EPA Region 3 RCRA Corrective Action Final Decision for Bethlehem Commerce Center - Groundwater Parcel (Formerly Bethlehem Steel) in Bethlehem PA


FINAL DECISION

AND

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc.
Groundwater at Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18252

Formerly:

Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Structural Products

EPA ID NO. PAD 990824161

January 08, 2010

-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

UNDER THE

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

AS AMENDED BY THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Issued:	Groundwater at Bethlehem Commerce Center - Lehigh Valley

Industrial Park, Inc. (Former Bethlehem Steel Corp. -
Bethlehem Structural Products)

ID Number: PAD 990824161 (Groundwater)

Facility Address: Bethlehem, PA 18252

I. FINAL DECISION - Natural Attenuation with Technical Impracticability Zones

and Institutional Controls

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has selected Natural
Attenuation with Technical Impracticability (TI) Zones and Institutional Controls (ICs) as the
Final Remedy for the groundwater at the Bethlehem Commerce Center (BCC or Site) which is
located on a portion of the former Bethlehem Steel Plant, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

EPA's Final Remedy consists of the following components:

A. Natural Attenuation

Natural attenuation refers to a system where a variety of physical, chemical, or biological
processes act without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or
concentration of contaminants in groundwater. As decomposition of the contaminants takes
place, compounds called "breakdown products" are produced. Ultimately, the breakdown
products are also decomposed resulting in compounds which are not a threat to human health or
the environment.

EPA's Final Remedy requires that natural attenuation be monitored at the Site through a
post-remediation care and monitoring program to confirm that contaminants of concern are not
migrating at concentrations that exceed their current concentrations and that there are no

2

-------
complete exposure pathways to contaminated groundwater. This post-remediation care and
monitoring program will be submitted to EPA for review and approval, and thereafter recorded
in a manner consistent with environmental covenants under the Pennsylvania Uniform
Environmental Covenants Act (UECA), 27 Pa.C.S. §§6501-6517 (February, 2008). This
covenant will also include the geospatial information described in l.(g) (1-4), of the UECA
requirements below, for the limits of the TI Zones as well as the perimeter of the property.

B. Technical Impracticability Zones

As part of the Final Remedy, EPA is formalizing its determination that two (2) Technical
Impracticability Zones exist at the Site, one associated with the former Coke Works Area (206
acres) and the other a smaller zone associated with the SI-1 impoundment (18 acres). EPA has
determined, based on the nature of the contamination and the Site geology, that remediation of
groundwater to drinking water standards cannot be met by any practicable means within these
zones. The locations of these TI Zones are depicted on Fig. 3 of the Statement of Basis (SB).
The SB is hereby incorporated into this Final Decision by reference and made a part hereof as
Attachment A.

C. Institutional Controls

Because contamination will remain in the groundwater at the Site, EPA is requiring
institutional controls. Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as
administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination and protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use. The
required institutional controls are:

1. UECA

For each property parcel (Parcel) at the BCC, an environmental covenant will be
drafted and recorded in accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act (UECA), 27 Pa.C.S. §§6501-6517 (December 18, 2008). The
environmental covenants shall include the following restrictions and requirements:

(a) The Parcel shall not be used for residential or agricultural purposes or as unpaved
playgrounds, campgrounds, day care centers, hospitals or cemeteries unless EPA
provides written approval for such use;

(b) Groundwater underlying the Parcel shall not be used for any purpose, except for the
purpose of monitoring, treating, and remediating such groundwater;

(c) No wells for the extraction of groundwater shall be installed, permitted, or utilized on
the Parcel, except that monitoring wells may be installed and operated on the Parcel
solely for the purpose of monitoring, treating, and remediating such groundwater;

(d) No digging, excavating, grading, pile-driving, or other earth-moving activities shall
be conducted on the Parcel including, without limitation, the excavation or removal of

-------
asphalt, concrete, soil or other ground cover, and foundations and the digging of
foundations for buildings and trenches for utilities, unless such activities are in
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and ordinances
including, without limitation, those pertaining to the environment and those pertaining to
human health and occupational safety, and in compliance with any post-remediation care
plan or soil management plan (SMP) approved by PADEP and/or USEPA as part of a
Cleanup Plan. With regard to these activities, if any asphalt, concrete, soil, or other
ground cover is excavated or removed from any part of the Parcel, such materials shall be
stored, managed, transported, and disposed of in compliance with the Soil Management
Plan approved by the PADEP and/or the USEPA as part of a Cleanup Plan.

(e)	In the event the Parcel owner(s) intends to convey an interest in all or any portion of
such Parcel, the owner(s) shall notify EPA at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to such
sale and provide written documentation to EPA which demonstrates that the prospective
buyer is aware of the restrictions placed on land and groundwater use;

(f)	The Parcel owner(s) and each subsequent owner(s) shall submit, to EPA and PADEP,
written documentation concerning proposed changes in use of the Parcel property; the
filing of applications for building permits, or proposals for any site work affecting the
contamination on the Parcel property;

(g)	Each Parcel shall be surveyed and described in the environmental covenant as
prescribed below:

(1)	Each Parcel, and each use and activity limitation area applicable to and within
each Parcel, shall be surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor, who shall provide a
metes and bounds description of each Parcel or area. Metes and bounds descriptions
define boundaries based on distance and direction from point to point. The description
defines a Point of Beginning and each subsequent point, returning to the Point of
Beginning.

(2)	In addition to the metes and bounds description for each Parcel or area, the survey
shall provide geographic survey coordinates for each point identified in the metes and
bounds description. The survey coordinates shall be provided as follows: longitude and
latitude in decimal degrees, to at least 7 decimal places, using the World Geodetic System
(WGS) 1984 datum, with west longitude indicated as a negative number. The
coordinates shall be provided in a tabular format, following the metes and bounds
description. The first and last coordinate values in the table shall be the same, and shall
represent the coordinates of the Point of Beginning of the metes and bounds description.
The text introducing the table of coordinate values shall indicate that the table represents
the geographic coordinates, in WGS 1984, of the preceding metes and bounds
description.

(3)	If the metes and bounds description includes arc segments (rather than straight
line segments) defined by the beginning and ending of an arc of a specific radius,
additional geographic control points shall be calculated along the arc so that a straight

4

-------
line approximation from point to point does not deviate from the true arc by more than
0.1 foot.

(4) The table of coordinate values shall also be provided separately as an electronic
file, in a comma separated value (CSV) format.

2. Conversion of Existing Covenants to Environmental Covenants

Prior to the effective date of the UECA, several covenants for BCC were
recorded; in addition, the City of Bethlehem recorded a covenant for the Saucon Park
portion of the Site. All of these covenants shall be converted to environmental covenants
in accordance with Section 6517(b) of UECA, 27 Pa.C.S. § 6517(b).

EPA anticipates that this Final Decision and Response to Comments (Final Decision) will
be enforceable through environmental covenants drafted and recorded in accordance with
UECA. The environmental covenants will be signed subsequent to this Final Decision and will
become effective upon signature.

In addition, EPA anticipates that the current owner, Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc.
(LVIP), will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the Final Remedy. LVIP
estimates that the cost of maintaining the Final Remedy for the groundwater for 30 years is
$3,000,000. EPA anticipates requiring LVIP to provide assurances of financial responsibility for
completing the Final Remedy as required by Section 3004(u) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6924(u).

II. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

In November 2009, EPA issued a Statement of Basis (SB) which summarized the
information gathered during the environmental investigations for groundwater at the Site and
proposed Natural Attenuation with TI Zones and Institutional Controls as the Final Remedy.
Consistent with public participation provisions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA requested comments from the public on the proposed remedy as described in
the SB. A thirty (30)-day comment period was announced in The Express Times and
commenced on November 30, 2009. The public comment period ended on December 29, 2009.
EPA received no comments.

III. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

EPA received no comments during the public comment period, which ran from
November 30, 2009 to December 29, 2009.

5

-------
IV. AUTHORITY

EPA is issuing this Final Decision under the authority of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by RCRA, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984,42
U.S.C. Sections 6901 to 6992k.

V. DECLARATION

Based on the Administrative Record compiled for the groundwater at the Bethlehem
Commerce Center on the former Bethlehem Steel Facility, EPA has determined that the Final
Remedy selected in this Final Decision and Response to Comments is protective of human health
and the environment.

Abraham Ferdas, Director
Land & Chemicals Division
U.S. EPA Region III

Date

6

-------
ATTACHMENT A

Statement of Basis
November 30, 2009

7

-------
5>

*

Ul

UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

STATEMENT OF BASIS

Lehigh Valley Industrial Park, Inc.
Groundwater at Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18252

Formerly:
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bethlehem Structural Products

EPA ID NO. PAD 990824161

A-l

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION	PAGE

I.	Introduction	3

A.	Facility Name	3

B.	Proposed Decision	3

C.	Importance of Public Input	3

II.	Facility Background	4

A.	BSC Facility Ownership	4

B.	Site Ownership	4

III.	Summary of the Environmental Investigations	4

IV.	TI Evaluation	9

A.	What is NAPL?	9

B.	What is a TI Zone?	9

C.	Coke Works Area	10

D.	SI-1 Area	11

E.	Restoration Potential of Groundwater	12

V.	Remedial Action Objectives	12

VI.	Description of Alternatives	13

VII.	Comparison of Alternatives	16

VIII.	EPA's Selected Remedy	21

IX.	Environmental Indicators	26

X.	Financial Assurance	26

XI.	Public Participation	26

Figures

Fig. 1 Site Location Map

Fig. 2 Environmental Area Map

Fig. 3 Spatial extent of TI Zones and

Long-term Monitoring Well Network

A-2

-------
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Facility Name/Ownership

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared this Statement
of Basis (SB) for the groundwater at the approximately 1550-acre Bethlehem Commerce Center
(hereinafter referred to as BCC or the Site) of the former Bethlehem Steel plant. This former
steel plant (BSC Facility) was owned and operated by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation -
Bethlehem Structural Products (BSC) and is located in the City of Bethlehem and Lower Saucon
Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania (see Fig. 1).

The BSC Facility is subject to the Corrective Action program under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976,
and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901 to
6992k. The Corrective Action program is designed to ensure that certain facilities subject to
RCRA have investigated and cleaned up any releases of hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents that have occurred at their property.

Information on the Corrective Action program as well as a fact sheet for the BSC Facility
can be found by navigating http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/correctiveaction.htm.

EPA has prepared this SB in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP). EPA has reviewed all available Site groundwater data and
has determined that long term monitoring, establishment of Technical Impracticability (TI)

Zones and development of Institutional Controls (ICs) are necessary to satisfy the federal RCRA
Corrective Action obligations for groundwater at the Site. Based on this review, EPA is
proposing a remedy for Site groundwater and is proceeding with its remedy selection process,
including providing opportunity for public comment and review.

B. Proposed Decision

This SB explains EPA's proposed decision to select "Natural Attenuation" as the final
remedy for the groundwater at the Site. Long term monitoring will ensure the stability of the
plumes and the natural attenuation processes already occurring. Part of any final remedy will be
the establishment of two (2) TI Zones which will formalize EPA's determination that, within
these areas, it is technically impracticable to clean up groundwater to drinking water standards
due to the nature of the Site geology and plume dynamics. In addition, development of and
compliance with ICs will prohibit use of groundwater as a drinking water supply. EPA believes
these combined measures will protect human health and the environment.

The proposed final remedy is detailed in Section VIII.

C. Importance of Public Input

The public may participate in the remedy selection process by reviewing this SB and
documents contained in the Administrative Record (AR). The AR contains the complete set of

A-3

-------
reports that document the Site groundwater conditions, including a map of the Site, in support of
EPA's proposed decision. EPA encourages anyone interested to review the AR. The AR is
available for public review at the EPA Region III office, the address of which is provided in
Section XI, below.

EPA will address all significant comments received during the public comment period. If
EPA determines that new information or public comments warrant a modification to the
proposed decision, EPA will modify the proposed decision or select other alternatives based on
such new information and/or public comments. EPA will approve its final decision in a
document entitled the Final Decision and Response to Comments (FDRTC).

EPA will also brief local officials and seek their comment in an effort to develop
meaningful community input.

II.	FACILITY BACKGROUND

A.	BSC Facility Ownership

From approximately 1899 to 1995, BSC and its corporate predecessors manufactured
steel at the approximately 1800-acre BSC Facility. In 1995, BSC discontinued steel
manufacturing operations at the BSC Facility and in 2001, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7
of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In May 2003, with approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York, International Steel Group Acquisition, Inc. (ISG)
acquired substantially all of BSC's assets. Title to the BSC Facility was taken by Tecumseh
Redevelopment, LLC (Tecumseh), a subsidiary of ISG. A 125-acre westernmost tract, the BW
Tract, was sold to Sands Retail, LLC. In addition, Tecumseh sold approximately 1000 acres of
the BSC Facility to Lehigh Valley Industrial Park (LVIP). That 1000-acre area is part of the
parcel known as Bethlehem Cotiimeree Center. In 2005, ISG merged with Mittal Steel USA,
Incorporated (Mittal). Mittal sold 441 acres to Majestic Realty Company in 2007. Tecumseh,
now a subsidiary of Mittal, retains the remaining acreage of the BSC Facility.

B.	Site Ownership

The Site has been subdivided and is currently owned by several entities; LVIP, Majestic
Realty Company, and Tecumseh. LVIP has responsibility for compliance with post-remedial
care requirements for the groundwater across the Site, regardless of land ownership. The final
remedy for groundwater will be implemented and maintained by LVIP.

III.	SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

Bethlehem Steel operated as a fully integrated manufacturing plant at the BSC Facility from the
early 1900s until its bankruptcy in 2001. Two areas of the Site, the SI-1 and the Coke Works
Areas, have been identified as the primary sources of Site-related groundwater contamination.

In general, the groundwater investigations conducted at the Site between 1988 and 2009
centered on assessing groundwater and surface water quality both on-Site and off-Site and

A-4

-------
creating a conceptual model that identifies groundwater flow within the boundary of the Site and
also in areas where sensitive receptors exist, e.g., surface water bodies, potable wells. The
objective of the investigation was to develop a thorough understanding of the extent and
magnitude of the contamination and evaluate potential routes of exposure associated with the
Site and adjoining properties. These investigations are discussed extensively in the Remedial
Investigation Report/Final Report for Groundwater with Technical Impracticability Evaluation,
November 2009 (RIR/FR/TI2009).

Groundwater analytical results were compared to Pennsylvania's Statewide Health
Standards Medium Specific Concentrations for non-residential used aquifers (MSCs) and
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), promulgated at 40 C.F.R. Part 141 pursuant to Section
1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 300g-l, also known as drinking water
standards. Table 1 summarizes the MSCs and MCLs for the Contaminants of Potential Concern
(COPC) for the Site. As seen in Table 1, except for lead, the MSCs for the COPCs have the
same value as their respective MCLs. The MSC for lead is more stringent than the MCL for
lead.

PADEP Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances; Criteria Continuous Concentrations
for Fish and Aquatic Life and Human Health Criteria were used to evaluate surface water and
seep data.

Results of environmental investigations revealed that the historic steel manufacturing
operations at the Site have caused groundwater across the Site to become contaminated with
solvents, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzene
and naphthalene, and metals. In an effort to evaluate groundwater quality within a practical
framework, EPA used benzene and naphthalene as "indicator contaminants" representing volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), respectively. In all,
six (6) metals, eight (8) VOCs and 21 SVOCs have been detected at concentrations exceeding
their respective MSCs at least once on-Site. Table 1 lists the 35 compounds found exceeding
their respective MSCs. These 35 compounds collectively will be known as Contaminants of
Potential Concern (COPC) throughout this document.

A. Sources

The primary source areas of releases to groundwater have been identified as the Coal
Chemical Area and the SI-1 Area (see Fig. 2), which show evidence of a number of organic and
inorganic contaminants above their respective MSCs and MCLs. The highest levels of
contamination on-Site are exhibited in shallow and deep wells immediately down-gradient of the
former Coke Works Area, which encompasses Coal Chemical as well as nearby several waste
disposal units.

Benzene and naphthalene are the most widespread Site-related contaminants and are
found within the fractured bedrock at concentrations greater than 1% of their solubility limit.
The presence of organic compounds at levels exceeding 1% of their respective solubility limits
commonly is used to delineate the potential presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL).
Significant fractures at depth appear to have allowed movement of Site COPCs within the deeper

A-5

-------
aquifer both as dissolved phase and as NAPL. Monitoring over time shows that the groundwater
plumes are generally stable, and mostly contained within the Site. COPCs have migrated off-
Site only along the western boundary of the Site in the area of MW-62 in the fractured bedrock at
a depth of 150 to 300 feet below the ground surface. Due to the subsurface geology and
geometry of the Site, migration of COPCs farther west of the Site is unlikely as groundwater
contamination moves northerly, back onto the Site.

B. Plume Stability

In an effort to evaluate the stability of groundwater conditions throughout the Site, trends
and linear regression analyses were performed on individual monitoring well data sets. Since
benzene and naphthalene have been shown to represent the extent of groundwater contamination
Site-wide, the analyses were performed for these compounds. Groundwater quality across the
Site has been shown to be stable or improving slightly. In the NAPL areas at the Coke Works
and SI-1, the trends show overall stable plumes, with no migration except in one area where the
recently installed monitoring wells were shown to be the probable cause of a new, vertical
preferential flow pathway on the westernmost edge of the Site, near well nests MW-62 and MW
67. Monitoring will continue at these wells to confirm plume stability.

Decreasing and stable trends are expected, as the contamination is the result of historical
operations and disposal activities that took place many years ago and have had a considerable
amount of time to reach equilibrium. However, the presence of significant NAPL in the
fractured rock aquifer acts as a long-term subsurface source for the dissolved-phase plume.

C. Exposure

Although, high levels of Site-related groundwater contamination are present, they do not
pose a significant risk to human health and the environment as all routes of exposure have been
eliminated. There are no groundwater wells located down-gradient of the Site, other than the
groundwater monitoring wells installed by LVIP and others to aide in characterization of the
Site. The City of Bethlehem Water and Sewer Department and confirmed that all residences and
businesses located down-gradient of the Site are supplied by public water. Groundwater
ingestion and dermal routes of exposure to potential on-Site non-residential and off-Site
residential and non-residential receptors are incomplete based on municipal ordinances requiring
hookup to the public water supply in the area of the Site and through the use of Site-wide
institutional controls which prohibit the use of groundwater on-Site. Therefore, contaminated
groundwater does not impact, or threaten to impact, any current or potential sources of drinking
water.

In 2003, a shallow-groundwater investigation was conducted in Saucon Park to assess
off-Site shallow impacts and assess whether vapor intrusion is a concern for houses and
businesses located between Route 412 and Saucon Creek. The results of the investigation show
that shallow groundwater is not impacted by VOCs or SVOCs and that vapor intrusion is not a
potential route of exposure for houses and businesses located between Route 412 and Saucon
Creek. Vapor intrusion is a potential route of exposure on-Site in areas above the groundwater

A-6

-------
contamination plume, but this route is currently incomplete and potential future exposures will

be managed by engineering controls and Institutional Controls.

Surface water bodies (Laubach Creek, Saucon Creek and the Lehigh River) have been
monitored regularly since 1999 as part of the Site-wide groundwater program. This monitoring
has shown that there are no impacts to the surface water bodies from groundwater or seeps.
Therefore, there no current and/or future risks to ecological receptors within or adjacent to the
Site.

A-7

-------
Table 1

COPCS IN GROUNDWATER

Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, Northampton County, PA

Compound

PADEP Act 2 Non-

MCLs

Maximum

Monitoring Well

Residential

(UQ/I)

Concentration

(TDS<2500 Used

Aquifer) Limits

Groundwater

-------
IV. TI EVALUATION

Two source areas exist at the Site, one associated with the former Coke Works Area and
the other a smaller zone associated with the SI-1 impoundment, where groundwater MSCs are
exceeded in the overburden and bedrock aquifers and cannot be met by any practicable means.
The TI Zone in the Coke Works Area encompasses approximately 206 acres and the SI-1 Area
TI Zone encompasses approximately 18 acres (Fig. 3). Since benzene is the most widespread
and mobile COPC, it is considered representative of the maximum extent of contamination. The
limits of the TI Zones are based on concentrations of benzene exceeding its MSG of 5 ug/1.
Metes and bounds descriptions of the proposed TI Zones are presented in R1R/FR/TI2009.

Table 1 summarizes the COPCs detected in groundwater. The six inorganic compounds,
eight VOCs, and 21 SVOCs listed in this table have been detected at concentrations greater than
their respective MSCs and MCLs.

A. What is NAPL?

A non-aqueous phase liquid or NAPL is a chemical or mixture of chemicals that do not
readily mix with water. In water, NAPLs form a separate liquid phase and do not readily
dissolve. After a release, NAPLs migrate into the subsurface resulting in disconnected blobs of
liquid referred to as "residual NAPL," and continuous distributions of NAPL sometimes referred
to as "pools." Residual and pooled NAPL are considered the "NAPL source zone" and can
occupy pore spaces within soil or fractures in bedrock. NAPL pools can be mobile, sinking
below the water table and spreading to the base of an aquifer. Since NAPLs are only slightly
soluble in water, NAPL source zones can persist for many decades and, in some cases,
permanently.

For these reasons, delineating the subsurface extent of the NAPL source zone can be a
substantial undertaking. Because there is often no direct measurement of the source zone size,
commonly the presence of organic compounds at levels exceeding 1 % of their respective
solubility limits is used to delineate the potential presence of NAPL.

B. What is a TI Zone?

The goal for groundwater remediation at RCRA Corrective Action facilities is to protect
human health and the environment, typically returning contaminated groundwater to quality
consistent with its designated beneficial uses. Generally, such use means cleaning up to drinking
water standards.

For the reasons discussed above, sites where NAPLs are present in the subsurface are
very difficult to clean up to drinking water standards. Cleanup technologies applicable to these
sites often include approaches intended to control migration of contaminants (containment),
remove contaminants from the subsurface (extraction), or treat contaminants in place (in situ
treatment). These technologies have been tried with limited success on NAPL source zones. A
2003 EPA report on NAPL remediation stated that"... achieving MCLs in the source zone is
beyond the capabilities of currently available in-situ technologies in most geologic settings"

A-9

-------
("The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There A Case For Source Depletion?" Publication
EPA/600/R-Q3/143, dated December 2003; page xi).

Therefore, the RCRA Corrective Action program allows alternative cleanup goals to be
established at sites where attaining drinking water standards "throughout the plume" are
determined to be technically impracticable (TI). EPA's 1993 Guidance for Evaluating the
Technical Impracticability of Groundwater Restoration (USEPA, 1993) explains that a TI Zone
is appropriate where EPA has determined that restoration of ground water to drinking water
quality is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective using currently available
technologies within a reasonable or foreseeable timeframe. For such a determination, EPA must
evaluate:

• media cleanup standards - see Sections IV.C and IV.D
spatial area of TI Zone - see Fig. 3

. site conceptual model - see Section III.

• restoration potential of site - see Section IV.E

• cost estimate of alternatives - see Section VI.

This SB summarizes supporting material for this evaluation. A detailed discussion can be found
in the R1R/FR/TI2009 in the Administrative Record.

C. Coke Works Area

The Coke Works Area has multiple sub-areas where residual materials are believed to be
contributing to groundwater impacts underlying the Site. These areas include: the former Coke
Works, Coal Chemical (former chemical extraction operation), Agitator Sludge (acidic sludge
and BETX impoundment), Veronica Lake (coking-waste impoundment), Crystal Lake (tar,
coking and acid waste impoundment), and several injection wells that were used decades ago by
BSC to manage a variety of waste streams. Products and wastes managed in the Coke Works
Area included benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, phenol, wash oil, coke-oven gas, coke-
oven condensate, and acid sludge from a BETX refinement process. Former production wells
CP-5, -6, and -7 were also reportedly used to dispose of contact cooling water and weak-
ammonia liquor through deep well injection.

Waste material and residuals are believed to have migrated from the disposal areas to the
groundwater. Groundwater flow at the Coke Works Area is generally from areas of high
elevation toward the Lehigh River, primarily northwestward. The primary pathway of potential
concern regarding the transport of contaminants from the Coke Works Area is migration with
groundwater through the fractured-bedrock aquifer beneath the Site. The contaminants are
moving preferentially within the fracture zone of the bedrock aquifer.

Exceedances of specific compounds in wells associated with the Coke Works area
include four dissolved metals (lead, mercury, selenium and thallium), cyanide, six VOCs
(benzene, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, styrene, toluene, and total xylenes), and 21 SVOCs.
Benzene is the most wide-spread and mobile COPC and is considered representing the maximum
extent of contamination, which is defined by the dissolved concentration of benzene exceeding

A-10

-------
the drinking water standard of 5 ug/1. The extent of this dissolved-phase plume is relatively
stable: even though it is fed by NAPL source zones, naturally occurring processes, such as
biodegradation and dilution, serve to limit the maximum size the plume will achieve. Therefore,
the proposed TI Zone limits are based on concentrations of benzene exceeding a standard of 5
ug/1. The horizontal area of the Coke Works Area TI Zone, as defined by the monitoring wells
which currently exceed the benzene MSG, includes the portion of the Site east of Saucon Creek
to Laubach Creek, north of the Intermodal and south of the groundwater monitoring well clusters
MW-58 and MW-50. A small portion of the proposed Coke Works Area TI Zone is located off-
Site at groundwater monitoring well cluster MW-62. The TI Zone in the Coke Works Area
encompasses approximately 206 acres with a total depth of 500 feet. See Figure 3 for a depiction
of the Coke Works Area TI Zone.

Long-term monitoring will confirm that the plume is stable and routes of exposure
remain incomplete. Future monitoring data will be compared with current data to ensure the
NAPL and its dissolved phase remain stable and that the configuration does not change in a
manner that would cause a threat. A further discussion of post-remediation care and monitoring
is found in Section VIII.

D. SI-1 Area

The SI-1 Area encompasses 26.4 acres of land located in the northeast portion of
the Site. The SI-1 Area includes the SI-1 closed surface impoundment, the former SI-2 surface
impoundment, and several additional areas of suspected historic residual tar, acid, caustics, and
oil deposition within close proximity to the SI-1 impoundment. The SI-1 impoundment was
constructed to store semi-solid tar sludge such as tar-decanter sludge and ammonia sulfate
saturator tar sludge. Other wastes such as waste oils, desulfurizer sludge, bio-oxidation clarifier
sludge and tank-bottom tar were also stored in the impoundment. The SI-1 Area also contains the
former metallic revert storage area located east of the SI-1 impoundment.

Waste material and residuals have migrated from the disposal areas to the groundwater.
Localized groundwater flow at SI-1 is generally to the west. The primary pathway of potential
concern regarding the transport of contaminants from the SI-1 Area is migration with
groundwater through the fractured-bedrock aquifer beneath the Site. The contaminants are
moving preferentially within the fracture zone of the bedrock aquifer.

Exceedances of specific compounds in the SI-1 area include one dissolved metal (lead),
four VOCs (benzene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene), and three SVOCs (naphthalene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine). As benzene is the most widespread
and mobile COPC and is considered representing the maximum extent of contamination, the
proposed TI Zone limits are based on concentrations of benzene exceeding its MSC of 5 ug/1. As
at the Coke Works Area, natural attenuation processes limit the extent of the VOC plume. The
horizontal area of the SI-1 Area TI Zone includes all of the SI-1 impoundment south of the
border with the Conectiv property, and sits completely beneath property owned by LVIP. It is
bordered to the east, south, and west by the Majestic parcel and to the north by Conectiv. The TI
Zone in the SI-1 Area encompasses total approximately 18 acres with a depth of 400 feet. See
Figure 3 for a depiction of the SI-1 Area TI Zone.

A-ll

-------
Long-term monitoring will confirm that the plume is stable and routes of exposure
remain incomplete. Future monitoring data will be compared with current data to ensure the
NAPL and its dissolved-phase plume remain stable and that the configuration does not change in
a manner that would cause a threat. A further discussion of post-remediation care and
monitoring is found in Section VIII.

E. Restoration Potential of Groundwater

Groundwater-restoration remedies have often been unsuccessful at Sites such as this one
with similar complex geological features, such as fractured bedrock, karst features, and deep
aquifers, because the sources of groundwater contamination are present in inaccessible or
difficult to identify locations.

Groundwater flow and contaminant transport occur predominately through the fractures
while contaminant storage can occur predominately in the tight rock matrix. This heterogeneity
makes characterization of contaminant distribution inherently uncertain and in situ remediation
ineffective. Pump and treat systems do not mobilize the contaminants from the matrix. Failure
to remove these inaccessible contaminants will result in long-term contamination problems.

Waste disposal has occurred on the Site for 100 years, where contaminants have been
disposed in various locations and through various methods. In addition to land disposal of waste
material, at certain times in the past, some of the production wells have been used as waste
injection wells. Such long-term disposal affords contaminants time and conditions to fully
penetrate any soil or bedrock matrix and to be subject to various migration conditions.
Groundwater quality data collected from the Site demonstrates that concentrations are generally
stable due to long persistent exposure to discharges for virtually all of the locations on the Site.
Presence of contamination deep in the aquifers indicates that plumes are well developed.

As a majority of the contamination at the Site is in the bedrock aquifers, the long-term
nature of contamination would indicate that the contaminants are now bound tightly to the
bedrock matrix, as well as migrating along the flow paths that are sampled by the monitoring
system. Since the pore contaminants act as a virtual, ongoing source, no timely remediation of
groundwater to potable standards can be expected with any remedial technology.

V. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Although the beneficial use of the aquifer as a potential drinking water source and
restoration to its beneficial use would be an Remedial Action Objective (RAO), the presence of
NAPL in the fractures and bedrock matrix precludes the ability to fully restore the affected
portion of the aquifer to potable quality.

Thus, the RAOs for groundwater are as follows:

1) Prevent human exposures to hazardous constituents in the groundwater via inhalation,
ingestion, and dermal contact;

2) Prevent further migration of the NAPL and dissolved phase plume; and

A-12

-------
3) Implement institutional controls to prevent groundwater uses which would interfere
with or adversely affect the integrity or protectiveness of the final remedy for the Site.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Included below are the groundwater-specific alternatives EPA evaluated as potential
remedial designs. Common to the four alternatives listed below are ICs to restrict land and
groundwater use at the Site while groundwater remains contaminated. A full description of the
institutional controls that EPA proposes to implement at the Site is found in Section VIII. of this
SB.

EPA guidance on remediating sites prescribes that source control be given a high priority
and that permanent remedies are preferred. A number of technologies are capable of removing
mass from source zone areas. The following provides a discussion of the alternative
technologies EPA considered for use at this Site:

1. Alternative 1: No Action

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $0
Time to Implement: 0 years

The purpose of the No Action alternative is to provide a baseline for comparison against
the other alternatives. Under this alternative, no remedial action would be taken to remove,
control migration from, minimize exposure to or otherwise reduce or monitor the risks associated
with Site-related contaminated groundwater. The No Action alternative would not meet any of
the cleanup objectives described earlier in this SB. In addition, this alternative would not
provide any controls necessary to protect people and the environment from the Site-related
contamination.

2. Alternative 2: Pump and Treat

Capital Cost: $32,000,000
Annual O&M Cost: $1,100,000
Total Cost with 30-year O&M: $65,000,000
Time to Implement: 290 years

Alternative 2 includes the extraction and treatment of groundwater in the TI Zones to
control the source of contamination to groundwater. Extracted groundwater would be treated
and discharged to the Lehigh River. ICs and groundwater-use controls will be implemented.

Wells to capture the contaminated groundwater would replicate the capacity of the
historically operated production wells, as some of them were used as injection wells for some
time. The present deep wells generally are the most contaminated, so the focus would be on
200-250 feet deep pumping wells. If fractures could be found with yields of approximately 500

A-13

-------
gallons per minute (gpm), which equals 0.7 million gallons per day (mgd), the contaminated
formations may be intercepted. The total number of extraction wells would be determined
during a pilot test to develop a final design; however, it is assumed that at least 8 wells would be
needed, 6 in the Coke Works Area and 2 at the SI-1 Area. The total pumping rate would be
estimated at 4,000 gpm, or 5.8 mgd. The projected rate initially removes 2% of the mass per
year with that rate declining as secondary pore diffusion takes primacy in controlling
contaminant recovery. This alternative is projected to meet the MSCs and MCLs in 290 years.

The treatment system for VOC and metals removal, along with other COPCs would be
analogous to a public water treatment system due both to the volume and treatment requirements.
To discharge this volume to a neighboring surface water body, effluent limits would be similar to
drinking water standards. This proposed system would consist of air stripping to remove YOCs
and to aerate the groundwater, followed by metals precipitation and sedimentation, and finished
by rapid flow granular activated carbon filters, and discharge. At a precipitable solids
concentration of 200 mg/L, over 5 tons per day of solids, or 15 tons per day of sludge (at 33%
solids) would require dewatering and disposal.

Costs are projected for the first 30 years, although systems would have to operate
indefinitely, estimated at nearly 300 years, to meet clean-up standards for the Site. System
design studies, permitting, approvals, and design documents are projected to cost approximately
$2,000,000. Well location work, testing, and production installation with pumps and piping are
estimated at $3,000,000. Pumping costs with well operation and maintenance (O&M) will
depend on final system design, but should be anticipated at $100,000 per year, or $3,000,000
over 30 years. A conventional filtration plant cost is estimated at $27 million in 2009, using the
state of Texas draft Cost Estimating procedures. Annual operating costs (including disposal of
sludges) will add an additional $1,000,000 per year, for a total operating cost over 30 years of
$30 million. These costs totaling $65 million are prohibitive for a remedy that has a low
probability of achieving the established MSCs.

3. Alternative 3: Bioremediation and Chemical Oxidation

Capital Cost: $32,000,000
Annual O&M Cost: $1,100,000
Total Cost with 30-year O&M: $65,000,000
Time to Implement: 290 years

Bioremediation, which uses microbes to remediate harmful chemicals in the environment,
is a presumptive remedy for benzene and naphthalene related compounds due to their ease of
biodegradation and demonstrated successful performance. When microbes completely digest
these compounds under the optimum temperature, nutrients and oxygen, they are changed into
water and gases such as carbon dioxide.

Bioremediation of benzene and naphthalene related compounds is most effective as an
aerobic reaction, whereas the aquifer on the Site is anaerobic as evidenced by the presence of
methane. The high concentrations of methane indicate a robust anaerobic system currently in
place with a significant volume of COPC mass still on-Site. The anaerobic aquifer conditions

A-14

-------
would dictate that either oxygen be injected into the aquifer, or that groundwater be treated ex-
situ, after pumping it from the aquifer as described in Alternative 2 above. To set up the
injection system, it is estimated that it would be necessary to install 30 wells to a depth of 250
feet.

Based on the production of methane in the subsurface, anaerobic bioremediation is
already occurring on the Site at a rate of approximately 1.1 kg HC/kg - methane. Any attempt to
increase the efficiency to simulate an engineered aerobic or more productive anaerobic system
would require pumping the groundwater to facilitate better distribution of the nutrients and
biomass. As the pumped water would have to be treated at the surface, the same cost parameters
applied to Alternative 2 would apply.

Therefore, it is anticipated that Alternative 3 would have a similar cost analysis over the
life of the remedial program as that estimated for groundwater pump and treat presented in
Alternative 2.

4. Alternative 4: Natural Attenuation with TI Zones

Capital Cost: $0 (wells currently installed)

Annual O&M Cost: $100,000
Total Cost with 30-year O&M: $ 3,000,000
Time to Implement: 300+ years

Natural attenuation relies on natural attenuation processes within the context of a
carefully controlled and monitored site cleanup approach to achieve site-specific remediation
objectives within a timeframe that is reasonable compared to that offered by other more active
methods. These natural attenuation processes include a variety of physical, chemical, or
biological processes that, under favorable conditions, act without human intervention to reduce
the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil or groundwater.

EPA has determined that:

1. The groundwater plume is generally stable or shrinking in most of the areas of
interest;

2. Biodegradation products, such as methane, are measurable and indicative of a robust
anaerobic system in the deeper aquifer, and

3. COPCs are largely contained on-Site; i.e., there is no exposure to human health or the
environment with respect to groundwater contamination associated with the SI-1 and Coke
Works Areas, and, therefore, no risk to human health or the environment.

For a natural attenuation remedy, groundwater monitoring is typically required to confirm
plume stability and concentrations of the primary COPCs over time to ensure that no routes of
exposure and/or threats to human health or the environment occur in the future. With this option,
TI Zones will be created where EPA has determined that the groundwater cannot be remediated
to traditional cleanup standards. Long term monitoring will ensure that the highest

A-15

-------
contamination remains within the designated TI Zones ensuring protection of human health and
the environment.

Costs for natural attenuation would primarily consist of groundwater and surface-water
monitoring and reporting expenses. The cost of sampling, lab analysis and reporting is estimated
to be $100,000 for each event. Such events would be performed annually for 5 years, then in
alternate years with some optimization and refinement of the assessments as the work progresses.
The cost for this alternative for 30 years based on the proposed post-remediation care plan is
estimated at $3 million dollars.

VII. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a description of the criteria EPA uses to evaluate proposed
remedies under the Corrective Action program. The criteria are applied in two phases. In the
first phase, EPA evaluates three criteria, known as Threshold Criteria. In the second phase, EPA
sometimes uses as many as seven balancing criteria to select among remedial alternatives, if
more than one is proposed.

The Threshold Criteria are:

1. Overall protection of human health and the environment,

2. Attaining media clean-up standards and

3. Control of sources of release.

The Balancing Criteria are:

1. Long-term effectiveness and permanence,

2. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume,

3. Short-term effectiveness,

4. Implementability,

5. Cost,

6. Community acceptance and

7. State acceptance.

EPA believes that final remedies selected for RCRA Corrective Action facilities should
achieve all three (3) threshold criteria, if possible. However, as discussed in Section IV, below,
EPA believes that no remedial technology will attain clean up of groundwater to drinking water
standards throughout the plume. Therefore, the media cleanup standard criteria were evaluated
at points beyond the TI Zone. Table 2 summarizes EPA's evaluation of the alternatives based on
the above criteria.

A. Threshold Criteria

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The No Action Alternative would not provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment. This alternative was developed as a baseline for comparison against the other
alternatives. Because the No Action Alternative does not include long term monitoring,

A-16

-------
protection of human health cannot be ensured. Monitoring of the NAPL stability and waste
concentrations in the Coke Waste Area and SI-1 Area are requisite for ensuring there is no
exposure to contaminated groundwater. The No Action Alternative will not be evaluated further
because it does not satisfy the threshold criterion of providing overall protection to human health
and the environment.

As Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all involve groundwater monitoring for the entire Site as well
as plume size, those alternative meet the Overall Protection criteria. Such monitoring is
necessary to ensure exposure routes to groundwater remain incomplete.

2. Attaining Media Clean-up Standards

Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, at points beyond the TI Zone, groundwater is expected to
meet Pennsylvania's residential standards for groundwater, thus protecting areas where
groundwater discharges into surface water bodies such as the Lehigh River and Saucon Creek.
For areas of contaminated soils, the overall Soil Management Plan will apply. The soils on a
given parcel will either meet PA non-residential standards or will be capped in the future to
eliminate soil exposure.

3. Control of Sources of Release

At this time, it is anticipated that there will be engineering controls and capping across
most of the Site, to reduce surface infiltration and minimize the migration of contaminants
downward in the soil column to the water table underlying the Site. These controls include, but
are not limited to, caps, concrete building pads, sidewalks, asphalt roadways and parking lots.
These source control measures will be detailed as a part of EPA's future proposed remedy for
soils.

B. Balancing Criteria

1. Long-term effectiveness and permanence

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all will potentially provide long-term effectiveness, as each
remedy is designed to operate for several centuries. Alternatives 2 and 3 require more complex
and active remedial functions during this extensive timeframe. As a practical matter,
Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely not remain as designed throughout their required lifespan.

2. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume

NAPL contamination is very difficult to remediate, as discussed earlier in this document.
As the NAPL plume at the Site has been shown to be stable, none of the alternatives will achieve
reduction in toxicity or volume in the foreseeable future.

A-17

-------
3. Short-term effectiveness

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are designed to remediate the groundwater contamination over a
very long timeframe. However, the IC component of each of these alternatives will be
implemented in the short-term.

4. Implementabilitv

EPA expects Alternatives 2 and 4 to be easily implemented. Alternative 4's monitoring
network is already established while Alternative 2 would require additional wells in some
locations as well as the construction of a treatment plant. Alternative 3, however, would require
additional study for placement of injection wells with several iterations to ensure optimal
network design.

5. Cost

Based on design and construction costs, as well as extensive long-term activities, the
costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are extremely high. Alternative 4 is also costly, but is at least one
order of magnitude lower than the costs of the others.

6. Community acceptance

Community acceptance will be evaluated during the public comments period.

7. State acceptance

PADEP supports EPA's proposal that Alternative 4 be the final remedy for groundwater
at the Site.

C. Sustainability

EPA is now supplementing its evaluation of alternatives with its August 2009 guidance,
Principles for Greener Cleanups. This guidance helps assess remedy options in light of
anticipated future land use of the site, and reducing the environmental footprint of the cleanup.
A detailed evaluation of the alternatives using the USEPA OSWER, August 2009, Principles for
Greener Cleanups is found in R1RJTI/TI2009.

The primary five elements of a green cleanup are presented in Table 3:

Total Energy Use and Renewable Energy Use
Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Water Use and Impacts to Water Resources
Materials Management and Waste Reduction
Land Management and Ecosystems Protection

A-18

-------
Table 2

ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES SUMMARY

Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, Northampton County, PA

No Action

Pump and Treat

Bioremediation

Natural

Attenuation With
Tl Zones

REMEDIAL CRITERIA

Threshold Criteria

Overall protection of
human health and the
environment

Yes

Obtain media cleanup
objectives

Yes

Source control

Yes- slow

Yes- very slow

Balancing Criteria

Long term
effectiveness and
permanence

Poor

sustainable

Yes

Reduction in toxicity,
mobility and volume

Minimal

Short term
effectiveness

Yes

Implementability

Yes

Suspect

Yes

Cost

High

Moderate

Community
acceptance

To be determined

Yes

State acceptance

Yes

Conclusion

Recommended

A-19

-------
Table 3

SUSTAINABILITY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR GROUNDWATER

Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, Northampton County, PA

REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVE

No Action

Pump and Treat

In Situ

Bioremediation

Natural

Attenuation with

T! Zones

SUSTAINABILITY
ELEMENT

Total Energy

None

Energy intensive,
esp. with thermal
oxidation and
sludge drying

Small

Minimal

Air Pollution and

GHG Emissions

Minimal

Construction and
transport of wastes

Minimal

Minima!

Water Use and
Impacts

Reduces the
minimal impacts
over several
decades

Reduces the
minimal impacts
over several

decades

Reduces the
minimal impacts
over several
decades

Materials
Management and
Waste Reduction

N/A

Major resources for
construction,
disposal of sludges

Significant
resources for
implementation

Minimal resources
for monitoring

Land Use and

Ecosystem

Protection

No resources and
no ecosystem
protection

Land for facilities,
adds little
ecosystem

protection

Few resources,
adds little
ecosystem
protection

No resources, adds
little ecosystem
protection

A-20

-------
VIII. EPA'S PREFERRED REMEDY

EPA's preferred alternative for Site groundwater is Alternative 4: Natural Attenuation
with TI Zones. This remedial alternative would rely on monitored natural attenuation to address
the dissolved-phase COPCs in conjunction with institutional controls designed to restrict future
usage of Site groundwater as long as contaminants in the groundwater continue to exceed their
respective MSCs and MCLs.

Alternative 4 includes the following remedial components:

• Monitored natural attenuation of hazardous constituents across the Site.

• TI determination for 35 contaminants that are found within and above-described two NAPL
plumes. This determination formalizes EPA's decision that restoration of ground water to
drinking water quality is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective using
currently available technologies within a reasonable or foreseeable timeframe.

• Long-term groundwater, surface water and seep sampling to confirm that contaminants of
concern are not migrating outside the limits of the TI Zones at concentrations that exceed their
concentrations.

• Institutional controls, including restricting the installation and use of groundwater and
prohibiting any use of the Site that would interfere with the protectiveness or integrity of the
selected remedy.

EPA proposes that these components, as set forth in greater detail below, be implemented
through a permit, an order or other enforceable mechanism.

1. Institutional Controls

VOC, SVOCs and metals remain in the groundwater above levels appropriate for
residential and domestic uses at areas across the Site. Therefore, EPA's proposed remedy
requires ICs to restrict land and groundwater use at the Site while groundwater remains
contaminated. ICs are generally non-engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal
controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and protect the
integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use. Institutional controls may be include, but
not be limited to, Environmental Covenants to be implemented pursuant to Pennsylvania's
Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) and municipal ordinances already enacted by
the City of Bethlehem and Lower Saucon Township. Details concerning environmental
covenants and municipal ordinances are as follows:

Environmental Covenants

1. For each property parcel (Parcel) at the BCC, an environmental covenant will be
drafted and recorded in accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental Covenants
Act (UECA), 27 Pa.C.S. §§6501-6517 (December 18, 2008). The environmental covenants shall
include the following restrictions and requirements:

A-21

-------
(a) The Parcel shall not be used for residential or agricultural purposes or as unpaved
playgrounds, campgrounds, day care centers, hospitals or cemeteries unless EPA
provides written approval for such use;

(b) Groundwater underlying the Parcel shall not be used for any purpose, except for the
purpose of monitoring, treating, and remediating such groundwater;

(d) No digging, excavating, grading, pile-driving, or other earth-moving activities shall
be conducted on the Parcel including, without limitation, the excavation or removal of
asphalt, concrete, soil or other ground cover, and foundations and the digging of
foundations for buildings and trenches for utilities, unless such activities are in
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules, regulations, and ordinances
including, without limitation, those pertaining to the environment and those pertaining to
human health and occupational safety, and in compliance with any post-remediation care
plan or soil management plan (SMP) approved by PADEP and/or USEPA as part of a
Cleanup Plan. With regard to these activities, if any asphalt, concrete, soil, or other
ground cover is excavated or removed from any part of the Parcel, such materials shall be
stored, managed, transported, and disposed of in compliance with the Soil Management
Plan approved by the PADEP and/or the USEPA as part of a Cleanup Plan.

(e) In the event the Parcel owner(s) intends to convey an interest in all or any portion of
such Parcel, the owner(s) shall notify EPA at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to such
sale and provide written documentation to EPA which demonstrates that the prospective
buyer is aware of the restrictions placed on land and groundwater use;

(f) The Parcel owner(s) and each subsequent owner(s) shall submit, to EPA and PADEP,
written documentation concerning proposed changes in use of the Parcel property; the
filing of applications for building permits, or proposals for any site work affecting the
contamination on the Parcel property;

(g) Each Parcel shall be surveyed and described in the environmental covenant as
prescribed below:

(1) Each Parcel, and each use and activity limitation area applicable to and within
each Parcel, shall be surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor, who shall provide a
metes and bounds description of each Parcel or area. Metes and bounds descriptions
define boundaries based on distance and direction from point to point. The description
defines a Point of Beginning and each subsequent point, returning to the Point of
Beginning.

A-22

-------
(2) In addition to the metes and bounds description for each Parcel or area, the survey
shall provide geographic survey coordinates for each point identified in the metes and
bounds description. The survey coordinates shall be provided as follows: longitude and
latitude in decimal degrees, to at least 7 decimal places, using the World Geodetic System
(WGS) 1984 datum, with west longitude indicated as a negative number. The
coordinates shall be provided in a tabular format, following the metes and bounds
description. The first and last coordinate values in the table shall be the same, and shall
represent the coordinates of the Point of Beginning of the metes and bounds description.
The text introducing the table of coordinate values shall indicate that the table represents
the geographic coordinates, in WGS 1984, of the preceding metes and bounds
description.

(3) If the metes and bounds description includes arc segments (rather than straight
line segments) defined by the beginning and ending of an arc of a specific radius,
additional geographic control points shall be calculated along the arc so that a straight
line approximation from point to point does not deviate from the true arc by more than
0.1 foot.

(4) The table of coordinate values shall also be provided separately as an electronic
file, in a comma separated value (CSV) format.

Conversion of Existing Covenants to Environmental Covenants
Prior to the effective date of the Pennsylvania UECA, several covenants for the BCC
Facility were recorded; in addition, the City of Bethlehem recorded a covenant for the Saucon
Park portion of the Facility. All of these covenants shall be converted to environmental
covenants in accordance with Section 6517(b) of UECA, 27 Pa.C.S. § 6517(b).

Municipal Ordinances

Both the City of Bethlehem and Lower Saucon Township supply public water to
residents and businesses within the municipalities. As such, both municipalities have passed
ordinances that restrict the use of private supply wells for drinking water. Complete copies of
the municipal ordinances pertaining to water supply are presented in Attachment O of the

RIR/FR/TI2009.

2. Post Remediation Care and Monitoring

Monitoring

A detailed sampling, inspection, and documentation program will be followed to continue
to demonstrate that there is no migration of the plume and no complete exposure pathways to
contaminated groundwater. This post-remediation care program will be submitted to EPA for
review and approval, and thereafter recorded in a manner consistent with environmental
covenants under the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA), 27 Pa.C.S.
§§6501-6517 (February, 2008). This covenant will also include the geospatial information
described in 1 .(h) (1-4), of the Deed Restrictions above, for the limits of the TI Zones as well as
the perimeter of the property.

A-23

-------
3. Annual Certification

After any written request by EPA or PADEP and/or annually, LVIP will submit to EPA
and PADEP written documentation concerning the use, activity, non-compliance, and property
transfer at the Site. In addition, every fifth year, LVIP will conduct a database well search within
a Yz-mile radius of the site to determine if any new off-site water supply wells have been installed
in the vicinity of the Site. The details of the certification program are identified in the RIR/FR/TI
2009.

4. Reporting

An annual report will be submitted to EPA and PADEP containing a summary of
analytical results for groundwater, surface water, and seeps samples collected within the prior
monitoring period. The details of the reporting program are identified in the RIR/FR/TI 2009.

5. Monitoring Trigger

Upon review of the analytical data collected during the post-remediation monitoring
program, if any of the analytical results indicate a significant increase in concentrations of any
COPC in any of the post-closure monitoring well, surface water, or seep samples collected, EPA
and PADEP will be promptly notified and jointly these agencies and LVIP will make a decision
regarding any necessary actions needed to address the condition.

Application of the statistical "75/1 OX" rule for each TI Zone will indicate whether a
significant increase in concentration has occurred. The following conditions must be met to
"pass" the 75/1 OX rule, and therefore indicate that the plumes are stable:

1. For each monitoring point that, as of July 2009, meets the media cleanup standards for
benzene (5 ug/1) and naphthalene (100 ug/1) (outside the TI Zone), results shall not exceed the
clean-up standards by more than 10 times.

2. For monitoring points that, as of July 2009, meet the media cleanup standards for
benzene (5 ug/1) and naphthalene (100 ug/1) (outside the TI Zones), 75 % of results shall not
exceed the clean-up standards for each monitoring constituent for each monitoring event.

3. For each monitoring point that, as of July 2009, exceeds the media cleanup standards for
benzene (5 ug/1) and naphthalene (100 ug/1) (within the TI Zones), no single sample result may
exceed its July 2009 concentration by more than 10 times, for each monitoring constituent.

A-24

-------
TABLE 4

POST-REMEDIATION CARE AND MONITORING PROGRAM

Groundwater, Surface Water, and Seep Sample Locations
Bethlehem Commerce Center
Bethlehem, PA

PROPOSED GROUNDWATER SAMPLES

BS-2

MW-450V

MW-62D

MW-13

MW-460VR

MW-62M

MW-13M

MW-47BR

MW-62S

MW-13D

MW-47S

MW-64S

MW-14

MW-48BR

MW-64D

MW-20

MW-480V

MW-64DBR

MW-25

MW-50BR

MW-65D

MW-26

MW-50OV

MW-67D

MW-27

MW-58D

MW-67DBR

MW-31

MW-58DBR

MW-68DBR

MW-33

MW-58S

MW-M7D

MW-34

MW-59BR

P-1D

MW-38BR

MW-590V

SW-7

MW-380V

MW-60BR

SW-17

MW-43BR

MW-60OV

SW-18

MW-430V

MW-61BR

SW-19

MW-45BR

MW-610V

SW-22

PROPOSED SURFACE WATER SAMPLES

LCSW-01a

LCSW-05

SCSW-03a

LCSW-02a

LCSW-08

SCSW-04a

LCSW-03a

SCSW-01a

NTSW-01a

LCSW-04a

SCSW-02a

PROPOSED SEEP SAMPLES

HDR-LC-04

HDR-LC-36

HDR-SC-07

HDR-LC-34

HDR-SC-03

ANALYTIC

PARAMETERS

Analytical Parameter

Method

Target Compound List VOCs

SW-846 Method 8260B

Target Compounds List SVOCs

SW-846 Method 8270C

Dissolved Target Analyte List Metals

SW-846 Methods 601 OB and 7470A

Hexavalent Chromium (select sample
locations)

SW-846 Method 7196A

Free Cyanide

MCAWW 335.1

A-25

-------
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA has set national goals
to address RCRA corrective action facilities. Under GPRA, EPA evaluates two key
environmental clean-up indicators for each facility: (1) Current Human Exposures Under Control
and (2) Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control. The BSC Facility met these
indicators on January 7, 2004.

X. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

LVIP estimates that the cost of the Final Remedy for groundwater at the Site is
$3,000,000. EPA will require LVIP to provide assurances of financial responsibility for
completing the Final Remedy as required by Section 3004(u) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6924(u).

XI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Interested persons are invited to comment on EPA's proposed remedy. The public
comment period will last thirty (30) calendar days from the date that notice is published in a
local newspaper. Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, e-mail, or phone to Ms. Linda
Matyskiela at the address listed below.

A public meeting will be held upon request. Requests for a public meeting should be
made to Ms. Linda Matyskiela at the address listed below. A meeting will not be scheduled
unless one is requested.

The Administrative Record contains all the information considered by EPA for the
proposed decision at these Parcels. The Administrative Record is available at the following
location:

U.S. EPA Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Contact: Ms. Linda Matyskiela (3LC30)

Phone: (215) 814-3420
Fax: (215)814-3113
Email: matvskiela.linda@epa.gov

A-26

-------
-------
GiS\jobs\LVIP_BCC\GIS\map_docs\mxd\LVIP_Site Location_Map.mxd

-------
-------
Stag Banl

Agitator Sludge

Environmental Area Map

LV1P vil. 1720 Spfllman Ortv*
Suit»260

BeOrkhem, PA 14015-2165

ONE COMPANY M**y

BETHLEHEM COMMERCE CENTER
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

GJS\ioba\LVlP RCCVGJSmss rinra\mvrfVnnst rinsiir
-------
-------
LVtP VII. 1720 SpiDitnn D*»
SiB»2S«

MMw«. «A'»0tM1«S

Figure No.

ONE COMPANY StMUn-

GIS^bs\LVIP_BCC\GIS\map_docs\nixsl\post_cloainApf>st_Gtosure rrixd

BETHLEHEM COMMERCE CENTER
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Technical Impracticability Areas and
Proposed Locations for Post-Remediation Sampling

Legasd

Proposed Seep Locations
for Post-Ram adlation Sampling

• Existing Seep Locations

. Proposed WtoB Locations for

• Post-Remediation SampBng
Proposed Surface Wster Locations

0 for Pos*-Rtmediat»n Sampling and Gauging

• Existing Gauging Locations

~ Existing WW Locations
Terftrecai bnpraeficabiBty
H Coke Works Area

Isu

1,200 600

Job No.

41406

09/01/09

-------
-------