Central Chemical Site Community Liaison Panel • e • d

Agenda Central Chemical Site

Community Liaison Panel Haven Lutheran Church Social Hall

Hagerstown, Maryland January 8, 2004

6:00 p.m.

Hagerstown, Maryland

r"

SDMSDOC;D 2102358

1. Call to Order

2. Review of Agenda and Team Agreement

3. Review of November Minutes

4. Project Update • Superfund Process, Bill Murray, URS and Eric Newman, EPA • Bill Murray, URS

5. Communication Update • News Release, Roberta Fowlkes • Members

6.

9.

Unfinished Business • Signs at Central Chemical Property, George Crouse

New Business • Review Phase 1 Conclusions and Report on Scope of Phase 2 • Next Steps

Next Meeting • Thursday, March 11, 2004 • Review Original Topics/Discuss Future Topics

Questions and Comments • Members • Guests

10. Critique and Adjoumment

AR500355

X

Central Chemical Site Community Liaison Panel Team Agreement

Be honest.

We will agree to disagree.

If we use acronyms, we must explain them. Ask for explanation if needed.

There is no such thing as a stupid question.

Turn off cell phones (with exceptions for emergencies).

We will treat each other with respect.

We commit to attending meetings and participating.

If everybody thinks alike, somebody isn't thinking.

We will strive to reach consensus through full discussion.

Purpose Statement Central Chemical Site Community Liaison Panel

The Central Chemical Site Community Liaison Panel will serve as a forum for open discussion between members of the Hagerstown community and representatives of the Maryland Department of the Environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the companies conducting the environmental study at the site.

The Panel will meet regularly and will foster interaction, the exchange of facts and information, and the expression of individual views of participants, leading to consensus input. The Panel will provide direct, regular and meaningful input to those overseeing and performing the work regarding the environmental study and the selection of the remedy for the site.

AR500356

t

f. i

ii :] y y

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

January 8, 2004 CLP Meeting

il

I i l t5 1:1

Rl

Discussion Topics

• Phase I Rl Results

- Soils

- Surface Water/Sediment

- Groundwater

- Stormwater

• Phase II Plan

- Soil Sampling Plans

- Groundwater Plan

• Key Points

• Review of Next Steps ;.:-

'••i

Y

} ' : ' •

AR500357

i]

Phase I Rl Objectives

Identify compounds in site soils that contribute to risk

Determine current impacts in groundwater and evaluate potential for transport to offsite areas

Evaluate surface water and sediment for current conditions

Sample stormwater to determine if site compounds are being carried offsite.

Collect samples within site buildings to help determine need for building cleanup.

n

11

I . •

I •

K

Phase I Results - Soils

Pesticides and metals were detected in several samples. Higher concentrations are found in Area 1, within the plant area, and on the rail siding.

Detected concentrations in Area 2 were generally below levels of concern.

Elevated concentrations of pesticides and metals in the subsurface appear to be generally limited to Area 1.

Depth of impacted material in Area 1 is up to 23.5 feet.

• , :

AR500358

Vegetsijon

Site Features Rodda

——^RailRoads •• —Buildings.

4.4-ppT Surface Soil (<=2,ft bgs, ppm) P 0-1.9 (Res RBC)

•#, 1i9-8.4_(irid RBC)

A '8.4-a4 {Ind 10-5)

A ad-840 (Ind 10-1)

A '840-B400

A '3400-24[X)0

^^^Phase 1 Sampling Grids

Figure 27 4,4'-DDT Concentrations iri Phase I Rl Surface Soil Sarnples

Phase I.Remedial Investigation Report

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown; Maryland'

NJEWF.IELOS

d

LEGEND Exposure Domains

VcguCdilon.

Site Fea tu re s : Roads —I—:-Rai:Roads .:_ . Buridingsi

-,3lpha-6HC Surface Soil (<=2 ft bgs; ppm)

O q.p-0,1 (Res RBC)

• .0 11-0.45 (ind RSC)

A ;b-151 -4.5dhd 10-51

A 4.51-'(SOiInd lOd|

A . ^^ ' -270 0 ^ ^ ^ P h a s e 1 Sampling Grids

Figure 28 alpha-BHG Concentrations jh Phase I Rl Surface Soil Samples

Phase I Remedial Investigation Report

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland'

AR500359

, . Vegetation

Site Features Roads

• RpiiRoads • •• BuPtJings

Arsenic Surfaca Soil {<~2 ft bgs, ppm)

O 00-0 43 (Ras RBC)

• 0.431 • l^mindRBC)

A 1.91 : 19 0 lind 10-5)

A 19.1.-, 190 0(liid 1[M)'

A '9Q.1 -276.0

^ ^ ^ P h a s e l Sampling Grids

Figure'29 Arsenic Concentrations in: Phase [ Rl Surface Soij Samples

Phase I Remedial investigation Rejxirt

Central Chemical Site. Hagerstown, Maryland

iVEWFlEL l££l

;-.

T l

Vegetation

Site Features Roads

-1 RailRoads Buildings

Lead Surface So i l (<=2 ft b g s , p p m )

q 0.1 - « ,0 IRos RBC)

>• 40.1-400.0 (llSd RBC)

A 400.1 -1020 0

R§883Phase 1 Sampling Grids

Figure 30 Lead Concentralions in Phase I Rl Surface Soil Samples

Phase I Remediai Investigation Report;

Central Chemical'Site Hagerstown, Maryland

Nl:\V,Fll£LD.S

i '

;,'

AR500360

IVegeiation

Site Features Roads

-1 RpiiRoads -Bui ld ings

4,4-DOT Subsurface Soil (>2 ft bgs, ppm)

O 0 0 - 1 . 9 [Res RBC)

• . 1 . 9 1 : 9.4 (ma RBC)'

A 8 . 4 1 - M . o (Ind 10-5)

A 64.1 - MO.pOntJ 10-4)

A 840,1 -SJUO.O .

J ^ 6400.1 -13D0OOO;

R8883phase 1 Sampiing Grids

Figure 31 4,4."-DDT Concentrations iri Phase 1 Rl SubSurface Soil Samples

Phase I Remedial Investigation Report

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

NRWRFJ.DS

'I

Vagetatian

S i te F e a t u r e s Roads

—^—r- RauRoadE

a l p h a - B H C S u b S u r f a c e So i i (>2 ft b g s , p p m )

O 0-.O.l .(RciRBCj

0 ; 0:i T0 43i.tndRBC)

D._.i5-^.5(lnri ID-5)

5 - 4 b [ i r i ] I O J ,

45-*5e

450-.3100

j^Phase 1 Sampljng Gnds

A A:

f

Figure 32 alpha-BHC Concentrations in Phase I Rl SubSurface Soil Samples

Phase I Remedial .Investigation Report

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

N IE W1-1 ELDS

AR500361

LEGEND Exposure Domains

Vegetation

Site Features

- ^ — ^ R d j I R o a d s •.-—-^,=7 Buildings

Arsenic SubSui^ace SotI (>2 ft bgs, ppm)

. p • 0.0 - 0.43 {Ros RBC)

. 0 0.4:tl - l .g{ lnclRBC}

A l-Sl -.19 0(rn[110:5)

A 19 I - .190Di ind lO-d]

A -l&O.l -1900.0.

A 1900,1,-3441)0

K^K^Phase 1 Sampiing Grids

F i g u r e 3 3

A r s e n i c C o n c e n t r a t i o n s in

P h a s e I R l S u b S u r f a c e . S o i l S a m p l e s

P h a s e I R e m e d i a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t

C e n t r a l C h e m i c a l . S i t e

H a g e r s t o w n , M a r y l a n d NEWFlELOS

?-

1

'1

Site Features • Roads

-^ Rai lRoads ,

Buildings

Lead SubSur face Soi l (>2 ft bgs j ppm)

e ' ND

O. 0.0 • 40.0 (Res RBC|.

• 40.01 .400.0 (Ind RBC)

A 400.1 - 4000.0 (Ind 10.5)

A 40001-6130,0

^ ^ ^ P t i a s e . 1 Sampling Grids.

Figure 34 Lead Concentrations iii Phase I Rl SubSurface Soil Samples

Phase I Remedial Investigation Report

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

.NEWpllil.DS

'

AR500362

• ' ;

^ •

• i -

I : •

IV

Phase I Results^ Surface Water/ Sediments

Surface Water

- Few site-related compounds detected

- Pesticides (2,4 DDT and alpha-BHC) were detected at parts per trillion levels

- Highest concentrations (still very low) were In the upstreann sannple in Antietam Creek

• S e d i m e n t s

- Concentrations of DDT were detected in all samples including upstream in Antietam Cr

- Concentrations are well below human health risk levels for soils.

- Arsenic shows similar distribution pattern and is also below human health levels.

AR500363

] y y ! /X,-•',•••' > '--l ..' .-"" .-i-l

7/ / d d d d d y / •, / /•./ f\ ^ ^ y ~ N,.v(-../ d j 7 7 y7 y /

7dyydi7., y y " ' / / Y/ 7-7// ddfy^nf/^y yyi ddi mydMJ ^ dddd^d

y d r ' d . ^~.x\

">>...-i-x'-i-'/ V •

"/•-^Y'' /y7d^'yy(y<dl'yd-ld'7'^

. > ^ yyAfyid^Wdyyd-dm^ L . j _ yy d j y 7 y ' d y < d y - - ~ - 7 ^ ^ r>- y

i d l ^r^'~~yy \

2,4 DDT ug/1 ^ 0-0.015

• ^ 0-0.03

Q . ' 0.03 Surtace Water Samples (2003) 2,4 DDT Resutts (ug/t)

'' 1 d'\d7'^ 7,yy/^<r / 7--.. /"'.r^

I 1 y y y 7y7/ y i y ' /•- yyyy7^7yy ^ • / d^ 'dyd: V •/ y d y y , d y d i : ^ d d

'd /.Sy' - dY Tyd^l^mddU I

Wiyykd.

yyd. Y ' ' d d y ' d y m d - ^ y yyyysyS. / W d 7 7 y r d ^ d l y d ( y y l / d d y y 7 d d : y 9 ^

^ y v . y / y < d y y d d y d d ^ - ^ y I . y y y y y j d / d d ^ d y : " d • /:/ 111 d yyy d7iy7Cdy^ [ 7—i.' /'"?-- -> '. ," ?''' -.'/7y"''-yy y y y- -y' 7 ( y y / . . / . 7 7 y d y d d y d 7 - y y ^ . y d y f ^ y ^ _ y y A d y ^ 7 ' ^ ^ y y . y r

y y y y y y y y y 77 . r^ - iydT

yyri' '"'x, M|~-|c>l§&tl^ ' - ^

•{ ' ' '"^y. y'-r"Zi V >-,../ ' ' > y . , ' ^ < .•••• ' .'• '• ' .K/.f//><M 7-^7

" • ' x ' / •.< •./•• ..'""./',•. . • ' . , /

/dlldhf~d\\ ]'

Alpha-BHC ug/1 ^ 0-0.035

^ 0.035-0.07 ^ Surtace Water Samples (2003) ^ >0.07 Alpha-BHC Resutts (ug/0

AR500364

..•- . . y ^^-.-l ^ > yiyXdy / y y y y w

'' 7 7'yy\ \ V

y y y y y y y y y 7 7 / 7 .yy / "-J v--^

^dy^/dd-^dd ' y y / y y y y y--.•>- yy A. \ \ ^ f x / / y y - - . / / y . / y y / / n

d d d j d - T y d l \ .r-^V/?<4^v<r77/

'I y: ydyd^yy^d /dr^dydyy^ dyt, .ddd yyy.iyyydAdd77

y i - I---yKW/. • / • / : y / ^ y y - ' - y i ^ /. - r -pr yy y d d 7dd7y'7yt-^-y }'

•^77' / d y d y y y ^ f y y - ^ y < & ' < • ' / • I r x . ' ' \ . , . ' ' ^ , ' ' f ^ ^'•~'- 7

:' • d ' y y \ ' ^ w \ // "- - ^ / X . / "v ?~... / t . > ^ 1 u.,«,h Clin ' ^S. i

/ /--^J-C, />-v' ' n 9dyyHd).

i - ^ / ^A./ T"~y ' y

.//:. / ry~-^-^y '-'"^.

/ /-^/^^--^irvT'

^ 0-tOO

A 100-200 ^ Sediment Samples (2003)

• ^ 200-500 4,4 DDT Resutts (ug/kg)

/ 7)\ yd4 'py(\ \

• ^ , . . ' \ t \ >

y r y y y / y >^w' ' ^ - • ' ' . /— ' - ^

•1 \ . 7 7 y .'•••..)/ / / / >-,/—'""J-*' X' yydd \/'yyyd'yy77yd i. /1 y / y y - d d d : / 1 d-)y i 'T-yddV '^"^^^yW/yyy/'' J "y '^yfdPCydi:^

...' ^ 7 / . ,''.. "-~ ^"-Cv-i'...v "~.c. I.C /' "—/''."/ ' 1.

4 - - .

- t i

.7 y7 dyyyy-dd i y

" ' ' - yy .y'-y y / /\m:ivpf^>d^--ry / /

/ yyd y d y ^K , / "dyd y 7 /dy y y y y y y7-~.y^y

'• 7-dy d y tiy d^'"y/yd7y\

^ • y I y •• •,--

/ ddy~ -y- y.\ \ Arsenic (mg/kg)

^ 0 - 5

^ . 5 - 1 0 Sediment Samples (2:603),

© ; * * " Arsenic Results (mg/kg)

AR500365

u

i i

u

Phase I Results -Groundwater

• Two rounds of samples (April 2003 and June 2003).

• Impacts to groundwater are apparent only in Well A near the former lagoon.

• No apparent transport to other locations on site.

• Additional data needed to determine flow direction.

7M

%

F i:

Legend 4,4-pDTGW Data (in ijg/L)

O ND »• 0.0-.0.2.(Reg3DW)' A 0.21;--1.1

Site Features Roads

-I - iRailRoads : Bijildings

Exposure Domains' Plant Vegetation

Figure..39 4,.4'7DDT Concentration's in Phase I Rl Grounciwater Sarnples

Phase I Remedial Investigation.Report

Central Chemicial Site Hagerstown, Maryland

iVL-WHll2LD:

1

r,

AR500366

^

^

)

•1 ^

Legend a lp l i a 'BHC GW Data ( in ug/L)

. p 0.03 - 0.011 (Reg 3 DW)

• '0,012.-0.1.1 (DW 10,-5)

^ :0. i r i - i .1,(DW10-4)

A . 1.1V;8.2'

^ 8.21-19.0

Site Features Roads

-I—I—^F^ilRoads -Buildings

Exposu re Doma ins

,/ Plant

Figure 40 alpha-BHC Concentrations in Phase I Rl Groundwater Samples

Phase I Remediai Investigation. Repoii

Central Chemical Site Hagerstown, Maryland

.N IE W 1^11:1.1)5

SJ

U

y •

Phase I Results -Stormwater

Concentrations of compounds generally decrease with successive samples.

Concentrations are low parts per billion near the site or parts per trillion levels in City Park samples.

Detected compounds are associated with particles in water; not dissolved phase.

Interim action planned to control sediment in stormwater run-off.

I .-J

11 AR500367

0 123 0.2S Milt

4,4DDTug/ l

^ 0 - 2

• ^ 2 -S " . ; Stormwater Samples (2003) Q «-« 4,4 DDT Resutts (ug/1)

lOUinutM

30Uinul*(

OOMinutM

eOMinut*!

120 Umutts

* • # * ^#

y;/\ y/-^y y^y 77d^y' /./ X / x./'

SCALE

0.123 0 0."l28'

Arsenic ug/1

A j-'to . . . ~ . , Stornwaf er Samples (2003) (2) 10 - IS ./IrsenicResuWsfue'f

12 AR500368

y y yK '\y\

y\ \ \. / ..^.'" \ \.y\

<7y/ d

^ddydyydff' / rx j y t ' y d ' ' y 7 / X .' ••• /•-- >•

to ' 'fT' /:>^ yyy y^., yyy d

0.129 0.2S UiU

Beta-BHC ug/1

, ^ 0-.63S

^ 0.035 - 0.07 ~ . Stormvater Samples (2003)

' Q 0.07-.14 Beta-BHC Results (ug/1)

Phase I Results Buildings

' • i • . 1

; • Pesticides were detected in several 1 buildings.

• If the buildings are demolished as part of future redevelopment of the site, cleaning of the buildings will be

^ necessary.

\'\

i i

M

r;

U'

13 AR500369

r; i-.i

t :

II

:1

Phase I Summary

What did we learn -

- Soils - pesticides and metals are a concern in onsite soils.

- Groundwater -impacts very close to the former lagoon but flow directions are not clear.

- Surface water and sediment - no significant impacts.

- Stormwater - site compounds may be leaving the site in runoff but results could be due to vehicle traffic.

Phase I Summary (cont.)

Conclusions and Phase 2 Objectives - Soils - some type of remediation is likely

required and additional data is needed to plan that remediation.

- Groundwater - it does not appear that impacts to groundwater are significant but more data is needed to better understand flow and compounds in groundwater near the site boundaries.

- Surface water - no significant impact and no additional data needed.

- Sediment - no significant impact and no additional data needed. Fish tissue data is needed to evaluate ecological exposure.

- Stormwater - interim measure planned to eliminate offsite transport - additional data needed to confirm the effectiveness of the Interim Measure.

14 AR500370

'I'A. ••^

Phase II Plan

: I K ' 1

if I I ' i ' j

Collect additional soil samples (both surface and subsurface)

Install additional wells and sample all |j onsite wells

Collect samples of fish from two locations in Antietam Creek

\'' i.i

,;

Phase II Exposure Domains 1. Plant Area 2. Former Lagoon Area 3. Vegetated Area

• • 1 • ' • •

15 AR500371

16 AR500372

• • i

Phase II Sampling Grid for Domain 3

TJSS"

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SITE FENCE

100 0 100 200 Fet.1

JOD:199yU925900016

Prepgrao by. RRMIIi

CfiecKad b y

Dale: 12/30/2003

PROPOSED PH'^SE II MONirOBIHG WELL LOCATIONS'

CENIRAL C H E M I O I SITE HAGER5T0WN. l/1>kpYL./y-JD

17 AR500373

F'i

Key Points f l .

Phase I

...1

i

- Primary impacts appear to be limited to soils onsite.

- Surface water and sediment impacts appear very limited.

- Groundwater effects appear to be limited to the vicinity of the former lagoon but more data is needed.

Phase II - Additional soil sampling

- Additional wells

- Fish tissue samples for eco risk

I.

3

\ l

1-3

11 '

•',

F

( • ' .

Next Steps Phase I Report has been submitted and is , currently being reviewed by EPA and MDE.

Agencies may provide comments and PRPs will respond and/or revise the Report.

After Phase I Report and Work Plan for Phase 11 are approved, work on Phase II will begin. Schedule for Phase II will be similar to Phase 1 (sampling in Spring, results by Summer, evaluation and Risk Assessment in Fall, and report by year-end).

Following Phase II Rl, Feasibility Study to evaluate potential remedial actions will occur in early 2005.

Based on FS, EPA will develop Proposed Plan and Record of Decision.

; • '

18 AR500374