United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPAIROD/R05-89/105
September 1989
o
:/
',;&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
lonia City Landfill, MI
n S E P.A. Re~\on Ui~ .
u. . .' Cen~r
\mormat\on Resource
Hazardous Waste Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
PhUadeIphIa,PA 19107
EPA Report GQ!le~tiof!
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia. PA 19107
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1'. REPORTNO. . 12-
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-89/l05
4. TlII8 and Subdll8
"'TJPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
nia City Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action
7. AU1hor(a)
o. Pwrfonnlng Orgalnlzadon Nan.. and Add-
12. Sp_oring OrganlDtlon Name and Addr.e
U. S. EnvironmEmtal Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Agency
15. Supplementary No...
3. Reclpl8nl'a Acc888Ion No.
5. A8port D818
09/29/89
I.
I. Pwrfonnlng Organlzadon Rept. No.
10. Proj8CtlT88klWoriI Unit No.
11. Contnct(C) or Gr8nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
800/000
13. Type 0' Report . PerIod CoV8l8d
14.
11. Abetrlet (Umlt: 200 _Ida)
The Ionia City Landfill site is a 20-acre municipally owned landfill in the southeast
corner of Ionia, Michigan. The site is bordered by the Grand River to the south, a
t.ributary to thE~ Grand River to the east, and a light commercial/residential area to the
north. The site lies within the 100-year floodplain of the Grand River. The landfill
was operated frc)m the 19505 until about 1969, during which time industrial, commercial,
municipal wastes were disposed of at the site, including drummed liquids and solids
t~~m industrial sources. Drums of ignitable liquid wastes were reportedly burned until
1965. A State .Lnvestigation in 1981 revealed exposed-drums containing paint wastes,
thinners, and industrial solvents as well as elevated levels of metals. Furthermore VOC-
clnd metal-contaminated ground water was detected. EPA investigations began in 1982 and
revealed VOC contamination in the Grand River tributary surface water. FOllow-up
investigations by EPA led to an immediate removal action in 1984-85 by the city, under an
administrative order, which included fencing a portion of the site, removing and
ciisposing of exposed drums, covering depressed areas, and stabilizing areas of erosion.
Current site risks result from subsurface wastes (or point source) from a 1/4 acre area
in the northern section of the landfill. The estimated total waste volume is 5,000 cubic
yards consisting of badly deteriorated buried drums and associated wastes, and
contaminated soil. In addition there is a contaminant plume in an underlying shallow
aquifer. The first operable unit addresses the point source (Continued on next page)
'7. D-t AnaJyaI8 L D8tocripto18
Record of Decision - Ioni~ City Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs, other organics, metals (chromium)
b. ldantlflanl()pen-Endad T-
~
COSA TI ReIdIGr~
IliIabilty ~
,I. SIIcurfty a- (ThI8 A8porI)
None
20. SIIcurfty a- (ThI8 P8g8)
Nnnp
(:- ANSl-Z38 18)
s.~_onlit-
21. No. of Plgee
60
22. Prtce
(Fonnaoty NTI$-35)
O8p8r1nwnt of Co_ce
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-89/105
Ionia City Landfill, MI
16.
Abstract (Continued)
__ca. A second operable unit addressing ground water has been deferred until the
completion of the ground water monitoring plan. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are VOCs including vinyl chloride and methyl chloride,
other organics, and metals including chromium.
The selected l:emedial action for this site includes in situ vitrification of the defined
point source al:ea and an adjacent margin of safety zone, including an off-gas collection
and treatment system; access restrictions; ground water monitoring; institutional
controls to restrict site use; and upgrading the landfill cover and repairing the side
slopes followeci by revegetation. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $3,630,525, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $112,750 for year 1
and $51,000 fo]; years 2-10. If a pilot test indicates that the selected remedy is
inadequate, a <:ontingency alternative of partial excavation with onsite incineration will
be implemented.
-------
~ anT 1L ~ ~
site HaDE! and I.ocat:ia1:
'!he Ionia City laOOfill cxx::upies awroximately 20 acres in the sa.rt:heast
corner of Ionia, Michigan.
statement: of Basis and F\n:pase:
'!his decision document presents the selected soorce control remedial action
for the Ionia City I.arx:lfill, located in Iaria, Michigan. '!his decision has
been devEUcp3d in accordance with CERcrA, as amerrled by SARA, arrl, to the
extent practicable, the National contin;Jency Plan. '!his decision is baserl
on the administrative record for the Site. '!he attached :irxiex identifies
the i terns that c:::arprise the administrative record upon whid1 the selection
of the SC~ control remedial action is baserl.
'!he Stab~ of Midl:igan has concurred with the selected soorce control
remedy. '!he letter of oorx:urrence is attad1ed to the Record of Decision
(R){)) pac:kage.
Descript:..icn of the Selected Remedy:
'!he selected soorce control remedy is an cperable unit that ack:iresses
the prin:::ipal threat posed by the site. '!he major cc:rrponents of the
selected soorce control Lt:2lcrJy include:
*
In-situ vitrification (ISV) of the defined point soorce area arrl
an adjacent margin of safety zone;
*
fencin;J the site to restrict access (repairin;J the fence in Area
A am installin;J a fence alon; Clevelarrl street in Area B);
placement of at least 3 nonitorin;J 'NeIls in the shallow A-l
aquifer i.nInediately ~ent of the point soorce area to
ass.E'S-S c:::arpleteness of point soorce remediation am nonitor
future release, if arrj, of contaminants to the gra.m:iwater fran
the point soorce;
*
*
institutional controls to restrict the use of the Site am, if
aw~riate, adjacent prc:p:!rties, fran activities that walid
potentially ~er p.lblic health or threaten the envirorunent;
am ,
*
upgradirq the lan:lfill CJ:Ner am repairin;J the side sl~, as
needed, followed by revegetation to minimize :future erosion arrl
insure integrity of the lan:lfill cap.
-------
Page 2, Ionia City I.an:ifill
Full scale inplementatioo of ISV is cootirgent 00 SI~ful a1-Site
iJrplementatioo of pilot test that insures ISV's applicability to existirq
site cxn:titicns. In the event the selected alternative will not provide
the r-cessaz.y level of remediatioo, as doo.nnent:ed by the pilot test, u.s.
EPA .int:erxm to iJrplement the contiIqency salI'Ce CXI1trol remedial
al ternati ve, partial excavation with on-sit~ incineration, after the
apptq)riate }qercy guidance has been follawed.
.Gra.JOOwater 1tDl1itorirq is a critical CCI'I'pOnel1t of the selected salI'Ce
CXI1trol leht::dy am will be c.orrlucted to: assure point salI'Ce remediation
is carplete; 1tDl1i tor the migration of residual cant.amination in the
groorrlwater; am verify the assuuption that J'X) further salI'Ce areas exist
within the lanifill. A decisioo 00 further groorrlwater action is deferred
until carpletion of the nine IOOnth groorrlwater 1tDl1itorirq prcqram
fOllCMln; point salI'Ce remediation. '!his will culminate in a roo that
will acXlress the groorrlwater ~le unit, which in conjunction with this
Salrce Control R:>D, cxnstitutes the final It::ll~ for the Site.
~laratia1:
'!he selected salI'Ce control le'u.erJy is protective of human health am the
environment, am attains Federal am State requirements that are applicable
or relevant am apptq)riate for the remedial action. '!he salI'Ce control
J::t::Il-.1y utilizes permanent solutions am alternative treatment technolcgies
to the maxim.Jm extent practicable for the Site. '!he source control leu~
for the Site utilizes treatment as a principal element of the It::ll~, as
per the statutoz.y preference. If there is J'X) remediation of the point
salI'Ce, there will continue to be an actual or potential inrninent am
substantial errlan:Jerment to human health, welfare am the environment.
[
N.Jt: l~~~
i
tor
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
IONIA CITY LANDFILL, IONIA, MICHIGAN
I. ~N1\ME. LOCATICfi AND IESCRIPl'ICfi
'Ihe IaUa. City I..arrlfill, hereinafter referred to as the Site, is owned by
the City of Iarla ard is located in the sart:heast comer of the City of
Iarla, Mi.drlgan, ~te1y 30 miles east of Gran::l Rapids, (Figure 1).
'!he site oc:cupies "R>roximate1y 20 acres in the eastern a1e-half of the
sc:utl'nvest: quarter of Sectia'l 20, Township 7 North, Rarqe 6 West, Iarla
Camty, Midrlgan. 'Ihe Site is boJ:dered by Cleve1ard Street to the west,
the Grard River to the saIth, a tr:ibJtary of the Grimd River to the east
an::l a light ~rcia1/residentia1 area to the north (Figure 2). '!he Gran:i
River is a sport fishin; an::l recreatiooal river in the State of Midrlgan.
'!be site is situated within the Grand River valley. '!be lan::lfill is
surrcAJnjed by relatively steep slc:p:!S em its northeast, east an::l saIth
sides. 'Ihere is also a steep slope em the west side of Clevelam Street
which drcps 10 to 15 feet atto adjacent fannlard. 'Ihe slope is not evenly
graded which may be the result of early road oonstructiem ard subsequent
erosion. '!he bri~ aver the Gran::l River was rep:>rtedly replaced durin;J
the mid- to late-195OS.
'!he site is generally flat am divided into two areas, A am a, which are
both elevated 10 to 15 feet above the adjacent floodplain arrl Grarrl River.
Area A is; an older fill area c:arprisin;J the northern portiem of the site.
Area a is; a saIthern 100re recent fill area. Area A an::l a are separated by
the fo:rm:~ locatia'l of ~~ & Chio Railroad tracks which were renoved
in 1987. Area A is ercl.osed by a six-foot high chain link fen:e which was
cxmstruct:.ed in A1.x1USt 1984. '!he fen:e is ~ with barbed wire ard has
an entrance gate with posted wam.in; signs at Clevelan::l Street. Area a is
not fen::E!d; however, ~c: is clisca.1raged by earthen benDs an::l \1IOCXlen
posts. Generally, the site has a good vegetative CJ:Ner of grasses an::l
shrubs with ~ areas alorq the banks of the east trib.Itary an::l the
Grarrl River; hc:Jwever, there are areas of sparse vegetation an::l erosion
alon; sane of the side slc:p:!S arrl wnere vehicular arrl foot traffic are
prevalent. At me time, a baseball diamon:i was located in the saIthern
portion of Area A.
II. sm~ HISTORY AND ENFORCEMEN1' ACI'IVITIES
'!he Ionia City larrlfill operated fran the mid- to late-1950s until 1968 or
1969. Dlrin;J this tilDe, irrlustrial, cxmne.rcial an::l m.micipal wastes were
disposed at the Site, irx::l~ dnmmed liquids an::l solids fran irrlustrial
sources. Dn1ms of ignitable liquid wastes were reportedly b.1med \D1til
late 196!5. In October 1965, an ~losion cxx:urred durin;J the ~ of
wastes I'E~tin;J in the death of a waste hauler. In 1966, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resc:urces (Jon:NR) classified the site as an open ci\.mp.
-------
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS) INC.
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE 1
AREA M.AP
-------
UGHT COUJ.iSCt,4L
RESJDENTIAL
~
~
t"'!
<
t"'!
C ~
::'" &,., ::>
'.." IJ l!t Z
":::t:... IT'04Jt C
. "':::::111. ~""lJ ~
Itt,,""'" , -1
"tt" '4),,- .' .
'tt'tttt't ~Cb
tatttt ".0:>
t'tttt
tttttt.tttt.t.. RECREATIONAL
.............................. ,
AGRlCULlURE
RECREA110N.Al./UGHT
~WERcw.;R£51DENfl.AL
UGH! COUt.iERCW-
RES1CENiW-
N
UNCE'vilOPED
, AAf).. A
UNDE'ttlOPED
}REA B
~
~~~#
~f::j~f~
~~~ C~
~~~4J .
~~ ~ (;~
Q
2~O
~o
6.::J
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS) INC.
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE
2
~'-:- \,\.\.-,
.....-11 - I_II-J'~
-------
2
In Au:lust 1967, the City of Iarla aJ:plied to the M[M{ for an ~t~
license Whidl may never have been iA.c:ned.
'!he investigatiat of the Site was tricnered by an aJ'X'nyDrJus Iba1e call
received by M[M{/s Pollutiat ~ AlertiJ'g System in early 1981. 'Ibis
call led to a Hardt 1981 inspectiat by the M[M{ dur~ Whidl ~ drums
were observed ani saupled. Analysis of sauples in:ticated ch'um CCI1tents
representative of paint wastes, thinners ani industrial solvents, in::lur:tinJ
ethY1.benzene, trid1l0r0ethylene, methylene d1loride, styrene, toluene ani
xylene. Elevated levels of lead, d1rcmium, zin:: ani irat were also
detected.
In July 1981, MJ:'NR/s Water Quality Staff installed three shallow
c:b3eJ:vation wells in Area A. AnalYtical results of sauples collected fran
~ of the wells (the third well was damaged shortly after installatiat)
detected 1,1-did1loroethane, 1,2-did1loroethylene, methyl d1lorofonn,
toluene, trid1loroethylene, ani elevated levels of cadmium, chranium,
cq:per, lead, zin:: ani irat.
U. S. EPA I s Field Investigation Team canducted a site inspection in
May 1982, dur~ Whidl water ani sediment sanples were collected fran the
tributary to the Gran:l River. Resu1 ts in:ticated the Presence of 1,1-
did1loroethane, did1loroethylene, ani vinyl d1loride at cbrn'gradient
locations. 'Ihe surface water data, in conjunction with PreviaJSly
collected gran:iwater data, was the basis for prepar~ a Hazard R.ankin3-
System (HRS) score for the Site in 1982, with subsequent placement on the
National Priorities List (NFL) in ~ 1982.
A Site inspection canducted by U.S. EPA/s Ted1nical Assistance Team (TAT)
in September 1983, noted a l'JUlIDer of ~ drums in Area A. '!he TAT
rec::anrneooations in::1\X1ed restrict~ site ~, post~ of wam.in:J signs
arxl a future inspection the follow~ Spr~ to check for ani,. if present,
sample leachate ~::~s. U.S. EPA/s EnviranmentaJ. Sezvioes Division arxl
Emergency Response Team canducted a follow-up inspection in May 1984. At
this time the Site was recx:mnen:ied for imnediate renoval action. In June
1984, the City of Ienia was i~ an administrative order requirin;J the
City to secure the Site by canstruct~ a fence ara.n:i Area A, remove ani
dispose of ~ drums, COVer depressed areas arxl stabilize areas where
erosion had 0CCUITed. 'Ihi.s ~rk was carpleted in early 1985.
On April 12, 1985, U. S. EPA i A.c::I1ed general ootice letters to faIr
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) informin:] them of their potential
liability with ~"t to response actions, past or planned, taken at the
Site, arxl a.skirg them to un:Jertake a Remedial Investigation ani Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). 'Ihe faIr parties ooticed incluied A.O. Smith Cbrporation,
Mitchell Cbrporation, the General Tire arxl RI..U::ber C::Itpany arxl the City of
Ienia. Negotiations with the PRPs concl\X1ed in l)ecent)er 1985 when ~
PRPs, A. o. Smith Cbrporation ani Hi td1ell Corporation, entered into an
agreement with U.S. EPA to cx:n:hJct the RI/FS at the Site. An
Administrative order by Consent became effective upon its signature by the
Reg'ional Administrator at January 29, 1986. '!he PRPs retained Rollins
Environmental Sezvioes (Rollins) fran Ha.1stoo, Texas as their envircnrnental
-------
3
oansultiIg fi.z:m. Project persamel have reoeIit1.y relocated to 'Ihe Earth
TedmolocJY Corporatiat in Hoosta1 an:! are fulfillin;J their project
ooligaticJt'lS un::3er a. suI:x:D1tract with ~llins. Followin;J WorK Plan
~rcval, RI field ~ began in Mard1 1987 an:! was cx::upletecl in May 1988.
General Notice Letters were mailed to 18 FRPs at August 29, 1989 inform:i.n;J
them of j~ ~; ~ 1 actia1S planned at the site and their patent.ial
liabilities with respect to the Site. Fomal negot:iatioos for PRP
iDplementatiat of the sau:oe ~...~ul ~i~l design/~;~l actiat
(RDIRA) "Till ~ shortly after signature of this R:>D with the issuance
of Special Notice Letters. It is anticipated that the State of Midrlgan
will play an active role in RDIRA negot:iatioos.
III.
ro1MUNIT'i REIATIOOS AcrIVITIES
'!he MI:NR has been the lead aqercy in the iJIplementatiat of cxmrun:ity
relations activities at the site thrcu;)h a DIl1.ti-site ~rative agreement
with the U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA has furd:id1ed as a SlJRXIrt aqercy when
requested by MJ:NR. MJ:NR has prepared and distril:uted progJ::e6S reports at
milestoJ1j;~ thrc::u:Jhc:ut the RIfFS process to infODn the general p.1blic and
i.nterestSd parties of ~;~1 activities at the site. P1::U:;fLt::=SS reports
have g~..rally ooincided with the initiatiat of the varioos RI field tasks.
MI:NR COO]:dinated and Daritored the RI/FS kick-off meetin:J in July 1986,
attended by awroxllDately thirty people.
'I\r.'o infonnatiat rep:sitories have been established in the City of Iatia
whidl contain the administrative I"E!CX)rd for the site. 'lhe administrative
I"E!CX)rd consists of all docnn.....J'1ts, data snrl'l'Mries, PJ::U:;fLt::=SS reports,
conesporrleooe, p.1blic t"Y"Wm'"IPrtts and ather relevant infonnatian used in
developirg an:! selectin:J remedial actiat alternative(s) for the site.
'lbese doc::uments are available at the Iatia City Hall, 114 North KicH
Street arrl the Fowler Me!oorial Library, 126 East Main street in Iatia.
'!he FS I'1:port and PL~ Plan were made available for p.1blic ccmnent
durinj the period of August 25, 1989 thrcu;)h september 18, 1989. A p.1blic
meetinj was held at August 31, 1989 at the Iatia City Hall to ~
questions arrl acx::ept c:x:moents frc:m interested parties and individuals at
the FS J:'I:port arrl Pl. qJ06ed Plan. '!here were no written t"Y"Wm'"IPJ1ts received
durin:J the p.1blic l'Y"ftWI"IPl"It period. 'IW oral c:x:moents were received durin;J
the p.1blic meetin:J and are ackiressed un:1er Camunitv AoceDt:ance in Section
VIII of this ~VI'P.ryt.
'!here has been limited t'YmI'I'Inrity :interest in the site thrc::u:Jhc:ut the RI/FS
process. AwroxllDately 25 people atterrled the August 31, 1989 p.1blic
meetinj, of whidl atly three or four were residents. Other atten::1ees
in:luded officials frc:m the City of Iatia, MJ:NR arrl U.s. EPA persamel,
attorneys for the participatin:J FRPs, representatives of recently nJticed
PRPs arrl a reporter fran the local newspaper. As the owner of the Site,
the City of Iatia has maintained :interest for reasa1S of potential future
liabilities. CcrIversatia1S with City officials ~ a general attitude
of "It's aba.tt time saoe clean up actial is planned for the Site."
-------
4
IV. ~IE AND SCDPE OF RESRHSE ACTICIi
'!he e>cposure pathways and associated risks fran ha.zarc:bJs substances
present at the site are di~1esed in detail in the Eh:3an;Jenoent Ass-~nt
(FA) and ~1ImRrized in the RI and FS reports. . Jbsed at the f~ of the
RI and the evaJ.uatiat of potential exp:&Jre patmlays and ~iated risks,
bio e>cposure rart:.es, grcurxiwater and s:t1bsurface wastes or point scw:ce,
were identified as recpirin; the fOl:Dl1latiat and evaluatiat of potential
~i~l altematives. '!he point sa.u:ce is ~tely 1/4 acre in size
with a total waste volume of awraximately 5000 OJbic yards cx:nsi.stin;J of
bJried drums, ~~iated wastes and oc:nt:aminated soils in the nort:h-oentra1
portion of Area A of the Site. '!he grcurxiwater pathway cx:nsists of the
c:ontaminant plume delineated in the urxx:nfinec1 shallow aquifer.
'!he FS report identified the followirg ~al oojectives for the site.
SUrface Water
Prevent deterioratioo of existin; surface water quality durin; arxi
followin; remediatioo.
Sediments
Prevent deterioratioo of existin; ~ imPJ1t quality durin; arxi
followin; remediatioo.
SUrface Soil
Prevent the deterioration of existin; surface soil quality durirxJ arxi
followin; I'F!JN='diatioo.
Subsurface Soil arxi Wastes (Point Salrce)
Prevent the potential migration of contaminants to gram:iwa.ter durin;
arxi followin; ~ii\tion.
Grourrlwater
Prevent the migratiat of unsafe levels of contaminants to drinJdn;J
water an:1;or p.1blic use SOOI"CeS.
Air -
Prevent deterioration of existirxJ air quality durin; remediation.
SUbsurface
Prevent the potential migration of contaminants to subsurface soils
arxi gram:iwa.ter by reducin; toxicity.
unlike the PL~ Plan, this response actioo is limited to an ~le
unit for the point source area. A final decision 00 grcurxiwater is
deferred lDltil the OCIIpletioo of the gram:iwa.ter m::nitorirxJ program. '!he
remedial actioo selected for the point sooroe area provides for OCIIplete
remediation by permanently reducinj or eliminatin; the toxicity, nd:>ility
arxi volume of ha.zarc:bJs substances at the point source. In the event the
selected alternative does not provide the ~~ level of ~iation,
as documented by the pilot test, U.s. EPA inten:1s to iJIplement the
contirX]ency ~i<"l alternative, partial excavatioo with a1-Site
-------
5
in::ineration, after at=Pr'q)riate ~ guidarre has been followed. '!be
contin:;Jerx..'j' L~ also serves as a
-------
6
. M.ll tiple gram:iwater sanplin; events were 0CI'1ducted to verify the
~ of the gram:iwater DD'litorin; nett.IorX, DD'litor the
migratioo of ccntaminatioo and ;lto;s--o; ~smal variatioos in
oontam:inant ~tioos.
. SOil sanples were collected fran the landfill cap for laboratory
deteminatioo of P'1YsiC'al prcperties to "eo(''''C43 the potential for
surface water infiltraticn into the landfill.
. Air Da1itorin; was 0CI'1ducted to detenni.ne the potential for off-site
migratioo of volatile organics l1I'der aui;)ient ccntitioos.
'!he major f~ of the RI are ~D1'IIRrized below.
. Awraximately 5000 cubic yards of druDmed materials, associated
wastes and ccntaminated soils were d.isoovered in the north central
portioo of Area A (Figures 3 and 4). 'Ibis has been defined as the
point sa.trO! area. '!he drums CXX1tained paint residues, variws
organic materials and solvents. '1he majority of the drums c:tserved
durin;J t.rerx:nirg activities were not intact, and badly deteriorated.
Of the intact drums erxnmtered, sane contained liquids. Table 1
presents organic and inorganic results fran sanples collected durin;J
field verificatioo of bJried drum locaticns in Area A.
. Borin;Js and Da1itorin;J \Vell i.nsta1laticns (Figure 5) have identified
two definable shallow water bearin;J Za1eS beneath the landfill; an
URJer san::l and gravel aquifer (A-1) and a rleeper san::l aquifer (A-2).
!he A-1 aquifer is c....1~ of a silty, f~LC1ined san::l to \Vell-
graded gravel and I'an;1es in thicJmess fran 9 to 24 feet. Beneath
the A-1 aquifer is a oonfiI1inq unit (CL-1) of \.1J'1J(n::Jwn areal extent
carpri.sed of a sandy, gravelly clay. CL-1 ran::JeS in thicJmess fran
9 to 17 feet. '1he lower A-2 aquifer is o8'l8JSed of fine sands to
sandy gravel with minor clay seams and ran::JeS in thickness fran 15
to 61 feet. '1he basal CL-2 unit is of \.1J'1J(n::Jwn thickness and consists
of high-plasticity clays to clayey silts. Refer to Figures 6 and 7
for geologic cress sections depictin;J the aquifers and oonfiI1inq
units .
. !he A-1 aquifer is semi~ined with water levels ~in;J at
depths of 1 to 13 feet below gro.D':d surface. '!he general flow
directioo of the A-1 aquifer is northeast to ~ toward the
Gram River.
. '!he A-2 aquifer is oonfined with a water level above that of the A-1
aquifer, .in:ii.catin;J that an upward flow catp:)ne11t exists be'bNeen
the two water-bea.rin;J zones. As in the A-1 aquifer, the general
gram:iwater flow direction in the A-2 aquifer is northeast to
~.
. Grourxiwater analyses for Hazardoos SU1::s1:a.rx=e List (HSL) er..8'IOJ1')js
fran three sanplin;J events; Mard1 1989, Sept.eni)er 1987, and May
1988; have ccnfiDDed the prese.rx::e of a ccntaminatioo plume within
-------
n
r-
,.,
<
,.,
, C & ~
~~ 0 z
"~'II"~"~ RA 11 - c
"~"'II:"".cZ4.D ""
......". (QIt- :-4
,.,..., ~Cb
...."". "flCO .
.."..".
- ..,.".,
.,...,,,
,.",.",.
......,,,.
',.....
N
t..:::::::::~
AREA A
AAtA 8
SCAl..E (F~
Q
2QQ
400
600
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS) INC.
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
1<::::::: 1 - BURIED DRUM AREA
FIGURE 3
BUR!ED :'RUM L.OCATION
-------
~
.
+oJ
~
'-"
V') 1650
w
I-
~
Z
o
~
o
o
u '550
o
~
(j
W
l-
V')
I 1450
I-
:)
o
(j)
I
I
I-
~
o
z
200
~
NOR TH
300
400
500
EAST-WEST S,-E GRID COORDINATES (ft.)
D
BURIED DRUM ARE.A.
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL S£RVlCES (FS) , INC.
TECHNOLOGY do: ASS£SSMENT DIVISION
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE 4
BURIED DRUM AREA
I
-------
I SAMPLE IDENTifICATION NUMBER (1) CONCENTRATION as l~!K9 (ppb) I I
PAUME'fI fiElD IUN':
045-0' 045.0J 045-05 046-0' 0(,6-02 Ot.6-0J Ot.6-Q6 Ot.7-01 047 .02 0(,8-0' 000-01
DR~ DRUM
"E'"YlENE C"lORIDE *29,000.0 *790.0 *'8,000.0 *2,220,000.0 *88,000.0 *'6.0 *"0,000.0 *',100 *"0.0 *28.0 *7].0
ACEJONE *"0,000.0 9,200.0 .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. eo
1,1,1 fRlCHlOROUllAlIE .. 940.0 6,000.0 .. .. 130.0 640,000.0 .. .. .. ..
UIC"lOROUIlEIIf " " 2,000.0 .. .. *34.0 eo . . .. .. ..
fEf.AC"lOROE'"EIIf eo ." , ,, eo 13.0 eo .. .. eo ..
fOlUENE 9,800.0 2,400.0 *2,300.0 .. .. 13.0 460,000.0 .. .. .. ..
EJ HYUE.ZEIIE .. 790.0 14,000.0 eo .. .. "0,000.0 .. .. .. ..
s nUN( *",000.0 .. *9,600.0 *4,600,000.0 *2,200,000.0 .. *1,900,000.0 *2,100 eo .. ..
TOrAl IrflEIlES . . .. eo .. eo eo *580,000.0 eo .. .. ..
PHEIIAII'HUIIE . . . . " .. .. .. eo eo .. 1,600.0 "
fltDAUII£IIE eo .. eo eo .. . . .. .. .. 1,400.0 ..
PTRENt .. .. eo .. .. eo eo .. .. 1,100.0 eo
IUTYl8EIIZYLP"'"ALA'E 2,400,000.0 10,000.0 . . .. .. .. 12,000,000.0 .. eo eo ..
IElIlO(A)AII'"RACtIlE " '. eo .. .. .. .. .. " 580.0 ..
IIS(2-ff"YLII£XYL) PH'"ALA'E 130,000.0 .. .. .. .. eo .. .. .. .. eo
,"USEft " " " eo .. .. .. .. .. 620.0 eo
IEII10«()fLUOIAIIfll£lIE .. .. .. eo eo .. .. . . " 510.0 ..
8U10(A)PYREIIE .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 480.0 ..
pft 7.6 7.9 11.2 11.15 7.9 7.9 7.3 7.11 1.4 7.7
PUCENT SOliDS IIJ.O 84.0 57.0 90.0 51.0 115.0 n.o 67.0 58.0 n.o
-
T I\ULL 1
ORGANIC ANAl"ICAl SUMMARY
AREA A - TAENCH SAMPLING
IONIA CI" lANDfill
(1) . 10 NUMBER '.PRESEN" lAS' 5 DIGI'S Of THE MOMEMClA'UAE ICl'OS-XXX-XX OR
(2) . LISTED DEtECtiON liMitS BASED ON 100\ SOlIDS, "lOU LEVEL" SOil HATRIX.
* . COMPOUNDS DE'EC'ED IN A lABORA'OR' OC BLANK.
NIA . NO' apPLICABLE.
ICl-DR-XXX-XK.
DEJECTION
LIMit (2)
5.0
no.o
550.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
no.o
330.0
330.0
350.0
--
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
II,A
iliA
-------
TABLE 1 CONTINUED
AREA'A TRENCH SAMPLING
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
IOHIA CIIY LANDfiLL
SAMPLE 10 MBER (1) CONCENTRATION AS ~/Kg (ppm)
DEJECTION
PARAMETER 045.01 045.01 045.05 046.01 046.02 046.01 046,06 047.01 047-02 048.01 LIMIT (2)
DRtM DRlJ4
All'" IUt 6140.0 10100.0 7820.0 669.0 2360.0 12700.0 9210.0 10900.0 24200.0 10500.0 20.0
An I MOHY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 6.0
ARSENIC 6.5 9.1 10.0 1.8 1.9 12.0 7.2 15.0 48.0 15.0 1.0
IUIlJ4 226.0 209.0 145.0 220.0 118.0 54.0 8870.0 470.0 170.0 175.0 20.0
. ER YL lIl.It ." " . " " 0.6 .. 1.4 1.1 .. 0.5
CADM 1lJ4 .' '' '' ' . . . .. .. .. " .. 0.50
tALcn.. 56200.0 69200.0 52700.0 9210.0 12800.0 86400.0 6670.0 42000.0 6980.0 15200.0 500.0
CHR<»4ltM 29.0 32.0 108.0 54.0 14.0 21.0 2850.0 19.0 35.0 23.0 1.0
COBALT .. 7.6 18.0 .. .. 8.5 .. . . 16.0 7.8 5.0
COPPER 27.0 18.0 11.0 4.4 17.0 14.0 216.0 128.0 11.0 65.0 2.5
I RON 19200.0 17900.0 40500.0 6650.0 7800.0 22700.0 6050.0 22500.0 68800.0 27500.0 10.0
LEAD 84.0 65.0 237.0 36.0 6.4 7.1 10100.0 478.0 14.0 83.0 0.5
MAGNES I"" 111100.0 25700.0 36900.0 1850.0 3540.0 26800.0 .. 7860.0 5810.0 4410.0 500.0
MANGANESE 238.0 318.0 365.0 64.0 98.0 383.0 23.0 376.0 589.0 646.0 1.5
MERCURY 0.1' .. 0.37 0.19 .. . . 1.0 1.5 .. 0.16 0.02
NICKEl 18.0 12.0 262.0 4.7 .. 25.0 152.0 20.0 41.0 20.0 4.0
POTASSllIt 975.0 1700.0 1300.0 . . .. 1750.0 .. 761.0 2100.0 1230.0 500.0
ULENI.... .. .. .. eo .. .. .. . . .. .. 0.5
SILVER ." " " ' .' '' '' " ,. " 1.0
soon.. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. eo " .. 500.0
THALLIlIt . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . 1.0
VANADI.... 17.0 ~2.0 21.0 eo .. 30.0 .. 21.0 61.0 27.0 5.0
ZINC 96.0 1 8.0 99.0 44.0 32.0 39.0 -1200.0 1000.0 71.0 334.0 2.0
pH 1.6 1.9 8.2 8.15 1.9 7.9 7.] 1.8 7.9 7.7 ilIA
PfRCfIIT SOliDS 8].0 84.0 51.0 90.0 51.0 85.0 n.o 61.0 58.0 n.o ilIA
(1) . 10 IIUMIER REPRESENTS LAST 5 DIGITS Of THE IIOMENCLATURE ICL.OS.xxx.xx
(2) . liSTED DETECTION LIMITS BASED ON 1001 SOliDS; -LOW LEVEL- SOIL MATRIX.
./A . lOT APPLICABLE
-------
LOCA. 1
o
MW-1
MW-2
,..:
CI1
C
Z
c(
-oJ
~
LlJ
..J
(,J
eLOCA. .3
MW-5
LOCA. 1 2
MW-17
EB
~
NOR1r-;
AREA A
LOCA. 4
0
MW-6 LEGEND
MW-7
LOCA. !3 e SHALLOW WELL
e
MW-1 4 AREA 8 0 WELL CLUSiER
LOCA. 5
e
MW-S
LOCA. 10
e '-J~~
MW-15 ~\
~~\)
LOCA. S
LOCA. 11 G~
e 0 LOCA. 7 e
MW-9
MW-, 6 MW-,O M W- 12
~
/
o
200
400
800
FEET
ROLUNS ENVtRONMENiAL SERVICES (FS). INC.
rc:CHNOLOGY & ASSESSMENi DI\/TSfON
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE 5
MONITORING WELL LOCAll0NS
-------
A
. ............................ . ...........
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .................................................
[[[
............. ................................. ""
o . . . . . . . . . .. " ". " . . . . . . " . . " ". . . . " . . . . . . " . " . " " . . . . " " . .
................. .............................
......"""..."""."..."."....".".",,.. -
............................
.................. .
:,""" '0 -
WW-1
""" .-
. ............... """'0.
. ............................. .....
................. ..................
. ....................... ...........
.. ............... ..................
. ............... ...................
., .................................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
..... .......................
. ..........
. "'" ....
.. ...............,...
r
WW-s
",w-e
WW-e
"'W-e
.. ..""
.. .... ..........
.. ............ ...
.........
.c'.......,...,'
~tQo,', '.',', '. '::.',','
Ol~:& '::::::::
.~O'"''''
- ...:....,.::.
........ --
........ ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.
........ ......... ..
........................................'.. -~
.............._............,. -
'..................-.....'...............'.'...........'.....:-.
...,..........,................. .
........,.........., ...'.' .....
. .....,................ '......
- '.: .: .:.:. :.:-:.:.:-: .:-:. :-:':.: -:':.:.:. :.:.:.:.:. :.:.
~.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:
- -=~:-:.:-:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:-:':.:'
- - - .::::::::::::::::
-- ...............
- - , .:::::::::::,
'--,..........
-::~.:.:':':.:':-:
'-'-':::::.
..,.....
~ :.::
2400 2100 1800 1SOO 1200
NORTH SOUTH GRID
o SANO
~ CL.A Y
~ (;RA VEl.
100
800
300
COORDINA TES
( F'T)
A'
8SO
840
820
-.
..J
V')
800 ~
to-
LL
'-'
580 Z
o
F
c(
SlO >
LLJ
..J
LiJ
~
520
o
ROLLINS ENVIRONM£NTAL SERVICES (FS). INC.
TF:CHNOt.OGY ,& ASSESSMENT DIVISION
-------
8
8'
:}:7:\:::::::S:>:~:::::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . . .
- '. '..'..'..'....'.'. .'.'. .'.'. ::::j.:\\:}::r::::;:.:~.::'.:i;.:i'.:.:.i:,~.:..;',::::.'i.:.,:','::'.':'.'.':
..'.':""""~" . -
.::.::.:.::.::.:.::.\.::,::.\.::. .:. . ' . . ~ :.:. ,~."
"':::?}:}::::}\::::::::::::: ::::':::::::'::::'}:::::::'::::::::::::::::}::'::::::{:':"" .
"""',,,,0,,.""" .0 . . . . . . .
. .' 0,,'.',0°,'.0',',"""""""
":.:,'.:-:. ':'::'.'.:.' .'.'.'.'.'.' .
. . . . :.::.':.",~'.:.'.'.: ..',:'.:."":"":"":"':'"':'.:.'.'.~'.,'~',.:'.'.:'.,':,': ',:
\:::::::.:::::::.:::::.:::
. ". " ,'. . ..' .. '. .,:. :.:.:.:....:..::.:.,::.:.::.,
. .
WW-1e
MW-1 ~
.', ",.0," t' .:-
'. '. '. '. .
'. '. '. '. .
. '. '. '. '.
:':::::::'::::'::':'::'\'::':":
800 800 -400
EAST
o SAND
~ CLAY
rual GRAVEL
MW-;
MW-12
MW- 13
----
.::.:. :.:. :,,:':":': ":":':'
,f. ,f. .
. ,f -.
. ..
"0',
. .
. .
. .0'.°,
, .
=--------.
200
200
o
..00
500
WEST
COORDINA TES
(FT)
GRID
800
8~0
840
820
r-.
-I
V1
eoo ~
~
lL.
~
580
z
o
~
c{
>
W
-I
W
~O
~
520
ROLLiNS £N'V1RONM£NTAL SER\I1C£S (FS), INC.
TE:CHNOLOGY 4e ASSESSMENT DIVTSrON
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE 7
CROSS SECTlON
GEOLOGi C
8
8'
-------
7
the shallow A-1 acpifer ocnt:a.i.nin;J organic ca--'I-:u-xJs (vinyl
d1loride, 1,1 did1l0r0ethane, and trans-1,2~d1l0r0ethene) and
elevated inorganics (cadmium, d1ranium and selenium). Vinyl
d1loride was detected at cxa~tia1S ran;ing to 89 parts per
billia1 (RJb), abaYe the Federal Max:imJm o:.ntami.nant Level (IoCL) of
2 RJb. '!be CXI'1taminant plume is cl:isdm:qing to the Gran:l River
south of the Site and also ext:.Eriis beneath agricultural land WIeSt
of the Site (Figure 8). Table 2 presents organic and inorganic
results !ran A-1 acpifer scmpling events 1,2 and 3.
* No organic o.lIl-:uns attrihrt:ed to the Site were detected in
. the A-2 aquifer for any of the three scmpling events. Inorganic
analysis inticated slightly elevated oc:rrentratioos of cadmium,
d1ranium, ira1 and ~; however levels are below awlicable
primary and secx:njary drinking water starrlards.
* Sarrpling and analysis of surface waters fran the east tri1:utary and
the Gram River for HSL CC'IIpCU"rls inticated the presence of elevated
levels of cadmium in dcwnqradient Grand River scmples. Expcsed fill
material and debris alcn:J the eastern and sa.rt:hern baIrrlaries of
Area B is the suspected soorce of the cadmium. Organic results fran
surface water analysis did oot inticate any cx:ntaminants
attriJ::utable to the Site. Refer to Figure 9 for surface water
scmpling loc:atioos and Table 3 for inorganic analytical results.
* Sarrpling and analysis of sed.iments fran the east tri1:utary and Grarrl
River for HSL 0.'1 am::ls inticated higher oc:rrentrations of organics
and inorganics in east tri1:utary scmples when c:nrpared to upgradient
scmples fran the Gran:l River. Hc7.vever, upgradient scmples fran the
east tri1:utary generally contained the highest rn nnher and
corx::entratioos of cx:ntaminants. Figure 9 illustrates ~ ; roE'nt
scmpling loc:atioos and Table 4 presents inorganic and organic
analytical results. .
* Ambient air scmpling did oot detect any organic ~ at
concentratioos above Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OOHA) PeDnissible Exposure Limits or MI:NR criteria. Ackii.tiooally,
there were no significant diff~ between the upw:in::i and down-
win:l analytical results with respect to the c::arpoon:1s detecterl am
their oc:rrentrations.
* '!he ~ Assessment inticated that the ingestion of
contaminated shallow groon:iwater dcwnqradient south of the Site
presents an una.<:x:eptable rnx::arcinogenic and carcimgenic risk, .
primarily due to the preserx:::e of vinyl d1loride above Federal MCIs.
'!he risks i't~iated with exposure to other potential migration
pathways were famj to be within acceptable levels.
* Sarrpling of residential W1ells within the area did oot inticate any
contaminants attriJ::utable to the site. F\1rt.heDrDre, there are no
private W1ells loc:ated dcwnqradient of the. Site. FUrther
-------
.
~
NOlltTH
.
.
FEET
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (FS) INC.
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
FIGURE 8
SH.ALLOW AQUIFER P~UME L!M!7S
-------
"
PARAMETER
UELL UBER
VINYl CHLORIDE
ACETONE
1,1 DICHLOROETHANE
TRANS-1;2 DICHLOROETHENE
BENlENE
M-NITROSODIPHENYLAHIME
TABLE 2
MONITORING UELLS . flRSJ SAMPLING EVENJ
ORGANIC ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
IONIA CITY LAWOflLL
- A1 AQUifER
027-01
029-01
030-01
032.01
OJ3-01
035-01
""'-2
"'" - ,
"" - 5
""-7 ""-8 ""-10
86.0
-'2.0 -'0.0
24.0 7.0
12.0
-21.0
.'6.0
6.0
-'7.0
-11.0
(1) . SAMPLE 10 NUMBER REPRESENJS LAST 5 DIGIJS Of THE NOMENCLATURE ICL-""-XXX-XX.
(2) . CONTRACJ REQUIRED'DEJECJION LIMIJ FOR -LOW LEVEL- UATER MAJRIX.
-
. COMPOUND DETECTED IN 'HE G.C. ILANK.
031.01
DEJECTIOI
LIMIT (2)
038.01
""-12 MU-l3
52.0 10.0
-29.0 10.0
5.0
5.0 15.0 5.0
5.0
-'1.0 10.0
-------
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
MONI'ORING UElLS . SECOMO SAMPLING EVEN' . A1 AQUifER
ORGANIC ANALY'lCAl SUMMARY
IONIA CITY LANDfiLL
SAMPLE IDENTifiCATION NUMBER (1) . CONCENTRATION AS ugtr (PP&1
DEfECTlOI
PARAMUEII 027.02 029-02 OJO-02 OJO-OJ OJ2-02 On-02 OJ5.02 0]7.02 OJ8-02 018 - OJ LIMIT (2)
~Ll NUM8E11 ""-2 ""-I, ""-5 ",,-5 ""-7 "'-8 ""-10 "'.12 ",,-n ..,-n
VI NYl C"LOR IDE -. -- .. 69.0 -. .. .. .. '1.0 J9.0 10.0
CARBON DiSUlfiDE .. .. .. .. .. 10.0 -. .. .. .- 5.0
1,1DICHLOROETHANE .. -. -- 26.0 .. - 8.0 .. . - .- 5.0
TRANS-1.2.DICHLORE'HENE .. .. -- -. .. lJ.O .. .. 17.0 18.0 5.0
(1) . SAMPLE 10 NUMBER REPRESENTS LAST 5 DIGITS Of THE NOMENCLATURE ICL-"'-XXX-XX.
(2) - CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMIT fOR -LOW LEVEL- VATER MATRIX.
.
. ~POUND DETECTED IN A LABORATORY Q.C. BLANK.
-------
PAIIAHEIU SAHPLE 10£N" 1 ICA"OM NtJt8E11 (1) 0 COMC£NIIIA"OM AS ugll (Ai») OffECflOIt
027-0) 029-0J 0)0-04 0)2-0) 0))-0) on-O) 017-0) 0)8-04 0)8-05 066-01 067-01 068-01 068-02 069-01 LlNIJ (2)
WELL ""£11 MI-2 ",,-4 MI-5 MI-7 MI-! ",,-10 MU-12 MU-n MI-n MIl- 14 ""-15 MIlo 16 MIl- 16 ",,-17
-., - -
Vlllfl CNLOItIOE -- -- -- 56.0 00 -- -. 61.0 68.0 .. 47.0 .. 00 00 10.0
1,'-0ICNlOllOE'"ANE -- .. .- 26.0 .0 6.0 0 - - - 00 -- .. .. 00 . - !'.o
'.AIIS-I,20IC"lOROE'"£NE - - -- .0 0 - 11.0 -- " 28.0 ]1.0 00 17.0 .. . . o. 5.0
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
MOIIIIORING WELLS - '"'110 SAMPLING EVEN' . At AQUIIER
ORGANIC ANALY"CAl SUHHAIIY
IOMIA CIIY lANDIILl
(,) - SAMPLE 10 NUH8£R R£PII£5£II'S LAS' 5 OIGI'$ 01 'HE NOH[IICLA'UIIE ICl-",,-XXX-XX.
(2) 0 CON'IIAC' R£QUIII£O OE'EC"018 llMI' lOll -lOW LEVEL- UAIER MAIIIIX.
-------
PARAMETfIt
\I( II IU4BER
AlLMl1U4
ANJIMONY
ARSENIC
BARILM
8ERTlllLM
CADM I LM
CALCILM
(HR(»fILM
C08ALT
CCPPU
IRON
lEAD
MAGNESILM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICICEl
POUSSILM
SElENILM
SilVER
$(I) I LM
THAlllLM
VANADILM
ZINC
TI\ULE 2 CONTINUED
MONITORING UEllS . flAST SAMPLING EVENT. A1 AQUifER
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
IONIA CITY lANDfilL
SAMPLE IDENTifiCATION NUMBER (
DETECTION
027.01 029-01 0]0-01 0]2-01 0]]-01 0]S-01 017-01 018-01 LIMIT (2)
IN-2 IN-4 1N-5 1N-7 1N'8 IN. 10 ""-12 1N-1]
200.0
60.0
10.0
218.0 211.0
S.O
8.0 10.0 8_0 9.0 10.0 22.0 5.0
70000.0 122000.0 104000.0 170000.0 119000_0 127000.0 111000.0 92800.0 5000.0
10.0
50.0
255.0
482.0 304.0 100.0
5.0
39600.0 43200.0 42400.0 76100.0 71600.0 68800.0 36800.0 40600.0 5000.0
199.0 183.0 523.0 580.0 817.0 658.0 225.0 n.o
0.2
40.0
7'580.0 33200.0 17700.0 20800.0 19100.0 5000.0
S.O
10.0
22700.0 58300.0 28900.0 79500.0 S92OO.0 88700.0 81000.0 49600.0 5000.0
'0.'
50.0
20.0
(1) . SAMPLE 10 NUMBER REPRESENTS LAST 5 DIGITS Of THE N(»fENClATUAE ICL-IN-XXX-XX.
(2) - CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECJlON LIMIT fOR "l~ lEVEL" "ATER MATRTX.
-------
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
MONI'ORING ~llS . SECOND SAMPLING EVEN' . AI AQUifER
INORGANIC ANAlYflCAl SUMMARY
IONIA ClfY lANDFill
SAMPLE IDEN'IfICAtION NUMBER (1) . CONCENTRATION AS ug/l (ppb)
PARAMEtER OEJECflGI
021.02 029 - 02 030-02 030-03 0]2 . 02 OH-02 035-02 0]1.02 018.02 038.0] liMn (2)
~ll IUtBEA "".2 ""-4 ",,-5 ",,-5 "".1 M11-8 MIl. 10 MIl. 12 MIl. 11 MIl. 11
AlUHl1UI " .' ., 227.0 .. .. 214.0 .. .. . . 200.0
ANtiMONY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 60.0
ARSENIC 20.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.0
tAR IUH .' .. .. .. .. 206.0 .. .. .. .. 200.0
8ERYlllIM " '. '. " ." ' '' " ., .. 5.0
CADNIUH 5.5 1.0 .. 9.1 5.7 8.4 9.5 5.) 6.7 5.8 5.0
CAlCl1M 83000.0 121000.0 150000.0 149000.0 92400.0 124000.0 16]000.0 106000.0 91400.0 92600.0 5000.0
CHR(Jt11M .. 186.0 87.0 12.0 .. 12.0 14.0 .. .. .. 10.0
C08Al f .' '' .. .. .' .. .. .. .. .. 50.0
COPPU " " 52.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 255.0
IRON 312.0 4610.0 117.0 10000.0 1000.0 2040.0 7810.0 2140.0 1110.0 1250.0 100.0
LEAD . . .. .. .- " .. .. .. 1.6 .. 5.0
MAGNfSl1M 31800.0 34500.0 14000.0 52100.0 29500.0 66800.0 49000.0 29500.0 31600.0 ) 1100.0 5000.0
MANGANESE 96.0 111.0 71.0 490.0 32.0 432.0 686.0 89.0 50.0 50.0 15.0
MERCURY .. .' '' .. .. '' '' .. .' .' 0.2
NiCkEl 14.0 106.0 82.0 44.0 .. 41.0 41.0 .. 40.0 42.0 . 40.0
POfASSl1M .. -. 31100.0 16500.0 '. 17800.0 21200.0 .. .. .. 5000.0
SElENIUM .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. '. .. 5.0
SILVER 11.0 10.0 10.0 H.O .. .. 12.0 .. 10.0 11.0 10.0
soon.. 16100.0 63600.0 20100.0 57J00.0 155000.0 52800.0 59200.0 75100.0 )noo.o 37000.0 5000.0
'HAL 1I1M .. .. .. " " " .' '' '' '. 10.0
VANADIlJ4 .. .' .. " " .. .. .. .. .. 50.0
ZINC 20.0 .. 39.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20.0
(1) . SAMPLE .0 NUMBER .EPRESENJS lAST 5 OIG"S OF 'HE NOMENClA'URE ICl-MII-XXX.XX.
(2) - CONfRACJ REQUIRED DEJECJJON liMn FOR "l~ lEVEL" \lA'ER MAJAIX.
-------
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
MONITORING UfllS - THIRD SAMPLING EVENT - A1 AQUifER
INORGANIC ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
!OH!A CITY lA~Dr:tt
SAMPLE IDENTIfiCATION NUMBER (1) CONCENTRATION AS ug/l (ppb)
PARAMETER DEfECTION
027-03 029.03 030,04 OJ2.0J on-OJ O]S-O] 0]7-0] 0]8.04 0]8.05 066-01 067.01 068.01 068-02 069-01 LIMIT (2)
~ll IUCIIU NY.z MIl. 4 "".5 ""-5 "",8 ",,-10 M\I.12 "".1} NY. 1) "".14 "",15 M\I.16 "",16 M\I.17
Alt... JUt .. .. .. .. .. . 0 " 216.0 . . .. .. .. .. " 200.0
AN" MOMY .. .. -. .. .. .. .0 .. " .. . . .. .. .. 60.0
ARSENIC .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. '0 .. 10.0
IARIIM .. " -. .. .. .- 0 . . . . . .. .. .. .. " 200.0
IEUlllIM .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " 5.0
CAOMIIM .. -0 .- .. .. .. .. . . o. .. .. .. .. .. 5.0
CAlCIIM 92]00.0 1)7000.0 1SI.000.0 165000.0 119000.0 18200.0 115000.0 109000.0 108000.0 150000.0 119000.0 121000.0 122000.0 115000.0 5000.0
CHAc..ltM -- -. - - -. .. -- -- .- -. .. .. .. -. -- 10.0
COUll -- .. . - 0- .. .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. 50.0
(OPPEII .. .. .- .. .. .. o' . . .. .. .. .. 10.0 '0 25.0
111011 292.0 4150.0 .. 6590.0 1120.0 3180.0 2'00.0 1070.0 829.0 464.0 903.0 .. .. .. 100.0
LEAD " " " " o. o. .. .. .. o. .. .. .. .. 5.0
MAGNESllM 16100.0 39400.0 31,600.0 n'ioo.o 83800.0 51400.0 ]1800.0 35200.0 351,00.0 ]]700.0 "900.0 22500.0 22700.0 41000.0 5000.0
MANCANE Sf 127.0 1'0.0 11,2.0 S1S.0 516.0 897.0 71.0 es.o 79.0 303.0 337.0 118.0 120.0 23S.0 1S.0
MEA CURY .. .. .- .. .- -. .- .. .- '- .. 3.2 .. .. 0.2
.NIUEl .. .. .. . . .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40.0
POrASSllM .. '0 29300.0 17600.0 31200.0 16400.0 . . . . . . .. . . .. .. 5870.0 5000.0
SHEIl 11M .. .. 12.0 -. .. -. o. .. .. " .. .. .. .. 5.0
SILVER .. .. " .. .. '0 .. . . .. .. .. o. .. .. 10.0
SOOlIM 19100.0 74700.0 21300.0 66800.0 65300.0 n3OO.0 79400.0 1,3600.0 44600.0 41800.0 44500.0 6820.0 6390.0 205000.0 5000.0
'HALlllM .. .. .. .. " .. .- .. .. 00 .0 .0 .. .. 10.0
YANAOIIM .. .. .. .. .. .. .0 . . .. . . o. .. .- .. 50.0
liNC " '0 " " " '0 .. . . .. " . 0 .. " .. 20.0
(1) . SAMPLE 10 NUMBER .EPlESE.TS LAS' 5 DIGITS I. Nc..ENCLATURE rCL''''''kXX-XX.
(2) . CONTRACJ IlEClJllm DEJECTION LIMIT fOR "LW LEVEL- VATER MA'RIX.
-------
r-: I
U1
SW/SD 025 0
0 ~
Z >-
~ ::J NORTH
W W CD
-.J -
U 0::
r-
AREA A
LEGEND
:::::- .
. .:;'.
'.:::::::::. SW/SD 019
. r ""'""""..
I ',',
. . : : : : : :
I
I
I
o SAMPLING POINTS
. '.
. ,::::::::::::;:::;:::::::
AREA 8
SW/SD 0\' J~~
o 024 \' "J
G~p..~\)
~I
022
o
f
200
400
600
o SW/SD
023
FEET
-
ROLLINS EN\/IRONM£NTAL S£RVlC£S (FS), 'Nc.l
"TECHNOLOGY & ASSFSSMENT D/\/!SIQN \
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
F1GURE 9
SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPUNG LOCATIONS
I
-------
fABLE 1
SUlFACE VAJER SAMPLES
INORGANIC ANALYJICAL SI""ARY
IONIA CI" LANDFILL
SAMPLE 10 NlJ4BER 0) CONCENJRAJ ION AS 119/1 (pph)
PAIAMETEII FinD IUIIJ; DEJECTION
0111-01 019.01 020.01 021.01 022.01 021.01 024.01 025.01 025.01 000.01 lIMIf (2)
Alt....... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200.0
AN" 101' .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 60.0
AUENIC .. .. .. " " .. .. .. .. .. 10.0
IAUlJ4 .. .. .. " " .. ., .. .. " 200.0
IUYlLIlM .. " .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. 5.0
CADM I lit .. .. .. .. 9.0 10.0 . . . . .. .. 5.0
CALC I lit 12'000.0 115000.0 92'00.0 100000.0 8]200.0 82500. ° nooo.o 1ZZooo.0 1MOOO.0 . . 5000.0
C"R~llJI .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. 10.0
COBAlJ " " " .. .. .. " .. .. . . 50.0
CU>PER " " .' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25.0
I ROIl .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 100.0
LEAD .. " .. .. . . . . .. .. 16.0 .. 5.0
MAGNESllJI .. .. 24900.0 .. 22000.0 21800.0 20800.0 .. " .. 5000.0
MANGANESE .. .. .. '. .. " " " " 15.0
MUMY .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.2
III UEL " " " " ,. " .. .. .. . . 40.0
POJASSllJI . . .. " .. .. .. .. 5550.0 5900.0 .. 5000.0
SELEN'lJI .. .. .. .. .. .. ..' .. .. " 5.0
SILVER ." ' .' ., .. " 10.0 .. .. .. 10.0
soon.. .. .. 11400.0 .. 14200.0 '5800.0 11000.0 7'5100.0 80000.0 .. 5000.0
tHALL IlJI " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.0
VANADllJI .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50.0
ZINC .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20.0
(') . SAMPLE ID lUMBER REPRESENJS LAST 5 DIGITS OF THE NOMENCLATURE ICL.SU'XX.,X.
(2) . COMTACf REQUIRED DEtECt 1011 LIMits BASED ON -LOU LEVEL- VATER MATRIX; INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE LIMitS ARE ADJUStED ACCORDINGLY.
-------
PARAMETER
METHTlENE CHLORIDE
ACETONE
2'8UTANONf
"N.TROSODIPMENTlAMINE
PHfNANAUREWE
DI'.'8UTTlPHTHAlATE
fUBANTHENE
PTRENE
IENlO (8) ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
IENlO (b) flUORANTHENE
IENlO (k) flUORANTHENE
IENlO (8) PYRENE
4,41.00E
4,4"000
4,4' 'OOT
pit
PERCfIT MO. SME
-
TABLE 4
ORGANIC ANALYIICAl SUMMARY
SEDIMENI SAMPLING
IONIA CIIT LANDfiLL
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (1) CONCENTRATION AS ug/Kg (ppb)
fiElD BLANK DETECTION
018-02 019-02 020.02 021.02 022.02 023-02 024'02 025.02 025.04 000-02 LIMIT (2)
22.0 31.0 17.0 *14.0 .. .. *7.0 *8.0 .. *15.0 5.0
*]5.0 *90.0 *120.0 .. *14.0 .. .. .. .. .. 10.0
*20.0 *21.0 *20.0 .. *20.0 *19.0 .. *17.0 .. *12.0 10.0
.. 1100.0 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 330.0
. . .. .. " .. .. .. 1000.0 .. .. 330.0
.. .. *640.0 *610.0 .. *600.0 .. *970.0 *1400.0 .. 330.0
.. 6'50.0 .. .. .. .. .. 1500.0 2600.0 .. 330.0
.. '5'50.0 .. .. .. " .. 1200.0 2200.0 .. 330.0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 610.0 960.0 .. 330.0
.. .. -. .. .. " .. 840.0 1400.0 .. 310.0
.. .. .. .. .. . . . . 1200.0 1200.0 .. 330.0
.. .. -. .- .. .. .. .. 1600.0 .. 330.0
.. .. .. .. . . .. .. 730.0 1200.0 .. 330.0
.. .. .. .. .. .. . . 40.0 .. .. 16.0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 28.0 .. .. 16.0
27.0 2'5.0 .. .. .. .. .. 24.0 .. .. 16.0
7.5 7.6 7.6 1.7 1.7 7.7 7.1 6.5 7.2 .,"
30.0 28.0 41.0 26.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 27.0 29.0 .,"
(1) . 10 MUMlER REPRESENTS LAST '5 DIGITS Of THE NOMENCLATURE ICL-SO-XXX-XX.
(2) . CONTRACT REOUIRED DETECTION LIMITS lASED UPON 01 MOISTURE -LOU LEVEL- SOil MATRIX, INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE LIMITS ARE ADJUSIED ACCORDINGLY.
*
DETECTED IN LABORATORY O.C. BLANK.
N'. . NOT APPLICABLE
-------
TABLE 4 CONTINUED
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
INORGANIC ANAL'TICAL SUMMARY
10NIA CI" LANDFILL
SAMPLE 10 NUMBER (lI) CONCENTRATION AS ug/Kg (ppm)
PARAMETER fiELD IUNK DETECTION
018.02 019.02 020.02 021.02 022.02 023.02 024'02 025.02 025.04 000.02 LIMit (2)
Alt...... 7780.0 9680.0 10020.0 9180.0 '230.0 10900.0 71030.0 1960.0 6150.0 .. 20.0
ANTIMON' " .. " . - .. -. .. .. " .. 6.0
ARSENIC 15.0 15.0 .. 17.0 .. 12.0 H.O .. 6.8 .. 1.0
IAIII.... 85.0 51.0 710.0 131.0 '9.0 73.0 96.0 .. 38.0 .. 20.0
IERYLLI.... .' . - .. .. .. .. .. .. .' " 0.5
CADMI"" 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.4 0.82 1.4 .. 0.5
tALC I"" 2'500.0 73000.0 "1000.0 28500.0 33200.0 38900.0 39100.0 19300.0 20900.0 .. 500.0
CHR(»4I.... 14.0 16.0 11.0 16.0 ".0 19.0 n.o 4.10 H.O .. 1.0
C08AL T 1.9 8.2 .. 10.0 .- .. .. .. .. .. 5.0
COPPEI! 13.0 9.9 12.0 6.] 7.8 14.0 4.7 4.6 . . .. 2.5
IRON 28800.0 19300.0 13900.0 35000.0 11100.0 14700.0 19700.0 7290.0 11100.0 .. 10.0
LEAD 710.0 17.0 21.0 12.0 18.0 29.0 n.o 110.0 27.0 .. 0.5
MAGNESllM 10600.0 2'800.0 9700.0 17000.0 .. 8980.0 12000.0 .. .. " 500.0
MANGANESE "2.0 '09.0 510.0 1220.0 2".0 535.0 901.0 1042.0 350.0 .. 1.5
MEROJR' 0.28 0.14 0.22 0.16 .. 0.17 0.16 .. " .. 0.02
NICKEl 21.0 20.0 15.0 23.0 11.0 28.0 16.0 6.7 12.0 .. 4.0
POTASSllM 761..0 1370.0 -- .. -- .. m.o .. 737.0 .. 500.0
SELENllM .. -- . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 0.5
III VEil .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1.0
$(X) I"" " " " " " " " " " " 500.0
THALLllM . . . . .. .. . . . . " ., .. .. 1.0
VANAOllIt 16.0 15.0 " 21.0 8.2 9.4 16.0 8.6 15.0 .. 5.0
ZINC 166.0 42.0 95.0 66.0 106.0 65.0 109.0 29.0 6].0 .. 2.0
pi! 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.1 6.5 7.2 ./A
PElla., IOllD 70.0 n.o 59.0 74.0 69.0 68.0 67.0 73.0 71.0 ./A
(1) . SAMPLE ID IUMBEII REPIIESENTS LAST 5 DIGITS OF THE NOMENCLATURE ICL'~.XXX'XX,
(2) . CONTRACT REOUIRED DETECTION LIMITS BASED ON 1001 SOLID, "LOU LEVEL" SOIL MATRIX.
N'A . NOJ APPLICABLE
-------
o
8
develcpDent of pt'CJJerty(ies) adj~ to tl1e Site is unlikely due
their locaticm in tl1e floodplain of tl1e Gran:! River.
VI. ~ OF SITE RISI(S
~ recpi.res that U.S. EPA protect human health an:1 tl1e envircnDent fran
an:rent an:1 p:rt:.ent.ial ~ to hazaJ:OOJs substances foun:l at an:1 near
tl1e Site. An ~ Ass~~ (FA) was prepared by tl1e PRPs an:1
their consultant as part of tl1e RI/FS. '!be objective of tl1e FA was to
detennine tl1e magnitme an:1 probability of actual or potential harm to
PJblic health fran ~ to 0CI1taminants rel-~ fran tl1e Site. '!his
was a~lIplished by evaluating tl1e chemicals detected durirg tl1e site
investigaticm to determine tl1e 0CI1taminants of
-------
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Note:
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR FINAL INDICATOR COMPOUND SELECTION
IONIA CITY LANDFILL
1.
VUlyl chloride was selected due to frequency of detection and high PCINC ranking.
1,1 Dichloroethane was selected due to a high NC l"AnJdng.
Trans 1,2 dichloroethene was selected due to a high NC ranking.
Toluene was not selected since it w8s detected in both upgradient and downgradient soil
S8Inples and upwind and downwind air S8IDples in approximately the S8IDe frequency and
magnitude.
Metbylene chloride was selected since it is a probable carcinogen, detected in groundwater and
detected in the source area.
1,1,1 Trichloroethene was selected since it was detected in the Area A trench S8IDple, and it was
tbE~ most representative compound detected in tbe air monitoring samples.
Ethylbenzene was not selected since it was only detected in the Area A trench samples.
Barium was not selected since it was observed in the upgradient and downgradient groundwater
and surface water samples in tbe same frequency and magnitude, and tbe soil concentrations
were below typical background concentrations.
Selenium was selected due to a higb NC ranking and its presence in groundwater above MCLs.
Mercury was not selected since it was not detected in the surface water or groundwater, and
it was not frequently observed in tbe soil matrix.
Lead Yw"8S not selected since it was not detected in the surface water (except the upstream
sample), it was detected only one time in the groundwater samples (below the MCL), and it
was observed in the upgradient and downgradient soil boring and sediment samples in
approximately the same frequency and magnitude.
Cadmium was selected since it was detected in the surface water, the groundwater above the
MC!.. and the soil matrix above typical background levels. It was also detected in the point
source.
Manganese was selected since it was detected frequently in the groundwater at concentrations
greater than the drinking water standards.
Silver was selected since it was u:.tected in both tbe groundwater and soil matrix samples.
Chromium was selected since it was detected in the groundwater above the MCLs and in the
source above the typical backgrOW1G soil range.
Butyl benzyl pbthalate was selected as tbe most representative compound of the semi-
volatile organics since it was frequently detected in Area A and the soil matrix samples.
-------
9
B. ExcosuJ"P A.~~
Six e>q:osure scenarios were identified through \Whic:b pcptlatia'1S COUld
potentially ~ -lit:' e~ to the in:ticator cr--'I>OUn:is detected at the Site.
'!he scenarios include:
1. ~iQ'1 of OCI'1taminated shallai graJrdwater,
2. In;JestiQ'1 of OCI'1taminated soils,
3. DenDal exposure to OCI'1taminated soils,
4. InhalatiQ'1 of volatile organics,
5. Incidental in:JestiQ'1 of OCI'1taminated surface water, and
6. ~iQ'1 of OCI'1taminated fish.
~atia1S potentially at risk are primarily located in a light crmwnercial
am residential area i1mlAriiately north of the Site. Undeve.1cp:d prqJerty,
owned by the City of Iatia, is located to the east of the Site: a
recreational area to the west-northwest: agricultural lam to the west am
soothwest: am the Grand River to the south. '!he area south of the Grand
River is sparsely pcpUated, with develqment cx::mprised of in:tividual
residences am ccmnercial am recreatia1al facilities. Figure 2 depicts
each of these areas Q'1 a lam use map. Based a'l u. S. Census infonnation,
data fran the City of Ia1i.a am the USGS quaclran;le map, it is estiJnated
that the 1988 pcp.1latiQ'1 within a ooe mile radius of the Site is 3,508.
'Ihe potential human e>q:osure associated with each in:ticator crl11p:Jun::i was
evaluated relative to each identified e>q:osure scenario am pcp.1lation.
'Ihe evaluatia'l resulted in an estiJnated future exposure dase, e>q>ressed in
tenns of intake, which is the annmt of substance taken into the body per
lD'li t body ~ight per lD'lit time. Exposure doses were calculated }:)ased upon
maximum am average (gecmetric mean) concentrations for an affected media
am exposure pathway to detennine the representative daily intakes, Le.
chronic or subdu:cnic, adult or child.
~estion of shallai OCI'1taminated graJrdwater represents the primary
potential e>q:osure pathway of cx:n::em at the Site am will be the only
scenario di~1'SSed in detail in this section. '!he assuIrptions made for the
p.Jrpose of the e>q:osure "'s.~ for graJrdwater irx:11.D:d:
* consunptia'l of 2 liters per day for an adult an:! 1 liter per day for
a ch.i.1d;
* body ~ight of 70 kg for an adult am 10 kg for a child:
* 100 percent absoIption:
* frequency of CC11tact of 365 days per year: am
* e>q:osure duratia'l of 25 years over a life t:i1ne of 70 years.
-------
10
SaItplirq of the shallow grcun:!water dcwn;Jradient of the site resulted in
the detei::tioo of 9 of the 11 iniicatar CU'\QJI'ds. 'Ihe OJII\~ am the
representative am JDa)t';1Ium IENr GRXJNIJtUam CXIICEN1Wa'ICH;:
SHAII..ai 1QJIFER cmN
0:mxAmd
Avg.
(~ic mean)
(\XIII)
6.93
1.10
2.55
2.86
4.51
2.74
202.03
2.48
2.06
Vinyl OUoride
Metiiylene OUeride
1,1 Did1l0r0ethane
Trans-1,2 Did1loroethene
CadmilDD
OU:"C:milDD
Marganese
SelenilDD
Silver
Max.
(\XIII)
86
1
26
31
22
186
897
12
8
'!he limits of the plume have been defined as the Grarxl River ;1ImI"It"1;ate.ly
sa.rt:h of the Site, exten:iin:J !ran the western baIn:iaries in a sa.rt:h-
scuthwest:erly clirectioo. As previously illustrated 00 Figure 8, the plume
has exterx3ed past Clevelani Street ani CI1to the pI'q)erty west of the
lamfill.. 'Ihe majority of the pJ:q)erty is i.n.Jnjated with the flcx:xi waters
of the Grarx1 River every Sprirq. Based upcI1 the clirectioo of grwn:iwater
flow, 00 other pIq)erties woold be inpacted by the plume, due to it's
expected disc:harge into the Grarxl River.
At present there is 00 potential for the irgestioo of contam.inated
graJrXiwater since 00 \1IIells, except for the JIalitorirq \1IIells installed
durirq tl1e site investigatioo, exist between the site am the disc:harge
p:>int of the shallow aquifer, the Grarxl River. 'Ihe likelihood of future
use of tl1e shallow aquifer in this area in mi.rrima1 due to ~~ fl~
of the Site am surroon::lin; area, am current am projected larxi use of the
Site arxi adjacent prqerties inpacted by contam.inated graJrXiwater. It is
anticipated that institutiaal CXX1trols will carpletely el:iJn.inate the
possibility of this expa;ure scenario: ~er, for p.1Ip06es of the
expa;ure ",~~c::mpJ'1t this cannot be assumed.
Table 6 presents estimated chra1i.c expa;ure ckses for adults am children.
u. S. EPA standard parameters for intakes, body W1eights am frequency of
contact were used to ac:c:olD'1t for in:rementa1 water in:Jestioo away fran
hane. O:,rrentratioos used for ti1ese calculatioos are representative of the
ooncent.rcltioos cb;etved durirq the JIalitorin; of the shallow A-1 aquifer
arxi of a \Verst case in:Jestion c:x:n=entration.
c. Risk ()1aracterizatioo
'!be pIrpC>Se of the risk d1aracterization is to ass€'SS the potential risks
of the 9 iniicator o.,\.oon:is detected in grcun:!water relative to the
grwn:iwa1:er expa;ure scenario. Risk levels were determined by cx:.nparin;
-------
phe-I
ESTIMATED
INGESTION
TABLE 6
ADULT CHRONIC BXPOSURB DOSES FOR
OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
CHEHICAJ.
Adult
Human
Ilitake Factor
( I/kg/day)
Wor.t Cae.
Concentration
(llg/1)
Moet
Probabl. Ca.e
Concentration
Img/l)
Worat Caa.
Chronic Dally
Intalt.
(Illg/itg/day)
Moat Probable
Chronic Daily
(mg/ltg/day)
Caa.
Intalt.
---
2.9 E-2
8.6 1-2
6.9 B-]
2.5 1-]
2.0 1-.
VINYL C"WRIDE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HETIlYLliNB cm.ORI DE
2.9 1-2
1. 0 B-]
1.1 1-]
2.9 1-5
].2 1-5
----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1 DICHLORO[THANE
2.9 E-2
2.6 1-2
2.6 B-]
1.5 B-.
1.5 1-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRMlS 1,2 OI,IIJ.OROETHENE 2.9 E-2
]. I 8-2
2.9 B-]
9.0 1-.
8.. B-5
------------
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CADHIUM
2.9 B-2
2.2 1-2
..5 1-]
6.. 1-.
1.] 1-.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHROMIUM
2.9 E-2
1. 9 8-1
2.1 1-]
5.5 B-]
1.8 1-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE
2.9 E-2
9.0 I-I
2.0 I-I
2.6 1-2
5.8 B-]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELENIUM
2.9 E-2
1. 2 B-2
2.5 1-]
].5 1-.
1.] 1-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVER
2.9 1-2
8.0 B-]
2.1 1-)
2.] 1-.
6.1 1-5
1.
2.
].
HumBn Intalte Factor - atandard drinlting wat.r intalt. per day/atandard body weight
Chronic Daily Intake. CDI - Concentration X BUlI8n Intake Factor
The geometric (moat probable case) Bnd maximum (worat case) ahallow groundwater
concentrations upon which th. expoaure dos.. are baaed are presented in Table ]-5.
-------
TiliH.r. 6 CONT i NU[O
ESTIMATED CHIJ.O CHRONIC EXP08URE oo8E8 FOR
INGESTION OF CONTAMINATED OROUNDWATER
CHEMICAL
Child
Human
Intake racto~
( l/kg/dayl
Ho.t
Probabl. C...
Concent~ation
(lIIg/ll
Wo~.t C...
Chronic
Oa11y Intake
(lDg/kg/daYI
Wor.t Ca..
Conc.ntration
(Illg/ll
Hoat Probable
Cau. Ch~onic
Dally Intake
(lIg/kg/daYI
VINYL CHLORIOE
0.1
8.6 8-2
6.9 B-J
8.6 B-3
6.9 1-&
HETHYLENE CHlORIDE
0.1
1. 0 8- 1
1.1 B-3
1.0 1-&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------
1.1 1-&
-----------.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...----------------
1,1, DICHLOROE'rHANE
0.1
2.6 1-2
2.6 B-)
2.6 B-1
2.6 1-&
TRAJi8 1,2 DICIlLOROETHI:NE
0.1
1.1 1-2
2.9 B-1
1.1 8-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------
2.9 1-&
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
CADMIUM
0.1
2.2 8-2
4.~ B-1
2.2 1-3
&.~ 1-&
CHROMIUM
0.1
1. 9 8-1
2.1 B-1
1. 9 1-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 1-&
---------..------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE
0.1
9.0 8-1
2.0 B-1
9.0 1-2
2.0 1-2
8ELENIUM
0.1
1. 2 8- 2
2.5 B-3
1. 2 E-1
------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..------------------------
2.5 1-4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--
81LVER
0.1
8.0 E-3
2.1 E-1
8.0 E-&
1.
2.
3.
Human Intak. Factor. etondard drinking wotor intako per day/.tandard body w.lght
Chronic Dally Intak. - COl. Concentration x HUlllan Inlak. Factor
Th. geometric (moet ptobab1. caee) and maxllllum (woret coeel groundwate~ concentration.
boeed ar. pt.e.nted In Table 3-5.
upon which th.e. .xpoBur. do... are
2.1 i-a
-------
11
projectecl intakes an:i referer'D! levels for ncn::arci.mgens an:i crTI'{\arirg
calOllated risks an:i target risks for potential carci.mgens. .
To detennine the l'Q1CarCinogenic risk, the hazard imex (HI) for each
cq:plicable indicator 0 .'I~ was calallated. 'Ihe HI is the ratio bebween
the estimated exposure dose for each cx.ntaminant an:i the acceptable
exposure level for the same cx.ntaminant, expressed as:
HI = estimated exposure dose / acceptable exposure level
A ratio of greater than unity (ooe) indicates an ~le risk.
'Ihe carcinogenic risks were quantified by calOllatirg the inc:rementa1 risk
i'1~iated with the average lifetbE dose of the cx.ntaminant. 'Ihe fozm.1la
used for the calOllatioos is as follows:
Carcinogenic risk = carcinogenic p:1tency factor x average lifetime dose
'!he factors used for the reference levels and target risks were established
by u.s. EPA, while the projectecl intakes and calOllated risks were
determined per pI'CX'E!dures established in the SUpe.rfun::l Public Health
Evaluation Manual (U.s. EPA 1986a) and the Exposure Factors Han:Dx:ok
(draft, u.s. EPA 1987).
'!be exposure doses for in;estion of contaminated groun:iwater for adult and
child pcp1laticn presented in Table 6 were used to calOllate both the
carcinogenic and ncn:-arcinogenic risks.
'!he acceptable exposure levels for each c:x:ITpa1nd are include:i in Table 7.
(Table 7 incl1.~ exposure levels expressed in terms of acceptable
intakes-subc:hrcnic (AIS) and acceptable l.ntakes-d'1rcnic (AIC).) A HI of
greater than one indicates an unacceptable risk. As indicated on Table 8,
the ratios for methylene chloride, trans-I, 2 dichloroethene, JDim3al1eSe and
selenium are less than cne in both the ~rst case and most prd:lable case
scenarios. However, for both adults and children, there is an unacceptable
noncarcinogenic risk in the ~rst case scenario, due to cadmium and
chranium exposure dosoo. '!he chranium HI calOllaticn for the ~rst case
scenario was based a1 a ooe-time maxi.mJm value of 186 u:;Vl, which CXI1trasts
with the geanetric mean of 2.74 tq,/L. '!he cadmium HI calculatia'1 for, the
~rst case situaticn was based on a a1e-time IDa.YiMl1Jll value of 22 u:JIl,
which CXI1trasts with the geanetric mean of 4.51 u;/l. F'urthe.t:Toore, with
the excepticn of the nRyiMlMl value, all cadmium CCII'reI1trations were at or
belCM the Natiooal Primary Dr.ink:irq Water Stamard of 10 u:;Vl.
It should also be noted that an AIC for vinyl chloride has not been
established due to the fact that as a carc:irogen, there is no acceptable
level. COnsequently, a vinyl chloride HI was not calOllated.
Additionally, AICs have not been established for either trans-l,2-
dichloroethene or silver.
'!be carcinogenic risk posed by i.rgestion of the shallow groun:iwater was
determined by calallatirg the inc:rementa1 risk associated with the average
-------
8\1HHARY
FOR THB
TI\BI.I: 7
OF INOESTION TOXICITY
INDICATOR COMPOUNDS
VALUF.S
CHEMICAL
AlS (I) AlC (2)
(mq/kg/day) (mil/kg/day) PF ())
Not Olven Not Oiven 2.3 B'O
VINYL CHLORIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
(DICHLOROKETIIANE)
6 £-2
6 1-2
7.5 B-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I DICHLOROETIIANE
1 E'O
I B-1
9.1 1-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I , I, I TR I CHI.OIIOETHANE
9 E-I
9 1-2
_/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANS 1,2 DICIILOROETHENE
Not Olvan
flot Givan
'ilIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CADMIUM
Not Oivan
I B-3 (food'
5 B-. (watar)
filA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHROMIUM
2 E-2
5 8-]
filA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE
5 1-1
2 1-1
MIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELENIUM
. B-3
] 1-3
MIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVER
Not 01ven
Not 01 ven
N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUTYL BENZYL PIITHAUTE
2 E.D
2 1-1
'ilIA
1.
2.
3.
AIS . Allowable Inlake - 8ubchronlc
AIC . AI)owable Inlake - Chronic
PF . Carcinogenic Polency faClor
AI) toxicIty valuos, I.e., AI8, AIC and PF, obtained from U.8. BPA'e Hea)th Effect. Asseasment Summary Table. Second Quarter FY 1989.
-------
TABLE 8
ADULT RISK CHARACTERIZATION III POR INOESTION
OF GROUNDWATER, NONCARCINOOENIC EFFECT8
CHEHICAL
Worat C...
CDI
I mq/kg/d.yl
Hoat Probable
Case CDI
Img/kg/daYI
RAZAJID I'NDEX
ACCEPTABLB oo8B------------------------------------------------------------
121 WOJlBT CASB W:>ST PROBABLE CASB
VINYL CHWRIDJ:
2.5 B-)
2.0 B-.
Not Ohen
01
IJI
HETHYLENB Cm.t)RIDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.9 E-5
).2 £-5
6 B-2
..8 £-.
5.) 8-.
-------------_.~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I OICHLOROETIlo\NE
7.5 B-.
7.5 £-5
1 8-1
7.5 B-)
7.5 8-.
----------------.----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------.
-------------------------
TRAN8 1,2 OICHLOROETHEN£ 9.0 1-.
CADHIUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.. B-5
Not Oh.n
131
IJI
6.. B-.
1.) 8-.
5 1-.
1.)
2.6 1-1
CHROHIUH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5 1-)
1.8 B-5
5 1-)
1.1
1.6 8-2
HANOAH£8E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6 £-2
5.8 B-)
2 I-I
1.) 8-1
2.9 8-2
8ELENIUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
).5 1-.
7.) B-5
) 1-)
1. 2 8-1
2.. 1-2
8ILVER
,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) B-.
6.1 8-5
Not Olv.n
1)1
131
8um of BI. - Wor.t Caa. - 2.7
8um of BI. - Hoat Probable C..e - ).) B-1
Refer to Table )-6 for Expoaura Doaea
I. Rlak chsracterlzatlon for noncsrclnogena I. presented aa a BSlard Index ~hlch la the
ratio of the estimated e.poeure doso to acceptable doae.
Acceptsble Oose . Allowable Intftke - Chronic (AICI as preaented In Table 5-1.
The Ifazard Index cannot bs calculated alnce an acceptable doae has not been established.
2.
) .
-------
TABLE 8 CONTINUEO
CHILD RIS~ CHARACTERIZATION (I) FOR INGESTION
0' OROUNDWATBRI NONCARCINOUENIC SFFEL~8
CHEMICAL
Wor.t Ca.e
CDI
Illg/kg/day)
Mo.t Probable
Ca.e CDI
Illg/kg/day)
HAZARD INDEX
ACCEPTABLB DOSB------------------------------------------------------------
(2) WORST CASB HOST PROBABLE CASE
VINYL CHLOIIIDB
8.6 E-)
6.9 E-.
Not Given
I))
())
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHYLENE CI/LORIDE
I. 0 B-.
I. 1 E-.
6 B-2
I. 7 B-)
1. 8 B-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 DICHLOR0F.THAHE
2.6 B-)
2.6 E-.
1 B-1
2.6 B-2
2.6 B-)
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANS 1,2 DIClILOROE11IEIIE ).1 B-)
2.9 E-.
Not Given
P)
( ))
------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CADMIUM
2.2 B-1
..5 E-.
5 B-.
...
9.0 11-1
------------- "-----------------------------------------------------------------.
-----------------------------------------------
CHROMiuM
J. 9 £-2
2.7 B-.
5 1-)
].8
5.. 1-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANGANESE
9.0 1-2
2.0 E-2
2 1-1
..5 B-1
1.0 11-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELENIUM
1. 2 B-)
2.5 B-.
) 1-)
..0 8-1
8.) 1-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SILVER
8.0 B-.
2.1 B-.
Not Given
(3)
())
Sua of 01. - Wor.t C..e - 9.1
Sua of 01. - Moat Probable Ce.e - 1.1
Refer to Table )-7 for Expo.ure Do.e.
1. RI.k characterization for noncarclnogen. I. pre.ented a. a Hazard Index which i. the
ratio of the e.tlllated expoaure doae to .ccepteble do...
Acceptable Doae - Allowable Intake - Chronic IAICI aa pre.ented In Table 5-1.
The lIazard Index cannot be calculated .Ince an acceptable do.e haa not been eatabU.hed.
2.
).
-------
12
lifetime dose of vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, am 1,1-dl.chloro-
ethane. A value of 25 years was utilized as the reasa\able worst case
estimate to repreSent the time spent at me residence (U. S. EPA 1987;
Contract No. 68-02-4254). ~ risks were cala.1lated for both adults an:l
children for both the worst case an:l JOOSt probable cases. As :in:li.cated 00
Table 9, the in3estiat of shallCM gI"OOn:lwater pre sents a lifetime ~
risk greater than the EPA point of departure of 10-6 ~ risk (1 ~
per millioo pcp.Uatiat) for vinyl chloride an:l 1,1 did1loroethane.
VII. DESaUPrICN OF AIlI'ERNATIVE5
'!he major objective of the FS was to evaluate ~H~l altematives
cxnsistent with the cpUs an:l objectives of C!'a:IA, as amended by SARA.
'!be al temati ves evaluated in the FS were divided into actions ocnsic1ered
for either the point sa.u:oe or groorxiwater pathways. 'these altematives
are d;~1~~ in detail in the FS report an:l with sane m:xtifications, are
sumnarized belCM. ~ were made in the Pl1~ Plan to establish a
true No Action al temative for both the point sa.u:oe an:l gI"OOn:lwater
pathways, an:l to separate Darltorirg of the point sa.u:oe area fran l~-
tenn nDnitorirg of the entire Site. With the exceptioo of the No Action
alternative, elements of each of the point sa.u:oe altematives in::l\X3e
limited a~ to the Site, repair of degraded soil CJ:Ne.r, inplementirg
institutional CXII'1trols to prevent actions at affected prqerties which
might increase the release or potential release of hazarda.1s sul:stanoes to
the environment or endan:Jer PJblic health, an:l point sa.u:oe Da'litorirg.
Point source Darltorirg will entail the installation of at least three
nDnitorirg wells into the shallCM aquifer imnediately c1cwn;Jradient an:l
sidegradient of the point sa.u:oe area to Darltor point sa.u:oe loacli.rq, if
present, to the shallCM groorxiwater followi.rg ~iatioo. 'Ihese elements
are included in the ccnst.IUctioo an:l 0 & M costs of each point sa.u:oe
al temative.
~sed on the finti.n;s of the RI, Area B poses no risks to human health anj
the environment therefore, remediation beyond upgradi.n;J the soil CXNer anj
side slopes is not ~9alY.
A. Point Sa.1rce Alternatives
~ 1. - II) ACr.Iaf
'!be No Action altemative is evaluated as a requirement of the NCP. Urxler
this alternative, no further action ~d be taken at the site. '!here are
no associated costs for this altemative.
~ 2 - I¥\Rl'IAL EXCAVATICH WI'1H OFF~ INCINEWa'ICH
Urxier this al temative, the point source ~d be excavated an:i transported
to an approved off-site facility for in::ineration.
DJrirg operations, worker c1ennal an:l respiratory protection equipnent YwU..lld
be require:l. I)Jst suppressioo measures ~d have to be inplemented to
reduce the potential for off-si te migration of ccntaminated partia.1lates.
-------
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED ADULT INCREMENTAL CARCINOOENIC RISK !I! ASSOCIATBD
WITH INOESTINO CONTAMINATED OROUNDWATER
Wor.t C... Ho.t Probable Carcinogenic wor.t C..e Ho.t Probeble Ca.e
Frequency CDI Ca.. CDI Potency Factor Incremental Increlllent.l
CHEMICAL (2) Img/kg/day) Img/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Rhk RI.k
VINYL CHLoRIDE 0.)6 2.!> B-) 2.0 £-t 2.) E'O 2 B-) 2 E-t
---------..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0.)6
2.9 B-!>
).2 £-!>
7.!> B-)
8 £-8
9 £-8
---------- ..----------------------------------
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1 DICHL0ROETHANE
0.)6
7.!> B-t
7.!> B-!>
9.1 £-2
2 B-!>
2 1-6
---------..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUIII of Adult Incremental Ri.k - Wor.t Cae. - 2 B-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of Adult Incremental Ri.k - Hoet Probable Ca.e - 2 E-t
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rerar to T.ble )-6 ror expo.ure do.e..
1.
Jncr...ntal Carcinogenic Ri.k - B.timatad Lifeti.. Do.e (CDI x Frequency) x Carcinogenic Potency ractor.
2.
Frequency - E.tlmated Expo.ur. ()6!> day./year x 2!> year./70 year lifetime).
-------
TABLE 9 CONTINUED
ESTIMATED CHILD INCREMENTAL CARCINOGENIC
WITH INOE8TINO CONTAMINATED OROUNDWATEH
RI8K (I) A880CIATED
Wor.t Caae Mo.t Probable Carcinogenic Wor.t Ca.e Mo.t Probable Ca.e
Frequency CDI Caae CDI Potency Factor Increllental Increllental
CHEHICAL (2) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l R18k Ri.k
VINYL CHLORIDE 0.]6 B.6 1-] 6.9 E-. 2.] 1+0 1 1-] 6 B-.
----------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHYLENE CHLORIOR
0.]6
1. 0 1-.
1.1 B-.
1.5 B-)
) 11-1
J 11-1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 OICHLOROETHANE
0.]6
2.6 1-)
2.6 11-.
9.1 1-2
9 11-5
9 11-6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bu. of Child Incremental Ri.k - Wor.t Ca.e - 1 8-]
----------~----.._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum ot Child Incr.ment.l RI.k - Mo.t Probable Ce.e - 6 E-.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ref.r to Teble ]-1 for expo.ure doeee.
1.
Incremental C.rclnogenlc RI.k - E.timated Lltetlme 00.. (CDI x Frequency) x Carcinogenic Potency Factor.
2.
Frequ.ncy - E.timated Exp08ure (]65 day./year x 25 ye.r./10 year litetime).
-------
13
'!he majority of the waste (CD1taminated soil an:i deteriorated droas) cxW.d
be excavated an:i handled usiIg CCI'1YeI'1ti.mal excavatioo eq 1; pnP'1t i. e. ,
backhoes ~ fra1t-end loaders, dozers. To meet material handliIg
requ:ireoM~ at the closest ~~, aa::IA OCIIpliant in=ine.rator
(at this time, O1eaU.cal waste Mara:.F-'~, Chicago, IL.) this b.1lk excavated
material WOJld have to be pr--""ed thrc:u:3h a ~ an:i packaged into 20
galloo fibezpacJcs. Jbu::A1 00 estimated b.1lk waste volumes, CNer 73,000
f~C)cs WOlld be req.Ured.
Intact dn1ms WOJld be :recovered usiIg a backhoe eQI';~ with a drom
~ler att:.ad1ment. Ead1 drum WOJld be saDpled, the 0CI1tents categorized
in an oo--site lab, then either ovezpacJced or D.1lked for transportatioo to
the in=iI1eratioo facility. ~raximately , 340 trailer loads wculd be
required to transport the fiherpacked 1:ulk waste an:i avezpacked drums to
the in=il'Maratioo facility. To CClIplete the project, the excavated area
wculd be backfilled an:i seeded for revegetatioo.
~roximately nine mcrrt:hs WOJld be req.Ured to OCIIplete the project, with
the majority of a1-Site effort spent cxn:iuctiIg fibeIpackin;J c:pmitia1S.
SignificclI1t delays CDlld ocx::ur if incinerator availability :is limited or
delayed.
Estimated Cbnst.roctioo Costs
Estimated Annual 0 & M Costs
Estimated Inplementatioo Time Frame
for Remedial Actioo
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth
$20,027,075
$51,000
8 to 12 mcrrt:hs
$20,340,650
~(VE 3 - IN-Sl'lU vrmIFICATIaf (ISV)
urrler this al ternati ve, elec:t.r'OOes are placed in the groon:i an:i an electric
current ~ts the soil an:i pyrolyzes or destroys organic materials. n.triIg
the procE!SS, metallic an:i other imrganic contaminants are dissolved :into
or are err.ap;u1.ated in the vitrified mass. Gassgs evolved fran the melt
wculd be :recovered by an off-gas collectioo system placed aver the area.
'Ihese off-gases wculd then be rcuted thrc:u:3h a SCIUl:ber system. When the
electric current oea$El'S, the m:>lten mass cools an:i solidifies :into a glass-
like matE~ial that will pezmanently :retain its physical an:i d1emical
integrity.
Based on infonnatioo fran the veroor, Geosafe OJrporatioo, productioo
rates of awraximately 5 ta1s per hcur are e>cpected. Generally, c:pmitions
are c::arx:luctEd 24 ha.1rs per day, seven days per week utiliziIg fan- crews.
Nozmally, 00 a large scale joo, an area selected for vitrificatioo :is
processOO (vitrified) for fan- days then the equipnent :is nv::wed to a
different: location 00 the site (requiriIg about 16 hcm'S) an:i <:p:!rations
reinitiat:ed. Once the vitrified mass cools, the area wculd be backfilled
aId seedErl for revegetatioo. ~:ineeriIg-scale tests will be required to
detennine the site specific design aId <:p:!ratin:J parameters prior to full-
. scale i1tplementatioo.
-------
14
Presently, there is a1ly ere ~J'Cially available vitrificatien system;
however, ac:x:xmiin;J to ('"~e, additia1al systems are en order am
shcW.d be available for use in the near teIm. In the event that
schedu1in;J prc:blems are enocuntered, a c::x:q>lete rsv system can be
marufactured, tested am made ready far field ~tia1S in
~rc:odJDate1y 6 D:I'1ths. ~, ac:x:xmiin;J to ('"~e, a client can
enter into a cxm.ract to guarantee availability of a system at the
anticipated start date.
Estimated O:n;b:uctien o:sts
Estimated AnrL1a1 0 , M o:sts, Yr. 1
Estimated Ann.Jal 0 , M, Yrs 2-10
Estimated IDplement:atien T:iJDe Frame
for ~ial Actien
Estimated 10 year Present Worth
$3,261,050
$112,750
$51,000
4 to 8 1JDI'1ths
$3,630,525
Altemative 4 - PNn'IAL EXa.VATICti wrIH af-SI'IE INC:I:NmATI:Cti
Urrler this alternative, the point sooroe ~d be eJCCavated am treated in
an oo-site incinerator to thenna1ly destroy contaminants.
M::iJile an-site incineraticn tmits ~licable to this site are available
fran several verxiors. Ted1nologies incl\X3e rotary kiln, circu1atin;J bed
am infrared systems. In general, the waste eJCCavaticn am drum han:Uin;J
procedures described previoosly in the off-site incineraticn alternative
~d remain 1..1nd1an:Jed. '!he contaminated soil am drum remnants ~d be
shredded am fed into the primary oxidatioo c::!'\a1Mer which heats the soils
to a sufficient q:eratin;J ~ture (1500-20000 F) to drive off am
initiate destroctioo of hydroca.rtx:)n contaminants. !n:)rganic contaminants
~d not be destroyed by this process. '!he treated soils then fall to a
~ture quench prior to their exit fran the tmit.
Gases fran the primary oxidatioo c::!'\a1Ther are further oxidized in a
secarmry ~1Ther. 'Drls d1aJrt)er affords a ret.enticn t:iJDe (one to two
seccrds at ~rc:odJDate1y 20000 F) to ensure CClt'plete destzuctioo. Liquids
recovered at the Site can be destroyed by directly injectin3" them into this
chamber. Exhaust gases are ra.Ited to air pollutioo CXIl1troI devices
cansistirq of flue gas coolers, partia.1J.ate reooval systems am wet
scrubbers before bein;J released to the a~.
After incineraticn, the treated soils am ash wculd be tested in accordance
with stan:!am EPA toxicity tests to determine if they are acceptable for
use as backfill in the eJCCavated area. of the site or if they D1.1St be
classified as a hazarda.1s waste. If the ash caJ1I'XJt be delisted, it will
require han:Uin;J am off-site d;~ as a hazardaJs waste resultin;J in
significantly higher costs than if it were used as fill. To c::x::rrplete the
project, the eJCCavated area. ~d be backfilled (with the delisted material
arx3;or ilrported soil) ani ~ for revegetation. An incineraticn system
sized for this site ~d process awroximately 100 tons per day. Total
on-site time incl1.Xl:in;J m:bilizaticn, rig-up, site preparatioo, eJCCavatioo
ani waste processin;J, ani denrbilizatioo ~d require ~rcximate1y five
nonths .
-------
15
Estimated O:n3tructioo COSts
Estimated AnnJal 0 & M COSts
Estimated !q)lement:atioo Time Frame
for ~j "1 Act:.:ioo
Estimated 10 Year Present Worth
$5,004,350
$51,000
4 to 8 Da'1t:hs
$5,317,750
Altemat..ive 5 - INn'IAL EXCAVATICIf w.rm 0FP-SI.'m INU'IIL
As described in the ather partial removal alternatives, .-orker denna1 ani
re.spiratc>ry protectioo ~1; pnP1'1t ani cb;t SUWressioo measures WQ11d be
required to prevent expa;ure durin;J waste han:ilin;J activities.
Excavatic:n of the majority of waste WQ11d be adUeved usin:J nozmal earth
DDVin:J equipDent. If stabilizatioo of the waste to enhance handlin:J
characteristics is required, the ~iate stabilizin:J agent (i.e.,
portlani cement, CIe!1e1t kiln dust) WQ11d be mixed with the waste usin;; this
equipnent:. 'n1e D1lk waste WQ11d be loaded axto c:hmp trailers, the trailers
prqJerly taI:ped ani manifested and then dispatched to the awroved
lan:lfill.
Intact ch::um r:ea:Nery ani han:ilin:; procedures WQ11d be identical to those
described in the off-site inc:ineratic:n alternative. overpacked drums am
liquids c3pable of bein:J bJlked WQ11d be transported to an awroved
facility for inc:ineratic:n. On CClIpletic:n of removal cperations, the
excavated area \Olld be backfilled ard ~ for revegetation.
Total tiIne required to CClIplete c:n-site cperatians is estimated to be three
to six IIC>nths. Awraximate1y 316 chmp trailer loads WQ11d be required to
transport: the D1lk waste to the lan:lfill while an aatitianal 8-15 loads of
overpacked drums ani D1lk liquids are estimated.
Fstinated Ccnstroctic:n COSt:s
Fstinated Annual 0 & M COSts
Estjmated !q)lement:atic:n Time Frame
for Remedial Actic:n
Estjmated 10 Year Present Worth
$3,163,375
$51,000
3 to 6 nart:.hs
$3,477,050
Each point source alternative d; ~1$~ above, with the exceptic:n of the No
Action alternative, will pennanently eliminate the toxicity ani nd::>ility of
hazarda.1s; sutst.an::es at the Site. Alternatives 2,3 and 5 will eliminate
vo1\m1e at the site by rem:wal, whereas Alternative 3 will reduce volume by
in-situ treatment. As the point source is wholly situated within a
lan:lfill ca1Sistin;; of a refuse-soil matrix, establishirg actic:n levels for
"soils" to detennine the volume of remaval or extent of in-situ treatment
is net an oojective of point source remedi.atioo. 'n1e extent of the source
area (arrl extent of ~iatic:n) is based solely c:n RI field tasks \¥hidl
verified the vertical ani lateral liInits of blried drums, associated wastes
am contaminated soils in Area A. It is admow1ed;Jed that residual
cart:.aminatic:n likely exists within the fill area and subsoils ~
the remai.r1in:1 portions of Area A ani Area B; however, based c:n the
cperatirq history of the Site, it is believed the point source is the
primary portic:n of the Site significantly cantr:ibJtin;; to gra.In:iwater
contamination. A decisic:n c:n any further gra.In:iwater action is deferred
-------
16
until the CXlIpletia'l of the mcnitorin;} program and will be documented in an
Record of Decisia'l (RX» for gram:1water, which in oc:njunctia'l with this
RD, constitutes the final l~Y for the Site.
VIII. ~ OF a::MPARATIVE ANA!NSIS OF lU~
In order to determine the most ~iate point saJrCe alternative that is
protective of human health and the envi.ra"JDent, attains ARARs, is ccst-
effective and utilizes permanent solutia1S and alternative treatment
tedmologies to the 1MY; 11'11111 extent practicable, point source alternatives
~ evaluated against each other. lhrp\riscns are based a'l the nine
criteria altlinec1 in SARA.
1. OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment.
All point source al ternati ves, with the exceptioo of the No Actioo
alternative, WOlld provide adequate protectioo of human health and the
environment, since they result in permanent ~atioo of the source area
thrcu:3h I"E!ltr:IVal arxVor treatment. '!he source area has been well defined
fran the field activities perfoDDed durin;} the RI. No other source areas
have been identified. O:IIplete remediation of the source area will protect
the gram:1water fran future risk of contaminatioo.
Alternative 3, ISV, is the most preferred alternative since the treatment
of the source area occurs in-situ. In-situ treatment avoids potential
exposures to human health and the environment resul tin;} !ran excavation of
the source area and other waste hanUirg procedures ~sazy to iIrplement
other point source alternatives.
Alternative 4, partial excavation with an-site incineration, is the next
preferred alternative. Potential exposures to human health and the
environment may ocx::ur, bIt will be limited to excavatioo and loadirg of
materials into the feeder of the incinerator at a o:ntrolled pace. Air
ncnitorirg will be ccn:hJcted durirg excavatia'l and waste hanUirg
activities to insure that an-site personnel are 'NIearirg cq:.prq>riate
protective clothin;J. M:x1itorirg will also dete.nnine the need to nn:lify or
discontinue an-site \¥Ork if action levels are exceeded.
Alternative 2, partial excavation with off-site incineration, ~d be the
next preferred alternative. Althcugh similar, Alternative 4 is preferred
aver this alternative because off-site incineration expanjs the potential
waste hanUirg exposures fran an-site to those which may ocx::ur durirg
transportation and at the off-site facility.
'!he least preferred scurce alternative is Alternative 5, partial
excavation with off-site d;~. '!he risks pa;ed by the c:aItaminants in
the source area are rot eliminated, 1:ut siIrply transported to another
location.
-------
17
2. ~liarre with ARARs
All point source alternatives, except the No Actioo alternative, will
CCIIply with all identified ~licable or relevant and ~rcpriate Federal
and State requirements (ARARs) which are cut:.linec1 in Sectioo XI, Statutory
Det:.ermimtia1S.
All point source alternatives involvin:J excavatioo 1DJSt. CCIIply with the
Floodplain Management Act, Exeoltive order (ED) 11988, since the site is
situated within the 100 year floodplain of the Grarxi River. Alternative 3,
ISV, which involves in-situ treatJDent will CCIIply with the Order. As the
ccnt~ h::u..e.ly involves excavatioo of the source area, it may have to
acHress the provisicns of ED 11988 which walld recpire protectioo of the
excavation activities fran a 5OO-year flood event.
In addition to ARARs, u.s. EPA's policy on the use of facilities for off-
site disposal is "to be ocnsidered." u.s. EPA's off-site policy states
that wstes fran a SUperfund site can a1ly be sent to a facility in
cmplia,n:,e with their existiIg ~ pennit. S:i1're facilities can shift in
and oot of cx:npl1arre, the specific facility W'here waste will be shi~
will rot be deteIm:ined l.D'1til the ~ial actioo is sd1eduled to begin.
Alternative 5, which uses off-site facilities, is the least preferred
alternative because of n;~ urv::ertainties regardin; facility
cmplian=e. If the :in::inerator ash fran Alternatives 2 and 4 is hazardous,
it will ::>imilarly be subject to u.s. EPA's off-site policy requirements.
A pXential ARAR for CERCIA respa ~ is the Resoorce OJnservation and
Rect:Nery Act (~) Iarxi Disposal Restricticns (:t.ms). '!he:r.ms prd1ibit
land disposal of restricted ~ hazardous wastes unless the wastes meet
treatment st:.arrlards, minimJm ted1nology requirements durin:J a capacity
extension or satisfy the requirements of one of the other available
cmplianc::e ~ians. Because the selected point source alternative enploys
in-situ treatJDent, IlRs are neither ~licable nor relevant and
awropriate. :t.ms will be a significant factor urrler Alternative 5, partial
excavatic:m and off-site n;~. For this reasa1, Alternative 5 is the
least preferred point source alternative.
3. IDnq.-tem Effectiveness and Pennanence
'!he point source Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, which utilize ISV and
:in::ineration ted1nologies, are e>cpected to achieve lcn:J-te.nn effectiveness
and pennaner~ in ~j<,tiIg the scurce area. Incineration is a well
proven arn widely used ted1nology. ISV is an inoovative ted1nology, with
its full scale use predicated on a treatability stu:ly at the site to
assure that the soil-waste matrix within the scurce area is vitrifiable.
Incineration will produce an ash in which inorganic cantaminants will be
ooncentrated.. '!he ash will have to be tested, and if ~, treated
and propP-I'ly n;~. ISV, if effective, will produce a glass-like
material silnilar to volcanic obsidian. Inorganic contamination will be
en:apsulated in this glass material. 'Iherefore, with respect to inorganic
contamination, ISV, or Al ternati ve 3, is preferred aver the :in::ineration
-------
18
tedmoloqies of Altel:natives 2 am 4. Altel:native 5 is the least preferred
al tel:native since the ccntaminatiat levels in the source area are net
~~ t:hrc:u;Jh treatment, am will remain as a risk in a new locatiat.
4. Reductioo of Toxicitv. M:bility or Volume through TreatJnent
Altel:natives 2, 3, am 4 utilize treatment ted1noloqies, incineratiat am
ISV, that reduce the toxicity, Dr:bility am volume of CXI'1taminants.
Inc:ineratiat results in greater than a 99.9999% reductiat in organic
CXI'1taminants; hcweve.r, incineratiat does not addte6S inorganic
ccntaminatiat. Ioorganics are oo.-=I1trated in the ash as a byproduct of
incine.ratiat. Ioorganics can lead1 cut of the ash, tmless the ash is
further treated and pr'q)erly dic:posed. A volume reductiat of
awroximate.ly 25% oc:c:urs. Altel:native 3, ISV also results in greater than
a 99.9999% reductiat of organic CXI'1taminants t:hrc:u;Jh initial pyrolyzation,
foll~ by treatment of off-gases produoed duriIg the melt. Unlike
incine.ratiat, ISV ~ates inorganics within the vitrified mass fonned
after the melt. In pilot studies the vitrified soil blocks W1e.re fam:i to
have a leach rate of 1 x 10-5 91~ /day. '!his rate is ~rable to that
of Pyrex glass am nuc:h less than rates for mamle or bottle glass. A
volume reductiat of between 20-40% am greater can occur ~ at the
initial void spaa! of the soil-waste matrix.
Because of the ability of ISV to ~ate inorganic CXI'1taminants, am
with greater volume reductiat than incine.ratiat, Altel:native 3, ISV, is
preferred aver incineratiat tedmology al tel:natives. Altel:native 5,
partial excavatiat with off-site di~ is the least preferred
alternative since no reduction in toxicity, nmility or volume oc:c:urs.
5. Short-tenn effectiveness
Short-t.em effectiveness is ~~~ t:hrc:u;Jh risks to PJblic health am the
envirornnent generated by ~lementatiat of the remedial action and the
len;Jth of time before the remedial actiat can be ~lement.ed to acXlress the
principal threat caused by the site.
All of the point soorce alternatives, with the exceptiat of the No Action
Alternative, present potential short term risks to CI1-Site 'Markers ani the
cx:rnm.mity duriIg in'plementation. '!he in::ine.ratiat alten1atives am
Alternative 5 involve excavation of the point soorce area. Excavatioo of
this area may produce releases of organic vapors as waste materials am
contaminated soils are ~ to air. 'I'rerdlin;J activities c:xniuct.ed
duriIg the RI in the soorce area generated significant organic vapors. As
duriIg the t.rerx::hiJ"g ~tions, oo-site persamel will wear awrq>riate
protective cloth.irq dUrjl'~ remediatiat. Air mnitorirg will be performed
at the site baJrrlaIy to as.~ the level of organic vapors. If the levels
detected t:hrc:u;Jh saIlFlin;J e.voeed actiat levels, then oo-site activities
walld be D¥Xtified or di~inuec1.
Alternative 3, ISV, may produce short t.em air releases durirg ~tion
~ on the levels of ccntamination in the soil-waste matrix to be
vitrified. '!he initial pyrolysis of organic CXI'1taminants will be 99.9% to
-------
19
99.995% c:xmplete. '!he I"E!!IIIa.iIde of this organic mass (less than 0.1%) is
volatilized am captured by the off-gas treatment system. A high
cXI,oentratia1 of cart:aminants in CD! area (i. e. intact drums) may cause an
. inter:na1 ~losia1 that will saturate the off-gas treatment system. A
release c)f cartx:n dioxide, water am trace aJD:IUI1ts of organic vapors <:n1ld
occur. J\ pilot stu:!y performed prior to full scale ~lementatia1 work
will evaluate this potential risk in greater detail am oorrective actia1
will be incorporated into the final design as ~iate. At the present,
site spEi(:ific informatia1 does not irdicate the existence of large l'~rs .
of intaci: drums. '1'rerd1.in;J activities cx:n:1ucted durin; the RI revealed that
many of the drums encn.mtered were in poor ccn:titia1 am not intact;
however, sane intact dnms 0CI'1tain:in;J li~ds were observed.
ISV WOlld take the least amcunt of time to iDplement, am a10e iDplemented
sha.1ld bE~ CXlIplete in awroximately 60-90 days. 'Ihi.s period WOlld be
i1x:reasEd by the time required for an oo-site pilot test am ~1~
evaluatic)I1 of its awlicability to site cxn:titia\S. '!he next preferred
alternative with respect to shortest ~lementatia1 ti:me is Alternative 5,
since it involves a1ly excavatia1 am rH~ withaIt arrj ti:me for
treat:men1: as required for ~ in::ineratia1 t.echnologies. Of the two
in::ineratian t.echnologies, Alternative 4, oo-site in::ineratioo, is the next
preferred alternative because there are f~ waste han:ilin; requirements.
6. Im;lli~ilitv
All of the point source alternatives are ~lementable: however, the source
area is in the 100 year floodplain of the Grarrl River. 'lherefore, all
point 5alI'Ce alternatives, with the exceptia1 of no-actia1, will have to be
iIrplemen1:ed durin; periods when the water table is below the ma.xim.Jm depth
of ~ied drums.
'!he in::ineratioo technologies of Al ternati ves 2 am 4 are conventiooal,
~l dem:mstra.ted, am have a large ~-rcial experience base.
Alternative 2, off-site in::ineratioo, requires in::inerator capacity
dedicated to this project for awroximately 9 m:rrt:hs. If in::inerator
capacity cannot be guaranteed, or significant downtime is experiemed:
then the wastes WOlld either have to be stored m-site or transported to
another facility. Alternative 4, m-site in::ineratia1, requires a nw:bile
in::inera.tia1 unit for ~lementatia1. Mc:bile in::inera.tor units are
availablE~ fran several vendors. Althcu:jl an q:era.tiaal permit is not
required, a trial 1:um will have to be c:x:mple1:ed to ensure the 99.9999%
destruction effici~ for the wastes will be obtained.
'n1e ISV 1:ech1'x>logy of alternative 3 is classified by u.s. EPA as an
inro.rative tedmology: ooe that has been develc:p:d to large scale am is
ready for amnercial deployment, b..tt for which there is not a significant
cxmnercial experience base. Because of this status, it is ~c:ary to
evaluate thort.U3hly all aspects of ISV awlicability t:hrcu3h a treatability
study prior to cx:mnitment to large scale q:era.tia1. A treatability study
can be a::rrple1:ed in 6 to 10 weeks am WOlld be used to de!Ia'1strate the
awlicability of ISV to the soil waste matrix, am to generate q:era.tional
perfonraI'~ data ~ to ~rt remedial design. Q'Uy ooe vermr am
one full scale ccmnercial ISV unit is available at the present. However, a
ccrrqJlete ISV system can be manufactured, tested am made ready for
-------
20
c:pmstians in awrcx:imately 6 mcnt:hs a10e a CXI1tract is entered into with
the ven:3ar.
Because the point sau:ce treatment alternatives nq.rl.re SCJDe degl-= of
diffiOJ.lty in inplementatioo, Alternative 5, off-site d;~, with no
treatment WCUld be the easiest to inplElDel'1t. Both Alternative 4, m-site
incineratioo and Alternative 3, ISV, have EqJal degI ss of diffiOJ.lty in
inplementatioo. '!he treatability study for ISV is easier to CXIIplete than
the trial bJrn for m-site incineratioo. 1i:Jwever, a ~ that the
treatability study will delx:nstrate unsuitability for ISV exists; whereas a
trial bJm is expected to be !I::I~sful aver time after the oorrect
en;rineerirq adjust::ment:s are made to the unit. Alternative 4, off-site
incineratia1, is the least preferred treatment alternative, since
guaranteed in::inerator capacity for 9 mcnths is a1:ar:Jst ; ~ible to
secure .
7. Coot
'!he cost of ead1 point sau:ce alternative has been estimated based upon
capital, and c:pmstia1 and maintenance cx:sts. Alternative 3, ISV, and
Alternative 5, partial excavatioo with off-site landfill, are the least
CXJSt1y, with Alternative 5 c::x:stirq awroximately $150,000 less. fbvever,
the off-site d;~ provisians of Alternative 5 counter any cost benefits
~~iated with its iIrplementation. Alternative 4, m-site in::ineration,
cx:sts awrox:imately a1e-third DDre than Alternative 5. Alternative 2, off-
site in::ineration, is 6 times as CXJSt1y as Alternative 4, and is the least
preferred alternative.
8. State~
'!he State of Midrlgan has participated in the project as a SUA:Ort agerq.
'!he State SURX>rts this point sau:ce remedial actioo.
9. Q;mnunity Aa:Ert:a~
'!he City of Iooia and the cnm..mty have oot ~ressed a pref~ for any
of the a1 ternatives. '!here were no written
-------
21
MtNR will coordinate with the Ar:Jrtr C01:ps to insure that artj ~hll
activities as the Site OCIIply with ~licable elements of m 11988.
'!he secxrd o.JlI.'~ was fraD Jdm M:Namara, an attorney for the City of
Iarla. Efe felt he had net had sufficient time to review the recently ~
informati.on to the repositories. To the best of his kncwlEd;Je the material
was net J[ade available at either repositmy until late last Friday (A1.J;Just
25, 1989). In respcnse to his "....~, it is true that the repository
received the prcposed plan, administrative imex ani feasibility stmy
durin; the week of Al.¥;JUSt 21, 1989: hcweYer, the p.1blic t'Y'ITInP1"Jt period
cxmtiroed until Sept.e!1i)er 18, 1989. Arrf ~ received by u. S. EPA that
were postmarked no later than Sept.e!1i)er 18, 1989 were fcmually respc.I'ded
to ani ircluied in the administrative record for the Site. Generally, the
u.S. EPA will exten:i the p.1blic CIIJI'.'~ period if requested; however no
such request was received. Seoc:n:U.y, the City of Iaria is mt new to the
site. A!=; past ~tor ani past and present owner of the Site, the City of
Ionia is a PRP. '!he City Ul"rlertook a I"E!D¥JVa1 of eJCpOSed drums in Area A of
the site in 1984-85 urXIer the terms of an Mninistrative Order iS511Ed by
u.S. EPA. '!hey were foJ:mally mtified as a PRP in 1985 and, alf ~ison
Un:Ier Al t:ernati ve 1, No Actioo, the point source \IOlld net be ~i i'ttec:l
and would continue to ccntami.nate the shallow aquifer and pose a risk to
the Gran:l River. Given the nature and locatioo of the Site, the No Action
Alternative is net consistent with the objectives for remedial action, and
is mt a viable cption.
Alternative 5, partial excavation and off-site ni~l would be the DnSt
easily implementable alt:ernative and is the least ccstly. However, it does
net n-eet the statutory preferen::e for treatment, and does nat red1x::e the
toxicity,. mbility and volume of contaminants. In additioo, it may mt
-------
22
ash that will likely require off-site di~. ISV will also provide
greater lorq teDD effectiveness an::! penDanenoe. In additiat, overall
protectioo of human health an::! tbe envira'lDent is enhanced thrcu:Jh in-situ
treatment ~d1 minimizes waste hanUin; an::! organic vapor releases
associated with excavatiat activities. ISV is tbe least costly treatment
alternative, an::!l1pa1 cx::.upletiat of a 9I~'5Iful pilot st1xiy will remediate
the 5O.lrOe area in the shortest time period. For these reascn;,
Alternative 3, ISV, is the preferred alternative.
IX. '!HE ~ REMEDY
section 121 of SARA requires all remedies for SUperfund sites to be
protective of human health an::! tbe envira'lDent, cx::.uply with ARARs, be cost-
effective an::! utilize pennanent solutioos an::! alternate treatr.'1I?J1t
technologies to the max.i.m.Jm extent practicable. As this .~le 1.mit
remedial action only addresses tbe point 5O.lrOe area at the Site,
Alternative 3 is believed to provide the best balance aDICII'XJ alternatives
with respect to the criteria used to evaluate remedies.
'!he major c.arp:ments of the selected l:~ for the point 5O.lrOe are:
* ISV of the defined point 5O.lrOe area an::! an adjacent margin of
safety zone;
* ferx:irg the Site to restrict access (repair~ the ferra in Area A
an::! installin; a ferra alorq Clevelan::! Street in Area B);
* placement of at least 3 monitor~ wells in the shallai A-l aquifer
immediately dcJwn;Jractient an::! sidegradient of the point 5O.lrOe area to
assess c:xnpleteness of point 5O.lrOe remediatioo an::! monitor future
release, if any, of contaminants to the groorxiwater fran the point
5O.lrOe ;
* institutional controls to restrict the use of the Site am, if
awropriate, adjacent prc::perties fran activities that wculd
potentially ~ public health or threaten tbe envira'lDent;
* ~ the lan:ifill CJ:Ner am repa.irin; side sl~, as needed,
follawed by reveqetatioo to minimize future erosion an::! insure the
integrity of the larxifill cap.
FUll scale iIrplementatian of ISV is contin;Jent an sn(x~ssful an-site
implementation of an en:rineerirg scale pilot test that insures ISV's
awlicability to existin; site corxtitioos, e.g. soil tyPes, IIDisture
levels, depth interval of 'NaStes materials, waste types am other
environmental am site specific factors. Specific Performame criteria of
the pilot test will be established to dem:x1strate the ability of ISV to: .
1) vitrify the point 5O.lrOe; 2) prevent contaminant miqratian in soils am
beyond the area of vitrificatioo; an::! 3) provide the ~ry destruction
efficiency in the off-gas collection an::! treatment system. 'Ihe pilot test
will also provide informatian as to tbe need for nxxtifyin; the ~ti.rq
-------
23
p~~~ prior to full scale iJ!plementatim. u.s. EPA's SUperfunj.
Innovative Teciu'x>logy Evaluatim (SI'IE) Pl.'-YLam, developed aIt of the
Office of Solid Waste , Emergerx:y Respcnse an:! Office of ReseaId1 an:!
Develcpent, has expressed cx:nside.rable interest in the applicatim of ISV
to cx:n:titioos sud1 as those that exist at the Site. '!hey have :in:iicated
the desbe to provide irp.1t duri.n;J the design, iJlplementatim an:!
evaluatic:r1 of the pilot test if the l:eu-.1y is undertaken by the PRPs. In
acW.ticn, they are interested in perform1n;J envi.ra1menta1 monitorinJ tasks
durinJ the pilot test. Detailed costs associated with ISV are presented in
Table 10.
As previc:JUSly rH~1SSed, the vertical an:! lateral extent of the point
sau:ce area has been defined by two t.rend1in;J events durinJ the RI. D.1rinJ
remedial design an:! in canjurx:ticn with the pilot test, an app~riate
safety zone will be identified ~ the defined point source area anj
will be :i.n:::ludecl in the area subject to vitrification to insure cx:rcplete
remediation. F\1rthenIore, the vitrified safety zone will save as a
conta:irmr.nt barrier'Mhidl, when keyed into the lower permeability unit
\.Jnjerly:u-g the b..1ried drums, will fully ~ate the point source area.
'!he plaCE~t of narltorinJ wells :ilrmediate1y ~ent of the point
source area is a critical c:::c:rrponent of the selected 1 &l-=Jy . As!!$J 1II1in:J the
point sam::e is the primaIy area <::a1trihItin;J to groorrlwater contamination,
ani given they hydraulic characteristics of the shallow A-l aquifer, the
iIrpact of point sau:ce remediation on groorrlwater sha.1ld be :i1rmectiate.
Prior to the pilot test, a mi.nim.nn of 3 monitorinJ wells will be installed
in the shallow aquifer inmedi.ate1y ~ent an:! sidegraclient of the
sau:ce area, an:! aItside of the expected limits of vitrification. 'lbese
wells will be saIl'pled IIDnthly for two IIalt:hs to establish base levels anj
target oc2l'pOUl1ds for future analyses s:i.nce there is no data fran this close
to the sc:urce area. If the pilot test is sVY"'DC:c:ful, i~iate1y prior to
full scale .iJtplementation the point source monitorinJ wells will be saIl'pled
a third t:ime an:! analyzed for the selected target~. At the
c::at'pleticm of the remedial action, sarrples will be ex>llected mnthly for a
period of no less than nine nonths. All saIl'ples will be analyzed for the
target oc2l'pOUl1ds. After the nine m::>nth period, the data will be basis for
selectln:J an app~riate remedial action for the contaminant plume. '!his
will cu1Jninate in a roo for the groorrlwater ~le unit, 'Mhidl in
ex>njunc::tion with the point sau:ce roo, constitutes the final l~Y for the
site.
It is believed that institutional ex>ntrols can successfully be inplemented
at an:! nE!ar the site. Even in the atsenoe of institutional controls, it
can be deJoonstrated that future developnent of the site is unlikely. Based
on present lan:! use, the City of Ienia zon:in:J district map, an:! the
g~.c settinJ of the Site, no drinkin;J water wells are anticipated at
artj point: in the future.
In the event results fran the on-site pilot test deroc>nstrate that ISV will
not provide the ~ level of remediation ~ to the perfonnance
criteria, u. S. EPA inten::1s to iIrplement the COl'1tin;ency remedial
-------
TAmE 10
~ JQmI aET &H4l\Rl Em
IN-SI'IU YI'lRIFICATICN
C'APITAL EXPENDI'IURE ITEM
1. ~ilizatiOl'1/I)e!ImilizatiOIl/Rig-up
2. Rem:we/Stockpile O'VeDJurden
3. vitrification ~tions
4. Backfill/ContourjRevegetate
5. R~; rjUpgrade of Fencirq
6. Signs
7. Deed Restrictions
8. :Re~;rs to Larrlfill Cover
9. Installation of 3 Monitorirq Wells
SUBrorAL
ENGINEERING/ffiFATABILI'IY SIUDIES
(10% OF CAPITAL cmTS roR ITEMS 1-4)
-------
24
alternative oo-site incineration, after apprc:priate ~ guidarx=e has
been folla.ved. Major c:x:aIpJneI1ts of the point scuroe contin;Jerq 1:E!lOOy
are:
* carrplete excavation of the point scuroe area. with treatment in an
oo-site incinerator to thennally destroy oantaminants:
* limitin1 site alirg nay be required to insure
renoval of all grossly rontaminated soils iran the turied dz:um deposit.
'!he point sa.u:ae m::ru.torirg program will be the basis for det.e.nnin.in:1 the
need for additional point sa.u:ae remedial activities.
FollC7oi~ construction of an on-site nOOile incinerator facility, a trial
burn is required prior to full-scale operations. If extensive trial burns
are required to obtain necessary permi.ttirg, the reroedia1 action start-up
date would be delayed.
Residual wastes fran incineration inclu:ie ash whidl will be tested in
aa:ordance with st.ardard EPA toxicity tests. If the ash is non hazardous,
it may be aa:eptable for use as backfill in the excavated area: however, if
the ash is hazardous, it 1II.1St be transported to an approved off-site
disposal facility. Detailed cost estimates for an-site incineration are
presented in Table 11.
x.
EXPlANATION OF SIGNIFICANI' DIFFERENCES
Unlike the Proposed Plan, this remedial action is limited to an ~le
unit for the point sooroe area. A final decision on gra.m:iwater is
deferred until CClIpletion of the gra.m:iwater nari.torirg pJ:'CX1raIt1.
XI. STA'IUIDRY DE'l'ERMINATICNS
Urrler its legal authorities, u.s. EPA's primary responsibility at
SUperfurxi sites is to urrlertake remedial actions that adrleve adequate
protection of human health am the ernri.roranent. In aalition, Section 121
of CERCI.J!. establishes several other statutory requirements am preferences.
'Ihese specify that \1/hen cx::mplete, the selected ~jal actim for this
site DUSt. CClIply with applicable or relevant am apprcpriate ernri.rarmental
regulations (MARs) un:3er Federal am state ernri.ronmenta1 laws, mliess a
statutory waiver is justified. 'Ihe selected 1:~ also 1II.1St be cost-
effective am utilize permanent solutions am alternative treatment
t.ec:hr¥)logries or resaJrOe rea:Nery t:.ed1oologies to the maxim..nn extent
practicable. Finally, the statute incltx3es a preferen=e for remedies that
enploy tJ:-eatment that permanently ard significantly reduces the volmne,
-------
~
TABU: 11
~ w:Rm CXlST SIM4ARY K'R
PARrIAL REHJ\lAL wrm Cfi-S!'re INCI:N:E1WITCN
CAPI'I1U... EXPDIDI'IURE ITEM
1. Mcbilization;rarmilization;site Preparation
crsr
$ 585,000
2. Start Up
180,000
3. Excavation
153,000
4. Drum Hardlu-g ~tions
224,000
5. Incineration ~tions
2,550,000
6. BackfilljRevegetation
7. Repair/Up:;rade of Fencin;;
131,000
6,000
8. Signs
3,200
9. Deed Restrictions
2,000
10. Repairs to Iarxifill Cover
10,000
11. Installation of 3 ~nitorin;; Wells
7,500
SUBIurAL
$3,851,700
ENGrnE:E:RIN;/PIIDr SIUDI::r:s
(10% OF CAPITAL a:srs FOR ITEMS 1-6)
382,300
~CIES (20% OF CAPITAL rom;)
770,350
'IurAL CAPITAL crsrs
$5,004,350
ANNUAL O&M
-------
25
"
.
v
toxicity, or m::Jbility of haza.rdous subst:aro:!s pollutants ani contaminants
as their principal element. '!he followin:;J sectia1S rH~1~S D:Jw the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. .
Protecti()n of Human Health ani the EnvircrJment
'!he selec::t.ed point sooroe reuedy protects human health ani the environment
thra1gh vitrifyirg the point saJrCe area of the site. With ISV, an
electric c::unent melts the soil ani destroys ozqanic materials. DJrirg the
process, metallic an:i other ioorganic oa'1tami.nants are clissol ved into or
are encapsulated in the vitrified mass.
After t:m~ point sooroe is vitrified, the area will be backfilled an:i
seeded f()r revegetatioo. Any threat to the p:p1l.ation that may have been
presented by the point saJrCe area will be eliminated. 'lhere will be no
possibility of further in:.:Jestion of cx:rJtaminated soils, an:i no further
possibility of dermal' exposure to cx:rJtaminated soils after ISV is
oc::t1plete, an:i the area has been backfilled an:i seeded for revegetation.
ISV also eliminates the identified sooroe of cx:rJtamination at the site.
DJrirg this period of remediatioo, human health will be further protected
by the institutional controls that will effectively eliminate the
possibility of future irgestion of the groon:iwater.
CeJrrplia.m:! with Amlicable or Relevant am Amrooriate Reauirements (ARARs)
'!he se.lec::t.ed point sooroe lewerJy CCIl'ply with ARARs. '!he ARARs for the
point source remedy are presented below.
A. Federal Solid Waste an:i Discosa1Act (Rescurce Q:)nseIVation an:i
Recovery Act - ReM)
RCRA is r~ awlicable to this site sUre the site was not used for
diSPOSal after 1980, the operative date for R:W\. However, SUbpart G of
RCRA, 40 em 265 is relevant an:i awrqn-iate in iJIplementirg ISV at the
Site, ard the awrcpriate substantive requirements .will be met. SUbpart G
aItlines the requirements for closure an:i post-closure includin:J
IrOnitoril'g. '!he area ~ent fran the point sooroe area, as 'Well as
the area ~dient of the landfill will be naritored, an:i this ARAR will
be CClIplied with.
B. Federal Clean Air Act
'!he Clean Air Act (eM) identifies an:i regulates pollutants that cculd be
released durirg meltirx] associated with ISV. Sectioo 109 of the eM
aItlines the pollutants for whidl Natiooal Ambient Air ().1ality Stan:3ards
have been established. Section 112 identifies pollutants for whidl there
are no ~~licable Ambient Air QJality Stan:3ards, these subst:aro:!s
regulated un:1er the Federal National Emission Stan:3ards for Hazarda1s
Pollutant-.s. 'Ihe eM is an ARAR, an:i the regulatioo staniards will not be
exceeded durirg inplerrentation of ISV.
-------
26
. '
C. Federal Executive Order - Flocdplain Management - Executive Order No.
11988 ..
Executive Order 11988 requires Federal agen::ies to evaluate the potential
effects of actions that may be taken in a floodplain am tnE"asures to avoid
the adverse inpacts associated with direct am .intirect develcpnent of a
floodplain. '!be Site is located in a l()()-year floodplain, so this Order is
an ARAR. u.s. EPA will cxnsult with the u.s. Ar:1I¥ Q:)rps of Enqineers
concern.in:J the Order, am will ccmply with those elementS of the Order
whidl ~ly.
D. Michigan Hazarda1s Waste Manaqement Act (Act 64)
Act 64 Part 6 Rule 607 specifies the closure am post-closure monitorin;
requi.rements. '!he ~rq>riate substantive aspects of the monitorin;
requirements will be. met.
E. Mineral Well Act (Act 315)
Act 315 am the Administrative Rules require that test TNe.lls be pennitted,
constructed p~ly, recorded, am p~ly pl~ upon abanionment.
'!his Act is an ARAR am treatment of all test TNe.lls will be dictated by it.
F. Midliqan Air Pollution Act (Act 348)
Umer this Act, the Michigan Air ~ity Divisicn, t:hrc:u;h Rule 901,
exercises its authority to ensure that a perscn does not cause or pennit
the emission of an air ccntami.nant in quantities that will cause,
"injurious effects to human health or safety, animal. life, plant life or
significant ecaucmic value," or ''unreasonable interfe.ret'X::e with the
canfortable enjoyment of life am prcperty." '1hi.s Act is an ARAR whidl has
m:>re strin:Jent emissions ortia1al to its costs, the
net present 'NOrth bein} $3,630,525. '!he estimated cost of ISV is
~roximately a1e sixth the cost of Altet:native 2, partial excavation with
off-site :in::ineraticn. '!he selected point san:oe r~ eliminates the
point source area as a source of contamination, Wile minimizin:J waste
harrllin:J am potential exposure to on-site TNCrkers.
Util ization of Permanent SOlutions am Al ternati ve Treatment Technologies
to the Maximum Extent Practicable
u.s. EPA has determined that the selected point source L~y represents
the maximum extent to ~dl permanent solutions am treatment t.ec:hR:Jlcgies
can be utilized in the most cost effective manner. Of tha;e altet:natives
that are protective of human health am the environment am CClIply with
-------
27
.
ARARs, U.S. EPA has detennined that this selected l.e.u.:sly provides the best
balance clf tradeoffs in te!:ms of laq-teJ:m effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, nmility, or volume achieved thr'c:u3h treatment,
short-term effectiveness, iIrplementability, and cost, and also cx:nside.rs
the statutory prefererre for treatment as a pri.n=ipal element.
ISV offet'S 99.9999% destruction of the wastes and cxrrt:aminated soils in
the point; soorce area. '!he remainirg material will be ~ated in the
vitrified mass and present no further threat to human health and the
environment.
'!he selected point soorce l:eh~y treats the pri.n=ipal threat posed by the
point source, inclucti.n:J eliminat.in:1 the future release of contami.nants to
grc:urdwater. All point saJrOe alternatives are effective in the short term;
however once the pilot test is SI~fully oarpleted, ISV can be easily
iIrplernented .
'!he selection of treatment of the point soorce is CXJnSistent with program
expectations that iniicate that toxic and potentially Dmile waste are a
priority for treatment and often ~ry to ensure the larg-teJ:m
effectiveness of the Ie!nedy. Since all three treatment options are
reasonable c::arpa.rable with respect to larg-teJ:m effectiveness, and
toxicity and nmility reductions are achieved, the major tradeoffs that
provide the basis for this selection decision are short-tem effectiveness,
iIrplernentability, oost, and overall protection of public health and the
environment. Following a successfui pilot test, the selected point soorce
remedy can be implemented quickly, and with less difficulty than the other
treatment alternatives and is therefore determined to be the JOOSt
appropriate solution for the point soorce area at the Site.
Preference for TreatJrent
By vitrifyirg the point soorce area, the selected point source l~
addresses the pri.n=ipal threat posed by the site thr'c:u3h the use of
treatment technologies. 'Iherefore, the statutory prefererre for remedies
that errploy treatment as a pri.n=ipal element is satisfied.
XII. RESroNSIVENESS SOMM1\RY
'lWo comments W'ere received during the public O"'"'IP1'1t pericxi. '!he responses
to these canments are foom in Section VIII., Camunitv AcceDtance, on
page 20.
-------
:LJ-
~~
t~
'-..L
~~
,. .
,. "
------- |