EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 

CRAIG FARM DRUM SUPERFUND SITE 

PERRY TOWNSHIP, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Site Name: Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site

Site Location: Perry Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania 

Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 

Support Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Statement of Purpose

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (the Site) was 

issued on September 29, 1989. EPA has prepared this Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD) to modify the selected remedy for the Site, to summarize the 

information to support the modification, and to affirm that the remedy, as modified by 

this ESD, complies with the statutory requirements of Section 117(c) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), as amended, U.S.C. § 9617(c) and the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), §300.435(c)(2)(i). This ESD significantly 

changes, but does not fundamentally alter, the remedy selected in the ROD with respect 

to scope, performance, and cost. 

As discussed in detail in Sections III and IV of this document, the existing remedy for 

OU-3 at the Site consists of a seep interceptor system comprised of two seep collection 

trenches (Seeps A and B). Collected water is conveyed to an aboveground storage tank 

(AST) and transported to an offsite treatment facility located approximately 2 miles from 

the Site. The treatment facility will need significant and costly upgrades to continue to 

operate effectively, therefore, remedial alternatives were evaluated to eliminate the need 

for offsite treatment of contaminated water from the seep interceptor system. During this 

evaluation, it was determined that clean water infiltrates into shallow overburden material 

that overlies or is located upgradient of the north disposal pit. As this water flows 

through residual contaminated material in the pit, it becomes contaminated before 

discharging to the Seep A collection trench. The remedy modification described in this 

ESD consists of the installation of an impermeable cap and groundwater infiltration 

system. This modification will reduce or eliminate the flow of clean water through 

contaminated material, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for offsite treatment of 

contaminated water. Additionally, this ESD documents the attainment of the 

performance standard, as defined by the ROD, by the Seep B portion of the system. 

Finally, the Third Five Year Review for the Site, signed on June 19, 2009, found that, 

although institutional controls were in place and effective at the Site, the requirements for 

Page 1 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

the institutional controls were insufficiently documented by the ROD. This ESD clarifies 

the requirements for the controls. 

This document will be incorporated into the Administrative Record maintained for the 

Site in accordance with NCP §300.825(a)(2). Public availability of the Administrative 

Record supporting the issuance of this ESD is discussed in Section VI of this document. 

II. SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY, CONTAMINATION, AND SELECTED 

REMEDY 

Site History and Contamination

The Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site consists of approximately 117 acres located in 

Perry Township, in the vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, near the western border 

of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The Site is located approximately two (2) miles 

east of the Borough of Petrolia and approximately four (4) miles south of the town of 

Parker and the Allegheny River. 

Historically, the Site was operated as a strip mine working the Upper Freeport coal seam, 

resulting in two (2) abandoned pits. Typical of strip mining operations in the vicinity of 

the Site, the mining pits were cut into a hillside where the coal seam outcropped or 

subcropped. The pit walls were formed by the working face (highwall) of the mine and 

the spoil piles were staged away from the working face. The strip mine ceased operations 

some time prior to 1958. 

Following the cessation of strip mining operations, between approximately 1958 and 

1963, the abandoned former strip mining pits were utilized for the disposal of 55-gallon 

drums containing still bottom residue from the production of Resorcinol at the Koppers 

Chemical Company (Koppers) plant located in Petrolia, Pennsylvania. Resorcinol, also 

known as 1,3-Benzenediol, m-Benzenediol, 1,3-Dihydroxybenzene, mDihydroxybenzene, 3-Hydroxyphenol, or m-Hydroxyphenol, is an organic compound 

used as an adhesive enhancer in the production of automobile tires and pharmaceuticals. 

The residue consisted of Resorcinol and other higher polymers and was characterized as a 

CERCLA hazardous substance but not as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) hazardous waste. An analysis of the waste indicated the following composition: 

Compound Percent of Composition 

Resorcinol 5-10% 

Dihydroxydiphenyls (DHD) 20-25% 

Trihydroxydiphenyls (THD) 30-35% 

Higher polymers 30-35% 

Approximately 2,500 tons of material were placed in the pits by Mr. Herman Craig, Site 

owner Paul Craig’s brother. During deposition and during the time the drums were 

stored onsite; many drums were damaged, resulting in a release of the residue to the 

Page 2 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

environment. Koppers purchased approximately 100 acres of the Site from Mr. Craig in 

1971 and the remaining approximately 17 acres in 1985. On January 26, 1989, Koppers 

Chemical Company, Inc. became Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer). 

The Site was first identified by EPA in 1980 by a Potential Hazardous Waste Site 

Identification Report, considered for placement on the NPL in December 1982, and listed 

on the NPL on September 8, 1983. 

From 1983 through 1989, Koppers worked in cooperation with EPA and the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) to characterize the 

nature and extent of contamination at the Site. The Final Remedial Investigation and 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Report was issued in August 1989. 

Based on the analysis of groundwater, surface water, sediments, and ambient air during 

the RI/FS, the following compounds were identified as Potential Contaminants of 

Concern (PCOCs): 

Organics:

 Resorcinol; 

 THD; 

 Meta-phenolsulfonic acid (m-PSA); 

 Para-phenolsulfonic acid (p-PSA); 

 Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA); 

 Benzene meta disulfonic acid (BMDSA); 

 Benzene; 

 Phenol. 

Inorganics:

 Cadmium; 

 Chromium; 

 Copper; 

 Lead; 

 Zinc. 

Toxicological data for the majority of the organic PCOCs at the Site is scarce or does not 

exist. Therefore, Resorcinol was utilized as a representative compound based on the 

similarity of its structure to the other Site-related organic PCOCs. The available 

toxicological data for Resorcinol indicates that it is moderately toxic but is not considered 

a carcinogen. Benzene is the only known carcinogenic compound present at the Site. 

The risk characterization indicated that the overall threat to human health posed by the 

Site was negligible, primarily due to the limited exposure likelihood based on the current 

and future Site uses. The evaluation of potential environmental exposure pathways 

indicated that aquatic life within the Unnamed Creek is being impacted by Site-related 

PCOCs. Therefore, the selection of the remedy for the Site was based on the Site’s 

impact to the environment only, and not on the impact to human health. The Site was 

Page 3 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

determined to present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment as 

set forth in Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606. 

Selected Remedy

The ROD selecting the final remedy was issued September 29, 1989. Operable units 

(OUs) at the Site were identified as follows: 

 Operable Unit #1 (OU-1) 

o Distillation residue material in former disposal pits; 

o Adjacent contaminated soils containing detectable concentrations (>50 

parts per million (ppm)) of Resorcinol. 

 Operable Unit #2 (OU-2) 

o Remaining portions of former disposal pit areas not included in OU-1; 

o Overburden and adjacent soils that are analytically clean but need to be 

moved to access OU-1 materials. 

 Operable Unit #3 (OU-3) 

o Seeps A and B, located downgradient of former disposal pits. 

Remedial Action Objectives 

The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) outlined in the ROD are as follows: 

 Control offsite contaminant migration via containment of contaminated landfill 

soil and waste material; 

 Prevent offsite migration of Site-related PCOCs and prevent Site-related PCOCs 

from impacting the Unnamed Creek and onsite living organisms; 

 Prevent continued leaching of precipitation and surface waters through 

contaminated landfill material; 

 Eliminate exposure to contaminated groundwater; 

 Minimize risk to human health and the environment by eliminating potential 

direct contact exposure pathways. 

Components of Remedy 

The following remedy components were specified by the ROD: 

 Excavation and onsite solidification of soil and contaminated material from the 

disposal pits and surrounding areas; 

 Placement of the solidified material in an onsite RCRA equivalent, double lined, 

fenced landfill; 

 Wetland delineation and subsequent construction of a one-acre onsite wetland to 

replace wetlands destroyed in construction of the onsite landfill; 

Page 4 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

 Implementation of institutional controls alerting property owners of 

contamination; 

 Passive collection of ground water using a seep interceptor system with offsite 

treatment; 

 Sampling and analysis of the Unnamed Creek and the water collected by the seep 

collection tank on a quarterly basis following completion of construction, semiannually for the second year, and annually during the third year; 

 Sampling and analysis of both onsite and offsite groundwater. 

A Groundwater Verification Study was conducted during the Remedial Design for the 

Site in July 1991, consisting primarily of additional groundwater well installation and 

sampling, to determine if additional groundwater remediation would be required 

subsequent to the selected OU-3 remedy. The results of the Study indicated that 

groundwater was being sufficiently addressed by the OU-3 remedy selected in the ROD 

and that no additional remedial action would be necessary. 

Remedy Implementation 

The Consent Decree (CD) for the Site was entered on October 9, 1990. The Remedial 

Action (RA) at the Site began in May 1994 and was completed on December 27, 1995, as 

documented in a Final Closeout Report (FCOR). However, because the FCOR was 

issued prior to current site closeout guidance, it is considered equivalent to a current 

Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR), in that it documents construction completion rather 

than site completion. 

Although institutional controls were required by the ROD, the June 2004 Second Five 

Year Review found that they had not been implemented. In accordance with the 

recommendations of the Second Five Year Review, the following institutional controls 

were implemented at the Site on September 23, 2004: 

 No groundwater beneath the Site may be used and no wells may be installed on 

the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or other purpose that may bring it into 

contact with humans, except for testing purposes as required by law, remedial 

action/design, or the terms of the Consent Decree; 

 No structure may be placed on the Site that would disturb the cap or stabilized 

contents of the landfill or would otherwise disturb any component of the remedial 

action/design without prior written approval of the Site owner and EPA; 

 The Site may not be used for the purposes of living, dwelling, or overnight 

accommodations of any type; 

 No action may be taken that will interfere with, obstruct, or disturb the 

performance of any remedial response, including O&M; 

 Any Site owner must provide any purchaser with notice of the terms of the 

Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in the Site. 

Page 5 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

System Operations and Maintenance 

Long-term monitoring and maintenance at the Site is conducted in accordance with the 

Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) submitted on July 14, 1993 and approved 

by EPA. The O&M Plan consists of the following components: 

 Inspection of the landfill cap, seep collection system piping and tank, sediment 

basins, monitoring wells, and wetlands; 

 Sampling and analysis of landfill and groundwater migration monitoring wells, 

Unnamed Creek, and seep collection system. 

O&M has been conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan since the 1995 FCOR. 

Monitoring has indicated that the remedy is functioning as designed and is protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Post-Remedy Actions 

The Site is located within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), as defined by 

the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) pursuant to the 

Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA). The BCACS consists of multiple 

sites in the vicinity of Bear Creek that are impacted by contaminants primarily related to 

Resorcinol manufacturing. On May 5, 2003, PADEP executed a Consent Order and 

Agreement (COA) with Beazer in which Beazer agreed to pay the Commonwealth 

$18,118,813.00 to resolve its potential liability under HSCA for chemical releases to 

environmental media within the BCACS. The COA acknowledged PADEP’s 

commitment to implement the Operable Unit 2 Public Water Supply Remedial Response 

(Public Water Supply). Subsequent to 2003, PADEP executed contracts to construct a 

public water supply within the BCACS, and required communities therein, including 

Perry Township, Armstrong County, to implement a model ordinance prohibiting the use 

of groundwater wells within the BCACS for potable water and requiring property owners 

to connect to the public water system. Construction of the public water supply was 

completed in 2007. 

III. BASIS FOR REMEDY MODIFICATION 

OU-3 – Seep Interceptor System and Offsite Treatment

Currently, water collected by the seep interceptor system is transported offsite for 

treatment to Beazer’s Petrolia Treatment Facility at the INDSPEC Chemical Corporation 

(INDSPEC) Plant located approximately 2 miles from the Site. Historically, groundwater 

from both the Craig Farm Site and the INDSPEC Plant was treated at the Petrolia 

Treatment Facility. However, groundwater from the INDSPEC Plant no longer requires 

treatment. Due to the relatively small volume of water treated from the Craig Farm Site 

compared to that treated from the INDSPEC Plant, operating the Petrolia Treatment 

Facility to only treat Craig Farm wastewater is not cost-effective. Currently, it is 

Page 6 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

anticipated that the Petrolia Treatment Facility will be taken out of operation in late 2009 

or early 2010. Therefore, an alternative to offsite treatment of groundwater collected by 

the seep interceptor system is necessary. 

Treatability Studies 

In order to evaluate water quality and alternative treatment technologies for the water 

collected by the seep interceptor system, the following treatability studies were conducted 

by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services (Langan) on behalf of Beazer 

between 1999 and 2006: 

 Granular Activated Carbon Study; 

 Aquamend Bioreactor Study; 

 Powdered Activated Carbon Study. 

None of the above treatability studies identified an acceptable treatment alternative to the 

current offsite treatment system. In May 2006, following the completion of the 

treatability studies, Beazer conducted sampling of the seep interceptor system to confirm 

that the collected water still exceeded the relevant criteria. 

In May 2006, the seep interceptor system piping was flushed to remove residual solids 

and water samples from both Seep A and Seep B were collected by Key Environmental. 

The sampling results indicated the presence of Resorcinol and THD in Seep A and THD 

in Seep B at concentrations exceeding the respective laboratory reporting limits. The 

Resorcinol concentration detected in Seep A was below the most conservative bioassaybased ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) developed for Beazer by AMEC Earth & 

Environmental, Inc. (AMEC). No bioassay criteria have been developed for THD. 

The samples collected from Seeps A and B in May 2006 by Key Environmental were 

also submitted for a 7-day fathead minnow whole effluent toxicity (WET) test using a 

series of nine (9) effluent dilutions ranging from 100% (no dilution) to 0.5% (200x 

dilution) with an endpoints evaluation for growth and survival. 

Based on the results of the testing, the no observed effect concentration (NOEC) for Seep 

A effluent was 25% (4x dilution) and the half maximal effect concentration (EC50) was 

estimated to be 32%. Both the acute and chronic toxicity of Seep A exceed the PADEP 

WET screening criteria. 

The results of the testing conducted on the Seep B effluent indicated an observed NOEC 

of 100% (no dilution). Both the acute and chronic toxicity of the Seep B samples were 

below the PADEP WET toxicity screening criteria. Based on this result, an additional 

sampling event was recommended and implemented during the Focused Feasibility 

Study, as described below. 

 

Page 7 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

Focused Feasibility Study 

Langan submitted a “Focused Feasibility Study Investigation Work Plan” (FFS Work 

Plan) to EPA and the PADEP on March 29, 2007. The purpose of the FFS Work Plan 

was to address data gaps and to gather additional information to develop a site conceptual 

model in support of a remedial alternative feasibility evaluation for Seep A. 

EPA issued comments on the FFS Work Plan on May 25, 2007 and initial investigation 

activities were conducted from September 2007 through January 2008. Following a 

February 28, 2008 meeting with EPA to discuss the initial results of the investigation, 

Langan prepared and submitted an “Addendum to Focused Feasibility Study Work Plan” 

(FFS Work Plan Addendum). The additional work was conducted from June through 

September 2008. 

The FFS Work Plan consisted of the following tasks: 

 Installation of 16 groundwater monitoring wells, 11 stream gauges, a precipitation 

gauge, a flow meter in Seep A, and pressure transducers; 

 Site-wide groundwater and surface water gauging; 

 Survey and sampling of 28 onsite wells for site-related PCOCs; 

 WET testing of Seep B water; 

 Hydraulic analysis and development of water budget. 

The FFS Work Plan Addendum consisted of the following tasks: 

 Installation of one (1) permanent shallow bedrock groundwater monitoring well 

upgradient of the former northern disposal pit area; 

 Borehole video logging of select exiting deep bedrock groundwater monitoring 

wells; 

 Aquifer loading test in the Seep A study area consisting of adding potable water 

to existing deep bedrock groundwater monitoring wells; 

 Topographic survey of the Seep A drainage area and new well to NAV 88 datum; 

 Installation of test pits in select onsite areas (“borrow areas”) to determine 

suitability of material for use in a synthetic cap. 

Although test pit installation was included in the FFS Work Plan Addendum, this task has 

not been completed upon issuance of this ESD and will instead be conducted during 

Remedial Design. 

The results of the Focused Feasibility Study were presented to EPA in the December 11, 

2008 “Focused Feasibility Study Report” (FFS Report) and in a December 16, 2008 

meeting. EPA issued comments on the FFS Report on February 4, 2009, which Langan 

addressed in the May 6, 2009 “Final Focused Feasibility Study Report” (Final FFS 

Report). 

Page 8 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

The Final FFS Report indicated that clean water infiltrates into shallow overburden 

material that overlies or is located upgradient of the north disposal pit. As this water 

flows through residual contaminated material within the pit, it becomes contaminated 

prior to discharging to the Seep A collection trench. The Final FFS Report recommended 

the installation of an impermeable cap on the north disposal pit coupled with an 

upgradient groundwater infiltration system to reduce or eliminate the flow of clean water 

through contaminated material, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for offsite 

treatment of contaminated water. The proposed modification is described in detail 

Section IV. 

The Final FFS Report also concluded that, based on the results of EPA-approved 

bioassay testing, Seep B has achieved the performance standard specified in the ROD and 

no longer exhibits toxicity. Therefore, no further remedial action was recommended 

regarding the collection and treatment of Seep B water. 

IV. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 

This ESD addresses the modification of the selected remedy for OU-3 – Seep Interceptor 

System and Offsite Treatment and the clarification of the institutional control 

requirements for the Site, as described below.

OU-3 – Seep Interceptor System and Offsite Treatment

This ESD modifies the ROD for OU-3 at the Site by implementation of the 

recommendations identified in the Final FFS Report. This remedy modification consists 

primarily of the following components, as depicted on the map included as Attachment 1: 

 Installation of an impermeable cap on the 3-acre, former north pit area to reduce 

infiltration of clean water through north pit materials. 

 Excavation/fill of existing ground surface in vicinity of former north pit to 

required grade; 

 Installation of bioswales or other infiltration features to direct clean surface water 

flow from capped area; 

 Installation of groundwater infiltration system into deep bedrock upgradient of the 

former north pit to prevent upgradient groundwater from flowing through north 

pit materials; 

 Continued maintenance of the Seep A collection trench, piping, and storage tank 

to collect contaminated overburden groundwater; 

 Treatment of collected Seep A water at an alternative offsite treatment facility; 

 The Seep B collection trench will remain in place but valves will be closed so that 

the system no longer collects water. 

A Pre-Design Investigation will be conducted prior to onsite construction to evaluate the 

feasibility of the proposed groundwater infiltration system. 

Page 9 of 11 
Explanation of Significant Differences 

Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site 

O&M tasks associated with this remedy modification will generally consist of the 

following: 

 

 Monitoring of the flow meter installed in Seep A to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the cap/infiltration system in reducing or eliminating flow; 

 Collection of water quality samples from Seep A to determine if the collected 

water meets the performance standard originally set forth in the ROD; 

 Water level monitoring in onsite groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate the 

impact of the cap on Site hydraulic conditions; 

 Hydraulic and water quality monitoring in the Unnamed Creek. 

Final O&M tasks and schedule will be determined during design and construction of the 

remedy modification and will be documented in the O&M Plan. The O&M Plan will be 

reviewed and approved by EPA prior to final implementation of the remedy modification. 

Assuming the existing system continued to operate for 17 additional years, the total cost 

for system O&M and offsite disposal of collected seep water was estimated to be 

$5,287,537.00. Implementation of the remedy modification described herein will be 

significantly more cost effective, with a total estimated cost of $1,078,754.00. This cost 

estimate is subject to uncertainty related to the amount of water that continues to flow to 

the Seep A collection trench requiring alternative offsite treatment, as well as the final 

construction details of the groundwater infiltration system, however, changes in cost are 

not expected to be substantial. 

Requirements for Institutional Controls

Institutional controls are required by the ROD and were implemented at the Site on 

September 23, 2004. However, the requirement for institutional controls was discussed 

in the declaration of the ROD only and not in the remedy selection portion. Additionally, 

the ROD required deed notices only and not the deed restrictions that are currently 

implemented at the Site. Due to these issues, the requirements for institutional controls 

are considered to be insufficiently documented. The purpose of this ESD is to clarify the 

requirements for the institutional controls and ensure that the controls remain in place. 

Institutional controls, consisting of the Declaration of Restrictions included herein as 

Attachment 2, shall be implemented at the Site and remain in place as a component of the 

long-term remedy. The Declaration of Restrictions will also be attached to the Consent 

Decree for the Site. 

V. SUPPORT AGENGY REVIEW 

The changes to the remedy presented in this document have been coordinated with 

PADEP pursuant to the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §300.435(c)(2). PADEP concurred with the 

changes to the remedy as described in this ESD via correspondence dated September 8, 

2009, included as Attachment 3. 

Page 10 of 11 

Attachment 1 
Adapted from Langan Figure 12 Preferred Alternative RemedyAerial photograph provided by PAMAP Program 2005 - Color Orthophoto of 
Attachment 2 
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS

THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS is made this 23rd day of

September 2004 by Beazer East, Inc. (formerly known as Koppers Company, Inc.), a

Delaware corporation, having an address of One Oxford Centre, Suite 3000, Pittsburgh,

PA 15219-6401 (the "Declarant").

WITNESSTH:

WHEREAS, Koppers Company, Inc. acquired in three separate transactions

property located in Perry Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania more particularly

described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (such real property being

hereinafter referred to as the "Site") by: (1) deed of January 5, 1972 from Herman G.

Craig and Betty L. Craig to Declarant and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of

Deeds of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book Volume 538 beginning at Page

244; (2) deed of February 27, 1985 from Herman G. Craig to Declarant and recorded in

the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book

Volume 653 beginning at Page 31; and (3) deed of June 13, 1985 from Carl E. Switzer

and Charlene Switzer to Declarant and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of

Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book Volume 669 beginning at Page 215;

WHEREAS, beginning in 1958 a waste hauler for Koppers used the Site to

dispose of industrial waste from Koppers' manufacturing plant in Petrolia, Pennsylvania,

including hazardous waste from the production of rcsourcinol and"constituents thereof;

WHEREAS, in 1989, Koppers Company, Inc. changed its name to Beazer

Materials and Services, Inc. and in 1990, Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. changed its

name to Beazer East, Inc.;

WHEREAS, in May of 1990, a Consent Decree was signed and entered with the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania addressing

implementation of a Remedial Design and Remedial Action ("RD/RA") at the Site and

payment of certain response costs;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Consent Decree, Declarant has implemented the

RD/RA at the Site, and as part of the remedial action Declarant created a landfill to

contain the hazardous waste that was disposed on-site ("the Landfill");

WHEREAS, the Consent Decree for the Site requires implementation of

institutional controls restricting future use of the Site, which controls may include

restrictive covenants; and

WHEREAS, it is in the intention of Declarant to create restrictions on the Site that

will run with the land and bind future owners, tenants, subtenants, licensees or other users

of any and ail portions of the Site.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby imposes the following restrictions on the

Site, which shall be enforceable by Declarant and its successors and assigns, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection Agency and all other governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the

environmental conditions on the Site.

1. Purposes

The purpose of this Declaration is to restrict certain use and development

activities at the Site so as to prevent any uses of the Site which would be

inconsistent with the RD/RA for the Site and create a risk to human health or the

environment and to fulfill Declarant's commitments under the Consent Decree.

2. Specific Prohibitions

(a) No groundwater underneath the Site may be used for human consumption,

irrigation or other purposes that might bring it into contact with humans

(except for testing purposes required by law, the RD/RA or the terms of the

Consent Decree) and neither the owner, occupant nor any other user of the

Site shall drill or install any wells on the Site for the purpose of extracting

groundwater underneath the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or other

purposes that might bring it into contact with humans (except for testing

purposes as required by law. the RD/RA or the terms of the Consent

Decree).

(b) No building, structure or other object shall be built or placed on the Site that

would disturb the cap or stabilized contents of the Landfill or would

otherwise disturb any component of the RD/RA at the Site without the prior

written approval of Declarant or its successors and assigns and the

Environmental Protection Agency.

(c) The Site shall not be used for the purposes of personal living, dwelling, or

overnight accommodations, whether such uses are in single family

residences, apartments, duplexes or other multiple residential dwellings,

trailers, trailer parks, camping sites, hotels, motels, or any other dwelling

use of any kind, or for child care, schools, parks or other nomndustnal uses,

by the owner or occupant of the Site, or anyone occupying the Site with the

permission of the owner of the Site.

(d) No action shall be taken at the Site to interfere with, obstruct, disturb the

performance, support or supervisions of any remedial response actions taken

or to be taken at the Site, including any operation or maintenance activities.

(e) Any subsequent owner of the Site shall provide a purchaser with notice of

the terms of the Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in the Site.
3. Access

The employees, agents and contractors of the Declarant and its successors and

assigns shall have the right of ingress and egress from and movement on the Site

sufficient to conduct, maintain, monitor and secure the integrity of the remedy set

forth in the RD/RA, to take other actions required or authorized under applicable

federal and state laws and to monitor and enforce compliance with the terms of

this Declaration. Declarant acknowledges that, notwithstanding any other

provision of this Declaration, the Environmental Protection Agency retains all of

its access authorities and rights, as well as its right to require land/water use

restrictions, including enforcement authorities related thereto, under applicable

statutes and/or regulations.

4. Enforceability

(a) The covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Declaration shall be

enforceable by Declarant and its successors and assigns.

(b) Such covenants, conditions and restrictions shall run with the land, shall be

binding upon any and all successors in interests, and all assignees, lessees,

sub-lessees, operators, tenants, licensees, agents and any and all persons

who acquire any interest in the Site.

(c) Violation of covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein shall

give Declarant and its successors and assigns in addition to all other

remedies, the right to enter upon the land upon or as to which such violation

exists and summarily to abate and remove, at the expense of the owner

thereof, any structure, thing or condition that may be or exist thereon

contrary to the intent and meaning of the provision of this Declaration.

(d) Declarant and it successors and assigns shall be entitled to enforce the terms

of this Declaration by specific performance or legal process. All remedies

available hereunder shall be in addition to any other remedies at law or in

equity. Enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Declaration shall be

at the discretion of Declarant and its successors and assigns and any

forbearance, delay or omission to exercise its rights under this Declaration

in the event of a breach of any term of this Declaration shall not be deemed

to be a waiver by Declarant or its successors and assigns of such term or of

any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or of any of the rights

of such parties under this Declaration.

5. Miscellaneous

(a) Modifications. This Declaration may be modified or terminated, in whole or

in part by the Declarant or it successors or assigns, provided that a written

Modification of Termination Notice in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds
of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania is filed and provided that Declarant or

its successors or assigns obtain written approval from the Environmental

Protection Agency at least thirty (30) days prior to filing such notice.

(b) Reservation of Rights. Declarant hereby reserves unto itself, its successors

and assigns, all rights and privileges in and to the use of the Site which are

not incompatible with the covenants, conditions and restrictions established

herein.

(c) No Public Access. No right of access or use by the general public to any

portion of the Site is conveyed by this Declaration.

(d) Governing Law. The interpretation and performance of this Declaration

shall be governed by the law of Pennsylvania,

(e) Rules of Construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary,

notwithstanding, this instrument shall be liberally construed in favor of the

grant to affect the purpose of this Declaration and the policy and purpose the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,

42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. If any provision of this Declaration is found to be

ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Declaration

that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any

interpretation that would render it invalid.

(f) Severability. If any provision of this Declaration, or the application of it to

any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the

provisions of this Declaration, or the application of such provisions to

persons or circumstances other than those to which it is found to be invalid,

as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby.

(g) Entire Agreement. This Declaration sets forth the entire undertaking and

agreement of Declarant with respect to rights and restrictions created

hereby, and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings,

or agreements relating hereto, all of which are merged herein.

(h) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or

reversion of title in any respect.

(i) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions and restrictions of this

Declaration shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, Declarant and

its successors and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in

perpetuity with the Site.

(j) Termination of Rights and Obligations. The rights and obligations of the

owner(s) from time to time of the Site under this Declaration terminate upon
transfer of the party's interest in the Site, except that liability for acts or

omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer.

(k) Captions. The captions in this Declaration have been inserted solely for

convenience of reference and are not a part of this Declaration and shall

have no effect upon construction or interpretation.

[SIGNATORIES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE|
EXHIBIT A

BEGINNING at an iron pin comer on line of land of Earl A. Bailey, formerly M.S. and

George Shakley, said point being a Southwest corner and common to land now of W.P.

Vance, formerly E.S. Golden, and the herein described tract; thence by land of Earl. A.

Bailey and G. Pearl Johns, North 7° 08' 20" East, a distance of 3267.00 feet to a Stone

corner on line of land of G. Pearl Johns, and being common to land now of John H.

Hood, formerly Jacob Steel, and the herein described tract; thence by land of John H.

Hood, South 85 06' 30" East, a distance of 1378.77 feet to an iron pin corner on line of

land of John H. Hood, and being common to land now of David E. Frazier (Allotment

"B"), and the herein described tract, thence by land of David E. Frazier, South 00° 39'

West, a distance of 1014.52 feet to an Iron Pin corner on West line of an improved Public

Road passing through the Northeast section of land conveyed herein, and known as

Legislative Route 03030 and being common to an area of land to" be retained by Grantor

and the herein described tract; thence by land to be retained by Herman G. Craig, South

68° 30' West, a distance of 899.00 feet to an Iron Pin comer; thence by land of same,

South 26° 57' 30" East, a distance of 1312.23 feet to an Iron Pin corner; thence by land of

same North 89° 00' East, a distance of 224.66 feet to an iron pin corner on line of land of

David E. Frazier and being along the West line of aforesaid Improved Public Road and

being common to land to be retained by Herman G. Craig, and the herein described tract;

thence by land of David E. Fraizer, South 00° 39' West, a distance of 765.45 feet to an

iron pin corner on line of land now of W.P. Vance, formerly E.S. Golden, and common to

land of David E. Frazier and the herein described tract; thence by land of W.P. Vance,

North 85° 03' West a distance of 1749.00 feet to an iron pin corner, the place of

beginning. CONTAINING 99.899 acres, more or less, as surveyed by EJ. Weibel, a

registered surveyor, November 26, 1971.

BEGINNING at an iron pin corner on line of land now of David E. Frazier, said point

being South 0° 39' West, a distance of 1014.52 feet from the northeast corner of the land

formerly conveyed by Herman G. Craig, et ux., to Koppers Company, Inc. by Deed dated

January 5, L972, and being the northeast comer of the herein described tract; thence by

land of David E. Fraizer (formerly Allotment "B"), South 00° 39' West, a distance of

1495.28 feet to an iron pin corner on line of said land and being common to land

conveyed to Koppers Company, Inc., as aforesaid; thence by said land heretofore

conveyed to Koppers Company, Inc., by Herman G. Craig, et ux., as aforesaid, South 89°

00' West, a distance of 224.66 feet to an iron pin corner; thence by same, north 26° 57'

30" West, a distance of 1312.23 feet to an iron pin corner; thence by same, North 68° 30"

East, a distance of 899.00 feet to an iron pin corner on line of land of David E. Fraizer,

the place of beginning. CONTAINING 17.333 acres, more or less, as surveyed by E.J

Weibel, R.S., December 1, 1971.

{DESCRIPTION CONTINUED OiN NEXT PAGE}
BEGINNING at an iron pin comer along the edge of the Queenstown-Bruin Road, a

Public Road, being known as Legislative Route #03030: Said point being the south-east

comer of the herein described tract; thence west, through land of Herman G. Craig and

Betty L. Craig, his wife, of which this is a part, a distance of two hundred twenty-five

- (225) feet to an iron pin corner; thence North through land of same, a distance of two

hundred fifty (250) feet to an iron pin corner, thence east, through land of Herman G.

Craig and Betty L. Craig, his wife, a distance of two hundred sixty-sive (265) feet to an

iron pin corner at edge of Legislative Route 03030; thence South; along edge of

Legislative Route 03030, a distance of two hundred fifty (250) feet to a point, the place of

beginning.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BEAZER EAST, INC. has caused its common and corporate

seal to be affixed to these presents by the hand of its , who is

duly authorized to execute this Declaration on behalf of the corporation, and the same

being duly attested to by its Secretary on the day and year first above written, intending

to be legally bound hereby.

ATTEST: BEAZER EAST, INC., a Delaware

Corporation

Secretary

[CORPORATE SEAL HERE]

STATE OF /^^^t^ J^TL^L^ )

COUNTY OF &&di^uf> )

On this 23rd day of September, 2004 before me, a Notary Public, the undersigned

officer, personally appeared ^rbsffl-fflgsJ/eMdjL^ , who acknowledged himself to be

the /%£*.- fr^dt^t. of BEAZER EAST, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and that

such officer,-being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument as the

' Tx^xu^n^of BEAZER EAST, INC. for the purposes therein contained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

Notary Public

My commission expires:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Notarial Seal

Maureen M. Ststzar, Notary PuMc

Oty Of Rttsbugh, Ateghony County

My Commtaton Expta Ju<y 3,2006

, f*«nniytv»nl« Aiiociatton Of Nottrie*
Attachment 3