, June 30,
1995. (Attachment: Memorandum, OSWER Directive No.
9355.7-04, to Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII; Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division Region II; Director,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III,
VI, VIII, IX; Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X; Director, Environmental Services
Division, Regions I, VI, VII, from Mr. Elliott P.
Laws, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA Region II,
re: Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process, May 25, 1995.)
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements (ARARs)
Determinations
P. 400001- Fact Sheet: A Guide on Remedial Actions at
400006 Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination, U.S. EPA
Region II, August 1990.
P. 400007- Fact Sheet: A Guide to Principal Threat and Low
400009 Level Threat Wastes, U.S. EPA Region II, November 1991.
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400010- Report: Feasibility Study, Malta Rocket Fuel
400230 Area Site, Saratoga County, New York, prepared for
Malta Participating Parties, Albany, New York,
prepared by Rust Environment & Infrastructure, October 1995.
5.0 RECORD OF DECISION
5.1 Record of Decision
P. 500001- Record of Decision, Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
500133 Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County,
New York, prepared by U.S. EPA Region II, July 18,1996.
-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001- Letter to various PRPs, from Ms. Virginia Capon,
700022 Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean
Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA Region II, re: Malta
Rocket Fuel Area Superfund Site, October 15, 1989.
(Attachment: Administrative Order, In the Matter
of : Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Inc., Curtiss-Wright
Corporation, General Electric Company, Mechanical
Technology Inc., New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority, Olin Corporation, Power
Technologies, Inc., Wright Malta Corporation,
Index No. II CERCLA-90219, September 28, 1989.)
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
P. 800001- Report: Site Review and Update, Malta Rocket Fuel
800033 Area, Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga
County, New York, CERCLIS NO. NYD980535124,
prepared by New York State Department of Health,
Under Cooperative Agreement With U.S. Department
of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
April 26, 1995, revised October 30, 1995.
8 .3 Correspondence
P. 800034- Memorandum, OSWER Directive No. 9835.15b, to
800043 Regional Administrators, U.S. EPA Regions I-X,
from Mr. Richard J. Guimond, Assistant Surgeon
General, USPHS, Acting Assistant Administrator,
re: New Policy on Performance of Risk Assessments
During Remedial Investigation Feasibility Studies
(RI/FS), Conducted by Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs), September 1, 1993. (Attached:
Notice of Availability of the New Risk Assessment
Policy for Risk Assessment During PRP-lead RI/FSs
and Responses to Public Comments.)
P. 800044- Letter to Mr. Henry L. Longest II, Director,
800048 office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
EPA Region II, from Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, re: PRP Performance
of Risk Assessment During Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study at Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Superfund Site, Saratoga County, New York, October
27, 1994. (Attached: Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Superfund Site, Saratoga County, New York, Site Background.
-------
P. 800049- Memorandum to Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan, Director,
800049 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA
Region II, from Mr. Henry L. Longest II, Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
EPA Region II, re: Acknowledgment of Regional
Documentation for Reguest to Allow PRP to Perform
the Baseline Risk Assessment, November 8, 1994.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 1000001- Report: Community Relations Plan, Malta Rocket
1000021 Fuel Area Site, Malta Site, prepared for U.S.
EPA Region II, prepared by Alliance Technologies
Corporation, December 9, 1991.
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
P. 1000022- Public Meeting Summary, Malta Rocket Fuel Area,
1000057 prepared for U.S. EPA Region II, prepared by
Alliance Technologies Corporation, December 9, 1991.
P. 1000058- The Stenographic Record in the Matter of a Public
1000112 Meeting to Consider the Proposed Plan for the
Malta Rocket Fuel Superfund Site in the Towns of
Malta and Stillwater, New York, held by the U.S.
EPA Region II, April 24, 1996.
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000113- Fact Sheet: Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site, Malta
1000120 and Stillwater, New York, U.S. EPA Region II,
October 1991.
P. 1000121- Fact Sheet No.2: Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund
1000126 Site, Malta/Stillwater, New York, U.S. EPA Region
II, January 1992.
P. 1000127- Fact Sheet No.3 : Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site,
1000130 Malta and Stillwater, New York, U.S. EPA Region
II, February 1993.
P. 1000131- Fact Sheet No.4 : Malta Rocket Fuel Area, Towns of
1000136 Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York,
U.S. EPA Region II, September 1994.
-------
APIENDIX IV
STATE IiETTER OF CONCURRENCE
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
JUL -9 1996
![]()
Michael 0. Zagata
Commissioner
Ms. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Re: Record of Decision
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
The New York State: Department of Environmental Conservation concurs with the proposed
record of decision for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area. We understand that the major components of the
remedy for the site will involve the following:
1. Continued pump and treat of the groundwater via a water supply well;
2. Natural attenuation of volatile organic compounds in groundwater;
3. Continued monitoring of groundwater and surface water;
4. Excavation of PCB-contarninated soil;
5. Implementation of institutional controls on the use of groundwater
6. Evaluation of site conditions every five years.
Please contact Sal Ervolina, of my staff, at (518) 457-4349 if you have any questions.
bcc: M. Zagata
M. O'Toole (2)
S. Ervolina
M. Chen/File
V. Cardona
Sincerely,
![]()
Michael J. O'Toole, Jr.
Director
Division of Environmental Remediation
-------
APPENDIX
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund Site
INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy. It provides a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns received during the public comment period, and EPA's responses to those comments and concerns. All
comments summarized in this document have been considered in EPA's and NYSDEC's final decision for selection
of a remedy for the Site.
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
The comments received were supportive of EPA's preferred remedy and, in particular, supported the continued
use of the Early Warning Monitoring System (EWMS) to ensure that off-site ground water users are not impacted
by the Site. A summary of the written and oral comments, as well as EPA's responses, appears below.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
The major community concerns identified during preparation of the community relations plan were potential
impacts of Site-related contamination on the residential water supply system and on the homeowners' property
values. EPA addressed the water supply concern by requiring sampling and analysis of surface water and
ground water between the Site and the public water supplies (i.e., the EWMS). In addition, in each of the
four (4) fact sheets issued during the RI/FS, EPA informed residents of the latest EWMS sampling results,
which indicated no adverse impact to off-site ground water users. With regard to a possible negative effect
on property values, EPA believed that the best course of action was to allow current and future residents to
make informed decisions based on Site data and information obtained during a comprehensive RI/FS and risk
assessment. To that end, EPA mailed out the fact sheets described above to report on the progress of the RI,
placed Site-related documents in the local informational repositories as they became available and, in 1993,
EPA awarded a $50,000 Technical Assistance Grant to a local homeowners' association to provide funds for an
independent evaluation of the Site documents. The TAG grant was not utilized during the RI/FS.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
The RI report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment on April
17, 1996. These documents were made available to the public in the Administrative Record File at the EPA
Docket Room in Region II, New York and the informational repositories at the Malta Town Hall and the Round
Lake Library. The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was published in the Saratogian
on April 17, 1996. The public comment period on these documents was held from April 17, 1996 to May 16,
1996.
On April 24, 1996, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Malta Town Hall to inform local officials and
interested citizens about the Superfund process, to review current and planned remedial activities at the
Site, and to respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
EPA received one (1) comment letter during the public comment period, which was submitted by two of the PRPs
for the Site (see Attachment A). The following is a summary of the comments contained in the letter and
EPA's response.
Letter dated May 15, 1996 from G.E. and NYSERDA: In their letter, G.E. and NYSERDA supported EPA's preferred
alternative recommended in the Proposed Plan, for both the ground water and the soil components. In
addition, G.E. and NYSERDA stated their support for the continued use of the EWMS to ensure that off-site
-------
ground water users are not impacted by contamination from the Site. A specific request was made to refer to
the G.E./Exxon Nuclear building as the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear building, because G.E. has
not used the building since 1974 and Exxon has not used it since 1979.
EPA's Response: EPA agrees that the building is properly referred to as the former G.E./Exxon Nuclear
building and uses that term in the ROD.
Three (3) comments were made at the April 24, 1996 public meeting. The following is a summary of these
comments and EPA's responses.
1) Statement from Malta Town Supervisor: The Malta Town Supervisor, David Meager, read a prepared statement
submitted on behalf of himself and four of the five members of the Town Board (the fifth member was out of
town). In the statement, Mr. Meager stated that he and the Town Board members were grateful to learn that
the level of risk posed by the Site is acceptable and that they endorsed EPA's preferred cleanup alternative.
In particular, they supported continued use of the EWMS monitoring to ensure that users of the Luther Forest
public water supply wells are not impacted. Mr Meager concluded by stating that EPA's reassuring conclusions
are welcome news to present and future Malta citizens.
2) Question from Peter Renders: Mr. Renders asked about the difference between the no action ground water
alternative (Gl) and the preferred alternative (G2b), since both would remediate contaminated ground water in
the same time period, but the preferred alternative would cost $290,000 more than the no action alternative.
EPA's Response: There are two differences between the no action remedy for ground water and EPA's selected
remedy. The first is that EPA's remedy requires air stripping to provide the on-site employees with
acceptable drinking water. The second is that EPA's remedy requires continued monitoring of the EWMS to
protect off-site ground water users. The 30-year present cost of these differences between the two
alternatives is approximately $270,000. Ground water modeling predictions show no difference in the
cleanup time frames for the two alternatives because, with EPA's remedy, the Test Station wells are expected
to be pumped at an estimated rate of only 0.6 gallons per minute. Therefore, for both the no action remedy
and EPA' s remedy, ground water restoration is expected to be achieved primarily by natural attenuation and
degradation processes in approximately 110 years.
3) Question from Stephen Williams, Daily Gazette: Mr. Williams asked about the timetable for EPA's next
steps.
EPA Response: After the close of the public comment period on May 16, 1996, EPA will carefully consider all
comments received before preparing a responsiveness summary and issuing a ROD for the Site. Following
issuance of the ROD, EPA will negotiate with the PRPs for performance of the remedy. We hope to conclude
these negotiations and start the remedy sometime later this year.
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT V-l
PROPOSED PLAN
Superfund Proposed Plan
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
![]() Towns of Malta and Stillwater
Saratoga County, New York
EPA
Region 2 April 1996
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives considered for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund
Site (Site), and identifies the preferred remedial alternative with the rationale for this preference. The
Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as lead agency, with
support from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA is issuing the
Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117 (a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and Section 300.430(f)
of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The alternatives summarized here are described in the Feasibility
Study (FS) report, which should be consulted for a more detailed description of all the alternatives.
This Proposed Plan is being provided following completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) for the Site to inform the public of EPA's and NYSDEC's preferred remedy and to solicit public
comments pertaining to all the remedial alternatives evaluated, as well as the preferred alternative.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the preferred remedy for the Site. Changes to the preferred
remedy, or a change from the preferred remedy to another remedy, may be made if public comments or additional
data indicate that such a change will result in a more appropriate remedial action. The final
decision regarding the selected remedy will be made after EPA has taken into consideration all public
comments. We are soliciting public comment on all of the alternatives considered in the detailed analysis of
the FS because EPA and NYSDEC may select a remedy other than the preferred remedy.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that the concerns of the community are considered in selecting
an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end, the RI and FS reports, this Proposed Plan, and
supporting documentation have been made available to the public for a public comment period,
which begins on April 17, 1996 and concludes on May 16, 1996. A public meeting will be held during the public
comment period at the Malta Town Hall on April 24, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. to present the conclusions of the RI/FS,
to elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the preferred remedial alternative, and to
receive public comments.
Comments received at the public meeting, as well as written comments, will be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of Decision (ROD), the document which formalizes the selection
of the remedy.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Alison A. Hess
-------
Project Manager
U.S. EPA (2ERRD-NYCSBII)
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dates to remember:
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
April 17 to May 16, 1996
Public comment period on RIFFS report, Proposed Plan, and remedies considered
April 24, 1996
Public meeting at the Malta Town Hall, Route 9 in Malta, 7:00 p.m.
Copies of the RI/FS report, the Proposed Plan, and supporting documentation are available at the following
information repositories:
Malta Town Hall
2540 Route 9
Ballston Spa, NY 12020
(515) 899-2552
Contact: Flo E. Sickels, Town Clerk
Round Lake Library
Round Lake, NY 12151
(518) 899-2285
Contact: Jo-Ann Paternaude, Head Librarian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Records Center
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3959
Contact: Alison A. Hess, Project Manager
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
This Proposed Plan describes the overall cleanup plan for the Site, including treatment of the on-site water
supply system by air stripping, remediation of the ground water plume by natural attenuation and degradation
processes, and remediation of contaminated soil by excavation and off-site disposal. The
preferred remedy described in this plan is consistent with several response actions that have already been
performed in accordance with EPA-approved work plans submitted as part of the RI/FS and which are described
in detail in the RI Summary section of this Proposed Plan, including 1) decommissioning and removal of two
compressed gas cylinders, 2) excavation and recycling of 560 empty, buried crushed drums; 3) cleanouts of
several septic tanks, catch basins, and dry wells; 4) cleanout of a sump; and 5) disposal of waste generated
during the R.I, called investigation-derived waste or IDW. By having these response actions performed during
the RI/FS rather than at a later date, EPA substantially reduced the remaining scope of work for the final
cleanup remedy. The preferred remedy utilizes the existing air stripper installed at the Test Station water
supply system to provide acceptable drinking water for the Test Station employees, the ongoing monitoring
system to protect users of the downgradient public water supply wells, and the existing fencing and
restrictive easement to control access and ground water withdrawal. As part of the final cleanup plan, the
preferred remedy reguires that the selected remedy be reviewed at least once every 5 years to ensure that it
remains protective of human health and the environment.
SITE BACKGROUND
-------
The Malta Rocket Fuel Area Superfund Site, also known as the Saratoga Research and Development Center, is
located on Plains Road in the Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County, New York. The Site consists of
a sguare parcel of approximately 165 areas of developed land, known as the Malta Test Station (the Test
Station), and additional acreage in the predominantly undeveloped woodlands surrounding the Test Station (see
Figure 1). The Test Station has thirty-three (33) buildings, numerous concrete guench pits, leach
fields/septic tanks, dry wells, storage areas, disposal areas, and a small artificial pond known as Muggen's
Pond. A fence surrounds the majority of the Test Station.
The U.S. Government established the Test Station in 1945. Since then, all or parts of the Test Station have
been leased to G.E., Wright-Malta Corporation, Exxon Nuclear Company, Olin Corporation, Iso-Nuclear
Corporation, Mechanical Technology, Inc., and Power Technologies, Inc. and used for a wide range of rocket
and weapons testing programs and for space and other research. Detailed information regarding the history of
the Site can be found in the Literature Search Report which is available in the information repositories
identified above.
In 1955, the U.S. Government established a perpetual restrictive easement area surrounding the Test Station.
The easement area covered approximately 1,800 acres in a circular area of one-mile radius from the
approximate geographic center of the Test Station (see Figure 1). The holder of the interest in the easement
has the right to prohibit hunting and human habitation, remove buildings being used for human habitation,
post signs, and enter the easement area to exercise these rights.
In 1964, the New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority (now the Energy Research and Development
Authority, NYSERDA) purchased the 165-acre Test Station and the interest in the surrounding easement. In
1968, NYSERDA purchased an additional 280 acres within the easement area. Because NYSERDA then held both the
easement interest and a parcel of property located within the easement area, the restrictions on that parcel
were extinguished by merger. In 1984, NYSERDA sold 81 acres of the original Test Station property, and its
interest in the remaining easement area (approximately 1,500 acres) to Wright-Malta Corporation. The
easement interest held by Wright-Malta Corporation provides the right to restrict activity on the 1,500 acres
of the remaining easement, but not on the Site itself.
In addition to the Test Station, the Site includes portions of the predominantly undeveloped woodlands that
surround the Test Station, including a) the G.E./Exxon Nuclear Building area; b) Area D-3; c) the Triangular
Parcel; and d) areas adjacent to the Test Station that have been impacted by Site-related constituents in
ground water. The G.E./Exxon Nuclear Building was built between 1968 and 1970 by NYSERDA and used for
experiments on low-level radiation of medical eguipment and food preservation and for a gas centrifuge
uranium enrichment research project conducted by G.E. and the Exxon Nuclear Company (now
Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Inc.). NYSERDA currently leases the G.E./Exxon Nuclear Building to Optimum Air
Corporation, which manufactures eguipment to dry industrial coatings. Area D-3, also owned by NYSERDA,
consists of a ravine (Ravine Ib) partially filled with debris and covered with vegetated soil, which
reportedly was used by the New York State Department of Transportation for disposal of construction and
demolition debris during the construction of Interstate 87. The Triangular Parcel, owned by Wright-Malta
Corporation, is an area of forest adjacent to the southeast corner of the Test Station that was evaluated,
but never used, for research and development testing. The portion of the Site beyond the Test Station
boundary that has been impacted by contaminated ground water is owned by the Luther Forest Corporation, which
built the Luther Forest residential development to the northwest of the Site (see Figure 1).
![]()
In 1985 and 1986, ground water at the Site was sampled and found to contain carbon tetrachloride (carbon
tet), trichloroethylene (TCE), and chloroform, along with several metals. In January 1987, an air stripper
was permitted by NYSDEC and installed on the Test Station water supply wells by Wright-Malta Corporation to
treat ground water prior to its use by employees at the Test Station. The purveyor of water is responsible
for ensuring that the on-site water supply is in compliance with Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code.
The New York State Department of Health reviews monitoring data collected from the on-site water supply. In
June 1987, the Early Warning Monitoring System (EWMS) of ground water monitoring wells and surface water
sampling locations was established between the Test Station and the Luther Forest Well Field to detect any
contamination emanating from the Site before it impacted the water supply for the Luther Forest residential
-------
development. To date, the EWMS results have indicated that the Site has not impacted the water quality of
the Luther Forest residential development.
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List in July 1987. In September 1989, EPA unilaterally issued
an Administrative Order to 8 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for performance of the RI/FS. These
parties are Advanced Nuclear Fuels, Inc.; Curtiss-Wright Corporation; G.E.; Mechanical Technology, Inc.;
NYSERDA; Olin Corporation; Power Technologies, Inc.; and Wright-Malta Corporation. In March 1990, G.E.,
NYSERDA, and the U.S. Department of Defense entered into a participation agreement among themselves and
undertook performance of the RI/FS.
HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The Site is situated on a topographic drainage divide. Streams in Ravines 6a, 6b, 7, and 8 north of the Site
flow northward toward Saratoga Lake. Screams in Ravines la, Ib, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, and 5 flow southward
toward Round Lake (see Figure 1).
The Site is underlain by the unconsolidated aeolian sand, Lake Albany sand, and Lake Albany silty sand units,
which have a combined thickness of up to 250 feet. The depth to ground water is approximately 15 to 55 feet
below land surface. Below these sand layers is an approximately 100-foot layer of clay and silt that
hydraulically separates the Lake Albany sand/silty, sand aguifer above from the bedrock, below. Muggett's
Pond was created on the Test Station by excavating a small area (0.07 acre) down to the ground water table.
Ground water at the Site is influenced by the topographic divide and by the geologic layering. In general,
ground water flows from the Triangular Parcel across the Test Station and discharges northward to Ravines 6a,
6b, .7, and 8 and southward to Ravines la, Ib, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 3. The water supply system for the Site
consists of 2 active production wells located at the Test Station.
The Luther Forest Well Field is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the Site. These wells tap the
Knapp Road sand and gravel aguifer to provide water for the Luther Forest residential development. The Cold
Springs Well is located approximately 1 mile northeast of the Site and also provides water to the Luther
Forest residential development. The Cold Springs Well and 2 others located nearby (the Saratoga Hollow Well
and the Saratoga Ridge Well) tap unnamed sand and gravel aguifer near Saratoga Lake. The Luther Forest Well
Field and the Cold Springs Well are not likely to be affected by Site contamination because these wells tap
different aguifers than the Lake Albany aguifer at the Site and the contaminants in the ravine streams
volatilize before recharging the aguifers that serve the public water supply. Nevertheless, the EWMS
sampling is performed to verify that these public water supplies are not impacted by contamination emanating
from the Site.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
The purpose of the RI was to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to obtain
sufficient information to conduct a risk assessment and evaluate cleanup alternatives. Field work began in
October 1991 and was completed in May 1994. A total of 48 distinct areas of the Site were investigated.
Analytical results from the RI samples of surface water, sediment, ground water, surface soil, subsurface
soil, and septic tank liguid were compared to screening levels established for the Site, also known as the
comparative criteria. The comparative criteria for ground water, surface water, and sediment were a
combination of their respective maximum measured background concentrations and available federal and state
regulatory standards, guidance values, and criteria. The comparative criteria for surface and subsurface
soil were a combination of the maximum statistical background concentrations; available federal and state
regulatory standards, guidance values, and criteria; and health-based comparative criteria (for 25 inorganic
analytes including essential nutrients). Septic tank liguid samples were compared to the ground water
effluent standards for discharge to class GA (drinking) waters established in the NYSDEC Water Quality
Regulations for Surface Waters and Ground Waters. In general, detections below the comparative criteria
indicated no concern and were not investigated further, while detections above the comparative criteria
indicated a potential for concern and were investigated further. All of the RI sample results were evaluated
in the risk assessment. Key activities conducted during the RI and their results are as follows:
-------
Radiation Survey: A radiation survey was conducted with a geiger counter to assess the potential presence of
residual radiation in the ambient air at the G.E./Exxon Nuclear building, where radioactive materials
reportedly had been used in the past. The survey revealed no radiation above background levels.
Geophysical Surveys: Geophysical surveys were conducted at 19 areas to identify locations of possible buried
metal. A total of 82 anomalies in 13 areas were interpreted as areas of possible buried metal. Subsurface
investigations (81 test pits and 9 soil borings) revealed that most of the buried metal at the Site is
construction-related scrap metal debris or scrap artillery projectiles. Two areas of empty, buried crushed
drums and an unlabeled compressed gas cylinder were found in Area S-l, a burn pit structure and a third area
of empty, buried crushed drums were found at Area D-l, and a compressed gas cylinder labeled pentaborane was
found at Area D-4. At Area D-5, 4 five-gallon pails of sodium hydroxide and 3 thirty-five gallon stainless
steel drums, 1 approximately half-full with a black, oily caustic liquid (pH>13) were found. During the RI,
the compressed gas cylinders were decommissioned and disposed off-site. In October 1995, the stainless steel
drums and 560 empty, crushed drums were excavated and taken off-site for recycling. The chemicals (the
sodium hydroxide and the black caustic liguid) were stored in overpack drums and removed from the Site in
February 1996. All these response actions were
performed in accordance with EPA-approved work plans.
Soil Gas Surveys: Soil gas surveys were performed at 46 areas of the Site, with a total of 844 soil gas
points installed and sampled. These surveys were used as a screening-level tool to provide a
semi-quantitative evaluation of the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in shallow soil. The soil
gas analytical results were used to select locations for soil borings and monitoring wells.
Ground Water Investigation: Thirty (30) wells were installed at the Site to supplement the existing network
of 18 monitoring wells and water supply wells. Ground water samples were collected and analyzed in June
1992, November 1992, and March 1994. These sample results confirm the presence of VOCs in ground water above
Federal drinking water standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs) and were used to prepare a map of the
ground water plume (see Figure 1). As can be seen in Figure 1, the 5-ppb limit of ground water plume is well
within the easement area. Carbon tet and TCE were detected near the center of the Test Station at maximum
concentrations of 220 parts per billion (ppb) and 280 ppb, respectively, compared to their MCLs of 5 ppb. The
EWMS and RI ground water and surface water samples show that VOC concentrations are generally steady or
decreasing, suggesting that the plume is not migrating in the subsurface into uncontaminated areas under
current ground water flow conditions. Three additional ground water samples taken from within the plume in
January 1996 were consistent with the RI results.
Surface Water Investigation: Fourteen (14) surface water samples were collected from 6 surface water bodies
(quench pits at Buildings 3, 4, and 25; Muggett's Pond; and Ravines Ib and 6a). EWMS and surface water data
from other sampling events were used to evaluate Ravines la, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, 6b, 7, and 8. Analytical
results from samples collected in Ravine 6a were interpreted to be representative of background conditions.
Samples from Ravine Ib at Area D-3 showed concentrations of several inorganics (aluminum, calcium, iron,
manganese, potassium, and sodium) above the comparative criteria. The 3 quench pits showed iron, manganese,
and antimony above the comparative criteria and the Building 3 quench pit also showed
two (2) pesticides (aldrin and heptachlor epoxide) above the comparative criteria. Surface water samples
from Muggett's Pond showed only iron and manganese above the comparative criteria. The data from the EWMS and
other historical sampling events indicate that low levels of carbon tet and TCE are present in the
headwaters of Ravine 2b where the ground water plume discharges to surface water, and that they volatilize
before reaching midstream or downstream sampling locations (see Appendix F of risk assessment report).
Sediment Investigation: Sediment samples were collected from Muggett's Pond and the ravines at the same
locations where the RI surface water samples were taken. Because Muggen's Pond Drainage Ditch rarely
contains water, the results from samples taken there are reported in the following section on surface soil
investigation. Sediment samples from Ravine 6a were interpreted as representative of background conditions.
Samples from Ravine Ib showed only inorganic analytes above the comparative criteria, such as aluminum,
barium, manganese, and potassium. Sediment samples from the 3 quench pits and Muggett's Pond showed
detections above the comparative criteria for organic and inorganic analytes, including polychlorinated
biphenyis (PCBs), cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Additional sampling indicated that
the exceedences were localized.
-------
Surface Soil Investigation: Twenty-one (21) surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for a
background soil guality, investigation, which was used in developing the comparative criteria for surface
soil. In addition, 67 surface soil samples were analyzed from 60 locations at the Site. The results showed
localized exceedences of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) at Buildings 6, 24, and 27 that are likely
attributable to nearby asphalt paving. PCBs were found at concentrations from 720 ppb to 20.3 parts per
million (ppm) and lead from 102 to 1090 ppm at Building 23P, and mercury was found at concentrations of 0.02
to 124 ppm at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection, where a spur joins the main ditch (see Figure 2).
Subsurface Soil Investigation: Thirty-three (33) subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed as part
of the background soil guality investigation. in addition, 254 shallow subsurface soil samples and 3 deep
subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed from 172 shallow borings, 3 deep borings (now
monitoring wells), and 23 test pit locations at the Test Station, Area D-3, and the G.E./Exxon Nuclear
Building. The soil samples showed detections of inorganics and various VOCs and SVOCs above the comparative
criteria in small areas at several locations on the Test Station.
![]()
Dry Well Investigation: Thirty-one (31) soil and sediment samples were collected and analyzed from 23 dry
well features (dry wells, catch basins, floor drains, a swale, and an open sump) at the Site. Thirteen (13)
of the dry wells (12 on the Test Station and 1 at G.E./Exxon Nuclear) showed detections of inorganic and
organic analytes above the comparative criteria. Additional sampling below and adjacent to these dry wells
confirmed that the exceedences were localized. The sump at Building 1A was cleaned out in October 1992 and 4
catch basins and 1 dry well were cleaned out in October and November 1995 in accordance with an EPA-approved
work plan.
Septic Tank Investigation: Seven (7) liguid samples and 2 sludge samples were collected from septic tanks on
the Site. The analytical results showed detections above the comparative criteria, including inorganics,
VOCs and PCBs. These septic tanks were cleaned out from October 1995 to February 1996 in
accordance with an EPA-approved work plan. Additional soil sampling confirmed that these constituents do not
contaminate soil outside the septic tanks or beneath the cesspools.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISK
The RI, EWMS, and historical Site data were evaluated in a baseline risk assessment to estimate the risks
associated with current and future Site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the human health
and ecological risk that could result from the contamination at the Site if no remedial action were
taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the freguency and
duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment—determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response). Risk Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments
to provide a guantitative assessment of site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which would be representative of
Site risks. These contaminants included VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and inorganics. Several of the contaminants,
including carbon tet and TCE, are known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected to be human
carcinogens.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects that could result from exposure to contamination as
a result of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with ground water; ingestion and dermal contact with
-------
surface and subsurface soils; and ingestion and dermal contact with surface water and sediments. The current
land use of the Test Station and G.E./Exxon Nuclear Building area is industrial and much of the
land surrounding the Site is subject to easement restrictions that prohibit human habitation and hunting.
Therefore, the potential current receptors identified were an on-site employee, a utility
worker, and a youth trespasser. Other potential receptors identified were future on-site residents (adult
and child), who could be present at the Site if the current Test Station land use was changed to residential
or if the easement restrictions were discontinued, and a future excavation worker.
Current regulations under CERCLA establish acceptable exposures that eguate to an excess carcinogenic risk
for an individual lifetime in the range of 10-4 to 10-6 (i.e., an excess cancer risk of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in
1,000,000) or less and a maximum health Hazard Index, which reflects noncarcinogenic effects for a human
receptor, egual to 1.0. A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates a potential for noncarcinogenic health
effects.
The baseline risk assessment indicated that the carcinogenic risk and the Hazard Index for noncarcinogenic
effects associated with ground water at the Site are acceptable for all current and future human receptors.
For example, the carcinogenic risk for current Test Station employees who ingest ground water treated by the
existing air stripper is 9 x 10-7; (9 in 10 million), which is acceptable. If the existing air stripper were
discontinued, the carcinogenic risk for Test Station employees drinking untreated ground water would be 4 x
10-5 (4 in 100,000), which is higher but still within the acceptable risk range. The carcinogenic risk
calculated for exposure of a future child resident, a sensitive subpopulation, is 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000),
which is also within the acceptable risk range. Although the risk due to ground water contamination falls
within the acceptable risk range, EPA's preferred remedy reguires treatment of the Test Station water supply
to MCLs and monitoring of natural attenuation and degradation processes until the ground water plume attains
MCLs, consistent with the NCP.
The risk assessment indicated that the carcinogenic risk and the Hazard Index for noncarcinogenic effects may
be unacceptable under a future resident scenario due to the concentration of PCBs in soil at the Building 23P
area. For example, the carcinogenic risk with the contaminated soil is 2 x 10-4 (2 in 10,000) for a future
child resident, a sensitive subpopulation. Assuming the top foot of contaminated soil is cleaned up to 10
ppm of PCBs and contaminated soil below a depth of one foot is cleaned up to 25
ppm of PCBs, based on EPA policy, the risk is reduced by half to 1 x 10-4 (1 in 10,000), which is within
EPA's acceptable risk range. Assuming the same cleanup levels, the Hazard Index is reduced from 1.2 to 0.8,
indicating that health effects from noncarcinogenic constituents would not be expected following
remediation. All calculations in the risk assessment are conservatively protective of human health;
therefore, any actual risk posed by exposure is likely to be overestimated.
The risks calculated for exposure to Site soil for the other receptors (utility worker, excavation worker,
and trespasser) were within EPA's acceptable risk range. The risk assessment also indicated that risks posed
by exposure to sediment and surface water at the Site were acceptable for all current and future
receptors.
The baseline risk assessment did not include a calculation of the risk associated with lead in soil because
appropriate toxicity factors do not exist, and therefore the calculation could nor be performed. However,
the maximum detection of lead in soil (1090 ppm at Building 23P) was determined to be unacceptable because it
is slightly above 1000 ppm, which is a generally accepted cleanup level used by EPA for commercial/industrial
land use. For comparison, EPA's cleanup level for residential land use is 400 ppm. Other detections of lead
in soil at the Site were less than 1000 ppm and determined to be acceptable.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Problem Formulation - a gualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study. Exposure Assessment—a guantitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways
and receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects
-------
Assessment—literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations
to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Characterization—measurement or estimation of both current and
future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with evaluating the contaminants associated with the Site in conjunction
with the Site-specific biological species and habitat information. The contaminants of concern and their
respective ecological receptors (plant or animal species or habitat) are: PCBs in Muggen's Pond sediment for
benthic invertebrates and aguatic plants; and lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs for terrestrial plants, soil
invertebrates such as the earth-worm, and terrestrial vertebrates such as the meadow vole, short-tailed
shrew, red-tailed hawk, barn swallow, and red fox.
The ecological risk assessment indicated that the soil contaminated with mercury at the Muggett's Pond
Drainage Ditch Intersection may pose an ecological risk to terrestrial species. A cleanup goal of 2 ppm of
mercury was established for these soils based on ecological risk calculations. The potential risk posed to
Muggett's Pond itself was determined to be minimal based on its small size (0.07 acre) and limited habitat
for aguatic receptors.
Based on the results of the RI and the conclusions of the risk assessment discussed above, EPA has determined
that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by the preferred
alternative or one of the other active measures considered, may present a current or potential threat to
public health, welfare or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. They specify the
contaminants of concern, the receptors, and acceptable contaminant levels for each exposure route. These
objectives are based on available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and
appropriate reguirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment. The following
remedial action objectives were established for the Site:
Ground Water
!Prevent ingestion of ground water with concentrations of Site-related constituents (primarily the VOCs
carbon tet and TCE) above current Federal drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State
drinking water standards.
! Prevent ingestion of ground water with concentrations of Site-related VOCs that pose an unacceptable risk
to human health (total carcinogenic risk greater than 1 in 10,000 or a noncarcinogenic Hazard Index greater
than 1).
!Prevent further migration of the ground water plume containing Site-related VOCs above current Federal
drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State ground water standards, into areas with
concentrations of contaminants in ground water below such standards.
! Restore ground water so that concentrations of Site-related
VOCs in the water bearing zone are reduced to current Federal
drinking water standards or, if more stringent, New York State
ground water standards.
Soil
! Prevent human exposure to soil at the Building 23P area containing concentrations of PCBs that pose an
unacceptable risk to human health (i.e., an excess cancer risk greater than 1 in 10,000) and concentrations
of lead in excess of generally accepted cleanup levels for commercial/industrial land use. Specifically,
prevent human exposure to PCBs in soil at concentrations greater than 10 ppm from the surface to a depth of 1
foot and in soil at concentrations greater than 25 ppm for soil below a depth of 1
foot, and prevent human exposure to lead in soil at the Building 23P area at concentrations greater than 1000
ppm.
-------
!Prevent unacceptable ecological risk attributable to mercury in soil at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch
Intersection. The cleanup level established is 2 ppm of mercury.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA reguires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be cost
effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
The FS report evaluates in detail 5 remedial alternatives that address ground water contamination and 4
remedial alternativesthat address soil contamination at the Site. The construction time listed for each
alternative includes only the time to actually construct or implement the remedy and does not include any
time reguired for design of the remedy, or for negotiating with the PRPs or procuring contracts for design
and construction of the remedy. The estimated ground water restoration time for each ground water
alternative is based on contaminant fate and transport modeling performed during the FS. These time periods
are provided for comparative purposes only and should not be construed as representing actual cleanup time
frames, which may be shorter or longer than estimated. The alternatives are described below:
GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Gl: No Action
CERCLA reguires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives. Under Alternative Gl, no action would be taken to remediate, control or monitor the
contaminated ground water. The existing air stripper would be disconnected and would no longer treat the
Test Station water supply to acceptable drinking water levels. The EWMS would be discontinued and there
would be no monitoring of contaminants in surface water or ground water. The easement restrictions would not
be enforced to restrict human habitation within the vicinity of the plume. The concentrations of VOCs in
ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels in an estimated 110 years by natural attenuation and
degradation processes such as dilution, dispersion, adsorption, and possibly biological and chemical
degradation. Ground water would continue to discharge naturally to the ravines, where concentrations of VOCs
are reduced to acceptable levels in surface water through volatilization. Because this alternative would
result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once
every 5 years.
Capital Cost: $ 0
0 & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 0
Construction Time: None
Alternative G2b: Continue Existing System (Pump Water Supply Well(s) and Treat by Air Stripper) and
Institutional Controls
Under Alternative G2b, the Test Station water supply well(s) would continue to pump contaminated ground water
and the existing air stripper would continue to treat the Test Station water supply system to acceptable
drinking water levels. The concentrations of VOCs in ground water would be reduced to
acceptable levels by natural attenuation and degradation processes, and to a lesser extent by the pumping and
treating, in an estimated 110 years. Ground water and surface water would continue to be monitored to ensure
that downgradient water supply wells are not impacted, that the ground water plume does not migrate into
uncontaminated areas, and that natural attenuation and degradation processes are restoring the ground water
to cleanup standards. The minimum average pumping rate would be the estimated current demand, which is 0.6
gallons per minute (gpm). Ground water would continue to discharge naturally to the ravines, where
concentrations of VOCs are currently reduced to acceptable levels through volatilization. The air stripper
influent and effluent would continue to be monitored. New deed restrictions and continued maintenance of the
easement restrictions would be used to restrict withdrawal of ground water that could adversely impact the
restoration of the ground water, and the existing fencing would continue to control access to the Test
Station. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-site,
-------
CERCLA would require that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years to ensure that the remedy
is protective of human health and the environment. If justified by the review, EPA may require
implementation of additional remedial actions.
Capital Cost: $ 7,000
0 & M Cost: $ 17,100/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 269,900
Construction Time: None
Alternative G3: Pump Water Supply Well(s), Treat at Maximum Capacity of Existinq Air Stripper, and
Institutional Controls
Alternative G3 incorporates the provisions of Alternative G2b (pumpinq Test Station water supply wells,
treatment of the water usinq the existinq air stripper, natural attenuation and deqradation of qround water,
surface water and qround water monitorinq, and institutional controls), except that the Test Station water
supply system would be operated to maximize the capacity of the air stripper (approximately 25 qpm). Water
pumped and treated in excess of the water supply needs of the Site would be discharqed
on-site in a manner that enhances the qround water remediation and in compliance with applicable requlations.
Various discharqe options, such as an outfall discharqe structure at the head of Ravine 2a, reinjection
wells, or a surface infiltration trench or bed, would be evaluated durinq remedial desiqn (reinjection wells
were assumed for cost estimatinq purposes). Under this alternative, the concentrations of VOCs in qround
water would be reduced to acceptable levels within an estimated 90 years. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaininq on-site, CERCLA would require that Site conditions be
reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by the review, EPA may require implementation of
additional remedial actions.
Capital Cost: $ 247,000
0 & M Cost: $ 46,200/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 957,400
Construction Time: 1 to 2 months
Alternative G4a: Pump Existinq Water Supply Wells, New Air Stripper, and Institutional Controls
Alternative G4a incorporates many of the provisions of Alternative G3 (pumpinq the Test Station water supply
wells, treatment by air strippinq, discharqe of water in excess of on-site demand, natural attenuation and
deqradation of qround water, surface water and qround water monitorinq, and institutional
controls). However, Alternative G4a would require that the 2 on-site water supply wells be pumped at a
combined pumpinq rate of approximately 75 qpm to capture most of the qround water with concentrations of
individual VOCs qreater than 50 ppb. A new air stripper would be required to treat this volume of pumped
water. As with Alternative G3, treated water in excess of the water supply needs of the Site would be
discharqed on-site in a manner that enhances qround water remediation and in compliance with applicable
requlations. Various discharqe options, such as a discharqe structure at the head of Ravine 2a, reinjection
wells, or a surface infiltration trench or bed, would be evaluated durinq remedial desiqn (reinjection wells
were assumed for cost estimatinq purposes). Under this alternative, the concentrations of VOCs in qround
water would be reduced to acceptable levels within an estimated 80 years. Because this alternative would
result in contaminants remaininq on-site, CERCLA would require that Site conditions be reviewed at least once
every 5 years. Justified by the review, EPA may require implementation of
additional remedial actions.
Capital Cost: $ 348,700
0 & M Cost: $ 47,600/yr
Present Worth Cost: $1,080,400
Construction Time: 4 to 6 months
Alternative G4b: Pump Two Existinq Water Supply Wells and Two New Wells, New Air Stripper, and Institutional
Controls Alternative G4b incorporates many of the provisions of Alternative G4a (pumpinq of the existinq
water supply wells, treatment by a new air shipper, discharqe of water in excess of on-site demand, natural
attenuation and deqradation of qround water, surface water and qround water monitorinq, and institutional
controls). In Alternative G4b, however, water would be pumped from 4 wells (2 new wells and 2 existinq water
-------
supply wells) at a combined pumping rate of approximately 140 gpm, to capture all
of the ground water with concentrations of individual VOCs greater than 50 ppb. A new air stripper would be
reguired to treat the increased volume of pumped water. Treated water in excess of the water supply needs of
the Site would be discharged on-site in a manner that enhances ground water remediation and in
compliance with applicable regulations. As in Alternatives G3 and G4a, various discharge options, such as a
discharge structure at the head of Ravine 2a, reinjection wells, or a surface infiltration trench or bed,
would be evaluated during remedial design (reinjection wells were assumed for cost estimating purposes).
Under this alternative, the concentrations of VOCs in ground water would be reduced to acceptable levels
within an estimated 60 years. Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If
justified by the review, CERCLA may reguire implementation of additional remedial actions.
Capital Cost: $ 649,600
0 & M Cost: $ 51,800/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 1,445,900
Construction Time: 4 to 6 months
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative SI: No Action
CERCLA reguires that the "no action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with other
alternatives. Under Alternative SI, no action would be taken to remediate or control the contaminated soil.
The contaminated soil at the Building 23P area and at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection would be
left in place. No action would be taken to control access to the contaminated soil, such as maintaining the
existing fence around the Test Station or enforcing the easement restrictions. Because this alternative
would result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at
least once every 5 years.
Capital Cost: $ 0
0 & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 0
Construction Time: None
Alternative S2: Institutional Controls
Under Alternative S2, deed restrictions such as prohibiting all property use except for commercial/
industrial use or prohibiting future development of selected areas would be implemented to
minimize exposure to contaminated soil and to eliminate a future resident exposure scenario. These
restrictions would be specific to and would be incorporated into the property deeds for the Building 23P area
and the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection, which are currently owned by Wright-Malta Corporation.
The existing fence would continue to restrict access and the existing easement restrictions would continue to
prohibit human habitation within the easement area. Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If
justified by the review, EPA may reguire implementation of additional remedial actions.
Capital Cost: $ 16,800
0 & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 16,800
Construction Time: None
Alternative S3b: Asphalt Caps and Institutional Controls
Under Alternative S3b, asphalt caps would be placed over the contaminated soil at the Building 23P area
(estimated area 15 ft x 5 ft) and the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection (estimated area 3 ft x 30
ft), in addition to the institutional controls outlined in Alternative S2 (deed restrictions, easement
restrictions, and fencing). Placement of the cap in the drainage ditch would reguire altering the ditch to
maintain flow and prevent erosion. Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA would reguire that Site conditions be reviewed at least once every 5 years. If justified by
the review, EPA may reguire implementation of additional remedial actions.
-------
Capital Cost: $ 27,000
0 & M Cost: $ 1,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 42,400
Construction Time: 1 week
Alternative S4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Alternative S4 involves excavation of the contaminated soil at Building 23P (estimated volume 3 to 5 cubic
yards [yd3]) and at the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection (estimated volume 3 yd3). Excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean fill material, graded to blend with the surrounding areas, and
revegetated. The excavated soil would be transported to an appropriate off-site facility for final disposal.
Capital Cost: $ 25,100
0 & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 25,100
Construction Time: 1 week
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely, overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate reguirements, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction
of toxicity, mobility, or volume, short term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and state and community
acceptance. The evaluation criteria are described below.
• Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adeguate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
• Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a
remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements of other federal and
state environmental statutes and reguirements or will provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
• 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.
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of the
treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
• Short-term effectiveness addresses the period or 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 until cleanup goals are achieved.
• Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
• Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present worth costs.
• State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan,
the State concurs, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative at the present time.
• Community acceptance is assessed in the Record of Decision (ROD) following a review of the public
comments received on the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan.
The following is a comparative analysis of the alternatives for the Site based upon the evaluation
criteria noted above.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
-------
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl: No Action is not protective of human health and the environment, because it does not prevent
ingestion of contaminated ground water or require monitoring to ensure that the ground water plume does not
migrate into uncontaminated areas. Alternatives G2b, G3, G4a, and G4b would be protective of human health
and the environment, because ingestion of contaminated ground water and plume migration would be prevented
through on-site ground water pumping and treatment, institutional controls, and surface water and ground
water monitoring. Although Alternative G4b would be the most protective of the environment because it would
restore the ground water in the shortest period of time, all the ground water alternatives are expected to
restore the contaminated ground water to acceptable levels within similar relative time frames (i.e, from 60
to 110 years). Alternative G2b would be somewhat more protective of the ravine habitat than Alternatives G3,
G4a, and G4b because there would be no potential impact to the streams due to discharge of large volumes of
treated water in excess of the Test Station demand; this impact could be reduced by using reinjection wells
or infiltration trenches upgradient of the streams rather than through a discharge structure at the head of
Ravine 2a.
Soil Alternatives
Alterative SI: No Action is not protective of human health and the environment because it does not prevent
human exposure to contaminated soil at Building 23P or reduce ecological risks associated with contaminated
soil at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection. Of the remaining alternatives, S2 is least protective of
human health and the environment because it relies on institutional controls. Alternative S3b is more
protective of human health and the environment, because exposure to contaminated soil would be reduced
through capping and institutional controls. Alternative S4 is the most protective of human health and the
environment because exposure to contaminated soil would be eliminated through excavation and off-site
disposal.
• Compliance with ARARs
Ground Water Alternatives
Chemical-specific ARARs identified for ground water are the Federal MCLs for drinking water or, if more
stringent, New York State ground water standards. Examples of these levels are 5 ppb for carbon tet and 5
ppb for TCE. All the ground water alternatives are expected to attain these standards, with estimated
restoration time periods ranging from 60 to 110 years. The estimated time to attain MCLs is 110 years for
Alternatives Gl and G2b, 90 years for Alternative G3, 80 years for Alternative G4a, and 60 years for
Alternative G4b. As noted above, actual time frames for ground water restoration may be shorter or longer
than these time periods, which are estimated based on ground water fate and transport modeling.
Chemical-specific ARARs for the air stripper effluent are the Federal MCLs or, if more stringent, New York
State drinking water standards, which would include the 5 ppb for carbon tet and 5 ppb for TCE. These
standards would be met for each ground water alternative utilizing an air stripper (i.e., all but Alternative
Gl: No Action).
There are no location-specific or action-specific ARARs associated with Alternative Gl, which requires no
action. Alternative G2b and G3 utilize the existing air stripper, which was permitted by NYSDEC and has met
the New York State Air Emissions Requirements (VOC Emissions for Air Strippers and Process Vents, General Air
Quality). Alternatives G4a and G4b require new air strippers, which also could be designed to meet these
requirements. Alternatives G3, G4a, and G4b, which involve discharge of treated water in excess of on-site
demand, would have additional ARARs depending on the method of discharge selected in remedial design. For
example, discharge to Ravine 2a through an outfall structure would require compliance with the Federal and
New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Programs (NPDES and SPDES, respectively), the Federal
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Federal Clean Water Act (Part 404(b) Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit Program). Discharge through reinjection wells
or infiltration trenches would require compliance with the Federal Underground Injection Control (FUIC)
Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act and SPDES.
Soil Alternatives
The ARARs associated with the soil alternatives would be attained. There are no location-specific or
action-specific ARARs associated with Alternatives SI or S2. Alternative S3b would comply with Resource
-------
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements for detection monitoring. Alternative S4 would comply with
RCRA requirements for transport of the excavated soil and disposal at an EPA-approved landfill. There are no
chemical-specific ARARs that establish the cleanup level for the PCB-contaminated soil at Buildinq 23P, since
the concentrations are below 50 ppm and therefore are not regulated by the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) . Similarly, there are no ARARs for the cleanup level of mercury in soil at the
Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection or the lead in soil at Building 23P. However, Alternative S4 would
comply with EPA' s "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination,"
OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-01, dated August 1990, which utilizes the TSCA PCB spill policy to establish
cleanup levels for PCBs at restricted access (industrial) sites. Alternative S4 would also meet the
Site-specific cleanup levels for lead and mercury, which are 1000 ppm and 2 ppm, respectively.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl is neither effective nor permanent because it would not prevent ingestion of contaminated
ground water and does nor provide a means for monitoring the ground water plume. Alternatives G2b, G3, G4a,
and G4b all would be effective and permanent in the long-term, because each prevents ingestion of
contaminated ground water, eventually restores ground water to acceptable levels, and includes provisions for
monitoring the ground water over time.
Soil Alternatives
Alternative SI is neither effective nor permanent because it would not address the long-term risks due to
exposure to contaminated soils at Building 23P and Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection. Of the
remaining alternatives, S2 is the least effective means of reducing long-term risk because it relies on
institutional controls. Alternative S3b uses capping, which is somewhat more effective in the long-term.
Alternative S4 would have the greatest long-term effectiveness and permanence, because the risks would be
eliminated through excavation and off-site disposal.
• Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl: No Action would not employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of VOCs in
ground water. Of the remaining alternatives, G2b has the lowest pumping rate and would offer the least
reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. Alternative G3 would require a higher
pumping rate than Alternative G2b and would therefore offer greater reduction through treatment. Alternative
G4b would require the highest pumping rate and would utilize treatment to the greatest extent to reduce
toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. Alternatives G2b, G3, and G4b would rely upon
natural attenuation and degradation processes in addition to treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of VOCs in the ground water.
Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SI and S2 require no action and institutional controls, respectively, and therefore would not
reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated soil at Building 23P or Muggett's Pond Drainage
Ditch Intersection. The asphalt caps required by Alternative S3b would reduce the mobility of the
contaminated soil from wind and waler erosion, but would not reduce its toxicity or volume. Alternative S4
provides the greatest reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume by excavation of the contaminated soil and
off-site disposal in an EPA-approved landfill. None of the soil alternatives utilizes a treatment technology
to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants in soil.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternatives Gl, G2b, and G3 do not pose any short-term risk during construction because they rely on either
no action or existing systems. Alternatives G4a and G4b include installation of a new air stripper and
disassembly of the existing one, which may pose short-term risks if workers come into direct contact with
contaminated ground water. Alternatives G4a and G4b are equivalent with respect to this potential risk,
which is expected to be easily controlled through proper construction and health and safety practices.
-------
Alternative G4b is the most effective during implementation, because cleanup goals would be expected to be
met in the shortest period of time compared to the other alternatives.
Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SI and S2 do not pose any short-term risk because they rely on either no action or institutional
controls. Alternative S3b would pose minimal short-term risk to workers and the environment during asphalt
capping of the contaminated soil. Alternative S4 would pose minimal short-term risk for a short period of
time when the contaminated soil is excavated and disposed off-site. However, this risk is expected to be
easily controlled through standard health and safety practices.
• Implementability
Ground Water Alternatives
Alternative Gl would not reguire any construction, operation, or monitoring; therefore it is easily
implementable. Alternatives G2b, G3, and G4a would make use of the existing wells, and Alternatives G2b and
G3 would also use the existing air stripper treatment system, making these alternatives easy to implement.
Installation of new pumping wells (G4b), installation of a new air stripper (G4a and G4b) and construction of
a discharge system for excess treated water (G3, G4a, and G4b) would reguire no specialty eguipment or
contractors and could be implemented using common construction practices.
Soil Alternatives
Alternatives SI and S2 reguire no action and institutional controls, respectively, and are readily
implementable. The routine asphalt caps of Alternative S3b and the excavation and off-site disposal
reguired of Alternative S4 could be easily implemented using readily available materials, eguipment, and
construction practices.
Cost
Ground Water Alternatives
Costs for the ground water alternatives Gl to G4b are as follows:
Capital O&M/yr Present Worth
Gl $0 $0 $0
G2b 7,000 17,100 269,900
G3 247,200 46,200 957,400
G4a 348,700 47,600 1,080,400
G4b 649,600 51,800 1,445,900
The capital and present worth costs for Alternatives Gl and G2b are relatively low or zero. Alternatives G3
and G4a are intermediate with present worth costs of approximately $1 million, and Alternative G4b is the
most expensive at approximately $1.5 million.
Soil Alternatives
Costs for the soil alternatives SI to S4 are as follows:
Capital O&M/yr Present Worth
SI $0 $0 $0
S2 16,800 0 16,800
S3b 27,000 1,000 42,400
S4 25,100 0 25,100
The present worth cost for Alternative SI is zero. Of the remaining alternatives, S2 is the least expensive
at $16,800, S4 is intermediate at $25,100, and S3b is the most expensive at $42,400.
• State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the preferred alternative.
-------
• Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be assessed in the ROD following review of the public
comments received on the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon the results of the RI/FS and after careful consideration of the alternatives, EPA and NYSDEC
recommend Alternative G2b: Existing System (Pump Water Supply Well(s) and Treat by Air Stripper) and
Institutional Controls for ground water and Alternative S4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal for soil, as
the preliminary choice for the Site remedy. The capital cost of the preferred remedy is $32,100 and the
present worth cost is $295,000.
Specifically, the preferred alternative involves the following:
1) Continued pumping of the on-site water supply well(s) and treatment of the water using the existing air
stripper. Continued monitoring of the influent and effluent of the air stripper in accordance with NYS
reguirements to ensure that it effectively treats the on-site water supply to acceptable drinking water
levels. The average pumping rate of the system shall be at least 0.6 gpm, which is the estimated pumping rate
for the current demand at the Site.
2) Natural attenuation and degradation of VOCs in ground water that are not captured by the pumping well(s)
to Federal MCLs, or if more stringent, New York State ground water standards.
3) Monitoring of surface water and ground water to ensure that downgradient water supplies are not impacted,
that contaminated ground water does not migrate into uncontaminated areas (i.e., plume containment), and that
the natural attenuation and degradation processes are restoring the ground water to the cleanup standards.
The existing surface water and ground water sample locations of the EWMS may be modified as necessary to meet
the objectives of this monitoring program.
4) Implementation of institutional controls, which may include new deed restrictions and maintenance of the
existing easement restrictions and fencing, to prevent ingestion of contaminated ground water, to restrict
withdrawal of ground water that could adversely impact the remediation of the ground water, and to control
access.
5) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Building 23P area at a depth of 1 foot or less having a
concentration of more than 10 ppm of PCBs, soil at a depth below 1 foot having a concentration of more than
25 ppm of PCBs, and soil at any depth with a concentration of lead of more than 1000 ppm.
6) Excavation of contaminated soil at the Mugget's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection with a concentration of
more than 2 ppm of mercury.
7) Backfilling of excavations in the Building 25P area and at Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch Intersection with
clean fill material, grading to blend with the surrounding areas, and revegetation.
8) Transportation of the excavated soil from the Building 23P area and Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch
Intersection and disposal off-site at an appropriate EPA-approved landfill, consistent with RCRA and all
other ARARs.
9) Evaluation of Site conditions at least once every 5 years to ensure that the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. If justified by the review, additional remedial actions may be implemented.
The preferred alternative, G2b and S4, will provide the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the evaluation criteria. Alternative G2b is the most cost-effective ground water remedy that
meets all the remedial action objectives, and Alternative S4 provides the greatest reduction in risk at an
intermediate cost. EPA and the NYSDEC believe that the preferred alternative will be protective of human
health and the environment, comply with ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
-------
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
With regard to the statutory preference for the use of treatment as a principal element of the remedy, the
preferred alternative reguires treatment by air stripping to prevent ingestion of contaminated ground water.
The preferred alternative reguires natural attenuation rather than treatment as a principal element for
ground water restoration, which is consistent with the ground water policy set forth in the NCP, because
ground water restoration through pumping and treatment is not cost-effective or warranted based on the
estimated time periods to reach MCLs.
SUMMARY OF SITE-RELATED COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
In October 1991, EPA held a public meeting and issued a fact sheet to announce the beginning of the RI field
work. Following that meeting, EPA issued fact sheets in January 1992, February 1993, and September 1994 to
report progress on the RI and mailed them to all persons on EPA's mailing list for the Site. This
Proposed Plan announces a public meeting and the opportunity to submit comments during the public comment
period on the RI and FS reports, the Proposed Plan, and the remedies considered.
If you have any guestions about the Site or would like more information, please contact Alison A. Hess,
Project Manager, at the address and telephone number listed above or:
Cecilia Echols
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212) 637-3678
NEXT STEPS
After EPA has presented the preferred alternative at the public meeting and has received comments and
guestions during the public comment period, EPA will summarize and respond to these guestions and comments in
a Responsiveness Summary. The Responsiveness Summary will then become part of the ROD.
In addition to the Responsiveness Summary, the ROD will include a description of the final alternative
selected by EPA, the rationale for selecting it, a discussion of the alternatives that were considered but
rejected, and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives.
EPA will place the ROD in the Administrative Record file, which will be located at EPA's offices and at the
local information repositories. The Administrative Record file includes all Site findings and reports that
were instrumental in the Agency's decision regarding a remedy. If the selected remedy differs
significantly from preferred alternative presented in this Proposed Plan, EPA will inform the public of the
change. Upon issuance of the ROD, EPA will give the PRPs an opportunity to implement the selected remedy.
-------
GLOSSARY
Of Terms Used In the Proposed Plan
This glossary defines the technical terms used in this Proposed Plan. The terms and abbreviations contained
in this glossary are often defined in the context of hazardous waste management, and apply specifically to
work performed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms may have other meanings when used in a
different context.
Administrative Order: A legally binding document issued by EPA directing the potentially responsible parties
to perform site cleanups or studies.
Air stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals are removed from contaminated material by
forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before it is released into the atmosphere.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is used to refill an
excavated area.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater from penetrating
and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is generally mounded or sloped so water will
drain off.
Decommission: To render inoperable and/or take out of service.
Downgradient/downslope: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move toward lower elevations.
Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment system.
Infiltration trench or bed: A crushed rock drain system constructed of perforated pipes, which is used to
drain and disperse wastewater.
Influent: Water or other liquid flowing into a treatment system.
Landfill: A disposal facility, where waste is placed in or on land.
Migration: The movement of contaminants, water, or other liquids through porous and permeable rock.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating volumes of waste by jacketing or encapsulating waste to prevent
further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal and final disposal.
Plume: A body of contaminated ground water flowing from a specific source. The movement of the ground water
is influenced by such factors as local ground water flow patterns, the character of the aquifer in which
ground water is contained, and local pumping wells.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of purposes including
electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic fluids, microscope emersion oils, and
caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent
in the environment because they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them
produces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It is
also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979 with the passage of the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners or operators, who may have contributed to
-------
the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of response actions. Parties are
considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes a determination of liability. A PRP may
participate in site investigation and cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Remedial: A course of study combined with actions to correct site contamination problems through identifying
the nature and extent of cleanup strategies under the Superfund program.
Sediment: The layer of soil, and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as streams, lakes, and
rivers that absorb contaminants.
Sludge: Semi-solid residue from industrial or water treatment processes that may be contaminated with
hazardous materials.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile organic compounds from a substance (see Air Stripping).
Sump: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liguid with a low boiling point. TCE has many industrial
applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent. TCE may be toxic to people when
inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and can damage vital organs, especially the liver (see also
Volatile Organic Compounds).
Unilateral Order: A legally binding document issued by EPA directing the potentially responsible parties to
perform site cleanups or studies.
Upgradient/Upslope: Upstream; an upward slope. Demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas and,
therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwater.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and
methylene chloride. These potentially toxic chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners,
and fuels. Because of their volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and wide-spread industrial use, they are common
contaminants found in soil and ground water.
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT V-2
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE SARATOGIAN ON APRIL 17, 1996
PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Announces Public Meeting and Comment Period on the Proposed Plan for the
MALTA ROCKET FUEL SUPERFUND SITE
Towns of Malta and Stillwater, New York
The U.S. EPA recently completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) which determined the
nature and extent of contamination and evaluated cleanup alternatives for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Superfund Site, Towns of Malta and Stillwater, Saratoga County; New York. Based on the RI and FS Reports,
EPA has prepared a Proposed Plan for the Site that summarizes various cleanup alternatives and identifies
EPA's preferred alternative. Before selecting a final remedy, EPA will hold an informational public meeting
and will consider written and oral comments on all the alternatives.
The public comment period will be from Wednesday, April 17 to May 16, 1996. During the comment period, the
public is invited to review the Proposed Plan and the RI and FS Reports, which are available at the
information repositories listed below, and to offer written or oral comments on these documents. EPA's
public meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 24, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Malta Town Hall. The meeting
will be transcribed and a copy of the transcript will be available at the information repositories listed
below.
EPA evaluated the following alternatives for the Site:
Ground Water Remedial Alternatives:
Gl: No Action
G2b: Continue Existing System (Pump Water Supply Well(s) and Treat by Air Stripper) and Institutional
Controls
G3: Pump Existing Water Supply Well(s), Treat at Maximum Capacity of Existing Air Stripper, and
Institutional Controls
G4a: Pump Existing Water Supply Wells, New Air Stripper, and Institutional Controls
G4b: Pump Two Existing Water Supply Wells and Two New Wells, New Air Stripper, and Institutional
Controls
Soil Alternatives
SI: No Action
S2: Institutional Controls
S3b: Asphalt Caps and Institutional Controls
S4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
EPA's preferred alternative is G2b for ground water and S4 for soil. This alternative involves: 1) con-
tinued pumping of the on-site water supply wells for the Malta Test Station and treatment of the water using
the existing air stripper; 2) natural attenuation and degradation of contaminants in ground water that is not
captured by the pumping wells; 3) monitoring of surface water and ground water; 4) implementation of
institutional controls; 5) excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil at the Test Station; 6)
backfilling of the excavated soil locations with clean fill material, grading to blend with the surrounding
areas, and revegetation; 7) evaluation of site conditions at least once every five (5) years to ensure that
the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. If justified by the review, additional
remedial actions may be implemented.
The Proposed Plan, the RI and FS Reports, and other documents used by EPA in the decision-making process for
the Site are available for public review during the public comment period at the following locations:
-------
Malta Town Hall Round Lake Library
2540 Route 9 Round Lake, NY 12151
Ballston Spa, NY 12020 W, Th, F 10-8, Sat 10-2
Contact: Flo E. Sickels, Town Clerk Contact: Jo-Ann Patenaude
(518) 899-2552 (518) 899-2285
If you would like to comment in writing on the RI/FS or Proposed Plan, please mail your comments
(postmarked no later than Thursday, May 16, 1996) to:
Alison A. Hess, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3959
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT V-3
SIGN-IN SHEET FROM APRIL 24, 1996 PUBLIC MEETING
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Malta Rocket Fuel Superfund Site
Malta, NY
Wednesday, April 24, 1996
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
![]()
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Malta Rocket Fuel Superfund Site
Malta, NY
Wednesday, April 24, 1996
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
![]()
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT V-4
LETTER SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
![]()
Jill Siebels Corporate Environmental Programs
Corporate En vl ronmL'n tt~ ! Pro~ rusn.~
Remedial Project Manager General Electric Company
1 Computer Drive South, Albany NY 12205
518 458-6623 Dial Comm: S!920-9623
Fax: 518 458-9247 Dial Comm: S!920-9200
May 15, 1996
Ms. Alison A. Hess
Project Manager
U.S. EPA (2ERRD-NYCSBII)
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Subject: Comments on Superfund Proposed Plan
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Malta, New York
Dear Ms. Hess:
The General Electric Company (GE) and New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) have
reviewed the recently issued Superfund Proposed Plan for the Malta Rocket Fuel Area (MRFA) Site. GE and
NYSERDA appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) for consideration.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In general, we believe the preferred alternative recommended in the Superfund Proposed Plan more than
adeguately addresses conditions of concern at the MRFA Site. As you are aware, based on the results of the
Risk Assessment (RA) two areas were identified as contributing to an overall unacceptable risk at the site.
These two areas were the soil adjacent to Building 23P due to slightly elevated levels of PCBs and a portion
of the Muggett's Pond Drainage Ditch due to concentrations of mercury. Assuming that these
two areas are remediated, the remaining soil at the Site does not pose an unacceptable ask. Therefore, it is
both appropriate and effective to remove the soil at the above areas Although the specific remedy selected
for this soil is slightly more costly than some of the other alternatives, it does provide the most benefit
under EPA's evaluation criteria.
The proposed groundwater remedy is consistent with the Remedial Action Objectives developed in the
Feasibility Study. Specifically, although the groundwater does not pose an unacceptable risk, the continued
treatment of potable water for the existing on-site users would prevent any ingestion of groundwater with
constituents above the Federal MCLs or, New York State drinking water standards. In addition, the continued
use of the Early Warning Monitoring System will ensure that off-site groundwater users continue to be
unimpacted.
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
GE and NYSERDA offer the following specific comments on the Superfund Proposed Plan. These comments are
intended to clarify portions of the Plan, prior to issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). However, none of
our comments necessitate any fundamental changes to the preferred alternative.
The former GE/Exxon Nuclear Building
The former GE/Exxon Nuclear Building is simply referred to as the GE/Exxon Nuclear Building throughout the
Proposed Plan. In light of the references utilized in previous documents, including the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study Reports, the citations regarding this building should be proceeded by the
word "former". This is also consistent with the fact that the building has not been utilized by either GE or
Exxon since 1974 and 1979, respectively.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any guestions regarding these comments.
Respectfully,
![]()
Jill Siebels, GE
Facility Coordinator
cc: Leslie Hulse, Esg., GE
Hal Brodie, Esg, NYSERDA
Phil Gitlen, Esg., Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna
![]()
------- |