Spectron Superfund Site Proposed Plan Contaminated Shallow Soils U.S. EPA Region III June 26, 2003 Philadelphia, PA Robert J. Sanchez US EPA - Remedial Project Manager

2 Meeting Agenda  Superfund Process  Participants  Site History  Cleanup Action History  Elements of the Proposed Plan  Next Steps

3 Superfund Process Investigation  How much contamination?  Where is the contamination?  What are the conditions on-Site?  What are the risks? Feasibility Study  How can we clean this up?  Possible Alternatives

4 Notification/ Site Discovery EPA's Superfund Process Proposal to NPL (Finalized on NPL) Sites in the Remedial Program may be referred to the Removal Program at any time, and vice versa. Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Removal Assessment Removal Action REMOVALREMEDIAL Proposed Plan Record of Decision Remedial Design Remedial Action Operation & Maintenance Proposed Deletion Community Involvement and Enforcement take place throughout the Superfund Process. Public comment is solicited at Proposal to NPL, Proposed Plan, and Proposed Deletion. Deleted from NPL No Action No Action (…if finalized on NPL…) Prelim. Assessment/ Site Inspection/ HRS Scoring

5 Proposed Plan  EPA’s Recommended Cleanup Method or “the Preferred Alternative” Subject to change based on comments Subject to change based on comments  Your comments and concerns? Be heard today Be heard today Write or us before August 20, 2003 Write or us before August 20, 2003  Final Cleanup Determination Record of Decision (ROD) Record of Decision (ROD)

6 Participants   Federal Government US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ("ATSDR").   State Government Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE),   Potential Responsible Parties (PRPs)   Local Governments and   The Public

7 Historical Background 1881 – 1954 Kenmore Paper Mills

8 Spectron Superfund Site 1961 – 1988 Galaxy Chemicals/Spectron, Inc. Contaminants of Concerns – Solvents Trichloroethene("TCE") and Perchloroethene ("PCE")

9 Spectron Superfund Site 1989 EPA Begins Removal Action

10 Historic Cleanup Actions  500,000 gals of flammable chemicals removed  Residential Well Sampling Program Started  Ground water containment system Installed  Contaminated Shallow Soil – Operable Unit 1  Contaminated Bedrock – Operable Unit 2

11 Residential Well Sampling Program  Responsible Parties agreed to pay cost of sampling your wells.  Over 5 years of sampling wells.  Continues to meet drinking water standards.  Sampling will continue.

12 Ground Water Containment System  March Startup of ground water containment system.  Treats 40,000 gallons of contaminated ground water per day.  Levels dropped significantly in Creek  IT DOES NOT SMELL ANYMORE!!!

13 Ground Water Containment System

14 Ground Water Containment System

15 Little Elk Creek Contaminant Levels

16 Mass Removal of Contaminates

17 Operable Unit #1 (Phase 1) Shallow Soil Contamination OU #1 Includes:  Ground water containment system  Plant area soils (approx 7 acres)  Soil down to the bedrock (4ft to 15 ft deep) OU #2 Includes:  Office Area  Bedrock  Ground water (off-site)  Residential wells/Creek

18 Operable Unit 1 Coverage Plant Area down to Bedrock

19 SOIL OPERABLE UNIT 1 BEDROCK OPERABLE UNIT 2 Power House (existing)

20 Proposed Plan Common Elements  Ground water containment, collection and treatment system  Demolish all old structures  Re-Grade Site  Deed Notices not to build or drill a well

21 Proposed Plan Alternatives Alt # 1. No Action 2. Phytoremediation (Trees) soil cover 3. Sub-surface treatment and an engineered plastic cap engineered plastic cap 4. Excavation “hot spots” with off-site disposal, and a soil cover 5. Soil Vapor Extraction (vacuum) with plastic cap

22 Ground Water Containment System Ground Water Containment System Continue to meet Water Quality Criteria in CreekContinue to meet Water Quality Criteria in Creek Sub-Surface Treatment of contamination Sub-Surface Treatment of contamination Treats contamination - residual DNAPLTreats contamination - residual DNAPL Engineered Protective Cover (“Plastic Cap”) Engineered Protective Cover (“Plastic Cap”) Prevent current or future direct contactPrevent current or future direct contact Institutional Controls Institutional Controls Prevent current and futurePrevent current and future use of ground water EPA’s Preferred Alternative Sub-surface treatment and an engineered plastic cap

23 EPA’s Preferred Alternative Sub-surface treatment and an engineered plastic cap WHY THIS ALTERNATIVE?  Provides sub-surface treatment  Provides protective barrier between people and contamination  Prevents wash-outs due to floods  Helps minimizes flow to system  Less disruptive to community  Standard Construction methods  Cost effective

24 Preferred Alternative Sub-surface treatment and Engineered Cap

25 Drip Track

26 Next Steps  End of Comment Period: Aug 20, 2003  Issue Final Cleanup Plan – ROD: Sept 30  Consent Decree negotiations  Remedial Design – How to build it  Remedial Action – Construction Start-up

27 EPA Contacts  Robert Sanchez, Remedial Project Manager (215) ;  Carrie Deitzel, Community Involvement Coordinator (215)

28 For more info, check out the EPA’s Spectron Web Site End of slides. Thank you for coming.

29 Alternative Cost Summary Remedial Alternative DescriptionCapital Cost Annual O & M Cost Total O & M Present Worth (5%, 30 Yrs) Total Present Worth (5%, 30 Yrs) 1No Action$0 2 Phytoremediation with Soil Cover $2,119,581$445,000*$7,031,000 $9,150,581 3 In-Situ Treatment with Engineered Cover $1,984,706$452,666*$7,152,123 $9,136,829 4 Excavation and Off- Site Disposal and a Soil Cover $8,649,829$375,000*$5,925,000 $14,574,829 5 Soil Vapor Extraction with Engineered Cover $3,784,648 (1-10yr) $395,000* (1-30yr) $590,000* $6,241,000 $4,513,500 $14,539,148 * O & M costs include $360K for Ground Water Containment System operation