NCD991278953_19880902_National Starch & Chemical Corp._FRBCERCLA ROD_Draft Record of Decision-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEM)RANOOM
DATE:
SUBJECI':
'ID:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30385
September 2, 1988
Recot"d of Decision (ROD)
National Starch Site
Salisbury, NC
Giezelle Bennet~
Superfurxl Project Manager
ROD Review Team
-Lee Crosby, NC Solid & Hazardous Waste
Gail Vanderhoogt, water
Doug Lair, ESD
Wade Knight, E.SD
Riess. Collier, US F&W
Cody Jackscn, ATSDR
Winston Smith, Air
I
Attached is the Record of Decisicn for the National Starch Site located in Salisbury, NC. Please provide any comments to me no later than September 14, 1988. Along with any collllllel1ts, please include a statement of concurrence from your division/agency.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 404/347-7791. Thank you for prompt attention to this matter.
I
I
ENFORCEl-lENI' I REl::ORD OF DEJ:ISICN
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECI'ICN
I
I Nl\T[CJIJAL STARO! AND OID1ICAL CORP. SITE
SALISBURY, RCWIN COUNrY
NJRIH CAROLINA
I
I PREPARED BY:
US ENVIRCNflJI'AL PROI'El:'I'ICN AGFN:::Y I RillICN DJ
AI'UINrA, GEDRGIA
I
I
I
I
I
I DRAFT I
I
I
. I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
DEUARATICN FOR 'IHE REX:ORD OF DEX:ISICN
Site Name an;l. Lcx:ation
National Starch and Cllemical Corp:iration
SaliSbury, Rowan County, N:lrth Carolina
Statement of Purrose
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for this site developed in accordance with CERCIA, as amended by SARA, and to the extent practicable, the National contingency Plan.
Description of the selected Remedy
Gro\Jl1CMater
Installation of a gro\Jl1CMater interception and extraction system down gradient of the trench disp:>sal area. The extracted groundwater will be discharged to the Salisbury 1.-0IW. The level and degree of pretreatment of the extracted groundwater will depend on the effluent limits set by the 1.-0IW. The range of pretreatment for the extracted groundwater includes airstripping, filtration through activated carbon filter, metal rerroval, and treatment through the company's existing lagoon system. Groundwater remediation will be performed until all contaminated water meets the cleanup goals specified in the attached SUmrary of Alternative Selection.
Surface Water
A rronitoring program will be establiShed for surface water/sediment. Additional soil samples will be collected in the vicinity of the eastern tributary and in the vicinity of a suspected storage area to detennine if another source, other than the trench area, is res.{X)nsible for the surface water/sediment contamination found. The surface water/sediment rronitoring will continue until the contamination identified during the RI has dissipated.
Soil
During the Remedial Design Stage, additional soil samples will be taken throughout the trench area. If the analysis confirms the results of the RI and indicates only residual contamination, then no further action will be taken on the soils. If, however, the analysis indicates extensive contamination, then in-situ soil flushing will be conducted in the trench area until the soil meets the cleanup goals specified in the attached SUl11T\ar'{ of Alternative Selection.
Declaration
Tile State of N:lrth Carolina has concurred on the selected remedy.
This remedy is supi:orted by the Administrative Record.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'Ille selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains Federal and state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference for treatrrent that reduces toxicity, nobility, or volume as a principle element. Finally it is detennined that this remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable"
Greer c. Tidwell
Regional i"drninistrator Date
DRAFT
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NATICNAL STARCH AND CHEMIO'.L CORP, SITE SALISBURY, RCWAN COUNIT, MJRili Cl\ROLIN1\.
PREPARED BY:
U, S, ENVIRO:JMENrAL PROrEx::ITCN AGEN:Y
REBICN DJ
ATIAN:rA, GEXJRGIA
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TI\BLE OF CCM'ENI'S
PAGE
l • O INl'RODlx:TICN ................................................................ .
1. l Site Location and Description .......................................... .
l. 2 Site History ........................................................... .
2 . 0 ENFORCEMENI' ANALYSIS . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . • . • • . • . . . • ................ .
3 . 0 CURRENI' SITE S'JA'IUS . . . . . • . . . . . . .......•..•.....••.....•..•................... 3 .1 Hydrogeologic Setting .................................................. . 3. 2 Site Contamination ..................................................... . 3. 3 Receptors .............................................................. .
4. 0 CLEANUP CRITERIA
4. l Groundwater Remediation ................................................ . 4. 2 Soil Remediation ....................................................... . 4.3 SUrface Water/Sediment Remediation ..................................... .
5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATICN .................................................... . 5. l Groundwater Alternatives ............................................... . 5.2 Soil Alternatives ...................................................... .
6.0 REX:Cf,MENDED ALTERNATIVES ................................................... . 6.1 Description of Reconrnended Renedy ...................................... . 6.2 Operation and Maintenance .............................................. . 6.3 Cost of Reconmended Alternatives ....................................... . 6. 4 Schedule ............................................................... . 6.5 Future Actions ......................................................... . 6.6 Consistency with other Environmental Laws .............................. .
7. 0 CCl-T-1UNITY REIATICNS ........................................................ .
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lisr OF FIGURES
Figure 1-Site Location
Figure 2-Land Use
Figure 3-Site Map
Figure 4-Soil Sampling Locations
Figure 5-SUrface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations Figure 6-Grolllldwater Sampling Locations
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-soil Analytical Results Table 2-SUrface Water/Sediment Analytical Results Table 3-Groundwater Analytical Results Table 4-Groundwater Cleanup Goals Table 5-Soil Cleanup Goals Table 6-Groundwater Technologies Table 7-Groundwater Alternatives Table 8-soil Alternatives
DRAFT
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
l . 0 lNI'RODUCI'ICN
ENFORCEMENr
RElXlRD OF DEx::ISICI\I
Slff1ARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELEl:TICI\I
NATICNAL STARGI & GIEMICAL CORP. SITE SALISBURY, RCWIN COUNI'Y, NJRill CAROLINA
The National Starch and Chemical Corp:>ration Site was proi:osed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1985 and reproi:osed in JlIDe 1988. The National Starch Site has been the subject of a Ranedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) perfonned by the resi:onsible party, National Starch, under an Administrative Order by Consent dated December l, 1986. The RI rei:ort, which examines air, sediment, soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination at the site was completed on JlIDe 21, 1988. The FS, which develops and examines alternatives for remediation of the site, was issued in draft form to the µ.iblic on September 2, 1988.
The Record of Decision has been prepared to sumnarize the remedial alternative selection process and to present the selected remedial alternative.
1. l SITE UXATICN AND DESCRIPI'ICN
The National Starch and Chemical Corp:ir:ation Site is located in Rowan county, North carolina, approximately five miles south of the city of 5alisbury. (Figure 1). salisbury is located about 40 miles northeast of OJarlotte, North Carolina. According to 1986 statistics, Rowan CoW1ty covers 517 square miles with a i:oi:ulation of 104,678. The i:oPJlation of the city of Salisbury as of 1986, is 23,931.
In general, land use of the areas intrediately adjacent to the site is a mixture · of residential and industrial developnents (Figure 2). The east side of the site, on the opi:osi te side of Cedar Springs Road, is an industrial park primarily consisting of warehousing type operations. A farm is adjacent to the south side of the site. Grants Creek forms the western boundary of the site. The Little Acres M::Jbile Home Subdivision adjoins the extrene southwestern corner of the site. A housing developnent, called Kings Forest, is adjacent to the north side of the site. The site actually forms the east, west, and sout11 boundaries of the developnent, such that the site is adjacent to the backyards of a number of homes in the developnent. A second developnent, Stonybrook, lies across Airp:>rt Road on the northern side of the site.
The Rowan County airi:ort is located to the northeast of the site and the Rowan ColIDty Landfill to the north of the airp:>rt.
The National Starch and Chemical Corp:>ration owns a 500 acre industrial site known as the Cedar Springs Road Plant. Hazardous waste was disi:osed of on an approximate five acre area of the site. The production facility is located in t11e extrene southeastern i:ortion of the site. (Figure 3).
DRAFT
-r--r--r-
•
--I --,-, r----- -
,--
• Cedar Springs Road Plant
-----, -----,
Figure I
Vicinity Map Cedar Springs Road Plant
NOTE: Taken from Work Plan for RI/FS (reference 1).
(0
IN RElATION TO THE
NATIONAL STARCH SITE
/~ I ~M \"'
r-~~ ,,....__,,.
? '.,\ ~ . \ ~ t,
v
"#'~ ~ -Q _r , ( \ . '
,' (:Y (
-,.
TIIAILER
P/\RK
I (I
I.
'1 MIL( k' ===~==-·=---:::a·==·===:iesa='=::::===":="~:::==~~=
I~ o --k~ ~ ~ = ~nCT
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET n·6 u@:E. d-, ----·-·--· ,, __ , __ ·-------~----
i -I
WOODS 1
0 500 - -- - -
.
I
1 i
PRETREATMENT
HOLDING LAGOONS
WOODS
I • l
I .
.,,
ll
0 .,,
C,
ll
I CD 'o
C z
0
> ll -<
SCALE IN FEET \ ·
FIGURE NO.
"2 5
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2 Site History
In Septenber 1968, Proctor Olemical Cornpilfly p.rrchased the 465-acre Ced.tr Springs Road property. Within the next year, Proctor Olemical was acquired by National Starch and operated as a separate subsidiary. Construction of the Cedar Springs Road plant began in 1970. On January 1, 1983, Proctor Olemical Compi311Y was dissolved and its operations merged with National Starch.
The National Starch facility is primarily a rranufacturing plant for textile finishing chenicals and custom specialty chemicals. Production takes place on a batch basis and varies depending up:m denand.
From 1971 to 1978, National Starch disposed of approximately 350,000 gallons of reaction vessel wash waters in trenches constructed in a 5-acre tract of land located behind the plant. The corrosive reaction vessel wash water consisted predominantly of salt brines and sulfuric acid solutions and contained trace quantities of solvents. The wastes were disposed of in several trenches approximately 200 to 300 feet long and 8 feet deep. The trenches ran both east to west and north to south.
Liquid effluent from the plant production area flowed into the easterrmost pretreatment holding lagoon, which was unlined, and then was pJITIPed to an active trench in the trench area. Each trench was used until liquid no longer readily percolated into the ground. Afterwards the trench was backfilled and seeded, and a new trench was constructed.
In 1976, eight rronitoring wells were installed around the site by National Starch to determine if the trenching operations were impacting grouru:lwater quality. Four of these rronitoring wells were installed adjacent to or wit11in the trench area. l'bnitoring revealed that shallow grouru:lwater imnediately within and adjacent to the trench area was contaminated. In June 1977, " sampling by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) verified National Starch's earlier conclusion that some of the rronitoring wells were contaminated. Based on analysis of samples taken at that time, DEM requested that National Starch cease onsite waste disposal activities.
Since 1978, production plant process waters have been directed to a pretreatment facility located adjacent to and south of the production area. The waste stream goes through presettling and surface aeration in holding lagoons prior to controlled discharge to the Salisbury µJblicly owned treatment works (FOIW).
The objectives of the site investigation were to:
* Determine the nature and extent of grouru:lwater, surface water, soi 1, and sediment contamination on and adjacent to the site.
* Determine the attentuative and adsorptive properties of the shallow saturated media.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* Determine and describe on-site and off-site features that could affect the methods of containrrent or cleanup.
* Determine the extent , if any, to which the site !X)Sed an inminent hazard to p.!blic health or the envirornnent.
The purpose of the feasibility study was to develop and examine remedial alternatives for the site, and to screen these alternatives on the basis of protection of lllillBTl health and the envirornnent, cost-effectiveness and technical unplementability. In accordance with the comprehensive Environmental Res!X)nse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), as amended by the SUperfllild Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), alternatives in which treatment would permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or rrobility of the hazardous substances at the site were preferred over those alternatives not involving sueh treatment.•
2.0 ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
The National Starch Site was pro!X)sed for inclusion to the NPL in April 1985 and EPA assumed lead res!X)nsibility for the site at that time. The current owner and operator, National Starch and Chemical Cor!X)ration agreed to perfonn the RI/FS. A notice letter was sent to National Starch on May 30, 1986. Negotiations for the RI/FS Consent Agreement were concluded with the signing of the document by both EPA and National s_tarch on Decenber 1, 1986.
3.0 CURRENI' SITE STATUS
3.1 HYDRCGffiLCGIC SEITIN3
The geologic framework of Rowan County forms two distinct aquifers. The first is a sllallow aquifer created by the saprolite. The second is a bedrock aquifer formed by the crystalline rocks. The two aquifers are interconnected with the clay-rich saprolite acting as a storage reservoir of ground wastes for t11e lower crystalline rocks. As a result, both t11e upper and lower aquifers can be considered unconfined despite the tendency of water levels within the crystalline rock aquifer to display artesian conditions. Water levels wit11in t11e deep aquifer tend to use to levels near the upper water table across t11e county, indicating a hydraulic connection between the two.
Well yields are predictably low within the upper aquifer and tend to range between 3 to 5 gallons per minute. successful wells drilled withing the bedrock aquifer generally nave higher yields than those in the saprolite aquifer and average approximately 40 to 50 gallons per minute.
Grants Creek delineates the westernrrost property line and flows in a northeasterly direction. Grants Creek flows approximately 12 miles beyond t11e National Starch property before reaching the Yadkin River. It joins t11e Yadkin River approximately 2 miles below the water supply intake for the City of sa1isbury. S11eet surface runoff, concentrated toward the middle of t11e former trench area, carries surficial drainage from the trench area.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Three unnamed tributaries of Grants Creek traverse the National Starch site. The first stream passes within 200 yards of the front of the plant ( the eastern tributary), .i:aralleling Cedar Springs Road and leaves the property to the north. A small intermittent stream forms the southwestern site l::oundary (the southwestern tributary). The USGS quadrangle indicates a third SI1'all stream positioned in the northwest quadrant of the property (the northwest tributary). Grants Creek and the unnamed tributaries receive the surface water runoff from the former trench area.
3. 2 SITE CCNJ'AMINATICN
The National Starch Site contains two main areas designated as the trench area and the wastewater lagoon area. Soi 1, groundwater, surface water and sediment samples have been collected in and arrnmd each area and analyzed. All samples liave been analyzed for Hazardous Substances List (HSL) volatiles, semivolatiles and metals.
SOILS
Soil composite samples were collected from five J::oreholes from the trench area. ( Figure 4) •
Tile samples represent a comp::isite over o to 15 feet from each of the five J::oreholes BH-01 through BH-05. The analytical results for the composite l::orehole soil samples are shown in Table 1.
Three discreet soil samples were collected from monitoring well l::oreholes as split spoon samples were being.taken continuously. These three soil samples were analyzed because they caused the field HNu meter to register a reading above background or 5pµn. The soil samples were collected from BH-N507, · EN-NS16 and BH-N508. The analytical results are shown in Table 1.
·During the scoping of the RI/FS, the waste disposal practices were believed to be fairly well docLRnented, and the soil sampling program was designed to determine the levels and types of residual contamination remaining in the soil. As shown in the table, the soil samples contain organic contamination.
l\clditional soil samples will be collected during the remedial design to provide additional source characterization and to support the chosen remedy.
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENr
The surface water and sediment sampling locations are shown on Figure 5. The results of the analyses are given in Table 2. In addition, EPA took additional surface water/sediment samples from an eastern tributary in response to nearby residents complaints. Both studies revealed high levels of contamination in t11e eastern tributary on site. Off-site samples were not , sri.iaeed found to be contaminated.
'I11e source of contamination in the surface water has not been identified; neit11er surface water run-off nor groundwater discharge has been ruled out as a potential source. Mdi.tional sampling will be conducted in this area during the remedial design to determine if another source exists in this part of tl1e National Starch property. DRAFT
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l'
0 0 z z
" ► z u
-w . ~ C 0 ~ ~ 0 ~
..
w :;
0
C
~
C
C
~
• m
z • C C 0
"' N .,
N ,-.
" z
z
l
N
TEST PIT
~
TEST PIT O Q #3 BH03 ~-
OBH04 N0X
101L.
STOCKPILE
AREA 1 •
'NCENTRATION_UNITS IN ug/kg ORY WEIGHT
-'!OT DETECTED
0ETECTION LIMIT APPROXIMATELY 10 · •. 'ilGHER THAN STATED DETECTION LIMIT
FIGURE 5-1 rn INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
C:
a:._ ___________ __,.,..... __ _
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6Ho1
Parameters
Methylene chloride Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
2-But:anone
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
!ID -Nondetectable
73N -NSD7
13 1,. _ N so8
11;,N-N5\(o
Parameter
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
Toluene
1,2-dichloropropane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
-, • I ,._.' ' .__
Concentration
(ug/Kg dry 1<t)
ND-9
ND-3300
ND-820
ND-18
ND-210
ND-48
ND-250
Concentration
( ug/Kg dry 1,t. )
2100 -30998 ND-210
ND-620
ND-72
ND-1100
Detection
Levels
5
7
7
15
7
7
7
Detection
Levels
500
50
50
50
330
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 z
" z • ..
"' 0
..
"' 0 ..
z
~ -..
0
" = -"' .. ;;
..
0 z -u
~ ~
0
"' ~
... :z:
::s ... .... <
.;_
,i u
~
..;
0
"' ~
..
~ m
z • .. <= 0
Scale: l" = 2,000"
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE ANALYTICAL DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
FIGURE 5-7
CONCENTRATION UNITS IN ,
ND -NOT DETECTED
@ I:Nc":::<N.!'..,!ON.r
TEC='NOLOGY
COR?ORXI!ON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
" 0 ..
"
~ -..
Q
" :: -" ◄
~
... "' :z ... .... <
a:
ai
" ~
.;
0 " ~
.. • ..
z • ..
C 0
SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYTICAL DATA FOR 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
FIGURE 5-10 @ IN7::'.RNATION.;
TEC~NOLOGY
COR!'OR.:...TION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
m
R
g
g
D
0 3 5
1•
N
------
• I
NATIONAL STARCH
PROPERTY . LINE
FIGURE 3 s-fl
NATIONAL STARCH
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD SITE
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
JUNE 17, 1987
\.
NS-\.
NS-Sl .
AIRPORT ROAD
---------
EA~ PREPARED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
rt 1000' 2000'
SCA1£
APPROXIWA 1E
I 'I
-------------------
__,._
Vl I I-' I-'
Methylene
chloride
SE1
SW1
SE2 8(7)
SW2
SE3
SWl ..-,-. , .
SE4 I " SES
,,,
'-C -~--':": .~ -. 7, ~ :..·-
SEt,
SW6
SE10 -,,, 6) .
SW10
SE 11 -SW11
SE12
SW12
,;)...-
Table -5-f. Surface Water/Sediment Organic Analytical Data Summary National Starch and Chemical Corporation RI/FS
' Date of Sampling -March 1987
1 , 2-d ichloro-ButylbenzKl-Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-Acetone ethane phthalate phthalatea ·
44(7) 18(7)
1400(50)
65(7)
1800(440) 3200(440)
42(8) 1500(520) 3400(520) 33(9 l
50(6) 1000(410) 2700(410)
29(6)
116(6)
18( 7)
asuspected of representing sampling error.
SE -JJg/kg
SW -JJg/1 ( ) repre_sents detection limit
Di-n-butyl-
phthalatea
449(430)
I
TABLE 3 I
I
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY· WATER SAMPLES NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD SITE ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 17, 1987 I
I
I INORGANIC ELEMENT/COMPOUND
BARIUM
I STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
I ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
I CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
I IRON
SODIUM
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS I ETHYLHEXANOIC ACID
I
PHOSPHORIC ACID,TRIETHYL ESTER (DIMETHYLETHYL)PROPENAMIDE
(DIMETHYLETHYL)PROPENAMIDE (2 ISOMERS) l UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
IPURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
I
NS-W3 NS-W4
CONTROL FENCE
06/17/87 06/17/87
1655 1730
UG/L UG/L
32 21
63 110
40
15
3100 230
200 160
MG/L MG/L
6.8 13
3.3 5.4
3.5 1.1
4. 2 13
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
4JN
25JN
3JN
lOOJ
UG/L
4400J
·*********************••••••••k**"lrlr***********-lrlr*****************
'**FOOTNOTES***
I
I
I
J ESTIMATED VALUE
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL -MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
NS-W2
AIRPORT
ROAD
06/17/87
1539
UG/L
46
310
200
MG/L
31
13
0.39
9.6
UG/L
20JN
50J
UG/L
NS-Wl
MENSTER
PROPERTY
06/17/87
1402
UG/L
47
280
210
MG/L
28
12
0.31
9.2
UG/L
20JN
40J
UG/L
TABLE 4
I
I
I
I
I
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY -SEDIMENT SAMPLES NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD SITE ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 17, 1987
I INORGANIC ELEMENT/COMPOUND
BARIUM
I CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
I STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM I ZING
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
I CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
I EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
HEXAGHLOROBUTADIENE
I • BENZOIG ACID
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
I BIPHENYL
BIS(PHENYLMETHYL)BENZENEMETHANAMINE
DIPHENYLETHANEDIONE
I HEXADEGANOIG ACID
OXYBISBENZJ!:NE
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS I 1,2-DIGHLOROETHANE
NS-S3 NS-S4
CONTROL FENCE
06/17/87 06/17/87
1700 1735
MG/KG MG/KG
40 49
31 71
34 62
7.5
14 13
520 860
140 240
16 7.8
18 43
11000 22000
150 640
1300 1300
610 1000
22000 61000
UG/KG UG/KG
400J
520J
N
3000J
lOOJN
700JN
200JN
lOOOJN 900JN
200JN
UG/KG UG/KG
3400JN
I**********~****************:************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
,I J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
I
I ' 'i
NS-S2
AIRPORT
ROAD
06/17/87
1545
MG/KG
37
58 '
30
17
590
140
6.8
22
10000
470
3900
2200
34000
UG/KG
UG/KG
NS-Sl
MENSTER
PROPERTY
06/17/87
1420
MG/KG
52
44
21
13
550
98
5.7
23
8500
490
2500
1900
25000
UG/KG
UG/KG
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUlNU,JATER
During the renedial investigation, 23 rronitoring wells were installed; 17 shallow wells to sample water in the saprolite and six deep wells to sample water fran the bedrock aquifer. Locations of the wells are shown on Figure 6 and the sampling results are given in Table 3.
Data collected from the grolllldwater wells indicated that the two water-bearing zones (shallow and deep) are interconnected.
Three areas were targeted for grolllldwater investigation at this site: the wastewater treatment lagoons, the area just west of the plant between the plant and trench area (where soil fran wastewater lagoon retrofitting was stockpiled and aerated, releasing volatile organics to the atrrosphere) and the trench area.
Tile data from t11e groundwater wells in the vicinity of the stockpile area and the wastewater treatment lagoons did not sllow any impact on grolllldwater.
Tile grow1dwater in the trench area was fow1d to be lligllly contaminated. Contaminants, rrostly in the form of volatile and base neutral organics, are present in both the saprolite and bedrock aquifers. Tllis contamination, llowever, is still confined within the property bow1dary of National Starch.
3.3 REDPIDRS
Based upon the data gathered during the RI and biological resources identified on and in the vicinity of the site, the potential hl.Illlan and environmental receptors include the following:
* Nearby population t11at uses grolllldwater for drinking purposes. Tllese ·residents rely on groundwater wells for their water supply.
* Nearby population t11at uses grow1dwater for domestic purposes other t11an drinking, such as showering, bathing, food preparation, clothes washing, lawn or garden watering, etc.
* Recreational users of surface waters fran Grants Creek and other unnamed tributaries.
* Hl.IlllanS consuming game animals (fish, small animals) t11at can be contaminated by i.nfestion of bioaccumulative contaminants.
* ]lqUatic biota, faW1a, and flora in and arow1d the site t11at may be stressed.
* Persons t11at come into direct dermal contact with contaminants present at tl1e site.
* on site remediation workers t11at inhale elevated concentrations of volatiles during soil disturbance or t11at have direct dermal contact with contaminated soil.
DRAFT
--
/
SE/SW·ll
SE/SW·
. '••·•.
- -- - - - -- -- - -
fxlsttnQ and Proposed Envtroninenlal Honttorln9 Points
(Phase II Honttortng Points Underlined)
-- ---
-------------------Vl • .... 0, mu w-3 iA!!OIAL SIAICH I CBIKICIL COIP. II/PS GIODID mu DATA SUNIUII 1111 COOCIDlflllODi ID ug/1 m,pt cblorid• 111/ll, pH, ud ,pocitlc couductm,.J I L I I. I ~ I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_ 1_;;·1 I I I ~ It I I I .I 1-I I I I I I I:: I I I .: I ~ I I. I :i I I -~ I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I ! I I I i: I i: I! I ::; I '; I I ~ I I I I O I I ~ I I I I I I I .ti I I IEIEI IEl~l~l~I I I Ill l~I 1 •. 1 I I I l~I I 1-::111.~l~l'.::l.:!IEl-l_l.l~l.;l~I l~I l~I I l.~l~I I I Q I ';; I :: I -;:. I • I !. I --,· I = I 2 I ·~ I .~ I ~ I Q I : I :-I z I ·~ I u I I ~ I ·::; I I I --, I ;;; I :. I -; I -: I :; I -: I :; I :: I -:: I '=' I :; I --, 1·-;:. I : I .~ I -;:. I .:e I ~ I :. I :;; I l·····-1-·-··-1-·····I •····1·····-1-·-·+ u ·+·-·+ -·+·◄··I·~ ··I· -·-1--··I· -·+ -··I···• ···I··•·+·-·+·~·+·~ . .,.. -·+ ~ ... , I Oil I I I I I I I I I ll I l I I I I .I I lll I ll I 12 I 25 11.11 I 111 I 2 I I······ I······. I•····· I······ I······ I······ l······l ····•· I ······I ······I ······1······ 1 ······ 1 ··•··· 1 ······ 1 ········ 1 ······ 1 ······1 ······ I ······I······· I······ I I Ol I llOOO I I I II I I I I I I I I I I II I 180 I Ill I ll I I ll I I.II I IOU I llO I I······ I ·······I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ l······l······ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I I llOOD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Bil I ll I I 2D I l.ll I 1100 I m I I······ I ·······I······ I······ I ······I ······I······ I ······I ······I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I I Ol I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I 211 I I I ii I l.ll I 11 I l.l I I······ I······· I·.···· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I I I . I ll I I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I ll I l.11 I 11.1 I U I I······ I······· I•·,.-'-' ··I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I·····'· I······ I / .. ~~ .. /. •.. i I ..•• / •••••• / •....• / •••••• / •••... / .••••• / •.•••. / ..•.•• / •••••• / .••... / ...•.. / •••. ~~'../ ...... / .•.••• / .•• '.~./.'.:~~./ •••• ~~./ •• ~:~./ I I '"{.,-,9 I I I I I I I I I I I l!I I 11 I I II I 5.11 I II I l I I······! . · ,. · I······ I ······I·····+····· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······· I······ I I 01 t I I I I I I I I I I I mo I ll · I I I l.ll I 110 I 110 I I······ I· . i ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I I I , . I I I llD I I I I I I I I I I mo I I I Ill I I.II I 111 I 100 I I······ I ··.·c·· · ···I ·····-1-·····l ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I O_I I uoo i H I I I I I · . I I I I I I I mo I ii I I Ill I uo I lJl I 10 I l······I .••····I· , ·····l······l······l······l······l······l······l······l······l······l······l······l········l······l······l······l······l·······l······I I I . mo I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I 2!I I I I II I l. ll I Ill I 10 I I ·····-I-.····· I······ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I······ 1······ 1 ······ 1 ······1 ······I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I I 01 I I mo I l I I I I I I I I I I I llOO I Ill I II I I ii I 1. ll I 25ll I llO I I····· I ·······I ·····I······ I ······I ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I I I mo I I I I I I I 210 I I I I I 1100 I 181 I I I II I I.II I mo I liO I I······ I ·······I···_. · I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ l·····-1-····· I ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······· I······ I I 01 I moo I mo I I I I I I 111100 I I I ll 1moo I I lllOOO I l21 I 102 I 1110 I UI I llOll I mo I I··· ···I······· I······ I······ I······ I······ 1······ 1 ······ 1 ······ 1 ······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I . I I llOOD I llOO I I · I I I I lllOOO I I I 2 121000 I HOO I 11000 I 1H I I llO I I.II I moo I 1100 I I······ I ·······I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I ······I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I I 01 I moo I I II I !O I I I I I uoo I I I I I 11 I 201000 I Ill I I Ill I 5.11 I moo I mo I I······ I······· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I······ I······ I ······I······ I······· I······ I I I mo I I 15 I I I I I I I I I 1 · I I 211000 I 11 I I Ill I 6.01 I 11100 I IIOO I I······ I······· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I········ I ······I······ I······ I ······I······· I······ I I 10 I llDOO I I I ll I II I I I II I I II I I I I I I I mo I 15 I I ii I 5.19 I 1155 I 5lO I I······ I······· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I·····•·· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I I moo I I l I I I I I I I J I I I I 1000 I ll I I Ill I I.JI I !ilD I IIO I I······ I·_-····· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I ······I ······I······ I······ I ·······I······ I······ I ······I · ·······I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I · --···I I II I I I I I I I I I 25 I I I I I liO I 2111 I I I 1.5B I 1111 I ll I .1 · ·····I······· I······ I···· ··.I······ I······ I· .. ··· I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······ I•····· I········ I······ I······ I······ I······ I······· I······ I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 15 I I I I I 1100 I l2I I ll I I II I l.ll I 1010 I 15 I ' ' ' • ' ., ...... 1 ...... 1 ...... 1 •••••• , •••••• , •••••• , •••••••••••••••••••• J •••••. j •••••• j •••••••• , ...... , •••••• , ...... , •••••• , ••••••• , •••••• ,
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------------------------------------------1 I , O , o I O I I I O , O o , , o
ipfJOt~J : ,... : -: : : .-: -: : : ::; : ~ : i : ~ : ~ : i : ~ : : : : : = : :: :
I • I O I t O O O .... I -0 .... I~ I -I O O t t -------·-•-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~· .... ,-........ _._._._._, ' . ' . . ' . . . . . ' . . . . . ' ·-·-·~·~·-·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ni.11pnpuoJ 'HPJdS : -l ~ l = l = l -; -! ::; l = l ~ l ; l :i! l ~ l :::; : = l = l :; l :: : ________ :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:-:-:=:=:_:_:_:_:_:
I I o I o O I I I I o I O O o O o o ·-·-·~·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~·~·,..,, .... ,_,_, •:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ·-· .... ·-·-·-·-·-·-· .............. ,_,_,_,_, ___ , ------:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: '"H : :::: : ::: : ~ : ~ : ~ : ;:: : ~ : .... : ~ : ~ : E : =: : .... : .... : -: .... : ~ : ________ :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:=:=:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:
' . ' ' ' ' . . ' . ' ' ' ' 1n1u11;~::: :~: : : ;;='.:-:,..,:-:::::::::: -------~!_!_i_._._!_!_._._i_!_i~!_!_i_!_i_!
' . ' . . ' ' . ' . . . ' . ' . ' . ,,...,co,,-, •-• , , ,co,a,co,_,co,c.,co,co,co,
tiP!I : -: ~ : -: : -: : : : :: : ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ : ...., : ...., : ,.., : -: . . ' . . ' ' . . .... ' ..... -. . . . ' . ' -------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· . . ' ,. . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' . •-•..-.•-•~•-•-oa,-,co,co,co,a,co,-,~•-•CO•
;inu161u1w l :::: ; ~ : ;: ; ::.-: l ::: : = l ~ l ~ ; ~ ; i l ~ l ~ ! ~ 1 ::; l ::: ; ::::! : :=: ; .. ' .... ' ·-·~·--·--·-· ' . ' . ________ :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:=:=: .... : .... :-:_:_:_:_:
: : : : : : : : : : : : -: : : ilUilAI : : : : : : ' : ! : : : -: : : . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . ' __ . _____ ._._._._,_,_,_,_,_,_._._._,_._,_,_.
I O I I I I O O O 0
iUld0Jd0J0l~)!QZ 1\::: : : :~:g:: :::::: : . . . . . . ... ,.,., . :~: . --------:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:~:~:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
lnHtAJ19 J l l l l : l l : :! ! ;:: ! l .,.. : -: -l -: -: ~ l ________ :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:
0 I I O I I O I I I I I O O O O I 0
1ou;i~dOJl!IH ; l l l 1 : l : : ~ : ~ l ~ : ~ l l 1 l : l ________ :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:=:~:-:~:_:_:_:_:_:
0 t O I I • I I O I O O I O I O 1 H!•P•Jl:: ! 1 1; :::::;:;;;:::--:--:--: ..... :-: --------:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: , , , 1 , , , , ,_,..,.,co,co,co,~,-• ,.,..,
iUO}iJ' : : : : : : : : : = : : : ~ : ~ : :;; : ~ : -: : ...., :
• • • ' • • • ' .... ' Q • ,-' - ' • ' • • ' --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· 0 t O I O O I I I I O I I I O O 0 o I O I I o O I O o O I I -I o t I
ilUIZVill : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ' . ' . ' . ' . ' ' . '
.. ;iufqlJ0J0Lq)fJl l 1 l1I ! ! ! ! ! : : : ! l l :
0 t o I I I I I I I o I --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· . ' . ' ' ' ' ' . . ' ' . ' ' . I O I O I I I -0 ' I I I O I - I -I I.IOjO.IOL•) : ! : : : ! : : : : ! : : : : -:
0 I O O I I I O O I I I O I I I --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ' . . ' . ' ' . . ' '
iUIOIOJOfq3fQl'li ! : : : : ·::::: : . ' . . ' ' . . ' . . ' . . ' ' . .
--------0 -0 -0 -0 - I - • -0 -0 -I - ' -0 - • -0 -I -o -I - I -0
0 0 0 0 0 I I t O O I I
•P!JO\ql LlaiA l ! ! l l 1 : l l i ! l
I I O I O f O t O I O I --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· I O I I O I I I I O I I I t I I I .. ·-·-· .. ' . ·-· ·-·-·-·-..... ,,_, '!UUJf : ! : ! ! : : ! : ,::,,, : : ~ : : : ! ; : ' ' . ' . . . ' . -' ' ' ' . ' ' ' --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ' . . ' . ' ' . . ' ' ' .
J1q1a(l.lqi10Jo1q:>-Z)l\9 l l 1 1 : l 1 l ~ : ~ ! : l ~ l l l
0 0 0 I O O O • -I -0 I • ,-1 0 I --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· t O • • 0 0 0 0 I O I O O O I ♦ • • o o o o •••-•-•-•-•Go.no , ,
au1q}aoJ01q,,oz·1: l l::: :-:-:~:~:i:~;-; l l ' ' ' . . . ' . . - . ~ ..... ' .... ' . ' . --------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~" ..... _._,_._,_. ' ' . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' . ' ' ' ' . ' . . ' . . ' ' ' . . ' . ' ' ·~· ...... ·-· ...... ·-· ,,_, ·-·~· .... ·-·-· _________ :-:_:-:_:-:_:~:_:~:_:~:_:~:~:~:~:~:
5-19
~ = . -
Q --..... =-0
~ --, = ---u ~ ~ =~= :a :: ...
~ ~-. : :: : ..; = : Q =-
0 ---.. ""'~ -;;;: : ~
.. ;~=-·· ~-
~
~
. ~ ~
0 ";i;~!:li. » 0 Q= = ~.., =: .-::: .::!:::a::a.
Q ---. Cl .. _, .. ., __ ~-~ :;:· ~.: :: ~
Q ~ . -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
4.0 CT,FANUP CRITERIA
The extent of contamination was defined in Section 3.0. CUrrent Site Status. This section examines the relevance and appropriateness of water quality criteria urxier the circumstances of release of contaminants at this Site. Based upon criteria found to be relevant and appropriate, the minimum goals of remedial action at this site have been developed.
4. 1 rnOlJl'Ja-JATER · Rfr!EDIATICN
In determining the degree of groundwater cleanup, section 12l(d) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires tllat tile selected remedial actions establisll a level or standard of control which complies with all "applicable or relevant and appropriate requiranents · (ARARs)."
Growldwater in the area is classified as Class IIA, a =rent source of drinking water, using the us EPA Groundwater Classifications Guidelines of December 1986. The value to• society of Class IIA groWldwater resources supports restoration of t11is contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human heal th and the environment.
A 1988 survey of existing off-site water supply wells revealed a total of 1,539 llomes within a 3-mile radius of the site tllat are outside the limits of the city water lines. The closest well is located 2,200 feet northeast of the site.
Future exposure to contaminated water is estimated based upon the possibility of a well being placed on the site and producing water containing the 11\3.Ximum levels of contaminants detected in rronitoring wells during the remedial investigation.
Based upon groundwater classification and future exposure, remediation of the groundwater to reduce contaminants to levels protective of human health and the environment would be necessary. Growldwater cleanup goals given in Table 4 meet these requiranents. Because Section 121 of SARA requires consideration of potential as well as =rent groundwater use, the levels of contaminants in tile groundwater must be reduced to acceptable levels.
Tlle conclusion of the above discussion is tllat a no-action alternative for growldwater would be out of compliance with Section 121 of SARA, which requires cleanup of contaminated groundwater to levels which are protective of human l1ealth and the environment. Classification of the groundwater and the potential future use of the growldwater indicates tllat present contaminant levels in the groundwater are not acceptable.
Indicator chemicals were used to establish cleanup goals for groundwater. Indicator chemicals were selected based on the results of previous sampling activities and the =rent RI results. All indicator chemicals analyzed for in the RI were utilized in the Public Health Evaluation.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Compound
Acetone
Arsenic
Benzene
Bis (2-chloroethyl)
ether
Ollorofonn
1,2 Dichloroethane
1,1 Dichoroethylene
Ethyl Benzene
~~thylene 01loride
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
TrichLoroethylene
Toluene
Vinyl 01loride
Xylene
DRAF~i~
TABLE 4
GROUNr::WATER CLEANUP GCli\LS
Maximum Cleanup source Observed Concentration S,QgJ, (ug/1)
(ug/1)
89,000 3500 160 50 l 8 5 1 14,000 10 2
49 100 350,000 5 1 11 7 l 1500 680 l 8 5
11 0.6 10 5 6000 2,000 l 90 2 1 3800 440 1
( l) National Primary Drinking Water Standards Maximum Contaminant Level (M:L)
(2) Set as low as feasible based on analytical methOdology
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. 2 SOIL REMEOIATICN
The Public Health Assessment determined that risks to hum3I1 health as a result of exp::isure to on-site contaminants via inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact are low under present use conditions at t11e Site. Contaminants remaining in the soil will , however, continue to leach into the groundwater.
Based u.:on the data obtained during tlle RI, soil contamination is significantly lower that the contamination present in tlle groundwater. The contaminant levels in tlle soil are expected to decline as groundwater remediation continues.
Reinediation of soils is not expected at this time. However, additional soil samples taken during the RD will eitller supp:,rt tlle decision for non-remediation of the soils at tlle site or suggest that some remediation of soils is appropriate.
Soil cleanup goals have been established. The cleanup goals presented in Table 5 are estimates of contaminant concentrations in soil at tlle National Starch Site that would not result in future exceedances of NPI:WS in groundwater at tlle source area due to leaching of soil contaminants.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Compound
Acetone
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Ollorofonn
Ethyl Benzene
'Ibluene
Xylene
TABLE 5
SOIL CLE'\NUP GOi\LS
Maximum
concentration Detected
(ug/kg)
30,998
820
ND
ND
48
620
250
Cleanup
Goal (ugjkg)
103.0
1
5
78
8002
814
884
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
4. 3 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMEN!' REMEDIATICN
Surface water and sediment contamination have been detected in streams on-site. 'llle source of this contamination has not been detennined. The contaminant levels are expected to decline as groundwater ranediation continues, if the groundwater in the trench area is the source of the contamination. Additional 'soil sampling in the vicinity of the eastern tributary to detennine if a source, other than the trench area, exists will be conducted. If another source is found, it will be ranediated. Thus, it was concluded that Elirect renediation of the surface water and sediment is not necessary.
5.0 ALTERNATIVF.S EVALUATICN
The purfOse of renedial action at the National Starch Site is to mitigate and minimize contamination in the groundwater and in the soils, if needed, and to reduce p:itential risks to human health and the envirornnent. The primary cleanup objective, based on regulatory rEqUirements and the level of contamination found at the site, was to restore contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human health and the environment.
Groundwater
An initial screening of p:issible technologies was performed to identify those wt1ich best meet the criteria of Section 300. 68 of the National Contingency Plan (N:::P) Table 6.
Following the initial screening of technologies, p:itential renedial action alternatives were identified and analyzed. These alternatives were further screened and those which best satisfied the cleanup objectives, while also being cost effective and tectmically feasible were developed further (Table 7).
5 . 1 GROUNl:xJATER ALTERNATIVF.S
ALTERNATIVE 1: J:\O ACTICN
This alternative includes no renedial action measures, but will include continued groundwater and surface water monitoring and the filing of a deed restriction identifying the areas of contamination. The deed restriction will prevent on-site develoµnent in the trench area and prevent on-site use of the groundwater.
contamination, over time, will be reduced because of biodegradation, chemical transformation, soil attenuation of contaminants, and dilution. However, given rJ1e contaminant concentrations at the Site, the time rEqUired to significantly reduce contaminant levels is unrealistic. No action does not provide permanent source control.
ALTERNATIVE 2: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF rncJlJNJ»lATER 'ID RCRA TSD FACILITY
'!11is alternative includes the extraction of contaminated groundwater, t11e collection of groundwater at a central on-site location, and the off-site_ disp:isal of the collected groundwater by bulk tank til.lllkS to a RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disp:isal (TSD) facility.
--
Ground Water
•nera I Response
---
Action Remedial Technology
10 action None
•nstitutional Access restr.lctlons·
,.1ct ions
-

-
Table 5-2. NaB1 sR an.Jlanic ... po,·-···--
Control Technologies tor Ground Water Contamination -
Prbcess Option
Not appl I cable
Oeed restrictions
Effectiveness
Does not ensure achievement
of remedial action objectives
Effect I veness depends on con-
tinued future Implementation;
does not reduce contamination
lmplementabi I ity
N/A; will lil<.ely require long-
term man i tor Ing
Legat requirements
----
Cost Status
Low O&M ( I ong-Retained
t erm monitoring)
Neg I lg Ible Retained
Alternative water supply New community wel I Effective In preventing use
of contaminated ground water;
no contamination reduction
Conventional dril I Ing method
requires local permit
Moderate capital,-Dismlsst
low O&M
Containment
-'""
C,
::0
:l>
I i
I
CEE I 3635C
06/2B/B6 F3
Mani tor Ing
Cap
Vertical barriers
Ground water
man I tor Ing
Clay and sol I
Multi layered cap
Slurry wall
Grout curtain
Useful tor documenting con-
ditions; does not mitigate
contamination
Effective against vertical
leaching al contaminants
Into ground wateri sus-
ceptible to cracking
Effective; least
susceptible to cracking
Not feasible because ground
water Is contaminated within
the fractured bedrock
Not effective because ol
fractured bedrock
Easily implemented; serves to
monitor contamination, not
mitigate contamination
Easily lmplementedi restriction
on future land use; does not
address major risks at site
Easily implementedi
restriction on future land use
Olff lcult to verity continuity
ol slurry or backf 11 I
Oif f icult to verify continuity
of wall; must tie into
impervious zone
Low capital,
low O&M
Retaine
Lo.,. capital, Reta int
lo.,. maintenance
Moderate capital, Retain
low maintenance
High capital. Oismi·
low O!M
High capital.
lo.,. O&M
Dismi
-----·---
. Ground Water.
General Response
Act Ion
Containment
(con•i nued)
Remedial Technology
Horizontal barriers
Col lectlon/treat-Extraction
ment/discharge
CEE13635C
06/28/BL F}
Subsurface drains
Physical/chemical
Treatment
• Process Option
Sheet pl le
Grout Injection
Extraction wel Is/
deep wel I system
Interceptor
trenches
Neutral lzatlon
Precipitation/
flocculation
Ion exchange
Air stripping
----Table 5-2. (Continued)
Effectiveness
Not effective because ot
fractured bedrock
Not effective because ot
fractured bedrock
Effectiveness can be verlf led
by monitoring; performance is
sensitive to design; collected
water must be treated or
disposed of
Effective for downgradlent
fracture.flow Intercept Ion
----
lmplementabil ity
Oif f icult to key to bedrock;
excavation required; I imi ted
50 feet
Continuity Is dlttlcult to
verity
Easily implemented; continued
O&M required
no
to
Very difficult to implement;
requires deep trenching through
rock
Effective and reliable for Readily Implemented
stab I I lzlng pH of ground water
prior to treatment
Effective and rel I able; Readily implemented
requires sludge disposal
Not an effective process when
deal Ing with sal lne water
conditions that exist at
site
Effective for removal of
volatl le organics; not appl I-
cable to lnorganics
Ground water would require pre-
treatment before Implementing
this option
Easily implemented; existing
aeration basins on-site may
be app I icable
-... -
Cost Statui
High capital, Olsmis
low O&M
High capital, Oismis
lo• O&M
Moderate c~pl tal ,· Retai1
moderate O&M
High capital,
low O&M
Oismi
Low capital, Retai
moderate O&M
Moderate capital, Reta
moderate O&M
High capital,
high O&M
Dlsa
Moderate capital, Rat
moderate O&M
--
Ground Water
..:neral Response
Action
---
Remedial Technology
:ol lection/treor-Physlcal/chemlcal
.,ent /discharge
(continued)
C,
=ti ~ -,-, -;
CEE IJ635C
06/28/88 F 3
treatment
(cont I nued)
Biological treatment
In situ treatment
--
Process Option
Steam stripping
E11aporatlon
Reverse osmosis
Fl I tr at ion
Carbon adsorption
Biological
degradation
Treatment in
existing lagoons
Biodegradatlon
-
Effect h,eness
Effective for removal of
volatile organics; not appli-
cable to inorganics
Effective if properly designed
Effective In concentrating
the salts In wastewater;
may be considered as a
pretreatment step
Effective in reducing sus-
pended sol ids prior to
further treatment
Not effective for Inorganic
contaminants; not as effective
for water soluble compounds
Effective under good process
control conditions
Effective In air stripping
volatl le organics may be
eff iclent bloreactors
Not effective in fractured
bedrock and sal lne water
conditions
-------
tmplementabi I lty Cost Status
Because at high chloride, Moderate capital, Olsmlsse
content equipme~t may require high O&M
alloy materials tor construction
Would require bench-scale
testing and continued O&M ,
Readily implemented; membranes
may foul If solubility limits
are exceeded
Readily Implemented
Readily implemented
Readily implemented using
conventional equipment
Readily implemented, wi I I
require testing
High capita I,
high O&M
High capital,
moderate O&M
Low capital,
moderate O&M
High capital,
high O&M
Low capital,
moderate O&M
Low capital,
moderate O&M
Not easl ly implemented; requires High capital,
bench-scale testing; would moderate O&M
require numerous wells tor
injection
Dismiss ◄
01 smi ss
Retal01
Rett1i n
Retai,
Olsm
r-•1
Ground Water
General Response
Actfon
L
Remedial Technology
Col lectlon/treot-On-site discharge
ment/dlscharge
(continued)
CfE13635C
06/28/88 I 3
oft-site discharge
Process Option
Chemical treatment
Local stream
RCRA facl I lty
Sewer Llne/POTW
Table 5-2. (Continued)
Effectiveness
Not effective In fractured
bedrock
Effective and rel lob le
Effective and rel iabl8, but
requires transportation
Effective and rel I able
--
lmplementabi I lty
Not easily implemented, would
require numerous wel Is for
.1 nject Ion
Not eas i I y implementedj NPDES
permit required
Permits required
Readily implemented through
eMistlng se•er I ine to POTW
If pretreatment standards are
met
--
Cost
High capital,
high O&M
High capital,
high O&M
High capital,
low O&M
Low capital,
moderate O!M
-
Stat
Dismi
Dlsml
Retai
Retai
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 1
No Action
Long-term CM !IOl1itoring
Alternative 2
CM recovery
off-site disposal
Alternative 3
CM Recovery
Direct Discharge to PCllW
Alternative 4
CM Recovery
Pre-Treatment/Air Stripping
Discharge to PCllW
Alternative 5
CM Recovery
Pre-Treatment/Lagoon System Discharge to PCllW
TABLE 7
GR:lllN™ATER ALTERNATIVES
REOOCE'S
M/T/V <n;'l'
Minor Reductions in Contaminant $119,000 volume will require an extended time period.
Provides permanent and significant reductions
in M/T/V
Provides permanent and
Significant reductions
in M/T/V
Provides permanent and
significant reductions
in M/T/V
Provides permanent and
significant reductions
in M/T/V
$103,377,000
$391,000
$6,765,000
$739,000-
$3,337,000
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Groundwater will be extracted at a rate of 50,000 gallons per day and will be placed in an aoove ground tank for no n-ore than 90 days. The tanks wi 11 store the extracted groundwater until it is transferred to bulk tank trucks and transported to a RCRA TSD facility.
Continued groundwater n-onitoring will be perfonned after rsroval of the contaminated groundwater to verify the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction operation.
This alternative would meet groundwater remedial action objectives by rsroving the contaminated groundwater but will not destroy the contaminants. Thus, it is not considered a permanent remedy.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GRQUN[WATER EXl'RACITCN AND DI;OiARGE DIRECTLY 'IO POIW
This alternative involves extracting the contaminated groundwater and discharging it to the Salisbury Kf1W for treatment. The Kf1W is a 5 million gallon per day biological treatment plant. Bench-scale testing may be required by the POIW to determine if the POIW is capable of treating this contaminated groundwater.
National Starch currently discharges plant wastewater effluent to a sewer line connected to the POIW.
The extracted groundwater would be discharged into the existing sewer line.
The discharge to the Salisbury Kf1W will have to be negotiated with t11e City of Salisbury.
Groundwater will be extracted for an estimated ten years, until the groundwater at the site meets the ARARs established for this site.
ALTERNATIVE 4: GROUNlNIATER EXTRACTICN. PRE-TREA'IMENI' BY AIR Sl'RIPPIN3/METhLS REMJVAL. DISCHARGE 'IO roIW
In this alternative, the groundwater will be extracted, treated to meet acceptable effluent limits of the POIW, once negotiated, then discharged to the 1-0IW.
The treatrrent process will include pi adjustment, precipitation, flocculation, and clarification for metals removal; and. air stripping with fume incineration followed by biotreatirent to remove the HSL organics, and to reduce COD and BOD. The process would be designed to meet all pretreatment requirements for producing a final effluent suitable for discharge to t11e Salisbury 1-0IW.
Groundwater will be extracted for an estimated ten years, until the groundwater at the site meets the ARARs established for this site.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALTERNATIVE 5: GRCJUNa-lATER EXTRACTICN. PRE-TRUfil1ENI' IN EXISTIN, LAGCXN SYSTEM. DISCHARGE 'ID PQIW
This alternative includes the extraction of groundwater, pretreatment as required to allow the groundwater to be combined with the current plant effluent and treated in the existing lagoons for discharge to the Salisbury FOIW. The level of pretreatment required will depend on the effluent limits set by the P01W.
T11e pretreatment syst6Tl nay include metals renoval by lime precipitation, stripping of volatile organics or treatment with activated carbon.
Groundwater will be extracted for an estinated ten years, until the groundwater at the site meets the ARARs established for this site.
SOILS
An initial screening of possible technologies was performed to identify those c;J1ich best meet the criteria of Section 300.68 of the N:P (Table 8).
5.2 SOIL ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE l: l'D-ACTICN
Tllis alteniative would allow for the naturally occurring leaching or cleaning of soil. A deed restriction would be filed identifying the areas of contamination. Contamination will be-reduced overtime because of bioctegradation, volatilization and soil attenuation of contaminants.
Additional soil sampling will be conducted to verify that the entire trench area soils contain only residual contamination and does not contain any areas of "high" contamination.
.. The no-action alternative does not provide any additional mitigation to the soil contamination beyond the natural processes.
ALTERNATIVE 2: SITE CAPPIN:;
T11is alten1ative involves the capping of all past trench disposal areas at the site. This alternative will reduce the rate of migration of contaminants into t11e groundwater from the unsaturated soils that underlie the trench areas.
A clay cap will be constructed from soil excavated on site. The cap construction will consist of: * Native soil to bring the area to t11e appropriate grade and establish a foundation for the final cover. * A 2-foot layer of clay, corrq:,acted *Topsoil to support vegetation
*Revegetation
*Drainage !>walls and ditches to prevent run-on and prorrote runoff from .the cap.
•me trench area is approxinately 150 ,ooo square feet.
DRAFT
Ground Water
General Response
Action Remedial Technology
No action None
!nstitutional Access restrictions
actions
Containment
CEE148658
07/27/88 F?
Cap
Vertical barriers
C,
:::0 ::x::,-
1 i
--t
Table 5-2. National Starch and Chemlcal Corporation RI/FS Screening Control Technologies for Sol I Contamination
Process Option
Not applicable
Deed restrictions
Clay and soi I
Multi layered cap
Slurry wal I
Grout curtain
Effectiveness
N/A
Effective in I imitlng
use of trench area
Effective against vertical
leaching of contaminants
into ground water; sus-
ceptible to cracking
Effective; least
susceptible to cracking
Not feasible because ground
water Is contaminated within
the fractured bedrock
Not effective because of
fractured bedrock
lmplementabi I ity
NIA; w i 11 1 lkel y require long-
term monitoring
Legal requirements
Easily implemented; restriction
on future land use
Easily implemented;
restriction on future land use
Oif f icult to verify continuity
of slurry or backf ii I
Diff lcult to verify continuity
of ,,,:,11; must tie into
impervious zone
Cost
Low O&M ( long-
term monitoring)
Neg I igible
Low capital,
low maintenance
Stat
Retai
Retai
Retai
Moderate capital, Reta ii
low maintenance
High capital,
low O&.M
High capital,
low O&.M
Dismi'.
Oismh.
----'iii
Ground Water
General Response
Act ion
Containment
(continued)
iiiii --
Remedial Technology
Surface controls
Excavation/ Removal
Treatment Act i_on
CEE148658
07/27/68 F2
.;....~-,
CJ
:::0 :x::,.
I I
-I
r ' 1tment
-- -
Process Option
Sheet pi le
Diversion/grading/
sol I stabi I izatlon
Excavation
Soil washing
Sol I farming
Solidification/
fixation
---Table 5-2. (Continued)
Effectiveness
Not effective because of
fractured bedrock
May divert run-on; soi I
stab I I izatlon may decrease
Inf I ltratlon
Effective for removal of
contaminants in sol I, but
requires disposal
Water can be effective
since volatiles of concern
are highly soluble.
Requires excavation and
the treatment of water.
Clayey soi I can hinder
removal efficiencies. Poor
track record; may not treat
to desired levels
Effectiveness is dependent
on ambient temperatures.
precipitation and wind.
May not conform to air
release regulations for
volatl le compounds.
Not an effective method for
organic compounds.
l!!!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!I I!!!!! I!!!!! I!!!!! l!!!!!!!!9 em
lmplementabi I ity Cost Status
Diff !cult to key to bedrock; no High capital, Dismiss
excavation· required; I imited to
50 feet
Eas1·1y implemented
Read I ly implemented with
conventional construction
equipment
Implemented using
commercially avai I able
mining and chemical
processing equipment
Easily implemented. Requires
excavation of contaminated
soi Is and spredding over
large area with surface
water control.
Readily implemented by
excavating and mixing soi I
with the additive
low 04N
Low capital,
low O&M
High capital,
low 0.!M
High capital,
Moderate 0.!M
Retaine,
Dismissc
High capita I, Oismisst
high O&M
Moderate capital, Oismisst
low 0.!M
--
Sol I
General Response
Action
C,
:::0
~
il
--4
Excavation/
disposal action
;EE I 48658
07/21/BB F2
---
Remedial Technology
In situ treatment
Thermal treatment
Off-site disposal
--llll!!IJ ~ l!!!!a l!!!!!L .. .. • •
Process Option
Subsurface
bloreclamatlon
Sol I flushing
Soil venting·
Rotary ki In
incinerator
RCRA taci I ity
On-Site landf i I I
Table 5-2. (Continued)
E f feet I veness lmplementabi I ity
Effectiveness is dependent Readily implemented by on soll uniformity (I.e. grain horizontal Irrigation. May size, porosity, Ph, etc.) require bench-scale testing;
poor track record for this
type of geologic setting
Effectiveness Is dependent on Not readily Implemented in soil uniformity and abi I lty to clayey soi Is would require capture the leachate numerous injection/extraction
welts
Not an effective method for Not readily implemented in tight clayey soi IS clayey sol ls, would require
pressurized air injection
Effectiveness is dependent
on operation of incinerator
Effective and reliable, but
requires transportation
Effectiveness is dependent
.·design·, construction and
continued inspection
Clayey soi Is may require longer
residence time thereby increas-
ing O&M. Avai labi I ity of
incinerators is questionable.
Permits required
Difficult to obtain regulatory
agency permit approval
!!!!!I ~
Cost
l!!!!!!!I --
Status
Moderate capital, Dismiss.
moderate O&M
Moderate capital, Oismlsst
moderate 04M
Moderate capita I, Di smi sst
moderate O&M
High capital,
IOw O&M,
High capital,
low 04M
High capital
Moderate O&M
Reta i nee
Retaineu
Oismissu
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative 1
No ActlOO
Natural Soil Flushing
Soil Sampling
Alternative 2
site Capping
Alternative 3
Soil Excavat1cn
On-Site Incineration
Alternative 4
Soil Excavat1cn
Off-Site Dispoeal
Alternative 5
In-S1t:lll Soil Flushing
/
TABLE 8
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Reduces
M/T/V
Reductions in Ca!taminant
volume overtime
Reducticn in Caitaminant
1-bbility.
Provides permanent and
significant reductions in
M/T/V
Reduction in Caitaminant
M/T/V en-site.
Reducticn in Ca!taminant
M/T/V
Cost
$44,000
$216,200
$26,000,000
$27,000,000
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Because of its low penneability ( <10-7 an;second) capping will significantly reduce infiltration and therefore, reduce the rate of transi:ort of additional contaminants into the groundwater. This alternative, however, does not reduce the soil contamination present at the site.
ALTERNATIVE 3: EXCAVATICN AND IN:INERATICN
This alternative involves on-site incineration of excavated soils from the trench area. :rrie approximate volume of soils to be remediated is 125,000 cubic yards.
The soil can be incinerated at rates up to 20 tons/year. Emissions and effluents will be treated, rronitored, and controlled to levels within current regulatory limits.
Incinerated material will be analyzed prior to replacenent in disi:osal areas to ensure that remediation and ARAR levels have been achieved. After replacing the incinerated soils, the disi:osal areas will be given topsoil and revegetated.
ALTERNATIVE 4: EXCAVATICN AND OFF-SITE DISKlSAL
In this alternative, 125,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil in the trench area would be excavated and transi:orte;I to a secure landfill for disµ:,sal.
The 125 ,ooo cubic yards only addresses the soil in the unsaturated zone; the contaminated soil in the saturated zone wou.J.d not be excavated.
ALTERNATIVE 5: SOIL FLUSHIN,
In this alternative, water would be applied to the contaminated soils in-situ and collected at well i:oints for treatrrent. The flushing would continue until the soil in the trench area rreets the soil ARAR.s identified in Section 4.
Injection and extraction wells would be placed to optimize rrobilization and subsequent collection of contaminants.
6. 0 REX::CM1ENDED ALTERNATIVES
6.1 DESCRIPTICN OF Rf£fM")OOF'D R™EDY
TJ1e recOlllllE!Ilded alternative for remediation of groundwater is Alternative 3 which includes the extraction of groundwater and discharge to the POIW. The reconmended alternative for remediation of soil is Alternative l which is no-action but contains additional sarrpling requirenents.
These reconmended alternatives rreet the requirenents of The National Oil and Hazardous SUbstances Contingency Plan (N:::P) , 40 CFR 300. 68 ( j) , and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This reconmended remedy permanently and significantly reduces the volume of hazardous substances · in the groundwater, and reduces the volume of contaminants in the soil.
DRAFT
D
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 • 2 OPERATICN AND l'1"JNI'EN'\N:
After the renedy is completed, no long term operation and maintenance will be required other than rronitoring requirements.
6 . 3 cosr OF RED:M1ENPill ALTERNATIVES
Capital costs for groundwater remediation is $101,000 with system operating and maintenance cost at $43,000 per year, which includes sampling and analysis. The total present worth of the groundwater remediation is $391,000.
The total present worth of the soil alternative is $44,000, which includes a one-time fee of $1,000 for the deed restriction and $43,000 for the additional soil sampling needed to back-up the chosen alternative.
The total present worth cost of this remedy, including l:xlth soil and groundwater remediation is $434,000.
6 . 4 5'.:HEI)lJLE
Tl1e planned schedule for remedial activities at the National Starch Site will be governed by the signing of the consent Decree and the finalization of the site on the NPL, but tentatively is as follows:
September 1988-Approve Record of Decision January 1989-Sign consent Decree. February 1989-Begin Remedial Design July 1989-Complete Remedial Design August 1989-Begin M::>bilization
6. 5 FUl'lJRE ACTICNS
Groundwater, surface water, and soil rronitoring will be required throughout the remedial activities to assure the effectiveness of the cleanup.
6. 6 CCNSISTEN::Y WI'IH QIHER ElWIRCNMENW, LAWS
Remedial actions performed under CERCIA must comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations. All alternatives considered for the National Starch site were evaluated on the basis of the degree to which they complied with these regulations. The reconrnended alternatives were found to meet or exceed all applicable enviromnental laws, as discussed below:
* Resource conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is not applicable.
* Clean Water Act
Contamination was detected in surface water and sediment samples on-site. The groundwater remediation and the additional soil sampling will delete the source of any future contamination.
DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* Flood plain Management Executive Order 11988 DRAFT
'Ille site does not lie within a flood plain and thus is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 11988.
* Department of Transp:irtation
Transp:irt of hazardous substances is regulated by the Department of Transportation (oor). The alternative chosen does not involve transportation of hazardous waste.
* Occupational Safety and Health i'dministration
A health and safety plan will be developed during renedial design will be followed during field activities to assure that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are followed.
* Safe Drinking.Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (M:::Ls) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act were found to be relevant and appropriate to remedial action at the National Starch Site. The cleanup goals for groundwater were established in Section 4.
* National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Treated groundwater will be discharged to the local KJlW, therefore, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System pennit is not applicable.
* Endangered Species Act
The reconmended renedial alternative is protective of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Requirements of the Interagency Section 7 consultation Process, 50 CFR, Part 402, will be met. The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife service will be consulted during renedial design to assure that any endangered or threatened species are not adversely i.Jrpacted by implementation of this reiredy.
* Ambient Air Quality Standards
'Il1e groundwater treatment systems will be designed and rronitored to assure that air emissions meet all State and Federal standards.
* State Drinking water Standar• .
. \, ..,__ ._,_
Maximum contaminaJ ,'
Carolina regulatio, ;;\· Drinking Water Act, · .•.
7 . 0 CCJ,MUNITY RELATICNS
.1lhi1ed by tJ,e State of N::>rth
•.l from tllOse of the .Federal Safe
.:B Iret.
Fact sheets were transmitted in February 1987, to interested.parties, residents near the Site, media and state, local and federal officials before t11e RI ,,;ork be5on o.+ ..J-1.-,_, S;-/e_.
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
\I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An information repository was established at the Rowan Col.ilty Library in Salisbury, ~rth Carolina.
A J:'c]blic meeting was held on April 2, 1987, at the Civic Center in Salisbury to discuss the RI/FS activities and to introduce SUperfund to the comnuni ty.
Another public nee-ting was held on M:lrch 31, 1988, at the Ci vie Center in Salisbury to discuss the results of the RI.
The final J:'c]blic meeting was held on September 14, 1988, at the Civic Center in Salisbury to discuss the alternatives from the Feasibility Study and describe EPA's preferred remedial alternative. The three-week public CO!Tille!1t period ended on septenber 23, 1988.
A Responsiveness Surm1ary has been prepared to surrrnarize comrunity concerns and EPA'q cormu.mity relations activities.
ORI\FT
..