metaltec/aerosystems, franklin borough, sussex county, new ... · sussex county, new jersey. the...
TRANSCRIPT
SDMS Document
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION 98887
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
Site Name and Location
Metaltec/Aerosystems, Franklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action forgroundwater at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, in FranklinBorough, which was chosen in accordance with the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil andHazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This decisionis based on the administrative record for the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from thesite, if not addressed by implementing the response actionselected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent andsubstantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or theenvironment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy presented in this document addresses the current andfuture threats to human health and the environment associatedwith the contaminated groundwater resulting from the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. A previous Record of Decision, signed on June30, 1986, selected a remedy for the areas which are the sourcesof the groundwater contamination. This decision documentaddresses the groundwater itself.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater and restorationof the groundwater to drinking water standards;
Treatment of extracted groundwater to levels attainingNew Jersey surface water discharge limitationrequirements;
500001
-2-
Discharge of treated groundwater to a surface waterbody; and
Appropriate environmental monitoring to ensure theeffectiveness of the remedy.
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and theenvironment, complies with Federal and State requirements thatare legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to theremedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to themaximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preferencefor remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedywill not result in hazardous substances remaining on the siteabove health-based levels, once fully implemented, the five yearreview will not apply to this action.
f»./Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff//'' / . c a t e
Regional Administrator ^-L^
500002
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
KETALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Metaltec/Aerosystems site is located at the intersection ofMaple, Gilson, and Wildcat Roads in the Borough of Franklin,Sussex County, New Jersey. The approximately 15.3-acre site islocated about 40 miles northwest of New York City and 12 milesnorth of Interstate 80. Another major highway, State Highway 23,traverses the area. The site location is shown on Figure 1. Theproperty is shown on the Borough of Franklin tax map as lot 63,block 7, and lot 64, block 1.04. The site currently contains theformer Metaltec/Aerosystems plant, several parking areas, and avacant area from which contaminated soil was excavated in 1988.The surrounding area is semi-rural, and primarily supportsresidential uses. The nearest residence is located about 600feet south of the site. A horse farm and agricultural land arelocated adjacent to the property, to the north and west. Aprivate golf course is located directly northeast of the site.Historically, the area was a major supplier of zinc and iron ore,however, the nearest mine is more than three-quarters of a mileaway. A municipal well, which was removed from service becauseof contamination from the site, is located 400 feet east of thesite and is set in the bedrock aguifer. The Borough's main watersupply is the Franklin Pond, located three-quarters of a mile tothe northeast.
Topography at the site was generally formed by stream erosion, ascontrolled by bedrock structure and lithology. Topographicrelief ranges from steeply sloped to gently rolling hills. Themost pronounced ridges are underlain by Precambrian crystallinerock. Less resistant limestones, dolomites, and shales underlythe major stream valleys. Within one mile of the Metaltec site,land surface elevations range from 760 feet above the mean sealevel (MSL) to less than 500 feet above MSL in the Wallkill RiverValley. Elevations at the site range from 512 to 539 feet aboveMSL.
The Metaltec/Aerosystems site is drained by a small, unnamedtributary to the Wildcat Brook, which flows approximately 2,000feet to the Wallkill River. Marshy areas exist along portions ofthe unnamed tributary. Wildcat Brook is located approximatelyone quarter mile northwest of the site in the middle of a broadflood plain. Surface water in the vicinity of the site isclassified by the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP) as fresh-water number 2, nontrout (FW2-NT).Streams classified as FW2-NT are not used as potable supplies,nor are they maintained as trout fisheries.
500003
i>
The geology of the Metaltec site, as determined during thesupplemental remedial investigation and feasibility study(RI/FS), consists of four major lithologic units:
glacial depositsgneiss
• marbledolomite
The overburden geology consists of both stratified and unstrati-fied glacial drift, with various mixtures of stiff sandy andsilty clay, and sand and gravel deposits. The thickness of theoverburden varies greatly across the site, from 15 feet or lessbeneath the parking lot area (near wells OB-4A and OB-4B), toapproximately 100 feet (near the BR-5 well location) to the northof the site.
A three-part aquifer system exists beneath the site, whichincludes glacial and marsh deposits, granitic gneiss, anddolomite. Although the marble noted above is lithologicallydifferent from the granitic gneiss, it is not considered to be adifferent aquifer system. The overburden aquifer is variable incomposition and includes sands, silts, and gravel beneath theparking lot area, and clayey silts to the east and northwest nearthe BR-5 bedrock well location. Estimated permeabilities of theoverburden aquifer range from 102 to 10"7 centimeters per second(cm/sec). Fractures within the bedrock aquifers are the primarypathways for groundwater flow. Fractures are located in thegranitic gneiss bedrock, and trend in a northeast to southwestdirection, following the granitic gneiss/dolomite contact. Asecondary directional component exists in the granitic gneisstrending northwest to southeast. Groundwater in the area of thesite is Class IIB, indicating that it is a potential source ofdrinking water.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Aerosystems Technology Corporation (Aerosystems) and theMetaltec Corporation (Metaltec), a subsidiary to Aerosystems,formerly conducted manufacturing operations at the site.Metaltec/Aerosystems products included metal ballpoint pen parts,paint spraying equipment, lipstick cases, and a variety of othermetal products from 1965 until 1980. When active, the siteincluded the Metaltec plant, a process well, a wastewater lagoon,a drum storage area, wastewater-soaked ground, and two piles ofwaste material.
In 1980, NJDEP conducted an inspection of the site and asubsequent sampling program. The results of the samplingindicated that various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mostsignificantly trichloroethene (TCE), were present in thefacility's wastewater lagoon and surrounding soil. Due to the
500004
presence of VOCs, which were also detected in the groundwater inthe vicinity of the site, a well supplying drinking water toFranklin Borough, several area residential wells, and theMetaltec process well, were closed. Area residents and theMetaltec facility were placed on a public surface water supplyfrom a local pond. In 1981, under an administrative order issuedby NJDEP, Metal tec/Aerosy steins removed some contaminated wastematerial from the lagoon, including remnants from a 55-gallondrum, metal pen parts, bottles, and other debris. In 1982,Metaltec/Aerosystems partially excavated and filled thewastewater lagoon.
In September 1983, the site was placed on the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency's (EPA's) National Priorities List of Superfundsites. In June 1984, EPA began an RI/FS at the site to determinethe nature and extent of contamination, characterize site risks,and develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. The RIdetermined the following:
An estimated 10,000 cubic yards (yd3) of soil werecontaminated with various VOCs in an area referred toas Parcel 1.
An estimated 4,000 yd3 of soil were contaminated withinorganic compounds and semivolatile organic compoundsin areas referred to as Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Both the shallow and bedrock aquifers beneath the sitewere contaminated with elevated levels of thecontaminants found in the soil on the site.
Following a public meeting, at which the results of the RI/FSwere presented, and a 30-day public comment period, EPA signed aRecord of Decision (ROD) on June 30, 1986, which selectednecessary remedial actions for the site, the municipal well, andaffected or threatened private wells. The remedy selected in the1986 ROD included:
Excavation and treatment via heat addition (rotarydryer) of approximately 10,000 yd3 of contaminatedsoils within Parcel 1, and off-site disposal at anapproved landfill.
Excavation and off-site disposal at an approvedlandfill of approximately 4,000 yd3 of contaminatedsoils within Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Provision of an alternate water supply for affectedBorough of Franklin residents by constructing apipeline connection from new potable water wells to theexisting public water supply system.
50000.5
Preparation of a supplemental RI/FS to determine theextent of groundwatsr contamination, and to develop andevaluate appropriate remedial alternatives.
On July 16 and August 20, 1986, EPA wrote to Metaltec/Aerosystems, requesting that they perform the remediation neededat the site. Four separate meeting were held with corporaterepresentatives to discuss the required work. Neither companyindicated a willingness to perform the work.
By a letter, dated January 29, 1988, EPA issued special notice toMetaltec/Aerosystems demanding that they either perform orfinance the remedy required for the site. In the fall of 1988, acost recovery action was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice,on behalf of EPA, in New Jersey District Court.
Between July and November 1988, EPA excavated 4,800 yd3 ofcontaminated soil from Parcels 2, 3, and 4, in accordance withthe 1986 ROD. The remedy for Parcel l has been designed and ispresently awaiting funding. Construction of the alternate watersupply pipeline began in July 1990, and is planned to becompleted in the fall of 1990.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed to ensure the publicopportunities for involvement in site-related decisions,including site analysis and characterization, alternativesanalysis, and remedy selection; to determine, based on communityinterviews, activities to ensure public involvement; and toprovide opportunities for the community to learn about the site.
On August 4, 1988, EPA conducted a public information meeting atthe Franklin Borough Hall. The purpose of the meeting was toprovide residents and local officials with an update on pastactivities conducted by EPA, to describe the soil remediationplanned for the near future, and to discuss the upcomingsupplemental RI/FS to examine the groundwater contamination.
The supplemental RI and FS reports, which addressed thegroundwater contamination, were released to the public in July1990. A Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's preferred remedialalternative, was released on July 27, 1990. The documents weremade available to the public at information repositoriesmaintained at the Franklin Borough Hall and the Sussex CountyLibrary. A public comment period was held from July 27 throughAugust 27, 1990. A public meeting was held on August 16, 1990,to present the findings of the study and the Proposed Plan, andto solicit public input. The issues raised at the public meetingand during the public comment period are addressed in theResponsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision.This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
500006
the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, chosen in accordance with theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, theNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP). The decision for this site is based on the administrativerecord.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
This document addresses the requirement of the 1986 ROD whichcalled for the preparation of a supplemental RI/FS, and dealsspecifically with contamination in the groundwater below andhydraulically downgradient from the site. As noted earlier, theremediation of the sources of the groundwater contamination,namely contaminated soil, were addressed in the 1986 ROD. Allremedial actions selected in that ROD, with the exception of theexcavation and treatment of Parcel 1, have been completed or areunderway. Under this ROD, the contaminated shallow and bedrockgroundwater aquifers will be pumped and treated for restorationof the aquifers. This restoration will take an estimated 10years to complete; however, actual aquifer conditions duringremediation may affect this duration. This action will addressthe remaining potential threat resulting from the site.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Although the 1986 ROD selected affirmative remedial actions toclean up the site and provide an alternate water supply toproperties with contaminated or threatened drinking water, thedata obtained during the initial RI/FS were insufficient to fullycharacterize the groundwater contamination plume. Therefore, itwas necessary for EPA to conduct the supplemental study.
Groundwater
To characterize the groundwater contamination, eight groundwatermonitoring wells were installed and sampled during thesupplemental RI/FS. In addition, groundwater sampling wasperformed on the 13 wells installed during the first RI/FS. Tworounds of groundwater samples were obtained from three formerresidential wells, which were converted into monitoring wellsduring the initial RI, four potable residential wells, theMetaltec plant process well, and the Borough well. Samples takenfrom the shallow and bedrock aquifers were analyzed, and theresults demonstrated that the groundwater is contaminated withvolatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and inorganiccompounds, from the water table down into the bedrock as deep as300 feet. Figure 2 shows the locations of the monitoring wellsand the extent of groundwater contamination. Well BR-4 shows thehighest contamination.
500007
A pump test conducted in 1989, and the analytical results of thesampling of the granitic gneiss aquifer, suggest that highconcentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants at the siteare currently confined to the area of wells surrounding thelagoon (e.g., BR-4 and BR-6). These results also showed thatwells at the site, in general, have higher levels ofcontamination relative to those upgradient of the site. Tables 1through 7 show the maximum concentration of each of the majorcontaminants found in the groundwater and Table 8 shows theaverage contamination found during the pump test. The organiccontaminants of concern which were found include vinyl chloride,chloroethane, methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane,1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,TCE, tetrachloroethene, toluene, and total xylenes. Theinorganic contaminants of concern include chromium and lead.Manganese, copper, and zinc shown in the tables representbackground levels found in the area.
Transport models were used to predict the movement ofcontaminants in the groundwater. The transport models, whichwere synthesized from the hydrologic investigation and behaviorof specific chemicals, were substantiated by actual site-specificchemical data. It appears that the site-related contaminants aretransported through the bedrock aquifers and the adjacentoverburden material, with some ultimately discharged to thetributary to Wildcat Brook. The concentrations becomeundetectable at the confluence with Wildcat Brook.
Of the contamination found in the groundwater, TCE is the mostextensive and the slowest moving. The models predict that undernatural attenuation processes, it would take an estimated 80years for the concentration of TCE in the granitic gneissaquifer, at a concentration of 22,000 parts per billion (ppb),the average value determined during the pump tests, to reach1 ppb. Estimates show that other organic compounds would requireless time than TCE to reach 1 ppb levels. The modelling alsoshows that metals would require less time than the TCE to reachacceptable levels.
Surface Water
Surface water sampling investigations were also conducted todetermine the presence and extent of contamination. Samples ofsurface water were obtained from nine locations, including areasalong the unnamed stream, the confluence of the unnamed streamand Wildcat Brook, and at a spring to the east of the formerMetaltec facility.
Site-related contaminants were detected in a number of surfacewater samples obtained from the spring and the tributary toWildcat Brook. However, the contamination found in the tributarywas determined to be a result of contaminants being transported
500008
through the bedrock aquifer and the adjacent overburden, andfinally discharged through a spring which leads to the tributary.Tables 9, 10, and 11 summarize the results of the surface watersampling.
Sediments
Sediment samples were also collected from the surface watersampling locations to more fully characterize the chemical andhydrogeologic processes occurring at the site. Contaminantsidentified in the sediments provided additional data indeveloping the RI conclusions, namely that a portion of thecontaminated granitic gneiss bedrock aquifer underlying the sitedischarges to the overburden, which in turn discharges to thetributary to Wildcat Brook.
Sediment samples obtained adjacent to the spring feeding thetributary to Wildcat Brook (at location S-4) yielded highercontaminant concentrations than downstream samples, however,associated risks were considered to be insignificant. The samplecollected from Wildcat Brook at the confluence with the unnamedstream, yielded undetectable amounts of contamination. Tables12, 13, and 14 summarize the results of the sediment sampling.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted an Endangerment Assessment (EA) of the "no action"alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human health andthe environment associated with the Metaltec site in its currentstate. Because the remedy selected in the 1986 ROD included theremoval of contaminated soil from the site, potential impactsassociated with contaminants in the soil were not assessed duringthis study. The EA focused on the contaminants which are likelyto pose the most significant risks to human health and theenvironment (chemicals of potential concern). These "chemicalsof potential concern" and their concentrations in site media areshown in Table 15.
Chemicals of potential concern were identified in the ground-water, surface water, and sediments. In all media, VOCs (inparticular, TCE and 1,2-Dichloroethene) were identified aschemicals of potential concern. In addition, chromium, copper,lead, manganese, and zinc were identified as chemicals ofpotential concern in groundwater. The highest concentrations ofVOCs were detected in wells located near the former wastewaterlagoon.
EPA's EA identified several potential exposure pathways by whichthe public may be exposed to contaminant releases from theMetaltec site. These.pathways and the populations potentiallyaffected are shown in Table 16. The potential exposure routesidentified in the EA include inhalation of contaminants
500009
volatilized from surface water, direct contact (e.g., dermalcontact) with contaminants in the surface water or sediments, andthe ingestion of contaminated grounclwater under a future land usescenario.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure tosite chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed thatthe toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would beadditive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risksassociated with exposures to individual indicator compounds weresummed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixturesof potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively. TheHealth Effects Criteria for the chemicals of potential concernare presented in Table 17.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakesand safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potentialfor adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in unitsof mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humanswhich are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitiveindividuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmentalmedia (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminateddrinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazardquotient for the contaminant in the particular media. The hazardindex is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for allcompounds across all media. A hazard index greater than 1indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic healtheffects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HIprovides a useful reference point for gauging the potentialsignificance of multiple contaminant exposures within a singlemedium or across media.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancerpotency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA'sCarcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimatingexcess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure topotentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed inunits of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake ofa potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-boundestimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated withexposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upperbound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculatedfrom the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation ofthe risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X 10"4 to1 X 106 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
8
500010
individual has no greater than a one in ten thousand to one in amillion chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure tosite conditions.
The hazard indices and cancer risks associated with the potentialexposure pathways at the Metaltec site are presented in Table 18.The conclusions of the human health quantitative risk assessmentare as follows:
For potential exposures of residents to chemicals thathave volatilized from the tributary to Wildcat Brook,the estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer riskis less than 1 x 10"6 under the average case and 2 x 10 under the plausible maximum case. It should be notedthat conservative assumptions were used to estimateexposure and that half of the estimated excess lifetimeinhalation cancer risk is due to 1,1-dichloroethene, aGroup C carcinogen (limited evidence ofcarcinogenicity). The hazard index is less than oneunder the average and plausible maximum case, indicat-ing that residents are unlikely to be at risk ofnoncarcinogenic effects.
For potential exposures of children to surface water orsediment contaminants while playing in the tributary toWildcat Brook, the estimated lifetime upper boundexcess cancer risks are less than 1 x 10 under theaverage and plausible maximum cases, respectively. Thehazard index is less than one under the average andplausible maximum cases, suggesting that childrenplaying in the tributary are not at risk ofnoncarcinogenic effects from exposure to chemicals insurface water.
Potential risks associated with hypothetical exposure byingestion of groundwater from different areas included:
The estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer risksassociated with downgradient wells located in thegranitic gneiss/overburden aguifers, are 3 x 10^(average case) and 3 x 102 (plausible maximum). Forboth cases, the risks are due primarily to vinylchloride, although the mean and maximum concentrationsof 1,1-dichloroethane and trichloroethene, and themaximum concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate cireassociated with risk estimates greater than 1 x 10*.It is not known if the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate in the groundwater is related to the Metaltecsite. Similar concentrations in both downgradient aridupgradient wells suggest that the source of this
500011
chemical may be unrelated to the site. Further studieswill be conducted during remedial design to evaluatethe presence of this contaminant.
The hazard index for the wells is less than one underthe average case and greater than one (30) under theplausible maximum case. The maximum concentrations of1,2-dichloroethene (total), trichloroethene, andchromium are each associated with individual CDI:RfDratios greater than one. The maximum concentrations ofeach of these chemicals was detected in wells locatednear the former waste lagoon, suggesting that as thesource.
The estimated lifetime upper bound excess cancer risksassociated with wells located in the dolomite/overburden aquifers, are less than 1 x 10"6 under theaverage case and 4 x 10"6 under the plausible maximumcase. Risks under the plausible maximum case are dueprimarily to trichloroethene. The hazard index is lessthan one under the average case, and greater than one(10) under the plausible maximum case. The maximumconcentrations of chromium and manganese are eachassociated with an individual CDI:RfD ratio greaterthan one. The maximum concentrations of chromium andmanganese were detected in well OB-5, along with highconcentrations of other inorganic chemicals. It ispossible that the concentrations observed in well OB-5are the result of past dumping in this area, althoughthe presence of naturally occurring deposits of thesemetals is, again, an additional possibility.
Potential risks associated with exposure to lead in groundwaterwere not quantitatively evaluated in this assessment becausetoxicity criteria have not been developed for this chemical.However, lead has been classified by EPA as a Group B2 carcinogen(probable human carcinogen), and also is known to cause other,noncancerous effects. Therefore, exposure to lead could add tothe estimated risks.
Environmental Risks
Potential impacts associated with the contaminants of potentialconcern were also assessed for nonhuman exposures at the Metaltecsite. It was determined that aquatic life in Wildcat Brook and.its tributary were unlikely to be affected by contaminantsreleased to the surface water.
10
500012
Uncertainties in the PHE/EA
As in any risk assessment, the estimates of risk for the Metaltecsite have many uncertainties. In general, the primary sources ofuncertainty identified included the following:
Environmental chemistry sampling and analysisEnvironmental parameter measurementFate and transport modellingExposure parameter estimationToxicological data
As a result of the uncertainties, the risk assessment should notbe construed as presenting an absolute estimate of risks to humanor environmental populations. Rather, it is a conservativeanalysis intended to indicate the potential for adverse impactsto occur.
Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from thissite, if not addressed by implementing the response actionselected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantialendangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The goal for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination at theMetaltec site is to restore the groundwater to the more stringentof the Federal or State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) whichhave been devised to protect drinking water. MCLs areenforceable standards based on health risks associated with anindividual's consumption of two liters of water per day over a70-year period. Therefore, health risks associated with thegroundwater contamination resulting from the site will be reducedto within the acceptable range of between 1 x 10"* to 1 x 10"6 forcarcinogens, and the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will beless than one. The MCLs for the contaminants of concern at thesite are shown on Table 19. The area of attainment is thecontaminated groundwater plume. Surface water and sedimentcontamination in the tributary to the Wildcat Brook will notrequire additional remediation since the tributary is fed by thegroundwater, which will be cleaned up.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980, as amended by SARA, requires that eachsite remedy be protective of human health and the environment,comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
11
500013
(AKAKS;, utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximumextent practicable, and be cost effective.
The RI identified the groundwater itself as the principalenvironmental medium affected by contamination. The source ofthe groundwater contamination is addressed by the 1986 ROD.Surface water contamination in the tributary to Wildcat Brookwill not require additional remediation since the tributary isfed by the groundwater, which will be cleaned up. Sedimentcontamination is considered insignificant and will not requireremediation.
In the FS, three basic alternatives for addressing thegroundwater contamination were evaluated in detail: (1) Nofurther action, with monitoring; (2) Pump and treat the shallowand bedrock aquifers using air stripping and carbon adsorption;and (3) Pump and treat the shallow and bedrock aquifers usinghydrogen peroxide - ultraviolet photolysis (H202-UV) oxidation andcarbon adsorption. A description of each of the alternatives, aswell as an estimate of their cost and implementation timeframe,follows.
Alternative 1: NO FURTHER ACTION, WITH MONITORING
Implementation Period: Not applicableCapital Cost: $ 0Annual Operation andMaintenance (O&M) Costs: $ 23,000Present Worth: $ 358,200
This alternative would not involve the implementation of specificremedial actions to address groundwater or surface watercontamination. Under this alternative, a long-term monitoringprogram would be implemented to determine whether groundwater andsurface water contaminant concentrations are changing with time,and to track the migration of contaminated groundwater. Themonitoring program would include sampling the groundwater throughthe use of existing monitoring wells.
Alternative 2: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/AIRSTRIPPING/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 yearsCapital Cost: $ 748,100Annual O&M Costs: $ 466,300Present Worth: $4,348,900
The major features of this alternative include groundwaterpumping, collection, treatment, and discharge of treatedgroundwater, and a performance monitoring program. Thegroundwater cleanup goal under this alternative is the
12
500014
achievement of MCLs. The alternative involves the use of anexisting well en the Metaltec property for groundwater extractionat a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute(gpm), an extraction rate shown to be sustainable over anextended period of time. Pumping tests concluded that a 10 gpmpumping rate at BR-4 produces measurable drawdown at most of thewells located in the granitic gneiss aquifer which have been ofconcern in the site area. At that flow rate, it is estimatedthat it will take a period of approximately ten years to reducethe TCE levels to 1 ppb, although actual aquifer conditionsduring remediation may affect this duration. During remedialdesign, the possibility of using multiple extraction wells toaccelerate cleanup will be explored. -Studies will also beperformed during remedial design to determine the optimum pumpingrate to control the groundwater contamination plume. Theextracted groundwater would first be treated to remove metals,with the resultant sludge being disposed of off-site. The VOCspresent in the extracted groundwater would be removed by airstripping, and any remaining organic contaminants would beremoved by carbon adsorption. The spent carbon would becollected by the supplier and taken off-site for disposal ortreatment and reuse. The treated groundwater would be dischargedto the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meeting surface waterdischarge requirements. Because of the unfavorablecharacteristics of the site hydrogeology (i.e., a complex bedrockfracture system and its associated hydraulic characteristics),reinjection of treated groundwater was eliminated fromconsideration as a remedial technology.
Alternative 3: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/H202-UVOXIDATION/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 yearsCapital Cost: $ 926,500Annual O&M Costs: $ 467,300Present Worth: $4,535,000
As in Alternative 2, this alternative involves the use of anexisting well on the Metaltec property for groundwater extractionat a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gpm, with remediationto the MCLs. In this alternative, however, the VOCs would beremoved through H2O2-UV oxidation instead of through airstripping. The other treatment unit operations would remain thesame as in Alternative 2. The treated groundwater would also bedischarged to the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meetingsurface water discharge requirements.
13
500015
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation Criteria
The three alternatives noted above were evaluated using criteriaderived from the NCP (published in the Code of FederalRegulations at 40 CFR Part 300) and SARA. These criteria relatedirectly to factors mandated by SARA in Section 121, includingSection 121 (b)(1)(A-G). The criteria are as follows:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
State acceptance
• Community acceptance
Comparisons
Table 20 summarizes the relative performance of the threecandidate alternatives in relation to the evaluation criteria.A comparative discussion of the major components of thealternatives, using the evaluation criteria, follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment is thecentral mandate of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Protection isachieved by reducing health and environmental threats and bytaking appropriate action to ensure that, in the future, therewould be no unacceptable risks to human health and theenvironment through any exposure pathway.
The "No Further Action" alternative would not provide anyadditional protection of human health and the environment thanhas been provided by the remedy selected in the 1986 ROD. Notreatment would be provided, and only natural processes wouldattenuate groundwater contamination. A long-term monitoringprogram would be necessary to determine the extent to which
14
500016
groundwater and surface water contaminant concentrations wouldchange with time, and to track the migration of contaminatedgroundwater.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would both provide protection of humanhealth by eliminating risks through the extraction and treatmentof contaminated groundwater. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reducethe risk associated with use of the groundwater, to within theacceptable range of between 1 x ID"* to 1 x 10"6, by reducing thelevel of contaminants within the affected aquifers. Thesealternatives would also prevent further migration of contaminantsto the tributary to Wildcat Brook. Either of these alternativeswould augment the action being taken under the 1986 ROD whichdirected the provision of an alternate water supply.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires thatremedies for Superfund sites comply with Federal and State lawsthat are directly applicable and, therefore, legally enforceable.Remedies must also comply with the requirements of laws andregulations that are not applicable, but are relevant andappropriate; in other words, requirements that pertain tosituations sufficiently similar to those encountered at aSuperfund site such that their use is well suited to the site.Combined, these are referred to as "applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements". Primary ARARs for the Metaltec siteinclude the more stringent of the Federal or State MCLs, NewJersey Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act AmbientWater Quality Criteria, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration Standards, the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct, and the Clean Air Act.
Alternative 1 would not comply with the site-specific cleanupgoals and, therefore, would not attain ARARs.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are intended to meet the groundwater cleanupARARs, which are the MCLs, after their estimated 10-yearimplementation periods are completed. The treated water to bedischarged to the tributary to Wildcat Brook will meet New Jerseysurface water discharge limitation requirements.
To ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,a cultural resources survey will be prepared during remedialdesign.
Waivers from ARARs are not required for Alternatives 2 and 3.
15
500017
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
This evaluation criterion relates to the performance of atechnology or remedial alternative in terms of eliminating orcontrolling risks posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume ofhazardous substances.
The "No Action" alternative would not reduce the toxicity,mobility, or volume of contaminants through treatment; onlynatural processes would attenuate groundwater contamination.This natural attenuation, however, could take an estimated 80years to reach drinking water standards.
Alternatives 2 and 3 address principal contamination threats, andwould reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of thecontaminated groundwater through the use of extraction andtreatment methods. Sludge resulting from treatment for metalsremoval would be disposed of off-site, and spent carbon from theremoval of VOCs would be regenerated or disposed of off-site. Itis anticipated that, at the conclusion of the remedial action,the groundwater quality will be within MCLs. The treatmentprovided under both of these alternatives would be irreversible.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness measures how well an alternative isexpected to perform, the time to achieve performance, and thepotential adverse impacts of its implementation.
The major risk associated with the contaminated groundwater isthe use of it for potable purposes. A temporary alternativewater supply is currently in use in the affected area, andprovision of a permanent alternative water supply is beingimplemented under the 1986 ROD. Therefore, that risk has alreadybeen significantly reduced.
Alternative 1 would provide no short-term effective remediationof the groundwater contamination.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would begin to be effective at the onset ofthe extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater. Anassessment would need to be made during the design activities toensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas would bemitigated. Treated water would be monitored prior to itsdischarge to the tributary to Wildcat Brook to ensure theeffectiveness of the treatment system.Neither of the active pumping alternatives would create anyshort-term, health-related concerns for the public duringconstruction or the implementation period.
16
500018
Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence address the long-termprotection and reliability that an alternative affords.
Under Alternative 1, the uncontrolled migration of contaminatedgroundwater would continue for an estimated 80-year period. Thiswould allow the risks to increase as the contamination migrates,with only natural attenuation to decrease the risks. However,long-term monitoring would track the movement and spread ofcontamination, and could be used in conjunction withinstitutional controls to reduce the chance of unintentional useof contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide long-term protection byreducing the groundwater contaminant concentrations to thecleanup goals. Therefore, health risks associated with thegroundwater contamination resulting from the site would bereduced to within the acceptable range of between 1 x 10"* to1 x 106 for carcinogens, and the Hazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be less than one. Once groundwater remediationis complete, no long-term monitoring would be necessary.Alternatives 2 and 3 both provide a permanent remedy.
Implementability
Implementability considerations address how easy or difficult,feasible or infeasible, it would be to carry out a givenalternative from design through construction and operation andmaintenance.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would be relatively easy. Noremedial action would be undertaken which would require specialconsideration. The groundwater monitoring program would berelatively straightforward, utilizing standard hazardoussubstance sampling and analytical techniques.
Implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 is also considered to berelatively easy. No special implementation considerations areanticipated. While it is expected that both Alternatives 2 and 3would reduce groundwater contamination concentrations to MCLs,the type of treatment system included in Alternative 2 has hadpreviously demonstrated success in treating contaminatedgroundwater at the Metaltec site. A similar system was used fortreating the flow from the dewatering operation during theremedial action at Parcels 2, 3, and 4, and for treating waterextracted during the pump test. While the technology included inAlternative 3 has not been used at the Metaltec site, it has beenused elsewhere for industrial waste treatment, and could beeffectively used for contaminated groundwater treatment.However, the equipment required for Alternative 2 may be morereadily available than the equipment required for Alternative 3.
17
500019
Costs are evaluated in terms of remedial action capital costs,operation and maintenance costs, and present worth.
The present worth of Alternative 2 is $4,348,900. The lowestcost alternative is Alternative 1, at $358,200. The highest costalternative is Alternative 3, at $4,535,000.
State Acceptance
The State Acceptance factor addresses whether the State of NewJersey supports, opposes, or has no comment on the preferredalternative.
The State of New Jersey supports the remedial action called forby the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
This evaluation factor addresses public reaction to the remedialalternatives which were considered, and the preferredalternative.
Issues raised during the public comment period and at the publicmeeting held on August 16, 1990, are addressed in theResponsiveness Summary section of this ROD.
SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121(b) of CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to selectremedial actions which utilize permanent solutions andalternative treatment technologies or resource recovery optionsto the maximum extent practicable. In addition, EPA prefersremedial actions that permanently and significantly reduce themobility, toxicity, or volume of site wastes.
After careful review and evaluation of the alternatives evaluatedin detail in the feasibility study, and consideration of allevaluation criteria, EPA presented Alternative 2, Pumping'/Precipitation/Air Stripping/Carbon Adsorption/Discharge, to thepublic as the preferred remedy for the groundwater contaminationat the Metaltec/Aerosystems site.
The input received during the public comment period, consistingprimarily of questions and statements submitted at the publicmeeting held on August 16, 1990, is presented in the attachedResponsiveness Summary. Public comments encompassed a range ofissues, but did not necessitate any major changes in thepreferred alternative for the site. Accordingly, the preferredalternative has been selected by EPA as the remedial solution forthe site.
18
500020
The goal of the remedial action at the Metaltec/Aerosystems siteis to restore the groundwater to MCLs. Based on informationobtained during the remedial investigation and on a carefulanalysis of the remedial alternatives, it is expected that theselected remedy will achieve this goal. However, studies suggestthat groundwater extraction and treatment remedies are not alwayscompletely successful in reducing contaminants to health-basedlevels in an aquifer. Actual operation of the remedial systemmay indicate the technical impracticability of reaching health-based water quality standards using this approach. If it becomesapparent, during implementation or operation of the remedialsystem, that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and areremaining relatively constant at levels higher that theremediation goal, that goal and the remedy may be reevaluated..
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for anestimated period of 10 years, during which the remedial system'sperformance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis andadjusted as warranted by the performance data collected duringoperation. Modifications may include:
a) installing additional wells, or utilizing other existingwells, for the extraction of groundwater;
b) discontinuing operation of extraction wells, under amultiple-well design, in areas where cleanup goals have beenattained;
c) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnationpoints; and
d) pulse-pumping to allow aquifer equilibration andencourage adsorbed contaminants to partition into thegroundwater.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedialdesign and remedial action phases for the site. These activitiesare described below.
The aquifers will be periodically monitored during theremedial design and remedial action phases, as well asfollowing the completion of the remedial action.During the remedial design, studies will be undertaken tofurther delineate the extent of contamination andgroundwater flow patterns, and to determine if theremediation of the groundwater contamination can beaccelerated by optimizing the extraction system.
19
500021
An assessment will be made during the remedial design toensure that any adverse impacts to any wetland areas will bemitigated.
A cultural resources survey will be prepared to ensurecompliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on the Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the regulations contained inthe NCP. EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is toundertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection ofhuman health and the environment. Additionally, several otherstatutory requirements and preferences have been established.These specify that, when complete, the selected remedy mustcomply with ARARs, unless a statutory waiver is justified.The remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanentsolutions and alternative treatment or resource recoverytechnologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, thereis a preference for remedies which employ treatment thatpermanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, orvolume of hazardous wastes as their principal element. Thefollowing sections discuss how the remedy selected for theMetaltec/Aerosystems site meets these requirements andpreferences.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy protects human health and the environmentthrough the extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
The extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater willsignificantly reduce the threat of potential exposure tocontaminated groundwater. The potential risk estimated under afuture use scenario in the PHE, is 3 x 10'2. The remedy, uponcompletion, will restore the aquifers to the MCLs. Therefore,health risks associated with the groundwater contaminationresulting from the site will be reduced to within the acceptablerange of between 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"* for carcinogens, and theHazard Indices for non-carcinogens will be less than one.
There are no short-term adverse impacts associated with theselected remedy which cannot be readily controlled. In addition,no cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
20
500022
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevantand appropriate action-, contaminant-, and location-specificrequirements. The ARARs are presented below.
Action-Specific
The selected remedy will be in compliance with all Federal andState ARARs. The cleanup goals for the remediation of thegroundwater are the MCLs which are standards for drinking water.Discharge of the treated water to the unnamed tributary toWildcat Brook will attain New Jersey surface water dischargelimitations. At present, the discharge limits for thecontaminants found at the site have been set at the methoddetection limits, which are presented in Table 21. Duringremedial design, ambient surface water sampling will be performedto enable the development of site-specific surface waterdischarge limits.
Contaminant-Specific
MCLs will be used as cleanup goals for the groundwaterremediation.
Location-Specific
The site is not within the coastal zone as defined by the Stateof New Jersey. Additionally, there are no Federally designatedwild and scenic rivers and there are no significant agriculturallands in the vicinity of the site. The project area may besensitive for the discovery of cultural resources. Therefore, asdiscussed earlier, a cultural resources survey will be preparedduring remedial design. Additionally, a wetlands assessment willbe performed at that time to determine the presence of andpotential impacts on wetland areas.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alterative Treatment orResource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the selectedremedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutionsand treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effectivemanner for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. Of the alternativesthat are protective of human health and the environment, andcomply with ARARs, EPA and the State have determined that theselected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in termsof long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-termeffectiveness, implementability, cost, and State and communityacceptance.
21
500023
Alternative 2 reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of thecontaminants in the groundwater; complies with ARARs; provides;both short- and long-term effectiveness; and protects humanhealth and the environment equally as well as Alternative 3.The costs for both of the alternatives is also relatively close.However, Alternative 2 may be more easily implemented thanAlternative 3. Alternative 1, while representing the least costand easiest implementability of all of the alternatives, isevaluated as the worst alternative in terms of the otherevaluation criteria. Therefore, the selected remedy isdetermined to be the most appropriate solution for thecontaminated groundwater at the Metaltec/Aerosystems site.
The State of New Jersey is in concurrence with the selectedremedy.
The Proposed Plan for the Metaltec/Aerosystems site was releasedfor public comment on July 27,1990. The Proposed Plan identifiedAlternative 2 as the preferred alternative, EPA reviewed allwritten and verbal comments submitted during the public commentperiod. Upon review of those comments, it was determined that nosignificant changes to the remedy, as it was originallyidentified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
Cost Effectiveness
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 effectively address the threats posedby the groundwater contamination at the site for relatively closecosts. However, the selected alternative affords the higherlevel of overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. Theselected alternative is determined to be cost-effective becauseit provides the highest degree of protectiveness among thealternatives evaluated, while representing cost value.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater, theselected remedy addresses the threats posed by the site throughthe use of treatment technologies. Therefore, the statutorypreference for remedies that employ treatment as a principalelement is satisfied by the selected remedy.
22
500024
FIGURE
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS
e
US (NVIIIONMI Nl*l PlilJII CIION
ii Nl.t
TMMT 1
MI IAI ii i /AI »ir,vr,n MA surSIIMMAPY III ( III M|l AI r, 1)1 III || II |N I inr,
W T I I S IN I.RrtNIIII I.NI I'.S AHII DVI WIIIIIJIII N lin.RAIHIMI Or Illf M IT
UNll*i: mi/1
Compound
Count of - Ci»i«l n( ('mini ill
Va l id Analyse? Oil. iirrpm.PS Ili'ih'lPi.t •
Minifiliint of Cniml of
H.i * i mum Grnmplrir He .in-* Is l inMlpd R p j p i t o d
Com fill t at i on gf V<J I ' d Analysps, Valnr--, V.« UPS
Vol .it i IP (Jrij.ini cs
Mplhylpnp (.hloridp
1 ,2-Oithloroplhylene ( total )
Chloroform
Trichloropthylene
3
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
5
3
?.;•
r *
i
n.?
2.V
2.100
\2
ri
110
36.01
7.327
0
0
n
0
0
-i
0
0
0
0
5e"»i vo'at i les
his<2- t thy1nexy1 5.267
Inorganics
Chromidin
Copper
lead
Manganese
Zinc
7
3
3
7
3
4
2
2
7
3
3
1
I
0
0
5"
12.5*
2.5*
IB
26
119
3fl
40
U.900
i5n
IB. 60
21.18
14.42
249.67
49.76
0
0
0
4
0
0
14
0
/I
V w«.11*: OB-1. OB-2. OB-3. BR-1. BR-2. 8R-3, Boro Mel) and
'' Va l id analy^** T occurri«oc*s » undelect*.
• H.ilf »hp CIP contract detection limit.
•• Not sitp-rplatpd.
3' Half Ihp f.l P contract detection limits are used for the
"Data arp rppnrfprf only for cosnposjnd*. ocrurrprf at IS-.T.! onrp in ! nnrrnf rs! ! or.^ Pu«;a! 'o or rKtPshowed miMiple ofcurrpnce^ in other wel ls /s tat ions and/nr Ihp romfiounds have hiqh t o x i c i l y " .
the CIP contract detect ion liniiis. s {><* < i Ompoi;n<i-,
Z.2000S
TAnir 2
HI TAI T i r / A f U n S Y S I ! MS SI IFsiiMMAUv oi uii MI i Ais in 111 ii n IN iinn
W I I I S INC.RAMUH I,HI T,S AMU OVI MMUI'III N MI't.PAII 11 Ml 1)1 Illf Sill'. ''
I IH I IS : m i / I
Compound \
V o l a t i l e Orqanics
ACP| onp
Chloroform
1 .7-Dirhlornpthylpnp (total)
Tr ich loropt hylene
Semi vglali IPS
bis(?-r.»hylheiiy1)phlha1ale
Ingrganic$
Chromi nm
Copper
Lead
Manqanese
Zinc
fount of ^ fount of/a l id Analyses 0«.i iirrpiiip'
15 1
16 4
16 5
16 11
16 4
16 12
16 fl
16 9
15 10
12 9
{ nn nt f > 1
5 IJiulHpl. Is
11
I?
IIr,
12
1
n
n
5
1
M * n » in im
Con< cnl i ,il ion
r,"
1
?
1
5"
5*
6.6
2.4
2.5*
10°
M.i « i mumCQIK cnl.r.il ion
r.M)
4 .?
97
24
43
790
55.9
36.1
1.3WI
229.0
TppOPirl r i r Mnan ^0 * _ V j l id. An^1jr%f ^
f,.fl40
2.339
3.137
4.000
7.156
33.40
14.34
4.4fW
47.09
42.24
1 r.\ im.it p«1
0
0
n
0
i
0
0
i
i
i
1 IMMM 1M
S I' JIM 1 P(l
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
'/ WolU: OB-1. OB-2. 08-3. BB-1. IW-2, BR-3. Boro Well and Tranek.
^' Valid analyses - occurrences * undetccts.• Half thp CLP contract detection limit.
•* No« site-related.3' Half the CLP contract detection limits are used for the ondetects."Oata are rpported only for compounds occurred at least once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unless tlie compoundsshowprf multiple occurrences in other wells/stations and/or the compounds have hi«|h loxicity".
82000S
Wl 1 1
Mr t AI irr /At ROSY'.!! nr, st i rMIMMAHY (II I I I I H K A I S III II (|| || |N I
IN r.RANIIM I.MI IV. ANII OVI IIHHWH n OM-MII AMII nnWNC,RAnirNTIll MM MM "
UNI IS; ii. |/ 1
Compound V
Vo la t i l e Or«|,inics
V iny l CMoridp
f.hloropt lianp
Mpfhylpnp cMoridp
Af ptonp
I.I Dirh'oroPlhylene
1 , l-Oi rhl or on thane
1 .7-Oirhloropthylene (total)
1,1. 1-trirhloroe thane
Irirhloropthylpne
lolupnp
Jfini vglat i IPS
bis(2-fthy1hpxy1 )nh thai ate
Chromium
Copper
lead
Manganese
Zinc
Count of <•'jl id Analyst
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
f nun! nf>5 0 r«, in rriit.r
^T.
3
7
7.
3
1
4
3
3
2
2
31
4
2
Count nfS IJndPt.pi 1 •;
1
1
1
2
7
1
0
011
2
21
2
0
0
M i n T mum H.t M i mCom cut i ,il ion CnniPiitr
'•* 3.-100
•>• IrtO
y.r,' HO5* 3.000
2V f ,7
2.5' 1.500
21 10.000
3.7 2 . 150
2.5* 3.100
2.5" 2R5
5' 24
5« 2612.5* 3192.5' 53
210 3.10051.5 70
fount ofurn Gpomrtric Mean-'' l%lim.i|pdM'on of. ..Valid Ana'ysq
If.ft . flfl
127.57
20.53
57.9?
fl.590
226.00
1322.0
212.24
229.02
36.75
,.„,
II. 29
5fl.B5
I0.2B
121B.2
61.76
S Values
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11111
Count ofIf p JPC t pd"jlurs __
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
010
2
'/ MplH On-4A. OB-4B. OB-10, BR-4. RR-6. BR-B, BR-IO, HPW an
2' V^lid analyses = occurrences » ono>lecti.
" Half the amount of the CLP contract detection limit.
•• Not site-related.3' H^lf tnp amount of the CLP contract detection limits are used for thp undetects.
"Oat a .irp rrpor>e>d only for compounds occurred at Ipast once in r nncent rat ion^ pqu^l fn or exrppd the CLP contract detection lisniti,
siiuwpfi m i l t i p l p otrorrpnces in olhpr wpl 1 s/stat tons ^nd/or the compounds have hiqh tonicily".
unlrss ths1 c
62000S
MI IAI H r/Ai RosvitrMs st i rSUMMARY (II ( HI MM Al S III Ml III) IN linn
wins IN r.pANim I.NMSS AMD nvi RIIIIPMI N ON M M ANI> nnwwr.RAnirNr(M IMI Mil ''
Compound V
Vol at. i IP. Orrj.inics
Vinyl Chloride
Ch 1 oropl hanp
1 . 1 -Oil III or OP thane
1 .?-Oirhli>roPlhy1en«? (total)
1 , 1 , l-Fri rhloropt hane
Tri thloropthylene
Toluene
Semivglati l?$
his(?-rthylhpxyl)phtha1ate
Inorganic J
ChromiumCopperLeadHanqane**
Zinc
Count of ?'a' id Anal ysr
M
14
14
14
1214
14
14
14
14
1214
10
Count "1
'5 0*. ( HI 1 PMr PS
f,
3r,
1.3
7
17.
2
'
7
7
11
12
7
(mint ,il
U.«|pi.p«.ts
nIIni5
7
12
11
7
7
1
22
M i n i mumC om. pn ( t .1! t on
r •
r,«
7.5'
2.5"
2.5*
7.ri*2.5*
5*
5*
5*
2.3*
7.5'
10*
M.i N i mumConi rnl r.it ion
1,700
no/on
n.noni , ion3.700
135.
22
269
54.5
17.33.395
406
dpomrtrir Mean^/
ol Vji 1 i d Analyses
49.74
1 1.44
75.97
701 - 4fl
53. «1
141.70
4.326
6.091
9.99312.844.363
345.94248.44
Count ofr s 1 i n.i 1 PC
V.,|,,PS
ni0
0
0i0
i
iiii3
Count of1 Rr jp. tpd
V,i IMPS
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
205
1' Wells: OB-4, OB-48, 08-10. BR-4, BR-6. BR-8. BR-10. MfW and Varqpnn«»%.
2' Valid analyses = occurrenc** * und«?l*cl».
• Half the CLP contract det«Uon limit.
3' Half thp CLP contract detfction limit* ari? wsrd for thp unrfp|Pr(s.
"O.ita ar«> rpfiort^rf only for compound* occurred at |pa«;l once in concentration* equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limit*, unless the rslmwprf mult iple orcvirrenre* in other >»11 s/*tat inn*, .ind/or the compnunds "IHVP riiqfi i ox i c i t y " .
otooos
o
T ». B T tr 5
METALTIC/AEROSVSTEMS SITECHEMICALS DETECTED IN1988 BACKGROUND WELLSSCREENED IN DOLOMITE
UNITS: ug/1
Eefrcck Well BR-3
Lead 1-7B
Ksngsnese 61.7
Zinc 35.2
E • cc.-?cur.c alsc detected in Blank,
500031
TAW.C 6
MTTAI r rc /ACRnsYsr rMs snrSUMMARY (II (HI Mil At S 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 IN llPr,
W I I I S IH IKHOMIH /VMII OVI Iflllll'lll N OIIWMr.PAIIII NT(H I Ml Mil ''
KM I IV. i"|/l
Compound
Vgl.it i Ip Organic 5
Ac pt onp
Chi orof orm
Tr i chloropthylene
Oen*enp
Jemi volat i 1?S
Phpnol
Inorganics
Chromium
Copper
Nanqanese
Zinc
Count of *•Vjl id Analyses
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
Conn t of ( ount o 1
On in mm c\ llnilpt Pt. 1 S
2 ?.
2 1
1 S
1 5
1 5
2 4
6 0
4 2
2 2
Minimum M.txinmm Gpompfric Mpan*
Com c"l ' •'! i on Com i-ul. i .it i gn gf V j 1 i d Analyst
?70 35.30
0 r> 6 . C,r, 2.011
2.5* 3.7 2.669
0.09 2.5 1.436
5* 7 5.2Bfl
5- 91 10.13
12.5* 90 20.23
7.5* 2.960 99.49
10- 50 22.36
Count of)' 1 •;( invilpd
»s v.iiue*;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Count ofBe jo< t pd
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
- V«?1U: OB-5, BR-5. BR-7. Nieves, Norman, Serin and
V Valid analyses = oecurrencM and undft*cts.
• Half the CIP contract detection Hmit.
•• Not sile-related.
3' Half thp the CIP contract detection limits are uspd for the
"0;»ta arp rpportpH only for compounds occurred at tpast once in conrentrat ion^ equal to or excppd the CLP contract detection limits, unless thp compoundsshowprf multiple occurrences in other wells/stations unit/or thp compounds havp hiqh toxicity".
seooos
HI ? AI II I /A l l fOSYMI W, MirMIMMAUY ni 1111 MII AI •, 111 ii i ii ii IN linn.
W i l l ' , in IHIIIIMIU AMII nvl mn|j;|i| M |it)WMi,IMI>| I Nf01 III) Mil "
I IM I tS ; n. )/ 1
rijmpQiini) \
Volal i le Organ its
• *Are! onp
1 .7-Dirhloropthylpne (Total)
Tr i rh'oropl hylene
Semi volat i le
biM7-rihylheny1)phtha1ale
Inorganics
Chromi urn
Copper
Lead
Hanqanese
Zinc
fount of 2'/al id Analyse;
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
to
fnltnl nl fount o 1Oi. <. in i rni. ("V U"*1''l *''. t '.
1 1?
1 1?
1 17
1 17
3 10
13 0
6 5
8 5
n 2
fount ofMinimum Maximum Gpnmplric Mpan^' 1 •, 1 i m.i 1 oil
( oiM.oil i ,i| ion C""i nnl.r.il ion ql V.ilid Analyses V.ilups
r>* m.non n.3n7 o
7.S* 3.0 2.r>3'i 0
7.S- 7f. 2.^03 0
5* 7 5.131 0
•>* 816 10.127 0
6.0 3M 17.96 0
0.0 121 7.631 0
7.5" 12. BOO 72. 9B 1
7 1.160 61.52 1
fnunl ofKr jor 1 pdV.HUPS
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
IX Wells: nn-S. BR-5, BR-7. Kiev**. Norman. Serin and Wheats.
2' Valid analyses = occurrences and undetects.
• Half the amount of the CIP contract detection limits.
•* Not site related.
3' Half the amount of th* CIP contract detection limits are used for the undetects.
"Data are reported only for compounds occurred at least once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unl»ss thf compoundsshnwpd multiplp occurrences in other we!1s/stationi and/or Ihe compounds havp hinh toxic'ty".
eeooos
TABLE 8
PUMP TEST DATA
AVERAGE CRO'JNDWATER VOA CONTAMINATION
•£~-~-•_• r.z Average Contar^:
Organic
Vir.y] Chloride 1240 ug/LChicroethane 20 ug/LMethylene Chloride 158 ug/L1,1 - Dichlorcethene 78 ug/L1.1 - Dicr.loroetbane 117 ug/L1.2 - Dichloroethene 8750 ug/L1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 1180 ug/LTrichloroethene 22000 ug/LTe t r e r h l c r c e t h a n e 27 ug/LTciuer.e • 92 ug/LXy 1 e r. e s 2 ua/L
29354 ug/L
n f w r t e r I n o r c s r . : c Con t a r r . i n s t i o n :1 9 E E G r £ T; : t e G n e i s s
•••
Ircr. 19 mg/1K = r. : = r.£E£ 5 mg/1Cr.::-:_- 26 ug/1Crcrer - 15 ug/1Zir.-: 44 ug/1Leac 5 ug/1
500034
MMAI Trr/ArRmwfM'; r,nrSUMMARY Of I III Mil A l * , III lit II I) IN I'l/l/l AMI) I "
sum At i WAII I ; SAMCI ir, iin.uAiin NI ni mi r,in
Count of <•'CoTOVnd Val id. Analjscs
Inor ij.ini f. j
M*nn,nP,P 3
/inc 3
fount nf fount of
Olturrmi.PS IJn i lc tC< '5
3 0
3 0
Count of Count, ofMinimum Maximum Cipomplric Mpan-' fstimatpd Rrjpctrd
Content r.it. ion Conr^nlr,»t ion of Vj 1 id Ana IjsfS V,iluP% Vjluc^
70 601 I99.11 3 0
10 117 ?9.07 I 0
" Stations: S-l. 5-2 and S-8 sampled In 19B5. llflfl and 1989.
'' Valid analyses = occurrences and undelects for the undetects ( IW) Mptal analyses are not available).
• Half the CIP contract detection limits.
•" Half the CIP contract detection limits are used.
"Data are reported only for compounds occurred at least once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CtP contract detection limits, unless the con^ounshowed multiple occurrences In other wells/stations and/or the compounds have high loxicity".
cnooo00
ui
Ulooou>cr>
10rrr / f t i posYSirH4; sitr
or ( M i M K A i s 111 MI iro IN i'»nn anrf 1909F W A T T R SAMi'irs AII.IAIINI ID OH IHIWUUJAIMIMI 01 POIINHAI. sniiRcrs or CONIAMIMATTON'''
I in I lr,: mi/1
C^POVnu
Vol. if. i IP Qrq.inir.s
V iny l rh 1 or irfp
1 , 1-Oirhloropthane
1 , 1 nifhlornplhpne
1 ,7-Oir.hloroplhylpne
Tri thloroethylene
Inorganics
Chromium
Manqanese
Zinc
Count ol '' ('mini ol Count olVjlnJ Analyses 0«.i.in i PII(PS IJmlpI PI l.%
13 r- n
13 :i to
13 1 1?
(total) 1 3 9 - 1
13 H 7.
4 <1 0
4 4 0
4 3 1
Minimum H.mimtrmf.O'HP"'. ftit. i on Con', pnt r.il. ion
1.1 70
? . 19
2.5- 5.5
2.5* IIM)
?.5* 790
6.2 6.8
10 199
7.7 15.1
ol V^ l td .An j I
4.697
2.913
2.656
29.27
39.22
6.VJ6
88.99
tO. 88
Count of.flo;!/ f - i l -m^ tpd
7
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
Cnunt ofRp jpr 1 PI!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1' SUtioos: S-3. S-4. 5-5, S-7 am) S-9.
2^ Valid analyi*?* = occurrence* » ondetects (1989 metal analyses arp not available).
• Half tne Cir contract detection Unit.
3' Half the CIT contract detection limits are ined for the undetect*.
"Oata are reported only for compound* occurred at least onre in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unless the compounshowed multiple occurrence* in other weMs/stations and/or the compounds have high tox ic i ty" .
TAJ1I !
MMAI TI r/Ai wnsv.rMS snrSUMMARY nr ( M I M K A I S 1)1 III III) IN I'lM". AND
IN WHIM A! HRIMIK MINI A( I WA 1 1 h SAMH I SAl Mil MINI I III Nil Wi l l ! IMI IINNAHIII M Ml AM
UNI 15: (l,|/l
Count of *
Val id Analyses
Count o f Count of
(KcvrremcS
Minimum
ConC''»l'Ot, 'OnM,i«iimim
C9"l.enlr<il ionGeometric Mean-*
Q'_V*I io* .
Counl offstinwilpdvalues __
Count ofRpjcc tpH
values _
Inorganics
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
1 1 0
1 1 0
1 1 0
6.4
48.1
I/. 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1X Station: S-« sampled In 1985. 1908. and 1989.
£ Valid analyses - occurrences 4- undetects (1989 Metal analyses are not available).
• Half the CLP contract detection 1i*it.
3' Half the CLP contract detection limits are used for the undelects.
"Data are reported only for compounds occurred at least once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unless (he compounishowed multiple occurrences in other wells/stations and/or the compounds have high toxicity".
01OoO00
TABLE 12
MT rAi irc/AfRosYSHM*, SITESIIMMAWY 01 C M I M K A I S III II (II I) |N
SltllMtW SAMI'LTS ( Oil I ( M II IN I'WII UIT.WAOIINI Or MIE SITE.
UNI IS: AS INniCAIIII
LOMI-UUNO
INWWV1ICS
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manqanese
Zinc
COUNT or (•'VAUL) .ANALYSIS
(«,/k.|)
3
3
3
3
3
COIINI orOUURRINU
3
3
3
3
3
((MINI 015 _ UNIII. uiis .....
fl
0
0
0
0
MINIMUMCQNll NIHAI IQN
1 .1
/I
5.8
256
0.9
MAXIMUMCONI.INIHAIION
11.1
51. 1
15.7
30RO
762
MI AN orVALIII ANALYSES
11.51
16.33
16.93
629.25
43.13
COUNT orF.S1 IMA IEII VALUES
2
0
2
0
1
COUNI orRl JI.LIEP VALUE S_.
0
n
0
0
0
1' Stations: S-1, S-2 and S-8.
2^ Valid analyses - occurrences and undetects.
• HaH the CLP contract detection 1i«it.
3' HaH the CLP contract detection Hwits were used for the undetects.
"Data are reported only for compounds occurred at leatt once in concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection linits. unless the compoundsshowed Multiple occurrences in other wells/stations and/or the compounds have high toxicity".
171OOOLO00
MTMI rrr/AnnttYSTrM<;or ( H i M i i A i s in ii ( t i n IN rmn,
SAMI'HS AIM/MINI III (IB IIOWNI.PAIHI Ml Of HMINIIAI.MMIIM I c> 111 I ONIAMINAIION. l/
(INKS: AS INtl irAtin
roiiNi or 2/r_OMPOUNO VAI II) ANALYSIS
Violyrhlor'nl*' 4
Mflhylrn*. fhloridp** 4
1 , t-Oi rhloroelhane 4
( In ta l )
SrmvOU^MlCS (wt/ln})
his(?-rihylhexy1)
Chromium 4
Copper 4
lead 4
Maopanese 4
Z»nc 4
1' Stations: 5-3. 5-4. 5-5 and
2' Valid analyses = occurrences
COIINF or roiiNi 01OUURRlNcrv ' i IWIHIIUS
I »
7 ?
1 .1
1 3
1 3
4 0
4 0
4 0
4 0
2 2
5-7
and undetects.
r.ioMt rnir1/MINIMUM MAXIMUM MIAN 01 fOIINI Or H.'WT 01
CONl.l HMIAI ION (ONI. INIRATKW VAI III ANALYSES t SI IMAII 0 VAIIjt 5 RF JI.C TD _VAlUtS._
7/n i.3.rir» o 9
7 r'* r 3.inr, 2 0
?.V ?S 4.44fi I 0
2.S' 17r, 9.7B2 0 0
165* S-IS 222.44 I 0
6.7 27 12.03 4 0
19.8 319 42.14 0 0
11.1 SB.B 26.65 4 0
512 2920 889.79 0 0
2° 662 18.96 2 0
3'
Half the CLP contract detection limit.
Half the CLP contract detection limits were used for the undetects.
"0»»* are r^porlerf nnl jr for Cfjmpoundt occurred at Ipjut onrr in ronceo! rat ions e<fual lo or exceed lh«> CIP cnrtlract oetection l imits, unless tfve compoundsthnw«-rl imj|lip!f> nrcurrpotPs in other wel ls/stat ions and/or Ihe co"f>oiinds ha»e hifjh t o x i c i t y " .
e e o o o s
O
Su
Joseph ZoltakRD #1 217AFranklin, New Jersey 07416
Dear Mr. Zoltak:
This is in response to your August 17, 1990, letter concerningThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Planfor the Metaltec/Aerosystems site, located in Franklin Borough,New Jersey.
EPA does not anticipate that the groundwater extraction will havea significant effect on the private wells in the area. Therelatively low pumping rate planned for the remedy, should notcreate a significant drawdown on the aquifer in the area. If,however, an adverse impact were encountered, mitigative stepswould be initiated.
Your comments are always appreciated. If you have any furtherquestions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to writeor call me at (212) 264-1873.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald Rusin, Project ManagerNorthern New Jersey Remedial Action Section
500040
tABir 14
WIAI Tu/ArposYStrMs surSIIMMAMY 01 UK MUMS nimiin IN
WILDCAT BROOK SfniMfNI SAMPirS (OHM I l l l IN I'tflll Al (IK fONfltflNCr WITH TUT l/NNAMEn STREAM,
UNI IS: AS
COUNT or *.' COIINI orCOMPOUND VALIO ANALYSES 0(.tUI»" MCrS
IMOMGANICS (mq/Vq)
Thromiiim 1 1
Copppr 1 1
lead 1 1
Manqanpse 1 1
Zinc 1 1
roi IN i or
0
0
0
0
0
MINIMUM MAXIMUM MIAN OfLnNI.INIMAMON U)N( 1 MIRAT ION VAI III ANALYSES
I-I.7
7f. . 1
M.O
?nr,
Z67
roimr orESI IMAM II VAIIJI S
n
0
0
0
0
err INT orRtJECMII VAIUES__
a
0
0
0
0
•'•' Stations: S-6
*' Valid analyses = occurrences and undetects.
Half the CIP contract detection Um»t.
^ Half the CLP contract detection limits were used for the undelects.
"Data are reported only for compounds occurred at least once In concentrations equal to or exceed the CLP contract detection limits, unless tte compoundsshowed multiple occurrences in other wells/stations and/or the compounds have high toxici tjr".
U1OOO
Ulooo£>.to
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF CHCMICALS OF POTFNTIAL CONCERN
AND CONCENtRAT IONS IN GROUNOUATER,
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS
Ground Water Surface Uater
UG = UpgredientDG = DowngradientNO * Not detected at concentrations above the EPA CLP detection limit.* = Not selected as a chemical of potential concern. Maximum concentration is within
the range of background concentrations.
Sediment
Chemical
Organic Chemicals (ug/kg):AcetoneBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateChloroethaneChloroform1 , 1-Oichloroethane1 , 1-Dichlorethene1,2 DichloretheneC total)Methylene chlorideToluene1, 1 ,1-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride
Inorganic Chemicals (mg/fcg):ChromiumCopperLeadManganeseZinc
Avq
6.87.2m2.3NO
3.1
NDND4NO
33H4.54742
Grani t icUGMean
5504NO4.2ND
97
NDND24ND
7905636
1.400230
Gne i s sOG
Avg
NO6.111ND26
200
4.354HO50
10134.435048
Mean
ND22310ND700
6,000
HO1,1003,2001,200
2705517
3,400490
Dolomi te
AVG MEAH
9.45.1
2.5
3
10187.67365
18,0007
3
26
820370120
13,0001,200
Avg
2.92.729
394.7
*6.6
•89•11
Mean
19.05.5
1,200
79020
•6.8
•200*15
AVG
220
4.4
9.33.4
14
M24227
*890*19
ME AH
550
25
4807
270
«2732059
*2.900•660
TABLE 17
cs.:TEs:t FOR CHI-JCA.S or POTENTIAL CONCERN AT THE METALTEC SITE
Re'e-e-.ce Dose
- c a y )Se'ety
Fac to r ( t ) Source (c)
EFA/CASCance-
Poten:yFictrr fd)
(ms/kc./oey)-lYeisi t e'
Ev ioence (e )
AcetoneI : j [<-e: • ; > " - » » v " ;:-Cr-. 'c-oet". j-»Ch'.s-c'r-1,1-;;-.:" ',e-eet v.e
I. J - D > c h " c r e e t i e i e
fce: "\i 'eie ".• ';:••;«Tc iueifI . '. . ;->':k ':-:e'.-s-e
.2 . 0 - - 0 2
: . o i -C2i .o : -c i
[: .0:-::j(f)S . O E - C 3
3 . 0 - - C 2 ( s )£ .C:- :23.C-- : :S.O: - :27.3: -03 *
l . O C Ol . O O D
i.o::i.oo:1,0001.000
1.00010D:o:
i . c o o1,00:
I R I SI R I S
I R I SHE*HEAI R 2 S
HA (h)I R I SI R I SI R I SHA (H)
1.4E-02
6.1E-03S.U-C2
C.OE-02t l .2E*00](k)
7.5E-03
1.1E-D2[ < . 6 E - 0 3 ] ( k )2 . 3 E * D O
DE2
DB2
B2/C •
[C] (DD
620D
B2IK] ( i )W (D
Cr.'O" '
Ccpoe-Lee:
SOD( j )100
10
I R I S( J )
HE*H E A
DD
B2 (IT.)DD
O' «:•.:•; - ; E : '.: : f - e ' : : - E ' ' e - e ~ ; e cises ft tL ;-:s-
•03'jcts of unee-teir . ty and no t i fy ing f a r t e r s .• -':• ••-... - t : - . : - E ::-£ <: z* r..': - : 'es :' 1C. es:- f a : t c - re;-ese". n; a s p e c i f i c area of u n c e r t a i n t ye-f. •• t••£ :;-.: s . j - ' i : ' e Tie s-.s"4-c u i c e ' t a m t y f a c t o r s i n c l u d e :
t i o r ir, ser-sit w.t> ancr,; the membe-s of the human
.-:e ;•
t.-.:-.- :: e:cc.-
t :::• :: i:::.• ':• tie u - . c e - t a i n t y ir e x t r a p o l a t i n g er.inil oata to the case off" ur , ; t - t a i r , t>- ir e j t f a p c ' a t in; fror less than ch'or.ic N3AL.S to ch-omc
fc- t ie u ' ice- ta i r . t> ir . e x t - a p o ' a t i n j f-or LOAEls te N O A E L s .: « c ieT- .ce ' f i l e s e' the j r t e j - a t e : R i s k Jnfonre t ic r . System as of 6/1/69.
(S.T.S-V t a c l e s , M j r c h } S £ 9 ) .'.' ;i-;'.- ::•.£•:.. •' = ;•.:• e>:e: ' . as n;*.e::••. ;•' e, - : = - : « ' : ' t s s - ' • :e'. • :- stSe-* fo* c a - c i n o g e n s : A--Kjr.ei C a r c i n o j e r . s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e frcxr
•.£• e : - : « - :':;•;;" s t . r - e j . £:--"'irsr ' .*• h.-v- C«-c ins se - . 1>r-.:er ev ioenie fenr er -oe-ic'icf ie* 1. : •«• ; •- : ::s:.i'.t e- ;e-:e '-;" f 'T^ ' s t c c i e s . E 2 - - f r t s & : l > h.r.i- C s r c i n c j e - , i neoec .a t e e» ioer .ce frsr
s t u e s , C - - F c s $ ' t ' i e h.,-<n Ca-cmsjer , . liimeio*te; D--Nct C'i ei ts to ca ' c ino j e r . i c i t y ; »nc
: .il is:
: • s is;•»•..'• •• :•*:•.£-.* u ir.ia'af.oi r e f e r e n c e dose.t..
: e - - v e : '•;•-• je fc - :-;v::..ci'c.'j-.e: :e<er c- c-:::se: r-mnn; nater standard. Not an EPA verified RfD.
.6 •• :-j:-.e'.s is -r.ie',«•.-.;• ca--:e* potency factor.
'"^ a d » i $ : - y .
e- - :e- :e : e s s •fo* p:'.e-.tie' e t io i cercinoger,.
'r-es "• :e>e'.::e: « pc te i :> f a c t o r ' f c - lead but h*s c" iass i f ied"i t as a s roup B2 carc inogen.
- ^ t e - T - <--n •-.:-. tee- oevelcoei for t h i s cher.icel.;e- re. 'e- c> t ' A .
500043
T A 5 . E 16
.A^ 0: EX»:$JS.[ P f M W f S T: E:Fl'i •'!*" ri; T.T M T - . -:L > A. .**• . * ~ w~. I -.. ... i A, ..
Fx;:se:
.-•e-: it-.; use
See-:.. res - .oe*ts I n h e ' l a t i s * , of cher i -e l s the*, havev o l a t i l i z e s Iryr su r f ace w a t e r .
C" ' ; -e- p la .v .n j in De*T7ii" a t sc 'p t iOR of ch*ir,icals ink.--.e-«: t t resT s u r f a c e w a t e r .
C-- ' : - e - : '«yir.; in DeT-<'! a b s o r p t i o n cf ehemiceU In
::-.-£-. :t •'.'..-e Le-,: Use:
• e: : e -: $q.e' ••.e:-ve e » e * d » * . IB*, o' cthe*
exp:s.-f ess::'.e:e: wi th
o
(JiOoOit*
TABLE 18
Hazard Indices (HI) and Cancer Risks Associated with the PotentialExposure Pathways at the Metaltec Site
Exposure Pathway HIAvg. Max.
Upper-BoundCancer Risk
Avg. Max.
Inhalation of chemicals that have < 1 < 1volatilized from surface water
Dermal absorption of chemicals in < 1Surface water
Ingestion of groundwater 0.9
< 1
Dermal absorption of chemicals in < 1 < 1sediments
30
< 1 x 10-6
< 1 x 10-6
< 1 X 10
3 x 10"
-6
2 X 10-6
< 1 X 10-6
< 1 X 10-6
3 X 10-2
TABLE 19
FEDERAL AND STATE MCLs FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ATMETALTEC/AEROSY8TEMS
CONTAMINANT FED. MCL (UCT/1) N.J. MCL (ua/1)
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Xylenes
Manganese
200
5
5
2,000
10,000
2
2
10
26
1
1
44
50
500046
r 20SUMMARY Of r,ROtFNt)WAII R AUCRNAMVfS
AI rrRNAT ivr i:NU AX.I (UN
lonq-tprm <jrniiiilw.il pr n»on i t or inij;r e s t r i c t HPVP I opmpnt of qr omulwalpr for pot an IP or train 11 ip.ilwj»tpr USPS. Pub I ir. Awarpnp'.'.Proc|r»m. f i v e yrar rrvirw..
tor t -Term
Timp u n t i l protection Could be implemented in I to ?is aihipvpd (alter weeks; but w i l l take 10 yearsconstruction contract to achieve cleanupi s i
Be%trlcte«J accvst (nit warningliqnv will protect »«jain%t
Protection of Commu-n i ty during rempHialactions
Al Tf RNAt IVr 7PIIMI'IHl./l'lll I M'l I At ION/AMI ', \ WII ' l ' iN( , / ( AIIIUIMAll jt.WI
|>i (»l »'f .« I l» y |tr (•< i p t t .1 1 ion;
I » r .it ii -. t it 1 1 .» i r ^ 1 c t |I|IIM (
r ,1 1 linn .itl -. ii r p t i fin ;
it t '. t li.lt <|*' t l n . f l c f l walrr in to
I r i In it .1* y If) W i I ill .1 1 II » nnV .
firomulw.i t or ro l lp r t inn .miltrp.ilmpo! •; y-; t(»m wnillll l.lko (ipto I yo.»r fin ilr', ii|M .milron^lniit inn. Ml yr.ir1;for trr.?tmrnt tn .nlMPvpr I p^n-np *|!i.i I .
Morm.il const ruct ion
( rps t r i c t o r t ^ r rpss . < on fro I off i i f j i l ivp pmissi nns , pt c - J w i l lprntprt a«|.iin\l expoMire unttdprmal contact .
Al ITPNTIvr 1:rui ( MM i AI M»w/»i2n2-iiv
• IX IIIA I I (»N/( AMUIJN A|I',<JR!'T | ON/d I S
Pump .»ml rnl l rr t nroondw.il pr ;
pt i - t rn. i l l>y prrr i |> 1 I jt i mi;
llf.lt II'. lri.| M-,()^-t|V ()«nl.«-
I ion .mil i .11 bun Afl'.orpt ion;d i •. i li.n I|P Irp.ilnl w.ttpr
mill Irilint.l'y lo Milrfr.lt flrooli .
Al t r rns t ivp
.»<; Alternative
Protection of worker* H<n<M>1 protect'o" requiredduring rpmedial actions durlnq famptinq and monitoring.
fn\ironmental Continued Migration of qround-w«t«r contaninantf fro* the sit*.
llpalth and safety protectionanH air emissions controlrpqui red.
No adverse environmentalimpacts except sitp c'paring.
Health and Safety Protectionrpqu i rpff.
Same as Alternative 2.
»d
Magnitude of ResidualRisk
fhe contamination would remainat the site and migrateoff-site.
Mo ret I dual risks, onceremrdiation is complete.
Adequancy of Controls Crowndwater monitoring will track Ho long-term control required.contaminant migration. Institu-tional control should restrictthe development ol qroundwaler forpotable and municipal water
cnooo
Same as Alternative
Same as Alternative
5UMMABY fjr
AirrRNAUVT 1
- Wrl i.ih il f o n t rols rtroundw.»t r r fnoo-'or ini i
ble (or tr .vkt" i | < on! .in
mi <|rat. i on .
i r I i ,i -
Reduction 0' Mobil i ty| M » ' t < ly vi
- treatment proress and No treatment provided forrenwil y
- Amount of contaminated None by treatment;material destroyed attenuation would continue to
or t realrd
Reduction of toxicity None bymnbi1i ty or
Irrevertibility of
treatment
Type and quantitytreatment residual
Iiw1c»«enU>iJULli
- Ab i l i t y to constructtrrlmoloqy
Bpl iabillty ofnn! oqjr
p of undertakinqAddition* I rrmrdial
ion,
No treatment Involved.
No treatment Involved
No construction Involved
No technology ut111 red.
E««y to und^rlak*.
orfan br monilofd
TAIIir 20Al. M.RNAf IVt $ ANALYSIS
? •
.Iv.-.l.
AIrunr if"./'1'') i iri int ION/AIM Mil |IT|MI,/I (Ml HUM
/vir,diiri IIIH/IH •,( IIAIII..I
Mil I IIIH) \ f r m i on I i I
AI irRNIIVTNi./riin ri
OXII IAI inN/rARiinN
S.imo ,i«; A l t r tn , i t t
1:
i ()N/iM
Pufnn .intl l t f» ,»t c. y, tr*m pr
vt tlfil .t-. t l f>Mt i l»r»il .limy**
Pump .»ntl I
.1', dr',< f ?h
provilfpo1
All ^ ii|n< f ir.mt I y i out .imio.il od All ^ iqni f i rant ron| jiminvit ««d
<|rnnnilw.il or w i l l l>r> f.ipliirrd: i|round».» t nr w i l l hr raptured;
fnnt.imin.liil\ w i l l hn r M f * ( t i v f > l y r nnt dini n^nt^ wi l l he pf f PI —
r rmo voil by p roc tp i t . t t i on , ,^ir ti vr I y dr^ \ royed by nrpf i p i tat i of f\ t t ippm<| ^nd r.irhon .id-.or pi i on on i (tat i on . or rewovpd by r^rbon andand '.prnl (.ilium w i l l bi» ^ppnt rarbnn wi l l bpdr%l roypd diirinq rr<]r nprat i on . durinq rrqpnerat <on .
Would athieve significantreduction in t n v i r i t y ,
m o b i l i t y and volume ofroot ami nant s .
Irreversible treatment.
Spent rarbon from liquidand vapor phase adsorber*wi l l he eitber regeneratedor disposed of o f ' - s i t eSliidqe produced from precipi-tat ion would be disposed o f f -s i te
fasi ly Implemented.
All the technoloqies arerpIiable
Easy to undertake. b«tnonp expected.
riiqration or exposurepathways Ciin bn monitored
Same as Alternative 2.
Same as Alternative 2.
Spent carbon from liquidphase adsorber will be
either regenerated ordisposed of off-siteSludge produced from precipi-tation would be disposed off-
sile
Easily implemented.
Same as Alternative 2.
S.imp as Alternative 2.
as Alternative 7.
S f r O O O S
20 ITnnfd
Qr G»9"WIWAtrR AI.II.RNAI IVH ANALYSIS
AI
AI rr nMAtivr ?•rilMI'IMl./ri'H 11'I I'M I UN/
A | II ', MMI'I'IMI./I /MlMOM
/MI'.OIM'I I UN/HI ',( Mfll/1,1
i"l>' C"KM»l 'I'' I i '. V Uont 'd)
Coord ina t ion w i t h other Coordination requirpd w i t h .11 I I not il t
.i<|riu ie\ ai|encie% for lonc| ppriml ill limp .«I I .»|
nn f r»f|n i r »M| wi l l i
,.-. |,,,| Ml, ,tMlt ll,.1.1-
I Mtn »<'i|iiiifi| .11 I f t ' i-fm-il i .tl i on
A v a i l a b i l i t y of treat- No treatment, ttoraqe or d i %por..il Av.i i I .«!• i I i I y i <; .jno.) (nr
J>< ' l y . and «li<;po^.»l •""' ili'.pO',.il »( •. liiih|n.
s e r v 11 e \ .
i ty of terh-
t it I i % I
Tf»erla1 equipment or
requireil.
Av.i i I ,ili» t 11 y i % n,oo»l.
AI
A l t e r n a t i v e 7 .
A l t e r n a t i v e
limitril Jv^ i 1 ,»hi I i ( jr.
fottH 1 ion)
Present Worth
0O.OZ3O.l-ifl . r
0.977
ince with ARARt Falls t« comply withApprnprtatene'^s of qriMinflwaler cleanupW.t^ver'iComjiI iance with crl— None needed.terta. advisories, and] Does not comply<H»i dance
.Protect \ on_. lleil lh_»ntf_th
t f It ro««p1iet with si te-^per i f it
«)r««nrf».ater tlrsnup <}na^ »nil
at I other ARARn.Same as Allern.it ive
Compl ies
t .
How risks are eli«in- No treatment It pmwlded. onlyated, reduced or con- monitoring; Natural attenuationtrolled "Jlf reduce tox'tltf *tnf» fOo-
taninants rontiotie tofro«i thr S » t e t» tne tt« the Wildcat Brook and Wai I k i l lHlver. this alternative will notprotect hwman health and theenvlrnnnent.
inooo£>•
TonirMy. wohil i ty and
volume of rnntaminanthe reduced by treatment;
thin a l ternat ive w i l l preventfvrlher migration o' contami-
nants to Hie tr ibutary to theWildcat Drool and Wal l kil lRiver. Ihi* a l ternat ive wil l
protect h««an health andrnv i t onment.
Same as Alternative
$ai«e as Alternative 2.Same as Alternative 2.
Same as Alternative
C t U C T I O * . I {* I I STABLE 21
C 1 1 in t K T $ ( e l l » e I w t J e i « ir 115 / 1 u n 1 t e 1 h e r • i $ t
V [1 [ f[PA lest
MDl 0' POL
oices Com?co:$
M
€.'< KtC i i ec: C.2
fc ;>
6Ci C.?later 60' 01;
t. ;• 01}
c.?1 UC.C:
C C :
K:
C U
y j e1.5
ly ? 7
v:: -f.-y^-
ceo:".;c •:•::•
£?<
£?:
£?:
J.54i
500050
C t U C i i C K l [ v [ : S F cTABLE 21 cont 'd
0 U 11» * 1 S { c 11 » c 111» ere ir, « ; / i v r> I e 11 c l h «' • I *« r, c l * e
lestWD. Of POL
575 72.5
a.-* Sr.V ft-.: tec • 6?5 2.5
2.5125 2.5
(HiO.J2
IE 5
1.5
5 7
*••••:•:
(r (v:>-:r-
1 C
1 cC ?IV
i f
£?: 2.2
i.S£.':£.-•: V5
£."•:£/: 1 C
1 C
C O C 36D5 OOC't
C C ' E :
c :•:•::60E O C ' ?
«-&:•: ME"-KC WE ecu
Ki
cs; : 0014
'f.
1CO :
CM:
500051
TABLE 21 cont 'd
6 [ 7 [ C J i 0 h IE »I L S f C F. F C11 U 7 A »i 7 $ (e 11 * e I v * I e i « in 115/1 u n l t s s e I h e i • i s e n c I « e1)
«=E^
W [ H R
PCM 221PCM 232PCM2<£PCM?KPCS- 1016iw £:• c :•:•:?}
[PA lesl
WE60!Wf
Ue'.ois,
fcsrx lo'.o.- tc1.
Car-.'.- le1.
Cc:?r
ic'.:
*:•<& i:-r
nonc
?£=
tr -
sx
Cirjr - m; '
S: •:;
ffi
WDL CK POL
O.Kincrencncnc
0.2'
0.201
J _
oct
500052
TABLE 21 con t ' d
6 [ H C11 0 ••' t [ v [ : s FO? F C I 1111 * * T S ( o i l »e I u e s o'« in u 9 /1 v r> I« s s e I * « ' • > i e n o t e d
MDi Of POL
rtoni-isi» ACJTTV/T.
Iff &JX- ?0£.2.!»'
fa Cow.
•ijnn
nc
500053
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARYFOR THE
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITEFRANKLIN BOROUGHSUSSEX, NEW JERSEY
SEPTEMBER 1990
500054
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
INTRODUCTION
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW.
A.B.C.
Site DescriptionSite HistorySummary of EPA's Preferred Alternative,
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS,
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS,COMMENTS , CONCERNS AND RESPONSES ,
A.B.C.D.E.
IV. APPENDICES
Appendix A:Appendix B:Appendix C:Appendix D:Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Page
, . 1
3
335
Purpose of Groundwater Remediation 7Technical Issues 8Future of the Maple Road Well 10Cost and Scheduling Issues 11Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)Comments and Issues 11
Proposed PlanPublic Meeting Sign-in SheetsPublic Meeting AgendaList of Information RepositoriesThe Pubic Notice which appeared in the July 29, 1990issue of the New Jersey HeraldWritten Comments and EPA's Responses to ThoseComments
500055
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARYFOR THE
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITEFRANKLIN BOROUGHSUSSEX, NEW JERSEY
INTRODUCTION
This draft Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizen'scomments and concerns and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA's) responses to those comments regarding thesupplemental remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)report and Proposed Plan for the Metaltec/Aerosystems (Metaltec)Superfund site. EPA, in consultation with the New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), will select afinal cleanup remedy for the Metaltec site only after reviewingand considering all public comments received during the publiccomment period.
EPA held a public comment period from July 27, 1990 throughAugust 27, 1990 to provide interested parties with theopportunity to comment on the supplemental RI/FS report andProposed Plan for the Metaltec site.
EPA held a public information meeting to discuss the remedialalternatives described in the supplemental FS and to presentEPA's preferred remedial alternatives for controllingcontamination at the Metaltec site. The meeting was held at theFranklin Borough Hall, Sussex County, New Jersey on August 16,1990 at 7:00 p.m.
In general, the community was responsive to EPA's Proposed Plan.A majority of the local officials and residents recognized theimportance of restoring the condition of the aquifers at theMetaltec site. They emphasized that the Borough would like thegroundwater remediated so they could reinstate use of the MapleRoad well which currently cannot be used as a potable watersupply well. However, they expressed concern about the length oftime the Superfund process has taken in the past and stressedthat they would like EPA to expedite the remediation in order toavoid delay and additional costs that could be incurred as aresult of a delay.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW: This section brieflydescribes the site background and outlines the EPA'spreferred remedial alternative.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: Thissection provides the history of community concerns andinterests regarding the Metaltec site.
500056
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OP MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,CONCERNS AND RESPONSES: This section summarizes oraland written comments received by EPA at the publicmeeting and during the public comment period for theMetaltec site.
IV. APPENDICES: There are four appendices attached to thisreport. They are as follows:
Appendix A: This appendix contains the Proposed Plcinthat was distributed to the public during the publicinformation meeting held on August 16, 1990 at theFranklin Borough Hall;
Appendix B: This appendix contains sign-in sheets fromthe August 16, 1990 Public Information Meeting held atthe Franklin Borough Hall;
Appendix C: This appendix contains the Agenda for theAugust 16, 1990 Public Information Meeting held at theFranklin Borough Hall;
Appendix D: This appendix contains an updated list ofthe information repositories designated for theMetaltec site;
Appendix E: This appendix contains the public noticewhich appeared in the July 29, 1990 issue of the NewJersey Herald; and
Appendix F: This appendix contains the written commentreceived by EPA during the public comment period andEPA's response.
500057
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Metaltec Corporation, a subsidiary of Aerosystems TechnologyCorporation, operated a manufacturing facility at theintersection of Maple and Wildcat Roads, in the Borough ofFranklin, Sussex County, New Jersey. The 15.3-acre site is southof Maple Road and both east and west of Wildcat Road. TheMetaltec Corporation manufactured a variety of metal productsfrom 1965 until 1980. When active, the site included theMetaltec plant, a process well, a wastewater lagoon, a drumstorage area, wastewater-soaked ground, and two piles of wastematerial. The site is bordered by a golf course, privateresidences, and an unnamed tributary to Wildcat Brook (atributary to the Wallkill River).
B. SITE HISTORY
In 1980, NJDEP conducted a site inspection which revealed thatvarious volatile organic compounds (VOCs), most significantlytrichloroethene (TCE), were present in the facility's wastewaterlagoon and surrounding soil. Due to the presence of VOCs in thearea's groundwater, the Franklin Borough water supply well,several area residential wells, and the Metaltec process wellwere closed. The area residents and the Metaltec facility werehooked up to a public surface water supply from a local pond.
In September 1983, the site was placed on the EPA's NationalPriorities List of Superfund sites. In June 1984, EPA began anRI/FS at the site to determine the nature and extent ofcontamination, characterize site risks, and develop and evaluateremedial alternatives. The 1984 RI determined the following:
An estimated 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of soil werecontaminated with various VOCs in an area referred to asParcel 1.
An estimated 4,000 cy of soil were contaminated withinorganic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds inareas referred to as Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Both the shallow and bedrock aquifers beneath the site werecontaminated with elevated levels of the contaminants foundin the soil on the site.
EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 30, 1986, whichselected remedial actions for the site, municipal well, andaffected or threatened private wells.
5000558
As a result of the 1986 ROD, a pipeline to provide an alternatewater supply for affected Borough of Franklin residents iscurrently being constructed. In addition, approximately 5,000 cyof contaminated soils were excavated from Parcels 2, 3, and 4,and disposed of off-site at an approved landfill. The remedy forParcel 1 has been designed and is presently awaiting funding.Although the 1986 ROD selected affirmative remedial actions toclean up the Metaltec site and provide an alternate water supplyto residents with contaminated or threatened drinking water, thedata obtained during the initial RI/FS were insufficient to fullycharacterize the groundwater contamination plume. Therefore, itwas necessary for EPA to conduct the supplemental RI/FS.
The supplemental RI/FS deals specifically with contamination inthe groundwater below the Metaltec site and hydraulicallydowngradient from the site. The FS evaluated the remedialalternatives for cleaning up the contaminated shallow and bedrockaquifers. To characterize the groundwater contamination, eightgroundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled. Inaddition, groundwater sampling was performed on the thirteenwells installed during the first RI/FS. Samples taken from theshallow and bedrock aquifers were analyzed and the resultsdemonstrated that the groundwater is contaminated with volatileand semi-volatile organic compounds, and inorganic compounds,from the water table down into the bedrock as deep as 300 feet.
Surface water and sediment sampling investigations were alsoconducted to determine the presence and extent of contamination.Site-related contaminants were detected in a number of surfacewater and sediment samples obtained from the tributary to WildcatBrook. However, the contamination found in the tributary wasdetermined to be the result of contaminants being transportedthrough the bedrock aquifer and the adjacent overburden, andfinally discharged through a spring which leads to the tributary.
During the supplemental RI/FS, an analysis was performed toestimate the health and environmental problems associated withthe Metaltec site. This analysis, referred to as a baseline riskassessment, was presented in the RI report as the Public HealthEvaluation and Environmental Assessment (PHE). While conductingthis assessment, the focus was on identifying contaminants ofconcern in each contaminated media, evaluating pathways ofexposure (i.e., ways in which humans and environmental receptors[fish, birds, mammals, etc.] may come in contact withcontaminants), and quantifying the degree to which that contactposes a risk to human health and the environment. Because theremedy selected in the 1986 ROD included the removal ofcontaminated soil from the site, potential impacts associatedwith contaminants in the soil were not assessed during thisstudy.
500059
Contaminants of potential concern were identified in thegroundwater, surface water, and sediments. In all media, VOCs(in particular TCE and 1,2-Dichloroethene) were identified ascontaminants of potential concern. In addition, chromium,copper, lead, manganese, and zinc were identified as chemicals ofpotential concern in groundwater. The highest concentrations ofVOCs were detected in wells located near the former wastewaterlagoon.
The exposure pathways evaluated in the PHE were those believed tobe associated with the greatest potential exposures. Theexposure pathways which were evaluated included inhalation ofcontaminants volatilized from surface water, direct contact(e.g., dermal contact) with contaminants in the surface water orsediments, and the ingestion of contaminated groundwater under afuture land use scenario.
C. SUMMARY OF EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
EPA's selection for cleanup of the site is based on therequirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act (SARA). These laws require that aselected site remedy be protective of human health and theenvironment, cost effective and in accordance with otherstatutory requirements. SARA also emphasizes permanent solutionsincorporating on-site remediation of hazardous contaminationwhenever possible.
The remediation alternative to control contamination at the siteis selected by the EPA Region II Administrator and will bedocumented in a ROD. The goal for the cleanup of the groundwatercontamination at the Metaltec site is to restore the groundwaterto the more stringent of the Federal or State Maximum ContaminantLevels (MCLs) which have been devised to protect drinking water.The groundwater would be pumped and treated for restoration ofthe aquifers. This restoration will take an estimated 10 yearsto complete; however, actual aquifer conditions duringremediation may affect this duration. Surface water and sedimentcontamination in the tributary to the Wildcat Brook will notrequire additional remediation since the tributary is fed by thegroundwater, which will be cleaned up. After carefulconsideration of all reasonable alternatives and the evaluationcriteria, EPA recommended the alternative described below.
500060
Alternative 2: GROUNDWATER PUMPING/PRECIPITATION/AIRSTRIPPING/CARBON ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 yearsCapital Cost: $ 748,100Annual O&M Costs: $ 466,300Present Worth: $4,348,900
The major features of this alternative include groundwaterpumping, collection, treatment, and discharge of treatedgroundwater, and a performance monitoring program. Thegroundwater cleanup goal under this alternative is theachievement of MCLs. The alternative involves the use of anexisting well on the Metaltec property for groundwater extractionat a total pumping rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute(gpm), an extraction rate shown to be sustainable over anextended period of time. Pumping tests concluded that a 10 gpmpumping rate at BR-4 produces measurable drawdown at most of thewells located in the granitic gneiss aquifer which have been ofconcern in the site area. At that flow rate, it is estimatedthat it will take a period of approximately ten years to reducethe TCE levels to 1 ppb, although actual aquifer conditionsduring remediation may affect this duration. During remedialdesign, the possibility of using multiple extraction wells toaccelerate cleanup will be explored. Studies will also be
^1^ performed during remedial design to determine the optimum pumping{|P rate to control the groundwater contamination plume. The
extracted groundwater would first be treated to remove metals,with the resultant sludge being disposed of off-site. The VOCspresent in the extracted groundwater would be removed by airstripping, and any remaining organic contaminants would beremoved by carbon adsorption. The spent carbon would becollected by the supplier and taken off-site for disposal ortreatment and reuse. The treated groundwater would be dischargedto the tributary to Wildcat Brook at levels meeting surface waterdischarge requirements. Because of the unfavorablecharacteristics of the site hydrogeology (i.e., a complex bedrockfracture system and its associated hydraulic characteristics),reinjection of treated groundwater was eliminated fromconsideration as a remedial technology.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Public concern about the site was at its highest in 1980 whenVOCs were found by NJDEP in the Borough of Franklin municipalsupply well and three residential wells at levels exceeding bothfederal and state drinking water standards. Community memberswhose wells were not found contaminated were concerned that thecontamination might spread and affect their water supply wells.All residents with contaminated wells were connected to alternatewater supplies.
500061
o
EPA initiated community relations activities in 1984 anddeveloped a Community Relations Plan (CRP) to identify communityconcerns and address their requests. Following the release ofthe initial RI/FS, EPA held a public information meeting on June17, 1986. Approximately 40 residents and local officialsattended the meeting. Subsequently, a responsiveness summary wasprepared and the ROD was signed. The CRP was updated in 1988during the supplemental RI/FS activities. The 1988 CRP reflectedsimilar concerns that were previously identified in the 1984 CRP.Residents expressed a continued concern over declining propertyvalues and the groundwater contamination in the Franklin Borough.
There has been very little active interest in the Metaltec site.It has declined since the early 1980s. The primary interestcurrently lies with those residents who live near the site andare directly affected by the contamination.
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS, CONCERNSAND RESPONSES
This section summarizes oral comments raised at the publicmeeting and during the public comment period, and EPA'sresponses. The comments and corresponding responses areorganized in the following categories:
A. Purpose of Groundwater RemediationB. Technical issuesC. Future of the Maple Road WellD. Cost and Scheduling IssuesE. Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) Comments and Issues
A., PURPOSE OF GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Comment: One resident wanted to know why it was necessary tospend millions of dollars to clean up the groundwatercontamination if there is no immediate health threat to thepublic, and it does not affect the vegetation and wildlife in thearea.
EPA Response: In order to fund any cleanup, EPA must determinethat the site poses an actual or potential risk to the publicand/or to the environment. Although the public is currentlyusing an alternative potable water supply, and there is noimmediate risk to public health, the contamination has impactedthe environment and created a potential threat. Sincegroundwater is a potential potable water source, it is criticalto protect drinking water resources for the future. Theobjective of this remedial action is to confine the contaminationplume and eventually eliminate it from the groundwater.
500062
Comment: One citizen stated that he is an employee for WebcoIndustries, a glue backing company that currently leases theMetaltec facility. The commenter reported that Webco usesthousands of gallons of water per day in its cooling process. Hesuggested that instead of EPA spending millions of dollars toclean up the groundwater, Webco could use the groundwater for itscooling process.
EPA Response: EPA indicated that groundwater quality must berestored because, if left untreated, it could pose a potentialrisk to the community and the environment. The groundwater to beextracted under the remedy is contaminated and, therefore,requires treatment prior to disposal. The costs for constructionand operation of the remedy would be incurred regardless of thedisposal scenario.
The possibility of utilizing the treated water for coolingpurposes, however, is an issue that EPA will consider during theremedial design of the remedy.
Comment: One citizen wanted to know why it was necessary toclean up the groundwater in 10 years if the groundwater would beremediated in 30 years through natural degradation. The citizennoted that the if EPA selected Alternative 1: No Further Action,With Monitoring, the government and citizens would save $4million dollars and the groundwater would still be cleaned up.
EPA Response: EPA emphasized that the 30 year time frameidentified in Alternative 1, the "No Action" alternative, is avery optimistic estimate and the actual restoration time could besubstantially longer. Estimates in the FS report indicate thatit could take 80 years for levels of vinyl chloride to reach thecleanup goals through natural attenuation processes.
B. TECHNICAL ISSUES
Comment: An engineer for the Franklin Borough of Public Worksasked if the treated water, which will be discharged into WildcatBrook, will comply with NJDEP's surface water qualityrequirements. In addition, he requested EPA to forward theBorough a copy of the Discharge Monitoring Reports, a monthlyreport that states how the treatment system performs during thatmonitoring period.
EPA Response: Yes, the discharged water will comply with NJDEPsurface water criteria. As information from the monitoringprogram is produced, it will be forwarded to the Borough ofFranklin.
500063
Comment: A reporter asked EPA to explain the air strippingprocess for Alternative 2.
IPA Response: An air stripping unit operation would typicallyconsist of countercurrently contacting heated air with theextracted groundwater (containing VOCs). The heated air (at atemperature above the volatiles' boiling point) is introducedthrough a distribution plate to ensure uniform air flow throughthe stripping column. To ensure intimate water/air contact, alarge surface area is provided by polypropylene packing (in theshape of pall rings, saddles, etc.) in the column. The volatilesand air from the column are passed through a vapor phase carbonbed unit to remove volatiles prior to air discharge to theatmosphere. The devolatilized water from the column is sent to aliquid phase carbon bed adsorption unit for further treatment.The spent carbon would be collected and taken off-site to anapproved disposal facility, or regenerated for future use.
Comment: A local reporter asked when EPA, following theselection of a remedial alternative, plans to implement theremedial action.
EPA Response: Following selection of the remedial alternative,EPA will begin the remedial design phase for the selectedtreatment process. Once initiated, the remedial design couldtake approximately one year to complete. Following the remedialdesign, EPA will initiate construction of the collection andtreatment system. However, specific time frames for the start-up of the remedial action can not be developed until the remedialdesign is complete. Once the treatment system is constructed, itwill take approximately ten years to clean up the groundwater tolevels which will meet federal and state drinking waterstandards.
Comment: A local official stated that there are severalresidents who still use private wells for their water supply. Hewanted to know if EPA would provide a potable water alternativefor these residents should their wells be adversely affected byeither the groundwater contamination in the area, or the draw-down of the aquifer created by the groundwater extraction.
EPA Response: Under Alternative 2, the pumping rate will berelatively low, approximately 10 gallons per minute. Thisrelatively low pumping rate should not create a significant draw-down effect on the aquifer beyond the immediate area of theexisting contamination. Further, the extraction and treatment ofthe groundwater should confine the contamination plume to the
500064
currently affected area. Therefore, EPA does not anticipateprivate wells, which are currently unaffected by the plume, tobecome contaminated by the Metaltec site in the future.
In the unlikely event that more residential wells becomecontaminated, EPA would be likely to institute an action toprovide residents with a suitable water supply. EPA is currentlyconstructing a pipeline to provide affected Borough of Franklinresidents with an alternate water supply.
C. FUTURE OF THE MAPLE ROAD WELL
Comment: The Borough of Franklin engineer wanted to know if EPAplans to use the Maple Road well during the remedial activities.NJDEP has required the Borough of Franklin to provide it with anotice to seal the well or a justification as to why the wellshould remain unsealed. EPA was requested to provide the Boroughof Franklin with a justification, if any, to keep the well open.
EPA Responses EPA has indicated to the Borough that it plans touse the well for future sampling activities. Other potentialuses of the well during remedial action will be determined duringthe remedial design. EPA will explore the potential of NJDEPallowing the well to remain unsealed.
Comment: Another local resident wanted to know if the well couldbe used as a potable water source in the future.
EPA Response: The objective of this remedial action is to returnthe groundwater quality to levels that will meet the currentfederal and state drinking water standards. If the well is notsealed and the groundwater is remediated, it may be possible touse the well as a potable water source in the future.
Comment: A Borough of Franklin Councilman wanted it on recordthat the Borough would prefer to leave the well unsealed. Hestated that he anticipates the Borough to expand and would liketo use the well as an additional water supply once thegroundwater is remediated.
EPA Response: EPA acknowledged his request and stated that itwas on record with EPA.
10
500065
D. COST AND SCHEDULING ISSUES
Comment: One resident asked EPA to explain why it was necessaryto spend $54,000 to install a fence around the Metaltec site. Hestated that when he solicited bids for the same project, hereceived bids for $8,700, $1,700 and $17,000. He wanted to knowwhy EPA did not hire a contractor that could build the same fencefor less.
EPA Response: The installation of this fence was administered bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). COE solicits bids fromreliable sources and selects the contractor based on the lump sumbid. EPA assured the resident that this overall bid was thelowest bid for the work. The government contracting process isoften intricate and can sometimes lead to higher costs. Addedfactors must be considered including the bidding procedures andliability insurance requirements that are required by Superfundlaw.
Comment: A newspaper reporter asked if the volume of publicacceptance or rejection of EPA's Proposed Plan could alter EPA'sdecision making process.
EPA Comment: Community acceptance of a cleanup alternative isvery important. Under CERCLA and SARA, EPA is required toevaluate community acceptance as one of the nine criteria thatEPA uses to select the most suitable remedy. EPA also considersthe overall protection of human health and the environment,compliance with federal and state regulations, and costeffectiveness. The preferred alternative is believed to providethe best balance among alternatives with respect to theevaluation criteria. EPA will evaluate all community concerns inthe decision-making process.
E. POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY (PRP) COMMENTS AND ISSUES
Comment: The president of Aerosystems Technology Corporation(Aerosystems) stated that he had hired a certified testingcompany to analyze the groundwater at the Metaltec site. Thoseresults revealed contaminant levels which were significantly lessthan the analytical results obtained by EPA. EPA values, whichwere approximately 29,000 parts per billion (ppb), were inflatedcompared to the testing company values, which were as low as 7ppb. He asked EPA to explain the disparity between the results.
EPA Response: EPA implements a rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program to collect and analyzegroundwater samples at all Superfund sites. The samples wereanalyzed through the contract laboratory program (CLP), whichfollows strict EPA regulations. Since EPA did not regulate or
11
500066
monitor the sampling performed by Aerosystems' certified testingcompany, the results were not validated and can not be used forSuperfund purposes.
The supplemental RI revealed levels of 29,000 ppb of totalorganics on the Metaltec site. EPA performed a 14-day pump test,averaging the results of numerous samples which were collected atthat time. The BR-4 Boring wells located in the Metaltec parkinglot revealed a very high level of VOCs. EPA is confident thatthe results are an accurate representation of the contaminationin the area.
Comment: The same commenter stated several of his monitoringwells were broken into and claimed that the vandals contaminatedthe wells by pouring benzene around the mouths of those wells.He believes that EPA wells were tampered with as well and wantedto know if the sabotage could have affected the sample results.
EPA Response: Only one well, upgradient of the site and in aresidential area, was broken into. Nevertheless, that well didnot reveal any significant contamination.
Comment: The commenter also noted that some of the contaminants,which were identified in the supplemental RI report, includingzinc, copper, lead, chromium and magnesium, are endemic mineralsto the area. A 1963 journal describes that the Borough ofFranklin had mines abundant with copper, zinc, chromium,magnesium and lead. The New Jersey Zinc Company operated in thearea for approximately 50 years. He wanted to know why EPA needsto clean up these minerals if they are naturally occurringminerals.
Response: The supplemental RI report notes that metals areindigenous to the Franklin Borough area and that this may be acause for their detection in the groundwater. Nevertheless, inorder to efficiently remove the contaminants of concern, VOCs,the groundwater must be pre-treated by removing the metals.
12
500067
Appendix A
Proposed Plan***********
Appendix B
Public Meeting Sign-in Sheets***********Appendix C
Public Meeting Agenda***********Appendix D
List of Information Repositories***********Appendix E
The Pubic Notice which appearedin the July 29, 1990 issue of the New Jersey Herald
Appendix F
Written Comments andEPA's Responses to Those Comments*********************************************************
13
500068
Superfund Proposed Plan
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITEFranklin Borough, New Jersey
EPARegion 2 July 1990
PROPOSED PLANMETALTEC/AEROSYSVTEMS SITE
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This document describes the Proposed Plandeveloped by the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), in conjunction with the NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection(NJDEP), for the remediation of groundwatercontamination at the Metaltec/AerosystemsSuperfund site. It also outlines the remedialalternatives evaluated for the site and presentsthe rationale used to make a preliminaryselection.
The preferred alternative is based on two keydocuments: the supplemental remedialinvestigation (RI) report, which characterizes thesite and describes the nature and extent of thecontamination present, and the draft feasibilitystudy (FS) report, which describes how thevarious remedial alternatives were developed andevaluated. The remedy proposed in thisdocument is a supplemental remedy, and includesthe extraction and treatment of contaminatedgroundwater.
This Proposed Plan is being distributed asrequired by Section 117 of the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,(SARA) along with the RI and draft FS reports,to solicit public comment regarding the mostacceptable way to clean up the Metaltec/Aerosystems site. Detailed information on anyof the material included in the Proposed Planmay be found in the RI and FS reports. These
reports have been placed, as have earlier reports,at information repositories located at theFranklin Borough Hall, 40 Main Street, Franklin,New Jersey, and at the Sussex County Library,RD 3 Box 76, Newton, New Jersey.
Additional documentation regarding theproposed remedy is available in theadministrative record for the site. A copy of theadministrative record as assembled to date islocated at the Franklin Borough Hall.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN THESELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NJDEP rely on public input to ensurethat the remedy selected for each Superfund siteis fully understood and that the agencies haveconsidered the concerns of the local community,as well as ensuring that the selected remedyprovides an effective solution.
This Proposed Plan and the RI and FS reportsare being made available to the public duringthe public comment period. Written commentson the Proposed Plan or the RI/FS reports willbe welcomed through August 27, 1990, and, ifreceived by that date, will be considered in theRecord of Decision (ROD) which will formallydocument the selected remedy. All writtencomments should be addressed to:
ooocr\
Mr. Ronald RusinRemedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -/Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 759New York, New York 10278
The final remedy selection will be documented inthe ROD only after consideration of allcomments on the RI report and any of theremedial alternatives addressed in the ProposedPlan and FS report A public meeting has beenscheduled for August Id, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. atthe Franklin Borough Hall to present both thefindings of the Rl and FS reports and theProposed Plan.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Metaltec Corporation, a subsidiary ofAerosystems Technology Corporation, operated amanufacturing facility at the intersection ofMaple and Wildcat Roads, in the Borough ofFranklin, Sussex County, New Jersey. The siteencompasses approximately 15.3 acres south ofMaple Road and both east and west of WildcatRoad. The Metaltec Corporation manufacturedmetal ballpoint pen pans, paint spray guns,lipstick cases, and a variety of other metalproducts from 1965 until 1980. When active, thesite included the Metaltec plant, a process well, a
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITE MAP
OFRMMQJNWATCH SUPPLY WELL
Ulooo-0o
wastewater lagoon, a drum storage area,wastewater-soaked ground, and two piles ofwaste material. The site is bordered by a golfcourse, private residences, and an unnamedtributary to Wildcat Brook (a tributary to theWalkill River).
In 1980, NJDEP conducted a site inspection.Sampling results indicated various volatileorganic compounds (VOCs), most significantlytrichloroeihene (TCE), were present in thefacility's wastewater lagoon and surrounding soil.Due to the presence of volatile organicimpounds in the area's groundwater, theFranklin Borough water supply well, several arearesidential wells, and the Metaltec process wellwere closed. The area residents and theMetaltec facility are now on a public surfacewater supply from a local pond.
In September 1983, the site was placed on theEPA's National Priorities List of Superfund sites.In June 1984, EPA began an RI/FS at the site todetermine the nature and extent ofcontamination, characterize site risks, anddevelop and evaluate remedial alternatives. TheRI determined the following:
• An estimated 10,000 cubic yards (cy) ofsoil were contaminated with variousvolatile organic compounds in an areareferred to as Parcel 1.
An estimated 4,000 cy of soil werecontaminated with inorganic compoundsand semivolatile organic compounds inareas referred to as Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
Both the shallow and bedrock aquifersbeneath the site were contaminated withelevated levels of the contaminantsfound in the soil on the site.
After a public meeting and a 30-day publiccomment period, EPA signed a Record ofDecision (ROD) on June 30, 1986, whichselected remedial actions for the site, themunicipal well, and affected or threatenedprivate wells. The remedy selected in the 1986ROD included:
• Excavation and treatment via heataddition (rotary dryer) of approximately10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soilswithin Parcel 1, and off-site disposal atan approved landfill. [The design forthis portion of the remedy is nearingcompletion.]
Excavation and off-site disposal at anapproved landfill of approximately 4,000cubic yards of contaminated soils withinParcels 2, 3, and 4. [This portion of theremedy has been completed.]
Provision of an alternate water supplyfor affected Borough of Franklinresidents by constructing a pipelineconnection from new potable water wellsto the Borough of Franklin public watersupply system. [This portion of theremedy is now being constructed.]
Preparation of a supplemental RI/FS toidentify the extent of groundwatercontamination, and to develop andevaluate appropriate remedialalternatives. [This portion is the subjectof this Proposed Plan.]
enooo
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
This document addresses the requirement of the1986 ROD which called for the preparation of asupplemental RI/FS, and deals specifically withcontamination in the groundwater below the siteand hydraulically downgradient from the site.Specifically, the contaminated shallow andbedrock groundwater aquifers will be pumpedand treated for restoration of the aquifers. Thisrestoration will take an estimated 10 years tocomplete; however, actual aquifer conditionsduring remediation may affect this duration.
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL RJ FINDINGS
Although the 1986 ROD selected affirmativeremedial actions to clean up the site and providean alternate water supply to properties withcontaminated or threatened drinking water, thedata obtained during the first RI/FS wereinsufficient to fully characterize the groundwatercontamination plume. Therefore, EPAconducted the supplemental study.
To characterize the groundwater contamination,eight groundwater monitoring wells wereinstalled. In addition, groundwater sampling wasperformed on the eleven wells installed duringthe first RI/FS. Samples taken from the shallowand bedrock aquifers were analyzed and theresults demonstrated that the groundwater iscontaminated with volatile and semi-volatileorganic compounds, and inorganic compounds,from the water table down into the bedrock asdeep as 300 feet The areal extent of contami-nation is approximately 300 feet long by 200 feetwide.
Surface water and sediment samplinginvestigations were also conducted to determinethe presence and extent of contamination. Site-related contaminants were detected in a numberof surface water and sediment samples obtainedfrom the tributary to Wildcat Brook. However,the contamination found in the tributary wasdetermined to be a result of contaminants beingtransported through the bedrock aquifer and theadjacent overburden, and finally dischargedthrough a spring which leads to the tributary.
During the supplemental RI/FS, an analysis wasperformed to estimate the health andenvironmental problems associated with theMetaltec site. This analysis, referred to as abaseline risk assessment, was presented in the RIreport as the Public Health Evaluation andEnvironmental Assessment (PHE). Inconducting this assessment, the focus was onidentifying contaminants of concern in eachcontaminated media, evaluating pathways ofexposure (Le., ways in which humans andenvironmental receptors [fish, birds, mammals,etc.] may come in contact with contaminants),and quantifying the degree to which that contactposes a risk. Because the remedy selected in the1986 ROD included the removal of contaminatedsoil from the site, potential impacts associatedwith contaminants in the soil were not assessedduring this study.
Contaminants of potential concern wereidentified in the ground water, surface water, andsediments. In all media, VOCs (in particularTCE and 1,2-Dichloroethene) were identified ascontaminants of potential concern. In addition,chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and zincwere identified as chemicals of potential concernin groundwater. The highest concentrations ofVOCs were detected in wells located near theformer wastewater lagoon.
The exposure pathways evaluated in the PHEwere those believed to be associated with thegreatest potential exposures. The exposurepathways which were evaluated includedinhalation of contaminants volatilized fromsurface water, direct contact (e.g., dermalcontact) with contaminants in the surface wateror sediments, and the ingestion of contaminatedgroundwater under a future land use scenario.
Risks for pathways of exposure wereconservatively estimated in the PHE For riskassessment purposes, individual pollutants areseparated into two categories of health hazarddepending on whether they exhibit carcinogenicor noncarcinogenic effects. For known orsuspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels tn
ooo-oto
are generally concentration levels that representan excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to anindividual of between 10"4 to 10"6, representing aprobability of one in ten thousand to one in onemillion that an individual could contract cancerdue to exposure. The noncarcinogenic effects(e.g., tenacity) posed by each pollutant aresummarized as a "Hazard Index* for a particularexposure pathway. Only Hazard Indices greaterthan one are generally identified with healthrisks.
Ingestion of groundwater by residents, evaluatedunder a hypothetical future u.«e scenario, was theonly pathway of exposure considered potentiallyhazardous to humans in the PHE. The PHEidentified the ingestion of contaminatedgroundwater as posing a potential risk to humanhealth above EPA's risk range for carcinogeniceffects, and as having a Hazard Index greaterthan one. If contaminated groundwater wereingested, under the scenario evaluated in thePHE, the maximum estimation for carcinogenicrisk is 3 x 10'2, and the Hazard Index is 30. Itshould be noted, however, that, to EPA'sknowledge, no one is utilizing the contaminatedaquifers as a source of potable water.
Potential impacts associated with thecontaminants of potential concern were alsoassessed for nonhuman exposures for theMetal tec site. It was determined that aquatic lifein Wildcat Brook and its tributary were unlikelyto be affected by contaminants released to thesurface water.
CLEANUP GOALS
The goal for the cleanup of the groundwatercontamination at the Metaltec site is to restorethe groundwater to the maximum contaminantlevels (MCLs) which have been devised toprotect drinking water. MCLs are enforceablestandards based on health risks associated withan individual's consumption of two liters ofwater per day over a seventy-year period.Surface water and sediment contamination in thetributary to the Wildcat Brook will not requireadditional remediation since the tributary is fedby the groundwater, which will be cleaned up.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardoussubstances from this site, if not addressed by thepreferred alternative or one of the other activemeasures considered, may present a current orpotential threat to public health, welfare, or theenvironment.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The information obtained from the RI was usedto conduct the FS. The draft FS report providesa detailed evaluation of various options, referredto as remedial alternatives, to remediate the site.Remedial alternatives were evaluated based onthe nine criteria identified in the FS report anddescribed later in this document.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIALALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, asamended by SARA, requires that each siteremedy be protective of human health and theenvironment, comply with applicable or relevantand appropriate requirements (ARARs), utilizepermanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies or resource recovery technologies tothe maximum extent practicable, and be costeffective.
The RI identified the groundwater itself as theprincipal environmental media affected bycontamination. The source of the groundwatercontamination is addressed by the 1986 ROD.Surface water contamination of the tributary tothe Wildcat Brook will not require additionalremediation since the tributary is fed by thegroundwater, which will be cleaned up.
In the FS, three basic alternatives for addressingthe groundwater contamination were considered:(1) No Further Action, with Monitoring; (2)Pump and Treat the shallow and bedrockaquifers using air stripping and carbonadsorption; and (3) Pump and Treat the shallowand bedrock aquifers using hydrogen peroxide -ultraviolet photolysis (H2O2-UV) oxidation andcarbon adsorption. A brief description of each en
oooU)
of the alternatives, as well as an estimate of theircost and implementation timeframe, follows.
Alternative 1: NO FURTHER ACTION, WITHMONITORING
Implementation Period: 30 yearsCapital Cost: $ 0Annual Operation and Maintenance(O&M) Costs: S 23,000Present Worth: $ 358,200
This alternative would not involve theimplementation of specific remedial actions toaddress groundwater or surface watercontamination. Under this alternative, a long-term monitoring program would be implementedto determine whether groundwater and surfacewater contaminant concentrations are changingwith time, and to track the migration ofcontaminated groundwater. The monitoringprogram would include sampling thegroundwater through the use of existingmonitoring wells.
Alternative 2: GROUNDWATERPUMPING/PRECIPITATION/AIRSTRIPPING/CARBONADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 yearsCapital Cost: S 743,100Annual O&M Costs: S 466300Present Worth: $4348,900
The major features of this alternative includegroundwater pumping, collection, treatment, anddischarge of treated groundwater. and aperformance monitoring program. Thealternative involves the use of an existing well onthe Metaltec property for groundwater extractionat a total pumping rate of approximately 10gallons per minute (gpm), an extraction rateshown to be sustainable over an extended periodof time. During remedial design, the possibilityof using multiple extraction wells to acceleratecleanup will be explored. The extractedgroundwater would first be treated to removemetals, with the resultant sludge being disposedof off-site. The VOCs present in the extractedgroundwater would be removed by air stripping,
and any remaining organic contaminants wouldbe removed by carbon adsorption. The spentcarbon would be collected by the supplier andtaken off-site for disposal or treatment andreuse. The treated groundwater would bedischarged to the tributary to Wildcat Brook atlevels meeting surface water dischargerequirements. Because of the unfavorablecharacteristics of the site hydrogeology (i.e., acomplex bedrock fracture system and itsassociated hydraulic characteristics), reinjectionof treated groundwater was eliminated fromconsideration as a remedial technology.
Alternative 3: GROUNDWATERPUMPING/PRECIPrTATION/H202-UVOXIDATION/CARBONADSORPTION/DISCHARGE
Implementation Period: 10 yearsCapital Cost: $ 926400Annual O&M Costs: $ 467300Present Worth: S4,535,000
As in Alternative 2, this alternative involves theuse of an existing well on the Metaltec propertyfor groundwater extraction at a total pumpingrate of approximately 10 gpm. In thisalternative, however, the VOCs would beremoved through H2O2-UV oxidation instead ofthrough air stripping. The other treatment unitoperations would remain the same as inAlternative 2. The treated groundwater wouldalso be discharged to the tributary to WildcatBrook at levels meeting surface water dischargerequirements.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The preferred alternative for addressing thegroundwater contamination plume at theMetaltec site is Alternative 2, Groundwaterpumping/precipitation/air stripping/carbonadsorption and discharge to the tributary toWildcat Brook. Based on current information,this alternative would appear to provide the bestbalance of trade-offs among alternatives withrespect to the nine criteria that EPA uses toevaluate alternatives. This section profiles the
4ft
inooo-J
performance of the remedial alternatives againstthe nine criteria, noting how they compare toother options under consideration. A glossary ofthe nine evaluation criteria appears on thefollowing page.
Based on new information or public comments,EPA, in consultation with the State of NewJersey, may modify the proposed alternative orselect another response action presented in thisPlan and the RI and FS reports.
The public, therefore, is encouraged to reviewand comment on all of the alternatives identifiedin this Proposed Plan. The RI and FS reportsshould be consulted for more detailedinformation on the alternatives.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSISOF ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protection: Alternatives 2 and 3 wouldboth provide protection of human health byeliminating risks through the extraction andtreatment of contaminated groundwater.Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the risk fromusing the groundwater by reducing the level ofcontaminants within the affected aquifers. Eitherof these alternatives would augment the actionbeing taken under the 1986 ROD which directedthe provision of an alternate water supply.
The "No Action* alternative does not provide anyadditional protection to that provided by the1986 ROD and, therefore, is not consideredfurther in this analysis of options.
Compliance with ARARS: Alternatives 2 and 3are intended to meet the groundwater cleanupARARs after their estimated 10-yearimplementation periods are completed. Thetreated water to be discharged to the tributary toWildcat Brook will meet New Jersey surfacewater discharge limitation requirements.
To ensure compliance with the National HistoricPreservation Act, a cultural resources surveywould be prepared. Waivers from ARARs arenot anticipated for these alternatives.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence:Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide long-termprotection by reducing the groundwatercontaminant concentrations to cleanup goals.Once groundwater remediation is complete, nolong-term monitoring would be necessary.Alternatives 2 and 3 both provide a permanentremedy.
Reduction of Toricitv. Mobility, or Volume:Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the toxicity,mobility, and volume of the contaminatedgroundwater through the use of extraction andtreatment methods.
Short-term Effectiveness: The major riskassociated with the contaminated groundwater isthe use of it for potable purposes. A temporaryalternative water supply is currently in use in the:affected area, and provision of a permanentalternative water supply is being implementedunder the 1986 ROD. Therefore, that risk hasalready been significantly reduced.
An assessment would be made during the designof the remedy to ensure that any adverse impactsto any wetland areas would be mitigated.
Treated water would be monitored prior to itsdischarge to the tributary to Wildcat Brook toensure the effectiveness of the treatment system.Neither alternative would create any short-term,health-related concerns for the public.
Implementabilitv. While both Alternatives 2 and3 will reduce groundwater contamination levels,Alternative 2 is preferred based on previouslydemonstrated success for contaminatedgroundwater treatment. The technology includedin Alternative 3 has been previously used forindustrial waste treatment, and could beeffectively used for contaminated groundwatertreatment In addition, the equipment used forAlternative 2 may be more readily available thanthe equipment required for Alternative 3.
Cost: The present worth of Alternative 2 is$4348,900. The lowest cost alternative isAlternative 1, at $358,200. The highest costalternative is Alternative 3, at $4,535,000. ui
ooooen
State Acceptance: The State of New Jersey Community Acceptance: Community acceptancesupports the preferred alternative presented in of the preferred alternative will be evaluatedthis Proposed Plan. after the public comment period ends and will be
documented in a Record of Decision.
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: 'This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describeshaw risks art eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls orinstitutional controls.
o Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements of Federal or State ofNew Jersey Regulations: This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of theapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other environmental statutesand/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
o Lone-term Effectiveness and Permanence: This criterion refers to the ability of the remedy tomaintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once cleanupgoals have been met
o Reduction of Toacitv. Mobility or Volume: This criterion addresses the anticipatedperformance of the treatment technologies that a remedy may employ,
o Short-term Effectiveness: This criterion considers the period of time needed to achieveprotection and any advene impacts on human health and the environment that may be posedduring the construction and implementation period until cleanup goals an achieved.
o Implementability: This criterion examines the technical and administrative feasibility of aremedy, including availability of materials and services needed to implement the chosen
o Cost: This criterion includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
o State Acceptance: This criterion indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS and theProposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the proposedalternative.
o Community Acceptance: This criterion will be addressed in the Record of Decision followinga review of the public comments received on the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan.
Lnooo«oen
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERREDALTERNATIVE
In summary, the preferred alternative is believedto provide the best balance among alternativeswith respect to the evaluation criteria.Therefore, based on the information available atthis time, EPA and the State of New Jerseybelieve the preferred alternative would beprotective, would attain ARARs, would be cost-effective, and would utilize permanent solutionsand alternative treatment technologies to theman'mum extent practicable.
MAILING LIST
If you did not receive this Proposed Plan in themail and wish to be placed on the mailing list forfuture publications pertaining to theMetaltec/Aerosystems site, please fill out, detach,and mail this form to:
Evet HarrisCommunity Relations SpecialistU.S. Environmental Protection Agency26 Federal PlazaNew York, New York 10278
PLEASE INCLUDE ME ON THE MAILING LIST FOR THE METALTECIAEROSYSTEMS SITE
Name:
Address:
Affiliation:
Phone: (__ )
enooo
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION II
PUBLIC MEETINGFOR
Metaltec/Aerosystems SiteFranklin, New Jersey
August 16,1990MEETING ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
tnooo-jCO
NAME STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING
oz3>o v :v.
MAILINGLIST
tjiooo
PLEASE INCLUDE ME ON THE MAILING LIST FOR THE METALTECIAEROSYSTEMS SITE
.
^Address: ft) otf 7 #9 /V^cJ^ ^OT a '?<?& Q^— . _
Affiliation: -
Phone: ( _ )
_T«0 «T<
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I l<!6 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
Agenda
Public MeetingMetaltec/Aerosysteins SiteFranklin Borough HallFranklin, New Jersey
August 16. 19907:00 p.m.
I. Welcome and Introduction
II. Site Background and Overviewof the Superfund Process
III. Results of the RemedialInvestigation Feasibility
IV. EPA's Proposed Plan
Yvette HarrisCommunity Relations CoordinatorU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency , Region II
Bob McKnight, ChiefNorthern New Jersey RemedialAction SectionU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region II
Joe LozadaSite ManagerEbasco Services, Inc.(EPA's Contractor)
Ron RusinRemedial Project Manager forthe Metaltee/Aerosysteas SiteU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region ZZ
V. Questions & Answers
oooooo
LIST OF INFORMATION REPOSITORIESFOR THE METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITESUSSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
1) Franklin Borough Hall40 Main StreetFranklin, New Jersey,
2) Sussex County LibraryRD 3 Box 76Newton, New Jersey
14
500081
f t ' i is^e i 4 i i 4 z 2ti 393 929* H. j. MC»BLO
The United States Environmental Protection AgencyAnnounces
Proposed Cleanup Alternativefor the
METALTEC/AEROSYSTEMS SITESussex County, New Jersey
A Feasibility Study has been completed which evaluated alternatives forcleaning up the contaminated groundwstfer at Metaltec/Aerosyatems site inFranklin Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey. Based on this study, EPA hasselected a preferred remedy for groundwater cleanup. Before selection of afinal remedy, EPA will consider written and oral comments on the proposedalternative through August 27,1990. The final decision document will include asummary of public comments and EPA responses.
EPA will hold an informational public meeting on August 16,1990, at 7:00 p.m.at the Franklin Borough Hail on Main Street In Franklin to discuss theFeasibility Study and the preferred remedial alternative.
The three attemativea eveJuated for remediation of the groundwater are:1 No action2 Pumplng/PredpltatJon/AJr Stripping/Carbon Adsorption/Discharge3 Pumplng/Precipttation/HjOrUV Oxidation/Carbon Adsorption/Dis
charge
EPA's preferred alternatives Is Alternative 2. Alternative 2 Includes extraction ofcontarrinated groundwater, treatment, and discharge of treated groundwater toa small stream adjacent to the Metartec/Aerosystems site.
The Feasibility Study, the proposed plan and other site-related documents areavailable at the following information repositories:
Franklin Borough Hall Sussex County Library ..46 Main Street RO 3 Box 76FranMIn, New Jersey 07416 Newton, New Jersey 07860
The administrative record tor the site it being established at the FranklinBorough HaM.
Written comments on the proposed alternatives should be sent to:
Ronald Rusln, Remedial Project Manager - __U.S, Envlravnenttl Protection Agency ^28 Ffdoml Plaza, Boom 769New York, New York 10278(212)264-1673
Comments must be submteed to the above sdoYes* postmarked on or befaro•
UloooCDto
Franklin. NJ. 07416
frwct Manager. UStPAEmergency & Remedial Response Division.? Ff&rs/F/azs. focs?? 75$' • • ! • • > .-/. «/L' f/'JOT'tl»»r.. / C-/TV. /V r. / c'-. »• w
i'jzjrtt • $'jp?rfund Proposed Plan. rletaltec/Aerosystems Site,Frzrtkhn Borough, New Jersey - EPA Region 2,, July / $
f n:\-e rewewed your plan to decontaminate groudwater by'jrn^L /preapitat on/a r stnppmg/cart>on adsorptom/discnarge.e:r,jds ar,dt Si/wort this approach. Your agency ts to be
r.tfiended for the efforts it is takinj to restore the
cv?/f !••• question that I ha ve is: "What effect wil! this pul!nave on private wells in the area?"
Sincerely,__ —--ffc^-i*^ .- j^"~jt
Josepn T. ZenoooCDCo
0September 8, 1990
Joseph ZoltakRD /I Box 217AFranklin, New Jersey 07416
Subject: The Super fund Proposed Plan for theMetaltec/Aerosystems Site, Franklin Borough, NewJersey
Dear Mr. Zoltak:
In response your August 17, 1990 letter, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) does not anticipate groundwaterextraction to have a significant effect on the private wells inthe area. If EPA's preferred alternative, Alternative 2:@roundvater Pumping, Precipitation, Air Stripping,CarbonAdsorption and Discharge, is selected, the pumping rate will be10 gallons per minute. This relatively low pumping rata shouldnot create a significant draw-down effect on the aquifer in thearea.
Your comments are always appreciated. If you have any furtherquestions, please do not hesitate to write or call me at (212)264-1873.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald RusinRemedial Project ManagerNorthern New Jersey RemedialAction Section
cc: Bob McKnightYvette HarrisJoseph Lozada
enoooCD