Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SUMMARY OF COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.INVOLVEMENT IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
OSBORNE LANDFILLRI/FS
The Osborne LandTill was used for many years bynumerous companies and individuals in and around Grove City esa place to dispose of unwanted waste. In 1981, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (DER) began theirinvestigation of the need to clean up this site under theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation endLiability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et sea.
The efforts by U.S. EPA and Pennsylvania DER have involved thecontinuing cooperative effort of Cooper Industries, inc. whoseC-B Reciprocating Division plant in Grove City used the OsborneLandfill to dispose of its foundry sand.
EPA has identified parties who owned or operated this
site, or who sent waste to it, including General ElectricCorporation, Ashland Chemical Company, and Wolfe Iron & MetalCompany (now Castle Iron & Metal). Typically, such parties,known as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), attempt to
reach agreement with the government to perform theinvestigative and remedial work at their expense. This avoidsthe need for the government to spend Federal Superfund moniesfor the task. It also has been shown that these privatelyfunded projects are done more efficiently and at less cost than
those done by government contractors. This is in the bestinterests of these PRPs, because the government can requirethem to reimburse the Superfund for all such expenses that are
performed consistently with the National Contingency Plan(NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
None of the other PRPs at the Osborne site has steppedforward to participate in the clean up or remediation of the
site, or contribute financially to the high cost of doing EPA'sbidding; EPA has not pursued them in an attempt to secure their
participation. Cooper voluntarily came forward in early 1983
and has spent over $1.5 million since then studying thecontamination and risks at the site, removing sources ofcontamination and securing the site. Cooper's participation inthis effcrt has been one of continuing cooperation with EPA andDER, and Cooper stands ready today to take reasonable steps, in
conjunction with other responsible parties, to protect thecitizens of Grove City from any danger from this site.
The history of Cooper's involvement is as follows. On
January 14, 1963, EPA notified Cooper Industries and other PRPs
that it was prepared to spend Superfund money to investigate
the Osborne Landfill site and perform any necessary cleanup(Exhibit 1). This same letter demanded that Cooper identifywhich of the proposed activities it would be willing toundertake. Cooper was the only PRP to step forward and enter
into discussions with the Pennsylvania DER and EPA and offer to
take the actions demanded. By May 12, 1983, Cooper had
303247
submitted to EPA and DER a program which included the
performance of a remedial investigation (RI), theimplementation of interim remedial measures (including the
removal of drums and other containers as well as contaminated
soil from the site), and the preparation of a feasibility study
(FS) to evaluate options for any additional remedial actionthat the RI might indicate would be required (Exhibit 2). OnMay 13, 1963, Thomas C. Voltaggio, Chief, Superfund Branch,
U.S. EPA, Region III, responded to Cooper's offer by stating:
[Respecting the implementation of certain initialremedial measures at the Osborne Landfill ... Iacknowledge and applaud the willingness of Cooperindustries, Inc. to implement these initial remedialmeasures. I find that the implementation of thesemeasures, as described in your letter, would beconsistent with the National Consistency Plan.
(Exhibit 3). Dwight D. Worley, Chief, Division of Operations,Bureau of Solid Waste Management, PA DER wrote to Cooper on
May 23, 1983, and reiterated Mr. Voltaggio »s praise and findingthat the proposal was consistent with the National Contingency
Plan (Exhibit 4).However, at a meeting on May 31, 1963, among DER, EPA
and Cooper, EPA announced that it was rejecting Cooper's offer
to do the work because, under EPA's then interim policy, thePRPs would not be allowed to undertake remedial action unlessthey committed in advance to perform whatever cleanup EPAdetermined was necessary after completion of the studies(Exhibit 5, Letter from James A. Rogers to Gene A. Lucero and
Stephen R. Wassersug, June 16, 1983). EPA announced that it
30324*
intended to have its own contractor, NUS Corporation, perform
the RI and FS work. On June 16, 1983, Cooper objected to EPA's
refusal to allow Cooper to perform the RI/FS, and Cooperreiterated its offer. Cooper continued to send its "site
activity reports" to EPA and DER and to inventory and prepare
for the removal of the drums and contaminated soil (Exhibit 6).EPA continued to "thank" Cooper for its "cooperation" in taking
these actions at the site (Exhibit 7), and Cooper continued to
respond quickly and helpfully to requests made by EPA (Exhibits
7 6 8).
During June and July 1963, Cooper continued itsefforts to reach agreement with the government to perform thiswork. Working with DER, Cooper developed a Consent Order and
Agreement that incorporated to the maximum extent possible
those elements EPA deemed essential (Exhibit 9). When anagreement acceptable to DER was reached, DER sent the proposed
Consent Order and Agreement to EPA for comment (Exhibit 10).Thomas Voltaggio, Chief, Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
III, responded that:
Since Cooper's commitment to perform the remedialinvestigation consistent with the Agency's March 1983Remedial Action Master Plan satisfies the NationalContingency Plan ("NCP") and its commitment to performthe remedial cleanup satisfies the Agency's currentrequirements for a private party cleanup, we willdefer to your request that the site be "Statelead . . . ."
(Exhibit 11, letter from Thomas C. Voltaggio (EPA) to DonaldLazarchik (DER)).
-4-
As a result, on September 23, 1983, DER and Cooper
entered into a Consent Order which required Cooper to do the
work in lieu of the government or its contractors. Thisincluded the following:
(1) identify types and quantities ofwastes sent to the Osborne site;
(2) implement specified interim remedialmeasures;
(3) conduct an RI in accordance with awork Plan attached to the ConsentOrder, which was to meet therequirements of the National Contin-gency Plan (NCP);
(4) upon approval by DER of the RIreport, submit a proposed FS planthat meets the requirements of theNCP;
(5) submit a final FS report to DER sothat DER could issue a record ofdecision selecting a remedial alter-native;
(6) implement the remedial alternativeselected by DER.
(Exhibit 12, Consent Order and Agreement between EPA and DER).After signing the Consent Order and Agreement, Cooper
proceeded with the project. On November 1, 1963, DERacknowledged that Cooper had satisfactorily completed theinitial remedial measures in accordance with the Consent Order,
and authorized Cooper to continue the site investigation phase
(Exhibit 13). DER further acknowledged that Cooper had
satisfactorily completed the first phase in less than half thetime allotted in the order. Id. On December 16, 1983, DER
-5- 303250
acknowledged Cooper's successful completion of Phase II of thework plan pursuant to the Consent Decree, and again, credited
Cooper with having completed the task in nearly half the
estimated time allocated (Exhibit 14).
On December 29, 1983, Cooper received a letter from
the Appalachian Audubon Society stating:
The Appalachian Audubon Society understands that oneof your subsidiaries, Cooper Energy Service of GroveCity, Pennsylvania, is in the process of cleaning uptoxic wastes found at the Osborne landfill near GroveCity in Mercer County.
we want you to know we applaud their efforts. Theinitiative your company shows in this project ishighly commendable.
Thank you for keeping our environment and Grove City'swater supply clean.
(Exhibit 15). On June 19, 1984, the RI was completed in final
form. In response to a request from DER and EPA, Cooper
performed additional investigations for and evaluations of data
at the site (Exhibit 16). On December 19, 1984, Cooper's
consultant extracted and analyzed soil samples from the siteeven though this exceeded what Cooper had agreed to do (indeed
exceeded what EPA and DER had asked Cooper to agree to do) in
the Consent Decree (Exhibit 17). The analysis supported
Cooper's earlier conclusions regarding soil contamination atthe site, i.e. that the levels of contamination at the site
were not affecting groundwater or surface water quality. Id.
-6-
On January 20, 1985, Cooper stood ready and willing to perform
a feasibility study, and requested approval from DER to begin.
Id.
In May 1985, DER requested Cooper to undertake an
additional round of sampling (Exhibit 18, letter R.w. Teets(Cooper) to Abreu-Cintron (EPA), Sept. 16, 1985). Cooper,
believing the additional sampling wasteful and unnecessary,
appealed the request to the Pennsylvania Environmental HearingBoard. Id. On August 30, 1985, EPA also requested of Cooper
additional sampling at the site; but the protocol was not the
same as that established by DER in May. Id. In October 1985,
DER withdrew its request for additional sampling because EPA
had conducted five days of sampling at the site in late
September (Exhibit 19). It was not until May 1986 that EPA
sent some of the sampling results to Cooper. However, after
reviewing the results, both EPA and DER concluded (as had
Cooper) that no further investigative work was needed at the
site, and authorized Cooper to take the next step, i.e. the
feasibility study (Exhibit 20, letter July 7, 1986 P. Tan
(EPA), and Exhibit 21, letter September 16, 1986 R. Roush (DER)
to R. Teets (Cooper)). DER directed Cooper to proceed under
the Consent Order and submit the FS plan. Id.
On October 31, 1986, Cooper submitted the FS work plan
in accord with the Consent Order and asked for approval toproceed with the FS and final remediation at the site (Exhibit
22, letter October 31, 1986 R. Teets (Cooper) to R. Roush
-7-
(DER)). Cooper was given "conditional approval" by EPA and DER
in January 1987 to proceed with the FS, indicating that certain
further actions would be required to obtain full approval. On
January 6, 1987, DER wrote to Cooper, enclosing a December 5,
1986 "draft" evaluation or Fred C. Hart's FS work plan prepared
by EPA consultant, NUS Corporation (Exhibit 23 letter
January 6, 1987 R. Roush (DER) to R. Teets (Cooper)). In its
letter DER raised for the first time the issue of incorporating
new requirements under the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"). SARA was passed in
October 1986, more than three months after EPA and DER had
determined that Cooper's RI was complete. The letter also
attached an October 14, 1986, internal EPA memo in which the
"Bioassessment Task Group" recommended further RI evaluation ofthe "wetlands" segment of the Osborne site. This recommenda-
tion was first received by Cooper more than six months after
EPA and DER had issued their determinations that Cooper had
completed the RI in compliance with the NCP (Exhibit 19).
Discussions among Cooper, EPA and DER followed, during
which it was agreed that Cooper would revise the FS work plan
and resubmit it. In the meantime, NUS Corporation issued
another "draft" report, evaluating the RI report completed
almost a year earlier (Exhibit 24). On June 24, 1987, Cooper
submitted to EPA and DER a revised FS work plan (Exhibit 25),
offered again to perform the work, and to enter into a written
agreement with EPA and DER concerning Cooper's performance of
-8-
the work (Exhibit 26, letter from Jack Montgomery to James
Shack (DER) and Patricia Tan (EPA) dated June 24, 1987). m
response to Cooper's second draft FS work plan, DER stated that
it was asking EPA to reassume the lead on this project so that
the FS could be financed with Fund money (Exhibit 27). Cooper
replied to DER's information by letter dated October 16, 1987
(Exhibit 26, letter October 16, 1987 R. Teets (Cooper) to D.
Lorenzen (DER)) and requested a meeting with DER to reiterate
its previously stated desire to perform the "Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan in accordance with
all applicable laws and regulations." Id. Instead of a
response from DER, Cooper received a letter, dated October 22,
1987, from EPA notifying Cooper that EPA had assumed the lead
governmental responsibility for the site, and that it was
assigning NUS Corporation the task of completing "the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at this site using
Superfund monies." (Exhibit 29, letter October 22, 1987 p. Tan
(EPA) to R. Teets (Cooper)). Thus, EPA was assigning its
contractor the task not only of preparing the Feasibility Study
that Cooper had agreed to prepare, but also of performing anentire new Remedial Investigation, even though EPA had
previously stated that the Remedial Investigation completed by
Cooper in 1985 and confirmed by EPA in 1986 was sufficient.
In its October 22 letter, EPA stated that it would
select a remedy and issue a record of decision (ROD) after
giving Cooper and other members of the public an opportunity to
-9-
comment on EPA1s tentative selection of a remedy, id. Cooper
first received a copy of EPA's "Draft" RI on June 9, 1989. On
July 31, 1989, Cooper sent to EPA its comments on the "Draft"
RI, identifying the erroneous premises upon which its
conclusions had been based, and pointing out that nothing in
this RI demonstrated circumstances different from those
demonstrated in the RI performed by Cooper and approved by EPA
(Exhibit 30).
On August 16, 1989, representatives of Cooper met with
Roy Schrock, Acting Chief, Western Pennsylvania Section,
Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region III. At that meeting,
Cooper stated its specific objections to EPA's draft RI/FS,
explaining that EPA's preferred alternative for cleaning up the
site — a $19 million proposition — overstated the risk and
could accomplish nothing more than an alternative rejected by
the draft FS which would cost nearly $13 million less. Mr.
Schrock agreed that if, as a result of meetings between
Cooper's consultants and EPA's contractor, EPA's contractor
deemed Cooper's proposed slurry wall concept (the less costly
alternative) technically acceptable, the slurry wall concept
would be included in the Remedial Action Plan as the preferred
remedial alternative. (Exhibit 31).
Also on August 16, 1989, representatives from Cooper
met with Thomas Voltaggio, Director, Superfund Division, U.S.
EPA, Region III. (Exhibit 32). At that meeting Cooper
reiterated its specific objections to the the proposed FS,
-10-
stressing its objections to the schedule established by EPA.
EPA's scheduled events required the signing of the ROD on or
before September 30, 1989, even though public notice of the
proposed ROD would not be published until late August or early
September. Cooper demonstrated that the schedule did not
provide adequate time for EPA to consider the public's comments
on the proposed ROD and then incorporate consideration of those
comments into EPA's decision on the final remedial plan.
Mr. Voltaggio's comments suggested to Cooper that in
reality the decision was already made, and that EPA's attitude
did not match the apparent flexibility inherent in the official
decision-making process.
On August 18, 1989, as agreed with Mr. Schrock,
representatives from Cooper, Calgon, Geo-Con and Hart
Environmental (Cooper's consultants for the Osborne site) and
NUS (EPA's contractor for the Osborne site) met to discuss the
technical and cost aspects of the $6 million remedy proposed by
Cooper. After reviewing the information presented by Cooper,the NUS representatives agreed that the slurry wall issues
proposed by Cooper were more appropriate and more cost
effective than those selected by NUS. NUS also agreed that the
initial capital costs for the dewatering treatment in the
proposed FS were overstated, and that a "phased treatment
system" design for dewatering would greatly reduce long term
operation and maintenance costs. (Exhibit 33).
In spite of the results of the August 18, 1989,
meeting, EPA published notice of its proposed action at the
Osborne site in the evening paper in Sharon, Pennsylvania, on
Friday, August 25, 1989. The notice stated that EPA had
selected the $19 million remedy, and that public comment on the
proposed FS should be postmarked no later than Saturday,
September 23, 1989.
Submitted byCooper Industries, Inc.September 1, 1989
-12-
t LEGAL SUP**VVCOOHtOOMMt«aWwVl CAANtOPD NEW JiRSCTOTOiC
X^ XV- <£"./>' - r.'£" ' -w ~""- "•-•"
cc: B. Stolb1/28/83
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III
6TM AND WALNUT STREETSPHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
'JAN 1 4 883U\W DEPT.
CERTIFIED MAILRETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
f
Edgar A. Eircher ,;General CounselCooper Industries, Inc.First City TowerSuite 6000Houston, Texas 77002
Dear Mr. Eircher:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has documented therelease and threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants" andcontaminants at the Osborne Landfill near Grove City in Mercer County,Pennsylvania. EPA Is anticipating to expend public funds at this site toconduct a remedial investigation and feasibility studies as further detailedbelow.
Under CERCLA, and other laws, responsible parties may be liable for allmoneys expended by the federal government to take necessary response actionat uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, including investigation, planning,removal and remedial actions at these sites, and enforcement. Responsibleparties under CERCLA Include the current and past owner and operator, andpersons who generated the hazardous substances or were involved intransport, treatment or disposal of them at the site. Based on our reviewof EPA records, EPA has information that Indicates that you or your companymay be a responsible party as defined by CERCLA*
This letter is to notify you that EPA is currently planning to conduct thefollowing studies at the Osborne site:
1. Further investigation to Identify the local hydrogeologicalcharacteristics to evaluate groundwater quality and movement in thevicinity of the site; and
2. Further investigation to define the extent of soil, air and surfacewater contamination at the site; and
V), ;....\_. :--\ . : '
303259EXHIBIT 1
3. Feasibility studies to evaluate possible remedial actions to removeor contain hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants atthe site.
In addition to the above studies, other corrective measures may be necessaryto protect public health, welfare or environment* These corrective measuresmay include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Implementation of initial remedial measures, e.g., securing thesite to prevent contact with any potential hazardous or toxicmaterials at the site and/or removal of contaminated material fromthe surface; and
/2. Designing and Implementing the EPA approved remedial option for any
groundwater, surface water, soil and air contamination; and
3. Providing any monitoring and maintenance necessary after remedialmeasures have been completed.
EPA will immediately move forward with the remedial investigations andfeasibility studies described above. However, you should notify EPA, Inwriting within fourteen (14) calendar days from the receipt of this letter,of the nature and extent of the corrective measures you may be.willing toundertake. Otherwise, EPA will assume that you decline to undertakevoluntary site cleanup, and we may proceed with any necessary correctivemeasures.
Your letter should indicate the appropriate name, address, and telephonenumber for further contact with you in addition to a statement of theactivities you may be willing to undertake. Where you are already involvedin discussions with EPA, State or local authorities or engaged in voluntaryaction, you should continue that activity and report the status of thosediscussions or that action in your letter. Please provide a copy of yourletter to any other parties involved in those discussions. Your lettershould be sent to:
Lisa S. Seglin (3RC13)Attorney, Office of Regional CounselU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCurtis Publishing BuildingSixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
303260
If you need further information on the nature and extent of release orthreatened release or on our determination that you may be a responsibleparty, you may contact Ms. Seglin at (215). 597-8540.
I hope that you will give these matters your immediate attention.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen Wassersug, DirectorAir and Waste Management Div
cc: Regional Counsel, Region IIIDirector, Office of Waste Programs EnforcementDirector, Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponseAssociate Enforcement Counsel - Waste
303261
.'"•-- '.- " • • - . - '•"• \••* -.*•-» •« f • •*- -*^ • »• ..
•• • •• - • " ' •«" '..- l f.' •' '.-I' "•.••• . .- _•..- . .'.."•!.- •• •- •...'..<-.:?,....-.-•.••;,•... '• . . . ...
'."•'• •-••''•. ": •'••'.• '•'.•• f-:-:~- i- • .:--•«;• »:-."I-..';.:' "..=V v".- ;;V- .- ;-'-. :• • • - . . . . . ' ? " ' - :-"•-"". \ .';••- "''-.".:»-.'-•'-''••-••>"V-V - . . . ' . - • .-•
.L-STMt ciG*. SJ»»i> CO O**E COMMENCE Dfl..'E C*»*N«Q»C NEA JESSEi C?C'£
3C3263
COOPER INDUSTRIES
May 12, 1983
* **
Thomas C. VoltaggioChief, Superfund BranchU.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IIICurtin BuildingSixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 '
Dwight WorleyChief, Division of OperationsPennsylvania Department of Environmental
ResourcesCommonwealth of Pennsylvania .P. 0. Box 2063Harrisburg, PA 17120
Dear Messrs. Voltaggio and Worley:On January 14, 1983, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)addressed to Cooper Industries, Inc. (Cooper), among others, a letterrequesting, in part, . . . "implementation of Initial remedial measures,e.g. securing the {Osborne landfill) site to prevent contact with anypotential hazardous or toxic materials at the site and/or removal ofcontaminated material from the surface. . ."A meeting was held by US EPA at the offices of the Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Environmental Resources (PA DER) on April 20, 1983, of thoseparties identified by the EPA as possibly responsible parties under theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA) including General Electric Company, Ashland Chemical Company,Wolfe Iron & Metal Company and Cooper. All the parties so identified byUS EPA, including Cooper, contend there are no hazardous wastes at theOsborne landfill and deny responsibility for the presence of any suchwastes found at said site. Nevertheless, Cooper as a long time residentand citizen of Grove City, Pennsylvania, and without waiving any of itsrights to deny responsibility under CERCLA or any other Federal, Stateor Local law affecting it and without waiving any rights to claim reim-bursement, recoupment or damages against parties responsible underCERCLA or any other Federal, State or Local law for their use, contami-nation or cleanup of the Osborne landfill, 1s willing to implement theinitial remedial measures which US EPA has determined to be necessary atthis time at the Osborne site in Grove City, Pennsylvania. US EPAand/or PA DER shall be responsible for securing permission as necessaryfrom any responsible parties, includino but not limited to the owner(s)in fee of the Osborne landfill site for Cooper to implement the initial
COOPER INDUSTRIES. INC
First CHy Tower Su-ie 4000. PO Box ««6 Q n O O £ Ahousion. Texas 77210 EXKIBIT 2 OV»<->**U ^(7T3) 739-5*00
Page Two_ May 12, 1983
remedial measures.These initial remedial measures consist of:
1. Installation of a six (6) foot high chain link fence aroundthe perimeter of the site. The length will be approximately3,500-4,200 feet. Where possible, a minimum clearance offifty (50) feet beyond the boundary of potentially hazardoussubstances will be provided.
2. Installation of a twenty-four (24) foot locking gate where theiron gate 1s now located.
*
3. Signs warning of the potential hazards will be posted on thefence where it crosses former driveways or footpaths. Thesigns will be placed at a spacing of no less than one hundred(100) feet.
4. Drums and any other containers located on the surface of thesite and which appear to contain or to have contained hazar-dous substances will be removed. Contaminated soil will alsobe removed where necessary to insure the safety of persons
x_. undertaking activities at the site 1n the future.The implementation of these initial remedial measures shall be initiatedwithin one (1) week of the date of your acknowledgment of this letterand shall be comoleted within six (6) weeks of the date of your acknow-ledgment of this letter. The implementation of these measures shall beas follows:1. Cooper will submit for approval to US EPA and PA DER a proposed
design for the required warning signs.2. Cooper will arrange an initial joint site Inspection involving
representatives of Cooper, Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., US EPAand PA DER in order to reach Initial agreement on the location ofthe fence/gate/signs and on the extent of the drum/container/soilremoval.
at . Cooper will thereafter survey and mark the site 1n light of theinitial agreement reached at the initial joint site inspection and
-y will submit appropriate drawings to US EPA and PA DER.\-\ Cooper will thereafter arrange a second joint site inspection in
order to reach final agreement on the location of the fence/gate/signsand on the extent of the drum/container/son removal.
^ Cooper will, prior to the drum/container/soil removal, submit to USEPA and PA DER the proposed method of transporting the material,the name and business address of the proposed transporter, theproposed method of disposing of the material and the name and ••
business address of the proposed disposal site. The transportingand disposing of the material must be accomplished..in accordancewith all applicable Federal, State and Local laws and regulations.
6. In the wake of the final agreement reached at the second joint siteinspection and the approval-by. US EPA and PA DER of a design forthe required warning signs and of the proposed transporting anddisposing of removed material, Cooper will install the requiredfence and gate, post the required warning signs and Implement therequired drum/container/soil removal.
7. Cooper will, prior to removal from the site of any equipment necessaryfor the Implementation of the remedial measures, arrange a finaljoint site inspection in order to reach agreement on any necessaryfinal adjustments to the remedial measures.
Cooper will permit representatives of US EPA and PA DER to Inspect thesite at any reasonable time during the'implementation of the remedialmeasures. Cooper understands that its satisfactory completion of theseinitial remedial measures may not be construed as a limitation on theobligations of any responsible party or parties to the extent thatadditional remedial actions are necessary at the Osborne site.
Sincerely yours,
A". BTrcherPresident and General Counsel
EAB/km
ALL-STATE LEG*L 5uwLv co o*t COMMERCE D« E en won:
30326'?
~sV>°'UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY O REGION III
6TM AND WALNUT STREETSPHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
131983 ?
MAY ie
LAW BEPT,Mr. Edgar A. BircherVice President and General CounselCooper Industries, Inc.First City Tower, Suite 4000P.O. Box 4446Houston, TX 77210
Dear Mr. Bircher:
I have received your letter dated May 12, 1983 respecting the implementationof certain initial remedial measures at the Osborne Landfill site 1n GroveCity, PA. I acknowledge and applaud the willingness of Cooper Industries, Inc.to implement these initial remedial measures. I find that the implementationof these measures, as described in your letter, would be consistent with theNational Contingency Plan.
Sincerely yours,i
'(*-Thomas C. VoltaggioChief, Superfund Branch
fRECEIVEDMAY 1 8 683
F SAFETY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATIONAMOMSnunON I
EXHIBIT 3
AU.-MATE LEGAL Su .v CC ONE COMMERCE WVE CR*N*OflD NC* jCRSPr a
303269
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Office Box 2063Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
May 23,1983(717) 787-7383
MAY 26 1S83
LAW DEPT.Mr. Edgar A. Bircher .Vice President and General Counsel **»*»Cooper Industries, Inc. cn f.*P MI.First City Tower, Suite «000 PREPAID 5 iSUSTR1ES' IKC •P. O. BOY btiLf, »,J ~ ~TICIPATION OP no nr*" *" ^ ~™ ~W CONfaP^I*TAk* M»»«_ ''* Wit An
Houston, TX 77210 CTIOK riiH POTENTIAL OHDear Mr. Bircher:
Re: Osborne Landfill :
I have received your letter dated May 12,1983, regarding theimplementation of certain initial remedial measures at the Osborne Landfill Sitein Grove City, Pennsylvania. I acknowledge and approve the willingness of CooperIndustries, Inc. to implement these initial remedial measures. I find that theimplementation of these measures, as described in your letter, would beconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.
Sincerely,
DWIGrtT D. WORLEY, ChiefDivision of OperationsBureau of Solid Waste Management
303270
EXHIBIT 4
. SUPPLY co ONE COMMERCE D»>V* CT»W«ORD NEW JE»SE* E
303271
SKADDEN, ARPS. SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM916 EIGHTEENTH STREET. N.W. /. .' «; :WASHINGTON. D.-C. 20OO6
R _____i»n*< ••* •.«•.. " ^ •* T>«»0 AVENUEICDKJ C»-
am JTI.«OOOONE BEACON tTKECT
:«m ttj'oootCM KOONET »OUAKE
•nLMMBTOM.SELAWAIIE WiOl(30t) «X0'*XOO
BY HAND
Gene A. Lucero, Esq. (WH-527)Director, Office of WastePrograms Enforcement
United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20460
tt
LAW DEPT*rf^BW ***•• ••Mr. Stephen R. WassersugDirector, Air and WasteManagement Division
United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency - Region III
Sixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re: Osborne Landfill/Grove City, Pennsylvania
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to place in writingthe intentions of Cooper Industries, Inc. ("Cooper") withrespect to the Osborne Landfill near Grove City, Pennsylvania,in light of recent actions by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency ("EPA" or the "Agency"). We also want toreiterate our deep disappointment that EPA has refused toallow Cooper to conduct the Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy ("RI/FS"), and other possibly necessary remedialefforts, at the Osborne site.
Cooper intends to take two steps in the nearfuture: we plan to negotiate with the Pennsylvania Departmentof Environmental Resources ("DER") in the hope of reaching anagreement whereby Cooper will proceed with remedial investi-gative and cleanup work at the Osborne site. We also planto bring an action against EPA in the United States DistrictCourt to enjoin the Agency from interfering with voluntaryactions by Cooper and from incurring unnecessary federalexpenses in a wasteful and redundant federal effort at thissite.
EXHIBIT 5
Gene A. Lucero, Esq.Mr. Stephen R. WassersugJune 16, 1963Page Two
On January 14, 1983, Mr. Wassersug sent a letterto Cooper notifying the company that it might be a potentiallyresponsible party under the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liability Act ('CERCLA") withrespect to the Osborne Landfill. The letter demanded thatCooper "evaluate ground-water quality and movement in thevicinity of the site," investigate "the extent of soil, airand surface water contamination at the site," and perform•feasibility studies to evaluate possible remedial actionsto remove or contain hazardous substances, pollutants, andcontaminants at the site." (I attach a copy.) ''Cooperimmediately initiated actions, at great expense, to respondin a professional and timely manner to this apparently mostserious EPA demand. As part of this effort, Cooper retainedFred C. Hart Associates, Inc., a well-known environmentalconsulting firm, to prepare a detailed proposal for anRI/FS. (Indeed, this writer was called upon by Cooper toscreen consultants for their objectivity and reputation withEPA} we were assured by enforcement counsel in two Regionsthat Hart had provided able services in other hazardouswaste cases for EPA.)
On April 20, 1983, following a period of acceleratedpreparation by Cooper and the Bart firm, representatives ofCooper, the Fred C. Hart firm, and many State of Pennsylvaniaand EPA officials met in Meadville, Pennsylvania, to discussthe proposal by Cooper for a full-scale RI/FS for theOsborne site. Following this meeting, Cooper received EPAand DER approval to begin a site security and drum removalprogram at the Osborne site. On the assumption by allconcerned that EPA and DER believed the Hart proposal for anRI/FS to be a more than adequate basis on which to continuediscussion. Cooper and its consultants subsequently engagedin further dialogue with Region III staff with regard todesired changes in the Cooper proposal. To our knowledge.Cooper has acceded to all State and Federal requests formodifications to the RI/FS. '.
On May 31, 1983, Edgar Bircher, Cooper's Vice-President and General Counsel, and I met with Messrs.Voltaggio, Baker, Shoener, and three officials of the State,in Philadelphia, to discuss EPA's failure to respond to theCooper proposal for an RI/FS. At that time, Cooper offeredto enter into a CERCLA administrative order requiring Cooperto investigate the type and amount of wastes present at theOsborne site, to study the extent of any soil contamination,and to complete a comprehensive groundwater monitoringprogram. Cooper proposed to include in the administrativeorder a specific schedule for the completion of individualtasks, together with a provision imposing penalties on
303273
Gene A. Lucero, Esq.Mr. Stephen R. WassersugJune 16, 1983Page Three
Cooper for failure to meet any of these deadlines. Cooperoffered to split samples with EPA and to allow state andfederal authorities access to the site at all times tosupervise the RI/FS. The administrative order would haverequired Cooper to prepare a detailed report on the resultsof the investigation and proposals for remedying any environ-mental problems at the site. I believe it fair to say thatat no time has EPA expressed dissatisfaction with thesubstance of this proposal.
EPA rejected Cooper's proposal to perform theRI/FS, citing a new EPA policy that precludes potentiallyresponsible parties from conducting an RI/FS unless theyalso agree to conduct, or pay for, all ultimate cleanupdetermined by EPA to be appropriate. See EPA Memoran-dum, Interim Pre-Litigation Settlement Procedures in Hazard-pus Waste Cases at 5 (May 20, 1983).f/ EPA now plans tohave its own contractor, NUS Corporation, conduct a virtuallyidentical RI/FS that will take substantially more time,and will cost substantially more money, than the Fred C.Hart proposal. EPA apparently is being driven by a newnational policy (designed to remedy other CERCLA administra-tive ills) to reject a good faith response to an earlier EPAdemand for exactly the type of study embraced in the Fred C.Bart proposal. By so doing, EPA is rendering worthless theextensive time Cooper and outside experts have devoted tothe preparation of the Hart proposal and negotiations withEPA, and the obvious substantial professional fees. At therisk of insufferable repetition, these expenses were incurredat EPA's request. We are, in effect, suffering from takingEPA's earlier CERCLA letter at face value.
In addition to being an unwise policy, EPA's newapproach — of refusing the voluntary investigatory andcleanup efforts of responsible corporations — flatlycontradicts the mandates of CERCLA. Both the statute andthe National Contingency Plan ("NCP") require EPA to selectthe most cost-effective approach to remedial activities andto allow potentially responsible parties to participate inremedial actions. Section 104(a) of CERCLA states as a
We have pointed out that even on its face the newEPA policy allows flexibility in particular situations.Yet we have not been accorded the opportunity ofdiscussing with you how our voluntary efforts can beaccomplished without doing violence to the spirit ofthe new policies.
303274-
Gene A. Lucero, Esq.Mr. Stephen R. WassersugJune 16, 1983Page Four
precondition to any governmental expenditures (other than,perhaps, expenditures in response to an emergency) that thePresident must first determine "that such removal andremedial action will [not] be done properly" by a responsibleparty. In the NCP the Agency itself has imbedded thisprinciple at every stage of the process — from earliestinvestigation to full cleanup. Because EPA's course ofaction is clearly improper, we will challenge the ability ofEPA to recover costs which the Agency will be incurring.
Cooper has, from the first day it was,notifiedby EPA, chosen a path of cooperation with the Agency.Cooper, even now, stands ready to complete its proposedRI/FS on a timely schedule, and would be prepared to workwith EPA as well as the Pennsylvania DER in developing anenvironmentally sound and cost-effective remedial plan forthe Osborne Landfill. However, unless EPA immediatelyreconsiders a course of action that is both unwise andillegal. Cooper will be forced to seek an injunction againstEPA in federal court. Also, as noted above, Cooper intendsto pursue with the State of Pennsylvania the establishmentof a consensual program for investigation and cleanup at theOsborne site.
Sincerely yo
\*f*JL4imes A.
Attachmentcc: James M. Baker, Esq.
Lisa K. Friedman, Esq.Edward ShoenerMichael R. SteinerWilliam R. Sierks, Esq.Patti J. Saunders, Esq.Edgar A. Bircher, Esq.
303275
303276
COOPER INDUSTRIES Reb.n w. T««DirtCtorStlctv Adminitirtnonand Worker* Comoenutton
June 3, 1983
Mr. Ed ShoenerRemedial On-Scene CoordinatorEnvironmental Protection AgencyRegency IIISixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
RE: Osborne Landfill Activities /
Dear Mr. Shoener:
Following is a summary of recent and planned activities at theOsborne Landfill site, Grove City, Pennsylvania.
Week of 5/2-6/83
1. On 5/4/83, a joint meeting was held at the site betweenrepresentatives of EPA, DER, and Cooper, including the lawfirm of Skadden and Arps and Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Apreliminary fence location was chosen and the extent ofclean-up of surface wastes was discussed.
2. A grid was surveyed and marked at the site to reference allsubsequent site activities. In addition, the surveyor, NormStraub, P.E., started the deed search on the property to aidin the boundary survey.
3. Hart conducted an inventory of all drums on the surface ofthe site. Drum clusters were identified. Each drum in eachcluster was identified and numbered. A drum inventory logsheet was filled out for each drum. Information recordedincluded, but was not limited to, a drum number, possiblecontents, label information, and the condition of the drum.The final count of drums at the site was 431 to be removed.
4. To provide information for competitively bidding removal anddisposal operations, Hart ear-marked approximately 20*, or 15of the 75 full, sealed drums for sampling. Preliminary plansfor a remote drum opening device were discussed with Cooperengineers.
5. Hart conducted a low altitude fly-over of the disposal areato document existing conditions at the site and to aeriallyidentify drum clusters and nearby spoils piles from deepmining operations.
P.rit Ci'V Tower. Suit* «000. » 0 Box 4446Houston Texts 77210
739-5635 3 C 3 27 7
EXHIBIT 6
Page 2
Week of 5/9-13/83
1. Hart developed a safety plan in accordance with standard EPAsafety protocol and the Mercer County Emergency ManagementAgency warning and procedure plan for Osborne. All concernedparties were notified as to types of operations to beconducted on-site, and dates that personnel would be on-site.Notified parties included DER, and local fire and hospitalofficials.
2. Tom Morahan met with Jim Rozakis and Pat Boyle of the' DER on5/11 prior to the start of the drum opening and samplingoperations. At that time DER was given the site safety plan,briefed on work accomplished at the site and activitiesplanned for the week ahead. On 5/12, Jim Rozakis and RussellCrawford, also of the DER, observed opening and samplingoperations on three drums at the site.
3. Hart designed and built, with the aid of plant machinistsfrom Cooper's Grove City foundry, a remotely operatedpneumatic drum opening device. The device, which could beoperated from a distance of 100 feet, was designed andoperated in accordance with the site safety plan.
4. Hart conducted drum and soil sampling at the site on 5/11-12to provide background information for the RFP for disposal ofsurface wastes. Eighteen drum and two composite soil sampleswere collected. Analytical results should be back by thefirst week in June.
5. North American Fencing Corporation was selected to installthe fence at Osborne. Ron Kaclik of North American FencingCoporation visited the site on 5/11 and said there seemed tobe no problems.
Week of 5/16-20/83
1. On 5/18/83 Tom Morahan met with Jim Rozakis of DER at Osborneto finalize the location of the fence. The fence locationwas mutually chosen and marked in the field. The fencelocation was sketched onto a draft copy of the propertyboundary survey map in the field and approved by DER. Adetailed map was then prepared and sent to the appropriateparties.
2. The trip report for drum sampling was finalized. The report.showed sample points, materials encountered, safetyprocedures, personnel and duties on-site, and analyticalrequests. The report also enclosed a copy of
303279
the site safety plan and a copy of the Mercer CountyEmergency Management Agency Warning and Procedures Plan forOsborne.
Activities Weeks of 6/6-7/25/83
1. Fence installation will begin on 6/8/83 per verbal approvalof fence location by Jim Rozakis, Russell Crawford,Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and EdShoner, EPA. Both EPA and DER are forwarding writtenapproval of fence location to R. W. Teets. Fence completionanticipated by 6/24/83.
2. Final laboratory analysis of drum samples expected in Hart'soffice by 6/7/63.
3. 3id parameters to be sent out to perspective contractors byFred C. Hart on 6/10/83.
^. Derspective bidders to meet on sight and review drums to beremoved w^tn Fred C. Hart weeks of 6/13-20/83.
£. Contractor selection to be made by Fred C. Hart week of6/27/83.
6. Removal of drums by selected contractor will begin within oneweek of EPA and DER approval .
". Anticipated completion of drum removal within three weeks ofEPA/DER approval.
If you have any questions regarding Osborne Landfill activitiesor require additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
R. W. Teets
SWTrmc
cc: Edgar A. BircherJames D. Rozakis, DER, Meadville
0
3032-79
AU-JTAH UOAL SUPPLY CO ONE COMUSBCE OBivt CftANFORD »«EV. JCRSfvO
cc: E. Bircher (with r.E. Scott
f AI 522J
iftO
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III
6TM AND WALNUT STREETSPHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
JUN 2 01963
Mr. Robert W. Teats, DirectorSafety Administration and Workers CompensationCooper IndustriesFirst City Tower, Suite 4000 ,P.O. Box 4446Houston, Texas
Dear Mr. Teats:
Thank you for allowing Craig Moylan of Fred C. Hart to accompany and assistme during my inspection of the Osborne dump on Thursday, June 9, 1983.
I inspected the proposed fence location and found it acceptable except forone area near the old lagoons next to the entrance gate. It appears asthough the fence, as currently planned, may not completly enclose these la-goons. I suggested to Craig that Fred C. Hart compare the most recent aerialphotographs to the older photographs, which show the full extent of the la-goons, and make sure the fence is extended to completely enclose the lagoons.Please notify me when the proposed fence boundary in this area is changed. Iwill notify Jim Rozakis of the DER of this matter and rely on him to make afield inspection to verify that the lagoons will be completely enclosed.
In regard to my drum inspection, I found a large number of drums with labelsof companies that may have been suppliers of products to local companies.These local companies may have disposed of the drums at the site. CraigMoylan has a fairly complete inventory of these drums. To assist me in myinvestigation, I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me which ofthese drums were used and disposed of by Cooper.
Again, thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to hearing from youin the near future.
Sine
ShoenerRemedial On-Scene Coordinator
cc: J. Rozakis, PA DERJ. Baker, EPA Legal Branch
JUN 2 4 1983SAFETY WO WORKERS' CGVPENSATKW
MKJW!STR*T10N DEPARTMENT
303231EXHIBIT 7
AU-SUTt UG*. SU*»i.Y CC ONE COWMEaCt Oa;.t CHAVOfC KE.'. jeHiE" i~yf
e
303232
cc: D. V'inship' E. Scott
.d! COOPER INDUSTRIES Retort w. T« BSiftty AammuTrtron»n<3 Worktrt Corrotn$jtion
June 24, 1983
Mr. Ed ShoenerRemedial On-Scene CoordinatorUnited States Environmental 'Protection AgencyRegion IIISixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106Dear Mr. Shoener:
Pursuant to your recent request for documents pertaining tothe Osborne Landfill, I enclose the following:
(1) One copy of the Drum Inventory Log Book prepared by FredC. Hart Associates, Inc. during their Inventory ofsurface wastes at Osborne.
(2) One copy of the Summary of Surface Waste SamplingOperations at the Osborne Landfill conducted May 11-12,1983 by Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
I think that the documents provided are what you were lookingfor. If I may be of further assistance 1n this matter,please give me a call.
Sincerely r
Robert W. Teets
RWT:mc
cc: James D. Rozakis, DER, MeadvllleEdgar A. Bircher
HoiAtcniT. 77210 EXHIBIT 8(713) 739-6635
30328?
. SU»P.v CO OM COMMf HCE DR<V€
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOMQIC EIGHTEENTH STREET. N.W.WASHINGTON. D. C. ZOOO6Tcttcone* ___
«Ot:MS-»«3i CtOl)«6S-e700 «w wiltiwwViOOIt
CMt SCACON S1*crr
July 5, 1983 •mto-ooctC« ftODNCT (OUkK
WIUUMOTOtt. OtL»W*« I»»OI
By Telecopy
James K. Baker, Esq.AttorneyOffice of Regional CounselUnited States EnvironmentalProtection Agency - Region III '
Sixth and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Re: Osborne Landfill
Dear Mr. Baker:
This letter is written in response to yourletter of June 27, 1983, in which you "state thesubstance of the Agency's position regardingsettlement via judicial consent decree for theOsborne Site." You indicate in that letter that the
v , Agency needs to know within seven calendar days whetherV Cooper Industries, Inc. ("Cooper") believes that it
would be fruitful for it to continue settlementdiscussions with the federal government. In closing,you state, n[I]f a timely response is not receivedor if settlement via judicial consent decree isotherwise not possible, the Agency's contractor willbegin the remedial investigation for the OsborneSite."
As you know, representatives of Cooper havebeen meeting with representatives of the State ofPennsylvania in an effort to work out a consentagreement satisfactory to both those parties as tothe Osborne Site. We embarked on that effort becauseit appeared the federal government would interposesuch major hurdles to settlement that resolution ofthis matter without the need for litigation on thefederal front was unlikely. However, as you areaware. Cooper has throughout the discussions on theOsborne Site maintained that it wished to carry outreasonable, voluntary remedial efforts as soon aspossible — despite the fact that other responsible
EXHIBIT
James H. Baker, Esq.July 5, 1983Page Two
parties have shown no willingness to cooperate inthe slightest degree. Cooper remains eager to resolveits obligations under federal law without the needfor government-initiated remedial efforts or litigationbetween the parties.
Because we have proceeded with discussionswith.the State of Pennsylvania, and those negotiationsappear to be very productive, we hope to present toEPA the draft of an agreement between Cooper and theState of Pennsylvania, which agreement could providethe basis for resolution of the federal aspects ofthe Osborne matter. I assure you that the elementsstated in your letter of June 27, which you deemessential in any federal agreement, have beenreviewed carefully by representatives of both theState and Cooper, and that we have attempted toincorporate those principles in the agreement withthe State. We hope to present to you a draft agreementby the end of this week.
As you may be aware from conversations withattorneys for Pennsylvania, representatives of Cooperand the State met on Wednesday, June 29, and againon Friday, July 1, in an effort to draft a suitablyspecific consent agreement. Not wishing to wait untilthis week to let EPA know of the substantial progressbeing made on this front, I attempted to call youand Sheldon Novick last Friday, but was told thatyou were both out of the office. If you have anyquestions concerning this letter or the schedule offurther negotiations with the State of Pennsylvania,please call me or Larry Starfield of this office.
I would appreciate it if, in the future,when you send copies of letters such as the June 27letter to attorneys representing other parties inthis matter, you so note on the copy sent to me.
Very truly yours.
' K7A * ———'Rogers U
cc: Patricia J. SaundersVEsq.William R. Sierks, Esq.Edgar A. Bircher,
10
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
1200 Kossman BuildingForbes at Stanwix
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-1376(412) 565-5363
August 4, 1583
Lawrence E. Starfield, EsquireSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flan919 Eighteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006
{HE: Osborne Site
Dear Larry:
I have enclosed what I hope is the very last draft of the OsborneConsent Order and Agreement.
In our last conversation, you and Jim expressed seme concern aboutthe words "removal operations and construction of clean-up facilities"in Paragraph 20 of the proposed Consent Order and Agreement for theOsborne Site. The Department construes that phrase as not includinglong-term operation and maintenance of treatment facilities. It is theDepartjrent's understanding that the Consent Order and Agreement willnot address this issue and that the parties intend to resolve it in thefuture. The Department, of course, specifically reserves its rights totake any appropriate action regarding operation and maintenance.
I expect a response from EPA in a day or two; I will contact youthen, so we can get this document signed.
Very truly yours,
Patti J. SawdersAssistant Counsel
PJS-.kad
Enclosure
cc: James A. RogersStephen Mims^Edgar A. BircherWilliam SierksMichael Steiner
EXHIBIT 10
303286
AU.-STATI UG&L fa.**.* CO ONE COMVEACC C*»'VE CMAI^ORO NEW JEMSE* OTtHf
11
303289
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREOION III
tr« AW WALNUT tracers * ,f KtLAOCXFKIA. PEMNSYI.VANIA IllOi T/ OT
In Reply *•*•* Tee 1A«0 ' GtO
REC'DDonald Latarehik •Director* Buttiu of Solid wait* KanagaMnt ...r t APennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources rw.°P.O. frox 2043•trriaturgr **nnaylvani« 17120Dear Rr. Latarchikf
• '
Ift ha** rsrievsd the administrative conttnt oro r twa«*nt which th« PtnwylVAcia Dtpartaent -o£ BavirmMntal Miourctt(•DZKB) negotiated with Cooptr XntfuitritSt Inc. (•Cooptt1) lort&e ttudy anti cleanup of th« Otborr.« itnofill tit* in Pin* Town-•hip, Mttrctr County, Pftftcsylvani* ("iite"). 9incv Cooper'secMiUMnt to perfor* the rtMditl inv*itig«tlon conBiitent vithth« K9«ney't lurch 1112 lUwdiil Action K«tt«r Plan ittitfiMth« lUticrvAl Contin etxey tUn ("KCP") «nd itt ocaaitMnt toperform the remedial cleanup eatiafiet tte Agency 'a current t«/quir«*ftente for * private per^y cletnup( we will defer to your requeat.that the site be *Btate lead* and the Agency will not now procMdwith itt own rmdial int»iticiticn and lettibility atudy VltX/rs*)for t±ic site.
lleaae note that the Agency has not waived ita atatutory dutyto independently review the fcl/FS end deteraine the require*cleanup tase on curtpnt fcgancy requixesMntSt section 104 of theCGBtpraheniiTe Cnvironaental Maponsef Coopensation and LiabilityAct <vCSftCLtM« 42 9tf.C« f««U4 and the KCF. Furthermore, sincethe Agency is not a p>tty to the conetnt order and agx»e»ent«any prerieionf reUtlng to tte atandard of review of DBft'c decisionswould net apply to the Aoe&oy, vhote dteisione are subject toreview under itdercl jvidicial standards.
Ry statf and I are pleased that SOT has taken the lead on thissit*. He will continue to •cnitcr the nature and pace of thework snd w* anticipate your continued cooperation* Plesee callev at (215) S97-&492 it there ar* any turther Questions on thismatter.Sincerely yours*
Tbeews C« VoltaggioChief i fiup«rfund irsnchcct Gene A. Luoero
directorf Office of Waate frograas CntorceMnt
^.< CO ONE "OMMEfilt O
12
lead - 8/4,83
CCMM3«EaLTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF EHVUCtMENIM. RESOURCES
In the Hatter of:____ __COCPER INDUSTRIES, DC. : Solid Haste Management ActCsborne Site : Solid and Hazardous HastePine Township : DisposalMercer County . :
CONSBTT ORDER AND
The Cornonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources
("DER"), has determined the following facts:
A. Cooper is an Ohio corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania,
f with a local business ***rr>** of: Cooper Biergy Services, Linooln Avenue, Grove
City, PA 16127.
B. Between 1963 and 1978, Janes Csborne, an individual now deceased, and
Erroa Osborne owned and operated a landfill of approximately 15 acres adjacent to
R.D. 4 in Pine Township, Mercer County, PA ("Osborne Site"). DER required
Csborne to close the site in 1978.
C. Since 1978, EcVard L. and Janet L. McDougall, individuals residing at
R.D. 13, Grove City, PA 16127, have held equitable title to the Csborne Site.
D. ffelter Sloan, an individual residing at Enterprise toad, Grove City,
PA 16127, owns a snail portion of the Osborne Site near the treeline along the
larger lagoon.
E. Since the early 1950's and continuing until 1978, Cooper and other per-
sons disposed of industrial, residual, and hazardous wastes and substances at
the Osbome Site. Cooper disposed of foundry sands, carhite sludge, slag and
other waste naterials.
EXHIBIT- 12 303£"i-'
F. The Osborne Site was not authorized by permit for the disposal of solid
waste, as required by Section 610(1) of the Solid Waste Management Act, the Act
of April 7, 1980, P.L. 380, 35 P.S. $6018.610(1), or its predecessor, the Act of
July 31, 1968, P.L. 788, 35 P.S. §6001 et sea. (repealed July 7, 1980). The
Site was permitted pursuant to the Waste Disposal Act, the Act of April 9, 1956,
P.L. (1955) 1436 (repealed July 24, 1970), between 1964 and'l971 to accept slag,
sand, sludge, carbide and waste paper.
G. Samples of the soil and surface water at the Osbome Site revealed ele-
vated levels of heavy metals as well as confounds on the United States Bxviron-
nental Protection Agency's ("EPA") priority pollutants list.
K. The disposal by Cooper and other persons of residual and hazardous
wastes at the Csborne Site without authorization by permit constitutes a viola-
tion of Sections 301, 302, 401, 501 and 610 of the Solid Waste Management Act,
35 P.S. SS6018.301, 6018.302, 6018.401, 6018.501 and 6018.610, and a public nui-
sance.
I. The disposal by Cooper and other persons of industrial wastes at the
Osborne Site without authorization by permit constitutes a violation of Sections
301, 307, 401, 402 and 611 of the Clean Streams Law, the Act of June 22, 1937,
P.L. 1987, as amended, 35 P.S. SS691.301, 691.307, 691.401, 691.402 and 691.611,
and a public nuisance.
J. EPA has identified Cooper, General Electric Company, Ashland Chemical
Company, Wblfe Iron and Metal Company, and present and past owners and operators
of the Csborne Site, as parties potentially responsible for remedial measures to
abate the conditions at the Csborne Site, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environ-
-2- 303293
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. S9601 et sec. (1980)
("CERCLA").
K. DEH's Bureau of Solid Haste Management contacted several partly, in-
cluding Cooper, requesting voluntary cooperation in providing remedial action at
the Osbome Site.
L. All responsible parties other than Cooper have declined to participate
in remedial measures at the Osbome Site. Cooper desires to cooperate and is
willing to conduct necessary remedial measures.
M. Cooper, in coordination with EPA and DER, has voluntarily started the
implementation of initial remedial measures ("IBM's") at the Osborne Site, in-
cluding:
(1) Installation of a six foot high chain link fencearound the perimeter cf the site;
(2) Installation of a twenty-four foot locking gate;
(3) Posting signs on the fence warning of the potentialhazards at the site;
(4) Removal of certain drums and other containers whichappear to contain or to have contained hazardous sub-stances; and
(5) Removal of certain contaminated soil where necessaryto insure the safety of persons undertaking activi-ties at the site in the future.
EPA has found that the implementation of these measures as described in Cooper's
letters of May 12, 1983 to DER and EPA would be consistent with the National Con-
tingency Plan ("N3>") promulgated at 40 C.F.R. $300.1 et sea., pursuant to Sec-
tion 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C $9605. CER has <fetennined that these measures,
among others, are necessary to achieve compliance with the Solid Waste Manage
rent Act.
-3- 303294
N. The parties wish to resolve this matter expeditiously and withoutsort to litigation.
NCW, THEREFORE, this 3£> day of August, 1983, the parties intending
to be legally bound and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein. Cooper
consents to the entry of the following order:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 10, 12 through 17, and 20 of this Consent Order
and Agreement constitute an Order of the Department, issued pursuant to Sections
104(7) and 602 of the Solid Waste Management Act, 35 P.S. $$6018.104(7) and
6018.602; Sections 5, 401 and 610 of the Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. $$691.5,
691.401 and 691.610; and Section 1917-A of the Administrative Code, the Act of
April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as wended, 71 P.S. $510-17.
DOCUMENT PROCCJCTIO4
2. Within two (2) weeks from the date of this Consent Order and Agreement,
Cooper shall provide DER with a list of the types and quantities of wastes pro-
duced by its Grove City facility and disposed at the Osbome Site between the
early 1950's and 1978, along with all documents which contain such information.
INITIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES
3. Cooper shall complete implementation of the IRM's described in Cooper's
letters of May 12, 1983 to DER and EPA by October 1, 1983 in a manner acceptable
to DER.
REMEDIAL DKESTTGftTICN
4. Cooper shall conduct a Ramedial Investigation ("RI") at the Osbome Site
according to the work plan set forth in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein
as an obligation of this Consent Order and Agreement. The RI shall meet the re-
quirements of CEROA and the NCP (40 C.F.R. $300.68(f)).
-4- 3C329S
5. No variance shall occur in performance of the RI fron the standards and
specifications contained in Exhibit A unless Cooper obtains the prior written
approval of DER for such variance.
6. Cooper shall perform the RI according to the following schedule in a
manner acceptable to DER and in accordance with the tasks set forth in Exhibit A:
Phase 1 - Indirect geophysical investigation ..../...... 30 workdays
Phase 2 - Drilling of initial test borings andwells ....................................... 40 workdays
Phase 3 - Sampling program ............................ 15 workdays
Phase 4 - Analytical program .......................... 40 workdays
Phase 5 - Data evaluation, report preparationand submission of final report .............. 30 workdays
Cooper shall work at least five workdays per week, except when a national holi-
day occurs on a weekday. Cooper shall commence Phase 1 of the RI within ten
(10) workdays of the completion of the IFM's or the signing of the Consent Order
and Agreement, whichever is later. Phases 2 through 5 shall ocnnence no later
than the next workday after Cooper notifies DER that the previous phase is com-
plete.
7. Until DER certifies that the RI is completed, Cooper shall submit writ-
ten monthly progress reports to DER and EPA by the fifteenth day of each month,
describing the work accomplished during the prior calendar month.
6. Cooper shall provide access to representatives of DER and EPA to observe
work on the RI at the Osborne Site.9. Cooper shall promptly make available to DER and EPA all technical infor-
mation developed while implementing this Consent Order end Agreement. Cooper
shall notify DER and EPA in advance of any sampling, and shall split samples with
-5- 303296
those agencies upon request. Sampling and analysis shall be dene pursuant to
EPA protocols, as set forth in Exhibit A. Cooper's samples shall be handled
according to accepted chain of custody procedures as set forth in Exhibit B.
10. Cooper shall notify OCR upon completion of each of the five phases.
Cooper's good faith notification of completion of each phase shall act to suspend
the accrual of penalties outlined in Paragraph 22 and provide the effective date
for determining whether any credits have accrued. Accrued credits may be used
to extend the deadline for completion of subsequent phases of the RI. If CER
determines that a phase is not complete, penalties pursuant to Paragraph 22 shall
accrue according to the tears of Paragraph 12. Credits shall accrue when Cooper
completes an RI Phase in less than the time specified in Paragraph 6, with one
credit accruing for each workday not used. Each phase shall be deemed complete
when all the elements of the phase as described in Exhibit A have been performed.
11. DER agrees, in conjunction with Paragraph 10, to review performance of
each phase and indicate within twenty-one days after receipt of the notification
whether it considers the phase satisfactorily completed. DER's determination
that a phase is complete constitutes nothing more than agreement that all ele-
ments of the phase as set forth in Exhibit A have been satisfactorily accom-
plished for the purposes of Paragraphs 22 and 24, and shall not be construed as
a finding that changes or additions to the scope of the work plan are not neces-
sary to achieve compliance with CERdA, the NCP, the Solid Waste Management Act,
and the Clean Streams Law. DER's determination shall not be available as a de-
fense in or in mitigation of any action brought to secure compliance with
CZROA, the NCP, the Solid Waste Management Act or the Clean Streams La*'.
12. DER agrees that, if it determines than an RI Phase has not been com-
303E97-€-
pleted in accordance with the standards and specifications set out in Exhibit A,
it will so notify Cooper in writing, including a schedule for completion in its
notification. Cooper shall expeditiously complete the Phase in accordance with
the schedule. Any delay in completion of the Phase, and resulting penalties,
will be calculated based en the new schedule, with credit given to Cooper fcr
workdays finished ahead of tine under the schedule in Paragraph 6.
13. If new information is acquired during implementation of the RI which
necessitates revision of the work plan, either Cooper or DER may request reason-
able revisions by notifying the other party of such request in writing. The
request shall include a description of the technical basis for the change (s) or
addition (s) sought and a schedule for implementation. Cooper shall begin work
within five (5) days after DER's written approval of the revision and schedule.
upon approval, the revision and schedule shall be incorporated herein and become
an obligation of this Consent Order and Agreement. DER specifically reserves
its right to issue orders concerning revisions or changes to the RI or as other-
wise authorized pursuant to the Acts cited in Paragraph 1. If Cooper is
aggrieved by DER's determination regarding revision of the work plan, Cooper
shall have the remedies available pursuant to Paragraph 25.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLflN
14. Cooper shall cooperate fully with DER in developing and implementing
a Community Relations Plan consistent with the NCP for the Osborne Site cleanup.
Cooper agrees to assist DER in attending meetings, briefing local officials,
and in otherwise implementing the Community Relations Plan.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
15. Within twenty (20) days after final approval by DER of the RI, Cooper
-7-
shall submit to DER for its approval a proposed plan for a feasibility study
to identify and assess remedial alternatives. The plan shall include a schedule
for submission of a draft Feasibility Study ("FS") and the submission of a final
FS report. The plan for the FS and the FS shall be consistent with the Solid
Waste Management Act, the dean Streams Law, the Rules and Regulations promul-
gated thereunder, and the procedures outlined in the NO3 at'40 C.F.R.
$300.68 (a-j) and $300.70. If DER determines that the proposed plan cannot be
approved, Cooper shall submit the necessary revisions within the tine specified
by DER. After review and upon approval by DER, the plan end schedule shall be
incorporated herein and become an obligation of this Consent Order and Agreement.
If Cooper is aggrieved by DER's determination regarding the proposed plan for a
feasibility study, Cooper shall have the remedies available pursuant to Para-
graph 25.
16. Cooper shall perform the FS as set forth in the approved plan and
schedule.
OF dZANUP ALTERNATIVES
17. Cooper shall have the final FS report prepared and shall subnit it in
a form acceptable to DER according to the schedule set forth in the approved
plan for the FS. The final FS report shall discuss appropriate remedial alter-
natives and estimate the total time necessary for the implementation of each
remedial alternative.
18. DER will submit the final FS report for public notice and concent.
19. EER win then issue a Record of Decision, which designates the accep-
table remedial alternative, a schedule for implementation of the chosen remedial
alternative, and the reasons for its selection. EER shall have the right to
-e- 3032S9
combine or otherwise revise the remedial alternatives discussed in the fin*T FS•
report in determining the acceptable remedial alternative. The determination
of the acceptable remedial alternative shall be mate consistent with CERCXA, the
NCP, the Solid tfeste Management Act, and the dean Streams Law. DER's designa-
tion of a remedial alternative as acceptable shall not be construed as a guaran-/
tee of its success; the designation shall not be available as a defense in or
in mitigation of any action brought to secure compliance with CERCLA, the Solid
Waste Management Act, or the Clean Streams Law. If Cooper is aggrieved by EER's
designation of the acceptable remedial alternative. Cooper shall have the reme-
dies available pursuant to Paragraph 25.
IMPLEMENTATION CF CLEANUP
20. Cooper shall implement at the Osbome Site the removal operations and
construction of cleanup facilities as set forth in die remedial alternative
designated in the Record of Decision according to the schedule set forth in the
Record of Decision. Cooper shall not be precluded from providing funds to a
third party to implement the designated remedial alternative; however, doing so
shall not relieve Cooper of its obligation under this Consent Order and Agree-
ment to implement the designated remedial alternative.
FORCE MUEURE
21. (a) Except as set forth in subparagraph (b) hereof, any failure by
Cooper to complete the obligations imposed by Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16
and 17 which is caused by circumstances beyond its control, and which Cooper, by
the exercise of reasonable diligence was unable to prevent, shall not be a vio-lation of Cooper's obligations and shall not result in liability for civil pen-
alties set forth in Paragraphs 22 and 23. Grounds for delay for which Cooper~~
303300-9-
will not be held responsible include, but are not ll"rff?j to, the following:
Acts of God, a court or administrative order initiated by EPA or other federal
agency enjoining Cooper's work at the site, and unusual weather conditions in-
terfering with work at the site. To the extent delay is caused by such circum-
stances, the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period of
time up to or equal to the number of days of excused delay*' Increased costs or
expenses in connection with the performance of the obligations of this Consent
Order and Agreement shall not constitute a circumstance beyond Cooper's control.
(b) Notwithstanding anything set forth in subparagraph (a) hereof, in
no event shall DER grant any extension which, alone or in conjunction with any
previous extensions, would result in any of the obligations in Paragraphs 3, 4,
6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 being performed after January 1, 1985.
(c) Cooper shall be entitled to the benefits of this paragraph only
if Cooper promptly submits a written request for extension to DER, as provided
in subparagraph (d).
' (d) Cooper shall notify DER of any delay which occurs in the perfor-
mance of any of the obligations of Paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17.
Such notification shall be in writing and shall fully describe the nature of
the delay, the reasons for the delay, expected duration of the delay» and the
actions which Cooper is taking to mitigate further delay. The Department shall
determine the length of the extension to be granted based en information sub-
mitted pursuant to subparagxapns (c) and (d) hereof. If Cooper fails to provide
such notice to the Department as required by this paragraph, within five (5)
workdays of the occurrence of the delay, the provisions for extensions in sub-
paragraph (a) shall not apply.
303301-10-
22. If Cooper has not completed any of the phases or any revisions in t
time period set forth in Paragraph 6, then it shall be liable for civil pen*1
ties in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per day for the fir
seven (7) calendar days of delay, and five hundred dollars ($500.00) per day :
each subsequent calendar day on which it fails to complete performance.
23. If Cooper fails to submit a proposed plan for an FS within twenty (2
workdays after DDR's approval of the RI, or fails to timely perform any other
obligations set out in the approved FS plan. Cooper shall pay a civil penalty <
twc hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per calendar day.
24. A delay of greater than the time period scheduled for completion of
any phase or any revision required by this Consent Order and Agreement or other
violation of the obligations of this Consent Order and Agreement shall entitle
DER to pursue all available remedies and penalties for violation of a Depart-
mental Order. Such remedies and penalties shall be in addition to, and not in
lieu of, those imposed by the Consent Order and Agreement, including Paragraphs
22 and 23.
APPEALABLE ACTIOM5
25. DER's determinations regarding necessary revision of the work plan
(Paragraph 13), approval of the plan for the FS (Paragraph 15), and designation
of a remedial alternative in the Record of Decision (Paragraph IS) shall be con-
strued as appealable actions, pursuant to Section 1921-A of the Administrative
Cede, 71 P.S. $510-21, and the Administrative Agency law, 2 Pa.C.S. $103 (a) and
Chapters 5A and 7A, but Cooper waives its right to contest DER's right to take
these artions. If Cooper is aggrieved by CCR's designation in the Record of
-11- 303302
Decision, Cooper shall have the right to show that CER's determination of a
remedial alternative is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or otherwise con-
trary to law, but shall limit its request for relief to a request that the En-
vironmental Hearing Board, upon finding that the designated remedial alterna-
tive is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or otherwise contrary to law, re-
mand the matter to DER. Cooper shall not request that the Environmental Hearingr
Board modify the designated remedial alternative or substitute any of the re-
medial alternatives discussed in the FS. If the Environmental Bearing Board or
reviewing court vacates the Record of Decision, CER reserves the right to elect
another remedial alternative. The parties agree that the standard for review of
the Record of Decision shall be whether it is arbitrary, capricious, unreascn-
able or otherwise contrary to law.
GENERAL CONDITIQG——————————————
26. DER agrees that the costs incurred by Cooper in fulfillment of this
Consent Order and Agreement are, in CER's opinion and belief, consistent with
the NCP and G3CLA, and that DER will take Cooper's expense into consideration
when it assesses the ultimate cleanup expenses allocated to the Csborne Site.
Any money expended by Cooper pursuant to this Consent Order and Agreement and
approved by DER will be credited in any final determination by CER or any re-
viewing body against Cooper's overall monetary liability with respect to the
Osborne Site. However, Cooper's expense shall not be available as a defense
nor in mitigation of any action brought to secure compliance with CERCLA, the
NCP, the Solid Waste Management Act, or the Clean Streams law.
27. So long as Cooper complies with the teens and conditions of this Con-
sent Order and Agreement, CER will withhold scope of work and other approvals
-12- 303303
. ,
for any remedial work proposed by any party not signing this Consent Order-
and Agreement which would interfere with Cooper's ability to comply with this
Consent Order and Agreement or would substantially duplicate Cooper's obliga-
tions under this Consent Order and Agreement.
28. Nothing in this Consent Order and Agreement authorizes any violation
of any permit, law or regulation. CER specifically reserves all rights to in-
stitute civil, criminal, equitable and administrative proceedings for past,
existing and future violations of any environmental law or regulation by Cooper
or other persons. DER specifically reserves the right to sue for civil penalties
or other relief for any discharge to ground or surface waters of the Commonwealth
which has occurred at any time or may occur in the future and for any violation
or condition which exists, occurs or is committed after the date of this Consent
Order and Agreement.
29. Nothing in this Consent Order and Agreement shall impair or affect any
right of contribution by Cooper against all other responsible parties for costs
incurred in connection with the RI, FS, and any subsequent remedial action at
the Csborne Site, and other miscellaneous associated costs, pursuant to the Uni-
form Contribution of Joint Tbrtfeasors Act, 42 P.S. $8321 et sea., and other
applicable law. Nothing herein shall restrict the right of Cooper to seek re-
lief from other parties under applicable federal law, including Section 107 of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. $9607.
30. Nothing in this Consent Order and Agreement shall be construed as a
waiver or impairment of DER's right to take any available action against other
persons liable under applicable la* for the conditions at the Csborne Site.
Nothing in this Consent Order and Agreement shall be construed to alter other-
-13-
wise applicable rules of liability and of contribution in any action involving
Cooper or other responsible parties related to conditions at the Osborne Site.
31. Signature by CER to this Consent Order and Agreement constitutes agree-
ment that, based on infomaticn currently available to CER, Exhibit A represents
an appropriate work plan for an RI at the Csborne Site.
32. No agreement, approval or determination by CER pursuant to this Con-
sent Order and Agreement shall be construed as a guarantee of success, waiver of
further responsibility or determination of ultimate compliance with any law.
33. All correspondence with CER concerning this Consent Order and Agree-
ment and required notifications shall be addressed to Russell Cr&rford, Regional
Solid Waste Manager, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1012 Water Street, Mead-
ville, PA 16335.
34. All correspondence with Cooper concerning this Consent Order and Agree-
ment and required notifications shall be addressed to Edgar A. Bircher, Esq.,
Vice President and General Counsel, Cooper Industries, Lie., P.O. Box 4446,
Houston, Texas 77210.
35. Cooper consents to the entry of this Consent Order and Agreement and
waives any right it might have to appeal the issuance of this Consent Order and
Agreement under Section 1S21-A of the Administrative Code, 71 P.S. $510-21, and
the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. $103 (a) and Chapters 5A and 7A.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as a limitation of Cooper's rights
pursuant to Paragraph 25 to challenge the CER actions set forth therein.
36. Each undersigned representative of the parties to this Consent Order
and Agreement certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the
terms and conditions of this Consent Order and Agreement and to execute and to
legally bind such party to this document.
37. It is the intent of the parties hereto that the clauses hereof are
severable and should any part of the clauses be declared by a court of law to
be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining clauses shall remain in full force
and effect as between the parties, their successors and assigns.
38. Any changes, additions, or amendments to this Consent Order and Agree-
ment shall be set out in writing and signed by the parties.
39. Ohis Consent Order and Agreement shall be effective as of the last date
of signature by the parties. The Agreement shall terminate upon CER's final
approval of the work agreed to herein; the Order shall remain in effect as an
Order of the Department.
FOR THE CO-MCtWEALTH OF FOR COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., DEPARTMENT OFRESOURCES
Eocar A. Bircher_ Vice-President and General Counsel
Director
Patti J. -SaundersAssistant Counsel / Sadden, Arps, Slate, ifeagher & Flcm
stries. Inc.
(DATE) ' ' (DATE)
(CORPORATE SEAL)
303306-15-
A T T A C H M E N T
WORK PLAN' FORSITE INVESTIGATION
AT THEOSBORNE-LANDFILL
Prepared by:
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, INC.New York/Washington, O.C./Denver
V <-'EXHIBIT A 303307
WORK PLAN
The site Investigation- of the Osborne Landfill to be conducted by Hart1s designed to determine:
0 The types and quantities of wastes present at the site0 The geological conditions and soil types present at the site0 The extent of soil contamination0 Groundwater flow direction and gradiente Groundwater qualityc Surface water quality
Specifically, Hart will commence the site investigation program within10 workdays of the notice to proceed as follows:
Task 1.0 - Indirect Geophysical Investigation
1.1 A standard magnetometry survey will be conducted at the site toIndicate the number, locations, and types of buried metal objects at thesite. A commercially available magnetometer with at least a 10 gamma reso-lution will be utilized to obtain the magnetic field data.
Measurements will be taken and stored for data Interpretation. ThisInterpretation will include removal of diurnal magnetic field changes,magnetic profiling, the construction of magnetic contour naps and magneticfield modeling to determine the depth, mass, and type of object causing mag-netic anomaly.
1.2 An electrical resistivity survey will be conducted around the per-imeter of the site. The survey will be used as a prescreening tool to indi-cate subsurface geologic conditions. The survey Is designed to provideInformation on the depth of the water table, the location of possible buriedbedrock contacts and the relative thickness of saturated soils. The survey
i eay also delineate possible zones of contaminated soil or groundwater and
30330?. r*C9 C MART"I-
the possible presence, locations and depths of nine shafts underneath the
Two parallel survey lines separated by 50-100 feet will be run aroundthe perimeter of the site. These lines will be located above the strip minewalls and spoil piles. Apparent resistivities will be recorded and a pro-file will be developed for the survey area.
The indirect geophysical investigation program will be completed within30 workdays after the commencement of this Task. ''
Task 2.0 - Drilling of Initial Test Borings and Veils
Hart will initially complete drilling of IS test borings and wells at. the site. All drilling will be supervised and Inspected by Hart hydrogeo le-gists who will make observations and measurements of all sampling activitiesand materials. These observations will be recorded in daily log books andon boring log forms. All split spoon samples will be taken in accordancewith ASTK Standard D1586. All rock coring will be accomplished in accord-ance with ASTK Standard 02113-70. In addition, each split spoon will bechecked with an Organic Vapor Analyzer to Identify zones of contamination.Color photographs will be taken of each sample to document its condition.All wells will be developed by a method suggested by the driller and ap-proved by Hart. Development water generated at the leachate wells will bediverted to areas of the fill which will not permit surface runoff. Thedevelopment procedure will be supervised by Hart hydrogeo legists to insurethat wells are open to formations and that clear sediment-free water can beobtained for laboratory analysis.
The location of the test borings and monitor wells are shown in Fig-ure 1. The wells will be drilled by Llnlnger Drilling and Pumps, Inc.,Greenville, Pennsylvania. Specifically:
2.1 At location DHW-1, one test boring will be drilled to a depth of ap-proximately 300 ft. Split spoon samples will be taken to bedrock. Con-tinuous rock coring will then be utilized to sample the bedrock to a depth
3033G9= c
• * ' • •
necessary to confirm bedrock conditions at depth underneath the site so thatf\ contaminant migration can be assessed. This boring will be completed as a
v^ 2 inch flush joint PVC deep monitoring well in the Burgeon sandstone. Thismonitoring well will be used as a deep well in a nest designed to evaluatethe effects of potential artesian pressure heads on contaminant migration.The well construction diagram for this well is shown in Figure 2.
2.2 At location MMW-1, one test boring will be drilled to a depth of200 feet. Split spoon samples will be taken to bedrock. Continuous rockcoring will then be utilized to sample the bedrock to a depth necessary toconfirm bedrock conditions at depth underneath the site'so that contaminantmigration can be assessed. This boring will be completed as a 2 inch flushjoint PVC deep monitoring well. This monitoring well will be used as a deepwell in a nest designed to evaluate the effects of potential artesian pres-sure heads on contaminant migration. The well construction diagram for thiswell is shown in Figure 2.
f 2.3 Five perimeter monitoring wells will be drilled at locations UHW-1^ through UMW-5 to a depth not to exceed tne first relatively impermeable zone
^"^ encountered after drilling through the uppermost bedrock aquifer. Thisdepth will be determined from data based on the deep borings. The typicalwell construction diagram for these wells is shown in Figure 2. They willbe finished as open cased holes in the bedrock aquifer. The casing will bedriven tightly into bedrock to prevent near surface leakage.
2.4 Four test borings will be drilled at locations LW-1 through LW-4directly in the disposal area to characterize the subsurface materials.Standard 2-inch split spoon samples will be collected. Sampling will becontinuous to bedrock.
Each of these borings will be completed as a leachate well to allowsampling of leachate and to evaluate the hydraulic properties of the foundrysand in the fill. Figure 2 shows the typical well construction diagram forthese wells. Threaded 4 inch flush joint PVC will be used to avoid contami-
•J nation by organic solvents.
303310._ r«cs c »A*T
2.S Four test borings will be drilled at locations SW-1 through SW-4A in undisturbed soil surrounding the disposal area. Each of these borings
will be completed as shallow wells to monitor water quality in the surfacesoils. The typical design for these wells Is shown in Figure 2. Threaded4 inch Flushjoint PVC will be used to avoid contamination by organic sol-vents.
2.6 An Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) will be used in the survey mode tomonitor the safety of all personnel during on-site drilling operations. Inaddition, the OVA will be used in the gas chromatograph GC) mode to identi-fy potential zones of contamination in soil borings by headspace analyses.
2.7 All wells will be secured with a protective casing witn a lockingcap. The wells will be surveyed for use in the determination of hydraulicconditions at the site. In addition, a detailed topographic survey of thelandfill and the immediate vicinity will be developed. Accurate spatiallocations and elevations of test borings and monitoring wells are reauired
f so that groundwater depths and flow characteristics can be determined.
The drilling of initial test borings and wells will be completed within40 workdays after the commencement of this Task.
Task 3.0 - Sampling Program
Hart will collect a total of 18 surface water, leachate, and ground-water samples. Specific sampling plans are as follows:
3.1 One surface water sample will be collected at each of the six locationsshown in Figure 3. .
3.2 One composite leachate sample will be collected. The four leachatewells (LW1 through LV4) will be sampled. Equal portions of each well samplewill be composited into one sample to identify types of materials found 1nthe waste area.
3.3 One groundwater sample will be collected from each of the groundwatermonitoring wells listed below:
c Four Shallow Monitoring Wells (SV1 through SW4J° Five Uppermost Aquifer Monitoring Wells (UMW1 through UMWS)° One Middle Aquifer Monitoring Wells (MMW1)e One Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well (DMW1)
Before sampling all groundwater and leachate wells, accurate waterlevel measurements will be taken to a precision of ±0.01 foot and recordedto determine the hydraulic gradient and flow direction. At least three wellvolumes will then be evacuated from each well to insure a representativesample. Equipment preparation, surface water sampling procedures, andchain-of-custody procedures will be conducted in accordance with standardEPA protocols as set forth in EPA Document 1600/2-80-016 (Samplers andSampling Procedures For Hazardous Waste Streams, January 1980).
Groundwater Sampling Procedures will be conducted in accordance withStandard EPA protocols set forth In EPA Document ffSW-611 (Procedures Manualfor Groundwater Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal Sites, December 1980).
All samples will be iced immediately after collection and delivered tothe laboratory within the holding times prescribed by the EPA methods forpriority pollutant analyses outlined in Task 4. Chain-of-custody, as des-cribed above, will be maintained at all times.
The sampling program will be completed within IS workdays after thecommencement of this Task.
Task 4.0 - Analytical Program
Each of the 18 samples collected will be analyzed for priority pollut-ants. All laboratory analyses will be performed by Environmental Testingand Certification (ETC) of Edison, New Jersey.
ETC will supply all bottles, preservatives, ice packs, shipping con-tainers, analyses request forms, and chain-of-custody fores in accordancewith the standard EPA protocols set forth in EPA Document f60012-80-018(Samplers and Sampling Procedures for Hazardous Waste Streams).
303312-ruts C. *»R? »SSCC:*"ES «NC
After receipt of the samples, ETC will prepare and analyze the samplesfor priority pollutants using EPA Method Nos. 624. 625, and 200.1 through200.98. as set forth in the Federal Register. 3 December 1979, pages 69532and 65940, and "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste", EPA Docu-ment f600/4-79-020. respectively. ETC will report, with analytical resultsfor each sample, the appropriate quality control/quality assurance informa-tion as outlined in the above EPA protocols.
Analytical results will, be recived within 40 workdays after the com-mencement of this Task. ,
Task 5.0 - Data Evaluation and Reportino Preparation
Hart will evaluate all the data developed during the site investigationand incorporate it in a report. The report will include a complete descrip-tion of the field investigation, a record of boring logs and analyticaldata, and an interpretation of the data including detailed maps and subsur-
f face sections. The report will specifically address types and quantities ofwastes present at the site, the geological conditions and soil types presentat the site, the extent of soil contamination,, groundwater flow directionand gradient in the surficial and uppermost bedrock aquifers, and ground-water and surface water quality. The report will also contain a riskassessment which will evaluate the public health and environmental concernsposed at the site.
If groundwater contamination is detected, the report will provide acomprehensive groundwater monitoring plan. The groundwater monitoring planwill set forth the number and location of wells and the sampling programneeded to determine the concentrations, rate and extent of contaminantmigration. The plan may include but would not be limited to such terns aspermeability testing and geophysical testing.
The data evaluation and report preparation will be completed withinf 30 workdays after the commencement of this Task.
303313.£. r«er c HART ASSCCATCS INC
UMW1
CORNFIELD
SW1
0UMW2
AMMVVI
INACTIVE LAGOON
DEEP MONITORING WELL
UPPERMOST AQUIFER MONITORING WELLSHALLOW WELL
O LEACHATE WELL
FIGURE 1 : MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP
o5tua
tueao
•" «" ~ •~—•••••"fX.xvK'r':I jifc&'SfcxSI I i I. jiffff '•'''•'tu
o.tuUJo
30331S
w I
CORNF1ELO
INACTIVE LAGOON
O SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
FIGURE 3 : SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION MAP
c EPA-600/2-80-018January 1980
SAMPLERS AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS
Efflil R. deVera, Bare P. Simons,Robert D. Stephens and David L. Stora
California Department of Health ServicesBerkeley, California 94704
Grant No. R806692010
Project Officer
Richard A. CaratsSolid and Hazardous Waste Research DivisionMunicipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIROKHEKIAL RESEARCH LABORATORY•OFFICE OF RESEARCH AKD DEVELOPMENTU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
EXHIBIT B 303211
CONTENTS
Foreword ... .................*...... iiiAbstract ........................... ivFigures ........................... viTables ........................... vii
i. Introduction ...................... i2. Conclusions ................. T .... 3J. Rp«v»o3i»ndacie»riS .................... 4^. Saaplers .................... 5
Composite liquid waste sampler ............ 5Solid waste samplers ................. 9Soil samplers ................. 13Procedure for use ................. i«Pond sampler ................. 20
S. Preparation for Sampling ................ j&6. Sampling Procedures ................ 26
General considerations ................ 26Sample handling ................. 39Field lo< book ................. &xChain of custody record ............... 42Sample analysis request sheet ............ 42Scop It delivery to the laboratory ........... 42Shipping of cample ........... 45
7. Receipt and Logging of Sample ........... 468. Preservation and Stornge of Samples ........... 48
References ................ 50Appendices ................ 52A. Development of the composite liquid ........... 52
waste sampler (Coliwasa) ..............B. Parts for constructing the coliwasa ........... 62C. Checklist of iteas required in the field ........ 63
sampling of hazardous wastes .............D. Random sampling ................ 6?E. Systematic errors in using the coliwasa ......... 68
303318
rule, however, is to record sufficient information co that someone canreconstruct the campling situation without reliance on the collector's
f-\ memory.
The log book must be protected and kept in a cafe place.
. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
To establich the documentation necessary to trace cample possessionfrom the time of collection, a chain of custody record must be filled outand accompany every cample. This record becomes especially important whenthe cample ic co be introduced as evidence in a court litigation. Anexample of a chain of custody record ic illustrated in Figure 13.
The record must contain the following minimum information:Collector's sample numberSignature of collectorDate and tiae of collectionPlace and address of collectionWaste typeSignatures of persons involved in the chain of possessionInclusive daces of possession
SAMPLE ANALYSIS REQUEST SHEET
The sample analysis request sheet (Figure 14) is intended to accom-pany the cample on delivery to the laboratory. The field portion of thisform eust be completed by the person collecting the sample and shouldinclude most of the pertinent information noced in che log book. Thelaboratory portion of this form is intended Co be completed by laboratorypersonnel and to include:
Name of person receiving the campleLaboratory cample numberDace of sample receiptSample allocationAnalyses to be performed
SAMPLE DELIVERY TO THE LABORATORY
Preferably, the cample must be delivered in person co che laboratoryfor analysis as coon as practicable—usually che case day as che campling.Consult Section 8 when cample preservation is required. The sample muse
42
California Department of Health Collector's Sample No,Hazardous Materials Laboratory
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD - —Hazardous Materials
Location of Sampling: _ Producer _ Hauler Disposal Site
Other:
Company's Name
Addressnumber street city
Collector's Namesignature
Date Sampled Time Same led
Type of Process Producing Waste
Waste Type Code Other
*- Field Information
Telephone ( )'•
state sip
Telephone ( )
hours
Sample Allocation:
I.name of organization
2.name of organization
3.name of organization
Chain of Possession
1.signature CiCle
2.signature title
3.signature CiCle
inclusive dates
inclusive dates
inclusive dates
Figure 13. Example of chain of custody record
43 3G3S«20
AU.-STATI UGA» sm*;.* co ONC couucfttt 3a«vf c**»**o*o NEW jiHSEv on>it
13
303321
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
1012 Water Street**** **" Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335
Telephone: A. C. 814/724-8526November 1, 1983
Subject: Osborne LandfillPhase I Completion 3W ~ "-33
Mr. Edgar A. Bircher, Esq. « «-.- i,s-,Vice President & General Council / L-*:. -"V a*«*Cooper Industries, Inc.P. 0. Box 4446Houston, Texas 77210Dear Mr. Bircher?
In response to your letter of October 13, 1983, this shall constituteformal notice pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Consent Order & Agreement that theDepartment has reviewed Cooper's Phase I activities at the Osborne landfill.The Department considers this phase, as described in Exhibit A of the ConsentOrder & Agreement, to be satisfactorily completed as of October 7, 1983. It isexpected that a full written report on this activity will be included as part ofthe feasibility study report to be submitted pursuant to Paragraph 15 of theConsent Order & Agreement. Eight workdays were used to complete Phase I andtherefore a credit of J22yorkdays has accrued which may be used to extendsubsequent deadlines. W<
If you have any questions regarding this natter, please feel free tocontact me.
Sincerely,
Russell L. CrawfordRegional Solid Waste ManagerBureau of Solid Waste Management
RLC/JDR/skg
wovr
EXHIBIT 13 303322
PAT! LCGA. fcj»P CD ONE COtME C! DB VI Cft»N«O<»Z MEA J|BSt- 0*016
1-
303325
RECEIVEDDEC20B83
fteidirllSf Pmylvt^li 15335T«i«Kfc««M. *« r •>•! >•*•»»» uc«*eTelephone: «. C. £14/724-6526
December 16. 1983Subject: Osborne LanofllT
Mercer County, Pennsylvaniaiir. Edgar A. BircherVice President & General CounselCooper Industries* Inc.P. 0. tJox 4446 fHouston, Texas 77210Dear Mr. Bircher:
On November 23, 1933 Donna Skinner, Regional Hydrogeologlst, and Inet on-site with Frank Slmunlc, Cooper representative, to confirm completion ofPhase II per Paragraph 6 of the Consent Order & Agreement between Cooper EnergyServices and the Department of Environmental Resources.
It was agreed that all IS wells contained In Exhibit A of the WorkPlan nave oeen drilled as field located on October 7, 1933.
With the preliminary field data supplied and the addition of the TaskVI wells. It Is felt that the Intended scope of the Work Plan Task II will besatisfied entirely. The reasons that necessitated the Inclusion of Task VI mayupon the final report outcome dictate other Investigation activity.
Therefore, November 22, 1983 1s the date considered by the Oepartmentfor tne completion of Paragraph 6, Phase II of the Consent Order & Agreement.
In calculating your schedule requirements according to Paragraoh 6,the following was used to determine a total credit of 19 days:
Phase II/Start Date October 10, 1983Targeted 40 work day end date December 2, 1983National holidays/3 Columbus Day, Octooer 10
Veterans Day. November 11Thanksgiving Day, November 24
December 2 + 3 workdays results In the actual end date beingDecember 7, 1933.S workday extension for well depths at 25X nore than expected.December 7 plus S workdays results In the final actual end date beingDecember 14, 1983. Final Actual Conviction November 22, 1933, yields15 workdays credit. Force majeur - weather days 3 (Noveaoer 11 hasbeen requested also, but Is denied since November 11 «ras also acredited national holiday). October id, November 10, November 15
EXHIBIT 14
«r. Edgar A. Bircher -2- December 16, 1933
Phase III sampling program.conmenced on Wovemoer 23, 1933, however, 'i due to a request oy DER your scheduled sampling date had to be delayed 4V workdays. Therefore, 4 days credit Is given to Phase HI completion thereby
allowing until December 19 for completion.Please feel free to contact me if you have any consents or questions
: regarding the contents of this letter.Sincerel
A. Patrick Boyle 'Regional Operations ChiefBureau of Solid Waste Management
dPB/skgcc: Mr. Robert Teets, Director, Safety Administration & Workers Compensation
dr. Frank Simunlc, Supervisor, Facilities Engineering 6 PlanningMr. Edward Schoener, U.S. EPA, Region IIIMr. Russell Crawford, Headvllle Regional Office
303325
*.* CC O*A COVWFPCC 0
15
303326
U
Society"
December 22, 1983
Cooper IndustriesP.O. Box 4446Houston, TX 77210
Dear Mr. Cizik,
The Appalachian Audubon Society understands that one of your subsidiaries,Cooper Energy Service of Grove City, Pennsylvania, is in the process of cleaningup toxic wastes found at the Osborne landfill near Grove City in MercerCounty.
~- We want you to know we applaud their efforts. The initiative your companyshows in this project is highly commendable.
Thank you for keeping our environment and Grove City's water supply clean.
vKathy CnbariConservation Chairperson623 Frances DriveHarrisburg, PA 17109
cc: Ed BircherTom CampbellJoe CoppolaSteve Mims P'.'CCarl PlesnicherBob Teets CE3 28 833
U/IKDECEIVED
EXHIBIT 15100% Recycled Pacer
AU..STAU LIC>*k Su»*t.v CO ONE COWWEtCE 0*>'vt CfUN«ORD NEA
16
303328
COOPER INDUSTRIES
October 22,
Mr. Russell CravfordRegional Solid Waste ManagerPennsylvania Departmentof Environmental ResourcesBureau of Solid Waste1012 Water StreetMeadville, Pennsylvania 16335
Dear Mr. Cravford:
Re: Osborne Remedial InvestigationReport
Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1984 in which you noted "overall theOsborne Remedial Investigation Report clearly documents the work done At thesite". Further, your acknowledgement that it appears there is presently nosignificant groundwater contamination occurring at the site and there is nocompelling need for extensive additional vork at this time, is correct. Duringthe past year. Cooper Industries has spent in excess of 5700,000 in completing theRemedial Investigation, in accordance with the Consent Order and Agreement reachedwith your agency. Each task of the Work Plan included in that agreement andapproved by your agency has been completed. The following information, preparedwith the assistance of our consultant, is in consideration of your contents ofSeptember 19, 1984 and reinforces the discussions held with your agency and therepresentatives of the Environmental Protection Agency at your Meadville officeson Friday, October 12, 1964.
1. T??cs and Quantities of Waste Disposed of at the Site
The Environmental Protection Agency has identified a number of generatorscontributing waste to the Osborne Landfill including General Electric, WolfeIron and Steel, Ashland Chemical, Channel Lock and Cooper Energy Services.Both General Electric and Cooper Energy Services submitted to theEnvironmental Protection Agency a Notification of Hazardous Waste Site, asrequired by section 103(c) of CERCLA, which identified a number of wastes ashaving been disposed of at the Osborne facility. In those notices, thefollowing materials were identified: F017 - Spent paint, U013 - Asbestos,F003-005 - Spent nonhalogenated solvents and F001-002 - Spent halcgenatedsolvents.
CCS-».ES..NC. 303?29F rs: C.ty "c*tr Snte 4CCC PC 2s* «-»6 EXHIBIT 16
*
Page 2
Furthermore in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's request foradditional information under CERCLA, section 104(e), Cooper Energy Servicessubmitted its records. From these records, a documentation of types andquantities of waste produced and disposed of at the Osborne site between theearly 1950's and 1978 can be assumed.. Within the documents, the followingwastes are identified: Waste coolants, waste sand, waste acid, wastesolvents, scrap metal, cast iron dust, cooling system sludge, air filtrationsludge, scrap carbide (lime) sludge, excavation debris, slag and waste oils.It is not known if the Environmental Protection Agency made a similar requestof General Electric, or If General Electric responded to such a request andprovided similar documentation of the wastes they disposed of at the Osbornesite.
As a result of our complete and thorough Remedial Investigation at theOsborne site, you will find in the report on page 10 of Section 3 WASTE TYPESAND QUANTITIES, that our leachate wells identified a' limited number ofpollutants at low and isolated concentrations. Of the waste disposed of atthe site, only generally low concentrations of benzene, nickel and chromiumwere detected. In fact, the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources' filtered samples of leachate well analysis showed lead levels atless than 10 ug/1, mercury levels at less than 1 ug/1, and arsenic levels atless than 10 ug/1. The concentration levels identified suggest that most ofthe lead, mercury and arsenic was due to suspended solids and therefore donot travel in groundwater as readily as they would if in solution. Ourrecords clearly established the vast majority of waste deposited at the siteby Cooper was foundry sand.
2. Soil Contamination
In accordance with the agreed upon Work Flan as attached to the Cooper -Department of Environmental Resources Consent Order and Agreement, nochemical analysis of soil samples was required. As stated in the' Work Flan,in Section 2.5, "Four test borings will be drilled at locations SW-l throughSW-4 in undisturbed solid surrounding the disposal area. Each of theseborings will be completed as shallow wells to monitor water quality in thesurface soils". Also stated in Section 3.2, "One composite leachate samplewill be collected. The four leachate wells (LW-i through LW-4) will besampled. Equal portions of each well sample will be composited into onesample to Identify types of materials found in the waste area".
In order to characterize the types and quantities of wastes present at thesite a wide variety of methodologies and observations were utilizedincluding:
a. Review of old aerial photos and mapping of soil types;b. Understanding of past strip Dining and waste disposal operations;c. Kagnetometry survey;d. Test borings, soil sampling and OVA field analysis;e. Installation of leachate wells and sampling and analysis of composite
leachate samples;f. Inventorying, comprehensive sampling and analysis of surface wastes and
observations during site surface cleanup (IBM).
303330
Page 3
After utilizing the above techniques, etc., it was concluded on page 111-10of the Remedial Investigation Report that most of the waste by volume isfoundry sand. The OVA field screening of test boring samples Indicated verylittle contamination above the water table. Below the water table, chemicalanalysis of leachate wells identified only a limited number of prioritypollutants at low concentrations.
Not only should the leachate samples represent worst case contamination(i.e., high concentrations of a composite mixture of contaminants drainedfrom the entire waste mass Including "hot spots") but they also representthose contaminants which would have the potential to migrate from the site.
In any case, given the relatively low levels of contaminants found andconsidering the waste quantities as the entire mass of waste materialsdisposed, additional data refinements such as indicating hot spots ordetermining maximum and minimum ranges of contamination within the waste massshould not be needed for the purpose of assessing relevant risks posed by thesite.
Waste quantities were determined by taking the entire volume of disposedmaterials, In mass, and calculating the volume from numerous cross-sectionalareas. These volume calculations and backup data can be found in Appendix Gof the Remedial Investigation Report.
3. Groundwater Flow Direction, Gradient and Interaction
(a) Eureccn Sandstone
On October 8, 1984, Cooper took an additional round of water levelmeasurements from all the monitoring wells at the Osborne site. Thedata is plotted on the hydrograph (See. revised Figure V-9 attached).This new water level data verified the groundwater flow direction in theBurgeon aquifer beneath the site to be towards the northeast (Seerevised Figure V-8 attached). This latest set of water level readingsindicates the flow to be even more definitively pointing away from theGrove City municipal wells with a more convincing gradient of roughlyeight feet (8 ft.) per 500 feet across the site. The flow directionwhich is more towards the east provides additional justification for theuse of DMW-l as an upgradient monitoring well.
As Indicated by the hydrograph (Figure V-9) in March and April. 1984,sufficient time had not elapsed for water levels to completely stabilizesince the drilling, logging, pumping and sampling of the wells. Howeversince that time, six months have passed and this latest set of waterlevel data substantiates our understanding of groundwater flowdirections within the Burgeon aquifer. The flow direction being awayfrom the Grove City wells would Indicate the pumping of the municipalwell field should have little to no measurable effect on water levels orthe aquifer beneath the site.
To our knowledge, other than the Grove City wells, there are no otheroff-site receptor wells in the area that are open to the Burgeonaquifer.
303351
Page 4
(b) Eomewoed Formation
The latest set of water level readings taken October 8, 1984 wereplotted as shown on the revised Figure V-7. This new water level datasubstantiates the flow in the Eomewood aquifer to be predominantly tothe south. This would be consistent with the "hydrologic island"concept of groundwater flow towards the boundaries. The unusually highwater levels in Well UMW-5 is considered an anomaly due to localconditions and does not appear to have a significant effect on waterlevels in the other UMW wells. It Is expected that the higher waterlevels in the vicinity of well UMW-5 would not Influence regional flowbut would cause a local converging effect of groundwater flow beneaththe site. In any event, whether the flow in the Bomewood aquifer is tothe south or to the southeast would have little bearing on potentialrisks to receptor wells because In either direction the Eomewood aquiferwould likely discharge Into near surface groundwater flow systemsshortly after leaving the site.
(c) Shallow Water Table Flew
Figure V-6 did not include water level measurement for well SW-l becausethis well is screened in fill soil deposits which are not hydraulicallyconnected with the fill soil deposits at the disposal site. Byreferring to one of the subsurface sections, this well was installedupon the ledge of the high wall which is roughly 30 feet higher inelevation than the rest of the SW and LW veils at the disposal site.
Due to the complexity of the surface soils at this site from glacialerosion and deposition and past strip Bluing activities, it would bedifficult to say at what locations and to what degree the off-site pondsand nearby streams are hydraulically connected to the shallow watertable. To determine the influence of off-site surface water bodies ongroundwater flow at the site would likely require considerable off-siteveil installation and groundwater level measurements. At this time, wedo not see why this would materially add to the report.
(d) Connequenessing Aquifer
To limit the scope of work and still achieve the objectives of theRemedial Investigation, our program was designed to intercept theuppermost aquifers or the most likely pathways for contaminantmigration. In addition to the Burgeon aquifer, the major aquifersupplying water to the Grove City wells and the aquifer with the highestflow rate was included within the scope of the Investigation. In anyevent, none of these more likely pathways shoved contamination of anysignificance.
303333
Page 5
(e) Aquifer Intcreonnectedness
As shown on the revised Figure V-9, the new water level data obtainedOctober 8, 1984 more accurately depicts the long-term water levelelevations within each aquifer. As explained at a previous Cooper, Bartand Department of Environmental* Resources meeting, the water levelfluctuations during March and April of 1964 were due to destabilizingeffects of water levels after drilling, geophysical logging, wellpumping and evacuation in preparation for sampling, at the end of thewell installation program. More specifically, the increase in waterlevels in veil DMW-1 and contemporaneous decrease in water levels inveils UHW-3 and LW-4, for instance, was due to leakage through wellDMW-3. During the drilling and geophysical logging of well DMW-3, waterwas observed flowing down from upper zones (e.g., Eomewood) to loverzones (I.e., Burgeon) through this open hole. At the time, this openhole had not yet been completed as deep well DMW-3 with the upperaquifers sealed off from the deeper one.
An example of the lack of interconnectedness is the subsequent recoveryin water levels in wells UMW-3 and LW-4 after completing and sealingwell DMW-3. In fact, even during the rather extensive pumping of wellsDMW-2 and DMW-3, in preparation for the April, 1984 sampling trip whilethe vater levels dropped sharply in DMW-1, the vater levels vere stillrecovering in wells UMW-3 and LW-4.
On page IV-9 of the Remedial Investigation Report, it is stated that"most surface runoff generated on the site or flowing onto the site endsup on the ponds and recharges the groundwater system". In any case, assuch, these areas should cot need to be addressed as a continuing sourceof leachate generation through the waste materials since nocontamination of significance was found.
As stated previously, the site geology and especially the near surfacesoil deposits are very complex due to glacial erosion and deposition,strip mining and subsequent disposal activities. For this reason, theconstruction of flow nets would require considerable additional wellinstallation and water level information and, in any event, would notadd materially to the Remedial Investigation Report.
(f) Pump Testing
As stated in the Osborne Site Void Investigation Report, the purpose ofthe three-hour pumping test was to evaluate the volume of the voidencountered during the drilling of the monitoring veils near station N-2and 4«00. As stated on page 11-24 of the Remedial Investigation Report,the three-hour pumping test was adequate for concluding that the vatervas entering the veil from a rather extensive void area. Althoughapparently cot provided in the Remedial Investigation Report, vaterlevels in well DMW-2 vere monitored and showed co effects from thepumping test. This well was installed in the Eomewood formationdirectly beneath the pumping well.
303333
Page 6
4. Effects of Coal Mining
The references which were mistakenly left out of the list of reference inSection VIII include:
* R.E. Wicans, R. Eayatsu, R.G. Scott, L.F. Moore and M.B. Studies,Examination and Comparison of Structure: Lignite, Bituminous andAnthracite Coal, Preprints of the Coal Chemistry Workshop, August 26 and27, 1984, Stanford Research Institute.
* Michael W. Gang and Donald Langmuir, Controls on Heavy Metals in Surfaceand Groundwaters Affected by Coal Mine Drainage; Clarion River - RedbankCreed Watershed, Pennsylvania, 5th Symposium on Coal Mine Research,National Coal Association, 1974.
5. The two lime deposit areas shown in Figure II-7 are estimated to be onlythree to five feet deep and very small in area. They evolved through thedeposition of lime used in the production of acetylene. Due to its smallvolume relative to the remaining wastes disposed on site, characterizationwould produce little substantive information necessary for the feasibilitystudy. Further, analytical results from sampling of the well water from SW-2(screened in glacial deposits) and LW-4 (screened in mice spoils and glacialdeposits) indicate no apparent significant contamination that may relate tothe lime deposits.
6. OVA Monitoring
The "soil" (primarily foundry sand) is contaminated by interstitial vaterwhich is best sampled by veils. LW-1 is a veil from which a vater sample wasobtained and analyzed in a laboratory and the results are provided in theRemedial Investigation Report (see Table V-2). The ocly sample ic LW-1 whichshoved non-methane hydrocarbon by OVA-GC analysis was S-6 (see page 11-16).The primary purpose for using the OVA in the field is to test for non-methanehydrocarbons. This is cot only an accepted method, but it is encouraged byEFA for government-funded investigations of hazardous waste sites.
7. Sediment sampling ic nearby swamps acd streams is cot within the scope of theConsent Order and Agreemect Work Plan. Besides constituting off-siteremedial Investigation efforts, such sediment sampling would not revealsediment contamination from the site. As coted oc page IV-5 of the RemedialInvestigation Report, the site drainage patterns at the site are such thatponding ic the disposal area occurs with subsequent direct groundwaterrecharge acd co surface runoff. Consequently, contaminant transport viasurface runoff Is cot possible.
8. The groundwater sampling acd analysis program presented ic the RemedialInvestigation Report satisfies the scope of the Consent Order and AgreementWork Plan. The fluctuations above and below the comparative criteria areveil within the level of precision for the concentration levels detected.The fluctuations are cot significant for purposes of developing the scope ofa feasibility study since the coccectrations detected are cot significantenough to warrant groundwater restoration. Tables V-2 acd V-3 should haveshown ug/1 uclts.
303334-
Page 7
9. Resistivity Survey
The resistivity survey was conducted in accordance with the approved WorkFlan. Ic addition, a resistivity soucding was conducted. The data wassuspect due to the amount of clay within the fill soil, which for the mostpart, rendered it useless.
The most useful and meaningful format for presecticg and interpretingresistivity profile data is by plotting the data poicts on a map. Ic thisway, each value can be compared to those surrounding it for the purpose ofrecognizing anomalies.
10. Creundwatcr Modeling
As stated on page V-16 of the Remedial Investigation Report, "Appendix Erepresents a series of hypothetical groundwater models developed to indicatethe potential migration of contaminants from the site through the groundvatersystem. The models, assumptions, calculations and results are found inAppendix E". The models demonstrate, as a gross indication, the percentreduction In potential contaminant levels in the aquifers due to simplemixing and flow through dilution. All other attenuating properties wereignored.
The simple analytical models chosen for application in this study have beenverified at numerous other sites. Ic the application of these models at theOsborne site, very conservative worst case conditions were assumed. Ic somecases, the assumptions chosen vere even unrealistically conservative. Forexample, ic the model application to the Burgeon aquifer* contaminants fromthe site vere presumed to be present Ic this aquifer acd flowing towards theBorough veils, even though this has been shown cot to be the case. Verifica-tion of these groucdwater models vould ocly be necessary if the reportclaimed to predict precise levels of contaminants under actual groundvaterconditions at the site. If anything, the use of these models, under theassumptions chosen for this cite, would be errorlng on the side ofconservatism.
11. Risk Assessment
Chapter VI of the Remedial Investigation Report presents a very comprehensiverisk assessment which considers cot only pathways but also the source andreceptors as is explained on pages VI-1 through VI-8. To our knowledge,there is co EPA guideline as to what constitutes a standard risk assessmentfor a Remedial Icvestigatioc Report.
We are somewhat confused about the comments under point 11. What theRemedial Investigation Report does say regarding the source of contaminationoc page VI-2 is:
"A major finding of the risk assessment is that allavailable evidence oc the source icdicates that theamount acd degree of contamination is extremely low. Atthe time that the site was originally identified, thenumber of drums oc the surface suggested that the sourceof contamination might be severe. The informationdeveloped during the Remedial Investigation has shownthat not to be the case.
303335
Page 8
The chemical analysis of the wastes present in drums andsubsequently removed from the site identified low concentra-tions of two (2) organic acd eight (8) inorganic prioritypollutants. The maximum concentration of any organic prioritypollutant in these filled acd sealed drums was 0.5Z. Theconcentration of inorganic priority pollutants was in the lowparts-per-million range with the exception of one measurementof lead. Eence, the waste itself, as represented in drums atthe site, was not highly toxic.
The chemical analysis of leachate found at the site indicateda low risk. The leachate veils contained a limited number ofpriority pollutants at low parts-per billion levels and inIsolated concentrations."
/
The analysis of drum contents was fully presented in Tables III-l, HI-2,HI-3 and HI-4 of the Remedial Investigation Report.
Siccerely,
Robert W. Teets, DirectorSafety Administration andEnvironmental Affairs
RWT:jacc: Richard Zinn
Nick DeBenedictisEd ShonerBarry LawsonCarl PlesnicherE. A. Bircher
Attachments
bcc: Frank SimunicRick DorrlerJ.R. CoppolaDave WinshipMike O'BrienDick MaddoxS.W. FlehnTom Campbell
303336
-••{•-{-1 i i i i i $ i t ?•S . • - " .»«.. HI nanvi 1^1 IIA»I viivuill* vi Kouv*m iiAtn vum
REVISED OCTOBER 6\1«e4
FIGURE V-8POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE INTHE BURGOON FORMATION
OSBORNE SITE(SCALE IN FT.)
•RED C. HART ASSOCIATES. IMC
_...„__.__ 3 j}3 3 38v^
REVISED OCTOBER e\ioc4FIGURE V-7
CSCAH 111 FT.) | POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE IN•eo*TOU* UH,, A.OV. i..r ARE HOT SHOWN I THE HOMEWOOO FORMATIONout TO ir oimwHCf m HEAD I OSBORNE SITE
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC.
ll-tUTt LfOAl tJ .1 CC CWC COMMEHCt Oft'VE CBANfOfi- NC* AASEV
17
30334
COOPER INDUSTRIES
January 30, 1985
Mr. Richard K. Z1nnRegional Environmental Protection DirectorDepartment of Environmental ResourcesCommonwealth of Pennsylvania1012 Hater StreetMeadvilie, PA 16335Dear Mr. Zlnn:In response to Mr. Rozakis' letter of December 4, 1984, attached areresults of the soil samples taken at the Osbome Landfill on December19, 1984 by environmental engineers of Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.Hart's analysis of these results confirms the technical conclusionsreached In the Osborne Site Remedial Investigation Report, submittedto your agency on June 25, 1984. In their June 25 report, Fred C.Hart Associates, Inc. concluded that, "there 1s a minimal risk topublic health from soil contamination at the Osbome site," and thatthe concentrations of materials found are consistent with samplesexamined from published studies of areas discharging wastewater nearcoal mines. The levels of contamination found at the site and theeffectiveness of the pathways to transport these contaminants are notadversely Impacting groundwater or surface water quality at theOsborne site. The results of the soil samples taken on December 19further substantiate the comments of your agency's Regional SolidWaste Manager, Mr. Russell Crawford, in his letter to me of September19, 1984 where he said, "It appears there Is presently no significantgroundwater contamination occurring at this Site."As a responsible citizen of the Grove City community, CooperIndustries stepped forward and assumed the full burden of the remedialInvestigation at the Osborne Landfill. We entered Into a ConsentOrder and Agreement with your agency on the extent and nature of workto be done. We hired a highly respected expert In environmentalmatters, Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., to assist and guide us In theremedial Investigation. After receiving Hart's comprehensive analysisof their findings and conclusions that the site does not present athreat to public health, we submitted their Report to you on June 25,1984 for your review and approval. After a series of meetings on thecontents of the Report and, after several requests for clarificationon the findings of the Report, you asked us to go beyond what we hadcommitted to do and conduct additional studies at the Site. In aspirit of cooperation and 1n an effort to bring the matter to a final
COOPER INDUSTRIES. INC. EXHIBIT 17
First Crty fewer SoUe '000 PO Box <"6Houston fern WO(713) 739-5400
James C. RozakisJanuary 30, 1985Page 2
conclusion, we agreed to honor your request. The results of thisadditional study confirm the technical conclusions reached 1n theRemedial Investigation Report prepared by Fred C. Hart and submittedto you seven months ago. The Osborne Landfill does not present athreat to public health.
We feel strongly that we have lived up to all of our commitments toyour Agency and that the additional report we are submitting herewithshould lay to rest any questions you may have regarding thecompleteness and accuracy of the study we completed last June. Afterspending nearly SI million dollars and many hours of work by Cooperpersonnel and management on this phase of the project, we 'feel we havecomplied with both the letter and the spirit of our agreement withyour Agency, and we do not Intend to proceed further until we receiveyour approval for the Remedial Investigation Report. As soon as wereceive your approval, we will Immediately begin a feasibility studyto determine the most cost effective method of cleaning up andpermanently closing the Osborne Landfill.Of further concern to us 1s the lack of activity on the part of yourAgency In gaining the participation of other generators who depositedwaste material at the Landfill such as General Electric, who 1s knownto be a significant generator by your Agency as well as the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency. Since Cooper was only one ofseveral generators at the Site, we are requesting that appropriateaction be taken Immediately against the other generators to make thembear their share of the cost of the Remedial Investigation,feasibility study and clean up of the Osborne Landfill.
Sincerely,
Robert W. TeetsDirector, Risk Managementand Environmental Affairs
CJP003/ar/gmbAttachmentscc: R. Crawford
N. Debened1ct1sv H. J. Lawson
V_^ i J. D. RozakisFile
303342
O«COMUE«CS D
18
303343
COOPER INDUSTRIES
September 16, 19C5
Hector M. Abreu-dntronCERCLA Remedial Enforcement Section (3HW12)U.S. Environmental Protection Agency841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Re: Osborne Site,Grove City, Pennsylvania
Dear Mr. Abreu-Clntron:
This 1s 1n reply to Mr. Wassersug's letter to me of August 30, 1985,concerning the captloned site. That letter was received by my office on September6, 1985. Due to the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has, alongwith the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, been an activeparticipant 1n overseeing the Implementation of the Osborne Site Consent Order'sRemedial Investigation completed by Cooper Industries June 25, 19S4, and the factthat Cooper has Implemented and completed many additional tasks (I.e., soilsamples, water samples, borings) suggested by both agencies and not Included 1nthe original Work Plan approved by the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources, Cooper 1s hereby notifying you that 1t declines to become Involved Inyet another testing program as outlined 1n your letter.
Your letter maintains that the proposed additional testing program 1s"necessary" to complete the Remedial Investigation for the site. Contrary to theassertions 1n your letter. Cooper maintains that the Remedial Investigation 1s nowcomplete and Cooper Intends to comply with Its remaining obligttlons under theConsent Order and Agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources dated September 20, 1983.
Responding to several of the comments 1n your letter, Cooper: (1) disagreesthat the additional sampling plan proposed 1n your letter 1s necessary to completethe Remedial Investigation; (2) maintains that the completed P.emedlalInvestigation confirms there 1s no release or threatened release of hazardoussubstances at the site (contrary to the assertions 1n your letter); and (3) 1sappalled that after nearly three (3) years of negotiations and Involvement et thesite, the Environmental Protection Agency refuses to take a firm position onclosure of the site, and In fact has found 1t necessary to warn Cooper in yourletter that "the factual and legal discussions contained 1n this letter . . . arenot Intended to be and cannot be relied upon as e final Agency position on anymatters set forth herein1^
EXHIBIT 18
COOPER INDUSTRIES. INC.
City Tower Suite 4000 F>0 Bo* 4446Houston Texas T7210(713)739-5400
Page 2
To review the background et the site. Cooper, as one (1) potentiallyresponsible party, but not the only potential responsible party, came forwardalone in September, 1983, and executed a Consent Order and Agreement with thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. In connection with theConsent Order and Agreement, Cooper has expended nearly $1 million at the s1*econducting, among other things, sampling end testing. !n fact, at thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources's request Cooper has performedwork above and beyond the obligations Cooper assured under the Consent Order andAgreement. This effort hes confirmed, In Cooper's view, that the site poses nothreat to man or to the environment. Thus, Cooper has reasonably concluded thatthe Feasibility Study phase of Us work should be commenced so that the site canbe closed as promptly as possible.
Unfortunately, however, the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources in a letter dated May 22, 1985, requested that Cooper pcKonn additionaltesting at the site, which testing Cooper believed to be redundant endunnecessary* Cooper has taken en appeal to the Pennsylvania Environmental HearingBoard from the aforementioned letter of the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Resources.
Cooper had two (2) primary objectives 1n appealing the additional testingorder by the Department of Environmental Resources. First, and most Important,Cooper views the additional testing es wholly unnecessary and economicallywasteful. Second, Cooper felt it could not seriously consider the request becausethe Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources declined to provide anyassurance that no further testing would be required or, alternatively, to discussthe circumstances under which the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources might request further testing, depending upon the results of theproposed testing. Cooper's adamant position 1s that the data it has generated etthe site 1s statistically significant end accomplishes the purposes of theRemedial Investigation phase of the Consent Order and Agreement. The PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources's requested additional testing constitutesflnencielly Irresponsible "overkill".
Your letter dated August 30, contains a testing plan different from thatrequested by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources in Its May 22,1985, letter. Cooper feels fortunate that It did not Implement the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources's request when made 1n May, 1985, becausethe Environmental Protection Agency apparently now has agreed with Cooper that etleast some of the tests requested by the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources were unnecessary end the Environmental Protection Agency has droppedthem from Its plan. On the other hand, the Environmental Protection Agency hasadded additional tests to the Department of Environmental Resources's plan,confirming Cooper's fear that there will be no end to the requested testing.
For quite some time, it has been Cooper's analysis that neither theEnvironmental Protection Agency nor the Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources were willing to reach a conclusion on the eppropriete testing et thesite, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources'sexpress approval of the Work Plan attached to the Consent Order end Agreement endthe Environmental Protection Agency's knowledge of, end failure to express enyobjections to, that plen. Cooper has shown such en extraordinary spirit ofcooperation in the cleanup of the Osborne Site, end hes assumed obligations whichthe vest majority of potentially responsible parties nationwide have refused insimilar circumstances. The Envlronrental Protection Agency end the PennsylvenleDepartment of Environmental Resources should not lose sight of the fact that 1t 1sreasonable for Cooper to ask that testing end sampling be concluded once theavailable data is statistically significant end provides e basis for accurate
303345
• Pace 3
conclusions as to the hazardous materials, 1f any, present onsite. It Isunreasonable to expect Cooper to continue testing at Osborne, as 1* Us effortwere e "leboratory" experiment unencumbered by pragmatic considerations of costand benefit.
This letter 1s without prejudice to Cooper's right to oppose the testingproposed by the Environmental Protection Agency end the Department ofEnvironmental Resources in any form evailable to Cooper, Including the courts endadministrative agencies. Should the testing proposed by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency ever be undertaken, Cooper requests the opportunity to monitorthe testing end esks that the Environmental Protection Agency contect theIndividual designated below In advance of the testing so that Cooper ray have edesignated representative or representatives e vail able onsite to observe endmonitor.
Finally, and without prejudice to our opposition to your proposed action assteted ebove, we feel 1t Is Incumbent upon the Environmental Protection Agency tolook to other potentially responsible parties for contribution to theInvestigation end cleanup of the Osborne site.
Sincerely,
U.Robert W. Teets, DirectorRisk Management end Environmental Affairs
RWT:jaJ1m Baker (USEPA)E.A. BircherJ.S. Drelscharf»i.W. Montgomery, Esq.C.J. PlesnicherPetti Saunders, Esq. (PA-DER)Stephen R. Uessersug (USEPA)Dwight Worley (PA-DER)
bcc: A.E. RiedelTom CampbellBruce StolbeFrank S1mun1cMike O'Brien .
30334.5
I!
! •££.,- 2w?
— --3-03347
*U-IT«I nim. ***.« co ew COUMCKCI CKNI CMNFCW) «* jinsty
19
303343
. -
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Office Box 2063Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Buraau of Solid Wast. Manaoemant October 80'lfl85 717-783-7816
Mr. Robert TeetsDirector of Safety Administrationand Environmental AffairsCooper Industries, Inc.First City Tower, Suite 4000 'P.O. Box 4446 'Houston, TX 77210
Dear Mr. Teets:
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) is withdrawingour request for additional on-site and off-site sampling at the Osborne Site that was outlined inour letter dated May 22, 1985. Because of your unwillingness to proceed with the camplingprogram we requested the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to spend Superfund monies tocomplete the Remedial Investigation (RI) work that was administered during the week ofSeptember 23 through September 27,1985. The sampling that occurred was outlined in a lettersubmitted by the EPA to Cooper Industries on August SO, 1S85.
Once EPA receives the analytical results of the field investigation, they willincorporate the results into a supplemental RI Report. Then the supplemental RI report will besubmitted to the PADER for review and approval. After that time we will be contacting youregarding the performance of the Feasibility Study.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Worley, CKiefDivision of Emergency and Remedial Response
RECEIVED
WOV5 1385t RISK trtAw'.C'ic'.-its'T ANDENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
EXHIBIT 19
20
303350
j/•f>.vV
/* % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEIREGION III
CY
RECEIVEDJUL141986
J?!SK MANAGEMENT AND. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRSBuilding
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107TUT
Hr. Robert V. Teets, DirectorRisk Management and Environmental AffairsCooper Industries, Inc.First City Tower, Suite 4000P.O. Box 4446Houston, Texas 77210
Dear Hr. Teets:
On June 26, 1986 Randy Roush, Site Project Officer for the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources (PADER) and Patricia Ten, OsborneSite Project Officer for the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),met to discuss the status of the Remedial Investigation activitiesthus far completed at Osborne. Based on a review of the RemedialInvestigation Report dated June 1984, prepared for Cooper Industries,Inc. by Fred C. Hart Associates Inc; split sample results providedby you in a letter dated January 8, 1986 concerning the September 23-26,1985 EFA sampling program; and recently completed sampling analyses ofsamples obtained by EFA during the September 23-26, 1985 EFA samplingprogram, both Mr. Roush and. Ms. Tan have agreed that the necessaryremedial investigation activities at the Osborne site have now beencompleted .
EFA and PADER jointly would like to meet with you to discuss thesesample results, their impact on the remedial investigations performedto date and a schedule for completion of the next step; the FeasibilityStudy. Please call Randy Roush at (717) 783-7816 who will becoordinating this meeting. Ve look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Tan , "'Environmental' EngineerOsborne Site Project Officer
Enclosures
_ cc: Kathy Hodgklss, USEPASteve Klano, USEPARandy Rousch, PADERPatti Saunders, PADERDan Becker, PADER
i > EXHIBIT 20
303351
» co ONE COMMENCE o*t:vc CMN*one NEA JERSCV
21
30333:-
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Post Offica Box 2063Karrisburg. Pennsylvania 17120
September 16,19S6717-7*3-7816Buraau of Wasta Management
Mr. Robert W. TeetsDirector of Risk Management and
Environmental Affairs . RECEIVED/SEP 2 51986
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Cooper IndustriesFirst City Towers, Suite 4000P. O. Box 4446Houston, TX 77210
Re: Osborne Site, Grove City, PAf
Dear Mr. Teets:
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the United StateEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) concur that the Remedial Investigation for the above-referenced site is complete, now that we have all the EPA soil sampling data that was conductedin September 1985.
Cooper Industries may now proceed with the Feasibility Study (FS) to identify andassess remedial alternatives. The FS shall be conducted in accordance with the Solid WasteManagement Act, the Clean Streams Law, the regulations promulgated thereunder, EPA'sGuideline on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA Uune, 1985), CERCLA, and Section 300.68 of theNCP, 50 Fed. Reg. 47973 (November 20, 1985) (to be codified to 40 CFR, Paragraph 300.68) andany future revisions which become effective before the submission of the final FS report.
The proposed plan for the FS must be submitted to DER for approval within twenty(20) days, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Consent Order and Agreement (1983). The plan shallinclude a schedule for submission of a Draft FS and the Final FS Report. If DER determines thatthe proposed plan cannot be approved, Cooper shall submit the necessary revisions within the timespecified by DER.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Randy L. RoushDivision of Emergency and Remedial Response
EXHIBIT 21
303353
303354
RotwrtW.TMtsDirectorRisk Management
COOPER INDUSTRIES infl Enwonmermi Affa'
October 31, 1986
Mr. Randy RoushChemistDepartment of Environmental ResourcesBureau of Waste ManagementFulton Building, 7th floorThird & Locust StreetsHarrlsburg, PA 17120
Re: Osborne Feaslbitty Studyand Work Plan
Dear Mr. Roush:Attached 1s the Osborne Feaslbltty Study and Work Plan as agreed upon 1n the
Osborne Consent Order and Agreement. The management of Cooper Industries, Inc.looks forward to your approval of this Work Plan so that we can begin ItsImplementation and reach a final remediation at this site.
If you have any questions as you review the attached plan, please call me.Your cooperation Is appreciated In this matter.
Sincerely,
. U-
M8/rwtAttachments ...........
cc: Patricia M. TanU.S. EPA
bcc: Wendy HawthorneC.J. PlesnlcherS. Drelscharf
; Dan Rlesel— COOPER INDUSTRIES. INC Jack Montgomery
Fint City Tower. Suite 4000. P.O. Box 4446 / ^
EXH1BIT " 30335S
OSBORKE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND WORK PLAN
PURPOSE
In compliance with the Consent Order and Agreement between the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Natural Resources (PADER) and Cooper Industries, a Feasibility Study(FS) will be conducted to Identify and assess remedial action alternatives andrecommend the cost appropriate remedial action. This Work Plan defines the majortasks required to carry out the FS. A schedule for performing the various tasksand for completing the FS 1s also provided.
SCOPE
The Feasibility Study consists of seven (7) tasks; as described Individually 1ngreater detail In the following sections.
Task 1 • Description of Current SituationTask 2 • Selection of Preliminary TechnologiesTask 3 - Development of Remedial AlternativesTask 4 - Initial Screening of AlternativesTask 5 - Evaluation of AlternativesTask 6 - Preliminary ReportTask 7 • Final Report
Task 1 - Description of Current Situation
The site's background and environmental concerns will be summarized In order tooutline the purpose and need for additional remedial responses and to account forremedial measures taken to date. This summary of baseline Information and riskconclusions will be primarily from the Remedial Investigation Report (RI). Inaddition, all currently available data on the site will be used Including thefollowing:
•2-
1. Cooper's responses to PADER/EPA comments on the RI, October, 1984v, 2. Fred C. Hart letter on soil sampling, January 22, 1985
3. Fred C. Hart soil sample data from the EPA/NUS sampling programconducted at the site In September, 1985
4. EPA/NUS Field Trip Report for Osborne disposal, September 11, 1986S. Quality Assurance Review of the above, dated September 11, 1986
Task 2 - Selection of Preliminary Technologies
Based on the site, specific problems and statement of purpose Identified In Task1, a master 11st of potentially feasible remedial technologies- consistent with theTask 3 alternatives will be developed. This 11st will be screened based on siteconditions, waste characteristics, costs and Implementation requirements toeliminate technologies that would be unreliable or prove extremely difficult toImplement at this site.
Task 3 • Development of Remedial Alternatives
Remedial alternatives will be further developed on the basis of objectives\^/ established for this site as follows:
1. Establishment of Remedial Response Objectives
The existing data and reports have demonstrated that a remedial approachfocusing on source controls for the site most closely meets theobjectives of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and the levels of riskposed by existing site conditions. Major objectives currently beingconsidered for potential remedial response efforts Include thefollowing:
a. Implementation of site aestheticsb. Control of potential direct contacts, 1f anyc. Control of potential air releases, 1f anyd. Control of surface water run-on and potential contamination
associated with site drainage, If any
303S57
-3-
2. Identification of Remedial Alternatives
v Remedial alternatives will be developed Incorporating final responseobjectives with alternative technologies developed 1n Task 2.
Task 4 - Initial Screening of Remedial Alternatives
Four (4) broad considerations will be used as a basis for the Initial alternativesscreening: technical feasibility, public health, environmental effects and cost.More specifically, the following factors will be considered:
/1. Technical Feasibility - Technologies that may prove extremely difficult
to Implement,, will not achieve the remedial objectives 1n a reasonabletime period, or will rely on unproven technology will be modified oreliminated.
2. Public Health • Only those alternatives that satisfy the responseobjectives and contribute substantially to the protection of the publichealth, welfare, or the environment will be considered further.
3. Environmental Effects - Alternatives posing significant adverseenvironmental effects will be excluded.
4. Cost - An alternative whose cost far exceeds that of other alternativeswill usually be eliminated unless other significant benefits may also berealized. Total costs will Include the cost of Implementing thealternatives and the cost of operation and maintenance. Cost screeningwill be conducted only after the technical feasibility, public healthand environmental screenings have been performed.
Task 5 - Detailed Evaluation cf Remedial Alternatives
During this task, an evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative remedies thatpass through the Initial screening In Task 4, will be accomplished as follows:
3035S?
-4-
1. Technical Analysis - The technical analysis will, as a minimum:
^ a- Describe appropriate technologiesb. Discuss how the alternative does (or does not) comply with specific
requirements of other environmental programs. When an alternativedoes not comply, a discussion of how the alternative prevents orminimizes the migration of wastes and public health orenvironmental Impacts will be presented with special design needsthat could be Implemented to achieve compliance.
c. Outline operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements of eachalternative. ''
d. Identify and review facilities proposed to be utilized for off-sitewaste disposal to ensure compliance with applicable RCRA and otherEPA environmental program requirements, both current and proposed.Potential disposal facilities, 1f required, will be evaluated todetermine whether off-site management of site wastes could result1n a potential for a future release from the disposal facility.
e. Identify temporary storage requirements, off-site disposal needs,and transportation plans, If any.
• • > , f. Describe whether any off-site alternative results In permanenttreatment or destruction of the wastes, and, If not, the potentialfor future releases to the environment.
g. Outline safety requirements for remedial Implementation (Includingboth onsite and off-site health and safety considerations, asappropriate).
h. Describe how the alternative could be phased Into Individualoperable units. The description will Include a discussion of howvarious operable units of the total remedy could be ImplementedIndividually or 1n groups, resulting 1n a significant Improvementto the environment or savings In cost.
1. Describe any special engineering requirements or site preparationconsiderations.
303359
-5-
2. Env1ronmental Analvs1s
V An Environmental Assessment (EA) for each alternative will be performed.The EA for each alternative will Include, at a minimum, an evaluation ofbeneficial effects of the response, adverse effects of the response, andan analysis of measures to mitigate adverse effects.
3. Public Health Analysis
Each alternative will be assessed In terms of the extent to which 1tmitigates potential long-term Impacts to public health both during andafter completion of the remedial action. The assessment will describethe levels and characterization of the contaminants onsite, potentialexposure routes, and the potentially affected population. The effect of"no action* will be described 1n terms of short-term effects andlong-term exposures and resulting public health Impacts. The relativereduction 1n public health Impacts for each alternative will be comparedto the no action alternative. For source control measures or whencriteria, standards, or guidelines are'not available, the comparison
^—/ will be based on the relative effectiveness of technologies.
4. Institutional Analysis
Each alternative will be evaluated based on relevant Institutionalneeds. More specifically, regulatory requirements, permits, communityrelations, and participating agency coordination will be assessed.
5. Cost Analysis
The costs for each feasible remedial action alternative (and for eachphase as appropriate) will be presented as present worth costs and willInclude the total cost of Implementing the alternative and annualoperating and maintenance costs. Monetary costs and associatednonmonetary costs will be Included as appropriate. A distribution ofcosts projected over time will also be provided.
303360
-6-
6. Evaluation of Most Cost-Effective Alternative
• • • •Alternatives will be compared using technical, environmental andeconomic criteria. At a minimum, the following areas will be used 'tocompare alternatives:
a. Present Worth of Total Costs - The net present value of capital andoperating and maintenance costs also must be presented.
b. Environmental Effects - Only the most Important effects or Impactswill be summarized. Reference will be made to supplementalInformation* arrayed 1n a separate table, 1f necessary.
c. Xechnlcal Aspects of Implementing the Remedial Alternatives - Thetechnical aspects of Implementing each remedial alternativerelative to the others will be clearly delineated.Constructablllty, reliability and durability will be summarized foreach alternative.
d. Information on the Extent to Which Remedial Alternatives Meet theTechnical Requirements and Environmental Standards Which areRelevant and Appropriate Under the Circumstances - ThisInformation will be arrayed to Identify differences 1n how thevarious remedial alternatives satisfy relevant and appropriateenvironmental standards.
e. Information on Community Effects - The type of Information thatwill be provided 1s the extent to which Implementation of aremedial alternative disrupts the community (e.g., traffic,temporary health risks, and relocation).
f. Health Information - Each alternative will be compared to assessthe relative degree of public health risk reduction achieved. Acost/risk reduction ratio will be developed for each alternative.
Tjpsk 6 - Preliminary Report
A preliminary report presenting the results of Tasks 1 through 5 will be prepared.The preliminary report will be submitted to PADER. An outline of the draft report1s attached as Appendix A.
3033G1
-7-
Task 7 - Final Report
v A final report will be prepared for submission to PADER and EPA, due four weeksfollowing written comment and review of PADER subject to paragraph 25 of .theConsent Order and Agreement. The report will Include the results of Tasks 1through 6 and will Include any supplemental Information In appendices. Thisreport will also Include a responslveness summary on public comments received.
SCHEDULE
The following outlines a prepared schedule for completion of-'the seven (7) tasksabove:
WEEKS AFTER APPROVALTASKS________________________________________OF WORK PLANTask 1 - Description of Current Situation
a. Summarize current database 2Task 2 - Selection of Preliminary Technologies
a. Develop master 11st 3__ / b. Screen master 11st 4
Task 3 - Development of Alternativesa. Establishment of remedial response objectives 4b. Identification of remedial alternatives 6
Task 4 - Initial Screening of Alternativesa. Technical Feasibility 7b. Public Health 9c. Environmental Effects 8d. Cost 10
Task 5 - Evaluation of Alternativesa. Technical Analysis 16b. Environmental Analysis 18c. Institutional Analysis 20d. Public Health Analysis 22e. Cost Analysis 22f. Evaluation of Cost-Effective Alternatives 24
Task 6 - Preliminary Reporta. Write Report 28
^^^ b. Review and Comment by PADER 32Task 7 - Final Report < weeks
following PADER's written review & comment303SG2
APPENDIX A
OUTLINE OF OSBORNE FEASIBILITY STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Site Background Information
a. Site historyb. Site hydrogeology
1.2 Nature and Extent of Site Hazardsa. Contaminants foundb. Degree of concern '
1.3 Interim Remedial Measures Completed to Datea. Partial removal - surface cleanupb. Off-site disposal/treatment - landfill, Incinerationc. Restricted access - site security fencing and signs
2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES2.1 Listing of potential available technologies2.2 Screening of available technologies
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES3.1 Site Aesthetics3.2 Control of Direct Contact3.3 Control of Air Releases3.4 Control of Surface Water Run-on and Site Drainage
4.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES4.1 Potential Remedial Alternatives4.2 Screening of Remedial Alternatives
a. Technical feasibilityb. Public healthc. Environmental effectsd. Cost
5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES5.1 Performance5.2 Reliability5.3 Implementabillty5.4 Safety
6.0 EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF EACH FINAL ALTERNATIVE6.1 Compliance with State and Federal Standards and Local Requirements6.2 Permit Requirements6.3 Community Relations6.4 Coordination with Other Agencies ''
7.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EACH FINAL ALTERNATIVE7.1 Beneficial Effects7.2 Adverse Effects7.3 Mitlgatlve Measures
8.0 ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF EACH FINAL ALTERNATIVE8.1 Sources of Mechanisms of Chemical Releases
.. . 8.2 Exposure Pathways8.3 Qualitative Analysis of Potential Public Health Threats
9.0 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS OF EACH FINAL ALTERNATIVE9.1 Cost Estimates
a. Capital costsb. Operation and Maintenance Costs
9.2 Present Worth Analysis9.3 Cost Sensitivity Analysis
10.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE10.1 Matrix Summary of Engineering, Institutional, Public Health,
Environmental Effects and Cost Factors10.2 Recommended Remedial Approach
11.0 APPENDICES
303364-
«u.<i«n utM. «u"»i» eo iff cauME*ct o«i« e««Nri»o w* jwsev tmt
23
303S6S
I ta a *w««l£ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIAV' IsS± ±± DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCESv ««i,.4.v.w.L,,A Post Office Box 2063
Harrisburg,. Pennsylvania 17120January 6,1987
717-783-7816Bureau of Waste Management
RECEIVEDJAN 131987
RISK MANAGEMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert W. TeetsDirector, Risk Management and
Environmental AffairsCooper Industries, Inc.First City Towers, Suite 400P. O. Box Wtf6Houston, TX 77210
Dear Mr. Teets:
Thank you for your submission of the Osborne Feasibility Study and Work Plan. BothEPA and PA DER have reviewed this Work Plan and have made the following comments:
I. EPA Comments:
1. Please refer to the EPA Bioassessment Task Group memo (Attachment No. 1)which addresses environmental concerns and recommendations according to theNCP criteria (40 CFR 300.68) for assessment of wetlands resources.
2. Please refer to the Draft Evaluation Report Review of the Feasibility StudyWork Plan (Attachment No. 2) prepared by NUS Corporation.
3. TASK 2 - Technologies should be identified in relation to the site-specificproblem and then alternatives developed. The objectives of site remediation are:a) public health and safety assurance, b) groundwater and drinking waterprotection, c) soil protection, and d) surface water protection. The considerationin establishment of these objectives is the degree of remediation required.
4. TASK 3 - Control of surface water run-on/run-off and potential contaminationassociated with site drainage, both to groundwater and surface water.
5. TASK * - a) Technical Feasibility - The feasibility of implementing the remedialmeasures and its reliability will be evaluated, b) Public Health - The degree ofenvironmental protection which the remedial measure can provide will be evaluated.c) Environmental Effects - The environmental effects created by implementationof the remedial measure will be evaluated, d) Cost - The cost for implementation,operation, and maintenance will be evaluated. "eTThe availability of areas forcontaminated soil disposal (if necessary) will be evaluated.
Elimination of remedial alternatives during the screening phase must be accompaniedby an adequate explanation of the reasons for elimination. Cost alone is not asufficient reason for eliminating a particular alternative. Elimination of anyalternative during the screening phase must meet with the approval of the leadagency.
EXHIBIT 23 303366
Mr. Robert W. Teets - 2 - January 6,1987
6. TASK 5 - 0), Should describe the environmental impacts created by the remedialalternatives and methods necessary to mitigate adverse effects. Once the •requirements of each alternative have been developed, the detailed evaluation ofeach alternative's ability to meet objectives identified for remediation at theOsborne Landfill Site will be completed.
7. Add to TASK 5, Comment No. 2 of Attachment No. 2 • The potential for theremedial alternative to minimize or eliminate the release of contaminants intothe environment will be determined. Management requirements and otherInstitutional concerns will also be considered as an indication of reliability.
8. Add to TASK 5, Comment No. 5 of Attachment No. 2 - Costing proceduresshould be standardized to the extent possible so that estimates are comparable.
9. Add to TASK 5, Comment No. 6 of Attachment No. 2 - On-site and off-sitesafety requirements during implementation of the alternatives will beconsidered. This includes evaluation of health hazards associated with remedialactions, such as the release of toxic fumes during excavation activities.
10. General Comments - A) No mention of environmental concerns, (i.e., impact onmarsh). B) As a result of the evaluation process: 1) Identification of alter-natives; 2) screening of alternatives; and 3) evaluation of alternatives.
The agency can then select the most cost-effective and environmentally-soundremedial alternative after a public comment period. This alternative will havebeen identified as the lowest cost alternative that is technically feasible,reliable, and adequately protects the public health and environment. C) If theTreatability Studies are to be carried out, then bench scale or pilot studies needto be performed if this alternative is selected.
II. PA DER Comments;
1. TASK 5, Public Health Analysis - A quantitative and qualitative risk assessmentmust be conducted in accordance with the Superfund Health Assessment Manual(May 1915) and the Endangerment Assessment Manual (August 1985).
II. Appendix A3.0 - Remedial Action Objective - Add 3.5 Control of GroundwaterContamination From Contaminated Soils. Add 3.6 Containment of ResidualContaminants in Soil.
III. Appendix A ft.O - Add E. Reasons for Eliminating Alternatives.
IV. Appendix A 8.0 - Add 8.1 Fate and Transport. Add 8.3 Qualitative and Quantitative...
V. Appendix A 9.0 - Add C. Costing Methodology.
303367
Mr. Robert W. Teets - 3 - January 6, 1987
Both agencies would like to schedule a meeting, at your earliest convenience, todiscuss these comments and to incorporate new SARA requirements into the Feasibility Study. Ifyou have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
M .
Randy L. RoushDivision of Emergency and Remedial Response
Attachments Bureau of Waste Management
303363
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III
Wheeling Office303 Methodist Bldg.. 11th & Chapline Streets
Wheeling, West Virginia 26003Osborne Site - Peoannendations Cor Rioassessment
——OATCH. Ronald Preston, Chief (SESSO),'1"3 RECEIVED
JAN IS ft?T0 Pat Tan (3HW12)
Enforcement Project Officer RISK MANAGEMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
The Bioassessment Task Group net Friday, October 3, Wfifi, and made reoomen-daticns for the remedial investigation at the Osborne cite. 'Wetlands includingswstplands such as those located iirvnediately to the south and southwest of
— the mine spoils area of the cite are a valuable natural resource. The nuggestedstudies were recommended to address the requirement according to NCP criteria(40CFR 300.6B) for assessment of wetlands resources! for determination of theextent of contamination; and for passible impact of contamination and proposedremedies to natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. A preliminarydescription (from a U.S. FWS eite visit) of the wetlands at the site indicatethat an approximately in acre area contains diverse freshwater marsh vegetation(i.e....* cattail, spike rush, spatterdock, soft rush) and supports variedwildlife species. Identification of the types and delineation of the boundariesof the wetlands in the area and determination of the possible inpacts to thewetlands should be documented in the HI/PR and ROD. The following are the
i specific reoswnendations for further study suggested by the Task Group:
1. A wetlands assessment should be performed which includes taking twocores to establish the depth of wetlands or swanpland peat and possibleextent of contamination. The wetlands assessment may be conducted byeither the contractor for the remedial investigation or by the FIMPR ofthe Environmental Services Division.
2. A selective scan of priority pollutants shoud be conducted on five samplesof wetland soils. Analyses should include base-neutral and acid extractables,volatiles, and heavy metal contaminants attributed (previously documented)
~~ to the site. The per cent organic matter and grain size of the sampledsoil Also should be determined.
3. Two different soil elutriate testa (freshwater algae vfi hour test andMicrotox) should be conducted to determine toxicity of soil from twosites in the wttlands. The reconroended sampling locations are at theinflow or closest entry point of contamination and at the outflow orfurthest distance from the source of contamination. Samples should betaken ten feet inside the boundary of thn wetland and each sample willrequire approximately ten pounds of soil. Pesults of these tests willdemonstrate the effectiveness of the clean-up efforts to date. However,if results show high toxicity, further bioassessment (i.e., bioassays)are reoocmended.
303369Fc>m 1320-6 l«*v 3-T«|
i y / tt u
Page 2If you have any questions, please contact Ron Preston, Chairman,
Bioassessment Task Group at (304)233-1271, Cindy Rice of the U.S. FWS(814)234-4090 or Alyce Fritz, NOAA CTC (597-3636).
cc: Bioassessment Task GroupKathy Hodgkiss, 3HW12
30
8, ItRECEIVEDJAN13B37
OP Pi WORK PIAN IRISK MANAGEMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DRAM tVALUAT IOK REPORT
OSiOXNZ lANfiriLL IXTS
IPX WORK JuJIZOHKEXT HO. 25-3431.0undtr
contract He. 61-01*7290
Prf,ptrtd tyiKUfi CorperttlcnPittoburgh, >A
Approved lytIBASCO fitrvieat IncorporittdUnghemt, PA
Prspar«d Byt Approved Bys
&dUMk|M~Pr Wtttrmi ~f—— UBuii Cf7flitt Kinigtr Ragional Kantgar, Rtcion illKU« Corporation Ebttco atrvietf Incorporatad
303371
'J i. * ' O C *.
^ _ y TABU? * CONTENTS
1.0 IKTHODUCT10K ;
2.0 ra MORX PZAH EVALUATION i8.1 TASK i - DESCRXPTZOK OF CtTRRENT 2
fXTUATZOK2.2 TASK 2 • iXLlCTIOH CT PREL1K1NARV 3
TICKKOLOOII8
2.3 TASK 3 • OXVSLOPXEKT Of REMEDIAL 4AXfftRHATXVlf
2.4 TASK 4 - INITIAL fiCtZZKZHG OF MHEDIAL 5ALTtWATIVM
2.5 7A6X B • DETAILtD SVALUATZOK OF R£K£DXAL 6ALTERKATIVI8
S.« TASK < - PMELXXXHXAY BXPCAT 7
^, 2.7 TASK 7 • FZKAL XlPOftT 7
2.8 fCXZDULX I
303372
1.0
The raviev And evaluation of the FS Work Plan, prepared byCooper Industrial, Inc., vsra conducted in accordance withTeak l (Activity 2) et the Final Work plan for review of FSdocument!, datad Auguit 6, 191 e. Tha UK III Team hatraviawad background information prior to evaluating tha FSWork Plan te determine vhathar tha a cop a of vork andtechnical approach eatiefiea tha requirement! forconducting * feasibility atudy, as aat forth by thaNational oil and Xaiardoua Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan (NCP) (40 em J00.68) November 20, 1916.Available information partaining to tha Oaborn* Landfillsite vaa ebtainad fron tPA filas shortly aftar thainitiation ef this Vork Assignment in May 191 f. Thisinformation consisted of reports, lattara, and aemee fromtha EPA, tha Pannsylvania Dapart&ant of EnvironmentalResources (PADZR), and tha raaponaibla party.To davalop an understanding ef tha eite hiatory aa vail aaita physical and ehaaical character iatic» , tha follovingdeevmanta vara raviavad prior to evaluating tha FS WorkPlans
e Kaoadial Action Xastar Plan* Ofberna sita,prepared by NUS Corporation for CPA, Karoh 1983.
o Propoaad Site Investigation Program for theOiborne Landfill, prepared by Fred c. R&rtAaaociatea, Inc., for Cooper Induatriei, dateunknown.
e oaborna Site Haaadial Znveatigation Report,praparad by Fred C. Hart Aaeociates/ Inc., forcooper Industrial, ffune 1984.
o Kiacellaneeua ocrreapendenca betvaan EPA, PADER,and tha responsible party or their consultant.
Additionally, a site vieit vae conducted by tha REX IIISite Manager and engineer en Septembar if, 1986, to nak«visual observations of the aita in ordar te fa&iliariz* thtraviev team vith the site layout and surroundings.2.0 »HThe R£K III review feeuaad on evaluating the acopa of vork,idantified aa Tasks i through 7 ef the FS Work Plan vithraapact te tha require&enta of tha NCP and the SPA Guidance
30337 :»j
on feasibility Studies under CERCLA* The Objective of thisevaluation .ie te determine whether the Osbome LandfillSite FS Vork Plan provides a etrategic and logical plan forevaluating remedial alternatives, bassd en theserequirements.The overall objective ef any RI or FS vork plan ie todescribe the epproaeh (plan) that vill be taken te obtainthe ultimate goal or eencluaion. The FS Work Plan for theOsbome Landfill Site doea not alvaye provide enoughinformation for tha reviewer to fully understand thegeneral approach for undertaking the FS. This vas due tethe eoneiaa format in which the report vaa presented.Because of this, tha vork plan vae difficult to evaluateagainst EPA guidance and the HCP. /The Beet critical deficiency in the FS Vork flan centers entha feilure to properly scope end implement the feasibilitystudy proeasa, ae outlined in the NCP end SPA guidance.Specifically, the relative order and pregraesien ef theinitial Teaks 1*3 need te be revised so that remedialaction objectives can be established at the outset of theetudy. Additionally, the proposed feasibility study shouldinclude tha formulation of General Response Actions (GRAs)and cleanup criteria prior to selecting and eereeningremedial technologies. The FS Vork Plan fails to establishremedial action objectives at the proper stage of tha studyand does not recognise the need to identify GRAs or cleanupobjectives*The following sections ef this report provide comments andrecommendations when applicable. Each section vill focuson one of the seven taake that are described in the FS WorkPlan. The comments and recommendations reflect the generalapproach for seeping and implementing the FS, ae outlinedin the subject FS Vork Plan.2.1 TASK i • DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SITUATION
ye . i » CRAs should be established for eachcontaminant source and pathway that ware identified in theremedial investigation* Some examples ef GRAs include; noeetion, onsite disposal, or alternate water supplies (referto the EPA Guidance en Feasibility studiee Under CSRCLA fordeveloping GRAS) . Corresponding remedial action obi activesand cleanup criteria, te be used to evaluate preliminaryremedial technologies, alec need to be formulated at thisstage of the etudy. Following the establishment cf GRAs,technologies can be identified which may be appropriate toremediate or mitigate a specific contaminant source orpathway. The formulation of re&edial action objectives andcleanup criteria provides the framework in which thepreliminary technologies will be screened against. The FSWork Plan needs to address these issues*
303374
wa. 9 * Zn order to evaluate the adequacy of thepresent data base, the FS work Plan ehould state that thafollowing information will be included under Task l ef theFS reportt
1) Kaiardeus waste sources should includedescriptions ef thsir varieties, quantitiaa,physical and chemical characteristics, and rangeof concentrations.
2) Migration pathways such as tha subsurface,atmospheric, surface, and biota should besummarised* ,
3) Pressnt and potential receptors, includingdescriptions ef land use, location of residentialwells, and sensitive environmental areas (i.e.,wetlands) should be discussed.
4) Potential and present impacts (i.e., quantitativerisk' assessment) to the public health andenvironment with regard to contaminant source(s),migration pathways, and receptors is required.
2.2 TASK 2 - SELBCTJON OF PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGIES
eoiment wo. i - The selection of preliminary remedialtechnologies should be evaluated againat the remedialaction objectives and cleanup criteria. The resultingtechnologies should then be eereened by additional criteriaincludingt technical feasibility; ability to protect thepublic health and environment; cost considerations) andInstitutional rsstraints such as ARARS and ether Federal orItlti guidelines. fhe ff Vork plan neede to clearlyestablish the basis for identifying preliminarytechnologies. Clarification is warranted regarding thestatement "a master list of potential feasible remedialtechnologies censistsnt with Task 3 alternatives vill bedeveloped".cattaent we> 9 * The scope of work under Task 2 does notdescribevhat criteria vill be used-to select appropriatetechnologies• EPA's "Handbook for Remedial Action at WasteDisposal Sites" (us EPA 1982) ehould be referred to inorder to ensure that all remedial technologies vill beevaluated under thie task. Additionally, specialconsideration should be given to technologies whichpermanently contain, iaaobiliie, recycle, or destroy thecontaminants. Documentation should be provided fortechnologies that are excluded from further consideration.
303375
ti t. i r y o „ o » ; o 0 ; y / c e!
2.3 TASK 3 - DIVELOPXENT OF REHEDZAL ALTERNATZVESwo. i * Clarification ie needed regarding the"statement t&at "Remedial alternatives vill be
developed...*11. Neither Tasks l nor 2 discuss thedevelopment of any alternatives.
MO. a - with regards to the major objectives thatare being considered for the site, no mention ie made tocontrol groundwater contamination from migrating from thesits, under the P.CRA regulations (subpart F, 40 CFR 264),corrective actions must attain a groundwater cleanupstandard (i.e., KCLS,). These standards may be applicableor relevant in this ease and ehould be investigated.Therefore, an objective to control the migration (orremediate the groundwater) nay be justified. As mentionedpreviouely, remedial action objectives should be developedearlier in the FS.
wo. _a - Although the FS Work Plan states that theremedial approach will focus en sourcs controls, managementof migration controls may be necessary vhere haiardeussubstances (groundwater) have migrated from the originalsource area and pose a threat to the public health erenvironment (i.e., exceed relevant and applicable publichealth er environmental standards, guidance, eradvisories) . Management of migration controls should notbs excluded during the development of the work plan.Documentation of reasoning for not considering managementof migration controls, if applicable, should be discussedin the FS report.
we. * - The work plan does not discuss theeldevelopment of ARARs, vith respect to the EPA requirement
which etates that at least one alternative be developed aepart of the feasibility study in each of the followingcategories t
o Alternatives for treatment er disposal at an off-sits facility approved by EPA, as appropriate i
o Alternatives which attain applicable and relevantFederal public health or environmental standardei
e Alternatives which exceed epplicable and relevantpublic health er environmental standards)
e Alternatives which do net attain applicable orrelevant public health er environmental etandardebut which will reduce the likelihood ef preeentor future threat from tha hasardous substances.
303376
This must includs an alternative which closelyapproaches the level of protection provided bythe applicable or relevant standards and meets
_ ciRCLA's objectives of adequately protectingpublic health, welfare, and environment) and
o He action alternative.'The identification of remedial alternatives should include*as a minimum, ens alternative for etch of the fivecategories listed above. This should be eenductad prior tothe initial screening ef alternatives, The FB report•hould dieeuss those situations where no feasiblealternatives can be identified for a given category. Thisis not described under thie task.2.4 TASK 4 - INITIAL SCREENING OF REKEDZAL ALTERNATIVES
cemment we. i - The FS Work Plan lists "TechnicalFeaeibility" of technologies as one of the four factors inwhich the preliminary alternatives vill be screened. Thisis not necessary since Teak 2 hae already eddresssd thescrsening of technologies. EPA guidance and tha NCPidentify only three factors for which alternatives are tebe screened againat (eest, public health, andenvironment) . Clarification ie warranted regarding theneed te screen remedial technologies twice.
we . a - when alternatives are eliminated fromfurther consideration, the feasibility study must documentthe rationale for excluding each alternative* The FS WorkPlan should indicate that this will occur as recommended inEPA guidance on Feasibility Studies.
We . l « A present worth analysis should beaplemented at this etage ef the feasibility etudy. The FSVork Plan makes no mention of this under the ecope of vorkfor coat screening. (See Section 2.S.2.2 of the FSGuidance Document.)2.6 TASK 8 « DETAILED EVALUATION OF REKEDZAL ALTERNATIVES
Ma. i - Due to the loeational factors of the site(the wetlands area and the potential for mine subsidence),thS n Vork Plan Should address these factors which wouldbe considered during the evaluation of remedialalternatives.
303377
we. a * The technical analysis ef the demonstratedperformance and implementability of the alternatives is netincluded in the ecepe of verk under this task.Additionally, it is net clear if "the technical analysis efalternatives vill evaluate the "useful life" ef thetechnologies. The F8 Verk Plan should include a discussionef these fectors since the FS report outline (Appendix A)has idsntified their inclusion in the report.
MO. a - The environmental analysis doss net discusstha need to undertake a Wetland Assessment. sines thesouthwestern portion of ths study area has been determinedte be a wetland area, a Vetlands Assessment must beconductsd as part of the feasibility study psr EPAguidance. Information en remedial actions for wetlands canbe obtained from the U.S. Department ef Interior, U.S.Department ef commerce, and the U.S. Corps of Enginsere.
Wo. 4 « Regarding tha statement "For source controlmeasures or when criteria, standards, or guidelines are notavailable, the comparison vill be based en the relativeeffectiveness ef technologies." Zt is recommended that theresponsible party consult EPA Headquarters for furtherguidance en determining some type ef -criterion for whichthe alternative can be evaluated, such a criterion may bea health risk factor (i.e., 10*, 10 v) for aparticular exposure pathway. Zf no criterion can beestablished, the relative effectiveness of the technologywould be the basis for comparing alternatives. Asmentioned earlier, the criteria, standards, er guidelinesfor source control measures should be established duringthe identification of cleanup criteria.
fl o . s - The scope of vork for analysing theinstitutional factors of the remedial alternatives is toogeneral, which does not provide enough detail te determinehow this analysie will be performed. Additionally, it isnot clear en how Cooper industries vill asssss"participating- agency coordination" ae described in thescope ef vork.
we . 6 • The scope of work for conducting a costanalysis dees not mention the need to perform a sensitivityanalysis, as identified in the Ft report outline(Appendix A) . Additionally, sources to be used inestimating caste (i.e., vender estiaates, costing guidancedocuments) should be discusssd in order to evaluate theformulation of cooper's cost analysis.
303378
2.6 TASK 6 - PMLIKZNARY REPORT
we. l • The proposed FS report outline inAppendix A does net correlate with the task descriptions inthe text ef the vork plan. The outline identifies itemswhich are net discusssd in the text and vice versa. Thismakes the work plan very hard to fellow*______ _ - The proposed FS report format does notndicate an Executive Summery* It is recommended that thiebe included in the report. The Executive Summary shouldprovide a brief overview of the study and analyses fordetermining the recommended remedial action. Haior topiceto be included in this section include! (1) th% purposeand 'objectives of the feasibility study, (2) the backgroundef the eite, (3) selected remedial alternatives that vereevaluated, and (4) the recommended remedial action and itsadvantages ever other alternatives. Additionally, tablesand figures should bs used, when possible, to summarisecosts or other pertinent information*
we . a - The Introduction (Section 1.0 ef the FSreport) ehould include the objectives of the remedialaction. Presently, the proposed report format (Appendix Aef the FS Vork Plan) shows that the remedial actionobjectives vill be presented in Section 3.0 ef the report,following the "Identification and Screening cf AvailableTechnologies'* (Section 2.0) . This does not appear to be alogieal order since tha first step in the feasibility studyis to identify the objectives of remedial ections in termsof specific goals (i.e., cleanup criteria, general responseactions , source control versus management of . migration) .Based on these goals, remedial technologies are proposedand evaluated. The FS report format proposes the opposite(e.g., identifies technologies prior to identifyingobjectives).eaaaent We . 4 * The site background information ehouldinclude a description of its physiographic characteristicsand site location* These items are not listed en theproposed FS report format.2.7 TA8K 7 - FZKAL MPORSNo comments*
303379
S.8 SCHEDULEee«nent we. i * The twenty-eight week schedule to prepare adraft FS report seems excessive, based en typical FSdurations. normally, the FS is conducted concurrent viththe RI and the period following the RZ tasks, whichrspresents the development of the FS report, requiresapproximately four weeks. However, this situation isdifferent since the RZ vas performed in 1913 and 1984,prior to EPA guidance. Nevertheless, the time frame tocomplete Tasks 1*6 should be en the order of 12 to isVeek».
e
303380
AU-STATC us*. sw»v CO Out COMMENCE DAIVE CUN^OMO «* JC SEY O
24303331
• .•' •> ** J
DRAFTJVALUATION REPORT—" REVIEW OF
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
OSBORNE LANDFILL SITEMERCER COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
MARCH 13, 1987W. A. NO. 25-3438.01
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)under REM III Contract No. 68-01-7250 to Ebasco ServicesIncorporated (Ebasco). This document is a draft and hasnot been formally released by either Ebaeco or the U.S.EFA. As a draft, this document should not be cited orquoted, and is being circulated for comment only.
*EXHIBIT 24 30333:;
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED_______________ EBASCOOne O»toto vaiioy. i..M 4U. 2300 uncom n.gnw«y • e*st. tangnwne. PA W047 (2l5i 752 4212
March 11, 1987RM/3/87-0038Response Required
Ms. Patricia TanCERCLA Enforcement SectionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Subject: REM III Program - EFA Contract Ho. 68-01-7250Work Assignment No. 25-3438Osborne Landfill Site - Draft Evaluation ReportEvaluation of the Responsible Party'sRemedial Investigation Report
Dear Ms. Tan:The REM III Team is pleased to present this draft report, whichdocuments the review and evaluation of the responsible party'sRemedial Investigation (RI) Report. This evaluation report is aproduct of technical reviews that were conducted by the REM IIIstaff experienced in hydrogeology, civil engineering, biology,toxicology and chemistry. The review and evaluation of thesedocuments specify if sufficient information has been collectedto satisfy the requirements of the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and the National ContingencyFlan (NCP).
The Osborne Landfill Site RI Report contains major data gapswith respect to defining the extent of groundwater contaminationand the direction of groundwater flow. In addition, the risksto the public health and environment are not quantitativelydefined. In order for the responsible party to conduct afeasibility study (FS) that would comply with SARA and allow EFAto select an adequate remedial alternative, the data gaps shouldbe resolved and a quantitative risk assessment performed. Thisevaluation report discusses these deficiencies and their effecton conducting the upcoming feasibility study.
Ms. Fatritia Tan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 11, 1987 - Page 2RM
Please feel free to call me et 215-752-0212, or our SiteManager, Mr. Raymond F. Wattras, at 412-788-1080 to discuss ourevaluation of the responsible party's RI Report.
Very truly yours,
Richard C. Evans, F.E.Regional Manager, Region III
cc: Mr. E. Shoener - EFA Region IIIMr. K. Graham - EFA Region IIIDr. K. K. Yates - 2PMODr. M. Amdurer - ZFMOMr. A. Bomberger - NUSMr. R. Hattras - NUS
303384-
MARCH 13, 1987
DRAFT EVALUATION REPORTREVIEW OP REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REFORT
OSBORNE LANDFILL SITEMERGER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
EFA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 25-3438.01UNDER
CONTRACT NUMBER €6-01-7250
PREPARED BY:NUS CORPORATION
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
APPROVED BY:EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
LANGEORNE, PENNSYLVANIA
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
RAYMOND P. HATTRA5 RICHARD C. EVANS, P.E.SITE MANAGER REGIONAL MANAGER, REGION IIINUS CORPORATION EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ' - PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND 1
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
2.2 SITE STATUS 2
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATION MATRIX / 3
4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX SUMMARY 11
5.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS ON 18TEE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The REM III Team, under the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EFA) REM III Contract No. 68-01-7250, hasreviewed and evaluated the Remedial Investigation (RI) Reportdated, -Junp }$&& for the Osborne Landfill Site in Grove City,Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This review and evaluation wasconducted in accordance with Task 4 of the Work AssignmentAmendment No. 1 to the Final Work Flan, dated August S, 1986.The RI Report was reviewed to assess if the criteria for aremedial investigation (~R~i), as established by the NationalContingency Plan (NCP) and the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1966, were satisfied by thefindings of the study that was undertaken by Fred C. Bart •* '*«A«!c^afrocf Tng»Tf for Coopeif~indus"t"rTe~s, the responsIbTe~T>a"fty(RP). Additionally, the RI Report was reviewed to determine ifsufficient information has been collected to properly 'evaluateremedial alternatives that would meet the requirements of SARA.Section 2 of this report provides a brief description of thehistory of the Osborne Landfill Site. An evaluation matrix isincluded in Section 3. The evaluation matrix provides amechanism for determining the completeness of the RI Report withrespect to meeting the requirements identified in the NCP(40 CFR 300.68). This matrix was developed by using the EPAGuidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA and the NCP.A summary of the evaluation matrix is included in Section 4 ofthis report. This summary corresponds to the matrix and detailsthe completeness and content of the applicable section(s) in theRI Report. Section 4 also identifies areas requiringclarification and/or further information in order to satisfyboth the NCF criteria and EPA guidance. Technical commentspertaining to the RI Report and appendices are provided inSection 5.2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Osborne Landfill Site is located in Fine Township, MercerCounty, Pennsylvania, approximately one-half mile east of GroveCity. The site area encompasses approximately 15 of 80 acres ofan abandoned coal strip mine. This tract of land is currentlyowned by Mr. Edward McDougal. From the 1950s until 1963, thesite was operated as a dump by Mr. Samuel Mooney. Thisoperation continued under the ownership of Mr. James Osbornefrom 1963 until 1978, when the landfill was closed by thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER)(Bart, 1984). A fence with a locking gate surrounds the site
• perimeter to restrict site access.
3033*1
The site is bordered to the north by a wooded area, to the southby Pine Street Extension, to the east by a cornfield, and to thewest by mine spoils, which are overgrown with small trees andvegetation. A wetland area of approximately 15 acres in size islocated south of the mine spoil pile and borders the southwestportion of the site. A small intermittent stream emerges fromthis wetland area and flows under the Pine Street Extension in a
. southeast direction.In the early 1900's, a 1500-foot long pit was excavated in asoutheast to northwest direction beginning near Pine Street(Bart, 1984). The strip Bine highwall is located near theeastern border of the site. A cornfield is adjacent to the topof this highwall. The mine spoils are located along the westernportion of the site. Three small ponds are situated at the baseof the highwall. The largest pond (Fond No. 3) is located atthe northeast corner of the site and encompasses roughly 1 acre.It was reported to be roughly 30-35 feet deep (Bart, 1964). Asmall intermittent stream enters this pond from the north. Thesecond pond (Fond No. 2) is located south of the large pond andis estimated to be one-half acre in size. The smallest pond(Pond No. 1) is situated about 100 feet south of the secondpond. The ponds receive surface water runoff but there is nosurface water discharge from them* Rather, the ponds' waterlevels were reported to fluctuate with the water table (i.e.,the ponds recharge the groundwater).Nineteen test borings and monitoring wells were constructed todetermine the geologic conditions at the site. These wellsmonitor the water table aquifer, the Clarion Formation, theBomewood Formation, the Upper Connoquennessing Formation, andthe Burgoon Formation. No monitoring wells are constructedoutside of the site boundary. Domestic wells are constructed inthe upper portion of the Clarion Formation. The Grove CitymunieipaL-vell is constructed in the Bomevsod Formation.
2.2 SITE STATUS
Cooper Industries is the primary generator of wastes at the siteand signed a consent order with PADER in October, 1963 toconduct an RI/FS and to clean up the site. Approximately 600drums and 45 cubic yards of contaminated surface coils wereremoved in the summer of 1983 by Cooper Industries (USEPA,1964). A remedial investigation was conducted by Fred C. BartAssociates, Inc., a consultant to Cooper Industries. The RIreport was submitted to PADER in June 1984.The '?emedial investigation focused on the extent and nature of
ogroundwater and surface water contamination at the site. The/6hallo£X wells indicated the presence of lead (60 vg/1) and
•*'. Nickel (31 vg/1), which exceed EFA Drinking Water Standards(Bart, 1984). Wells monitoring the leachate exhibited benzene(109 V9/l)» nickel (67 vg/1), chromium (60 V9/D* lead(260 vg/1), mercury (4.2 vg/1) and arsenic (33 pg/1).
303382
'«>T
^- '(_ Pentachlorophenol ,was detected in the Clarion Formation and the" Burgoon Formatign. The_Burgeon Formation also indicated thepresence of <t>is(2-ethylhexyi*)phthalat§> The following prioritypollutants including,——bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (24 vg/1)-,ethylbenzene (19 vg/l)r toluene (12 vg/1), chromium (13 ug/1),cadmium (10 vg/l)r and nickel (13.4 vg/1) were detected in theBomewood Formation.
Surface water samples were collected from the two intermittentstreams, the swamp area, and Ponds 2 and 3. Bigh concentrationof iron (260 to 6020 vg/1) were detected in both ponds and theintermittent stream which emerges from the wetland area(19,500 vg/D* Samples taken from the swamp area revealed zinc(66-4809 V9/D* lead (96 vg/D* copper (5-68 vg/l)r and nickel(11-15 vg/1). The swamp area also exhibited phenol (12 vg/1)and di-n-butyl phthalate (3.57 vg/1). Priority pollutantorganics -including chloroethane (7.1 vg/l)« 1,1-dichloroethane(6.3 vg/D* 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1.4 vg/1), and trichloro-ethylene (0.6 vg/1) w«re present in the onsite ponds (Hart,1984).Organic analysis of waste samples obtained from drums detectedthe presence of ethylbenzene, ortho xylene, ethyl methylbenzene, and assorted hydrocarbons. These pollutants werereported as a percentage of the total waste content rather than
• ppm or ppb. The percentages of these compounds, detected in thedrums, were reported as follows: to^ * '/
• ethylbenzene (less than 0.1 - less than 100%)• ortho xylene (0.2 - 0.5%)• ethyl methyl benzene (0.5 - 1.0%)• assorted hydrocarbons (0.5-3.0%)
A Feasibility Study Work Flan was submitted to PADER by CooperIndustries in October 1986. This work plan has not beenapproved by EPA as of March 1987.3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATION MATRIX
The Evaluation Matrix is provided in the following pages of thisreport to provide the user with a checklist by which acomparison can be made between the information in the RI Report,and the requirements of the NCF and EPA Guidance on RemedialInvestigations Under CERCLA. The matrix has five columnheadings which show
1) NCF criteria reference2) If existing information has satisfied applicable NCF
criteria3) If the information is presented or addressed, but not
considered complete with respect to meeting the NCPcriteria
-3-303389
.tg
— v tecXcc
B£•r «||0*
Si c> *cL£ £ E
? eSCJ *»•*C ft)E **
CO<R•
L ** ^•*>•
e
Criteria
F
§
02
K
ss
S s7<— ^ g 1 «*c
F «S *3 *t O
£ g i 1 ' 1 - V f ^ b f c£ct* * *-5""-* £^ — tS £«« £tJE?§£ «5£g •=Sl^««"c£|o£g«g= ^E^gsigi01-6-0^ai-g ga<Ef£oH E Sc o cu ^2T 6-«Av« « •*:3 C ~ .fib b2 **
>
e
75
/
K
S
nthwaya of exposure at
tlon
•t Contact
at Io
n
7 JE O £jj£ *» ,^ 7 • £ V.rt
303330
E||B
"C *
lit
*jl
If*• •>£ — •to U
COC9
A> Jj °O *> ofzu
o
Criteria
ev
L
K
• P
«•V•*C7!
bile Health Welfare and
vlronmental Concerns Aaso
Ih PvfattiMT Kit* rVimtillnna
= c-
<
TA&
1; ci 4fe»
> C* 0 ~
J ^ .1 fc*.i ° £ |j »5
i ^ ^ | JB § 5
• —i 1? ^: 2 2 » 2 fc^:*° £ «.c*"t:IB ™5*S 3 5"-r?5 — N®
if J ° • •***" •**** •• • »
• » «
ejClto
M
KJ
*
££
Lllcellhood of future retea!
hazardous substances remi
onsite
w
S c c0 0
c c ct> *> *CQ CO CD
M
K K
I I?zardous Substances
Present
•BSCD
•a
Extent to which source we
adequately
Identified and
characterized
Substance types
Substance containment
• • ••• *» r»
303331
•*
KBCD
t:*< 0Zor»SBOft.po<o=?*fz>^tt£ZjN
P OnEPZco< B:
B LAHDFILL
VL IHVESTIG
VLCOHTIHG
ee of Seven
T— r
gii£§°3EP £!,.« BOB« (;ezG.
vC*
«!iect;cc0 v)T: £s?6<
JE -1!_. n eS •> fc». o o
1£C4W&— s
CO«o
Z6Sc
JB71Cl
6
§oTCD
K
g
2
cS o*» •)_ «S 411 || £g_ _ .|
o 3 " E t* ZL £]L CM co l^ O i£*fi£ O l^•p c w »jj ^ ^
G
1&?CO
K
XCM
17
t>an
uantlttes pre;
ain
5.e»
e*»
1.
n
K
=-
*C
g•J
71^—i •. «g |I1 Is .|| i||||o ? .....•
-€- *> t> *5 o y«j
Bi;B
£ *
Ijl* •••
"* AJ
to
CO<e£gft, »j r»
ZT:£e
Criteria
K
str
^w «* • c «,
« * £*p
c ., » c _b m S *j O C*• »• C i " O
S «• _ » CV CJ 3 f*IA . »« E * Cy *" C3
|| IS.^3 cJ«:££ e-'c
•fiGO M
K
g
S
•B
TKV
|||B « g
2 E« 1
t .c *5 » • • • •2 tv uc £ c ? »v" c^*
o
1n
K
—
S
•3
g 1
Iti
lent for potential
Subsurface
aolls i
groundwater
Surface water am
Surface aolla
Air
Biota
K-Tl • • • • •We £ o v •>n
sBT ^^ -B
J »» o.= R £A £ 8
CDCP
eria
v "5n B
ie «o j» gT: c.giia b. •? &7H «v OW c «E£-».«- •-. -.-» •-.•ECSi EC SC St>Oe
tn
I ?
-8- 303394
•
KBe|- (p<e20n£*Oct.pu<oR*<?> 3K£
HR LAHDFILL 81TR
HAL IHVESTIGATIOH
NAL COHTIHGBHCT
x of Seven
ggoEizPfeww< «fOBZfi.
«
=11B «iB
I?£ |Wfc^Ti.7:1)1
11CD'te
£oo. 5j«Z?iu
v t
e
Criteria
g**!JVCO
K
2
***.j^
.. *J• TLT
1 Sc•5 • *• ft»7: <j «E
IroReolofflc Factors
mtlnued)
Soil Characterization
a. Engineering propel
permeability)
b. G
eochemlcat prop
adsorption coefflc
d
g*•*c*w
K
S•u
£ £'S •*B B
11 1
Surface water charac
a. Drainage patterns
b. B
odies and quant I
tc. Flow
ratea
d. Q
uality
e. C
lassification
f. Uaea
g. Ploodplaln/Wetlan
*
g•
CGO
M
Gt
B%
|Te£•v "v•» •>B I.
J
8 ~
I7!to
K
•
£
B
|
•
|T!10
K
|
1
B
OV
«">
-9- 30339
KBCD<e
Ob.
<e
<Z
OORHR LAHDPILL BITR
.MEDIAL INVESTIGATION
kTIOHAL COHTIHGBHCY 1
&e Seven of Seven
CO K «OBZC.
»ilB
Criteria not
Addressed
HiOS
CO
JBgBU Jj **
U Uo
Criteria
>ta
IsCO B
K
s-X
?
1 J
Compliance
with Governn
Requirements
1. A
pplicability of
federi
requirements, criteria
advisories
tu
1C
2. Applicability of state
requirements, criteria
advisories
|IiCO B
M
sl
3. Existing and potential
exceedence of applies
requirements, criteria
advisories
303396
4) If the information is not provided to satisfy the NCPcriteria
5) The section of the RI report which addresses the NCPcriteria
The matrix is supplemented vith a separate text section(Section 4.0) which contains an expanded evaluation of the RIReport as it pertains to meeting the requirements of the NCP.The evaluation matrix should be reviewed concurrently with thissection of the report.Most of the criteria for undertaking and completing a remedialinvestigation ware not adequately net by the' RP. Datalimitations for characterizing the extent of contamination andpublic health risks were noted throughout the report.Additionally, potential groundvater migration pathways may haveto be re-evaluated by the RP, based on our evaluation. The . p<"RI_Reppjrt__Ja.il£_lo — generate — *nf-f.*f*»r\t f«ta with respect to v &£ 'evaluating and selecting potpntjpj re.ipgjial alternatives. " r*'' fi-
* • . , «4.0 EVALUATION MATRIX SUMMARY v **' „«. Iv* •.••» •
A general discussion for each subheading of the EvaluationMatrix is provided in thie section. Each summary is referenced,by. heading and number, to the corresponding section of the
yy matrix. The summaries provide information pertaining to thedegree that a specific NCP criterion has been addressed by thefindings of the RI Report.A. Public Eealth, Welfare, and Environmental Concerns
Associated with Existing Site Conditions. tP«/T *V"1. Potential Receptors at Risk .*« /*/
Section VI, Risk Assessment, of the JU Report qualitatively *$i characterizes... th§. public hi<h ricks"~ppaed~~by... th~e afte , ***contaminants. The risk characterization provides a "traditional'*' fi v>fsburce-paThway-receptor analysis". Six pathways were identified '. r"and discussed in this section of the report. The followingadditional pathways should be addressed* , *••• — • —— —— ——— — ~
dermal exposure to soilsingestion of soil by children > f , ^^ .,'-——-- i of particulates * £/\ «? _ .,
Qualitative risks to the public health were reported to beminimal to none, based on groundwater flow direction andtheoretica_l_g.reyndwater contaminant dispersion modeling. Thisis unacceptable. DomefiVTe veij gjFptj'g gfauld be' ob'tapTeji, jinorder o _es tabli£lL>-the. present., health . rlAiu. Additionally,groundwater flow directions were based on one_ set of w ter level itmeasurement from a limited number of wells. Section 5.0 ot. uusreport provides additional comments regarding this issue. \
\
-11-
* Based on the data presented in Table V-l, preliminary^v calculations indicate that the cone of depression for the ?
Grove City municipal well could extend beneath the site. This >potential receptor should be addressed in the report.The risk characterization also did not include an evaluation ofthe site's impact qn__the wetland area that is adjacent to thesite. These criteria ne'ed to be evaluated in order to establishadequate remedial alternatives.The following recommendations apply to meeting the NCP criteriafor public health, welfare, and environmental concerns:
• Undertake a wetlands study to determine the site'simpact on this sensitive area.
• Obtain additional sets of water level data to confirm P^Vxgroundwater flow direction.
• Sample domestic wells to support theoretical modelingstudy. The Grove City municipal well should also besampled.
• Conduct a quantitative risk assessment. Include dermalexposure of surface waters and soils, inhalation of
, • participates, ingestion of soils by children, and r>v—y ingestion and dermal contact of groundwater. °
2. Likely Pathways of Exposure at Site
Sections V and VI of the RI Report discuss various contaminantand exposure pathways that are associated with the site. Asmentioned previously, direct contact with onsite soils need tobe assessed, based on the potential accessibility to the site bychildren. Additionally, ingestion and inhalation of soilsshould be evaluated and assessed. ^ *-»»Based on a limited amount of collected data, four groundwaterpathways were identified and assessed by the RP. These pathwaysmay need to be re-evaluated, based on our review of the RIreport and appendices. This is discussed further in Section 5.0of this report.3. Contribution of Contaminants
Sections III, IV, and V of the RI report characterize thesurface and subsurface wastes, surface water quality, andgroundwater quality, respectively. A discussion on the impactof the site contaminants, if any, on air quality was notprovided. Justification for not undertaking an analytical Jt%,evaluation of the ambient air is necessary. Also, an evaluation
. or discussion regarding the contribution of site contamination*—' to the food chain,is warranted. This is especiallyjtrue for the
-12- 303S92
sswamp and wetland, areas that are adjacent to the western andsouthern portions of the site.4. likelihood of Future Releases ' »
Based on the RI report, all surface drums and 45-cubic yards ofcontaminated soils were removed from the site as part of anInitial Remedial Measure (IRM). Based on the magnetometrysurvey, buried ferromagnetic materials were present through theentire central area of the disposal area. However, no test pits .were excavated to confirm whether the buried metal objects were 'refuse er drums. in addition* only a limited numEer—61 testborings were drilled in the area that exhibited high 'magnetometer readings. Therefore* it cannot be concluded that ' «•>other drums (sources) do not exist throughout the former „ %sdisposal area. ***"., BAlthough only 45-cubic yards of contaminated soils were **"excavated, the estimated volume of the disposal area wasreported to be approximately 233*000 cubic yards. Since only^Ttfffour test borings were drilled through .the former disposal area* f'T 'it_can__not~J?e.jstatedithat the "only .ma ior 'component of this areat^-is foundry sand. Additionally* the eoil~aaaplee obtained from "'these boreholes were not analyzed for any priority pollutants.Only field screening with an OVA was performed on the subsurfacesoil samples. Based on the limited amount of analytical datafrom the test boring program, there is a potential foradditional releases to the groundwater from either existingburied drums or_highly contaminated, fiubsyr.face soils. , „,„ &In order to fully determine whether there is a potential forfuture contaminant releases to the environment* the followingstudies may be appropriate:
• Excavate a series of test pits through the forme~disposal area to confirm the assumption thatmagnetometer readings were due to refuse.
• Obtain soil samples for full Hazardous Substance List(ESL) pollutants in order to characterize subsurfacesoils. These samples can be collected from the testpits and/or from additional test borings.
B. Hazardous Substances Present1. Source Identification and Characterization
Section III of the RI Report characterizes the surface andsubsurface wastes at the site. The surface wastes wereidentified as the 603 drums that were removed from the site anddisposed in 1983. Additionally* 45-cubic yards of contaminated ^soil were removed and disposed; however, th*> degree and nature*^*^ *of the contaminated soil was not provided in the report. Also,
-13- 303393
subsurface wastes were not characterized, as mentionedV_> previously in this report. .
2. Substance Types
The contents of the onsite drums were adequately defined withrespect to their physical and chemical types.3. Substance Containment
Section IIIB of the RI Report* Characterization of SurfaceHastes* adequately discusses this NCP criterion.4. Hazardous Properties of Chemical Substances
Samples obtained from selected drums were analyzed for prioritypollutant organics* RCRA metals, polychorinated biphenyls* pE*flammability* ignitability* BTU content, compatibility* andcorrosivity. The following contaminant properties were notdiscussed in the report:
PersistenceToxicity { Tr'Density ^ <*T«Solubility lf ' ' M*VolatilityReactivity
\ / . *- -iThenp-parameterfl would—influence the migration of .contaminants )through the_vajripus pathways. "Based "on" the fact that/,contaminated surface'soils were identified and removed, these?properties should be discussed for each contaminant in order to \determine their potential to migrate into the air* subsurface/soil, or groundwater.No analytical parameters were reported for onsite surface orsubsurface soils. The hazardous properties of contaminants inthese media were not discussed.
"75. Quantities Present
In order to evaluate potential reroediaV^alternatives, thequantities^ of various, wastes *in_each_media * needs to beaddressed.*""The RP has estimated that the former disposal areais comprised of 233*000 cubic yards of soil. It was concludedin the report that the majority of this waste is foundry sand. 7 ./;>«/This was based on four borings through the disposal area. It is Vrecommended that soils analyses through either test pits and/or )additional soil borings be obtained to delineate for formerdisposal area. These activities would generate sufficient data
• to quantify the amount of contaminated subsurface soils, if any,at the site.
-14- 303400
6. Concentration and Distribution Present ' " -J.The distribution of contaminants* including contaminant type .concentrations, were not cfaaxgcte*rized_for the soils, (surfaceand subsurface), sediments, surface "and—biota—(fish. or iMcroinvertehratefl). Additional studiesshould be undertaken to obtain sufficient data in order toquantitatively characte_rJL»«L public health and environmental
T<? tfc' risks* a"nd~~t"b evaluate potential remedial technologies.7. Environmental Fate and Transport
Contaminants detected in the RI Report should be,characterizedwith respect to the following properties!
• bioaccumulation )• physical-chemical degradation >• adsorption J
These properties need to be addressed in order to characterizehealth and/or environmental risks. It should be noted thatadsorption applies mostly to the potential for contaminants tomigrate through the soils; however* no analytical data for soils(surface or subsurface) were presented in the report. <&lsp, the CNrisk assessment (Section VIJ does not include jan__evalu.ationTof '
C. v Hazardous Substance Migration Potential1. Extent _of Current Migration
The extent of migration in the surface soils* subsurface soils,sediments, air, and the wetland area has not been adequatelydefined. Surface and subsurface soil data should be obtained toidentify the current migration of contaminants. Althoughgroundwater data have been collected, they dq_npj__chaxa£££rl£eoffjEite — migration. Groundwater data exists only for onsitelocations. Additional monitoring points should be establishedfor _ cfi tical of f s i t e "locations' "(•rrel — domestic — weTTs")7 "The*"
_coojcent rat ions at .. potential receptors is _ not adequate 'when"actual" :data_gft be obtained yjlal8amplins. ' '2 . Extent of Potential Migration * ' ** "f
The extent of potential migration of contaminants is undertakenin a risk assessment to characterize public health orenvironmental risks for a "no action* alternative. The RIReport (Section VI, Risk Assessment) addresses the potential forcontaminants to migrate via surface water runoff, surface watertransport, and various groundwater pathways. Migration ofsubsurface and surface soil contaminants into the groundwatershould be addressed. To do this* analytical data for thesemedia would have to be collected. Modeling of soil contaminant
-15- 303S01
concentrations into the groundwater pathway would then beappropriate to define the extent for potential migration of soilcontaminants.Potential migration of contaminants to the air and biota werenot addressed. A discussion regarding this possibility iswarranted to meet the NCP criteria.D. Bydrogeologic Factors1. Geologic Characterization
The criterion for identifying the geologic characteristics ofthe study area are addressed in the RI Report; however* theREM III Team does not agree with many of the /findings . Thefollowing two issues /apply;
1) Shales generally have very low permeabilities whenunfractured. Hgweygrf *•*•>*» pr«»«i«>ngV r»f frnrt"res canincrease the DP nubility by nrrVr*; *f »«yjn<»ndA. As 6some degree of fracturing can be expected in each of therock units present beneath the site* the shaleformations should not be considered as having nocapacity to transmit water* although their permeabilityis low in comparison to typical sandstones.
• 2) Additional site-specific geologic cross sections areneeded to present an adequate picture beneath the studyarea. Hell locations and screened • intervals should beshown in the cross sections. The cross sections shouldbe_integrated more closely with the b1rln'g~rojgs_ to show16caT~"variat'io'ns*"in stratigraphy* formafloh thicknesses*dips, etc.
2. Grcundvater Characterization
Section V of the RI Report outlines the regional and sitegeologic and hydrogeologic conditions. This section does_notprovide _ sufficient... information—til-- meet_ the NCP criteria for.characterizing qreundwater_ baaed on the following~~~R£M~III~Teamfin'dings :
1) Transmissivity is only presented for the Burgeon"Formation.
2) There does not appear to be an adequate resolution ofgroundwater flow direction in the Eomewood Formation,based on the data presented. It appears that there maybe some component of groundwater flow te^ the north aswell as the south. Also* there is a Ta'ck of groundwaTe'rmonrt"orTng~"poirits""for this formation downgradient of theformer disposal area (between monitoring wells UMW-3 andUMW-4 ) .
-16-
303(102
r~"" 3) Groundwater flow direction in the Burgoon Formation isv not well defined, baaed on the data presented. As
mentioned in the text and ehovn in Figure V-8,groundwater within the Burgoon Formation appears to beflowing northeast in the immediate site area (based onlimited data). The text also indicates that theultimate discharge point is several miles north of thesite along Wolf Creek. This discharge point would benear Interstate 80 at an elevation of 1250 feet. Thepotentiometric surface of the Burgoon Formation at thesite is 1249 feet* with a gradient of approximately0.002. Based on this gradient, the potentiometricsurface of the formation at the groundvater dischargepoint would be about 1220 feet* which is well below thelevel of Holf Creek. Therefore* the Burgoon Formationis not discharging to Holf Creek at this point* contraryto the text. 7
r *4) Flow rates have little or..jo supporting^ data.3. Soil Characterization ^ •A limited amount of engineering properties data were obtainedthrough Standard Penetration Tests. No information was obtainedor provided for adsorption coefficient properties. Thisinformation is helpful in determining the migration potential
'\_s for contaminants in subsurface soils.4. Surface Water Characterization
Section IV* Surface Hater, satisfies the NCP criteria foridentifying drainage patterns, water quality, and uses. Data onthe stream sizes, flow rates and stream classification arenecessary to fully characterize the study area surface waters.C. Climate1. Precipitation
Average annual rainfall and evapotranspiration is provided inSection IV for the site. This NCP criterion has been satisfied.2. Temperature
No information regarding monthly average temperatures wasprovided in the report.3. Hind Speed and Direction
Data pertaining to average wind speed and direction were notincluded in the RI Report. These data are necessary to evaluatethe potential health effects of remedial technologies of
V_x alternatives such as excavation or air stripping.
-17- 3C3403
F. Compliance with Governmental Requirements ^ ~~?1. Federal Requirements "All fsflfijaj—requirements.—inrlnriJrig **n** forshould be identified. Only EPA's Interim Drinking HaterStandards and Ambient Hater Quality Criteria have beenidentified for comparison of site contaminants.2. State Requirements "
State requirements for groundwater quality* surface waterquality, amTvetland areas were not identified.3. Existing and Potential Exceedanee of Applicable Requirements
Groundwater and surface water contaminant levels were comparedwith EPA Interim Drinking Hater Standards and Ambient Hater ~Quality Criteria. These data should also be compared with WlLf 'Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLsi and Acceptable Daily Intake(ADD values where applicable. ~~~"~5.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS OK THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
The following comments were generated by the REM III Team, whichco'nsisted of a hydrogeologist* a toxicologist, an environmentalengineer* and a biologist.Seetion-Pq. No. ___ Comments___
11-12 Split-spoon sampling is not done flnaccordance with ASTM Standard D2113-70 asnoted in the text. ASTM Standard D-15B6applies to split-spoon sampling.
11-13 . tow levels of contamination* which are lessthan 1 ppm, would not be detected with anOVA. Priority pollutant analysis shouldhave been performed on a portion of thesamples to confirm OVA results. It has beenour experience that OVA results do notcorrelate well with laboratory analyticalresults.
11-20 Packer testing was performed at intermittentelevations in two borings* DMH-2 and -3.These tests were designed to measure in-situpermeability in "representative" zones ofrock. For hydrogeologic purposes, it isequally important to measure_permeajjility atlithologic contacts where~Kbrizj>ntal beddingplain fracturinc _mi.ght_be_.'pr_§s.ent. Theresultant permeaoiiities for the rock zones
303401
Seetion-Pg. No. Comments ___ , ______ _
should not be used to represent horizontalflow in the bedrock aquifers. If used*caution should be noted.
11-20 The statement regarding little or nopotential for vertical migration ofcontaminants to underlining aquifers shouldbe changed to reflect higher potentials due fto the existence of fractures. (Contami-nants were detected in the shallow* middle*and deep aquifers).
tr
11-24 The statement is made that a lack ofdrawdown in the Eomewood formation during hepumping test indicates that there is a lackof significant hydraulic connection betweenthe Clarion and Eomewood Formations.According to the text, water levels weremonitored in CMW-1 and the pond during thetest* neither of which is set in thefiomewood Formation. If no significantdrawdown was observed in the pumpedformation (Clarion)* J>Q «*fl**flcart' draudmmwould__ be — expected— _JLtcn — an — underlying H
' foimatinn— Has the Bomewood Formation '•monitored?
11-24 and 25 Hhy did the pumping rate stabilize at 250gallons permit (gpm) at 20 minutes? Has a250 gpm pump used?
/
11-27 A statement is made that only 1 well wasinstalled in the Upper Connoquenessingformation; however* on page V-13* astatement is made that no wells wereinstalled or open to this formation. Thisneeds to be clarified.
11-27 A statement is made that very little of the\Upper and Lower Connoquenneseing groundwater Iis used for water supply; however, l^r
iM-Mitt, — Eifture V-2__ indicates jthat the Grove City/ "f/VT//^«v municipal water supply "is fccreened in the\c-rt**-Lower Connoquennessing. This needs* to be]clarified. Additionally, Figure V-13 shows'that the Grove City municipal wells arescreened in both the Upper and LowerConnoquennessing Formation and in theBurgoon Formation. The Upper and LowerConnoquenessing Formations are notadequately monitored to determine potentialrisks to the public.
_ _ 303403
Section-Po. No. Comments______________
11-34 The Burgoon -monitoring wells (DMW-1,2,3)have only one set of measurements. AmjpiiBqm ef thrge_ifi expected to provide avalid assessment of water levels. TheEomewood monitoring wells have inconsistentwater levels on March IS* specifically wellsUMW-3 and *4. Please clarify. Strip minepond elevations should be taken to correlatewith monitoring well water levels.
11-36 General terms such as "low toncentrations* yJare used without justification. For .example, a *low .benzene level of 109ug/lcorresponds to a risk of 372~xTO-«Tf ,'ingested over a long period of time. This 1risk level exceeds EPA standards.
HI-5 Haste samples were analyzed for PCBs andRCRA metals. These samples should have beenanalyzed for ESL. Also* the detection limitfor PCB analysis 'was extremely high (10mg/kg).
HI-6 Types and depths of buried wastes at the *site could not be properly assessed sinceonly jour borings penetrated this area,wHIch ~ia approximately 15 acres. -
HI-10 S7<ir>/.y Concentrations of benzene* which werer,j tai, considered to be "low" by the RP, are above
, RMCL standards. Additionally, chromium,,--x' ""mercury, and lead were greater than IPDWS,..,' u/Ati€ Dut considered to be "low" in the report.* .
HI-10 ' Conclusions drawn by the RP have indicatedthat the analysis of waste present in thedrums showed low concentrations of a limited
. /number of priority pollutants. The RI•f J Report listed the concentration as\ "percentages". It should be noted that
> J 3 percent of assorted hydrocarbons is equalh(< / to 30*000 ppm. With this in mind* ethyl
I benzene was reported as "less than 100"percent. This is not a low concentration asstated in the text.
-20- 303403
Seetion-Pg. No. Comments _____________•
IV-9 Seasonal flooding of the site may be a-mechanism for surface water (andcontaminant) migration from the site. A "**'»•••"**flooding episode is described on page XX-27.0"***!*No mention of off site migration of T"" if/floodwaters is included in the description. **
IV-11 Laboratory detection limits are not relatedto acceptable health risks. For manycontaminants* the 10-6 risk may originatefrom levels much lower than these detection/limits. In addition* there is no\information regarding field and reagentblanks* duplicates, surrogate recoveries andother QA/QC information. The laboratory'OA/QC practices given in Appendix F are not f .completely applicable to the analyses J *performed at this site.
IV-11 The fact that receptors might not be presentat certain areas near the site does notreduce the need for assessments in theseareas.. Both present and future potential
i*« risks, using hypothetical receptors, are*r w(/ required to be assessed.
V-4 It is . ..aqui eludes or zones which do not allow A,.-Tr.,."-groundwater flow. Although shales generallyhave a much lower primary porosity thansandstones , secondary porosity _ ( fractures )
for .migration. As a result* shales' 'may be '• .„considered aquitards but should not beconsidered aqui eludes.
~V-ll As stated previously *./no drawdown would be
expected in the Eomewood Formation or the^» onsite ponds as a result of the pumping
YU Af£ tests if the water level in the pumpedW&' "*V£'/ formation (Clarion) was not itself drawn<-v •'•••if down by the pumping* as apparently the caseA* *•'•**'••"' at the site. The statement that the pond
And mine would have a poor hydraulic 411 »'rconnection and that the underclay separating u,..the Eomewood Formation from overlaying Cw^aquifers acts as an impermeable layer are <not conclusions that can be drawn from thee Y(,pumping test results.
Jil'itl'1'* *'
1-t,t '.
'v—s Section-Pq. No. Comments ______^^
V-ll Downward flow * of groundwater is probablyimpeded by the coal underclay beneath the \ A •site; however* based on the presence of lowieveifi-. of contaminants in the underlying"aquifers, vertical groundwater migration isnot prevented completely.
V-12 Based on Figure V-6 and the water tablecontours, there does not appear to be enoughmonitoring wells along tht downgradient «dg*of the site to provide sufficient waterquality data regarding shallow groundwaterfrom leaving the site. Large data gapsexist between well location SH-2 and SH-3, )and to the east of LW-4. <
v'12 ~.M*i-&**\iivi\ Hater level in SH-1 was not included on thecontour map. What explanation is there forthe anomalous high level in SH-l(1300.6 feet).
V-13 !**•.!,i* tAn/ .There does not appear to be adequatertt resolution of groundwater flow direction in
Eomewood Formation, based on the datapresented. It appears that there may besome component of groundwater flow to thenorth as well as the south, based on thedata. Also, there is a lack of groundwatermonitoring points for the Eomewood Formationdowngradient of the disposal area (betweenMWs UMW-3 and -4) as shown in Figure V-7.
V-13 Groundwater flow directions in the Burgeon") ,.-Formation are not well defined, based on thep"'data presented. As mentioned in the text I i?^and shown in Figure V-8, groundwater within (>ji- \Jthe Burgoon Formation appears to be flowing }to the northeast in the immediate site area/(based on the limited data).
V-13 The RI Report states that recharge raiseswater levels in the Eomewood Formation atwell UMW-S as an explanation for the highwater levels. There is no documentation tosupport this statement. Actually* the sitedata indicates that recharge is probably nota significant factor. The boring log forUMW-5 shows that the underclay is presentand not eroded as suggested in the text.The reason for the higher water level in "^UMW-5 needs to be explained. i-//^y
i*--:«c/-.'-22- 3C3403 c >.
Section-Po. Mo. Comments
V-19 With respect to the water table aquifer,five domestic wells have been identified in >fthe report. Hell logs should be included in*-';'!;the report.
V-19 Croundwater flow in the Clarion Aquifer is ••'*£pfoBably governed by the deep mine system r"and is structurally controlled. Structurecontour maps need to be prepared (deep mine <**«"••maps are needed). If flow direction is S-i;-v expected to be south, an explanation and .documentation is needed since only one well /'' »'"•••-(CMW-1) was constructed in this formation. r.li'j(i.e., Bow can flow direction be determined f t „*)•using one well?) Here deep cine /•„,_.discharge/seep points determined and c .***•*'sampled? J, fip<| L
V-21 r/T/t /'Flow direction in the Bomewood pathway was "><*'*1#' 'as*C ) etated to oe south. This is not defendableKe^f ' * <r based on site data. A flow component to the4<. \j~tl- i northeast can be projected in addition to
C the south using the present data.V-22 The data from the limited number of core * ,- *••>
borings (3) cannot be confirmatory evidence ...,,_>*,*«of the absence of fractures in bedrock *~- £«,formations beneath the site.
V-27 «wjVr6/ , The fact that some contaminants were notT'Vi^ *'. ( present above the EFA recommended detection
ue<<ry <k.;o < limit* but were present at other times*is<^v-s-ir / should not be dismissed as sampling oru/wi'. ( laboratory errors. It is very unTOceTy €h"at
o.*-Mi»r'7 \laboratory errors would occur for suchsv/ contaminants as pentachlorophena.1.
VI-3 ' Pathways do not address soil exposure orparticulate inhalation. ^
VI-3 Risks for groundwater ingest ion are notdefined (quantified). The report uses termssuch as "low" or "very low" to describerisks. In actuality, the concentration for)^ar/rbenzene equates to a health risk above EPA's> y-.»<, «^recommended limit of 10**4. J sei-ru,v
0"
-23- 303400
Section-Pq. Ko. Comments
Appendix E With respect- to hydraulic gradients* howwere the gradients calculated? 'The Burgoonvalue is incorrect.
Gradient (i) is approximately!I foot • 0.002 (N-NE)
500 feetHith respect to vertical migration* thepermeability (3 x 10-9 ft/sec) for theunderclay .is based on an NRC reference.This is not applicable to the site-specificconditions. Either field or laboratorypermeability tests on the clay areacceptable.
-24-
30341125
OYNAMACSCORPORATION
EXHIBIT 25
Corporate Headquarters:Dynamac Corporation The Dynamac Building 11140 Rockvllle Pike Rockville, MD 20852
AlamedaCA CamarilloCA DahlgrenVA Dayton OH
Fort Lee NJ Lexington Park MD London UK
Norfolk VA • Panama City FL Research Triangle Park NC . Rockville MD
303412
SECOND DRAFT
FEASIBILITY STUDY WORK PLAN
OSBORNE SITE
Prepared For:Cooper Industries
Prepared By:
Environmental Risk Management DivisionDynamac Corporation
Prepared On:June 11, 1987
303413
WORK PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction and Purpose . i
2.0 Historical Perspective 3
2.1 Investigation History 3
2.2 Cooper's Preliminary Findings 42.3 EPA/PADER Responses 6
2.4 Current Status 6
3.0 Summary of Existing Data 8
3.1 Environmental Setting 83.1.1 Location 8
3.1.2 Site Use 10
3.1.3 Physiography 113.1.4 Site Drainage 13
3.1.5 Geology 13
3.1.6 Hydrogeology 21
3.1.7 Adjacent Land Uses 23
3.2 Problem Assessment 26
3.2.1 Nature and Extent of 26Contamination
3.2.2 Potential Exposure Pathways 29
3.2.3 Preliminary Assessment of 31Public Health Concerns
3.2.4 Preliminary Assessment of 53Environmental Concerns
3.2.5 Key Issues 53
30341J
TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.0 Proposed Outline Scope of Work 56
4 . 1 Introduction 564.2 Work Plan Objectives 57
4.3 Development of Data Quality 59Objectives
4.4 Development of Detailed Sampling 62Plan
4.5 Development of QA/QC Plan 62
4.6 Development of Health and 62Safety Plan
4.7 Development of Public Health 68Assessment
4.8 Completion of Feasibility Study 69
4.8.1 Introduction and Purpose 694.8.2 Development of Remedial 70
Response Objectives
4.8.3 Identification of ARARs and Other 72Potential Cleanup Criteria
4.8.4 Selection of Preliminary 75Technologies
4.8.5 Initial Screening of Remedial 77Alternatives
4.6.6 Detailed Evaluation of 80Remedial Alternatives4.8.6.1 Detailed Technical 80
Evaluation4.8.6.2 Detailed Institutional 82
Evaluation
4.8.6.3 Detailed Evaluation of 82Public Health Requirements
30341:
TA.PI-F OF CONTENTS(continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.8.6.4 Detailed Evaluation of 83Environmental Impacts
4.8.6.5 Detailed Cost Analysis 83
4.8.7 Completion of Draft Feasibility 85Study Report
4.8.8 Completion of Final Feasibility . 85Study Report
5.0 Project Organization and Schedule 86
5.1 Proposed Staffing 865.2 Project Schedule 86
30541.6
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSf
This document presents a draft work plan for a Feasibility Study at
the Osborne Landfill site in Grove City, Pennsylvania. This -workplan has been prepared by Dynamac Corporation's Environmental RiskManagement Division on behalf of Cooper Industries' Inc. in responseto:
o "Draft Evaluation Report Review of Remedial InvestigationReport11 dated March 13, 1987
o January 6, 1987 PADER/EPA comments, on the October 31, 1986
Osborne Feasibility Study and work plan
o Verbal comments received from PADER/EPA on March 19, 1987
and subsequent phone conversations with NUS and EPA on May
29, 1987 and June 3, 1987 respectively
The purpose of this document is to provide an organized description
of the methodology to be applied to complete the Feasibility Studyfor the Osborne Landfill site in accordance with SARA and NCP
requirements. Given the number of outstanding issues raised by EPAand FADER with respect to cite characterization, potential risks and
the adequacy of the existing data base to complete the engineering
aspects of the feasibility study, this document has also beendesigned to serve as the vehicle for proposing an outline datacollection program. This program is intended to significantlyenhance the existing data base summarized for the most part in the
303417
June 1984 Remedial Investigation Report completed by Cooper
Industries Inc. under a consent order with PADER.
Correspondingly, the rest of the document includes:
o a brief description of the site's history as a Superfundsite
o a brief summary of the environmental • setting and thepotential environmental and public health problems posed bythe site and the key issues that must be resolved
o a proposed scope of work defining what efforts will becompleted to implement a detailed sampling plan andfeasibility etudy
o a proposed project organization and schedule
A variety of appendices aleo provide information on proposedapproaches to be utilized to complete the forthcoming campling plans,
QA/QC plans, health and safety plans and public health assessment, as
well as a summary of selected technical clarifications to EPA/PADER'scomments on the RI and the originally proposed FS work plan.
303413
2.0 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
2.1 Investigation History
The Osborne Landfill site ie located in Pine Township in MercerCounty, Pennsylvania. The cite consists of an abandoned coal stripmine which was subsequently used ae a disposal area from the 1950suntil 1978 when the cite was closed by PADER. 'PADER subsequently
brought the site to the attention of the USEPA by nominating the sitefor inclusion in the Superfund program. Following this action, the
USEPA identified several potentially responsible parties, includingGeneral Electric Company, Ashland Chemical Company, Wolfe Iron andMetal Company and Cooper Energy Services (a subsidiary of CooperIndustries, Inc.) as potentially having disposed of waste materialsat this location. Subsequently, with the exception of CooperIndustries, Inc., all of the above noted potentially responsibleparties allegedly refused to voluntarily assist in supporting theremedial activities mandated at this site under CERCLA.
Cooper Industries, Inc., in coordination with the USEPA, negotiated a
consent order and agreement with PADER to complete a remedialinvestigation (RI) at the site as well as an initial remedial
measures program consisting of inventory and removal of potentiallyhazardous soils and drums located throughout the closed site. These
efforts were initiated in the cummer of 1983.
-3-
As noted, Cooper Industries was also required to complete an RI at
the site as per a Remedial Investigation Hork Plan which wasincorporated into the PADER/Cooper concent agreement. Majorcomponents of thie RI field investigation included:
o proton magnetometry survey
o electrical resistivity surveyo test borings and drillingo OVA field surveyo geophysical borehole loggingo downhole TV logging
o aquifer testing
o monitoring well installationo mine void investigationo coil, eurface water and groundwater campling
o RI report preparation
2.2 Cooper's Preliminary Findings
Cooper's preliminary findings are summarized in Table 2-1 of thiedocument and in chapter VI, Rick Assessment of the 1984 RI report.
The report 'e conclusion that "the risks to the public health and theenvironment are extremely low" was based largely upon:
o characterization of the waste materials ae being ofgenerally low potential hazard due to their source
(primarily foundry cands) and the relatively low
.4.
30341:9
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF 1984 RI RISK FINDINGS
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE RISK CONCLUSION COMMENTSPATHWAY
Disposal Area Surface No risk Very low levels ofWater Pathway contaminants in eurface
water samples, no cur-face vater runoff
Southwest Corner No rick No evidence of contami-Surface Water Pathway nationWater Table Ground- Minimal to no Relatively low levelswater Pathway risk of metals and organice,
lack of receptors
Clarion Groundwater Minimal to no Low levels of con tain i-Pathway risk nante, lack of recep-
torsHomewood Groundwater Minimal to no Relatively low levelsPathway risk of metals and organice,
presence of backgroundcontaminants due toleaching of coal consti-tuents, closest poten-tial receptor evaluatedutilizing groundwatermodel
Burgoon Groundwater Minimal to no Very low levels ofPathway rick contaminante, hydrogeo-
logic separation fromupper aquifers, lack ofdowngradient receptors
303421
concentrations of contaminants measured in leachatesdirectly within the waste
o the low concentratione of organice and metals in the later
sampling rounds from immediately beneath the cite in thevarious aquifer formations
o the lack of receptors for the various potential migrationpathways
2.3 EPA/PADER Responses vp .•»»«•*• *"**
Ae noted in early 1987, EPA formally responded to the OsborneLandfill Site Remedial Investigation Report. These responses were
»prepared considering the more recent requirements of the National
Contingency Plan, the requirements of the newly reauthorizedSuperfund (SARA) , as well as more recent policy and implementation
guidance originating within EPA. A brief summary of the comments
provided by EPA is provided in Table 2-2. In brief, EPA has taken•
the position that the exieting RI data base must be substantiallyenhanced if the data needs and data quality objectives mandated bySARA are to be met.
2.4 Current Status .%
From 1984 to early 1987, intermittent EPA/PADER/Cooper negotiationstook place in an effort to finalize the RI. In addition, EPAundertook a test pit and soil campling program at the cite in 1985 to
-6-
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF EPA COMMENTS ON RT
ISSUE EPA COMMENT
Adequacy of Source Defini- Generally inadequate for currenttion requirements due to lack of a more
complete characterization of thephysical and chemical character ofthe surface and subsurface wastematerials
Adequacy of Pathway Defini- Generally inadequate for currenttion requirements due to limited on and
off-cite data on geology and hydro-geology, lack of data on contami-nants in surface coil and air path-ways and limited data on contami-nants in surface water runoff.pathway
Adequacy of Receptor Defini- Generally inadequate for currenttion requirements due to inadequate data
base on potential off-eite ground-water transport and lack ofconsideration of future receptors
Adequacy of Risk Conclu- Generally inadequate for currenteions requirements given the above
-7-
further clarify the source issue. That data was reported by NUS in a
report dated September 11, 1986. However quality control problems
allegedly significantly reduced the validity of the data set. Split
camples results were provided to PADER by Cooper Induetries, Inc. •
Currently, EPA, PADER and Cooper Industries are negotiating the scopeof the feasibility etudy for the site. These negotiations includethe collection of whatever additional data ie necessary tocharacterize the cite, complete a more quantitative risk assessmentand complete a feasibility etudy which will meet the requirements of
SARA and the NCP.
3.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DATA
3.1 Environmental Setting
3.1.1 Location
As depicted in Figure 3-1 taken from the RI report, the Osborne eite
ic located about one half mile east of Grove City, in Pine Township,
Mercer County, Pennsylvania. The eite ie eituated north of Pine
Street Extension in an abandoned coal strip mine approximately 15
acres in cize.
-8-
-i*
v0"1.**%&»
J**"J2 »«* S E ttl —~&S* ^ ^ l**-tm mJL ' SI* ~TWU"——*• _V *'I^isTff v sa —- . .
A »TVi »~ Jro'fe- ;!
'P- .(• /. . Js ffiU
X-
O f ^ P P'i - 'ij- ':i r-- ;-/-..- < Z *s!.-~ I—cTV _: w••-•AC tt.--T- -'.'pI1; / M -=F"V/'V Hs v i& - r1" ^ '-" c.J-»-/r7-J AA< •__ fX.- .t__J\Vi i-- xr-«=S •':..*
•tei ^ I
•vA " !«4 •*«•"•• •"'—??•^ '•• «*»V .
» i \r * j ^ ^ *»-. - vvi =. - •*« "r-% vV -L --*...A- /v •L- . •l**-\' <V .
•iiia jSwimpfeat ^ "T L:" ii i , *"• '. . ,- " \ . x v' *- ^ ^ - ;' 7-W\ .v..;«- r -S,• * • v.- V v - ^c•*•-* —
£-'-**-!
SCALE'l"tZ4,OOOFT FIGURE 3-1SITE LOCATION MAP
OSBORNE SITEDYKAMACOORP.
303423
The boundaries of the cite are demarcated by relatively prominent
topographic features such ae piles of mine spoils at the western
boundary and a highwall at the eastern boundary of the eite. Beyondthe mine spoils, to the couth and west, extend low lying brush and
wetlande. A email stream and the Pine Street extension form thesouthern boundary of the cite. Currently, a chain link fence,installed ae part of the Initial Remedial Measures undertaken at thesite by Cooper, demarcates the boundaries of the area where pactalleged disposal of various wastes has occurred.
3.1.2 Site Use
Usage of the Oeborne eite began in the 1900'e when the eite was
operated as a coal cine. Deep mining of the Brookville coal underthe present highwall was followed by strip mining of the coal expoeedat the bedrock interface near the 1,300 elevation datum. Strip
mining continued up to the present location of the highwalldemarcating the eastern boundary of the eite.
From the 1950*6 until 1963, Mr. Samuel Mooney operated the eite as a
disposal area. Disposal activities continued under the ownership of,
Mr. James Oeborne from 1963 until 1978 when the eite was closed by
PADER. Currently, the eite ie in the ownership of Mr. Ed McDougell
who also owns the cornfield located to the east on top of thehighwall.
~10~ 303426
During the 1960'e and 1970'e, materiale disposed at the Osborne eite
, , allegedly included industrial wastes, with lesser amounts of munici-
pal refuse. Although quantities of slag, scrap metal, wood, paper,and plaetic matter are found scattered around the entire eite, theexisting data suggests that the primary material disposed was foundrysand. All disposal activities were conducted within the 15 acretopographic valley created by the past coal etrip mining operations.
3.1.3 Physiography
Figure 3-2, taken from the RI report, shows the'current surface
featuree at the eite including the pond locations, the extent of thepiles of mine spoils at the boundaries of the eite and the encloseddisposal area. Determination of the areal extent of the spoils piles
and the disposal area boundaries was apparently based on aerial photointerpretations and field observations completed during the remedial
inveetigation.
In the early 1900's, when the cite operated as a coal etrip mine, a
1,500 foot long surface pit wae excavated in a southeast to northwest
direction beginning near Pine Street. Early topographic maps
demonstrate the existence of an elongated pond in the pit between the
north and south walls of trie stripped area. Ae a result ofsubsequent filling activities, which apparently commenced in the
southeast eection near Pine Street, only the northweeternmoet third
of thie ponded area remains. Presently, two smaller ponds arelocated southeast of the original pond along the base of the highwall
303427
STR£X
N-l N-_ N-S1 3 1 HE. AlttUC. 1
\GRID SPACING • 100 FT.
FIGURE 3-2SURFACE FEATURELOCATION MAPOSBORNE SITEDYNAMAC CORP.303428
to the northeast. A small intermittent stream enters thenroost
northerly pond from the north. There is no apparent surface drainage
out of this area, however, a wetland area and an intermittent smallstream are located immediately south of the mine spoils pile.
3.1.4 Site Drainage
As part of the 1984 Remedial Investigation undertaken by Cooper atthe Osborne site, topographic maps were developed establishing the
current site drainage patterns and addressing the potential for
off-site migration of contaminants via surface water runoff. Figure
3-3, which was also taken from the RI report, indicates that with the
exception of a small area on the southern boundary of the site, the
current topography prevents roost surface runoff generated on the
site, or flowing onto the site, from leaving the site. Instead,
surface runoff drains into the ponds which primarily discharge via
groundwater recharge. An exception to the above general drainage
pattern is a small area to the south of the entrance gate where
surface water drains into the intermittent stream forming the
southern boundary of the site.
3.1.5 Geology •
The Osborne site is located on the glaciated Allegheny plateau.
Bedrock geology in the Grove City area consiste of nearly flat lying
sedimentary rocks of late Paleozoic age. The eite eite on the
303429
12+00
S-4 $-5 S-2 SH A M-l N-2 N-3 N-4 N-5
GRID SPACING* 100 FT.
FIGURE 3-3
DRAINAGE MAP
OSBORNE SITEDYNAMAC CORP.
303420
western flank of the Pitteburgh-Huntington Basin. Generally, bedrock
formations exhibit a southward regional dip of about 14 feet permile. Major fractures occur along bedding planes. Although the area
is not located within a tectonically active zone which could -havecaused faulting, some joints may occur in the area. Figure 3-4, modi-fied from the RI report, shows a generalized stratigraphic column forthe Grove City area. Table 3-1 lists the geology and hydrogeology of
the lithologic units in the area. Figure 3-5, also from the RI
report, represents a geologic cross section of the Osborne site.
In brief, deposition of sediments in the Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian periods of the late Palezoic era was cyclic, and
gradational sequences of rock types found in this area are
continually repeated in the stratigraphic record. As a result,
lithologies vary with depth, and various formations may contain coal,
V__/ limestone, sandstone, shale, clay, or any combination of these.Although the formations themselves may be regionally extensive,
locally, formations may interfinger with other beds or may disappearcompletely.
Historically, glacial erosion has resulted in an undulating bedrock
surface. The subsequent deposition of glacial material in the
bedrock valleys left bedrock highs or "hydrologic islands" of bedrock
(Poth, 1963). These "islands" control regional groundwater and, to
some extent, surface water flow throughout the area. The Osborne
site is located at the edge of such a "hydrologic island" as
illustrated on Figure 3-6. Of note, as the glaciers eroded bedrock
to form the "hydrologic islands", coal was exposed at the
-15-
303431
HYOROQEOLOQICf SIGNIFICANCE
KENT(86 FT.)
SANDY. 8ILTY TILL - SHALLOW• I • jr* <£« *'N WATER TABLE AQUIFER (VARIABLE)
CLARION ' '•'•'•'•' '• •' ''/.I 8ANDY 8HALE' 0«ANHEL.^^ **• • • •* nTHHfTtiRifnfnmiimtttttmH«fHmMftMmNt«MMl fi A fc|f%ftT_*%MC BD S SbT%/lt f C
MERCERC10-16FT.)
Ul
••> iiiniiiiiiiiiiroiiiii!iiiiiiiiKiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinn————— potentlalVquIclud*
HOMEWOOD(66FT.)
CONNOQUENESSING(«OFT.)
MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINEDSANDSTONE, 8HALY NEAR TOP-LOCAL AQUIFER
SHALE -potential aqulclude
UPPERMEMBER: SANDSTONE •AQUIFER
MIDDLE MEMBER: SHALE*potential aqulcludeLOWER MEMBER: SANDSTONE-AQUIFER
SHALE - potential aqultard
BURQOON*(ttOFT.) SANDSTONE * MUNICIPAL WELL
AQUIFER
HEMPFIELD f SHALE - potential aqulclude
FIGURE 3-4GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC
COLUMNOSBORNE SITEDYNAMAC CORP.
30343ft
S, if • =
S « I _« I -5!<»«&* «£
- » s t,*5fll=f if? E« * ***» fliital
i '*. •* T,
i «-ri it£_
I III** •» 9 m « ,. . • cl»
fl 61 « 5 1ZW ST2 fl« If i|** •• ** Wi--*fe y« *L'- 1=5 i o§t ii i! iflI jff.l if, . ;i| h ! ii iliii ill i ill I! in
i
p*
£5 ;
i
oD.8»
^? K * * * "fS5 S S = S ' sr
Si I I T T wI s I . 2 5 2 - 2^ £ £ :
s »I 11 1
2 M
303433
303/134
/•*\HYDROLOOJC
ISLAND MARGIN
AFTER HART, 1983
0 £ 1 &
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 3-6HYDROLOGIC ISLAND
MARGINSOSBORNE SITEDYNAMAC CORP.
303435
glacier-bedrock interface near the 1,300 foot elevation datum.
Subsequently, to permit removal of the coal, overburden was typically^-^ removed, or "stripped". At the Osborne location, the strip mine was
operated until it reached the previously mined area where coal had
already been removed by deep mining operations on the northeast side(high wall) of the site.
Underlying the glacial deposits is the Clarion formation, consistingof shale, sandstone, and coal. Due to mining activities, the Clarionformation is present near the Osborne site only under the cornfieldto the east of the highwall. Beneath the Brookville coal seam, lies
a basal underclay commonly called "fire clay". The clay layer wasfound in every boring installed during the RI and appears to becontinuous under the site. Underlying this underclay is a cyclicrepetition of lithologic units consisting of sandstones and shales.
i Based on regional and site specific data, the sandstone unitstypically act as aquifers, while the shale units may act to retard orprevent groundwater flow depending upon the degree of fracturing inthese units. The Komewood formation is the uppermost bedrock aquiferbeneath the underclay layer.
Progressively deeper, the upper and lower Connoquenessing sandstone
aquifers are capped by the Mercer shale formation and the middleshale member of the Connoque.nessing formation. Limited on-siteinformation suggests that these layers may act as confining layers in
isolating the deeper aquifers from the near surface aquifers in the
vicinity of the site.
-20-
303/136
Underlying the Connoquenessing formation is the Burgoon formation.The Burgoon formation is composed of two units, a shale unit and a
sandstone unit. The shale unit is approximately 10 feet thick andoverlays the sandstone unit. The lower sandstone unit is relativelypermeable.
3.1.6 Hydroereoloay
Most of the site appears to be in a groundwater recharge area,receiving infiltration from rainfall and surface water inflow. Under
these conditions, groundwater would be expected to migrate vertically
downward depending upon the extent to which the underclay and shalezones overlying the Komewood formation minimize vertical flow. Since
the hydrogeologic data and aquifer tests performed on these shale
zones, as part of the RI, indicated that these units may be
relatively impermeable, groundwater at this site is likely diverted
horizontally to discharge at the sides of the "hydrologic island".
Figure 3-7, from the RI report, provides a map of the water table atthe Osborne site. This figure suggests that groundwater under water
table conditions flows to the southeast. Based on information
gathered during the Osborne site void investigation report (Hart1983), there is also reason to believe that the site is also in
•
limited hydraulic connection with the groundwater in the mine voidzone near well CKW-l.
-21-
303437
X
(129046
(6CALE IN FT.)MEASUREMENTS TAKEN DECEMBERTHROUGH 6, 1669
FIGURE 3-7
WATER TABLE ATOSBORNE SITE
As taken from the RI report, Figure 3-8 shows the potentiometric
surface in the Homewood formation. Based on the existinginformation, groundwater flow in this formation appears to be to thesouth. As noted, the location of the disposal site and strip mine isat the margin of the "hydrologic island". Therefore the coal seamand underclay apparently have been eroded away to the west, south andeast beyond the site. Correspondingly, the Homewood appears to be in
hydraulic connection with surface waters, predominantly in adowngradient direction from the site. Under these conditions,groundwater may discharge to surface waters. Under certainconditions, however, surface water may also recharge the water levelsin underlying bedrock formations. This condition may be found in theHomewood formation in the area of well UMW-5.
As revised from the RI report on October 8, 1984 (See Responses to
DER/EPA Comments on RI Report, October, 1964), Figure 3-9 shows the
potentiometric surface map in the Burgoon aquifer. Groundwater in
this aquifer is flowing to the east. Given the "hydrologic island"concept, the discharge area for the Burgoon aquifer may be locatedwell beyond the area of the site, and the recharge area may be
potentially several miles up Wolk Creek to the north and west of the
site and Grove City.
3.1.7 Adjacent Land Uses
The land immediately surrounding the landfill is agricultural innature. Effects of the past mining operations are evident near the
-23-303459
% 1278.1'«'**••• lino.*?1)
1277'e too toe
I i(9CALI IN FT.)
'CONTOUH LINfl AIOVI UtT AM NOT SHOWNOU9 TO 19* OlFF.ftlNCI IN HfAO
FIGURE 3 8POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE INTHE HOMEWOOO FORMATION
OSBORNE SITEDYNAMAC CORP.
303440
/r
1248.8'«etn-t (1146.43*)
REVISED ocToeep axita*FIGURE 8-9
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE INTHE BURGOON FORMATION
OSBORNE SITE(SCALZ IN FT.)DYNAMAC CORP.
30344!
site. Adjacent to the top of the highwall on the north is a largecornfield owned and farmed by Mr. Ed McDougal, present owner of the
Osborne site. The area to the east is mostly wooded. New homes have
recently been built to the north, along Enterprise Road, severalolder rural homes also exist to the east. South and east of the land-fill are low-lying brush and wetlands on both sides of Pine street.N
3.2 Problem Assessment
i! While the existing data for the site appears to demonstrate that thesite poses a relatively low risk to human health and the environment,it is also clear that given the nature of the disposal activities and
the complexity of the geology in particular, the existing database is
limited and may not be sufficient to satisfy the current SARA /
requirements.) In that context, the following sections provide an:Joverview of the potential problems posed by the site and the key
issues that must be resolved in the additional data collectionprogram and the forthcoming feasibility study.
3.2.1 Kature and Extent of Contamination
Table 3-2 provides an overview of the types of contaminants found in•
the RI investigation and the subsequent NUS soil study. While thebulk of this data is presented directly in the RI, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
-26-
303442
TABLE 3-2
OVERVIEW OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED BY MEDIA
MEDIA COMMENTS
Air No quantitative data is available althoughqualitative air quality data collectedutilizing a portable GC during the fieldinvestigation and interim 'remedial measuresprogram suggests that large quantities ofnon-methane organics are not being releasedinto the air column
Surface Wastes Approximately 600 drums were stored andremoved from the site during the 1983 interimremedial measures program. Drummed materialsincluded various waste types includingorganic liquids with/without high halogencontents, inorganic liquids, sludges andsolids. In summary, chemical analyses ofselected drums indicated low concentrationsof RCRA metals and PCBs with high BTU valuesand generally low pHs. A total of tenpriority pollutants (2 organics/ 8 inorganics)were identified in six composite samples fromthe drums
Surface Soils Only a limited amount of data on surfacesoils was collected during the interimremedial measures program. This datagenerally indicated slightly acidicconditions and low levels of RCRA metals.Additional surface samples were collectedfrom test pits by EPA/NUS in September of1985. A total of 53 chemicals (32 organics,12 metals) on the Hazardous Substance List(HSL) were identified in the NUS samples. Atotal of 52 chemicals (37 organics, 15metals) . on the HSL list were identified inthe duplicate samples provided to CooperIndustries. Of note, significant QA/QCproblems were allegedly experienced with theNUS data. In addition, it is not clear thatthis data is representative of surfaceconditions since the sampling effortallegedly concentrated on those locations atwhich releases from drummed materials hadapparently occurred.
-27-
303443
MEDIA COMMENTS
Surface Waters Surface water data as presented in the RIreport included analytical results from PADERsampling efforts in 1977 and 1980, EPAsampling efforts in 1981 and 1982 and Coopersampling results from 1983. This dataindicated generally low to elevated levels ofmetals and low levels of organics
Subsurface Wastes The RI resulted in the collection ofrelatively little direct analytical data oncontaminants in subsurface wastes. Limiteddata available from historical records andfrom the on-site test borings completedduring the RI appears to indicate that thebulk of the on-site wastes consists offoundry sands. The most relevant data fromthe RI on the nature of the subsurface wastematerials consists of the analytical datafrom the monitoring wells installed directlyin the waste materials. Data from these"leachate" wells identified a limited numberof primary pollutants at generally low concen-trations including the following chemicalspecies: benzene, 1,1,1-TCA, vinyl chloride,TCE, total xylene, nickel, chromium, lead,mercury, beryllium, thallium, iron, manganeseand arsenic.Additional subsurface soil data was collectedas a result of the EPA/NUS sampling efforts.This effort consisted of excavating and samp-ling subsurface soils at seventeen on-sitelocations. Subsequent chemical analysesresulted in the identification of 58 chemi-cals (38 organics, 20 metals) on the Hazar-dous Substance List (HSL) from the variouslocations and depths sampled. Analysis ofthe duplicates provided to Cooper Industriesresulted in the identification of 52 chemi-cals (40 organics, 12 metals) on the HSLlist. Again, it is not clear whether thisdata . is representative of subsurfaceconditions since the sampling effort focusedonly on three locations where buried drums orother wastes were located.
Groundwater Groundwater at the site was sampled inDecember of 1983 and January and April of1984. In general, low levels of cadmium,chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, benzene,Bis(2-ethylhyxyl)Pthalate, ethylbenzene,toluene, TCE, pentachlorophenol, etc. weredetected at the site in various formations atdifferent times.
3034H-
o overall the surface materials collected and disposed in the
interim remedial measures program typically would not beconsidered highly hazardous
o the limited information on surface water and soils suggeststhat surface materials/ have not been significantlycontaminated with materials other than those expected to beassociated with the apparent source of most of the wastematerials (i.e. heavy metals resulting from foundryoperations)
o while little information on subsurface materials isavailable, the generally better than expected quality of theleachate and the largely uncontaminated nature of the deeperaquifers suggests that either (1) significant quantities of
contaminant are not present in the fill, (2) that thesecontaminants were present but have already been flushed out
of the waste materials, or (3) that contaminants are present
but have not yet been released (i.e. buried drums)
3.2.2 Potential Exposure Pathways
Table 3-3 provides a summary of the potential exposure pathways
associated with the Osborne Landfill site. In general, while several
pathways may be hypothetically available, existing site conditionsand/or the lack of receptors appears to limit to some extent theexisting potential for exposure to contaminants affiliated with the
site.
-29-
303443
e<
ItoO•J<
MMS
gUccc
XU•J<
U
•O I «H >,>, «O£ Ift) <H (0 <-( J3 ft> U £*J (0-H ft) 4J*H 4J•H 4J «O C» *H £ 9E W O h ft) E * <C•H C E C tO -H c^•H O rH S *-< 3
h C*>,en >ic v•H C JS «-<-H 4JiH-H O«O i-tO-HWC O E -H ft) « C W hhC*H£N h C I Oft) t) h >-H ft) <w C*ic«w ft> h c o aft) *l O V ft)cn>tC E£ crsmn o*» *> «4J«H C h
3 h ft)-SSS'9
3 h en«e P h o•°8ene> c b." *> -» B -H »in a ft>Oh CJ O IQ«H 3 B B fci r< _ . S>£ O 1Jft)4J O JQ O >i
Id C 4J « 4J «H3 C? a «H C3_ - r- -io>c> -H - tn N o) C c)10 O U <0 C l>i 'H
^ ~ . O b V > 3 «C h<T5 PH E ah <T3^ 0
C 4J (0 i> •-! «O C *J- - C) C ti c etr> n _ ~ _(0 « h -H c O +J> 3 C 0) h O > 3 (0 h ft! *J O- - - - - - ^_ . _ owa
O O10 M4J toc cO 0) *JO O W
M
. 10 UU (0(0
SN-O 9C. O Wgg.
S -HV E CO */(C•HOCQ O h
-H c er> c -H c h h c « HO O 3 (0 O OS 3-< C>U*M(Q(0 O W -D > h
><
g 41U hC WC (0 Co * **u n*> o -ou 10 c« <M 3ij j *j O•H .H S hO < W O
