Post on 14-Mar-2018
transcript
4H7W
S O ̂
THKT Twe "Prcuxxe KVMD TAQ,cfc$ Aat
69
*
UNFTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III
841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
SUBJECT: Five-year Review of the DATEKane and Lombard Superfund Site
FROM: Abraham Ferdas, Associate Divisionfor Superfund Programs
TO: Thomas C. Voltaggio, DirectorHazardous Waste Management Division
EPA has completed a statutory five-year review of the OperableUnit One (OU1) source control remedy at the Kane and LombardSuperfund site in Baltimore, Maryland. The OU1 remedy consistsof the following components: a soil-bentonite slurry wall andmultilayer RCRA cap; a ground water extraction system; a groundwater monitoring system; and institutional controls. This five-year review of the OU1 remedy included: a review of the ROD, thesite Maintenance and Management Manual, and maintenance andmonitoring reports; site inspections; and limited data gathering.
The major conclusions and recommendations presented in theattached Five-year Review Report are as follows: (1) the remedyremains effective in protecting human health and the environment;(2) the cap and slurry wall are functioning as designed; however,minor restoration of the topsoil and vegetative layers of the capis necessary in order to ensure that the containment system willremain intact; (3) the ground water extraction system hassubstantially dewatered the first water-bearing zone within theslurry wall boundaries; however, continued monitoring of thedewatering process is required to ensure that an inward hydraulicgradient will be timely established and maintained across theslurry wall; (4) institutional controls are in place; however,regular maintenance of the perimeter fence is required in orderto ensure that the controls remain effective; and (5) becausehazardous substances, remain at the site above levels that allowfor unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, another five-yearreview must be completed no later than April 30, 1999.
I recommend that you sign the attached Five-year Review Report.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
KANE AND LOMBARD SITE, OPERABLE UNIT ONE
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Prepared by:
Ecology and Environment, Inc.Contract No. 68-W8-0085
Work Assignment No. 85-33-3RB2
September 1993
For:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYRegion III
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Revised by:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYRegion III
April 1994
Thomas C. VoltHazardous Wast
Date^Division
S R 3 0 I 5 6 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1
2 SITE BACKGROUND .................................... 3
3 REMEDIAL ACTION CONFORMANCE WITH THE ROD ........... 8
4 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION OF REMEDY EFFECTIVENESS... 14
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 33
Appendices
A PHOTODOCUMENTATION
B GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL ELEVATION GRAPHS
C DISCHARGE PERMIT
D SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND AT THE KANE AND LOMBARD SITE
AR3UI570
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
4-1 Organic Vapor Analyzer Readings at Gas Ventsand Breathing Zone ................................... 17
4-2 Screened Interval in Ground WaterMonitoring Wells ..................................... 20
4-3 Static Water Level in Ground Water Monitoring WellsLocated at the Kane and Lombard Superfund Site ....... 21
4-4 Calculated Head Difference acrossSections of the Slurry Wall .......................... 22
4-5 Reduction in Ground Water Elevations betweenAugust of 1990 and July of 1993 ...................... 27
4-6 Extraction Well Effluent Flow Rate ................... 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1 Final Conditions Plan ................................ 10
4-1 Cross Section Showing Hydraulic Gradientacross the Slurry Wall ............................... 24
4-2 Cross Section Showing Hydraulic Gradientacross the Slurry Wall ............................... 25
HR3UI57
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
Under contract to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) performed a five-year
review of Operable Unit One (OU1) at the Kane and Lombard site
located in Baltimore, Maryland (EPA ID No. MDD980923783). The
purpose of the five-year review was to evaluate whether the
response action remains protective of public health and the
environment.
SCOPE
The focus of this review is limited to OU1 at the Kane and
Lombard site. The objective of OU1 is threefold:
o To isolate and contain the wastes and contaminatedmedia of the upper water-bearing zone;
o To prevent clean water from entering the site via localground water recharge to the shallow saturated zone orinfiltration of precipitation into the subsurface; and
o To prevent the off-site migration of contaminants viathe flow of ground water from the on-site wastedisposal area.
BR3UI572
REVIEW COMPONENTS
The components of this review are as follows:
o A site history describing the events leading toimplementation of the remedial action and a briefoverview of the remedy;
o A summary of observations made during site visitsconducted on July 27, 1993, September 8, 1993, andMarch 8, 1994;
o An evaluation of the as-built OU1 remedy in order todetermine whether it continues to be effective inprotecting human health and the environment; and
o Conclusions and recommendations.
AR3UI573
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Kane and Lombard site consists of approximately 10 acres
of land located in the Orangeville Subdivision of Baltimore,
Maryland. The site is southwest of the intersection of Kane
Street and Lombard Street, and is directly adjacent to Patterson
High School and public recreational facilities. Other nearby
properties are used for industrial and commercial purposes.
The site and the surrounding area are underlain by three
successive water-bearing zones. The first water-bearing zone has
been characterized as a Class III A aquifer since its extent is
not sufficient to provide adequate yield for domestic water
supplies. The underlying second and third water-bearing zones
have been characterized as Class II B and Class II A aquifers,
respectively.
The first water-bearing zone consists of fill material and
sandy silt and silty clay which is encountered between 10 and 40
feet below grade. A 25- to 80-foot-thick clay layer separates
the first and second water-bearing zones. The second water-
bearing zone consists of sandy silt and silty sand encountered
between 50 and 120 feet below grade. A layer of clay
approximately 20 feet thick separates the second and third water-
bearing zones. The third water-bearing zone consists of sand and
silty sand encountered at depths of 120 to 140 feet below grade.
The direction of ground water flow in the upper two zones
appears to be toward the northeast. The direction of ground
water flow in the third water-bearing zone is toward the
southeast. Seven domestic wells lie within a two-mile radius of
the site. Each of the seven domestic wells is located more than
one mile from the site. The City of Baltimore supplies drinking
water to the other area residents.
SITE HISTORY
The Kane and Lombard site is a portion of a former mixed
waste disposal area where dumping and burning took place from
approximately 1962 until 1984. Between 1962 and 1971, portions
of the site and adjacent properties were excavated and used for
solid and hazardous waste disposal. Between 1971 and 1984,
construction debris, household wastes, industrial wastes, and
hazardous materials were disposed of on the surface of the site.
Site conditions were brought to the attention of State of
Maryland officials in November of 1980, when stored drums were
observed on the Kane and Lombard site. In 1984, an EPA removal
action provided site security, removal and off-site disposal of
surface wastes (including 1,163 drums), and site stabilization
through regrading, capping, and revegetation. Ground water
sampling conducted by the State of Maryland, and subsequent
ground water and soil sampling conducted by EPA during and after
the removal action, demonstrated the presence of organic and
SR30I575
inorganic contaminants in both media. In particular, vinyl
chloride, trichloroethylene, benzene, chlorobenzene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, dichlorobenzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate, and other organic compounds were detected in ground
water; heavy metals, including cadmium, lead, selenium,
beryllium, mercury, chromium, and zinc were detected in site
soils.
Analytical data gathered by EPA and the State of Maryland in
1984 indicated the potential for off-site migration of
contaminants in ground water, and for direct contact with
hazardous substances in site soils. In addition, historical
aerial photographs suggested that hazardous materials remained
buried on-site. These factors triggered the addition of the site
to the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984.
Remedial activities were divided into two operable units.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the
first operable unit (OU1) was conducted between October 1985 and
November 1987. Data collected during the OU1 RI verified
contamination of on-site soils, and on-site and off-site ground
water in the first and second water-bearing zones. Indicator
chemicals detected during the RI, and forming the basis of the
risk assessment, included bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
carcinogenic polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), toluene, and lead in soils; and benzene,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride,
beryllium, cadmium, and nickel in ground water. The OU1 risk
3R30I576
assessment demonstrated that the site presented an
level of risk to human health and the environment.
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 in September
of 1987. In accordance with the ROD, further remedial action was
taken at the site to control releases of contaminants to ground
water and to eliminate the risk associated with direct contact
with contaminated soils.
The OU1 remedial action provided containment of the source
area and dewatering of the shallow saturated zone. The Operable
Unit Two (OU2) RI will address ground water contamination from an
area consisting of the Kane and Lombard site and additional land
immediately north of the site.
Specific remedial action tasks for OU1 included the
following:
o Clearing, grubbing, and preliminary grading in supportof the tasks listed below;
o Installation of a soil-bentonite slurry wall around theperimeter of the on-site waste disposal area in orderto prevent future off-site migration of contaminantsvia ground water transport;
o Installation of an impermeable cap (which meetsResource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] SubtitleC specifications) over the on-site waste disposal areato prevent recharge of site ground water and to isolatewaste materials from potential human contact;
o Installation of two extraction wells in order todewater the portion of the first water-bearing zonelocated within the slurry wall boundaries
o Discharge of extracted ground water to the City ofBaltimore's Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP);
o Installation of a gas venting system to collect andvent any gases generated below the impervious cap;
flR30!577
Installation of a ground water monitoring system ta3/assess the long-term effectiveness of the remedialaction;
Final grading of the site, including provisions forsurface water management and erosion control; and
Installation of a fence to limit site access.
The remedial design was initiated in February of 1988 and
completed in April of 1989. In September of 1989, the State
Superfund Contract was finalized between EPA and the Maryland
Department of the Environment. Fund-lead remedial action began
in February of 1990. EPA accepted construction of the OU1
remedial action as substantially complete in August of 1990.
flR30!578
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION CONFORHANCE WITH THE ROD
The OU1 remedial action consists of four basic elements:
o Containment of wastes and contaminated soil and groundwater in the first water-bearing zone;
o Dewatering of the first water-bearing zone;
o Discharge of contaminated ground water extracted fromthe first water-bearing zone to the Baltimore City BackRiver WWTP; and
o Restriction of site access and use.
The as-built remedy conforms with the requirements of the
ROD. The actions completed to meet these requirements are
described in the following sections.
3.1 CONTAINMENT
The following activities were completed in order to contain
the wastes and contaminated media at the site:
o A 3- to 5-foot-wide soil-bentonite slurry wall with amaximum permeability of 10~7 centimeters per second(cm/sec) was installed around the perimeter of the on-site waste disposal area.
o The bottom of the slurry wall was keyed a minimum of 5feet into the 25- to 80-foot-thick clay stratum thatunderlies the first water-bearing zone, as documentedin EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.'s as-built slurry wall profile drawings (April 1991). Thevertical hydraulic conductivity of the underlying claylayer typically ranges from 1CT7 to 10~8 cm/sec, asdocumented in the OU1 RI Report (1987).
flR3GI579
A RCRA Subtitle C landfill cap was installed over theslurry wall and the area enclosed by the slurry wall.The cap, from the bottom up, consists of a gascollection layer, a compacted clay layer with a minimumdepth of 2 feet and a maximum permeability of 10~7cm/sec, a flexible membrane liner, a geosyntheticdrainage net, geotextile, a minimum of 2 feet of coversoil and topsoil, and a vegetative layer. Storm watercontrol structures are also included in the cap.
Twenty-one ground water monitoring wells were installedon-site. Sixteen of these wells are located in pairedclusters that bracket the slurry wall on each of itsfour sides. Two additional wells are screened in thefirst water-bearing zone within the boundaries of theslurry wall. One well is screened in the first water-bearing zone at a background location just south of theslurry wall containment structure. Two wells arescreened in the second water-bearing zone just north ofthe slurry wall containment structure. The purpose ofthe monitoring well network is to: (1) monitor theperformance of the slurry wall; (2) monitor theeffectiveness of the multilayer cap in preventing theinfiltration of surface water and precipitation intothe on-site waste disposal area; and (3) monitor theprogress of the dewatering of the first water-bearingzone.
3.2 DEWATERING OF THE FIRST WATER-BEARING ZONE
The dewatering system consists of the following elements:
o Two ground water extraction wells are screened in thefirst water-bearing zone within the slurry wall (seeFigure 3-1). Extraction well no. 1 (EW-1) is locatedin the northeast corner of the site and has a totaldepth of 35.6 feet. Extraction well no. 2 (EW-2) islocated in the north west corner of the site and has atotal depth of 29.4 feet. Both wells are constructedof 8-inch diameter, schedule 5 stainless steel with awall thickness of 0.24 inch.
o Each extraction well is equipped with a stainless steelsubmersible 1/3 horsepower pump with a flow range of 5to 14 gallons per minute (gpm). The operation of eachpump is automatically controlled by two water levelprobes that switch the pump on or off. The extractionwell discharge piping consists of 1.25-inch flexiblepolyethylene inside the well housing, and 1.25-inch
(5R30I580
—— to auktiucuM («-o' . j -«-I j 1C CUUIUI
~* __4——S-MMiu '
FINAL CONDITIONS PLAN FIGURE 3-1
schedule 80 PVC piping which leads from the extractionwell to the meter vault.
A concrete meter vault houses a 1.25-inch PVC forcemain pipe, a 2-inch force main pipe, two 1.25-inch PVCball valves, one 1.25-inch PVC back-pressure valve, two1.25-inch globe valves, two 1.25-inch ball checkvalves, two 1.25-inch pressure gauges, one 1.25-inchpaddlewheel flow sensor, and one 2-inch ball valve.
A collection manhole, which accepts the flow from themeter vault and directs it to the Baltimore Citysanitary sewer system, allows effluent samples to beobtained for analysis.
The metering of the discharge is accomplished by a flowsensor which is located in the meter vault and a flowtotalizer which is located in the incoming electricalservices and metering cabinet.1
3.3 DISPOSAL OF EXTRACTED GROUND WATER
Extracted ground water that meets the discharge standards
established pursuant to Section 27d of Article 25 of the
Baltimore City Code, as amended by Ordinance 129 of 1984, may be
discharged through the Baltimore City sanitary sewer system to
the Back River WWTP. A copy of the wastewater discharge permit
held by EPA between August of 1991 and August of 1992 is
contained in Appendix C. The permit requires sampling and
analysis of the extraction well effluent in order to demonstrate
1 A strip chart recorder, designed to provide a continuousrecord of the rate of effluent flow through the metering vault, islocated in the incoming electrical services and metering cabinet,adjacent to the flow totalizer. Because the actual rate ofeffluent flow is substantially lower than the flow rate anticipatedduring the design phase, the strip chart recorder has not provenuseful in measuring and recording flow rates. However, an averagedaily effluent flow rate can be determined by dividing thedifference in two readings obtained from the flow totalizer by thenumber of days that elapsed between the readings.
11
compliance with the discharge limits. A sample collected from
EW-2 in July of 1990 was found to contain chlorobenzene at a
concentration that exceeded the discharge limit (2.13 milligrams
per liter [mg/L]) for total toxic organics (TTO). Based on this
finding, continuous discharge of effluent from the site to the
Back River WWTP was not permitted until March of 1991, when the
City of Baltimore Department of Public Works granted interim
approval for the temporary discharge of the effluent from EW-l.
In August of 1991, the City issued a permit to EPA for continuous
discharge of the EW-l effluent. The City modified the discharge
permit in August of 1992, to allow continuous discharge of the
combined effluent from EW-l and EW-2. In November of 1992, after
chlorobenzene was detected in ground water samples from both
extraction wells at levels up to 4.7 mg/L, the City imposed a
temporary suspension of permit privileges.
In August of 1993, EPA installed an effluent pretreatment
system consisting of two air sparging tanks and a vapor phase
carbon adsorption unit at the site. The system is designed to
reduce the concentration of chlorobenzene in the effluent to a
level that is acceptable for discharge to the Back River WWTP.
The City of Baltimore Department of Public Works granted interim
approval for the temporary discharge of effluent from both EW-l
and EW-2 to the Back River WWTP, in order to allow samples of the
treated effluent to be collected and analyzed. Since the
pretreatment system was installed, however, the volume and rate
of discharge of the extraction well effluent has not been
12
SR30I583
sufficient to allow the system to be evaluated under the design
conditions.2
3.4 SITE ACCESS AND USE RESTRICTIONS
A perimeter security fence equipped with two locking gates
controls access to the site. In addition, EPA issued an
Administrative Order to the site owners in October of 1992. The
Order restricts uses of the site that would interfere with the
operation or disturb the integrity of the OU1 remedy and ensures
access for EPA, the State of Maryland, and their authorized
representatives. A copy of the Order was recorded with the Land
Record Office of Baltimore City on November 10, 1992.
2 The rate of effluent discharge has substantially decreasedsince the effluent pretreatment system was installed, and thevolume of ground water discharged from the extraction wells has notbeen sufficient to fill the air sparging tanks. As a result,effluent has remained in the air sparging tanks for a period oftime which exceeds the designed holding time, and it has not beenpossible to verify the effectiveness of the pretreatment system inremoving chlorobenzene from the effluent under the designconditions. Once the volume of effluent in the air sparging tanksis sufficient to overflow the tanks, samples will be collected andanalyzed in order to confirm the effectiveness of the system giventhe current rate of discharge.
13
4.0 SITE VISIT AND EVALUATION OF REMEDY EFFECTIVENESS
4.1 SITE VISIT
EPA's contractor, E & E conducted a site visit on July 27,
1993. The purpose of the site visit was to: (1) assess the
current site conditions; (2) obtain ground water level
measurements at the monitoring wells; and (3) collect organic
vapor analyzer (OVA) readings at the gas vents.
E & E conducted a second site visit on September 8, 1993, in
order to observe and document the operation of an effluent
pretreatment system that had been installed at the site in August
of 1993. Observations made during each of the site visits are
presented below.
During the first site visit, the following observations were
made:
o The gravel access road that leads from Lombard Streetto the on-site maintenance parking area containeddepressed areas lacking rip-rap stone. Grass and weedswere growing through areas of the stone.
o The concrete decontamination (decon) pad and curbscontained cracks. A part of the decon pad curb wassheared off.
o The meter vault contained approximately 1 to 2 inchesof water. This water appeared to be rain water whichmay have entered the vault through the vault hatch.There was no evidence of a leak in any of the pipes,valves, gauges, etc., located in the meter vault.
o The manhole containing the interceptor pipe to theBaltimore City sanitary sewer system and the outletsfrom the extraction wells and the decon pad was dry.
14
o The incoming electrical services and metering cabinetwhich houses the main circuit breakers, flow totalizer,strip chart recorder, and keys to the meter vault andcollection manhole, is equipped with a lock. The stripchart recorder was not operating.3
o The drainage ditch on the eastern side of the siteshowed some signs of deterioration. The upper slope ofthe eastern bank of the drainage ditch contained barrenareas marked by some erosion over a 50- to 60-footstretch.
o Several hundred drums of drill cuttings, welldevelopment water, and used personal protectiveequipment (OU2 RI/FS investigation-derived waste) werestaged south of the capped waste disposal area, nearthe southern boundary of the site.
o The perimeter fence had several deficiencies, includinggaps of up to 4 or 5 inches between the bottom of thefence and the ground, hardware that had fallen apart,and approximately 15 locations where the fence fabricwas not connected to the posts.
o Sparse or barren areas occurred over limited sectionsof the vegetative cover.
During the second site visit, the following observations
were made:
o A pretreatment system, consisting of two air spargingtanks and a vapor phase carbon adsorption canister, hadbeen installed in the meter vault. The extractionwells and pretreatment system were operating uponarrival at the site. During the visit, the groundwater extraction system was taken off-line becauseambient dust had created fouling problems in the aircompressor that serves the air sparging tanks. Atpresent, there is no convenient means of access to thecarbon canister. An additional hatch is to beinstalled in the meter vault to ensure accessibilityfor maintenance.
3 The City of Baltimore Department of Public Works no longerrequires operation of the strip chart recorder.
15
«R30I58U
o All drums of investigation-derived waste noted duringthe initial site visit had been removed and the stagingarea (located at a site entrance gate in the southeastcorner of the perimeter fence) had been reseeded.
Photographs further documenting the current condition at the
site are attached as Appendix A.
Prior to entering the site during the first visit, the OVA
was calibrated and a background reading was taken approximately
50 feet east of the site entrance gate next to the ball park.
The OVA measured a background reading of 0.4 ppm. Background
organic vapor levels were also measured at the site entrance
gate. Organic vapor concentrations measured at the gas vents are
presented in Table 4-1.
High OVA readings obtained at the gas vents are not
consistent with the comparatively low levels of volatile organic
compounds detected in the ground water of the first water-bearing
zone. In addition, organic vapors were not detected above
background levels at the on-site monitoring wells, with the
exception of monitoring well 89-02. The OVA reading at
monitoring well 89-02 returned to the background level reading
after the well was ventilated for several minutes. These
observations suggest that the water table is not the source of
the organic vapors that were detected at the gas vents. The OVA
readings obtained at the gas vents may indicate that methane gas
is being generated from the on-site wastes.
On March 8, 1994, EPA and the Maryland Department of the
Environment conducted an additional site visit. The following
16
Table 4-1
ORGANIC VAPOR ANALYZER READINGS AT GAS VENTS AND BREATHING ZONEDURING JULY 27, 1993 SITE VISIT
Concentration Above Backaroundfppml
Gas Vent Number Vent Outlet Breathing Zone
VI >1,000 0V2 >1,000 0V3 90 0V4 70 0V5 >1,000 0V6 60 0V7 400 0V8 28 0V 9 8 0V10 4 0VII 700 0V12 500 0
17
&R3UI586
conditions were observed which had not been noted during the two
site visits conducted in 1993:
o The air compressor component of the effluentpretreatment system was housed in an aluminumenclosure, and was operating. Operation of thecompressor is controlled by a timer.
o Sections of fence along the southern and westernboundary of the site had been cut with shears. Theresulting openings in the fence are sufficiently largeto allow persons to enter the site.
o Field mouse burrows originated at the base of, andextended beneath the concrete pads which support theextraction well pump control cabinets.
o An erosion gully extends along a portion of thesouthern boundary of the site and has created a gap ofapproximately 12 inches between the ground and thebottom of the gate in the southeastern corner of thesecurity fence.
4.2 EVALUATION OF SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
4.2.1 Containment Structures
The overall containment system has been installed in
conformance with the requirements of the ROD and, despite a lack
of regular maintenance, appears to be in good condition.
RCRA Cap
Maintenance of the RCRA multilayer cap has not been
regularly performed. However, observed deficiencies were limited
to the vegetative and topsoil layers and have not affected the
cover soil, the lateral drainage layer, the flexible membrane
liner, or any of the underlying layers of the cap. The cap
continues to be effective in preventing infiltration of surface
water and precipitation into the on-site waste disposal area.
18
JUI587
Soil-bentonite Slurry Wall
The soil-bentonite slurry wall is a subsurface lateral
containment system that circumscribes the on-site waste disposal
area. Eight pairs of monitoring wells are screened in the first
water-bearing zone along the slurry wall. One well in each pair
is located immediately inside the slurry wall and the other well
is located immediately outside the slurry wall. The monitoring
wells in each well pair are screened at the same depth interval
with respect to mean sea level (Table 4-2).
The effectiveness of the slurry wall is evaluated based on
the difference in ground water elevations between the wells in
each well pair. As long as the hydraulic gradient across the
slurry wall exceeds the natural gradient, it may be assumed that
the slurry wall is intact. Historical data for the site suggests
that the natural ground water gradient of the potentiometric
surface in the shallow aquifer is 0.05. Individual wells in the
well pairs that bracket the slurry wall are generally separated
by 20 feet. Therefore, a head difference significantly greater
than one foot between the wells in each cluster is an indication
that the slurry wall is functioning normally.
Ground water elevations obtained from the site monitoring
wells from August of 1990 through July of 1993 are presented in
Table 4-3. The calculated head differences across the slurry
wall are presented in Table 4-4. As shown in the table, the head
difference across the slurry wall exceeded one foot at most of
the measurement points during each of the monitoring events.
19
flR30!588
Table 4-2
SCREENED INTERVAL IN GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS
Monitoring Well Number Screened Interval (ft. MSL4)
89-02 57.2 - 43.789-03 57.5 - 41.5
89-04 61.1 - 47.689-06 62.6 - 49.1
89-07 67.3 - 49.389-08 65.2 - 47.2
89-09 76.8 - 70.889-10 76.3 - 69.8
89-11 72.7 - 67.789-12 71.8 - 66.8
89-13 65.4 - 60.489-14 62.8 - 57.8
89-15 61.0 - 56.089-16 59.9 - 54.9
89-17 56.0 - 39.089-18 53.8 - 37.3
4Well construction data provided by the OU1 constructioncontractor was amended based on survey data collected by theState's contractor, Dynamac Corporation, in 1991 for the OU2 RI/FS.
20
HR30I589
Table 4-3
STATIC WATER LEVEL (ft MSL) FOR GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLSLOCATED AT THE KANE AND LOMBARD SUPERFUND SITE
Water Levels5
Well No.
89-01
89-02
89-03
89-04
89-05
89-06
89-07
89-08
89-09
89-10
89-11
89-12
89-13
89-14
89-15
89-16
89-17
89-18
89-19
89-20
89-21
August 1990
5.98
49.48
54.39
53.47
8.25
54.50
61.65
58.01
71.85
73.68
70.35
76.27
68.18
72.77
63.98
57.28
53.77
42.39
Dry
58.34
78.46
11-27-90
5.99
49.16
54.72
52.89
8.09
53.37
61.18
57.95
71.11
72.90
69.95
75.00
66.73
71.17
60.45
55.43
53.94
40.63
Dry
58.23
78.30
2-27-91
6.16
48.37
54.49
52.30
8.42
54.59
60.42
57.95
70.91
74.38
68.74
78.21
66.37
72.32
58.74
55.73
53.55
40.76
Dry
57.81
83.03
5-30-91
6.55
49.69
51.05
52.10
8.61
53.11
60.00
58.01
70.85
73.59
68.34
77.92
67.19
73.24
58.58
55.79
49.87
39.38
Dry
57.38
79.62
11-21-91
5.90
45.58
50.00
52.23
6.57
53.41
59.84
57.69
70.98
67.8S7
68.01
74.14
65.62
70.94
58.77
55.43
49.25
40.17
Dry
57.02
75.97
2-13-92
5.37
45.68
49.34
51.28
7.10
53.11
59.41
57.65
70.85
72.48
Dry75.19
64.80
71.37
57.46
Dry47.67
41.12
Dry
56.36
77.45
7-27-93
NA6
44.93
45.45
50.90
NA6
53.37
58.20
56.85
Dry
72.28
Dry
75.92
65.55
NA6
57.21
56.38
45.37
39.84
Dry
NA6
NA6
5 These elevations have been adjusted based on survey data submitted by Dynamac Corporation in1991. The elevations marked inside the wells are different from the elevations used to calculate ground waterlevels here.
6 Water levels were not obtained for wells tapping the second water-bearing zone, for well 89-14 (thecompression cap could not be removed), or for wells 89-20 and 89-21.
7 This data point is not consistent with other data points for well 89-10 and is questionable.
21
A R 3 0 I 5 9 0
Table 4-4
CALCULATED HEAD DIFFERENCE ACROSS SECTIONS OF THE SLURRY WALL8
Well Pair89-03/89-02
89-06/89-04
89-07/89-08
89-09/89-10
89-11/89-12
89-13/89-14
89-15/89-16
89-17/89-18
August 90
+ 4.91
+ 1.03
+ 3.64
- 1.83
-5.92
-4.59
+ 6.70
+ 11.38
11-27-90
+ 5.56
+ 0.48
+ 3.23
-1.79
-5.05
-4.44
+ 5.02
+ 13.31
2-27-91
+ 6.12
+ 2.29
+ 2.47
-3.47
-9.47
-5.95
+ 3.01
+ 12.79
5-30-91
+ 1.36
+ 1.01
+ 1.99
-2.74
-9.58
-6.05
+ 2.79
+ 10.49
11-21-91
+ 4.42
+ 1.18
+ 2.15
+ 3.10*
-6.13
-5.32
+ 3.34
+ 9.08
2-13-92
+ 3.66
+ 1.83
+ 1.76
- 1.63
- 7.510
-6.57
+ 2.610
+ 6.55
7-27-93
+ 0.53
+ 2.47
+ 1.35
- 1.510
- 7.910
NA"
+ 0.83
+ 5.53
8 A "+" indicates an outward gradient; a "-" indicates an inward gradient.
* This value is based on questionable data. See Table 4-3.10 One well in the pair was dry. The calculated head difference is the difference between the ground water
elevation in the well which was not dry, and the elevation of the bottom of the screen of the dry well.11 A head difference could not be calculated because data for one well was not available.
22
S R 3 0 I 5 9
However, the head difference was less than or approximately equal
to one foot in approximately 15 percent of the measurements.
If a head difference less than one foot is observed between
the wells in a well cluster, further analysis of the ground water
level data is necessary in order to evaluate the performance of
the slurry wall. When this condition is encountered, the trends
in the water levels in the paired wells must be examined in order
to determine whether the apparent equilibration is a result of
similar or opposing trends in water-level fluctuation.
Equilibration due to similar trends with different rates may be
due to a random confluence of factors not related to slurry wall
failure, whereas equilibration due to opposing and converging
trends (e.g., an interior well increases in head elevation while
its companion loses, and the hydraulic gradient across the slurry
wall decreases) is a sign of possible slurry wall failure.
Opposing and diverging trends may indicate normal lowering of the
water table within the slurry wall.
The ground water elevations obtained from each well between
August 1990 and July 1993 were plotted in order to evaluate the
trends in the ground water elevations (Appendix B). Water level
trends in those well pairs where a head difference of one foot or
less occurred were examined. The water level trends present no
evidence of slurry wall failure.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 are generalized cross-sections showing
ranges in water levels measured in six of the slurry wall
monitoring wells. The figures illustrate that hydraulic
23
SR30I592
80 —i
2/27/91 *— ,.11/27/90 ^ s
7/27/93 % s
PUJ
2OP<UJLJ
70 —
60 —
:otzciVJ )
50 —J
11/27/902/27/91
-̂S7/27/B3
SUPERFUND SITE
ARUNDEL CLAY
c'
11/27/90
2/27/81
\
7/27/93 S- -g7/27/93
, 11/27/90
+ WATER LEVEL BELOW BOTTOM OF WELL
CROSS SECTION SHOWING HYDRAULIC GRADIENT ACROSS SLURRY WALL FIGURE 4-1
80 —,
PUJ
o
I
70 —
n! eo —I
50 —I
SUPERFUND SITE
ARUNDEL CLAY
d
89-02
c'
CROSS SECTION SHOWING HYDRAULIC GRADIENT ACROSS SLURRY WALL FIGURE 4-2
gradients across the slurry wall are significantly greater than
the background hydraulic gradient, and that the slurry wall is
functioning as designed. Figure 4-1 also shows that the water
level in monitoring well 89-03, which is located inside the
downgradient portion of the slurry wall, did not change
significantly between November of 1990 and February of 1991.
Significant reductions in water level were observed in monitoring
well 89-03 only after continuous pumping of nearby EW-1 was
initiated in March of 1991. This data further supports the
conclusion that the slurry wall is functioning as designed.
4.2.2 Ground Water Extraction
All of the components of the ground water extraction system
were in place and showed no sign of leakage, wear, or
deterioration upon visual inspection. The only noticeable
concern was the presence of 2 to 3 inches of standing water in
the valve box.
Substantial dewatering of the first water-bearing zone has
occurred as evidenced by the lowering of the water table within
boundaries of the slurry wall between August of 1990 and July of
1993, when the last ground water level measurements were
obtained. At each well pair, except pairs 89-04/89-06 and 89-
08/89-10, the reduction in ground water elevation inside the
slurry wall was significantly greater than the reduction in the
ground water elevation outside the slurry wall (Table 4-5). Well
pair 89-04/89-06 is located along the northern portion of the
26
f l R 3 U I 5 9 5
Table 4-5
REDUCTION IN GROUND WATER ELEVATIONBETWEEN AUGUST OF 1990 AND JULY OF 1993
Well No. Well Location12 Change in Elevation (ft)
89-03 I - 8.489-02 E - 4.5
89-06 I - 1.289-04 E - 2.5
89-07 I - 3.489-08 E - 1.0
89-09 I - 0.989-10 E - 1.5
89-11 I - 2.489-12 E - 0.3
89-13 I - 2.789-14 E - 1.4
89-15 I - 7.089-16 E - 1.9
89-17 I - 8.689-18 E - 2.4
12 Position of monitoring well with respect to the slurrywall. E = external; I = internal.
27
3R3UI596
slurry wall, and well pair 89-09/89-10 is located in the
southwest corner of the slurry wall. The apparent reduced rate
of dewatering within the slurry wall in these areas of the site
may be attributed to specific conditions. The relatively small
decrease in the ground water elevation inside the slurry wall at
monitoring well 89-06 may be ascribed to the extended period of
inoperation of EW-2. The ground water level in monitoring well
89-09 dropped below the bottom of the well screen between
February of 1992 and July of 1993. Although no further reduction
in ground water elevation can be measured in monitoring well 89-
09, it was anticipated during remedial design that a remnant
ponded area would be present along the interior of the southwest
portion of the slurry wall, based on the inferred topography of
the subsurface clay (Final Design Analysis Report, EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., 1989). In
conclusion, the overall lowering of the water table inside the
slurry wall, as compared to outside the slurry wall, demonstrates
the effectiveness of the ground water extraction system (see
Figures 4-1 and 4-2).
The volume of ground water extracted from within the
boundaries of the slurry wall has been significantly less than
anticipated during the remedial design. Table 4-6 presents the
volumetric ground water extraction data obtained between December
of 1990 and October of 1992. As shown in the table, the average
daily extraction rate varied from a high of 336 gallons per day
(gpd) between April and June of 1992 to a low of 106 gpd between
28
AR3UI597
Table 4-6
KANE AND LOMBARD SITE, OU1EXTRACTION WELL AVERAGE DAILY EFFLUENT FLOW RATE
Date
12/19/90
12/20/91
12/24/91
2/5/92
4/29/92
6/11/92
10/21/92
Volume13
(gallons^
18,851
208,538
209,488
222,370
248,847
263,298
277,194
Change inVolume
18,851
189,687
950
12,882
26,477
14,451
13,896
Days ofPumping
NA"
NA16
4
43
84
43
131
Average Rowfepd)
NA15
NA15
238
300
315
336
106
13 Total volume of extraction well effluent discharged to wastewater treatment plant (flow totalizerreadout).
14 Effluent was not continuously pumped from the extraction wells between the start-up date and 12/19/90.The number of days of pump operation is not known.
15 The average daily flow rate cannot be calculated because the number of days of pump operation is notknown.
16 Effluent was not continuously pumped from the extraction wells between 12/19/90 and 12/20/91.Therefore, the average daily flow rate cannot be calculated.
29
f l R 3 U ! 5 9 8
June and October of 1992. The rate of extraction has further
declined since October of 1992, as noted in section 3.3 of this
report. In order to evaluate possible reasons for the current
low rate of effluent discharge, EPA obtained ground water level
measurements from EW-1 and EW-2 in October of 1993. The ground
water elevation in each well was found to have fallen below the
elevation of the pump-on switch located inside each extraction
well (but not below the level of the pump-off switch). A
subsequent measurement obtained from EW-2 in March of 1994 showed
that the water level had risen two feet, to the level of the
pump-on switch, and indicates that ground water within the
boundaries of the slurry wall is continuing to enter the zone of
influence of the extraction wells.
30
AR3GI599
4.2.3 Ground Water Discharge
Requirements for the discharge of extraction well effluent
from the Kane and Lombard site, through the Baltimore City
sanitary sewerage system, and to the Back River WWTP are outlined
in Wastewater Discharge Permit No. 4-08695. The permit
establishes discharge limitations (maximum daily concentrations),
as well as metering and sampling requirements, pursuant to
Section 27d of Article 25 of the Baltimore City Code, as amended
by Ordinance 129 of 1984.
A summary of contaminants found at the Kane and Lombard site
since July of 1990 is contained in Appendix D. This summary was
provided in spreadsheet form by the State of Maryland and was
updated with the ground water analytical results submitted by
EPA. The summary shows that the discharge of effluent from the
extraction wells was in compliance with the Discharge Permit
until August of 1992. The chlorobenzene concentration in
effluent discharged from EW-1 (4.1 mg/L) and EW-2 (4.7 mg/L) in
August of 1992 was found to exceed the 2.13 mg/L discharge limit
for TTO. Based on these findings, the Kane and Lombard ground
water extraction system was taken off-line, and an effluent
pretreatment system was installed, as noted above. However, the
volume of ground water pumped from the extraction wells since the
pretreatment system was installed has not been sufficient to
allow the system to be evaluated. As long as the RCRA cap
continues to prevent the infiltration of precipitation and the
slurry wall continues to impede the migration of ground water
31
AR30I6QO
onto the site, the volume of water that enters the extraction
wells will be small and the rate of effluent discharge will be
low. EPA and MDE are continuing to coordinate efforts with the
City of Baltimore Department of Public Works in order to ensure
that any future discharge of effluent to the Back River WWTP
complies with discharge limits.
32
flR30!60
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOHHENDATIONS
The general conclusion derived from this five-year review of
the Kane and Lombard site is that the remedial action has
provided source control and reduced the risk of direct contact
with contaminated soils. Therefore, the remedy as spelled out in
the ROD remains effective in protecting human health and the
environment.
The following conclusions were drawn based on the
observations at the site and review of available information:
o The remedy is operating and functioning as designed.
o The landfill cap system is intact and its vegetativecover shows negligible wear. The cap continues toprevent infiltration of surface water into the wasteand contaminated soil, and to isolate the waste fromhuman contact.
o The soil-bentonite slurry wall is functioning asdesigned.
o Wastes and contaminated soil and ground water in thefirst water-bearing zone within the slurry wall havebeen effectively contained.
o The ground water extraction system is operational andfunctional and the first water-bearing zone has beensubstantially dewatered within the boundaries of theslurry wall. However, an outward hydraulic gradientcontinues to exist along the northwestern, northern andeastern portions of the wall. The rate of ground waterextraction is expected to continue to decrease as thedewatering process continues.
o The ground water monitoring wells are in goodcondition.
33
f l R 3 U I 6 0 2
o The gas venting system is operational and functional.
o Perimeter fencing is in place. However, tampering hascompromised the effectiveness of the fence.
o Deed restrictions are in place and are protective.
Recommendations for the site are listed below. Identifiedmaintenance measures should be implemented immediately in orderto adeguately control site access and use.
o The site security fence should be repaired in order toensure that site access is restricted. Necessaryrepairs include: replacement of damaged fence fabric;repair/replacement of post connectors and anchormechanisms; re-attachment of fence fabric wherenecessary; removal of any fallen trees/limbs from thefence; and installation of additional fencing and/oradditional filling and grading in areas where thebottom of the fence is above the existing grade.Deficiencies in the fence and erosion rills or animalburrows under the fence should be repaired within twodays of discovery.
o Barren areas on the cap should be reseeded.
o Eroded areas of the drainage ditch should be filled andreseeded.
o The perimeter fence and cover should be inspected on aquarterly basis, at a minimum. Repairs should bepromptly executed.
o Ground water level trends in the monitoring wells whichbracket the slurry wall should continue to bemonitored. In the event that the water levels withinthe slurry wall cease to decline before an inwardhydraulic gradient is achieved at each of themonitoring points, consideration should be given toreconfiguring the existing ground water extractionsystem (e.g., adjusting operation of the pumps,installing additional extraction wells, etc.).
o Past disposal activities at the Kane and Lombard siteand an area immediately north of the site (the OU2"Study Area") have resulted in releases of hazardoussubstances to the ground water of the second water-bearing zone, and may have impacted nearby ecologicalzones. The nature and extent of contaminationresulting from releases from the Study Area arecurrently being evaluated as part of the OU2 RI/FS. If
34
AR30I603
contaminants identified during the OU2 RI are found topresent an unacceptable risk to human health or theenvironment, response actions should be taken to reduceor eliminate those risks.
Since hazardous substances remain on-site at levelswhich will not allow for unrestricted use and unlimitedaccess, the effectiveness of the remedy should bereassessed within five years.
35
flR30!60U
APPENDIX A
PHOTODOCUMENTATION
A R 3 U I 6 0 5
EPA REGION IIISUPERFUND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
DOC ID #PAGE#
IMAGERY COVER SHEETUNSCANNABLE ITEM
Contact the CERCLA Records Center to view this document.
SITE NAME
£gSECTION/BOX/FOLDER O q . 45______6-OIO
REPORT OR DOCUMENT TITLE A-^WCi_Ah^B C_ ._C:C4/'h^^
(,Cgagr EMS
DATE OF DOCUMENT
DESCRIPTION OF IMAGERY
NUMBER AND TYPE OF IMAGERY ITEM(S) i*7.
APPENDIX B
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION GRAPHS
A R 3 G I 6 I 5
I/)
o§u
'•*-<
GOCD
cnen
Kane &c Lombard — Groundwater E evctionsMonitoring Wells 89-02 and 89-03
56
55 h
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44Aug 90 Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91 Feb 92 July 93
Date
D 89-03 (inside) + 8^-02 (outside)
Static Water Level (ft MSL)
pIn
cnroLn
D
00IDIO
CID
IDO
O<IDO
n>crUD
ODr-t-
-J- CD S.QX
CO LDID -1
IO-P*
'cT 2c or-t- <-•C/)_ *•CL ID
~nfDtrt£>to
c_c_
^<LD
01OJ
"T
cnen
Q13CD
O3aQ
OD
To O* c§ D°- Q.00 <-
T $i Qen
CD
mCD<Q
o'D00
0)>4)_J
CO COCD
oo
Kane <Sc Lombard — Groundwater ElevationsMonitoring Wells 89-07 and 89-08
62
61
60
59
58
57
56Aug 90 Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91 Feb 92 July 93
Date
D 89-07 (inside) + 89-08 (outside)
0)_J
0)-*-*o
y'•+-•O
— (/)
=0COCD
Kane & Lombard — Groundwater Elevations79
78 h
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68Aug 90
Monitoring Wells 89-11 and 89-12
Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91 Feb 92
Date
July 93
D 89-11 (inside) + 89-12 (outside)
(/I
Q)•fo£y
'-*-jo-*jt/)
COCD
roCD
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
Kane & Lombard — Groundwater ElevationsMonitoring Wells 89-13 and 89-14
Aug 90
NA
Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91 Feb 92 July 93
Date
D 89-13 (inside) + 89-14 (outside)
I/)5
4)>0)_J
o-t-1
t/1
COCD
ro
Kane & Lombard — Groundwater ElevationsMonitoring Wells 89-15 and 89-16
65
64 h
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55Aug 90 Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91
Date
Dry
Feb 92
D 89-15 (inside) + 89-16 (outside)
July 93
l/l
0)
o•*-*I/)
CD
roro
Kane & Lombard — Groundwater ElevationsMonitoring Wells 89-17 and 89-18
55
54 h
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39Aug 90
-&
Nov 90 Feb 91 May 91 Nov 91 Feb 92 July 93
Date
D 89-17 (inside) + 89-18 (outside)
APPENDIX C
DISCHARGE PERMIT
SR30I623
WASTBWATBR DISCHARGE PERMIT
Permit Number: 4-08695
Effective Date: 08/31/91
Expiration Date: 08/31/92
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 25, Sections 1-27,of the Baltimore City Code, Baltimore City hereinafterreferred to as the "city" hereby authorizes
The Environmental Protection Agency
Location at
Kane and Lombard StreetsBaltimore City 21224
To Discharge From
The Kane and Lombard SuperfundSite groundwater collection
and pumping system
To
The Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant
in accordance with the following special and generalconditions.
AR30I62U
ATTACHMENT ADISCHARGE CONDITIONS
The following conditions shall apply to the discharge of allwastewater to the sanitary sewerage system until such time asthis Wastewater Discharge Permit is amended or revoked.
1. Be advised that the discharge of non-residentialwastewater to the sanitary sewer without a WastewaterDischarge Permit may result in a minimum fine of $250.00 foreach day of violation, as stated in Section, 11, Paragraph Bof Article 25 of the Baltimore City Code.
2. Discharge shall originate from Extraction Well #1 (seeattached diagram). Extraction Well #2 (see attached diagram)shall not be discharged without written consent from thePollution Control Section. If Well #2 is allowed todischarge, a permit modification will be required.
3. All changes in business location, industrial process,quantity or quality of discharge, or in chemical storageprocedures shall be reported to the Pollution Control Sectionof the Bureau of Water and Waste Water. The Permittee isresponsible for notifying the Pollution Control Section ofany substantial change in the volume or character ofpollutants in the facility's discharge. Advance notice isrequested for anticipated facility expansions, productionincreases, and process modifications which could result inthe change of the quantity or quality of dischargedpollutants. Modifications may be made to the permit tospecify and limit any pollutants not previously limited, orto delete pollutants which may no longer be discharged.
4. As per Article 25, section 8.g. (2), "Inspection andsampling of every facility that is involved directly orindirectly with the discharge of wastewater to the City'swastewater system may be made by the Director of PublicWorks." Therefore, the City may at any time inspect existingplumbing systems or industrial pretreatment facilities andrequire such modifications as are deemed necessary.
5. Wastewater discharge shall strictly conform to Article 25of the Baltimore City Code or to such Federal or Stateregulations as are more stringent. Specific prohibitions per40 CFR 403.5 include the following:
a) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazardin the POTW, including, but not limited to, wastestreamswith a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degreesFahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the testmethods specified in 40 CFR 261,21;
b) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structuraldamage to the POTW;
_2_ UR30I625.
c) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which willcause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resultingin interference;
d) Any pollutant released in a discharge at a flow rateand/or pollutant concentration which will causeinterference with the POTW;
e) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biologicalactivity in the POTW resulting in interference;
f) Petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, orproducts of mineral oil origin in amounts that willcause interference or pass-through; and
g) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxicgases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantitythat may cause acute worker health and safety problems.
6. Prohibition of dilution/excessive dischargeThe permittee shall not increase the use of potable wateror, in ay way, attempt to dilute a discharge as a partialor complete substitute for adequate treatment to achievecompliance with the limitations contained in this permit.
7. Spent or spilled materials may not be discharged to thesanitary sewer without treatment, when applicable.
8. A log must be kept of all disposal(s) indicatingmaterial(s), date(s), volurae(s), disposal method(s), andwaste hauler(s), if applicable. A copy of this log and allwaste manifests are to be made available for review by thePollution Control Section at all times.9. Specific reference is made to the following sections ofBaltimore City Code Article 25:
—Section 7(a.) which concerns the discharges ofprohibited or restricted pollutants.
—Section 7(c.) which concerns the minimum recordsretention time of three years.
—Section 8 (c.) which concerns plans, complianceschedules and operating procedures.
Additional limitations and restrictions are provided inthe following attachments.
-3-
AR30I626
General Requirement*
A. PERMIT EFFECTIVE DATE
1. The effective date (date, of issue) is the date thepermit is validated by the office of the Director of Finance.
B. SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS
1. Self-Monitoring
(a) Self-monitoring reports are required to be basedupon data obtained through sampling and analyticaltechniques approved by the EPA and performed during theperiod covered by the report, of which data isrepresentative of conditions occurring during thereporting period.
(b) Analysis shall be conducted in accordance withapproved sampling and analytical methods as stated in 40CFR 136 and amendments thereto. If a pollutant is notincluded in 40 CFR 136, or a testing method is deemedinappropriate, alternative methods must be approved bythe regional administrator of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region III.
(c) The Pollution Control Section shall determine thefrequency of monitoring necessary to assess and assurecompliance by the Permittee with applicable PretreatmentStandards and Requirements.
(d) In accordance with 40 CFR Part 403.12(g), ifsampling performed by the Permittee indicates aviolation, the Permittee must notify the PollutionControl Section within 24 hours of becoming aware of theviolation. The Permittee must repeat the sampling andanalysis and submit the results of the repeat analysisto the Pollution Control Section within 30 days afterbecoming aware of the violation. If the PollutionControl Section performs sampling at the Permittedfacility between the time the Permittee performs itsinitial sampling and the time the Permittee receives theresults of this sampling, resampling is not required.
(e) Any monitoring of waste water which is performedmore frequently than required by this Permit should beincluded in the report prepared for the applicablemonitoring period.
C. Management Requirements
1. Duty to MitigateThe Permittee shall take all reasonable steps tominimize or correct any adverse impact resulting from
-4- RR301627
noncompliance with this permit, including suchaccelerated or additional monitoring as necessary todetermine the nature and impact of the noncomplyingdischarge.
2. Duty to ComplyThe Permittee shall comply with all conditions of thispermit. Failure to comply with the requirements of thispermit may be grounds for administrative action orenforcement proceedings including cessation ofdischarge, civil or criminal penalties, injuctive reliefand summary abatements.
3. Duty to Provide InformationThe Permittee shall furnish to the Pollution ControlSection, within a reasonable time, any information whichis requested to determine whether cause exists formodifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating thispermit or to determine compliance with this permit. ThePermittee shall also furnish, upon request, to thePollution Control Section copies of records to be keptby this permit.4. Proper Disposal of Solids/SludgesThe Permittee shall dispose of any solids, sludges orother pollutants removed in the course of treatment inaccordance with Section 405 of the Clean Water Act andSubtitles C and D of the Resource Conversation andRecovery Act.
5. Upset ProvisionAn upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to anaction brought for noncompliance with PretreatmentStandards only if the permittee demonstrates, throughproperly signed, contemporaneous logs, or other relevantevidence, that:
a. an upset, occurred and that the permittee canidentify the specific cause(s) of the upset;b. the permitted facility was at the time beingoperated in a prudent and workman-like manner and incompliance with proper operation and maintenanceprocedures;c. the permittee submitted notification of the upsetwithin 24 hours of its occurrence, in accordance withthe reporting requirements as stated in this permit;d. the permittee submitted, within five days ofbecoming aware of the upset, documentation to supportand justify the upset; ande. the permittee complied with any remedial measuresrequired to minimize adverse impact.
-5-
flR3QI628
6. Maintenance and operation of pretreatment andcontrol facilities
The permittee shall at all times properly operate andmaintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control(and related appurtenances) which are installed or used bythe permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions ofthis permit. Proper operation and maintenance includes butis not limited to: effective performance, adequate funding,adequate operator staffing and trainingr and adequatelaboratory and process controls, including appropriatequality assurance procedures. This provision requires theoperation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similarsystems only when necessary to comply with the conditions ofthis permit. Malfunctioning of leachate pumping, piping,metering, or related mechanical systems shall be grounds forcessation of discharge. Inspection and approval of repairsto system(s) by the Pollution Control Section is requiredbefore leachate discharge is permitted to resume.
7. Bypass of Flow Measurement Equipment(A) Bypass is prohibited unless it is unavoidable to prevent,loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage or nofeasible alternatives exist.(B) Notice of BypassIf a Permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, itshall submit prior notice to the Pollution Control Section,8201 Eastern Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, ifpossible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
8. (A) Within 15 minutes of any accident, negligence, orother occurrence that involves in excess of 50 gallons of anysubstance (raw material, intermediate, product, by-product,etc) which has or may enter the municipal sanitary seweragesystem, the Pollution Control Section and the Waste WaterTreatment Plant must be notified. Between the hours of 8:30am and 4:30 pra, the Pollution Control Section may be reachedat (301) 396-9695. During off hours and on holidays andweekends, contact the City Hall operator at (301) 396-3100and request that Pager #428 be activated. The telephonenumber for the Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant is(301) 396-9800.
(B) Authorization for notification must be given to non-management employees in cases where Permittee managementcannot be contacted so that notification can be made withinthe specified 15 minute time period.
(C) Samples of the material should be collected and retainedfor analysis by the Pollution Control Section.
(D) Within five days*of the incident, a written reportincluding the circumstance of the incident, the volume ofmaterial discharged or contained, a chronology of events fromthe time the incident is discovered until the disposal has
-6- flR3QI629
occurred, Material Safety Data Sheet for the compound,corrective measures and any other pertinent information mustbe supplied to the Pollution Control Section. (E) Anymaterial contained on the premises for future discharge mustbe approved for disposal to the sanitary sewer by thePollution Control Section.
D. Responsibilities
1. Permit ActionThis permit may be modified, revoked, and reissued, orterminated for good cause including, but not limited to,the following: a. to incorporate any new or revisedFederal, State, or local pretreatment standards orrequirements; b. material or substantial alterations oradditions to the discharger's operation which were notcovered in the effective, permit; c. a change in anycondition that requires either a temporary or permanentreduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; d.information indicating that the permittee's dischargeposes a threat to the collection and treatment system,POTW personnel or the receiving waters; e. violation ofany terms or conditions of this permit; f. obtainingthis permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclosefully all relevant facts; or g. upon request of thepermittee, provided such request does not create aviolation of any existing applicable requirements,standards, laws, or rules and regulations. The filingof a request by the permittee for a permit modification,revocation and reissuance, or termination, or anotification of planned changes or anticipatednoncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control of FacilitiesThis permit is issued to a specific user for a specificoperation and is not assignable to another permittee ortransferable.
3. Confidential information/availability of reportsExcept for data determined to be confidential underSection 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 91318) andArticle 25 of the Baltimore City Code as amended byOrdinance 129 of 1984, all submitted data shall beavailable for public inspection at the offices of thePollution Control Section, the Maryland Department ofthe Environment, and the Regional Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency.
4. Falsifying informationKnowingly making any false statement on any report orother document required by this permit or knowinglyrendering any monitoring device or method inaccurate,subjects the permittee to criminal law proceedings aswell as civil penalties and injunctive relief.
~7~ f l R 3 Q I 6 3 0
5. Signatory and Certification RequirementsAll applications, reports, or information submitted tothe Pollution Control Section shall be signed andcertified:
a. for a Federal, State, or local governmental entity:by the principal executive officer or director havingresponsibility for the overall operation of thedischarging facility; or
b. by a duly authorized representative if theauthorization is made in writing by a person describedabove. A duly authorized representative may be either anamed individual or any individual occupying a namedposition.
c. The following certification statement is to beincluded with any Permittee Periodic Compliance Report:"I certify under penalty of law the this document andall attachments were prepared under my direction orsupervision in accordance with a system designed toassure that qualified personnel properly gather andevaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiryof the person or persons who manage the system, or thosepersons directly responsible for gathering theinformation, the information submitted is, to the bestof my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, andcomplete. I am aware that there are significantpenalties for submitting false information, includingthe possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowingviolations."
6. Severability clauseThe provisions of this permit are severable. If anyprovisions of this permit shall be held invalid for anyreasons, the remaining provisions shall remain in fullforce and effect. If the application of any provisionof this permit to any circumstance is held invalid, itsapplication to other circumstances shall not beaffected. -
7. Property rightsThe issuance of this permit does not convey any propertyrights in either real or personal property, or anyexclusive privileges nor does it authorize any injury toprivate property or any invasion of personal rights, norany infringement of Federal, State or local laws orregulations.8. Action on violationsThe issue or reissue of this permit does not constitutea decision by the Pollution Control Section not toproceed in an administrative, civil, or criminal action
- 8 ' f l R 3 U I 6 3 l
for any violations of laws or regulations occurringbefore the issue or reissue of this permit, nor a waiverof the Pollution Control Section's right to do so.
9. Reopener ClauseThis permit shall be modified, or alternately, revokedand reissued, to comply with any applicable effluentstandard or limitation issued or approved under Section301, 304, and 307 of the Clean Water Act if the effluentstandard or limitation so issued or approved: a.contains different conditions or is otherwise morestringent than any effluent limitation in the permit; orb. controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.The permit, as modified or reissued under thisparagraph, shall also contain any other requirement ofthe Act then applicable.
ATTACHMENT B -
Reporting RequirementsAll analytical data must be reported quarterly, in writing,to the Pollution Control Section. These monitoring reportsmust include:
1) Initiation and collection times and dates for eachsample;
2) Exact sample collection location;
3) Flow meter or water meter readings coinciding with sampleinitiation and collection and total volume represented byeach sample;
4) Grab and composite designation. (Cyanides, volatileorganics, pH, and fats, oils & greases must be collected asgrab samples. Failure to do so or so indicate is a violationof the Self-Monitoring requirements.)
5) Analytical methods used for determining each parameter;
6) Dates and times analyses were performed;7} Identification of laboratory personnel performing eachanalysis;
8) The result of the analyses including the units in whicheach is expressed; and
9) The appropriate signature and certification. (See Part D5(c) of this Permit for the exact wording to be used.
Any data generated by a private independent laboratory mustbe sent directly from the laboratory to the Pollution Control
"9" SR30I632
Section, 8201 Eastern Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.These reports must be received at that office no later than28 days following the end of the Calendar quarter. Failureto submit the required information by the deadline is aviolation of Section 8.a. of Article 25 of the Baltimore CityCode and will result in the assessment of civil penalties asprovided by Section 11.b. of said Article.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expireon midnight s/31/1992 * The Permittee shall not dischargeafter the date of expiration unless authorization is grantedby the Pollution Control Section. In order to receiveauthorization to discharge beyond the above date ofexpiration, the permittee shall request an extension ofpermit conditions no later than 30 days prior to the abovedate of expiration.
by authority of
RaljSh (X Cullison, IIIChiefEnvironmental Services Division
-10-
H R 3 0 I 6 3 3
INDUSTRY NUMBER ___________EPA KANE & LOMBARD ST SUPERFUND SITE
MONITORING SCHEDULE
SAMPLING LOCATION: N.E. corner of property at main entrance gate. Samplingvault is east of metering vault and adjacent to the main control panel forthe extraction wells and flow meter. See attached diagram. Sampling siteis indicated as "Sampling Vault."PROCESS DESCRIPTION: This superfund site is designed to encapsulate leachatewater and remove it via extraction well pumps. The leachate is meteredbefore it is discharged to the City's sanitary sewer and POTW.
Sampling is required for the following parameters at the indicated frequency:
PARAMETER
BOD
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
COD
TEMPERATURE
FATS, OILS, 6REASES
-~
ALJJJ PHENOLS
BASE/NEUTRALEXTRACT-ABLE ORGANICS
PESTICIDES/PCBS
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Cd
Cu
Cr
Pb
Hfl
Nis«Ag
ZD
COUP8 HRS
OSITE24 HRS
GRAB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4 DAYSDI
5 DAYSJRiTIO*7 DAYS 10 DAYS ONCE/W
FREQUENCYONCE MONTH ONCE QUARTER
Z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
COMMENTS
"
11
VAHDYKE
^oglafflp"*SAV-Jte<
e?<^rcr _
DISCHARGE STANDARDS/LIMITATIONSREQUIRED BY
THE CITY OF BALTIMORESECTION 27d OF ARTICLE 25OF THE BALTIMORE CITY CODEAS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 129OF 1984
LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITS
Waste Constituent Group
Discharge Limitations
MAXIMUM DAILY CONCENTRATION(COMPOSITE SAMPLE)
I. Acids and Alkalies (pH Units) -- l
No person shall discharge or cause toto be discharged into any sanitarysewer:A. Acids with a pH value lower than 5.0 when measured directly from
the source wastestream or lower than 6.0 when measured afterdilution in the immediate public sewer.
B. Alkalies with a pH value higher than 12.0 when measured afterdilution in the immediate public sewer.
II. Heavy Metals
A. Cadmium (Cd)B. Chromium, Total (Cr)C. Lead (Pb)D. Mercury (Hg)E. Nickel (Ni)F. Zinc (Zn)G. Copper (Cu)H. Silver (Ag)
.216.896.810.012.82
17.856.591.2
mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1
III. Total Toxic Organics a 2.13 mg/1 *
IV. ANY WASTESTREAM WITH A CLOSED CUP FLASHPOINT OFLESS THAN 140°F(60°C) is prohibited from discharge.
Based upon grab samplesTo include organic priority pollutants and non-priority pol-lutants determined to adversely affect the conveyance system,treatment plant, receiving waters or constitute a potentialhazard to humans exposed to the wastewater.
HR30I637
-Total-Toxic Organics
ActnaphthtntAcenapthytene (PAH)AeroleinAcrylonitrileAldrin
AnlhraetM
1.2 Bentanthractne (PAH)BenzeneBentidineBenzo (A) Pyrene (3,4-3cnzopyrene)
(PAH)3,4 Benxofluoranthent (PAH)Bfnxo (K) Fluoranthene (PAH) -1.12 B«nioperylen« (PAH)• ".,\ ..Bromoform (Tribromomethane)Bromomethant (Methyl Bromide)4-3romophenyl Phenly Ether
Carbon Tetnchloride(Tier achloro methane)
ChtordantC'nloro benzene (Monochlorobenxene)Chlorodibromomithant (Hilomethani)Chlorotthani (Monoehlorotthaat)CKlorotthyl Elher (Bis-2)1 Chloroethory Methane (Bis-2)2 Chlorotthyl Vinyl Ether4-Chloro-3-MethylphenolChloromethane (Mtthyl Chloride)Chloroform (Trtchloromethant) -2 ChJorophcnolChloroisopropyl Ether (Bis-2)2 Chloronaphthalen*4 Chloropheayl Phenyl Ethtr
Chryunt (PAH)
1.2 Diehlorobenttne-1.3 Dichlorobenient1.4 Dichlorobenzen*3,3 DichlorobenztdiniDiehlorocthane 1J,Dlchloroethue 1^1.1 Dichloroethylenc
**, DOT4,4 DOE4.4 000Dibtme (m4t) Aothracen* (PAK)
2M1trophtaoi
4,8-Dioitro-2.MethylphenolNItrovodiinethyUmia* HNitro«odIphenyUmin«-HNitro«odi-N-Proprlamtiw-MPCS 1242 .PCS 12S4 'PCS 1221PCBX232PC812UPCB1260PCS 1011PhenolPenUchlorophcnolPhtnanthrtiw (PAH)Bis (2 Ehtrl Hnyi) PhthaUu
.Diehlorobromomethane (Halomethanei)Dichloromtthant (Halomethanes)2,4-DichlorophenolDichloroprop^nt 1,2Diehloropropcne 1.3DitldrinDimethylphenol 2,4DicthylphthalateDime thy IphthaliUD'mitro toluene 2,4Dinitro toluene 2,62,4-DiaitrophenolDioxin (2.3,7.3-TCDD)Dtphenythydrizinc 1^Alpha EndosuUanBeta EndosulfwEndosuifin Suidt*EndrinEndrin AldehydeEthylbenzinePluorene (PAH)PluoranthentKepiUchlorHepuchlor EpoxideHexaehloroethantHtxachlorobcnzentHexachioroba udien*Hexachloroeydohexant (Lindmna)Hcxachlorocyclohtxant (Alpha)Hexichlorocyclohexant (Btta,)HexachloroeyelohtxaAi (DelU)HtxaehloroQreloptataditntIdrao (W-cd) Pyrtne.(PAH)Iwphoront
Naphthaline
Nitrobtmsnt
Di-N-Butyl PhthalauDl-K-OetyUPhthaUt*Pynn* (PAH)
TttrachlorotthantTetrachlorMthylea*
TolutniToxaphtn*1,2.4 Trichlorobvnxcn*Trichloretthan* UJ.THchloratthan* 1,1.2TnchtorocthylentTrichlorophcnol 2,4,8Viayl Chloride (Chlarathyltnc)
*• Total, • 0.01 .ppm
Butyl Buisyt Phthalau • ^ * uToxic Organics: the sunroation of all quantifiable values greater than
for.tjit abov* .listed toxic organics fl R 3 0 I 6 3 8
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS FOUND AT THE KANE AND LOMBARD SITE.
AR30I639
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
POUND AT KANE AND LOMBARD OU-1 SINCE 7/90MVM 9/2/93
Concentration,HellNo . Clas* Contaminant
89-01 VOC Trichloroethylene89-01 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethylene (total)89-01 VOC Chlorobenzene89-01 BNA laophorone89-01 Metala Barium89-01 Metala Chromium
89-02 VOC Carbon diaulfide89-02 VOC Chlorobenzene89-02 VOC Xylene* (total)89-02 BNA 1,2-Dichlorobenzena89-02 BNA Bi*(2-Ethylhexyl)phth*late89-02 BNA Butyl benzyl phthalate89-02 BNA Di-n-butyl phthalate89-02 BNA Pyrene89-02 Metal* Arsenic89-02 Metal* Barium19-02 Metal* Cadmium89-02 Metala Chromium89-02 Metal* Lead
89-03 VOC Carbon DiculZide89-03 VOC Chlorobenzene89-03 VOC Toluene89-03 BNA Benzo(ghi)perylene89-03 BNA Butyl benzyl phthalate89-03 BNA IndenoU,2,3-cd)pyren«89-03 Metal* Araenic89-03 Metal* Barium89-03 Dl« Barium89-03 Metal* Cadmium89-03 Metal* Chromium89-03 Metal* Lead89-03 Metal* Selenium89-03 Metal* Silver89-03 Metal* Copper89-03 Metal* Zinc89-03 Dis* Zinc
Jul-90
17Q
13ND
ND
50
ND
ND4J
7
ND
130B
34
ND
HD
6
ISO
ND
20
200
ND
10
15
2950026
10
2100
--
ND
80
860
ND
ND
--
--..
Nov-90
20027242J
100
ND
ND
34
ND
ND
10
NO
ND
ND
10
530ND
70760
HDHD
ND
HD
34HD
20
9600
--40
250
4200NDND-.
..
--
Feb-91 May-91
320
42
27
ND
8040
ND57
ND
ND
79
ND
ND
7
7
410
ND
120
440
ND
ND
ND
ND220ND
20
4900_.
90
4606200
ND
20
--..
--
Aug-91
310
44
21
ND
100
40
ND71
ND5J
7J
ND
ND
ND
20
2400
10
560
1500
ND
ND
ND
ND
120ND
10
4900
--
20
170
2700
20
20
--
—--
Hov-91
310
40
192J
110
70
3J
56
ND
ND
ND
21
41
3J
30
600070
1600
6400
6
IS
ND
ND
81NDND
310
—ND
SO
600
NDN»
—
—--
Feb-92 May- 92
..
--
--
--
--
--
..
—
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
ND
21
ND
ND
130
".a
350
50
ND
20
200
ND
ND
20
400
150
Aug-92
--
--
--
--
--
--
-_
—
—
--
--
--
--
~
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
—
--
--
----
--
--
--
--
—
f l R 3 0 ! 6 U O
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS
FOUND AT KANB AND LOMBARD OU-1 SINCE 7/90MVM 9/2/93
No. Clas* Contaminant
Concentration,
Jul-90 Nov-90 Feb-91 May-91 Aug-91 Nov-91 Feb-92 May-92 Aug-92
89-04 VOC Chlorobenzene89-04 BNA 1,2-Dichlorobenzene89-04 BNA Bi«(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate89-04 Metal* Barium89-04 Metal* Cadmium89-04 Metal* Chromium89-04 Metal* Lead
89-05 VOC 1,2-Dichloroethylentt (total)89-05 VOC Chlorobenzene89-05 VOC Trichloroethylene89-05 Metal* Barium89-05 Metal* Chromium
89-06 VOC . Chlorobenzene89-06 BNA Bi*(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate89-06 BNA Butyl benzyl phthaltte89-06 PCS PCS -1242
89-06 Metal* Araenic89-06 Metal* Barium89-06 Metal* Chromium89-06 Metal* Lead89-06 Metal* Selenium
89-07 VOC l,2~Dichloro«thylen*i (total)89-07 VOC TrichloroetheiM89-07 BNA Diethyl phthalate89-07 BNA Bi*(2-Bthylhexyl) phthalate89-07 BNA laophoron*89-07 Met. la Barium89-07 Dia* Barium89-07 Metal* Lead89-07 Metal* Chromium89-07 Metal* Copper89-07 Di** Copper89-07 Metal* Nickel89-07 Dl«* Nickel89-07 Metal* Zinc89-07 Di** Zinc
310NDND
130
NDND
80
ND
ND
3J
120
ND
160
ND
ND7
10
470
140
560
6
72
29ND
7J
16
60
—
100HD---------_.
550. -. A — —
4
130020330
860
6
12
12
130
40
190
2J
2J
ND10
400
100
350
ND
..
—
"
—--
..
_.
--.-
".-
..
__
._
..
--
--
-----.
--
--
-.
--
..
--
--
..
—
--
---.
---.
—--
no38
4J
— ' HD
ND
60
10
ND30
380
210
750
740
2500
2500
--
----
----
--
--
--
--
--
--
"
_.
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
----,-
--
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTSPOUND AT KANE AMD LOMBARD OU-1 SINCE 7/90
MVM 9/2/93
Hell
No. Clasa Contaminant
Concentration,
Jul-90 Nov-90 Feb-91 May-91 Aug-91 Nov-91 Fcb-92 May-92 Aug-92
89-08 VOC 1,2'Dichloroethylene (total)89-08 Metala Barium89-08 Metal* chromiumS9-08 Metal* Lead
6210200
70
89-09 VOC Chloroform89-09 SNA Bi*(2-Bthylhexyl)phthalate89-09 Metal* Barium89-09 Metal* Chromium
76JB13030
89-10 BNA Bi*(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate89-10 Metal* Barium89-10 Metala Chromium
ND13030
ND
100
ND
89-n SNA Bi*(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalata89-11 Metal* Barium
6J80
39-12 Metal* Barium 60
89-13 Metal* Barium89-13 Metal* Chromium
6030
89-14 Metal* Barium89-14 Metal* Chromium89-14 Metal* Lead
2001600
BO
89-15 VOC Acetone89-15 BNA 2-Butanon*89-15 BHA Bi*(2-Bthylh*xyl)phth«lac*89-15 BNA Di-n-butyl phthalat*89-15 BNA H-Nitro*odi-n-propyluanc89-15 BHA Phenol89-15 Metal* Barium
110230
1SJB9J
RD
7»
320
ND
HD
SJ
2J
5JND
89-16 BHA Bi*{2-Bthylb*xyl)pbthalAt<89-16 Metal* Barium89-16 Metal* Chromium
13B150
SO
f l R 3 0 ! 6 l 4 2
SUMMARY OP CONTAMINANTS
FOUND AT KANB AND LOMBARD OU-1 SINCE 7/90
Concentration, jig/L
MVM 9/2/93
HallNo . Claaa Contaminant
89-17 VOC Acetone89-17 Peat. Alpha BHC89-17 Peat. Delta BHC
89-17 Peat. Dieldrin89-17 Peat. Methoxychlor89-17 Metals Arsenic89-17 Metala Barium89-17 Metals Cadmium89-17 Metala Chromium89-17 Metala Lead89-17 Metala Silver
89-18 VOC Carbon diaulfide89-18 Peat. 4,4' -DDD89-18 Peat. 4,4'-DDB
J9-18 Peat. 4,4'-DDT89-18 Peat. Chlordana89-18 Metala AraeniC89-18 Metala Barium89-18 Metala Cadmium89-18 Metal* Chromium89-18 Metala Copper89-18 Metala Lead89-18 Metal* Mercury89-ie Metala Nickel.89-18 Metala Selenium89-18 Metal* Zinc
89-20 SNA Bia (2-Ethylhaxyl)phthalat«89-20 Metal* Araenie89-20 Metala Barium89-20 Metala Chromium
89-21 Matala Barium,69-21 Metal* Chromium89-21 Metala Lead
Jul-90
NDNDND
0.2
ND
10
130ND
ND
200
ND
NDHD
ND
ND
NDND
1600
110
1300
—4200
0.01
--50
--
HD9
27070
90
30ND
NOV-90
ND
0.070.26
0.2
ND
10
210
ND
HD
610
ND
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
250
30
130
--650ND--ND—
--
--.-
—
30015090
Feb-91 May-91
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
160
10
30
610
ND
ND
0.36
0.1
0.14
1.97
10
140
40
120
—73
ND--
ND
--
3J
ND
180
20
160
110
ND
Aug-91 Nov-91
ND
ND
ND
ND
--ND
200
10
30
SOO
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
430
90
410
--2100
ND
--10
--
..
----
--
110 70
20 ND
ND ND
Feb-92
10 JND
ND
ND
O.S
30
390
40
100
1600
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
600
140
600
--2500
8
--ND
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
May- 92
--
------—--————
ND.
0.350.12
ND
ND
5
120
20
60
180
200
ND240
ND
2200
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
Aug-92
--
—
--
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
•-
—
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
—•
—
--
—
-~
-~
--
--
--
—
f l R 3 Q I 6 U 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION HI
841 Chestnut BuildingPhiladelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
SUBJECT: Five-year Review of the DATEKane and Lombard Superfund Site
FROM: Abraham Ferdas, Associate Division Dirfor Superfund Programs
TO: Thomas C. Voltaggio, DirectorHazardous Waste Management Division
EPA has completed a statutory five-year review of the OperableUnit One (OU1) source control remedy at the Kane and LombardSuperfund site in Baltimore, Maryland. The OU1 remedy consistsof the following components: a soil-bentonite slurry wall andmultilayer RCRA cap; a ground water extraction system; a groundwater monitoring system; and institutional controls. This five-year review of the OU1 remedy included: a review of the ROD, thesite Maintenance and Management Manual, and maintenance andmonitoring reports; site inspections; and limited data gathering.
The major conclusions and recommendations presented in theattached Five-year Review Report are as follows: (1) the remedyremains effective in protecting human health and the environment;(2) the cap and slurry wall are functioning as designed; however,minor restoration of the topsoil and vegetative layers of the capis necessary in order to ensure that the containment system willremain intact; (3) the ground water extraction system hassubstantially dewatered the first water-bearing zone within theslurry wall boundaries; however, continued monitoring of thedewatering process is required to ensure that an inward hydraulicgradient will be timely established and maintained across theslurry wall; (4) institutional controls are in place; however,regular maintenance of the perimeter fence is required in orderto ensure that the controls remain effective; and (5) becausehazardous substances, remain at the site above levels that allowfor unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, another five-yearreview must be completed no later than April 30, 1999.
I recommend that you sign the attached Five-year Review Report.
AR30I6I4U