Ur18C2 Slates
Enwonmenlal Pro!8dlOn
Aq«Y:y
Office 01
E rrergency and
Remed.aJ Response
E;>A,. ROOROS-9Q, 149
Mara- . 990
CoPy I
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Union Scrap Iron Metal, MN
.
EPA Report Collection
Info!rmation Resource Centm
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19101
-------
..
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. RePOII! ~ I ~ .' 1.~.~"".....
PAGE ?:::;,'?':S- ~: .. =<
:.::-A - ., -
.. .,..-~ So Ro\>o<1 One
::';? ERFl:ND ?EC'JRD JF :::C:S::N : 3" :; ~
.,
'..:ni~n Scrap Ir~n Metal, MN L
::.r5t ?emedia 1 Action - : :.:-.a1
,. A..e.or(., L lIMo",*" OP~ ~ Mo.
to ~~-_..... 10. Proj8c1l1'08IWoft "'"".....
11. Cor88CtIe) or ~Q) ....
(e)
(Q)
1:1. ........ 0rg8nII8II1R ..... - ...... II. 1We" -.. . ,....,.. eo..-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 8001000
401 M Street, S.W.
washington, D.C. 20460 ,..
IL III............,"""
IL -- (\JonII::IIIIO --I
The Union Scrap Iron Metal site is a vacant industrial property in Minneapolis,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The site overlies an alluvial aquifer. Surrounding land
use is primarily industrial and commercial, with adjacent residential areas. From the
early 1970s until 1983, the site was used as a processing facility for used batteries
and scrap metal. Batteries were crushed and recyclable materials were sorted. Several
piles of crushed battery casings and electrical equipment were present onsite at
various times. Intermittent investigations conducted from 1980 to 1987, ident ified
contaminated soil onsite as a result of these processing activities. In 1987, a
potentially responsible party removed 773 tons of battery casing material from the
site. Two subsequent EPA removal actions in 1988 included the excavation and offsite
disposal of onsite contaminated soil, an underground storage tank, debris, a concrete
pad and an onsite building. A 1989 to 1990 remedia 1 investigation determined that
prior removal actions were effective in eliminating contaminated onsite soil and waste, t
and the low level ground water contamination does not pose any threat to public health.
Therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
(See Attached Page) t
". '*'-" ANIy8I8 .. 0.. ...
Record of Decision - Union Scrap Iron Metal, MN
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
... .......-~... T-
c. coun ~
,I. ,........, -- ,I. ...... Q888 (1N8 ....... I'. ............
None 30
.. ...... Q888 (1N8 '-811 a ,...
NnnA
6
~-7."
.
(188 ...za 11)
188........ 8ft--
(F...., ~.)
II. ~.I"C-.
-------
. .
-'
--
:::3~ :=:~ '~~:3_,
.'-'
?~:~: ?e~e~~a~ ~::::~ -
- -.' - -
.;bSt~3C:
~C":r1t .:.~.!.;ed)
The selec:ed ~emedial acticn :~~ :~is site is no fur:her action, Previous S~:e
activities ~ave reduced onsi:e contaminant levels to below backgrcund or SPA
health-based levels.
:emc'n ~
PRRFORMANCR STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
.
.
-------
K!:XX.tl is, Minnesota, developed in accordan=e with the
~rehensive Envirorrrenta1 ~p:RJSe, ~tion am Liability Act of 190C!
(CEFCIA), as anerded by the Superfunj AmeJ.i.ai\ts anj Reauth:lrization Act of 1986
(SMA), the Mi!\nesota Envi.t.Onll&utal Response and Liability Act of 1983 (MERIA)
and to the extent practicable, the National Oil an::! HazarckJus SUbstances
Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300,1990). 'this decision d:x:urent
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the I9IEdy for this Site.
'nUs decision is based on the aQninistrative record for this Site. 'n1e in:iex of
the aci'ninistrative record is attached.
n,e State of Minnesota and the U.S. Envho..'8::I'ta.1 Protection Jtqercy (EPA) each
an:1 in:ieperdentl y, coocur am adept the selected remedy.'.
DESCRIPrICN Of' SEUX::I'ED REMEDY: N:) ICrICN
n,e results of the AElnedial Investigation (RI) sh::Jw that the excavations
corducted by the EPA in 1988 were effective in rem:wing contaminated soil and
that there is not a significant source or ~t of contani.nated soil at the
Site. COncentrations of contaninants found in the groum water, that originate
at the Site, are belc:w any applicable or relevant an::! appropriate requirement
(MAR's) am c:kJ not poee signifiCMtt health or envL.o"'8::I,tal risks. 'l11e
selected ranedy is that "B) furtlm' action" be taJc&n by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Aqerc:y (MPCA) Site RB8~u8e Section an:! t.h& EPA Office of SUperfunj at
the Site. Contafti.nants found to be originating fran off-site eow:ces will be
folla..ed up by the MPC,A'8 Ur¥:iergrourK1 Storage Tank (tm) progrcD an:1 Preliminaty
Assessnent/Site Inspection progz:'cD.
ra:LARATICN STNmefI'
~ selected I.Q..edy of "B) action" is protective of tunan health am the
enviL'orlnellt, ~lies with F8dBral am State requi.r8Ents that are legally
at:Plicable or relevant and ~~iate to the z-oI~A1 action, an:! is coet
effective.
'n1is I.Q.ady is a peJ:mIIlB1t eolutiCX'1 am alteJ:native treatment techmlogies are
not neoeoje.j. .
Because this I.~ will !IX l8Ult in hazarcbJa 8Ub8tance8 rEIMini.ng on-site
ab::Ne hea.lth-~ levela, tnt five year I'8View will !IX apply to this action.
frt~¥ J~'/,a
V du V. Date
RBgia1al IdniniJItra
U . S . l!:nvL:o"'8:lutal Prot8ctiCX'1 1qIJrc:y
.
~/tJ;Mt-
Gerald L. Willet
Canni58iooer
Kinne80ta Pollution Ca\t.rol Itc)e. &,,-y
MAI"~ft 23. 1 QQO
Data
.-..--..-- ---.-.
-------
. .
Record 0 f Dee is ion
S~ of Rared.ial Alt.ernati~ Selection
union Scrap Site
MinneapJlis, Hennepin County, Minnesota
r.
S lore I.CCATI~ AND DE'.SCRlPI'I~
'n1e Union Scrap site (Site) is located at 1608 Washington Avenue !'t:)rth,
Minneap:>lis, M.i..nnesota.
It is on the rortheast comer of the intersection of
Washington Avenue !'t:)rth and 16th Avenue !'t:)rth. 'n1e Site is located in the
southwest 1/4, Section 15, T29N, R24W.
It is approximately 1,200 feet west of
the MississiWi River an::i one mile north/northwest of cbmtown Minneapolis
( Figure 1).
n-.e Site is surrouOOed by camerc:ial an::i industrial properties. ~r,
there are residerces within a mile in all directions, and within three blocks to
the west.
n-.e Site is 00unded on the south by 16th Avenue beygnc1 which is
currently an empty lot.
lJmBdiately eut of the Site are ~ sets of Soo Line
.
Railroad tracks that serve the scrap yards and tie into Burlingum !'t:)rthem
Railroad (~) lines northeut of the Site.
East of the tracks in the same
.
block are ~ scrap neta.l salvage yards. North of the Site is an E-Z Stop
convenierce store and gu station. Sev8ral underground storage tanks are
located on the station pl.~y which are used for storacjJe of kerosene, diesel,
leaded, ard unl88d8d guolu.., and racing fuel.
In acktition, fuel offloacti.ng
piping and putpI are still in place along the Soo Line Rai1roed tracks on the
eut side of the station.
IJm8c1iately W88t of th8 Site ill Wuhingt.a\ Awnue.
.
Continuing west, the land wrface drop8 off sharply to the Intantate-94 (1-94)
access road; tJ&\ furth8r "'88t, 1-94. ". elevation of the ac:c88 roed, which
.
-------
..
-2-
was ~tly excavated cturi.!"q 1-94 CQT1S L."i.JCt ion , ~ to be 25 t8 35 :ee:
below the Site elevation.
The Site vicinity is shown in Figure 2.
The Site is currently vacant an:j level exx::ept for SCIre CQf'Crete debris ard
I'f\iror subs iderce in the rort.l"rwest corner.
'Ib! 1M jor ~ inesses in the area are i.J'r.ro 1 ved in scrap ITetal process ing .
Other ~iress scattered ~gtL""'\;t t..he area consist of warehousing, auto parts
repa ir, 1 uni::Jer yard, protographic process i1\g , t.aVe!TIS, ca fes, and 5erv ice
stations .
The krown natural resources at the Site are soil and grouOO water. n-.e
Site is rot located within a floodplain.
The Site sit is typically flat
with little vertical relief. 'Ib! primary vertical relief in the area is the
1-94 road cut to the west of the Site am the slope adjacent to the Mississippi
.
Ri ver to the east.
II.
srn HIS'tari AM) ~ 1CI'IVITIES
The area in which the Site is located has been a mixture of residential,
camercial, and iJ1du8trial properties.
!OSt of the ~inesees were autarobile
salvage yards, scrap netal yards am pet.rOl~ product storage ard retail sales
far: ili ties .
'l'b! 1600 block of WUhirqtOn Avenue has been the Site of salvage operations
.
frem the 1930'8 until the 1980'8.
'n'8se salvage yards lined both lides of
waahirqtOn Avenue north and ~ of the Site. 'lbt property north of the Site,
-------
. .
-3-
c!t the lccatiOO of the current E-Z Stop gas e~tion, has been the lccation of
retail gc!SOlire sales sirce the 1930' s.
'!he Union Scrap Iron an:i Metal Ca1pmy owned am operated a ecrap netal,
an:.t b5ttery top an::i casing lJl.0ce5Sing facility at 1608 Washington Avenue ~rth,
Mimea{:ol is, MinneSOta. 'n1e c:aTpV1y has occupied the property s i.n:'e the early
1970's (approximately 1972) W1til 1983. n-.e c::atpV'Iy filed for bankruptcy in
1985.
'Ite prirx:ipal operation at the Site was processing of used battery parts.
'Ite battery parts were crushed in a harmer mill an::1 sorted on a shaker table.
Resulting rec::j'Clables ~ lead oxide, b5ttery poets, and the casing "?llp".
'n'Ie rul:ber wastes were generally lan::1filled. 'n1ese materials were eventually
stockpiled on the Site.
Electrical equiptent ~ also stockpiled at various
tiJres.
Several soort-tem limited scope investigations have taken place at the
Si te over the past ten years. Si.n:'e 1979, data has been collected by the MPCA,
EPA, the l'E~litan Waste Control Cannission (*X) m1 the Minneapolis
Camunity Devel~t Iqircy (K:D.\). Additional studies ~ perfomEd by the
t
fOImer owner of the Site.
In 8\nMrY, these investigations indicate that lead
.
was present and widesf';(Md in 8Urficial soils. PCB CClntanination, elevated
levels of sulfate and dspte8sed lOil pt were allO in wid8n::e. IMc:hing of
cont:aninants to under lying soils W8 also occurring at the Site.
n.e history of 1."~:>II8e actions at the Site is provided below in
chronological order:
/WqJJJt
1980
union Scrap Iron and M8tal CatpIny hir8c1 Soil Exploration ~
and 'nri.n City ~ing and Enqirw8ring, Inr:. to 8MInce on-si te
lOil borin1)8 and tU8 lOil ~l- for JI8UW:'881t. of pi,
l8l1CMble 18t4l. and aulfat88. RII8ul t8 indicat8d a .hallow soi 1
zooe of el8Yatad sulfate 1....1s and 10WB1"81 pH. ft) significant
1811CMb1e 88t4l1 ~ fcurr:1.
.
.
-------
May
1985
~
1985
Cctot:er
1986
Dec.-ell t:ler
1986/
January
1987
Cctober
1987
Dec€J1'ter
1987
April
1988
.
. .
-4-
EP A Tee hnical Ass ist..arce TeI!!In (TAT) perf or:m:!d a 5 i te As ses srre:,:
at the Union Scrap Site. ~les were collected of on-site
water, so i 1 and rutt:er chips. Resul ts s I"ooE!d high lead
cont.cJm.ination in all saq>les. Recu",erdations were to control.
8 i te access, re!ItOV'e waste piles, ~le 80 ile, cap tre area to
control a.irlx>rne contaminants ard install ~ water ITDnitoring
'fElls.
A security ferce was const.rueted arrl waste piles 'fEre stabilized
wi tb t.aIpau 1 ins .
The Mi.nneap:>lis Camunity Developtent }qercy (l'CDA) retained
Braun Envirormental Laboratories to advarce t.1ooO ooringS on the
Site and collect soil s~les for analysis of PCBs, '«s, and
leachable (E.P. 'I':>xicity Metbxi) netals. Results st'ooEd no
indication of \0:5; ~, PCBs and significant lead
cont.amination was foun:1.
HI'. Richard RJsen, a p::>tential resp::>nsiDle party (PRP) arranged
for raroval of 77 3 tons of battery casi.ng material to l.J:Juis Lana.
'I':> confitm that a r&1DVal action ...u still required and determine
the msgnitude of the action, EPA's '00' took soil profile sant'les
at six on-site locations. Results for total lead st-owed
significant contllnination in surface eoils up to 87,600 nt;J/kg.
Lead cont..!lftination at one foot c:h~ off significantly witb the
highest being 285 nQ/kq. 'Ib! highest collcentration at 3 feet was
242 nIJ/)cg am at 4 feet, 34 nIJ/kg. An off-site backgrOUOO
surface ~le .tDB1 492 nQ/Jcq with 333 nIJ/kq at six irches.
'1b!8e were taJcBn in a field 1/4 mile southeast of the Site.
EPA RBqion V awroved the nJlDVal action.
EPA ~ rtIIDVal action perfoDt8d by Q.H. Materials
Cotp)ration 1"8IDY9d scrap materials for recycling or proper
dispoeal am uppIr one to three feet of conUJminated soils for
dispoea.l. An underground stOrage tank was c1iscoYered an] I"EIt'OVed
fran the eut C8ntral property bourdary. Sale debris, the CElte!\t
pad, am the tW.lding nlMi.n8d a1 Site. WUte matar ia is ..ere
vi.8iDle tB'88th t.t8 C'8INJnt pId.
Surficial 8Oil. 'tII8z:e IIC8t highly conuminat8d - up to 66,800
l19/kq total 188d in the ccn::r8t8 pId area 8a1th of the blilding.
0tl2r Site areu .tDB1 1.. lead cont..!lftination. Lead levels
dBcreued with dIIpth, C)8I1Eal1y cD«\ to b8c~ levels i.e.
-------
. .
-5-
less t.han 300 rrqlkg total lead ..n t.h.i.n a couple of feet of the
surface .
'n'e Site was backfilled with clean fill fran a residential area
in oorth Minnea(X)l is .
Septatter
1988 MPCA staff saq>led several Site areas for leachable rretals ard
PCBs. Results i1xiicated elevated total lead in several ~les
and leachable lead levels (EP '1':)xicity Meth::xj) in two s~les
maki.ng the sediJ1'ent hazardous waste.
Septaroer
1988 The city of Minneapolis an:-anged for demolition and disposal of
the on-site building.
~r IDec:EI1'ber
1988 EPA perfoIm!d a secord rerroval action at the Site rerroving
debris, the carent pad, and additional contaminated soils. The
Site was backfilled ard leveled with clean fill. The only
ranaining debris on-site is sate con::rete foundation rubble in
the oorthwest corner of the Site. nus material tested
oon-hazarcb.1s for leed.
In total, 3,000 tons of haza.r~s.
The c::JWn8r arrangBd for 8CIIIt material. to be I'8IDV9d fran the
Site during the cleanup. ~in; the 1988 ~.P'....,.e &:'tivities, cb::\mEnts ~
rem:M:Id fran' the facility bUldJ.n;, prior to its cilllDlition. on.. cb:\IIents
were turned CMtr to the EPA and a PRP 88U'Ch bued on th8n W88 initiated.
InfoDMtion Requests were sent to this group of qenerator PRP's in ~,
1988. With the ~ponse action carplete, there was no opportW\ity to ~tiate
.
with the PRP' 8 ccn::eming the reepo.l8e activities.
B8cauae of a P't8I1tial Statute of Limitations running with 1...~""t to EPA's
.
past t'eSpouae C08t.8, EPA, thrc:uJh the DepertJl8nt of Juatice, file:1 a coet
~ law8Uit und8r CER:LA S8C'tion 107, 42 U.S.C. S8C'tion 9607. Civil Action
-------
.'
~-
fUTt:er 4 - 8 9 -4 0 was f i 1 Ed in the D is t.r ict Calrt 0 f Minnesota in January 0 f 1989.
Pdji t ional de f endar1t.s ...ere ~ to t.t-e lawsui t in March 1990.
Negotiations to recover past C06ts have been prcx:eeding during t.t-e pretrial
period.
n-e deferd!nts aO::ied nearly 100 third-party deferdants to the case ard,
therefore, to the negotiations.
iIl the near future.
Increased negoti~tion activity is anticipated
I I I. nsiveness SlI'ImaIY attached.
Although the Site is located iIl an industrial area, there are residential
ar9aS nearl::7y.
Interest iIl the Site on the part of local officials has continued
si.rce the early 19805. A local neiqh1:x>rto::rl organization which represents a
residential ard bJsi.nes5 area near the Site has indicated interest in the status
of the Site.
Over the years the MPCA has att~ed to keep city officials and
the local neighOOrnxx:I organization aware of actions relating to the Site.
(
Prior to the start of the remBdial i..rrJestigation, the EPA corx!ucted ~
rElTDVal actions at the Site - In April 1988 ard tt:MmtJer 1988 - rElTDV1ng scrap
.
materials an::i soil acI"088 the property.
Q\ April 7, 1988, the EPA an::i the MPCA
held a public ftIIeting to ~alant the I"BIC'Va.l al:tion al:tivities ard plans for the
I9nE!dial inYe8tigation. 'ftoe neeting was attended by local of fic ia15 , res idents ,
nea,rt,y bJ.s iness o.mers an1 oth8r8.
Sirce the beginning of the r&redial investigation, the level of interest on
the part of the qeneral pmlic has been low.
~r, city officials have
.
expressed contimed i.ntarMt ~t the project.
'ft1e RI AElp:)rt an1 the p~, v-:,ee.j Plan (attached) for the Site ~ released
to the pml ic for C.""'.II~ tt en Dec;~,t.6r 8, 1989, 'ft8Ie bIO ckx:\JIEnt.s ..re made
-------
. .
-!-
ava il ab 1 e to the p..1b 1 ic at the ~rt.h Psg iema 1 Bran::: h Library, 1315 Lowry Avenue
~rt.h, Mi.nneap:> 1 is .
'n1e notice of availability for these ~ ~ts was
publ i8hed ir\ the ~lis Star and Tribune and in a news release to the Twin
Cities news rredia on Dece.I~ 7, 1989.
Cq>ies of the proposed plan "'Ere lMiled
to city officials, local elected representatives, neighOOring businesses and
others. A public c..'-'IIIIE:llt period on the OCc\ments was held fran DecElTi::ler 8,
1989, to January 8, 1990.
In ackiition a public rreeting was held on DecElTi::ler 19,
1989. At this rreeting representatives of the MPCA presented the results of the
iI1vestigation an:! the L'eC'-'III.l::1'dation that no further cleanup actions are needed
at the Site, an:! ~red questions about the Site. 'n1e attached Resp:>nsiveness
StmnaIy details the ccmnents received and the MPCA' s response.
IV.
SCOPE OF RESPCH;E 1CI'I~
'nUs RD of "M:) Action" represents the final action at the Site W'der t.he
Federal an:! State Offices of Superfurxt.
'Ibe rElnBdial investigation deteImined
that the rel'll)Val actions conducted by the EPA in 1988 were effective ir\ rarovl.ng
cont.am.i.nated on-site soils an::f -.stes for ~ling or proper dis~al.
Contaminants fourx1 to be oriqinating fran off-site sources will be foll~ up
by the MPCA' s tJndergrou.r¥i Storaga Tank (tS'1') program an::f Preliminary
Assessnentl Si te In8p8C'tion proc;ram.
v.
SI're OiMICTERISTICS
RBtBdial InY88t.igation field activit.ies '4re carried out at the union Scrap
5 i te fran July 31 through Sept.enb!r 19, 1989.
Field activities were designed to
enable the evaluation of the extent and mac;nitude of soil and ground water
CCX1t.!Ini.nation oriqinating fran the Site.
'1'tw ~1t8 of the RI can be broken
ci:Jwn into two u-.s: A)
soils, and B)
ground ...ter.
Due to th8 lack of
.
surface ...tar on or adjoining the Site, a 8U1"face water itr.Ie8tigation was not
includBd u put of the scope of ~rk in the RI Mxk Plan.
-------
. .
-8-
11-.e aJId 1 yt. i ca 1 resu 1 t.S f ran the Rl arC the r is k as ses:;rent can 't:e f o...u-d L'"'.
the Rl Rep:>rt for the Site ~leted ~ 22, 1989. A brief s\I'!1MrY of t..he
resul ts is presented t:e lC1N .
A.
~
'n1e local geology consists of fOOl" major units: a surficial sarrl arrl
gravel unit, a silty clay ara clay unit, a ~r sara arrl gravel unit, arrl a
51 feet thick.
'n-Ie surficial sand arrl gravel unit was found to t:e t:et;'.oleen 43 and
Based on the one deep tor iI1g , the clay unit awears to t:e at:ou t
bedrcx:: k un.i t. .
50 feet thick.
n-e deeper sard ara gravel unit exteros to bedrOCk, at atout 192
the entire Site and ~ to t:e acting as a confining unit in the vicinity of
feet.
'n1e clay unit present t:elC1N the sara am gravel unit was found beneath
the Site separating the surficial sard ard gravel aquifer fran the deeper sand
am gravel aquifer.
The soil inveStigation focused on the old fill material and natural
soils teneath the base of the new fill brought in following the EPA rEltDVal
the Site.
Soil 6cS!t>les were analyzed for organic ~ including volatile
nurty-six lOil s~les were collected at various depths fran
action in 1988.
an:i SEI'!Ii-volatile ~, PCB8, in:>rganic netals, an:1 cyanide.
locations are sto.m in Figure 3.
Boring
The ~tS of the characterization stol thst volatile contamination i.rI
soils was limited to tWO volatile organics, tetrachloroetnene and
trichloroetl'ene .
~ organics were foun::1 in 10loI coscel,trations, 6 micrograms
per kilogram (uq/)(9) an:1 11 uq/Jcg, an:i at different locations an:i depths, &-5
(dBsp) ard 8-7 (shallow), I...~ively (Figure 3). 1btre
-------
.'
-9-
t:.han t.he::orcentrations which ....ere fourd in the IT'Onitoring ~lls, ~ad.ient arC
cbo.r.gradien t 0 f the Site.
'!here fore, the lOili 'ICE con::entrat ions foom in the
soil could not constitute the source of the 'l'CE contamination in the
~ ~ter.
Tetrachloroet.here was fourd only in the deep s~le in boring
8-5, Also, 00 tetrachloroet.hene was fcurd in growx1 water; consequently there
has been 00 inpact of tetraChloroethane on ground water.
Based on their limited
extent and magnitude, the volatile organics do oot appear to be a continuing
source or significant cont.aT\i.nants at this Site,
'n1e PCB c:ont.arnination was fcurd in lOili c:orrentrations at four locations
(Figure 3).
'n1e PCB corcentrations ranged fran 94 to 1,000 ug/kg.
'nUs
concentration range is lOili, particularly for soils in the vicinity of the Site.
In O:t.ober 1986, Braun EnviLVI.._,tal Laboratories reported on a limited
investigation at the Site for the M:D.\.
PCB COIceJatrations ..ere foun::l to range
be~ 0.2 to 130 milligrSllS per kilogr81 (ng/kg) on the Site, an:i 4.4 to 1110
ng/kg on the vacant lot directly to the south of the Site,
SUed on the limited
extent and magnitude of PCB8 foun::l in sub8urface 8Oils, it ~rs nDSt of the
PCB contanination oriqinating fran union Scrap Iron and Metal CaTpmy operations
was r8IDVed duri.nq the EPA I"8IDVal actions in 1988, ~ low COIlCefltrations of
PCBs which were fomd in th8 8Ub8urface 80ils at th8 Site are R:7t a hazard to
the grourd ..tar, as evicllllCed by the ab8erce of PCB8 in the ~ water
~les.
~ leed 1...1. d8t8ct8d in 80il ~1- at the Site are within the
range of lead fcurd in natural 80ils in tJw thited States.
Natural soils have
be8\ fan:! to contain 1Md in coucentrati0n8 fJ:an 2 to 200 m;/kg,
". tUghest
.
IMd cOn..-entration found in Site BOils '-U 102 IIIJ/Jcg. 'ftU.s 18 W811 within the
.
range of natural 8011 IMd 1..'-11"''''ltrations,
IAI8:S wu analyzed in off-.ita
surface BOil8 considered to be b8c:~ for the area by an EPA ta:hnica1
-------
. .
-10-
ass is t.arce team in O:-t.d::er 19 87 .
Bacl
-------
t'
-11-
1,2-DichlC)~t.here was f~ in all eMllo..' ;.ells except ~10.
1 ,2-D i c hl 0 r-:::etha.ne was f cun:I in upgradient 8 hall 0..' ;.ells 1+1- 14 s an::1 1+1-10.
Benzene, and xy lanes ..ere detacted only in upgradient well *-10.
tt:>
contam.inants ..ere fourd in *-14D the deep m::>nitoring well (Figure 4).
1,1-Dichloroethane and 1,1, 1-trichloroethane were founj in shallow
grourd water and appear to be originating fran the Site.
Both CCITpJUrds ;.ere
fourd in low corcentrations in on-site well *-7 and ck:Iwngradient well !+l-lS
(Figure 4).
VI.
RlSK ASSESSHEm'
n-.e risk assessrrent was divided into a pmlic health risk assessrrent and aI'\
env ironrent.a.l assessrrent.
A.
Heal th Risk Assessnent
1.
Ground Water
Q1ly bo chBnicals are present in the ground water in the Site
vicinity which are attributable to the Site. '1b!se are 1,1-dichloroethane and
1,1,l-trichloroethane.
Neither of these chelnicals are believed to cause career.
'the highest COIa..-entrations of these chemicals neuured on-site were
9 ug/l of 1,1-dichloroetharw am 12 ug/1 of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Ita indicated
in Table 1, these COI~trationa aR consid8rab1y 1C1W8r thin the III:I8t stringent
.
Federal an::I State of Mi.nr-.ota ~ta for tunan c:::on8\8Iption of ground
water (K:Ls, taCiI, am RAla).
'hrefore, the Sita do88 not poM any
COB:eivab1e hilum to c:on8\m8r8 of dri.nki.ng watar.
2.
Fish ~ion
Concentratiaw of 1, l-dichlcmJ8t.h8ne am 1,1, I-trichloroethane in
.
fish ware aieo _timated, U8\fting that tl8 maxinuI on-.ita cOII"....trations of
t-"-e oont.ami.nant8 in the ground '-8tar (9 \19/1 of 1,1~chloroet.h8n8 and 12 uq/1
of 1,1, I-trichloroethane) cWlc:harg8d to the Mi88ia8ippi River am ~ then
-------
..
-12-
diluted to one t..enth of their origi.r\al corcenuations.
For the p.lI1X)Se 0 f
calC'\Jlating the ...erst fX'Ssi.ble hunan ~ure, we assuned that people would eat
30 gr2IftE of fish fran the river each day. We asSUTed this even thJugh fish
advisories have been issued for this p:>rtion of the river, for reasons unrelated
to the Site. Based on these ass~ions, it was calculated that the maximally
eJq:OSed person could consurre awroximate 1 y 5.0 x 10-4 micrograms per kilogram
per day (ug/kg/day) of 1,1~chloroethane, an:I2.9 x 10-3 ug/kg/day of
1, 1, I-trichloroethane.
Reference doses (Rite) have l:een developed by EPA for indicating
the p:>tential for adverse health effects fran exp::>sure to chemicals exhibiti.ng
oorc~ .inogenic ef fects .
Rite are estimateS of lifetiJre daily exposure lave 1s
for huMns, i.rcluding sensitive irdividuals, that are rot liltential for adverse rr:mc:arcin:Jgenic effects to occur.
'n1e oral Rfd for 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane is 90 ug/kg/ day.
~
....orst-
-------
..
-13-
S i t.e dfP3dI'S to {X)Se m t.hrea t to tur.:u1 hea 1 t..h via e i t.her 0 f t..tese c hern..1. c a 15 due
to C'Of1S\.ITPtion of fish fran the Mississippi River.
B.
Env irol'1'T'enta 1 Assessnent
'!he enviromental assessrrent evaluated the iJrpact of 1, 1~chloroet.hane
an:i 1, 1 , 1-tr ichloroethane on aquatic organisnl;.
'!he enviromental assessment catpared estimated surface 'tIIater
correntrations of 1,1~chloroet.hane am 1,1,1-trichloroethane to available
water quality criteria for aquatic toxicity.
No criteria were available for
1, 1 ~chloroethane .
fbE'Yer, the projected 1,1, I-trichloroethane concentrations
( 1.2 ug/l) in the river and maxinun coocentrations of this cont.arninant on-site
(12 ug/l) are well below the State of Minnesota's aquatic toxicity criteria of
138 ug/l (Table 1).
'n1erefore, aquatic organisms are not likely to be
negatively iJTp1cted due the the presen:e of these contaminants.
c.
Risk Assessment S\.mnary
Current on-site gI"OUR:1 water concentrations of 1, l-c:tichloroethane and
1,1, I-trichloroethane are below levels that ~d pose increased h\lMn health
.
risks .
Estimated COIlCelltrationa of the8e conuminants in surface water and in
fish are also below levels of tuMn health COI'DIm.
EnvuOtllWbltal risks are
.
also negligible, sin:e oo.".ltrationa of 1, l-c:tichloroet.hane and
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane curr8\tly t:8nMth the Site are alre8dy less than drinking
water standarda and available water quality criteria for aquatic toxicity
('rable 1).
'I!wrefore,
-------
. .
-14-
'nU..s "N;:) Action" a 1 t..e.rT\o!t i ~ is fully protBCt i ~ 0 f Hunan Had 1 th ard t.1-e
Env i.rorrre.n t, an:1 rreetS a 11 ~ 1 ic ab le RIa levant an:1 AR:>ropr ia te Requ i..r'atentS
(ARAAs) .
VIII.~ICH; roR roruRE ~
'n-e boO separate grourd water problems originating fran off-site ~ '
identified during the RI will be foll~ up by the MPCA throogh romal
~strati ve processes, i. e., rep::>rting of the investigation f iOOings to the
PreliJ'niI\a.ry Assessnent/Site Inspection program (the '1'CE pl\m!) and the
Undergroun:i Storage Tank program (the l::enzene and xylene occur:ten:e) .
'Ihese
referrals will allow these programs to deal with these problElnS consistent with
their program's priorities.
IX.
cx::x:tJMEm'S REVIEWED
Infomation for this Recoro of Decision was obtained fran the Delta
Enviromental Consultants, In:::orporated 1989 Remedial Investigation rep::>rt for
the Site.
'I11is decision was based on a review of infoJ:m!Stion listed in the
Mninistrative Record IBEX attached.
.
-------
.
.
SC~_:: ;~
. .
.
~
ARC:- FIGURE 1
._A TOPOGRAPH:r
MINN- UNION SCRA~ M..l=
I .' ~?OLIS '"
: -.c:- ... ' M!Ni'I~::'~-'
I -,,-,,-
I lC-89-18C : "''''c 'f.
I Oo\~ ... ! "'VM/P~ i
I 6'2S/89 i~~:
\.,J
;
,
,
. ...
,
QV&O.&~'
,,"~r:)..
,,-",-J8t
- .......... '-
..
0.1'0
E""tro"'''''.~'C
C."I\J'.C..', ... ':.
~:=-
--
-------
. .
, r,).< "VC:-'\.;E:
E-Z ~C= -
C:J/'NE-.I!:!"I::: '
/ S'iOR!: 1"7"
--;-i -
,...,
'-' ;
I'OL.::
S'iORA~;:
YAFI:J
C~:'
-~' ~JE'
~ Or-"::"":)I",~
C-: E:wll)...(.,,~
,.....,
-
~ '::
. Z
~ >
... <
2
" ~
i
. ~
~ ~
C
\
I
, ,
'-
- CAS s::~c::
!S..A.'i:
-----.
,
I
I
~
ClARI('''~ ~
:.:~
S:RAP ...r-... '
s.... '''~::
Y.,:!O
,OR...::=!
Bl.:I...~I~~
SUII.=)lNG
---------
UNION 5CIUP 51T£
1 608 \U5~J"'CiO'" AV[NU[
\ :
I \
T\
-
, 5TM AVENuE
VAr;.tI.-
\ 'N.6C~
J..("\ ~"ACE
\.\ ':\ YARD
..:.. ~ SUII.,jINC
;-
I
I
~
10.1
~
:;;
Q
:z:
o
u ,
~i
I
i
I
1
L
.
.
FIGURE 2
VICINIi'f MAP
, UNION SCRAP SITE
I MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESO~ ~
I
I HORT'M "MCT 010. NgtAlla) "
I 10-89- 1 8S 8DO/~R A
I 0 '00 Oelta
I , I ~1'1: ~" [11""0'''''.'''0.
~ , II. . 100 rT. 8/28/89 COII.wIlO"',. ."c.
.
-------
.
.
- - -. - - ~ --.----.-
"", \ II '.11.11 I I ",111/' _~I
I III,VIIIIIIIJI I :.1111'"
'-V -&.-- , '1\1" ~ 1111, I1II
~, 'a.
B II
'-V ...... 'v 0
(9 ~II lOB
~. ~. '-V II .) (94) s
'-V &, ,', . (6) d
II
-&' " -&--
-&- ." -&-- I II 4 SD--7D
'-V V -J' .I !)I II . > II (, 0
Oil I L
"L () 0
r,RASSY n
.,. '" I
ARt A ,., ."
~. V "L
.,' III mo.tli
,I
vI
I' -&-- '-V .r I" III AVI NIJr
. II .~
." ,I' -.&
.& '-V 'i-
" II
II
'1' -.&' '" . . . . -. -. -- -. - .
I . .
f:'
.,
'V '" -.&' ..'. - --- u.
I I (irNn I. I IfilJRf 3
I ,,, . .,
I ~ POt vCIIORItUlIt"O 1JU'llf Htl S \1111 1'1 IN r AMINA r II It I
. IflRACl1I OROt 1111 U,. t IJNJlIN SCRAP
I AIAI', I \.--...-., tl~ " H:P:~~ U'~A I ...I.u..'''. ,I II
I $ .' ",.. I" "1' III 0' /1'1 4 ",....11..,.1.
1,111' ',""""1
-------
.
- -- --- ---- -
~. \
." "
" ~
'"
DCE 10 ~12~ NO
ot:A "IJ H\I 140
TCE 260 (J20) ~ (I)
'"
H\I-14S
'" ~' .....
'" 'I- '"
:r
'" '" v .
IY
II
'" .v '" /
1.1
'" ~ v 'I
7
1,1
'" -&- '" ----
-I
'" CaRAS ~ y If
II
API' 1\ I.
n
'" ," 7
:1
'" .v ." (..~
or
.
'" '" '"
..... '" .....
----
II \ II ,II
I .. \ 1111'
I IlflVlt 1111 NIT \1111-'1
I>'''''''. It~I, I III
,.tV III
'" IIC A
fCl
DrH
XYI.
6 (11)
12 (11)
91 (110)
6 (11)
.~
III
.
I
..
.
I..
II
1-\1.1 'I
'"
H\J- 7
'"
1.10 6 (9)
ocr I 0 (I 1)
rCA 11 (8)
IC£ 9 (11)
. ,
ocr IJ (I" )
rCI 110 (110)
..'"
II ( 111<1\' JI
~
16111 I\vr NIII
LE(;:ND" .. ", .. ~.~~: I". . U\J' n .
.. 'v " . I '"
(I) HONlruRWG \In t lll(ArUlU ;; rn 370 (650)
!).8 CONC(NIHAfJON or IIRsr 'UlIINO (UIClWGIMMS/IIIII<) ocr 14 (71)
(,.,1) CONCEN'R"JlON Of- SICOND HlIlINU (UICRO(;UAM',jllll H)
to, . 1 Dietl! OHm 111ANE t
DC [ 1 .2 DiLl II OHOI IIII' Nf (10 J.~I ) .
DCA '.2 OICIII nUOllIIANI
TCA '.1 1 'HIClIl olm' IIIANI
1 C[ I HI(:III OUOI 1111 tll r 1111< III
urN III NIl III ..
)('(1 )(111111', I
u() I II I VIII II III I '. III II (. II I)
III
1.10
'" oer
.- e--' . leA
HIJ..15 (I) rCf
. ...
.
.-- --. --
f'
r
tW (5)
10 (11)
5 (I)
~9 ( .5)
I I(jURE 4
VIII 1\1 '" CflNTl\fo1fNI\'''IfJ
IN IIRfJlJND \JI\II R
lItliliN ~rRI\"
/11111111\"111 I~. MINIII \111(\
I'ROJ.I:I un
PH/I'ARIII BY
II II' Jill',
111111/1 .~
A. !?;:/~::~
4
0, I'll II' .1.1
I"
,
11""
1ff"~W.U III
j'iW
III . I, 11'1
-------
.
.
TAILE I
Applicable or ~elevant an~ Appropriate ~equlr...n'a IA~A"RI
tor 31r8 ("unt..tnant.
Union Scrap I (on and Metaa CO.~H"'Y
"'nn..poll.~ "IOO..ot8
Federal A.blent Water
Qualll, Criteria ror
"Inneaota A.blent
Wa'ar Quality Criteria
~~~~~..1 t ~-'.~.
~!_Aquatlc To.!~!!Y_J~
"."1
CO.DO..ad
1"1111 )
USIPA
"01 USIPA "CLC
"L/. "CL/b Ib "ater and Flah Flah Conau.ptlon
lYLU l!I.W ~ <:onau.ptlon ~ - Onl, I uglll
"loo..ot. Propo..d
Acceptable A.bl.,I!
"a. I.... On-Sit.
Conc.at ..at loa
Protection or
Aquat Ie LI te
Level. In
--~~--
"Ir/a
I.g leu, aat.!J ...
I.l-Dlc_ao..o.t_a..
1.1.1-y..ac_lo..0.t-an.
.
U
110
ZOIl
..
ZOO
.A
200
.A
18,400
.A
I,OJO,OOO
IIA
1)8
O,~O
I. 00
..- .ot a.allalli.
.1
leco...ad.d all0.alll. 11.lta to.. drlokln9 water conta.lnanta "Inneaota Depart.ent ot aealth, Section ot a.alth ~I.k A..e....1\1
1.1.... .0. 2. .0..."" I...
III
u.s. I'.. Ollie. 01 Drlokln9 "at.r
Drlnkln9 "at.r Sta~d.rd.. "a.l.u. Conta.lnant Lavela. "a.l.u. Conta.lnant Level 00a1. and
cl
dl
.econda.., 8tandarda
'ro. cll..lcal III.. In IllS. an .1.o'tronlc data lIa.e pr.pared and .alntalned by the U.S, IPA. AU9u.t 1989
Iro. lb. "I.n.aola 'ollutlon Control A9.ncy. tel.phon. converaatlon. Sepl..bel ~ and 6, 1989
'..0. tb. "Inn.eola 'ollutlon Cootrol a9.ncy. Table. ot the '.on-Crlt.rla Sourc. ~evlew Culde,' distributed to .e.bel. or 'h.
al.. To.lc. T.chnlcal advlaor' co..I~laa. Octob.r 1989.
.1
!!!ll
"a.l.u.Oa-Slt.
Cnnc.ot..atlon
CDC la
Tsca Ib
~
C08DO..ad
1..,./klll
~~
L.ad
PC.
102
~Ofl
""
IIA
10
.a- lIot .ppllcable
al
C.nt.ra tor Olaeaa. Control Sugge.ted Level or Concern: 'Plevenllng Lead poisoning In loung Chll~ren: A Slat..anl
CDC.- U.S. Oepart..nt or ...1Ih and Hu..n Servlc.., Atlanfa, 1;.')11,141, JanlJary t'J81L Do,'u.."t "u.be. 'jq-J1JO.
8y The
bl
Toalc 'ub.lancea Control Act. 4U rFIl palt
16" Plllyrhlorln.,..1 Bl1)tulI1yts :ipttt Cteanup Potlcy; Final Rule (federa.
R.~ t 8' ftl
Apr II 1,
1'1811,
-------
. .
RESP~NS:VE~ESS S~t~R'
fo" tne
UNION SCRAP SUPERFUND PROJECT
1608 Wasninyton Avenue Nortn, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tnis community responsiveness summary has been developed to document communitj
involvement and concerns during tne remdial investigation phase of the projec:.
and to respond to comments received during the pUblic comment period. Also
incluaea as an attacnr.1ent is a summary of tile community relations activities
conauctea by tile Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) during the Superfuna
project at tne Union Scrap site.
OVERVIt:w
Based 011 tne fillain~s of tile rei:\edial investigation, tne MPCA and U.S.
Environmen~al Protection Agency (EPA) recommenaed no further action for the
Union Scra~ site, 1608 Washingtun Avenu~ North, Minneapolis. Tne investigaticn
founa tnat previous removal actions at the site naa oeen successful in cleanin;
up contamination ana no furtner worK was needed.
Tnis proposal was announced to tne community tnrougn a newspaper ad ana news
release. A public meeting ana co~ent period were provided, ana tne MPCA
receivea severalcorrments during tile comment period.
Tnis responsivenes) summary contains tne following sections:
o
BacKgrouna Information on tne Community's Involvement
o
Su~a"y or Comments Received and tne MPCA's Response
o
Remaining Issues
o
Attacnment:
Community Relations Activities for tne Union Scrap site
.
.
-------
. .
KeS~JrS'veness Summd~Y
Pa;e 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE COMMUN:TY'S I~YOlVEMENT
Prior to tne start of the remedial investigation, EPA conducted two removal
actions at tne Site -- in April 1988 and November i988 -- re~ovin~ scrap
cnaterials and soil across tne property. At tile time of tne first removal
action, tne EPA and MPCA neld a public meeting on the activities and plans for
tne remedial investigation. Tne meeting was attended by local officiah, res~-
dents, nearby business owners and otners.
Since tIle beginning of tne Superfund remedial investigation at tne site, tne
level of interest on tne part of the general puo1ic has been low. Mem~ers c. d
neignbornood organization, wno had expressea interest ,in tile removal actior., nc
longer inaicated an interest. Pollution ana redevelopment officials wittl tne
city of Minneapolis, nowever, have expressed continued interest tnroughout tl'O:
proJect. In aedition to tne 1608 Nortn ~asnington Avenue site, their in:eres:
nas also encompassed nearby properties -- the Snafer site ana tne 1500 ol~:K c~
Nashington Avenue, wnere tne Union Scrap Iron and Metal ~ompanj nad operatec
related facillties in the past.
Under a cooperative agreement with tne EPA, the MPCA conaucted tne comm~n~t:
relations pro~ram for tne remedial investigation. Tne MPCA provided lnfJ~~::';~
to tne cor.rnunity on tne plans for tne r~medial inveStigation througn a news
release. In addition, the agency called local officials ana nearby proper:}
owners wnn information on tile start of tne investigation.
At tne conclusion of tne investigation, tn~ MP~A announced a 3u-daj PUO;;: ::~-
men: penoa (December 8,1989 tllrougn January 8,1990) on its proposal to ta..:
no furtner action at tne site. Tnis announcement was made tnrougn an adver-
tlsement in tne Minneapolis $tar and Tribune and news release tu tne TWln
Citles' news media. Copies or tne proposea plan were mailed to city officla's,
local electeo representatives, neignboring business owners anc Otners. Copies
of tne investigation report ana tne proposed pian were made available at tne
Nortn Regional ~lbrary.
.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND THE ~CA'S RES?ONSE
Several comments were received during tne public comment period.
are summarlzeo below, along witn tn~ MPCA's responses.
Tne cor.rnen:s
C onrne n t ;
A representative or Earth Protector, Inc., an environmental
organization, requested tna~ the ~CA continue to regularly,
sample monitorin~ wells for tricnloroetnjlene (TCE) to determlne
wnetner levels of tne cnemical in groune water Ire cnan;lng.
.
.
-------
.~
. .
Res=onsive~ess Summa~y
P!ge 3
If)CA Response:
C orrme n t :
MPCA Response:
Corrment:
MPCA Response:
COrmle~t:
~CA Response:
.
Tne MPCA's investigation determined tnat tne TCE contaminati~~
detected is not a result of Union Scrap Site activities.
Information on the contamination will be forwardeo to tne MPCA s
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) program for
follow-up. PA/SI staff review and assess such sites and dete~-
mine wnether further investigation and cleanup is needed. Tne
well sampling schedule for the TCE contamination will be dete~-
mined by tne PA/SI program, and PA/SI staff will consiaer tne
request for regular monitoring in its assessment.
A representative of the Minneapolis Community Development A;e~cj
(MCDA) requested tnat tne MPCA and EPA conduct follow-up
testing/cleanup as soon as possible on tne 150Q-blocK site ana
:r,e Snarer site.
Tne MPCA nas a verbal commitment from EPA's ~esponse Team to
conduct a removal action at tne 1500 blocK of Wasnington Avenue.
MPCA staff will keep the city and MCDA informed of plans for
tni s removal.
At tne Snarer site, the MPCA is working with the Minnesota
Depar':Jner.: ~f TranSDortatior: -- the curre": owner of we or::-
pertj -- to complete tne investigation of contamination a~ tne
site and evaluate cleanup alternatives.
One commentor requesteo a breakdown of the expenses associate~
with the removal action at the Union Scrap site.
S1nce the removal actions were conducted by EPA and the MPCA
does not have the cost information. the MPCA provided interested
persons with tne names and phone numbers of contacts at E?A.
EPA will provide tnis information, on request.
.
The City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis COrmlunity
Development A~ency jointly submitted a written comment opposin;
tne proposed plan to take no furtner action at tne site. Tne
letter indicated tnat contamination concerns at two separate
sites. also formerly owned by the union Scrap Iron and Metai
Co.. should be resolved before any decision on tne proposed ~lan
is made.
The MPCA's recommenda:~or. :nat no furtner cleanup actions are
needed applies only to tne Union Scrap site at 1608 wasn;ngt~n
Avenue North. The two otner sites mentioned in the letter --
tne Snafer site and the 1500 block of washington Avenue -- are
separate sites, and clea"up actions that may be necessary at
tnose sites would be handled separately by tne MPCA and tne ~PA.
Any decision on the 1608 site would not affect the otner relat:G
sites.
-------
. .
~eSDons~.eness SU~~j
Page .1
Tne boundaries of tne 1608 site were Cetermlnea Dj tne ~P:~ .~
tne mid-i.980s. Tne Snafer S1te is ownec Dj tne Minnesota
Department of Transporation -- a responsible party under
Minnesota's Superfund law -- and was not included as part of tne
Union Scrap site. Superfund activities at tne Snafer site a~e
being conducted by tne MnDOT, and tne site is included separa-
tely on tne Superfund list.
Relative to tne 1500-b10ck area, at the time the boundaries for
tne 16U8 site were being determined, MPCA staff surveyea tne
area. At tnat time, although scrapyard-type waste was eviaent
on the 1500 block, the area did not appear to contain hazarQoUS
waste. Hazardous waste -- cracked batteries principally -- was
evident on the 1608 property, resulting in the MPCA and EPA
including tne site on tne Superfund lists.
When federal Superfund money is received to investigate a site.
tne project is limited to tne site as it is defined on the
federal Superfund list. Altnough the proposed plan is to taKe
no further action at the 1608 site, tne Snafer site will con-
tinue to be worked on as a separate site with the responsible
party. Tne 1500 bloCK will be handled, as mentioned earlier. by
tne MPCA Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection program and tne
EPA's Emergency Response ~r09ram. Tne decision on tne 16G8 site
aoes not preclude further work at tne two related sites.
~EMAINING ISSUES
At the publiC meeting. a number of questions were asked relating to tIle list of
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and EPA's process in identifying com-
panies included on the list. As tne enforcement process proceeds, PRPs will
nave a continuing need for information about their role in tne process. Tne
MPCA will worK witn EPA in providing information and assistance to interested
PRPs.
.
.
.
-------
.~
..
A:TA:HM::"'-
:OMMG~:-V R::~':'->JNS Ac-:ViTIES CONDUCTED FOR 'IN::'i SCR:'~ I~ON AND ME-A:.. C:. ~, :
Fall 1987
Ma'"ch 3~, 1983
Apr i 1
7, 1988
JulY 23, ~9a9
AuguS: 1, 1939
~ecetT1je'" 6, 1989
Je~e~je" 3, 1939
Oe:e'110e'" :9, 1989
';a~...a'"y
3, '990
.
Community intervie~s conducted and cO~Jr.ity relatiJns
written for Union Scrap Superfund project
...' ;&,..
oJ -
EPA ne~s release announcing start o~ remOval
ac: i (j"
a: S':=
EPA public meeting, with ~PCA participation, on remo~!'
action and plans for remedial investigation
- Telephone contacts with local officials and neighbori~;
business o~ners on start of remedlal investigation
- Ne~s release on sta'": of Suoerfund remejiai inveS:1g!:,:r
- Cooy Of remedial investlga:ion '"eoo'"t, orcoosed olan a~:
project ~orK plan deliverej :J North Reg~sna; 3ran:~
Library
Advertisemen~ in Minne300lis Star an~ Tribune annOjn:'~;
availability of prooosed plan, start of :>ubl1c CQr.rn-=~:
period and date for piJO~iC meeting. News re'ease ma':-=: ..
all metropolitan-area neVIs meOla conta1r~i"g the same l~'::r-
mation.
Public meeting held at Fran(l~n Junlor High Scho~'.
- End of public comment pe'"iod; responsiveness summary
drafted
-------
-.. .--
Minnesota Ponution Control Agency 9
. .
Proposed PIon/Fact Sheet for the
Union Scrap Superfund Project
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Introduction
This Proposed Plan provides
information on a recom-
mendation to take no further
cleanup actions at the Union
Scrap Superfund site. The
Minnesota PoUution Control
Agency (MPCA) and the C.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) m proposing no
further action based on a
Superfund investigat:on into the
extent of conwnination
remaining at the site. conducted
by the MPCA. which indicated
that previous cleanup actions at
the site were successful in
removing contamination caused
by site activities.
Vnder the federal Superfund
law. a plan explaining proposed
actions at Superfund sites is
developed and p~sentee1 (or
public review and comment
before I final decision is made.
The public comment period.
discuucd in other sections of
this flet lbeet. provides this
oppcrw.a.iry for the public to
comment on the Ilencies' plan.
.
.
What is the history of the site?
The Union Scrap Iron and Metal
Co. site. located at 1608
Washington Avenue !'ioM.
Minneapolis. housed a scrap
metal and battery-recycling
operation from the early 1970s
until 1983. During the site's
operations. banery pans were
crushed and sorted at the facility.
in preparation for recycling. The
company fUed for bankruptcy in
1985. lening piles of lead-
conwninated scrap and debris
on the propeny. In late 1986.
the owner of the com pan y
removed a ponion of the waste
piles for recycling.
In 1988. the EP A removed the
remaining scrap materials and
debris. and excavated the tl?pe~
one to three feet of lead.
contaminated soil on the
propeny. The materials we~:
transponed to out-of-state
facilities for recycling or prop:~
disposal. and the excavated 3:::::
was filled with cle:ln soil. The
EPA also pressure-washed the
vacant building on the prope;.:
to remove the lead
contamination. and the city of
Minneapolis arranged for
demolition of the strUcture.
In total. about 3.000 tons of
contaminated materials and soi:.
WE WANT YOUR OPINION
The MPCA ond EPA ore osking for public comments on the
prOposed pion to toke no further Cleonup octions on ~e
site. Comments may be submitted between December a.
1989. and Jonuory 8. 1990. ond may be oddressed to:
EliZobeth Gelt:)mann
Public Information Offlce
MPCA
520 Lofoyette Rood
St. Paul. Mlnnesoto 55155
612/'196-7792 or toll-free' -80Q..6S2-974 7
\" Pt!L.(j c~ '.,c ic"_d peper
-------
Page Two
as weU as eight rail-car 10ads of
bartery casings. have been
removed since the site ceased
operations.
Earlier this year, the MPCA
began a soil and ground water
investigation at the site. The
purpose of the MPCA . s
investigation. called a "n:medial
investigation," was to detemltne
whether any contaminated soil
remained on the site and whether'
ground water had been
contaminated by past operations
of the scrap yard.
What did the in\'estigation
include?
The MPCA investigation
included installing and sampling
seven ground water monitoring
\
\
. I
... aw.,.,. e...;..
. ""$' .
. ....
.
.
~c"..o
- r(1CC
------ ........ 'lac.
. ..., II&l
"'~I" "
. -~~~,-
wells - on the propeny. to the
south and southeast of the
propeny and to the northwest of
the property (see map).
Sampling to the south of the
propeny - the d.ire.:rion ground
water flows in the area - was
chosen in order for the MPCA to
determine whether
contaminauon was moving from
the site. Testing to the
northwest. in the opposite
direction of ground water flow.
-,-,'as chosen to provide
background ground-water d:l::l
- information on ground-w:lter
quality in the area before the
ground water reaches the site.
Ground -'-"ater testing included
sampling both the shallow
aquifer - the layer of ground
water closest to the surface - .
Monitoring \\'ell Locations
~ ("I'CP
I ~ C80V'CO'fCC I'.
.-., .0'
I
!
I
I
t
..
I
j
.
1>
~ I
i'
f,
I:
.-J.
1al00 St...,
. -
, ,
aI1C the deeper aquifer. loc:l:~":
beneJt:. a 40-foot-thlCk c!~~.
laye:- underJying the site. at;:-_:
95 feet below the suriac:.
In addition, 36 soil sarr.pi:s .... ~~:
taken from 1210cacons Oi: :.-:
site. The samples were tak:-: ::
three levels, down to about t~:-
feet below the surface.
What did the in\estigJtiun
find':'
The ~tPCA's in\'es:ip::o~
found litti: contJr:-.::1a:;J~
caused by l'nio:1 Scra;::'s ;:::~:
operations. ContJ.r.1i.r..:.:".:s
dectected. in most cases, 'oI.=~~
typical of contamir,ants ::-.~
MPCA would expect to Ii:,::: :~
an indus=-i.ll ~:l.
. .
r .
".1'
.
.
t
I
"". 1
t
-,,- - ~'t':..::s.IIf- --\
.1 i
.,
"I
!I' 8_-.J
1
.-".
-------
..
Page Three
111 soil. the sampling indicated principally trichloroethylene The 5e cri teria are u sed at a.::
that EPA's excavations last year (TCE) - an industrial sol,,:::':t, Superfund sites to e"al:.;a::
were effective in removing However. the chemical was proposals for future actio:-..
conwninated soil. The MPCA' s found at higher levels in the well
soil sampling on the site det~ted nonhwest of the site than in the In this case. the evaluatio:,:
only very low levels of lead. on-site monitOring wells. This concluded that the low leve!s 0:
volatile organic compounds indicates that the source of the contamination remaining eo :-.::
(VOCs) and polychlorinated VOC contamination is not the pose a risk to human healt~ o~
biphenyls (PCBs). Union SCicip site. The MPCA the environment and that tr,:
believes that the contamination proposal for no further actic:-,
From the ground water may be the result of past solvent meets the seven criteria.
investigation. the MPCA spillage from industri:1l
determined that ground water operations in the area ne:lI t~e I. Following the pub!:c cOr.".:-:-.::-.:
flow in the area is from the 94 freeway. penoe. the a,ge:ici:s may mo-:::':.
northwest to the southeast. Of the proposal to t3.ke no fu~~.:~
all of the samples taken. the One other area of ground water action based on an eighth c~.:::-:~
contaminantS detected were only contamination was detected - .. community acceptabili::-'.
found in the shallow aquifer - samples from the monitoring
the deeper aquifer. beneath the well near the convenience store THE CRITERIA
thick clay layer. was clean, showed levels of benzene and Does the proposal:
xylene - chemicals typically
The investigation did not find associated with pcC"oleum . protect hum:ln healt~ :l."i~ t~.:
any lead contamination in products. The MPCA believes er1\'ironme~t'
ground water samples taken that the contamination may be . comply with he:llth a:1c
from the shallow aquifer on or the result of spillage from former e:1vironmental regulJtIC:-.S"
off the site. One of the las stations in the area or from . reduce toxicity. mobil!!:; or
monitoring wells on the Union the convenience store's existing volume of the cont:ur.inal'.ts:
Scrap propert)' - the well tanks.
closes! to the railroad traCk - Is the proposal:
showed low levels of PCBs in What are the reasons for
one sample. However. the proposin& no further action? . effec~ive for the short
MPCA resarnpled me well on term ?
tWO occasions and found no PCB The alcncies' proposal to uke no . effective over the long
contamination. indicating that further action is based on the term/permanent:
the first sample result was in investigation findinls that no . technically feasible:
error. sil1'wClnt areas of soil and . cost effective:
. Jl'ound water conwnination
. The ground water investigation remain which were caused by And. following the comme:1t
did uncover ground water the Union Scrap site. period:
conwnination the MPCA did not
expect to find. Samplinl of The agencies evaluated the no- . Is the propos:1l accepuoie to
wells both on and off the Union further-ac:tion proposal against the community?
Scrap property deteCted VOCs. seven criteria. listed below.
-------
,:)
page Four
What about the sol\ent and
petroleum-product
rontamination found in the
ground water~
The \tPCA ar.c EPA do nOt
intend to ignore the other areas
of cont.1minacion, However.
because this =or,~'T.inarion 'W'as
not caused by ::.e t.:mon Scrap
site, the proble:i\ cannot be
addressed unce:- the t.: nion Scrap
fede:"all~.fui1de~ Supe~und
project, \\ 1ie~ :''1e \tPCA
receives fede:-a.: Superfund
money to Invesogate a site. the
money can onl:- be used for
conwr.ir.arion resulting from
that site, The \tPCA will 10011;
10 Olhe:- agency p:-ograms for
dealing 'W'ltM the off.site
cont3IT\lnat:Or. problems
discove;ed,
The pe~ole:Jm.product
conwmnauon 'W1l1 be handled
by the !vtPC A's C nderground
Storage Tank (1.:ST) prolJ'lm for
invescgation and cleanup. The
CST program was set up in 1986
to clean up conwnination from
lewng underground stanCe
W\ks around the state.
.
'The solvent conwnination
problem will be referred to me
MPCA'I Preliminary
Asscssment/Sit.e Inspection
program. Staff in this provam
review and assess areas with
reponed conwninaaon problems
and determine whether the
contamination poses a risk to
health or the environment anc
whether further invesrigatlon and
cleanup actions are needed.
Will the Union Scrap property
have to remain vacant?
No. the propeny can be
redeveloped at any time. The
MPCA would require. however.
that any new use of the site be
planned so as not to disturb the
monitoring wells. which will
remain on the site to assist future
investigations and actions. In
addjtion. a notice placed on the
property's deed will alert
potential buye!'S to the site's past
history.
When will the MPCA and EP A
make the final decision?
The aaencies are holding a 30-
day public comment period on
the recommendation that no
further cleanup actions are
needed at the Union Scrap site.
followina the comment period.
the acencies will consider
commentS received in mwng
the final decision. and will notify
the community of the decision.
More questions~
The complete repa" of the
invesocaaon is available for
review at North Relional
Brancb Library. 131 S Lowry
Avenue Nonh. Minneapolis.
. .
A public meeting on th~ r:=':-. ::
ta.ke no further cleanup a:::J:-, :::
the site will be held on
December 19.1989, at 7:00 ~.~,
in the Auditorium. Fr3.!\k~;;"
Junior H:gh School. 150\
Aldrich Avenue Sor.;;
Commerm on th~ pia;" ro,=,> :~
presented at the me:t:~g c'~ ~~.
be addr:ssed to:
Elizab~lh Ge!brr.:lr.:-.
Public Information Of:-~::
\tPCA
520 L.1faye~:e R~;.::
St. P:lu!. ~1im;eso:: ~:.::
61:"~96.'7':'9:
Comm:rm must be re:::\:: ~:
the MPCA by Janu:lJ') S, 1 S; ~
December 1989
------- |