RECOR D O F DECISION REMEDIA L ALTERNATIV E SELECTION Site i Crai g FarmSite , Perr yTownship , Pennsylvani a Statemen t o f Basi s and Purpos e Thi s decisio n documen t represent s th e selecte d remedia l actio n fo r th e Crai g FarmSite , i n PerryTownship , Pennsylvania , develope d i n accordanc e wit hth e Comprehensiv e Environmenta l Response , Compensatio n and Liabilit yAc t o f 1980 , a s amende d b

yth e Superfund Amendment s an d Reauthorizatio n Ac t o f 198 6 (CERCLA) , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 960 1 e t seq . and t o th e exten t practicabl e th e Nationa l Contingenc yPlan (NCP) , 4 0 C.F.R . Par t 300 . Thi s decisio n i s documente d i n th e content s o f th e Administrativ e Recor d fo r thi s site . The Commonwealt ho f Pennsylvani a concur s wit hthe selecte d remedy . -qssmen t o f th e Sit e .rsuan t t o dul ydelegate d authority , I hereb ydetermin e rsuan t t o Sectio n 10 6 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n .tua l o r threatene d release s o f hazardou s substance s

_ s site , i f no t addresse d b yimplementin g th e respons e selecte d i n thi s Record o f Decisio n (ROD) , ma ypresen t riinen t and substantia l endangermen t t o th e publi c health , .ire , o r the environmen t base d on the informatio n se t ^c hi n "Summaryo f Sit e Risks" , page s 11-16 . Descriptio n o f th e Remed y Th e selecte d remed

yseek s t o preven t sit e contaminant s frommigratin g offsit e and/or impactin g a smal l creek tha t crosse s th e souther n portio n o f th e sit e (Unname d Creek) . A landfil l wil l b e constructe d fo r dispositio n o f th e sourc e materia l fro

mth e tw o disposa l pit s and th e surrounding contaminate d soil . The sourc e materia l wil l be stabilized / solidifie d prio r t o it s placemen t i n th e landfill . Contam

inate d ground wate r wil l als o b e collecte d passivel yusin g two intercepto r trenche s a t seepag e point s downgradien t o f the two pits . The collected groun d wate r wil l be transported weekl yt o an offsit e wastewate r treatmen t plan t unti l th e remediatio n i s judge d t o be completed . Additiona l component s o f th e selecte d remed yar e a s follows :

- Afte r th e tw o pit s ar e excavated , theywil l b e refille d wit huncontaminate d soil , and th e are a wil l b e covere d wit henoug hsoi l t o suppor t vegetation .

- Aground wate r verificatio n stud ywil l als o b e don e t o determin e whethe r o r no t th e ground wate r (both 

# 30144 3on - an d of f site) , no t bein g addresse d b ythe selecte d remedy , need s an

yfurthe r remediation . Thi s stud y i s expecte d t o confir mtha t th e ground wate r collectio n syste mi s working properly , an d i s adequat e t o addres s al l o f th e contaminate d ground water . Institutiona l controls , suc ha s utilizin g dee d notice s t o informpropert yowner s abou t contaminant s a t th e site , wil l als o b e implemented . Awetland s delineatio n wil l als o b e don e i n orde r t o determin e tha t th e propose d locatio n fo r th e landfil l i s the appropriat e distanc e fro mthe onsit e wetlands . I f the propose d locatio n i s found t o be to o clos e t o th e wetlands , th e landfil l wil l b e move d t o a mor e remot e are a o f the site . Potentia l impact s t o the wetland s wil l b e considere d and minimize d t o th e exten t practicabl e durin g th e desig n phas e o f thi s project . Atreatabilit ystud

yo n th e solidificatio n procedur e wil l b e done , an

d it s effectivenes s wil l b e evaluate d b yth e EPAprio r t o th e full-scal e remedia l action . Declaratio n Th e selecte d remed

yi s protectiv e o f huma n healt hand th e environment , attain s Federa l and Stat e requirement s tha t ar e applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriat e t o thi s remedia l action , an

d i s cost-effectiv e a s se t fort hi n Sectio n 12 1 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 962 1 an d Sectio n 300.6 8 o f the NCP . Thi s remed

ysatisfie s the statutor ypreferenc e a s se t fort hi n Sectio n 121(b ) o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9621(b ) fo r remedie s tha t employtreatmen t tha t reduc e toxicity , mobility , o r volume o f the hazardou s substances , pollutant s o r contaminants . Thi s remed yutilize s permanen t solution s and alternativ e treatmen t technologie s t o th e maximu mexten t practicable . Becaus e thi s remed ywil l resul t i n hazardou s substance s remainin g onsit e abov e health-base d levels , a revie wwil l b e conducte d everyfiv e year s afte r commencemen t o f remedia l action i n accordanc e wit hSection 12 1 (c ) o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 962 1 (c ) t o ensur e tha t the remed y continue s t o provid e adequat e protectio n o f huma n healt hand the environment .

Edwi n B . Erickso n Dat e 

### Regiona l Administrato r •'*** • 

# 30144 4RECORD O F DECISIO N V_ ^ TABL E O F CONTENT S PAG E

I SITE NAME , DESCRIPTIO NAND LOCATIO

N1 ASit e Nam e an d Locatio n ' 1 B Sit e Histor

y1 C Communit yRelation s 4 D Identificatio n o f Operabl e Unit s 4 E Sit e Characteristic s 5 I I SUMMAR Y O F SIT E RISK S ' 1 1 II I DESCRIPTIO

NO F ALTERNATIVE S 1 7 I V COMPARATIV

E ANALYSI S O F ALTERNATIVE S 2 3 DESCRIPTIO

NO F TH E SELECTE D REMED Y 2 7 : APPLICABL E O R RELEVANT AND APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT S 2 8 J /I I STATUTOR

Y DETERMINATION S 3 5 i VII I RESPONSIVENES S SUMMARY . 3 7



# 30144 5SUMMAR Y O F REMEDIA L ALTERNATIVE SELECTIO

NFO R TH E CRAI G FAR M SIT E Sit e Nam e and Locatio n Th e Crai g Far

msit e cover s approximatel y11 7 acres , and i s located nea r the villag e o f Fredericksburg , jus t insid e th e wester n borde r o f Armstrong County , Pennsylvania . Th e borougho f Petroli a lie s approximatel ytw o mile s t o th e west , an d th e tow

n o f Parker , o n th e Alleghen yRive r > i s abou t fou r mile s t o the north . The are a aroun d the sit e i s dominate d b y farmland , and ha s a populatio n densit yo f approximatel y12 0 person s pe r squar e mile . Th e sit e wa s originall ytwo abandone d stri p min e pit s whic hha d worke d th e Uppe r Freepor t coa l seam . A s wit hmos t stri p mine s i n th e area , th e pit s wer e cu t int o a hillsid e beginnin g wher e th e coa l outcroppe d o r subcropped . Th e pi t wall s wer e formed b

ythe working fac e (highwall ) o f the min e an d th e spoi l pile s wer e deposite d awa yfro mth e workin g face . Sit e Histor

yan d Enforcemen t Activitie s Th e two pit s wer e use d fo r th e depositio n o f distillatio n residu e fro

m195 8 t o 196 3 (Se

e Figur e 1) . Th

e residu e wa s stil l bottoms fro

mthe productio n o f resorcino l a t the Kopper s Chemica l plan t i n Petrolia , PA . Resorcinol , a n organi c compound , i s use d a s a n adhesiv e enhance r i n commercia l products , suc h a s automobil e tire s an d pharmaceuticals . A t th e time whe n th e sourc e materia l wa s place d onsite , th e lan d wa s owne d b

yMr . Pau l Craig . Hi s brother , Mr . Herma n Craig , haule d th e distillatio n residu e fro mth e plan t and

place d i t i n the tw

o pits . Approximatel y2,50 0 ton s o f residu e containe d i n 55-gallo n drum s wer e deposite d a t th e site . Nea r the en

d o f 1971 , Kopper s purchase d 10 0 o f the 11 7 acr e Crai g property , whic hinclude d the pits . I n 1985 , Kopper s acquire d th e remainin g portio n o f th e Crai g property . Pursuan t t o Sectio n 10 5 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9605 , the Crai g Far

mSit e wa s considere d fo r placemen t on the Nationa l Prioritie s Lis t (NPL) . mie n th e NP L wa s revise d i n December , 1982 , the Crai g Farmsit e wa s ranke d 41 5 ou t o f 41 8 site s proposed fo r the NP L a t tha t time . O n February25 , 1983 , Kopper s presente d t o th e Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resource s (PADER ) a proposa l fo r a hyd r ©geo

logica l stud

yo f th e site . Kopper s decide d t o als o undertak e a surfac e wate r samplin g study , a strea

mbiologica l study , an ai r qualit ysurvey , an d t o incorporat e the

mint o the hydro

geologi c investigatio n resulting i n a n Environmenta l Assessmen t (EA ) o f the site . The E Awa s submitte d t o PADE R o n Octobe r 31 , 1983 . 

# 30144 6

### I Figur e l

I 

# I 

# I

30144 7On January19 , 1984 , the Count yo f Armstrong , Departmen t

o f Publi c Protectio n prepare d a n Emergenc yPreparednes s Pla n fo r the site . On Apri l 23-24 , 1984 , Kopper s undertoo k an investigatio n t o determin e th e approximat e exten t and conditio n o f th e stil l bottomresidu e drum s a t th e site . Representative s o f th e PADE R wer e onsit e t o observe th e investigation . Aserie s o f fiftee n tes t pit s were , excavated . Th e result s o f th e tes t pit s indicate d tha t th e drum s wer e butte d agains t th e highwal l o f bot hstri p min e cuts , and the n covered . Th e majorit yo f th e drum s wer e broke n o r crushe d and wer e withou t lids . EP Acontracte d GC

ACorporation t o reviewthe Kopper s E Ao f th e Crai g Farmsite . EPA , wit hGCArepresentatives , visite d the sit e o n Jun e 29 , 1984 , an d issued draf t comment s o n th e E Arepor t i n August , 1984 . On Apri l 1 , 1985 , th e

~ 3E R and EPAoffere d join t comment s o n th e E Areport . trin g th e fal l o f 1984 , Kopper s investigate d severa l ; . measures , includin g excavatio n an d recycling o f the and onsit e and offsit e incineration . O n Augus t 2 , 3 PADE R requeste d Kopper s t o perfor ma complet e Investigatio n an

d Feasibilit yStud

y(RI/FS ) o f ii g Far msite . On Novembe r 12 , 1985 , representative s jers , PADER , an

d EP Ame t t o discus s the RI/F S Work Plan i 6 EPAan

d PADE R comment s o n th e E Areport . I t wa s .e d a t thi s meetin g tha t a s muc ho f th e informatio n fro m j EArepor t a s possibl e woul d be used i n the RI/F S develop

ment . Additiona l work wa s require d t o satisf yRI/F S protocol s whic hevolve d followin g the preparatio n o f the EAreport . I n February , 1986 , Keyston e Environmenta l Resources , Inc . an d Remediatio n Technologies , Inc . began work on the Crai g Farmsit e RI/F S fo r Koppers . Fro mSeptember , 198 6 through August , 1987 , a biologica l surve ywa s performe d b

yKeystone utilizin g dat a obtaine d fro mfour round s o f samplin g a t th e Crai g Farmsite . FromOctober , 198 6 throughJune , 1987 , a biot a surve

ywa s performed b

yKeystone utilizing dat a obtaine d fro mtwo round s o f samplin g (Fall , 1986 , an d Spring , 1987 ) a t the Crai g Far

msite . Fro

mNovember , 198 6 throug hAugust , 1987 , Keyston e performe d si x round s o f sampling t o characteriz e th e surfac e wate r an

d sediment s a t th e site . FromDecember , 198 6 throughNovember , 1987 , Keyston e performe d four round s o f sampling t o characteriz e the ground wate r a t th e site . On February10 , 1987 , Kopper s Company , Inc . signe d a Consen t Orde r and Agreemen t wit h PADE R t o perfor

ma RI/F S o f the site . 

# 30144 8I n May , 1988 , th e EPAand PADE R requeste d tha t fiv e

additiona l well s b e installe d t o furthe r delineat e th e ground wate r contamination . Thes e well s wer e installe d i n November , 1988 . O n January20 , 1989 , BN S Acquisition s merge d int o Koppers , an

d o n January26 , 1989 , th e name o f Kopper s wa s change d t o Beaze r Material s an d Services , Inc . (Beazer) . I n April , 1989 , th e Draf t Remedia l Investigatio n (RI ) wa s submitte d t o th e Stat e and th e EPA . Th e Revise d R I wa s submitte d i n August , 1989 . The Draf t Feasibilit yStud y(FS ) wa s submitte d i n July , 1989 , an d th e Revise d F S wa s submitte d i n August , 1989 . ASpecia l Notic e Letter , grantin g Beaze r th e opportunit y t o mak e a goo

d fait hoffe r pursuan t t o Section 122(e ) o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9622(e) , wa s sen t b ythe EP

At o Beaze r on Augus t .24 , 1989 . Communit yRelation s On Apri l 7 , 1987 , PADE R conducte d a publi c meetin g t o announc e the star t o f the RI/F S a t Crai g Farm . The RI/F S an d the Propose

d Pla n fo r the Crai g Far

mSit e wer e release d t o th e publi c i n August , 1989 . Thes e tw o document s wer e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c i n th e administrativ e record fil e and an informatio n repositor ymaintaine d a t th e EPAi n Regio n II I and i n th e administrativ e office s o f th e Karn s Cit yAre a Hig hSchoo l i n Karn s City , Pennsylvania . Th e notic e o f availabilit yfo r thes e two document s wa s publishe d i n th e Butle r Eagl e o n Augus t 25 , 1989 . Apubli c commen t perio d wa s hel d fro mAugus t 25 , 198 9 throug h Septembe r 25 , 1989 . I n addition , a publi c meeting wa s hel d o n Septembe r 13 , 1989 . A t thi s meeting , representative s fro m EPAan d PADE R answere d question s abou t problem s a t th e sit e an d the remedia l alternative s unde r consideration . The onl y writte n comment s receive d durin g th e publi c commen t perio d wer e I n a lette r fro

mBeazer , a cop

yo f whic hi s attached . The Responsivenes s Summaryi s base d o n ora l comment s receive d durin g th e publi c meetin g and o n th e writte n comments . Th e above action s satisfythe requirement s o f Section 113(k ) an d 11 7 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9613(k ) an d 9617 . Identificatio n o f Operabl e Unit s Th e Crai g FarmSit e ha s bee n divide d int o thre e operabl e units : 

# 30144 91 . Operabl e Uni t I I Operabl e Uni t I I i s th e distillatio n residu e materia l i n eac hpi t are a and th e adjacen t contaminate d soils . Contaminate d soil s ar e define d a s thos e soil s determine d analyticall yt o contai n detectabl e amount s o f resorcinol . Th e detectio n limi t fo r resorcino l i n soil s * s approximatel y5 0 part s pe r million . 2 . Operabl e Uni t 1 2 Operabl e Uni t 1 2 i s th e remainin g portio n o f eac h pi t are a no t define d a s Operabl e Uni t f l material , mainl y overburde n and adjoinin g soil s tha t ar e determine d analyticall yt o be clean . 3 . Operabl e Uni t 1 3 Operabl e Uni t 1 3 include s Seep s Aand B (see Figur e ) whic har e downgradien t location s wher e seep s containin g itaminate d ground wate r ar e discharging . Operabl e Uni t 1 2 i s uncontaminate d soi l tha t i s •.sidere d an operabl e uni t merel ybecaus e i t mus t b e move d > ge t t o th e underlyin g contaminate d soil s and sourc e aterials . However r Operabl e Uni t 12 , b ydefinition , contain s nl yclean soil s an

d therefore , wil l no t b e discusse d i n the inalysi s o f treatmen t alternatives . Th e operabl e uni t doe s contai n an

ycontaminate d soil s tha t woul d requir e an y remediation . Aground wate r verificatio n stud ywil l b e don e t o determin e whethe r o r no t the groun d wate r (bot

hon an d off

site) , no t bein g addresse d i n thi s ROD , need s an yfurthe r remediation . I f additiona l groun d wate r remediatio n i s required , i t wil l b e considered a separat e operabl e unit , and wil l b e addresse d i n a subsequen t RO D fo r thi s site . Sit e Characteristic s 

### A . Topograph

y Th e are a aroun

d th e sit e i s farmland an d forest , wit h surfac e minin g operation s throughou t the area . The sit e i s a smal l steep hillsid e wit han averag e gradien t o f 1.4 3 ft/ft . Stri p raining activitie s hav e create d tw o separat e highwall s wit hthe botto

mo f the pit s a t a

n elevatio n o f 140 0 fee t (mea n se a level) . The topograph yo f the sit e are a i s characterize d b

ya dendriti c drainag e patter n wit hgood surfac e wate r drainag e throughou t the watersheds . 

# 30145 08 . Land Us e

Curren t figure s showtha t approximatel y2 8 percen t o f Armstron g Count yi s farmland , 5 2 percen t i s forest / an d 2 0 percen t other . The are a aroun d the site , including the villag e o f Fredericksburg , i s dominate d b yfarmland . Stri p minin g i s als o conducte d i n th e surroundin g area . Th e sit e i s no t use d fo r an ycommercia l o r residentia l purposes , althoughi t coul d be use d fo r recreationa l purpose s afte r remediation . Du e t o th e steepnes s o f th e topograph y an d remotenes s o f th e site , futur e commercia l o r residentia l developmen t ma

yb e limited . C . Hydrolog

y Surfac e wate r o n th e sit e consist s o f severa l seepag e ditche s emanatin g fro mthe forme r pits , an d the Unname d Creek . Drainage , vi a hillsid e runof f and th e seepag e ditches , flow s fro

mth e sit e int o Unname d Creek , whic hi n tur n flows southeas t an d discharge s int o ValleyRun , approximatel yon e mil e fro mth e site . ValleyRun flows northeas t fo r approximatel yon e an d a hal f mile s an

d discharge s int o th e Alleghen yRiver . Th e seepag e ditche s ar e actuall ysmal l erosio n channel s whic hhav e forme d vi a hillsid e runoff . The seep s drai n int o one o f thes e two channels . D . Wildlif e Fauna l specie s hav e bee n noted a t th e sit e durin g variou s fiel d investigation s and include : severa l specie s o f smal l mammal s (rabbits , squirrels , chipmunks , etc) ; variou s specie s o f birds , deer , an d bear . Thes e anima l specie s ar e commonl yfoun

d i n woodlan

d habitats . Vegetatio n identifie d a s par t o f th e biot a investigatio n include : numerou s herbaceou s specie s an d severa l wood

yspecie s i n variou s stage s o f growt h(seedlings , sapling s an d matur e trees) . E . Hydrogeolog

y Groun d wate r a t the sit e occur s unde r wate r tabl e condition s i n th e unconsolidate d zon e an d unde r confine d condition s i n the uppe r bedroc k an d lowe r sandston e aquifers . Portion s o f th e unconsolidate d material s ar e wate r bearing . The interva l fro

mbelowthe Uppe r Freepor t Coa l t o the top o f the lowe r sandstone uni t ha s bee n collectivel ydesignate d a s th e uppe r bedroc k aquifer , althoughthi s uni t i s no t a good wate r producing zone . Mos t wate r produce d i n thi s uni t i s 

# 30145 1presen t aroun d the Lowe r Freepor t Coa l seam . Wate r leve l measurement s indicat e tha t the flo wi n the uppe r bedroc k aquife r i s t o the wes t towar d Unname d Creek . The othe r wate r producin g zone beneat hth e sit e ha s bee n designate d a s th e lowe r sandston e bedroc k whic hoccur s beneat hth e Lowe r Freepor t Coal , a t an approximat e elevatio n o f 130 0 feet . Th e ground wate r flo

wwithi n th e lowe r sandston e i s t o th e sout h an d southwes t toward th e valleybottom . Wate r leve l contour s fo r the unconsolidate d material s indicat e the wate r tabl e surfac e resembles / an d usuall y mimics , the topography . Flowline s indicat e tha t groun d wate r migrate s toward th e streamvalley , a s expected . Th e contour s nea r th e souther n portio n o f th e site , ten d t o swing toward th e east , whic hindicate s tha t th e seepag e strea mgull yand th e topographi c slop e toward th e forme r Crai g property , influenc e th e ground wate r flo wi n thi s area . Downslop e fro

mthe two pits , the unconsolidate d materia l thin s ou t nea r the 135 0 elevation . Thi s i s als o the approximat e elevatio n wher e man yo f the hillsid e seep s occur . Thi s indicate s tha t the groun d wate r flows throug

hthe unconsolidate d material s and along th e shal e contact , unti l dischargin g o n t o th e hillside . F . Natur e an

d Exten t o f Contaminatio n The distillatio n residu e deposited i n the two pit s contain s resorcino l an d othe r highe r polymers . The distillatio n residu e i s a wast e created i n the productio n o f resorcinol , an

d it s composition ha s bee n analyzed . The wast e i s a CERCLAhazardou s substance , bu t i t i s no t a Resourc e Conservatio n an

d RecoveryAc t (RCRA ) hazardou s waste . Th e compositio n o f the wast e i s a s follows :

Resorcino l 5-10 % Dihydroxydiphenyl s (DHO ) 20-25 % Trihydroxydiphenyl s (THD ) 30-35 % highe r polymer s 30-35 % The chemica l structur e o f the compound s i s illustrate d i n Figur e 2 .



# 30145 2FIGUR E 2 CHEMICA L STRUCTURE S O F PHENOL , RESORCINOL , DHD , THD , an d RELATE D HIGHE R MOLECULAR WEIGH T POLYMER S



### O H

MOLECULA R W&6H 7 POLYMER S 3Q145 3— ^ Tes t pit s du g int o th e tw o pit s showe d tha t th e residu e

range d fro

mblac k o r pin k semi-soli d materia l t o hardene d chunks . The northern pi t encompasse s 1.2-1. 5 acre s an d the souther n pi t encompasse s approximatel y0.8-1. 0 acre . Analyti

ca l dat a als o indicat e tha t th e sourc e materia l i n th e pit s i s mos t concentrate d from2.5-6. 0 fee t belo wth e surface . Contaminate d soi l exist s nea r th e tw o pits , especiall ydown

slop e o f thes e two areas . Th e wate r qualit ydat a obtaine d fro mth e R I ha s bee n use d t o refin e interpretation s regardin g th e horizonta l and vertica l exten t o f degrade d groun d wate r a t th e Crai g Farm site . Generalize d boundarymap s fo r th e unconsolidate d material s zone / uppe r bedroc k aquifer , an d lowe r sandston e aquife r ar e base d o n the detectio n o f on e o r mor e o f the process-relate d organi c indicato r parameter s i n penetratin g thos e respective monitorin g intervals . The chemica l constit

uent s associate d wit hth e forme r sit e activitie s ar e presen t i n groun d wate r i n eac ho f the thre e geologi c interval s describe d above . Withi n th e unconsolidate d material s zone , th e degrade d ground wate r appear s t o extend beneat hmos t o f th e site . Du e t o the thinnin g o f thi s zon e belowthe pits , groun d wate r ••' ' ~ move s along the to p o f the shal e an

d discharge s t o the surfac e \^ j a t a

n approximat e elevatio n o f 134 0 ft . Becaus e the Unname d Cree k represent s th e loca l discharg e poin t fo r th e unconsol

date d material s zone , th e limi t o f th e impacte d ground wate r i s though t t o be t o the wes t b yUnname d Creek . Withi n th e uppe r bedroc k aquife r unit , th e degrade d ground wate r appear s t o extend beneat hmos t o f th e stud y area . Groun

d wate r move s throug

hthe shal e an

d discharge s along th e positio n o f th e Lowe r Freepor t Coa l seam . Becaus e th e Unname d Cree k an

d th e topographi c positio n represen t th e loca l discharg e poin t fo r th e uppe r bedroc k aquifer , th e limi t o f th e impacte d groun d wate r i s though t t o b e t o th e wes t b yUnname d Creek . Withi n the lowe r sandstone aquife r unit , the degrade d ground wate r extend s fro mth e are a o f th e two pit s t o an are a immediatel yeas t o f the Unname d Cree k valleybottom . Groun d wate r movemen t i n thi s uni t i s influence d b ymigratio n o f ground wate r fro

mabov e th e Lowe r Freepor t Coa l seam , a s wel l a s throug

hregiona l groun

d wate r discharg e towar d the valleybottom . 

# 30145 41 0

G . Biologica l Finding s FromSeptember , 198 6 throughAugust , 198 7 a biologica l surve ywa s performe d t o determin e th e effects , i f any , o f potentia l constituent s o f concern o n aquati c biota . The stud yfoun d tha t macroinvertebrat e communitie s locate d down

gradien t o f th e sit e di d exhibi t sign s o f stress . Th e stres s va s characterize d b

ya lac k o f macroinvertebrate s specie s tha t ar e indicator s o f good wate r quality . Statistica l correlation s indicat e that , o f th e process-relate d constituents , trihydroxydipheny l (THD ) concentratio n ha s th e greates t impac t o n macroinvertebrates . Chemica l analyse s o f crayfis htissu e determine d tha t n o bioaccumulatio n o f an y PCO C coul d be detected . Ther e als o wer e no indication s o f an ybiomagni f icatio n o f an ysite-relate d compound . Ther e wa s no stres s detecte d i n the fis hcommunit yi n alle yRun , and th e impacte d macroinvertebrat e communit y »ste d appea r t o recove r withi n 1 mil e o f th e confluenc e o f e Unname d Cree k wit hValleyRun . H . Ai r Monitorin g Finding s t - I n Augus t and September , 1987 , an ai r monitorin g survey a s performe d a t th e sit e t o determin e th e ai r qualit yi n egard s t o the sourc e materia l an d severa l othe r compound s on h e Hazardou s Substanc e List . Th e ai r surveydetermine d tha t :he constituent s o f concer n wer e no t impactin g the ai r qualit y a t th e site . Fiel d sampling wa s conducte d i n accordanc e wit h a RI/F S Ai r Monitorin g Work Plan . Th e result s o f thi s stud y wer e tha t th e sit e i n it s presen t conditio n pose s n o healt h threa t vi a ai r transpor t o f site-relate d compounds .



# 30145 5

## 1 1 SUMMAR Y O F SITE RISK S Potentia l Contaminant s o f Concern Soils , ground water , surfac e wate r and sediments , and ambien t ai r wer e analyze d fo r variou s priorit ypollutan t organic s and metal s a s wel l a s process-relate d constituents . Base d o n th e analytica l result s an d th e abov e criteria , th e following organi c and inorgani c constituent s hav e bee n selected a s potentia l contaminant s o f concern (PCOCs) : Orqanics t Inorganics ; o resorcino l o cadmium o trihydroxydipheny l (THD ) o chromiu m o meta-phenolsulfoni c aci d (m-PSA ) o coppe r o para-phenolsulfoni c aci d (p-PSA ) o lea d o benzen e sulfoni c aci d (BSA ) o zin c o benzen e met a disulfoni c aci d (BMDSA ) o benzen e o pheno l Thi s lis t o f organi c PCOCs , excludin g benzene , ar e process relate d constituents . Althoughothe r priorit ypollutan t ; organic s wer e detecte d i n on e roun d o f surfac e wate r sampling , ^- ^ theywer e no t selecte d a s PCOC s sinc e the fina l roun d o f samplin g determine d th e concentration s t o b e belowth e limit s o f detection . Th e priorit ypollutan t metal s selecte d a s PCOC s ar e no t process-related constituents . However , the ywer e detecte d a t level s greate r than typica l background level s fo r th e medi a i n whic hthe ywer e measured . Cadmiu mwa s th e onl y meta l detecte d abov e background level s i n th e soil . Th e othe r metal s wer e detecte d i n th e ground water . I t shoul d b e noted tha t the above se t o f PCOC s wer e no t necessaril ydetecte d i n eac ho f th e medi a o f interest . Tabl e 1 list s PCOC s i n eac ho f the area s o f interest . Toxicologica l Profile s Toxicologica l dat a on the majorityo f the PCOC s identifie d a t th e site , i.e . th e process-relate d constituent s

- resorcinol , THD , DHD , m-PSA , p-PSA , BMDSA , an d BSA , i s eithe r scarc e o r absent . Resorcinol , fo r whic hsom e toxicologica l dat a i s available , wa s used a s the representa tiv e fo r al l o f thes e relate d compound s base d o n th e similarit y o f thei r chemica l structures . Resorcino l i s moderatel ytoxic , bu t i t i s no t presentl yconsidere d a carcinogen . 

# 30145 6o *

h

IB E 

# f I

i ! • 8



### t «•*« • ~T5 I » f 

# H I M MI K I ' I



# . *.' M f i i f 'I , to 

# ijff[f | ni f if f i r •< ?

I i ^ 

## r r D 

# ! I * ' * 30145 71 3

The Registr

yo f Toxi c Effect s an d Chemica l Substance s list s the ora l letha l dos e o f resorcino l i n rat s a s 30 1 rag/kg . Benzen e i s th e onl yknow n carcinoge n tha t i s a PCO C a t thi s site , an d i t i s presen t onl ya t lowlevel s i n th e soil s an d groun d water . Potentia l Migratio n Route s • • A n exposur e pathwayusuall yinvolve s th e transpor t o f chemical s througha n environmenta l mediumo r fro mon e environmenta l mediumt o another . A t th e site , migratio n o f PCOC s coul d potentiall yoccur vi a movemen t throughsurfac e water , sediments , groun d water , soil , o r ambien t air . Th e analysi s o f surfac e wate r (i.e . Seep s A& B , Unname d Creek , an

d ValleyRun ) resulte d i n detectabl e concentration s

~ * severa l o f the PCOC s i n bot hUnname d Creek an d the seeps . -.'or , thes e sam

e constituent s wer e belowdetectio n limit s leyRu n whic hi s the bod

yo f surfac e wate r mos t likel y =e d b ypotentia l receptors . Therefore , surfac e wate r considere d a s a significan t migratio n rout e fo r ecaus e o f the lac k o f a receptor . Analysi s o f the sediment s resulte d i n 1 ) level s belowlimit s o f o n (resorcinol , m-PSA , BSA , BMDSA) , 2 ) detectabl e .ration s i n onl yone samplin g roun d (THD) , o r 3 ) level s

. r t o control s (benzene) . Thes e result s indicat e tha t -ant s d o no t provid e a significan t migratio n rout e fo r : PCOCS . Surficia l soi l sample s take n fro mtes t pit s 0 t o 2 fee t i n dept hand fro

mth e stri p min e pit s resulte d i n detectabl e concentration s o f resorcinol , THD , m-PSA , p-PS Aan d cadmium . Therefore , surficia l soil s an d deepe r soil s ma

ybe potentia l migratio n routes . Base d on analytica l results , groun d wate r i s als o a migratio n rout e fo r al l o f the PCOCs . Wit hrespec t t o ambien t ai r samples , the PCOC s wer e eithe r belowdetection limits , o r i n the cas e o f benzene , wer e equivalen t t o typica l U.S . rura l backgroun d levels . Therefore , th e transpor t o f PCOC s throughambien t ai r wil l no t b e considere d furthe r a s a potentia l migratio n rout e a t th e site * Potentia l Huma n Exposur e Pathway s I n th e identificatio n an d evaluatio n o f potentia l exposur e pathways , potentia l curren t an d potentia l futur e use s o f the sit e wer e considered . The are a currentl yi s restricte d fro

mrecreationa l use . Hypothetica l futur e use s wer e determine d based on the typograph yan d curren t demo

graphi c us e o f the surroundin g area . The steepnes s o f the hillsid e on whic hthe sit e i s located an d it s remotenes s ma ypreclud e futur e commercia l o r residentia l development . 

# 30145 81 4

Therefore , futur e occupant s o r constructio n worker s wil l no t b e considered . Potentia l futur e us e o f th e sit e fo r mining , a n activit ytha t ha s occurre d o n th e sit e and i s currentl ybein g practice d i n the surrounding area , i s utilize d a s the huma n exposur e pathwa yfo r the ris k calculations . Potentia l Environmenta l Exposur e Pathway s Surfac e wate r and sediment s fro mUnname d Creek , soi l o n th e site , and sediment s i n ValleyRun coul d provid e potentia l environmenta l exposur e pathways . Wildlif e coul d b e expose d t o site-relate d contaminatio n b ycoming i n contac t wit hthe seep s on the hillsid e downgradien t fro mthe two pits . Terrestria l specie s inhabitin g th e site , whic hi s primaril ywooded , includ e deer , rabbits , squirrel s and othe r mammalia n species . Amphibiou s specie s (i.e . turtles , frogs , salamanders ) als o inhabi t area s o f the site . Aquati c organism s tha t coul d inhabi t ValleyRun and Unname d Cree k includ e invertebrate s and fish . The lack o f benthi c raacroinvertebrate s an d fis hi n Unname d Cree k indicate s tha t PCOC s i n the strea mar e impacting aquati c 

# life

Ris k Characterizatio n A n exposur e assessmen t an d ris k characterizatio n wa s carrie d ou t fo r th e following exposur e pathways : 1 ) incidenta l ingestio n an d derma l absorptio n o f PCOC s i n surficia l soil s b

ytrespassers ; 2 ) derma l absorptio n o f PCOC s i n groun d wate r b

yhypothetica l futur e miners ; an d 3 ) incidenta l ingestion an d derma l absorption o f PCOC s i n groun d wate r b

yfutur e of f sit e domesti c wel l users . The maximumconcentration o f resorcinol , THD , an d DH D foun d i n soil s wer e 140 0 mg/kg , 11,50 0 mg/kg , an d 25 0 mg/kg , respectively . BSAhad a maximumconcentratio n o f 70 0 mg/kg , m-PSAhad a maximumo f 32 0 mg/kg , an d th e highes t leve l o f p-PSAwa s 225 0 mg/kg . The highes t leve l o f benzen e foun d i n th e soil s wa s 7. 8 mg/kg . Th e level s o f PCOC s i n th e groun d wate r ar e listed i n Tabl e 2 . The PCOC s fo r eac hrecepto r grou p varie d according t o predicte d usag e patterns , i.e . potentia l trespasse r exposur e t o surficia l soils , potentia l exposur e o f hypothetica l futur e miner s t o groun

d wate r i n the uppermos t bedroc k uni t an d the lowe r sandston e unit , and potentia l futur e domesti c wel l usag e o f groun

d wate r fro

mth e lowe r sandston e unit . 

# 30145 91 5 TABL E 2 GEOMETRI C MEANCONCENTRATIO NRANGE S O F PCOC s I NGROUNDWATE R

Frequenc yo f Compoun d (mg/1 ) Leve l Detectio n Rang e (mg/1 ) BSAA4/ 9 <2 5 - 70. 5 «25 ) B 9/1 9 <2 5 - 74. 4 C 3/1 2 <2 5 - 29. 7 BMDS AA2/ 9 <2 5 - 19. 2 B 5/ 9 C 0/1 2 «25 ) B 5/ 9 0.3 7 - 12 2 r n/i ? untl J i-PS AA6/ 9 <2 5 - 96. 7 <25 ) B 7/1 9 <2 5 - 18 3 C 1/1 2 <2 5 - 34 5 -PS AA8/ 9 <2 5 - 72 1 <25 ) B 7/1 9 <2 5 - 106 3 C 4/1 2 <2 5 - 81 1 Benzen e (ug/L ) A6/ 9 <1. 0 - 2.5 5 «1 ) B 6/1 9 <1. 0 - 3.7 1 C 5/1 2 <1. 0 - 1. 6 Pheno l A9/ 9 0.0 5 - 0.8 6 «5 ) B 13/1 9 <0.00 5 - 0.7 1 C 9/1 2 <0.00 5 - 0.2 7 Resorcino l A8/ 9 <5. 0 - 87 8 «5 ) B 9/1 9 <5. 0 - 87 2 C 5/1 2 <5. 0 - 46 5 TH D A9/ 9 7.6 7 - 245 3 «0.5 ) B 11/1 9 <5. 0 - 245 5 C 6/1 2 <5. 0 - 143 5 NOTES : (l)Not detecte d i n an

ysampling round . Vindicate s detectio n limit . Al l concentration s i n rag/ L unles s otherwis e noted . 

### Leve l Ai s th e shallowwell s t Leve l B i s medium-dept hwell s , an d Leve l C i s th e dee p wells . 

# 30146 01 6

; , Hazar d indice s and/o r ris k calculation s wer e calculate d 'v->--/ ' fo r eac ho f thes e recepto r group s an d ar e a s follows : o Th e tota l hazar d inde xfo r trespassers , th e su mo f the hazard indice s fo r incidenta l ingestio n (3.2 8 x 10"3 ) an

d derma l absorptio n fro msoi l (0.07) , i s 0.07 . o Th e tota l hazard inde xfo r hypothetica l futur e miner s fo r derma l absorptio n fro mground wate r i s 0.4 3 an d the exces s individua l lifetime cance r ris k i s 1.3 9 x 10 ' ' . o Th e tota l hazar d inde xfo r futur e offsit e domesti c well-users , the su

mo f the hazard indice s fo r incidenta l ingestio n (0.63 ) an d derma l absorptio n fro mground wate r (1.3 9 x 10~4 ) i s 0.63 . The tota l hazard indice s calculate d fo r trespassers , hypothetica l futur e miner s and futur e offsit e domesti c wel l user s wer e al l les s than 1 . Ahazard inde xo f 1 o r les s indicate s tha t the estimate d intake s ar e les s than the threshol d intak e level s an d tha t ther e i s n o appreciabl e ris k o f advers e healt heffects . Th e cance r ris k t o futur e miner s i s base d o n potentia l V_ yexposur e o f futur e miner s t o benzen e i n th e ground water . The potentia l exces s individua l lifetime cance r ris k calcu

late d fo r hypothetica l futur e miner s wa s 1.3 9 x 10" ' whic h i s lowe r tha n th e uppe r bound o f th e rang e recommende d b y th e U.S.EP

Ao f 10~ 4 t o 10~7 . Th e huma n healt hthrea t presente d b ythi s sit e i s negligibl e i n a s muc ha s ther e ar e n o huma n receptor s onsite , o r immediatel yadjacen t t o the sit e a t thi s time . Th e sit e i s presentl yhavin g an impac t o n Unname d Cree k and th e onsit e wetland s a s wel l a s th e organism s livin g i n thes e communities . Thus , the selection o f the remed yi s base d o n the site' s impac t o n the environmen t rathe r tha n o n a ris k t o human health . A s describe d above , th e sit e doe s presen t an imminen t an d substantia l endangermen t t o the environmen t a s se t forthi n Section 10 6 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9606 .



# 30146 11 7 DESCRIPTIO

NO F ALTERNATIVE S ' 

### Anumbe r o f alternative s wer e develope d t o mee t th e following remedia l actio n goals :

- minimiz e ris k t o th e publi c healt hand environmen t fro mdirec t contac t wit hcontaminate d materia l

- contro l th e migratio n o f contaminant s int o nearb y surfac e water s



### - contro l th e migratio n o f contaminant s int o ground wate r OPERABL E UNI T f l (OUl ) - . Th e sourc e materia l i n th e tw o 

### pi t area s and th e adjacen t contaminate d soils . Alternativ e 1 : No Actio n Thi s alternativ e provide s th e baselin e o r referenc e poin t agains t whic heac ho f th e operabl e uni t alternative s ar e compared . I f the othe r selecte d alternative s d o no t offe r substantia l benefit s i n reductio n o f toxicity , mobility , o r volume , the n th e N o Actio n alternativ e mayb e considere d a feasibl e approach . 

### Th e No Actio n alternativ e woul d consis t o f continue d monitorin g o f Unname d Cree k an d th e groun

d water , a s wel l a s potentia l dee d notices . Monitorin g o f Unname d Cree k and th e ground wate r woul d consis t o f monitorin g fo r PCOC s o n a semi

annua l basis . Th e semi-annua l monitorin g woul d b e implemente d t o determin e th e potentia l effects , i f any , o n th e cree k an d ground water , an

d woul d b e assume d t o continu e fo r a 30-yea r period . Th e monitorin g woul d consis t o f th e collectio n an d analysi s o f 1 6 groundwate r sample s an d 5 surfac e wate r samples . Institutiona l control s utilizin g dee d notice s woul d b e 

### implemente d t o infor

mpropert yowner s abou t the PCOC s a t the site . Fence s woul d als o be erected aroun d the two pi t areas . Monitoring woul d requir e a two-man fiel d crewspending approximatel y8 days eac hyear . Th e Operation an d Maintenanc e (O&M ) cost s fo r thi s alternativ e ar e estimate d a s $49,00 0 pe r yea r whic hinclude s sampling and analysis , administratio n costs , an

d labor . Assuming a 5 % interes t rat e an d a projected 30-year monitoring period , the associate d presen t wort ho f thi s alternativ e ha s bee n estimate d t o be $817,000 . Alternativ e 2A : Slurr yWall s wit hImpermeabl e Cap Thi s alternativ e provide s fo r installing upgradien t slurr ywall s an

d surfac e cappin g th e OU l area s wit hlow permeabilit ymaterial . Lowpermeabilit ycap s woul d be con tructe d ove r th e OU l area s t o substantiall yreduc e migratio n 

# 30146 21 8

o f PCOC s t o Unname d Creek . The surfac e ca p woul d consis t o f a relativel yimpermeabl e soi l layer , a syntheti c membran e liner , a conducting zone , cove r soil , and to p soi l wit ha vegetativ e cover . Th e cappe d are a woul d b e grade d t o achiev e th e require d surfac e drainag e patterns , and compacte d t o provide. a stabl e subgrad e fo r ca

p construction . Afte r the initia l surfac e preparatio n work , th e relativel yimpermeabl e barrie r soi l laye r woul d be constructed . Thi s laye r woul d consis t o f tw o fee t o f eithe r remolde d natura l clayo r soi l wit hcla y (bentonite ) additives . AHig hDensit yPolyethylen e (HOPE ) syntheti c membran e line r woul d b e installe d ove r th e barrie r soi l layer . Abov e th e 5 0 mi l syntheti c membrane , a one-foo t thic k conductin g zon

e woul d be constructe d o f granula r materia l and woul d intercep t infiltratin g water , and direc t i t t o the perimete r o f the ca p fo r discharg e int o surfac e -linag e facilities . Abov e th e conductin g zone , tw o fee t o f ove r woul d be place d fo r fros t protection . The ca p --ctio n woul d b e complete d wit ha six-inc htopsoi l laye r

. ; entir e cappe d area , a s wel l a s adjacen t disturbe d oul d b e seede d an

d mulche d fo r long-ter merosio n

• ; diver t th e ground wate r aroun d th e OU 1 areas , a slurr y o f approximatel y60 0 linea r fee t woul d be installe d on .^gradien t sid e o f bot hth e norther n an d souther n pits . slurr ytrenchwoul d be founde d int o the shal e layer , Me n i s approximatel y1 5 fee t belowsurface , and th e widt h o f the trenc hwoul d b e a t leas t 2 4 inches . The slurr ywal l woul d b e constructe d using a soil/bentonit e cla ymixture . Th e trenc hwoul d b e excavate d usin g specia l backhoe s and th e slurr ymateria l woul d b e mixe d an d backfille d using a bulldozer , Thi s alternativ e woul d tak e fou r month s t o complete . The capita l cos t fo r thi s alternativ e i s estimate d t o b e approximatel y$1,280,000 , an d the associate d O&K cost s ar e approximatel y$49,000 . The tota l presen t wort ho f thi s alternativ e is , therefore , abou t $2,033,000 , assuming a 30

- yea r period a t 5 % interest . Alternativ e 2B t Slurr yWalls , In-Sit u Solidification/Fixatio n Treatment , Capping [ Thi s alternativ e provide s fo r solidification/fixatio n treatmen t o f OU 1 material , installing upgradien t slurr ywall s an d surfac e cappin g th e OU 1 area s wit hlowpermeabilit y material . OU 1 materia l woul d be chemicall ytreated an d low permeabilit ycap s wit hslurr ywall s woul d b e constructe d ove r the OU 1 area s t o substantiall yreduc e migratio n o f PCOC s t o Unname d Creek . Th e surfac e ca p an d slurr ywall s woul d b e identica l t o thos e discusse d i n alternativ e 2A . 

# 30146 31 9

In-sit u chemica l treatmen t o f OU l materia l woul d b e performe d b

yinjecting reagen t int o th e sub-surfac e are a an d mixin g th e reagen t i n plac e wit hth e OU l material . Th e equipmen t used fo r subsurfac e stabilizatio n i s simila r t o typica l auge r in g equipmen t wit hspecialize d bits . Th e treatmen t are a woul d b e divide d int o block s fo r treatmen t wit happroximatel y10 % overlap o f th e treatmen t block s t o ensur e complet e treatmen t o f th e entir e OU l area . Th e volum e o f materia l t o b e solidified/fixe d i s expecte d t o b e 5,00 0 cubi c yards . I t woul d b e necessar yt o perform treatabilit ytesting t o determin e th e reagent s tha t woul d b e bes t suite d fo r stabilizin g OU l materia l befor e thi s alternativ e coul d b e implemented . . ' Thi s optio n woul d tak e approximatel y6 month s t o complete . Th e capita l cos t fo r thi s alternativ e i s estimate d t o be abou t $2,717,500 . The O&M cost s associated wit hthe alternativ e ar e estimate d t o be $49 , 000/year . The tota l presen t wort ho f the excavatio n an d landfil l alternativ e is , therefore , abou t $3,471,000 , assumin g a 30-year perio d an d a 5 % interes t rate . Alternativ e 3A : Excavatio n wit hOn s it e Landfil l Thi s alternativ e provide s fo r th e complet e excavatio n o f OU l materia l and onsit e landfilling . Th e excavate d materia l woul d b e place d onsit e i n a secur e landfil l (1.5-2. 0 acres ) locate d i n th e immediat e are a betwee n th e tw o existin g pi t areas . Typica l constructio n equipmen t woul d b e use d fo r landfil l constructio n and loading . Th e landfil l woul d b e line d wit ha two-foo t cla ybarrier , an

d tw o layer s o f HDP E line r wit hfilte r fabri c o n eac hside . Aone-foo t leak detectio n zon

e woul d be place d above the secondar yliner , an d a one-foo t thic k seepag e collectio n zon e woul d b e place d abov e the primar

yliner . Impacted soi l woul d be compacte d an d place d o n th e line r t o a dept ho f abou t 1 2 feet . Afte r al l impacte d soi l ha s bee n place d i n the landfill , a ca p woul d b e constructe d ove r th e landfill . Th e ca p woul d b e composed o f a two - foo t cla ybarrier , one laye r o f HDP E liner , a one-foo t drainag e layer , an d two fee t o f cove r soil . Afte r 

### the ca p i s constructed , the are a woul d be vegetate d fo r erosion control . Thi s alternativ e woul d tak e approximatel y5 month s t o complete . The capita l cos t fo r thi s option i s estimate d t o b e abou t $2,309,000 . Th e maintenanc e cost s associate d wit h i t ar e abou t $49,000/year . The tota l presen t wort ho f the excavatio n and landfil l alternativ e is , therefore , abou t $3,062,00 0 assuming a 30-year perio d an d a 5 % interes t rate .



# 30146 42 0

Alternativ e 3B t Excavatio n wit hSolidification/Fixatio n Treatmen t Onsit e Landfil l Thi s alternativ e provide s fo r th e complet e excavatio n o f OU 1 material / solidification/fixatio n o f th e sourc e materia l usin g fixin g agent s and landfillin g o f al l OU 1 materia l onsite . Th e metho d o f excavatio n an d landfillin g woul d b e identica l t o tha t discusse d fo r Alternativ e 3A ; howeve r th e sourc e materia l wil l b e solidifie d befor e landfilling . Solidification/fixatio n treatmen t o f OU 1 materia l (5,00 0 cubi c yards ) woul d b e performe d b yon e o f tw o methods . Th e simples t metho d woul d b e t o mi x a n appropriat e reagen t wit hth e materia l usin g typica l excavatin g equipmen t sucha s a bulldoze r o r backhoe . The secon d possibl e metho d woul d includ e excavating th e sourc e materia l an d mixin g i t wit ha n apppropriat e reagen t i n a pu g mill . Afte r solidifi

cation , th e materia l woul d b e transporte d t o th e onsit e landfill . I t woul d b e necessar yt o performtreatabilit y testing t o determin e th e reagen t tha t woul d b e bes t suite d fo r stabilizin g th e materia l befor e thi s alternativ e coul d b e implemented . Som

e fixin g agent s reac t chemicall ywit hth e ist e materia l an

d thu s chang e the chemica l make-u p o f the sultan t solid . Othe r solidifying agent s hav e onl ya physica l action , and merel yencas e th e wast e i n a soli d mixture . solidificatio n tha t involve s a chemica l reactio n woul d b e dferabl e becaus e th e toxicit yo f th e wast e materia l i s /educe d i n the process . The effectivenes s o f the solidifi

ratio n procedur e woul d als o be evaluate d durin g the treatabilit y Jtudyb yusing the TCL P metho d (EP AMetho d 1311 , 53£R18792 , la y24 , 1988) . Thi s alternativ e woul d tak e si x month s t o complete . Th e capita l cos t fo r thi s alternativ e i s estimate d t o be abou t $3,053,750 . The O&M cost s associated wit hthe alternativ e ar e estimate d t o be $49 , 000/year . Th e tota l presen t wort ho f thi s alternativ e i s abou t $3,807,00 0 assumin g a 30-yea

r period an d a 5 % interes t rate . Alternativ e 3 d Excavatio n an d Solidification/Fixatio n Treatmen t wit hQffsit e Landfil l Thi s alternative provide s fo r complet e excavatio n an d solidificatio n o f al l OU 1 materia l an d disposa l a t an offsit e landfill . Th e metho d o f excavatio n woul d b e identica l t o tha t discusse d fo r Alternativ e 3 Aan d solidification/fixatio n treatmen t woul d be identica l t o tha t described fo r Alter

nativ e 38 . The material s woul d be remove d an d place d i n a secur e offsit e landfill . Dum p truck s wit ha capacityo f 1 6 cubi c yard s woul d be employed . The transportation woul d b e performe d b

ylicense d haulers , an d appropriat e regulation s 

### woul d be me t fo r the transportatio n o f thes e type s o f wastes . Abou t 2,49 0 truc k load s ( @ 1 3 cubi c yards/truck ) woul d b e require d t o transpor t thi s materia l t o the landfill . 

# 30146 52 1

Th e excavate d materia l woul d b e take n t o a license d l , facilit ypermitte d t o handl e thes e material s i n a secur e ^^ ^ landfill . Th e facilit ywoul d hav e appropriat e stat e an d federa l permit s t o receiv e thes e materials . Thi s alternativ e woul d tak e 6 month s t o complete . Th e tota l presen t wort h fo r thi s alternativ e i s abou t $23,168,75 0 assumin g a 30-yea r perio d and a 5 % interes t rate . Alternativ e 4A : Excavatio n wit hOnsit e Incineratio n Thi s alternativ e deal s wit hcomplet e excavatio n o f OU 1 materia l and the n incineratio n i n a onsit e incineratio n unit . 'Fo

r the purpose s o f thi s evaluation , the incineratio n equipmen t i s assume d t o b e a renta l unit , an d th e estimate d volum e o f materia l t o b e treate d i s abou t 32,30 0 cubi c yards . Th e onsit e incineratio n equipmen t woul d consis t o f a primar yoxidatio n chambe r whic hwoul d hea t th e OU 1 materia l t o b e treated t o a

n operating temperatur e o f 1,500° F t o 2,000°F , whic hi s sufficien t t o driv e the PCOC s fro mthe material , and initiat e thei r therma l destruction . Secondary chambe r exhaus t i s processed throug ha hea t exchange r t o reduc e th e hea t conten t o f th e ga s stream . Hea t ma yb e re covere d i n th e for

mo f stea

mo r preheate d combustio n air . The cooled ga s i s treate d fo r particulat e matte r remova l and , wher e required , aci d gase s ar e reduce d througha we t scrubbin g V_ ytechnology .

Th e treatin g capacit yo f th e incineratio n proces s woul d be approximatel y5 0 t o 10 0 ton s pe r day . I t i s estimate d t o tak e 2 4 t o 4 8 month s base d on the 5 0 t o 10 0 ton s pe r da yrat e t o incinerat e th e 32,30 0 cubi c yards . Afte r incineratio n an d destructio n o f th e constituent s i n th e excavate d materials , iner t as hma

ybe replace d i n the excavate d zone s o f the site . Analysi s o f the as hdurin g laborator ytesting fo r compariso n t o EPAToxicit yCriteri a indicate d tha t as hfro mincineratio n o f th e Crai g Farmwast e materia l i s iner t an d non-toxic . Soil s fo r backfillin g and placin g a soi l cove r ove r th e excavate d area s wil l b e obtaine d onsite . Spreading an d compactin

g backfil l materia l wil l b e achieve d usin g a medium

sized doze r an

d self-propelled compactor . Thi s alternativ e woul d b e complete d withi n 4 years . Tota l capita l cos t fo r the excavatio n an

d onsit e incineratio n alternative i s approx imatel y$13,471,00 . O&M cost s associate d wit hthi s optio n ar e $49,000 , therefore , the tota l presen t wort hfo r Alternativ e 4Ai s $14,224,00 0 assumin g a 30-year perio d an d a 5 % interes t rate . 

# 30146 62 2

Operabl e Uni t 1 3 (OU3 ) - Seep s A& B downgradien t o f th e tw o disposa l pits . I n th e preliminar yscreenin g o f alternative s fo r OU3 , i t wa s determine d tha t th e aquife r supplyin g thes e seep s wa s no t ver yproductive . Therefore , an activ e collectio n an d treatmen t option / suc ha s a recover ywel l connecte d t o a n ai r stripper , wa s no t feasibl e fo r thi s operabl e unit , and wa s elimi

nate d i n th e preliminar yscreening . Th e alternative s tha t wer e determine d t o b e feasibl e fo r Operabl e Uni t 1 3 ar e a s follows : Alternativ e 1A : N o Actio n Thi s alternativ e woul d entai l n o actio n regardin g th e two seep s whic har e downgradien t o f the two disposa l pits . Ther e woul d b e n o cos t associate d wit hthi s alternativ e a s i t woul d no t involv e monitorin g o f th e seeps . Alternativ e 2A : See p Intercepto r Systeman d Offsit e Treatmen t Thi s alternativ e provide s fo r collectio n o f OU 3 wate r usin g an intercepto r syste man d transporting i t offsit e t o a treatmen t syste

mtha t i s capabl e o f handlin g wastewate r o f thi s type . Thi s wastewate r collection wil l continu e indefinitel yunti l th e remediatio n i s judge d complete . Th e judgemen t abou t th e completenes s o f th e remediatio n wil l b e don e b yperiodicall yanalyzin g th e wate r qualit yand toxicit y o f th e wastewate r usin g a bioassa ytes t fo r resorcino l approve d b

ythe EPA . Collectio n trenche s woul d b e installe d perpendicula r t o th e slop e severa l fee t abov e th e locatio n wher e Seep s Aand B appea r o n th e hil l side . Th e trenc hwoul d b e constructe d using conventiona l construction equipment . Eac htrenchwoul d b e approximatel y2 0 fee t long , 5 fee t deep , and 2 fee t wide . Th e exac t siz e o f th e trenche s wil l b e determine d durin g remedia l design . The trenche s woul d b e slope d t o on e sid e an d a conducting zon

e composed o f grave l an d perforate d pip e woul d be place d i n the trenches , t o collec t the OU 3 wate r an d channe l i t t o the sum p located o n the lowsid e o f the trench * Asum p pum p wit hleve l contro l woul d pum p th e wate r t o a 40,000gallo

n tan k providin g a minimumo f 1 0 day s storag e capacity . Apum

p truc k woul d collec t th e wate r onc e eac h wee k an d delive r i t t o the syste ma t a n offsit e treatmen t plant . Tota l capita l cos t fo r thi s alternativ e i s approxi

matel y$228,000 . O& M cost s associate d wit hthi s optio n ar e $75,000 , therefore , the tota l presen t wort hfo r the alternativ e i s $1,381,00 0 assuming a 30-year perio d an d a 5 % interes t rat e . 

# 30146 72 3



# . COMPARATIVE ANALYSI S O F ALTERNATIVE S I n evaluatin g remedia l alternatives , EPAevaluate s nin e specifi c criteria . Th e criteri a ar e explaine d and briefl y summarize d i n Tabl e 3 . Th e following sectio n describe s th e nin e evaluatio n criteri a and ho weac ho f th e alternative s compar e accordin g t o eac ho f thes e criteria . Th e criteria ' ar e analyze d firs t fo r OUl , an d the n fo r OU3 . 1) . Overal l Protectio n o f Huma n Healt hand th e Environmen t OU l Th e site' s mai n impac t i s o n th e environment ; it s impac t o n huma n healt hi s negligible . Excavatio n wit honsit e incineratio n woul d reduc e o r eliminat e th e potentia l advers e '•npac t o n Unname d Cree k an d th e surroundin g wetlands . Base d

- -reatabilit ytesting / th e as hwoul d b e o f qualit ysuitabl e --incorporatio n o n th e site . Alternativ e 3 C woul d als o : th e advers e impac t o n th e environment . Th e materia l 3 place d of f site , s o tha t futur e remediatio n i s y . Solidificatio n treatmen t and onsit e landfil l .s o reduc e o r eliminat e the advers e impac t t o the environment . However , thi s remed ywoul d no t eliminat e ^sibilit yo f futur e remediatio n i f th e line r o r ca p : and th e solidificatio n proces s failed . Th e remainin g .native s (2A,2B,3A ) woul d be eve n mor e likel yt o requir e -:Lne r remediation . OU 3 Collectio n o f th e OU 3 water , an d transporting i t of f sit e reduce s PCOC migratio n b ydecreasing PCOC concentration s a t the site . 2) . Complianc e Wit hARAR s OU l Al l o f th e alternative s woul d mee t ARARs , and n o waiver s woul d b e required . Th e wast e materia l i s a CERCL Ahazardou s substance , bu t i t i s no t a RCR Ahazardou s waste . Certai n RCR A regulations , specifie d i n Tabl e 7 , althoughno t applicable , ar e relevan t an

d appropriate . Th e onsit e landfillin g alter

native s woul d hav e t o mee t RCR Adesig n standard s fo r landfills . Th e incinerato r optio n woul d hav e t o mee t RCR Arequirement s regarding incinerators . The offsit e landfilling option woul d hav e t o mee t Hazardou s Material s Transportatio n regulations . RCR AClosur e an

d Post-Closur e woul d requir e dee d notice s an d long-ter mmonitoring . Th e Executiv e Orde r o n Protectio n o f Wetland s i s applicable , becaus e ther e ar e wetland s onsite . 

### An yremedia l action s mus t b e done withou t adversel yimpacting th e wetlands . Th e proposed landfil l mus t b e a minimumo f 30 0 fee t fro mth e wetland s becaus e o f th e RCR Asitin g criteri a regardin g wetlands . Th e Occupationa l Safet yand Healt hAc t 

### woul d be applicabl e i n terms o f protecting the safetyo f worker s durin g an

yremedia l action . 

# 30146 82 4

Tabl e 3 . DESCRIPTIO NO F EVALUATIONCRITERI A Overal l Protection o f Huma n Healt han d th e Environmen t - addresse s whethe r o r no t a remed ywill : cleanu

p a sit e t o withi n th e ris k range ; resul t i n an yunacceptabl e impacts ; contro l the inheren t hazard s (e.g. , toxicit yan d mobility ) associate d wit ha site ; an d minimiz e th e short-ter mimpact s associated ' wit hcleanin g u p th e site . Complianc e wit hARAR' s - addresse s whethe r o r no t a remed y wil l mee t al l o f the applicabl e o r relevan t an d appropriat e requirement s o f othe r environmenta l statue s and/o r provid e ground s fo r invokin g a waiver . Long-ter mEffectivenes s an

d Permanenc e - refer s t o the abilit yo f a remed

yt o maintai n reliabl e protectio n o f huma n healt hand th e environmen t ove r time onc e cleanu p goal s hav e bee n met . Reductio n o f Toxicity , Mobility , o r Volum e throughTreatmen t - refer s t o the anticipate d performanc e o f the treatmen t technologie s tha t ma

yb e employe d i n a remedy . Short-ter

mEffectivenes s - refer s t o th e perio d o f time neede d t o achiev e protection , an d an yadvers e impact s o n huma n healt han

d the environmen t tha t ma yb e posed durin g the constructio n and implementatio n perio d unti l cleanu p goal s ar e achieved . Implementabilit y- describe s th e technica l and administrativ e feasibilit yo f a remedy , includin g th e availabilit yo f material s an d service s neede d t o implemen t th e chose n solution . Cos t - include s th e capita l fo r materials , equipment , etc . and th e operatio n and maintenanc e costs * Suppor t Agenc yAcceptanc e - indicate s whether , based o n it s 

### revie wo f the RI , F S an d the Propose

d Plan , the Stat e concur s with , opposes , o r ha s n o commen t o n the preferre d alternative . Communit yAcceptanc e - wil l b e assessed i n the Record o f Decisio n followin

g a revie wo f th e publi c comment s receive d o n th e RI , FS , an

d th e Proposed Plan .



# 30146 92 5

^ ou 3

The wastewate r collectio n an d treatmen t syste

mwoul d b e operated t o ensur e complianc e wit hchemical-specifi c ARAR s (Se e Tabl e 5) . 3) . Long-Ter

mEffectivenes s OU 1 Th e mos t effectiv e optio n long-terr a i s th e incineratio n option . Alternativ e 3 8 ha s good long-ter meffectivenes s becaus e i f th e containmen t syste mfailed , th e sourc e materia l woul d b e bound up / an d th e impac t o n huma n healt han d th e environmen t woul d b e minimal . Th e othe r treatmen t option s woul d als o be effectiv e lon g term , especiall yi f the sit e i s properl ymaintained . OU 3 Collection an

d treatmen t o f OU 3 wate r wil l provid e •^mediatio n o f tha t wate r unti l i t i s n o longe r necessary .

. Reductio n i n Toxicity , Mobility , Volum e

• J . Excavatio n wit honsit e incineratio n woul d resul t i n permanen t reductio n i n toxicity , mobilit yan d volume o f th e

. organi c PCOC's . Excavatio n wit hsolidificatio n an d onsit e ^— / '.andfillin

g woul d als o reduc e mobilit yo f th e PCOC's . I t la yo r ma yno t als o reduc e volume an d toxicitydepending on the solidificatio n process . Som e solidification s increas e the volume o f the wast e material , an d som e decreas e it . Som

e solidication s decreas e the toxicityo f the wast e material , an d som e do no t effec t the toxicityo f the wast e material . The mos t likel yscenari o i s tha t the volume o f the wast e materia l woul d increase , an

d th e toxicit ywoul d b e reduced . Excavatio n an d landfillin g woul d reduc e th e mobilit yo f site-relate d contaminants . Cappin g an d slurr ywall s woul d reduc e mobility . No actio n woul d no t reduc e toxicity , mobilit yo r volume . OU 3 The collectio

n an d treatmen t o f the contaminate d wate r fro mth e tw o seep s woul d reduc e th e mobilit yo f th

e PCOCs . N o actio n woul d no t reduc e toxicity , mobilit yo r volume . 5) . Short-ter

mEffectivenes s OU l The slurr

ywal l an

d ca p coul d be complete d i n four months , and th e materia l woul d b e contained . Excavation , solidificatio n and onsit e landfil l woul d b e complete d i n si x month s and woul d b e a permanen t treatmen t o f th e waste . Excavatio n and incineratio n woul d tak e 4 year s t o complete , \ ^ s o it s short-ter meffectivenes s woul d be low . N o short-ter

m reductio n i n PCOC' s can b e associate d wit hthe n o actio n 

### alternative . 

# 30147 02 6

OU 3 Constructio n o f th e collectio n and offsit e treatmen t alternativ e woul d b e complete d i n approximatel yon e month , however , collectio n and treatmen t woul d continu e indefinitely . 6) . Implementabilit y OU 1 ' Al l o f th e alternative s propose d fo r thi s sit e can b e easil yimplemented . Fo r th e solidificatio n options , i t woul d b e necessar

yt o performtreatabilit ytest s t o determin e th e mos t effectiv e metho d o f solidification . Th e onsit e incineratio n i s th e mos t difficul t o f th e treatmen t option s t o implement . OU 3 Th e collectio n and offsit e treatmen t optio n coul d b e easil yimplemented . Acces s woul d b e n o problem , an d th e required equipmen t i s readil yavailable . 7) . Cos t 

## our The mos t inexpensiv e treatmen t optio n i s in-sit u treatmen t wit hslurr

ywalls . Alternativ e 3 B i s onl ymarginall ymor e expensive ; i t cost s aprroximatel y$400,00 0 mor e tha n in-sit u treatment . Incineratio n and offsit e landfillin g ar e substan

tiall ymor e expensive , a t $14. 2 an d $23. 9 millio n respectively . A n importan t consideratio n a t thi s sit e regardin g cos t i s that , wit hth e ris k t o huma n healt hbein g low , th e mor e expensiv e remedie s ar e difficul t t o justify . 8) . Stat e Acceptanc e - The PADE R concur s wit hthe remed y selection a t thi s site . Acop yo f th e state' s concurrenc e lette r i s attached . 9) . Communit yAcceptanc e - Communit yinteres t i s lowa t thi s site. Asingl e lette r containe d th e onl ywritte n comment s receive d durin g th e publi c commen t period . Apubli c meetin g wa s held , an

d i t lasted approximatel y9 0 minutes . I n general , th e citizen s seemed intereste d i n havin g th e sit e remediate d a s soo n a s possible . Th e citizen s di d no t appea r interested , however , i n the detail s o f the selecte d remedy . Al l signifi

can t comment s ar e addresse d i n th e attache d Responsivenes s Summary .



# 30147 12 7

: DESCRIPTIO NO F TH E SELECTE D REMED Y Base d upo n consideratio n o f the requirement s o f CERCLA , th e detaile d evaluatio n o f th e alternatives , and publi c comments , EP Aha s determine d tha t Alternativ e 3 B (Excavation , Solidification/Fixatio n Treatmen t Onsit e Landfill ) fo r Operabl e Uni t t l i n combinatio n wit h Alternativ e 2 A(See

p Intercepto r Systeman d Offsit e Treatment ) fo r Operabl e Uni t 1 3 i s th e mos t appropriat e remed y fo r th e Crai g FarmSit e i n Perr yTownship , Pennsylvania . Approximatel y32,00 0 cubi c yard s o f contaminate d soi l and sourc e materia l wil l b e excavate d fro mth e tw o sourc e * pits . Atreatabilit ystud yo f th e solidificatio n procedur e wil l b e done , and it s effectivenes s wil l b e evaluate d usin g th e TCL P prio r t o th e .full-scal e remedia l action . Th e result s o f thi s stud ywil l b e submitte d t o EPAan d PADE R fo r revie wan

d comment . I f th e solidificatio n procedur e i s no t foun d t o b e effective , the n othe r remedia l alternative s wil l be considered . I f the solidificatio n procedur e i s effectiv e i n th e treatabilit ystudy , th e sourc e materia l wil l the n b e solidified , and th e solidifie d wast e and th e contaminate d soi l wil l b e place d i n a double-line d landfill . Al l soi l aroun d th e two disposa l pit s containin g detectabl e level s o f resorcino l wil l b e place d i n th e landfill . Th e pit s wil l b e excavate d unti l ther e ar e no longe r an ydetectabl e level s o f \^_^ / resorcino l i n the soil .

Fil l materia l wil l be place d i n the excavate d areas , and a minimumo f si xinche s o f soi l cove r wil l b e place d o n top o f th e fil l materia l t o suppor t vegetation . Th e landfil l wil l b e -line d wit ha two-foo t cla ybarrier , an

d two layer s o f line r wit hfilte r fabri c o n eac hside . Aone-foo t leak detectio n zon

e woul d b e place d abov e th e secondar yline r an d a one-foo t thic k seepag e collectio n zone wil l b e place d abov e th e primaryliner . Afte r al l impacte d soi l ha s bee n place d i n th e landfill , a cap woul d b e constructe d ove r th e landfill . Th e ca p wil l b e composed o f a two-foo t cla y barrier , on e laye r o f liner , one-foo t drainag e area , an d two fee t o f cove r soil . Afte r the ca p i s constructed , the are a woul d be vegetate d fo r erosion control . The selected remed

yals o include s collection an d treatmen t o f th e groundwate r vi a a seep intercepto r system . 

### Collectio n trenche s wil l b e installe d perpendicula r t o th e slope severa l fee t above th e location wher e Seep s Aan d B appea r o n th e hil l side . Eac htrenc hwil l b e approximatel y twentyfee t long , fiv e fee t dee p an d two fee t wide . Th e flow rat e fro mth e tw o seep s i s approximatel y400 0 gallon s pe r day . Asum

p pum p wit hleve l contro l woul d pum p th e wate r t o a 40,00 0 gallo n tan

k providin g a minimumo f 1 0 day s storag e i time . Apum p truc k woul d collec t th e wate r onc e a wee k an d ^- ^ transpor t i t t o an offsit e wate r treatmen t plant . Thi s 

# 3014t 82 8

collectio n and treatmen t o f th e contaminate d wate r wil l ^_ > continu e indefinitel yunti l th e remediatio n i s judge d t o b e

complete . Th e completenes s o f th e remedywil l b e determined . b yusin g a bioassa

ytestin g procedur e tha t i s approve d b yth e EPA . Aground wate r verificatio n stud ywil l als o b e don e t o determin e whethe r o r no t th e ground wate r (bothon - and . offsite) , no t bein g addresse d i n th e selecte d remed yneed s an yfurthe r remediation . I f additiona l groun d wate r remediatio n i s required , i t wil l b e considere d a separat e operabl e unit , and wil l b e addresse d i n a subsequen t RO D fo r thi s site . Some change s mayb e mad e t o th e remed ya s a resul t o f th e remedia l desig n and constructio n process . Suc hchange s i n genera l wil l reflec t modification s resultin g fro mth e engineerin g desig n process . PPLICABL E O R RELEVAN T AN D APPROPRIAT E REQUIREMENT S rtio n 12 1 o f CERCLA , 4 2 U.S.C . Sectio n 9621 , require s .tedia l action s compl ywit happlicabl e o r relevan t an d lat e requirement s (ARARs ) o f promulgate d federa l an d 

### i , laws .

Arequiremen t mayb e eithe r "applicable " o r "relevan t and appropriate " t o a remedia l action . Applicabl e requirement s ar e cleanu p standards / criteria / o r requirement s establishe d unde r federa l o r stat e lawtha t specificall y addres s a hazardou s substance , pollutant , contaminant , remedia l action , location , o r othe r circumstance s a t a CERCLA site . Relevan t an

d appropriat e requirement s ma yno t b e "applicable " t o a hazardou s substance , pollutant , contaminant , remedia l action , location , o r othe r circumstanc e a t a CERCL A site , bu t mayaddres s problem s o r situation s sufficientl y simila r t o thos e encountere d a t the CERCL Asite . ARAR s ar e divide d int o thre e separat e group s o f requirements * chemical-specific , location-specific , and action

specific . Chemical-specifi c ARAR s ar e requirement s whic hse t healt ho r risk-based concentratio n limit s o r range s fo r specifi c hazardou s substances , pollutants , o r contaminants . Maximu mContaminan t Level s (MCLs ) ar e example s o f chemical

specifi c ARARs . Location-specifi c ARAR s se t restriction s o n activitie s base d upo n the characteristic s o f the sit e and/o r the immediat e environs . Example s o f thi s typ e o f ARA R includ e federa l an

d stat e sitin g laws fo r hazardou s wast e 

### facilitie s an

d site s o n the Nationa l Registe r o f Histori c Places . Th e third classificatio n o f ARARs , action-specific , ^ ^ refer s t o the requirement s tha t contro l remedia l activitie s

selecte d t o accomplis ha remedy . RCR Aregulation s fo r 

# 30147 32 9

closur e o f hazardou s wast e storag e units , RCR Aincineratio n standards , and pretreatmen t standard s unde r th e Clea n Wate r Ac t fo r discharge s t o wastewate r treatmen t plant s ar e example s o f action-specifi c ARARs . Chemical-Specifi c ARAR s A s previousl ystated , chemical-specifi c ARAR s se t healt h o r risk-base d concentratio n .limit s o r range s fo r specifi c hazardou s substances , pollutants , and/or contaminants . Base d o n th e result s o f th e Remedia l Investigation , chemica l specifi c ARAR s fo r air-relate d impact s wer e no t considered . Tabl e 4 i s a lis t o f th e stat e chemical-specifi c ARARs , and Tabl e 5 i s a lis t o f th e federa l chemical-specifi c ARAR s identifie d fo r the Crai g Far msite . Tabl e 6 shows the limit s fo r th e PCOC s unde r th e chemical-specifi c ARARS . Location-Specifi c ARAR s Location-specifi c ARAR s ar e requirement s tha t se t restriction s on activitie s based upo n the characteristic s o f th e sit e and immediat e environs . Tabl e 4 include s a revie w o f stat e location-specifi c ARARs . Federa l location-specifi c ARAR s ar e liste d i n Tabl e 5 . Action-Specifi c ARAR s ARAR s fo r the developmen t o f the remedia l action alternative s unde r consideratio n fo r th e Crai g FarmSit e ca n als o b e divide d i n stat e an d federa l ARARs . Tabl e 7 set s fort hfedera l action-specifi c ARARs , an d stat e action

specifi c ARAR s can be foun d i n Tabl e 4 . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e RCR ALan d Disposa l Restriction s foun d a t 4 0 CF

R Section 26 8 appl yonlyt o RCR Ahazardou s waste s tha t ar e lan

d dispose d o r place d afte r th e effectiv e dat e o f the restrictions . The wast e presen t a t the Crai g Far mSit e i s a CERCL

Ahazardou s substance , no t a RCR Ahazardou s waste , s o the Lan

d Disposa l Restriction s ar e no t applicable . Further , EP Aha s determine d tha t the wast e i s no t simila r enought o a RCR Awast e t o mak e Lan

d Disposa l Restriction s relevan t an d appropriate . Thus , Lan d Disposa l Restriction s ar e no t ARARs .



# 30147 4I 3 C O I C O 0 > » 1 3 H D ) H - < H . m 

# F l



# & w

r r H n fi ) ( D O K 3 0 a O f t

. , r r i n ~ r i w o o

e n e

n



# § ~: | ? 

# C Mr

• « » e o » <

K > ro ro

in e

n

r r r r O T O T O O

rr O »« J r r (—"O S ( D H * T O 5 S n S e n • • fa ^ ^ J 1 0 K - e n C

*- * ^1 7 

# i ? ? i ' 

# 5*

f f M » P f f H » T O 0 ) < T T

O Q fl ) l" 1 O • H * n O O H * H * 3 H * O C D p ( a M< Q 0 > O W H - ( D C 

## »^RS * 3 * ff i t- 1 n• a ) < o We - r t • O . CO 

# ff

r r H - i

o i

_ H* 3 O I 3 S e n r n O W

S 3 c

tf . r r

r r

i ^ 

# gsr p o > < o n j ft i 

# r1 !

o 

# 30147 5

# § r» - 

### C

o S T

X e - p > x " - H *C T

* O » X r r 

### SB '

O » X 

### R



### 7 <T g j r- c h* . 5 " a S



## 0 U ) 

### £ I

O *-jj f O C O K>U > £ 3 & o %f e nfi ) 0 1 "'- ' O « o -,*- P M G o o c

H-rrQJj«-{Tift 3 S O" W 3 rt i P J 3 O w 5 O f c > (Q& O E O f c £ 5 O <T—«.*llp»Qr l wtfr r X R f r ar t ( 0 et » C j u D . rr O t o

" " - « r p n . _^ o § S o



### < O i

— w*- » a t o «•- • t f 0 5 C r r

f f « B 

### h^



## SJ P " frel » " frig.8 1 ns- Re-sn-f i traS. ^ »^- 5 0 ) * 2 * e Q C T f f | to Q * n F 

### ST3 . • » « o s ^ ^ x 

# Eg - H < Q r r S D ) w r r 3 g-r r 

## 8 * 

# s r

e

n

• ^ R

< H - 

# § e sr^ g i^| <

r r 

# 30147 6

# I P 

# &

;

* 8, 1



# • £ e ? !

> £ S P e

«• • I X - ^ 

# I ff j ; < * t ^ i 

### *^^ " " ~ ~ i ss«t«a > a i s s s e- o s _ 

## .tfr i ." ? "frl

- "t 5 

# B-rrM B 3 2

i i i' i i ii i 

# 18

E b i' g i l l l l i i o i i 

## l e • e 9 0 

# a 

# e

K T^I W r« » t t ^ TM

>

a *Z i ** . K_>W>C3»>>2_'vl^^-f *

^ ' " " g " gS 5 = U f * ' 

## 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1 II I 1 p 1 

# L

i 

# w g p 

# i s 

# 1 

# I

-

•o



# r g S "" * 

# 30147 73 T rt > c r & ^ \ r ? « * w<* T ^w*^* T G . ( D & NJ UD > t o 3 0 > S , C O 0 ) H- . 0 > 2 C P ft > ? 5 r r r e 3 r r c o r r » {? • 3 J

S P 1 <D i- l Q . " d ( D C Q » O N 5 

# a gR a & a CO 1 0 f f CO Q W

- - " n

CT5^-Sl. « Rff^SE'l R ^ ^ P-P- 3 5 CTB ^ f t e > « C r h*

- wQ6V< c mH'rrrrpff i t t p sffl'tvr r fi t vn O ( u ( p i3fi)3r<Di0 B &>** • « • « - * K f e Pfr._?%wZ i 1 5 I - I D r r 8 arrr n 

# E ft ! 6 T r f ^

J J t! > f \ « ^ B /S ' 5 » >S ~ Q ? t 1 ^

• f t E g

. 8 g 0 c o o e - a O



### P ? F » ^ e\ co

- j • * 3 ^ D ^ 3 

# S I S

ro

f f

^'OSSR'SS i QtB»CG"»"' M QBOO & fitt^ . pHfljcond ' {*ooH»" » >tEfi»R»Pi- i B^ O SI " S** e ffl S i S S - S ffft^J?" * * f f • -

4

----- - —---- - —B<6 ) 

# p^Sff l "» E ;8Ss S .ffSflf g Ers - 30147 8



# "II I H

( 0 3 * 

# If f 

# sr a

n



# I t al f iS S' R f f * 5*ft * s o B 5 a t o z g-fi . M.S. Q • 

# I *



# I I [j-i.f r 5

0 ) t- > r r fi j rt w3 X .3 5

STATUTOR

Y DETERMINATION S Protectio n o f Huma n Healt hand th e Environmen t Th e selecte d remed

ywoul d greatl yreduc e o r eliminat e potentia l migratio n o f PCOC's , thereb yreducin g th e potentia l fo r impact s o n Unname d Cree k o r th e surroundin g wetlands . Th e sit e presentl y ha s littl e o r n o impac t o n huma n health . Thi s huma n healt hris k woul d be eve n lowe r afte r the selected remed yi s implemented . Th e excavatio n proces s woul d b e controlle d t o ensur e tha t fugitiv e dus t emission s an

d subsequen t inhalatio n b ynearb yresident s woul d b e minimized . Th e implementatio n o f th e remed ywil l no t pos e unacceptabl e short-ter mrisk s o r advers e cross-medi a impacts . Cost-Effectivenes s Th e selecte d remed

yi s cost-effectiv e becaus e i t ha s bee n etermine d t o provid e overal l effectivenes s proportiona l t o it s ost , th e ne t presen t valu e bein g $4,479,000 . Th e estimate d jst s o f the selected remed yar e withi n an orde r o f magnitud e : th e cost s associate d wit honsit e land f illin g o f th e sourc e .aterial , an

d ye t th e selecte d remed yassure s a muc hhighe r degre e o f certaint ytha t th e remed ywil l b e effectiv e i n th e lon g terra du e t o th e reductio n o f th e toxicit yan d mobilit y o f th e waste s achieve d throughsolidificatio n o f th e waste s prio r t o land f illing . Whil e th e selecte d remed yeffectivel y reduce s the hazard s posed b yal l o f the contaminant s a t the site / i t cost s approximatel y$1 0 millio n les s tha n th e onsit e incineratio n alternative . Additionally / th e cost-efficiency wil l b e furthere d b

yvalu e engineerin g conducte d durin g th e remedia l design . Treatabilit ytesting t o determin e th e optima l reagen t and it s concentratio n fo r th e solidificatio n wil l als o improv e cost-efficiencyo f the remedy . Utilizatio n o f Permamen t Solution s t o th e MaximumExten t Practicabl e : EP Aha s determine d tha t the selected remed yrepresent s th e maximumexten t t o whic hpermanen t solutio n and treatmen t technologie s can b e utilize d i n a cost-effective manne r fo r the Crai g Far

mSite . O f thos e alternative s tha t ar e protectiv e o f huma n healt han

d the environmen t an

d compl ywit hARARs / EPA ha s determine d tha t th e selecte d remed yprovide s th e bes t balanc e o f tradeoff s i n term s o f long-ter meffectivenes s an

d permanence / reductio n i n toxicity / mobility / o r volum e achieve d throughtreatment / short-terr a effectiveness / impleraentability , cost , an d als o considerin

g the statutor

ypreferenc e fo r treatmen t a s a principa l element . 

# 30148 03 6

Whil e th e selecte d remed ydoe s no t offe r a s hig ha degre e o f ( ^ long-terr a effectivenes s an d permanenc e a s the incineratio n alter

native , i t wil l significantl yreduc e th e inheren t hazard s posed b yth e sourc e materia l throughstabilizatio n suc htha t th e residua l materia l tha t remain s t o b e manage d ca n b e containe d wit ha hig hdegre e o f certaint yove r th e lon g term . Sinc e th e remainin g materia l wil l b e bound up / eve n i f th e containmen t syste mwer e t o fail , th e impac t o n huma n healt hand th e envi

ronmen t woul d b e minimal . Th e selecte d remed

ytreat s th e principa l threat s pose d b yth e sourc e material s an

d soil s onl yslightl yles s effectivel ytha n th e incineration . Th e selecte d remed yi s a s leas t a s effectiv e a s al l th e al l othe r treatmen t option s i n th e short-term , requirin g onl ysi xmonth s t o implemen t a s oppose d t o possibl yfour year s fo r incineration . The implementabilit yo f the selected remed y i s comparabl e t o th e non-treatmen t options , an d significantl y bette r tha n the incineratio n option . The selected remed yi s als o on e o f th e two leas t expensiv e treatmen t options , an d cost s significantl yles s than bot hincineratio n an d offsit e disposal . The selection o f treatmen t o f the sourc e materia l i s consisten t wit hprogramexpectation s tha t indicat e tha t toxi c and mobil e waste s ar e a priorit yfo r treatmen t and ofte n necessar y t o ensur e th e long-ter meffectivenes s o f a remedy . Th e majo r tradeoff s tha t provid e th e basi s fo r thi s selectio n decisio n

. ar e short-ter meffectiveness , implementability , and cost . Th e N ^ selecte d remed yha s bette r long-ter meffectivenes s tha n in-sit u treatmen t whic hi s th e onl yothe r treatmen t remed ytha t i s les s expensive . Excavation , solidificatio n and onsit e land

fillin g (3B ) i s therefor e determine d t o be the mos t appropriat e solutio n fo r th e Crai g FarmSite . Preferenc e fo r Treatmen t Bytreating th e sourc e materia l wit ha solidification / stabilizin g reagent , the selected remed yaddresse s one o f the principa l threat s pose d b ythe sit e throughthe us e o f treat men t technologies . Therefore , the statutor ypreferenc e fo r remedie s tha t emplo

ytreatmen t a s a principa l elemen t i s satisfied .



# 30148 13 7 FINAL RESPONSIVENES S SUMMAR Y FO R TH E CRAI G FAR M SIT E PERR Y TOWNSHIP , PENNSYLVANI A Th e U.S . EPAestablishe d a publi c commen t perio d fro m Augus t 25 , 196 9 throughSeptembe r 25 , 198 9 on the Remedia l Investigatio n and Feasibilit yStud y(RI/FS ) and th e Propose d Pla n fo r th e Crai g FarmSit e i n Perr yTownship , Pennsylvania . The RI/F S an

d othe r site-relate d document s utilize d b ythe EPAt o selec t a preferre d remedia l alternativ e ar e include d i n the sit e repositor yan d hav e bee n availabl e t o the publi c sinc e th e beginnin g o f th e publi c commen t period . Th e purpos e o f thi s Responsivenes s Summaryi s t o summariz e comment s o n thes e document s a s expresse d b yloca l residents , an d othe r intereste d partie s durin g th e publi c meeting , and t o provid e EPA' s response s t o the comments . The onlywritte n comment s tha t wer e receive d durin g th e publi c commen t perio d wa s a singl e lette r fro

mBeazer . The EPAresponse s t o the comment s i n th e lette r ar e liste d afte r th e response s fromth e publi c meeting . Summaryo f Majo r Comment s an d EPAResponse s Apubli c meetin g wa s hel d o n th e Proposed Plan a t th e Petroli a Fir e Hal l on Septembe r 13 , 198 9 a t 7:0 0 P.M . Thos e attendin g th e meetin g include d representative s fro m EPA , PADER , an

d approximatel y2 0 member s o f th e genera l public . During th e meeting , EPAstaf f presente d an overvie w o f th e backgroun

d o f th e site , th e natur e an d exten t o f contamination , th e alternative s tha t hav e bee n considere d fo r sit e contamination , an d EPA' s preferre d alternativ e fo r remediatin g th e source s o f contamination . Following th e presentation , EP

Astaf f answered question s fro mthe citizen s abou t th e site . Question s receive d durin g th e meetin g ar e summarize d belowan d ar e categorize d int o th e following topics : 1 ) Responsibl e Part

yInvolvement ; 2 ) Exten t o f Contamination ; 3 ) Potentia l Healt hHazards ; 4 ) Sit e Remediation ; 5 ) Miscellaneous . Eac hcommen t i s followed b yEPA' s response . Al l significan t question s and comment s mad e durin g th e publi c meetin g ar e include d i n thi s responsivenes s summary . Acomplet e transcrip t o f th e meetin g i s availabl e fo r publi c revie wa s par t o f th e Administrativ e Record establishe d fo r thi s sit e a t the Karn s CityAre a HighSchool , Karn s City , Pennsylvania . 1) . Responsibl e Part yInvolvemen t - 

### Severa l question s wer e asked abou t the responsibl e party , an

d thei r rol e i n bot hth e RI/FS , an d th e futur e remediatio n o f th e site . Citizen s wer e concerne d abou t on i 4o n th e responsibl e party' s abilit yt o properl yremediat e th e O0148 2 site . EPAstaf f explaine d tha t th e responsibl e part y performe d the RI/FS unde r the directio n an d supervisio n3 8

o f bot hth e EPAan

d PADER . An

yfutur e remediation , i f 

### performe d b

yth e responsibl e party , woul d als o b e performe d unde r th e same supervision . Exten t o f Contaminatio n 

### 2 ) Acitize n aske d ho wfa r th e contaminatio n extende d fro mth e tw o disposa l pit s o n th e Crai g FarmSite * EP Astaf f . explaine d th e exten t o f contamination , and als o sai d tha t th e contaminant s i.ro mth e sit e di d no t i n an ywayimpac t th e Alleghen yRiver . Huma n Healt hThrea t 3 ) Aquestio n wa s aske d abou t th e huma n healt hris k tha t i s associate d wit hth e site . EPAstaf f explaine d tha t th e site' s 

### impac t o n huma n healt hi s negligible . EPAstaf f als o advise d th e citizen s no t t o drin k wate r fro mth e Unname d Creek . -. £ Remediatio n questio n wa s aske d abou t ho wlon g i t woul d b e befor e th e remediated . EPAstaf f explaine d tha t th e remedia l 

### d remedia l actio n woul d b e complete d i n approximatel y

xneou s Acitize n aske d abou t th e possibl e interactio n o f severa l



### . rcun d site s whic har e al l locate d nea r Petrolia , Penn -

. ivania . EP

Astaf f responded b

ysayin g tha t i t i s ver

y unlikel ytha t th e site s woul d interac t i n suc ha manne r t o presen t a huma n healt hrisk . I t wa s als o mentione d tha t thi s typ e o f interaction ha s no t bee n studie d i n tha t area . Writte n Comment s and EPAResponse s Beaze r wrot e tha t th e separatio n o f th e sit e int o thre e 

### operabl e unit s neede d furthe r clarification . Theyals o adde d a n explanatio n o f wha t the yfel t wa s i n eac ho f the operabl e units . The EP

Ai s i n agreemen t wit hBeaze r a s t o the separatio n o f the sit e int o thre e operabl e units , an d the definitio n o f eachunit . Beaze r als o wante d t o clarif ythe lengt ho f time tha t the OU 3 wate r wil l be collected an d treated . The EP

A respons e i s tha t thi s remediatio n wil l continu e unti l judge d complet e usin g a bioassa ytes t approve d b

yth e EPAand PADER . 

### Beaze r wante d als o expres s an opinio n abou t th e groun d wate r verificatio n study . The groun d wate r verificatio n stud ywil l b e don e t o determin e i f an yadditiona l ground wate r remediatio n i s necessar ya t thi s site . 

# 30148 3Beaze r Materaj s an

a services . Inc . AMembe r o f THE BEAZER GROUP Environmenta l Services 43 6 Sevent hAvenue , Pittsburgh , PR . 1521 9 Phone:412-227-250 0 Fkx : 412-227-2042

Septembe r 25 , 198 9

Mr . Stephe n R . Wassersu g Hazardou s Hast e Managemen t Divisio n USEPARegio n II I 

### 84 1 Chestnu t Stree t Philadelphia , Pennsylvani a 1910 7 

### Re : Comment s o f Beaze r Material s an d Services , Inc . Regardin g th e Crai g FarmSit e Propose d Remedia l Actio n Pla n ______________ . _______ _ 

### Dea r Mr . Wassersug : Beaze r Material s an d Services , Inc . (BM&S ) hereb y submit s comment s wit hregar d t o th e Propose d Remedia l Actio n 

### Plan (the Plan ) date d Augus t 22 , 198 9 fo r th e Crai g FarmSit e i n PerryTownship , Armstrong County , Pennsylvania . BM& S generall y i s i n agreemen t wit hth e Proposed Plan a s se t fort hb yEPA Regio n II I wit hth e exception s note d below . I n addition , a numbe r o f point s raise d generall yi n th e Plan requir e clarificatio n base d o n th e technica l consideration s addresse d i n the Remedia l Investigatio n (RI ) an d Feasibilit yStud y(FS ) 

### prepare d fo r thi s Site . Operabl e Uni t i l 

### The Plan provide s tha t Operabl e Uni t f l (OU1 ) consist s o f th e distillatio n residu e materia l i n eac hpi t are a and th e adjacen t contaminate d soils . BM& S agree s wit hthi s identificatio n o f the exten t o f OU1 . an d the preferre d alternativ e fo r addressin g thes e materials . However , BM& S believe s tha t stabilization shoul d b e limite d t o th e distillatio n residu e materia l whic hwa s estimate d i n th e F S t o be approximatel y500 0 cubi c yards . Non-residu e material s shoul d 

# 30148 4 Writer * Direct Dial __________Mr . Stephe n R . Wassersu g

Septembe r 25 , 198 9 Pag e 2

no t b e require d t o b e stabilize d b yth e Recor d o f Decisio n (ROD) . Operabl e Uni t * 2 ' .

Operabl e Uni t # 2 (O02 ) i s define d a s th e remainin g portio n o f eachpi t are a no t define d a s OU 1 material , mainl y overburde n and adjoinin g soil s tha t ar e determine d analyticall y t o b e "clean" . BM& S agree s wit hEPA' s descriptio n -o f th e operabl e unit . Wit hregar d t o th e requiremen t tha t overburde n 

### and soil s b e determine d analyticall yt o b e "clean" , BM& S believe s tha t becaus e th e materia l i n OU 2 ha s no t bee n demonstrate d t o hav e healt ho r environmenta l impact , a practicall ybase d cleanu p leve l fo r OU 2 material s shoul d b e 

### 5 0 ppmresorcino l althoug hbase d upo n th e huma n healt hand environmenta l risk s examine d i n th e RI/F S an appropriat e cleanu p 

### eve l woul d b e muc hgreate r tha n 5 0 ppm . Thi s recommendatio n i s ised upo n the followin g factors :

• 5 0 ppmi s th e lowes t quantifiabl e detectio n limi t 

### rove n fo r resorcino l a t thi s time ;

• Th e lack o f healt ho r environmenta l ris k ha s bee n 

### documente d fo r level s o f resorcino l i n soil s tha t greatl yexcee d the 5 0 pp

mlimit . See , e.g. . Chapte r 9. 0 o f the R I fo r the Crai g Far mSit e (the Publi c Healt hand Environmenta l Assessmen t 

### documen t ) . BM& S wishe s t o clarif ytha t th e languag e o f th e preferre d alternativ e o n pag e 7 o f th e Plan shoul d includ e th e approac hadopte d b

yth e descriptio n include d i n Alternativ e 2 A 

### describe d immediatel yabov e the preferre d alternativ e o n pag e 7 . 

### A s contemplate d i n th e Plan , BM& S wil l plac e OU 2 materia l bac k int o th e pit s fo r appropriat e grading , coverin g and vegetation . Operabl e Uni t f 3 . . 

### Operabl e Uni t 1 3 (OU3 ) i s describe d a s the managemen t o f 

### groundwate r Seep s Aand B locate d downgradien t o f th e pits . BM& S agree s tha t th e preferre d alternativ e t o managing thi s portio n o f th e remed

yshoul d includ e th e collectio n o f 00 3 wate r 

### b yus e o f a passiv e intercepto r systemand of f -sit e treatment . The Plan , a s proposed , doe s no t addres s the criteri a fo r determinin g th e duratio n o f seep collectio n and treatment . Thi s 

# 30148 5

### Mr . Stephe n R . Wassersu g

Septembe r 25 , 198 9 Pag e 3

issu e i s o f critica l importanc e t o effectiv e implementatio n o f th e preferre d remedy . BM& S believe s tha t managemen t o f th e OU 3 wate r shoul d b e limite d t o th e duratio n o f neede d treatment . Onc e th e sourc e o f contaminatio n i s remove d , th e qualit yo f th e groundwate r i s expecte d t o improv e dramaticall yove r a reasonabl e perio d o f tim e therebyeventuall yeliminatin g th e necessityfo r continue d collection an d treatment . 

### BM& S recommend s tha t th e applicabl e cut-of f criteri a b e determine d b

yappropriat e testin g durin g th e remedia l desig n phase , possibl yincludin g a n aquati c bioassay . I t bear s 

### repeatin g tha t th e R I ha s demonstrate d tha t n o effec t i s expecte d fromth e impac t o f th e OU 2 materia l o n huma n healt ho r th e environment . Therefore , becaus e th e actua l environmenta l impac t wil l b e th e possibl e entr yo f constituent s t o Unname d Creek , th e appropriat e standard s shoul d b e applie d t o th e wate r 

### qualit ydownstreamo f th e locatio n wher e seep s Aand B converge . (Se e samplin

g poin t 5 a s indicate d on Figur e 5- 1 on pag e 5-2 a o f th e R I fo r th e Crai g FarmSite) . 

### I n addition , BM& S believe s tha t th e parameter s t o b e included i n the testing protoco l shoul d be limite d strictl yt o v. th e potentia l constituent s o f concer n (PCOCs ) identifie d i n th e ^- ^ Plan on pag e 2- 5 o f the F S fo r the Crai g Far mSite . Moreover , 

### th e applicabl e standard s fo r determinin g whe n OU 3 wate r collection an

d treatmen t ma

yb e terminate d (whichwil l b e derive d afte r appropriat e testing a s describe d above ) mus t no t b e se t a t a leve l tha t i s belowth e practica l quantificatio n 

### limi t fo r resorcino l o r an yothe r PCOC . 

### Finally , w e not e tha t th e successfu l implementatio n o f th e preferre d remed

yfo r OU3 , a s envisage d b yth e Plan , may entai l th e cooperatio n o f th e Pennsylvani a DE R i n modifyin g th e NPDE S permi t fo r th e Petroli a plan t t o accep t thes e additional , 

### albei t minimal , flows . Groundwate r Verificatio n Stud y Althoughth e currentl yavailabl e dat a shown o ris k t o 

### th e deepe r aquife r a t th e Site , BM& S woul d agre e t o performa limite d groundwate r verificatio n study . However , BM& S restate s it s positio n expresse d previousl yt o Regio n II I an d the Pennsylvani a OE R tha t suc hstud yshoul d involv e onl yresorcino l 

### and resorcinol-typ e compound s implemente d vi a a limite d wel l system . Th e existin g dat a d o no t suppor t a broa d investigatio n 

# 30U8 6

### Mr . Stephe n R . Wassersu g

Septembe r 25 , 198 9 Pag e 4

o f groundwate r quality . Shoul d additiona l studie s indicat e tha t 

### concentration s o f thes e constituent s d o no t improv e afte r sourc e remova l a s expected , the n a furthe r focused stud ymayb e considered . However , thi s additiona l stud yshoul d no t b e a state d requiremen t o f th e ROD .



### I n closing , BM& S add s tha t w e objec t t o th e sendin g o f a "specia l notice " lette r t o BM& S befor e th e adoptio n o f th e ROD . I n fact , th e commen t perio d fo r th e Plan i s jus t ending , thereb y requirin g BM& S t o determin e whethe r a goo d fait hoffe r t o conduc t o r financ e th e RO D shoul d b e mad e t o EPAbefor e w e ar e certai n o f wha t wil l b e containe d i n th e ROD . BM& S request s tha t th e 6 0 dayperio d fo r responding t o th e specia l notic e letter s b e staye d unti l th e RO D issues . Sincerel yyours , Shanno n K . Crai g cc ; DeborahMcNaughton , PADE R 

### Gart hConno r 

### Billi e S . Nolan , Esquir e Dean A . Calland , Esquir e



# 80148 7

### COMMONWEALTH O F PENNSYLVANI A DEPARTMEN

T O F ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE S Po8 t Offic e Bo x 206 3 Hanisburg , Pennsylvani a 1712 0 Deput ySecretar yfor September 29 , 198 9 Environmenta l Protectio

n 717-787-502 8 Mr . Edwi n B . Erickso n 

### Regiona l Administrato r USEP ARegio n II I 84 1 Chestnu t Buildin

g Philadelphia , PA1910 7 £f ^ 1 . •fiff * fcs«.. u , —...'..•>'*

» Re : Crai g Farms Superfun d Sit e 

### draf t Recor

d O f Decisio

n (ROD ) .-: . Erickso

n t Th e draf t Recor

d o f Decisio

n (a s receive

d Septembe r 25 , fo r th e Crai g Far

msit e ha s been reviewe d b yth e 

### cment . I t i s understoo d tha t thi s draf t documen t i s i n a n 

### uoin g revisio

n proces s an

d tha t a fina l documen t i s no t ye t -dilable . Therefore , th e Department i s no t abl e t o comment , or concu r with , th

e actua l fina l languag e o f th e RO D document a t thi s time . I ca

n provide the Department' s position , on a genera l level , wit

hth e propose

d remedy . Th e propose

d remed yfor th e Crai g Far

msit e woul d includ e th e following ! 

### * The primar

ysourc e materia l wil l be excavated an d treate d b ysolidification/fixation . * Atreatabilit

ystud ywil l be conducte

d t o determin

e i f 

### th e propose

d solidificatio

n proces s wil l effectivel y stabiliz e th

e wast e material . EP

Aan d DER wil l jointl

y determine th

e effectivenes s o f th

e solidificatio

n process , based o

n th e result s o f th

e treatabilit

y study . * Th e treate d primar ysourc e materia l alon g withan

y contaminate

d soil s wil l b

e place d i n a line

d landfill , whic hwil l b e constructe

d a t th e site . * Interceptor trenche s wil l be constructe d a t seepage 

### point s t o collec t som

e o f th e shallo wgroundwater for treatment an

d disposal . 

# 30148 8Mr . Edwi n B . Erickso n - 2 - Septembe r 29 , 198 9 Regiona l Administrato r

* A n additiona l groundwater stud ywil l be conducte

d t o addres s al l groundwater ' (on-sit e an d off-site ) no t bein g collecte

d b yth e interceptor trenches . Al l groundwater , whic

hi s no t bein

g addresse

d i n thi s ROD , wil l be addressed b

ya later ROD .

. The stat e doe s no t concu r with the propose

d remedy , a s currentlystate

d i n th e draf t ROD . Th

e stat e hereb

ywil l concur , i f th

e followin

g comment s an

d condition

s are include

d a s par t o f th

e fina l ROD . * I t i s understoo

d tha t th

e fina l RO

D wil l contai n language whichwil l explai n tha t th e treatabilit

ystud y 

### wil l evaluat e th

e solidifie

d tes t materia l usin

g a TCLP , or simila

r type,.leachin

g test . Th

e dat a generate d b yth e test s wil l b

e use d b yEP Aan d DE R t o determin e th e effectivenes s o f th

e treatment . Afina l determinatio

n tha t th

e treatment i s effective , wil l require th

e join t approva l o f bot

hEP Aan d DER . 

### ' • 

### * I f i t i s determined tha t th e treatment i s no t effective , the

n th e portion

s o f thi s RO

D relate d t o excavation , treatment , an d on-sit e disposa l wil l no t b e implemented . EP

Awoul d then propos e a n alternativ

e remedy , whic

hwoul d be covere

d b ya ne wROD . * Concurren

t withth

e treatabilit

ystudy , a

n additiona l feasibilit

ystud ywil l b e conducte

d t o evaluat e a

n 

### incineratio

n remed ywhichwoul d b

e equivalent t o th

e propose d excavation , treatment , an d on-sit e disposa l remedy . Thi s ne

wincineratio

n optio n woul d includ

e incineratio

n o f th e sam e volum e o f source materia l a s i s propose

d for treatment unde r currentl ypropose

d remed y(estimate

d t o b e 500 0 cubi c yards) , withth e ash an d th e remainin

g contaminate

d soi l bein

g place d in a n on-sit e landfill . Thi s ne wincineratio

n optio n woul d b e considere

d a s a n alternativ

e t o th e currentl

y propose d remedy , i f i t i s determine d tha t th

e 

### solidificatio

n proces s i s no t effective . * I t i s understoo

d tha t thi s RO

D onl yaddresse s th

e groundwate r whic

hwil l b e collecte

d b yth e collectio

n 

### trenches . Al l other groundwater , on-sit e an d off-site , an d includin

g th e shallo wgroundwater no t collecte d b y the trenches , wil l be addressed a s a separat e uni t i n a n additiona l groundwater study , whic hwil l b e covere d b ya later ROD . 30148 9Mr . Edwi n B . Brickson - 3 - Septembe r 29 , 198 9

Regiona l Administrato r

* The collectio

n trenches , a s proposed i n the draf t ROD , onlycollec t a smal l portio n o f the shallo

waquifer . Th e fina l desig

n o f thes e collectio n trenche s mus t attemp t t o maximiz e collectio n o f contaminate

d groundwater , an

d thes e detail s wil l b e addressed durin

g th e remedia l desig

n process . 

### * Th e groundwater collectio n an d treatmen

t wil l continu

e unti l th e collecte

d groundwater reache s backgroun d concentrations , or unti l th e PCOC s ar e belo

wdetectio

n 

### limits , or unti l otherwis e determine d jointl yb yEP A 

### an d DER . * EP Awil l assur e tha t the Department i s provided a n 

### opportunit

yt o fullyparticipat e i n an ynegotiations wit h responsibl e parties . * Th e Department wil l b

e give n th e opportunit

yt o concu

r withdecision s relate d t o th e desig n o f th e remedia l action , t o assur e complianc e wit hDER desig

n specifi c 

### ARARs . (ie . landfil l sitin g criteria ) * Th e Department' s positio n i s tha t it s desig

n standard s ar e ARAR s pursuant t o SAR ASectio n 121 , an

d w e wil l reserv e ou r righ t t o enforce ' thos e desig n standards . * The Department wil l reserv e ou r righ t an d responsibilit

yt o take independent enforcement action s pursuan t t o stat e an d federa l law . 

### * Thi s concurrenc e wit hth e selecte

d remedia l actio

n i s no t intended t o provide an yassurance s pursuant t o SAR A Sectio n 104(c)(3) . 

### I f yo u hav e an yquestion

s regardin

g thi s matte r pleas e do no t hesitat e t o contac t me .

i > Deput ySecretar

y 

## r ". ' McClella

n 

# 30149 0UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO

NAGENCY REGIO NII I 64 1 ChMtnu t Buildin

g 

### Philadelphia , P»nn«ylvanl a 1810 7 

### v"""' ; ' ' ' C'. r • :-; > Mr . Jame s Snyde r Director / Burea u o f Hazardou s Wast e Pennsylvani a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Resource s P.O . Bo x 206 3 Harrisburg , P

A1712 0 Re : Concurrenc e Lette r fo r th e Crai g Far mSit e Dea r Mr . Snyder : I a mwritin g t o yo u abou t DER' s concurrenc e lette r fo r th e Recor d o f Decisio n (ROD ) a t th e Crai g Far mSite , whic h wa s receive d b

yth e EPAo n Octobe r 6 f 1989 . Th e RO D wen t throug ha numbe r o f change s durin g th e las t wee k o f September , an d i t wa s signe d o n Septembe r 29 , 1989 . Anumbe r o f comment s wer e receive d fro

mbot hJi mShac k an

d Davi d Crownove r o f DE R durin g tha t week , an

d change s wer e mad e t o th e RO D t o incorpo

rat e thes e comments . Ther e ar e tw o difference s betwee n th e fina l RO D and th e condition s i n the state' s concurrenc e lette r tha t requir e furthe r explanatio n becaus e the yweren' t anticipate d b yth e EPA . Th e stat e requeste d a feasibilit ystud yt o furthe r evaluat e the incineratio n remedy . The ROD state s tha t othe r remedia l alternative s wil l b e examine d j^ f the solidificatio n i s no t foun

d t o be effectiv e i n the treatabilit ystudy . Thus , th e incineratio n remed ywil l onl yb e examine d i f th e solidifi



### catio n proces s i s no t effective . Secondly , the concurrenc e lette r als o mention s tha t the groun d wate r collection syste m wil l b e i n operatio n unti l th e collecte d groun d wate r reache s backgroun

d concentrations , o r unti l the PCOC s ar e below detectio n limits , o r unti l otherwis e determine d jointl yb y EP Aan d DER . The ROD state s tha t the completenes s o f the remediation wil l be done b yperiodicall yanalyzin g the 

### wastewate r using a bioassa ytes t fo r resorcino l approve d b y the EPA . 

### I f yo u hav e an

yquestions , d o no t hesitat e t o contac t me . 

### Sincerely , Thoma s C . Voltaggi o 

### Director , Superfun

d Offic e Hazardou s Wast e Managemen t Division- .



## 30149 1