C&R BATTERY SITE PRP GROUP

Chart* A. Smitft, Jfc Rkted K. Bcnnctt, Eiq.Cbunnia Vice fV''pnMc/o Smith boa A MetmJ Company, Inc. c/o McS«eeaer, Burtcfa & Cnnna P.C3000 Beffc KiMd I P. O. Be* 1463Rk&maad, Vughiii 23234 ______ Rkfcmood, Vupaia 23212

January 15, 1991

Mr. Peter W. Schaul, CMef (3HW10)Superrund Program BranchU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 •

C&R Battery Super-fond Site

Dear Mr. Schaul:

As we notified you in our letter of October 25, 1990, a PRP Group for theC&R Battery Superfund Site has recently been formed, and submits herewith itscomments on EPA's Remedial Investigation ("RT), Feasibility Study ("PS") andaddendum and Record of Decision ("ROD") for the site.17 All of the members of thisPRP Group received initial requests for information from EPA only after thecomment period had closed and the Record of Decision ("ROD") for this site hadbeen published on April 3, 1990. Consequently, none of tHe* Group members had anyopportunity to submit comments on the RI/FS -pr;prQpbse*d ROD since they had notimely notice of their potential involvement*ia4fi Superfund site.

The PRP Group has'retained a consultant, ENVIRON Corporation, to evaluateEPA's RI/FS and ROD for the C&R Battery site. The enclosed comments, preparedby ENVIRON and another consultant, Hatcher-Sayre, Inc., and endorsed by the PRPGroup, constitute significant information that is not contained in the AdministrativeRecord for this site and that substantially supports the need to alter significantly theresponse action selected by EPA. The National Contingency Plan ("NCP") requiresEPA to consider and respond to these comments. 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8S61 (Mar. 8,1990) (to be codified at 40 CF.R. § 300.825(c)).

y As was noted in our October 25 letter, neither participation in the PRP Group rendorsement of the attached comments constitutes an admission of liability withrespect to the C&R Battery site.

ROOOOO

Mr. Peter W. SchaulJanuary 15, 1991Page 2

The attached comments support three basic conclusions: (1) In developing theROD EPA significantly underestimated the cost of implementing the remedy selected;(2) In the Remedial Investigation EPA significantly overestimated the risk to humanhealth presented by this site; and (3) EPA selected a remedial action based oninaccurate assumptions, incomplete data and technical uncertainties, and did notevaluate certain appropriate alternatives in the Feasibility Study ("FS"). In addition,as the comments document, the information in the RI/FS documents is subject tomajor uncertainties that have led its authors to make overly conservative assumptions.We believe that this degree of conservatism is not justified and that additional, readilyobtainable site information would clearly show the availability of less drastic, lesscostly remedies which are more consistent with the National Contingency Plan thanthe Remedial Alternative currently proposed by EPA. Indeed, we believe that theselected Remedial Alternative is not consistent with either the current or former NCPin important ways. We recommend that EPA reopen the ROD to resolve the criticaldeficiencies and uncertainties described in the comments and re-evaluate its proposedRemedial Alternative in light of this improved knowledge.

Cost Estimate

Our investigation, which relies primarily on EPA-generated site data, indicatesthat EPA's estimate of $15 million for the overall cost of disposal of treated soilsfrom the site is at least $10 million and perhaps as much as $20-25 million too low.The only nearby landfill that will consider accepting soils from the C&R Battery sitewill charge at least twice as much as EPA's estimate of $30 per ton. In addition,since the distance from this landfill to the site is more than four times EPA'sestimate, the transportation costs will be significantly higher. Furthermore, EPA'sestimates for excavation and loading apparently did not take into consideration thecost of dust control and worker protection.

Risk

Using EPA's own guidance documents, ENVIRON concluded that EPA's RIand ROD significantly overestimated the risk to human health presented by the C&Rsite. For example, when preparing the Remedial Investigation (NRT), EPA used thereference dose for lead in spite of the fact that EPA had revoked it and haddeveloped the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic ("IU/BK") Model to assess health risksassociated with lead in the environment Unlike other Superfund sites where lead isa significant contaminant, EPA did not apply the IU/BK Model at the C&R Batterysite. In addition, the parameters used in calculations for accidental ingestion ofsurface soils are not consistent with the RTs intuitively sensible conclusion thattransient teenage trespassers were the most likely visitors to the C&R Battery site.

AROQ0002

L , Page 3

Mr. Peter W. SchaulJanuary 15, 1991

Obviously, teenagers are not nearly as likely to ingest soil as younger children. Manyof the other assumptions employed in the calculations in the risk assessment do notreflect the fact that this site is located in an industrialized area, not a residential area.

The risk assessment presents further problems. The calculation of the riskpresented by fugitive dust uses an inappropriate emission equation developed foractive storage piles, not for the weathered soils found at this site; and it relies,improperly, on wind speed data for elevated points rather than ground level. Thesetwo factors result in a significant overestimation of emissions. Similarly, thedispersion model in the ROD overestimated the actual off-site concentrations of leadand arsenic, incorrectly used a value for total suspended particulates instead of therespirable paniculate concentration, and assumed exposure durations in excess ofthose specified by current guidance. Correction of these errors should reduce the riskpresented by fugitive dust by approximately two orders of magnitude, from the 5.1 x10"' level found in the RI to significantly less than 1 x 10*, perhaps as low as 10*.

We also believe that EPA's concern about health risks, based on the site'sbeing in a residential neighborhood with considerable potential for fugitive dust, issimply wrong on the facts. There are no, or virtually no, houses within 2000 feet ofthe site in any direction. There are none, or virtually none, in the prevailingdownwind semicircle centered on NNE, for at least two miles from the site. The soilsat the site are encrusted and partly vegetated, thus vastly reducing the potential forfugitive dust emissions, even to unpopulated areas.

The use of overly conservative and outdated parameter values, mentionedabove, has also resulted in a significant overestimation of potential exposures andresulting risk for assumed ingestion of contaminated soil and debris. For example, inestimating the risk of exposure by ingestion, absorption factors have been appliedinappropriately, the soil ingestion rate used is not consistent with current EPAguidance, and the time-weighted average dose used is much too high for anonresidential site. Also, much of the data used in calculating concentrations ofcontaminants in surface soils is qualified, which means there & a high degree ofuncertainty associated with a risk assessment based on these data.

Remedial Action

A prominent feature of the ROD documents is the use of unverifiedassumptions at numerous and sometimes all steps in a sequential reasoning process.These uncertainties tend to compound one another; hence the ultimate uncertaintyband, and its potential cumulative effect on proposed remedies, is substantialPrincipal areas of uncertainty noted in the comments include:

fiROOOO'03

Mr. Peter W. SchaulJanuary 15, 1991Page 4

• Site history; Uncertainties about the location, nature and mobility ofbattery breaking operations and about 1986 removal activities haveobvious implications for the likely locations of contamination and theconfidence with which these characteristics can be inferred from thelimited site data.

• Nature and Extent of Contamination: The absence of reported data fromthe Capitol Oil site and the area approximations resulting fromquestionable isopleths, combined with the extent of qualified data, rendersuspect the basis for the choice of remedies identified to date.

• Characterization of Health Risks: Use of incorrect or outdated baselinerisk assessment procedures and of incorrect modeling of fugitive dustemissions render risk reduction estimates uncertain, and the choice ofremedial actions dependent on them suspect In addition, the use in theROD of Iff* as a carcinogenic risk criterion is not consistent either withrisk levels accepted at other sites, nor with the FS. The ROD'S choice ofsurface soil cleanup levels (small children residential-use levels) isinconsistent with the nonresidential character of the site.

• Choice of Remedial Alternatives: Undocumented cleanup criteria actionlevels, undisclosed assumptions as to the cost and feasibility of variousremedial alternatives, and inconsistencies between the Proposed Plan andthe ROD cast doubt on the choice among alternative remedies.

We disagree in many respects with the remedial actions proposed in the RODon the basis of incorrect or inadequate information, They are neither appropriate norcost-effective in light of the information contained in our comments. We believe thatEPA should not proceed further with remedial design until it resolves the numerouserrors and uncertainties described in the attached comments and summarized above.We believe that the following aspects of the proposed remedial action are particularlyunjustifiedt

• Needless excavation of large amounts of subsurface soils that do notpose any significant threat to health or environment

• Unjustified use of an action level of 450 mg/kg for drainage ditchsediments, along with an unjustified proposal to require their removaland treatment

• Needless treatment of large quantities of materials whose classification ashazardous waste has not been properly justified.

AROOOOOi*

Mr. Peter W. SchaulJanuary 15, 1991

L , Page 5

• Underestimation of the cost of disposing of treated waste at an approvedsanitary or industrial waste landfill, and unjustified proposals to requiredismantlement and treatment of sheds, tires and other site materials.

• Unnecessary RCRA clean closure requirement for former acid pondarea, combined inconsistently with a proposal to require implementationof an environmental monitoring plan for it

• Unjustified treatment of areas outside the former acid pond area in thesame manner as those inside it

The attached comments represent a good-faith effort by the PRP group toevaluate and constructively analyze EPA's work to date. If we had had anopportunity to participate in the RI/FS and ROD before their completion, many ofthe problems that we have identified could have been addressed earlier.

-' The PRP Group's present goal is to ensure that the funds of any Groupmembers who may ultimately be found liable, and those of taxpayers, are spent

. , efficiently and effectively. For the reasons set forth in the comments and summarized—/ -.: above, we do not believe that the remedial action that was chosen meets those

criteria. Nor would any remedial alternative based on the present ROD. As noted• above, EPA's proposal is both far more expensive than the ROD and supporting

documents suggest, and far more sweeping than their analysis justifies. And since thedeficiencies in the ROD and supporting documents, from site characterization throughrisk analysis, are fundamental, mere optimization of the presently proposed remedywill not address them.

Though CERCLA gives EPA broad remedial powers, those powers are notwithout limits: where EPA has failed to carry its burden of justification, courts haverejected EPA's remedies under CERCLA. United States of America y.. Hardage (Civ.86-1401-P, WJ>. Okla Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for RemedySelection Phase, August 9, 1990). The PRP Group would strongly prefer negotiationwith EPA of an agreed-upon plan for site remediation over the otherwise unavoidablealternative of potentially protracted litigation with EPA over a cleanup which itr pro

inlybelieves to be unnecessarily expensive, ill-designed, and inconsistent with the NCP.

We hope that EPA will agree that the attached comments meet the test underthe National Contingency Plan for reopening the ROD: that they present significantinformation not already contained in the Administrative Record for the site and thatthey substantially support the need to significantly alter the proposed response actionfor the C&R Battery site. 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8861 (Mar. 8, 1990). In light of thestrong evidence that the risks presented by the site have been overestimated and the

SR000005

Mr. Peter W. SchaulJanuary 15, 1991Page 6 .

cost for removal and off-site disposal have been greatly underestimated, we believethat the comments provide a basis for EPA to open discussions with the PRP Groupconcerning various approaches to design and implementation of a cleanup of the C&RBattery site. We believe that the deficiencies that we have identified can be remediedby weU designed, relatively inexpensive further site work and more consistent,improved analysis. We also believe that, in the meantime, continued work by theCorps of Engineers on a remedial design based on the current ROD merelycompounds existing problems and is likely to represent a waste of time and money.We request that EPA call a temporary pause to that work while it evaluates theattached comments and undertakes discussions with the PRP Group.

We are also concerned that the list of PRFs identified by EPA to date omitssignificant contributors. EPA's list of potential contributors to the site, at least asidentified by publicly available documentation of EPA's J 104(e) letter process, omitscertain potentially significant private entities and, even more important in terms ofpotential contribution, agencies of the federal and Virginia state governments. Theseare also among the matters the PRP group would wish to discuss with EPA at ameeting.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Smith, Jr.

Attachmentcc Mr. Thomas C Voltaggio - EPA (3HWOO)

Mr. William Hazel - EPA (3HW24)Mr. Paul Leonard - EPA (3HW24)Ne* Wise, Esq. - EPA (3RC20)Lydia bales, Esq. - EPA (3RC23)Yvette Hamilton, Esq. - EPA (3RC23)Ms. Joan Armstrong - EPA (3HW11)Ms. Cynthia V. Bailey • Va. DWMMr. K. C Das - Va. DWMMembers, C&R Battery Site PRP Group

AR000006

COMMENTS ON THE RI/FS AND ROD FORTHE C&R BATTERY SUPERFUND SITE

Prepared for

C&R Battery Superfund Site PRP Group

Prepared by

ENVIRON* CorporationArlington, Virginia

January 14, 1991

4R000007

CONTENTS

Page

I. The cost of the selected remedial action has been underestimated 1

II. The baseline risks to human health have been overestimated 3A. Comments on the Risk Calculations for Fugitive Dust 6

I. Development of an Emission Rate 72. Dispersion Modeling 83. Risk Calculations 9

B. Comments on the Risk Calculations for Ingestion of Soils andDebris 101. Calculation of Concentrations in Surface Soils 102. Estimation of Exposure due to Ingestion of Soils and

Debris " 143. Calculation of Human Health Risks Corresponding to

Exposure Estimates 15C. Estimation of the Health Risks Attributable to Lead Contamination IS

III. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study contain numerousdeficiencies and sources of uncertainty 17*A. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the History of the Site 188. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the Nature and Extent of 19

ContaminationC. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the Characterization of 21

Health RisksD. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Associated with the Remedial 23

Alternatives

IV. The selected remedial action may not be appropriate or cost-effective 24A. The selected remedy requires excavation of subsurface soils 25

that do not pose any significant threat to human health orthe environment.

B. The action level of 450 mg/kg for drainage ditch sediments 25is not justified.

C. The selected remedy requires treatment (stabilization) of 26materials that are not properly classified as hazardous waste.

D. The selected remedy requires disposal of the treated material 27in an approved sanitary or industrial waste landfill.

E. The selected remedy specifies a RCRA clean closure for the 27former acid pond area.

F. The selected remedy specifies that areas of residual contamination 28outside of the former acid pond area be covered with six inches ofclean topsoil and revegetated.

x*- '

flRoooooe

I. The actual cost of Implementing the remedial action described in the Record ofDecision will be much greater than EPA's estimate. A major portion of the costincrease is associated with off-site disposal of the treated material. Newinformation indicates that most of the local landfills will not accept this material,and that the lowest-cost option for disposal will cost approximately twice as muchas EPA's estimate.

Estimates of the cost of the selected remedial action have been provided in theFeasibility Study (FS), the Proposed Plan, and the Record of Decision (ROD). In the FS,the costs are presented on page 4-43 as $15,572,000 (capital cost) corresponding to a presentworth of $15,292,000. These estimates are outlined in more detail in Appendix B of the FS.In this appendix, the cost figures are reversed; the capital cost appears as $15,291,900 andthe total present worth is given as $15,572,000. The Proposed Plan includes a capital cost of$15,292,000 and a present worth of $15,572,000. The ROD states that the present worth is$15,292,000 (page 42). Obviously, there has been some confusion regarding these estimates.

The details of the cost estimate for the selected alternative have been reviewed by.Hatcher-Sayre, Inc., a consultant to a group of PRPs for the C&R Battery site. This reviewindicates that EPA has grossly underestimated the true cost of implementing the selectedremedial action. This finding is documented in Hatcher-Sayre's report, which is included inthis set of comments as Attachment I and is summarized below.

, The major differences between Hatcher-Sayre's estimate and the EPA estimateprovided in Appendix B of the FS are in the costs of excavation, loading, hauling, anddisposal of the treated material. Hatcher-Sayre relied on EPA's line items and quantityestimates, partly because the media volume calculation worksheets provided in the copy ofthe Administrative Record maintained at the Chesterfield County Library were largelyillegible.

EPA*s cost estimate is based on the assumption that the treated waste materials will beaccepted by a local landfill (a 15-mile round trip) at a cost of $30/ton. Hatcher-Sayrecontacted five local landfills to determine whether or not they would accept the treated soils,sediment, and debris from the C&R Battery site; with one exception, these landfills refused toaccept this waste. The only local landfill that might accept this material (Charles CityLandfill, operated by Chambers Development Co.) provided a cost quotation ofapproximately $7,000,000 for disposal of 117,635 tons; this corresponds to a unit cost of$59.50/ton, almost twice EPA's estimate. Although a lower cost (approximately $6,000,000)was quoted for disposal in an existing cell, this option would depend on the timing of theremedial action; it is unlikely that these savings could be realized. These cost estimates were

-I- ENVIRON

AR000009

obtained in June 1990, and Chambers Development Co. has recently indicated that thedisposal costs are likely to increase by at least ten percent by the time the soils from the C&RBattery site are excavated and treated. Hatcher-Sayre believes that a number of the locallandfills refused to accept these wastes to avoid becoming involved in controversysurrounding the C&R Battery site. ENVIRON expects that the operators of the local landfillsare reluctant to accept a large volume of wastes from a Superfund site, even after treatment,because it may be of significant concern to their neighbors and clients. Also, the estimatedvolume of waste from the C&R Battery site simply may be too large for some of the locallandfills to accept. For these reasons, the operators of the Charles City Landfill may decidein the future not to accept waste from the C&R Battery site, or to increase the disposal fee.

In anticipation of the possibility that none of the local landfills will accept this waste,Hatcher-Sayre also contacted a hazardous waste disposal facility. Laidlaw Environmental,operators of the GSX facility in South Carolina, quoted a disposal fee of $87.50/ton fortreated* non-hazardous soils in a letter dated July 2f 1990. This is nearly three times the unitcost on which EPA's estimate is based. The GSX facility is believed to be the nearesthazardous waste disposal facility to the C&R Battery site. On December 11, 1990,ENVIRON was quoted a cost of $97.50 per ton for disposal of the treated soils from theC&R Battery site and informed that this unit cost would probably increase by ten percent ormore by the summer of 1991.

The Charles City Landfill is located approximately 32 miles from the C&R Batterysite. Each round trip would be more than four times as far as the 15 miles assumed inpreparing EPA's estimate; the costs of hauling are expected to be significantly greater thanestimated by EPA. If EPA's estimated cost per mile is correct, the total cost of hauling thetreated soils would be more than $3.5 million, not $882,300 as listed in EPA's estimate. Ifthe waste cannot be disposed of locally, hauling to the GSX facility in South Carolina will beeven more expensive. In December 1990, ENVIRON was quoted a cost per load ofapproximately S1265 for transport from the Richmond area to the GSX facility. This impliesa total hauling cost of nearly $7,441,000.

EPA has estimated the cost of excavating the contaminated soils materials atS2.30/cubic yard, and the cost of loading the treated material into trucks at S.84/cubic yard.These estimates appear to have been made without considering the additional costs of dustcontrol and worker protection. Hatcher-Sayre obtained estimates from Ensite, Inc. of$15/cubic yard for excavation of soils and sediments and $5/cubic yard for loading the treatedmaterial. EPA appears to have grossly underestimated the cost of these operations.

Hatcher-Sayre also checked on the cost of disposing of the old tires, the storage shed,and the concrete pad. As with the treated soils, EPA assumed that these materials could be

-2- E N V I R O N

A R O u U O l O

disposed of locally for $30/ton. Hatcher-Sayre found that the cost had increased to$42.50/ton as of June 1990, and was likely to increase again before the remedial action isundertaken. Hatcher-Sayre's estimate of the cost of treating the soils, sediment, and debris is

S ^ more than 30 percent higher than EPA's, and is based on local price quotations obtained inMay and June, 1990. Another of Hatcher-Sayre's findings was that EPA had not included afigure for mobilizing and demobilizing of equipment at the C&R Battery site; they estimatedthat this will cost at least 525,000. This raises the possibility that other costs may have beenoverlooked; for example, the EPA estimate specifies that a total of 2600 cubic yards of soilswill be excavated from the drainage ditch, but there is no entry for disposal or furtherhandling of this material.

The cost review performed by Hatcher-Sayre was not exhaustive; only the mostsignificant of the unit costs were checked, and EPA's quantity estimates were not reviewed indetail. Even this level of review is sufficient to demonstrate that EPA has grosslyunderestimated the actual cost of implementing the selected remedial action. Hatcher-Sayre'sreport indicates that if the wastes can be disposed of at the Charles City Landfill, the totalcost is likely to exceed EPA's estimate by $10 million or more. If the treated wastes must bedisposed of at the GSX facility, the cost will probably exceed EPA's estimate by $20-25million (total capital cost).

II. EPA has significantly overestimated the human health risks at the C&R Battery, site. Information provided in recent guidance documents establishes that the

risks to human health associated with current conditions at the site are actuallymuch lower than reported in the baseline risk assessment.

One of the stated objectives of the risk assessment presented in section 6 of theRemedial Investigation (RI) is "to define the actual or potential risks to human health fromthe presence of hazardous materials on and around the site." The assumptions andmethodology used in calculating these risks are outlined in section 6, and the calculations arepresented in the appendices. EPA's estimate of the risks is summarized in Tables 6*2 and 6-3of the RI.

ENVIRON's review of the risk assessment presented in the RI identified numerouserrors. Analysis of the RI data with more appropriate methods demonstrates that thecumulative carcinogenic risks at this site are less than 10*, and that the Hazard Index valuesare less than 1.0 for all of the non-carcinogenic contaminants that can be addressed by thesemethods. The lead levels appear to be sufficiently high to justify a remedial action, but the

-3- ENVIRON

A R O O O O !

methods by which EPA analyzed the risks associated with lead are inappropriate. Specificshortcomings of the risk assessment presented in the RI include the following points:

The risk calculation methods used in the RI are not consistent with current EPAguidance documents, which were issued before the date of the RI.

An outdated reference dose approach was used for calculating the health risksassociated with lead, instead of the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic Model that iscurrently being used by EPA at a number of Superfund sites to assess lead uptake andassociated risk.

Although the site is zoned for industrial use and will not be used for residences, andEPA has stated that the population segment most likely to be exposed is teenagetrespassers, the health risk calculations were performed for small children withexposure parameters that might be assumed for on-site residents.

The health risks appear to have been calculated only for on-site soils, although theremedial action described in the ROD includes sediments and off-site soils as well.

• The emission equation used to estimate the contribution of suspended particulates fromthe site at off-site locations is inappropriate and was not correctly applied.

The relationship between the predicted off-site concentrations of lead and arsenic inthe fugitive dust is not consistent with the reported on-site soil concentrations. Theexact nature of the error that caused this inconsistency cannot be determined,however, because the relevant calculations have not been adequately documented inthe RI. It appears that the off-site health risk associated with arsenic in the fugitivedust has been overestimated by at least an order of magnitude.

Deposition and respirable particle size were ignored in calculating the health riskassociated with inhalation of fugitive dust.

There are inconsistencies in identification of the soil samples used in estimating thehealth risk associated with soil ingestion; these inconsistencies cannot be resolvedbecause of inadequate documentation.

-4- ENVIRON

A R O O O O I 2

Use of the XRF instrument for field screening of soil samples probably resulted in abiased data set and overestimation of the average levels of contamination.

The majority of the data used in characterizing the health risks at this site werequalified, presumably because of quality control problems, and it is not possible todetermine the nature or significance of these problems because of inadequatedocumentation.

Because of the problems noted above, the health risks associated with ingestion ofsurface soils appear to have been significantly overestimated.

These points are addressed in more detail in the following paragraphs.Many of the specific elements of the risk assessment in the RI are significantly

different from those recommended in current EPA guidance documents. Although some ofthese elements are consistent with earlier guidance documents, the current documents wereissued before the date of the RI (January 1990). The most significant of the currentdocuments is titled, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human HealthEvaluation Manual. This document, commonly referred to as RAGS, is dated December1989. Another important guidance document is the Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH),which is dated March 1989. To the extent possible with the limited information presented inthe Administrative Record, ENVIRON compared the risk estimates that would be developedunder current guidance with those presented in the RI.

One of the major faults of the risk assessment in the RI is its application of a,reference dose for lead. Page 6-8 of the RI itself indicates that the reference dose for leadhad been revoked at the time that the RI was being prepared. Its use in estimating the totalnon-carcinogenic risk for the site was therefore inappropriate. By this time the EPA haddeveloped other methods of assessing the health risks associated with lead in the environment,most notably the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic (IU/BK) Model. In contradiction to the RI andconsistent with EPA practice at a number of other Superfund sites at which lead is asignificant contaminant,. ENVIRON has applied the IU/BK model and excluded lead from theevaluation of total non-carcinogenic risks at the site.

In section 6.4.2 of the RI, the potential human and environmental receptors areidentified. According to the RI, the only humans expected to be on the C&R Battery site are"persons (probably teenagers) trespassing on site". This determination is contradicted by theparameters used in the risk calculations presented in Appendix H; the calculations foraccidental ingestion of surface soils are performed for children aged 6 to 11. The parameters

-5- ENVIRON

SROOOOI3

used in calculating the time-weighted average dose for these children suggest that they resideon the site and are exposed to the contaminated soil 70 percent of the time, 5 days per week,32 weeks per year. ENVIRON believes that performing the risk assessment for 6 to 11 year-old children is conservative (/.«., results in a risk assessment that likely overstates actualrisks) because these children are likely to ingest more soil than teenagers and are also moresusceptible to the potential adverse health effects of ingesting lead-contaminated soil.Because the site is located in an industrial area and future land use will likely be restricted,the possibility that children will reside on the site is extremely small. Therefore, ENVIRONhas estimated the health risks posed to children who trespass on the site with an averagefrequency of one day per week during the five-year period between ages 6 and 11. Thisassumption is still highly conservative, as it is very unlikely that any children would trespassat the site with this degree of regularity over a five-year period, especially 6 to 11 year olds.

The potential exposure routes addressed in the RI health risk assessment includeinhalation of fugitive dust, accidental ingestion of surface materials, and ingestion of groundwater from wells located downgradient of the site. For the two ingestion pathways, separateanalyses are performed to determine the health risks associated with on-site soils and with thedebris piles. Although the stated objective of the risk assessment includes determination ofthe risks associated with hazardous materials around the site and the ROD prescribes aremedial action for contaminated soils located on the adjoining property, the risks associatedwith off-site soils are not evaluated- in the RI. The risks associated with the drainage ditchsediments are not evaluated separately either, presumably because these sediments areconsidered to be similar in composition to the surface soils (page 6-9).

A. Comments on the Risk Calculations for Fugitive DustThe calculations for health risks associated with fugitive dust emissions are

presented in Appendix H of the RI. These calculations are based on the emission anddispersion modeling presented in Appendix I. ENVIRON's comments on thesecalculations are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Appendix I of the RI provides a description of the air modeling performed toestimate ambient air lead and arsenic concentrations at off-site receptor locations.Lead and arsenic associated with soil at the site may be released into the air as a resultof wind erosion and suspension of particulates. Ambient air concentrations werepredicted using an emission equation to provide a fugitive dust release rate, followedby the application of a dispersion model to simulate the downwind transport of thesuspended particles.

ENVIRON

dRQOOOU

1. Development of an Emission RateThe emission equation presented on page 1-8 of Appendix I was used to

estimate the total suspended paniculate (TSP) emissions during disturbances bystrong winds over open ground areas at the site. However, the original citationfor the equation (EPA 1985. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors.Volume I: Stationary point and the area sources. Fourth Edition. PB86-124906), states that the empirical emission equation was developed frommeasurements that were performed to. estimate the extent of paniculategeneration from wind erosion of active storage piles, and was intended to serveas a predictive model for releases from active piles. The erosion potential ofan active storage pile would be significantly higher than that of the weatheredsurface soils at the site because the "active" pile is by definition assumed to becontinuously replenished with credible elements, providing an infinite reservoirof suspendable particles to sustain emissions for the 70-year period assumed inthe modeling analysis. Therefore, the use of this equation to estimate fugitivedust emissions from weathered surfaces is inappropriate and would tend tooverestimate the actual emissions from the weathered surface soil at the site.

The active pile emission equation is expressed as a product of severalfactors, including factor T, defined in Appendix I as the percentage of timethat the unobstructed wind speed exceeds 5.4 meters per second (m/s). Thewind speed of 5.4 m/s sets a threshold below which paniculate suspension willnot occur. In applying the equation, factor T was estimated in the RI fromwind measurements at the nearest national weather station to the site; these dataare collected at the conventional measurement height of 7 to 10 m. Theoriginal citation for the active pile emission equation describes factor T as thepercentage of time the unobstructed wind speed exceeds 5.4 m/s at the meanpile height. In this particular application, the "mean pile height" would be theground elevation, not the anemometer height used in Appendix I. A 5.4 m/swind measurement at ground elevation would translate to a wind speedexceeding 25 m/s at a typical anemometer height. The frequency of windsexceeding this threshold at the anemometer height will be significantly lowerthat the value erroneously applied in the RI. Consequently, the TSP emissionrate predicted in Appendix I is significantly overstated.

In summary, the fugitive dust emission rates have been overstated bythe application of an inappropriate emission equation, derived for active storagepiles, to the weathered soils at the site. Furthermore, the equation was applied

-7- ENVIRON

incorrectly, resulting in a significant overestimation of emissions. These errorshave resulted in overestimation of the levels of lead and arsenic in the air atoffsite locations. It should be noted that the April 1988 Superfund ExposureAssessment Manual (SEAM) recommends the use of a wind erosion equationdeveloped by Skidmore and Woodruff that expresses the emission rate as afunction of vegetative cover, wind velocity, soil credibility index and severalother factors that take into consideration conditions at the site in deriving afugitive dust emission rate. Such an equation would be more appropriate thanthe equation used in the RI.

2. Dispersion ModelingThe Industrial Source Complex model, long term mode (ISCLT) was

used to predict off-site concentrations of lead and arsenic using the estimatedemission rates discussed above. A grid was developed for the site consisting of100-square-foot areas, and lead and arsenic emission rates were estimated foreach 100-square-foot area and used as input to the ISCLT model. The leademission rate for each area source is contained in Table 1-3; the values rangefrom 10~* to 10** grams per second per square meter (g/s-m2). The arsenicemission rates presented in Table 1-4 range between 10"9 and 10"10 g/s-m2.

The results of the modeling effort in the form of model output tableswere not included in the report; this oversight has complicated ENVIRON'sinterpretation of the calculations. However, a maximum annual leadconcentration of 0.0026 micrograms per cubic meter (Mg/m3) and a maximumannual arsenic concentration of 0.0082 wg/m3 were reported and subsequentlyused in the risk calculations. The arsenic concentration is 3.15 times higherthan the lead concentration. Since the arsenic concentrations in the sourceareas were less than the lead concentrations by two to three orders ofmagnitude, as apparent from the ranges of emission rates presented above, theoff-site annual arsenic concentration should not exceed the lead concentration.An error has apparently been introduced in the modeling runs, the source ofwhich could not be identified in the absence of the modeling, output tables.

The following calculation was performed to provide an estimate of themagnitude of the error in the arsenic concentration predicted in the RI. Thehighest arsenic concentration for the source areas reported in Table 1-2 is 58ppm. If it is conservatively assumed that the site generates sufficientparticulates to sustain air concentrations of particulates at the National Ambient

-8- ENVIRON

Air Quality Standard of 50 Mg/m3, and the concentration of arsenic on theparticulates is conservatively assumed to be 58 ppm (the highest concentrationreported for any source area), the air concentration of arsenic is calculated tobe 0.0029 Mg/m3. Given the series of conservative assumptions employed inderiving this concentration, the arsenic concentration would represent a "worst-case15" concentration that cannot be exceeded. Therefore, the arsenicconcentration of 0.0082 Mg/m3 reported in Appendix I must be in error.Assuming that the lead concentration of 0.0026 Mg/m3 reported in the RI iscorrect, the arsenic concentration should be 1-2 orders of magnitude lower,based on the relative concentrations of lead and arsenic reported for the sourceareas. Therefore, the predicted off-site risk associated with inhalation offugitive dust containing arsenic should probably be 1-2 orders of magnitudeless than the 5.12 x 10'5 estimated in the RI.

Other comments on the dispersion modeling include deposition andparticle size considerations. A conservative approach was adopted inperforming the dispersion modeling by disregarding deposition of particles.Particles that are suspended by wind erosion tend to deposit out in downwindtransport as a result of gravitational settling and atmospheric turbulence. Thedust emission rates presented in the RI represent particle sizes up to 30 microns(Mm) in diameter. Particles of this size range have appreciable settlingvelocities and the resulting deposition would deplete the dust plume indownwind transport. Because deposition was not considered, the actual off-siteconcentrations of lead and arsenic have been overestimated in the RI.

Further, the predicted concentrations were directly applied in estimatingexposures, without considering the fraction of particles of respirable size, /.*.,less than 10 Mm in diameter, that constitute the dust plume. Typically,respirable size particles do not exceed 50 percent of the total suspendedparticulates (EPA 1985). Therefore, the expected concentrations of respirableparticles are at least a factor of two lower than the total suspended paniculateconcentrations estimated in the analysis, and the estimated risks should becorrespondingly lower.

3. Risk CalculationsAppendix H. 1 of the RI presents the risks from exposure to the fugitive

dust concentrations predicted in Appendix I. As mentioned above, the use oftotal suspended paniculate concentrations instead of respirable paniculate

-9- E N VIRON

S R O O O O I 7

concentrations has overpredicted off-site concentrations by a factor of two.Additionally, an error in the dispersion modeling for arsenic, together with theincorrect use of the fugitive dust emission model, resulted in the overestimationof concentrations by at least two orders of magnitude. Correcting for theseerrors would reduce the estimated risk for arsenic in Appendix H,l from 5.1 x10"5 to a risk in the low 10"7 range.

Furthermore, the risk calculations in Appendix H.I are inconsistentwith EPA's RAGS guidance document, resulting in a further overstatement ofrisks. For a worst-case assessment, EPA recommends using an exposureduration of 30 years, in contrast with the 70-year exposure duration assumed inthe RI. The RI also assumes exposure for 24 hours per day, 365 days peryear, without considering human activity patterns, e.g., the likelihood thatindividuals will remain outdoors to be exposed to the predicted ambientconcentrations, or considering the reduction in dust generation during wintermonths when the ground is frozen. Finally, the absorption factor for arsenicinhalation that should be applied when using the slope factor of 50(mg/kg/day)*1 is 0.3, lower than the 0.4375 factor applied in the RI. Use ofthe 30-year worst-case exposure duration and the correct EPA absorption factoralone will reduce risks by a factor of 3.4. Consequently, the combination oferrors in the fugitive dust analysis, and the use of inappropriate exposurefactors has resulted in the risks at the site being significantly overestimated.Based on the above discussion, a revision in the fugitive dust risk analysis willresult in risks significantly less than 1 x 10"6, and likely to be in the 10'* range.

B. Comments on the Risk Calculations for Ingestion of Soils and DebrisENVIRON has identified a number of problems with the risk assessment

calculations for accidental ingestion of surface soils as presented in Appendix H of theRI. Other problems have been identified in the discussion of these calculations thatappears in section 6 of the text of the RI. These problems and their effects on thefinal risk values- are summarized in the following comments.

1. Calculation of Concentrations In Surface SoilsThe risk calculations presented in the RI are based on the average and

maximum concentrations of the indicator chemicals as determined from thedata tabulated in Appendix F. This approach is consistent with the SuperfundPublic Health Evaluation Manual (SPHEM), which was superseded by RAGS

-10- E NVIRON

in 1989. RAGS specifies the 95 percent upper confidence limit on thearithmetic average as the concentration value to be used in risk calculations. Acomparison of the average and maximum concentrations used in the RI withthe RAGS-prescribed concentration values establishes that the RAGS values arefar lower than the maxima. The 95 percent upper confidence limits presentedin Table 1 were developed using the procedures described on page 4-1 of theRI; non-detects were treated as zero, and duplicate samples were represented asa single sample using the higher of the two reported concentrations. AlthoughENVIRON notes that treating the non-detects as zero was not conservative,there were relatively few non-detects1 so the resulting bias would be slight.Also, the lack of any additional information (regarding analytical methods,reporting limits, etc.) in the available documents prevented ENVIRON fromusing a more conservative protocol.

ENVIRON's attempts to ensure that the same samples were included incalculating all of the values in the table were frustrated by the fact that thefootnotes on table 4-3 of the RI indicate that the on-site surface soil sampleswere numbered SO-01-00 through SO-25-00, SO-27-00, and SO-28-00.Samples numbered SO-26-00, SO-29-00, and SO-30-08 are identified asbackground surface soil samples, while those numbered SO-31-00 through SO-33-00 and SO-36-00 are identified as Capitol Oil Company surface soilsamples. These sample numbers are contradicted by the tabulation of the dataas it appears in Appendix F. In the appendix, all of the soil samples havenumbers of the form "CR-S014-00". Samples CR-SO29-00 and CR-SO30-00are described as background, but CR-SO26-00 is not. The appendix does notcontain any data for sample CR-SO27-00. This is consistent with RI table 2-3,but not with the footnotes on table 4-3. Table 2-3 indicates that no surfacesample was collected at SO-26 or SO-27; it also indicates that surface sampleswere not collected at SO-13 and SO-24, but data for surface samples at theselocations appear in Appendix F, Table 2-3 indicates that surface samples werecollected at SO-34 and SO-35, but data for these samples were not found in theappendix.

The 95 percent upper confidence limits provided in Table 1 werecalculated using the data reported in Appendix F for surface soil samplesnumbered CR-S001-00 through CR-SO26-00 and CR-SO28-00. Whenduplicate samples are counted as one, this selection results in a total of 27samples, which is consistent with table 4-3 of the RI; however, the mean

-11- E NVIRON

TABLE 1

IndicatorChemical

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Silver

Zinc

RIAverage

292s

16

5.7

17,890

1.0

7.0

18

21

RIMaximum

6410

60

31

122,000

2.2

44

83

138

RAGS Upper 95%Conf. Limit

706

21.2

7.61

27,120

1.26

13.7

24.0

59.2

All concentrations are expressed in mg/kg

-12- ENVIRON

values calculated by ENVIRON for this data set are different than those intable 4-3 for many of the indicator chemicals. These differences may be theresult of use of a slightly different data set, or of mathematical or transcriptionerrors. An example of such an error appears in table 4-2 where the averageconcentration for arsenic is reported as 33.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),whicITis inconsistent with the data in Appendix F and corresponds to theminimum reported concentration of 33.9 mg/kg.

ENVIRON has noted other questionable or inappropriate methods thatmay have resulted in biased or inaccurate estimates of the concentrations of theindicator chemicals. For example, use of the XRF apparatus for fieldscreening of soil samples has probably resulted in biased estimates of theaverage concentrations of the indicator chemicals. Because only CLP datawere included in calculating the concentrations, and only those samples thatregistered relatively high concentrations when analyzed by XRF were sent tothe laboratory, soil samples with low concentrations were systematicallyexcluded. From the data provided in the RI, it is not possible to determine theextent or importance of this bias; however, it may be significant.

Another problem detected by ENVIRON is that the data are presentedin Appendix F in summary tables with many qualifiers, but the original datareport sheets are not included in the Administrative Record. This makes itimpossible to determine the exact nature of the Quality Assurance/QualityControl (QA/QC) problems that resulted in qualification of the data. A briefreview of Appendix F establishes that the great majority of the data are flaggedwith QA/QC qualifiers; the origin of these flags (e. g., whether applied by thelaboratory or during a subsequent data validation step) is not explained.Although current guidance documents generally accept the use of qualified datain risk assessments at Superfund sites, the fact that the great majority of thesoils data at the C&R Battery site is flagged indicates that there is a highdegree of uncertainty associated with any quantitative risk assessment based onthese data. Another important result of the failure to include the originallaboratory data reports is that there is no indication whether the reportedconcentrations have been calculated on a wet weight or a dry weight basis, orof the analytical procedures that were used.

Finally, ENVIRON notes that the stated objective is to assess the healthrisks resulting from the presence of hazardous materials both on and around thesite, and that the RI states that the sediments are considered to be similar in

-13- E N V I R O N

aR00002l

composition to the surface soils. These statements suggest that the datacollected on samples of the sediments and the off-site soils should have beenincluded in calculating the concentrations to be used in the quantitative riskassessment. Because the concentrations of the indicator chemicals aregenerally lower in these materials than in the on-site surface soil samples,failure to include these data may have biased the concentration estimates.Failure to include these samples would result in overestimation of theappropriate concentrations.

2. Estimation of Exposure due to Ingestion of Soils and DebrisThe methods used for estimating the exposure to hazardous materials

associated with accidental ingestion of surface soils and material from thedebris piles are described on pages 6-11 and 6-12 of the RI, and thecalculations are summarized in Appendix H. ENVIRON's review determinedthat some of the parameter values used in the calculations are not up to date.

The dose of each indicator chemical was calculated as the product of therepresentative soil concentration, the soil ingestion rate, and an absorptionfactor divided by the representative body weight. Review of the dosecalculations in the RI indicates that for the majority of indicator chemicals,absorption factors were inappropriately applied. This is because the calculatedabsorbed doses were applied to Reference Doses (RfDs) or slope factors thatgenerally are to be applied to total chemical intake (i. e., not to absorbeddoses). Consequently, the majority of the absorption factors used in the RIshould be changed. The representative soil concentrations should be modifiedto reflect the comments presented in the preceding section. The assumed bodyweight of 30 kg is consistent with current guidance for children aged 6 to 11.

The calculations in the RI were performed using soil ingestion rates of0.05 and 0.25 grams per day.. These ingestion rates are not consistent withcurrent guidance for soil ingestion for children between the ages of 6 and 11,the receptor of concern in this assessment. Current EPA guidance (e.g., theExposure Factors Handbook) specifies a soil ingestion rate of 0.10 grams (100milligrams) of soil per day for children over 6 years of age.

After the daily dose has been estimated, a time-weighted average dosemust be calculated. The exposure calculations in the appendix indicate that theEPA has assumed that the exposed children spend 70 percent of their time, fivedays a week, 32 weeks per year at the C&R Battery site. These assumptions

-14- E NVIRON

flR000022

might 6e reasonable for children who actually live on the site, but are clearlyexcessive for trespassers. ' '.. ,

! . ^^

The use of these overly conservative and outdated parameter values hasresulted in significant overestimation of the potential exposures at the site.Exposure estimates derived under current guidance for a child between 6 and11 years old who trespasses on the site; on average one day per week for eightmonths of the year are much lower than the exposure estimates developed inthe RI. i

3. Calculation of Human Health Risks Corresponding to ExposureEstimatesThe last step of the calculation process is risk characterization; it

involves determination of the health risk associated with the estimated exposurefor each indicator chemical and exposure pathway. This step is explained onpages 6-14 to 6-20 of the RI, and the calculations are shown in Appendix H.The final risk estimates are presented in tables 6-2 and 6-3. The methods usedin this document are consistent with current EPA guidance for all of theindicators except lead, but many of the parameter values are no longeraccepted as valid.

ENVIRON's calculations have been performed using parameter valuesobtained from EPA's IRIS data base in December 1990. Lead is not includedin the calculations for the cumulative non-carcinogenic risk because the EPAhas adopted a different approach (the IU/BK model). ENVIRONS riskestimates are summarizect and compared with the RI estimates in the followingtable: "

C. Estimation of the Health Risks Attributable to Lead ContaminationENVIRON reviewed the health risk assessment in the RI and noted that the

inclusion of lead in calculations of the cumulative non-carcinogenic risks was at oddswith current EPA guidance and practice at other sites involving lead contamination.Therefore, ENVIRON used the EPA's lU/BKJmodel to estimate the health risksassociated with lead contamination in the surface soils. Risks associated with lead inthe ground water and in fugitive dust could be evaluated as well, but the resulting riskestimates would be less reliable, more difficult to obtain, and probably much lower invalue than those derived for accidental ingestion of soil. ENVIRON believes that

-15- " ENVIRON

flR000023

TABLE 2

IndicatorChemical

Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Mercury

Nickel

Silver

Zinc

RAGS Risks (Trespasser)Hazard Index Cancer Risk

5.32e-l

6.85e-7

1.76e-3

1.27e-3

2.06e-4

2.41e-3

8.50e-5

RI Risks (Resident)Hazard Index Cancer Risk

6.15e+0

-

6.IOe-4

2.81e-4

1.13e-3

3.54e-3

8.40e-4

-

1.64e-5

-

-

-

-

-

Totals:

Carcinogenic 6.85e-7 (RAGS) vs. 1.64e-5 (RI)

Hazard Index 0.538 (RAGS) vs. 6.16 (RI)

-16- ENVIRON

flRO"Ou02«*

. accidental ingestion of soil is the major pathway of concern for lead at this site (asindicated in the RI). .

The IU/BK model was developed by EPA to allow estimation of the effects onblood lead levels of lead exposure by a variety of pathways. The model has beencalibrated and validated for children up to 7 years old, but not for the rest of the 6 to11 year age^group considered to be at risk at the C&R Battery site. Because the ratesof soil ingestion and lead absorption decrease with increasing age, the use of bloodlead levels predicted for 6 year-olds to represent the entire age group of interest isconservative.

Using the IU/BK model with the default parameter values in EPA's currentLEAD 3.0 program and the 95 percent upper Confidence limit on the arithmeticaverage concentration of soil lead (as. recommended by RAGS) leads to a predictedgeometric mean blood lead leyeLof 16.2 micrqgrams of lead per deciliter of blood(Mg/dL). This value is obtained by specifying that the child spends an average of oneday per week on the C&R Battery site over the course of the year. The LEAD IU/BKdefault parameters include values for the concentration of lead in the air, house dust,water, and food. The predicted geometric mean blood lead value indicates that almost95 percent of the 6 year-old children who might trespass on this site once a weekwould be expected to have blood lead levels greater than 10 Mg/dL and 70 percentwould be above 15 Mg/dL. Thus, this analysis suggests that levels of lead in the on-site soils would result in blood lead levels in excess of EPA's range of concern underthe exposure conditions assumed here. However, it also shows that the risk posed bysuch onsite soils is much lower'than assumed in the ROD and does not justify the

- remedy selected by EPA. A remedy featuring'' far less excavation and offsite disposalwould be fully adequate to address such risks.

III. The selected remedial action for this site (as outlined in the Record of Decision)was based on inaccurate assumptions, incomplete data, and technicaluncertainties and is therefore inconsistent with the requirements of the NationalContingency Plan. The RI/FS documents for this site incorporate numerouserrors and reflect numerous sources of uncertainty that must be resolved beforean appropriate remedial action can be selected. Until additional information hasibeen collected and analyzed, further remedial action should be deferred.

A Record of Decision was issued for the C&R Battery Superfund site by the EPARegional Administrator on March 30, 1990. Earlier documents issued for this site include

-17- E NVIRON

flRQ00025

the Remedial Investigation, the Feasibility Study, and the Proposed Plan; all three of theseearlier documents are dated January, 1990. Taken all together, the Administrative Record forthis site (which includes these documents) is ambiguous on some issues and contradictory onothers. These ambiguities and contradictions reflect some important uncertainties anddeficiencies in EPA's characterization of the site and the selected remedial action.

The selection of a remedial action for this site should be deferred until theseuncertainties and deficiencies are resolved. Many of the uncertainties and deficiencies notedin the following paragraphs will have to be resolved before an appropriate remedial actioncan be selected. Because of these uncertainties and deficiencies, much of the comparativeevaluation of the remedial alternatives presented in the FS was based on incorrect orquestionable assumptions. Resolution of these uncertainties and deficiencies will provide amuch better technical understanding of the problems to be remediated.

Some of the more important deficiencies and sources of uncertainty in theAdministrative Record are described in the following paragraphs.

A. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the History of the SiteEPA's documents describing the history of the site are contradictory. The RI,

the FS, the Proposed Plan, and the ROD all state that "The battery breaker was amobile unit, and operations were moved throughout the site." This statementcontradicts the Final Site Inspection report (dated January 12, 1987), which indicatesthat the battery breaker was constructed on a large concrete pad and located within thesouth central portion of the lot. The location of this pad is shown by figures- in the RIand in appendices to the Final Site Inspection. EPA has repeatedly stated that aerialphotography shows some early activity on the Capitol Oil property to the east of thedrainage ditch. The copies of the aerial photos that we reviewed are not clear enoughto allow us to identify this activity, but the notes that accompany the photos do notmention any battery breaking to the east of the drainage ditch. The claim that thebattery breaker was mobile is inconsistent with the concrete pad found at the site andwith many of the other documents in the administrative record, especially with theStats Water Control Board reports.

The question of how and where the battery breaking operations were conductedat various times is important because it may explain some of the observed patterns ofcontamination. This uncertainty may also affect the cost and feasibility ofimplementing the remedial action described in the ROD, which specifies clean closurefor "the former acid ponds", but does not define this term. In the absence of specificinformation, it is not possible to infer mechanisms and rates of contaminant transport

-18- ENVIRON

fiRQuQ026

from the data presented in the RI, nor is'it possible to identify with certainty thelocations of all former acid ponds. Therefore, this source of uncertainty should beaddressed before entering the remedial design'phase.

Other uncertainties related to the history of the site are associated with theremoval action conducted by EPA in the summer of 1986. The Final Site Inspectionreport describes the status of the site prior to this removal action, and indicates thepresence of an earthen dike along the western side of the drainage ditch. This dikewould probably have prevented or minimized 'transport of contaminated materials fromthe. site into the drainage ditch by surface runpff. The description of the site in the RIdoes not mention this dike, but does indicate that the ditch contained contaminatedsediments when the RI was performed (approximately two years after the removalaction). These facts raise the possibility that EPA removed the earthen dike duringthe removal action, allowing the drainage ditch to become contaminated bycontaminated materials entrained in surface ruhoff from the site.

•»B. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the Nature and Extent of

ContaminationThe information presented in the Administrative Record concerning the nature '

and extent of contamination on the C&R Battery site and adjoining properties is notsufficient to""support the selection of a specific remedial action. The nature and extentof contamination in various media, both on-site and off-site, should be characterizedmore completely before a specific remedial action is selected. With the present levelof information it is not possible to determine the specifics of the remedial actiondescribed in the ROD. For example, no soil samples were collected under the tankfarm oh the~Capitol Oil property that adjoins the C&R Battery site; contours indicatingthe expected lead concentrations were drawn from only six data points, and are notreliable. In fact, the accuracy of all of the contours used in estimating the volumes ofvarious contaminated materials is questionable; the contouring algorithm is notdescribed, and the level of detail provided in the documents is not sufficient to allowdevelopment of alternative contours. In addition, it was assumed in the absence ofany information that a considerable portion of the total area to be remediated containscontamination in the uppermost six inches of soil, but is underlain by clean subsoils;this assumption was also made for the sediments in the drainage ditch. If thecontamination is actually present at deeper levels, the costs of implementing theselected remedy may increase significantly.

-19- ENVIRON

ftR000027

Another example of the uncertainties associated with the site characterization isthat two different sizes are given for the concrete pad within the FS document. Onpage 2-25, this pad is described as being approximately 100 x 100 feet, while on page4-10 the pad is described as approximately 150 x 150 feet; the second figure indicatesa total area more than twice as large as that indicated by the first figure. Perhaps themost important example is the fact that the available data do not provide any reliableindication of the volume of contaminated materials that will require treatment;although a few samples were analyzed for total metal concentrations and EP Toxicity,comparison of the results of these tests does not establish a relationship. Theestimates associated with the remedial action described in the ROD are based on theassumption that all soils with greater than 1000 mg/kg of lead will require treatment,but the data collected in the RI do not support this assumption.

Another important source of uncertainty is that the majority of the data used inthe RI to characterize the nature and extent of contamination is unreliable. This isindicated by the qualifiers (flags) that appear with many of the numbers reported inAppendix F of the RI. The original laboratory reports have not been included in theAdministrative Record; the data are presented only in summary form. Without theoriginal laboratory report sheets it is not possible to determine the nature or extent ofthe problems that led to qualification of the data.

Use of the XRF technique in the field for selecting soil samples to be sent tothe laboratory has probably resulted in overestimation of the actual mean lead level atthe site and of the area and volume of soils that will require remediation. Use of theXRF instrument for field screening may also have resulted in overestimation of thehealth risks at the site. This tendency toward overestimation is expected because thesecalculations were based on the CLP lab analyses, and only 10 percent of the sampleswith lead concentrations lower than the detection limit of the XRF instrument weresent to the CLP lab.

Because the nature and extent of contamination at this site have not beenadequately characterized, development and evaluation of the remedial alternatives hasbeen based on many unverified assumptions. Many of these assumptions areacknowledged in the FS and other documents. The accuracy of these assumptions willhave to be determined before an appropriate remedial design can be developed. Forexample, in addressing the possibility of future ground water contamination, the FinalAddendum to the FS (dated January, 1990) notes on page 6-4 that "...it is not knownwhether the groundwater is actually contaminated or whether the measured value wasdue to contamination associated with well installation, laboratory contamination, or

-20- ENVIRON

ARQ00028

some other source of "error. Because of the limited groundwater data, the extent ofthe contaminant plume, if any, and its average lead concentration, are unknown."This addendum goes on to state that the presence of a sizable contaminant plumewould invalidate the modeling results. These statements demonstrate that the currentcharacterization of the site is inadequate and that the remedial action described in theROD was selected on the basis of unverified assumptions.

The net effect of all. of these sources of uncertainty is that the areas andvolumes of materials that will be subject to the various remedial technologies outlinedin the ROD cannot be determined with any accuracy. This may have resulted ininaccuracies in the evaluation of remedial alternatives, and prevents development of anefficient, cost-effective remedial design.

C. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Related to the Characterization of HealthRisksMany of the procedures used in the baseline risk assessment are either out of

date or were performed incorrectly. Detailed comments on the risk assessmentmethods used in the RI have been provided above and those comments will not berepeated in this section. 'The effect of these outdated or erroneous procedures is thatthe actual baseline risks associated with current conditions at the site have beensignificantly overestimated. Other sources of uncertainty relating to the health risks atthe site are addressed in this section.

The action levels associated with the various remedial alternatives described inthe FS are specified in terms of lead concentrations; but in evaluating the remedialalternatives, the degree to which health risks will be reduced is quantified by thereduction in carcinogenic risks. Consistent with current EPA policy, the carcinogenicrisk calculations in the baseline risk assessment are based on arsenic only. A moreconsistent approach might have been to consider the Hazard Index scores in evaluatingthe effects of removing lead-contaminated soils. Although this would have been moreconsistent, the reference dose for lead that was used in the RI is no longer accepted,so that a Hazard Index value cannot be calculated for lead at this time. Therefore, apreferred approach would be to use the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic Model toevaluate the health effects of various cleanup levels. Use of the reduction incarcinogenic risk in evaluating the alternatives is insufficient and may have resulted inunreliable comparisons among the various remedial alternatives.

The risks of implementing each of the various remedial alternatives should becompared before a specific alternative is adopted. Because the nature and extent of

-21- ENVIRON

aR000029

contamination at the C&R Battery site has not been adequately defined, the remedialalternatives presented in the FS are not specific. This lack of specificity prevents thedevelopment of a meaningful comparison of the risks associated with implementationof each remedial alternative. For example, because the RI does not establish whichcontaminated materials will require treatment prior to disposal, it is not possible todetermine whether it will be safer and more cost-effective to treat the materials on-siteor to haul them to the disposal facility before treatment. Also, the AdministrativeRecord does not identify a specific facility that will accept the materials that are to beremoved from the site. Therefore, it is not possible to predict with any accuracy thenumber of loads of hazardous and non-hazardous materials that will be removed fromthe site, the distances that these materials will be hauled, or the risks associated withthis removal. The risks associated with transportation of large volumes of materialmay be significant and should not be ignored. The deficiencies noted in thisparagraph prevent any meaningful comparison of the health risks associated withimplementation of the various remedial alternatives.

The ROD refers to "acceptable levels under the established risk range"; incontext, this "says that carcinogenic risk levels greater than 10"6 will not be acceptedfor this site. This is not consistent with EPA's decisions at many other sites whererisks greater than 10"6 have been accepted. This is also inconsistent with the FS,which implies that the estimated worst-case lifetime potential carcinogenic risk of 5.1x 10"5 (for inhalation of arsenic-contaminated fugitive dust) is acceptable. If EPAintends to establish that risks greater than 10"6 will not be accepted at this site, aregulatory basis for this decision should be provided.

In the ROD, the EPA has treated the OSWER directive that specifies a cleanuprange of 500-1000 ppm for residential soils as an ARAR. This is not justified; thedirective does not establish a regulatory requirement. Furthermore, a close reading ofthe OSWER document reveals that this range of concentration values is considered tobe protective for all segments of the population for direct contact in residentialsettings. It is very unlikely that small children (the most susceptible populationsegment) will have access to the C&R Battery site; it is fenced, zoned for industrialuse, and the surrounding area is predominantly agricultural or commercial/industrial.Zoning and deed restrictions ensure that the site will not be used for residences. Thedirective specifies that "This guidance...is to be followed when the current orpredicted land use is residential." It also states that "Site-specific conditions maywarrant the use of soil cleanup levels...somewhat above the 1000 ppm level.*' Thus,use" of this document as ah ARAR has resulted in an action level that is much lower

-22- E N V I R O N

than necessary to protect the health of the surrounding population and has led to someuncertainty regarding the regulatory basis for the cleanup level specified in the ROD.

D. Uncertainties and Deficiencies Associated with the Remedial AlternativesComparison of the various documents in which the remedial alternatives are

described raises uncertainties about the assumptions under which these alternativeswere developed and the specific actions that would be taken to implement them. Untilthese uncertainties are resolved, it Will not be possible to develop an efficient, cost-effective remedial design. A number of these, uncertainties have been addressed in thepreceding paragraphs; these will not be repeated in detail in this section.

The FS contains a number of cleanup criteria and action levels that have notbeen adequately justified. For example, the remedial action objectives listed on pageES-2 include preventing exposure to soil with'a lead concentration greater than 1000mg/kg, preventing ground water contamination, and preventing sedimentconcentrations in excess of 10.5 mg/kg. The Administrative Record does not containany detailed justification for these objectives, and some of these objectives have beenmodified in later documents (e.g., the critical.concentration of lead in drainage ditchsediments is specified in the ROD as 450 mg/kg, much higher than the 10.5 cited inthe FS). Also in the FS, the three action levels to be considered are specified (120,1000, and 10,000 mg/kg) without justification or explanation.

Another example is that the selected remedy described in the Proposed Planand the ROD requires excavation and treatment of subsurface soils with leadconcentrations exceeding 1000 mg/kg; the origin of and rationale for-this 1000 mg/kgaction level are unclear. _The executive summary in the FS states that the potential forlong-term migration of lead from subsurface soils was being investigated by modelingat the time the FS was prepared, and implies that a subsurface action level for leadwas to be chosen on the basis of the modeling results. The modeling results arepresented in the Final Addendum to the FS, but no subsurface action level has beenestablished. The addendum asserts that development of this action level would involveconsiderable time and effort, and could not be accomplished within the scope of thestudy. Thus, EPA has not explained the basis for selecting the 1000 mg/kg subsurfaceaction level, or the basis for selecting the other action levels that were considered.

Many assumptions have been made in developing estimates of the cost andfeasibility of the various remedial alternatives described in the FS. Some of theseassumptions have been noted in comments on the nature and extent of contamination(e.'g.r the assumptions that a large portion of the area is only contaminated to a depth

-23- ENVIRON

flROOUU3

of six inches, and that all materials with lead concentrations above 1000 mg/kg arecharacteristic hazardous wastes). Other important assumptions have been noted incomments on the estimated cost of implementing the selected remedial action (e.g.,the assumption that the treated materials can be disposed of at a nearby sanitary orindustrial landfill). Other assumptions have been made, but may not have beenexplicitly acknowledged in the Administrative Record. For example, figure ES-3 ofthe FS indicates that the lead concentrations are expected to be between 120 and 1000mg/kg under the tanks on the Capitol Oil property. No allowance for theextraordinary costs of remediating the area under the tanks has been included in thecost calculations, presumably because it has been assumed that this area will not needto be remediated.

Contrary to the EPA's assertion, some significant changes appear to have beenmade between the Proposed Plan and the ROD. For instance, the Proposed Plandescribes the site as 4.5 acres, while the ROD describes it as II acres. Theboundaries of the 11-acre site mentioned in the ROD are not specifically described orillustrated in that document. Also, the Proposed Plan says that "...lead was found athigh concentrations in surface soils throughout much of the site", while the RODstates that "The entire area of the C&R Battery site has been contaminated with lead atconcentrations which exceed the remedial action level (1,000 mg/kg) ".

IV* The remedial action described in the ROD is not appropriate or cost-effective andshould not be implemented without addressing the deficiencies and uncertaintiesoutlined in these comments. The final selection of a remedial action should beperformed after these uncertainties have been resolved.

As currently structured, the selected remedial action described in the ROD appears tocontain a number of significant flaws. The most important of these flaws are described in thefollowing paragraphs. Most of these flaws can be attributed to the fact that uncertainties inthe characterization of the site dictated that the evaluation of the various remedial alternativesbe based on simplifying- assumptions.

-24- ENVIRON

D. The selected remedy requires disposal of the treated material in anapproved sanitary or industrial waste landfill. Because none of the locallandfills will accept the treated material, the costs of implementing theselected remedy will be significantly higher than estimated in the FS andthe ROD.TheTosts of the selected remedy were estimated on the assumption that a local

landfill would accept the stabilized waste material. To date, all of the local landfillshave refused. The only landfills that have agreed to accept this material are GSX (ahazardous waste landfill located in South Carolina) and the Charles City Landfill,which is a sanitary landfill located approximately 32 miles east of the C&R Batterysite. Use of either of these facilities will result in a significantly higher cost fordisposal than was included in EPA's cost estimate.

i

E. The selected remedy specifies a RCRA clean closure for the former acidpond area. Clean closure is not the only option provided for this areaunder RCRA, and no justification for selection of this option has beenprovided in the ROD. _Under current regulations and the EPA interpretation described on page 2-9 of

the FS, two closure options are provided for the former acid pond area. Cleanclosure is appropriate for sites where further monitoring will not be required, andrequires removal of all contaminated materials. The other available option iscommonly known as landfill closure, although the former acid pond area would bemore correctly classified as a surface impoundment. The regulations'regarding closureof surface impoundments (40 CFR 264.228) provide a landfill closure option thatinvolves a low-permeability cap and provisions for future monitoring andmaintenance. •

In comparison to the landfill closure option, the advantages of clean closure tothe owner or operator are that 1) the potential liability for future environmentalproblems at the site is reduced, and 2) continued monitoring and maintenance are notrequired. Under the ROD for the C&R Battery site, clean closure will be required,but neither of these advantages will be realized. The selected remedy requiresimplementation of an environmental monitoring plan. This provision is inconsistentwith the clean closure required for the former acid pond area, and the description ofthis monitoring plan is too vague to allow any reasonable estimation of costs orpracticality. Therefore, the landfill closure option should be considered if it meets allof the criteria for acceptable remedial actions.

-27- ENVIRON

4R000033

F.' The selected remedy specifies that areas of residual contamination (Le.twith lead concentrations between 120 and 1000 mg/kg) outside of theformer acid pond area be covered with six inches of clean topsoil andrevegetated. This requirement is not justified by any documented threatto human health or the environment and is more extreme than remedialactions recommended in EPA guidance documents.The only justification provided for the required capping of the areas of residual

contamination is the explanation on page 2-9'of the FS that "Since the contaminatedsoils located outside of the former acid pond area are sufficiently similar to those inthe acid pond area, RCRA closure requirements are relevant .and appropriate to thisarea." This establishes that EPA believes that the contaminated soils located outsideof the acid pond area should be subject to the same remedial action as those locatedwithin the former acid pond area. The remedial action prescribed for the pond area isclean closure, defined as removal of all contaminated material that fails either the EPtoxicity or TCLP tests for leachable lead. If the contaminated soils outside of theformer acid pond area are held to this standard, the six-inch topsoil cover andrevegetation would not be required for areas with lead levels between 120 and 1000mg/kg.

nct\ wp\c\c&rfinal. dft

-28- ENVIRON

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E . INC.

July 18, 1990

McGuire,' Woods,^Battle & SootheOne James Center .:."""" :- -.Richmond, Virginia 23219

Attn: Mr. Jon "Jewett " ' -~-~"

Re: ; C&R Battery Superfund Site" Job No. 0359-001

Dear Mr. Jewett:

We have completed our preview of the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study which EPA issued for the C&RBatter Superfund site." In particular/ we have closely examinedthe EPA cost estimates for various :remediation alternatives andthe assumptions on which those estimates were based. Includedwith this letter are _summary and detailed estimates, as well asdocumentation for air Hatcher-Sayre- IricV estimated costs whichdiffer from the EPA costs.

The greatest discrepancy between EPA's estimates and,Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.'s estimates are .the costs associated withdisposal of. the., treated soils. EPA's .estimates appear to bebased on the assumption that the soils can be disposed of in theShoe-smith Brothers Landfill in .Chesterfield County. We contactedMr. - Jim McCook, Operations Manager of. Shoosmith BrothersLandfill, and Mr. McCook stated that Shoosmith Brothers did notwish to accept waste from the remediation of a Superfund site dueto the potential controversy which might arise from siteactivities. We contacted four other local landfills, and the GSXlandfill located" in Pinewood, South Carolina. Of theselandfills, only Chambers of Virginia, Inc. and GSX (via LaidlawEnvironmental) were able to accept the C&R waste. Chambersquoted a flat .fee of $7,000,000.00 for the quantity of wasteprovided (117,635 tons). "Laidlaw quoted a fee of $87.50 per ton,or $10,293,000.00 total. As a result of using landfills furtherfrom the site, hauling costs also increased to $1,470,000.00 forhauling to Chambers and $5,882,000.00 for hauling to GSX. EPAhad estimated a disposal fee of $3,529,050.00 and a hauling feeof $882,300.00.

Attachment 1 includes summary cost estimates for Option 4a(soil stabilization) and Option 2 (RCRA cap). A detailed costestimate is also included for the Hatcher-Sayre, Inc. estimate^ofOption 4a, Attachment 2 includes copies of correspondence withthe landfills contacted, and 'also 'correspondence with

905 SOutblake Boulevard, Richmond, Virginia23236 (804)__794-02t(S faxfl*. «0«4K9«<»4«> Q Q jj Q 3 5

McGuire, Woods, Battle & SoothePage 2July 18, 1990subcontractors and material suppliers. "This correspondencedocuments costs in the Hatcher-Sayre, Inc. estimates which differfrom those in—the EPA estimates.

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed estimatesand documentation, please call me.

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. HuffmanProject Engineer

SAH/sdbj«w«tt.ltrenclosures

cc: Mr. David Peck; Peck Iron & Metal Co., Inc. (w/Enclosures)

flR000036

ATTACHMENT 1

flR000037

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E . INC.

June 25, 1990

Chris LeggettEnsight, Inc.5119 South Royal Atlanta DriveTucker, Georgia 30084

Re: C&R Battery Site SuperfundRemediationJob No. 0359-001

Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May21, 1990, At that time, we discussed remediation activities atthe C&R Battery Superfund site, and you provided me with thefollowing budgetary quote(s) for this project:

Labor Equipment

Excavation $ 9.00/cy $ 6.00/cyLoading 3-rSTJ/cy -4 -2-0/cySoil Treatment -C(? *"&

(Labor and Equipment Only) . $/3.00/ton

Please confirm the above quotes by signing in the spaceprovided below, and returning this document to us. We appreciateyour assistance in this matter; please call me if you havefurther questions."

Sincerely,

.HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

A. HuffmanProject Engineer

Name: Mr. Chris/Leggett4- Data

SAH/cccSrbatt.ltr

90SSou£btaiteBouiaxird. Kdamand, Virginia23256 (8O4) 7944216 faxNo. (SO*

> MH4 ^oa cstEd

fig1 2 31 S - SSf . i B § a«•» HJ .-. r.-< Q Q ><

X Mu s zH ^l U Oi o M £S o% od w

I ^

S3 ~ s» »4 S

r* o\

J

tfl tfS

S S!_4 H-3irt mi OJ0 i O

• • j-- esl

U V

CO CO

a oo oW CO

.a

:?

AR00003'9

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E . INC.————————————————June 25, 1990

Mr. Larry LevineCommonwealth Labbratory, Inc.2209 E. Broad StreetRichmond, Virginia 23223

Re: C&R Battery Site SuperfundRemediationJob No. 0359-001

Gentleman:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May21, 1990. At that time, we discussed remediation activities atthe C&R Battery Superfund site, and you provided me with thefollowing budgetary quote(s) for this project:

TCLP Extraction andAnalysis of 8 metals $327.50

Please confirm the above quote by* signing in. the spaceprovided below, and returning this document to us. We appreciateyour assistance in this matter; please call me if you , havefurther questions. ' . .

S incerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. HufxmanProject Engineer

Nam«: Mr/ Larry L«?in«/

Bys <T MUJ J\JL\/JrJi Data: ^feJu/Ofe7SAH/cc

c&rbatt.ltr

Vir ^ (804)794-0216 FaxNo.

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E , INC,June!25, 1990 . . .

! V;\ jus a s *90 gMs- B. J. KirJcseySpecial Waste ""RepresentativeBFI2490 Charles City RoadRichmond, Virginia 23230

Re: C&R Battery Site Superfund•RemediationJob No. 0359-001

Dear.Ms. Kirksey:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May.23, 1990. At that time, we discussed' disposal of 117,635 tons oftreated, non-hazardous soils which may potentially result - from.remediation activities at the C&R Battery Superfund Site.

During our . conversation you informed me that your facilitywould be unable to accept this waste. If your facility remainsunable to accept this.waste, we would appreciate your signaturein the space provided below, and return of this document asconfirmation.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter,please call me.

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. Huffman- - Project Engineer

SAH/ccc&rbatt2.1tr . _ _ . . . :

i

NAME: Ms. B. J. KirJcsey, Special Waste Representative

signature

BFI does noc have a -separate cell available.,.

905-$outt)iek«BouletantKcbmoni Wr&nia 23236 (&%} 794-0216 FoxMj. (804}3'&-tfPftefJ1\ Q Q U

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E , INC. =J fQa"June .25, 1990 —irr-

Mr. Timothy PerrySolid Waste ManagerChesterfield County LandfillP. O. Box 40Chesterfield, Virginia 23832

Re: C&R Battery Site SuperfundRemediationJob No. 0359-001

Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May25, 1990. At that time, we discussed disposal of 117,635 tons oftreated, non-hazardous soils which may potentially result fromremediation activities at the C&R Battery Superfund Site.

During our conversation you informed me that, your facilitywould be unable to accept this waste. If your facility remainsunable to accept this waste, we would appreciate your signaturein the space provided -below, and return of this document asconfirmation.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter,please call me.

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

x/sfr —7

Sidney A. HufxmanProject Engineer

SAE/ccc&rbatt2.1tr

NAME: xr. Timothy Perry, Solid Waste Manager

signature: [.«L» ~" .„—.._____ Date: ... 7-'-

Richmond, Virgima 23236 (804) 794-0216 FaxW). '>9j9m R Q Q Q D li 2

H A T C H E R . S A Y R E . INC.

June :25, 1990

Mr. Ricky HarrisWaste Acceptance CoordinatorFirst Piedmont Corp.P-. .0. Drawer 1069Chatham, Virginia 24531

Re: C&R .Battery.Site SuperfundRemediationJob No. 0359-001

Gentlemen:

This . letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May23, 1990. At that time, we 'discussed' disposal of 117,635 tons oftreated, non-hazardous soils which may potentially result fromremediation activities at the C&R Battery Superfund Site.

During our conversation you informed me that your' facilitywould be unable to accept this waste. If your facility remainsunable 'to accept this waste, we would appreciate your signaturein the space provided below, and return of this document asconfirmation .

If you., have any questions or comments regarding this matter,please call me. . . ! .. . .... ._

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. HuffmanProject Engineer

SAH/cc . . _ . _ . . !c&rbatt2.Itr - - -

NAME: Mr. Hie Icy Harris/ Waste Acceptance Coordinator

Signature: *< b/ ">/O UVXA Date: 7 /j

905 SautbiaksBoulevard, Xfdmond, Virginia 23236 (804) 794-0216 Fax No. fSlftrfs w * D ft H f ] A [, O

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E . INC.June 25, 1990

Mr. James McCookOperations ManagerShoosmith Brothers Landfill11800 Lewis RdChester, Virginia 23831

Re: C&R Battery Site SuperfundRemediationJob No. 0359-001

Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May21, 1990. At that time, we discussed disposal of 117,635 tons oftreated, non-hazardous soils which may potentially result fromremediation activities at the C&R Battery Superfund Site.

During our conversation you informed me that your facilitywould be unable to accept this waste. If .your facility remainsunable to accept this waste, we would appreciate your signaturein the * space provided below, and return of this document asconfirmation .

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter,please call me.

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. HuffmanProject Engineer

SAH/ccc&rbatt2.1tr-

NAME: Mr. James McCook/ Operations Manager

Signatures _________________ Dates

905Sou&iak*Bouluartt Richmond, Virginia 23236 (804) 794-0216 Fax No. (S04J3&SQU.$ fj Q Q Q 0 U 4

H A T C H E R - S A Y R E . INC.June '25, 1990

Mr. Chuck CormanDistrict Salesman"" " "- -"Laidlaw Environmental " """Route 11, Box 3 '....__..Reedsville, "North Carolina 27320

Re: C&R Battery Site SuperfundRemediation

- Job No. 0359-001

Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation on May31, 1990. .At. .that time, we discussed remediation activities atthe C&R Battery Superfund site, and you provided me with thefollowing budgetary quote(s) for .this project:

Disposal of-Treated, $S7.50/tonNon-Hazardous Soils ! - ($80.00 fee, $7.50 tax)

Please confirm the above quote by signing in the spaceprovided- below, and returning this document to us. We appreciateyour --assistance ___in _ this, matter; ' please . call me if you havefurther questions.

Sincerely,

HATCHER-SAYRE, INC.

Sidney A. HufxmanProject Engineer

Name: Mr. Chuck Corman/ District Salesman^ /si S$f K ^ S « -;By: &&i&t'£00 /'(- C&*iiV*{&&£i___ Date: __ /

SAH/ccc&rbatt'. Itr

905SoutbU BoulevarARichmond, Vb$nia~23236 (804} 794-0216 fiacAfa. (ao jS79 & \ T; ij Q Q 5.

SHOOSMITH, INC.11800 LEWIS ROAD « CHESTER. VIRGINIA 23831 • PHONE 748-5823

r '' rv.

J. T, SHOOSMfTH PRESIDENT£ K. SHOOSMITH. VICE-PflSSlDEWS. K. SHOOSMtTH VICE PRESIDENTD, 0, BR6NEMAN. SECRETARY-TREASURE?.

JUN 2 S 1930 ;;

52?rEZ S

June 27, 1990

Ms. Sidney HuffmanProject" EngineerHatcher-Sayer, Inc.905 Southlake Blvd.Richmond, Va. 23-236

Dear Ms. Huffman:

I will hot be able to sign your__document for C&R Battery.

The issue is not whether we are able to accept the materialor not, but at the time of our conversation we were notreceptive to the controversy surronding this project.

Should you have questions please call.

JamesOperations Manager

inia, Inc.fREET* RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23223 BX 715'23206-0715

Administrative) Offices: 10700 Frankswwn Road, Pittsburgh. PA 15235 412/242-623:

on

To; Ms. Sidney HuffmanFrom: Mickey Hand

- -Re: C & R Battery Superfurid Sitenate: 6/27/90

in response to your letter regarding the above, I wouuitike to offer the following information:

Charles City Landfill is a state of the art landfillutilizing a double-composite liner; i.e. two 80 ailsynthetic liners in conjunction with a 12" layer of comclay (1 x 10 -7 cm/sec), ve a,iso have leachate collecti/is well _as a witness zone/collection system.

Based on tha available information/ our cost at this !. i t m -Tor providing disposal in a mono-fin will be approximately$ 7,000,000 for the. anticipated volume of 117,635 tons.

if this material could be incorporated into an existingcell the cost would be lowered by approximately s 1, 000,000This vould still include encapsulating the waste.•riming of th« disposal of the material can b* critical t(.tha actual cost

.The above costs are based on bur conversation whereby UM-waste would be contained separately from' any other vast.*1material and would not have any other waste material pi.it-fciabove it'.i trust this information will' b* satisfactory.trail if you have any further questions.

ftRQGOOtr/

ATTACHMENT 2

irt CO vD-03 Ci

QB

Ot-4H&0 <• H X

W (8 OSO 1Hu » >ea M -° B 9H g BM . [L.s §X 4 Hu «K V UQ 3

1s*HHtflU

*5j- rj r *tH £G - W8*H CQ O

a.£

- ceaE-

1

sSE- a:OITriC^

E-3

«m3W

g££CO *3* CNro --H r*iCT> rH »H^O)tN

r-t

CT1UIO

ov

0% \o *oO iO P-i/l O

O V <Meo «-*<•!ffl rH -H&>

enOIftM

f-4COfN*

e*\ft(-a(N

SSS*-S"SS(O m -H m r- n cv* r* r <r eft * fia r« 03 ui'vo'io^ ^ . ^ _ __ «.<N in C4 a} i-i

IN M

r*-iCrto-«-iu>

^ eotn Q3-O Mr~ \f>CM Wrt (O^

UI CTVin vCN ftc*i coi-t t->

CN

CO 01CN Of*l \O* ^

i l 0r- aO CD

c7-«fN

r- en o(N CN H

vfl 1ft CNr- in fN01 O

4b * -•«-o y? cvr*iv>

-,

4J *J O il . tU i-lIfl ffl 31 ® *"4 Q)O Q lj O CV &« -HO O -4 O &*

4J Q Ol -4

0 5) O J3 "HU -4 iJ fly O —* 3 njv U 0 -t>L(4) Q * * ^ 4 ^ E^ QQjQjQJQ)

J a o n o c 0** o. oo'ootafIX M'-'Q 0 3 3 3 3 3_j .0 o *j o o £ * a&oioot.. J » M o m . u wo* wwww

tnu 0 rt O *• O >• tocMO) >,>,>, i, >,JO1" o in H -i 4J o b k i u ^ uif, Q 9* ttt f* «CQ) OV3^ QtOtiflflO "^ «* JJ o a; O O s) 13 >« O*IH -H Ul O) O « <-» H « r H C J C f4ffl ^H rtt W to P5 HIC-^ M "O *O '. _ .3 «) -I U -* AJ W 3 ** .^OIK O 33333I w o> « 4J o u to &, en dj o IB co cu en rC —< G 4) A> * BO)

wJjjJXEXJ^O <0 -4JBCTt H3 .5 «j 3 o e n o ooc S

R

t" 01

iSS a

—LT

Ow

SO

f.5

u(3 *"£• £

ca* *X•HH& •

M 1-1*• SB IE 312 M O §S « &O »••0 x >

i|3 s5 E Isa <s 2 g 5£ 4 &i o s **

S St.

| ° 31£4

p

O

w

fi«1Hz3

t.£

E->-«

7*C4>olO

1-1

•w

J1

CNcv

r-l*"

s(Jl

0

n-*>

•r

cSHr-4-J

EJSh- ( £3H wt4 *«4M-4-a QeS310 •

«(H

» tf» lACN o o n^ «-< O XOr- <o o 6O C"" CN nV 10 EQ CHCN n CO CN

tn pr-4

Or-r-l

t£>

If)

OCNCN

CN P PI1 O Of P P• •* ^O CN (*1W SO ChCM CO CN

^ ^UI O

*-l

oo<s

On

P OOtn p tnP- O fCN o can o

S u 3 H

m 01 (N inn CM conp- Irt 9 <A

ci in r-r- <-<rt

;u

^ 3>, moU 3• -o i-H |J

" ^ o» J3O^ J J^ "'r* 3 tt t

C O C>O<*« S e e nea-*-< g-* w - Q.-4 Q * 3 mQ O a -4Ed n3 X Q

f- 83 EPi O•H -1 rt tN

Of^Oincotn CN^Z>co * irt n fi * 1*1•BTir-inpen ^of^ iO rt O •£> IO\O(N CO iM CN iHr* ** r-t

CO (N CV p CO i~4 ^ P**fif"<NOcio\ >-ir«-- —i in xn rt CNC« * (O •-«f*l *H

icr-r-iotnio f- «Ji CO CN fl Ul 4 Irt f*fimr»inmo \ooin u- n in v H CN•y v CN•**

p co co n uxco CN r- r« car- r- ^ <a Mm (N o> IH vQ in <H•

- -

n r* n r* PI r* tn m^•lowmtrin ^*t- (N r- O i- G w

p pr-tbr*^oi>io \o yjCNOCtOCNP Ul Ul

O P O p Qin p p ic 10n vo *Q v

CN M

»>*>«><!«•» hiktO O O O W O mm

P P co co n n in r*S3<dOD<O^^ •-•ppr-p-oto *•*m n eo co <-• >-< «i-iin in

u — .0> at

US 1*

IS *u -oTf W -O «•a -o « « B <s

Q d Qj O V ^44J « u^ u < •« u a,O & u> a. w —w TS *O o i a t a c -w -oft M »*o n o « oH w * a e -H > u< O 1 O 1 O 4J Ifl «jc ,H * <a a a u s3 -i 0, -< 0, - ft. a) W O

IS«I«I« > ; a O O fflo (-• £-• es

^ CN n ^C« CN CN (M

a o o p p a Qn r- CN \o ON CN o

-t i-t CN Uln CM

o c? P

in

OP 0•f 0 O«J -1 p

p<N

0 Po mQ> r-4

POOm « o« en CN«• ^•-•CNn

§ oOa

O* in

OO 0 pO O O 0... oOOPCN es *-i on CN

0 00 Oo mO -<<-4

OPP O 1Oin • >\o » i

COBl c£ § W H CO

09 O P P•H CO O

V O

r*

-H C9 ** o1 -4-1±) <M 4Ju -c *a e ria e-4at C j^

_4 -J W • — 1j u e-* -H ja2 s • -t * « gCfl 44 01 J d1* ii •

£ A Li « « O<Qw ffl « 0. c n-^M *> < ~* GQ 9 O Ou *S £*i * ^

>4 * H *f4 14 JJ 4Ja; M — i o CMK Z V 3 W D I J M

*;-5 **• 0^ «5mat)Li.a39.0u •» * « « u oj. aa<>iJSH3E

iCN M CN M C*» (*) fl

^f ttO«

•»pt-lCNCNu>

f-coCO"

fr*r-

«•or»w

f»U>^(ft

^CTiPin">oCNov

1•J3rt

«>(CftUl

o"C>4W

CN

&

4(t

§

M

^t£Pc&rtmCM!N(/>

r*r-.-1-1a\ino«inenomo"como>wo>ostn10

CNu>

•COfN1*1(-1r«cT<NU>

CM*fl.

3ar*

eu

2H

8a3

IR000050

2OMHfb0 B a-MX 2(OHM =£3S S18£s I5 W *° E R"•" H J _.H * M _ *,rt OS M H•-1 bU ~4 _-.Q as ce 05ja y u "5 n HM M HSou •->s zO U 3

g

Q O O O Q O UI CO OP O O in O LOo o o p Pmo P m * o tn CN o opeooo .^^ n r* r- <N M « p o

*)• O CO O O OIO O O Ot O O OQ1 -H •« (*) CO CO O

vo \o o r» o Q • o o " ~-" * " oT m m o\ o o o o . ' c o -p

OOP pin ;op om o iO p eo *rOOP in to • in v in N p o p o «HCOOP rt P- r- ••* v o o o o «H

O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O ~O O

O O O O O O O PP O O O P P O OCT* d 01 0t C) CT O O

POO oo . op pa p 09 p coOOP O in Pin ,PUI o O o o

M tt M

p vppo OIHCN n tnco o^np o a o po ppo 10 r t c o c o co -* o r- o aC! *H «*> CN <*T <•! W rt -1 CO >O O O in ^

uuu X >«uu

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REMEDIATION COSTSRCRA CAPPING, OPTION 2A

CSR BATTERY SITECHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Cost Component Estimated Cost

1. Excavation, Site Clearing $ 449,0002. Building Dismantlement, Debris Disposal 28,4003. Reclamation 479,2004. Capping 458,0005. Battery Disposal 37,1006. Mobilization/Demobilization 20,0007. Burden, Labor, Material 125,5008. Indirects, Profit, Health and Safety

Monitoring 631,700

9. Contingency @ 20% 445,80010. Engineering @ 8% • 178,300

Total Capital Costs $ 2,853,000

NOTE; EPA e_stimated total cost = $2,358,700

ftROOQ052

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF SELECTED REMEDY, OPTION 4AC&R BATTERY SITE

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

CAPITAL COST£ - - --- ,,_._. .-~:~.. .-:;...- „ . - - . _ . . . 'EPA

Construction Component Estimated Cost

I- .. Excavation, Site Clearing • $ 155,3002.. Building Dismantlement, Debris Disposal' 157,0003. Waste "Soil Stabilization . 3 fisi,4004. Stabilized Soil Disposal ; 4,473,1005. "" Site Reclamation 1 112 5006. Ni/Cd Battery Disposal' 37,1007. Burden, Labor, Material . 881,0008. . .ladirects", Profit, Health and Safety

Monitoring : 1,969,400

9. Contingency $ 20% " 2,389,40010. Engineering @ 8% ' 955,800

Total Capital Costs $ 15,292,000

NOTE: EPA_did not include Mobilization/Demobilization costs.mcguire.tbl . ;. ...-,. -- -- --.- ....- -:-.- ,,. — -., ._.. .: -

flR000053

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF SELECTED REMEDY, OPTION 4ACfiR BATTERY SITE

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

CAPITAL COSTS" - - - - . ._... - ----- -

Hatcher-Sayre, inc.

Construction Component Estimated Cost

1. Excavation, Site Clearing $ 655,2002. Building Dismantlement, Debris Disposal 178,3003. Waste Soil Stabilization 4,387,3004. Stabilized Soil Disposal 16,542,7005. Site Reclamation 1,042,4616. Nl/Cd Battery Disposal 37,1007. ^obilization/Demobilization 25,0008. arden. Labor, Material 2,333,1259. Indirects, Profit, Health and Safety

Monitoring 5,075,09110. Contingency @ 20% 6,055,25511. Engineering § 8% 2,422.102

Total Capital Costs '$38,753,634

NOTE; If soil is hauled to Chamber's Landfill for disposal,Total Capital Cost for site remediation is $26,141,388.

R00005U

- - ._UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

_ Region III^" "~ 841 Chestnut Building '

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

'JUN27J991

Jon J. Jewett, Esquire . . .... _ . . . . . - _..: fMcGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe1 James Center . :Richmond, Virginia 23219 i

Re: C&R Battery Company, Inc. Superfund Site

Dear Mr. Jewett:.. . . . . . . • " •

Enclosed please find the EPA's response to PRP SteeringCommittee comments regarding the ROD and RI/FS prepared byEnviron Corporation dated January 15, 1991. Should you have anyquestions or comments regarding the contents of this response,please contact me at (215) 597-9023.

Sincerely yours.

Philip 'RotsteinRemedial Project Manager

Enclosure

cc: Michael J. Farley, EsquireKirn Hummel (3HW24)Paul Leonard (3HW01)Yvette Hamilton (3RC23)Lydia Isales (3RC2.3)Khoa Nguyen (VDWM)

fl ROD GO 5 5 jy«->w«/ /•«,,,

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON RI/FS AND ROD MADE BYENVIRON CORPORATION FOR C&R BATTERY SUPERFUND SITS PRP GROUP

1. Comment fpage 11 of ENVIRON'S submission entitled "Commentson the RI/FS and ROD for the CSR Battery Superfund Site" datedJanuary 14, 1991: The actual cost of implementing the remedialaction described in the Record of Decision will be much greaterthan EPA's estimate. A major portion of the cost increase isassociated with off-site disposal of the treated material. Newinformation indicates that most of the local landfills will notaccept this material, and that the lowest-cost option fordisposal will cost approximately twice as much as EPA's estimate.

EPA Response: Extensive efforts were made during the FS toobtain the most accurate cost information available during 1989.EPA's cost estimates were based on thorough predesigncalculations and on unit costs obtained from vendor pricequotations and standard guidance documents, including the 1989Means Site Work Cost Data manual, Richardson's ConstructionEstimating Standards, and the EPA Handbook for Remedial Action atWaste Disposal Sites. In accordance with EPA's Guidance ForConducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies UnderCERCLA manual (EPA, 1988), the accuracy of the cost estimateprovided in the FS is +50 percent to -30 percent. At least twolocal landfills have indicated that they would accept the treatedmaterial from the site. EPA estimates that disposal of thetreated soil at either facility will fall within the +50 percentto -30 percent accuracy range of the cost estimate.

2, ComjQgn.'fr (page 1. paragraph 1); The Proposed Plan includes acapital cost of $15,292,000 and a present-worth cost of$15,572,000 for Alternative 4a, the selected remedial action.The ROD states that the present-worth cost is $15,292,000 (page42).

EPA Response; ENVIRON has identified a typing error. Tables 6and 7 in tha ROD clearly show a capital cost of $15,292,000 and apresent-worth cost of $15,572,000 for Alternative 4a. Thesecosts are outlined again on page 35 of the ROD. Obviously, onpage 42 of the ROD the capital cost was mistakenly used as thepresent-worth cost. The correct present-worth cost ofAlternative 4a is $15,572,000.

3. Comment i"page l, paragraph 4}; There is only one locallandfill (Charles City Landfill, operated by Chambers DevelopmentCompany) that might accept the treated soil from the site. Thecost of disposing the treated soil in this landfill is$59.50/ton, almost twice EPA's estimate.

flR000056

EPA Response; ENVIRON is not correct in stating that only onelocal landfill might accept treated soil from the site*Shoosmith landfill in Chesterfield County, which was contactedduring the Feasibility Study in June of 1989, indicated that itcould accept the treated soil from the C&R Battery Site. Thefact that the Charles City Landfill has also stated that it mightaccept the treated soils indicates :that there is more than onelocal landfill which could potentially accept the treated soil.Shoosmith landfill stated that the June 1989 disposal cost was$22/ton and that the disposal cost would increase to $30/ton bySeptember 1, 1989. In accordance with EPA's Guidance ForConducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies UnderCERCLA manual (EPA, 1988), alternative costs were calculated aspresent-worth costs where all future costs were discounted tocurrent year, or 1989, dollars. The $30/ton cost for disposal oftreated soil was therefore used in the present-worth costestimate. In accordance with EPA's Guidance For ConductingRemedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLAmanual (EPA, 1988), the accuracy of the cost estimate provided inthe FS is +50 percent to -30 percent. An increase in thedisposal cost to $59.50/ton would raise the present-worth cost ofAlternative 4a to approximately $20.9 million, which is withinthe accuracy range of the estimate ($10.9 to $23.4 million).

4. Comment fpaae 2. paragraph 3); If the treated soil ishauled to the Charles City Landfill, which is locatedapproximately 32 miles from the C&R Battery Site, the total costof hauling the treated soil would be more than $3.5 million, not$882,300 as listed in EPA's estimate.

EPA_Response; .ENVIRONVs estimate for hauling soil to the CharlesCity Landfill is not correct. EPA's hauling estimate of $882,300was calculated using 5882 truck loads at $ISO/load based on 1989Means Site Work Cost Data. The distance to the landfill wasassumed to be 15 miles one way yielding a cost per loaded mile of$10/loaded mile. Therefore, using $10/loaded mile, the cost tohaul the treated soil to the Charles City Landfill would beapproximately $1.9 million, not $3.5 million. Because the costper loaded mile typically decreases with hauling distance, theactual cost to transport the treated soil to the Charles CityLandfill would most likely be lower than $1.9 million. The costto haul treated soil to the Charles City Landfill would raise thepresent-worth cost of Alternative 4a to approximately $17.1million, which is well within the accuracy range of the estimate($10.9 to $23.4 million).

5. Comment (page 2. paragraph 4); EPA's estimated cost forexcavating the soils of $2.30/cubic yard and estimated cost forloading the treated material onto trucks of $0.84/cubic yard aregrossly underestimated and do not include the additional cost ofdust control and worker protection. '- The actual cost for

fiROOOOS?

excavating the soils and for loading the treated material ontotrucks should actually be $15/cubic yard and $5/cubic yard,respectively.

EPA Response: ENVIRONfs statement that EPA did not consider thecost of dust control and worker protection is incorrect. EPA'sunit costs for excavating the soils and for loading the treatedmaterial onto trucks were based on costs included in the 1989Means Site Work Cost Data manual. The costs do not includeoverhead, indirect, profit, contingency, and engineering costs,which are added to the unit costs at the end of the costcalculation spreadsheet. The additional cost for dust controland worker protection is included in the Health and SafetyMonitoring line item in the cost spreadsheet. A total of$644,246 is included in the cost estimate for Alternative 4a forhealth and safety monitoring. This is equal to $16.37/cubic yardfor 39,361 cubic yards of excavated material.

6. • Comment (page 2. paragraph SI: The actual cost of disposingof the old tires, storage shed, and concrete pad will be at least$42.50/ton, not $30/ton as was estimated by the EPA.

EPA Response; EPA based its cost estimate on a quote from alocal landfill. The 1989 cost of $30/ton for disposal of the oldtires, storage shed, and concrete pad, quoted by ShoosmithLandfill, was used in the present-worth cost estimate. The costto dispose of the material in the Charles City Landfill is withinthe accuracy range of the cost estimate (+50 percent to -30percent).

7. comment fpacre 3, paragraph IV; Based on price quotationsobtained in Hay and June of 1990, the cost of treating the soil,sediment, and debris is more than 30 percent higher than EPA'sestimate.

EPA Response; The treatment cost for stabilization of the soil,sediment, and debris were based on the results of thetreatability study conducted by Hazcon, Inc. Stabilizationmaterial costs were calculated using 1989 costs in accordancewith EPA's Guidance For Conducting Remedial Investigations andFeasibility Studies Under CERCLA manual (EPA, 1988). An increaseof 30 percent in the stabilization treatment cost is within theaccuracy of the cost estimate provided in the FS (+50 percent to-30 percent).

8. CoBaent fpage 3. paragraph H; EPA's cost estimate forAlternative 4a does not include mobilization/demobilization costswhich will be at least $25,000. This raises the possibility thatother costs may have been overlooked.

EPA Response; ENVIRON's comments that mobilization anddemobilization costs were overlooked is incorrect.

AR000058

Mobilization/demobilization costs were included as part of theoverall treatment cost of $70/cubic yard* As shown on page 37bin Appendix A of the FS Report, a cost of $200,000 was assumedfor mobilization demobilization.

ENVIRON*s speculation that other costs may have beenoverlooked is unsubstantiated. EPA's cost estimates were basedon thorough predesign calculations, as included in Appendix A ofthe FS report. Extensive efforts were made during the FS toobtain the most accurate cost information available during 1989.Unit costs were based on vendor price quotations as well as onstandard guidance documents including the 1939 Means Site WorkCost Data manual, Richardson's Construction Estimating Standards,and the EPA Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites.

Every attempt was made during the FS to identify and includeall elements involved with implementation of the alternatives.In addition to major cost elements, such as excavation andtreatment costs, each alternative includes costs for othermiscellaneous costs such as site preparation, laboratory analysesfor verification of cleanup, treatment of decontamination fluids,health and safety monitoring, and site reclamation activities,such as backfilling, regrading, and revegetation. Furthermore, •each alternative includes a 20 percent contingency.

When assumptions were required to perform the cost analysis,conservative assumptions were made. For example, for costingpurposes it was assumed that the onsite surface water anddecontamination fluids would be shipped in tanker trucks to anoffsite treatment facility. It is quite possible that there maybe no surface water present on site at the time of remediation.It may also be possible to treat and dispose of decontaminationfluids on site. Either of these options would result in a costsavings. Furthermore, it was assumed that the Ni/Cd batterieswould be treated and disposed at an offsite facility. It may bepossible, however, to reclaim the Ni/Cd batteries at an offsiterecycling facility, which would also result in cost savings.

9. Comment fpaae 3. paragraph 1).; EPA's cost estimate forAlternative 4a does not include the cost for handling or disposalof 2,600 cubic yards of soil excavated from the drainage ditch.

EPA Response; Of the 2,600 cubic yards excavated for twodrainage ditches, it was assumed that 1,300 cubic yards would beused to fill in the temporary drainage ditch and the other 1,300cubic yards would be used to backfill a portion of the excavatedsoil area. i

The cost estimate for Alternative 4a includes the cost ofplacing, spreading, and compacting 53,080 cubic yards of backfillmaterial. The correct amount of material to be placed, spread,and compacted should be 56,200 cubic yards, which includes the

R000059

additional 2,600 cubic yards plus a 20% swell factor. The actualunburdened cost of placing, spreading, and compacting theadditional 3120 cubic yards of material is approximately $10,950.This additional cost is insignificant compared to the total costestimate and is well within the accuracy of the estimate.

10. C mfflgnfr fpaore 3. paragraph 2^; If the treated wastes aredisposed at the Charles City Landfill, the total cost is likelyto exceed EPA's estimate by $10 million or more.

EPA Response; Even if ENVIRON's total cost estimate was correct,it still falls within the accuracy required in the FS process.Assuming a disposal cost of $59.50/ton and a hauling cost of$10/loaded mile as stated in the previous comments, the cost ofdisposing of the treated soil at the Charles City Landfill wouldbe approximately $22.5 million, which is within the accuracyrange of the estimate ($10.9 to $23.4 million).

11. CfrTPTWI'fr fpaae 3, paragraph 2); If the treated waste must bedisposed in a hazardous waste landfill, such as the GSX disposalfacility, the cost will probably exceed EPA's estimate by $20-25million (total capital cost).

EPA Response; The possibility that the treated waste may have tobe disposed of in a RCRA-permitted hazardous waste landfill wasidentified in the FS Report as well as the ROD. EPA acknowledgesthat disposal of the stabilized soil in a hazardous wastelandfill will exceed the cost for disposal of the treatedmaterial in a local sanitary or industrial waste landfill by $20-25 million. Should costs be increased in such a manner, EPAwould have to consider the need for an Explanation ofSignificant Difference under Section 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.9617 or a ROD amendment.

The alternative selected was based on a treatability studyconducted during the RI/FS. The study indicated it wastechnically feasible to produce a stabilized byproduct(soil) thatwould not leach lead in excess of the maximum concentration forthe toxicity characteristic under 40 CFR Section 261.24, Table 1.Therefore, the assumption that the treated waste is not ahazardous waste and can be disposed of in a solid waste landfillwas valid for purposes of the Feasibility Study.

12. QflmainTfr fpaae 4, first bullet); The risk calculationmethods used in the RI are not consistent with current EPAguidance documents, which were issued before the date of the RI.

EPA Response; The HI for the C&R Battery Site was finalized inJanuary 1990; the guidance document referred to by ENVIRON, RiskAssessment Guidance for Superfund; Volume I. Human HealthEvaluation Manual (RAGS), was given interim final status inDecember 1989. While it is true that RAGS was finalized one

3R000060

month prior to issuance of the RI, the risk assessment for theC&R Battery Site was prepared several months prior tofinalization of the RI. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggestthat the risk assessment presented in the RI should strictlyadhere to SAGS. The following specific points should be noted,however: - - - - - - -

1. As dictated by pertinent guidance at the time ofpreparation, the risk assessment in the RI evaluates risk undertwo distinct exposure scenarios, average and maximum.

ia. Under the average case scenario, an average soilcontaminant concentration was'assumed, and the soilingestion rate utilized for children (6-11 years) was 50mg/day.

b. Under the maximum case scenario, a maximum soilcontaminant concentration was assumed, and the soilingestion rate utilized for children (6-11 years) was 250mg/day. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.-__r._ —

c. In contrast, under the auspices of RAGS, these exposurefactors.have been revised for'application in more recentRI's such that each contaminant level in soil reflects the95th percentile of the arithmetic mean concentration, andthe soil ingestion rate for individuals over 6 years of ageis 100 mg/day. (Note that these revised parameters liebetween the average and maximum values applied in the RI.)

2. On page 10 of ENVIRON's comments, an absorption factor of0.3 (rather than 0.4375, which is used in the RI) is recommendedfor carcinogenic risk calculations involving inhalation ofarsenic. The rationale for this suggestion is not clear.

3. It is also suggested on page 10 that an exposure duration of30 years (as opposed to 70 years) be .utilized in thecalculations. However, at the time that the risk assessment wasconducted for the C&R Battery Site,; a 70-year exposure durationfor carcinogens was appropriate. Therefore, the exposurecalculations will not be altered in this regard.

4. The following statement appears on page 14; "Review of thedose calculations in the RI indicates that for the majority ofindicator chemicals, absorption factors were inappropriatelyapplied." It is agreed that absorption factors should not havebeen used in the risk calculations, since absorption rates areconsidered in the derivation of Reference Doses (RfDs) andCarcinogenic Potency Factors. Including absorption factors inthe risk calculations serves to reduce estimated risks by double-counting the effect of less than 100 percent absorption by thehuman physiology.

R00006I

An outdated reference doseapproach was used for calculating the health risks associatedwith lead, instead of the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic Model thatis currently being used by EPA at a number of Superfund sites toassess lead~uptake and associated risk.

EPA Response: It is acknowledged that the chronic oral RfD thatappears in the RI for lead has been withdrawn; this point isclearly documented in the report. The RfD for lead was presentedin the report for comparative and informational purposes only,since no other health-based criteria were (or are) available forthis heavy metal.

In an effort to define the potential risks to human healthand to the environment under the "No Action" alternative, CERCLAregulations mandate that a baseline risk assessment be conductedat each Superfund site. Since the primary contaminant at the C&RBattery Site is lead, a heavy metal for which no health-basedcriteria exist, the risk assessment appearing in this RI is, inreality, an academic exercise. Currently, the remediation goalfor lead in soil is prescribed by the Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response (OSWER) interim guidance dated September 7,1939, which suggests that in the absence of site-specific data tothe contrary, levels of 500-1000 mg/kg be achieved at Superfundsites. The remedial objectives at the C&R Battery Site conformto this recommendation, as the upper boundary of the suggestedrange (1000 ppm) is an accepted goal for lead in soil at batterybreaking facilities.

With regard to the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic Model forlead, when the risk assessment for the C&R Battery Site wasprepared, the model was under review. In fact, after severalrevisions, many inherent flaws continue to limit the applicationof this predictive tool. Most notably, in order to accuratelyapply the model, actual blood-lead levels (PbB) in childrenresiding in the vicinity of the site should be established. Thisendeavor should be undertaken to ensure that the appropriategeometric standard deviation (GSD) for PbB is incorporated in themodel. (The current default GSD appearing in the model wasderived based on exposure of young children to point-source leadcontamination. However, the default GSD in the model is notsufficiently protective for children exposed to soil contaminatedwith lead.) In addition to the GSD, other default parametersappearing in the model have recently been challenged. If,however, the model were applied to this site (with an adjustedGSD), it is estimated that in order to be protective of 99percent of exposed children, a lead level with an arithmeticaverage of 200-300 mg/kg would have to be realized.

14. CQTOflTVt (page 4. third bullet!; Although the site is zonedfor industrial use and will not be used for residences, and EFA

SROD0062

has stated that the population segment most likely to be exposedis teenage trespassers, the health risk calculations wereperformed for small children with exposure parameters that mightbe assumed for on-site residents.

EPA Response; _Under EPA guidance, when conducting a baselinerisk assessment at Superfund sites, a future-use scenario for theimpacted area ,jaust be evaluated. In fulfillment of this mandate,such a task was performed at the C&R Battery site. Since youngchildren are typically the most sensitive subpopulation withregard to adverse health impacts following exposure, particularlywith regard to lead, the risk to this group was a focal point inthe toxicological evaluation. It should also be noted thatassessing potential risks at this site under the future usescenario justifies the deed restrictions instituted at the sitefor residential development. The process for obtaining deedrestrictions will be defined the final remedial action design iscompleted.

15. Comment (page 4, fourth bullet); The health risks appear tohave been calculated only for on-site soils, although theremedial action described in the ROD includes sediments and off-site soils as well.

EPA Response; When conducting a quantitative assessment of risk,it is customary to evaluate exposure to on-site contaminantsapart from all other exposures, since "on-site" is presumablywhere the highest degree of contamination exists. The risksassociated with exposure to sediments and off-site soils, ifassessed, would have no bearing on the risk assessmentcalculations (or proposed remediation) currently appearing in thereport for exposure to on-site soils.

In relation to the remedial action described in the ROD, asstated previously, the remediation goal to be accomplished at thesite is dictated by OERR interim guidance for lead in soil, notthe results of the risk assessment.

16. Comment fpaae 4. fifth bullet); The emission equation usedto estimate the contribution of suspended particulates from thesite at off-site locations is inappropriate and was not clearlyapplied. :

EPA Response; The emission factor equation applied in the RI wasused to provide a best estimate of wind-generated emissions. Inorder to determine if the fugitive emissions were overestimatedin the RX study, the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (SEAM)was reviewed. In addition to the Skidmore and Woodruff winderosion equation, the SEAM document also references studies madeby Cowherd, et al, (Midwest Research Institute, 1985) to estimatecontaminant emissions generated by wind erosion. Because the

8

flR000063

Cowherd study was readily available to NUS, this document wasused to estimate wind erosion emissions.

The Cowherd equation for wind erosion from surfaces withlimited erosion potential, such as the C&R Battery site, is afunction of vegetative cover, wind velocity, soil erodibilityindex, soil—moisture content and the frequency of disturbances.The worst case emission rate is calculated by assuming that adisturbance occurs just prior to the annual fastest mile event atthe site, both within the 24-hour period of interest.

Calculations were made for both the worst case and best caseemission factors to determine the range of the emission factors.Results of the calculations indicated that the Cowherd emissionsfactors were between 5% and 154% of the emission factor given inAppendix I of the feasibility study, with the average emissionfactor being about 80%, As a result, the application of the winderosion equations cited in the SEAM document did not result in asignificantly lower emission rate for estimated annual averagePM10 emissions.

17. Coisment fpaae 4, sixth bullet).; The relationship betweenthe predicted off-site concentrations of lead and arsenic in thefugitive dust is not consistent with the reported on-site soil •concentrations. The exact nature of the error that caused thisinconsistency cannot be determined, however, because the relevantcalculations have not been adequately documented in_the RI. Itappears that the off-site health risk associated with arsenic inthe fugitive dust has been overestimated by at least an order ofmagnitude.

EPA Response: A review of the modeling output for the RIindicates that the area source inventory for the lead emissionscontained an incorrect x,y coordinate system that located the C&Rlead source emissions several hundred meters away from the off-site receptor network* The coordinates for the lead sources werecorrected and new maximum annual concentrations were calculated.The new maximum annual offsite lead concentration increased byone to two orders of magnitude from the original RI estimatebecause the source emissions are closer to the offsite receptornetwork.

The coordinate system used for-the arsenic area sources wasreviewed and is correct, therefore the original RI calculationfor the maximum annual arsenic concentration does not change.However, this has no bearing on the remedial alternativeselected.

18. Cgmr TTfr fpaae 4. seventh bullet); Deposition and respirableparticle size were ignored in calculating the health riskassociated with inhalation of fugitive dust.

flR00006t+

EPA Response; Since the RI is intended to address the fractionof particles in the respirable size, i.e., PM10, then theconsideration of deposition for these smaller size particlesshould not result in significantly lower offsite concentrations.Results from theJRI modeling indicate that the maximum annualconcentrations for the low level/nonbuoyant fugitive emissionswill occur adjacent to the site boundary and therefore not allowsufficient distance for deposition to deplete the dust plume.

19. Comment (pace 4. eighth bullet); There are inconsistenciesin identification of the soil samples used in estimating thehealth risk associated with soil ingestion; these inconsistenciescannot be resolved because of inadequate documentation.

EPA Response; The following information is provided asclarification of the sample numbers: in question.

• Footnote 3 in Table 4-3 of the RI report contains atypographical error. The background surface soilsample should be SO-30-Ofi, not SO-30-03..

• Samples SO29-00 and SO30-00 were correctly identifiedas surface soil samples throughout the RI report. For*purposes of evaluating the data, sample SO26-00 wasalso evaluated as a background soil sample. Thissample was from boring 26 that was located west of thesite and eventually converted to MW1-1. Therefore, it

. - . , . , . is of no significance that the heading in Appendix Fdid not label this sample as background. What isimportant is the interpretation of the data. Review ofthe sample log sheets shows that a field decision wasmade to collect a surface soil sample at this location(S026-00), even though the Work Plan didn't call for asample at this location. Table 2-3 should be modifiedto account for this sample.

• Footnote 1 on Table 4-3 in the RI incorrectly indicatesthat surface soil data were collected at 5027-00.

• At boring SO-13, a surface soil sample was collectedfrom the top 0.5 feet of soil that overlayed theconcrete pad (0.5-1.5 ft.) Table 2-3 in the RI didn'taccurately reflect the sampling depth.

• The surface soil sample from boring SO-24 was collectedfrom the 0*5-2.0 ft. depth, as indicated on Table 2-3.

• Borings SO-31 through SO-36 were drilled during thesecond phase of drilling. All samples were shipped tothe EPA Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) in Annapolisfor XRF screening. Those samples that registeredpositive detections for lead were analyzed for TAL

10

R000065

inorganics. Surface soil samples were collected at SO-34 and SO-35, but registered <100 mg/kg lead by XRF(see Figure 4-1 in the RI report) . Therefore, nofurther inorganic analyses were performed.

20, Com n-fr fpag-e 5, first bullet); Use of the XRF instrumentfor field screening of soil samples probably resulted in a biaseddata set and overestimation of the average levels ofcontamination .

EPA Response: See EPA response to comment No. 33 (page 20, thirdparagraph of ENVIRON 'S comments).

21. Comment (page 5, second bullet); The majority of the dataused in characterizing the health risks at this site werequalified, presumably because of quality control problems, and itis not possible to determine the nature of significance of theseproblems because of inadequate documentation.

EPA Response: Given the strict protocol that Contract LaboratoryProgram facilities must adhere to and the rigorous QualityAssurance review that analytical data undergo, it is not unusualfor sampling results to be qualified. _The quality of data is notimpaired simply because the data are qualified; in fact, such ,data are routinely used with confidence for the purpose ofquantifying risk. ENVIRON's statement on page 13 of theircomments that using flagged data translates to "a high degree ofuncertainty associated with any quantitative risk assessment" iserroneous .

22. Cfr jflftn-fr fpaae 5, third bullet).; Because of the problemsnoted above, the health risks associated with ingestion ofsurface soils appear to have been significantly overestimated.

EPA Response; This comment has been adequately addressed inresponses to comment Nos. 19, 20 and 21.

2 3 • Cypijflent (pacye 17 . paragraph 3J ; The selected remedialaction for the site (as outlined in the Record of Decision) wasbased on inaccurate assumptions, incomplete data, and technicaluncertainties and is therefore inconsistent with the requirementsof the National Contingency Plan. The RI/FS documents for thissite incorporate numerous errors and reflect numerous sources ofuncertainty that must be resolved before an appropriate remedialaction can be selected. Until additional information has beencollected and analyzed, further remedial action should bedeferred.

EPA Response; ENVIRON's claims are not substantiated. Acomprehensive Remedial Investigation of the site was conducted inwhich over 300 environmental samples were taken from surfacesoil, subsurface soil, waste piles, surface water, and

11

fiROQQ066

groundwater. Based on extensive data gathered during the fieldinvestigation effort, the nature and extent of contamination atthe site were fully characterized and documented with a highdegree of accuracy and confidence. In addition to the RemedialInvestigation, three treatability studies were conducted tosupport the~evaluation of technologies in the FS. Thus, thedevelopment and screening of remedial alternatives in the FS wasconducted with a high level of thoroughness and certainty. Inaccordance with the National Oil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) , a comprehensivedetailed analysis and comparison of, the remedial alternatives wasconducted according to the following criteria: overall protectionof human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost. This in-depth analysis and comparison of alternatives provided a soundbasis for selecting the best remedial action for the site.

24. Comment (page 18. paragraph 4); Uncertainties anddeficiencies related to the history of the site will affect thecost and feasibility of implementing the remedial actiondescribed in the ROD.

EPA Response; As described in EPA's response to the previouscomment, the nature and extent of contamination at the site werefully characterized with a high degree of accuracy and confidencefrom data gathered during an extensive field investigationeffort. In addition to the Remedial Investigation, threetreatability studies were conducted to evaluate the feasibilityand cost of using stabilization and soil washing processes totreat the soil at the C&R Battery Site.,. .. Because the nature andextent of contamination at the site were completely characterizedby the Remedial Investigation, evaluation of the cost andfeasibility of the alternatives during the FS was performed witha high degree of confidence and thoroughness. Thus, anyuncertainties related to the history of the site will have aminimal impact, if any, on the cost and feasibility ofimplementing the remedial action described in the ROD.

25. CoTmflgnfr fpaae 18, paragraph 4); The claim that the batterybreaker was mobile im inconsistent with the concrete pad found atthe site and with many of the other documents in theadministrative record, especially with the State Water ControlBoard reports.

EPA Response; The fact that battery-breaking activitiesoccurred throughout the site (and thus the use of the word"mobile") is substantiated by aerial photographs. The concretepad was apparently constructed as part of the evolution ofbattery breaking operations. An understanding of the site'shistory shows that past mobile operations and the presence of theconcrete pad are not inconsistent.

12

3R000067

26. Cfrmjaeryfr fpaqe 19, paragraph 2); Other uncertainties relatedto the history of the site are associated with the removal actionconducted by EPA in the summer of 1986.

EPA Response: The removal action was conducted by EPA in Julyand August of 986 to address potential public health concernsassociated with elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic andcadmium in site soils. The goals of the response action were thefollowing:

a. Restrict site access by fencing.

b. Restrict off-site migration of contaminants.

c. Grading and erosion control implementation.

' d. Neutralization of acidic soil,

The above actions were accomplished through the following majoractivities:

a. Removal of surface debris and neutralization of acidpond liquids via lime addition (elevation of pH to3.5);

b. Installation of a six foot tall chain link fence insidethe tree line to minimize direct contact threatassociated with contaminated soils and debris;

c. Top layer of contaminated soil and debris around shedremoved and piled (soil later disked with lime);

d. The pond solids were blended with hydrated lima andreturned to the pond;

e. The Acid Pond berm was leveled and berm soil (afterconfirming pH) was used for filling on site depressionsand was limed with rest of site soils;

f. Soils disked and mixed with lime to an approximatedepth of two feet across the site;

g. Excavation and regrading of the drainage ditch andconstruction of rock rip rap check dams to reduceerosion.

The above actions served to mitigate the immediate threat posedby the site but did not represent a permanent solution to thesoils contamination problem.

13

flROOOOSS

27. Comment (Pacre 19. paragraph 3); The nature and extent ofcontamination is not sufficiently characterized to support theselection of a remedial action.

EPA Response; A comprehensive Remedial Investigation of thesite was conducted which included installation of 37 soilborings, 5 monitoring wells, 8 trenches, and 27 test pits. Over300 environmental samples were taken including samples fromsurface soil, subsurface soil, waste piles, surface water, andgroundwater. In addition to environmental sampling, siteinvestigation activities included ajjuifer testing, 5 rounds ofwater level measurements, a tidal fluctuation study, terrestrialand aquatic biota studies, and a site survey. Based on extensivedata gathered during this comprehensive field investigationeffort, the nature and extent of contamination at the site werefully characterized with a high degree of accuracy andconfidence. Results of the site investigation were thoroughlyevaluated during the Remedial Investigation. Patterns ofcontamination were identified and were well documented in theRemedial Investigation Report. Thus, the nature and extent ofcontamination were sufficiently characterized to support theselection of a remedial action.

28. Comment (Page 19. paragraph 3); The accuracy of all of thecontours used in estimating the volumes of the variouscontaminated materials is questionable; the contouring algorithmis not described, and the level of detail provided in thedocuments is not sufficient to allow development of alternativecontours.

EPA Response; EPA's lead isoconcentration contours are based ona large number of surface and subsurface soil data points, all of Iwhich are documented in the RI report. During the RI, surface Isoil samples were taken from 84 locations throughout the site andin adjacent offsite areas. Sampling grid points were spaced 50feet apart in the east-west direction and 100 feet apart in thenorth-south direction. Subsurface soil samples were from variousintervals (minimum of 5) from 31 soil borings arranged in anunbiased grid pattern and spaced 50 feet apart in the east-westdirection and 100 feet apart in the north-south direction. Thelarge number of data points generated from the extensive samplingeffort enabled contaminant contours to be developed with a highdegree of accuracy. As shown in the RI, isoconcentration mapswere generated for 5 different depth intervals. Furthermore, 5different cross sections showing depth-specific leadconcentrations were also generated from the sampling data. Thus,lead concentrations and patterns of contamination were welldefined in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Theaccuracy of the soil volume estimates calculated using the leadisoconcentration contours was more than sufficient to supportdevelopment and comparison of remedial alternatives as well as to

14

flR000069

estimate alternative costs within the +50 percent to -30 percentaccuracy range required for the FS.

29, comment fpage 19. paragraph 3); It was assumed in theabsence of any information, that a considerable portion of thetotal area to be remediated contains contamination in theuppermost six inches of soil, but is underlain by clean subsoils,This assumption was also made for the sediments in the drainageditch. If contamination is actually present at deeper levels,the costs of implementing the selected remedy may increasesignificantly.

EPA Response; EPA's estimates of soil contamination were basedon data gathered during the RI and are documented in the RIreport. Installation and sampling of 37 soil borings as well asexcavation of 27 test pits and 8 trenches enabled the extent ofsubsurface soil contamination to be defined with a high degree ofconfidence and accuracy. The presence of battery casingfragments in the subsurface soil also provided clear indicationsof subsurface contamination. In general, surface soil leadcontamination detected outside of the battery breaking areas islocated in tree-covered and/or highly vegetated areas where therewas absolutely no physical or chemical evidence of subsurfacecontamination (see text on page 4-9 and Table 4-5 in the RIreport)* Therefore, it was logically assumed that the surfacecontamination in these areas was a result of contaminantmigration from wind erosion and surface water runoff from thesite. The assumption that lead is contaminated to a depth of sixinches in these areas may actually be a conservative assumption,as much of these areas may actually be uncontaminated orcontaminated to a depth of less than six inches.

concrete pad is described as being approximately 100 x 100 feet,while on page 4-10 the pad is described as approximately 150 x150 feet. This is an indication that the available data do notprovide any reliable indication of the volume of contaminatedmaterial that will require treatment.

EPA Response: The 100 x 100 feet dimensions quoted in the FS wasan initial estimate of the size of the concrete pad based onhistorical data of the site. As described in Section 2.0 of theRI, four trenches were installed during the field investigationin order to accurately delineate the boundaries of the concretepad. The extent of the concrete pad is clearly shown in Figure2-5 of the RI. As shown in Figure 2-5, the pad is approximately150 x 150 feet. This dimension was used in the cost calculationsfor the remedial alternatives as shown on page 34 of Appendix Aof the FS.

15

flR000070

3 1 . Comment f paae_ 2 0 . p_araar aph 1 ) ; Although a few samples wereanalyzed for total metal concentrations and EP Toxicity,comparison of the results of these 'tests does not establish arelationship. The estimates associated with the remedial actiondescribed in. the ROD are based on the assumption that all soilswith greater than 1000 mg/kg of lead will require treatment, butdata in the RI do not support this assumption.

EPA Response; As discussed on page 3-3 of the FS, an accuratecorrelation between total lead concentration and EP extractionlead concentrations could not be developed from the available EPtoxicity test results. Additional testing was not deemednecessary for making a knowledgeable selection of a remedialalternative. The 1000 mg/kg total lead is the performancestandard which applies to all areas of the site except the acidpond for which soils must be excavated until TCLP results areless than the 5 ppm standard established under RCRA clean closurerequirements . .

32. Comment fpage 20 , paragraph 2); Another important source ofuncertainty is that the majority of the data used in the RI tocharacterize the nature and extent of contamination isunreliable. This is indicated by tlie qualifiers (flags) thatappear with many of the numbers reported in Appendix F of the RI.

!EPA Response: The analytical data used in the RI are reliable.Any data determined to be invalid during the data validationprocess were rejected (R qualifier) . Data marked with a Jqualifier (estimated value) are used for determination of theextent of contamination and risk assessment, the same asunqualified data. Also see response to Comment No. 21.

3 3 . cgTft nt f page 2 0 . paragraph 3 ) ; Use of the XRF instrumentfor field screening of soil samples probably resulted in a biaseddata set and overestimation of the average levels ofcontamination.

\EPA Response; Use of the XRF data did not bias the data set norcause the overestimation of the average levels of contamination.As discussed on page 4-21 of the RI, the XRF data correlatedclosely with the CLP results, allowing it to be used incontouring lead concentrations where CLP results were notavailable* A linear correlation coefficient of 0.808 wasdetermined for the two sets of data, increasing to 0.896 whenthree outliers were excluded from the correlation. It should benoted that the XRF data was used only to supplement a large database of CLP laboratory results, including CLP results for 34surface soil and 81 subsurface soil samples. The XRF data wereused in a limited screening capacity, as 133 of 171 surface and: subsurface soil samples were shipped for CLP analysis for TALinorganics. The XRF data were used with the CLP data to help inthe development of lead isoconcentration contours where

16

flR000071

necessary. For purposes of risk assessment, only CLP data wereused. Thus, use of the XRF data did not bias the data set norcause the overestimation of the average levels of contamination.

34. Comment fpaae 20, paragraph 4); The currentcharacterization of groundwater contamination is inadequate, andthe remedial action described in the ROD was selected on thebasis of unverified assumptions.

EPA Response: As discussed in Section 4.3.1 of the RI, of thefive on-site monitoring wells, dissolved lead was detected onlyin MW5-1 at a concentration of 16.9 ug/1, which is below the MCLof 50 ug/1. Because the soil data do not indicate thatsignificant downward migration of lead has occurred throughoutthe site, the concentration of the dissolved lead detected inHW5-1 may not be representative of actual groundwater conditionsbeneath the site. Possible explanations for the lead detected inMW5-1 are included in Section 4.3.1 of the RI and EPA believesthe characterization of groundwater contamination is more thanadequate. As discussed in the Section 1.1 of the FS, EPAdetermined that an evaluation of groundwater remedialalternatives was not warranted.

fpaqe 21, paragraph 2); The net effect of thevarious sources of uncertainty is that the areas and volumes ofmaterials that will be subject to the various remedialtechnologies outlined in the ROD cannot be determined with, anyaccuracy. This may have resulted in inaccuracies in theevaluation of remedial alternatives, and prevents development ofan efficient, cost-effective remedial design.

EPA Response: As stated in previous responses to other similarcomments, the comprehensive field investigation effort allowedthe nature and extent of contamination at the site to be fullycharacterized with a high degree of accuracy and confidence.Based on the RI results, the remedial technologies andalternatives were analyzed and compared in detail according tothe following criteria, set forth in the National Oil andHazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: overallprotection of human health and the environment; compliance withA_RARs; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction oftoxicity, mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness;implementability; and cost. The comprehensive detailed analysisof alternatives provides a strong basis for the development of anefficient, cost-effective remedial design*

36. Comment f pages 21 and 22); Health risks are notsufficiently characterized to support the selection of a remedialaction.

17

aRQOQQ72

EPA-Response; Health risks associated with the C&R Battery Sitewere thoroughly evaluated as part of the Risk Assessment includedin the RI. The selected remedial action was designed to providea permanent remedy that protects human health and the environmentfrom the potential exposure pathways identified in the RI. Theselected soil cleanup level of 1000 mg/kg was not directly basedon the Risk Assessment included in the RI, but rather it wasbased on the risk analysis and lead concentration rangeestablished by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and adoptedby EPA in OSWER Directive Memorandum 09-07-89. The CDC guidancestates that "lead in soil and dust appears to be responsible forblood levels in children increasing above background levels whenthe concentration in the soil or dust exceeds 500-1000 ppm." EPAhas adopted the Canadian Ministry of the Environment's conceptthat the low end of the range is .more appropriate for residentialsettings and the upper end for industrial settings.

37. Comment (page 23, paragraph 2); Until uncertainties anddeficiencies associated with the remedial alternatives areresolved, it will not be possible to develop an efficient, cost-effective remedial design.

EPA Response; EPA is currently pursuing an efficient, cost-effective design for the selected remedial alternative. Asstated in previous responses to other similar comments, thecomprehensive field investigation effort allowed the nature andextent of contamination at the site to be fully characterizedwith a high degree of accuracy and confidence. Based on the RIresults, the remedial technologies and alternatives were analyzedand compared in detail according to the following criteria setforth in the National Contingency Plan (NCP): overall protectionof human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability;and cost. The comprehensive detailed analysis of alternativesprovides a strong basis for the design of an efficient, cost-effective remedial alternative.

38. Comment fpaae 23. paragraph 3); The FS contains a number ofcleanup criteria and action levels that have not been adequatelyjustified. The critical concentration of lead in drainage ditchsediments is specified in the ROD as 450 mg/kg, much higher thanthe 10.5 mg/kg cited in the FS. Also in the FS, the three actionlevels to be considered are specified (120, 1,000, and 10,000mg/kg) without any justification or explanation.

EPA Response: The 450 mg/kg action level for lead in thesediments was derived using the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET)approach as described on page 2-20 of the FS. Therefore, the10.5 mg/kg sediment action level for lead cited on page 2-21 ofthe FS is incorrect, and the 450 mg/kg action level cited in theHOD is the correct action level. The rationale and justification

18

flR000073

for use of the 120 mg/kg, 1,000 mg/kg, and 10,000 mg/kg soilaction levels is provided on pages 2-17 and 2-18 of the FS.

39. Comment fpage 23. paragraph 4): The modeling results arepresented in the Final Addendum to the FS, but no subsurfaceaction level has been established. The addendum asserts thatdevelopment of this action level would involve considerable timeand effort, and could not be accomplished within the scope of thestudy. Thus, EPA has not explained the basis for selecting the1000 mg/kg subsurface action level, or the basis for selectingthe other action levels that were considered.

EPA Response: The basis for selecting the 1000 mg/kg subsurfaceaction level is documented in both the FS and the ROD. Asdiscussed in the ROD and on page 2-18 of the FS, the 1000 mg/kgaction level was based on the level established by the Centersfor Disease Control as being protective of human health for areaswhich will not be frequented by children. As described in theFinal Addendum to the FS, the modeling analysis showed the 1000mg/kg action level to be protective of groundwater (based on thecurrent MCI* and proposed MCL for lead) under average siteconditions. Thus, for protection of human health and theenvironment, the 1000 mg/kg action level was selected as the mostappropriate action level for both surface and subsurface soil.

40. Comjagnfr fpace 24, paragraph 1); Figure ES-3 of the FSindicates that the lead concentrations are expected to be between120 and 1000 mg/kg under the tanks on the Capitol Oil property.No allowance for the extraordinary costs of remediating the areaunder the tanks has been included in the cost calculations,presumably because it has been assumed that this area will notneed to be remediated.

EPA Response; Based on data gathered during the RI, there are nodata to suggest that there is a significant hot spot ofcontamination under the tank farm. Boring 34, located 20 feeteast of the tank farm, has less than 100 mg/kg lead at thesurface and at 3-5 feet. Boring 31, located 50 feet west of thetank farm (northwest corner), showed 7,680 mg/kg lead at thesurface but only 156 mg/kg lead at 3-5 feet. Boring 32, located75 feet vest of the tank farm (southwest corner), showed 24,600mg/kg lead at the surface but only 33.8 mg/kg lead at 3-5A.These data show that there is no lead contamination east of thetank farm and that farther to the west of the tank farm, leadconcentrations drop considerably between the surface and 3-5feet. Based on this information, ENVIRON's implication thatsignificant lead contamination exists beneath the tank farm isunfounded.

Based on the contaminant contours generated from the RIsampling results, it was estimated that the lead concentrationsin the soil beneath the tanks is less than the 1000 mg/kg action

19

level. These soils are therefore not likely to be excavated ortreated. Even if remediation of soil under the tanks is requiredthe cost would most likely fall within the +50 percent to -30percent accuracy range required for the FS.

41. Ccmm.i3iTfc fpaae 24, paragraph 2): The Proposed Plan describesthe site as 4.5 acres, while the ROD describes it as 11 acres.

EPA Response; The 4.5 acre area refers to the property now orformerly owned by the Zacharias Brothers which was leased to C&RBattery. _Tbis_area is shown in Figure 1-2 in the RI, Figures ES-1 and ES-2 in the FS, and Figure 1 in the ROD. As described onpage ES-10 of the FS, the 11 acre area refers to the area ofcontamination (AOC), which is defined as the total area, onsiteand offsite, within the 120 mg/kg contour for surface soil leadconcentration. This area is shown in Figure ES-3 in the FS.

42. Comment fpaae 24. paragraph 2); The Proposed Plan says that"...lead was found at high concentrations in surface soilsthroughout much of the site," while the ROD states that "Theentire area of the C&R Battery Site has been contaminated withlead at concentrations which exceed the remedial action level(1000 mg/kg) ." . . . -•

EPA Response: The statement in the ROD that "The entire area ofthe C&R Battery Site has been contaminated with lead atconcentrations which exceed the remedial action level (1000mg/kg)" is incorrect. The statement should actually say thatmuch of the C&R Battery Site has been contaminated with lead atconcentrations which exceed the remedial action level (1000mg/kg). ;

43. Comment (page 24): The remedial action described in the RODis not appropriate or cost-effective and should not beimplemented without addressing the deficiencies and uncertaintiesoutlined in these comments. The final selection of a remedialaction should be performed after these uncertainties have beenresolved. ~ " "

EPA Response; The RI/FS provided sufficient information forselection of a remedial action as well as development of anefficient, cost-effective remedial design. As stated in previousresponses to other similar comments, the comprehensive fieldinvestigation effort allowed the nature and extent ofcontamination at the site to be fully characterized and athorough risk assessment to be conducted. Based on the RXresults, the remedial technologies and alternatives were analyzedand compared in great detail. The detailed analysis ofalternatives development was performed with the degree ofaccuracy required by the NCP and outlined in EPA's Guidance ForConducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies UnderCERCLA (EPA, October, 1988). Thus, the RI/FS provided sufficient

20

flR000075

lead concentrations could not be developed from the available EPtoxicity test results.

47. Comment D fpaae 27): The selected remedy requires disposalof the treated material in_an approved sanitary or industrialwaste landfill. Because none of the local landfills will acceptthe treated material, the costs of implementing the selectedremedy will be significantly higher than estimated in the FS andthe ROD.

EPA Response; See EPA response to ENVIRON comments Nos. 3 and 4.

48. Comment E fpaae 27); The selected remedy specifies a RCRAclean closure for the former acid pond area. Clean closure isnot the only option provided for this area under RCRA, and nojustification for selection of this option has been provided inthe ROD.

EPA Response; As stated in the ROD, EPA's preferred alternativeprovides a permanent remedy for the contaminated material andcomplies with the statutory preference of CERCLA. for a remedy toemploy treatm_e_nt that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volumeof contamination. A landfill closure would not provide apermanent remedy and would not comply with the statutorypreference of CERCLA. to employ treatment that reduces thetoxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination.

49. Comment F (page 28); The selected remedy specifies thatareas of residual contamination (i.e., with lead concentrationsbetween 120 and 1000 mg/kg) outside of the former acid pond areabe covered with six inches of clean topsoil and revegetated.This requirement is not justified by any documented threat tohuman health or the environment and is more extreme than remedialactions recommended in EPA guidance documents.

EPA Response; As discussed on page 2-9 of the FS, the soil coverover the residual areas of contamination is consistent with thehybrid closure proposed in the Federal Register (53 FR 51446).In accordance with EPA's CERCLA Compliance with Other LawsManual, Parts X and IX (EPA, August, 1988 and August 1989,respectively), a hybrid closure may be considered when RCRAclosure requirements are relevant and appropriate. The soilcover is intended to provide an additional margin of safety toassure that no residual contamination is left on the surfacefollowing remediation. Furthermore, much of the area adjacent tothe excavated soil area will require revegetation following theremedial action. Therefore, the soil cover will also serve as atopsoil layer which is needed to revegetate the site.

22

AROQQ077

information for selection of a remedial action as well asdevelopment of an efficient, cost-effective remedial design.

44, Comment A fpaae 25).: The selected remedy requiresexcavation of subsurface soils that do not pose any significantthreat to KQman health or the environment. Human contact withthese materials or contaminants derived from them can beprevented without excavation at=a much lower cost.

EPA Response; Although human contact with the contaminated soilcould be prevented without excavation, such as with a cap,installation of a cap would not provide a permanent remedy forthe site. EPA's preferred alternative provides a permanentremedy for the contaminated material and complies with thestatutory preference of CERCLA for a remedy to employ treatmentthat reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination.In addition to the direct human contact exposure route, theleaching to groundwater exposure pathway was carefully examinedin the Final Addendum to the FS. The modeling results presentedin the Final Addendum to the FS support the selection of EPA'spreferred alternative and indicate that leaving soil contaminatedwith lead above the 1,000 mg/kg action level could potentiallyresult in groundwater becoming contaminated above the MCL level •of 50 ug/1.

45. CymOTirfe B fpage 25); The action level of 450 mg/kg fordrainage ditch sediments is not justified. No ARARs are cited tosupport this level, nor is there any evidence of a threat tohuman health or the environment. The action level should beeither supported or modified.

EPA Response; As described on page 2-20 of the FS, the actionlevel of 450 mg/kg for drainage ditch sediments was based on theApparent Effects Threshold (AET) approach developed in the PugetSound in the State of Washington. The Puget Sound informationwas the best data available for sediment cleanup levels duringdevelopment of the Feasibility Study. Since issuance of theFinal Feasibility Study Report, additional sediment cleanup datahave become available which indicate that sediment cleanup levelsfor lead could potentially be set at concentrations below 450mg/kg. EPA's policy, however, is to use cleanup levels developedduring the RX/FS, which were based on the current informationavailable at that time.

46. CpTnTreirE C fpaae 26); The selected remedy requires treatment(stabilization) of materials that are not properly classified ashazardous waste. These materials can be excavated and disposedof without treatment at a significantly reduced cost.

EPA Response; As discussed on page 3-3 of the FS, an accuratecorrelation between total lead concentration and EP extraction

21

flR000076