-
United StatesEnvironmental ProwctionAgency
Office ofEmergency «ndRemediel Response
EPA/RODJR03-84/OG3May 1984 , \
SuperfundRecord of Decision:
Enterprise Avenue Site, PA
FOR REFERENCE ONLYDo Not Take From This Room
ERA Report Cpllection yi Information; Resource • Center
'#'>••• HI* . BlifcJii'tiBjV^-.̂ X^"^_______ US EPA7ĵ
FjF8.«saa.i.i
-
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA(Please read Instructions on the reverse
before completing}1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO3-84/0032. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLESUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISIONEnterprise
Avenue Site, PA
S. REPORT DATE05/10/84
«. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT
NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESSU. S. Environmental
Protection Agency401 "M" Street, S. W.Washington, D. C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREDFinal ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE800/00
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ——————————————————————The Enterprise Avenue site is
located within the City of Philadelphia. It
encompasses approximately 57 acres and is situated within the
100-year flood plain ofthe Delaware River. It has been determined
that the site is contaminated with in-dustrial and chemical wastes
from the unauthorized disposal of approximately 5,000 t
-
ROD BRIEFING ISSUES
Site; Enterprise Avenue, Pennsylvania
Region; III
AA, OSWERBriefing Date; May 4, 1984
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Enterprise Avenue site is located within the City
ofPhiladelphia. It encompasses approximately 57 acres and is
situatedwithin the 100-year flood plain of the Delaware River. It
has beendetermined that the site is contaminated with industrial
and chemicalwastes from the unauthorized disposal of approximately
5,000 to 15,000drums containing paint sludges, solvents, oils,
resins, metal finishingwastes, and solid inorganic wastes.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The off-site disposal alternative was selectee as the most
cost-effective remedial action. This alternative includes:
resampling andanalyzing the stockpiled soils in 100-cubic-yard lots
for key indicatorparameters; on-site containment of soils which do
not exceed key indi-cator limits; off-site disposal at a RCRA
approved facility of soilstfhich exceed parameter limits; grading,
completion of clay cap andcover, and site vegetation. The capital
cost for whe selected alterna-tive is estimated to be $4,324,000
and annual O&M costs are $4,200.
ISSVES AND RESOLUTIONS KEY WORDS
1. The Enterprise Avenue site is a city- .
Municipally-Ownedowned landfill contaminated with illegally
Sitedumped industrial waste materials. The . PotentialCity has
undertaken response actions at Responsiblethe site and would like
to continue to Party (PRP)oversee the regaining cleanup
activities.However, the City has been identified as aPotential
Responsible Party (PRP). Therefore,specific criteria were developed
for theCooperative Agreement to define the ratio-nale for
enforcement where Fund monies willbe used by a FR? for cleanup.
These cri-teria included:
EPA's reserved right to sue
Reiirbursement agreement betweenthe City and EPA
-1~ AR300030
-
Enterprise Avenue, PennsylvaniaMay 4, 1984Continued
ISSUES AND RESOLUTIONS
The City's responsibility to con-tinue to pursue its pending
law-suits against Enterprise Avenuegenerators.
A Key Indicator Analysis (KIA) was developedand used to
determine whether or not exca-vated soil was contaminated. The
objectiveof the KIA was to identify those contaminantswhich were
most likely to be found on-siteand of greatest concern with respect
topotential environmental impacts. TechnicalReport 15 "Hot Spot
Soil Handling Protocol"discusses the rationale employed in the
KIAdevelopment and is included as an attachmentto the ROD.
The recommended alternative complies withthe Part 265 RCRA
closure regulations. Thisincludes ground water monitoring, a
2-footclay cover and site vegetation.
T.-e justification for off-site disposal wasirased on the
elimination of on-site disposaloptions for the following technical
reasons:
1. The high ground water table and subsur-face soils are not
suitable for con-struction of a land disposal facility.
2. There is a high possibility for dif-ferential settlement due
to the presenceof organic matter in the subsurfacesoils
(incinerator residue), that couldadversely affect the integrity of
a landdisposal cell.
3. Migration to the shallow ground watertable (2-5 ft.) could be
expected in theevent of a release of contaminants froma disposal
cell.
KEY WORDS
Key IndicatorAnalysisSoil Contamination
RCRA ClosureRegulations
Off-Site DisposOn-Site Dispose
-2-AR30003
-
Record of DecisionRemedial Alternative Selection
SITE; Enterprise Avenue Site, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I have reviewed the following docunents describing the analysis
of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Enterprise
Avenue site:
- Enterprise Avenue Remedial Action Feasibility Study titled
"RemedialAction Program, Excavation and Disposal of Hat-Spot Soil
From, and Clo-sure of, the Enterprise Avenue Site, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, datedApril 1984.
- Summary of Remedial Alternatives Selection
- technical reports prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. in September
of 1981for the City of Philadelphia 15, "Hot Spot Soil Handling
Protocol"and #3, "Gcoundwater and Surface Water Monitoring".
- Responsiveness summary dated February 23, 1984.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
- Sampling and analysis of all soil stockpiled on-site in
100-cubic-yard lots to determine disposal requirement.
- Off-site disposal at a RCRA approved facility of all soils
which failthe Key Indicator Parameter Itest.
- Backfilling, grading and vegetating of the site as a final
cover.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National
Contingency Plan(40 CFR part 300), I have determined that the
off-site disposal of con-taminated soil at the Enterprise Avenue
site is a cost-effective remedyand provides adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and theenvironment. The State of
Pennsylvania has been consulted and agreeswith the approved
remedy.
I have also determined that the action being taken is
appropriate whenbalanced against the availability of Trust Fund
monies for use at othersites. In addition, the off-site transport
and secure disposition inan approved facility is more
cost-effective than other remedial actionsand is necessary to
protect public health, welfare, and the environment.
Lee M. ThomasAssistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Elnergency Response
AR300032
-
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTIONENTERPRISE AVENUE
SITE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Enterprise Avenue site is located within the City of
Philadelphiaadjacent to the Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant
and near theeastern end of Philadelphia International Airport (See
Figure 1). Thecity-owned site encompasses a total of approximately
57 acres, and islocated within the 100-year flood plain of the
Delaware River. Theimmediately adjacent land use is prijnarily
industrial, and the closestresidential population is located
slightly more than two miles northwestof the site.
Natural marsh conditions are found at the site in isolated
areas. Alow-permeability, silty clay layer underlies the site- The
thicknessof this layer ranges from 5 feet to 25 feet. Multiple
culverts, canals,and drainage ways introduce variability to the
surface water system by.concentrating runoff. All surface drainage
from the site is channeledinto Eagle Creek, which flows to Mingo
Creek, then to the SchuylkillRiver, and ultimately the Delaware
River.
There are two ground water-bearing zones at the site. The first
zoneis above a silty clay layer. It is under perched water table
conditionsThe second ground water-bearing zone is found in the
sands and gravelthat lie beneath the silty clay. The ground water
in this zone is underconfined conditions. There are no known users
of the ground water inthe general area; however, the deeper ground
water-bearing zone may re-charge sources of ground water for
portions of southern New Jersey.The observed flow in the deep
aquifer is east toward the Delaware River.
SITS
The Biterprise Avenue site historically was part of the
extensive tidalmarshland along the Delaware River. The back channel
of the DelawareRiver had naturally silted-in because of extensive
fanning and miningen the upper reaches of the Schuylkill and
Delaware Rivers. The low-lying land in the area has been
extensively filled-in for facilitiess-jch as the airport, tanker
terminals, roadways, and industrial sites.Until mid- 19 76, the
City of Philadelphia Streets Department used 40acres of the
low-lying land to landfill primarily incinerator residueand lesser
quantities of fly ash and construction/demolition debris.
In response to reports of unauthorized dumping of industrial
waste, thePhiladelphia Water Department (PWD) in late 1978
developed a work scopeto perform an initial investigation of the
site conditions in consultationwith EPA. Exploratory excavations
during January of 1979 uncovered approxi-mately 1,700 55-gallon
drums containing industrial waste materials. The
A R 3 0 0 0 3 3
-
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DELAWARE COUNTY
^iiiniTinir»Tii"'Aj^ '̂̂ " ii iT'i •"J ^"'"""":;9CJUJIMKZT
!̂ =a 1000 3» MOB
RGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE ENTERPRISE AVfWf r?ffR 3 L
-
- 2 -
great majority of these drums were broken and fragmented.
Generally, itwas determined that the druns contained such
industrial and chemicalwastes as paint sludges, solvents, oils,
resins, metal finishing wastes,an3 solid inorganic wastes. The
total number of drums disposed of atthe site was estimated by the
FW5 to be between 5,000 and 15,000.
The FWD undertook a response action at the site which included:
A detailedsite investigation to determine the degree and extent of
contamination;the development of plans and specifications to
accomplish site cleanup;and procurement of a cleanup contractor to
excavate and properly disposeof contaninated soil and drummed waste
at an approved off-site facility.Contaminated water was also taken
off-site for disposal.
A Key Indicator Analysis (KIA) was used to determine whether or
not ex-cavated soil was to be considered contaminated. The
objective of the KIAwas to identify those contaminants which were
most likely to be found on-site and of greatest concern with
respect to potential environmentalimpacts. The list of key
indicator contaminants was developed by re-viewing the records in
existence which pertained to the type and quantityof waste
materials buried at the site. In general, the waste materialswere
organic in nature. The key indicators and their associated
limitsare listed below. If any one limit were exceeded in an
analysis, theentire batch of soil was considered contaminated and
was taken off-sitefor disposal at an approved landfill. If none of
the limits were ex-ceeded, the soil was classified as
noncontaminated and remained on-siteto be used as backfill
material.
Key Indicator Analysis
Indicator
1. TCK (Total Organic Halogen)
2. W3latile Organics- Benzene 12 pan- Toluene 15 pan-
Ethylbenzene 15 ppn
3. EP Tbxicity (Metals)- Arsenic 5 ppm- Barium 100 pan- Cadmium
1 pan- Chromium 5 ppn- Lead 5 ppn- Mercury 0.2 ppm- Selenium 1 pan-
Silver 5 ppn
RR300035
-
- 3 -
In developing the limits for the key indicators, the maximum
backgroundlevels present for the various parameters were
identified. The upperlimits for the key organic indicators were
established at 75 times themaximum background levels. As the limits
were set they were compared tothe maximum fresh water criteria for
reasonableness and found to be com-parable. The EP toxicity test
was applied for analysis of metals only,due to the fact that the
TOX indicator will detect the presence ofpesticides/herbicides. The
approach taken for establishing the organiclimits (i.e., 75x) is
consistent with EPA's methodology which uses 100times drinking
water standards for establishing the limits for EP toxicityunder
RCRA. Technical Report #5 entitled "Hot Spot Soil Handling
Protocoldiscusses the rationale employed in the KIA
development.
Unfortunately, in the Fall of 1982 the K*D had to halt cleanup
work at thesite due to a lack of funds available for the completion
of the project,The remedial project contract cost had reached $7.2M
at that time. Theinitial bid price was $4.95M. The work
accomplished during 1982 included:excavation of all contaminated
soil and buried drums; off-site disposalof all drummed waste
material (11,600 drums uncovered); off-site disposalof
approximately 226,000 gallons of contaminated water; and
off-sitedisposal of 21,350 tons of the approximately 39,150 tons of
contaninatedsoil present on-site. Wien the PWD realized that the
funds availablewere inadequate to complete the project, they
directed the contractorto stockpile the remaining 17,800 tons of
excavated contaminated soilon-site (see Figure 2 for location of
piles) . The City of Philadelphiaspent more than $8.35M for site
cleanup and related investigative andengineering activities.
All cleanup actions taken to date at the site by the FWD were
done withthe concurrence of ERA. The Agency was intimately
involved, both techni-cally and legally, in the development and
implementation phases of thecleanup. All proposed actions were
reviewed to assure that they compliedwith Federal environmental
regulations which existed at the time.City was most cooperative in
modifying it's plans in response to theAgency's comments.
CURRENT SITE SPOTS
two stockpiles of soil remaining on the site are the subjects of
theproposed remedial action. The larger of the two piles (11,700
tons) wasdetermined to be contaminated primarily with Total Organic
Halogens (TOX) .The median TCK concentration of the soil in this
pile is 65 ppm, the averageis 350 ppn, and the range is 29 ppm to
5,350 ppn. The smaller pile(6,100 tons) is primarily contaminated
with Volatile Crganics (i.e.Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Ttoluene) . A
sunmary of the concentration valuesof the soils in the smaller pile
is as follows:
Median (ppn) Average (ppm) Range (ppn)•toluene 36 172 19 to
1,000Benzene 24 34 17 to 86Ethylbenzene 41 94 18 to 427
flR300036
-
S \
>Z^C N "11,-vr.x^ v •• Mo s v :" I «•z /
'T.- -"•''
r*0£2
- - o 2: ! S *. ' O 0,:_ , 2 °
-, 9 -H1 s ?= >2 m s5 • w sm >M -*•" m
1- 0
'|;
t'.
«j,-«
A
- "ii **°r: sc
::- 15 : - -; e • i
:?"* ?^ i i »
r <E - >^ f *
> •! :S *n
? -- = ^• • •> • ^i i -"-.
S S 1^' :'.' - .'-•-! »tioe
; V i* r'. '.
- *: :?= i =2 2S i.' s S™ " .- , o i5 '• ' ; -
" • 2 :« , : ~ M » - W i» - » t • -
•(" ~ Wi ;• • 4
?' -
———— . _i«nw . . _ ., .
i
* ^ 1r J 5= « 1* S £E £: - i-
- • - •- - ......_ . ... . — . .f t R 3 0 0 D 3 7
-
- 4 -
Each stockpile has been graded and covered with 9 to 12 inches
of clay.The determination as to which soil would be stockpiled was
based uponanalytical results produced by the cleanup contractor in
the Fall of1982. (See Appendix A for results.)
Subsequent sampling and analysis of soil fron the stockpiles
performed byRoy F. Weston, Inc. in March of 1983 and March of 1984
yield results which,when compared to the original analytical
results of the cleanup contractor,raise questions as to the level
of contamination in the piles. The Westonresults are generally
lower than the contractor's. (See Appendix B forWeston's analytical
results.) This could be due to volatilization/bio-degradation of
some contaminants. Also, it could be the result of
non-representative sampling of the piles. In any event,
re-verification ofthe degree of contamination in the soil must be
done prior to final dis-position.
Contamination at the site is limited to the confines of the two
stock-piles. Ground water and surface water samples taken each
month at thesite continue to indicate no measurable impact from the
site on thesurrounding environment.
A silty clay layer frcm 5 to 25 feet in thickness, which
underlies the site,generally restricts movement of the surface
water and shallow ground waterinto the deep water-bearing zone. As
a result, most precipitation infil-trating the ground at the site
drains to adjacent surface streams viadischarge of the shallow
(perched) water-bearing zone rather than movingdownward into the
deep water-bearing zone. However, the potential existsfor
contamination frcm the stockpiled soil to leach into the deep
wateraquifer, and for volatile compounds to find their way into the
varioussurface streams in the area.
ENFORCEMENT
EPA has sent the City a letter stating that the agency does not
plan toinitiate any court actions concerning Enterprise Avenue so
long as theCity continues to pursue it's pending lawsuit against
Enterprise Avenuegenerators, and returns half of the recovered
monies to the Superfunduntil the Superfund expenses are fully
repaid. EPA is not involved in
-•any litigation or negotiations concerning generators or
transporterslinked to the Enterprise site. The City's Philadelphia
v. Stepan casewas filed against more than 80 generators in 1980.
The City has~~alsobrought suit against transporters linked to the
site.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The remaining cleanup action to be undertaken at the site will
address thestockpiled soil. The objective of the cleanup is to
provide adequate pro-tection of public health, welfare, and the
environment. The alternativesfor cleanup action considered
include:
. Soil Aeration
. Land Treatment
. Composting
RR300038
-
- 5 -
. On-Site Encapsulation
. Off-Site Disposal
. No Action
Since the origins of the hazardous substances discovered at the
sitecould not be determined conclusively, it was assumed that the
stockpiledsoil is regulated by RCRA for handling and disposal
purposes. Allalternatives evaluated (except No Action) were
designed to comply withRCRA technical and administrative
requirements.
The Remedial Action strategy may be an individual alternative,
or a combi-nation of the alternatives evaluated. Each of the
alternatives has beenevaluated with respect to: technical
advantages, disadvantages, and limi-tations; cost; environmental
factors; implementability; and institutionaland regulatory
considerations.
on-site encapsulation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal
optionswere analyzed in detail. The No Action alternative was
eliminated fromevaluation during the screening process. This was
due to the fact thatthe existing piles were a means of temporary
storage, and they do notconply with technical requirements of RCRA
(i.e., no synthetic liner, noleachate collection system). This is
in addition to the potentialcontamination to ground and surface
waters from the stockpiles.
The On-Site Encapsulation alternative involves the construction
of a cellon-site for the permanent containment of the stockpiled
soil material?
The design of such a system would comply with the technical
requiresof RCRA, which in this case would include protection from a
100-yearflood occurrance, placement of monitoring wells around the
cell, and aproper liner and capping system. Several technical
disadvantages ofthis alternative are:
1. Although construction of an on-site disposal facility would
be incompliance with appropriate RCRA regulations, the high ground
watertable and subsurface soils are generally not suitable for
constructionof a land disposal facility.
This also is consistant with Pennsylvania regulations, which
requirethat a separation of at least four feet be maintained
between theseasonal high elevation of the shallow (perched) water
table andthe base of the encapsulation cell.
2. The on-site material (incinerator residue) upon which the
cellwill be placed contains organic matter and is difficult to
con-pact. The possibility exists for differencial settlement
tooccur which may adversely affect the integrity of the cell
andallow for the release of the contained material.
3. The depth to ground water at the site has been measured to be
aslittle as 2 - 5 feet below the surface. In the event of a
releaseof contaminated material from the cell, migration of
contaminantsto the shallow ground water table could be
expected.
AR300039
-
- 6 -
Besides these factors, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Re-sources prohibits the placement of encapsulation
cells within the 100-year flood plain, regardless of the flood
protection provisions made.
The other alternatives evaluated all require verification
sanpling andanalysis of the stockpiled soil to determine whether or
not it presentlyexceeds the key indicator parameters established
for this project. Theroost recent analytical results indicate that
approximately 25% of thesamples taken from the piles fail the RIA.
However, the samples weredrawn from the upper layers of the piles.
Degree of contamination ofthe soil at greater depths is unknown.
For the purposes of developingcost estimates for the alternatives
which include off-site disposal ofsoil, it was assumed that 50% of
the soil in the stockpiles is currentlycontaminated (i.e., will
fail the KIA test). This percentage was de-rived using the latest
analytical results, and includes a 25% contin-gency due to the
uncertainty associated with the degree of contaminationof the soil
in the inner portions of the piles. The remaining 50% ofthe soil
was assumed to be noncontaminated and suitable for use asbackfill
on-site.
The on-site treatment alternatives (Land Treatment, Composting,
andSoil Aeration) are all source control measures which call for
treatmentof the soil which exceeds the key indicator limits with
the goal of re-ducing the degree of contamination through aeration
and biodegradation.After a batch of soil receives treatment, it
would be tested and, if itstill exceeds the parameters, it would be
taken off-site for disposal atan approved landfill.
In the Soil Aeration alternative, treatment of the soils would
be ac-complished by using "mechanical equipment to agitate, mix,
and aeratethe soils. Some technical uncertainties are associated
with thisoperation since mechanical aeration of soils has not been
extensivelyused in the past. The moisture content and consistency
of the soilswould need to be controlled to insure that the soils
can be physicallymixed and will not jam or plug the equipment. In
addition, the resi-dence time and agitation required to achieve an
acceptable level ofdevolatilization is not known.
In the Cmiî ustinq alternative, biological treatanent of the
soil would'be employed to achieve contamination reduction. Even
though compostinghas proved successful for municipal sewage sludge,
its application tocontaminated soils has not been proved. There are
also technical un-certainties regarding the microorganisms and
nutrient seed material tobe used, and the degree of success which
can be expected from the process.
Cie land Treatment alternative involves spreading and
cultivating of thecontaminated soils. Cultivation would be
performed using agriculturalequipment such as disc harrows, rakes,
or plows. Contamination reductioncould be achieved by
volatilization and biodegradation. Although landtreatment has been
used successfully for many years in the petroleum re-fining
industry, the rate or levels of treatment that can be achievedfor
the waste contained in the stockpiled soil is unknown. As
stated
f l R 3 0 0 0 l i O
-
- 7 -
earlier, the ground water level at this site has been measured
to be aslittle as 2 - 5 feet below the surface. If the land
treatment techniquewere implemented and reduction of the hazardous
waste were not achieved ,the migration of the contaminants to the
shallow ground water table couldresult.
The Off-Site Disposal alternative would require that any soil
which failedthe KIA test be taken to an approved, permitted
facility for ultimate dis-posal of the contaminated soil. The soils
would be excavated from thestockpiles in lots of 100 cubic yards.
The sampling protocol will providefor a variable sampling frequency
per soil lot to ensure a high degree ofsampling sensitivity. Any
soil lots that do not exceed the key indicatorlimits will be
backfilled on-site in area's having no planning futuredevelopment.
The site will be covered with an impermeable clay cap toprevent
potential leaching of any residual contamination into the
groundwater. The material taken off -site for disposal would be
manifested inaccordance with RCRA. Tfcere are no technical
uncertainties associatedwith this alternative. Standard
construction, excavation, and earthmoving equipment and techniques
will be employed. Existing permittedhazardous waste facilities will
be allowed to accept the waste from thissite. In fact, this was the
alternative ijnplemented for the previouscleanup effort at this
site. The environmental concerns associated withthis alternative
are minimal. This alternative provides the additionalbenefit of
preserving the planned use of this site for a waste
treatmentfacility.
The cost of the various alternatives range from $3.0M to $5.3M,
excludingthe No Action alternative. The following is a tabulation
of the costestimates for the alternatives.
Cost Sunnary for Remedial Actions
Estimated Capital Estimated PostAlternative Construction Cost
Closure Cost*
1. Soil Aeration $4,595,000 $ 66,0002. Land Treatment 4,238,000
66,0003. Composting 5,297,000 66,0004. Cn-Site Encapsulation
3,006,000 154,0005. No Action - 0 - 154,0006. Off-Site Disposal
4,324,000 49,000
*Present worth computed over 30 years at a 7 3/8% discount
rate,
flR3000U
-
- 8 -
RELATIONS
The Draft Feasibility study vas made available for public
coranent. Copiesof the document were placed in repositories in the
vicinity of the site. Anotice was placed in the local newspaper
regarding the availability of theFeasibility Study for public
review, and to announce that a public meetingwas scheduled for
February 23, 1984. The meeting was held at the City
ofPhiladelphia's Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant, and was
attendedby representatives of EPA, the Pennsylvania Department of
EnvironmentalResources, the City of Philadelphia Water Department,
and several citizen/environmental action groups.
Basically, the comments received from the public expressed their
displeasurewith the lack of detailed information in the Feasibility
Study, and indicateda strong preference for implementing the
alternative requiring off-site dis-posal of all soil determined to
be contaminated. They were adamantly opposedto implementation of
any of the alternatives calling for on-site containmentor treatment
of contaminated soil. The public comment period closed threeweeks
after the study was made public.
In response to the public comments received, extensive revisions
were made tothe Feasibility Study, greatly increasing the degree of
detail and supportingdocumentation for the alternatives considered
for cleanup.
CONSISTENCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
All of the alternatives evaluated (except No Action) were
formulated to bein compliance with RCRA land treatment, storage,
and disposal technical andadministrative requirements whenever
possible. Included were the physicalcontrols necessary (i.e.,
monitoring wells, leachate collection systems,liners, etc.) to
implement the on-site treatment and disposal alternatives.The cost
estimates developed for the alternatives took into account theRCRA
technical and administrative requirements which apply to the
individualremedial actions. The recommended alternate of off site
disposal providesa beneficial effect on the 100 year flood
plain.
REOCMMEMDED ALTERNATIVE
.Section 300.68 (j) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) [47
FR 31180,July 16, 1982] states that the appropriate extent of
remedy shall bedetermined by the lead agency's selection of the
remedial alternativewhich the agency determines is cost-effective
(i.e., the lowest costalternative that is technologically feasible
and reliable) and whicheffectively mitigates and minimizes damage
to and provides adequateprotection of public health, welfare, and
the environment. Based onour evaluation of the cost-effectiveness
of each of the proposed alter-natives, the comments received from
the public, informations from theFeasibility Study, and information
from the City of Philadelphia, werecommend that the Off -Site
Disposal alternative be implemented. Thisalternative includes:
Resampling and analysis of the stockpiled soilsin 100-cubic-yard
lots for the key indicator parameters; on-site con-tainment of
soils which do not exceed established parameter limits;off-site
disposal at RCRA approved facility of soils which exceedestablished
parameter limits; grading, completion of clay cap and cover,and
vegetating of the site.
AR30001+2
-
- 9 -
The recommended alternative is the least cost alternative that
is tech-nically feasible and reliable, and which effectively
mitigates andminimizes damage to and provides adequate protection
of public health,welfare, and the environment. It also complies
with RCRA by callingfor off-site disposal of contaminated soil at a
RCRA approved facility,and the level of cleanup was determined in a
manner consistent with theRCRA methodology. In comparison, the
alternatives evaluated callingfor on-site treatment of contaminated
soil by composting and aerationare more costly, and the reliability
of the processes associated withtreatment of the waste present in
the soil on-site is uncertain? theLand Treatment alternative,
although less costly than off-site disposal,has technical
uncertainties associated with it, and failure to achievethe desired
contaminant reductions could result in migration of
hazardoussubstances to the shallow ground water table; the On-Site
Encapsulationalternative is less capital cost intense, however, it
will require alonger term 0 & M period at a much higher cost
than the recommendedalternative, is not as technically reliable as
the Off-Site Disposalalternative, and the high ground water table
and fill material at theShterprise Avenue site are generally not
suitable for construction of anon-site disposal facility so long as
there is another viable cost-effectivealternative for disposal.
Although the on-site cell would be designed;o guard against
releases, the hydrogeologic conditions at the sitei.e., high ground
water table, located within the 100-year flood plain)would multiply
the adverse effects of any failure of the cell which mayxrcur.
rhe capital cost for the recommended alternative is estimated to
be34,324,000. The monitoring and maintenance costs are estimated to
be549,000 (present worth value) for a period of thirty years. A
breakdown3f the capital costs appear in Appendix C.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (0 & M)
Itie O & M activities associated with the recommended
alternative are in-spection of the site (1 crew-day/year) and
maintenance of the vegetatedrover (5 crew-days/year) at an annual
cost of approximately $4,200. She:ity of Philadelphia will assume
full responsibility for 0 & M since itis a city-owned
property.
PROPOSED ACTICN
* request your approval of the removal of all soil from the
EnterpriseAvenue site which fails the established Key Indicator
Parameter test.It:is action will complete the cleanup of this
hazardous waste disposalsite. Tte estimated total cost for this
state-lead project is S4.82M,which includes the cost for
construction management. We also requestan allocation of $2.41M
from the Superfund to fund this cleanup at the5C% level since it is
a municipally owned site.
PPOJECT SCHEDULE
- Approve Record of Decision May 1984- Award Cooperative
Agreement for Construction May 1984- Start Construction July 1984-
Complete Construction November 1984
AR3000I43
-
i it j ̂ i
CITY OF PHILADELPHIAENTERPRISE AVENUE SITEREMEDIAL ACTION
PROGRAM
GROUNOWATER AND SURFACE WATER MONITORINGGENERAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER, 1981
W.O. 1290-06-01
TECHNICAL REPORT £
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
Weston WayWest Chester, PA 19380
AR3000l*l*
-
^,5- SELECTION OF MONITORING WELLS £
The results of the survey of present conditions were reviewed
with thePhiladelphia Water Department in May 1981. Ni'ne'moni tor
ing wells wereselected as follows:
• Four wells for shallow- zone water monitoring (PWD's #12S,
64$65S and 55S). The latter would be a new w e l l .
• Five wells for deep zone water monitoring v.'WO's £140, 440,
64D 550r57D). Numbers 550 and 640 were new wells. The location
ofthese wells is shown in Figure 1.
All wells selected for monitoring purposes were fitted with
locking capsto preserve the integrity of the monitoring
program.
The location arrangement provides three well pairs (shallow well
neara deep well). Pair PWO #645 and 640 is located sou:-h of the
site andpair PUD #12$ and 440 is located east of the site. These
two pair providedown-gradient measurements. Pair PWO "555 and 550
ore located northwestof the site and provide up-gradient
background
Since PWD £550 and "640 w i l l also be used for water level
monitoringand recording, both of these wells were constructed as to
accomodatemon i tor ing equipment.
6. WELL CONSTRUCTION '
Wells selected for monitoring were inspected for integrity and,
in thecase of pairs of wells (shallow and deep), to confirm
isolation betweenwe J 1 s .
The d r i l l i n g of the new wells, installation of casings,
caps and waterlevel records was completed in July 1981.
The 'sampl ing program was mi tiated in August/ 1981. The
analyticalprogram description and i n i t i a l results are
presented in TechnicalReport #4.
• AR3000I45
-
Table 1
Honi tor Wel 1 Survey
Well /]'
PWD-1S-25-35-*»S
-55-65-75-as-9S
-105-110-us-12S-13S-1^0-US-155-16D-16S-175-185-195-205
-215-22S
-235-2^5
""Depth"W20
8.510
11.5
17.511.536.51526.5kS.S
15152k. S1516.526.51525.520 '21.52020202036.5
ScreenSett i ng(ft)
X
/
/ 78
Not Found
79
! ^1*20k2
Not Found
15Not Found
23Hi
Not FoundNot FoundDestroyed In
212020
Not Found
2018
20
33
Present Death(fcj
7.610.0
5.0
9.3.*
—
-*
32.5-
13.5
23.0Id.O
1979Slocked2018
2018--33
Death to Water(f t)
3.8k.Q
k.7
3.̂ 2«--——3.84
5. 00
7.62' 2.26
12.7213.25
13-30 •1M--
' ̂ -o
(2)
(1) "S" denotes shallow w e l l , ":(2) Blank indicates not
checked
dee? w e l 1
A R 3 0 0 0 U 6 °*/6ft!
-
Tabla I
Monitor Well Survey(Cont inued)
Vei l if Depch Setting
PWD-25S-265-275-285-295-305-315-325-33S-34S-355-36S-375-385-400-410-420-430-440-450-465-475-485-495-550
^fsfrT)
TfIT2021.6 /
20 /20
2020 1915-5 1521.5 / 1920 1926.5 23.525 2325 23.525 '
24254040353532 3040
33.59.5 9.5
Present Ccoth Depth to Wateri ft)——Not Found »
Not Found
Not FoundNot FoundNot Found
13.0 . 6.65
9.75 3.6519- .9-2713.7 7.47
Not Found
Not Found20.0 12.9516.7 14.40
Not FoundNoc FoundNot Found
Noc Found
Destroyed in 1979-30 9.10
Not FoundNot Found
Not Found
Not Found
Not Found
Not Found ( R c d r i M n d )15 ^.75
A R > 3 0 0 Q l * 7
-
Table 1
Moni tor We Ii Survey(Continued)
Well 9
PWO-57D-58S-595-60S
-61S-62S-63S-64S-640-65S-66S-67S-68S'-695-70S
x^ TotalDepthTH750 /T9.5 ''16.5/292521
51521.5;35-011.5\\.$1516.531-528.5
Screen-Set ting
(ft)
4K51613272120
13213*9
Present Depth(ft)
M.516U.527212010
213A13-8
Not Found
Not FoundNot Found
Not FoundNot Found
Depth to Water(ft)
U.308.474.153.827-052.862.426.556.759.05
AR30001+8 "**>
-
V. SUMMARY
The CIty of Phifadelphla Water Department has retained WESTON
for engineer!ngservices relative to a remedial action program for
the Snierprisc AvenueSite. One element of the program involves a
groundwator end surface wotermonitoring program. The objective of
the program is r.o identify potentialmigrat ion af^any contaminants
from-the site.
The water quality monitoring program involves monthly sampling
of bothgroundwater and surface water.. An expanded analyses w i l l
be perfornedevery sixt.i month beginning with the first month*
The first monthly sampling round has been performed and analysis
resultsare presented,
2. INTRODUCTION
In March, 198! the City of Philadelphia Water Department
retained'VESTONfor engineering services relative to a remedial
action program for theEnterprise Avenue Site. As part of the
program, a grcunrfwoter and surfacewater monitoring program is
being performed to identify potential migrationof contaminants from
the site. The program requires monitoring the shallowand deep
water-bearing-zones as well as several surface water locations,
3. GROUriDWATER QUALITY MONITORING
As described above, the shallow and deep water-bearing-zones are
beingmonitored utilizing groundwater wells. There are four wells
(PWO £J2S,55S, 6^5 and 65S) constructed into the shallow zone "d
five wells (PVO£14D,kkQ, 55D, 570, and 6̂ 0} constructed into the
deep zone. The locations ofthese wells are indicated on Figure
1,
The nine wells described arc being used to collect groundwater
samplesneeded to monitor potential migration of any contaminants
from the site.
Samples are being taken from each well on a monthly bjsis.
Initial sampleswere taken in August, 1981. Sampling will continue
throughout the fieldwork and for twelve months subsequent to site
closure. Every six months, Jfrom theTnTfTation of the sampling, an
expanded set of analyses will beperformed until twelve months after
site closure.
The following monthly key Indicator analyses w i l l be
performed on the watersamples:
nH * *™
TOC - ^ •-'">; ovocTOSSpecific Conductance
A R 3 0 0 0 5 0
-
CITY OF PHILADELPHIAENTERPRISE AVENUE SITEREMEDIAL ACTION
PROGRAM
Groundwaier and Surface Water Monitoring Program:Monthly
Analysis Results Report
September, 738J. W,0, 1230-06-07
TECHNICAL REPORT
/I
ROY F, WESTON, INC,.We ston Way
Vest Chester, PA
AR30005
-
Twice per year, from initiation-of sampling, an expanded sec of
analyseswil l be performed. The expanded analyses includes:
Priority pollutant analysisFluorideAmmonla-Mi trogenNi trat^-Ni
trogenpK-TOSSpec ific ConductanceTOCVOCCyanide 'Silver /Zinc /
ArsenicBar turn .
Chroni*urnHex. ChromiumCopperI ronLeadMccury5el on iumTi ten i
urn
A WESTON/City Water Department team will collect the. sa.r.ples
and theanalyses wilT be performed in WESTON*s laboratory. The
results are tobe reported to the City with appropriate
Tnterprctation as applicable.
k. SURFACE WATER MONITORING . '
Surface water samples are being collected on a monthly and
biannual frequencyconcurrently with the groundwater samples. Five
surface water samplingstations as indicated on Figure 1, are
included as follows:
Stat ion
S-4
S-8
S-10
S-11
S-12
locat ion
Background on Eagle Creek.
Background south of the la n d f i l l at FortMifflin,
Eagle Creek adjacent to the landfill.
Background on tributary to Eagle Creek.•
Eagle Creek downstream from landfill.
Samples are being collected at these stations and analyzed for
the saneparameters as the groundwater samples. The need to collect
and analyzesurface water samples during actual storm runoff
conditions is being assessedand the surface water sample collection
schedule may be altered accordingly.
»
5- ANALYSIS RESULTS.* t
Presently, the first monthly sampling round has been performed-
Table 1presents the results for August, 1981,
Due to the time of year, and the minimal rainfall some wells
were dry.these instances, the expanded set of analyses were
postponed until thesecond month.
'
-
A R 3 0 D - 0 5 3fS-
-
V ~. o 3jj^ • " o » o » ». » v .^ » o
r *•* ci " S I 2 " " " 0 0 * " "
Oo
515
a — »• mMo 8 *-» » a * * *
O .•• —— V*. **«...8 *"
"t? g Z? 1? — o ff •"* _ ! . _ - - - . •
5 15 t1 -J io Z C
f t flR30005.»>. l