l

UNITID ITATIIINVIRONINNTALIIIOTICTION AGICl _ H lliOPIDIAAampMIIlOIIM OTO~---middot

June 12 Ull

David 1 Craha1 aq Itaya lchohr Fienan Maya l Hanclltr 901 Pittaonth Street N W Suite 1100 Wuhlngton DC 2005

Rt1 Picillo lupertund colQ9ical Rbk Aaaant Work Plan and Albhnd Cbt1icel CAP GC end Monllntg ltttleunt

Dear David l

rollovinq up our telephone convonationa about work plana tor tho Roaedial Invaatigationjreadbility study (RIPI) and ocoloqical riak bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullnt at tho Picillo ran Superfund Site I ancloao a copy ot the bullaevhad Work Plan tor coloqical Rhk Aaaant at tha Picillo ran Site coventry RI aubaitted to EPA on 21591 by EPAa contnctor Arthur D Little Inc (ADL) and a l2991 aupph1ontal bullbullbullo by ADL 1 a Robert Laabo

I undontand that your client Aahland Cheaical Coapany and the

~~n~tl~~rn~~i~~~~~) ~yrthif~d cnnatlraZtbullric Envirouental Stratalt~ Corporation to revhv the adainhtrative record on Picillo plua whatever aateriala EPA -providebull re9ardin9 the RlFS work beinq done tor EPA by ADL You n indicated that Environaental Strateqha 1a abo vorkinq on the aattera tor Deain9 Sheraanbulla cUenta the detendanta in the = Picillo coat recovery lavauit u s y Amtrigan cyannid Cpmpany = and Rpha i Han Cpapeny (D RI 19-0965) ca EPA continuebull to otter thebullbull aetthra and Kr Sheraan bulla c lhnta the opportunity to participate in the Picillo RIFS

When ZPA baa approved the reviaed Rl FS work plan 1 will nd a copy ot that work plln to you

Pla18e teal tree call ae at 617-565-HJO it you have queationa Thank you tor your continuinq cooperation end wUUnqneaa to diacusa matters related to the Picillo cleanup

Alex Beehler DOJ Anna Kraako EPA

Jnder a 4 1488 conaent decree w~1jh the US reqardinq Picillo in u s y AshlondWifampl(ibullf~10 i al (DRI No 87-0475)

Date March 29 1991

To Robcn Lambe

rom Plillip Rury 0 C--middot Loc llfn19 IJ1 Ext mo SubJKt Rupontet to EPA Comments on and Revitcd Cott Propolal for

AMur D Unles Revised Picillo Fann otopal Riak Assessment (ERA) Work Plan dated Fcbnlary 11 1991

Aofotenee Coounct No 61-WI-0120 Woct Auianmcnt No 10 1101 Picillo Farm Coventry RJ ADL Reference No 62361

ThiJ mcmonndum wu pRJ)md ac EPA t request followinJ telephone ditcllnions held on March 21 1991 by Artbur D Little s EcoloJcal Risk Aucssment Tuk Manaaer (PM RW)) and EPA t RcrnediaJ Project Manaaer (Anna F Kraska) for the Picillo Farm she The foliowina are responses 10 EPAs comments on the revised Work Plan prescnled in a memorandum to Oilne Kelley (Projlaquot otrKer) by Anna Kruko on March 7 1991 Thcte responses follow the same sequencc u the EPA comments and specify 10 what extent each of these clariftcations and modifications of the ERA ICChnkal approKh have affected the atuched revision o(

the February U 1991 cost proposal for that revised Work Plan

This memonndum it intended 10 supplement the revised Work Plan by specifyinJ all chanaes in lhe scope of work technical approach and costs 10 be made durinJ implementation o( the revised Work P1an once approved by EPA All pertinent chanaes in field activities (Task 30) set forth in the followinJ responses and cluifications will be specifled (or incorponted by reference 10 this mcmonndum) In Lhe fonhcominJ Field Operations Plan (FOP) for the ERA

A summary or key ERA schedulinJ issues which were discussed by telephone with Anna Knsko on March 28 1991 but could not have been anticipated in her Marth 7 1991 comments also is presented at the end of th is memorandum

Specific RtlpOMMI to EPAI Comments

Comment Nos 1-6 (WP SteUOnt 10 11 12 and 13 pagn 1-4) We concur with both the intent and lanauaampe of all of these recommended chanaes in the text of the revised Wort Plan and will remain coJniwu or them durinJ implementation of the ERA revised Work Plan

Incorporation of these considertions into the ERA project will not affect the budampet

6D61ARC4l01

~-n = = =

Dele Mllth 29 1991 To Robampn Lambe rom Pllinip Rury SubJect Responses EPA Conmenu on and Revixd Cott Propoul for

Althur D Littles Reviled Picillo Farm Eco10Jica1 Rbk Asseument (IRA) Work Plan dated Fcbnwy U 1991

Plgt 1ol

COmment No 7 rt Sectton 13 pege 4) We conceptually 11ndcntand and concur with bodl the ERA philosophy rxprrssed and the technical appro~eh recommended by EPA durinJ our January 24 1991 mecdnJ with rtspect to the iuue ot PoiniS of Exposure (POEJ) We apoiOJizc ror the inadvertent carryover ol this Repon I Guidance Manual lerminoloo (POE) rrorn the oriciftaJ Wort Plan and wish to clarify thai the inrent of the cited tentencc wu mac habitaiSbull wiU be evaJuared 11 likely JB11 (miutaltd u poinll) of uposun durinJ the ERA We erml by uslnJ the term POEs very broMlly bull in a 1p1dal sense bull and 1houk1 have been more explkit by rererrinamp to Contaminated habitall II artu or Cllpolun

Althouamph not upUcitJy staled in either ltlis teerion or the Wori P111 nor in Section 269 (Subwk 69 Quantiry Risks) we will evaluate and quantity risks ol aorJitlismal exposwc on the buis ol both the aveiIJC and maximJm concenndons of the contaminaniJ ol coram detected ror these habha11 or areu or exposun durinamp the initial round of the Rf Phase IB samplina and analysis rrron Thete

-n quantitative soil sediment and sUtface water contamination data wiU be provkled = by the Rl Phase IB team ror rrview by the ERA team durinamp Subwk 13 of the ERA as a basis for aU subtequent ERA subwks ca= Since acceptance or ltlis comment does not chanae our approach to the ERA it does not atrect iu proposed budpt

Comment No I (WP Stet6on 13 llat untence page 5) Hab itat and species inventories will be confined to the PicUio property and to those orrsite are as in which abovemiddotJfOUnd contamination is documeniCd durinamp Phase IB of the RVFS As discussed with A Kruko very sianifKant additional cosu would be incurred if all upland and wetland areas located upPadient and downcndient from onsite sources o( contamination wiltlin the enti~ two square mile study area lrt scrutinized ror visible symptoms or habitat stress

An alternative approach emerainamp from this discussion formally proposed here is 10 limit the orrsite stress search 10 the rollowinamp ponions o( the srudy area

Upland wetland and aquatic habitats surroundina each of the soil sediment and surface water samplinJ stations to be included in the RI Phue IB field program

62l6tARC(l(ll

Date March 29 1991

To Robcn Lambe

rom Plillip Rury 0 C--middot Loc llfn19 IJ1 Ext mo SubJKt Rupontet to EPA Comments on and Revitcd Cott Propolal for

AMur D Unles Revised Picillo Fann otopal Riak Assessment (ERA) Work Plan dated Fcbnlary 11 1991

Aofotenee Coounct No 61-WI-0120 Woct Auianmcnt No 10 1101 Picillo Farm Coventry RJ ADL Reference No 62361

ThiJ mcmonndum wu pRJ)md ac EPA t request followinJ telephone ditcllnions held on March 21 1991 by Artbur D Little s EcoloJcal Risk Aucssment Tuk Manaaer (PM RW)) and EPA t RcrnediaJ Project Manaaer (Anna F Kraska) for the Picillo Farm she The foliowina are responses 10 EPAs comments on the revised Work Plan prescnled in a memorandum to Oilne Kelley (Projlaquot otrKer) by Anna Kruko on March 7 1991 Thcte responses follow the same sequencc u the EPA comments and specify 10 what extent each of these clariftcations and modifications of the ERA ICChnkal approKh have affected the atuched revision o(

the February U 1991 cost proposal for that revised Work Plan

This memonndum it intended 10 supplement the revised Work Plan by specifyinJ all chanaes in lhe scope of work technical approach and costs 10 be made durinJ implementation o( the revised Work P1an once approved by EPA All pertinent chanaes in field activities (Task 30) set forth in the followinJ responses and cluifications will be specifled (or incorponted by reference 10 this mcmonndum) In Lhe fonhcominJ Field Operations Plan (FOP) for the ERA

A summary or key ERA schedulinJ issues which were discussed by telephone with Anna Knsko on March 28 1991 but could not have been anticipated in her Marth 7 1991 comments also is presented at the end of th is memorandum

Specific RtlpOMMI to EPAI Comments

Comment Nos 1-6 (WP SteUOnt 10 11 12 and 13 pagn 1-4) We concur with both the intent and lanauaampe of all of these recommended chanaes in the text of the revised Wort Plan and will remain coJniwu or them durinJ implementation of the ERA revised Work Plan

Incorporation of these considertions into the ERA project will not affect the budampet

6D61ARC4l01

~-n = = =

Dele Mllth 29 1991 To Robampn Lambe rom Pllinip Rury SubJect Responses EPA Conmenu on and Revixd Cott Propoul for

Althur D Littles Reviled Picillo Farm Eco10Jica1 Rbk Asseument (IRA) Work Plan dated Fcbnwy U 1991

Plgt 1ol

COmment No 7 rt Sectton 13 pege 4) We conceptually 11ndcntand and concur with bodl the ERA philosophy rxprrssed and the technical appro~eh recommended by EPA durinJ our January 24 1991 mecdnJ with rtspect to the iuue ot PoiniS of Exposure (POEJ) We apoiOJizc ror the inadvertent carryover ol this Repon I Guidance Manual lerminoloo (POE) rrorn the oriciftaJ Wort Plan and wish to clarify thai the inrent of the cited tentencc wu mac habitaiSbull wiU be evaJuared 11 likely JB11 (miutaltd u poinll) of uposun durinJ the ERA We erml by uslnJ the term POEs very broMlly bull in a 1p1dal sense bull and 1houk1 have been more explkit by rererrinamp to Contaminated habitall II artu or Cllpolun

Althouamph not upUcitJy staled in either ltlis teerion or the Wori P111 nor in Section 269 (Subwk 69 Quantiry Risks) we will evaluate and quantity risks ol aorJitlismal exposwc on the buis ol both the aveiIJC and maximJm concenndons of the contaminaniJ ol coram detected ror these habha11 or areu or exposun durinamp the initial round of the Rf Phase IB samplina and analysis rrron Thete

-n quantitative soil sediment and sUtface water contamination data wiU be provkled = by the Rl Phase IB team ror rrview by the ERA team durinamp Subwk 13 of the ERA as a basis for aU subtequent ERA subwks ca= Since acceptance or ltlis comment does not chanae our approach to the ERA it does not atrect iu proposed budpt

Comment No I (WP Stet6on 13 llat untence page 5) Hab itat and species inventories will be confined to the PicUio property and to those orrsite are as in which abovemiddotJfOUnd contamination is documeniCd durinamp Phase IB of the RVFS As discussed with A Kruko very sianifKant additional cosu would be incurred if all upland and wetland areas located upPadient and downcndient from onsite sources o( contamination wiltlin the enti~ two square mile study area lrt scrutinized ror visible symptoms or habitat stress

An alternative approach emerainamp from this discussion formally proposed here is 10 limit the orrsite stress search 10 the rollowinamp ponions o( the srudy area

Upland wetland and aquatic habitats surroundina each of the soil sediment and surface water samplinJ stations to be included in the RI Phue IB field program

62l6tARC(l(ll

Dele Mllth 29 1991 To Robampn Lambe rom Pllinip Rury SubJect Responses EPA Conmenu on and Revixd Cott Propoul for

Althur D Littles Reviled Picillo Farm Eco10Jica1 Rbk Asseument (IRA) Work Plan dated Fcbnwy U 1991

Plgt 1ol

COmment No 7 rt Sectton 13 pege 4) We conceptually 11ndcntand and concur with bodl the ERA philosophy rxprrssed and the technical appro~eh recommended by EPA durinJ our January 24 1991 mecdnJ with rtspect to the iuue ot PoiniS of Exposure (POEJ) We apoiOJizc ror the inadvertent carryover ol this Repon I Guidance Manual lerminoloo (POE) rrorn the oriciftaJ Wort Plan and wish to clarify thai the inrent of the cited tentencc wu mac habitaiSbull wiU be evaJuared 11 likely JB11 (miutaltd u poinll) of uposun durinJ the ERA We erml by uslnJ the term POEs very broMlly bull in a 1p1dal sense bull and 1houk1 have been more explkit by rererrinamp to Contaminated habitall II artu or Cllpolun

Althouamph not upUcitJy staled in either ltlis teerion or the Wori P111 nor in Section 269 (Subwk 69 Quantiry Risks) we will evaluate and quantity risks ol aorJitlismal exposwc on the buis ol both the aveiIJC and maximJm concenndons of the contaminaniJ ol coram detected ror these habha11 or areu or exposun durinamp the initial round of the Rf Phase IB samplina and analysis rrron Thete

-n quantitative soil sediment and sUtface water contamination data wiU be provkled = by the Rl Phase IB team ror rrview by the ERA team durinamp Subwk 13 of the ERA as a basis for aU subtequent ERA subwks ca= Since acceptance or ltlis comment does not chanae our approach to the ERA it does not atrect iu proposed budpt

Comment No I (WP Stet6on 13 llat untence page 5) Hab itat and species inventories will be confined to the PicUio property and to those orrsite are as in which abovemiddotJfOUnd contamination is documeniCd durinamp Phase IB of the RVFS As discussed with A Kruko very sianifKant additional cosu would be incurred if all upland and wetland areas located upPadient and downcndient from onsite sources o( contamination wiltlin the enti~ two square mile study area lrt scrutinized ror visible symptoms or habitat stress

An alternative approach emerainamp from this discussion formally proposed here is 10 limit the orrsite stress search 10 the rollowinamp ponions o( the srudy area

Upland wetland and aquatic habitats surroundina each of the soil sediment and surface water samplinJ stations to be included in the RI Phue IB field program

62l6tARC(l(ll

- -Dalr Mh 29 1991 shyTe lobcn Lambe frcww Ptulhp lliry S~ Responses 10 EPA Conments Oft and Revued Colt Propota1 for

Anhur D Uttlc s RcvlJed Picillo Fann Ecolocica Risk Aneumenc (ERA) Work Plan doled Fobnwy U 1991

l ol

Otfsile wetlllld aRU tted wplfldient from the onti~e contarnirwion IOWCet

dM will be idenofted u poccnriaJ middot~rerence area wetlandsbull durinJ Subwk 33 ( Scclicn l l l) ol lhe EM

Any arcu of hlbilat strtu tnverxd while m mws to these other srudy mas

Thit stttu aeatth will focus prinwily on those wetland habitau found downurum of known or IUspeeted contaminant IOWCtl due to the sipiampant pocenrial for both water-mediated 1ranspon and wetland relfntion of various onshe contaminan11

Since these spot checkJ for habillt 11rc11 symptomS will be made only in thole portionbull of the srudy area to be viJiled u part or the CKistina tcope or work for Task 30 the proposed budJet for the revised Work Plan it not affected

Commont No I (SOCUon 13 - S) The ncommendcd dt-tmphasil on the concept ol costly duplication of efforts is noted and this tone will be adopced in fuNre written dcliverUles to EPA

Common Nos 10 ond 11 (Socllonl 212 - 17 end 231 - 11) As recommended by ReJion I SEAT the proposed live tnppinJ of small manmals and ettofishinJ of two onsite ponds for taxonomic invenlar)l purpotts will be eliminaled from the ERA As a rtsull the pnxurement and use of specialized field equipment durina the implementation of Subtasks 31 and 32 is not lndclpoted

Ir prtliminary resulu of the ERA suuesc the need ror these field survey ~eehniques they will be discussed whh the RPM and SEAT as optional subwlu that miamphtloaicaUy be intepted with other optional subtuks such as f~ek samplina of bioloaical tissues for laboratory analysis or contaminant body burdens

Based on consultation with our wildJire bioloJY subcontractor elimination of electrofishina and small mammal trappina will yield a subcontractor budcet reduction of about $290000 This savinas is reflected in the auached revised cost proposal

~-n = =ca

6U61AJICOOI

Dele Mattft 29 1991 To Robert 1ambe o Ptullip Rury Subject RtlpOfiMt 10 EPA COrNntnll on and RtviJed Colt Proplll1 for

Anftur D Utde s Jtemed PiciUo Fann ~al JJsk Auessmcnt (ERA) Won Ptabull dated Fcbrualty ll 1991

~ bull oil

~~=liftNo~=oJS~~11eed November 11 1990 any supplemental bioloPal tissue samplinJ procedurta performed as an optiOnll subwk (Reviled Work Plan Subwk 34) woukl be chosen in consulutioa whh the RPM and SEAT

This ICChnkal 1pprt11eh clariftcadon does not affect the budact for the ttviscd Work Plan

Commont No 13 (SCUOft 212 - 25)We concur lt11t all m1nnalt rather th1n slrictly small marrmalJbull should (and will) be considered 11 potential indicaJOr spccict durina Subwk 61

Thit will noc atrcct the propoted budpt for the ~vixd Work Plan

Commont No 14 (SCUOft 211 - 21) We recopize and bullP compietely that It may prove DCCCIIII) to q11111tity riskJ from non-bioaccumularivc contaminants tuch u volarilc oraankt (VOAt) durln1 completion of Subwk 69 At feCOinizcd in EPAs reference to the second panJfaph or thil section we do plan 10 consider direct contaminant toxicoampokal impacu 10 oraanisms in addition 10 those lmpacll mediated indirectly ttuouh bioaccumulttlon andor food chain contamination

This will 001 affect the proposed budatt for the ~vised Work Plan

EAA Program Scheduling lleuea

The schedule presented in FiJIUe 3middot2 or the Revised ERA Work Plan was developed on the basis or twO assumptions that m no lonacr valid

ADL responses 10 any EPA comments on and EPA approval or the revised Work Plan tnd budJtt would be rorthcomin1 soon enouah for the oriJinally proposed Field Operations Plan (FOP) delivery date or April I 1991 to be met

Data validation for the initial round o( RI Phse 18 physical media samplinc and analysis would be completed prior 10 June I 1991 which is the proposed kickoff date for ERA Subwk 13 bull Review or the Rl Contamination Assessment data

62l61ARCGll

-n = = =

r

Date Mooh 29 1991 To Robtn Lambe rom Ptulhp Rwy Suigtjoet ktsponxs EPA Convne11a 011 and Revited Cott Proposal b

Antlla D Ualamp t levbed Picino Fum EcoampocKal Ri Astcllmnt (ERA) Work Piabull dared Febnwy U 1991

~ogo loll

The delay in EPA approval of this revised Work Plan 10tcttler wuft dM actual RJ Ptlue IB Work Plu implemenurion ~eheduk preclude confOIIftiNI With lhe ERA IChedulc u prexnted in both the oriainal and viJCd Work Plans Complcuon of the ftnt round of the PNM IB conwninadon useslflent is a critical prc~uilhe for a ~ty of the ERA subusks in that only the field ecoqical subwkJ of the ERA can be undcnaken indcpcndendy ol the RI Alate IB ptOIIampm

We therefore concur with the IUJJCidon of the RPM that a revised schedule for the ERA should be developed chat will conform 10 the schtdulirll ronsnina imposed on the ERA by the Plwe IB Rl prop1m This ftvixd ERA IChedule will be duianed in consultarion whh ADLt Project ManaJCr (Robcn N Lambe) once the Ptlue fB achcdulc is ftnalixed fot submission to EPA u part of the FOP for the ERA prosram Based on dbcussions with the Picillo Farm RPM a revbed delivery date for the ERAs FOP of M1y I 1991 Is now proposed

This tubed tchedule for and delayed lmplcmentatioft of certain elcmenu of the ERA prorun however will not affect iu proposed budJet Revisions 10 the ERA schedule will be JUde within the budJet oriJinally proposed ror FOP development

Woril Pion Dovllt l uclglt

The only proposed chanaes in the budampet rar the revised Work Plan presented in the reviled cost proposal (attached) ~ the actual costs incurred since subminal of the reviled Work Plan to EPA on February 11 1991 These costs reflect proreuiontl rime spe nt

Revicwinc and discussinamp EPAs comments bolh intern ally and with the RPM

Discussions with subcontractors about reductions in the scope or work and budJel

Prcparinampfsubminina VrTiuen responses and clarificalions or the revised Work Plan

These actual cosu appear in the budaet ror Subtask 11 u presented in the attached revised cost proposal ror the ERA

-n = cc=

1. barcode 575399
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575399

r

Date Mooh 29 1991 To Robtn Lambe rom Ptulhp Rwy Suigtjoet ktsponxs EPA Convne11a 011 and Revited Cott Proposal b

Antlla D Ualamp t levbed Picino Fum EcoampocKal Ri Astcllmnt (ERA) Work Piabull dared Febnwy U 1991

~ogo loll

The delay in EPA approval of this revised Work Plan 10tcttler wuft dM actual RJ Ptlue IB Work Plu implemenurion ~eheduk preclude confOIIftiNI With lhe ERA IChedulc u prexnted in both the oriainal and viJCd Work Plans Complcuon of the ftnt round of the PNM IB conwninadon useslflent is a critical prc~uilhe for a ~ty of the ERA subusks in that only the field ecoqical subwkJ of the ERA can be undcnaken indcpcndendy ol the RI Alate IB ptOIIampm

We therefore concur with the IUJJCidon of the RPM that a revised schedule for the ERA should be developed chat will conform 10 the schtdulirll ronsnina imposed on the ERA by the Plwe IB Rl prop1m This ftvixd ERA IChedule will be duianed in consultarion whh ADLt Project ManaJCr (Robcn N Lambe) once the Ptlue fB achcdulc is ftnalixed fot submission to EPA u part of the FOP for the ERA prosram Based on dbcussions with the Picillo Farm RPM a revbed delivery date for the ERAs FOP of M1y I 1991 Is now proposed

This tubed tchedule for and delayed lmplcmentatioft of certain elcmenu of the ERA prorun however will not affect iu proposed budJet Revisions 10 the ERA schedule will be JUde within the budJet oriJinally proposed ror FOP development

Woril Pion Dovllt l uclglt

The only proposed chanaes in the budampet rar the revised Work Plan presented in the reviled cost proposal (attached) ~ the actual costs incurred since subminal of the reviled Work Plan to EPA on February 11 1991 These costs reflect proreuiontl rime spe nt

Revicwinc and discussinamp EPAs comments bolh intern ally and with the RPM

Discussions with subcontractors about reductions in the scope or work and budJel

Prcparinampfsubminina VrTiuen responses and clarificalions or the revised Work Plan

These actual cosu appear in the budaet ror Subtask 11 u presented in the attached revised cost proposal ror the ERA

-n = cc=

1. barcode 575399
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 575399