IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE MATTER OF:

.: Docket No.
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC.
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

DECLARATION OF GREGORY D. HAM

I, Gregory D. Ham, here declare as follows:

1. I am currently employed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

("EPA"), Region III, as an On Scene Coordinator ("OSC") in the Hazardous Site Cleanup

Division ("HSCD") and have been so employed since May 21, 2001.

2. I have worked in the HSCD (formerly the Hazardous Waste Management

Division) Superfund Program since May, 1989, first as a Site Assessment Manager, then as a

Remedial Project Manager, before becoming an OSC. Prior to that, Iworked for ten years in the

Air Protection Division at the EPA.

3. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Resource Management

from the Pennsylvania State University in May, 1979.

4. OSCs are responsible for, among other things, investigating and assessing sites,

determining whether a cleanup needs to be done, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites under

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as

amended ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. ~~ 9601-9675, and subpart E of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 ("NCP").

5. I was assigned as the OSC for the Chemical Metals Industries Site ("Site") on or

about May 15, 2006, and currently serve as the OSC for this matter.
 6. The Site consists of two distinct parcels which are located at 2001 and 2103

Annapolis Road in Baltimore, Maryland. I have reviewed the Removal Action Restart

Memor~dum, from Abraham Ferdas, Acting Division Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup

Division, EPA Region III, to Timothy Fields, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response, dated September, 1998 ("Restart Memo")(Attachment A),

which provided me with the following information regarding the history of the Site. The

property at 2001 Annapolis Road ("the Property") was used by Chemical Metals Industries, Inc.,

("CMI") for the storage of miscellaneous solids, large quantities of scrap metal, acids, caustics,

and neutral waste liquids, and was a former Sinclair gas station. The property at 2103 Annapolis

Road ("Parcel 2") was used by CMI as an office, laboratory and manufacturing center. CMI

manufactured copper compounds and recovered precious metals. Parcel 2 is currently owned by

the Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE"), which has a field office building on the

Parcel.

7. The Property is identified in a March 20, 1975 deed by and between M.C.S.

Corporation and Chemicals-Metals Industries, Inc. (CMI), which is recorded in the Land

Records of Baltimore City, Liber R.H.B. 3216, Page 605. (Attachment B).

8. According to the Restart Meino, MDE discovered numerous chemicals in

deteriorated and damaged tanks, containers and drums leaking their contents onto the ground at

the Site, including both the Property and Parcel 2. In addition, CMI had highly acidic and basic

materials incompatibly stored. There were drums labeled "cyanide" adjacent to drums

containing acidic materials which, if mixed together, can potentially release lethal hydrogen

cyanide vapor which could have endangered the health of the residents living adjacent to CM!.

2
 3

9. According to the Restart Memo, upon the request for assistance byMDE, EPA

initiated a removal action at the Site on October 16, 1981, to remove and dispose of all materials

that presented an imminent hazard. At the Property, in addition to removing the abandoned gas

station buildings, tanks, containers and drums containing chemicals, EPA removed contaminated

surface soils, backfilled with clean soil and installed a soil cap and sodded for use as a

playground. At Parcel 2, EPA removed containers, drums and some contaminated soil and

capped the remaining contaminated soil with a 2.5 inch layer of asphalt for use as a parking lot.

10. According to the Restart Memo, in 1998, EPA inspected Parcel 2 and found that

the asphalt cap was deteriorating and cracking, threatening the integrity of the earlier

containment effort. Air sampling showed that contaminants had been released into the MDE

office building threatening the health of the people working there. EPA initiated a second

removal action at Parcel 2 on September 30, 1998, during which it excavated contaminated soils,

backfilled with stone, and then paved over the stone with asphalt.

11. I have reviewed Site files which provided me with information regarding results

from sampling conducted by MDE in 2005 of groundwater monitoring wells located on the

Property and Parcel 2 which showed elevated levels of trichloroethylene ("TCE") and

tetrachloroethylene ("PCE"). Analysis of samples taken from monitoring wells on the Property

detected TCE at 1,393 and 82 parts per billion ("ppb"), and PCE at 1,788 and 455 ppb. (See

summary HSCD Briefing Memo for the Site, Attachment C). (Analysis of samples taken from

monitoring wells on Parcel 2 detected TCE at 13,931 and 366 ppb, and PCE at 3,650 and 496

ppb.) These reported levels are well above the ground water screening levels for TCE and PCE
 4

of 5.3 ppb and 110 ppb, respectively, in EPA's 2002 Vapor Intrusion Guidance. (See Excerpt

from Table 2a from Guidance, Attachment D.)

12. In 2006, MDE installed a vapor intrusion mitigation system in its building on

Parcel 2 to address the ongoing vapor intrusion problem.

13. I have reviewed laboratory data supplied by MDE regarding vapor monitoring

performed in the summer of 2007 and the winter of 2008 by MDE in the subslab soil, the

basement, and the indoor air (first floor) in 4 properties along Annapolis Road between the

Property and Parcel 2. (See summary HSCD Briefing Memo for the Site, Attachment C). High

levels ofTCE and PCE were found at 2009 Annapolis Road, the parcel adjacent to the Property,

with TCE at 20,000 micrograms per cubic meter ("flg/m3'), and PCE at 350,000 flg/m3 in the

subslab soil vapor in both the summer and the winter.

14. Cancer risks in excess of EP A's acceptable risk range (of one excess cancer in

10,000 individuals exposed to site c~mtaminants to one excess cancer in 1,000,000 individuals

exposed, or l x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6) were calculated by MDE for exposure to vapor in the basement

in the summer (2 x 10 -4), and in the basement and first floor in the winter (5 x 10 -4, and

3 x 10 -4, respectively) at 2009 Annapolis Road. (See Attachment C). (Similar cancer

risks were also calculated for the property nearest to Parcel 2, 2047 Annapolis Road, for the

winter only.)

15. The MDE has asked EPA for assistance with regard to vapor intrusion in the

homes and source control at the Property. As the OSC for this Site, I have determined that

additional soil sampling at the Property at 2001 Annapolis Road is necessary in order to
 5

determine if contamination in the soils may still be contributing to vapor intrusion into the

adjacent houses, especially 2009 Annapolis Road. I plan to collect 10 to 20 surface and

subsurface samples at the Property either by hand or with a soil boring rig. Samples will be

collected at the surface, and at two foot depth intervals below the surface to the depth at which

groundwater is encountered. These samples will be analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile

organic compounds, metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls.

16. According to my review of the Maryland Real Property Database, CMI is still the

owner of the Property.

17. The EPA Civil Investigator assigned to the Site, Carlyn Winter Prisk, informed

me via e-mail messages between May 19,2008, and February 12,2009, that: following a

proceeding against CMI in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Civil Division) for Assignment

for the Benefit of Creditors, CMI was dissolved by order of the Court on August 28, 1981; that a

receiver for CMI was appointed by the Court, but that neither the Court nor the receiver has been

able to locate any documents regarding the case; that the receiver had signed a deed conveying

the Site property to the State of Maryland, but that only Parcel 2 and not the Property had been

included in that conveyance; that the State of Maryland Department of Assessments and

Taxation still lists CMI as the owner of the Property, and that the property taxes are still being

billed to CMI; that L&M Associates, Inc. (UL&M") became the sole stockholder of CMI in

March 1980, and that Warren Stein was the president ofCMI as well as the president ofL&M,

and that Lester Feit was the vice president of L&M; that the Maryland corporation with the name

L&M forfeited its charter and no longer exists, and that CMI forfeited its corporate charter in
 6

Maryland as of October 7,1981; and that she had identified a Warren M. Stein, age 53, with an

address in Harwood, Maryland, and a Lester Feit, age 90, with an address in Baltimore,

Maryland.

18. On August 8,2008, I spoke with Warren Stein. He said he was either president or

vice president ofCMI, and he told me that he owned 40% of the company, Lester Feit owned

40%, and Jeanne Mandel owned 20%. Mr. Stein said that he did not know whether Mr. Feit was

still alive. I explained that according to the Maryland Real Property Database, CMI still owns

the Property at 2001 Annapolis Road. He stated that he was under the impression that all of the

property had been taken away from CM!. I explained that we wanted to do some subsurface soil

sampling on the Property. At this time, he stated that it was alright with him. I said I would

confirm that in a letter to him, and that I would let him know how and when we were planning to

proceed.

19. On August 8,2008, I sent Mr. Stein a letter confirming our conversation

regarding access and enclosing an access agreement for his signature.

20. On August 8, 2008, I also called Lester Feit and left a message. I did not ever

hear back from Mr. Feit.

21.. I received a copy of a handwritten letter in reply from Mr. Stein, dated August 13,

2008, in which he stated that he did not give his permission for anything except for me to

research and prove his ownership of and responsibility in this matter.

22. On September 5, 2008, I sent Mr. Stein printouts from the Maryland Real

Property Database showing the ownership information about each of the Site properties. I have

not heard back from him.

 7

23. I have concluded that sampling of contamination levels in surface and subsurface soils at

the Property is needed to determine if contamination from the Property could be contributing to

indoor air levels of contaminants in homes adjacent to the Property. Entry to the Property to

perform the actions described in Paragraph 15, above, is needed for not less than ninety (90)

days from the date entry is authorized.

Date
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Docket No.
CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES, INC.
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

WARRANT AUTHORIZING ENTRY AND SAMPLING OR ARRANGEMENTS FOR

THE SAMPLING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES, POLLUTANTS OR
CONTAMINANTS PURSUANT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980, AS AMENDED

TO: THE UNITED STATES MARSHALL FOR THE DISTRICT OF

MARYLAND; EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III; AND/OR ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES (INCLUDING CONTRACTORS,
ATTORNEYS, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ANY OTHER AGENCY OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)

WHEREAS, application for a warrant for entry and sampling or arrangements for the

sampling of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the portion of the Chemical

Metals Industries ("CMI") Site located at 2001 Annapolis Road in Baltimore, Maryland ("the

Property"), and identified in the attached deed has been made by the United States of America

on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended

("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. S 9601 et seq.;

WHEREAS, applicant United States of America has demonstrated through its application

and the memorandum submitted in support thereof that issuance of this Warrant is constitutional
and based on rights of entry and sampling or arrangements for the sampling of hazardous

substances, pollutants or contaminants that are authorized by statute;

WHEREAS, this Officer finds that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by such

application and memorandum to justify issuance of this Warrant;

THEREFORE, you are hereby authorized to enter the Property, located at 2001

Annapolis Road, Baltimore, Maryland, and described in the attached deed subject to the

following:

(1) Entry authorized hereby shall be for the purpose of sampling or arranging for the

sampling of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants;

(2) Said sampling or arranging for the sampling of hazardous substances, pollutants

or contaminants shall include activities to prepare for additional soil sampling necessary to

determine if contamination in the soils may be contributing to vapor intrusion into the adjacent

houses, especially 2009 Annapolis Road, including the collection of 10 to 20 surface and

subsurface samples at the Site either by hand or with a soil boring rig. Samples will be collected

at the surface, and at two foot depth intervals below the surface to the depth at which

groundwater is encountered. These samples will be analyzed for volatile and semi-volatile

organic compounds, metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls;

(3) The duration of the entry and sampling or arrangements for the sampling of

hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants or the undertaking of related response

measures to protect the public health or welfare or the environment authorized by this Warrant

shall be a reasonable time to enable the authorized parties to complete the activities necessary to

address conditions at the Property;

 3

(4) The United States Marshall is hereby authorized and directed to assist EPA in

such manner as may be reasonably necessary and required to execute this Warrant and all

provisions contained herein.

A prompt return of this Administrative Warrant showing completion of the entry and

inspection and sampling of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants contemplated

hereby shall be made within ninety (90) days of this date.

Dated this __ day of May, 2009.

Susan K. Gauvey
United States Magistrate Judge
 ....,
v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia. Pennsvlvania 19103-2029

SEP 29 Ega
SUBJECT: Transmittal of a Request-for an Exemption to the 12-
month statutory limit and a ceiling increase for a
Removal Action Restart at the Chemical Metals
Industries

FROM:
Abraham Fcrdas. Acting Division Director
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (3HSOO) ~
//? /1 r_-=:..
~
j
'-
TO: Timothy Fields, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5201)
THRU: Stephen Luftig, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5201)
ATTN: Thomas R. Scheckells, Director ~
Region 3/8 Accelerated Response Center (520 IG) 0.
ISSW: \ '1 f \ /l
I have approved the attached Removal Action Restart request that pertains t
Chemical Metals Industries Inc. Site, Site ID# 27, located at 2100 Annapolis R
e 'L /
• Baltimory
Maryland ("Site"). The action memorandum requests an exemption to the 12-month statutory
limit and additional funding to mitigate the threat posed by the contamination at the Site.

A removal assessment performed in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"). 40. CFR part 300. has identified a threat to the
public health and the environment posed by the hazardous substance contamination that remains
at the Site. The Site is currently owned by the Maryland Department of the Environment
("MDE") which has a field office building on the Site. The initial removal action taken at the
Site in 1981 placed an asphalt cap over contaIninated soil. The On-Scene Coordinator ("OSC")
has inspected the Site and found that the asphalt capping is deteriorating and cracking,
threatening the integrity of the earlier containment effort. Without further efforts to remedy the
initial response action, contamination will be released into the environment threatening public
health and welfare. Air samples have shown that Site contaminants have been released into the
MDEoffice building threatening the health of the people working there and are the same
contaminants as in soil samples taken by EPA. It is apparent that the original removal response
action (asphalt cap) is deteriorating exposing the hazardous substances beneath. Further
deterioration of the asphalt cap will further expose the contaminated soil to direct contact and
allow migration of the contamination otT-site by runoff. and by airborne contaminated dust,
threatening public health and welfare through inhalation and di.rectcontact. The OSC's review

CustOmer Service Hotline: 1-8()().438-2474

~ R 21.ilJ 00
of the Post Removal So.. Control measure for the initial Remo",," Action found that it was no
longer effective for the Site. Th.e OSC has evaluated the Site conditions and proposes removal of
the contaminated soils under the deteriorating cap to eliminate, abate and/or mitigate the threat
posed to public health, welfare and the environment by the contamination at the Site

Additional funds are necessary at the Site to prevent further migration of contamination.
Pursuant to Delegation of Authority 14-3 the Director of the Hazaldous Site Cleanup Division
has the authority to approve Removal Activities to continue past the 12-month statutory limit.
The OSC is requesting a restart project ofS300,000 bringing the site ceiling to 550,000.

A~hment: Request for Removal Restart-FWlding Request

,qR2uU002
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
84rChestDut Building'
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191074431

SEP 29 1198
SUBJECT: Request for exemption of the 12.Month Statutory limit and a ceiling
increase for a Removal Action Restart at the Chemical Metals Industries'lnc. Site,
Site ID# 27, Baltimore, Maryland

FROM: ,e',.Step!leD D. Jarvela. Oll-:SccneCOOrdiDa~~

~~ Removal Rc:5pQnseSecttOQ(3HS31) .

TO: .. Abraham Ferdas, Director' .

Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (3HSOO)

I. PURPOSE.

An exemption to the 12-month statutoryIimit and. additional funding is requested to

implement a Removal Action Restart pursuant to Section 104(c)(l) of the Comprebensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended C'CERCLA") , 42 U.S.C.f
9604(c)(1). This request for a Removal Action Restart pertains to the Chemical Metals Industries
Site ("Site"), Site ID#27, located at 2100 Annapolis Road, Baltimore, Maryland. In 1982, the State
of Maryland took custody of the Site and has been monitoring ground wa~r conramiDation and
performing operation and maintenance on the cap installed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(" EPA"). The recent significant deterioration and cracking of the cap is beyond the fmancial
capacity of the State and has prompted the S~te of Maryland to request EPA assistance.

The On-Scene Coordinator ("OSC") has determined tbatbecause the conditions at the Site
meet the Removal criteria set forth in Section 300.415 of the NatiOnal Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan C'NCP"), 40 C.F.R. f 300.415, additioD81 funds in $e amount of
$300,000 arc needed to mitigate the threat posed by the remaining contamination at the Sire. This
will bring the total Site ceiling to S550,OOO.

II. SITE CONDmONS AND BACKGROUND

A. Site Description

1. RemoYal Site Evaluation: The OSC has conducted a review of the Site files and bas
performed an onsite investigation of the Site .. The Site evaluation has found that
the work performed during the initial Removal Action is deteriorating and that
contamination remains exposed at the Site. The OSC has determined that funher
Removal Action is required to mitigate the threat posed by the exposed
contamination at the Site. .

ilR2uu003
 2. Physical Location and Site Characteristics: The Site is located at 2100 Annapolis
Road, Baltimore, Maryland .. The Site is siwated in the Westport section of the city
amid residential, commercial and light industrial areas. The Site is owned by the _
State of Maryland, and is operated by the Maryland Department of the
Environment ("MOE"), which uses the Site as the field office for the Emergency
Response Division, Teelmical and Regulatory Services Administration.

3. Release or Threatened Release" into the Enyironment of a Hazardous Substance, or

PoJluWlt or CODtamipant: The results of the file review and Site sampling have
confIrmed the presence of 1,1 "Dich1oroethene ("DCE"), Tetraehloroethene
("PCE"), Tricloroethene ("TCE'') and lead contamination at the Site. The primary
concern is charactemed as surface and suJ>.surface contamination around the MOE
field office. The routes of exposure are through inhalation of vapors and dUsts,
and the pOtential direct contact with DeE, PCE, TCE and lead contamination:
There is a threatened release ofairbome.contaminated dust and vapors into the.
environment at the Site. DCE, PCE, TCE, ancllead are hazardous substances as
defIned in Section 101 (14) ofCERCLA as amended, 42 U.S.C. i 9601 (14), because
DCE, PCE, TCE, and. lead are listed hazardous substances at 40 C.F.R ~ 302.4.

4. National Priority List ("NFL '') Status: The Site is currently a non-NPL site and is
not exp;eeted to become an NPL site.

S. MIPS, Pictures, and Other Graphic Repn:sentatiON:A location map and Site map

B.
are included as Attachment 1.

Actions to Date
-
I. Previous Actions; In 1981, Chemical Metals Industries, Inc. ("CMI"), the owner
and operator of the Site. was no longer in business and the facility was abandoned
and unoccupied. MOE discovered numerous chemicals in deteriorated and
damaged tanks, containers and drums leaking their contents onto the ground at the
Site. ln8dditioD, eM! had highly acidic and basic materials incompatibly stored.
There were drums labeled cyanide adjacent to drums containing acidic materials
which if mixed together can potentially release JetbaJ hydrogen cyanide vapor
which could have endangered the health oithe residents living adjacent to eM!.
MDE was financially unable to handle a cleanup effort of that size. In 1981, EPA
initiated a Removal Action in.response to a request from MDE fo~ technical and
financial assistance .. This action involved the initial removal and disposal of all
materials that represented an imminent hazard. CMI was broken down into Site 1
and Site 2. Site 1 was the storage area and Site 2 was the office, laboratory and
manufacturing center for eMI, which is the current location of the MOE field
office. Removal Actions at eMI ceased when all materials of concern were

.. 1

AR2lJUOGu
 removed from the two sites, thereby ending the immediate threat of fire and
explosion. Contaminated surface soils were removed from Site I, backfilled with
clean soil and sodded, for use as a playgroWld. Surface contamination was
removed from Site 2 and the remaining contaminated soils were capped with a 2.5
inch layer of asphalt for use as a parking lot. The ose did not perform ground
water extraction and treatment because there were no drinking water wells nearby.
The State of Maryland retained jurisdiction over monitoring the ground water
conuur.rination. .

2. . Current Actions; The ase has inspected the Site and found that the asphalt
capping is deteriorating and cracking at Site 2. This situation is threatening the
integrity of the earlier containment effort. Without.turther efforts to remedy the
initial response action, contamination will be relcasCd into the environment
threatening public health and welfare. Air samples have shown that Site
contaminants have been released into the MDE office building threatening the
health. of the people working inside and are the same contaminants as in soil
samples taken by EPA. It is apparent that the original removal response action
(asphalt cap) is deteriorating exposing the hazardous substances beneath. Further
deterioration of the asphalt cap will further expose the contaminated soil to direct
contact and allow migration of the contamination off-site by runoff,. and by
airborne contaminated dust, threatening public health and welfare through
inhalation and direct contact. The OSC's review of the Post Removal Site
Control measure for the initial Removal Action found that it was no longer
,. effective for the Site. The OSC has evaluated the Site conditions and propoSes
removal of the contaminated soils Wlder the deteriorating cap to eliminate. Ilbate
and/or mitigate the threat posed to public health, welfare and the environment by
the contamination at the Site. The area that will be excavated will then be
backfilled with stone, and paved with asphalt Once the remaining contamination
has been removed the need for the construction and long term maintenance of a
cap will be eliminated.

c. State aDd Local Authorities' Roles

1. State and Local Actjons to Date: In 1982, correspondence between EPA and
MOE laid out the role of eac~ agency with respect to this Site (Attachment 2).
The recent significant de.terioration and cracking of the cap is beyond the fmancial
capacity of the State, which has prompted MOE to request EPA assistance. The
Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA'') between EPA and MDE outlines the role
of each agency with respect to this Removal Action (Attachment 3).

2. Potentjal for Continued Swe and Local Response; MOE has affirmed its
position that after EPA has completed the removal action at the Site, MOE will
asswne future responsibility for the .continued ground water monitoring, provide

2
 for future operation and maintenance of the paved area, continue monitoring
residuaJ contamination, if any, WIder the office building, and assume _
responsibility for any and all future work necessary and appropriate at the Site. -
III. THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE OR THE ENVIRONMENT,
AND STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

Section 300.415 of the NCP lists factors to be considered in detennining the

appropriateness of a Removal Action~ Paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (iv), (v), and (vii) of Section 300.415
directly apply as follows to the conditions at the CM! Site.

300.415 (b)(2)(i) "Actual or potential exposure to nearby human populations,

animals or the food chain from hazardous substances or
pollutants or contaminants"

The Site is located in Baltimore, Maryland. The initial Removal Action implemented
consisted of removal of drums and tank wastes and placement of an-asphalt cap over the
remaining contaminated soil at Site 2. The asphalt capping is deteriorating and
cracking. lbis situation is threatening the integrity of the earlier containment effort.
Without further efforts to remedy the initial response action, contamination will be
released into the environment threatening public health and welfare. Air samples have
shown that Site contaminants have been released into the MOE office bui,lding
threatening the health of the people working inside and are the same contaminants as in
soil samples taken by EPA. It is apparent that the original removal response action
(asphalt cap)-is deteriorating exposing the hazardous substances beneath. Further
deterioration of the asphalt cap will further expose the contamjnat~ soil to direct
contact and allow migration of the contamination off.site by runoff, and by airborne
contaminated dust, threatening public hea1~ and welfare through inhalation and direct
contact.

300.415 (b)(2)(iv) "High levels of hazardous substances or pollutants or

contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface that may
migrate"

Analytical data collected in Novem~r 1997 shows surface and sub.surface .

contamination of DCE, PCE, TeE and lead. Further deterioration of the asphalt cap
will further expose the contaminated soil to direct COnt3cland allow migration of the
contamination off.site by runoff, and by airborne contaminated dust, threatening the
public health, welfare or the environment. - -

~R2uU006
 300.415 (b)(2)(v) "Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances
to migrate or be released"

Precipitation will infiltrate through the deteriorated and cracked asphalt cap and
accelerate migration of contamination into the groundwater, cause vapors to.be pUshed
through the foundation and into the interior of the MOE field office, and further
deteriorate the asphalt cap which will further expose the contaminated soil to direct
contact and allow migration of the contamination off-site by nmoff, and by airborne .
contaminated dust, threatening public health, welfare or .the environment. The,
Analytical Summary T~blest which shows the contamination remaining at the Site, is
included in Attachment 4.

300.415 (b)(2)(vii) "The availability of other appropriate Federal or State

response mechanism to respond to the release"

The MOE has requested EPA assistance to address the current Site conditions because it
does not have sufficient resources. However, MOE has agreed that after 'EPA has
completed its Remov8J Action at the Site, it will take future responsibility for post
removal Site control measures pursuant to the MOA between EPA and ~E.

IV. PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED COSTS

The proposed action is intended to mitigate the threat posed to the public health and the
environment from the release of contamination from the Site.

A. Proposed Actions

I. Proposed Action Description: The asc has evaluated the Site conditions and
proposes to remove the contaminated soils to mitigate the threat posed to human
health and the environment by the exposed contamination, backfill the area, and
pave it with asphaJt.

2. Contribution to Remedial PerfOODanCC:The initial Removal Action provided

containment of the contamination in the soil. This proposed action is to remove
the exposed soil contamination to eliminate, abate and/or mitigate the threat posed
by the contamination, backfiJl the area with stone, and pave it with asphalt. This
action is consistent with the Removal Actions in the NCP set forth at 40 C.F.R.
~ 300.415(e)~ The Site is currently a non-NPL site and is not expected to become
an NPL site. This proposed Removal Action is appropriate to meet the immediate
threat to the public health and the environment to satisfy the need for long-tenn .
protection at the Site. .

qR2u0007
 3. ARABs: The proposed Removal Actions set forth in this Memorandum will
comply with all applicable, relevant, and appropriate environmental and health
requirements, to the extent practicable. _

4. Prqjeet Schedule: The proposed scope of work will require 4-8 weeks of on-site
activity to UnJ)lement. There will be additional down time to accommodate bid
package preparation and acquisition requirements for the Site .

.B. EstimatedCoso

Extramural Costs

ReiiOOaI AlloWance COsts:

Cleanup Contractor Costs
Inter-Agency Agreement Costs

Other Extramural Costs:

Total SAT A Costs
Subtotal
Extramural Costs Contingency

Total Extramural Costs

Intramural Costs

Direct Costs
Indirect Costs

Total Intramural

TOTAL. RESTART PROJECT

CEILING $300,000

PREVIOUS PROJEer CEILING (1981) $250.000

PROPOSED TOTAL SITE FlJNl)ING AUTHORIZATION S550,000

V. EXPECTED CHANGE IN THE SITUATION SHOULD ActION BE DELAYED

OR NOT TAKEN

If no further Rellioval Action is taken or this action is delayed, the threat J)9sed by the
soil contamination will continue. The release of contaminants into the environDient threaten
public health and welfare. Funher deterioration of the asphalt cap will expose the contaminated

itR2uU008
soil to direct contact which will allow migration of the contamination off-site by runoff, and by
airborne contaminated dust, threatening the public health and welfare through inhalation and
direct contact. Uncontrolled releases ofDCE, PCE, TCE and lead contamination are expected to
continue into the environment if the deteriorated cap is not addressed.

VI. ENDANGERMENT DETERMINATION

Actual or"threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment at or from

this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action proposed in this Action
Memorandwn may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.

VII. EXEMPTION FROM STATVTORY LIMITS

Section 104(c)(I) ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9604 (c)(l), provides that unless exempted,
the Federal response cannot continue after 52,000,000 has been'obligated or. 12 months from the
date of the initial response action. Pursuant to Sectioh l04(c)(l)(A), 42 U.S;C. i 9604(c)(l)(A),
and as set forth in 40 C.F.R ~ 300.41S(b)(S)(i) of the NCP, the Site meets the emergency
exemption criteria for exceeding the 12 month statutory limit.

A. EmergencyExemption- Sectionl04(c)(1)(A)ofCERCLA, 41 U.S.C.

A 9604(c)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R f JOO.415(b)(S)(i)
Section 104(c)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. ~ 9604(c)(l)(A)(i)

"COotlDUe
. d response actions
'.' are mUDed'late 1y reqUIre
. dr.
to preyenLmut. ..
or IDJUiale an
emen~ency ...••

The action proposed is required to mitigate the threat to hwnan health, welfare or the
environment posed by the remaining exposed soil contamination on-site. A review of
Site conditions and Site sampling have shown that the "cap" surface is deterior:ating as
evidenced by scattered areas of cracked and broken asphalt. nus situation is threatening
the integrity of the earlier containment effort. Without further efforts to remedy the
initial response action, contamination will be released into the environment thfeatening
public health and welfare. Air samples haveshoWl1 that Site contaminants have been
released into the MDE office building threatening the health of the people working
inside and are the same contaminants as in soil samples taken by EPA. It is apparent
that the original removal response action (asphalt cap) is deteriorating exposing the
hazardous substances beneath. Further deterioration of the asphalt cap will further
expose the contaminated soil to direct contact and allow migratio~ of the contamination
off-site by runoff, and by airborne contaminated dust, threatening public health and

6
 .welfare through inhalation and direct contact. Uncontrolled releases of DeE, PCE,
TeE and lead contamination are expected to continue into the enviromnent if the
deteriorated cap is not addressed.

Section l04(c)(lXA), 42 U.S.C. ~ 960~(c)(1)(A)(ii)

"There is an immediate risk to public health Qrwelfare Qrthe environment, ,"

The primary concern is characterized as surface and sub-surface soil contamination

around the MOE field office. A review of Site conditions bave shown that the "cap"
surface is deteriQrating, as evidenced by scattered areas of cracked and broken asphalt.
Precipitation will infiltrate thrQugh the deteriorated and cracked asphalt cap and
accelerate migration of contamination into the groundwater. cause vapors to be pushed
through the foundation and into the interior oCthe MDEfield office. and further
deteriorate the asphalt cap which will further expose the contaminated soil to direct
contact and allow migration of the contamination off-site by nmoff. and by airborne
contaminated dust, threatening public health; welfare or the envi,ronment Uncontrolled
releases of DCE, PCE. TCE and lead contamination are expected to continue into the
environment if the deteriorated cap is not addressed.

Section 104(c)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. ~ 9604(c)(l)(A)(iii)

"",Assistance will not otherwise be prQyided on a timely basis,"

. At this time MOE does not possess theresQurces to mitigate the current conditions at
the Site. The State is wiJIing to accept future responsibility for all future actions at the
-
Site as set forth in the MOA between EPA and MDE.

VII. OUTSTANDING POLICY ISSUES

None.

VIII. ENFORCEMENT

See Attachment 5 for the Confidential Enforcement Addendum.

IX. RECOMMENDATION

nus decision document represents the selected Removal Action for the Chemical
Metals Industries, Inc. Site, in Baltimore, Maryland, developed in accordance with CERCLA as
amended, and not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.

~R2UUOIII
 Because conditions at the Site continue to meet the criteria set fonh in Section 300.415
of the NCP for a Removal Action, I recommend YOW' approval of the Request for Removal
Restart at the Site. As ase, I have determined that additional funds in the amount of $300,000
is required to complete the proposed Removal Action.

APPROVED: ~t
ABRAHAM FERDAS, DIRECTOR
..
DATE: ~(J:ihy
•.
. .
HAZARDOUS SITE CLEANUP DMSION

DISAPPROVED: DATE: _
ABRAHAM FERDAS, DIRECfOR
HAZARDOUS SITE CLEANUP DMSION. . .

Attachments:

1. Maps and sketches

2. Correspondence between EPA and MOE
3. Memorandum of Understanding
4. Analytical Summary Tables
5. Confidential Enforcement Addendum

tlR2UUO'