HEPA EPA Seeks Comment on Proposed Plan Environmental Protection Eagle Picher Carefree Battery Superfund Site A9encv Socorro, New Mexico June 2014 This fact sheet will tell you about: • Introduction • Summary of the Remedial Alternative • Soil Alternatives • Construction Debris Alternatives • Groundwater Alternatives • Summary of EPA's Preferred Alternative • Community Participation and Public Meeting • Site Location • Site History • For More Information • On the Web Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has re- leased the Proposed Plan for addressing hazardous sub- stance contamination at the Eagle Picher Carefree Battery (Eagle Picher) Site, Socorro, NM. EPA, the lead agency for site activity, is issuing the Proposed Plan with support from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). This Proposed Plan fact sheet highlights key information from the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) reports for the Eagle Picher Site, but it is not a substi- tute for those reports. For a complete source of infor- mation, please refer to these reports, which are in the Administrative Record File located at the repositories listed below. Summary of the Remedial Alternatives Soil Alternatives: There are three remedial alternatives that are being consid- ered for the soil portion of the Eagle Picher Site operable unit. Those being considered are: • Alternative S-l: No Action • Alternative S-2: Consolidate and Cap in Place • Alternative S-3: Excavation and off-site Disposal Alternative S-l: No Action This is a baseline condition against which other reme- dial alternatives are compared, as required by the Na- tional Contingency Plan (NCP). Alternative 1 would provide no further remedial action at the Site. Alternative S-2: Consolidate and Cap in Place Contaminated soil would be excavated and consoli- dated at a single location and covered with either a low-permeability cap or evapotranspiration cover. Ma- terials would be excavated using standard earth-mov- ing equipment (backhoes, excavators, front-end loaders, etc.) and relocated on-site. Mixing with ce- ment would be performed as material is placed to pro- vide a stable final form to the waste. A soil cap would then be installed to prevent infiltration to groundwater through the contaminated materials. A total of approx- imately 1,000 cubic yards of material would need to be capped in place. Following public review and comments on the Proposed Plan, EPA in consultation with NMED, will make a final remedy selection that will be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD). The response action (selected remedy), which will be detailed in the site ROD, will address heavy metals, asbestos, chlorinated solvents (such as tetra- chlroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1-dichloroe- thene (DCE)) and 1,4 dioxane in soil, construction debris and in groundwater. The EPA expects that the site contamination will be ad- dressed as one operable unit (an operable unit is a portion of a site in which actions are associated to addressing site contamination). The operable unit will consist of three sec- tions. Those sections are Soil Cleanup, Construction De- bris Cleanup and Groundwater Cleanup. Alternative S-3: Excavation and off-site Disposal Contaminated soil would be excavated and disposed at an approved disposal facility. As in Alternative S-2, the volume of contaminated soil is estimated to be on the order of 1,000 cubic yards for the entire site, in- cluding the wastewater impoundments, building site, and battery debris. Construction Debris Alternatives There are two remedial alternatives that are being considered for the Construction Debris portion of the Eagle Picher Site. Those being considered are: • Alternative CD-I: No Action • Alternative CD-2: Demolition and Disposal Alternative CD-I: No Action No Action is a retained alternative as required by the NCP, and is used as a baseline for comparison with other technologies. Under this alternative, none of the ------- asbestos containing building material (ACBM) or lead-based paint (LBP) materials would be moved. Alternative CD-2: Demolition and Disposal Under this alternative, ACBM and LBP materials are removed from the buildings (as opposed to building demolition) by a licensed contractor and disposed of at a facility licensed to accept special wastes. Cost esti- mates are based on preliminary abatement plans from licensed hazardous materials contractors. Removal of construction debris through demolition and disposal is evaluated as a remedial alternative. Groundwater Alternatives There are seven remedial alternatives that are being considered for the groundwater portion of the Eagle Picher Site operable unit. Those being considered are: • Alternative GW-1: No Action • Alternative GW-2: Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) - Rejected • Alternative GW-3: MNA and Institutional Con- trols (ICs) - Rejected • Alternative GW-4: Enhanced Reductive Dechlo- rination (ERD), MNA and ICs • Alternative GW-5: Pump and Treat, ERD, MNA and ICs • Alternative GW-6: Focused Pump and Treat with Hydraulic Containment, MNA and ICs • Alternative GW-6A: Phased Focused Pump and Treat with Hydraulic Containment, MNA and ICs Alternative GW-1: No Action No Action is a retained alternative as required by the NCP, and is used as a baseline for comparison with other technologies. Under this alternative, the contami- nant plume will continue to migrate and no monitoring is performed. Alternative GW-2: Monitored Natural Attenuation In the final FS, standalone MNA was considered as an alternative. However, after further review in a supple- mental FS, GW-2 was rejected as the time-frame re- quired to clean up the contaminants is not reasonable. Alternative GW-3: MNA and ICs In final FS, MNA with ICs was considered as an alter- native. However, after further review in a supple- mental FS, GW-3 was rejected as the time-frame required to clean up the contaminants is not reasona- ble. Alternative GW-4: ERD, MNA and ICs Groundwater alternative GW-4 includes the ERD in situ treatment technology in combination with MNA and ICs. Conceptually, ERD would be implemented along 11 500-foot-long transects of injection wells across the higher central shallow and deep TCE plume concentrations. Preliminary design assumes that injec- tion wells are placed every 25 feet along each transect. Implementation of this alternative, if 11 transects are installed, is assumed to require installation of 240 per- manent 2-inch-diameter injection wells to 110 or 210 feet below ground surface. No final decision of the substrate that will be injected is made for this screen- ing evaluation, but would likely be either emulsified vegetable oil or HRC®. Depending on the selection, reapplication of the substrate would be required every 24 to 36 months. In considering this process, it is recognized that the transformation of the aquifer to anaerobic conditions will likely result in the release of odors related to the degradation of the organics, as well as the potential re- lease of sulfur as sulfate degrades. Therefore, water that has been treated using ERD will not be potable until additional blending with oxygenated water from the surrounding aquifer occurs. This will occur over time as water migrates through the zone of treatment; recovery to naturally occurring conditions could take a number of years. Alternative GW-5: Pump and Treat, ERD, MNA and ICs Groundwater alternative GW-5 adds groundwater ex- traction, treatment, and disposal to alternative GW-4. Mass removal by groundwater extraction and ex situ treatment is applied in the middle of the plume, where solute contaminant concentrations are the highest. This technology uses three 6-inch-diameter extraction wells, conveyance piping to a treatment compound, a treatment facility, site improvements, and disposal of treated water. The extracted groundwater is conveyed back to a centrally located treatment compound for treatment and disposition. The pipelines are sized as 4- inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes installed 4 feet deep. Several variations of this technology will be evaluated, including forms of ex situ treatment (air stripping and GAC), disposal meth- ods (surface discharge, groundwater injection), and disposal locations. Plume containment also uses groundwater extraction near the leading edge of the groundwater plume. Application at this location would limit plume migration. This technology uses two addi- tional 6-inch-diameter extraction wells, conveyance piping, and site improvements. Contaminant concen- trations at this location are relatively low. The total ex- traction from the five wells is 420 gallons per minute (gpm). The treatment system including the treatment skid, process pumps, and appurtenances is sized for a design flow of 500 gpm. Alternative GW-6: Focused Pump and Treat with ------- Hydraulic Containment, MNA and ICs Alternative GW-6 applies the components described for alternative GW-5 (without ERD), including ICs, mass removal by groundwater extraction and ex situ treatment, and plume containment by groundwater ex- traction. The groundwater extraction for treatment is focused on the highest concentrations in the ground- water plumes as determined during the RI. With the focused extraction, three extraction wells are installed in the shallow zones and two extraction wells are in- stalled in the deep zone. The wells in both zones would be installed 2,400 feet apart along the flow paths. As in Alternative GW-5, the extracted ground- water is conveyed back to a centrally located treatment compound for treatment and disposition. The pipelines are sized as 4-inch and 6-inch PVC pipes installed 4 feet deep. Two shallow wells would be installed ap- proximately 1,000 feet apart in the low concentration area of the plume to hydraulically contain the plume front. This water would be conveyed back to the treat- ment compound for treatment and disposal. The total extraction from the seven wells is 350 gpm. The treatment system including the treatment skid, process pumps, and appurtenances is sized for a design flow of 500 gpm. Alternative GW-6A: Phased Focused Pump and Treat with Hydraulic Containment, MNA and ICs Alternative GW-6A is a phased implementation of al- ternative GW-6. While the complete Alternative GW-6 addresses both the core of the plume as well as the plume front, alternative GW-6A delays the installation of the following components until the first five-year review: • Plume front wells • Installation of 2,500 feet of 6-inch and 700 feet of 4-inch conveyance line • Installation of one 250 gpm air stripper Initially, there will be five extraction wells, three shal- low and two deep, operating during the first 5 years with a total capacity of 240 gpm. During the initial construction, a building large enough to house two air strippers will be built, but only one 250 gpm air strip- per will be installed. The remedy performance will be evaluated on an annual basis and if conditions warrant the additional extraction wells will be installed prior to the first five-year review. MNA and ICs are common elements in Alternatives GW- 4, GW-5, GW-6 and GW-6A. MNA includes the monitor- ing and evaluation of the degradation processes to assess whether the contaminant plume is stable and whether con- taminant mass is decreasing overtime. ICs are administrative controls used to prevent exposure to contaminated media. EPA and NMED will develop ICs to minimize and eliminate exposure to groundwater. The ICs will be document in the ROD. Summary of EPA's preferred alternative The following is the EPA's preferred alternative: Soil: Alternative S-3 - Excavation and Off-Site Disposal The EPA chose the Off-Site Disposal over the other alter- natives because this alternative best meets the cleanup ob- jectives by removing contaminated materials from the site. This alternative reduces mobility and toxicity at the site by removing the source materials. This alternative is expected to be completed in relatively short period. Implementation of this alternative will have minimum impact on the com- munity. The cost for implementation of this remedy is more than other active alternative. Construction Debris: Alternative CD-2 - Demoli- tion and Disposal The EPA chose the Demolition and Disposal over the other alternatives because this alternative best meets the cleanup objectives by removing contaminated materials from the site. This alternative reduces mobility and tox- icity at the site by removing the source materials. This al- ternative is expected to be completed in relatively short period. Implementation of this alternative will have mini- mum impact on the community. The cost for implementa- tion of this remedy is relatively small compared to the total cost of the project. Groundwater: GW-6A - Phased Focused Pump and Treat with Hydraulic Containment, MNA and ICs The EPA chose Alternative GW-6A because it is effective in removing contaminants in the plume while balancing and meeting all other criteria. Among all other active alter- natives considered for the site Alternative GW-6A costs are in the middle range of costs and effective in meeting the RAOs. EPA and the NMED believe the preferred alter- native would be protective of human health and the envi- ronment, would comply with ARARs, would be cost- effective, and would utilize permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable. The EPA may modify its position regarding site remedia- tion based upon its assessment of community acceptance and state acceptance, the final two criteria, which will be described in the ROD after comments are received. ------- Community Participation and Public Meeting EPA, in consultation with NMED, will consider the Pre- ferred Alternative as well as other alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan. The final remedy for the Eagle Picher Site will be selected after reviewing and considering all in- formation submitted during the 30-day public comment period. EPA, in consultation with NMED, may modify the Preferred Alternative based on new information or com- munity comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment on the Proposed Plan. The EPA and NMED provide information regarding the cleanup of the Eagle Picher Site to the public through pub- lic meetings, announcements published in the El Defensor Chieftain newspaper and the Administrative Record file for the Site. The EPA will hold a public meeting on Thursday, June 26, 2014, at 6 p.m. at the Socorro City Hall, 111 School of Mines Road, Socorro, New Mexico to inform residents about the Proposed Plan and obtain public comments. Members of the public may comment at the Public Meet- ing or submit written comments during the Public Com- ment Period from June 12, 2014, through Julyll, 2014. All written comments should be addressed to: Sai Appaji, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-R), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 - email: Ap- paji.sai@epa.gov or Jason McKinney, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202 - email: mckinnev iason @epa.gov Site Location The Eagle Picher Site is located in the City of Socorro, So- corro County, New Mexico. The City of Socorro is located in the central part of Socorro County, New Mexico along the Rio Grande Valley. The elevation of Socorro is 4,585 above mean sea level, where the climate is arid to semi- arid with an average annual precipitation of 9.71 inches. The population of the City of Socorro is approximately 9000. The site encompasses two large tracts that are approximately equal to 55 acres and located along 1-25, 2 miles north of Socorro, New Mexico. Site History The area east of NM 408 contains a large structure (the manufacturing plant), several outbuildings, and vacant land. The property to the west of NM 408 includes the older historical facility, and contains a number of buildings in various states of decay, along with assorted construction-type debris. The property was initially owned by the United States gov- ernment and was used as Civilian Conservation Corps bar- racks in 1932. From 1936 to 1956, the facility was utilized as a State of New Mexico tuberculosis sanitarium. Septic waste from the sanitarium was discharged into wastewater impoundments located in the southeast portion of the prop- erty. After the sanitarium was closed, the facility was acquired by the City. In 1964, the City sold the property to Eagle Picher. From approximately 1964-1976, Eagle Picher man- ufactured various products, including printed circuit boards, on the property. Domestic sewage and industrial waste from the manufacturing process was discharged into the wastewater impoundments. In 1976, the City obtained ownership of the property again and leased a portion of the property to a jewelry manufac- turing company that was in operation until 1980. No chlo- rinated solvents were used in the jewelry manufacturing operation. In 1980, Eagle Picher leased the property from the City and produced non-automotive lead-acid batteries at the fa- cility until the late 1990s. Eagle Picher constructed two lined evaporation impoundments for industrial effluent in the 1980s. The industrial impoundments were closed in the 1990s under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act process. In 2005, the City leased approximately 11 acres of the property, including Eagle Picher manufacturing building and surrounding property, to a motorcross track operation for recreational use. Flash flooding in the summer of 2006 damaged the former building and motocross track. Be- cause of soil erosion and exposure to lead battery waste, motocross operations were suspended by the City. In 2007, the City adopted a resolution in support of listing the site on the National Priorities List (NPL). The EPA proposed the site on the NPL in March 2007. Multiple investigations have been conducted at the Eagle Picher Site from 1987 till present by NMED and its prede- cessor agency. Site investigations have revolved around evaluating contamination discovered in public wells (Eagle Picher and Olson wells) near the site. Results from past in- vestigations have indicated source of contamination ema- nating from the former Eagle Picher facility. In 2000, the Olson well located south of the Eagle Picher site was investigated in another attempt to further delineate the groundwater plume and identify the sources of TCE. The source of the TCE could not be conclusively identified during this investigation. The printed circuit board opera- tion at the Eagle Picher site was identified as a potential source of the TCE. Several potential sources, including the Eagle Picher site, were identified. ------- In 2001/2002, NMED conducted a site investigation at the Olson well. A total of 5 monitor wells were installed to re- fine plume definition and source determination. Sampling results confirmed the presence ofTCE, 1,1-DCE, PCE, and cis-l,2-DCE in groundwater at the Eagle Picher site. From 2004 to 2006, NMED conducted an expanded site investigation that included (1) installation of additional monitor wells, (2) collection of surface water, groundwa- ter, soil, and soil gas samples, (3) an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) soil survey for heavy metals, and (4) off-site soil sampling (after the 2006 floods). This investigation deter- mined that the Eagle Picher facility was likely the source ofTCE in the aquifer in Socorro. From 2010 to 2012 NMED conducted groundwater sam- pling activities at monitor, domestic, and municipal wells in the area of the Eagle Picher facility and the groundwater plume. The sampling events were intended to provide up- dated water quality data from the plume area and to pro- vide further delineation of the plume extent. In August 2012, NMED in cooperation with EPA began a RI/FS and completed site investigation and risk character- ization in early 2014. For M^re Information Sai Appaii, Remedial Project Manager U.S. EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue (6SF-R) Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 665-3186 1-800-533-3508 (toll-free) Appaii.sairam@epa.gov Jason T. McKinney, Community Involvement Coordinator U.S. EPA Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue (6SF-VO) Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 665-8132 1-800-533-3508 (toll-free) Mckinnev.iason@epa.gov Sabino Rivera New Mexico Environment Department Superfund Oversight Section 1190 St. Francis Dr. Ste. N2300 Santa Fe, NM 87505 (505) 827-2890 Sabino .rivera@state ,nm.us For press inquiries, please call the EPA Press Office at (214)665-2200. Information Repositories are available at: Socorro Public Library 401 Park Street Socorro, NM 87801 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 12th Floor Library 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 12D13 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 (214) 665-2792 On the Web On the internet, the Proposed Plan can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/eagle-picher- nm.pdf Information about U.S. EPA Region 6 and the Superfund Program can be found at: http: //www. epa. gov/region6/6sf/ 6sf.htm Call U.S. EPA at 1 (800) 533-3508 (toll free) to receive a Spanish translation of this fact sheet. Para recibir una traduccion en espanol de esta Hoja de Da- tos, comunicarse con la Agenda de Proteccion del Medio Ambiente de los EEUU (la EPA) al numero de telefono 1 (800) 533.3508 (llamadagratis). ------- &EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1445 Ross Ave- (6SF-VO) Dallas, TX 75202 ------- |