United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
0Ific& 01
Em8f'gency and
Remedial Response
EPA,RODi><.OS.90" 33
Septemoer '990
c.o?y/
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
K&L Landfill, MI
I
1
I .
,
\EP~ ~eG»«Drt Collection
\ Irwformation Resource Center
! US EPA Region 3
\ Philadelphia. PA 19107
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION -1 ,. REPORT NO. 2. ~ Aecipie...... Acce...on No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-90/133
4. TItle end SubIItI8 S. A8port 08111
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/28/90
K&L Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action Final a.
-
7. Au""'(.' I. PMfarming Orgl8l1iDtJon A8pt. No.
a. P8t'1ormlng o.g.I..1I1I0I1 ...- .nd Addr." 'o. Proj8c:\fT..'uWori< Unit No.
t t. Contnct(C) 0' C..nt(C) No.
(C)
(0)
t2. spon80ring o.gl,nlz8don ...- .nd Add.." t ~ TYII8 01 A8poI1. P8riod Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.w.
washington, D.C. 20460 '"
tS. SuppI8,,*,WY No...
UI. AbeIr.C1 (Uml1: 200 wor")
The 87-acre K&L Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill in Oshtemo Township,
Kalamazoo County, Michigan. Surrounding land use is rural-residential with several
nearby small lakes and ponds. The site overlies two sand and gravel aquifers (shallow
and deep), which are not apparently hydraulically connected, but both are area drinking
water sources. From the early 1960s to 1979, approximately 5 million cubic yards of
refuse and an unknown quantity of liquid and drummed chemical wastes were accepted at
the landfill. In 1972, the State notified the site owners to stop accepting chemical
wastes, but the request was ignored. Residential well testing in 1976, 1978, and 1979
revealE!d ground water contamination. In 1979, the State ordered the landfill to cease
operations, to supply an alternate water supply to affected residents, and to cover the
landfill. This Record of Decision (ROD) provides a final remedy and addresses
contaminated ground water in the shallow aquifer. The primary contaminants of concern
present in the landfill affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, toluene, and xylenes; other organics including acids, PAHs, PCBs, and phenols;
and metals including chromium and lead.
(See Attached page)
17. Oocunwnl An8!y8Ia .. 0McriP-
Record of Decision - K&L Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (pAHs, PCBs,
II. 1d8n118~T- phenols), metals (chromium, lead)
Co cos.. T1 fWdIQrOUP
11. AV8I1at11l1ty 5..-- 11. Security a.a (TIM A8p0rt) :11. No. '" .....
None 93
2Q. Security c:w- (TIM P81!8) 22. P\'Ic8
1'JnnA
5021'2.101
s.. /M/l'UCIi- on Re-
(FomwtY NT1S-3I}
08p88U8III1I of Co8IWI*W
(See ANSI.z~'.I'1
-------
EPA/ROO/R05-90/133
K&L Landfill, MI
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping approximately 83 acres of
landfill area with a RCRA multi-layer cap and installing gas vents throughout the
landfill; pumping and onsite treatment of ground water using enhanced
bioremed.iation/fixed-film bioreactor technology accompanied by aeration; conducting
treatability studies or pilot tests to ensure the effectiveness of the selected
technolc,gy; discharging the treated effluent by either onsite reinjection, discharge
to an onsite filtration pond, or offsite discharge of ground water to a publicly
owned tJ:eatment works (POTW); disposing offsite of any resulting sludges; continued
ground ~Jater, surface water, and air monitoring; closure and abandonment of affected
residential wells; implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions to
limit ground water and land use, and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimat4~d present worth cost of this remedial action is $16,407,100, which includes a
total O&M cost of $1,099,900 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Remedial goals are based upon reduction of excess
life-time cancer risks to 10-4 to 10-6 for carcinogens. For non-carcinogens, the
Hazard Index (HI) will be reduced to 1 or less. Chemical-specific goals for ground
water include acetone 700 ug/l (State), benzene 1.0 ug/l (State), toluene 40 ug/l
(State), vinyl chloride 0.02 ug/l (State), xylenes 20 ug/l (State), phenols 300 ug/l
(State), and lead 5.0 ug/l (State).
-------
~ or LZI' ISlt.
~R!I'm~~
site Name ard IDcatic:n:
West I
-------
2
the selected remec!y. '!he treated ~ter, treated to meet the
mare strirgent ot the 'state and federal applicable or relevant an:I
~iate reqrirements (ARARs), ~d then be injected bade into the
shallow aq.rifer, piped to the City of KaJ-7.oo iOlW or d.isc:harqed
into an cn-site infiltratiat p:n:!.
,
Lan:ifill 0::I'1tents:
Limited Actim inc1u:Urq limi~ site ~s by installin; a
fence arani the perimeter of the site, an:I by placin; deed
restricticns m the lamfil1 ptq)erty; an:I
Ian1fill cCntainDent by utilizin; a DL1lti-layer ~ type cap
CXlnSistiJ'q of (frail bottaD up) a 2-foct clay layer, a 60 mil density
polyethylene liner, a 12-in::h <1rai.nage layer, a geotextile filter
fabric, a 2-foot layer of clean fill, all t~ by a 6-in:::b layer of
tcp;oil. Gas ventin;J and mcni.torinq will be imotpOI'ated into the cap
design.
Decl.amt.ian:
'1he selected remec!y is prct:ect:.iw of humI!In health an:I the 8"IVirc:nDBnt,
and attaim Federal and State rEqJ.irements that are applicable, ar relevant
an1 ~~iata, to the ~iAl.act:.iat. 'Ibis nmedy utilizes peDIUW!t
soluticns an1 altematiw treatment tecbnoloqi- to the _V;1III- ext:8'It
pract:j.cabl. far this site. '1he remec!y far the West Ja. Awrue Iardtill will
utilize treat2Dent as a principal element of the nmedy, 88 per stat:utaJ:y
prefer8¥J8, via the ~ter treatment descri}:)ed ab::N8.
Because this nmedy will result in hazardcus sut:&t:ances t'£IIII!inin;J en-
site aboYe healttri8sed levels, a review will be cxn:1uctecI within
5 years after o..-.:.~It of x-iiAl actim, to ensure that the nmedy
CCI1t.inJes to pravide -'-late prot:.ecticn of humI!In health and thII
env,ua...ait.
~/o
-------
r.
II.
~.~
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
x.
XI.
XII.
TAmE OF o::Nl'ENl'S
Page
1
SITE ~ON AND DESCRIPTION ...................................
1
SITE HIS'It.RY AND ~ ACTIVI'l'IES
...... ...................
2
HIGlLIGHl'S OF CXJMJNIT'l PARl'ICIPATICII
..... ...... ................
3
SCDPE AND R:>IE OF '!HE RESR:NSE ACl'ICII
.......... .................
3
~ OF SI'l'E ~CS
................ .................
~ OF SI'l'E RISJC:S ...........................................
A. ~ OF ~ ..................................
B.
c.
D.
E.
~ ~ ......................................
'roXICl'lY ~ ......................................
~ OF ~ ~af .........................
5
5
5
6
6
6
~CN OF ~ .....................................
~ RISJC:S ......................................
A.
B.
c.
~CJ{ OF ~ (GW) ~ .............
~CN OF IN«JFnL (II') ~ ................
APPLICABIE CR REIEVANl' AND APPR)PRIATE ~ ......
7
7
12
15
~ OF CII6'ARATIVE ~IS OF ~ ................. 15
A. tHRESHOLD ~ ....................................... 16
B. ~ ~ ~ ............................... 18
c. MCD[FYING ~ ....................................... 22
'!HE ~~ RE24E:I:Jr ............................................. 23
~ ~ONS ........................................ 28
l'tU.a:v.;iIaI OF IIaN HEAImI AND 'DIE DiVIlUI4ENl' ........... 28
29
30
31
~ PtR ~ AS A HaNCIPAL E[Dmfl' ..........31
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
~ ~ ~ ....................................
c:x:s'l'-~ .......................................
~CJ{ OF - SCJUm:ONS .......................
IXJCDtDfJM'ICIf OF SIGHIFICNfl' aWGS
............................ 32
~ [[[ 32
ATrAaIoJENrS:
1.
2.
-------
REmRD OF rE:ISI~
SUl-K\RY OF RE1-!EI:>IAL AIrI'ERNATIVE SEUX:TICN
FOR '!HE WEST KL AVENJE IANDFIIL
Q5HI'EM) ~
KAUMAZoo, MICiIGAN
I. SITE NMotE. LDCATICN. AND DESCRIPrICN
'!be West KL Avenue Lardfill, also known as the 0sht.eDD Township I:UDp or the
.Kalamazoo Ccunty Lardfill, is located ~tely seven miles west of
down1:own Kalamazoo, Michigan (Figure 1). '!he lan:ifill, CXI'1Sistin; of
~tely 87 acres of iam, is situated in a rural-residenti.a1 area.
'!he closest residents to the lan:ifill are h__H~tely to the saltheast am
to the saIt:hwest of the lan:ifill. 'l\Io small lakes, Ba1nie castle lake, 200
feet northeast, am LUstin lake, a1e mile west of the 1an:ifill, are the
major surface water b:xties in the area (Figure 2). '!he site sits atop bIo
aquifers. '!he shallow aquifer, a thick (105 to 145 feet) sand am gravel
outwash Za18, is located 20 to 60 feet below the surface. '!he"-"er
aquifer, also a sand am gravel outwash Za18, ran:;)eS frail 10 to 30 feet in
thickness. 'lbese aquifers are separated by a thick (56 to 179 feet) clay-
rim till unit. '!he bIo aquifers do net seem to be hydraulically oall~'"ted
in the vicinity of the lan:ifill. Both aquifers previde drinkin1 water to
local residents.
II. SITE HIS'ItRY AND ~ ~
'!he West KL Aveme Iandfill was ariqinally cprated by Oshtemo Tcwnship as
a 20 acre town c1uap frail the early 1960's to 1968. In May 1968, Fa1~7.oo
Ccunty leased the site frcm 0sht.eDD Tcwnship far use as a camty-wi.de
lan:ifill. '!he Ccunty purchased the surramdin.J land em either side of the
oriqinal c1uap to fom the present 87 acre site. ']he site was operated by
the Kal~7.oo 0:Junty aJreau of PUblic WorXs umer licenses iS81-d by the
MDm frail '1968 ~ 1974, am c:x:m:inJed cpratiem to May 1979 withalt
lioensin;J, at whim time it was clcsecl by the!4I:NR. .An estimated five
milliem cubic ya1'ds of refuse am an unJcncwn aDDD'It of tW.k liq.rl.d am
druIIIDed c:bemi.cal wastes were d;~ of at the lardtill. In Jaruary 1972
the MDm natiti8i t:h8 0:Junty that di~ of ct-it'!Al wstas at the
lan:ifill was unacceptable, yet file Wcmaatic:n in:U.cates that the wastes
ocnt:inJed to be 6OCqJt.ed. '1b8 exact dicv--l locaticn(s) of the c:bemi.cal
wastes within th8 lamfill is not Jcncwn. In Febnmy 1976, analytical tests
shewed ~ I8dJy residential wells were CD'It8inatect. n. 10m notified
the o:.mt.y that no further operating lioe& -1- ~ct be qrantect am the
0:Junty was to seek an alternative d;~ locatic:n. In NCM!IIi:Ier 1978 and
JaraJUy 1979 t:h8 residential wells shewed D:)J:'8 serious oc:ntaminatic:n
prd:)lems. 'Ihe c:1i.sc:oYely of volatile organic ~ oc:ntaminatic:n in
several wells caused the MDm to cm3er the 1an:ifill to cease cpratic:ns in
May 1979. ']he!4I:NR also ordered the 0:Junty to previcte an altematiw water
source to affected residents and to install an inpmDeable
-------
--..-- "-'.-..- .---. - -
FIGURE 1
."
--
-
..
N
..
"
AVe.
..
..
-
..
-
~
;.
..
CITY OF
, ~ KAlAMAZ
-:t
t
MAIN
AV
I..;.
C."'.
I.M8
...
..
..
-
.
-
.
'it
(A"'-- ".. .... "It COI8 ~ '.00
-------
- ._.~ ---...- ._- ------- ---.
- --. -- .~_.
. - .-.- -. .. - .
~
r--
I
I
I
!5
4
5
'1
.
.
10
II
;;
-
12
'"
~
II
17
'trMt
14
13
30
a
FIG. 2.
N
LOCATION OF
WEST KL AVENUE LANDFILL
OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP
SCALE
o
[
2 -'..
.
-------
2
'0
beIrt:.a\ite was ~lied. Kalamazoo county also installed a new water main
alarq west KL Avenue an::l Salth 4th Street near the lan::lfill to sezvice the
residents requesti.n; ~.
'!be west KL AveruJe Lardfill remains clcse:i an::l has net received aTrf wastes
since May 1979. '!be surface of the site is vegetated, but small areas are
present where vegetative a:Ner is sparse or. absent. Pcn:li.rq of precip-
itatia1 has occurred in subsidence depressic::ns a1 the surface of the fill
area. Runoff fraD the east slcpa of the fill flows into Bonnie castle lake
an::l the small adjacent pon:3s, while runoff fraD the so.Ith slope flows to
West KL AveJ'U!. Ercsia1 of the a:Ner has occurred at the site and refuse
protrudes atx:Jve the a:Ner in J"AJIDerQJS areas. Lead1ate flows and seeps are
present alcn; the so.Ith fill face.
'!be West KL Averue Lan:ifill was added to the u.s. EPA NatiCl1al Priorities
List (NPL) in ~.rer 1982. Releases of hazardcus substances £rem the site
to the graD'1dwater was the primary c:x;.mem of the scorin) packa;Je.
Notice I.etters initia~ negctiatims for the RI/FS were mailed to
Potentially Respollsible Parties (PRPs) in three mail~ (to over 200 PRPs)
fraD mid to late 1985. After faili.n; tci reach an c3IIgreemeut, the U.S. EPA
infcmDeCi the PRPs that the negctiatic::ns were oc:n:lu::Jed a1 FebIuary 19, 1986
an::l that the RIfFS was to be cx:n:hJcted by the U. S. EPA.
On February 26, 1990, General Notice Letters were sent to ~tely 90
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), incluc1in:J wste generators and
transporters and the site cwne.rs and operators. Spec;"l Notice Letters will
be i~c:I" after this Record of eecisia1 is signed.
In. HIGlLIC2IS OF
-------
3
durinq the pmlic IE OF '!HE RESR::NSE ACl'Iaf
'Ihe 9Cq)e of this respa1S8 actia1 is a final remecJy to &..Ul~ the
CCI1taminatia1 and patential CCI1taminatia1 caused by the waste di ~ of at
the Facility. 'Ihe respoose actia1 will ca1.h.-s the principal threats
caused by the Facility, such as the grcun:1water CCI1taminatia1 (CXI1tam.inant:s
within the grcun:1water feud above state and federal limits) at and arcurd
the Facility. 'I11e final remecJy will also include the up;JJ:adin:J of the
pl [gmt, landfill cap to 0CI1tain the wastes and to minimize the CXI1tam.inant:s
reac:hi.rq the grcun:1water. Sira! wastes will remain a1 site, periodic
mr::rrl.toring will need to be maintainecl, as well as a review of site
cxn:litiaw at least a1Ce every 5 years. 'Ihe U.S. EPA has deYelqm an
approach to r-nM; J'1Itia1 W'hid1 is ca1.h.~ in this RJD and has det:eJ:mined
that unless them is r-nMbtia1 at this Facility, them will cx:ntinJe to be
act:ua.l and/or patential iDminent and substantial ~ to human
health, welfue or the envircnDent. 'Ihe scope of the x--1bl act:.iat at the
Facility is to achieve OCIII'plianoe with federal and state ARARB (Applicable
or Relevant and ~'-¥L1ate Requirements) regardinq grcun:1water
CCI1taminatia1 and the CXI1tainment of wastes at the site to preYeI1t further
releases at the Facility.
v. StMWrl OF SITE ~cs
'Ihe RI and FS Repcn.-ts have adequately desc::ribed the current cxn:lit.iaw of
the West KL AvenJe Iardtill. 'Ihe Final RI ~t. ws sul:IDittecl to the U.S.
EPA by their CD'1tractar in May 1989 and the PUblic Oo..&-It FS was sul:IDittecl
to the U.S. EPA in ~ 1990. Field 1«Jdt for the RI ws CXI'dJcted in three
P1a5e8 and began in sept:.eIIi:)er 1986 and finished in Jamuy 1989. '1b8 RI
CX'I1S:ist8d of the installatien of DDrl.tcr:inq we.1.l8, the Baq)linJ of
DDrl.tcr:inq an! residential wells, soils, aarii-,t, surface water, an! air, a
geq:hysica1 flUZ:W!IY an! the digqin:J of test pits in searcn of b.Iried dnmB.
'Ihe RI ~.-t 8hcW.d be ~~ for details irlYalvinq the ''''\«}8tt& of
the RI.
A !l::lDIIMI"Y of the cxn::lusicns of the RI Repent is as follCJW8:
*
scattered czqanic ~Jnd CCI1taminatien is pr is it it in surface
80ila naar 18i1d1ate seeps and ncm-vegetated areas.
'1\10 locaticns of ~ ccntaminaticn were fcurd en the lan1fill. At
both locatia1s, PCB cxnce.ntratiaw were bebIeen 180 and 700 parts
per billicn (Rb).
*
*
No CXI'Itami.natien that can be attrib1ted to the landfill ws fcurd
in surface water and -.r1;1ftM1ts (fraD 8a'1nie castle and D.1stin
IaJces and neamy smaller p:n::Js) .
"
-------
'u
4
*
Sporadically oocurrin; organic I"Y"I'I'{Y'm ccntam:inatia1 was fam:1 in
SlIhc:1Jrface soils. 'Ihese cx::nt:aminant CCI'1Ce1ttraticn; did net
correlate with cx::nt:aminant levels in gra,lniwater ~les taken
fran mr:::n:itorin; wells at the same locatia1S.
GraD1dwater flow in the shallow aquifer is to the west am
nJrthwest £ran the lardfill, wen is CD1Sistent with reqia1i1l
flow patterns.
*
*
Ca'1taminatia1 origina~ fran the lardfill has affected the
shallow aquifer. Volatile am semi.-volatile organic ~Jn:!s
1IIIeI'8 fam:1 in this aquifer a1ly. ExaDples of the OCI'1CeI1tratia1S
foun1 in the shallow aquifer are foun1 in Table 1. No in:iicatia1
of ccntam:inatia1 in the ~.r aquifer was famd.
*
No imrganic CD1taminants in filtered gra,lniwater ~
primaJ:y drinJd.n) water stan::1ards 1IIIeI'8 foun1. (Filtered semples
provide results generally more in:iicative of t'li~'tved ~srt:s
of gra,lniwater: refer to the RI Report for further clarificatia1
of the two.) Filtered inorganic semple results are listed in
Table 2. Table 1 shews the
-------
-.-.- -...- -
TABLE 1
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SHALLOW AQUIFER MONITORING WELL SAMPLES
.Of GROUNOWATER AT THE VEST ~ LAIIOFILL. PHASE I ROUNDS I AHO II AHO PHASE II (I)
~tr;c Meln IIIx lmum
Frequency of Concent I'It ; on Concentr.tion
Ct\emic.ls DetlCtlon (b) ("g/L) (II9/L)
Vinyl cnloride 5/'1 5.9 107
Cn 10roctNne 10/'1 6.3 100
1.1-0icnloroetNne 26/'1 23 1.200
1.2-0ich10rOltNne 15/U 6.6 200
trlnl-l.2-0icnloroethene 9/'1 3.9 '6
Ac,ton, 27/'1 109 36.000
'-Mltnyl-2-pentlnon, 22/'1 35 1.700
2-8uunon, 17/'0 32 '.700
Benz'"' 2'/'1 13 720
Tolu,n' 16/U 5.6 . 1. 300
Iyl,n' 5/'1 3.5 S8
Ethylbl"Zln' 8/'1 3.1 '6
Z-Hlxlnone 3/-1 5.6 85
Phenol 11/'0 9.1 1. -00
_-Mltn)'lplll"ol 12/-0 13 -.200
8,nzoic Icid 10/-0 32 15.000
larh. 39/U 115 1.010
C._h. 161U 6.6 39-
C""",hlll l-/U 6.2 136
L,.d 33/U 18 900
MI",.n", 38/_1 150 7'3
Iron -O/U 2.730 37.800
lick.l f 15/U 12 86
Zinc '1/-1 3.300 120.000
(a) Silftpl. Identification: 1111. M. 1Ii3. 1117. 1M tnrouv" 11116.
M through 'N5. "2 througft M5. M7.
(b) N,.,.r of lampl,s In which the cn.lcal Wli detlCtlCl OYIr the tot.l
number of 18101.' .nalyzed.
-------
CI8TIUIIS
.....
"'-k
Iwi-
CWII-
Clk..
....
c.w.r
..
...
......
.......
~
-chi
-....
Jr,""
581-
5168
lie
M""
...
-~
TABLE 2
--" .II-~ SIIIl.IDI.15: ..-s
.-sr_I. ..use.) --~) SII1( .. fIIIM. RIDIlINIUI fDIM. mDIIIIY fDIM. ....Il1O fDIM. .. IDIf O'D'" IIl.U
.. tI ..".. .. tI ,..IUw IN""OII- II1II""" IIWl ...Il1O ..101 "DIU. Dt ..101 QJU n L8IIDI1G CIIUII
........ ........ anns IIWl CDI.S SWOIIIm DIDIY f1JI mJ5TID f1JI laD SWOIIIm
...... -~tI .. r/I w... ....tI llfUK (..... ..1..1Ii "101(.)
......~..... ........ 811&t..
1m . '" .
VII "~II.' WI .
ifni ,,)orD .,. ".. I."" I'~:I I.D
VII ......., WI . 10 5 "
MI ........ .,. 11."'..
~ '.""'1 WI ......, . .. 131
1m . .. .
11m 4I~ III ....... . 111.-
W 1.~J.t ft 1.).4.' 11(11) ..)111(") .
IWZI ..,-....,. ......
_II n... 4ft .WI-. . m
WI' . M .
~I 11...... IWI .
WIt 1'-'1"'" ft 1.SJD.a."
WI' . en .
WI J.)'II M '.1""
_I I..". 4ft ""'..'" 1811...
Wli . M .
WII el.I.j.- III "'-1.110 I.'" 5.11D lIS
InI II.' IWI .
MI IR-I." VI IINJI D Ut
,.....
.) "",,,,Iw SiIfI8: l1li. IIR. IIIJ. M. M. ..... l1li1. IIIIJ. ...... III. IV. ... -. .... .. m !It. ...
... II . .. - II.. ..... II . ..
') ....,..... SiIfI8: ...... II1II. IIMoIIIIS
') ~ c:rItIri8
I) "8. II. I. II. ... II; II-J. '; W-J. I; m s. ... -..
I) W-J. I;..,. IJ; III; -..
J) .... .. II. U" I; III; .
.. .. IiId&tII8
-: ""'1'" ..,.............. ..lilt lilt.... tJI'l 1811.
.., ..."..,.u,. "II" ....t.
l11li vn
-------
N
1
ALHENA R
'JEST KL AVENUE
WEST KL AVENUE LANDFILL
VI
~.
BONNIE
.CASTLE
LAKE
WEST KL AVENUE
LANDfILL
o 500 1000
1 J
SCALE IN FEET
F''''IRE 3
APPROXIMATE BOUNDAR! )f CONTAMINANT PLUME
, -
-------
"
*
5
'!be results of the air scmplin:; c:xn::hx:te:i near the lan.:ifill vents
ard in the amient air arwrd the lan.:ifill have sD::Jwn low ~
levels of several organic ~Jnds, the highest oOlioellU.4tia1S
beirg foun:l near the vents. Toluene, benzene ard ac:et:.ooe were the
~ most often detected, an::l at the highest ocnoent:ratia1S.
'lbere was no clear tren:i of higher CClIOm'U.4tia1S dcM1wird an:1
durin:;~ticn scmples than in upwini or ~- ~ticn
scmples .
*
'!be test pit i.nvestigaticn tili.l..u:lly S\qJeSts that the lan::lfill is
the scuroe of 0CI'1taminants foun:l in soils an::l groundwater near the
1an::lfill. '!be OCI'1Stituents fcurJi in beth the test pits an::l air
scmples (scuroe scmples) an::l in groundwater are aceta1e, benzene,
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, chlorinated organics, phenols, an::l
of nL1IID!r of inorgani.cs. only a few sin:;le druD& Were disccYered
durin:; the test pit ~tia1S. '!he c:.ne fUll drum that was
saDPled ~red to be a c;rease type material an::l CX'I'Itained
acetme, toluene, ethylbenzene an::l xylene. No areas of heavily
u.b._tli.csted. druD& or other c:xntaminated materials, .in:ii.catiz1q
pX.ential "hat spots" were fcurJi thrcu;Jh the test pit qm-atiat.
VI. StMofARY OF SITE RIS1(S
cm:::tA requires that U.S. EPA protect human health ard the envira1Dent fran
current aM pctential exposure to hazardcuI substances famd at the
Facility. '!be RI ~ cxnta.ins a Risk Ast'----.t '-Ihic:b c:haracterizes the
nature aM estimates the magnitWe of pX.ential ardIar actual risks to
public health aM the envircnDent caused by the cx:ntami.nants identified at .
the Facility. A !I:I_ry of the f~ of the Risk Assr--tt is as
follows: '
A. ~ OF CXH:DN
Q)emicals identified as cbamicals of pX.ential cxn::xam an::l used in the risk
ae-oo--.t ex:ndsted of a variety of organics aM incrgani.cs. In total, 34
organic aM 8 inarganic a-iCJ'1. of pX.ential cxn::xam were identified in
c:.ne or mare envircnIB1tal media aM were evaluated in the risk as~---tt
Crable 3). '1bese ~.nm have been USEd to evaluate taxicity, expc6'JI'8
pathways and pctential health risks far indi~'" 1. resi.din;J near the
lardfill CII:' ~L..~""1'S at the lardfill.
B. EXPCSJRE ~
Potential pattMlys of exposure to cx:ntami.nants ariginati.n; fran the West 1(L
Iardfill site un::1er an-rent aM future lard use cx:nSitiaw incl\Da CXII1tacts
with the air and soil, at and arcund the site, utilizatiat of the shallGi
aquifer far drinJd.n; water, aM the US8 of the ~ pcn:m and lakes.
'Ihese pathways were evaluated within the RI's Risk Ass~--tt as to ,mat
risks to human health ar the envL.'-II...esit were ar cculd potentially be
prese-sit. 'lbese are suamarized in the follcwin) sectia1S.
-------
TABLE 3
Clt:llICALS 1$ POTEIT IAl eo.eEU C~SEI 8T COM FOR THE
VEST (L lAMDFllL SITE. "leHIGAM
Surf.c. Subsurhc.
aww1c.l Sotl Soil Groundw.t.r Sedt..nt Air (.)
Or,."ICI
--------
AcltCIN X X X X
Ie"Z- X X
lenzo 1C IC td X X
811(Z-lthylh8zyl)phth8l.tl X
8 rClll1Qlll8 t h8 III X
Z-lutanone It X
8utYlblftZYI~hth8l.te X
CArbon dllu fide It
CAr'bon tetrachloride It
en 10roethiM X
en lorofo", It
Dlb8nzof"ran X
1.4-0IcnloroblftZIM X
1.1-0Ichloroetftine X X
1.2-Dlchloroethene X
1.2-Dlchloroethlne X It
D lethylphth8 late It X
DI-n-butylphth81ate X
Ethylb1ftzene It X X
Z-HUllIOII8 X X
Methylene chloride X X
4-l18thyl-Z-pentanone X
4-l18thylpftenol X X X
'AHI X X
PCb X
'entachlor~lOl X
'h8ftol X
Tetrachloroeth1ft8 X
To I..... It X X
1.1.1-Trlchloroethlne X
T rich 10roethene X
V1"yl acetate X
V1"yl chlor1d8 X
Xy leM X X X
IIIO'"98n ICI
-------
krl..' X
c.a. I.. X
en".,.. I
II"Oft I
Lead I
"'"9all8l8 I
. lael I
Z1nc I
(a) """""ta .11 ctI8;call detected near ~I W8f1ta or _IN of tl'l8 1&...,;11
(I.... no 881tetiOf\ of ch8lcil. "I perfol"lllld). AI dilculled 1ft tl'l8 text. It 11 not
....1111. to .t,N'1II lite-relit"I' fl'Gll evin.,. "'".
-------
6
C. 'IOXICIT'i ASSESSMEm'
Usi.n;1 data generated duri.n;1 the RI, the U.S. EPA cx:n:hJcted a site 3peCific
baseline risk as~~........?1t to characterize the 0Jrrent threat to human health
am. the erwircnDent for each of the act:ual or potential expo6'.Jre pathways
ri; en '''''~ in Sec:tiat B above.
Toxic substances may p::&! certain types of hazards to human am. animal
pcp.1laticn;. Typically, hazards to human health are expressed as
carcimgenic am. ncn-<:arcinogen:i.c toxic effects. carcincgeJ)ic risk,
numerically presented as an expcI18I1tial factor (e.g., lxlO-6), is the
inc::reased d1ance a persa1 may have in 0CI"Itract:.in cancer in his or her
lifetime. For exaDple, a lxlO-6 risk due to a lifetime of drirIki1q water
that 0CI'1tai.ns the ccntaminants of CXI"ICeI:1\ means that a perscI'\' s d'Ianoe of
0CI"Itract:.in cancer is inc::reased by 1 in 1 milliat. 'Ihe U.S. EPA at:teapts to
reduce risks at: SUperfu1'n sites to a ran:;J8 of lxlO-4 to lXlO-6 (1 in 10,000
to 1 in 1 milliat), with eqbasis at the lower en:! (lxlO-6) ot the scale.
'Ihe Hazard Index (HI) is an ~iat of ncn-carcincgenic taxic effects am.
_c:t.1reS ~ a persa1 is beirr;J exposecl to adverse levels of ~
carciuogens. Any HI value of greater than 1.0 SJggeSts that: a ~
carcinogen presents a patentially unacceptable taxic effect.
Based at taxicoloqical studies of the ccntaminants of oo..oem fcurd in the
grcun1water at ani near the Facility, several are classified as bein:J .
carcinogens. carcinogens famd in the grcun1water inclu:1e benzene am vinyl
chloride, classified as Group A - Human carcinogens, am. 1,1-Dichloroethane,
1,2-Die:hlorcethane and Lead, classified as Grcup B2 - Probable IbDan
carcil~lS. 'Ihe rest of the cc.ntami.nants of cxn:mn fcurd in the
grcun1water are ncn-carcincgenic. carcino}ens fcurd in am near the gas
vents at-Site include benzene, Group A - Human carcino;,en, am carlx1n
t.etrachloride. e:hlorofam, methylene chloride, tstrachlcroet.hene, am
trie:hlcroet.hene, all Group B - Prcable IbDan carcino}ens.
D. ~ OF RISK ~CN
A Sl1!IWMTY of the risks a_iated with the cc.ntami.nants of cxn:mn famd at
the west XL Aven.18 Ian:1fW is fcun1 in Table 4. 1h:is table shews that the
average ~- ~ risk associated with the drinkilw;r of the grcun1water
is 5xlO-4, with a mavi1lll1lll risk ot lxlO-2. Also, the HI value is foun1 to
have an a'Mt:atJ8 value of 2, with a JDa:It;1III1III value of 100. (See the Risk
Ass~--.t within the RI Report. for details am drivirq forces behini the
risk 18V81a.) '!he health risks associated with the other patmlays are
within th8 8CCI!ptable risk~. '!he values tor the exposure via
inhalaticm ot volatiles by residents am dirt bikers are near unacceptable
levels, bIt: these i!l3ll- will be indirectly ca:kh. :-.11 through the
0CI'1tainDent (~in) of the lardfW) am the lam use r-=il.ictia1S of the
selected remedy.
E. ~ RISRS
'!he effects ot the c:art:am.inatiat at the erwL.~-,t were evaluated usin)
potent:.ial expcsures to PCBs am PAIls. 'Ihe results are as follows (it: shcW.d
-------
~ ---.-
TABLE 4
SI.MWT OF IUSU
Total
UQDerbound L;'at'~
Exc.'1 '-neer RI,k. HUlrd Indu
--------------------- ---------------------
Av.rlge PllullDI. Av.rlge PllullDI.
SClNrlo Mall 1l1li8 Mazl-
Current Llnd-U.. SclftlrlOl
--------------------------
DIrect Contact with Surfac. SoIl -
Children - IlI'Iatll1 lE-08 2E-OI «1 «1
Children - poIlibl. ~ IIC ' 1(-07 «1 «1
Direct CDntact with SId;-.ntl -
Chi Idrltl - co 11lCt lOll POIIdI 2[-1. 1(-13 «1 «1
Children - OuItin La. .[-1. 1[-07 «1 «1
ChIldren - Ionnl. Ca.tl. Lak. 2[-1. 8[-08 «1 «1
Inhalation of ~IIft' ou.,. -
TreIDlI'.Pt - landfIll 7(-11 ][-10 «1 «1
Ra idlntl - ..."" 1£-10 1E-08 «1 «1
InhalatIon of WOlatll.. -
TreIDlI,.r,.- landfIll 1[-08 .[-07 «1 «1
Rnld8nU - nearD, 2[-01 2[ -05 «1 «1
Inhalation of Ou.t. Gen.rated b,
01'" blk.Pt -
01'" Dik.r. - 1""" 11 2[-13 7!-12 «1 «1
Inhalat10n of WOlatn.. b7 DI'" Ilk." 2[-05
01'" lik.Pt - 1"""11 1!-a. «1 «1
~uture Lind-Us. SclNriOl
-------------------------
1,.1t ion of 6~t., -
II 1 dIf'IU
DIrect Contact .1t" Surface SoIl. -
Ra I dIf'IU
5(-0.
1E -02
z
100
2E-oI
7! -01
«1
«1
IIC . Mot calculated.
-------
7
,
~
be ooted that there are many urr.ertainties associated with these estimates
of risk, please refer to the risk ~..-O'"-PIt portia'1 of the RI Report) :
1) 'n1e levels of FCBs in the surface soils of the lan:ifill CJ:Ner are at
c:xn=entratia1S below these associated with phytotcxic effects in SCJDe
species of plants. IDpacts a'1 veget:atia'1 at the site frcm exposure to FCBs
are believed net to be oexurrin). Other d1emicals of pX.ential c:xn::m:n in
the soils of the site may be ~ vegetatia'1, tut given the relatively
low oCh"OIt:&tLultia1S of these ather organic d1emicals in the surface soils of
the site, iJIpacts a'1 the veget:atia'1 of the area are net ~; 2) 'n1e
estimated FCBs intake by r:t:bins am shrews ~ the toxicity values
derived for these species, therefore reproductive effects in SCJDe ~
of the pcp.1latiat may be CIOOJr'J:'i.n; (if the
-------
8
CXIIplri.scI1 with ather alternatives. umer this alternative, no
~; ~ 1 actim or treatment would be taken at the West I
-------
- . - - __0".
'IM[E 5
aDWP WJEtS ~ ~
\IiEST RL Avnu: I.AN:FIlL
~)
Mi.ciiliJm Cls!n-q)
C:rJhmI; J"A!"t. ~ ~ 111:% 3(J1 ("~1
Au:t.....18 700 700
BariLm 5000 5000 5000 5000
* ~-=-. 5.0 0 1.0 1.0
2~ae 350 350
~;ln 5 5 4.0 4.0
01rani1.D (bXal) 100 100 35 35
1, 1~a:t:et:han! 700 700
* 1,2~a:t:et:han! 5.0 0 0.4 0.4
Ti.aa ---1, 2~ 100 100 140 100
Ethyll::&Tl.En! 700 700 30 30
Ira'1 300+ 300+ 300
* Is8d 50 0 5.0 5.0
4-ft!thy1-2,.- t- .ale 350 350
Nidcal. 100 100 100
HBI:a1. ~ 300
'1bl\B'8 2000 2000 40 40
* Vilyl QWrida 2.0 0 0.02 0.02
XYla1lll 10,000 10,000 20 20
- .. - - - - - .. .. - .. .. - - .. - .. - .. .. - - - - - .. .. - .. - - - - - .. - .. - ..
* .. CII1'Cin:qran
M:I:' =0 Fe::1eral safe ~ Water.kt, }oI:nrimWII ~ ISIo81.
M:I:G .. JoI'nt'imWII ~ lsIiel ~
Act 3(11 . M:i.c::trlqI!In'8 1Ict 'X17, ~ B, lXlr IsYa1s cr H..mIn Life ~ sate
Q:a Lll2L.ciUm IeJe1s
+..~Ja,
'Ihis dm't is n:E a:n:l\.Biw, 88 it J.~ t;s aUy the a::nt:2IIIIizmD .idEI1tifis:l as
th! a:nt:ami.rIu'Es at ~ COIa.ca:Jl at the time the RI 1IBS arr'rh:r1
U the best fNA"'M'. ~"I'W\ Umit is hiqK' thm the CI.sfInoq) Q:a1, 1::tat the
detec+;t71limit wi1l1lll"- the stats:l ~~.
U the ~wn:l ~LII2L.c4.k:n is hi.cp!r than the ~ Gcal, as detecIdr8:l by
t:h! Em in CD81lt:at:ia1 with the)OR, thi!n the ~\ADS \oYLII2It.at.ia\ will
r='f.'1- the ~ CI.sfInoq) Q:a1.
Other OOT""nB det~, fer ~ t:tme are J1:) 1&Uth criteria cr~, will
hi!M! Clel!ln"q) Gca1a Et at a ta:micBl perf~1C8 1:Bsed ~ lEM!1.
-------
9
estimates that a may;1ftlln ~in; rate. of ~te.ly 2000 gallcno per
miruIte (gpn) will be required to capture the CCI1taminatia'1 plume, utilizin;
a m:iniJIIJm of 5 extractia'1 wells, (the exact n..JIIi:)er of wells, gpn am
locatia'1 of the wells, to ensure that the wells' c:x:::I'1eS of depressia'1 overlap
with ead1 other am therefore capt11re the plume, will be detemined durin;
the ~;~1 Design phase). Treatability Stuiies will need to be ccn::lucted
for 'tIIhicb eNer ~ter ~;~1 act.ia'1 altemative is chcsen to verify
the effectiveness of the selected treatment method. Altemative GW *3 is
divided. into feur altematives reflect:.inq c1ifferent treatment technologies
am CXJIi)inatia'1S of these technologies that can best ~ess the needs of
the J:'PIN"rl;~l act.ia'1 at this site. 'Ihe altematives are as follows:
Altemative GW *3a: GrcAJrdwater Treatment Utilizin; Precipitatia'1, Air
striwin; am amxn Msatptia'1 .
'!his alternative cx:n;ists of ~ter ccllectia'1, as ment.ia'1lE!d
aboYe, CXJIi)ined with treatment of the e:xt:ract:ecl ~ter oonsist.ilq
of chemical precipitatia'1, air striwin;, an:I carlx:n adsozptia'1 (Figure
4). 'Ihe chemical precipitatia'1 (Aooes& will remcve the inarqanic
cart:aminants to ~ levels or near ~ levels. 'Ihe air-
str~in; prooess will remcve the m-ganic cart:aminants of CX'I1Cem to
~ levels with the ~a'1 of several organics. 'Ihe c:arl:Ion
adsozptia'1 ~~ will' remcve the remainin:J m-ganic CXI'Itaminants 'tIIhicb
were not rnIDY8d fraD the ~ter during' air striwin;.
'Ihe limitin; design factor for the air-st:r~in; an:I carlx:n adsOJ:pt.ia'1
syst:emI is the ~ that the ket:a1es Ce reIIK:7II8d to ntn-det:.ect
levels. Because these ~nm are neither readily strippable nor
~, the sizes of the air stripper am activated caxtxn system
1IL1St Ce in:reased significantly to remcve the ket:a1es. GI:'OUn:!water
ARARs will be ctJtained with this alternative if the ket:a1es are
reIIK:7II8d. ARARs regardirg air emissi.a1s will Ce adiressed with carlx:n
filters, if ~.
Waste products will Ce generated fraD this treatment ~uOeSS, incl~
slur:k)e8 fr:aD the precipitatia1 ~. .:- , air emissicaw fraD the air
stripper that 'Il8'J need to Ce capt:m'8d, and spent carlx:n that will need
to be ~mc!t8d or t111~ of at an ~ R:RA facility.
Estimat.ed ~ 0Bt: $6,406,400
Est:iJIIated Total O&M cmts: $17,783,800
!'Btimated Total Pi. -1:. at Warth: $24,190,200
!'Btimated IDplE!llllEll1tat.i Ti.JIIetra8: MiniJII.D of 6 years
~Altemative GW '3&: Gralndwater Treatment Utilizing Precipitaticm, Air-
~in; am amxn AdsaJ:pticm
'!be sub-altemative is exactly like GW 'Ja aboYe ~t this sub-
altemative dces not provide the ~M of ksta1e remcYal as dces GW
'3&, therefore using significantly less activated c::mtx.a. waste
products will be s;1IIn~,.. to GW '3&, t:ut less activated carlx:n will be
spent an:I needed to Ce regenerated or tII;~ of at an ~ R:FA
-------
i;XTRA::TEO
GR:JUNDIofATER
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
DEIofATERD SLUDGE DISPOSED
AT AN OFI"-SITE
RcnA FACILITY
\
. OFF-GAS
TO ATMOSPHERE
A'R
STRIPPING
SPENT CARBON
TO 8E REGENERATED
IN DI"F-SITe FACILITY
FIGURE 4
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVE
FOR
3a
C'
~FFLUENr Dt5LHAR~E
-------
10
facility. GroJn:iwater ARARs may net be adtieved sin::e ketooes will net
be significantly rE!DrNed. ARARs regard.in:} air emissia1S will be
adn"essed with c:artx:n filters, if required.
Fstimated 0::r1structi.a'1 a:.t: $5,829,700
Fstimated Total O&M a:.ts: $5,153,500 .
Fstimated Total Present Worth: $10,982, 500
Fstimated IDplementatia'1 Timeframe: MinimJm of 6 years
Alternative GW '3b: Groun:iwater Treatment Utilizin;J Precipitatia'1, Steam-
Strippin;J and Carlx:r\ Adsotptia'1
'lhi.s alternative CIC21Sists of chemical precipitatia'1, st:.eaDHitrippin;J
and caItx:I'1 adsotptia'1 (Figure 5). '!he chemical precipitatia'1 pr;~
will I"eIIDYe the imrqanic CXI1taminants to ID'H:Ietect levels. '!he steam
strippers will :t"EIII:IVe .the orqanic CXI1taminants of a:ncem to ncn-detect
levels with the exceptia'1 of phenol and 4-methylphenol. '!he size of
the caItx:I'1 adsorptia'1 system in this alternative is aClGl--' to be of
sh"nar size as the a1e needed for sub-alternative GW '3a. 'lhi.s cartx1n
adsorptiat pr;~ will adsoI'b the c:x:ntaminants net J:'E!IJI:JYed by steam
strippin;J, specifically phenol and 4-methylphenoJ.. 'Ibis alternative
will adtieve grcun:iwater ARARs. ARARs regardinq air emissiaw will
also be ack1ressec1 with the use of a caItx:I'1 filter system, if it is
detemined that it is r--"''''ary.
Waste products will be similar to SUb-alternative GW t3a.
Fstimated 0:I'1stn1ctia'1 a:.t: $7,011,500
Estimated Total O&M a:.ts: $6,715,300
Estimated Total Pnsatt Worth: $13,726,800
Estimted IDplementaticm TimefrBme: MiniJIIJID of 6 years
Alt.enative GW '3c: Grcundwater Treatment Utilizin;J PJ:ecipitatiat and Carlx:r\
Adsarptiat .
'Ibis altematiw Ca'1Sists of chemical precipitaticm and c:::utxm
adsoxpt.ic:n (Figure 6). '!he chemical ~~ will l'EIIICMa the incrganic
CXI1taminants to ID'H:Ietect levels, while the c:::utxm adsorptiat i4u.-s
will Z'8IIDV8 the organic c:x:ntaminants of CXI'1Cem to ncn-detect levels.
'Ihi8 alt8matiw differs f1'aD C1Il tJa am t3b in that it utilizes c::arlut
~~ .
-------
EICTAACTED
GADUHOWATEA
CHEMICAL
..AECtPITATION
\
(IFF --GA!i .
TO An40!iPHERI.':
STEAM
STRIPPING
DEWATEREO SLUDGE DISPOSEO
AT AN OFF-SITE
ACRA FACILITY
SPENT CARSON
TO BE REGE~ERATED
IN OFF-SITE FACILITY
FIGURE 5
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVE
FOR
. ,
3b
c/
~FFLUENT DI9LHAAGe
-------
t.1C:rRACTED
OnOUNOwATEn
\
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
oeWATeRED SLUDGE DISPOSED
AT AN OFF-SITE
RCRA FACILITY
FOR
fiGURE ...
TREATMENT
GROUNDWATER
8PENT CARBON
TO .e: REGe:NERATED
IN O~~-8ITe: ~ACILITY
HEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE 3c
EF~LUe:NT D[9CHAR~E
-------
11
Alternative GW *3d: Groniwater Treatment Utilizin; Precipitaticr\ am W-
enhanced Oxidaticr\.
~
'Ihis al ternati ve OCI'ISists of chemical precipi taticr\ am W-enhanced
axidaticr\ (Figure 7). '!he chemical precipitaticr\ ~~ will remave
the irm'ganic Ca1taminants to ~ levels. '!he w-enhanoed
axidatioo process will remave the organic Ca1taminants of ccr.oern to
~ levels with the e>ccepticr\ of 4-methy1-2-perrt:anc11e, which
will be rem:JVed to a cx:n::B'1traticr\ of ~tely 10 parts per
billicr\. Grc::a.m:iwater ARARs shcW.d be achieved, t:ut depen:1 cr\ the final
oa.oentraticr\ of 4-methy1-2-pent:.ana1e remainin:J after treatment. ARARs
regardil'q air emissicr\S will be achieved.
Waste productS of this alternative include ooly the sludges fraD the
chemical precipitatioo.
Fstimated CtI'1StrUCtioo Q:)st: $5,943,200
Estimated Total o&M COsts: $6,870,400
Estimated Total Present worth: $12,813 , 600
Estimated I:nplementatioo Timeframe: m.iniJII.ma of 6 years
'!he abaYe grcundwater treatment altm:natives (GW I's Ja-d) all include 5 to
7 extractioo wells (as describecl within the FS ~t) t:ut other factors
which affect iJIplementatia'\ of the altematives in::lu:1e: 1) deteIminirq
the locatioo of the ext:racticn wells: 2) detelminin;J the final ithV~itioo
of the treated grcundwateri and 3) deteIminirq the locaticn of the
treatDent facilities. '!be exact nJIIi:Ier and locatioo of the extractioo wells
will need to be deteJ:mined durin) the pa-iiA1 Design ~ of the project,
after a pilot test is CXI'1ducted. '!be FS Rt:p:n"t iti ~1S"'Of!' possible cpticr\S
a'1 .,mat to do with the large volumes of treated grcundwater. q,tia1S that
were cliscxJunted for reasa'\S explained within the FS include: 1) disc:t\arge
to Bc.I1nie castle take; and 2) shipDent to an off1ite ~ facility. 'lhe
met:hcds that were brcu#1t thra.1gh the FS evaluatiaw were the re-injectioo
of the treated effluent into the shallClii ~fer, the cxnstructicn of a
receivin) pc:n:1, and the ext.ensioo of the DUnicipal sewer line and the use of
the local PUblicly OWned Treatment Works (POlW), u in Altemative GW I4a
belClii. 'D18 exact J'UIi)ers and locatiaw of the inject.icm wells wculcl need to
be deteminBd ciJrin;J the ~iA1 Design stage of the PMject. A
preliminary layaut of the grcundwater extractioo system is sk.etched in
Figure 8. 'D18 feasibility and size of a receivin) penS can not be tully
deteminBd until the exact p~ rate of the extractiat wells is kncwn an:i
therefa1'8 thi8 cptioo is not carried any further in this RJD, b.1t my still
be a viable discbarqe cptien. 'Ihe locatien of the treatDent facilities will
be SCIII!!IItbat deper..it en the final locatiaw of the extractiat and injectioo
wells or the receivin; pc:n:1. 'Ihe potential need to ~ or lease
private prcperty will DaIt likely elevate the costs of the grcundwater
treatment alt.ematives, based en the locatiaw d1csen for the extractiat
wells, the injec:tia'1 wells, the receivin; penS, the associated pipin:J, and
the treatment facilities. 'Ihe use of the local IUlW will ~ en the
. ~~ity of the nearest sewer line, the ~~ity and ~ for use of the
1UlW, the 1UlW'. record of c:x:qUiance an:i c:x:qUiance with the POlW'.
~at-.al!it.u.::.tt. stardards. (See Alt.ematiV8 GW f4a belClli). ~ the POlW is
-------
.
EICTRACTED
GROUNDWATER
\
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITATION
DEWATERED SLUDGE DISPOSED
AT AN O~F'-8ITE
RCRA ~ACILITY
Fon
FlGL
TnEATMENT
GROUNDWATER
UV - ENHANCED
OXIDATION
7
SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE
3d
EFFLUENT DIS(;UARUE
-------
. NOTe.
t;
~
_LoMeNA
.
RD.
r
t-
.
N
A
t-
1/1
DUSTIN LAKE
to! ST
KL
AVE.
o
o
~O.IMAT. LOCATION OP ..T~ACTION weLL.
A~.IMAT. LOCATION OP I~CTION W8LL.
'ONVeY~ ~I~IN.
0-,
,
0-'
,
,
0-,
,
0-'
,
,
0-'
,
,
0-,
I
~I- - - - -
Z-
BONNIE
CASTLE
lAKE
I
WEST KL A VENU I
LANDFILL ~
PROPOSED
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
FACILITV
LOCATION
~,~ - JI
..
EFFLUENT
LDISCHAAGE
OPTION
- TO BE
DETERMINED
o
I
eoo
I
1000
I
foCAL!! IN ..eET
c_~eD AMA
TAEATeD eFFLueNT CAN ee DISCHAAGeD ViA ONe Of' THe OPTION. IN TA.L. 8-8
FIGURE 8 ~
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION.
TREATMENT AND INJECTION SYSTEM
-------
12
used or other surface water disq1arqe cptia1S are developed, the treatment
requirements will be the same; meet.in:) federal am state surface water
quality stardards. Arrz d.isd1arqes/reinjectiat to the grCA.D'1dwater will need
to have oc:ntaminant:s treated to ARM cleanJP levels. 'Ihe overall costs of
the GW alternatives will be deperx1ent at which 1II:!thcd of tU~ 1 of the
pmp-Vtreated grcuniwater is d1csen.
Alternative GW j4a: Off-Site Treatment at the KaJ..
-------
r--
i
I
'-
'811
I-
I Vt
~ =
---
.
.'
.\
. i
a
..
.
-
-
--
MOTDa
t. DNIre IIPMt Ie ... ......... MUIW88I r
~ ... CIr ., It...,...... eN 081\"~-
T--..... .
Z. ,........ MM..w. ,......... .... ..
"',............ ".. 1'" .., 0......... T~RMIIJ
CfttIMer 8N ... C8r .. I""""
~t
(WUI)
FIGURE 9 .
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS rOR
CONNEcnON or NEW SEWER TO EXISTINC PUBUC SEWER
orr-Sli£ GROUNDWATER TR£AT"£~T AL.TERNATIVE 4A
-------
13
a.raJrd the perimeter of the lan:ifill, ~ small areas,
reveqeta~ areas wit.haIt CCNe:r grass, and by placin;J deed
restrictims (prd1.ibi~ the ccnstruct.iat of tuilc:lin;s or ather
structures) a1 the laOOfill prc:party or property iTlWl'llOll'ii"'tely adjacent
to it. No ~i",l actiat W1CUld be taken at the laOOfill urder this
alternative. (If this alternative is 0CIIi):ined with a CDtt:a..inDent
alternative, the ~ and revegeta~ of the laOOfill will be
aocoI'tlirq to the CDtt:a..inDent optiat.) ARARs re;ardin;J lan:ifill closure
will not be met by this alternative.
Estimated Q:nrt:ruct:.iat~: $162,400
Estimated Total O&M a:st:s: $151,700
Fstimated Total PrE S : I at Worth: $314, 100
Estimated IJIplementatia'1 Time.frame: 1 Year, with 30 years of
IDCI'1i torirq
Alternative IE 13: cart:ainment (eawinq)
'Ibis alternative involves the CDtt:a..inDent of the laRifill CXI'ttents. 'Ibis is
provided by the installatia'1 of a cap aver the filled p:»:t!CI1S of the site
to prevent the release of 0CI'1t:.aminant at the surface and by rec1ucinq the
quantity of waste cx:nstituents that reach the gra.Jndwater by infiltratia'1.
~, SUbtitle C closure or "its equivalent, is a relevant and ~"'}Noiate
closure for thU.: Facility since it has been doaJmentec1 that the lan:1fill
accepted quantities of hazardCAJs waste (druIIB, tu1k and sl~) durinq its
operatiat, but prior to NoveIItm' of 1980. Michigan Act 641, SOlid Waste
Manar.,-.-..t Act, has not been CXI1Siderec1 art{ further in the FS pxooes& since
closure urxIer that Act will not attain the ARARs required by Act 64. 'lbe
area of the 1.anrHill that needs to be ~pped under this alternative is
estimated to be cq:prc:odmately 83 acres (Figure 10). 'Ibis alternative is
further braksn dawn into three cappinq designs. Gas vent:in:J (an estimated 1
gas vent per 5 acres) andlDCl'1itorirq are a part of each of the CDtt:a..inDent
optiCl1S.
Alternative IE t3a: 0::I1t:ainDent Utilizin;;J a Clay cap: Michigan Act 64
'!his alternative calls for CDtt:a..inDent utilizin;;J a mini.Jrum 3-foat
(uo,~ clay layer, a 3-foat clean fill layer, and a 6-in:h tc:p;oil
layer. (Figure U), as per Michigan Act 64. '!he clay 1IL1St have a
mavi_- laboratory ~~hility of 1 x 10-7 aD/sec. 'lbe 3-foat clean
fill1ayer will be placed at tcp of the clay to serve primarily as a
frost protecticn layer. 'lbe clean fill layer will also protect the
clay layer trc:m penetratiat by ~roated plants and burrcwin;J animals
and provides for lateral drainage of precipitati.c:n. '!he 6-.in:h layer
of t:cpoil will provide a substrate tor vegetative cxwer.
Ga8 VWJts (an estimated 1 per every 5 acres) will be ~ to
alleviate the harizc:nta1 migratiat of larr:Itill gas. '1hBse vents will
be JII:II'1i.tarec1. I.an1fill closure ARARs will be satisfied by this
altematiw.
-------
----..-
'"
-------
----.. .
a ~' ,~I\I ,\III~ ,II!;, '1Ii,I;~\II,'1111 ,;1111 ,\IIi!"
- I III 1,1 III II, III II 11\ III. I \ III 1
6 \11.111 1\1 ill III III \11 III III III. III
t...!.-l.!2. I , I Ill., 1" I i \ IJ ~ ill 111 I II . 111 J
:: - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - ...::
-
vtC£T. TIV[ Covtll
-41
TI')P~ ,)IL
,;
------
--------
------
- - --.- - - --.
-------------
-
C ~t... r'ILL
--------
-------------~
--.----------- .
36
--------
--- - - -- - - - -----------.
- - - - -. - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - --
~--------------------
~~--_. ---------------.:.
I =iii--- -"
=~ - - - - - - - - - - - .:::
;;- - - - - - - - - - - - ~
~- - - - - - - - - - - - !:;
.-------
---
---
... ..-.' -
36.' -
--
==========~
.- - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - - - - - - - --
----======1
- - - - - -~
-=
, ~ '~
,- " ..,.., ~
"", ~ ~
- -'~
~ ~ ...
'..'" ~
, .,~ =
~
C,w'_:TtD CLAY
- --
- --
I
.L~======
~ ,. ." "' ~
~ ... ~ " "
~ ".. ~,
~ ~,
~~ ..~~..
- --
- --
..
,. - "
~
~, , ..... ,.
....
,,- " ~,
...... ..... .""," .sr..
~ "" ~..= .,.
,
-
C':)N1...IN41E!)
:OIl.S/Sr:D11oI[NTS
-
.......
....
NOTt
rolt LANDrlLL ALTERNATIVE
L.t.YC~ 3: THERE WlU IE A SYNTHCTlC
LIN[It ON TOP or THE CLAY
FIGURE 11
CROSS SECTION or- CLAY CAP
LANOrlLL AL T~ PNA TlV[ 3. rOR
-------
14
to
Estimated O:nstructi.", Cost: $11,251,900
Estimated Total O&M Q:sts: $150,800
Estimated Total Pres:tit Worth: $U,402,700
Estimated IDplementatiat T:imefraa!: 2-5 years, with 30 years
. of nr::nit.crirq
Alternative IP '3b: CD1t:ai11ment Utilizin; a ~~ cap
'nUs alternative calls for 0CI'1ta:inDent utilizin; a ~-type cap that
is similar to IP ,3a except that an additiatal ;~~hle layer is
provided in the fom of a synthetic liner, in place of 1-foot of clay,
am an additiatal drainage layer is added in place of 1-foot of clean
fill material (Figure 12). 'Ihe ~-type cap CXI1Sists of a 2-foot clay
layer with a 6O-mi.l high density polyethylene liner pl~ directly at
tcp of it. A drainage layer is neo-"''''ry h__Hately atop the
synthetic liner to allow lateral drainage of precipitatiat. 'Ibis
layer ccnsists of 12-inc:hes of pea gravel with a layer of 6-omce
geotextile filter-fabric I"]~ abcYe it to protect it fraD clogginJ.
A 2-foot layer of clean fill is placed abcYe the cIra.inage layer to
protect the lower layers fraD frost ~. lastly, a 6-in:h tq)soil
layer is plaoar'l em tcp in order to provide a substrate far the cp:awth
of vegetative o::Ner.
'1b8 hariza1tal migratia\ of landfill qas will be cak1ressed as in
Alternative IP '3a. landfill closure ARARB will be satisfied by this
alternative, since Alternative ,3b is EqJal to ar greater in
perfarmance than Micbigan Act 64, (Alternative '3&).
Estimated Ca1st%UCtiem Ccst: $13,601,600
Estimated Total O&M~: $150,800
Estimated Total &~_«. warth: $13,752,400
Estimated IDplement:atiem Timetrame: 2-5 years, with 30 years
. of JII:I'1i.tarin)
Alternative IP '3c: Clay Cap with a Syntbst.ic Liner
'Ibis altematiw is a OCIIIbinatic:n of Altemat1ves II ,3& ard II ,3b. It
calls far ccntairIIIsnt (3 feet of -> .'\ «:ted clay) meetiJr:J th8 rer:piIments of
Micbigan Jet 64, - in Alternative II t3a, and in additiem, includes a
synthet1a limr, as in Altematiw II '3b. '1h8 syntbetic liner will be
plaoed dir8ctly em top of the clay layer.
'!he hariza1tal migratiem of landfill gas will be adI:kessed as in Alternative
IP Ua. landfill clcsure ARARB will be satisfied.
Estimated Ca1st%UCtiem Ccst: $14,139,100
Estimated O&M~: $150,800
Estimated Total Pt ~ b. «. warth: $14,289,900
Estimated IDplementatiem TiEframe: 2-5 years, with 30 years
of DDrl.tarin;r
-------
r \111/ \111/ \1\11 \111/ \111/ \1\11 \\111 \1\\1 \1111
. .\\I,.;lT1, :nT,\,1I1 ,III :111 ;11\ .\ 1, ;111, T., ~I
6" \ \ I \11 I 1 \ II \ II \ 1\ 1\ \ \ \ I I \ I II I \ III I \ \ \ I I \I \ \ II I " \ \1 \I I 1 II \I \ \ 1\
f~=I~~\~~ I~~~=~~~'~
-AI8
...
----
24---------------------~ ~
I ::----------------------
+ ==========~===========
.= gggggooOO~o~~hgggggg~~~~~~~ ..
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
" 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
12 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 -...
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
t 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
rr= = = = = = = = = = = =
24 :: - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------
-...
-..;
~
~
~
~ ..
I :~====::===~==:~
+ --------------~
-"',- :: --- -; -:- - .:. - :: ----~
-- -- - -- ...... -- --~
::"~"""'~.~
~ ~ ~ " " " " "'~
.. = "" ...... " " " " " ~..
=-" ~ " " " " " ":~
~ - ...... " "= ...... " " ~
- ," ~ "" ..~
-
:
-
-
FIGURE 12
CROSS SECTION OF' RCRA CAP
. LANOF'ILL ALTERNATIVE 38 F'OR
VEcnATM COVEA
TO'SOll
CLEAN F1LL
F1L TIR , AIRIC
DRAINAGE LA ytR
$YNTWET1C UNER
"
COMPACTED CLAY
ceNT AWINA TtD
SOILS/SEDIMENTS
-------
15
c. APPLICABIE OR ~ AND APfR)HUM'E ~ (ARARS)
Table 6 identifies the ~licable or relevant am ~iate requirements
(ARARs) for ead1 of the alternatives mentia1Sd in A am B above. '!be major
ARARs for the grourdwater ~i;:t 1 acticn; are the Federal safe crinkin;
Water Act, Michigan's Act 307 rules, praILllgated July 12, 1990. 'Ihe
Federal safe Drink.irg Water Act is relevant am ~~iate to this aquifer
because the aquifer is a potential scuroe of drinkin; water, assurin;1 that
no grourdwater suitable for drinkin; water supplies ~CI the MaYiml1lll
ecntami.nant I.eYels or MaYi ml1III cc.ntaminant Level Goals. '!be requirement to
perform either a type A, B or C clearJJP umer the Michigan EnviIa1Dental
RespCI"ISe Act (Act 307) is an ARAR for the ~;;:t' actiem to be undertaken
at this site. '1hi.s Act provides, inter alia that ~;;:t' actiem be
protective of human health, safety am the envira'ment, (Rule 299.5705(1».
'Ihe Nles, urDu" Act 307, Parts 6 am 7, specify that. this standard is
achieved by a degree of clearAJP which oc:.nfoDlS to en! ar mere of the three
cleanup types (Rule 299.5705(2»: a type A clearJJP generally addeves
cleanup to badcgrc:U'K:i (Rule 299.5707): a type B clearJJP meets specified
risk-based. levels in all media (Rule 299.5709): am a type C clearJJP is
based em a site specific risk a~-~~ which ocnsi.ders specified criteria.
EPA has decided. that the selected remedy will meet the standards far a type
B clean.JP for the grourdwater clearJJP levels since the levels of
ccntaminants found in the ~ter are in ~ ICe of federal am
state drinJcin; water stamards. 'I11e EPA has fUrther ~i~ that the
ocntail'IIIent of the lardfill wastes meets the criteria far type C clear'q),
since no "hat spots" of wastes were discaYered durin:) the test pit
cperaticns: so ocntail'IIIent by cawin;1 is the mcst feasible ~ to
addresS the release of CXI1taminant fraD the lan:1fUl. tms are 8RU1cable
to the iI;~l of arrj sl\d;Jes or res~1A1", prot4'~ by cn-site treatmE!nt.
'Ihe State has identified Act 245 as an ARAR since the treated ~ter
my be reinjected into the shallow aquifer. 'I11e EPA iI;!IL'IIojl. T- that Act 245,
as interpreted am 8RUied by the State in this mtter, is an ARAR.
Na1etheless, it is the State's jW\p.:dat that the selected r--1;;:t' act.icm
far this site will prcwide far attailaent of all ARMs in::ludin; the
Michigan Water RescurCeS Act am P8rt 22 Rules. 'lb8~; ,,1 actiem will
halt the migrat.ia1 of CXI'1taJDinated grourdwater and restore the aq.d!er to a
usable cxn:iitiem. In addit.ia1, the pJr9Sd water will be treated priar to
reinjecticn an:! thm\ hydraulically ccmtained by the purge wells in a manner
that will prwvent dl=gradat.ia1 of ~ter cpality, ocnsistent with the
Water RIiICImBI 0'-; !IUIiem Act and Part 22 Rules. For the lan::1fill
ocntail'IIIent ~iA1 acticns, the mjar ARAR is Mic::higan's Act 64. Act 64
~...- f 88 th8 clOS\mt of lan:1fills that have aa:ept.ed ha.za%dI:u1 wastes far
iI;~l, such as this Facility and is relevant and ~~;iate to this
cleanJP since ha.za%dI:u1 wastes were di ~ of priar to Nc:M!Izi)er, 1980.
VIn. StM4ARY OF crMPARATIVE ANAI:lSIS OF ~
'I11e ~ter an:!lan::1fill ocntail'IIIent alternatives have been ~1"8d
utilizirr:) nine evaJ.uat.ia1 criteria. 'Ihe criteria used far evaluatirr:) and
. ~ the alternatives are listed below. Please refer to the FS far
further detail em the alternatives and the evaluatiem criteria.
-------
TABLE 6
DETAilED ANALYSIS Of ALTERNATIVES
COMPLIANCE WIT" ARARS
WESt Kl AVENUE lANDfill
AU. lequir_ts Groundwater Alternatives landfill Alternatives
2 3a 3b 3c 3d I,a 2 3a 3b 3c
federal AlAI
Cont..inant-Soecific
1,0 Cf. 141 . NCls for drinking N II y' Y Y Y Y NA NA NA NA NA
water qual jay.
Local ion-SDeci f i4;
lIone appl icable
Act ion-SDeci f ic
CI.an Air Act. Regional air pollution IIA IIA R . R R IIA IIA R R R R
SKI ion 101 progr.. addrelling
.illiOlll Glring re8ediation.
1,0 cn Sl Regional air qual i ty IIA IIA . . . R NA NA R R R R
plan for r88edial actlvitiel.
1,0 Cf. ~O Air quality standards for NA IIA . R . R NA NA R R R R
re.edial activities.
1,0 Cf. 2S1 Standards for solid waste IIA IIA IIA NA NA NA IIA N N Y
disposal facilities (dele-
gated to Itates).
1,0 Cf. 261 Identification of IIA IIA . . R R IIA NA NA NA NA Nil
".l8rdous waste.
1,0 Cf. 262 Regulat ions for NA NA R . R R NA NA NA NA Nil Nil
hal.rdous waste
generators.
1,0 cn 263 Regulat ions for NA 1111 R R R R Nil NA Nil NA Nil Nil
transport of
hal8rdoul waste.
.1lI. ',d.n"') I c..
~
-------
c.
!ABLE 6 (CONI.)
DEIAllED AIIAlYSIS OF AliERIIAIIVES
COMPLIANCE "11M ARARS
WESI U AVEIIUE lANDF III
~, I .
ARAI ~...irMenti GrOU"dwater Alternalives landl i II Allernallves
2 3. 3b 3c 3d 1,. 2 3a 3b 3c
1,0 Cfl 264 legul8tions 'or owners/oper.tors NA IIA I I I R IIA IIA IIA R R R
0' h8.8rdoul ~.ste 'acilities.
1,0 Cfl 268 land disposal restrictions 'or IIA IIA R I I R IIA .IIA IIA IIA IIA IIA
ha.ardaul Nastes.
1,0 Cfl 26S legulations 'or owners/ IIA IIA I I I R IIA .IIA IIA I R R
operators 0' interi. SUtus
ha.ardaul Naste 'acilities.
faecut ive Order lequires state and I R I I I R I R R R R R
12372; 1,0 Cfl 29 loc.1 coordinat ion 0'
CEIClA projects.
Sute AI"
Cont_inant. Spec i fic
Act 307 Rules (Michigan lequlres re8ediation 0' ground- II II y' Y Y y' IIA IIA IIA NA HA
(nv1fonnenul Response Act) w.ter to speci'ic risk levels for
EI'eclive 7/12/90. carcinogens and.background 'or
non-carcinogens.
locallon.Specl'ic
Hone appl icablp.
ACI.O'" spec' f IC
~c: 61, of '979 Haurdous waSle rr.gulations IIA NA R R R R HA H H R
,~~~ Halardou~ ~~5(~ for State 01 Michigan.
'~.1~:19~1'~n! I.c 1 )
ACI '27 '). '971' ProhibitS an.., ac! '00 whICh HA R R R I R R IIA R R R R
«'~e ..ic"'9.1" pollules state's nalural
(nv . r 'Jlvneota I r~~ources.
Pr'):ect io.. tcn
. ACI 21,S 01 1929 (lhe "aler
Resources CommISSion Act)
Par t 9 Report ing requort''''enls 'or HA NA HA NA NA NA . NA NA IIA II" N"
discharge to sanllar.., sewer
~VS1l-m
.-------------
"'\I\A~l~\U8"'~.' b
-------
TABLE b (COllI.)
DEIAILED ANALYSIS Of ALIEINAIIVES
COMPLIANCE ~II" AIAIS
~ESt KL AVENUE LANDfiLL
AIAII
lIequinmenu
]a
l
Groundwater Alternative5
3b 3c 3d loa
Landfill Alternallve,
l 3a 3b ]c
- Pare 21
Effluent discharge per.itting
~ 8OI'Iitoring requirements.
. Pare 22
Prohibitl the degradation of
,roundwater in u$able &qulferl
al a re$ult of a discharge.
Act ]tS of 1969 (the
Mineral Well Act)
Requirements for 8OI'Iitoring
wells at Ille.
Ac t ]loS of 19b5
('he Air Pollution
Act)
Require~ per.it for any
equiJ8ef't that proAJcU
air _illions.
Act ]lo7 of 1972
('he Soil Erosion
end Sedi..ntation
Control Act)
Requi rea soi I erol ion and
ledi-.ntat ion control plan
for reMdiat ion.
.. Act ]1,8 of 1965
('he Air 'ollution
Act)
Requirel air Minions fr08
devices or site work to be
-non-injurious.M
Act 368 of 1978
(PYblic ..alth Code)
Specifies procedures for ~ater
well 8b8ndof8ent.
Act 641 of 1978 ('he
Solid Welt. Mana8e88nt
Act)
Standards for operat ion (and
cIOlur.) of a lolid "'It.
landf ill.
NA
*
*
*
*
IIA
NA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
NA
*
*
IIA
IIA
NA
IIA
IIA
IIA
NA
*
*
NA I I I I I II IIA IIA IIA NA IIA
NA IIA II I II I IIA IIA IIA IIA NA IIA
"" "" IIA IIA II I IIA IIA I II I" I
"" "" ** .. "" "" IIA IIA .. .. .. ..
IIA I "" "" II" IIA NA IIA IIA IIA IIA NA
"" "" NA "" IIA NA NA N II ,
!W1:
IIA - AIIAI is not applicable to the alternative.
, - 'el; compliance ~ith AlAI ~Id be achieved if alternative were i8plemented.
II . 110; coapliance with AlAI cannot be achieved if alternative were i8plemenled.
1 - lequired; cOIIIpIianc:e with AllAII would be required if alternative were i8plC8ented.
'Groundwater alternative 3a can provide cGq)lete conu.inant-specific AIAIIi cOIIIpliance by utilizing a high level of treaU>enl or can provide partiel AIAh
cOIIIpllanca 0., uai", a r.o,ced level of treat_nt.
'Will not be possible to i08lytically deter.lne compliance wilh ch.-ical-specific AIAIs.
* 'De Stam hi; id:rtifiai JId: 2A5 as en HM. 'De U1i.tBl ~ ~t;U:i thE JId: 245, as iJ ~dal aU 'fill 1m ty tiE State in this JIHttH", is
CW1 HM. N:n:tiEl&B,.it: is tie Stam's ~t; tb£ tie ~l~ ,IAlRi1~ ctt.im fir this site will p:tJJire fir at:taintat cL all HI\R:; irdulirg
tte HidiliJn WJbr R:Bnas ld. aU Rrt Z2 Rt1fs. 'De mtBtia) '!J1 will tBlt tie mipttilT} cL a:rtcJnimtB:l gro.n:WJta- arl m:tu """e a:pi1J:r
/ ill a wble arditim. In a:tii~ tie p.up:I w:ar willl:e t:m - (ricr tD reinja:tim aU tbn tvira 11 im lly artairul ty tte p1L'. /.:l1s in a
JI(I"TU" ttat will ~ '~'pi'I~ilT} cL ~ q..a1.itv, a::miSBt: with tte WJbr I£B:J..Iro;s 0:Jmris:;rim Jct aU art Z2 R.1l£s.
-;- 0
-------
16
~ M«.1J.n.:.daf OF IDWf BFAIlIH AND '1BE ~ ad:kesses whether or
not a remedy provides adequate protectim am describes hew risks are posed
thrcu#1 each pathway are eliminated, ~1r'M or OCI'1trolled t:hrcu;h
treatment, en;ineeri.rg ~ll.Lvls, or institutia-al ~&l.Lvls.
'"
~ wrm MAR) (APPLICABU!: CR RErEVNfl' AND ~ !
-------
17
than are alternatives QJ 1#1 (No Actiat) and QJ 12 (Limited Actiat), which
offer 00 or little ackBi protectiat. . AmcI'1q the treatment alternatives, the
level of protectiveness is ~rable, with the ~Liat that QJ sub-
al temati ve 3a, whidl will leave higher ~ &.A:I1Lultia1S of
-------
18
'"
West KL AvenJe I.arr:ifill was a m.micipal solid waste lardfill, maki.rq
MidUgan Act 641 an ARAR, b.It it also acoept.ed hazardcus wastes and
substanCeS, as documented in the Administrative Record, so Michigan Act 64
is also an ARAR, ~ relevant and ~",¥date. Altematives 12 '3a-c all
meet the requirements of Act 641 b.It a1ly Altematives 12 '3a and 3c
-------
19
2}
Shcrt-tem Effectiveness:
i} GW Alternatives: Short-term effectiveness CCI1Siders the
effects that result c:Jurin;J the :iJ!plementatiCl1 of the alternatives. GW n
(No ActiCl1) ani GW #2 (Limited ActiCl1) involve no or m:iniJDal ra--'!;;IIl action
so that short-tenD effectiveness is not an ~licable CCI1SideratiCl1 CNo.qoIL
for the fact that they can be rapidly :iJ!plement:ed with little or no
c:listuIbance to the surra.1l'dirq enviLUllWCltt. 'I11e other g:rcAJn:iwater
alternatives require an :iJ!plementatiCl1 timeframe of several years, but
involve CI1ly :iniirect ~ to CCI1taminants by workers ani no ~ to
the gromdwater or treatment residuals by the pmlic. 'I11e local residents
may be inca1venienoed c:Jurin;J the installatiCl1 of the extractiCl1 wells ani
injectiCl1 wells (if the R:7IW is not used), but this short-tem inccnvenience
will occur with all the GW treatment alternatives. GW #44 will also
inca1venience a fUIi:)er of local residents, CI1 a short-tenD basis, since this
alternative requires the iI)stallatiCl1 of nearly 3 miles ot new sewer line
runnin;J down west KL Avenue. '!his inccnvenience will be due solely to the
CXI'IStroctiCl1 of the sewer line ani will not expose the residents to any
ccntaminatiCl1.
{,
ii) II Altematives: Alternatives II f1 (No Actiat) and II t2
(Limited Actiat) involve no or minimal ra-ibl actiat so that short-tem
effectiveness is not an ~icable OCI1Sideratiat ~ tor the tact that
they can be rapidly bplement:ed with little or no ~ to the
surra.1l'dirq enviraIDent. With the eaR;)in) alternatives, II 'Ja-c, short-
tenD effectiveness will be ensured by the bplementatiat ot --a~~ed.
CXI'IStroctiat pro{.~I1"" and by strict adherence to GH&~iate health and
safety plan _CIIJreS durinq CXI'IStroctiat. 'Ihese factars will pravide
envL..........atal and warker protectian during c:x:n;tructiCl1. o:aunity
protectiCl1 f1:aD :in1i..NCt adverse effects sudt as noise and tzuck traffic
durin) cap a:nJtruct.i.a\ will be difficult to acm.eve under either of the
eaR;)in) alternatives. II'3a may have less short-tem eftects at the local
pcpJlatiat than II '3b and c, since less material wculd need. to be brcught
to the site for the a:nJtruct.i.a\ ot the cap.
3)
R8c:Juct.icm of Taxicity, Mcibility, or Voluma 'Du:'c:uJh Treatm!ll'1t:
i) Qf Altematiws: Accarc:linI) to the guidelines within the
Naticml amt.in)ency Plan (1«:P), the gromdwater at an:! near the Facility
may be t'!1-ified as a Class II-A aquifer, grcun!water that is a1Xtautly
l:Iein; 1.-1 - a ~ water scurce. '111erefare tnatment is preferrecl.
'!he reduct1at ot taxicity, DlClbility or volU118 thrcugb treatm!ll'1t is satisfied.
CI1ly by tb8 grcun!water treatJDent alternatives, Qf ,3a-d and Qf 144. Since
gromdwater is net trMt8d under C1Il f1 (No Acticn) and C1Il '2 (Limital
Act:.iCI1), no re:b:ticn in taxicity, DlClbility, or volU1118 ia actU.8Yw:1 thrcugb
treatm!ll'1t. '1h8 ~... to 1IIb.ic:b each treatm!ll'1t alteJ:native provide8
reductiat in taxicity, JIICi)!lity, an:! volU118 van.. little with th8 trMtIIEnt
tect1noloqies utilized to aaueve CCIIpliarD! with ARARs. All ot th8
gromdwater treatment alternatives meet the SARA treatment prefereo::e and
provide nearly the same level ot reduct.iat in taxicity and JllCi)ility,
alt:hcu:Jh dilutiat is the priJImy taxicity reductiat mechanism in C1Il ,4a.
Alternative C1Il ,3d is the CI1ly trea.tment alternative that redt-
-------
20
<>
c:xrrt:.aminant volume since it ~ organics by use of TN light. Ncn! of
the other groon:lwater treatment alteJ:natives involve volume recbJctia1 since
the treatment is utilized a1ly to ad1ieve a reductia1 in the toxicity ani
m::t>ility of the cx:ntamina.nts ani the treatment systems sinply transfer the
cx:ntamina.nts frcm CD! media to another for later t'Ii~l or destructia1.
Syst.eIJs utilizin; caJ:ixx\ adsorptia1 may evenbJa1ly reduce CCI'1taminant
volume, depen:ti.rq a1 the method of r~~tia1 of the carlx:n material used
in the system. The treatment alternatives may result in the generatia1 of
metal hydroxide sl~ which will require proper di~. Alternatives GW
'3a~ utilize activated caJ:ixx\ adsorptia1 ani wa1ld periodically require the
d.h:V--=~l of the exhausted or "spent" activated caJ:ixx\. '!be use of the TN-
enhanced CDddatia1 (QIl '3d) for organics I'E!IIICIIal. does net generate res;m~'~
as in Alten1atives QIl '3a~. As mentiaw1 a1x:Ne, altemative QIl i4a
ad1ieves treatment primarily via dilutia1 enrcute to the PCIlW, bIt the PCIlW
utilizes terti.aJ:y treatment, so the extracted groundwater will receive
treatment prior to c:1i.sd1azge by the KJIW. Pretreatment of the extracted
grcundwater may be ~ neoe"""'UY prior to c:1i.sd1azge into the KJIW system.
ii) U Alten1atives: 'Ibis criteria1 is net applicable bee-t~-
nc:ne of the three larKifill alternatives prcwide treatment. '1b8 FS cxn::luded
that due to the large volume of waste presb.it at the landfill, altematives
involvin) treatment W'hich prcvides taricity and. volume reductia1 are net
feasible, and/or have a ccst W'hic:h is grcssly exD"'""'"'"ive and. ~~tiCl'1ate
to the overall effectiveness of the treatment alternative. '!he RI \I/U
unable to locate any ,--_.~ated areas of buried dz:ums, so no remcYal or
treatment q7tias for the lamfill c:D1teI1tS were carried fcxwm thrtu;Jh the
FS. It shcu1d be natec1, hcweYer, that cawin; the landfill will reduce the
Jld)ility of the CD1taminants thrtu;Jh a:ntairment ,,-.GIJreS and. net
treatment. '!be caps cxnsidered in U ,3b and. Uc will allow less
infiltratiat and. will therefore provide better mr:i:)ility rec:Juctia'\ than the
clay cap cxnsidered in U '3a.
4)
IDplementability:
i) Ql Altematives: 'Ihe No Act.ia1 an1 the Limited Act.ia1
AltematiWill are th8 easiest altematlves to bplEllll!!l1t bit as JDE!I1tic:r81
abaYe, they do not attain ARARs or add any significant protect.iat to hLmIan
health an1 tb8 8I1VUaIaent. Of the groundwater ~iAl actiat
altematiW8, Ql j4a, is Maier to bplEllll!!l1t than any of the other ~iAl
actla'\ altamatiws. Ql'4a will not require the cx:nItmCtia'\ of c:n-site
trea~ facilities as wa1ld the other groundwater treat2Dent altematives,
unless i&_t&.Mtment is recpired to meet the KJIW's i&6Luatment standards.
Eac:b of th8 groundwater r--1iA1 act.ia\ altematives, ~ Ql t4a, my
require i&~ off-sita di~l of precipitatacl inarganic 8lud;e8. Also,
spent activated ~rt-\ will need to be l:~_ated or -t'Iiqy--1 of off-site
for altematives Ql 3a~.
'Ihe iIIplementatia'\ of the Ql t4a, CNer the other groundwater r--1iAl actla1
altemative8 will be deperdent a'\ several factars incl\l11nJ the follc:JWing:
a) 'Ih8 cpmtity an1 cpU.ity of the aK:tA wastewater an1 ita
or::mpatibility with the RnW.
-------
21
b) '!he ability of the PC7lW to ensure cx:IIpl.i.ame with CSRJlicable
pretreat:IDent st:.am.ards and requirements, ilx:1\Xiin; mcni.tor:in;J and reportjn;
requirements .
c) '!he rolW's reoord of exmpli.aroe with its NPI:ES pemit and
pldueabDent ~U:J1.CWI requirements to c:1etemine if the rolW is a suitable
di~l site for the aa::IA wastes.
d) '!he potential for. volatilization of the ~ter at the aa::IA
site and rolW and its iDpact upcI'\ air
-------
c)
22
alternative (IF t2) is easily iDplemented, especially since the lardfill is
owned by the local mmicipality. For the IF ~;,,1 actia\ alternatives,
all the alternatives are proven to be ilIplementable. IF t3b is slightiy
mre difficult to .install than the cap called for unjer IF t3a am is
s:iJnilar in installatia\ difficulty as is Alternative IF t3c. 'n1e clay cap-
synthetic liner-drainage layer (IF #3b) will be Dm"e difficult to install
than 'NO.1ld a straight f~ clay cap (IE #3a), especially cx::I1Side.ri.rr:;J the
~roximate 83 acre size neer:tin; to be ocvered. IF #3b requires 2 feet of
clay, a synthetic liner am a drainage layer, while IE t3c requires 3 feet
of clay an:l a synthetic liner, an:l provides similar cc:ntaminant perfomance
as IE #3b.
5)
COst:
i) Ql Alternatives: 'Ibere are no costs associated with Ql tl (No
ActiCl'1) an:l CI'1ly ncminal costs associated with Ql #2 (Limited ActiCl'1). All
of the grc:a.n:twater treatment alternatives require significant experditures.
'n1e least dpellsive treatment alternative is SUb-al.ternative Gfl '3a, which
does net OCIIply with all~. '!be remainirq treatment alternatives do
meet ~ an:l cost ume than SUb-alternative Gfl '3a. Of these, GW f4a is
the least cxstly with respect to beth total pnS5Ut 1IIOrth an:l total capital
(O&M) /repl~ costs regardless of whether iU-,==Luatment is required prior
to c:tisd1arge to the iOlW. AnrIJalized O&M/repl~:-&t costs for Ql '3a and
#3c are DIJCt1 higher than Gfl #3b and '3d because of the use of activated
cartx:I\. CD;ts are c:x:mparable for Ql Ub ard '3d. All costs presentecl in
Table 7 may :increase or decrease dependinq CI'1 several variables, includinq
lower total P"T"'9'" rates, the need to pJrChase prq:erty, lCD)l!r or shcrter
~ ti8 for the treatment process, etc., but these cost il¥:reases/
decreaseS shculd be si1llilar for all the grc:a.n:twater treatment soenarics.
ii) IE Alternatives: 'lbere are no costs ~~iated with the IE
n (No ActiCl'1) ard CI'1ly ncminal costs are associated with IF '2 (Limited
ActiCl'1) . Of the three cawin;J alternatives, the total ~ es ~l at 1IIOrth of
Alternatives U' f3b and #Jc (~c:h involve inst:allatiCl'1 of a synt:hetic
liner) are 20 and 25 ~oent higher than the U' '3a (Clay cap),
respectively. All C8A)bq alternatives have identical operaticns an:l
maintenance costs.
C) Ja]IFYIlG QU".LU
-------
, L
TABLE 7
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS
weST ICL AVENUE LANDF I LL
Al t.,.nat ives
Totll
c.piUI
Coat (I)
Totll o&M,
R~IIC..."t, ItId
MoniJ:O,.ing
p,..sent Wo,.th (I)
Totll
p,..sent
WO,.th (S)
G ,.OI.n:Iwn 8"
1. No Action
o 0 0
',200 "','00 "5,600
6,'06,1000 17,713,800 2',190,200
5,&29,700 5,153,500 10,982,500
7,011,500 6,715,300 13,726,800
'5,687,900 17,215,100 22,903,000
5,943,200 6,870,'00 12,813,600
2,592,300 6,735,1000 9,327,700
o 0 0
162,400 151,700 3110,100
11,251,900 150,800 " ,1002,700
13,601,600 150,800 13,752,'00
",'39,'00 150,800 14,289,900
2. Li.ited Action
31. Precipitltion, Air Stripping,
end Clrbon Adsorption
.'
31. S~'AI t'l'NItlw:
Preclpltltlon, All' Stripping,
end Clrbon Adsorpt i on
3b. Preclpltltlon, St... Stripping,
end Clrbon Adsorpt I on
3c. P,.ecipit.tion end C.,.bon Adaorption
3d, Preclpit.tion end UV'Emenced
Galation
Io.. Tr..t-.nt .t ClI...zoo POTV(lJ
Lindt III
1. 110 Action
2. L 1.1 ted Action
3.. c:t.y c:.p
3b. RClA.Type tap
3c. CllY Cap with Synthetic Liner
lIote:
(J) lued on the .aa~tlon th.t no pretr..t-.nt ia needed for dlacII.r,. to the POT".
GU'O
"SOO-l1-A!P~
'!bit ~t.... ~~... bF ~ r. ....~, l8c., .......17 fo~ !:PA.
18 ...1. N 18 ~ .u...t. 1oIa. ~"" _1t.1.8 ..~..1- of ErA.
It. 8ba1l DOt. -. ~.l...... o~ d1.clo.~
-------
23
goals as stated. within this R:X). To ~sate far the ~'s oc:ncem, the
fa) has been written to have the g:rc:urdwater treatment portia\ of the remedy
either replaced or supplementa:i if it is sheWn duri.rq the r.,."".tH~l design
~ that enhanced bio~i ~tia\ will not attain the cleanup goals
cx:nsistent with an Act 307 Type B clearJJP.
2)
Call1Unity ~:
Relatively few CXIIIDeI'1t letters were received duri.rq the p.Jblic CXIIIDeI'1t
period. SeIDe were received £ran residents livin; neamy the lan:ifill,
others were fraD the. Potei1ti.ally Ra:.spa1SiDle Parties (PRPs), in::l~ the
CCA1I"Ity of ¥aJ~"'.oo am 0shtEIDD Township. In genercU, ~&ts were
negative tcwards the <:aR?inq remedy, statin;J that the disruptia\ caused by
the cx:n;t:ruct.ia\ of the cap is net ~ted. by the added protectia\ it
will provide. Also, CXIIIDBl1ts requested that the g:rc:urdwate.r treatment
alternatives be re-evaluated sjme the tN~ axidatiat is bath
inncYative am t:«pelISive am the pJq)inq rate of 2000 9lUJ,a\S is too
~"'ive. All the ~ am ~~ fraD the PJblic am PRPs (fraD
~ letters received duri.rq the PJblic ~ period ar received
vert:e..lly at the PJblic ~ held at JUly 23, 1990) re:;ardin:J the West KL
AVenJ8 Iardfill ard the Pk~ Plan, are c&kh.: ie.ed within the
~iVY' -.. SI1Mft;U'Y which is Attad1ment 2 to this RD. Also, c:harqes to
the U.S. !:PA's Pk.~ Plan, due to ~ received duri.rq the PJblic
~ pericxl are detailed in Sectiat XI, D001lllPl1tatiat of Significant
01an;JeS of this lU).
IX. '!HE ~~ tmotm'i
Based at the firdi.n;Js of the RIfFS, the ~-a within the 1dministrative
Record ard the results of the PJblic ~at period, the selected remedy for
the West KL Avwua Iardfill is as follows:
GrCIUndwate.r P--'1h11 Actiat Ql 13: Gl'cUIDIater -:t..&.&eticm ard treatment
utilizinq enhanced bL..&.~.~i~tiavf.iJced-film biareactcrs (based a\ .J' .....-:04&ts
received dur'in) the PJblic -.-.eIit period), GrCurDIate.r Limited Acticm
Alternative Ql '2, landfill Limited Actiat Alt.emative II '2 ard IaRifill
cappinq Alt.ernatiV8 II '3b. ']be specifics of tb8 selected ~bl actiat
for the West 1«. AW118 landfill are as follows: .
~, Limited ac:ticI'1 includin) tb8 follcwin):
*
Q:I1tjmsd g:rc:urdwate.r mcnit.orin:J of tb8 shallaw and deep
aqrlfers, in::l~ the installatia\ of additiatal
~te.r mcnit.orin:J wells. Sbrfaoe water and air (aIIi)ient
ard frcD the 9BS vents) will also need to c:xrJt.ime to be
mcnit.ared. water level readin;Is will c:xrJt.ime to be taken
in the ~ter mcnitorinq wells.
*
Deed Ibt..&.ictiCl1S, or similar assurara!S, IeDLdc:tin;J the use
of th8 shallaw aqrlfer as a drinkinJ water source, at least
until the clean-up staRSaJ:ds are adrleved. 'lb8 area to be
c:xN8J:8d by use ~-=tL.lctia\S in::ludes the residences al~
-------
24
West I
-------
25
Steerirq o:mnittee, a gI"O.Jp of ~tely 24 PRPs, inclu:tirq the
ccunty of Kalamazoo, an:i prepared by their cxrsul tant, Geraghty an::!
Miller, me (G&M). A descriptic:n of the selected t.ed1nology, Enhanced
Bio~j~tic:n via the use of a F:iJmd Film Bioreactor, (an::! detailed in
the ~ 1mPJ'1t written by G&M an:i sutmitted to the u.s. EPA by the mP
Steerirq o:mnittee entitled, "Review of u.s. EPA PrqJosed Alternative
an:i ~1 of Additic:nal NCP Carpliant ~bl Alternatives for
~lementatiat at the west I
-------
EFFlUENT ...
DISCHARGE
SEDIMENT.
SlUDGE
DRAIN UNE"
SUBMERGED RXED-RLM BlOREACTOR
&u:
NO SCAlE
~~ GERAGHTY
~ ~.WIIJ~".; ;~
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
WEST KL AVENUE LANDFILL
'
-------
._-'-~~
FIGURE 14
IUIIJINO WALJ..
- !--~---------:~~GE ~------------!
I I
~- ----- - - --- - --- --------------~
I I
I I
I I
I INF1..UENT I
I FROM RECO~Y WEU.S I
I ! (0=-500 CPW) i!
I! Ii
I I
. I
I IAI I
I! w I
.; ! I
IC)' i; i i
. 2 I
i . ~ i
I I
i 8LOYtER IAI BLOYtER i
I ! IAI.
I ~ .
! ;; !
i ; ~ i
. .
I .
I I
I . . I
I ~.~ ~ I
I ~T I
: TO IN.£Cl1ON YtU.LS :
- L______-------------_-!.._~-~--_.-J
L
.0-
... NO ~
AL~11VES ANALYSIS
F1XED F1LN BlOREACTOR S'I'S1DI
Yt£ST KL AVENUE LANDF1LL
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
~ GERAGHTY
gun J .~. INC.
I._i- ~... i..
(j
.1
i
.
.
i
i
F1GURE
C-3
-------
26
meet ARARs regard:irq the CXI'1Ce1'1tratims of inorganics allowed to
be discharged, metal hydroxide sl~ will be prr-rlt1nAti. Arrf
waste prrrlt v-1 durin; the treatment of the gI"C1J1'Xlwater will be
analyzed usin; ~'s toxicity d1aracteristic leachin;J p1:QCA'i1"re
an:! ci;~ of p%q)erly, accordin; to the IlR;.
1d:litia'\a.l CXI1Sideratims for inplemerrtin; biotreatment i.n:lude
J"I.It::rient applic:atia1, pi DICI'1itoriJ'q, an:! t-~rature CCI1trol. It
is likely that nutrients sud1 as niL.V'~CII an:! phosp1orus may need
to be applied to the bioreactors to maintain a healthy bacteria
pcp1latia1.. '!he pi should be DICI'1itored an:! kept between a range
of 6.0 an:! 9.0 in order to prevent a taxic envira1ment for the
bacteria. 'l'eDperatures should be maintained aboYe 50. F for
qrt:.imal biological activity. Atmcspherlc t-~nture flucbJaticns
will be limited by enclosinJ the bioreactors within a heated
tuildinJ .
At least 5 r:ea::Nerf ~ should be p~ at a flew rate of
~tely 100 gpD,IWll (act:ual rI.JIIi:)er of walls and gpI\Iwell
will net be detem.ined until the design stage). '!he treated
gI"C1J1'Xlwater may then be injected back into the shallew aquifer
thrcu;h at least 3 reinjectia1 wells (the actual rI.JIIi:)er of
reinjectia1 wells will be detem.ined durin;J the design p,ase). An
infiltratia1 pcn::I is a viable altemative to reinject.inq the
treated gI"C1J1'Xlwater, but the viability of an infiltratiat pcn::I can
net be fully detemined until a puIIp rate is established in the
design stage.
Accordin;J to the G&M ~;t, ~te costs of the enhanced
bi-.a.-._ibtiav'fixBd-filJD bioreactar are as follows for an
cperatiat period of 18 years:
Estimated O::I'1structiat eDIt: $1,351,600
Estimated 'n:Jtal AnrIJa1 O&M o:.ts: $80.000
Fstima~ Total PL S ~Ht Worth: $2,195,000
Estimated IDplement:atiat Timeframe: 18 years
(CCSts were estimated by G&M and my ctJan;Je c1eperdin;J at the
actuall'l.1llb!r of extractiat and reinjectiat wells that will be
~, based at the design and the ~ P"T? rate that
will be ~.)
If after a certain time period, to be decided by the U.S. EPA, in
CCI1BUltatiat with the !Om, the enhanc8j bL..&.-._ibtiav'fiJc&d-film
biOIeactar nmedy is net ~~-sin:) tcwarcI ad1ievin;J tb8 clear&JP
goals, as stated in Table 5, an alternative shall be selected by
EPA, in a:nIUltatiat with the MtIm, ~ch shall be iJIplemented to
npl-- or SURUement the bi-.a.-._ibtiat alternative. 'Jha
alternatives ~d1 EPA may select shall ocnsist of these ~
have been det.emined to satisfy the criteria cii --.,...........1 in this
RJD. '!he ~rative costs my differ at such tim:a due to th8
r--'b1 actiatS already CCI1ducted. '!he use of the IUlW will have
-------
27
preference CNer the others, bIt tN-i!l'Ihanoed oxidatia1, air
str4;pirq, steam strippiig am the others, may be cx.nsidered if,
after pilat tests, they can be shawn to achieve the above stated
~ter t'RTII'rl; ~tia1 goals.
lol...n, Limited Actia1, incl\Din;J the follcwinq:
*
a:nstructia1 of a six-foot d1ain link fence aro.JJU the
perimeter of the LaRifill. In:lucliJ'g"No tr'E!Sp"-i.rq"
signs am wami.rq signs pcsted aramd the perimeter of the
fence.
*
'!be placement of deedluse real.lctia1S, prohibitin1 the
canst:ructiat of b.1ild.ilgs or other structures at the
landfill prc::p!I'ty am prc::p!I'ty i~iately adjacent to it,
withcut prior c:x:n;ent fraD EPA, in cxnsultatiat with the
MI:NR: an:!
U t3b, Q:I1tainuent utilizing a R:M~ cap includin;J the tollowin;:
"
*
Installatiat an:! IIIi1.intainin: a cap cc:nsistinq ot, traa the
bottcD up, a 2-foot clay layer meeting the instaJ.l.atiat an:!
o .'\6v""tiat pravisiatS of Mic:tU.gan Act 64, a 6O-miJ. high
der8ity polyethylene liner, a 12 um drainage layer
cc:nsistinq of pea gravel, a 6-cunce geot.extile tilter
tabric to protect the drainage layer fraD clOCJ9inq, a 2-
foot layer of clean fill tor tJ:aIt prctect.ia\ and a'1 t:q), a
6-um tqBoil layer to pravide a growth za18.
'1b8 cap will ccver the entire landfill, estimated to be
~y 83 ac:r8 in size. (5aD8 estimates shew the
size of the larI:1fill to be ~~(I&1 raRJin:J bsbJ8In 60 and 83
acr8. 'D1e actual ana to be . ~1 ped will need to be
detfmDined c:minJ the dMi.gn of the cap.)
*
*
'Ib8 iJwtallat.icm of gas vents t.b.rcughcut the laRitill
sufficient encugh to alleviate the horizattal migrati.cm of
lardfill gas. ApprcDdmately l"VWJt per 5 act'88 ~1p81, at
a JIIiniJIua, will be f»I:' """-T"!. landfill gas will be
DDdt:ared a'1 a ta1tin8 basis. If at arfi tu. the gas vent
DDdtarin; indicates ocntaminants beinq released into the
air and pnsHatin;J a health hazard cutside the lan:lfill
tDniari- (cI1811ati.... ~y cancer risk cutside the lXlO-
4 to lXlO-6 nrqe or CI-11~ti.... HI value great:.er than 1)
CIIo¥L~1ata -ames, as det:8lminBd by!:PA, in
cxnJUltatia1 with th8 MIJm, will be taken to \oAA~....t the
prcbl-. Also, if at arfi t.i8 the landfill gas cn-sita or
migratiD) hariza1tally off-sita ~!S 1 tts an explosi....
hazud, - det:8lminBd by £PA, in cxnJUltati.cm with th8
MIJm, ~~iate actiat will be taken.
a:.nt.irIB1 qmatia'1 an:! maintenance of th8 landfill cap.
*
-------
28
x.
STMt1ltR{ ~cm
'!he selected alteJ:natives for the West KL AverU! laRifill, as listed in
Sectia1 IX of this R:)[), meet the statutory req.rirements as set forth in
Sectia1 121 of CERcrA, in that they are prot:ective of human health am the
envL.YllIlI::Itt, attain ARARa, be cost effective, utilize peJ:manent solutia1S
am alteJ:native treatment technologies or I'eSQJrOe recovery technologies tcJ
the max:im.Dn extent practicable am have a preference for treatment as a
prin::ipal element as descr,ibed below:
A)
Protectia1 of R.mIan Health am the EnvL.YI-=att
'!he selected remedy will be prot:ective of 1umIan health and the envi..rament
1:hrcu#1 the use of lam an:! groordwater use IOI::DLL lctia1S, cc.nta.irment of
wastes and SlJbsurfaoe soils, and by the extractia1 am the treatment of
contaminated groordwater.
Protectia1 of human health an:! the enviraIDent: will be aauEMd by the
selected remedy by the installatia1 of the groordwater extractia1 wells
which will intercept and mllect the contaminatiem within the groordwater
aramd the Facility and treat the groordwater cm-site with E!I1haR:ed
bior--ih1tiav'tixEd-tilm bioreact:ors. 'lbe selected groordwater remedy will
rE!IIIJY8 the c:xmtaminants traD the groordwater and di.scnarge the treated
groordwater back into the shallow aquifer, into an intiltratiem pcn1 or to
the roIW. Gramdwater extractiem will occur at the Facility until the
c:xmtaminants aaueve the goals as refet~108d by Michigan Act 307, Type B
clear1JP ('!'able 5). Specifically, the gr:cun:twater will be p~ and
treated until c:xmtaminants do net ~ an individual -... cancer risk of
lxlO-6 based em Michigan Act 307.JI'ype B cleamp and a hazard index value
greater than 1 (or c:x:IIp!I'8ble MI Act 307 human life cycle sate
OCI'-=aaLLatiem (HISC). It ~ or ncn-zero laGs are mare stringent than
the MI Act 307 values, then they are the cleamp l8Y8ls. It badcgrcurd or
best available det:.ec::t:ia'1limit valUIIII are higher than the cleamp levels,
they will be sutstituted far the cl8ilJ'Q) levels. CbUectively, the cleaB.1p
levels will attain th8 1x10-4 to lxlO-6'" risk lev8l as reI:Jlired by the ~.
Added prot:ect.iat to !umm health and the envircnDent will be assured .
1:hrcu#1 tb8 imtallatiem of a IDA-type cap em the lanUUl (Alternative IE
t3b) . 'D18.bwta1lat.icm ot the cap, alCl1q with ...~ mint:enance
practioe8, 18 a reliable methccl to alleviate th8 direct cx:ntact threat trc.m
the sita'. CXI'1tents and will also help in reducinq leachate generatiem,
thereby ~-inq the amcunt ot ocntaminatiem 1'UChin;J th8 groordwater.
In additiem to the r--1iA1 acticns ot th8 enhanced bkaL-.~httiav'tixEd-
film bior:eac:tor, and U' '3b, the land and groordwater use reaUlctia1S as
set by AlteJ:natiWII GN '2 an:! II '2 will further assure protectiem to human
health and the envircnDent. 'Ih8 instituticmal ".~..dLL",la as described in the
selected remedy will reduce the liJc:e1ihoocl of activities cccurrirl) c:n-site
that may ~ the site's cap and will prohibit the installatiem ot water
supply wells in the area affected by contaminatiem f'raD the Facility.
-------
.r
29
'n1ere will be no una.ccept.able short-tem risks or cross1lSdia ~ caused
by the ~lementatia1 of the g:rcurdwater partia1 of the selected remedy.
sane short-tem risks will be created by the installatia1 of the landfill
cap but these risks are siJDilar for the cap al teJ:nati ve c:nosen and these rot
c:nosen. 'Ihe risks due to the installatia1 of the new landfill cap shculd be
miniJDal if prc:par i.nsta1latioo practices are folla.e::l.
B)
a:mpliance with ARARs
'Ihe selected remedy will be designed to meet all ~licable, or relevant
and ~~iate requirements (ARARs) of Federal and Dm'f! strin;Jent State
envL.\,A~.eutal laws. A list of probable ARlaI relatin:J to the r--ibl
actioo alteJ:natives, selected an1 net selected, at the West I
-------
30
and not the 3 feet as stated in this Act. 'Ihe 3m foot
will be replaced by a 6o-mil HDPE liner and will be as
effective or more effective than the foot of clay it is
replac~. )
Air:
Federal :
Clean Air Act, Reqia1al air pollutien pk.wy.r.aw esl.h.~~
air emi.ssia1S.
40 CFR Part 50, NatiCDtJ. primary and secondary amient air
quality stamards regardiJq the particulate stan:!ard.s that
cq:ply to dust genera~ cxnrt:Ncticn activities.
State :
MI Act 348 of 1965 ('Ibe Air Pollutiat Act), J:'8Cf.1ires air
emissia'1S frcD devices or site wcrk to be "ncn-injuricus",
to be in OCIIpliance with prcIIIJlgated state air emissien
~tia'1S.
Residual Disposal:
Federal :
40 CFR 268, I.an:l OJ spoeal Rest:rictia1s, regulates
manifestin;J, shipDent and off-site ili~ of wastes that
em.ibit R:RA taKicity d1aracteristics.
Discharges:
Federal:
Natiaml Pollutien Discmrge Eliminatien System (NH'ES),
regulates the di.sd1arges into surface water txxties. 'Ihis
will be the nspcnsibility of the City of Kal"-7.oo IOIW as
per their pemit to cI:isd1arge into the Ifal-7-OO River. If
cI:isd1arge is cx:nb:tecl thrcugb a mtentien p:n::l en or near
site, NPI:D regulati.aw DUSt: be ~1 ied with.
State:
HI Act 245 of 1929 ('!he Water Rescurces Chm!; AAia'\ Act) ,
Part 9, states the req.rlrements for cI:isd1arge to sanitary
sewBr system. Part 21, states the effluent c:Usc:harge
. pm:mittinJ am DD1itarin)~. (see Page 15,
secticn VII.C. of this la) regardiJq HI Act 307 satis~
the req.rlrements of MI Act 245.)
o:.t-Effectiveness
C)
'lhe selected r8D8dy, including Altematives GW '2 am the enhanced
. bi~-..A.'1btia'\ for grcun1water, and II '2 and II f3b, is cxnsidered cost
effective in that it prm.- the -- or more protectien than the other
alt.ematiWIII evaluated at shlti1ar or atly slightly higher costs. o:.t
-------
31
o~:isa1s for each alternative is presented in Table 7 am the cost for
the bi~;."tioo are SlJlIWMrUed in Table 8. Portia1S of the a:sts within
the limited actioo alternatives, Gl *2 am 11' *2, will be duplicative of
o:sts wi thin the ~; '" 1 actioo alternatives, so the cx:sts re.latirq to the
limited actioo alternatives will be sauewhat lower than W'hat is presented.
Selected Alternative, enhanced bio~;",ticrl/f:ixed-fi1m bioreactor is the
grwrxlwater ~;".l actioo alt.eznative lowest in total present worth, while
also provi.din; protectiveness to human health am the envira1ment am
~ ARARs. Of the lan::ifill ~;",l actioo alt.eznative, the selected
raoedy, 11' #3b, is not the lowest in total present worth l::ut it will alla«
~ to 78% less leachate qeneratioo than the less ocstly 11' 'Ja, for a1ly an
estimated 17% inCrease in cost. 'Iherefore, alternative II i3b is ocnsidered
oost-effective when ~red to the extra benefits it provides towards
protectiveness to 1uJman health am the enviLw._tt.
D)
Utilizatia'1of Permanent Solutia'1S am Alternative TreatJDent
'1'ed1mloqies or Rescuroe ReccYery Technoloqies to the Ma,Yi1lll1lll
Extent Practicable
The alternatives d1csen L~~ent the best balance of alternatives evaluated
to c.1.b::ess the
-------
-
TABLE 8
Table C-2.1. Cost Analysis for Ground-Water Collection and Fixed Film Bio- Treatment;
West KL Avenue Landfill, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Task/DeSCription
Quantity
Unit Cost(S)
Total Cost(S)G)
Capital Cost
Site Preparation
S 30,000
97,000
Pre~ngineered Buildinglll
(includes process piping, valves, HV, etc.)
Support Media
6
6
60,000
8,'00
360,000
51,000
Biorcactors
Recovery wells
(includes submersible well pumps)
Conveyance Piping
(from recovery wells to treatment facility)
,
15,000
115,000
97,000
Reinjection wells
3
1',000
45,000
20,000
Conveyance Piping
(from treatment facility to reinjection wells)
ElectricaJ and Instrumentation
50.000
CONSTRUcnON SUBTOTAL
Htaldr& Safety Contingency (10~)
Construction Contingency (30")
ConstrUCtion Oversi&ht (LS)
875,000
87,'00
126,600
262,500
En&ineerin& Desip (I")
Legal (5 ~)
Construction Services (2")
$1,351,600
94,600
6S ,600
'27.000
CONSTRucnON TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,538,800
GERAGHTY S MILLER. !NC.
-------
-
TABLE 8
'Table C-2.1. Cost Analysis for Ground-Water Collection and Fixed Film Bi~Treatment; West
KL Avenue Landfill, Kalamazoo, Michigan (continued)
'TasklDescription
Quantity
Unit Cost(S)
Total Cost(S)(\)
Animal Operating Cost
Plant Operation-
$ 14,000
35,000
Electrical Power
System Maintenance
(considen periodic repair or replacement
of mechanical and electrical components)
15,000
MonitoringlLaboratory Services
16.000
Present Worth (lOll Discount Rate
for 18 Year Treatment Cycle == 8.201)
80,000
656,000
TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
~
Notes:
i)
Construction cost estimates are based on Geraghty" Miller project notes and data from
the USEPA FS. AU contingencies are provided by USEPA and reproduced here for
consisteney. An accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent is assumed as recommended 11\
the 8Guidance (or Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA.8
ii)
The costs (or the 10,000 square foot pre-engineered building including the concrete ~
on which the equipment will be placed are from the 1990 Means Building ConstrueD(1..
Cost Data Sections OSI-235-0110 and 033-130-4760.
ill)
Assumes one opentor working approximately 20 houn per week.
GERAGHTY & M1LlER.INC.
-------
32
XI . IXXUMENIATICN OF SIGNIFICANI' c::fWQS
'!he overall goals of the ~;",1 actia1 as stated in the u.s. EPA's
Prcposed Plan have net d1an;Jed. 'Ihe a1ly significant c.han:;Je to the Prqn;ed
Plan that was made within this R:)[), is the replacement of the ~;"'1
actia1 to c..1h.ess the groun:lwater ca1t:aminatia1. Based a1 cxmments received
fran PRP's and the CCIIIII.Jnity, the preferred grcumwater alternative was
d1an;Jed fraD the use of the FOIW, with the 0C'I1t.irgency of usin; W-enhanoed
oxidatia1 if the use of the FOIW was net ~~le with the City of
Kalamazoo, to the use of enhanced biQrl'llftl'rl;"'tiayfbced-filJD bioreactors.
'Ihe specifics of the. enhanced bi~-._ii"'tia1 alternative are descri1:led
a1xJve and detailed further in the report by G&M, "Review of u.s. EPA
Prcposed Alternatives and ~l of Additia1al NCP QJlpliant ~;",1
Alternatives for IDplementatia1 at the West XL Aveme Lardfill". 'Ihe goals
of the grourxiwater ~;",1 actia1 have remained the same and are descri1:led
a1xJve. 'Ihe p.Jblic oc::IIIIIet1t period in which CICIIIDeI1ts a1 the u.s. EPA's
Pr'q)osed Plan and FS ran fraD June 11, 1990 thraJgh August 10, 1990.
XII. ~
'Ihe pI e.senoe of grourxiwater ca1t:aminatia1 at and aran:l the West XL Avenue
Lardfill requires that ~; '" 1 . actia1S be iJlplemented to reduce the risk to
p.Jblic health and the enviramlent. 'Ihe U.S. EPA believes, based a1 the
RI/FS and the.At..~tive Record, that the selected alternatives provide
the best balan:e of ~ffs aJIII::n;J alternatives with respect to the
criteria used to evaluate the rE!ll8:ties. Based en the infcmDatien available
at this tiJDe, the U. S. EPA believes that the selected remedy will be
protective of human health an1 the enviramlent, will attain ARARs an1 will
utilize pemanent SOlutia1S and alternative treatment technologies or
resc::am::e rer::x::Nery technologies to the DB.v;1III1III extent practicable. .
'!he total estimated ccsts for the selected remedy at the West XL AvenJe
IanClfill are as follows:
Total Total Total
Altemative (':;u"'i tal t'hI::t- O&M. 30Vr. PL CJ at Worth
Q1'2 $ 4,200 $ 141,400 $ 145,600
D1hanced $ 1,538,800 $ 656,000 $ 2,195,000
~_._4;.tiat (18 years)
Ut2 $ 162,400 $ 151,700 $ 314,100
II '3b $13 . 601. 600 $ 150.800 $13.752.400
rorAL $15,307,000 $1,099,900 $16,407,100
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
6T A TE OF MiChiGAN
NATUIIAL IInou~::tI CQl8I8S1OM
T"O"'''S J "..o~nso"
IoIAnLC"C J rw"..RTV
G<)ROON , GU' 'R
Ke~~v ~ . 1,4 I,A£ II
(l.l..wOCO . ~.. "~(:...
o 9T!WAA" -.,." ~CII5
H"""-"~""" P\"t\ol"''''"C
IZ.-...
.iT
~ '
JAMES' J BLANCHAi:\O. Governor
DEPARTM~NT OF ~.TURAL RESOURCES
STCVCNS T ""'!;ON iUIi ""..G
,." 601 ]OO2~
L""N~.N~ ~I a'i041
DAViO ,. ~LCS. 00<-
September 28, 1990
Mr. Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U'~" Environmental Protection Agency
Reel ion V, SRA.14
236 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dei.r Mr. Adamkus:
ThEI Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), on behalf of the State of
Mic.higan, has reviewed the proposed Record of Dec;sion (ROO) which we received
on September 19, 1990, for the West KL Avenue Landfill Superfund site in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. The remedy in the proposed ROD consists of groundwater
ext.raction and treatment, containment of the landfill, fencing. well
replacement, and institutional controls.
We agree with the selection of groundwater extraction and treatment as part of
thf! remedy for the site. However. we do not agree with the gr.oundwa ter
tr~atment system proposed. Our staff review of enhanced bioremediation using
a I'~~ed film bioreactor indicates that there is no evidence to support th~
th(~ory that a bioreactor~ or bioremediation in any form. substantially tre~t~
Vinyl Chloride, which has been found in the groundwater. We agree that the
groundwater treatment system must meet the cleanup goals for the indicat:..
conpounds which are shown on Table S in the proposed ROD. These goals a"(!
consistent with Type B criteria for our.Act 307 Rules.
Thu State has submitted the Water Resources Commission Act and the Part ('
Ru'.es as appl icable or relevant and appropriate requirements (AAARs) fc~' :-
re(~d;al action for the following reasons. First, hazardous substance~
aquifer beneath the site are migrating to degrade previously uncontami1J:'. ;
groundwater wh ich is proh ib ited by the Act. Second, one el ement of the
se':ected remedial action is discharge of purged, treated water back int. . .
gruundwater through reinject ion we'1s which is a direct groundwater d:' -.
re9ulated by the Part 22 Rules.
It is the State's position that the selected groundwater treatment sys~.,- .
no~: meet the substantive requirements of either the Act 307 Rules or A .
Part 22 Rules and will therefore not meet MARs. We do not ,oncur wtt-
pruposed groundwater treatment system.
1'1'026
3:11
,
-------
Mr. Valdas Adamkus
- 2.
September 28, 1990
We:oncur with the remaining elements of the selected remedy for groundwater
sho~n in the ROD. These include: continued gt"oundwater monitoring of the
shallow and deep aquifers, including the installation of additional
groJndwater monitoring wells; deed restrictions on the use of the shallow
aquifer as a drinking water source until the cleanup standards are achieved;
and proper closure of the residential wells that were replaced in the early
1980's.
In addition, we concur with the selected remedy for the landfill, which
includes: construction of a six foot chain 1 ink fence around the perimeter of
the landfill; posting no trespassing and warning signs around the perimeter of
the fence; placement of deed/use restrictions prohibiting the construction of
buildings or other structures on the landfill property without prior consent;
and containment of the landfill using a RCRA.type cap.
The State acknowledges that CERCLA Section 104(c)(3) requires that the State
payor assure payment of 50 percent of any sums expended to respond to a
release at a facility, that was operated by the State or a pol itical
subdivision thereof, either directly or through a contractual relationship or
otherwise, at the time of any disposal of hazardous substances therein. Such
payments will be the subject of requests for appropriations from the Michigan
legislature which has the sole power to authorize expenditure of State mo~~v.
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Mr. Peter Ollila a~
517-373-8174, or you may contact me directly.
Sincerely,
$~-f~
Delbert Rector
Deputy Director
517-373-7917
cc:
Dr. James Truchan, MOHR
Mr. William Bradford, MDNR
Hr. Peter Ollila/West KL Avenue Landfill File'
-------
ATrACEMEm 2
RESRH5IVEmSS ~
WEST KL AVENJE IANDFIIL
~, MICHIG1\N
'n1e U. S. EnvirorDnental ProteCtion}qerCj (EPA) has gathered information on
the types an:! extent of OJntamirIatia'\ fomd, evaluated remedial ~c:llreS,
an:! has ~I.uero.ed ~i;tl actioos to address the OJntamirIaticn fcund at
an:! near the west KL Avenue Iandfill, lcx:ated just west of Xal;:nn;:t7-OO,
Michigan. As part of the remedial actia'\ process, two pJblic meetirgs were
held at the Qshtalx) Township Hall. '!he first was an availability session,
held JUly 16, 1990, an:! it ws att.erded "af abcut 30 p8q)le. '!he seccn::l1llaS
a pJblic hearin;, held JUly 23, 1990, an:! attenB1 "af nearly 60 pecple.
'!he p.trpcJSe of the meetings was to explain the intent of the project, to
deser:i}:)e the results of the ~~bl Investigatia'\ (RI) am the Feasibility
Study (FS), an:! to receive ccmoents fran the public. A cxmt reporter was
present to record the. pI~j rw;s of the seoc:n:l pJblic Jreetin;J. A copy of
the transcript is in:luded in the Administrative Record.
Public participatia'\ in SUperfund projects is requiIed "af the SUperfund
Amemments an:! Reautnorizatia'\ Act of 1986 (SARA). O:mnents received fraI1
the public are considered in the. selectia'\ of the r--"i al actia'\ for the
sits. '!he ~ lSiveness SUI'ImarY serves two pnp= !Or: to provide EPA with
infomatia1 abo1t tne amIL1I'\ity preferences an:l c:xnm:ns regcm1in:) the
remedial alternatives ani t.o shaw the oamunity haw its ~ were
incorporated into the decisiarmaJdrg precess. o.....uents regardin;
informatia1 specifically CD1tained in the RI are net addresSed in this
ResponSiveness SUnInaI'Y because this informatia'\ is CXI'Itained in the reports
available in the Xalamazoo Q:U1ty Public Library, OSht.eI!D Township Br:an:;h,
an:! at the Osht.eI!D Tawnship Hall.
'!his document SUIIIIIiU"izes the aral ccmoents received at the public Jreetin;J
held July 23, 1990, ani the written ~ received durin:) the public
u.&I.lIeHt period, ~ch ran fraD JUne 11, 1990 thrc:u;h August 10, 1990.
Please refer to ~ A for a list of the CXIJIDBr1t,ers.
'!he u.aw.eJ1ts have been SUIIIIIarized as follows:
~ fraft Stats T Ar!islature:
Q.a1&ueM. '1:
1.1. It seems ~~iate that the gavm:nment an:l OCIII'IImity seek to
minimize potential futm'e expoIPJre with a reascnd, ccst-effective approadl.
EPA an:! the Michigan eepartment of Natural RescurCeS (MtNR) have ~ ....-m:ied
that the lan:lfill be fenced ard bare spots tie covered. I would cxn::ur with
that ~ ....~tia\ ard, in additia\, ~ that a\ a &bert-tam basis it
may be advisable to p:st "no trespa~qint' signs (partio1larly durin:)
ccnstructia\ an:l the initial JID1itorin:). HCJweYer, neither EPA nor M[NR
shculd foreclose the beneficial use of the sits for a nature habitat, nature
trails or similar uses ~ch do net jecpardize the integrity of the lanifill
~.
-------
2
1. 2 . I believe a goal orientated, flexible approach IIIJSt be taken \l/hich
CXI1Siders the :inter-relatimship of the parts to the total remedy prcposed
for the site. I believe a clean-up protective of the errvirament can be
achieved, bIt I do not think the RUes to Act 307 WOlld require type A
st:arda.rds for all aspects of the clean-up. I ask that EPA am MI:NR
I'EICu £oider the prcposed cap am grom::iwater renedy in light of the following
ocmnents.
1.3. '!be iJl~ remedy, a Resam::e ez:nservatiCl'1 Recavery Act (~) cap,
is said to be 87 times mre effective in reduc:in;J leachate than the MI Act
64 cap, but this oc:mnent does not take into ocn;ideratiCl'1 the inter-
relaticnship between the cap and the prcposed grom::iwater treatment system.
1.4. First, the prcposed I"E!IIBiial plan does not ocn;ider the cost
effectiveness of the c:x::II'bi.ned cap and grom::iwater treatment system.
Specifically, the MI Act 64 cap is estimated by EPA to cost $11.4 versus
$13.7 milliCl'1 for the ~ cap. It does not ~ that EPA or MI:NR have
evaluated the CXltbined ~;"I' ~.~ to detemine ~ the $2.3
milliCl'1 savin;s through installatiCl'1 of the MI Act 64 cap WOlld result in
a1J.y a marqi1'lal increase in the cperatiCl'1 and ma.intenan::8 cost of the
grom::iwater treatment system. '!be cost to cxnstruct the cap is an :imnediate
expenditure of JrCrtl!'j, ~ the cost to prt7I/ide cperatiCl'1 and maintenance
CI'1 the grom::iwater treaCDent system is an expenditure in the future. '!be
~ eff~ CI'1 $2.3 milliCl'1 held far six years results in al:mcst
cbJblin;J of that sum, yet it does not ~ that either the EPA ar MI:NR
have dete!:mined hell 1II.JCt1 lager, if any, a grom::iwater treatment system
WOlld cperate if a HI Act 64 cap were installed.
1.5. Secxn1, the Alternatives Array ~-tt (M[) does not ocn;ider an Act
641 JllJnicipal cap. '!his site is principally a JllJl'dcipal landfill,. net
unlike l"ImIerQJS other sites ~ Micmgan. If EPA and HI:NR inten:i to
inp:&e hazardous waste standards at mnicipallandfills, the result will be
to place a significant financial bJrden CI'1 Micmgan state and local
governments, businesses and residents. Again, if the principal fOC11S of the
cap is to reduce the cost of grom::iwater treatment, the EPA and Mr:NR shcW.d
evaluated the amcunt of rainfall infiltra~ the landfill under eam cap
scenario and the duratiCl'1 of the pmp and treat system under each treatment
scenario, inclucUnq the scenario under the pre.sent cap, a mnicipal landfill
cap, am these caps cx:nsidered in the MD.
1.6. 'lhird, I am particularly a:ncemed with the volumes of materials
required far ccnstzuctiCl'1 of the ~. ¥,eed ~ cap. '!be FS states that
904,500 cubic yards of material will be required to (Xh:8~lJCt a five and
me-half foot cap CNer the exi.stirI1 cap at the landfill. Any ~~ to
cap the landfill shculd take into cx:nsideratiCl'1 the exi.stirI1 caver em tq) c ~
the waste. f\1rthenme, the ~.~1 to caver the landfill with such
extensive volumes of soil ancl gravel will cause serious c:U.sroptiem to the
nejghbortxxxi CNer the entire two to five years EPA ancl Mr:NR have estimated
far the ccnstzuctiem period. If it is &,,«1.91--' that each txuck ccW.d
transport 30 cubic yards to the site, this \«W.d involve CNer 60,000 trips
to and trait the site duri.rq the ccnstzuctiem period just to deliver
materials. It is inperative that EPA and Mr:NR incorporate to the JIIa)I';mnm
-------
3
extent pcssible the use of a1-Site ani local material to fulfill arrj cappirg
~.
1.7. In regard to the p~ groundwater remedy, I note that the
1JL~ plan prefers di.scharge to the City of Kal~zoo treatJDent facility
aver w~ axidatiat. 'Ihe cost differential is approximately $3.5
milliat. As between the two c:.hoices, MJ:NR an:! EPA were correct in
preferrirg d.i.sc:.ha.rge to the City treatJDent facility. 'lbere awears to be 00
~i1llPJ'1t to the facility's ability to operate, hardle ani treat the
d.i.sc:.ha.rge cn::e the sewer lines are exterOed to the lardfill. 'Ihis facility
ws cx:nsttucted with" state ani federal 'IJl::re'j an:! designed to hardle
irdustrial waste. since the lardfill was used as a ccunty-wide landfill,
irclu:lin:J the aooept:ance of waste fraD b1sinesses ani residents in the City
of Kalama7'-OO, I wc:uld think that the City wc:uld be willirg to accept the
d.i.sc:.ha.rge fraD the lan:1fill provided it is cc:arpnsated for its ccsts.
1.8. Not wit:hstardinq the aboVe, I have salle f\.Jmamental cx:ncerns with the
EPA an:! MJ:NR's selectiat of the altemative remedy, w~ axidatiat.
First, as the Pl~ Plan states, the use of W is an :i.nnavative
tec:hnology ani is net as proven as other tec:hnoloqies, especiAlly at sud1 a
large scale as will be needed here. 'Ihe ~~ also states that the "lcn;r-
teJ:m effectiveness" of W-enharad tec:hnology is net well dcc::umente:1. I am
c:x:r-.cemed becaUse, net a\ly is the W tec:hnology more expellsive than the
more tradi.tiatal tec:hJ'x)lcgies, it is also more susceptible to failure. It
has been the pcsitiat of EPA (ani pre5'VMhle MINR) that the risk of failure
shcu1d be bome by these parties r..,spcnsible for the cx:ntitia1S at the
lardfill. I am opposed to ~.rs of this CXIIIIIJnity as~1Ifti~ the cost of a
later, secord groundwater ~btiat system which EPA an:! MJ:NR have sought
to use this CXIIIIID'\ity as a test grcund far a more expensive emerqirg
tec:hnology. It is strcn;Jly ~ that if a decisiat is to ~ with
this form of ~ia,tiat that the CXIIIILIl1ity be protected fraD exorbitant
ccsts aver traditiatal remedies and the pctential failure of remedy. MiXBi
f'utI:linq is aw solutiat to the prci)lem. .
1.9. Secc:n1, W~ c:»d.cSatiat costs a.1JDcSt $2.0 milliat more than
altemative Qf ,3& Ydch is precipitatiat, air stri;pin; ani carbcn
absorptica. Air strippinJ tec:hJ'x)logy is a more tnditicml remedy far
re-Jiatica of wlaWe ~cs in the groundwater. EPA and MJ:NR awear to
haVe rejected this technology, net for technical reasa1S, tut in favor of
deYelcpinJ more Jcncwled:}e ~ the w-enhanced axidatica technology.
Since the latter tec:hJ'x)logy is
-------
4
study of bio~j"tia1. EPA an:! MI:NR shculd c:x:n;ider Da:e thorcu:Jhly the
naturally ocx::urrin:; biodegradatim of cx:.rrt:aminant at the landfill an:!
~re such informatia1 to the cost an:! ~;"tia1 time of the remedies it
has pL' \>J5Id to determine when the grourdwater quality of the site will
return to dri.nkirg water stan::Jards. 'Ihi.s infonaatia1 shcW.d also be
detemi.ned for the varicus site ca;pin; scenarios. Finally, EPA an:! MI:NR
sbc:W.d c:x:n;ider W'hether an enhanced fom of bi~; "tia1 might be an
acceptable grcun:lwater remedy.
Respcn;e '1:
1.1. '!he p.u:pcse of the fence, to be installed around the landfill is tw0-
fold. First it will pratect the landfill cap fraD ~"eAr activities
such as clirt biki.n;, which may destroy the integrity of the landfill cap an:!
seccn::lly, to pratect trespa9eAl'S fran exposure to landfill gases fran the
gas vents an:! other locatia1S t.hrt:u;haIt the landfill. EPA a..Jl.- that ncre
"no ~cu:ing" signs are requiJ:ed, especially durin; any c:a1Sb:uctia1
activity. In regards to retm:ninq the landtill into a usetul piece of
property, suc.b as a nature habitat or trail, these are possible uses of the
property in the t\rt:ure, but net in the near timetrame. It is iJIportant.
that the cap be protected traD large sh%Ubs ard trees ~ Ioats can cause
ham to the cap layers. To this em, the landfill will1ll:lBt likely have a
malCtypic type vegetative a::Nflr, primarily short grasses, Wc:h my net be
cxniucive to nature habitats.
1. 2. '!he PL' ~ Plan an1 the ~~ of Decisia1 (R)D) are callin; for
grcun:lwater cleamp levels at the site to achieve MI Act 307 Type B cleanJp
and landfill cleanup levels at the site to aaueve MI Act 307 Type C
clearaJp. A ~ of the anticipated clearaJp levels is i.ncl\.Ded in the lU).
'Ibis -......::l1t is turther answered in the paragraphs below.
1.3. '!he Pl~ Plan mentiav!d that the ~ cap lessens leachate
qeneratia1 by as JIUCh as 78 times Dm'8 80 than the Act 64 cap. In
eva.luatin; the caps, the inteJ:Telatia1 bebJeen the cap ard the io'L~
gromdwater remedies 11181:'8 taken into ccnsideratia1 even thcugh bath
activities have their awn act.ia1 specific ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and
Awrqriate Recpi.rements) that JIIJSt be met. In this case, ~ closure and
MI Act 64 dictate what type of closure is required for the lan1fill an1 the
Federal Safe Drink:in;J Water Act an1 MI Act 307 dictate what type of
grcundwatar clearaJP 18 required. 'lbe two activities, hcweYer, are
interrelated in that the better the cap, the less leachate generated ard,
therefore, 1- CXI1taminatiCl\ reaches the gromdwater, which means less
p.mpin; and treatin;J of the gromdwater will be required fNer time
1.4. As di an'''''--' in 1.3 abcY8, the interrelatia1Ship bebJeen the cap an1
the pL'~ gromdwater remedies were taken into ccnsideratiCl\. 'lhe ~
cap was selected CNe:r the Act 64 cap based upon its cost1ffectiveness.
Essentially, the iJquizy is \Ihether the altemative remedy L-r- esents a
reasa1ab1e value for the JIDt'I/!/f. In eva.luatizq cost-effectiveness, three
effectiveness criteria are first c:x:n;idered: lcn;r-tem effectiveness an1
~: reductia1 of tc::Dcicity, JlCbility, or volume t:hrcugh treatment:
ard shart-t.em effectiveness, 55 FR 8728 (Ma..rd1 8, 1990). '1hen the
-------
r
5
ircremental ocst difference of the two alternatives are ~red to the
ircremental differerces in effectiveness. In this case, the ~ cap is 78
times JIm"e effective in reduci.n:;J leac:.hate than the Act 64 cap, yet the costs
are relatively ~le at $13.7 millia1 to $U.4 millia1, respectively.
O::InseCpeI'1tly, the ~ cap was selected.
1.5. 'Ib! AN) did present a ~i.n:;J ~a1 of less str~ than MI Act
64, en! requirizq three 6-inctl lifts of cxmpcte:i clay and owrlain with 6-
i.rId1es of tc:p;oil (Alternative 2a under the Q:rItainDent alternatives within
the AN), ~le to a cap that wculd be required under Act 641. Q1e of
the pnp:li~ of the AN) is for the EPA and MDm to identify their ARARs
~ pertinent remedies as ~!Sented within the docI-'1t. After
viewirg the AN), it was deteJ:mined that Act 641 is an ARM for lardfill
closure (as stated within the FS Rt:t-t) but MI Act 64 was the ARAR
gcvemi.n) this partic:ular lanifill because dcct -rrt:atia1 exists that the
landfill has aocepted hazaI'dcUS wastes. 'Iherefare, the Act 641 cap as
desc:ribed in the AN) was ~"'8ded to the Act 64 cap in the FS. 'Ib!
principal goals of the lanifill CXNer are to attain ARARs, to cx:rttain the
wastes within the lamfill, am to minimize or el:iminate percolatia1 of
water thrcu#i the lamfill thereby minimizin;J c::reatia1 of leacbate am
ccntaminatia\ of the ~ter. '1be mdel.in:) cx:.rdIJcted in the FS shews
that the selected ~ cap r-"- the leac:bate generatia\ up to 78 times
better than the Act 64 cap for relatively OCIIpr8ble ocst. An alXiitiCl'1al
goal of tbe cap ~ is to eliminate the need to pmp ani treat the
~ter in the futUre. As~ to an Act 641 cap, tbe Act 64 ani
~ cap offer better drainage and a frost pratecticn layer, whic::b will
further pmtect the integrity of the cap. In total, 502,000 additia\al
cubic yards of earthen materials are recpired to cx:n;tzuct an Act 64 or ~
cap than the Act 641 cap, DUCh of whic::b may be c:iXained locally. To reit-
erate the RJD, the Act 641 cap does net attain ARARs for closure since it is
doc:umented that the lamfill did accept druIIIDed am tWk hazaI'dcUS wastes.
1.6. Any of the cap8 that attain the ARARs (Act 64 or better) will require
large quantities of material to be brcught to the site. '1be FS inUcates
that the selected altema'tiw, IE '3b, the ~-type cap, will requi.%e the
least aD:IUI"It of earth..teri.ala (net CXAD"Itin:J the filter fabric and the
synthetic liner) and 8till attain ARAb. Also, tJy d1ccsin:) tbe ~ cap,
en! feat of ~ clay was eliminated, being repl~ by the high
density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. '1be actual aJII1D1t of material is also
being CJ.1Mt1c::.md by a IUIb!r of other ~iterS, statin;J that the area to
be CXNer8d &to1ld be 60 acres ani net the 83 acres as stated in the
P~' ~ Plan. 'Jhe 83 acre fUIi:)er stated in the Pl.. ,,)Sed Plan ani the RX)
is an estimate based a\ site drawi.Iqs ani histarical aerial phct08. '1be
actual size to be cx:MIr8d can be detemi.ned later ~ tut the type of lardfill
cap will net' be affecta1 by the size of lardfill. If the area to be caYerE!d
.is irdeect cN.y 60 acre8 am net 83, then the cappin:) will cxst less than the
est1mates within the FS am the Ia), am net as DUCh material will be needed
to be transported to the .ita. en or near-site soils can be used duri1q the
cxnstzuctia\ of the selecta1lan1fill cap, tut the clay utilize1 for the
. ~-typ8 cap DUSt JIIB8t the specificatia1S of HI Act 64 in lifts am in
~a\. en or near1ita soils can Da;t likely a\ly be used as gradi.n;
layers or as the clean-fill am tcp-soil layem.
-------
6
1.7. No respa ISe to CXIIIDeJ1t needed..
1.8. D.Je in part to ~tts received durirq the PJblic ~tt peria:l,
the use of the P.:7lW ard the cxrrt:.inr:]ent use of W~ axidaticn are no
lcnger the preferred gromdwater ~i,., actiaw. '!hey have been replaced
by enhanced biQI"PmlOrlhlticn usinq fiJced-filter bioreact:ors as the selected
gra.1ndwater ~;;II1 acticn. See the RX) far further explanatia1 of the
d1an]es due to the se.lectia1 of enhanoecl-bio~i;lltia1. Also, see
respa~ to 0:mDents '2 an:l 3 below. '!he preferred cxrrt:.inr:]ent gro..n:lwater
~ial acticn, oc.nt:in;Jent upcn the lack of adequate ~;;IItia1 !ran the
enhanced bi~iaticn system, walld inc1\d! use of the P.:7lW ar W~
axidatia1, ar other alternatives that may ac::h.ieve the cleamp goals. Sira!
salle of the enhanced bi~-.A'H ;lltia1 system may be used in iDplementin:; other
gra.1ndwater tec::hnoloqies, such as W~ cad.datia1, (far mample,
installatia1 of the gra.1ndwater injectia1 wells), the CXISt-effectiveness of
the two alternatives will have to be a:n;idered at that time. In ac1diticn,
the ro!W's williIgness ard ability to accept tnese wastes remain a factor.
'-'
1.9. See ~a{b 1.8 above.
1.10. See paragraph 1.8 aboYe regardin;J the use of bi~-,""";;IItia1. In
regcml to the lan1fill cap, as stated above, the lan1fill cap is dictated
by the requirements of ~. closure am Michigan Act 64, am does not take
into CXI1Sideratia1 1IIhat type of rBDedy is d1csen for the gra.1ndwater.
Naturally oca.zrrinq bi~-._'t;;IItia1, ~ to the ~illll Investigaticn,
is ocx:urri.n:J within the ccntaminatia1 in the shallow aquifer. However, the
levels of ccntaminatia1 are still in ~nce of State an:l Federal ARMs,
so gra.1ndwater treatment DUSt be iJ!plemented to ~lE!llEnt the natural
pl~ in a..lh.-sinq these ~.
a...LRI.ent5 tratt PRPs:
a..w.:nt '2:
2.1. A group of awraximately 24 of the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) identified in OQau-..'"tia1 with the site have fcmDBd the KL Averue
O:mI1i.ttee. Q1e of the activities of this group has been the review am
analysis of various stulti.es, assessnents, am~....,.."IaA hi regarding the site.
'!he Q:mnitt.ee (an:! their CXI'1tractor) has also develq&! an alternative
remedy ~.~ YUcn meets all legal requirements and is actually 1Im'e
pratecti'V8 of human health and safety than EPA's ~. ~.osed remedy.
2.2. '1b8 remedy re...-&ua:rI!ded by the PRP qroup inco!:porates reoc)j~hitia1 of
the aqoin;J in-situ biOt~.AiiatiCl\ an:!1ID1itorirrl of plume ~;atia1 in
ac1ditiCl\ to 0I21St:ruct.inq a mnicipal cap in an envircnDentaJ.ly am fiscally
respalSible manner. '!be O:mI1i.ttee's propceed remedy is pratect.ive of human
health an:! the enviraDent, is CX&t effective, an:! meets the legal criteria
of aa:::tA and the NCP, requirements web the EPA remedy fails to meet. OUr
~. ¥J6al reflects not cnly an understan:1in) of the requirements of aa:::tA
and the NCP, bJt also a reoognitia1 of the preckminant sentiment of the
local PJblic in the area of the West KL AverLJe landfill. We believe the
group's ~ \IICUld also proYe more ~t.able to the local gcvernments.
-------
7
2.3. 'Ihis letter is supported by three separate attad1ments: 1) "o:mrents
a'I the P~~ Plan and Feasibility St1.dy for the West KL Averue Ian:\fill",
by Geraghty and Miller, In::. (G&M), 2) Ted1nical data report "RsViSli of
U.S. EPA's ~ Alternatives and Px~ of Additic:nal NCP Calpliant
Remedial Alternatives", and 3) a letter fraD G&M to Rardy Senger, dated
August 9, 1990, web fcmlS an executive SI-ry of the tec:hnic:al data.
2.4. 'Ihis letter and the attachments constitute the formal SlI",d~c:ia'\ by
the ~ of c:x:mDents a'I the draft FS and the Px'~ Plan for the West KL
Averue Iamfill. 'Ihese CXIIIDE!l1ts are sulDitted for inclusia'\ in the
administrative recora file.
2.5. EPA' s selectia'\ of a remedy, if arbitrary, capriciQ1S, or otherwise
net in accordan:e with the law, is invalid, c::amct. be allcwecl to stand, and
shcA1ld prcnibit rect:Nerj of response costs by the }qerCy. If the }qerCy
selects the remedy currently p~ by the }qerCy, or any remedy qiven the
current state of the recora, sud1 selectia'l will violate the a,liqatia'l of
EPA urder Q1aA.
2.6. EPA's decisia'l a'l remedy walld be arbitrary for several reasa1S. EPA
has emitted significant data, includin; the twice-yearly O:unty data, fraD
its administrative ~. As clearly pointed cut in the attadw:l tectmi.cal
doct1lnPJ'lts and the att.acned affidavits of Mr. Woolf and Mr. a;,11r-, major
ted1nical flaws exist in !:PA's analysis, such as the ~I.cper calculatia'\
of landfill size am the iDprcper c::alc:ulatiat of gra.niwater flow. Jnf
decisia'lS based a'l this inacXm:ate data base walld be arbitrary and
capriciQ1S.
2.7. EPA has failed to follow the requireI1ents of c::DaA and the NCP and,
therefore, any remedy selected at the present tbe walld be selected
0CX1tra%Y to law. 1here are several sections of the statute itself web EPA
has igoored. ADI:n) other th.in;p;, c:DIQ. prtWides that off-site transport of
haZardoUS substanCeS is to be disocm'aged. '1be goal is pemanent and
significant deCreaSeS in "tc»dcity, Jld:)ility, or volume of the haza]:doos
subst;anCe. . . .", EPA is to consider lcn:)-term maintenanCe costs, and EPA is
to consider the npatential threat to hLmIan health and the envirouwcatt
associated with ...... transportatim, and rM;~1" as well as theSe
associated with CD1tainment. '1he}qerCy is to taJ<:e into aaxutt "the degree
of suwort for such r--1h11 actim by parties int,erested in such site." 42
use S 9621 (b) (1) and (2).
2.8. sinc8 8ludges will be c::reated by &aII8 of the EPA preferred remedial
alternatives alii these will be haza]:doos wastes web will have to be
transported off-site, EPA ia c::reatin;J a situatim web runs CX1D'1ter to
OA-=tI.es5'S .inst%uCticns alii, therefore, is mt in acx:ordanCe with law.
"1BP"iA1 actia\S in wch treatment wch pemanently and
significantly ~- th8 volume, taKicity or Jld:)ility of the haza]:doos
substanCeS, pollutants, and cx.ntaminantS .. are to be preferred r:Ner
~;,.1 actia'\S not involving such treatment. '1be off-sita transport
and d;~l of haza]:doos sutstances or ocntaminated materials withaIt
such treatment shDJld be the least favored alternative ~; al actia'\
-------
8
where practicable treatment ted1noloqies are available. '!be President
shall c.x::niuct an """'--""""""1t of pennanent solutioos am alternative
treatment ted1noloqies or re:saJrOe reccNery ted1noloqies that, in ..mole
or in part, will result in a pemanent am significant decrease in
toxicity, Jld)ility, or volume or the hazardous substance, pollutant, or
cx:ntaminant. In maJdn:;J sud'l """'--"""""'1t, the President shall
specifically cr.lh.dS the la1q-tem effectiveness of various
alternatives. In a"''''-'''ln;J alternative ~;",,1 actioos, the President
shall, at a m.inimJm, take into aoccunt: A) the la1q-term uncerta:i.nties
associated with land "i~; * * D) short- and la1q-term potential
for adverse health effects !ran human exposure; E) la1q-term
maintenance costs; F) the potential for future ~; ",,1 actia1 costs
if the alternative ~;",,1 actia1 in questia1 were to fail; an:! G)
the potential threat to human health and the envira1ment associated
with excavatia1, transportatia1, and prl;~ or CXI'1tainment."
.0
42 U;C S 9621 (b) . tJlD!r this same sectia1 it is man:1ated that the
President select a oost1ffective remedy. If the remedy selected wa.1ld net
be a preferred cne usln;J the abaYe criteria, then EPA JIIlSt justify why it
deviated fraD oo.rqtess's directives.
2.9. Un:Jer another provisia1 of the same CEm.CA sectia1, a..~ess states:
" (d) (4) 'Jhe President may select a ~ i" 1 actia1 meet:.in:) the
requinments of paragrapt (1) that does net attain a level or standard
of '--1L.vl at least equivalent to a legally awlicable or relevant and
awl.~l.iate standard, requirement, criteria or limitatia1 as required.
by paragrapt (2), if the President fims that -
(B) CCIIpliance with such requirement at that facility will result
in greater risk to humim health and the envira'lllent than
alternative qJticns: ard
(D) the r-W'iAl act:.icn selected will attain a standard of
perfOI'DliUD! that is equivalent to that required. \.D'D!r the
otheJ:wise awlicable standard, requirement, criteria, or
limitaticn, thrcugh use of another msthcd or~: ..."
42 use S 9621 (d) (4). '1b8 O::IIait:tee's pcsiticn is even strcrqer than this
p'S~ wculd SUCJ94!St. We are net inplying that bivu;a,~atiat will fail to
meet ARARs bJt shculd be CXI'1Sidered in any event. We believe it will meet
prc:perly id8ntifiecl ARAb. 1icwII!Yer, even if in-situ bi"'-l."='I..Ar'tiatia1 did net
meet ARARs, EPA cxW.d an:! shculd still d1cose it because it will result in a
lesser risk to the public than EPA's preferred remedi_.
2.10. We wish to eq:basize that the qro,Jp's remedy will meet all the
oo.~co=Bic::nU man:Jates and be more prctective of public health both in the
short-term (e.q., no transportaticn of cD!micals to the site, no staraqe of
c:bemic::als at the site, no transport of hazardous waste off th8 .ita) ard in
. the l~ (8.q., no lcn:r-tem di~' off-site of material with more
,---=a.L.Qted hazardous substances in it than the material that exists a1 the
site now) .
-------
9
2.11. As is ~ fraD the abcYe, any review of the draft FS an:!
~ Plan is largely t.ed'U'\ical in nature, bIt certain analysis,
Cle-~~1'1t, an:! cxmnent ca.nn::Jt be adeqUately identified or expla.irled in the
cxrIteXt of primarily technical doc;!-rts. 'Ihe follo.rirg portia1 of this
letter is intended to identify or expard upa1 ether di~1....c:ia& cx:ntained in
the letter or the at:t:ad'1mentS, in several partiOllars. 'Ihe o:am.ittee
believes that the JIqerCf 1IIJSt addresS cx:n::ems relatirq to the evaluatia1 of
relative risks posed 'af r-ii...l alternatives as OOIT"'red to the risks of
existin; ocn:titia&, deferral of significant decisia1 maJd.ng to the r-i;""
design phase, identificatia1 of clearup stan:1azds, identificatia1 an:!
applicatia1 of MARs, an:! factors to be applied. in remedy selectia1.
A. Risk ~risa1:
i. cm:IA requires, ~ ether t.hirJ;s, that the remedy selected be
prctective of human health an:! the envha..ait. To ider1tify a risk to
human health as ex.i.st.in;, hc:WEM!r, is insufficient in an:! of itself to
justify any remedy that will eliminate or minimize such a risk.
IDplementatia1 of a "remedy" Wien creates a greater actual risk than
the hyp:Ithetic:al risk of ex.i.st.in; ocnliticns is net prctec:tive of human
health as ~lated 'af the statute.
ii. A ~tive risk aE-eo!C!IMWJt of limited (or no) actia1 versus
eaen of the variOJS alternatives is ~ceably absent fraD the FS. It
is nece"'"""U)" to qive oonsideratia1 to this relatia1Ship sin:8 limited
actiat is naninallY, at least, an alternative. To presume that saDe
actiat will be taken skewS quantificatiat of the risk. 'Ihe risk of
irgestiat of carci1&~qells is vi.rtL1ally n::n!Xistent at this site. No
CD! has utilized the aquifer as a source of drinJdn) wter for years,
an:! the existence of a reliable pmlic wter system ~ the chan::Je
of fUtUre cx:n;unptiat vi.rtL1ally ncnexistent. '1his is diametrically
~ to the starting ,premise of the FS that saD8 actiat needs to be
taken.
ill. For exanple, a ~ of the risk associated with
transportaticz of cappin;J materials under the EPA prefenw1
altematives to the iJYpathetic:al risk of expo6'Jr8 to the groniwater
shculd be undertaken. We believe that such an as-~ewent will shaw
that: !:PA's prefenw1 remedy dictates reassessnent: of the ~iate
IdIpCI1S8.
iv. 'Ihe revised NCP, in newly cratted Sectiat 300.430(d) (4), djer"'l1c:.~
the use of baseline risk assessments. 'Ihe prea1!ble to the rule, W'tUc:r.
"reflects EPA's intent in praIUlgatin;J (the) revisicns to the NCP", (~'.
FR 8666) repeatedly dictates the need for the cxnhJct ani caretul
CXI1Si.deratiCZ of baseline risk as-e""--tt8.
v. one ~Il..al porticz of the ~le states that, "(a)s part of t:...
(RI), the baseline risk ~"'-ooC!lMWJt is initiated to detenUne W'hether
the (XI'1t:aminants of o:ncem identified. at the site pose a anTent or
p:n:.ential risk to human health am the enviIa1ment in the aD;enoe of
-------
10
any ~ i ~tia1. It provides a basis for determ.in.irg whether ~ i ~l
actia1 is ~~~ ard the justificatia1 for perfODnirq ~i~l
actia1S ...." 55 FR 8709.
vi. later in the preani)le, the issue is pointedly distilled: "...
When ccnsider:i.ng current lard use, the baseline risk ",~--........'1t shcW.d
ccnsider bath actual risks due to 0Jrrel1t cx:n:1i. tia'lS ard potential
risks ",<::'c:l1l11i"1; no ~i~l actia1.... EPA is clarify:i.ng the lan;uage in
(the NCP) to in:ticate that bath acbJa1 ani potential exposure ro.rt:es
ani pathways sho.1ld be ccnsidered." 55 FR 8710.
vii. "... 300.430(d) (4) of the rule has been clarified to in:ticate
that bath 0JI"I'er1t ani potential exposures ani risks are to be
ccnsidered in the baseline risk ~'S"':r""""''1t,'' ard, "... (e)~
~<::.~mptia1S or ather infOI1Datia1 ... " are itE!ll& to ccnsider in
det:.eminin; "whether the risks are likely to have been un:Jer-or over-
estimated. 'Jhese key assuDptia1S ani uncertainties JIIJSt be ccnsidered
in devel~:i.ng r-r-'liatia1 goals." 55 FR 87U.
~
viii. EPA guidance states that "EPA ccnsiders informatia1 bath £ran
ATSI:R health as<7---rt:s ani baseline risk aC!-~""""'1ts to get a
oarplete picture of health threats." (Risk Asg-........'1t Guidance for
SUperfund, Vol. 1: R.mIan Health Evaluatia1 Hamal, pp. 2-9, 2-10).
'Ihe authority is clear that EPA is to ccnsider the harm that may arise.
£ran the c:xn:iuct of r-r-'lial actia1 relative to the harm fraD si:q)ly
taJcinq no actia1.
ix. In an at:t.eq:Jt to ~ risk at CXI1t:aminated sites, a<::,c:I1"t~ia1S
net nec."le$S'~ily clcse to reality are made. At ICL Averu.Je, the risk
perceived as e.vr--'i'1g aoceptable guidelines is based a1 asss--'
regular, human ocnsurrpti.a1 of CXI1t:aminated grcunjwater. 'Ihe cleanup,
~ore, is to achieve a reductiat of organic c:x:.-=attraticn; in a
media cut off £ran human exposure - i.e. the risk ~C!"'r~nt assumes a
oarpleted ~ pathway when none exists. .
x. 'Ihe p:lSSiDility of future exposure or the potential spread of the
CXI1t:aminatic:n to a point of expc:ISU1'e JIL1St be 8Yaluated, but the
hypothetical risk c:annat justify the creatic:n of real risks ard the
expenditure of millicns of dollars si:q)ly to accelerate by a few years .
ultimate site remedy. AdcptiCl\ of the ptq)CS8d plan will create real
ani i-'-'i"te risks to public safety in order to reduce a hypothetical
and diminish.ing future risk. .
xi. Given the absence of human exposure to the grcunjwater due to the
availability of a pmlic water supply, the remedy ptq)CS8d by the ~
group of in-situ bi~_._i;atiat, ~in;J grcunjwater mcnitor:i.ng, and
ocnst:zuct.ic:n of a JllJnicipallandfill cap provides a protec:t.ive, legal,
am cost effective cptiat. Speed of remedy is net an at=Prcpriate
drivin;J factor in remedial selectic:n where human e>cposure does net
exist and when envL.'-811U1:1l1tal harm is bein;J l"E!IIedied, especially where
the IIm'8 speedy remedy creates unnecessaxy risk.
-------
11
B.
Deferral of Decisia1 Makin;
i. As roted in athe.r attached doo 1II'PJ'1ts, EPA' s data base a1 which the
p~ plan is grcunjed lacks OOO"""'e;ary informatia1. DJrin; the
PUblic Meetin;, questic:ni ~ often ~ with a ocmnent to the
effect that resolutia1 will be developed at the ~;;t 1 design phase
of the project.
. li. Deferral of selectia1 of a remedy until all neoe""e;ary ani
available informatia1 is gathered ani analyzEd is awroPI"iate.
Deferral of decisic:ni a1 details of the inplementatia1 of a plan is
awroPI"iate. HcweVer, . deferral of the decisia1 a1 the basic,
underlyin; n-"tH;tl u::i...APt to the rem-1;;tl design state is net
c!wr'q)riate. It deprives the pmlic and the PRPs of due process with
regard to remedy selectia1.
ill. CDCIA requires'the CWOrt1mity far p.1blic ~&t. 1dcptia1 of
the ~'s pI.'~ plan at this tiJDe wculd cause fundament,al
decisic:ni to be made outside of the p.1blic forum, CCI1tn%Y to the
o...8:fAo -= !"'iCl1al JDanlSate. Avoidin) a decisiem or failin; to resolve
basic, underlyin) ~a'1S until the ~bl Design phase siDplY
resDCJYeS theSe j,sca..- fraD the p.1blic debate. 'Ibis ~~
ci.ramlYentiem of the clear obligaticms of EPA 1IIJSt be avoided. 'n1e
informatiem developed by the kJerCi to data does net pemit a decision
em ~;;tl actlem to be ~lemented at this time.
c. ClearaJP St,an:1ards:
i. EPA has failed to adequately as"~'" an:! determine ~iate
clearaJP stamards at the site, laJ:gely deferrin; this issue to a later
date. '!he clearL1P stan.2J:t1s haVe a significant inpct em the
~-c.priatenesS, effectiveness, an:! ccst of the ~bl altematives.
li. Far ~., 1'eC8I1tly adcpted rules under Michigan's Envi.rtnnental
~1S8 Act (Act 307) creata different levels of clearaJP requirements
to ackSresS different situatia'1S. we sutmit apprqrlate remedy
selectiem c:annat be made until detailed a"'''~....-,t an:! deteminatian of
clearL1P stardardS in a manner either CXI'1Sistent with ar in cx:nfoxmance
with the Act 307 is exmpleted, or justificatiem far failure to do so is
prarid8d. .
ill. '1hese %Ules establish several different clearaJP st.ardaMs,
identified as TypeS A, B, an:S C. It is the Q:IImittee's view that Type
C ~;~t actiem DaY be the 1IDIt appI.~iata at this sitae
iv. All x-'bl projects under the Act 307 rules 1IIJSt be protect:.ive
of pJblic health, safety an:S w1.fare and the env~\Aaent and natural
rescm;as. R 299.5601(1). '!he degree of clearL1P required under a Type
C project is to be develcpd em the basis of a site specific risk
as-1Y"~. FactorS to be CXI'1Sidered iJd.\.de ~lqriatenesS for the
sita, aw.r.4iateness for rea,sa'\ably fonsr-hle fut:m'e property uses
an:S cost effectiveness. R 299.5515.
-------
12
v. 5electia1 of a ~i1ll1 alternative requires definitia1, as
specified in the Michigan rules, of the extent of such clEianJp '-Ihich is
mandated, Le. the cbjective DUSt be identified before the means to
adrieve the cbjective can be selected. 'Ihat definitiat can
dramatically affect the cleamp effort in teZ1I& of tiJDe, sccpe and
cx:st. Failure to adequately aQ:lress this key questiat in the ~
Plan sillply umersccres the }qercj's inability to justity any ~;1IIl
plan based at the administrative record as it ncIii exists.
D. Act 641 as the Prcp!r caw~ MAR
i. c::E1aA and the NCP require, f~_"'t, that all the ~ha1
actia1S be prctec:tive of the pJblic health and the envL.\08aucnt. A
requirenent which has been identified as applicable or relevant and
appr'q)riate (an MAR) to a site cxrditiat does net ~-rily set the
clearaJP standard, if the MAR will net adequately assure achievement of
this priJnaIy goal. See Alrox) Oil Q). v. Borden. It two cx.nflict:.in;
requirements both awear to be ARMs, it is net r---ry that the mere
prctec:tiveor~~~thetwobe~asthecl~
requirenent. Rather, the requirement which is c:.hcsen IIL1St be the ate
which is m::st apprqriate and is mcst CXI1Sistent with the NCP. It
shcW.d be noted that ate aspect of the NCP and am.c:A criteria is cx:st
effectiveness of the r---1ial actiat.
iL Sectiat 121 of. c::E1aA requires that any hazardous substances
remaining at-Site at the exmpletiat of a c::E1aA ~ha1 actiat DJSt
meet any MAR umer federal envira1mental law or any JlDre ~in;Jent
requirenent umer state envira1mental law.
ill. Potential ARMs are identified by reviewin;J the federal .
envircrJmental laws and the envira1mental laws of the state in wch the
site is lcx:ated to identity standards and 1imitatia1S Wich may be
either applicable or relevant and apprcpriate to the site's cleanup.
Sectiat 121 provides that a state law can be a patential ARM if it is
mere strin;Jent than federal law. If a state pt~GIII is similar to a
federal ~~am but is net federally authorized, the two ptog1.a.ud DJSt
be caretully ~ to detemine the mcre strin;Jent requirenent.
iv. '1b8 final CXM!r requirements for JlLD'Ucipal an:! other solid waste
landtUla 1IIh1ch are CXI'1tained in the administrative rules for
Michigan's Solid Waste ~.Alit Act (Act 641) do net have a fedenl
ccunt.eJ:pu't. 'lherefore, they are a patential ARM. EPA has acD!pted
N::r 641 as an ARAR (Table 4-4 of Public CLu_1t FS).
v. 'Ibis site was net a haza.rdaJS waste landfill. Industrial wastes
as well as other wastes were acD!pted CXI1Sistent with then existin;J la'.
and regulatiat. '!he landfill was permitted and operated acrordin:J to
permit. ~ of waste generated by industry does net ~ a
landfill a "hazardcus waste landfill" for W'hich IGA or Michigan 1w::t E).O
(Hazarc:IaJs waste ManagA..MJt Act) standards are ~"!'~. 'Ihe Michiga:-
Act 64 rules (R 299,506) states that Act 64 rules apply atly to
-------
13
landfills d;~in; of hazardcus waste after Jaruary 1, 1980. 'lb!se
rules therefore are net relevant to this site. EPA ~rs to have
aooepted this point in its review of ARARs (Table 4-4) bIt failed to
~ a m.micipal landfill o::Ner.
vi. As noted in the attactments, h:t 641 is clearly the ~~iate
ARAR given the histaIy of this site and the extent of r-nMi...l actia'\
required. To detemine otherWise is to rerO!r h:t 641 a J"L1llity, since
Act 641 caps wca.1ld never be ~te.
E. IeII!dy Selectien FactorS:
i. 'l1'1e U.S. EPA ~cperly evaluated the rw-1i...l alternatives for
the site. 'l1'1e Public Q:mDer1t FS states that it evaluated each
alternative at the basis of nine criteria. It further states that it
c:x:nsidered two criteria to be "'threShold' criteria in that an
alternative JIIJSt meet them in order for it to be eligible for selection
as a preferred remedy." 'n1eSe 2 threShold criteria are: 0Yerall
protectien of human health and the envh~auent", and "OaIpl~ with
ARARs. "
li. '!he EPA ~~ly, 1) cxn::luded that the No Act1en and the
Limited h:tien grc:udwater remedy did net meet~: 2) failed to
array an:Vor evaluate remedies which wa1ld meet ARARs, ani: 3)
interpreted the law's ARAR requirement.
ill. CZQA Sectien 121 provides, in part, that if hazardcus sutstanoe,
pollutant or CXJnt,aminant remain en site, the ~;"l actien selected,
"shall req.Ure, at the CXIIPlet1en of the ~iAl actien, a level or
stardard of ~.trol for such hazardcus sutstance or pollutant or
CXJnt,aminant wch at least attains such legally awlicable or relevant
. am' ~te st:amard, requirement, criteria or limitatien."
iv. EPA ccn:ludes withcut explanatien that the No Actien and Limited
Act1en grc:udwater remedies do r¥:It meet 40 CfR wen relates to
stan:1ards for solid waste di~l facilities. HCJweYer, i'4eC:I1I11;'Q that
EPA is referring to the SUtIpart F grc:udwater pravisicn, the
requirement to meet ARARs is upcn ccn:lusien of the ~bl actien.
EM failed to evaluate both the iJIpct en grc:udwater of its ~~
1ardf1ll cawin:J remedy and naturally occurrirq biJ~elrM;...tien.
v. Also, EPA failed to evaluate several grc:udwater renedies
(includ.in) in-situ biu~emediatien) and soil remedies (incl\Wrq Act 641
solid wasta caver) wen meet ARARs. Table 4-4 of the Public Q:IIIIIent
fS revealS that an Act 641lan:!fill remedy meets ARARs. ~,
based en the report fraD~, the Table reveals that in-situ
bi~;...tien meets ARARs. .
vi. Fimlly, !:PA's evaluatien of remedies did not prcperly c:a1Sider
ARARs. CZQA provides that an ARAR may be either a level or a
stamam of cxr&trol wen is aaueved at the en:! of resredial acticn.
For exmrple, a lan:!fill CDler wca.1ld be c:x:nsidered a stanSam of centrol
-------
14
an::! atta.irments of cp:am:twate.r M:Ls upcn cx:mp1etiat of remedy a level.
'n1erefore, CEU.CA allows achievE!!lEl1t of ARARs by either method.
vii. In this instanoe, the primary plIpCI68 of the lardtill cr::Ner is to
protect cp:am:twate.r. 'Ihus, EPA has c:::to;en two cp:am:twate.r remedies,
both of which are designed to achieve cp:am:twate.r ARARs. EPA neglected
to CCI1Sider CXIIi;)inatia'1S of al temati ves, which together meet ARARs.
F\Jrtherm::>re, EPA iJIprcp!rly screened cut cp:am:twate.r alternatives that
require lower periods of time to achieve ARARs while at the same time
\.J1'"derestimatirq the time peric:xi of its selected cp:am:twate.r remedies to
achieve ARARs. CERCIA Sectiat 121 prcwides that a ~;;\1 actiat need
not attain ARARs if, for exauple, "the ~hll actiat selected is atly
part of a total ~;;\ 1 actiat that will attain such level or stardard
of CXI'1trol W'hen c::x::mplete, ..."
2.12. ']he O::mnittee is CD1fident that a remedy can be developed which meets
the requirements of CERCIA an::! the NCP but which will not require the
extensive and UI"IIIal1ted diEuptiat to the local CXIIIIUnity ard the potentially
unwarranted expel lditures at questiatable hardware ard ~ technology.
Respcnse '2:
2.1. EPA recognizes the g%aJp of PRPs that has fomed. EPA does not believe
the remedy ~.~ by the g%aJp meets all legal requirements or is more
protective than the remedy ~.~ or selecta:i by the EPA. See respcrISeS
to the rest of 0:mDent '2 below for~.
2.2. 'Ihis ~ of the letter states that the EPA' s ~. ~.a6ed remedy
fails to meet the legal criteria of a:RCIA and the !D. It is EPA's
positiat that the remedy dces meet the legal criteria of both amcA an:! the
NCP. '!he ~~ Plan ard the selected remedy statec1 within the Recx)rd of
Decisiat (1Q) have been established under the guidelines of a:RCIA and the
!D. Points in which this ~UISI1t letter state that the EPA's remedy does
not CXIIply with CDaA and/or the !D are addressed in the follcwin;
paragrapw.
2.3. ']he att.ad1menta to the ~&t letter have been received and reviewed
by the Ea.
2.4. '1hi8 letter is part of the Respa lSiveness SUnIDary, at:t:ad1ed to the
RD for th8 West ICL Aveme landfill, and has been made part of the
Administratiw RecoId for the site.
2.5. 1h8 U.S. EPA does not agree with the statements made in this
~. As mentimecl above ard within this respollse, EPA feels that the
selected remedy c:alplies with CDaA, the!D, ard State requirements.
2.6. Most, if not all of Q:Iunty's data, that was sutmitted to the EPA, is
included in the Administrative Record. Please refer to the Administrative
Recorc1 SaDplirq/t8.ta Imex for the West ICL Averue landfill. '!he irdex
states that the doct-rtts are not ccpied (because of the size of the data
files) but may be reviewed at the U.S. EPA ReCJiat V Offices in arlcago. As
-------
15
a matter of fact, the PRP's cx:ntractor, G&M, did review EPA's file that
oontaWed the o:urt:y's data. '!be iroex has several entries rega.rd.i.rg the
data received fraD the o:urt:y: for exaJIple, page 2 of the 4/27/88
SaJrpl~ta Irdex shc1.'s that test well results fran 1980 until March 1986,
frcm Tri~L.a-Kal. Q). 8:1. of Catmissimers was entered :into the record.
Also, a sectien of the RI Report, Sectien 5.4.5, oaIP"re5 RI grcurdwater
data with the data SUWlied by the Ka])'I1"="''oo o:urt:y Health Depa.rtJDent.
0;11;',.; of oerta..i.n major tedmical flaws affect.in; the remedy d1oioes are
witb:IUt merit. Iandfill size and grcurdwater flail calculatioos have been
presented as c:xn;ervative estimates based en the specific data reported in
the RI ani FS, so that the estimates wculd net urderstate the remedy
requirements. Alt:b:u;Jh EPA has stated that the actual grcurdwater pmpirq
rate can net be determined until a pmp test is perfomed, the grcurdwater
flail data is adeqUate to deteJ:mine which grcurdwater remedy to select.
a:u.h::;:ot.adinqly, the landfill size estimate may also be revised based upc:n
further data. In regard to the affidavits of Mr. woolf and Mr. Balkema, and
G&M's claim that the landfill is cnly 60 acres in size, EPA and its
cx:ntractor based the size of the lardfUl en historical aerial ~
and top=.jraphic maps. At a mi.niDJm, EPA believes the size of the landfill
that will be required to be carpM is 71 acres. OYerlawirq of the sides to
assure proper c:awin;, and the qeneral tA:9='9caphy of the landfill cxW.d
in::reaSe this total. EPA'. cx.ntractar c::hcse the c:xn;ervative nmD!r of
acres to be a-~ at 83.
2.7. EPA has followed the requirements of CERC[A am the Na'. '!be
cxmnenter cites to several CDCIA and to prcvisioos and addresseS them in
subseqUent paragraphS. EPA's specific r~~ are provided in the
foUCIWin:; paragraphS. '1be descriptien of the NCP requirements is JDr8
acxurately pravided in the NCP, 55 Fed. Rea. 8702 (MarCh 8, 1990). '1be NCP
provides nine I'E!II81y selectien criteria to asr'~ ~ a pLGPJ6ed
~i,,1 plan is cx:n;istent or c:x:aplies with the NCP. 1SL. '1be NCP also
provides ~~n-es in ~lyin; the criteria and explanations of these
criteria. ~, off-site transpOrtatien of hazarda.1s wastes is
d.isc:cUraged by the EPA' tut that dces net mean that off-site transpOrtatien
is net aoceptable. '1his altemative wculd be a:nsidered in the ocntext of
the nine selectien criteria. EPA has net ignored aIrf pravisioos of CERClA
or the NCP in select.in) the ~i"l actien for this site. '1be Pi.- ~
Plan and th8 IG) desCri}:Ie hew eac:b of the ~ints raised in this paragraph .
was addr e -'""-'.
2.8. 'Dw~ cites to the NCP an1 CDaA criteria preferri.nq the
~iAl alternative whien nr"- the volume, tcDd.city or1llCbility of
~ sutst:anceS, ~llutants and ca1taminantS thrCU;Ih treatJDent.
}fcwBYer, this criterien does net stand alae. It is ae of five criteria
wighted against CD! another to deteJ:mine wen of the altematives
satisfyin:;J the two threshold criteria will ocnstit:ute the preferred
alternative. 40 em 3oo.430(f) (1) (i), 55 Fed.Rea. at 8850. a:.mequently,
siJlply by r1jcq;w-in:;J of ,wastes off-site as a result of treatirq grcurdwater
at the site, dceS not make the prq:a;etI I'E!II81y or the selected I'E!II81y "not
in accardanCe with the law." EPA prefers to be able to pm:manently treat
wastes cn-site, tut this camet always be a
-------
16
off-site, Sectioo 121 Cd} C3} of CEJQA states, "In the case of arrj rem::Nal
or ~i~l actioo involvin;J the transfer of arrj ha..zardoJs substance, or
pollutant or cc.ntaminant offsite, sud1 ha..zardoJs substance or pollutant or
cc.ntaminant shall ooly be transferred to a facility whien is cper.at.in;J in
CXIIpliaroe with sectioo 3004 an:! 3005 of the SOlid Waste Dispoeal Act C..}
an:! all awlic:able State requirements. SUd1 substance or pollutant or
cc.ntaminant my be transferred to a land tii~l facUity ooly if the
President detem.ines that bath of the followi.n:;J requirements are met: CA}
'!be unit to ..mien the hazardous substance or pollutant or cc.ntaminant is
transferred is net .releasirq any hazardous waste, or cx:n;titue.nt thereof,
into the grcun:iwater or surface water or soU: and CB) All such releases
fran other units at the facUity are beirq u..tl.olled by a axrective action
plograD1 awroved by the Administrator under subtitle C of the SOlid Waste
D~l Act." In additioo to these restrictia'1S any sl\D;Jes or residuals
projl1~o) by the a'1Site treatment will need to be tested to deten1ine whether
they EOOlibit the ~ toxicity cmracteristic C~) for cx:n;tit:uents
regulateci by the Ian:t.Disposal Restrictia'1S CUR;) as citeci in 40 em 268.
EPA has fully tij c:n,.........,.:e the remedy selec:tioo criteria in the P~' ~ Plan
an:! the RX).
(j
2.9. '!he citeci pravisioo provides EPA with CXIIplete discretioo, in ca1traSt
to a legal requirement, to select a remedy wd1 does net CXIIply with one of
the threshold criteria, where EPA makes a specified fi.n::1.in;. EPA has net
made any of the specified fin:lin;Js citeci by this CXIIIDel1t. In partio.1lar,
there is no indica.tioo that iJlplementatioo of the lA' ".osed or selected
remedy will produce any greater risk to human health or the envL.UlIIId1t than
any of the other alternative cptia'1S. 'Ihe sludges prW"'-' by grcun::!water
treatJDent shculd be in a stable fom and, if handled, transported, and
tii~ of prcperly, will net create any risk, e---iateci with toxicity,
greater than the risk pres =nt:ed by the ccntaminants ~ is Elutly fca.ni within
the grcun::!water. 'Iherefore, ARARs will be met by the selected remedy even
if sludges or other treatJDent derived wastes need to be turther treateci or
tii~ of offsite.
In regard to Sectia1 121 (d) (4) (D), if an alternative is shown to attain a
st:andarci of perfomance that is equivalent to that required under the
otherwise awlica.ble standard, requirement, criteria, or limitatia1, through
the use of another methocS or approach, then it may be selected in place of
the ARAR OCIIpliant alternative. 'Ihe alternative p,,' ~ by this -.aal.ent,
in-situ biat:EIIM.iiat!at, has net been shewn to be to be equivalent in
perfODllill1C8 to that of the !:PA's lA'~ or selected remedy, or any other
ARAR c::r::'q)liant remedy. 'Ihe in-sit11 bi\,l,,~.~iAtia1 alternative, as lA' v~
by this u....-at., is the same as no acticm in regal'ds to the grc::amdWater
OCI1taminaticm, since the CD1taminaticm is allowed. to naturally at:tenJate.
en this basis, the risk caused by the OCI1taminaticm within the grcun::!water
will be the same as ~t is lAU!latad within the Risk Ass---,t in the RI
ani this shews that if no-ecticm (or in-sit11 bi,"",~.~iAtioo) is taken, the
risk levels will be above acceptable state and federal levels. EPA has,
however, d1csen to cx.nsider an enhanced fom of the bioremediaticm as its
selected remedy. see the RX) for the details rer:JiU'dirq the selected
remedy .
-------
17
2.10. EPA does nJt agree that the group's reasdy of in-situ bio~;"'tia1
will meet all the O..uJtessia1al maro.ate5 and be m:>re protective of PJblic
health than the EPA's selected remedy as d.i!=l""""....,...-1 in r~~ to this
c:x:muerrt. In aati tia1, the grcup's ~.~ reasdy of an Act 641 equivalent
lan1fill o:Ner does nJt exmply with the proper closure of a landfill that
acoeptec1 hazardcuS wastes (Michigan CXI1Sistently has awlied their Act 64
closure regulaticrs a1 landfills, sud1 as West KL Averue I.an::lfill, that have
acoeptec1 hazardous wastes), oor does it adecpately address the c:x:rrt:.aminan
that ~ dri.nk:i1'1g water ~ as set by the Federal Safe Dri.nk:i1'1g
water Act or Michigan Act 307. Also, see the ~ to 2.9.
2.11. Ra:spa !SlY' to caments within this paragraP1 are broken dcM1 into the
follawin;:
A. Risk ~isat
i. Bath federal and state regulaticrs state that a selected remedy
will be protective of human health, welfare, and the envi.ra'1lDent. To
detemine if a remedy is warranted, actual or potential risks are
evaluated, as dens within 'the Risk Ass-....-.,t porticm of the RI. At
the West I(L Averu! Ian:1fill, bath actual and potential risks have been
fcun to be unacceptable to bath the EPA and the MrNR. 'n1e risk is net
CXI'1Sidered hypothetical bIt real, because ocntaminaticm is in the
grcun:iwater, which at ~ time was suitable for dri.nkin; bIt is R)
l~. EPA does net believe that its selected remedy will create a
greater risk than presented by the ocntaminaticm at the site.
ii. 'n1e CXIIbinaticm of the Risk Ass~....-.,t in the RI and the FS
adequately addressed the limited and R) acticm altematives. 'n1e NCP
requires a "site specific baseline risk as'''-~.r1t to c:ha.racterize the
current and patential threats to tuDDan health and the envira1ment that
may be p:sed by CXI1taminants migrati1'l; to grcurd water.. . " 'n1e Public
Healt1VEl1VL.,.uueutal Risk Assv....-.,t, 01apter 7 of the RI ~,
UP! es')nts the baseline risks pres EJnt at the site n:JW and if R)
ran-ihll acticm is cx:n:!ucted at the site. See also Secticm 1.3.3 of
the FS. 'n1e baseline risk a!'~~....-.,t ~tes that bath the
carcin:genic and n:n-carc~c risks sut:stantially ~
"acceptable. risk levels. '1b8 EPA fiJ:mly believes that bath the No
Actian altemative and the Limited Acticm altemative will net ad:h'ess
th8 ~!:fW~ and tut:ure risks at this site and, therefore, the Risk
Ass! -~ ~~eseuts the ~tive risk a'!'''~~ for these
altematives. Q:n;ecpmtly, EPA has det:ermined that sm:. neither the
No Acticm or the Limited Acticm achieves the ARARs for the site, as
menticnsd in Secticm 4.4.2 of the FS, that these altematives WOJlcl net
be as protective of human health, welfare, and the envircnDent as '-Ollcl
the altematives that incl\de sail! dt:aJt'ee of ~iAl acticm. In
regcmi to the statement within this c:x:muerrt that R) cne has utilized
the aquifer as a sc:urce of clri.nkin;J water for years, irdicates that the
prc::blem is seriCUI since this acpifer m::e was a sc:urce of drinkin;J
water for the surran:1iJ'r;J CCIIIII.D'\ity. ~ to the quiclelines
within the NCP, the c;ra.niwater at and near the sita may be classified
as a Class II-A aquifer, grcun:iwater that is currently bein;J used as a
-------
18
drinkin:1 water scuroe, and treatJDent is preferred. 'lhe aquifer is net
~ utilized in the i~;;.te area of the site, bIt it is utilized
both up and down gradient of the site. AocordirIq to aa:tA and the
prea1Ii:>le of the NCP, EPA 1IIJSt CCI'ISider the current as well as patential
uses of the groun:lwater. Natural attenJaticm (as \/CUld be in a No
Acticm or Limited Acticm alternative) is generally t",o. ....-dad a1ly
when active restoraticm is not practicable, cost-effective, or
wan:anted because of site cx:ntiticms (such as Type III aquifers), or
\IIhere natural atteruaticm is expected to reduce the OCII JOentzaticm of
oc:rrt:aminants in the groun:lwater to the ~i "ticm goals in a
reascrable timeframe. EPA dces not believe artj of these cx:ntiticms or
situaticms are present at the site.
,"
Hi. Altb::u;h EPA is cxn::emed with artj risk that may be associated
with the t1:u::k traffic that will be caused by the c:2R)in:J of the
landfill, that type of risk cannot not be carpared to the risk that is
caused by the c:x:I1taminants at the site. See 40 em 3oo.430(d) (4),
\IIhere the risk ~..-C"t'''"''W!I'It is to characterize the risk "PJ6Ed by
oc:rrt:aminants migratinq to graJnd water ..." '!he risks caused by the
extra t1:u::k traffic will be tellp:)nu:y (lastinr; the 2-3 years that the
landfill cap installaticm will take) and shculd cause minimal
aa:uticmaJ. risks to residents if IU-~ drivin:J prec:auticms are taken,
as shculd be \iIheneYer aw drives. '!he risks presented by the
oc:rrt:aminants present within the groun:lwater will likely cx:nt:.inJe unless
saae ~;,,1 acticm is taken to ~.I.ect the prcblem. EPA's R:JD
describes the method in ~c:b the rea!dy was selected to address the
ccntaminaticm at the site.
iv. '!he RI Report, 01apt:er 7 ccnt:ains the baseline risk a"'''~....-,t for
this site.
v.
No respcrIS8 to ~at needed.
vi. No respc:nse to ---aat needed.
vii. No respclase to ~at needed.
viii. EPA is cxn::emed with artj ham ar c:limupticm to the CXIIIIIJnity
~c:b my be caused by the iJlplementaticm of the selected remedy, and
EPA tries to minimize these additicml risks and disIupticrs wben
selec:tin; a remedy that is still protective of buman health, welfare,
and the enviraInent, and attains ARARs. HaweYer, the "[r] isk
~---,t provides a cc:nIistent ptooess far evaluat.in; and dco.1mentin;J
tbreats to human health and the envL.",,_lt pos.s by hazardcus
materials at the site", NCP Prea1Ible 55 FR 8709. '1he baseline risk
8S't'~--,t is specifically to docI~ existin:;J and pX.ential threats
pos.s "by oc:rrt:aminants." 40 em 300.430 (d) (4) .
ix. '!he EPA 1IL1St make ocnsexvative estimates in developing the
,baseline risk a.....---,t in order to assure prot.ecticm to human health
and the envh""auo:alt, and in doin:J so is foll~ the p:~qes within
the Risk Assoo~ guidance. Even tb::u;h at present time no aw is
-------
19
c1irectly e:xposed to c:x:rltamil)ated. grca.n:!water, as the o::mmenter stated
in v. alxNe, potential risk DIJSt be detem.ined. In additiCl'\, the
baseline risk as'r'~-.,t is oot the proper place to o:n;ider
institutiCl'\ill oa1trOls, if arrj exist. 55 FR 8710. O:nsEquently,
future scenarics such as wells beirq installed near the site, ar the
CCI'1taminatiCl'1 plume spreadin; either horiza1tally into areas
previously oot CXI'1taminated or vertically into the deeper
unccntaminated aquifer are a oc:rrem.
x. As mentia1ed alxNe in Iespa15e to paragraph 2 .ll.A. i., EPA does
net cxnsider the risk posed by CCI1taminants to be hypothetical.
OXItaminatiCl'\ is present in the upper aquifer at an:l near the site, an:l
the upper aquifer in the site area CI'1CB was used as a source of
drink:ing water by neighborin;J property owners. Acccmii.nr:) to the NCP, a
~;A' actiCl'\ far a site DJSt be both pratective of 1nmIan health am
the erwL.\oIIauent ana attain~. o.t~fectiveness kJe.. ..- an issue
to be balanced against fCA.1r ather factors (e. CJ., lcn;-tem
effectiveness) after it is detem.ined the alteJ:natives bein; cxnsidered
have met the protectiveness ana ARAR requirements. EPA included in the
final NCP its expectatiCl'\S to better articulate the ci:)jectives of the
~~aIII. 55 FR 8707. '!he IqerCy expects to retum usable
"grca.n:!waters to their beneficial uses whereVer practicable, within a
time fr2Ime that is reasamble qiven the particular c~ of the
site." ~' S300.430(2) (1) (iii) (F). In regards to creating additional
risks to PJblic safety, refer to 1:~ 2.ll.A.vili atxJve.
xi. '!be cptiCl'\S as reo ~,...ATded by the o:mnittee do oot attain ARARs,
as det.emined by the EPA am the MtNR, ana do oot protect human health
am the envi.raIIIent. 'lheSe are the threshold criteria that JIIJSt be met
in order far an altemative to be cxnsidered. As mentia1ed above, the
No 1tCtia! ar Limited Actia! altematives have been ~ unac::ceptable
as the rs-1~A' acticns far this site.
B. Deferral of Cecisia! MaJcin;
1. 1he RI phase of the project is meant to cbtain genenl site
specific data sueD as geology ana type ana extent of CXI'1taminatiCl'\.
']he FS takes this data am develops a nmtIer of alteJ:natives to
adch. the particular problem(s) PI!S ented by the CXI1taminatia! at the
8ita. '1b8 panwtiA' Desiqn (RD) p,ase takes whatever remedy was c:hc6en
traI th8 FS (or traD PJblic -..-.esit) ana desiqns hew this remedy will
best work at the site, t.aJcin) into acccunt site specifics. Many times,
a pilot test of the remedy is required to test the ptq)068d ar selected
~. '!his can be da1e during either the FS stage ar the RD phase.
In this case, &aII8 of th8 site specific details need to be det.emined
dL1rin:} the RD, sucb as actual area of lardtill to be 0CYered, or the
acbJal pmpilq rate an:1 best locatia! for the grca.n:!water extractiCl'\
\I8lls.
ii. '1h8 PJblic ~ pericd is for the PJblic to haw an ~~:
to review an:1 -.-aJt a! the EPA/. FS an:1 Plq>~ Plan an:1 participa~...
in the remedy selectia! PIooess. '!he acbJal desiqn an:1 iJrplementaticr.
-------
20
of the selected remedy cx::mes after the PJblic ccmnent period an:l after
the RX> is signed by the EPA's Reqicn1l 1dm.ini.strator. If the selected
or cc.ntirgent remedies have to be significantly ~ due to
~cabilities or at:her reascrs disawered durin;J the design ~,
any new remedy will again be placed before the PJblic for its review
and ~tt.
ill. '!he PJblic ccmnent period for the West XL AVenJe landfill ex1:.erded
fraD June U thrc:u3h ~ 10, 1990. Dlrinq this period, the PJblic
'alaS asked to review and ccmnent net a'lly at the P1"q)o6ed Plan but also
at the FS. '!he selectiat of a remedy has been based at the data
presented within these doo--rts, alCDJ with the ~-1'1ts c:x:nt.ained
within the 1dm.ini.strative Record, ~cb is also available to the
PJblic. Any data that needs to be deYelcped within the RD, such as
the p.mpinq rate of. the extract.iat wells, or the J"JJDiJer or extract.iat
wells, is ext:ranecus to the actual decisiat of ~t alternative ~cl
. be selected to acbieve the clear1JP goals as stated by state and federal
ARARs. As stated abcYe in 2.11.B.il, . if the selected or cc.ntirgent
remedies are significantly c::han;ed because of any iJlplementatiat
problems cJisccverecl clurinq the RD, then the pmlic will again have the
qIpOrtunity to review and ...-...:a"It at any new alternative remedy W'hicb
may be selected.
C. ClearJJp St:.amards:
i. !:PA's p~.~ Plan repeat.eclly stated that the cleanJp goals or
target cleanJp levels are the state and federal ARARs, W'hic:hever is
JII:)J:e st.rin;Jent. Table 2-1 of the FS stated probable cleanJp levels
for the CXI'1t.aminants of cx:r.cem. '!be RX>, Table 4, also inticates the
cl~ standarcls that will apply to the remedy.
il. ' At the very least, the clearup goals for grcundwater need to meet
the stamards as set by the federal Safe DriJ1kinq Water Act and, if the
state has more strin;Jent regulatiat, qenerally. these IIL1St be followed.
Newly praD.1lgated Michigan Act 307 establishes 3 types of cl~
levels, Type A (total rest.aratiat), Type B (clearup to lXJ.0-6 or
equivalent health based levels), or Type C (site specific cleanJp
levels). Far this site, Type B clearup is selected, as explained in
the IQ) and in the MDIR's ocncurrence letter for the !:PA's Pl.. tJOSEd
¥.Um. .
ill. Refer to response 2.11. C. ii aI:IoYe.
iv. Refer to respc:rse 2.11.C.ii abc7.Ie.
V.
Refer to l1!:SpCI'\S8 2.U.c.i and ii at:Iov8.
D. Act 641 as the Pl~ cappin) MAR
i. '!be MDIR has cxnsistent1y awlied HI Act 64 to landfills that have
aooepted hazardous wastes and have been at the Natia'\al Priorities
List (NPL). MI Act 641 and Act 64 are net cxnsiderec1 cxnf1ictinq
-------
21
requirements bIt a1eS that are in SRJOO""""""ia'l to each other. For this
site, since ha..zardaJs ~ were acx:epted for d;~' at the
lardfill am the gro.Jl'dwater is c:art:.aminated by the wastes within the
lardfill, Act 64 shcu1d am does take p~ CNe:r Act 641. If the
site accepted ha..zardaJs ~ after 1980, then the Act 64 is
awlicable: if the site accepted ~ wastes prior to 1980, ~ch
is c:1ooJment.ed at west XL AvenJe Ian1fill, then Act 64 is relevant and
awrc:priate. 'lhi.s is CXl'\Sistent with the requirements of the NCP.
Cost-effectiveness is balan:::ed against fo.u: other factors a1J.y after
pat.ential remedies are protective of p1blic health and oaxply with
ARARs. In this case, Act 641, an ARAR since it deals with the closure
of mnicipal solid waste lardfills, does net achieve the stamards as
set by Act 64, the ARAR that is relevant for this site, since the site
accepted hazarocus wastes, as c:1ooJment.ed in the ldministrative Record.
It is also ~riate because there are wastes of high taxicity fc:un:i
at am near the site..
ti. No~ to u.uauI!iII~ needed.
ill. No~ to ~ needed.
iv. Act 641 is a pctential.ARAR as stated abcYe in respc:nse 2.11. D. i.
aJt Act 64 is also a pctential ARAR ard is the State requirement that
has been detemined to be relevant an1 ~\'~date for this site.
v. 'Ibis site was net designed ar licensed to be a hazarocus waste
lan:lfill, bIt it did acx:ept hazarocus waste far di~'. 'Ib8 PRP
Calmittee has even provided the EPA with eviden:B to this effect, in
the attEllpt to get. DDr8 PRPs involved in the ~. As stated abcYe
in ~ 2.U.D.i, Act 64 is an ARAR because it is relevant ard
awrcPriate. ']he laRifill did net receive a pemit to operate fran
1974 to its closure in 1979. (In fact, ~ the laRifill was
cperatin:J the MrNR did order by letter that licpid waste net be
~ after JanJarf 12, 1972, Cut available evidence ~ that
liquid wastes oa1tinJed to be d; v--' at the site beyad the date of
that order. RI ~"t, sectic:n 1, P8qe 7/12)
vi. See abaY8 1.~~.
E. RIIDBdy selectic:n Factors:
i. Aa per the NCP, 1300.430 (f) (1) (i) (A)-(C).
ti. EPA does net agree that the No A.ctic:n and the Limited A.ctic:n
altematives achieve~. Please refer to the FS and rc=pcnse
2.11.A.ii abcNe. EPA can net p:ssibly list ar array all possible
remedies that \ICUld achieY8 ARMs nar is it required to. See 40 em
300. 430 (e) (7) (ti) and 55 m 8714 (Mard1 8, 1990). 1ha FS i&3S9I'Its a1J.y
these remedies which WJ:8 detm:mined to best meet th8 r--'b1 act.ic:n
objectives based c:n site specific c:t1araeteristics. EPA does net ~
lieve that the law's ARAR requ.i.rementS have in artf way been ~~ly
inteJ:preted: refer to u.uudats abcYe dealirg with the ARAR issue.
-------
22
iii. No respcnse to ~ needed.
iv. The FS, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 explain the
No Actia1 and Limited Actia1 alternatives for gro,udwater and lan:ifill
cx:rrt:.a.i.nDe. SectiC2\ 4.4.2 and Table 4-4 explain that the No ActiC2\
and the Limited ActiC2\ Alternatives for bath gro,udwater and lan:ifill
rem::dies does not achieve ARARs. '!he landfill caver material, as
descri}:)ed in the RI (~A-4, 'l'ed1nic::al MelIx)rardJm RE: R1ase III,
Test Pit Installatia1), varies in depth fraD 0.5 to 2 feet thick and
awears to be DDStly san:!y soil. '!here is little eviden::e of
cxmpacted clay or hardened bent.arlte in the areas that were test-
pitted. 'Ihis shews that the No ActiC2\ for the landfill cap will not
suffice, and that the Limited ActiC2\ alt.emative would incl\X3e totally
up;radinq the caver since the present cap does not even exmply with the
stardart1s of Act 641. As for No ActiC2\ or Limited ActiC2\ in dealin;J
with the gro,udwater CD1taminatiC2\, these situations would result in
s;1IInar risks as c:utlined in the Risk Ass~"""""1'1t, which are
unac:x:eptable, (as descr:ibec1 in the RI; FS and in respa~9S above), to
the EPA and the MI:NR. '!he landfill cap and naturally oa:urrirI;J
bi~btia1 in the gro,udwater fail to adequately address exi.stin;
CXI'1tami.nants in the gro,udwater.
v. In-situ bim:--1; ;!ItiC2\ was evaluated by the EPA in the screenirq
loflooe:SS within the FS. At present, bi~;;!ItiC2\ is naturally
oa:urrirI;J within the CD1taminatiC2\ plume, but the CXI'1tami.nants, after
10 years, are still above acceptable levels. '!he FS, Figure 2-2,
states that in-situ biolcqical treatment would net be effective for the
low level ccntaminatiC2\ fa.n1 in the site gramdwater. '!he RJD has
Z-.AA:lISidered the use of enhanoed-biu.&.-...:.It;;!ItiC2\, however, due in part
to the -.-..uents received durin:) the PJblic '-"'UalCi'Jt period. Please
refer to the RJD far details. The argument regarding Act 641 as an
ARAR has been d;~--.4 in abaYe respellSes.
vi. 'Ibis ocmnent, believed to be refereR::ln:J CERICA SectiC2\ 121(d) (4) ,
has misinterpreted aa::rA. ARARs exist far both landfill cavers and
for the addressinq of CD1taminatiC2\ within the gramdwater. 'l11ese IIIJSt
all be met by the selected remedy. SectiC2\ 121(d) (4) lists six
possible approames of when not meetin;J ARARs is acceptable: A) '-/hen
mJ:e writ, or an c:perable unit, will be ocn::Iuctecl in the future to
CCIIpleta a l'eIIdy, B) cxmpliance with the ARM \a1ld result in greater
risk to bJman health and the envircnlent than other optia1S, C)
CXIIpliance with ARARs is ted1nically iJlpracticable fraD an en;ineerirq
perspective, D) the selected r--i;;!I1 actiC2\ will equal or better the
stamaJ:d of perfoz:mance of the ARAR remedy, E) the state has net
ccnsistently appliecl the ARAR, or F) in the case ofax--4iJlll actia1
to be undertaken solely under sect.iC2\ 104 usinq the !\JnI1, and the
select:.icm of a rernedia1 actiC2\ that attains ARARs will net provide a
balaJX8 between the need for protectiC2\ of PJblic health ar welfare,
and the er1VUo..n.ent at the facility under cx:nsideratiC2\, and the
availability of amounts fraD the !\JnI1 to J:espcn1 to other sites whid1
~~ent ar may present a threat to PJblic health or welfare, ar the
-------
23
envira"ment, taki.rq into cxrisideratia1 the relative i~i ~ of such
threats. EPA believes that na1e of the aboVe are ~licable in this
case.
vii. <:n! of the pnpcses of the lardfill cap is to reduce the au::unt
of CDrt:aminatia1 read1ilg the graJrdwater, tJut the lan:ifill also needs
to be ~rr-' to attain the closure requirements that are stated by
AFARs (Act 64). 'Ihe graJrdwater remedies are designed to accelerate
graJrdwater clean..tp to aooeptable levels. 9j placirq the Act 64 cap a1
the lardfill, the lerY;Tth of time required to p.mp an:! treat the
CDrt:aminated graJrdwater has been ~-=rl. EPA, as mentia1Sd above,
has 1.~lSidered' the use of bioremediatia1, am has rep1aoed the
preferred grcamdwater remedy, as stated within the PI.~aw' Plan (PC7IW
or UV~ aKidatia\) with enhanced biul.~.M;J'IItia\ utilizin:) fixed-
film bioreactors. In regards to the citatia\ to Sectia\ 121, refer to
r.:spcn18 2. U. E. vi above.
2.12. '1his~ has been answered in the a:I1text of respcng~ 2.1-U
abaYe.
o..-.ent . 3:
(Att.ad1ment to o..-.cnt '2 IBtter, aM ~ by the
docI~ entitlej, "Review of USEPA PL~ Alternatives am
P1,. ~,.,-1 of AdditicnU NCP CcIIpliant P--'tiJ'll1 Alt.eJ:natives
far IDplement.atia1 at the West I(L Averu! landfill"):
, '
A. Grc:un:lwater o...w.nts:
3.A.1. '1be EPA calculatia\ of hydraUlic ccn:h.1ctivity far the aquifer
umerlyin) the site is based CI'1 eu"'~ data. 'Ihe highest cx:n:U::tivity
value detemined durin;J the RI (104.7 feet/day) ws selected as the basis
far estab1ishinq grcmdwater flow rate par8IIIBterS despite the fact that the
RI states that this val\8 is subject to substantial intrinsic enar. ']be
EPA is ~ to justify selectiCl'1 of the hicjhest cx:n:U::tivity (104.7
feet/day) as the I.~ esentative value to establish grcamdwater flow rata
parameters.
3.A.2. Analysis by GQI in:licat.ea that a mere realistic hydraUlic
cxn::!uctivity val\8 of 20 fest/day shculd tie utilized to I.~esmt the
c::baracteristics of the aquifer in the absenC8 of pmp results. EPA is
request.8d to justify 'bi the RI did net incl\X5e a p.mp ~ an! Vrf, \oben a
rum:.r of data wre available to d8rive representative hydraUlic
cxn::!uctivity values, a Il101"8 realistic value of hydraUlic ocn:!uctivity was
net selected to establish gran:lwater flow rata parameters.
3 .A. 3. '!here are significant iDplicatiCftl in utilizin;J 104.7 fest/day as
the hydraUlic ccrductivity value rather than th8 realistic value of 20
feet/day. Based em a hydraUlic. ccrductivity valua of 104.7 feet/day, th8
EPA dstemined that far th8 x-n-'iA1 altmnatiV8 iz~pxatinq gran:lwater
~, the resultant gran:lwater ret::OI8rf rate ~d be 2,000 gallcns per
mimt.e (gpD). Utilizin;J a more realistic valua of 20 feet/day, GQI
detezmine that the resultant reo::Nerf rata Wt'Alld be ~te1y 500 gpn.
It is requested of EPA to identify hoW this significant difference in the
-------
,',
24
estimated grourdwater rec:overy rate would iDpact the l'J.JIIiJer of required
extractiat and re.injectiat wells, sizin; of grourdwater treatment units,
duratia'1 of q:eratiat and maintenance, and ccsts of grwrdwater reccNerj am
treatment alternatives.
3.A.4. By a;plyin; a Dme tepllSb.itative grourdwater reccNerf rate of 500
gpD, the estimated time it wculd take to r--'t;:oIIte the c;ramdwater would be
significantly len;tnened. EPA is requested to identify and 1)1\"'--'" the
iJrplicatiatS of a substantially lengthened rea:NerJ period em the
evaluatiat of grourdwater r--'t;:oIItiat alternatives. In-situ bior--'tbtiat
shculd be included as part of the grourdwater r--'t;:oIItiat alternatives that
need to be re-evaluated based em a significant increase in the estimated
time required to r--'t; :oIIte the grourdwater utilizin; puIIp and treat
t:.edmology .
3.A.5. EPA has p~ a capital and q:eratin:;J intensive remedy far
grourdwater that incorporates 5 to 7 rec:overy wells, 3 re-injectiem wells,
and cm-site UV/Oxidatiem treatment, should discharge to th8 iOlW not be
allowed. In light of the data available and the ~CI'18 regarc1ing the
probable rate of grourdwater capture, the cost estimates pr! =- mted far the
lo'l.' ~ grourdwater remedy may not fall within the goal of pravi.dinq ccst
estimates of -30 to +SOt of the actual costs incurred t::Ner the duratiem of
the r--f; Atiem effort. EPA is requested to A"'-~. the acr::w:acy of the
ocst estimates far the ~.~ grourdwater remedy ccnsiderinq the
iJrplicatiatS of a lower, but ume realistic, grourdwater rec:overy rate and
a Im;)8r cperatin:;J lifetime.
3.A.6. '1he al:IoYe mentiated capital and cperatinq intensive grourdwater
remedy has been ~.~ by EPA even thcugh there are no known sources of
d1sDical releases, suct1 as b.ilk liquid ar dnmIDed d1sDical wastes,
ocnta.ined within the Oattines of the landfill. EPA is requested to justify
selectiem of the ~.~ grcurdwater remedy in light of the fact that there
are no known scm'C88 of chemical releases ccntained within the CXI'1fines of
the landfill.
3 .A. 7 . EPA has not thorcugh1y identified the ramificatiCl1S of c:tischarqin;
art! reocvered grcurdwater to the lcx:3l PC71W, mien has been identified by
the 1qerr::y as a viable tJ:eabDent and "i ~] cptiat in li81 of cn-site
grourdwater tJ:eat:ment and re-injectiat. EPA is requested to identity and
asti~" the patent.ial raificaticm, 1n:l\.l!1rq both shcrt- ancI lcn:t"tetm .
effects to transmissiat an:! tJ:eablent: capacity, that walld result fraD
disc:harqinq ~ to 2,000 9PD of reocvered grcurdwater to the iOlW and hew
these ramificatic:nl bpct the bplementability .,p----Jt, of the
grcurdwater reaNerf and tJ:eat:ment altematives.
3.A.8. '!he PS "iCU"'l--es clearI.JP objectives far t:h8 grcurdwater as a
tunctiem of reccverinq the grourdwater at a now rate of 2,000 9PD CNer a 6
year period. EPA is requested to explain hew the grcurdwater cleanJp
objective was devised and to ~t degree it reflects the enfcnoeaent of
ARARs.
-------
25
3 .A. 9. Based cm the data presented in the RI, as well as recent groundwater
sanpli.r'g data, the CXI1Cer1traticn; of o:ntaminantS in the groundwater shaw a
definite decreasi.r'g trerd. 'Ihis decreasi.r'g trerd, 8'hic:h 0C0JrS CNer the
full areal extent of the plume of affected groundwater, is JOOSt likely the
result of naturally cxx::urrirg bicdegradaticm. EPA is requested to justify
'fkr/ in-situ bior\s'm,:,~'H1!Iticm, 8'hic:h is highlighted in EPA/s Srn:: Pt~Law an::l
offers the benefits of in-situ reducticm to the taxicity, m::bility, an:\
volume of hazardcus 0CI'1taminants, was net analyzed as a viable groundwater
r--f; 1!Iticm alternative in the FS.
3.A.10. Despite the fact that substantial data exist dcoJmentirq
CXI'11:.ira.1in iJlprcvement in groundwater q.W.ity within the extent of the
plume, the FS does net cxnsider the iDpacts or iDplicaticn; of a1gOin;J in-
situ bior--f;1!Iticm. In-situ bioloqical treatment can be viewed as
innavative an:\ proven when cx:mpared with ~ reactor-based
treatment. EPA is requested to answer \Ihether the effectiveness of
naturally oc:x1lI'I'irg bioloqical treatment is diminished by the fact that it
is net CM!I'tly driven by ccstly med1anicaJ. influences.
3.A.U. O\-Site, ~ ~ bioloqical treatment is a
viable treatment alternative for I'Elll'Ving the 0CI'1taminants CXI"Itained in the
groundwater at the west 1CL site. '1his tec:hnoloqy has been dccumented to be
effective in other related applicat.ic:m. In additia'1, since in-situ
biological dt:q1:adaticn is occurring in groundwater U1"II:5erlying the site, it
is intuitive that ~ ~ biological treatment '8a.lld be .
effective for any recovered groundwater. EPA is requested to justify '-#krj
abave-ground reactar based bioloqical treatment was net given further
ocnd,deraticm during the fS.
3 ,A. 12 . EPA is requested to detemine if naturally occurring bioloqical
activity (i.e., in-situ natural bioremecliaticm) meets £PAIs expectaticm for
treatment as cited in secticn 300.430 of tb8 NCP.
3.A.13. Sectiem 4.1.1. of the Review Report aa:!resses the ilIplicatims of
in-situ natural bi(4a.Ai; 1!Itiem. '1his ptcoess can, em the basis of exi..sting
data, be projected to result in pratectiem of pmlic health and the
envhuauel1t and at:tainDent of ARARs. Upcn turther evaluatiem, the remedy
can be ocnsidered effective CNer the l~ tem and will result in reduction
of toxicity, DlCbility and volume of the 0C'I'1ta1Dinant in the groundwater. In
additiem, in-situ bilol&."I::iI,+'i1!Itiem, either natural or enhar¥:B!, walld net .
result in arf/ 8hort-tena risks, oculd be readily iDplementa1, and walld be
oost-effectiw. As a result, in-situ bilol&.~.A'i1!lticm, either natural or
enhanCSI, 18 a very viable altemative for groundwater ~i1!Iticn at the
West 1CL .ita. EPA ia req.JII!Sted to provide a tull ,,---,t of in-situ
bilol&.-.Aihatian since it has net been ~Jately adI:kessed in tb8 doct~
currently a part of tb8 administrative 1--.\1 file nar was it pns=nted at
the pmlic bearinJ.
3 .A.14. 1he FS evaluates the qJtiat of UV~ axidatiem of
. groundwater ~ and this altemative is xanked seocnd in the dooment.
Res9'i1rd1 da1e by the Steerirg O:mnittee iniicates that UV/axidatic:n is
~imental, urpraven em the scale ~ at the site and for the type of
-------
26
~Jrds, inclu:tirq 1,1, 1 'It::A an:! 1,2 IX::A, expected to be ocntained in the
recovere::i grcun:iwater. '!be ~rt provided in the FS is not l~ !'mtative
of ocniitia1S likely to be ~ at the site. Based at a detailed
review of this treatment technology, G&M has detem.ined that tN/axidatiat
technology is inappIq)riate for grcuniwater treatment due to the operatirq
cx:n:U.tia1S an:! chemical ccnstit:uents expected at the site. It is requested
that EPA provide doo-rrt:atiat of full scale usage of tN/axidatiat as an
effective treatment technology at sites with similar waste d1emistJ:y an:!
flow rates as that expected at the West I
-------
27
EPA is req..ert.ec1 to identify and as-cx,:; hoW a smaller landfill cap area
iDpacts tne evaluatiat of tne develcped landfill cap altematives. In
additiat, EPA is requested to justify 'tkri tne HEIP ~, utilized in tne FS
to deteI'mine the effectiveness of tne variaJS cap desiCjr\S, was nX utilized.
to evaluate tne effectiveness of the existing lanifill c::aver.
3.B.3. DJe to the significant vclume of materials required to ~DL..1JCt a
RCW\-type cap r:Ner the landfill, a heaVy vclume of t.ruck traffic 't/OJld be
necessitated dur~ inplementatiat of tne lardfill cap remedy proposeti 1:1:1
tne EPA. acwever, tne iJrpact at the local CiC1IIIUr\ity relative to tne large
vclume of heaVY txucJc traffic is not addressed in detail in the FS an:1
P£~ Plan. EPA is requested to identify an:1 ~"'-~!C:I. the iDpacts
associated with the large vclume of heaVY t1'Uck traffic that't/OJld be
realized durin;J iJIplementatic:n of a RCW\-type cap.
3.B.4. EPA~ that the lan:1fUl be covered with a RCW\-type cap
and cites as partial justificaticn, the risks involved with the ~cn of
soils by an ~ c::hi1d. acwever, an analysis of traffic statistics shows
significantly CJr8i1ter risk as a result of t.ransport.i1'q or:Ner material to the
site, for bplementin:J a ~-type cap, than the risk associated with the
unlikely event of soil in;Jesticn by an expos-' c::hi1d. EPA is requested to
re-evaluate the lan:1fill caw~ altexnatives CXI'1Sider~ the risks
associated with the heaVy txucJc traffic necessitated for each caw~
altemative.
3.B.5. In light of the ~ and disruptive inplicaticn of haulin; huqe
vclumes of or:Ner material to the site, EPA is requested to justify 'tkri a
less material-intenSive caw~ soluticn, exnsistent with the evaluatia1
criteria cited in the NCP, was not evaluated in the FS.
3.B.6. EPA is requested to CXI!IDI!I1t cn ~ the aaiitiatal risk ard
expense of the 1IIQ1'8 vol\Jll1iJoJS CXM!rS, such as a ~-type cap, are
warranted in light of the expected reduct.icn in infUtraticn. In additicn,
identificatiem is being requested em hoW infiltratiem reduct.iem relates to
health risks.
3. B. 7 . EPA is requested to suamui.ze the attitude of the public regaxdinq
the high volume of heaVy txuck traffic associated with the more vclUlDino.Js
cawirq qJticns, such as a ~-type cap. EPA is also requested to c:x:maent
as to ~ ~M the issue of heaVy txucJc traffic, an:1 its associated risks
to public health, was addreSSed durin:) the public ~ hear~.
3.B.8. '1bre8 cap design altematives are di--,...-rt in the FS based em
refet'el.oBS to Michigan requirements. All 3 caps ~ the tedw)logy
requirements provided by the loqical ARAR (which is HI Act 641) as it
applies to specificaticns for DUnicipal solid~ lan:1fill CXM!rS. In
fact, Act 641 was identified as an ARM in the FS. In light of the levels
of cx:nt:amimtiem ani urdetined nature of waste di ~ at the site, it
appNITS that the site was ~~~ly claSSified for the p.I%'PCS8 of
specityin; cap~. EPA is requested to justity ..my a DUnicipal
lan:1fill cap was not evaluated in the FS ..men M[NR recoI'ds clearly shaW that
-------
28
the lan::lfill predcminantly aca!pted DJJnicipal waste an:! Act 641 was
identified as an ARAR.
3 . B. 9. '!he FS did not evaluate exi.st:.in;J baseline cx::n:ti tias an:! the
projected lead1ate volume, based em infiltratiem t:hraJ;h the existin:;J
lan:lfill a:Ner, that cxW.d potentially affect grc:un::lwater quality.
Aa:xmiin}ly, the a9-~~ of the inadequacy of the landfill's wrrent
a:Ner is unfc:un.:1s1. '!his anissiem transgresses the requirement by SARA fer
the evaluatiem of the No Actiem alternative. EPA is requested to justify
Vry the health risks diffE!.l.euoes beb1een bath the no acti.em alternative an:!
an Act 641 cap were nat ~ to the lan::lfill C3R)in;J scenarios offered
by the EPA. In additiem, EPA is requested to justify Vry the FS did not
analyze the ~ee of C3R)i.n;J ted1noloqies needed to attain ARARs in the
grc::un:iwater .
3.B.10. '!he various cavers prcposed in the FS as meetin;J ARARs should be
cxmpared to no-act1em and DlXiificatiem of the existin:;J cap. Tradeoffs
between infiltratiem reductiem, ocst, and risk are typical in evaluatin;J
C3R)Uq alternatives. '!he FS and PI.' ~ . Plan do not prcvide a reasa'1able
array of alterilatives capable of bei.nq en;ineered for the site. EPA is
requested to justify Vry the FS a\ly evaluated cap ted1noloqies that ~
ARARs am did not ~~ly evaluate cap tec:hnoloqies that meet ARARs.
3.B.U. ':the RI am Risk AsS'-~ do not agree with the FS regaI't\in)
potential risks aCLQlYOiatec1 with exposure to lan::lfill CCI'1taminants. It is
requested of the EPA to justify Vry the FS d;CA.jI. with the Risk
AsS'-~ and, thus, ~'VJ6ed C3R)Uq tec:hnoloqies with 1IIlltiple and
reclun::Jant safety factors?
c. 9 m.-ry o......eI its:
3.C.l. ':the steerin} OCIIIDittee has developed either additicmal analysis of
alternatives developed by EPA or alternatives net cx:naidered 18hic:h are
cx:IIPliant with the recpirEments of the NCP b1t wre net CXI'1Sidered in EPA's
final screenin:) of alternatives in the FS and Pl~ Plan. In the event
EPA is net inclined to turther ocnsider or "ic:rn,u::L these alternatives we
request that. the r_~Qllsiveness SlJnMry cdhaSB, in detail, £PA's perceived
areas of the alternative's IDh.A.uplialD! with requi.rements of SARA and the
NCP.
3. C. 2. Included in the Review Report is a matrix evaluatin;J the
iDplicatiCl'18 of the nine evaluatiem criteria specified in the NCP. Based CX'\
this analysis, the 0CIIIDitt8 has CD1Cluded that in-situ bioremediatiem
coupled with cap \lpgrade shculd be the reo:> ....~1'1ded alternative for
r--JiAtiat of the sitae EPA is requested to provide detailed ~ as
to 'fkrJ this ~i .1 alternative wculd net CCIIply with the NCP.
3.C.3. cmaA and SARA require that. the no act.1at alternative be carried
into the final sc:reeniJ'i) p,ase of the FS. EPA is requestec1 to aplain 'fkrj
ocnsideratiat of the no actiem altemative in the FS was d;_;~ with so
. lit.tle evaluatiat ~ the Risk Ass-~ CD1Cluded that there are no
-------
29
e;ignificant risks associated with air or surface soil expo9Jre and the risks
Ix:sed t:?f leachate generatia'1 were uroefined.
:J.C.4. Based a'1 the evaluatia'1 of the ccmnittee and its cx:rasultants, it
c~ that further evaluatia'1 of alternatives is wrranted prior to remedy
aelectia'\. IsSUe of fact and new informatia'1 are presented such that a
r~..ouse to cxmnents will oot be sufficient to allow the required p.1blic
involvement in arrj subsEqUe1'1t remedy selectia'\. Accord.in;Jly, the ccmnittee
will review carefully the ~1Se to all c:aments to ensure EPA carplianoe
'with p.1blic participatia'1 requirements of SARA and the NCP.
~13:
A. Grc;undwater Q:IIIIeI'1tS:
3.A.1. '1M hydraulic cxrduCtivity, as stated in ~ B of the rs
states that the ~ of hydraulic cxrduCtivity at the site ~ frcm 0.29
to 104.7 ttlday. '1M higheSt value (104.7 ft/day) was used to deVelOP the
most c:xn;er..oative approach and to cx:mpnsate for arrj errors in the data.
Please refer to the rs, ~ B for further reasarln;J at the selectiat of
the hydraulic cxrduCtivity. 'Ihe value JlJaY oot be the beSt representatiat of
the actual hydraulic ocrductivity, b.1t it is ccnsidered the most
c;x:nJeI'Vative value in which to estimate a flow rate. Also, refer to the
I~se to Q.aaIDeI1t ,3.A.8 below.
3.A.2. A pmp test is oot a required part of a ~h,l investigatiat. If
a pmp am treat scenario is c:t1CSen as a ~, the data gathered fran the
RI is used to estimate values such as new rate am pmpirr;J rates that my
be needed. '1M acbJal pmp test is most otten held off until the design or
the CXI'1ductin;J of a pilot test, when the need tor such an involved test is
definitely required. until such a pmp test is c:cn:tucted, the most
c:xn;er..oative ~ is followed,' by usirr;J the higheSt reported values,
then, ,.men the pmp test is c:cn:tucted, Dm'8 aocurate estimates can be
established. 'Ihe tN8 value JlJaY wll be close to the value stated in the
(XIIIIS'It or it may vary greatly traI the value stated in the ocmnent, or eve!'
fraD en! area ot the laJ'l1fUl to anXher.
3.A.3. As mentimed abaYe in ~ 3.A.2., the value used in the rs is a
ccnserVcItive estimate. PI/ usirr;J values such as presented by the ocmnent, or
any ot.h8r value lower than the cxn;erwtive approach, SaD8 c::haJ'I3eS will
0C0Jr in the overall pJIII) ani treat system. '1M 1"A.1IIb!r ot extraetia'\ wlls
my need to c:han:)8, b.1t the aYer8l1 width ot the plume still will need to be
(XI'1tainBcVcaptmed, 80 if a lower pmpirr;J rate is used, mre wells JlJaY be
needed to prcprly CDIfIr the plume. '1ha injectia'\ wells will be cUrectly
prcporticnal to the J'UIi:)er ot exttaetia'\ wells am the total qpn. '1be size
of the treatment units is alsO ~ at the tDtal cwerall qpn ani the
time it will taka to treat that volume of water. 'Ihe ccsts associated wit."'.
the cperatiat am ~ of the system JlJaY be lower annJally, b1t wil:
1ID»'t likely cost just as uu::h or Dm'8 than the estimates within the
~~ Plan due to the len;Jth of tb8 that the puDPirr;J JlJaY be required.
0\I81'8ll, th8 oosts JlJaY be £l(lllSWhat lower for th8 initial c::xXstructiat am
iJlplementatiat of the puDP am treat system, b1t due to the lower pmpin:J
-------
30
rates, the groundwater will have to be pt~ for a lcn::Jer period of time,
so the cx:sts may be ~le or sanewhat higher than previaJSly estimated.
J .A. 4 . See respa ISe 3 .A. 3 ~ the time needed to pl.1Dp the aquifer.
In-situ bio~i"'tien is not a viable ~b1 alteJ:native for this site
since it will not ac:tUeve the cleanJP objectives. '!he use of treatment
t.echrvJlogies can be iIrplemented to help ao=elerate the cleanJP of
groundwater. See the respa ISe to c...w.::nt '2 .ll.A. ii.
J.A.5. '!his cx:mDent is no lcn::Jer pertinent at this time, since the
groundwater remedy has been charged to enharred bio~i"'tiavfixed-film
bioreactars, utilizinq the cost estimates provided by G&M. '!he costs of
the 0CI1t.in;ency remedy, i. e., use of the FOIW, will be SClDe'what different if
the p.mpinq rates are lower than the !:PA's estimated rate of 2000 gpD, 1:ut
this would not be kncwn until the design stage an:! the actual rate an:!
duratien of the pmpi1¥} are kncwn. '!he ccsts of a c:xrrtin;Jency remedy, such
as the use of c:n-site tN~datien treatment, may be saDeWhat higher than
previcu;ly estimated due to the l~ pericxi of time; however initial cx:sts
of c:e.rtain ~ of the enharred bi~i"'tien may be ~lic::able to a
~ remedy, thereby loweri1¥} the ~ oest. For exanple,
beth the enhanced biol~..Mi~tien an:! the tN-cod.da.tien t.echrvJloqies utilize
injectien wells or an intiltratien pcn:!, while the use of the FOIW does not.
J.A.6. 'Ihe landfill is the kncwn source of the cbemical releases in the
landfill area, as stated in the RI in regards to the test pits. See
respa ISe to a........nt '2. D. v an:! the RI.
3.A.7. Basic evaluatic:ns am included within the PS, P1..~ Plan, an:! in
the RX). As the RX) states, the selected groundwater remedy is no l~
the use of the PC71W, l::iut the use of enhanced biodegradatiayfixed film
bioreactors. If the FOIW is to be used, the FOIW would be cx:ntacted an:!
would haVJ! the ~ty to refuse the acceptance of the waste water
based en the isSI~ raised in the ~.
J.A.8. '!he use of 2,000 gpD as the estimated grcun1water extractien an:!
treatment rate is primarily the result of usi1¥} a ocnservative value of 104
ftlday for the hydmulic CXl'ductivity of the shallow aquifer. Groundwater
extractien mcde1.i1¥} perfm:mecl in the PS yielded a pmpi1¥} rate of 1,400-
1,700 gpII, and 2,000 gpD was the rate USEd for sizinq an:! oostin;J treatment .
equipDE!ll1t. It is stated CI\ pac)8 16 of Appen:lix B of the. FS Report that a
puup t:.e£ 18 neoea-TY to tully evaluate the feasibility of ext.ract.irq
groundwatar and establishin:J the p1'q)8r groundwater extractien rate.
Because the RI did not define the ~er characteristics needed to c:xn:1uct
a detailed evaluaticn of a groundwater extracticn system, it was ~"'ary
to make certain JUz.caU'ptic:ns as part of a preliminary feasibility
deteminatien of groundwater extractien and injectien. Qw of these
a~ca"Ttia1S was that the highest cx.n:hJctivity value fraD the RI sluq tests
is representative of acb.1al aquifer d1aracteristics. As stated en Page 1 of
Appendix B of the PS, sluq tests results do not genemlly ~mt for ~
scale variatic:ns in hydraulic cx.n:hJctivity and can often lead to an
umerestimatien of ocrductivity. It was therefore desired in the PS to
utilize a ocrductivity estimate that was as large as rea.sa\ably p:ssible to
-------
31
initially detennine if grcurdwater extractiat was a feasible x--rl;'"
ted'1rX>logy. 1he c:x:muctivity value of 20 tt;day as presented in the G&M
Review ~ is also based at ~C:c::I ~a1S obta.ined fraD the RI slU; test
data. SpeCifically, the ~c:unptiat that "a safety factor of 3 to 5 times
the mean cx:n:11ct:ivity CXIUld ~rcpri.ately c:xmpansate for the terdency of
slU; tests to underestimate cx:n:11ct:ivity" is subject to as JII.1d\ uncertainty
as any cx:n:11ct:i vi ty assuupt.ia\ made in the FS. '!he issue is net ate of
justifyin; a lawer extractiat rate based a'1 a ~~91ected value used in the
FS Report. 1he extractia'1 rate will remain an urde.tined value until it is
detemined 't:1f a p.mp test as 11:IC' ....-.rded in the FS Report. In regard to
what degree the flow rate reflects the enforcement of ARARs, the flow rate
is atly a part of the grcurdwater extractia'1 systEm, ~cn as a ..mole is to
be designed to help achieve ARMs.
3.A.9. Refer to the 1:cSpCIlSe for ~al.ent t2.U.E.v.
3.A.10. Refer to the 1~1S8 for ~ f2.11.A.ii. and 12.11.E.v. Also,
the RI Rq..Qrt and a snllWMlry received fraD Wilkens , Wheata\ Envh\,ll.uelltal
Se%Vioes, datAd AuguSt 10, 1990, shew that several ccntaminants, includin;
benzene ani lead, are increasin; in OCI'...,Qa.t&.Atia'1 in several grcurdwater
JllCl'\it.orinq wells, \!hicn inticates that in-situ bi\,U,'CJ._HAtia'1 is net
addresSin; all of the CD'Itaminatia'1 within the grcurdwater.
3.A.ll. 1he EPA has ~i.dered the use of enhanced bi~);adatia'1 and the
use of ~ bi~ treatment an::l has selected it as its
primary remedy to &lh.ess the grcurdwater CD'Itaminatia'1 at the site. Please
refer to the RX>.
3.A.12. Yes, naturally occmrin) biolcqical activity can be teI'med as a
type of treatment as cited in 1300.430 of the NCP, tut sin:e ather treatJDent
tecmoloqies can help CX'l"ltainlcapture ani treat the c:xritaminant plume
quicker, treatJDent t:.ec:tVIoloqies other than natural atterl2tia'1 are favored.
In additicm, naturally oc:DJrrin; bioloqical activity my net be tully
treatin; ccntaminants within the plume. Please refer to the ~1So8 to
u.aau:nt 3.A.10 abaY8.
3.A.13. Please refer to the KI). Enhanced b~-,~'HAticm has been
selected as the primary grcurdwater treatment method. Refer to the FS ani
IcdpatSge to -......ents above regardinr::) the use of in-situ bi~-.AiiAticm.
3.A.14. 1!18 preferred grcurdwater remedy, as statAd in the !:PA'. ~.~
Plan, has been c:hm;Ied. 1h8 RX) has selected the use of enhanced
bi\,U,~..-IfAt.icm as the t:edmOlogy to cdlress the grcurdwater CD'Itaminatiat at
th8 .ita. If the selected remedy does net acm.eve the cleal'q) goals as
statAd within th8 Ja), ccntin;Jent remedies may be selected to replace or
suwlement the eManced b~~.M;~ticm altemative. a......:..«. as stated is no
laqar pertinent to th8 Ja) at the present tim.
3.A.15.
see I~ 3.A.14 above.
3.A.16. See hdpoUse 3.A.14 abaYe.
-------
32
3 . A.17 . Scme imrganics my still need to be t"Em:Wed prior to beinq
reinjected into the shallow aquifer to satisfy the requireIIents of HI Act
307. In I"E'qaId to the NCP, treatJDent of any type that rer"\I ~ toxicity,
Dd:Iility or volume of waste is in c:arpliance with the NCP. Any slui;Jes or
residuals ~~ as a result of treatment will need to be tested for RCRA
toxicity characteristics ('It:) for cx::nstituents regulated by the land
Disr-="J Restrictia1S (IIR). It may be determined that any slujges prcduced
by the cn-site treatment may require further treatment prior to <:J;~l
off-site.
B. Iarxlfill/Scm'ce a:m.rol a.-.:nts:
3. B.l. 80 acres is a cxnserVcitive n.mi:er based at tq;xqraprical maps and
historical aerial ~ showing areas that were filled. Actual
landfilled land is probably closer to 70-72 acres, J:ut to acocunt for the
tq;xqraprical features of the landfill and the feathering out of the cap,
the CXII'1SeIVative rumtIer of 80 acres was used. 'Ihe size of the cap does net
make any difference in regard to the evaluatiat criteria: Le., the ccsts
~d be p.~tiatally lower for each cawing alternative shculd the area
to be ~ be less than 80 acres. Amounts of truck traffic ~d also
d1.a.n3e pJ:qX)rticnill.y for each cawing alternative.
3.B.2. Refer to respcI'IS8 3.B.l abaYe. In regard to the evaluatiat of the
existing cap, p).ease refer to the respcn;e to ~1I::Itt. f2.11.E.iv.
3.B.3. TIuc:k traffic is a negative part of each of the cawing
alternatives. C»:Iviously, if there were no further cawing, there ~d be
no truck traffic and no risk caused by the 4!XQ"""'''" traffic. 8..It to ccrrectly
cover the landfill aooordin;J to ARARa, and to prevent any further
CD1taminatiat fraD c:1egrad.in) the area'5 grcun:lwater, the cap DJSt be
installed. 'Ihe risks caused by the truck traffic is unfortunate aid will
be kept to a min.im.ma if proper ccnst.ructiat and road regulatiatS are
followed.
3.B.4. TIuc:k traffic will ooc:ur with any of the ARAR~liant landfill
cap alternatives. 'Ihis traffic is a serious cxn:mn to EPA. Less earthen
mt.erial is required for the ~-type cap than for the other 2 ARM-
c:arpliant caps evaluated (FS Table 4-2). As mentiated in abaYe respcl'lSes,
the Act 641 closure does mt c:x:mply with the MI Act 64 MAR. Also, see
precedin;J resp.me.
3.B.5. 'D18 caps pt!sented by G&M in the Review Report (Act 641 and the
maint:.enanc8 of the existi.n; cx:M!r) do mt c:arply with ARARs and therefore
do net CXIIply with t:h8 intent of the to. (See other respc:l'\SOO' abaY8 that
address the ARARs for cawing of this site.) QUy the ~in;J alternatives
that ~d c:arply with the state and federal ARARa for the closure of
hazardous waste landfills (Act 64 and ~) were evaluated within the FS.
3. B. 6. 'Ihe ~-type cap is predicted to be 78 times better in reducing
leachate generatiat than is the Act 64 cap. G&M's Review Report .in:ticates
that the Act 641 cap is also better than the Act 64 cap in reducing leacha~,'
generatiat, ~c:h the EPA does net totally agree with. A HEI2 model
-------
33
performed 'af G&M states that less infiltratia\ will ocx::ur into the lan:1fill
\.rith an Act 641 cap versus an Act 64 cap. Al~ this may be a valid
:iJ'1t,e%pretatia\ of the HElP m:del results, it doeS rot neoe""-=-ri.ly provide a
t;uitable technical justificatia\ for the selectia\ of the Act 641 cap. 'the
lw::t 641 cap may experience a significant aec:rease in performan=e cner the
l~ tenD. Because the Act 641 clay layer is protected 'af aUy 6 in:heS of
tCIp9Oil, it will be especially susceptible to ~ 'af deep-rooted
vegetatia\, }:m'rOWin;J animals, ani DCSt iJIp:n'taI1tly, frost. 'lbeSe factors
are net cxn;i.dered 'af the HEIP 'JIX:del: therefore, the actual aDOJnt of
percolatia\ tnrcu:#l the ACt 641 cap will DCSt likely be greater than the
siDulatia\ in:ticates. 115 a result, the lcrg-term effectiveness of the Act
641 cap (baSEd a\ the aDOD"It of percolatia\ it allows) may be less than that
of the Act 64 cap. 1O:liticnUly, the Act 641 cap doeS net satisfy the State
of Miaugan cawin;J policy that haS been cx:n;istentlY ~lied at sh,,;br
sites within the state. In regard to heW infiltratia\ J:eductia\ relates to
health riskS, the less infiltratia\ allowed tnrcu:#l the landfill a::Ner CNer
tiJDe~ the less ocnt,aminatia\ that readV!.s the ~ter. '1M ~-type
lan1fill or:Ner will reduce infiltratia\ 1Im'8 so than either the Jet 641 or
Act 64 caps.
3.8.7. '1M I~IS~ traD the pJblic iMicated that it doeS net believe
that the cappin;J ani the acW.tia'lal. distLJ,J:banCB caused 'af the t1:UCk traffic
is warranted at this site. In oIt1er to cc:q)].y with ARARs an::l to adeqUately
prctect hJ..1IIIan health, welfare ard the env~'-&..snt, the cap ~ 1IIJSt be
perfor1l81. ItS mentic:ned in a l~1SB abO\Ie, if ~<:p!%" oCnsttuctia\ ani
road regulatia\S are followed, the i,nca'IVenieraa to the pmlic will be kept
to a miniJIuD. '1M issUe of i.J'a'eaSE!d truck traffic was net breUJht up
durin;J the pJblic hearin:J ~ clurin;J a1B ~ read 'af a ~esontative
frcm senator WelMTn'S office. '1M senator ~ usin; cn-site
materialS as DIJd1 as possible to reduCe the I!IIII:IUfIt of mat:.eri.alS that WCAil.d
be t:zucked in. EPA ~e-- that aHiite materialS may be used for fill an::l
gridirg, thereDi redUCir4 t%UCk traffic. see ~ ard I.~ 1.6
~. .
3.8.8. Please refer to I~ to ~.t 12.U.D.i. an1 v.
3.8.9. Please refer to I.~ to ~.t 2.U.D.i-n. an::l 2.U.E.iv
regarcSin;I tb8 landfill cap. AlsO, the risk art!:'" I~J'It is ccnsidered a
baSelin8 ccn1iticm at the site an::l this as-rC!MMtt iMicates that the
aJ1OD"It8 of ocnt,aminaticm in th8 ~ter are at .unacCept:ab1e leYels. '1M
No ACticn altm:native was carried tnrcu:#l into the PI.~ Plan ard, as
stated in I'IJI'IISrCIUS 1.~lSoe a}:jgYe, was net selected beCause, as the risk
as-~--at in1icates, it doeS net achieve ARARS or protect humim health an1
the env~,-&-,.t. ttb8 k:t 641 cap, as stated in I~- 3.5 ard 3.6 a}x7Ye,
doeS net actU8Y8 MW5 an::l tb8refara was net analyzed in depth within the
!s. c:awin;J altematives an::l-qrcunSwat.er alternatives are interrelated to
SCID8 ~... An ~iant cap can ratuca leacMte ~ticm to help
redJ-./eliminate ~ trcD reachin; the qrcunSwater in the tut:ure.
GrQUR!water altematives reduC8/el~ ~ that ue alreadY in
the grcuniwater. Bath activities, cawirq an! grcurdWater re--1i,.ticm, haVe
their own~' At a mi.niJIum, the lardfill cap, as stated abOYe, 1IUSt
-------
34
CX1Iply with MI Act 64, an:! the ~ter ~i..tiatlllJSt CX1Iply with MI
Act 307, aJIa"q ather ARARs.
3 . B.10. Please refer to abcYe r.:::spoN!)S regaI'ttin;J lan1fill caps an:i ARARs.
3.B.11. '1his~ cti.cl net in::Ucate ~t inxn;istencies existed between
the RIfRisk Ass~-rrt: an:i the FS with regard to the expcsure to lanifill
ocnt.aminants. 'Ihe"SUaIDary of Risks" tables within the FS, extracted whole
traD the RIfRisk Ass--nt:, an:! ather SI~1'"ies within the FS adequately
reflect what was presented within the RIfRisk Ass--P'ft. EPA does net
believe that redurdant: safety factors are bein;J ~lied by the selected
I1!!IDSdy. 'Ihe goal of this ~bl actiat is to prot:.ect human health,
wlfare, an:i the envL.".uud1t, an:i each ~aent of the selected I1!!IDSdy
CXI'1tt'i.tJUte ~y taI.rard this goal. SaDe of the alt.en'1atives
selected may CX'IIplement ead1 ather, sud1 as the relatia1Ship 1::IebIeen the
capp~ of the site an:! the ~ter p.mp an:! treat (the better the cap,
the less time my be needed to clean the aquifer, since ocnt.aminants will
net lead1 freD the landfill to the ~ter), but there are no
redumaR:ies in the selected remedy.
C. SI~ry of o.u-&ts:
3.C.l. T!:.c:I- addressed within this ~tt have been addressed in the
respcn995 to ather -.uau&nts alxMa. Enhanced biU1.A..Aibtiat was re-evaluated
by the EPA an:! was selected as the primaly ~ter I1!!IDSdy.
3.C.2. 'Ihis c:x:mnent is addressed in ~ responses within \oA.IUa'8:fhts 11,
2, an:i 3 alxMa.
3.C.3. 'Ihe No Actiat alt.en'1ative was carried through the FS an:i in the
P1.' ~ Plan. It did net meet MARs, nor was it protective of human health
an:i the envL.,-...ent. '1h8 risks p:xsed by no ac:t.iat are reflected in the
baseline risk .e----~Mt.
3.C.4. EPA feels that there is sufficient data in whid'l to base a decisiat
at r--ii..l ac:t.iat select:.ic:n for the West 1«.. Aveme Iardfill site. 'Ihe
MJ:NR has cx:na.u:Ted with the selected remedies, as stated within the R)[). If
arrj si9l\ific:ant; c:haR)e8 0CQJr to the selected remedies, as a result of the
~bl Design, the p.1b1.ic will have the q:portunity to review an:! ~,.~&t
aa sud1 d1m)e8. Also, pJblic participatiaa an! infOl'DBtiaa ~'b.1nities
will ocnt.inIe through the ra-"hll design and. the ra-"i"1 ac:t.iat.
'1h8 ~~t "R8view of USEPA PL'~ Altematives an:! Pk'v-"1 of Additic:nal
NCP O:'q)liant p--'hll Altematives for IJIplementatiat at the West 1«.. Avenue
Ian:1fill" an:! the affidavits traD HI.". Woolf am HI.". .11r_, that were
at:tac::bed to St:eerin; Qzaitt.eejG&M let:ters, were net re:spc:med to under
in1ividual o-m-l'Its/respc:n!es. '1he points brcu#1t forth by these c:Jocuments
were hi9h1ighted within either the Stee.rin;J O:IIII1ittee letter or the letter
fraIa G&M. All the aIxNe referenced ~-J'1ts have been added to the
Administrative Record for this site.
-------
35
o...anent f4:
".1. I am here to .assure you that ro CD! is dri11kin;J cmtaminated water
frcm the lan:ifill ani J1lf Department will see to it that safe dri.nkin;J water
CC'I"It.i11Jes to be available in the area.
4.2. After c:x:r1taminatiat was di.sa::JYerej in several '-!ells, the Cb.Jnty of
F:al"1M7.oo, alaIJ with the Q}arter Tawnship of Oshtemo, took praIPt actiat to
restore the ..ater quality. Fl%st, deep '-!ells were drilled. Secx:I'd, a
..aterline was extended to service the area.
4.3. Since 1981, J1lf Department has taken anmal sanples traD disccrttinued
shallow '-!ells. Lab analysis reveals that OC8.oe1atratia1S of all the
oaT"'.D1ds are decreaSin;, typically by more than 90% aver the 9 year period
the Department has taken sanples.
4.4. My Department believes that the availability of a pmlic water su;ply
will result in all future deYel~Jt ~.;r.,IIIIae.::tirq to this su;ply. In the
rE!ID:'te d1ance a resident cbc>caoo to have a ~, he or she DUSt JeaiCh::ol..Ate
to cur satisfactiat that a safe dri11kin;J water supply is available prior to
i.ssuan::8 of a permit.
4.5. 'Ihe Michigan PUblic Health a:x5e requires that the '-!ell locatiat ani
cxrstm::tia\ be designed to protect against pollutiat and to exclude all
Jcnr:Mt scmces of pollutia\ fraD enterirg the '-!ell. Q.1r Department has
deYelcped a decisia\ tree to evaluate applicatia1S for well permits within
CD! half mile of a scm'CB of poUutiat.
4.6. ~lic:atic:nl for ~ pemits within en! half mile dcwn gradient of
the intersectiat of 4th Street ani West 1«. Ave1'1J8 will be requind to
JiesDa'~l..~te that c:x:r1taminatiat will not read1 the '-!ell. 'Ibis deDa1Stratiat
may entail the drUlillq of a test ~, use of the deep aquifer, and
pI-.-lditic:nl for issuance of the permit. OW ~tiat will be the
recpirement to ~II~ to the pmlic ..ater supply if c:x:r1taminatia\
infiltrates the well system. If a pmlic water supply is not available, cur
Department has the autharity under the Miaugan Public Health a:x5e to order
art{ party or parties I~iDle for the c:x:r1taminatia\ to previae an
alternativ. ..ater SUWly.
4.7. In", JlIf Department: 1) has taken anrual ~ sazrples since 1981
'-hich cx:nt1m a sW:&tantial ~ in the quality of ~ter,
dcwrJ;Jradi8l1t. of the landfill: 2) have verified that '-!ells in ~esMat use as
drinJcin;r water StJA)lies are within limits set by the Federal Safe DrinJd1q
water Act and: 3) has prc:wided for their assurance that residents will not
be ~ to c:x:r1taminated water suwJ,ies by the extensia\ of a pmlic water
suwly Una and the Department's requirBDents for ~ of well pemits.
4.8. Accxm:liJqly, EPA.and 10m sha1ld not base their ren-'ial decisia\ a\
the reIII:Jt8 possibility that residents might be 0a'1SUIDi.n) water \llhich ~c::
the fed8ral Sate DrinJd1q water Act limits. My Department believes that
both yc»r organizaticni sbcWd oonp'l'8 suctl risks to the acbal ris1cs of
iJlplE!llll!l'ltizq and operating the proposed nSJ-H,,1 selectia\. we nate, for
-------
36
~le, that a lClrOOSt fence arcund the 'aIaSte iti~ areas of the
lanifill WCA.1ld rem::we fores--ble risJ I,A cx:ntaminated, the
-------
37
selected remedy will prevent further wells fraD ~i TJ:J CXl'Jtaminated and
will ~erate the time that the aquifer my be used as a drinkirg ~ter
scurce again. ~re, the NCP does net allow the use of instituticraal
ccntrols to prdlibit ~ to CXl'Jtaminated groun:twater.
4.7. EPA ~ n- that residential wells presently in use are within the
limits set by the Federal safe Drinki11} water Act, but the groun:twater
between these residents and the site has CXl'Jtamination within it that far
~CI acceptable levels. It is the duty of EPA and the Mt:NR to protect
net only human health or welfare, but also the envi.ra'IDent.
4.8. '!be selection of the ~;Al action at the site is net based solely
on the risk factors derived fraD the p--'iAl Investigation. '!be issue of
MARs, (as explained within respcl"!St'!S to ~tts 1, 2, and 3 abaYe) also
plays a large part in the selection of the ~;,.1 action. WithoUt the
installaticn of a prqm' laRifill cap, there is no way to dete1'mine hew lcnq
the cx:.ntam:inants will CXII'1tirue to leach fraD the landfill and enter the
groun:twater. With the R:RA-type cap, the volU118 of leachate generated will
be greatly r-'lv-' and, in c:x:abinaticn with the groun:twater p.mp ard treat,
the shallow aquifer shc:uld be within federal drinkirg ~ter stamards within
a JIUCh shorter timeframe than if no or limited acticn is dcne at the site.
'!be FS estimated that if the pmpin;J rate of 2,000 gpD was utilized, the
aquifer wculd be cleaned in aI:01t 6 years. 'lbe G&M Review Rieport. .in:ticated
that with a p.mpin;J rate of 500
-------
38
ten to twenty milli~ doUars to the cost of closure without a;preciable
benefits. 'Ihis c:narqe in di.recti~ is net justified, s:in:e )cncwled;Je abcut
the cart:ent of the lan:lfill has not d1anged sin:e 1979 wMn the lardfill
closed un:ier the sanitary lan:lfill regulatia1S. '!he Ccunty believes that
the goverrmerrt' s CXI1tractors erred when it failed to fully evaluate the
lardfill based ~ up;Jrades to meet the Act 641 requirements. '!he EPA am
MI:NR should new evaluate am ~ the effectiveness am cost of an Act
641 CCNer to its prcposed pmI"Iti;,., plan.
5.3. 5ecx:n1, in great detail the EPA am MI:NR have evaluated the pathway of
pat.ential expo5'Jre based ~ the unremectiatEd cxn::titia1S at the lan:lfill, but
have a\ly evaluated the pat.ential pathways of expo6IJI"e after bplementati~
of the variC11S reredial alternatives in general tens, such as, the prcposed
gra.zndwater remedy "ProVides greater laq-tem effectiveness am perma.nenoe
than provided by the no acti~ alternative." Does the word "greater" mean
that the preferred gra.zndwater remedy will restore gra.zndwater leaviIq the
site to drink:in;J water standards in 6 years (EPA' figure) as ~red, for
exaDple, to 9 years far the no acti~ alternative? EPA ard MI:NR should
fairly evaluate and c:x:mpare ead\ of the n-n-1i,., altematives as \lIeU as the
pmI"Iti;", alternatives based ~ a 641 cap and ~ the iDpravi.n; cx:n:titia1S at
the landfill.
5.4. 'Ihird, infOI1llati~ beinq developed by G&M inlic::ates that the
government's a:nt:ractor has grossly aveI'eSt.iJnatEd the rate of gra.zndwater
extractiem. I understan1 your ~ ac:kncwledqiIq that 2000 gpn is not
likely. 0Jr review of the 1979 Closec:ut Plan far the site further reveals
the area of the landtill to be 57.31 acres, not 83 acres as stated by the
gove.llUCltt'S ccntractar. '1he rata of tDCtractia\ ard area of the landfill
are bIo of the most iDport:ant factors in evaluating ~b' alternatives
am will not effect the ~i,,' alternatives prcportia'1ately. we are
c:x:n:mTISd that these errors JJ1i!l.Y have been a material factor in the
gcvernment's failure to ocnsider certain r-'b' alternatives (a settliIq
pcn:I versus reinjectiem, an Act 641 caver versus an Act 64 caver, etc.) ar
its selectiem of the preferred ~bl altematiw, let ala18 the ocst
projectia1S ycu are usiIq. '!he EPA and MI:NR shOuld re-evaluate all p'1'I_H,,'
alternatives (inc1u;1i.ng an Act 641 caver) in light of correct data.
5.5. Finally the CDmt:y has previously expressed its ocncem CNer the tN-
enhanced CDddatiem altemative gra.zndwater remedy cmsite. Its p:&itiem has
net~. Hcwever, WI do wish to aa1 that tb8 ~. VJ6ed groundwater
treatment. tacilit:y is to be located em an umsed portiem of the landfill.
'!his area has value as a sc:urce of fill material far the 0CNer thereI:Jy
reduci1'1q tb8 Qu1ty's cast of ~iAtiem. Sinc8 ~ area will be
cli.st::u%bed, it is preferable that JDCbilizatiem, deccnt:8inatiem, ard locati~
of the groundwater ~iAtiCl1 system, if any, be lcx:ata1 CI1 the fill areas
after takinq ~~iata precauticms. '1his actiem will avoid delays and
preser.'8 this umsed tract far use as CCNer material and possible tuture
use.
. 5.6. . I understard EPA has given preference to treatment of the groundwater
by discharge to the Cit:y of Kalamazoo water treatment plant. '!he 0:Amty
believes at least that is a step in the right di%ectiem by EPA.
-------
-. - -. -
39
d
5.7. '!he p.1rp06e of a pmlic 0C'mDe1'1t period is to solicit resPonses to the
EPA am MI:NR ~ reIJ'I"rljaticrl plan. \rIUle the 0Junty may rot agree with
all the ~c:hes taken by the gcverrment, '-Ie share in ~mcn the m.rt:ual
c:i:)jectives to make certain that releases fraD the lan:ifill will rot
adversely affect l'nJman health an1 the envira1ment.
RIespa1Se 15:
5.1. Please refer to Icspa tS~ above (such as ~ ISe to cxmnent
*2. U. E. i v) am the RI report, regardi.n) the status of the current cap.
5.2. '!be cost of the lan:ifill c::a;.pin; alternative is a factar in the
selecticrl ~ooess. Hcwever, as a threshold, the cap 1IIJSt be pratecti.ve of
human health an1 the enviL",ul.ent am meet ARARs. Alternatives meetin; these
threshold criteria are then balan::ed aJID1; five factors, a'18 of which is
cost-effectiveness. Michigan Act 641 cap, as statEd in rE=SpOIlSe to ~tts
abave, does rot meet the requirements of the closure that is required urder
the ARM, MI Act 64. See respc:l'tSes to similar 0CI1IDeJ1tS abaYe.
5.3. Refer to respcnse to CXIIIIIIBI"1t '4.8 above as well as other si1ll;' ar
respc:I'IS~ 1;0 0CI1IDeJ1tS abaYe regardi.n) lan:ifill closure ARARs.
5.4. EPA's CXI1traCtar based their CXBt estimates CI\ a a:mervative use of
the data at han::1. Actual prices will of cxm'S8 vary frail the estimates
(i.e., if in fact the gpD is decreased fraD EPA's high estimate of 2,000 gpn
to G&M's estimate of SOO gpD). '!be grt::A.1IUwater ~;a' actiat alternatives
have been re-evaluated, hcJweYer, ani the use of enhanced bio~H atiat is
the grt::A.1IUwater ~iJ!ll actiat selected within the RD (refer to similar
0CI1IDeJ1tS abaYe am the RD). '!be use of a settlizq p:nS has never, been
disccunted b.1t awaits the results of the puap test that will be needed
durin; the design of the pmp ani. treat system to detemine the actual
pmpin; rate (refer to the ~.~ Plan ani the RD) . '!be evaluatiat of an
Act 641 versus an Act 64 lardfill C»I8J: was rot influenced by the actual
size of the landfill. As menticnd in abaYe respc:l'tSes to ~u.ents, EPA
believes, based at historic::al aerial P1Ctc8 ani tqJo~cal maps, that the
estimate of the lardfill size is prcbably closer to 70-72 acres, am, due to
~ftaphical featurM of the lardfill an1 the need to overlap or feather
cut the lanU1ll cap CN8r the sides, the am::unt needed to be ~ was
ocnserI8tiwly set at 80 acres. Refer to Io:SpCI'tSes to <> .I.'~-nts abaYe
reqardin; Act 641 versus Act 64 closure.
5.5. Refer to re:spa1Sss to ~ud1ts abcYe am the RD regaxttin;J the
selectiat of 81harad bi\A'r.AiiJ!ltiat aver the roIW or W/c:Dddatiat. '!be
locatian of the t:reatl8nt facilities ard the extractiat wells, as sheWn
within the Pt. ~ Plan an:I th8 IU), are cI\ly apprc»eimate locaticrlS am t.'1e
final locatiaw can be nsgatiated at a later data.
5.6. '!be use of the roIW is m lc:n:Jer the preferred ~ter remedial
actiat, replaced by the use of enhanced bioremediatiat. Refer to respOIlSE!S
abaYe am the RD.
-------
40
5.7. EPA believes that its AX> will significantly advance this 1IIJtuaJ. qoal.
0.......... It . 6 :
6.1. It is iqJortant to un:Jers1:anj that the cnmty has a respalSibility to
its residents to ensure a safe, potable 'Mater SlJR)ly in an:! abo.1t the West
KL Aveme Lm:1fill. To this en::t, the cnmty am the 'l't:Jwnship of Qsht.elJr:)
originally drilled deep W1ells am later extenied the water line. since
1980, the Q:unty's Health am Human Services Department has mc:nitored area
wells .
6.2. We are aware G&M is reo. ...._~ a DLII'licipallandfUl cc:Ner, in-situ
bio~;;..tiat of the groon::iwater am mcnitorin;J. County officials,
includinq officials fI"CID the Health an:! 8Jman Services Dept., have ili<=n,"'~
with G&M the facts am ci.roJmst:ances ~ its dec:isiat as well as the
facts am ciro.mstanc:es support.in;J EPA's preferred ~;"l actiat plan.
'Ihis is to advise yoo that the County does 5lJRX)rt the n-...LUen:3atiat of
G&M. I have explained below the County's thoughts at this matter an:! have
raised. several additia1al i~CI~ iJrp:)rtant to the residents of the cnmty.
6.3. '!he cnmty has participated in technical iI;<=n1~Clims with G&M am is
aware that B) attEllpt has been made by the FRP ODDittee to influerre the
dec:isiat of G&M.
6.4. unlike other SUperfun1 sites ~ the u.s. an:! Michigan, the
Q:unty as a viable owner of the lardfill is in a better pcsitiat to manage
am u.II&L.vl ~i~tiat activities, incl~ these activities ~-ry to
protect human health. '!he County's Health and IbDan Services Dept. has
mcnitorecl wells in the area of the lardfUl since 1980. '!he County
recognizes that such mcnitor~ wcu1.d have to cx:nt.in.Je urder the G&M
prqn;ed alt.eJ:native remedy until such time as the 'Mater quality returns to
aooeptabl~ state and federal c1rinJdn) water stanc1ards.
6.5. '!he 0Utty is aware that both the state and federal gcveIT'II1B'1ts have
~ed the use of bi~i"tiat at SUperfun1 sites. '!he EPA has recently
anncuncec1 its bi\AL~...:.rIbtia1 fielcl initiative at JUne 27, 1990. '!he
initiative is designed to foster field tests, dema'at.&.catims, ani
evaluaticna of bim:ea&"iJiltiat. '!he EPA has ccnclmed, and G&M has
cx:nf.iJ:med, that extensive bi\"q,~..Mbtiat is occurri11q at the site.
Irdependent studies by the Upjcbn CD. has dsDcrDuated the feasibility of
in-situ bL:n._._!bticn.
6.6. '!he Cbunty believes in-situ bi\"q,Q,-];Jlltiat can be a oCJrplete and final
groon::iwater remedy at the site. '!he probability and advantages of SUOO'"""'"
far outweigh the c:lisadvant:acJ of failure. In the Masa\ 0Utty SUperfun1
site in Michigan, EPA l"'*.tly i-~ a RJD to cap the site '-'rlle CCII'1t.in.1irq
to mc:nitor groon::iwater c:x:n:ti.tiCDJ to det:.emine the effectiveness of the cap.
'!he State of Midligan cx:n::urred in this remedy. 'lherefore, the state and
federal govemDeI1tshave established precedent for the remedial alternative
re(. .....-,dad by G&M. .
-------
41
<>
6.7. In the remcte event biore-i;,ttia1 doeS net achieve the ~~iate
clean up levels, I un:3erstard the law gives the federal qcv&l...ent the
authority to require further re",~:wH;ttia1. 'Ihis c:bligatiat of the
~ to review the site every five years, OCIIi:>lned with the cxmnitment
of the Health am R.JDBn Sel'Vioes Dept. to uaUtar the cpality of the
drinkiJ"g wter ensures the health am safety of em' residentS.
6.8- 'n1e potential savin::Js to the residentS am area bJsiness 0CI1IIIJr\i ty of
the G&M :t$ ~ ..IJ..eJdE!Id alternative are enorDDJS. First, the ccst of the EPA
alternatives is between $16 milliat am $20 millia1 greater than the
reP"t'Hal alternatives ~ by G&M. In the unlikely event it beo .~
'(eoe""'Pry to inplement a gra,niwater extractiat ~~aIII, .. do net ~ to
see a sui:stantial increaSe in theSe CXJSts. In fact, it my result that
further IDCI1itorin; am reduCt1at of the lead1ate ~"....... by the new cap CX11ld
result in re:iJvWt future CXJSts if further grourdwater re-i;;ttiat beo~'~
~esry. F\1rtheJ:,'m:::, tbe EPA ~~ grourdwater l"EIDSdY is likely to
require Cbt:aininJ off-sita aoo-- far ccnstructiat of the extractiat system.
'Ibis oculd add sUbstantial delays to the ti8 of ~;Atia1. In light of
the a1:xWe, the a::.mty belieYeS it pI1Jdent to defer arrj d8cisiat at
inplementatiat of the EPA's ~~ grourdwater l"EIDSdY until such time, if
arrj, that the in-situ bi\A~;atiat fails to achieve its cbjectives.
6.9. Secx:I'd, the EPA' s ~ l"EIDSdY doeS not have br:oad CXIIIIIJI\ity
~. In parti01lar, the pIo~ soil rE!III8Cly is likaly to cause
sui:stantial cilsruptiat to the area residentS. 'Dw CDJnty estimates that it
may taka apprc»dmately three years to deliver 30,000 truckloads of materials
to the site to meet the a:Ner design~. 'Dw CDmty believes that
such activity in and abcut the site wculd result. in a substantiall"l..Jllb!r of
c:x:q:>laints traI area residentS ~ fR8r safety, dust and deteriora~
road cxniitic:ns result.in) traD such activity. 'Dw ~~ soil remedy of
G&M redI~ that. cap requireaents to less than half that. prcpos-' by EPA,
allows use of the ecist.in;J cap material and pem.its the use of m-sita and
adjoinin;J site borrCJW material far cxn;tzuctiCl\ of the a:Ner. '1his wculd
sui:stantially reduce read traffic and thereby lessen the ocncem of area
residentS.
6.10. 'Ib8 a::.mty dce8 sh8r8 yaIr goal to protect bJman health and the
envh~u.ant. It. has daua-tnted thi8 CCIIIDitment. by th8 proact.i:wa I~
to restar8 JX't.able water SURUies and to clcse the lan::ltill. 'n1e CDJnty
looks fcnward to c:a'It.irI1ilq its geed ~ relatiCl\ship with both the
state ani. federal ~.
~f6:
6.1. EPA \JI'1derStaI'dS the CDmty's cxmnit:ment. and ~ds the CDJnty CI\ its
efforts to pravid8 a sat., pct.able water SURUY to resident8 near the West.
lCL Avert.8 Ian5fill site. 'Iba CDmty's 1II2\itorirq baa verified that. the
grourdwater in and arcanS the site is still cx:.rtbJminated atxwe th8 federal
and state acceptable limits.
6.2. Please refer to r~M to ~ '2 and f3 a1:xWe.
-------
¥' ..---.- ----
42
6.3. No respa~ to ~tt needed.
6.4. 'Ihi.s situatiat, in W'hich a mmicipality is o.mer of the site, is not
UIU..ua1L81 within SUperfund. '!he advantages of a JII.1nicipality han:fiin; the
remedial activities, inclu:tirq the q:eratiat and maintenance, are well
knc:M'1.
6.5.. Enhanced bio~ ; "tiat is new the selected gro..n:iwater ~ i" 1
actiat. Please refer to respa~ to oc:mnents aboYe regardi.nq in-situ and
enhanced bioremediatiat. Also, refer to the R:)[) in regard to the selected
remedy .
6.6. See respalSgs to c:xmnents 12 and '3 abaYe regardirg the use of in-situ
bio~i "tiat. In regard to the Masa'1 o:amty SUperfund Site, the EPA and
the state did agree at cappin; the site first, then to c:xn!uct a gro..n:iwater
remedy sane time later if gro..n:iwater data indicated cx:ntitia1S were net
i:apravin;. SUbstantial diffeIeJa!S exist between the two sites. In
partiaUar, the cx:ntaminatia\ area at the Masa'1 o:amty site is 1IUCh smaller
than at West RL, and the CXI'1taminants at Masa\ o:amty are fan1 in
Oc.h..eut..atia1S 1IUCh lower than at West 1(L. For instance, 1990 data traD the
Kalamazoo o:amty Health Department shews benzene still fan1 at levels up to
750 ~, while at Masa'1 o:amty, benzene was fcurd at leYels of aUy up to 11
~. Other CXI'1taminants are similar in that they. were fan1 in
CXI'1Cel1tratia1S wch are magnim:Jes lower at Masa\ o:amty than at West 1(L.
Only benzene (K::L 5 ~, fan1 at U ~) and 1,1~chloroethene (M:L 7 pPJ,
fcurd at 59 ~ in ate saDplin; rcun::l) ~ the federal drinJdn;J water
standards at Masa\ o:amty, while at West 1(L benzene (K::L 5 ~, . fan1 at 720
pPJ), 1,2~chloroethane (K::L 5 ~, fcurd at 200 ~), and vinyl chloride
(M:L 2 ~, fan1 at 107 ~) were the ~mds that ~ the federal
dr:i11Jcirg water standards. Also, West 1(L has more gro..n:iwater data .
available, so the presence of the CXI'1taminants is c:x:n;idered a fact, while
at the Masa\ o:amty site, aUy limited gro..n:iwater data was available, so
ccnt:inJed gro..n:iwater JlD'dtorin) was needed to verity the extent and level
of the cx:ntaminatia\. At Masa\ o:amty landfill, in short, the cap is bein;
installed while the gro..n:iwater is bein; investigated further. '!be
situatia\ at the West 1(L site is 1IUCh more seriaJS than the situatia\ at
the Masa\ 011nty site. Also, as a matter of reocm1, Masa\ 011nty is
pres9J'ltly imtallinq an Act 64 ClCllpliant cap.
6.7. EPA has the c:iUigatia\ to review remedies at site's in wbic:h hazardoJs
wastes/substanoes remain a1-Site whenever warranted, tut at least within 5
years. If the selected remedy does net achieve the cleanup goals as stated
within the RJD, EPA will require awr'q)riate pulc::I.1I"eS to be taken to assure
protectia\ of human health or welfare, and the envL.WlI1II:Itt.
6.8. As diar!lS'-d aIxMI, the l«:P provides nine criteria to evaluate
altematives, categorized into three groups. 40 em 300.430(f). Qzt
factors are balanced against fcur other criteria in the secxn1 category.
CD1seqUently, erst sav~ is net the major objective in the selectia\ of
the mcst ~iate ~;"l actia\ for a site. Qzt~ffectiveness is ate
of the balan::inq cd teria 1Id'W!n c:x:mpu:in; alternatives against each other.
'Ib!refore, the use of enhanced bi~-.A1;"tia\ was re-eva.luated and c:hcsen as
-------
43
"
the grca.n:lwater r-r-'i,., aCt1a1 altemative because of cost-effectiveness.
'!be estiJDated ocst of the total ~; 111 actia1 at the site is n::JW
apprax..imately $16.5 milli.a1 ~1"'8d to the $23.5 to $27 milli.a1 all
estimated in the EPA's Pl.' ¥-"5ed Plan. '!be purd'1ase or lease of off-site
prt:p3rty DCSt l:iJcely cannat be avoided since cx:maminatia1 frcm the site
does net step at the lan:1fill' s borders ani grca.n:lwater off-site will need
to be t:IA~ca..'ter1 for treatment.
6.9. As mentiated in respCllSeS abaYe, the c:lisroptia1 to the local residents
will be unfortunate ani will be kept to a m.inimJm tJu:'cu#1 the use of proper
haulirq ani cx:nstructia1 methods. '!be caps prcposed by G&M de not adlieve
MARs ani, in effect~ will net (at least for the 1J.L' ¥-"ISed cap usirq m-site
soils or the repairing of the existin;J cap) be 1IIJCb different fraD the cap
that was applied. in 1980 ani has failed. to prevent grcundwater
cx:maminaticn.
6.10. EPA also looks forward to all parties ~tirq in this iJIp)rtant
env:ira'lDenta1 matter.
o.....aes at '7.
7.1. It is '111/ ~ that the EPA's Preferred RIEF-'1i1l1 Acticn Plan
calls for the 0QI'IStruCt.ia\ of a 1J.L'...,csed RCRA cap. 'l\:) '-A.IIDt..JCt this cap,
apprax..imately 900,000 OJbic ycm:ts of materials are requirect to place the
five arr1 cm-balf fact cap rNer the existin;J cap at the lardtUl.
7.2. his'1Ifti'1;f a truck can transport 30 cubic yards per load to the site,
this WOlld involve CNer 30,000 loads of material taken to the site.
f\1rthemCr8, it WOlld take CNer three years just to brirq materials to the
sita. 'Ihia heavy volume neoeo'"""'~y means greater traffic in ani arcund the
site an:l a ~.&.~dinq in::rease in the risk of accidents, injuries an:l
fataliti... In adr:1itiCl1, this traffic flew will increase noise, ~lluticn
ard road wear ard tear at greater experIS1!S to the local taxpayers, let alene
th8 c:lisropticn to the neightmhood thra.1ghcut the roadway area to be
utilized. tlbat's mre, as I recall, I
-------
44
~i.able increase in the hypothetical risks associated with dri.nk.i11q
oart:.aminated ~ter.
C) Finally, that the 'I'c:JI.Inship of OshtBID am the Camty Read
t'hmli ~qia1 regulate the volume and weights of the variQJS t:xucks and other
utility vehicles trave1in; a1 local roads to and £ran the site to avoid, to
the JIB)l; 1111 JIll extent possible, the iJIpct a1 roads due to m:wement of heavy
CXl"Stzuctia1 vehicles.
Re5pcr)se '7:
7.1.. EPA's RD requires the design and i11Stalla,tia1 of a ~ cap. '!he
details of this cap are SU1IIIn;IIrized within the RX> and detailed in the FS.
7.2. In order to adequately a:Ner the site, meet ARARs and protect the
integrity of the landfill cap to reduce leachate to the ~ter, the R:>D
has selected the ~-type cap. As menticned in respa IS es to the aboYe
\,A,AWCI&ts, it is an unavoidable and unfortunate inca1venience far the
neighborin; residents. cn-site materials should be used to the JIIa)li1lll1lll
extent practicable, bIt not at the sacrifice of a lesser q.ality cap than is
called far by the ARARs. 1his wculd substantially reduce the aDDmt of
materials required to be transported to the site. Followi.rl) proper haulin;
and c:xn;t:zuctia1 methods will help to minimize the risks caused by the
cawi.n:J to the neighborin; residents. In regard to the wear and tear a1 the
roadways, this is a problem that 1I1JSt be solved cutside of U.S. Gaverrment
involvement. '!he CXl"Stzuctia1 cxm.ractors should be required to repair arrj
M~ caused to roadways because of the ~iA' ActiCl't.
7.3.A. cn-site and local soils can and should be used to the ma.v;1IIIJIII extent
practicable. '!he requirements of the ~-type cap 1I1JSt, hcweYer, be met
(i. e. meet the clay thicJcness and ~ctiCl't of HI Act 64). cn-site
materials can possibly be used far the gndin;J, fill material, and tcp;oil
layers. See responses to \,A,IIIUICIits aboYe regardin;J alternative cawin;
methods.
B. '!he ~ter remedy has been re-evaluated, see ab:JYe respc:nse to
CXIIIDel1ts and the RJD. Also see above respalSe to oaIIDBl'Its regardin;J
altemativa capping msthcds.
C. '1hi8 18 a local cxn:mn that JIIJSt be addressed by the aw~~iate
local offici.'-.
o...u-ait t8:
8.1. M1en the landfill was closed in May 1979, the MmR prepared a closure
plan pm;uant to State law, IUles, and regulaticna. 'lbe Camty of
tt:a.lamazoo, with assistar¥:e fraD the ~ 'l\:Jwnship of Qsht.eaI), CCIIplied
with MmR's directive and a:mpleted the closure plan in 1980 Y11c:h alcn;
with other costs the Q:Iunty incurred totaled, at ~!Sent dollars, $1.5
milliCl't.
-------
45
8.2. Ten years later EPA and MI:NR have 't'DtI prq:a;ed another closure plan
that will ex&t $20 - $30 millia'l. M.Jnicipalities, inclur:linq the a:unty of
Kal;nn;ll 7.on , do nX have unlimited financial rescan:oes to cx.nt.irIJe to finance
new closure plans fNerj ten years for the same lan::lfill site. ~t
~ can ycu C;ive that the Pi.~ Plan will be SlJOO"""'''''tul., or that
another closure plan will net be required in ten years or at sc.me other tiJE
in the futUre?
<)
8.3. I 1«'IUld also like to request that EPA an:! MI:NR stra1;Jly ocnsi.der the
CXIIIDBJ1ts an:! L~ ...,~.rxSatia'lS that will SOa'I be subDitted by G&M since they
are DIJCh more ex&t effective, yet errviIa1mentally scun1, tor this lan;ifill
site than the PL' ~eed Plan.
Respa1Se '8:
8.1. DJe to the CD1taminatia'l present in the qro.niwater, it is apparent
that the present lan::lfill cap has failed. 'Ihe MidUgan regu1atia'lS for the
proper closure of sites that have accepted ha..zarcb.1s waste8 are cite::1 in
Midrlgan Act 64. '!be selected altemative tor lardfill closure is a ~-
type cap that is ecpsl ar better in perfcmuance than the HI Act 64 closure.
See the RX) an:! FS tar details em the caw~ materials.
8.2. 'Ihe a:unty alene does net have to f.iname the closure. Other
Potentially Rlespa'Sible Parties (FRPs) [FRPs incl\Z5e waste generators and
transporters, and site owners an:! cperators] will be involved in the
financ~ of the remedy as ~ as the a:unty. EPA believes that the cap
will have a useful life ot at least 30 years, an:I more if prcper1y
maintained.
8.3. See abaYe ~1S9S to ~lIeltts and the R:X) regcu:dinq re-evaluatiem ot
the qro.niwater remedy.
a.-ur::nt '9:
9.1. I questiem the need far and ~~iateness ot this ~-oposed remedy
(landfill cap) in view of the fact that ~tely 20 acres ot the site
were ~~ in 1980 urder then prevailin; M[Ht regu1atia'lS. 1be~' y~
plan UCII- that the entire 87 acre site needs to be ~, \tbict\ is net
ocnsistent with r.-.4:ds and site maps whict\ indicate that atly 60 acres was
ever US8IS far "i~1 ar waste. .
9.2. 'D8 I&'~ plan fails to take into aoccunt the tIue magnib.de of
such a capping project, both em an .-....arJ.c an:I pnctic:al level. A 60 acre
cap cx:nsistin; of 2 feet of CXJIPfICted clay and 6 inctws of topsoil ~
recp.i.r8 in &'JOC i-of 360,000 truck yards of clay to net 240,000 CIJbic yards
of <;. .".cted material. 'DWI fiqur8 inclUC1e8 a "best case" 8hrinkag8 of 33'
frcm locee clay to carpact.iem. '!be closest permitted clay borrcw material
18 in Watsa1 Township in Allegan CD1nty 22 miles trc:m the site.
9.3. Itf experience (in the eccavatiem bJsiness far CNer 40 years) has been
. that.urder the best ooniitiCl1S em 40 yard c;rave1 truck with a PJP trailer,
ar "c;rave1 train" will yield 26.5 CIJbic yards of carpeted clay and such
-------
46
gravel train CD1ld aUy c:xmplete en! trip site to site in just umer 2
hcurs, or at best 6 trips in a 10 ha.1r day.
9.4. tJnjer the ua;t favorable weather cxn1itia1S ~inq q:eratia1S can
aUy be performed for the 7 Da1th period between mid-April an1 mid~,
as all available J.ngress an1 egress roads are subject to weight I'bt..ictims
am frost law by local authorities an1 the State of Michigan. All of this
translates to CNe:r 9,000 truck trips into an1 cut of the site just to
c:xmplete the clay portia\ of a 60 acre cap. Given real world eqadrwn-tt,
labor an1 weather prcbleas it will take a m.ini:auD of 2 to 3 years of
o:nstant heavy traffic to c:xmplete a 60 yard cap. If you use the same
calc11l.atia1S for yo.Jr ~.~ remedy an1 acreage, you 1IL1St increase the
r1JDi)er of loads and time required by at least 30%.
9.5. FOr the abaYe rea.sa&, the EPA should rEH!Valuate and revise the
ptq)OSEd remedy as to landfill ~inq, taJdn:;J into aoxa.mt 1) the cappinq
which has already been performed, 2) the actual additia1aJ. a-.~ which may
need to be ~, and 3) the type of cap which my be needed. '!be marqinal
and questia'1able benefits of ycm' ~. "JSed plan 1IL1St be oarpared to the
very real risks which its iDplementatia\ will c::reata, includ.ing 1:ut net
limited to, traffic, air pollutia\, road ~, dan;Jer to the p.Jblic and
ctisruptia\ of the call1Llni.ty.
~
Respcnse '9:
9.1. see above respatSes to ~ regardi.n) failure of the pt; !Sent cap
and regardin;J the oc:nt.rCIversy CNe:r the ac::reage of the site.
9.2. see respc:ns~ to similar ~ abaYe.
9.3. No respcI'iSB to ~ needed.
9.4. No respa1S8 to 00 ....~-"It needed.
9.5. see above respa1S9S to similar ~its.
Q:mDent 110:
10.1. In behalf of the CDmty, I'd like to again call yr:ur attentia\ to
the Masa1 C11nty Iardt1ll RX) an:l RespalSivenesa &JIIP'-ry. 'lbe EPA an:l the
!Om ~~ a landfill CJ:Ner remedy am deferred all actiat at the
qrc:udwater remedy peRi.inI) a deteJ:minatia\ of the CXNerS effectiveness.
A) "In additicn, the effectiveness of the soil/clay cap of
alternative 4 1IIJSt be ,..~ before rescurces are ~aded at a pmp
am treat system."
B) "'I'estinJ indicates that the soil/clay cap will reduce the lead1ate
~ticx\ within the landfill as 1IIJCh as ninety percent. 'D1is will in
tm:n ~ease the aIIDJI'1t of CXI'Itaminatia\ react1inJ the grcurdwater and
therefore, in the tuture, ca1taminants in the grcurdwater my be
-------
47
'-'
dilute encu;h to fall below federal drinkin:J '-later stardaIds and
acceptable risk levels."
10.2. '!be prirlcipal difference betWeen Masa1 and West KL Averue Lardfills
is that in the latter instanCe sufficient grwndwater data exists to
hypothecate the effectiveness of a cap a'\ the cpality of grwndwater and
£PA, G&M and Upjc:m have SlJbst,antiated the preserO! of naturally oc:x:urri.rg
bi~; ~tia'\ of the grc:undwater. 'nU1S, sufficient informatia'\ exists for
EPA and MI:NR to select in-situ bioren-"; ~tia'\ as the grwndwater remedy.
~ 110:
10.1. Please refer to I~ to o...w.eItt '6.6 abaYe re;pu:ttirr; the
~risat of this site to the Masa1 QU1ty Ianifill.
10.2. Please see I~ to O-a.1d.eItt 16.6 abaYe re;pu:ttirr; the OCJ'IpaI'lsat of
this site to the Masa1 CtIUnty t.ardfill.
o.....d at '11:
11.1. '!his letter is offered in ~ of u..uauents by w. Freeland,
1(al_7.oo Q:U1ty Admini,sb:atar, in his letter to ya.1 of 8/10/90. 0Shtem0
TownShip, like the QU1ty, is a PRP at the site and also has certain
respcI'1Sibilities to'lOmShip residentS ani the PJblic. '!be TownShip shareS
the 9Q&ls of the CtIUnty, EPA and the MINt to protect l'uJmim health an:i the
envi.".....4 tt.
11.2. TownShip officials are familiar with the facts ani ciroJmst,aneeS of
this aita, includ.in:J the G&M study and I"6o:",9.lMdatiCX1S and the EPA's
preferred ~iAl actia'\ plan. 'Ibis will c:D\fim a'\ behalf of the
Township, that of the pl.cpo6"'l11 far turther Q!.R)in9 of the site, the
Township suprm"ts the G&M 16' "...mldaticm of a 1IID'\icipallardfill CDler. Of
the pI.~' III far grwndwater treatment, the Township ~ the G&M
reo.,..~ticm for in-situ bi\,U,~tia'\ and a::.nitoring. '!be reascnI set
forth in Mr. Freelan:!/. letter in SUW"""t of the preference far these
altelmtives are ~ by the TownShip.
11.3. '1b8 Tawn8hiP al80 jow in the ~DI ~e ""-' over the V01UD8 of
truck traffic whieb ~d be generated by £PA's ~.~ cawin9 remedy. we
be1ieY8 the !:PA's pI.'~ remedy does not haVe broad OCIIIIUI'\ity SURXXt. A
1'UIbIr of Tawnship residents haVe ~ e g-' justifiable c:xn=ems ~ the
darqer I noise, in:x:r'Nenience, an:! deStzucticm of roads web wculd result
fraD cxn;tructicm of EPA's p~ lardfill cap, ani W8 join in thoSe
ocncems. Q:r1strUCtia'\ of the lardfill cap reo. ~,..OI!I"ded by G&M wculd
recpire subst,antially less truck tnffic and ~d therefore subst,antially
lessen the darqer am inccnVenieroa of the pI.'~ rf!IlII!iti, with
subst,antially less ~ ani with effectiveness equal to the rf!IlII!iti
pI.'~ by the ED.
R-~:n18 ,U:
U.l. No rcspc:I198 to ~ needed.
-------
48
11.2. See abaYe respa~ to G&M ~It (QmDent .3) regardin;J lan:lfill
caps. Also, see above respcrrsoo and the RX) ri!gard.i.rq the re-evaluatia\ and
se.lectia\ of enhanced bi~ i ~tia\ as the groun:twater remedy.
11.3. See above respa IS as to s; mi 1 ar cxn:::erns.
n ....,~-nts £ran Residents:
o..-.esat '12:
12 .1. As stated at ~ meetin;J we identified ourselves as beirg the owners
of forty acresi~btely borderirg the east of the site.
12.2. 'the proposed lardfill cap will increase the height of the l.ardfill by
5-feet, 6-.ird1es.
12.3. I stated JJtf cx.R:mT1' about this because ncthin; was mentia1ed about
preventia1 of water l'UnOff art:o JJtf prcprty, into JJtf 2 wildlife pcn:!s an:J,Ior
into Ba1nie Castle lake, of Wic:h we awn ocnsiderable fra1tage. I mentia1Sd
that the cm:rent berms are in poor ocrditia\ and that JDJCh iJIprcM:ment WtUld
have to be made to prevent arrf l'UnOff. It was also mentia1Sd at this
meetin;J that 1QU_7,OO 0:u1ty has already ~ the site per yo:sr previCAJS
specific:aticna. It was also stated that to again cap this area per yo:sr
14' ¥ 'Ml it ~ take 60,000 truck loads of fill. '!his I feel ~ IUi.n
I«. AvenJe, requi.rinq JDJCh repair to be made to the road. Are ya1 willirg to
pay for all this fill and ,.,-""ary npairs to J(L Avenue? We peqUe a1 J(L
Ave.rue do net look fOIWard to this additic:nal l"Llisance traffic.
12.4. Installirq pmp at the site to puIIp and treat the cx:ntaminatia1 may
involve as many as 7 puapin;J wells. If this many puIIpi are required, we
feel it will net a1ly dty up cur cm:rent well water supply, ):JUt will also
affect the water levels in cur two wildlife pcms and Ba1nie Castle lake.
12.5. It was also 1IISI1tia1ed that attar a1 site treatment of the
cx:ntaminated water, that the treated water ocW.d be disc:harqed into Ba1nie
castle taka. NcIxdy fraD ycur departmentS ever "'i-"'19--' this with the
current prcp!rty owners of Ba1nie castle lake, of Wic:h that are a1ly abcut
7 owners. I, at this tiE WQl),d be q:posed to this met:hccl of pmpin;J,
treatDEnt, an! disc:hmJe.
12.6. It VIIS mentia1ed that a sanita%y sewer line bit cx:rwt.nJcted to carry
the cx:ntaminated fluids to the Kal-7-OO Treatment Plant. Iqain, I ask,
who is CJOin1 to pay far this sewer line?
12.7. A water line was cx:rwt.nJcted ala-q J(L Averue an! 4th St.aat by
0Bhtem0 '1'owrEhip because of saD8 polluted water wells a1 ~ westerly side
of the site.
12.8. If artf water wells of prcp!rty owners with frcntaqe alc::.n) this water
. line shculd CJO bad because of claimed pollutia1, they are required to pay
f'ra1t foot CXISt of the water line plus hook up ~4 .ectia1 fees to cbtain
city water. I claim this is net fair to the J(L AveraJe prcperty owners. We
-------
49
did not pollute the site, the whole of }{alamazoo ani adjoininJ c::omties
caused the claimed pollutia1. All stw:W.d have paid for the installatia1 of
the wter line. I agree these who ~41SCt to the wter line sholld pay the
hook up ~ ar.ectia1 fee, tut not the fra1t footage cost: 'tihether it be
water line or sewer line.
o
JL2.9. A statement was read at this meetin;J frcm the }{al~m::iI".oo O::unty
Health Dept. that naritorin;J of test -.ells placed artU1:1 the site sheWed a
1aeasured drq) of pollutia1 to the gI'O.1Jdwater in the shallow aquifer.
12.10. It has been 10 years that the site has been clOSEd. 'lbe O::unty and
rrownship have met all previc:us requ.irEm!ntS pert:.aining to the site. I
believe yoJr cost estimate of $25 millia1 for the site is totally cut of
line am absolutely~.
~ 112:
12.1. No t~ase to ~ needed.
12.2. No r~ to ~uent needed.
12.3. '!he design of the lanifill CDJer will take into aooc:u'1t site
specific i"'CII~ such as surface water runoff, addresSed by yoJr ~d;.
Also, see a):x:we ~~ to amments regardi1'q the need to cap the site,
the AMRs and tt.e i~c:l1PA regardi1'q the in:xI'tVenience to the neighborirq
residentS. 1W menticned in aJ:xMa ~~r, the FRPs w:iJ.l be sa.1ght to
finan:2 the remedial actia1 at this site. .
12.4. 'Ihere shculd net be arrj effect a1 yo% ~ by the pmpin;J actia1
that will occur '4IIeSt of the site. D1ri.n; the actual design of the
groundWater extractiav're-injectia1 system, isCllpll such as ytm'S will be
ackh. e 5""""'" .
12.5. BcI'1nie castle take was d;CIII;"'''''''''' as a cii.sd\arge point very early in
the decisia1 process, so no d]GI""I1Ct-c:icn with the residentS was ~ needed.
12.6. 'Ih8 use of the J{a].amazoo Publically owned TreatDent Plant (POlW) is
still a viable ~cn. All CX)Sts WQlJ.d be picJced up by the ~.
12.7. No l~ to u..went needed.
12.8. 'Dd8 is net an EPA issue l:IUt shCUld be adIh I!. e-rl to the Q:U'Ity
ard,Ior the TownShiP. Ycu my wish to an;ult the ecunty or yOJr attorney
~ thi8 issue.
12.9. See I~M to similar ~its above.
12.10. Please refer to the RI Report, the K)D an! the ~~IS9t' to ~
as to the need for remedial acticn at this site.
-------
50
~tt '13:
13.1. As heme ani p~ owners located adjacent to the site, we are
ccn::emed for the 1\ItUre clearJJP plans of the lanifill site.
13 .2. we understan:1 the need to clearup the area, ani to take actiat to
prevent further ro-~ by the larxifill to the surroundirq area 1:ut questiat
the methods planned by the EPA ani the amcamt of taxpayers' ~ to be used
for these methcds. '!be plans outlined at a recent township meeting s -~
~"ive for the prci:)lems listed. we walld hcp! that federal officials
walld plan to spen1 tax dollars wisely while acx:arplishing what is ~"'UY
to cleanup the area.
13.3. we are also ccn::emed with the fate of BcrIni.e Castle take. Sin::e we
m:::Ned to the area, we have worked ocnt.irJucusly to clean up our shoreline ani
have made a ocn;cicus effort to rem::IV8 debris fraI1 the lake. It is our
sincere wish that arrf "clean up" actiat taken by the MtNR or the EPA will
net adversely effect the area surroundirq or the level ani quality of water
in BcrIni.e Castle take.
RIespCI'iSe '13 :
13 .1. No respcnse to ~ needed.
13.2. 'Ihe costs will be distril::utecl aIII:n) all the FRPs (generators ani
transporters of hazardcus wastes ani substanCeS to the site ani the owners
ani cp!IC!tors of the site) in a manner to be set. At presmt, there are
CNer 65 FRPs ~ch are to share these ~;;!Il act1at costs.
13.3. 'Ihe r--"bl actias planned will net effect BcrIni.e Castle take. No
groundwater treatment d.iscbarge will enter BcrIni.e Castle an::l the new
lanifill ,cap will be designed. to deflect ~... surface water drainage &18Y
fraI1 BcrIni.e Castle Lake. '!he groundwater extractiat system will be located
to the west of the site an::l will be designed net to effect the relaticn3hip
between the lake ani the groundwater.
a.u-:alt 114:
14.1. I 1IICUleS like to go at L-eoord of opposirq arrj actiat beirq taken at
the SO c:alled clean up of the 1CL Ave. Ian:lfill in KalamazcK:) for the
followinJ, 8IIICnI;J many, reasms: I cp!Stia\ the dt:.:Ilee of cxnt.amiMtia\ am
~M of hazard to ene's health as ~~ at the JEetin; of July 23,
1990. All in most aoCIJSaticnl of ccntaminatia\ ani hazards to health the
informatia\ is very sketchy, an::l the facts practically nc.I'BCistent. tab
tests em rats ani mice are inxn::lusive as in past cancer scares alxUt
c:ranberries, red dyes, etc. '!hey czly praYed, if anythinq, that these
sutstances walleS have to be ca'\SUIIBi or irqested in DICI"L1III!1'1 quantities to
pose a risk to cne's health.
14.2. 'Ihe landfill has been closed for 10 years an::l ~rr-' acxxn"dirq to
the rNR ani EPA requirements at the time, an::l fully awroved. In the 10
YMrS the "ccntaminatiem" level has decreased 90% acco~ to cx:.ncerned
-------
51
agencies, ..u.ch to me does net warrant the sperdin; of millicns of dollars
a'1 this lard for saDething unknown ard untested.
v
14.3. At this time, to J1.fj )cncwledge, J'X) en! needs to be ~ about
drinkin;J cx:rJtaminatecl water caused by the lanifill. New city water lines
have been ard are bein;J made available to the entire area, alcrq with ~
wells ..u.ch have replaced the shallow a'1e5 in cp!StiCl'\.
14.4. 'Ihere has been talk of brirgirg suit against cx:upanies who used the
lanifill, wch covers Ka,la1l\:ll7-OO Ccunty ard surrt1D'"d.in;J areas, wch I feel
is grossly unfair. I suspet!t the innocent cx:upanies who discarded nat.hing
hamful '8tW.d be payirg for a fel who dt~ what ytU ocnsider hazazdcus
materials. '!be questia'1able materials were discarded by a minor few out of
the ta1S ard ta1S of martf.
14.5. I do net believe in health hazard hysteria. Germs have been, ard
always will be here with us. I do believe in the purpose ard intent of the
~ ard EPA, tut do riot ocnsider the ~diture of millicns of dollars to
clean up 87 acres ard grc::a.n1water CI'\ a small tnct of lard in Kala1l\:ll7',OO
Ccunty to be warrant:.eI1. I believe the situatiCl'\ wUl be better ard lessen,
as is already~, as time goes CI'\. I feel the ~is a'1 clean up
shculd be placed at each scurce prcducin) questimable materials as it is
occ.Jrrin), ard use the ooncentratiCl'\ of dollars for that purpose, ard more
clean up of the Great Iakes~ cm'. rivers ard streaDS.
~sse 114:
14.1. No I~ to ~t't needed.
14.2. Ycm' ~ is leqitimate tut the CICI1taminatiCl'\ at ard aran1 the
site is real, as shawn by the grc::a.n1water smrples by the EPA ard by the
Q:JUnty. Even thcu;Jh SCIII8 ccnt:a1Dinants have decreaSed in ocracentratiCl'\ CNe:r
the years, the ~ll..AtiCl'\ of several ccnt:a1Dinants still ~ ~le
drinJdn) water levels and ~ia1 actiCl'\ 1IiJSt be taken. See respcnses to
similar u.8Iauents a1:x7M.
14.3. See I~- to shlli1ar ~ abaYe.
14.4. 'Iba ~ has dcm extensive seard1es to filii out who 1'1;v--' of
hazarcb8 W8St.es/substance8 in the laR!fill. Since the lardfill clcsed in
1979, ~d8 are 8CU'08. AooardinJ to federal law, any genentar or
transpart8r of hazaldaJs wastes/sutstances ani the cwners/~tors of the
site can be held liable for any inYestigatiCl'\ ani cleanJp of CICI1taminatiCl'\
at a sita. 'Ihc88 1ft) generated or transported atly wastes which did net
CD1tain hazaldaJs wastes/substanCeS \iICUld net be liable for sud1 oosts. In
the eyes of the law, those who di ~ of minor aDDmts, can be just as
liable as these who 1'1;~ of major aDDmts. You may refer to SectiCl'\ 107
of the ~eher&ive Envi.~-=l1tal RleSpaISe, ~lSatiCl'\, and Liability
Act, as .C1111818ded 1::Jy th8 SUperfUnd lueudments and ReauthorizatiCl'\ Act of 1986
(better Jcncwn as SUperfUnd) for the legal specifics regardin;J liabilities at
SUperfUnd sites.
-------
52
14.5. Pefer to IespalSe 14.2 a1xJYe.
0::mDent '15:
15.1. Althcugh we are east of the landfill and in less da.n;Jer of soil and
water oartaminatiem, we are ~ about Bennie castle take and what
effects yoJr proposen plan for cleanJP wcW.d have em the lake. What
assurances do we have that the grcurdwater ycu i-'L~ to p.mp frc:m the
landfill into Ba1nie castle take '«n't still cx:nta.in pollutants.
15.2. We feel cpeni.n;J up the landfill with heaVy equipDent wcW.d be like
cpeni.n;J up a "can of wons". We feel this cxuld do more harm than qocd.
15.3. As for pIttirq em another cap of clay, liners, and soil, we feel
that this is not ~e!lIIrj as oartaminatiem has decreased in the 9 years
since the dLmp's clcsin;J. I'm sure yta1 can imagine what haulin;J 60,000
loads of clay, soil, etc. CNer a period of 5 years wcW.d do to 1(L Ave.
15.4. My parents lived here durin;J the 10 years the landfill was c:pm.
'!his was ~]y their "Golden Years" bIt it was ElllDtia1ally drainin;J to
them to have the ga%bage t1:Ucks qoin;J by at 1/2 to 1 hcur intervals. Now we
live here in our "Golden Years" and face the same possibility.
15.5. We will be the c:nes to pay for the increased stress to the roadway
thrc::Jugh special as~-.........1'1ts for road npa.irs. '!he same wcW.d be true if the
so calle:1 polluted grcurdwater were to be pmped to the city Set raqe
treatm!nt plant. We wcW.d be as!jcs~ for sewer lines that we da\'t need.
we have a qocd septic tank and dry well that sba.1ld last us for our
remainin;J years.
15.6. We also feel it would be unfair to residents west of the lardfill to
have deed I't:OUictia1S pIt en their prcperty.
15.7. If ~ to ycur figures scmethi.n;J IIIJSt be ck:ae, then we feel
installin;J a law ccst ferx:e a.rc:uU the site wcW.d be sufficient at this
time .
Respa1se '15:
15.1. No vater will be d.isc:harged to BcI'1nie castle Lake. See respcI'LS~ to
s;m;1ar .~.._._....ats ab:N8.
15.2. '1h8 landfill will net need to be "q)eued." '!he lardfill cap will be
installed en the tA as aut cap. SaD8 of the 10& asWtt cap material may need to
be I~aded, but the waste material c1ces net need to be di.st:1.1rtIed.
15.3. See respatSes abaYe to S;1I\; 1 ar -.-ueI its.
15.'. '!he ciistumanc8 caused by the installatien of the new cap is
unfortunate and cannot be avoided. As stated abaII'e, if ~ haulin; and
ocnst%Uctiem met:hcds are followed, the d.i.sturbances sba.1ld be kept to a
mini:aIJm. '!he c:awin; activity is estimated to take 3-5 years.
-------
c
53
15.5. It will be the Ccunty's an:! TownShip's leSpOIlSibility to address
repairs to the roads. ']he City oowage treatment plant is no la-ger the
preferred groundwater alternative tut if the city's serage treatment plant
is used as part of the groundwater remedial actia1, the 1'RPs wo.1ld need to
pay for the sewer extensia1 to the lan:ifill an:! residents will JICSt liJcely
be c::harged a1ly if tney elect to hook-up to the system. Residents normally
are a1ly be c::harged for the hcok-up fraD the haDe to the til.&.adt, tut this is
a Ccunty or TownShip matter.
15.6. Deed restricticn; are neoe5'P'ry as aalitia1al protectia1 to the
residentS' health. we can- net pez:mit new wells or existin;J wells to receive
groundwater that is ocntaminated beya1d federal limits.
15.7. ']he fence will be used tut the grcundwater remedy is nee:B1 to
actively address the grcundwater oart:aminatia1 and meet ARARs. ']he ~
cap is nee:B1 to meet ARARs and to prevent further ocntaminatia1 of the
grcundwater .
o.....Dent 116:
16.1. '1tIe 0Shtem0 takeS AssOCiatia1 is ~""t-aeed of residentS alcrq Bennie
Castle ani D1stin lakeS in 0Shtem0 TownShip, as WBll as these nearest the XL
Averue landfill in ~a1N"'.oo CcaJnt:y. It \/as largely thrc:U;h the effarts of
cur organizatiat that the XL AverJJe IaTdf1ll \/as 1) prevented traD expan1i.n:J
- to 600 acres, as had ariqinallY been planned by the o:amty; an! 2) WS
subsequently shut dcwn entirely. AccoI'din:)ly, we have interests that I'Un
fully parallel to the QCI1CemS of EPA ani we thank ycu far yo% effarts thus
far.
16.2. We do, hcweYer, have seriam <1''''1- aIxA1t saDB of the ~n-es ycu
have ~,~ as a remedy. we are priJIIarily ~~ abcUt any "heroic"
]llAACII.J.reS ,that cxu1.d negatively iJlpinJe at cur water supply, such as an
atteDpted purqin) of the aquifers below th8 lardf1ll. With mssive
quantities of water ~ baCk to ~-"-OO treabDent plants, \01ldn't the
water table of the ana in general, and Bennie- Castle Iake in partic:War, be
affected? Si1llnAt"ly, has ultraViolet treatment of CXI1taminants been
dsamlt.catsd as an effective JII:Id8 at other lardf1ll sites, an:! \01ld there
be sufficitl1t protection ~ air pollution?
16.3. In vi8I of th8 fresh water pipelina to pecple with affected wells
am th8 diJDinishinJ pollutiat plume, aw waI3ers if, the DUlti1d.llicn-dcllar
]llAACII~ ycu ~~ axe really ~~iAte new. In this ",espect, wa join
the o:amty in ~ that a less aJli)iticus an:! far less ocst.ly a reJI8!y
be deVis&i.
16.4. At the Si!IIII8 t.18, we IIL1St alert both EPA and the Q:IUnty that not
everya18 in the affected area benefits fraD the new water SUWly line alcrq
XL Aw. My wll, far exmzple, is the closest to the "M1' Gamage" sectiat of
the site ard yet it is mcnitored a1ly twica a year, ~. 8269 West Main
Sl...aat, also in the b--'iAte area of the site, is not mcnitared at all. we
also werder \krf no mcnit.arinq wlls W8t'8 fINer drilled at the north-
northeUtem edge of the lan1fill, \iIhid1 is cur vector lNaY fraD the site.
-------
54
16. 5. Other low-ast ard i TmIAt'1 i ~te iJIl'rcvements n90e$=-ry at the lan:1fill
wcW.d be to erect a fence around the perimeter. At pres~lt, matori.zed "ctirt
bikes" in 51 ~T ard srXJWDdJiles in the winter are tear~ up the
~.
Respollse 116:
16.1. No ~ ISe to 0CIIIIIertt needed.
16.2. '!he extractia\ of the gro,mdwater shculd net affect Bennie Castle
take since the lake is divide:! Dy a layer of clay fraD the gro,mdwater body
that will be p~. See the RI report for Dm"8 details a\ the qeoloqical
settinq of the lake as carpared to the site. '!he design of the gro,mdwater
extractia\ system will be set so that Bennie Castle Lake will net be
affected. UV~datia\ is no laqer a preferred gro,mdwater ra-iiAl
ac:t:ia\. '!he use of enhanced bi~iAtia\ is new the selected gro,mdwater
ra-iiAl actia\. '!he use of the City sewage treatment plant may be used if
the enhanced bi~iAtia\ fails. No matter what syst:em is c:hcsen, air
pollutia\ will be JDa1itored ard ~ ~~iately.
16.3. 'Ihe est.iJDate of the OYerall ra-i;~1 ac:ticz a new $16 millicz
ccmpmad to the $23 - 27 millicz initially lA' ~. EPA aM MtNR feel the
acticns selected are needed to assure the prat:ec:ticz of human health,
welfare, and the envircnDBnt.
16.4. As the RI RIIi!port indicates, the grcudwater flew directicz in the
West I(L Ave. landfill a%M is to the ~ with ~ to the southwest
ard the northwest. YaIr well, located to the ~;Ate northeast of the
site, was sempled twice durin; the RI aM did net indicate arrj cx:ntaminatiCl'1
fraD the lardfill. 'Ihe RI did net semple all the residential wells in the
area, atly I.~eselitative wells that had a pcssibility of shI::Iwilq
cx:ntaminaticz and GK'I.~iate' bac:Jcgrc11n:l wells. 'Ih8 residential well
located at 8269 W. Main St..~ was net saDpled durin;J the RI because it is
further up;Jndient than ycur well and ancther l:8ckgrcun:1 semple was net
~""'~ (two bac:Jcgrc11n:l or upgradient wells wre iJWtalled east of the
site). GrQ.n!water 1IICnitarirl:) wells wre net install8d to th8 ncrtheast of
the lardfill because ycur well was a smplin; point, and siroa this locaticz
is c:xnsidered an up;Jndient point, another upgradient or l:8ckgrcun:1 well was
net QeeIud neoes'S'1"ry in additia'\ to the bacJa.p:curd wlls located just east
of the sita.
16.5. A fen2 will also need to tie installed to protect the inv-t.-::nt of
the new ~t5IIded lardfill cap as called for in th8 Ia).
a..IUe11ts ~;VBd only at the JUlv 23. 1990 PUblic ~,..;Y'ItI:
~.t . 17:
17.1. I am a 1eqislative assistant with the Mic:higan Tcwnship Associaticz,
an associaticz of mre than 1,200 tcwn9hips in the State of MichiqBn. I
have oc:me here taUght to express the concerns of aIr lDI!!IIb!rships ~
-------
55
bIo is"'- which have ~ because of ~ actiem at the West KL
AveI'U! landfill in Kal-'.oo.
;>
17.2. First, it is JT.tj UJ'derst,andin; that this landfill ~..-i c:p!r'atia'\S
in 1979 an1 urdertoOk a closure of the facility pJrSUal1t to an1 with full
~ of the MrNR. It CD1Sists of a cap, gas vent.inq, and water
diversiem system. I fUrther umerstand since that time cxntitia'\S abcAIt the
landfill have substantially iJIprcYed an1 that i1Iprcvement is prc:i:lably due,
in prircipal part, to the ~iatiem to close the 1.anifill. It is JT.tj
further ~ that the Township of Oshtemo and the CDJnty of
Kala1Ml'-OO have exten:3ecl pJblic water supply lines to these parties em
private wl18 in and abcAIt the area of the landfill.
17.3. em- associatiem is partiC1llarly c:x:ncerned with the waverin;J approach
taken by the MrNR an1 the EPA in ~iAtiem of the site. IJ:x:al gcve.uwel1ts
need the assurance that actia'\S they take pJrSUal1t to the c:U.rectiem of the
MrNR an1 EPA have a reasa18ble ~ee of finality, partiC1llarly in
situaticns like the West ]a. landfill, ..mere cxntitia1S are iDproVirg and the
local ~ have taken steps to minimize the risk to its residents
while cx.n1iticna ccnt.i1'I.I8 to ~.
17.4. ID::al ~ are n:st profit centers. ~ th8y agree to own
an1 c:pRte a landfill, they do 80 far the benefit of the entire CXIIIIUn.ity
and withcUt a profit incentive. I.ocal ~ need to be able to
estimate the ccst that they will ila.1r in closin:) such facilities: and cn:e
closed, need reasa18ble assuran::B that it will n:st be neoe""""-"'ry to pay
sutstantial SUDS to ~ the facilities already closed.
17.5. Secx:I'd, aocaJ:dinq to the records of the ~, the site is (h,~ of
minim.Jm ~ of industrial waste. em- agc:tY'!i&tiat is also c:x:ncerned with
EPA's and MrNR's applic:aticn of bazardr:a,1s waste ~b1 requ.ireaents to
sites that CXI1tain ~y amic1pal wast8. '1b8 MrNR cx:mplies with the
State SUpertun11ist ~isirg (N£ 2,600 sites in Miaugan. on. EPA has
1cSentified a.I8r 75 SUpertun1 sites in Miaugan. Hcw8Yer, neither
organizatiem ~1"S to haw clearly artiC1llated the cxn:litia1S urder which
solid waste vmsus bazardr:a,1s waste clean-up st:an:mds will apply.
17.6. '1b8 ~licat1at of bazardr:a,1s waste clean-up st:an:mds to sites
sut&tant.ially increaSe the cost of r~_HAtiat. In this case, the EPA and
the MDiR baV8 estiJaated a ~iAtiat ocst to be ~ to $27 milliat dol1A1"S..
A solid wst8 ~iAtiat cx:W.d be ~1ished far un:Jer $10 mill1cl\.
17.7. Q\ behalf of the JIIBIt:IerShip of the Miaugan 'l'cIWn:Ship Associatic:n, I
ask that the EPA and th8 ~ ~lSider their decisic:n at the site in light
of the iqUicaticnl nsultin; fraD fluctuatinJ ~iA1 positia1S and the
ability of local ~l...ent to predict and provide the proper ocsts.
as [~ '17:
17.1. No l~ to ~it needed.
-------
56
17.2. See respa ISOO to s i1llil ~r 0CIIIDSI1tS ab::7Ve rega.rdin;J the inadequacy of
the present cap.
17.3 . EPA ani MrNR feel that the CXlJi)inatiCl'1 lan:lfill cap ani grcun:!water
extractiCl'1 and treatJnent will address the CXX1taminatiCl'1 prc:i)lem presently at
the West I
-------
57
~1S8 118:
"
18.1 See a1:xNe r=pa IS9£' an:i the R:)[) rega.rdi.rq the use of enhanoed
bio~;~tia\ as the selected grourdwater ~;~1 actia\. 'n1e use of T,JV-
aridatia\, like the other ~;::IIl actia\ altematives presented within the
PS, my be iJEplemented to replace or suwlement the selected remedy if it is
sInm that the selected remedy does net adUeve the cleanJp goals as stated
wi,,:hin the RJD. 'n1e ~in;J of the grourdwater c1irectly beneath the
lardfill is a pJSSibility it the grourdwater already oa1taminated outside of
the lardti:l is also oo1.:.d:.ed. 'n1e exact locatia1S of the extractia\ wells
for the selected ~;~l act.ioo will be deteJ:mined durin:J the design of the
extractioo system. 'Ihe extractioo ~ls need to be placed in areas that
capture or ccntain the cart:.aminatioo plume, CUt this may be dc.'r1e in stages
with saae wells nearer the site ard saae wells turther cut. When the wells
f'urt:her cut are ~in;J clean water, they can be shut down leaviJ'q the wells
nearer the site to catt.i.nJe to intercept the cx:ntaminants as the leave the
lan:Sfill. 'Jhe idea of ~in;J the grourdwater thrtu;Ih the landfill was
cx:nsidered, at least in theory, CUt was net carried fanrard becaUSe the
exact types, cpantity, ard locatiaw of the hazaMcus wastes within the
lardfill are net kncWn. F!If "flushint' the lan:Sfill, ycu may in fact be
c:reatirq more cart:.aminatioo than would have been created if the site was
left as is, by JIBkinI) wastes or leamate that nomally ~ net have
migrated into the grourdwater, migrate into the grourdwater.
18.2. Refer to 18.1 abaYe rega.rdi.rq the cuter trirqes of the cart:.aminatioo
plume. In regard to potential problems with the site 30 or 40 years dawn
the road, if the landfill cap is prc:prly installed, ~ to the RD,
an:! is prcperly maintainec1, potential probleas dawn the road will be
~;1ft;'m.
;)
-------
CIHmlr .
58
APmIDIX A
LIST OF ~ t1JR1N; '!HE RJBLIC CXHo!ENl' Pi:JUOD
Ft:R '!HE WEST ](I. AVENJE I»mFIIL
FKM JUNE U ~ ]tJ.X;.JSr 10, 1990
-/
NAME AND 14FFTT .TA.TICN
SCIJRCE OF a::Jot.!ENl'
CCJototENlS FKM S'IM'E I.mISIA1t1RE:
~ JACK WEIBRf
CCJototENlS READ AT
RJBLIC ~,
7/23/90, BY aw:G
~ AND}WID
aJPI. GIVEN 'It) U. S. EPA
CXHo!ENl' 1:
CCJototENlS FR:M PRPS:
CXHo!ENl' 2: PRP - ](I. AVENJE CXJoMITl'EE I.El'mR
a::NSISTDG OF 24 FRIIS,
I.E1'lm SIQaD BY J .W. ~,
~, S'l'EERDC CXJoMITl'EE.
AFFIDAVITS FR:M MR. MX)U' AND MR.
B1UJ(EW. A'l"mQim
CXHo!ENl' 3: ~ , MIUm I.E1'lm AND ~ ~ 'It) CXHtENl'
"RE.VIDi OF tm:PA PR>POSm ~ '2
AND PR>KSAL OF AtDlTIarAL NCP
CXH'LIANl' mm:>IAL AI.:I'ERNATIVES pat
IMPIDIENIM'ICN AT 'DIE WEST I
-------
a::Mmfi' 7:
I.:J
a::Mmfi' B:
I.>
a:M!ENl' 9:
a::Mmfi' 10:
59
~ amfIH, ~, ~
CXXlNl"l In\RD OF o:I'MIS?I~
awuDlTE SUMNEY, a:uN1"l
a:HtIS5ICNm, ~ a:uN1"l
In\RD OF a:HtISsI~
JCIiN ~, ~
~~,~
~ ~ a:uN1"l,
~ AND cnnaN
R:N ~, sumNISOR,
awum 'rofiSHIP C6Hl'fH)
CXJoHNI'S FR:H RESII:ENrS:
a::Mmfi' U:
a:JflENl' 12:
a:JflENl' 13:
o:::H!ENl' 14:
a:JflENl' 15:
a:M!ENl' 16:
'lHEX)[XH: StOol, RESItINl'
~ L. HEIM, RESIIENr
BEI'l'Y J. StOol, lW).u.Qn'
wa. AND JENnE StI:M, RESII:ENrS
PJWL L. MlUER, VICE-FRESIIENl',
CSIfl'!X) IAl
------- |