Spectron Superfund Site Proposed Plan Contaminated Shallow Soils

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

5. Proposed Plan • EPA’s Recommended Cleanup Method or “the Preferred Alternative” • Subject to change based on comments • Your comments and concerns? • Be heard today • Write or email us before August 20, 2003 • Final Cleanup Determination • 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 Background1881 – 1954 Kenmore Paper Mills

8. Spectron Superfund Site1961 – 1988 Galaxy Chemicals/Spectron, Inc. Contaminants of Concerns – Solvents Trichloroethene("TCE") and Perchloroethene ("PCE")

9. Spectron Superfund Site1989 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 2000 - 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. Power House (existing) SOIL OPERABLE UNIT 1 BEDROCK OPERABLE UNIT 2

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 4. Excavation “hot spots” with off-site disposal, and a soil cover 5. Soil Vapor Extraction (vacuum) with plastic cap

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

23. EPA’s Preferred AlternativeSub-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) 814-3451; sanchez.robert@epa.gov • Carrie Deitzel, Community Involvement Coordinator (215) 814-5525; deitzel.Carrie@epa.gov

28. For more info, check out the EPA’s Spectron Web Site http://epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/MD/spectron End of slides. Thank you for coming.

29. Alternative Cost Summary * O & M costs include $360K for Ground Water Containment System operation