2 2 1996

>E KEYCORP PLAZA

NY. NEW YORK I22O7

(518) 427-28SO

16OO MAIN PLACE TOWER

BUFFALO. NEW YORK I42O2

(716) 853-81OO

99O STEWART AVENUE

GARDEN CITY. NEW YORK 1I33O

(SIB) S32-75OO

Nixon. Hargrave. Devans & Doyle LLPAttorneys and Counselors at Law

CLINTON SQUARE

POST OFFICE BOX IOSI

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 146O3-1OS1

(716) 263- IOOO

FAX: (716) 263-I6OO

437 MADISON AVENUE

NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOO22

(212) 84O-3OOO

SUITE 7OO

ONE THOMAS CIRCLE

WASHINGTON D.C. 2OOO5

(2O2) 457-53OO

(716) 263-1606

July 18, 1996

VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch IIU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion IIEmergency & Remedial Response Division290 Broadway - 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007-1866

Attention: Thomas Taccone, Olean Wellfield Site ProjectCoordinator

RE: Olean Wellfield Supplemental RI/FS AdministrativeConsent Order No. II-CERCLA-10202 Comments on EPAImposed revisions to SFS and Notice of IssueSubmitted for Dispute Resolution

Dear Tom:

In accordance with Article XVII of the above referencedAdministrative Order, this letter serves to not only fully replyto the issues raised in EPA's July 3, 1996 SFS Letter and theattached unilaterally imposed "Preface" to the SFS Report, butalso a notice on behalf of the Olean Cooperating Industries("CIs") to EPA that we are triggering the Dispute Resolutionprovisions under that Order. In keeping with paragraph 87 of theOrder, dispute resolution of these issues is expressly allowedunder that Order because the July 3, 1996 letter constitutedEPA's imposition of "required revisions to the Draft SFS"pursuant to paragraph 56(b) of the Order. While our offices wereclosed on July 5, 1996 (the earliest date the July 3, 1996 lettercould have arrived) , we are submitting this notice within 14 daysof that date in order to avoid any question as to whether we havegiven timely notice to the Agency.

Because we strongly disagree with many of thestatements made in EPA's July 3, 1996 letter and its enclosure,and because we believe that the bases for our disagreement arefactual and key to the ultimate decisions which EPA will be

ROC10:89627

400967

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 2

making with respect to supplemental remedial measures within theClean Wellfield, we request that this letter be included as anofficial part of the Administrative Record for the OleanWellfield SRI/FS.

While the Olean CI's have disagreement and/or concernswith most of the content of the July 3rd EPA Letter, they wish tosubmit three specific issues for formal dispute resolution.Nevertheless, the remaining issues are important and deserving ofcorrection. The main text of this letter sets out the areas fordispute resolution, while Appendix A addresses the other commentsin response to EPA's July 3, 1996 letter and its attachedunilateral Preface. The Olean CI's continue to believe that thefinal SFS (including any Preface) , the finalPRAP and the 'ROD mustaddress not only the three issues set forth irTthe main "body ofthis letter but also those included in Appendix A.

The Olean CI's hereby invoke the Dispute Resolutionprovisions (Article XVII) of the above referenced AdministrativeOrder with regard to the following issues:

1. The Objectives of the SRI/FS

2. In order to be complete and to fully address themandated NCP evaluation, the SFS must include afactual discussion of past pumpage of thegroundwater beneath the AVX property and itsinability to significantly remove VOC mass.

3. The Stage 2 (groundwater pump and treat)"triggers" must reflect the SRI/FS Objectives andbe tied to completion of the Stage 1 remedialmeasures at all four of the identified sourceareas.

Each of these issues is discussed below.

1. What are the Objectives of the SRI/FS?

From the initiation of the Olean Wellfield SRI/FSprocess, the Olean Cooperating Industries, with EPA concurrence,have viewed the SRI/FS as a continuation of the overallinvestigation and cleanup of the Volatile Organic Contaminants("VOCs") within the wellfield aquifer. The 1995 and 1996 SRI andSFS Reports build upon, and are integral with, the investigationsdone pursuant to the initial listing of the Olean Wellfieldsuperfund site. Similarly the decisions on future remediation

ROC10:B9627

400968

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 3

arising from the SRI/FS process have also been envisioned ascomplementing and supplementing (specifically in the form ofexpediting) the remedies ordered under the 1985 ROD. Thus theObjectives of the SRI/FS are interconnected to the original RI/FSand subsequent ROD.

In accordance with the 1985 ROD, the Olean CIsundertook a number of remedial measures. The remedial measurewhich, on a continuing basis is directly tied to the SRI/FSObjectives was the construction and operation of municipal airstrippers on three City of Olean pumping wells, wells 18M, 37Mand 38M. While the initial intent of the air stripping system onthe three wells was to ensure a safe drinking water supply toCity and Town residents, it was recognized that pumping andtreatment of the Wellfield aquifer would

also provide a level of groundwater rehabilitation.Prevention and treatment at the municipal wells wouldprevent the further spread of groundwatercontamination, and would eventually reduce the levelsof VOC contaminants in groundwater.1

The 1985 RI/FS also evaluated "an enhanced groundwaterrehabilitation alternative" involving the installation of anadditional recovery well and treatment system." (Id.) The RI/FSconcluded that while "[p]umping and treatment at the recoverywell, "in conjunction with pumping and treatment at the municipalwells, would achieve further cleanup of VOC contaminants ...tiltis uncertain whether the benefits of enhanced groundwaterrehabilitation justifies the additional response... as neitherlevel of groundwater rehabilitation can be expected to restorethe quality of groundwater to a level for use without treatmentin the foreseeable future." (Id.)

Subsequently, EPA issued its Record of Decision ("ROD")adopting the recommendations included in the RI/FS and alsocalling for the SRI/FS to determine if source control elsewherein the aquifer could "expedite the treatment of the contaminated

Olean Well Field Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityStudy Town and City of Olean. New York, prepared forthe NYSDEC May 1985 at 4-8. We note that the OleanCI'8 had nothing to do with the preparation orconclusions of this report. It was prepared by anNYSDEC contractor and paid for from funds administeredby the EPA.

ROC10:8ȣ27

400969

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Dojle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 4

aquifer, and to identify if another possible source ofcontamination exists which may necessitate further action."2

In 1990 The National Contingency Plan ("NCP") wasmodified to include a formal statement of the "expectations" EPAwould follow in "developing appropriate remedial alternatives."One of the expectations added to the NCP was "to return usablegroundwaters to their beneficial uses wherever practicable,within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particularcircumstances of the site." (40 CFR § 300.430 (a) (iii) (F) .)While the Clean CI's have acknowledged this NCP requirement, wehave insisted, from before the above referenced AdministrativeOrder was signed (June 1991}, that application of this provisionbe done in the context of the Olean Wellfield SRI/FS, which is asupplemental investigation and study. The 1985 ROD orderedremediation which, while not explicitly stated in terms of theabove NCP criteria, certainly was in keeping with the spirit ofthis NCP expectation which was not incorporated into theregulations until 5 years after the ROD was issued.

The Olean CI's have done their best since 1985 toensure that all parties understood and agreed to the Objectivesof the SRI/FS. Before we signed the SRI/FS Administrative Order(referenced in the caption), we made sure that:

1. The SRI/FS Workplan (which had been put togetherby an EPA contractor) was modified to clearlystate the objectives as we understood them.

2. That paragraph 56(b) was included in theAdministrative Order. Paragraph 56(b) states

EPA's comments on, modifications to and directionsfor changes to deliverables under this Order willbe consistent with the terms of this Order and theobjectives of the Supplemental RI/FS as set.forthin the Work Plan; will not require the performanceof work inconsistent with the division of labor

, between Respondents and EPA described inparagraphs 36-39, above; and will neither beinconsistent with the NCP nor arbitrary andcapricious. (Emphasis added.)

Despite the above provisions, even before the SRI wasfinalized, EPA began to indicate that it did not feel that its

1985 ROD at 9

ROC10:89627

400970

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 5

future decisions were bound by the 1985 ROD and the agreed uponSRI/FS Objectives (as set out in the EPA Approved Workplanamendments). The Olean CI's repeatedly tried to seekclarification of this and a written commitment from EPA on justwhat the Objectives of the SRI were. Time after time, wereceived verbal assurances from EPA that it was not seeking toexpand the agreed upon SRI/FS scope. On January 14, 1994 ourconcerns were again heightened and we attempted to pin EPA downby triggering the Dispute Resolution process following an EPAletter dated January 10, 1994. EPA rejected our efforts totrigger dispute resolution (saying that its January 10, 1994letter did not constitute final action on either the SRI or SFSreports, and hence it could not be the subject of disputeresolution). As a consequence, however, it did issue a letterdated February 25, 1994 which finally addressed this issue. Thatletter acknowledges that the objectives of the SRI/FS includesthose set forth in the 1985 ROD and in the SRI/FS Objective.(See Appendix B.)

After receiving this letter the Olean CI's were underthe clear understanding that while EPA would continue to examinethe identified remedial measures in the context of their abilityto protect and restore the aquifer, this examination would bedone within the overall framework of the SRI/FS objectives.After receiving this letter we submitted revised "Remedial ActionObjectives" ("RAOs") to EPA edited to conform with the EPAletter'. (See Appendix C.) As called for under the AdministrativeOrder, these RAOs became the SFS objectives. They were alsodiscussed in the introduction of the SRI Report, which EPAapproved on June 30, 1995. They also have been clearly stated inall SFS-related submittals.

When we have questioned EPA why its SFS comments onthis issue (which ultimately were "resolved" in the first threebullets of the July 3, 1996 Unilateral Preface to the SFS Report)continued to be included in EPA comment letters subsequent„toEPA's February 25, 1994 letter we were told that this was for"administrative reasons". In addition, we were told by EPA(Kevin Lynch), that our continued inclusion of the language wouldnot jeopardize the approval of the SFS. At no time did EPA evenhint that it was planning to unilaterally remove this languagefrom the SFS. Thus, we continued to believe the issue had beensatisfactorily resolved.

As EPA clearly indicated in its February 25, 1994letter, the beneficial use of the Olean Wellfield aquifer is fordrinking water. As such, the first two bullets of the statedRAOs ("Remedial Action Objectives") for groundwater are clearly

ROC10:89627

400971

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 6

intended to support the continued beneficial use of the aquiferfor drinking water. The remaining groundwater RAO and the threesoil RAOs are meant to support the first two groundwater RAOs.The disputed phrase "if such restoration will expedite thecurrent treatment of the aquifer [which is being done] at themunicipal wells" is included to provide the pertinent timeframeagainst which the "reasonable timeframe" NCP criteria can bemade. To facilitate applying this NCP criteria the followingsummary/conclusion statements were included in the approved SRI:

• Overall, total VOC concentrations in groundwaterinfluent to Municipal Wells 18M and 37/38M havedeclined approximately 75 to 82 percent sincethese wells went back into full-time service inFebruary 1990.

• The SRI data indicate that, in general,groundwater quality within the upper and loweraquifer monitoring wells in the Olean Well Fieldis improving as a result of the remedial measuresalready in place. However, despite theeffectiveness of these measures, VOCconcentrations, in the identified soil sourceareas and the existence (or former existence) ofnon-point VOC sources within the upper aquifer maybe such that operation of the air strippingsystems on the three municipal wells may be neededindefinitely. Remediation in the identifiedsource areas is expected to lead to quantifiablegroundwater quality improvement.

• The SRI data indicate that the remedial measuresin place have already resulted in significantimprovements in water quality within the aquifer.Despite the effectiveness of these measures,background levels of VOCs in groundwater are suchthat operation of the air stripping systems on thethree municipal wells is likely to be neededindefinitely.3

As is widely acknowledged within the environmentaltechnical profession, including within both EPA and NYDEC,aquifer rehabilitation/restoration by groundwater pump and treatis an extended progress that, at many locations, is unable to

Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report.- OleanWellfield. Olean. New York. October 1994 at 79.

ROC10:89627

400972

Nixon. Hargrave. Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 7

"rehabilitate/restore" an aquifer. It is ironic that this issuehas become such a sticking point for EPA with respect to theOlean Wellfield SFS since, through its imposition of the Stage 2remedies in the SFS, EPA has simply called for complementing theongoing and effective groundwater pump and treatment system (co-located at the three municipal wells) with possibly two othergroundwater pump and treatment systems. One at the AVX sourcearea where gPA has acknowledged that such a system will not beeffective as a treatment mechanism, but only as a containmentmechanism, and one at Olean Clean All\Loohns where the proximityof the River also calls into question the effectiveness of such asystem.

In the opinion of the Olean CI's, successful resolutionof this matter can only be accomplished by allowing the languageat issue to remain in the SFS report. This will allow the SRIand SFS reports to be internally consistent. As we haveacknowledged all along, EPA can certainly clarify in its PRAP andROD how the supplemental RI/FS objectives and the selectedRemedial Alternatives are consistent with the expectation of 40CFR § 430. (a) (iii) (F) "to return usable groundwaters to theirbeneficial uses wherever practicable, within a timeframe that isreasonable given the particular circumstances of the site." TheOlean CI's are even willing to discuss mutually agreeable"Preface" language addressing this issue.

When EPA ordered the Olean CIs to expand each of theRemedial Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 discussed in the SFS report toinclude a second stage groundwater pump and treat remedy, thisissue became one of much more importance than just semantics andinternal consistency. Because decisions as to whethergroundwater pump and treat will be necessary at any of theidentified source areas will not be made until after the turn ofthe century, it is vitally important that the SRI/FS and thesubsequent RAP and ROD deary spell out what the objectives ofthe study were that led to the derivation of the Stage 2 portionsof the selected remedies. The importance of this is furtherunderscored by the subsequent two issue submitted for disputeresolution. -,

2. In order to be complete and to fully address themandated NCP ordered evaluation, the SFS must include afactual discussion of past pumpage of the groundwater

ROClO:89627

400973

Nixon, Hargrave. Devans & Dojle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 8

beneath the AVX property and its inability tosignificantly remove VOC mass.4

Through a series of imposed deletions and additions,EPA has stripped from the SFS the factual statements whichindicate that over 40 years of groundwater pumping (carried outin close proximity to the identified source area) at the AVX sitehas not led to significant removal of VOC mass from thedowngradient groundwater. This fact is extremely important in anobjective evaluation as the effectiveness of a pump and treatmentgroundwater remedy at this site. We have already modified theSFS to support EPA's stated intention of requiring, if necessary,a Stage 2 groundwater pump and treat remedy as a containmentmeasure at the AVX source area. There is no justification forEPA to expunge the factual statements.

The removal of this language may have far reachingimplications when the Stage 2 evaluations are performed anddecisions made as to whether the Stage 2 remedy must beconstructed and activated at the AVX site. We have also alreadyaccommodated EPA's stated intention of including the Stage 2remedy in the ROD by asserting (at EPA's request) that theimplementation of the Stage 2 remedy at the AVX source area"would provide an additional reduction in the risk..." (bullet43) even though this reduction in risk, in actuality, is alreadyin place because the groundwater is already being pumped.Appendix D contains Geraghty & Miller's July 19, 1995 response toEPA's June 29, 1995 comments on the SFS and where the factualbasis for the SFS statements at issue were initially brought toEPA's attention. Subsequent to this submittal EPA stopped sayingthat groundwater pump and treatment would be an "effectivetreatment" mechanism, and, instead began to discuss it as a"containment" option.

The NCP clearly instructs the Olean CIs and EPA toinclude this discussion. The very first "expectation" includedin 40 CFR § 300.430 (a) (iii) (A) of the NCP is that:

EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal"~~—J threats posed by a site, wherever practicable.

(Emphasis added.)

In fact, without an examination of whether pump and treat will bean effective treatment measure, and a conclusion that it is not

EPA Unilateral SFS Preface, Sections 3.4.3.4,' 3.4.3.4,3.4.3.5, 3.4.3.6 (Bullets 25, 28, 29 ,32, 34 and 38)

ROC10:89627

400974

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 9

practical, any SFS discussion about the effectiveness ofgroundwater pump and treat as a containment measure and inclusionof Stage 2 pump and treat for containment purposes in the RAP andROD is inconsistent with the NCP. (See 40 CFR § 300.430(a)(iii)(B)).

Once again, the inclusion of this language in the SFSis necessary to allow decision makers in the year 2000 andbeyond, to place in proper context EPA's decision to include aStage 2 remedy in the 1996 preferred remedial alternative. Onlyin this way can an appropriate decision be made as to whetherStage 2 is necessary and, if it is, whether the ROD orderedremedy of groundwater pump and treat is the proper remedy to meetthe SRI/FS objectives, or whether a ROD amendment to allow someother type of groundwater treatment/containment measure to beused is warranted.

3. The Stage 2 (groundwater pump and treat) triggers mustreflect the SRI/FS Objectives and be tied to completionof the Stage 1 remedial measures at all of the 4identified source areas.5

Through these unilateral deletions and modifications,EPA has abandoned most of the agreements we have reached with itover the last year as to what would trigger the Stage 2 remedy.First, it has backed away from its agreement that its "GuidanceFor Evaluating the Technical Impacticability of GroundwaterRestoration" ("TI Guidance") would guide decisions on whether theStage 2 Groundwater pump and treat remedial measures would beimposed. (Bullets 4, 6, 11, 14, 17, 27, 31, 41 and 42). (SeeAppendix E.)

Second, EPA has also apparently changed the startingtimeframe for the initial Stage 2 review from 4 years after allthe remedial measures have been put into place, to a source areaby source area review. Kevin Lynch (as well as Tom Taccone)agreed that this review cycle should commence only after all theStage 1 remedies were in place during our September 21, 1995

EPA Unilateral SFS Preface at Sections 3.4.3.3,3.4.3.4, 3.4.3.5, 3.4.3.6 (Bullets 27, 31 (as well asbullets 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 41, and 42 in previous andsubsequent sections)

ROC10:»9627

400975

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Dojle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 10

the remedial measures have been put into place, to a source areaby source area review. Kevin Lynch (as well as Tom Taccone)agreed that this review cycle should commence only after all theStage 1 remedies were in place during our September 21, 1995conference call. This language has been reflected in everysubmittal to EPA since then. EPA never commented upon, orobjected to, this approach. (See Appendix E.)

Third, the modification to the Stage 2 "triggerlanguage" (bullets 31, 41 and 42) implies that if the remediatedsource areas continue to "affect the groundwater entering theCity Municipal wells M18, M37 and M38" then Stage 2 will betriggered. This has long been a matter of discussion with EPA.A conceptual agreement was reached with Mr. Lynch and Mr.- Tacconeon this issue in the September 21, 1995 conference call on thistopic. The SFS language reflects this agreement. EPA'sunilateral language not only ignores the agreement reached, itcan be interpreted as establishing a lower threshold for Stage 2,i.e. if a remediated source area continues to have any "effect"on the three municipal wells. (See Appendix F,.)

Conclusion

The Olean CI's have worked closely with EPA on theSRI/FS project since at least 1989. We are extremelydisappointed and disheartened by the approach EPA chose to takein its July 3, 1996 letter and its attached Unilateral Preambleto the SFS. We believe that that preface contradicts many of theagreements and discussions that have taken place between; theagency and the Olean CI's over the last five years. For thereasons set forth above and those discussed below in Appendix A,we believe that the record must be corrected and the UnilateralPreamble either withdrawn or significantly modified before a RODcan be issued.

ROC10:89627

400S7G

Nixon. Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLP

Thomas TacconeJuly 18, 1996Page 11

We look forward to a prompt reply to the issues raisedin this letter. As always, if you have any questions, please donot hesitate to call me.

Very truly your

bby ForA, QEPenior Environmental HealthEngineerOlean CI SRI/FS Coordinator

cc: SRI/FS Consent Order Distribution ListMichael O'BrienLarry BlueBrent O'DellDennis OldlandRobert HorgerJim StittGreg ShkudaRuss Huber

ROC10:89627

40097

Appendix A

Point by Point Response to EPA's July 3, 1996 letterand its "Preface" to the Clean Wellfield SFS

A. July 3, 1996 Letter

SFS Report

We continue to disagree strongly with EPA's assertionthat our final draft did not properly evaluate the NCP criteria.Rather than repeat what we said with regard to this issue in thepast, we again reference our letters dated [to be completed].Furthermore, a review of 40 CFR § 300.430 (e) (iii) (3) which setsout the NCP evaluation criteria and Section 4.1.2 of EPA's Draft"Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and FeasibilityStudies under CERCLA (October 1988) clearly indicates that theanalyses we had done in the prior draft of the SFS was in. fullcompliance with both the NCP and EPA's Guidance. The fact thatour SFS was not organized in quite the same way EPA would haveliked in no way detracted from the analyses. Our version of thereport presented the same information in a similar butdifferently organized fashion and would have supported a logical,defensible analysis. What it did not completely support (from anorganizational approach) was EPA's pre-drafted PRAP which weunderstand was prepared over six months ago. EPA's July 3, 1995letter at least partially acknowledges this when it stated "it'strue that EPA used the information which was already in thereport...".

We agree that Mr. Taccone did not approve the Olean CI' sfinal set of submitted SFS changes during the May 15, 1996telephone call. However on June 4, 1996 when Mr. Taccone calledMs. Ford with the instructions that we were to finalize the SFS,she asked him if the changes we had submitted were acceptable,because we did not want to go to the expense of printing the SFSif additional changes were going to be necessary. 'During thatconversation Mr. Taccone indicated that, while EPA had notcompleted its review of the proposed changes, it was comfortablethat any open items could be addressed through the PRAP/RQDprocess.

Remaining Issues in July 3, 1996 Letter

These are addressed either in the main body of this letter,or in the following discussion of the Unilateral "Preface."

ROC10:89627

400978

- 2 -

B. Unilateral SFS "Preface"

In order to facilitate review of the following, we suggestthat each bullet in the Preface be assigned a separate number(beginning with 1 and following sequentially until the lastbullet which is bullet 55) .

2. Section 2.1

Bullets 1-3

See Issue #1 submitted for dispute resolution in the mainbody of this letter.

3. Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.4.1, 3.4.1.5, 3.4.1.6

Bullets 5, 7, 9, 12, 13,15, 16 and 18

With these changes EPA has rejected our suggested compromisebetween the prior draft of the SFS and EPA's position, ie. that,subsequent to the first 4 year Stage .2 review, all subsequentreviews be done in conjunction with the statutorily mandated 5year CERCLA reviews. EPA's basis for this is set forth in itsJuly 3, 1996 letter in Item 2 under "SFS Report."

With respect to the practical implications of this EPAimposed change, it is probably not major and was one that we hadexpressed a willingness to have further discussions on with EPA.We did not make these changes in our Draft Final SFS because EPAhad not yet informed us of its decision at the time it ordered usto finalize the document, even though we had submitted thisrevised language to EPA for its consideration.

Because of the actions taken in bullets 10, 13 and 16(discussed below) , there is now uncertainty as to whether EPAintends to keep the Stage 2 review separate from the CERCLA§ 121 (c) review, or to require that that review also be done on a4 year cycle. We suggest that in the PRAP and ROD, EPA recognizethat subsequent to the first four year Stage 2 review there maybe merit to combining any future Stage 2 reviews with the^subsequent 5 year CERCLA § 121 (c) review.

Bullets 10, 13 and 16

EPA appears to have mistakenly removed from the SFS's shortdescription of Remedial Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 the reference tothe CERCLA § 121 (c) review. It did not remove reference tothese reviews elsewhere in the text: (for example on page 3-19,last paragraph) . Also its July 3, 1996 cover letter clearlystates that EPA intends that the CERCLA § 121 (c) reviews be done,butv on a separate schedule. We recommend that these bullets bedeleted from the Preface.

ROC10:89627

400879

- 3 -

Bullets 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17

See the discussion below in Section 5 below.

4. Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.6

Bullets 19-24

These are simply editorial comments and do not improve theclarity of these sections. EPA had not previously asked forthese changes, or we would have made them. These changes couldbe included in either a SFS Errata sheet or a revised final"Preface".

5. Sections 3.4.3.4, 3.4.3.4, 3.4.3.5, 3.4.3.6

Bullets 25, 28, 29 and 32 (and bullet 38 in Section 7 below)

See Issue #2 submitted for dispute resolution in the mainbody of this letter.

Bullets 27, 30 and 33

Once again EPA has expunged all reference to the fact thatthe investigation it carried out on the Clean Clean All("OCA")/Loohn's "site was insufficient to allow either itsconsultant or G&M to make a determination, with the same level ofcertainty as was done for the three CI source areas, as to thepotential effectiveness of the Stage 2 groundwater pump andtreatment remedy at this source area. EPA has provided nowritten basis for its determination of potential effectiveness.With these deletions, the OCA/Loohn's source is the only sourcearea not explicitly discussed in these sections. At the sametime, EPA and its technical consultant have acknowledged that theproximity of this site to the Allegany River does raisesignificant questions not only of the effectiveness of the Stage2 remedy, but also of > VER at this source area. We understandthat despite this lack of groundwater data, EPA is going torecommend VER at the Olean Clean All/Loohns source area. Forthis reason, in the PRAP EPA has adopted our recommendation thatpilot tests be carried out at the OCA/Loohns site before adecision is made as to whether to do VER or excavation at thissource area.

\ \

Bullets 27, 31 (as well as bullets 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 41,and 42 in previous and subsequent sections)

See Issue #3 submitted for dispute resolution in the mainbody of this letter.

ROC10:89627

400950

- 4 -

6. Section 4.1.2

Bullet 34

See the comment above in Section 4.

7. Section 4.2.1.1

Bullets 35, 36, (and bullets 39, 40, 44, 45, 46 and 47. insubsequent sections)

i •The word "additional" was placed in these sections to

underscore the fact that this is a Supplemental .RI/FS and thatunlike the typical "No Action" and "Institutional Controls" RI/FSremedial alternatives, these remedial alternatives would not bestarting from ground zero (i.e. providing no protection of humanhealth or the environment), but rather that adoption of theseremedies would not provide any protection in addition to thatwhich has already been provided.

From a practical viewpoint, the deletion of this word doesnot have any significant consequence since these are not therecommended remedial alternatives for any of the source areas.The deletion of this word could confuse a reviewer in that it'spresence acknowledges the supplemental nature of the SFS.Therefore, we believe our original wording is warranted andserves to better remind a reviewer of the SFS that the remedialmeasures.discussed in it are intended to supplement the remedialmeasures already in place.

~Bullet 37

As we had explained to EPA during a conference call after wereceived EPA's May 1996 "final" comments on the SFS, Geraghty &Miller did not feel comfortable with the word "probability" as itpertains to a general conclusion that groundwater migration ofcontaminants could occur after capping. This conclusion is verysite specific and depends on such factors as the volume ofcontaminated soil that would be beneath the top of the watertable once a new groundwater equilibrium is established post-capping. Geraghty & Miller agreed that therewas a "possibility" of such continued migration, but indicatedthat they could not conclude it was a "probability" for all foursource area^ without a source area by source area review. Giventhe lack of available groundwater date for the Olean CleanAll/Loohns site, it is currently impossible to make such aconclusion specific to that source area, even if a source area-specific review were done. I was under the impression that EPAagreed with this analysis and was comfortable with the use of theword "possibility."

Once again, because capping is not a recommended alternativefor any of the source areas, there are no practical ramifications

ROC10:89627

400981

- 5 -

of this EPA imposed change. It should be deleted from any final"Preface".

8. Section 4.2.2

Bullet 38

See section 4 above.

9. Section 4.2.2.1

Bullets 39 and 40

See Section 6 .above.

Bullets 41 and 42" v •--

See Section 4 above.

10. Section 4.2.2.4

Bullet 43

See section 4 above.

11. Section 4.2.3.1

Bullets 44 and 45

'-See section 6 above.

12. Section 4.2.4.1

Bullets 46 and 47

See section 6 above.

Bullets 48 and 49

See section 4 above.

13. Section 4.2.3.3

Bullet 50

The second sentence on page 4-30 of the SFS alreadyindicates that implementation of this alternative would "involvethe use and/or upgrade of existing equipment and the possibleinstallation of additional, similar equipment thus makingimplementation relatively easy and quicker." (Emphasis added)EPA's addition, two sentences later, of the sentence "Additional

ROC10:89627

400982

- 6 -

recovery wells will be added as necessary", is redundant. Thissentence should be delated from any SFS Preface.

14. Table 1-1Bullet 51

This was a typographical error and, as such should beaddressed in either an errata sheet or a revised SFS Preface.

Bullet 52

This was a typographical error and, as such should beaddressed in either an errata sheet or a revised SFS Preface.

15. Table 3-1

Bullet 53

Similar to the discussion under Section 6 above, the CIshave always taken the position that both the No Action andInstitutional Control remedial alternatives would be protectiveof human health and the environment. The fact that EPA and NYDOHhave allowed people to continue to drink untreated aquifer watersince at least 1992 indicates their conclusion that there is nounacceptable public (as opposed to individually chosen) healthrisk.

In addition, we note that EPA, in its most recent set ofcomments on the SFS, did not ask for this change. There is nopractical consequence that could arise from this EPA imposedchange. This change should not be included in any final"Preface" to the SFS.

16. Appendix C

Bullets 54 and 55

Geraghty & Miller assumes that the comment is in referenceto the calculations provided on Page 7 of 14 not 8 of 14 asreferenced in the USEPA comment letter dated July 3, 1996. Thecalculations provided in Appendix C, provide a basis for the costassumptions 'that went into preparing Table 4-1. Since thisestimate was generated by the USEPA and was considered to beconservative, we did not feel that it was necessary to include itin the computations provided in Appendix C. However, at USEPA'srequest, we did revise Table 4-1 to include an operating cost forAlternative 3A for McGraw-Edison of $67,500 as a conservativeassumption (See also Note 2 at the bottom of Table 4-1) .

As stated in Appendix C of the SFS, we had determinedthrough evaluating current operating cost information provided by

ROC10:89627

400983

- 7 -

Cooper Industries, that the O&M cost for the existing system willnot substantially increase (as is noted on the bottom of Page 7of 14) . As a result, Geraghty & Miller did not provide anyadditional cost calculations for the O&M associated with theMcGraw-Edison source area. Therefore, revising the note assuggested by EPA would not be correct for the reasons statedabove.

Although Appendix C was transmitted to Mr. Tom Taccone inits current form on May 24, 1996, and no comments were providedon it prior to SFS finalization, such additions (if warranted)could be addressed by way of an errata sheet documenting thereferenced changes.

ROC10:89627

400984

.'.;i.t;.sy-^z::^rir

. B ' . - - ' . = - , ' - •

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENlCY

. UbbyFordr t { f | e i / H e a l t h € t ^ / ^ ';•.-• ';v:.vi^ •^.v-^v-.,:.; •>".,;; -;:.- . . . . : •• : ' :•

^&Pev^ '-:; ; • •"• ' .ue .- ;': '.•..-'.'.-. : :- •"'•;•*"•>••'? v-^^;,-",:--" ?"- /:^/.'-:-' • . • . . / • ; . . \, ^ >.

" ' " ' ' - ' ' ' ; : ' ' • " •Ctfnton Avenue

'P.O. Box 1051Rochester, New York' 14063

^itff)c^ion;.icrfDlspwe,i5«

Deafd<?^

'-8y:^^i^f^i^^-S^ :&$?;•AQbn^:^^re^^^:iBf^^^ "

the sujjpiefrjet^l^^^^sttjcfy^^ ;.: -. '•:--^::^• v'flbtfreRya^ :S ' '- .: r-" :; ' V ^ .- ' ' , ' . ' :^;:

. ' • ' - • • . ' . • " , ' - " • • • • • :" :v^i':;r' ^ v;--:^--'.:^^^ ^&&&i-i&^rj ..'-;.7..' ." '•/ . . : - : ' . - ' . " • •• . - i . v-' me jadctess y^ :7.

i5'%'i^p^;K^^ tetteiv ERA-- •-'-•ecte^y!du| s^ :. : ; : :

, • .remediation I^^d^ifeess^ jo;|fi .st8a^^ : . -^.••.-. Remedt9lih^s^ti^;(S^^n^t^

' 1p» iS94,:afff^ftr^^^p^fe^<^ln& ••':"•'; . FijrtfierniorevtHe-Qls^.P^.hiaVip 'nbt h^l ib^ejppl^dly :'iim&xJ SVHoT the stated ; ^ :.: . •' . objectlvss\6f the'<prpj«*' :rtor h^^ATost^^t ':fi .p^cl"et?j6^^-;ps: you: fetter6ta!es.: EfSAisetl a^^%tihet:8S5 RQp^staH.that^ls nefcdss^ry to

'! ;i'flvaIuErt& -s^fc^.cpn^ |n^^^ fUto.-8' :

defines these obfecUves ert mor'e s clearly:• '• ' . . . . . . . *

400985'

"'"M:fll'"'rn>"^^

*in accordance with th$ ijfeptf mb$r'1fl5 Re^ord'pf Decision," the purpose andthe primary objective ofrthe Supplement' R!/FS.te to Identify whether additionalremediation and tJorfcHtTiar^ Of bufcVboh'trol £t .'one or mipre locations willresult In expediting the; tffrMterne, consistent with. the National Contlnsehcy Plan

. 'NCP1, within which the air ^tripping :s:ystfrn fort itfts. three municipal wefls wilt beoperated, tho $C^pl8rtjf6nta)- Ftl/F$ wljl: jpittempt tci,[cfentify measures that wbufd

• mlnli^lz0 co;ntamI.ndrtV6lea^^: undertyinig a^liffe^Irt ^ Hie^ef

remetfatorv<^th.0;{a^ / : -assess the :rjsks;^e;d.i ; p tt .ar^d;eyaIuatei;erh.oc3aj.^e;iTiatr/e^c^ • ;

risks, 'Thus, trie Su^piern'^ntal RJ/FS Report -VrfU^ i; commencl '"that; "e&irce control/• be performed it :lD;he flfm.o] re Iocati6^

consistent wiih the -N.CP,:w)!!; ex^edlteifre'atment pf the wetf.fieid aquifer or ; , .rnltIaafeiinac«tab!pr,V/ :"Vi<; •".-•f

:' . .-- . - . • ' • • " " - . ' . - ' -ERA .has determined. fralc£rta:# the OlearPB5 properties BrtcJ rior>CI propertiesfire s^ourc^ erea's.c6htr1!3utir :%tt ^with the Adrrilnlsatiy^vC^e^fi^.th!? role'cf^jBcliv 'stated ; in'tewxjfkp'fan

^cp.n^rnlr^:'r^sa .es\h^^^O:fte^r^ 1993 "..>• :*.::-"f-.

^J^jted$j^^ .'••• "^rjriia1ajfpr(e^^ :-'-

'.ao^^etf^toai^fs^^^ -;.: •;

/been su^sta/itete<dr:\i^

necessary: for the '$e ;s1ie: b£rT^the data..- The. FS' rri.C^ •': v''^ ..\^^.^^MjriherhSore^e ftdl^^ to rtrturn - '•• >,__.__.„. jt6^r|ii.^ajter^;:td^B^^i^^;QKren^the; "j-^^^iir^p^ }^^^6"cftb;wafe^^^ean

'•t Is to retVni th'0/.OfeaS::a^fe^^^^ Btate^ient on-^ •

.. ,renieo1es"Is;Ir)Con iie^^^^ . - , - ;jj -j- r fvp^^a T» jv*jj -4bl-\>%f- *•— .—% "tli I^it j^. _%*u'^ *i— . J. ^ *• • Jft •-'- -• '-^ ^.i JA_f A. • - .. •W. 2^ J _J*«.^^ H •. i ""^"._»'_*_T»I. •• !!*"__ ' _ ta" • r> i"_r" __ . - - • . • -

be ne'cessary.'-.iedHhat tf»e^r^n\^^ed^^,rrieet thfe-goaJ; a^oTSonal 'extraction wetts; "rtfa?:- :!Ssa1rY^=,Trife:a'na^^:fiftiJsV'be;c^he;• .-i-^^-i». /.il-^Mv^-f.k*'.:-•:•-..•>.'.".*•-'•:fc?t -.-ri^^t^iW :r :-, !r^:-:';v::;^W;v:^.- 5;:. - ^^-•: ^i r-:V•:•;- ; :! : i- i ; i ' t^- 'Hi j - r? ; ; .v ' . .< ; • • i t,--j: ••;:. • • : • • • • ' ' • » • ; - • : . -; ' • ; •• : . ' • !• ' • ' .? /•• . : ' fH-i Vi„••' '- , ^v-'M'.1'1'".?" : ' . ;.-V.'-'^ ; : ' • • , . ; v- ' • • ' • • ' . .

The possibility of further gcouridw.lter; .remediation has been uihcjer' active exsince the development of the^u'ppIej^iital;Rf/'FSwo^pIan; £PAf8Mer of April 10, -.i$89t vMotv responded to: ifcfiprji^l b'Bnejri^ tetter 'of May 11,- J88$, .explained the thatthe purpose of the pump'test $ ijfe.McGrftV? Ecfisoh fedlfty vi:as to det.enrj&w the •hydnaulto chafe.cti&rlgtic$;of4»^Sper.ajpji%r *jn <xder to fiyal ^e;tjfi^grc^ndwiBter .-capture and treatment afterinsSy'es for^the;' 'jjj^f^i^er/:.-.P ' fe:$$(bf trm.'woffcfferi '.^so^xpictfh^thatjther hyo*ri^j&'paV£rrie^^^^ J j^ri^> lest vvfl! be Used..fo.e iaya.te ^ P^slbifrty;'c# Ite ; •..presencef of:pense ^pngq[UeciiiJ^ not :> .vItrtov^ gh'the suppIerrien'^:Rf/F^^corrfalnmeftt .should be :eyalu^te^:jat; .or• n6ar.those faciTtties;."f&&o;&$: dlscufes^d."brji.-'.' :.p'age $:of your letter, this"e'\^ua^JOn:srioiu!d''ti$\ti£$&'$fwfa&&fQ~$$ of cfty '. ,mudclpa! wells M18 iand MSf/siJI;:'^'^ :.^.^\^ •". ':VV: • ~:; • ; ' ; - - ?•"• ' • '. •" • • • • - • • ' " . . • ' • ".:-:>:Sp$'-$:?P'i£&t- "'••:.r'' v . ' - ; . . ; ' - . - . - • • ' • • " • • . • •The above; discussion a|§o re!9.te.5.tQ th^first' buffet of.,EPA'(j[ fJantiary 10,18$4'|e^er..:Whfch hstru'oted trie Ol !f* g'ib^ess rei e^upon the.New.York $t d^p^& rrt f, |rpfjfiiQr .Co|\ Sr ^ :

.TAGM guidance' and-tpV&u^;e^^'^n/^^P'^ -•••'objectives .agree'dOpbjrifor^t^•^.pbjec^es .of, tr>e TA<3^Tgoid8j^ '^SJgnlfiQarrtcSolcoritarnlr^ .' • -'..Evaluafirtg 'the:'disita:-.In trje; ':iBi ^"^a® :tfii&;fA^• whatsons :may -need.to 'j^o^&S&'^fi^&f;^'i^D^S^TO^c^|5Cstipr)' of- ;•/the a'oluffefi-^er-ebyieJcp^fi^g^^ : "-^ :::---:,: :. ;'.:

..The third-bullet of .. ,.. T.. ^ ,..t..,.........r,... - „ ..... . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./*a;trealab]rrty pilot :te'sfing\s^r^: .tecjrinofo fes;* £^^-•:^y-fr^§i>llify'5tij(^VWoMfe.<^ iv^'Ms^s'of-fterr^dla!; V"!':',-Aiterria\fves.: HowByeV^datQ i!^-' . i#^udifel i -b|-h90d0c|:)n'6KJer fb: • V, operiy.screen the p^te^al.^rn^dJaJ^:'4ltiattiiB$^ffi&) rsl.defa8on. Perforcnlhg the": .etydle$/^6t iisat$ :v^; prp^e^Mf^hT^on^

-^-^.^^Q^ln'g-p^sS.::f$$W9K^$&Q36$r&;.fr$QO'/lUJCAc' i AX^MVititl ^e^ti/fiaft' iiiW Hn'Vvokrtarl tf\nJ^A ^«AiSn-0>tii*aVwH\ArA ' ''

,; ;-• ••: : •-: - rv' . ' •; >V •• * A;i «^/ I; ?? r^v^ ;.r/.v .^.« fr <. - ' .: '• /:• ••. . . - : , . • . - . •} • • . . . • - . : . • - • : • • : • • • ; "^ v-' :'• :. *^^V,-..; rV-;i.-.*:-.•*•. v - r « : .,

:•••-, -. •; •• ; ' - : .- ^ :' • I-*! ^V ^r" jV - ^V^ - r ' ^ ' - - ; ' ' :-'• * • -: - . • • • .-.•:•-:•'•::• Vtiv-K-'^c.v ' . *'^>-'fV-:-•• '-vv.> ;K--T/;;•;'..-;, :vv- ;V-; ; . : : ;^jr^^i•f^^;^v:v :V.:-••:•

n n G c/

& MILLER, INC.nvironmental Services

APPENDIX C

May 6, 1994

Ms. Libby FordNixon, Hargrave, Devans & DoyleClinton SquarePost Office Box 1051Rochester, New York 14603

Re: Clean Well Field, Olean, New York.

Dear Ms. Ford:

Enclosed please find the revised Memorandum on Remedial Action Objectives.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.

William J. .Gra/ /Senior Scientist/Project Manager

Encl.cc: Olean Well Field Distribution List

WJG/TLS

24 Madison Avenue Extension • Albany, New \brk 12203 • (518) 452-7826 • FAX (518) 452-4398

400988

Memorandum on Remedial Action Objectives

The remedial action objectives were established based on the performance of aSupplemental Remedial Investigation (SRI) for the Clean Well Field. The performance of theSRI was part of the Selected Remedy set forth in the September 24, 1985 "Record of Decision -Remedial Alternative Selection."

/

The Clean Cooperating Industries (CIs) entered into a Consent Order to carry out theSupplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (SRI/FS) in a mixed work effort with theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In that Consent Order, the USEPAadded another objective (to those set forth in the 1985 ROD): "to assess the risks posed bycontamination from potential source areas..." These objectives were incorporated into theAmended SRI Work Plan (1989 Ebasco as amended in 1991 SRI Work Plan) which also set for

V

the following decision criteria:

"Thus, the Supplemental RI/FS Report will recommend that source control be performedat one or more locations if it is determined that such an action, consistent with the NCP,will expedite treatment of the well field aquifer or mitigate unacceptable risks" (1989-Ebasco as amended in 1991 SRI Work Plan Section 1.0).

The SRI was conducted to delineate and characterize potential source areas within theOlean Well Field. The data collected during the SRI will be used to determine whether sourcecontrol at one or more potential source areas will expedite the treatment of the contaminatedaquifer or to mitigate unacceptable risks due to the constituents of interest In addition, the data

\

collected will be used to evaluate remedial alternatives in the Supplemental Feasibility Study(SFS) in accordance with the above criteria.

Therefore, the following remedial action objectives address the contaminants found in theaquifer supplying the municipal wells and these same contaminants as they relate to potential soilsource areas within the Olean Well Field. The only contaminants found in the influent to the

May 6, 1994

GMCE of New York, P.C /! f 0 Q P 9

2

municipal air strippers are trichloroethene (TCE) (the only compound detected above traceconcentrations and its federal maximum contaminant level [MCL] for drinking water [5 ug/L])and trace concentrations of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and 1,2-cis dichloroethylene (cis1,2-DCE), which ranged from non-detect to 8 ug/L and non-detect to 9 ug/L respectively.These trace concentrations are well below the federal MCLs for 1,1,1-TCA and cis 1,2-DCEof 200 ug/L and 70 ug/L, respectively, but occasionally slightly higher than the New York Statedrinking water MCLs of 5 ug/L. The City of Olean has indicated that the inorganics includedin the Risk Assessments have never been detected in the influent to the municipal air strippers.In addition, the data collected at all the individual sites during the SRI indicates that theinorganic constituents are naturally present in soils throughout the well field area. Acetone andmethylene chloride were also reported in the SRI as being detected in some soils. Thesedetections however, may be due to sampling and/or laboratory contamination. Acetone hasnever been detected in the influent to the municipal strippers. While methylene chloride hasbeen detected in the influent to the municipal strippers, the laboratory performing the analysesindicates these detections are most likely due to laboratory contamination. To the extent thatacetone and methylene chloride or any other VOCs are present at significant concentrations, thefollowing remedial action objectives for TCE, 1,1,1-TCA and cis 1,2-DCE will also addressthese constituents.

The remedial action objectives for the Olean Well Field will be as follows:

Objectives for Groundwater Remediation

\

• Prevent ingestion of groundwater having concentrations of TCE and other site-related contaminants that would pose a potential excess cancer risk greater than10*. Groundwaters will be assumed to meet this objective if the TCEconcentration is less than or equal to the federal and New York drinking waterstandards.

May 6, 1994

GMCE of New York, P.C. 400930

3• Prevent ingestion of groundwater having concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA, cis 1,2-

DCE and other site-related contaminants that would result in a combined HazardIndex greater than 1. Groundwaters will be assumed to meet this objectives iftheir concentrations are less than or equal to the federal and New York drinkingwater standards.

• Provide additional localized groundwater treatment for TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, cis 1,2-DCE and other site-related contaminants at one or more locations if it willexpedite the current treatment of the aquifer at the municipal wells.

Objectives for Soil Remediation

• Prevent ingestion/direct contact/inhalation of soil having concentrations of TCEand other site-related contaminants that would pose a potential excess cancer riskgreater than 10"6.

• Prevent ingestion/direct contact/inhalation of soil having concentrations of 1,1,1-TCA, cis 1,2-DCE and other site related contaminants that would result in acombined Hazard Index greater than 1.

• Restore soils at one or more locations to appropriate contaminant concentrationsof TCE, 1,1,1-TCA, cis 1,2-DCE and other site-related contaminants if suchrestoration will expedite the current treatment of the contaminated aquifer at the

\

municipal wells.

May 6, 1994

GMCE of New York, P.C.

APPENDIX D^GERAGHTY

'& MILLER, INC. ________Environmental Services _——————————————————————————— A Heidemij company"

July 19, 1995

Mr. Thomas TacconeClean Well Field Project CoordinatorChief, New York, Caribbean Superfund Branch IEEmergency and Remedial Response DivisionUnited States Environmental Protection Agency - Region n290.Broadway - 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007-1866

Subject Response to Comments, Clean Draft Feasibility' Study Review

Dear Mr. Taccone:The Clean Cooperating Industries ("Clean CIs") have directed Geraghty &iMflter. Inc. to

submit the following responses to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commentletter dated June 29 1995-(reacted by the Clean a coordinator on July 5,1995) containing additional±£?££* woS draft of the Clean Well Hdd Supplemental Feasibility S*dy (SFS) report

' that Geragnty & Miller had prepared and submitted on their behalf. The comments^ On May 12,1995^^ondedtomGeraghty&Mffler'sletterQatedMay30, 1995. SeveralUSEPAcommentsfrom AeMa7l2, 1995 letter were further discussed in the June 29, 1995 letter. In this response tovour June 29 1995 correspondence, we have addressed those issues which continue require furtherScation, but have not rediscussed issues-satisfactorily addressed by our May 30, 1995 .letter or by;phone. ~ • . '

Geraehty & Mfller has retained the comment response format from the May 30... 1995 letter.For those May 12, 1995 comment responses which were accepted by EPA, Appendix A to, this lettercontains the permanent "change" pagesjto the working draft of the SFS. •

Comment 1: Geraghty & Mffler-s response stffl does not address EPA's comment A genericaSTwouId nol *s stated in Genighty & Miner's letter, provide .any.newr or. usefulhEflHim. A generic analysis & not needed. What is needed is an analysis of the sevenSrcritt5?aTp^S in 40 CTR300.430 (a) (ui) (A) tnnmgh^ior^ch source^ AtoSrf is sample, partial comparative analysis of remedial alternatives for the Alcassourcearea. The. analysis should be repeated for the other sources.

We fed that the drafts submitted to date contain all the required elements of a SFS comparativeanalysis. Desphe this, in the interest ofbringing issue to dbsure. Geraghty fe Mmer wffl rev« tfae^a^u^^Therevisionswm be made to Section43 (Further Companson of Rern^l AlternativesbySo^Area) The proposed revisionswOl be forwarded to USEPA by July3l, 1995.

201 West Passaic Street. 3rd Floor - Rochelle Pirk. New Jersey O7662.(20t) 909XTOQ.FAX (201) 909^)567/0568

400992

GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. >; Mr. Thomas TacconeMy 19, 1995

Page 2

Comments 2, 23, 27, 38, 39, and 41: The volume of soil and groundwater, which need to beremediated at Loohns Dry Cleaners, was included in EPA's letter of May 12, 1995. Pleaseincorporate the volume into the SFS. At this time, EPA does not plan on drafting an SFSaddendum. A full SFS should be submitted, as required by the Order on Consent (Index No. HCERCLA40202).

The Sandburg and Griffith oil source areas should be removed from die SFS. These areas wfflbe addressed by the NYSDEC, under the New York State petroleum spin program since the soiland groundwater contamination at these properties are related to releases of petroleum and/orpetroleum derivatives. As you may know, petroleum contamination can not be addressed usingfederal Superfund authority. . '• -

Regarding Olean Tile, EPA does not believe that the elevated levels of toluene, which weredetected at soil boring 34, are a threat to the aquifer. The soil encountered at boring 34 wasvery tight so that little, if any, groundwater can reach the contamination. You'll note.from theboring log for SB34 that the water table was not reached. Therefore, EPA does not considerOlean Tfle a source of contamination to-the Olean Weilfield.

Shortly, EPA win mail to you an addendum to die supplemental remedial investigation report-(SRI). The report provides "the results for the additional fidd samples at Olean Steel, OleanTHe, Loohns Dry Cleaners, MastelFord, Griffith Ofl and Sandburg OB.

After we submitted our May 30, -.1995 response (which .indicated that without the supportingdata, we could;nqt incorporate into the SFS any conclusions with respect to the:non-d sourceareas), we have received the data on :the-non-CI sites (which has been, incorporated :byreference into the SRI report as Appendix G - Addendum to that report). As directed by EPA,the former non^ sourcea^rea, Saiidburg, 'Griffith Oil, and Olean tile are not CERCLA-eligible source areas "and wfll no longer be discussed in this SFS. Because of this, Sections4.1.5,4.1.6, 4.2.5, and 4.2.6 should be deleted from the working draft of the SFS. The data onthe remaining non-CI iate(now;AppendbcG-Addendum to the SRI report) is bang reviewedand evaluations fbrthe" Loohns' Dry Cleaners (Clean Clean AIT) win be added to the SFS. Weplan to forward the appropriate change pages to EPAby July 31,1995. •••"'[ \ ..

Comment 4: EPA-maintains its original comment The phrase "if it win expedite the currenttreatment of the aquifer at the municipal well," should be removed from the SFS report.

Based on our telephone conversation with you and Kevin Lynch oh July 10, 1995, mis phrasewifl remain in the draft SFS document. -

400993

GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. ., . Mr. Thomas TacconeJuly 19. 1995

Page 2

Comment 7: The first paragraph of Geraghty & Miller's proposed .language for Section 2.4.1.2il inaccurate. Extension of the city water main and installation of Ibackflow prevention devicesare active remedial measures, not institutional controls. The city's local ordinance Whichprevents a private well user {rom connecting the,well to the public water supply is aninstitutional control The second paragraph is acceptable. ..

As discussed with EPA during our July 10,1995,conference caQ. in Figure 4-5 of EPA's mostrecent SRI/FS guidance (October 1988), the extension of a chy water main is considered an

. institutional control, even though it involves physical work. : Jiimflarly, the installation of abackflow prevention device, while involving physical work, is alio an institutional control andwe have classified it as such. This section of the SFS wfl] remain as proposed in our May 30,1995 letter (see Appendix 1). . .' •.; .'

..'. '.' \\ •'. • ';• .' '. ~*-—*Tj« __-.Comments 24, 28, and 32: Upon further consideration, £PA is agreeable to allowing sbfheperiod of time elapse before assessing" whether or not grbundwater recovery and treatment isnecessary. However, instead of the 5 year penW recommended in jthe draft SFS, specific timeperiods should be calculated for each! source area. Periods should be based on the distancesfrom each source to the air strippers, the groundwater velocity in thp lower aquifer and enoughtime for 3 to 5 pore volumes of groundwater to flow from each souroi to the air strippers.

As discussed during the July ,10, 1995 telephone conversation, J£PA and the CIs are now inagreement that it is appropriate under Alternative 3 or 5 for some period of time to elapse aftera soil source area remediatipn.' has been ..completed, before assessing whether or notgroundwater recovery and treatment is necessary. As discussed; with EPA, if either of theseremedial measures is selected for a. source area, specific time pericjKls will be calculated for thatsource area. The time periods will be based oh.the distance irom the source area to themunicipal air stripper, the groundwater flow velocity in the lower aquifer, and providingenough time for 3 to 5 pore volumes of groundwater to flow, from the lower aquifer beneath

• 'each source area to the air'stripper.

Comment 25: EPA will not agree to Alternative'3A, which specifies the possibility ofgroundwater treatment with no Other proposed remedial measure after five years. Thisalternative should specify groundwater'treatment i^ghf away. Please revise the alternative.

As discussed with you during the July 10,1995 telephone caD,'thi$ section has been revised toclarify that groundwater treatment woyld begin right away in ths lower aquifer beneath anysource area where this is the chosen alternative. . .

400994

MILLER, _.„.,_..My 19,1995

Page 4

Comment 35: EPA disagrees with Geraghty & Miller's response. Treatment of groundwater atAVX is an appropriate alternative and would serve as an effective source control measure.Because of the proximity of Alcas to municipal well M18, treatment of groundwater may not benecessary.

•

We still fed that pumping in the lower aquifer wifl enhance migration into the lower aquifer,.. especially at the AVX facility. In addition, -analysis of current **** indicates that typical. ^groundwater recovery., has not been an effective source remea^oa,nj£tfibd; at .the AVX

facffity. " t- . . " • ' . . ' ' ."•' %v '>£ . • - . - . " ; • . ; ' ' " : • '• « . ; • " ' . ' . . • . ' ...•'•'" :-• . ' '

AVX has been pumping an on-site well (for coofihg purposes) for decades.: This productionwell is located .very dose to the identified source area. In the early 1980s mis well was pumpedat an approximate rate of 200 gpm (288,000 gpd).- Since mat time, pumping rates havedecreased to approximately 50 gpm (72,000 gpd). Despite these decades of extensivepumping of the lower aquifer in dose proximity to the source area, that source area stiflcontains a significant VOC- burden in the tight dayey soils. There is no reason to expect thatsource area related groundwater recovery, even at ah increased rate, wifl lead to significantreductions in the VOC levels in the soft source area in any time frame less than several decades.

- In addition, as shoyTh on Figure 74 of the 1992 SRI report, 'VOC concentrations in toweraquifer Monitoring Well AVX-5D, on the AVX property, were veoy.Iqw w/hen the wefl.wasfirst sampled in 1985:; "Since'the start of quariieriy.:morihpr^^concentrations have shown an overall increase.' Thei ina^aseJn-V^JC <»riq2nit^bhs:in:WeaAVX-SD since October 1989 may be^^due to me startup'of rae^tat^ap^has resulted iri the lowering of water levels'in the lower aquifer-beneVth ;the.M-layer.ahd^^;thushas-resultedinahinoreasedflux^this same time frame,' the pumping rate of the A\9J!;pjcb(i o|i ^^o_3 ;JBq^4^) decrMsedirom 200 gpm: in. 1984 to. W5 gpm in 1988, to approximate^5Cl^ gplra In;49^0,'vyhich" r&mains •the current pumping rate. The decreases in the AVX: production wdl.pumpmg have decreasedrae hydraulic gradient'in.the vicinity of this w^ and reduced its:^uencepn:groundwater flow.

Based'upon trie above information, we fed that punningconcentration; of VOCs .in the source area at me AVX faali 'artdjhas erijahced)nngi?tipn^ ofVOCs into me lower aquifer. This analysis wifl be added to me^va^uation'o^Alterna^e 3 ferme AVX source area. : .

Comment 44: Geraghry &'"Mllier.states fea't'lf^fcw transmissMryc(T)^^ is considered to beconservative when calculating capture zones. This is a fundamental error in their, analysis*because a high T is conservative when calculating a capture zone. An examination, of theequations used win 'show that T is on the bottom of the equation and is therefore inverselyproportionate to the size of the capture zone. Therefore, the low T chosen for. the calculations' isnot a conservative choice. - .

400995

r:

GERAGHTY # MILLER. INC, . , , ' - . ! - ' . • ; . . . . Mr. Thomas Taccow' . . : . . . . . : - . ' ' • ; My 19.1995

' '

The capture zone should be recalculatejd usin£ a conservative high It value. EPA recommendsthe selection of a conservative high T. value in gpd/ft from Table D.4 of the February 1985 RX,Appendix D for the lower aquifer.' Tigs upper aquifer capture zone ^hquld be calculated usingthe most conservative T from the JEWr3 aquifer'test (1992). . • .

A conservative value should typicauy be .used for environmental calciuIatipns^Jiowever, for thiscase, a conservative high T value b e^ecialfy warranted, because of fjjie simplifications inherent(n the capture zone equations nljed. ^e lo er aquifer capture calculatipns do not take hitoAccount possible leakage from the uppiir aquitfer to the lower aquifel and from the river. The

• __^__ _._. _ __.*f* _. ____A_—I__ __i_T_J_TJI_4? • ^ * J^' ^B^A •*•—^—— S^^dk. ^^•^•JT^X •*•*• • •** kl«i _•£• b^^^d — — — i- —,..-'» ^TL^b.^^.tie river recharge. These' the most conservative T

: upper aquifer capture calculations, do' ijot'ta^ce into account possifactors could serve to reduce the actual capture zone. The use o(highest value) would add a necessary n^easure of safety 'to the calculation.. ...f .

• •: i . . '( ••••'.:• • • ' • ' : v '• •' : * . • .With the information provided in Geraghty & IVCHer's response letter, EPA re-examined thecapture zones drawn on Figures' .1 and. 2 of the Draft FS, Appendix' D. The following capturedistances were not measured correcdy: (Xp, ISPyf) and (Wo, E\v4> After recalculating thenew capture zones based on Comment 1, above, please make all meSasurements as precisely aspossible. . . . . . . •

The w (upgradient Capture Width) should also &e 4iown on the capture zone plots (Figure 1and 2 of Appendix D). . •• . . ..

Geraghty & Miller agrees that.a.cpnservatiYe.(high) firansnussivhji (TQ value:phou]d:be used inthe capture zone equations due' to the .simplifications bj)erefit .in those equations. Asrecommended, by EPA, a T value of 8.66 ,x ICr gallons •pec day jler foot (gpd/ft) was selectedfrom Appendix D, Table EM, of the Febmary 1985 RI and us-id to recalculate the capturezones for Municipal Wefl 8 iid3;?/3.8M. •. ( . :

• • • • • . r ' . •• . • 'AT value of 6,300 gpd/ft 'us^. to 'caloilat'euw 'capture, zone; of upper aquifer wdl EW-3located on McGraw-Edison property. ,. "The T value selected, was determined from a 'distance-drawdown analysis of the hydraiilic' data collected during the pumping of EW-3 as. discussed inSection 5.8 of the SRI rep'orL'^This T value is "the highest value determined, during thedrawdown phase of the aquifer tejst and,ts considered to be con&frvative'but representative ofthe transmiss.ivity of the upper aquifer in the vicinity of the.Mcijrejv-Edison property.

The revised capture zone analysis 'results! are provided in Tables \ and 2 included in AppendixB. Figures 1 and 2 (attached) havelalso \fcen .revised to depict th(| recalculated capture zones.Appendix B also contains the p^ppsed text reyisipni to SFS Appbdix D.

' :-'": : - v : . - . . ;The upgradient capture .width tCVV) is ' dejected on. the revised Figures. As the capture zoneequations do not predict ^ 'at; a. specific, distance, upgrtdieni! of the pumping well, theupgradient width is interpretive. •. • ' • i • .

:GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Mr. Thomas Taccone... July 19. 1995

". • Page 6

Appendix A to this letter contains the B3flcnvm£ revised pages recommenta 3, 6-14, 16-18, 2i, 22, 25, 2S.'29.*:31: : ^AddhioriJd v revised pour iproposed text changes winch corresjjjciitf to'the jihohS responses yvffl•completing the revisions to the draft SFS'doo«nenL • '. ... •

If thert are any questions or ^i responses pinot heatate to contact Mi X-i^Fo qr

• ' • ' ' • • ' ' " ' " • '

fated to EPA's May 12,1995ges, including those showingbe provided by July 31,1995,

Ovided or the revised pages,

Brent C: 0*D.elU_ . .• " : •; ' ' -. ;' -.': . Engiheering Task Manager

- : "''"'• •'• '•'• ••••' : '-' •' "• ' ' •

'.'Arnold S. yernid•' Project Advisor :

cc: .OleanSRI/FSDistributioiiList . .. :B. Gray - Geraghty & Mfller, AIb.any' -;' |

>. ' • • • .v* ..> .•' • *. • -• ••» Li

. • .... -• • ^ • t

'. •:' '. " ' '

400997

i

'EYCORP PLAZA

NEW YORK I22O7

iota) 427-265O

: I6OO MAIN PLACE TOWER

i BUFFALO. NEW YORK I-4ZOZ

| C7I6) 853-OIOO

00O STEWART AVENUE; AROCN CITY. MEW YORK IIS3O

i CBIO) B3I-7EOO

Nixoii, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLPAttorneys and Corxoselors at Law

CLINTON SQUARE

POST OFFICE BOX IOSI

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK I4SO3-IO5I(716) 2 G 3 - I O O O

FAX: (716) 263-ISOO

November 14, 1995

«S7 MADISON AVENUE

NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOOZ2

(212) SHO-SOOO

SUITE 7OO

ONE THOMAS CIRCLE

WASHINGTON, O. C. ZOOOS

(ZO2) 4S7-53OO

(716) 263-1606

'CERTIFIED MA.IL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief, NY/Ca:ribbean ;5.uperf tond Branch II.U.S. .Environmental: Protection AgencyRegion II •Emergency & Remedial Response Division.290 Broadway - 20th .FloorNew York, New York 3.0007-1866

Attention: . Thomas Taccpne, Olean Wellfield Site ProjectCoordinator

pleah Wellfield Supplemental RI/FS October 1995Monthly Progress Report Administrative Consent-"' -, No. II-CERCLA-10202 ;. ' .;

RE:

Dear Tom:

"•. As reijCiSLred'-xinder paragraph 62 of the .above-referencedConsent Order, th^is/^letter will update you on 'the. progress madeby the Coop'erating)S::indus.tries (nCIsn) -on the. vsariqus" requirementsincluded in that oiisent Order during. October ;1995. .Because myOctober 11;V. 1995 {Setter to you, containing the ..September' iftonthlyreport, disisusse^a^itiyifcies through October il^ 1995, .thisletter will? pick^irp>:cfrpra that date until November 14y 1995; Tofacilitate .-your .r^v;L^w, items requiring feedback;.from ypu areprinted in-bpld

." '. •• • ,'t

Reporting Period" • - - ' . » v

SRJ Report .. _ , ." * ' i " • " - • " - •

As you^^diow, Jtne SRI 'Report has been .finalized(July 20, 1995} Siid: approved (June 30, 1"995) by .EPA (subject .tothe changes which EPA requested arid we .submitted on July 20,1995) . ' ' ' . - - - .

ROdOi717S7

40099S

Nixon, Hargrave, Derails & Doyle LLPThomas Taccone

— November 14, 19952

SFS Report

On October 25, 1995 we received the official version ofEPA's October 19,1995 comment letter on the draft SFS report. Toexpedite our review and response to that letter, EPA had earlierprovided us with a faxed copy of the letter.

Subsequent, to receiving that letter a series of•conference calls was held between yourself/ Foster•Wheeler (Radian) and Geraghty and. Miller and/or myself, inaddition, draft revisions to various' portions of the draft SFSreport which were responsive . to EPA's comments were forwarded toyou by fax<- Copies of these are attached for all parties exceptEPA and NYDEC (as discussed below/ we are providing completecopies of the text and tables to those two .organizations) . Oneof the main focuses of these discussions was the new "Attachment1*. included in the October 19, 1995 letter which was EPA's.proposed revisions to our SFS description of when the variousStage 1 remedial actions would, be deemed complete, and how thesubsequent evaluations of the groundwater quality would be doneto determine if the Stage 2 (groundwater remedy/containment)remedial .actions would be needed at any source area. The draft

•. Attachment 1 also addressed the factors which would be consideredif the groundwater remedy appeared to have achieved itsreasonable maximum effectiveness but ^ the groundwater clean upgoals still had not .been entirely met*. The'.CI's requested somewording changes in this Attachment tp reflect past discussionswith" EPA .and an acknowledgement' that, in keeping with the statedSRI/FSL objectives/ one of the factors which would be evaluatedwhen deciding whether additional XStage 2) groundwater , .treatment/containment would be required was whether such

.treatment would result in improvement in the groundwater."^izhich.would materially affect the groundwater quality at the. .influentto the municipal, wells. Revised section 3.2 of the SFS Report

..(attached) includes.- the SFS version of this language.

" . . . - . . . -Another major "topic, of .discussion during this -time washow, .if a Stage 2 groundwater remedy was found to be necessary asaxesult of the above evaluation/ but a remedial technology otherthen pump arid treat (which we understand will be the technologywhich EPA will include in its- Proposed Remedial Action Plan(«.PRAP")) appeared to be more" effective/ approval to install the

.alternative technology could be obtained. I understand .that yo.uinformed Andy Barber that the mechanism1 would be a ROD amendment .Such an amendment would be. triggered by -the: Source Area BRPsending a letter to EPA requesting and justifying such a cEange.If EPA concurs, it would then issue a ROD amendment. x - .

ROO.0:71767

4009 QQo \J

I • ONE KEYCORP PLAZA

i f Y. NCW YORK I22O7

' iai «27-2«so

I«OO MAIN PLACE TOWER

BUFFALO. NEW YORK I*2O2

(716) 053-8100

• »O CTCWART AVCNUC

OARDCM CITY. HEW YORK IIS3O

Kiel 6J2-7SOO

2# #?T'» ; ?r V- , "**fWr->

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle LLPAttorneys and Counselors at Law

CLINTON SQUARE

POST OFFICE BOX IOSI

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK I«6O3-IO5I(716) Z63-IOOO

FAX: (716) 263 - I6OO

October 11, 1995

*37 MADISON AVCNUC

NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOO22

'(£12) 04O-3OOO

SUITC 7OO

ONE THOMAS CIRCLE

WASHINGTON, o. C. 2OOO5

(2OII »«7-S3OO

(716) 263-1606

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch IIU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion IIEmergency & Remedial Response Division290 Broadway - 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007-1866

Attention:

RE:

Thomas'.Taccone,. Olean Wellfield Site ProjectCoordinator

Olean Wellf ield Supplemental RI/PS September 1995Monthly Progress Report Administrative ConsentOrder No. II-CERCLA-10202

Dear Tom: •

As required under paragraph. 62 of the above-referencedConsent Order, this letter will update you on the progress madeby the" Cooperating Industries ("CIs") on the various requirementsincluded in that Consent Order during September 1995*, Because mySeptember 15, 1995 letter to you, 'containing the August monthlyreport, discussed activities through September-.15, 1995, thisletter will pick up from that date until October 11, 1995. Tofacilitate your review, items requiring feedback from you areprinted in bold print.

Reporting Period \\

SRI Report

AsYyou knbw, the SRI Report has been finalized(July 20, 1995) and approved (June 30, 1995) by EPA (subject tothe changes which EPA requested and we submitted on July 20,1995) . ' • ' • _ . —

^

.SPS Report

On September 21, 1995 a conference call was heldbetween yourself, Kevin Lynch, Linda Ross, Brent Miller", Andy

ROClOt69074

401000

Niron, Hargrave. Devans £ Doyle UPThomas TacconeOctober 11, 1995

2

Barber and myself to talk "about the "triggers" that would cause asource area which had been remediated under Alternatives 3, 4 or5 to move from Phase 1 (soil source area remediation) to Phase 2(groundwater containment and/or remediation) . .While no finaldecisions were made during that call, 'the following concepts wereagreed to:

1. No Phase 2 will be necessary if the influent to themunicipal wells is meeting the established groundwatercleanup goals ("CGs") .

2 . Phase 2 would not be triggered at one source areauntil the remediation had been completed at all sourceareas.

3. Phase 2 will not be triggered just- because thegroundwater immediately downgradient of a source areadoes not meet MCLs (the CGs) .

4. EPA would 'like the Alternative 4 (SVE/VER)description of the two. phases of the alternative toread the same as the description of Alternative 3(Capping) . •

5^ EPA believes that the ROD should specify an actual' groundwater containment technology, namely groundwater

pump and treat. The CI's vant. sufficient flexibilityincorporated into the ROD with respect to Phase 2 thatif another equally or more effectivecontainment/remedial technology is available by the

" time Phase 2 is triggered, it can be implementedwithout having to go through a formal ROD amendment.

On September 22, 1995 Andy Barber faxed to yousuggested language changes to the draft SFS which would address .items 1 through 3 above. During the September 21 telephone callwe all agreed that we understood the. concerns underlying Item 4above. It was also agreed that EPA would take the lead (as itdrafted the ROD) on Item number 5. If the Oleari CIs are riothappy with the ROD language, we will be free to comment upon, itduring the ROD public comment -period.

Once EPA approves the SFS, complete copies of it,including the final edited changes included in the August 9electronic version, will be distributed to everyone on thedistribution list. " . .' ^

ROC10:C9074

401001