THIRD FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORT.pdf

THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR

VIENNA TETRACHLOROETHENE SUPERFUND SITE

WOOD COUNTY, WEST VIRINIA

DECEMBER 2019

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Paul Leonard, Acting Director Superfund & Emergency Management Division U.S. EPA, Region 3

Date

Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBR.EVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

I. INTRODUCTION

Site Background

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FOR.M

II . RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action Response Actions ............... :

Status of lmple1nentation Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

UL PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews Data Review Site Inspection

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection sti 11 val id?

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

YI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

0 TH ER FINDINGS

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST ............. .... ........................................................ ...................... ..................... A-1 APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY ................................ ........................................ ............. ..... .. ................... B-1 APPENDIX C-May 14, 20 15 CITY OF VIENNA ORDINANCE ................... ... ........ .. ........... ..... ... .. ........... .... . C-1 APPENDIX D- PRESS NOTICE .......... .... .... ..... ........... ............... .................... .... ............... ................................ D-1 APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS ......................................................... ........................... .................... ........ E- 1 APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST ................. ..................... .... .............. ......... .. ..... ... ................... F-1 APPEN DIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS .. ........... ... ................ ....... ..... ... ..... ............................................... G-1 APPENDIX H -TIME SERIES GRAPHS - PCE CONCENTRATIONS ............. ...... ... .. .. .... . ... .. ...... .. ... H- 1 APPENDIX I - GROUNDWATER SAMLING RESULTS . ... .... ... . .. .. ... . ...... .. ..... .. ..... ...... .. .... . .. .. ... ... 1- 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AS/SVE

BGS

CERCLA

CFR

CIC

coc

EPA

EX

FS

FYR

IC

LTRA

MCL

MW

NCP

NPL

O&M

OU

PCE

PW

R1

RAO

ROD

RPM

TCE

TU

UU/UE

UVB

VI

voe

WVDEP

Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction Below Ground Surface Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations Community Involvement Coordinator Contaminants of Concern United States Environmental Protection Agency Extraction Well Feasibi lity Study Five-Year Review l nstitutional Control Long-Tern, Response Action Maximum Contam inant Level Monitoring Well National Contingency Plan National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance Operable Unit Tetrachloroethene Production Well Remedial Investigation Remedial Action Objective Record of Decision Remedial Project Manager Trichloroethene Treatment Unit Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure Unterdruck Verdampfer Brunnen Vapor Intrusion Volatile Organic Compound West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose ofa Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance ofa remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings and conclusions ofreviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabi lity Act (CERCLA) Section 121 , consistent w ith the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.

This is the thirq FYR for the Vienna Tetrachloroethene Superfund S ite (the Site). The triggering action for this policy review is the completion date of the previous (second) FYR on December 22, 20 14. This FYR has been prepared due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the S ite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The Site consists of one operable unit (OU), which addresses groundwater .contamination.

EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Chris Vallone led the FYR. Participants included EPA community involvement coordinator (CIC) Meg Keegan, EPA technical support staff Ayowale Ayodele, Nancy Rios-Jafolla and Kimberly Plank, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) project manager William Huggins. The review began on 4/25/20 I 9.

Site Background

The Site is located in Wood County, West Virginia within the c ity of Vienna (see Figure I). The city of Parkersburg is immediately south of Vienna. Vienna, a residential, industrial, and commerc ial community is approximately three-square miles in area. The S ite is on the eastern bank of the Ohio River, which flows southwards in the vicinity of the S ite.

The Site consists of areas affected by two confirmed, separate and distinct sources o fTetrachloroethene (PCE) (Vienna Cleaners and Busy Bee Cleaners), as well as a suspected third source which has not been confinned via del ineation sampling (see Figure 2). Vienna Cleaners started operating in the late 1940s and ceased operations in the mid I 990's. lt was located at the intersection of 301

" Street and 51 " Avenue, approximate ly two blocks west of

City Hall. Busy Bee Cleaners operated from the 1960s to the early 2000s. It was located at the intersection of

" Street and Grand Central Avenue. The third source, a suspected former dry-cleaning facility, which could not be substantiated in county records, was reportedly located along 291

" street, between Grand Central A venue and 3 rd Avenue. The surrounding area consists of sing le-family dwellings and private businesses. The former Johns Manville industrial faci lity is downgradient of the Site, adjacent to the River.

Groundwater below the city of Vienna is the primary drinking water supply for the municipal ity. The shallowest aquifer in the Vienna area is the Ohio River a lluvium aquifer. Groundwater in the aquifer is derived from infi ltration of precipitation and river water. There is hydraulic connectivity between the river and the abutting alluvial strata. The water table fluctuations correspond with changes in the river stage. In the site area, the water table is approximately 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) adjacent and east of the Ohio River. The aquifer is unconfined and highly transmissive.

Figure I : Site Vicinity Map co..

,I

I •

1~ ,,,,., , .

t K ;;, fi ~ q <f t .-l.>~I t'J,,..- :Ji!§}) ~ fl )1 ' • ¥ •

:?. f.

:.l>· ,. • • ~.

I) '• r, . ~'/.,:

V . !I• /; _., , v~ ~L:

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines wilhin the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for infommtional purposes only regarding EPA ·s response actions at the Site.

Figure 2: Detailed Site Map

Vienna Tetrachloroethene Site

Source Areas Treatment Unit (TU) Building

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map arc approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for inrormational purposes only regarding EPA's response actions at the Site.

Appendix A provides a list of additional Site resources. Appendix B provides the Site's chronology of events.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Vienna Tetrachloroethene

EPA ID: WVD98879840I

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs?

No

Lead agency: EPA

Author name: Chris Vallone

Author affiliation: EPA Region 3

Has the Site achieved construction completion?

Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Review period: 4/25/2019 - 12/20/20 19

Date of site inspection: 5/ I 5/2019

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 3

Triggering action date: 12/22/2014

Due date (five years after triggering action date) : 12/22/20 19

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action

PC£, a dry-cleaning solvent, was detected in four of twelve Vienna municipal drinking water production wells - PW-VI, PW-V2, PW-V3 and PW-V4 in 1992. The Vienna Cleaners and Busy Bee Cleaners were identified as the probable sources of the groundwater contamination. The city of Vienna sampled for and detected PCE at high levels in surface and subsurface soils at Vienna Cleaners, in groundwater beneath the facil ity, and in city sewers in the immediate vicinity of Vienna Cleaners. Lower, but significant concentrations of PCE were detected in the groundwater near Busy Bee Cleaners.

In 1992, the four affected production wells were shut down and two others appeared to be threatened by the unchecked movement of the PCE plume. EPA, using removal authorities, constructed two new replacement municipal wells in 1993 after the contaminated wells were shut down. EPA proposed the Site for listing on the Superfund Program 's National Priorities List (NPL) on Apri l 23, 1999 and final ized the Site on the NPL on October 22, 1999.

Sampling conducted during the Site's remedial investigation (RI) identified a PCE groundwater plume extending from the source area near Vienna Cleaners to the northwest. A less extensive plume associated with the Busy Bee Cleaners source area was also identified. A total of 37 groundwater wells were installed at shallow, intennediate, and deep intervals, as part of the investigation of the extent of the groundwater impacts. Shallow wells were typically set at 60 to 65 feet bgs, intennediate wells at 80 feet bgs and deep wells at 90 feet bgs.

A human health risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and environment effects from exposure to contaminants associated with the S ite. The risk assessment identified exposure of future residents to groundwater through ingestion, inhalation, and dennal contact as the potential exposure pathway of concern. Three chemicals were identified as contributing to overall groundwater risks and are the Chemicals of Concern (COCs). Please see Table I for a list of COCs.

Table I : Contaminants of Concern

Medium Contaminants

Trichloroethene (TCE) Groundwater Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

1,2-Dichloroethane ( 1,2-DCA)

Soil PCE

Notes:

Source: EPA's 2002 Record of Decision

Response Actions

In 2000, the EPA removal program designed a pilot Unterdruck Verdampfer Brunnen (UVB) system to remove subsurface contamination using a single air sparge/soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) well. UVB, Gennan for Vacuum Vaporizing Well, is an in-situ groundwater remediation technology that combines air-lift pumping and air stripping to clean aquifers contam inated with volatile compounds. The system was located in a smal l build ing adjacent to Vienna Cleaners and began removing contam ination from an approximately 1,500 square foot area of soil in March 200 1.

EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site in September 2002. The RO D identifies Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the S ite as follows:

I. Reduce concentrations of COCs in groundwater to levels that result in less than or equal to a I x 10·5 cumulative excess cancer risk and a Hazard Index less than 1.0 and achieve drinking water standards (maximum contaminant levels, MCLs). Successfully achieving the cumulative excess cancer risk goal wi ll result in concentrations for each COC decreasing at least to its respective MCL of 5 micrograms per liter (µg/L).

2. Prevent/minimize human exposures, including ingestion, inhalation and dennal contact, by current and future residents and industrial workers to contaminated groundwater.

3. Minimize the migration of contaminated groundwater into the Ohio River through treatment to achieve risk-based levels identified in RAO I above.

The remedy selected in the Site's 2002 ROD included:

I. Implementation of an in-situ AS/SVE system to reduce groundwater concentrations of COCs to risk based drinking water levels.

2. Continued operation of the UVB system to reduce concentrations of PCE in soi ls to the point where soils no longer contribute contamination to the groundwater at levels above the MCL of 5 µg/L.

3. Implementation of institutional controls (zoning restrictions, county ordinances or local ordinances) to ensure that no one uses the groundwater for potable or hygienic uses such as drinking, bathing or cooking until cleanup levels are achieved.

Status of Implementation

The soil component of the remedy was initially addressed by the pilot UVB system installed by EPA's Removal Program. The UVB system began removing subsurface soil contamination in the area of the Vienna Cleaners facility in 2001. EPA's Removal Program reconfigured the system in June 2004 with the addition of a groundwater air stripping wel l at the UVB well location and the addition of two soil vapor circulation wells. The purpose of this was to incorporate the UVB system into the overall remedial action of AS/SVE at the Site.

Operation of the EPA Removal Program's pilot UVB system ceased in 2005 and the remedial action began.

The remedy consists of three discrete in-situ AS/SVE treatment units (TUs). Currently, there are two active treatment systems (TU- I and TU-3), and one idle treatment system (TU-2). A fourth treatment unit (TU-4), was decommissioned in 2009. EPA completed construction of the TUs and began operation in July 2005. Below outl ines the three active TUs and one former TU and their relationship to the Site. See Figure 3 below for an overall layout of the TUs.

Vienna Cleaners Source Area - TU- I

This area is located east of Grand Central A venue. The objective of TU- I is to remove the highest percentage of the contaminant mass located under and near the Vienna Cleaners building and to minimize further migration away from this source area. TU-I consists of23 AS wells and nine SVE wells, including the two existing SVE wel ls previously installed by the EPA Removal Program. The AS/SVE process equipment includes two air compressors, an AS well manifold header to distribute the pressurized air to the sparge wells, an SVE well manifold header to collect the vapors, an air/water separator to remove water from the extracted vapors, an SVE blower, and two vapor phase granular activated carbon (VPGAC) units operating in series to remove contaminants from the extracted vapor prior to discharge to the atmosphere through an exhaust stack. The equipment is housed in a metal building on the Vienna Cleaners property.

Vienna Well Protection Area - TU-2

This area is located directly southeast of the City of Vienna' s production wells PW-V7 and PW-V8. The objective ofTU-2 is to provide a sparge curtain on the down gradient edge of the Vienna Cleaners plume to protect the city of Vienna's drinking water production wells PW-V7 and PW-V8. TU-2 consists ofan AS system, with 15 AS wells located perpendicular to the plume gradient along River Road and 32nd Street. Given the low levels of contaminant expected to migrate into this area, no SVE is required, as there would be very little contaminant mass present to be captured in the vapor phase. The air compressor and AS well manifold header are located in a metal treatment bui lding on the west side of River Road near PW-V7 and PW-V8. TU-2 has never operated and is currently on stand-by status in case the plume migrates towards the supply wells. The TU is turned on periodically to ensure it remains functional and ready for operation.

Vienna Cleaners Central Plume Area - TU-3

This area is located west of Grand Central A venue, downgradient of the Vienna Cleaners source area.

The objective ofTU-3 is to address the high levels of contaminant mass in the central portion of the Vienna Cleaners plume. TU-3 consists of AS, SVE, and hydraulic control systems, with 37 AS wells, 17 SVE wells, and one groundwater extraction well (EW- 1) for hydraulic control. A sparge curtain was installed on 3rd A venue to intercept the groundwater plume before it migrates under the former manufacturing facil ity. The TU-3 AS/SVE process equipment includes two air compressors, an AS well manifold header, an SVE well manifold header, an air/water separator, an SVE blower, two VPGAC units operating in parallel, and an exhaust stack. TU-3 also contains the treatment system to treat groundwater extracted from EW-1. Groundwater pumped from the hydraulic control well (EW- 1) passes through a treatment train consisting of bag filters and two VPGAC units in series. Treated groundwater is d ischarged to the City stonn drain system adjacent to the treatment buildi ng that drains to the west and empties into the Ohio River. The metal treatment building is located on the north side of 29th Street, west of the church parking lot.

Busy Bee Cleaners Area - TU-4 (Decommissioned; no longer present)

This area is located adjacent to the Busy Bee Cleaners building and along 27th Street. The objective of T U-4 was to address the Busy Bee Cleaners plume, which is separate from the Vienna Cleaners plume.

TU-4 consisted of AS and SVE systems, with six AS wells and three SVE wells. The process equipment included an air compressor, an AS well manifold header, an SYE well manifold header, an air/water separator, an SVE blower, two VPGAC units operating in series, and an exhaust stack. The unit was decommissioned and relocated to the Ravenswood PCE Superfund Site in 2009 because the concentrations of COCs at Busy Bee Cleaners plume had largely decreased.

Figure 3: Overall Layout of Treatment Units f I

I

Legend Remedial Action Well Locations

1a Gtowidw•l•r Ent.achon

• GrotaiOW•l•r Mon11or1ng

• Oecomml:nioned Monllorlng e Form et ManL.tadumg Pl.Ml ProdUdlon

Munle.,., PtoCIUdlOn e Air Sp111g1

■ Sol V1por EJClr•cUon

• Sol Vtpo, tlonlt041ng

• • TU2 - Well'Protection Area• ·-. -:.

• AngltdAlr Spug• W•U

Ro ..

11111 Sourn Building

1111 Tru1m1n1 Buflding

Al Otr.r Bulcl1r191 •

• • • . •'• • i■ -■•

I

I

I

I

I •-- ~

• s . / TIJ3 -Central Plume Area

I

·• · · -- -.,,◊ • - - . • • 0 •

'I

,I • --, I = ... 1 .Joi,, s~ ... -e e / It■ e • • • •0 . •~.. . ~ l .

• ' e / e •■ •

1 •■ •O • Vienn<1

• • • • ■ • ' ¥ ~ Cleaners

• I • • • Suspei ted • I • -# • ~ • Third Source • ■ • ■ • O "-~---J ru1 Bulldlr,o I ,!ft . ,?~ . .

'./ s~~ffr-,..

~ • TU1 - Vienna Cleaners

1# 1 Source Area 1J' i 27\h STREIT

~ t> - TU4 - Busy Bee Cleaners

• • • Source Area

Ffi .L I IJ ,,0 '"J{ I 2,A,{J ,,l 15i!51!!!!!!!!!!1iiiiiiiiiil!!!!!!!!5iiiiiiiiiil, ...

Formtrl\.M BUllclir,g

EPA completed the Final Long-Tern1 Response Action (L TRA) Summary Report on May 31, 2017 and turned operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedy over to the WVDEP. Prior to WVDEP assuming the O&M requirements of the remedy, EPA conducted an In-Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) pilot study in 2016. The pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of potassium permanganate as a treatment of the S ite's groundwater plume and the potential acceleration of PCE mass removal to reduce operation costs. Recent groundwater data from this pilot area suggests that the potass ium permanganate is effectively treating the PCE. PCE concentrations have been decreasing since the injection in 20 16.

Institutional Control (IC) Review

On May 14, 2015, the city of Vienna signed an ordinance restricting the use of groundwater in Vienna. The ordinance bans the construction, digging, or drilling of any groundwater wells within the city of Vienna. This document can be reviewed as part of Appendix C. Table 2 below summarizes the institutional control restricting use of groundwater.

Table 2: Summary of Institutional Controls (ICs) Media, Engineered

Controls, and Areas ICs Called That Do Not ICs for in the Impacted IC Title ofIC Instrument

Support UU/UE Needed Decision Parcels Objective Implemented and Date Based on Current Documents

Conditions

Restrict use of 05/14/20 15 - Ordinance City of groundwater until banning the construction, Groundwater Yes Yes Vienna, cleanup levels are digging or drilling of Wood County achieved.

groundwater wells within the city of Vienna.

Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

COM Smith (EPA's O&M Contractor) operated and maintained the Vienna treatment system for EPA from system start up in July 2005 until the turnover of O&M of remedy to WVDEP in May 2017. In 20 16, repairs were made to TU- I and T U-3 systems due to nonnal wear and tear. The repairs included replacing inlet valves, out let temperature sensors, air compressor fans, as well as reconditioning the compressor motors. WVDEP, through a WV state contract, retained the services of KEM RON Environmental Services, Inc. (KEM RON) to continue O&M activities. These activities include biannual groundwater sampling and overall system performance monitoring for the remedy at the Site.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW

This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYR.

T bl 3 P a e : rotechveness D etermmahons IS tatements f rom t h 2014 F'YR R e t epor

OU#

Protectiveness

Protectiveness Statement Determination

The remedy protects human health and the environment in the short-tenn because there arc no current exposures to soil or groundwater contamination. However, there are several actions which are required to address issues that have been identified during this Five-Year Review:

I) Institutional Controls for groundwater are not in place.

2) A change in the groundwater plume configuration has been detected. An investigation will be conducted to determine the cause of this change in plume configuration and whether the plume will migrate beyond the range of the remediation system. The investigation will include, at a minimum, a capture

I Short-term Protective' zone analysis and additional monitoring points.

3) Vapor lntnision sampling conducted in 2014 indicates there are no current exposures to site related contamination. However, follow-up sampling is necessary to confinn these findings.

4) Treatment Unit #4 was shut down and removed from the S ite in 2009 because the MCLs were achieved in this location. However, continued monitoring indicates some rebounding of PCE. This area should be evaluated for feasibility of using an in-situ treatment technology to address the residual PCE that has been detected.

Long-tenn protectiveness will be achieved when the above issues are addressed, and groundwater cleanup levels are achieved.

1 There was disagreement between the protectiveness statement in the 20 14 Five-Year Review which correctly stated that the remedy was protective in the short term and the protectiveness determination that indicated that protectiveness was being deferred. Consistent with the text of the whole 2014 report and the protectiveness statement, the protectiveness determination from the 2014 report is reported here as "short-term protective."

Table 4 below summarizes the Site issues identified in the 20 I 4 FYR Report at that time.

Table 4· Status of Recommendations from the 2014 FYR Current Current Implementation Status

OU# Issue Recommendations Status Description*

I Institutional controls Finalize groundwater Completed EPA and WVDEP worked with the are not in place to institutional controls. city of Vienna to issue an ordinance restrict exposure to banning the construction, digging, or contaminated drilling of groundwater wells within groundwater. the city of Vienna.

1 The Vienna Cleaners Conduct an Completed EPA completed an optimization plume has increased investigation to study in November 2017. The report in size and it appears detem1ine the cause recommends additional PCE source the groundwater of change in plume characterization, source treatment, direction has shifted. configuration and and improving the monitoring whether the plume network. EPA is currently working will migrate beyond with WVDEP on implementing the range of the recommendations from the report, as system. The appropriate.

investigation will include, at a minimum, a capture zone analysis and additional monitoring points to evaluate and detem1ine causes of changes in plume configuration.

I Vapor intrusion is Continue to evaluate Completed At the end of the 20 14 Vapor still a potential issue the potential for Intrusion study, EPA found that at the Site vapor intrusion. there were no current exposures to Site related contamination and the

Site was protective. The data collected from this FYR period indicates decreasing PCE concentrations in the groundwater plume previously monitored for YI.

The Site remains protective however, the groundwater plume is migrating and could pose a Vapor Intrusion issue to properties that were not previously evaluated. EPA will continue to monitor the plume direction and groundwater concentrations.

1 PCE in the Vicinity Conduct a treatability Completed COM Smith conducted injection orTU4 has srudy to detem1ine if activities as part of an ISCO pilot rebounded. an in-situ technology study to evaluate the efTectiveness of would be effective in potassium permanganate for reducing residual treatment of impacted groundwater, PCE contamination. and to ultimately accelerate PCE mass removal to reduce O&M costs

Completion Date (if aoolicable) 5/ 14/20 15 l l /l /2017

4/8/20 15

9/29/20 16 at the Site. Recent groundwater data from this pilot area suggests that the potassium permanganate may be efTectively treating the PCE. PCE concentrations have been decreasing since the iniection in 20 16.

I There appears to be Ensure PCE Completed The 2014 VI study indicated PCE 4/8/2015 an outdoor source of concentrations are concentrations exceeding standards

PCE. not due to the SVE in ambient air samples near TU-3.

System. In 20 IS, follow-up VI samples were collected and did not detect PCE.

There does not appear to be outdoor source of PCE.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews

A public notice was placed in the Parkersburg News & Sentinel newspaper in August 2019 (see Appendix D). It stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to EPA. No comments were received in response to the public notice.

During the period of June 7 to June I 0, 2019, the CIC, Meg Keegan, conducted five interviews in-person and over the telephone to document any perceived concerns or successes with the remedy that has been imple'mented to date. The CIC interviewed residents and government officials, including the Mayor of Vienna, concerning their knowledge and perceptions of the EPA's activities at the Site. Sample questions from the interviews can be found in Appendix E. The interviews are summarized below.

Interview responses indicated an overall positive impression of the cleanup activities, noting that EPA's activities have improved the community. Respondents noted that relative to other environmental issues faced by the community, the Site is less concerning to the community. Respondents also indicated that the Site has had minimal effect on the surrounding community, aside from the groundwater ordinance that was implemented in 2015. Most respondents indicated a lack ofregular information about the cleanup progress and status of the Site, and local government officials suggested that a factsheet mailing or an annual update to the Vienna City Council could assist in keeping the community infonned. The CIC visited the designated site repository at the Vienna Publ ic Library (VPL) located at 2300 River Road on June 7, 2019 and found that the repository was incomplete. EPA coordinated with the VPL to restore a complete repository ofinfonnation in July 20 19. EPA will make the final FYR Report available to the public at the local repository at the VPL and through the online Site Profile Page at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/vienna.

Data Review

Groundwater:

EPA completed the LTRA summary report on May 31,2017. This report presents a summary of the L TRA activities conducted at the Site and includes groundwater data during the period of this FYR, from 20 14 through 2016. The Site O&M activities were turned over to the WVDEP in 20 17 which includes conducting environmental monitoring on a biannual basis. Groundwater data after 2016 is included in WVDEP's O&M and groundwater monitoring reports.

Groundwater monitoring data from this FYR period indicate significant decreases in PCE concentrations along and north of 29th street in the vicinity of TU- I. The TU-3 system continues to capture areas of highest PCE concentrations; however, concentrations from the November 20 18 sampling event are elevated in the furthest downgradient monitoring wells indicating that the groundwater plume may be migrating to the northwest.

Additional monitoring wells are needed in this area to delineate the plume northwest, west and downgradient of TU-3, and to assess the performance of the TU-3 remedial system. Vienna's Municipal wells PW-V7 & PW-V8 are anticipated to be turned on in September 20192

. Continued monitoring will be evaluated to determine if these municipal wells are migrating the groundwater contaminated plume. TU-2 may have to be activated if contamination threatens city of Vienna production wells.

Figure 4 below shows a comparison of PCE concentrations in shallow g ro undwater in 2005 ( left), at the time of startup of the full-scale cleanup system, with PCE concentrations in shallow groundwater in 20 16 (right). The figure shows the Busy Bee Cleaners plume (TU-4) in the south is d iminishing in concentration and size. The Vienna Cleaners plume is generally s table on the north portion of the plume (TU-I) while migrating west along the southern portion of the plume (TU-3 ). ·

Figure 4: Comparison of PCE Plumes in the S hallow Groundwater'

■"'lll .-: . ... ,

• ll'CIS•--.. , r-cc••~, ■--c••-,q\ ........ ,""'

PCE in Shallow Groundwater July 2005

Ci

• • I l ,.~:c_--·· ·--

. ~S'r::~~~. -. -··~ - .... =-·· ... , PCE in Shallow Groundwater August 2016

From Final Long-Term Response Action Summary Report, Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, West Virginia, CDM Smith, May 31, 2017 figure 5 below shows the cumulative PCE mass that was removed from a ll of the TUs at the Site from startup in 2005 to 2016. The graph shows an increase in PCE mass removed, indicating that the TUs have been e ffective in mass removal overtime. Appendix H includes time series graphs which high lights the historical decreasing PCE concentrations of individual monitoring wells over time. Appendix I includes the most groundwater data collected from the S ite between 2017 and 2018.

2 Vienna Municipal water supply wells have been impacted by an area wide contaminant source, which is not related to the Vienna TCE Superfund Site. Carbon treatment units have been added to the Vienna Municipal water system, to address this non-Site related contaminant. The carbon treatment units effectively remove the contaminant from the Municipal water supply prior to distribution.

Figure 5: Cumulative PCE Mass Removal - Groundwater -SVE Systems•

:,coo

1eoo

11500

1 1:'00

I eoo

~ u IJOO

<00

:'00 f'CJ• 1lflr~N

\vt•SOIIV..-.,,,otlrtP.-!lOft t'U•l~UM

Ii

" t

1i I

- 1'>• --"'·

1 From Final Long-Term Response Action Summary Report, Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, West Virginia, CDM Smith, May 31 , 2017

Vapor Intrusion:

EPA completed a VJ study on April 30, 2014 to determine whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were present in the sub-slab vapor and indoor air at structures near the S ite's groundwater plumes. The Vl sampling program consisted of the collection a total of 88 of sub-slab vapor, indoor air, and ambient ( outdoor) air samples at 11 residential properties, six existing vapor monitoring points associated w ith the treatment system, nine SVE wells and one day care faci lity located above the S ite groundwater plume. EPA used the investigation data to evaluate whether VI poses a threat to human health. The 20 14 FYR summarizes the detai ls of VI sampling and recommendations. Additional VI sampling at Property 18 was recommended to confirm if the e levated levels of PCE in the kitchen of this home is from an indoor source or VI from the groundwater plume. The follow-up sampling was conducted in 2015 at Property 18 and the results indicated that PCE was not detected in the samples collected. PCE was also not detected in the ambient air samples collected that were elevated during the 2014 V I study. EPA determined that the VI sampling results from the 20 I 4 study and the 20 I 5 follow-up sampling did not indicate a risk to human health due to PCE vapor concentrations which required action. Based on the evaluation of recent groundwater data showing an overall decrease in PCE concentrations, the Site remains protective with regard to VJ.

Site Inspection

The S ite inspection took place on 5/15/2019. Participants included EPA RPMs Chris Vallone, Anthony lacobone, and Evelyn Sorto, EPA Hydrogeologist Mark Leipert, WVDEP representatives William Huggins, Jason McDougal, Rob Rice, Casey Korbini, and Kemron Environmental representatives Chris Hedrick and Chris Amick. The purpose of this inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. Appendix F provides the completed Site inspection checklist. Appendix G provides photographs from the FYR site inspection.

Site inspection participants met at the T U-3 building. Participants toured the TU (i.e., the sparge well piping, SVE piping, carbon filters, the extraction unit and the control center). After the inspection of TU-3, participants walked to TU-2. On the way, participants observed MWs and AS wells that are part of the system. All wells that were installed as part of the remedy and monitoring network are all flush mounted and locked. Labels are located inside the well. At TU-2, there was discussion that the municipal production wells PW-V7 and PW-V8, which are located near this TU-2 building, are scheduled to be turned on in September 2019. Continued biannual monitoring in this area will be important to see if the plume is migrating towards these wells and determine ifTU- 2 needs to be activated. TU-2 is not in use but is mainta ined and able to operate in case contaminants threaten these wells. After this discussion, the participants observed more monitoring and AS wells and toured the TU-I building. The buildings are locked, and vandalism has not been an issue at the Site. The remedy is well maintained and appears to be functioning as intended. No issues were observed with any of the treatment units.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: ls the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes, the remedy is functioning as intended by the S ite's 2002 ROD. The 2002 ROD included an RAO of reduction of PCE in soi ls to the point where soils no longer contribute contamination to the groundwater at levels above the MCL of 5 ug/L. A UVB System was initial ly operating to reduce soil concentrations at the Site. The UVB system was reconfigured in June 2004 to be incorporated in the overall remedial action of AS/SVE at the TUs which continue to remove PCE from both soil and groundwater. TU-3 maintains the historic gradient of the contaminated groundwater plume.

The remedy is in-situ AS/SVE: It originally consisted of four discrete TUs. Two of the TUs are currently operational. TU-2, the third remaining treatment unit, wi ll be activated if contamination from the Site threatens the City of Vienna production wells. TU-4 was shut down in April 2009 and taken out of service (decommissioned and relocated to another NPL site) when MCLs were achieved at this location. Increasing PCE concentrations were initially observed after TU-4 was removed. As part of the ISCO study, injections of potassium permanganate oxidant were performed in the TU-4 area. Recent groundwater data from this pilot area suggests that the potassium permanganate is effectively treating the PCE at the pilot area. PCE concentrations have been decreasing since the injection in 2016, and monitoring is ongoing .

Groundwater contaminant concentrations in the most contaminated areas of the plume are mostly decreasing, concentrations from the November 2018 sampl ing event are elevated in the furthest downgradient monitoring wells indicating that the groundwater plume may be migrating. Additional monitoring wells are needed in this area to delineate the plume northwest, west and downgradient ofTU-3, and to assess the performance of the TU-3 remedial system.

!Cs are required by the 2002 ROD to restrict the use of groundwater. EPA, WVDEP, the city of Vienna, and Wood County worked together and put in place an ordinance to restrict drinking water use in May 2015. There are no known current exposure pathways to impacted groundwater.

The remedial action is work ing to achieve cleanup levels and an optimization study of the groundwater remedy was completed in 20 I 7. The optimization study recommended installing additional wells to assess the performance of TU-3.

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RA Os used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

Yes. The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RA Os used at the time of the remedy for the Site are still val id. The 2002 ROD selected MCLs as the cleanup goals in groundwater; the MCL for each of the three COCs has not changed since the time of remedy selection. There have been no recent changes in land use or exposure pathways. An evaluation of vapor intrusion was completed in 20 14 and 20 15 to detennine whether VOCs were present in the sub-slab vapor and indoor air at stnictures near the Site's groundwater plumes. EPA determined that VI did not present a risk to human health due to PCE vapor concentrations which required action.

Based on the evaluation of recent groundwater data showing decrease in PCE concentrations, the Site remains protective for VI.

Recent data suggests the groundwater plume is migrating toward the northwest. Per the existing ROD, TU-2 may have to be activated if contamination threatens city of Vienna production wells. Continued monitoring in this area will be important to see if the plume is migrating towards the Vienna Municipal wells PW-V7 & PW-VS.

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could cal l into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could cal l into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU: 1 Issue Category: Monitoring

Issue: The PCE plume is not well delineated west and downgradient from TU-3, northwest and west of the fonner Johns Manville fac ility. The lack of groundwater concentration data in this area limits assessment of the perfomrnnce of the TU-3 remedial system.

Recommendation: Install additional plume delineation wells to quantify the area of groundwater exceeding remedial cleanup levels.

Affect Current Affect Future Party Oversight Party Milestone Date Protectiveness Protectiveness Responsible

No Yes EPA EPA 12/3 1/2020

OTHER FINDINGS

In addition, the following concern was identified during the FYR. This concern does not affect current or future protectiveness.

• Vienna's Municipal wells PW-V7 & PW-VS are anticipated to be turned on in September 20 19. Per the existing ROD, TU-2 may have to be activated if contamination threatens city of Vienna production wells.

Continued monitoring will be evaluated to determine if these municipal wells are migrating the groundwater contaminated plume.

• EPA will evaluate future groundwater data to monitor plume concentrations to determine if additional VI sampling is warranted.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Statement

Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:

I Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy protects human health and the environment, in the short term, because there are no current exposures to soil or groundwater contamination. The city of Vienna has an ordinance in place, which bans the construction, digging, or drilling of groundwater wells within the City limits. ln order to achieve long-term protectiveness, the following actions need to be taken:

I) Install additional plume delineation wells to quantify the area of groundwater exceeding remedial clean up levels.

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next FYR Report for the Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

Record of Decision: Vienna Tetrachloroethene OU- I. EPA. September 27, 2002

Remediation System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Half 20 18, WVDEP Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, West Virginia, KEM RON, March I, 20 I 9

Remediation System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Groundwater Monitoring Report, First Half 2018, WVDEP Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, West Virginia, KEMRON, November 30, 2018

Optimization Review Report, Long-Term Response Action Optimization Study. Vienna Tetrachloroethene Site, Vienna, Wood County, West Virginia, EPA. November 20 17

Final Long-Tenn Response Action Summary Report, Vienna PCE Superfund Site, WV. COM Smith, May 3 1, 20 17

Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Monitoring Report 20 15, Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, WV, COM Smith, June 30, 20 16

ISCO Optimization Study Summary Report, Vienna PCE Superfund Site, Vienna, WV, COM Smith, April 21, 20 17

Second Five-Year Review Report for Vienna Tetrachloroethene Superfund Site, Wood County, West Virginia.

EPA Region 3. December 22, 20 14

A- I

APPENDIX B - SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table B-I: Site Chronology

Event Date

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) detected in Vienna Municipal drinking water 1992 production wells; municipal production wells PW-Y I through PW-V 4 EPA discovered the Site. September 9, 1992 EPA began removal action (construction of two new wells for municipal May 5, 1993 water).

EPA be£ran site inspection June 7, 1994 EPA completed site inspection June 27, 1994 EPA proposed s ite for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) April 23, 1999 EPA began remedial investigation and feasibilitv studv August I 0, 1999 EPA listed site on NPL October 22, 1999 EPA completed remedial investigation and feasibility study. September 27, 2002 EPA signed Record of Decision (ROD) EPA began remedial design January 14, 2003 EPA completed remedial design May 13, 2004 EPA began remedial action July 7, 2004 EPA completed removal action of pilot Unterdruck Verdamofer Brunnen March 24, 2005 EPA completed remedial action and prepared Preliminary Close-Out August 23, 2005 Reoort EPA began long-term resoonse action August 23, 2006 EPA comoleted fi rst FYR December 22, 2009 EPA comoleted Vapor Intrusion Investigation Reoort April 30, 20 14 EPA completed second FYR December 22, 2014 EPA ISCO Optimization Sn1dy Summary Reoort April 21, 20 17 EPA completed long-term response action and transfer O&M May 3 1, 2017 responsibilities to WVDEP

Optimization Review Final Report November 2017

B-1

APPENDIX C - May 14, 2015 CITY OF VIENNA ORDINANCE

CJ-0~-/S

ORDINANCE BANNING THE CONSTRUCTION, DIGGING, OR DRILLING OF

GROUND WATER WELLS WITHIN THE CITY OF VIENNA

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

VIENNA, and

WHEREAS in order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public by protecting the integrity of the groundwater remedial action installed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA has directed the City of Vienna to prohibit the drilling of groundwater wells within the City, and

WHEREAS the Vienna City Council, in order to remain compliant with the directive issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, hereby ORDAINS as follows:

Section 1 - Definitions

1. Ground water well is hereby defined as:

a. Any well that is dug or drilled- either by hand or machine or otherwise constructed that makes groundwater accessible.

Section 2 - Prohibition

1. No ground water well which may be used for drinking water may be drilled, dug - either by hand or by machine, or otherwise constructed within the boundaries of the City of Vienna.

Section 3 - Penalty

1. Any person, firm , corporation or other entity which shall construct or attempt to construct a ground water well within the City of Vienna shall be fined $100.00 for each day that said well, constructed or attempted to be constructed, remains accessible to or by any person, entity, firm, or corporation.

2 . Citations may be issued by either the Vienna City Police, the City Building Inspector or the Code Enforcement Officer.

C-1

3. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days after its passage.

Section 4 - Exceptions

1. The Government of the United States, the State of West Virginia and the City of Vienna and any of its political subdivisions including the Vienna Utility Board, are hereby exempt from the provisions of this ordinance.

Dated this Jl":/!...'aay of '+7 ~ , 2015

~(Y_~

ATTEST:

03//,a;J/;5 1st Reading a..s-/1<1/25 2nd Reading

Randall C. Rapp, Mayor

C-2

APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE

EPA PUBLIC

NOTICE

EPA REVIEWS CLEANUP

VIENNA PCE SUPERFUND SITE

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing the cleanup that was conducted at the Vienna Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Superfund Site located in Vienna, West Virginia . EPA inspects sites regularly to ensure that cleanups conducted protect public health and the environment. EPA's 2014 review of the Site concluded that the cleanup was protective in the short-term. Findings from the current review will be available in December 2019.

To access detailed site information, including the review report once finalized, visit: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/vienna

For questions or to provide site-related information for the review, contact:

Meg Keegan, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 215-814-5494 or keegan.megan@epa.gov

D-1

APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS

VIENNA PCE SUPERFUND SITE

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM

Site Name: Vienna PCE

EPA ID:

Interviewer name: Interviewer affiliation:

Subject name: Subject affiliation:

Subject contact information:

Interview date: Interview time:

Interview location:

Interview format (circle one): In Person Phone Mail Email Other:

Interview category: Resident

l. Are you aware of the former environmental issues at the Site and the cleanup activities that have taken place to date?

2. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities (as appropriate)?

3. Were you involved with or had an opinion concerning how the cleanup was decided and implemented?

4. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?

5. Have there been any problems with unusual or unexpected activities at the Site, such as emergency response, vandalism or trespassing?

6. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration? If so, please give details.

7. Do you feel well informed about EPA' s activities and progress? How can EPA best provide site-related infonnation in the future?

8. What extent of community involvement do you wish to have during the future work at the site?

9. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding any aspects of the project?

E-1

APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Vienna Tetrachlorocthene Date of Inspection: 5/15/2019

Location and Region: Vienna, WV; Region 3 EPA JD: WVD988798401

Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year Weatherffemperature: Low 70s, Partl:-t Sunn:-t Review: EPA Re!!ion 3

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) 0 Landfill cover/containment 0 Monitored natural attenuation D Access controls igj Groundwater containment igj Instin1tional controls 0 Vertical barrier walls 0 Groundwater pump and treatment D Surface water collection and tTeatmcnt igj Other: In-situ AS/SVE

Attachments: D Inspection team roster attached D Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)

I. O&M Site Manager -- -- -- Name Title Date

Interviewed O at site O at office O by phone Phone: -- Problems, suggestions D Report attached:

2. O&M Staff -- -- -- Name Title Date

Interviewed O at site O at office O by phone Phone: -- Problems/suggestions D Report attached:

3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning onice, recorder of deeds. or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.

Agency __ Contact -- -- -- --

Name Title Date Phone No.

Problems/suggestions D Report attached: __

Agency __ Contact - - - - -- - -

Name Title Date Phone No.

Problems/suggestions D Report attached: _ _

Agency __ Contact -- -- -- --

Name Title Date Phone No.

Problems/suggestions D Report attached: __

Agency __ Contact -- -- -- - -

Name Title Date Phone No.

Problems/suggestions O Report attached:

F- 1

4. Other Interviews (optional) D Report attached:

III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)

I. O&M Documents

OO&Mmanual l:Z] Readily available l:Z] Up to date □ NIA

D As-built drawings l:Z] Readily available l:Z] Up to date □ NIA

D Maintenance logs l:Z] Readily available l:Z] Up to date □ NIA

Remarks: --

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan l:Z] Readily available D Up to date □ NIA

D Contingency plan/emergency response plan l:Z] Readily available D Up to date □ NIA

Remarks: --

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records l:Z] Readily available D Up to date □ NIA

Remarks: --

4. Permits and Service Agreements

D Air discharge permit D Readily available D Up to date i:Z] NIA

D Emuent discharge l:Z] Readily avai lable D Up to date □NIA

D Waste disposal, POTW D Readily available D Up to date i:Z] N/A

D Other pem1its: __ D Readily available D Up to date i:Z] NIA

Remarks: --

5. Gas Generation Records D Readily available D Up to date i:Z] N/ A

Remarks: --

6. Settlement Monument Records D Readily available D Up to date i:Z] NIA

Remarks: --

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records l:Z] Readily available D Up to date □ NIA

Remarks: --

8. Leachate Extraction Records…