USVI Public Records

Document text

SDMS Document Harding Lawson Associates February 23, 1996 29872 12.4 Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domville United States Environmental Protection Agency Section II Emergency and Remedial Response Division 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866 115579 Jn. Jr. ^ 4// '0. ^ 8 f Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Island Chemical Company, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Dear Ms. Taylor-Domville: Enclosed are Harding Lawson Associates' (HLA) respon.ses, on behalf of Lsland Chemical Company (ICC), to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) January 31, 1996 final comment letter regarding the Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan (RIWP) for the subject site. The comments are listed belov\' and are addressed in the order that they were presented in the January 31 letter. Because we realize EPA may have questions with regard to the following, HLA has not yet revised the Draft RIWP. Further, we would be happy to accept yo\ir offer of a meeting to address any issues EPA may raise. A revised Draft RIWP will be forwarded to EPA following this anticipated meetins. GENERAL COMMENTS EPA Comment 1 ICC Response 1 Engineering and Environmental Services EPAs primary cancnrn regarding tha data presented in Data Summary Report . was the effectiveness of the monitoring well network, with regards to the site specific groundwater flow, to adequately characterize groundwater quality... Based on the relatively small size of the site, ICC believes that the present monitoring well network adequately characterizes the groundwater quality across the site, wifli the possible exception of the Proce.ss Pit Area. Except for the Process Pit Area, the monitoring wells were installed in each area of potential concern ba,sed on work performed prior to their installation. As part of the RIWP. MLA proposes to install the remaining mojiitoring well (MW-2) in the Process Pit area and, possibly, a second monitoring well in the AST area. After these wells are installed, groundwater samples collected from the monitoring well network should provide complete characterization of existing groundwater contamination, if preseiit. EPA states that "after several rounds of water level measurements, it has been determined that shallow groundwater flow is to the east-northeast." This was not a conclusion of the Draft Data Summary Report. The report noted that shortly after a storm event, during which time several rounds of water level data were collected in a few days, shallow groundwater flow direction changed. It is highly probable that these changes were of short duration and a temporary result of flow in the River. However, the primary (most consistent) direction of shallow groundwater flow at the site is still Washington Parl<, 14 Washington Road, Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 609/936-0700 Fax 609/936-1020 A Siih.Ki.liaiy i.f Hiinliii'^ .^ssnciates • Office.'.' Wilir.nnijc 305287 Harding Lawson Associates Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domxille USEPA Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Febnian'23, 1996 believed to be east-southeast, as stated in the original Work Plan. This assumption is premised on basic hydrogeologic principles, and agreed to by EPA in their approval of the Work Plan. As discussed during the project meeting on October 6, 1995, HLA recommends that contin-uous water level data be collected to demonstrate the prevailing direction of groundwater flow under static conditions. HLA anticipates that data will have to be collected continuously for three to six months to confirm the primary groundwater flow direction. If additional wells are deemed necessary, final locations will be selected in concert with EPA and the wells will hp. installed al the time well MW-2 is installed. EPA Comment 2 ...The proposed sampling program, which only evaluates surface soil quality, is inadequate as it will not characterize the extent of the tank farm contamination. ICC Response 2 Based on results of previous investigations within the AST area, it has been determined that the contamination detected in this area extends to the water table. Therefore, no further subsurface soil sampling is recommended. A soil sampling program will be conducted to investigate the surficial extent of impact in the AST area as propo.sed in the RIWP soil investigation will be evaluated to determine the The results of the siuficia location with the highest concentration of VOCs. The area of highest VOC concentrations at the surface should correspond to the horizontal location of the most highly concentrated source of grourrdwater contamination, if any, in subsurface soils. Unless this area coincides with the location of MW-1, ICC proposes to install a second monitoring well in this area. Consequently, either MW-1 or the new monitoring well, if installed, should provide water quality information directly beneath the area of highest soil contamination. This should adequately characterize the magnitude of contamination a.ssociated with the AST area. If this concentration is .shown to be below levels that would pose a threat to human health or the envii-onment, further delineation of chemicals in groimdwater in this area will not be necessary. EPA Comment 3 The additional site charncterizatinn activities that are to be conducted to assess the potential fnr conditions at the site to affect the coastal regions are not specified. These activities should include an assessment of historical site discharges to the River Gut from the site. ICC Response 3 EPA indicates that the potential contaminants of concern associated with this site are VOCs and metals. VOCs were not detected in soil and groundwater samples collected at locations near the River Gut (SBC2/MW-3, SBD4/MW-5, and SBD3) or in samples collected in the lab pit, identified as a potential VOC source area (SBDl/MW-4). Given the absence of detectable VOCs, the length of time since the site was active, and the volatile nature of VOCs, there is no reason to suspect that VOCs are pre.sent in the subsoil near the River Gut. 305288 Harding Lawson Associates Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domville USEPA Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial huestigation Work Plan Febaian,'23, 1996 EPA Comment 4 ICC Response 4 The issue with regard to metals detected at the site was addressed in a letter dated December 11, 1995 from Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gro.ss (Sills, Cummis), on behalf of ICC, to Ms. Carol Berns, Esq. at EPA. A copy of this letter is attached. The relationship between the shallow and deeper aquifer zones, especially the potential for vertical migration of contaminants between the two zones, should be thoroughly examined. The EPA does not specify the basis of their concern regarding tlie deeper zone. The investigation performed to date indicates that concentrations of detected chemicals in shallow groundwater are not above regulatory standards. Therefore, ICC assumes that the basis of EPA's concerns are associated with chlorofornr detected in one gi'oundwater sample collected by the EPA from a former production well in February 1991. HLA previou.sly addres.sed the issue of chloroform contamination in a report attached to Sills, Cummis' March 21, 1994, concerning the proposed listing of the site on the National Priority List (NPL). Copies of this letter and report are attached. In addition, chlorofonn was not detected in any of the groimdwater samples from the groimdwater monitoring wells installed during this Remedial Investigation. Because no other VOCs were reported in samples from the former prod\iction wells, there appeal's to be no justification to pei'l'orm further investigation of the deeper groundwater zone. SPECIFIC COMMENTS EPA Comment 1 Section 1.3. Page 2. Bullet 5: The Draft Phase II Work Plan does not address EPA's concerns regarding groundwater and effectiveness of the existing monitoring well network. ICC Response 1 As noted in the response to General Comment No. 1, the existing and proposed wells should provide adequate characterization of existing groundwater conditions at the site. As stated in Section 3.2.5 of the RIWP, ICC proposes to conduct additional groundwater elevation monitoring activities to confirm the primary groundwater flow direcUon at the site. ICC proposes to install two additional continuous water level recorders in selected onsite wells. Installation of these recorders, in addition to the tv\'o recorders currently functioning onsite, will provide data across the majority of the site. These recorders will provide data regarding the percentage of time that groundwater flows in any given direction. Other influences on groundwater flow, such as precipitation and/or flow in the gut, will be evaluated based on the water level data obtained. The data will be evaluated to determine if additional monitoring wells are warranted, and if .so, where thev shoitid be located. 305289 Harding Lawson Associates Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domville USEPA Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Febaiary 23, 1996 EPA Comment 2 Section 2.0. Page 4. Item No. 2: The Draft Phase II Work Plan does not specify the additional site characterization activities that will be conducted tn assess the potential for conditions at the site to affect the coastal regions. At a minimum, these activities should include an assessment of site historical discharges to the River Gut from the known discharge pipes. Sampling previously conducted in the storm water drainage system indicated elevated levels of volatile organic compounds and metals in sediments. In addition, sampling conducted following the removal of the drain line (55-gallon drums) to the River Gut indicated elevated levels of volatile organic compounds in the surrounding soils. Subsurface soil sampling, should be conducted in the area of the two discharge pipes and the former laboratory pit discharge point ( area beneath the existing loading dock), to delineate the nature and extent of volatile organic and metal contamination in these areas. The borings should be advanced tn the top of the water table. ICC Response 2 EPA Comment 3 See response to General Comment No. 3. Section 2.0. Page 4. Item No. 3: The Draft Phase II Work Plan calls for the collection of 12 surface soil samples in Area B (Tank Form) to determine extent of contamination identified. Surface soil samples are to be analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) only. Contamination was previously delected at various depths lo the water table. Acetone for example, was detected al a concentration of 19.000 parts per billion at a depth of six to eight feet below ground surface... Sampling should be advanced outwardly in all directions from boring SBDi/MWl until the full delineation of tbe contaminants present has been achieved. The proposed sampling locations should be completed as borings that extend down to the water table. Samples should be analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) volatile organic compounds. ICC Response 3 As disciLssed in the response to General Comment No. 2, a soil sampling program will be conducted to investigate the .surficial extent of impact in the AST area as proposed in the RIWP. Based on results of previous investigations in the AST area it has been determined that the soil contamination detected in this area extends to the water table. Therefore, no further subsurface sampling is recommended. The elevated concentration of acetone previously detected in soil the sample collected from the AST area is probably attributable to artifacts of field or laboratory decontamination procedures. No other VOCs, except BTEX compounds and acetone, have been detected in the AST area. Therefore, as proposed in the RIWP, the surficial soil samples will analyzed for BTEX compounds only. The po.ssibility that acetone is present in this area will be evaluated through collection of groimdwater samples, as discussed below. 305290 Harding Lawson Associates Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domville USEPA Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation Work Plan Febniar>'23, 1996 The results of the surficial soil invesfigafion will be evaluated to determine the locafion with the highest concentration of BTEX compounds. If this location has chemical concentrations in soils higher than those detected in soil samples from the boring for MW-1, ICC proposes to install an addifional monitoring well at this location. Consequently, either MW-1 or the new monitoring well, if installed, should provide water quality information directly beneath the area of highest soil contamination. The groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs including acetone. EPA Comment 4 Section 2.0. Page 4. Item No. 7: ... the extent of communication between the shallow and deep groundwater zones must be defined. The Draft Phase II Work Plan proposes the collection of water level measurements from the cm-site production wells only. At a minimum, the deep production wells should also be sampled concurrentlv with the shallow wells for comparison and documentation.. Informalion regarding the production wells' construction specifications and screened intervals .should also be obtained via geophysical logging and/or downhole video methods. ICC Response EPA Comment 5A See response to General Comment No. 4. Section 3.2.2. Page 5: ...the plan does not address that after two rounds of water level measurements, groundwater flow is reported to be to the east- northeast not the south-southeast as originally projected. Therefore several of the wells intended to monitor groundwater quality downgradient of several suspected source areas do not do so. Rased on these findings, three additional shallow ground water monitoring wells should be installed... ICC Response EPA Comment 5B ICC Response As discussed in Responses to General Comments 1 and 2, ICC proposes to evaluate the data from the new and existing continuous monitoring devices for three to six months to confirm the direction of groundwater flow during normal and extreme (drought and/or heavy precipitation) weather conditions. The data will be evaluated to determine if additional monitoring wells are wai-j-anted. Section 3.2.2. Page 5: Additionally, one deep groundwater monitoring well should be installed in the area of the discharge pipe for the central storm drain adjacent to the I'iiver Gul. The well should be installed to an approximate depth nf 00 feet below the surface and should be comparably screened as the two on- site production wells. This well will be used to triangulate the direction of the deeper zone groundwater flow and to characterize any contamination potentially migrating from the site. See responses to General Comment and Specific Comment Number 4. 305291 Harding Lawson Associates Ms. Sherrel Taylor-Domville USEPA Response to Comments Draft Phase II Remedial ln\-estigation Work Plan Febmary 23, 1996 EPA Comment 6 ICC Response Section 3.24. Page 6: ...groundwater samples collected from the newly installed well must be analyzed for the full suite of parameters including pyridine. At this time no juslification exists for submitting the samples for a reduced analytical list. Groundwater samples collected from the proposed monitoring well (MW-2) will be analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL Pesticides, TCL PCBs, and TAL Inorganics (total and dissolved). Please call either of the undersigned if you have any questions. Please contact ns with a proposed date and time for a meetin". Yours very truly, HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES /f-ason M. Schindler, P.%/ Associate Geologist Edward A. Neiriecek, R.G. Principal Hydfogeologist EAN\JMS\jsv\js\ml \WOBK\29872\0l\L9002-02.doc This document was prepared for the sole use of the ICC and the regulatory agencies involved with the project, the only intended beneficiaries of our work. No other parties should rely on the information contained herein without the prior written consent ofTII^A. 305292 "SILLS CUMMIS ZUCKERMAN RADIN TISCHMAIN EPSTEIN & GROSS ETtrvtN s. H A O I N -CHBEP-T t_ ZUCKERMAN »4tO^ABl- 9. r.ECHMAi^ MOffTCN fi. auNiS STANlXr TAWNENaA^M m v t N E . c a o s s • ^ C M A * .• OEJUSXI JEJTTIKY M. NEWMArt •jiwrJENCE S. hOBN CMWSLES J. WALSH ^CTFDCyj OBEENBAUM ^ U O N L e v w .•r^T^?N J. MOSES M f ^ a t s vAkiNin? NOAH BHONKF.tH * g't-'t-n A/)DN STEVE>* M, (t.-ll.f3«AW KENNgrTH F. OETTLE ALAN E. 5HERIAAN ROBBTT J. A1.TEB :RA A. ftOSE-NBEflC Rosurr cnANc MAAC & KL£1N PWIUP R. Sra_LlN(i«R JAa< M. 2AO<lN THOMAS a NOVAK JEBRT SEMBERa erUAftT M. FHINBLATT MASCARCT F. BLAOC R o a e n T M , Ajta-Ftoo aHiAM s. c^^'EN TRENT S. DICKET RIOHARO J. £CHUI-MA>4'> BETWAAQ I. FUITEMAN JOEEFTI U auOCLEY ";AT>IUSXN C E N C A P O CAVIO J. RAflJNQWrrZ . A M U a TOLL .'AXES H. HIRtCHHORN ALLNHCBSIX HOMALOCRAK UAAK S OUNSXY BirHACO J. SAPINSXI VICTOP H SOYAJIAN U-UJ J COMCN MARK J. BLUNnA U^RI C B1NCE31 er esuNsn. OAVID B e o < aCH*. I , WOLT wnrs-tEi- E o y r n t n A P R O F E S S I O N A L C C R P O R A T t O N O N E R I V E R F R O N T PUA2A NEWARK. NEW J E R S E Y 0 7 1 0 2 - 5 * 1 0 0 ( 2 0 1 ) e A 3 - 7 D O O FAX: <S6I> «rf-3-«S00 712 F I F T H A V E N U e N E W Y O R K . N T I O O I S (212) & 4 3 - 7 0 0 0 P A X 1312) 6 - 1 3 - 6 6 B O \ 7 G O R D O N - S A L X i - r A T L A N T I C C n V . N J o a d O t ^ ^ i O S ( e 0 9 ) 3<1^-2BOO W W r r e R ' S D I R E C T D l A l . N U M B E R : (201) & i 3 - 5 T 7 6 December 1 1 , 1995 • A'miClA u. KEniMic CIAN£ M L>yeNQA l^ODCJ^T f?, OIVTTA OIE31IE LEE M A X W E U . SUEMH C CAV1S HAflHT B N O R m X r CTSVPJ B. JAOOIANO nrjiuT aoeCN NATHAN E- AflNELL STEyEN H. ROWUWD JAC3C VOENIK Eftn: Q. MANN M A A K €. Ouo^rrTElM BETH S R o s e S O I T T N . RUBIN . { . a X P l G M. TUOOR KEyiNCTH U MOiiltOwrTT KRIC W. ft_EEPCB STEVEN SHA>1I»C« ALMA U/TJEN ABRAMS A B O E S P C A B L S O N •TOTfWY M. FOLLDCX SEMNCT SUSXcn K ) 0 ^ saoosKv HOBEJJTW RUBKE SCOTT T OHUBER STEVEN S KAT2 UNOA B. KATX ft(d>*A«o a s c x K O u ^ t c x TtDZANGARI N. L W N e HUSHES OE«LV8 MAWA CUT1CHBE2 PAUL P. JOEEPHSON P A T P I O A OPOV^-N P L O E E 0 C > O < : L A « R ^•*^f 10€1> 3TSV1>I «. KAUEN PAUL F D O D * LORA L, r O N C JOSHUA Q. COODMAN HILXNKLK94KK ftHONOA 90eRAL OTOOLE JEPmsry u WFtNHAUS C J U - V I N K J O N E S A O A M J . K A J S E R A U S S A P T T O C M K E J m J WSNCOLD OAYLE N. vnPLK^NVSKC SARftr M l C E f l S M K X A C . R. SONTD JENMlFEn U B D H O F S ^ J O S C T H O. t^LA^£>^ " A u c x H I . Mcxrar SU3AMNEK. RCSEKrwEVS M i O i E L E L£E BERKS LOra M. WALDAON OONNA P A H A S A V . W H J K W M O N C A M. C D A x v r r LALIRAM. KAUK FWWCINe E. TAJFEL FETCH I * 8CHULT2 f ^ . E A S e REPLY T O N E W A P K VIA TETJEGOPY RMD REGULAR MAIL Carol Berns, Esq. United States EnviranTOental Protection Agency 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007 Re: Plot Q of Estate Bethlehem Middle Works off of Melvin Evans Highway (Route 66) in St. Croix, United states Virgin Islands (Vichem Site) S-uPDlemental Work Plan Issues Dear Ms, Berns; As you will recall, representatives of Berlex Laboratories, Inc. ("Berlex") and Island Chemical Company ("ICC") , including representatives of their environmental consultant, Harding Lawson Associates ("HLA"), met with the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") on October 6 to discuss the draft data summary report previously submitted to EPA by HLA in connection with the Berlex/ICC investigation of the above-captioned site. At that meeting, EPA expressed some concerns about "gaps" which. EPA representatives perceived in the accumulated data.' As agreed with EPA during the October 6 meeting, and on behalf of ' It should be noted that the data were collected in strict accordance with the EPA approved workplan for the Vichem site. • CA) O U l ro CA) SOO'j;^ T# 0 ' 8 3 ' X ' H ' Z ' D ' S 0 0 S 9 CVd TOo T r V H 2 S ; 0 T 9 6 / 0 Z / 2 0 0 0 9 9 Z P 9 T 0 2 T SILLS CU.M.MIS ZUCKERMAN RADIN TISCHMAN EPSTEIN & GROSS Carol Berns, Esq. December 11, 1995 Berlex and ICC, HLA submitted a supplemental work plan for the site designed to respond to EPA concerns and provide the requested infonnation as to site conditions. This letter is provided to address one of the data items that EPA has previously requested, but which Berlex and ICC respectfully decline to pursue—i.e., offsite soils and/or sediment sampling in the River Gut. EPA has indicated its desire that Berlex and ICC test offsite, in the River Gut, to determine if there has been offsite migration of metals detected in onsite soil sampling. EPA is concerned about impacts to aquatic receptors downstream, as well as impacts to nearby flora and fauna. EPA specifically points to onsite concentrations of zinc, copper and lead as metals which may exceed background levels, and which may have the potential to adversely impact on and off site receptors. HLA is in the process of evaluating whether or not the excaedances described above are truly above background concentrations. However, even if it is ultimately determined that the referenced metals are at elevated levels, Berlex and ICC are not responsible for these contaminants, or any damage that may have been caused by these contaminants on or off site. A review of extant ICC chemical inventories and process descriptions and interviews of people with knowledge confirm that at no time after Berlex's purchase of Icc, and up until icc's assignment of the lease to Virgin Islands chemical Co., Inc. ("vichem"), did ICC store, use, release, or dispose of materials containing copper, lead or zinc at the vichem site. Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a)(2), to be liable for the costs of environmental response, a prior owner or operator must have owned or operated the facility at which hazardous substances were disposed of "at the time of disposal of...[such] hazardous substances." Since the hazardous substances (i.e., metals) which prompt EPA risk-based concerns were not discharged during ICC's operation of the facility^, neither ICC nor Berlex are liable for costs of response, damages or the costs of any health assessment carried out pursuant to CERCLA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Berlex and ICC have made available to EPA, and will continue to make available to EPA, any non-privileged materiala they have pertaining to site use before ^ For purposes of this letter, references to ICC's period of operations are limited to the period after Berlex's purchase OJ of ICC's assets up until such time as the lease for the vichem o site was assigned to Vichem. ^ to COOi?! T= 9'83'X'H'Z'D'S 00S9 01-9 T02 T X\d 3S:0T QQ/OZ-'ZO 00S9 £P3 T0S T SILLS CU.MMIS ZUCKERMAN RADIN •I.^CHMAN EPSTEIN & GROSS Carol Bems, Esq. December 11, 1995 and after ICC's operations. In addition, during the course of the remedial investigation of the site, Berlex and ICC are willing to undertake to identify other potential sources of contamination in the vicinity and downstream of the site for the benefit.of EPA. As EPA knows, Berlex and ICC have undertaken to perform the ongoing remedial investigation of this site, and have bound themselves to do so by Consent Order with the government, despite the fact that ICC operated only pilot scale operations at the site for about one year of a documented thirty year period of site operations. And to date, Berlex and ICC remain the only entities willing to address site conditions. Indeed, time and again Berlex has requested EPA's assistance in pursuing Pierrel S.p.A., and EPA has been largely unaccommodating. Instead, Berlex has been engaged in self-help, an expensive private cost recovery action, for almost ten years, without any cooperation from EPA. Further, Berlex and ICC made it plain to EPA, from the inception of negotiations with EPA, that this remedial investigation would examine on site conditions only. In requesting that Berlex and ICC incur the expense of off site investigations, especially without any predicate for holding ICC liable for such conditions, EPA goes beyond the scope of the agreed upon investigation of the site, and Berlex has no choice but to decline. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly CA> O tn IO fOOia - - ^_ 3:53.jL.y.2'o-s 00S9 Ct9 T02 T XYi 2S:0T QQ.'OZ.'ZO 0059 £V9 T02 X SILLS CUMMIS ZUCKERMAN RADIN TISCHMAN EPSTEIN & GROSS ""v-'uft J. s;u-£ nsr? loai) TwVE S. CtMMiS STC^EN S- ffAOIN -ff.qSER* !_ J J C X E R M A N v a w T O N .5 auNiS 9AWKT M E P S T E ; N -iC."mr^ M, NCWMAN L>WWCNCC 2 HORN ^£rFREVJ CnCTNOAUM 5J40H t-ETVlN S-rEPHEJ^ J. .^40563 "ORRTB YAWNER -.Ji-A^UO SP^N -Eii-hMcr OAflTDN CAHH =»oeeRT M, QccxER L£5TER APON d t O u J BANKS •OLNNrrH It OETTVE SOBEHT J A i . r t n • RAX 9CaENBB])<: ROSERT CRANE -ACK M 2ACX1N NE\,SCN C .I'fiHNW^ ' H O M A S 5. NOVAK .&Rftt G^NBErlC SPjAflT .M FEJNBUMT MAftGAfitiT F eL>a< =?O0EHT M. WELROO •3RIAN S COVEN •n«CNT s. OlCXCY «iC)**flD J SOlUL?i'*AN0 BERNARD I- fl>.TEMAN •^"LUAM M. RUSSELL JC^IN T. cow~on. JR^ JOSJET^ U BUCXUTf rl.AT*n,Cf:P* q i r ^ t ^ A ^ o liAViO J »tAtitr«3irrTX 5TAr«u£Y u. M O R T H . ID JAMES D. TOO. jAMcc M. n!ft5cnhORN AiiANC SCU- qONALO e RAK ^..OBSOM A. FtnET2 "**W. 5. OUNSKY enOiAflO J. 3.VNSKI WCTOlV ft. L»ejYAJiA« b».tl,IB f^ WMlTE •»^-»*» J. COHCN A PROP-eSSlONAL CORPORATION ONE RrVERFRONT PLAZA NEWARK, NEW JERSEY C7 102-5-400 { 2 0 I ) 6-«;-3-700O T A X : IZOI) G - * 3 - e 5 0 0 2 5 0 PARK A V t M U E N e w YORK, NY I 0 f 7 7 - 0 0 4 0 FAX (212) 31S-057e OF CSUNSEL o*v!C aecx 2KWA U. '.VCl-F T7 GORDON'S ALLEY ATLANTIC QTV, t<S OS.401>740« FAX £60^1 3A-4-7035 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMSER: (201) 643-5276 March 2 1 , 1994 u , t ? ^ ^ E * LiT-vrS f A T R I O M. KEBIN3 PETFr< o TM-UON MAflK J B L U N D A MAJ3T1N a MIUTA. -ft. •ASON I. arrsicro WAIME B HEICKLEN" CHERIE UEE UirvVELL GUfiNN K. OAVIS " A B R f 3. NORETSia 2TEYKr. « JAOCMANV crn_"A>*T Ko.^nM NATVIAN E. ARWEU. vCANNE JOROAN OOV/D STtVEN M. ROWLAND ERIC 3. iJIANN ^TXPMflN a. MCNALLY STUA^TT M. aftOwN MASK t CccxtreiN OTTVJ 5 ROSE sccTTTM ni;niN reeoEnic H. TUDCSR KENNETH L MOS«0'«lTZ ALMA LJT JEN ASRAMS atlNMI^ 5tJS«E"R HoaenT w, iiuRKC VCCTT T. QRjaEH »C,y •> OfEB .;»VAS<XCCl 3RUCE SQiOeHSErKJ i'lCvc;^ i . KAr.£ (^^up A e R » ' ' € o * UNOA A KA7T <?KXA«DH soi<a_Nia< BRtAN 1^ VAUCNTMe N l,>TJf.e WLCMCS t ct^.l-n CHANIN PAUL P. JOEEPHSON ARSEN ZARTAPlAN c o o a j « R . werDER PAULf; DOCM LOfWL rCNG J O a i u A O QQCOMAM *«o_£>« Ai_Ctf»a.p SATHOA A eCMATZ RVtONOA A&BJtU. O J S A T GORWEIL BRTAAI S. C.ntlNOCBG AOAM J.KMEEI^ AUSSAPrBlCM PAll L »<5»NSCN SOBERT E. ROSENBEWC GAR8TROCSt£ J 0 5 g \ 1 a CLA2ER VAJJC^NM L. MCKCTr P1.EASC Re.C\.r -TO NEWARK Docket Coordinator, Headquarters United States Evnironmental Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office 5201 Waterside Mall 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Re: NPL, Proposed Rule No. 16, Tuesday, 1/18/94 ("Proposed Rule") Island Chemical Corp./Virgin islands Chemical Corp. St. Croix, virgin Islands Dear Sir or Madam: Please accept these comments, submitted on behalf of Island Chemical Corporation ("ICC"), as formal objection to the above- captioned Proposed Rule as it pertains to the Island Chemical Corp./ Virgin islands Chemical Corp. site in St. Croix, Virgin Islands ("the site"). in essence, ICC objects to the proposed listing of the site on the National Priorities List ("NPL") on the grounds that the site does not qualify as a "hiahest priority facility", nor does listing the site at this time serve the goals that listing on the NPL is intended to achieve. w o Ul IO VD S00(?' TS 0 ' 8 3 ' 1 ' H ' Z ' O ' S 00S9 C f 9 T02 T XVJ CS:OT 9 6 / 0 Z / 2 0 (TlPlCq Ct7Q TCT7' T SILLS C U M M I S ZuCKERMA^f RADIN TISCH.MAN EPSTEIN & G R O S S t locket Coordinator arch 21, 1994 I. IirraODUCTIQN The site has been owned for over twenty years by CHS Holding Corporation- Over the years a variety of chemical companies have leased the site and conducted operations there, ranging from manufacturing and distribution to research and development. one such tenant, ICC, vacated the site in 1984. ICC sold its assets and assigned its lease to virgin Islands Chemical Corp. ("Vichem"). Coincident with this transaction, the site was environmentally investigated and, at least, partially remediated by ICC. Vichem and other tenants occupied the site thereafter; however, the site has been unoccupied for approximately three years. In 1989, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") conducted a preliminary assessment, site inspection, and removal action at the site. The last soil and groundwater samples from the site were collected by EPA in 1991, and consisted of six groundwater, six sediment, and four soil samples. Some of the analytical results Lrom these samples were rejected due to exceeded sample holding limes; however, based upon these samples, EPA reports that "chloroform was found in higher concentrations in the on-site and down-gradient wells than in upgradient wells. No analytical or remedial work has been conducted at the site since 1991. Recently, ICC approached EPA to negotiate an Administrative Consent order to conduct a more current site assessment. A draft ACQ has been circulated and a draft Remedial investigation workplan has been prepared and svibmitted Region 2. In apparent disregard of the spirit of cooperation demonstrated by ICC and the age and guestionable validity of the data last retrieved from the site, and after site contamination or threat of contamination has been addressed by both ICC and EPA and the site has been vacant for several years, EPA has proposed the site for listing on the NPL. II. THE SITE DOBS NOT REOUIRg HIGHEST PRIORITY REMEDIAL RESPONflE The comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et sgcjj., defines the NPL as a list of the highest priority facilities at which there have been releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. Id., § 105(a)(8)(B). A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking system. Proposed Rule at 2. OJ o (Jl to vo 900!gl T= 9 ' 8 3 ' 1 ' H ' Z ' O ' S 00S9 Cfg TOZ T XVJ CS:OT 96-'02/Z0 CTRCQ Ct7Q Tra::' T SILLS CUMMIS ZUCKERMAK RADIN TISCHMAN EPSTBIN & GROSS Docket Coordinator March 21, 1994 In determining the final hazard ranking score for the site, EPA has predicated its analysis on the three year old data previously collected by EPA. Based on the chloroform concentrations discovered in the groundwater in 1991, EPA has assigned the site a groundwater migration pathway score of 100, resulting in an overall site score of 50. Thus, EPA maintains that the site should be listed- As demonstrated by the report attached hereto by Harding Lawson Associates, inc. ("HLA"), an environmental consultant retained by ICC to evaluate site contamination, EPA's analysis of pertinent risk factors for chloroform is seriously flawed and its conclusions invalid. Even apart from this technical critique of EPA's scientific method, which in itself warrants that the site not be listed, it is clear from the facts of the matter that this is not a high priority site. No entity has operated at the site for about three years, so there has been no recent contribution to any extant contamination. Further, the site has already been at least partially remediated, as well as the subject of an EPA removal action. Finally, notwithstanding its early involvement in the site, EPA has not found it necessary to address potential site contamination for at least three years. This is so in spite of EPA's possession for all that time of the data upon which it now relies to propose the site for listing. None of these details point to a site requiring priority response. III. GOALS OF THH NPL ARS MOT MET BY LISTING THS 8ITH The purpose of the NPL is to determine which sites warrant further investigation of the extent of health and environmental risks associated with contamination, to determine what remedial action is necessary, and to serve as notice to potentially responsible parties that the EPA may require remedial action at the site. Proposed Rule at 6. Listing on the NPL also makes a site eligible for publically funded remediation. Id. at 7. In this instance, it ia abundantly clear that the site requires futher investigation. Indeed, ICC has already stepped to the plate and volunteered to negotiate an ACQ to fund and to conduct such an investigation. Similarly, icc has already identified and noticed potentially responsible parties of their potential liability for site remediation througti the institution of a private cost recovery action which it is actively prosecuting in the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands. Thus, no useful purpose is served by listing the site on the NPL. i to i ^ 00 OJ o Ul iOOfg Ts 0'S3"l*a"Z'D*S 00S9 Ct-9 XOZ T XVJ CC:0T 9B/n; SILLS CUMMIS ZUCKER.MAN RADIN TISCHMAN EPSTEIN & GROSS Docket Coordinator March 21, 1994 Indeed, there is substantial reason why this site should not be proposed for listing. Listing this site is a waste of limited government resources which can be put to more effective use: Given the limited resources available in the Trust Fund [i.e., Superfund], the Agency [i.e., EPA] must carefully balance the relative needs for response at the numerous sites it has studied. Id. at 8. There are certainly more pressing needs at sites which threaten imminent health and environmental risks. Further, at this site, private parties' participation is already underway. Thus, government resources should be directed elsewhere to maximize the number of sites addressed. Finally, listing at this time prematurely highlights a site which investigation may prove does not warrant the attention. The impact that this unnecessary emphasis could have on site investigation cannot be calculated- IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, ICC objects to the listing of the ICC/Vichem site on the NPL. Similarly, ICC hereby joins in and incorporates herein by reference the comments submitted under separate cover by Semmes^ Bowen & Semmes on behalf of CHS Holding Corporation. rs, OJ o iji to vo VD SOO^; T* S'Sa'X'a'Z'O'S 00S9 CI-9 XOZ T rVd fS:OT 96/Oo/JO 00S9 Ct^g T0S X Hartstna Lawson Aaxiciatet HUi March 21. 1994 Docket Coordinator, Headquartera United States EnvirDnmental Protection Agancy CERCLA Docket Office 5201 Waterside Mail 40IM Street. SW Wastington, DC 20480 Re: NPL. Proposed Rule No. 16, 11894 Island Chemical CorgJ Virgin Islands Chemical Corp., St. Croix, Virgin Islands This letter has been prepared in regard to the VI Chemical Site Ic^atocl in the 30Uthwest poitiau of St. Croix, U.S. Virgta Islands. Praliminary gravmdwater analysea for chloroform indicated the presence of concentrationa of 31 ug/L in an on-site production well (Fahruary 26, 1991) and 11 ug/L and 39 ug/L iu downgradient WBUS Qune 25, 139Q]. These results are given in the "Final Hazard Ranking System Documentation" report (EPA Region 2, June 17, 1992) and are compared to a "benchmark concentration" for chlorofonn of 5.7 ug/L. The 5.7 ug/L value is an EPA policy value that is used as a cancer risk screening concentration, and is obtained from the Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (1993). The use of this policy value (which is over 17-fDld low^er than tha MCL) as a health-based target cleanup level is inappropriate and vvrouid be challenged by Island Chemical Corporation if it were identified as such by EPA Region 2. The scientific basis for our challenge is below. EPA'a Lack of Consideration of Carcinogenic Mechanism in Assigning Cancar Fotancy Values EPA and other regulatory agencies have adapted the policy that all carcinogens be regulated as genotoxic {directly actiag with DNA) chemicals, even when mechanistic data are available to conclude ctherwisa. This assumption is the basis for the use of the linearized multistage (LMSj model to extrapolate from high dose (e.g., a maximum tolerated dose) response in animals to tiieoretical low doso responses ia. humans, for all knovira or suspected carcinogens. There are a number of factors that are not addressed in using this approach that lead to gioss overestimations in the assessment of health risk. In recent years, the scientific commnnity has generally concluded that for nongenotoxic carcinogens, a level of exposure should exist belov*^ vvfhich no appreciable risk woiild bo present. Examples of such chBmicals include dioxin, phenobarbital. and chloroform. It has been recognized that doae-rcsponsa models for genotoxic carcinogens, which axe baaed on the assumption of direct interaction with DNA and therefore the lack of a threshold effect, are inappropriate for nongenotoxic carcinogens The increased acceptance of this Q phenomenon is avidence by EPA's recent position that the LMS model is iaappropiiate for tn J00(^ EnginfrKin^ ano 3 Hunen Centra PflV* Suila 3CXJ.8ant« Ana. CaW<jmi« 82707 7l«/SS6-7:99Z 213/017-7232 K ^ ^ . .- ' x= 0'S3"l'a*Z'0'S 00S9 Ct9 TOo T XYJ tS^OT Q6,'0-.-7.n o o H«rdln9 l-a>w«on Asaoolatfti March 21. 1994 Docket Coordinator, Headquarters United States Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office dloxin and. similar nongenotoxic chemicals. For these types of chemicals, a threshold model is mora appropriate. Overestimation in the Cancer Potency Value* for Chloroform The scientific literature provides evidence for a nongenotoxic mechanism for chloroform. SavBi^ roseorchera beiievo that the carcinoj^anicity of chlonaform. is correlated with, tha rBcuitent cytot05dcity observed in chronic bioassays (Reitz et al., id 82; Eschenbrexiner and Miller, 1945; Larson et al., 1992). In addition, tha m-ujority of tests for genotoxicity have been negative (IRIS, 1994). These data suggest a nongenotoxic mechanism of cancer induction, i.e.. a cancer risk is produced only by repeated exposure to high doses that leads lo repeated tissue injviry and repair. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (TARC) and the EPA have both classified the evidence for cancer resulting from exposure to chloroform as inadequate; chloroform has not been categorized as a "known human carcinogen" (lARC, 1979; IRIS, 1993), Pxuther, tha EPA ri^k estimation is based on an administered dose that not only fails to considar the mechanisms of chloroform toxicity, but also the potential kinetic differences in absorption, the metabolism of chloroform leading to relevant tissue dose, the physical and chemical properties of chloroform, and the physiological differences between aTiiTTin1«; and hvunana (Corley et al., 1990; Raitz et ai,. 1990). Consideration of this information through a PB-PK model can reduce uncertainty associated with risk assessments by more acctuateiy predicting does^responae, PB-PK models are capable of making high dose/low^ dose, dose route, and interspecies e.xtrapolations by using physiological and biochemical information that is specific to the animal species, as well as to humans, in addition to physical and chemical information specific to the environment (Corley et ai,, 1990). Reitz et ai (1990) developed a risk assessment for chloroform that used the PB-PK approach to describe the metabolism of chlorcfoim and the induction of cell toxicity in the liver following inhalation, gavage, and drinking water exposures. Reitz and coworkers derived a relationship between delivered doses calculated by the PB-PK model and liver tumnr LocidencQ in the NCI (1976) study using the conservatlva LMS model. The fitted curves derived by Reitz et ai. were used to calculate risk-specific doses (RSD) that corraapond to a IE-6 risk H:ic3d on t-.vc different endpoints, it was shown that the EPA cancer potency values for chloroform are averestimatad by at least one to two orders of magnitude. OJ o U l OJ o OTOlg] ' S ' S a ' X ' H ' Z ' O ' S 00S9 Cf9 XOZ X XVd f S : O T 9 6 / 0 6 / 2 0 Hardina Lawton AsBoeiate March 21. 1994 Dockflt Coordinator. Headquarters United States Environmentai Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office In jmmmajy. we would challenge the use of an EPA policy-derived bencinnark concentration for chloroform of 5.7 ug/L as a groimdwater cleanup criterion. Alternatively, we would propose a riak-based target cleanup concentration for chloroform that is based on consideration of physiological and mechanistic data reported in tha literature. Youxa very truly, HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES Teri L. Copeland, M.S. Heriberto Rohles. Ph.D. Principal Toxicoiogist Associate Toxicoiogist TLOHR/hk ««via;oi.f»/ Attachment: References OJ o in OJ o to T T O i ^ ' ~ " T= 0 ' 8 3 - X ' H - Z - O ' S 0 0 S 9 C^9 T02 t XVJ SStOT 9 6 / 0 n , ; : 0 rTo® HkiTllno LawiK3n ABsociatE REFERENCES Burnett, W.B., Gargas M.O.I., Murphy, J.E., and Andersen. M.E. 1992. In vivo metabolic and gastrointestinzd (GI) absorption rates of chloroform (CHClS) in the femaJ« P-344 rat. Toxicologiflt. 12:421. Corley, R..A., Mendiala. A.L.. Smith, DA.. Staata, DA., Gargas, M.L.. Conolly. R.B., Andaiaen, M.E., Reitz, R.H. 1990, Devolcpment of a physiologically based phaimacokinBtica model for chloroform. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 103:512-527. EPA. 1934. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Bethssda. M.D. Eschonbrenner, A.B.. Miller, E. (1945a) Induction of hepatomas in mice by repeated oral administration of chloroform, with observationfl on sex diSforencas. J. Natl, Cancar In«. 5:251.255. (cited in EPA. 1B85). Gargas, J.L., Reitz, R.H.. Murphy, J.E.. Andersen. M.E. 1992. The gastrointestinal (GI) absorption of methyl chloroform (MC). Toxicoiogist. ii:93. HeywQod, R., Sortwell. R.J., Noel P.R.B.. Street A.E., Prentice. D.E., Roe. F.J.C., Wadsworth, P.F-, Worden. A.N. (1979) Safety evaluation of toothpaste containing chloroform III. Long- term study in beagle dogs. J. Environ Pathol Toxicol 2:835-851. Intamational Agency or Research Cancer (lARC). (1979) Chloroform. lARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Htimans 20:401-427. Larson, J.L., Wolf. D.C, Gargas, M.L.. and Butterworth. B.E. 1992. Acute hepato- and nephrotoxicity of chloroform (CHC13) in male F-344 rats, Toxicoiogist. 12:217. National Cancer Institute. (1976) Report on carcinogenesis bioassay of chloroform. National Cancer Institute Carcinogenesis Program. Bethesda, M.D. Reitz. R.H.. Quast, J.F.. Stott. W.T., Watanabe, P.G., Gehring, P.j. (1980) Phaimacnkinetics and macromQleculax effects of chloroform in rats and mica: Implications for carcinogenic risk aatimation. In: Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact and Health Effects. Vol. 3. Joiley. R.L., Brungs, W.A.. Gumming, R,B.. eds. Ann Arbor Science. Ann Arbor. Reitz, R.H.. Mendrala, A.L.. Corley, R.A., Quast, J.F,, Gargas. M.L.. Andersen, M.£., Starts. E.A., and Conolly. R.B. (1990) Estimating the risk of liver cancer associated with human BxposTore to chloroform using physiologically based pharmacokinetics modeling. Toxicol. Appl- Pharmacai. 105:443-459. Roe, F.J.C., Palmer, A.K., Worden, A.N.. Van Abbe. N.J. (1979) Safety evaluation of toothpaste containing chlaroform. I. Long-tenn studies in mice. J. Environ Pathol. Toxicol. Q 2:799;-619. on OJ o OJ Xs £)'S3'1*H'Z"D'S 00_S9 Cf9 TOo T XYd £c:oT 9 6 . 0 o - 6 0