3R30320S - Records Collections

RECORD OF DECISIONDECLARATION

JUN 3 0 1388SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Henderson Road NPL Site362-372 South Henderson RoadUpper Merion Township, Pennsylvania

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedialaction for the Henderson Road NPL Site ("the site") InjectionWell Operable Unit in upper Merion Township. The selectedremedial action has been developed in accordance with CERCLA,as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, theNational Contingency Plan. The attached index identifiesthe items which comprise the administrative record uponwhich the selection of the remedial action is based.

The .Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has concurred on theselected remedy. ,

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

This operable unit is the first of two operable unitsthat address contamination at the site. This operable unitaddresses the source of the contamination by remediationof the on-site ground water and shallow contaminated sediments,possible removal and treatment of a source of contamination *;in the unsaturated zone, and possible remediation_of the _ -,;..downgradient contaminant plume. The function of this roperable unit is to address ground water contaminationcaused by injection of hazardous substances into the O'HaraSanitation Company garage well (the."injection well") priorto 1977 and reduce the risks associated with exposure toground water contaminated from the injection well. The secondoperable unit, the Landfill Operable Unit, will address surfacewater, air, and ground water potentially impacted by previouslandfilling and trenching on-site, in addition to potentialleakage from on-site underground storage tanks.

The major components of the selected remedy include:

— installation of clusters of ground water recoverywells on-site and, if necessary, downgradient;

— air stripping of ground water and probabledischarge to the intermittent stream adjacent tothe site; a portion of the ground water may bereinjected to the aquifer in the vicinity of theof the injection well as part of unsaturated zonetreatment ("soil flushing");

3R30320S

- 2 ——- - — -. ..... ..._ . ..

— closure of the injection well, including excavation of.- '.'.contaminated oil pit sediments, in accordance with federalUnderground Injection Well Program requirements andremoval of-significant waste, if feasible, directly outof the injection well;

— placement of deed restrictions limiting or prohibitinguse of grourtd water on the affected properties;

— installation of a treatment system at water lines con-nected to the one off-site active well considered to becurrently affected by the injection well;

— periodic on- and off-site monitoring of ground waterthroughout Operation and Maintenance;

— further data—collection and evaluation of the unsaturatedand saturated zones during Remedial Design and periodicallyduring Remedial Action, leading to a determination whetherto pilot test for, and possibly, institute in-situvolatilization of volatile organics or other treatment inthe unsaturated zone;

— periodic reevaluation, throughout Operation and Maintenance,of clean-up goals.

DECLARATION

The selected remedy is protective of human health andthe environment, is expected to attain federal and State re-quirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate tothis remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedysatisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employtreatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume as aprincipal element and utilizes permanent solutions and alter-native treatment technologies to the maximum extent prac-ticable.

Ground water pumping with or without treatment in theunsaturated zone may result in hazardous substances remainingon-site above health-based levels. Therefore, a review willbe conducted within five years after commencement of theremedial action and every five years thereafter, throughoutoperation and maintenance to evaluate whether technologiesimplemented provide adequate protection of human healthand the environment, whether additional treatment, particularlyin the unsaturated zone, is appropriate, whether progress isbeing made in meeting clean-up goals, and whether clean-upgoa bs should be revised.

m*

Jarfes Self r Regional) AdministratorEPA Region 3

June 1988

flR303206

RECORD OF DECISIONDECISION SUMMARY

I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

The Henderson Road NPL Site ("the site") consists of 7.6acres located at 362-372 South Henderson Road in Upper MerionTownship, Pennsylvania (see Exhibit 1). The site is locatedin the Chester Valley, an east-west trending subdivision ofthe_Piedmont Uplands in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The Pied-mont Uplands is characterized by mature, dissected rollinghills. "

The highest elevation on the site is its northwest corner,approximately 190...feet above sea level. The east end of thesite, in the intermittent stre.am bed, is the lowest point ofelevation, at approximately 126 feet above sea level. Twosloping areas characterize the site. Land surfaces slope to-ward the central portion of the landfill from the north, south,west, and east, at slopes of approximately two percent* At theextreme east of the site, land surfaces slope at approximatelyeight percent and increase to 40 percent toward .the stream bed.A level area at an elevation of approximately 160 feet lies inthe northwest portion of the site, north and east of the office/maintenance garage complex located on the site (see Exhibit 2).Flood plain mapping was not conducted- as part of the RemedialInvestigation for this operable unit.

The site is bounded on the north by the PennsylvaniaTurnpike, on the south by Conrail tracks, to the east by theSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority NorristownHigh-speed Line right-of-way, and to the west by South Hender-son Road. O'Hara Sanitation Company, Inc. occupies the sitewith several automobile repair shops and a drilling contractor.O'Hara Sanitation Company presently uses the site for wastestorage, waste recycling, vehicle maintenance and parking, andoffice facilities. Land in vicinity of the site is zoned forlight industrial, heavy industrial, and residential use (seeExhibit 3).

The site is approximately 2000 feet south and upgradient.of the Upper Merion Reservoir ("UMR"), where ground water ispumped at a rate of 7.5 mgd as part of a public water supplyserving 228,000 customers. The site is about 350 feet south-east of and upgradient from Mcllvain Lumber Company, where awater supply well serves 15 employees (see Exhibit 4).

/1R303207

- 2 . . .

The aquifer"beneath the site^and from which. UMR andthe Mcllvain well draw water meets the requirements of aClass XIA aquifer, defined under ..the EPA Ground WaterProtection program as a current source of drinking water.According to the Ground Water protection Program, Class II -ground water should generally receive the very high levelof protection that represents the "base line" degree ofprotection that is the standard of EPA programs.

The population within 1,500 feet of the site consistsmainly of employees of businesses that surround the site. _.Within one mile of the site the total estimated residentialpopulation is 5,000. The nearest residential dwelling is 560feet southwest of the site. The nearest school is 3,000 feetsouth of the site.

An intermittent stream along the eastern edge of thesite flows in the direction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike,to the north of the site. The stream has no Commonwealthof Pennsylvania Stream classification. It empties intothe main of the Schuylkill River which is classified as acold water fisheries stream below the mouth of the LittleSchuylkill River. Thus, the intermittent stream would beclassified as a cold water fisheries stream.

There are no species of special concern or exemplarynatural communities in the Henderson Road area as determinedby the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory. No endan-gered reptiles or amphibians are expected to inhabit the area.

The Chester Valley contains highly folded dolomite andlimestone rocks. Sinkholes are common in the Chester Valley,including the area of the site, due to dissolution and subse-quent collapse of the dolomite and limestone bedrock,

Ground water pumping at UMR draws down water from anapproximate area of 2.4 square miles, which includes the site,and ground water that is induced to flow from the bed of theSchuylkill River. UMR pumping has depressed the ground watertable at the site to about 120 to 160 feet below the surface.Ground water is believed to flow from the site to the UMRvia fractures and related solution features in a directionwhich predominantly follows strike but also has a northerlycomponent. Based on a calculated flow rate ranging from2.4 to 13.3 feet per day in the vicinity of the site, groundwater is calculated in the Remedial Investigation ("RI")to take approximately 0.6 to 3.4 years to flow from thesite to UMR. However, hazardous substances beneath thesite may not move at the rate amd manner that ground watermoves.

flR303208

- 3 -

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Disposal activities related to this operable unit wereinitially , brought to the attention of PA DER in 1977 by ananonymous phone call. The caller stated that ASM DisposalService Company.transported and then injected industrialwaste into the well located inside the O'Hara Sanitationmaintenance .garage. Records acquired since 1977 indicatethat disposal of wastes from sources into the injectionwell may" have occurred between 1974 and 1977. Generatorsof hazardous substance are potentially liable under CERCLAin addition to the owners and operators.

PA DER and the EPA have conducted on- and off-sitesampling since 1977. The site was proposed for the NPL in1983. In December, 1985, an Administrative Order on Consentwas signed by EPA and nine respondents for the completion ofan RI and Feasibility Study ("FS"). In 1987 the site was splitinto two operable units (see Section IV). The draft finalRI/FS for the injection well operable unit was completedin April, 1988.

Special notice letters for RD/RA of the injection welloperable unit have been sent to 13 potentially responsibleparties ("PRPs"). A moratorium on RD/RA activities hascommenced and is expected to end on July 11, 1988. Informaldiscussions with PRPs indicate that a proposal to completeRD/RA activities is forthcoming. No civil law suit has beenfiled. Comments on the Proposed plan from the Henderson RoadSite PRP Steering Committee are included in the AdministrativeRecord.

III. COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY

The draft RI/FS and Proposed Plan were made availableto the public for comment on April 22, 1988. Public commentperiod closed on May 31, 1988. Although opportunity for apublic meeting was made available/ no request for such ameeting was received. EPA met with the Henderson Road SitePRP Steering Committee, at their request, to describe theProposed Plan and to receive additional comments on theProposed Plan. EPA also met with Philadelphia Suburban WaterCompany to discuss the Proposed Plan. Finally, representativesfrom EPA discussed the RI/FS and Proposed Plan with the ownersof the Mcllvain Well, Hubing Well, and Delaware River BasinCommission. Representatives from PA DER, Fish and WildlifeService, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationhave participated in development of the RI/FS since the firstdraft was produced.

Surface and subsurface features associated with theinjection well operable unit include ground water and UMRwater affected and potentially affected by disposal of

4R303309

- 4

hazardous substances into the injection well, assumedlybetween 1974 and 1977. The waste has migrated.to an areabeyond the injection well's immediate environs. Grossand/or dissolved contamination appears to exist in thevoid spaces and fractures in the unsaturated and saturatedbedrock.

The Responsiveness Summary .provides a response to eachof the significant comments received-from the public.

IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT AND RESPONSE ACTION

This Record of Decision ("ROD") for the injection welloperable unit addresses the first of two planned activitiesat the site. This ROD for the injection well -Operable unitaddresses ground water contamination and UMR contaminationcaused by or potentially caused by disposal of hazardous sub-stances into the injection well. Ground water pumping and,if determined to be feasible and cost-effective, unsaturatedzone treatment, are proposed to reduce the toxicity, mobility,and volume of contaminants related to the injection welloperable unit, A second ROD, for the Landfill Operable Unit,will address endangerment and potential endangerment fromcontaminated or potentially contaminated surface water,ground water, sediment and air related to landfilling,trenching, and hazardous waste storage at the site. Together,the RODs for the Injection Well and Landfill Operable Unitswill address exposure and potential exposure to all contam-ination resulting from site activities.

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A. Contamination and Affected Media

Limited information presently is available on the typesof materials disposed before PA DER was notified of injectionactivities at the site. 6,000 gallons of SmithKline andFrench waste allegedly were disposed in one occurrence inMarch, 1977, and records from ASM Disposal Company indicatenumerous "loads" from other sources were transported to thesite. However, total quantities of wastes disposedare unknown.

Results of PA DER and EPA sampling activities between1977 and 1981 are listed in Exhibit 5. Constituents detectedin greatest concentrations include toluene, 1,1-dichloroethane,d imethyIbenzenes (xylenes), 1,3,5-tr imethyIbenzene, 1,2\4,5-tetra-methylbenzene, and 2,7-dimethyInapthalene, 1,2,4-trichlorbenzene,1,4-dichlorobenzene, napthalene, l,2-dichlorobenzenef and4,6-dinitro-o-cresol.

ftR303210

-5'- - - - - - -

Results from ori- arid off-sit^, ground water monitoring in1986 are presented in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. Toluene and xyleneswere.-found in greatest concentrations on-site. However, theRisk Assessment indicates that vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethaneand tetrachloroethane pose the greatest proportion of thepotential cancer risk associated with consumption of groundwater beneath the site (see Exhibit 12.) Compounds found inhighest concentration in untreated. UMR water include trichloroethene,1,1/1-trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride. However, theRisk Assessment shows vinyl chloride, chloroform, 1,2,3- tri-chloroprbpane and dichlorobromomethane to pose the greatest -carcinogenic risk in UMR. 1,1-Dichloroethane was the most pre-valent compound detected at the Mcllvain well. 1,2-Dichloroethane,along with methylene chloride and trichloroethane, comprisethe carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of Mcllvain wellwater.

B. Location of Contamination and Known Potential Routesof Migration .._ .,.

The pr_esence in 1986 of plastlc/Jpeilets in one on-sitewell, nonacfueous phase liquid in a second on-site well, andsome site-related contaminants in two hydraulically-connectedupgradient wells indicate that the waste has spread to anarea beyond, the injection well's immediate environs. Contam-ination has been found on-site as deep as 295 feet and asshallow as" 175 feet beneath the surface in the saturatedbedrock zone. Offsite, contamination has been found asdeep as 505 feet in the Crooked Lane well. (This wellappears influenced by regional contaminants, too.) Basedon OVA readings obtained during drilling, contaminationalso is considered present in the voids and fractures inthe unsaturated zone. No soil sampling in the vicinity ofthe 20 foot deep oil pit adjacent to and formerly connectedto the injection well has been conducted. This pit may bea source of the toluene and xylene detected on-site.

When the injection well was used for waste disposal,the injected material passed through the unsaturated zoneand saturated zone. The large solution features in theunsaturated zone may have allowed liquid and solid waste tospread both vertically and laterally. "Mounding" may havecaused the injected waste to move not only downgradient, butupgradient too. For example on April 28, 1977, shortly afterthe last disposal into the injection well, the depth toliquid/water in the injection well was approximately 70 feetabove the local water table. Water quality results, dated1979 and 1983 at the Hubing well*, located about 1000 feet westof the injection well, and results from on-site "upgradient"sampling in 1986 support this theory of upgradient spread.

* The Hubing well, while apparently affected in the 1970'sfrom the injection of wastes at the site, did not exhibitground water contamination related to the site in 1986*

flR3032!

- 6 -

Several compounds detected in ground water beneath thesite have been detected in UMR since-1979, when UMR waterfirst was analyzed for volatile organic compounds, Fifteenof the 35 site-related chemicals of -concern were found atUMR in 1986. Certain site-related chemicals also have beendetected between the site and UMR and at the Mcllvain well.

The site is located in an area of regional ground watercontamination. Two compounds, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and1,2,3-trichloropropane, which contribute between about one-fifthfifth to one-eighth of the risk associated.with untreated UMRwater in 1986, were not detected at the site in 1986,(trichloropropane accounts for the second highest proportionof carcinogenic risk in one model). Furthermore, five organiccompounds have been been detected in excess of health-basedlevels in four off-site wells hot considered to presently beaffected by the injection well operable unit. Exhibit 9shows other potential regional sources of contamination.

The FS states, "it appears impossible that the centralplume of contamination from the site has not yet reached theUMR", based on an estimated travel time for water fromthe site to reach UMR of 0.6 to 3.4 years. However, groundwater on-site is still highly contaminated and^ the extent ofcontamination in the voids and fractures in unsaturated bed-rock has not been fully characterized. In EPA's opinion,a potential exists for increased off-site loading to theground water.

VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The potential scenarios for exposure to contaminantsassociated with the site are:

. current or future ground water extraction on-site;

. current or future ground water withdrawals betweenthe site and UMR;

. current or future ground water withdrawals upgradientfrom the injection well, where the effects of moundingstill may be observed;

. current or future consumption of water at the Mcllvainwell;

. current or future consumption of treated and untreatedUMR water.

AR3032I2

_ 7 —

Thirty-five chemicals of concern are affiliated withthe site (see Exhibit 10). Exhibit 11 describes the variousexposure scenarios modeled in the Risk Assessment andsummarizes the carcinogenic' and noncarcinogenic risk affiliatedwith each model.*

Exhibit 12 shows the carcinogenic risk associated witheach chemical of concern based on exposure models used in theRisk Assessment, chemicals of concern contributing the greatestproportion of-~carcinogenic risk are volatile organic chemicals.However, certain base/neutral extractable organics, acidextractable organics, and metals are included in the chemicalsof concern. Exhibit 13 shows the hazard index ("HI") forindividual chemicals of concern for the site, UMR, andMcllvain well, 1,2-Dichloropropane contributes the greatestproportion of noncarcinogenic risk at the site and UMR. Thenoncarcinogenic risk at the Mcllvain well is far below anycause for concern.

The carcinogenic risk on-site, based on maximum concen-trations found in 11 wells, is 3.6 x 10". The presentrisk associated with untreated water at UMR is 2.28 x 10~4(using maximum values) and 8.6 x 10"5 (using average values).The draft Risk Assessment attributes 82 and 88 percent, basedon maximum and average concentrations, of the present risk inuntreated water to site-related chemicals, although othersources may contribute to the contamination found at UMR.Also, analyses in the Risk Assessment of a potential worst-case release to the UMR predict a level of carcinogenic riskranging from 1.23 x 10~3 to 2.57 x 10~4 for untreatedwater. The risk affiliated with potential carcinogens inthe Mcllvain well is 6.8 x 10~6.

For the exposure scenarios modeled in the Risk Assessment,the highest HI for chemicals with noncarcinogenic effects is386 (water at maximum concentrations on-site). The HI asso-ciated with untreated UMR water is considered low, rangingfrom 0.6 to 2.3. A potential worst-case release to theUMR from the site would produce a HI ranging from 2.9 to 13.7.The HI for the Mcllvain well is calculated at 0.009.

* Models 2 through 5, which simulate a dilution of sitechemicals with 97 percent of the UMR recharge basinr diluteon-site concentrations 33 times (1.0 divided by 0.03),

flR3Q32i3

— 8

The primary exposure route from the site is throughdrinking treated UMR water. MCLs presently are met in treated .UMR water. The total risk from treated UMR water is4.4 x 10"5 (using maximum concentrations) and 1.9 x 10"(using averages). The extent to which treatment at UMR wouldprotect human health if UMR water quality degrades further,such as modeled in Models 2 through 5 of the RI, has notbeen quantified.

In light of the substantial uncertainties associated withthe characterization of contamination and ground water movementin the vicinity of the site and EPA's general standard forclean-up of Superfund sites to the 10~6 risk level, thepotential for adverse health effects, based on carcinogenicrisks, is considered substantial. "No action" is unacceptableand ground water cleanup to 10~6 risk or background levelsis recommended. _ ~"

VII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

No significant changes were made to the selected alternativeafter the Proposed Plan,EPA recently released to the publicthe following three documents that further clarify thepreferred remedy outlined in the Proposed Plan:

. Recommendations for Cleanup Criteria- Henderson RoadInjection Well Operable Unit?

. Henderson Road Injection Well Site Final Report onAdditional Work on Effluent Treatment Piloting andOther Remedial Measures;

. -^commendations for Pre-Design Investigations- Finaleport for the Henderson Road Injection Well Operable

Unit.

These documents are considered a logical outgrowth ofinformation made available to the public. These were devel-oped by EPA because EPA's preferred remedy differs from eachof the alternatives listed in the FS. These documents weredeveloped to clarify certain key components of EPA'spreferred remedy and to facilitate negotiations with PRPs forRD/RA settlement.

AR3032I1*

- 9 - ... -

VIII.DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

A. Summary of Alternatives

The seven screened alternatives .evaluated in the -FS andEPA's preferred alternative. Alternative- 7a, are summarizedin the following table:

Option Ground Injection Institu- Treatment In-situ On-site . Down-water - Well tional at Volatil- Pump & gradientMonitor- Closure Controls Mcllvain ization Treat Pump &ing I, well " '.. - Treat

Alter- - ......... -.—-native_____ .._.... ... . _...__. ._... -. — ,-;- . .-..-,- . - --

i x = " • - • -

2 X X X X

3 X X X X X

4 X X X X X

5 x X X X X X

6 X X X X X X

7 X X X X X X X

7 a X X X X X X X(more extensive — - - (pending (pendingthan alternative further further7) works; other work)

technologiesalso to beconsidered)

flR3032IS

- 10 -

B. Treatment Components _

The options comprising the above alternatives are de-scribed below.*

Monitoring- For all alternatives, three ."additional on-site and two or three additional downgradient well clustersare proposed in the FS for periodic ground water sampling.The 12 wells drilled and sampled for the RI plus the additionalproposed wells would be sampled quarterly for the firstyear and analyzed for volatile organics, semi-volatilecompounds and total metals. Six of the wells exhibitingthe most elevated contaminant levels during the first yearwould be sampled on a quarterly basis for the duration ofoperation and maintenance.

Those alternatives which include ground water recoverywould include the additional recovery wells in the groundwater monitoring program.

The monitoring program comprising Alternative 7a is moreextensive and refined than that proposed for Alternatives 1through 7, for two reasons. Monitoring during well construc-tion, operation and maintenance under Alternative 7a will befundamental in determining whether to institute in-situ aera-tion or other unsaturated zone treatment at the site.Section VIII.D describes this proposed additional sitemonitoring and describes monitoring for pilot testing neededto select treatment technologies for ground water. Additionalcharacterization of the unsaturated zone also is needed priorto-selecting a treatment option for the unsaturated zone(including, possibly, no action) as part of EPA's preferredalternative. Secondly, EPA's opinion is that additional work is'needed to characterize the saturated zone to most effectivelydesign a ground water recovery program. Details of the monitoringprogram will be developed in Remedial Design,

Monitoring under Alternative 7a also will include monitor-ing at the Hubing well, which EPA considers to have beenaffected by "mounding" from the injection well, the Mcllvainwell, which may presently be affected by the Injection WellOperable Unit, and UMR.

Injection Well Closure- Injection well closure will involveexcavation of the well cap and any contaminated sediments in theshallow vicinity of the injection well, backfilling of the adjacentoil pit, and permanently sealing the two discharge pipes leading intothe pit and the floor entrance to the pit. This would remove apotential pathway for contaminated surface waters to enter the sub-surface water to enter the subsurface zone.

s _ . -

*The PRPs proposed additional changes to their recommended alterna-tive in a letter dated June 17, 1988 to EPA. These recommendatioare not discussed in this ROD, except where the pRPs'recommendatiare incorporated into EPA's selected remedy. The ResponsivenessSummary addresses the June 17 letter.

flR3032!6

Since the soils in the vicinity of the injection welland oil pit have,never been sampled, the type and volumeof material to be treated are unknown. Excavation ofsediments in deep bedrock fractures is considered infeasible.The contaminated soil and sediments jln the vicinity of theinjection well pit and oil pit will be excavated and disposedat an approved landfill or, if prohibited by the Land Ban,incinerated or otherwise disposed appropriately.

Institutional/Controls - Institutional controls may include:

. use restrictions, to be obtained by site owners oroperators from owners of property affected by theinjection well operable unit, prohibiting the constructionof any water supply wells;

. periodic inspection by regulatory agencies to ensurethat the injection well remains sealed;

. prohibition of ground water extraction, as a restric-tive covenant, for the property comprising the site.

These controls are expected to mitigate the risk from exposureand potential exposure related to direct ingestion of groundwater.affected by the site until the aquifer restoration ob-jective is achieved (see Section VIII.D on "aquifer restorationobjective").

Treatment at Mcllvain Well - The Mcllvain well watersupply would be treated at the point of use by an activatedcarbon system. The type of activated carbon system commonlyused in household applications is expected to remove the yol-atile organic contaminants, which comprise the 6.75 x 10~**risk for carcinogens at the Mcllvain Well, to below the 1.0 x10*"6 risk level. Pilot testing is not anticipated to beneeded for installation of this system. Carbon wouldcontinue to be replaced at the Mcllvain well until aquiferrestoration objectives are achieved.

One assumption related to this option is that theMcllvain well is the sole active well affected by theHenderson Road site and used for drinking water purposes.

In-Situ Volatilization - In-situ volatilization (ISV)remediation would involve the use of extraction wellsselectively located through the unsaturated fractures andvoids in bedrock which would generate a vacuum in the sub-surface. This vacuum would act to reduce the apparent

fiR3032!7

boiling point of the volatile organics within the zone ofinfluence in the subsurface, resulting in a greater proportionof the contaminant partitioning into the vapor phase. Theexiting gas stream would be withdrawn through the extract-ionwells, and would carry these organics into a carbon adsorptionsystem to control emissions into the atmosphere, if necessary.

Organic compound vapors in the unsaturated bedrockvoids and fractures, and possibly some dissolved volatileorganic compounds in the ground water, would be extracted withISV. If volatile organic contamination in the unsaturatedzone is a significant portion of ,the source of contamination,future ground water degradation could be reduced with ISV,Recovery of some acid extractable .organics and base/neutralorganics with some volatility from the unsaturated zone maybe achieved. However, ISV would have no effect on phthalatewastes in the unsaturated zone,

The estimated reduction of volatile organic compoundwaste in the unsaturated zone ranges from 90 to 99 percent.Although this option is not expected to reduce the mobilityof any phthalates, which are not volatile, phthalates areconsidered to be immobile. The volume of waste that wouldbe treated is unknown because the extent of volatile organiccompound contamination in the unsaturated zone has not beendetermined. See Section VIII.D.

A pilot study would be required to determine whether theISV system could remove contamination effectively from theunsaturated zone, and, if so, to refine the operating parametersfor the ISV system. A pilot study would provide the basisfor evaluating organic removal efficiency from the subsurfacezone in the vacuum stream, the removal efficiency of theGAG offgas treatment system, and the potential effects ofshortcircuiting of the withdrawal system (i.e», the character-istics of the fractures in which a vacuum would be createdfor ISV, along with other factors, may limit the abilityto effectively establish a vacuum in certain parts of thearea being treated).

Criteria to discontinue the vacuum extraction process arediscussed in Section VIII.D.

In-situ volatilization is a relatively new technologyand application of this technology in fractured formationsis very limited. Because of this, and because the extent ofcontamination in the unsaturated zone is not fully character-ized to date, ISV is not considered highly reliable withoutconducting a pilot study.

On-site Pump and Treat - Three to five 8-inch recoverywells are proposed in the FS to be installed on-site andpumped to remediate on-site ground water at about 400 footdepths. If necessary to ensure ground water containment.

flR3032!8

- 13 -

additional "off-site recovery wells would be installed.Treatment is proposed to include a sedimentation/precipitationbasin to'remove elevated concentrations of.zinc and someorganic compounds, and an air stipper, to remove elevatedconcentrations of volatile organics. Vapor phase carbonadsorption, if needed tp;~c_ontrol air emissions, would beadded to. the treatment train. A biological treatmentsystem_also is proposed if pre^-design treatability studiesindicate additional ground water treatment would be neededto meet performancelcriteria ARARs. The air strippereffluent is -likely to be discharged to the intermittentstream along the eastern portion of the site. One otherdischarge option is injection of part of the effluent tothe aquifer.-, in the vicinity table of the injection well.

A brief pump test on-site has shown that sufficient draw-down of ground water at the site could be achieved in orderto induce the contaminants in the surrounding area toflow into one well. However, due to the uncertainties ofground water flow in fractured bedrock, the well field thatwould be established may not be capable of capturing all of thecontaminated water on-site at a reasonable pump rate. Certainfield activities are recommended as part of Alternative 7a toimprove prospects for capturing contaminants in the groundwater. See Section VIII.E.

Air stripping technology is based on the principle ofvapor-liquid equilibrium. Contaminated water is contactedwith large volumes of ambient air. The concentration ofcontaminants in the influent air is far below equilibrium,providing the driving force for transfer of contaminants fromwater to air. Contaminated water is pumped from the watersource to the tower, where it is countercurrently contactedwith air. The water entering the tower trickles down over apacked media which generates a thin film of water for aircontact. The thin film provides a large surface area for airto water contact. Packed column aeration has been demonstratedto provide a cost-effective system for removing volatileorganics from the ground water.

Exhibit 14 outlines possible treatment processes tobe used on ground water pumped at the site. Additionaltreatment could include pH adjustment, granular activatedcarbon, PACT activated sludge process, and filtration.

flR3032!9

- 14 - -=•-:-

Prior to piloting full scale design, on-and off-sitewells will be sampled and analyzed for the following parameters;

, BOD5. COD* Ammonia -N. Phosphates. pH. TSS, TS, TDS. oil and grease, alkalinity, hardness.

Based on results from this sampling and design criterialisted in Exhibit 15, the required pilot processes can bedetermined and certain technologies may be screened out.

Pump and treat is expected to achieve a slow butsteady reduction of the amount of soluble contaminants atthe site. However, in addition to the uncertainties andlimitations described above, the rate that the solubleremnant waste infiltrates the aquifer is unknown. This datagap increases the uncertainty related to the potential foron-site pumping to achieve aquifer restoration. Finally, thepotential to restore the downgradient portion of the aquiferis limited with only on-site pumping performance criteriaARARS.

The phthalates typically exhibit limited amenability toair stripping. However, it is anticipated that the technologiesselected through the pilot testing outlined in Exhibit 14should achieve performance criteria ARARs.

Off-Site Pump and Treat - As described in the FS, off-site ground water pumping and treatment would involve in-stallation of approximately three downgradient recoverywells, in addition to the on-site recovery wells describedabove*, from which water would be treated through air stripping.Effluent from the stripping tower would be discharged eitherto the adjacent intermittent stream or reinjected to theaquifer. Section VIII.E describes field activities recom-mended as part of Alternative 7a to improve prospects forcapturing ground water contaminants.

*0ff-site pumping is not being considered as an option withouton-site pumping; consequently, treatment components of off-sitepumping are only described here as part of an on- and off-sitepumping program.

flR303220

- 15.- -•

Depending on the yields obtained from on- and off-sitepumping __and the location of contaminants in the ground water,off-site pumping in addition to on-site pumping is expectedto improve prospects fo_r capturing on-site and downgradientcontaminants. In the FS, primary treatment levels foroff-site pumping are addressed as an additional level ofprotection to on-site pumping i.e., in the FS, downgradientcontamination is expected to be less severe than on-sitecontamination, so pumping downgradient is considered to beless effective in remediating the aquifer. In Alternative7a proposed by EPA, off-site treatment would be implementedonly if off-site treatment would achieve a similar order ofmagnitude reduction as on-site treatment i.e., if downgradientpumping would be just_as effective as recovering contaminationas on-site pumping, downgradient recovery would be implemented,

In the FS, the downgradient treatment system is describedas expected to be less complex than the on-site treatmentsystems, based on relatively low levels of contaminantsexpected in the FS to be detected downgradient. The systemis proposed to include a sedimentation/precipitation basin toremove metals and a smaller packed tower than the on-siteair stripper(s) to remove volatile organics. Emissionscontrols are determined in the FS to be unnecessary (ona preliminary basis), because PA Air Toxic Guidelines areexpected to be met. In Alternative 7a proposed by EPA, down-gradient pumping is proposed only if criteria for sitingdowngradient wells described above are met. Thus, underAlternative 7a, relatively high concentrations of contaminantswould be found downgradient in order for downgradient recoverywells fc6 be operated. If contamination downgradient is just ashigh as on-site than a similar treatment system would be neededunder Alternative 7a for ground water pumped from downgradientand on-site.

The sampling program and design criteria described abovefor on-site pump and treat would be applicable for off-sitepump and treat pilot testing and technology screening as well.Should additional treatment be needed to address less volatilecontaminants, the technologies listed in Exhibit 14 would beconsidered.

A,s with on-site pump and treat, clean-up goals foroff-site pump and treat as part of Alternative 7a are MCLs,other ARARs, or background levels, depending on the chemicalof concern. See Section VIII.D.

flR30322l

- 16 .-

C. Implementation Timeframes ___"

The estimated remedial action timeframes for eachof the alternatives are summarized below:

Alternative _ Estimated Time Commentsto AchieveAquifer Restoration(excluding background

_____________contaminants)_______________________________________

1 NA . Not expected to achieveaquifer restoration.Costs based on 30 years O&M.

2 NA Not expected to achieveaquifer restoration. FScosts based on 30 years O&M.

3 Unknown _r Extent of wastes in unsatur-ated zone is unkown, so can-not predict extent to whichISV would accelerate cleanupor whether aquifer restora-tion would be achieved with-out pilot test. Assumed 2-4years of ISV O&M in TerraVac estimate in FS. Withoutground water pumping, minimalreduction in toxicity, mobilityand volume of existing con-taminated ground water isexpected.

4 > 30 years; Will achieve reduction intoxicity, mobility andvolume, but unknown whetheraquifer restoration could beachieved.

5 .._> 30 years; possibly Will achieve reduction inless than Alternative 4 toxicity, mobility and volume

but unknown whether aquiferrestoration objective couldbe achieved. More likely toachieve aquifer restorationthan Alternative 4.

SR303222

- 17 -

6 " ~" "" y 30 years; less than Cannot predict extent to whichAlternative 4 . .^ -.-.- ISV would accelerate cleanup.

Will .achieve reduction intoxicity, mobility and volume.More likely to achieve aquiferrestoration than Alternative4 and 5, but still unknown.

7 >_ 30 years; less ~ Cannot predict extent tothan Alternatives which ISV would accelerate5 and 6 cleanup without piloting.

Will achieve reduction intoxicity, mobility andvolume. More likely toachieve aquifer restora-tion than Alternativesthrough 6 and possibly 7,but still unknown.

7a ^30 years; less than Cannot predict extent toAlternatives 5 and 6; which ISV would acceleratepossibly less than cleanup without piloting.Alternative 7. Will achieve reduction in

toxicity, mobility andvolume. More likely toachieve aquifer restorationthan Alternatives 1 through6 and possibly 7, but stillunknown.

D. Description of Major ARARS for Selected Remedy

Remedial Objectives - In the FS, two different clean-upgoals are proposed for Alternatives 4 through 7. Under thefirst Alternative, the ground water recovery and treatment systemwould operate in an attempt to clean the ground water beneath thesite property line to drinking water standards ("aquifer restor-ation") . Thirty years of O&M are estimated for cost purposes.Under the second Alternative, remediation would occur only untilcontamination at the site is reduced to a point where, oncediluted with the UMR recharge basin (a three percent contributionfrom the site to the recharge basin is used for the model),drinking water_standards are achieved at UMR. Both scenariosare based on an assumption that no other sources contributeor will contribute to contamination at UMR.

flR303223

18 -

EPA has selected aquifer restoration as the clean-up goalfor the site because data uncertainties and complexities re-lated to the movement of wastes through the aquifer makepredictions difficult regarding potential off-site releasewhich would po'se a risk to human health and the environment.Under Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii) of SARA, alternate concentrationlimits may not be applied at the property line if human exposuremay occur beyond the boundary of the facility unless:

(I) there are known and projected points of entry of groundwater into surface water,

(II) on the basis of measurements or projections, thereis or will be no statistically significant increaseof constituents from ground water in surface waterat the point of entry or at any point where thereis reason to believe accumulation of constituentsmay occur downstream; and

(III) the remedial action includes enforceable measures thatwill- preclude human exposure at any point between thefacility boundary and all known or projected pointsof entry of ground water into surface water.

EPA is not prepared to conclude that the existing measure-ments or projections establish that there is or will be nostatistically significant increase of constituents as describedin (II) above.

Clean-up Criteria (ARARs) for Capping and Plugging theInjection W e l T ' \ ~

The injection well currently is listed in the EPA UndergroundInjection Well Control Program. Closure of the well, includingcapping the well, will conform with applicable EPA injectionwell closure standards (40 C.F.R. Part 144.28).

Clean-up Criteria (ARARs) for Ground Water Pumping - Exhibit16 lists cleanup criteria(ARARs)proposed for chemicals of -concern that will be treated and monitored. As shown inExhibit 16, these ARARs are based on the most conservativevalue derived from the following: MCLs, MCLgs, aquatic waterquality criteria, drinking water equivalent levels. SuggestedNo Adverse Effect levels, models developed during the RiskAssessment, processes described in the Superfund Public HealthEvaluation Manual, and specific values accepted by EPA (whereno other ARARs exist). Consistent with EPA Interim ARARGuidance dated July 14, 1987, MCLs, where available, were used.

~ Kf3

•-•*;#?flR30322U

— 19 •- ,

These are based on identifying the aquifer "of concern asequivalent to a Class IIA aquifer, a current source of drinkingwater. Also, five chemicals that are considered regional con-taminants (1 r 1-dichlo.roethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene,trichloroethene and 1,2-dichlorpropane are proposed to beremediated to the most conservative value of the followingthree-criteria:

. Average concentrations of the compounds in theEstock, Hubing, and HR-1 averages will be modifiedas additional background wells are developed;

. Average concentrations of the compounds in wellson-site (excluding HR-2-195, HR-4-195, HR-4-295,HR-5-192, and HR cluster 1);

. Proposed chemical-specific ARARs for a Class IIAaquifer (Exhibit 16) multiplied by a dilutionfactor of 33 as discussed in the FS.

ARAPs proposed in Exhibit 16 are based on the assumption thatregional ground water contamination will not change in thefuture. Should background contamination increase based onsampling results from the above well plus new wells to beinstalled, the target criteria for regional contaminantscould be changed, using the same criteria listed above, withaverages recalculated with new values.

Clean-up criteria would be applied to ground water qualitymonitored at both the recovery and monitoring wells. Theoperation of the ground water recovery and treatment systemmay be discontinued when the upper limit of the mean concentrationof each indicator parameter (from the five most contaminatedmonitoring and/or recovery wells associated with the ground watertreatment and recovery system as defined by each period ofsampling or other basis to be determined in Remedial Design)is less that the appropriate clean-up criteria. A statisticaltool, such as the Student's T test, would be used to definethe upper range within which the mean concentration of arepresentative sample would occur. The upper limit of thesample mean must be below the specified clean-up criteriafor four consecutive quarterly monitoring events before thetreatment system would be discontinued. This will ensure thatseasonal fluctuations in site conditions are accounted for inthe evaluation. If all parameters meet these criteria, exceptfor those that have been identified as regional contaminants(as specified above), the criteria may be waived for these com-pounds if sufficient information determines that regionalinfluences are responsible for the observed levels of contam-inants above the specified criteria* The pump-and-treat systemwould be reactivated if the concentration of the indicatorparameters shows a statistically significant increase above thecleanup criteria in two consecutive quarters. - __:__ '

SR303225

- 20 -

Individual ground water extraction wells may be removedfrom the ground water recovery and treatment system independentof full system shutdown. If ground water contaminant levels ."from an individual extraction we11"are below the clean-upcriteria for four consecutive quarters, then the well may betaken off-line. Monitoring of off-line wells should continue ona quarterly basis. The reaction of ground water quality atother wells, from the shutdown of individual extractionwells, also w_ould be observed to ensure that the effectivenessof the ground water recovery and treatment system is maintained.The well would be reactivated as a recovery well if theconcentration of the indicator parameters during the quarterlymonitoring exceeds the clean-up criteria for two consecutivequarters. Again, requirements for recovery well or systemshut down for those parmeters that are regional contaminantsmay be waived if sufficient information determines thatregional influences are responsible for the observed con-taminant concentrations.

Clean-up Criteria (ARARs) for Injection Well SedimentExcavation - I£ soilsin the vicinity of the injectionwell and oil^pit are shown tcPhave the potential to causefuture ground water contamination above health-based goals,they will be removed to a feasible, cost-effective depth,EPA plans to excavate shallow soils and sediments that do notmeet RCRA standards for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivityor toxicity and those that fail the TCLP test, in addition,the TCLP will be used to determine the degree of excavationrequired around the injection well pit and oil pit.

Clean-up Criteria for ISV- The proposed alternative in-cludes ISV as one potential technology to be implemented shouldremediation of the unsaturated zone prove necessary. On a pre-liminary basis, criteria to discontinue the vacuum extractionprocess is proposed at 400 ppb total volatile organics in theoffgas when averaged over a three-month period. At 400 ppb,the system is expected to experience diminishing returns interms of reduction in concentration and reduction in contaminantremoval. Refinement of criteria for discontinuance of anISV system would be needed through a pilot study.

Since a treatment process has not been selected for the un-saturated zone for this ROD (ISV was only proposed as one optionand evaluated, for costing-purposes, on a preliminary basis),clean-up criteria for other potential unsaturated zone treatmentprocesses (e.g., unsaturated zone flushing) have not beendeveloped.

AR303226

- 21 -.

Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Ground Water Treatment -.Indicator parameters for assessing _the performance of theground water treatment system are based on the followingcriteria: - - - -

Risk: Any compounds that hypothetically could impactUMR (based on Model 1 of the RI) with a carcinogenic .risk greater than 1 x 10~° or a non-carcinogenichazard index risk greater than 0.5;

Magnitude of maximum concentration in relation to theproposed cleanup criteria: Any compound that exceedsthe aquifer restoration criteria;

Treatment process specific compounds: Compounds thatare treated by each of the ground water treatmentprocesses.

For discharge of the treated effluent to the dry swale alongthe eastern portion of the site, compliance with NPDES dis-harge permit requirements which include the PA toxic strategymust be attained. It is likely that the proposed effluentstandards will be acceptable for surface discharge. PA DERmay require that discharge at the property boundarywill not adversely impact water quality and aquatic lifeat the point where it discharges into the point of continuousflow and that treatment to the 10~5 or 10~6 cancer risklevel must be achieved. The Delaware River Basin Commissionand PA DER will be contacted for review and guidance on .specific effluent requirements.

If part of the treated water is discharged back to theground water through an infiltration gallery to "flush" theunsaturated zone, the treated effluent must meet drinkingwater standards or human health criteria, whichever ismore stringent.

Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Air Emissions- Exhibit17 lists air quality guidelines that would apply to air emissionsfrom air strippers or any other treatment options implementedat-the site. The emissions of all toxic air contaminants listedin Exhibit 17 must meet the requirements of Pennsylvania airtoxic guidelines entitled, "Interim Operating Guidance for AirToxic Substances: New and Modified Sources," dated September27, 1985. This guidance establishes rules for determining theconcentrations of toxic air contaminants from a source measuredat the property line (or at any point off the property) andestablishes limits for the concentrations of toxic airpollutants. _

BR303227

- 22- -

The following conditions must be met for the emissionsof any toxic air pollutant:

When the maximum ambient concentration of any toxicair contaminant is within a factor of three below theair quality guidelines, every effort should be madeto reduce the concentration by improvements in airpollutant release characteristics, reductions inoperating schedule, and other factors that may reducethe maximum ambient concentration;

When the maximum ambient concentration of any toxic aircontaminant is within a factor of three greater than theair quality guidelines, consideration should be given toreducing the amount of toxic substance that would beemitted by improving the air pollution control equipmentor procedures;

When the maximum ambient concentration of any toxic aircontaminant is within a factor of three greater thanthe air quality guidelines and cannot be reduced to sub-stantially less than the air quality guidelines, thePA DER Air Toxic Coordinator must approve or disapprovethe construction of the source;

If the maximum ambient concentration of any toxic aircontaminant is substantially greater than the air qualityguidelines, the emission of the air toxic substance mustprevent an unacceptable risk to public health.

Furthermore, if VOC emissions are determined to jeopardizethe attainment of the ozone standard, emission controls mustbe implemented in order to reduce VOC emissions to an acceptablelevel. This determination is made by the PA DER on a case-by-case basis after submittal of plans to PA DER.

The emissions of toxic air contaminants and volatile organiccompounds to the atmosphere can be controlled to the extentnecessary in order to achieve these requirements_by using gasvapor phase activated carbon.

Performance Criteria (ARARs) for Off-site Disposal- Off-sitedisposal of hazardous waste must be performed in accordance withthe requirements of the EPA's Off-site Policy, which prohibits theuse of a facility that has significant outstanding Class Iviolations under RCRA. The materials that are expected to be dis-posed off-site would be soil or sludge excavated from the base ofthe injection well pit, cuttings from the drilling of wells, andcontaminated equipment or garb used by workers. (Spent activated,carbon from remedial treatment systems would be reclaimed andreused at a recycling facility). The contaminated materialsare likely to be sent to a hazardous waste incinerator or other .appropriate disposal facility, as RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions

AR303228

- 23 -

("Land Ban") are likely to be applicable or relevant andappropriate for these materials. " - -

E. Description of the Preferred Alternative

EPA's preferred alternative is Alternative 7a, Thisdiffers from the alternative recommended by the PRP Respondentsin the RI/FS, which is Alternative 4. Indeed, while certaincomponents of EPA's alternative are similar to those comprisingthe alternatives evaluated in the RI/FS, EPA's preferredalternative differs from all seven alternatives analyzed inthe RI/FS. This is because EPA determined that an additionalalternative or alternatives were needed to address the highlevel of uncertainty pertaining to the characterization, fate,and transport of contaminants related to this site. EPA alsodisagrees with _the _re_commendation, in the RI/FS, to selectUMR restoration as a clean-up goal.

As various drafts of the RI/FS were developed, EPA commentedthat significant uncertainty still existed regarding the verticaland lateral extent of contamination in the unsaturated and satur-ated zones. EPA determined that data gathered to date was suffi-cient to screen and evaluate FS alternatives and begin RemedialDesign/Remedial Action. However, EPA expected that additionalcharacterization would be necessary in order to design a treat-ment system. .Since none of the alternatives proposed in the .FS addresses this need,* EPA prepared a report entitled, "DraftPre-Design Recommendations for the Henderson Road Injection WellOperable Unit", the major components of which are incorporatedinto the EPA preferred alternative.

EPA's preferred alternative is comprised of the following:

. injection well investigation, possible remediation,and closure;

. on-site ground water investigation, pumping andtreating with air stripper and other treatmenttechnologies, if necessary to meet effluent andemission performance criteria;

. downgradient ground water pumping and treatment,depending on further analyses of downgradientground water hydraulics and contamination;

. installation, operation and maintenance of a carbonabsorption water treatment system at the Mcllvainwell;

* The PRP Respondents disagree with EPA that additional charac-terization is needed. See Responsiveness Summary.

5R303229

- 24 -

. on-site, upgradient and downgradient ground watermonitoring (including at the Hubing and Mcllvainwells and UMR) throughout design, operation andmaintenance of the ground water treatment systemand for the period following discontinuation ofpumping; - -_

. periodic evaluation of the progress of the treatmentsystem in achieving ARARs and, if appropriate,reevaluation of the aquifer restoration objective andARARs, considering feasibility and cost-effectiveness;

. further investigation of the unsaturated zone priorto-determining whether direct unsaturated zone treat-ment should be instituted and, if so, selecting anappropriate technology. in-sit_u volatilization* andsoil flushing are two treatment technologiesunder consideration. Other technologies could beselected instead or a decision may be made to fore^go direct remediation of the unsaturated zone; and

. institutional controls to restrict or limit the use ofground water on properties affected by the injectionwell operable unit.

Exhibit 18 shows how the investigative activities proposed aspart of EPA's preferred alternative will factor into revisingthe current conceptual model of the site (i.e., the extent/natureof contamination, fate and transport, existing and potential riskand costs of potential remediation). Exhibits 19 through21 outline, in more detail, the progress of events for theinjection well, unsaturated zone, and saturated zone investig-ations. Section VIII.B briefly describes the pilot testing andcriteria that will determine final ground water treatmentdesign.

Estimated costs for EPA's preferred alternativerange from $ 5.5 million (if no ISV or other unsaturated zonetreatment is instituted and no downgradient & pumping) to 12.2million (if ISV is instituted). Exhibit 22 provides documentationof these costs.

IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

A Summary of the comparative analysis of alternativesis provided on the following table. Costs included in thetable are estimates only.

* ISV is used as a basis for determining the costs of theunsaturated zone component of the preferred alternative.

3R303230

P

5

3 .

u

!tii5J

i!

II fi II Hi!*B iit5*fl iliitii HIlHfl llilllfito"S l . . . . . . . . .

SJI

1 'I*

Iffl•* •* 9 ""

. , i1 1 Ifjii | III | IN l&ii < ji , |!iii!i* - J;=3= -!.?i -I .si f r*s=s i??x3i ni*»3;* = - 2l=:i sjs-i *hst pi=Ii J5J=2- JaJ?»?sI a nil! jj»h jijgj kii!j jtasiii .^saiuf = = 1 = 8Js1 i3 I

I* !J

« . • v a-

.m ' i ?s g I is |ls!! Ill 111 111 III III - 'Hi HI

III

i| . i. lli? ill,m £ £ « - 6^1 — O *• » 3 » 5 5 '

,9 I I1 -1 ^ = 1^ !ZlMjt i|!l I 1§ :» --iil^ «*-" - -3£• J^ ja-a s »i. xs» -5Es . s i?£ 'si^ils : = -a =

, == ll IHI 3=*S1f? I!?J lislr ?l!r?b 1*1??

S'M 3™-a-3 3 " 5 - •* 2 wl"; • -32-1-§5! lllll i?3ii T i-H£ ^HS'lS "i *• SuExS * J fl '• M~* * *• * * • -\ll jKif jliii ihil i!*l!\M. ;?||I ;i!;ij »i||i hi ?!

ii II!i ill! Il !? JllliI Knl jUifi!

-

- 25 •*- -

x- THE SELECTED REMEDY . = _ _._

EPA has selected Alternative 7a based on considerationof the following:

. the comparative analyses of alternatives describedin Section IX;

. particular emphasis on overall protection of humanhealth and the environment and compliance with ARARs,in light of the uncertainty related to a potentialoff-site release?

. the overall implementability of each alternative; i.e.,further characterization is included in the preferredremedy to improve prospects for achieving aquiferrestoration. Periodic evaluation of progress in achievingclean-up goals is included-in_ order to address thecurrent uncertainty regarding .the effectiveness ofproposed unsaturated and saturated zone remediation.

A. Risk Level to be Attained -

If the aquifer restoration objective, modified toaddress regional contamination, is attained, on-site clean-upwill be achieved to the levels specified in Exhibit 16 or otherlevels to be established based on additional well installationand future on- and off-site monitoring. The ARARs proposedin Exhibit 16 will result in carcinogenic risk levels for on-siteground water, of approximately 7 x 10" . Since the currenton-site carcinogenic risk is calculated at 3.6 x 10", therisk reduction effected by successful implementation of EPA'sselected remedy would be about 50-fold. A risk level of 7 x10~4 is within the range of risk of 10~4 to 10~7, whichis generally considered "acceptable" by EPA. However, completeaquifer restoration is not considered feasible because ofbackground contamination. Should background contaminationincrease or decrease the risk level would change too.

Ground water quality and the risk associated with therespective contaminants found in the 11 on-site wells issubstantially different from UMR water quality. This is not

HR303232

- 26 -

unexpected, since the site has been estimated to contributeonly a small percentage of the total recharge to UMR. Becauseof" this relatively small ground water cpntribution from thesite, most changes in loading from the site are expected tohave minimal -impact on UMR.*

The Risk Assessment attributes 44 and 33 percent(based on maximum and average concentrations used in models10 through 13) of the risk in treated UMR water to chemicalsdetected at the site. The total risk from treated UMR waterhas been calculated at 4.4 X 10" {using maximum concentra-tions) and 1.9 X 10~5 (using averages). Thus, if allthe risk from Henderson Road-related chemicals were eliminated,risk from drinking treated water at UMR would be reduced to1.9 X 10~5 and 4.3 X 10~6. This assumes the site is thesole contributor of all concentrations of chemicals found atboth UMR and the site. Also, this is not viewed as a signif-icant risk reduction.

However, under a worst case hypothetical scenario for apotential release from the site toUMR, maximum concentrationsat the site would be diluted en route to UMR and added to theexisting maximum untreated water conce.ntrations at UMR. Riskassociated with this scenario have been calculated at 1.3 x :10~J (model 3). Treatment at UMR would be expected to reducethis risk. While the assumptions used in this model may beconservative, the uncertainties,associated with the site,as described earlier, warrant an approach most protective ofhuman health. Clean-up to MCLs, or other ARARs modified toaddress background contamination, would reduce prospects fora release such as calculated in model 3 of the Risk Assessment.

The following premises are factored into the goal ofachieving an on-site risk of 7 x 10~4 through aquiferrestoration:

recovery wells will be situated, vertically andlaterally, in major fractures so that on-site groundwater contamination will be fully contained;

recovery wells will be situated, vertically andlaterally, in major fractures so that any site-relateddowngradient contamination of_ magnitude similar toon-site contamination will be significantly contained;

* Certain hazardous substances, when released even in minutequantities, can have substantial impacts on an aquifer due totheir high toxicity.

AR303233

- 27 -

ground water pumping will not result in significantlyincreased on-si-te contamination from regional .contamin-ants being pumped to beneath the site at higher levelsthan currently detected, in the "background" wells(see-Section VIII.D);

if.. uhsaturated zone treatment is elected, such treatmentwill remove unsaturated zone contamination to the extentthat an otherwise potentially significant, long-termrelease to the ground water is removed;

nonaqueous phase liquids posing substantial riskwill be removed through injection well closure andground water pumping;

any other conditions are not occurring or will not occurthat will preclude achievement of aquifer restorationin a cost-effective fashion, such as a leveling-off ofground water quality levels at concentrations aboveproposed ARARs.

Because the nature, extent and location of hazardous sub-stances disposed into the aquifer is uncertain, because back-ground contamination may change in the futurer and because theremediation implementation timeframe may exceed 30 years,EPA proposes conducting a formal evaluation of the clean-upgoals and progress in achieving those goals.every five years,from the commencement of ground water pumping (See SectionVIII.E). Depending on the outcome of those five-year evalu-ations risk levels to be attained may change.

B. Rationale For EPA's Selection Of Its Preferred Alternative

Additional characterization of potential ground waterflow paths, depth of ground water contamination,background and downgradient ground water quality, andaquifer hydraulics is needed in order to improve pros-pects for siting recovery wells at key locations forsuccessfully containing on- and off-site contaminationand designing an appropriate ground water treatmentsystem;

Injection well investigation and closure is necessaryto further characterize the type and extent of contam-ination, possibly remove potentially extensivecontamination still in the immediate vicinity of theinjection well, and remove any potential sourcesof new contamination.

flR30323U

- 28 -

Ground water pumping is needed on-site to containon-site contaminated ground water;

Ground water pumping would be .needed downgradient ifa significant amount of contamination (i.e., magnitudecomparable to on-site contamination) is detecteddowngradient and may be cost-effectively recovered(i.e. if prospects for achieving ARARs are expectedto be high, based on yields).

Characterization of unsaturated zone contaminationis needed to determine the nature and extent of remnantwaste in the unsaturated zone and help determine theimplementebility, impact on human health, and cost-effectiveness of instituting ISV or other unsaturatedzone treatment.

Unsaturated zone treatment may be needed to address thecriteria for long-and short-term effectiveness; i.e.,if substantial amounts of hazardous substances posea long-term threat of release from unsaturated zoneto the ground water, unsaturated zone treatmentwould be appropriate.

Treatment at the Mcllvain well is needed to mitigatethe existing and potential carcinogenic riskassociated with that well.

Ground water monitoring is needed to continually assessthe performance of the remedial program and respondto changes as needed, e.g., EPA may decide to implementunsaturated zone treatment after observing groundwater monitoring results for several years and de-termining that a substantial, continual releasefrom the unsaturated zone is probably occurring.

Monitoring of the Mcllvain and Hubing wells and UMRwill identify any increased risks that would need tobe addressed. Monitoring at Mcllvain is needed toidentify when treatment may be discontinued.

Hazardous substances are expected to remain on-site forat least several years after remediation has begun.Section 121(c) of SARA requires review of remedialactions, no less often than every five years afterinitiation of remediation, for those remedial actions

flR30323§

- 29 -

that result in any hazardous substances remainingat the site. If, upon such review, EPA determinesthat action is appropriate in accordance.withSection 104 or 106, such "action should be required.In addition to possibly determining that unsaturatedzone treatment, if not previously .implemented-, isneeded during one of the five-year reviews for theHenderson Road Site Injection Well Operable Unit,other modifications to the remedial program may beselected. Alternatively EPA may determine, based onadditional data, that:

- a potential off-site release is not expected;- background contamination is changing such thatclean-up goals need to be redefined for regionalcontaminants; or

- aquifer restoration, modified to address backgroundcontamination, is not likely to be achieved.

EPA then may reevaluate clean-up objectives andtheir affliated ARARs.

The Selected Remedy will allow injection well, groundwater, and Mcllvain wll remediation to commence, yet prescribesa conservative, cost-effective, and flexible approach toaddressing the complexities related to this operable unit.

C* Points of Compliance

Section 121(d) of SARA directs the point of complianceto be at the property line. However, on-site recovery wellswill be located at strategic locations for containing on-sitecontamination. Off-site recovery wells, if developed, will besited where significant downgradient contamination may becontained. Monitoring wells will be sited to observe theeffects of ground water pumping and most effectivelycharacterize ground water flow and quality. These locations -may not coincide with the property line.

Clean-up criteria for ground water pumping, sedimentexcavation, and ISV (on a preliminary basis only), as describedin Section VIII.D, are based achieving ARARs in ground waterbeneath the site. This may result in remediation of groundwater to levels below ARARs at the property line, but, unlessARARs change through the periodic evaluation that is part ofAlternative 7a, will not result in exceedence of ARARs at theproperty line.

- 30 -

XI. THE STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

A- Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The treatment prescribed in the selected remedy isdesigned to achieve.an on-site risk, affiliated with theinjection well operable unit, of approximately 7 x 10" .The existing on-site risk, based on maximum concentrations,is 3.6 x 10"2. A 50-fold risk reduction for ground waterbeneath the site is expected with successful implementationof the selected remedy. This, in turn, is expected to reducethe downgradient risk from a potential significant off-siterelease.

If no significant future off-site release occurs,treatment at UMR is expected to continue to achieve acarcinogenic risk of 4.4 X 10" (based on maximum values)and 1.8 x 10~5 (based on average values). Treatment atthe Mcllvain well is expected to reduce the carcinogenicrisk to below 1.0 x 10" .

Treatment at UMR is expected to continue to achieve aHI of 1.5 (based on maximum values) and .71 (based on averagevalues) . The HI for untreated Mcll'vain well water is .009;treatment may reduce this low HI even further.

No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impactsare expected from implementation of EPA's preferred remedy.Air pollution controls will be implemented, if needed, tomeet State air emissions requirements and to address PSWCconcerns regarding the effect of new air strippers on theirexisting treatment system.

B. Attainment of ARARs

With the exception of five background contaminants, theselected remedy will attain the ARARs of a Class IIAaquifer. ARARs and the rationale for their selection arelisted on Exhibit 16. ACLs are proposed for 1,1-dichloro-ethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, 1,2-dichloropropane,and trichloroethene, as described in Section VIII.D. Theprocess that has been and and will continue to be used toselect;"rACLs is generally consistent with Section 264.94 ofRCRA regulations and 1987 ACL Interim Final Guidance. Additionaldata on background contamination gathered during RD/RA (e.g.,data from new background monitoring wells) will be incorporatedinto the evaluation of ARARs that is planned for every fiveyears throughout operation and maintenance.

AR303237

- 31 --

Other, factors that will be considered "in the five-year evalua-tions will include implementability (i.e. is ground waterquality improving at an acceptable rate during remediation)and cost-effectiveness (i.e. is unsaturated zone treatment acost-effective option to supplement ground water pumping).

Section VIII.D refers to RCRA "land ban" and off-sitedisposal requirements, NPDES permitting requirements, injectionWell Program requirements and state air pollution emissionsrequirements. Ground water withdrawals exceeding 10,000 gpdand surface and ground water discharges exceeding 50,000 gpdwill require a permit from the Delaware River Basin Commission.

C. Cost Effectiveness

The selected remedy, with estimated costs ranging from$ 7.2 million to $ 12.2 million, affords overall effectivenessproportional to its costs such that the remedy represents areasonable value for the money. Exhibit 22 compares estimatedcosts affiliated with each component of Alternative 7a with thoseestimated by the PRPs for Alternative 7. Since Alternative 7is comprised of a combination of Alternatives 1 through 6, therespective estimated costs comprising all alternatives areincluded in Exhibit 22.

Unsaturated zone characterization, injection well investig-ation and closure, and ground water pumping are needed to meetevaluation criteria for reduction in toxicity, mobility, orvolume (characterization is needed to identify toxicity,mobility and volume) and short-terra effectiveness. Additionalcharacterization of the saturated zone is needed to improveprospects for achieving aquifer restoration (ARARs). Thephased approach to determining whether and how to instituteunsaturated zone treatment, emphasis on long-term monitoring,and scheduled reevaluation of the remedy and proposed ARARsconstitutes a cost-effective approach to balancing cost andoverall effectiveness in light of the existing data gaps.

The aquifer restoration objective is estimated to costabout $ 1.5 million more than implementation of Alternative 7ato achieve UMR restoration. This is considered reasonable atthis time considering the mandate under the Ground Water Pro-tection program to provide a high level of protection to ClassIIA aquifers. Should data gathered during Remedial Actionindicate that aquifer restoration will be significantly morecostly than estimated at this time or that implementabilityis 1 ss feasible than currently estimated, this new informationwill ;?e factored into the periodic evaluation of ARARs. Thisis a cost-effective and practical approach.

UR303238

- 32 -

D. Utilization Of Permanent Solutions Employing AlternativeTechnologies To The Maximum Extent Practicable

The selected remedy more effectively meets the evaluationcriteria for selecting a remedy than Alternatives 1 through 7.

. The selected remedy potentially offers the highestlevel of_protection from contamination both on- andoff-site by strategically locating recovery wells inorder to remove remnant waste and gross contaminants.

.'The selected remedy has the greatest potential tomeet aquifer restoration ARARs both on- and off-site.

. Removal of most source material and treating on-siteand, possibly, off-site ground water may offer thegreatest risk reduction. ____

. The selected remedy is expected to have the highest levelof state and community acceptance.

. Institution of injection well pit excavation, removalof significant waste in the injection well (if detected),pumping and, possibly, unsaturated zone treatment willreduce the volume and mobility of soil and ground watercontamination and represents the maximum extent to whichpermanent solutions and treatment can be practicablyutilized. Excavation of bedrock to the bottom of theinjection well is considered infeasible.

E. Preference For Treatment As A Principal Element

The selected remedy involves treatment (i.e., groundwater pumping and air stripping, well pit excavation andprobably, incineration, carbon adsorption at the Mcllvainwell and possibly ISV, soil' flushing, or other unsaturated zonetreatment) of ground water, surface water and air to addressthe principal threats posed by the Injection Well Operable Unit.The ROD for the Landfill Operable Unit will address remediationof threats or potential threats to ground water, surface water,and air caused by the landfill, previous trenching operations,underground storage tanks and other relevant surface operations.

4R303239

Responstveness Summary - June, 1988

Henderson Road Superfund Site

The Henderson. Road Superfund Site is located at 372 South Henderson Roadin Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Two. other Superfund Sites are within three miles of the Henderson Roadsite: TysonTs and Kessler. Although citizen interest at the.-Tyson's site hasbeen high, there isn't much concern in the community regarding HendersonRoad. EPA held a public meeting in March, 1983. Attendance was low, mostlyconsisting of representatives of the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs).

In May, 1988..the PRPs completed the Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy (RI/FS) which included their suggested cleanup alternative. EPA'spreferred alternative is described in the Proposed Plan. Copies of the RI/FS andProposed Plan were^sent to the site repository which is the Wolfsohn MemorialLibrary on Town Center Road in King of Prussia. A quarter page advertisementwas published in the Friday April 22, 1988 edition of the Norristown TimesHerald. The ad announced the list of clean-up alternatives and EPArs preferredalternative, along with the dates of the comment period; April 22 - May 24.At the request of the PRPs the comment period was extended to May 31. EPA'snewspaper ad also stated that all residents interested in having a publicmeeting should contact the Agency by May 9. .Puring that time, EPA receivedno requests for a public meeting. Also, during the comment period EPA did notreceive written or verbal comments from the community. However, the PhiladelphiaSuburban Water Company and the PRPs did submit written comments. TheResponsiveness Summary address all comments received through June 21, 1988. Theremainder of this Responsiveness Summary will provide the Agency's responseto those comments. -.

III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENTPERIOD "A"ND" AGENCY RESPONSES

A. Comments Submitted by Henderson Road PRP Committee,5/31/88 ; ~ _ ;——————————Comment: Paper entitled, "Significant Issue Paper - HendersonRoad NPL Site Injection Well Operable Unit, April, 1988"appears to be a fundamental document upon which ProposedPlan is based. Public comment should be extended to allowpublic more time to respond to this paper.

Response: The conclusions of the "Significant Issue Paper"were incorporated into the Proposed Plan upon which the publichad five weeks to formally comment. Furthermore, the require-ments under SARA which form a basis of the "Significant IssuePaper".were cited by the EPA.Remedial Enforcement Project Managerin several discussions with the PRPs and their contractorprior to~the issuance of the Proposed Plan. The Significant-Issues Paper was released to the PRPs on May 12, 1988.

Comment: Report entitled, "Recommendations for Clean-upCriteria - Henderson Road Injection Well Operable Unit"appears to be a fundamental document upon which Proposed Planis based. Public comment should be extended to allow publicmore time to respond to this paper.

Response: The Proposed Plan is not based on "Recommendationsfor Clean-up Criteria". The report was developed after the con-ceptual approach to.clean-up was determined by EPA and set forthin the Proposed Plan. Proposed Plans are not intended toprovide the level of detail found in "Recommendations forClean-up Criteria." Because the approach to establishing clean-up criteria in the FS was determined by EPA to be insufficientto meet ARARs under SARA and the Ground Water ProtectionProgram and was anticipated to be unacceptable to ATSDR, thisreport was prepared. It could have been reasonably anticipatedby the public.

Comment; Extension of pukl_i_c_comment period to May 31 isinadequate for the public to provide meaningful comment.

Response: EPA informed the PRP Steering Committee that, althoughformal comment period needed to end May 31 so that the RODmay be completed by June 30 and remediation could ensue on thissite, comments would be received until June 21. EPA met withthe PRP Steering Committee on June 7 to receive comments, inaddition to those dated May 31, on the Proposed Plan and answerquestions pertaining to the supporting documents prepared byEPA. EPA also received comments from the PRPs on June 23.These comments are discussed in this Responsiveness Summary.

AR30321H

- 2 -

Comment: The__ Proposed Plan did not include:

an adequate explanation of the rationale for theProposed Plan;target levels for completion of the required groundwater pumping and treatment;a workable definition of "background" contaminantlevels' for the site;a target or triggering level for initiation of thein-situ volatilization ("ISV") component of theProposed Plan.

Response: ^- •=_•_. ,. - :

The rationale for the Proposed plan included a briefdiscussion of the nine evaluation criteria for selectinga remedy and referred to the uncertainty related to apotential future release as a basis for selection ofthe aquifer restoration objective.

Target levels for completion of ground water pumpingwere conceptually identified in the Proposed plan as"background".

EPA had requested the PRPs to propose background levelsin comments to previous RI/FS drafts; since these werenot identified in the Rl/FS and are needed for the ROD,the "Recommendations for Clean-up Criteria" reportincluded these. However, specific numerical valuesfor clean-up criteria were not needed to evaluate thealternatives for the Proposed Plan.

The uncertainties and complexities of the site makeestablishment of target or triggering levels forinitiation of ISV inappropriate. Instead the optionto select or reject ISV or some other unsaturatedzone treatment is retained in EPA's preferred.remedyand an estimated range of costs, considering bothinclusion and exclusion of ISV, was considered.

Comment; EPA made an inadequately informed decision in issuingthe Proposed Plan because:

- EPA selected or proposed a remedial action with asignificant lack of detail;

- It is inconceivable that EPA could have issued itsProposed Plan without the benefit of review or theSignificant Issues Paper, Recommendations for Clean-upCriteria, and other COM reports.

- 3 -

Response: EPA did not select a remedy at the proposed Planstagev _:Jnstea_d, the Significant Issues paper and concepts thatformed the basis of additional COM reports (logical extensionsof the Proposed Plan), helped to identify an alternative thatEPA believes provides the best balance among the evaluationcriteria on which the alternatives were analyzed. EPA couldhave, after issuing the Proposed Plan, modified its preferredalternative or selected another alternative from the ProposedPlan and RI/FS report. The final decision, incorporatingperspectives gained during the public comment period, is madewhen the ROD is signed.

Comment: EPA's "silence" in the Significant Issues PaperImplicitly approves there are no "legally applicable" clean-upcriteria for the site.

Response: The Significant Issues Paper was not intended toserve as a rebuttal to.all legal issues raised in the PRPs1ARARs paper. It was intended simply to raise the clean-upcriteria issue to EPA management.

Comment: The clean-up criteria required by the Proposed Planare not appropriate under the circumstances of the release atthe site.

Response; The proposed clean-up criteria are consistent withSection 12i(d)2(B)(ii) of SARA, consistent with clean-upcriteria established at other Superfund sites, and relevantand appropriate under the Ground Water Protection Programand regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) forprotecting sole source aquifers as applied to the New JerseyCoastal Plain Project Review area, in which the site is located,

Comment: There is no evidence that the Hubing well mayprovide an exposure pathway.

Response; EPA's comments to earlier draft RIs providesdocumentation that the Hubing well may have been affected by"mounding" of the injection well in the late '70s.

Comments The remedy selected in the Significant Issues Paperis used to justify the ARARs chosen.

Response; No reference is made to a "selected remedy" in theSignificant Issues Paper. The remedy is not selected until theROD is signed. The Significant Issues Paper discusses meritsof establishing clean-up goals as MCLs or ACLs at the propertyline. . . . . . .

- 4 -

Comment: There is sufficient data on site conditions tor supportselection of clean-up levels and the remedial action as providedin the FS Recommended Alternative (pgs 12 and 23).

Response: The amount and type of material disposed into theinjection well--has never been substantially characterized.Because the injection well_appeared, in 1986, to be filled withconcrete it was not directly investigated as part of the RI.Consequently,_it has not been established whether the injectionwell is a continuing source of contamination. The extent ofremnant waste" in the unsaturated zone is unknown at this time.The "background" well drilled as part of the RI appears to beimpacted by the injection well-..-Thus additional investigatorywork and periodic reevaluation ace recommended on the injectionwell and unsaturated zone as part of the preferred alternative.

The vertical and horizontal extent of site-related contaminationand the distribution of floating product have not been sufficient-ly characterized to date. Consequently, additional investigationof the saturated zone is proposed, as part of EPA's preferredalternative, for design and construction of the ground waterpumping system.

Clean-up levels proposed by EPA are based on requirements of SARAthe Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Ground Water ProtectionProgram. The additional investigatory work is expected toimprove prospects for meeting the aquifer restoration objective.However, only implementation of a remedial program will confirmor disprove whether clean-up goals may be achieved.

Comment: EPA hag acted arbitrarily and capriciously in proposingclean-up levels "for the site.

Response; EPA's proposed clean-up levels are based on Section121 (d)(2)(B)(ii) of SARA, 1987 ACL Interim Final Guidance,and EPA draft Final Guidelines for Classification and PolicyStatement on Ground Water Classification Implementation. EPA'sRecent classification of the area including the site as partof the New Jersey Coastal Plain Project Review Area, under theSole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program established throughthe SDWA, further supports clean-up levels proposed for the site.

Comment: Data uncertainties regarding fate and transport can-not justify a specific remedial action (pgs 133 and 22).

Response: This approach, as incorporated into the proposedpreferred remedy, includes gathering additional information toreduce the uncertainties and improve prospects for effectivelyachieving clean-up goals. In this case, where uncertainties re-garding fate and transport are substantial and the potentialfuture use for a Class IIA aquifer is a strong concern, EPAprefers a conservative approach.

SR3032H

- 5-

Comment: EPA.._relies heavily on hypothetical risk models as abasis for data uncertainties (pg 14). There is no evidenceto suggest that anything other than gradual attenuation of site-associated contaminants through the aquifer to UMR has occurred.

Response.; The models used in the Risk Assessment constitutethe only information and analyses addressing existing andand potential risk from the s_ite available at this time. Asindicated in the CDM report entitled, "Pre-Design Recommenda-tions for the Henderson Road injection Well Operable Unit",additionaT~~work~ recommended for Design as part of EPA'spreferred remedy will result in revisions of the conceptualmodel related to the existing sojarce of contamination andanother evaluation whether the quantity of contamination inthe unsaturated zone poses a significant threat to groundwater quality..!. _.....!" __... ' _... ... _ _.._._!_ .. ......

The data presently available on the extent and type of contam-ination, both on- and off-site, is inadequate to determine, withconfidence, that most of a substantial volume of material injected(identity and amount unknown) has attenuated.

Comment; It is extremely improbable that ingestion of the groundwater beneath the .site would occur.

Response: _I_t_is possible. Future use is a_particular concern.Thus, EPA selected aquifer restoration, modified to addressbackground contamination, as a clean-up goal.

Comment; The generally preferred approach to calculate exposureconcentrations should be conservative but not necessarilyworst case.

Response; Because of the limitations and uncertaintiesrelated to this site, EPA believes a worst case is appro-priate.

Comment; The guidelines state that averages —not maximumvalues—should be used in calculating risk.

Responses The guidelines referenced on page 16 of the PRPs1comments mean that average values from the maximum point ofcontamination should be used—not the average values of allpoints on the site.

Comment; There is no data supporting use of detection limitsin quanti fy i rig risk.

Response: Data is hot needed to support possibilities. Onceagain, because of the limited data available on the natureand quantity of waste disposed and the magnitude of the publicpotentially affected, a potential overestimate is better ,...-=—"than a potential underestimate of risk. Actually, we may nothave collected samples from the most contaminated zones*

flR3032UB

- 6 -

Comment: The remedial action, .selected must _b_e. designed totake the limited exposure point, at UMR, into consideration.

Response: While EPA recognizes.that UMR is the exposure pointof primary concern, other factors also are considered inidentifying EPA's preferred, alternative e.g., ARARs;'preference

for remedies that reduce mobility, volume, and toxicity; long-and short-term effectiveness.

Comment: There is no support that demonstrates the.require-ment for off-site pumping is necessary or cost-effective,

Response: Three.off-site recovery wells are included in EPA'sproposed preferred alternative, for cost estimates only. On apreliminary basis the number of wells EPA has proposed overthe downgradient area appears reasonable, in light of the factthat only one downgradient off-site well has been drilled todate and the extent of downgradient contamination is unknown,particularly below 192 feet. Selection of the numbers andlocations of recovery wells, both on- and off-site, will bebased on additional hydraulic system testing off-site and inthe monitoring zones below 300 feet, in addition to morewater quality analyses obtained during Pre-Design. Cost-effectiveness will be factored into the determination ofwhere and/or whether to site downgradient recovery wells.

Comment: EPA determined that no Phase II_RI was. necessary forthe site, thus concluding appropriately that sufficient dataexisted to determine a remedial alternative for the site.

Response: EPA determined not to proceed with a Phase II RI inorder to avoid potential delays in remediation. However, EPAhas expressed the opinion, since the first comments were providedon the first draft RI/FS, that the site was inadequately charac-terized. Before construction occurs, additional investigatorywork is needed on the injection well, unsaturated zone, andsaturated zone, as described in Section VIII.E. EPA believesthat the reference to a "vast amount of data" on page 23 ofthe PRPs' comments is an overstatement.

Comment; Discrepancy between the proposed Plan and the COMletter (pg. 24 of PRPs'comments).

Response; EPA and COM both concur that downgradient pumpingwill be needed only if the downgradient pump testing andmonitoring demonstrate that downgradient contamination would becost-effective to recover. Downgradient pumping is includedin EPA's proposed preferred alternative for cost estimation.

to maintain flexibility in siting recovery wells downgradientif.determined to be cost-effective. However, it is possiblethat no downgradient recovery wells will be operated. EPA hasnot "mandated full scale downgradient ground water recovery andtreatment system be installed" (pg. 25 of PRPs' comments).

Comment: There is no evidence that .demonstrates the presence ofcontaminants in the unsaturated zone requiring any remediation.

Response: Drilling, logs .indicate that volatile organic contam-ination exists in the unsaturated zone. On-site investigationsto date are considered inadequate to conclude whether significantcontamination exists in the unsaturated zone or not. There isevidence that "mounding" above the water table occurred in the1970's.

Comment; What is the difference between. Alternative 4 and EPA'sproposed preferred alternative, if all ground water contaminantsmay not be captured under both?

Response; In EPA's proposed preferred alternative, additionalwork is included to:

characterize the distribution and flow passages ofremnant waste in both the saturated and unsaturatedzone;

determine the nature and extent of remnant waste inthe saturated and unsaturated zones, along with thecharacterization of NAPE, on the water table surface;

characterize the lateral and vertical extent of groundwater contamination and determine the vertical andlateral ground water gradients;

perform preliminary analyses and long-term evaluationsthat will help determine the potential effectiveness oftreatment of the unsaturated zone?

* expand off-site long-term monitoring to include theMcllvain and Hubing wells and UMR.

This additional work is expected to improve the effectiveness ofremediation to achieve aquifer restoration, i.e., to improveprospects to recover contamination affiliated with the injectionwell operable unit. Additional off-site monitoring will gaugeoff-site ground water quality and be considered in determiningwhether/ when to discontinue remediation. EPA's preferredalternative also includes unsaturated zone treatment, injectionwell redevelopment, if possible, and downgradient ground waterpumping as optional technologies, depending on the resultsobtained from the additional characterization proposed.

AR3Q32U7

Comment; The additional cost affiliated with the proposedPlan is hot Tikel"y" to result in any presently quantifiableprotection of public healt.h and the environment.

Response: In .-Ught of the uncertainty regarding a potentialoff-site release, the difficulty in designing a remedial..program in this complex hydrological system, and the currenthigh level of on-site risk (3.6 X 1CT2), EPA believesthe additional work comprising Alternative 7a is justified.

Comment: Proposed approach to deal with potentially increasedbackground concentrations.

Response; The_ approach of adding MCLs to current backgroundconcentration has"no"justification. EPA proposes reevaluatingbackground concentrations periodically during O&M based onthe three criteria proposed in the "Clean-up Criteria" paperprepared by COM and data collected from new backgroundwells proposed. However, EPA has determined that the followingwells are likely to be used for "background":

. Hubing WellEstock

. HR-1 ClusterNew background wells; and

the following wells are likely to be used to characterize "on-sitwater quality:

. HR-2^175;

. HR-2-195;

. HR-3-255;

. HR-3-295;

. HR-4-295;

. HR-RE-205.

Incidentally, MCLs are not "risk-based levels" as described onpage 29 of the PRPs1 comments. MCLgs are risk-based.

Comment; PRPs1 proposed criteria for installing downgradientrecovery wells (pg 32 of comments).

Response: In general, EPA expects that criteria for sitingoff-site wells will be similar to that to be used for on-sitewells. Criteria are likely to include proximity to theinjection well, water quality of respective wells, andhydraulic considerations. EPA will consider the PRPs1proposal as part of Remedial Design.

s

Comment; Model 1 is based on an unrealistic assumption.

Response: The use of composited maximum values in riskassessments is required as part of EPA's risk assessmentprocess in order to establish a "base line" for risk. Use ofmaximum concentration values is consistent with the process!outlined in EPA's Endanqerment Assessment Handbook and riskassessments performed for other Superfund Sites.

_ 9 -

Comments: N-nitrosodiphenylamine, benzyl alchohol, and4-chloroaniline should not be included as indicator chemicals.

Response; _This_comment w_ill_ be considered in Design after allwells are tested. In previous sampling, the above constituentswere not tested for in all samples.

Comment: Use.of the actual mean instead of the upper limit ofthe mean as criteria for discontinuance of treatment may beimpossible to meet.

Response: It is unknown whether dat.a scatter will make EPA'sproposed-criteria impossible to meet, performance of theground water remediation will be reviewed every five years.Factors that will be reevaluated will include implementability.

B. Comments Submitted by Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,May 10, 1988 __ . . .._. . .

Comment: PSWC should receive a copy of the RI/FS.

Response: An additional copy was provided to PSWC onMay 25, 1988 in response, to the May 20 request. Thefinal RI/FS also was provided. ,

Comment: PSWC should Jiave been .notified that the RI/FSand proposed plan were available.

Response; Notices were placed in the Norristown Times Heraldon April 22, 1988.

Comment; The public comment period should be extended.

Response; Public comment period was extended to May 31,1988.EPA met with representatives of PSWC on June 3. EPAcontinued to receive and consider comments from PSWC throughJune 21.

Comment; PSWC should be reimbursed for investigation, design,construction, and operation of its treatment system.

Response: PSWC has_ the .option to proceed through litigation tocover past costs. Region III is investigating whether reim-bursement would be allowed since PSWC did this work withoutPreauthorization.

Comment; The RI/FS fails to recognize that UMR will beexposed, in the future, to contaminants which are stillmigrating to UMR.

- -10 - r-

Response: EPA_shares concern with PSWC that a future, releaseto UMR may occur." This concern is the basis of EPA'sdevelopment of a preferred remedy that is different from theseven alternatives proposed in the FS and for EPA's selectionof aquifer restoration, modified to address backgroundcontamination, as a clean-up goal for this. Record of Decision.

Comment: PSWC opposes institutional controls precluding newground water uses without preventing future activities thatcould contaminate UMR.

Response: Institutional controls are proposed as one means ofpreventing exposure until clean-up goals are met. This RODemphasizes source control as the major component of the selectedremedy. Information on pending permit application activities onthe part of o'Hara Sanitation may be obtained from Mr. BruceBeitler at the PA DER Norristown Regional Office.

Continent: A remediation plan can be developed "that wouldclean the ground water in a time frame shorter than 30 years.

Response: Thirty years is the estimated implementation timefor cost purposes. Ground water pumping may take moreor less time to achieve aqu.ifer restoration. Alternative7a addresses long-term and short-term effectiveness byproposing t o : . . . . . .

further characterize the saturated zone so thata more effective ground water pumping programcould be designed?

further characterize the unsaturated zone sothat the implementability, protection of humanhealth and the environment, reduction of mobility,toxicity and volume, and cost of unsaturated zonetreatment may be further evaluated prior toselecting unsaturated zone treatment (which mayinclude "no action"); unsaturated zone treatment,if implemented, would be expected to reduceimplementation time.

Comment; PSWC objects to the UMR restoration objective.

Response; EPA's preferred alternative selects the aquiferrestoration objective — not UMR restoration — for reasonsthat include those expressed by PSWC.

Comment; A comprehensive site remediation plan is needed.

fiR303250

- 11 -Response: Partitioning the site into two operable units wasproposed by EPA so that remediation related to the injectionwell could ensue while further investigation of the landfilloperable unit continues. In addition. Region III is aggressivelyinvestigating other sources of UMR contamination, on a site-by-site basis. Although EPA has conducted certain regionalstudies in the vicinity of UMR, our focus has been on investi-gating, assessing, ranking, enforcing, and .remediating on asite-by-site basis, consistent with the Superfund process.

C. Comments Provided by PSWC Entitled, Notes on the RI/FS andEPA's Plan of Action Mayf 1988"

Comment: PRPs should provide complete and accurate 104(e) inforraa-tion request letter responses.

Response: A second round of 104 (e) letters were sent by EPA inmid-May. Comprehensive responses are due by the end .of June, 1988.

Comment; PSWC does not necessarily agree that contaminantsin UMR are not likely to increase.

Response: EPA agrees that current information is insufficientto conclude whether loadings to UMR (or other potential exposurepoints) will increase, decrease, or be maintained. Alternative7a was designed to address this concern.

Comment: More than three percent of ground water enteringUMR may come from the Henderson Road site.

Response; EPA agrees that three percent may be inaccurate.However, for the preferred remedy the three percent loadingis used only as one of three criteria to identify alternateconcentrations for background contaminants. If, duringoperation and maintenance EPA determines that anotherpercentage is more accurate, the three percent dilution factormay be revised to recalculate alternate concentration limits.At this point, three percent appears to be reasonable.

Comment; Contamination may be greater than observed becauseit is isolated in pockets.

»Response; EPA agrees this is possible. Additional charac-terization in Alternative 7a is designed to locate suchpockets. However, even with the additional characterizationproposed, we may never find such pockets.

Comment; The Crooked Lane well may be affected by the HendersonRoad Site.

flR3Q325l

- 12 -

Response: EPA will consider this theory in future RD/RA work.

Comment: HR-2^195 should be pumped as quickly as possible sothat the largest amount of contaminants* is removed in theshortest time. . .

*Response: This^jcecommendation will be considered in RemedialDesign. " " ' " " ' " ~" ~ ~"~" ' "

Comment: ISV holds the greatest promise. Consider floodingground surface to improve recovery.

Response: EPA will consider this recommendation in RemedialDesign. . - ... _.„_ _..._... „... _.

Comment: Inducement of NAPL toward vacuum extraction pointsshould be combined with pump-and-treat at the most contaminatedwells.

Response: EPA will consider this recommendation in RemedialDesign. " • . - - — . _ . . __

Comment; A dispersion model analysis should be conducted priorto air stripping so that emissions at the PSWC property line areidentified and, if necessary, controlled.

Response; EPA_will consider this recommendation in RemedialDesign. It appears that such modeling could easily be performed.

Comment; UV-oxidation should be given greater consideration.

Response; It is unclear what disadvantages of air strippingand GAG adsorption item 6 of this comment refers to. Air stripp-ing is considered more reliable in treating VOCs and more cost-effective than UV-oxidation. While O&M costs for air strippersare relatively low, O&M for UV-oxidation is relativelycostly.

Comment; PSWC prefers downgradient injection over surfacedischarge.

Response: EPA^will consider this recommendation in RemedialDesign. We generally are concerned that downgradientinjection could have unforeseen impacts on the fate-and-transport of contaminants. However, reinjection in the vicinityof the injection well is a viable option under considerationas part of potential unsaturated zone treatment technologies("soil flushing").

Comment; The injection well should be reopened and pumped, andISV should be applied at the well. Cleaning or excavatingpit walls is probably unnecessary.

SR303252

- 13 -

Response: As _indicated ..in_"^PAl_s_..cpntract.or_'_a. Pre-design Re-commendations report, if a significant amount of waste is en-countered Pre-xiesign Recommendation in the injection well, whenand if"it .is cedrilled, the waste will be removed. The method .0-f""removal "will be specified in the ,RD/RA work plan. Analysisof sediments "in vicinity_of pit walls will determine the needfor their excavation.

D. Comments Provided by Alumax Inc. Dated May 31, 1988

Comment; ARARs should be based on UMR Restoration because:

1) there is no exposure between the Site and UMR;2) UMR provides treatment for site-related VOCs;3) there is no uncertainty that contamination

travels from the site to UMR;4) on-site contaminants are over 100 feet deep;5) except for exposure at the Mcllvain well, exposure

from drinking on-site ground water is not likely;6) treated UMR water meets all MCL and other health-

based standards.

Response: The basis for selecting aquifer restoration isexplained in Section VIII.C of this ROD. Briefly, EPA isconcerned that the aquifer affected, which is equivalentto. a Class fla aquifer, should receive a high degree ofprotection, thereby protecting the future use of theground water affected by the site. EPA agrees that groundwater moves from the site to UMR, but the distribution flowpassages, and nature and extent of remnant waste in thesaturated and unsaturated zones are uncertain. We are con-cerned about the possibility of a future release to theaquifer and/or UMR. Based on Section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii) ofSARA, ARARs must be applied at the property line.

MCLs are not health-based standards. MCLgs are.

Comment; Downgradient pump-and-treat is arbitrary andcapricious because:

1) there is no evidence that downgradient ground waterpresents a significant risk;

2) downgradient pumping would be redundant in light ofproposed on-site pumping and UMR treatment;

3) there are no inadequacies in the proposed on-sitesystem and existing UMR system;

4) the adminstrative record provides no basis fordowngradient pump-and-treat;

5) the CDC (ATSDR) letter of May 17, 1988 does not supportdowngradient pump-and-treat.

flR303253

- 14 - - . . . . . _

Response: The ^rationale Car downgradient pump-and-treat. isdiscussecT on pg. 5 of EPA's response to the Steering Committee'scomments.

Comment: It is arbitrary for EPA to ..select, even conditionally,ISV without data showing the need for" this remedy and itseffectiveness in reducing risks .at the site. ISV is not cost-effective.

Response: See Section VIII.C of the ROD on the cost-effectivenessof the preferred "approach to phased characterization, piloting,and implementation of unsaturated zone treatment. ISV is "selected"as as option comprising the remedy for costing purposes only.ISV has not been selected; a determination on unsaturated zonetreatment will—be made after ^redesign characterization, possiblypiloting, and on a five-year oasis thereafter. See Exhibit 20of ROD.

Comment: EPA' denial of adequate opportunity to comment.

Response; See response to PRPs1 comments dated May 31, 1988,page 1 of thTs Responsiveness Summary.

E. Comments Provided by PRPs dated June 17, 1988

Comment; Proposal to add the following to PRPs1 recommendedAlternative 4: " " " '" " ~~"~ '" "

installation of two additional HR-5 wells

installation of three on-site monitoring well clusters

installation of an upgradient monitoring well cluster

downgradient well sampling and analysis frequency

total present worth.

Response; EPA determined that the ROD should describe thealternatives and list costs as described in the FS to preventconfusion to the public. The first four items already areincluded in EPA's preferred remedy. Analyses for VOCs mustinclude, among other things, an appropriate method to identifyxylene.

Comment; Downgradient pump-and-treat "trigger" level.

flR3032S4

- 16 -

Comment: Unsaturated.: zone investiga.t'ijon .overview.

Response: -Prjior to__the RI.t__the presence or absence of remnantwaste -and floating product was an unanswered question'. TheRI activities confirmed the presence of remnant waste. Whilethe RI -.did provide : "considerable insight to subsurface con-ditions" and did identify two sectors along which remnant waste/floating__product exist (HR-3, HR-2 clusters), the questionstill remains as to the lateral and vertical extent of saidcontamination. We particularly see a need to characterizeremnant waste/floating product along other prominent fracturetrends radiating outward from the injection well and at otherradii than represented by the HR-2 an_d_HR-3 clusters.

Comment: Drilling_and core sa_mpling_._

Response: Coring at the landfil.l in November, 1987 wasdesigned toEcharacterize the unsaturated zone in the landfill—not injection well.

Comment: Vacuum extraction sampling__and interpretations.

Response: At the June 14 meeting, "modeling" was referred toin a general sense only i.e., that some linkage related to fateand transport would need to be established. Reliance anobservance of the effects of ground water, pumping over a shorttime frame (e.g., two orv even fifty years) when evaluating thishydrogeologi.c systenuis inappropriate.

Comment; Costs listed in attachment may be misinterpreted.

Response; These costs were_ preliminary estimates . CDM clearlystated that manpower costs are omitted. Exhibit 22 of this.ROD provides a more detailed cost estimate.

- 15 -

Response: This comment appears to misrepresent CDM's positionregarding downgradient pumping. CDM and EPA concur that theneed for downgradient pumping should be determined in RemedialDesign. The five-year evaluations will provide additionalopportunities lEol" institute downgradient pumping, if needed.

EPA will consider in Remedial Design, the PRPs1 recommendationfor trigger levels to be assessed as__part of the long-term,5-year evaluations. However, an initial assessment whether toinstitute downgra'dTient pumping yill be made during RemedialDesign.

Comment: Determination of effectiveness of RecommendedAlternative. "" "" ——..-..—_ .-.- ._ ...___.____..„___. _ .

Response; __ Ground water quality results after pumping are notexpected"to" adequately characterize-the extent of contaminationin the unsaturated zone. If we don't see additional groundwater loading after, for example, ten years, we can't reasonablypresume a release will not occur after, for example, 100 years.We will consider in Remedial Design the curve-fitting approachrecommended by the PRPs for the long-term, 5-year evaluationprocess. However, we need to characterize and assess contam-ination and potential remediation of the unsaturated zone assoon as possible i.e., in Remedial Design.

F. Comments Provided by PRPs Dated June 23, 1988.

Comments: Injection well investigation overview.

Response; If substantial amounts of hazardous substances arestill located in the immediate vicinity of the injection well,these should be removed as a means of source control. EPAbelieves identification of fractured zones, within the injectionwell, capable of transmitting and/or retaining wastes is fundam-ental to remediation.

Comment; Redrilling injection well.

Response; The HR-RE-205 well is not considered a replacementwell, as discussed in the RI, even though it was originallydeveloped as a replacement well. Removal of the buildingroof may be necessary.

Comment: Downhole logging.

Response: Downhole logging is expected to help develop a moreeffective recovery and monitoring program. See the rationaleprovided in the CDM report, "Predesign Recommendations".

flR303256

II

T *

1

McCOY QUARRY

SOURCE: USGS 7.5 min. Quadrangle / Norristowa Pft, I Photorevisod 1983

north r0 2000ft.00-5528-Q 1 and_00-55?: -6?

HENDERSON ROAD

King of Prussia, PA |

EXHIBIT

Locati

* «*i jr * , - • \_ \ t • P* ~»*",MV\ i''-•>'-'-u-4 \*&;r 'n"""' ^ ;, p\ ' ! r •* l^ ~ "i "-5 *^> >%•• '•* r')l JtVn.' ''-x'V . M l . ; ' : —— \' 'x ^ W i> • -*1 1 i V • -d

•It I <D I . i ! ' A •''v ' ^- w -14 • V *, _._: L^___ oijv_..' , == ,< /-' -•' y .' ' ''''•Vt,U%Av-.. .-TvS

5R303258

ZONING REGULATIONS

— - ..STCB. I TWI aSKICUUTUKAL "-CW.T uM.MW. I '«*"" •" 5., HCSlOCMTIAU

EX 03 •.

COLUM1A MILEX 03"HIM.*

T tUie NclLlAU {,•«.£ »*HH.f KU4CMC1 on »« KU. «» « HEJIOEMTHL ^u ..«., inicuet c-z CO«HI«CI1L

" ,«u-"™-« «-' c=-«.c,.u"!!"'!I'M' ««»;£f""""" JC SKOW3 «BT««

' -r=rd.

i * Hs3.'*'i** x J • '''•- -T-jfrKtii tir *- " --"— ***

\'' £? Lj£ "'4 ~ T ^ '>i"*-*JV--- J f -i.- r"' &•,*,•+•*, • '•>•/"»' "WJ*^ Y/." >.'*>*•' .-V : - «*

U

,.J0.v

"a J s ^ 'SS*3* -*K iS?:' u'

8'E*-

<TIstj ^ VS-' X

-—-— .. ^ fc »- '—I-.-,*. \ -." • • -."• . . ^l £3feVJF-:""i• -;..«•--. r* ? y-A- -I

•-O:north o 2000ft.tXT«« -»* O«.»««l«

HENOERSON ROAD EXHIBIT 3FEASBUTY STUDY Zoning Map

lit •. *T. " *"*. " v . TV •**~*r <t;« „• ~ •/ JjSTP / *J* \^ *fc-i»«> -a- ,,«*r". * »• , ^'M, > . .-V'l- . -,.>" - Jv>» _ v ":~,7 .. ' t "„'"'/ .' *i""* ' *,x"~ 5**' # '--* --''-' " .fJT" '' ';'"iX i * *-''!<- /''''''^ 'I,, " *T" "3ES ,?*

LEGEND .... Well Index Well Owner- - - A PSWC-HENDERSON ROAD SCHOOL N_ __HUBING BUSINESS FORMS"

B ' V.W. BRUCE CO.C BASSETT STEEL & TUBED COLUMBIA BOILER CO.E .£.5. McCRACKEN CO.F - ESTOCK ~ 'G PSWC-TEST WELL

-_H PSWC-CROOKED LANEI "ST."AUGUSTINE CEMENTARY

N J U.M. POLLUTION CONTROL CEK KEYSTONE COKEL WASTE TECHNIQUE

8EAROFF AUTO PARTS

STANLEY KESSLER, INC.PSWC SUPPLY WELL INTAKE

.;^^s f ' - '$ '"**>-L '---.

—v::.... . ^ ^ r •-. ^ ^ ' 5-' Cl—-4- " -

SOURCE USGS 7.5 nttL Quadrangl* / Nwristown. PA / PTwtortvittd 1983

north 0 2000ft.

HENDERSON ROADREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

King of Prussia. PA

EXHIBIT 4

R*gfcR&Q9»g«r TatSCPTCMBCR

III

*IIIIII*I

01 (U -1-1c rH C<l> OJ 0) <U§-353.

*r-i N <U OA jn «J Oc c N .a a c w .QM._ 0) c O HI ^-i 3 W

OJ.Q 0> ^ C > i O f l

- 0) O £ 4J- >,-H 0) -H 2 >,O 3 ^UWXQEQs £

I <El3 c t»|«•"* O CJ T3 0) O GQ; -^ > >i Lt S 4J rH £ -O ( t

" O C -H -H0) W to U^j c"? 5 n fl? . _ f-t pM r-t -H O 3 r-t

y_, 5.2-! >i *> js 01 a) a *j.H jHB^ ^jj-^jj-jg-g-U ^^^ 3Q4J=3-H(00)c T o 3 m s a en p o s-'S :"r' - •' SM Jl) 10,„ """"a "i e D3 9 9 "S5S " S§ «5 2 I"85 =« SB'S gS«

* «o ^ u ^ M0 x J=oojac3^)' *

c -oo c-^ 34J Oa CM-H•• 14 a

0) O 4J4J a c« (U Q}O Q 3

-U« 0) -H•H 4JGi CU U£ E Cfl fl 003 en o

3-34 fiR30326l

^

•V••mmmMVV

Vm•g

•IB^

•1

*occ

a3

rH Wco ri 'Om -«r qj u1 0 > C

—( MO -H

O I rHCO rH O <D •— -1 O Qj'O D -••• MO in (0 rH -rf< *—ro O C O **H & ^»1 O B -H HH Ed rH•W CO < fa O "— "-N.

I<N aPM CM tn a

<N t -HCft 1 rH rH »

•£• f*. rH -4 O 0) C. 1 rH 0 04*0 O^ OEH i— 1 O (0 rH -H i< -HS -H O ON C Q) »W &i 4JR ICftP^C-r*«HW fflw ^or*^-<faO<™* ijin 4JcS gto UM tQ CB- O O

• B- U °" o

4J(0f»J J-l

(N OCft 1 .0r* rH tB

rH 0 CQ1 fl ^O * O4

••<u *• »> \ • ^^* 1nj O JHQ 2 0 t3

J-> C

rH rH H Ca a o cE e -a E(0 (0 (0 CW W J U

u HH t LL4 d u u u M Cid & C Cw Eb £bzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz

fti JH fl) d)- CJ J= C 0)

^ 3 JS -P fl C0) QJ 4J 0) JZ Q)j (1) — ' 4J *H4J Q) QJ r-) rH flj *00} C C >,rH>tg (Q

0) -H -H c >» Q*-* QJ *J^c-ooajs^ S c o n c er-itU'rfCCiTia} ^ O SH X CJ 0)

O ^ i r H N t U O M C Oj^CbOfHOiCj=tCCD3'OlD a O J= T3 0(04->^:a)rHrH>iN rH CO 4J ITJ rHXO)4JAOOJCC >,rH -H (U JJ U4JQj:OJ->-PrH(DaJC>iOO3>l0) r< Oi V4 O O XJ3 Co; C JH tn J3 UO O ( O O r i t 4 C O t t £ Q ) O O O O t tM r H C r H - P V Q J N X C ^ X r H H U W COX OJ3-H-HJS<4JO CX-C J2 OO C

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz: 1•

V jjc ta•H rH

0) 0) E (0C C «J JS 01

H g >i£ -P -P G) C10 iQ £U Qt *0 fO Q) flj X> Q}

^ c a >iX.c to M u <a c 1(UX*CQ)(C«CA<CbCOlH Ca> g a i j= a Q-.C *J £ tu 3 O BU

C " * * H * J« 4>* W H ^ ^ ^ BQ} t3 *0 3 ' ""4 * Qi C 1 4 ?"H ^ ^ pftl 'Nooo^Srt^iO* id ft o *W BB cC tQ d 0) 4J 4-1 4J rH — . ^ N *- (U 4J C

J3I O'H"H*H*HtO<OOEl l £ ! J « O < f i t l M l H l J a O &*J2 ****" O *•' Q) Q> QO(N'~*QQQGfltlrHO<NfNUOJ3OJJ4J4Jrs|| !^4->OOCaOCQ)Qh<C •— " JS 1 1 1 1— 'OJ=)H'*"-'(0«Qil4-r4M-(-H-— C C 4 J O ) N N I N > i C . CXoscjcn^^otN 0 \ J C Q o ) i n X r $ CQ) -H 1 1 » * » ^H 1 1 -H -H O dl K

3-38

4J C C C OJ 1 I D E C C - ^ - C U t U - P•HI i i -H -H -H -H *H a) a> * a> j: o c2 S5 Z« 2* *Q *O *O C3 £ CQ £D ^ ^ ^ * **C *

flR301262 |

oEH*£SmM03HECX3

dtt

a3

rH 1CD ft 'O1 PS in •ro •<* 0) U1 O > C

rH ffl0 -r4

O 1 rHCO -H 0 <U1 O Ow 'O U ^O in (tJ rH -H <mo c! si *w A*i o d -H iw w^1° co <J fa O —• '

(NPM CM 0)(N 1 -H

Cft 1 rH rH

i rH o a*o u -*rH \O O fB -4 -rH <rH O Cft C 0) >W O*1 Cft P- C -H iw W\D f* " rf, fa Q ""'

"

.: "

wo•r4W. _.. o4J(B

(N Oen 1 AI1- rH flj4 rH JrH <O^ O CQ1 en rjD n** 0

••5) *D .*

4J • >ifl O )HQ Z 0

-M0) 01 (BrH rH V4a a oE c >QW W tJ

^— ,CM"— •,•.•H

en3

aa«.co

-H-U(B1HJJC01ocou

'OcD0aEOCJ

oorH1OrH

m m m m m m m m m

0)c(U (Bc a) x(B - CO)a m xO X 0H fl) Ha ^ oO 0) 0 >iiH C iH OO <U IB (D U «H-H,0) C X C >i NX C 0) 0) <fl O J=O « O* JS X rH *J•HJSOOJ o a)>ia>M - P t H C rH 0) .C _C £E-t QJ CU fl3 O C O -P *H6 O X >, O rH QJ ^

l o l l H O OC>i€E-t•r*Oj:a»rHmo-«-f imxtrH o c >tXr*am* > O £ r H r B X V > t l -

CM -H U O X-PSXmrH-x: i > o o i -u - »r-H^rjrj'nS'rMrL]— 4—(

OOo o orH O O1 rH rH0 | |o o orH rH rH

m m r o m m m m m r o r o m c N r M f M f M

0)Q) CC OJ « '(0 C 0•P OJ *U <» (Ua f - n C ' G <D dj a) c3J n3 (T3 <U O CCC ft)C - C U C *O Q) (!) fl} *O rHrH 4JO)(BrH N N N -H >,ts ^"OXt^i C C C O 3 QJJ3 Oj C O jCJ QJ QJ O dj rt* 4J *O4J )TJ !3 JS 4J CJ3J2U3 (I)*HQ) CrHrHQ} ( U f l r H O O O O ^ MC •'I 1 1 B ** * r W W *rl M H

i a;.oa)a>Q)eHfOCrH(i)jrj;rt3^rHr H c c g e e i oa)>igoyoo>!(U >i *d «i -H •*-* -ri a* J3 J3 -H - -ri a> --H .crtl 4J 0) O-1 l l I *• ra E O t 1 1 itf 1 03C&J'O'Uinvcroi.DjJ oy^*^"ro sifNl £§ T o c "I . * o 2ifiJiivfls&T;A5? in Q D ^rsirrtrsio mfeTUJJXtJiAJaAl

IO O Co o crH rH r-1 1 1O O C

<ycv a>O4 C rHO O OJ4 (B Ivi cu CLrH O Ot M 14O O* £X^j i iO fM CM

SrHrHU »1 X J=

Q) 0)n E s:U "

oOScu3

rH 1-1co m fOI CM 14 »m T 0) O1 O > C

fafafafafafafafafafafafazzzzzzzzzzzz

rH 01O -H

O I rHCO rH O Q)I O Q*T3 U —>O m <8 rH -H <m o c d) tn Cui o c -H <w H•» co < fa O "-*

CM CN 01CM I iH

OCft I

i rH o a^ u -^rH \O O IB rH -H <HOC* C fl) *W CU1 Cft r- C -H UH H« r- w < 64 O *•*

m0)-HMO4J(B

CM UfM O

a\ l -QP* rH COI rH h3rH OrH O Qi cn ra\D P*- ft*

o o o o oo o o o oorH rH rH rH rH OI t I I I rHO O O O O O I 1 O O 1 I t I I I I I I IOOOOrHOO rHrHO O O O I O O I Ii-HrHrHrHf-lrHrH rHrH

4J • >1fl O 1HQ Z 0

4Jtt) flj tO

OJ 0)c c<u SN QJ rH (l) _C O C Q J cJ*o *O _flJCmjs Qi-H'O TJ-HTS TJrHJ3 (I) rH 4J rH O -H T; *H O -H *rt O"rHNcSj- m ( Q < U - H O < O OC>.cx:a ex: <o< < •o<<u rn^H < u 4 J O < u -H £-H oo rHrH grHjr-Ho o-no ooao cc oo c

rOCLO-HO-HO-H-J <-HO« tt)Q) CC OJ<u aj >ig n B > tox: *o c O-H o c o o oiH<i)rHx:x: aj 2 2xi.Q.Cffloex:x4JCflcociBCc o c o ^ o a o,rH *H £ x: crHrH4JJHrH-H4J(Ux:rHa<BCtB4Jiam'O-HBJ'HOCOrHO OCUCU>i>iQ>4Jx; >,wx:a>iO-p ra x C^^-H-P ax: i a> w >*c c o-c x e a) u x: e i ro x: i-. 3 -u a) o a£ u a J O U E x i o x i a ;

C4J Q. J3 0 j e C b O < U h - H I Q*rH -P X! XI<D <1) lH | Vt G) iH IrHOrHrH^MrHXlrH (OattOOXlO

CL 0•« b UJ WJ fr*"< ^ I ^ ^ ~* i""""1 *~ * *"" * * * " ^ "* v ^ ^ *~ * ' * *** *** l-l* * "* **' " * " "* _ ~\- * , , " L * ~? " ""

I

•V•I••

oOS

co m 'OI <N J-l •rn *r o> t)I O > Cm u w H

rH COO -H

* O I rH —." CO rH O Q) fM2; i o aT3 u —. *-'fj O m ffl rH -H <". n O C O J M H C U r2 I O C -H <W _W•^O trco<faO— lCO

oXIfl

-z z z -<z z z z zzzzzzz z z z z z z z

o 10 ^roooofoooooorH O COOrHO COrHOf*^n CM PM o

ce; ~ 3 o — — AO 00CO CM —» COp —* *. co PM in

3

T3 CN fM COu N I - o ^o^oioooooo oo o

^ I 4 H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ —J ^ ^ •*•* —• -IO

O !>,w > —< O QiTJ O— -H

c I en r- C -H UH H(Q 1,0 t~~ *~* rtl fa O "

o «QJ

»S -H

rH 01 I X!<W Q P* rH tO° Qj l r* >JC 2 So 03

KD P*-r* "*•1-1

*I 2) •* ••-P • >i(B O )HO Z O

•P C03 ft> m 3HH K 0a a o ae e ja<o (B (D O

O fM — . "-' VC "-^ rHrH^'IO^'O rHo .o— "— • — oooo **" o o

OOOOOO OO OOrHOrHOO O-H rH

O OO I I I r H O I I r H ! - H

I rH O | | | |f oiI O O O I » O Oil

O O O o OOOOOO OOO OrH rHrH^ ,-1,-trHrHrHrHrHrHrHrH rHrH rH

OOrHOO I TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOrHrHOn P^OPMOOrHOOOOOOOOOOOOrH rHCO COrHPgCMCOCftfMP-OOOOOOOOO

rH CM T rH rH

OJc +0) 0)rH C Co >i cu + a) d}c * x : r H < » c a t a *

rC 0) -P >i C -H * Q ) 4 J r H O+ x : c 4 - o x : * c a a ) a> <y 01 a; N Q o ccO - P O U O - P a) x: c * c c c c c rH m a> --HT3 0) rH C In OJ C JJ to 0) (U 0)0)0)0) <B 0> Cn O•H E >• ra o o iBoiac rH N N N x: x: u oww o x i x t ' H h ^ o o a ) >. c c c o v - p u c<aO U 4J -P XI O *J U 1H rH X! + OJ 0) 0) l-J £ I -H CJrHOO)0)UrH 0)OCU>i -P fl> + Xl XI J3 O a O Ux: 3 o o -H x: o-iox: a) c a > o o o r H + i JH -a

O V C h U l H X l O l r H Oy - i O O t - H E O O O G ) U N O J O O O U C X

OJOrHrHCM'OI-lrHMrHO O CNrHrHrH>r40)N 4J

Q) O U OrHfM4HOHOO(UXIQ)XlO CJ O O &* fl CJ Hr C^^ n n ' * O --< i -H H c o c 0 J3 -H -rj -H i x; xj rH -Hx: u i i c i o i * i o N u 3 o >i r r i -x:>tCi

oQ)CU

<6Q

0

*

tEXHIBIT 6 -" .. " "

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTSONSITE GROUNDHATER SAMPLES

HENDERSON ROAD SITEUPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA

Sample Location: HR-1-260 HR-1-280 HR-1-276Sample I.D.: N610020 N610021 N610849Sample Date: 05/29/86 05/29/86 06/10/86

Parameter UNITS

Base/Neutrals Organlcs .„_ __ _ .__ ______

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/1 <20.0 <20.0 9.6D1-n-butyl phthalate ug/1 <20.0 <20.0 3.2Di-n-octyl phthalate ug/1 2.8 <20.0 <20.0N-Nitrosodlphenylamine ug/1 <20.0 <20.0 3.8

Volatile Qraanlcs . _ _ _ _ _

Benzene ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 , 20.7Chlorobenzene . ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 8.5Chloroethane ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 1.9Chloroform ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 7.81,1-01Chloroethane ug/1 <1.0 1.6 18.41,2-01Chloroethane ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 26.11,2-Dlchlopropane ug/1 <1.0 1.1 27.0Ethylbenzene ug/1 <1.0 10.6 29.6Methylene chloride ug/1 <1.0 1.0 12.9Toluene ug/1 2.2 35.5 126.01,1.1-Trichloroethane ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 3.7Trichloroethene (TCE) ug/1 5.5 1.2 1.5m-Xylene ug/1 <1.0 22.1 49.9p-Xylene ug/1 <1.0 10.7 43.4

flR303266

I

*

4

I

(EXHIBIT 6 CONT'D)

Sample"Location: HR-2-175 HR-2-19S HR-2-295 HR-2-295 DupSample I.D.: N61Q022 N610852 N610850 N610851Sample Date: 05/29/86 06/10/86 06/10/86 06/10/86

Parameter ._.. UNITS

Acid Extractable Organic*;

Benzole Acid ug/1 410.0 <60,000.0 <100.0 OOO 02,4-Oimethylphenol ug/1 43.0 <12.000 0 42 s'aPhenol ug/i 28.0 <i2,ooo.o 4~4 2*22-Methylphenol ug/1 490.0 <12.000.0 32 0 -u'n(o-Cresol) • • - . . - •4-Methylphenol ug/1 330.0 <12,000.0 <20.0 <20 0

(p-Cresol)

Base/Neutrals __

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) ug/1 7.2 18.000.0 17.0 10.0phthalate

Butyl benzyl phthalate ug/1 20.0 210,000.0 7.4 <20.01,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/1 93.1 <100.0 <1.0 <UO1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/1- 4.4 <100.0 <1.0 <1.0Dl-n-butyl phthalate ug/1 <40.0 <12,000.0 2.4 2.4Naphthalene ug/1 9.6 <12,000.0 5.4 <20.0Benzyl alcohol ug/1 520.0 <12.000.0 <20.0 <20.04-Chloroanillne ug/1 8.0 <12.000.0 8.2 2.2

Volatile Organics __

Benzene ug/1 1,170.0 500.0 266.0 270.0Chlorobenzene ug/1 218.0 310.0 29.2 26.1Chloroethane ug/1 654.0 <100.0 823.0 845.0Chloroform ug/1 134.0 340.0 14.5 15.21,1-01Chloroethane ug/1 2.980.0 1,600.0 545.0 556.01,2-Dlchloroethane ug/1 159.0 410.0 69.6 71.91,1-Olchloroethene ug/1 36.4 <1.0 19.4 19.61,2-D1chloropropane ug/1 1,460.0 1,600.0 225.0. 237.0Ethylbenzent ug/1 2,970.0 7,800.0 138.0 138.0Methylene chloride ug/1 220.0 850.0 105.0 107.0Tetrachloroethene* (PCE) ug/1 291.0 9,800.0 8.3 8.2Toluene ug/1 66,600.0 246,000.0 4,200.0 1.100.0Trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/1 785.0 400.0 65.3 66.81,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/1 168.0 700.0 40.3 41.5Trichloroethene (TCE) ug/1 610.0 140.0 51.6 52.1Trichlorofluoromethane ug/1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.4Vinyl chloride ug/1 78.9 <100.0 21.7 21.8m-Xylene ug/1 72.000.0 37,000.0 146.0 149.0p-Xylene ug/1 1,300.0 19,000.0 91.0 91.3

1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane and/or tetrachloroethene

flR303267

(EXHIBIT 6 CONT'D)

J

Sample Location: HR-RE-205 HR-RE-195 Dup HR-3-295 HR-5-192Sample I.O.: N605046 N605047 N610112 N609813Sample Date: 03/19/86 03/19/86 05/30/86 05/27/86

Parameter Units

Physical Properties ...... ~ : .: .-: ":..". .._" ..—- - ...

Specific Conductance umhos/cm 790.0 " 803.0 NT NT

Arsenic ^ -" mg/1 0.004 0.003 NT NTCadmi um mg/1 0.003 0.01 NT NTChromium mg/1 0.002 0.001 NT NTCopper mg/1 0.04 0.04 NT NTSilver mg/1 0.0006 <0.0005 NT NTZinc mg/1 0.11 0.11 NT NT

Inorganic Non-Metal lies

Cyanide mg/1 0.006 0.005 NT NT

Organics . .

COO mg/1 85.0 31.0 NT' NTTotal Phenolics mg/1 0.08 0.08 NT NTAcid Extractable Oroanics . . . . . . . .

Benzoic Acid ug/1 NT NT 100.0 <100 02,4-Dlmethylphenol ug/1 <10.0 <10.0 19.0 <20 0Phenol "9/1 <10.0 <10.0 24.0 <2o'o2-Methylphenol (o-cresol) ug/1 NT NT 43 0 <20 04-Methylphenol (p-cresol) ug/1 NT NT 64.0 <2o!o

NT - Not tested as part of this study

*

H

*ii

(EXHIBIT 6 CONT'D)

Sample Location: HR-RE-205 HR-RE-205 Dup HR-3-295 HR-5-192Sample I.D.: N605046 _N605047 N610112 N609813Sample Date: 03/19/86 .03/19/86 05/30/86 05/27/86

Parameter Units

Oroanics

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/1 <10.0 19.0 5.6 33.0Butyl benzyl phthalate ug/1 <10.0 <10.0 44.0 <20.0.1 3-Dichlorobenzene ug/1 . <10.0 <10.0 13.5 <1.01*4-01chlorobenzene ug/1 <10.0 <10.0 74.9 21.1Naphthaline ug/1 <10.0 <10.0 12.0 <20.0N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ug/1 <10.0 <10.0 4.0 <20.04-Chloroaniline ug/1 NT NT 58.0 5.02-Methylnaphthalene ug/1 NT NT 10.0 <20.0

volatile Oroanics . _ _ . . . , _ _ . ._ "_

Benzene ug/1 110.0 110.0 1,700.0 129.0Chlorobenzene ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 280.0 19.7Chloroethane ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 994.0 101.0Chloroform _ ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 433.0 <1.01,1-01Chloroethane ug/1 2,000.0 2,000.0 1,120.0 15.51,2-Dlchloroethane ug/1 74.0 76.0 297.0 <1.01,1-Dichloroethene ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 102.0 4.21,2-Dichloropropane ug/1 120.0 120.0 1,800.0 <1.0Ethyl benzene ug/1 110.0 100.0 6,500.0 25.1Methylene chloride ug/1 <100.0 55.0 614.0 3.6Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 86.0 4.8Toluene ug/1 2.700.0 2.700.0 27,000.0 258.0Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 40.8 1.21,1,1-TriChloroethane ug/1 220.0 230.0 1,200.0 1.2

•Trichloroethene (TCE) ug/1 <100.0 <100.0 18.4 1.4Trichlorofluoromethane ug/1 NT .NT 95.3 <1.0Vinyl chloride ug/1 73.0 " 78.0 36.4 <1.0

— m-Xylene ug/1 NT NT 10,000.0 21.1• p-Xylene ug/1 NT NT 8.000.0 17.9

NT - Not tested as part of this study

HR303269

(EXHIBIT-.6-CONT'D)

Sample Location: Trip Blank Field. Blank Trip Blank Field BlankSample I.D.: N605049 N605048 N609917 N609918Sample Date: 03/19/86 03/19/86 05/28/86 05/28/86

Parameter Units

Physical Properties . . , ..,.. .. .... . . _.-_.._. ..;.-„-

Specific Conductance umhos/cm 3.69 4.12 NT NT

. 0.002 <0.002 NT NTs]lver mg/1 0.0006 0.001 NT NTZinc —rag/1 0.01 <0.01 NT NTOrganics _.:::._-.._.„._ _.. :_ : •„._..- _ _ . . _ .....:_: . ..

Total Phenol ics mg/1 <0.002 0.003 NT NTBase/Neutral Qraanlcs

bis(2-Ethylhexyl .phthalate ug/1 10.0 22.0 <40.0 <20.0Volatile Oraanlcs _ _.._.. . .... .:, ......_ ....-,..

Chloroform ug/1 82.0 78.0 3.2 <l oTo1ue"e ug/1 <10.0 <lo.O 2.9 2.9

NT - Not tested as part of this study

Source: BCM Eastern Inc. "(BCM Project NosToO-5528-02 and 00-5528-03)

1

IftI

(EXHIBIT 6T CONT'D)

Sample Location: HR-4-195 HR-4-242 HR-4-295Sample I.D.: N609814 ' N605044 N605045Sample Date: 05/27/86 03/19/86 03/19/86

Parameter UNITS -

Physical Properties .._, _. __ _ _ ^

Specific Conductance umhos/cm NT 1,220.0 1,180.0

Metal s

Arsenic mg/1 NT <0.002 0.003Cadmium mg/1 NT" 0.003 0.003Chromium mg/1 NT 0.004 0.002Copper mg/1 NT 0.04 0.04Lead mg/1 NT 0.002 0.002Silver mg/1 NT 0.0006 0.002Zinc mg/1 NT 6.54 5.92

•fe Inorganic Non-Metal!ics

Cyanide _ mg/1 NT 0.01 <0.005•• Qrganics _ *

— COD mg/1 NT 121.0 134.0• Total Phenolics mg/1 NT 0.02 0.03

Base/Neutral Orqanics

^ bis(2-Ethylhexy1)phtha1ate ug/1 <20.0 14.0 29.01,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/1 26.1 <10.0 <10.0

9 Volatile .Qrganics

— Benzene ug/1 142.0 530.0 370.0• Chlorobenzane ug/1 13.9 74.0 36.0^ Chloroethane ug/1 354.0 2,100.0 1.200.0

1,1-01Chloroethane ug/1 143.0 360.0 270.0• 1,2-01Chloroethane ug/1 8.2 62.0 30.0•• 1.1-Dichloroethene ug/1 5.7 <45.0 <45.0

1,2-Dichloropropane ug/1 17.6 67.0 33.0« Ethylbenzene ug/1 37.6 580.0 320.0

Methylene chloride ug/1 10.2 84.0 44.0Tetrachloroethene* (PCE) ug/1 10.9 <45.0 <45.0Toluene ug/1 7.2 6,400.0 . 1,400.0Trans-1,2-dichloroethene ug/1 188.0 31.0 41.01 JJ-Trichloroethane ug/1 25.8 <45.0 <45.0Trichloroethene (TCE) ug/1 92.0 29.0 35.0Vinyl chloride ug/1 100.0 <45.0 <45.0m-Xylene ug/1 11.0 NT NTp-Xylene ug/1 22.9 NT NT

NT - Not tested as part of this study AR303P7 I* . 1.1.2.2-Te.trachloroethane and/or tetrachloroethene ^ ' *

« " « - - • * a

o2m ££5.2. ! ? - „ . , » „ . 5 i Sg* f CDS-,8 £«23. 3<s -.' ™ S. * »N =. ?° ' ^5s? °o» s.i 2 <| =rs : ? 2.3 a I ) E!S- s— fc Za"• <-•• o(8 -... _

3 S-no 2Ss, cr-^^BiS: 1 ^ - o S ' l oo.y I I3 Oco ^ tn^rl- n > — ' O - i - . t r t - - . S ^ ' i " [ , . , - . ! _

D

«w

a *o C 2.J.ST2o a "~

s os

» <+ ftr o

5 ai^i2 2*; :«Fo o

a I-o£ 2•»• •»

e S

ftn

II1

If

R393272

flR303273

II

I

I

EXHIBIT. S ' . _:_....

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTSOFFSITE GROUNDWATER SAMPLES

HENDERSON ROAD SITE"UPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA

Sample Location: Hubing Estock. Mcllvain QuarrySample I.D.: " N609810 N609811 N609812 N609916Sample Date: 05/27/86 05/27/86 05/27/86 05/28/86

Parameter (units)

Metals (mo/1)

Antimony NT NT NT 0.004Arsenic ......__ _._NT NT NT 0.007Copper -—• -NT NT 'NT 0.02Zinc NT NT NT 0.13

Total Phenolics (mg/1) NT NT NT 0.13

Volatile Oroanics Cua/1) ....._ .

Benzene 3.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Chlorobenzene 7.4 <1.0 4.7 3.2Chloroethane 2.5 <1.0 4.9 <1.01.1-Dichloroethane 3.3 <1.0 13.1 <1.01,2-Dichloroethane <1.0 <1.0 2.3 <1.01,1-Dichloroethene 6.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <1.0Ethyl benzene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13.3Hethylene chloride 1.8 1.9 1.9 3.3Tetrachloroethene <PCE>* 4.2 <1.0 <1.0 3.6Toluene 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.9Trans-1.2-dichloroethene 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.01,1,1-Tn Chloroethane 150.0 <1.0 (S33r? 4-5Trichloroethene (TCE) 120.0 <1.0 l.f 12.9

*,1,1.2,2-Tetracnloroethane and/or tetrachloroethenei

NT - Not tested as part of this study \,. v*- ~ l A '.

flR30327U

(EXHIBIT 8 COHT'D}

Sample Location: PSWCL PSHAP Trip Blank Field Blank.Sample I.D.: N609919 N6099aO N609917 N609918Sample Date: 05/28/86 05/28/86 05/28/86 05/28/86

Parameter (units)

Volatile Organics (ug/1)Chlorobenzene 3,0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Chloroethane 3.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Chloroform <1.0 <1.0 3.2 <1.01,1-Dichloroethane 3.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Methylene chloride 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Tetrachloroethene* (PCE) 28.3 1.1 <1.0 <1.0Toluene 2.7 23.04 2.9 2.9Trans-1.2-dichloroethene 6.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0Trichloroethene (TCE) 44.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0

* 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorbethane and/or tetrachloroethene

flR3G3275

BCMjgfs?-*- f /

McCOY QUARRYfTUj;

TIPPER" MERION RESERVOIR

LEQENO1. CONRAIL SPUR 7- GLASGOW LANDFILL

ROAD COKE WORKS 8. GLASGOW QUARRYgj La-Z S -**" ~~~- * MUM iiiumcn T wwwni i hniwi •-— -....--———— _.•_».-——*»__•% »MViSS ER 4. 3CHUYLKILL EXPRESSWAY 10. STANLEY KESSLER COMPANYS5 >S\V 5. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE 11.LUKENS 8TEEL^ fi SS 6. CRATER RESOURCES, INC. 12.COOPEHS CK. CHEM. SITE"~~ (PtCKLE LIQUOR SITE) 13. O*HARA LANDFU.

northQO-;

HENDERSON ROAD.., -— - . Lana use * rowimai2oooft REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION Qroundwater ContaminatI5528.02 King of Prussia, PA___________8jPBffiTt9 7 ft———

EXHIBIT 9Land Use &

EXHIBIT 10'CHEMICALS OF CONCERN -

HENDERSON ROAD SITEUPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA

.^

BenzeneBenzole AcidBenzyl AlchoholBis C2-Ethylhexy1) PhthalateButyl Benzyl Phthalate4-ChloroanilineChlorobenzeneChloroform1,4-Dichlorobenzene__' i-Dichloroethanel' i-Dichloroethenel' 2-Dichloroethane1 2-Dichloroethene (trans)1 \ 2-Dichloropropane2 4-DimethylphenolDi-n-butyl PhthalateEtnylbenzeneHethylene Chloride2-Methylphenol4-MethylphenolNaphthaleneN-nitrosodiphenylaminePhenolTetrachloroethene (PCE)Toluene1,l, 1-Trichloroethane (TCE)vinyl Chloridem-Xylenep-XyleneCarbon Tetrachloride #Dibromochloromethane |Dichlorobromomethane #Cadmium |#Copper HZinc H

* Included on the basis of detection limits. Not detected insamples from the site.

** Included on the basis of criteria for aquatic life.Source: BCM Eastern Inc. (BCM Project No. 00-5528-02)

flR303277

I

•l

1111111\1111

~+I po

I r y

HCQ

I M>CVJ

i— i3:

u.cc

co4-»O.i—U.

O)

'*-

f__gj*n

*- ; z

fO «-3LO

CM O

O '•OCM

CO vO •esj co CT»CM •—

<*-O

O£ VI

U

^ ^ 0> *Sm m 4-» a*'v C

1- W O) Uo o t-<4- <4- 4-» t-0

4> Q) •*—-* ^ j

o£ ce £ . *§ i§ ^-g a,"S 01 "m S4-* 4 <_) 3m io *^ w w

| | If |e z cz o € cC/) 4) trt QJ Z * " V)S JC C JC O 3C CO 4-> O 4-> — m O4^ c 2 c m -Mm *^ m *^" t- <p mt- U 4-» 4-» W

So So c £. uc <*-. e <*- o en c• U (A U Wl < U^ »— cS m tt> m o ECS .r ? m v- *o I- E *XQJ o> oj u 4-* xeZ u <u co * Z u

h-t

. . . . o oOO CTi «^ ^

U~- - m ~CU OJ C V^ *o a> ^^ o o oX Z co X

r* uo i - od »-" do

CNJ o r- cotO *f CO "J3

«* •—

<«-O«1mug

fc- W Uo o pt- fa. U

4-> 4J 4J* » *Q£ 0- O=z s z

33 X3 *OQ) QV) 4)

<U V 0)

e ci c£

C fi JC C JCO O 4J O 4-«4J 4V c 4J cU t- 1-

c c c c cU U O U Oe c**- -=<*-O O OU W vi W crt<U C € fO OJ f0S* Q* s J Id -1 uu o -^ £ t- S d)OJ G X O) O> CJ -M* 7 rt_l J B d* --C '«< u z u < (-> Z

_—

3C. . . . * .^ c^ ro c^ P-- -» ~m-— p— ^ >dJ <B O »—••O T3 X> »-•O O O UZ -6 Z Z

O)"a.oa>

o8O_T<*-C N0 O43 CO

—— IDS If)a. io oa. o

o*^ *(j QI<y o•»- a.u

COa> *"*urt) C*U N^

O l-X C)

>» CD 4-<

• * £• fl*— M- UJ

O Ns- ma. :c• I uuQ£ l— l 3t-.3= OO CO

/SR303278

9•_^B

• 101 X10 ui <

• * tA t- >H CM -* — -j• rH * <" 5

~ EH g § §

|w - 3 *X » S 5•2 vu «e «—«*. 3 ui KJV{ Q Q »|J

u z acI s £• *iiiiir

in

io

«** -*

on Coocentntiora

at

Si Hodol 3 Model

im

5 *>•

UI

1

Percent

u_eeu

u

UUua.u_aeu

**£uVa.u>

1Ui_«O.u.«cu

**£u«a.u.Vu

•

Iu

ii

^i/>»n <M CM «0«^oto •- — o

o o o

MO*-O O o

S«M K.Ok ••

o «- o o«a«»o>p>.m>rm«- o oo o o f.pg*-(sj*roe>.o« >-*-

1— -S" s a t * * 2 S - 8--q --. — --0 £ £ p ^ £ - . - f j s - c v8s _, >• c a a c — £ o ** ** * a.

3 >. « C 3 «c £ u 6 u —• U V —5 >T c 5 S *- — *- o j: c « - = t t ae ou. 5 — ^c u. • ) « « — - * B -5 y 5 * 5.e — a. o o o - = u _ = — a|b. (- oS — — M>, e TJ cu j;I<5 C

flR303279

(M<_ ---Va u

"2

s |eaS"8 — a. K. .

d*-«-d»-d«-(Om doe oo 4•o •" *o

g

s

£*

<M-H

a I£0 *I-H

Su

•^firjv-oaooNK) r\j r\! «-

N. ** m ooooo^ooo.o ooo onj aa

(MOO

M (M *• O Oodd

OOO — OOOO OOO OO <O

-- -- CM -- --

i n i n o o > o ^ o > > o o» ti -* o ow»-(V'»d-o^o rJ d d od

in ooo

<M*" - - - - - - - - - ^

•«s•o

1

*-*-<-d<Md*-rst<o 0*^0 do

o----o»-o*-<Mirt ooo oo•O

M <•*

= ?aieo--o**ac\itwiA « o* KI o o «o(M M - ~'

O O

« in

<o -o -o ooin ri S

o - £ 7

«.«! 5.2-..<4-vo.c

- I"2 c3 t-5 e

o y"- Su _. u u o w i^ L. 3 o « ** _s * _~• aoo L> _i o ^ b. —rf c ii o u O* — — — • 5 5 -• vJ5_= t !-••. co. o j i r - r c — fej: ^ P y 9 ' *- ,* =>4* u u o v j » o u L>o 9 m^* u«Co — — — — u— COl C - • *-S ( - O Q O > - « J C — ' C — 5 — mm —i s t o T T i £ t . < j > . J _ £ k u - - aj t.

C—. •- <M »• ** 4- M- C _ , U _ J -. --*M X"

ss"~"~* ass 5 "" "*AR303280

•J••••••

EXHIBIT 13 ." ... . . V:

HAZARD INDEX (HI) F« CHEMICALS WITH NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS

HENDEfiSON ROAD SITEUPPER MERION, PENNSYLVANIA

Chemical Model 1 Model Z Model 3

HI Percent HI Percent HI Percent

Chemicals yith Non-carcinogenic Effects Found Only it Site

Senzoic Acid 0.5857 0.2 0.0176 0.2 0.0176 0.1Benzyl alcohol 1.4457 0.4 0.0429 0.4 0.0429 0.3Iis<2-Ethylh*xyl> Phthalate 0.4*57 0.1 0.0146 0.1 0.0146 0.1Butyl Senzyl Phthalate 3.3416 0.9 0.1002 0.9 0.1002 0.74-ChloroaniUne 1.6571 0.4 0.0486 0.4 0.0486 0.4

2,4-OiMthylpttenol 0.1117 0.0 0.0034 0.0 0.0034 0.0Di-n-butyl Phthalate 0.0519 0,0 0.0016 0.0 0.0016 0.02-Methylnaphthalen* 0.0229 0.0 0.0007 0.0 0.0003 0.02-Methylphenol - 11.6600 3.0 0.3500 3.0 0.3500 2.64-Mcthylpnenol 4.7143 1.2 0.1414 1.2 0.1414 1.0Naphthalene 0.0014 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0Phenol 0.0200 0.0 0.0006 0.0 0.0006 0.0«-Xylene 1.0286 0.3 0.0309 0.3 0.0309 0.2p-Xylene ' 0.2714 0.1 0.0081 0.1 0.0081 0.1

Chearicals with Non-carcinogenic Effects Found at Sit* and UN*

Chlorobenzen* 0.3280 0.1 0.0098 0.1 0.0132 0.1Chlorofona 1.2371 0.3 0.0371 0.3 0.1023 0.71,4-DichLorobtnz*nt 1.0700 0.3 0.0314 0.3 0.0320 0.21,1-OJchloroethem 0.7095 0.2 0.0213 0.2 0.0215 0.21,1-Dfchloroethen* 0.3238 0.1 0.0096 0.1 0.0114 0.11,2-Oichlorotthen* <tram> 11.2143 2.9 0,3371 2.9 0.3443 2.51,2-Dichlcropropane 300.751978.0 9.022578.0 11.027680.5Ithylbenzent 2.2286 0.6 0.0669 0.6 0.0707 0.5Methytem ChloHd* 0.4048 0.1 0,0121 0.1 0.0137 0.1TetrtchloraMhent 14.0000 3.6 0,4200 3.6 0.4253 3.1Toluan* 23.4286 6.1 0.7029 6.1 0.7033 5.11,1,1-Trichlorcttthant 0.3987 0.1 0.0120 0.1 0.0137 0.1

Carbon Trtraehloridt* 4.0816 1.1 0.122* 1.1 0.1633 .1.2

TOTAL HAZARD IWCX* 385.6150 11.5659 13.7023

AR30328I

\IIIII1IIIIIII

(EXHIBIT 13 CONT'D)

Chemical Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

HI Percent HI Percent HI Percent

Chearicals with Won'carcinogenic Effects Found Only at Site

Benzole Acid 0.0176 0.6 0.0076 0.2 0.0000 0.0Benzyl alcohol 0.0429 1.5 0.0126 0.4 0.0000 0.0Bi8<2-Ethyth*xyl> Phthalate 0.0146 0.5 0.0007 0.0 0.0000 0,0Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 0.1002 3.5 0.0006 0.0 0.0000 0.04-Chloro*nilin* 0.0486 1.7 0.0200 0.6 0.0000 0.02,4-OiMthylpnenol 0.0034 0.1 0.0013 0.0 0.0000 0.0Di-n-butyl Phthalate 0.0016 0.1 0.0006 0.0 0.0000 0.02-H*thytnaphthalene 0.0007 0.0 0.0004 0.0 0.0000 0.02-M*thylphenol 0.3500 12.1 0.1257 4.0 0.0000 0.04-M*thylph*nol 0.1414 4.9 0.0471 1.5 0.0000 0.0Naphthalene 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0000 0.0Phenol 0.0006 0.0 0.0004 0.0 0.0000 0.0•j-Xylm • 0.0309 1.1 0.0088 0.3 0.0000 0.0p-Xylene 0.0081 0.3 0.0010 0.0 0.0000 0.0

Cheaiicals with Non-carcinogenic Effects Found at Sit* and UMR

Chlorobenzem 0.0034 0.1 0.0034 0.1 0.0034 0.2Chloroform 0.0651 2.2 0.0146 0.5 0.0651 3.01,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0006 0.0 0.0071 0.2 0.0006 0.0•1,1-OiChloroethane 0.0002 0.0 0.0058 0.2 0.0002 0.01,1-OicMoroethene 0.0016 0.1 0.0048 0.2 0.0016 0.1Tran»-1,2-Dichloro*th*n* 0.0071 0.2 0.0771 2.5 0.0714 3.21,2-Dichloropropan* 2.0050 69.2 2.6734 85.9 2.0050 91.1Ethylbenzan* 0.0038 0.1 0.0131 0.4 0.0038 0.2Kethylene Chloride 0.0016 0.1 0.0023 0.1 0.0016 0.1Tttrachtoroethene 0.0053 0.2 0.0036 0.1 0.0053 0.2Toluene 0.0004 0.0 0.0442 1.4 0.0004 O.fl1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.0017 0.1 0.0025 0.1 0.0017 0.?

Carbon TatracMoride* 0.0408 1.4 0.0327 1.0 0.0408 1.9

TOVAt MA2MD INDEX* 2.8972 3.1114 2.2009

(EXHIBIT 13 CONT'D).

I

f11II

HI Percent HI Percent HI Percent HI Percent

Carbon T*traehlorid** 0.0041 0.7 0.0327 2.2 0.0041 0.6 0.0000 0.0

TOTAL KAZAtO INDEX* 0.6139 1.4788 0.7100 0.0090

* Hazard Index value* greater than 1 My indicate adverse health effects.f Concentration*, based on detection Haiti. Not detected in samples fro* the sit*.

Source: KM Eastern Inc. (Project No. 00-5528-02)

Chemical Model 7 Model 10 Model 11. Mcllvain

Chemicals with Non-carcinogenic

Benzoic AcidSenzyl alcoholBi$<2-Ethylhexyl> PhthalateButyl Benzyl Phthalate4-Chloroaniline2,4-DiMthylphenoLOi-n- butyl Phthalate2 -Kethy I naphthalene2-K*thy I phenol4-H*thy I phenolNaphtha ten*Phenolm-Xylen* — -p-Xylen*

Chemicals with Non-carcinogenic

Chlorob*nz*n*Chloroform1,4-0iehlorob*nz*n*1,1-Oi Chloroethane1,1-Oiehloroethen*Trans-1 f2-Dichloro*th*n*1 ,2-Of chloropropan*Ethyl benzeneM*thyl*n* Chtortd*Tetrach loroethan*Toluene1,1,1-Trichloroethan*

Effects Found Only at Site

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000O.OOOQ0.00000.0000

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

Effects Found at

0.00050.00170.00060.00010.00030.00290.60150.00010.00000.00110.00000.0008

0.10.30.10.00.10.596.00.00.00.20.00.1

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000

Sit* and UMR

0.00050.00310.00040.00010.00100.00291.43690.00010.00020.00040.00000.0003

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

0.00.20.00.00.10.297.20.00.00.00.00.0

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000O.OOOQ0.00000.00000.00000.0000

0.00050.00090.00040.00000.00030.00140.70180.00010.00000.00010.00000.0002

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0

0.10.10.10.00.00.298.80.00.00.00.0.0.0

0.0000O.OOQO0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000

0.00500.00000.00000.00310.00000.00000.0000O.OOQO0.00090.00000.00000.0000

0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 "0.00.00.0 t0.0 \

55.30.00.034.70.00.00.00.010.1O.Q0.00.0

flR303283

•tCIIO

EXHIBIT 15 :. ' -----

DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSED- --GROUND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Technology Design Criteria Use In Design

Neutralization/pH Adjustment Chemical Type Effects potential

effluent quality andchemical handlingrequirements.

Chemical Dosage Effects chemicalstorage volume andultimate cost oftechnology.

Mixing Requirements Effects mixing tanksizes or length ofstatic mixers.

Settling/Precipitation Chemical Type Effects settling

velocity and sludgequality.

Chemical Dosage Effects effluentquality, sludgevolume and settlingrate.

Plocculation Time Effects size offlocculation tanksand rate of floeformation.

Agitation Rate Effects floeformation and settle-ability of solids.

Detention Time/Overflow Rate Effects settling tank

size and effluentquality.

Sludge Production Rate Effects sludgestorage and disposalrequirements.

AR303285

—** Iliflfail

"(EXHIBIT 15 CONT'D)

DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSEDGROUND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Air Stripping Flow Rate Effects pumpingrequirements andtower diameter.

Liquid Loading Rate Effects toverdiameter.

Air To-Water Ratio Effects removal rateand blover capacity*

Required Removal Efficiency Effects tover height.

Packing Type Effects removalefficiency andhydraulic capacity.

Tover height Effects tover height -and pumping require-ments.

Carbon Adsorption Flov Rate Effects carbon bedsize and empty beddetention time.

Empty Bed Detention Time Effects scale up offull scale system.

Liquid Loading Rate Effects carbon beddiameter.

Breakthrough Time Effects frequency ofcarbon replacement.

PACT Process Flov Rate Effects size ofprocess tankage.

Required Carbon Dosage Effects costs andorgan!es removal.

Required MLSS Effects biologicalorganism growth rate.

Required Nutrient Additions Effects biologicalorganism grovth rate.

UR303286

(EXHIBIT 15 CONT'D)

DESIGN CRITERIA AND THEIR USE IN DESIGN FOR PROPOSEDGROUND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Hydraulic Retention Time/Cell Retention Time Effects sludge

production andquality.

Sludge Production Rate Effects storage anddisposal requirement

(311/21)NY-AMB

3R303287

EXHIBIT. 16 .

PROPOSED CHEMICAL SPECIFIC ARARs FORA CLASS IIA AQUIFER

ARAR Method/Parameter (ug/1) (ug/1) Source

Arsenic 50.0 MCLCadmium 10.0 MCLChromium 50.0 MCLCopper 1,300.0 MCLGLead 20.0 MCLGSilver 50.0 MCLGZinc 5,000.0 MeOther Parameters . ...._ .. .....__..._ .......__Cyanide 200.0 AWQCAcid Extractable-OraanlcsBenzoic Acid 700.0 Ma2,4-D1methyl phenol 400.0 AWQCPhenol 3,500.0 DKEL2-Metnylphenol 42.0 Ma4-Methylphenol 72.0 Ma

MCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelsMCLG - Maximum Contaiminant Level GoalsAWQC - Ambient Water Quality CriteriaSNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect LevelDWEL - Drinking Water Equivalent LevelEPA - Recommended by EPAMa - Model in Appendix A of RIMe - Organoleptlc*** - EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, DER, Washington DC

EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSWER Directive 9,285.4-1), October 1986

flR3Q3288

(EXHIBIT 16 CONT'D}

ARAR Method/Parameter (ug/1) (ug/1) Source

Base/Neutral Extractable OrganicsBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaUte 512.0Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 820.0 Ma1,2-Dlchlorobenzene 620.0 MCLG1,3-Dichlorofaenzene 470.0 AWQC1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75.0 MCLDi-n-butyl phthalate 770.0 SNARLNaphthalene 350.0 MaN-nitrosodiphenylamine 71.0 ***Benzyl alcohol 364.0 Ma4-Chloroaniline 35.0 Ma2-methylnaphthalene 1,750.0 MaVolatile QrcranlcsBenzene 5.52 .... (2)Carbon Tetrachloride 5.0 MCLChlorobenzene 60.0 MCLGChloroethane 19,000.0 EPAChloroform 100.0 MCL1Di bromochloromethane 100.0 MCL

MCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelsMCLG - Maximum Centalmi nant Level GoalsAWQC - Ambient Water Quality CriteriaSNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect LevelDWEL - Drinking Water Equivalent LevelEPA - Recommended by EPAMa - Model In Appendix A of RIMe - Organoleptlc*** - EPA Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, DER, Washington DC

EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSWER Directive 9,285.4-1), October 1986(1) - This is MCL for total tribaloraethanes(2) - Alternative concentration limit based on background contamination

4R303289

*IIIIiII

(EXHIBIT 16 CONT'D)

ARAR Method/Parameter (ug/1) (ug/1) Source

Di ch1orobromomethane 100.0 MCL1,1-DiChloroethane 5.06 (2)1,2-DiChloroethane 6.02 (2)1,1-Dichloroethene 7.0 MCL1,2-Dichloroethene 70.0 MCLG1,2-DIchloropropane 6.28 . (2)Ethylbenzene 680.0 MCLGMethylene Chloride 47.0 ***Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 6.9 ***Toluene 2.000.0 MCLGTrichloroethene (TCE) 25.8 /2)1,1,1-Tr1ch1oroethane 200 MCLTrichlorofluorometnane 12,000.0 EPAVinyl Chloride 2.0 MCLm-Xylene " 175.0 DWELp-Xylene 175.0 DWEL

MCL - Maximum Contaminant LevelsMCLG - Maximum Conta1m1nant Level GoalsAWQC - Ambient Water Quality CriteriaSNARL - Suggested No Adverse Effect LevelDWEL - Drinking Water Equivalent LevelEPA - Recommended by EPAMa - Model in Appendix A of RIMe - Organoleptic*** - EPA,Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, DER, Washington DC

EPA 54011 - 861060 (OSWER Directive 9,285.4-1). October 1986(1) - This is MCL for total trihalomethanes(2) - Alternate concentration limit based on background contamination

flR303290

EXHIBIT 17 '

INTERIM OPERATING GUIDANCE FOR AIR TOXIC SUBSTANCES:NEW AND MODIFIED SOURCES (PADER)

AnnualCAS No. Substance ATG(ug/M3)

107-13-1 Acrylonitrile 1.47

7440-36-0 Antimony (and compounds) 1.2

7440-38-2 Arsenic (and compounds) 0.024

1332-21-4 Asbestos** 0.0132

71-43-2 _ .Benzene 12.5

92-87-5 Benzidine 30

50-32-8 Benzo(a)Pyrene (combustion product) 0.00077440-41-7 Beryllium (and compounds) 0.01

542-88-1 BisCChloro Methyl)Ether 0.0113

7440-43-9 Cadmium (and compounds) 0.0556mm 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.67

67-66-3 Chloroform 4.35

m 107-30-2 Chloromethyl Methyl Ether 0.0657

7440-47-3 Chromium VI (and compounds) 0.00833

• 91-94-1 3,3'Dichlorobenzidine Not establishedmm 117-81-7 DK2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 120

77-78-1 Dimethyl Sulfate 12.4• 123-91-1 Dioxane 86.3

106-93-4 Ethylene D1bromide 18.4

I 107-06-2 Ethylene Dichloride 3.85m 75-21-8 Ethylene Oxide 1

. 96-45-7 Ethylene Thiourea 0.7

IfiR30329l

mm

(EXHIBIT 17 CONT'D)'"

AnnualCAS No. Substance ATG(ug/M3)

106-89-8 Eplchlorohydrin 9.06

50-00-0 (A) Formaldehyde 5.88

87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.639

680-31-9 Hexamethyl Phosphoramide 0.0176

302-01-2 Hydrazine . 0.314

7439-92-1 Lead (and compounds) 1.5

7439-96-5 Manganese (and compounds) 24

7439-97-6 Mercury (and compounds) 0.24

74-83-9 Methyl Bromide 465

74-87-3 Methyl Chloride 2,470

TOl-14-4 4,4'-Methy1ene B1s(2-Ch1oroan1line) 0.545

75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 24.2• 60-34-4 Monomethyl Hydrazine 0.94

7440-02-0 (A) Nickel (and compounds) 0.24

m 92-93-3 4-Nltrodlphenyl 2.7

V P a r t l c u l a t e Polycycllc Aromatic 0.48Hydrocarbons (combustion product)

127-18-4 Perchloroethylene 172.4™ 108-95-2 Phenol 461

67774-32-7 Polybrominated Biphenyls Not established

53469-21-9; Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.1811097-69-1

57-57-8 2-Prop1o1actone Not established

75-56-9 Propylene Oxide 26.7

I flR303292

EXHIBIT 18 - -

Overview of Predesign ActivitiesProgress of Events

Injection WellInvestigation

tLog Existing Open

Hole Monitoring Wells

Sample ExistingMonitoring Welts

Revise Conceptual J «•Modal m * Sample CvwfaurdenL _H • Cora Continuously

_ ..... T _____ _ _ mm • Arwknv rW» f. __r• Analyze Core & Mr Sample*Unsaturated ZoneInvestigation | Ev«luat« Need to Perform

Prafiminary TMting of VES

Coftect and Anaryz*Groondwatw Samples from

att Site Related Wells

Perform VES Preftninafy Testing•Sit* and Install Weds

Saturated ZoneInvestigation

Evautate Need to Pwform D«t-*»dPiot Study of VES

Revive Conceptual ModalIn the Unsaturated Zones

Design VES forRemedoatlon

Site and InttalQroundwater Recovery Wels

Hydraulicalty and ChemicallyTest Groundwater Recovery Welc

fPerfofm Groundwater Treatabifity Studies

_ *Design Ground WaterPump and Heat System

SR3Q3293

EXHIBIT 19"Detailed Outline of Progress of Events for

the Injection Well Investigation

Prepare General Plan

Begin Well Drilling

Detect Significant Waste rt* Collect and AnalyzeMaterial In Well Bore * Waste Sample

\NO \

Drill to Original Well Depth Perform UnsaturatedZone Investigation

Enlarge Borehole1Log Injection Well and

Existing Open Hole Wells

iCorrelate Fractures between

Injection Well and Existing Wells

1Collect and Analyze Ground Water

and Floating NAPL

Evaluate Data and ReviseConceptual Model

Perform UnsaturatedZone Investigation

EXHIBIT 20 "- - - - -

Detailed Progress of Events forUnsaturated Zone Investigation

Site and Install UnsaturatedZone Borings

Collect Split Spoon Samplesfrom Overburden

Collect a Shelby Tube Sample andAnalyze for Physical Parameters

Collect and Screen (for VOCs)Core Samples In Fracture Rock

Product Is Visually Observed •> Collect Sample of Fracturedi Rock/Sediments andNO Analyzed Product Filled

Section for OrganicsRecord Physical - • •- ICharacteristic of M •Core Section

Collect and Nn *Analyze Air « ^ Has Water TableSample from been encounteredCored Interval •

Collect and Analyze WaterSample from Cored Interval

NO *^ Advance Core to Final DepthT

[YESEnlarge Boehole Diameter1 .Install Monitoring Well Across

Unsaturated and Saturated Zones

fiR3032§§^

(EXHIBIT 20'CONT'D)

Complete Installationof Monitoring WellI

Develope Shallow Wells

Inspect Wells to DeterminePresence of Floating NAPL

YPSIs Floating NAPL Observed.— m. Sample andI Analyze NAPLI rlU m

Evaluate all Data Collected

End Unsaturated Zone* NO °°** Quantity of VolatileInvestigation and m Organic ContaminationProceed to Saturated Present In UnsaturatedZone Investigation Zone Pose a Significant

Threat to Ground water QualityVES

Perform Preliminary Testing of VESI'

Evaluated VES Data with otherData Collected During the

Unsaturared Zone Investigation

Devise HypotheticalVES Treatment Scenario

Compare Costs of Removal ofVolatile Organics with VES

Versus Ground Water Treatmenti flR 30321;

(EXHIBIT 20"COST'D)

Are Costs of Removal by HQ Terminate for theVES Less than or ^ Investigation of VESComparable to Is not a Cost Effective

Groundwater Treatment Remedial Measure

IvES

Develop Plans for aLongterm Pilot Study of

VESiPerform Pilot Study of

VESiEvaluate VES

Performance andRecommend Whether ——w » Terminate Analysis

VES Is a Viable RemedialMeasure

YESf

Design VES System

UR303297

EXHIBIT 21 -Detailed Progress of Events forSaturated Zone Investigation

Sit* Monltorfatf W«fl Leertlone

IRecord Organic Vapor Level*and Note Permeable fracture e

with .Depth

Iten\T

Determine Screen Intervale

JComplete WfR InetallaUee}

Oevelefi Newly IneteJUtfMonltorfaifl W«1U

1Sample CxteUrtf and Newly

Inetelled Well* and the Injection We!\Revfoe Cenoeptual Model

1Site and O««l(n K«o«very WeBa

IInetall Kecavery WeR"TSample Recovery WeBe

Perietal Puejp TeeC an Recovery WeBa

Am More ffeeevwyMfe.felleai.bWrT

OrouneSvalerTf*atabWty/Pflet Teetaif

1Evaluate R*uiKe af

Traalabtlity Stua>

IFinalize QreuneVater Reoevetyand Treatmenl Syetem Deelfpj

AdalttenaJReeeven/ WeMa

flR303298

EXHIBIT 22ALTERNATIVE -• -

7AWITHOUT ISV AND DOWNGRADIENT ?UK? AND TREAT

(CAPITAL AND O&M)ANNUAL DISCOUNT PRESENT

YEAR OUTLAY FACTOR WORTHCS) (S)

1 2..-6~63~, 380 1.000- . 2,663, 330.002 290,455 0.909 264,023.603 290.455 0.826 239,915.834 2-9-0.455 0.751 218.131.715 290.455 0.683 193,380.776 290.455 0.621 -180.372.567 290,455 0.564 "163,816.628 290,455 0.513 149.003.429 2.90,455 0.467 135,642.4910 29"0,455 0.424 123,152.9211 290,455 0.386 112,115.6312 2=90,455 0.350 .. 101,659.2513 290.455 0.319 92,655.1514 . 290,455 0.290 .. 64.231.95IS = 0.263 - "2"42,079.6716 290,455 0.239 - 69,418.7517 29"0,455 0.218 63,319.1918 290,455 0.198 57,510.0919 29_0,455 0.180 - 52,281.90- .20 290,455 0.164 47,634.6221 290,455 0.149 43,277.8022 "290,455 0.135 . -39,211.4323 "290,455 0.123 --35,725.9724 2TO,455 0.112 32,530.9625 £50,455 f 0.102 "29,626.4126 2aO,455 0.092 -26,721.8627 25-0,455 0.064 24,398.22'23 Z.9-0,455 0.076 22,074.5829 290", 455 0.069 - 20,041.4033 2-90,455 O.C63 18,233.67

- - - - - - .,. S. 550,633.42

SR3Q3299

«r —O. V}

U

Q . ._.. ...._

<«c a. -—3 —— U C?id. as —

S- E-OS Z<: us:ci -(.a o: -o

0x1 o o • — -c_i O OH , « "- "•S3 i-J O - =-

S S iM CL" > - - —<c w

O '—i _

E-3 -:='- ---

O__ -•_-P"

3: -

u:toS

oooo**

ow

„

co•rt4JS!a-•Hj->a0)>c•iH

-4r-l(1)2

Co•H4->U0)l~)ct— *

oo<M

i— »O*s

oo:o_nor~»<ij

B«— lH&>X

CT1C-Ht>O4->•HCowU-lOSo-H4JAr-l

fflvJ07£»-«

OOCNJ

"t

,ooiNi— i•uj

"fl3

aj->.«3C01B*J(0CJ4J

e•*<<o>i-H1-4UEWOcd•Ml*J

*-H•HnijOJc""<

QC *o o

_,•o

o oo -c1c*l OLfl H•—1 <I>«> .

=.=-.=_- - ."-r-:-

«cQJe

-l-("0)n•D0]4_)njcHE(0*JC -1O fflo noiw Q,O M

•*4c -oO•H .-t4~) r-4(0 -H> *Hfl "OU CX *-J h-l

oooinT<st

o"ooL.1CM<j-*>

ffl4->-4ncOTOi— t•H(VX,I.0?>ou(Dw<MOcd•H4J"Ji— ti— (<s4J«CHH

Oooo•£>«>

oooonoc>

:.._

5•HWco€O

n>.to4_JCVE4J*5Oi_4->

UOrJj(ByTJC3O5

O<r oP C*

o" lH Cl•» {j}s

-o ^^* o10 " " O ...

. -: fV , -

co - cr>* c>

<o

_. . . . „ .. . — -:..: ; ".. .:.":-

~• ~ S "•

-.—>h""O~Coct-4Jcou>,-334JQ4JO1-1•HQ.

> UW (1)1-4 4J

<071 iH X£H ?9•H 4-» *OTJ O £3-4-* 3-i .a oUS t-iC CQ OH-t

o*^CO

(N **

CM

CT ' '"TJ"O :" . . .

CJr*ia-.i— t«>

- ---:"

- - - - -

Ej£2

€OU

-a3)C

194JJ2O

< nH 4->o raH O

^

EXHIBIT .227A-WI7HCTJT ISV AND D'O^NG-ADIENT

?'JM? AND TREAT

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCECOST SUMMARY

TASK BCM EPA(S) (5)

Year Ii - __ - _ .. . _ . ..._ . . . . _ .

Ground water sampling 565,550 5108,600Expenses and labor. 525,000 570,760Sediment sampling ""50 53,800Air sampling . SO S3'3°2Mcllvain treatment $180 5180 *Mcllvain sampling 51,000 - 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesHubing'sampling 50 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesSedimentation/Precipitation £60,000 560,000 *(onsite)Air stripper Consite) 5^2,000 522,000 *GAG replacement 5102,00.0 5102,000 *Recovery well bore cleanout 510,800 510,800 *Effluent sampling _. 515,300 515,300*TOTAL for Year 1 5301,830 . £399,940

Year 2:

Ground water sampling" " " 554,150 543,575Expenses and labor" " " '525,000 541,600Mcllvain treatment, 5.180 SiSO *Mcllvain sampling ^ 51,000 £1,600Ctotal.VOCs)'pXus expensesHubing sa'mpling 50 51,600 -(total VOCs) plus expensesSedimentation/Precipitation 560,000 560,000 *(onsite)Air stripper Consite) .. 522,000 522,000 *GAC reolaceoent - 5102,000 5102,000 *Eecovery well bore cleanout £10,600 510,600 *Effluent sampling 57,100 57,100 *TOTAL for year 2 5282,230 5290.455

Year 3-30:

Ground water sampling * 546,650 £43,575Expenses and labor 520,000 541,600Mcllvain treatment 5160 £180 *Mcllvain sampling " £1,000 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesHubing sampling " 50 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesSedimentation/Precipitation £60,000 560,000 *(onsite)Air stripper Consite) 522,000 522,000 *GAC replacement 5102,000 $102,000 *Recovery well bore cleanout £10,800 510,800 *Effluent sampling $7,100 £7,100 *TOTAL for years 3-30 269,730 £290,455

* All monitoring wells should be analyzed for the, full TCL at leastevery flvt years"(if not more frequently) to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative. The analytical cost for this analysis isUR3G330

EXHIBIT 12——' --7A-WITKCUT I=V. AND IfCVi££A--.IIN

AND TREAT

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCECOST SUMMARY

TASK - - •_• - :- .•" - , '.. : . : BCM ... .. . EPA(S) (S)

544,000. "T '"•

* Costs-obtained from BCM

AR30'3302

EXHIBIT 2Z

\.C.iM ONLY;

ANNUAL DISCOU-NT PRESENTYEAR OUTLAY FACTOR .. WORTH

CS) " CS)

1 - 399,940 1.000 . .. 399,940.002 - -290,455 0,909 264,023.603 290,455 0.326 239,915.634 290,455 0.751 - 213,131.715 - ZSO-, 455 0.683 . 198,380.776 T9"07455 0.621 180,372.567 290,455 0.564 163,816.628 290,455 0.513 149,003.429 290,455 0.467 135,642.4910 290,455 0.424 123,152.9211 2-9-0,455 • 0.386 112,115.6312 290,455 0.350 101,655.2513 290,455 0.319 -92,655.1514 290,455 0.290 - 84,231.9515 9"20,455 0.263 242,079.6716 290,455 , 0.239 69,418.7517 ""290,455 0.218 63,319.1918 290,455 0.198 57,510.0919 290,455 0.180 52,231.9020 2SO,455 0.164 47,634.6221 .290.455 , 0.149 43,277.8022 . 2-90,455 0.135 39,211.4323 - 2.90,455 0.123 35,725.9724 290,455 0.112 32,530.9625 290,455 0.102 29,626.4126 9"07455 0.092 . 26,721.8627 _290.455 0.034. - 24,398.222S, ' 250,455 " 0.076" "" . 22,074.5829 290,455 0.069 " 20,041.4030 _ ^290,455 0.063 -- - I S , 2 = 8.67

"OTAL :_ ^-3,287,193.42

SR303303

EXHIBIT 22 "-ALTERNATIVE

7A-WITKOUT ISV(CAPITAL AND O&M)

ANNUAL DISCOUNT. . PRESENTYEAR OUTLAY FACTOR WORTH

(5) (S)

1 3,482,880 1,000 3,482,880.002 -- 373,655 0.909 339,652.403 373,655 0.826 308,639.034 373,655 0.751 . 280.614.915 373,655 0.683 255,206.376 373,655 0.621 232,039.767 373,655 0.564 210,741.428 _ 373,655 . -- -0.513 . 191,685.029 _ -373,655 0.467 "174,496.89

10- -—-- - 373,655 0.424 158,429.7211 . __37_3,655 - -0.386 144,230.8312 373,655 0.350 130,779.2513 -373,655 0.319 119,195.9514 373,655 0.290 108,359.9515 1,351^655 - .- 0...263 355,485.2716 """573,655 0.239 . 89,203.5517 373,655 0.218 81', 456.7913 373,655 0.198 73,983.6919 . -473,655 ."0.180 - 67,257.9020 ' 373,655 0.164 - "61,279.4221 .-.-. ... 373,655 0.149 55,674.6022 :_..-_ 373.655 0.135 50,443.4323 -"="=- 373,555" . 0.123 '45,959.5724 -• 373,655 . . 0.112 ."... --41.fi49.3625 37"3,655 0.102 33,112.8126 . • 373,,655 "0.092 - 34,376.2627 - " 373,655 - 0.084 -—31,387.0223 ::--_.-_..- --373,655 "0.076 _' 23,397.7829 .... ___373,655. - 0.069 . :"25,782.2030 373,655 -0.063 .: '-23,540.27

TOTAL 7- ." ""••• . 7,241.241.42

f

owft—

1t*Ho3

C3

3

i—j {jN ' CiiO 1 C-3 o cr> e ftC- 3 - G-

— ftB*

C I—10)r*ffl1-1TJH-h- 'Or*toftCCL*><

no3f*^j, . _3'-C(B3O«•<

»-•H*

M O NJ0 l_t <•

I—* C"1 0%to » t/ifs> o en•P* O .to0 0

4> 4>ro & fo» >-* »•,5 Jk CO$— * * *f^^ **J *A O A«Ck O A0 0

C.1

c3p

e0)f*ffli-jrtCD0)r*mii3**K«CCf*to3CLO*3>C«Q>C-H-ffl3r*

W-CD

OOo

owCD

ooo

^~3"CSfljj-fffl<-;

ft

ffl0),-r3U3**CQ•<COcfffl3O3WH-rrlO

CJlUOOoo

off>oooo

=

r*~ J1— '&•r-H'o3

01-11-1fj"do<"1*<

croi— 't— '-03

Q,6j;3£>~!11)a.i--s3

UCDO

ooo

<frwoooo~

i(-f*Q)

~1_>I—*ffl(-fH'03

on+*,Qno<*i*cfflh-I-1ca53Uh*-(-rffl

Jkf«JLH

OOo

oAv<ooo

c~

c.w>H-1— 't—CL.)-•Co•oOi(—•

o>-'oJio

I—orfko

C*7

a>ii"(-•i—o3QI i

O3V*CJ3"Vft(0c.CCfflc.h—3ffl3f+CO

»t-*v»woo

o>-*yoo

a i -fr* <-»• .1-fti fl> O)— • - k— • ••"J— ' h-- »-••£U 3» Crt rt 3H- (-•O C *3 3 roJ— 1O O >-•

" t-.303"O O «<— • 3 (T1>---*- C5< ,f r* ' 'M- "1 -Q3 t— B3 (*

ft ifl H-n ort *_ 30> (Dft i— •3 ro ca3f*«*-<;car*ro3

-_-.

••0> Ot— OT

ro oo o oooo

t—».O <J>

h- S 0

NJ N* OOOOOOO

01 ;

o?

r—

* 0 S•H W W— i-3 C=JO Mc: ci H

E N3•-* 3 .NJ

< 33

•^ C? - lo n-'3 xj^

t«> "V*"

J5R303305

EXHIBIT 22 :

WITH OS WITHOUT- ISVOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

COST SUMMARY

TASK . . . .._________^____________ __ __ _ (S)

Year 1: ... .__.._. ._.___.__..,. ^ . ,_,_. ...... .. ...

Year 2:

Ground water S-ampling . 565,550 5108,600Expenses and labor 525,000 570,760Sediment sampling ' SO 53,800Air sampling .. -50 53,300Mcllvain treatment t . 5180 . 5180 *Mcllvain sampling 51,000 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesHubing sampling SO 51,600(total VOCs) plus expensesSedimentation/Precipitation 560,000 » 560,000 *(onsite.) .._- - - . - - ...-.-.;...____Sedimentation/Precipitation 559,000 559,000 *(downgradient)Air stripper (onsite) - S22,000 522,000Air stripper (downgradient) _S6,OOQ 56,000GAC replacement 5102,000 5102,000Recovery well bore cleanout 510,800 521,600Effluent sampling 531,000 S31,000

TOTAL for Year 1. . - _ ... ---_ .- • • -5382,530 5491,440

Ground water sampling .. . . . ' _/.S54,150 S43 575Expenses and labor $25 ono «2i tn^Mcllvain treatment .Mcllvain sampling : ' ' "s"i 000(total VOCs) plus expenses S..DOOnubinq sampling so «..(total VOCs.). plus expenses . . . . - 51,(on£i?e)atlCn/PreCipitatl0n _ 560,000 560,000

~n *59'000 «Air stripper .(onsite) S22,000 s-? nnnAir stripper (downgradient) || 000 56000GAC replacement -£102 000 «s-n?nnnRecovery well bore cleanout ' 1 10 600 52^600Effluent sampling--- ' — ' " " - - - - si^SOO 514,500

TOTAL for ye«r .2 3354,630 5373,655

Year 3-30:

Ground water sampling + S4S eso *^ e-ye

8Sf!!SS S2.J.5SS . *% ^expenses S1<<°° «'«8expenses

560,000" $60,000

' "' S59,000

' .'flR303306

EXHIBIT 22 - -" •" . . " ~— I.

WITH OR WITHOUT ISV _OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

COST SUMMARY

TASK BCM EFA(S) (S)

Effluent sampling 514,500 514,500 *

TOTAL for years 3-30 - 5342,130 5373,655

* All monitoring wells should be analyzed for the full TCL at leastevery five years (if not more frequently) to evaluate the effective-ness of the alternative. The analytical cost for this analysis is544,000.

AR303307

EXHIBIT 22

ANNUAL DISCOUNT . PRESENTYEAR OUTLAY . . .FACTOR WORTH

(S) (5)

1 . . . . 8,463,760 1.000 . "8,463,780.002 - 373,655 0.909 .._.. -339,652.403 - 373,655 ' 0.826 308,639.034 _..... ----373.655 , . . 0.751 280,614.915 373,655 0.683 255,206.376 373,655 0-.621 232,039.767 373,655 0.564 210,741.428 373,655 0.513 191,685.029 '373,655 0.467 174,496.8910 373,655 - -V___0.424 158,429.7211 ._ _ .___373,655 0.386 144,230.8312 373,655 0.350 130,779.2513 - - 373,655 . 0.319 . -119,195.9514 .._._.——373,655 0.290 108,359.951.5 . -1,351,655 0...263 355,485.2716 . .--373,655 0.239 89,303.5517 .. . 373,655 -0.218 61,456.7918 373,655 0.198 73,983.69IS-. . ----3.73,6.55" 0.160 67,257.9020 373,655 0.164 61,279.4221 -..-.... .,... 373,655 "0.149 - 55,674.6022 3737655 . 0.135 '. . 50,443.4323 373,655 . -.0.123 . 45,959.5724 '373,655 - 0.112 -41,349.3625 - -—.373,655 . . .... .0.102 38,112.8126 ' """373,655 0,092 34,376.2627 . 373,655 O.OS4 "-31,387.0228 .: 373,655 0.076 23,397.7329 -..-373.655 0.069 25.782.2030 - 373,655 . . ,-0.063 23,540.27

12,222,141.42

flR3Q33Q8

»

-CSO "—5.-t Oto -3

2**~t t~*•io3o?o3 - -.= _

-

3Ino^to>£k

O

4».".otot-tl&o

oHoc3Q.

*ft<B1

.i_t—Oft

COftcc**<ao3ftH-3-Q(53O-<

p—in—

•0>

£c*oo

^Ac**oo

~ H! <: < <; otn c

^ i-j j_, I-; >*•_r* flj ^ iC B O "S Err ft ft K- fcB* 3 >— ft

ft S '"* *ft 03 r

ft M. ._ .. C ID

•< ft... . 3ft3ft

- ia><u

• - ft3O,c— s- - 3'S*Hilc.o"f*

^ s-i **J »— W1" ^ t_n U1 "v c c c CDVT O O O^ 0 O O.O O O 0

0 0

* * » <* »0? "vj !-• t— ,W

Ui O O O 03QV O O %O O»& o o o oo o o o o

rr2-,

Cl>f—(t

,-f-l-(fp£m,53ft

B•Mf*3

O3W"ftffl

CCjJoooo

t

G>ff-

oooo

VJ

s-(-*_)r,__.JUr->->•C3

Q|— i

15no<-IB•<

ZCCswo.oj;-3.•Ci-|OJp:3ft

COCC^o-Oo"

«>woooo

^arti_rfi— •— jfth"O3Q(~T*

(DOo<(0i~j•<£(Bi—101

O3U(-••ft(D

J*NJLH

OOO

0>Atou»ooo

"aT ""* IT ""*s n a i '^™ 3J •*• i~r rCM% < ii jj Of_>. gj i — i , _ i **t- ', (~ i— ' <~-> h-.| j j_i. d; flj

O ft PT 5CL 3 H- >--

•^ = 3 K-o c o >-*CQ O l~"i t™su o H-^ n Q <W •— 3 '93 k- t— 2!-•• < ct r*3 2J O &• 'dl k->. h -

ft 3 *-• W!S 3 ftO. ft -C H-

-) 0(D OJ iT>C. r* h-»H- 3 K-»3 ' t to"(D 3 ._ _3 rrftU Cn

*<CC

- 5& "3

o -o<i> *— ' t> C^h- OT i— V*

O W NJ O^ O O Q-»ooo or o

«»V-«> *

H-> O •CO<1> Ul O K- WH* » 1— J^ O

O O to NJ OA O O O Oo ooo

—3>tl

-^ - — -

5^ "H"* H pp.a= ^ . ra

^ C Hwo - w<= v: H

3

w"

*•» D? iCO O•— ' 3 v]

^ m{l> 13— 3>

flR303309

EXHIBIT 22

.7A

COSM ONLY)

ANNUAL DISCOUNT - PRESENTYEAR OUTLAY . FACTOR WORTH

(S) (S)

1 - -491,440 1.000 491,440.002 - 373,655 0.909 339,652.403 -- 373,655 0.826 ""308,639.034 -—- .373,655 . - 0,751 - -260,614.915 373,655 0.683 " - : 255,206.37

. 6 373,655 0.621 232,039.767 373,655 0.564 210,741.428 373,655 -- 0.513 191,685.029 373,655 0.467 174,496.89

10 .. 373,655 .0.424 158,429.7211 ., 373,655 - 0.386 144,230.8312 373,655 0.350 - 130,779.2513 -373,655 0.319 119,195.9514 373,655 . ' ....0.290 108,359.9515 . -----1,351,655 . 0.263 355,465.2716 373,655 0,239 89,303.5517 .......373,655 - - -0.218 81,456.7913 373,655 0.19_8_ . .-73,983.6919 373,655 0.180 67,257.9020 373,655 0.164 61,279.4221. - - .373,655 0.149 55,674,6022 " "373,65.5 .... ....0,135 50,443.4323 373,655 - -- 0.123 .45,959.5724 373,655 0.112 41,649.3625 373,655 - 0.102 - 38,112.6126 —--- 373,655 . 0.052 " -34,376.2627 ' 373,655 .. , ..... --,0.084 31,387.0223 373,655 0.076 '"28,397.782-9 :.373,655 . - =0.069 25,782.2030 373,655 0.063 " 23,540". 27

AR3033IO

EXHIBIT 22

HENDERSON ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDYASSUMPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 7

1. Injection Well Investigation _= _ __ _ _ _ , . . _\

A. The well will be redrilled using air rotary. The firstpass will be with a 6 inch bit to open the well. The secondpass will be with an expandable bit.

\B. Downhole logging will be conducted on the injection

well and the existing monitoring wells.

2. Installation of Monitoring Wells

Onsite Monitoring Wells

A. All wells will be drilled and installed in multiplestages to allow for:

- Exploration and lithologic identification using split-spoon samples and shelby tube collections in the overburden using mud rotary .

- Continuous coring through the unsaturated fracturedrock for vadose zone exploration (gas sampling) andfracture trace identification.

- Air rotary drilling to enlarge the borehole for wellcasing installations .

B . Overburden thickness is approximately 40 feet .

C. Depth to water is approximately 125 feet below groundlevel (BGL) . Therefore unsaturated rock thickness is 85

D. A total of 15 wells are to be installed onsite:- 10 wells installed to 140 f««t CBGL)- 2 w«lls installed to 250 feet (BGL)- 3 well* installed to 45O feet (BGL)

E. Well construction materials for the 4 inch monitoringwells will be PVC riser* and 20 foot stainless steelscreens. The Q wells for the unsaturated zone investigationwill have 50 foot screens.

F. Continuous coring is to be completed in the bedrock in8 shallow well borings to a depth of 15 feet below the watertable. One hour per sample is allowed for vadose zone gascollection in these 8 shallow wells.

J5R3033I

EXHIBIT 22

G. Level B safety protection is to be used unlessdowngrading is approved by the site Health and SafetyCoordinator.

H. Three hours per well allowed for well development.

> I. All cuttings are to be contained in drums. The drumsare to be transported to a secure location onsite forstorage.

Jr Mob/demob includes all costs to the driller tocomplete the work, obtain permits/ create access, allow anappropriate per diem and incidential costs.

K. Three hours per well is allowed for properdecontamination of drilling and sampling equipment.

L. Expected time frame to complete the well installationsis:

- 50 hours per shallow well- 40 hours per intermediate well- 70 hours per deep well

M. Two rigs are used for drilling.

OffsJlte Monitoring Wells „ , *-.-.—-

A. All wells will be drilled and installed in multiplestages to allow for:

- Exploration and lithologic identification using split-spoon samples and shelby tube collections in the overburden using mud rotary.

- Air rotary drilling to enlarge the borehole for wellcasing installations.

B. Overburden thickness is approximately 85 feet.

C. D»pth to water is approximately 125 feat below groundleval (BGL). Therefore unsaturated rock thickness is 40fee-t.

D. A total of 13 wells (downgradient and upgradient) areto be installed offsitet

- 3 wells installed to 140 feet (BGL)- 5 wells installed to 250 fe*t (BGL)- 5 wella installed to 450 feet (BGL)

£. Well construction materials for the 4 inch monitoringwells will b« PVC risers and 20 foot stainless steelscreens.

fiR3033!2

EXHIBIT 22

- TDS- Oil and Grease- Alkalinity- Hardness

D. Quarterly sampling of these wells will be conductedfor Votatile Organic Analysis (VOA).

E. Labor and expenses include well purging, time andmaterials for obtaining the samples/ and transportation tothe laboratory under proper chain-of-custody procedures foranalysis.

F. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples,such as trip blanks/ field blanks/ field duplicates, etc./will also be obtained during each round of sampling inaccordance with current EPA ground water sampling protocols

Year 2-30

_,,__ A. The upgradient well cluster/ and five downgradient andthirteen onsite wells which consistently exhibit the highestlevels of contamination/ will be sampled quarterly for VOAs.

B. These twenty wells will also be sampled annually forTCL semivolatile compounds to evaluate themigration/attenuation of these compounds.

C. The remaining twenty wells will be sampled annuallyfor VOAs.

D. The labor and expenses and QA/QC follow the sameprocedures as outlined for year 1.

General Note

All of the monitoring wells should be analyzed for thefull TCL at least every five years tif not more frequently)to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative. The costfor this analysis and sampling is not included in the totalcost for this alternative.

AR3033J3

EXHIBIT 22 "" '

F. Level C safety protection is to be used unlessdowngrading is approved by the site Health and SafetyCoordinator.

G. Three hours per well allowed for well development.

H. All cuttings are to be contained in drums. The drumsare to be transported to a secure location onsite forstorage.

I. Mob/demob includes all costs to the driller*tocomplete the work, obtain permits/ create access, allow anappropriate per diem and pay for incidential costs.

J. Three hours per well is allowed for properdecontamination of drilling and sampling equipment.

K. Expected time frame to complete the well installationsis:

- 30 hours per shallow well- 50 hours per intermediate well- 80 hours per deep well

L. Two rigs are used for drilling.

3. Ground Water Sampling . „

Year !_.. __. __ .——,-— ---.---------- • •- ----- "

A. The injection well will be sampled for the full TargetCompound List (TCL). The existing monitoring wells will besampled for TCL volatile^ (VOA) and any floating product forTCL volatile^ and sami-volatil**.

B. The unsaturated zone well* will be sampled for VOAs.It was assumed that 4 of the** wells would have floatingproduct which would ba analyzed for the TCL volatilea andsemi-volatile*. ;

C.After the installation of the monitoring walla all ofthe wells installed a* part of the RI/ along with theadditional well* installed upgradient, downgradient/ andonsite will be sampled for the full TCL and the followingconventional parameter*t

- BOD- COD- Ammonia-N- Phosphate*- PH- TSS- TS

4R3Q33U

HEKPERSON BOAD SITEAPMimSTRATIVE RECORD * **INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

SITE IDENTIFICATIONBackground (O'HARA) _ _ ._ .. ._.. ., . ..

1) Memorandum to Mr. Keith Vfelks fron Mr. Paul M. Yaniga re:groundwater contamination, 7/12/77. P. 1-2.

2) Letter to Mr. Mark Rosenberg, Pennsylvania Department of.EnvironmentalResources, from Mr. John W. Hubing, sr., Ray Printing Company, re:conplaint about water contamination, 7/20/77. P. 3-5. A letterregarding well water samples taken at the company is attached.

3) Memorandum to Mr. Wayne L. Lynn frcra Mr. Paul M. Yaniga re:Industrial Waste - S.W. Disposal, 9/27/77. P. 6-7.

4) Waste Discharge Inspection Report, 12/19/78. P. 8-8.

5) Record of Telephone Conversation to Mr. Don Knorr, PennsylvaniaDepartment of Qwironmental Resources, frcm Mr. Musheno re: AH*!Disposal injection well in Upper Merion Twp., 1/30/79. P. 9-9.

6) Record of Telephone Conversation to Mr. Dick Riegler, PhiladelphiaSuburban Water Company, from ABM-O'Hara injection well, 2/6/79.P . 10-10. . . _ . - .

7) Letter to Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E.Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: results of watersamples taken at O'Hara test well, 2/15/79. P. 11-11.

8) Letter to Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E.Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: results of watersamples taken at O'Hara test well, 2/23/79. P. 12-12.

9) Sampling data analysis form re: volatile and extractable organics offour drinking water samples, 3/1/79. P. 13-13.

10) Memorandum to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Larry Miller, U.S. EPAfrcm Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: ABM injection and inspectedimpact en Philadelphia, 3/1/79. P. 14-14.

11) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: disposalof industrial wastes, 3/1/79. P. 15-17.

* Administrative Record available 5/31/88.

** Supporting Sampling Data is located at the EPA III Central Regional Laboratoryin Annapolis/ Maryland.

Note: Company or organizational affiliation is identified in the index onlywhen it appears in the record.

flR3033i5

12) Letter to Mr. Donald Knorr, Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban WaterCompany, re: results from water samples at O'Hara Test Well, 3/27/79.P. 18-18.

13) Report: A Report on the Pollution Potential of Waste DisposalActivity at the Property of 0' Kara Sanitation Company, prepared byInternational Environmental Engineers, Inc., 4/21/79. P. 19-57.

14) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: monitoringof O'Hara Sanitation Company's Henderson Road garage facility, 6/22/79.P. 58-58.

15) Memorandum to Mr. John Austin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Rick Dreisch,U.S. EPA, re: samples frcm O'Hara injection wells, 6/29/79.P. 59-59.

16) Memorandum to Mr. Rick Dreisch, U.S. EPA, fron Mr. John Austin, U.SEPA, re: purge and trap analysis of samples from O'Hara Station #1,7/3/79. P. 60-60.

17) Memorandum to Mr. Walter Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. T. O. Munson, U.S. EPA,re: purgeable organics analysis of O'Hara injection well samples,7/6/79. P. 61-61. i-

18) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel Donnelly, U.S. EPA/ frcm Mr. John Austin,U.S. EPA, re: examination of samples for solvent extractable compoundsamenable to gas chranatography, 9/24/79. P. 62-62.

19) Latter to Dr. Walter E. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. David Ben-Hur, JacobsEngineering Group Inc., re: analytical results of water samples,3/3/80. P. 63-77. The results are attached.

20) Letter to Dr. Walter F. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. David Ben-Hur, JacobsEngineering Group, re; analytical sample results, 3/24/80. P. 78-81.The results are attached.

21) Memorandum to File frcm Mr. Anthony s. Bartolomeo, U.S. EPA, re: sitevisit to O'Hara Sanitation Company, 5/1/80. P. 82-83.

22) Memorandum to Mr. Anthony S. Bartolomeo, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. RonaldJones* U.S. EPA, re: trip report for A.B.M. O'Hara, 5/1/80.P. 84-85.

23) MeHorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. T. O. Munson,U.S. EPA, re: GC/MS Purgeable Organics Analysis of ABM O'Hara SCRASamples, 5/19/80. P. 86-86.

24) Memorandum to Mr. Anthony S. Bantoloneo Csic}, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Daniel K,Donnelly, U.S. EPA, re: Extractable Analysis of ABM O'Hara Samples,7/1/80. P. 87-90. A table of O'Hara Sanple Conpariaon is attached.

flR3033!6

25) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheroi U.S. EPA, re: welldrilling and monitoring program in the Upper Merion Reservior, 9/15/88.P. 91-91.

26) Memorandum to File from Mr. Joe McGovern, re: O'Hara TDD F3-8009-13,Sequences of Events, 9/26/80. P. 92-93.

27) Memorandum to File frcm Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, re: O'Hara WellDrilling Activities of January 30, 1981, 2/10/81. P. 94-94.

28) Memorandum to File frcm Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, re: O'Harawell drilling activities of February 2, 1981, 2/10/81. P. 95-95.

29) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, re: O'Hara WellDrilling Activities of January 28th and 29th, 1981, 2/11/81.P. 96-96.

30) Letter to Mr. Robin M. Aitken, U.S EPA, from Mr. Kenneth Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: O'Hara sample test results,2/17/81. P. 97-97.

31) Memorandum to File from Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, re: Sampling of O'HaraWells, 3/9/81. P. 98-98.

32) Handwritten memorandum to File from Mr. C. K. Lee re: preliminaryobservation of test results for water sampling in O'Hara SanitationMonitoring Wells, 4/29/81. P. 99-248.

33) Letter to Mr. James Dragna, U.S. EPA, from Evelyn E. Conrad, MidwestResearch Institute, and Mr. Earl M. Hansen, Midwest Research Institute,re: results of water sample analysis, 5/11/81. P. 249-292. Graphsand charts are attached.

34) Memorandum to Mr. Ron Hainan from Mr. Stan Burcble re: concerning safetyworking in well at O'Hara Sanitation Job, 5/11/81. P. 293-295. Atable and a form regarding chemical composition are attached.

35) Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns frcm Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re:sample results and hydrogeological data, 8/9/82. P. 296-296.

36) Memorandum to Ms. Linda Young Boornazian, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Joseph G.McGovern, Ecology and Environment, Inc., re: monitoring well keys,10/11/82. P. 297-304. The following are attached:

a) handwritten notes regarding well No. 3;b) a chain of custody record;c) a memorandum regarding October 22, 1982 meeting at O'Hara site;d) a file check-up of available documents;e) a Service Request Eorra;f) a memorandum regarding field activities of February 7 & 8, 1983;g) a letter regarding information on Mr. Ashlam Shah of International

Environmental Engineers.

H n u

37) Memorandum to Mr. Robin M. Aitken, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Leo J. Clark, U.S.EPA, re: Trip Report of Q'Hara Site, 2/16/83. P.305-310. A wellpumping data sheet and a site plan are attached.

38) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Rick Dreisch,U.S. EPA, re: water samples for VOCs by GC/MS Superfund (2/9/83-2/10/83); 830209-01-03, 2/16/83. P. 311-334, The water samplesdata and Chain of Custody Records are attached.

39) Data: Analytical Results for EPA wells 1, 2, 3 drilled at Site, Churchftoad and O'Hara Landfill, (undated). P. 335-391.

Background (Philadelphia Suburban Correspondence)

1) Handwritten memorandum to Mr. Mike M. Csic] from Mr. Don K. [sic] re:results of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resourcessamples, 4/23/79. P. 1-1.

2) Memorandum to Files from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re:developments in the ABM-O'Hara injection well case, 4/26/79.P. 2-4.

3) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Rick JDreisch, U.S. EPA, re: resolved concentrations of six Halogenatedcompounds found in Brii3geport drinking water, 4/27/79. P. 5-5.

4) Memorandum to Mr, Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Daniel Donnelly,U.S. EPA, re: interim report on Philadelphia Suburban Water samples,4/28/79. P. 6-8. The interim report is attached.

5) Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,from Mr. Ratnon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, re: analytical results of watersupply sampling/ 4/30/79. P. 9-9.

6) Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Ccnpany, fromMr. Raraon Lee, U.S. EPA, re; request: for Public Hater Supply data, organicsmonitoring capacity, and corrective action feasibility, 4/30/79. P. 10-10.

7) Memorandum to Files from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re:sample results in the ABM-O'Hara injection well case, 4/30/79.P. llr-U*

- * ' ' - _ _ .

8) Latter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, PhiladelphiaSuburban Water Company, re: background information en Upper Marion ReservoirStation, 5/4/79. P. 12-13.

9) Letter to R.S. McCracken, Inc. frcm Mr. Donald F. Knorr re; presenceof organic chemicals in well water, 5/10/79. P. 14-14. x

10) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheno/ U.S. EPA, re: Upper MerionTownship Groundwater Monitering Survey, 5/18/79. P. 15-23.

5R3033I8

11) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. T. O. Munson,U.S. EPA, re: organics analysis of Philadelphia Suburban Watersamples, 5/18/79. P. 24-24.

12) Memorandum to Mr. T. O. Munson, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Rick Dreisch, U.S. EPA,re: preliminary findings of trihalcmethanes at Philadelphia Suburban Water,5/21/79. P. 25-25.

i13) Letter to Mr, Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, from

Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, re: re: request for assistance in pinpointingsample locations, 5/21/79. P. 26-27.

14) Telephone conversation record with Mr. Ton Munson re: May 16, 1979 sampleresults, 5/21/79. P. 28-29. An interim report on Philadelphia SurburbanWater Samples is attached.

15) Memorandum to File from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: May 23sampling of Philadelphia Suburban Water Company Reservoir andDistribution System, 5/23/79, P. 30-31.

16) Split Samples Form, 5/23/79. P. 32-32.

17) Memorandum to Mr. Walter Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. T. 0. Munson, U.S. EPA,re: summary of Philadelphia Suburban case, 5/25/79. P. 33-39.

18) Memorandum to Mr. Larry S. Miller, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Gregory Koltonuk,U.S. EPA, re: compliance monitering investigations at KnickerbockerLandfill, Philadelphia Water Supply - Upper Merion & other assortedareas, 5/29/79. P. 40-42.

19) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Ph.- jdelphia Suburban Water Company, re: Philadelphia SuburbanWa- Company's reasons for not taking the Upper Merion Reservoirout rff service, 5/30/79. P. 43-44.

20) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Rick Dreisch,U.S. EPA, re: water supply results, 6/6/79. P. 45-47.

21) Memorandum to Mr. Walter Lee, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Michael Musheno,U*S. EPA, frcm Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, re: samples collectedat the site, 6/7/79. P. 48-51.

22) Memorandum to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Joseph CotruvoU.S. EPA, res evaluation of the R-iladelphia Suburban water Supply,6/19/79. P. 52-54.

23) Memorandum to Files from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: inspectionof Fisher Scientific Company's King of Prussia Distribution Facility,6/22/79. P. 55-56.

24) Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,from Mr. Ramon G. Lee re: request for meeting to discuss UpperMerion contamination problem, 7/6/79. P. 57-57.

SR3033I9

25) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: May 23sampling of Philadelphia Suburban Water Company Iteservoir andDistribution System, 7/6/79. P. 58-59.

26) Memorandum to Mr. T. O. Munson, U.S. EPA, fircm Mr. Rick Dreisch re:analysis of benzene and toluene, 7/24/79. P. 60-61.

27) Letter to Mr. Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,from Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. _EPA, re: meeting on July 18, 1979 concerningcontamination of the Upper Merion Reservoir, 7/31/79. P. 62-64.

28) Letter to Mr. Ramon Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban. Water Company, re: trichloroethylene sampleresults from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/20/79. P. 65-65.

29) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA/ frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: trichloroethylene sampleresults frcm the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/23/79. P. 66-67.

30) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: additionaltrichloroethylene sample results from the Upper Merion Reservoir,a/24/79. P. 68-68.

31) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: additional sanple resultsfrom the Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/4/79. P. 69-69.

32) Letter to Mr. Ranon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: additionaltrichloroethylene in sample collected frcm the Upper Merion Reservoir,9/6/79. P. 70-70.

33) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA/ frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results frcm theUpper Merion Reservoir , 9/17/79. P. 71-71.

34) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: analysis of tricMoroethylenein samples collected from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/21/79. P. 72-73.

•>,35) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,

Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: analysis of trichloroethylenein samples from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/24/79. P. 74-74.

36) Letter to Mr. Raraon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, res T.C.E. [sic_f sanpleresults from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/5/79. P. 75-75.

37) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. S»A, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sanple resultsfrcm the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/19/79. P. 76-76.

J5R303320

38) Letter to Mr". Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: results of T.C.E. in samplescollected from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/19/79. P. 77-78.

39) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: additional TCE sampleresults from Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/23/79. P. 79-80.

40) Memorandum to Mr. Daniel K. Donnelly, U.S. EPA, from Mr. T. O. Munson,U.S. EPA, re: Purgeable Organics Analysis, 10/30/79. P. 81-83.

41) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: additional TCE samples fromUpper Merion Reservoir, 11/1/79. P. 84-91. Five letters regarding TCEsample results and a chart of TCE sample results are attached.

42) Memorandum to Mr. Ben lacy, and other U.S. EPA staff from Ms.Karen DeWald, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, re:status report on contamination of Philadelphia Suburban WaterCompany's Upper Merion Reservoir, 12/26/79. P. 92-93.

43) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. ShullPhiladelphia Suburban Water Company, re: latest TCE sample results fromthe Upper Merion Water Reservoir, 1/2/80. P. 94-94.

44) Letter to Mr. Robert L. Townsend, Plymouth Township Office, frcm Mr.Kenneth E. Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: analyticalresults of water samples for TCE levels in Upper Merion Reservoir,1/8/80. P. 95-96.

45) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE analytical results,1/16/80. P. 97-97.

46) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: analysis of watersamples, 2/6/80. P. 98-98.

47) Letter to Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE results from UpperMerion Reservoir water, 2/6/80. P. 99-99.

48) latter to Mr. Ranon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: latest TCE results frcm tiieUpper Merion Reservoir, 2/12/80. P. 100-100.

49) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: TCE results frcm the UpperMerion Reservoir, 3/4/80. P. 101-101.

50) Letter to Mr. Richard Reigler, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,frcm Mr. Lee N. Grutraan, Leggette, Brashears, and Graham, Inc.,re: data regarding February 29 meeting with the EPA, 3/11/80.P. 102-102.

BR30332I

51) Letter to Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, "re: comparison of the gaschronatograms of the Upper .Merion water with those of four nearbysources, 3/13/80. P. 103-103.

52) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results frcmthe Upper Merion Reservoir, 3/17/80. P. 104-104.

53) Letter to Mr. Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: Hydrogeological studymade in the area of the Upper Merion Reservoir, 3/19/80. P. 105-105.

54) Letter to Mr, Michael McCurdy, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: transmittal of the QuarterlyProgress Reports on Trace Organic Research Pertaining to the UpperMerion Reservior, 3/21/80. P. 106-115. The report is attached.

55) Letter to Mr. Richard Riegler, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company,from Mr. G. Sidney Eox, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., re: UpperMerion Reservoir TCE problem, 4/30/80. P. 116-118. A site map is ;.attached. •'£.

56) Memorandum to Files from Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: -£Philadelphia Suburban Distribution System Monitoring, 7/2/80.P. 119-161. Organics Analysis Data Sheets for sample numbers H20Blank #7, H_>0 Blank, CO110-CO118 and C0120-CO123 are attached.

57) Letter to Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: results for volatileorganics, 7/9/80. P. 162-163. The results are attached.

58) Letter to Mr. Tim Jolly, Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources, from Mr. Richard R. Riegler, Philadelphia SuburbanWater Company, re: Hydrogeological Survey Data - Upper MerionJteservoir T.C.E. [sic] Study, 7/24/80. P. 164-164.

59) Memorandum to Files frcm Mr. Michael Musheno, U.S. EPA, re: organicmonitoring of the pits located near the Upper Merion Reservoir,8/11/80. P. 165-165.

60) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, res latest T.C.E. sample resultsfrcm the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/11/80. P. 166-166.

61) Letter to Mr. Raraon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: results of sample analysis ofUpper Merion Reservoir for T.C.E. Csic], 9/30/80. P. 167-167.

62) Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: T.C.E. [sic] sample results fromthe Upper Merion Reservoir and Gulf Road School, 1/8/81. P. 168-170.A sample location map and a chart of Upper Merion Reservoir DepthSamples are attached.

8 ' ' "J

SR3Q3322

63) Letter to Mr. Richard Riegler, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, fromMr- Lee N. Grubman, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., re: UpperMerion Reservoir TCE Study, 3/3/81. P. 171-185. Grapiis of testresults are attached.

64) Memorandum to Mr. Earl H. Graham frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull- re: UpperMerion Reservoir TCE problem, 4/6/81. p. 186-188.

65) Letter to Mr. Ramon G. Lee, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results from UpperMerion Reservoir, 5/20/81. P. 189-189.

66) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper Merion Reservoir, 7/14/81. P. 190-191.

67) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: latest TCE sample resultsfrom the Upper Merion Reservoir, 8/18/81. P. 192-192.

68) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanko [sic], U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E.Shull, Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample resultsfrom the Upper Merion Reservoir, 10/28/81. P. 193-193.

69) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban V&ter Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper Merion Reservoir, 12/29/81. P. 194-194.

70) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE concentration found inthe Upper Merion Reservoir water, 1/13/82. P. 195-195.

71) Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: organic compounds found inUpper Merion Reservior water, 2/19/82. P. 196-196.

72) Report: Progress Report, Packed Tower Aeration for Upper MerionReservoir, Design Ranediations, prepared by Mr. Thomas L. Yohe, Mr.Richard R. Riegler and Mr. Preston Luitweiler, 3/22/82. P. 197-252.

73) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, frcra Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper Merion Reservoir, 4/2/82. P. 253-253.

74) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr, Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: latest TCE sample resultsfrom the Upper Merion Reservoir, 5/3/82. P. 254-255.

75) Letter to Mr. Itabert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: TCE sample results frcm the ,_____-**Upper Merion Reservoir, 9/15/82. P. 256-257.

AR303323

76) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S/EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban water Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper Merion Reservoir, 10/7/82. "p."258-258.

77) "Letter."to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr, Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper ,Merion Reservoir, 11/2/82. P. 259-260. A graph of monthlyaverages of TCE is attached.

78) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results frcm theUpper Merion Reservoir, 12/6/82. P. 261-262. A graph of monthlyaverages of TCE is attached.

79) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results from theUpper Merion Reservoir, 4/8/83. P. 263-264. A graph of monthlyaverages-of TCE is attached.

80) Letter to Mr. C. K. Lee, NUS Corporation, from Mr, Thomas J. Roberts,Philadelphia Suburban water Compnay, re: transmittal of the PhiladelphiaSuburban Water Company Ground-water Cc*itamination at Upper MerionReservoir Interm Report, 5/16/83. P. 265-274. The report is attached.

81) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Blanco, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Kenneth E. Shull,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: TCE sample results frcm theUpper Merion Raservoir, 6/13/83. P. 275-275.

82) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, frcra Mr. Thomas L. Yohe,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: transmittal of TOG data rawand treated water from the Upper Merion Reservoir, 4/3/86. P. 276-279.

Background (Philadelphia Suburban - Reports)

1) Report: Completion Report, Crooked Lane Wall of the Philadelphia SuburbanWater Company, prepared by Mr. Jack B. Graham, Leggette, Brashears &Graham, Inc., 3/66. P. 1-8. four water well log forms are attached.

2) Report: TCE and Other Organics in Ground water: A Case Study, preparedby Mr. Kenneth E. Shull and Mr. Thomas L. Yoke, Philadelphia SuburbanWater Company, 4/23/81. P. 9-58.

3) Report: Influence of the Recovery Water Level on Stability and SinkholeActivity, Upper Merion Reservoir, Philadelphia Suburban Waterprepared byWbcch*ard-Clyde Consultants, (undated). P. 59-90.

4) Report: Upper Merion Reservoir, Philadelphia Suburban water(no author sited), (undated] P. 91-99.

5) Report: TCE and How We Are Dealing With It (no author cited), (undated)P. 100-102.

6) Report: Upper Merion Reservoir, Philadelphia Suburban tfater Company(no author cited), (undated). P. 104-162.

10

Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection Reports

1) 0 : Prelimnary Assessment and Site Inspection of O'Har5am.tatJ.on CcmpanvT Inc., prepared under TDD. No. F3-8305-05

' 68-01-6699.J/AJ/OJ. f. j.— j./ .

2) =* QlH^a Sanitation Monitoring Wells, prepared by EcologyEnvironment, Inc., (undated), pj 173-33iT i w way

AR303325

REMEDIAL ENFORCEMENT PIAMNBff „_- ........Potentially Responsible Party Correspondence

1) Memorandum of Installment Sale Agreement between Montgomery Countyindustrial Development Authorty and Mr. William J. and Mrs. Betty E.O'Hara, 10/9/75. P. 1-8. A deed is attached.

2) Dun and Bradstreet report re: O'Hara Sanitation Company, 4/3/80.P. 9-9.

3) Letter to Mr. William O'Hara, Jr., O'Hara Sanitation Company, from Mr.Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: EPA's plans to determine the extent ofground water contamination in the area around the Upper Merion Reservoir,1/7/81. P. 10-11. A certified mail receipt is attached.

4) Letter to Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert J. Kerns,Landis, Williams and Kerns, re: granting of permission to drill forsamples at O'Hara Sanitation, 1/28/81. P. 12-12.

5) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Kerns, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.SEPA, re: arranging a meeting to discuss ground water contamination inUpper Merion area, 5/19/82. P. 13-13.

6) Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns from Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, res lackof response to request for additional technical data, 10/6/82. P. 14-14.

7) Letter to Mr jbseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Robert J. Kerns, Landis,Williams and Kern, re: request for additional technical data, 10/13/82.P. 15-15.

8) Handwritten memorandtm to File from Mr. Robin Aitken re: Oct. 22, 1982meeting on O'Hara site, 10/22/82. P. 16-16.

9) Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA,re: release of additional technical information, 11/17/82. P. 17-17.

10) Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Robert Kerns, Landis,Williams, and Kerns, re: acknowledgnent of receipt of technicalinfermation, 12/2/82. P. 18-18.

11) Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, re:importance of immediate clean-up of O'Hara site, 12/10/82. P. 19-20. Acertified mail receipt is attached.

12) Letter to Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Bcfoert J. Kerns,Landis, Williams and Kerns, re: additional technical information,12/31/82. P. 21-21.

13) Letter to Mr. Itobert Kerns, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S.EPA, re: two primary goals in negotiating a clean-up settlement, 1/26/83.P. 22-23.

12 fiR3Q3326

14) Letter to Mr. Robert Kerns, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S.re: analysis confirmation of serious ground water contamination at O'site, 3/31/83. P. 24-36. A consent decree is attached. - -

15) Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert J. Kerns, Landis,Williams and Kerns, re: request for additional information, 4/15/83.P. 37-37.

16) Letter to Mr. Terrence A, Shannon, NUS Corporation, from Mr, Robert J.Kerns, Landis, Williams and Kerns, re: denial of permission to inspectO'Hara site, 5/13/83. P. 38-39. An envelope is attached.

17) Letter to Mr. Robert J. Kerns, Landis, Williams and Kerns, from Mr. JosephMelvin, U.S. EPA, re: EPA inspection of O'Hara facilities, 5/31/83.P. 40-40.

18) Letter to Haven Chemical frcm Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re:104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 41-44. A certified mail receipt isattached.

19) Letter to Congoleum Corporation frcm Mr. Stephen R. Wkssersug, U.S. EPA,re: 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 45-47. A certified mail receipt isattached.

20) Letter to Gould, Inc. from Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e)request letter, 8/17/84. P. 48-51. Two certified mail receipts areattached.

21) Letter to SraithKline Chemicals from Mr. Stephen R. Ifassersug, U.S. EPA,re: 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 52-54. A certified mail receiptis attached.

22) Letter to O'Hara Sanitation Ccnpany, Inc., frcm Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug,U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 55-57. A certifiedmail receipt is attached. . .— -•

23) Letter to Howraet Aluminum Corporation frcm Mr, Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S.EPA, re: 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 58-60. A certified mailreceipt is attached.

24) Letter to Childers Products, Inc. frcm Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S.EPA, res 104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 61-62. A certified mailreceipt is attached.

25) Letter to Omega Chemical from Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re:104(e) request letter, 8/17/84. P. 63-67. Three certified mail receiptsare attached.

26) Letter to Mr. Robin [sic} from Mr. Chuck Dalena re: oorrespondencepertaining to ABM Disposal, 8/22/84. P. 68-106. The correspondenceis attached.

13 AR3Q3327'

27) Letter to Mr. Itobin Aitken, U.S. EPA; from Mr, Bruce A. Schuck, E.F.SDughton & Co., re: 104(e) request information response, 8/29/84,P. 107-110. A certified mail receipt and a 104(e) letter are attached.

28) Memorandum to File .from Ms. K. Hodgkiss, U.S. EPA, re: 104(e) requestfor Sandvik Inc., 8/31/84. P. 111-113. The 104(e) letter is attached.

29) Letter to Mr. Pbbin Aitken, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. John M. Hatch, AlumaxAluminum Corporation, re: supporting exhibit files, 9/10/84.P. 114-133. The exhibit files are attached.

30) Letter to Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. William J. O'Hara, Jr.,O'Hara Sanitation Co. Inc., re: 104(e) request for information, 9/14/84.P. 134 138. An envelope and a 104(e) letter are attached,

31) Letter to Mr. Robin Aitken, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Richard George, CongoleumCorporation, re: 104(e) request for information, 9/21/84. P. 139-139.

32) Record of telephone conversation to SmithKline Chemicals frcra Mr.Robin Aitken re: 104(e) letter dated August 17,1984, 10/30/84.P. 140-141. A certified mail receipt is attached.

33) Letter to Mr. William J. O'Hara, ST., O'Hara Sanitation Co. Inc., frcm Mr.Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spend publicfunds to investigate and take corrective action at the Henderson Roadsite, 11/9/84. P. 142-145.

34) Letter to Mrs. Betty E. O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation Co. Inc., frcm Mr.Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spend publicfunds to investigate and take corrective action at the Henderson RoadSite, 11/9/84. P. 146-149.

35) Letter to Mr. Douglas Hickey, Montgomery County IndustrialDevelopment Authority (MdDA), frcm Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA,res EPA consideration to spend public funds to investigate and takecorrective action at the Henderson Road site, 11/9/84. P. 150-154.

36) Routing and Transmittal Slip re: no signature on returned certifiedmail receipt, 11/14/84. P. 155-156. A certified mail receipt is attached.

37) Letter to Mr. Robin M. Aitken, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John M. Cullen, SmithKlineBecknan, re: 104(e) request information, 11/15/84. P. 157-162.Two letters regarding 1977 SmithKline Beckman/AEM incident and a handwrittennote regarding the investigation at Henderson Itoad are attached.

38) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsl , U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Steven E. Speece, Timoney,Knox, Hasson and Weand, re: 104(e) letter sent to Mr. William J. and Mrs.Betty E. O'Hara, 11/19/84. P. 163-164.

39) Memorandum to Mr. Joe Melvin, U.S. EPA/ frcra Ms. Paula IjUborsky, U.S. EPA,re: SmithKline Beckman response to 104(e) letter, 11/21/84. P. 165-165.

14 SR30332S

40) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John M. Cullen,Beckraan, re; preliminary response to November 9, 1984 letter, 11/21/84.P. 166-167. An envelope is attached.

41) Letter1 to Mr. Stephen R. Wassersug, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Roger B. Reynolds,Reynolds, McLaughlin, Josel and Reynolds, re: 104(e) letter toMCIDA, 12/5/84. P. 168-169.

42) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Douglas L. Hickey, Jr.,Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, re: responseto EPA notification of 11/9/84. P. 170-171.

43) Letter to Mr. Joseph Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Steven E. Speece,Timoney, Knox, Eksson and Weand, re: response to EPA questions concerningO'Hara property, 12/18/84. P. 172-173.

44) Letter to Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John M. Cullen,SmithKline Berkman, re: SmithKline Beckman discussion of the ABMmatter, 1/14/85. P. 174-174.

45) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Douglas L. Hickey, Jr.,Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, re: MontgomeryCounty Industrial Development Authority Change of address, 1/15/85.P. 175-175.

46) Letter to Mr. Michael Giangiordano, Montgomery County IndustrialDevelopment Authority, from Ms. Paula LuborsJ , U.S. EPA, re: requestfor information on Henderson Road Site, 5/22/85. P. 176-176.

47) Desk memorandum to Ms. Paula Luborsky, from Mr. Dave Crownover re:letter from Waste Management to O'Hara and Department of EnvironmentalResources, 6/7/85, P. 177-179. A letter regarding telephone conversationon May 13, 1985 and a letter regarding waste materials are attached.

48) Memorandum to File from Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, re: ftiederson.toad Notice Letter response, 6/17/85. P. 180-180.

49) Letter to Mr. Bill Taylor, Gould Inc., rrcm Mr. Roland W. Schrecongost,U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spend public funds to investigateand take corrective action at Henderson Road site, 6/13/85. P. 181-185.

50) Letter to Mr. Joseph Skrobak, Sandvik Steel Company, frcm Mr. RolandW. Schrecongoat, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spend public fundsto investigate and take corrective action at Henderson Road site,6/13/85. P. 186-190.

51) Letter to Mr. John M. Hatch, Alumax Aluminum Corporation, from Mr. RolandW. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spend public fundsto investigate and take corrective action at Henderson Itoad site, 6/13/85.P. 191-195. A certified mail receipt is attached. ^

W15

/5R3Q3329

52) Letter to Mr. Charles..Dalena, Chilgters Products Company, Inc., frcmMr. Roland W. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to spendpublic funds to investigate and take corrective action at HendersonItoad site, 6/13/85. P. 196-198.

53) Letter to Mr. John W. Kane, Jr., Scott Paper Company, fron Mr. RolandW. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, re: EPA consideration to investigate andtake corrective action at Henderson Road site, 6/13/85.P. 199-203. :""""- -

54) Routing and Transmittal Slip to Mr. John Melvin, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr.Jessie Blingino EsicJ, re: Congoleum Corporation, 6/14/85. P. 204-208.A letter regarding EPA consideration to investigate and take correctiveaction at Henderson Road site is attached,

55) Letter to Ms. Marilyn Klug, Cohen & Shapiro, from Ms. Susan D. Ccoke,United States Department of Justice, re: documents on United States-v- wade related to the ABM-O'Hara site, 6/20/85. P. 209-209gg. Gridfor April 1974 through December 1975, and January 1977, and a key togrid are attached,

56) Letter to Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Peter C. McGuire,Aluraax, Inc., re: 104(e) request information, 6/19/85, P. 210-211.

57) Letter to Mr. Hershel J. Richman, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekmanand Cohen, from Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: meeting regardingthe proposed Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for theHenderson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 212-213. A certified mail receiptis attached.

58) Letter to Mr. Steve Speece, Timoney, Knox, Ifesson, and Weand, from Mr.Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: meeting regarding the proposedRemedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for the Henderson Roadsite, 6/21/85. P. 214-214.

59) Letter to Mr. Everett Milton, GNB, Inc., frcm Mr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S.EPA, re: meeting regarding the proposed Remedial Investigation andFeasibility Study for the Henderson Road Site, 6/21/85. P. 215-215.

60) Letter to Mr. Nicholas DiBenedictus [sic], Scott Paper Company, fixmMr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigationand feasibility Stu for the Henderson Road site, 6/21/85. P, 216-216.

61) Letter to Mr. Richard George, Congoleum Corporation, from Mr. Joseph J.Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy for the Henderson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 217-217.

62) Letter to Mr. Robert Andrews, Guilders Products Company, Inc., fromMr. Joseph J. Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation andfeasibility Study for the Henderson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 218-218.

flR30

63) Letter to Mr. Peter McGuire, Alumax Incorporated, frcm Mr Joseph J.Melvin, U.S. EPA, re: proposed Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy for the Benderson Road site, 6/21/85. P. 219-219.

64) Letter to Mr. Roland W. Schrecongost, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Scott Patterson,Saul, Ewing, Remick and Saul, re: response to June 13, 1985 EPA request forinformation, 7/1/85. P. 220-220.

65) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Nicholas DiBenedictus re:Henderson Road site - CERCLA and RCRA Information Request, 7/15/85.P. 221-224, Two transactions with O'Hara for dump abbreviation forms areattached.

66) Letter to Ms. Paula Lubors , U.S. EPA, from Mr. Michael Giangiordano,Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, re: MontgomeryCounty Industrial Development Authority's Articles of Incorporation,Bylaws, and Resolutions concerning O'Bara Sanitation Co., Inc., 8/14/85.P. 225-256. The Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Resolutionsare attached.

67) Letter to Mr. Michael Steiner, Timothy, Knox and Weand, frcm Mr. StevenE. Speece, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, re:request for all documents and records pertaining to the O'Hara Site,3/25/85. P. 257-258.

68) Letter to Mr. Joseph Mazzie, Sun Oil Co., frcm Mr. Stephen Wassersug,U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road site, 8/19/85. P. 259-264. A certifiedmail receipt is attached.

69) Letter to Mr. John W. Kane, Scott Paper Company, from Ms. Paula Luborsky,U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Raad site, 8/20/85. P. 265-267. A list ofPotentially Responsible Parties is attached.

70) Memorandum to File from Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, re: HsndersonItoad Site, 8/21/85. P. 268-268.

71) Memorandum to File fraa Ms. Paula Lutoorsky, U.S. EPA, re: Sun Oil,8/23/85. P. 269-269.

72) Letter to Engineering Services, Inc., frcm Mr. Stephen Vfessersug,U.S. EPA, re: request for information concerning release of hazardoussubstances into the environment, 8/27/85. P. 270-273. A certifiedmail receipt is attached.

73) Letter to Ma. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Michael Giangiordano,Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, re: O'HaraSanitation, Inc., 8/28/85. P. 274-297, The Montgomery County IndustrialDevelopment Authority Resolutions and a transmittal letter are attached.

74) Letter to Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Arthur J. Raymond,Sun Refining and Marketing Con any, re: Henderson Road Site, 9/3/85.P. 298-298.

17

flR30333-l

75) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Edward J. Ciechon, SunRefining and Marketing Company, re: Henderson Road Site, 9/24/85.P. 299-300.

76) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Edward J. Ciechon, SunRefining and Marketing Company, re: confirmation of telephoneconversation regarding Henderson Boad Site, 10/2/85. P. 301-301.

77) Letter: to Mr. Patrick O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation Company, fromPennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, re: Notice ofViolation,, 10/21/85. P. 302-310. The following are attached:

a) A transmittal note?b) a water quality report;c) a laboratory report for sample No. 8518204;d) a special analysis report ;'e) a laboratory report for sample no. 852891.

78) Let£ePto Mr. John Wilrner, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Stephen E. Speece,Timoney, Knox, Hassen and Weand, re: Notice of Violation - October21, 1985, 11/12/85. P. 311-312.

79) Letter to Engineer ing Services, Inc. frcm Ms. Kathryn Jfcdgkiss,U.Sj EPA, re: Henderson Jtoad Site, 11/12/85. P. 313-315- A certifiedmail receipt is attached.

80) Letter to Mr. Stephen E. Speece, Timoney, Knox, Hassen and Weand,from Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, re: Remedial Investigation/Feasibilty Study (RI/FS) at the Henderson Road Site, 11/15/85.P. 316-316.

81) Memorandum to File from Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, re: Handerson104(e) Response, 11/21/85. P. 317-317.

82) Letter to Mr. Steven E. Speece, Timoney, Knox, Bassen and Weand, frcraMs. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson JEtoad Site, 11/21/85.P. 318-319,j,, .,a» . "- ~

83) tetter to Ms. Gerallyn Downs-Vails Esic], U.S. EPA frcm Mr. Bradford F.Vfoitman, Dechert, Price and Kioads, re: Henderson Road Site, 2/26/87.P. 320-320.

84) Letter to Mr. Walter S. Graham, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Michael C. Veysey,Gould Electronics, Inc. re: Henderson Jtoad Investigation andFeasibilty Study, 3/6/87. P. 321-321.

85) Letter to Mr. Nicholas DeBenedictus, Scott Paper Ccmpany, from Mr. JamesSeif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road National Priority List (NPL)Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 322-329. A certified mail receiptis attached,

86) Letter to Mr. Joseph Skrobak, Sandvik Steel Ccmpany, frcm Mr. JamesSeif, U.S. EPA, re; Jfenderson Itoad NPL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88,P. 330-337. A certified mail receipt is attached.

18 3R303332

87) Letter to Ms. Betty O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation Company, Inc., fromMr. James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL injection WellSite, 5/11/88. P. 338-346. A certified mail receipt and a HendersonRoad NPL Site Investigation Request instructions sheet are attached

88) Letter to Mr. J. Kucera, Alumax Aluminum Corporation, from Mr. JamesSeif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88.P. 347-354. A- certified mail receipt is attached.

89) Letter to Mr. Michael Giangiordano, Montgomery County Industrial __Development Authority, frcm Mr. James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: HendersonRoad NPL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 355-359. A certifiedmail receipt is attached.

90) Letter to Mr. ~!3ward J, Ciechon, Jr., Sun Refining and MarketingCcmpany, frcra Mr. James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPLInjection Well Site, 5/11/88. P. 360-367. A certified mail receiptis attached.

91) Letter to Mr. Michael C. Veysey, Gould, Inc., from Mr. James Seif,U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL Injection Well Site, 5/11/88.P. 368-375. A certified mail receipt is attached.

92) Letter to Mr. Richard George, Congoleum Corporation, frcm Mr. JamesSeif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL Injection ..Well Site, 5/11/88.P. 376-383. A certified mail receipt is attached.

93) Letter to Mr. John Cullen, SmithKline Beckraan Corporation, frcm Mr.James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL Injection Well Site,5/11/88. P. 384-391. A certified mail receipt is attached.

94) Letter to Mr. Uilliam J. O'Hara, ST., O'Hara Sanitation Ccmpany,Inc., from Mr. James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL InjectionWell Site, 5/11/88. P. 392-400. A certified mail receipt and aHenderson Road NPL site second Information Request Instructions Sheetare attached.

95) Letter to Mr. Chuck Delera, Childers Products Company, Inc., frcm Mr.James Seif, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road NPL Injection Well Site,5/11/88. P. 401-409. A certified mail receipt and a site map areattached.

96) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, from John P. Judge, Cohen,Shapiro, polisher, Shiekman and Cchen, re: Henderson Road NPLSite, '5/20/88. P. 410-410.

97) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downs-Vails Csic], U.S. EPA, frcm BradfordF. teiitman, Dechert, Price and Efooads, re: CERdA Section 104(e)Information Request, 5/24/88. P. 411-411.

98) Letter to Mr. Douglas Hickey, Montgomery County Industrial DevelopmentAuthority, from Ms. Paula Luborsky, U.S. EPA, re: Henderson Road Site,(undated). P. 412-412.

19 3R303333

99) Letter to Mr. William J. O'Hara, O'Hara Sanitation Company, frcm Mr. JamesM. Seif, U,S. EPA, re: 104(e) request for information, 5/11/88. P. 413-421. A certified mail receipt and a Henderson Road NPL Site secondInformation Request Instructions Sheet are attached.

100) Letter to Continental Fibre Ccmpany from Mr. Bruce Smith, U.S. EPA,re; information concerning release of hazardous substances into theenvironment, 5/17/88. P. 422-426. A certified mail receipt is attached.

101) Letter to Mr. Morris S. Cupp, Superior Tube Ccmpany, frcm Mr. BruceSmitH, U.S. EPA, re: request for information concerning release ofhazardous substances into the environment, 5/17/88. P. 427-431.A certified mail receipt is attached.

102) Letter to Mid-Bast Aluminum Ccnpany from Mr. Bruce Smith, U.S. EPA, re:request for information concerning release of hazardous substances intothe environment, 5/17/88. P. 432-436. A certified mail receipt isattached.

103) Letter to Vicks Manufacturing Coipany from Mr. Bruce Smith, U.S. EPA, re:request for information concerning release of hazardous substancesinto the environment, 5/17/88. P. 437-442. A certified mail returnreceipt and a Routing and Transmittal slip are attached.

Signed Orders :' . '•"•• • -.

1) Administrative Order on Consent in the Matter of Henderson Road Site,11/1/85. P. 1-36.

REMEDIAL RESPONSE PLANNING .,,.,_. .. .^ .. ... _-- - - -Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Reports . . , . ; • '— •

1) Report: Site Investigation and Inventory, "Upper Merion Township,_Pennsylvania, Volume I, prepared by__Mr....Peter. M. Stokely, The Biohetics .Corporation, 6/84.pT 1-36. References are attached to P. 36.

2) Report: Description of Current Sitnatiorijfenderson Road Site, preparedfcy Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., and Roy"?. Weston, Inc., 2/85. P. 37-142.

3) Report: Letter Report, prepared by NUS Corporation, 9/9/85. P. 143-154.

4) Report: A Hydrological Study For Potential S_ites Near Norristown PreparedUnder TDD No._" F3-8303-42, EPA No., Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared byNUS Corporation, 3/13/86. P. 155-233. "'

5) Report; Status Report Henderson Road Prepared Under TDD No. F3-8511 02,EPA No. PA-162, Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by NUS Corporation,4/1/86.P. 234-286.

6) Report: Status. Report No. 2 Eor Henderson Road, King of Prussia,Pennsylvania, prepared by NUS Corporation, 5/6/86. P. 287-303.

7) Report: Status Report Henderson Road Prepared Under TDD No.F3-3511-02, EPA No. PA-162, Contract No. 68-01-6699, prepared by "NUS Corporation, 6/17/86. p. 304-327.

8) Report: Status Report, Field Trip Summary, prepared by NUS Corporation,9/25/86. P. 32B-337J. "_ " ~

9) Report: Status Report For Henderson Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania,prepared by NUS Corporation, 3/10/87. P. 338-361.

10) Report: Final Draft, Remedial Investigation Well Operable Unit, Volume 1,For Henderson Road Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County,Pennsylvania, prepared by BCM Engineers, 4/4/88. p. 362-606.

11) Report: Final Draft, Remedial Investigation Report Injection WellOperable Unit, Volume II - Appendices 1 through 8 For Henderson RoadSite, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, preparedby BCM Engineers, 4/4/88. P. 607-904-

12) Report: Final Draft,. Remedial Investigation Report Injection WellOperable Unit, Volume II - Appendices 9 through 25 Bor Henderson RoadSite, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, preparedby BCM Engineers, 4/4/88. P. 905-1167.

13) Report: Final jraft. Feasibility Study Report For Henderson RoadInjection Well "Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, "Pennsylvania,prepared by BCM Engineers, 4/5/88. P. 1168-1593. References are listedon P. 1474-1474.

14) Report: Split Sample Results (12/19/85) - BCM & EPA - Standing Water inInjection Well Pit (no author cited), (undated). P. 1594-1737.

21 flR303335!

Feasibility St Tt Injection .Well^ 1738_20497————————— prepared by BCM Engineers, Inc.,

Injection WellpreparedHenderscn-Road PRP able Unit for

Engineers,

____—-—,_•_ — t tj jracfcjut'c j-njectiHenderson Road PRP Committee, Volume II -T - - - « -

by BCM Engineers, inc..

22

SR303336

Correspondence and Supporting Documentation

1) Letter to Mr. Charles Griffith, Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Council,from Mr. fticroas P. Eichler, U.S. EPA, re: notice of proposed SuperfundProject, 8/7/84. P. 1-2.

2) Memorandum to Mr. Ihonas P. Eichler, U.ST EPA, from Mr. Gene Lucero,U.S. EPA, re: reccnmendations to proceed with Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, 9/13/84. P. 3-4. A memorandum regardingauthorization to proceed with Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studyis attached.

3) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Hershel J. Richman, Cohen,Shapiro, Polisher, Skiekman and C&hen, re: transmittal of the PotentiallyResponsible Party position paper, 2/23/88. P. 5-25. The position paperis attached.

4) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Eownes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Frances L. Cbstanzi,Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, re: cccments on theRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, 2/26/88. P. 26-35. A memorandumregarding hySrogeologic activities is attached.

tsf- ™*5) Letter to Ms. Cindy Rice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from Mr. Steven

M. Jones, BCM Eastern Inc., re: federally listed threatened and endangeredspecies, 4/11/88. P, 36-37. A site map is attached.

6) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Alan Robinson,BCM, re: environmental impact, 4/14/88. P. 38-40. A letter regardingthreatened or endangered species is attached.

7) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, frcm Ms. Debra Glover,Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., re: recommendations for cleanup criteria,5/17/88. P. 41-57.

8) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Mark T. Kropilak,Kiiladelfhia Suburban Water Company, re: response to the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study and proposed plan of action, 5/20/88.P. 58-61.

9) Letter to Mr. Alan Robinson, BCM Eastern, Inc., frcm Ms. GerallynDownes-Valls, U.S. EPA, re: transmittal of the "Henderson EtoadInjection ffell Site Report on Effluent Treatment Piloting and OtherRemedial Measures," 6/2/88. P. 62-91. The report is attached.

10) Letter to Mr. Alan Robinson, BCM Eastern, Inc., frcm Ms. GerallynDownes-Valls, U.S. EPA, re: transmittal of the "Henderaon HDad InjectionWell Operable Unit Reccnmendations for Pre-Design InvestigationsReport," 6/3/88. P. 92-132. The report is attached.

11) Report: Nbtes on the Remedial Investigate/Feasibility Study and EPA'sPlan of Action, subnitted to EPA by Ehiladelphia Suburban Water Cfcnpany,6/3/88. P. 133-136.

23

12) Report: Selected ARARs for the Henderson Road Site Reccnroended RemedialAlternatives, prepared by the Henderson Road PRP Cormittee, 2/23/88.P. 190-211.

13) Report: Significant Issue Hendergcn Road NPL Site Injection Well OperableUnit, (no author cited), 4/88. P. 212-216. '.——————————

14) Letter to Ms. Maureen Barden, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Bradford F. Whitman,Dechert, Price and Rhoads, re: Garments on the proposed Remedial Plan,5/19/88. P. 217-219.

15) Letter to Ms. Maureen .Barden, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Mark J, Kropilak,Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, re: response to the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan of Action, 5/20/88.P. 220-223.

16) Letter Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Bradford F.Whitman, Dechert, Price and Rhoads, re; ccnroents of EPA proposedRemedial Plan, 5/31/88. P. 224-238. The ccnment is attached.

17) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, from Mr. John P. Judge,Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, re: public ccmnent onEPA's Proposed Plan. 6/1/88. P. 239-279. The public ccraiem: isattached. _______

18) Report: Henderson Road Injection Well Site Report on Additional Workon Effluent Treatment Piloting and Other Remedial Measures (no authorcited), 6/2/88. P. 280-308.

19) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, frcra Mr. PrestonLuitweilar, Philadelphia Suburban Welter Company, re: estimates for thecapital and operating costs of the treatment systems at the Upper MerionTreatment Plant and comments on the Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy, 6/8/88. P. 309-317. A Cost Summary for Aeration Towers at theUpper Merion Treatment Plant and notes on the Remedial Investigation andEPA's Plan to Action are attached.

20) Letter to Mr. Bruce Smith, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Mark J. Kropilak,Philadelphia Suburban Water Ccmpany, re: contaminants found in the UpperMerion Reservoir, 6/9/88. 318-321.

21) Letter to Mr. James M. Seif, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Bershel J. Richman,Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen re: recommended remedialalternatives to the Final Feasibility Study Report, 6/17/88. P. 322-326.

22) Letter to Ms. Gerallyn Downes-Valls, U.S. EPA, frcm Mr. Hershel J.Richraan, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, re: comments onthe "Henderson Road Injection Wall cperable Iftiit Recoiraendations for Pre-Desigh Investigations" report prepared by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.,6/23/88. P. 327-333. The ccmaents are attached.

flR303338

INVOLVEMENTCommunity Relations Plans

1) Final Community Relations Plan for the Henderson Road Site, Upper MerionTownship, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, prepared by Camp, Dresser andMcKee, Inc., 6/22/85. P. 1-24.

»

Fact Sheets* Press Releases, Public Notices _

1) News Release re: Low Levels Of Industrial Compounds Sounds In The PhiladelphiaSuburban Water Company's Upper Merion Reservoir, 5/21/79. P. 1-1.

2) Press Release from U.S. EPA Environmental News entitled "Chemicals Discoveredin Reservior," 5/21/79. P. 2-2.

3) Press Release from U.S. EPA Environmental News entitled "EPA Releases ResultsOf Water Samples On Upper Merion Reservoir, 7/3/79. P. 3-3a.

4) Press Release from U.S. EPA Environmental News entitled "EPA SchedulesPublic Meeting For Henderson Road Superfund Site," 6/28/85. P. 4-4.

5) Press Release from U.S. EPA Environmental News entitled "EPA Enters ConsentOrder To Investigate The Henderson Road Superfund Site," 12/9/85. P. 5-5.

6) Fact Sheet re: clean-up alternatives (undated). P. 6-7. An attendancelist is attached.

7) Public Notice re: public meeting at King of Prussia, 4/22/88. P. 8-9.An article entitled "EPA Extends Public Review of Toxic Site Cleanup Plan"is attached.

AR303339

SITE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

1) Memorandum to Weldwire and O'Hara Files frcm Mr. Anthony S. Bartolcmao,U.S. EPA, re: air pollution potential from Upper Merion ReservoirAeriation vs. Typical Dry Cleaning Plant, 5/14/80.

2) Le.tter.to Mr. James Dragna, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dennis K. Stewart, UnitedStates Department of the Interior, re: transmittal to the Lineamentand Fracture - trace analysis for Kessler Site, Upper Merion Township,Pennsylvania report, 6/28/82. The report is attached.

3) Letter to Ms. Stephany Del Re, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Charles R. Wood, UnitedStates Department of the Interior, re: contaminants in the ground water,10/21/83.

4) Memorandum to Mr. Charles J. Walters, U.S. EPA, from the Toxioologist,Department of Health and Human Servces, re: guidance for remediation ofthe subject site groundwater, 4/21/88.

GENERAL GUIDANCE. DOCUMENTS *

1) "Promulgation of Sttes from Updates 1-4," Federal Register, dated 6/10/86.

2) "Proposal of Update .4," Federal Register, dated 9/18/85.

3) Memorandum to U. S. EPA from Mr. Gene Lucero regarding community relationsat Superfund Enforcement sites, dated 8/28/85.

4) Groundwater Contamination and Protection, undated by Mr. Donald V.Feliciano on 8/28/85.

5) Memorandum to Toxic Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X fromMr. William Hedeman and Mr. Gene Lucero re: Policy on Floodplains andWetlands Assessments for CERCLA Actions, 8/6/85.

6) Guidance on Remedial Investigations under CERCLA, dated 6/85.

7) Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, dated 6/85.

8) "Proposal of Update 3,** Federal Register, dated 4/10/85.

9) Memorandum to Mr. Jack McGraw entitled "Community Relations Activitesat Superfund Sites - Interim Guidance," dated 3/22/85.

10) "Proposal of Update 2," Federal Register, dated 10/15/84

11) EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, dated 9/84.

12) Memorandum to U.S. EPA from Mr. William Heckman, Jr. entitled"Transmittal at Superfund Removal Procedures - Revision 2," dated 8/20/84.

13) "Proposal of Update I," Federal Register, dated 9/8/83.

14) Community Relations In. Superfund: A Handbook (Interim version), dated

15) "Proposal of First National Priority List," Federal Register, dated12/30/82.

16) "Expanded Eligibility List," Federal Register, dated 7/23/82.

17) "Inter!* Priorities List," Federal Register, dated 10/23/81.

18) Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Ranking System! A User's Manual(undated).

19) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Air Surveillance (undated).

20) Field Standard Operating Procedures - Site Safety Plan (undated).

* Located in EPA Region III office.

SR3Q33M