SDMS DocID 250678 . . / ""

S IDLEY & AUSTIN A PARTNERSHIP INCLL'DIMO PROFESSIONAL COHrOBATIONS

875 THIRD AVENUE in «iso WILLIAM •Twrrr

YORK. NEW YORK 1002? ^XSXSfZZSFfXX, • 049 CEVT1-BT PABK KA*T TELEPHONE 2 12: 418 ~S IOO BBHrNTONWAY

LOS AXOBLKH. C A L I f O B I - I A 9000T• 13: sas-a'oo rAX\ « t3*aA9<4A4.4

_ 1ELEX 9/*lo9o

BINOAPOHI OIO« «s- BBA-BOOO PAX: aa->B<«*oo3o

I T B » rvr iTHKrr. s.w FACSIMILE 212: 418-2165 wA*mncjTow. DC. aooo«

HABHIDATK LAW OFTICE IMpmiAI. TOWCT, »TH rtoa« l-l. UCHIBAIWAICHO I-CHOMH

CRtVODA-BU, TOBTO IOO JAPAM a-ao4*aaoo PAX: oa*3O4-ioo

August 25, 1989

Snperfund SITE:

Mr. Matthew Hoagland, Project Manager FFEAK: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rvrrrrn" Waste Management Division OILIER: JFK Federal Building (HEC-CAN6) Boston, MA 02203-2211

Re: Kelloqcr-Deerinq Superfund Site

Dear Mr. Hoagland:

I. Introduction

This letter and the attached technical comments of Goldberg-Zoino & Associates (hereinafter "GZA technical comments") comprise the written comments of EDO Corporation on the July, 1989 Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Operable Unit No. 2 ("Supplemental RI/FS" or "RI/FS") of the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Superfund Site. EDO holds a minority equity interest in Electric Indicator Company, Inc. ("Elinco"), which is the lessee and current occupant of Building 3 of the Complex of buildings located at 272-280 Main Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut (referred to in the Supplemental RI/FS, and hereinafter, as "the Complex"). EDO or an EDO subsidiary leased Building 3 of the Complex from 1972 until 1985. The RI/FS identifies the Complex as a "major" source of trichloroethene ("TCE") contamination of the study area.

EDO had asked for an extension of the thirty-day public comment period, which EPA denied. In our request letter, we indicated that the Complexity of the technical issues, the unusual nature of this as a "two part" superfund site, and the sheer volume of the material to review, made the thirty-day comment period unreasonably short. This fact is particularly significant in light of the significant remedial cost proposed in the RI/FS and the small number of potentially responsible parties identified by EPA. Moreover, the RI/FS admits that there is no human health- or environmental- based urgency demanding rapid implementation of a remedy for Operable Unit 2 of this Site, and

S I D L E Y <Sc A i; S T I X N E\V YOK K

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Oparable Unit 2 RI/FS Comments August 25, 1989

thus the Agency's refusal to permit an extension of time defies our understanding.

Because of the compressed period within which we have had to compile our comments, this letter and the accompanying GZA report are at best preliminary efforts. We have been able only to address obvious issues and errors. We believe that due process demands that, at a minimum, EPA accept post-comment period substantive comments on the Supplemental RI/FS for this Site and that any such comments submitted be included in the administrative record and not just placed in the project file.

We request that these comments and the attached GZA comments, along with all previous written documents submitted by Sidley & Austin, GZA, Day, Berry & Howard (prior to June 15, 1987) or hrp associates, on behalf of EDO, be included in the administrative record for the remedy at this Site.

II. The Complex As Source Area

As discussed in GZA's comments at pages 1 and 2, the role of the Complex in the contamination of the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield involves two separate questions: (1) whether the Complex is a source of the TCE contamination at the Wellfield, and (2) whether there are other sources of the TCE contamination at the Wellfield. The Supplemental RI/FS fails to demonstrate that the Complex is a source, let alone the only source, of the contamination detected at the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield. The RI/FS does not succeed in identifying a pathway frota the Complex to the wells west of the Norwalk River, relies on faulty data (e.g., a single, highly suspect and unconfirmed positive reading obtained during the long-term tracer test whose overall results were resoundingly negative), and utterly fails to evaluate other potential pathways for TCE not originating at the Complex, although the local geology and EPA's own theory of bedrock fracture transport both indicate the potential existence of such pathways from locations to the north and south that lie barely outside of the defined study area where heavy TCE use historically occurred, such as the former Yankee Metals and Sperry Semiconductor sites.

The penultimate conclusion of the Supplemental RI/FS that the Complex is the source of the Kellogg-Deering contamination rests on a series of assumptions that are unsupported by, and to an extent contradicted by, the underlying

-2­

S I D L P: Y &; A U STI X N KW YOHK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 Rl/FS Comments August 25, 1989

data. At bottom, as clearly demonstrated by GZA's comments, the RI/FS treats a very complex bedrock fracture system with arbitrary simplicity, assumes the existence of numerous localized open fractures with no hard evidence that they exist, and treats the fracture at K-21 as representative and associated with bedrock flow from the nearby Complex, without exploring the very likely possibility that the fracture trends in another direction entirely.

The Supplemental RI/FS does not show a sufficient nexus between the alleged source and the receptor to satisfy the lax CERCLA standard of proof for §107(a) liability articulated in United States v. South Carolina Recycling and Disposal^ Inc.. 633 F. Supp 984 (D.S.C. 1984) for the typical disposal site scenario. Moreover, in this case, the government is held to a higher standard of proof, since it must establish a causal relationship between the alleged source area at the Complex and the contamination identified in the downgradient area. In Dedham Water Company v. Cumberland Farms. Inc.. 689 F. Supp. 1223 (D. Mass. 1988), a "two-site" CERCLA case involving facts very similar to those at the Kellogg-Deering Site, the court rejected a CERCLA cost recovery claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that releases from the defendant's site caused the contamination of the plaintiffs' wells. The court emphasized the fundamental difference between the one-site CERCLA case and the two-site CERCLA case. In the former situation, where defendants have dumped waste at a site, the courts have generally not required the plaintiff to "fingerprint" releases as belonging to a particular defendant. Rather, they have required only a showing that a defendant's wastes were delivered to a site, at which point the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that its wastes did not in fact cause the contamination or had been removed prior to the release.

In the more unusual two-site case, however, a different causation question is raised: whether the alleged source's releases had any effect at all on the receptor site of concern. For the Kellogg-Deering Site, but for the existence of TCE contamination in the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield, Operable Unit 2 would not satisfy the criteria for expenditure of CERCLA monies under §104. When EPA alleges that chemicals have migrated underground from one site to another site, EPA has the burden of establishing that the second site was in fact the source of the pollutants in question. Until this issue is resolved, CERCLA"s strict liability questions do not come into play. Id. at 1224,

-3­

SIDLEY & AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Dnit 2 RI/FS Comments August 25, 1989

1226. £.£., Anderson v. Cryovac Inc.f 862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) (if uncertain nature and direction of groundwater flow makes it impossible to prove that hazardous substances travelled from wetland to wells, then plaintiffs' illnesses cannot be tied to an act or omission of the defendant) (citing Dedham Water); and see, United States v. Ottati & Goss. 630 F. Supp. 1361 (D. N.K. 1985) (defendants at two adjacent Superfund sites held liable only for problems at site for which groundwater plumes emanating from their respective sites were responsible).

The rule which the court applied to the facts of the Dedham Water case also applies to the facts at the Kellogg-Deering Site, as well. Because CERCLA imposes liability only for a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance which causes the response costs to be incurred, 42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(4), proof of a causal link between a defendant's release and the plaintiff's response constitutes one of the basic elements of a case under CERCLA. Moreover, since the HRS scoring for the Kellogg-Deering Site is heavily dependent upon the Wellfield being a receptor, a remedy for the east side of the Norwalk River depends upon demonstrating contaminant flow to the Wellfield. See. e_.g., Dedham Water, supjra, at 1063; Anderson, supra. at 921; Artesian Water Co. v. New castle County. 659 F. Supp. 1269, 1282 (D. Del. 1987), aff'd 851 F.2d 643 (3d Cir. 1988); State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1044 n.17 (2d Cir. 1985); State of Idaho v. Bunker Hill Co.. 635 F. Supp. 665, 674 (D. Idaho 1986). As in Dedham Water, the RI/FS for the Kellogg-Deering Site simply does not provide adequate evidence—either by confirming the migration of contaminants from the Complex to the downgradient area of the Site or by adequately investigating other potential sources—that the releases from the Complex are the source of the contamination identified downgradient.

Because studies of the Site to date do not provide enough information to determine any causal link there may be between the contamination at the Complex and the contamination downgradient, and do not adequately evaluate other potential sources, the present RI cannot provide the basis for requiring implementation of remedial actions which are based on the presumption that the Complex is the primary source of the downgradient contamination. The approach taken by the RI/FS appears to have been one calculated to lead to a preconceived result, by construing ambiguous data in only one direction and studiously avoiding a hard look at the hydrological regime for fear of finding data that further damage the credibility of the preconceived conclusion.

-4­

SIDI.KY & AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kcllogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/F8 Comments August 25, 1989

III. Remedial Alternatives

A. Soil Remediation

As a general matter, the RI/FS fails to logically evaluate the source of the soil gas VOC emissions identified by the testing at the Complex. No effort was made to determine to what extent the soil gas readings are attributable to primary contamination of soil above the water table as opposed to secondary contamination of soil resulting from off-gassing by the underlying groundwater, a matter which clearly has important implications for selection of an appropriate remedy, as discussed in the G2A comments at page 4. Most of the source area soil which is identified in the RI/FS in Section 4.1.1 as requiring remediation appears to be contaminated as a result of off-gassing from contaminated groundwater; therefore, treatment of the groundwater in the immediate area of the Complex, rather than remediation of the soil, would be a far more cost-effective remedy for the soil in this area. The owner of the Complex is, as EPA is well aware, already constructing an on-site groundwater extraction and treatment system pursuant to a Connecticut DEP order.

The RI/FS attempts to shore up the soil vacuum extraction remedy by arguing that the contaminated soil is the source of indoor air contamination, at least in Building 3 of the Complex. RI/FS at .103; RI Addendum/Indoor Air Quality Survey ("RI Addendum"). However, the results of the RI Addendum for the Complex buildings do not demonstrate a need for any remedial action, as discussed in the GZA comments at page 4.1 The three buildings at which the indoor air samples were taken currently house ongoing light manufacturing (Building 3) and engineering and administrative (Buildings 1 and 2) operations. As such, these buildings are typical workplace environments to which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ("OSHA") Permissible Exposure Limits ("PELs") for TCE and PCE are directly applicable as Enforceable Workplace Standards and to which the

The RI Addendum should at least have evaluated the remedial alternatives of floor sealing and removal of TCE-impregnated wood, which are much less expensive and probably egually effective alternatives.

-5­

1

SIDLRY Se AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/FS Comments August 25, 1989

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ("ACGIH") Threshold Limit Values ("TLVs") are relevant.

While the RI Addendum acknowledges that "[t]he measured concentrations of both compounds are well below the relevant occupational health exposure guidelines," RI Addendum at 1, 19, the report also purports to apply (without discussion of the relationship between the two standards) EPA's target excess cancer risk range, particularly with reference to Building 3. See RI Addendum at 1, 19-21.

The Addendum's calculations concerning the "reasonable worst-case risk estimate" and "realistic-case estimate" for Building 3 provide, at most, information to be considered in analyzing proposed alternatives with respect to indoor air quality. As acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed revisions of the NCP, EPA's risk range of 10"* to 10 constitutes "EPA guidance" only and is to be used only "[w]hen an ARAR does not exist." See 53 Fed.Reg. 51394, 51425-51426. Moreover, the preamble to the 1985 NCP cites OSHA's General Industry Standards as potentially applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements, see 50 Fed.Reg. at 47949 (Nov. 20, 1985), and the preamble to the proposed revisions to the NCP states further that "[f]or carcinogens, EPA uses health-based ARARs to set remediation goals when they are available." 53 Fed.Reg. 51394, 51425-51426.

Even if one were to assume that EPA guidance on risk estimates was pertinent to indoor air quality at this Site, the methods by which these estimates were derived are unduly conservative. For example, the RI Addendum acknowledges that "ft]he air samples used to estimate these risks [attributed to Building 3] were obtained in the former processing area in the Elinco building, directly above an area where subsurface soil contamination was detected. If receptors do not remain in this area throughout the working day, the risks will, of course, be lower than these estimates." RI Addendum at 19. Before imposing the unusual vacuum extraction remedy, or any remedy beyond the OSHA PEL, an evaluation of the actual worker placements within the buildings must be undertaken.

OSHA's PELs constitute enforceable ARARs for indoor air quality at all three Complex buildings. Even if it could reasonably be determined, relying on such promulgated EPA requirements as there may be for such calculations, that PEL levels for TCE and PCE would not be adequately protective of

-6­

SIDLEY & AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/FS Comments August 25, 1989

human health in the Complex buildings, reducing exposure to the level suggested by EPA's risk range would be accomplished most cost-effectively and reliably by implementation of the measures referred to above, or by simply sealing the floors, rather than soil venting.

B. Source Area Groundwater Remediation

GZA's technical comments clearly demonstrate that the source area groundwater remediation proposal contained in the Supplemental RI/FS involves unnecessary expense and places the extraction wells in the wrong place. Although acknowledging that there is an existing, ready to operate, source remediation system in place at the Complex, installed by the owner pursuant to a Connecticut DEP order, the RI/FS curiously fails to explain why that system would not be sufficient to remove source area TCE from the groundwater. This is a particularly glaring flaw in the document in light of the fact that the action levels chosen by the RI/FS are not present in the areas chosen for the placement of extraction wells.

Moreover, there appears to be no risk-based justification related to the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield for any remedial action at the source. Not only does the RI/FS acknowledge that the air stripper installed at the Wellfield pursuant to the Operable Unit l selected remedy is adequate to deliver water meeting the SDWA MCLs to the public, but two independent studies previously submitted to EPA by EDO and a group consisting of the Complex owner and former site operators, respectively, clearly demonstrate that the Wellfield air stripper will function adequately under unrealistic though "reasonable worst case" assumptions. This indisputable conclusion, when coupled with the presence of a DEP-approved source remediation system at the Complex which is ready to operate, show the elaborate source control scheme proposed by the Supplemental RI/FS to be hopelessly excessive.

C. Downgradient Groundwater Remediation

The RI/FS at pages 156 and 167 identifies the Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs for TCE and PCE as constituting pertinent chemical-specific relevant and appropriate requirements for the groundwater at the Site. Table 8-1 of the RI/FS also identifies as applicable requirements Connecticut's Water Quality Standards

-7­

S I D I. K Y & A f S TI N N EW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/FS Comments August 25, 1989

for groundwater, which use the SDWA MCLs. The RI/FS states with reference to Connecticut's standards that "it is the State's goal to remediate the aquifer to a point at which it can be used as a drinking water source without treatment." RI/FS at 156, 167.

Notwithstanding the RI/FS's cursory treatment of the identification of ARARs and TBCs for the Kellogg-Deering Site, Connecticut's Water Quality Standards for groundwater do not constitute applicable requirements for the downgradient groundwater at this site. Moreover, neither those standards nor the SDWA MCLs are appropriate requirements at this location. Finally, even if the federal and state standards for groundwater remediation were ARARs, selection of a remedial action which does not include pumping, treating and disposal ("PTD") of the downgradient groundwater is appropriate because downgradient PTD is technically impracticable and, in any case, source and migration controls at the Complex and the Wellfield will adequately protect human health and the environment.

State Water Quality Standards. Connecticut's Water Quality Standards for groundwater (Department of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit Water Quality Standards, February 1, 1987) are neither applicable nor relevant and appropriate requirements for the Kellogg-Deering downgradient aquifer. In order for a requirement to be "applicable" under the definitions supplied by cither the 1985 NCP or the proposed NCP, the requirement must specifically address a substance, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. See 40 CFR § 300.6; 54 Fed.Reg. 51475 (12-21-89). As stated in the preamble to the proposed NCP, applicable requirements may be identified by determining whether the jurisdictional prerequisites of a requirement fully address the circumstances at the Site or the proposed remedial activity, i.e., whether the regulation would be legally enforceable at the Site if a private party were remediating the Site apart from any CERCLA authority. 54 Fed.Reg. at 51436.

Connecticut's Water Quality Standards for groundwater do not constitute enforceable regulations at all, much less in the context of remedial activities. The standards were assembled under the authority of Connecticut's Water Pollution Control Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Title 22a, Chapter 446k, Section 22a-426. The statute requires adoption of standards of water quality "for the purpose of qualifying the state and its municipalities for available federal grants and for the purpose of providing clear and objective public policy statements of a general program to

-8­

S l D L E Y <S: A C S T I N

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 Rl/FS Comments August 25, X989

improve the water resources of the state." The statute neither authorizes nor directs enforcement of these standards, stating only that responsible officials "shall monitor the quality of the subject waters." Id.

As a preliminary matter, standards adopted for the statutorily-defined purpose of obtaining federal grants and providing "public policy statements of a general program" cannot constitute legally enforceable, applicable "requirements" within the meaning of Section 121 of CERCLA, the 1985 NCP, or even the proposed NCP revisions, and to the extent the state's regulatory authorities purport to employ those standards for broader purposes, the standards are improperly employed. Moreover, the standards do not "specifically address" groundwater conditions "at a CERCLA site" but rather are clearly directed at restoration of degraded groundwater through restrictions on applications for permits to discharge directly to such waters.

Connecticut's Water Quality Standards cannot constitute relevant and appropriate requirements for essentially the same reasons—i.e.f they are not "requirements" at all. The 1985 NCP and the proposed revisions identify relevant and appropriate requirements as those promulgated standards that address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site in question that their use is generally pertinent, as well as well-suited, to the Site. Under Section 121, the standards at issue must, as an initial matter, be legally enforceable. As discussed above, Connecticut's Water Quality Standards are presented as public policy statements of water quality goal5 and cannot be viewed as legal requirements.

In any case, in order to constitute an ARAR for a CERCLA cleanup a requirement must be both relevant and appropriate. Even conceding that the standards at issue could be included within the universe of potentially relevant requirements, their application at the Site is not appropriate within the meaning of the statute and existing and proposed regulations: Connecticut's groundwater standards contemplate the restoration of degraded groundwater by controlling the issuance of permits for new discharges, not by the commencement of large-scale, on-site, PTD-type remediations.

Finally, as discussed below and in GZA's technical comments at pages 6 to 8, the State of Connecticut apparently does not consistently apply its Water Quality Standards in similar circumstances at other remedial actions within the state;

-9­

SIDI.KY & AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 Rl/FS Comments August 25, 1989

therefore, even if the standards for groundwater did constitute potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, their application to the Kellogg-Deering Site would nevertheless be unreasonable, inappropriate and unjustified.

SDWA MCLs. The SDWA MCLs do not constitute relevant and appropriate requirements with respect to the Kellogg-Deering Site. As demonstrated by the fact that they are established with reference to contaminants in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system, the purpose of MCLs is to protect human health.

We agree with the apparent conclusion of the Rl/FS that the MCLs are not "applicable" requirements. Because they are legally applicable only to the quality of water at the point of use, rather than the groundwater from which drinking water is or may be derived, and because CERCLA does not require cleanup of groundwater to its beneficial uses, MCLs are plainly not applicable requirements for this Site.

Under CERCLA and EPA's guidance, once a "requirement" has been determined not to be "applicable", the inquiry shifts to whether it is nevertheless "relevant and appropriate". In order to satisfy this criterion the requirement must meet both sub-criteria. In other words, if the requirement fails one of the two, it is not an ARAR. In this case, SDWA MCLs are clearly not appropriate standards for the groundwater at the Kellogg-Deering Site. First, as discussed below and in GZA's comments at page 8, cleanup of downgradient groundwater at the Site is technically impracticable given the nature of the bedrock and the possibility of widespread plumes from non-point sources.2 Second, the groundwater in the downgradient area is not extracted for human consumption by wells located on the east side of the Norwalk River, and can not be extracted for that purpose under present or reasonably forseeable laws; and to the extent that some groundwater may be mixed in with Deering Pond water in the plume extracted by the Kellogg-Deering wells (as hypothesized by the Rl/FS), human health is already being protected by point-of-use controls at the Wellfield and restrictions on drilling of private wells, such that the objective of MCLs is being achieved even without any remedial activity at the Site, as discussed in GZA's

2 We note that the first point, at least, is conceded in the . Supplemental Rl/FS in several places, including pages 204-205 and

'~~ 245-247.

-10­

$ I D I. K Y & A Lr ST f N N KW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/FS Comment3 August 25, 1989

. comments at pages 9-10. Finally, source control measures already in place at the Complex pursuant to a DEP order, once operational, will function to attenuate the Complex area plume that is allegedly contributing to the downgradient area contamination. These three factors, considered in conjunction, demonstrate that SDWA MCLs are not relevant and appropriate to

• the Kellogg-Deering groundwater.

Waivers. Even if EPA were to conclude that the 5 ppb goal is an ARAR, the use of this ARAR should be waived. CERCLA Section 121 provides for the selection of a remedy that does not attain a level or standard of control that is at least equivalent

I to an ARAR in six situations. In the present case, the circumstances at the Kellogg-Deering Site support the selection of a remedy that does not require treatment of the downgradient groundwater. Specifically, wholesale PTD of downgradient groundwater is not an appropriate component of the remedy because (1) this alternative is technically impracticable, and (2)

., •-> Connecticut does not consistently apply its Water Quality Standards for groundwater in circumstances similar to those at the Kellogg-Deering Site.

(1) CERCLA Section l2l(d)(4)(C) provides for a waiver of compliance with ARARs in selection of a remedy if "compliance

I with such requirements is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective." More specifically, in the preamble to the proposed NCP, EPA identifies a number of site-specific factors which are to be used to evaluate the practicability of restoration of groundwater:

I There are special situations where it may not be practicable to actively restore ground water including sites where there are: (a) Widespread plumes resulting from non-point sources . . . ; (b) Hydrogeogical constraints (e.g., aquifers with very low transmissivity,

I or aquifers in fractured bedrock or Karst formations); (c) Containment constraints (e.g., the presence of dense, non-aqueous phase liquids . . . ); (d) Physiochemical limitations (e.g., interactions between contaminants and the aquifer material which

I limit the rate at which they can be removed). In these instances, the lead agency may

j provide wellhead treatment and/or rely on

-11­

SII>LEV <£ AUSTIN NKW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/FS comments August 25, 1989

natural attenuation with institutional controls as the final remedy.

53 Fed.Reg. at 51434; OSWER Dir. 9283.1-2 (12-88). In discussing the alternative of extracting and treating groundwater in the downgradient area, the RI/FS acknowledges that the bedrock has low hydraulic conductivity and low yielding and infrequent fractures (criterion (b)), stating that "[t]here are certain inherent problems associated with the extraction of groundwater from fractured bedrock ..." (criteria (b) and (c)). See RI/FS at page 359. The RI/FS also acknowledges that, even with aggressive treatment, "[f]or groundwater remediation, no reliable estimates can be made for the overall time requirements." Id. at 358. With respect to protection of human health, the RI/FS concedes that the existing air stripper at the municipal wellfield currently protects human health. Id. at 239, 358.3

Finally, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, studies of the Site to date have not eliminated, much less thoroughly examined, the possibility that TCE sources other than the Complex account for some or all of the contamination of the groundwater.

Thus, with the possible exception of physiochemical limitations, a matter which apparently was not addressed in the RI/FS with any degree of specificity, each of the "special situations" identified in the proposed NCP as a factor militating against active groundwater restoration is present or suspected at the Kellogg-Deering Site. Moreover, wellhead treatment at the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield is already in place and operating effectively to protect human health. For these reasons, the remedial component of PTD of downgradient groundwater at the site is technically impracticable and its implementation should be waived.

(2) CERCLA Section 121(d)(4)(E) provides for a waiver of compliance with state standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations where "the State has not consistently applied (or demonstrated the intention to consistently apply) the standards,

Moreover, as GZA's report (at p. 7) demonstrates, the RI/FS's attempt to justify the downgradient wells on the basis of worst-case cancer risks associated with malfunctioning of the air stripper at the Kellogg-Deering wellfield coincidental with the arrival of unrealistically high maximum TCE concentrations is flawed in several respects, and uses an inappropriately low dilution factor for groundwater reaching the wellhead.

-12­

Sinr.EY 8f AUSTIN NEW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/F8 Comments August 25, 1989

requirements, criteria, or limitations in similar circumstances at other remedial actions within the State." Even assuming that Connecticut's Water Quality Standards for groundwater were to constitute ARARs for the Kellogg-Deering Site, as noted above and in the GZA's technical comments at pages 7-8 Connecticut has apparently not consistently applied those standards to other Superfund sites in the state. Particularly where health-protective measures are already being taken at the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield and will be taken at the upgradient source area, it would not be reasonable, appropriate, or fair, and it is certainly not necessary for the protection of human health, to require direct treatment of the downgradient groundwater pursuant to the State's Water Quality Standards for groundwater.

IV. Remedial Alternatives

As noted in the GZA report (pages 8 et seq.) the data evaluated by the Supplemental RI/FS arguably do not support any source control at the Complex, and certainly no more source control than is already installed and ready to operate. Operation of the existing Kellogg-Deering air stripper provides an adequately protective remedy, which could be made even more protective by installation of a redundant supplemental air stripper at the Wellfield.

There is no justification for any soil remediation as a part of this remedy. Although, as we have pointed out heretofore, EPA has no basis to substitute its own standards for the OSHA PEL for TCE within the Complex buildings, indoor air concentrations of TCE can in all events be lowered by simple, inexpensive alternative means such as floor sealing. To the extent EPA is concerned about future human contact with TCE contaminated soil at the Complex,* that concern can be adequately addressed by merest institutional controls, which have been employed successfully at a number of other sites.

I * We question EPA's legal authority to deal with the soil at the Complex at all, in the absence of any evidence that

i contaminated soil there is a source of contamination at the Kellogg-Deering Wellfield.

-13­

S I D I. K Y & A U S TI X N KW YORK

EDO Corporation/Kellogg-Deering Wellfield Operable Unit 2 RI/F8 comments August 25, 1989

V. Conclusion

The Supplemental RI/FS seems to have lost site of CERCLA's overarching public health and environmental goals, by suggesting expensive, empirically unjustifiable remedies that are arrived at only by piling conservative assumptions atop of one another. While we recognize a legitimate need for some conservatism by the Agency in the selection of CERCLA remedies, EPA should not hide behind the cloak of conservatism to adopt wholly nonsensical remedies. We urge the Regional Administrator to take a hard look at the resources proposed to be committed to this Site and reject the remedy proposed in the initial public meetings in favor of one that more intelligently addresses the conditions associated with it.

Very truly yours, c " * r\ Donald w. Stever Eliza A. Dolin

SIDLEY & AUSTIN 875 Third Avenue New York, N.Y. 10022

cc: Mary Borg, Office of Regional Counsel

-14­

'A GOLDBERG -ZOINO & ASSOCIATES. INC.

Til-. V..LO i>i:.|.!ir.c > - • > Vv.ih.i'.n V in t NY'.ivn IJppi-r I.i'.lv MA /i I •••;(•,•> IK) ?o FAX /'l~"Yi^

August 25, 1989 File No. F-10948-C,PC

Donald Stever, Esq. Sidley & Austin 875 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022

Re: Comments on RI/FS Kellogg-Deering Superfund Site

Dear Mr. Stever:

Attached are comments by GoWberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc. (GZA) on the Final Supplemental RI/FS prepared by Ebasco and NUS for the Kellogg-Deering Superfund site in Norwalk, Connecticut.

GZA has appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this matter.

Very truly yours,

GOLDBERG-ZOINO & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Lawrence Feldman, Ph.D. Senior Associate

LF:dkg

. ! V. :•%•: ,1 I -\ •:'• i V| M ; i:'.ir:.-.:,. \V \ i ' , 1 ;•••

F-10948

G2A COMMENTS ON FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL RI/FS KELLOGG-DEERING SUPERFUND SITE

I. Introduction

At the request of Sidley & Austin on behalf of EDO Corporation, Goldberg-Zoino & Associates ("GZA") has reviewed the 4-volume Final Supplemental RI/FS for the Kellogg-Deering Superfund site ("the RI/FS") and the accompanying RI Addendum on Indoor Air Quality. The RI/FS documents include hundreds of pages of text, figures, tables, and appendices; given the limited time available to review this document, we have had to focus on the text portions of the document and assume that the text was in fact supported by the data. Our very preliminary excursions into the Appendices indicated that this may not be an entirely valid assumption, since in at least one case (the calculation of the cleanup criterion for TCE in soil) the text in the report is inconsistent with the data in the Appendix.

The following comments represent our recent attempt to synthesize and interpret a large amount of data in a short time. Other questions and comments may arise at a later date as we are able to revisit the RI/FS report in more depth.

Section II of these comments will address the role of the complex of three buildings located at 272-280 Main Avenue ("the Complex") as the alleged source area of contamination. Section III will present comments on the proposed Remedial Alternatives, while Section IV will present a different alternative for consideration. Section V is a summary of the major points of our comments.

II. Source Areas of contamination

The role of the Complex in the contamination of the Kellogg-Deering wellfield involves two separate questions:

1. Is the Complex a source of the TCE contamination at the wellfield?

2. What are the sources of the TCE contamination at the wellfield?

The data developed in the RI/FS has confirmed earlier analytical results in identifying a zone of TCE contamination at the Complex. The RI/FS also attempts to establish a significant pathway for contaminant migration from the Complex to the wells west of the river, but does not succeed. Major bedrock fractures

are seen as the primary mechanism for contaminant migration and yet, with the exception of the fracture zone encountered at K-21, direct field or published evidence of a network of major open fractures (as opposed to regional fracture trends) is lacking in the RI/FS. It should also be noted that despite the absence of site-specific data indicating a network of open fractures, the value used for bedrock permeability calculations in the RI/FS is the maximum value observed (from K-21), this generating maximum estimates of groundwater flow rates.

The results of the long-term tracer test are also cited as evidence of contaminant flow through bedrock fractures; the apparent detection of tracer 275 feet from the injection point is extrapolated to "substantiate flow from the source area to the wellfield area", some 2,000 feet west of the site. However, only a single positive reading (May 3) was obtained during the long­term test, and this reading was:

1. preceded by over three weeks during which no samples had been collected;

2. followed, three days later, by a reading below the detection limit; and

3. unconfirmed by laboratory analysis.

It is not clear why NUS did* not perform a confirmatory laboratory analysis on the sole sample collected during the long­term tracer study with a positive field reading, but the absence of this data and other confirmatory field data makes NUS1

interpretation of the overall tracer study results unsupportable.

With regard to other sources of contamination of the wellfield, the RI/FS takes a narrow perspective. Only the Complex and two other sites within the study area were considered in the RI/FS. The RI/FS did not consider the individual or cumulative effects of any of the numerous identified sites in the study area where documentation exists for the usage and/or spillage of TCE.

Moreover, if major bedrock fractures are considered to be a significant contaminant transport pathway, it is necessary to evaluate not only the potential contribution of nearby contaminant source areas, but also the potential contribution of source areas some distance away. To the extent, for example, that a major bedrock fracture system can be postulated as the connection between the Complex and well K-21, such a fracture system could also lead to K-21 from other TCE-using facilities such as Yankee Metals, to the south of the limited study area considered by NUS, or Sperry, to the north of the study area.

In summary, while the RI/FS has provided some evidence that the Complex area could possibly be a source of the contamination detected in the aquifer downgradient of the site and at the Kellogg-Deering wellfield, it fails to verify that the Complex is either a source or the only source of this contamination. In the absence of data in the RI/FS to establish that other properties on which there has been TCE usage and spillage are not sources of TCE contamination, the RI/FS conclusions in this matter should not be considered to be sufficient to support a remedy that focuses on the Complex as the source area.

III. Comments on Remedial Alternatives

A. Soil Remediation

Soil and soil gas contamination by TCE at the Complex has two sources:

1) The RI/FS concluded that soils directly under the TCE sumps and trenches were apparently contaminated while the sumps and trenches were in use. Accordingly, there is likely a localized area of vadose zone soil under each of these units that has been directly contaminated by VOCs.

2) Soils, and more particularly, soil gas outside these localized areas may also indicate VOC contamination, but as a symptom of underlying groundwater contamination rather than as a cause. This contamination is related to groundwater containing TCE and other VOCs contaminating the soils it comes in contact with, and contaminating overlying vadose zone soil gas by off-gassing of vocs.

Of the area designated on Figure 9-1 as an area requiring soil remediation, most falls into the second category; that is, the significant soil/soil gas contamination is an effect of the groundwater contamination, not a cause. Given this fact, and the fact that groundwater at the Complex would be treated as described below, we feel that remediation of the soil in this area is not necessary for groundwater protection.

Two other exposure pathways were cited as part of the rationale for soil treatment. One pathway was based on the extreme assumption that the site would be demolished, stripped of pavement, and left open to the elements. To the extent that this may be a concern, it could be more appropriately handled through institutional land use controls or, at most, an escrow sufficient to pay for repaving the site with asphalt once it had been stripped.

The second exposure pathway cited as justification of soil remediation was indoor air at the three site buildings. Unfortunately, while the RI Addendum on indoor air included several careful measurements of indocr air quality, it apparently did not include any real attempt to evaluate other possible sources of contamination beyond the presence of VOCs in soil gas beneath the buildings. However, there are clearly variables that must be considered; why, for example, are the highest indoor levels at the Elinco building, which had the lowest soil gas levels (Figure 4-2)?

Clearly there is more to the indoor air quality issue than was presented. The source of the VOCs has been attributed to soil contamination. In the Elinco Building where the former TCE pit was open. There may have been TCE in wood and concrete around that area. If regulatory requirements should at some point mandate addressing indoor air quality, the obvious first measures to be considered would be to remove heavily contaminated wood, clean, and/or seal concrete and seal the pit. In any event, indoor air quality can be adequately addressed by measures far more cost-effective than soil treatment.

Finally, on a matter which is dealt with in more detail in the accompanying Sidley & Austin memorandum, we note that the RI Addendum compares air quality levels to extremely stringent "target risk range" standards, which are well below applicable OSHA standards. Since this is a work place environment where TCE was used, the applicable standard should be the OSHA PEL, which is not exceeded by the levels measured in the buildings.

B. Source Area Groundwater Remediation

The RI/FS divides the area of groundwater contamination into a source area, subject to "Management of Migration" alternatives, and a downgradient area; these two areas are delineated on Figure 11-1. NUS has concluded that the Complex is within the source area of soil and groundwater contamination, and should be considered in a different light than non-source areas of contamination (the presumed "downgradient" area) . We understand the concept of setting a cut-off number for contamination in the source area, and the level of 5,600 ppb TCE selected by NUS is probably adequate.

On the other hand, the extension of the "source area" west of Main Street, as indicated on Figure 11-1, does not appear justified. Four monitoring wells are located in the portion of the shaded area west of Main Street: K-3A, K-3B, K-8, and K-14. Of these four, the TCE concentrations shown on Figures 4-7 and 4-8 for three of the wells (K-3A, K-3B, and K-14) are below the 6,600 ppb level. For the fourth well, two readings were obtained; a 37,840 ppb reading was obtained from the mobile GC laboratory, but the reading from the presumably more accurate CLP

was only 4,700 ppb. Given this data, it is difficult to see the rationale for extending the limits of the source area beyond the Complex.

In a related matter, we note that the summary prepared for this site indicates that 90 percent of the TCE in the groundwater within the study area (as defined in Figure 1-2) is within the "source area"; on page 225 of the RI/FS, however, it is stated that only 20 percent of the TCE is within the limits of the Complex. Given the relative concentrations of TCE detected in the Complex and the westerly portion of the "source area", and the comments in the preceding paragraph, it is difficult to conclude, as the RI/FS does, that 70 percent of the TCE in the study area is in the western portion of the "source area".

The primary health risk issue discussed in the RI/FS is that associated with the ingestion of contaminated groundwater from the Kellogg-Deering wellfield. It should be noted that the RI/FS acknowledges that there is no significant risk posed by existing conditions; comments previously submitted by both GZA and Versar have demonstrated that significantly higher levels of TCE contamination at the wellfield could be handled by relatively minor modifications to the treatment system at the well level. Should groundwater treatment also be required at the Complex, however, we do not see the advantage to be gained, in either time or effectiveness, by starting from scratch with a new groundwater treatment system where one is already in place. The existing system was designed and installed by Fuss and O'Neill in full consultation with the Connecticut DEP. The system design and the locations of the four existing extraction wells were approved by the DEP as appropriate for dealing with groundwater contamination at this site. This system, rather than a new system as proposed by NUS, should be considered the "appropriate" response to the groundwater contamination at the Complex.

The existing system is ready to start operation when final regulatory approvals are obtained. Once the system is in operation, its effectiveness can readily be assessed by ongoing monitoring of existing wells. This data, which will provide additional information on the hydraulic characteristics of the area, can be used to evaluate the adequacy of the in-place system.

As currently designed and approved, the existing system would use two stripping towers in series to reduce TCE levels in effluent to NPDES discharge requirements. The RI/FS proposes that effluent water from the air stripper will be treated to 1 ppb TCE, and then piped 1-1/2 miles to a river discharge. The RI/FS provides no justification for either the more stringent treatment limit or the need for a stream discharge, which adds $1-1/2 million to the cost of the remediation.

Discharges to surface waters, to sanitary sewers, and to groundwater are regulated under Sections 22a-430-3 and 22a­430-4 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Standards for discharge guality of groundwater contaminated by chlorinated volatile organic compounds have not been established and are decided on a case-by-case basis by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Surface water permit limits would be established based primarily on stream classification and flow characteristics. The discharge limitations for individual volatile organics to a Class A or Class AA stream would typically be based at Connecticut Action Levels or applicable standards, with a maximum allowable total VOC concentration. Discharge limitations to a Class B stream, such as the Norwalk River, would likely be less stringent than those requirements. Discharges to a sanitary sewer are likely to be considerably less stringent; in the past contaminated groundwater discharges (by volatile organics) to sanitary sewer systems have been permitted with limits set at part per million ranges.

The RI/FS acknowledges (p. 357) that the calculated air stripper emissions fall below the level requiring carbon off-gas filters, but then proceeds to call for these filters anyway. There is no ARAR or risk-based justification for the use of carbon off-gas filter either at the Complex or at the wellfield.

C. Downgradient Groundwater Remediation

The perceived need articulated in the RI/FS for groundwater remediation in the downgradient area is based primarily on achieving a 5 ppb level in groundwater (the Connecticut drinking water standard) rather than on realistic risk-based analyses. The RI/FS (p. 99) notes that, "...discharge of bedrock groundwater contributes only a minimal amount of the wellfield water," but is inconsistent on the issue of how small that portion is. In Section 3 of the RI/FS, a previous study by Leggette, Brashears, and Graham is cited which indicated that 86 percent of the wellfield's safe yield of 3.5 mgd was derived from infiltration from the Norwalk River and 11.5 percent from aquifer storage, but that only about 2 percent was derived from underflow from the aquifer east of the Norwalk River. In Section 6, however, a table is presented (p. 125) which indicates a calculated contribution of underflow of 14.3 percent under pumping conditions less severe than under the safe yield scenario. Generally, the proportion of underflow would be expected to decrease as the pumping rate decreased; however, no numerical or analytical flow model of the aquifer is developed in the RI/FS, and the justification for the data in the table on page 125 is not provided, although it is the 14.3 percent contribution figure which is used in subsequent contaminant exposure calculations.

""^ While the assumption of 14.3 percent contribution from east of the river results in a very conservative estimate of

I impacts at the wellfield, it is only one of a number of highly conservative assumptions used in Section 6 of the RI/FS. For example, although no PCE was detected in the supply well or in the CLP analysis for well K-21, PCE was used as a basis for risk calculations for the wellfield. Even with this very conservative assumption, however, the "worst-case" Hazard Index (Table 6-7) is

I less than the target value of 1 for the Geometric Mean, and less than 10 for the Arithmetic Average. For the "plausible-case", the Hazard Index is well below 1 for all statistical approaches.

For the worst-case cancer risk assessment the assumption was made that the groundwater in the immediate

I vicinity of the Complex would be consumed, without treatment. This unrealistic set of conditions resulted in calculated cancer risks which are higher than the EPA target range.

The "plausible" case cancer risk assessment assumes that treatment at the wellfield continues and that 14.3 percent

| of the groundwater originates from the east side of the river. Following this logic and the river underflow estimates developed be Leggette, Brashears and Graham (NUS 1989 p. 72) of 2 percent results in incremental cancer risks for the arithmetic average and geometric mean concentrations of 3 x 10~7 and 1 x 10~9 .

r ' •> In summary, the NUS information indicates that, based on a risk assessment, there is little or no reason to undertake remediation other than at the supply wellhead.

According to Connecticut's Water Quality Standards for groundwater, published February 1987, "[t]he goal of the

I Commissioner is, wherever feasible, to restore or maintain all groundwaters to a quality consistent with its use for drinking without treatment. In keeping with this goal, all degraded groundwater shall be restored to the extent possible to a quality consistent with Class GAA or GA." Class GAA and Class GA groundwater quality criteria are defined for chemical

I constituents, as "Subject to standards of Section 19-13-B102 of the Connecticut Public Health Code, advisories of the Department of Health Services and primary and secondary standards of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act."

This standard implies aquifer restoration as a cleanup I goal for contaminated areas. However, this standard has not been

consistently applied within Connecticut for all areas of contaminated groundwater as a result of discharges from disposal areas orLandfill

spills. (an NPL

For site

example, the in Naugatuck,

ROD for the Connecticut)

Laurel Park requires a

landfill cap and leachate collection/groundwater extraction (from

shallow bedrock) in the direct vicinity of the source area only; although the site is located within a Class GA area, neither deep bedrock contamination nor groundwater contamination at distance is addressed.

Similarly, the ROD for Industrial Yaworski Lagoons (an NPL site in a Class GB area Canterbury, Connecticut) requires lagoon capping with a contingency only for groundwater recovery and treatment in the source area. The ROD for Beacon Heights Landfill (an NPL site) does not require downgradient groundwater remediation. Beacon Heights Landfill is located in Beacon Falls, Connecticut in a Class GB/GA area.

By practice Connecticut DEP has seldom required even source area groundwater treatment to restore affected water to potable quality. Remedial requirements are applied on a case-by­case basis and are typically directed at source area solutions (such as soil removal or treatment, source area capping or application of best-management practices) or receiving areas (such as well-head treatment, or alternative water supplies). General aquifer remediation has not typically been required.

Finally, the recommendation in the RI/FS for a series of deep bedrock wells is not technically defensible. As noted on page 3 of the NUS memo of April 27, 1989, "the drilling of [bedrock] extraction wells would be a hit-or-miss prospect," since there is no way of telling in advance if a given bedrock well will intercept a major fracture zone. The difficulties inherent in groundwater extraction systems in fractured bedrock aquifers are acknowledged in the proposed revisions of the NCP (NCP 53 FedReg at 51434). There it is noted that "aquifers in fractured bedrock" may not be amenable to groundwater restoration. More specifically, it is stated that "...site characteristics such as fractured bedrock... may preclude or adversely hinder aggressive pumping and treating options in certain cases...". Were downgradient treatment to be deemed necessary, it should focus on treating either identified bedrock "hot spots", or the overburden aquifer.

IV. Remedial Alternatives

The following remedial alternatives have been developed to address the key issues of concern in a cost-effective manner. While the RI/FS recommended alternative relies entirely on an engineered system which will need continual repair and maintenance, the proposed alternative is a mix of engineering, institutional, and low-technology actions which together will address the issues raised in the FS in a reasonable manner and adequately satisfy SARA's remedial criteria.

A. .Air Quality

The major air quality issue raised was the indoor air at the buildings in the Complex. In order for the remedy to be adequately protective of human health and the environment and at the same time be cost-effective, the air-related remedial action should be limited to:

1. filling inbuilding;

the pit and trenches in the Elinco

2. removal of TCE contaminated wood, and sandblasting or encapsulating floor areas contaminated with TCE, or removing wooden flooring as necessary:

3. monitoring air quality to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA standards; and

4. if OSHA levels were exceeded, modifying building ventilation in the areas of concern.

B. Soil

As noted above, the majority of the soil remediation area designated in the FS reflects the contaminated groundwater rather than actual soil contamination in the vadose zone. An appropriate remedial alternative would take this into account, along with the availability of institutional controls to prevent adverse land use in the Complex. Remediation comprised of the imposition of land use controls on the site to prevent the "stripped and abandoned scenario" outlined in the RI/FS, and to appropriately address the contaminated soils issue at the time of future site development, would be sufficient for this.

C. Source Area Grour.dwater

The existing groundwater extraction and treatment system, designed and installed to r\eet DEP's standards for the remediation of this site, should be placed into operation. Before an expensive phalanx of new extraction wells and air strippers is required to be constructed and operated, the performance of the existing system should be carefully monitored, and the data thus developed evaluated quarterly. The treatment level for groundwater at the Complex should be that level which would result in influent levels of 5 ppb or less at the Kellogg-Deering wellfield.

D. Downgradient Groundwater

As noted above, the hypotheses in the RI/FS which link the Complex with the downgradient area may also link the downgradient area with other identified TCE users both within and outside of the study area.

In any case, the approach to the downgradient area should recognize that the primary exposure pathway is through the Kellogg-Deering public supply wells across the river; even the RI/FS assumes sufficient institutional controls to prevent the installation of other supply wells east of the river. Accordingly, decisions regarding the need for treatment in the downgradient area should not be based on the assumption that all water in this area must be of drinking water quality. Given the problems of intercepting specific bedrock fractures, as discussed above, any groundwater treatment program should be designed to treat water in the overburden, rather than in the bedrock.

V. Conclusions

Our review of the RI/FS indicates that while it is a major work effort and provides a useful compilation of available data on the site, it neither fully supports its main hypothesis nor provides a reasonable, cost-effective remedial alternative. Specifically, we note the following:

1. While it presents a conceptual model of the study area in which the groundwater contamination detected at the Complex is the sole source of the contamination at the Kellogg-Deering wellfield, the RI/FS fails to demonstrate conclusively either that groundwater has actually migrated from the Complex to the wellfield, or that no other sources within or beyond the study area have contributed to the wellfield contamination.

2. The Kellogg-Deering wollfield, a public supply source that is regularly monitored, is the only identified drinking water exposure pathway in the study area. The study area is served by public water, so there would be no need for the installation of private supply wells in the area.

3. Information developed by NUS indicates that on risk based assessment alone there is little or no justification for source control measures. For the "plausible" case the hazard index is below one and the incremental cancer risks appear to be in the range of 3 x 10"7 to 1 x 10~9.

10

The proposed remedial alternative is biased toward expensive, high-tech, high maintenance alternatives. Low-tech solutions and non-structural institutional controls are essentially ignored, although the appropriate combination of these alternatives could lead to a remedial plan that is both consistent with SARA and cost-effective.

11